The Karajan Legacy (recordings)

[max]

Re: What is Karajan known for?

...acting and looks as much as conducting. He was supreme in understanding the relation of one to the other.

He generated some great recordings but no more so than any other of the more famous Dirigents of the century.

[Renfield]

...acting and looks as much as conducting. He was supreme in understanding the relation of one to the other.

He generated some great recordings but no more so than any other of the more famous Dirigents of the century.

I think that's a pretty balanced view of Karajan, to be honest.

A fantastic conductor who knew what he wanted, figuring along with a number of other fantastic conductors who knew what they wanted, in the profession's history - from Wagner and Mahler, to Furtwängler and Bernstein...

More on-topic, I'd say Karajan was known for his perfectionism, his insistense on "clean melodic lines" and prominently highlighted musical structure, as well as his notorious love of sound.

He made a point of using his personality as a conducting tool through the consummate acting skills and sensibilities which max and others mentioned, and, on a personal level, he was also a very vain man - the latter helping him as much as it hindered him, in my opinion.

Finally, I'd say Karajan was one of the few conductors to have distinct "early", "middle" and "late" styles - and even a "very late" style, as well (see his last two Bruckner recordings, for instance). The whole "sound versus impact" debate is essentially a product of that evolution, in my opinion; and very intentional, on Karajan's part. After all, as I said above, Karajan knew what he wanted.

[MISHUGINA]

Hey folks, I just watched this DVD which I borrowed from college library:



Now what surprised me was the fact that Karajan's eyes were open for almost the whole duration of the performance! The other time was watching the Bruckner Te Deum video (VPO) where Karajan conducted without his baton (probably to direct the choir easier). What awed me was the fact with his eyes open he did give cues directly to players which was also unusual for us accustomed to him conducting in his usual "zen-like", eyes-closed stasis. I don't know, the look he had throughout the performance was of very serene and confident one and not the usual grim-faced kapellmeister, certainly not the usual Karajan we used to see on his videos. And it's even more puzzling as I know, the 80s era of him with the Berliners isn't all rosy from what I heard.

[Renfield]

Hey folks, I just watched this DVD which I borrowed from college library:



Now what surprised me was the fact that Karajan's eyes were open for almost the whole duration of the performance! The other time was watching the Bruckner Te Deum video (VPO) where Karajan conducted without his baton (probably to direct the choir easier). What awed me was the fact with his eyes open he did give cues directly to players which was also unusual for us accustomed to him conducting in his usual "zen-like", eyes-closed stasis. I don't know, the look he had throughout the performance was of very serene and confident one and not the usual grim-faced kapellmeister, certainly not the usual Karajan we used to see on his videos. And it's even more puzzling as I know, the 80s era of him with the Berliners isn't all rosy from what I heard.

I think Karajan conducting non-choral music with his eyes open is something of a characteristic of the "very late" style of his, that I mentioned above.

The point where he was beyond conducting the performance itself, but rather just tended to fine-tune the sound his well-rehearsed orchestra gave him. His most impressive time, if you ask me.

(Even though that led to some trouble when the main orchestra in question - the Berlin Philharmonic - began yielding less and less to Karajan's ideal.

Whereas the Vienna Philharmonic, for instance, supported him fully: hence a couple of particularly impressive recordings by the Karajan/VPO team from the late 80's. )

[M forever]

What awed me was the fact with his eyes open he did give cues directly to players which was also unusual for us accustomed to him conducting in his usual "zen-like", eyes-closed stasis. I don't know, the look he had throughout the performance was of very serene and confident one and not the usual grim-faced kapellmeister, certainly not the usual Karajan we used to see on his videos. And it's even more puzzling as I know, the 80s era of him with the Berliners isn't all rosy from what I heard.

Karajan always conducted with his eyes open in all the concerts I saw him in, which was from 1983 onwards, I think. This was made in 1986, I think, like most of the films it was filmed to look like a live concert, but it was actually "in studio".
Basically, during those times when he and the orchestra weren't feuding during the 80s, when he showed up, they rehearsed, filmed and recorded all through the week and then played the same program in concert on the weekend. I heard this program live, too, which is the same recording as this one (the CD is the "soundtrack" for the film):



Except they didn't play Pavane in that concert, that was a little later in a program with Haydn 104 and Pics at an Exhibition. That DG CD is actually one of the better recorded and more listenable ones from that period. It's a pity Karajan never did the whole Daphnis and never used the choir either. He was really good in that repertoire, his style of performing that combined elements of the French and German orchestral schools in a unique way.

As many problems as the BP-Karajan relationship had in those years, they still respected each other professionally very much, and he was still very much in control and on top of things when it came to the music making. He was already very sick then, had lots of back problems to the point where he was basically more or less handicapped, and he knew that whatever repertoire he did with them would most likely be his last time of conducting it. His last years had an interesting, if not exactly "raw", but still very direct intensity and despite all the preparation that went into the concerts (and he still rehearsed even repertoire that they had played hundreds of times under him every time he came to it, I remember sitting in a rehearsal of Brahms 1 in which he spent a lot of time working on fine woodwind detail in the third movement), also rather spontaneous quality to them. It was highly interesting to listen to and watch him and the orchestra at work, an outstanding group of highly experienced professionals who made music on the basis of their very long and deep experience. It all happened very naturally, intense and concentrated, but also somehow laid back and just on top of things. The music making had a naturalness and "rightness" about it which I have rarely seen, to that degree really only with very few other conductors, such as Giulini or Wand in their very different ways.

[Varg]

This is what i like about Karajan: this will never be matched by any conductor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mz4dpbk8YBs

It's kind of funny; i never liked anything from Karajan (that i've heard, which is not alot), and i always liked this piece but was never able to really enjoy it. Now it's one of my favorite piece... because of Karajan!

[Harry]

Welcome to the club!

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

This is what i like about Karajan: this will never be matched by any conductor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mz4dpbk8YBs

Oh, welcher Schmerz! I love it.

[Guarnerius]

After reading this thread, I felt such a must to comment this subject. Firstly, when speaking of art and artistic genius, surely we shouldn't mix up it with concepts like hairstyle, personality charm or lack of it etc. Just would like to remind people, when talking music, use Your ears, if U have got a pair! (of course, in DVD era, nowadays it is also possible to C).


What I find naive is even to think that some musical talent could stay continuously respected worldwide, based only for his outlook or musically secondary qualities. Herbert von Karajan did have own PR people etc. but why he shouldn't have had? Would B bit difficult to imagine nowadays a professional conductor, who would stay hiding from public, like "excuse I'm existing"! All art categories should B judged based on their own specific merits. When discussing music, it is finally the sound itself what matters, nothing else, thats my opinion.


Besides, every performing artist is sort of "prison of his own time", I mean, the styles and affections (of the listeners and performing artists themselves) change from time to time. Surely Herbert von Karajan was on the very top of his own time and he left behind some stunning musical heritage ... but what about nowadays? I would like to add, that von Karajan had different "eras", especially as younger age he was blamed for all too rough tempos. But later his pulsation changed more langsam.


Guess that partly the legendaric Karajan "Tonklang" comes not only from his musical perfection and polished sound, but also from the innovations in the sound recording technology during that era. At that time to achieve such a luxury soundscape was something unexperienced before. Of course the CD era also increased the sales of his recordings and von Karajan did know how to take advantage on it, too. What I find especially irritating is to blame him being too "perfect, or elitist". Well that is kind of accusation I never have understood: to reach a certain ideal sound image, that really cannot happen by accident, but it needs long time polishing and intentional goals what to seek. In musical branch it means practically perfect devotion on life time searching and development. In my opinion, there R no excuses to compromise for example in tuning accuracy in any circumstances, whether the music happens to B humorist, spontaneous etc. Once there was an journalist making an interview on Karajan Institute in Austria. He asked "Mr. Karajan, wonder if this institute to cherish musical excellency gonna B bit too elitist?". Herbert von Karajan replied: "No, it is intended to B Superelitist"


Naturally all big conductors have their own favourite programs and styles. Guess that von Karajan was unsurpassed at least in Romantic era. Bruckner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky etc. Strange that only one member remembered to mention about his achievements among Opera, especially in Italian. As s result of von Karajan's contribution also on Opera we R happy to enjoy still nowadays brilliant recordings with fine soloists one superb another. Or is there somebody thinking that Pavarotti, Freni, Ghiaurov etc. R not so legendaric artists - well that will B totally another subject to fight then...


To the statement von Karajan recordings R "lacking of details" or smthg, I would disagree - why would he have said as his own quotation there below, if he didn't pay attention to the details. The essence and importance of such a little thing, among millions others, as "pauses to breath" R just one detailed thing von Karajan was focused to. Tonal accuracy, tempo and harmony, those R essential ingredients, plus luxurious "sound image" to make Karajan recordings legendary.


Summary: chaque son goût, somebody likes Karajan in everything... some one else likes partly with certain composers etc. What is undeniable is that he was one of the Greatest Conductors and Musical Genius in the 20th century.

[Guarnerius]

Oh, welcher Schmerz! I love it.

Genau! In addition to that moving "Schmerz" there is an amazing serenity in the brilliant playing of BPO. It is not only the composition itself, but all those brilliant technical means, which one of the most wonderful orchestras in the world can create together with their conductor.

[c#minor]

I respect the guy, but his sound lack depth. I have never heard of "superficial" to describe his sound but that is what i hear. His interpretations of Russians lack that sharp savageness which is a staple of Russian Music. I feel like his recordings don't grab me. They are impeccable but not emotional. It is really hard for me to understand as well as explain. That is just my opinion. Don't attack me!!! 

[Iago]

               HvK Tells it like it is

[MichaelRabin]

In addition to Iago's post, Karajan has at least 2 jokes that I know are made - that he thinks himself as the A-M.

Joke No 2
Here goes:- Seiji Ozawa says that he is the most famous Japanese name since Sony and his tours with the Boston SO were a great success. But Sir Georg Solti notes that he is the only famous conductor in the top echelon that was knighted by the Queen of England. Ah, but Leonard Bernstein says that he is famous as a conductor, pianist and composer. It was God himself who asked me to write my Mass. Herbert von Karajan snaps - No! I did not.

It was a joke published in the 1982 Time cover, I believe.

[Bogey]

To answer the original question:

Today: Adagios. 

[MichaelRabin]

The best answer is the one I stated before:- The only musician that ever lived who owned a pet llama. Others have dogs, etc. Only Karajan had a pet llama!

[Sarastro]

What is Karajan known for?

Sometimes he over-slows the temps. Sometimes much over. Sometimes it fits. Sometimes it doesn't. But the orchestra always sounds sublime.

[Bonehelm]

Sometimes he over-slows the temps. Sometimes much over. Sometimes it fits. Sometimes it doesn't. But the orchestra always sounds sublime.

Can you describe the sound he is known for? Is it just over-powering brass and weighty, thick strings?

[Varg]

I respect the guy, but his sound lack depth. I have never heard of "superficial" to describe his sound but that is what i hear. His interpretations of Russians lack that sharp savageness which is a staple of Russian Music. I feel like his recordings don't grab me. They are impeccable but not emotional. It is really hard for me to understand as well as explain. That is just my opinion. Don't attack me!!! 

Have you tried his Shostakovich's 10th?

[M forever]

The idea that Russian music generally needs "sharp savageness" or something like that is pretty ridiculous and doesn't do the Russian interpreters from which we have hard some rather intense and at times quite edgy and sometimes, but not generally, even "savage" performances justice either. Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky performances, for instance, aren't necessarily all that traditionally Russian either. His style is the result of a complete re-evaluation of the music which was put down by Soviet propaganda in the 20s and 30s as "decadent" and "bourgeoise" and "too Western". For Mravinsky, Tchaikovsky's music encapsuled a more refined and sophisticated Russia that had been wiped out by the communists. Or at least they had tried to. Performances of Tchaikovsky's music were "discouraged". He reclaimed the music for his time and place in his strictly classicist, unindulgent but at the same time urgently intense style. His performances reflect the memory of an earlier age but also the times he lived in. This complexity of style is best described in the title of a documentary about him: "Russian aristocrat and Soviet conductor".

[Drasko]

Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky performances, for instance, aren't necessarily all that traditionally Russian either. His style is the result of a complete re-evaluation of the music which was put down by Soviet propaganda in the 20s and 30s as "decadent" and "bourgeoise" and "too Western". For Mravinsky, Tchaikovsky's music encapsuled a more refined and sophisticated Russia that had been wiped out by the communists. Or at least they had tried to. Performances of Tchaikovsky's music were "discouraged". He reclaimed the music for his time and place in his strictly classicist, unindulgent but at the same time urgently intense style. His performances reflect the memory of an earlier age but also the times he lived in. This complexity of style is best described in the title of a documentary about him: "Russian aristocrat and Soviet conductor".

Have you read Tassie's Mravinsky biography by any chance? I was thinking about buying it but the price is quite steep.