Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Universal recycles Lenny again!

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Randy Lane

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 9:28:20 PM1/6/10
to
I can hardly beleive it.
Universal is reissuing Leonard Bernstein's Maher audio recordings yet
again.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3733659

This is at least the third incarnation of these recordings, and the
last set (the three boxes comprising his misrepresented "complete"
recordings for DG -- the 1981 BPO 9th that is being reissued this
month in the Originals line is not in those "complete" boxes) are
still available and are not even 5 years old yet.

M forever

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 9:35:32 PM1/6/10
to
On Jan 6, 9:28 pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can hardly beleive it.
> Universal is reissuing Leonard Bernstein's Maher audio recordings yet
> again.
>
> http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3733659
>
> This is at least the third incarnation of these recordings, and the
> last set (the three boxes comprising his misrepresented "complete"
> recordings for DG -- the 1981 BPO 9th that is being reissued this
> month in the Originals line is not in those "complete" boxes)

That recording wasn't made by or for DG anyway. It was a live radio
recording by RIAS Berlin which DG bought much later - which is why I
find the "Originals" release a little funny - there was no "original"
release of that back then, and the later release was only on CD. BTW,
that was in 1979.

Dil

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 9:42:37 PM1/6/10
to

I am anxious to get that live Ninth with the BPO because I have heard
it is very good however wasn't there some kind of major trombone flub/
missed entry, or something like that in the finale? I seem to remember
reading about such a mishap when the performance was first issued.

Dil.

M forever

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 10:07:13 PM1/6/10
to

Yes, but nobody knows why that happened or why there wasn't a take
available from another night (IIRC, the performance took place at
least twice, maybe three times).

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 6, 2010, 11:52:29 PM1/6/10
to
On Wednesday, January 6, 2010, M forever wrote:

> Yes, but nobody knows why that happened or why there wasn't a take
> available from another night (IIRC, the performance took place at least
> twice, maybe three times).

Well, there are certainly rumors as to why it happened, and they are not
flattering to the BPO.

Matty

M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 12:11:52 AM1/7/10
to
On Jan 6, 11:52 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Like what?

Oscar Williamson

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:55:13 AM1/7/10
to
On Jan 6, 8:52 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>

> Well, there are certainly rumors as to why it happened, and they are not
> flattering to the BPO.
>
> Matty

Like what?

weinhen

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:44:29 AM1/7/10
to
I really like the packaging, almost like they're trying to sell a t-
shirt. Ah, but that's "Engrish" isn't it?:

http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/funny-engrish-t-shirts/

Andrew

Nigel Curtis

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 12:32:10 PM1/7/10
to

> Well, there are certainly rumors as to why it happened, and they are not
> flattering to the BPO

Can you share these with us? Come on, don' tease.

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 12:36:01 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 6, 9:28 pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems ungracious to complain about Lenny's recordings being renewed
before the public on a continual basis. If not, they would go to cut-
out heaven and be the eternal reason for Tepper to whine.

Surely we don't want or need that, do we?

I say keep LB's CDs available. Recycle them. Reissue them in
perpetuity. Never let the sun set on America's only great conductor.

TD

Randy Lane

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 12:44:42 PM1/7/10
to

I agree that I don't want to the recordings go out of circulation. But
why repackage them again? Could resources be better used on something
not already available?

On another note, I don't think I'm alone in taking exception to your
statement that Bernstein is "America's only great conductor". Surely
names like Reiner and Ormandy deserve such an accolade also. And there
are probably a few others that don't come to mind immediately too.

Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 12:50:57 PM1/7/10
to
Randy Lane wrote:

> statement that Bernstein is "America's only great conductor". Surely
> names like Reiner and Ormandy deserve such an accolade also. And there
> are probably a few others that don't come to mind immediately too.

Both (Reiner and Ormandy) were no Americans (from origin).


Dil

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 12:52:54 PM1/7/10
to

What? Did Fritz acquire that thick Hungarian accent in Pittsburg?

Dil.

Randy Lane

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 1:00:17 PM1/7/10
to
> Dil.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Both move to the USA about the same time (Ormandy 1921, Reiner 1922).
I would ha hard time mot considering either one "American" though.
Ormandy moved at teh age of 22 and spent pretty much his entire
musical career in the USA.
You could make a better agrument for Reiner to be considered a non-
American, but when you look at the extrmely limited work he had before
immigrating I think the case to consider him "americaN" is quirte
strong also.
Besides, Deacon doesn't specify American-"born".
Find me anyone who does not instantly associate either of these stars
as staples of teh American music scene. Better yet, find me anyone who
can justify naming as part of any other music scene than America.

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 1:06:24 PM1/7/10
to

Not American. Imports don't count.

TD

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 1:09:02 PM1/7/10
to

In that case you would classify Ormandy and Reiner as "American"
conductors of American orchestras?

You and nobody else, I would say.

Both were Hungarian emigres. They may well have held American
passports - so did Horowitz, but you could NEVER call him an American
pianist. Nor Rubinstein. Nor Heifetz.

Puhleeze.

No, Lenny is the ONLY great American conductor of the past century.

TD

Steve de Mena

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 1:41:41 PM1/7/10
to
Randy Lane wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:36 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 9:28 pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can hardly beleive it.
>>> Universal is reissuing Leonard Bernstein's Maher audio recordings yet
>>> again.
>>> http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3733659
>>> This is at least the third incarnation of these recordings, and the
>>> last set (the three boxes comprising his misrepresented "complete"
>>> recordings for DG -- the 1981 BPO 9th that is being reissued this
>>> month in the Originals line is not in those "complete" boxes) are
>>> still available and are not even 5 years old yet.
>> It seems ungracious to complain about Lenny's recordings being renewed
>> before the public on a continual basis. If not, they would go to cut-
>> out heaven and be the eternal reason for Tepper to whine.
>>
>> Surely we don't want or need that, do we?
>>
>> I say keep LB's CDs available. Recycle them. Reissue them in
>> perpetuity. Never let the sun set on America's only great conductor.
>>
>> TD
>
> I agree that I don't want to the recordings go out of circulation. But
> why repackage them again? Could resources be better used on something
> not already available?

This is part of a whole new series of re packagings.

"Not already available" stuff probably is stuff that doesn't have much
of a market for saleabiliity, plus would require mastering costs.

Steve

Steve de Mena

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 1:42:16 PM1/7/10
to

How about James Levine?

Steve

mark

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 1:56:52 PM1/7/10
to

I think the answer is pretty simple and hardly nefarious.

Whenever a CD set of limited interest is produced, the record company
needs to run a certain amount of the paper elements that go into the
packaging - clam boxes, CD booklets, cap boxes, whatever. Usually,
they'll order maybe 3,000 - 5,000 of these be produced and hope that
they sell that number over 5 years or so.

If they happen to sell all the stock, they need to decide whether they
want to order another run of 3,000 or so to continue the product. If
the design for the product is now 5 years old or older, they may want
to freshen up the packaging. Let's face it, the typical consumer is
going to look right past a package that they've seen sitting on a
shelf for 5 years.

By changing the packaging, the record label at least has a shot at
getting such a consumer to look at the package with renewed interest.
Maybe the recordings have been remastered. Maybe the booklets have new
essays. maybe the overall price point is cheaper. Or, maybe nothing at
all has changed, but at least that consumer took a look when they had
been previously overlooking the product. Maybe the new packaging will
be the thing that finally pushes the consumer to buy the recordings.
Maybe the new packaging will remind the consumer about how great those
recordings that he already owns are, and maybe he'll pick up the new
set as a gift or as a replacement for his old set.

So, why not redo the packaging every once in a while? If nothing else,
it makes collector's items out of the old discontinued packaging.

Tom Deacon

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:02:15 PM1/7/10
to

LOL

A by-product, Mark

But you are right in everything you say. Just a commercial activity.

Moreover, the Bernstein estate is breathing down the necks of CR to
keep their daddy's legacy supplying them with royalties, you know.

TD

Dontait...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:03:35 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 12:00�pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]


> You could make a better agrument for Reiner to be considered a non-
> American, but when you look at the extrmely limited work he had before
> immigrating I think the case to consider him "americaN" is quirte
> strong also.

I don't want to be contrary, but Reiner had a significant conducting
career in Europe before emigrating to the USA, most importantly as
chief conductor of the Saxon Court Opera in Dresden from 1914 until
1922. He succeeded Ernst von Schuch, of whom Philip Hart wrote in his
Reiner biography "Under Schuch, the Saxon Court Opera became one of
the leading opera houses of Europe, rivalling those of Berlin, Munich,
and Vienna." Reiner's successors were Fritz Busch and Karl Boehm,
respectively. It was a major post.

Don Tait

Tom Deacon

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:04:59 PM1/7/10
to

Indeed, how about James Levine?

Good question.

I have to say that apart from the Met stint his other conductorial
assignments have not been truly stellar. And now in Boston he is
plagued with various illnesses, cancellations and so on.

Perhaps we can think of him as a 21st C conductor? Because he is still
alive and working?

But the question is not completely decided, Steve, which makes your
query very much a propos.

TD


Tom Deacon

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:09:40 PM1/7/10
to

This is just typical myopia, Don. Anything that doesn't happen in
America doesn't really happen, right?

Levine, for example, had at least ten years in Munich - I have a huge
set of his concerts there - and yet here he is only known for his work
at the Met and now Boston.

TD

Randy Lane

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:12:20 PM1/7/10
to

I stand corrected.
Thanks.

Randy Lane

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:15:02 PM1/7/10
to
> Steve- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Arthur Fiedler?

Randy Lane

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:16:19 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 10:42 am, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Michael Tilson Thomas (perhaps more of his Greatness is yet to come -
still comparatively young)

TD

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:17:51 PM1/7/10
to

Great?

TD

Tom Deacon

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:19:15 PM1/7/10
to

Actually Bernstein's only American rival as a "great conductor" in the
20th C is Lorin Maazel.

TD

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:20:51 PM1/7/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, M forever wrote:

>> Well, there are certainly rumors as to why it happened, and they are not
>> flattering to the BPO.
>

> Like what?

I can't recall the details. Nor can I recall where I first read about them.
Given that, I should probably just drop it. But I won't.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was the orchestra's (or
perhaps just this section's) way of expressing solidarity with Karajan and
his dislike of "that Jew."

How else are we to explain an entire section missing a crucial entry like
that?

Matty

O

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:32:07 PM1/7/10
to
In article <2010010714175164440-tomdedeacon@maccom>, TD
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:

He was, but he hung around the wrong kind of music.

-Owen

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:39:08 PM1/7/10
to
On 2010-01-07 14:20:51 -0500, Matthew Silverstein
<msilve...@sbcglobal.net> said:

> On Thursday, January 7, 2010, M forever wrote:
>
>>> Well, there are certainly rumors as to why it happened, and they are not
>>> flattering to the BPO.
>>
>> Like what?
>
> I can't recall the details. Nor can I recall where I first read about them.
> Given that, I should probably just drop it. But I won't.
>
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was the orchestra's (or
> perhaps just this section's) way of expressing solidarity with Karajan and
> his dislike of "that Jew."

What a load of horseshit. When will Jews stop putting on all this
victim nonsense.

It is an irresponsible act to fantasize this way and project your own
insecurities upon a situation which you know nothing about and were not
involved in.

TD

Tom Deacon

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:41:38 PM1/7/10
to
On 2010-01-07 14:32:07 -0500, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> said:

> In article <2010010714175164440-tomdedeacon@maccom>, TD
> <tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-07 14:15:02 -0500, Randy Lane <randy...@gmail.com>

>>> Arthur Fiedler?


>>
>> Great?
>
> He was, but he hung around the wrong kind of music.

He wasn't, and not by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Not to say
he wasn't popular, of course. And nifty.

TD


mark

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:43:05 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 10:42 am, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:

I would add Lorin Maazel to that list as well. Yes, he was born in
France, but he's an American. And, yes, he's a great conductor. Maybe
not THE greatest, but still far above merely good.

Others who might be considered are Tilson-Thomas and Slatkin. All
depends on what one's definition of "great" happens to be.

Dil

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 2:59:14 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 1:09 pm, Tom Deacon <tomdea...@mac.com> wrote:

Don’t short change your own country, Tom. You never know, but Jacques
Lacombe just might be the next Ernest MacMillan.


Dil.

Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:02:53 PM1/7/10
to

This last thing I don't believe. A collector's item maybe is an item that had a
very nice packaging, or a very good booklet; but even then I don't think
collector's items come into being this way if the item at question is simply
available in a newer packaging with possibly a new remastering.

Today I've seen an example of rerepackaging within a few (> 5) years: severals
recordings of ballet music on EMI.
Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, and his Cinderella, rereissued again (in a series
with the name "Ballet edition") for the same price as the last time (in the
series "Gemini") and somewhat cheaper than the time before ("forte"). But not as
cheap as the reissue on Brilliant Classics.
Almost the same for the Tchaikovsky ballets with Previn (same prices as the
series "CfP" or "Gemini").

I also don't think a consumer will buy the new rereissue if he has a previous
old one. As a gift might happen, but he could have done so also if the previous
reissue was available.


Tom Deacon

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:05:15 PM1/7/10
to
On 2010-01-07 14:59:14 -0500, Dil <grobbe...@gmail.com> said:
>
> Don’t short change your own country, Tom. You never know, but Jacques
> Lacombe just might be the next Ernest MacMillan.

One of those was quite enough, thank you.

TD


td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:06:22 PM1/7/10
to
On 2010-01-07 14:59:14 -0500, Dil <grobbe...@gmail.com> said:

> On Jan 7, 1:09ÔøΩpm, Tom Deacon <tomdea...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-07 14:03:35 -0500, Dontaitchic...@aol.com said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 12:00 pm, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> ÔøΩ [snip]


>>>> You could make a better agrument for Reiner to be considered a non-
>>>> American, but when you look at the extrmely limited work he had before
>>>> immigrating I think the case to consider him "americaN" is quirte
>>>> strong also.
>>

>>> ÔøΩ I don't want to be contrary, but Reiner had a significant conductin


> g
>>> career in Europe before emigrating to the USA, most importantly as
>>> chief conductor of the Saxon Court Opera in Dresden from 1914 until
>>> 1922. He succeeded Ernst von Schuch, of whom Philip Hart wrote in his
>>> Reiner biography "Under Schuch, the Saxon Court Opera became one of
>>> the leading opera houses of Europe, rivalling those of Berlin, Munich,
>>> and Vienna." Reiner's successors were Fritz Busch and Karl Boehm,
>>> respectively. It was a major post.
>>
>> This is just typical myopia, Don. Anything that doesn't happen in
>> America doesn't really happen, right?
>>
>> Levine, for example, had at least ten years in Munich - I have a huge
>> set of his concerts there - and yet here he is only known for his work
>> at the Met and now Boston.
>

> DonÔøΩt short change your own country, Tom. You never know, but Jacques


> Lacombe just might be the next Ernest MacMillan.

One of those was quite enough, thank you.

TD

mark

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:14:51 PM1/7/10
to

Brilliant Classics issues licensed material. Their licenses come with
certain restrictions from EMI, but they can't be considered to be EMI
product.

I was being a bit facetious in stating that old CD packaging made
something a collectible.

Surely you realize that all of the repackaging you mention is nothing
more than the labels trying to squeeze every drop of blood out of the
CD turnip before downloads make CDs obsolete. The recordings you
mention have long ago had their costs recouped, and anything the
labels make now is gravy.

BTW - I have purchased re- reissues of CDs if the mastering is
superior. I've even purchased such things to save shelf space. I
purchased that EMI Karajan Edition last year even though I had
practically every recording in those two boxes. I ended up giving away
many Karajan singles to friends while getting a couple of new-to-CD
recordings in the process. Now, I have all of Karajan's EMI recordings
in a packaging that takes up less than 2 feet of shelf space.

Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:15:40 PM1/7/10
to
Gerard wrote:
>
> Today I've seen an example of rerepackaging within a few (> 5) years:

I meant < 5 years.


wagnerfan

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:17:20 PM1/7/10
to
"O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
news:070120101432074725%ow...@denofinequityx.com...

Whether Bernstein was America's only "great" conductor is of course a purely
personal opinion - but I do think he was America's most famous conductor -
the combination of recordings, TV appearances and personal charisma made his
name known to many who knew nothing about classical music - somewhat similar
to Callas I think. Wagner fan

Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:24:26 PM1/7/10
to
mark wrote:

> On Jan 7, 12:02 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brilliant Classics issues licensed material. Their licenses come with
> certain restrictions from EMI, but they can't be considered to be EMI
> product.

That's true, but the later reissues by EMI (both the Gemini product and the
newest one) are not better marketable if the same product can be bought - or
have been bought - for half the price on another label.

>
> I was being a bit facetious in stating that old CD packaging made
> something a collectible.
>
> Surely you realize that all of the repackaging you mention is nothing
> more than the labels trying to squeeze every drop of blood out of the
> CD turnip before downloads make CDs obsolete. The recordings you
> mention have long ago had their costs recouped, and anything the
> labels make now is gravy.

That's right.
But this time (so fast after the Gemini rereissues) I'm really ... how it that
called? ... "flabbergasted?"The Gemini's are still in the stores.

>
> BTW - I have purchased re- reissues of CDs if the mastering is
> superior. I've even purchased such things to save shelf space. I
> purchased that EMI Karajan Edition last year even though I had
> practically every recording in those two boxes. I ended up giving away
> many Karajan singles to friends while getting a couple of new-to-CD
> recordings in the process. Now, I have all of Karajan's EMI recordings
> in a packaging that takes up less than 2 feet of shelf space.

OK. Those are 'good' reasons for buying again. (If you don't tell the friends
that you give them "inferior" masterings :) )

Matthew�B.�Tepper

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:30:04 PM1/7/10
to
Dil <grobbe...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
be typed in news:c9c5ca44-1eec-482a-a5c1-63e4c5ae1673
@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> Don�t short change your own country, Tom. You never know, but Jacques
> Lacombe just might be the next Ernest MacMillan.

What about Yannick N�zet-S�guin? I haven't heard heard his Met "Carmen," but
the orchestral playing has gotten some good press.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers

Matthew�B.�Tepper

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:30:04 PM1/7/10
to
O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
be typed in news:070120101432074725%ow...@denofinequityx.com:

> In article [snip] wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-07 14:15:02 -0500, Randy Lane <randy...@gmail.com> said:
>>

>> > Arthur Fiedler?
>
[snip]


>
> He was, but he hung around the wrong kind of music.

Only for the final third of each concert.

Matthew�B.�Tepper

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:30:05 PM1/7/10
to
"wagnerfan" <wagn...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:p_idnReAF6v83NvW...@giganews.com:

> Whether Bernstein was America's only "great" conductor is of course a
> purely personal opinion - but I do think he was America's most famous
> conductor - the combination of recordings, TV appearances and personal
> charisma made his name known to many who knew nothing about classical
> music - somewhat similar to Callas I think. Wagner fan

Cogently said, and I agree, except that I would say Pavarotti more than
Callas (not to compare them artistically, merely in terms of fame).

O

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:33:35 PM1/7/10
to
In article <2010010714413831729-tomdeacon@maccom>, Tom Deacon
<tomd...@mac.com> wrote:

On those few times when he did serious stuff, his performances were
right up there. Of course, his final legacy will be his pop stuff. He
was wildly popular, his conductorial style most like Toscanini's, and
he often treated his orchestra members like Toscanini did, though I
don't think he threw batons at them.

-Owen

J.Martin

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:16:36 PM1/7/10
to

> Whether Bernstein was America's only "great" conductor is of course a purely
> personal opinion

As is virtually everything else regarding classical music, it goes
without saying. But I have to admit I'm having trouble thinking of
another American I would classify as "great."

- but I do think he was America's most famous conductor -
> the combination of recordings, TV appearances and personal charisma made his
> name known to many who knew nothing about classical music

I agree, although I suspect I view Lenny's "fame" more positively than
many here. Sure, it had something to do with extra-musical elements:
his highly theatrical performance style, vocal politics, flamboyant
behavior, etc. He wanted and enjoyed fame, certainly. But it should
be added that part of this was also a seemingly sincere desire on his
part to bring classical music to a society that didn't see why it
ought to care. In the end, this is one of the most important things
about him and his career: his example as educator and ambassador for
CM, which is now emulated by countless music directors in the states.

JM

Dontait...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:26:20 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 2:30�pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:
> O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed innews:070120101432074725%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
>
>
>
> > In article [snip] wrote:

>
> >> On 2010-01-07 14:15:02 -0500, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> > Arthur Fiedler?

[snip]

> > He was, but he hung around the wrong kind of music.
>
> Only for the final third of each concert.

Agreed! I heard many, many Boston Pops concert broadcasts with
Fiedler. For those who might not remember, Pops concerts were (are) in
three parts rather than two. A march and then classical in part one,
longer classical works including concertos in part two, then "popular
stuff" in three. Of part two, I particularly remember really
magnificent Fiedler-conducted performances of Wagner's Tannhaeuser
Overture (Dresden version) and Respighi's Pines of Rome. Really. Among
other things.

Fiedler's pre-World War II Victor 78s with his Sinfonietta of works
by Mozart, Handel, Corelli, Schiassi, Pachelbel (one of the first-ever
recordings of the Canon), Reusner, and others are the work of a top-
flight, sensitive musician and conductor. And with the Pops I've never
heard better recordings of the ballet music for Massenet's Le Cid or
overtures by Auber and Suppe. All for example, of course.

That Pops concert set-up might have been abandoned now, of course,
when the Pops telecasts have become PBS attemptrs at money-makers. Or
are they still?

Was Fiedler a Furtwangler or Bruno Walter? No, and he admitted as
much. But as his daughter Johanna wrote in her biography of him, he
became stereotyped against his will in his late years (post-1963 or
so) as merely a conductor of the sort of pop-music arrangements that
made up only the last third of Pops concerts. He regretted being so
identified. He himself identified with the greatest composers. But it
happened. He should not be dismissed. Many of his recordings are very
good.

Don Tait

O

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:38:33 PM1/7/10
to
In article
<34cebd2c-442e-4246...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
<Dontait...@aol.com> wrote:

If I had to mention one conductor whose style he most closely
resembles, it would be Toscanini. A good comparison would be to listen
to each's recording of the William Tell Overture and hear how much they
are alike. There's that same type of drive behind a lot of his
performances, but Symphony Hall softened the edges a lot more than
Studio 8-H did.

> But as his daughter Johanna wrote in her biography of him, he
> became stereotyped against his will in his late years (post-1963 or
> so) as merely a conductor of the sort of pop-music arrangements that
> made up only the last third of Pops concerts. He regretted being so
> identified. He himself identified with the greatest composers. But it
> happened. He should not be dismissed. Many of his recordings are very
> good.

He certainly was stereotyped, but he did alright with it, unlike some
other musicians, like Iturbi and Bolet.

-Owen

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:38:54 PM1/7/10
to

I don't disagree.

But "great"?

TD

Frank Berger

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:52:25 PM1/7/10
to
mark wrote:

Maybe. I notice some E-bay listings for the original Sibelius/Blomstedt
recordings that got so expsensive when they were out of print. Then they
issued a boxed set. So I was surprised after all this time to still see
such high asking prices for the old ones. Then I checked the completed
listings. The actual prices are much lower. Like $8-12 per CD. Not even
close to what they were going for before the boxed set came out. Some
seller just haven't got the message yet. I suppose a buyer could come along
that really wants that really scarce 1+7 set in the old issue to complete
his old "set," but that doesn't seem to be happening or likely.

Frank Berger

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:53:30 PM1/7/10
to

I think the point is that he was, and is, far and away America's most
marketable conductor.


Dontait...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 4:54:14 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 3:38�pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 4:26�pm, Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote:

> > � Was Fiedler a Furtwangler or Bruno Walter? No, and he admitted as
> > much.
>


> I don't disagree.
>
> But "great"?
>
> TD

Some people might think so. I didn't say that, of course. My quote
above shows what I believe. All I think is that Fiedler was a far
better, far more musically qualified and educated musician and
conductor, than he is given credit for having been because after about
1964 all the record companies wanted him to record were arrangements
of "pop" material and he became identified with it and nothing more.

Don Tait

Frank Berger

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:00:09 PM1/7/10
to

Yeah, Arturo was always copying Arthur.


td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:05:14 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 4:53 pm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> wagnerfan wrote:
> > "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
> >news:070120101432074725%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
> >> In article <2010010714175164440-tomdedeacon@maccom>, TD
> >> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2010-01-07 14:15:02 -0500, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com>

That says as much about America as it does about Fiedler.

TD

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:08:34 PM1/7/10
to

Now, Don.

Your memory is certainly not failing you.

When his Dvorak symphony appeared - with the BSO, I seem to recall -
it drew wide praise in the USA as well as considerable surprise from
the critics that it actually could be as good as it was.

Before that you have to look far and wide for some examples of his
"serious" conducting. Sure, the Gershwin disc with Earl Wild, now
celebrated as an audiophile classic. A few things here and there, but
largely not very much at all.

I imagine that in Boston his repertoire was wider than it was on disc,
however. But we are talking about recordings, aren't we?

TD

O

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:15:35 PM1/7/10
to
In article
<174847d4-0035-4b77...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:

If you had grown up in the Boston area as I did you might have a better
appreciation for his capabilities.

PBS has got to have a ton of "Evening at Pops" on tape - somewhere!
Just trim the last thirds!

-Owen

Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:26:28 PM1/7/10
to
J.Martin wrote:
>
> I agree, although I suspect I view Lenny's "fame" more positively than
> many here. Sure, it had something to do with extra-musical elements:
> his highly theatrical performance style, vocal politics, flamboyant
> behavior, etc. He wanted and enjoyed fame, certainly. But it should
> be added that part of this was also a seemingly sincere desire on his
> part to bring classical music to a society that didn't see why it
> ought to care. In the end, this is one of the most important things
> about him and his career: his example as educator and ambassador for
> CM, which is now emulated by countless music directors in the states.
>

In all these things he was unique.
All 'imitations' (musicians who - try to - do the same kind of things) bring him
back into memory and how he is missed.


Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:27:37 PM1/7/10
to
Frank Berger wrote:
>
> I think the point is that he was, and is, far and away America's most
> marketable conductor.

You're missing the point.
You only think in terms of 'market' and 'selling'.


Gerard

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:36:37 PM1/7/10
to
Frank Berger wrote:
> mark wrote:

> >
> > I was being a bit facetious in stating that old CD packaging made
> > something a collectible.
>
> Maybe. I notice some E-bay listings for the original
> Sibelius/Blomstedt recordings that got so expsensive when they were
> out of print. Then they issued a boxed set. So I was surprised
> after all this time to still see such high asking prices for the old
> ones. Then I checked the completed listings. The actual prices are
> much lower. Like $8-12 per CD. Not even close to what they were
> going for before the boxed set came out.

Of course not. The whole box was available in the stores for 25 Euros.

Dontait...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:50:45 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 3:38�pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:

> If I had to mention one conductor whose style he most closely
> resembles, it would be Toscanini. �A good comparison would be to listen
> to each's recording of the William Tell Overture and hear how much they
> are alike. �There's that same type of drive behind a lot of his
> performances, but Symphony Hall softened the edges a lot more than
> Studio 8-H did.

--Owen

Yes. Fiedler idolized Toscanini, as both his daughter Johanna and
Harry Ellis Dickson have written. I believe it was she who wrote that
her father had been given a medallion of Toscanini that he treasured
above many other things. (Charles Munch had a Toscanini photo that he
treasured as well; he idolized Toscanini too.) And agreement about the
acuostics of Symphony Hall over Studio 8-H. Or even RCA's dry and
crummy miking of Toscanini/NBC SO in Carnegie Hall.


>
> He certainly was stereotyped, but he did alright with it, unlike some
> other musicians, like Iturbi and Bolet.

Meaning Arthur Fiedler. I know. But books about him, particularly
his daughter's, indicate that he wanted above all to be known as a
musician in Mozart and the serious classics. It's what he identified
with and had been trained in and he wasn't all right with it. But
career and fate had dictated otherwise, and he went along with it,
reluctantly.

Don Tait


Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:53:50 PM1/7/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, td wrote:

> What a load of horseshit. When will Jews stop putting on all this
> victim nonsense.
>
> It is an irresponsible act to fantasize this way and project your own
> insecurities upon a situation which you know nothing about and were not
> involved in.

Karajan was hardly a fan of Bernstein (or of Jews in general).

What is your explanation?

Matty

wagnerfan

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 5:55:05 PM1/7/10
to
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:PMudneiWYOlHytvW...@supernews.com...

No question - of course that has nothing to with "greatness" Wagner Fan

mark

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 7:27:11 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 2:53 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

How to explain Karajan's Jewish wife, who he married in 1942, and who
he stayed married to until 1958, ie: long after the Nazis had
expressed their displeasure at him taking a Jewish wife? How to
explain the Jewish artists who worked with Karajan, like Alexis
Weissenberg and Evgeny Kissin? What's YOUR explanation for that?

mark

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 7:39:47 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 1:53 pm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> wagnerfan wrote:
> > "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
> >news:070120101432074725%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
> >> In article <2010010714175164440-tomdedeacon@maccom>, TD
> >> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2010-01-07 14:15:02 -0500, Randy Lane <randy.l...@gmail.com>

You may be right.

I have a hard time attaching the term "great" to any conductor who
doesn't spend a great deal of their time in the opera house. They seem
incomplete to me as musicians. Bernstein did spend time in the opera
house, but it was severely limited compared to his orchestral gigs.
And most of his opera recordings are unsuccessful (Carmen & La boheme
on DG spring to mind). He did well when Callas was on stage.

Maybe I'm being to harsh on Lenny. No one can do everything. What he
lacked in opera experience he made up for in many other ways.

wagnerfan

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 7:49:49 PM1/7/10
to
"Matthew Silverstein" <msilve...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1llsnt5w97448$.xbbsvj2vstri.dlg@40tude.net...

Where did you get that idea???? Wagner fan

wagnerfan

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 7:53:43 PM1/7/10
to
> lacked in opera experience he made up for in many other ways.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

His opera recordings are variable but his work in the opera house was
often revelatory - his Falstaff at the MET was really wonderful (as is
the commercial recording) as was his Rosenkavalier (the live Vienna
performance has a bit more life than the illness-ridden studio set)
Wagner fan

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:04:19 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 5:53 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Karajan was hardly a fan of Bernstein or of Jews in general?

For Karajan, as for all other conductors, there was only HIM. This is
normal. If you don't have an outsized ego, don't step on the podium.

Toscanini considered all other conductors incompetents. I know,
Jeffrey Powell will insist that he respected Ansermet. No competition.
That was a very easy call.

As for Jews? Please provide proof that Karajan was not a "fan of Jews
in general"?

By the way, you seem to be prepared to slur almost anyone? Is this
your habit?


TD

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:05:28 PM1/7/10
to

Don't bother, Mark. Matty has a very closed mind. Not worth the
trouble.

TD

td

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:06:35 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 7:49 pm, "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Matthew Silverstein" <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

The same place you get your ideas. In his own insecurities.

TD

M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:17:12 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 7:27 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Or Oistrakh or Berman, among many other Jewish soloists Karajan worked
with, not to mention the many Jewish conductors who did conduct the BP
regularly during the Karajan era.

Besides, it is reported (by Humphrey Burton, among others) that
Karajan and Bernstein respected each other and got along very well
personally when they first met in the 50s. Bernstein invited Karajan
to NY and Karajan invited Bernstein to Berlin and Vienna (probably to
appear with the Wiener Symphoniker whose artistic director he was at
that time), although while Karajan did appear in NY a few times,
Bernstein did not come to Berlin at that time, apparently because of
scheduling conflicts.
According to Burton, their relationship started to cool when Karajan
was upset that Bernstein did a TV special about Beethoven's 9th the
day after Karajan had just conducted the piece several times with the
NYP. And then they were continually compared to each other by critics
and music fans since they were the most visible and prominent
conductors of their generation. It became fashionable to be either
"for Karajan"or "for Bernstein". That can't have helped their
relationship either. Nor the fact that they became DG's two big, polar
opposite stars when DG signed Bernstein in the 70s.
Still, Bernstein did appear in Salzburg in the 70s and that was
Karajan's home turf, so he apparently did not block him actively
although it was understood that Berlin is Karajan's bastion and so he
was not invited there.
Despite all this, they were seen on several occasions sitting together
and talking for long periods of time when they bumped into each other
even in later years, usually in Salzburg.

The concerts in 1979 came about not as regular BP concerts, but as a
benefit concert for AI for which the orchestra was hired by the Berlin
Festival and paired with Bernstein. That means that if there had been
any "opposition" from the orchestra, the concerts would not have taken
place.

As it happened, a number of BP players I knew spoke in ecstatic tones
of the concerts many years later, including my first bass teacher who
once told me that those concerts were perhaps the most memorable of
his over 40 years in the BP.

M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:38:58 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 7:39 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think you are overlooking the fact that Bernstein was, well, an
American conductor. Opera houses are far and fewer in between in the
US than they are in Europe, in Germany in particular. The institution
of symphony orchestras in the sense of being only concert, not opera
orchestras is a more typical American phenomenon than it is in central
Europe where the majority of orchestras are opera orchestras which
also play concerts, besides a number of concert orchestras which also
exist, but nearly always *in addition* to opera houses in bigger
cities. The radio orchestras were obviously established relatively
recently.

In the "old days" it was of course the typical path for young
conductors to start in an opera house, coaching singers and rehearsing
choirs, conducting stage bands, and then slowly working their way up
the ladder. And while this is a very thorough way of learning the
trade (many young conductors obviously lack that background), it was a
career path that was basically not available to Bernstein.

Nor would it have suited him, I guess. However, Bernstein did have a
very thorough theatrical background through his work in musicals and
film music, and the former in particular isn't all that different from
opera or operetta, and he maintained an extremely busy conducting
schedule throughout his life and in particular while with the NYP. He
conducted over 1000 concerts in his 11 or so years there, in addition
to tours, recording sessions and TV appearances, and all that not just
by endlessly repeating the greatest hits, but in a very large and
varied repertoire.

So while he may not have had the quantity of opera experience typical
"old world" conductors had, he had more than enough experience in
other areas and some of his opera appearances were still very
successful.

What makes Bernstein a truly "great" conductor though is not the
quantity of his work in some areas (nor is the lack of quantity in the
field of opera a negative factor), it is the sheer quality of his work
and his highly personal interpretations, plus the unique rapport he
had with orchestras. And, he was held in very high esteem by many
traditional orchestras, especially the WP, and that in itself is a
great achievement. He is the only American conductor who has ever
reached that kind of status in the "old world", although some others,
like Levine and Maazel also achieved a considerable level of success
and respect. Maybe not quite on the level that Bernstein did, but then
very few others did anyway.

wagnerfan

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:46:40 PM1/7/10
to
> very few others did anyway.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The love affair between Bernstein and the WP was a very special one; I
guess it can be said Vienna loved him beginning in the 1960s when he
conducted the Falstaff and Rosenkavalier at the Staatsoper. I forget
the details of the charming story he told about the first time he
rehearsed with the WP - the initial moments of sizing each other up
quickly turned into a real understanding and appreciation of each
other. Wagner fan

Frank Berger

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 8:51:52 PM1/7/10
to

I have no particular knowedge about Karajan's attitude towards Jews, but
it's certainly not unusual for someone to have exhibit prejudice agains a
group in general, but have good relationships with particular individuals.


M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 9:15:39 PM1/7/10
to

Well, I know from musicians in the WP that they had the deepest
respect for him, and he for them. He pushed them to their limits and
beyond and sometimes, the relationship was very stormy. I was told
that he sometimes shouted stuff like "you Nazi orchestra" at them, but
they understood that with him, they could do very special things so
they didn't mind and asked him back all the time. The WP never had a
principal conductor, but in the 70s and 80s, he definitely their
"preferred" conductor and we are lucky to have many great recordings
documenting that musical relationship.

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 9:16:44 PM1/7/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, td wrote:

[snip]

> By the way, you seem to be prepared to slur almost anyone? Is this
> your habit?

First of all, whom else have I slurred?

Second, what's your explanation for how a whole section failed to play at
such a crucial moment?

Matty

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 9:25:24 PM1/7/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, wagnerfan wrote:

>> Karajan was hardly a fan of Bernstein (or of Jews in general).
>>
> Where did you get that idea???? Wagner fan

Honestly, I couldn't tell you. If I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to
acknowledge it.

That said, I'd still like to hear an alternative explanation for why a
whole section (of one of the world's best orchestras) would fail to play at
such a crucial passage.

Matty

M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 9:41:20 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 9:16 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> On Thursday, January 7, 2010, td wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > By the way, you seem to be prepared to slur almost anyone? Is this
> > your habit?
>
> First of all, whom else have I slurred?

Basically, by deciding that this was a plausible explanation, a lot of
people, not just the musicians of the BP.
Think about it.

> Second, what's your explanation for how a whole section failed to play at
> such a crucial moment?

That question does not really make sense. Since we don't know why that
happened, and since it is indeed very rare (though not unheard of),
everything is just pure speculation. There are some possible and much
more plausible explanations, but you seem to think that the one given
is the only one which seems to make sense.

I realize that you didn't say that you know that *is* what happened,
and why, but that you simply offered to repeat vague rumors you had
heard, identified as such, and at the explicit request of several
people.

However, when you say "how else are we to explain an entire section
missing a crucial entry like that?", I find that very saddening
because it appears to be your foregone conclusion that these people
all had to be evil, mean Nazis who wanted to "show the Jew". There is
obviously a whole box of prejudices and ignorance there that you
decided to open.

For a Jew, I find that unforgivable. A non-Jew could at least claim
ignorance or lack of interest, but you should know better. You should
know better about many things that happened in Germany, between
Germany and Israel, and between Germans and Jews in the decades
following 1945. Better than to say things like this lightly.

mark

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 9:58:43 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 5:51 pm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:

>
> I have no particular knowedge about Karajan's attitude towards Jews, but
> it's certainly not unusual  for someone to have exhibit prejudice agains a
> group in general, but have good relationships with particular individuals.

Oh, please. We're discussing Karajan who people vilify as a Nazi.

Matty made the statement that Karajan had a bad attitude towards Jews.
Karajan's relationships throughout his life easily put the lie to such
ignorance.

Would Karajan have married a Jewish woman at the height of WWII were
he a Jew hater? The man was conducting concerts in front of the Nazi
high command at the time. He was a rising star who could have had his
pick of politically correct spouses. One need not have been a
political beast to realize that associating with Jews was frowned upon
by the Nazis. Marrying one was absolutely asking for trouble, and the
fact is that Karajan's marriage to Anita Gutterman did negatively
impact his standing with the Nazis.

In the past, I've read on these boards that "Karajan married a Jew and
divorced her as soon as the Nazis came to power to advance his career"
and other stupidities. It's that kind of generalized, ignorant
received opinion that allows people like Matty to make the ignorant
statement he made without fear of reprisal.

Your statement is just another backhanded slap at Karajan's
reputation, impugning the man as an anti-semite without the overt lie
that Matty pulled out of his butt. It's just as unseemly. You don't
come out and say it, but you imply that Karajan was one of those
people who could hate Jews while having a few good relationships with
particular Jews.

BTW - you now have more knowledge about Karajan's attitude toward Jews
than you did before. Perhaps you'd like to revise your statements.

Frank Berger

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 10:12:33 PM1/7/10
to
mark wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:51 pm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have no particular knowedge about Karajan's attitude towards Jews,
>> but it's certainly not unusual for someone to have exhibit prejudice
>> agains a group in general, but have good relationships with
>> particular individuals.
>
> Oh, please. We're discussing Karajan who people vilify as a Nazi.

Somehow you missed my point.

>
> Matty made the statement that Karajan had a bad attitude towards Jews.
> Karajan's relationships throughout his life easily put the lie to such
> ignorance.
>
> Would Karajan have married a Jewish woman at the height of WWII were
> he a Jew hater?

Quite possib


The man was conducting concerts in front of the Nazi
> high command at the time. He was a rising star who could have had his
> pick of politically correct spouses. One need not have been a
> political beast to realize that associating with Jews was frowned upon
> by the Nazis. Marrying one was absolutely asking for trouble, and the
> fact is that Karajan's marriage to Anita Gutterman did negatively
> impact his standing with the Nazis.
>
> In the past, I've read on these boards that "Karajan married a Jew and
> divorced her as soon as the Nazis came to power to advance his career"
> and other stupidities. It's that kind of generalized, ignorant
> received opinion that allows people like Matty to make the ignorant
> statement he made without fear of reprisal.
>
> Your statement is just another backhanded slap at Karajan's
> reputation, impugning the man as an anti-semite without the overt lie
> that Matty pulled out of his butt. It's just as unseemly.

Geez, you're hysterical. I said I have no opinion or knowledge of Karjan.

> You don't come out and say it,

Because I have no such opinion

> but you imply

Nope.

> that Karajan was one of those
> people who could hate Jews while having a few good relationships with
> particular Jews.
>

I did no such thing. I said a person *could* have personal relationships
with individuals in a group that he generally harbors prejudice against. I
said it was *possible*. It *is* possible. Go argue with your wife.

> BTW - you now have more knowledge about Karajan's attitude toward Jews
> than you did before. Perhaps you'd like to revise your statements.

My statement was correct. I said nothing about Karajan at all. I couldn't
have been clearer.


M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 10:25:15 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 9:58 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:51 pm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have no particular knowedge about Karajan's attitude towards Jews, but
> > it's certainly not unusual  for someone to have exhibit prejudice agains a
> > group in general, but have good relationships with particular individuals.
>
> Oh, please. We're discussing Karajan who people vilify as a Nazi.

Well, he was a member of the NSDAP, so "technically" he was a Nazi.
That he was obviously not a convinced Nazi who just entered the party
out of opportunism is not an excuse, but then again, it's not that
simple either. Fact is, his membership did not do him any good, and he
even got into quite a bit of trouble later during the NS regime - when
*just a bit of trouble* could be enough t do you in. Not only his
marriage to Anita Gütermann (not Guttermann, BTW) but other things as
well. He certainly was not a favorite of Hitler who made sure he
didn't get invited to Bayreuth, and his career stalled almost
completely, too. He lobbied for a job in Dresden but that was denied
to him. All he had left in the later years of the 3rd Reich was a
series of concerts with the Staatskapelle Berlin, and not much else.

He may have been an opportunist, but not a very good one. Again, that
doesn't excuse that he was at least a passive supporter of the evil
Nazis, but it is pretty obvious that he did not subscribe to their
extremist views.

Nor did he ever show any similar racist or nationalist prejudices
later in his life. He worked with international casts, Jews, and non-
Jews, he was a very world open person who spoke fluent Italian, French
and English and rehearsed foreign orchestras in their native
languages.

> Matty made the statement that Karajan had a bad attitude towards Jews.
> Karajan's relationships throughout his life easily put the lie to such
> ignorance.
>
> Would Karajan have married a Jewish woman at the height of WWII were
> he a Jew hater? The man was conducting concerts in front of the Nazi
> high command at the time. He was a rising star who could have had his
> pick of politically correct spouses. One need not have been a
> political beast to realize that associating with Jews was frowned upon
> by the Nazis. Marrying one was absolutely asking for trouble, and the
> fact is that Karajan's marriage to Anita Gutterman did negatively
> impact his standing with the Nazis.

The fact that he did that is very puzzling, I think, all the more
because he had joined the NSDAP earlier.
That would suggest that he was a cold, calculating careerist with an
open eye for political realities and how to benefit from them. That he
didn't benefit much from that move, and that he did marry that woman
at that time, when things were turning really badly in the "Reich",
and when he was a very public figure on top of that, in the middle of
political games between Göring (who supported him) and Hitler and
Goebbels (who did not like him) almost suggest that he was a bit of a
political idiot. Or maybe not only just a bit. In any case, there is
no reason to believe that he was a convinced anti-semite at all, not
then, and definitely not later.

> In the past, I've read on these boards that "Karajan married a Jew and
> divorced her as soon as the Nazis came to power to advance his career"
> and other stupidities. It's that kind of generalized, ignorant
> received opinion that allows people like Matty to make the ignorant
> statement he made without fear of reprisal.
>
> Your statement is just another backhanded slap at Karajan's
> reputation, impugning the man as an anti-semite without the overt lie
> that Matty pulled out of his butt. It's just as unseemly.

Well, not only that, but also the entire BP, or at least their evil
trombone players. Who he doesn't even know who they were at the time.
And the suggestion that they would do something as silly and
unprofessional as that to "show the Jew".
It's also nonsensical from a purely musical point of view. Listening
to the entire performance makes it very clear that the whole
orchestra, including the trombones, was highly involved in the
performance and delivered white heat intensity playing - including the
trombones.

Sol L. Siegel

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 10:58:26 PM1/7/10
to
Matthew Silverstein <msilve...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:1llsnt5w97448$.xbbsvj2v...@40tude.net:

> Karajan was hardly a fan of Bernstein (or of Jews in general).
>
> What is your explanation?

In the 1960s and 70s, when I was getting involved in music and starting
to associate with musicians, Karajan was the only one of the many
musicians who performed in the Third Reich who I consistently heard
being referred to as "That Nazi", even though most of the others had
been Party members and some had been much more fervent supporters. I
always thought that it was basically the way in which he conducted
himself (no pun intended), combined with his past and his known
opportunism, that left him open to the accusations.

As for the flub, things like that really do just happen. This past
Labor Day weekend, the East Coast Brucknerathon included the recording
of the only performance to date of the second (1874) version of
Bruckner's 3rd Symphony, in which the brass flat-out missed its last
entrance in the first movement. (It was included because it was in fact
the only recording of that edition.) This was a second-line orchestra
in an unfamiliar work, but they had been working with the conductor for
years. In the Berlin performance, the BPO was working with a conductor
for the first time in a work that really wasn't in their repertory.
(IIRC, HvK's first recording came shortly after.)

That's my explanation, anyway. If anyone has better information, let's
have it.

--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

Sol L. Siegel

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 11:01:16 PM1/7/10
to
td <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in news:ed1c7bf9-9dde-4217-afeb-7a21b99f34e0
@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:


> I say keep LB's CDs available. Recycle them. Reissue them in
> perpetuity.

Tell that to Sony.

M forever

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 11:43:27 PM1/7/10
to
On Jan 7, 10:58 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:1llsnt5w97448$.xbbsvj2v...@40tude.net:

>
> > Karajan was hardly a fan of Bernstein (or of Jews in general).
>
> > What is your explanation?
>
> In the 1960s and 70s, when I was getting involved in music and starting
> to associate with musicians, Karajan was the only one of the many
> musicians who performed in the Third Reich who I consistently heard
> being referred to as "That Nazi", even though most of the others had
> been Party members and some had been much more fervent supporters.  I
> always thought that it was basically the way in which he conducted
> himself (no pun intended), combined with his past and his known
> opportunism, that left him open to the accusations.

Or maybe he was just too successful and too good a target,

> As for the flub, things like that really do just happen.  This past
> Labor Day weekend, the East Coast Brucknerathon included the recording
> of the only performance to date of the second (1874) version of
> Bruckner's 3rd Symphony, in which the brass flat-out missed its last
> entrance in the first movement.  (It was included because it was in fact
> the only recording of that edition.)  This was a second-line orchestra
> in an unfamiliar work, but they had been working with the conductor for
> years.  In the Berlin performance, the BPO was working with a conductor
> for the first time in a work that really wasn't in their repertory.  
> (IIRC, HvK's first recording came shortly after.)

And Barbirolli's recording with the BP in that piece had come 15 years
earlier. Plus, you have no clue how often - or not - they played this
piece - or Mahler in general.
So you don't know what was in "their repertoire" and what not. And a
piece like that doesn't have to be "in their repertoire" for them to
be able to come in at a certain point. It says that in the parts, you
know.

Seriously Sol, I am disappoint to see you repeating such nonsense here
which is based on nothing but silly clichés. You should really know
better.

Kevin P. Mostyn

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 12:36:43 AM1/8/10
to
Don,

Also his RCA recordings of Liszt.

Many years ago, I recorded more than 100 Fiedler concerts for the BSTT.
Things got very hectic during the Pops season and we did not have enough
staff to record all the many concerts, so I filled in and recorded 2 or 3
per week, for 10 or more weeks every year, for several years.

Fiedler was far from a routinier. He was superbly trained in pre-World War I
Germany. He played in the BSO for years (hired by Muck) before venturing to
conduct. He played under Monteux and Koussevitzky, neither of whom tolerated
substandard musicianship.

Many of his performances were quite dramatic. I remember a Rienzi overture,
fabulously played, high tension, electrifying. I had run a second master for
myself during the performance, as I am quite fond of the work. I played it
many times and I've never heard a performance that could equal it. Very much
in the Toscanini style, as others have pointed out.

He was great as an accompanist. That was often a difficult task, as the Pops
soloists were not always of top caliber. I have a recording from circa 1953,
where the piano soloist forgets his part and stops playing. Such things even
happened to Schnabel. Fiedler immediately begins to sing the missing notes
to the pianist, who then remembers his part and carries on. Very smoothly
done, without a hitch. The audience didn't even notice, there was great
applause at the end.

He played the popular stuff very well, with obvious pleasure. The audience
loved it. I must say that I did get sick of hearing Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy
and the suite from The Sound of Music, night after night, although the organ
at the conclusion of Climb Every Mountain did give a nice shake to the radio
booth.

Personally, he had a reputation as a tightwad. I heard many humorous stories
about him from the players. The former librarian of the BSO once gave me his
definitions of lunch invitations from Fiedler:

1. Fiedler says "Let's go to lunch," Translation: you pay.
2. Fiedler says "I'll take you to lunch." Translation: you pay.
3. Fiedler says "Let's go to lunch, I'll pay." Translation: first you faint
after hearing this, then he takes you to a cheap restaurant.

--
Kevin Mostyn
___________

My real e-mail address is my first name at my last name dot com

<Dontait...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:34cebd2c-442e-4246...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Agreed! I heard many, many Boston Pops concert broadcasts with
Fiedler. For those who might not remember, Pops concerts were (are) in
three parts rather than two. A march and then classical in part one,
longer classical works including concertos in part two, then "popular
stuff" in three. Of part two, I particularly remember really
magnificent Fiedler-conducted performances of Wagner's Tannhaeuser
Overture (Dresden version) and Respighi's Pines of Rome. Really. Among
other things.

Fiedler's pre-World War II Victor 78s with his Sinfonietta of works
by Mozart, Handel, Corelli, Schiassi, Pachelbel (one of the first-ever
recordings of the Canon), Reusner, and others are the work of a top-
flight, sensitive musician and conductor. And with the Pops I've never
heard better recordings of the ballet music for Massenet's Le Cid or
overtures by Auber and Suppe. All for example, of course.

That Pops concert set-up might have been abandoned now, of course,
when the Pops telecasts have become PBS attemptrs at money-makers. Or
are they still?

Was Fiedler a Furtwangler or Bruno Walter? No, and he admitted as
much. But as his daughter Johanna wrote in her biography of him, he
became stereotyped against his will in his late years (post-1963 or
so) as merely a conductor of the sort of pop-music arrangements that
made up only the last third of Pops concerts. He regretted being so
identified. He himself identified with the greatest composers. But it
happened. He should not be dismissed. Many of his recordings are very
good.

Don Tait


mark

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 12:47:11 AM1/8/10
to

Richard Osborne's Karajan bio goes into great detail about Karajan's
membership/non-membership/double membership in the Nazi Party. it's
not the cut-and-dried affair that many make it out to be. Paul Moor
wrote an article in Spring 1999 Schwann/Opus catalog titled "Karajan
Revisited" in which he finds himself largely in agreement with
Osborne, and in which he debunks the idea that Karajan was cars-
carrying Nazi who used his Party membership to advance his career. The
significance of the debunking is that the author is none other than
Paul
Moor, the same Paul Moor who put Karajan's "Naxi past" on the map with
his October 1957 High Fidelity article on Karajan. In the 1957 HF
article, Moor stated: "Once and for all, to set the record
straight..." and then went on to detail what he believed were the
documented, undeniable facts that made Karajan's version (and denials)
of said "facts" to be held as obfustication -or worse. By 1999, Moor
had come round about 180º on the subject.

As far as musicians in an orchestra "blowing it" to embarrass a
conductor: I well remember a Rite of Spring I heard in Cleveland under
Maazel in the 1970s. Maazel was having a well publicized war with
Myron Bloom, who was principle French horn. Bloom obviously conspired
with the horn section to embarrass Maazel. A few seconds before the
point in Part II of the piece where the horns blast out the big tune
in unison, I noticed that the horns were not ready to play the big
lick. Maazel seemed occupied with other things. At the last possible
second, Maazel wheeled around and threw a huge cue directly at the
horn section - none of them played. Without missing a beat, Maazel
turned to the audience, and still beating time, pointed at the horns,
gave us a look that said "not my fault," then returned to the business
at hand.

M forever

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 1:26:47 AM1/8/10
to

That's a very sad story, and not at all embarrassing for Maazel,
whatever the issues between him and Bloom may have been. It is very
embarrassing for Bloom and his colleagues though, childish and
unprofessional. Accidents, communication errors and simple human
errors happen, even in the best of orchestras, but nonsense like this,
especially in a concert, should result in disciplinary measures and,
if willfully repeated, instant dismissal of the players. They get paid
to play for the audience, not clown around in concerts.

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 2:06:12 AM1/8/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, M forever wrote:

>> Second, what's your explanation for how a whole section failed to play at
>> such a crucial moment?
>
> That question does not really make sense.

Of course it does. We have to try to explain the phenomenon as best we can.
And if there are no plausible explanations that make everyone out to be
nice, decent people, then we'll just have to accept an explanation
according to which some of them are not.

That's why I'm asking for an alternative story or theory. If you're so
convinced that the rumored (and not outrageously implausible) explanation
I've mentioned is incorrect, then just supply us with a better one!

> However, when you say "how else are we to explain an entire section
> missing a crucial entry like that?", I find that very saddening
> because it appears to be your foregone conclusion that these people
> all had to be evil, mean Nazis who wanted to "show the Jew". There is
> obviously a whole box of prejudices and ignorance there that you
> decided to open.

Again, it's not my foregone conclusion. It's a hypothesis. Present with me
a more compelling one, and I'll jettison mine immediately.

> For a Jew, I find that unforgivable.

I can't tell you how horrified I am to learn that you will not forgive me
for my sins.

Matty

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 2:07:12 AM1/8/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, mark wrote:

> Your statement is just another backhanded slap at Karajan's
> reputation, impugning the man as an anti-semite without the overt lie
> that Matty pulled out of his butt. It's just as unseemly.

I knew I had heard it *somewhere* . . .

Matty

Matthew Silverstein

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 2:10:19 AM1/8/10
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, M forever wrote:

> Well, not only that, but also the entire BP, or at least their evil
> trombone players. Who he doesn't even know who they were at the time.
> And the suggestion that they would do something as silly and
> unprofessional as that to "show the Jew".
>
> It's also nonsensical from a purely musical point of view. Listening
> to the entire performance makes it very clear that the whole
> orchestra, including the trombones, was highly involved in the
> performance and delivered white heat intensity playing - including the
> trombones.

So what happened, then? Did they get tired from playing with "white heat
intensity" and just fall asleep at the crucial moment? The fact that they
play so well for the rest of the performance makes their absence here more
suspicious, rather than less, since it makes it harder to chalk it up to
sheer incompetence.

Matty

Bob Harper

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 2:31:57 AM1/8/10
to
M forever wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:16 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 7, 2010, td wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> By the way, you seem to be prepared to slur almost anyone? Is this
>>> your habit?
>> First of all, whom else have I slurred?
>
> Basically, by deciding that this was a plausible explanation, a lot of
> people, not just the musicians of the BP.
> Think about it.
>
>> Second, what's your explanation for how a whole section failed to play at
>> such a crucial moment?
>
> That question does not really make sense. Since we don't know why that
> happened, and since it is indeed very rare (though not unheard of),
> everything is just pure speculation. There are some possible and much
> more plausible explanations, but you seem to think that the one given
> is the only one which seems to make sense.

(snip)

Of course the question makes sense. Let's stipulate that we're going to
leave accusations of anti-Semitism out of it. I agree it seems rather
stupid. You mention possible and more plausible explanations. Like what?
If they just blew it, why not say so?

Bob Harper

Ed Romans

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 4:37:44 AM1/8/10
to
On 8 Jan, 04:43, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So you don't know what was in "their repertoire" and what not. And a
> piece like that doesn't have to be "in their repertoire" for them to
> be able to come in at a certain point. It says that in the parts, you
> know.

There are plenty of flubs in Barbirolli's live Mahler recordings with
them. How good were they technically in all areas compared to say the
best US orchestras in the 60s and 70s?

Ed

TareeDawg

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 5:25:54 AM1/8/10
to

From an Amazon reviewer, referring to the missed trombones entry, he
seems to suggest that a lot of talking can be heard on the recording at
this juncture, and that maybe, someone might have had a heart attack.

I find this plausible, and at any rate, Lenny definitely didn't want
this recording released.

Ray Hall, Taree


Matthew�B.�Tepper

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 10:43:22 AM1/8/10
to
"Kevin P. Mostyn" <notmyrea...@nowhere.com> appears to have caused
the following letters to be typed in
news:Pvz1n.1236$F05...@news.usenetserver.com:

> Personally, he had a reputation as a tightwad. I heard many humorous
> stories about him from the players. The former librarian of the BSO once
> gave me his definitions of lunch invitations from Fiedler:
>
> 1. Fiedler says "Let's go to lunch," Translation: you pay.
> 2. Fiedler says "I'll take you to lunch." Translation: you pay.
> 3. Fiedler says "Let's go to lunch, I'll pay." Translation: first you
> faint after hearing this, then he takes you to a cheap restaurant.

Thanks for this story (and all the interesting factual stuff too).

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers

Matthew�B.�Tepper

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 10:43:23 AM1/8/10
to
"Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:Xns9CF9EA2D251...@130.133.4.11:

> td <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in news:ed1c7bf9-9dde-4217-afeb-7a21b99f34e0
> @s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I say keep LB's CDs available. Recycle them. Reissue them in perpetuity.
>
> Tell that to Sony.

Still waiting for domestic CD issues of Stravinsky's "Oedipus Rex" (with the
Boston Symphony Orchestra) and "Hatikvah on Mount Scopus" (Mendelssohn
concerto with Stern, finale of Mahler 2nd sung in Hebrew), and first-ever CD
releases of Wm. Schuman Viola Concerto and "Humor in Music."

Between the ridiculous "Royal Edition" and "Bernstein Century," Sony issued
every Bernstein Columbia recording except for these few. Why is this?

Mr. Mike

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 10:49:24 AM1/8/10
to
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:25:54 GMT, TareeDawg
<raymon...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>From an Amazon reviewer, referring to the missed trombones entry, he
>seems to suggest that a lot of talking can be heard on the recording at
>this juncture, and that maybe, someone might have had a heart attack.

Who, someone in the orchestra? Or the audience?

Mr. Mike

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 10:54:55 AM1/8/10
to
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:43:23 -0600, "Matthew�B.�Tepper"
<oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Between the ridiculous "Royal Edition" and "Bernstein Century," Sony issued
>every Bernstein Columbia recording except for these few. Why is this?

Sony didn't issue Larry Austin's Improvisations in these two series.
It is available from HMV Japan, searchable under the title "Music of
our Time," along with the other items on the original recording,
reissued in an "original jacket" edition.

I was wondering about Schuman's Concerto on Old English Rounds with
McInnes on viola as I sold an LP copy to some guy for peanuts a while
ago...

TareeDawg

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 12:11:34 PM1/8/10
to

Not sure. Anyway, it is merely conjecture on the part of the reviewer.

Ray Hall, Taree

Sol L. Siegel

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 2:24:25 PM1/8/10
to
On Jan 7, 11:43 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 10:58 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:1llsnt5w97448$.xbbsvj2v...@40tude.net:
>
> > >Karajanwas hardly a fan of Bernstein (or of Jews in general).

>
> > > What is your explanation?
>
> > In the 1960s and 70s, when I was getting involved in music and starting
> > to associate with musicians,Karajanwas the only one of the many

> > musicians who performed in the Third Reich who I consistently heard
> > being referred to as "That Nazi", even though most of the others had
> > been Party members and some had been much more fervent supporters.  I
> > always thought that it was basically the way in which he conducted
> > himself (no pun intended), combined with his past and his known
> > opportunism, that left him open to the accusations.
>
> Or maybe he was just too successful and too good a target,
>
> > As for the flub, things like that really do just happen.  This past
> > Labor Day weekend, the East Coast Brucknerathon included the recording
> > of the only performance to date of the second (1874) version of
> >Bruckner's3rd Symphony, in which the brass flat-out missed its last

> > entrance in the first movement.  (It was included because it was in fact
> > the only recording of that edition.)  This was a second-line orchestra
> > in an unfamiliar work, but they had been working with the conductor for
> > years.  In the Berlin performance, the BPO was working with a conductor
> > for the first time in a work that really wasn't in their repertory.  
> > (IIRC, HvK's first recording came shortly after.)
>
> And Barbirolli's recording with the BP in that piece had come 15 years
> earlier. Plus, you have no clue how often - or not - they played this
> piece - or Mahler in general.
> So you don't know what was in "their repertoire" and what not. And a
> piece like that doesn't have to be "in their repertoire" for them to
> be able to come in at a certain point. It says that in the parts, you
> know.
>
> Seriously Sol, I am disappoint to see you repeating such nonsense here
> which is based on nothing but silly clichés. You should really know
> better.

Re other musicians: I'm not about to name names now for the very
reason
that supposedly well-researched articles I read years ago may have
been
full of misinformation or taken out of context.

Re M9 in Berlin's repertory: I knew about Barbirolli's recording - and
double-checked that before posting.

If I have to expose some ignorance on my part in order to be
corrected
from time to time, so be it. The main point of my post was simply:
SH.

(FWIW, M9 was a pretty serious rarity in Philly until the mid-1970s,
after which I
got to hear it with under people like Tennstedt, Levine, and, of
course, Bernstein.)

J.Martin

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 3:00:18 PM1/8/10
to
We have to try to explain the phenomenon as best we can.
> And if there are no plausible explanations that make everyone out to be
> nice, decent people, then we'll just have to accept an explanation
> according to which some of them are not.
>

This strikes me as being a perfect example of the kind of intellectual
irresponsibility that has given us so many conspiracy theories over
the years. The idea that some things are simply the result of human
folly or sheer coincidence is deemed by the conspiracy theorist to be
unacceptable, and the door swings wide open to all sorts of wild
accusations and unlikely alliances.

I've often wondered about this particular incident, too, and seen many
online discussions of it, but I have never encountered anyone with a
shred of evidence that it was anything other than a mistake.
It may seem unlikely that *all* the trombones missed the cue, but it's
far from impossible. Maybe the first trombone was distracted and
unready, and it rattled the others. Who knows? But even great
musicians make mistakes. That's the explanation.

JM

mark

unread,
Jan 8, 2010, 3:18:24 PM1/8/10
to

You're sure right about the crazed conspiracy theories.

My own pet peeve(s) are the CTs surrounding the assassination of JFK.
The evidence has been overwhelming since Day One that Oswald did the
killing and that he acted alone, and nothing has changed in the
intervening 47 years. Yet something like 80% of Americans believe
there was a vast conspiracy behind the shooting. That's what happens
when people get their history from an admitted fiction like Oliver
Stone's risible flick.

I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's book on the subject (Reclaiming
History) to anyone interested in the truth (warning: you have to
believe in science and the scientific method or this book will seem
too logical and rational to you). It's a long and deep read, but well
worth it. Tom Hanks and his Playtone company bought the rights to this
book and a mini-series is supposedly in the works for a 2013 release
to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the JFK killing. I doubt the
facts presented in that series will change many hardcore JFK CT minds,
but it will be nice to have the facts out there to challenge the JFK
CT crap one sees on The History Channel on a regular basis, as well as
providing a counter for Stone's now-entrenched BS.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages