# Who are some "raw" conductors?



## souio (Dec 31, 2019)

By "raw" I mean they put a lot of passion and energy into their performances giving it an almost visceral, emotional quality to it. I hear a lot of conductors who make their symphonies very pleasant sounding and maintain the same atmosphere throughout. Actually, this was why it took me a while to get into Haydn. I heard some of his symphonies, but I found the conductors and arrangements were too "safe" and they sounded like elevator music. Then I heard one where the quiet moments were beautiful and the louder moments were furiously aggressive and I was like "so _this_ is why Haydn is regarded so highly!

Does anyone have any examples of good conductors that have this raw, visceral, almost rock-like quality in their interpretations?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Raw, rock-like? An interesting way to put it.

But I think that Bernstein, Furtwängler, Solti, Muti for example might be what you are looking for. :tiphat:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

........... 
.

Munch


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I share your taste in conducting styles- for me, truly distinguished conducting is all about taking risks in order to best serve an artistic vision. Off the top of my head; Bernstein, Solti, and Gergiev provide differing examples of this. And when you mention "rock-like," I think of Klemperer. But I would have to say that Furtwangler, who I believe to be the greatest interpreter on record, is a prime example of the type of "raw" conductor you're looking for. Listen to his Brahms 4 and how he handles, oh-so-patiently, the trajectory of the tension and the flow of the contours in the first movement, emphasizing the subtle textural and mood shifts. By the time the coda rolls around, the adrenaline rush and the tragic inevitability of the final climax is almost terrifying. His performances may not have immaculate playing or follow the score perfectly, but they have _narrative_. If you connect with his style, you'll want to hear his Beethoven and Bruckner to see how such familiar music can sound so different under his baton. Though he is my favorite, I don't listen to him all that often because the interpretations are so personal and visceral- certainly not the only way to perform the music, or an approach that works for everything. And you have to get past the usually lackluster (at best) sound quality. But if you haven't heard him, check him out- I have a feeling you won't be disappointed!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Herman Scherchen. Didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether the orchestra is precisely together, in tune, or rough sounding - it was all about getting an emotional response from red hot playing. Sometimes worked, sometimes not. 

Arthur Rodzinski. More polished than Scherchen, but still knew how to raise the blood pressure and get the adrenaline flowing. There were more important things than perfect ensemble, although he could deliver the goods when he wanted.

Even Stokowski had his unpolished moments - but again, the emotional impact was more important than some trivial errors. The Mahler 2nd and Dvorak 9th on RCA are full of bad ensemble.

These three (and there are more) are all products of the same generation. Their style is largely gone, and no conductor, orchestra or record company will allow records to be released that aren't as perfect as possible. Can't say I blame them - critics and the public can be very cruel.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Most of my favorite conductors could be pretty "raw"...depending upon the repertoire, of course:
Toscanini, Solti, Mravinsky, Reiner, Bernstein to name a few...they could really let it rip.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

This video is a pretty good representation of rawness


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well, I would hope all conductors were raw. It would make it pretty hard to do their jos if they were cooked.


Okay, bad joke...


----------



## souio (Dec 31, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Herman Scherchen. Didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether the orchestra is precisely together, in tune, or rough sounding - it was all about getting an emotional response from red hot playing. Sometimes worked, sometimes not.
> 
> Arthur Rodzinski. More polished than Scherchen, but still knew how to raise the blood pressure and get the adrenaline flowing. *There were more important things than perfect ensemble*, although he could deliver the goods when he wanted.
> 
> ...





Allegro Con Brio said:


> I share your taste in conducting styles- for me, truly distinguished conducting is all about taking risks in order to best serve an artistic vision. Off the top of my head; Bernstein, Solti, and Gergiev provide differing examples of this. And when you mention "rock-like," I think of Klemperer. But I would have to say that Furtwangler, who I believe to be the greatest interpreter on record, is a prime example of the type of "raw" conductor you're looking for. Listen to his Brahms 4 and how he handles, oh-so-patiently, the trajectory of the tension and the flow of the contours in the first movement, emphasizing the subtle textural and mood shifts. By the time the coda rolls around, the adrenaline rush and the tragic inevitability of the final climax is almost terrifying. *His performances may not have immaculate playing or follow the score perfectly, but they have narrative. *If you connect with his style, you'll want to hear his Beethoven and Bruckner to see how such familiar music can sound so different under his baton. Though he is my favorite, I don't listen to him all that often because the interpretations are so personal and visceral- certainly not the only way to perform the music, or an approach that works for everything. And you have to get past the usually lackluster (at best) sound quality. But if you haven't heard him, check him out- I have a feeling you won't be disappointed!


I completely agree with these statements. It's also when I listen to the greatest virtuosos, one detail that I noticed is that there is actually a bit of 'sloppiness' in their playing, if that makes sense. There are slight imperfections in the music compared to what is written on the score, yet that 'sloppy' playing is what makes it so good because it is the performer's personality put into the music itself. Now that's not to say people should go and play music as sloppy as possible and say it's their "genius" :lol::lol: but more like they mastered the piece so much that they can put their own little twists on it to make it their own.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Who are some "raw" conductors?*



souio said:


> By "raw" I mean they put a lot of passion and energy into their performances giving it an almost visceral, emotional quality to it. ...





chu42 said:


> This video is a pretty good representation of rawness


Of course, the video was delightful. I especially enjoy watching the conductor's emotional carrying-ons during concert performances, but since most of the music I access is via black or silver disc in the conductorless, darkened space of my listening room I rely moreso upon my ears to judge what about the music I hear is "raw", or whatever other terms one wishes to apply.

There are aural performances that excite, enthuse, inspire me and others that bring on lesser responses, even bringing on boredom at times. It matters not what actions the conductor is engaging in while he or she produces either a dull interpretation or a stimulating one, if one is listening to the recording rather than attending the live performance (or watching via a video).

And then there is the matter of ensembles such as The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra which do not utilize a conductor at all, but are quite capable of producing vivid, lively, emotionally stimulating music.

Which leads me to believe you are probably more interested in (or at least should be) _music_ that produces a, what you term, "raw" effect. Which means you'll have to listen to several interpretations of pieces you find interesting and decide for yourself whether or not they meet your criteria for what you are seeking.

But listening to various interpretations of a work is part of the fun, and you will even find that you may prefer a first movement from one interpretation but the second, third, or fourth movement from another interpretation, and so on. A conductor may succeed to your likely with one movement but fail at another movement in the same work. Where does your hunt for a "raw" conductor take you in such instances? I wonder.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Sometimes Dudamel really 'rocks'.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Yevgeny Mravinsky coaxed some searing performances out of the Leningrad PO, yet he himself was fairly inanimate on the podium.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Quite a few historic recordings - usually of live events - suggest that, at least sometimes, conductors would project the music in a very forthright and exiting way. Toscanini's recordings can show this as might be expected but Beecham (his live Sibelius 2 is explosive) and Barbirolli may be less expected ... and have you ever heard the the live account of Vaughan Williams conducting his 4th Symphony?


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

Not Boulez for sure! :lol:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> Quite a few historic recordings - usually of live events - suggest that, at least sometimes, conductors would project the music in a very forthright and exiting way. Toscanini's recordings can show this as might be expected but Beecham (his live Sibelius 2 is explosive) and Barbirolli may be less expected ... and have you ever heard the the live account of Vaughan Williams conducting his 4th Symphony?


Definitely true. And I forgot about Barbirolli- he doesn't rank in my upper echelon of conductors, but some of his performances are downright merciless. Both of his Mahler 9's (especially the live 1960 one from Torino), his controversial Mahler 6 that sounds like pure sublimated nihilism (probably not what Malher intended it to sound like, but it's effective), and his Eroica, which is also controversial due to the slow first movement speed. But I find it utterly gripping; one of the most emotionally involving Beethoven symphony recordings I've heard.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Having heard him live I would question Muti's inclusion in this category. Having seen Barbirolli live I would definitely agree to his inclusion.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I would say:


Kyrill Kondrashin
Yevgeni Svetlanov
Bryden Thomson
Sir Charles Groves
Sir Adrian Boult
Vernon Handley


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Yes, the Russians can definitely land in the "raw" category...Mravinsky, Rozh'sky, and most definitely, Svetlanov..


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm thinking that rawness is not something that today's conductors aspire to? Only one has been mentioned (Dudamel) and I can't come up with another.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm thinking that rawness is not something that today's conductors aspire to? Only one has been mentioned (Dudamel) and I can't come up with another.


Teodor Currentzis definitely. If you haven't heard that Tchaikovsky 6th yet, do! It's hair-raising. I don't agree with Dudamel being on this list at all - he can provide plenty of visceral excitement - appropriate or not - but I can't imagine anything he does these days as being "raw". Look at the orchestras he's allowed to conduct: Los Angeles, Berlin, New York - they are practically incapable of playing badly.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It takes a really great orchestra to purposely play badly!!


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Some of the Russians … Kondrashin and Mravinsky … might fit what you are describing. There is a projection of terror in Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky 6th.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Teodor Currentzis definitely. If you haven't heard that Tchaikovsky 6th yet, do! It's hair-raising. I don't agree with Dudamel being on this list at all - he can provide plenty of visceral excitement - appropriate or not - but I can't imagine anything he does these days as being "raw". Look at the orchestras he's allowed to conduct: Los Angeles, Berlin, New York - they are practically incapable of playing badly.


Yes, OK. He's alive ,,, and some. His Mahler 6 is pretty exciting, too.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Raw maybe not, but of the erratic, seat-of-your-pants style then Id thoroughly endorse Stoki and Scherchen. For others I'd say Batiz for his wayward tempi, Gergiev for his unpredictability and possibly Kondrashin for some very dramatic performances. Some of Simonov's recordings can be super dramatic too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> Well, I would hope all conductors were raw. It would make it pretty hard to do their jos if they were cooked.
> 
> Okay, bad joke...


Well, _somebody_ is giving those half-baked performances.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

souio said:


> By "raw" I mean they put a lot of passion and energy into their performances giving it an almost visceral, emotional quality to it. I hear a lot of conductors who make their symphonies very pleasant sounding and maintain the same atmosphere throughout. Actually, this was why it took me a while to get into Haydn. I heard some of his symphonies, but I found the conductors and arrangements were too "safe" and they sounded like elevator music. Then I heard one where the quiet moments were beautiful and the louder moments were furiously aggressive and I was like "so _this_ is why Haydn is regarded so highly!
> 
> Does anyone have any examples of good conductors that have this raw, visceral, almost rock-like quality in their interpretations?


Klaus Tendstedt, try to find some live London recordings, he really was a force of nature in concert.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Well, _somebody_ is giving those half-baked performances.


Yup ..half-baked performances given by semi-conductors!! lol!!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I don't think "raw" equates necessarily with bad, or badly played....i think it pertains to tone quality, articulation, accents, etc.. the Russian orchestras from the 50s, 60s are good examples...the brass is very edgy and crass, the 2ble reeds bright and buzzy, the strings rough, scratchy,hard-edged...but many of these performances are terrific. very exciting...it was simply a different aesthetic. A different concept of orchestral sound....imo, it is valid, there are many works, and sections of works that benefit greatly from this approach...a great orchestra should be able to produce it, it is one of the many colors available in the tonal/timbral palette.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Somebody ought to take a meat tenderizer to Muti. He looks so stiff. And he's always stabbing somebody in the groin. But my favorite guy is Gergiev. He always looks like he just came off a bender. Five day old beard, greasy hair and his hand flickers in the wind.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

One up and coming conductor who I have great hopes for in the "don't take it safe" category is Santtu-Matias Rouvali. I have heard him in Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovich & Stravinsky and have liked what I've heard. He isn't quite in the Currentzis league, but I think that's a good thing!

Try this Kullervo at the start of the 3rd movement ... 33:00


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Quite a few historic recordings - usually of live events - suggest that, at least sometimes, conductors would project the music in a very forthright and exiting way. Toscanini's recordings can show this as might be expected but Beecham (his live Sibelius 2 is explosive) and Barbirolli may be less expected ... and have you ever heard the the live account of Vaughan Williams conducting his 4th Symphony?


RVW conducting his fourth symphony is an _amazing_ recording. It's like driving 100 mph on the edge of a 100-foot drop into a rocky sea. I've never heard another performance like it, not even Boult's ferocious mono recording on Decca. It's as if every other conductor is afraid of the music.

There are exceptions, but most contemporary conductors seem more interested in getting the performance note perfect, rather than achieving a visceral experience. (The pernicious influence of HvK?) Mravinsky and Kondrashin have been mentioned, but Ancerl is another conductor who was never afraid to take risks. When it comes to 20th century music, he understood that a lot of it was wacky. Listen to his recording of Janacek's Glagolitic Mass: it's raw, like early Christians gathering in a forest to to shout their lungs out. Every other recording I've heard is too polite by half. Even Kubelik is silky-smooth in comparison.

Another example, less obvious, is Rudolf Kempe. He had the gift of getting orchestras to play their hearts out and it really shows in his Richard Strauss. Of course, with the Dresden State Orchestra, you won't get bad ensemble or flubbed notes, but some other conductors make Richard sound like Johann. And if you listen to the opening of Valkyrie in his 1961 Bayreuth Ring cycle, the whole prelude goes off the rails, but gosh, is it ever exciting!

This may be an example of what conductor's are sometimes up against. I remember seeing an interview with Scherchen (I think), and he recounted a time when he was rehearsing Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe with a youth orchestra. He kept telling them to make the music "swoon", but they just didn't understand what he meant and couldn't do it. He ended by saying "players no longer know how to do these things." Maybe a "swoon" was too raw for them?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Fredrikalansson said:


> RVW conducting his fourth symphony is an _amazing_ recording. It's like driving 100 mph on the edge of a 100-foot drop into a rocky sea. I've never heard another performance like it, not even Boult's ferocious mono recording on Decca. It's as if every other conductor is afraid of the music.
> 
> There are exceptions, but most contemporary conductors seem more interested in getting the performance note perfect, rather than achieving a visceral experience. (The pernicious influence of HvK?) Mravinsky and Kondrashin have been mentioned, but Ancerl is another conductor who was never afraid to take risks. When it comes to 20th century music, he understood that a lot of it was wacky. Listen to his recording of Janacek's Glagolitic Mass: it's raw, like early Christians gathering in a forest to to shout their lungs out. Every other recording I've heard is too polite by half. Even Kubelik is silky-smooth in comparison.
> 
> ...


Oh yes, Kempe! His Brahms 3 is a very special one for me, definitely one of my favorite Brahms symphony recordings. The finale is amazingly intense, just as it should be; and the third movement is actually played _poco allegretto_! His German Requiem I wouldn't say is "raw" (because, well, it's not a "raw" work) but it's also a definitive one for me. Just beautiful singing and phrasing.


----------



## perdido34 (Mar 11, 2015)

Fredrikalansson said:


> Rudolf Kempe...had the gift of getting orchestras to play their hearts out and it really shows in his Richard Strauss.


Agree about his Strauss recordings. And the only time I saw him conduct in person was with the Royal Philharmonic on tour in Ann Arbor in 1973 or 1974. Their performance of Tchaikovsky 6 was unforgettable.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Oh yes, Kempe! His Brahms 3 is a very special one for me, definitely one of my favorite Brahms symphony recordings. The finale is amazingly intense, just as it should be; and the third movement is actually played _poco allegretto_! His German Requiem I wouldn't say is "raw" (because, well, it's not a "raw" work) but it's also a definitive one for me. Just beautiful singing and phrasing.


Interesting about Kempe - I've never been too thrilled by his Strauss recordings...too docile, accurate enough, not "wrong", but just no fire, rather pedestrian....I'll take Reiner [the master Strauss guy for me] Solti, Toscanini, Zubin Mehta get much more out of it...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I always thank my stars that I can enjoy a variety of approaches to great music (just so long as they are excellent!) when I read comparisons like this. I think Reiner helped me to enjoy the Strauss tone poems - he opened them up for me - but I enjoy quite a few others (most acknowledged masters in the repertoire) these days.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

When I think of "rawness" in conducting approach, or music-making in general - I tend to think of a spectrum, a scale of sorts...most "raw" or coarse being a 10, the least being 1....

For me - at the "10" end would be Svetlanov....some of the other Russians can be high as well - but they can also produce much more gentle, lyrical even delicate results as well - Mravinsky, Rozh'sky, Kondrashin can really let it rip, but they can also tone it down when needed, same with Toscanini, Solti and Reiner...not so, IME, with Svetlanov...the orchestra is usually tearing up sheet metal, filling the air with sonic shrapnel....

at the "1" end of the scale would be von Karajan, who would abhor the very concept of "rawness"...he just did not want that kind of sound...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

And yet some of Karajan's live recordings (the earlier ones, those made when the BPO went to Moscow) are really quite thrilling and ... "raw". His apparent love of a very blended and "homogenised" sound is not the whole story with him.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> And yet some of Karajan's live recordings (the earlier ones, those made when the BPO went to Moscow) are really quite thrilling and ... "raw". His apparent love of a very blended and "homogenised" sound is not the whole story with him.


"Raw" is about the last adjective I'd apply to von Karajan....he just did not want that kind of sound...compare how amazingly different the ViennaPO sounds under HvK and with, say, Solti, or Reiner....great credit to the VPO that they can adopt to such different sound concepts...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Fair enough but then give me the right word for the recordings I referred to.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Karl Bohm was an extremely understated conductor on the podium . He barely moved and his movements were pretty much confined to his wrist , and he certainly never made bizarre faces .
But his performances were often thrilling in the extreme . In this , he was similar to his great mentor Richard Strauss , who said "The audience should be perspiring, not the conductor " or words to that effect . 
Solti told an amusing story about his early years as an aspiring conductor . He was accepted by the great man for advice on conducting and went to his home in Garmisch in the south of Germany .
Strauss observed him conducting something with piano , and said "Why are you making such wild gesticulations ? They're not necessary at all ". 
Then his wife Pauline , who was observing, said "Oh , Richard . You used to do the very same thing when you were a young conductor ." And Strauss replied , sighing , "Yes, you're right ! "
Solti didn't actually use all that much movement, but he always appeared so intense on the podium .


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Fair enough but then give me the right word for the recordings I referred to.


Austere? I quite like von Karjan (except in vocal works where the chorus plays a large part) but also think raw is not at all the word to describe him. I understand your difficulty in coming up with the right word though and austere doesn't quite work.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BachIsBest said:


> Austere? I quite like von Karjan (except in vocal works where the chorus plays a large part) but also think raw is not at all the word to describe him. I understand your difficulty in coming up with the right word though and austere doesn't quite work.


Simon Rattle, who knew him, describes him as the Emperor of Legato


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> Austere? I quite like von Karjan (except in vocal works where the chorus plays a large part) but also think raw is not at all the word to describe him. I understand your difficulty in coming up with the right word though and austere doesn't quite work.


I am not sure how to play a Karajan defender role - it is not one I am used to! - but have mentioned a few live recordings of his that seem to suggest that he as well was capable to wildness in the concert hall at some points in his career. I am asking others who know those recordings if I have imagined it.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> And yet some of Karajan's live recordings (the earlier ones, those made when the BPO went to Moscow) are really quite *thrilling and ... "raw"*. His apparent love of a very blended and "homogenised" sound is not the whole story with him.


I can see where _thrilling and ... "raw"_ came from. I've often found his live recordings _leaner and meaner_ than their studio versions, e.g. the 54 live NHKSO Pathétique, the 78 live Beethoven 7, the 69 live Shostakovich 10, the 82 live Mahler 9 among others.

The OP's definition of "raw" is "they put a lot of passion and energy into their performances giving it an almost visceral, emotional quality to it".

What comes into mind immediately are the Mahlers of Scherchen and Maderna, but I have to confess "crazy" may be a more descriptive word. Some of Svetlanov and Kondrashin's Mahlers are like that too. (Of course whether one likes these recordings is a different matter.)

But then there are also conductors who seemingly did it without us (OK, me) noticing it, like Abbado's late Bruckner 9 and Schubert 9, or Haitink's France Mahler 6.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Of living conductors, I would think Gergiev is your ultimate raw conductor. He doesn't like rehearsing and doesn't make time for it, it all boils down to the 'magic of the evening' and the huge climaxes. His concerts often carry you away, but the musical experience also remains a bit on the surface. Another example would be Ivan Fischer, who is raw in the sense of quite experimental with his interpretations. Also Gardiner in classic and romantic pieces would be considered to deliver raw interpretations. rattle also qualifies as a raw conductor, as in unrefined and outward ugly at times. 

Of the past generations, I would second Bernstein, Svetlanov and Solti, who got mentioned a lot already. Also, Harnoncourt and Tennstedt, each in his own way.

I happen to disagree on Kondrashin as a 'raw' conductor. Kondrashin was the magician of soft playing orchestra's and fairytale like playing. Not at all raw.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Fair enough but then give me the right word for the recordings I referred to.


Oh, boy,..?? I don't know how you would describe them...i might use dull, suppressed, monotonous (monotone-ous)....but you clearly hear them differently...if you enjoy them. Great!!
I don't equate "raw" with either good or bad...same with many descriptions - aggressive, laid back, dynamic, staid, reserved, wild, etc....the important thing is - does it work musically?? Does it put forth the music in a convincing manner??


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

We shouldn't forget that famous conductor who is so often the answer to preference threads ... Fritz-Georg Bernstein


----------

