I'm not an expert on the issue. I think people acknowledge that he was a fine musician but are put off by his egomania. The fact that he closes his eyes while he conducts is annoying to many. It's as if as if it is HIS OWN PRIVATE musical sound world and the orchestra is there not to share in it, but to be subservient to it.

 

It depends I guess how much you've heard.

I think in certain repertoire he was excellent, but it generally was not the central Germanic repertoire with which he was normally associated, in my opinion.

I think he was at his best in Puccini, the 20th-century Russians, Bruckner, and the Second Viennese School, rather than Brahms and Beethoven. He also made well-regarded (by others) recordings of Mahler.

 

I loved Karajan, then went completely cold to him. He didn't really conduct in a lot of those recordings anyway, merely allowing the orchestra to do its own thing. He was a pretty repellent character, an enthusiastic Nazi, and a control freak throughout his career. His name was once on everything, now virtually nothing. Although his conducting became virtually conducting without actually doing anything, or even engaging much, something of the chilling quality of his personality is evident in his recordings in my opinion.

 

I prefer Karajan to Bernstein in just about everything. It's all up to the listener's preference. There is nothing wrong with Karajan. Even his Rite of Spring that Stravinsky himself criticized had some interesting things.

 

And he really took Stravinsky's comments to heart. His second recording is much better than his first.

 

Alright, this may very well be just in my imagination, but I feel like a lot of people here just don't like Herbert von Karajan. I don't seem to see his name often. Is this just my imagination, or is he not highly regarded on this forum? I have not perused every section of the forum, so I might not be seeing all of the opinions. But it seems like when people recommend recordings of works that Karajan conducted, some will name the most obscure recording before they name anything from Karajan. I like what I have heard from Karajan.

Am I missing something?

adriesba go to Advanced Search , then Karajan, title

only......

 

I found this quote on "The best Von Karajan box" thread:

Best von Karajan box? Uhh, his coffin?

That is the opinion that I have been finding about him. I just don't understand why.

 

What's wrong with Karajan?

The only response I can think of is to say he has few recordings representing his work in my personal collection.

And I have no desire to add any.

 

I found another 3

https://www.talkclassical.com/34088-karajan.html?highlight=Karajan

https://www.talkclassical.com/59952-bernstein-karajan-both-neither.html?highlight=Karajan

https://www.talkclassical.com/58252-when-karajan-died.html?highlight=Karajan

 

There are some more positive opinions in the other threads, but they don't seem to be getting new posts recently. I just got the feeling recently that people think his recordings are worthless or something like that.

 

Alright, this may very well be just in my imagination, but I feel like a lot of people here just don't like Herbert von Karajan. I don't seem to see his name often. Is this just my imagination, or is he not highly regarded on this forum? I have not perused every section of the forum, so I might not be seeing all of the opinions. But it seems like when people recommend recordings of works that Karajan conducted, some will name the most obscure recording before they name anything from Karajan. I like what I have heard from Karajan.

Am I missing something?

The long answer:

1. Popular things often incur backlashes. Karajan is the single best selling classical conductor of all time, in excess of 200 million albums. Ergo, he incurs backlash.

2. Karajan joined the Nazi party before WWII. While most indications are that he was not ideological and did this to advance his career, some people hold it against him.

3. From a stylistic standpoint, Karajan is frequently criticized for unduly emphasizing beauty, "slickness" and legato in his recordings. It is also claimed that too many of his recordings sound like one another, as if he applies a house style to a piece irrespective of its origin, tone, or historical period.

4. Citing the obscure is often employed as a strategy for asserting one's dominance in a discussion between persons (not just in classical music, to be sure). Since Karajan is the polar opposite of obscure, the impulse may be to cite something more obscure and claim its superiority. This is a relatively safe claim, given the obscurity of the thing cited.

The short answer:

Nothing is wrong with Karajan. His recordings typically range from excellent to competent, with only a few stinkers. His style is a style, just as much as Bernstein, Chailly, Gardiner, Furtwangler, Kleiber, and so on possess a style. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't.

Personally, my favorite recordings of most pieces in the Romantic period repertoire tend to be Karajan's (e.g. Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Bruckner). He also has some estimable early modern recordings to his name (e.g. Strauss, Sibelius, Shoenberg, Berg, Webern). His Bach is not great for me (and I consider myself a Karajan fan). I like his Mozart and Haydn, but some don't.

 

What’s wrong with Karajan?

He was highly successful in everything he did and rose to a position of power in the musical establishment and therefore incurred the wrath of those who were not successful themselves. He sold millions of records - more than anyone else - and therefore was accused of wrecking the recording industry. You cannot let that sort of success go unhated!
I believe by some he was also blamed for starting the Second World War! :lol:

 

Nothing is wrong with Karajan; he is clearly one of the greats. I find his Richard Strauss to be almost without peer, and I think all of his Bruckner is excellent to superb. I am a fan of the 1962 Beethoven symphony cycle as well, and in one or two Sibelius Symphonies (especially No. 4) his recordings are as good as anyone's. He was also enormously successful in opera, and sometimes really great in repertoire where, if you listened to the clichés, you might be surprised. His Hadyn, for example, or Dvořák 8. And there's an excellent Prokofiev 5, as well as very fine recordings of Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Schönberg, Berg, and Webern.

Like all conductors, there were a few duds, such as his Mozart Requiem, which for me is heavy and dull. Just one example.

I think the main "problem," such as it is, has been diagnosed well above. Namely, his mostly deserved high popularity, for a Classical musician, has spawned a certain backlash. The backlash has written a narrative about Karajan, that he was a one-dimensional conductor whose interpretations were always smooth, homogenized, and without edge, that has a very small kernel of truth. But anyone with a better than passing acquaintance with his catalog will realize quickly that that narrative is not born out in reality all that often.

Record collectors can be fetishists for the obscure and esoteric, as well. "Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!"

Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic helped define what great modern orchestral music-making is. That's just a fact. In many ways, his legacy is a victim of its own success.

I posit that if Karajan's entire recorded legacy was magically forgotten, but then rediscovered after a long period when no one remembered anything about him, we would all be blown away by the quality of what he accomplished.

 

Record collectors can be fetishists for the obscure and esoteric, as well. "Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!"

Man, I about died laughing at that. Well played. :lol:

 

Hey, don't you go maligning the work of Pispott Q. Jakhasz.

Otherwise, well said

 

Hey, don't you go maligning the work of Pispott Q. Jakhasz.

Otherwise, well said

Why is it that nobody remembers the name of Johann Gambolputty... de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle- dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz- ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer- spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein- nurnburger-bratwustle-gernspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut- gumberaber-shonedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?

 

I agree with much of what is written above, I have many Karajan recordings and enjoy them all. His influence and power attracted many admirers and probably an equal number of those envious of him.
He was idiosyncratic and he went for that big band smooth sound especially in his later years, His late Mozart symphonies enjoyed glorious reviews and I love them but they do sound bloated and old fashioned now if you listen to the more modern style HIP performances.
He was a product of his time

 

I really like Karajan! I have a soft spot for him as I listened to his recordings a lot when I first got into classical music. I agree with the things that have been said already. He managed to develop a very distinctive sound that some really love while others not as much. I think his big and "smooth" conducting is marvellous for composers such as Bruckner and his Beethoven symphony cycles, especially the one from 1964, are very highly regarded. Also, he was a great opera conductor!

 

From what I gathered 3 reasons...People think:
1. He is overrated
2. Too stiff and conservative while conducting
3. He a nahzee.
I like his style, he was a virtuoso imho.

 

In my sincere desire to help all those here who detest HVK, I offer to give all of your recordings of him a decent home. Please send them immediately.

 

Since david johnson has first dibs, you can send the duplicates to me.

 

Haha, 2econd dat...Can we split...

 

Aha! I didn't see your post till after I posted mine. I see everyone wants recordings. :lol:

 

I don't think "wrong" is the way to put it.

Karajan is one of the best-selling classical artists in history, probably No. 2 to Toscanini. In his heyday he ran orchestras in Berlin, Vienna, La Scala and elsewhere a day a week. He followed a long line of Germanic conductors succeeding Furtwangler in Berlin.

He was in Europe what Bernstein was in America: the clear No. 1 classical music leader on either side of the Atlantic. No conductor since their deaths in 1989 and 1990 has achieved such an exalted position.

However, Karajan was a "heavy" conductor of Germanic music. His Mendelssohn, to my mind, had more pounding timpani than dancing rhythm. His Beethoven was similarly heavy and lacked the motion people put in it today.

He was said to be too stilted and inflexible in studio recordings though, when you heard him in radio recordings, he was more flexible.

I think probably the No. 1 "problem" with Karajan is he was overexposed. Everyone heard his music and developed an opinion of it. There was also the Nazi thing that put off some people.

 

Of course Karajan was a very great conductor (as was Bernstein who he is compared with, above). For the most part I consider many of Karajan's recordings as "essential alternatives" - they so often do amazing (and yet legitimate) things with the music but only rarely seem definitive. His Mozart symphonies and his Baroque music is very hard to take, though.

But there are questions to be answered about his joining the Nazis. To get on in his career may be true but membership will have brought obligations with it. His autocratic manner with his orchestras is noted but many seem of the players seem to look back on him with amused affection.

 

What is wrong with Karajan? Not a lot really. He's not infallible, but then which conductor with such a wide repertoire is?

I refute the suggestion that none of his recordings are "definitive" (not that I particularly like that term anyway). How about some of his early opera recordings for EMI? His Der Rosenkavalier and Falstaff remain top recommendations for both operas. Both of his recordings of Madama Butterfly (the first with Callas, the second with Freni) are also top recommendations, as is his Il Trovatore with Callas. The Decca La Boheme would also be most people's first choice.

In purely orchestral repertoire he has recorded some absolute classics, like the Bruckner 8th and 9th Symphonies, Mahler's 9th, Honegger's 2nd and 3rd, his DG Sibelius 4th and his EMI Sibelius 5th. The 1970s Tchaikovsky 6th (again for EMI) also takes a lot of beating and was recently chosen as top choice on BBC's Building a Library programme (by a Russian reviewer, no less). And those are just off the top of my head. And his Beethoven cycles all have something to recommend them.

 

I agree.

Those two Puccini recordings you mentioned seem to be two of the most well-loved opera recordings ever, from what I've seen.

I have Karajan's digital Beethoven symphony cycle and enjoy it.

 

Von Karajan was all over the place, he was, as we say in Dutch, a 'high tree'. And "high trees do catch a lot of wind". He appeared to be very full of himself (as do many artists, btw), and everyone had/has an opininion about him. I doubt whether he suffered from that.
To me, he's 'just' another well known conductor. Like Enthusiast, I don't get very enthusiastic about his recordings of earlier-than-19th-century music (with a few exceptions).
I'm less familiair with the opera repertoire in general, but I think Tsaraslondon has got a very good point in pointing out Von Karajan's merits in that genre. Imho, he was really great in f.i. Puccini. I'd like to add that I also endorse his 1978 recording of Mozart's Figaro.
He's often been compared to Bernstein, who was considered his main 'rival'. I personally prefer Lenny. In a way, Von Karajan was more solid (comparable to Toscanini and Marriner), but with Bernstein's performances/recordings always something (special) was happening. And Bernstein made great videos with him lecturing about music. Again: even if you didn't agree, when Lenny was lecturing, always someting (special) was happening.
But back in the days, when they both were alive and kicking, if you wanted to have a solid and mostly beautiful approach of classical 19th century repertoire, then Von Karajan was your man.

 

Whats with his private life, what kind of man he was...

 

He was actually a pretty private man and (in contrast to Bernstein) an introvert. He hated parties and functions where he had to appear. He was married 3 times and had two daughters by his last wife. He was extremely single minded and could be ruthless and unpredictable. He only wanted people to see what he wanted them to see and carefully cultivated his image. But in that he was no different from many other conductors who were vain in a profession where modesty is rare. He could of course be extremely good company when he chose. Of course a very complicated man.

 

I'm not an operafile though I see one live every now and again. The only two opera highlights recordings in my collection are both led by Karajan -- Beethoven Fidelio and the 1950s Verdi Otello with Del Monaco.

 

Not much wrong with Karajan, although perhaps he was no Furtwängler. Many good recordings that have stood the test of time. He believed in reincarnation and promised that 'I'll be back'

 

Whatever kind of opinion one has about his conducting, for me the fact that he joined the Nazi party means I don't want to listen to his performances. Even if he joined "only" to advance his career, that does not absolve him of signing onto a group that killed millions of people based on their religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.

There are lots of musicians who have left us wonderful performances and WEREN'T Nazis.

 

No politics please, go downstairs for that.

 

Fair enough .... if it was controversial. But do you really think anyone here will be offended by a critique of Nazism? It's a little more than criticising Karajan for supporting a living and active politician. And even if it were a current controversy, what the Nazis did was more than mere politics. I think it does say something about Karajan that he actually joined the party and it did affect his reputation for much of his subsequent life with even Bernstein (before coming to respect him, I think) referring to him as the first Nazi he had met. These things are all part of the equation, here. And it may also be part of the OP question that some can forget or sideline that part of his life while others quite simply cannot.