Recordings That You Are Considering

[Scarpia]

   I'm Karajan's admirer but I do not like Karajan conduct Haydn because of the reasons DavisRoss have shown. But when I want to listen wayward performance with Brucknerize effect, Karajan's performance is the good choice 

Karajan's Sibelius is Brucknerized.  With Haydn, I hear Beethovenization.   

[DavidRoss]

In other words, you like Karajan in things you don't listen to.   

I think by now, whenever the name Karajan is mentioned your derisive comment is automatically generated in our minds, so actually typing it in is somewhat redundant. 

Ha! I don't just like, but love Karajan's Bruckner, and I do listen to Bruckner (at least his 4th through 9th). I like his Ring, his Rosenkavalier, his Four Last Songs, even his Carmen and Cavalieri Rusticana. And for all I know, I might like his Haydn--but I'm put off by how he "Brucknerizes" so much orchestral music and imagine his Haydn would be as wrongheaded as his Mozart -- for my tastes.

But I'm willing to be proved wrong ... even happy or ecstatic when my mistaken ideas cause serious problems for me and others. So I just tracked down his "Surprise" and will give it a go!

Edit--I've given it a fair trial. It's like driving a big, heavy, ponderous Cadillac with soft, swaying suspension on a super highway with windows up and air-conditioning going while bundled up in a heavy coat and watch cap. Try Minkowski instead--it's like driving a nimble open roadster on a curvy country lane on a fresh spring day.

[Scarpia]

Ha! I don't just like, but love Karajan's Bruckner, and I do listen to Bruckner (at least his 4th through 9th). I like his Ring, his Rosenkavalier, his Four Last Songs, even his Carmen and Cavalieri Rusticana. And for all I know, I might like his Haydn--but I'm put off by how he "Brucknerizes" so much orchestral music and imagine his Haydn would be as wrongheaded as his Mozart -- for my tastes.

But I'm willing to be proved wrong ... even happy or ecstatic when my mistaken ideas cause serious problems for me and others. So I just tracked down his "Surprise" and will give it a go!

I heard Karajan once, performing Bruckner 8 with the Vienna Philharmonic.  There are no words to describe it.  I only wish DG had served him better in the audio engineering they provided for a lot of his recordings. 

But Mozart, Haydn, Bach, etc.  I'd never suggest Karajan as a representative recording.   And for most things, his 60's recording is the benchmark (although there are exceptions).  Comparing his 50's Philharmonia and 60's BPO can also be an astonishing experience.

[DavidRoss]

Karajan's Sibelius is Brucknerized.  With Haydn, I hear Beethovenization.   

Karajan's Brucknerized Beethovenization  [Insert holding nose emoticon here]

[Daverz]

Hurwitz has some very positive things to say about Karajan's Paris symphonies, for what that's worth.  I still have't listened to them, despite having them in the big DG symphonies box.  I do think there's a tendency for some not to give Karajan a fair hearing* in music that conventional wisdom would say was not part of his fasch (not that any GMG posters would make such judgements without carefully listening). 

* I exempt our members who are too fussy about performance practices in this music even to consider the idea.

[Gurn Blanston]

I heard Karajan once, performing Bruckner 8 with the Vienna Philharmonic.  There are no words to describe it.  I only wish DG had served him better in the audio engineering they provided for a lot of his recordings. 

I'm no expert, but I have heard it said that he did his own engineering, or at least that he did the final sound room work. So perhaps they might have served him better by not letting him near the studio.

* I exempt our members who are too fussy about performance practices in this music even to consider the idea.

Thank you for the exemption, but I don't even need it. I actually have listened to and enjoyed a great many of ole Herb's performances. I have to say in all honesty though that the majority that I enjoyed were post-1800, and even more post-1850.

[Daverz]

I actually have listened to and enjoyed a great many of ole Herb's performances. I have to say in all honesty though that the majority that I enjoyed were post-1800, and even more post-1850.

So that would seem to suggest that the number of K's recordings of pre-1800 repetoire that you have enjoyed is non-zero.  Any that come to mind?  (I would guess that The Creation with Wunderlich might be one.) 

[Gurn Blanston]

So that would seem to suggest that the number of K's recordings of pre-1800 repetoire that you have enjoyed is non-zero.  Any that come to mind?  (I would guess that The Creation with Wunderlich might be one.)

No, but I'm not being obstinate, I just remember ones I disliked more than liked. Vivaldi!   Mozart was OK until I heard others that I liked more. Your first recording doesn't always imprint on you as The Grail. Sometimes it goes oppositely. However, I point out that despite the fact that I don't ever recommend (not just Karajan, but that entire genre, really) them, I don't either knock them. They just don't make ME as happy as some others that do. That's eminently fair, and far better than I've frequently got back from people with different tastes.

[Gold Knight]

Sergei Rachmaninov--Complete Symphonies, featuring both the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam led by Vladimir Ashkenazy.

[Mirror Image]

Sergei Rachmaninov--Complete Symphonies, featuring both the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam led by Vladimir Ashkenazy.

For the Rachmaninov fan, the Ashkenazy symphony set is an essential acquisition. Don't forget about the piano concerti set with Ashkenazy on piano and Previn conducting.

[Scarpia]

I'm no expert, but I have heard it said that he did his own engineering, or at least that he did the final sound room work. So perhaps they might have served him better by not letting him near the studio.

Not quite that bad.  He did convince DG to engage his own hand-picked producer, but his DG recordings always used one of DG's house "tonmeisters."  No doubt he was meddling, though.  I remember reading that he had a tendency to pronounce his efforts fine and dandy, and take off when the producers wanted to do a few more takes.

[Lisztianwagner]

Sergei Rachmaninov--Complete Symphonies, featuring both the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam led by Vladimir Ashkenazy.

For the Rachmaninov fan, the Ashkenazy symphony set is an essential acquisition. Don't forget about the piano concerti set with Ashkenazy on piano and Previn conducting.

+1

[admiralackbar]

Ok, so I've got these...

[asin]B000001GQ1[/asin] [asin]B000001GY0[/asin]

But now, given the price, I'm considering just getting the whole DG Stereo set by Kempff.

[asin]B001CGJ3QS[/asin]

If I have the DG Originals disc and the DG Double listed above, do I already have the "best" of the Kempff stereo set or are there performances in the complete set that are worth acquiring? (For what it's worth, I also have Barenboim EMI complete and Gilels DG almost complete as well as the Late Sonatas played by Pollini on a DG Originals 2 CD set.)

Also, I'd love to hear more about why the Mono set is preferred by some. Anyone here actually prefer the Stereo set?

Thoughts about what I should do?

[jlaurson]

Ok, so I've got these...


But now, given the price, I'm considering just getting the whole DG Stereo set by Kempff.


If I have the DG Originals disc and the DG Double listed above, do I already have the "best" of the Kempff stereo set or are there performances in the complete set that are worth acquiring? (For what it's worth, I also have Barenboim EMI complete and Gilels DG almost complete as well as the Late Sonatas played by Pollini on a DG Originals 2 CD set.)

Also, I'd love to hear more about why the Mono set is preferred by some. Anyone here actually prefer the Stereo set?

Thoughts about what I should do?

I prefer the mono set in Kempff (and the stereo set in Backhaus, now that I actually have heard his mono). Not my much... it's very much Kempff in both cases - but notably. Mostly for a greater... hmmm... a greater sense of playfulness, a little more (as far as Kempff is capable of that at all) whimsy than the latter set. In either set, I think it is the lesser known and tendentially the earlier sonatas that fare best.

[Todd]

Thoughts about what I should do?

Buy the stereo set.  It is filled with enough fine playing to warrant the outlay, and it has possibly the best Op 28 yet recorded.  I prefer the mono set overall for the more secure playing and fuller piano sound, but both cycles rate among my favorites. 

[DavidRoss]

I prefer the mono set in Kempff (and the stereo set in Backhaus, now that I actually have heard his mono). Not my much... it's very much Kempff in both cases - but notably. Mostly for a greater... hmmm... a greater sense of playfulness, a little more (as far as Kempff is capable of that at all) whimsy than the latter set.

Yes.

I prefer the mono set overall for the more secure playing and fuller piano sound, but both cycles rate among my favorites. 

Yes.

It may contradict our prejudices, but I also think the piano sounds better--fuller, richer--on the mono set. And in addition to Jens and Todd's characterizations, I find the mono performances generally somewhat more contemplative or poetic as well. You'll not go wrong with either...or both!

[admiralackbar]

Thanks, everyone, for the recommendations about Kempff's Beethoven. Much appreciated!

[Mirror Image]

I'm not considering anything at the moment. Just hoping all my recent orders get shipped.

[Karl Henning]

Samsara ; )

[DavidRoss]

Samsara ; )

aka "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity"

Also, "Sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof"

Considering: