VAN KARAJAN WHY?
Heck
superstar thing.
I would modify a couple points - no way was Solti in way
any below or a lesser light than K, tho started later.
Bernstein, Solti and Herbert were the superstars of their
generation - long successful relationships with great
orchestras, huge recording discography, much sought after,
and recognized as the big 'guns'.
Solti and LB are two of my favorites. HvK does nothing for
me, but that's my own taste.
"But he was never mellow like Walter, and I have never seen
the attention to detail in Karajan that you can often find
in Walter (Walter's fault I think is that his mellow
approach sometimes lacked the necessary hard-drivingness.)"
Walter loved a loud, robust, brassy sonority - real "green
light" to the wind players. Many of his older recordings
are of poor sound quality, so this sonority doesn't come
thru. but try his Beet #7 ColSO, or his Bruckner 4,7,9 or
Mahler (any). Very brassy and full. "Mellow" is not an
adjective that springs to mind. Lyrical, vocal, long lines,
maybe.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
John A. Goodson
Stokowski but not Van Karajan. Therefore, I am unaware of what the
specialty of the man was. Could someone explain?
JAG
[No electrons were harmed in the production of this page.]
--"... it is an awful death to be talked to death..."
Ehrlich606
<kas...@intac.com> writes:
>
> I grew up among people who listened to Walter and Toscanini and even
>Stokowski but not Van Karajan. Therefore, I am unaware of what the
>specialty of the man was. Could someone explain?
>
>JAG
>
> [No electrons were harmed in the production of this page.]
>
von Karajan (ca. 1900-1989) was an Austrian, actually it's "von" Karajan. He
was a good conductor and he was also an extremely handsome, albeit short, man.
He was also terrifically ambitious.
He was touted as a kind of poster boy-wonder during the Hitler times, and he
got a break in the postwar period because of Walter Legge. K had no
"specialty" except to make records that would make a lot of money and as such
his partnership with Legge -- until the end of the '50's -- resulted in a
number of famous recordings, including a number of operatic recordings that are
still classics.
In trying to put a finger on what made him famous, I would say that good looks,
youth, very heavy promotion, knowledge of recording techniques, and
interpretations that were middle of the road but directed towards climaxes
which would hit you right between the eyes were important features.
I would say, in the '50's, he was the top European conductor, even though other
guys, Furtwangler and Beecham, were still alive. This was because both of
these conductors were regarded as a bit old fashioned, they both had rather set
repertoires. HvK, on the other hand, recorded EVERYTHING and he was young!
With his turtle-necks and Grecian formula #9 tousled locks, deep tan, and
sinewy arms, he looked almost _beat_.
Don't get me wrong. HvK was a good conductor. He knew the music. He knew
what would sell and he knew how to get it from his players. After awhile, he
had a "reputation", and then it was up to the players to keep up with his rep.
In terms of actual interpretations, he was a little like Toscanini, in the
sense that he tended not to fiddle with the score the way some others did
(Mengelberg or Stokowski), and his speeds were generally consistent, like
Toscanini, but unlike Furtwangler. On the other hand, he tended to go for a
rounder sound, not sharp and driven like Toscanini or Szell. But he was never
mellow like Walter, and I have never seen the attention to detail in Karajan
that you can often find in Walter (Walter's fault I think is that his mellow
approach sometimes lacked the necessary hard-drivingness.)
Anyway, by the '60's, through a combination of undeniable talent, tremendous
exposure, a truckload of recordings, heavy promotion, good looks (a kind of
German Leonard Bernstein?!) he was top European conductor, his orchestra, the
Berlin PO, was recognized as the best or close to it in Europe, and it built
from there.
First, his American competitors died off (Walter, Reiner, Toscanini, Szell) or
retired (Ormandy) or went to Europe (Bernstein, Munch) or changed labels
(Ormandy, Szell, Stokowski) and none of these guys were promoted in the 1970's
the way the Superb Herb was. The American replacements were not as good --
perhaps the word is not as eclectic -- as K, and some were I think worse
(Solti, Ozawa, Muti, Boulez, Mehta, Maazel). So in the 1970's K became God.
This continued in the 1980's, and, while there were conductors throughout this
period of course whose individual recordings were in almost every case the
equal or better of K's, no one recorded as much, or at least had as much stuff
cranked out, and no one had the charisma he commanded.
At his death, his role was taken over by Neeme Jarvi, who also has recorded
everything, usually poorly, and thus classical music came to an end.
Hence, people are usually interested in historical recordings. If you get from
this abstract that I don't like K, that's not true. Some of his stuff I really
like, some I don't like. But, overall, I don't think his recorded legacy
creates as much interest or satisfaction as a dozen other conductors I could
name. If you get from this that there is a large amount of hype in what makes
"great conductors" you are probably right there, too. At least in his case.
van...@my-deja.com
I'm Van. He's von.
If I thought you were interested, I'd suggest two or three biographies.
Regards
In article <5l83cs4donvirjat2...@4ax.com>,
John A. Goodson <kas...@intac.com> wrote:
> I grew up among people who listened to Walter and Toscanini and even
> Stokowski but not Van Karajan. Therefore, I am unaware of what the
> specialty of the man was. Could someone explain?
>
> JAG
>
> [No electrons were harmed in the production of this page.]
>
> --"... it is an awful death to be talked to death..."
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Raymond Hall
>
> I grew up among people who listened to Walter and Toscanini and even
> Stokowski but not Van Karajan. Therefore, I am unaware of what the
> specialty of the man was. Could someone explain?
>
affectionately known by some). He was certainly hungry as regards power,
but to quote David Wooldridge, " .. Conviction and sincerity are very
much a part of the make-up of Herbert von Karajan .... Szell is unlikely
to admit any flaw in his armour to anyone but himself .. but Karajan
will openly admit his mistakes to younger and inferior colleagues ...".
He treated his musicians very well and obtained good conditions for
them. His baton technique and ear were of the highest order.
A sad part of Wooldridge's book is that indirectly, he may have led to
Erich Kleiber's death. Karajan was powerful enough to recall the
soloists for Kleiber's Verdi Requiem in Vienna late in 1955, for extra
rehearsal of his Zauberflote at La Scala. Kleiber was left with a
scratch ensemble, and he made a gigantic mistake, " .. one whose
brazenness of miscueing a choral entry Beecham or still less a Sargent
would never have allowed themselves to commit in so exposed a fashion,
and one which, I have little doubt, contributed to Kleiber's sudden
death only 9 weeks later 29 Jan 1956. No mention of his death appeared
in one single Viennese newspaper ...".
A sad story, which is really unrelated to Karajan. In short, (and he was
short in stature, excuse the pun), Karajan was a powerful enigma, and a
great conductor. It is still too soon however, to say how he will really
finally be judged. Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
David Hurwitz
> I would modify a couple points - no way was Solti in way
> any below or a lesser light than K
Yes, Heck, he was, and the fact that you love Solti doesn't change this
fact. A few further points:
The "superstar" conductor of this generation in the USA was not HvK, or
Bernstein, or Solti, but Ormandy, who outsold all of them in the 60s and
70s, and who had a lot in common with Karajan in that he was a master
orchestral "colorist" who maintained superb orchestral standards, and who
was also accused of being "slick" and unexciting in much of the German
repertoire (unfairly in my opinion as regards Brahms, at least).
This focus on Karajan in the 70s is a little lopsided. In addition to
Bernstein and Solti, there were quite a few pretty major conductors still
active during that decade, including Bohm, Jochum, Kubelik, Haitink, Boulez,
Giulini--and some conductors were showing a lot more promise than many would
now feel has been vindicated, including Levine, Maazel, Muti and Abbado.
Karajan's reputation was limited pretty much to the "German standard"
repertoire, and was much greater in Europe than in the USA, at least to the
extent that Europeans perceived the Berlin Phil to be one of the few
continental orchestras that could compete in technical quality with the
American "Big Five."
This was particular important for political and nationalistic reasons, as
the second World War had not only decimated Europe's orchestras (as even a
casual listen to any European orchestral recording from the late 40s through
the mid-60s pretty conclusively demonstrates), but many, of not all, of the
best conductors and players had left as well. Karajan thus stepped into a
perceived "culture void" in much the same way that Toscanini had in America
years before, profiting from the economic prosperity of the German "Economic
Miracle," post-War reconstruction in general, and even direct competition
with the state-sponsored cultural policies of the Soviet Block.
This isn't to say he wasn't an extremely talented musician. He was. He
established and maintained extremely high artistic standards for most of his
professional life, and if many find his interpretations "slick", they were
also very rarely poor. The great irony of his career is that he was forced,
both by circumstance and his own vision of himself, to promoting himself as
a "German" music specialist, when his real talent lay in more coloristic
scores of the late Romantic and early 20th century periods. What we have of
his Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Honegger, Mahler (to some extent), Sibelius,
Respighi, French music, the Second Viennese School, as well as his
exceptional success with Strauss, proves conclusively that he could have
done many more amazing things in this repertoire. I would have loved to have
heard him in, say, Rachmaninov, a complete Daphnis, Debussy's Images, Dvorak
Tone Poems, Korngold and other late Romantic works.
Finally, there's another fact worth pointing out, one routinely ignored in
this very specialized, instrumentally focused news group. For much of his
career, Karajan was, first and foremost, an opera conductor, and
unquestionably one of the greatest ever. His recorded legacy in this field
is not only finer, on the whole, than his achievement in purely orchestral
music, but without question the most impressive ever left by a single
conductor.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
Tony Movshon
> Finally, there's another fact worth pointing out, one routinely ignored in
> this very specialized, instrumentally focused news group. For much of his
> career, Karajan was, first and foremost, an opera conductor, and
> unquestionably one of the greatest ever. His recorded legacy in this field
> is not only finer, on the whole, than his achievement in purely orchestral
> music, but without question the most impressive ever left by a single
> conductor.
"Without question"? No, sir, I don't think so.
Karajan made some fine opera recordings, mostly early in his career. His
mishandling of singers is legendary, and very few of the operas he recorded
(or rerecorded) later in his career stand among the consensus choices; in
fact, it seems to me that opera recordings tended to bring out the worst in
Karajan, as expressed in the Herbie Bloat (huge orchestral sound, poor
undervoiced singers desperately struggling to be heard, etc).
For me, the only certain "keepers" in his operatic output are the mainline
Wagners (Ring, Parsifal, Tristan, Meistersinger), the EMI Salome, the old
EMI Rosenkavalier, the Decca Aida and Otello, and the EMI Falstaff. In almost
every case I would rank others' higher (Solti, for one example, in almost
all of those named). HvK's early Mozart has its admirers, but I haven't heard
those; hard to believe they would be top choices. His later Mozart recordings
are so bizarrely unidiomatic as to be (to borrow a phrase) party records.
There may be one or two other operas I'm forgetting, but for me there is no
question that HvK's legacy of operatic recordings is surely large, but
largely second-rate. His forte was the concert hall, not the opera recording
studio. (I would parenthetically note that live in the opera house he could
often be superb; but it's the recorded legacy that's the topic here).
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Dgable6
Karajan's Debussy! Now there's a horrifying thought.
-david gable
David Hurwitz
> "Without question"? No, sir, I don't think so.
>
> Karajan made some fine opera recordings, mostly early in his career. His
> mishandling of singers is legendary, and very few of the operas he
recorded
> (or rerecorded) later in his career stand among the consensus choices; in
> fact, it seems to me that opera recordings tended to bring out the worst
in
> Karajan, as expressed in the Herbie Bloat (huge orchestral sound, poor
> undervoiced singers desperately struggling to be heard, etc).
>
> For me, the only certain "keepers" in his operatic output are the mainline
> Wagners (Ring, Parsifal, Tristan, Meistersinger), the EMI Salome, the old
> EMI Rosenkavalier, the Decca Aida and Otello, and the EMI Falstaff. In
almost
> every case I would rank others' higher (Solti, for one example, in almost
> all of those named). HvK's early Mozart has its admirers, but I haven't
heard
> those; hard to believe they would be top choices. His later Mozart
recordings
> are so bizarrely unidiomatic as to be (to borrow a phrase) party records.
Bzzzzzzz. Wrong. No points. In the first place, I'd be the first to admit
that Karajan made a few duds, and his Mozart is certainly controversial (but
then again, so is Solti's), but his reputation as a "singer killer" is
vastly over-rated. In fact, I can't think of a single singer whose career he
"ruined" with the notable exception of Katia Ricciarelli, who
self-destructed as much with Claudio Abbado (Aida) and a whole slew of other
conductors as well. The only other outside choice might be Helga Dernesch,
whose principal fault is the fact that she is not Nilsson. Who should
Karajan have used in the late 60s and 70s? Nilsson was under contract to
Decca, and by the mid 70s nearing retirement. There was no one else. These
two cases aside, I challenge you to come up with a list of Karajan
casualties.
Karajan was beloved, truly and well, by a huge number of world-class singers
whose voices survived him quite easily, thank you, including Christa Ludwig,
Pavarotti, Crespin, Callas, Schwartzkopf, Vishnevskaya, Vickers, Mirella
Freni, Ghiarov, Price etc., all of whom made glowing public statements
attesting to their respect and admiration (which is more than I have ever
seen with respect to Solti). What's more, it's interesting to note that
Price and Ludwig, both of whom worked extensively with both conductors,
attest to seminal influence that Karajan had on their art (Ludwig in her
recent biography, Price in the interview in her RCA Edition), and don't
mention Solti at all in this respect (to the best of my knowledge). In
addition to the recordings you list, other "concensus" choices among opera
lovers include:
Puccini: Boheme
Puccini: Butterfly (both recordings, with Callas and Freni)
Puccini: Tosca (with Price)
Donizetti: Lucia (with Callas)
Verdi: Don Carlos (best ever four-act version, by concensus)
Verdi: Aida (EMI--grossly under-rated, with Freni in her prime and certainly
not overparted)
Cav and Pag
Verdi: Otello #2 (prefered to #1 for Vickers, especially)
Mussorgksy: Boris Godunov (best recording ever of the Rimsky version)
Strauss, Jr.: Fledermaus
Strauss: Ariadne aud Naxos
Humperdinck: Hansel und Gretel
Verdi: Il Trovatore (Callas and Price, live)
Strauss: Elektra (Salzburg Festival recording on Orfeo)
Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande
Bizet: Carmen (with Price)
The fact that you prefer Solti in the operas you list does not alter the
almost uniformly high regard in which certain of Karajan's Wagner recordings
are held, particularly the Ring, Meistersinger and Parsifal. You may have a
personal preference for one or the other of the operas listed above, but you
simply cannot say that these are "bad" performances, and every one of them,
with possible exception of the EMI "Aida" is a concensus choice for that
opera. Add this to the miscellaneous titles on your list, and the result is
a legacy that Solti certainly does not match.
Solti's Puccini (only "Boheme" in any event) has never been highly regarded
by anyone, his Verdi, the Price Aida aside, certainly does not compare with
Karajan's either as casting or singing, with the possible exception of
"Ballo" (which he recorded very well twice) and maybe "Don Carlos." But
Solti's Boccanegra? Traviata? Otello(s)!? Falstaff(s)? Rigoletto? He never
even touched Debussy, Cav and Pag, Mussorgsky or Donizetti. Personally I
think his finest operatic achievement is Schoenberg's Moses and Aron, and
while I love his Ring, Parsifal and Tannhauser, his Lohengrin and Tristan
(especially) are markedly inferior to Karajan's, and his Dutchman is
horrible (and talk about mis-casting of singers, Janice Martin??? Yvonne
Minton???), whole Karajan's is often cited as among the best conducted
performances (maybe not best sung) ever. Neither Solti nor Karajan did much
for Fidelio, but again, Karajan's is widely regarded as superior, and
Solti's late efforts ("Die Frau") suffer from the same general dearth of
great singers as do Karajan's.
No, both in range and achievement, Solti does not bear comparison to
Karajan. Furthermore, I am convinced that a great deal of the acclaim that
Solti received as an operatic conductor stemmed from his directorship at
Covent Garden, his relationship with Decca, and his attendant use of British
singers (the Geraint Evans "Falstaff" is a case in point), with the
inevitable Gramophone/Penguin PR axis that this inevitably entails. I
sometimes get the sense that the British press never forgave Karajan for
running back to Berlin at the first opportunity, and so extol his early
Philharmonia/EMI and Decca projects generally at the expense of his later
work with the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, especially for DG.
Evidence of this, of a particularly ironic nature, can be found in the
unusual acclaim and attention in the usual British press organs given to
Karajan's dreadful "Ballo" simply because it used the grotesquely overparted
Josephine Barstow, who barely managed to get through "Kiss Me Kate" around
the same time, let alone Verdi's opera. Sure, both guys did better work
earlier in their careers (Solti no less than Karajan), but I don't think
there's much question that Karajan's casting and conducting are pretty much
superior to Solti's, when taken in toto.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Tony Movshon" <mov...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:38C1FD3F...@nyu.edu...
> David Hurwitz wrote:
> > Finally, there's another fact worth pointing out, one routinely ignored
in
> > this very specialized, instrumentally focused news group. For much of
his
> > career, Karajan was, first and foremost, an opera conductor, and
> > unquestionably one of the greatest ever. His recorded legacy in this
field
> > is not only finer, on the whole, than his achievement in purely
orchestral
> > music, but without question the most impressive ever left by a single
> > conductor.
>
>
him...@my-deja.com
contributors. I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, no other
conductor has excelled in recordings over so LARGE a range. Which other
conductor can you think of who has recorded classic performances of all
of these:
Haydn's Creation
Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra
Debussy's La Mer
Wagner's Meistersinger
Verdi's Falstaff
Mahler's 9th synphony
Cav & Pag
Bruckner's 8th symphony
Mozart's Cosi fan Tutte (50s EMI recording)
Strauss' Der Rosenkavalier
Honneger's 3rd symphony
Stravinsky's Apollon Musagete
Holst's Planets
Sibelius' 4th Symphony
Beethoven's 4th symphony (the one from the early 60s cycle is still
the best, IMHO!)
Puccini's La Boheme
...and so on. That's one hell of a range. (Of course, some of these
recordings are controversial, but that could be said for just about all
conductors of note.)
Many people dislike the smoothness of Karajan's orchestral sound - that
habit he had of blending different sounds together. But if you have no
personal objection to that approach - and I, for one, don't - then I
don't really see how one can deny that HvK was a great conductor.
In article <5l83cs4donvirjat2...@4ax.com>,
John A. Goodson <kas...@intac.com> wrote:
> I grew up among people who listened to Walter and Toscanini and even
> Stokowski but not Van Karajan. Therefore, I am unaware of what the
> specialty of the man was. Could someone explain?
>
John Carter
There is nothing wrong with this, but he did become over promoted over many
more thoughtful conductors with less photogenic images,. A HVK performance
seldom sheds new light on a work, nor does he explore far from basic
repertoire. He was a fine controller of an orchestra with a flair for the
dramatic and instinct for survival.
That being said, often his version is the "safest" to suggest to a new
starter.You know it will be musical, carefully judged if lacking in deeper
insights.
John Carter Barsoom
"Ehrlich606" <ehrli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000304200249...@nso-cr.aol.com...
>
> >
> > I grew up among people who listened to Walter and Toscanini and even
> >Stokowski but not Van Karajan. Therefore, I am unaware of what the
> >specialty of the man was. Could someone explain?
> >
> >JAG
> >
> > [No electrons were harmed in the production of this page.]
> >
>
Heck
K
"Yes, Heck, he was, and the fact that you love Solti
doesn't change this fact."]
No sir, I stick to my guns. By the same token, the fact
that you can't stand Solti does not make his achievements
any less than HvK. It's all opinion.
They were both towering figures, along with Bernstein, of
their conducting generation. There exists ample proof in
the many recordings, awards, reputations amongst musicians
that attest to the "greatness" of these three conductors.
Peoples' opinions will vary, but all three earned the
stature.
Ormandy is from previous group, I think; got started in the
early 30s.
Capel Cleggs
> Tony wrote:
>
> > "Without question"? No, sir, I don't think so.
> >
> > Karajan made some fine opera recordings, mostly early in his career. His
> > mishandling of singers is legendary, and very few of the operas he
> recorded
> > (or rerecorded) later in his career stand among the consensus choices; in
> > fact, it seems to me that opera recordings tended to bring out the worst
> in
> > Karajan, as expressed in the Herbie Bloat (huge orchestral sound, poor
> > undervoiced singers desperately struggling to be heard, etc).
> >
> > For me, the only certain "keepers" in his operatic output are the mainline
> > Wagners (Ring, Parsifal, Tristan, Meistersinger), the EMI Salome, the old
> > EMI Rosenkavalier, the Decca Aida and Otello, and the EMI Falstaff. In
> almost
> > every case I would rank others' higher (Solti, for one example, in almost
> > all of those named). HvK's early Mozart has its admirers, but I haven't
> heard
> > those; hard to believe they would be top choices. His later Mozart
> recordings
> > are so bizarrely unidiomatic as to be (to borrow a phrase) party records.
>
> Bzzzzzzz. Wrong. No points.
Oy. I prefer not to take sides in the Hurwitz controversies, but I must
point out that this is a discussion group, not a game show, and the above phrase
approaches rudeness, whether it's meant in fun or not.
> Karajan was beloved, truly and well, by a huge number of world-class singers
> whose voices survived him quite easily, thank you, including Christa Ludwig,
> Pavarotti, Crespin, Callas, Schwartzkopf, Vishnevskaya, Vickers, Mirella
> Freni, Ghiarov, Price etc., all of whom made glowing public statements
> attesting to their respect and admiration (which is more than I have ever
> seen with respect to Solti).
Whether singers liked Karajan or not isn't really the issue with regard to
the quality of his recordings, though. My problem with Karajan's opera
recordings, and I'm not alone, is that his preference for "smooth" and beautiful
sound often seems to override the drama.
> In
> addition to the recordings you list, other "concensus" choices among opera
> lovers include:
The following comments are my opinions, and not to be taken as a crack at
Mr. Hurwitz for liking any of the following recordings:
> Puccini: Boheme
> Puccini: Butterfly (both recordings, with Callas and Freni)
Both recordings rather bloated and overdone to my ears; lovely sound *qua*
sound but without much tension.
> Verdi: Otello #2 (prefered to #1 for Vickers, especially)
Ugh. #2 couldn't be preferable to anything, simply because of the horrid,
unmusical, disfiguring cuts made by Karajan (especially the one in the third-act
finale). Anyway, #2 doesn't do much for me as a performance; Vickers is good
(though I prefer Del Monaco, shouting or no shouting), but Karajan is not as
exciting as he was in his first recording, Freni is a Desdemona whose voice, in
David Hamilton's words, "doesn't have the guts for the part," Glossop is a poor
Iago.
> Mussorgksy: Boris Godunov (best recording ever of the Rimsky version)
That's not necessarily a "consensus" view--posters on rec.music.opera
frequently refer to the often poor singing (especially in the Polish act) and
warmed-over conducting on this set.
> The fact that you prefer Solti in the operas you list does not alter the
> almost uniformly high regard in which certain of Karajan's Wagner recordings
> are held, particularly the Ring, Meistersinger and Parsifal. You may have a
> personal preference for one or the other of the operas listed above, but you
> simply cannot say that these are "bad" performances, and every one of them,
> with possible exception of the EMI "Aida" is a concensus choice for that
> opera.
You know, you're starting to sound a bit Samir-esque, what with this idea
that there are certain performances that are beyond the reach of adverse
criticism. And why exactly should one care about the "consensus" (whatever that
means) if one thinks something is a bad performance?
> Solti's Puccini (only "Boheme" in any event) has never been highly regarded
> by anyone,
Solti also recorded one of the worst "Tosca"s ever, that mid-'80s joke with
Kiri Te Kanawa.
> Solti's Boccanegra? Traviata? Otello(s)!? Falstaff(s)? Rigoletto?
Solti's first Otello (cheap on a Decca double) is, for me, a hugely
underrated recording. Cossutta is about as good an Otello as Domingo in Levine's
(to me) hugely overrated recording, and Solti's conducting is some of his best.
As for the first Falstaff, the "consensus" seems to be that it's a damn good
recording--for example, the reviewer in the Met Guide to Recorded Opera suggests
that it's the first Falstaff recording someone should buy. And, consensus apart,
it *is* a damn good recording to my ears, and far more entertaining (to me) than
either of Karajan's. I'm not a fan of the Rigoletto or Traviata, but they have
their admirers.
> (and talk about mis-casting of singers, Janice Martin??? Yvonne
> Minton???)
Where did Solti mis-cast Yvonne Minton? The only Minton/Solti collaborations
I've heard are her (magnificent) Octavian in Solti's Rosenkavalier (which, by
the way, I find superior to Karajan's) and her Second Lady in Solti's first
Magic Flute.
> I am convinced that a great deal of the acclaim that
> Solti received as an operatic conductor stemmed from his directorship at
> Covent Garden, his relationship with Decca, and his attendant use of British
> singers (the Geraint Evans "Falstaff" is a case in point), with the
> inevitable Gramophone/Penguin PR axis that this inevitably entails.
Solti seems to me an uneven conductor; he made some great recordings, some
not-so-great recordings. But the accusation of "British Bias" here seems to me
unfounded. First of all, Solti's operatic recordings started getting huge
acclaim *before* he was appointed at Covent Garden. (There were accusations that
he was merely a "recording conductor"--forgetting his many years running opera
houses--who got the Covent Garden job purely on the basis of his recordings.)
RHEINGOLD, for example. Solti's TRISTAN no longer has a high reputation (and
doesn't deserve a high reputation, IMO), mainly on the basis of the desperation
choice of Fritz Uhl to sing Tristan--but what people forget is that the Solti
TRISTAN received generally great reviews at the time, not just in the British
press (High Fidelity gave it a rave as well). And that's just before Covent
Garden appointment.
Besides, the British press was not particularly kind to Solti. The Penguins
like him (though they have a habit of dumping on a mythical "lack of charm" in
some of his very finest work, like the first Cosi and first Magic Flute, while
praising his blandest recordings), but he had a lot of troubles with the critics
while he was at Covent Garden. Among British record reviewers, Alan Blyth has
always had a habit of going after Solti (especially in Wagner), and let's not
get started on CLASSIC CD's Michael Tanner, whose hatred of Solti approaches
pathology.
As for the Covent Garden connection, remember that there was a certain
amount of resentment against Solti for recording operas with the Vienna
Philharmonic rather than his own Covent Garden forces (he only did three opera
recordings--DON CARLO, ORFEO ED EURIDICE, and his fine EUGENE ONEGIN--with the
Covent Garden orchestra). If anything, the "British Bias" worked against him in
that respect.
> I
> sometimes get the sense that the British press never forgave Karajan for
> running back to Berlin at the first opportunity, and so extol his early
> Philharmonia/EMI and Decca projects generally at the expense of his later
> work with the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, especially for DG.
This is conspiracy theorizing, pure and simple. (Besides, the Penguins love
Karajan's later DG recordings, giving constant three-star ratings to most of
them.)
Capel Cleggs
Tony Movshon
> > > For much of his
> > > career, Karajan was, first and foremost, an opera conductor, and
> > > unquestionably one of the greatest ever. His recorded legacy in this field
> > > is not only finer, on the whole, than his achievement in purely orchestral
> > > music, but without question the most impressive ever left by a single
> > > conductor.
> >
> > "Without question"? No, sir, I don't think so.
>
> Bzzzzzzz. Wrong. No points.
Toe to toe with DH, hmm, what a way to spend Sunday morning. Still ...
<rolls up sleeves>. The issue under discussion is not "I like Solti and you
like Karajan". It's your bald assertion of the "consensus" supremacy of
Karajan's opera recordings, as a group, over all others. I do not and
have never detected such a consensus. Karajan may have made *more* opera
recordings than anyone else -- though I don't know that, I am merely
guessing -- but a large number of them seem to me and to the reviewers
I read to have been duds. In search of "consensus", it may be interesting
to go down the line with Karajan, Solti, and the Rest to see who comes
out "on top". But I'll do this only with trepidation because I think that
finding a critical consensus is difficult (especially if you're going to
dismiss out of hand, say, all English critics because they don't match
your preconceptions).
A brief stop on the issue of singers:
> Karajan was beloved, truly and well, by a huge number of world-class singers
> whose voices survived him quite easily, thank you, including Christa Ludwig,
> Pavarotti, Crespin, Callas, Schwartzkopf, Vishnevskaya, Vickers, Mirella
> Freni, Ghiarov, Price etc., all of whom made glowing public statements
> attesting to their respect and admiration (which is more than I have ever
> seen with respect to Solti)
Solti, like Karajan, had both admirers and detractors in the singing
community. You may want to look around little more for comments about
Solti, since your reading seems to be a little one-sided. But even if
the Community of Top Singers votes 46-31 for Karajan over Solti, I will
cheerfully ignore the vote because I do not think that singers are the
best judges of the quality of operatic conductors; they value different
things in a conductor than I do as a listener.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite chapter and verse on
the issue of Karajan's treatment of singers. I refer you in general to
Osborne's biography, in which RO -- generally an admirer -- spends a lot
of time discussing Karajan's handling of voices and in particular his
frequent attempts to get fundamentally light-voiced singers (e.g. Freni)
to take on repertoire basically unsuited to their instruments.
Now composer by composer, in search of the "consensus" view. I don't really
think a consensus view is that interesting, but it is you who raise the
consensus issue in your blanket statement of superiority (I'll try to
keep my own preferences out of this, for now):
Mozart - Solti's recordings of the great operas are routinely among
the top recommendations; Karajan's never.
Beethoven - neither made a first-draw Fidelio.
Bellini, Donizetti - Karajan by default, since Solti did little in this
repertoire. But surely not Karajan over the rest of the world, except
when conducting Callas.
Verdi - a break-even. On the "late great" operas, I think Solti gets
more recommendations than Karajan for his Don Carlo (you're the only
person I've ever seen who regards Karajan's as anything like a consensus
choice); Aida's even, both get a generally good press; Falstaff
is even (both did wonderful early and routine late recordings); Otello
is even (Karajan's EMI one spoiled by the idiotic cut in Act III; Solti's
first recording not really top drawer either; his second is among the
unmentionables). Early Verdi, probably the winner is "neither", with a
few exceptions you noted.
Puccini - Karajan by default, since Solti did only Boheme. However, despite
occasional mention of the Butterfly and Boheme (usually by English critics,
by the way), Karajan's Puccini recordings are mostly dismissed as inferior
to others. The Tosca with Price is a clear winner.
Strauss - Solti wins across the board, with the possible exception of
Rosenkav (a draw, both guys did excellent recordings, though not Karajan
2) and Ariadne (a draw again, since no one really picks either).
Wagner - Solti by a nose, since his Ring and Meistersinger 2 are consensus
picks, though Karajan's are always honorably mentioned. Karajan probably
wins Parsifal, surely wins Tristan. Lohengrin, Tannhauser a wash. Did HvK
ever do Dutchman?
Some others and comments on Dave's list:
> Verdi: Don Carlos (best ever four-act version, by concensus)
Really? Every consensus view I know says "Giulini/Solti". You're the
first even to mention the Karajan.
> Verdi: Aida (EMI--grossly under-rated, with Freni in her prime and certainly
> not overparted)
"Under-rated" suggests this is not a consensus choice.
> Verdi: Otello #2 (prefered to #1 for Vickers, especially)
Ah, you think it's OK to cut Verdi but not Tchaikovsky?
> Mussorgksy: Boris Godunov (best recording ever of the Rimsky version)
I happen to like this one, too, but it's usually panned as hopelessly
unidiomatic, glossy, massive, etc etc.
> Strauss, Jr.: Fledermaus
Sure, gotta love that gala. Not much to do with Karajan, though!
> Debussy: Pelleas et Melisande
Did someone say something? I must have dropped off ...
> Bizet: Carmen (with Price)
Again, one that I like but which is routinely criticized as unidiomatic
"grand opera" Bizet. Solti's is certainly the consensus choice.
> No, both in range and achievement, Solti does not bear comparison to
> Karajan.
Looks pretty even to me (and remember, I'm trying to keep my preferences
out of this, and just distill approximate consensus choices).
> Furthermore, I am convinced that a great deal of the acclaim that
> Solti received as an operatic conductor stemmed from his directorship at
> Covent Garden, his relationship with Decca, and his attendant use of British
> singers (the Geraint Evans "Falstaff" is a case in point), with the
> inevitable Gramophone/Penguin PR axis that this inevitably entails.
Whereas Karajan, of course, received no benefit from his directorships
in Vienna and Salzburg, his relationships with Decca, DGG, and EMI, and
the simpering adulation of the Gramophone/Penguin PR axis throughout his
career? Don't be naive.
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
van...@my-deja.com
Not at all. His La Mer has been acclaimed for decades.
Regards
In article <20000305025654...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
dga...@aol.com (Dgable6) wrote:
>
> Karajan's Debussy! Now there's a horrifying thought.
>
> -david gable
>
Heck
alone, is that his preference for "smooth" and beautiful
sound often seems to override the drama."
Good point. I think that statement could apply to his
orchestral recordings, as well.
Simon Roberts
[snip]
: Wagner - Solti by a nose, since his Ring and Meistersinger 2 are consensus
: picks, though Karajan's are always honorably mentioned. Karajan probably
: wins Parsifal, surely wins Tristan. Lohengrin, Tannhauser a wash. Did HvK
: ever do Dutchman?
Yes, EMI in the 1980s with Van Dam (?) and co.
But I'm curious (not that I think it matters much): how is the consensus
David H. refers to determined? All magazines and Penguin-styule books
published in the U.S. and U.K.? In the English-speaking world? Are you
including Spanish, Italian, French, German, etc. reviews?
Simon
van...@my-deja.com
Regards
In article <89to65$rfe$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"John Carter" <jrca...@marcopolo26.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> HVK was a middle of the road conductor for a middle of the road
audience.
> There is nothing wrong with this, but he did become over promoted over
many
> more thoughtful conductors with less photogenic images,. A HVK
performance
> seldom sheds new light on a work, nor does he explore far from basic
> repertoire. He was a fine controller of an orchestra with a flair for
the
> dramatic and instinct for survival.
> That being said, often his version is the "safest" to suggest to a
new
> starter.You know it will be musical, carefully judged if lacking in
deeper
> insights.
> John Carter Barsoom
scou...@provide.net
Abbado to understand why,........
Scoundrel
Marksten
<< (big SNIP) Finally, there's another fact worth pointing out, one routinely
ignored in
this very specialized, instrumentally focused news group. For much of his
career, Karajan was, first and foremost, an opera conductor, and
unquestionably one of the greatest ever. His recorded legacy in this field
is not only finer, on the whole, than his achievement in purely orchestral
music, but without question the most impressive ever left by a single
conductor.>>
Bingo!
BTW - to say that Karajan's repertoire was in some way limited is very
misleading. Like many conductors (and other musicians), he limited his
repertoire in the last quarter of his career to those works he really loved. He
had the luxury of recording and rerecording the same works over and over
because DGG and EMI knew that every one of them would sell in sufficient
quantities to warrant their issue (not always the case in the classical field).
Interestingly, when DGG fought him on the project to record the music of the
New Vienna School, he financed the recordings on his own.
A cursory look at the 20th century works that Karajan conducted in his early
career is astounding. He also conducted many world premieres of such works.
Check out Osborne's excellent Karajan bio to see a more fleshed-out version of
HvK's attention to the music of his time. It puts a number of the oft-stated
canards about his being "limited" to rest.
Finally - for all the bitching about von K that goes on in this NG, one would
have to say that the few forays he made into recording, for him, unusual
repertoire (I'm thinking of the English music he did on EMI with the
Philharmonia) often had the effect of the public and critics wishing he had
done more. No Sibelius 3 for example. I would have loved to have heard his take
on Mahler 7 or Manon Lescaut.
Mark Stenroos
Jaime J. Weinman
> Wagner - Solti by a nose, since his Ring and Meistersinger 2 are consensus
> picks, though Karajan's are always honorably mentioned. Karajan probably
> wins Parsifal, surely wins Tristan. Lohengrin, Tannhauser a wash.
As long as we're playing the "consensus" game, I think Solti definitely wins the
Tannhauser sweepstakes--his Paris TANNHAUSER is routinely given as a top
recommendation (even by people who don't otherwise like Solti's Wagner). I don't
think Karajan even recorded it commercially. And as for Parsifal, I think the
"consensus" choice is probably Knappertsbusch 1964, but among studio recordings I've
seen more recommendations for Solti's Parsifal than for Karajan's (outside of
Penguin, of course).
Jaime J. Weinman
Jaime J. Weinman
> Some others and comments on Dave's list:
> > Verdi: Don Carlos (best ever four-act version, by concensus)
> Really? Every consensus view I know says "Giulini/Solti". You're the
> first even to mention the Karajan.
David said "best four-act version"; Giulini and Solti recorded the five-act
version (with the Fontainebleu act). I guess it's a bit like saying that Karajan's
first FIGARO is the best ever version without recitatives. :> (Yes, don't shoot, I
know Verdi prepared and authorized the four-act version, so it's not the same thing
as making heavy cuts...)
> > Strauss, Jr.: Fledermaus
>
> Sure, gotta love that gala. Not much to do with Karajan, though!
Karajan's first Fledermaus (with Schwartzkopf) also gets a lot of good press.
BTW, I wish Decca would release the complete version of the Karajan Gala
Fledermaus--the current CD transfer leaves off the ballet music in order to get the
whole thing onto two CDs, but a midprice Legends release could accommodate the
recording on 3 CDs for not much more money. Unfortunately, according to Decca's
website, only the Karajan OTELLO is slated for future release on Legends.
Jaime J. Weinman
Clovis Lark
> We are now blessed, globally, with any number of great orchestras. All
> they are waiting for is the giant interpreters, that seem so thin on the
> ground these days. Who alive today, can maybe join the "list of greats",
> such as the Karajans, Szells and Bernsteins, who were all undoubtedly
> members?
> Haitink? Giulini? Some Hipsters?
Boulez, Robertson. They are 20th c. specialists. But, the names above
were 19th c. specialists (a little late 18th c. dabbling). So there is
nothing wrong with that.
> Regards,
> Ray Hall, Sydney
David Hurwitz
> that you can't stand Solti does not make his achievements
> any less than HvK. It's all opinion.
First of all, I never said that I can't stand Solti. I feel that there are
very few recordings of mainstream repertoire that he made that I have ever
seen or believe to be regarded as among the best. That's doesn't mean he was
"bad," merely redundant.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Heck" <dgallaghe...@mediaone.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:0a2d0c2c...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com...
> [- no way was Solti in way any below or a lesser light than
> K
>
> "Yes, Heck, he was, and the fact that you love Solti
> doesn't change this fact."]
>
> They were both towering figures, along with Bernstein, of
> their conducting generation. There exists ample proof in
> the many recordings, awards, reputations amongst musicians
> that attest to the "greatness" of these three conductors.
> Peoples' opinions will vary, but all three earned the
> stature.
>
> Ormandy is from previous group, I think; got started in the
> early 30s.
>
>
>
>
>
JJ
>Mozart - Solti's recordings of the great operas are routinely among
>the top recommendations; Karajan's never.
Solti for Figaro and Magic Flute, perhaps, but remember Karajan's Cosi is
considered a classic, as is, to a lesser degree, his first Magic Flute.
>Puccini - Karajan by default, since Solti did only Boheme. However, despite
>occasional mention of the Butterfly and Boheme (usually by English critics,
>by the way), Karajan's Puccini recordings are mostly dismissed as inferior
>to others. The Tosca with Price is a clear winner.
I personally think the Butterfly is one of the great recordings, but that's
just me...
>Strauss - Solti wins across the board, with the possible exception of
>Rosenkav (a draw, both guys did excellent recordings, though not Karajan
>2) and Ariadne (a draw again, since no one really picks either).
Surely the Karajan Ariadne is a classic, far superior to Solti's effort.
Jon
David Hurwitz
> As usual on this ng, many good points have been made by knowledgeable
> contributors. I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, no other
> conductor has excelled in recordings over so LARGE a range.
There are at least three conductors with larger ranges than Karajan:
Stokowski, Bernstein and Ormandy. All three made at least as many "classic
recordings" of an even broader range of repertoire.
guit...@pacbell.net
>
>Karajan's Debussy! Now there's a horrifying thought.
>
>-david gable
>
If you are going to bash him (and "shout" at us, no less...), at least
spell the man's name correctly...Von, not Van.
David Hurwitz
one point rather conclusively. While there were any number of conductors who
I think vied with Karajan in terms of range of repertoire and quality of
result in orchestral music, in the field of opera, the only real competition
came from Solti. This isn't to say there weren't other guys around (in
Mozart or Wagner, I'll take Bohm any day over both of them, for example),
but no other conductors were able to record so much, over so long a period.
Although it may not seem so from the debate above, I have the highest regard
for Solti's operatic recordings generally as well, and like Karajan, I
believe that they constitute a more enduring (or more important) legacy than
his purely orchestral productions.
As with Karajan, some of this is to Solti's credit, but a lot of the reason
for their success (perhaps the majority?) must go, of course, to the
singers, and to the producers who assembled that casts in cooperation with
the two conductors. Take away Birgit Nilsson, and where are we with Solti's
Strauss and Wagner? In this respect, I believe that Karajan exercised
stronger control than did Solti, was a more "conceptual" conductor, and it
is for these reasons that I continue to believe that, taken as a whole,
Karajan's operatic legacy is more disctinctive (like it or not), of broader
range, and higher quality than Solti's. In any event, the two really do
stand alone in this field.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
<scou...@provide.net> wrote in message
news:38c2919c...@news.provide.net...
David Hurwitz
> <rolls up sleeves>. The issue under discussion is not "I like Solti and
you
> like Karajan". It's your bald assertion of the "consensus" supremacy of
> Karajan's opera recordings, as a group, over all others. I do not and
> have never detected such a consensus.
You raised the issue of concensus, "baldly" asserting:
"very few of the operas he recorded (or rerecorded) later in his career
stand among the consensus choices;"
I don't disagree, actually. This is true (as it is equally of Solti,
incidentally, particularly with respect to his "second" versions). We both
read reviews, lots of reviews, over many years. I do detect such a concensus
with respect to many (if not all) of the recordings I listed (very few of
which qualify as particularly "late," by which I mean the digital DG
efforts, principally). As to why you haven't detected this concensus, well,
you can answer that yourself.
But I'll do this only with trepidation because I think that
> finding a critical consensus is difficult (especially if you're going to
> dismiss out of hand, say, all English critics because they don't match
> your preconceptions).
Huh? I do not dismiss all English critics out of hand because they don't
match my preconceptions. What preconceptions are you talking about? In fact,
you yourself claim that Karajan was as much their darling as was Solti
(certainly true of Osborne, who hated Solti), and I certainly agree.
> Solti, like Karajan, had both admirers and detractors in the singing
> community. You may want to look around little more for comments about
> Solti, since your reading seems to be a little one-sided. But even if
> the Community of Top Singers votes 46-31 for Karajan over Solti, I will
> cheerfully ignore the vote because I do not think that singers are the
> best judges of the quality of operatic conductors; they value different
> things in a conductor than I do as a listener.
I'd think twice about this last comment, Tony. If I sat you down in a room
with Christa Ludwig and you told her to her that "she's not the best of
judge of the quality of operatic conductor," she'd laugh in your face, and
rightly so. I've spoken to her about the relative merits of Solti v. Karajan
(and several other singers besides over the past decade or so) and the
"concensus" is clear. You're the big Solti fan, so why don't you look for
some singer's comments "pro." I've stated my evidence, and if you want to
dismiss it or disbelieve it, then fine. As for me, I'll cheerfully take
their opinions over your dismissal of them any day. And this is especially
the case when it comes to the issue of "downing out" the singers with
bloated orchestral sound, something which you as a listener have already
stated matters to you. These very same singers invariably praise Karajan's
sensitivity as an accompanist, while I have never seen the same accolades
given to Solti. Just the opposite, and this coming from artists who worked
with both. Dismiss away, Tony!
> I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite chapter and verse on
> the issue of Karajan's treatment of singers. I refer you in general to
> Osborne's biography, in which RO -- generally an admirer -- spends a lot
> of time discussing Karajan's handling of voices and in particular his
> frequent attempts to get fundamentally light-voiced singers (e.g. Freni)
> to take on repertoire basically unsuited to their instruments.
The fact that Osborne discusses this issue doesn't prove your contention
that Karajan was a voice-wrecker or that he favored "huge orchestral sound,
poor undervoiced singers desperately struggling to be heard, etc." This is
not borne out by the recordings, where the voices are invariably well
balanced against the orchestra (indeed, better than in many Solti
recordings), and the Freni matter proved conclusively that Karajan was right
is seeing her potential as a singer of much heavier roles than she had tried
previously. I'm still waiting for your list of "overparted" singers. I don't
think you'll find a single one who rises (or descends) to the level of
Janice Martin in the Solti "Dutchman" or Fritz Uhl in his "??? und Isolde"
> Strauss - Solti wins across the board, with the possible exception of
> Rosenkav (a draw, both guys did excellent recordings, though not Karajan
> 2) and Ariadne (a draw again, since no one really picks either).
This is wrong. Karajan's "Ariadne" is one of the classic performances, and
always has been, while Solti's has never enjoyed any particular acclaim. If
this is one of the concesus choices you haven't detected, then you haven't
been on the same planet as the rest of us. Karajan's Salome is also
generally regarded as at least as fine as Solti's.
With respect to the rest of "the list," I agree with you that Solti's Mozart
is more mainstream and generally regarded as superior than Karajan's (except
for that "Cosi"), but you concede that Karajan wins by default in Puccini,
Donizetti, Cav and Pag, and although you might not like some of the operas I
listed (also which Solti did not conduct) your personal dismissal does not
diminish the reputation they enjoy (I am thinking particularly of the
Mussorgsky and Debussy).
I can accept a "tie" in Verdi (I still believe Karajan's to be superior to
Solti's in just about every respect, and especially in terms of pure
conducting and orchestral playing, singing aside; how can you compare the
Rome Opera Orchestra to the Vienna or Berlin Philharmonics in "Aida?"). I
also believe that things are pretty even in Wagner. Even if you prefer
Solti's Ring and his (to my mind near definitive "Paris" Tannhauser),
Karajan has much the better Meistersinger (better than either of Solti's),
Tristan, Dutchman, and Lohengrin. Honors are even in Parsifal, I think.
> Whereas Karajan, of course, received no benefit from his directorships
> in Vienna and Salzburg, his relationships with Decca, DGG, and EMI, and
> the simpering adulation of the Gramophone/Penguin PR axis throughout his
> career? Don't be naive.
Of course he did. I never, ever said that Karajan did not benefit from his
positions or from idolatry in the English press. But I was talking about
Solti, not Karajan. I simply point out that Karajan's later recordings, some
of which are good and some of which are not, were dismissed or discounted
for the simple reason that those were his "English" productions, while the
later ones were not, whereas Solti's career after the "Ring" was launched
from his Covent Garden base, meaning that he was given (in my opinion) a
bigger press in the review magazines that we all read than would have been
the case had he, say, remained on the continent or gone directly to the US.
In other words, Solti's publicity was in addition to, and not at the expense
of, Karajan's, and he was to an extent "set up" as a counterpole to Karajan
as a result of his Covent Garden directorship and his Decca contract.
There's nothing naive about this at all. Simply observation based on the
facts as I see them.
van...@my-deja.com
range does one need?
No offense intended, but there's a fair amount of "light music" in both
Stoki's and Ormandy's repertoire (credit both for their whatever
premiers...Stoki being more impressive in this).
Too, let's not forget the many obscure pieces in Stoki's (credit him for
his adventurous needs...and transcriptions).
There are holes in everyone's repertoire.To that extreme,Carlos Kleiber.
Re Stoki, I thought I read there was no evidence that Stoki ever
conducted a Bruckner symphony.
How 'bout Lenny and Bruckner? No. 9 is it for his Bruckner recordings?
Ormandy was lighter than many of the greats in both Mahler and Bruckner.
I believe Bruckner 4 & 5, and Mahler DLVDE are all that appear in the
SONY catalog.
We must look closer when talking about ranges.
Regards
In article <pBxw4.4926$Pq3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <him...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89tn0g$uhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > As usual on this ng, many good points have been made by
knowledgeable
> > contributors. I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, no other
> > conductor has excelled in recordings over so LARGE a range.
>
> There are at least three conductors with larger ranges than Karajan:
> Stokowski, Bernstein and Ormandy. All three made at least as many
"classic
> recordings" of an even broader range of repertoire.
>
> --
> David Hurwitz
> Executive Editor
> http://www.classicstoday.com
> dhur...@classicstoday.com
>
>
Tony Movshon
> > Solti, like Karajan, had both admirers and detractors in the singing
> > community. You may want to look around little more for comments about
> > Solti, since your reading seems to be a little one-sided. But even if
> > the Community of Top Singers votes 46-31 for Karajan over Solti, I will
> > cheerfully ignore the vote because I do not think that singers are the
> > best judges of the quality of operatic conductors; they value different
> > things in a conductor than I do as a listener.
>
> I'd think twice about this last comment, Tony. If I sat you down in a room
> with Christa Ludwig and you told her to her that "she's not the best of
> judge of the quality of operatic conductor," she'd laugh in your face, and
> rightly so.
Ludwig is a great and thoughtful artist, and of course I'm not going to
dismiss her comments out of hand. On the other hand, many singers are more
interested in a conductor who makes things comfortable for *them* than in
a conductor who tries to achieve an overall result that may sometimes cause
the singers some discomfort (I don't want to belabor this, I think the point
is well known). I don't for a moment think that Karajan was just a "singer's
conductor", but I'm sure we could both come up with a long list of
conductors beloved by singers who do not serve the audience so well as they
serve the singers. Shall we start with Richard Bonynge and go from there?
> You're the big Solti fan, so why don't you look for
> some singer's comments "pro."
Some singers were vocal in their dislike of Solti (Vickers and Bjoerling
among them). But I am aware of very favorable comments on Solti from other
singers; I'll just name Hans Hotter for one of a stature to put alongside
Ludwig.
> > I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite chapter and verse on
> > the issue of Karajan's treatment of singers. I refer you in general to
> > Osborne's biography, in which RO -- generally an admirer -- spends a lot
> > of time discussing Karajan's handling of voices and in particular his
> > frequent attempts to get fundamentally light-voiced singers (e.g. Freni)
> > to take on repertoire basically unsuited to their instruments.
>
> The fact that Osborne discusses this issue doesn't prove your contention
> that Karajan was a voice-wrecker or that he favored "huge orchestral sound,
> poor undervoiced singers desperately struggling to be heard, etc." This is
> not borne out by the recordings, where the voices are invariably well
> balanced against the orchestra (indeed, better than in many Solti
> recordings), and the Freni matter proved conclusively that Karajan was right
> is seeing her potential as a singer of much heavier roles than she had tried
> previously. I'm still waiting for your list of "overparted" singers. I don't
> think you'll find a single one who rises (or descends) to the level of
> Janice Martin in the Solti "Dutchman" or Fritz Uhl in his "??? und Isolde"
I hardly think that Solti can be held responsible for those two bits of
casting genius. But I don't think many would agree with you that Karajan
was correct to judge Freni's voice fit for the dramatic soprano repertoire.
Certainly Freni wouldn't (I take Osborne's word for this).
> > Strauss - Solti wins across the board, with the possible exception of
> > Rosenkav (a draw, both guys did excellent recordings, though not Karajan
> > 2) and Ariadne (a draw again, since no one really picks either).
>
> This is wrong. Karajan's "Ariadne" is one of the classic performances, and
> always has been, while Solti's has never enjoyed any particular acclaim. If
> this is one of the concesus choices you haven't detected, then you haven't
> been on the same planet as the rest of us. Karajan's Salome is also
> generally regarded as at least as fine as Solti's.
I certainly find it so, but it's not usually the #1 pick.
> I
> also believe that things are pretty even in Wagner. Even if you prefer
> Solti's Ring and his (to my mind near definitive "Paris" Tannhauser),
> Karajan has much the better Meistersinger (better than either of Solti's),
Have to disagree with you here, if only because of Adam's vocally
disastrous Hans Sachs. Conducting is fine, orchestra is wonderful (but very
poorly balanced -- the singers dominate absurdly). (I assume we're talking
about the 1970 studio rec and not the 1951 Bayreuth).
> Honors are even in Parsifal, I think.
I prefer Karajan here, but they're both fine.
If we're scoring points, we both forgot Onegin, of which Solti is one of
the classic recommendations. Use that to cancel the Karajan Boris.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I have to confess a perverse admiration
for Karajan's Vienna Figaro. My dark side showing again, no doubt.
As you implied in a separate post, the fact that we can have the
discussion proves the point that neither of these guys is the
undisputed champ of whatever arena we're in.
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
Simon Roberts
: > Solti, like Karajan, had both admirers and detractors in the singing
: > community. You may want to look around little more for comments about
: > Solti, since your reading seems to be a little one-sided. But even if
: > the Community of Top Singers votes 46-31 for Karajan over Solti, I will
: > cheerfully ignore the vote because I do not think that singers are the
: > best judges of the quality of operatic conductors; they value different
: > things in a conductor than I do as a listener.
: I'd think twice about this last comment, Tony. If I sat you down in a room
: with Christa Ludwig and you told her to her that "she's not the best of
: judge of the quality of operatic conductor," she'd laugh in your face, and
: rightly so.
Since the issue at hand is whether singers are good judges of conductors,
that fact that a singer would laugh in Tony's face at his suggestion that
they aren't merely begs the question. Surely Tony is right that singers
judge conductors by different criteria: I've read any number of favorable
comments by singers about Karajan, focusing on two abilities in
particular: his ability to follow them rather than vice versa and his
ability to control the volume of sound made by the orchestra so that they
don't get swamped. Such is the perspective of a singer, and presumably
they know what they're talking about. But they don't know more than the
rest of us in terms of judging whether Karajan's performance of x is
better than Solti's.
For my part I'm closer to David H's view, tending to find Karajan's
conducting more distinctive, his orchestral sonority more original (if not
always persuasive), his choice of singers more interesting (if
unconventional). When Karajan's "on" and the various elements all click
into place (e.g. Pizarro's aria in Fidelio), there's nothing quite like
it, something I don't think I would ever say of Solti, extremely good
though he sometimes was.
Simon
Jaime J. Weinman
> [Tony Movshon wrote]> Solti, like Karajan, had both admirers and detractors in
> the singing
> > community. You may want to look around little more for comments about
> > Solti, since your reading seems to be a little one-sided. But even if
> > the Community of Top Singers votes 46-31 for Karajan over Solti, I will
> > cheerfully ignore the vote because I do not think that singers are the
> > best judges of the quality of operatic conductors; they value different
> > things in a conductor than I do as a listener.
>
> I'd think twice about this last comment, Tony. If I sat you down in a room
> with Christa Ludwig and you told her to her that "she's not the best of
> judge of the quality of operatic conductor," she'd laugh in your face, and
> rightly so.
Why "rightly?" What does it matter to the listener if a singer had a good
time working with Karajan, if the results don't appeal? It may be fun to know
about a singer's favorite conductor or favorite recordings, but it is not
relevant to the listener's judgement of the performance.
> I've spoken to her about the relative merits of Solti v. Karajan
> (and several other singers besides over the past decade or so) and the
> "concensus" is clear. You're the big Solti fan, so why don't you look for
> some singer's comments "pro."
Well, I wouldn't call myself a "big Solti fan" (some of his recordings are
among my favorites, some not), but I've read some "pro" comments. For example,
in Regine Crespin's autobiography, in discussing conductors with whom she
recorded, she has special words of reverence for Karajan, but also quite a lot
of good words for Solti. ("What good work I did with him," she writes.) She says
something to the effect--I don't have the book with me for direct quoting,
unfortunately--that Solti's insistence on long, tiring piano rehearsals paid off
in their ROSENKAVALIER recording when illness kept Crespin and Yvonne Minton
from getting together to record the final scene of Act 1. Solti recorded the
orchestral track and then had Crespin and Minton (seperately) record their
vocals--and, Crespin says, because of all the rehearsals, Solti had recorded the
orchestral track in such a way as to allow for her typical inflections, etc. She
pronounces herself satisfied with the way the scene turned out.
> I've stated my evidence, and if you want to
> dismiss it or disbelieve it, then fine. As for me, I'll cheerfully take
> their opinions over your dismissal of them any day. And this is especially
> the case when it comes to the issue of "drowning out" the singers with
> bloated orchestral sound, something which you as a listener have already
> stated matters to you.
Again, what does it matter what the singers think, if the aural evidence
says something else? If Tony's ears tell him that the singers are swamped by the
orchestra, or over-parted, then why should he believe the singers, rather than
his own ears? I don't think singers need necessarily be the best judges of the
way they sound to others, if only because they hear themselves "close up" while
others hear them from a distance. To take a sort of opposite example, Nilsson
tended to prefer recordings that emphasized her voice at the expense of the
orchestra; to my ears as a listener, recordings like the Decca SALOME have a
much more natural voice/orchestra balance. My opinion, not Nilsson's, is what
counts as far as my own personal enjoyment is concerned.The fact that Osborne
discusses this issue doesn't prove your contention
> that Karajan was a voice-wrecker or that he favored "huge orchestral sound,
> poor undervoiced singers desperately struggling to be heard, etc." This is
> not borne out by the recordings, where the voices are invariably well
> balanced against the orchestra (indeed, better than in many Solti
> recordings),
Unnaturally balanced is more like it--they're clearly "miked up." But it
doesn't make them sound less overparted. Here's a good quote from Conrad L.
Osborne in HIGH FIDELITY, reviewing the Karajan Gotterdammerung: "The recording
wizards can compensate for volume, but they cannot substitute an open throat for
a closed one, a free tone for a squeezed one."
> and the Freni matter proved conclusively that Karajan was right
> is seeing her potential as a singer of much heavier roles than she had tried
> previously. I'm still waiting for your list of "overparted" singers. I don't
> think you'll find a single one who rises (or descends) to the level of
> Janice Martin in the Solti "Dutchman" or Fritz Uhl in his "??? und Isolde"
I don't think Solti is to blame for Uhl. Nilsson demanded to record TRISTAN
by a certain time, and Decca had no one to sing the tenor role; Vickers wouldn't
touch the part at that time, and Windgassen wasn't available during the period
for which the recording had been scheduled. Uhl was pretty much the best they
could find on short notice. The funny thing is that Uhl got quite good reviews
at the time the recording was released.
> I can accept a "tie" in Verdi (I still believe Karajan's to be superior to
> Solti's in just about every respect, and especially in terms of pure
> conducting and orchestral playing, singing aside; how can you compare the
> Rome Opera Orchestra to the Vienna or Berlin Philharmonics in "Aida?").
Well, Solti gets pretty much the best out of the Rome Orchestra that they're
capable of giving; and a case could be made for their more idiomatically Italian
sound. (Similarly, I much prefer the Rome Opera Orchestra in Barbirolli's
"Madama Butterfly" to the VPO in Karajan's "Butterfly," simply because the VPO
sounds too darn lush and luscious.)
> I simply point out that Karajan's later recordings, some
> of which are good and some of which are not, were dismissed or discounted
> for the simple reason that those were his "English" productions,
Evidence for this? (It's always dangerous to ascribe ulterior, extra-musical
motives to critics.)
> while the
> later ones were not, whereas Solti's career after the "Ring" was launched
> from his Covent Garden base, meaning that he was given (in my opinion) a
> bigger press in the review magazines that we all read than would have been
> the case had he, say, remained on the continent or gone directly to the US.
> In other words, Solti's publicity was in addition to, and not at the expense
> of, Karajan's, and he was to an extent "set up" as a counterpole to Karajan
> as a result of his Covent Garden directorship and his Decca contract.
> There's nothing naive about this at all. Simply observation based on the
> facts as I see them.
But as someone else pointed out, Solti almost always got a mixed reaction
from the British press. It was Karajan who got the "idolatry," even after he was
no longer working with the Philharmonia or recording with Decca.
Jaime J. Weinman
Jaime J. Weinman
> As you implied in a separate post, the fact that we can have the
> discussion proves the point that neither of these guys is the
> undisputed champ of whatever arena we're in.
Quite so, but I was hoping you'd start some sort of ruckus over David H.'s
statement that he'd take Bohm over either of them. <Shudder> :)
Jaime J. Weinman [if we're looking for the champ of operatic
recordings, how about Serafin?]
Tony Movshon
> Tony Movshon wrote:
> > As you implied in a separate post, the fact that we can have the
> > discussion proves the point that neither of these guys is the
> > undisputed champ of whatever arena we're in.
>
> statement that he'd take Bohm over either of them. <Shudder> :)
Nah. He wore me out with the other ruckus.
> Jaime J. Weinman [if we're looking for the champ of operatic
> recordings, how about Serafin?]
In his repertoire, sure. Heard any of his Mozart or Wagner?
Tony Movshon
or Solti?
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
John Carter
singers sober and stay awake.
John Carter Barsoom
"Heck" <dgallaghe...@mediaone.net.invalid> wrote in message
> "My problem with Karajan's opera recordings, and I'm not
> alone, is that his preference for "smooth" and beautiful
> sound often seems to override the drama."
>
> orchestral recordings, as well.
>
>
>
>
Jaime J. Weinman
> "Jaime J. Weinman" wrote:
> > [if we're looking for the champ of operatic
> > recordings, how about Serafin?]
>
> In his repertoire, sure. Heard any of his Mozart or Wagner?
Isn't there a long-unreleased Serafin GOTTERDAMMERUNG with Callas, Di Stefano
and Gobbi? :>
Jaime J. Weinman
David Hurwitz
What ruckus? I raised the issue of Karajan as operatic conductor because no
one else had, and whether you like him or not it certainly was a critical
component of his recorded legacy. As for the rest, it was a vivacious and
intelligent exchange of views among people who have done a lot of listening.
That's all. I call that a "discussion."
Dgable6
The sheer range of Boulez's repertory is astonishing. He's conducted the Notre
Dame Mass of Guillaume de Machaut (b. circa 1300), operas of Rameau, Haydn,
Berlioz, Wagner, Debussy, Berg, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, countless world
premieres. In New York and London, his repertory extended from Gabrieli,
Schu"tz, Alessandro Scarlatti, Handel, and Bach to world premieres. Moreover,
when he was in New York and London, he made a point of seeking out interesting
obscure works by composers whose other works are standard repertory items. He
performed all kinds of obscure works by Haydn, Berlioz, Liszt, Schumann,
Wagner, etc. He's conducted virtually everything for orchestra by Mahler,
Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Varese, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Bartok,
Ives, and Messiaen. There is no way Karajan's range approached Boulez's.
-david gable
The Melsons
Mark Melson
>> --
>> David Hurwitz
>> Executive Editor
>> http://www.classicstoday.com
>> dhur...@classicstoday.com
>>
>>
>
>
Tony Movshon
> > Nah. He wore me out with the other ruckus.
>
> What ruckus? I raised the issue of Karajan as operatic conductor because no
> one else had, and whether you like him or not it certainly was a critical
> component of his recorded legacy. As for the rest, it was a vivacious and
> intelligent exchange of views among people who have done a lot of listening.
> That's all. I call that a "discussion."
Here in r.m.c.r, we call that a "ruckus". What the rest of the world calls
a ruckus, we call a war.
But to make a small ruckus, and having caught my breath, I'll dissent with
your estimation of the value of Bohm's Mozart and Wagner recordings. I've
commented before about his Ring, and I think his contributions to his various
Mozart opera recordings are much overrated.
What usually bugs me about Bohm is his inattention to rhythm, and to getting
his players to voice with rhythmic precision. I like my Mozart and Wagner done
with more crispness than Bohm offers. I can see his virtue in music where his
relatively lax view of rhythmic accuracy matters less, such as Bruckner and
(some) Strauss.
Brian Cantin
> Why can't I think of a single Rossini recording by either Karajan
> or Solti?
The possibilities are endless. Rather than exploring the tempting
possibilities, I'll provide an example (sort of):
Rossini/Respighi, La Boutique fantastique with the Isreal
Philharmonic. I have it with Ansermet's Nutcracker. The
Rossini/Respighi is absolutely horrible. Solti gets the
bit between his teeth and runs the music to distraction.
Add gobs of distortion and you get something I avoid hearing.
If you ever heard it, you probably forgot about it on purpose.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Tony Movshon
> Tony Movshon <mov...@nyu.edu> writes:
> > Why can't I think of a single Rossini recording by either Karajan
> > or Solti?
>
> The possibilities are endless. Rather than exploring the tempting
> possibilities, I'll provide an example (sort of):
>
> Rossini/Respighi, La Boutique fantastique with the Isreal
> Philharmonic. I have it with Ansermet's Nutcracker. The
> Rossini/Respighi is absolutely horrible. Solti gets the
> bit between his teeth and runs the music to distraction.
> Add gobs of distortion and you get something I avoid hearing.
>
> If you ever heard it, you probably forgot about it on purpose.
I had the opera in mind, but now that you mention it, there's a
very syrupy Karajan disk of the string symphonies, too.
Simon Roberts
: I had the opera in mind, but now that you mention it, there's a
: very syrupy Karajan disk of the string symphonies, too.
Aren't there also discs of Rossini overtures by Karajan?
Simon
Heck
feel that there are very few recordings of mainstream
repertoire that he made that I have ever seen or believe to
be regarded as among the best. That's doesn't mean he
was "bad," merely redundant"
DH - I hear what you're saying. I would simply come at it
from the other side - that I know of no orchestral work in
which HvK would have a preferred version. Doesn't mean he's
bad, his approach just doesn't appeal to me. Preferences
for one or another conductor are valid opinions, that
people may agree with or not.
To me, what is more fact than opinion is that Solti and Hvk
were both major conductors of their 'generation', and both
made huge contributions to the musical world. Differences
of opinion on their various merits does not diminish the
stature of either. Who was greater - Toscanini or
Furtwangler? Brahms or Bruckner? Horowitz or Rubinstein?
Heck
Who was greater - Toscanini or Furtwangler?
Furtwangler.
Wrong. 0 for 1 :)
#####
Brahms or Bruckner?
Brahms.
Yeh, I think so. 1-1
#######
Horowitz or Rubinstein?
Rubinstein.
Yeh, probably. 2-1
not bad 2 out of 3
:)
Raymond Hall
[interesting stuff snipped for brevity ....]
>
> This isn't to say he wasn't an extremely talented musician. He was. He
> established and maintained extremely high artistic standards for most of his
> professional life, and if many find his interpretations "slick", they were
> also very rarely poor. The great irony of his career is that he was forced,
> both by circumstance and his own vision of himself, to promoting himself as
> a "German" music specialist, when his real talent lay in more coloristic
> scores of the late Romantic and early 20th century periods. What we have of
> his Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Honegger, Mahler (to some extent), Sibelius,
> Respighi, French music, the Second Viennese School, as well as his
> exceptional success with Strauss, proves conclusively that he could have
> done many more amazing things in this repertoire. I would have loved to have
> heard him in, say, Rachmaninov, a complete Daphnis, Debussy's Images, Dvorak
> Tone Poems, Korngold and other late Romantic works.
>
I agree with the above, especially your reference to Karajan's real
talent lying in the later Romantic and early 20th century periods. It is
a pity he didn't record much more of this repertoire. As for Vaughan
Williams, his Philharmonia recording of the Tallis Fantasia is reputed
to be almost unsurpassed, and this is surely music which was made for
Karajan's more legato style of conducting, along with his superlative
Metamorphosen, both works for strings only.
As for European orchestras being decimated after the war, this is true
also. But a mention must be made for the Philharmonia of the fifties,
which was claimed to be one of the best European orchestras for several
years by several American commentators. True, it took some considerable
time for many of the European orchestras to match their post-war
American counterparts, and I think honours are back to pretty even
today. When I was collecting classical LPs, in the middle to late
sixties, it was always a boost to know that the orchestra was the NYPO,
Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston or Chicago (the BIG five). Fortunately,
for all of us, the Europeans have well and truly caught up, and the BPO,
VPO, Czech, Dresden, LSO, and many other orchestras, have matched, and
perhaps even surpassed many American orchestras at present. There isn't
much in it these days though.
We are now blessed, globally, with any number of great orchestras. All
they are waiting for is the giant interpreters, that seem so thin on the
ground these days. Who alive today, can maybe join the "list of greats",
such as the Karajans, Szells and Bernsteins, who were all undoubtedly
members?
Haitink? Giulini? Some Hipsters?
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
van...@my-deja.com
ame...@ix.netcom.com (The Melsons) wrote:
> Ormandy also recorded Mahler 1, 2, and 10 commercially.
>
> Mark Melson
>
Regards
van...@my-deja.com
tin roofs? *smile* Granted, Pierre is currently making up for lost time.
Still re what's been recorded on major labels, Boulez can't touch HvK.
He'd probably hafta live to age 150.
Regards
In article <20000305165428...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
Ehrlich606
>here are holes in everyone's repertoire.To that extreme,Carlos Kleiber.
>Re Stoki, I thought I read there was no evidence that Stoki ever
>conducted a Bruckner symphony.
>How 'bout Lenny and Bruckner? No. 9 is it for his Bruckner recordings?
>Ormandy was lighter than many of the greats in both Mahler and Bruckner.
>I believe Bruckner 4 & 5, and Mahler DLVDE are all that appear in the
>SONY catalog.
>We must look closer when talking about ranges.
I don't recall Stoki ever touching Bruckner. Lenny did #9, probably because
Walter used to do it. But Ormandy did Bruckner #7 at least twice (78's, RCA),
as well as #4 and #5. Ormandy also did Mahler #1 with RCA, and on CBS he did
Mahler #10 (reconstruction, of course), and DLVDE. He also did a recording of
Mahler #2 when he was in Minneapolis, probably the one of the first electricals
of that piece (Yes, I know the Fried acoustic from about 1923.)
It's true that in discussing range you are at the mercy of what is released.
It's sort of like ancient literature, where we put a lot of stress on certain
authors like Plato, Aristotle and Livy because of the happenstance that their
manuscripts survived over millenia. Who knows, maybe there were other writers
who were more prolific and better, but we'll never know.
That goes to recorded music because almost overwhelmingly we are at the mercy
of what labels choose to record, and release. I mentioned before that as far
as orchestral music is concerned you can see clear patterns going back to the
1930's as to who got to record what. Having said that, I think it is clear
that because they were all big money makers, Bernstein, Ormandy and Karajan had
a green light to record whatever they wanted and release whatever they wanted.
With regard to Karajan, the point there was simply to stress the extent that
his perceived greatness and/or dominance had at least something to do with the
fact that he was -- as far as I recall -- the only European conductor whose
recordings were released with great regularity, which means that he had a
constant presence. Again, this is not meant as a "criticism" but simply to
point out that if EMI had promoted someone else the way they promoted K, or if
DG had not made K their "flagship" conductor we'd probably hear less about K
and more about a whole passel of conductors whose ability to generate
perennially listenable recordings -- Barbirolli, Jochum, Boehm, Kubelik and I
am probably forgetting some others, but I am thinking primarily of those who
worked for EMI or DG -- was in my opinion greater than K's.
The other thing I would say is that I am not sure if the performance ability of
European ensembles in the '50's was really at such a lesser niveau than
American orchestras. I have a lot of fond memories of 1950's recordings with
the Concertgebouw (Van Beinum and Kleiber on Decca, Philips & Epic), Berlin PO
(DG w/ Markevitch, Rosbaud, EMI Beethoven cycle w/Cluytens, Brahms and other
stuff with Kempe), Vienna PO (Boehm's 1954 "Frau", Solti's Rheingold) -- even
Dresden Staatskapelle (Oistrakh concerti, Strauss w/Boehm) -- that sound pretty
good to me.
JJ
>
>The sheer range of Boulez's repertory is astonishing. He's conducted the Notre
>Dame Mass of Guillaume de Machaut (b. circa 1300), operas of Rameau, Haydn,
>Berlioz, Wagner, Debussy, Berg, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, countless world
>premieres. In New York and London, his repertory extended from Gabrieli,
>Schu"tz, Alessandro Scarlatti, Handel, and Bach to world premieres. Moreover,
>when he was in New York and London, he made a point of seeking out interesting
>obscure works by composers whose other works are standard repertory items. He
>performed all kinds of obscure works by Haydn, Berlioz, Liszt, Schumann,
>Wagner, etc. He's conducted virtually everything for orchestra by Mahler,
>Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Varese, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Bartok,
>Ives, and Messiaen. There is no way Karajan's range approached Boulez's.
>
>-david gable
Well, there are large gaps in Boulez's repertoire too. Has he ever conducted
any Verdi? or Puccini? operas of Richard Strauss? Has he conducted as much
Sibelius as Karajan? How about as much Mozart? or Brahms? or Johann Strauss?
What about Bruckner? Any Shostakovich, Nielsen, Britten, Tchaikovsky in
Boulez's discography? I love both Boulez and Karajan and don't wish to pit
one against the other, but I do take issue with your last sentence.
Jon
Brian Cantin
<snip>
> Who was greater - Toscanini or Furtwangler?
Furtwangler.
> Brahms or Bruckner?
Brahms.
> Horowitz or Rubinstein?
Rubinstein.
If you have any more easy questions that need answering,
just let me know.
--
Brian Cantin (filling in for Dan Koren in his absense)
Raymond Hall
>
> On 05 Mar 2000 07:56:54 GMT, dga...@aol.com (Dgable6) wrote:
>
> >
> >Karajan's Debussy! Now there's a horrifying thought.
> >
> >-david gable
> >
> If you are going to bash him (and "shout" at us, no less...), at least
> spell the man's name correctly...Von, not Van.
Well, firstly, it wasn't David that originated the thread, just simply
that the Subject header was never changed, secondly it is von and not
Von, and thirdly, from looking at the above, I don't see David shouting.
But obviously he doesn't like HvK's Debussy ;-)
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Raymond Hall
the orchestrally garbed bird tells me.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Marksten
<< Ludwig is a great and thoughtful artist, and of course I'm not going to
dismiss her comments out of hand. On the other hand, many singers are more
interested in a conductor who makes things comfortable for *them* than in
a conductor who tries to achieve an overall result that may sometimes cause
the singers some discomfort (I don't want to belabor this, I think the point
is well known). I don't for a moment think that Karajan was just a "singer's
conductor", but I'm sure we could both come up with a long list of
conductors beloved by singers who do not serve the audience so well as they
serve the singers. Shall we start with Richard Bonynge and go from there?
>>
To paraphrase Rossini - opera in voice, voice, voice.
I really can't understand this type of reasoning. Great singers have techniques
at their disposal that allow them to color words and phrases at will. A great
conductor understands this and knows that there are times that the singer must
be given their "head." (Didn't Berlioz say to conduct what you can and follow
the rest of the time?).
For me, the greatest conductors are those who work with their fellow musicians
as partners. Do we really need to have a bunch of Muti's running around putting
singers into a straight jacket? Don't the best conductors know to trust the
talents and artistry of their fellow musicians (ie: singers) to make the
performace take flight?
The great opera composers lived and breathed the voice. On many occasions, they
wrote operas for the talents of particular singers. Surely the best opera
conductors take their lead from the singers and make them as comfortable as
possible - that's the best way to get a great performance out of a singer!
I sang opera myself for years and know 100s of opera singers, many of them with
international careers. I don't know one of them who ever felt that they gave a
great performance while under "discomfort" due to the interpretive point of a
conductor - quite the opposite. In fact, most singers and conductors agree on
how the opera should go - it's the stage directors who are usually full of BS.
Mark Stenroos
Marksten
> or Solti? >>
HvK recorded a few of the overtures for both EMI & DGG as, I would assume, did
Solti.
Mark Stenroos
Dgable6
>is not only finer, on the whole, than his achievement in purely orchestral
>music, but without question the most impressive ever left by a single
>conductor.>>
Strongly disagree.
-david gable
Dgable6
>spell the man's name correctly...Von, not Van.
I know perfectly well how to spell Karajan's last name. I am not the original
poster and did not spell the heading above.
-david gable
JRsnfld
>HvK recorded a few of the overtures for both EMI & DGG as, I would assume, did
Solti.
Mark Stenroos<
Solti/Chicago recorded the Barber of Seville Overture, which graced
London/Decca's "Solti-Chicago Showcase" album in the early 70s.
--Jeff
Dgable6
>personal preference for one or the other of the operas listed above, but you
>simply cannot say that these are "bad" performances
Whoa!!!!! He "CANNOT SAY"? Who says he "cannot say"? He can say what he
damned well pleases. What's the difference between your personal preference
for these recordings and his personal preference "against" them? (Consensus is
not an adequate answer. Whose consensus? Journalist record reviewers?)
Personally, I haven't that much regard for ANY of the operatic recordings with
Karajan you mention or any others that I can think of, and I know at least as
much about opera as you do and I've heard at least as many recordings of operas
as you have, I am fairly certain.. At least you could mention something
interesting like v K's early 50's live Tristan. I'm not a big fan of Solti,
but I'll take him any day over Karajan in almost anything. I don't know who
said it better, Bruno Maderna who complained about Karajan's chocolate
Beethoven or Stravinsky who thought his performance were beautiful embalmings.
-david gable
David Hurwitz
> were both major conductors of their 'generation', and both
> made huge contributions to the musical world. Differences
> of opinion on their various merits does not diminish the
> stature of either. Who was greater - Toscanini or
> Furtwangler? Brahms or Bruckner? Horowitz or Rubinstein?
Tocanini, Bruckner and Rubinstein. Now aren't you glad you asked?
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
"Heck" <dgallaghe...@mediaone.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:1608af73...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com...
> "First of all, I never said that I can't stand Solti. I
> feel that there are very few recordings of mainstream
> repertoire that he made that I have ever seen or believe to
> be regarded as among the best. That's doesn't mean he
> was "bad," merely redundant"
>
> DH - I hear what you're saying. I would simply come at it
> from the other side - that I know of no orchestral work in
> which HvK would have a preferred version. Doesn't mean he's
> bad, his approach just doesn't appeal to me. Preferences
> for one or another conductor are valid opinions, that
> people may agree with or not.
>
>
>
Dgable6
>recordings, and I'm not alone, is that his preference for "smooth" and
>beautiful
>sound often seems to override the drama.
No, you are not alone in this. I totally agree. And there is a consensus
among those who dislike Karajan that this is the problem.
> Where did Solti mis-cast Yvonne Minton?
Conductors often have less control over their soloists than readers on this
newsgroup might imagine, Karajan being an exception to the general rule. So
you cannot automatically blame the conductor for the choice of soloist. I am
certainly in sympathy with Karajan for giving Ettore Bastianini the boot when
he showed up to record Iago and didn't know the part. This is not an operatic
recording, but Minton certainly makes a total botch of the last movement of Das
Lied von der Erde in Solti's recording with her. She does that odd out of tune
portamento thing at the end of every pitch. This is doubly odd in that she has
one of the most phenomenal ears in the business. I have a theory that she
isn't even conscious that she's doing it, but who knows?
> Solti's first Otello (cheap on a Decca double) is, for me, a hugely
>underrated recording.
Absolutely. Thrilling contribution from Solti and orchestra from beginning to
end. I'm not that while about the singers. Bacquier is well past his prime,
Margaret Price miscast (she should sing it straight rather than emulating the
expressive gestures of Italian opera singers). Cossutta makes a certain amount
of powerful noise, I admit, but his is a coarse performance, and he and Solti
are out of phase by about a whole measure for a stretch during the final scene.
-david gable
Dgable6
> I wish Decca would release the complete version of the Karajan Gala
>Fledermaus--the current CD transfer leaves off the ballet music in order to
>get the
>whole thing onto two CD
I'd rather have them cut the gala than the ballet. BTW this set used to be
available on CD with or without the gala.
-david gable
Dgable6
While this is true, it's only true because they have more latitude than
conductors. Singers are not the best judges of either conductors or stage
directors. For every fashionable idiot like Peter Sellars, there is a Peter
Stein, Wieland Wagner, Jonathan Miller, Werner Herzog, or Patrice Chereau. Not
that P.C. isn't prone to inexplicable and idiotic excesses, but he has a unique
gift for getting singers to act. Of course what the American public really
wants are overstuffed Hallmark Hall of Cards productions by Zeffirelli.
-david gable
Dgable6
>one point rather conclusively.
Sure, that they both knew the same two dozen standard repertory items. What
else? The question is not who did "opera" well but who did Rossini well, who
did Mozart well, who did Verdi well, who did Wagner well, who did Berg well,
who did Richard Strauss well, who did Pelleas well, who did Fidelio well.
(Some answers: Rossini, Abbado; Verdi, Toscanini; Wagner, Furtwa"ngler;
Berg, Dohnanyi, etc.) Would you similarly lump all of the symphonic repertory
from the Haydn symponies to Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, from the
Brandenburgs to Bruckner, from Berlioz to Debussy, from Beethoven to Ravel
together and say, who did the symphonic repertory the best?
-david gable
Dgable6
Absolutely. How could there not be? Not at issue. Nobody could possibly
conduct everything. Boulez had his "deaf spots," too, to borrow a remark of
Stravinsky's. But he had more curiosity about more repertory than HvK any day
of the week. As for his conducting Mozart, he probably didn't conduct Mozart
as often as HvK because he conducted less often than HvK and conducted a larger
repertory than HvK. Boulez, did, however, conduct more works by Mozart during
his six years in NY than by any other composer.
-david gable
Dgable6
>tin roofs?
In what piece that Boulez conducted were these sounds featured? Boulez caused
a bit of a scandal in Britain in the late 60's because he was scheduled to do a
premiere by a young British composer (David Bedford? Can't recall the name.)
The score came and it was entitled either For or With 100 Kazoos. Boulez
refused to conduct it and was trashed for it by some, so I can't imagine what
you have in mind.
Whether or not Karajan made more recordings than Boulez is not relevant.
-david gable
paulgo...@my-deja.com
dga...@aol.com (Dgable6) wrote:
Would you similarly lump all of the symphonic repertory
> from the Haydn symponies to Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, from the
> Brandenburgs to Bruckner, from Berlioz to Debussy, from Beethoven to
Ravel
> together and say, who did the symphonic repertory the best?
If this is a question, my answer would be: Leonard Bernstein has the
most frequent success with the broadest range of repertoire of any
conductor I know, including Bach and Carter, Beethoven and Milhaud,
Mozart and Stravinsky, etc.
--
Paul Goldstein
van...@my-deja.com
Sidenote. Most of my preferred HvK highlights are his EMI & DG 1970's
recordings with the BPO.
Bracketing, powerful 1960's and 1980's material exists, ie DG LvB (BPO)
and DECCA R. Strauss (VPO, reissued on DECCA Legends) for the '60s, and
R.Strauss, Bruckner, Mahler for the '80s.
The 1950's "battle of the bands" is an interesting discussion. My
Euro preferreds of that era are probably Concertgebouw and
Philharmonia.You probably hafta give them the nod for the first have of
that decade.
But for the latter half, reaching into the early 60's, I hafta go with
Cleveland, Chicago, New York, Philly. That was the heyday for American
bands IMO.
Also IMO, starting in the early '60s HvK and his BPO
appointment-for-life brought the Euro competition up several notches.
Certainly jet travel helped this along, making these formerly
inaccessible Orchestras quickly known in America.
Regards
In article <20000305190045...@nso-fj.aol.com>,
van...@my-deja.com
Varese sirens is another. That all aside, I like and own many Boulez
recordings.
Apart from the teasing about his High-Modern era, I will not tear down
one Maestro to attempt to build another up.
Regarding what was recorded, and how many recordings...this is important
on various fronts when talking about conductors legacies. Re the "what"
aspect of, I believe Boulez is now realizing this and performing most
admirably.
Regards
In article <20000306013604...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
van...@my-deja.com
the first sentence or two.
Re your other post about various operatic composers and the composers of
the Modern school in Vienna, and R. Strauss. Surely you jest when you
profess doubt about HvK's qualifications in these. I have to wonder
whether you're actually listening to the DG and EMI evidence.
Regards
In article <20000306013209...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
samir ghiocel golescu
> Tocanini, Bruckner and Rubinstein. Now aren't you glad you asked?
It stays as established by Dan Koren...
Ehrlich606
>In article <20000306013604...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
> dga...@aol.com (Dgable6) wrote:
>> >Yes, but who cares about people banging on cans, and cats scratching
>on
>> >tin roofs?
People, people: This is I think a reference to Bruckner symphonies, _not_ to
what Boulez may have conducted. The attributed remarks are variously to
Beecham, etc.
van...@my-deja.com
It's a common description for the less palatable atonal.
As memory serves from years ago, this description was for a EIC/Boulez
performance I viewed on a television program.
Lastly, I didn't learn 'til recently that there's something called Bang
On A Can recording for Philips.
Regards
In article <20000306131132...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
him...@my-deja.com
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <him...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89tn0g$uhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > As usual on this ng, many good points have been made by
knowledgeable
> > contributors. I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, no other
> > conductor has excelled in recordings over so LARGE a range.
>
> There are at least three conductors with larger ranges than Karajan:
> Stokowski, Bernstein and Ormandy. All three made at least as many
"classic
> recordings" of an even broader range of repertoire.
>
> --
Really? I have the greatest respect for all three conductors you have
mentioned, and it may be that I am not aware of their full
dicographies. But have they really recorded a wider range than
Karajan's? Without tediously listing things out again, I'd submit that
a recorded legacy that stretches from Haydn's Creation to Honneger's
3rd Symphony is astonishingly broad. I appreciate that there were many
conductors who didn't get a chance to record so much, but that does not
detract from Karajan's achievement. And it's not merely the breadth -
it's the sheer quality he sustained over that breadth that's
astonishing. Given the sheer number of recordings, the proportion that
were duds is small.
> David Hurwitz
> Executive Editor
> http://www.classicstoday.com
> dhur...@classicstoday.com
>
>
him...@my-deja.com
I was talking about recordings. I love Boulez the conductor (I'm sorry
to say that Boulez the composer goes over my head somewhat, but I AM
trying!) and don't doubt that he has a huge range as a conductor, as
you point out. But in terms of recordings, I really don't think any
other conductor sustained such a high level of quality across so broad
a range.
him...@my-deja.com
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: (edited)
> As with Karajan, some of this is to Solti's credit, but a lot of the
reason
> for their success (perhaps the majority?) must go, of course, to the
> singers, and to the producers who assembled that casts in cooperation
with
> the two conductors. Take away Birgit Nilsson, and where are we with
Solti's
> Strauss and Wagner? In this respect, I believe that Karajan exercised
> stronger control than did Solti, was a more "conceptual" conductor,
and it
> is for these reasons that I continue to believe that, taken as a
whole,
> Karajan's operatic legacy is more disctinctive (like it or not), of
broader
> range, and higher quality than Solti's. In any event, the two really
do
> stand alone in this field.
>
> --
> David Hurwitz
> Executive Editor
> http://www.classicstoday.com
> dhur...@classicstoday.com
>
Having disagreed with you above, I'm happy to agree with you on this
one!
Himadri
Edward A. Cowan
> I was listening to HvK's Dvorak 8 with the VPO on Decca today...a wonderful
> performance complete with wonderful, swooning string portimenti in the third
> movement.
>
> Any Karajan bashers out there care to tell me what's so [bland, mushy,
> homogenous...fill in the blank] about this particular recording?
FWIW, a friend recently expressed the view that the VPO/HvK Dvorak 8th
was, in its general style, very similar to the old NYPO/Walter recording
from 78s (not reissued on CD, alas!). I have clung to that old Columbia
LP for years and have hoped for a CD reissue. (Please, Sony!) Meanwhile,
what is the catalogue number of this Karajan recording? Thanks in
advance.
-- E.A.C.
Heck
I have a Walter/NYPO Dvorak #8 from 2/15/48 Live concert.
Is this the one you're referring to?
It's on Music & Arts CD 714. the performance is good, but
the sound is pretty bad. Fingal's cave, and Hindemith
Symphonia Serena are also on the program
Simon Roberts
: In article <20000306012533...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
: dga...@aol.com (Dgable6) wrote:
: Would you similarly lump all of the symphonic repertory
: > from the Haydn symponies to Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, from the
: > Brandenburgs to Bruckner, from Berlioz to Debussy, from Beethoven to
: Ravel
: > together and say, who did the symphonic repertory the best?
: If this is a question, my answer would be: Leonard Bernstein has the
: most frequent success with the broadest range of repertoire of any
: conductor I know, including Bach and Carter, Beethoven and Milhaud,
: Mozart and Stravinsky, etc.
If it were a question, and if that would be your answer to it, I would
agree.
Simon
Marksten
<< >- it's the stage directors who are usually full of BS.>
David replied:
>>While this is true, it's only true because they have more latitude than
conductors. Singers are not the best judges of either conductors or stage
directors. >>
I'll give you that one if you'll grant that record collectors are rarely the
best judges of what makes for a successful operatic recording.
Mark Stenroos
Marksten
performance complete with wonderful, swooning string portimenti in the third
movement.
Any Karajan bashers out there care to tell me what's so [bland, mushy,
homogenous...fill in the blank] about this particular recording?
Mark Stenroos
van...@my-deja.com
Regards
In article <20000306204849...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
Raymond Hall
>
> In article <pBxw4.4926$Pq3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > <him...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:89tn0g$uhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > As usual on this ng, many good points have been made by
> knowledgeable
> > > contributors. I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, no other
> > > conductor has excelled in recordings over so LARGE a range.
> >
> > There are at least three conductors with larger ranges than Karajan:
> > Stokowski, Bernstein and Ormandy. All three made at least as many
> "classic
> > recordings" of an even broader range of repertoire.
> >
> > --
>
> Really? I have the greatest respect for all three conductors you have
> mentioned, and it may be that I am not aware of their full
> dicographies. But have they really recorded a wider range than
> Karajan's? Without tediously listing things out again, I'd submit that
> a recorded legacy that stretches from Haydn's Creation to Honneger's
> 3rd Symphony is astonishingly broad. I appreciate that there were many
> conductors who didn't get a chance to record so much, but that does not
> detract from Karajan's achievement. And it's not merely the breadth -
> it's the sheer quality he sustained over that breadth that's
> astonishing. Given the sheer number of recordings, the proportion that
> were duds is small.
>
range even further. His Brandenburgs, which I haven't heard, are
supposed to be quite something ;-/
And then of course, even further back are his Vivaldi 4 Seasons.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Tony Movshon
> was, in its general style, very similar to the old NYPO/Walter recording
> from 78s (not reissued on CD, alas!). I have clung to that old Columbia
> LP for years and have hoped for a CD reissue. (Please, Sony!) Meanwhile,
> what is the catalogue number of this Karajan recording? Thanks in
> advance.
I think it's nla; it was available on one of the Decca midprice series
(Jubilee? Ovation? some happy name like that), coupled with his Brahms 3.
Just for Mark's benefit, I'll say that as a confirmed Karajan basher, I'm
very fond of that Dvorak 8th.
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
George Murnu
And I would disagree: Scherchen and Rosbaud come to my mind first.
Regards,
George
Dgable6
>most frequent success with the broadest range of repertoire of any
>conductor I know, including Bach and Carter, Beethoven and Milhaud,
>Mozart and Stravinsky, etc.
I'm tempted to agree with this, but there are a couple more like him, notably
Hans Rosbaud and Bruno Maderna. Of course, they were never cash cows for
record companies like Bernstein, Karajan, and Solti.
-david gable
Dgable6
>
I hadn't thought of Scherchen and you beat me to Rosbaud, but what about Bruno
Maderna?
-david gable
Dgable6
>Re your other post about various operatic composers and the composers of
>the Modern school in Vienna, and R. Strauss. Surely you jest when you
>profess doubt about HvK's qualifications in these.
I do in fact LIKE some of Karajan's recordings, including the digital
Metamorphosen. I am EXTREMELY curious to hear the 1949 EMI recording (the very
first one). I also must admit to having been shocked by the humility with
which HvK discussed his own coming to terms with Webern's music. He admitted
that he didn't get it at first and discussed the experience of learning to feel
it as music. I had hoped when the big Karajan 2nd Viennese School set came out
on LP that it would bowl me over. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad in
it, but I want my Berg Op. 6 smouldering with Rosbaudian intensity and
expressionism. I thought HvK would be particularly effective in the first mvmt
of the more cool, spare, and ethereal Webern Symphony and felt that the music
was so spare that it could only benefit from the sostenuto string lusciousness
he might bring to it. But it proved to be less than I had hoped for although
decent.
-david gable
Dgable6
>Varese sirens
Yes, yes. Varese's Ionisation. I'm not an enthusiast of this piece either.
(I seriously doubt Boulez regards it as major Varese himself.)
-david gable
Dgable6
>best judges of what makes for a successful operatic recording.
>
But record collectors (I HOPE) are in it for what the performance sounds like!
The singer has many perfectly legitimate agendas above and beyond the sound of
the totality. THe singer also has a peculiar relationship to his or her
instrument that other instrumentalists do not. They want conductors to be
supportive, and they don't want the stage directors to make them do too much.
Of course, stage directors are sometimes appallingly ignorant on the topic of
singing. I just saw Cosi in Orlando and I thought the production was rather
good and clever. BUT, both Fiordiligi AND Ferrando had to sing arias prone on
the floor. Moreover, stage directors don't like what they take to be "dead"
time. (What they consider dead time might in fact be filled with Mozart at the
height of his powers). Conductors are less likely to misunderstand the
singer's needs, but sometimes they do.
-david gable
Raymond Hall
>
> Marksten <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I was listening to HvK's Dvorak 8 with the VPO on Decca today...a wonderful
> > performance complete with wonderful, swooning string portimenti in the third
> > movement.
> >
> > Any Karajan bashers out there care to tell me what's so [bland, mushy,
> > homogenous...fill in the blank] about this particular recording?
>
> FWIW, a friend recently expressed the view that the VPO/HvK Dvorak 8th
> was, in its general style, very similar to the old NYPO/Walter recording
> from 78s (not reissued on CD, alas!). I have clung to that old Columbia
> LP for years and have hoped for a CD reissue. (Please, Sony!) Meanwhile,
> what is the catalogue number of this Karajan recording? Thanks in
> advance.
>
Have you heard the Walter/Columbia SO Dvorak 8th on CBS Maestro (MYK
44872), coupled to a stunning Wagner chunk Prelude and Good Friday
Spell? Good recording too, as is usual from this source (circa 1961).
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Edward A. Cowan
> Have you heard the Walter/Columbia SO Dvorak 8th on CBS Maestro (MYK
> 44872), coupled to a stunning Wagner chunk Prelude and Good Friday
> Spell? Good recording too, as is usual from this source (circa 1961).
Yes. The performance is good late Walter, but it lacks the drive,
especially in the finale, of the old NYPO recording (Columbia ML-4119).
-- E.A.C.
Edward A. Cowan
> I have a Walter/NYPO Dvorak #8 from 2/15/48 Live concert.
> Is this the one you're referring to?
No, the "classic" Dvorak 8th from Walter is his 78rpm recording with the
NYPO, last available on LP, Columbia ML-4119.
>
> It's on Music & Arts CD 714. the performance is good, but
> the sound is pretty bad. Fingal's cave, and Hindemith
> Symphonia Serena are also on the program
Sorry about the sound on that one. But the Hindemith looks like
something worth hearing...
-- E.A.C.
MSten4MHS
what is the catalogue number of this Karajan recording? Thanks in
advance.
>>
I have it in a 9-CD box from Decca that contains a lot of his VPO Decca
recordings (no operas). I also believe that these recordings were remastered
during Decca's "Classic Sound" period a few years ago. The set is still listed
in the Decca 2000 catalog #448 042-2.
Mark Stenroos
VP of Marketing & Catalog Development
Musical Heritage Society, USA
Thomas Deas
<van...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:89sg7d$602$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> I'm Van. He's von.
> If I thought you were interested, I'd suggest two or three biographies.
He might enjoy the Beach Boys - he has the patois down. (Caroline No)
Thomas Deas
*sounds* as distinct from emphasis, duration etc of those sounds. This comes
up e.g. in Beethoven Symphony 5/ii, near the start of Schubert
Unfinished/ii; also there are moments where he seems to get the
micro-architecture (?) right; in Bruckner 7, Grieg Solveig's Song he
produces small moments of magic which others seem to miss. It doesn't follow
that he's as good with the bigger picture, but I would always have some of
his recordings.
van...@my-deja.com
Along this line, I've enjoyed both Boulez' (Berg & Stravinsky) and
Karajan's (Webern, Berg, Schoenberg) reissues on DG Originals.
Considering the infrequency of Karajan's exposure to atonal, he
performed exceedingly well.In addition to those already mentioned,
Pizzetti and Honegger were recorded also. Some were more successful than
others, as you rightly point out.
With regards to learning, a musician without humility is a fool, and
setting himself/herself up for a fall.
Regards
In article <20000307042057...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
Heck
broadest range of repertoire of any conductor I know"
I'm not sure if this discussion is based on recordings
released, or works performed during career. Certainly
Bernstein ranks high in the versatility department, with a
high success rate.
But for repertoire performed - Reiner must be included -
big, varied repertoire, very highly regarded in wide range
of music - Haydn, Mozart, LvB; German, Russian Romantics,
French-Spanish Impressionists, great Wagner-Strauss, 20th
Century orchestral, Prokofieff, Bartok. Great accompanist,
Outstanding opera conductor, also; unfortunately, few got
recorded. I'm sure I'm forgetting a whole bunch, too
Monteux and Ansermet should be included as well. Remarkably
versatile, consistent conductors in a wide range of
repertoire.