100 Greatest Conductors
Kerrison
Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. This blog
(link below) gives only the top 20 but as the comments underneath the
article reveal, the exclusion of the likes of Solti, Stokowski, Reiner
and Klemperer from the top echelons, to say nothing of the inclusion
of Nikolaus Harnoncourt before we even get to Toscanini and
Furtwangler, make such a list a load of nonsense. But here are the
first 20 anyway ...
http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38493&start=0
Oscar
Conductors is a follow-up to last year's Top 20 Pianists poll that put
Rachmaninoff in the #1 spot.
<<Carlos Kleiber has today been crowned the greatest conductor of all
time by a selection of 100 of today's finest maestros.
The poll, carried out by BBC Music Magazine, asked leading conductors
including Sir Colin Davis, Gustavo Dudamel, Valery Gergiev and Mariss
Jansons to reveal who they are most inspired by. Kleiber, the Austrian
maestro who conducted just 96 concerts and around 400 operatic
performances in his 74 years, was voted ahead of Leonard Bernstein and
Claudio Abbado, who took second and third places respectively.
Susanna Mälkki, Music director, Ensemble Intercontemporain, and one of
the conductors polled, commented: "Carlos Kleiber brought an
incredible energy to music… Yes, he did have about five times as much
time to rehearse than conductors do today, but he deserved it because
his vision was remarkable, he knew what he wanted, and his attention
to detail was truly inspiring."
Jeremy Pound, Deputy Editor of BBC Music Magazine, added: "Asking 100
of today's conducting greats to name their idols and inspirations was
a fascinating experience. Not least when so many named Carlos Kleiber,
who in the course of his whole lifetime conducted fewer concerts than
most of them manage in just a couple of years. Kleiber's incredible
attention to detail, sheer enthusiasm for music, and astonishingly
accomplished level of performance could never be doubted – perhaps
'less is more' is the real path to true greatness?"
Of the top 20 conductors voted for, no fewer than seven are still
regularly seen on the rostrum today, including Brits Sir John Eliot
Gardiner and Sir Simon Rattle. Conducting may have enjoyed its famous
Golden Age in the mid-20th century but, in the opinion of those who
know the art better than anyone, today's leading maestros also
undoubtedly rank with the best of all time.
The 20 greatest conductors of all time will be published in the April
issue of BBC Music Magazine, on sale 17 March, priced £4.60.
NOTES TO EDITORS
In November 2010 BBC Music Magazine asked 100 leading conductors to
name the maestros they admire above all others. When the votes were
added up, the following top 20 emerged:
BBC Music Magazine's 20 greatest conductors of all time are:
1. Carlos Kleiber (1930-2004) Austrian
2. Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) American
3. Claudio Abbado (b1933) Italian
4. Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) Austrian
5. Nikolaus Harnoncourt (b1929) Austrian
6. Sir Simon Rattle (b 1955) British
7. Wilhelm Furtwängler (1896-1954)
8. Arturo Toscanini (1867-1957) Italian
9. Pierre Boulez (b1925) French
10. Carlo Maria Giulini (1914-2005) Italian
11. Sir John Eliot Gardiner (b1943) British
12. Sir John Barbirolli (1899-1970) British
13. Terenc Fricsay (1914-1963) Hungarian
14. George Szell (1897-1970) Hungarian
15. Bernard Haitink (b1929) Dutch
16. Pierre Monteux (1875-1964) French
17. Yevgeny Mravinsky (1903-1988) Russian
18. Sir Colin Davis (b1927) British
19. Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) British
20. Sir Charles Mackerras (1925-2010) Australian>>
William Sommerwerck
> http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38493&start=0
I'm going to be rude and blunt -- which is wrrong, but I'll succumb to the
temptation, anyhow -- and point out that YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE. This
is not about "great" conductors, but "influential" conductors.
In fact, the idiot who wrote the article didn't even get the difference. He
starts with "The poll ... asked leading conductors ... to reveal who they
are most inspired by. ... Jeremy Pound, Deputy Editor of BBC Music Magazine,
added: 'Asking 100 of today's conducting greats to name their idols and
inspirations was a fascinating experience.'"
Then the writer says... "The 20 greatest conductors of all time will be
published in the April issue of BBC Music Magazine..." Hello?
I used to think Americans were unique in their ability to perversely misread
plain language. It appears this disease is spreading to the Brits. And the
responses showed that the responders didn't get it, either.
That Carlos Kleiber is anywhere on this list at all -- let alone at the
top -- is amazing. I've expressed my negative opinion of his misguided
conducting previously, and been told that his recordings do not fully
reflect his approach. * Fair enough. But I assume those polled were basing
their opinions on his recordings, so I can only wonder what they consider
"inspiring" conducting.
Based on my many years of critical listening (ahem), I find little to
disagree with in the other selections -- even Furtwangler. 8ut the omissions
of Solti -- and Reiner, especially -- are incomprehensible. Reiner was a
conductor whose work was of consistently high quality, and if that isn't
enough to "inspire" one -- what would be?
There's also a bad typo -- It's Ferenc, not Terenc. (Anyone who conduct a
world-class "Fantastique" should be an inspiration.)
* I heard CK conduct in Chicago ~25 years ago, and his live style was
exactly the same as his recordings. At that time, however, I hadn't
recognized just how wrong-headed it was.
J
start them. <g>
And to sell magazines, of course...
Oscar
>
> I'm going to be rude and blunt -- which is wrrong, but I'll succumb to the
> temptation, anyhow -- and point out that YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE. This
> is not about "great" conductors, but "influential" conductors.
>
> In fact, the idiot who wrote the article didn't even get the difference. He
> starts with "The poll ... asked leading conductors ... to reveal who they
> are most inspired by. ... Jeremy Pound, Deputy Editor of BBC Music Magazine,
> added: 'Asking 100 of today's conducting greats to name their idols and
> inspirations was a fascinating experience.'"
>
> Then the writer says... "The 20 greatest conductors of all time will be
> published in the April issue of BBC Music Magazine..." Hello?
Okay, but how do you explain this?
<<In November 2010 BBC Music Magazine asked 100 leading conductors to
name the maestros they admire above all others.>>
Sounds like a 'name your greatest' to me. You don't think the PR
flaks who handled the questions knew the answers were going to run in
an issue blaringly titled THE 20 GREATEST CONDUCTORS OF ALL-TIME?
http://tiny.cc/ccb33
Heck51
> According to a new poll in the latest BBC Music Magazine, Carlos
> Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. >>
What a pile of crap. meaningless.
Rattle @ #6?? oh please...
Toscanini #8?? Monteux #16?? Reiner, Walter, Solti not even on it??
where do they come up with this stuff??
JohnGavin
The great pianist list seemed more respectable.
For me, no problem whatsoever in putting Rachmaninoff #1.
William Sommerwerck
This was a poorly designed survey. I would have asked each conductor to name
FIVE conductors who've influenced or inspired them, and give a brief reason.
Asking (presumably) for only one produces too small a sample space and can
only skew the results.
Kip Williams
In an unrelated story, DC Comics had to close comments on their blog
because of an argument over whether The Flash can run faster than Superman.
Kip W
Oscar
>
> This was a poorly designed survey. I would have asked each conductor to name
> FIVE conductors who've influenced or inspired them, and give a brief reason.
> Asking (presumably) for only one produces too small a sample space and can
> only skew the results.
I /seriously/ doubt only ONE choice was given, c'mon. Do you know how
the editors worded the poll (i.e. 'influential', 'admirable', or plain
WHO ARE YOUR TOP FIVE?), and indeed, how many choices each recipient
was given? You condemn the survey as poorly designed without really
knowing its design. Here's the copy from last July's announcement of
the Greatest Pianists list.
<<20 GREATEST PIANISTS on disc, from BBC Music Magazine AUGUST 2010
We asked 100 of today's leading concert pianists to name the finest
players of the recorded era. Here's what they had to say:
1. Sergey RACHMANINOV - Russian
2. Arthur RUBINSTEIN - Polish
3. Vladimir HOROWITZ - Russian
4. Sviatoslav RICHTER - Russian
5. Alfred CORTOT - Swiss/French
6. Dinu LIPATTI - Romanian
7. Artur SCHNABEL - Austrian
8. Emil GILELS - Russian
9. Martha ARGERICH - Argentinian
10. Arturo Benedetti MICHELANGELI - Italian
11. Krystian ZIMERMAN - Polish
12. Ignaz FRIEDMAN - Polish
13. Radu LUPU - Romanian
14. Edwin FISHER - Swiss
15. Wilhelm KEMPFF - German
16. Murray PERAHIA - American
17. Glenn GOULD - Canadian
18. Walter GIESEKING - German
19. Josef HOFMANN - Polish
20. Claudio ARRAU - Chilean
Oscar
>
> FIVE conductors who've influenced or inspired them, and give a brief reason.
> Asking (presumably) for only one produces too small a sample space and can
> only skew the results.
P.S. The Greatest Pianists list was 100 top pianists (as chosen by the
Editors), all given three choices. Votes tallied, rankings worked out
from there.
Gerard
> > According to a new poll in the latest BBC Music Magazine, Carlos
> > Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. This blog
> > (link below) gives only the top 20 but as the comments underneath
> > the article reveal, the exclusion of the likes of Solti, Stokowski,
> > Reiner and Klemperer from the top echelons, to say nothing of the
> > inclusion of Nikolaus Harnoncourt before we even get to Toscanini
> > and Furtwangler, make such a list a load of nonsense. But here are
> > the first 20 anyway ...
>
> > http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38493&start=0
>
> I'm going to be rude and blunt -- which is wrrong, but I'll succumb
> to the temptation, anyhow -- and point out that YOU DIDN'T READ THE
> ARTICLE. This is not about "great" conductors, but "influential"
> conductors.
This is how they advertise the new issue:
""Current issue
Find out what's in this month's magazine...
The 20 greatest conductors of all time, as chosen by 100 of today's leading
maestros""
http://www.classical-music.com/
Well, in that case the list must be considered disqualified.
>
> * I heard CK conduct in Chicago ~25 years ago, and his live style was
> exactly the same as his recordings. At that time, however, I hadn't
> recognized just how wrong-headed it was.
Your statements about Carlos Kleiber put your remarks about
recordings-with-conductors in another - or should that be: more clear - light.
Paolo Pesenti
> The 20 greatest conductors of all time, as chosen by 100 of today's leading
> maestros""
I love the "OF ALL TIME" qualification. Personally, I would have
placed Von Bulow, Mahler, Berlioz, Spohr, Mendelssohn and maybe Wagner
somewhere in the top 20. And this assuming that pre-XIX century is too
controversial for the magazine. At any rate, a special mention should
go to Lully who, after all, had a fatal accident at work...
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
It'd be a close match, but I think Sir Malcolm Sargeant could take
Clark Kent.
-Owen
Gerard
> > The 20 greatest conductors of all time, as chosen by 100 of today's
> > leading maestros""
>
> I love the "OF ALL TIME" qualification.
Indeed. It suggests that all good things have happened in the past, and that
nothing good can be expected in the future.
>
> Personally, I would have
> placed Von Bulow, Mahler, Berlioz, Spohr, Mendelssohn and maybe Wagner
> somewhere in the top 20. And this assuming that pre-XIX century is too
> controversial for the magazine. At any rate, a special mention should
> go to Lully who, after all, had a fatal accident at work...
I presume you did not hear von Bulow, Mahler, Berlioz, Spohr, Mendelssohn,
Wagner and Lully conducting.
(But without any doubt some pianophiles can find something on Youtube.)
Paolo Pesenti
>
> I presume you did not hear von Bulow, Mahler, Berlioz, Spohr, Mendelssohn,
> Wagner and Lully conducting.
> (But without any doubt some pianophiles can find something on Youtube.)
Oh, was empirical acoustic evidence a prerequisite for answering the
question? My my. Does it count I saw Trevor Howard playing Wagner in
Visconti's Ludwig?
William Sommerwerck
> to name FIVE conductors who've influenced or inspired them, and give
> sample space and can only skew the results.
I /seriously/ doubt only ONE choice was given, c'mon. Do you know how
the editors worded the poll (i.e. 'influential', 'admirable', or plain WHO
ARE
YOUR TOP FIVE?), and indeed, how many choices each recipient was
given? You condemn the survey as poorly designed without really
knowing its design.
True. However, I know the way people think, and most have no idea how to
design an accurate, let alone useful, survey.
In the case of...
20 GREATEST PIANISTS on disc, from BBC Music Magazine AUGUST 2010
We asked 100 of today's leading concert pianists to name the finest
players of the recorded era. Here's what they had to say:
1. Sergey RACHMANINOV - Russian
2. Arthur RUBINSTEIN - Polish
3. Vladimir HOROWITZ - Russian
4. Sviatoslav RICHTER - Russian
5. Alfred CORTOT - Swiss/French
6. Dinu LIPATTI - Romanian
7. Artur SCHNABEL - Austrian
8. Emil GILELS - Russian
9. Martha ARGERICH - Argentinian
10. Arturo Benedetti MICHELANGELI - Italian
11. Krystian ZIMERMAN - Polish
12. Ignaz FRIEDMAN - Polish
13. Radu LUPU - Romanian
14. Edwin FISHER - Swiss
15. Wilhelm KEMPFF - German
16. Murray PERAHIA - American
17. Glenn GOULD - Canadian
18. Walter GIESEKING - German
19. Josef HOFMANN - Polish
20. Claudio ARRAU - Chilean
...there were five times as many contributors as selections. And I believe
BBC Music indicated how many times each was selected.
William Sommerwerck
> by the Editors), all given three choices. Votes tallied, rankings
> worked out from there.
I hope the Conductors were handled comparably.
Tassilo
> Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time.
Greater than Spontini, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Wagner, and Mahler?
(Personally I think Carlos Kleiber has the most inflated reputation of
any conductor of the past 50 years.)
-david gable
JohnGavin
It's really quite an interesting list and arrangement - just noting
(not necessarily disagreeing) that Brendel, Ashkenazy, Pollini,
Moisiewitsch, R. Serkin, Fleisher, Cliburn among others don't make it.
And what a surprise that Gould makes it and Tureck
doesn't................(NOT)
And among pianists the venerable Arrau is #20!!!
Kip Williams
Clark really holds himself back. A big guy like that, you wouldn't think
he'd be such a wuss.
Kip W
Ray Hall
Yes. A complete load of bollox.
Ray Hall, Taree
Allen
>> According to a new poll in the latest BBC Music Magazine, Carlos
>> Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. This blog
>> (link below) gives only the top 20 but as the comments underneath the
>> article reveal, the exclusion of the likes of Solti, Stokowski, Reiner
>> and Klemperer from the top echelons, to say nothing of the inclusion
>> of Nikolaus Harnoncourt before we even get to Toscanini and
>> Furtwangler, make such a list a load of nonsense. But here are the
>> first 20 anyway ...
>
>> http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38493&start=0
>
> That Carlos Kleiber is anywhere on this list at all -- let alone at the
> top -- is amazing. I've expressed my negative opinion of his misguided
> conducting previously, and been told that his recordings do not fully
> reflect his approach. * Fair enough. But I assume those polled were basing
> their opinions on his recordings, so I can only wonder what they consider
> "inspiring" conducting.
The most amazing thing about Carlos Kleiber being named by _BBC MUSIC_
is that he's most assuredly not British. When you look at their best
recordings of the year for almost any year they seem to give great
weight to British recordings.
Allen
MiNe 109
<5347017d-13bb-44ce...@x13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Paolo Pesenti <paolo_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Richard Thompson had a similar objection when asked to contribute to a
poll of all-time great pop music, leading to his "1000 Years of Popular
Music" concerts including such songs as Sumer is icumen in and So Ben Mi
Ca Bon Tempo.
I like the resulting cd but it does have the shortest-breathed Dido's
Lament imaginable from Judith Owen.
Stephen
M forever
Of course such lists are complete nonsense - duh! -, so why do you
even bother and why do you post this here?
But, like it or not, Harnoncourt is a far more influential conductor
than most of the people you name above, maybe all of them. I can't
think of a single other conductor whose work has influenced the way we
play baroque and classical music today as much as he did. That has
nothing to do with whether one likes his work or not, just with the
enormous influence it has had.
William Sommerwerck
than most of the people you name above, maybe all of them. I can't
think of a single other conductor whose work has influenced the way
we play baroque and classical music today as much as he did.
That has nothing to do with whether one likes his work or not, just
with the enormous influence it has had.
Which, of course, was the point of the poll...
M forever
wrote:
But then, of course, we must be careful not to overstate any single
artist's influence. Obviously, Harnoncourt did not exert all that
influence all by himself. There were many who contributed to the re-
evaluation of the repertoire based on performance practice insights.
Harnoncourt is simply one of the, or perhaps the, most prominent
musician from that field. Plus, he managed to transcend the mere
experimental use of period instruments and the formulaic application
of some basic playing techniques which is, unfortunately, what a lot
of the "HIP' activity can be reduced to.
He created an enormously complex and highly nuanced style of applying
these insights to performance on period as well as modern instruments.
The basis for this is less the actual playing techniques and
expressive means, rather, he discovered what role these play in
conveying a stylistically "correct" or, let's call it, "plausible" way
to perform pieces from given historical periods and used these as
technical means, not ends. That is why many of his performances are so
revelatory. It is, unfortunately, also who a lot of people simply
don't understand what he is actually doing, and why.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Klqhp.3634$bd5....@newsfe02.iad:
That's what Steve Lombard thought. He constantly played practical jokes on
Clark. For some reason, those jokes always backfired. ALWAYS.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:6fc41eb7-ff4d-40fd-8836-f936df8b0732
@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Some might add Franco Faccio or Egisto Tango. The former was much admired by
Toscanini, and the latter by Bartok and Nielsen. And Eduard Nápravník was
greatly respected in his time.
Could anyone with access to the full list say whether Sir Hamilton Harty
appears on it?
Matthew B. Tepper
the following letters to be typed in news:im59dk$lv3$1...@news.eternal-
september.org:
Perahia (against whom I have nothing, really, just might not rank him above
Hofmann, for example), but not Kapell? That's just wrong.
My objections to the exclusions of Busoni, Petri, and Horszowski from a
certain well-known listing of 100 have already been made known at length.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
> In article
><5347017d-13bb-44ce...@x13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Paolo Pesenti <paolo_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The 20 greatest conductors of all time, as chosen by 100 of today's
>> > leading maestros""
>>
>> I love the "OF ALL TIME" qualification. Personally, I would have
>> placed Von Bulow, Mahler, Berlioz, Spohr, Mendelssohn and maybe Wagner
>> somewhere in the top 20. And this assuming that pre-XIX century is too
>> controversial for the magazine. At any rate, a special mention should
>> go to Lully who, after all, had a fatal accident at work...
>
> Richard Thompson had a similar objection when asked to contribute to a
> poll of all-time great pop music, leading to his "1000 Years of Popular
> Music" concerts including such songs as Sumer is icumen in and So Ben Mi
> Ca Bon Tempo.
Indeed, just to give one infamous example, Rolling Stone's list of "Top 500
Songs of All Time" contains nothing before 1948 (Muddy Waters' "Rolling
Stone," evidently). Remember, that's supposed to be "of All Time," pushing
Archbishop Ussher's estimate up 4,953 years, something that might astound
even the most rabid creationists.
> I like the resulting cd but it does have the shortest-breathed Dido's
> Lament imaginable from Judith Owen.
I could live with that. How may I find a listing of that CD?
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:Klqhp.3634$bd5....@newsfe02.iad:
>
>> O wrote:
>>> In article<PRnhp.23807$zY7....@newsfe09.iad>, Kip Williams
>>> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> In an unrelated story, DC Comics had to close comments on their blog
>>>> because of an argument over whether The Flash can run faster than
>>>> Superman.
>>>
>>> It'd be a close match, but I think Sir Malcolm Sargeant could take
>>> Clark Kent.
>>
>> Clark really holds himself back. A big guy like that, you wouldn't think
>> he'd be such a wuss.
>
> That's what Steve Lombard thought. He constantly played practical jokes on
> Clark. For some reason, those jokes always backfired. ALWAYS.
Won't get fooled again!
Kip W
Dontait...@aol.com
Total agreement. Foolishness.
Most influential? How about Arthur Nikisch, the acknowledged model
for Furtwangler, Beecham, Boult, Reiner, and Koussevitzky, for
starters. Or Mahler, the acknowledged model for Bruno Walter,
Mengelberg, Klemperer, Oskar Fried and others. Or Toscanini, the
acknowledged model for Karajan, Solti, and others.
The "greatest" ranking business is a waste of time. But I will say
that Carlos Kleiber's CSO concerts in the 1970s were special and
outstanding. The Brahms 2d was electrifying. CSO members to whom I
talked said they thought he was an excellent conductor, and they had
immense respect for him.
Don Tait
MiNe 109
http://www.richardthompson-music.com/album.asp?id=74
1. Sumer is Icumen In
2. King Henry V's Conquest Of France
3. When I Am Laid In Earth
4. So Ben Mi Ca Bon Tempo
5. Shenandoah
6. Blackleg Miner
7. Waiting at the Church
8. Trafalgar Square
9. There Is Beauty?
10. Why Have My Loved Ones Gone?
11. Old Rocking Chair's Got Me
12. Orange-Coloured Sky
13. Cry Me A River
14. Drinking Wine Spo-dee-o-dee
15. The Fool
16. Legal Matter
17. Tempted
18. Kiss
19. Oops! I Did It Again
20. Sam Hall
21. Money
22. It Won't Be Long
23. Marry, Ageyn Hic Hev Donne Yt
--
Some tongue-in-cheek choices. Fun as a quiz, too. That's Abba's Money,
not Pink Floyd's.
Stephen
Kip Williams
> In article<Xns9EAE8597291...@216.168.3.70>,
>>> poll of all-time great pop music, leading to his "1000 Years of Popular
>>> Music" concerts including such songs as Sumer is icumen in and So Ben Mi
>>> Ca Bon Tempo.
>>
>>> Lament imaginable from Judith Owen.
>
>
> 1. Sumer is Icumen In
> 2. King Henry V's Conquest Of France
> 3. When I Am Laid In Earth
> 4. So Ben Mi Ca Bon Tempo
> 5. Shenandoah
> 6. Blackleg Miner
> 7. Waiting at the Church
> 8. Trafalgar Square
> 9. There Is Beauty?
> 10. Why Have My Loved Ones Gone?
> 11. Old Rocking Chair's Got Me
> 12. Orange-Coloured Sky
> 13. Cry Me A River
> 14. Drinking Wine Spo-dee-o-dee
> 15. The Fool
> 16. Legal Matter
> 17. Tempted
> 18. Kiss
> 19. Oops! I Did It Again
> 20. Sam Hall
> 21. Money
> 22. It Won't Be Long
> 23. Marry, Ageyn Hic Hev Donne Yt
>
Pretty centered on the Anglo-American tradition there! Not that I have
anything against the presumably serious choices. Okay, I'm a little
surprised not to see Greensleeves on the list.
Kip W
MiNe 109
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
He is an Englishman who helped invent English folk-rock as a member of
Fairpoint Convention, so he certainly has a point of view. I would have
liked the Lachrimae Pavane to be included.
Years ago I witnessed a hapless voice student claim he was incapable of
learning Greensleeves without a practice tape from the teacher. I guess
"Happy Birthday" wasn't on the repertoire list.
Stephen
Oscar
>
> He is an Englishman who helped invent English folk-rock as a member of
> Fairpoint Convention, so he certainly has a point of view.
Fairport Convention.
William Sommerwerck
> that Carlos Kleiber's CSO concerts in the 1970s were special and
> whom I talked said they thought he was an excellent conductor,
> and they had immense respect for him.
I heard his Brahms 2nd live, and it /was/ electrifying. Which was precisely
its problem.
Heck51
wrote:> Most influential? How about Arthur Nikisch, the acknowledged
model
> for Furtwangler, Beecham, Boult, Reiner, and Koussevitzky, for
> starters. Or Mahler, the acknowledged model for Bruno Walter,
> Mengelberg, Klemperer, Oskar Fried and others. Or Toscanini, the
> acknowledged model for Karajan, Solti, and others.
on the basis of influence, Toscanini would lead the parade, IMO - he
and Weingartner initiated, and promoted the "literalist" approach [go
to the score] that has been so predominant in the 20th century into
the present...This approach was the model for most conductors, as the
"ultra-romantic" style of Liszt, Wagner and their adherents was
largely superceded. it still had its proponents, but the more literal
approach was definitely dominant.
Toscanini was the leading exponent, and his influence was huge -
Weingartner certainly played a role, but AT had by far the longer and
more spectacular career. Reiner and Szell certainly followed this
approach, and they in turn influenced a whole new generation - esp
Reiner.
> The "greatest" ranking business is a waste of time. But I will say
> that Carlos Kleiber's CSO concerts in the 1970s were special and
> outstanding. The Brahms 2d was electrifying. CSO members to whom I
> talked said they thought he was an excellent conductor, and they had
> immense respect for him.>
yes - interesting to see the opinions of orchestra musicians -
this excerpt is from the IDRS Journal some years ago - an interview
with Ray Still [long-time Ob I with CSO:
<<Incidentally, it is strange to me
that the critics in this country
are still unable to evaluate the
greatness of Fritz Reiner.
How do they account for the
permanence in the catalog of
almost all of the Reiner records
made in the short ten years
or less that he was here? I see so
many lists of conductors
and he is seldom mentioned. Just
listen to the breadth of his
repertoire on CD and in each
category he has few peers!
People like Maazel, Muti, Mehta,
Slatkin, Masur, Von
Dohnanyi, Ormandy, and a host of
others should not be
mentioned in the same world. >>
Ray Still (40 years first
Oboe, Chicago Symphony)
Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL.
ivanmaxim
Do you think Toscanini's influence owed as much to David Sarnoff as it
did to him???? Wagner fan
M forever
wrote:
No, the problem is that you don't get what qualities there are beyond
the superficial "excitement" and "electricity" Kleiber generated.
There were and are quite a few "exciting" conductors but few if any
are spoke of in such terms as Kleiber is by professional musicians -
including many of his conducting colleagues - and musical
connoisseurs.
You have a rather too high opinion of your own powers of musical
perception and understanding which is why you won't even consider what
some people have tried to explain to you about this.
And *that* is the problem here. Fortunately, it is only your problem.
M forever
Sarnoff? Shouldn't that be spelled Sarnov?
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Y%uhp.42719$Pg4....@newsfe22.iad:
> Pretty centered on the Anglo-American tradition there! Not that I have
> anything against the presumably serious choices. Okay, I'm a little
> surprised not to see Greensleeves on the list.
And I'm absolutely outraged not to see "L'homme armé" there!
--
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
***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
Matthew B. Tepper
--
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
***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:eb1c95d5-048f-4058-b812-
0dd4d6...@o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:
Oh good grief, not the Joseph Horowitz nonsense yet again. If his danged
book had been published by a small press rather than by Knopf, nobody would
ever have bothered with it.
ivanmaxim
> ivanmaxim <ivanmax...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:eb1c95d5-048f-4058-b812-
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wasn't even thinking of that awful book - just asked a question and
its a good question. We don't know if Toscanini would have had the
same amount of extraordinary popularity if he wasn't on the national
radio once a week with his own orchestra for seventeen years - or do
we???? I'm sure he would have been famous but I'm not sure he would be
quite the household word he still is today even to those who know
little about classical music. Wagner fan
Heck51
> Do you think Toscanini's influence owed as much to David Sarnoff as it
> did to him???? > -
No. AT was already a world-renowned conductor long before he conducted
NBC starting at age 70.
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Regarding the original list -where's Mahler and von Bulow or even
Wagner???? How can it be the greatest of all time when we don't have
recorded evidence of some of the most famous conductors in history???
I loathe lists like that - useless. Wagner fan
Heck51
> I loathe lists like that - useless. >>
I agree, it's a total pile of crap.
Sol L. Siegel
91aac2...@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 20, 7:42 am, Kerrison <kerrison126-spar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> According to a new poll in the latest BBC Music Magazine, Carlos
>> Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. >>
>
> What a pile of crap. meaningless.
>
> Rattle @ #6?? oh please...
>
> Toscanini #8?? Monteux #16?? Reiner, Walter, Solti not even on it??
> where do they come up with this stuff??
Am I the first to mention Stokowski? Did he not have *some*
influence on how orchestral music is performed?
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Kip Williams
> Regarding the original list -where's Mahler and von Bulow or even
> Wagner???? How can it be the greatest of all time when we don't have
> recorded evidence of some of the most famous conductors in history???
> I loathe lists like that - useless.
I'll agree they're useless. I did notice that the list of pianists
specified "on disk," so nobody would have to ask why Beethoven wasn't on
it, or whoever.
Kip W
M forever
> Heck51 <dgallagh...@comcast.net> wrote in news:6b3048a0-30c0-479e-9bbf-
> 91aac2a7e...@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 20, 7:42 am, Kerrison <kerrison126-spar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> According to a new poll in the latest BBC Music Magazine, Carlos
> >> Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. >>
>
> > What a pile of crap. meaningless.
>
> > Rattle @ #6?? oh please...
>
> > Toscanini #8?? Monteux #16?? Reiner, Walter, Solti not even on it??
> > where do they come up with this stuff??
>
> Am I the first to mention Stokowski? Did he not have *some*
> influence on how orchestral music is performed?
No, fortunately not.
jrsnfld
> On Mar 20, 5:37 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
> wrote:> Most influential? How about Arthur Nikisch, the acknowledged
> model
>
> > for Furtwangler, Beecham, Boult, Reiner, and Koussevitzky, for
> > starters. Or Mahler, the acknowledged model for Bruno Walter,
> > Mengelberg, Klemperer, Oskar Fried and others. Or Toscanini, the
> > acknowledged model for Karajan, Solti, and others.
>
> on the basis of influence, Toscanini would lead the parade, IMO - he
> and Weingartner initiated, and promoted the "literalist" approach [go
> to the score] that has been so predominant in the 20th century into
> approach, and they in turn influenced a whole new generation - esp
> Reiner.
I do wonder about Toscanini's influence in the profession. There's no
doubt that he had a huge influence in the U.S. and before that in
Europe, but you also hear people like Abbado, Barenboim, and Mehta
acknowledge the influence of Furtwangler, and those three are hardly
of a particular "School" or particularly similar.
With all due respect to Still, that's a meaningless, in fact downright
misleading thing to say. Reiner to say that he was highly respected by
those who worked with him, and understood to be a master of his craft,
but hardly head and shoulders above most of the people mentioned in
that quote.
Breadth of repertoire (on CD particularly but even in concert during
those last 10 years)?? Get real!! Reiner was no comparison to Dohnanyi
or Slatkin, probably not Muti, Mehta, or Masur either, let alone
Maestro-Everything Ormandy.
I love the fact that the quote there is attributed to Still in his
capacity at Northwestern, as if this somehow bolsters his academic
credentials for knowing the recorded legacy of these other conductors,
all of whom he played for a bit here and there.
Orchestral musicians know how to play (Still was one of the best) but
that hardly makes them experts about what conductors were doing with
other orchestras.
I'd give more credence to quotes from musicians comparing the musical
and technical qualities of these conductors. Musicians are horribly
biased about these matters--they take conductors too personally and
not always happily--but at least they have something useful to say
about craftsmanship, intelligence, clarity, and so forth.
I'm sure Still had more concrete reasons to think Reiner was so great.
Not necessarily so much greater than a Dohnanyi nor Muti, Maazel,
Masur, and Ormandy, but it would be an interest discussion of merits.
I'm willing to concede Mehta and Slatkin showed great early promise
but too frequently haven't lived up to it--but then, does anyone go
around talking up Toscanini or Kleiber, let alone Abbado or Haitink,
by comparing them to Slatkin and Mehta?
--Jeff
Thornhill
wrote:
>
> That Carlos Kleiber is anywhere on this list at all -- let alone at the
> top -- is amazing. I've expressed my negative opinion of his misguided
> conducting previously, and been told that his recordings do not fully
> reflect his approach. * Fair enough. But I assume those polled were basing
> their opinions on his recordings, so I can only wonder what they consider
> "inspiring" conducting.
I've personally never understood the claims of Kleiber being one of
the all time greats, let alone influential. While I enjoy his
recordings, I think that people have been seduced by the mystique he
created through restricted performances and recordings. People like to
insistence that whenever he graced the podium it was an event (and
thus, it is justifiable to sell a disc of a single Beethoven symphony
for $20+).
Anyway, I think it's actually pretty easy to be objective about who
were influential conductors. It's certainly easy to pinpoint the
influence of Toscanini and Furtwangler. And Harnoncourt, Mackerras and
Gardiner certainly have changed how music from Baroque and Classical
periods are played.
Not on the list is Richard Strauss, who heavily influenced a lot of
conductors coming of age in the 1920s and '30s, such as Szell.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>That is why many of his (Harnoncourt's) performances are so
>revelatory.
What performances do you have in mind?
Bob Harper (who finds Harnoncourt's performances frequently convincing,
sometimes outstanding, and occasionally perverse)
jrsnfld
> Heck51 <dgallagh...@comcast.net> wrote in news:6b3048a0-30c0-479e-9bbf-
> 91aac2a7e...@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> According to a new poll in the latest BBC Music Magazine, Carlos
> >> Kleiber has been voted the Greatest Conductor of All Time. >>
>
> > What a pile of crap. meaningless.
>
> > Rattle @ #6?? oh please...
>
> > Toscanini #8?? Monteux #16?? Reiner, Walter, Solti not even on it??
> > where do they come up with this stuff??
>
> Am I the first to mention Stokowski? Did he not have *some*
> influence on how orchestral music is performed?
Not so much on *how* music is performed, but on how music is produced,
sold, and distributed. Stokowski was a pioneering spirit, and in some
ways he was extremely influential as an innovator.
-By his Mahler 8 performances he showed the value of the blockbuster
symphonic production at home and on tour. Many orchestras have
followed the Philadelphians footsteps to New York in hopes of
repeating Stokowski's public relations and musical feat by making a
big splash in the media with a big work (and often it's Mahler!).
-Stokowski was a restless experimentalist, for instance with seating
arrangements and balances. He certainly helped set the stage for the
modern age of figuring throwing "tradition" out the window. The direct
effect on future generations is difficult to trace, but I think this
is important to remember.
-Stokowski was alert to new technological innovation--particularly
with respect to recordings and media. So his appearance on Fantasia
was not just a big step for bringing music to the masses, but also a
big step toward making conductors media stars and media savvy.
--Stokowski was famous for speaking to the audience on occasion--I'm
doubt he actually came up with this idea. For better or worse, this
has remained a tradition with certain public-spirited conductors in
our time.
So his lasting influence is not on musical performance, but more on
the music business and the use of media. That's not to say he didn't
wow musicians and audiences alike with his eerie ability to transform
an ordinary orchestra into that "Stokie" sound.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> May as well re-post the content for easier reading. This Top 20
> Conductors is a follow-up to last year's Top 20 Pianists poll that put
> Rachmaninoff in the #1 spot.
>
> <<Carlos Kleiber has today been crowned the greatest conductor of all
> time by a selection of 100 of today's finest maestros.
>
> The poll, carried out by BBC Music Magazine, asked leading conductors
> including Sir Colin Davis, Gustavo Dudamel, Valery Gergiev and Mariss
> Jansons to reveal who they are most inspired by. Kleiber, the Austrian
> maestro who conducted just 96 concerts and around 400 operatic
> performances in his 74 years, was voted ahead of Leonard Bernstein and
> Claudio Abbado, who took second and third places respectively.
>
> Susanna Mälkki, Music director, Ensemble Intercontemporain, and one of
> the conductors polled, commented: "Carlos Kleiber brought an
> incredible energy to music… Yes, he did have about five times as much
> time to rehearse than conductors do today, but he deserved it because
> his vision was remarkable, he knew what he wanted, and his attention
> to detail was truly inspiring."
>
> Jeremy Pound, Deputy Editor of BBC Music Magazine, added: "Asking 100
> of today's conducting greats to name their idols and inspirations was
> a fascinating experience. Not least when so many named Carlos Kleiber,
> who in the course of his whole lifetime conducted fewer concerts than
> most of them manage in just a couple of years. Kleiber's incredible
> attention to detail, sheer enthusiasm for music, and astonishingly
> accomplished level of performance could never be doubted – perhaps
> 'less is more' is the real path to true greatness?"
>
> Of the top 20 conductors voted for, no fewer than seven are still
> regularly seen on the rostrum today, including Brits Sir John Eliot
> Gardiner and Sir Simon Rattle. Conducting may have enjoyed its famous
> Golden Age in the mid-20th century but, in the opinion of those who
> know the art better than anyone, today's leading maestros also
> undoubtedly rank with the best of all time.
>
> The 20 greatest conductors of all time will be published in the April
> issue of BBC Music Magazine, on sale 17 March, priced £4.60.
>
> NOTES TO EDITORS
> In November 2010 BBC Music Magazine asked 100 leading conductors to
> name the maestros they admire above all others. When the votes were
> added up, the following top 20 emerged:
>
> BBC Music Magazine's 20 greatest conductors of all time are:
>
> 1. Carlos Kleiber (1930-2004) Austrian
> 2. Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) American
> 3. Claudio Abbado (b1933) Italian
> 4. Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) Austrian
> 5. Nikolaus Harnoncourt (b1929) Austrian
> 6. Sir Simon Rattle (b 1955) British
> 7. Wilhelm Furtwängler (1896-1954)
> 8. Arturo Toscanini (1867-1957) Italian
> 9. Pierre Boulez (b1925) French
> 10. Carlo Maria Giulini (1914-2005) Italian
> 11. Sir John Eliot Gardiner (b1943) British
> 12. Sir John Barbirolli (1899-1970) British
> 13. Terenc Fricsay (1914-1963) Hungarian
> 14. George Szell (1897-1970) Hungarian
> 15. Bernard Haitink (b1929) Dutch
> 16. Pierre Monteux (1875-1964) French
> 17. Yevgeny Mravinsky (1903-1988) Russian
> 18. Sir Colin Davis (b1927) British
> 19. Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) British
> 20. Sir Charles Mackerras (1925-2010) Australian>>
Rather than trash this list, I'd be interested in hearing constructive
thoughts on how it came to be like this, with Rattle, Bernstein, and
C. Kleiber so high. If 100 top living conductors made this list, how
could they possibly have come up with these results? The criteria seem
plain enough--who do you admire most--that leaves open to
interpretation what is "admirable": innovation, longevity, excitement,
scholarship, technique, repertoire, flexibility, uniqueness,
standards, "success", etc.
Think like a conductor. Why would you admire Abbado more than Karajan?
Harnoncourt or Gardiner more than Norrington? Rattle more than
Jansons? Haitink more than Monteux? There have to be some reasons.
My guess is that the HIPsters polled tended to choose between their
idols, like Gardiner and Harnoncourt (where's Brueggen? Herreweghe?)
Interesting that Norrington didn't top these, for example. Such
conductors wouldn't have bothered to rate apples against oranges, and
compared Harnoncourt to Furtwangler, they simply chose logically for
their personal perspective. Hence, if the balance of the 100 had been
different, Harnoncourt might have been numero uno on the list!
Similarly, a lot of younger conductors (perhaps in particular Brits)
probably worship the success that Rattle has had. Perhaps they love
his fresh take on repertoire and education, his track record for
building CBSO, his technical skill. They may connect with this role
model more than any other for obvious reason.
Perhaps the few Russians polled were too young to remember Mravinsky,
but a few of them did and that's why he ends up only at 17th (I wonder
whether Rozhdestvensky, Kondrashin, or Gergiev siphoned off a few
votes from this crowd.)
By contrast, you can imagine most of the Americans voting as a block
for Bernstein these days (rather than say Szell or Toscanini).
Bernstein has always been an idol amongst American conductors who saw
him as blazing a path in the business.
It would be interesting to see the actual vote counts and a breakdown
by the nationality of the conductors voting.
Etc., etc.
--Jeff
Thornhill
But isn't that really all part of conducting? Understanding your
audience and engaging them is key. This is certainly something that
most of the conductors on this list actually did.
And he pushed the envelope on what "interpretation" means. Whenever a
conductor does something pretty wild, the defense is always,
"Stokowski did something similar, and it worked."
He was also extremely dedicated to programing contemporary music. His
list of world, United States and recording premiers is probably
unmatched. Again, his name gets invoked when orchestras play an
aggressive program of modern music.
jrsnfld
Yes, but does that make him an influential figure, if what he did was
ordinary part of every conductor's job? I think most people just shook
their head and said, Stokowski was amazing, but nobody else will do it
the way he did. Except--to the extent possible--he helped define the
cult of personality surrounding conductors. Perhaps that was a
slightly destructive influence....
>
> And he pushed the envelope on what "interpretation" means. Whenever a
> conductor does something pretty wild, the defense is always,
> "Stokowski did something similar, and it worked."
In that way he is the antithesis of an influence, because for the last
50 years musicians have fled the other way, looking for justification
in not "what works" a la Stokie but in "what the composer
wrote." (Before this devolves into an impossible-to-resolve debate,
let me add that no musician is fool enough to think that this is the
only consideration, or a completely realistic priority. It's one thing
to seek justifications; it's another to actually be literal-minded
about this approach.)
>
> He was also extremely dedicated to programing contemporary music. His
> list of world, United States and recording premiers is probably
> unmatched. Again, his name gets invoked when orchestras play an
> aggressive program of modern music.
Not anymore. People have forgotten. But you are right--Stokowski was a
champion of new music and was an influence on a few younger conductors
for this reason.
--Jeff
Ed Romans
>
> It would be interesting to see the actual vote counts and a breakdown
> by the nationality of the conductors voting.
>
(Apologies if someone has already made this clear, but the article
shows the actual choices of all the conductors polled.)
It seems to me Kleiber gets two types of vote. He mostly gets votes
from lots of conductors who probably have only heard a couple of his
records - for instance Dudamel chooses Kleiber, Bernstein and Karajan,
but he also gets votes from people who would have crossed his path
professionally in the opera house, such as Sir Colin Davis.
None of the professional classical musicians I know (including some in
major orchestras) are record collectors, and I guess they probably
don't own anything conducted by Toscanini or Furtwanger. But they do
own stuff conducted by the likes of Abbado and Rattle. My guess is
that it is the same is true for many of the conductors polled. They
just own recent recordings and some of the more famous top critics
choices for recordings in the past.
Ed
William Sommerwerck
>>> that Carlos Kleiber's CSO concerts in the 1970s were special and
>>> outstanding. The Brahms 2nd was electrifying. CSO members to
>>> whom I talked said they thought he was an excellent conductor,
>>> and they had immense respect for him.
>> I heard his Brahms 2nd live, and it /was/ electrifying. Which was
>> precisely its problem.
> No, the problem is that you don't get what qualities there are beyond
> the superficial "excitement" and "electricity" Kleiber generated.
> There were and are quite a few "exciting" conductors but few if any
> are spoke of in such terms as Kleiber is by professional musicians -
> including many of his conducting colleagues -- and musical
> connoisseurs.
> You have a rather too high opinion of your own powers of musical
> perception and understanding which is why you won't even consider
> what some people have tried to explain to you about this.
> And *that* is the problem here. Fortunately, it is only your problem.
Not really. I had e-mail last night from a respected and musically
well-educated person (whom I will not name), who broadly agreed with my
criticism of CK.
In all his performances I've heard, CK has shown only one way of conducting.
He winds up the metaphorical spring tightly, then releases it. Everything
moves forward with (an admittedly exciting) tension, whether or not it's
appropriate for the piece. In this context, whatever other merits his
conducting has vanish.
I'll never forget the live Brahms 2nd I heard about 25 years ago. Larry
Archibald had bought tickets for the "Stereophile" staff (though rather
farther back than I'd have liked), and we had a grand time. I remember the
first two or three notes -- you could feel the electricity in the air.
Afterward, as we smoked cigarettes, everyone agreed it was among the best --
if not the best -- Brahms 2nd they'd heard.
"But wait!" you say. "Why should the first movement be played that way?" The
simple answer is that it shouldn't. It just took me 25 years to recognize
that such an interpretation isn't justified.
I bitterly regret not having had a musical education. Not being able to read
music or play an instrument means there are things I cannot fully understand
or appreciate. But it's also true that human beings have an innate musical
sense. I'm hardly the only person who can tell whether works are being
well-performed, even though I've never heard them before!
This issue has come up before in the context of why listeners don't agree on
something as simple as what they hear. I'll say a performance is rushed or
torpid, while someone else will say it's sluggish or too fast. How do you
explain this? I don't know.
One other point... I refuse to "appeal to authority". If I say I like or
dislike something, and it turns out I'm "wrong", so be it. I rarely, if
ever, say "He likes that" or "She doesn't" as justification for my own
judgements. If everyone in the world said CK was a great conductor, I would
still disagree.
William Sommerwerck
>> *some* influence on how orchestral music is performed?
> No, fortunately not.
If you're talking about the post-war Stokowski, I'd agree. But he was once a
truly great conductor.
I still remain amazed at the way he could get an orchestra to slow down to a
near-stop, without the music falling to pieces.
Heck51
first to mention Stokowski? Did he not have *some* influence on how
orchestral music is performed?>
yes, definitely - very influential. also - weren't Stoki and Toscanini
the quintessential "Maestros" of their time - those who set the tone,
the style, the aura, or the podiun giant??
Heck51
about Toscanini's influence in the profession. There's no
> doubt that he had a huge influence in the U.S. and before that in
> Europe, but you also hear people like Abbado, Barenboim, and Mehta
> acknowledge the influence of Furtwangler, and those three are hardly
> of a particular "School" or particularly similar.
Furtwangler was definitely a holdover of the romantic style, correct??
all the tempo fluctuations, distortions, emphasis, exaggerations,
rhythmic laxity, etc, etc?? at one time, very much in vogue - after
Toscanini, definitely on the demise.
> With all due respect to Still, that's a meaningless, in fact downright
> misleading thing to say. Reiner to say that he was highly respected by
> those who worked with him, and understood to be a master of his craft,
> but hardly head and shoulders above most of the people mentioned in
> that quote.>>
Still disagrees with you, on the basis of years and years of working
with the world's finest conductors.
> Breadth of repertoire (on CD particularly but even in concert during
> those last 10 years)?? Get real!! Reiner was no comparison to Dohnanyi
> or Slatkin, probably not Muti, Mehta, or Masur either, let alone
> Maestro-Everything Ormandy.>>
yes, breadth of rpertoire - Reiner had a very large repertoire which
he produced superbly - I agree with Still - his excellence in a wide
range of music surpasses those others mentioned.
> Orchestral musicians know how to play (Still was one of the best) but
> that hardly makes them experts about what conductors were doing with
> other orchestras.>>
Why?? they have access to recordings, jus tlike anyone else?? plus
they have the live performing experience as well.
> I'd give more credence to quotes from musicians comparing the
musical
> and technical qualities of these conductors.....I'm sure Still had more concrete reasons to think Reiner was so great.
> Not necessarily so much greater than a Dohnanyi nor Muti, Maazel,
> Masur, and Ormandy, but it would be an interest discussion of merits.>>
that was Still's point, I believe. it wasn't in the scope of the
interview to give detailed analysis of each conductor's strengths and
weaknesses.
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:418463f4-20ac-4fbe-8574-077e24d66b31
@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Except--to the extent possible--he helped define the cult of personality
> surrounding conductors. Perhaps that was a slightly destructive
> influence....
Well, for one thing, he made hair important, which may not have influenced
the L.A. Philharmonic's choice of music director, but which certainly has had
something to do with the marketing.
--
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
Thornhill
>
> Except--to the extent possible--he helped define the
> cult of personality surrounding conductors. Perhaps that was a
> slightly destructive influence....
As non-artistic as cult of personality may be, it does help sell
tickets.
Classical music cannot get by without marketing.
Gerard
>
> Rather than trash this list, I'd be interested in hearing constructive
> thoughts on how it came to be like this, with Rattle, Bernstein, and
> C. Kleiber so high. If 100 top living conductors made this list, how
> could they possibly have come up with these results?
Very likely because of the character of the questions and the way the poll was
organized.
I've seen such "polls" with hardly any possibility to make your own choice (e.g.
multiple choice questions), or to make nuances.
Without knowing this the result has no value. (And it cannot be repeated with
simular results.)
> The criteria seem
> plain enough--who do you admire most--that leaves open to
> interpretation what is "admirable": innovation, longevity, excitement,
> scholarship, technique, repertoire, flexibility, uniqueness,
> standards, "success", etc.
This all can have been suggested in the questions, without any order or weight.
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:e194575e-4411-42ff-a980-91f67a1c7ec6
@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
That is true, but that doesn't mean that the method has to be infected by the
odious and obnoxious methods by which pop music is promoted. Unfortunately
today's generation of marketers have decided that "anything goes."
Gerard
>
> Anyway, I think it's actually pretty easy to be objective about who
> were influential conductors.
How?
Should this be done by listeners or lovers of classical music? By musicians? By
conductors? By musicologists?
Which of these categories are objective?
None, I think.
Gerard
> On Mar 20, 6:45 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > > The "greatest" ranking business is a waste of time. But I will say
> > > that Carlos Kleiber's CSO concerts in the 1970s were special and
> > > outstanding. The Brahms 2nd was electrifying. CSO members to
> > > whom I talked said they thought he was an excellent conductor,
> > > and they had immense respect for him.
> >
> > I heard his Brahms 2nd live, and it /was/ electrifying. Which was
> > precisely its problem.
>
> No, the problem is that you don't get what qualities there are beyond
> the superficial "excitement" and "electricity" Kleiber generated.
> There were and are quite a few "exciting" conductors but few if any
> are spoke of in such terms as Kleiber is by professional musicians -
> connoisseurs.
>
> You have a rather too high opinion of your own powers of musical
> perception and understanding which is why you won't even consider what
> some people have tried to explain to you about this.
>
> And *that* is the problem here. Fortunately, it is only your problem.
But, thank god, we have you here with your immense and immeasurable powers of
musical perception and understanding.
All you have to do, is giving us the definitive list of all times.
Thornhill
Do a study that involves interviewing conductors about influences on
their style.
jrsnfld
> On Mar 21, 12:37 am, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:> I do wonder
> about Toscanini's influence in the profession. There's no
>
> > doubt that he had a huge influence in the U.S. and before that in
> > Europe, but you also hear people like Abbado, Barenboim, and Mehta
> > acknowledge the influence of Furtwangler, and those three are hardly
> > of a particular "School" or particularly similar.
>
> Furtwangler was definitely a holdover of the romantic style, correct??
> all the tempo fluctuations, distortions, emphasis, exaggerations,
> rhythmic laxity, etc, etc?? at one time, very much in vogue - after
> Toscanini, definitely on the demise.
I consider that a misconception (about some of the details of
Furtwaengler's musicmaking, too, but I'm referring to this idea that
he was a "holdover of the romantic style"). If you listen to his
contemporaries and the few elders whose work survives on disc, you get
the distinct impression that Furtwangler was a Romantic but also an
original--a unique case as unique as Stokowski was in his own right.
It would be a mistake to define Romanticism by holding Furtwangler as
the prime example. If you do that, then nobody qualifies.
>
> > With all due respect to Still, that's a meaningless, in fact downright
> > misleading thing to say. Reiner to say that he was highly respected by
> > those who worked with him, and understood to be a master of his craft,
> > but hardly head and shoulders above most of the people mentioned in
> > that quote.>>
>
> Still disagrees with you, on the basis of years and years of working
> with the world's finest conductors.
Shall we line up all the people who worked for years with the world's
finest conductors and ask them if they all agree with Still? Seems
like a pointless exercise, because we know they all have their
differing points of view. Musicians today barely agree who the great
conductors are; they didn't all agree back then either.
>
> > Breadth of repertoire (on CD particularly but even in concert during
> > those last 10 years)?? Get real!! Reiner was no comparison to Dohnanyi
> > or Slatkin, probably not Muti, Mehta, or Masur either, let alone
> > Maestro-Everything Ormandy.>>
>
> yes, breadth of rpertoire - Reiner had a very large repertoire which
> he produced superbly - I agree with Still - his excellence in a wide
> range of music surpasses those others mentioned.
I obviously misread the quote from Still. He wasn't really praising
Reiner's breadth of repertoire, he was challenging us to see if Reiner
had any equals in each *category* of that breadth (which actually is
not particularly broad or deep in the catalogue, but we already know
that--mostly a little of this and that from the core repertoire Mozart
on to Bartok: some Bach that barely hangs on in the catalogue (and
none with the CSO). He did other stuff, but Still is not referring to
Reiner's occasional forays into Copland, Shostakovich, and such, which
rarely surface in the catalogue.
So Still's point was, who is Reiner's equal in each "category" of
Reiner's repertoire? It's an entirely subjective point, so there's no
use arguing.
If you and Still think Kempe, Karajan, Szell, Boehm, and Krauss are
not Reiner's equal as Strauss conductors, so be it. If you don't think
Boehm, Walter, or Rosbaud were Reiner's equals in Mozart, so be it. If
you think Reiner was head and shoulders above Kleiber, Szell,
Weingartner, Toscanini, Furtwaengler, and Jochum in Beethoven and
Brahms, so be it. If you don't get Fricsay, Kocsis, Fischer or Boulez
in Bartok, so be it. And if you can't put two and two together and see
that somebody like Dohnanyi or Bernstein or Karajan or Abbado do many
things well over a range of repertoire at least equal or greater to
Reiner's range, then you can understand that our points of view will
never meet.
I say this a fan of Reiner and Still, by the way. Words have a way of
exaggerating; their music-making stands on its own without the need
for hyperbole.
---Jeff
Ed Romans
>
> Do a study that involves interviewing conductors about influences on
> their style.
That's what this poll was if you actually read it. They asked
conductors to name 3 conductors who influenced *them*, not who was the
most influential of all time. Some conductors are interviewed and
offer reasons - for instance Litton cites Bohm because he attended
operas conducted by him in his youth.
Ed
Gerard
> On Mar 21, 4:31 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do a study that involves interviewing conductors about influences on
> > their style.
>
> That's what this poll was if you actually read it.
Where do we read it?
The URL in the original post pointed to a forum post of Thu Mar 17, 2011.
That says:
"The poll, carried out by BBC Music Magazine, asked leading conductors including
Sir Colin Davis, Gustavo Dudamel, Valery Gergiev and Mariss Jansons to reveal
who they are most inspired by."
We can read there also:
"Asking 100 of today's conducting greats to name their idols and inspirations
was a fascinating experience."
Then it continues with:
"BBC Music Magazine's 20 *greatest conductors of all time* are:"
[here follows that list]
Is this actually the result of that same poll (with the wrong title)?
> They asked
> conductors to name 3 conductors who influenced *them*, not who was the
I did not see "to name 3 conductors" - is this information to find in the
magazine itself?
>
> most influential of all time. Some conductors are interviewed and
> offer reasons - for instance Litton cites Bohm because he attended
> operas conducted by him in his youth.
>
> Ed
So there was a preselection of "100 of today's conducting greats".
Is there any information about how that selection has been made, and by who?
The selection itself we can see on that forum:
Thomas Ades, Rinaldo Alessandrini, Marin Alsop, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Matthias
Bamert, Harry Bicket, Fabio Biondi, Richard Bonynge, Douglas Boyd, Martyn
Brabbins, Lionel Bringuier, Semyon Bychkov, Riccardo Chailly, William Christie,
Harry Christophers, Stephen Cleobury, Francesco Corti, Thomas Dausgaard, Dennis
Russell Davies, Carl Davis, Sir Colin Davis, Stephane Deneve, Gustavo Dudamel,
Charles Dutoit, Sir Mark Elder, Richard Farnes, Ivan Fischer, Thierry Fischer,
Rumon Gamba, Sir John Eliot Gardiner, Edward Gardner, Daniele Gatti, Valery
Gergiev, Jane Glover, Roy Goodman, Paul Goodwin, Emmanuelle Haim, Nikolaus
Harnoncourt, Charles Hazlewood, Philippe Herreweghe, Paul Hillier, Manfred
Honeck, Jakub Hrusa, Rene Jacobs, Mariss Jansons, Kristjan Jarvi, Neeme Jarvi,
Paavo Jarvi, James Judd, Vladimir Jurowski, Kirill Karabits, Lothar Koenigs,
Yakov Kreizberg, Christian Lindberg, Andrew Litton, David Lloyd-Jones, Susanna
Malkki, Andrew Manze, Jun Markl, Sir Neville Marriner, Kurt Masur, Paul
McCreesh, Nicholas McGegan, Zubin Mehta, Juanjo Mena, Marc Minkowski, Andris
Nelsons, Yannick Nezet-Seguin, Sir Roger Norrington, Gianandrea Noseda, Jonathan
Nott, Tadaaki Otaka, Antonio Pappano, Alondra de la Parra, Vasily Petrenko,
Peter Phillips, Helmuth Rilling, David Robertson, Francois-Xavier Roth, Gennady
Rozhdestvensky, Donald Runnicles, Leif Segerstam, Thomas Serebrier, Vassily
Sinaisky, Robert Spano, Markus Stenz, John Storgards, Masaaki Suzuki, Yuri
Temirkanov, Robin Ticciati, Michael Tilson Thomas, Osmo Vanska, Ilan Volkov,
Paul Watkins, John Wilson, Antoni Wit, Thomas Zehetmair, Xian Zhang, David
Zinman, Jaap van Zweden.
Ed Romans
In the paper copy of the BBC music magazine which is on the shelves
here in UK. The article is the main feature in the latest magazine.
They asked all the conductors in the list you quoted to name 3
conductors who influenced them or inspired them. Their replies are
printed. One or two conductors have boxes describing the a particular
choices in more detail. Some of the choices are clearly their teachers
or mentors. Some they have obviously only come across on record or
TV. They added up the all the choices and this became the "20
greatest conductors of all time". Quite a lot of conductors mentioned
Kleiber.
Ed
jrsnfld
wrote:
> >> Am I the first to mention Stokowski? Did he not have
> >> *some* influence on how orchestral music is performed?
> > No, fortunately not.
>
> If you're talking about the post-war Stokowski, I'd agree. But he was once a
> truly great conductor.
Are you saying that he was great prior to the war but not after? What
happened to him?
--Jeff
jrsnfld
Thanks for explaining in more detail. If I ever see the magazine,
it'll be interesting to see what the choices were. For instance, the
publicity article mentioned that Malkki voted for Carlos Kleiber, but
I would guess she also voted for Boulez.
And is it possible that an accounting error combined Erich Kleiber's
votes with Carlos Kleiber's? :-)
--Jeff
Gerard
Thanks.
Did all the conductors respond?
Do you know if the factual question was "to name 3 conductors who influenced
them or inspired them" or
"to name 3 conductors who influenced them or inspired them *most* "?
And did they al name 3 conductors?
And did they give the answers a proper weight (I mean: was a first choice more
important in the results than the third choice?)?
I ask because it's so easy to manipulate (intentionally) such answers and/or to
make a mess of them (not intended).
Naming the resulting list "20 *greatest* conductors of all time" is a farce of
course. Because this was not the subject of the poll, and this was not
questioned to the condictors involved.
Ed Romans
> Did all the conductors respond?
There's no information about conductors who didn't reply at all. The
list you quoted is of those who they have a response for.
> Do you know if the factual question was "to name 3 conductors who influenced
> them or inspired them" or
> "to name 3 conductors who influenced them or inspired them *most* "?
> And did they al name 3 conductors?
Almost all the conductors had 3 choices (one exception IIRC was
Pappano who only made 2 choices) I don't have it in front of me, so
I'm not sure if the word "most" was actually used, but my impression
was that this was meant. Typical responses I remember are that Sir
Colin Davis chose Kempe, Boult and Carlos Kleiber. Dudamel chose
Karajan, Bernstein and Kleiber. Petrenko chose Lully!
> And did they give the answers a proper weight (I mean: was a first choice more
> important in the results than the third choice?)?
No I got the impression that they are just 3 equally weighted
choices.
>
> I ask because it's so easy to manipulate (intentionally) such answers and/or to
> make a mess of them (not intended).
>
On the face of it, it seems unlikely that the magazine would lie given
the people who replied would be able to see their supposed answers in
print. But I guess there could have been bias (deliberate or
otherwise) in how they set the question - e.g. perhaps there was a
picture of Kleiber somewhere on the letter they sent out, etc.
I actually find it surprising that Kleiber came out on top. If I had
had to guess I would have thought it might have been Abbado who is
viewed in awe by the British music press.
Ed
Kip Williams
> jrsnfld<jrs...@aol.com> appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:418463f4-20ac-4fbe-8574-077e24d66b31
> @l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Except--to the extent possible--he helped define the cult of personality
>> surrounding conductors. Perhaps that was a slightly destructive
>> influence....
>
> Well, for one thing, he made hair important, which may not have influenced
How very Lisztian of him! Rubinsteinian, even.
> the L.A. Philharmonic's choice of music director, but which certainly has had
> something to do with the marketing.
Kip W
William Sommerwerck
>>>> *some* influence on how orchestral music is performed?
>>> No, fortunately not.
>> If you're talking about the post-war Stokowski, I'd agree.
>> But he was once a truly great conductor.
> Are you saying that he was great prior to the war but not after?
> What happened to him?
Most of his performances for "Fantasia" are first-rate. The unused "Swan of
Tuonela" is in a class by itself.
After the war (I can't give you a date), he started falling into what would
be considered "Romantic excess" -- including unjustified tempo fluctuations
and a general messing-around with the music.
Some of the Decca recordings are quite good. But one feels he is conducting
for "effect", than to give an insightful interpretation.
Heck51
alot of verbiage...>>
hey, this list is a crock of shit, no matter what you say.
Furtwangler is definitely of the traditional ultra-romantic approach,
with its various characeristics...he does not have too many followers
- Toscanini and Weingartner had many, many, who made huge and
successful careers.
Reiner excelled at a large range of repertoire, perhaps unmatched. so
did Pierre Monteux. these guys "got it right" with remarkable
consistency.
Still knows what he's talking about....you can agree or disagree. I
couldn't care less.
M forever
There is a lot of value in what Jeff said there and which you
summarily dismissed as "verbiage" without offering any coherent
argument obviously goes way over your head.
Jeff is correct when he says that Furtwängler did not epitomize a
particular general "romantic" style. Comparisons with other conductors
of his generation clearly show that. Some employ tempo modifications
just as he did, although usually less extreme. Some are rather
"straightforward". And they all come from the same background, not
completely different national schools.
Rather, as Jeff noted, Furtwängler was an unique example of a highly
personal style which was no doubt rooted in a certain school of music
making, let's call it "romantic" for want of a better term, but he
wasn't particularly typical for anything but his personal style.
This personal style, for the obvious reason that it was very personal,
is definitely not something one should imitate and I think few if any
do. The reason though that a number of conductors cite Furtwängler as
a very important influence is not because they want to imitate the
purely superficial aspects of his style. Which, BTW, was much less
random than many think. Furtwängler was deeply influenced by the
musicologist Heinrich Schenker and his theories about the organical
nature of tonal music. He sought to apply these in his conducting.
They are not a simple set of rules though so it is not something you
would understand, and I will not go into them here.
What still interests many conductors and musicians in general about
Furtwängler's style is not really what he did, but how he did what he
did. His style is not really a template for imitation, but a study in
organical musical flexibility and flow. All the more so since not
everything he attempted actually worked out so well. So there is
nothing to imitate here, but a lot to study and learn from.
Toscanini, on the other hand, offers little that would either be worth
studying or imitating. Just play all the notes in the score and be a
dick to the musicians, that doesn't go very far. Nor did it have much
influence beyond his time. Technical precision is a good thing but not
something only Toscanini insisted on, but there is more to music
making and much of that is missing from Toscanini. I guess this
"objectivist" style was in fashion for a while, but people soon
started to feel that there must be more in music than just playing the
black dots on the paper.
Plus, Toscanini's superficial objectivism is only half the story
anyway. There is more in the score than just the technical
instructions, and that is why as a next step after objectivism, people
started investigating what the written symbols actually mean. So we
have long moved beyond this one-dimensional literalist approach. What
is left is not really worth studying. The playing he got from the NBC
orchestra, for instance, certainly was very polished by the standards
of its time, but since it is devoid of any kind of style and even
college orchestras play better today, there is nothing there to learn
from really.
I do agree with Still, BTW, in that Reiner and all these other
conductors he mentioned should not be lumped together. With the
exception of Slatkin who I would put in roughly the same class as
Reiner, all of these are just as technically efficient but musically
more interesting conductors.
jrsnfld
wrote:
That's an interesting perspective. I'll have to think about it, but
I'm not sure what to say. I am definitely more interested in his
recordings prior to about 1960, but mostly because I am interested in
the Philadelphia period and the RCA/NBC/His Orchestra recording.
Purely personal reasons--I am insatiable for recordings of Robert
Bloom and Marcel Tabuteau, among others. So his later Decca period is
an afterthought.
But maybe I would find them less interesting from the point of
conducting. For instance, I like his classic Shostakovich 6 with the
CSO, but I like his classic(er) Shostakovich 6 with Philly even more.
I'm not sure which of his Shostakovich 5s I like best. On the other
hand, I enjoy his Dvorak 9 with the All-American Youth Orchestra more
than the one with Philadelphia, but both are early enough to avoid
whatever effect you've noticed. And so on....
--Jeff
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:x3Rhp.12601$782....@newsfe17.iad:
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>> jrsnfld<jrs...@aol.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>> to be typed in news:418463f4-20ac-4fbe-8574-077e24d66b31
>> @l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Except--to the extent possible--he helped define the cult of
>>> personality surrounding conductors. Perhaps that was a slightly
>>> destructive influence....
>>
>> Well, for one thing, he made hair important, which may not have
>> influenced
>
> How very Lisztian of him! Rubinsteinian, even.
They didn't have the means of mass media which began to be available when
Philadelphia had Stokowski.
>> the L.A. Philharmonic's choice of music director, but which certainly
>> has had something to do with the marketing.
--
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:x3Rhp.12601$782....@newsfe17.iad:
>
>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>>> jrsnfld<jrs...@aol.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>>> to be typed in news:418463f4-20ac-4fbe-8574-077e24d66b31
>>> @l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Except--to the extent possible--he helped define the cult of
>>>> personality surrounding conductors. Perhaps that was a slightly
>>>> destructive influence....
>>>
>>> Well, for one thing, he made hair important, which may not have
>>> influenced
>>
>> How very Lisztian of him! Rubinsteinian, even.
>
> They didn't have the means of mass media which began to be available when
> Philadelphia had Stokowski.
Perhaps not electronic mass media, but you can be sure that lithographs
and cheaply printed keepsakes were available, and that his picture was
known to many, and such recitations as "Jud Brownin Hears Ruby Play"
made their contribution to the mystique as well (it mentions the hair).
Kip W
Kip Williams
> ...and such recitations as "Jud Brownin Hears Ruby Play"
> made their contribution to the mystique as well (it mentions the hair).
as "Jud. Brownin's Account of Rubenstein's Playing" in a collection of
miscellaneous writings by George W(illiam) Bagby. Thanks, Google Books,
for this oft-quoted bit of Americana. The motel we stayed at when we
were looking to move here has a multi-volume humor collection — quite
possibly bought for the covers, for display in the lobby — and I got to
read more of it than the usual excerpts. I daresay it would have made a
very effective recitation.
Kip W
Kip Williams
Here's the Reader's Digest version (of the Reader's Digest version):
'Well, sir, he had the blamedest, biggest catty-corneredest pianner you
ever laid your eyes on—something like a distracted billiard table on
three legs… When he first sit down, he peered to care mighty little
about playing, and wished he hadn’t come. he tweedle-eedled a little on
the treble, and twoodle-oodled some on the bass—just fooling and boxing
the thing’s jaws for being in his way…
'i was just about to git up and go home, being tired of that
foolishness, when i heard a little bird waking up away off in the woods,
and calling sleepy-like, and i looked up and see Ruby was beginning to
take some interest in his business, and i sit down again…. and i says to
my neighbor, “that’s fine music, that is.” But he glared at me like he’d
like to cut my throat….
'Ruby stopped a moment or two to ketch breath. then he got mad. he run
his fingers through his hair, he shoved up his sleeve, he opened his
coat tails a little further, he drug up his stool, he leaned over, and,
sir, he jest went for that old pianner…. he slapped her face, he pulled
her nose, he pinched her ears, and he scratched her cheeks until she
fairly yelled. she bellered like a bull, she bleated like a calf, she
howled like a hound, she squeled like a pig, she shrieked like a rat….
he fox-chased his right hand with his left till he got way out of the
treble into the clouds, where the notes was finer than the points of
cambric needles, and you couldn’t hear nothing but the shudders of ‘em….
the house trembled, the lights danced, the walls shuck, the sky split,
the ground rocked — heavens and earth, creation, sweet potatoes, Moses,
ninepences, glory, tenpenny nails, sampson in a ‘simmon tree—Bang!!!....
With that bang he lifted himself bodily into the air, and he come down
with his knees, fingers, toes, elbows and his nose, striking every
single solitary key on the pianner at the same time…
'i knowed no more that evening.'
Kip W
off to bed
jrsnfld
> On Mar 21, 2:59 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> alot of verbiage...>>
>
> hey, this list is a crock of shit, no matter what you say.
Yep. The list gives off a bad odor. A wasted opportunity. They
could've had some very interesting results if they'd sampled more
carefully, phrased the questions better, and tallied the results more
meaningfully. But then, I'll never know for sure, because I'll never
buy the magazine and read the article for myself. If it falls into my
hands, though, I'd definitely be interested in seeing who said what on
that list.
For instance, I'm not surprised Dudamel mentioned Bernstein, and not
Reiner. You probably won't believe me, but I'll bet the Dude has not
heard much of Reiner. Same with Colin Davis--no Reiner amongst his
choices, but he likes Boult! Surprised? I am not. How many Reiner
recordings has Sir Colin bothered to hear in the last few decades?
Probably none.
This is a problem with such a list (which you dismissed earlier):
professional conductors don't actually spend that much time studying
the legacies of a wide range of conductors. They have scores to study,
mentors to follow, concerts to prepare. I'd rather conductors spent
time in the library reading poetry or out living life than locked up
with a stereo and a bunch of treasured Reiner recordings.
I'd wager that a poll of American conductors would put Reiner in the
top 20 at least, maybe the top 10 along with Toscanini and Szell and
who knows, maybe Solti, Boulez, MTT, and Gunther Schuller too.
Bernstein might be numero uno by a wide margin, but Carlos would be in
the hunt too.
>
> Furtwangler is definitely of the traditional ultra-romantic approach,
> with its various characeristics...he does not have too many followers
> - Toscanini and Weingartner had many, many, who made huge and
> successful careers.
If Furtwaengler was definitely of some tradition, then why doesn't his
conducting remind us more of Karl Muck, Felix Weingartner, Gabriel
Pierne, (Max) Fiedler, Albert Coates, Willem Mengelberg, Hans
Pfitzner, Richard Strauss, Oskar Fried, Monteux, Arthur Nikisch,
Landon Ronald, Bruno Walter, Walter Damrosch, Hamilton Harty,
Stokowski, Toscanini, or other elders represented in recordings? Are
you referring to some tradition that predates the recorded era? If so,
it seems like guesswork to figure out what tradition Furtwaengler
represented--other than his unique style. We hear superficial
connections to some of those named above, but the way Furtwaengler
shaped the arc of the music, the way he built chords from the ground
up, the way he periodically locked into rhythmic essence, indulged
various voices the freedom to create a riot of counterpoint, and dwelt
on colors that expressed harmonic tension, all at once, seems unlike
any of the above. He stands outside tradition and embraces it all at
once. The Furtwaengler style is too distinct to reduce to a popular,
overused label. Same with Toscanini.
>
> Reiner excelled at a large range of repertoire, perhaps unmatched. so
> did Pierre Monteux. these guys "got it right" with remarkable
> consistency.
That's ambiguous. If you mean Reiner's repertoire was large and
therefore unmatched--no way. Compare to Monteux, for instance. If you
mean he excelled at a larger range than anyone else--again, compare to
Monteux, and that's just one example. Either way, "unmatched is the
wrong word if you're also saying "so did Pierre Monteux". This alone
invalidates Still's statement--or at least shows you don't agree with
Reiner's status as "head and shoulders" above everyone else Still
worked with.
If you like Reiner as much as I do then you feel he very rarely "got
it wrong". But his range was no better than Toscanini's or Szell's,
for starters, neither of whom was famed for "range" late in their
careers yet both of whom were equally consistent (assuming you have
any affinity for them at all--a subjective condition, of course).
>
> Still knows what he's talking about....you can agree or disagree. I
> couldn't care less.
That's healthy! You shouldn't care what I think, nor what Still thinks
either. Nor should I care what you think, and I doubt Still would care
what either of us thinks, having reached the age of 90 by thinking for
himself! I continue to believe he was one of the greatest oboists.
--Jeff
Gerard
Thanks for the details given.
I think that the order on that list has no meaning.
What do we know about how many times one of the listed conductors was
'nominated'?
Was no.1 (Kleiber) nominated 50 times and no.20 (Mackerras) 10 times?
Or was no.1 nominated 8 times and no.20 4 times?
What we actually have here is a list of important conductors, named by a group
of living conductors (some of them not being serious). We don't even know what
naming a conductor actually meant ("he was important"? - "I like him"? - "he has
influenced me"? - "I admire him"? - "he had a funny name"?).
That's all there is.
The list has no serious meaning.
[Discussing about the question
"who-were-great-conductors-and-who-was-more-important-than-who" is a very
different (and never ending) discussion - than discussing the results in this
list.
And the first kind of discussion has not much meaning either if it is done on a
forum or newsgroup like this.]
Ed Romans
>
> I think that the order on that list has no meaning.
> What do we know about how many times one of the listed conductors was
> 'nominated'?
Very quick scan through and rough counting! - Kleiber has about 34 or
35 votes. Bernstein has about 24 votes. Mackerras has about 3 votes
from Gardiner, Goodman and McCreesh.
I see 3 conductors who only made only 2 choices - Rilling chose
Bernstein and Leitner, Kreizberg chose Bernstein and Karajan, Gatti
chose Klemperer and Toscanini (I was wrong before, Pappano made 3: de
Sabata, Barbirolli and Furtwangler).
To answer early query Susanna Malkki chose Kleiber, Levine and Haitink
Ed
Heck51
fuck you, nazi scumbag. your input is spurious and irrelevant.
<< Furtwängler was an unique example of a highly
> personal style which was no doubt rooted in a certain school of music
> making, let's call it "romantic"
thank you my point exactly.
I have no interest in engaging in any micro-dissection of what Jeff,
Ray Still or you might be saying.
these so-called "polls" are of dubious value, to say the least...
Gerard
Thanks for your details.
Heck51
<<more verbiage.>>
I have no interest in engaging in any lengthy micro-dissection of what
you or Ray Still might be saying.
these so-called "polls" are of dubious value, to say the least..
<<I doubt Still would care
> what either of us thinks, having reached the age of 90 by thinking for
> himself! I continue to believe he was one of the greatest oboists.>>
I agree.
Norman Schwartz
Aside from his talents as a Musician, perhaps Stokie was CM's first 'Proty'.
However many rmcr Protys were also quite respectful in regard to CM.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:4d88c18d$0$17491$607e...@cv.net:
> Aside from his talents as a Musician, perhaps Stokie was CM's first
> 'Proty'. However many rmcr Protys were also quite respectful in regard
> to CM.
I suppose they're mostly harmless, but trying to blackmail another member is
absolutely unacceptable.
Norman Schwartz
> "Norman Schwartz" <nm...@optonline.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:4d88c18d$0$17491$607e...@cv.net:
>
>> Aside from his talents as a Musician, perhaps Stokie was CM's first
>> 'Proty'. However many rmcr Protys were also quite respectful in
>> regard to CM.
>
> I suppose they're mostly harmless, but trying to blackmail another
> member is absolutely unacceptable.
Certainly agreed. Such people possess vivid imaginations, and an ability to
cause harm likely part of yet another concoction.
M forever
> On Mar 21, 9:34 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> fuck you, nazi scumbag. your input is spurious and irrelevant.
Thanks for your constructive contribution. Yes, I do realize this has
no relevance in your musical world ("Simply Sinatra - A Salute to Ol'
Blue Eyes", "Holiday Pops Spectacular - A Star-Studded Holiday
Celebration", "Today's Broadway - Great Moments from Blockbuster
Musicals"), but it appeared you were still interested in the subject
in general.
> << Furtwängler was an unique example of a highly
>
> > personal style which was no doubt rooted in a certain school of music
> > making, let's call it "romantic"
>
> thank you my point exactly.
Not "exactly". The point both Jeff and me made was that while
Furtwängler was definitely rooted in a way of music making which we
might call "romantic" for want of a better term, there is no actual
single "school" of interpretation that could be identified with such a
term, and Furtwängler's personal style was first and foremost a
personal style, not representative in any general way of any kind of
"school" of interpretation.
That is a subtle, but important distinction because it explains why
his interpretations still attract so much interest. It is also why
many conductors still cite them as an important influence because it
is not a set of stylistic means that can simply be applied in
imitative fashion. Rather, it is a highly flexible approach to shaping
musical material in an organic way. It is the process which is most
interesting here, not necessarily the concrete results. Studying that
process is what interests musicians rather than just trying to imitate
whatever he did in given repertoire.
Hope that helps.
> I have no interest in engaging in any micro-dissection of what Jeff,
> Ray Still or you might be saying.
>
> these so-called "polls" are of dubious value, to say the least...
I think so, too, but you wouldn't say that is your pillar saints
happened to be the ones who came out on top...
M forever
I meant "IF your pillar saints", not "is", of course!
Heck51
<<alot of crap, as always.>>
shafer, you are clueless - week after week, month after month, you
belch forth your bullshit by the barge-ful...
pseudo-intellectual, faux-musical nonsense spewed forth in voluminous
quantities - and the less you know of the subject, the more prodigious
is your bs....
it's obvious that you take yourself very seriously, which is mildly
amusing - what is really humorous is that you think others do as
well...that is a real hoot!!.
get a life, himmler....