gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Wunderhorn on February 22, 2007, 08:37:01 AM
-
I just got the Karajan Gold M9 a couple days ago and have listened to it twice already. If I was going to say anything negative about this recording it would be foolish considering it is quite good for a live performance. I'm more curious about how Karajan felt about Mahler. I know in his early youth he was a Nazi, but holding this over his head would be wrong, because after all he was young and it was synonymous to patriotism, however cruelly stupid it was. Karajan, in my mind, was a international conductor because he not only conducted Austro-Germanic composers like so many of his German peers, but many foreign favorites he squeezed into his baton. If anyone is aware of Karajan public views on Mahler it would help me reason how seriously I should take this M9 I know own.
-
Actions always speak louder than words. You should take Karajan's M9 quite seriously. In my view, Karajan was no more a nazi than Furtwaengler - not that two wrongs ever make a right. That said, Furtwaengler did go some distance to protect Jewish players in Berlin. It's questionable if the young Karajan would have attempted such a feat. But in general, Karajan was quite serious about Mahler. He put a tremendous amount of rehearsal time into the 5th symphony, before making his DG recording of it. He wanted to get it right. I was once told the following story . .
A music critic once asked Karajan when he would tackle Mahler's 3rd symphony. Allegedly, Karajan replied, "when we get good enough".
-
This is kind of off topic, but I once heard a story that one day Karajan got into a cab, and the driver asked him, "where do you want to go". Karajan responded "I am Herbert van Karajan, I am wanted everywhere".
I like his Mahler recordings, as they feature some really good crisp playing. I wouldn't say that any of them are my favorites though.
-
Actions always speak louder than words. You should take Karajan's M9 quite seriously. In my view, Karajan was no more a nazi than Furtwaengler
...or Richard Strauss who held an official Nazi position, or Karl Boehm. In fact even Ernest Ansermet conducted in occupied territories when he didn't have to, but no-one ever has a word to say against him. The problem for Karajan was that he looked like central casting's ideal Nazi while Furtwangler and Ansermet just looked like befuddled professors.
I like Karajan's M9 very much, though his best one is the M6 IMHO. The only one I don't like is the M4.
Karajan was a lot more interested in modern music (for his time) than he was often given credit for.
-
Let's please try to keep any political discussions to a minmum. Nobody has come anywhere near to crossing a line in this thread yet, but I can just see this subject taking off in the wrong direction.
Thanks!
-
I just got the Karajan Gold M9 a couple days ago and have listened to it twice already. If I was going to say anything negative about this recording it would be foolish considering it is quite good for a live performance. I'm more curious about how Karajan felt about Mahler. I know in his early youth he was a Nazi, but holding this over his head would be wrong, because after all he was young and it was synonymous to patriotism, however cruelly stupid it was. Karajan, in my mind, was a international conductor because he not only conducted Austro-Germanic composers like so many of his German peers, but many foreign favorites he squeezed into his baton. If anyone is aware of Karajan public views on Mahler it would help me reason how seriously I should take this M9 I know own.
I only like his way with Mahler 9, and the earlier studio, which I think is better played and better recorded. It is amongst my handful of favorite 9s.
I don't think he imagined the other Mahlers well. They tend to sag and lose appeal early on.
-
I also like Karajan's earlier studio recording of M9th. But there are some serious mistakes in the playing, e.g., a woodwind entering a bar early in III. (DH found out about it). Also, the percussion and trombones are unusually weak and the final climax is not devastating enough in I. Otherwise, a very fine M9.
John,
-
Actions always speak louder than words. You should take Karajan's M9 quite seriously. In my view, Karajan was no more a nazi than Furtwaengler - not that two wrongs ever make a right. That said, Furtwaengler did go some distance to protect Jewish players in Berlin. It's questionable if the young Karajan would have attempted such a feat. But in general, Karajan was quite serious about Mahler. He put a tremendous amount of rehearsal time into the 5th symphony, before making his DG recording of it. He wanted to get it right. I was once told the following story . .
A music critic once asked Karajan when he would tackle Mahler's 3rd symphony. Allegedly, Karajan replied, "when we get good enough".
I have dreams that some day recordings of Furtwangler conducting Mahler will someday pop up....the Lieder recording is fine, but Willy doing M2? A man can dream.
-
Anyone interested in the politics of music, and conductors especially, should read The Twisted Muse: Musicians and their Music in the Third Reich by Michael H. Katter. Fascinating stuff.
In light of the moderator's request, I won't go into great detail, but I must note that to say "Karajan was no more a Nazi than Furtwangler" neglects the fact that Karajan was an actual party member (whether out of a genuine "youthful" commitment or whether it was just a career move remains a somewhat muddled issue) while Furtwangler wasn't a party member. Thus, Karajan was actually more Nazi than Furtwangler, at least nominally.
Both eventually fell out of favor with the Nazis for various reasons, much as Strauss did. Furtwangler was always essentially opposed to Nazism, though he was criticised for not emigrating and continuing to work in Germany, thus seeming to legitimize Nazi rule, but he helped many Jewish members of the BPO, as well as Jewish composers such as Hindemith and Pfitzner. Karajan married a woman who was part-Jewish and thus fell afoul of the Nuremburg race laws, and Strauss resisted attempts to force him to stop working with Stefan Zweig on an opera libretto.
-
Well, the original question was whether "Wunderhorn" should take Karajan's M9 seriously or not. I would say most definitely yes. It's easy for people to poo-pooh Karajan now, but in 1981, that live recording of the 9th was considered to be pretty hot stuff.
Barry
-
I also like Karajan's earlier studio recording of M9th. But there are some serious mistakes in the playing, e.g., a woodwind entering a bar early in III. (DH found out about it). Also, the percussion and trombones are unusually weak and the final climax is not devastating enough in I. Otherwise, a very fine M9.
John,
You have some other symphony, recording, and conductor in mind. Thanks anyway.
-
I also like Karajan's earlier studio recording of M9th. But there are some serious mistakes in the playing, e.g., a woodwind entering a bar early in III. (DH found out about it). Also, the percussion and trombones are unusually weak and the final climax is not devastating enough in I. Otherwise, a very fine M9.
John,
You have some other symphony, recording, and conductor in mind. Thanks anyway.
BorisG
What do you mean?? I was talking about Karajan/BPO/DG M9th studio recording made circa 1980. If you don't believe me, bring a score and take a close attention to III. (it happens about mid way through the movt, before the brass choral). It's pretty easy to spot without the score but AB comparison will certainly help reveal the flaw. It is a "spectacular" (as David put it) flaw at that.
John,
-
I" have dreams that some day recordings of Furtwangler conducting Mahler will someday pop up....the Lieder recording is fine, but Willy doing M2? A man can dream. "
Oh please, Chris. It's better that it be left a dream. Have you ever heard Furtwaengler's recording of Hindemith's "Harmonie der Welt" symphony? It's an absolute disaster - a musical and sonic train wreck. You would think that it must be the most complicated piece of music ever written. Yet, when you hear a modern recording of it - Blomstedt, for instance - it sounds far less complicated than some of Richard Strauss' biggest works. I've heard absolutely nothing by Furtwaengler that would suggest to me that he'd have any affinity with Mahler's biggest works.
First off, an M2 with Furtwaengler would have been recorded in some shoe box hall with an incredibly undersized, wheezy sounding organ - just like the one in the Musikverein. Second, he simply would not have been fastidious enough to weed out counting mistakes and repeated wrong notes, etc. Third, his somewhat vague conducting style wouldn't have worked in a piece that requires such a high level of attention to precise timing as M2 does. The only way an M2 with Furtwaengler would have worked as a recording is if, A.); he really, REALLY wanted to do it and, B.); they gave him lots and lots of rehearsal time with Walter Legge's Philharmonia Orchestra - the best orchestra on that side of the Atlantic puddle in those post-war days. That being the case, why not put on Klemperer - who was no slouch in Mahler - and be done with it? Better yet, get Klemeperer's "live" BRSO one with Janet Baker on EMI. That one captures much of the live magic that one would associate with Furtwaengler at his best - all in great stereo, and with plenty of attention to precise timing and orchestral accuracy. In other words, you can have your cake and eat it too! Trust me, the mystique of Furtwaengler is better when it's kept a dream.
-
Mahler is too rough around the edges for Furtwaengler :-\
-
In my work,there are no 'shoulds'.
Take Karajan (or anyone) the way you want to,the way your response is.
it was interesting,in a recent BBC Building a Library (I forget the work under consideration),the reviewer describes Karajan's smoothness as suggesting something sinister.
On the other hand,K was clearly a decent conductor,and,IMO,any such will have found something interesting to offer.
See what you can find,p'raps.
Ivor
-
Hi Dennis:
>>he helped many Jewish members of the BPO, as well as Jewish composers such as Hindemith and Pfitzner<<
I don't believe these two composers were Jewish. If I am remembering correctly Pfitzner, a rather old man at the time, was a tad anitsemetic.
I too like K's live M9. His best Mahler IMHO.
Michael
-
Pfitzner was very much a German nationalist. He and Alma were great buddies, which drove Mahler crazy.
B.
-
Pfitzner was very much a German nationalist. He and Alma were great buddies, which drove Mahler crazy.
B.
Pfitzner was once asked by the Nazi's to compose incidental music for 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' to replace Mendelssohn's music, and Pfitzner replied that he couldn't right anything better; By doing this he lost much respect with the Nazis.
-
By "German nationaist", I wasn't saying nazi. I just want to make that clear.
-
And 'anti'Jewish' is a more correct phrase than'antisemitic'. Arabs are also Semitic.
NALOPKT
Ivor
-
Sorry for the mistake about Pfitzner. I may have been thinking of someone else whose name I can't recall now. It appears I was wrong about Hindemith too. I always assumed he was Jewish since he and his musoic were so despised by the Nazis and he was forced to emigrate. Apparently, however, he only had some Jewish family members (his wife, I think?), but wasn't actually Jewish himself.
And please, let's not start on the "Arabs are Semites too" nonsense. While Arabic and Hebrew are both classified by linguists as "Semitic" languages (as are Maltese, Akkadian, Aramaic, Amharic, and Phoenician, among others), the term "anti-semite" was coined in the late 1870s and has always been synonymous with anti-Judaism, not anti-Arabism (or anti-Akkadianism, Anti-Phoenicianism, etc.!). The German word "Antisemitismus" was first used by the German nationalist agitator William Marr in an 1879 book, the same year in which he founded the first "German League of Anti-Semites". Needless to say, Marr and his ilk used the term as a proud badge of honor to refer to themselves, and preferred the term Anti-Semite to Anti-Jewish because it was supposedly more "scientific" sounding (remember this was the era of "Social Dawinism" and the rise of all sorts of pseudo-scientifc racial theories. Phrenology anyone?). The term "Anti-Semite" is also often used in contradistinction to "Anti-Jewish" to distinguish those whose animus toward Jews is "race-based" from those who animus is religiously motivated. For the former, for example, a Jew is always a Jew, even if he converts, while for the latter, a Jew may "redeem" himself by converting. Thus the reason that converts were not spared the hatred of Nazi "racial" Anti-Semites.
-
I've wonder about that. It made absolutely no sense to me that the term "anti-semite" should be understood as being both anti-jewish AND anti-arab. This is especially true when so many people seem to take one side or the other in the ongoing middle east struggle. If the nazis began using the term themselves, then it should stick in discussing nazi racial policies. I realize that this is off-topic, but all of this didn't happen so terribly long after Mahler's death. If he had lived a long life, he would have encountered this tragic era himself.
Barry
-
He would have indeed. And his formal conversion wouldn't have saved him from the Nazis. In fact, if I recall correctly, I believe one of the biographies I read mentioned one of Mahler's sisters as having died in a Nazi concentration camp.
-
Interesting,DennisW. Thanks.
Karajan also recorded Mendelssohn,Schoenberg and Offenbach. And I'd be surprised if he didn't do Dukas,too.
Wonder what Mahler would have made of it.
I.
-
Karajan's second wife was also part-Jewish, which makes his flirtation with Nazism all the more odd and hard to pin down, i.e. did he join out of genuine belief, or was it just a cynical career move to prevent losing out on plum musical appointments? His marriage to her was probably the main reason he eventually fell out of favour with the Nazis (though Hitler not liking his conducting was another reason!), but as far as I know he never actually left the party before the end of the war.
-
A little off subject, but 'people change with the times': Many older people in the South of the USA were bigots once upon a way, but won't talk about it today. Karajan himself changed I'm sure. Karajan's M5 and M6 have died down in popularity, but were gems in their day. I'm particularly in love with his M6. Though I just bought them on DG Originals, it seems to me they could have enhanced the sound a bit; there is something, blah blah blah, about it, good bass though.....
On the Karajan M5, its orchestra isn't as personal nor as mood-swingy as in Bernstein's. The most beautiful thing about Karajan '73 M5, is that it was so very good for its day. His M6 is immortal though!
-
While possessing a lot of small and beautiful detail, I still find Karajan's M6 to be a case of missing the forest for the trees. There's a disconnect between just how fast the outer movements are, and how slow the two inner movements are. While the end of his first movement is very fast and exciting, the start of the scherzo doesn't seem to relate - tempo wise -to either the end of the first movement, or even the beginning of the symphony which Karajan also takes a tad fast. Worse yet, the numerous and long trio sections are waaaaaay too slow, albeit pretty sounding (but quite dull, to me). And while it's quite beautiful, Karajan's slow movement certainly doesn't observe Mahler's Andante Moderato marking (Mahler was always closer to 14 minutes). However, Karajan certainly isn't alone in disregarding Mahler's tempo description. Mahler also never once mentions the word langsam (slow) either. And while Karajan's finale is fast and exciting, the major climaxes aren't particularly overwhelming. I don't think it's a bad M6, but I just don't think that it gels very well from start to finish. It may be a candidate for one that works better when switched to andante/scherzo order. For this type of a conducting job, I think that the recent Eschenbach/Philly one gels better. It's also one that works better played back A/S.
While the recent Abbado/BPO M6 doesn't possess nearly as much small detail - or not nearly as well illuminated, shall we say - I do think that it gels better as a large conception. Oddly enough, this one works smashingly well when switched to S/A order, as the start of the scherzo matches the end of the first movement perfectly. The flow of the work is better - well, to me anyway. And thus, the "narrative" hangs together better. Between these two, I'll take the Abbado, but will listen to it S/A.
-
For all it's tempo problems, I still love Karajan's M6 because this recording was my 'first time' with Mahler's 6th. I have always reached for the Karajan first, but since I've heard Horenstein's 2 accounts that has changed. I resonate with Horenstein's more 'distanced' interpetation, especially the performance on the new BBC Legends release. Horenstein's interpetation can be compared to Kurusawa's camara technique in his film Ran, where the camara is placed far from the action...there are hardly any close ups at all...and he uses a zoom lens to get close rather than move the camara closer. This is what Horenstein sounds like to me.
Back to Karajan's account, I also love the 'well illuminated' sound and the numerous beatiful details as Barry mentioned.
I agree Abbado is the more convincing interpetation in comparison to Karajan, even in it's original A/S order :)