Karajan was a silly musician

[kishnevi]

Inspired by  Jessop.

Post here any and all criticism of his musicianship. And defenses thereof.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I am not the biggest fan of Karajan, but I do enjoy his earlier work from the 40s and 50s, particularly his opera recordings from the 50s.

Let's see what Igor has to say about Karajan's rendition of Le Sacre...........

The recording is generally good, the performance generally odd, though polished in its own way; in fact, too polished, a pet savage rather than a real one. The sostenuto style is a principal fault; the lengths of notes are virtually the same here as they would be in Wagner or Brahms, which dampens the energy of the music and leaves what rhythmic enunciation there is sounding laboured. But I should have begun by saying that the music is alien to the culture of its performers. Schoenberg recognized it as an assault on the Central European tradition, saying that it made him think of 'those savage black potentates who wear only a cravat and a top hat'. (When told, in 1925, that I had declared his 'twelve-tone system' to be a dead end - a Sackgasse - he replied with the pun: 'Es gibt keine sacker Gasse als 'Sacre'.') But I doubt whether The Rite can be satisfactorily performed in terms of Herr von Karajan's traditions. I do not mean to imply that he is out of his depths, however, but rather that he is in my shallows - or call them simple concretions and reifications. There are simply no regions for soul-searching in The Rite of Spring.

[Mirror Image]

Hasn't this thread been done before? Well, regardless of what people think of HvK, I think when he was in his element, like in his Beethoven, Wagner, and Bruckner (and, surprisingly, or not, Sibelius, the Second Viennese School and Debussy), he really could do magical things with an orchestra. When he's 'on' the results were ravishing.

[Baron Scarpia]

I am not the biggest fan of Karajan, but I do enjoy his earlier work from the 40s and 50s, particularly his opera recordings from the 50s.

Let's see what Igor has to say about Karajan's rendition of Le Sacre...........

At the end I think Stravinsky was saying that Karajan was looking for something in the Sacre that Stravinsky had not put in. But I think Karajan found it anyway, Stravinsky notwithstanding. 

[springrite]

Not my favorite but I do respect him greatly.

My main complaint often is the overly lush and polished sound. It sounds beautiful for a few minutes but tiresome soon afterwards. But when he is on, he is something special.

[Mandryka]

Not at all.  I'm referring to the text of the work and to reports of Mahler's own interpretations.  If you want me to go into depth, I could tell you how Karajan's Mahler Sixth disregards or flaunts the composer's directions, and why these changes display a lack of understanding of the symphony and of Mahler's music more generally, but I assume that you don't.

Mahler's Sixth is my favorite symphony, and I've heard many versions of it that sound quite different from each other and all represent valid interpretations of it.  Karajan's Mahler Sixth sounds like no other recording of the work I know, and that's entirely down to his changing the text of the work, not merely interpretive license.

Thee remarks, which I assume are true,  made me think of Glen Gould. And i wonder whether it's generally true of Karajan, that he sees the score and composer's performance guidelines as suggestions rather than as limitations. Or whether his attitude to Mahler 6 was an aberration.

[mc ukrneal]

He conducted some wonderful operas...

[Jo498]

Gould was a great fan of Karajan, btw. There is at least one live recording of Beethoven's c minor and Gould even had the crazy idea to record all of the Beethoven concerti with HvK, in complete playback because GG did not want to travel to Europe.

There were these bonmots in the 30s/40 when someone (maybe Toscanini) said that Furtwängler conducted everything as if it was by Wagner and the reply was that Toscanini conducted everything as if it was a Rossini ouverture.
There are lots of Karajan I am not familiar with but along such lines I'd say Karajan conducted almost everything as if it had been composed by Richard Strauss. Of course this is somewhat exaggerated but he almost everywhere favors very smooth transitions, a very integrated sound, nothing sharply etched, neither in sound nor articulation or phrasing. This can be quite impressive, even in music where the "wall of sound" seems wrong (e.g. Beethoven).
A few exceptions seem to err in a different direction. That DG Schubert 9th sounds brutal and brass-dominated, not smooth and nothing viennese about it either.

[Baron Scarpia]

Not at all.  I'm referring to the text of the work and to reports of Mahler's own interpretations.  If you want me to go into depth, I could tell you how Karajan's Mahler Sixth disregards or flaunts the composer's directions, and why these changes display a lack of understanding of the symphony and of Mahler's music more generally, but I assume that you don't.

Mahler's Sixth is my favorite symphony, and I've heard many versions of it that sound quite different from each other and all represent valid interpretations of it.  Karajan's Mahler Sixth sounds like no other recording of the work I know, and that's entirely down to his changing the text of the work, not merely interpretive license.

I enjoy Karajan's recording of the sixth, therefore I'm a cretin and an ignoramus and there is no point even trying to explain it to me. That's the take-home message?

I would be quite interested in your reasons for objecting to Karajan's interpretation, although evidently you think my brain is to feeble to understand. What do you mean by the "text?" Did Karajan alter the orchestration, did he ignore or incorrectly interpret dynamic or other notes in the score? The idea that a conductor is bound by "reports of Mahler's own interpretations" strikes me as absurd. The best thing that can be hoped for is that a conductor will find something in a work that has not been brought out before.

Regarding Karajan's recording of M6, it is one among several recordings of that symphony that I enjoy. I like the way the first movement, which can sound militaristic in some performances (notably Solti's) takes on a sort of world-weary mood of resignation. The slow movement is gorgeous, and the dramatic progression of the finale is very effectively managed.

[Mahlerian]

I enjoy Karajan's recording of the sixth, therefore I'm a cretin and an ignoramus and there is no point even trying to explain it to me. That's the take-home message?

I would be quite interested in your reasons for objecting to Karajan's interpretation, although evidently you think my brain is to feeble to understand.

I never said any of those things.  Now would I.  I thought that you would not be sufficiently interested in hearing my reasons to be worth my time in listening to the recording again with score in depth.  I'll be doing it soon, though.

What do you mean by the "text?"

The score of the work, complete with all of its indications and so forth.

Did Karajan alter the orchestration, did he ignore or incorrectly interpret dynamic or other notes in the score?

Yes, yes, and yes.  It's not that he rescored the work, but rather that the balances have all been thrown off.  He ignores dynamics, tempo indications, clips some phrases, and slices others into parts.

The idea that a conductor is bound by "reports of Mahler's own interpretations" strikes me as absurd. The best thing that can be hoped for is that a conductor will find something in a work that has not been brought out before.

Sure, but there's no reason why we should consider all interpretations equally representative of the work.  Karajan had a right to interpret Mahler's work as he pleased, but I am not bound to consider it equally valid.

Regarding Karajan's recording of M6, it is one among several recordings of that symphony that I enjoy. I like the way the first movement, which can sound militaristic in some performances (notably Solti's) takes on a sort of world-weary mood of resignation. The slow movement is gorgeous, and the dramatic progression of the finale is very effectively managed.

Interesting.  My perceptions are, unsurprisingly, quite different from yours.  Thanks for sharing, though.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I find HvK at his best in composers he didn't conduct very often: e.g. the Honegger 2 & 3, Prokofiev 5, and DSCH 10.

He once said that if he were a composer, he'd sound like Shostakovich. Which makes it even stranger that he only recorded one DSCH symphony.

[Mahlerian]

    Where's Cato? 

I think you meant "flouts"; a common error ...

It may be a corruption,  but it's a commonly accepted one.

eg http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunt?s=t

Def. 4

[Baron Scarpia]

He once said that if he were a composer, he'd sound like Shostakovich. Which makes it even stranger that he only recorded one DSCH symphony.

I read somewhere that he had proposed a series of Shostakovich recordings to EMI, but they were not interested.

[Baron Scarpia]

There are lots of Karajan I am not familiar with but along such lines I'd say Karajan conducted almost everything as if it had been composed by Richard Strauss. Of course this is somewhat exaggerated but he almost everywhere favors very smooth transitions, a very integrated sound, nothing sharply etched, neither in sound nor articulation or phrasing. This can be quite impressive, even in music where the "wall of sound" seems wrong (e.g. Beethoven).
A few exceptions seem to err in a different direction. That DG Schubert 9th sounds brutal and brass-dominated, not smooth and nothing viennese about it either.

Karajan's uniqueness was his attention to timbre and orchestral color. But it is not my perception that he wanted everything smooth and integrated. Listen to the opening of his EMI recording of Dvorak's 9th with Berlin. The opening is as incisive and jarring as anything you will hear (if my memory serves). I heard Karajan live once, conducting the WPO. I have never heard anything approaching it in the intensity and diversity of orchestral color.

[Baron Scarpia]

Yes, yes, and yes.  It's not that he rescored the work, but rather that the balances have all been thrown off.  He ignores dynamics, tempo indications, clips some phrases, and slices others into parts.

Did Mahler slavishly follow the text of the music he conducted? No. He altered the orchestration of Beethoven and Schumann (among others, I assume) and performed chamber music will a full string section.

Sure, but there's no reason why we should consider all interpretations equally representative of the work.  Karajan had a right to interpret Mahler's work as he pleased, but I am not bound to consider it equally valid.

You had me until you used the word "valid." True to the composers intent, I would say. It is characteristic of a great work of music that it admits many interpretation. By claiming that Mahler's symphonies can only be performed according the Mahler's exact instructions you are diminishes them, in my view.

[Mahlerian]

Did Mahler slavishly follow the text of the music he conducted? No. He altered the orchestration of Beethoven and Schumann (among others, I assume) and performed chamber music will a full string section.

And he was open about these changes and the reasons for them.  As far as I know, Karajan never listed any of his Mahler arrangements as arrangements, and furthermore, unlike Mahler, he was working with the same instrumental forces as the composer he was reinterpreting.  There are some relevant distinctions.

That said, perhaps the best example of Mahler flouting a composer's intentions is in his version of Bruckner's Fifth, which cut out a chunk of the finale and rescored the whole thing.  He was working from the corrupted published version, which had made a corresponding cut elsewhere in that movement and rescored much of the work, but the fact remains that there is an example of Mahler disregarding the composer's intent.  It should be noted that he had serious reservations about Bruckner's music, and like with Karajan, I think that his changes reflect his attitude towards the music itself.

Also...Mahler was (perhaps in contradiction to some of his actions) a firm believer in the sanctity of the score, and according to Schoenberg once said that the best thing that he could do was be utterly faithful to it.

You had me until you used the word "valid." True to the composers intent, I would say. It is characteristic of a great work of music that it admits many interpretation. By claiming that Mahler's symphonies can only be performed according the Mahler's exact instructions you are diminishes them, in my view.

But within Mahler's instructions one can still find a wide range of interpretations, all of them equally valid.  The idea that following the instructions indicated in the score results in a rigid or academic performance is one that I will never understand.

[Ken B]

Hasn't this thread been done before? Well, regardless of what people think of HvK, I think when he was in his element, like in his Beethoven, Wagner, and Bruckner (and, surprisingly, or not, Sibelius, the Second Viennese School and Debussy), he really could do magical things with an orchestra. When he's 'on' the results were ravishing.

Agreed.
Mendelssohn.
Strauss.
Tchaikovsky too. (You've probably never heard any Tchaikovsky John. He's like Strauss but more melodic. )

I will also stake out a minority position: his Stravinsky is great. Weird for sure, and certainly you'd be ill-served if his were the only recordings you had, but he does bring out aspects of the music unlike anyone else.

[kishnevi]

Agreed.
Mendelssohn.
Strauss.
Tchaikovsky too. (You've probably never heard any Tchaikovsky John. He's like Strauss but more melodic. )

I will also stake out a minority position: his Stravinsky is great. Weird for sure, and certainly you'd be ill-served if his were the only recordings you had, but he does bring out aspects of the music unlike anyone else.

Another perversely great set of performances are his Mozart symphonies.  Totally unMozartean and totally excellent.

[Baron Scarpia]

Another perversely great set of performances are his Mozart symphonies.  Totally unMozartean and totally excellent.

The DG or EMI set? The DG set didn't do it for me because the winds were too recessed in the recording. I've been meaning to listen to the EMI set since, like, forever.

[kishnevi]

The DG or EMI set? The DG set didn't do it for me because the winds were too recessed in the recording. I've been meaning to listen to the EMI set since, like, forever.

The DG.  My CD player is so cheap subtleties like recessed winds don't register as problems unless they're really unsubtle.   
I've heard very little of Karajan's EMI recordings beyond Bruckner (which included one of the best B4s I've ever heard).