Greatest living conductor?

[knight66]

Fine, I had not read right through, so did not know he was a late runner.

Do we need to worry about hanging chads and count transferable votes?

Mike

[Sergeant Rock]

Just shows how poll results can reflect the questions asked and the answers allowed more than the real opinions of those sampled.

There would be a more accurate result if, instead of a poll, the OP had simply asked, What three living conductors are the greatest, and then, after a few weeks, count the results. Would it be different though? The current poll results reflect my "objective" thoughts on the matter: that Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt are probably the greatest living conductors even though, as I stated in my first post, Barenboim is more to my taste in much of the repertoire.

Sarge

[DavidRoss]

There would be a more accurate result if, instead of a poll, the OP had simply asked, What three living conductors are the greatest, and then, after a few weeks, count the results. Would it be different though? The current poll results reflect my "objective" thoughts on the matter: that Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt are probably the greatest living conductors even though, as I stated in my first post, Barenboim is more to my taste in much of the repertoire.

I like the idea, Sarge...though, as you doubtless recognize, the result would tell us only which living conductors are most liked by current GMG participants.  I suspect Abbado & Harnoncourt would still come out on top.  Though both have some detractors here (so do Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart!), their greatness is generally recognized.  I've seen Haitink, however, dismissed by many as a competent but dull time beater, so I'm not so sure he would place as high as third.   It might be interesting to hear from the 5 (so far) who selected him.

And as Barenboim is more to your taste, so Boulez is more to mine, and that also has something to do with the repertoire they (and we) favor as well as with their styles.  Cheers, dude, and have a terrific day!

[DarkAngel]

There would be a more accurate result if, instead of a poll, the OP had simply asked, What three living conductors are the greatest, and then, after a few weeks, count the results. Would it be different though? The current poll results reflect my "objective" thoughts on the matter: that Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt are probably the greatest living conductors even though, as I stated in my first post, Barenboim is more to my taste in much of the repertoire.

I must again throw down the gauntlet.....why is Harnoncourt the greatest living conductor

He has huge holes in his portfolio of work especially opera and has not been appointed permanent music director of a major orchestra. He has spent most of his time specializing in baroque music and advancing original instrument practice only recently expanding to classical and romantic composers of Germany/central europe

If the question is who is greatest living baroque conductor then Harnoncourt could definitely be the one, but that was not the question.......what are his qualifacations that make him superior to Abbado overall?

[DavidRoss]

I must again throw again down the gauntlet.....why is Harnoncourt the greatest living conductor

He has huge holes in his portfolio of work especially opera and has not been appointed permanent music director of a major orchestra. He has spent most of his time specializing in baroque music and advancing original instrument practice only recently expanding to classical and romantic composers of Germany/central europe

If the question is who is greatest living baroque conductor then Harnoncourt could definitely be the one, but that was not the question.......what are his qualifacations that make him superior to Abbado overall?

Well, I'm scarcely qualified to answer your question, especially since I voted for Abbado, who would be my choice even if all credible candidates were among the choices offered in the poll.  However, let me answer what I can.

In the first place, Harnoncourt founded his Concentus Musicus nearly 60 years ago, starting the most significant revolution in classical music performance of the 20th Century.  His interest in and scholarship on period instruments and performance practice have arguably had more far-reaching influence than that of any other single musician of his time.  He may not have been music director of any of the world's most renowned orchestras, but I imagine many would have been happy to get him had he been interested in such a position.  Instead, he has pursued his own interests and goals and has worked with many if not most of the world's great orchestras, enriching and informing their practice, and in the process creating an admirable body of work in both performance and recording that most in his profession would envy. 

Hardly a baroque specialist alone, his legacy includes landmark recordings of not only Bach, but also of Classical and Romantic composers including Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms, and Dvořák.  No mere time-beater, he seems always to bring a fresh approach to whatever repertoire he tackles, making us hear even tired warhorses in new and exciting ways.  And I also suspect that if you were to poll the world's leading orchestra musicians on the same question, then Mr. Harnoncourt would likely place very high in their rankings.

[Renfield]

Despite being on something of a summer break, this thread caught my eye.

And, in short, I (also) confidently voted for Harnoncourt.


In more detail, I did so firstly because I am loath to consider any conductor not nearing the end of their career, in the event that at least one who is could qualify for the distinction (ruling out Rattle and Vänskä, to name just two). And secondly, because among surviving conductors nearing the end of their career that I might consider unambiguously 'great' in terms of their overall contribution to classical music, namely Boulez, Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt, it is the latter whom I think has offered most in total.

Boulez is almost unmatched in providing fresh perspectives to the works he conducts, particularly with regards to their formal elements. Haitink has impressive breadth of repertory, and can imbue almost anything he conducts with gravitas. Abbado has created the 'miracle' that is the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, and has lately entered that 'elder conductor' zone of introspective interpretation (think late Wand, late Karajan; late Celibidache, if so inclined) possibly more than anyone else I know, especially now that Mackerras is dead. Among other honourable mentions, Gardiner's scholarship and evocation of (various kinds of) awe might also have put him in my premier league, were his repertoire broader.

But Harnoncourt is special to me in his capacity to provide fresh perspectives, and imbue his performances with gravitas, and introspectiveness, and his having mentored a brilliant young orchestra (the COE). Not to mention his scholarship, and singular contribution to Baroque music.

More so, his approach is consistent, rather than hit-and-miss, to the extent that it weakens certain performances (too steely?), but never by making them feel lukewarm (cf. Haitink). And he has the guts to follow a glut of Bruckner, Bach and Schubert with Porgy and Bess. Hardly the profile of someone who only conducts within his comfort zone, with regard to DarkAngel's challenge.

Lastly, Harnoncourt would appear able to arrange conducting appointments with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra almost at will. To my mind, that is a distinction to rival any chief conductor appointment in Europe, or the United States.

[DarkAngel]

Well, I'm scarcely qualified to answer your question, especially since I voted for Abbado, who would be my choice even if all credible candidates were among the choices offered in the poll.  However, let me answer what I can.

In the first place, Harnoncourt founded his Concentus Musicus nearly 60 years ago, starting the most significant revolution in classical music performance of the 20th Century.  His interest in and scholarship on period instruments and performance practice have arguably had more far-reaching influence than that of any other single musician of his time.  He may not have been music director of any of the world's most renowned orchestras, but I imagine many would have been happy to get him had he been interested in such a position.  Instead, he has pursued his own interests and goals and has worked with many if not most of the world's great orchestras, enriching and informing their practice, and in the process creating an admirable body of work in both performance and recording that most in his profession would envy. 

Hardly a baroque specialist alone, his legacy includes landmark recordings of not only Bach, but also of Classical and Romantic composers including Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms, and Dvořák.  No mere time-beater, he seems always to bring a fresh approach to whatever repertoire he tackles, making us hear even tired warhorses in new and exciting ways.  And I also suspect that if you were to poll the world's leading orchestra musicians on the same question, then Mr. Harnoncourt would likely place very high in their rankings.

I really like Harnoncourt but objectively he cannot seriously qualify for greatest living conductor, he is too narrowly focused in his portfolio of work, at least 80% of recordings are baroque mostly Bach and very little opera. He does not have the balance/diversity of experience or the stature of Abbado, he still has time to diversify but he has much ground to make up

Look at Abbados resume of music director, most impressive of any living conductor:
La Scala -> LSO -> BPO

If the question was who was greatest conductor of 20th century I would have to say Karajan even if he is not my favorite I have to recognize his balanced portfolio of work and stature in the profession

[Bulldog]

I really like Harnoncourt but objectively he cannot seriously qualify for greatest living conductor, he is too narrowly focused in his portfolio of work, at least 80% of recordings are baroque mostly Bach and very little opera. He does not have the balance/diversity of experience or the stature of Abbado, he still has time to diversify but he has much ground to make up

Not being a big fan of diversity/balance, I have to reject the above premise.  Just for his pioneering contributions to early music performance, Harnoncourt rates consideration as the greatest living conductor.  As for stature, I believe that future generations will give Harnoncourt the advantage over Abbado; actually, I think Harnoncourt currently has the greater stature. 

[DarkAngel]

Not being a big fan of diversity/balance, I have to reject the above premise.  Just for his pioneering contributions to early music performance, Harnoncourt rates consideration as the greatest living conductor.  As for stature, I believe that future generations will give Harnoncourt the advantage over Abbado; actually, I think Harnoncourt currently has the greater stature.

What facts/observations do you offer to support this opinion......
Especially considering Abbado's resume of previous music director positions

Greatest conductor.......
If you are not concerned with a conductors entire diversity/balance of work and demonstration of skill over a wide range of styles then the list can never be narrowed down, many conductors are very skilled in certain area but only a very few have a near complete portfolio of classical performance

If the music director job at BPO was available tomorrow I do not think Harnoncourt would be considered, he just does not have the diverse experience needed for the job......not today anyway

[Bulldog]

What facts/observations do you offer to support this opinion......
Especially considering Abbado's resume of previous music director positions

Just like with balance/diversity, you're placing high priority on previous positions.  To me, these are collateral considerations. 

Anyways, your comments above are about the issue of stature.  I've already offered my opinion why Harnoncourt's stature is greater than Abbado's, particularly for future generations.  I'm not aware of any genre of music where Abbado is a pioneer or has given us highly distinctive performances.  If you offer up one of more examples, I'd be happy to reconsider my current opinion.

[Verena]

Anyways, your comments above are about the issue of stature.  I've already offered my opinion why Harnoncourt's stature is greater than Abbado's, particularly for future generations.  I'm not aware of any genre of music where Abbado is a pioneer or has given us highly distinctive performances.  If you offer up one of more examples, I'd be happy to reconsider my current opinion.

I find this discussion very interesting. The question really seems to be: What are one's criteria for greatness? I guess several answers are possible here.
Just out of curiousity:  What do you think about Harnoncourt's Handel? How do you rate his Bach in comparison with, e.g. Suzuki's?
I agree about Harnoncourt being a pioneer, and in a sense I'd also be inclined to call him one of the "greatest" living conductors; the only trouble is that, as mentioned earlier, I find his performances downright ugly in many cases. In this respect, he is different from any other conductors who I'd be inclined - if pressed at gunpoint, at least  - to call "great"

[DarkAngel]

Just like with balance/diversity, you're placing high priority on previous positions.  To me, these are collateral considerations.

Yes but I think you are not giving proper importance to a high quality diversified portfolio, why is this not the primary reference for greatest living conductor......

If you are considering greatest baseball player ever you must look at his entire spectrum of statistics and also his overall ability to make his teams win etc cannot just be very good in a limited area and still unproven in others

[Bulldog]

I find this discussion very interesting. The question really seems to be: What are one's criteria for greatness? I guess several answers are possible here.
Just out of curiousity:  What do you think about Harnoncourt's Handel? How do you rate his Bach in comparison with, e.g. Suzuki's?
I agree about Harnoncourt being a pioneer, and in a sense I'd also be inclined to call him one of the "greatest" living conductors; the only trouble is that, as mentioned earlier, I find his performances downright ugly in many cases. In this respect, he is different from any other conductors who I'd be inclined - if pressed at gunpoint, at least  - to call "great"

The important thing to keep in mind about the criteria for greatness is its subjectivity. 

Concerning Harnoncourt vs. Suzuki in Bach, I'd take Suzuki.

[Bulldog]

Yes but I think you are not giving proper importance to a high quality diversified portfolio, why is this not the primary reference for greatest living conductor......

We could go back and forth on this all day.  As simply as I can put it, your standards are not mine.  I am not enamored of the diversified aspect, so I obviously would not give it much weight.  Heck, I wouldn't even give it any consideration - wouldn't enter my mind.

There are times when diversification is very important.  I remember when my real estate division had to reduce staffing levels by about 40% while retaining the full complement of real estate services.  Under those circumstances, diversity of employee skills became my bible. 

[mjwal]

Obviously, none of the above. I agree with Superhorn about the impossibility of selecting a "greatest" - but, for argument's sake I will pick one in his list of the living: Michael Gielen.
Pedigree: he was Erich Kleiber's Korrepetitor in Buenos Aires.
History: he was not only recording back in the early 60s, but by the 70s he had (for German radio) performed Beethoven's symphonies with their original metronome markings (following Kolisch's analysis in Tempo and Character in B's Music, which had a decisive effect on Beethoven reception. He has led a major opera house in Frankfurt, at which several radical directors went in new directions. He conducted the first production of the major post-WW2 opera, Zimmermann's Die Soldaten, which he did again in Frankfurt, where I saw it. His performances of the 2nd Vienna School are legendary, but he has conducted a wide range of modern music, and his renditions of Mahler, while not so flamboyant as some, are among the most scrupulous. His Mozart, Berlioz, Wagner, Verdi, Janacek, Puccini and Strauss, though mainly performed at the Frankfurt Opera and thus less well known, were superb. At the SWF he conducted a wide range of music from Haydn via Bartók to the present. I have also heard him conduct a Matthew Passion that was the best I have ever heard overall.
Weaknesses: his take on French music seems to be limited to a few works,and he has consistently ignored English, Scandinavian and Russian music (like Harnoncourt). He has rarely been given the chance to conduct major orchestras - like Scherchen but unlike Harnoncourt; he is not a fashionable celeb.
He is the only conductor whose work I have been able to follow fairly consistently - live, on radio, and on record. Boulez, who is comparable in some ways, is a zero when it comes to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, which disqualifies him IMO.
I just cannot judge the others, having only heard several of their recordings, not live in the concert hall or opera house. Abbado and Barenboim seem to qualify in terms of mastery of a wide range of repertoire and experience with several great orchestras - some would add Haitink.  But without having heard them in the flesh (except Barenboim a couple of times), as it were, I am loath to pass judgment.

[Scarpia]

We could go back and forth on this all day.  As simply as I can put it, your standards are not mine.  I am not enamored of the diversified aspect, so I obviously would not give it much weight.  Heck, I wouldn't even give it any consideration - wouldn't enter my mind.

In this quiz I suspect there is more disagreement as to what criteria are important than on who meets the criteria.  I think diversity has some role.  A conductor who only performed Haydn wouldn't be seriously considered, no matter how brilliant his or her Haydn was.  I secretly voted for Harnoncourt even though I said I wouldn't. 

[Renfield]

In this quiz I suspect there is more disagreement as to what criteria are important than on who meets the criteria.  I think diversity has some role.  A conductor who only performed Haydn wouldn't be seriously considered, no matter how brilliant his or her Haydn was.

Indeed - yet, to summarise a point from my longer post above, this is far from what we're talking about here!

Just because Harnoncourt generally doesn't conduct post-Bruckner repertory (with notable exceptions, like Porgy and Bess, or even Dvorak), this is hardly evidence of narrow repertory, seeing what he does conduct in the Baroque, Classical and Romantic eras.


Or: if Harnoncourt's repertory is narrow, whose isn't? Karajan's? Even if we weren't talking about living conductors, Karajan's breadth of repertory was exceptional and deliberate, hardly what I'd consider a starting point for attributing greatness.

I will grant that certain conductors can be great by virtue of their consistency across a large repertory, like (as mjwal rightly reminds us) Gielen; but do you have to have Gielen's breadth to even count?

[Scarpia]

Indeed - yet, to summarise a point from my longer post above, this is far from what we're talking about here!

Just because Harnoncourt generally doesn't conduct post-Bruckner repertory (with notable exceptions, like Porgy and Bess, or even Dvorak), this is hardly evidence of narrow repertory, seeing what he does conduct in the Baroque, Classical and Romantic eras.


Or: if Harnoncourt's repertory is narrow, whose isn't? Karajan's? Even if we weren't talking about living conductors, Karajan's breadth of repertory was exceptional and deliberate, hardly what I'd consider a starting point for attributing greatness.

I will grant that certain conductors can be great by virtue of their consistency across a large repertory, like (as mjwal rightly reminds us) Gielen; but do you have to have Gielen's breadth to even count?

Well, I voted for Harnoncourt, even though I felt I shouldn't just because he does what he does so well.  But I think ability to present modern/contemporary music to the public is important.  He hasn't done it in recordings, I do not know if he performs this music live.

[Lethevich]

I guess one conclusion is: graft Harnoncourt and Boulez together, and you will have the perfect conductor with the perfect range of repertoire?

Quickly, before one of them dies.

[Franco]

I voted for the late addition of Boulez since the rep he conducts happens to be the music I am most interested in and he is a very fine conductor of it.  It is not my style to describe conductors, or composers as "great" so this vote merely reflects my own preference among the available choices, although even if more names were there my vote probably would not change.