Good riddance, Karajan

[MN Dave]

This Lebrecht fellow sure doesn't like Karajan much.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/norman-lebrecht-the-clappedout-legacy-of-karajan-that-impoverished-classical-music-805141.html

[not edward]

I don't think Lebrecht likes many people other than himself.

[head-case]

Karajan is a complex personality.  I think he genuinely felt that music was the most important thing in the world and he saw himself as a servant of great music.  On the other hand, he clearly felt that of all the people in the world, he was the most qualified to serve music (and he might have been right).

If you want to see how Karajan really approached music, I suggest you ignore all of the rhetoric and  watch the rehearsal sequences for Schumann Symphony #4 on this DVD (not the insufferable lecture on Beethoven #5).

[PSmith08]

Lebrecht wants to treat Karajan's postwar career as one monolithic whole. In my view, there are at least two discrete periods: 1946-1977 and 1977-1990. It was in that latter period when many, though not all, of his records had a glassy uniformity and homogeneity to my ears. Before that, he was one of the best in my view. Compare the 1977 Beethoven 9th to the 1984 recording, and I think you might see at least part of my point.

[BorisG]

Lebrecht wants to treat Karajan's postwar career as one monolithic whole. In my view, there are at least two discrete periods: 1946-1977 and 1977-1990. It was in that latter period when many, though not all, of his records had a glassy uniformity and homogeneity to my ears. Before that, he was one of the best in my view. Compare the 1977 Beethoven 9th to the 1984 recording, and I think you might see at least part of my point.

I have learned that whatever the era, whomever the performer, the buyer must beware of DG engineering. It can vary from the shitiest imagineable ('Shit at its best,' borrowing a Gordon Ramsay quote) to quite lovely.

[head-case]

Lebrecht wants to treat Karajan's postwar career as one monolithic whole. In my view, there are at least two discrete periods: 1946-1977 and 1977-1990. It was in that latter period when many, though not all, of his records had a glassy uniformity and homogeneity to my ears. Before that, he was one of the best in my view. Compare the 1977 Beethoven 9th to the 1984 recording, and I think you might see at least part of my point.

I disagree completely.  Very fine and very poor recordings are mingled in all stages of Karajan's career.  For instance, Karajan's 1981 metamorphosen is far more successful than his 1970 recording, same for his 1981 Tod und Verklarung.  His 1977 Beethoven and 1963 Beethoven is far more successful than the 1980's series, but I find his 1980's Brahms cycle generally much more pleasing than the 1978 set and the 1964 set.  And, generally, some of the sense of urgency and earnestness that was missing in earlier efforts. 

[Bonehelm]

I disagree completely.  Very fine and very poor recordings are mingled in all stages of Karajan's career.  For instance, Karajan's 1981 metamorphosen is far more successful than his 1970 recording, same for his 1981 Tod und Verklarung.  His 1977 Beethoven and 1963 Beethoven is far more successful than the 1980's series, but I find his 1980's Brahms cycle generally much more pleasing than the 1978 set and the 1964 set.  And, generally, some of the sense of urgency and earnestness that was missing in earlier efforts. 

Agreed. His 1981 ( or was that 1982?) Planets was HORRIBLE, strings aren't tuned properly at the beginning of Mars, flourishes not ending together, sloppy brass playing, etc.

[PSmith08]

I disagree completely.  Very fine and very poor recordings are mingled in all stages of Karajan's career.  For instance, Karajan's 1981 metamorphosen is far more successful than his 1970 recording, same for his 1981 Tod und Verklarung.  His 1977 Beethoven and 1963 Beethoven is far more successful than the 1980's series, but I find his 1980's Brahms cycle generally much more pleasing than the 1978 set and the 1964 set.  And, generally, some of the sense of urgency and earnestness that was missing in earlier efforts. 

That's fine, but I am going to have to say that the Strauss Metamorphosen and Tod und Verklärung, for me, work a lot better in the 1971/74 recordings than the later ones. It's hard to define precisely why, but I find it easier to engage with the earlier sets than the later ones.

[M forever]

I just read that article and even though I know that from Lebrecht, you can't expect anything of real substance, just over-the-top populist rhetoric, I was astonished by what I read and actually still can't believe he actually wrote that. A lot of what is in the article is factually very wrong, and he knows that. What a hateful, demented little piece of shit that man is.

Karajan was indeed a very complex and controversial figure and full of contradictions. I think it is very telling though that Lebrecht "can't see" why the Philharmonia and Mackerras would want to commemorate Karajan. He made the orchestra, after all.

But I think we should remember that it was Walter Legge of EMI who saw beyond the political levels and brought Karajan to London to train and record with the Philharmonia, a very clever but also bold move, given the time and circumstances. And that Richard Osborne is probably the music journalist who is the foremost expert on Karajan today - who has discussed the very complex question of Karajan's involvement in the NS regime in depth and equally critically and fairly in his book which I am sure Lebrecht has read even though he choses to misrepresent and distort a lot of the facts for his sensationalist agenda -, so we should remember that this primitive, hateful tirade is not at all representative of English music journalism and reception, however loud Lebrecht barks out his crap.

Particularly ludicrous is his idea that Karajan took from the Nazis the idea of "the supremacy of German music" - how do you come up with BS like that? It is neither Hitler's nor Karajan's fault that people all over the world want to hear German music, nor is it Goebbel's fault - it is Bach's, Haendel's, Haydn's, Mozart's, Beethoven's, Weber's, Schubert's, Schumann's, Mendelssohn's, Brahms', Wagner's, Bruckner's, Mahler's, Strauss', and many more evil, evil German and Austrian people's fault...

[Haffner]

It would amaze me if anyone listened to Norman Lebrecht. He has quite the reputation as a misinformed person. It's quite obvious he doesn't really listen to music for anything but fashion, and that's not really taken seriously much around here is it?

[M forever]

I don't really think Lebrecht is "misinformed". I think he is very well informed, but he also likes to ignore facts when they don't suit his sensationalist and apocalyptic agenda. That makes him both a very bad journalist and also a very bad person. He sure learnt a lot more from Goebbels than Karajan did - and BTW, neither Goebbels nor Hitler liked Karajan and even hindered his career massively, so saying he was "Hitler's poster boy" is obscene. BTW2, the guy who wrote the "The Karajan Miracle" article was sent off to the Eastern front by Goebbels where he fell because his praising of Karajan did not fit Goebbels' cultural politics at the time.

Lebrecht wants to treat Karajan's postwar career as one monolithic whole. In my view, there are at least two discrete periods: 1946-1977 and 1977-1990. It was in that latter period when many, though not all, of his records had a glassy uniformity and homogeneity to my ears. Before that, he was one of the best in my view. Compare the 1977 Beethoven 9th to the 1984 recording, and I think you might see at least part of my point.

Not really, because musically, the 1984 recordings of the Beethoven symphonies are musically pretty much the exact same thing as the 1977 ones (although those were actually recorded in 1976, but we all know what is meant   ) - the difference is only the sound of the recordings with their blaring, glassy "early digital" sound. In the concerts which preceded the recordings, it all sounded very similar to the 1977 cycle.

I see maybe 4 periods of postwar HvK:

1946-1956 from when he restarted his career with the EMI recordings in London and refined his craft more and more up to when he reached his artistic lifetime goal: becoming principal conductor of the BP.
1956-late 60s when he found his distinct BP style which was a mix of Furtwaengler's richly sonorous and flowing style and Toscanini's classicism, reached other important goals such as the Wiener Staatsoper and La Scala and established his own festival in Salzburg. I think this phase culminates in the recording and production of the Ring in Salzburg.
Around 1970-early 80s sees him on the height of his achievement but also onsetting artistic stagnation and repetition.
His very late phase, from the early/mid 80s to his death shows the return to some degree to less controlled and polished, but very mature and intense interpretations, maybe beginning with the great live Mahler 9 but going parallel to some degree with some stagnation (the last remake of the Beethoven symphonies, for instance) but also some outstanding late work (e.g. the last Don Quixote) and culminating in his last recordings (most importantly, of Bruckner 7 and .

[Haffner]

I see what you mean in regard to the propagandizing of LeBrecht.

For him to label Karajan as this reliably "smooth", "safe" conductor is especially hilarity-inducing to me this evening, having just got done watching the relevatory Bruckner 9th he performed with the VPO.

Someone told me once that those that can't, teach (that's me!), and those that can't and can't teach, become critics.

[PSmith08]

Not really, because musically, the 1984 recordings of the Beethoven symphonies are musically pretty much the exact same thing as the 1977 ones (although those were actually recorded in 1976, but we all know what is meant  ) - the difference is only the sound of the recordings with their blaring, glassy "early digital" sound. In the concerts which preceded the recordings, it all sounded very similar to the 1977 cycle.

The early digital sound could be a part of it, and I wouldn't deny that. It could also be that, by the time I got around to the '84 symphonies (at least the ones of which I could reasonably justify the purchase to myself), I'd been through the '63 and '77 symphonies, and whatever was new and seemingly spontaneous on the first runs of those was an old chestnut. That is, though, finally the same problem to my mind. I understand Karajan's love of technology (so I gather), but recording the same works in, essentially (though there are some key exceptions, like the late WP Bruckner 8th and 9th, and the live BP Mahler 9th), the same way that one has conducted them for fifteen or twenty years is more of an idée fixe than a statement. What is so startling about it, though, is that he could turn in a record like that '84 Beethoven 9th both a couple of years after that live Mahler 9th and a few years before the Vienna Bruckner stuff. The Bruckner isn't as troublesome, since the EMI 7th, in particular, is wonderful; the Mahler, though, raises more questions than it answers. Don't get me wrong, Karajan was a splendid Mahler conductor (Viz. the 5th and 6th plus the KTL and RL), but at that point in his career, in context, that performance is a little counterintuitive.

I see maybe 4 periods of postwar HvK:

1946-1956 from when he restarted his career with the EMI recordings in London and refined his craft more and more up to when he reached his artistic lifetime goal: becoming principal conductor of the BP.
1956-late 60s when he found his distinct BP style which was a mix of Furtwaengler's richly sonorous and flowing style and Toscanini's classicism, reached other important goals such as the Wiener Staatsoper and La Scala and established his own festival in Salzburg. I think this phase culminates in the recording and production of the Ring in Salzburg.
Around 1970-early 80s sees him on the height of his achievement but also onsetting artistic stagnation and repetition.
His very late phase, from the early/mid 80s to his death shows the return to some degree to less controlled and polished, but very mature and intense interpretations, maybe beginning with the great live Mahler 9 but going parallel to some degree with some stagnation (the last remake of the Beethoven symphonies, for instance) but also some outstanding late work (e.g. the last Don Quixote) and culminating in his last recordings (most importantly, of Bruckner 7 and .

I think that's a fair assessment. In any event, the recordings of his that I value most highly come from, either 1946-1971 (or so) or from 1985 or so on.

[M forever]

Don't get me wrong, Karajan was a splendid Mahler conductor (Viz. the 5th and 6th plus the KTL and RL), but at that point in his career, in context, that performance is a little counterintuitive.

What do you mean by that?

[PSmith08]

What do you mean by that?

That it's an outstanding performance in the middle of his "artistic stagnation and repetition" period. A person without a whole lot of week-to-week experience, if that would have been a leading indicator, with Karajan wouldn't necessarily expect such a reading in 1982.

[M forever]

Well, the "stagnation" element was more in the recordings than in live performances. A lot of the live performances I heard in the 80s were great and the quality of the sound and music making was so distinctive that it was also clear to me as a fairly young person with obviously not so much listening experience at the time. That is why it's so interesting to "recheck" my recollections with live recordings from the period. I just ordered the DVD with the live Bruckner 9 from Berlin 1985. I have never heard a recording of this concert, so I look forward to watching that a lot!

[jochanaan]

Someone told me once that those that can't, teach (that's me!), and those that can't and can't teach, become critics.

LOL What a line!  Can I steal it?

[eyeresist]

I don't really think Lebrecht is "misinformed". I think he is very well informed, but he also likes to ignore facts when they don't suit his sensationalist and apocalyptic agenda.

QFT

He is a tabloid journalist with same methods and ethics as the English Sun newspaper (just imagine the headline "This sleaze must stop!" over a picture of some bird with her tits out).

I enjoyed Lebrecht in my more naive years, but even I could tell his last book was trash, and this article confirms the worthlessness of his work. With every sentence he implies that "Karajan was a Fascist!", which would be funny if it wasn't so venomous. But the substance of his accusation is: Karajan joined the Nazi party after they came to power. Many years later he became famous (without the help of the Nazis) and made a lot of records for DG.

Apparently Hitler said Karajan's conducting was "insufficiently German", which I guess is a sort of compliment.

[Haffner]

LOL What a line!  Can I steal it?

It's a classic, alright. It often astounds me how most "professional" critics "earn" their money.

[karlhenning]

I have a nagging (but possibly erroneous) feeling that that quote originated with Virgil Thomson . . . .