# What am I missing in Klemperer



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

So over the past few months I've found my tastes gradually moving ever older - in beethoven, for example, from modern recordings like Abbado's Rome cycle to 'classics' of the 60s and 70s like Karajan, Carlos Kleiber and Karl Böhm, and nowadays I find my favourite recordings are principally those Toscanini made in the 1930s and Furtwangler in the war. This is a trend that generally applies for most symphonic music, yet for some reason I can't just get what people see in Klemperer. His beethoven? It strikes me as stodgy in his later recordings, and surprisingly ordinary and unremarkable in the earlier ones (indistinguishable from a run-of-the-mill cycle like those from Böhm and Schmidt-isserstedt for example). His widely-praised Brahms I found enjoyable but again nothing special, and even though they were recorded in 1956 before he really started to 'go slow' I found myself getting rather irritated at his habit of slowing down in certain passages and just completely losing the energy and flow of the piece. As another example, when I was comparing three Oistrakh Brahms concerto recordings (Konwitschny, Klemperer, Szell), I found that the former and the latter were both distinctive in their own way, yet Klemperer's accompaniment seemed to be, if anything, merely constrictive yet ordinary. Yet people as diverse as the Anglophile critics on Gramophone and the decidedly un-anglophilic David Hurwitz have widely acclaimed Klemperer's recordings. So what am I missing? I'd love to hear all opinions!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'll start this off (and no doubt stand on a few toes). I'm on the fence with Klemperer. I like his Brahms some of his Mahler (but not that dirge of a 7th), some Bruckner and bits and bobs of other stuff. I agree, RC, that he did have an annoying knack of sometimes sucking the life out of a piece which is especially true of some of his glacial Beethoven, which I returned to recently and actually found hard to stomach. I really struggled listening to his 'acclaimed' Eroica again even though its supposed to be the go-to Eroica for many and don't get me started on the clunky 7ths he's recorded throughout his career. It's not just the pace of his later recordings its a lack of forward momentum that I find difficult. Yet when he was good I liked his big-band approach and he even managed a couple of decent Schuman symphony recordings. A mixed bag for me. I know Granate and others here feel very differently but don't feel pressured to like these 'acclaimed' performances of older conductors. If they ain't your bag they then that's fine.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

You're not alone. People describe his recordings as solid, magnificent, granitic, authoritative. I've owned and heard a lot of his recordings throughout his career and I've never been convinced. His Mahler 2nd is supposed to be a genuine classic. Well, the false entry of a solo bass at the beginning instantly ruled that out for me. The Mahler 7th is dreadfully dull. DLVDE is ok, but there are many others that are better, IMO.

If big band, heavy Brahms is your thing, then his Brahms set will please you. Not for me, though. I'll take Walter, Karajan, Boult or several others of his generation over Klemperer. Same with Beethoven.

But his Bruckner 6th is surprisingly great - one of the best, with the 4th not far behind. And his Tchaikovsky 5th is a sleeper - it's really good and when I first heard it I thought someone was kidding me saying it was Otto. 

To each his own. Of the conductors of his era, I collect Monteux, Munch, and Walter - and no doubt there are people who they're grossly overrated.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Certainly you shouldn’t feel obliged to enjoy any performer if you’ve given it a fair shot and still aren’t connecting, but I can share my personal perspective on this great maestro, one of the consistently illuminating conductors on record for me. Of course most people know him due to his reputation for slow tempi based off the wealth of stereo recordings he gave us. But for me, tempo is a small part of the equation and when people focus too much on it they miss the depth of music-making going on underneath the surface. His Mass in B Minor is one of my favorite recordings of anything and the recording that kicked off my passion for comparing performances. I heard power, nobility, and overwhelming fervor in a work that I previously had thought of as somewhat dry. I didn’t necessarily care about the slower tempi but about the weight and meaning put into every phrase. 

Klemperer cultivated the Philharmonia into one of the greatest orchestras in the world. Yes, they had a consistently outstanding quality of playing, but some other unique traits I always hear in Klemperer’s recordings are discipline, clarity, and commitment to an overall vision. You don’t get the incandescent spontaneity of Furtwängler - no one has ever been able to match what he did - but he is still very much in the “old-school Teutonic” mode where it sounds like the fear of God is in everything the orchestra plays. His goal was to reveal every strand of detail in the score while constantly pressing forward without sentimentality, and encouraging his players to listen to their fellow musicians and adjust their performance to fit the big picture. This can be heard, IMO to most overwhelming effect in his Mahler recordings, which bring the richness of the scores to life in a big way (though I’m not as big on his 2nd as most). His approach to the music exuded respect, dignity, care, and yes, great passion and intensity when called for. His Beethoven and Brahms is notable for its rock-steady stoicism that results in a cumulative effect of great power and poignancy. But if those aren’t clicking with you, try his Mozart recordings, which break the Klemperer stereotype with their litheness, grace, and transparent textures, almost like a quasi-HIP chamber orchestra approach. Sure, there are times especially in the latest recordings where you can tell the musicians sometimes weren’t on board with his very patient visions - the plod-fest St. Matthew Passion and the dire Bruckner 8 (where he decided to make cuts in the finale rather than change his tempo to something more reasonable) are two examples of where his unswerving dedication to a single tempo don’t come off very convincingly IMO. But I would recommend listening with the above qualities in mind and see if you can understand his art.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> His Mahler 2nd is supposed to be a genuine classic. Well, the false entry of a solo bass at the beginning instantly ruled that out for me.


Genuinely curious (please don't take this as rude or judgmental): is an instance like that - a single missed note - really enough to rule out your enjoyment of a recording, especially an 80-minute symphony? I also find that recording to be somewhat overrated because I think its sense of constantly pressing forward with little sense of dramatic struggle glosses over much of the musical meaning of the symphony, plus the sound quality is not as great as his other Philharmonia recordings.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Well... his reputation preceded the HIP movement... being agile and transparent was secondary to massive and solid... his Wagner Preludes was one of my first classical LPs and while the Valkyries seemed a bit slow and fat it was the Tannhauser that proved to be the bomb...

I remember comparing Beethoven by Harnoncourt and Klemperer and favoring Otto's massive granite over the "flimsy" newcomer... but Otto's 6th is a disappoinment... I think my fave would be his 8th, where is remarkably peppy in the intro... good thing nowadays we have other options...

His Das Lied is not my favorite either, for all its legendary status. TOO heavy for me. But I like his Mahler 4 and even the 7, to the extent that I like Mahler.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I love Klemperer, or at least a lot of his stuff. For me, all of his versions of Mahler's symphonies, especially the 7th is at the top. His Beethoven's 4th was also great, as is his Mozart's Eine Kliene Nachtmusik and some others off-hand, oh yeah and his Bach's St. Matthew Passion. Only his Beethoven's 5th kind of stood out as sucking to me. He's generally slower than other conductors, but to me is never boring and his way with music makes a lot of sense, and can bring out the grandeur of the music. He doesn't go for what I consider corny or cheap effects as I feel Bernstein often does (who is comparable in being slower than others in general).

Oh yeah, I find his Brahms great too, especially the 1st and 4th. I always hated the spasmic gestures in those symphonies that many conductors do, such as Klieber.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

My tastes are similar to yours, and so maybe I can explain the appeal of Klemperer. He can certainly sound very pedestrian. It's not so much the lack of momentum as it is the lack of dynamism and elasticity. Furtwangler, for example, speeds up and slows down. He rides the current of the drama. For example, he begins very slowly in the first movements of the Beethoven 5th and 9th and the Brahms 4th. He is setting the stage for the drama to begin, and speeds up as he progresses. Whereas Klemperer almost forces the music to stay on an even keel throughout, which can drive people crazy. It almost feels like trudging forward at an even pace through thick mud.

And yet, this intransigent relentlessness is exactly what gives Klemperer his power. It is a feeling of absolute security and an absence of angst, making the music feel as if it is molded in granite. Not by hitting you over the head but by remaining absolutely disciplined forward, yet never in a way that sounds unnatural. At his best, Klemperer is hypnotic.

My favorite examples of Klemperer's art are his stereo Eroica, Mahler 7, Strauss Metamorphosen and Bach Mass in B minor. In all these cases the music has a feeling of inevitability where I find myself simply marveling as its beauty and eloquence. This is Klemperer being his most Klempererest, and I love it.

At the same time, I struggle with his St Matthew Passion, where I need more overt drama. And his Brahms in particular is not flexible enough. In the Requiem for which he's famous, I actually even prefer Gardiner.

Incidentally, I started out not liking the Oistrakh/Klemp Brahms Violin concerto, but it has grown on me. The warmth and stability Klemp provides works well against Oistrakh's heart and virtuosity. But if you really want to hear some great Oistrakh in this work, might I suggest a live recording such as the Nussio.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Genuinely curious (please don't take this as rude or judgmental): is an instance like that - a single missed note - really enough to rule out your enjoyment of a recording, especially an 80-minute symphony? I also find that recording to be somewhat overrated because I think its sense of constantly pressing forward with little sense of dramatic struggle glosses over much of the musical meaning of the symphony, plus the sound quality is not as great as his other Philharmonia recordings.


I know, I know. Here's the deal: on LP it never would be heard - buried in surface noise. But on CD it was a clear as day. Since it occurs in the first 10 seconds, why didn't he - or the producer - stop and try again? The problem is that since I know it's there, every time I listened I focused on that goof. I guess I'm just **** about errors on recordings. The sound isn't all that great, either. I find his ancient M2 on Vox actually more fun.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

A problem with Klemperer is that by the time he came to record in decent sound he was past his best. He had suffered from serious illness and he hadn’t got the energy that he did in his younger days. His tempi were too slow. So his much praised Beethoven third is much too slow in the first moment, even though the funeral Martin is very effective. His fifth symphony is hopeless. And when it comes to a work like the St Matthew Passion time stand still and the soloist can hardly get a breath! 
But then you find his Mahler 2 and DLVDE are marvellous and the Magic Flute is magical even if it is far too slow. But the big disappointment for me has always been the Fidelio which strikes me as bloodless and much over praised. A pity we didn’t have him in decent recordings when he was much younger


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And yet, this intransigent relentlessness is exactly what gives Klemperer his power. It is a feeling absolute security and an absence of angst, making the music feel as if it is molded in granite. Not by hitting you over the head but by remaining absolutely disciplined forward, yet never in a way that sounds unnatural. At his best, Klemperer is hypnotic.


For once I agree completely.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Incidentally, I started out not liking the Oistrakh/Klemp Brahms Violin concerto, but it has grown on me. The warmth and stability Klemp provides works well against Oistrakh's heart and virtuosity. But if you really want to hear some great Oistrakh in this work, might I suggest a live recording such as the Nussio.


I once saw/heard him play it live - great experience.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Klemperer is anything but pedestrian. His approach was very radical, it's not just the uncompromising slow tempo, but his way of "decolorizing" the orchestra sound (the opposite of French conductors) and minimizing gradations. This made all the "musical lines" have ultra clear definition and the so-call "granite" quality, free of any simple effects and tricks, free of any thrill-seeking and cheap spectacles.

He was the greatest "structuralist" conductor in my opinion. He clarifies both horizontally and vertically musical structure like no one else. He gives you a pair of "X-ray googles" to see the internal layout of the work like you have never "seen" before. His deep understanding of Bach and polyphonic structure really helped in this respect. But instead of the feathery transparency in Mendelssohn's style or an analytical sound, he managed to pull off a big heavy german sound, which always leaves you with an unified impression. If anything in Klemperer's recording is "revealed" to you, you are 100% sure that it's an authentic musical insight.

I have acquired these very limited SACD releases of Klemperer's Mahler and Bruckner cycles meticulously remastered by Tower record in Japan and they are among the most astonishing recordings I have (on a SACD player), both artistically and sonically (yes you can hear chair squeaking and page turning).


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Excellent posts in this thread. I have loved Klemperer since my first encounter with his conducting (his Brahms, which incidentally are the recordings which finally broke me through with Brahms's music-now one of my favorite composers, but before I heard Klemperer's recordings I just didn't get Brahms), but I often struggle to put into words what it is about his music-making that really does it for me. I think UniversalTuringMachine's insight about Klemperer as a "structuralist" conductor really hits the nail on the head.

I think Klemperer's reputation as being always a slow conductor is greatly exaggerated. There are certain works in which his recordings are significantly faster than the competition, Mahler 2nd for instance. But that "carved in stone" quality is still there. Ultimately I think Klemperer was a classicist, and a conductor who understood large-scale form much better than most. There is very little of the "Romantic spirit" in his recordings even of Romantic repertoire.

For all that, there are some acclaimed Klemperer recordings that I don't like: his Mahler 9th for example (for me, the inner movements are just _too_ slow). But he remains one of my favorite conductors.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

flamencosketches said:


> Ultimately I think Klemperer was a classicist, and a conductor who understood large-scale form much better than most. There is very little of the "Romantic spirit" in his recordings even of Romantic repertoire.


He said so himself in the documentary when asked about his approach compared to Bruno Walter. "I am not romantic at all." Listen to his Dvorak 9th. It's so different from many of the other heart on sleeve performances.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I also find his comment about his style compared with Walter pretty telling: “He is a moralist, I am an immoralist.” Meaning that Walter was more sympathetic to the “spiritual” side of the music - his late recordings had gorgeous warmth and humanity and his earlier ones are very metaphysical in their searing intensity. But Klemperer didn’t think of anything like that. He was a purebred classicist who wanted to just present the music and lay it out in all its nuances in front of the listener. Compare their Mozart recordings. Walter’s phrasing is absolutely exquisite and the music radiates a glowing sheen of enthusiasm, like he was seeking after Mozart’s youthful spirit and wanted his audience to experience that. But Klemperer’s comparative sobriety works its magic as well - it comes across more as “pure music” and it seems like he just wanted his audience to hear the music in all its detail and structure. Both approaches equally valid and very interesting, though certainly not appropriate for all repertoire (give me Klemperer’s rough-hewn, epic Beethoven over Walter’s lightweight traversals, except in his lovely 6th).


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

DavidA said:


> A problem with Klemperer is that by the time he came to record in decent sound he was past his best.


I've never encountered any pre-late analog orchestral conducting so superior to the modern alternatives to justify the inferior sound.

There's a _lot_ of competition. You know?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

ribonucleic said:


> I've never encountered any pre-late analog orchestral conducting so superior to the modern alternatives to justify the inferior sound.
> 
> There's a _lot_ of competition. You know?


A lot of BAD competition. I'm not sure a single conductor alive in the past 30 years breaks into the Top 30 conductors on record. Carlos Kleiber does, but he basically stopped recording.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I like Klemperer's Missa Solemnis (Beethoven). Out of the three I've heard, his is the best IMO.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ORigel said:


> I like Klemperer's Missa Solemnis (Beethoven). Out of the three I've heard, his is the best IMO.


No spoilt by lumbering fugues and poor soloists


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

DavidA said:


> No spoilt by lumbering fugues and poor soloists


The Messiah is spoilt by poor soloists.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A lot of BAD competition. I'm not sure a single conductor alive in the past 30 years breaks into the Top 30 conductors on record. Carlos Kleiber does, but he basically stopped recording.


John Elliot Gardiner is a great conductor.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I am listening to Klemperer's Brahms symphony cycle. I love the heavy sound.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

ORigel said:


> I am listening to Klemperer's Brahms symphony cycle. I love the heavy sound.





mbhaub said:


> If big band, heavy Brahms is your thing, then his Brahms set will please you. Not for me, though. I'll take Walter, Karajan, Boult or several others of his generation over Klemperer. Same with Beethoven.


Honestly, for big band Brahms, I'd much rather plump for a set by an echt-German orchestra, because the orchestral sound just seems more 'right' in a way. I'm thinking Sanderling in Dresden, Abbado in Berlin or Kleiber in Vienna.



Phil loves classical said:


> Oh yeah, I find his Brahms great too, especially the 1st and 4th. I always hated the spasmic gestures in those symphonies that many conductors do, such as Klieber.


By spasmic gestures, I presume you mean using accelerandi/deccelerandi? But I never found Kleiber to be anything like as intrusive as Furtwangler in the Brahms symphonies. Just very taut and exciting. But I guess I get your point about the stoicism; it achieves a certain cumulative power in its own way. Still though his Brahms cycle gets universal praise for being 'granitic' and 'architectural' and I'm just a little skeptical of such a vague characterisation. To each their own, though!


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> DLVDE is ok, but there are many others that are better, IMO.


Well, I don't particularly appreciate the conducting, especially the dragging in the 3rd and 5th movements. But surely you have to concede Wunderlich is one of the best tenors to ever touch the work - Ludwig I'm not so sure, because she does have a habit of shouting rather than singing in the crazed middle bits of the 4th movement; I think Ferrier and Baker (oh dear, I'm sounding like an anglophile Gramophone reviewer) are still the greatest in the work.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

ribonucleic said:


> I've never encountered any pre-late analog orchestral conducting so superior to the modern alternatives to justify the inferior sound.
> 
> There's a _lot_ of competition. You know?


Furtwangler and Mengelberg, certainly, are conductors of a breed whom you just don't hear today. Toscanini and Erich Kleiber, in their own ways, have inimitable Beethoven records. And those are just the common consensus ones! I'm sure lots of people have their own niche interests - Monteux, Beecham, Reiner, even Oskar Fried all have followings, I'm sure.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A lot of BAD competition. I'm not sure a single conductor alive in the past 30 years breaks into the Top 30 conductors on record. Carlos Kleiber does, but he basically stopped recording.


I used to think this was one of those opinions that people held because reviewers were old and nostalgic - kind of in the same way how films from the 1940s to 1970s generally still garner the highest rankings on all-time lists. But somehow, I've found myself gravitating to older conductors too! Among modern conductors, I do think that in his last decade in Lucerne, and fitfully in Berlin, Claudio Abbado did achieve greatness. Carlos Kleiber, certainly. Nowadays people acclaim Chailly, though I sometimes bore of his readings, which seem to merely be speeding through whatever score in front of him. Rattle, also, placed very high on a BBC survey - but Rattle does absolutely nothing for me. I've also never really warmed to HIP, so that doesn't qualify (eg I'd never replace my Toscanini/E. Kleiber Beethoven with anything by Gardiner or Harnoncourt). Also, a connoisseur choice nowadays is Ivan Fischer in Budapest - but he strikes me as incredibly fussy, so I don't think he's that great either. Have you heard Carlos Kleiber's Brahms 2nd? Not on LP/CD, but you can find a 1991 video as well as a 1988 radio broadcast (absolute gem) on Youtube!


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Genuinely curious (please don't take this as rude or judgmental): is an instance like that - a single missed note - really enough to rule out your enjoyment of a recording, especially an 80-minute symphony?


Question not directed at me, but I'll answer anyway because I think I'm quite extreme on this - definitely! Perhaps not so much in orchestral music, because it's rare that there are fluffs that obvious, and it's usually minor enough not to interfere with musicality (eg the trombone fluffs in Toscanini's Philharmonia Brahms First, which is still an incredible performance), but in instrumental recordings I find these to detract from the overall musical integrity. It's why I've never gotten into Cortot, for example, because there are simply so many mistakes that one loses the sense of line, or in Pollini's later recordings, where the breathing is impossibly irritating. More unpopularly, I'm also pretty particular about orchestral timbre - it's why I generally have very few American orchestral recordings in my top listening, because I've never liked the rather vulgar sound of the brass. Incidentally, I'm not sure if others would agree, but I think the Philharmonia in the 50s had a really unique timbre and Klemperer was more lucky to benefit from that than responsible for its creation - one hears about Klemperer's forward woodwinds in Beethoven but recordings of Toscanini in Brahms in 1952 show that the woodwinds were just deliciously reedy and vinegary as well. It's a very similar sound to the pre-1960 Concertgebouw (which sadly is a period comprising too few great recordings) and one I really can't find in modern recordings.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Certainly you shouldn't feel obliged to enjoy any performer if you've given it a fair shot and still aren't connecting, but I can share my personal perspective on this great maestro, one of the consistently illuminating conductors on record for me. Of course most people know him due to his reputation for slow tempi based off the wealth of stereo recordings he gave us. But for me, tempo is a small part of the equation and when people focus too much on it they miss the depth of music-making going on underneath the surface. His Mass in B Minor is one of my favorite recordings of anything and the recording that kicked off my passion for comparing performances. I heard power, nobility, and overwhelming fervor in a work that I previously had thought of as somewhat dry. I didn't necessarily care about the slower tempi but about the weight and meaning put into every phrase.
> 
> Klemperer cultivated the Philharmonia into one of the greatest orchestras in the world. Yes, they had a consistently outstanding quality of playing, but some other unique traits I always hear in Klemperer's recordings are discipline, clarity, and commitment to an overall vision. You don't get the incandescent spontaneity of Furtwängler - no one has ever been able to match what he did - but he is still very much in the "old-school Teutonic" mode where it sounds like the fear of God is in everything the orchestra plays. His goal was to reveal every strand of detail in the score while constantly pressing forward without sentimentality, and encouraging his players to listen to their fellow musicians and adjust their performance to fit the big picture. This can be heard, IMO to most overwhelming effect in his Mahler recordings, which bring the richness of the scores to life in a big way (though I'm not as big on his 2nd as most). His approach to the music exuded respect, dignity, care, and yes, great passion and intensity when called for. His Beethoven and Brahms is notable for its rock-steady stoicism that results in a cumulative effect of great power and poignancy. But if those aren't clicking with you, try his Mozart recordings, which break the Klemperer stereotype with their litheness, grace, and transparent textures, almost like a quasi-HIP chamber orchestra approach. Sure, there are times especially in the latest recordings where you can tell the musicians sometimes weren't on board with his very patient visions - the plod-fest St. Matthew Passion and the dire Bruckner 8 (where he decided to make cuts in the finale rather than change his tempo to something more reasonable) are two examples of where his unswerving dedication to a single tempo don't come off very convincingly IMO. But I would recommend listening with the above qualities in mind and see if you can understand his art.


I'll readily admit that in the general reading I've done Klemperer's recordings of big choral works are generally regarded as his absolute pinnacles, yet I'm not big enough on these works to warrant comparative listening. Perhaps I'll learn what's so great about them in future!

Your comments are incredibly insightful - I'll try to bring this awareness when I listen to Klemps next time. Thanks! But I'm curious, if not his 2nd, then which recordings do you like?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A lot of BAD competition. I'm not sure a single conductor alive in the past 30 years breaks into the Top 30 conductors on record. Carlos Kleiber does, but he basically stopped recording.


You are referring to your top 30 rather than the top 30! You choice of Kleiber as the almost exception (he dies in 2004 - that's why he has definitively stopped conducting) shows what it is you want - he was something of an old fashioned conductor - but there are many living and recently living conductors who give us something special again and again but just not in the older way.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> But I like his Mahler 4 and even the 7, to the extent that I like Mahler.





Phil loves classical said:


> I love Klemperer, or at least a lot of his stuff. For me, all of his versions of Mahler's symphonies, especially the 7th is at the top.


I know that taste is a subjective thing - but you really both like his Mahler 7th? I've always felt that the 7th is one of those symphonies that needs to be sleek and constantly moving to keep it working, though perhaps you differ. Just throwing out a personal recommendation (which might hopefully convert you to my own view), I think Abbado in Lucerne offers a pretty much unsurpassable reading of the 7th.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

DavidA said:


> A problem with Klemperer is that by the time he came to record in decent sound he was past his best. He had suffered from serious illness and he hadn't got the energy that he did in his younger days. His tempi were too slow. So his much praised Beethoven third is much too slow in the first moment, even though the funeral Martin is very effective. His fifth symphony is hopeless. And when it comes to a work like the St Matthew Passion time stand still and the soloist can hardly get a breath!
> But then you find his Mahler 2 and DLVDE are marvellous and the Magic Flute is magical even if it is far too slow. But the big disappointment for me has always been the Fidelio which strikes me as bloodless and much over praised. A pity we didn't have him in decent recordings when he was much younger


Actually, on this point - this is one of the main reasons that I can't summon respect for Klemperer or Walter in the same way that I have for, say, to use the example of the other three conductors in that famous photo, Toscanini, Furtwangler or Erich Kleiber - they changed so much in their interpretation that I find it hard to identify a consistency or artistic credo that makes the others' worth hearing. Klemperer recorded a lot in the 50s, and live performances show that there were huge disparities even in periods as short as 1954 and 1956 - or, in extreme examples of his Mahler, between the Mahler 2nd from Amsterdam and the Philharmonia, or the DLVDE recordings (in the earlier one Der Abschied takes just 21 minutes!) Whereas though Furtwangler and Toscanini certainly mellowed one still got the sense that they were holding true to their artistic vision. Just a thought, others welcome to disagree.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Klemperer is anything but pedestrian. His approach was very radical, it's not just the uncompromising slow tempo, but his way of "decolorizing" the orchestra sound (the opposite of French conductors) and minimizing gradations. This made all the "musical lines" have ultra clear definition and the so-call "granite" quality, free of any simple effects and tricks, free of any thrill-seeking and cheap spectacles.
> 
> He was the greatest "structuralist" conductor in my opinion. He clarifies both horizontally and vertically musical structure like no one else. He gives you a pair of "X-ray googles" to see the internal layout of the work like you have never "seen" before. His deep understanding of Bach and polyphonic structure really helped in this respect. But instead of the feathery transparency in Mendelssohn's style or an analytical sound, he managed to pull off a big heavy german sound, which always leaves you with an unified impression. If anything in Klemperer's recording is "revealed" to you, you are 100% sure that it's an authentic musical insight.
> 
> I have acquired these very limited SACD releases of Klemperer's Mahler and Bruckner cycles meticulously remastered by Tower record in Japan and they are among the most astonishing recordings I have (on a SACD player), both artistically and sonically (yes you can hear chair squeaking and page turning).


Again, this is so insightful! What would you say are the best examples of this - his Bruckner? I would love to listen to them. Do you mean he clarifies scores in the same way as say Boulez would?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Klemperer? A great conductor of Mozart, usually excellent in Mahler (his 2nd, 9th and DLVDE are all among my favourites of all time), great in Brahms (even if not quite to my taste these days) and ... his Beethoven! Yes, what we have is slow but it is also powerful. I often wonder how so many listeners can have music spoiled by a slow speed - slow speeds certainly create risks of the music dragging or dying on its feet but they can also open up a number of very powerful opportunities - but I guess it is something to do with remembering other faster performances too well rather than offering a carte blanche to the newer listening experiences. Klemperer didn't approve of Strauss but his metamorphosen is one of the best.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> Excellent posts in this thread. I have loved Klemperer since my first encounter with his conducting (his Brahms, which incidentally are the recordings which finally broke me through with Brahms's music-now one of my favorite composers, but before I heard Klemperer's recordings I just didn't get Brahms), but I often struggle to put into words what it is about his music-making that really does it for me. I think UniversalTuringMachine's insight about Klemperer as a "structuralist" conductor really hits the nail on the head.
> 
> I think Klemperer's reputation as being always a slow conductor is greatly exaggerated. There are certain works in which his recordings are significantly faster than the competition, Mahler 2nd for instance. But that "carved in stone" quality is still there. Ultimately I think Klemperer was a classicist, and a conductor who understood large-scale form much better than most. There is very little of the "Romantic spirit" in his recordings even of Romantic repertoire.
> 
> For all that, there are some acclaimed Klemperer recordings that I don't like: his Mahler 9th for example (for me, the inner movements are just _too_ slow). But he remains one of my favorite conductors.


I agree about the 9th! I tried very hard to like the 9th, then I eventually just gave up and went to other recordings. I also agree that the "slow" reputation is exaggerated - it's mostly only in Beethoven, and in other repertoire in his later years, that he was very slow, although even in Beethoven his tempi were basically comparable to many other recordings of the day. But I suppose what rather irks me is precisely that though the timings don't reflect slow tempi, the music doesn't sound energetic - I guess this is exactly what others like in Klemperer, so it really is just a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My tastes are similar to yours, and so maybe I can explain the appeal of Klemperer. He can certainly sound very pedestrian. It's not so much the lack of momentum as it is the lack of dynamism and elasticity. Furtwangler, for example, speeds up and slows down. He rides the current of the drama. For example, he begins very slowly in the first movements of the Beethoven 5th and 9th and the Brahms 4th. He is setting the stage for the drama to begin, and speeds up as he progresses. Whereas Klemperer almost forces the music to stay on an even keel throughout, which can drive people crazy. It almost feels like trudging forward at an even pace through thick mud.
> 
> And yet, this intransigent relentlessness is exactly what gives Klemperer his power. It is a feeling of absolute security and an absence of angst, making the music feel as if it is molded in granite. Not by hitting you over the head but by remaining absolutely disciplined forward, yet never in a way that sounds unnatural. At his best, Klemperer is hypnotic.
> 
> ...


Oh, another Klemperer Mahler 7th fan? Gosh, maybe I should get myself listening to that someday. His stereo Eroica is widely acclaimed, indeed, but it's one of the first works I encountered which really caused me to ask what was so great about Klemperer - the tempi seem all wrong. Admittedly, it must be a personal taste thing again, but I suppose I really see the ideal Eroica and Beethoven 9th as cast in the Furtwangler mode - hugely dramatic opening movements and very slow slow movements. In the Eroica funeral march for example (and also in the Adagio of the 9th) I find that Klemperer's unyielding approach somewhat robs the music of its very profound spiritual character? Beethoven didn't often write such slow movements until his later music, so it's quite unique in his symphonic oeuvre, and I feel some of the spirit is lost. In the Eroica also I feel that Klemperer is simply too slow in the Finale. I can understand slower-than-normal tempi in the first movement, because it is marked Allegro con brio but it is also monumental and very imposing, whereas the finale has a different kind of spirit to it - I always use the G Minor variation as a litmus test for an Eroica recording, and unfortunately Klemperer is simply too slow in this.

Oistrakh and Nussio? I have never heard of this recording, but I have seen your very long list of Brahms concerti recording ratings on this site, so I'm not surprised. I've heard his recordings with Konwitschny, Klemperer, Szell, Kondrashin (1949 and 1963, I think) and Sargent, and I think my favourite is the Konwitschny simply because the last movement has a kind of energy and gait to it that the others lack, and the entire reading is just suffused with a gorgeous warm tone. But maybe it's just my irrational liking for mono recordings coming through again ...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Russell Chee said:


> I'll readily admit that in the general reading I've done Klemperer's recordings of big choral works are generally regarded as his absolute pinnacles, yet I'm not big enough on these works to warrant comparative listening. Perhaps I'll learn what's so great about them in future!
> 
> Your comments are incredibly insightful - I'll try to bring this awareness when I listen to Klemps next time. Thanks! But I'm curious, if not his 2nd, then which recordings do you like?


In Mahler his 4th (it's got the fastest Adagio on record!), 7th, and 9th are fantastic though I wouldn't necessarily advise listening to the 7th right away since it is so abnormally slow. But you can hear every last detail of the score!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Russell Chee said:


> Question not directed at me, but I'll answer anyway because I think I'm quite extreme on this - definitely! Perhaps not so much in orchestral music, because it's rare that there are fluffs that obvious, and it's usually minor enough not to interfere with musicality (eg the trombone fluffs in Toscanini's Philharmonia Brahms First, which is still an incredible performance), but in instrumental recordings I find these to detract from the overall musical integrity. It's why I've never gotten into Cortot, for example, because there are simply so many mistakes that one loses the sense of line, or in Pollini's later recordings, where the breathing is impossibly irritating. More unpopularly, I'm also pretty particular about orchestral timbre - it's why I generally have very few American orchestral recordings in my top listening, because I've never liked the rather vulgar sound of the brass. Incidentally, I'm not sure if others would agree, but I think the Philharmonia in the 50s had a really unique timbre and Klemperer was more lucky to benefit from that than responsible for its creation - one hears about Klemperer's forward woodwinds in Beethoven but recordings of Toscanini in Brahms in 1952 show that the woodwinds were just deliciously reedy and vinegary as well. It's a very similar sound to the pre-1960 Concertgebouw (which sadly is a period comprising too few great recordings) and one I really can't find in modern recordings.


I'm surprised you say this considering you're a self-proclaimed fan of the Furtwängler wartime recordings. Certainly those are not known for their top-notch ensemble playing! But the interpretations are of a kind that I think will never be matched. I certainly see your point about American orchestras, I can't swallow much of the CSO (especially under Solti) to be honest with you due to that over-the-top brass section that sounds like the goal was to blow you back in your seat rather than make music. And I'm a big Cortot fan due to the sheer poetry of his playing even though I do acknowledge the handfuls of errors (which really are quite detracting sometimes but just part of the package I guess).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> In Mahler his 4th (it's got the fastest Adagio on record!), 7th, and 9th are fantastic though I wouldn't necessarily advise listening to the 7th right away since it is so abnormally slow. But you can hear every last detail of the score!


That's what I love about Klemperer. I'm hearing details in the score played by the orchestra that I don't hear in other performances.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

And I forgot to mention his Bruckner 6!


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Iâ€™m surprised you say this considering youâ€™re a self-proclaimed fan of the FurtwÃ¤ngler wartime recordings. Certainly those are not known for their top-notch ensemble playing! But the interpretations are of a kind that I think will never be matched. I certainly see your point about American orchestras, I canâ€™t swallow much of the CSO (especially under Solti) to be honest with you due to that over-the-top brass section that sounds like the goal was to blow you back in your seat rather than make music. And Iâ€™m a big Cortot fan due to the sheer poetry of his playing even though I do acknowledge the handfuls of errors (which really are quite detracting sometimes but just part of the package I guess).


Well as I typed it I realised I meant more with instrumental than orchestral recordings í ½í¸… though I'm okay with lack of precision and unity and less okay with important notes going wrong - a very prominent example is an incorrect note on one of the trumpet lines in the first movement of Karajan's Studio (!) Mahler 5th - don't know what he was thinking leaving it in. Plus those were mostly live recordings, which somehow lends it a kind of organicity and musicality that overcomes the fluffed notes.

I'm okay with not liking the CSO, because I'm aware of how 'polarising' their sound can be regarded as; what I really wish I could appreciate better is the Cleveland sound (at least under Szell) because I think Szell did really great interpretations but the orchestral sound (or perhaps it's merely the dryness of the recording? Of course I never heard any of them live) just puts me off; I basically have all his European recordings, though.

Well yeah I don't know what it is about Cortot, but maybe I'm too picky! I love Schnabel and the 1930s Rubinstein recordings, and even Edwin Fischer is okay (though his Brahms 2nd is really quite splashy) but for some reason the Cortot playing is really just a little off-putting. I guess I'll keep listening and one day hopefully just get it as happened with Furtwangler~


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> And I forgot to mention his Bruckner 6!


Yes, when I listen to Klemperer's early Bruckner recordings I really wonder why he played his Bruckner so much more quickly than his Beethoven. I do like the his 4th, though I must confess to being hooked to the Vienna Phil sound in Bruckner for the most part.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> In Mahler his 4th (it's got the fastest Adagio on record!), 7th, and 9th are fantastic though I wouldn't necessarily advise listening to the 7th right away since it is so abnormally slow. But you can hear every last detail of the score!


Oh :lol: the inner movements of his 9th really don't work for me - an 18-minute second movement is unbearable.

But I definitely get where you're coming from - it's a wonderful interpretation of the first movement (some of Mahler's best music)! Do you only like his Philharmonia Mahler? He did a lot of earlier work preserved on Vox studio recordings as well as live performances, generally a lot quicker than his Philharmonia work. I do like his Concertgebouw 2nd, but really I think I'm just a sucker for any pre-1960 Concertgebouw recording - the orchestra sounded so inimitable!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Klemp's Mahler 9th is a great one, right up there with Barbirolli, Karajan, and Walter/VPO.

I just listened to his live Bavarian Bruckner 4th yesterday. Fantastic energy. One of the best for certain.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Russell Chee said:


> Oh :lol: the inner movements of his 9th really don't work for me - an 18-minute second movement is unbearable.
> 
> But I definitely get where you're coming from - it's a wonderful interpretation of the first movement (some of Mahler's best music)! Do you only like his Philharmonia Mahler? He did a lot of earlier work preserved on Vox studio recordings as well as live performances, generally a lot quicker than his Philharmonia work. I do like his Concertgebouw 2nd, but really I think I'm just a sucker for any pre-1960 Concertgebouw recording - the orchestra sounded so inimitable!


Yes, I think the slow pace of the second movement is the only weak spot in his 9th, but it is interesting that Bruno Walter in his famous early recording with the VPO adopted quite a similar approach to the Ländler, perhaps inferring that is a more idiomatic tempo? Bruno can even be heard tapping his foot on the podium in that recording. But personally I like, for instance, what Karel Ančerl did in his recording - a very swift, rousing speed for the main dance then a slowdown for the secondary waltz theme so it really sounds like the world is falling to pieces.

I have not explored his Mahler outside of the Philharmonia recordings. I have the live 2nd queued up on YouTube to listen to sometime to see if it is an improvement on the studio version. The earlier one with the RCO certainly sounds interesting too - I'm sure the sound's not great but I'll have to check it out; if I remember correctly that is the one with Kathleen Ferrier as alto soloist, correct? I'm sure her Urlicht is amazing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Klemp's Mahler 9th is a great one, right up there with Barbirolli, Karajan, and Walter/VPO.


I bought Klemperer's Mahler 9th as I heard it was a great one. Having listened to it I find it a real let down!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I bought Klemperer's Mahler 9th as I heard it was a great one. Having listened to it I find it a real let down!


Then it must be great! :lol:


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Klemp's Mahler 9th is a great one, right up there with Barbirolli, Karajan, and Walter/VPO.
> 
> I just listened to his live Bavarian Bruckner 4th yesterday. Fantastic energy. One of the best for certain.


Ooh, that looks like a very promising recording. Plus a German orchestra! Always the right timbre for Bruckner, imo. Don't think that's available on Spotify, since EMI's been very spotty in uploading Klemperer's Bavaria stuff. I'll look for it on Youtube! Though I must confess to not being a huge fan of Bruckner - perhaps the late symphonies, especially the Ninth, are more my thing, but sadly Klemps got to those too late!


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yes, I think the slow pace of the second movement is the only weak spot in his 9th, but it is interesting that Bruno Walter in his famous early recording with the VPO adopted quite a similar approach to the Ländler, perhaps inferring that is a more idiomatic tempo? Bruno can even be heard tapping his foot on the podium in that recording. But personally I like, for instance, what Karel Ančerl did in his recording - a very swift, rousing speed for the main dance then a slowdown for the secondary waltz theme so it really sounds like the world is falling to pieces.
> 
> I have not explored his Mahler outside of the Philharmonia recordings. I have the live 2nd queued up on YouTube to listen to sometime to see if it is an improvement on the studio version. The earlier one with the RCO certainly sounds interesting too - I'm sure the sound's not great but I'll have to check it out; if I remember correctly that is the one with Kathleen Ferrier as alto soloist, correct? I'm sure her Urlicht is amazing.


Ah, that is true. But in all honesty Walter and Klemperer and Mengelberg and Fried all represent such different traditions in their recordings that I find it a little doubtful that any of them indicate any authenticity or idiomatic playing. For instance, I think Mahler told Mengelberg that he was the finest conductor of his music, but Mengelberg uses portamento and rubato so so liberally in contrast to the very straitlaced playing of Klemperer; Walter and Klemperer also take very different speeds in Das Lied von der Erde - Klemperer may have been very slow in his famous Philharmonia recording but if you look for earlier recordings in the 50s he took Der Abschied in under 20 minutes, which is astonishing.

I do get the danger of being too quick in the Ninth, though - I greatly enjoyed Chailly's recent Leipzig recording for its incredibly well-executed first movement (the Leipzig brass sound as good as anything Vienna has ever produced) but then he took the 2nd movement in around 13 minutes, which just ruined the rusticity of the piece for me. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I think I'm very much a Karajan man in the Ninth - and more lately, Abbado in Berlin and Lucerne. They just capture a sense of inevitability I don't sense in other recordings necessarily.

The Live 2nd is the Bavarian one? I've read before that it is supposed to be excellent, but I've never listened to it either. Yes, the sound is catastrophic, unfortunately, very disappointing for a recording from the early 50s. The orchestra itself actually sounds OK, but unfortunately, Ferrier's contribution is extremely recessed, a pity given her inimitable voice. It's a very, very taut performance, so it might not be to all tastes - I think he dispatches the first movement in something like 17 minutes.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I bought Klemperer's Mahler 9th as I heard it was a great one. Having listened to it I find it a real let down!


What did you not like about it? The pacing of the middle movements, like me? Or any other complaints?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Russell Chee said:


> What did you not like about it? The pacing of the middle movements, like me? Or any other complaints?


Just seemed so dull


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Klemperer nearly always gives us something serious with little or no licence for those who seek something more slick. I don't know much about him but he sounds like a fairly grim fellow - not that he avoids sparkle when it is called for - who doesn't suffer fools gladly.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You've got to be bi-polar to really appreciate Klemperer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Just seemed so dull





Enthusiast said:


> Klemperer nearly always gives us something serious with little or no licence for those who seek something more slick. I don't know much about him but he sounds like a fairly grim fellow - not that he avoids sparkle when it is called for - who doesn't suffer fools gladly.


"Superficial" is not a word you'll ever hear used to describe Klemperer


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "Superficial" is not a word you'll ever hear used to describe Klemperer


But he could be horribly dull.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Reading to the last page of this thread, I think you are missing his live performances even if they counted with poor sound quality. Won't say anything else. And count me as a mildly fan of the Amsterdam Mahler Resurrection.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> But he could be horribly dull.


Right, hence the "Klumperer" appellation which is applied at times.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Right, hence the "Klumperer" appellation which is applied at times.


There are some people who think all of classical music is dull. There are different levels of music appreciation.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Klemperer, as Furtwängler, was also a quite good composer. I'm not his biggest fan, but the maestro is really stable and good oriented. He doesn't have the flare and charm of Furtie, but, academically speaking, his performances are correct and this is VERY important. We can't have always impressive performances and wow! moments in symphonic music. We MUST have also these are respecting the score, otherwise we will forget (sooner or later) how the original work is. Otto is the Paul Badura-Skoda of the podium. He is the one who looks the fundamentals of the work and he is musical correct, in expense of some impressive and beloved elements, other directors are giving to the public provoking greater enthusiasm. But enthusiasm we have also in the football games. But there, not every shoot is a goal. Many targeting the pigeons. On the podium you don't have such luxuries and I understand Otto's decision to be in the safer side of the music score.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I find Klemperer to be utterly unique and compelling from the first bar. That’s more entertaining to me than conductors who simply aim for the Wow! moments.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dimace said:


> *Klemperer, as Furtwängler, was also a quite good composer*. I'm not his biggest fan, but the maestro is really stable and good oriented. He doesn't have the flare and charm of Furtie, but, academically speaking, his performances are correct and this is VERY important. We can't have always impressive performances and wow! moments in symphonic music. We MUST have also these are respecting the score, otherwise we will forget (sooner or later) how the original work is. Otto is the Paul Badura-Skoda of the podium. He is the one who looks the fundamentals of the work and he is musical correct, in expense of some impressive and beloved elements, other directors are giving to the public provoking greater enthusiasm. But enthusiasm we have also in the football games. But there, not every shoot is a goal. Many targeting the pigeons. On the podium you don't have such luxuries and I understand Otto's decision to be in the safer side of the music score.


With due respect to both gentlemen, they were both to put it kindly third-rate composers if that. I am reminded when someone asked Sviatoslav Richter why he hadn't composed more he simply said, "I thought there was enough bad music in the world!"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There are some people who think all of classical music is dull. There are different levels of music appreciation.


Of which of course you are on a higher plane than everybody else


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Of which of course you are on a higher plane than everybody else


No, not everybody


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> With due respect to both gentlemen, they were both to put it kindly third-rate composers if that. I am reminded when someone asked Sviatoslav Richter why he hadn't composed more he simply said, "I thought there was enough bad music in the world!"


His point was that both men understood compositional structure, and that it shows in their recordings. I agree with that. They both conducted with a feeling of authority.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> His point was that both men understood compositional structure, and that it shows in their recordings. I agree with that. They both conducted with a feeling of authority.


Don't you think other conductors understood compositional structure too?


----------



## Perfectfullmoon (Jul 16, 2020)

IMHO the biggest “problem” of Klemperer is that his way of expressing music was not intended at all to amuse you. 

In Walter Legge’s biography, he said that Klemperer did not care to achieve what was called beauty of sound, he preferred loud, solid and straightforward style. I did not mean his recordings are not enjoyable, but I think it is the beauty of the work itself that makes me enjoy and Klemperer did an excellent job to present it. The sound of Philharmonic was decent and clear but not that “attractive” to new listener compared with BPO and VPO.

Another point is that Klemperer had his very own opinion on certain works, which sometimes resulted in a confusing rendition. His Mahler 2 is very good but I always feel he chose to hold back and refused to make listener more excited when a certain climax comes (Bernstein’s version of this work is a perfect comparison). He did the same thing in bruckner with his EMI Bruckner 7 so clean as if he conducted a chamber orchestra. Mass in b minor and Matthew passion are splendid but extremely heavy at same time. And his Beethoven cycle in 1970s was something beyond common standard.

I think “distant” is the best word to describe my feeling when I first heard Klemperer. But when I get used to those attractive and exciting CDs, I always come back to Klemperer and find that this old man really hit the point of music. The fact that Klemperer was elder than Furtwangler always makes me puzzled. He was an interesting man and a true legend, I hope that one day you will enjoy his work.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Klemperer's reputation of slow , deliberate tempos comes form the last year of his life when he was handicapped by among other thing, a stroke which left him permanently paralyzed on one side .
But few people realize that in his early years he was exactly the opposite - his performances were actually swift and highly propulsive , and full of impetuosity ! You can hear this in the recordings he mad in the 1930s with the Berlin State orchestra, which was orchestra of the Berlin State opera , which also gave regular concerts . 
And the recording he made in the 50s of the Mendelssohn "Italian" symphony with the Vienna symphony, not the more famous Philharmonic is said to have the fastest finale of any recording ever made of it ! 
I recently heard a live recording of Wagner's "Rienzi " overture made with the Los Angeles Philharmonic when he was their music director in the 30s and 40s , which was recently released on CD with other of his live L.A. recordings , and it could have been a performance by Solti !
Some of those Berlin recordings are available on CD , and the I've heard have decent sound .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> Klemperer's reputation of slow , deliberate tempos comes form the last year of his life when he was handicapped by among other thing, a stroke which left him permanently paralyzed on one side .


I've put this theory forth before - It's possible that Klemperer's physical disabilities may have contributed much to his change of style - the guy was a wreck!! Suffered terrible head injury [never fully recovered], burned horribly in a smoking in bed accident, disabling stroke..
I think it's possible that he simply couldn't move any faster - videos of his late conducting appearances are rather alarming - a towering, rigid figure, he stands stock still, closed fist pumping up and down, in sort of a podium-Frankenstein style
Early in his career, his conducting was much different, far more agile and swift....Klemp was also quite a "talker" [the famous Labate/NYPO incident, etc]


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I've put this theory forth before - It's possible that Klemperer's physical disabilities may have contributed much to his change of style - the guy was a wreck!! Suffered terrible head injury [never fully recovered], burned horribly in a smoking in bed accident, disabling stroke..
> I think it's possible that he simply couldn't move any faster - videos of his late conducting appearances are rather alarming - a towering, rigid figure, he stands stock still, closed fist pumping up and down, in sort of a podium-Frankenstein style


This explains a lot, for me personally. I find his performances a bit joyless and/or cold: His Mozart, his Beethoven. His Bach is truly grotesque, to my senses. For some reason his Brahms, particularly the _requiem_, appeals more (maybe that says something!).


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

We overrate certain conductors, orchestra, soloist and recordings. I hear ones I like and those are the ones I like. Don't care who played it, etc. That said, I have certainly listened to Klemperer, but haven't chosen any of his recordings to keep. I did have his Beethoven Missa for a while but found another.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Perfectfullmoon said:


> IMHO the biggest "problem" of Klemperer is that his way of expressing music was not intended at all to amuse you.
> 
> In Walter Legge's biography, he said that Klemperer did not care to achieve what was called beauty of sound, he preferred loud, solid and straightforward style. I did not mean his recordings are not enjoyable, but I think it is the beauty of the work itself that makes me enjoy and Klemperer did an excellent job to present it. The sound of Philharmonic was decent and clear but not that "attractive" to new listener compared with BPO and VPO.


But Klemperer could and did produce performances had had sparkle and a glint in the eye when the music demanded it (some of his Mozart, his early Beethoven and Beethoven 8, some of his Mendelssohn etc.). These qualities were rarely enough for him on their own and there was usually something a bit serious at the heart of what he did.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

There is a certain moment in the calm “trio” section of the Mahler 9 Rondo-Burleske where Klemperer gets his clarinet to squeal hilariously like a pig on the execution block. It’s utterly hilarious and grotesque, just what Mahler would have wanted. Klemperer may not have been a “witty” conductor but he was a master at uncovering all sorts of little details and finesses of the composer’s vision.


----------



## blondheim (Jul 6, 2020)

His tempo relationships between movements are also always interesting. Take for example, Mahler's 4th or Bruckner's 6th where both slow movements are taken rather quickly, while everything else is much more deliberate. In both examples, it creates a very compelling argument for the song-like structure of those movements. It is discoveries like these that keep me coming back to Klemp.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I just stumbled upon this Klemperer recording of the Bruckner 8th Adagio from 1924! I had no idea such a recording even existed much less with Klemp at the podium.


----------

