The Karajan Legacy (recordings)

[DavidW]

I agree with Lis, great post Michel.  I also think that gmgers as a group decided that it was okay to not like Karajan.  And they became content with a one sentence description of why they dismiss Karajan, as if that sweeping generalization aptly described his entire body of recordings done over decades.  It's because of the stubborn willingness of a minority of posters that would not set down their passion for Karajan for the good of the group, that I was forced to reevaluate him.

And I discovered beauty and poignancy to his conducting, and what a charm it is to find how he elevates the melodic line in Bruckner and Wagner for all to see.  And so I came to be alone in the cold as a Karajan enthusiast, alienated from the group.  Perhaps we should form a group and after awhile equilibrium will return and Karajan will be treated on fair grounds once more.

[Bunny]

I think we need to differentiate between what is real and ideal; for if we take the hypothetical example of someone intensely disliking Karajan, it is a moot point when it comes to opera, in the same way as it is with Solti, purely because of the casts they directed. When you have Nilsson, London et al under your baton, or a young Anne sophie mutter, or rostropovich, our ideal preferences over conductor become irrelevant and impotent.

For the critic, this may be more due to his position of power in international music rather than his talent, but the fact remains that he directed one of the best orchestras in the world for several decades and worked with some of the greatest soloists there have ever been. This immutable fact means that whatever our opinions, many of his recordings are highly recommendable. Lets list a few:

His recordings with Janowitz, such as Four Last Songs
His recordings with Ghiaurov, such as the fantastic 1970 performance of Don Giovanni
His recordings with Schwarzkopf, such as Ariadne auf Naxos
His recordings with Fournier or Rostropovich, such as Don Quixote
His recordings with the plethora of German singers in classic recordings , such as Die Meistersinger Von Nurnberg

The list goes on, as it does with any great conductor.

But my argument goes deeper, for I believe it is a mere prejudice to suggest that Karajan glosses over music; it is not as though he does so much that it makes detail indistinguishable, and when did it become important, objectively, to convey every miniature detail? Doing the opposite is an equal if not greater error, certainly in some recordings; being just a heap of entangled detail, with no weaving of the music into a coherent "whole". Some of the greatest conductors had the most audacious goals and interesting outlooks, be it Furtwangler, Toscanini or Karajan, and these personal stamps make for great listening experiences.

I also believe this is due to the fact that, sometimes, we as fans not admitting we are hedonists. Must we sit upright with our HIP recordings, objectively and in our ivory tower, with no sense of fun - no sense of what we are doing is ultimately because we enjoy it, and what we are listening to sounds nice?

I refer of course to Karajan soundscape that, in some recordings, create the most wonderful listening experience. Although I am not a fan of his Bruckner 8, which I do believe "glosses" too much, it is an excellent example of Karajan's ability to make a sound generally unequalled on record in its beauty. The same also applies in his utterly convincing account of Sibelius 4, which remains the greatest, in my view, on record, because of his fabulous sense of control, profundity, darkness and power that this piece requires.

The other common criticisms in a similar vein to suggesting we are all sober and intelligent music lovers, not hedonists, are the accusations that Karajan is a playboy, someone obsessed with commercial considerations and a vulgar megalomaniac. But these are categorically false. My personal view that in a subculture more than any other, full of geeks, virgins, the bullied, ugly and flat-footed, Karajan is simply a man so superior, in his looks, intelligence and status to most of us that the legitimacy in listening to Schumann's solo piano music, and telling ourselves it is OK to be a loser, erode away. For here is a man who has got it everything and achieved it all. I believe this crude pseudo psychological explanation goes some way to suggest why people go about "hating" Wagner, too. We seem to dislike those with the greatest ambitions.

As I elluded to earlier, it seems that any great conductor and any great composer gets mud slung at them in this way if they are controversial in some of their approaches. We could make a long list of Geniuses across the artistic spectrum who have strange personalities or illusions of grandeur, but it is often precisely these qualities that create profound masterpieces, since you need this attitude and confidence in what you are doing is right or worthwhile, else they would be overcome with stasis and doubt. What else do you use for fuel as an artist? It defeats the object of creating the art if you believe you have nothing to say - you would not have done it in the first place.

Like Toscanini before him critics make actual factual errors when discussing him (such as EVERYTHING was done at breakneck speed in Toscanini's case), and forget the intense love he felt for music. Why does a man who doesn't love music ride 200 miles on his bike to hear Toscanini conduct, for example? Not because he is a megalomaniac, certainly, but because he appreciated greatness, and wanted to be great. If these desires didn't exist, we would never have any art to enjoy.

I appreciate Karajan is not to everyone's taste, but then who is? I like HIP and Karajan. I like Furtwangler and Hogwood - why other people can't appreciate the differences without slinging mud is beyond me. And that is why I think people are simply jealous of Karajan, going about the world democratizing music, taking away its elitist status through mass distribution of recording material -- bringing back memories of the days in school when the popular boy got all the girls, and all you had was your little violin.

Karajan simply takes away all our little violins.

A man can be a great artist and also "a playboy, someone obsessed with commercial considerations and a vulgar megalomaniac." It's also true that Wagner was not a very nice person,  a committed antisemite, and racist as well.  It's as easy to gloss over the nastier parts of great artists as it is to magnify them.  It is possible to appreciate the art of men such as Böhm, Furtwängler, and Karajan; all of whom made no effort to dissociate themselves from the politics of their day (to really use a euphemism).  Unfortunately, great personal morals and character don't guarantee great art and the converse is also true.  I could as easily condemn the art of Henri Matisse, Paul Gauguin, or Pablo Picasso for the shameful ways they treated their wives and families as condemn Wagner for his nasty pamphlets.  The art has to stand alone, and this is probably the hardest thing for me to do, judge the art merely on its own merits when the artist is so unappealing.  I have little respect for Karajan as a man.  I have great respect for Karajan the artist.  And I don't ascribe to that school of thought which excuses such excesses as necessary to nurture art.  Bach had no such problems, nor did Debussy, nor Mozart, nor Rembrandt, nor Monet. 

[Haffner]

Karajan for me is best for his conducting of Beethoven, Mahler, Mozart and R. Strauss's Symphonic works. When it comes to power, he is matchless in my opinion.

[Robert]

I believe you are 100% correct Bunny....Thanks for that......

Robert

[uffeviking]

The art has to stand alone, and this is probably the hardest thing for me to do, judge the art merely on its own merits when the artist is so unappealing. 

Try a bit harder! 

[Haffner]

Try a bit harder! 

Agreed. Or maybe just try to see the folly of prejudging any art according to the artist's personal faults. I'd be shocked to hear that anyone could go without being at least somewhat moved by HvK's rendition of Beethoven's 3rd and 9th from 1962, or his Mahler interpretations for example.

[uffeviking]

. . . . or his historic 1967 (?) recording of Verdi's Requiem with the very young Luciano Pavarotti!  0:)

[Haffner]

. . . . or his historic 1967 (?) recording of Verdi's Requiem with the very young Luciano Pavarotti!  0:)

Ja, sehr gut!

[Bunny]

Try a bit harder! 

Agreed. Or maybe just try to see the folly of prejudging any art according to the artist's personal faults. I'd be shocked to hear that anyone could go without being at least somewhat moved by HvK's rendition of Beethoven's 3rd and 9th from 1962, or his Mahler interpretations for example.

I can appreciate Karajan's art, I just can't like the man.  Frankly, I don't know why I should have to like some one of his personal stamp.  I can accept that he was not anyone I would have wanted to be friends with, but I still listen to those of his recordings that appeal to me.  I also love Picasso's art,  but I know from what I have read of him that I would probably have hated him personally.  That's why I separate the art from the artist, and deal with the art on it's own terms.  If I only could only allow myself to love things done by the worthiest of individuals, I would be depriving myself of quite a bit of great art.   By the same token, I never forget the nature of the beast that has created the art because it gives me a context for considering the works.  Art without context loses quite a bit as well.

[max]

   By the same token, I never forget the nature of the beast that has created the art because it gives me a context for considering the works.  Art without context loses quite a bit as well.

There is an element of truth in this but that idea is inherently dangerous and misleading especially if applied to the likes of Wagner and Beethoven whose defects of character seemed to be light-years removed from the greatness of their art. This is especially true of Wagner whose mythic creations can be 'realigned' to anyone's interpretation if done within the context of his character and especially his writings.

I think for many it's a quandary how some obnoxious little hottentot can be the seedbed for some of the greatest creations humanity has to offer. But they didn't put it there either and art was never a function of character, not even in philosophers.

[Grazioso]

I also believe this is due to the fact that, sometimes, we as fans not admitting we are hedonists. Must we sit upright with our HIP recordings, objectively and in our ivory tower, with no sense of fun - no sense of what we are doing is ultimately because we enjoy it, and what we are listening to sounds nice?

Not every fan is a "hedonist", with all that implies. Pleasure comes in many forms, not just the grosser ones. You falsely imply that HIP recordings are somehow ugly and only listened to out of a sense of duty or only appreciated intellectually. That's certainly not been my experience. (And there's nothing wrong with intellectual appreciation of music, particularly where classical, of all genres, is concerned.) Sure, I like my music to sound "nice", but to me Karajan's recordings can sound "nice" in a tarted-up superficial way. Not every meal should be a bowl of sugar. A little astringency or coolness can be very appealing.

I refer of course to Karajan soundscape that, in some recordings, create the most wonderful listening experience. Although I am not a fan of his Bruckner 8, which I do believe "glosses" too much, it is an excellent example of Karajan's ability to make a sound generally unequalled on record in its beauty. The same also applies in his utterly convincing account of Sibelius 4, which remains the greatest, in

Beauty is in the ear of the behearer

The other common criticisms in a similar vein to suggesting we are all sober and intelligent music lovers, not hedonists, are the accusations that Karajan is a playboy, someone obsessed with commercial considerations and a vulgar megalomaniac. But these are categorically false. My personal view that in a subculture more than any other, full of geeks, virgins, the bullied, ugly and flat-footed, Karajan is simply a man so superior, in his looks, intelligence and status to most of us that the legitimacy in listening to Schumann's solo piano music, and telling ourselves it is OK to be a loser, erode away. For here is a man who has got it everything and achieved it all. I believe this crude pseudo psychological explanation goes some way to suggest why people go about "hating" Wagner, too. We seem to dislike those with the greatest ambitions.

If someone is an effete loser, listening to Karajan won't help with his self-esteem issues or put hair on his chest. It's just more classical music, which will never be cool. Fortunately, most of us are confident grown-ups who are unashamed to appreciate fine art and don't feel the need to lionize or denigrate a conductor based on his appearance or lifestyle. Some of us just like the music and don't have a bunch of personal hang-ups that need ironing out by swooning over a Karajan poster on our wall

[uffeviking]

Fortunately, most of us are confident grown-ups who are unashamed to appreciate fine art and don't feel the need to lionize or denigrate a conductor based on his appearance or lifestyle. Some of us just like the music and don't have a bunch of personal hang-ups that need ironing out by swooning over a Karajan poster on our wall

Amen to everything you said! The emphasis is mine as a reminder to posters afflicted with this malady! 

[karlhenning]

Now, Lis, you know I don't seriously think less of HvK because of . . . The Hair! 

[uffeviking]

Of course you don't think less of the Maestro, you are simply envious of his mass of 'silvery hair'!  I am positive you rate his rendition of Shostakoviches Symphony No. 10 as the best ever recorded! 

[karlhenning]

No, but I do rate it "pretty good, if you don't mind horns reined in at mezzo-forte, tops" 

[Steve]

Of course you don't think less of the Maestro, you are simply envious of his mass of 'silvery hair'!  I am positive you rate his rendition of Shostakoviches Symphony No. 10 as the best ever recorded! 

Agreed. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

No, but I do rate it "pretty good, if you don't mind horns reined in at mezzo-forte, tops" 

What, the brass smoothed out?

Say it isn't so...

[Danny]

Of course you don't think less of the Maestro, you are simply envious of his mass of 'silvery hair'!  I am positive you rate his rendition of Shostakoviches Symphony No. 10 as the best ever recorded! 

'55 and '82 can out raaawk the best of them.  He has a perfect grip on the symphony while not muzzling anything, really. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The emphasis is mine as a reminder to posters afflicted with this malady! 

I think you flatter Karajan too much, Lis!

Listeners turned off by his hair/appearance??

What that it was that easy!

I have my doubts whether anyone with classical music in their blood could ever stoop to this type of poster-boy judging - both pro and con. Or at least I've never been witness to it, anyway...

But like it or not Karajan did have his detractors for his "cultivation of the hair" (metaphor alert) thing.

Sviatoslav Richter, no less, has a hair-raising (oops!! no pun!!) story that is recounted in Bruno Monsaingeon's book, Richter: The Enigma.

As is related in the book, Richter and Karajan, after a troubled recording session, found themselves at artistic odds over a particularly difficult passage that Richter couldn't quite get the measure of (that is, he flubbed it). Unhappy, Richter asked Karajan for a patch-up session so to tend to the mistake. However, the maestro refused. There would be no retake.

Never a man to take musical matters lightly Richter was incensed. It was bad enough there would be no retake but the reason Karajan gave for the snub put the burn solidly in Richter: Karajan's next stop later that day - a photo shoot.

As in, glam city!!

In this story Richter minces no words in decrying Karajan's selfish attitude on this. Image over musical truth. It no doubt goes a long way towards explaining why the two never hooked up but once or twice on records.

So...should anyone hate Karajan because of this story? Well, far be it from me to dictate anyone's musical tastes (and that's genuine).

But, I have to say, when one of the true titans of the classical world (Richter) speaks out against "The Hair" I stand up and listen.

And it ain't out of pettiness, or hair envy, or whatever psycho-gobbledygook that's being tossed about on this thread.

(Mind you, it's not my intent to drag Karajan's name in the mud, here [heck, he's a pro and I'm not!! ]. Just aiming for a little balance. )

**Edited to correct minor error.**

[George]

Sviatoslav Richter, no less, has a hair-raising (oops!! no pun!!) story that is recounted in Bruno Monsaingeon's book, Richter: The Enigma.

As is related in the book, Richter and Karajan, after a troubled recording session, found themselves at artistic odds over a particularly difficult passage that Richter couldn't quite get the measure of (that is, he flubbed it). Unhappy, Richter asked Karajan for a patch-up session so to tend to the mistake. However, the maestro refused. There would be no retake.

Never a man to take musical matters lightly Richter was incensed. It was bad enough there would be no retake but the reason Karajan gave for the snub put the burn solidly in Richter: Karajan's next stop later that day - a photo shoot.

That was the Beethoven triple concerto with Rostropovich and Oistrakh on EMI, no?