The Karajan Legacy (recordings)

[Bonehelm]

Hello there, I'm a relatively new classical music listener, and I know I'm slowly learning, please refrain from flaming if I make any mistake, thanks  I'll be glad to learn from you if you want to correct me

I know Karajan is a highly regarded conductor (some say he's the best of his time, or even of all time) so I want to learn more about him. What should I look for in his recordings? What makes him stand out so much? From what I've learned so far, I know he conducts from memory, and his performances are usually full of rich and powerful sounds. I watched some of his DVDs, and I noticed his hand gestures don't have a regular pattern, it moves awkwardly and unpredictably.

In some of his performances, I feel that he takes a lot of music faster than Bernstein (which is my current favorite conductor) and sometimes I even feel some passages are rushed and not clearly articulated, whether it be strings, wind or brass. One thing though, I have to say that the flourishes at the end of many pieces are absolutely brilliant from Karajan, it sends shivers down my spine  Very rarely do I hear such strong and intense tone from any one else (but again, I'm a new listener).

Please give me some insight, experts !  Thanks for your time !

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Seems to me a more balanced analysis of Karajan - both pro and con - would best suit the strengths of the "experts" on this board.

Especially since some of us experts don't care for Karajan!

So...

Right off the bat, I have to say there's plenty in the way of opposition to this claim of "Karajan - Greatest Ever" trumpeting. And from every classical corner.

Note I don't claim Karajan is bad, it's just that for many folks he's not their cup of tea...AT ALL! (Pardon me for speaking for others in this manner but i do feel justified based on the precedent you set in your post.)

The reasons for Karajan's 'infamy' are myriad and trotting out a laundry list of my (or others') dislikes is beyond the scope of this board but suffice to say, very few conductors stir up controversy like Karajan.

In a nutshell, it's the "Karajan Soup" syndrome most detractors point to (like me). That is, skimming the musical surface to achieve a desired sheen or gloss at the expense of depth and detail. For instance, a Beethoven symphony recording I recenty auditioned lacked anything in the way of brass detail. It all sounded washed over in an effort to achieve "the glossy spread".

It's simply not my preferred way to experience any symphonic music. I crave detail and depth. Am I missing something others are getting? Nope. Not after twenty years of genuinely trying to ignite the flame for Karajan.

Anyway, that's all for me now as the Karajan Korps® (his fan base) is already brewing up my lynching so's I better scoot...

[Bonehelm]

Seems to me a more balanced analysis of Karajan - both pro and con - would best suit the strengths of the "experts" on this board.

Especially since some of us experts don't care for Karajan!

So...

Right off the bat, I have to say there's plenty in the way of opposition to this claim of "Karajan - Greatest Ever" trumpeting. And from every classical corner.

Note I don't claim Karajan is bad, it's just that for many folks he's not their cup of tea...AT ALL! (Pardon me for speaking for others in this manner but i do feel justified based on the precedent you set in your post.)

The reasons for Karajan's 'infamy' are myriad and trotting out a laundry list of my (or other's) dislikes is beyond the scope of this board but suffice to say, very few conductors stir up controversy like Karajan.

In a nutshell, it's the "Karajan Soup" syndrome most detractors point to (like me). That is, skimming the musical surface to achieve a desired sheen or gloss at the expense of depth and detail. For instance, a Beethoven symphony recording I recenty auditioned lacked anything in the way of brass detail. It all sounded washed over in an effort to achieve "the glossy spread".

It's simply not my preferred way to experience any symphonic music. I crave detail and depth. Am I missing something others are getting? Nope. Not after twenty years of genuinely trying to ignite the flame for Karajan.

Anyway, that's all for me now as the Karajan Korps® (his fan base) is already brewing up my lynching so's I better scoot...

That's exactly my point. I mean exactly. I find his Beethoven symphonies rough, lacking depth as you said, and is just pure speed/power. I prefer Bernstein over him when it comes to Beethoven, at least for now. I need to study more about him. Thanks for your input though.

[nimrod79]

Karajan's certainly polarizing, and I think the claims of "greatest conductor" are part of the reason.  Like many great conductors, he was an excellent conductor with certain composers but weaker with others.  However, he never seemed to acknowledge weaknesses, making recordings of everything, often several times over (4 Beethoven symphony cycles for example), even if he wasn't particularly adept at the work.  A lot of the problem had to do with the "Karajan sound" that has already been discussed: the homegenous sound that featured lush, heavy strings, a woodwind sound that was accentuated by the french horns, giving it a more aggressive edge, very loud, heavy, bright trumpets, and non-existent lower brass.  He used this style to perform everything, whether it was Bach's Mass in B Minor or Schonberg's Pelleas and Melisande.  It worked with some composers (Bruckner, Strauss) but was bizarre and completely inappropriate with others (his Haydn and Mozary symphonies).  That said, it sounded like nothing else, and gave the Berliners and a Karajan a decidedly distinctive timbre.

If you're interested in Karajan at his best, I'd look into his early stuff (1950s-1960s) made before he had a chance to manipulate the Berlin Philharmonic's sound into the often soupy mess it became by the 1980s.  His digital recordings, among the first ever made, are also rather weak (with his Mahler 9th symphony and Shostakovich 10th symphony notable exceptions).  His EMI Philharmonia stuff is good (Rosenkavalier is a classic), and his Berlin Philharmonic works from the 1960s are also worth listening too (even his second, 1963 Beethoven cycle has some wonderful moments).  I find him to be a great interpretor of Sibelius (his 4th symphony was a Karajan specialty), Stauss, Bruckner, and Tchaikovsky.  His Shostakovich 10th has long been considered a reference performance. 

[Que]

OK, let me say something positive about Herbert von Karajan!
He was good in Bruckner and Richard Strauss, plus the occasional successful outing to another composer.
No, he wasn't the greatest conductor who ever lived and he did not excell in every composer. But no conductor I know of, does so.

Q

[Florestan]

This is a can-of-worms kind of a thread. Just wait until Harry comes online.

[Harry]

There is just one thing I want to say!

Karajan is known for its excellence.

No one can touch him.
Or what a former poster used to have under his avatar.

Karajan rules.

And I am willing to fight over this!

[Harry]

Seems to me a more balanced analysis of Karajan - both pro and con - would best suit the strengths of the "experts" on this board.

Especially since some of us experts don't care for Karajan!

So...

Right off the bat, I have to say there's plenty in the way of opposition to this claim of "Karajan - Greatest Ever" trumpeting. And from every classical corner.

Note I don't claim Karajan is bad, it's just that for many folks he's not their cup of tea...AT ALL! (Pardon me for speaking for others in this manner but i do feel justified based on the precedent you set in your post.)

The reasons for Karajan's 'infamy' are myriad and trotting out a laundry list of my (or other's) dislikes is beyond the scope of this board but suffice to say, very few conductors stir up controversy like Karajan.

In a nutshell, it's the "Karajan Soup" syndrome most detractors point to (like me). That is, skimming the musical surface to achieve a desired sheen or gloss at the expense of depth and detail. For instance, a Beethoven symphony recording I recenty auditioned lacked anything in the way of brass detail. It all sounded washed over in an effort to achieve "the glossy spread".

It's simply not my preferred way to experience any symphonic music. I crave detail and depth. Am I missing something others are getting? Nope. Not after twenty years of genuinely trying to ignite the flame for Karajan.

Anyway, that's all for me now as the Karajan Korps® (his fan base) is already brewing up my lynching so's I better scoot...

Although I respect your explanation, I still do not understand what you are really saying, for in my ears this applies to Bernstein, and not to Karajan. I have lived with his interpretations for such a long time, and still find things never heard before.
He is simply not your kind of conductor, this I understand, but Karajan is not missing in detail or depth.

[Harry]

OK, let me say something positive about Herbert von Karjan!
He was good in Bruckner and Richard Strauss, plus the occasional successful outing to another composer.
No, he wasn't the greatest conductor who ever lived and he did not excell in every composer. But no conductor I know of, does so.

Q

Occasional outings?

Beethoven, Brahms, Honegger, Mahler, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, etc, etc.
One of the greatest he certainly was my friend.
No one every achieved what Karajan did, that even his worst enemies say!

[Harry]

Karajan's certainly polarizing, and I think the claims of "greatest conductor" are part of the reason.  Like many great conductors, he was an excellent conductor with certain composers but weaker with others.  However, he never seemed to acknowledge weaknesses, making recordings of everything, often several times over (4 Beethoven symphony cycles for example), even if he wasn't particularly adept at the work.

That, with respect, is simply not true.


  A lot of the problem had to do with the "Karajan sound" that has already been discussed: the homegenous sound that featured lush, heavy strings, a woodwind sound that was accentuated by the french horns, giving it a more aggressive edge, very loud, heavy, bright trumpets, and non-existent lower brass.  He used this style to perform everything, whether it was Bach's Mass in B Minor or Schonberg's Pelleas and Melisande.  It worked with some composers (Bruckner, Strauss) but was bizarre and completely inappropriate with others (his Haydn and Mozary symphonies).  That said, it sounded like nothing else, and gave the Berliners and a Karajan a decidedly distinctive timbre.

Bernstein had its sound too, no one has problems with that. the fact that Karajan had that too, doesn't make that sound like you described it, less impressive or distinctive. My speakers present the "Sound" to great advantage for the composers, wether you like that or not.


If you're interested in Karajan at his best, I'd look into his early stuff (1950s-1960s) made before he had a chance to manipulate the Berlin Philharmonic's sound into the often soupy mess it became by the 1980s.  His digital recordings, among the first ever made, are also rather weak (with his Mahler 9th symphony and Shostakovich 10th symphony notable exceptions).  His EMI Philharmonia stuff is good (Rosenkavalier is a classic), and his Berlin Philharmonic works from the 1960s are also worth listening too (even his second, 1963 Beethoven cycle has some wonderful moments).  I find him to be a great interpretor of Sibelius (his 4th symphony was a Karajan specialty), Stauss, Bruckner, and Tchaikovsky.  His Shostakovich 10th has long been considered a reference performance. 

O, dear this is a hopeless case, You belong clearly to the anti Karajan section.

[Que]

Occasional outings?

Beethoven, Brahms, Honegger, Mahler, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, etc, etc.
One of the greatest he certainly was my friend.
No one every achieved what Karajan did, that even his worst enemies say!

Don't know his Sibelius or Honneger, but I personally would strike Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Mozart from that list, and would add Dvorak (cello concerto) and some opera recordings (Wagner, Verdi).

Q

[Florestan]

Haydn's Creation anyone?

[Harry]

Haydn's Creation anyone?

Not me, that is, the Orchestral parts are fine!

[Harry]

Don't know his Sibelius or Honneger, but I personally would strike Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Mozart from that list, and would add Dvorak (cello concerto) and some opera recordings (Wagner, Verdi).

Q

I grieve about that, because his Brahms Symphonies are a highlight for me in all respects, (the seventies recordings)
Same goes for the sixties Tchaikovsky recordings.
His Honegger is smashing in vision.
The EMI recordings of Sibelius are something to be treasured, as are the few DGG recordings.
Just try the Honegger on DGG!

[Michel]

Captivating audiences possilby like no other (at least in the post-war period).

[sound67]

Karajan was one of the leading conductors of the 20th century. There is no doubt about that. Whether his paramount influence over classical music (recording) was all for the good is certainly debatable (he tried to hinder the international careers of other promising conductors, like e.g. Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt, and his choice of "core repertoire" meant that pretty much everybody else had to adhere to it, too), but he was a great artist - even if he wasn't all that good at some of the music he treasured most, like Richard Strauss.

Towards the end of his career his fixation with "the absolute sound" became an obsession and resulted in recordings for Deutsche Grammophon in the 1980s that are almost unbearable for their dominant string sheen and general impenetrability.

Certain composers like Bach he did not do "wrong", he just conducted them in a romanticized and souped-up style that today is no longer deemed acceptable. However, the tide may eventualy turn into his direction again once we get bored by all that "hip" sameness. But then again, it may not.

Having said all that, he made a great number of superb and influential recordings between the 1950s and 1970s in particular. His discs of Honegger, Berg, Webern, Schoenberg, Sibelius and particularly Shostakovich are exemplary (once asked which composer he would like to have been had he not been born a conductor Karajan said "Shostakovich"). His recordings of the "Liturgique" Symphony and the Shosty 10th (both ones) must still be regarded as milestones against which modern recordings must be measured. His 1960s Beethoven is indeed "all speed and power", but that is a valid pov, and if you accept it you simply won't find another recording in that style that is even remotely as good.

Karajan arouses controversy mostly because of his alleged pro-Nazi leanings, when in fact he was just a fellow traveler who joined the party to keep his career going - as so many did in those times. If you can't accept it, then please don't ever listen to Karl Boehm, who WAS a Nazi, or to the music of Richard Strauss or Hans Pfitzner. Well, in the case of Pfitzner there are other reasons why one could do without his music. 

The stupidest thing about Karajan I ever read in a forum was that one alleged classical music lover would not buy his recordings because he found him "unbearably vain". If moronic thinking like that ever became the yardstick by which recordings should be measured, it would be a pretty empty field.

Thomas

[Grazioso]

In a nutshell, it's the "Karajan Soup" syndrome most detractors point to (like me). That is, skimming the musical surface to achieve a desired sheen or gloss at the expense of depth and detail. For instance, a Beethoven symphony recording I recenty auditioned lacked anything in the way of brass detail. It all sounded washed over in an effort to achieve "the glossy spread".

9 times out of 10, that's been my experience of Karajan. Everything sounds nice in a superficial way, but only a superficial way. And that can apply to composers he's supposedly good with, like Bruckner.

[Harry]

9 times out of 10, that's been my experience of Karajan. Everything sounds nice in a superficial way, but only a superficial way. And that can apply to composers he's supposedly good with, like Bruckner.

Well luckily for me, there are plenty of people that think otherwise, and especially if it comes to Bruckner.
The word superficial is so easily used in this context. Of all things Karajan is not that.
Or do you think he was so beloved because of that, and all people that listen to Karajan and like him, are superficial?

[PerfectWagnerite]

Karajan is the jack of all trades and master of them all.

When you buy a Karajan performance you can bet it is a reference recording the standard of which all others are judged. So go ahead, take the plunge.

[Bunny]

Captivating audiences possilby like no other (at least in the post-war period).

Wasn't he one of the first conductors to hire a PR man?  He was certainly extremely good at getting his picture in the tabloids with which ever young cutie he was married to.  He had women screaming after him as if he was Frank Sinatra.  That doesn't make him a great conductor but it will sell tickets for his concerts and recordings with his picture on the cover.

Edit: NOT saying he wasn't a great conductor, but I am saying that a head for publicity will sell things regardless of quality.