Karajan; was he really that bad?

No, HvK wasn't THAT bad, but you have to choose carefully. His early 1950s EMI recordings with The Philharmonia and at La Scala were largely quite wonderful. But, once he moved to Berlin, his megalomaniac tendencies set in, and that's what you find on most of the later recordings.

But he recorded some lovely Mahler for DG in the 1980s, and earlier his DG recordings of Debussy, Ravel and Sibelius from the 1960s were all very good indeed. I like his Richard Strauss (pre-digital) tapings from the 1970s.

And, in the very last years of his life, he made some fine recordings of Bruckner in Vienna.

But avoid the complete Beethoven, Mozart and Brahms et al that he churned out throughout his years of 'greatness'.

If he'd died young in the late 1950s, like Cantelli, he'd have been hailed as one of the 'greats'.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
But avoid the complete Beethoven, Mozart and Brahms et al that he churned out throughout his years of 'greatness'.

Graham

That about covers it then

quote:

But avoid the complete Beethoven

Bit sweeping here, Graham.

Karajan's 50's set of Beethoven symphonies with the Philharmonia are excellent, as are his 70's set with the BPO.

Other Karajan gems to look out for are;

Smetana Vysehrad & Die Moldau from Ma Vlast

Schoenberg Verklarte Nacht

Shostakovich Symphony No.10

Sibelius symphonies.

He produced some pretty spectacular Wagner too; his recordings of Parsifal and Meistersinger still enjoy a happy relationship with my CD player.

At his best he was great; at worst, he was stodgy and heavy handed, predictable. He knew how to make an orchestra sound, and as Menuhin said in one of his books, he was a leader of men, making sure that his forces were all happy and well paid, had good instruments, and did the right things at the right times.

I don't think he did music any harm, despite what some people say. He was more mechanically professional than his inspired, wayward predecessor at the BPO; but there it is: it takes all kinds to make a world!

EW

quote:

But, once he moved to Berlin, his megalomaniac tendencies set in,

It's often the case but I ain't saying nuffing init*

Basil

I said that HvK's Philharmonia recordings were "largely quite wonderful". I applied the reference to "complete Beethoven" to his later years. I'm not sure that I agree with you about his DG 70s set, although I have the LPs downstairs. (I don't think that the Philharmonia recordings are available at present.)

You'll also find praise from me for his Sibelius recordings - I think that his DG 60s recordings were better than the later EMI remakes.

I agree with you about the Schoenberg (and his complete 4LP set of Schoenberg/Berg/Webern) and Shostakovich Tenth - but he made two recordings of the latter for DG in the 1960s and 1980s. I have the later remake, which is just being released as a DG Original.

Graham

Well, my selection of Karajan recordings is pretty limited (just the 60s BPO Beethoven cycle, Holst's Planets, Strauss's Ein Heldenleben and Mahler 6 as well as several opera recordings inherited recently, though they are still on my 'to be listened to' shelf), but I don't find any of the discs I have terribly impressive. I tend to find his conducting rather too regimented and lacking in excitement, his Beethoven in particular suffers from this sort of 'dullness'.

He may have has some good recordings (though all the ones I've mentioned have had pretty good reviews), and I can see why some people would like him. However, he simply doesn't do it for me.

regards, Tam

OK, so HvK wasn't in the same league as Carlos Kleiber (who was?), but I for one would have loved to see him in concert with the Berlin or Vienna Philharmoniker.

His La Scala Madama Butterfly (EMI) with Callas is one of the gramophone's true greats, in my opinion.

And his Decca Tosca with Leontyne Price is not far short of Callas's own recording with de Sabata. Any sensible collection requires both.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
He produced some pretty spectacular Wagner too; his recordings of Parsifal and Meistersinger still enjoy a happy relationship with my CD player.

Indeed! Those are both great recordings, and Parsifal shows that even late in his career with Berlin he could produce some great recordings. But generally, I fall into the-earlier-the-better camp, too. His 50s stuff is generally very good or better, and his later music making became more concerned with creating that Karajan Technicolor Wall Of Sound.

--

quote:

I said that HvK's Philharmonia recordings were "largely quite wonderful".

Yes, you did, I really must learn to read! Sorry graham.

Dear Friends,

I wondered when this would come up!

I have one recording with Karajan, where he conducts the Philharmonia in accompaniment to Dennis Brain's solo role in Mozart's Horn concertos. I keep it for the Brain performance, but Civil is finer asa soloist in my view, and Klemperer infinitely finer on EMIs remake from six years late. The trouble with Karajan outside Wagner (and some might say Bruckner) is that one does not have to look very far to find something far finer. It is rarely actually bad, though some might wonder what he was thinbking of when leading Mozart!

As I don't care much for Wagner, I don't find I have any reason to buy his recordings, touched with what Furtwangler might have turned his phrase, 'loveless mediocrity,' to fit so aptly, though he was merely being critical of technical perfection over spirituality in general, rather than his successor's efforts!

It is interesting that Karajan's reputation more or less died with him, which, to me, suggests his influence was much more to do with personal drive and ambition than any particularly far reaching genius or musical talent. He was not that bad most of the time, but very, very rarely toughed with greatness, in my opinion.

All the best from fredrik

quote:

It is interesting that Karajan's reputation more or less died with him, which, to me, suggests his influence was much more to do with personal drive and ambition than any particularly far reaching genius or musical talent. He was not that bad most of the time, but very, very rarely toughed with greatness, in my opinion.

I think much of this is true Fredrik. But there is no doubt that putting aside questions over his ego and personal motivations, he did much for the advancement of his orchestras and players. Also very many soloists speak very highly of having worked with him.

The image he created and sustained has, to a large extent, died with him. But during this time it did much to raise awareness of music and that can never be bad can it?

Also he was at the forefront of recording technology. Only driven by the possibility of preserving his legacy? Maybe. But I like to think he dedicated much effort to trying to improve everything he could around recording and performance.

It has become quite fashionable to criticise him. I would certainly agree that there are often versions to be preferred to his.

But it would be churlish not to point out that there were many highlights in his recordings of Sibelius, Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler to name just some that spring to mind.

How many conductor's versions can be described as definitive - precious few I would have thought.

quote:

It is interesting that Karajan's reputation more or less died with him

I don't think this is true at all, Steve has summed it up perfectly.

quote:

It has become quite fashionable to criticise him.

Fredrik, with just one Karajan disc in your entire collection, are you really the best person to offer an opinion on HvK?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
How many conductor's versions can be described as definitive - precious few I would have thought.

Well quite, and that's if you subscribe to the notion of "definitive" performances!

I suppose you have to consider the era and generation that Karajan succeeded; the "scene" was dominated by a small number of great, but highly idiosyncratic conductors, none of whose recordings are "central" by today's standards (which have become rather too standard, some might argue!), and certainly not definitive. Everyone jumps up and waves their hand in the air when asked who admires Furtwangler, or even to a lesser extent Toscanini, but their interpretations are so individual that the word definitive is just meaningless in such contexts.

I suppose Karajan ushered in the new era of more "central", less personal interpretations of the classics and, much as we mourn the passing of the golden era, the present generation's more objective music making has certainly illuminated the classics and Karajan played a leading role in bringing this about.

I suspect that even Karajan's most vitriolic critics have to admit that when he was good, he was very seriously good; it strikes me that he has left a very very good, if not necessarily the best ever, account of most of my favourite music!

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Basil:

quote:

It is interesting that Karajan's reputation more or less died with him

I don't think this is true at all, Steve has summed it up perfectly.

quote:

It has become quite fashionable to criticise him.

Fredrik, with just one Karajan disc in your entire collection, are you really the best person to offer an opinion on HvK?

Dear Basil,

The only recording still in my collection! A few rejects exist! I am fully aware of Karajan's artistic legacy!

As for it becoming fashionable to be berate him, I would only suggest anyone read what I wrote above. I can think of no case where it is not easy to find a finer, more subtle musical reading which is contempory, yet alone subsequent, except possinbly some Wagner [Parsifal, for example], where he may reasonably be seen as holding the palm.

I don't particularly critisise his work, but remain sure his efforts were entirely self-serving, and rather narcisitic, and often at best plagued by mediocrity of musical vission, if not (ususally) technical perfection, which is another thing altogether.

Personally I wish that EMI had selected Beecham to accompany Brain in the famous recording of the Mozart Horn Concertos. That might have been unsurpassed even by Klemoperer, but at least it would have made an interesting contrast orchestrally, though I doubt if Civil would have been unable to compete as a Horn player!

All the best from Fredrik

Well, personally I think Fredrik has summed it up rather well (and better than I did in my earlier post). It isn't that there's anything technically wrong with any of the Karajan recordings I have (indeed, many of them have some very fine playing); simply that when you put on other readings by other conductors, it seems that Karajan was simply missing something.

As to whether it's now 'fashionable' to berate him, I'm not sure. I think the real issue with fashion in music criticism these days is that it's unfashionable to be anything other than through and through historically informed performance - which is why we see the virtual deification these days of the likes of Gardiner (though I don't deny he's done some good stuff), and why there seems to be lack these days of the likes of Furtwangler or Bernstein or Solti (who, like them or not, at least had something of their own to say about the music). Better duck for cover now at having put those three in the same sentence! Still, with any luck the pendulum for these sorts of things will swing back again.

regards, Tam

Dear Tam, The monomania for pure and unthinking HIP will pass with luck! Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Tam, The monomania for pure and unthinking HIP will pass with luck! Fred

Well it's PC isn't it, not just HIP!? Of course period instruments can teach us a thing or two about historical orchestral textures and such like, but they don't tell us much about performing practices do they? Did the great composers REALLY like to hear everything thin, fast and jerky, as it would seem Norrington (to name but one) would have us believe? I've just been re-reading Solomon's biography of Beethoven, and he certainly wouldn't have done!

As for Karajan, I must admit when I first listened to his Beethoven and Brahms recordings I didn't much like them. I knew the repertoire well from other conductors, and I found him way too stodgy and leaden. As Gardiner put it, there was something almost evil in the way he exploited the power.

But Karajan's repertoire and recorded legacy is vast. I agree one can find better in a lot of cases, but if you think about it, that applies to every other conductor too; only one can take credit for the best recording of all time!

Fortunately I've never chosen my recordings with the rather objective objective of "building a library" - a process akin to collecting glassware. I have many different recordings of my favourite compositions, and I don't subscribe to the notion of definitive performances. In a lot of cases, having shed a few prejudices over the years, I find much to admire and enjoy in Karajan's vast ouvre. You don't get to dominate Eurpoean music for half a century by being a complete half-wit, although I could easily be persuaded that it might have been better not domintated at all!

EW

sorry for typos!

quote:

I remain sure his efforts were entirely self-serving, and rather narcisitic, and often at best plagued by mediocrity of musical vision, if not (ususally) technical perfection, which is another thing altogether.

This is fair enough and I did allude to this. Nor as it happens am I a fan of his Beethoven/Brahms. But choice is huge here with many famous historic performance sometimes seen as "definitive", thinking of Furtwangler, Toscanini and Klemperer - extremely hard acts to follow.

Also, by the time HvK began his career the recording industry was creating definitive impressions of how these works should be performed, just by virtue of the fact that people could now repeat them to their hearts content.

What makes greatness? I would certainly rather hear HvK's Beethoven that Klemperer on the occasions when the latter seemed preoccupied with eccentrically slow speeds, that's for sure.

But on other recordings Klemperer builds the stature and inspiratonal tension like few others.

But, and this is a big but, (for me) there are moments of "greatness" I feel - I mentioned Sibelius, Bruckner, Wagner & Mahler.

To that short list I would also add Tchaikovsky - HvK's 4, 5 & Pathetique would be in the top 3 of those I have heard to date.

His Mahler 9 is one that I would want alongside Barbirolli on my desert island.

I guess I'm saying that "greatness" will be harder for conductors to achieve now that we have so many recorded legacies and I'm wondering how many "great" recordings you have to make to become "great"? Or does it have to be a set percentage of your total output?

Right, I'm off to play his "Der Schwann von Tuonela" which I think is, er, great.

Many thanks for all your comments. It's really interesting to hear your views.

I suppose because I'm starting out building a collection I see it as more important to gather other works, than multiple interpretations of the same work. So I'll keep my HvK for now and not worry that I may not have the best interpretations.

When I have a collection as extensive as Fredrik's I'll come back to it.