GMG Classical Music Forum

The ones that cause the discerning listener to consistently think "meh."

I was thinking about this question this morning. People will mention Marriner and Masur, I'm sure. And Rattle maybe.  ;D

I almost never see the following get much praise on this forum:

Ozawa, Previn, Leinsdorf.

Quote from: Lethe on April 09, 2008, 06:17:24 AM
I almost never see the following get much praise on this forum:

Ozawa, Previn, Leinsdorf.

I saw Previn get some praise in a Rach thread recently. But, yeah, that's about it.

Quote from: MN Dave on April 09, 2008, 06:03:44 AM
People will mention Marriner

Marriner, really?  I thought he was a highly regarded conductor?  Especially for Mozart.  ???

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 09, 2008, 07:43:00 AM
Marriner, really?  I thought he was a highly regarded conductor?  Especially for Mozart.  ???

Some find him a bit too cool. A bit too ho-hum.

I recall a spectacular Agon conducted by Leinsdorf with the Boston Symphony, equalled only by MTT's performance (on the Stravinsky in Hollywood CD). Also a fine Ariadne auf Naxos.

Quote from: MN Dave on April 09, 2008, 07:54:14 AM
Some find him a bit too cool. A bit too ho-hum.

That would be my assessment.

Seiji Ozawa, Zubin Mehta (post-1990 career) and Marin Alsop (in pre-1920 repertoire) leap to my mind immediately. Kurt Masur is a great choice - though "mediocre" would be a charitable description of his Brahms 4 as aired on PBS' "Great Performances" - and I think that our man in Houston, Hans Graf, qualifies. Neeme Jarvi has a semi-storied discography on Chandos, but in my four years in Detroit I only ever heard two truly inspired performances under his baton - symphonies by Tchaikovsky (#4 - although his Tchaikovsky albums on BIS have been panned!) and Tubin.

In addition to Marriner, two that come to mind are Yablonsky and Malgoire.

Long Yu.

Hmm, I saw the title of the thread and thought it was about me.   ;D

Yes, Marriner just 'lets the music speak for itself'. He is not in the habit of pressing a personal stamp of his. That is why he sounds too  .. benign. Although occassionaly it yields some good results.

But his Brandenburg concerto set with Szeryng, Rampal, Petri is one my tops .. on modern instruments.

Hans Graf is indeed among the first few to come to mind; and so would Ozawa and Masur, but I'm beginning to think it's more about their being peculiar than it is about their being mediocre.

I also admit I've never heard a truly great recording by either Lorin Maazel or James Levine, but that's probably my limited listening experience with those two. And Mehta is "spared" by that Mahler 2nd, although it's far from being my favourite...


Oh, I know! Christian Thielemann. *snickers*

Or if he just continues copying Karajan, minus the Karajan. But he does have potential, if he can find the courage to use it, in my opinion. ;)


Previn isn't all that bad. And Rattle is anything but mediocre: depending on the viewpoint, he seems to be either trash or brilliant. ;D

Quote from: hornteacher on April 09, 2008, 02:23:16 PM
Hmm, I saw the title of the thread and thought it was about me.   ;D

Me, too...... in fact, I'm awful....... cuz I've actually never had any experience conducting before.....

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on April 09, 2008, 03:06:39 PM
Me, too...... in fact, I'm awful....... cuz I've actually never had any experience conducting before.....

What are the odds for a complete amateur like myself Greg to learn conducting?  :)

Quote from: bassio on April 09, 2008, 04:20:32 PM
What are the odds for a complete amateur like myself Greg to learn conducting?  :)

Depends on how much you want to, and how hard you work at it?

.....and if you have $ for conservatory classes?...

Michael-Tilson-Thomas.

I'd vote 50 Cents if recoiling in horror could be considered as "meh".  :P

The real mediocrities are largely unknown, I think. Lesser names such as Ozawa and Previn are known because they have done some good work in some areas, even if they generally find it hard to maintain that standard. There are some conductors I really despise (not naming names here!), but that's really a matter of personal incompatability rather than musical deficiency.

Quote from: eyeresist on April 09, 2008, 07:26:44 PM
The real mediocrities are largely unknown, I think. Lesser names such as Ozawa and Previn are known because they have done some good work in some areas, even if they generally find it hard to maintain that standard. There are some conductors I really despise (not naming names here!), but that's really a matter of personal incompatability rather than musical deficiency.

Exactly. The same goes with composers. It's actually a good idea to learn what not to do when composing...... so how do you learn what's bad? There's the places where people can post their scores on Finale and Sibelius' web sites, for example...... hm, actually, i just might take another look.  8)

Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2008, 08:27:37 AM
...and Marin Alsop (in pre-1920 repertoire)...

I have to disagree, on the basis of a flawless, compelling Mahler Seventh I once heard live in Denver with the Colorado Symphony.  Now, the current CSO music director, Jeffrey Kahane, might qualify; I'm less than excited about his leading.

And I would hardly class Mehta as a "mediocrity."  He can be mediocre, but more often he's either totally brilliant or completely dull, with an occasional recording that's so wrong-headed I wind up snarling in frustration, as in an early Bruckner Eighth with the Los Angeles Philharmonic where (I swear) the orchestra never played above mezzo-forte! :P

Andre Previn, on the other hand, always seems to have something vital to say musically. 8)

Ozawa doesn't deserve the word "mediocre", "overated" is more aptly suited, just like Rattle.

Quote from: MISHUGINA on April 10, 2008, 05:46:16 PM
Ozawa doesn't deserve the word "mediocre", "overated" is more aptly suited, just like Rattle.

By whom, though? I trust the listening public can also have a mind of their own, to "rate". The critics do not define my preferences. :)

Quote from: Renfield on April 10, 2008, 06:21:21 PM
By whom, though? I trust the listening public can also have a mind of their own, to "rate". The critics do not define my preferences. :)

And who rates Ozawa highly, anyways?  ???

Quote from: Brian on April 10, 2008, 06:26:48 PM
And who rates Ozawa highly, anyways?  ???

Apparently his Turrangalila [sic] was highly regarded. It did nothing for me, but then I'm not much of a Messaien fan.

Quote from: Brian on April 10, 2008, 06:26:48 PM
And who rates Ozawa highly, anyways?  ???

Well, there's always the possibility. ;)

Quote from: Renfield on April 10, 2008, 06:40:21 PM
Well, there's always the possibility. ;)

When I was littler and just discovering classical music - say, 13 or 14 years old - and got my first Sony Discman thing, I discovered my parents had two CDs of Beethoven's Fifth - Karajan '62 and Ozawa. I was totally confused about why they would want two CDs of something, but decided to listen to both. And even THEN I thought the Ozawa was bad!  ;D

Quote from: Brian on April 10, 2008, 07:06:31 PM
When I was littler and just discovering classical music - say, 13 or 14 years old - and got my first Sony Discman thing, I discovered my parents had two CDs of Beethoven's Fifth - Karajan '62 and Ozawa. I was totally confused about why they would want two CDs of something, but decided to listen to both. And even THEN I thought the Ozawa was bad!  ;D

Hah. Well, next to that Karajan, few ones aren't. :P

I didn't even know Ozawa had done Beethoven on record! Thankfully, my own Sony Discman was perpetually occupied with Karajan's '62 cycle, and I was spared from such a fate. I still keep that version of the cycle (the cardboard box), even though I now listen to the hybrid SACD remastering (though not the SACD track): it was my first classical music purchase. 0:)


Although his Tchaikovsky isn't bad. Particularly the Violin Concerto with Mullova is still among my favourite versions of the piece; not in the same league as my top four (Huberman, Oistrakh, Heifetz and - yes - Julia Fischer), but still a "fave". :)

Quote from: Renfield on April 09, 2008, 03:03:02 PM
I also admit I've never heard a truly great recording by either Lorin Maazel or James Levine, but that's probably my limited listening experience with those two.

More exposure might change your opinion of both Levine and Maazel.

Levine has for my money one of the top recorded performances of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder (on Oehms). He's also recorded some quality Mozart, Prokofiev, and, of course, Wagner.

As far as Maazel, he may not be as well represented as others in my collection but his recent edisc of R. Strauss on DG (with the NYP) is very nice.

Quote from: donwyn on April 10, 2008, 07:31:00 PM
More exposure might change your opinion of both Levine and Maazel.

Levine has for my money one of the top recorded performances of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder (on Oehms). He's also recorded some quality Mozart, Prokofiev, and, of course, Wagner.

As far as Maazel, he may not be as well represented as others in my collection but his recent edisc of R. Strauss on DG (with the NYP) is very nice.

Indeed. I should look both up more thoroughly, some day.

Quote from: Renfield on April 10, 2008, 07:25:25 PM
I didn't even know Ozawa had done Beethoven on record!

I have a BSO 5th on (I think) Telarc - I got it second-hand and am regretting the £2 expenditure :P

Quote from: Lethe on April 10, 2008, 09:32:27 PM
I have a BSO 5th on (I think) Telarc - I got it second-hand and am regretting the £2 expenditure :P

I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but Ozawa did an excellent Beethoven 9.  It's available from hmv.co.jp or cdjapan.jp.

Quote from: BorisG on April 09, 2008, 05:07:37 PM
Michael-Tilson-Thomas.

I think this is the case of someone who didn't live up to early promise.  He really did some wonderful stuff early on.  Or do you not even like his earlier recordings?

Quote from: MN Dave on April 09, 2008, 06:03:44 AM
The ones that cause the discerning listener to consistently think "meh."

I was thinking about this question this morning. People will mention Marriner and Masur, I'm sure. And Rattle maybe.  ;D

Marriner is often mediocre when he steps out of his metier.  Also, he just recorded too much.  But I suppose some people don't like anything he did.  I quite like his Haydn, and some of his Baroque stuff when I'm in the mood for that style of playing.

Touching on some others mentioned:

Previn made some real classic recordings in his early and middle career.   I don't think he's mediocre, just past it.  I think all those younger women just wore him out, so give him a break.

I don't have much Levine, and I'm not sure why.  I do like his Mahler; it's quite unique.  And he did some exceptionally sympathetic recordings of the 2nd Viennese School. 

I love Mehta's LAPO stuff.  Thrillingly played and recorded.  But them I'm not the most sensitive or discerning listener.  Also that Mahler 2 with the VPO is one of my favorites.

Maazel did that great recording of Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet, some great Sibelius, and there's a lovely Mendelssohn 4th, and famous recordings of Ravel's 2 operas, but I don't have much else by him.  I'm curious about his Brahms with Cleveland.

Leinsdorf did some great Prokofiev: symphonies, concertos, R&J excerpts, and the best Kije ever.  I love his Hary Janos with the Philharmonia.

Quote from: Lethe on April 10, 2008, 09:32:27 PM
I have a BSO 5th on (I think) Telarc - I got it second-hand and am regretting the £2 expenditure :P

Point taken. :P

Sir Simon Rattle.

Quote from: Daverz on April 10, 2008, 09:46:23 PMMarriner is often mediocre when he steps out of his metier.  Also, he just recorded too much.  But I suppose some people don't like anything he did.  I quite like his Haydn, and some of his Baroque stuff when I'm in the mood for that style of playing.

I was surprised and disappointed by Marriner's complete Schubert symphonies on Philips. Very lack-lustre, except a very good "Unfinished" (the original movements, not the completions). Actually, I haven't yet found a good Schubert cycle. I have Marriner and Bohm.

Quote from: Daverz on April 10, 2008, 09:46:23 PMBut them I'm not the most sensitive or discerning listener.

What a quote!

Poor old Erich Leinsdorf, what did he ever do to provoke such ire?

He has become the most underrated overrated conductor of our times.

Here's my list of the living, unfortunately, and the dead, good riddance:

Sinopoli,

Solti,

Barenboim,

Maazel post-1984,

Polyansky,

Hickox,

Dutoit post-OSM,

Janowski,

Steinberg.

That'll do for the present.

I do not share the already expressed views on Rattle, Marriner or Previn because I suspect their work is not entirely known to their critics, although somebody hinted about Marriner's repertoire.

With so much music available on CD, and so many friendly connoisseurs on our fine forum, there's certainly no reason to listen to mediocre conductors; but a few of the names mentioned are worth further exploration, I think. 

I agree that Maazel's Prokofiev R&J & Vienna Sibelius are excellent; I also have and like 2 Wagner orchestral discs he did with Berlin, and a surprisingly good Tchaikovsky 6 on CBS Masterworks a while back.

I can't quite bring myself to totally diss Marriner, as he basically introduced me to Vivaldi and, to a lesser extent, Mozart.  I've since found conductors that I greatly prefer for both composers, but every now and then I still like to revisit the ASMF's Vivaldi.  I also liked his Schubert set a little bit better than eyeresist, though it's certainly not a top choice (I'm currently infatuated with Blomstedt's Schubert cycle, which is available as a cheap MP3 download from Amazon, but that's another thread.)

The one famous conductor who has consistently eluded me is Solti.  I've tried lots of recordings, but the only ones I care for at all are some of his Brahms and Haydn, surprisingly enough.  I actively dislike his Beethoven, Mahler, and Wagner (though I haven't heard his whole Ring) -- to me he sounds loud, aimless, and boring, as if he's trying to generate excitement but can't quite channel it to any musical purpose -- his rhythms don't flow, and he stomps around when he ought to be dancing, so to speak.  Great orchestra, but to me his CSO recordings sound rather like a middle-aged accountant trying vainly to impress by driving a Porsche.  Lots of folks love him, though, so I wouldn't really call him mediocre -- just not my cup of tea.

Quote from: Renfield on April 10, 2008, 07:25:25 PM
Although his Tchaikovsky isn't bad. Particularly the Violin Concerto with Mullova is still among my favourite versions of the piece; not in the same league as my top four (Huberman, Oistrakh, Heifetz and - yes - Julia Fischer), but still a "fave". :)

That's probably thanks to Mullova, whom is brilliant, but his Swan Lake etc S*CKED. Sorry, but they really S#CKED.

Howard

Quote from: hautbois on April 11, 2008, 08:38:31 AM
That's probably thanks to Mullova, whom is brilliant, but his Swan Lake etc S*CKED. Sorry, but they really S#CKED.

Howard

I also liked his conducting in it, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it: it has a nice "lilt". :)

Quote from: eyeresist on April 11, 2008, 02:46:27 AM
I was surprised and disappointed by Marriner's complete Schubert symphonies on Philips. Very lack-lustre, except a very good "Unfinished" (the original movements, not the completions). Actually, I haven't yet found a good Schubert cycle. I have Marriner and Bohm.
What a quote!

Sawallisch is wonderful, and I doubt Wand could disappoint either.

Quote from: eyeresist on April 11, 2008, 02:46:27 AM
...Actually, I haven't yet found a good Schubert cycle. I have Marriner and Bohm.

Off-topic reply:  Try either Abbado/Chamber Orchestra of Europe or, if you're adventurous, Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw. 8)

Norrington.  Marriner.

QuoteWho are the mediocrities of conducting?

The conductor from Thomas the Tank Engine. The dude can't ever seem to control any of those trains, they always crash and get into trouble!

Quote from: MN Dave on April 09, 2008, 06:19:26 AM
I saw Previn get some praise in a Rach thread recently. But, yeah, that's about it.

I like many Previn recordings. His Shostakovich Symphony 4 and 10 are excellent in my view as are many of his Vaughan Williams recordings. He is my first choice in symphonies 2,3,5 and 8 and his No 9 is very good too. I like Leinsdorf, especially his Prokofiev symphonies 2 and 6. Norman Del Mar conducted the worst performance I have heard of a Vaughan Williams symphony (No 3) but some of his records are very good (Moeran's Sinfonietta and Cello Concerto).  Norrington's Vaughan Williams cycle was a disappointment. Andrew Davis is rather variable but some excellent CDs (Hilding Rosenberg). Marriner's VW is very good I think.

Quote from: jwinter on April 11, 2008, 07:07:29 AM
With so much music available on CD, and so many friendly connoisseurs on our fine forum, there's certainly no reason to listen to mediocre conductors; but a few of the names mentioned are worth further exploration, I think. 

I agree that Maazel's Prokofiev R&J & Vienna Sibelius are excellent; I also have and like 2 Wagner orchestral discs he did with Berlin, and a surprisingly good Tchaikovsky 6 on CBS Masterworks a while back.

I can't quite bring myself to totally diss Marriner, as he basically introduced me to Vivaldi and, to a lesser extent, Mozart.  I've since found conductors that I greatly prefer for both composers, but every now and then I still like to revisit the ASMF's Vivaldi.  I also liked his Schubert set a little bit better than eyeresist, though it's certainly not a top choice (I'm currently infatuated with Blomstedt's Schubert cycle, which is available as a cheap MP3 download from Amazon, but that's another thread.)

The one famous conductor who has consistently eluded me is Solti.  I've tried lots of recordings, but the only ones I care for at all are some of his Brahms and Haydn, surprisingly enough.  I actively dislike his Beethoven, Mahler, and Wagner (though I haven't heard his whole Ring) -- to me he sounds loud, aimless, and boring, as if he's trying to generate excitement but can't quite channel it to any musical purpose -- his rhythms don't flow, and he stomps around when he ought to be dancing, so to speak.  Great orchestra, but to me his CSO recordings sound rather like a middle-aged accountant trying vainly to impress by driving a Porsche.  Lots of folks love him, though, so I wouldn't really call him mediocre -- just not my cup of tea.

O god  ::)

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on April 11, 2008, 04:01:01 PM
The conductor from Thomas the Tank Engine. The dude can't ever seem to control any of those trains, they always crash and get into trouble!

There's a difference between mediocre and bad  ;)

Andrew Davis seems a good choice.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 11, 2008, 07:42:00 PM
O god  ::)

Oh God, what?

I don't like Solti, either. To me the guy just mashes on the accelerator and obliterates anything like nuance, color, rhythm, and so forth. If you gotta have go-go-go all the time then Solti's your man. But rest assured you're only getting half the musical story.

To me Solti is so boring I just want to smack him. He made some very fine Mozart opera recordings late in his career but they succeed only because he finally laid off the accelerator. He actually let some nuance creep in! Good for him! More of this and he might have achieved true artistic success.

Quote from: donwyn on April 11, 2008, 08:33:48 PM
Oh God, what?

I don't like Solti, either. To me the guy just mashes on the accelerator and obliterates anything like nuance, color, rhythm, and so forth. If you gotta have go-go-go all the time then Solti's your man. But rest assured you're only getting half the musical story.

To me Solti is so boring I just want to smack him. He made some very fine Mozart opera recordings late in his career but they succeed only because he finally laid off the accelerator. He actually let some nuance creep in! Good for him! More of this and he might have achieved true artistic success.

;D

Thanks. Though I do think a couple of his early recordings are also pretty salvageable, musically.

But with the CSO, "go-go-go all the time", indeed: very well put. Brass, flash and bang.

I never felt any special affinity for Solti's interpretations, either. His recordings seem rather mundane to me; mildly interesting at best (Schubert's Ninth) and sometimes disastrous (Elgar's First). He may also have ruined my chances to properly appreciate Elgar's Second Symphony (or the piece is just plain bad that way :D). I had the felicitous chance to purchase Sinopoli's version of Elgar's First symphony many years ago while in Prague (at the time, an unknown work by an unknown composer). Some years later, I got the Solti twofer of both symphonies and could not believe my ears as to the hideousness I experienced. Rarely before or after have I had such a negative reaction against a recording.  $:)  ;D

Quote from: Wanderer on April 12, 2008, 01:24:29 AM
I never felt any special affinity for Solti's interpretations, either. His recordings seem rather mundane to me; mildly interesting at best (Schubert's Ninth) and sometimes disastrous (Elgar's First). He may also have ruined my chances to properly appreciate Elgar's Second Symphony (or the piece is just plain bad that way :D). I had the felicitous chance to purchase Sinopoli's version of Elgar's First symphony many years ago while in Prague (at the time, an unknown work by an unknown composer). Some years later, I got the Solti twofer of both symphonies and could not believe my ears as to the hideousness I experienced. Rarely before or after have I had such a negative reaction against a recording.  $:)  ;D

I am almost afraid to give my impression, (of Solti's conducting, meeting with the wrath of Tasos,) I had and still have with Solti's Elgar, but I think this Decca twofar are the best interpretations I ever heard from Elgar, and some reference should be made to his excellent recordings of the Brahms symphonies also on Decca, which belong firmly to my favourites.
That said, I think his Mahler loud and vulgar, and his Bruckner did nothing for me.
He was a great maestro nevertheless.

No wrath forthcoming, Harry, rest assured.  ;D
The damage Solti's inflicted is well past and mended (and said recording's buried in the sunless depths of my collection, unlikely to resurface any time soon).

Quote from: Wanderer on April 12, 2008, 02:04:32 AM
No wrath forthcoming, Harry, rest assured.  ;D
The damage Solti's inflicted is well past and mended (and said recording's buried in the sunless depths of my collection, unlikely to resurface any time soon).

Maybe you should start a Refusal Bin thread too? ;D

Quote from: Harry on April 12, 2008, 02:51:14 AM
Maybe you should start a Refusal Bin thread too? ;D

"Wanderer's Sunless Dungeon" 8)

You know, I recall enjoying that Elgar one somewhat, but in an entirely superficial sort of way; like any other instance when I've enjoyed Solti's conducting. But even under that premise, he wasn't a mediocrity: perhaps because of that premise, maybe.

Mediocrities are usually the "mehs", not the "gahs", if you catch my drift. :P

Quote from: donwyn on April 11, 2008, 08:33:48 PM
If you gotta have go-go-go all the time then Solti's your man.

No wonder I like his Mahler 7 so much.....

There is a DVD out on the opera Hansel und Gretel conducted by Solti that I think is wonderful.  When the children are sleeping and the angels come to watch over them, the way he conducts that music is so beautiful.

Quote from: Anne on April 12, 2008, 07:29:46 AM
There is a DVD out on the opera Hansel und Gretel conducted by Solti that I think is wonderful.  When the children are sleeping and the angels come to watch over them, the way he conducts that music is so beautiful.

I have never really heard a lot of Solti to make a comment, but the Hansel und Gretel is one of my most revered albums of all time among everything i have ever heard. It's beautifully made. The VPO really shines here.

Howard

Quote from: Brian on April 10, 2008, 06:26:48 PM
And who rates Ozawa highly, anyways?  ???

I like his Gurrelieder.... 8) That's about it, though.

Quote from: hautbois on April 12, 2008, 09:16:16 AM
I have never really heard a lot of Solti to make a comment, but the Hansel und Gretel is one of my most revered albums of all time among everything i have ever heard. It's beautifully made. The VPO really shines here.

Howard

Hmmm...Maybe they were paying no attention to the man on the podium? ;D

I've heard a lot of Solti; my first Mahler set was the 1970s Solti.  I thought he was a sine qua non--until I started actually studying Mahler's scores. :o The trouble I have now with Solti is not the intensity he generates--there's no question of that--but the way he extreme-izes every nuance.  He's one conductor who actually DOES overexaggerate to the distortion point; and that's hard to do with Mahler!  (Although if you study Mahler's directions, he insists that many of his nuances should be "unnoticeable.")  On the other hand, I was extremely surprised by his 1975 Eroica with Chicago; broadly paced, especially in the Funeral March, and exquisitely played.  I might call Solti several things--but "mediocre" is not one of them.

Quote from: Harry on April 12, 2008, 01:49:27 AM
I am almost afraid to give my impression, (of Solti's conducting, meeting with the wrath of Tasos,) I had and still have with Solti's Elgar, but I think this Decca twofar are the best interpretations I ever heard from Elgar, and some reference should be made to his excellent recordings of the Brahms symphonies also on Decca, which belong firmly to my favourites.That said, I think his Mahler loud and vulgar, and his Bruckner did nothing for me.
He was a great maestro nevertheless.

FINALLY A MAN WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

Quote from: jochanaan on April 13, 2008, 10:02:04 AM
Hmmm...Maybe they were paying no attention to the man on the podium? ;D

I've heard a lot of Solti; my first Mahler set was the 1970s Solti.  I thought he was a sine qua non--until I started actually studying Mahler's scores. :o The trouble I have now with Solti is not the intensity he generates--there's no question of that--but the way he extreme-izes every nuance.  He's one conductor who actually DOES overexaggerate to the distortion point; and that's hard to do with Mahler!  (Although if you study Mahler's directions, he insists that many of his nuances should be "unnoticeable.")  On the other hand, I was extremely surprised by his 1975 Eroica with Chicago; broadly paced, especially in the Funeral March, and exquisitely played.  I might call Solti several things--but "mediocre" is not one of them.

ANOTHER TRUTH-SPEAKER.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 11:14:13 AM
ANOTHER TRUTH-SPEAKER.

Actually, mediocre tends to mean "neither good nor bad". Almost everyone speaking above generally described him as either of the two: so if Jochanaan was telling the "truth" in that quote, so were almost all of us. :P


Edit: A "famous" conductor I do seem to find mediocre, under the above definition, is Esa-Pekka Salonen.

Nope, almost everyone excpet Jochanaan and Harry were bashing Solti's boring conducting.

"He actually let some nuance creep in! Good for him! More of this and he might have achieved true artistic success."

True artistic success? The principal condcutor post of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the 1992 Danish Sonning Award, and 31 Grammy Awards for his work on the podium, and you don't recognize that as TRUE ARTISTIC SUCCESS? Give me a goddamn break, there's a fine line between disliking an artist's interpretations/style and DENYING his or her acheivements and success. If you think Solti's boring, dry, lacking naunce or whatever, good for you, there are more recordings out there worth hearing. But if you talk shit like he hasn't gained "true artistic success" when the man won more Grammy's (including the Lifetime Achievement award) than anyone in the history of that award AND gained the chief conductor post of one of the world's greatest orchestras AND has a huge cult-following after his legacy of recordings, then maybe you should check your intelliegence quotient with your family psychiatrist. It could turn out lower than you think.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 11:36:31 AM
Nope, almost everyone excpet Jochanaan and Harry were bashing Solti's boring conducting.

"He actually let some nuance creep in! Good for him! More of this and he might have achieved true artistic success."

True artistic success? The principal condcutor post of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the 1992 Danish Sonning Award, and 31 Grammy Awards for his work on the podium, and you don't recognize that as TRUE ARTISTIC SUCCESS? Give me a goddamn break, there's a fine line between disliking an artist's interpretations/style and DENYING his or her acheivements and success. If you think Solti's boring, dry, lacking naunce or whatever, good for you, there are more recordings out there worth hearing. But if you talk shit like he hasn't gained "true artistic success" when the man won more Grammy's (including the Lifetime Achievement award) than anyone in the history of that award AND gained the chief conductor post of one of the world's greatest orchestras AND has a huge cult-following after his legacy of recordings, then maybe you should check your intelliegence quotient with your family psychiatrist. It could turn out lower than you think.

I am secure enough about my horrible IQ not to need checking anytime soon, therefore in my idiocy may I note that Grammys are perhaps not the best indicator of artistic excellence in this type of music? "Ohnoes", Klemperer never got a Grammy, he must suck.

And please, don't draw conclusions over views you've not interpreted properly; do read posts, first. I didn't say we found Solti good (by majority), I said we didn't view him as mediocre.

Personally, I like the guy, so to put it. I might have a good time listening to one of his recordings every now and then. But I can't really call him great: just individual, eccentric. He's not a mediocre conductor in my view, though: just "his own man".

Although as an interpretative musician, I find him below-par. Whereas for instance Stokowski, famous eccentric of the conducting profession as he was, also displayed the most consummate musicianship when he so desired (to make it obvious).


Edit: And what do you know? Klemperer did win a Grammy! Hah. Still, my point remains.

I like Solti's Mahler, quite a bit in fact, and I am basically wild about his Wagner. That's just me.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 11:36:31 AM
... maybe you should check your intelliegence quotient with your family psychiatrist. It could turn out lower than you think.

I don't think Solti would appreciate this kind of "devotion" from his fans.

Quote from: Wanderer on April 13, 2008, 12:20:26 PM
I don't think Solti would appreciate this kind of "devotion" from his fans.

I'm not a Solti fan, just a truth-speaker, unlike most posters in this thread.

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 11:48:32 AM
I am secure enough about my horrible IQ not to need checking anytime soon, therefore in my idiocy may I note that Grammys are perhaps not the best indicator of artistic excellence in this type of music? "Ohnoes", Klemperer never got a Grammy, he must suck.

And please, don't draw conclusions over views you've not interpreted properly; do read posts, first. I didn't say we found Solti good (by majority), I said we didn't view him as mediocre.

Personally, I like the guy, so to put it. I might have a good time listening to one of his recordings every now and then. But I can't really call him great: just individual, eccentric. He's not a mediocre conductor in my view, though: just "his own man".

Although as an interpretative musician, I find him below-par. Whereas for instance Stokowski, famous eccentric of the conducting profession as he was, also displayed the most consummate musicianship when he so desired (to make it obvious).


Edit: And what do you know? Klemperer did win a Grammy! Hah. Still, my point remains.

"Grammys are perhaps not the best indicator of artistic excellence in this type of music? "Ohnoes", Klemperer never got a Grammy, he must suck."
Then what is? Renfield mama's goodboy award?

My post wasn't even targetted at youl. I quoted downyn and made points against his completely BS argument. You should stay away from my obviously "insulting" post, or you maybe you need to check your EQ instead of IQ.

Quote from: Haffner on April 13, 2008, 12:13:53 PM
I like Solti's Mahler, quite a bit in fact, and I am basically wild about his Wagner. That's just me.

Another truth-speaker, yay!

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 12:54:16 PM
"Grammys are perhaps not the best indicator of artistic excellence in this type of music? "Ohnoes", Klemperer never got a Grammy, he must suck."
Then what is? Renfield mama's goodboy award?

My post wasn't even targetted at youl. I quoted downyn and made points against his completely BS argument. You should stay away from my obviously "insulting" post, or you maybe you need to check your EQ instead of IQ.

My EQ is also very poor, thank you.

Renfield mama's goodboy award would be an interesting novelty, do suggest it someplace. But if you want a serious answer, judging classical performances by recording-awards, even setting aside whether the Grammies might not have a commercial basis to them (like you won't necessarily judge good movies by Oscars), is a lost cause.

What of those well-respected artists and recordings that don't get Grammys? Or what of those who don't record commercially? We're not comparing recordings here, we're comparing (or rather discussing) conductors. Not recordings.


Yes, Solti does have famous recordings. But does a Grammy also reflect the quality of his readings? Because that's my gripe, and likewise the gripe of most others in this conversation.

Perhaps it sounds counter-intuitive to you that I suggest Grammy awards might not necessarily reflect actual musicianship, or any award given over one specific achievement reflect actual quality in comparison with all those who do not have it.

And particularly given how the Grammy awards are a U.S. "thing" and, from what I've heard, very commercial indeed...


Anyhow, that's my view: I'm just the dunce here, though, mind me not. I'll just go bang my head to some Black Metal.

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 03:13:57 PM
My EQ is also very poor, thank you.

Renfield mama's goodboy award would be an interesting novelty, do suggest it someplace. But if you want a serious answer, judging classical performances by recording-awards, even setting aside whether the Grammies might not have a commercial basis to them (like you won't necessarily judge good movies by Oscars), is a lost cause.

What of those well-respected artists and recordings that don't get Grammys? Or what of those who don't record commercially? We're not comparing recordings here, we're comparing (or rather discussing) conductors. Not recordings.


Yes, Solti does have famous recordings. But does a Grammy also reflect the quality of his readings? Because that's my gripe, and likewise the gripe of most others in this conversation.

Perhaps it sounds counter-intuitive to you that I suggest Grammy awards might not necessarily reflect actual musicianship, or any award given over one specific achievement reflect actual quality in comparison with all those who do not have it.

And particularly given how the Grammy awards are a U.S. "thing" and, from what I've heard, very commercial indeed...


Anyhow, that's my view: I'm just the dunce here, though, mind me not. I'll just go bang my head to some Black Metal.

I agree that the Grammy Award is not necessarily a recognized benchmark for artistic excellence especially in Classical music, but what I'm saying is, even IF 31 Grammy's dont worth anything, the CSO chief conductor post certainly does? The Decca Legends recordings certainly do? The enormous fan base certainly does?

How hasn't Solti achieved "true artistic success" in any way? Certainly "Sucess" is measured subjectively sometimes, 'cause a person could be satisfied with his $9/hr job at Burger Flipper's on a drive-thru restaurant while another might expect nothing less than a CEO chair at who-knows-what corporation's multi-storey office complex in downtown Manhattan.

But when prestigious awards such as, say the Nobel prize is awarded to a candidate, we can't deny his/her "success" now can we? Likewise, Solti gained something most orchestral conductors of the last century only wetdreamed and prayed for. This is a fact, a fact that cannot be denied unless you have flawed logic-reasoning in your brain. And when the world sees Solti standing on that podium, that one podium who made countless musicians creamed themselves over, we can undoubtedly acknowledge his excellence and hopefully "artistic success".

P.S. If you feel offended by the IQ and EQ insults I've been throwing around, don't be, they were never meant to be insults. I'm just angry at how some people can deny a simple truth. That doesn't look like you, either.

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 03:13:57 PM
My EQ is also very poor, thank you.

My EQ is 60. Which makes me retarded.

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on April 12, 2008, 05:21:33 AM
No wonder I like his Mahler 7 so much.....

I think the Solti-conducted Mahler 7th is captivating.  I do have a really hard time taking Solti's spin on the 6th seriously, especially right after experiencing the Karajan.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 12:51:48 PM
I'm not a Solti fan, just a truth-speaker, unlike most posters in this thread.

A "truth-speaker"?

Hardly.

You're simply a zealot who took a swipe at another poster (JW) who dared voice his opinion about Solti. And those of us who dared chime in with further negative comments regarding Solti are now subject to the further swipes from you.

A sure sign of zealotry. Not "truth-speaker".

Although it may be the only real option with some older conductors, I don't think it's really fair to judge the quality of a conductor's work based on recordings. Especially when we're talking about studio recordings. Just as the only way to really experience music is live, the only real way to get a sense of a conductor's ability and musicallity is by seeing them in performance.
That said, I don't like recordings of some conductors who I've never seen live - Maazel is a big one, as is Mehta. Of those who I have seen live I would single out Daniel Gatti and Mark Wigglesworth as being big disappointments. In defense of some of the better conductors I've worked with, Levine and Ozawa both have to be experienced live. Both do incredible things in performance that you don't see in the sterile environment of the recording studio.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 03:48:15 PM
But when prestigious awards such as, say the Nobel prize is awarded to a candidate, we can't deny his/her "success" now can we? Likewise, Solti gained something most orchestral conductors of the last century only wetdreamed and prayed for. This is a fact, a fact that cannot be denied unless you have flawed logic-reasoning in your brain. And when the world sees Solti standing on that podium, that one podium who made countless musicians creamed themselves over, we can undoubtedly acknowledge his excellence and hopefully "artistic success".

It is a measure of success, and I think you know that I didn't say he wasn't successful.

But a Nobel, an award given for a lifetime's achievement, and following said achievement by at least a few years, being moderated by panels upon panels of experts, etc. and a Grammy, which is like an Oscar, which are both commercially-oriented awards, is not the same.

As for your point about the CSO, I do agree, but I'll also point you to your own comment about relativity:

The conductors a lot of us rank as "great" are often people who would not even care to think "hey, my prestige is sure to improve if I conduct the Chicago Symphony Orchestra", because - due to their artistic prestige - it is the other way around, more often.

Unless we're talking about orchestras like the Wiener Philharmoniker, or the Dresden Staatskapelle, which have a history of excellence going so far back, over so many lifetimes, creating such a tradition that they can be the prestige-givers to any conductor, saying that "someone directing the CSO (excellent as it is) automatically makes them great" is dubious.


Note that I am not saying it's not likely that the CSO would choose a very good conductor to direct them. But it still can hardly be used to gauge artistic excellence in comparison with the names we're comparing conductors to, here.

You think Karajan couldn't direct the CSO, if he wanted to? Or Bernstein? Or Toscanini? Or Klemperer? Could Solti direct the BPO, the NYPO, the NBC SO, the Philharmonia? I don't know, but that is a more apt question in this context.

(As I said, my own view is that he was a good - though eccentric - conductor, severely lacking in musicianship.)

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 06:49:35 PM
It is a measure of success, and I think you know that I didn't say he wasn't successful.

But a Nobel, an award given for a lifetime's achievement, and following said achievement by at least a few years, being moderated by panels upon panels of experts, etc. and a Grammy, which is like an Oscar, which are both commercially-oriented awards, is not the same.

As for your point about the CSO, I do agree, but I'll also point you to your own comment about relativity:

The conductors a lot of us rank as "great" are often people who would not even care to think "hey, my prestige is sure to improve if I conduct the Chicago Symphony Orchestra", because - due to their artistic prestige - it is the other way around, more often.

Unless we're talking about orchestras like the Wiener Philharmoniker, or the Dresden Staatskapelle, which have a history of excellence going so far back, over so many lifetimes, creating such a tradition that they can be the prestige-givers to any conductor, saying that "someone directing the CSO (excellent as it is) automatically makes them great" is dubious.


Note that I am not saying it's not likely that the CSO would choose a very good conductor to direct them. But it still can hardly be used to gauge artistic excellence in comparison with the names we're comparing conductors to, here.

You think Karajan couldn't direct the CSO, if he wanted to? Or Bernstein? Or Toscanini? Or Klemperer? Could Solti direct the BPO, the NYPO, the NBC SO, the Philharmonia? I don't know, but that is a more apt question in this context.

(As I said, my own view is that he was a good - though eccentric - conductor, severely lacking in musicianship.)

Solti/CSO at the golden age of 1970's is definitely on par or even better than all of the ensembles you mentioned in your post. The fact that Solti did not conduct the BPO, NYPO, NBC SO or the Philharmonia doesn't make him a worse conductor than say, Karajan. But the fact that he DID gain the post at CSO and the fact that he brought CSO to one of the definite best of American orchestras, or even one of the best in the world makes him an artist worth MUCH more recognition and admiration from the public than what the majority of this forum is giving him.

I noticed that you never said he didn't achieve great success, but like I said, my post was targetted at donywn, who apparently still has no idea what he's talking about, evident by his lame and pointless insult (who calls other people a zealot, seriously? I'm fine with forum troll, but zeal-ah, forget it).

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 07:36:42 PM
But the fact that he DID gain the post at CSO and the fact that he brought CSO to one of the definite best of American orchestras, or even one of the best in the world makes him an artist worth MUCH more recognition and admiration from the public than what the majority of this forum is giving him.

That is a point. I think if you said that before all the rest, or even instead of all the rest, all of our reactions (Donwyn's included) might have well been different. Argumentation versus rhetoric, effective or otherwise. :)

As for whether I agree with it (the point you make), I think it's valid enough.

And I also have Solti's recently-reissued last performance, with the Tonhalle Orchestra playing Mahler's 5th, as testament to the fact that, if perhaps only that late in his life (two months before he died), Georg Solti could make good music.

Not just good sound, mind you: good music. But opinions can differ, and I couldn't be more thankful for that.

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 08:11:26 PM
That is a point. I think if you said that before all the rest, or even instead of all the rest, all of our reactions (Donwyn's included) might have well been different. Argumentation versus rhetoric, effective or otherwise. :)

As for whether I agree with it (the point you make), I think it's valid enough.

And I also have Solti's recently-reissued last performance, with the Tonhalle Orchestra playing Mahler's 5th, as testament to the fact that, if perhaps only that late in his life (two months before he died), Georg Solti could make good music.

Not just good sound, mind you: good music. But opinions can differ, and I couldn't be more thankful for that.

Well then I'm thankful I finally made my point clear. No harm or confusion intended in my previous posts.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 08:16:40 PM
No harm or confusion intended in my previous posts.

I bet the insults were intended.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 07:36:42 PM
I noticed that you never said he didn't achieve great success, but like I said, my post was targetted at donywn, who apparently still has no idea what he's talking about, evident by his lame and pointless insult (who calls other people a zealot, seriously? I'm fine with forum troll, but zeal-ah, forget it).

Is there any reason why you're not directly responding to me personally? Instead of roundabout swiping at me through replies to other posters?? :D

Well, allow ME to set the record straight without any middlemen!

You said this:

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 11, 2008, 07:42:00 PM
O god  ::)

Which was uncalled for.

I countered with rhetoric of my own perfectly in keeping with the precedent you set in this quote.

Then you go off on a spitting spree spraying all in your wake and then get angry when you're called out!

Zealotry is a KIND word for what you've just dished out!!

Clear as a bell...

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 08:11:26 PM
...I think if you said that before all the rest, or even instead of all the rest, all of our reactions (Donwyn's included) might have well been different.

Thank you, Renfield. Indeed, that is certainly the case (for my part)...

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 06:49:35 PM
You think Karajan couldn't direct the CSO, if he wanted to? Or Bernstein? Or Toscanini? Or Klemperer? Could Solti direct the BPO, the NYPO, the NBC SO, the Philharmonia? I don't know, but that is a more apt question in this context.

The CSO actually tried to get Karajan as principal conductor after Martinon. They waited several months for his response, but he never got back to them. So they got Solti. Which seemed to work out for them. They had a long and productive partnership. In addition to the CSO, which is definitely a very good orchestra, though not as good as some people think it is, he held positions with other very relevant organizations, such as the LPO or Covent Garden, and he was a very well liked guest with a number of true top orchestras such as the WP, SOBR, and also the BP - he didn't come to Berlin often for a long time, probably because of the rivalry between him and Karajan, but he started guest conducting regularly again in the second half of the 80s, and he was very highly respected by the BP. I think he was a very professional, experienced, and hard working conductor, but not necessarily someone who I would call a "great" conductor. He just didn't have that very unique personality as a musician that marks the truly "great" conductor. But he was a very good professional. He is best enjoyed in recordings with orchestras other than the CSO because his rather one-dimensional, black and white approach and rhythmic inflexibility paired with that orchestra's thinnish sound and stiff technical playing style often led to mediocre, unremarkable results which Decca however cleverly marketed with their extremely overengineered, screechy and harsh recordings which many even today mistake for being "very exciting". It didn't sound that bad live, but it didn't sound particularly good either. That also works the other way around: the CSO is best heard when conducted by more lyrical conductors who are also more sensitive to color and texture than Solti, such as Giulini and Abbado.

Quote from: jwinter on April 11, 2008, 07:07:29 AM
-- to me he sounds loud, aimless, and boring, as if he's trying to generate excitement but can't quite channel it to any musical purpose -- his rhythms don't flow, and he stomps around when he ought to be dancing, so to speak.

I'm not familiar with Solti's work, but this describes my reaction to his so-called "benchmark" Elgar recordings quite accurately.

Quote from: Renfield on April 13, 2008, 03:13:57 PM
I'll just go bang my head to some Black Metal.

8)

Quote from: donwyn on April 13, 2008, 08:47:53 PM
Is there any reason why you're not directly responding to me personally? Instead of roundabout swiping at me through replies to other posters?? :D

Well, allow ME to set the record straight without any middlemen!

You said this:

Which was uncalled for.

I countered with rhetoric of my own perfectly in keeping with the precedent you set in this quote.

Then you go off on a spitting spree spraying all in your wake and then get angry when you're called out!

Zealotry is a KIND word for what you've just dished out!!

Clear as a bell...

Now I'm going to have to call you bullshit. You just said Solti didn't achieve "true artistic success". If you have an IQ higher than chipmunk, I think you know that is absolute BS and no one is going to agree with you, not even the most hostile of Solti haters. If you hate his music-making, stop listening to him, like I give a zealot's ass about your preferences. But when you make BS statements such as the one mentioned, you ought to be prepared for some insults thrown your way because you DESERVED it. Clear, smart guy?

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
Now I'm going to have to call you bullshit. You just said Solti didn't achieve "true artistic success". If you have an IQ higher than chipmunk, I think you know that is absolute BS and no one is going to agree with you, not even the most hostile of Solti haters. If you hate his music-making, stop listening to him, like I give a zealot's ass about your preferences. But when you make BS statements such as the one mentioned, you ought to be prepared for some insults thrown your way because you DESERVED it. Clear, smart guy?

Here's my "absolute BS statement": Perfect Fifth, you're just as vile and venomous as Saul and the rest, but at least you can spell.

Wilhelm Furtwängler.

Quote from: donwyn on April 13, 2008, 08:54:33 PM
Thank you, Renfield. Indeed, that is certainly the case (for my part)...

You are very welcome. :)

Quote from: sound67 on April 13, 2008, 10:36:49 PM
Wilhelm Furtwängler.

:o

Quote from: Brian on April 13, 2008, 10:18:31 PM
Here's my "absolute BS statement": Perfect Fifth, you're just as vile and venomous as Saul and the rest, but at least you can spell.

Is there any possibility of you expressing your opinions in a more polite way?

Quote from: eyeresist on April 13, 2008, 11:16:25 PM
Is there any possibility of you expressing your opinions in a more polite way?

Though I am no longer part of that specific exchange, I do think Brian's rudeness was warranted, if rudeness ever is.

There is nothing rude in Brian's statement at all. What he says is true. That's not rude. You people need to learn to see the difference between political correctness and just calling things the way they are. Plus it was a little funny, too, that's always good. Although I disagree with Brian - Saul is not really venomous, he is just a true fanatic who appears to be convinced of what he is saying, and his efforts here and there to be venomous are mostly comical. Perfect Fifth on the other hand is just a little kid who needs attention. So he shits all over the forum, like toddlers do when they want attention. He makes absolutely no contributions here. Saul on the other hand does make some contributions which are worth discussing (at least a little bit).

Quote from: sound67 on April 13, 2008, 10:36:49 PM
Wilhelm Furtwängler.

Hmmm. Playing his Tristan und Isolde and war-era LvB 9th I most definitely disagree.

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
Now I'm going to have to call you bullshit. You just said Solti didn't achieve "true artistic success". If you have an IQ higher than chipmunk, I think you know that is absolute BS and no one is going to agree with you, not even the most hostile of Solti haters. If you hate his music-making, stop listening to him, like I give a zealot's ass about your preferences. But when you make BS statements such as the one mentioned, you ought to be prepared for some insults thrown your way because you DESERVED it. Clear, smart guy?

I should be offended.

But I can't bring myself to feel anything other than pity.

You're so off base it actually makes me chuckle.

The fact is you smarted off and now you're angry that I shot back. But take heed, I was just following YOUR lead!

So lesson? Don't jump in the fire if you can't handle the heat...

Pardon me if I demonstrated a lack of tact - I'm not very good at being rude. But I have been reading this thread casually and have gotten absolutely sick of Perfect Fifth's behavior. That sentiment, at least, should be understandable.

This may be a case of a perfect fifth that is not equally tempered...

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 14, 2008, 09:00:49 AM
This may be a case of a perfect fifth that is not equally tempered...

Comment of the week.  :D

Quote from: Brian on April 14, 2008, 08:57:47 AM
Pardon me if I demonstrated a lack of tact - I'm not very good at being rude. But I have been reading this thread casually and have gotten absolutely sick of Perfect Fifth's behavior. That sentiment, at least, should be understandable.

Hate the post, love the poster, my son.   0:)

Quote from: Hector on April 11, 2008, 05:57:05 AM
Poor old Erich Leinsdorf, what did he ever do to provoke such ire?

I think he was snoring on the podium when I saw him.  He just put the orchestra on autopilot and napped whenever I was in Symphony Hall.  :o

Re My previous post, I certainly didn't mean to accuse Brian of rudeness. I meant to quote Perfect FIFTH, but recently the wrong quotes end up in my posts for some reason. Sorry for any offense or confusion.


Edit: Actually, given the context, I'm surprised no-one accused me of heavy irony....

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 07:36:42 PM
Solti/CSO at the golden age of 1970's is definitely on par or even better than all of the ensembles you mentioned in your post...

That's not necessarily a good test.  Solti was building on a foundation laid by Rafael Kubelik, Jean Martinon and--especially--the legendary Fritz Reiner. :)

Quote from: Perfect FIFTH on April 13, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
...You just said Solti didn't achieve "true artistic success". If you have an IQ higher than chipmunk, I think you know that is absolute BS and no one is going to agree with you, not even the most hostile of Solti haters...

And I suppose you can define "true artistic success" to everyone's satisfaction...? ::) If, as you say, I'm a "truth-speaker," here's some truth for you: No one has yet done so, not here nor anywhere else.  I've not even tried.

And regarding Solti, he certainly does not always satisfy me; in fact, sometimes he's so completely off-base I have a hard time listening to his recordings, as when he takes the final Adagio from Mahler's Third Symphony so fast it's hardly recognizable.  Therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't achieve "true artistic success."  At least, not consistently.

Re Furtwaengler, I most definitely disagree about his supposed "mediocrity."  His performances are each unique and powerful.

Quote from: jochanaan on April 16, 2008, 01:53:23 PM
And I suppose you can define "true artistic success" to everyone's satisfaction...? ::) If, as you say, I'm a "truth-speaker," here's some truth for you: No one has yet done so, not here nor anywhere else.  I've not even tried.

And regarding Solti, he certainly does not always satisfy me; in fact, sometimes he's so completely off-base I have a hard time listening to his recordings, as when he takes the final Adagio from Mahler's Third Symphony so fast it's hardly recognizable.  Therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't achieve "true artistic success."  At least, not consistently.

I'm hoping to check out the Solti Mahler 3rd soon, I also have the 4th (thanks to Mark). I'd certainly like to state for now that I thought Solti's Mahler 7th was really outstanding, especially the 1st movement.

Quote from: jochanaan on April 16, 2008, 01:53:23 PM
And I suppose you can define "true artistic success" to everyone's satisfaction...? ::) If, as you say, I'm a "truth-speaker," here's some truth for you: No one has yet done so, not here nor anywhere else.  I've not even tried.

You are, however, a voice in the wilderness ...

On the issue of Solti, his Mahler was also my first set, and while it used to get the adrenalin going - and it still does - I don't find myself going back to it very much. On the other hand, his Strauss operas get quite a work out.

Quote from: Haffner on April 16, 2008, 02:36:05 PM
I'm hoping to check out the Solti Mahler 3rd soon, I also have the 4th (thanks to Mark). I'd certainly like to state for now that I thought Solti's Mahler 7th was really outstanding, especially the 1st movement.

That's a very surprising opinion. I find that recording bizarrely bad, by far the worst of his whole Mahler cycle (which I don't think is all that great anyway, although there are some good moments here and there, but on the whole, it is a very one-dimensional affair). I think that Solti completely fails to make sense of the music - which is very hard, many interpreters have a hard time bringing across a convincing concept for this very complex and mysterious work which is why it's one of the least played Mahler symphonies - he just tramples through the piece and the way the orchestra blares and slashes through the music without all the parts fitting together at all, that is just nasty. All the more so since the CSO made one of the best recordings of the piece a few years later under Abbado. The difference between Abbado is not just different artistic temperaments and concepts, but that in Abbado's reading, the piece comes across much more coherent. Solti was pretty good at strong contrasts and driven drama, but I think the very subtle and elusive musical world of mahler's 7th completely eludes him.

One of the best Solti recordings that I know, BTW, is the Faust symphony (Liszt) with the CSO - here I think his maniacal drive is very apt for the music.

Quote from: Haffner on April 16, 2008, 02:36:05 PM
I'm hoping to check out the Solti Mahler 3rd soon...

You may wish to bypass the early one with the London Symphony; that's the one that has the rushed finale.  I don't know if the later ones are more measured or stick closer to Mahler's written directions...

I do not see donwyn's "true artistic success" in such negative light.

Unless he clarifies otherwise, I choose to think that he meant Solti through his interpretations was a man who had underachieved. Lack of nuance being the prominent offender.

Many of us hold biases based on listening, about certain composers and performers.  While some of us are prejudicial. I read no prejudice in donwyn's opinion.

Quote from: M forever on April 16, 2008, 05:15:59 PM
different artistic temperaments and concepts, but that in Abbado's reading, the piece comes across much more coherent. Solti was pretty good at strong contrasts and driven drama, but I think the very subtle and elusive musical world of mahler's 7th completely eludes him.

One of the best Solti recordings that I know, BTW, is the Faust symphony (Liszt) with the CSO - here I think his maniacal drive is very apt for the music.

You know, M. I may have just been overwhelmed by both Solti's great sounding recordingof the symphomy, as well as the bombastic nature of the performance. It's a coincidence, but I just put the below DVD into my wish list on Amazon a couple of days ago, and now I read how good it is (I think it's the same performance, not sure).

Quote from: Haffner on April 17, 2008, 07:09:34 AM


You know, M. I may have just been overwhelmed by both Solti's great sounding recordingof the symphomy, as well as the bombastic nature of the performance. It's a coincidence, but I just put the below DVD into my wish list on Amazon a couple of days ago, and now I read how good it is (I think it's the same performance, not sure).

I don't find the Solti recording bombastic either (but of course you may, that is your priviledge), and it certainly doesn't sound good. That harsh, edgy, scratchy, overly bright recording is not what I would describe as "good sound", but I do know that a lot of people find that "exciting", and I am happy for them. But that is not what the CSO sounds either (nor did they with Solti, I have heard them live with him), it is just the totally misguided sound esthetic Decca employed when they recorded in Chicago. You may be interested to read this article: http://www.jayfriedman.net/reflections/20040108Equipment_-_Size_does_matter.php , the last 4 paragraphs address what I am talking about very directly.
The sound that DG achieved there with Abbado and Giulini is, apart from the very different personalities of these conductors and the much smoother and better balanced sound they got from the orchestra as a result, a much better representation of what the CSO actually sounds like, as are some of the Mahler recordings with Levine and even the live Mahler 5 with Solti - that was recorded in concert in Vienna, by Decca, too, but they didn't mess around with the sound as much there as in many of their studio recordings in the Windy City.
Musically, you can do worlds better than the Solti recording, too. Like I said, you can hear the same orchestra in an interpretation which is musically vastly superior - and orchestrally much better, too, the Solti recording sounds like a sightreading or second readthrough, and it appears that many of the orchestral players have no real concept of how their part fits into the whole, they just seem to sit there, especially the brass, count rest, and then blare their parts out. Some of the playing sounds really bad, too, like the long bass trombone solo in the middle of the first movement which sounds like some large animal regurgitating some smaller animal...
I don't know the Abbado DVD, but that's not with the CSO, it is with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra. There is also an Abbado recording with the BP which I haven't heard yet either.
If you want a Mahler 7 which is spectacular in every respect, musically, orchestrally, sonically, you should reach for Barenboim's recording with the Staatskapelle Berlin which surprised many who had never seen Barenboim as an interesting Mahler conductor (yours truly included). But it really is an outstanding performance in great and "natural" sound.

Quote from: M forever on April 17, 2008, 11:49:13 AM
.
If you want a Mahler 7 which is spectacular in every respect, musically, orchestrally, sonically, you should reach for Barenboim's recording with the Staatskapelle Berlin which surprised many who had never seen Barenboim as an interesting Mahler conductor (yours truly included). But it really is an outstanding performance in great and "natural" sound.

The Barenboim is on my wish list as of now. I am one of the not-too-many whom enjoy Barenboim's Wagner as well.

Quote from: BorisG on April 16, 2008, 07:53:46 PM
I do not see donwyn's "true artistic success" in such negative light.

Unless he clarifies otherwise, I choose to think that he meant Solti through his interpretations was a man who had underachieved. Lack of nuance being the prominent offender.

Many of us hold biases based on listening, about certain composers and performers.  While some of us are prejudicial. I read no prejudice in donwyn's opinion.

I think you've just about summed it up, Boris. Much obliged!

Quote from: M forever on April 17, 2008, 11:49:13 AM
which sounds like some large animal regurgitating some smaller animal...

LOL!

How about Anton Nanut? I don't know if I'd class him as 'mediocre' or 'underrated'. Some may say 'overrated'!
As for the bigger names in conducting being discussed here; I grew up with the Ozawa RCA recording of Orffs' Carmina Burana which I found brilliant. Levines' Mahler 6 is superb and his Mahler 3 not far behind. I saw Maazel conduct Mahler 8 on a televised concert many, many years ago and to watch and listen to his interpretation was magical. I have never enjoyed Solti's Mahler, nor Kubelik's but that's just me.
Previns Shostakovich 8 is excellent, but for Vaughan Williams I prefer Vernon Handley.
I grew up with some Ormandy recordings which are OK, but in terms of the topic subject I would class as mediocre e.g Shostakovich 4 / 15, Walton Belshazzars Feast.

Quote from: techniquest on April 18, 2008, 05:30:06 AM
How about Anton Nanut? I don't know if I'd class him as 'mediocre' or 'underrated'. Some may say 'overrated'!

I classify him as "never heard of."

Quote from: techniquest on April 18, 2008, 05:30:06 AM
How about Anton Nanut? I don't know if I'd class him as 'mediocre' or 'underrated'. Some may say 'overrated'!

Some mixed feelings there. :D

Quote from: techniquest on April 18, 2008, 05:30:06 AM
How about Anton Nanut? I don't know if I'd class him as 'mediocre' or 'underrated'. Some may say 'overrated'!
As for the bigger names in conducting being discussed here; I grew up with the Ozawa RCA recording of Orffs' Carmina Burana which I found brilliant. Levines' Mahler 6 is superb and his Mahler 3 not far behind. I saw Maazel conduct Mahler 8 on a televised concert many, many years ago and to watch and listen to his interpretation was magical. I have never enjoyed Solti's Mahler, nor Kubelik's but that's just me.
Previns Shostakovich 8 is excellent, but for Vaughan Williams I prefer Vernon Handley.
I grew up with some Ormandy recordings which are OK, but in terms of the topic subject I would class as mediocre e.g Shostakovich 4 / 15, Walton Belshazzars Feast.

Apples and orange. Orange Nanut was regional. Based on a few of his Mahler recordings I heard, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, at getting the most he could out of a small under-powered, under-talented radio orchestra. It is not Mahler best, but it is respectable. One will finish the recording. So in this corner, we have Nanut the Overachiever. :-*

Quote from: BorisG on April 18, 2008, 11:37:03 AM
Apples and orange. Orange Nanut was regional. Based on a few of his Mahler recordings I heard, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, at getting the most he could out of a small under-powered, under-talented radio orchestra. It is not Mahler best, but it is respectable. One will finish the recording. So in this corner, we have Nanut the Overachiever. :-*

Yes, based on few recordings and few live appearances of both the orchestra and him (separately) I'd agree.

Quote from: M forever on April 17, 2008, 11:49:13 AM
some large animal regurgitating some smaller animal...

I once had an avatar depicting that ..........

Quote from: Dm on April 18, 2008, 02:04:04 PM
I once had an avatar depicting that ..........

lol

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

Quote from: tab on April 21, 2008, 12:18:18 AM
I'm to nominate Polyansky. His orchestra play worse and worse (in 2005-2006 everything was much better). At least he is very bad manager.

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

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

Quote from: BorisG on April 21, 2008, 04:06:38 PM
I think his saving grace is that he often records off the main road, and much of his competition is out of print. He does have a following.

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

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

Quote from: techniquest on April 18, 2008, 05:30:06 AM
How about Anton Nanut? I don't know if I'd class him as 'mediocre' or 'underrated'. Some may say 'overrated'!

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

Quote from: Pierre on April 21, 2008, 08:12:09 PM
I'm not so sure that is a saving grace - if a mediocre performance is all that's available of particular repertoire, many people could be deceived by the poor result into thinking that the repertoire is no great shakes.

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

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

Quote from: BorisG on April 21, 2008, 04:06:38 PM
I think his saving grace is that he often records off the main road, and much of his competition is out of print. He does have a following.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: MISHUGINA on April 22, 2008, 04:12:08 AM
Overrated my foot. I think he's like a modern day Horenstein in terms that he did big things with a regional ensemble. His Tchaik "Pathetique" is my favorite recording of that work. His Mahler isn't shabby either as well as other stuff I heard of him captured in superbudget cds. Definitely I would turn to again and again compared with a Rattle or Welser-Most  ::)

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

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

Stephen Gunzenhauser.

Barry Ross

Quote from: tab on April 23, 2008, 12:10:58 AM
My opinion is based on his live performances (about 6). He likes to play Mahler in Moscow but I don't think he takes the level of his orchestra into account. Mahler is just too technically hard for them to play and even Rozdestvensky can't bring them to life.

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

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

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

Quote from: BorisG on April 23, 2008, 12:53:47 PM
Most conductors are out of their depth with Mahler. I am surprised how many rotten Mahler recordings are released. The labels must think, just get it out there, the Mahler fanatics will buy everything. They may be right. ;D

I buy 'em up. Love Andrew Litton!

Quote from: Brian on April 23, 2008, 12:31:12 PM
Stephen Gunzenhauser.

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

Quote from: Bunny on April 23, 2008, 08:36:35 AM
Ah, someone has brought up Frankly worst than most. >:D  For a while I thought this thread had degenerated into a Solti discussion.

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

Quote from: MISHUGINA on April 23, 2008, 09:07:30 PM
His Bruckner 5 is definitely the most overrated recording I've ever heard. I don't get what is so special about that cd unless you like your Bruckner on freakin' accelerator. I'd rather listen to a Celi recording speeded up electronically than that travesty.

Easy solution, purchase the Horenstein 5 on BBC Legends.

Quote from: eyeresist on April 23, 2008, 06:25:55 PM
I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

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

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

Quote from: eyeresist on April 23, 2008, 06:25:55 PM
I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

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

Quote from: eyeresist on April 23, 2008, 06:25:55 PM
I thought his Dvorak set was quite good, although there's really not much competition in this area, IMHO.

IMHO, there is enough to suffocate the Naxos maestro's attempts.
For starters.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21A7T55B75L._SL500_AA180_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41XABVSBMAL._SL160_AA115_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21S2ZYVMTEL._SL500_AA130_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CP67YW2ZL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41QYRG8BMVL._SL160_AA115_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51S32C5ARRL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

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

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

Quote from: Brian on April 24, 2008, 12:16:22 PM
In all fairness, I'd take the Naxos over Rowicki or Jarvi (and Anguelov over about half the boxes in that post).

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

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

Quote from: BorisG on April 24, 2008, 12:44:26 PM
You have too high an impression of Anguelov, which will probably make a shambles of your big comparative review.  ;)

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

Quote from: Brian on April 24, 2008, 12:56:35 PM
Well, I don't know. I haven't written it yet, have I?  ;)

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

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


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

Quote from: Renfield on April 24, 2008, 01:42:12 PM
Nonsense, how can you possibly claim the future is unknown to us? ;D

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


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

I'm interested.

Not counting pirates, atleast these for Karajan Beethoven 9 - '47, '55, '62, '68 (DVD), '77, '77 (DVD), '83, '83 (DVD).

Quote from: BorisG on April 24, 2008, 02:29:22 PM
Not counting pirates, atleast these for Karajan Beethoven 9 - '47, '55, '62, '68 (DVD), '77, '77 (DVD), '83, '83 (DVD).

There's also a '62 live one, on the BPO's own label which, however, I'm unlikely to include.


And I think the late 70's one on DVD is from New Years' Eve '78. Edit: Though I'm not certain. I'll check.

Also, the 80's DVD is not from '83, or at the very least is not the CD performance. I don't know if the earlier one still exists on tape.

Otherwise, I've got them covered. :)

Quote from: Renfield on April 24, 2008, 03:12:24 PM
There's also a '62 live one, on the BPO's own label which, however, I'm unlikely to include.


And I think the late 70's one on DVD is from New Years' Eve '78. Edit: Though I'm not certain. I'll check.

Also, the 80's DVD is not from '83, or at the very least is not the CD performance. I don't know if the earlier one still exists on tape.

Otherwise, I've got them covered. :)

'83 DVD, recorded on three September '83 nights, in Berlin. The CD is also September '83.

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1238412&style=classical

'77 DVD (Dec. 31, 1977) -

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=2072408

Quote from: BorisG on April 24, 2008, 03:52:19 PM
'83 DVD, recorded on three September '83 nights, in Berlin. The CD is also September '83.

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1238412&style=classical

Interesting. Then I don't have this one. I've the later video recording from the 80's, unreleased on CD AFAIK:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41SSfMXS4QL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

It's certainly a different performance. And I thought the previous one wasn't released at all. Interesting indeed. :)

Quote from: BorisG on April 24, 2008, 03:52:19 PM
'77 DVD (Dec. 31, 1977) -

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=2072408

Well, technically, I was also right; though it was for the new year, but not in the new year for a few hours. ;)

I was not too sure where to post this item, I did not want to start a new thread with it. It is about Welser Most and the Cleveland Orch. I see here that he is mentioned as being mediocre. I never did agree with that idea. Here is a very enthusiastic item about his recent concerts in Europe. There are a number of well thought of opera DVDs with him at the helm, but this article does make me want to hear him in concert mode.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/live_reviews/article4669365.ece

Mike

Clevaland Orchestra in Salzburg
A star was born in Salzburg as the Cleveland Orchestra outclassed its European rivals

It's Cleveland, not Clevaland. And it has been known for a while that it is a very good orchestra so that "star" wasn't "born" this year in Salzburg (incidentally, the Cleveland Orchestra in the 60s was the only orchestra that Karajan invited to Salzburg to work with him, apart from the BP and WP, of course, and the SD which came there three times to play under Karajan). Anyway, I am sure there is nothing of real interest to read in an article which starts like that, with sweeping generalizations and dramatic declarations. I am not surprised though that you like to read stuff like that.

I'm not surprised that your main issue here is to turn up to snipe. Of course, the idea that the orchestra may be producing better sound these days than the natives of Austria or Germany is probably the real sour grapeshot fueling you.

But the real point of the item is the praise for Welser Most...which was good to read from a press source previously hostile to him.

Quote from: knight on September 07, 2008, 10:11:20 AM
I'm not surprised that your main issue here is to turn up to snipe. Of course, the idea that the orchestra may be producing better sound these days than the natives of Austria or Germany is probably the real sour grapeshot fueling you.

Not at all. First of all, they don't produce "better" sound. One can't compare that so simplistically. Second, I myself have often praised this orchestra in particular. So you have absolutely no basis for saying what you said. You may apologize.

How do you know they don't produce a better sound? The critic who was there suggests that they do and further suggests that some German or Austrian critics thought the same...you did not hear the concerts in question. I have noticed before these assumptions that you know better than the people who were actually present and heard the events about which they comment.

But then the point was really about Welser Most, but you did indicate you had not bothered to read past a misprint.

Quote from: knight on September 07, 2008, 11:29:14 AM
How do you know they don't produce a better sound? The critic who was there suggests that they do and further suggests that some German or Austrian critics thought the same...you did not hear the concerts in question.

Quote from: M forever on September 07, 2008, 11:06:03 AM
First of all, they don't produce "better" sound. One can't compare that so simplistically.

Quote from: M forever on September 07, 2008, 11:06:03 AM
Second, I myself have often praised this orchestra in particular.

...and I have heard them a number of times live (with Dohnányi) so I know that they play and sound as good as they do on disc. I haven't heard them recently, but the live recordings I have heard strongly suggest that standards haven't dropped at all since then (which is also unlikely for an ensemble with such a high general level of players). So I can easily believe that those were very nice concerts.
But I generally object to these simplistic and sensationalist comparisons. Especially in music journalism. These orchestras all have  highly refined sound and playing styles, and one can't say one is generally "better".
For instance, the Cleveland basses play extremely well together and in tune, with a very focused section sound. You can call me biased if you want because I am good friends with the assistant principal. I took him and other section members out for drinks every time they came to Berlin. Anyway, they don't produce as much sound as the BP or WP bass sections, because they play on smaller instruments and on 4-strings with C-extension as opposed to the bigger 5-strings these other orchestras use, and because of the French bows they use, the sound is not as sustained. They change bows and break up the line more often. Does that make them worse? No. It's just a different style. One can compare the two styles and have personal preferences, or analyze what style may tendentially suit what kind of music better, but deciding one is generally better and the other worse is total nonsense.

And that's just one section. An orchestra has many sections and there are many differences between individual orchestras in how they play. And then how the orchestra as a whole plays together. And how individual player personalities influence the style and maybe emphasize their part of the spectrum. Which may be a good or bad thing, depending on one's point of view and preferences. For instance, the bravado and extrovert, exposed trumpet playing heard in London orchestras, especially in the days of Murphy and Wallace, is somehow "more" than a more integrated style of playing. Does that mean more=better? Or maybe it's "worse" because an orchestra is supposed to be an ensemble, not a collection of soloists? It doesn't really matter.

What matters is what one hears a the moment, how it all fits together, how good the music making is. The Cleveland Orchestra may be from the New World, but when they play the Symphony from the New World, the WP is much closer to the sound the composer heard in his day. Does that make them automatically "better"? No. What counts is the quality of the music making at that moment, when you are sitting there and listening to it.

Well, I have little problem with any of that. I was not there to hear the concerts and in fact linked the item for the comments on Welser Most. I do think it is difficult to contradict a report on a matter which is so frequently subjective; when I was not there. So, I am not supporting the item beyond noting that there seems to be a gathering sea change about Welser Most and I am glad to see it.

I read another item recently that praised his programming and his musicianship. I was reading the London papers years ago at a point when there was clearly a mood to pan him no matter what he did. So I assume he must be producing very fine concerts if he is altering the tone of the London press coverage.

Mr. Bonynge. Absolutely nothing outstanding, although a good rhythm-beater.

I think it was Bing at the Met who opined that to get Sutherland it was a case of accepting the meat with the bones. He did improve.

Mike

Quote from: knight on September 07, 2008, 01:31:18 PM
it was a case of accepting the meat with the bones.

It was. Although he improved, he never became an outstanding conductor, but I'd praise him for his hard work with Mrs. Sutherland. According to her memoirs (A Prima Donna's Progress), he was the first to suggest her to concentrate on the bel canto repertoire and worked lot with her at home to get the perfection she dazzled the public with. Before his conducting practice, however, he was a promising piano player -- that is how he happened to be in London before Sutherland was also chosen to go to the Royal Academy of Music. They both knew each other from Australia, where both were born and raised.

Quote from: Lethe on April 09, 2008, 06:17:24 AM
Ozawa

I remember how sick I was of Ozawa's The Queen of Spades, but substantially because of rather old Freni and other singers, though I didn't like Ozawa's reading of the score either.

I can't really take issue with the statements about Bonynge, but I can still remember hearing him lead Faust in Denver and, for the unaccompanied choral passage after Valentin's death in Act IV, drawing out of the Opera Colorado chorus a barely audible, brilliantly focused, incredibly beautiful ppp tone that haunts me still, the sort of jaw-dropping moment that made me think, "How do they DO that?!" :D That moment, for me, removed him from the "mediocrities" list.

Yet I think he was wise to stick to the bel canto repertoire for his own conducting too. :)

Well, for Denver standards, I am sure he is one the top people who appear there.

Sometimes I really wish we had a "catty" emoticon.

Quote from: eyeresist on September 10, 2008, 06:47:10 PM
Sometimes I really wish we had a "catty" emoticon.

Brilliant idea! ;D

Personally, I quite like Bonynge.

His revival of worthwhile operas and ballets on disc is commendable if not always successful.

Poor old Welser-Most got rubbished, unjustifiably, by the London critics, for some reason. But they are, mostly, journalists who no nothing about anything except...journalism.

   Hi  every  one !  I'm  new  here !   It's  easy  enough  to  call  a
conductor  "mediocre  if  you  happen  not  to  like  his  or  her  conducting,  but  I  don't  think  any  of  those  mentioned   are.
   Certainly  not  Mehta,  IMHO  the  most  UNDERRATED  and  unjustly
maligned  conductor  of  all  time.  It's  one  thing  if  certain  critics  or 
fans  don't  like  his  conducting ; that's  their  right.  But  I've  heard  Mehta  give  some  absoltely  terrific  performances,  and  he's  made  some  recordings  that  can hold  their  own  with  the  best.
    Critics  have  treated  him  the  way  conservatives  have  treated  Obama.  He's  been  accused  of  indifference  to  and  neglect  of  contemporary  music,  and  one  critic  accused  him  of  programming  nothing  but "easy  listening".  This  is  not  only  grossly  unfair, but  idiotically  untrue.  He  has  always  been  a  staunch  champion  of  difficult  new  music,  and  has  given  exemplary  performances.
   He's  not  just  a  shallow  glamot  boy,  but  a  serious, dedicated  and 
highly  skillful  conductor.  He  built  the  once  minor  league  Los  Angeles
Phil.  into  a  world  class  orchestra.  His  period  with  the  New  York
Phil.  was  viciously  savaged by  critics,  yet  I  heard  him  goive  some  absolutely great  concerts  with  them.  The  israel  philharmonic  appointed   him  music  director  for  life.  They  choose  their conductors;
do  you  think  they  would  have  done  this  if  mehta  were  a  mediocrity?   He's  also  a  terrific  opera  conductor.
   Orchestral  musicians  like  and  respect  him;  they  will  tell  you  that 
he  is  always  thoroughly  prepared  and professional,  and  that  his  stick
technique  is  second  to  none.

Some time ago I bought Mahler cycle by Neumann and the CPO - I also have Martinu symphonies by him etc...when I listened to the Mahler, I decided that Vaclav Neumann was not nearly as exciting as Tennstedt or Abbado or Inbal et al, and consigned Neumann and his entire output to the bottom of the shelf.   >:(
Then, whilst maligning Neumann publicly, I was asked to listen to his Mahler again, but this time there were suggestions for what to listen FOR in Neumanns Mahler.  :-\
So I did.  This time I listened very carefully indeed.  ???
After that, and on discovery of Neumanns nuances and precision musicianship, I was taken aback, and now Neumann is one of my top favourite conductors.  His Mahler is very fine - just because he doesn't trot out the big romantic symphony sound doesn't mean his Mahler is bad - on the contrary, it takes good listening and identification to hear what Neumann and the Czech Phil Orch are actually doing with Mahler, Martinu and his other offerings.  And what they are doing is very special indeed, it takes a very high calibre of conductor and orchestra to make Mahler not BIG as so many of my other Mahlerian heroes do, but astonishing in a way that only Neumann seems to do.   ;D  ;D
So...Neumann for me went from zero to hero, but only because some kind person (FROM HOLLAND, A 10,000+ POSTER HERE) pointed out what I was missing and what it was I should listen FOR to help me understand Neumann better.
That is why it is important to listen to other opinions (for me), there will always be a real gem that can turn things around.   0:)

   It appears  that  there  a  lot  of  Solti   detractors   here.  I  could  not
disagree  more.  He  happens  to  be  one  of  my  favorite  conductors. 
  As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  his  Wagner,  Mahler, Richard  Strauss,  Bartok
Bruckner  etc  have  never  been  bettered.  Other  conductors  such  as 
Karajan, Furtwangler,  Knappertsbusch,  Bohm, Kempe,  etc  were  all  great  Wagnerians,  but  Solti's  Wagner  is  simply magnificent.
   Solti  was  home  in  a  wide  variety  of  repertoire,  and  I  also  admire  him  in  Elgar.  Nobody  can  accuse  Elgar's  music  of  being  dull, stodgy and  pompous  after  hearing  Solti's  recordings. 
   Sir  Reginald  Goodall   was  considered  one  of  the  great Wagnerians  by  many,  but  he  never  seemed  to  me to  have  a  clue  about  this  composer.
   His  Wagner  is  absolutely somnolent;  there  is  absoltely  no   momentum;
  just  a combination  of  turgidity  and   limpness.  Dead  in  the  water.
   Szell  was  a  pehnomenal  technician,  but  his  recordings  have always
struck  me  as  the  most  wooden  I  have  ever  heard;  every  note  is  perfect and  in  place,  but  it's  all  terribly  dry  and  exaggeratedly  clipped  in  phrasing  and the  brass  section  pecks  at  the  notes  without  the
round, velvety  tone  of  the  Vienna  and  Berlin  PO  brass.
   Toscanini's  NBC  performances   have  always  struck  me  as  coarse,  choppy, hectic, punchy, nervous,  metronomic.  They  are  mechanical,  and  joyless.   Ormandy  got  a  really  plush  sound  out  of  the  Philadelphians,
but  he  tended  to  concentrate  on  surface, generalized  plushness  and
tended  to  apply  a  one  style  fits  all  interpretation  to  all  composers.
   All  you  get  with  Ormandy  are  generalized  plush  sounds. 
   There  are  however, a  lot  of  excellent  conductors  today  and  I  reject
the  notion  that   the  past  alone  was  the  golden  age.  And  there  are  some  very  talented  youngsters  with  great  potential  such  as  Dudamel,
Mikko  Franck,  Vladimir  Jurowski,  Philippe  Jordan  (son  of  the  late  Armin),
  and  others.

What's going on with the formatting of your posts? It makes them really hard to read.

Quote from: Superhorn on September 14, 2008, 07:55:06 AM
Critics  have  treated  him  the  way  conservatives  have  treated  Obama.  He's  been  accused  of  indifference  to  and  neglect  of  contemporary  music,  and  one  critic  accused  him  of  programming  nothing  but "easy  listening".  This  is  not  only  grossly  unfair, but  idiotically  untrue.  He  has  always  been  a  staunch  champion  of  difficult  new  music,  and  has  given  exemplary  performances.

Certainly glad to hear that Obama supports contemporary music - oh, no, wait, I see what you meant...  ???

Quote from: eyeresist on September 14, 2008, 06:23:00 PM
Certainly glad to hear that Obama supports contemporary music - oh, no, wait, I see what you meant...  ???

It would be pretty cool if Obama was found listening to the symphonies of Adolphus Hailstork on his campaign bus.

Quote from: mahler10th on September 14, 2008, 10:33:55 AM
Some time ago I bought Mahler cycle by Neumann and the CPO - I also have Martinu symphonies by him etc...when I listened to the Mahler, I decided that Vaclav Neumann was not nearly as exciting as Tennstedt or Abbado or Inbal et al, and consigned Neumann and his entire output to the bottom of the shelf.   >:(
Then, whilst maligning Neumann publicly, I was asked to listen to his Mahler again, but this time there were suggestions for what to listen FOR in Neumanns Mahler.  :-\
So I did.  This time I listened very carefully indeed.  ???
After that, and on discovery of Neumanns nuances and precision musicianship, I was taken aback, and now Neumann is one of my top favourite conductors.  His Mahler is very fine - just because he doesn't trot out the big romantic symphony sound doesn't mean his Mahler is bad - on the contrary, it takes good listening and identification to hear what Neumann and the Czech Phil Orch are actually doing with Mahler, Martinu and his other offerings.  And what they are doing is very special indeed, it takes a very high calibre of conductor and orchestra to make Mahler not BIG as so many of my other Mahlerian heroes do, but astonishing in a way that only Neumann seems to do.   ;D  ;D
So...Neumann for me went from zero to hero, but only because some kind person (FROM HOLLAND, A 10,000+ POSTER HERE) pointed out what I was missing and what it was I should listen FOR to help me understand Neumann better.
That is why it is important to listen to other opinions (for me), there will always be a real gem that can turn things around.   0:)

Yep, he's a real no-fuss conductor, but brilliant at what he does - and aided by his "local orchestra" being one of the best out there. It's almost a cliche to say how good his Dvořák is ("Czech music, played by a Czech orchestra, led by a Czech conductor, wow how 'idiomatic'*", etc), but regardless of the forces the interps are simply brilliant.

*M's discussions about the accuracy of this word in the past year or so have made me notice how overused it is, especially in superficial observations such as this.