Good riddance, Karajan

[bigshot]

Some people prefer the conductor to be the paperboy delivering the composer's intent, and some prefer the conductor to add something to the proceedings if he's going to stand up front and wave his arms. If you prefer more conservative conducting, you're livng in the right age. If you prefer a charismatic conductor, you need to look into historical recordings.

[Mirror Image]

For me, it all depends on the work I'm listening to. I wouldn't want to listen to a work like, for example, Ligeti's Melodien under somebody like Karajan or Bernstein, but someone like Boulez or Salonen would be more to my liking for that work.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

There's a shorter version:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.

This reminds me of a line from Woody Allen's Annie Hall in a flashback to his old elementary school:

"It is said:
'Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.'

Well, those who can't do anything, teach here."

 

[Superhorn]

  "There are two kinds of conductors ; those who are too slow and those who are too fast ".

   Camille Saint-Saens .   LOL !

[Sergeant Rock]

I think your list of "mainstream" conductors have given me as much joy as the "greats" you list.

I like to mix it up.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

But I think Harnoncourt, Gergiev and Boulez are also highly individual conductors.

I'd add (among the living) Rozhdestvensky, Norrington, Marthé, Maazel, Eschenbach, Barenboim (his Bruckner, Mozart, Schumann, Beethoven) perhaps Segerstam.


Sarge

[trung224]

I'd add (among the living) Rozhdestvensky, Norrington, Marthé, Maazel, Eschenbach, Barenboim (his Bruckner, Mozart, Schumann, Beethoven) perhaps Segerstam.


Sarge

Oh, I forget Segerstam, Maazel, Rattle, Tilson Thomas maybe Norrington. But I don't think Barenboim or Rozhdestvensky are original conductors. They have unique reading when coming to certain music (Rozhdestvensky in Sibelius, Barenboim in Brucner 1,5 or Mahler)  but in their main repertoire, they conduct music in conventional way (Rozhdestvensky in Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, Barenboim in other Austro-German repertoire or even his early French music recordings ). The original conductors must have unique idea in all the music they conduct. About Eschenbach, I think he is only provincing conductor, who does not provide any special quality to any music he conducts

[mc ukrneal]

It's strange what others consider to be highly individual (or not). I imagine others might disagree with my list (if I had one) too.  But I wonder if our opinions are skewed by a limited number of recordings with which each of us have personal experience. After all, most of these composers have dozens, if not hundreds, of recordings, and most of us have only a small sample of them (and perhaps concentrated in a few composers). Or perhaps we are skewed by our concert experiences, which stick more strongly with us.

An example from my experience: Boulez. I've seen several concerts on TV with him conducting. I didn't like any of them. I've heard several of his recorded versions in the blind listening tests and I consistently put him at the bottom (I do not own a recording of his). This is why I find the blind listening so fascinating - I didn't know it was Boulez until later. Now, based on this, I avoid buying his recordings and have a hard time accepting him as a unique voice (or if it is unique, it is in the bad sense). But having said that, I still try to keep an open mind (and would still watch his concerts on TV if they appear). After all, he's conducted so much more than the 5-10 recordings I have heard. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I had heard different recordings first?

[bigshot]

When I hear Toscanini or Stokowski come up in rotation on my music server, I know it's them conducting without looking.