Leonard Bernstein conducting

[Peregrine]

His Mahler recordings are seminal works IMO. Also like his Rite with the NYPO, hugely raucous. The Mozart recordings with the VPO are pretty spot on for me as well.

[Solitary Wanderer]

I have his Schumann complete symphonies which are excellent.

I've heard mixed reports on his Mahler cycle 

[Mark]

Bernstein was one of the greatest conductors of our generation.  He had his weak spots (like everyone), but they were isolated and minimal.  He brought to conducting a vast knowledge of music from the perspectives of composer, pianist, scholar, conductor, and lecturer.

Despite my current prejudice against Bernstein, the above view (as posted by the member formerly known as D Minor) is one which I dearly wish I could hold in my heart, not merely acknowledge in my head.

And for those who'll enjoy attacking me on this one, do bear in mind I've admitted in my OP that I could well be wrong.

[MishaK]

That's the disc I refer to. I still maintain I've heard better.

That depends on what you mean by "better". That RVW 4th is about as good as it gets in terms of some real WWII fire and brimstone cacophony of battle. I haven't compared them head to head in a long while, but I would take Lenny over Boult or Haitink for that work.

[Mark]

That depends on what you mean by "better". That RVW 4th is about as good as it gets in terms of some real WWII fire and brimstone cacophony of battle. I haven't compared them head to head in a long while, but I would take Lenny over Boult or Haitink for that work.

Sorry, I was talking about the Tallis Fantasia. Haven't listened to Lenny's RVW Fourth in quite some time, so I can't comment there.

[Anne]

Bernstein was good in a Falstaff recording.  I think Fisher-Dieskau was in it.

He was also good in Shostakovich Sym. 7 w/CSO and Mahler all syms except # 6 or 7 (forgot which one - use Boulez instead).

[Josquin des Prez]

Everything i heard from Bernstein has been top notch so far. No complaints from me. I think his reputation is fully justified.

[Mark G. Simon]

Bernstein was strong in all kinds of repertory. Yes, he did wild and Weltschmerzy Mahler, but he also was very tasteful in Haydn, and very exciting in 20th century music. I would trust him to do justice to any music in his NY Phil period. The Vienna Beethoven cycle is very good, except he didn't seem to care what the vocal soloists did in the 9th.

[marvinbrown]

Bernstein was good in a Falstaff recording.  I think Fisher-Dieskau was in it.

  WOW Falstaff, I was not aware that Bernstein conducted a recording of that Verdi opera.  Funny that he should pick that one- its far removed from most of Verdi's other operas, well at least those that immediately preceeded it.

  PS:  I have the Abbado recording on cd and Solti movie opera on DVD, maybe Bernstein's take would be an added bonus to my collection, but then again its with Fisher-Dieskau  with Verdi  not sure I like the sound of that.

  marvin

[Renfield]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. The repertory you're apparently looking to enjoy Lenny in is, suffice to say, far from those recordings and performances according to which a lot of people (myself included) find Leonard Bernstein one of the greatest conductors of recent times; though not the greatest, as far as I'm concerned, who doesn't exist.

Bernstein's way with most pieces, especially prevalent in his later years/recordings, is profoundly emotional. In other words, he would draw out all the possible semantic content of a piece, the "sentimentality", the "mushiness", if you will, and amplify it ten times over. For some pieces and composers, this (in my opinion) worked astoundingly good. For others, it simply didn't.


The bottom line: listen to Bernstein's Mahler (earlier and later cycles), his late Beethoven and Brahms, and his Shostakovitch 1st and 7th. If, after that, you still think "he sucks", at least you'll have enough evidence to base your opinion on. And indeed, I won't at all guarantee you'll like his style, which is a quintessential example of subjective conducting! But it has its merits, and for some of us, it works.

In fact, "it works" is an understatement: I truly value Leonard Bernstein as both musician and conductor, and even bow before his commitment to both music, and the musicians that played it. This, however, is my personal view of him, while what is perhaps more useful here is your finding more evidence to base yours.

[Iago]

The reason their are so few forays into opera recordings on  Bernsteins part is that he simply didn't make very many. However;

Fidelio - With the VPO and Christa Ludwig
Der Rosenkavalier- Also with the VPO, don't recall the cast
Carmen- Metropolitan Opera, Horne, McCracken, Krause
Tristan and Isolde - Sadly, this one is to be avoided
Medea with Maria Callas, La Scala Orch made in early 50s
West Side Story, TeKanawa, Carreras, Troyanos, etal. Some consider that work to be an opera. I know that I do.

In addition he conducted at the Met Opera on several different occasions.
He did a VERY well received and reviewed Cavalleria Rusticana and Pagliacci, and a Falstaff.

But listening to him in the VW- Fantasia or the Sibelius Sym#3 is simply listening to him in his least impressive repertory. Try his;
Tschaikovsky Symphonies (the earlier recordings on Sony, not the DG)
Berlioz, Mahler, Schuman,Sibelius Syms# 1 and 2, Beethoven PCs with Serkin and the VC with Stern, Brahms Sym#2 and the Academic Festival Overture-Gets your tired blood very well oxygenated. And literally 100s of other performances of various works, by various composers with various orchestras. I'm sad that he didn't do much Bruckner. A Sym 7 or 8 under his baton probably would have been magnificent.

But you had to see him in person, in order to really appreciate him as a conductor, I don't mean in the manner in which he danced around on the podium (although NONE of that EVER seemed contrived or was being used for effect). A certain air of expectation preceded his every appearance on stage and the charisma which he left behind after every performance was palpable. Only Herbert Von Karajan was able to match those last two items. His intense involvement and deep commitment to the music he was performing was unrivaled.
But he smoked too much, drank too much and lived a "raucous" life. That's what killed him at a relatively young age (for conductors, that is).

[Mark]

The repertory you're apparently looking to enjoy Lenny in is, suffice to say, far from those recordings and performances according to which a lot of people (myself included) find Leonard Bernstein one of the greatest conductors of recent times ...

Good point.

The bottom line: listen to Bernstein's Mahler (earlier and later cycles), his late Beethoven and Brahms, and his Shostakovitch 1st and 7th. If, after that, you still think "he sucks", at least you'll have enough evidence to base your opinion on.

Another good point.

This, however, is my personal view of him, while what is perhaps more useful here is your finding more evidence to base yours.

Yet another extremely good point.

I think it can be seen that, pig-headed though I can be at times, I'm at least man enough to admit when I could be wrong. It is, perhaps, that what I'm expecting of Bernstein isn't what Bernstein is noted for. It might even be that because I've spent such a lot of time recently listening to about a dozen Herreweghe recordings and marvelling at his clarity of texture and style that I've lost sight of the fact that other conductors simply do/did things differently. I imagine even Abbado might seem a bit much for me right now.

So, I need to hear Lenny in Brahms and Mahler? If I can find time and money, I'll try just that.

[Renfield]

So, I need to hear Lenny in Brahms and Mahler? If I can find time and money, I'll try just that.

In Mahler,



[Big Gap - ]




and Beethoven if you haven't yet, and then Brahms.

(In my opinion.)

Apart from this, I agree with your (self-)assessment, for all my opinion is worth; and I still suspect you might not especially adore Lenny's work, but that's besides the point.

[Brian]

Mark, if you want your Bernstein problem cured consider his recording of Dvorak's Symphony No. 7:



The performance is deceptively laid-back, as Bernstein lets some fascinating detail and "inner" orchestra writing climb out of the climaxes; the music builds itself to truly powerful dramatic peaks. His finale is the only performance of said movement I can listen to without saying "oh, come on!": impressively paced, terribly suspenseful, and with an unforgettable coda that burns holes in the ears. The performance is coupled with some terrific Smetana odds and ends, though "Vltava (Moldau)" is horribly rushed (that shouldn't be a problem if you already know Wit's beautiful performance...).

[AnthonyAthletic]

I never could fully understand the Brahms piano concerto no.1, the 1962 performance with Glenn Gould.  Bernstein after such criticism and words banded around akin to 'what you are about to hear are not necessarily what the composer intended', a criticism on Gould's interpretation (which was bollocks by the way).  What I couldn't understand was the fact that Bernstein 'was going to conduct it anyway because he found it fascinating'  Was it more the lure of the dollar or did he really find it interesting, in interesting does he mean 'WTF is this'?  "This Gould's a muppet, but conducts it anyway because its fascinating"?

I couldn't imagine Reiner or Klemperer conducting it because it was interesting, interesting being a hack job by the soloist, but hey ho.

Player power indeed.

And the god awful Nimrod....going on seven minutes, Bernstein almost makes it symphonic.

Then I ask myself, how does any conductor make Tristan into a 5 hour 'give or take' opera?  5 cds on his eye opening Philips performance.

Then I listen to his Mahler, his Shostakovich, Sibelius, Ives and much more and the gap is readressed.  Like all great conductors, nobody has continual high points.

I would like to think his Nimrod was for Poju, even 71dB may agree that even Elgar's music can at times be made to sound 'ordinary'

Forgot to say, I like Bernstein....option 2 

[Larry Rinkel]

In general, I prefer the earlier Bernstein of the NY Phil/Sony era to the later Bernstein of the VP/DG period. Bernstein became very self-important in those later days, his personal life was unraveling, and he knew his creative days were on the wane. This maybe - maybe - spilled over into his performances, which often became portentous caricatures of themselves - as in the late Tchaikovsky Pathetique, the Elgar Nimrod, the Tristan, the late Mahlers, the Carmen and Falstaff (yeah), and others like it. I didn't get to hear him that often live, but one of my last Bernstein NY Phil concerts was a Mahler 2 where I left thinking that this wouldn't have been tolerated from a conductor at the outset of his career.

Except in his earliest days after graduating from Curtis, he was never an exceptionally precise, clean conductor. He was just that in what I think was his earliest recording, the Harold Shapero Symphony for Classical Orchestra. But more often when he found himself there was always a bit of a rough edge to Lenny's performances. Yet in some of his best recordings from the NY Phil period - the Eroica, the Berlioz Romeo excerpts, the earlier Mahler symphony performances, the Ravel concerto where he also played the solo part, the Haydn Paris symphonies - he was simply sensational. And he could achieve a hair-raising intensity few conductors ever matched, as in that Eroica funeral march (those horns!), and the live performance (in one of the 10-CD NY Phil historical sets) of the Berg Three Pieces for Orchestra, which may be the most intense performance of anything I've ever experienced.

[Larry Rinkel]

I'm sad that he didn't do much Bruckner. A Sym 7 or 8 under his baton probably would have been magnificent.

Supposedly he didn't like Bruckner very much. I don't know the commercial version of #9, but on one of the NY Phil historical 10-CD sets there is a #6 that is really super. Unlike Klemperer's (equally valid) more monolithic interpretation, Bernstein takes a swaggering approach to the first movement in particular that is just super.

[Daverz]

I think he sucked.

Why should I continue reading after this?  This kind of adolescent nonsense really brings down the tone of the forum.

[Xenophanes]

I have some recordings with Bernstein, mostly on LPs.  I must say I never warmed up very many of them, but some of that may be the sound, as I didn't like the sound of a lot of Columbia LPs (that may change with my current speakers). I like his recording of the Brahms VC with Francescatti and his recording of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. He was a very competent conductor and great when he was on.

[Lilas Pastia]

Mark, obviously  you're looking for a refutation and sincerely want to become a convert. Otherwise why would you bother to lose your valuable time (and ours ) with yet another idiotic poll?

Read Iago's pot. He got it right (can't tell about the live performances though, never had the privilege to attend a performance). So, judging strictly by the recorded evidence, Bernstein can seem a damning case of musical schizophrenia. Roughly, the two personalities come apart around the time he started recording for DGG.

IOW the Sony present Lenny, the DGG present BERNSTEIN. But there are qualifyers both ways of course.

Among the great recordings that could make a skeptic into a convert are those:

- Schumann Sy 1, NYP, Sony (forget about the DGG remakes, Schumann had become obese in the interval).
- Haydn: the Paris and London symphonies he recorded on Sony. Some better ones have come along, but these really started the trend and still have a unique degree of freshness and vitality.
- Beethoven: Missa solemnis: the DGG version - sublime!
- American repertoire: try his Copland, Ives and Schuman (different but equally valid wether it's DG or Sony)
- Bizet: Carmen on DGG 
- Shostakovich: symphony 1 and esp. 5 (1979 in Tokyo, on Sony). Many vouch for his Chicago 7th, but I never heard it .
- Poulenc: Gloria (Sony)

I think most of his Mahler interpretations served as a springboard for different and evolving views on the music (different from the traditional Walter or the individualistic Klemperer, for example), but by and large it's been superseded by better integrated or better played versions - Mahler interpretation is one area where quantum leaps have taken place in the last 40 years.

Brahms is one composer where obvious displays of affection can't hide a woeful lack of understanding of the music.

Similarly his Sibelius sounds really dated, either in sound (the NYP Sony discs) or in artistic vision (the dreadful Vienna performances). His Mozart and a lot of his Beethoven also present him at his hopelessly old-fashioned worst. Some of it has staying power, but that may be more a comment on the music than on the actual performances.

Odds and ends: Bernstein could be a surprisingly considerate and effective concerto partner and some of his efforts remain on the top of the heap: LvB piano and violin concerto (Serkin or Stern), his gorgeous Copland Clarinet concerto, and of course his inimitable Gershwin (RiB) and Shostakovich piano concertos (as pianist and conductor).