GMG Classical Music Forum

These are very celebrated living conductors; whom do you choose as the greatest? I will vote for Abbado.

Missing Kurt Sanderling and George Pretre... ;)

My favorite living conductors were not listed so I choose my favorite on the list Seiji Ozawa.

My favorite living conductor is Neeme Järvi son Paavo Järvi.  I am not a big fan of Neeme, he is good at some stuff but not others.  However his son Paavo is fantastic, he brings everything he touches to life! 

I also love these living conductors: Ivan Fischer, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Eiji Oue, Yoel Levi, Robert Spano, David Zinman, Jesús López-Cobos, James Levine, Lorin Maazel, Leonard Slatkin, André Previn and Edo de Waart 

Harnoncourt and Barenboim stand out most on this list, I voted the former. Rozhdestvensky could do with a mention.

No Janssons? No Boulez? Did they die during the night? :(

Quote from: edward on July 22, 2010, 06:02:42 AM
No Janssons? No Boulez? Did they die during the night? :(

No Gardiner no Marriner no Levine no Previn!!!!  The list will be too long!!

My favorite is not on the list, so between Abbado and Haitink, I picked Haitink.

Quote from: karl bohm on July 22, 2010, 06:26:14 AM
No Gardiner no Marriner no Levine no Previn!!!!  The list will be too long!!

So use an other option, to make it an 'exhaustive' list.

Also, a banana option would make a lot of people here happy, although I'm not compelling you to add it. ;)

The list is too short.  And there is no banana option.  One is needed here.

Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 06:44:06 AM
The list is too short.  And there is no banana option.  One is needed here.

otherwise we have nothing but banana skin options...

Christopher Hogwood & John Eliot Gardiner. My other choice, Charles Mackerras, no longer qualifies. :'(

8)

Quote from: edward on July 22, 2010, 06:02:42 AM
No Janssons? No Boulez? Did they die during the night? :(

Yeah, I would have liked to see them and Chailly on the list, too. I probably would have voted for Chailly, but Ozawa gets my vote now.

Oh, I've just had too many negative experiences with Ozawa to sign on, there.

I'd be tempted to say Boulez, so fond I am of these Sony reissues . . . just box after box of good stuff!

Hard to pick. Objectively, either Abbado or Haitink is probably the greatest living conductor, but I haven't heard many Abbado recordings I'd place near the top (but that has nothing to do with his talent, and everything to do with my taste) and Haitink can veer on the boring at times. Harnoncourt is superb in his long-established neighborhood: 17th to the early 19th century. I'm not entirely convinced by his work beyond Schubert, though (except for his Dvorak tone poems...less enthused about the symphonies).

Of the options given, I'm most in tune with Colin Davis and Barenboim. Davis is great in Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Elgar, Sibelius, Tippet, Britten. Barenboim excels in the core 19th, early 20th century Germanic repertoire, including Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, my personal trinity. I'll go with Danny boy.

Sarge

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 22, 2010, 06:47:45 AM
My other choice, Charles Mackerras, no longer qualifies. :'(

8)

He lives on in our hearts and in the music of the recordings he made.

(Now, there's a brilliant out-of-the-box solution! >:D ;))

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 22, 2010, 06:50:17 AM
Oh, I've just had too many negative experiences with Ozawa to sign on, there.

I'd be tempted to say Boulez, so fond I am of these Sony reissues . . . just box after box of good stuff!

Edit :: typos

If Boulez had been a choice, I might have gone with him too...although I've never heard anything by him from the classical era...and if you don't conduct Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, can you really lay claim to being the greatest? His Mahler, Wagner and Bruckner, though, can't be faulted, and of course he's the master of the twentieth century.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 06:57:08 AM
...and if you don't conduct Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, can you really lay claim to being the greatest?

A hundred years ago, the answer to that would have to be no, Sarge.

But now, I wonder.  Not to appear at all, at all to marginalize Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven;  but the literature is much bigger now.  I think it must be possible to become a great conductor, without reinventing the Viennese Classical Wheel.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 06:57:08 AMand if you don't conduct Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, can you really lay claim to being the greatest?

Boulez has conducted works from the era, particularly when he was in charge at New York, and there are a few recordings out there.  (Below is a shot of his most recent Mozart effort.)  So someone could make the claim.  I don't think he would.  I will say that his Mozart below is good if not great, and the few other classical era works I've heard conducted by him earlier in his career were on the aggressive side, but not particularly great.  And keep in mind he's also recorded some Handel commercially, so he goes back in time even more.  (One wonders what he might do with Bach.)

I agree with your assessment of his post-classical recordings.


(http://www.yourmusic.com/images/200x200/1/7/4/174385.jpg)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 22, 2010, 07:00:31 AM
A hundred years ago, the answer to that would have to be no, Sarge.

But now, I wonder.  Not to appear at all, at all to marginalize Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven;  but the literature is much bigger now.  I think it must be possible to become a great conductor, without reinventing the Viennese Classical Wheel.

I agree, you don't need the classical trio to become a great conductor...but I do think you need to conduct those three well in order to qualify for the title Greatest Conductor. While I've personally had enough Beethoven and Mozart in the concert hall (Haydn is not so often played) and rarely get excited when I see them programmed now, the fact remains they hold a preeminent spot, and any conductor who ignores them is going to be thought less of by many. Not necessarily by me...I did say I might have gone with him had he been a choice. Wish he'd conduct some Sibelius though. That might be very interesting.

Sarge

I don't think it matters that Boulez' focus has not been in the music from the Classical era.  IMO, the qualities that make someone a great conductor transcend period.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 07:21:41 AMWish he'd conduct some Sibelius though. That might be very interesting.

A Boulez-led Tapiola would be something I'd snap up.  At least he has a Szymanowski disc coming out later this year to mix things up a bit.

What do we want? Boulez added to the poll!  When do we want it? NOW!

Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 07:12:14 AM

Boulez has conducted works from the era...

Thanks for the info, Todd. I couldn't imagine he hadn't conducted at least a few classical era works at some point in his very long career. I just hadn't heard them, or heard of them. Any Beethoven sightings?

Sarge

Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 07:23:52 AM

A Boulez-led Tapiola would be something I'd snap up.

Yes, and the Fourth.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 07:26:13 AMAny Beethoven sightings?

The Emperor with Clifford Curzon on BBC Legends.  Curzon is so-so, Boulez better than that.  There's a Ninth on YouTube, and what may be the same performance on file sharing sites.  I believe there are other recordings out there, I just haven't pursued them too diligently.  (I've read about a Fifth as well.)

I don't think it's ever been issued on CD but back in the '70s Columbia released an LP of Boulez conducting the Beethoven 5th.

Among those offered, I voted Abbado, though it was nearly a toss-up with Harnoncourt.  Most of those listed don't even qualify for the challenge, IMO, as they either haven't yet the length of career, breadth of repertoire, consistent top notch results from a variety of orchestras, and success as orchestra builders that, for me, would be necessary qualifications for "greatness." 

If Ozawa, Colin Davis, Neeme Järvi, and certain others are on the list, then damn near everyone enjoying a successful, long career as a baton-twiddler ought be there as well--Marriner, Muti (whoops, he's on the list), Maazel (a better candidate than many), Levine, and so on.  And though several of my favorites aren't on the list, chances are good that Abbado would still be my choice against all comers.  With La Scala, the LSO, the CSO, the Vienna Opera, the BP, the WP and Vienna Opera, the COE, and his young Orchestra Mozart, Mahler Chamber Orchestra, and the Lucerne Festival Orchestral, he has gifted the world with an extraordinary body of work in a career distinguishing him as not only the "greatest living conductor," but arguably the greatest conductor of the 20th Century.  YMMV.

A revised list:

    * Claudio Abbado
    * Bernard Haitink
    * Pierre Boulez
    * Ricardo Chailly
    * Daniel Barenboim
    * John Elliot Gardiner
    * Nikolaus Harnoncourt
    * Herbert Blomstedt

(Barenboim is a tough one for me to put there, as I'm not a fan, but many whom I respect are, so he stays.  For the same reason, Gardiner is added--but I do like and admire him.  And if these two belong, then I think Blomstedt certainly ought qualify, too.  As for Chailly and Boulez, the failure to include them in the OP must surely have been an oversight...?  (No doubt I've also left out one or two who ought be on the list.  :^ )  )


Many I admire greatly are yet a bit young with substantial careers ahead of them to qualify yet, such as MTT, Gergiev, Ivan Fischer, Osmo Vänskä, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Paavo Järvi, or they may fall short in breadth of repertoire or genre, like Segerstam or Berglund or René Jacobs.

Among the recently departed, I would add Sinopoli along with Mackerras.  By the way, I was surprised to learn that Sawallisch is still alive.  How can they tell?

If you had started this poll 8 days ago, Sir Charles Mackerras would have been my no-doubt choice.

Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2010, 07:59:13 AM
Many I admire greatly are yet a bit young with substantial careers ahead of them to qualify yet, such as MTT

Michael Tilson Thomas is 65.  I don't know if I'd say that's a bit young.  He's over a decade older than Sinopoli was when he died, for instance.  Whether or not he should be counted among the greatest alive is another question.  (I think he should.)

Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2010, 07:59:13 AM
If...Colin Davis...and certain others are on the list, then damn near everyone enjoying a successful, long career as a baton-twiddler ought be there as well

That makes absolutely no sense to me, David. Davis's breadth of repertoire (the classical era through the 20th century), his skill at interpretation, his sensitivity as an accompanist in concertos (not only can you hear that, but you can see it when he conducts), his ability to conduct not only orchestral works but opera, are as fine as any conductor living today. He's headed the Boston, LSO, Dresden...in other words, some of the very best orchestras. His Mozart opera, his big band Haydn, the Beethoven, Schubert and Sibelius symphony cycles are among my favorites (I know you dislike his Sibelius, and I pray for you ;) ) His Berlioz cycle is the best. Period. He certainly belongs in this poll.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 07:26:13 AM
Thanks for the info, Todd. I couldn't imagine he hadn't conducted at least a few classical era works at some point in his very long career. I just hadn't heard them, or heard of them. Any Beethoven sightings?

Sarge

There is Boulez studio recording of Eroica with Baden-Baden orchestra from early 60s. Don't know if it was ever commercially available. I think I have it somewhere as tape sourced mp3 or something, can't recall much about performance, probably not one to remember.

As for the poll, my vote went to Abbado.

Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:06:19 AM

Michael Tilson Thomas is 65.  I don't know if I'd say that's a bit young.  He's over a decade older than Sinopoli was when he died, for instance.  Whether or not he should be counted among the greatest alive is another question.  (I think he should.)

I thought about this, but figured that he's still pretty healthy and probably still has his best years ahead (not that his career thus far has been short of stellar).  Let's see, Abbado is 77, Boulez 85, Haitink 81, but Barenboim only 68, and Chailly only 57 (!) ... okay, you're right, let's put MTT on the list, too!  (though he'll still fall short of my top choices.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 06:57:08 AM
If Boulez had been a choice, I might have gone with him too...although I've never heard anything by him from the classical era...and if you don't conduct Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, can you really lay claim to being the greatest? His Mahler, Wagner and Bruckner, though, can't be faulted, and of course he's the master of the twentieth century.

Several posts are making the case for thier "favorite" conductor, but that is not the question posed.
The "greatest" living conductor must examine the mastery of entire body of work including opera.

This is where Abbado surpasses others on list.
His opera catalog is easily the most comprehensive of the list especially with Verdi and Puccini
His orchestral work also very comprehensive only lacking in baroque and earlier (pre Haydn) works

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 08:20:50 AM
That makes absolutely no sense to me, David. Davis's breadth of repertoire (the classical era through the 20th century), his skill at interpretation, his sensitivity as an accompanist in concertos (not only can you hear that, but you can see it when he conducts), his ability to conduct not only orchestral works but opera, are as fine as any conductor living today. He's headed the Boston, LSO, Dresden...in other words, some of the very best orchestras. His Mozart opera, his big band Haydn, the Beethoven, Schubert and Sibelius symphony cycles are among my favorites (I know you dislike his Sibelius, and I pray for you ;) ) His Berlioz cycle is the best. Period. He certainly belongs in this poll.

Okay, put him there if you like.  I certainly recognize his breadth and competence and the depth of his experience...I just don't recognize the brilliance that you credit him with, and to me a high batting average for brilliance is a requirement for greatness.  (I realize, however, that "brilliance" is probably even more subjective and impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction than "greatness!")  BTW, I don't dislike his Sibelius, I just don't agree with those who think it's "brilliant."  Thoroughly competent is how his direction strikes me, and in virtually all of the repertoire you mention, he's a darned good "safe" choice...and that's certainly among the reasons he's one of my favorite conductors.

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 22, 2010, 08:31:58 AM
This is where Abbado surpasses others on list.  His opera catalog is easily the most comprehensive of the list especially with Verdi and Puccini

It may be broader, but some of the names mentioned have pretty broad operatic experience, too.  Colin Davis, for instance, has specialized in Mozart and Berlioz, and recorded plenty of other operas.  Barenboim is one of only a few conductors to conduct and record all of Wagner's mature operas (Abbado has not), and he's conducted and recorded a large number of other operas.  Muti was the head of La Scala, and has a very large number of opera recordings, some of them superb, including a rather healthy dose of Verdi.  As much as I like Abbado - he's clearly one of the great living conductors - I don't know if I'd agree with your statement, either as it pertains to volume or importance of opera. 

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 22, 2010, 08:31:58 AM
The "greatest" living conductor must examine the mastery of entire body of work including opera.

If you mean must "demonstrate mastery of the entire repertoire," then no one qualifies. And as we have yet to agree on the criteria, let alone the weighting of each, we're unlikely to agree on the candidates. I do, however, enjoy reading what others think those criteria ought be.

The lack of work in opera is one of the things that disinclines me toward MTT, for instance.  However, few if any of the conductors proposed thus far have been as active in promoting contemporary music, or so successful in reaching out to educate general audiences and thus increase awareness of and interest in classical music as a vital art form, and such endeavors certainly ought to count for something...and maybe enough to outweigh the lack of work in opera.

A couple more points for Abbado..........

Near the end of his career his recent Beethoven and Mahler complete symphony set performances are arguably his best work yet, has not slowed down or gone soft like some aged conductors, continues to challenge himself and others

He will also be remembered for advancing diversity in the composition of orchestras with his hand picked musicians for Lucerne Orchestra, large number of women and minorities reflecting a more universal appeal of classical music......bravo

Check the DVD releases of recent Mahler and Beethoven sets, very nice

If we are discussing greatest rather than favorite, then I think there have to be criteria that we can at least try to quantify.  These would be (in my opinion)

1 Covers wide range of Genres
2 Covers wide range of epochs
3 Covers wide range of cultural traditions
4 Consistent Excellence of performance
5 Unique Interpretations, influence on other conductors
6 Effective administrator, orchestra builder
7 Explores unconventional repertoire

I'd pick Haitink, who is not weak on any of these except perhaps 7 (and maybe 5) although not necessarily the absolute strongest on any.  I have to acknowledge Abbado also scores well, although I personally do not find his style at all attractive, and I can't list a single recording of his that has ever really moved me, expect perhaps for his Chicago Mahler 5.  I'd love to say Harnoncourt, but I have to admit that his acheivements are too narrowly focused in certain categories of music to make him a great generalist.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 22, 2010, 07:24:18 AM
What do we want? Boulez added to the poll!  When do we want it? NOW!

tough call, Probably Sawallisch.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 11:19:45 AM
If we are discussing greatest rather than favorite, then I think there have to be criteria that we can at least try to quantify.  These would be (in my opinion)

1 Covers wide range of Genres
2 Covers wide range of epochs
3 Covers wide range of cultural traditions
4 Consistent Excellence of performance
5 Unique Interpretations, influence on other conductors
6 Effective administrator, orchestra builder
7 Explores unconventional repertoire

I think this is a pretty good list of criteria.  It would be hard for me to come up with one "greatest," though, since so many conductors are good at say, 80% of the repertoire--but each is good at a different 80%. 

My choices would probably be among Abbado, Boulez, Chailly and Haitink (in alpha order), but I'd be hard-pressed to choose just one.

--Bruce

I have most respect for Harnoncourt and possibly Boulez, but a special mention goes to Rozhdestvensky.

Chailly would certainly fill the "opera expert" role very well.

As would a very fine conductor who seems to perpetually fly under the radar: Christoph von Dohnányi.

Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:10:24 AMMy favorite living conductor is Neeme Järvi son Paavo Järvi.  I am not a big fan of Neeme, he is good at some stuff but not others.  However his son Paavo is fantastic, he brings everything he touches to life!

Paavo is decent, but I wouldn't throw superlatives at him just yet. I've ony liked one of his recordings and it's this one:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61GCTX8MPBL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

I think the biggest problem I have with Paavo is too often he lacks rhythmic drive in the music. I also think the way he just goes through composers so quickly makes me wonder how much knowledge he actually has of the composers he's conducting. But these are, of course, my own opinions.

Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:10:24 AMI also love these living conductors: Ivan Fischer, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Eiji Oue, Yoel Levi, Robert Spano, David Zinman, Jesús López-Cobos, James Levine, Lorin Maazel, Leonard Slatkin, André Previn and Edo de Waart

Maazel, Spano, Lopez-Cobos, Slatkin, Zinman, and Oue? Are you freakin' kidding me? Is this a joke? If it is, you got me!!!

Quote from: edward on July 22, 2010, 05:13:41 PM
Chailly would certainly fill the "opera expert" role very well.

Chailly was left off the list, but I think he may be a contender because of the high quality of his work and because of his flexibility.  He certainly is at home in orchestral music and opera.   He does well in core repertoire, as well as modern works. 

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 22, 2010, 06:26:05 PM
Maazel, Spano, Lopez-Cobos, Slatkin, Zinman, and Oue? Are you freakin' kidding me? Is this a joke? If it is, you got me!!!

Nope, totally serious these are my favorites.  Right now I am listening to some fantastic Debussy and Turina conducted by Jesús Lopez-Cobos.

(http://www.sa-cd.net/covers/196.jpg)

I find Paavo Järvi to have superb rhythmic drive, he started out as a percussionist you know.  :)

Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 06:47:45 PMI find Paavo Järvi to have superb rhythmic drive, he started out as a percussionist you know.  :)

Simon Rattle was a percussionist too but this doesn't mean that this aspect of their musical lives will translate well when assuming the role of a conductor. When Paavo first started out, he was a pretty good conductor, and, again, that Grieg recording is a great example of the kind of power he had over an orchestra. It seems his recordings with the Estonian Philharmonic Orchestra have a much more lively energy to them than his later recordings with Cincinnati and the Frankfurt Radio Symphony. Now, I find his music-making to be quite uninspired and lifeless.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 06:57:08 AM
If Boulez had been a choice, I might have gone with him too...although I've never heard anything by him from the classical era...and if you don't conduct Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, can you really lay claim to being the greatest? His Mahler, Wagner and Bruckner, though, can't be faulted, and of course he's the master of the twentieth century.

Sarge

There's a WP-issued DVD that includes Boulez conducting the London symphony. Could be interesting.

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=WPH-L-H-2009

Also a Mozart D minor concerto with Pires here:

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=2053078

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 22, 2010, 07:09:39 PMWhen Paavo first started out, he was a pretty good conductor, and, again, that Grieg recording is a great example of the kind of power he had over an orchestra. It seems his recordings with the Estonian Philharmonic Orchestra have a much more lively energy to them than his later recordings with Cincinnati and the Frankfurt Radio Symphony. Now, I find his music-making to be quite uninspired and lifeless.

Listen to Paavo's Beethoven (esp. 2-4, 7-8). If you find that "lifeless," then my name is Grover McGillicuddy.

Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2010, 07:43:35 PM
Listen to Paavo's Beethoven (esp. 2-4, 7-8). If you find that "lifeless," then my name is Grover McGillicuddy.

I'm not a big fan of Beethoven's music, so I doubt I will be hearing them. But regarding, late-Romantic and early 20th Century music, I just haven't heard anything remotely inspiring coming from his baton. Bare in mind, this is just my opinion and I certainly am happy to speak from the minority regarding his conducting. But I'm just not apart of the Jarvi bandwagon.

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 22, 2010, 07:48:00 PM

I'm not a big fan of Beethoven's music, so I doubt I will be hearing them. But regarding, late-Romantic and early 20th Century music, I just haven't heard anything remotely inspiring coming from his baton. Bare in mind, this is just my opinion and I certainly am happy to speak from the minority regarding his conducting. But I'm just not apart of the Jarvi bandwagon.

Okay. I know little of Paavo outside of Beethoven.

I voted for Davis, love him in Berlioz and I love him in Bruckner. I find those two sufficient.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 11:19:45 AM
If we are discussing greatest rather than favorite, then I think there have to be criteria that we can at least try to quantify. 

For me at least, one of these criteria is that a conductor leaves a definite stamp on the way music is made - by bringing a composer out of the shadows, or by creating a different style of playing, for instance.

Mackerras for example brought Janacek out of the Czech ghetto and made him a regular in the opera houses and concert halls of the world.

Bernstein did great things to promote Mahler (though claims of his single-handed revival of Gustav are exaggerations), and was also the greatest promoter ever of American orchestral music.

The major figures of the early music revival (like Harnoncourt and Leonhardt) also count, regardless of whether you like their approach or not, because they changed our understanding of how past music should be played.

There are lots of fine conductors who can lead good performances of various repertoire. There are very few who can alter our musical landscape in a meaningful way.

I voted for Haitink but also think highly of Previn, Ashkenazy, Slatkin and (having seen him at a rehearsal) Jurowski.

Which Jurowski, Mikhail or Vladimir?

The Ma Vlast thread reminded me to mention Antoni Wit - I don't think he is the greatest by any stretch (I haven't voted yet, am leaning toward Harnoncourt), but I do feel like somebody ought to mention him in this thread. Champion of Penderecki, Lutoslawski, and Karlowicz; able or more than able conductor of the high romantics (Strauss, Smetana, Dvorak, others); and he did pretty well by Weber in a recent disc too. His way with Schumann roused critics into a kerfuffle. Next year's release of a Janacek album - Glagolitic Mass and Sinfonietta, two works for which I very heavily favor Czechs like Ancerl - will be a major test. The man's main limitation is his modesty of ambition; he doesn't seem particularly willing to leave Poland and take more high-profile concert environs by storm.

Anyhow, leaning towards Harnoncourt, but Abbado is making me think. Barenboim too. Boulez three - just for the glorious DG Ravel!

Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2010, 06:32:02 AMKarlowicz

Great composer! Kudos for mentioning this virtual unknown. I have both of Wit's recordings of Karlowicz's orchestral works. Great discs!

One important aspect to conducting that isn't really being mentioned here is the orchestra-building aspect. Though it's not necessarily so easy to assess this, leaving an orchestra in better shape than you found it is surely a key aspect in being a great conductor.

Another vote for Harnoncourt. :)

Wow, i don't find any of these conductors to be particularly exiting, though some of them occasionally manage to reach greatness (I.E, Harnoncourt's paris symphonies). Disappointing.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 23, 2010, 10:59:13 AM
Wow, i don't find any of these conductors to be particularly exiting

Gets my vote for most expressive omission of the letter c.

Harnoncourt by a country mile.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 23, 2010, 10:59:13 AM
Wow, i don't find any of these conductors to be particularly exiting, though some of them occasionally manage to reach greatness (I.E, Harnoncourt's paris symphonies). Disappointing.

Which conductors are at the top of your list?

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 22, 2010, 06:52:21 AM

Of the options given, I'm most in tune with Colin Davis and Barenboim. Davis is great in Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Elgar, Sibelius, Tippet, Britten. Barenboim excels in the core 19th, early 20th century Germanic repertoire, including Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, my personal trinity. I'll go with Danny boy.

Sarge

I also would go with Davis, especially for his Berlioz and Haydn.  If Gardiner was on the list, he would get my vote.

All the Harnoncort voters...........

Although I usually enjoy his work he is too specialized in baroque/classical and German/Central Europe composers to be seriously considered greatest living conductor, orchestral work does not include any major performances of composers beyond @1890 compared to Abbado, Haitink etc

His opera portfolio is very small with only Mozart or earlier works at this time

What am I missing, how is he greatest living conductor?

Quote from: edward on July 23, 2010, 06:54:24 AM
One important aspect to conducting that isn't really being mentioned here is the orchestra-building aspect. Though it's not necessarily so easy to assess this, leaving an orchestra in better shape than you found it is surely a key aspect in being a great conductor.

This aspect is something that played into my voting for Simon Rattle. I think if it hadn't been for him than the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra wouldn't be as highly regarded as it is today. Regardless of what his detractors say, you don't become principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic by sitting on your ass and not doing anything. He deserves his success and he worked hard for it.

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 23, 2010, 12:21:54 PM
All the Harnoncort voters...........

Although I usually enjoy his work he is too specialized in baroque/classical and German/Central Europe composers to be seriously considered greatest living conductor, orchestral work does not include any major performances of composers beyond @1890 compared to Abbado, Haitink etc

For me, Harnoncourt always inscribes some ugliness to the music he performs! I've recently heard his much appraised recording of Beethoven's overtures; although he gives them some kind of power they deserve, they lack spirit and depth in emotion. Slow passages are dull; the tutti is harsh!!!

Listen to his Brandenburg Concerti; how ugly they are!!!!!!!!

However, I have to admit that I enjoy his recording of Haydn's Paris Symphonies.

   I've never believed in the "greatest" conductor ,or pianist,violinist,singer,composer etc. There's no such thing.
   There are so many great conductors,living and dead,and quite a few very promising young ones who have the potential to achieve greatness. 
   We tend to equate the greatest with the most famous,and this is not necessarily the case.
 
  Among the greatest deceased are: Furtwangler,Toscanini, Walter,Klemperer,Monteux, Karajan,Solti, Bohm, Knappertsbusch,
Monteux, Talich, Jochum, Reiner, Koussevitzky, Beecham, Munch,
DeSabata, Szell,Barbirolli, Stokowski, Ormandy, Mravinsky,Tennstedt,Mackerras,
Steinberg, Kubelik, Carlos and Erich Kleiber, Ansermet, Horenstein,
Kempe, Boult,Celibidache,Dorati,Weingartner,etc,(I'm sure I've left some out).

Among the living: Abbado, Boulez,Haitink, Dutoit,Gergiev, Neeme Jarvi, Jansons, Sawallsich,Sanderling,(the elder), Barenboim, Levine,
Muti,Rattle,Cahilly,Masur,Mehta,Maazel,Ozawa,Previn,Dohnanyi,
Muti,Colin Davis,Thomas,Harnoncourt, Nagano,Thielemann,
Blomstedt,Gielen,Gardiner, Janowski, Slatkin, Temirkanov,Vanska,
etc. (Again,I've no doubt left some out.)

Quote
For me, Harnoncourt always inscribes some ugliness to the music he performs! I've recently heard his much appraised recording of Beethoven's overtures; although he gives them some kind of power they deserve, they lack spirit and depth in emotion. Slow passages are dull; the tutti is harsh!!!

Listen to his Brandenburg Concerti; how ugly they are!!!!!!!!

However, I have to admit that I enjoy his recording of Haydn's Paris Symphonies.

Could not agree more. His Bach Brandenburgs also strike me as downright ugly, topped however by his Handel ...
There is a single exception. For some reason, I like Harnoncourt's Missa Solemnis better than any other recording of that work.

Quote from: James on July 24, 2010, 07:47:48 AM
I really enjoy & admire Abbado for some of the repetoire he tackled and managed to pull off mostly well in recordings... the 2nd Viennese School, Ligeti, Nono, Boulez, Stockhausen, Kurtág, Rihm .... even Xenakis ...

Agreed, his Lontano is still my favourite recording of my favourite orchestral Ligeti work.

On the demerit side, I really think his Gruppen should have been strangled at birth. It has (in my opinion) a lot of balance issues and nothing like the cumulative effect of the '60s recording conducted by Boulez, Maderna and the composer, and while that original recording is far from perfect it isn't the error-strewn mess that this more recent one is.

I know my own opinion of the work skyrocketed when I heard the original recording, even though my copy is on in-none-too-great-condition vinyl.

Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2010, 06:32:02 AM
Which Jurowski, Mikhail or Vladimir?

The Ma Vlast thread reminded me to mention Antoni Wit - I don't think he is the greatest by any stretch (I haven't voted yet, am leaning toward Harnoncourt), but I do feel like somebody ought to mention him in this thread. Champion of Penderecki, Lutoslawski, and Karlowicz; able or more than able conductor of the high romantics (Strauss, Smetana, Dvorak, others); and he did pretty well by Weber in a recent disc too. His way with Schumann roused critics into a kerfuffle. Next year's release of a Janacek album - Glagolitic Mass and Sinfonietta, two works for which I very heavily favor Czechs like Ancerl - will be a major test. The man's main limitation is his modesty of ambition; he doesn't seem particularly willing to leave Poland and take more high-profile concert environs by storm.

Anyhow, leaning towards Harnoncourt, but Abbado is making me think. Barenboim too. Boulez three - just for the glorious DG Ravel!

I have to agree that Antoni Wit is a great conductor. Unfortunately, I don't have very many of his recordings so I couldn't say whether he is a candidate for a 'greatest conductor' list.  His recording of Smetana's Ma Vlast is as good as any I have heard and I love his recordings of the Schumann symphonies.

I am not sure there is a 'greatest conductor.' There are many who have done some things better than practically everyone else (there are seldom any 'greatest' recordings, either!) and I think Antoni Wit is one of them. 

If we had a set of criteria and weights we agreed on, this would be easy.

Personally. I look at this a bit differently: Which conducters make me want to go listen to their concert? That is, which conductor, just by seeing his name there, makes me want to consider going to a concert they are conducting? Rightly or wrongly, there are only three that currently have that 'attraction'. They are (in no order): Abbado, Gergiev and Levine. That is, knowing only the time period of the pieces (or perhaps the composers, but not the names of the pieces) and not knowing the orchestra, I would want to see these guys conduct.

Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2010, 06:32:02 AM
Which Jurowski, Mikhail or Vladimir?

Vladimir - also a vote for Rozhdestvensky (why is is Prokofiev Symphony No 5 not on CD - best version I ever heard).

QuoteI also would go with Davis, especially for his Berlioz and Haydn.  If Gardiner was on the list, he would get my vote.

IMO Gardiner is a much more interesting conductor than Barenboim, Muti, Masur, and most of the others mentioned in the list. I think much of his Handel is almost unmatched.

Of course the poll has not obtained enough votes to provide hard indications; but I am surprised how low down Boulez is. He brings a creativity born out of his being a composer and a freshness to his repertoire. I like Jarvi, but assume it is the low number of overall votes that puts them on a par with one another, rather than any growing consensus.

I voted Abbado.

Mike

I'm just surprised to see all the votes for Harnoncourt. His conducting isn't quite the spectacle people seem to have made it out to be in my opinion. I own several of his recordings and they didn't do much for me. I'm a huge Bruckner fan and I found his recordings to be decent, but ultimately nothing special.

Quote from: knight on July 25, 2010, 01:52:14 AM
Of course the poll has not obtained enough votes to provide hard indications; but I am surprised how low down Boulez is. He brings a creativity born out of his being a composer and a freshness to his repertoire. I like Jarvi, but assume it is the low number of overall votes that puts them on a par with one another, rather than any growing consensus.

I voted Abbado.

Mike

Boulez is too limited in what he comducts, since his recorded output is mostly 20th century (and some late 19th). It doesn't mean he is bad.

Bruce assures me there is a recording of Boulez conducting Handel. I tell him he is hallucinating; but he is no doubt right. One swallow would not make a baroque summer. Yes, his tastes are narrow in comparison with some; but he is able to get us to reevaluate a deal of the work that he takes on. But for sure I would not give him the crown of laurels.

Mike

Boulez was added after a lot had already voted - I would imagine he'd be in the top 4 if not.

Quote from: knight on July 25, 2010, 01:52:14 AM
Of course the poll has not obtained enough votes to provide hard indications; but I am surprised how low down Boulez is. He brings a creativity born out of his being a composer and a freshness to his repertoire. I like Jarvi, but assume it is the low number of overall votes that puts them on a par with one another, rather than any growing consensus.

Quote from: Lethe on July 25, 2010, 03:40:39 AMBoulez was added after a lot had already voted - I would imagine he'd be in the top 4 if not.

Word. 

We might get a more accurate GMG participant consensus if each could vote for, say, three candidates..though as much as I like and respect Boulez, I'm still not sure I'd select him among my top three candidates for greatest rather than favorite.  (How tall is he?)  Interesting that the poll originator, karl bohm (whose name is curiously similar to another great conductor, Karl Böhm) chose to add him but none of the other omissions mentioned above.  Just shows how poll results can reflect the questions asked and the answers allowed more than the real opinions of those sampled.

Fine, I had not read right through, so did not know he was a late runner.

Do we need to worry about hanging chads and count transferable votes?

Mike

Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 04:06:28 AM
Just shows how poll results can reflect the questions asked and the answers allowed more than the real opinions of those sampled.

There would be a more accurate result if, instead of a poll, the OP had simply asked, What three living conductors are the greatest, and then, after a few weeks, count the results. Would it be different though? The current poll results reflect my "objective" thoughts on the matter: that Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt are probably the greatest living conductors even though, as I stated in my first post, Barenboim is more to my taste in much of the repertoire.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 25, 2010, 04:50:41 AM
There would be a more accurate result if, instead of a poll, the OP had simply asked, What three living conductors are the greatest, and then, after a few weeks, count the results. Would it be different though? The current poll results reflect my "objective" thoughts on the matter: that Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt are probably the greatest living conductors even though, as I stated in my first post, Barenboim is more to my taste in much of the repertoire.

I like the idea, Sarge...though, as you doubtless recognize, the result would tell us only which living conductors are most liked by current GMG participants.  I suspect Abbado & Harnoncourt would still come out on top.  Though both have some detractors here (so do Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart!), their greatness is generally recognized.  I've seen Haitink, however, dismissed by many as a competent but dull time beater, so I'm not so sure he would place as high as third.   It might be interesting to hear from the 5 (so far) who selected him.

And as Barenboim is more to your taste, so Boulez is more to mine, and that also has something to do with the repertoire they (and we) favor as well as with their styles.  Cheers, dude, and have a terrific day!

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 25, 2010, 04:50:41 AM
There would be a more accurate result if, instead of a poll, the OP had simply asked, What three living conductors are the greatest, and then, after a few weeks, count the results. Would it be different though? The current poll results reflect my "objective" thoughts on the matter: that Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt are probably the greatest living conductors even though, as I stated in my first post, Barenboim is more to my taste in much of the repertoire.

I must again throw down the gauntlet.....why is Harnoncourt the greatest living conductor

He has huge holes in his portfolio of work especially opera and has not been appointed permanent music director of a major orchestra. He has spent most of his time specializing in baroque music and advancing original instrument practice only recently expanding to classical and romantic composers of Germany/central europe

If the question is who is greatest living baroque conductor then Harnoncourt could definitely be the one, but that was not the question.......what are his qualifacations that make him superior to Abbado overall?

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 25, 2010, 06:16:17 AM

I must again throw again down the gauntlet.....why is Harnoncourt the greatest living conductor

He has huge holes in his portfolio of work especially opera and has not been appointed permanent music director of a major orchestra. He has spent most of his time specializing in baroque music and advancing original instrument practice only recently expanding to classical and romantic composers of Germany/central europe

If the question is who is greatest living baroque conductor then Harnoncourt could definitely be the one, but that was not the question.......what are his qualifacations that make him superior to Abbado overall?

Well, I'm scarcely qualified to answer your question, especially since I voted for Abbado, who would be my choice even if all credible candidates were among the choices offered in the poll.  However, let me answer what I can.

In the first place, Harnoncourt founded his Concentus Musicus nearly 60 years ago, starting the most significant revolution in classical music performance of the 20th Century.  His interest in and scholarship on period instruments and performance practice have arguably had more far-reaching influence than that of any other single musician of his time.  He may not have been music director of any of the world's most renowned orchestras, but I imagine many would have been happy to get him had he been interested in such a position.  Instead, he has pursued his own interests and goals and has worked with many if not most of the world's great orchestras, enriching and informing their practice, and in the process creating an admirable body of work in both performance and recording that most in his profession would envy. 

Hardly a baroque specialist alone, his legacy includes landmark recordings of not only Bach, but also of Classical and Romantic composers including Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms, and Dvořák.  No mere time-beater, he seems always to bring a fresh approach to whatever repertoire he tackles, making us hear even tired warhorses in new and exciting ways.  And I also suspect that if you were to poll the world's leading orchestra musicians on the same question, then Mr. Harnoncourt would likely place very high in their rankings.

Despite being on something of a summer break, this thread caught my eye.

And, in short, I (also) confidently voted for Harnoncourt.


In more detail, I did so firstly because I am loath to consider any conductor not nearing the end of their career, in the event that at least one who is could qualify for the distinction (ruling out Rattle and Vänskä, to name just two). And secondly, because among surviving conductors nearing the end of their career that I might consider unambiguously 'great' in terms of their overall contribution to classical music, namely Boulez, Abbado, Haitink and Harnoncourt, it is the latter whom I think has offered most in total.

Boulez is almost unmatched in providing fresh perspectives to the works he conducts, particularly with regards to their formal elements. Haitink has impressive breadth of repertory, and can imbue almost anything he conducts with gravitas. Abbado has created the 'miracle' that is the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, and has lately entered that 'elder conductor' zone of introspective interpretation (think late Wand, late Karajan; late Celibidache, if so inclined) possibly more than anyone else I know, especially now that Mackerras is dead. Among other honourable mentions, Gardiner's scholarship and evocation of (various kinds of) awe might also have put him in my premier league, were his repertoire broader.

But Harnoncourt is special to me in his capacity to provide fresh perspectives, and imbue his performances with gravitas, and introspectiveness, and his having mentored a brilliant young orchestra (the COE). Not to mention his scholarship, and singular contribution to Baroque music.

More so, his approach is consistent, rather than hit-and-miss, to the extent that it weakens certain performances (too steely?), but never by making them feel lukewarm (cf. Haitink). And he has the guts to follow a glut of Bruckner, Bach and Schubert with Porgy and Bess. Hardly the profile of someone who only conducts within his comfort zone, with regard to DarkAngel's challenge.

Lastly, Harnoncourt would appear able to arrange conducting appointments with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra almost at will. To my mind, that is a distinction to rival any chief conductor appointment in Europe, or the United States.

Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 06:39:27 AM
Well, I'm scarcely qualified to answer your question, especially since I voted for Abbado, who would be my choice even if all credible candidates were among the choices offered in the poll.  However, let me answer what I can.

In the first place, Harnoncourt founded his Concentus Musicus nearly 60 years ago, starting the most significant revolution in classical music performance of the 20th Century.  His interest in and scholarship on period instruments and performance practice have arguably had more far-reaching influence than that of any other single musician of his time.  He may not have been music director of any of the world's most renowned orchestras, but I imagine many would have been happy to get him had he been interested in such a position.  Instead, he has pursued his own interests and goals and has worked with many if not most of the world's great orchestras, enriching and informing their practice, and in the process creating an admirable body of work in both performance and recording that most in his profession would envy. 

Hardly a baroque specialist alone, his legacy includes landmark recordings of not only Bach, but also of Classical and Romantic composers including Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms, and Dvořák.  No mere time-beater, he seems always to bring a fresh approach to whatever repertoire he tackles, making us hear even tired warhorses in new and exciting ways.  And I also suspect that if you were to poll the world's leading orchestra musicians on the same question, then Mr. Harnoncourt would likely place very high in their rankings.

I really like Harnoncourt but objectively he cannot seriously qualify for greatest living conductor, he is too narrowly focused in his portfolio of work, at least 80% of recordings are baroque mostly Bach and very little opera. He does not have the balance/diversity of experience or the stature of Abbado, he still has time to diversify but he has much ground to make up

Look at Abbados resume of music director, most impressive of any living conductor:
La Scala -> LSO -> BPO

If the question was who was greatest conductor of 20th century I would have to say Karajan even if he is not my favorite I have to recognize his balanced portfolio of work and stature in the profession

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 25, 2010, 07:12:02 AM

I really like Harnoncourt but objectively he cannot seriously qualify for greatest living conductor, he is too narrowly focused in his portfolio of work, at least 80% of recordings are baroque mostly Bach and very little opera. He does not have the balance/diversity of experience or the stature of Abbado, he still has time to diversify but he has much ground to make up

Not being a big fan of diversity/balance, I have to reject the above premise.  Just for his pioneering contributions to early music performance, Harnoncourt rates consideration as the greatest living conductor.  As for stature, I believe that future generations will give Harnoncourt the advantage over Abbado; actually, I think Harnoncourt currently has the greater stature. 

Quote from: Bulldog on July 25, 2010, 08:44:33 AM
Not being a big fan of diversity/balance, I have to reject the above premise.  Just for his pioneering contributions to early music performance, Harnoncourt rates consideration as the greatest living conductor.  As for stature, I believe that future generations will give Harnoncourt the advantage over Abbado; actually, I think Harnoncourt currently has the greater stature.

What facts/observations do you offer to support this opinion......
Especially considering Abbado's resume of previous music director positions

Greatest conductor.......
If you are not concerned with a conductors entire diversity/balance of work and demonstration of skill over a wide range of styles then the list can never be narrowed down, many conductors are very skilled in certain area but only a very few have a near complete portfolio of classical performance

If the music director job at BPO was available tomorrow I do not think Harnoncourt would be considered, he just does not have the diverse experience needed for the job......not today anyway

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 25, 2010, 10:02:55 AM

What facts/observations do you offer to support this opinion......
Especially considering Abbado's resume of previous music director positions

Just like with balance/diversity, you're placing high priority on previous positions.  To me, these are collateral considerations. 

Anyways, your comments above are about the issue of stature.  I've already offered my opinion why Harnoncourt's stature is greater than Abbado's, particularly for future generations.  I'm not aware of any genre of music where Abbado is a pioneer or has given us highly distinctive performances.  If you offer up one of more examples, I'd be happy to reconsider my current opinion.

QuoteAnyways, your comments above are about the issue of stature.  I've already offered my opinion why Harnoncourt's stature is greater than Abbado's, particularly for future generations.  I'm not aware of any genre of music where Abbado is a pioneer or has given us highly distinctive performances.  If you offer up one of more examples, I'd be happy to reconsider my current opinion.

I find this discussion very interesting. The question really seems to be: What are one's criteria for greatness? I guess several answers are possible here.
Just out of curiousity:  What do you think about Harnoncourt's Handel? How do you rate his Bach in comparison with, e.g. Suzuki's?
I agree about Harnoncourt being a pioneer, and in a sense I'd also be inclined to call him one of the "greatest" living conductors; the only trouble is that, as mentioned earlier, I find his performances downright ugly in many cases. In this respect, he is different from any other conductors who I'd be inclined - if pressed at gunpoint, at least  ;D - to call "great"

Quote from: Bulldog on July 25, 2010, 10:33:27 AM
Just like with balance/diversity, you're placing high priority on previous positions.  To me, these are collateral considerations.

Yes but I think you are not giving proper importance to a high quality diversified portfolio, why is this not the primary reference for greatest living conductor......

If you are considering greatest baseball player ever you must look at his entire spectrum of statistics and also his overall ability to make his teams win etc cannot just be very good in a limited area and still unproven in others

Quote from: Verena on July 25, 2010, 10:52:56 AM
I find this discussion very interesting. The question really seems to be: What are one's criteria for greatness? I guess several answers are possible here.
Just out of curiousity:  What do you think about Harnoncourt's Handel? How do you rate his Bach in comparison with, e.g. Suzuki's?
I agree about Harnoncourt being a pioneer, and in a sense I'd also be inclined to call him one of the "greatest" living conductors; the only trouble is that, as mentioned earlier, I find his performances downright ugly in many cases. In this respect, he is different from any other conductors who I'd be inclined - if pressed at gunpoint, at least  ;D - to call "great"

The important thing to keep in mind about the criteria for greatness is its subjectivity. 

Concerning Harnoncourt vs. Suzuki in Bach, I'd take Suzuki.

Quote from: DarkAngel on July 25, 2010, 10:56:23 AM

Yes but I think you are not giving proper importance to a high quality diversified portfolio, why is this not the primary reference for greatest living conductor......

We could go back and forth on this all day.  As simply as I can put it, your standards are not mine.  I am not enamored of the diversified aspect, so I obviously would not give it much weight.  Heck, I wouldn't even give it any consideration - wouldn't enter my mind.

There are times when diversification is very important.  I remember when my real estate division had to reduce staffing levels by about 40% while retaining the full complement of real estate services.  Under those circumstances, diversity of employee skills became my bible. 

Obviously, none of the above. I agree with Superhorn about the impossibility of selecting a "greatest" - but, for argument's sake I will pick one in his list of the living: Michael Gielen.
Pedigree: he was Erich Kleiber's Korrepetitor in Buenos Aires.
History: he was not only recording back in the early 60s, but by the 70s he had (for German radio) performed Beethoven's symphonies with their original metronome markings (following Kolisch's analysis in Tempo and Character in B's Music, which had a decisive effect on Beethoven reception. He has led a major opera house in Frankfurt, at which several radical directors went in new directions. He conducted the first production of the major post-WW2 opera, Zimmermann's Die Soldaten, which he did again in Frankfurt, where I saw it. His performances of the 2nd Vienna School are legendary, but he has conducted a wide range of modern music, and his renditions of Mahler, while not so flamboyant as some, are among the most scrupulous. His Mozart, Berlioz, Wagner, Verdi, Janacek, Puccini and Strauss, though mainly performed at the Frankfurt Opera and thus less well known, were superb. At the SWF he conducted a wide range of music from Haydn via Bartók to the present. I have also heard him conduct a Matthew Passion that was the best I have ever heard overall.
Weaknesses: his take on French music seems to be limited to a few works,and he has consistently ignored English, Scandinavian and Russian music (like Harnoncourt). He has rarely been given the chance to conduct major orchestras - like Scherchen but unlike Harnoncourt; he is not a fashionable celeb.
He is the only conductor whose work I have been able to follow fairly consistently - live, on radio, and on record. Boulez, who is comparable in some ways, is a zero when it comes to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, which disqualifies him IMO.
I just cannot judge the others, having only heard several of their recordings, not live in the concert hall or opera house. Abbado and Barenboim seem to qualify in terms of mastery of a wide range of repertoire and experience with several great orchestras - some would add Haitink.  But without having heard them in the flesh (except Barenboim a couple of times), as it were, I am loath to pass judgment.

Quote from: Bulldog on July 25, 2010, 11:09:28 AM
We could go back and forth on this all day.  As simply as I can put it, your standards are not mine.  I am not enamored of the diversified aspect, so I obviously would not give it much weight.  Heck, I wouldn't even give it any consideration - wouldn't enter my mind.

In this quiz I suspect there is more disagreement as to what criteria are important than on who meets the criteria.  I think diversity has some role.  A conductor who only performed Haydn wouldn't be seriously considered, no matter how brilliant his or her Haydn was.  I secretly voted for Harnoncourt even though I said I wouldn't. 

Quote from: Scarpia on July 25, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
In this quiz I suspect there is more disagreement as to what criteria are important than on who meets the criteria.  I think diversity has some role.  A conductor who only performed Haydn wouldn't be seriously considered, no matter how brilliant his or her Haydn was.

Indeed - yet, to summarise a point from my longer post above, this is far from what we're talking about here!

Just because Harnoncourt generally doesn't conduct post-Bruckner repertory (with notable exceptions, like Porgy and Bess, or even Dvorak), this is hardly evidence of narrow repertory, seeing what he does conduct in the Baroque, Classical and Romantic eras.


Or: if Harnoncourt's repertory is narrow, whose isn't? Karajan's? Even if we weren't talking about living conductors, Karajan's breadth of repertory was exceptional and deliberate, hardly what I'd consider a starting point for attributing greatness.

I will grant that certain conductors can be great by virtue of their consistency across a large repertory, like (as mjwal rightly reminds us) Gielen; but do you have to have Gielen's breadth to even count?

Quote from: Renfield on July 25, 2010, 03:11:29 PM
Indeed - yet, to summarise a point from my longer post above, this is far from what we're talking about here!

Just because Harnoncourt generally doesn't conduct post-Bruckner repertory (with notable exceptions, like Porgy and Bess, or even Dvorak), this is hardly evidence of narrow repertory, seeing what he does conduct in the Baroque, Classical and Romantic eras.


Or: if Harnoncourt's repertory is narrow, whose isn't? Karajan's? Even if we weren't talking about living conductors, Karajan's breadth of repertory was exceptional and deliberate, hardly what I'd consider a starting point for attributing greatness.

I will grant that certain conductors can be great by virtue of their consistency across a large repertory, like (as mjwal rightly reminds us) Gielen; but do you have to have Gielen's breadth to even count?

Well, I voted for Harnoncourt, even though I felt I shouldn't just because he does what he does so well.  But I think ability to present modern/contemporary music to the public is important.  He hasn't done it in recordings, I do not know if he performs this music live.

I guess one conclusion is: graft Harnoncourt and Boulez together, and you will have the perfect conductor with the perfect range of repertoire? ;D

Quickly, before one of them dies.

I voted for the late addition of Boulez since the rep he conducts happens to be the music I am most interested in and he is a very fine conductor of it.  It is not my style to describe conductors, or composers as "great" so this vote merely reflects my own preference among the available choices, although even if more names were there my vote probably would not change.

Quote from: Lethe on July 25, 2010, 03:21:31 PM
I guess one conclusion is: graft Harnoncourt and Boulez together, and you will have the perfect conductor with the perfect range of repertoire? ;D

Quickly, before one of them dies.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 25, 2010, 03:17:25 PM
Well, I voted for Harnoncourt, even though I felt I shouldn't just because he does what he does so well.  But I think ability to present modern/contemporary music to the public is important.

That's a fair point. Although, one might consider his work in (re)presenting older music and performing traditions to the public to be an equivalent contribution - especially in light of his work in educating young musicians through the COE.

Quote from: Lethe on July 25, 2010, 03:21:31 PM
I guess one conclusion is: graft Harnoncourt and Boulez together, and you will have the perfect conductor with the perfect range of repertoire? ;D

Quickly, before one of them dies.

:o ;D

Harnoncourt and Boulez have one thing in common.  THey rarely smile, and when they do it is generally a mistake.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wd-EMIK-L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
(http://cor.naturel.free.fr/fichiers_communs/photos/harnoncourt.jpg)

Quote from: Scarpia on July 25, 2010, 04:07:54 PM
Harnoncourt and Boulez have one thing in common.  THey rarely smile, and when they do it is generally a mistake.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wd-EMIK-L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
(http://cor.naturel.free.fr/fichiers_communs/photos/harnoncourt.jpg)

Dude, it's because this is serious business. Classical music is serious. So you have to be serious.

Unlike fucking Baloo in this clip, who just didn't get how serious classical music was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKCxUm7SHQ

Quote from: Scarpia on July 25, 2010, 04:07:54 PM
(http://cor.naturel.free.fr/fichiers_communs/photos/harnoncourt.jpg)

LOL!

I think Harnoncourt is going to need to check his pants.

I think "mistake" was an understatement.

Quote from: Greg on July 25, 2010, 04:40:04 PM
I think Harnoncourt is going to need to check his pants.

Hah!

And they're coming into the homestretch, Abbado & Harnoncourt neck and neck out in front, with Haitink making a strong bid on the rail....

  For sheer breadth and variety of repertoire , it's difficult to think of any one who can surpass Neeme Jarvi,a conductor who is easy to underrate and dismiss.
  He has done so much to perform and record interesting works outside the mainstream repertoire,and for this alone,he has put the world of classical music in his debt. And his performances usually have great panache and color.
  Thanks to Jarvi, we have been able to hear music by Eduard Tubin,
Wilhelm Stenhammar,George Whitefield Chadwick, William Grant Still, Michael Daugherty, Lepo Sumera, Arvo Part, Maximilian Steinberg,Nikolai Myaskovsky,Nikolai Medtner, Zdenek Fibich,
Hugo Alfven, Mily Balkakirev, Sergei Taneyev, and so many other composers you almost never hear live.
  He has also made recordings of such rarely encountered operas as
Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa, Nielsen's Saul and David, Rachmaninov's Aleko,The Miserly Knight, and Francesca Da Rimini, and the first recording of the only opera by Sibelius, The Maiden in the Tower.
  What would we do without Neeme Jarvi?

Quote from: Superhorn on July 26, 2010, 07:25:52 AM
  For sheer breadth and variety of repertoire , it's difficult to think of any one who can surpass Neeme Jarvi...
What would we do without Neeme Jarvi?

Have fatter bank accounts?   8)

I think his recording of Prokofiev's The Fiery Angel was the first one on a CD: eons ago I came across a monaural recording of a French version from the 1950's and always wanted to hear the "proper" Russian version.

I am a little surprised by the weakness of support for Boulez: certainly his DGG Mahler cycle raised him up in my opinion!   0:)

Abbado I understand: I heard him conduct a concert of Schoenberg's  Pelleas und Melisande with the Berlin Philharmonic, and still recall the Kammermusik clarity of the lines and the near anguished hysteria of the climaxes.

On the other hand, Boulez and the Chicago Symphony with the same work (on ERATO) I found to be a wrong-headed mess.   :o

QuoteWhat do we want? Boulez added to the poll!  When do we want it? NOW!

Thank you!  I've now voted.

I mean, I might have voted for Abbado on the merits . . . but this reflects my 'voting with my ears' as I've been listening to a boatload of Boulez's recordings.

Quote from: Cato on July 27, 2010, 08:50:09 AMOn the other hand, Boulez and the Chicago Symphony with the same work (on ERATO) I found to be a wrong-headed mess.   :o

I consider that to be the finest recording of Boulez that I have heard, and the finest recording of that work.   :o

Well, heck, you think too little of Bartók's Dance Suite ; )

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2010, 08:55:53 AM
I mean, I might have voted for Abbado on the merits . . . but this reflects my 'voting with my ears' as I've been listening to a boatload of Boulez's recordings.

Despite my dislike of the afore-mentioned ERATO Schoenberg Pelleas und Melisande I also voted for Boulez.

"Even a genius can have an off day!"  - Wile E. Coyote

Reminds me that I need to watch Operation: Rabbit

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xjsVNJNpvV4/UQ6PNxllW3I/AAAAAAAAGCM/_lfJwlrYbTg/s1600/Gergiev_laurson_600.jpg)

Valery Gergiev Signs Contract With Munich Philharmonic
Valery Gergiev Signs Contract With Munich Philharmonic. Here's why, and what to expect:

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/02/valery-gergiev-signs-contract-with.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/02/valery-gergiev-signs-contract-with.html)

Quote from: jlaurson on February 03, 2013, 08:33:09 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xjsVNJNpvV4/UQ6PNxllW3I/AAAAAAAAGCM/_lfJwlrYbTg/s1600/Gergiev_laurson_600.jpg)

Valery Gergiev Signs Contract With Munich Philharmonic
Valery Gergiev Signs Contract With Munich Philharmonic. Here's why, and what to expect:

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/02/valery-gergiev-signs-contract-with.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/02/valery-gergiev-signs-contract-with.html)

This is good news.  The MPO may find themselves playing at a level one expects of a top German 'provincial' Orchestra - but it is my belief that the MPO are already a World Class Orchestra (and have been for some time) , and this is in no way a step down for Gergiev.  If things work out, the MPO will become a stronger and better respected Orchestra on the World stage.

I would have voted for Mariss Jansons if he had been included in the list.

Anyway, my choice is certainly Abbado, such a great conductor he is!! I absolutely love his recordings of Beethoven, Prokofiev, Mahler, Mozart, Debussy and Ravel. ;D

The omission I'm most surprised by is Chailly. I voted Abbado over Boulez, Chailly, and Harnoncourt (alphabetically).

The greatest conductors I've seen live are Ashkenazy, Belohlavek, C. Davis, C. Dohnanyi, Dudamel, Dutoit, Elder, apparently (since he's included in this poll) Neeme Jarvi, V. Jurowski, V. Petrenko, and Antoni Wit. Davis and Dohnanyi were having decidedly "off" nights, Jarvi has always put me off, and Elder I didn't think was particularly special. On basis of rapport with orchestra and quality of live results, the two finest conductors I've seen are Charles Dutoit and Antoni Wit. Dutoit's as good in concert as he ever is on CD, and Wit is a kind of old-school Karajan-style conductor I'll probably never see live again, the kind who's drilled his orchestra so well that they have become a part of him, like a single performing organism.

    No one is "the greatest".  It's impossible to say. People tend to  nominate their favorite as the greatest .  There is no greatest composer,either, or pianist, violinist, cellist, singer etc .  We tend to equate the most famous with the greatest, and the two do not necessarily coincide .

Surely GLORIOUS JOHN....Sir John Barbirolli ought to be on the list....-:)

Quote from: dayveedh on February 04, 2013, 06:01:14 AM
Surely GLORIOUS JOHN....Sir John Barbirolli ought to be on the list....-:)

I think his unfortunate demise in 1970 disqualifies him from the rolls of "Greatest Living Conductor", wouldn't you tend to agree?  :)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 04, 2013, 07:00:27 AM
I think his unfortunate demise in 1970 disqualifies him from the rolls of "Greatest Living Conductor", wouldn't you tend to agree?  :)

8)

No. He lives on in our hearts!  0:)