The Karajan Sound
PJanssen0903
best captures Herbert von Karajan's "sound." I have here, as an example that
does not please me, the "Pagliacci" of DG Originals. Even though there is a lot
of energy in the playing that you can hear right from the opening fanfares, I
hear a hard, "plastic" sound in the recording. There is not any depth to it. It
sounds like these people are playing on very shrill toy instruments, even
though with a lot of virtuosity. This is made by Deutsche Grammophon of the
nineteen sixties.
People who heard HvK in concert, especially with the BPO, talk of remembering a
very warm full sound, and that is not what I hear that the engineer has
preserved on this recording. So I am curious whether any of the hundreds of HvK
recordings, on DG and EMI, can offer sound that is any more than "adequate" and
sounds as the so called Karajan sound was experienced live. I hope that can be
understood.
Lenny Abbey
like a fog creeping in.
Lenny
"PJanssen0903" <pjanss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020825012852...@mb-bh.aol.com...
David Wake
> I was wondering what is the opinion of all collectors on a
> performance that best captures Herbert von Karajan's "sound."
I never heard HvK live, but a couple of performances I possess sound
pretty good to me:
Bruckner Sym 7 EMI
Sibelius Sym 2 EMI/BPO
David
horizon
remembering a
> very warm full sound, and that is not what I hear that the engineer has
> preserved on this recording. So I am curious whether any of the hundreds
of HvK
> recordings, on DG and EMI, can offer sound that is any more than
"adequate" and
> sounds as the so called Karajan sound was experienced live. I hope that
can be
> understood.
Generally speaking, Karajan's EMI & Decca rep are his best recorded. For
instance, although it is not ideally cast, the Don Carlo sounds quite good,
and is IMHO wonderfully conducted. The EMI Aida is also quite well
recorded. His Otello on Decca is a Culshaw production, so it isn't as
naturally balanced as I like nowadays, but is still quite vivid. The Decca
Fledermaus is also very nice (although it strikes me as mastered at too low
a level). Even though Michael Glotz "produced" virtually all of Karajan's
late 70's & 80's repertoire, it is fascinating to note how different the EMI
and DG recordings sound. It does appear that EMI insisted on taking a
stronger hand in the engineering than did DG.
Matt C
Jeremy Dimmick
"David Wake" <dwake....@alumni.stanford.org> wrote in message
news:9n65xz1...@Turing.Stanford.EDU...
Me neither unfortunately. Among the DG recordings I've heard (to put in at
least one good word for DG) I think the VPO Bruckner 8 (1989) is in very
fine sound indeed. Whether it's exactly "the" Karajan sound I'm not sure -
the fact that it's not the BPO probably disqualifies it from being the sort
of ideal encapsulation you're after.
Jeremy
Hat NYC 62
various archives. Recordings not made by hollywood-style multi miking.
The discrepancy between what I myself hear on HvK's recordings (and what some
others seem also to hear) and what dozens of world class musicians I have
spoken to who heard Karajan live (particlarly with the BPO) is enourmous.
I remember myself working with some BPO musicians at the Schleswig-Holstein
festival years ago. The comment I remember was something like, 'don't buy those
awful recordings we make, we don't sound anything like that.'
Those who heard the BPO live under Karajan concur. I missed out. He was
supposed to come to Chicago in 86 but was replaced by James Levine (another
very great conductor not well served by recording engineers). Nonetheless, that
concert is still one of the most beautiful I have ever heard (and in old, dry
Orchestra Hall no less). Anyway, it was still Karajan's orchestra.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
Simon Roberts
I heard them live once only, and the sound was nothing like what can be
heard via DG or, for the most part, EMI (I suppose a few EMI recordings
come fairly close, such as Bruckner 7). Then again, he did have quite
distinctive sounds on recordings, too (DG sounding different from EMI).
Simon
Markesten
that his "sound" was never adequately captured on disc. While the recordings
often lead to comments like "shrill," "homogenous" and "mushy," his live
performances were anything but that. In the concert hall, one was struck by the
fact that he achieved an incredibly full sound without ever lapsing into the
banal. There was no "highlighting" of inner voices, so to speak, because
everything was wonderfully in balance so inner voices were heard without
needing to be underlined.
The times I heard him in concert, the interpretation was wonderful even if the
brass sections of these respected fine orchestras served up their share of
clams (something one would almost never expect or accept from American
players). In addition, the wind players weren't submerged in a wall of string
sound as can often happen on disc.
That said, the EMI recordings probably do fuller justice to HvK's sound
concept. I'd recommend the Pelleas et Melisande, Don Carlo, Aida, the Sibelius
1,4,5 & 6, and "Tone Poems," the Bruckner 7 and the Dvorak 8 for
starters.Beyond that, you're best served by the Sony DVDs of the 1987 New
Year's Concert, the Alpine Symphony and the Bruckner Symphonies.
Just my 2 cents.
Ray Hall
news:20020825101126...@mb-mv.aol.com...
I'll second the Pelleas et Melisande, along with the Sibelius 6th on EMI.
For DG the Honneger #2 and #3 symphonies are well recorded, and even better
is the digital Bruckner 8th, but with the VPO.
Actually, the 63 Beethoven symphony set isn't that bad recording wise. Maybe
an expert re-mastering spruce up on this set is required, as it is virtually
classic status imo.
Unfortunately I never got the chance to hear HvK and the BPO "live".
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN - El Toro de Taree
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 2/08/02
David S. Phipps
you a pretty good representation.
--
David S. Phipps
Grand Prairie, TX, USA
To reply, remove "nospam" from address.
Digiti
playing I have heard from the La Scala orchestra. I also appreciate
Karajan's interpretation of the uncut score especially when compared to the
EMI Cellini recording among others. This is from a listener who is not in
sympathy always with Karajan's way with other composers such as Mahler for
example. De gustibus...
"PJanssen0903" <pjanss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020825012852...@mb-bh.aol.com...
bal...@australia.edu
And on that theme the recordings he made of the Tchaikovsky ballet
suites for Decca sound pretty good - and it's not with the BPO.
Cheers
Baldric
vinyl1
a TAS review that said the recording made the orchestra sound like they were
playing sewer pipes and synthesizers, standing single file across the stage.
DG had better sound in the early sixties, but that was before the bulk of
the HvK recordings.
Stephen North
I heard Karajan live twice and NONE of the 800 or so pieces in
commercial CD recordings I have captures the glory of the BPO and
Karajan in full flight.
However I think the Sony DVDs of concerts come much closer than any
other commercial recordings especially the Dolby Digital tracks. That
said I have a few radio recordings of broadcast and they at least
demonstrate the transparency the orchestra was capable of - there was
never anything Manovani-like in concert. If pushed to suggest one CD
it would be the live VPO Bruckner 9 from 1976 on DG which is/was part
of the VPO 150th birthday set. The same performance is caught on DG
laserdisc and I think on a DG DVD available in Japan.
I recall David Cairns said that the coda of the finale of Brahms First
Symphony given in London in 1987 was like watching someone being
kicked to death: a sorry analogy but it does capture the power that
the orchestra could muster even when playing quietly. They were
capable of playing exceptionally quietly too - something we hear from
MTT and Gergiev nowadays but it was rare at the time.
There was also something very special about the way the BPO wind bands
under Karajan. The 1960s players heard to great effect in Karajans
early 60s Beethoven set (and almost as good in Cluytens Beethoven
cycle <G>) were a real concertante band - well drilled and exceptional
clean toned. The late 70s and 80s were the golden years though -
those wind players (and the horns) could sing like no other band
before or since.
There is of course a huge amount of material in radio archives which
will prove how good a conductor Karajan was and how different from the
DG and EMI releases, but we will have to wait for its release. Listen
out for his late performances of Mahler 5 - superior to the DG
recording, the last Bruckner 8 from Carnegie Hall with the VPO and
hopefully gems such as Prokofiev 4 from Holland and the Guerrelieder
from Italy!
SN
Joseph Vitale
news:20020825012852...@mb-bh.aol.com:
> I was wondering what is the opinion of all collectors on a performance
> that best captures Herbert von Karajan's "sound."
> ...etc.
>
It must be noted that the recording you reference of Pagliacci was not made
with Karajan's own orchestra (the BPO) but rather is a 1965 DG production
recorded in Milan, Italy with the forces of the La Scala Opera. The La
Scala Orchestra was a professional ensemble to be sure, but not the finely
tuned orchestra of the Berlin Philharmonic that we usually associate
Karajan with today. It would be my guess that the shrillness you hear has
more to do with the orchestra rather than anything on the part of the
recording engineer (Gunter Hermanns), as this guy was putting out good
sounding product before and after the Pagliacci. Karajan did a lot of work
at LaScala where I have read he was something of "matinee idol" type to the
locals. Yet I too don't hear that same rich, string heavy sound that he
seemed to instill in the BPO over the course of his 30 years at their helm.
A distinction should also be made in respect to the different venues that
Karajan and the BPO recorded in and the different sounds obtained there in.
Generally speaking, recordings with the Berlin Philharmonic made before
1975 were done in a church named Jesus-Christus (for both DG & EMI) Then in
1974/75 (or so) both companies decided to record in the BPO's home of The
Philharmonie. Why, I'm not sure. And I would be interested in hearing more
details on the reasons for the switch from those who might have more
insight. The recordings made in the Philharmonie are very closely miked
(again, I'm generalizing) which produces a much heavier sound and also
seems to make the strings very muscular and domineering. Technically
speaking, some listeners prefer the Philharmonie results obtained by EMI
over those produced by DG, finding EMI's recordings to not be as close and
more natural sounding. I must say I am not one of those listeners. For me,
Karajan's EMI / Philharmonie discs (The Beethoven Piano Concertos with
Weissenberg to name one example) sound too dull with a tubby, undefined,
no-man's-land, bass. I would suspect that the recorded sounds obtained in
the Jesus-Christus are more representative of the actual sound that Karajan
and his BPO produced. (I say "suspect" because I am another one of those
unfortunates who never had the opportunity to hear Karajan and the BPO
live). Also, the more natural sounds recorded in the Jesus-Christus could
account for the 1960's Karajan discs to be so much more likeable than those
from his post 1974 years. I sometimes wonder if one could take a
performance (let's say his 1987 digital Brahms 1st) and some how magically
whisk it back to being recorded with the same venue and technology of a
1963 Jesus-Christus, if that would make it anymore of a "finer"
performance. I suspect most would say it wouldn't, but we really don't
know. And, on the other foot, it would also be very interesting to hear a
highly regarded recorded performance from the old days (say Weingartner's
1927-1938 Beethoven Symphony cycle) as seen thru modern, full-blooded
digital microphones -if that might change it's worth (either for worse or
better). It is also difficult to compare Karajn's BPO sound to any other's
BPO sound because Karajan locked out other conductor's from recording with
his orchestra. (sure there are exceptions, Bohm's Mozart Symphony cycle,
Kubelik's fine Dvorak cycle, et. al.) but these are relatively few and far
between. In fact I'm not able to think of one recording produced by the
BPO and any other conductor besides HvK between the years of 1975 and 1979?
There is Bernstein's live 1979 Mahler Ninth but that wasn't released until
1992 on CD, am I correct? It wasn't until into the digital era of the early
1980's when recordings of the BPO began to reappear with conductors other
than Karajan. And here I'm thinking of Klaus Tennstedt's and Ricardo Muti's
early 80's EMI releases. Like P. Janssen's original post to this thread, I
too would be interested in hearing from anybody who attended Karajan & BPO
concerts on a regular basis at the Philharmonie in Berlin, and their
comparisons of live and recorded Karajan.
JV
Norman M. Schwartz
"vinyl1" <vin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3d693dac$0$142$45be...@newscene.com...
Didn't HvK himself have a lot influence in determining the sound of most all
of his DG recordings? If so, why fault only the engineers. I recall a
concert I attended many years ago at CH in NYC, with HvK leading the
Philharmonia Orchestra. I believe D. Brain was first hornist at the time and
the program included the Water Music and the sound was A-1 outstanding. IIRC
they adopted some unique seating arrangements with parallel rows of
musicians both left and right of the podium extending from the front of the
stage towards the rear wall. Could someone perhaps tell me whether or not
I'm hallucinating?
Heck51
> like a fog creeping in.
Really. it's completely monotonous (as in monotone-ous). the sonority
is always the same to me - everything thick and "buttery" - very
rounded off, never any edges or sharp corners or hard accents.
ultra-smooth. godawful.
Also - it's so suppressed dynamically. the lid is clamped down tight.
it's like he's driving a Ferrari and never gets it out of 4th gear, or
past 80% throttle. dull, duller, dullest.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>I was wondering what is the opinion of all collectors on a performance that
>best captures Herbert von Karajan's "sound." I have here, as an example that
>does not please me, the "Pagliacci" of DG Originals. Even though there is a lot
>of energy in the playing that you can hear right from the opening fanfares, I
>hear a hard, "plastic" sound in the recording. There is not any depth to it. It
>sounds like these people are playing on very shrill toy instruments, even
>though with a lot of virtuosity. This is made by Deutsche Grammophon of the
>nineteen sixties.
>
misconception, which is that the purpose of Karajan's recordings was to capture
what he sounded like "live." Nothing could be further from the truth. Like Glenn
Gould, or Stokowski, Karajan regarded recording as a thing apart, an opportunity
to create a "perfect" (by his own lights) interpretation using all technical
means at his disposal. I heard him live a couple of occasions, and like any
other conductor and orchestra Karajan and the BPO had good days and bad. Did he
have a special sound? Well, sort of. It changed over time, as did the sound of
his recordings.
So to the point: there are several recordings that illustrate very powerfully,
for good and ill, the kind of sound he prefered, and for my money the most
instructive are those where one can easily compare the repertoire in question to
other, more "normal" interpretations by other artists. The issue, for me anyway,
is not "sound quality" as such, vis-a-vis some imaginary "live" standard. It is,
rather, how well the engineers serve Karajan's particular sonic concept for the
work in question. My recommendations:
Bartok: Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta; Stravinky: Apollo
DG Originals
Since most of Karajan's special sound concerned his treatment of strings (winds,
brass and percussion as often as not were simply there to provide local color),
this disc gives a very good sense of what he was about, both good and bad. The
good comes in the form of the Bartok, which in some respects (tempos, excessive
legato) seems all "wrong," but in which the string playing has such intensity
and physical impact that it works anyway. The Stravinsky, on the other hand,
simply sounds like glue, the heaviness of articulation only serving the make the
music even more monochrome that it has any right to be.
Another disc that offers similar grounds for comparison is:
Prokofiev: Symphony No. 5; Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring
DG Orginals
The Prokofiev is one of the great performances, despite having almost no bass at
all (even the tam-tam is high-pitched), and succeeds solely on the basis of its
incomparably weighty string playing (check out the first movement coda) and
lively tempos generally. It's light, but powerful too. The Stravinsky, on the
other hand, is a disaster: dense, four-square, and missing all kinds of detail
in winds, brass, and percussion. Yet both share the same basic sonic
"framework."
Finally, to hear this approach perhaps at its most persuasive and individual:
Mahler: Symphony No. 5 (DG Originals)
Here the comparison is to Abbado's later version with the BPO. Compare the great
chorale that concludes the symphony. Here, it's obvious that Karajan's
insistance on nearly 50 rehearsals and careful balances both between and within
sections set a standard which Abbado with the same orchestra doesn't approach.
In this respect Karjan's Mahler is always interesting because Mahler demands
absolute equality of balance between sections, and it took Karajan some time to
understand how to meet this demand within his own, heavily string-based
predilections. Sometimes he succeeded, and sometimes he didn't, but he remained
fascinated with Mahler's sensitivity to sheer orchestral sound and his use of
timbre in a formal, symphonic context. It's interesting also to compare this
Mahler Fifth, sonically, to Karajan's first DG (analog) Also Sprach Zarathustra,
another great performance that demonstrates how much better Strauss'
string-heavy orchestration fit in with Karajan's "sound."
Anyway, these recordings with the BPO give an excellent sense of what Karajan
tried to achieve through this medium. Comparisons with live recordings are
pointless and irrelevent, as is the contention that somewhere out there the
"real" Karajan exists in some broadcast tape, and that the recordings are all
somehow forgeries or falsifications. Karajan took huge pains to make recordings
that sounded as he wanted them to sound. You may not like them, but he approved
them and believed they captured his interpretations adequately.
Dave Hurwitz
andrew lambert
> Date: 25 Aug 2002 14:12:49 -0700
> I heard Karajan live twice and NONE of the 800 or so pieces in
> commercial CD recordings I have captures the glory of the BPO and
> Karajan in full flight.
Agreed. I heard him live with the VPO at CH (NYC) in the Bruckner 8 shortly
before his death. The recordings were not true to the sound he was able to
achieve live. A friend of mine said (to put it mildly) unkind words about
his chief audio engineer Gunter Hermanns, due to his poor engineering. IMO,
the live recording with the VPO was not a patch on his live performance at
CH.
>
> There is of course a huge amount of material in radio archives which
> will prove how good a conductor Karajan was and how different from the
> DG and EMI releases, but we will have to wait for its release. Listen
> out for his late performances of Mahler 5 - superior to the DG
> recording, the last Bruckner 8 from Carnegie Hall with the VPO and
> hopefully gems such as Prokofiev 4 from Holland and the Guerrelieder
> from Italy!
Did HvK perform Prokofiev 4? He recorded the 5th, and would think that he
would not respond to the 4th based upon his repertoire. Did he ever perform
Mahler 3?
Andrew
Hat NYC 62
a TAS review that said the recording made the orchestra sound like they were
playing sewer pipes and synthesizers, standing single file across the stage.
>>
The musicians didn't take those recordings seriously at all, from what I can
tell. They were recorded during rehearsals, not dedicated recording sessions,
and were stitched together by master tapecutters.
However, this method of recording allowed DG to build a massive catalog. And
fattened the wallets of everyone in the BPO. Very nice. It's one of the reasons
the orchestra was in so much trouble recently. The musicians were used to
making a ton of extra money from recording and it stopped.
They aren't the only orchestra to suffer at the hands of multi miking. Witness
what happened to the CSO on records when they went multi (Ozawa, Giulini on EMI
and, of course, Solti). They won a lot of grammys but their recordings no
longer sounded like an orchestra, they sounded like recordings of instruments
taken out of context and mixed back together piece by piece. Then, in many
cases, false echo was added in postproduction.
But at least the CSO had actual recording sessions where these monstrosities
(some of which are nice records despite all this) were made.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
David Wake
> It stikes me that many of those responding to this thread are
> operating under a misconception, which is that the purpose of
> Karajan's recordings was to capture what he sounded like "live."
Maybe that *ought* to have been the purpose of his recordings, though?
David
David Hurwitz
>BPO sound because Karajan locked out other conductor's from recording with
>his orchestra. (sure there are exceptions, Bohm's Mozart Symphony cycle,
>Kubelik's fine Dvorak cycle, et. al.) but these are relatively few and far
>between. In fact I'm not able to think of one recording produced by the
>BPO and any other conductor besides HvK between the years of 1975 and 1979?
>There is Bernstein's live 1979 Mahler Ninth but that wasn't released until
>1992 on CD, am I correct? It wasn't until into the digital era of the early
>1980's when recordings of the BPO began to reappear with conductors other
>than Karajan.
Perhaps true for a few years in the 70s, but is this really unusual? Who
recorded with Cleveland regularly during the Szell years, the NY Phil under
Bernstein, or Philadelphia under Ormandy. In fact, Berlin is represented with
far more conductors during the Karajan era than most other orchestras with long
term relationship to specific music directors. In addition to the names you cite
(and both Bohm and Kubelik recorded quite a bit more than the titles you
list--let's not forget Bohm's Schubert cycle, or Kubelik's Schumann, just to add
a couple of core repertoire items), there were Jochum, Cluytens, Barbirolli,
Fricsay, Maazel, Leitner, Rostropovich (an excellent example of the Berlin
"sound" sans Karajan), Szell, Wallenstein, Stokowski, Abbado--and mostly in
"core" repertoire, not weird stuff. I think it's quite easy to compare Karajan's
BPO sound to that of others, and doing so makes it clear that, like Stokowski,
he was quite distinctive. Consider, for example, his Schumann cycle compared to
Kubelik's, or his Tchaikovsky ballet suites compared to Rostropovich's
(recorded, incidentally, in the Philharmonie in 1978).
Dave Hurwitz
horizon
ever is probably the famous La Boheme on Decca (with Freni & Pavarotti).
And, if I remember correctly, the Butterfly is pretty terrific sounding as
well.
Matt C
Simon Roberts
I don't think so. It's not at all obvious to me why the sound an
orchestra makes in a hall *should* be regarded as an ideal, let alone
the only one (though I don't think it's an unreasonable standard for
someone to have). I love the sound of many of his recordings (and
others', for that matter), and if that's not "natural" sound, well, so
much for natural sound.
Simon
David7Gable
>ever is probably the famous La Boheme on Decca (with Freni & Pavarotti).
Yes, but he does such horrible things to that poor opera!
-david gable
George Murnu
> If pushed to suggest one CD
> it would be the live VPO Bruckner 9 from 1976 on DG which is/was part
> of the VPO 150th birthday set. The same performance is caught on DG
> laserdisc and I think on a DG DVD available in Japan.
Do the Japanese issues include the Bach Concerto with Kremer that was
performed in the first part of the same concert?
Agree with you, terrific performance.
Regards,
George
[snip]
Ray Hall
news:20020825181735...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Exactly. Good points made, and Abbado has had some godawful multi-mike stuff
recorded with the CSO, that to my ears is unlistenable. And not just with
the CSO either. The multi-miking you talk about is a curse. In my opinion
EMI have always been the standard for natural recordings, and fwiw, many of
the CBS recordings made in the sixties were good also - their main fault
always seeming to be a close-up sound with lack of true pianissimos.
Bernstein/NYPO is a case in point regarding CBS. Better than all the
subsequent fancy M-M stuff of some other labels.
horizon
"Ray Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:CFna9.15381$g9.4...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Exactly. Good points made, and Abbado has had some godawful multi-mike
stuff
> recorded with the CSO, that to my ears is unlistenable. And not just with
> the CSO either. The multi-miking you talk about is a curse. In my opinion
> EMI have always been the standard for natural recordings, and fwiw, many
of
> the CBS recordings made in the sixties were good also - their main fault
> always seeming to be a close-up sound with lack of true pianissimos.
>
> Bernstein/NYPO is a case in point regarding CBS. Better than all the
> subsequent fancy M-M stuff of some other labels.
When DG would send executives here to America in the 80s, they were always
shocked at how badly many collectors and hi-fi enthusiasts felt about the
sound of their recordings (and especially in regard to how much better
received the Decca/London & Philips stuff was). I think they, like Herbie,
bought into the cult of recording technology, where more technology is
always better -- and so what if the conductor didn't quite balance the
orchestra during the session, since we can always do it post-production.
From the late 70s to the early 90s, DG produced some of the ugliest sounding
recordings I ever heard. They finally got the message at some point in the
mid 90s, and from my point of view, they're now producing much better
sounding stuff.
I definitely agree about the Bernstein/CBS stuff. It's a bit brash, in your
face, and lots of fun to listen to -- since these much more naturally
captured recordings have an organic wholeness and acoustic energy that far
exceeds the clinical, desiccated, completely artificial soundstage lacking
any central image, quality, that is so typical of Karajan's highly
manipulated DG oeuvre. For a guy obsessed with technology, Herbie evidently
had no clue what his recordings would sound like to posterity through
ever-more revealing mid-fi and high-end audio equipment. I guess the only
thing that matter was what it sounded like in his head.
Matt C
Stephen North
> snipped
> >
> It stikes me that many of those responding to this thread are operating under a
> misconception, which is that the purpose of Karajan's recordings was to capture
> what he sounded like "live." Nothing could be further from the truth. Like Glenn
> Gould, or Stokowski, Karajan regarded recording as a thing apart, an opportunity
> to create a "perfect" (by his own lights) interpretation using all technical
> means at his disposal. I heard him live a couple of occasions, and like any
> other conductor and orchestra Karajan and the BPO had good days and bad. Did he
> have a special sound? Well, sort of. It changed over time, as did the sound of
> his recordings.
>
> Anyway, these recordings with the BPO give an excellent sense of what Karajan
> tried to achieve through this medium. Comparisons with live recordings are
> pointless and irrelevent, as is the contention that somewhere out there the
> "real" Karajan exists in some broadcast tape, and that the recordings are all
> somehow forgeries or falsifications. Karajan took huge pains to make recordings
> that sounded as he wanted them to sound. You may not like them, but he approved
> them and believed they captured his interpretations adequately.
>
> Dave Hurwitz
This is hogwash.
"All recordings are falsifications"
"Karajan took huge pains to make them sound as he wanted them to sound"
Zero out of ten for logic.
SN
David Hurwitz
>This is hogwash.
>
>"All recordings are falsifications"
>"Karajan took huge pains to make them sound as he wanted them to sound"
>
>Zero out of ten for logic.
>
>SN
Zero out of ten for:
(a) reading comprehension;
(b) making a constructive contribution to the discussion at hand.
Dave
Lani Spahr
> Perhaps true for a few years in the 70s, but is this really unusual? Who
> recorded with Cleveland regularly during the Szell years,
Louis Lane (many times) and Robert Shaw (at least twice that I can remember).
Cheers,
Lani Spahr
Paul Goldstein
lani_...@yahoo.com says...
Were Boulez's Cleveland Debussy and Stravinsky recordings for CBS during the
Szell era or immediately after? I think during OTTOMH.
Paul Goldstein
David Hurwitz
recorded with those other orchestras, but simply that many more conductors,
comparatively speaking, recorded in Berlin. Schippers made NYPO recordings
during the Bernstein era, Munch and Stokowski appeared in Philadelphia under
Ormandy, etc. Still, far more artists appeared in Berlin under Karajan.
Dave
bal...@australia.edu
A couple of years after CD came out I was looking for a really good
LvB 9th and the '77 HvK/BPO was rated as tops. I auditioned it and
felt a bit strange about the sound but thought "OK, I can live with
this." Then the choir kicked in and I immediately lost interest. What
I wanted to hear was the words and while the choir sounded lush and
rich it was as if they were all singing with boiled sweets in their
mouths. I could only put that down to the engineering. Needless to say
I never bought the disc. I suffered a similar experience with Edith
Mathis in Mahler 4. Conversely, his La Scala Verdi Requiem is exactly
opposite. Beautiful singing with excellent diction from both soloists
and choir.
Cheers
Baldric
Marcus Maroney
> Really. it's completely monotonous (as in monotone-ous). the sonority
> is always the same to me - everything thick and "buttery" - very
> rounded off, never any edges or sharp corners or hard accents.
> ultra-smooth. godawful.
>
> Also - it's so suppressed dynamically. the lid is clamped down tight.
> it's like he's driving a Ferrari and never gets it out of 4th gear, or
> past 80% throttle. dull, duller, dullest.
While some of these comments are meritted, there are several
recordings that belie them. Karajan was quite good at conducting
somewhat contemporary pieces and just about all his recordings of 20th
century repertoire are performed with much rhythmic precision and
sharp articulation. The wind soloists of his BPO also provide plenty
of non-monotonous color, and the dynamic range (in the Prokofiev 5
first movement coda, for instance) is perhaps not "demonstration"
worthy, but is as wide as if not wider than many competitive
recordings. I'd recommend the following:
Nielsen 4
Honegger 2/3
Webern Passacaglia
As for recordings of 19th century repertoire, the 1963 Beethoven 9,
Mahler 6, and Don Quixote with Fournier are all excellent
interpretations in vivid sound. I'm also quite fond of his Weber
overtures. I don't think you can get corners much sharper or accents
much harder than in his excellent recording of Der Beherrscher der
Geister, which also has fantastic dynamic range. His Oberon is a
mixed bag, with a magical opening but an Allegro con fuoco that falls
into the "dull" category for the reasons you described above. The
"thick" sound works great in the horn theme of the Freischutz
overture, which is also a great recording despite the rather slack
opening bars. The Molto vivace features some marvelous dynamic swoops
and sharp playing from the brass, and in general the tutti sections
are full yet maintain a nice degree of definition.
People who dismiss all of Karajan's recordings as being "completely
monotonous" are missing out on some wonderful, diverse music making.
However something "different" could be wrong with someone if they
think "the sonority is always the same" despite quite obvious
differences between, say, the very defined, spacious, and wide ranging
sonics of the 1963 Beethoven 9 and the much worse-sounding DDD
"Karajan Gold" recording or the EMI and DG Don Quixotes (both of which
sound good to me, although I prefer the interpretation and cello vs.
orchestra balance on the DG).
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Simon Roberts
>dgall...@mediaone.net (Heck51):
>
>> Really. it's completely monotonous (as in monotone-ous). the sonority
>> is always the same to me - everything thick and "buttery" - very
>> rounded off, never any edges or sharp corners or hard accents.
>> ultra-smooth. godawful.
>>
>> Also - it's so suppressed dynamically. the lid is clamped down tight.
>> it's like he's driving a Ferrari and never gets it out of 4th gear, or
>> past 80% throttle. dull, duller, dullest.
>
>While some of these comments are meritted, there are several
>recordings that belie them.
[good examples snipped; I would add some others, including his Fidelio -
try Pizarro's aria)]
Indeed. As for the charge, made elsewhere, that he created the same sound
for everything, assuming for the moment that it's true (I don't think it
is), I would suggest that this is a complaint which people make only if
they don't like the sound in question. Did, say, Ormandy, Toscanini,
Beecham and Szell really create significantly different sound worlds for
different music, or do we not care (if we don't) because we like the
sounds (assuming we do)?
Simon
Todd Kay
tempi adopted for O don fatale, parts of the Veil Song, and Rodrigo's address
to Elisabetta; Raimondi's flyweight Grand Inquisitor (as if he could ever
successfully intimidate Ghiaurov's Philip!) -- but I find stunning much of what
he gets the BPO to do, both at the level of pure sound and in the context of
the drama. The prelude to the big soprano aria in the final act becomes
something quasi-Brucknerian and *huge*, like a brief orchestral tone poem. I've
never heard it sound so mysterious, awesome, unsettling...it's slightly
terrifying when those bleary strings kick in and begin to gather momentum.
This recording, too, is one that belies the claim that his BPO operated within
a narrow dynamic range -- if anything, the dynamics as captured have an
exaggerated *width*.
========Todd Kay========
horizon
"Todd Kay" <tragik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826172237...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> The prelude to the big soprano aria in the final act becomes
> something quasi-Brucknerian and *huge*, like a brief orchestral tone poem.
I've
> never heard it sound so mysterious, awesome, unsettling...it's slightly
> terrifying when those bleary strings kick in and begin to gather momentum.
Yep. That prelude to Freni's aria is worth the price of the set (and Freni
is much more emotionally gripping than Caballe on the Giulini set).
> This recording, too, is one that belies the claim that his BPO operated
within
> a narrow dynamic range -- if anything, the dynamics as captured have an
> exaggerated *width*.
Great recording. But one I suspect that the EMI engineering team didn't let
Karajan have much input on. Good for them.
Matt C
Rajeev Aloysius
> pjanss...@aol.com (PJanssen0903) wrote in
> news:20020825012852...@mb-bh.aol.com:
>
> > I was wondering what is the opinion of all collectors on a performance
> > that best captures Herbert von Karajan's "sound."
> > ...etc.
> >
> 1974/75 (or so) both companies decided to record in the BPO's home of The
> Philharmonie. Why, I'm not sure.
I am just listening to the DG Digital Tch: Serenade for Strings,
recorded in the Philharmonie digitally in the 80's. The sound is not
harsh nor too closely miked. I suppose it could be different with
brass being present.
If I am not mistaken, the Jesus-Christus Kirche at Faradayweg, near
Thielplatz in Berlin is still used as a recording venue by the BPO for
recordings. I plan to visit it for curiosity sake when I am in Berlin
next month. I will hear the conductorless BPO strings in a programme
of arrangements in the Chamber Music Hall (not the main hall) of the
Philharmonie on 26th. Will report back.
Regards
Rajeev Aloysius
Stephen North
Apologies - I did misread your words, but I think there's something
wrong with your conclusion. Allow me raise a few issues in
recompense....
Take the recordings of Bruckner 1 and 2: horrible, glassy and
artifical. I doubt very much whether this meets your line about the
recordings sound how he wanted them to sound, nor do I believe they
capture his interpretations adequately.
But there are other factors to consider. He may not have given a damn
how Bruckner 1 & 2 sounded (not his core repetoire and recorded
primarily to make up the set). Or he may not have been making the
decisions as to how the sound was transfered/processed. There is also
the rumour that ill health which dogged his later years didn't spare
his hearing. These all make me wonder about your conclusions.
SN
David Hurwitz
>Apologies - I did misread your words, but I think there's something
>wrong with your conclusion. Allow me raise a few issues in
>recompense....
>
>Take the recordings of Bruckner 1 and 2: horrible, glassy and
>artifical. I doubt very much whether this meets your line about the
>recordings sound how he wanted them to sound, nor do I believe they
>capture his interpretations adequately.
>
>But there are other factors to consider. He may not have given a damn
>how Bruckner 1 & 2 sounded (not his core repetoire and recorded
>primarily to make up the set). Or he may not have been making the
>decisions as to how the sound was transfered/processed. There is also
>the rumour that ill health which dogged his later years didn't spare
>his hearing. These all make me wonder about your conclusions.
>
>SN
Thank you for your courtesy. I agree that many of his recordings sound terrible,
and like you I did have the opportunity to hear Karajan and Berlin live. The
early digitals, in particular, were atrocious, yet these were precisely the
recordings that Karajan mixed himself (he had his own mixing consol)! One of
DG's engineers told me that one of the reasons they sounded so shrill is that
Karajan's hearing was going bad at the high end in the last decade of his life
(compare, for example, some of the excellent sounding recordings made at the
same period with Abbado and the LSO), but the fact remains that every recording
he made was personally approved for release (save the last Ballo, which he did
not complete before his death). Nor is there much question that he, like many
other conductors, did not try to recreate a live experience on disc, but rather
regarded recordings as a thing apart, a difference experience of the music to be
"created" electronically as an aid to his interpretations.
I remember vividly an audio demonstration I once attended at which Mark Levinson
used a gadget he invented called an "audio paulette" or some such to make a
recording of Glenn Gould sound as if he were playing on a Bosendorfer with a
particularly rich, rotund, reverberant tone. It was lovely. But it raised the
obvious issue of why Glenn Gould himself did not want his recordings to sound
like that. So it is with Karajan. We may violently dislike that sound that he
got, but that doesn't mean it isn't what he wanted, and since we have the
evidence of the approved and released recordings themselves I think we have to
assume that on the whole he was satisfied. I can accept the possibility that
what Karajan heard at home in his own studio on professional equipment and what
the discs boiled down to on most consumer's home systems could have been quite
different. We don't really know. But in the final analysis, there are some
artists who don't care what their records sound like, and some who do. Karajan
did. That they sounded weird or bad to many other ears doesn't alter that fact,
depressing though it may be. And I also maintain that there are quite a few of
his recordings that capture what he was trying to do, and what he sounded like,
very well indeed.
Dave
Markesten
<< I can accept the possibility that
what Karajan heard at home in his own studio on professional equipment and what
the discs boiled down to on most consumer's home systems could have been quite
different. We don't really know. But in the final analysis, there are some
artists who don't care what their records sound like, and some who do. Karajan
did. That they sounded weird or bad to many other ears doesn't alter that fact,
depressing though it may be. And I also maintain that there are quite a few of
his recordings that capture what he was trying to do, and what he sounded like,
very well indeed.
>>
David's points are well taken. That said, I'd add the following:
Upon the arrival of digital recording, Karajan remarked that "everything else
is gaslight." He believed digital recording was the wave of the future and
quickly moved to recording (and re-recording) everything in that medium. In
this, he was ahead of the curve - many labels continued recording in analog
well after digital was available. Unfortunately, not all CD producers had
mastered the digital realm at the time, none more so than the engineers at DGG.
I purchased as CD player early on and was struck by the fact that Decca CDs
(not to mention Chandos) sounded better than DGG CDs from the get go. While
it's true that DGG made some digitals with Abbado and the LSO at the same time
that sounded OK, they were also making awful-sounding CDs in Berlin and Vienna
with Maazel - the Dvorak Symphonies and the Tchaik Concerto with Kremer spring
to mind. As Karajan had no hand in the production of these discs, one can most
likely feel safe in assigning the blame for the poor sound - which is very "up
front" and empty in character - to the DGG production team's choices. And,
compare the early digital sound of the EMI Opera Overures CD (with Mutter in
the Thais Meditation) - even in its "Studio" CD version it featured great
digital sound that DGs from the same period lacked (it sounds even beter in its
later remastered version).
Second point is that many of the early DGG digitals have had their sound fixed
(enhanced?) at a later date to great effect by later remastering. The Karajan
Alpine Symphony comes to mind. The original LP issue was full of clams in the
brass and so-so sound. The initial CD issue used different takes that
eliminated the obvious clams, but it was afflicted with extremely harsh,
up-front sound. It also contained only a single track for the entire CD. The
recording was then re-mastered for the Karajan Gold series where the sound was
improved markedly. There were also 12 or 13 tracks added as cue points for this
issue. This final version is the one to own, and it bears little resemblance to
the first two attempts at mixing.
There are others in the early Karajan digital series that have benefitted from
the "Gold" or "Original Image Processing" that DGG has done the last couple of
years. The Beethoven Symphony set came up much better after the Gold treatment,
but it remains the weakest of his various Beethoven cycles. Strangely, the
recorded sound for this series always seemed more natural on the laserdisc
versions from Sony. These were supposedly the "same" Telemondial recordings
that appeared on DGG CDs. But if that's true, why are the solo singers
different on the Sony DVD and DG CD versions of the 9th?
Other early digitals from Karajan are beyond saving - the Organ Symphony, while
containing some nice playing, is STILL harsh in the Gold version, and
Cochereau's contribution on the organ is in such an obviously different
acoustic than the orchestra that even the greatest of tonmeisters would find it
impossible to meld the two into a coherent whole (I believe the orchestra was
recorded in the Philharmonie while the organ used was that at Notre Dame, but I
may be wrong).
The Tchaik 4,5 &6 with Vienna still sound awful in their Gold versions; the
Parsifal (a 32-track job) lacks depth and hasn't been given a remastering - yet
(it could use it...maybe they could edit out Peter Hoffman entirely and a few
of Vejovic's squallier moments while they're at it!). The disc of Scandinavian
bob bons is very much improved in the Gold version. With Karajan digital
recordings, I think that you pays your money and you takes your chances. But if
you have a choice, opt for the remastered version.
While it is true that Karajan had "control" over these recordings (something he
DIDN'T have over the 1960 DG's - he says as much in one of those interview
books he did), I wonder how much time he actually spent on each recording.
After all, digital recording was launched by a major with Decca's issue of the
1979 New Year's Day concert (VERY screechy!) on LP. Actual CDs started
appearing in earnest in March, 1983. Assuming Karajan started recording
digitally in 1980, that gave him 9 years of digital recording before his death.
The sheer volume of works that he recorded during this period mitigate against
his being hands-on in the post-production process. Add to that the fact that he
was very busy with the Sony videos (43 of them, including a couple of operas),
the fact that many of the digitals came out on LP first and later on CD in
obviously different masterings (and track selection), and I would conclude that
much of the heralded "Karajan as producer" stories that we've all heard
amounted to little more than marketing spin. Was he responsible for the initial
production on LP and the initial DIFFERENT CD version as well? I sort of doubt
it.
It's much more likely that he gave a general "sound world" direction to the DG
crew and let them run with the ball, approving the recordings in a de facto or
rubber stamp manner.
Karajan stayed very active in the opera house and concert hall until almost the
very end. All that time, he was becoming more frail and increasingly ill. He
was locked in a major power struggle with the BPO. I find it hard to believe
he was singularly "responsible" for the final sound that afflicted the early DG
digitals, especially as DG seemed to be an equal opportunity offender when it
came to shrill, unnatural engineering in those early days.
Two other points - Karajan and the DG team went as far as to have the exact
same playback equipment in their homes/studios to evaluate these recordings.
Even allowing for differences in room acoustics, one can safely assume that the
equipment choice was made so both Karajan and his team could stay on the same
page of the playbbok when it came to evaluating the recordings for final
release. So, was it Karajan telling the engineers "I WANT that shrill sound,"
or was it the engineers saying "at this time, this is the best sound we can
come up with using this new technology"? I don't know, I'm hypothesizing.
Second point - early on in the digital era, Karajan made a statement that he
would re-record as much of his repertoire digitally and that he did NOT approve
of his analogue recordings being released in the CD format. Well, DG and EMI
were issuing his analog material on CD well before his death. If he had
"control" over his recorded material, how did the labels get around that one?
Again, I don't know, but I'd like to find out.
Just my two cents...
Paul Goldstein
>(not to mention Chandos) sounded better than DGG CDs from the get go. While
>it's true that DGG made some digitals with Abbado and the LSO at the same time
>that sounded OK, they were also making awful-sounding CDs in Berlin and Vienna
>with Maazel - the Dvorak Symphonies and the Tchaik Concerto with Kremer spring
>to mind. As Karajan had no hand in the production of these discs, one can most
>likely feel safe in assigning the blame for the poor sound - which is very "up
>front" and empty in character - to the DGG production team's choices. And,
>compare the early digital sound of the EMI Opera Overures CD (with Mutter in
>the Thais Meditation) - even in its "Studio" CD version it featured great
>digital sound that DGs from the same period lacked (it sounds even beter in its
>later remastered version).
Some of DGG's early digital orchestral recordings were superbly engineered -
e.g. the Orpheus Ch. Orch. in its larger formulations. DGG's early digital
Bernstein recordings are usually technically good to excellent, though of course
in-concert recordings should not be judged by studio standards. But for the
most part, DGG's digital orchestral recordings of 1981-1985 sound awful in
comparison with all or most contemporaneous offerings from Decca and Philips, to
say nothing of Bis, Telarc, Chandos (though this was somewhat hit-and-miss), and
many other smaller labels. DGG has improved markedly in this field since then,
but I still do not find its typical orchestral sound equal to the best.
Paul Goldstein
Rodger Whitlock
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[le snip grande - google for it if you care]
The thing is, what we want to hear now is Karajan the conductor,
not Karajan the wannabe recording engineer.
Maybe some day DG will go back to the session masters and redo
those on which Karajan imposed his ridiculous idea of how
recordings should sound.
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>On 27 Aug 2002 06:29:54 -0700, David Hurwitz
><David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>[le snip grande - google for it if you care]
>
>The thing is, what we want to hear now is Karajan the conductor,
>not Karajan the wannabe recording engineer.
>
>Maybe some day DG will go back to the session masters and redo
>those on which Karajan imposed his ridiculous idea of how
>recordings should sound.
>
>
Edition" remasterings, most of which are remarkably better than the original
issues. Some, as Mark also notes, such as the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony, are
simply beyond salvaging.
Dave
Norman M. Schwartz
"Paul Goldstein" <pgol...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:akg9i...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Some of DGG's early digital orchestral recordings were superbly
engineered -
> e.g. the Orpheus Ch. Orch. in its larger formulations. DGG's early
digital
> Bernstein recordings are usually technically good to excellent, though of
course
> in-concert recordings should not be judged by studio standards. But for
the
> most part, DGG's digital orchestral recordings of 1981-1985 sound awful in
> comparison with all or most contemporaneous offerings from Decca and
Philips, to
> say nothing of Bis, Telarc, Chandos (though this was somewhat
hit-and-miss), and
> many other smaller labels. DGG has improved markedly in this field since
then,
> but I still do not find its typical orchestral sound equal to the best.
FWIW HvK's Berlin Philharmoniker DG recording, 423 375-2, of Mozart's
Divertimento K 334 (1987) coupled with the Seranata notturna K. 239 (1983)
recorded in the "Philharmonie" is outstanding and there are plenty tell-tale
strings to be dealt with.
PJanssen0903
I wonder if David Hurwitz and others would have anything to say about the DGG
Parsifal recording. I am considering buying it, but it is also one of those
"early digitals" that are said to be the worst sounding of all. Is this
recording "Gold"? Is it wiser to wait for a remastering?
Stephen North
I hear what you say.
I look out for other people's recordings of Karajan - especially SFB
and ORF which seem to me to be more attractive than either many DG
discs and most EMI (is it just me or are a lot of the EMI discs marred
by shoddy editing - I listen on headphones mostly and find I hear far
too many joins on EMI discs of HvK).
I'm reminded also of Karajan's statement - I think quoted in Lang's
book - that he thought CD and video would allow everyone to have the
best seat in the house. This is somewhat of a contradiction to
Legge's philosophy (shared by HvK ?) regarding those early EMI opera
recordings the purpose of which were to bring opera "into people's
drawing rooms" (I'm paraphrasing). The switch from private audience
to public audience must have been made at some time - but I don't know
when.
SN
Lena
> dgall...@mediaone.net (Heck51):
>
> > Really. it's completely monotonous (as in monotone-ous). the sonority
> > is always the same to me - everything thick and "buttery" - very
> > rounded off, never any edges or sharp corners or hard accents.
> > ultra-smooth. godawful.
> >
> > Also - it's so suppressed dynamically. the lid is clamped down tight.
> > it's like he's driving a Ferrari and never gets it out of 4th gear, or
> > past 80% throttle. dull, duller, dullest.
>
> While some of these comments are meritted, there are several
> recordings that belie them. Karajan was quite good at conducting
> somewhat contemporary pieces and just about all his recordings of 20th
> century repertoire are performed with much rhythmic precision and
> People who dismiss all of Karajan's recordings as being "completely
> monotonous" are missing out on some wonderful, diverse music making.
> However something "different" could be wrong with someone if they
> think "the sonority is always the same" despite quite obvious
> differences between, say, the very defined, spacious, and wide ranging
> sonics of the 1963 Beethoven 9 and the much worse-sounding DDD
> "Karajan Gold" recording or the EMI and DG Don Quixotes (both of which
> sound good to me, although I prefer the interpretation and cello vs.
> orchestra balance on the DG).
Excellent points (mostly snipped, but excellent nevertheless).
Lena
(neither Karajan fan nor foe, but thinks he made more than one
recording with merits...)
Joseph Vitale
Concerning the Karajan "Gold" remixes, the only one's I've heard that I
actually prefer to the original CD incarnations are the Strauss releases,
which do "free up" the orchestra by adding more space around the soundstage
while also adding more definition and firmness to the bass. All the other
one's I've heard add a curious "metallic" quality to the sound, especially
in the live Mahler 9th which I thought was fine and didn't call for any
remix-tinkering. I have the original, "non-Gold" digital Beethoven set and
here too, I don't see anything dramatically displeasing about the sound.
When I have sampled the Gold remixes of the Beethoven in record stores,
again, the sound was colder and metallic like compared to what I was used
to hearing. The sound is just plain horrible on the Saint-Saens Symphony,
yet the performance is such a blazing one that I don't mind so much. The
Gold remix on The Alpine Symphony is a curious one. On the original LP
release, (I'm going by vague memory here, back 20 years ago from a "library
checkout") the hunting horn fanfare in Part Three (The Assent) is offstage.
It's also offstage in every other CD version of the work I have, and I
presume it's written that way in the score. However in the Gold
remix/Karajan CD, the offstage brass are invited back in from outside, and
are now dramatically (and thrillingly) center stage. When I first heard
this I though it was a case of "artistic liberties" gone wild by Gold re-
mixer Rainer Maillard (who wasn't even a member of the original recording
team according to liner note credits.) Then I had a chance to see (via
video) Karajan's own live performance of the work in the Philharmonie.
There, Karajan also had the brass onstage (within the orchestra) letting
rip, without even any hint of "offstage" sound. And I must admit that I
much prefer it this way, -it's much more exciting. Now, every time I hear
this section on another performance with the hunting brass faintly "over
the mountains", it comes as something of a let down.
JV
Ward Hardman
: << Even the musicians noticed? That shows how bad they were.. I well remember
: a TAS review that said the recording made the orchestra sound like they were
: playing sewer pipes and synthesizers, standing single file across the stage.
: >>
: The musicians didn't take those recordings seriously at all, from what I can
: tell. They were recorded during rehearsals, not dedicated recording sessions,
: and were stitched together by master tapecutters.
I picked up the cassette set of the late '70s Beethoven symphony set (less
than half the cost of the LPs for some strange reason) and in the notes
read that Karajan had simply had the orchestra run through the symphonies,
then took home the tapes to see what needed to be touched up. This hardly
sounds like an approach that would produce a soul-stirring set.
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple
competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
mniszek
> I have my problems with his four-act EMI DON CARLO -- the punishingly slow
> tempi adopted for O don fatale, parts of the Veil Song, and Rodrigo's address
> to Elisabetta; Raimondi's flyweight Grand Inquisitor (as if he could ever
> successfully intimidate Ghiaurov's Philip!)
First, the Grand Inquisitor is a 90-year old man in the Don Carlo
libretto.
Second, do you think that the main weapon of the Spanish Inquisition
used to intimidate misguided believers was shouting?
Third, Raimondi could, and can, shout not less loudly than Ghiaurov
when the role demanded it.
Mniszek
Markesten
video) Karajan's own live performance of the work in the Philharmonie.
There, Karajan also had the brass onstage (within the orchestra) letting
rip, without even any hint of "offstage" sound. And I must admit that I
much prefer it this way, -it's much more exciting. Now, every time I hear
this section on another performance with the hunting brass faintly "over
the mountains", it comes as something of a let down.
>>
HvKs performance of the Alpine at Carnegie Hall also keep the horns on stage.
IIRC, he had 4 horns on stage, rather than the 12 requested offstage in the
score. I always chalked that up to the expenses of touring - who can afford to
transport 8 extra horn players around for such a brief offstage snippet?
Markesten
> tempi adopted for O don fatale >>
The story was widely reported that this aria was recorded first thing in the
morning, Apparently, Karajan sensed that Baltsa was very nervous and - in an
attempt to sidestep her over-thinking and over-worrying the aria - ordered her
to sing through the aria "cold" on the pretext of setting recording levels.
Little did she know that that was going to be IT. There was never another take
of the aria and, for better or worse, Baltsa had to live with the results.
Personally, while sections of the aria are extremely slow, I find the overall
effect quite exciting - a "seat-of-the-pants" version, if you will.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20020827171009...@mb-cm.aol.com:
It is the only _Parsifal_ to which I have been able to listen with
patience.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Heck51
"The wind soloists of his BPO also provide plenty
of non-monotonous color,"
I don't think so.
For example - the DG set of Beethoven wind music - the wonderful 6tet,
8tet, military marches, etc - are performed by the BPO/Karajan wind
sections. They play the notes OK, but these are the blandest, dullest
renditions I've ever heard - "mezzo-mezzo" throughout, and really
colorless.
For far more interesting versions - either the CzechPO
ensemble(Tyslar, Hermann, etc) or the old NYWW5tet + friends version
are just two of the more colorful and enjoyable possibilities.
"and the dynamic range (in the Prokofiev 5"
i'm not talking about recording quality - I'm referring to playing -
the volume output by the actual players. HvK kept the lid on. i heard
him live - he kept it on there too, not just recordings.
"I don't think you can get corners much sharper or accents
> much harder than in his excellent recording of Der Beherrscher der
> Geister, which also has fantastic dynamic range."
I don't think i've ever heard a HvK recording or pefformance that had
an adequate variety of articulations or variations in accent and/or
attack. he seemed unalterably opposed to anything harsh, rude, edgy or
raucous. This doesn't mean that an orchestra should always play that
way (the Russians DO get a little carried away sometimes LOL!!) - but
there are times when it is needed.
Everything smoothed over and slick sounding, to me, gets very
monotonous.
"People who dismiss all of Karajan's recordings as being "completely
monotonous" are missing out on some wonderful, diverse music making."
I'm not so sure - i've tried many times to take a fresh approach to
HvK - it always comes out the same. his approach to orchestra sound
just doesn't do it for me.
Just once I'd like to hear him let the orchestra roar at full throttle
- just let it rip!! doesn't happen.
Compared to the Reiners, Mravinskys, Toscaninis, etc, HvK sounds pale
and uninteresting.
Tansal Arnas
> early digitals, in particular, were atrocious, yet these were precisely the
> recordings that Karajan mixed himself (he had his own mixing consol)! One of
> DG's engineers told me that one of the reasons they sounded so shrill is that
> Karajan's hearing was going bad at the high end in the last decade of his life
I wonder if this means these recordings will begin to sound good when one's
hearing starts to go...
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
> Second point is that many of the early DGG digitals have had their sound fixed
> (enhanced?) at a later date to great effect by later remastering. The Karajan
> Alpine Symphony comes to mind. The original LP issue was full of clams in the
> brass and so-so sound. The initial CD issue used different takes that
> eliminated the obvious clams, but it was afflicted with extremely harsh,
> up-front sound. It also contained only a single track for the entire CD. The
> recording was then re-mastered for the Karajan Gold series where the sound was
> improved markedly. There were also 12 or 13 tracks added as cue points for
> this issue. This final version is the one to own, and it bears little
> resemblance to the first two attempts at mixing.
I just bought my first recording of the Alpine symphony: Previn/VPO on
Telarc. It is the only piece on the disc and on one track. The track is
then indexed into subsections, however, none of my CD players can read them.
I can read them in my DVD player, but this is quite clunky and not the way I
prefer to hear music. I'm intrigued by the piece, however, and am curious
about an alternate recording. I have all of Karajan's DG Originals discs of
Strauss's music. Would his digital Alpine symphony be good for a second
recommendation? Thanks.
Tansal
horizon
"PJanssen0903" <pjanss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020827171009...@mb-cm.aol.com...
The conducting is fascinating, but the singing in another matter (especially
Hoffman), and the sound is classic Karajan. I don't find it unlistenable by
any means, but it doesn't cohere very well on revealing equipment.
Matt C
Markesten
by the piece, however, and am curious
about an alternate recording. I have all of Karajan's DG Originals discs of
Strauss's music. Would his digital Alpine symphony be good for a second
recommendation? Thanks.
>>
The Previn is an outstanding version, so your intro to the piece is a good one.
Previn's Telarc Strauss series is worth owning in its entirety, especially now
that the discs have been priced as midlines.
By all means get the Karajan in the Gold reissue. It's more rough and ready
than the Previn, but interpretively, Karajan scores points in this piece that
others miss.
Others to consider: the Haitink on Philips has stunning sound, but I find the
interpretation horribly bland. It's almost as if Haitink is AVOIDING
interpreting.
The Maazel on BMG combines a fiery interpretation with outstanding playing and
great sound (Wilhelm Meister was the producer. The whole Maazel Strauss series
on BMG has great sound - but you need to crank the volume up ro get the full
force of the recordings). Maazel also features wonderful balances bewtwwen the
choirs of the orchestra...and a tremendous bottom to the sound.
Sinopoli on DG is good...good luck finding it. Thielemann on DG is horrible -
it's readily available. Go figure!
Kempe's EMI recording with Dresden is one of the few misses in his Strauss
series. I grew up with his earlier RCA recording which has never made it to CD,
AFAIK. I'd like to rehear it.
My two cents...
Simon Roberts
>Kempe's EMI recording with Dresden is one of the few misses in his Strauss
>series.
Hmm. That would be my first choice.
Simon
Fabulutz
<tan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely! His finest 'Strauss' hour IMHO. You may also want to check
out Richard Strauss conducting it himself on Dutton which, by the way,
assigns tracks to all of the piece's subsections.
-Kevbo
Dave Hurwitz
Dave
Heck51
"Would his digital Alpine symphony be good for a second
recommendation? Thanks.
for Alpine Symphony recommendations:
Barenboim/CSO on Erato - excellent sound, amazing playing, also -
Mehta/LAPO from the 60s - another fine version in excellent sound.
Bruce Hodges
Karajan's digital version is excellent - no complaints here - but for
a version in modern sound, my first choice is Blomstedt/San Francisco
on Decca, which may be out-of-print but is easy enough to find used.
I also like the Haitink/Concertgebouw version on Philips, from the
1980's.
If you like historical recordings, however, I heartily recommend the
Dutton Labs remastering of this piece with Strauss himself conducting.
The sound is amazing and very listenable, given that it was recorded
in 1941. I generally shy away from recordings from that period, but
this one is exceptional.
--Bruce
Tansal Arnas
> The Previn is an outstanding version, so your intro to the piece is a good
> one. Previn's Telarc Strauss series is worth owning in its entirety,
> especially now that the discs have been priced as midlines.
I'm glad for this recommendation. I was curious to know if the whole series
was worthwhile.
> By all means get the Karajan in the Gold reissue. It's more rough and ready
> than the Previn, but interpretively, Karajan scores points in this piece that
> others miss.
I particularly liked the comments about the off-stage horns being
front-and-center. I think I would like that effect very much, plus it
serves as a good contrast to the Previn/VPO. Thanks!
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
> Karajan's digital version is excellent - no complaints here - but for
> a version in modern sound, my first choice is Blomstedt/San Francisco
> on Decca, which may be out-of-print but is easy enough to find used.
> I also like the Haitink/Concertgebouw version on Philips, from the
> 1980's.
I think it'll be easiest to pick up the Karajan.
> If you like historical recordings, however, I heartily recommend the
> Dutton Labs remastering of this piece with Strauss himself conducting.
> The sound is amazing and very listenable, given that it was recorded
> in 1941. I generally shy away from recordings from that period, but
> this one is exceptional.
Thanks for this recommendation too. It's reasonably priced at Tower for
$8.99.
Tansal
Sol L. Siegel
> The Previn is an outstanding version, so your intro to the
> piece is a good one. Previn's Telarc Strauss series is worth
>owning in its entirety, especially now that the discs have
>been priced as midlines.
I can vouch for the Zarathustra/Tod; with those VPO strings,
the ASZ makes a wonderful alternative to the famous '54
Reiner version.
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"I am sure of very little, and I shouldn't be surprised if those things were
wrong." - Clarence Darrow
--------------------
(Remove "dammspam" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
Stephen North
Apparently the Sony DVD of a concert performance is even better and
I'd wager in better sound - only available in Japan at the moment I
think.
The Karajan Gold version of the Alpensinfonie is an improvement
sonically in many ways - but the raw sound of the earlier version is
somehow compelling. I kept the original issue and still play it when
want the piece to blow away a few cobwebs <G>
S
Markesten
I'd wager in better sound - only available in Japan at the moment I
think. >>
I have it on laserdisc. It is, indeed impressive, though the brass - again -
have their share of clams. BUT, as this is a live performace, it allows one to
hear what HvK could achieve in the concert hall.
Marcus Maroney
> Marcus Maroney) wrote
>
> "The wind soloists of his BPO also provide plenty
> of non-monotonous color,"
>
> I don't think so.
>
> For example - the DG set of Beethoven wind music [snip]
My comment on the wind playing was in a paragraph about Karajan's
recordings of contemporary works. It's helpful to maintain context
when you quote someone, otherwise you'll confuse yourself and make non
sequiturs.
> - the wonderful 6tet,
> 8tet, military marches, etc - are performed by the BPO/Karajan wind
> sections.
Again, considering that Karajan didn't have anything whatsoever to do
with ANY of these performances and that they are chamber works for
winds alone as opposed to full orchestral works with wind solos (as a
wind player, I can tell you that a different approach to one's playing
must be taken in either role), I fail to see how your point relates to
mine. A conductor can and does have an effect on the sound of the
wind section (i.e., view John Mack's oboe sound under Szell, Maazel,
Dohnanyi....etc. - same solo oboist, different sound quality per
recordings and labels; likewise, his recordings of chamber and solo
repertoire reveal yet *another* hue of his distinctive timbre).
> "I don't think you can get corners much sharper or accents
> > much harder than in his excellent recording of Der Beherrscher der
> > Geister, which also has fantastic dynamic range."
>
> I don't think i've ever heard a HvK recording or pefformance that had
> an adequate variety of articulations or variations in accent and/or
> attack. he seemed unalterably opposed to anything harsh, rude, edgy or
> raucous.
> Just once I'd like to hear him let the orchestra roar at full throttle
> - just let it rip!! doesn't happen.
You obviously haven't heard the recordings I mentioned.
> Compared to the Reiners, Mravinskys, Toscaninis, etc, HvK sounds pale
> and uninteresting.
These conductors didn't record the majority of the repertoire I cited
(Nielsen 4, Honegger 2/3, Webern Passacaglia, Weber's Der Beherrscher
der Geister) so I don't see how you can use the phrase "compared to"
in response to my post. I was very specific in the examples I chose
and you seem to have misinterpreted my comments as referring to
Karajan in general. I'd be surprised if you could come up with a
better recording of the Weber, Honegger, or Nielsen.
Further, your entire argument seems based on the fact that Karajan
didn't let his orchestra "rip" or wasn't harsh enough, etc (i.e., all
comments referring to the loud, aggressive end of the spectrum).
While I agree this is true in many of his recordings (especially later
on), he recorded a lot of repertoire that just didn't call for this
kind of treatment. Where in Sibelius 4 or Metamorphosen, to cite two
such cases, should the orchestra be "harsh, rude, edgy, or raucous"?
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Marcus Maroney
> for Alpine Symphony recommendations:
>
> Barenboim/CSO on Erato - excellent sound, amazing playing, also -
The sound on this release is poorly defined and almost muffled in the
loud sections. I'm quite surprised to see this recommendation from
someone complaining that Karajan's recordings are dull, unless you
think the sudden and invariably strident, abrasive brass playing that
Barenboim incites from the climax of the Summit section to the end of
the Storm exciting. It makes me cringe.
> Mehta/LAPO from the 60s - another fine version in excellent sound.
The sound is good on this, but unfortunately the orchestra is not on
its best behavior. Mehta's interpretation is quite middle of the road
(I'm almost tempted to say "polite"), and you can get a very similar
reading in better sound and with a better orchestra (the Berlin PO) on
his later Sony recording. Additionally, you get one of the best
performances of the first horn concerto (Gerd Seifert performing).
If you can find it, get Sinopoli's recording (it is currently listed
as "Low stock" at towerrecords.com, which means you could probably get
it if you ordered it today). A grandiose conception of the work, high
on dramatic contrast and with absolutely stunning playing from the
Staatskapelle Dresden.
I'm not sure of the availability of Blomstedt's very good SFSO
recording, and Kempe's recording seems to only be available in the
9-CD box, so among readily available single discs I would recommend
Karajan/BPO or Solti/BRSO (faster and rougher than many, but tons of
fun).
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
andrew lambert
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:10:49 GMT
Francisco is outstanding and was my favorite for years, while the Karajan as
well as Kempe/Dresden are recordings I could not live without. Yet there
are two recordings which are also spectacular and worth searching out:
Sinopoli/Dresden DGG. This is an "import" in the USA, but has been
available at Tower on West 4th Street in NYC, or through Canadian and
European vendors. It has power as well as poetry, and the Dresden orchestra
plays in manner born.
The other, perhaps even finer, is the DVD with Sinopoli/Dresden. I think
this DVD is on Arthaus Muski and is titled 450 years of the Staatskapele
Dresden. The concert features Vivaldi, Weber and Wagner (IIANM). It ends
with the Alpine Symphony. I have never heard a finer performance, and this
alone would be a great way to remember Sinopoli's art.
Those who have a curiosity streak may try to search out the
Mravinsky/Leningrad PO, which was on Olympia. It is not a great performance
(nor it is played immaculately) by any means, but it is an interesting one
and well worth one's time.
Andrew
andrew lambert
> Date: 28 Aug 2002 17:33:42 -0700
>
>
> If you can find it, get Sinopoli's recording (it is currently listed
> as "Low stock" at towerrecords.com, which means you could probably get
> it if you ordered it today). A grandiose conception of the work, high
> on dramatic contrast and with absolutely stunning playing from the
> Staatskapelle Dresden.
Agreed. Completely.
>
> I'm not sure of the availability of Blomstedt's very good SFSO
> recording, and Kempe's recording seems to only be available in the
> 9-CD box, so among readily available single discs I would recommend
> Karajan/BPO or Solti/BRSO (faster and rougher than many, but tons of
> fun).
Blomstedt/SFSO Alpine is available on a mid-priced Decca CD in their Ovation
series. It had been available at Tower on West 4th Street. The
Kempe/Dresden Alpine is in the next series of releases in EMI's "Great
Recordings of the Century." This too is a "must own" if you adore the work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcus Maroney
> marcus....@yale.edu
Does anyone know if the Kempe/Royal Philharmonic recording was issued on CD,
and if so, what label? In addition, how would you rate the
Haitink/Concertgebouw as well as the Boehm/Dresden on DG The Originals?
Andrew
andrew lambert
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:41:53 GMT
> The Kempe/Dresden Alpine is in the next series of releases in EMI's "Great
> Recordings of the Century." This too is a "must own" if you adore the work.
I think it is the Kempe/Dresden Heldenleben and not the Alpine that is
slated for the next reissue series in EMI's "Great Recordings of the
Century." Hopefully, the Kempe/Dresden Alpine will follow.
Andrew
Joseph Vitale
news:B9930189.2ECB%lamb...@nyc.rr.com:
EMI should just reissue the whole Kempe/Strauss series in 24bit remastered
sound (In one box set). That's all they need to do. (IMO) every one of
those performances is a GROTC.
JV
David S. Phipps
and boooorrrrrrrrrrring interpretation. Very sing-songy and "pretty", but
it just doesn't pack a punch. Too bad Solti wasn't conducting...........
My favorite is the Jarvi/Scottish National Orch on Chandos.
--
David S. Phipps
Grand Prairie, TX, USA
To reply, remove "nospam" from address.
andrew lambert
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:19:48 GMT
>
> EMI should just reissue the whole Kempe/Strauss series in 24bit remastered
> sound (In one box set). That's all they need to do. (IMO) every one of
> those performances is a GROTC.
>
> JV
>
issued on Testament. They feature repertoire that we are not accustomed to
being conducted by Kempe. An example is Schwanda Polka and Fugue by Jaromir
Weinberger. In addition, IIANM, I heard that he conducted Shostakovich and
there is 8th "out there." Does anybody know about this, and what other
Shostakovich he might have conducted?
Andrew
andrew lambert
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:54:19 -0500
>
> My favorite is the Jarvi/Scottish National Orch on Chandos.
> --
> David S. Phipps
> Grand Prairie, TX, USA
>
Sinopoli/Dresden DGG?, Sinopoli/Dresden Arthaus DVD? All these recordings
are magnificent and I would not want to miss any of them.
Andrew
David Wake
>
> Where in Sibelius 4 [...] should the orchestra be "harsh, rude,
> edgy, or raucous"?
>
1st movt, second subject. See Beecham's LPO recording.
David
Heck51
"Again, considering that Karajan didn't have anything whatsoever to
do
> with ANY of these performances and that they are chamber works for
> winds alone as opposed to full orchestral works with wind solos (as a
> wind player,"
The point is, these chamber works have the same bland monotonous
quality as the orchestral works conducted by HvK display.
Another example - I saw/heard a video of the LvB Violin concerto -
Mutter/Karajan/BPO. The WW playing esp mvt II was absolutely deadly
dull - the notes were played in the correct rhythms, but with no
expression whatsoever - sans vibrato, sans crescendo-diminuendo, non
espressivo. very dull. Without doubt, the most lifeless rendition of
the orchestra part I've ever heard.
" You obviously haven't heard the recordings I mentioned."
Quite possible - as I said, i've never heard a recording of his that
makes full use of the range of articulations, dynamics and tone
colors available. That doen't mean I've heard every recording he ever
made, but I've heard lots, and lots of them.
>
> > Compared to the Reiners, Mravinskys, Toscaninis, etc, HvK sounds pale
> > and uninteresting.
>
>"These conductors didn't record the majority of the repertoire I
cited
> (Nielsen 4, Honegger 2/3, Webern Passacaglia, Weber's Der Beherrscher
> der Geister) so I don't see how you can use the phrase "compared to"
> in response to my post."
Since we are discussing a general approach to orchestral sound, the
comparisons are completely valid.
"I'd be surprised if you could come up with a
> better recording of the Weber, Honegger, or Nielsen."
quite easily, really - for the Nielsen, the Martinon/CSO recording
from the 60s far and away surpasses HvK in every respect.
For the Honegger - try Mravinsky/LeningradPO #3 for a brutal and
gripping account - HvK would never allow his players to do that!!
LOL!!
"Further, your entire argument seems based on the fact that Karajan
> didn't let his orchestra "rip" or wasn't harsh enough, etc (i.e., all
> comments referring to the loud, aggressive end of the spectrum)."
No, it is the whole range of tone color, articulation and dynamics
that is missing.
" While I agree this is true in many of his recordings (especially
later
on),
Thank you.
"he recorded a lot of repertoire that just didn't call for this
> kind of treatment."
and he recorded alot that does call for it, but with HVK, it isn't
there.
"Where in Sibelius 4 or Metamorphosen, to cite two
such cases, should the orchestra be "harsh, rude, edgy, or raucous"?"
Sibelius can certainly benefit from a hard "edge" - icy and craggy -
not all of the time, of course - but certainly those long crescendi in
the brass, the snarling, growling effects on the basses, bassoons, etc
need that reedy biting sonority. Definiteley in mvts I, and IV at the
very least... A round, tubby, flabby sound just doesn't cut it.
Try Bernstein/NYPO for this piece or any Sibelius. Or generally,
Toscanini/NBC(!!), or Monteux/LSO or Stokowski/NBC (Sym#2), Barbirolli
is good, too -
Gotta run, cheers....
Marcus Maroney
Yikes. I envision this as having a very full, dark brass sound.
Precise articulation and a lot of volume are possible without being
harsh, etc. Maybe we're mvoing into a pointless argument of
semantics, but the adjectives I asked for would imply, in this
passage, bright, abrasive, heavily marcato brass playing with sharp
releases, which would be averse to the nature of the movement to me.
VPO/Maazel is excellent here. The only Beecham I have is the BBC
Legends recording with the Royal PO, which is in that regard, I guess,
much different than his LPO recoring (although I haven't heard that).
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Tansal Arnas
> EMI should just reissue the whole Kempe/Strauss series in 24bit remastered
> sound (In one box set). That's all they need to do. (IMO) every one of
> those performances is a GROTC.
Why? Is the sound on the 9-disc EMI box bad? I see it for about £20 at MDT.
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
> Have you heard the Karajan?, Kempe/Dresden?, Blomstedt/SFSO?,
> Sinopoli/Dresden DGG?, Sinopoli/Dresden Arthaus DVD? All these recordings
> are magnificent and I would not want to miss any of them.
Some of these are harder to find at Tower, but MDT has them all. Except the
DVD - where might I find this, and is it Region 1/NTSC?
Tansal
Heck51
"Where in Sibelius 4 [...] should the orchestra be "harsh, rude,
edgy, or raucous"?
DW: <<1st movt, second subject. See Beecham's LPO recording.>>
"Yikes. I envision this as having a very full, dark brass sound.
Precise articulation and a lot of volume are possible without being
harsh, etc."
H: That, to me, is underplayed, excessively round and smooth, and not
the right sound at all.
MM: "the adjectives I asked for would imply, in this passage, bright,
abrasive, heavily marcato brass playing with sharp releases, which
would be averse to the nature of the movement to me."
That sound, to me, is necessary in Sibelius, and many other composers
- not every passage, of course, but the contrast with the more
lyrical, dolce style is what makes the sound interesting.
I lose interest when the orchestral sound is "monotonous"
(monotone-ous)
Markesten
There's a difference between being monotonous and employing subtle shadings. I
love HvK's way with Sibelius because the shifts ARE so subtle. He achieves
through the slow boil what many miss through exaggeration. I love the way he
"turns over" the brass in his recordings of the fifth, their texture emerging
almost imperceptibly from the orchestra and crescendo-ing to become the
dominate texture iat a particular climax. Such an effect depends on balance
throughout the choirs of the orchestra, and I feel that HvK was a master of
this particular orchestral device.
Personally, I find Bernstein's Sibelius an abberation of the score - lacking in
subtelty and overly emphatic. And, I'd remind you that Sibelius was on record
liking Karajan's way with his music while disliking Beecham's. What's that mean
to those who disparage HvK while championing Beecham in Sibelius?
That said, I certainly don't subscribe to the school of thought that every
single quaver and semi-quaver must contain some subtlety that escapes the
"uneducated" listener. That coy approach puts most interpretations by Elisabeth
Schwarzkopf out of court for my tastes. I tend to enjoy my music-making
straight forward, if that's the correct term.
So I can see how one would go for the Bernstein approach in Sibelius and not
Karajan - and vice versa. Different strokes for different folks. I wouldn't
accuse Bernstein of not understanding the music of Sibelius, nor would I accuse
him of playing Sibelius the same way he played Mahler, Gershwin...or Sousa, for
that matter.
In a similar way, I don't think that Karajan applied the same patina to every
composer or musical era. Certainly his Tchaikovsky recordings with the BPO are
some of the only non-Russian orchestra recordings that seek to mimic the edgy
brass texture that distinguished (some would say "afflicted") Russian
orchestras. Certainly there's a different sound in his recordings of Puccini
compared to Verdi; surely there's a different sound applied to Beethoven than
there is to his Bruckner.
As listeners, we all look for different things in performances and recordings.
That's fine, because that's what having variety is all about. You call it
monotonous, I call it subtle. We're both right for our particular tastes. C'est
la vie.
Dirk A. Ronk
of course a huge amount of material in radio archives which
will prove how good a conductor Karajan was and how different from the
DG and EMI releases, but we will have to wait for its release."
I do hope you're right, Stephen. I need SOMETHING to convince me of
what many folks apparently think is self-evident: that Herbie the K
is/was a truly great conductor. Maybe radio archives, by catching him
in "mid-creation" (so to speak)--without the capacity to edit, boost
levels, go for retakes, etc.--will provide a glimpse of that greatness
I just don't seem to hear in most of his recorded legacy.
I have some reason to believe that I can be convinced: the Q Disk
14-CD set of Haitink's radio recordings with the Concertgebouw
completely changed my opinion of HIS conducting capability (though I
still find his Philips studio recordings absolutely correct,
competent, tonally lovely and deadly dull)--until then, I never would
have put the words "Haitink" and "excitement" in the same sentence. So
maybe a well-chosen set of radio archive stuff can work the same
miracle on my opinion of Karajan.
Karajan was a conductor whose recordings were SO ubiquitous when I
first began collecting classical (late '70s) that early on, I found
myself with literally dozens upon dozens of his records. Same with
Szell. However, after many years of listening to many different
interpreters, Szell has risen in my estimation, while Karajan has
slipped back to an area of dim awareness occupied by Ormandy and a few
others whose repertoires were large, but whose approach just doesn't
do much for me. As a result, his representation in my collection has
been reduced gradually to perhaps a dozen records or so. Some were
ultimately ditched because I found the recording quality insufferable
(the DGGs from the late '60s on fit in here). But most were tossed
because I simply didn't like the guy's interpretive approach compared
to other conductors (notably Mengelberg, Furtwangler and Toscanini in
the historical realm; Szell, Reiner, Mravinsky, Monteux and others in
the stereo era).
Based on recordings I've actually owned, for example, I don't think
HvK could conduct Rossini to save his life. The notes are there, but
anything resembling wit is missing. And in WAY too many pieces, I feel
like I'm experiencing a "blenderized" musical equivalent of pabulum,
when what I'm after is the texture and greater satisfaction of real
meat (e.g., the LvB 6th symphony from the 1963 cycle, one of the worst
interps of that music I've ever heard).
Sorry. Didn't mean to rant.
However, last year, I promised a friend of mine that I'd make a
concerted effort to listen more extensively--and with more sympathetic
ears--to Karajan's performances. So far, I've found only a few items
that I really like: his '50s LvB Missa Solemnis, his EMI Sibelius 5th,
selections from his '63 Beethoven cycle (except that 6th, which I
still loathe), his DGG Bruckner 4th (parts of it, anyway), the DGG
Verklarte Nacht (one piece where his blenderizer approach is actually
welcome, even though I generally prefer the chamber version), and a
couple of others. I don't own the early digital Parsifal (I dislike
early digital sound and I'm just not a complete opera kinda guy), but
have to admit that Karajan's approach there is exceptionally lovely.
Anyway, I suppose the next thing for me to do is to track down some of
those HvK live items SN mentioned (Mahler 5, the last Bruckner 8 from
Carnegie Hall with the VPO ...Prokofiev 4 from Holland and the
Guerrelieder from Italy). While I usually prefer LPs, I don't think
I'm going to find any/many of these in that format. So... Anybody know
of a ready-to-hear comprehensive CD set--a la Q Disk or maybe Maestro
History--that might help make me a believer?
Or is that what we're all still waiting for? :-D
Thanks,
Dirk
Joseph Vitale
The existing remasterings aren't bad. But they aren't state-of-the-art
24bit either. (Those could sound so much better! For me, -24bit from analog
means fuller, warmer, and more immediate sound. Some have said as if your
listening to the original master tape instead of a very good vinyl pressing
which your average "good" remaster might sound like). Basically I'm saying
EMI already missed the boat in a good opportunity to remaster the entire
set when they released the 9 disc "slim box" of the Kempe/Strauss some time
ago.
JV
David Wake
>
> There's a difference between being monotonous and employing subtle
> shadings. I love HvK's way with Sibelius because the shifts ARE so
> subtle. He achieves through the slow boil what many miss through
> exaggeration. I love the way he "turns over" the brass in his
> recordings of the fifth, their texture emerging almost imperceptibly
> from the orchestra and crescendo-ing to become the dominate texture
> iat a particular climax. Such an effect depends on balance
> throughout the choirs of the orchestra, and I feel that HvK was a
> master of this particular orchestral device.
>
> Personally, I find Bernstein's Sibelius an abberation of the score -
> lacking in subtelty and overly emphatic. And, I'd remind you that
> Sibelius was on record liking Karajan's way with his music while
> disliking Beecham's. What's that mean to those who disparage HvK
> while championing Beecham in Sibelius?
>
Isn't Sibelius also "on record" as saying that Beecham's 6th was his
favorite recording of all?
In any case, I believe (though I may be wrong) that all these alleged
quotes from Sibelius derive from one source: Walter Legge. He was
surely not an unbiased commentator, having both conductors on his
roster at various times.
David (who loves HvK's Philharmonia 5ths but finds all his DG
symphonies "lacking in subtlety and overemphatic", loves Beecham's LPO
4th but doesn't like his 6th so much, and loves Bernstein's 6th/7th
but thinks his 4th is a disaster)
Markesten
quotes from Sibelius derive from one source: Walter Legge. >>
Yes, they come from Legge, but they were contained in letters written by
Sibelius himself to Legge. I doubt that Legge forged these to promote his
artist roster.
In any case, to have Sibelius writing that "his [Karajan's] great artistic line
and the inner beauty of the interpretation have deeply impressed me" (4th
Symphony), and "Karajan is a great master. His interpretation is superb,
technically and musically," (4th & 5th Syms) is hardly faint praise, even from
a composer who reportedly handed out compliments on recordings of his works
rather readily.
As far as Sibelius and Beecham, you are correct. Sibelius' daughter (Eva
Poloheimo) reported that among all of the many recordings of his music, he
esteemed Beecham's 1947 version of the 6th above all. He also felt that among
the younger set, Karajan had the greatest feeling for his music.
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Sibelius' disparaging comments vis-a-vis
Beecham were made in connection with his version of the 2nd.
Marcus Maroney
> Another example - I saw/heard a video of the LvB Violin concerto -
> Mutter/Karajan/BPO. The WW playing esp mvt II was absolutely deadly
> dull - the notes were played in the correct rhythms, but with no
> expression whatsoever - sans vibrato, sans crescendo-diminuendo, non
> espressivo. very dull. Without doubt, the most lifeless rendition of
> the orchestra part I've ever heard.
It's almost painfully obvious that you are only picking recordings
that are generally regarded as boring and avoiding any that are
regarded as excellent.
> >"These conductors didn't record the majority of the repertoire I
> cited
> > (Nielsen 4, Honegger 2/3, Webern Passacaglia, Weber's Der Beherrscher
> > der Geister) so I don't see how you can use the phrase "compared to"
> > in response to my post."
>
> Since we are discussing a general approach to orchestral sound, the
> comparisons are completely valid.
I wasn't discussing anything general. Again, I made very specific
references.
> "I'd be surprised if you could come up with a
> > better recording of the Weber, Honegger, or Nielsen."
> For the Honegger - try Mravinsky/LeningradPO #3 for a brutal and
> gripping account - HvK would never allow his players to do that!!
> LOL!!
LOL!! I *completely* agree with you! The Leningrad winds certainly
have character don't they? They sound like a bunch of rabid geese.
And the horns are so hilariously unable to cope with the licks in the
first movement. Yes, indeed, a completely brutal treatment of the
score.
Munch/BSO, Jansons, and Baudo are the only recordings of this piece
that are as good as Karajan's.
> " While I agree this is true in many of his recordings (especially
> later
> on),
>
> Thank you.
This is why I recommended the recordings I did.
>
> "he recorded a lot of repertoire that just didn't call for this
> > kind of treatment."
>
> and he recorded alot that does call for it, but with HVK, it isn't
> there.
This is why I recommended the recordings I did.
> "Where in Sibelius 4 or Metamorphosen, to cite two
> such cases, should the orchestra be "harsh, rude, edgy, or raucous"?"
>
> Sibelius can certainly benefit from a hard "edge" - icy and craggy -
> not all of the time, of course - but certainly those long crescendi in
> the brass, the snarling, growling effects on the basses, bassoons, etc
> need that reedy biting sonority. Definiteley in mvts I, and IV at the
> very least... A round, tubby, flabby sound just doesn't cut it.
Hm. I'm starting to think you're just being provocative. Karajan's
brass may not be "icy and craggy", but for those of us who like our
Sibelius to be dark and full (qualities that, for me, make the music
far more menacing and impressive than something "reedy", a quality
better suits Stravinsky or Poulenc), the examples you cited (save
Bernstein, but even he nor the NYPO is not at their finest in the
fourth) would be of no interest. Give me Karajan or Maazel/VPO any
day over those.
My ideal brass sound in Sibelius is from the Oslo PO/Jansons
recordings, although I'm not taken by all of the interpretations.
Toscanini sounds awfully forced throughout and the NBC orchestra's
wiry tone, in any repertoire, has never appealed to me. It's pretty
easy to get a loud, snarling, raspy sound from brass instruments. A
dark, full, blended, in tune sound is much more difficult to achieve
and much more impressive - to me, at least.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Tansal Arnas
> The Alpine Symphony has been served well on recordings. The Blomstedt/San
> Francisco is outstanding and was my favorite for years, while the Karajan as
> well as Kempe/Dresden are recordings I could not live without. Yet there
> are two recordings which are also spectacular and worth searching out:
>
> Sinopoli/Dresden DGG. This is an "import" in the USA, but has been
> available at Tower on West 4th Street in NYC, or through Canadian and
> European vendors. It has power as well as poetry, and the Dresden orchestra
> plays in manner born.
>
> The other, perhaps even finer, is the DVD with Sinopoli/Dresden. I think
> this DVD is on Arthaus Muski and is titled 450 years of the Staatskapele
> Dresden. The concert features Vivaldi, Weber and Wagner (IIANM). It ends
> with the Alpine Symphony. I have never heard a finer performance, and this
> alone would be a great way to remember Sinopoli's art.
>
> Those who have a curiosity streak may try to search out the
> Mravinsky/Leningrad PO, which was on Olympia. It is not a great performance
> (nor it is played immaculately) by any means, but it is an interesting one
> and well worth one's time.
I just found the Blomstedt recording at Tower Outlet on West 4th for $6.99
and immediately bought it based on yours and others recommendations. I will
now listen more carefully to this and my Previn/VPO disc and report on them
when I have become familiar with them. Perhaps then I'll go for Sinopoli.
(I should find out that I really like this work before buying a third CD.)
Tansal
David S. Phipps
"andrew lambert" <lamb...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:B9931B3B.2EE6%lamb...@nyc.rr.com...
I own the Karajan and enjoy it quite a bit as well, although he seems to
skimp on the trombones a bit for me on that particular piece, and there's a
pretty glaring trumpet tuning error in the "on the summit" section. The
Berlin "ocean-of-sound" approach works wonderfully on this piece. I have
not had the opportunity to hear the others (yet).
--
David S. Phipps
Grand Prairie, TX, USA
To reply, remove "nospam" from address.
Tansal Arnas
> However, last year, I promised a friend of mine that I'd make a
> concerted effort to listen more extensively--and with more sympathetic
> ears--to Karajan's performances. So far, I've found only a few items
> that I really like: his '50s LvB Missa Solemnis, his EMI Sibelius 5th,
> selections from his '63 Beethoven cycle (except that 6th, which I
> still loathe), his DGG Bruckner 4th (parts of it, anyway), the DGG
> Verklarte Nacht (one piece where his blenderizer approach is actually
> welcome, even though I generally prefer the chamber version), and a
> couple of others. I don't own the early digital Parsifal (I dislike
> early digital sound and I'm just not a complete opera kinda guy), but
> have to admit that Karajan's approach there is exceptionally lovely.
Have you tried his live BPO Mahler 9 on DG? Also, regarding your comments
on Haitink, I too think there is a great difference between his VPO Bruckner
8 and the performance with the same forces at Carnegie Hall earlier this
year. I wish I could have a CD of that performance! And so it goes for
Karajan's performance there with the same orchestra, of the same work.
Another HvK disc I like is his digital Shostakovich 10 (I haven't heard the
analogue recording, though I'm curious). I also like his Tchaikovsky 4-6
with the BPO from the 1970s. Several others, like his Decca Holst Planets,
but I fear that I may end up listing favorites that some would call bland.)
Tansal
George Murnu
>
> > From: Joseph Vitale <jvi...@uic.edu>
> > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:19:48 GMT
> >
> > EMI should just reissue the whole Kempe/Strauss series in 24bit remastered
> > sound (In one box set). That's all they need to do. (IMO) every one of
> > those performances is a GROTC.
> >
> > JV
> >
> Fully agreed! Keep your eyes out for a series of Kempe recordings just
> issued on Testament. They feature repertoire that we are not accustomed to
> being conducted by Kempe. An example is Schwanda Polka and Fugue by Jaromir
> Weinberger.
"We are not accustomed" is the key word here, because Kempe had a
diverse repeortoire and remember, one of the pieces he championed was
Kolo from Jakov Gotovac's opera Ero - in fact was his signature encore.
Regards,
George
Heck51
"There's a difference between being monotonous and employing subtle
shadings."
I don't think HvK makes enough difference.
"I love HvK's way with Sibelius because the shifts ARE so subtle. He
achieves
through the slow boil what many miss through exaggeration."
well, to each his own, of course - to me Hvk's "slow-boil" never gets
past lukewarm
"Personally, I find Bernstein's Sibelius an abberation of the score -
lacking in subtelty and overly emphatic."
now to me, Bernstein gets a great sound for Sibelius with the NYPO -
strong, brawny - very powerful, but also, it can be very sweet and
lyrical (Sym#1/II)
"And, I'd remind you that Sibelius was on record liking Karajan's way
with his music while disliking Beecham's."
that doesn't mean much to me.
"So I can see how one would go for the Bernstein approach in Sibelius
and not
Karajan - and vice versa. Different strokes for different folks. I
wouldn't
accuse Bernstein of not understanding the music of Sibelius,"
Yup - definitely a matter of individual taste.
"In a similar way, I don't think that Karajan applied the same patina
to every
composer or musical era."
Perhaps, but I find an overall consistency of approach that is not
very interesting to my ears. That could be said about many conductors,
i suppose, it's just that i find those others much more varied,
colorful and expressive. not so suppressed.
"Certainly his Tchaikovsky recordings with the BPO are some of the
only non-Russian orchestra recordings that seek to mimic the edgy
brass texture that distinguished (some would say "afflicted") Russian
orchestras."
Try some of the Solti, Abbado or Bernstein renditions with the CSO or
NYPO - they really let it rip at maximum voltage......
"As listeners, we all look for different things in performances and
recordings.
That's fine, because that's what having variety is all about. You call
it
monotonous, I call it subtle. We're both right for our particular
tastes. C'est
la vie."
Exactly - also i want to reiterate that my criticisms are related to
the actual sound produced by the orchestra - I'm not implying that HvK
was a poor conductor or did not have a solid concept of the music he
performed. He certainly did; I just prefer the sound that others
produce.
Heck51
"It's almost painfully obvious that you are only picking recordings
that are generally regarded as boring and avoiding any that are
regarded as excellent."
No, i am simply relating my impressions of random performances that i
have heard. I am not deliberately choosing any particular
performances.
"I wasn't discussing anything general. Again, I made very specific
references."
I am discussing the general approach to orchestral sound, with
specific examples.
"LOL!! I *completely* agree with you! The Leningrad winds certainly
have character don't they? "
Yup - keep in mind that they are not trying to sound like American or
Western European players
"Munch/BSO, Jansons, and Baudo are the only recordings of this piece
that are as good as Karajan's."
No thanx. I'll take Mravinsky's any day.
"Hm. I'm starting to think you're just being provocative. Karajan's
brass may not be "icy and craggy","
Which to me, is a major shortcoming in this music. It produces a
monotonous, uninteresting sound.
"but for those of us who like our Sibelius to be dark and full
(qualities that, for me, make the music far more menacing and
impressive than something "reedy">"
Fine, go for it - what is "dark and menacing" to you sounds wimpy and
colorless to me. underplayed, no balls.
"give me Karajan or Maazel/VPO any day over those."
Maazel/VPO is OK. but HvK is hopelessly soggy and smoothed-over in
this music.
"My ideal brass sound in Sibelius is from the Oslo PO/Jansons
recordings, although I'm not taken by all of the interpretations."
I like it with more "cojones", in the orchestral sound dept.
"It's pretty easy to get a loud, snarling, raspy sound from brass
instruments."
not that is balanced and with good ensemble.
"A dark, full, blended, in tune sound".. is certainly desirable at
times, but it should not represent the peak of the dynamic scale.
That's like never giving more than 80% throttle. When i buy a CD or go
hear a live performance, I'm paying for 100%.
The BPO could certainly deliver, when under the baton of different
conductors -
Try the Salonen/BPO selections from Prokofieff Romeo and Juliet
(1986). marvelous, with the orchestra playing out with tremendous
power, and also delivering some beautifully nuanced delicate playing.
outstanding recording
Also - the same with a Strauss "Symphonic Music from operas"disc with
Mehta, from 1990(Sony) "die Frau...", Intermezzo, Die liebe der Danae,
etc. The orchestra produces at the fortissimos, but also performs
splendidly in the small, chamber-music-like passages.
Cheers,
Heck
vaneyes
> I need SOMETHING to convince me of
> what many folks apparently think is self-evident: that Herbie the K
> is/was a truly great conductor.
Some suggestions...
Mozart Don Giovanni (DG DDD)
LvB Sym. 9 (DG '77)
Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms Vln. Cti. w. Mutter (DG)
Bruckner Syms. 7, 8 (EMI ART Karajan Ed.)
Brahms Sym. 4 (DG '63)
Brahms Double Cto. w. Meneses & Mutter (DG Gold)
Mahler Sym. 9 (DG ADD)
Strauss R. Four Last Songs (Janowitz), Metamorphosen (DG ADD)
Strauss R. Don Quixote w. Rostropovich (EMI ART Karajan Ed.)
Strauss R. Der Rosenkavalier (EMI)
Strauss R. Death and Transfiguration (DG ADD)
Strauss R. Also Sprach Zarathustra, Don Juan (DG Gold)
Sibelius Syms. 4, 6 (DG)
Sibelius Syms. 2 & 5 (EMI ART Karajan Ed.)
Prokofiev Sym. 5 (DG '68)
Honegger Syms 2, 3 (DG)
Shostakovich Sym. 10 (DG DDD)
> Based on recordings I've actually owned, for example, I don't think
> HvK could conduct Rossini to save his life.
Well, he doesn't hafta anymore.
I like his Rossini Overtures (EMI '58, '60)
Regards
Bob Harper
Tansal Arnas wrote:
(snip)
> Another HvK disc I like is his digital Shostakovich 10 (I haven't heard the
> analogue recording, though I'm curious).
(snip)
> Tansal
>
You would do well to hear the analogue. It's a better performance and
recording, at least IMO.
Bob Harper
Markesten
the
> analogue recording, though I'm curious).
(snip)
> Tansal
>
You would do well to hear the analogue. It's a better performance and
recording, at least IMO.
>>
This disc is a natural for reissue in the Originals series. The Galleria issue
was good, but there's a lot of hiss. I just listened to this two days ago.
BTW - this disc was reissued as the initial run of CDs contained an editing
error that omitted a few seconds from a track. Unfortunately, I can't remember
what movement it was...or what the timing for the bad track was. In any case,
any copies out there in the stores at present would, I imagine, be the
corrected version.
My feeling is that both versions are excellent, but the sound is more natural
on the analogue version.