Who are the mediocrities of conducting?

[BorisG]

I'm to nominate Polyansky. His orchestra play worse and worse (in 2005-2006 everything was much better). At least he is very bad manager.

I think his saving grace is that he often records off the main road, and much of his competition is out of print. He does have a following.

I currently only hold his Schnittke 7, choosing to cull Glazunov and other Schnittke. Too limited experience to gong him.

[Pierre]

I think his saving grace is that he often records off the main road, and much of his competition is out of print. He does have a following.

I currently only hold his Schnittke 7, choosing to cull Glazunov and other Schnittke. Too limited experience to gong him.

I'm not so sure that is a saving grace - if a mediocre performance is all that's available of particular repertoire, many people could be deceived by the poor result into thinking that the repertoire is no great shakes.

[MISHUGINA]

How about Anton Nanut? I don't know if I'd class him as 'mediocre' or 'underrated'. Some may say 'overrated'!

Overrated my foot. I think he's like a modern day Horenstein in terms that he did big things with a regional ensemble. His Tchaik "Pathetique" is my favorite recording of that work. His Mahler isn't shabby either as well as other stuff I heard of him captured in superbudget cds. Definitely I would turn to again and again compared with a Rattle or Welser-Most 

[BorisG]

I'm not so sure that is a saving grace - if a mediocre performance is all that's available of particular repertoire, many people could be deceived by the poor result into thinking that the repertoire is no great shakes.

Yes, there are many ways for a label to deceive. Let me count the ways.

Some listeners are happy with any catalogue representation of an under-recorded work. They may not be as discerning as you. One budget label made a fortune from that niche, and Chandos has not done too bad.

[tab]

I think his saving grace is that he often records off the main road, and much of his competition is out of print. He does have a following.

I currently only hold his Schnittke 7, choosing to cull Glazunov and other Schnittke. Too limited experience to gong him.

My opinion is based on his live performances (about 6). He likes to play Mahler in Moscow but I don't think he takes the level of his orchestra into account. Mahler is just too technically hard for them to play and even Rozdestvensky can't bring them to life.

Again, I think it's a management thing - he can't keep good musicians with him. In "good old Soviet times", when the membership was more constant, the results were much better too.

Also he was very good choir conductor and going towards symphonic repertoire with weak forces was a mistake.

[Bunny]

Overrated my foot. I think he's like a modern day Horenstein in terms that he did big things with a regional ensemble. His Tchaik "Pathetique" is my favorite recording of that work. His Mahler isn't shabby either as well as other stuff I heard of him captured in superbudget cds. Definitely I would turn to again and again compared with a Rattle or Welser-Most 

I'm quite fond of his Mahler 5th, which is darn good.

Ah, someone has brought up Frankly worst than most.   For a while I thought this thread had degenerated into a Solti discussion.

[Brian]

Stephen Gunzenhauser.

[BachQ]

Barry Ross

[BorisG]

My opinion is based on his live performances (about 6). He likes to play Mahler in Moscow but I don't think he takes the level of his orchestra into account. Mahler is just too technically hard for them to play and even Rozdestvensky can't bring them to life.

Again, I think it's a management thing - he can't keep good musicians with him. In "good old Soviet times", when the membership was more constant, the results were much better too.

Also he was very good choir conductor and going towards symphonic repertoire with weak forces was a mistake.

Most conductors are out of their depth with Mahler. I am surprised how many rotten Mahler recordings are released. The labels must think, just get it out there, the Mahler fanatics will buy everything. They may be right.

[Haffner]

Most conductors are out of their depth with Mahler. I am surprised how many rotten Mahler recordings are released. The labels must think, just get it out there, the Mahler fanatics will buy everything. They may be right.

I buy 'em up. Love Andrew Litton!

[eyeresist]

Stephen Gunzenhauser.

I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

[MISHUGINA]

Ah, someone has brought up Frankly worst than most.   For a while I thought this thread had degenerated into a Solti discussion.

His Bruckner 5 is definitely the most overrated recording I've ever heard. I don't get what is so special about that cd unless you like your Bruckner on freakin' accelerator. I'd rather listen to a Celi recording speeded up electronically than that travesty.

[BorisG]

His Bruckner 5 is definitely the most overrated recording I've ever heard. I don't get what is so special about that cd unless you like your Bruckner on freakin' accelerator. I'd rather listen to a Celi recording speeded up electronically than that travesty.

Easy solution, purchase the Horenstein 5 on BBC Legends.

[Brian]

I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

Well I should be fair to the guy. He's made some good Liadov and I really do like his Dvorak 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 (the Fourth might be the best available), but overall, I can't say I've heard anything by him that was truly amazing or truly awful. Maybe "above-average" would be a more apt term.

Generally, though, I think there is a tendency in this thread to get the word "mediocre" wrong. Folks have nominated a lot of conductors who are just plain bad, rather than uneven, and some people have said, "well, so-and-so made two really great recordings, alongside all the forgettable ones, so (s)he must not be mediocre." But isn't the definition of mediocre neither really good nor really bad?

[karlhenning]

I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

Well, if you mean simply that there are not anywhere near so many Dvořák sets as Beethoven or Brahms sets, it's the plain fact, and not mere opinion.

[BorisG]

I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

IMHO, there is enough to suffocate the Naxos maestro's attempts.
For starters.

[Brian]

In all fairness, I'd take the Naxos over Rowicki or Jarvi (and Anguelov over about half the boxes in that post).

Someday, maybe late this summer, I plan on doing a big comparative review of the 'major' Dvorak Symphony Cycles: Suitner, Anguelov, Kubelik, Kertesz, Rowicki, Jarvi, Gunzenhauser, Neumann, Pesek.

[BorisG]

In all fairness, I'd take the Naxos over Rowicki or Jarvi (and Anguelov over about half the boxes in that post).

Someday, maybe late this summer, I plan on doing a big comparative review of the 'major' Dvorak Symphony Cycles: Suitner, Anguelov, Kubelik, Kertesz, Rowicki, Jarvi, Gunzenhauser, Neumann, Pesek.

You have too high an impression of Anguelov, which will probably make a shambles of your big comparative review. 

[Brian]

You have too high an impression of Anguelov, which will probably make a shambles of your big comparative review. 

Well, I don't know. I haven't written it yet, have I? 

[Renfield]

Well, I don't know. I haven't written it yet, have I? 

Nonsense, how can you possibly claim the future is unknown to us?

(Looking forward to it, by the way: I've little in the way of full Dvorak cycles - just 8ths and 9ths and 8ths and 9ths and... )


And that reminds me, I need to do the comparative review of Karajan Beethoven 9ths I'd once promised Mark. Not that I can guarantee Mark will ever read it, but I find it an interesting comparison to do, for its own sake.