Karajan

So do I, especially the Beethoven Symphonies are still my favorites.

quote:

It sounds good to me.

That is really the important consideration!

George

There is plenty of evidence that Karajan was not a particularly pleasant person. In general (as with composers such as Wagner), I find Toscanini's quote about Richard Strauss applies:

quote:

To Strauss the composer I take off my hat; to Strauss the man I put it back on again.

That said, I do find it unfair how quickly he was cleared by the denazification panel in comparison to Furtwangler who never joined the party.

Of course, I think something similar could be said about Mr Lebrecht, except that I cannot off top of my head think of anything of his I'd want to take my hat off for. He's rather objectionable and his, for want of a better word, journalism, consists largely of rants. There was a particularly nasty and ill-informed piece about Simon Rattle a year or two ago. His treatise on the death of the classical recording industry is also rather dubious (not least in view of the quantity of stuff it still seems to churn out, which no shortage of classics, to these ears).


But what of Karajan? Well, as a musician I have to say that I don't much care for him. He was quite domineering and I find this carries over to many of his interpretations which I find over-regimented and often dull - his early 60s recordings of the Beethoven symphonies are a case in point (and one of the least engaging of the 20 or so surveys I own and not a patch on Jochum's survey, also on DG at around the same time). It may be that one of his other 4 cycles is better, but this one is consistently, and wrongly in my view, hailed as a classic. I would say similar things about his Mahler or his recording of Strauss's Heldenleben (especially when set next to the likes of Barbirolli, Rattle or Runnicles).

However, there are some things I have liked. I enjoy his Sibelius and have liked what I've heard so far of his Ring cycle. I'm told his recording of Strauss's Rosenkavalier is very special (and it's on my to be listened to shelf).


regards, Tam

I agree with Tam, about Karajan the musician. I do not tend to agree with those lionise him, but then there is room for me to have one view, and others to have a completely different view!

His DG recording of the 1812 Overture seems completely apt to me! Very exciting indeed.

George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
I agree with Tam, about Karajan the musician. I do not tend to agree with those lionise him, but then there is room for me to have one view, and others to have a completely different view!

Dear George,

I agree entirely with that - as I have said many times, were that not the case this place, and the wider world, would be very dull.


I'm afraid the 1812 does nothing for me. It can, on occasion, in the concert hall be fun as a party piece. I only have two recordings, and only because they're in box sets of other works I like.

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

I actually have no recdording of the 1812, which may say something about my wish to listen to it all that often. I did find a record of it last year in a friend's collection and played it over a couple of times. That was Karajan's recording. The last time I heard it before that was in the Albert Hall at a Prom, perhaps twenty years ago!

ATB from George

As far as judging pure symphonic music / recordings, this is an area which I am probably the least qualified to comment; I'm more attuned to concerti, chamber, or solo instrument endeavors. But I occasionally do enjoy all the great symphonies. As for symphonies though, Beethoven is clearly my favorite and I do own the mid-70's Karajan and have heard the early 60's versions. I enjoyed them both just as much as I enjoy any other versions that I own or have listened to (Klemperer, Boehm, Rattle, Jochum, Harnoncourt, Abbado, Barenboim etc.) or should I say that I enjoy them for what they are; Karajan's view, Boehms view, Jochum's' view etc.. All are valid in their own right. Of course, I gravitate to some more than others but I do not believe that with such profound musical creations of the great composers such as Beethoven, Bach, Schubert etc. gave us that anyone can say that this is definitely right or this is definitely the wrong way. Within a reasonable, educated way their is still room for some latitude and longitude. In the end it really is like saying I like the color blue and you may like the color red; neither is wrong but just an individual preference.

With articles written by people like Lebrecht you have to realize that he and most others really have an agenda to broadcast. They generally argue that you must like the color red because blue is invalid but use logical fallacies to defend their view. So, if you like blue then you find that you are amongst this invalid group. Writing that "he was a member of the Nazi party and made lots of money" are simply "red herrings" thrown in to distract the unsuspecting reader. Does this writer also throw in these types of comments when he refers to Russian or French or Italian or whatever other nationality when talking about music or individuals? I could fully understand and accept his view if he talked solely about the musical interpretation in its own right; about the bigger, deeper things within the music (I don't agree with this and here is why...) Furthermore, whether Karajan, or anyone, for that matter, was a pleasant person or not again should not really dictate whether I like the interpretation of this person or not. The two events are not related.

So yes, I like Karajan for who he was just as much as any other of the great conductors for that matter. His contribution to music was astounding and I am thankful for it. At the moment I am currently more into Jochum and Klemperer but in 1 year from now I'll be taken by other recordings I'm sure. That is why I collect music and keep a library of it. Sometimes, what I did not like 20 years ago I suddenly have come to appreciate now and vice versa.

Regards,
Doug

Just a few comments about Karajan:

He was a very productive conductor, consequently there are many weak recordings from him.

It was his merit, that the BPO became one of the best symphony orchestras.

Some of his recordings like:

- Strauss " Tod und Verklärung "
- Strauss " Vier letzte Lieder "
- Shostakovitch Symph. No 10

are often rated as " Reference Recordings "

Karajan was very interested in good sound, but DGG was not the right partner for him. A combination of HvK/BPO/Decca would have been much better in this area.

@ Tam: please listen to the end of the 4th movement of the Eroica. The 1963 HvK-version is for me by far the best, being really transcendental. Comparing the Leibowitz-Eroica, this is just ordinary.

Best wishes

Manfred

Dear Manni,

I wonder why Karajan became so wedded to DG?

They quite often seemed to present characters like Boehm in better sonics than they presented Karajan in.

Strange really. I agree that a recording colaborration with Decca and the BPO might well have served Karajan's artistry better.

As for DG, I can think of no better style of organ recordings than those given to Walcha in his many Bach recordings. Though I prefer the Mono series as a whole, some of the slightly later Stereo efforts were just as fine. Walcha carries the show with his music making in any case!

George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
I wonder why Karajan became so wedded to DG?

Money most likely. He was DG's big star, and so he could engage in any number of vanity projects. He was very skillful and manipulative and jumped around to the label that served his purposes, as evidenced by his opera recordings for Decca (with various bands) and his various recordings for EMI over decades.

As to Karajan the conductor, I have no doubt that he was one of the very greatest in the sense that he got the BPO and even the VPO to sound exactly how he wanted. That differs from musical greatness perhaps, but his conducting ability was monumental.

As to Karajan the musician, I find him extraordinary in some things (some Wagner, Sibelius, Honegger, some Beethoven), mediocre in others (Bartok, Mozart), and quite bad in others (Stravinsky). In other words, he's like most other conductors. (Kubelik stands out as an example of a conductor who, to my ears, never made a truly bad recording.)


--

For me, Karajan excelled in the late German romantic repertoire, especially Richard Strauss, Wagner, and Bruckner. He could even do Brahms and Mahler as well as most. I have always found his Beethoven rather inconsistent, although his Ninth of the early 60s is impressive.

His performances of Haydn, Mozart and Schubert consistently missed the point; the "chromium-plated" orchestral sound that was his trademark just did not suit those more subtle composers.

Dear Dai,

The better Karajan seems in tune with the music, the less I seem to like the music itself. I suppose we cross over on Brahms, but even some of Bruckner's music is beginning to seem less than the sum of its parts to me these days!

It is odd but the subtlety of music so often seems to be in inverse proportion to the size of the orchestra used and the actual length of the music!

George

PS: I have just read the Lebrecht article, and while I am not on NL's wavelength, it would be difficult to find his points entirely flawed.

quote:

It is odd but the subtlety of music so often seems to be in inverse proportion to the size of the orchestra used and the actual length of the music!

I don't think it is odd at all! A large orchestral work is not generally a medium for subtlety, although a few composers have achieved it (Mahler, for instance), but small-scale forces are ideal and composers have often chosen them for their most intimate musical thoughts.

Think of Beethoven in his sonatas and quartets, Schubert's chamber music -- and I think you will agree here George -- Haydn's quartets. On the other hand concertos and symphonies are necessarily more extravert and "public". The most extreme example is possibly Shostakovich whose symphonies were required to be "public" and outgoing but whose quartets, which the Soviet authorities seemed less interested in, are amazingly intimate.

Dear Dai,

Without question I did not quite express what I was thinking very well!

Really what I find odd is that the most popular music is usually the most spectacular rather than the most subtle! I entirely agree with your post above. It seems to me that the more subtle the music the less effective Karajan was as a conductor. His Bach is not in any way an ideal, and never was, but it did not stop him doing it!

The great thing about very subtle music is that in fact one never entirely fathoms it! It remains a constant source of new understandings from sometimes very seemingly very well known and well-loved pieces. Indeed I count the Quartets of Haydn as being the greatest single musical mine I can think of, except for Bach's keyboard works!

ATB from George

I agree with Virgil Thompson's assessment, "fascinating and tedious all at once."


I read an interview with Karajan shortly before he died. He said he wished to combine the massiveness of Furtwanglers sound with the rhythmic elan of Toscanini. This rather monstrous pastiche has been achieved on a number of his recordings, most especially the early 60's Beethoven cycle. Viscous and gooey ( ala Furtwangler, without the honesty and emotional power of this conductor) and fast and choppy ( ala Toscanini, without the Italian maestros musical insight and power).


Sorry to be so negative. If you like his recordings, fine. Whatever floats your boat.


Noyes

[edit] Actually Thompson never said anything about Karajan, he said the quote about Gregor Paitagorsky but it could just as well apply to K.

The trouble with the "massiveness of sound," which HvK inherited to a large degree via the BPO from WF, is that it is something that spoils the lucidity of music - the clarity of the all important inner voices, and especially the winds and violas. This is just as ruinous for the counter-point of Bruckner as it is for that of Bach. It is not really the archetypal German approach, but one pioneered by Furtwängler, between 1922 and about 1930 at the helm of the BPO. Not just one music-critic would comment on this new sound that was being obtained. Interestingly neither WF nor HvK managed to get the much more obstinate VPO to produce this very weighty tone.

In reality Furtwängler applied huge weight at nodal points and used it to expand the already very wide dynamic range that has characterised the BPO style for a good eighty years. I don't think that Karajan applied this weight with quite as much discrimination as Furtwängler.

One recording which almost amounts to a caricature in this respect, is the famous EMI recording with Oïstrack, Rostropovich, and Richter [with the BPO] of Beethoven's Triple Concerto. Some people rate this as one of the greatest of performances. I am not one of them.

On the other hand, I am not sure that honesty is a word I could use in the same phrase as Wilhelm Furtwängler on any level, musical or otherwise. Just like Karajan, he was an immense megalomaniac. Both were paranoid about the other, and it is often a mark of the megalomaniac, that he is also deeply insecure! Adrian Boult and Bruno Walter admired each other's artistry, and both demonstrated greater artistry than either of these two directors of the BPO. Both Boult and Walter were full of a questiing spirit that allowed neither to ever feel that they had reached the end of the road. The next performance could always be better. The result is that their music making developed in quality for a lifetime. In my view both HvK and WF actually ossified into arthritic and predictable tedium in their later years. There are some exceptions, but these are indeed exceptions in my view.

All in my humble opinion of course. George

Furtwangler was certainly the last person in the world we could call honest. Professionally and politically. I think that in some cases, a musician's art and his personality are greatly at odds. This can be see best in the example that has been quoted already: Richard Strauss. By the way, Strauss made some excellent recordings of Mozart's music, I believe with the self same BPO, if I'm not mistaken.


I find Furtwangler's Beethoven recordings, whatever you think of them, to be sincere statements about works that have been over recorded. Certainly they are far from the technical, whizz bang virtuosity/cynicism to be found among many latter day proponents (not the least of which would include Herr Karajan himself)


Respectfully

Noyes

[edit] I have not heard the Beethoven Triple in question. I'm afraid I'm at the point where certain names can unequivocally repel me from buying something, no matter how appealing the repertoire.

Dear Noyes,

You are not alone in your feelings about the WF Beethoven recordings. I can see the position myself. I used to share it, and in reality if these recordings lead to a love of the music, then they serve the right purpose! I know that they did for me. WF's recording with VPO for HMV introduced me to the Eroica, and I still think the recording with Edwin Fischer and the Philharmonia Orchestra of the Empereor Concerto represents something very special.

Here is a nice thread on the subject if you are interested. Here.

ATB from George

OK, with classical music especially interpretion comes all into play and whilst respecting both George and Tams' views on Karajan, to me he is one of the most presuasive conductors that I have come accross. Interestingly, I find his 1960's recordings generally better than his 1970's recordings, where some of his weaker preformances come in, with many of his 1980's recordings (mostly retakes) are excellent too. Personally, I have found his Beethoven 1960's symphony cycle absolutely superb in every way, with his 1980's cycle coming in 2nd. I find Karajan's stamp on the music and string based tone, most refreshing and his skill in bringing out the detail and vibe most satifying.
I found Mackaras Beethoven symphony 9 the most robotic and dull interpretation ever (Bohem's Beethoven symphony 6 is stupidly dull as well) and Harnoncourt's Beethoven symph 9 not inspiring as well. Klieber has zip but no emototion in his Beethoven 5 & 7.
Karajan is like it or hate it stuff, but please do not be predjuced before listening to what he still has to offer today.

quote:

Originally posted by Manni:
It was his merit, that the BPO became one of the best symphony orchestras.

Sorry, but I think this is just plain wrong. The BPO was one of the best symphony orchestras before Karajan took charge, I have no end of recordings that testify to that.

quote:

@ Tam: please listen to the end of the 4th movement of the Eroica. The 1963 HvK-version is for me by far the best, being really transcendental. Comparing the Leibowitz-Eroica, this is just ordinary.

We'll, I've dug it out and had another listen. Actually, I listened to the whole disc of the 1st and 3rd symphonies and, to be honest, it mainly reminded me why I don't like the cycle. I find the performances dull and predictable (which is an anathema for me as far as Beethoven is concerned). I don't find the playing of the Berlin Philharmonic to be all that special either (though I don't think the recording is DG's finest hour so that may not be helping them). The finale of the 3rd is, to these ears, the best bit of the disc, which is saying something as I'm not a huge fan of the movement, which doesn't often work. He displays a surprisingly light touch and this does create a deal more tension than has been present elsewhere. But it isn't really enough to redeem the performance for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Arola:
(Kubelik stands out as an example of a conductor who, to my ears, never made a truly bad recording.)

I place Mackerras in this bracket, I never cease to be astonished at the number of discs I acquire (it must be over 100 now) without have a single one that I don't regard as good (though obviously that doesn't mean that I think all are great or perfect).

Clearly James won't agree with this - I must confess, though, I don't think I've ever come across someone else who described Mackerras's Beethoven as boring. Fast paced and paying reasonable heed to the metronome markings, but still giving flexibility where called for, robotic is the very opposite of what all 4 performances I've heard from him sound like. Still, each to their own. I agree about Harnoncourt, though, I find his cycle overrated, similarly Zinman (if not more so).

I think you're probably right that Karajan is the kind of conductor whose interpretations are polarising. As I mentioned above, there are some I like (the Sibelius, and what I've heard of the Ring), and I still have one or two (Rosenkavelier) on my to be listened to shelf. But the Beethoven isn't for me. I don't think he finds anything like the detail that Davis or Jochum does (or Mackerras did in his live Edinburgh concerts - not the poorly recorded CDs though). Another thing Mackerras does particularly well (and Karajan didn't seem to in the 1st and 3rd) is hold pauses well - in general he has a superb sense of the dramatic in everything he conducts.


regards, Tam