# Celibidache vs. Karajan



## jdec

*Was Sergiu Celibidache envious of Herbert von Karajan?*

In an interview Celibidache was asked what he thought of Herbert von Karajan. "Karajan...", replied Celibidache, "...was an elegant but superficial conductor". The interviewer almost dropped his notebook. ''But,'' he stuttered, ''Karajan is known everywhere in the world.''

''So is Coca-Cola,'' Mr. Celibidache answered. '' Karajan, Bernstein, Mehta, Muti? ''They do not live in my world. I have nothing to do with them. Muti has an extraordinary talent but he is an ignorant, as Toscanini was.'' Solti? ''A fantastic pianist, a musical man, but not a conductor.'' Ormandy? ''How could such a mediocre conductor succeed Stokowski?"

Do you agree with Celibidache's comments on the above colleagues? specifically regarding Karajan, who of these two do you prefer, Celibidache or Karajan?


----------



## bz3

I agree with him on Stokowski, that's about it. I don't really know much about Celibidache but I like some of his recordings I have - maybe he was just grumpy. Mehta, Muti, Ormandy: I can take or leave them. I'd call them mediocre but I don't really have the listening experience to back that up, just nothing I've heard has stuck out. Solti and Toscanini? I like some and don't like some of theirs, again I'm not terribly well-versed. 

Karajan and Bernstein? I've heard a lot of both because I like them. Not perfect in everything, but between them I've got the Germans, Americans, and some Russians pretty well covered. Celi, well I don't like his Haydn or Beethoven but he won me over with Bruckner.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

jdec said:


> Do you agree with Celibidache's comments on the above colleagues?


Pretty much, yeah. Celibidache wasn't any good either, though.


----------



## KenOC

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Pretty much, yeah. Celibidache wasn't any good either, though.


Always a shame to see a man waste his entire life doing something he's no good at.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Not necessarily. Imagine if Hitler had stuck to painting.


----------



## joen_cph

If the interviewer quickly revealed himself as a conformist and not even acquainted with any of the relatively commonly found critique of Karajan, Celibidache probably felt bored and started some "fireworks", just for the fun of it. I don´t think it should be taken too seriously.


----------



## Orfeo

I have to disagree with virtually everything Celibidache says (to be fair, I have not read the whole interview, so I shall tread carefully). Karajan is deep and profound (listen to his Bruckner, Puccini, Wagner): there's hardly superficial about his approach on the podium. Mehta is fine, but Muti is among the greats (an excellent opera conductor). Ormandy made important landmark recordings esp. of American music and should never be sneezed at. Solti's legacy speaks for itself (I'm not such a big fan of his Wagner, although Lohengrin is very special, but his Strauss is generally excellent, and his Elgar is quite superb). Toscanni is not at all ignorant (he knew his Puccini, Verdi, Wagner, Beethoven, Brahms).

I have not a single recording of Celibidache, not due to whatever reflection I have of him, which is generally positive, but because he did not touch the music I care a great deal about. And whatever works he did record (Bruckner in particular), I find myself leaning towards recordings with better, more decisive and artful articulacy in the playing from others (Karajan, Wand, Barenboim, et al.) without sacrificing depth or meaning behind the music.

That kind of opinion is unfortunate due to its lack of insightfulness (and fairness, for there's too much bias, seemingly so), but I've seen and heard worse.

Maybe Joen (above) has a point and that perhaps we're reading too much into it?


----------



## Pugg

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Pretty much, yeah. Celibidache wasn't any good either, though.


This and his pitiful remarks makes me liking him even more less


----------



## WaterRat

jdec said:


> who of these two do you prefer, Celibidache or Karajan?


I'm not fussed about Celi's opinions towards his contemporaries.

IMO no one has done Bruckner better than Celi. Karajan was better at Beethoven, though.


----------



## Varick

bz3 said:


> I agree with him on Stokowski, that's about it. I don't really know much about Celibidache but I like some of his recordings I have - maybe he was just grumpy. *Mehta, Muti, Ormandy: I can take or leave them. I'd call them mediocre but I don't really have the listening experience to back that up, just nothing I've heard has stuck out*. Solti and Toscanini? I like some and don't like some of theirs, again I'm not terribly well-versed.
> 
> Karajan and Bernstein? I've heard a lot of both because I like them. Not perfect in everything, but between them I've got the Germans, Americans, and some Russians pretty well covered. Celi, well I don't like his Haydn or Beethoven but he won me over with Bruckner.


I've emboldened what your "instincts" seem to be spot on about. To call Karajan superficial is ludicrous. So he was an egomaniac. It doesn't negate some of his absolutely brilliant conducting and interpretations across a large berth of composers and styles. I find Mehta to be quite gifted. Gifted in the sense that I have never heard a conductor so efficient in sucking the life out of almost everything he ever conducted. Ormandy had his moments, but overall, I do agree with Celi's commentary on those three.

I am not well versed in Celi's conducting, not for lack of enthusiasm but rather lack of time as of now. However, there are many recordings of his that are on my wish list because of other classical aficionados whom I find their taste simpatico with mine raving about them.

V


----------



## Becca

Varick said:


> I find Mehta to be quite gifted. Gifted in the sense that I have never heard a conductor so efficient in sucking the life out of almost everything he ever conducted. Ormandy had his moments, but overall, I do agree with Celi's commentary on those three.


Having attended any number of Los Angeles Philharmonic concerts back in the Mehta days, I have to agree with this assessment. There was a palpable sense of relief when he moved on and was replaced by Carlo Maria Giulini.


----------



## Triplets

celi never floated my boat. His recordings generally have timings that are 1.5 to 2.5 times a long as virtually every one else.
Reportedly he viewed each Concert as a zen like experience the magic of which would disappear when the notes stopped playing and which could not be captured on recordings. In other words, you had to be there. Based on the few soporific recordings of his that I have heard, I guess that must of been true.


----------



## Notorious JWB

Varick said:


> I find Mehta to be quite gifted. Gifted in the sense that I have never heard a conductor so efficient in sucking the life out of almost everything he ever conducted. V


On the subject of sucking the life out of everything:






As Winston Churchill once said, "Dude, SERIOUSLY?!?"


----------



## Notorious JWB

That goes beyond any question of personal taste - it's just unconscionable.


----------



## Notorious JWB

Triplets said:


> Reportedly he viewed each Concert as a zen like experience the magic of which would disappear when the notes stopped playing and which could not be captured on recordings.


Bit of a cop-out, isn't it?


----------



## Vaneyes

Re slow tempi, IIRC Celi was close to normal in earlier stages of his career. It's not uncommon for conductors to "elaborate" in their twilight. Not my preference. That said, the collaboration I'm enamored with is Ravel "G" with ABM.

Related:






http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/a...-last-and-speaks-his-mind.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## kanishknishar

jdec said:


> In an interview Celibidache was asked what he thought of Herbert von Karajan. "Karajan...", replied Celibidache, "...was an elegant but superficial conductor". The interviewer almost dropped his notebook. ''But,'' he stuttered, ''Karajan is known everywhere in the world.''
> 
> ''So is Coca-Cola,'' Mr. Celibidache answered. '' Karajan, Bernstein, Mehta, Muti? ''They do not live in my world. I have nothing to do with them. Muti has an extraordinary talent but he is an ignorant, as Toscanini was.'' Solti? ''A fantastic pianist, a musical man, but not a conductor.*'' Ormandy? ''How could such a mediocre conductor succeed Stokowski?"*
> 
> Do you agree with Celibidache's comments on the above colleagues? specifically regarding Karajan, who of these two do you prefer, Celibidache or Karajan?


What is it with Ormandy being rated as mediocre or a conductor who did a little bit of everything but not really good at any? He didn't helm the Philadelphians for 44 years by merely being "mediocre"! He would've been out a long time ago if he didn't have something truly extraordinary about him. His recordings are certainly no lacklustre affair. Perhaps mono recordings are better suited for assessment if his stereo recordings don't have that energetic whiplash that people vie for.


----------



## WaterRat

Notorious JWB said:


> On the subject of sucking the life out of everything:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Winston Churchill once said, "Dude, SERIOUSLY?!?"


My fav Dvorak 9th!

Love the way he draws out the texture with the measured and thoughtful tempi. Seriously.


----------



## Pugg

Herrenvolk said:


> What is it with Ormandy being rated as mediocre or a conductor who did a little bit of everything but not really good at any? He didn't helm the Philadelphians for 44 years by merely being "mediocre"! He would've been out a long time ago if he didn't have something truly extraordinary about him. His recordings are certainly no lacklustre affair. Perhaps mono recordings are better suited for assessment if his stereo recordings don't have that energetic whiplash that people vie for.


Celibidache thinks otherwise, that's what this thread is about


----------



## KenOC

I assume the Celibidache interview was done while he was conducting, in fits and starts when he would wake up between notes. :devil:

Seriously, I like his Bruckner. Better than most, anyway.


----------



## Gordontrek

jdec said:


> '' Karajan, Bernstein, Mehta, Muti? ''They do not live in my world. I have nothing to do with them. Muti has an extraordinary talent but he is an ignorant, as Toscanini was.'' Solti? ''A fantastic pianist, a musical man, but not a conductor.'' Ormandy? ''How could such a mediocre conductor succeed Stokowski?"


I detect quite a lot of jealousy in these remarks- certainly Celibidache was an excellent conductor, but I will take EVERY conductor he mentions here before I take him, including Karajan. Maybe since he was never recorded anywhere near as prolifically as Karajan, or wasn't universally admired like Toscanini and Bernstein, he tries to create a separate class for himself- "my world," where being less of a celebrity makes you a better musician. Nuh-uh!


----------



## Guest

"In an interview"...

I can't find the interview, though I can find articles that reference it, so we only get snippets and any conclusions drawn about him might be deficient. Nevertheless, what comes across is that the man was seriously opinionated and had an utterly incomprehensible philosophy of music about transcending the notes.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/a...-last-and-speaks-his-mind.html?pagewanted=all

I think I can safely say that I'm no more drawn to extended listening of Celibidache's recordings than I am to any other 'controversial' conductor. (If classical music has a positive effect on people, making them lovely, it signally failed with this chap.)


----------



## Becca

Herrenvolk said:


> What is it with Ormandy being rated as mediocre or a conductor who did a little bit of everything but not really good at any? He didn't helm the Philadelphians for 44 years by merely being "mediocre"! He would've been out a long time ago if he didn't have something truly extraordinary about him. His recordings are certainly no lacklustre affair. Perhaps mono recordings are better suited for assessment if his stereo recordings don't have that energetic whiplash that people vie for.


Longevity in a post, particularly in the mid 20th century was no measure of ability, it had just as much to do with orchestral management and fund-raising politics as artistic merit. Another example of questionable longevity would be Ozawa in Boston.


----------



## DavidA

Of course Celi would not like Karajan as it was HvK who beat him to the post of chief conductor of the BPO. His remarks about Karajan are probably fuelled by his jealousy. BPO cellist Peter Steiner said, looking back on the BPO's decision in 1954: "In the end Karajan came out a little bit on top _as a musician_. I think that is why we chose him, much as we admired Celi." So the musicians of the BPO did not agree with Celi. I must confess I could never see what people saw in his [Celi's] conducting with its generally funereal speeds.
And as to his dismissal of others - it has to be an extremely arrogant man who dismisses his fellow conductors in such a fashion - I mean calling Toscanini ignorant. And they say Karajan was arrogant! :lol:


----------



## kanishknishar

Pugg said:


> Celibidache thinks otherwise, that's what this thread is about


:lol:

I made a mistake!



Becca said:


> Longevity in a post, *particularly in the mid 20th century* was no measure of ability, it had just as much to do with orchestral management and fund-raising politics as artistic merit. Another example of questionable longevity would be Ozawa in Boston.


Why? Was there a trend of keeping mediocre conductors on the podium for "world-class" orchestras?



DavidA said:


> Of course Celi would not like Karajan as it was HvK who beat him to the post of chief conductor of the BPO. His remarks about Karajan are probably fuelled by his jealousy. BPO cellist Peter Steiner said, looking back on the BPO's decision in 1954: "In the end Karajan came out a little bit on top _as a musician_. I think that is why we chose him, much as we admired Celi." So the musicians of the BPO did not agree with Celi. I must confess I could never see what people saw in his [Celi's] conducting with its generally funereal speeds.
> And as to his dismissal of others - it has to be an extremely arrogant man who dismisses his fellow conductors in such a fashion - I mean calling Toscanini ignorant. And they say Karajan was arrogant! :lol:


Celi's "funeral" speeds are from his later concerts. His claim to fame are his concerts released on EMI which are of course from the last period of his life. Not always the best judge. You should listen to his Brahms and Bruckner on DG or, better yet listen to his BPO recordings on Audite - 1945-1957.


----------



## jdec

Would someone be so kind to translate this (1.5 minutes)?


----------



## dieter

I find Celibidache fascinating. I have all the EMI Munich recordings, the DG Bruckner and a 10 CD Membram set with recordings from the 40's and 50's. I prefer the later recordings: they're slow but they're monumental. I find his music making much more interesting than Karajan's.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

dieter said:


> I find Celibidache fascinating. I have all the EMI Munich recordings, the DG Bruckner and a 10 CD Membram set with recordings from the 40's and 50's. I prefer the later recordings: they're slow but they're monumental. I find his music making much more interesting than Karajan's.


It's kind of like the Shaggs. They're bad, but they're dead serious - which, as Brahms said of Bruckner, commands respect - and they've somehow managed to be bad in a way that nobody else ever quite thought of.

(Karajan is like Hall & Oates. He's good at what he does, and what he does presumably has its proper place in the world, though it's hard to say what exactly that place is.) (Now I'll contradict myself and say his 1955 recording of The Magic Flute with the Vienna Phil, Irmgard Seefried, Ludwig Weber, Erich Kunz, and other people who don't matter so much is the best evar - of course that was before he invented *The Karajan Sound*.)


----------



## DavidA

Herrenvolk said:


> Celi's "funeral" speeds are from his later concerts. His claim to fame are his concerts released on EMI which are of course from the last period of his life. Not always the best judge. You should listen to his Brahms and Bruckner on DG or, better yet listen to his BPO recordings on Audite - 1945-1957.


I did have a set of Celi's yawn-inducing Brahms symphonies which I got rid of.


----------



## DavidA

dieter said:


> I find Celibidache fascinating. I have all the EMI Munich recordings, the DG Bruckner and a 10 CD Membram set with recordings from the 40's and 50's. I prefer the later recordings: they're slow but they're monumental. I find his music making much more interesting than Karajan's.


I might if I didn't fall asleep listenng yo it! :lol:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

jdec said:


> Would someone be so kind to translate this (1.5 minutes)?


Best I can do:

Interviewer: You are seldom flattering of your conductor colleagues. [For example, you've said:] Toscanini above all but also Furtwängler in fact hardly understood anything about music, Karl Böhm has never conducted a single note of music...

Celi: ...in his life, no. [Oh God I love this guy!]

Interviewer: ...Bernstein could fill a hall, but that had nothing to do with music. How do you stand on Herbert von Karajan?

Celi: Yes.

Interviewer: Is he the summa? [As in Latin "summa." That's my best guess for what the interviewer said there, not really sure.]

Celi: He is the most tragic phenomenon, of all conductors. That young man could have accomplished something. Through his boundless vanity, he became sick, and came to complete misunderstandings of musical relations. He _became_ an unimaginably unmusical person. [You really need the German verb at the END of the sentence for the proper effect here.] With him, not even one beat is correct. The 6th Bruckner... not the 6th Bruckner... I heard the 6th Mahler in Berlin. What can one do with that? - time beating technique-wise, this is a man who understands nothing about it. What is an orchestra? It's not something that can be made to sound through a gesture. [Muttering...]

Interviewer: But the public lies at his feet exactly because of that gesture...

Celi: Of course. If you compare Coca Cola with wine today, Coca Cola wins. That's no criterion. And this is a criterion of that pathetic theater man, Wari or whatever his name is [I don't know who he's talking about], from Vienna, who said a conductor is somebody, a good conductor is somebody who ?relaxes? [can't make out the word, my best guess is "ausruht"] the soul. For God's sake.


----------



## jdec

Celibidache on Karl Bohm: "A sack of potatoes. He never led music in his life."

So who was more egomaniac, Celi or Karajan?  (at least, I have never heard of Karajan making remarks that dismissing or ungracious about his fellow colleagues).


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

I do find Karajan a little superficial sometimes, but his works still make up the majority of my orchestral collection, I think. At the end of the day, the version I often come back to is his, depending on the composer. I also like Celi in some areas as well. Wasn't he also a raging sexist, by the way?


----------



## DavidA

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Best I can do:
> 
> Interviewer: You are seldom flattering of your conductor colleagues. [For example, you've said:] Toscanini above all but also Furtwängler in fact hardly understood anything about music, Karl Böhm has never conducted a single note of music...
> 
> Celi: ...in his life, no. [Oh God I love this guy!]
> 
> Interviewer: ...Bernstein could fill a hall, but that had nothing to do with music. How do you stand on Herbert von Karajan?
> 
> Celi: Yes.
> 
> Interviewer: Is he the summa? [As in Latin "summa." That's my best guess for what the interviewer said there, not really sure.]
> 
> Celi: He is the most tragic phenomenon, of all conductors. That young man could have accomplished something. Through his boundless vanity, he became sick, and came to complete misunderstandings of musical relations. He _became_ an unimaginably unmusical person. [You really need the German verb at the END of the sentence for the proper effect here.] With him, not even one beat is correct. The 6th Bruckner... not the 6th Bruckner... I heard the 6th Mahler in Berlin. What can one do with that? - time beating technique-wise, this is a man who understands nothing about it. What is an orchestra? It's not something that can be made to sound through a gesture. [Muttering...]
> 
> Interviewer: But the public lies at his feet exactly because of that gesture...
> 
> Celi: Of course. If you compare Coca Cola with wine today, Coca Cola wins. That's no criterion. And this is a criterion of that pathetic theater man, Wari or whatever his name is [I don't know who he's talking about], from Vienna, who said a conductor is somebody, a good conductor is somebody who ?relaxes? [can't make out the word, my best guess is "ausruht"] the soul. For God's sake.


I wonder if Celi knew just how ridiculous he sounded? As someone has said, only an egomaniac would talk like this: "I am better than anyone else!" Read "Conversations with Karajan" and you will find HvK has good things to say about colleagues.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> I wonder if Celi knew just how ridiculous he sounded? As someone has said, only an egomaniac would talk like this: "I am better than anyone else!"


Wasn't Celi an enthusiastic student of Zen? "Furthermore, I am _seriously _enlightened, while those others you mention are barely sentient." :lol:


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Wasn't Celi an enthusiastic student of Zen? "Furthermore, I am _seriously _enlightened, while those others you mention are barely sentient." :lol:


Karajan was also a student of Zen, of course. You know I never thought I'd find someone who made HvK appear modest - but Celi does! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

For all Karajan's supposed arrogance he at least had the intelligence to give acknowledge other conductors' genius. When recording Tosca for Decca, John Culshaw relates how HvK played Sabata's recording of a tricky passage for the conductor and said: "No, he's right but I can't do it. That's _his_ secret!"


----------



## jdec

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Best I can do:
> 
> Interviewer: You are seldom flattering of your conductor colleagues. [For example, you've said:] Toscanini above all but also Furtwängler in fact hardly understood anything about music, Karl Böhm has never conducted a single note of music...
> 
> Celi: ...in his life, no. [Oh God I love this guy!]
> 
> Interviewer: ...Bernstein could fill a hall, but that had nothing to do with music. How do you stand on Herbert von Karajan?
> 
> Celi: Yes.
> 
> Interviewer: Is he the summa? [As in Latin "summa." That's my best guess for what the interviewer said there, not really sure.]
> 
> Celi: He is the most tragic phenomenon, of all conductors. That young man could have accomplished something. Through his boundless vanity, he became sick, and came to complete misunderstandings of musical relations. He _became_ an unimaginably unmusical person. [You really need the German verb at the END of the sentence for the proper effect here.] With him, not even one beat is correct. The 6th Bruckner... not the 6th Bruckner... I heard the 6th Mahler in Berlin. What can one do with that? - time beating technique-wise, this is a man who understands nothing about it. What is an orchestra? It's not something that can be made to sound through a gesture. [Muttering...]
> 
> Interviewer: But the public lies at his feet exactly because of that gesture...
> 
> Celi: Of course. If you compare Coca Cola with wine today, Coca Cola wins. That's no criterion. And this is a criterion of that pathetic theater man, Wari or whatever his name is [I don't know who he's talking about], from Vienna, who said a conductor is somebody, a good conductor is somebody who ?relaxes? [can't make out the word, my best guess is "ausruht"] the soul. For God's sake.


Someone else in youtube also translated this which is very much in line with your translation (thanks again):

Interviewer
Celibidache

_0:00 you rarely say anything nice about your fellow conductors: "toscanini and furtwängler hardly knew anything about music, karl böhm never conducted a note music" ...

0:12 never in his life, no

0:14 ... "bernstein fills the hall but that doesn't have anything to do with music". how about karajan?

0:21 the most tragic case of all. this young person had potential, but he succumbed to his limitless vanity and arrived at a total misunderstanding of music. he became an incredibly non-musical person

0:43 he does not play a single bar right. i saw him conduct the mahler 6 in berlin. what to make of it? he doesn't know a thing about beating. what is an orchestra? not something that can be made to play by a mere gesture. 

1:07 but the audience loves him

1:10 of course! nowadays, when you offer people wine or coca cola, people will choose coca cola. a good conductor is one who sells out the house? good heavens!_


----------



## billeames

I have a friend who thinks Celi is the best. But I believe his later EMI recordings are not appropriate tempi for music except Bruckner. I have all of his Munich recordings. Also DG Bruckner. He is best at Bruckner. I prefer his earlier recordings of the popular composers. Karajan is great with many items, especially Mozart and Haydn choral music. Additionally Bruckner and Beethoven in most cases. His slower tempi in later years is, I believe, an attempt for the listener to hear all the music. 

Thanks

Bill


----------



## kanishknishar

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Best I can do:
> 
> Interviewer: You are seldom flattering of your conductor colleagues. [For example, you've said:] Toscanini above all but also Furtwängler in fact hardly understood anything about music, Karl Böhm has never conducted a single note of music...
> 
> Celi: ...in his life, no. [Oh God I love this guy!]
> 
> Interviewer: ...Bernstein could fill a hall, but that had nothing to do with music. How do you stand on Herbert von Karajan?
> 
> Celi: Yes.
> 
> Interviewer: Is he the summa? [As in Latin "summa." That's my best guess for what the interviewer said there, not really sure.]
> 
> Celi: He is the most tragic phenomenon, of all conductors. That young man could have accomplished something. Through his boundless vanity, he became sick, and came to complete misunderstandings of musical relations. He _became_ an unimaginably unmusical person. [You really need the German verb at the END of the sentence for the proper effect here.] With him, not even one beat is correct. The 6th Bruckner... not the 6th Bruckner... I heard the 6th Mahler in Berlin. What can one do with that? - time beating technique-wise, this is a man who understands nothing about it. What is an orchestra? It's not something that can be made to sound through a gesture. [Muttering...]
> 
> Interviewer: But the public lies at his feet exactly because of that gesture...
> 
> Celi: Of course. If you compare Coca Cola with wine today, Coca Cola wins. That's no criterion. And this is a criterion of that pathetic theater man, Wari or whatever his name is [I don't know who he's talking about], from Vienna, who said a conductor is somebody, a good conductor is somebody who ?relaxes? [can't make out the word, my best guess is "ausruht"] the soul. For God's sake.


Your translation appears more accurate. Thank you!


----------



## Pugg

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Best I can do:
> 
> Interviewer: You are seldom flattering of your conductor colleagues. [For example, you've said:] Toscanini above all but also Furtwängler in fact hardly understood anything about music, Karl Böhm has never conducted a single note of music...
> 
> Celi: ...in his life, no. [Oh God I love this guy!]
> 
> Interviewer: ...Bernstein could fill a hall, but that had nothing to do with music. How do you stand on Herbert von Karajan?
> 
> Celi: Yes.
> 
> Interviewer: Is he the summa? [As in Latin "summa." That's my best guess for what the interviewer said there, not really sure.]
> 
> Celi: He is the most tragic phenomenon, of all conductors. That young man could have accomplished something. Through his boundless vanity, he became sick, and came to complete misunderstandings of musical relations. He _became_ an unimaginably unmusical person. [You really need the German verb at the END of the sentence for the proper effect here.] With him, not even one beat is correct. The 6th Bruckner... not the 6th Bruckner... I heard the 6th Mahler in Berlin. What can one do with that? - time beating technique-wise, this is a man who understands nothing about it. What is an orchestra? It's not something that can be made to sound through a gesture. [Muttering...]
> 
> Interviewer: But the public lies at his feet exactly because of that gesture...
> 
> Celi: Of course. If you compare Coca Cola with wine today, Coca Cola wins. That's no criterion. And this is a criterion of that pathetic theater man, Wari or whatever his name is [I don't know who he's talking about], from Vienna, who said a conductor is somebody, a good conductor is somebody who ?relaxes? [can't make out the word, my best guess is "ausruht"] the soul. For God's sake.


That's what one calls a arrogant prick


----------



## realdealblues

I have heard a ton of Celibidache's recordings and concerts and have yet to place any of them towards the top of my list. His peers that were mentioned however I have many recordings that I place at the top of my lists.

He must not have liked the music or Richard Strauss who took no issue with Karl Bohm's conducting, or Jean Sibelius who thought Karajan's was great, or Stravinsky's who reportedly said "Wow" after hearing Bernstein conduct the Rite Of Spring. Oh wait, he recorded works from all three of those composers and yet none of them made comments about him...hmm...maybe he was the one who missed the boat and couldn't conduct as well as he thought he could.

I personally find most of the time he disregarded much of what the composer wrote in favor of his own idea of what would make the work conform to his idea of "zen"...which most often fails with me.


----------



## dieter

realdealblues said:


> I have heard a ton of Celibidache's recordings and concerts and have yet to place any of them towards the top of my list. His peers that were mentioned however I have many recordings that I place at the top of my lists.
> 
> He must not have liked the music or Richard Strauss who took no issue with Karl Bohm's conducting, or Jean Sibelius who thought Karajan's was great, or Stravinsky's who reportedly said "Wow" after hearing Bernstein conduct the Rite Of Spring. Oh wait, he recorded works from all three of those composers and yet none of them made comments about him...hmm...maybe he was the one who missed the boat and couldn't conduct as well as he thought he could.
> 
> I personally find most of the time he disregarded much of what the composer wrote in favor of his own idea of what would make the work conform to his idea of "zen"...which most often fails with me.


Interesting observations, yet...what he did sounds mighty to me.


----------



## realdealblues

dieter said:


> Interesting observations, yet...what he did sounds mighty to me.


Too each his own. Some of his recordings are fine, and I've heard far worse conducting but to say Bernstein had nothing to do with music or that Toscanini knew nothing just proves that he himself had very little understanding of music because even something as trivial as Bernstein's West Side Story will still be connecting with people and playing a hundred years from now when the only people who remember Celibidache are a few random classical music fans who frequently enjoy being bored to death and more often than not won't be hearing what the composer intended us to hear.


----------



## dieter

realdealblues said:


> Too each his own. Some of his recordings are fine, and I've heard far worse conducting but to say Bernstein had nothing to do with music or that Toscanini knew nothing just proves that he himself had very little understanding of music because even something as trivial as Bernstein's West Side Story will still be connecting with people and playing a hundred years from now when the only people who remember Celibidache are a few random classical music fans who frequently enjoy being bored to death and more often than not won't be hearing what the composer intended us to hear.


I admit I share Celi's opinion about Toscanini: I think he was a fraud. I also think most people who rate him are born in the USA. In 100 years Toscanini will be a total nobody. Also am not sure that your opinion of Lenny's music will hold up.
As they say, time will tell. Just remember, Time is written by the victors.


----------



## dieter

Pugg said:


> That's what one calls a arrogant prick


Oh dear, Puggster, I'll pretend I never heard that. Celi called a spade a spade. He went against the commercialized grain. Celi was the opposite of Coca Cola and MacDonald's. Karajan I think represented both. As did Bernstein, as did Toscanini. That's a cultural critique, not a musical one. I love some of Bernstein's work, ditto - after very long deliberation, maybe I'm becoming sentimental in my dotage - Karajan's. Apart from T's Verdi, I think he was a major bullduster. There you go, one man's tofu/meat, one man's rubbish tip/poison.


----------



## Pugg

dieter said:


> Oh dear, Puggster, I'll pretend I never heard that. Celi called a spade a spade. He went against the commercialized grain. Celi was the opposite of Coca Cola and MacDonald's. Karajan I think represented both. As did Bernstein, as did Toscanini. That's a cultural critique, not a musical one. I love some of Bernstein's work, ditto - after very long deliberation, maybe I'm becoming sentimental in my dotage - Karajan's. Apart from T's Verdi, I think he was a major bullduster. There you go, one man's tofu/meat, one man's rubbish tip/poison.


I meant Celi, not you, not my style to attack fellow members:tiphat:


----------



## realdealblues

dieter said:


> I admit I share Celi's opinion about Toscanini: I think he was a fraud. I also think most people who rate him are born in the USA. In 100 years Toscanini will be a total nobody. Also am not sure that your opinion of Lenny's music will hold up.
> As they say, time will tell. Just remember, Time is written by the victors.


Karajan thought Toscanini was the greatest and he wasn't born in the USA. He's still celebrated and considered in the top 10 by most other famous conductors of the past 50 years. If you want to talk shelf life, Celibidache is almost completely forgotten at this point. Whenever I see interviews with other conductors of the past, or even current ones about who has inspired them, or their favorite peers, he's never mentioned.

As far as Bernstein I assure you my opinion of Lenny will hold up. History is not only written by the victors but musical history is written by those who can reach inside of people and strike something special. That's why Mozart and Bach are still listened to today because they can still reach inside and touch people. Lenny was music personified. Remembering seeing his young peoples concerts alone as a child I know they inspired millions of people to even explore classical music. His legacy is cemented. Broadway and musicals aren't going anywhere and neither is Bernstein.

Same with Toscanini and Karajan and Solti. They aren't going anywhere and in most cases even to the part time listener of Classical music they are household names. Celibidache never was (other than perhaps in Munich and parts of Germany), nor will he ever be a household name. We can debate on it day in and day out but he didn't touch listeners in the same way. He most often didn't convey composers work correctly or the emotion there in as compared to many other more popular conductors. Good looks didn't win Furtwangler listeners and make him a household name to classical music listeners, his ability to create drama and tension within music and reach inside of people and make them feel something did. Celibidache was never on that same level.


----------



## dieter

Pugg said:


> I meant Celi, not you, not my style to attack fellow members:tiphat:


Understood. I don't think Celi was 'an arrogant prick', I think he was just frustrated about how Coca Cola always wins in this world..


----------



## dieter

realdealblues said:


> Karajan thought Toscanini was the greatest and he wasn't born in the USA. He's still celebrated and considered in the top 10 by most other famous conductors of the past 50 years. If you want to talk shelf life, Celibidache is almost completely forgotten at this point. Whenever I see interviews with other conductors of the past, or even current ones about who has inspired them, or their favorite peers, he's never mentioned.
> 
> As far as Bernstein I assure you my opinion of Lenny will hold up. History is not only written by the victors but musical history is written by those who can reach inside of people and strike something special. That's why Mozart and Bach are still listened to today because they can still reach inside and touch people. Lenny was music personified. Remembering seeing his young peoples concerts alone as a child I know they inspired millions of people to even explore classical music. His legacy is cemented. Broadway and musicals aren't going anywhere and neither is Bernstein.
> 
> Same with Toscanini and Karajan and Solti. They aren't going anywhere and in most cases even to the part time listener of Classical music they are household names. Celibidache never was (other than perhaps in Munich and parts of Germany), nor will he ever be a household name. We can debate on it day in and day out but he didn't touch listeners in the same way. He most often didn't convey composers work correctly or the emotion there in as compared to many other more popular conductors. Good looks didn't win Furtwangler listeners and make him a household name to classical music listeners, his ability to create drama and tension within music and reach inside of people and make them feel something did. Celibidache was never on that same level.


I think you're confusing talent with popularity. Popularity is always contemporary.Witness Czerny, Salieri, Telemann - the list is endless. Some of Lenny's recordings will stand up - assuming Trump doesn't obliterate our known world - I'm not sure about his music. In the end we're arguing about 'taste', your 'taste' is aligned with Solti, Toscanini, Karajan and Lenny. Mine is aligned with Celi (and Kurt Sanderling and Klemperer). I guess the twain is somewhere out there, maybe in posterity.


----------



## dieter

realdealblues said:


> Karajan thought Toscanini was the greatest and he wasn't born in the USA. He's still celebrated and considered in the top 10 by most other famous conductors of the past 50 years. If you want to talk shelf life, Celibidache is almost completely forgotten at this point. Whenever I see interviews with other conductors of the past, or even current ones about who has inspired them, or their favorite peers, he's never mentioned.
> 
> As far as Bernstein I assure you my opinion of Lenny will hold up. History is not only written by the victors but musical history is written by those who can reach inside of people and strike something special. That's why Mozart and Bach are still listened to today because they can still reach inside and touch people. Lenny was music personified. Remembering seeing his young peoples concerts alone as a child I know they inspired millions of people to even explore classical music. His legacy is cemented. Broadway and musicals aren't going anywhere and neither is Bernstein.
> 
> Same with Toscanini and Karajan and Solti. They aren't going anywhere and in most cases even to the part time listener of Classical music they are household names. Celibidache never was (other than perhaps in Munich and parts of Germany), nor will he ever be a household name. We can debate on it day in and day out but he didn't touch listeners in the same way. He most often didn't convey composers work correctly or the emotion there in as compared to many other more popular conductors. Good looks didn't win Furtwangler listeners and make him a household name to classical music listeners, his ability to create drama and tension within music and reach inside of people and make them feel something did. Celibidache was never on that same level.


And of course Herbie would consider Toscanini as the greatest because T was the antithesis of K's great nemesis, the mighty Bill.
Anyway, please, it's just a polemic exchange, let's not go to war about this.


----------



## realdealblues

dieter said:


> I think you're confusing talent with popularity. Popularity is always contemporary.Witness Czerny, Salieri, Telemann - the list is endless. Some of Lenny's recordings will stand up - assuming Trump doesn't obliterate our known world - I'm not sure about his music. In the end we're arguing about 'taste', your 'taste' is aligned with Solti, Toscanini, Karajan and Lenny. Mine is aligned with Celi (and Kurt Sanderling and Klemperer). I guess the twain is somewhere out there, maybe in posterity.


I'm not trying to start a war either and Klemperer and Sanderling are also two of my favorites. But I feel I'm not confusing talent and popularity. I don't think just because someone is popular they can't be extremely talented. I see too many people that say, well so and so is too mainstream or popular so he's got no talent, which is crap.

To say Lenny or Bohm or Karajan or Solti or Toscanini had no talent and didn't know anything about music or didn't know how to conduct is just ridiculous. To say Bohm never conducted a note in his life when his live Wagner Ring Cycle is still regarded as one of the finest on record is crazy.

You don't get to be the head of the Berlin Philharmonic and hold the position for many, many years because you have "Zero" talent. Every conductor is idiosyncratic and that's fine, but to completely disregard someone's ability to reach people and chalk it up to just because it's an image or it's popularity or whatever is completely naive in my book.

Daniel Barenboim is a very popular pianist; however; I dislike Daniel Barenboim's piano playing tremendously. I can't stand to hear his Beethoven sonatas. They make me cringe! But I would never say he has no talent or feel for music. He's a tremendous player and there is where I agree with you and say it's about taste.


----------



## Guest

realdealblues said:


> Whenever I see interviews with other conductors of the past, or even current ones about who has inspired them, or their favorite peers, he's never mentioned.


Well, almost, but not quite true. In this poll, (discussed in this thread) he gets a mention by Jun Markl and Juanjo Mena.


----------



## realdealblues

MacLeod said:


> Well, almost, but not quite true. In this poll, (discussed in this thread) he gets a mention by Jun Markl and Juanjo Mena.


I remember that thread well. Never saw who voted for whom though.


----------



## DavidA

dieter said:


> I think you're confusing talent with popularity. Popularity is always contemporary.Witness Czerny, Salieri, Telemann - the list is endless. Some of Lenny's recordings will stand up - assuming Trump doesn't obliterate our known world - I'm not sure about his music. *In the end we're arguing about 'taste',* your 'taste' is aligned with Solti, Toscanini, Karajan and Lenny. Mine is aligned with Celi (and Kurt Sanderling and Klemperer). I guess the twain is somewhere out there, maybe in posterity.


The problem is Celi wasn't arguing taste. He was implying how much better he was than other conductors by rubbishing them. I have no problem with people saying they prefer Celi over Karajan - it is a matter of taste. That is as long as I don't have to listen to Celi.


----------



## superhorn

There's a lot of envy mixed in with Celi's catty comments . These are just HIS opinions . I've had a mixed reaction to the recordings I've heard of him. His late performances , particularly of Bruckner are bizarrely slow but not altogether uninteresting . 
But his earlier recordings up through around the 1980s are nowhere near as turtle tempo .
I recently heard his Bruckner 9th from the 80s on DG on youtube, and it was surprisingly flowing and urgent . Last even, also on youtube, I heard his Brahms 1st with the Stuttgart RSO,also on DG , and it was board and majestic but not at all unduly slow .
All the conductors he mentioned are giants of the podium and their reputations can't be permanently harmed by one ornery Romanian dude .


----------



## Guest

realdealblues said:


> I remember that thread well. Never saw who voted for whom though.


I don't think the complete article was published online, and it would take some time to type out the 300 names offered by the 100! As Celi got only two votes, there was no way he was going to figure in the top 20.

(I'm happy to type out a few more particulars in that thread - should anyone want to know how, say, Gergiev or Ashkenazy voted.)


----------



## KenOC

I think you can insult other conductors and still be amusing about it. In a famous two-for-one insult, Beecham referred to Herbert von Karajan as "a kind of musical Malcolm Sargent."


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I think you can insult other conductors and still be amusing about it. In a famous two-for-one insult, Beecham referred to Herbert von Karajan as "a kind of musical Malcolm Sargent."


There was a very dark side to Beecham - probably envy again - as evidenced in his poisonous attacks on Kubelik when the latter was in charge of Covent Garden. His xenophobia is incredible!


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't think we can judge Celi's comments by today's manners and customs. Many conductors back then seemed to be required to be showmen and many put down their competitors in more or less humorous ways. The public found it entertaining. We live in a more "professional" and "serious" world these days. It may even be that the greats actually believed what they were saying - believed in their own myth? - and I guess as creative artists they did have needs to differentiate their vision from others and to believe in it fully. But we still shouldn't judge or understand these put downs by today's lens. Celi was capable of turning in wondrous performances in some works - many of the Munich recordings are miraculous - but he hardly had the range and he certainly couldn't match the achievement of Karajan or Bernstein. And I doubt he really thought that his music making at its best was substantially deeper than theirs was.


----------



## joen_cph

Yes, and the interviewers apparently weren´t ready or qualified to go into an in-depth discussion with Celi about his provocative headline remarks and whether he was actually able to exemplify and detail them further or not.

Once again: note the difference in style and tempi between Celi´s later EMI recordings and the earlier DG/other labels ones; these extreme differences and the change of taste could easily qualify for a lot of satirical/negative remarks on their own, by those inclined to do that.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think we can judge Celi's comments by today's manners and customs. Many conductors back then seemed to be required to be showmen and many put down their competitors in more or less humorous ways. The public found it entertaining. We live in a more "professional" and "serious" world these days. It may even be that the greats actually believed what they were saying - believed in their own myth? - and I guess as creative artists they did have needs to differentiate their vision from others and to believe in it fully. But we still shouldn't judge or understand these put downs by today's lens. Celi was capable of turning in wondrous performances in some works - many of the Munich recordings are miraculous - but he hardly had the range and he certainly couldn't match the achievement of Karajan or Bernstein. And I doubt he really thought that his music making at its best was substantially deeper than theirs was.


The problem is we only have Celi's words. They sounds pretty poisonous to me! There's a bit of a difference between Beecham's back handed compliment that HvK was 'a musical Malcolm Sergeant' and Celi's diatribe against his fellow conductors.


----------



## superhorn

Beecham made enough of his own catty comments about other conductors . He doubted Serge Koussevitzky's ability to read a score . And he was right up to a point . Kouusy could not play the piano ,
making it very difficult for him to read the scores of the many new works he championed in Boston .
He used the legendary chronicler of music history Nicolas Slonimsky, who was an accomplished pianist , to play piano reductions of new works he was planning to premiere for him, and Slonimsky would repeat the music until Koussevitzky was able to become sufficiently familiar with it .
George Szell considered this to be a no no for conductors , and thought every aspiring conductor should be able to play the piano well enough to study scores .


----------



## DavidA

superhorn said:


> Beecham made enough of his own catty comments about other conductors . He doubted Serge Koussevitzky's ability to read a score . And he was right up to a point . _*Kouusy could not play the piano*_ ,
> making it very difficult for him to read the scores of the many new works he championed in Boston .
> He used the legendary chronicler of music history Nicolas Slonimsky, who was an accomplished pianist , to play piano reductions of new works he was planning to premiere for him, and Slonimsky would repeat the music until Koussevitzky was able to become sufficiently familiar with it .
> George Szell considered this to be a no no for conductors , and thought every aspiring conductor should be able to play the piano well enough to study scores .


Mind you, I don't think Beecham could either. I don't thnk he mastered any instrument well. And what about the likes of Colin David (clarinettist) or Harnoncourt (cellist). Could they play the piano?


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> The problem is we only have Celi's words. They sounds pretty poisonous to me! There's a bit of a difference between Beecham's back handed compliment that HvK was 'a musical Malcolm Sergeant' and Celi's diatribe against his fellow conductors.


That is almost true, DavidA, but we do also know that conductors behaved differently in those days so it is a different context. Beecham was often funny. Celi seems not to have had that talent! But I still don't think we should read his comments as we might if they had been made yesterday. Bluster was part of the showman's armory back in Celi's day and he seems to have used a sledgehammer rather than a more refined tool. He was not of this world.


----------



## Bix12

It is my opinion Maestro is justified in his views. Karajan began studies to become a conductor at age 21. Although studying piano for years prior he remained mediocre. He said he suffered from tendonitis...how true that claim was I do not know.

You do realize Karajan was a loyal Nazi, attempting to join the Nazi Party in 1933. He was initially turned down...by _der fuhrer_ himself. He pestered for some years...2 or 3...and then was admitted. So he was quite eager to become a Nazi.

He was also a blowhard and a braggart...and a bully.

Maestro, otoh, was truly attuned to the power and beauty alive within music. Whereas many were lauded as "Genius" by the press and the public, Celibidache actually was a true genius. In University, his major was the mathematics of quantum wave dynamics. He was also a brilliant composer and an absolute joy to watch conduct an orchestra. His musicians worked very hard...harder than most, in fact. He was speaking truth driven by knowledge and not ego in those interviews.


----------



## NLAdriaan

The concept of a conductor is quite overrated in our times. The title 'Maestro' says enough. At best a conductor coordinates musicians who play the notes that were composed by yet another person. Of course, there are differences between one or the other. But there are also differences between two interpretations by the same conductor. And as there are many recordings (listening to which according to Celibidache is like making love to a postcard) of almost each piece of music. There is nothing as personal as the musical taste and preferences of record buyers and reviewers. Some like cola more and others prefer a grand cru. But if you remove or replace the label on a bottle of wine, many associate taste with appearance. This makes this forum a mostly irrelevant place. because what we do mostly over here, is expressing our own personal taste.

May I ask, what is the reason for you to join TC? I notice you just placed your first post:tiphat:


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I can't explain it but many of those who I associate with strong opinions about which conductors are good in what music are often those who also post in other places that there is nothing special about conductors. To me there is not doubt that conductors earn their bread and their reputations. That they can differ on different days and with different orchestras and at different points in their lives doesn't mean that they are not crucial to what we get to hear in a given performance.


----------



## larold

_Was Sergiu Celibidache envious of Herbert von Karajan?_

Wasn't everyone? He was the golden child of Europe in conducting's golden era. He headed Berlin's top symphony, was often at Vienna's top symphony, appeared regularly at La Scala and every other opera house and music festival in Europe, worked with Sony on the laserdisc and other platforms, and is either the leading or second-leading seller of recordings in classical music history depending on your source.


----------



## Merl

larold said:


> _Was Sergiu Celibidache envious of Herbert von Karajan?_
> 
> Wasn't everyone? He was the golden child of Europe in conducting's golden era. He headed Berlin's top symphony, was often at Vienna's top symphony, appeared regularly at La Scala and every other opera house and music festival in Europe, worked with Sony on the laserdisc and other platforms, and is either the leading or second-leading seller of recordings in classical music history depending on your source.


What you also must consider is that Celi was overlooked as Furtwangler's successor (even though he was recommended by Furtwangler - probably to keep his nemesis Karajan out of the job). Tbh, Celi might have got the job if he wasn't so belligerent and belittling towards some BPO members. The nail in his BPO coffin was a blazing row that took place between him and many high-profile members of the orchestra, a few days before the decision was made. I don't think Celi ever forgave Karajan, even though it was nothing to do with him. I've always thought it sad that some conductors never had a good word to say about most of their contemporaries. Furty and Celi were both alike in this respect (which is probably why they got on well). As for Celi as an artist he knocked out some decent (if very slow) recordings of many major works but his Beethoven is unlistenable for me.


----------



## Dimace

Celie is the BEST! No one can come close to him. A 100% podium phenomenon. Karajan is among the 10 best conductors in music history, but no comparison to the Romanian. (this is personal opinion).


----------



## HenryPenfold

Merl said:


> What you also must consider is that Celi was overlooked as Furtwangler's successor (even though he was recommended by Furtwangler - probably to keep his nemesis Karajan out of the job). Tbh, Celi might have got the job if he wasn't so belligerent and belittling towards some BPO members. The nail in his BPO coffin was a blazing row that took place between him and many high-profile members of the orchestra, a few days before the decision was made. I don't think Celi ever forgave Karajan, even though it was nothing to do with him. I've always thought it sad that some conductors never had a good word to say about most of their contemporaries. Furty and Celi were both alike in this respect (which is probably why they got on well). As for Celi as an artist he knocked out some decent (if very slow) recordings of many major works but his Beethoven is unlistenable for me.


Agree with most of this.

I'm a huge Celibidache fan and I have nearly all the available recordings and DVDs. I too find his Beethoven (almost) unlistenable.

Couldn't live without his Bruckner.

Karajan was the greatest of all, though (IMVHpersonalO).


----------



## Rogerx

Bix12 said:


> It is my opinion Maestro is justified in his views. Karajan began studies to become a conductor at age 21. Although studying piano for years prior he remained mediocre. He said he suffered from tendonitis...how true that claim was I do not know.
> 
> You do realize Karajan was a loyal Nazi, attempting to join the Nazi Party in 1933. He was initially turned down...by _der fuhrer_ himself. He pestered for some years...2 or 3...and then was admitted. So he was quite eager to become a Nazi.
> 
> He was also a blowhard and a braggart...and a bully.
> 
> Maestro, otoh, was truly attuned to the power and beauty alive within music. Whereas many were lauded as "Genius" by the press and the public, Celibidache actually was a true genius. In University, his major was the mathematics of quantum wave dynamics. He was also a brilliant composer and an absolute joy to watch conduct an orchestra. His musicians worked very hard...harder than most, in fact. He was speaking truth driven by knowledge and not ego in those interviews.


You said it, after along study I assume. What did the man ever to harm you personally.:devil:


----------



## DavidA

Bix12 said:


> It is my opinion Maestro is justified in his views. Karajan began studies to become a conductor at age 21. Although studying piano for years prior he remained mediocre. He said he suffered from tendonitis...how true that claim was I do not know.
> 
> You do realize Karajan was a loyal Nazi, attempting to join the Nazi Party in 1933. He was initially turned down...by _der fuhrer_ himself. He pestered for some years...2 or 3...and then was admitted. So he was quite eager to become a Nazi.
> 
> He was also a blowhard and a braggart...and a bully.
> 
> Maestro, otoh, was truly attuned to the power and beauty alive within music. Whereas many were lauded as "Genius" by the press and the public, Celibidache actually was a true genius. In University, his major was the mathematics of quantum wave dynamics. He was also a brilliant composer and an absolute joy to watch conduct an orchestra. His musicians worked very hard...harder than most, in fact. He was speaking truth driven by knowledge and not ego in those interviews.


May I say that I think you've been listening to rather too many legends. Karajan was obsessed by being a conductor from the start. I have never heard the claim about tendonitis. To say he was a 'blowhard and a braggart' appears totally incongruous for a man who was an introvert. Yes he was vain, but then conducting is a profession in which modesty is exceedingly rare. A 'bully'? No more than any other conductor I would say though of course he did eventually have far more power than any other. 'Ruthless and unpredictable' are the words Culshaw used for him and they are probably right. He was a highly complex man who could be generous one minute and vindictive the next - like many other conductors.
His Nazi credentials are true but then a whole lot of Germans and Austrians were Nazi party members. So the principal horn in the VPO Falstaff conducted by Bernstein was a very active Nazi member! Let's remember Karajan wasn't the only one. That is not to excuse his actions but not to magnify them either. 
I have never personally found too much 'genius' within Celi's art. Always seems so slow and dull to me.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I can't explain it but many of those who I associate with strong opinions about which conductors are good in what music are often those who also post in other places that there is nothing special about conductors. To me there is not doubt that conductors earn their bread and their reputations. That they can differ on different days and with different orchestras and at different points in their lives doesn't mean that they are not crucial to what we get to hear in a given performance.


Of course, I think that there are differences between concerts, recordings, musicians and listeners. My point is just that in the entire picture, the position of the conductor is often overrated.

Let's imagine there would have been no Karajan (or fill in any other conductor's name). In musical terms, that would be no big problem. There is and would have been plenty of alternative on offer. Let's imagine there would have been no Beethoven or Bach. This would be a serious problem, as there are no alternatives.

The conductor became the brand name of any piece of reproduced classical music. But if you look at his contribution to the entire listening experience, there are only a few conductors that add something to the picture.

Percentagewise, how much would you rate the contribution of a conductor to any performance, if you include the composer, the musicians, perhaps the producer in the case of recordings, the acoustics of the room, your own personal state of mind?


----------



## Enthusiast

NLAdriaan said:


> Percentagewise, how much would you rate the contribution of a conductor to any performance, if you include the composer, the musicians, perhaps the producer in the case of recordings, the acoustics of the room, your own personal state of mind?


Obviously it is hard to apportion blame or praise between a composer and a conductor. But (as I think you know) the work of many conductors is recognisable and many conductors are quite consistent during a given stage in their life and career. Some can "tell us far more" about, say, Beethoven or Mahler than others. And different conductors (and performers in general) can tell us different and perhaps equally rewarding things. I feel that a great orchestra's performance (good or bad) is probably more than 50% the achievement of the conductor. The whole thing is complicated by the importance of chemistry between the two.

If there had been no Karajan then we would never heard what Karajan could do with a Beethoven symphony or a Wagner opera. For some that would be no loss. For others it would seem to leave a big gap.

You have your favourite conductors - and insist upon their work regularly, here - so why are you reluctant to give them credit?


----------



## Enthusiast

HenryPenfold said:


> Agree with most of this.
> 
> I'm a huge Celibidache fan and I have nearly all the available recordings and DVDs. I too find his Beethoven (almost) unlistenable.
> 
> Couldn't live without his Bruckner.
> 
> Karajan was the greatest of all, though (IMVHpersonalO).


Some of Celibidache's Munich Beethoven is actually good and very powerful ... although it can be hard to push out alternative views and give it a chance, and his hit rate (among Munich recordings) was less than 100%, and his rather soft-grained Beethoven sound can take some getting used to.

But when we talk of Celibidache we are often talking of his Munich work. These are the accounts that can often be very slow. But before these he often adopted quite fast speeds. The man's reputation - even in Beethoven! - needs to take in a larger part of his career than the last decade. I do agreed, though, the it is often the Munich recordings that are so wonderful.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Of course, I think that there are differences between concerts, recordings, musicians and listeners. My point is just that in the entire picture, the position of the conductor is often overrated.
> 
> Let's imagine there would have been no Karajan (or fill in any other conductor's name). In musical terms, that would be no big problem. There is and would have been plenty of alternative on offer. Let's imagine there would have been no Beethoven or Bach. This would be a serious problem, as there are no alternatives.
> 
> The conductor became the brand name of any piece of reproduced classical music. But if you look at his contribution to the entire listening experience, *there are only a few conductors that add something to the picture.*
> 
> Percentagewise, how much would you rate the contribution of a conductor to any performance, if you include the composer, the musicians, perhaps the producer in the case of recordings, the acoustics of the room, your own personal state of mind?


I think with respect you are making a false comparison between creator and interpreter. Of course the creator is the person who is of uppermost importance but so is the interpreter. If there was no BPO there would be no-one to play it. The conductor is the one who will fine tune the orchestra into his vision of the work for better or worse. Why there are so many different interpretations of a work to argue over. The conductor does make a decided difference.


----------



## larold

_As for Celi as an artist he knocked out some decent (if very slow) recordings of many major works but his Beethoven is unlistenable for me...Celie is the BEST! No one can come close to him._

I think these opinions capture the listener essence of Celibadache very well: you either liked him or you didn't. I tried him a few times in music I knew and liked; he didn't to it for me. But he was very individual and people that like him do so a lot I'm sure.

I have conductors like that I prefer, Stokowski being one.

I have performed under many directors and with many musicians. There is perhaps more jealousy and envy in the arts than I saw in other avenues of life such as work and sports. This seemed to me especially true for virtuosos, soloists and conductors -- the people that stood out from everyone else.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was professional jealousy about an appointment. I know Lorin Maazel thought he was getting one of the big ones once, perhaps Berlin, and didn't; he didn't react well, the stories went. Maazel had an enormous ego and lived like royalty. I'm sure he didn't deal with rejection well.

I also know Karajan criticized (more like commented on) an unnamed conductor once for a narrow repertoire; everyone said he was talking about Giulini.

When I was a young choral singer I was sometimes angered when others I perceived did not have my voice or range got parts instead of me. I never complained to anyone but it burned inside me. This is the kind of thing that happens at work every day over promotions.


----------



## flamencosketches

larold said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if there was professional jealousy about an appointment. I know Lorin Maazel thought he was getting one of the big ones once, perhaps Berlin, and didn't; he didn't react well, the stories went. Maazel had an enormous ego and lived like royalty. I'm sure he didn't deal with rejection well.


Do you have a source on that story? I'm just getting into Maazel a little bit; after a long time of writing him off as a boring conductor, I'm beginning to realize that his early recordings are quite good. But a story like that obviously does not reflect positively on him.


----------



## Totenfeier

Don't be too quick to stop writing off Maazel as boring. Celi was slow because the was getting off on the vibrations of the harmonic overtones of the spheres, or whatever. Maazel was slow because he was dull and relatively unimaginative for a major conductor, IMO. I found this out because in my early days, many of my Mahler recordings were under his baton, and easy to find. Only after I stepped out a bit did I truly realize what a Mahler performance could be like.


----------



## larold

One of my pals told me the Maazel story. You can find plenty of tales about his lifestyle and mansion.

I agree with your assessment of him as a conductor; he and Mehta both were better when making their names than after they did so, by my reckoning. Last thing of his I liked was the 1979 Don Giovanni he directed for the movie.

In pro sports we call that big contractitis.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> I think with respect you are making a false comparison between creator and interpreter. Of course the creator is the person who is of uppermost importance but so is the interpreter. If there was no BPO there would be no-one to play it. *The conductor is the one who will fine tune the orchestra* into his vision of the work for better or worse. Why there are so many different interpretations of a work to argue over. The conductor does make a decided difference.





> You have your favourite conductors - and insist upon their work regularly, here - so why are you reluctant to give them credit?


I agree that a conductor is of importance to the interpretation of a large orchestral work, of course. And I give them credit as well. I only think that the difference in credit between musicians and conductors is too big. And the number of recordings of the well known symphonic catalogue is overwhelming. It is impossible and also irrelevant to tell which one is 'best'. The added value of the 610th Beethoven symphony recording cannot match a first hearing of any unknown work.

I like anyone who questions the obvious and so I like the 'unfriendly' Celi if he takes Bruckner slow. In fact, when I heard him conduct Bruckner 4 live with the MunichPhil in Amsterdam, just a few years before he passed, I was totally carried away. I even travelled to Munich to hear another Bruckner symphony at the Gasteig, but this time nothing happened. You never know why this is the case, it could be my personal condition that evening, but at least Celi didn't seem to feel well.

In general, it would be nice if conductors would have only conducted and recorded a piece if they feel they really have something to say and if they feel that the connection with the orchestra was working out. This kind of self-assessment would have saved us a huge amount of superfluous recordings. Whatever you can say of them personally, but Celi and Carlos Kleiber were like that.


----------



## Common Listener

NLAdriaan said:


> Of course, I think that there are differences between concerts, recordings, musicians and listeners. My point is just that in the entire picture, the position of the conductor is often overrated.
> 
> Let's imagine there would have been no Karajan (or fill in any other conductor's name). In musical terms, that would be no big problem. There is and would have been plenty of alternative on offer. Let's imagine there would have been no Beethoven or Bach. This would be a serious problem, as there are no alternatives.
> 
> The conductor became the brand name of any piece of reproduced classical music. But if you look at his contribution to the entire listening experience, there are only a few conductors that add something to the picture.
> 
> Percentagewise, how much would you rate the contribution of a conductor to any performance, if you include the composer, the musicians, perhaps the producer in the case of recordings, the acoustics of the room, your own personal state of mind?


I get what you're saying and partially agree with it - people do get overwrought about conductors and it's a good alternate perspective (and, certainly, the actual composer and the listener are the most important ingredients). But if you go back to the link to that Dvorak symphony early in this thread and think how a conductor can destroy a piece of music, it also seems reasonable that he could go almost as far to advance a work. The irony in this thread is that my least favorite interpretation prior to hearing that Dvorak of Celibidache was a Karajan disc of Brahms' Sym. Nos. 2 & 3.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Common Listener said:


> I get what you're saying and partially agree with it - people do get overwrought about conductors and it's a good alternate perspective (and, certainly, the actual composer and the listener are the most important ingredients). But if you go back to the link to that Dvorak symphony early in this thread and think how a conductor can destroy a piece of music, it also seems reasonable that he could go almost as far to advance a work. The irony in this thread is that my least favorite interpretation prior to hearing that Dvorak of Celibidache was a Karajan disc of Brahms' Sym. Nos. 2 & 3.


Just for fun, if you go to Dvorak 9 with Celi on Youtube, put the *speed on 1.5* (this can be done under 'settings'). The interpretation suddenly becomes much better, the Largo is still slow enough, can you imagine:lol:?

When you see Celi conducting at 1.5x, it still looks normal, when you look at the musicians, it looks a bit like a Charlie Chaplin movie.

But I still prefer Kondrashin's Dvorak 9 with the VPO.

PS: I did a similar experiment with Karajan's Brandenburg 3 in this clip:




To me it sounds unbearable at 1.0 but much better at 1.25x (still no match for HIP, though).

BTW, it occurs to me that Karajan conducts from the Harpsichord, but there is a second harpsichord player facing him. We already figured out that Karajan was not much of a piano player and Bach's Brandenburg concertos are not for two harpsichords. So was Karajan playbacking and showing off here? Anyone who knows this?


----------



## flamencosketches

Totenfeier said:


> Don't be too quick to stop writing off Maazel as boring. Celi was slow because the was getting off on the vibrations of the harmonic overtones of the spheres, or whatever. Maazel was slow because he was dull and relatively unimaginative for a major conductor, IMO. I found this out because in my early days, many of my Mahler recordings were under his baton, and easy to find. Only after I stepped out a bit did I truly realize what a Mahler performance could be like.


Noted! I'll continue enjoying my one CD with Mendelssohn's 5th and Franck's Symphony in D minor, and won't be buying anything further, for now. :lol:

@Larold, you mention Mehta. That's another conductor I long ago wrote off as boring, but I have yet to give him the second chance that I've been briefly giving Maazel. Maybe one day I'll check out his famous Mahler 2 with Vienna, but I doubt I'll be exploring his work much further than that.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I agree that a conductor is of importance to the interpretation of a large orchestral work, of course. And I give them credit as well. *I only think that the difference in credit between musicians and conductors is too big.* And the number of recordings of the well known symphonic catalogue is overwhelming. It is impossible and also irrelevant to tell which one is 'best'. The added value of the 610th Beethoven symphony recording cannot match a first hearing of any unknown work.
> 
> I like anyone who questions the obvious and so I like the 'unfriendly' Celi if he takes Bruckner slow. In fact, when I heard him conduct Bruckner 4 live with the MunichPhil in Amsterdam, just a few years before he passed, I was totally carried away. I even travelled to Munich to hear another Bruckner symphony at the Gasteig, but this time nothing happened. You never know why this is the case, it could be my personal condition that evening, but at least Celi didn't seem to feel well.
> 
> In general, it would be nice if conductors would have only conducted and recorded a piece if they feel they really have something to say and if they feel that the connection with the orchestra was working out. This kind of self-assessment would have saved us a huge amount of superfluous recordings. Whatever you can say of them personally, but Celi and Carlos Kleiber were like that.


I think you mean 'creative musicians and interpreters'. Orchestral players and pianists are musicians without necessarily being creative. I think you have it in for conductors because they don't seem to do too much but it's amazing the effect they have if they are any good. Orchestral musicians remark on it.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Totenfeier said:


> Don't be too quick to stop writing off Maazel as boring. Celi was slow because the was getting off on the vibrations of the harmonic overtones of the spheres, or whatever. Maazel was slow because he was dull and relatively unimaginative for a major conductor, IMO. I found this out because in my early days, many of my Mahler recordings were under his baton, and easy to find. Only after I stepped out a bit did I truly realize what a Mahler performance could be like.


I am with you, not one Maazel, Muti or Mehta recording is remarkable, IMhumbleO. You would almost think it is the 'M' that does it? But the M is greatly served with Mahler and Mravinsky. But these 3M's are in my class of conductors that we can do without.


----------



## Heck148

Maazel did not have a very good reputation among orchestra musicians...one of his habits was to take a position, terminate long-time principal players, and replace them with his favorite choices, that may or may not have been highly regarded by the incumbent orchestra musicians... then he would leave the post after a short term...having driven out long-serving well-qualified, leaving his own questionable ones in their place...Maazel did this in Cleveland and Pittsburgh that I know for sure. the union began to demand remedy for this practice (Maazel not the only one) - no firings/replacements during conductor's first contract period, limited number each season, etc...


----------



## Heck148

Mehta can be very good in certain repertoire- he's excellent with Richard Strauss,and his "Le Sacre" readings (LAPO& NYPO) are very good...


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan;1792605
PS: I did a similar experiment with Karajan's Brandenburg 3 in this clip:
[MEDIA=youtube said:


> q6Dm-SD8FE4[/MEDIA]
> To me it sounds unbearable at 1.0 but much better at 1.25x (still no match for HIP, though).
> 
> BTW, it occurs to me that Karajan conducts from the Harpsichord, but there is a second harpsichord player facing him. We already figured out that Karajan was not much of a piano player and Bach's Brandenburg concertos are not for two harpsichords. So was Karajan playbacking and showing off here? Anyone who knows this?


Karajan was actually a very good pianist in his younger days. Of course these videos he made (cutting edge at the time - corny now) were largely put together after the performance. Just how much of a technique Karajan had got left by that stage for the narrower keys of the harpsichord was debatable but of course Karajan being Karajan he wanted to be the centre of attention. There is an interesting tale when a bunch of 'experts' were doing a 'blind' listening to the Brandenburgs and to their embarrassment the version they chose happened to be Karajan's! Karajan gets a lot of stick for his vanity but he was in reality no more vain than a lot of other conductors who liked to be noticed. What really annoyed people was he was so good at it! :lol:
There is a rather nice story from the 1952 Bayreuth Festival where Knappersbusch was rehearsing the Ring and Karajan accompanying on the piano. At the end Kna said to Karajan, "If you want a recommendation as an accompanist, I'll give you one!"


----------



## flamencosketches

Heck148 said:


> Maazel did not have a very good reputation among orchestra musicians...one of his habits was to take a position, terminate long-time principal players, and replace them with his favorite choices, that may or may not have been highly regarded by the incumbent orchestra musicians... then he would leave the post after a short term...having driven out long-serving well-qualified, leaving his own questionable ones in their place...Maazel did this in Cleveland and Pittsburgh that I know for sure. the union began to demand remedy for this practice (Maazel not the only one) - no firings/replacements during conductor's first contract period, limited number each season, etc...


This doesn't happen much anymore, does it? I was under the impression that conductors these days were powerless to fire musicians unilaterally, principals much less.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> Karajan was actually a very good pianist in his younger days. Of course these videos he made (cutting edge at the time - corny now) were largely put together after the performance. Just how much of a technique Karajan had got left by that stage for the narrower keys of the harpsichord was debatable but of course Karajan being Karajan he wanted to be the centre of attention. There is an interesting tale when a bunch of 'experts' were doing a 'blind' listening to the Brandenburgs and to their embarrassment the version they chose happened to be Karajan's! Karajan gets a lot of stick for his vanity but he was in reality no more vain than a lot of other conductors who liked to be noticed. What really annoyed people was he was so good at it! :lol:
> There is a rather nice story from the 1952 Bayreuth Festival where Knappersbusch was rehearsing the Ring and Karajan accompanying on the piano. At the end Kna said to Karajan, "If you want a recommendation as an accompanist, I'll give you one!"


Yeah, the difference between Karajan's vanity and any other big name conductor's vanity is that Karajan sold 200 million records.


----------



## Heliogabo

NLAdriaan said:


> Just for fun, if you go to Dvorak 9 with Celi on Youtube, put the *speed on 1.5* (this can be done under 'settings'). The interpretation suddenly becomes much better, the Largo is still slow enough, can you imagine:lol:?
> 
> When you see Celi conducting at 1.5x, it still looks normal, when you look at the musicians, it looks a bit like a Charlie Chaplin movie.
> 
> But I still prefer Kondrashin's Dvorak 9 with the VPO.
> 
> PS: I did a similar experiment with Karajan's Brandenburg 3 in this clip:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me it sounds unbearable at 1.0 but much better at 1.25x (still no match for HIP, though).
> 
> BTW, it occurs to me that Karajan conducts from the Harpsichord, but there is a second harpsichord player facing him. We already figured out that Karajan was not much of a piano player and Bach's Brandenburg concertos are not for two harpsichords. So was Karajan playbacking and showing off here? Anyone who knows this?


Karajan played harpsichord on his Handel's concerti grossi op. 6 as well.
Karajan's old fashioned readings of baroque pieces are very enjoyable to me.


----------



## DavidA

Heliogabo said:


> Karajan played harpsichord on his Handel's concerti grossi op. 6 as well.
> Karajan's old fashioned readings of baroque pieces are very enjoyable to me.


The point is do we enjoy them? Music is to be enjoyed!


----------



## BachIsBest

NLAdriaan said:


> BTW, it occurs to me that Karajan conducts from the Harpsichord, but there is a second harpsichord player facing him. We already figured out that Karajan was not much of a piano player and Bach's Brandenburg concertos are not for two harpsichords. So was Karajan playbacking and showing off here? Anyone who knows this?


I don't think so. Karl Richter also plays no. 3 with two harpsichords and Richter's ability as a harpsichordist is certainly not in question.


----------



## Heck148

flamencosketches said:


> This doesn't happen much anymore, does it? I was under the impression that conductors these days were powerless to fire musicians unilaterally, principals much less.


It can and does happen, but it must be done by contract procedure...the conductor can usually get his way, tho it may take some time....more common is to "buy out" the targeted musician's contract...pay him/her as prescribed by contract, but don't have them play...iow - pay them to not show up...contract is not renewed....it still gets pretty testy, as you might imagine...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Wow, I made a comparison between Karajan and McDonalds and got lambasted on this site for having such audacity. I had no idea Celi once made a similar comparison between Karajan and Coke. Great minds think alike.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

The comparison is just as specious. Congratulations. 

Outback Steakhouse, perhaps. Five Guys is defensible. McDonald's is risible.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, I made a comparison between Karajan and McDonalds and got lambasted on this site for having such audacity. I had no idea Celi once made a similar comparison between Karajan and Coke. Great minds think alike.


Yes as schoolboys we used to have another repost to that quote in that 'fools never differ'. Celi said some pretty stupid things about his fellow musicians which were obviously a result of his own arrogance or maybe insecurity. For example that Toscanini was 'a poor musician' and that Bernstein 'doesn't belong in my world'. Derogatory comments were also made about Ormandy, Mehta and Muti. Of Solti he said, 'A fantastic pianist, a musical man, but not a conductor,' which was completely wacky as Solti was not (certainly by then) 'a fantastic pianist'. The only conductors he ever praised were those who were dead and no threat to him. Which gives you the whole impression that the man was seething with anger at those conductors who he thought had got better breaks than him and music had little to do with it. He just wanted to put other people down. Sounds a most unpleasant man. No wonder his temperament cost him the leadership of the Berlin Philharmonic


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> The point is do we enjoy them? Music is to be enjoyed!


:clap: Absolutely! the only relevant factor!

And wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to be able to listen to any given work without knowing who is playing/conducting (blind)? I wonder (a bit fearful) how much of my favorites would be replaced by others.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> :clap: Absolutely! the only relevant factor!
> 
> And wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to be able to listen to any given work without knowing who is playing/conducting (blind)? I wonder (a bit fearful) how much of my favorites would be replaced by others.


Yes. Of course there was notorious case of Joyce Hatto where certain noted critics were bowled over by 'her' recordings only to find they were actually they were recordings they had once been very sniffy about when they heard them originally. Red faces all round! I think the critics just hoped it would go away which it eventually did. But it did make complete fools of the 'experts'


----------



## MatthewWeflen

NLAdriaan said:


> :clap: Absolutely! the only relevant factor!
> 
> And wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to be able to listen to any given work without knowing who is playing/conducting (blind)? I wonder (a bit fearful) how much of my favorites would be replaced by others.


I just posted a blind comparison of the Overture to Tannhäuser, if you're interested 

Blind Comparison: Tannhäuser Overture


----------



## NLAdriaan

MatthewWeflen said:


> I just posted a blind comparison of the Overture to Tannhäuser, if you're interested
> 
> Blind Comparison: Tannhäuser Overture


Interesting, I just did the listening, am curious to find out who I preferred and who I rejected, when the names are revealed.


----------



## Bernamej

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Not necessarily. Imagine if Hitler had stuck to painting.


Euh, he actually was a good painter.


----------



## superhorn

Celibidache. was merely guilty of sour grapes . He desperately wanted to become chief conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, but the job went to Karajan . Celi was filed with envy .


----------



## EvaBaron

Bernamej said:


> Euh, he actually was a good painter.


No he really wasn’t that good. It might look nice but a lot of perspective isn’t realistic and there is an infamous window mistake where he completely messed it up. I hate that he didn’t get accepted because obviously ww2 but he didn’t deserve it


----------



## Bernamej

EvaBaron said:


> No he really wasn’t that good. It might look nice but a lot of perspective isn’t realistic and there is an infamous window mistake where he completely messed it up. I hate that he didn’t get accepted because obviously ww2 but he didn’t deserve it


Well to each his own but I’d take Hitler’s worse paintings over all Kandinsky or Picasso any day.
A bit ironic that we‘re discussing this today, of all days.


----------



## marlow

Years ago I bought some recordings of Brahms symphonies by Celi and wondered why I found Them so boring - he was insufferably slow. I got rid of them and later bought Karajan’s set and found out what they should sound like. Celi was a boring conductor and people who live in glass houses….


----------



## Ludwig Schon

No one does Bruckner’s 4th & 5th like Ol’ Celi… 

Yah, jus gotta get on his wavelength, man!


----------



## Enthusiast

The comparison with Karajan is a dead end, I feel. They were both very great conductors. I honestly don't think those who go on about his speed have spent much time listening to his work. Speed on its own is not so important but it can jar when it is very different to what we are used to. Celibidache's touch was actually very light and his music making was filled with life. He builds crescendos like no one else and many of his accounts arrive at moments of unrivalled power. Oh yes, and he was also often slow which can take a little getting used to.


----------



## premont

DavidA said:


> Yes. Of course there was notorious case of Joyce Hatto where certain noted critics were bowled over by 'her' recordings only to find they were actually they were recordings they had once been very sniffy about when they heard them originally. Red faces all round! I think the critics just hoped it would go away which it eventually did. But it did make complete fools of the 'experts'


It just reflects the fact that you have to listen many (at least 5?) times to a recording in order to form a clear opinion about it. All too often, one's impression of a recording depends on one's immediate ability to concentrate on the interpretation or on one's random mood. At least that's what I often experience. The first time I hear a recording I sometimes find it unconvincing and the next time I hear it I may find it very convincing! I'm probably not the only one who have experienced such things.


----------



## Subutai

Mehta showed immense promise as a younger conductor, recording with fine orchestras around the world. Some of his stuff with the Vienna Phil is sublime. Sadly he drifted into Israel on his way to India where he seems to have been made conductor for eternity. Either that or he's not allowed out of the country being mistaken for a Palestinian by the authorities. Either way it's a shame as he's now seems forever stuck with a 2nd rate orchestra - for eternity.


----------



## superhorn

Subutai said:


> Mehta showed immense promise as a younger conductor, recording with fine orchestras around the world. Some of his stuff with the Vienna Phil is sublime. Sadly he drifted into Israel on his way to India where he seems to have been made conductor for eternity. Either that or he's not allowed out of the country being mistaken for a Palestinian by the authorities. Either way it's a shame as he's now seems forever stuck with a 2nd rate orchestra - for eternity.





Subutai said:


> Mehta showed immense promise as a younger conductor, recording with fine orchestras around the world. Some of his stuff with the Vienna Phil is sublime. Sadly he drifted into Israel on his way to India where he seems to have been made conductor for eternity. Either that or he's not allowed out of the country being mistaken for a Palestinian by the authorities. Either way it's a shame as he's now seems forever stuck with a 2nd rate orchestra - for eternity.





Subutai said:


> Mehta showed immense promise as a younger conductor, recording with fine orchestras around the world. Some of his stuff with the Vienna Phil is sublime. Sadly he drifted into Israel on his way to India where he seems to have been made conductor for eternity. Either that or he's not allowed out of the country being mistaken for a Palestinian by the authorities. Either way it's a shame as he's now seems forever stuck with a 2nd rate orchestra - for eternity.





Subutai said:


> Mehta showed immense promise as a younger conductor, recording with fine orchestras around the world. Some of his stuff with the Vienna Phil is sublime. Sadly he drifted into Israel on his way to India where he seems to have been made conductor for eternity. Either that or he's not allowed out of the country being mistaken for a Palestinian by the authorities. Either way it's a shame as he's now seems forever stuck with a 2nd rate orchestra - for eternity.


. Mehta recently retired as music director for life of the Israel Philharmonic, which is NOT a "second rate orchestra " at all , and has been succeeded by a much younger Israeli conductor named Lahav Shani whose work I have yet to hear . He's about to turn 86 and is not in the best health . And I've always considered him to be the most underrated conductor of the present day , who somehow got a bum rap as a shallow glamor boy of the podium even though he's always been a serious and dedicated musician . 
He's also faced bogus accusations of neglecting contemporary music for ages even though he's ironically done a lot more new or recent music than many other renowned conductors of our time .


----------

