# Best of Karajan's 3 Beethoven 9 for DG?



## Tapkaara

My views of HvK conducting Beethoven 9 are evolving. For years, I have had his 1960s version of Beethoven 9 on Deutsche Grammophon and thought "what's all the fuss?" The first three movements were good anyway, but the most important movement, the final one, seemed such a let down. Plus the sound quality is often muddy and unrefined on this recording, which has led me to stay away from it for the most part.

I started reading about his other attempts in the 1970s and the digital 1980s and thought I would try those.

The 70s version has vastly better sound and the interpretation, over all, was very much like the 1960s version. So far so good. But again, we get to the final movement and I am let down. Soloists are good, but the choir sounds so small...I'm not sure what it is, but they are miked very strangely. Things seems mechanical and far too measured until we get to the closing bars where HvK finally seems to pull out all the stops and make you sit on the edge of your seat. So again, an improvement in terms of sound over his previous reading, but am I convinced yet? Not really.

And now to the "Karajan Gold" digital version from the 80s. Even better recorded sound than the 70s version and a sense of dark urgency that the previous versions lack. Love it already.

Scherzo is great. Slow movment is great, but they were good on the other recordings too. Don't tell me I am in for another let down in the final movement!

Finally, in this version, I can hear the passion and rage of Karajan explode with detailed and full sound. The soloists are good, if not spectacular and earth-shattering, but that's OK...they get the job done nicely. And the chorus has never sounded better with a full sound yet miked with much more naturally.

This has now become my Beethoven 9 of choice.

I've read other reviews of Karajan's last Beethoven 9 and some say the sound is lousy early digital and the interpretation is not as spectacular as the 1960s version. I disagree. For early digital, I think the sound is superb. And while the 1960s version may have a greater sense of occasion and spontaneous gusto than the 80s version, I find the 80s version to be darker (in the first two movements) with more drive and purpose toward a radiant climax.

What about all of you? Is Karajan a great conductor of this work and which of these three recordings seals the deal for you?


----------



## Guest

I have not sampled the various recordings. I have the '62 recording on DG, and have not yet found reason to search for another recording of this masterpiece. I am sure I will eventually branch out with this symphony, but for now I am too busy buying up every version of Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## Lukecash12

Sorry, but I too prefer the 1962 recording.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lukecash12 said:


> Sorry, but I too prefer the 1962 recording.


Any reasons for that?


----------



## Lukecash12

I like his composure in it. There isn't any surface glitter or sudden bouts of mellow-drama. The ninth is a brooding work, not some sort of sweeping story.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lukecash12 said:


> I like his composure in it. There isn't any surface glitter or sudden bouts of mellow-drama. The ninth is a brooding work, not some sort of sweeping story.


Well, I think it's brooding and sweeping. I don't think the final movement (with its grand message) should brood, it should "sweep" you. It's really a convulsive work, so the bouts of _melodrama_ are surely appropriate. How else could Beethoven evoke struggle and finally a sort of redemption but with a sort of epic emotional-roller coaster of a work?

Karajan's 62 version does have some of this, but not quite to the heights he achieves in his final digital version. That is why I think that version is the most successful.

And here's another thought: it seems some folks here and elsewhere must feel guilty if classical music has too much visceral (or garish) excitement. Aural gluttony, if you will. (Didn't was have the "guilty pleasure" thread here?) Why wouldn't we want the 9th of Beethoven to be a sweeping story on a grand scale? Why the need for restraint? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of Beethoven writing the work? I mean, if he wanted his 9th to sound like an Esterhazy-paid for salon bonbon, Beethoven could has stuck to the norms he was trying very hard to move forward from. But no, his 9th needed to make a grander, more impactful musical statement. In order to do so, he employs a large orchestra with choir in order to create specific effect.

All of this shouldn't sweep? I'm afraid I just don't understand this line of thinking.


----------



## scytheavatar

Most people will tell you that the third digital set has far and away the worst sound quality of all the three sets.... what is your definition of good sound quality? If it's overproduction that screwed up the soundstage, strings mixed to be overwhelmingly dominant, details lost in the quest to kill hiss than maybe the third set has good sound quality. But even so there's no way you could find the thrid set's 9th to be more exciting than the first set's 9th; while I don't quite hate it as much as others both the second and third set pretty much are examples of Karajan's not always deserved reputation of being an over-refined, overpolished conductor. The 1962 set is one of the examples of Karajan being at his best, at a time where few conductors conduct with as much fire and passion as him while still sounding classy and refined. The only 9th I have heard which I liked better than Karajan's 1962 9th was Abbado's. And anyway there are many reissues of the 1962 set, with huge variance in sound quality, so which is the one you got?


----------



## Tapkaara

scytheavatar said:


> Most people will tell you that the third digital set has far and away the worst sound quality of all the three sets.... what is your definition of good sound quality? If it's overproduction that screwed up the soundstage, strings mixed to be overwhelmingly dominant, details lost in the quest to kill hiss than maybe the third set has good sound quality. But even so there's no way you could find the thrid set's 9th to be more exciting than the first set's 9th; while I don't quite hate it as much as others both the second and third set pretty much are examples of Karajan's not always deserved reputation of being an over-refined, overpolished conductor. The 1962 set is one of the examples of Karajan being at his best, at a time where few conductors conduct with as much fire and passion as him while still sounding classy and refined. The only 9th I have heard which I liked better than Karajan's 1962 9th was Abbado's. And anyway there are many reissues of the 1962 set, with huge variance in sound quality, so which is the one you got?


I do not find the audio of the digital 9th over produced or with a screwed up soundstage. (Well, it is a Karajan recording after all...we all know how he liked to monkey with the audio engineering.)

Anyway, there is much greater aural clarity in the digital recording compared to 1962 and the audio just has more of a realistic punch. I do not necessarily hear anything "screwed up" with the audio at all. The sound is very up front and it sounds, I'm sure, much like you are standing at the conductor's podium. After all, that's the "seat" from which Karajan heard his orchestra, not from the nosebleed balconies of the concert hall. I think he wanted to immitate that aural experience on his recording and treat the listener to a sonic vantage point that perhaps very little of us have ever gotten to experience.


----------



## Lukecash12

Tapkaara said:


> Well, I think it's brooding and sweeping. I don't think the final movement (with its grand message) should brood, it should "sweep" you. It's really a convulsive work, so the bouts of _melodrama_ are surely appropriate. How else could Beethoven evoke struggle and finally a sort of redemption but with a sort of epic emotional-roller coaster of a work?
> 
> Karajan's 62 version does have some of this, but not quite to the heights he achieves in his final digital version. That is why I think that version is the most successful.
> 
> And here's another thought: it seems some folks here and elsewhere must feel guilty if classical music has too much visceral (or garish) excitement. Aural gluttony, if you will. (Didn't was have the "guilty pleasure" thread here?) Why wouldn't we want the 9th of Beethoven to be a sweeping story on a grand scale? Why the need for restraint? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of Beethoven writing the work? I mean, if he wanted his 9th to sound like an Esterhazy-paid for salon bonbon, Beethoven could has stuck to the norms he was trying very hard to move forward from. But no, his 9th needed to make a grander, more impactful musical statement. In order to do so, he employs a large orchestra with choir in order to create specific effect.
> 
> All of this shouldn't sweep? I'm afraid I just don't understand this line of thinking.


Keep in mind that grand and sweeping doesn't instantly mean a novel concept. You don't play loud and fast simply to do nothing more than inject phony emotion into something. You don't have to scream struggle and redemption to get the point across. I didn't mean composure from a noble standpoint, I mean rather that when we are most deep into our thoughts, we aren't exactly waving our hands and shouting.


----------



## Artemis

scytheavatar said:


> The only 9th I have heard which I liked better than Karajan's 1962 9th was Abbado's. And anyway there are many reissues of the 1962 set, with huge variance in sound quality, so which is the one you got?


Several comments on this weary old subject:

I thought it was common knowledge that the 1962/63 recordings are generally considered to be the best of the three Karajan/BPO Beethoven cycles. Although there have been many reissues of the 1962/63 recordings, there have only been 3 re-masterings to my knowledge.

For any of the three Karajan sets, there are in my opinion better versions of the Eroica (eg Klemperer/Philharmonia), the Pastoral (eg Bohm/VPO), Fifth and Seventh (eg Kleiber/VPO), Eighth (eh Harnoncourt/COE). As regards the Ninth, Karajan's 1962 version is very good (probably the best of the whole set) but it is eclipsed by Furtwangler's 1951 Bayreuth version which is in a class of its own for atmosphere alone, and the playing/choral work is superb.

If anyone new to this area wants a boxed set of Beethoven symphonies, there are overall better versions these days, eg Harnoncourt/COE, which have a better overall sound with some nice period flavourings. As discussed recently in another thread on Beethoven symphonies, there are some very good HIP versions (eg Immerseel/Anima Eterna, Hanover Band, etc) which rather makes all this discussion about Karajan seem even more outdated.


----------



## scytheavatar

Artemis said:


> If anyone new to this area wants a boxed set of Beethoven symphonies, there are overall better versions these days, eg Harnoncourt/COE, which have a better overall sound with some nice period flavourings. As discussed recently in another thread on Beethoven symphonies, there are some very good HIP versions (eg Immerseel/Anima Eterna, Hanover Band, etc) which rather makes all this discussion about Karajan seem even more outdated.


There are better Beethoven Symphonies box sets, but

(1) Harnocourt isn't one of them, cause it sucks. I have never heard a set as deadpan and flat as it
(2) How many are as cheap as the 1962 Karajan? The only Beethoven set which beats the 1962 Karajan set in value is the Zinman set, both are good recommendations for a beginner.
(3) As discussed recently in another thread on Beethoven symphonies, HIP sets have vastly different strengths and weaknesses from modern sets, so comparisons of Karajan or other modern sets with HIP sets is useless
(4) There's a magic in the old(er) school non-HIP inspired sets that the HIP and HIP-inspired modern sets doesn't have, so discussion about Karajan is never outdated unless you are one of those "OMG IT'S NOT AUTHETIC!!! THEREFORE IT SUCKS!!!!" people.


----------



## Lukecash12

scytheavatar said:


> There are better Beethoven Symphonies box sets, but
> 
> (1) Harnocourt isn't one of them, cause it sucks. I have never heard a set as deadpan and flat as it
> (2) How many are as cheap as the 1962 Karajan? The only Beethoven set which beats the 1962 Karajan set in value is the Zinman set, both are good recommendations for a beginner.
> (3) As discussed recently in another thread on Beethoven symphonies, HIP sets have vastly different strengths and weaknesses from modern sets, so comparisons of Karajan or other modern sets with HIP sets is useless
> (4) There's a magic in the old(er) school non-HIP inspired sets that the HIP and HIP-inspired modern sets doesn't have, so discussion about Karajan is never outdated unless you are one of those "OMG IT'S NOT AUTHETIC!!! THEREFORE IT SUCKS!!!!" people.


Well said. I heartily agree with you.


----------



## Guest

I love HIP for a lot of things - especially baroque. That being said, I love the '62 recording by Karajan. Again, there may or may not be better out there, but this one is incredible in my book.


----------



## Tapkaara

It sucks being a lone voice. It's so lonely here in the gutter.


----------



## david johnson

tap, is that you down there in the gutter muck? i hardly recognized you 

my #9s are the hvk62 model, fricsay, schmidt-isserstedt/vpo, & klemperer/phil.
i'll try your recommendation soon.

dj


----------



## Artemis

scytheavatar said:


> There are better Beethoven Symphonies box sets, but
> 
> (1) Harnocourt isn't one of them, cause it sucks. I have never heard a set as deadpan and flat as it


Oh yes? Can you please refer me to any professional review(s) of this set which supports your view that the Harnoncourt/COE set "sucks", as you so crudely assert?


----------



## Artemis

david johnson said:


> tap, is that you down there in the gutter muck? i hardly recognized you
> 
> my #9s are the hvk62 model, fricsay, schmidt-isserstedt/vpo, & klemperer/phil.
> i'll try your recommendation soon.
> 
> dj


doesn't you pc keyboard have capital letters or are you just being lazy like i am right now?


----------



## scytheavatar

Artemis said:


> Oh yes? Can you please refer me to any professional review(s) of this set which supports your view that the Harnoncourt/COE set "sucks", as you so crudely assert?


Right, professional reviews are all the matter and we are not allowed to have our own opinions?

I have never cared about professional reviews and I am not going to look for any, but I do know that many people liked the Harnocourt set, for reasons I will never understand (nor will I understand how anyone can stand listening to anything from Harnocourt, whom I rate lowly as a conductor).

In any case, even if we all agree that Harnocourt's set is better than Karajan's set it's also far more expensive, you do realize that not everyone is rich, do you? And like I said, the favour of the HIP recordings is very different from that of the Karajan recordings, so why can't there be room for different interpretations?


----------



## Artemis

scytheavatar said:


> Right, professional reviews are all the matter and we are not allowed to have our own opinions?
> 
> I have never cared about professional reviews and I am not going to look for any, but I do know that many people liked the Harnocourt set, for reasons I will never understand (nor will I understand how anyone can stand listening to anything from Harnocourt, whom I rate lowly as a conductor).
> 
> In any case, even if we all agree that Harnocourt's set is better than Karajan's set it's also far more expensive, you do realize that not everyone is rich, do you? And like I said, the favour of the HIP recordings is very different from that of the Karajan recordings, so why can't there be room for different interpretations?


What a naff response.

OK, we're agreed that you are merely putting forward your personal view of the Harnoncourt set. I just wanted to clear up this point because it may have appeared to the untutored that you were summarising received opinion on this subject that the Harnoncourt Beethoven set "sucks".

I can tell you that your personal view is grossly out of line with majority opinion that I have ever seen on this matter, whether amateur or professional. As regards the former, there is keen interest and admiration in various reviews in places like Amazon and other retail outlets. I have also seen keen interest expressed on a number of other classical music Boards (Boards which I cannot reference as such references would be deleted by the Mods).

As regards professional reviews, Harnoncourt's recordings of the Beethoven Symphonies with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe, was a_ Gramophone Award wi_nner back in the early 1990s when it was first released. Furthermore, this same set was picked out as the overall winner among Beethoven symphony sets then available in _BBC Radio 3's "Building a Library"_ series in late 2004. Both of these are very noteworthy recommendations indeed.

Against all this, for you to say that Harnoncourt is a "lowly conductor", and that his Beethoven set "sucks", and nothing more by way of elaboration, is laughable. I suggest you might try to do a bit more homework in future, and offer some back-up material or be ready to supply it if asked, before you shoot your mouth off with such crude statements.


----------



## scytheavatar

Artemis said:


> What a naff response.
> 
> OK, we're agreed that you are merely putting forward your personal view of the Harnoncourt set. I just wanted to clear up this point because it may have appeared to the untutored that you were summarising received opinion on this subject that the Harnoncourt Beethoven set "sucks".
> 
> I can tell you that your personal view is grossly out of line with majority opinion that I have ever seen on this matter, whether amateur or professional. As regards the former, there is keen interest and admiration in various reviews in places like Amazon and other retail outlets. I have also seen keen interest expressed on a number of other classical music Boards (Boards which I cannot reference as such references would be deleted by the Mods).
> 
> As regards professional reviews, Harnoncourt's recordings of the Beethoven Symphonies with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe, was a_ Gramophone Award wi_nner back in the early 1990s when it was first released. Furthermore, this same set was picked out as the overall winner among Beethoven symphony sets then available in _BBC Radio 3's "Building a Library"_ series in late 2004. Both of these are very noteworthy recommendations indeed.
> 
> Against all this, for you to say that Harnoncourt is a "lowly conductor", and that his Beethoven set "sucks", and nothing more by way of elaboration, is laughable. I suggest you might try to do a bit more homework in future, and offer some back-up material or be ready to supply it if asked, before you shoot your mouth off with such crude statements.


"Deadpan" is the only elaboration you need, that pretty much sums up anything from Harnoncourt I have heard. IMHO he's a shallow conductor, anything from him has pretty much zero emotion. And as far as HIP-influenced modern set goes there are far better opinions out there, that are far cheaper.

But all that doesn't matter, my opinion is about as valid as your opinion about Karajan's set. Why are we even discussing about Harnoncourt or any of the HIP set when the reduced orchestrals have a very different end result from the good/bad old days? Let us get back to talking about Karajan's Beethoven and only his Beethoven, shall we? His 1962 Beethoven set was and still is a good set, period.


----------



## Artemis

scytheavatar said:


> Let us get back to talking about Karajan's Beethoven and only his Beethoven, shall we? His 1962 Beethoven set was and still is a good set, period.


I agree that it is a good set, and in its day was among the best if not the best. But the topic is old and tired. In regard to Beethoven symphonies (and certain other Classical and Romantic works) both performance practice and recording technology have moved on considerably since those days to such an extent that comparison with other, later Beethoven sets is inevitable. A widening up of the discussion, including a comparison with HIP renditions, is therefore not surprising. However, if you and others want to remain focused solely on the HVK sets I can't see that it will stimulate much wider interest.

My main points remain that (i) that for anyone still wedded to the past there are arguably better performances of the individual symphonies by other conductors/orchestras, so why bother with a set? (ii) there are more modern sets by the likes of Harnoncourt (and Vanska) which are overall better, offering a more up to date sound and presentation.

Even if you don't happen to like Harnoncourt, that's not the general verdict, including that of professional reviewers who rate it highly. As I said, to achieve the No 1 Spot on BBC Radio 3's "Building a Library" programme is no mean achievement, and completely belies any suggestion that this set "sucks". I have been listening to the BBC's _Building a Library_ (which forms part of the weekly _CD Review) _programmes for years now, and the general quality of discussion on the technical qualities of pieces examined is generally very competent and illuminating. I recommend it thoroughly to any serious classical music fan.


----------



## scytheavatar

Artemis said:


> My main points remain that (i) that for anyone still wedded to the past there are arguably better performances of the individual symphonies by other conductors/orchestras, so why bother with a set? (ii) there are more modern sets by the likes of Harnoncourt (and Vanska) which are overall better, offering a more up to date sound and presentation.


And my main points:

(i) By saying that there arguably better performances of the individual symphonies you are pretty much admitting that Karajan's 1962 set is highly consistent, and that to me lies one of its biggest value, not many sets can match the Karajan 1962 set in consistency

(ii) Again, it is cheap. You do realize that Harnoncourt's and Vanska's sets are much more expensive, do you?

(iii) There are many room for interpretation of Beethoven.... people praise the reduced orchestrals, but to me the reduced orchestrals are a sign of regression, that Harnoncourt, Vanska and co can't play in the huge, well funded orchestrals Karajan did in the past. Even if they wanted to. To you the Harnoncourt and Vanska sets are undeniably better... to me they are little more than shallow modernization of Beethoven's music that lack the soul which the older school recordings have.

(iv) And you yourself praise Furtwangler's 1951 Bayreuth 9th, so people shouldn't discuss about his 9th and listen only to modern interpretations of the 9th?


----------



## david johnson

Artemis said:


> doesn't you pc keyboard have capital letters or are you just being lazy like i am right now?


years ago i decided my internet persona would only use uppercase letters when referring to Deity...God, Jesus, Lord... it means something to me, so i do it. of course i can write properly, i've got four college degrees to prove it 

dj


----------



## Tapkaara

I do not want to digress from the theme of this thread too much (perhaps I am the only one), but Artemis, is it ever possible for you to come to a topic and express you opinions without being such a strident jerk? 

david johnson - You are a great reviewer with a good sense. I'd love to know what you thing of digi-Karajan 9.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> I do not want to digress from the theme of this thread too much (perhaps I am the only one), but Artemis, is it ever possible for you to come to a topic and express you opinions without being such a strident jerk?
> 
> david johnson - You are a great reviewer with a good sense. I'd love to know what you thing of digi-Karajan 9.


I must take a snapshot of this post, and frame it. It so funny.


----------



## Aramis

Monthly bill.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> I must take a snapshot of this post, and frame it. It so funny.


At least you answered my question and you get some outstanding art for your walls.


----------



## david johnson

tapkarra:

i found the boxset at a great price. i look forward to the listen!

dj


----------



## david johnson

tap:

the box (along with kertész dvorak set) should arrive today or tomorrow. time to rev up the cerwin-vegas 

dj


----------



## Tapkaara

david johnson said:


> tap:
> 
> the box (along with kertész dvorak set) should arrive today or tomorrow. time to rev up the cerwin-vegas
> 
> dj


Looking forward to your commentary!!


----------



## david johnson

tapkaara:

i think this #9 will be a good version to take out your score and study a bit as it plays. my recording was very clear and i enjoyed hearing some details in a new way 
it will not replace any of my few 9ths (hvk 60's, klemperer, fricsay) as what i reach for for listening pleasure.
it speaks it's emotion in a way that doesn't 'grab me' , but i learned from it.
i really missed the 60's flute sound...wasn't james galway bpo principal at that time?
i haven't heard the rest of the set yet.

dj


----------



## Lord Lance

For the most Karajan version of Beethoven buy the 1980s version. Massive, glorious, dramatic, dark at times and most Karajan-esque. Not a single complaint against this superlative performance. By the 80s, Karajan could probably conduct this work with the Berliners easily... impromptu. Best sound

For the least Karajan and most Beethoven, the 60s version. Some will say its most spontaneous. Worst sound of the three. More energy? Nah.

For middle of the road where Karajan and Beethoven go hand in hand with decent sound and energy, go for the 1970s version.

Or better yet, go for the DVD performances.

And if you want the maximum energy and the "spontaneity of live performances: 





My pick: 1980s.


----------



## bigshot

Those later ones have really weird sound. I've never heard real orchestras sound like that digital set. All sorts of engineering chicanery going on.


----------



## bigshot

Artemis said:


> Oh yes? Can you please refer me to any professional review(s) of this set which supports your view that the Harnoncourt/COE set "sucks", as you so crudely assert?


I don't think Harnoncourt is that great either. Just another Beethoven. It isn't easy to make Beethoven dull.


----------



## Lord Lance

bigshot said:


> Those later ones have really weird sound. I've never heard real orchestras sound like that digital set. All sorts of engineering chicanery going on.


That's not entirely true. Like Szell [Or should I say - Szell, like Karajan?], Karajan's performances have unmatched power and fervour. *Almost* all of that ferocious electricity in his performances is due to his unparalleled genius. Engineers of course have a big role in the final products - like every record out there.

P.S. Ya, ya - Furtwangler or to lesser degree, Toscanini. But, since Karajan has sound, he wins.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not commenting on Karjan's conducting style. I actually like it, even though he tended to worry more about textures than expression as time went on. I'm commenting on the sound of the recordings. The later DGG recordings often have completely unreal perspectives. The whole band will be miked from a distance, then all of a sudden a flute bit is miked close up. Weird. Almost like rock albums. It was the worst with the strings. Karajan seemed to have some sort of weird theory on how to mike the strings to get the texture he was looking for. It's a weird undefined, upholstered mass, nothing at all like any other recordings I've heard... even of the BPO under different conductors. It's definitely an engineering thing, because Karajan's live performances on video don't sound like that.

I really like the EMI recordings because they didn't cater to Karajan's weird recording theories. With EMI, you can get a sense of what it actually sounded like, and even the later EMI recordings sound good.


----------



## Lord Lance

bigshot said:


> I'm not commenting on Karjan's conducting style. I actually like it, even though he tended to worry more about textures than expression as time went on. I'm commenting on the sound of the recordings. The later DGG recordings often have completely unreal perspectives. The whole band will be miked from a distance, then all of a sudden a flute bit is miked close up. Weird. Almost like rock albums. It was the worst with the strings. Karajan seemed to have some sort of weird theory on how to mike the strings to get the texture he was looking for. It's a weird undefined, upholstered mass, nothing at all like any other recordings I've heard... even of the BPO under different conductors. It's definitely an engineering thing, because Karajan's live performances on video don't sound like that.
> 
> I really like the EMI recordings because they didn't cater to Karajan's weird recording theories. With EMI, you can get a sense of what it actually sounded like, and even the later EMI recordings sound good.


Karajan was very different and he also had his own vision. I don't think Maestro's wishes were ever repudiated. They couldn't say no. Ultimately, his recordings shows exactly what he was capable of and none of his recordings from his 80s are bad or technically sound awkward. What you're experiencing is your own view.

[I've had the chance to listen to all of them except his Beethoven Sixth *shrugs*]

DG's recording quality is a class of its own when compared to the mess that is EMI [They missed the excellent opportunity to be the guardians of Gulda's legacy. His recording of Beethoven's sonatas and concertos have such terrible sound that most would rather put Kempff's mono/stereo recordings, or Maestro Barenboim's. [I call only Karajan and Barenboim maestros.]]


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Karajan was very different and he also had his own vision. I don't think Maestro's wishes were ever repudiated. They couldn't say no. Ultimately, his recordings shows exactly what he was capable of and none of his recordings from his 80s are bad or technically sound awkward. What you're experiencing is your own view.


I'm an admirer of Karajan as well, but you claiming, "_none of his recordings from the 80s are bad or technically sound awkward. What you're experiencing is your own view_".

I can assure you that it isn't _just _his view. It's a view widely held by plenty of people. Just google search the "1980s Beethoven cycle" and you won't only read user reviews claiming what bigshot has said. You'll also find plenty of professional reviewers stating the same thing. The 1980s Karajan Beethoven cycle is the one to avoid. You are in the minority if you think there's nothing wrong with the sound from the 1980s cycle.

The 1960s cycle is the most revered and the 1970s one is also highly revered.

I personally call Karajan and C.Kleiber as my co-favorite conductors. However, Karajan did _not_ have the "golden touch". He had his share of questionable recordings and downright clunkers.



> Karajan was very different and he also had his own vision. I don't think Maestro's wishes were ever repudiated.


Yes, he certainly had his own vision and thank goodness for that. His 1960s Beethoven is my absolute favorite. However, if his wished weren't "repudiated" it was only because he was _Karajan_. Of course he was going to get his way. For better and for worse (but mostly for better!  )

Now, if you want to use "repudiate" as in "deny the truth of validity of". Then, yes, his choices are still repudiated to this day (by plenty of people, he has an entire ocean of repudiators.). For instance, I don't think Karajan had anything else to say in his 80s Beethoven, I don't think he made that cycle because he needed to express his personal voice again through Beethoven's symphonies. I believe he merely wanted to leave his mark on the digital age of recording. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I can understand that, he was a technical pioneer.


----------



## hpowders

Karajan's best Beethoven was with the Philharmonia Orchestra in the 1950's. I had most of the symphonies on Angel LP's, but alas, they are now long gone.


----------



## bigshot

I agree. The EMI Karajan recordings are really good across the board.


----------



## bigshot

DiesIraeVIX said:


> The 1980s Karajan Beethoven cycle is the one to avoid. You are in the minority if you think there's nothing wrong with the sound from the 1980s cycle.


I don't know if I'd go so far as to say to avoid the digital Beethoven... It just sounds very weird and not entirely natural. There are plenty of other more realistic sounding Karajan Beethoven recordings to choose from, so it's not so bad that he would mess around with the fourth go round with it and see what new sorts of things he could stir up. It's just a really weird sound that he produced. I'm not sure what he was thinking. I would actually be interested in hearing the theories behind his choices. It's clearly not random. He has some sort of criteria he is applying to get to the place he was trying to get to. It wasn't entirely technical. He had an aesthetic he was shooting for.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

bigshot said:


> I don't know if I'd go so far as to say to avoid the digital Beethoven... It just sounds very weird and not entirely natural.


For some, I suppose. For me personally, that's _more _than enough reason to avoid it. He already has three already excellent Beethoven cycles. 50's Philharmonia, 60s and 70s Berlin.

No reason to get something that sounds very weird and not natural.



> It's just a really weird sound that he produced. I'm not sure what he was thinking. I would actually be interested in hearing the theories behind his choices. It's clearly not random. He has some sort of criteria he is applying to get to the place he was trying to get to.


I agree with you. I'd also be very curious to know his line of reasoning and theories behind his choices.



> He has some sort of criteria he is applying to get to the place he was trying to get to. It wasn't entirely technical. He had an aesthetic he was shooting for.


I agree again, but I just feel that despite his aims or criteria. In the case of the 80s Beethoven cycle, he failed in his aims. But as we've both said, good thing we have the other Karajan Beethoven cycles to choose from.


----------



## Lord Lance

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I'm an admirer of Karajan as well, but you claiming, "_none of his recordings from the 80s are bad or technically sound awkward. What you're experiencing is your own view_".
> 
> I can assure you that it isn't _just _his view. It's a view widely held by plenty of people. Just google search the "1980s Beethoven cycle" and you won't only read user reviews claiming what bigshot has said. You'll also find plenty of professional reviewers stating the same thing. The 1980s Karajan Beethoven cycle is the one to avoid. You are in the minority if you think there's nothing wrong with the sound from the 1980s cycle.


His 80s Third is the best there is. His approach towards the Sixth is _much_ better. The Ninth is as thrilling as any other recordings. And as an aesthetic-oriented person, his sound was different towards the 80s but not "bad" or the one to "avoid".

Bruckner Eight with Wiener Philharmoniker for example is one of those island recordings. Unquestionably good performance, sound and recording techniques may have not been to everyone's preference. [I have this feeling that you are going to say Jochum/Wand/xyz's Eight was better.]



DiesIraeVIX said:


> The 1960s cycle is the most revered and the 1970s one is also highly revered.


Popularity or reverence don't necessarily go hand-in-hand with quality. The 1980s cycle was dissented by critics at its release. Since then, people have always have prejudice against the 80s cycle. Not sure how many of the people who've hated/disliked the cycle have actually heard it rather than just parroting critics opinion. His DVD cycle from the 70s is also excellent.



DiesIraeVIX said:


> I personally call Karajan and C. Kleiber as my co-favorite conductors.


Much like his father, Carlos was a conductor of much talent.



DiesIraeVIX said:


> However, Karajan did _not_ have the "golden touch".


Karajan didn't have the golden touch? I don't know any conductor who was blessed with more of it than Karajan.



DiesIraeVIX said:


> He had his share of questionable recordings and downright clunkers.


Could you elaborate?



DiesIraeVIX said:


> Yes, he certainly had his own vision and thank goodness for that. His 1960s Beethoven is my absolute favorite. However, if his wished weren't "repudiated" it was only because he was _Karajan_. Of course he was going to get his way. For better and for worse (but mostly for better!  )
> 
> Now, if you want to use "repudiate" as in "deny the truth of validity of". Then, yes, his choices are still repudiated to this day (by plenty of people, he has an entire ocean of repudiators.). For instance, I don't think Karajan had anything else to say in his 80s Beethoven, I don't think he made that cycle because he needed to express his personal voice again through Beethoven's symphonies. I believe he merely wanted to leave his mark on the digital age of recording. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I can understand that, he was a technical pioneer.


Repudiated by producers, engineers and musicians. Again, his 80s' Third and Sixth show a man constantly improving. Or his Bruckner Seventh and Eight.

P.S. I still don't understand or hear any sound oddities in his Eighties' Beethoven cycle.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> His 80s Third is the best there is. His approach towards the Sixth is _much_ better. The Ninth is as thrilling as any other recordings. And as an aesthetic-oriented person, his sound was different towards the 80s but not "bad" or the one to "avoid".


I don't know what else to tell you, you're clearly convinced your opinion is the prevailing one. Like I said, try Google.



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Bruckner Eight with Wiener Philharmoniker for example is one of those island recordings. Unquestionably good performance, sound and recording techniques may have not been to everyone's preference. [I have this feeling that you are going to say Jochum/Wand/xyz's Eight was better.]


When did the conversation change to Bruckner? We're talking about his 80s Beethoven cycle, the least revered and worst reviewed of all of them. Secondly, why would you say you have a feeling I'll say Jochum/Wand/xyz' Eighth was better? Did you not read when I said Karajan was my favorite conductor along with Kleiber? Thirdly, who cares if I have another favorite, do you really think there's something wrong with that? Does Karajan have the best version of every single symphony ever recorded? I have Karajan's Bruckner 8th but it isn't my favorite, actually. Pierre Boulez's Bruckner 8th with the Vienna Philharmonic is my favorite.



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Popularity or reverence don't necessarily go hand-in-hand with quality. The 1980s cycle was dissented by critics at its release. Since then, people have always have prejudice against the 80s cycle. Not sure how many of the people who've hated/disliked the cycle have actually heard it rather than just parroting critics opinion. His DVD cycle from the 70s is also excellent.


I said nothing about _popularity_. But you're right, though. Popularity and quality don't go hand in hand always.

Reverence isn't popularity and you're mistaken to equate the two, reverence does not equal popularity. Not the same thing.

I'm not parroting other people's criticisms, have you ever given a thought that it's just not a great Beethoven cycle? Beethoven is my favorite composer. Believe me, I've heard the 1980s cycle. I do not like it for all the obvious reasons already stated.



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Karajan didn't have the golden touch? I don't know any conductor who was blessed with more of it than Karajan.


Your comments have an overly-deferential quality when you're speaking about Karajan. You say you only call Karajan and Barenboim "maestros"? What does that even mean, that none of the other conductors are true maestros? You're actually trying trying to get me to prove that Karajan didn't have a "Golden Touch"? I don't know what to tell you, you're on your own. Explore other great conductors out there, believe me, there are PLENTY of them out there. Dead and alive. Karajan isn't the end-all be-all.

Please watch this video of Conductor Simon Rattle speak about Karajan for a *balanced* account of Karajan. He admires him but criticizes him fairly often. It may be considered "Shocking Content", watch at your own peril.







Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Could you elaborate?


Read what I wrote above.

He had 1,200 plus recordings. Do you actually think he made no bad recordings? No questionable performances? I'm truly puzzled. 



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> P.S. I still don't understand or hear any sound oddities in his Eighties' Beethoven cycle.


And that's fine. It's your favorite, nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend that when someone criticizes it, they're in the minority and not the other way around.


----------



## Lord Lance

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I don't know what else to tell you, you're clearly convinced your opinion is the prevailing one. Like I said, try Google.
> 
> When did the conversation change to Bruckner? We're talking about his 80s Beethoven cycle, the least revered and worst reviewed of all of them. Secondly, why would you say you have a feeling I'll say Jochum/Wand/xyz' Eighth was better? Did you not read when I said Karajan was my favorite conductor along with Kleiber? Thirdly, who cares if I have another favorite, do you really think there's something wrong with that? Does Karajan have the best version of every single symphony ever recorded? I have Karajan's Bruckner 8th but it isn't my favorite, actually. Pierre Boulez's Bruckner 8th with the Vienna Philharmonic is my favorite.
> 
> I said nothing about _popularity_. But you're right, though. Popularity and quality don't go hand in hand always.
> 
> Reverence isn't popularity and you're mistaken to equate the two, reverence does not equal popularity. Not the same thing.
> 
> I'm not parroting other people's criticisms, have you ever given a thought that it's just not a great Beethoven cycle? Beethoven is my favorite composer. Believe me, I've heard the 1980s cycle. I do not like it for all the obvious reasons already stated.
> 
> Your comments have a fawning, overly-deferential quality when you're speaking about Karajan. You say you only call Karajan and Barenboim "maestros"? Lol, what does that even mean, that none of the other conductors are true maestros? You're actually trying trying to get me to prove that Karajan didn't have a "Golden Touch"? I don't know what to tell you, you're on your own. Explore other great conductors out there, believe me, there are PLENTY of them out there. Dead and alive. Karajan isn't the end-all be-all.
> 
> Please watch this video of Conductor Simon Rattle speak about Karajan for a *balanced* account of Karajan. He admires him but criticizes him fairly often. It may be considered "Shocking Content", watch at your own peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I wrote above.
> 
> He had 1,200 plus recordings. Do you actually think he made no bad recordings? No questionable performances? I'm truly puzzled.
> 
> And that's fine. It's your favorite, nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend that when someone criticizes it, they're in the minority and not the other way around.


A. I thought we were talking about the conductor in general.
B. True, reverence does not go hand-in-hand with popularity.
C. Ultimately, _you and several others_ *not all* think 80s sound is bad.
D. I never said you are parroting other people's opinion.
E. I never said that they are maestro because they are the only two great conductors. They are my personal two favorites. Celibidache, Wand, Jochum, etc all are maestros in some or the other aspects. Just like Karajan.
F. I did not talk about the *1200* recordings. I was referring to his records from the 1980s.
G. Again, I *never* said 1980s cycle was my favorite. Unjustly neglected, yes. No perfect Beethoven cycle exists. All have their criticisms. But by making a better Third and Sixth, a reason and justification for another cycle was created. For that alone, its worth it price. [As all cycles have at least one bad or not good enough symphony.]
H. Karajan happens to be my all time favorite because of his consistency in quality. I don't hear his bad records just like you don't hear bad records of the revered Furtwangler/Klemperer/x/y/z. By that logic, no great conductors exist.
I. The minute you disprove me, I'll change my opinion.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> I. The minute you disprove me, I'll change my opinion.


That's just it, I don't want to disprove you. Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine. We all have our favorites!

We're not on the same level of discussion, here. We're not addressing the same thing and it's leading to a bit of misunderstanding and confusion. _I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong_, I'm trying to say that you were incorrect in telling bigshot that his opinion was *only *his opinion. Rather it is the opinion of a very very sizable number of people who agree with me and bigshot about the 80s Beethoven cycle.

I reiterate, your opinion is fine and yours to make alone. That's fine.

While we're on the subject, despite my criticisms (and I still hold them) I'd still take Karajan's 80s cycle over plenty of other conductors!


----------



## Lord Lance

DiesIraeVIX said:


> That's just it, I don't want to disprove you. Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine. We all have our favorites!
> 
> We're not on the same level of discussion, here. We're not addressing the same thing and it's leading to a bit of misunderstanding and confusion. _I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong_, I'm trying to say that you were incorrect in telling bigshot that his opinion was *only *his opinion. Rather it is the opinion of a very very sizable number of people who agree with me and bigshot about the 80s Beethoven cycle.
> 
> I reiterate, your opinion is fine and yours to make alone. That's fine.
> 
> While we're on the subject, despite my criticisms (and I still hold them) I'd still take Karajan's 80s cycle over plenty of other conductors!


True that!

My choice of words should've been that I can change my stance on a recording if you could explain me yours.

At the same time, I was trying to tell and explain BigShot that there are several people who think the 80s cycle is his best effort.

All his cycles range from decent to definitive. You can't really go wrong with any of his symphony cycles - Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Mozart, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Dvorak Eight and Ninth, Strauss' Tone Poems, etc.

It was absolute fun to have this meaningful debate with you. Thanks.


----------



## bigshot

The one thing about Karjan that you can say is that he was consistently Karajan!

That said, I've been listening to his EMI, 60s and 70s stuff lately, and I like him a lot better for serious stuff like Beethoven and Bruckner... not so much for Haydn, Schubert and Mendelssohn. Other conductors are better at those.


----------



## Hudon

Early 1960s Karajan is almost always worth your money. It's far better than his digital versions. Have not heard the 1970s version.


----------

