Herbert von Karajan

[Lisztianwagner]

A Karajan thread!

Herbert von Karajan is certainly one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century, if not the best one. I've been a huge fan of Karajan since I started listening to classical music, his conducting style has always impressed me very much: music seemed to burst out from Karajan. Whenever I listen to his recordings, especially those one of the Romantic and Late Romantic period, it is like a deep connection between me and the composer I'm hearing is created; through Karajan's performances I really seem to perceive what the composers felt and wanted to express with their music. The marvelous sounds he was able to extract from the orchestra, the great harmonic brilliance, how he could perfectly handle and controll all the instruments, the intesity, the natural beauty and the overwhelming energy expressed by his way of interpretation.....no other conductor, apart from some exceptions, can touch me as deeply as Karajan does!
I would have loved to see him conducting live, it must have been such a wonderful experience! What a tragedy I'm too young.

This doesn't mean I always praise everything Karajan recorded; for example, I don't like his choices of tempo in Strauss' Egyptian March and Nielsen No.4 very much, as well as I think his Baroque recordings sometimes sound a bit too spick and span and Barenboim's Siegfried has more powerful and thrilling finali.

[Mirror Image]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Karajan. I like his Ring, Mendelssohn, Schoenberg, Sibelius, and R. Strauss, but that's about it. His recordings of Stravinsky and Bartok are horrible. I prefer so many other conductors. I like versatility in a conductor and on this front Karajan doesn't deliver the goods IMHO.

[Lisztianwagner]

I like versatility in a conductor and on this front Karajan doesn't deliver the goods IMHO.

I don't completely agree; althought he was at his best with the Romantic/Late Romantic composers, he was able to make beautiful recordings of both Classicism (Mozart, Haydn) and the 20th century music (Respighi, Shostakovich, Schönberg, Berg, Honegger).

Karajan's Bartók's Music for String, Percussion and Celesta is very thrilling!

[Mirror Image]

I don't completely agree; althought he was at his best with the Romantic/Late Romantic composers, he was able to make beautiful recordings of both Classicism (Mozart, Haydn) and the 20th century music (Respighi, Shostakovich, Schönberg, Berg, Honegger).

Karajan's Bartók's Music for String, Percussion and Celesta is very thrilling!

Having compared so many Music For String, Percussion, and Celesta performances, both of Karajan's recordings (EMI, DG) go straight to the bottom of the list while Boulez (Sony), Fischer, and Solti go straight to the top. I did write that I liked Karajan's Schoenberg performances. I don't care for his Berg at all. Abbado and Levine have him beat here. I don't like Karajan in Shostakovich either. His Respighi is lackluster, especially compared to favorites like Muti or Maazel (Decca). His Honegger is good, but I've found I like the intensity of Baudo and Jarvi more.

There's nothing wrong with admiring his conducting, but I think your admiration sometimes borders on idolization. As I mentioned, Karajan's Wagner is out-of-this-world. For me, nobody touches Karajan in Wagner. His R. Strauss recordings are also some of the best I've heard. Nobody does an Alpine Symphony like Karajan. Where I think he has the most trouble is with edgier music. He just seems like he wants to smooth out all the edges when it's totally uncalled for in my view. Bartok doesn't need to be played beautifully. He needs to be played with some thorns. This is where Karajan is incredibly weak and dare I even say clueless. But he's good at doing what I think he does best, which, in my view, is in Romantic music.

[trung224]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Karajan. I like his Ring, Mendelssohn, Schoenberg, Sibelius, and R. Strauss, but that's about it. His recordings of Stravinsky and Bartok are horrible. I prefer so many other conductors. I like versatility in a conductor and on this front Karajan doesn't deliver the goods IMHO.

MI, I think if you say about versatile conductor, Karajan is the best example of this. He maintained great quality in Austro-German music  (After Beethoven, of course), French (Debussy,Ravel, Honegger,Roussel, Saint-Saens), Russian music (Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich,Mussorgsky), Vienna 2nd school, Italian music (opera) even English music (Holst's Planet), Nordic music (Sibelius,Grieg). Indeed, he has weak point in Haydn, Mozart, Dvorak, Bartok and Stravinsky and in some repertoire, other conductors surpass him (Furtwängler in Autro-German music, Mravinsky in Russian music) but no other conductor can maintained great quality in this wide range of repertoire (the only possible rival is Bernstein but he is almost nothing in opera, Vienna 2nd school, French's music).

[Lisztianwagner]

There's nothing wrong with admiring his conducting, but I think your admiration sometimes borders on idolization. As I mentioned, Karajan's Wagner is out-of-this-world. For me, nobody touches Karajan in Wagner. His R. Strauss recordings are also some of the best I've heard. Nobody does an Alpine Symphony like Karajan. Where I think he has the most trouble is with edgier music. He just seems like he wants to smooth out all the edges when it's totally uncalled for in my view. Bartok doesn't need to be played beautifully. He needs to be played with some thorns. This is where Karajan is incredibly weak and dare I even say clueless. But he's good at doing what I think he does best, which, in my view, is in Romantic music.

I think it's a matter of being attuned with the conductor's interpretation; nobody can move me as deeply as Karajan does, I find his style incredibly inspiring and suggestive. I sometimes have the impression to be on his side too much myself, but I don't do that just for the pure pleasure of praising Karajan, I tried to explain why I felt so touched by his recordings before.
Not even Karajan's performances were free from defects, I agree the beauty and the harmony of the form sometimes prevail over the powerful emotion; Nielsen and Stravinsky are good example.

Scandinavi's music (Sibelius).

I'm sorry Finland is not part of Scandinavia.

[bigshot]

I've gone through stages on Karajan. When I was a kid, I thought he was the only conductor. Then I discovered others and I actually started dissing him. Now, I recognize him as one of the greats. His Bruckner and Strauss are fantastic. I consider Karajan to be a lot like Reiner. Very wide range of good, with a core in the Germanic tradition that can't be beat.

[Lilas Pastia]

Stricto sensu Scandinavia is the peninsula now occupied by Sweden and Norway. Broadly speaking it includes Denmark, Finland and even Iceland. For almost 300 years Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden. Finland's official language was Swedish for many years, and even today the language is spoken in western Finland (Ostrobothnia). Sibelius' first language was Swedish. For commodity's sake I lump together these countries as well as the Baltic States. That's how my record collection is organized !

I agree that Karajan is one of the greatest conductors of the last century. But it has to be said that few stars have faded as quickly as his since he passed away. Nowadays you will find a lot more detractors than admirers. Sic transit gloria mundi...

I'm not crazy about his way with the central austro-german repertoire (from Bach to Bruckner), but I make exceptions here and there (much of his Strauss and some of his Wagner). IMHO he brought more insight and his very strong interpretational profile to music by Berlioz, Shostakovich, Honegger, Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Mascagni, Verdi, Sibelius, Prokofieff, Berg, Schoenberg, Stravinsky (yes, I much admire his Rite of Spring). Few conductors had more catholic tastes.

Although he is viewed as a human juke-box by some, he is a musical force to be reckoned with.

[Mirror Image]

I think it's a matter of being attuned with the conductor's interpretation; nobody can move me as deeply as Karajan does, I find his style incredibly inspiring and suggestive. I sometimes have the impression to be on his side too much myself, but I don't do that just for the pure pleasure of praising Karajan, I tried to explain why I felt so touched by his recordings before.

I understand, but I hope you're not letting your admiration distort the reality that Karajan's way with music isn't the only way.

Not even Karajan's performances were free from defects, I agree the beauty and the harmony of the form sometimes prevail over the powerful emotion; Nielsen and Stravinsky are good example.

No conductor is free from flaws. There are going to be mistakes and things you generally you don't like with any conductor, which is why each of them have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Lisztianwagner]

Stricto sensu Scandinavia is the peninsula now occupied by Sweden and Norway. Broadly speaking it includes Denmark, Finland and even Iceland. For almost 300 years Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden. Finland's official language was Swedish for many years, and even today the language is spoken in western Finland (Ostrobothnia). Sibelius' first language was Swedish. For commodity's sake I lump together these countries as well as the Baltic States. That's how my record collection is organized !

Thank you for the explanation, André.

I understand, but I hope you're not letting your admiration distort the reality that Karajan's way with music isn't the only way.

Certainly; I have never done it and I will never do it.

[Scarpia]

Certainly; I have never done it and I will never do it.

There is absolutely no reason that you should be made to apologize for an enthusiastic appreciation of Karajan's work, or the work of any other conductor, composer, performer, etc.  It seems clear to me that you are a more perceptive and open-minded listener than the person who is hectoring you.

[early grey]

If there are any of you who are somewhat unrepresented in Karajan output , and are wondering what you might have missed,  you will find a random selection at
                             http://www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/vinyl.php

sorry about this, the link is now corrected

[Scarpia]

When I first started collecting recordings my purchases (LPs in those days) were Karajan-heavy, particularly in the core repertoire.  But from the beginning I focused on HIP Bach (Harnoncourt, Pinnock, Gardiner).  Mozart was a problem until I discovered Harnoncourt's recordings.   But I often discovered new composers when Karajan ventured into unfamiliar territory.  I first heard Mahler, Shostakovitch, Nielsen in Karajan recordings.

Now, Karajan is not the major component of my listening, but with a greater perspective I think I have a better appreciate what was unique about him.  The extent to which he makes orchestral tone color part of the interpretation of a piece is unique.   I was recently listening to Schubert's Unfinished symphony.  I listened to Mackerras' recording on Telarc, which as I recall used period brass instruments with a modern orchestra.  It is a beautifully crafted performance, forceful and with a great deal of clarity in the orchestral texture.   One of those recordings where you feel you could write out the score from listening carefully.

Then I listened to Karajan's recording from the early 1960's.  An astonishing contrast.  You could say that clarity was lacking from Karajan's recording, but there was an astonishing control of sound.  In different passages the orchestra could sound strident, rich, ghostly, shrill, depending on what Karajan felt the music at that moment was to convey.  Probably Mackerras' performance was close to what Schubert was imagining, but Karajan's performance stands out in my memory, and I return to it often. 

[Elgarian]

I think it's a matter of being attuned with the conductor's interpretation; nobody can move me as deeply as Karajan does, I find his style incredibly inspiring and suggestive. I sometimes have the impression to be on his side too much myself, but I don't do that just for the pure pleasure of praising Karajan, I tried to explain why I felt so touched by his recordings before.

I warm to this sort of response, which is essentially a human one. There are so many ways of listening to music, and so many different reasons for inclining towards one performance rather than another. I find quite often that what I want is to soak myself in the interpretation of a particular performer/conductor/instrumentalist merely because I admire them so much (an admiration based on my enjoyment of other works than this one here and now). But it's nothing to do with idolisation: it arises from an existing hard-earned respect and admiration, and an open willingness - a kind of trust gained elsewhere, if you like - to attend carefully, on the basis of that, to discover what's going on here.

I adopt this attitude to almost all branches of the arts. It seems very natural, very human, and it's sometimes resulted in my seeing/hearing things in a new way, or adopting a different set of expectations.

[Lisztianwagner]

I warm to this sort of response, which is essentially a human one. There are so many ways of listening to music, and so many different reasons for inclining towards one performance rather than another. I find quite often that what I want is to soak myself in the interpretation of a particular performer/conductor/instrumentalist merely because I admire them so much (an admiration based on my enjoyment of other works than this one here and now). But it's nothing to do with idolisation: it arises from an existing hard-earned respect and admiration, and an open willingness - a kind of trust gained elsewhere, if you like - to attend carefully, on the basis of that, to discover what's going on here.

I adopt this attitude to almost all branches of the arts. It seems very natural, very human, and it's sometimes resulted in my seeing/hearing things in a new way, or adopting a different set of expectations.

Brilliant statement, I certainly agree with what you said!

[Mirror Image]

Let me reiterate, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Ilaria enjoying, and admiring, Karajan's conducting. It is clear that he moves her emotionally/intellectually, but my point is that this admiration should never led to an idolization for the simple reason that it could cloud her judgment of the performance itself. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited here and I apologize to Ilaria if it appears this way. This is not my intention.

I remember the first time I heard Fritz Reiner. It was his landmark Bartok recording with the CSO on RCA. I thought to myself "Man, how could anyone top these performances? They're outstanding." Then I heard Boulez and several other conductors like Ivan Fischer and Solti in Bartok and I thought these were completely different performances and all of them were completely valid views of the composer's music. Boulez likes orchestral clarity and putting the score under a microscope, Fischer finds more of a middle ground with the music and doesn't play to either extreme, while Solti is a raging bull. Anyway, I've come to enjoy these performances much more than Reiner's. I still enjoy Reiner don't get me wrong, but I found other performances by other conductors that I enjoy even more.

I just want Ilaria to understand that Karajan isn't the only viable view of a composer. A lot of it also has to do with what music you're drawn to as well. Like, for example, I wouldn't listen to Karajan's Stravinsky or Bartok for the simple reason that I thought he was a poor conductor in their music. I turn to Karajan for Germanic and Scandinavian music. Another recording I like of Karajan's is his performance of Grieg's Peer Gynt Suites on DG. Such masterful performances that I think the only alternative I enjoy in these suites is Temirkanov on RCA. For the whole work, that's an easy call: Paavo Jarvi on Virgin Classics. Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. I just want to say that I enjoy Karajan in what I think he's good at conducting.

[Scarpia]

I warm to this sort of response, which is essentially a human one. There are so many ways of listening to music, and so many different reasons for inclining towards one performance rather than another. I find quite often that what I want is to soak myself in the interpretation of a particular performer/conductor/instrumentalist merely because I admire them so much (an admiration based on my enjoyment of other works than this one here and now). But it's nothing to do with idolisation: it arises from an existing hard-earned respect and admiration, and an open willingness - a kind of trust gained elsewhere, if you like - to attend carefully, on the basis of that, to discover what's going on here.

Beautifully put.  I find that there are artists where their work outside their "specialty" if of value to me because I have an interest in their artistic vision.  For conductors, Karajan, Harnoncourt, Barbirolli, a few others fall into this catagory.  For instrumentalists, Pollini, Schiff, Kempff, Brendel are performers I have a great deal of faith in.

[Lisztianwagner]

There is absolutely no reason that you should be made to apologize for an enthusiastic appreciation of Karajan's work, or the work of any other conductor, composer, performer, etc.  It seems clear to me that you are a more perceptive and open-minded listener than the person who is hectoring you.

Thank you for the nice words, Scarpia.
I wasn't apologizing for my enthusiasm about Karajan's work, I just wanted to make clear that, althought I extremely love Karajan's conducting style, this doesn't certainly distort my perception of music. My admiration comes from my huge enjoyment and the deep connection I feel with that way of interpretation, that can be the Karajan's, Kleiber's, Bernstein's, or about instrumentalists, Ashkenazy's, Richter's or Rubinstein's.
John didn't hector me, I understood what he meant.

[Mirror Image]

John didn't hector me, I understood what he meant.

Good to hear you recognize that I wasn't doing anything but offering a different perspective. People like Scarpia are always out to read the negative in what I write and it's good to see people like you, Ilaria, who know I would never intentionally insult you.

[Lisztianwagner]

Let me reiterate, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Ilaria enjoying, and admiring, Karajan's conducting. It is clear that he moves her emotionally/intellectually, but my point is that this admiration should never led to an idolization for the simple reason that it could cloud her judgment of the performance itself. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited here and I apologize to Ilaria if it appears this way. This is not my intention.

No problem, John; it's rather enlightening to discuss with someone who has a different point of view.
I perfectly know that, as much as I love Karajan's way of interpretation, his is not the only approach to music; certainly my favourite and that one I feel the deepest connection with, but not the only one. Otherwise I would have never considered and listened to masterpieces like Bernstein's Mahler No.4, 5, 6 & 9, Barenboim's Der Ring des Nibelungen, Kleiber's Beethoven No.5 & 7, the Jansons Tchaikovsky's Symphony Cycle and Ashkenazy's Sibelius Symphony Cycle. Whenever I listen to music I always try to be as impartial as possible and I let nothing cloud my judgment.