Anyone also absolutely love Carlos Kleiber to death?
imperfection
listening to the Beethoven 5th/7th. Next thing I know I bought the La
Scala Tristan und Isolde, downloaded some broadcasts (including A
Hero's Life, Brahms 2) from OperaShare.
I just found his conducting absolutely fabulous-always engaging,
intense without any highlighting of superficial climaxes to generate
excitement; instead, every nuance and expression is just done right:
nothing more, nothing less. Feels like the ultimate balance between
mind-blowing sophistication and utter simplicity to me: having
clarity, economy and grace.
Your thoughts?
Matthew B. Tepper
--
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
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
her...@yahoo.com
It's quite a confession, though.
TareeDawg
He runs out of steam in the LvB 5th and it fizzles out like a damp
squib. Granted he has his moments, but not for the long haul afaiac.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
Gerard
Don't forget his Schubert 3 & 8 (DG), and a few Beethoven DVD's.
His New Year concertos on Sony have been reissued by Brilliant Classics (I don't
know if this is still available).
William Sommerwerck
> intense without any highlighting of superficial climaxes to generate
> excitement; instead, every nuance and expression is just done right:
> nothing more, nothing less. Feels like the ultimate balance between
> mind-blowing sophistication and utter simplicity to me: having
> clarity, economy and grace.
> Your thoughts?
We've been through this before. All the performances I've heard of C.
Kleiber, live and recorded, have shown the same interpretive pattern -- a
persistent, intense "pushing forward" that is often inconsistent with the
"tenor" (ar, ar) of the music.
20 years ago I heard him conduct the Brahms 2nd live. From the first few
notes, it was plain this would be an intense, electrifying performance. (My
fellow attendees agreed in retrospect.) Yet that isn't the way the first
movement of the B2 is usually conducted. This is, after all Brahms'
"pastoral" symphony. It is not intense, electrifying music. Contrast with
Monteux or Walter.
Based on what I've heard, I don't consider Carlos Kleiber a good conductor,
because he superimposes a particular approach on everything he conducts. (At
least, in those performances I've heard.) He reveals himself, not the music.
her...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> > I just found his conducting absolutely fabulous-always engaging,
> > intense without any highlighting of superficial climaxes to generate
> > excitement; instead, every nuance and expression is just done right:
> > nothing more, nothing less. Feels like the ultimate balance between
> > mind-blowing sophistication and utter simplicity to me: having
> > clarity, economy and grace.
> > Your thoughts?
>
> We've been through this before. All the performances I've heard of C.
> Kleiber, live and recorded, have shown the same interpretive pattern -- a
> persistent, intense "pushing forward" that is often inconsistent with the
> "tenor" (ar, ar) of the music.
>
to get a clean linear melody.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:1cd44775-23ac-49b1...@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> So you're the one who loved him to death. Are you happy now?
>
> It's quite a confession, though.
No, I'm not the OP. Direct your witticisms more carefully, please.
jeffli...@hotmail.com
I prefer Papa Kleiber to his son.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > I just found his conducting absolutely fabulous-always engaging,
> > intense without any highlighting of superficial climaxes to generate
> > excitement; instead, every nuance and expression is just done right:
> > nothing more, nothing less. Feels like the ultimate balance between
> > mind-blowing sophistication and utter simplicity to me: having
> > clarity, economy and grace.
> > Your thoughts?
>
> We've been through this before. All the performances I've heard of C.
> Kleiber, live and recorded, have shown the same interpretive pattern -- a
> persistent, intense "pushing forward" that is often inconsistent with the
> "tenor" (ar, ar) of the music.
>
> 20 years ago I heard him conduct the Brahms 2nd live.
What orchestra was that with?
ckho...@ckhowell.com
>
> He runs out of steam in the LvB 5th and it fizzles out like a damp
> squib. Granted he has his moments, but not for the long haul afaiac.
>
> Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
To do him justice, he's one of the few (like his father before him)
who try to make sense of the fact that LvB marked a slower pulse for
the half-notes of the finale than for the dotted half-notes of the
scherzo. Most conductors reverse this, some (e.g. Klemperer) sail
through at an even pace all through. So when you hear the relationship
LvB seemingly asked for, the finale does seem oddly slow.
Chris Howell
O
<fe08b349-3bd3-4520...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Based on what I've heard, I don't consider Carlos Kleiber a good conductor,
> > because he superimposes a particular approach on everything he conducts. (At
> > least, in those performances I've heard.) He reveals himself, not the music.
I've got to say that I do enjoy listening to Carlos Kleiber, but I
rarely put his disks on (except for the Beethoven 5th). I almost
always pick someone else to listen to first. Does that make sense?
-Owen
Michael Schaffer
> In article
> <fe08b349-3bd3-4520-9c3e-c66819fb7...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Based on what I've heard, I don't consider Carlos Kleiber a good conductor,
> > > because he superimposes a particular approach on everything he conducts. (At
> > > least, in those performances I've heard.) He reveals himself, not the music.
>
> I've got to say that I do enjoy listening to Carlos Kleiber, but I
> rarely put his disks on (except for the Beethoven 5th).
Well, there aren't that many to put on to begin with. However, with
those works that there is a CK recording of, they are almost all among
my very first choices for these particular works.
> I almost
> always pick someone else to listen to first. Does that make sense?
Not to me, because it looks like you quoted from a post of mine, but
that was actually written by Mr Sommerwerck. I would never write such
nonsense. Well, OK, I write other nonsense about other subjects
instead. But I would never write such nonsense about CK.
> -Owen
Simon Roberts
It makes sense, but I don't agree: the Carlos Kleiber recordings I like most are
always among the first I'll reach for.
Simon
Steve Emerson
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 20 years ago I heard him conduct the Brahms 2nd live. From the first few
> notes, it was plain this would be an intense, electrifying performance. (My
> fellow attendees agreed in retrospect.) Yet that isn't the way the first
> movement of the B2 is usually conducted. This is, after all Brahms'
> "pastoral" symphony. It is not intense, electrifying music.
It is neither overwhelmingly the one nor the other -- it's a more
complex case. (Those braying trombones and dissonances here and there
are not in the least pastoral.)
> Contrast with Monteux or Walter.
Sure (two of my least favorite performances btw), but then contrast
those with Steinberg or Jochum DG.
I don't know how it was played when you saw him, but the various
recordings on Memories from about that time and the one on DG are
intense enough, but not outside a range suggested by the above, and
Reiner, Fricsay, Furtwangler, Munch, etc.
Not that there isn't something to your general point....
SE.
jrsnfld
> In article <gnec4q$vj...@news.motzarella.org>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 20 years ago I heard him conduct the Brahms 2nd live. From the first few
> > notes, it was plain this would be an intense, electrifying performance. (My
> > fellow attendees agreed in retrospect.) Yet that isn't the way the first
> > movement of the B2 is usually conducted. This is, after all Brahms'
> > "pastoral" symphony. It is not intense, electrifying music.
>
> It is neither overwhelmingly the one nor the other -- it's a more
> complex case. (Those braying trombones and dissonances here and there
> are not in the least pastoral.)
>
> > Contrast with Monteux or Walter.
>
> Sure (two of my least favorite performances btw), but then contrast
> those with Steinberg or Jochum DG.
>
> I don't know how it was played when you saw him, but the various
> recordings on Memories from about that time and the one on DG are
> intense enough, but not outside a range suggested by the above, and
> Reiner, Fricsay, Furtwangler, Munch, etc.
There's a Kleiber Brahms 2 on DG?
>
> Not that there isn't something to your general point....
Some of his conducting seems maniacally focused on control of an
unyielding forward momentum (the Ein Heldenleben and his La Boheme
come to mind). Add to that his penchant for great clarity and clean
enunciation of the notes. These are some of my favorite examples of
Kleiber's sophisticated simplicity, by the way, but this is not the
only great way to project the line of the music. The contrast between
Kleiber's Puccini and Clemens Krauss's is very instructive in this
regard--both are masters of the music and very "micro-
controlled" (some would say "symphonic") interpretations by the
conductors that could not be possible with lesser operatic time-
keepers.
--Jeff
Steve Emerson
<cd57b77b-9e9a-4078...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
jrsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
> There's a Kleiber Brahms 2 on DG?
I confuse easily. Isn't there a DVD?
SE.
Matthew Silverstein
> To do him justice, he's one of the few (like his father before him)
> who try to make sense of the fact that LvB marked a slower pulse for
> the half-notes of the finale than for the dotted half-notes of the
> scherzo. Most conductors reverse this, some (e.g. Klemperer) sail
> through at an even pace all through. So when you hear the relationship
> LvB seemingly asked for, the finale does seem oddly slow.
It's not just the tempo. Kleiber's recording of Beethoven 5/iv just feels
heavy--it collapses under its own weight. It certainly doesn't help that
the timpani--which are thrillingly present in the first movement--barely
make an impression in the final three movements.
Matty
jrsnfld
>
> jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> > There's a Kleiber Brahms 2 on DG?
>
> I confuse easily. Isn't there a DVD?
>
> SE.
Maybe there is. I have a Kleiber Brahms 2 with Vienna on an Exclusive
CD and another on a Memories CD (Chicago?) and I think maybe another
(one of the Munich orchestras?) I downloaded from a kindly collector-
sharer type.
--Jeff
Dontait...@aol.com
Carlos Kleiber didn't conduct much in the USA outside of the
Metropolitan Opera. An exception was the Chicago Symphony, which he
guest-conducted during two seasons in the mid-1970s. I heard the
concerts. The first year's had Weber's Der Freischuetz Overture,
Schubert's 3rd Symphony, and Beethoven's 5th. The next year the
concert began with George Butterworth's English Idyll No. 1, continued
with something I can't recall, and ended with the Symphony no. 2 by
Brahms.
I have seldom heard concerts of such complete mastery. It wasn't
just the precision of the playing, of course. It was that combined
with the feeling of sweep and an overall design from the conductor. I
can still see, in my mind's eye, Kleiber smiling as he conducted. And
then, in the coda of the Brahms finale, him shooting out his arms with
subito piano and the CSO instanteneously becoming quiet. It was
stupendous, but it wasn't a stunt. It worked. Great, great Brahms in
concert.
Kleiber was supposed to come back to the CSO for a third season, but
Asian pirates issued recordings of the WFMT broadcast of his first CSO
appearance (Weber, et cetera). Kleiber found out about them. He was
enraged, and would not come back to Chicago. Big sorrow. It was
planned that he would conduct and record Tchaikovsky's Symphony no. 6,
"Pathetique." (No pun intended, by the way.)
For me, at least, Carlos Kleiber was a great conductor. But like so
many, perhaps best experienced in person.
Don Tait
jrsnfld
wrote:
Would more presence for the timpani in the final three movements have
made them less weighty?
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
>
> jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> > There's a Kleiber Brahms 2 on DG?
>
> I confuse easily. Isn't there a DVD?
>
> SE.
Yes, there is a Philips DVD with the WP.
Steve Emerson
EM <emmemmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> jrsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> - Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:33:11 -0800 (PST):
>
> > Maybe there is. I have a Kleiber Brahms 2 with Vienna on an Exclusive
> > CD and another on a Memories CD (Chicago?)
Currently listed at BRO.
> > and I think maybe another
> > (one of the Munich orchestras?) I downloaded from a kindly collector-
> > sharer type.
>
> There is one on a Memories twofer, "Live at the Musikverrein
> Grossersall" (sic); rec. March 20, 1988.
I believe that is with the VPO, I guess unsurprisingly; the Memories
release I have doesn't give a date.
A Carlos Kleiber completist has broken this stuff out previously.
There's at least one additional Memories Brahms 2, from 1987 at Pompeii,
mono with the Bayerisches Staatsorchester. I didn't think it was quite
up to the VPO recordings. It too is at BRO.
SE.
Matthew Silverstein
>> It's not just the tempo. Kleiber's recording of Beethoven 5/iv just
>> feels heavy--it collapses under its own weight. It certainly doesn't
>> help that the timpani--which are thrillingly present in the first
>> movement--barely make an impression in the final three movements.
>>
>
> Would more presence for the timpani in the final three movements have
> made them less weighty?
More incisive, less heavy: less like soggy towel. In short, yes, I think
more prominent timpani would have made the finale seem much less
overweight.
Matty
Sam
Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth? Father and son used
the same score (i.e.wind doublings). I think that your complaint has
more to do with the recorded sound of the C. Kleiber than its
performance. I think the sound is bad. I remember listening to the
son's Chicago symphony broadacast of the Vth over the radio and the
sound was great. Does anybody know if the aircheck is available?
grobbe...@gmail.com
It has been issued on the Memories label appears often at Berkshire
(or at least it did). I have it and it's been a while since I listened
to it however I don't remember the sound being anything more than the
usual tubby and mushy live aircheck sound.
Dil.
grobbe...@gmail.com
>
> jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> > There's a Kleiber Brahms 2 on DG?
>
> I confuse easily. Isn't there a DVD?
I believe so plus a live aircheck with the Chicago Symphony on the
Memories label.
Dil.
William Sommerwerck
> that was actually written by Mr Sommerwerck. I would never write such
> nonsense. Well, OK, I write other nonsense about other subjects
> instead. But I would never write such nonsense about CK.
What I say is not nonsense. For whatever reason, you're not hearing this in
his conducting.
Other performers do the same thing, eg, Brautigam playing the Haydn keyboard
sonatas.
William Sommerwerck
Yes, though it's been some years. "Exciting", but, to my tastes, rather
overwrought (especially the last movement).
jrsnfld
It was also issued on Exclusive before it was on Memories. The sound
was not as good as the usual FM braodcast sound.
--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
> > notes, it was plain this would be an intense, electrifying performance.
(My
> > fellow attendees agreed in retrospect.) Yet that isn't the way the first
> > movement of the B2 is usually conducted. This is, after all Brahms'
> > "pastoral" symphony. It is not intense, electrifying music.
>
> It is neither overwhelmingly the one nor the other -- it's a more
> complex case. (Those braying trombones and dissonances here and there
> are not in the least pastoral.)
>
> > Contrast with Monteux or Walter.
>
> Sure (two of my least favorite performances btw), but then contrast
> those with Steinberg or Jochum DG.
>
> I don't know how it was played when you saw him, but the various
> recordings on Memories from about that time and the one on DG are
> intense enough, but not outside a range suggested by the above, and
> Reiner, Fricsay, Furtwangler, Munch, etc.
> Not that there isn't something to your general point...
Think about the opening of the first movement. The melody -- which is not
far-removed from "Brahms' Lullaby"! -- does not suggest "intensity", and not
much later the movement starts sounding like the "Brahms' Lullaby"!. Yet
this is the way Kleiber (conducting the CSO) starts off the work.
Matthew Silverstein
> Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth? Father and son used the
> same score (i.e.wind doublings). I think that your complaint has more
> to do with the recorded sound of the C. Kleiber than its performance. I
> think the sound is bad. I remember listening to the son's Chicago
> symphony broadacast of the Vth over the radio and the sound was great.
> Does anybody know if the aircheck is available?
Yes, it's on the Memories label is currently available at Berkshire, I
believe.
I don't think it's just the sound quality, although that might explain the
disappearing timpani. The sound quality of the Chicago recording is worse,
but it's a much more exciting and satisfying performance of the finale.
Matty
Simon Roberts
>
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:47:29 -0500, Matthew Silverstein
><msilve...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, jrsnfld wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not just the tempo. Kleiber's recording of Beethoven 5/iv just
>>>> feels heavy--it collapses under its own weight. It certainly doesn't
>>>> help that the timpani--which are thrillingly present in the first
>>>> movement--barely make an impression in the final three movements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would more presence for the timpani in the final three movements have
>>> made them less weighty?
>>
>>More incisive, less heavy: less like soggy towel. In short, yes, I think
>>more prominent timpani would have made the finale seem much less
>>overweight.
>>
>>Matty
>
>Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth? Father and son used
>the same score (i.e.wind doublings).
That's fairly common, isn't it? Karajan did the same.
I think that your complaint has
>more to do with the recorded sound of the C. Kleiber than its
>performance.
That may be the case, though it would be interesting to know why the timpani,
which are so prominent in the first movement, all but disappear thereafter.
> I think the sound is bad.
I don't (I quite like DG's unnatural sound), but I wish the timpani were
consistent. But at least it doesn't make the string section sound tiny, as it
DG does in Kleiber's 7, and I much prefer it to the sound of his Brahms 4 and
Tristan. I wonder how much influence Kleiber had on how the discs ended up
sounding.
I remember listening to the
>son's Chicago symphony broadacast of the Vth over the radio and the
>sound was great. Does anybody know if the aircheck is available?
It used to be on various pirate labels (e.g. Exclusive), but I don't know
whether it still is. At any rate, the release I heard sounded terrible, not
remotely as good as the DG recording; sufficiently dull and muffled to make any
advantages the performance had over its DG equivalent seem irrelevant. I would
be surprised if you thought it preferable to the DG qua sound.
Simon
grobbe...@gmail.com
I just took the Memories release off my shelf and listened to the 5th
again and I must take back my earlier comment about the sound being
mushy and tubby -it's not. In fact, it's pretty good for a live
Memories label thing. The performance however is merely all right and
not near the gem that is the studio DG (that is all deserving of its
starry reputation -disapearing timpani or not, IMHO).
Dil.
William Sommerwerck
> far-removed from "Brahms' Lullaby"! -- does not suggest "intensity", and
not
> much later the movement starts sounding like the "Brahms' Lullaby"!. Yet
> this is the way Kleiber (conducting the CSO) starts off the work.
I can't write. It should have been...
> Think about the opening of the first movement. The main theme does not
> suggest "intensity", and not much later the movement starts sounding like
> the "Brahms' Lullaby"!. Yet Kleiber (conducting the CSO) started off the
> work with great intensity.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > Not to me, because it looks like you quoted from a post of mine, but
> > that was actually written by Mr Sommerwerck. I would never write such
> > nonsense. Well, OK, I write other nonsense about other subjects
> > instead. But I would never write such nonsense about CK.
>
> What I say is not nonsense. For whatever reason, you're not hearing this in
> his conducting.
I hear a lot of good things in his conducting, in a rare combination
and concentration, things which, for whatever reason, you are not
hearing in his conducting.
That does not necessarily mean that his concepts always mirror my
personal ideals. What you said about him always forcing the same
concept on the music is clearly nonsense though.
As is your simplistic and generalized idea of some music, e.g. that
Brahms' 2nd is his "Pastorale" and that it can therefore not have
urgency, drama and tension in the right places (which CK indeed finds
in his great live performance with the WP). This music can work very
well with a number of different stylistic approaches. It certainly
does with CK's.
It is also nonsense to say the he was "not a good conductor" because
his performances do not match your simplistic ideas about some pieces.
He was extremely highly respected by many of his colleagues and, most
importantly, by the orchestras which he conducted (if he showed up)
which include some of the very best on the planet.
Michael Schaffer
> In article <gdjmp4903835vut20512t276633813j...@4ax.com>, Sam says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:47:29 -0500, Matthew Silverstein
> ><msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, jrsnfld wrote:
>
> >>>> It's not just the tempo. Kleiber's recording of Beethoven 5/iv just
> >>>> feels heavy--it collapses under its own weight. It certainly doesn't
> >>>> help that the timpani--which are thrillingly present in the first
> >>>> movement--barely make an impression in the final three movements.
>
> >>> Would more presence for the timpani in the final three movements have
> >>> made them less weighty?
>
> >>More incisive, less heavy: less like soggy towel. In short, yes, I think
> >>more prominent timpani would have made the finale seem much less
> >>overweight.
>
> >>Matty
>
> >Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth? Father and son used
> >the same score (i.e.wind doublings).
>
> That's fairly common, isn't it? Karajan did the same.
It is indeed. It is also "sanctioned" by contemporary performance
practice. If they played in a large venue and the forces were
available, they often doubled the winds in Beethoven's time. The 4th,
7t, 8th, and 9th were premiered with doubled winds. which does not
necessarily mean that the doubles all play all the time. They usually
only come in in tuttis to preserve the balance between strings and
winds.
> I think that your complaint has
>
> >more to do with the recorded sound of the C. Kleiber than its
> >performance.
>
> That may be the case, though it would be interesting to know why the timpani,
> which are so prominent in the first movement, all but disappear thereafter.
>
> > I think the sound is bad.
>
> I don't (I quite like DG's unnatural sound), but I wish the timpani were
> consistent. But at least it doesn't make the string section sound tiny, as it
> DG does in Kleiber's 7, and I much prefer it to the sound of his Brahms 4 and
> Tristan. I wonder how much influence Kleiber had on how the discs ended up
> sounding.
Probably a lot. I remember he wrote in a note accompanying his live
Beethoven 4 with the Bayerisches Staatsorchester (on Orfeo) that
signing off on a recording is usually a big pain for him, but that he
was so happy with the performance that this time, he did so gladly. I
also remember reading and hearing from other sources that he was quite
actively involved in the recording process all the way to the finished
product. Not really surprising for someone who was such a total
control freak, I think.
I don't find the strings in the Beethoven 7 "tiny" though. The
recording is a bit on the bright side, but the leanness of the string
sound is more caused by the extremely defined and well together
playing than the sound. CK had that knack of making an orchestra sound
like a chamber group and a big orchestra at the same time.
imperfection
wrote:
Matty, I recall that you once said that his Brahms 4th is your
favorite version of the work. Is that impression still unchanged, and
why do you like/dislike it?
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
At some points, the opening motif is also built up into pretty massive
climaxes with a distinctly demonic undertone. This is an extremely
complex movement - and yet all you hear in it is "Brahms'
Lullaby"...LOL
> Yet
> this is the way Kleiber (conducting the CSO) starts off the work.
In the WP video, the tempo is rather fleet, but there is nothing
driven about the opening. He shapes the music in long arches and
flowing lines and at the same time each phrase is very distinctly
shaped with lots of fine detail. There is always an underlying pulse
so the continuation of the musical development process is not random
but organic, but there are still moments of deep calm in which the
music seems to float timelessly - and then the underlying currents
come out again and drive the music forward. Rather than subjugating
the music to a preconceived, generalized concept, CK develops the
music out of its own substance, as if it was really just taking shape
in the moment. He directs the orchestra with sparse gestures and lets
them play, but is always there with the right gesture to bring out the
detail he wants. I don't think it gets any more masterful than this
when it comes to conducting. Pity you can't perceive that.
imperfection
Michael, for the reasons you mentioned, would you say that he is one
of the greatest conductors ever lived? I'm not asking you to make a
ranking of the greats because that would be silly, I'm just asking in
general.
Sol L. Siegel
wrote:
>I just took the Memories release off my shelf and listened to the 5th
>again and I must take back my earlier comment about the sound being
>mushy and tubby -it's not. In fact, it's pretty good for a live
>Memories label thing. The performance however is merely all right and
>not near the gem that is the studio DG (that is all deserving of its
>starry reputation -disapearing timpani or not, IMHO).
Different strokes: I own both Memories and DG. I wouldn't want to be
without either, but it's the Chicago (from what I believe was his only
US appearance that he allowed to be recorded for broadcast) that's one
of my two favorite versions, the other being the 1947 Furtwangler
Berlin homecoming on Tahra.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Michael Schaffer
How would I know? I have not heard and/or seen all the conductors who
ever lived. He was an extremely good conductor who, like I said,
commanded the highest respect from the best orchestral musicians and
who was pretty much universally respected and admired by his
colleagues (probably not by Celibidache though who he famously put in
his place with a "letter to the editor" to the German magazine Der
Spiegel, allegedly sent by Toscanini from heaven, but in reality
written by CK). The way he worked with orchestras and how he
interacted with them was probably as good as it ever gets. But then on
the other hand, he also had some very serious issues and restricted
himself to conducting just a few pieces in his later years. He was a
very strange egg.
Since you know me from GMG, you probably also know how much I hate
these idiotic rankings, but I replied anyway because I value your
enthusiasm and I think you made some very good observations in the
opening post. But don't ever ask me stupid childish BS questions like
this again if you ever want to get a reply from me again.
jrsnfld
The answer depends on what you think is greatness. Personally I think
few conductors were as brilliant as Carlos Kleiber at what they did,
but I am always reluctant to compare him to someone like a Bernstein,
or Dorati, or Chailly or Abbado, or any other highly accomplished
conductor who has done so much more repertoire at a very high level of
understanding.
If you told me you had lined up a good but not necessarily spectacular
orchestra, but didn't tell me what the music would be, and asked me
who I would want to hire as the conductor, I would probably go with
someone like one of those four, or a Hans Rosbaud--someone I could
depend on to get the best out of the music and musicians no matter
whether it was Rameau or Beethoven or Carter.
--Jeff
yamahaha
282c78...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> Carlos Kleiber didn't conduct much in the USA outside of the
> Metropolitan Opera. An exception was the Chicago Symphony, which he
> guest-conducted during two seasons in the mid-1970s. I heard the
> concerts. The first year's had Weber's Der Freischuetz Overture,
> Schubert's 3rd Symphony, and Beethoven's 5th. The next year the
> concert began with George Butterworth's English Idyll No. 1, continued
> with something I can't recall, and ended with the Symphony no. 2 by
> Brahms.
Fragments from "Wozzeck" was it?
> For me, at least, Carlos Kleiber was a great conductor. But like so
> many, perhaps best experienced in person.
There are the videos, both orchestral and operatic. There is a fascinating
rehearsal video of him in the Act 3 of Rosenkavalier in Vienna, available
in Operashare, I think. It was taken from the videocam that is trained on
the conductor. You can't really hear what he is saying because everything
else drowns him out, and of course, you don't see what's happening on stage
or in the pit. However, it's a great document of how he conducted a fairly
substantial piece.
William Sommerwerck
news:948383ad-a2a3-47ec...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 8:42 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> > Not to me, because it looks like you quoted from a post of mine, but
> > that was actually written by Mr Sommerwerck. I would never write such
> > nonsense. Well, OK, I write other nonsense about other subjects
> > instead. But I would never write such nonsense about CK.
> What I say is not nonsense. For whatever reason, you're not hearing this
> in his conducting.
> I hear a lot of good things in his conducting, in a rare combination
> and concentration, things which, for whatever reason, you are not
> hearing in his conducting.
> That does not necessarily mean that his concepts always mirror my
> personal ideals. What you said about him always forcing the same
> concept on the music is clearly nonsense though.
Why is that it's okay for you to hear things that I don't, but I'm not
allowed to hear things you don't?
In the one live performance of CK's I've heard, plus all the recorded
performances I've heard, he "pushes" the music in an insistent manner. There
is very little music for which this is appropriate.
> As is your simplistic and generalized idea of some music, e.g. that
> Brahms' 2nd is his "Pastorale" and that it can therefore not have
> urgency, drama and tension in the right places (which CK indeed finds
> in his great live performance with the WP).
Did I say that? No. Iwas talking about the first movement.
> It is also nonsense to say the he was "not a good conductor" because
> his performances do not match your simplistic ideas about some pieces.
And he's a good one because /you/ like him?
You're arrogant, Mr. Schaffer. There's no other word for it.
> He was extremely highly respected by many of his colleagues and, most
> importantly, by the orchestras which he conducted (if he showed up)
> which include some of the very best on the planet.
Just because you like someone doesn't mean they're a good conductor. Fritz
Reiner was one of the most-detested conductors of all time, yet a truly
great one.
William Sommerwerck
> far-removed from "Brahms' Lullaby"! -- does not suggest "intensity", and
not
> much later the movement starts sounding like the "Brahms' Lullaby"!
At some points, the opening motif is also built up into pretty massive
climaxes with a distinctly demonic undertone. This is an extremely
complex movement - and yet all you hear in it is "Brahms'
Lullaby"...LOL
You don't know how to read, Mr. Schaffer.
> Yet
> this is the way Kleiber (conducting the CSO) starts off the work.
> In the WP video, the tempo is rather fleet, but there is nothing
driven about the opening.
I haven't seen this video. I have heard him live. And "driven" isn't quite
the right word. "Insistent" would be closer.
> He shapes the music in long arches and
flowing lines and at the same time each phrase is very distinctly
shaped with lots of fine detail. There is always an underlying pulse
so the continuation of the musical development process is not random
but organic, but there are still moments of deep calm in which the
music seems to float timelessly - and then the underlying currents
come out again and drive the music forward.
this was not the wasy he conducted the live performance I heard.
> Rather than subjugating
the music to a preconceived, generalized concept, CK develops the
music out of its own substance, as if it was really just taking shape
in the moment. He directs the orchestra with sparse gestures and lets
them play, but is always there with the right gesture to bring out the
detail he wants. I don't think it gets any more masterful than this
when it comes to conducting. Pity you can't perceive that.
Pity you think you're right about everything. It's wonderful that you're the
last word on matters musicological. Why are you so bothered that you might
be wrong about some things?
Yes, I know what some of you are going to say. Don't.
William Sommerwerck
>> he is one of the greatest conductors ever lived? I'm not asking
>> you to make a ranking of the greats because that would be silly,
>> I'm just asking in general.
> How would I know? I have not heard and/or seen all the conductors
> who ever lived.
Waffle, waffle, waffle.
In fairness, CK left relatively few recordings. But many conductors have
left a sufficiently large body of work that we can make reasonable
judgements.
What makes a conductor great? It isn't how well he treats the orchestra.
It's how well he "reveals" the music. This is subjective, of course, but as
we have a wide variety of performances from many conductors, and over time,
the "noise" is likely to cancel out.
> But don't ever ask me stupid childish BS questions like
> this again if you ever want to get a reply from me again.
The particular question was neither stupid not childish. It was apt. If
you're going to strongly defend a conductor against a vigorous attack, you
must have some view of where he fits into things.
her...@yahoo.com
that he's right in deploring the way the other board, GMG, is much
afflicted by all these "Who's the best Beethoven conductor?" or
"What's the best nano-second in Beethoven's 9th?" topics.
Herman
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> "Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:948383ad-a2a3-47ec...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 8:42 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Not to me, because it looks like you quoted from a post of mine, but
> > > that was actually written by Mr Sommerwerck. I would never write such
> > > nonsense. Well, OK, I write other nonsense about other subjects
> > > instead. But I would never write such nonsense about CK.
> > What I say is not nonsense. For whatever reason, you're not hearing this
> > in his conducting.
> > I hear a lot of good things in his conducting, in a rare combination
> > and concentration, things which, for whatever reason, you are not
> > hearing in his conducting.
> > That does not necessarily mean that his concepts always mirror my
> > personal ideals. What you said about him always forcing the same
> > concept on the music is clearly nonsense though.
>
> Why is that it's okay for you to hear things that I don't, but I'm not
> allowed to hear things you don't?
Hard to say. Probably because I listen to music with a highly trained
and open ear, and you listen to music with silly, simplistic
preconceptions, like "the 2nd is Brahms' 'Pastorale' and it all has to
sound like his lullaby".
Probably also because I am much attuned to the musical culture
reflected - in an exemplary way and in rare concentration - in his
music making. You obviously don't hear the many fine values I - but
not only I - described.
> In the one live performance of CK's I've heard, plus all the recorded
> performances I've heard, he "pushes" the music in an insistent manner. There
> is very little music for which this is appropriate.
>
> > As is your simplistic and generalized idea of some music, e.g. that
> > Brahms' 2nd is his "Pastorale" and that it can therefore not have
> > urgency, drama and tension in the right places (which CK indeed finds
> > in his great live performance with the WP).
>
> Did I say that? No. Iwas talking about the first movement.
Me too.
> > It is also nonsense to say the he was "not a good conductor" because
> > his performances do not match your simplistic ideas about some pieces.
>
> And he's a good one because /you/ like him?
Not just me. A lot of very knowledgeable people. And not simply
because me and a lot of very knowledgeable people just somehow "like"
him, but because some people can actually understand the nature and
quality of the conducting. It's not really a matter of just "liking"
it or not. It's a matter of understanding what he is doing or not. You
obviously don't understand what's behind that kind of music making.
Oh, and BTW, his version of Brahms' 2nd is not my favorite. I think it
is a great performance, but I personally actually prefer a different
approach. However, unlike you, I can actually separate my very
personal preferences from my understanding of what quality music
making and conducting is.
> You're arrogant, Mr. Schaffer. There's no other word for it.
Thank you. Coming from someone like you, that is actually a
compliment. I personally actually think that someone like you who
obviously doesn't have much of a clue about music making decides that
one of the best conductors we have seen in the past decades is not
even "a good conductor" is much more arrogant. Or maybe simply stupid.
> > He was extremely highly respected by many of his colleagues and, most
> > importantly, by the orchestras which he conducted (if he showed up)
> > which include some of the very best on the planet.
>
> Just because you like someone doesn't mean they're a good conductor. Fritz
> Reiner was one of the most-detested conductors of all time, yet a truly
> great one.
That last statement shows that you really have no clue what you are
talking about. You are a pitiful conceited smallmind who thinks he
knows soooo much about music but in reality, you understand very
little.
BTW, when I said "highly respected by colleagues and orchestras" I
obviously meant *as a conductor*, not that they all thought he was a
really nice guy.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
You argue like a 14-year old. Am I the one here who pontificates about
exactly Brahms' music *has* to sound or was that you? No, I think that
was you.
Am I the one who says he knows exactly what a conductor has to do with
a given piece? No, I think that was you.
Am I the one who is babbling about a musical culture he doesn't
understand? No, I think that was you.
Man, you don't know anything about this kind of music and music
making. You can't even pronounce the name "Brahms" right.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
What "vigorous attack"? Do you mean your ignorant babbling?
Michael Schaffer
I actually find that kind of question extremely rude.
SG
Dunno about death, but I love Kleiber "to life," if one may spuriously
use an otherwise ethnically registered expression. Not my favorite
conductor ever, certainly not the most even, but nevertheless one of
the most substantial/authentic/masterful conductors of the late 20th
century. One of those cases in which "the best," quantitatively scarce
as it may be perceived to be, is what really counts.
I don't want to get into complicated/unwarranted psychoanalytical
approaches... but I have to say that in some way, in my limited
perception, he was the anti-Furtwaengler. (By the way, I would
appreciate if I could be pointed out to some/any thoughts Carlos
Kleiber would have expressed about Furtwaengler.)
Why "anti"? Not in the Toscanini or Karajan way, by all means.
Spiritually, there probably was more commonality than discrepancies to
be detected. However, Furtwaengler was the ultimate example of the
conductor with incomparably strong musical visions brought out through
odd, sometimes clumsy, often extraordinarily effective conductor's
technique. On the other hand, Carlos Kleiber's conducting technique
was a visual marvel to behold (I remember even Gunther Schuller, in
his grumpy/fascinating rant on conductors, expresses his envious
admiration for Kleiber's technique, whom he calls "a conducting
machine," I paraphrase from memory). But: one sometimes senses in
Kleiber some degree of aesthetical insecurity (at very high levels, of
course). For Kleiber, the pursuit of lean, feline, occasionally square
perfection, especially in some studio recordings, seemed to emanate
not from narcissism, as in the case of the congenerous, more famous
Austrian conductor, but from a temptation to sublimate/redeem
insecurity into the triumph of reasoned proportions, not unlike a
Greek statue.
Kleiber's ability to conduct so beautifully, in a physically so
relaxed/exemplary manner, sometimes contrasts with the slightly rigid
approach to rhythm and phrasing. What one takes from Kleiber as an
experience is possible something less consensual than what one takes
from experiencing any other conductor, sauf Toscanini or, even more
markedly, Celibidache, the ultimate controversial conductor, pegged as
anything from Zen "god" to mere charlatan.
While Kleiber has less passionate detractors, what does one ultimately
"take home"? Is it the Kleiber of DG Beethoven? Or of J. Strauss? Or
of Traviata? These dramatic personae are not entirely congruous with
each other.
It would probably be a mistake to reduce Kleiber to any stereotype. He
was a "searcher for musical truth," and not in an obnoxious way,
because his natural grace could only seldom be stilted by an
occasionally rigid approach. Sometimes he allowed his intellect, his
ideational focus to narrow his interpretations, in ways not entirely
convincing, but always interesting to this listener. At his best, he
ranked with the best. As often, live is better. His J. Strauss/etc.
concerts - especially the first one in the polkas, especially the
second one in the waltzes - remain amazing to me, each time I hear/
watch them, and I've watched them a lot.
What in my opinion is Kleiber's most lasting legacy is his late live
video of Brahms' Fourth Symphony. It is quite different, and in my
opinion much more inspired, than the famous studio recording. At
times, the differences in what regards the tempi (slower overall), and
especially the inspired flexibility of the later recording, are
stunning. It is one of the few Brahms Fourth recordings which I
cherish as much as I cherish Furtwaengler's. He even looks a little
like the "old" Furtwaengler in the 1954 Don Giovanni video. An odd mix
of spiritual youth and ultimate "wisdom". A man who saw Death, and
understood. There's less barbarously sublime intensity, but I find in
there a good man who found light in defeat, and emotional Truth in a
comprehending, all-encompassing, haunting nostalgia.
If I had to recommend one single piece from Kleiber's heritage, this
would be it. (No doubt, others would have other favorites.) There's a
degree of unbridled emotional investment in this Brahms Fourth which
made me feel that, by giving in to some of his inner demons, Carlos
Kleiber finally conquered them. And made me understand Brahms a little
better, in the process.
regards,
SG
Dontait...@aol.com
[snip]
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:47:29 -0500, Matthew Silverstein
> > Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth? �Father and son used
> > the same score (i.e.wind doublings). �I think that your complaint has
> > more to do with the recorded sound of the C. Kleiber than its
> > performance. �I think the sound is bad. �I remember listening to the
> > son's Chicago symphony broadacast of the Vth over the radio and the
> > sound was great. �Does anybody know if the aircheck is available?
>
> It has been issued on the Memories label appears often at Berkshire
> (or at least it did). I have it and it's been a while since I listened
> to it however I don't remember the sound being anything more than the
> usual tubby and mushy live aircheck sound.
In that case, it sounds like another example of an aircheck being
dubbed and dubbed and dubbed by many "collectors" and muffled and
distorted in the process. The sound of the WFMT concert recording and
broadcast was magnificent, state-of-the-art for the time (circa 1976).
I worked there at the time and heard the master tapes, plus the WFMT
broadcast.
Don Tait
Michael Schaffer
> Dunno about death, but I love Kleiber "to life," if one may spuriously
> use an otherwise ethnically registered expression. Not my favorite
> conductor ever, certainly not the most even, but nevertheless one of
> the most substantial/authentic/masterful conductors of the late 20th
> century. One of those cases in which "the best," quantitatively scarce
> as it may be perceived to be, is what really counts.
>
> I don't want to get into complicated/unwarranted psychoanalytical
> approaches... but I have to say that in some way, in my limited
> perception, he was the anti-Furtwaengler. (By the way, I would
> appreciate if I could be pointed out to some/any thoughts Carlos
> Kleiber would have expressed about Furtwaengler.)
I am not really aware of any, but Kleiber was a huge and open admirer
of Karajan.
> Why "anti"? Not in the Toscanini or Karajan way, by all means.
In what way was Karajan "anti"-Furtwängler?
> Spiritually, there probably was more commonality than discrepancies to
> be detected. However, Furtwaengler was the ultimate example of the
> conductor with incomparably strong musical visions brought out through
> odd, sometimes clumsy, often extraordinarily effective conductor's
> technique. On the other hand, Carlos Kleiber's conducting technique
> was a visual marvel to behold (I remember even Gunther Schuller, in
> his grumpy/fascinating rant on conductors, expresses his envious
> admiration for Kleiber's technique, whom he calls "a conducting
> machine," I paraphrase from memory). But: one sometimes senses in
> Kleiber some degree of aesthetical insecurity (at very high levels, of
> course). For Kleiber, the pursuit of lean, feline, occasionally square
> perfection, especially in some studio recordings, seemed to emanate
> not from narcissism, as in the case of the congenerous, more famous
> Austrian conductor, but from a temptation to sublimate/redeem
> insecurity into the triumph of reasoned proportions, not unlike a
> Greek statue.
I don't quite understand what that means. Please explain.
> Kleiber's ability to conduct so beautifully, in a physically so
> relaxed/exemplary manner, sometimes contrasts with the slightly rigid
> approach to rhythm and phrasing. What one takes from Kleiber as an
> experience is possible something less consensual than what one takes
> from experiencing any other conductor, sauf Toscanini or, even more
> markedly, Celibidache, the ultimate controversial conductor, pegged as
> anything from Zen "god" to mere charlatan.
I think he was somewhere in the middle. He was a very good conductor
with a marvelous sense of sound and texture - the MP sounded
incredibly good under him live. But he was also a big poser. He was
actually fairly similar to CK in some respects, very different in some
others though. The "problem" with Celibidache was that he projected
his insecurity on the outside while Kleiber did the opposite.
Celibidache was probably something like a conducting genius, but it
was also very important for him that everyone knew that. It was really
very important for him. Everybody really had to understand that.
Really everybody. They really needed to understand just how great and
enlightened he was. That was very important. Especially that everybody
really understood that, so he kept reminding everybody how great he
was and how much pretty much everyone else sucked. His whole ultra-
slow thing he came up with in his last phase was not an artistic
development, it was something he came up and "switched" fairly quickly
because he wanted to make sure everyone really, really, really heard
and understood how different he was.
Obviously, he was the exact opposite of anything "zen" in everything
he did. Kleiber made great fun of him in his famous "letter from
Toscanini from heaven". Celibidache really deserved that. It is also a
great and rare insight into Kleiber's mind.
The haunting nostalgia part I think is extremely important. Kleiber
seemed to chase the echoes of a golden past in his music making.
> If I had to recommend one single piece from Kleiber's heritage, this
> would be it. (No doubt, others would have other favorites.) There's a
> degree of unbridled emotional investment in this Brahms Fourth which
> made me feel that, by giving in to some of his inner demons, Carlos
> Kleiber finally conquered them. And made me understand Brahms a little
> better, in the process.
>
> regards,
> SG
Very good post. Lots of interesting points!
Michael Schaffer
"Magnificent"?
Dontait...@aol.com
> Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote in news:ec2c275a-6d53-473f-895a-
> 282c78398...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > � Carlos Kleiber didn't conduct much in the USA outside of the
> > Metropolitan Opera. An exception was the Chicago Symphony, which he
> > guest-conducted during two seasons in the mid-1970s. I heard the
> > concerts. The first year's had Weber's Der Freischuetz Overture,
> > Schubert's 3rd Symphony, and Beethoven's 5th. The next year the
> > concert began with George Butterworth's English Idyll No. 1, continued
> > with something I can't recall, and ended with the Symphony no. 2 by
> > Brahms.
>
> Fragments from "Wozzeck" was it?
[snip]
No. I've remembered. It was Mozart's 33rd Symphony (incidentally,
like the Schubert 3rd, a favorite of his father).
Don Tait
Dontait...@aol.com
Yes.
Don Tait
Paige Turner
And Carlos was the personification of Zen. He only conducted when he
needed some money, he was a peaceful and loving person, enjoyed life
in a fairly slow way, and once he said that since he conducted so
seldom he actually had to study the scores, which was a useful thing
for a conductor to do... Obviously, he had prodigious musical gifts
but he didn't exploit them, he didn't want to work all that much!
Best,
pt
imperfection
I find your response to my question unnecessarily rude as well. You
could have just told me that you don't want to answer that question
nicely, especially when I already made a note in my previous post that
my question wasn't asking you to rank the greatest conductors ever
lived. I am just curious as to how highly you regard Kleiber. But you
have shown that very well in your posts through detailed arguments,
and therefore I don't feel the need to ask you that question again.
Thanks for your detailed thoughts, but I also wish to stay away from
being rude to one another. Hope you'll understand that.
SG
> And Carlos was the personification of Zen. He only conducted when he
> needed some money, he was a peaceful and loving person, enjoyed life
> in a fairly slow way, and once he said that since he conducted so
> seldom he actually had to study the scores, which was a useful thing
> for a conductor to do... Obviously, he had prodigious musical gifts
> but he didn't exploit them, he didn't want to work all that much!
Occasionally at least, one has to find the thought of persons of great
talent and small ambition more refreshing, or at least less common
than the thought of persons of great ambition, period.
regards,
SG
Dontait...@aol.com
wrote:
[A late, and partial, reply]
> 20 years ago I heard him conduct the Brahms 2nd live. From the first few
> notes, it was plain this would be an intense, electrifying performance. (My
> fellow attendees agreed in retrospect.) Yet that isn't the way the first
> movement of the B2 is usually conducted. This is, after all Brahms'
> "pastoral" symphony. It is not intense, electrifying music. Contrast with
> Monteux or Walter.
First, which Monteux? He recorded it four times, and his 1945 and
1951 San Francisco recordings have moments of great intensity,
especially in the first movement. The same for Walter. His 1953 NYPSO
Columbia/Sony recording and other live performances from that era are
hair-raising. His stereo is much more gentle.
> Based on what I've heard, I don't consider Carlos Kleiber a good conductor,
> because he superimposes a particular approach on everything he conducts. (At
> least, in those performances I've heard.) He reveals himself, not the music.
But don't all great performers include something of themselves in
their performances? Or even "good" performers? Did Furtwaengler reveal
himself, or the music? Or Toscanini? Or Koussevitzky? Or Bruno Walter?
Or Huberman? Or Menuhin? Or Horowitz or Rubinstein or Schnabel or
Arrau? Or, like it not, Solti or Giulini? For me, at least, they did.
Carlos Kleiber's approach is his own, and reflects him. But that is
an inevitable part of the performance of music by human beings.
Don Tait
imperfection
I wholeheartedly agree with the entire post above.
Paige Turner
symphony (Wiener Philharmoniker ):
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoiFbBK8pbg
Remaining parts easily findable on YouTube.
I find this performance quite magical. The symphony is tricky, like
almost everything by Mozart.
Best,
pt
imperfection
What exquisite phrasing. That was one hell of a performance.
Michael Schaffer
Let's also stay away from being totally childish!
Simon Roberts
Dontait...@aol.com says...
>
>On Feb 17, 6:56=EF=BF=BDam, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.n=
>et>
>wrote:
>
> [A late, and partial, reply]
>
>> 20 years ago I heard him conduct the Brahms 2nd live. From the first few
>My
>> fellow attendees agreed in retrospect.) Yet that isn't the way the first
>> movement of the B2 is usually conducted. This is, after all Brahms'
>> "pastoral" symphony. It is not intense, electrifying music. Contrast with
>> Monteux or Walter.
>
> First, which Monteux? He recorded it four times, and his 1945 and
>1951 San Francisco recordings have moments of great intensity,
>especially in the first movement. The same for Walter. His 1953 NYPSO
>Columbia/Sony recording and other live performances from that era are
>hair-raising. His stereo is much more gentle.
Right, and as others have pointed out, there are passages of considerable
intensity in the first movement. Frankly, I've never understood why this
symphony is repeatedly referred to as "pastoral" music. Sure, there are gentle,
lyrical portions in the first movement, but that's also true of #4. I guess iii
could come across as bucolic, but "pastoral" isn't a concept that comes to mind
(well, to mine, anyway) in ii or iv.
>> Based on what I've heard, I don't consider Carlos Kleiber a good conducto=
>r,
>> because he superimposes a particular approach on everything he conducts. =
>(At
>> least, in those performances I've heard.) He reveals himself, not the mus=
>ic.
>
> But don't all great performers include something of themselves in
>their performances? Or even "good" performers?
Of course - great ones, good ones, but also mediocre and bad ones (unless
they're so bad they don't begin to get the orchestra to do what they want) -
even those who claim (but do any performers actually claim this?) to be letting
the music speak for itself....
Did Furtwaengler reveal
>himself, or the music? Or Toscanini? Or Koussevitzky? Or Bruno Walter?
>Or Huberman? Or Menuhin? Or Horowitz or Rubinstein or Schnabel or
>Arrau? Or, like it not, Solti or Giulini? For me, at least, they did.
They revealed both and couldn't help doing so. A performance of piece x is
always "piece x as understood/interpreted by performer A".
> Carlos Kleiber's approach is his own, and reflects him. But that is
>an inevitable part of the performance of music by human beings.
Exactly!
Simon
imperfection
> In article <ae239b8c-9ebd-4e6b-982c-a6c6fccd4...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Dontaitchic...@aol.com says...
Does anyone have the SACD or DVD-Audio version of the Beethoven 5th/
7th on DG? How does it compare with the redbook CD issue in terms of
technical sound?
rkhalona
wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, ckhow...@ckhowell.com wrote:
> > To do him justice, he's one of the few (like his father before him)
> > who try to make sense of the fact that LvB marked a slower pulse for
> > the half-notes of the finale than for the dotted half-notes of the
> > scherzo. Most conductors reverse this, some (e.g. Klemperer) sail
> > through at an even pace all through. So when you hear the relationship
> > LvB seemingly asked for, the finale does seem oddly slow.
>
> It's not just the tempo. Kleiber's recording of Beethoven 5/iv just feels
> heavy--it collapses under its own weight. It certainly doesn't help that
> the timpani--which are thrillingly present in the first movement--barely
> make an impression in the final three movements.
>
> Matty
CK's Beethoven 5th-iv heavy? Collapses under its own weight?
What recording were you actually listening to?
RK (who just listened to P. Jarvi's Beethoven 5th and found it to be
"Beethoven for the cartoons")
rkhalona
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:47:29 -0500, Matthew Silverstein
>
>
>
> <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, jrsnfld wrote:
>
> >>> It's not just the tempo. Kleiber's recording of Beethoven 5/iv just
> >>> feels heavy--it collapses under its own weight. It certainly doesn't
> >>> help that the timpani--which are thrillingly present in the first
> >>> movement--barely make an impression in the final three movements.
>
> >> made them less weighty?
>
> >More incisive, less heavy: less like soggy towel. In short, yes, I think
> >more prominent timpani would have made the finale seem much less
> >overweight.
>
> >Matty
>
> Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth? Father and son used
> the same score (i.e.wind doublings). I think that your complaint has
> more to do with the recorded sound of the C. Kleiber than its
> performance. I think the sound is bad. I remember listening to the
> son's Chicago symphony broadacast of the Vth over the radio and the
> sound was great. Does anybody know if the aircheck is available?
I have it on the Italian pirate label "Exclusive". The sound is not
bad; the finale is positively reckless.
Erich's Decca recording (there are other live 5ths by him) is probably
the one I would keep if I had to select only one,
but I regret that he omits the repeat in the finale, which I like to
hear when the playing is this good.
RK
Phlmaestro
based on his studio DG recordings. I don't dislike the Beethoven 5 and
7 on DG, but they are nowhere near first picks for me. The same holds
true for the Brahms 4th. And I flat out dislike the Schubert disc,
especially the Unfinished.
But my opinion of Kleiber changed dramatically for the better when I
started listening to some of his live Beethoven and Brahms recordings;
be they on Orfeo, Memories or DVD. I frequently listen to the LvB 4, 6
and 7 on Orfeo (love that live VPO 5th on video from Mexico too ...
the interruptions from the announcer aside), not to mention various
performances of Brahms 2nd and 4th. I can't remember the last time I
reached for one of the studio recordings of these works.
Barry
rkhalona
>
> There's a Kleiber Brahms 2 on DG?
Perhaps the poster is referring to the VPO recording, which has been
released on a Philips DVD, coupled with that magnificent Mozart Linz.
Incidentally, the Brahms 4th with the Bavarian State Orchestra,
released on a DG DVD, is in my view superior to his studio recording
with the VPO and is one of the best performances of the symphony I've
seen or heard.
RK
rkhalona
> On Feb 16, 11:04 pm, imperfection <ihateusingem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm addicted to his VPO Brahms 4th a while ago and now can't stop
> > listening to the Beethoven 5th/7th. Next thing I know I bought the La
> > Scala Tristan und Isolde, downloaded some broadcasts (including A
> > Hero's Life, Brahms 2) from OperaShare.
>
> > I just found his conducting absolutely fabulous-always engaging,
> > intense without any highlighting of superficial climaxes to generate
> > excitement; instead, every nuance and expression is just done right:
> > nothing more, nothing less. Feels like the ultimate balance between
> > mind-blowing sophistication and utter simplicity to me: having
> > clarity, economy and grace.
>
> > Your thoughts?
>
> I prefer Papa Kleiber to his son.
So do I, but I wouldn't be without Junior's recordings, esp. his first
Rosenkavalier or his J. Strauss New Year's concerts.
RK
rkhalona
This has been released on a Philips DVD, coupled with a Brahms 2nd,
also with the VPO.
RK
grobbe...@gmail.com
I have the DVD-Audio disc of Kleiber's 5th/7th (picked it up cheap at
Tower's closing sale) but I have yet to get a DVD-Audio player....
Dil.
TareeDawg
>
> CK's Beethoven 5th-iv heavy? Collapses under its own weight?
> What recording were you actually listening to?
It collapses under the promise of greater things dictated by the first
movement. I don't quite understand what is meant here either.
> RK (who just listened to P. Jarvi's Beethoven 5th and found it to be
> "Beethoven for the cartoons")
Thanks for the tip, not that I was in any way going to spring for it, or
even consider it.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
William Sommerwerck
> trained and [sic] open ear, and you listen to music with silly,
> simplistic preconceptions, like "the 2nd is Brahms' 'Pastorale'
> [sic] and it all has to sound like his lullaby".
What an illiterate moron.
My initials.
William Sommerwerck
No, lots of points that _you_ agree with.
William Sommerwerck
> needed some money, he was a peaceful and loving person, enjoyed life
> in a fairly slow way, and once he said that since he conducted so
> seldom he actually had to study the scores, which was a useful thing
> for a conductor to do... Obviously, he had prodigious musical gifts
> but he didn't exploit them, he didn't want to work all that much!
And what do these things tell us about CK as a conductor?
William Sommerwerck
>> an inevitable part of the performance of music by human beings.
And that justifies any and every musical decision he makes?
imperfection
I played mine in a regular DVD player with no problems.
Sol L. Siegel
wrote:
>> > Have you heard E. Kleiber's Beethoven's fifth?
>>
>> It has been issued on the Memories label appears often at Berkshire
>> (or at least it did). I have it and it's been a while since I listened
>> to it however I don't remember the sound being anything more than the
>> usual tubby and mushy live aircheck sound.
>
> In that case, it sounds like another example of an aircheck being
>dubbed and dubbed and dubbed by many "collectors" and muffled and
>distorted in the process. The sound of the WFMT concert recording and
>broadcast was magnificent, state-of-the-art for the time (circa 1976).
>I worked there at the time and heard the master tapes, plus the WFMT
>broadcast.
Alas, when it was broadcast here on WFLN there was a persistent buzz
in the background that made repeat listenings so painful that I
actually ended up erasing it. It wasn't until I got the Memories set
that I was able to hear it again (and confirm that my memory of the
performance wasn't just a nostalgic mind trick).
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Neil
When his Beethoven Symphony 5 came out, it was a revelation. Carlos
Kleiber was a rare musician. He knew what every sound should be and
got the orchestra to do it. He required extensive rehearsal time in
his contracts.
Neil Miller, author: The Piano Lessons Book & Piano Classics Analyzed
Methods and theory for confident memorized performances.
To buy, or view pages, search at Amazon.com and books.google.com –
Neil Miller Piano Lessons Book or Neil Miller Piano Analyzed
imperfection
Your favorite recordings by him?
Michael Schaffer
In what ways do you think it is superior?
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > Very good post. Lots of interesting points!
>
> No, lots of points that _you_ agree with.
Probably also lots of points that are way beyond what your simple mind
can grasp. Seriously, you really showed yourself to be a massive
ignorant here. Not because you disagree with me or others, but because
of why and how. Because you showed that you have little to no
understanding of the things which many here write about. Because you
have no understanding of the musical value of these performances and
why they fascinate so many people. You do not understand the
historical background which is reflected in them, and why that is.
Now you try to save face with childish one-liners. Just shut up,
please. Don't embarass yourself any further.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
This may be the most desperate and childish comeback post I have ever
read on the net. Which means you are the greatest idiot I have ever
encountered on the net. That's an achievement in itself. Not something
you can be proud of though.
O
<8a3a6a74-f05d-4847...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael:
Have you ever read Dale Carnegie?
-Owen
mark
re.
>
> . Granted he has his moments, but not for the long haul afaiac.
>
> Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
I find myself in agreement.
Kleiber was always exciting in the moment, but he wears less well on
repeated hearings.
I find this to be especially true with his New Year's Day concerts
which I found extremely exciting as I watched the "live" b'casts. On
repeat hearings, everything seems too fast. His Beethoven 5th is
another example of a brilliant first impression overstaying its
welcome on repeat hearings.
I've always found his DG Tristan to have real sweep, but DFD is simply
horrible at this stage of his career, M Price can't compete with other
Isoldes and Kollo was better on the Barenboim video production. His
Traviata is highly regarded, but I find the trio of singers non-
competitive with the best...and if you're buying Traviata for the
conductor, you're in BIG trouble.
Still, if someone unearthed a few Beethoven symphonies led by him that
weren't already in the catalog (ie" something besides 4, 5 & 7) I'd
seek them out and give them a listen...well, at least, one listen.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:190220090059211833%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
> Michael:
>
> Have you ever read Dale Carnegie?
I can think of somebody in Canada who could benefit from it too.
(I have indeed read it myself. Probably time for a refresher, though.)
--
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
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Harper
but I urge you to hear it. The second movement, especially, is to these
ears sublime.
Bob Harper
imperfection
Is that the one his son taped with a recorder, which has relatively
poor sound compared with most of his other recordings?
Michael Schaffer
> In article
> <8a3a6a74-f05d-4847-bdfb-7b7a1d418...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
No, but I have been to Carnegie Hall! What are his books about? Are
they good? Do they have pictures
Steve de Mena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Not the same Carnegie (Andrew) as the hall and I Dale emphasized the
first syllable of his last name, CARnegie.
I haven't read the book.
Steve
William Sommerwerck
news:8a3a6a74-f05d-4847...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 8:22 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> > Very good post. Lots of interesting points!
>
> No, lots of points that _you_ agree with.
> Probably also lots of points that are way beyond what your simple
> mindcan grasp. Seriously, you really showed yourself to be a massive
> ignorant here. Not because you disagree with me or others, but because
> of why and how. Because you showed that you have little to no
> understanding of the things which many here write about. Because
> you have no understanding of the musical value of these performances
> and why they fascinate so many people. You do not understand the
> historical background which is reflected in them, and why that is.
> Now you try to save face with childish one-liners. Just shut up,
> please. Don't embarass yourself any further.
Gee. I'm so ashamed. I'll just slink off and hide in a corner. I grovel in
front of your superior knowledge? Shall I bend over and drop my pants?
You, in the meantime, can bask in the glow of the admiration for your little
coterie of admirers. I can visualize 20 love-sick maidens gathering around
Reginald Bunthorne. (I won't name names, but one of the more-irritating
posters here obviously has the hots for you -- intellectually, at least.)
I find it interesting that you talk about the historical background of these
performances, yet (if I recall correctly) you claim we can't really get a
good idea of what composers had in mind. And do I need to point out that
performance tradition doesn't necessarily reflect composer intent?
I don't see how anyone can be fascinated by performances that ignore the
music itself, and simply push ahead inflexibly, however entertaining that
might seem. Nor do I understand how people can miss something so obvious, so
plain, so very on-the-surface. But then, some people are impressed by the
superficial. *
You're just a pompous, bloviating gasbag who can't tolerate anyone whose
opinion differs from yours.
* This is, had been, and will remain my principal gripe: How is it that two
people can listen to the same performance, and hear completely different
things? I'm not talking about how they respond to a given interpretation,
but -- literally -- what they hear. Where they hear an interesting
performance, I hear what is, to me, the musical equivalent of a blank sheet
of paper. (If it's of any interest, I recently purchased the Arrau
performance of Liszt's "Transcendental Etudes". If I didn't know who was
playing, I would not have thought it was the pianist I christened Senor
Snooze. Quite, quite, different.) I'm certain you don't want to hear my
opinion of Arthur Grumiaux.
O
Matthew B. Tepper <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
> O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:190220090059211833%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
>
> > Michael:
> >
> > Have you ever read Dale Carnegie?
>
> I can think of somebody in Canada who could benefit from it too.
He wouldn't admit to care. Michael, at least, might care.
He'd rather be an irascible old churl than admit to having friends.
-Owen
Kip Williams
> Have you ever read Dale Carnegie?
I've always had this mental image of a reading room full of executive
types, firmly shaking each other's hands, looking forthrightly into each
other's eyes as they carefully memorize names and resolve to send one
another cards of congratulation on birthdays. A Dale Carnegie library.
Kip W
rkhalona
More spontaneous and surely more exciting (it's a live recording).
There is a clinical quality to the studio
recording with the VPO that I find somewhat antithetical to Kleiber's
nature.
RK