I Love Siegfried !

Your 'hot spot' for all classical music subjects. Non-classical music subjects are to be posted in the Corner Pub.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:02 pm

Heck148 wrote: and to regard Solti as some sort of untried "podium lightweight" is totally ludicrous.....
At the time Culshaw hired Solti for the Ring, he was a relative unknown outsider choice, without any Bayreuth crudentials. Culshaw made Solti.

The strange thing is that when it comes to discussions of Parsifal, die Meistersinger, Tristan, Lohengrin, Tannhäuser, or even Siegfried Idyll, the music for which is based on Act III of Siegfried, it is pretty standard that Solti barely gets a mention as anywhere near a leading contender. If I dismissed Solti in any of those works nobody would even blink. For some odd reason, with the Ring, Solti surprisingly continues to rate a strong mention. I must admit that he has his moments but that makes him more of a highlights disc conductor to showcase the singers than a Ring cycle conductor.

There has definitely been a strong backlash against Solti. Fortunately, the number of critical voices who dare to call the emperor naked is increasing all the time. I am certainly by no means a lone voice crying in the wilderness. It is very surprising that people here are still towing the 1970-80s party line about his Ring being the Greatest Recording of All Time.

THEHORN
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:57 am

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by THEHORN » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:26 pm

Well, I couldn't disagree more about Solti's interpretation of the Ring. I also admire Karajan's very different but equally valid approach . Obviously, there is no one right way to conduct the Ring,or any other great work.
The conductor who is absolutely clueless about Wagner is the vastly overrated Sir Reginald Goodall , whose tempi are not only impossibly slow, but whose rhythmic sense is so flaccid as to make Wagner's surgingly powerful music fall totally flat .
Goodall has absolutely no idea of how to pace the music ; everything drags along at more or less the same impossibly slow and labored tempo. He makes a complete hash of the tempo relations ,reducing everything to virtually the same plodding tempo. There is absolutely no momentum ; no shape, direction or sense of continuity .
Whenever a faster tempo is called for in the score, Goodall almost always ignores it and just keeps on plodding away. The louder passages sound unbelievably turgid , and the softer ones are totally limp .
The singers are like insects caught in some sticky substance . And Goodall was knighted for such travesties of Wagner ? Unbelievable .

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:49 pm

Karajan's "Chamber Music" Ring Cycle
John F wrote:I did hear Karajan conduct in the opera house, and can testify that he did not reduce his singers to subservience to the orchestra.
Karajan himself referred to his Ring cycle as a chamber music Ring. That choice of words is not mine, it is Karajan's ( if you're not happy with it take it up with him). Amongst many central European thinkers, such as Carl Dahlhaus there is a strong tendency to view the work as a purer form of Absolute Music. I refer the reader to Dahlhaus' The Idea of Absolute Music. The tendency is to consider Wagner's music an extension of the Beethoven IXth Symphony. This is not to say that Karajan approached all opera or vocal music like this. However, he did approach his Ring cycle like this.

As for Karajan's choices in his Ring cycle, it is pretty obvious that he has avoided big name prima donna types. His vision of the Ring as pure absolute music is an extreme counter reaction to Solti. This symphonic vision is one in which the vocal roles are more like what they are in the Beethoven IX - part of a symphonic Whole. You can tell that all of the singers in the Karajan Ring beautifully fall into line with his overall conception. This makes it a rather anti-operatic Ring. It is definitely not a singer's Ring at all, and this is the usual reason many opera fans prefer other recordings.
Heck148 wrote: your claims about Karajan highlighting the orchestra are ludicrous, as this ultra-control freak's total control over, and suppression of the orchestra are well-known, and well-documented.
Obviously when Karajan used the term chamber music Ring, Karajan never meant that he would just concede control to the orchestra to do whatever they wanted to do (where that out-of-left field claim came from I really don't know - I certainly never said anything of the like). I said that Karajan's Ring is more a purely symphonic version where the vocal parts, as with the Beethoven IX or the Mahler VIII, melt into Karajan's grander symphonic vision. Karajan's expression chamber music Ring is just his way of doubly emphasising the refined musical purity of the symphonic vision.

Now, please don't get the idea that I am pushing Karajan's Ring at the expense of Culshaw's. I do like the Karajan Ring a great deal, but that doesn't mean that I am some fanatical evangelist for his Ring.
Last edited by Sator on Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:02 pm

Heck148 wrote:
for my own tastes - the best Wagner conductors were non-Teutoic, by and large - they don't take it so seriously, and do not play it so ponderously and presumptuously...Toscanini, Solti, Reiner were great Wagner conductors, who unerringly sensed and brought out the drama of the music and the story...
Toscanini's Ring was for many decades the slowest ever on record at Bayreuth. He was much slower than Knappertsbusch. Solti is only a tad faster than Knappertsbusch. Levine is the one who eventually beat Toscanini to produce the slowest Ring ever.

One of the Ring cycles I favour greatly is the one from Böhm, which is known for its very fast tempi - I tend to think of it as fluid forward momentum rather than fast. Böhm learnt his Wagner off Richard Strauss, who in turn learnt it off Bayreuth stalwarts like Felix Möttl, who played under the composer's supervision. Wagner spent his life complaining about dragging tempi in his music. So much for German conductors all being ponderous.
Last edited by Sator on Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

josé echenique
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:01 am

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by josé echenique » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:23 pm

<One of the Ring cycles I generally like the most is the one from Böhm, which is known for its very fast tempi. >

I have often said that too.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by John F » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:44 pm

Sator wrote:
John F wrote:I did hear Karajan conduct in the opera house, and can testify that he did not reduce his singers to subservience to the orchestra.
Karajan himself referred to his Ring cycle as a chamber music ring. That choice of words is not mine, it is Karajan's ( if you're not happy with it take it up with him).
Since Karajan isn't available, I'll take it up with you. Exactly when and where did he say this? In Richard Osborne's "Conversations with Karajan" he specifically contradicts it: "When we did the 'Ring' people said it was 'chamber music,' but I would deny that. It was the full Wagner orchestra, with full sonority, but played with real subtlety and the full range of dynamic levels." One reviewer has this to say about "Die Walküre," the only one of the recordings I've seen described as "chamber music":
Jon Alan Conrad wrote:Only half of the six principals seemed likely casting at the time, and indeed the two sopranos did not keep these roles in their repertory for long. But they all have something valid to offer, and (as would not always be the case in the later operas) Karajan was willing to let them contribute on their own terms, even if it meant subduing the orchestra to accommodate weak vocal registers. This was probably the origin of this cycle's inaccurate reputation as a chamber-music "Ring." (Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, p. 716)
Karajan was hindered in casting his "Ring" recordings, and therefore his Salzburg Festival premieres, by Decca having snapped up the first-choice singers for the Solti cycle. In other performances, including his transplant of "Die Walküre" to the Met, he cast Birgit Nilsson as Brünnhilde, and I saw a Karajan Vienna Ring in 1961 (minus "Rheingold") with Rysanek, Windgassen, and Hotter as well. And while Jon Vickers was of course no prima donna, wrong gender, he was one of the biggest names of the day.

Changing the subject. Toscanini never conducted the Ring cycle anywhere, nor any of the Ring operas at Bayreuth. It's his "Parsifal" that held the Bayreuth slow-poke record until James Levine outdid it. Besides "Parsifal," Toscanini also conducted "Tannhäuser" and "Tristan und Isolde" at Bayreuth. His act timings for "Tristan" were marginally slower than any others in the table I have, being closest to Michael Balling in 1906; those for "Tannhäuser" were more or less middle of the road, Act 1 being a few minutes above average because the Paris version was used.
Last edited by John F on Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Francis

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:45 pm

josé echenique wrote:<One of the Ring cycles I generally like the most is the one from Böhm, which is known for its very fast tempi. >

I have often said that too.
You beat me to the minor edit on that one. Again, I didn't want to come across a nutty Böhm evangelist either.

That said, recently I heard a radio interview with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. He briefly mentioned in the course of the interview the list of conductors he had worked with - Karajan, Furtwängler etc but when he came to Böhm he stopped to say that he possibly had the most penetrating music mind of all of them. I have also heard a former LSO principle active during the 1970-80s say the orchestra had a rather poor opinion of all of the "star" conductors they worked with on a regular basis - with just about the sole exception of Böhm.

I have been going through the above Act III passage from Siegfried with the score and Fischer-Dieskau's words really came back to haunt me. Böhm's abilities as a conductor in handling the score of the Siegfried Act III prelude are also remarkable.
Last edited by Sator on Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:49 pm

John F wrote:
Changing the subject. Toscanini never conducted the Ring cycle anywhere, nor any of the Ring operas at Bayreuth. It's his "Parsifal" that held the Bayreuth slow-poke record until James Levine outdid it. Besides "Parsifal," Toscanini also conducted "Tannhäuser" and "Tristan und Isolde" at Bayreuth. His act timings for "Tristan" were marginally slower than any others in the table I have, being closest to Michael Balling in 1906; those for "Tannhäuser" were more or less middle of the road, Act 1 being a few minutes above average because the Paris version was used.
Whoops yes, quite true. I was thinking of Parsifal. However, I have heard other Toscanini Ring excerpts and the tempi are frequently pretty broad. His Meistersinger prelude is extremely slow.

However, it is true that Solti is only about 20 minutes faster than some of Knappertsbusch's Ring cycles - 20 minutes for the entire Ring cycle. So Solti is actually quite slow overall. I certainly sensed this in his conducting of the above Act III excerpt.

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:00 pm

John F wrote: Since Karajan isn't available, I'll take it up with you. Exactly when and where did he say this? In Richard Osborne's "Conversations with Karajan" he specifically contradicts it: "When we did the 'Ring' people said it was 'chamber music,' but I would deny that. It was the full Wagner orchestra, with full sonority, but played with real subtlety and the full range of dynamic levels." One reviewer has this to say about "Die Walküre," the only one of the recordings I've seen described as "chamber music"
I think I might have seen in print from someone like Joachim Kaiser - in German. I have also heard the phrase "chamber music Ring" directly from Gundula Janowitz in a radio interview saying that this is how Karajan viewed his Ring cycle and she regarded it an important Ring cycle for precisely this reason. The phrase stuck in my mind because it seemed a rather extreme thing to say.

BTW I did a Google search of the term, and it seems that the term didn't come from Karajan, as Janowitz suggested. Some say that Karajan himself disliked the phrase, which is one that is repeated quite often with respect to his Ring cycle.

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:22 pm

I found the following very interesting review of some live Karajan performances, and even here his orchestral approach is described as kammermusikalisch even with Hotter, Nilsson and Windgassen:

http://members.chello.at/hedda.hoyer/Sa ... ber-60.htm

DER SEPTEMBER 1960

5. Jahrgang, Heft 10

DER RING DES NIBELUNGEN

DAS RHEINGOLD am 1. September

DIE WALKÜRE am 3. September

SIEGFRIED am 5. September

GÖTTERDÄMMERUNG am 8. September

Wir finden, es war eine vernünftige Disposition und zwar aus drei Gründen:

1./ Es war ein festlicher Beginn – es wurde nicht „so irgendwie" angefangen, wie dies bisher meist geschah.

2./ Es erleichtert ein ordentlicher Ring den Übergang vom Festspielsommer zum Repertoiregetriebe.

3./ Ein Wiener „Herbst-Ring" liegt, was das Ensemble betrifft, gerade richtig zwischen Bayreuth und den traditionellen beiden Londoner Ringen vor Saisonbeginn und den Wagner-Aufführungen der amerikanischen Herbst-Saisonen.

Wir hatten also zur Verfügung, was im Wagner-Fach gut und teuer ist, mit Ausnahme eines repräsentativen Gibichungen-Geschwisterpaares, das wir aber bei einigem Weitblick im eigenen Ensemble aufzutreiben durchaus in der Lage wären.

Die Philharmoniker erwiesen sich nach arbeitsreichem Sommer in prächtiger Form und Spiellaune, was nicht ganz ohne Proben abgegangen sein dürfte. Herbert von Karajan war wieder ein kraftvoller, überlegener Ring-Dirigent, der die diversen musikalischen, technischen, handwerklichen und nicht zuletzt gedanklichen Probleme diese Riesenwerkes meisterte, als habe er 36 Mann Orchester und eine Zweieinhalb-Stunden-Oper vor sich. Es ist unglaublich, welche Reserven von Kraft und Konzentration dieser Dirigent hat und mit welcher Meisterschaft er allen Ebenen des gewaltigen Werkes gerecht wird. Wir erinnern uns gerne der gewaltigen, von großem edlen Pathos erfüllten Aufführungen von Walküre und Götterdämmerung unter Furtwängler und Knappersbusch. Rheingold und Siegfried haben wir aber nie so gehört wie unter Karajan. (Diese Abende können sich nämlich ganz schön ziehen, wenn man sie pathetisch macht!) Wir erinnern uns keines so fließend-romantischen und doch dabei glasklaren, spannungsreichen und Kontraste schaffenden Musizierens.

Auf der Bühne kann man deutlich das Wachsen des Ringes und das Wachsen des Regisseurs Karajan an ihm beobachte, das in der Götterdämmerung einen Höhepunkt erreicht hat. Es wären nun, da der Ring steht, etliche kleine Verbesserungen, besonders an den Kostümen, vorzunehmen. Und vor allem sollte man den ersten Akt Siegfried direkt auf den Bühnenboden und nicht auf einen Aufbau stellen. Da hätten es die Sänger leichter.

Die im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes überragende Figur in der Tetralogie schuf Hans Hotter. Es ist schwierig, über seinen Wotan und Wanderer etwas Neues auszusagen, die Konsequenz zu beschreiben, mit der die Figur vom ersten Erklingen des Walhall-Motivs im Rheingold bis zum gefaßt-resignierenden Abgang im dritten Akt Siegfried gestaltet ist. Und der Gestaltung adäquat ist die dunkle Stimme, deren Modulationsfähigkeit immer neu überrascht.

Birgit Nilsson hat sich ehrlich und mit Fleiß die Brünnhilde erarbeitet und imponierte wieder durch die geballte Kraft ihres leuchtend-dramatischen Soprans – wenn sie auch nicht ganz so mühelos sang wie etwa bei der Götterdämmerungs-Premiere im Juni vergangenen Jahres.

Wolfgang Windgassen bemühte sich redlich. Manchmal fehlte es ihm an Stimmstärke – er hat natürlich wieder einmal zu viel gesungen. Seit der Zeit, als er begann, Wagner zu singen hat er sich sehr geändert. Wir erinnern uns, wie glatt und mühelos, fast wie Tamino, er in seinen ersten Wagner-Jahren sang, und es ist interessant zu beobachten, wie das Wachsen des Ausdrucks, das bei ihm ja sehr stark merkbar ist, die Stimme angreift, sie herber und rauher macht. Nur stört das nicht, wenn er sich in guter Form befindet. In schwächerer Verfassung sind mühevolle und manchmal nicht ganz saubere Ansätze nicht zu überhören – aber es ist natürlich müßig, davon überhaupt zu reden, wenn Windgassen alle wesentlichen Aufführungen des Ring des Nibelungen allein bestreiten muß. Man wünscht es ihm, daß sich die Herren Vickers oder Uhl in absehbarer Zeit über den Siegfried stürzen, andererseits kann man keinem Sänger dieses mörderische Fach wünschen. Regine Crespin sang die Sieglinde mit Bayreuth-Erfahrung, gut durchdacht und sauber. Es kam allerdings wenig über die Rampe, zumal sich Windgassen ja auch mit dem Siegmund nicht gerade leicht tut. Und interessant: Wenn nichts von der Bühne ausstrahlt, wird Karajan sofort kammermusikalisch. Und so gab es einen ersten Akt Walküre wie bei Karajans ersten Wiener Opernabenden. Mit dem Auftritten von Hans Hotter und der mitreißenden Rita Gorr (Fricka) wuchs der Abend aber zu harter dramatischer Wucht.

Mittel- und Höhepunkt des SIEGFRIED war diesmal nicht das Waldweben (die Holzbläser wirkten wie infiziert vom obligat unsicheren Horn und sogar die blühende Soloklarinette rutschte einmal ein bißchen ab), sondern eine prachtvolle Wala-Szene und ein hymnisch-jubelndes Schlußduett, das allerdings von Birgit Nilsson eher im Alleingang gesungen wurde.

In der GÖTTERDÄMMERUNG sang Gottlob Frick, der sich schon als Fafner und auch als Hunding bestens bewährt hatte, einen prachtvollen Hagen. Die beiden anderen Bewohner der stolzen Halle am Rhein, Carlos Alexander und Paula Brivkalne, waren nicht vorhanden. Ein Detail ist übrigens allen Italiener-Hassern bisher entgangen, nämlich die goldene Adlerfeder, die als Kopie eines in Italien aufgefundenen Schmuckstückes aus der Völkerwanderungszeit ein wesentlichere Dekorationselement der Halle ist. Welscher Tand sogar in der Gibichungenhalle! Hoffentlich stammt das Stück wenigstens von Goten oder Langobarden.)

Auch in der Götterdämmerung fiel wieder die ausgezeichnete Verfassung von Alois Pernerstorfer auf, der seine bisher besten Alberich sang. Die Mannenchöre sind am Beginn immer unsicher und finden sich erst im Mittelteil des Chores. Um so besser war das Orchester, das mit Trauermusik und Schlußgesang (im Verein mit der prachtvollen Birgit Nilsson) Großartiges leistete.

Was uns noch auffiel: Textliche Unsicherheiten bei den Sängern. Bei dem sonst sehr guten Peter Klein zum Beispiel, um bei dem ansonsten großartigen Loge von Gerhard Stolze zu einer fatale Situation am Schluß des RHEINGOLD zu führen, die er aber souverän meisterte. Weiters gab es eine interessante, mit Riesenstimme sehr schön gesungene und vortrefflich phrasierte Rheingold-Fricka und Waltraute von Rita Gorr, sehr gute Leistungen der Rheintöchter (im Rheingold Wilma Lipp, Margareta Sjöstedt, Hilde Rössel Majdan, in der Götterdämmerung mit Gundula Janowitz, Margareta Sjöstedt, Hilde Rössel-Majdan ) und passable Walküren. Aus dem Nornen-Trio ragte Christa Ludwig eindeutig heraus. Die Götterpartien im Rheingold waren mit Anton Dermota (Froh) und Eberhard Wächter (Donner) besetzt.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by John F » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:59 pm

Sator wrote:I have heard other Toscanini Ring excerpts and the tempi are frequently pretty broad. His Meistersinger prelude is extremely slow.
I assume you mean the Act 3 prelude. The complete "Meistersinger" from Salzburg, a wonderful performance I think, neither dawdles nor rushes. As for the Ring excerpts Toscanini recorded, I haven't listened to most of them for years but they never struck me as consistently slower or faster than usual, and listening again to the "Götterdämmerung" dawn duet with its flexible tempos (and Melchior's tendency to accelerate) confirms that impression.



(Too bad the clip cuts off before the end of the Rhine journey.)

For the rest, I take Karajan's word for it that he did not characterize his Ring Cycle as chamber music. You're entitled to your own opinion, of course - as I am to mine. I was interested to read that review of the September 1960 Ring cycle, whose cast was very similar to the cycle I attended in June 1961. The reviewer says of Act 1 of "Die Walküre":
Regine Crespin sang die Sieglinde mit Bayreuth-Erfahrung, gut durchdacht und sauber. Es kam allerdings wenig über die Rampe, zumal sich Windgassen ja auch mit dem Siegmund nicht gerade leicht tut. Und interessant: Wenn nichts von der Bühne ausstrahlt, wird Karajan sofort kammermusikalisch. Und so gab es einen ersten Akt Walküre wie bei Karajans ersten Wiener Opernabenden. Mit dem Auftritten von Hans Hotter und der mitreißenden Rita Gorr (Fricka) wuchs der Abend aber zu harter dramatischer Wucht.
In other words, when Crespin and Windgassen were unable to fill the house with their sound in Act 1, Karajan considerately kept the orchestra down for them - consistent with what Jon Allen Conrad writes about the DG recording. But when Hotter's and Gorr's heroic voices took over in Act 2, restraint gave way to "harter dramatischer Wucht." And unless I'm missing something, the reviewer does not characterize any part of Karajan's Ring other than "Die Walküre" Act 1 as "kammermusikalisch." In the June Ring cycle, Siegmund and Sieglinde were Vickers and Rysanek, who wouldn't have needed Karajan to carry them, and while I thought the playing of the Philharmoniker was extraordinarily beautiful, it never sounded reined in. You'll just have to take my word for it; I was there.
John Francis

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:59 am

Karajan's Ring evolved. If you listen to his 1950s Bayreuth performances, they are pretty mainstream in style and not kammermusikalisch in the least bit. However, Janowitz herself characterised Karajan's approach to the studio recording of the Ring as kammermusikalisch - and she really was there! Come the Berlin studio recording, irrespective of what practical forces were at play in the choice of singers he really does take an approach that Janowitz, along with many other critics, rightfully characterise as kammermusikalisch. The most extreme example of this evolution is the choice of Fischer-Dieskau as the ultimate kammermusikalischer Wotan.

Nor have I once remotely suggested that Karajan overwhelmed the voices with the orchestra. Far from it. I said that he regarded the voices as being like sections of the orchestra, so there was a harmony and unity between them - albeit a harmony ruled over by Karajan. In fact, the Solti Ring tends to overwhelm the voices more often than the Karajan.

I just listened now to a Toscanini NBC Meistersinger Act I prelude that was pretty ponderous, and this is the one I probably remember. However, I have found other iTunes excerpts of earlier performances that were a touch faster. He seemed to have slowed down with time. I have also been listening to some Ring excerpts and the tempi are quite extreme in both directions, either as fast as Boulez or much slower than Knappertbusch.

In the last 10 years it looks like I haven't mellowed much at all. I seem to be as controversial as ever with opinions divided squarely down the middle. Some swear by me, some swear at me. Those who did follow me at least used to say that I was always, if nothing else, thought provoking. I took it as a compliment. That said, much of what I say is far less controversial when I say them amongst musically educated central European circles. It is only when I say the same things in the English speaking world that I find I am fighting "against the grain".

In any case, anything I say about Solti's Ring is pretty moderate and considered compared to what I have read elsewhere. Michael Tanner used to like to refer to the strident vibrato laden outbursts from the brass in the Solti Ring as "farting noises".
Last edited by Sator on Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by John F » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:18 am

This is frustrating. You have the testimony of Karajan himself that his approach to the Ring at Salzburg and on records was not chamber-music. Surely that trumps the observation of his Sieglinde, in a radio interview I would need to hear for myself, who was speaking for herself and not Karajan, and who sang only in those parts of the Ring in which Karajan did restrain the orchestra to balance with her light voice. You also have a reviewer's quoted judgment that except when Janowitz and Crespin are singing, Karajan's is not a chamber-music Ring. And you have my testimony that Karajan's approach to the Ring in the opera house, only five years before recording "Die Walküre," was definitely not chamber music. What does it take to persuade you?

The casting of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau as the Rheingold Wotan is not evidence of a "lite" orchestral approach to the Ring. I heard DFD in the opera house several times as well as in concert, and his was not a small voice. It was unsuitable for Wotan because of its tessitura and color, not its volume; the role is laid out for a bass-baritone or bass. Incidentally, Fischer-Dieskau wasn't present for all of the recording sessions; "the rest was recorded during two synchronizing sessions when, quite alone in the dark, storm-lashed church, I conjured my contributions onto the prerecorded tape." ("Reverberations," p. 176) Karajan could hardly balance the orchestra with a singer who wasn't there. How this affected his interpretation is anybody's guess, now he's gone.

As for controversy, we have plenty of it here and enjoy it; and your observations about the final scene of "Siegfried" are indeed thought-provoking. But I wonder if you really mean to imply, as you have done twice, that "English-speaking circles" such as Classical Music Group are musically uneducated, compared with unnamed "central European circles" (just what circles are these?), and that this is why some here disagree with you. You've even used the word "rabble." The insult aside, it's just possible that we're the musically better educated. Whatever, at least I take rather more care than you to get the facts straight.
Last edited by John F on Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Francis

Sator
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Sator » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:28 am

I never said that Karajan's approach was a chamber music approach. I actually said that this seemed a rather extreme characterisation that was presumably intended to stress the fact that Karajan's approach was primarily an Absolute Music and symphonic approach - a view close to the sort of thing found in Dahlhaus. I said that whereas Solti's is a singer centred approach, Karajan's Berlin studio Ring is a conductor centred orchestral approach. I don't think that is at all controversial.

Anyway, enough of this nonsense. This is the last you will hear from me. I have just been reminded why I stopped posting on the internet, and thank you for doing so.

Fare thee well.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by John F » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:39 am

Sator wrote:This is the last you will hear from me. I have just been reminded why I stopped posting on the internet, and thank you for doing so.

Fare thee well.
As one of our Presidents once said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
John Francis

Heck148
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:53 pm
Location: New England

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Heck148 » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:43 am

Sator wrote:A Critique of the Culshaw-Solti Ring the Vienna Philharmonic render Solti's interpretation beautifully. Yes, Culshaw's sound engineering team produce a miracle for the ages. But for those of us who truly savour the extraordinary profundity of Wagner, an entire dimension is completely and irretrievably missing.
And those conductors who underplay the exuberant, brassy sonority that accompanies Brunnhilde's Awakening into the the glorious sun, and dazzling brilliance of the day miss that "extraordinary profundity of Wagner", and for those of us who truly relish that aspect of Wagner, "an entire dimension is completely and irretrievably missing". :)

THEHORN
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:57 am

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by THEHORN » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:10 am

Solti's conducting of the Ring "lacks profundity"? Not unless you equate slowness with profundity , the way Goodall did. I never found Solti's conducting to be "superficial" or lacking in profundity .

maestrob
Posts: 18923
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:30 am

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by maestrob » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:24 pm

John F wrote:
Sator wrote:This is the last you will hear from me. I have just been reminded why I stopped posting on the internet, and thank you for doing so.

Fare thee well.
As one of our Presidents once said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Good grief! Talk about over-reacting!

Disagreement is what debate is all about. If you can't or won't back up your POV with facts & sources, well,.......

I thought that's what was going on here, until I read the above postings. Pax vobiscum, Sator.

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by John F » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:55 pm

I'm afraid it's the "chamber music Ring" business that showed some true colors. First:
sator wrote:Karajan's "Chamber Music" Ring Cycle
Then, after a series of attempted defenses against the contrary evidence, came this the very next day:
sator wrote:I never said that Karajan's approach was a chamber music approach.
No comment needed.
John Francis

Heck148
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:53 pm
Location: New England

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Heck148 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:57 am

Sator wrote: The strange thing is that when it comes to discussions of Parsifal, die Meistersinger, Tristan, Lohengrin, Tannhäuser, or even Siegfried Idyll, the music for which is based on Act III of Siegfried, it is pretty standard that Solti barely gets a mention as anywhere near a leading contender.
:?: :?: :!: a mention by whom?? Standard?? by whose criteria?? Solti's Parsifal and Meistersinger are excellent. [not familiar with complete Tannhauser or Lohengrin - excerpts only] as a Wagnerian, he was one of the very greatest.
If I dismissed Solti in any of those works nobody would even blink.
no, they would think that you're an uninformed idiot.
There has definitely been a strong backlash against Solti.
phoo-ey, who cares?? This happens to all great conductors, and composers as well. public opinion goes up and down - so-called critics/experts suddenly find it advantageous to attack the greatest, once they have passed away. so what?? with Solti, the recorded, and live evidence is abundant - he was truly one of the greats.
Fortunately, the number of critical voices who dare to call the emperor naked is increasing all the time. I am certainly by no means a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
your personal prejudice is simply overflowing here. obviously, you have some personal grudge against Solti, to post such unsupportable, strongly biased nonsense...what have you got against Solti?? - who very arguably, established and maintained the greatest virtuoso symphonic ensemble to ever exist, in the Chicago Symphony...

get a life, dude. your pseudo-musical psycho-babble masquerading as legimitatre criticism smacks of the nonsense that is so prevalently displayed on boards like RMCR....

Heck148
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:53 pm
Location: New England

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Heck148 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:01 pm

Sator wrote:Karajan's "Chamber Music" Ring Cycle
I said that Karajan's Ring is more a purely symphonic version where the vocal parts, as with the Beethoven IX or the Mahler VIII, melt into Karajan's grander symphonic vision. Karajan's expression chamber music Ring is just his way of doubly emphasising the refined musical purity of the symphonic vision.
Oh please.... :lol: :lol:

Heck148
Posts: 3664
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:53 pm
Location: New England

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Heck148 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:08 pm

Sator wrote: Toscanini's Ring was for many decades the slowest ever on record at Bayreuth.
what is the relevance of this observation?? obviously, a huge work like the Ring is going to give rise too many different interpetations - there is nothing inherently negative about slow tempi - provided the conductor/orchestra can make it work...
Toscanini, Reiner, Solti, were all podium masters who could make a slow tempo work - they preserved momentum, pulse, forward motion...MaestroB cites Goodall as one who doesn't make it work - plodding, dumpy, soporific
One of the Ring cycles I favour greatly is the one from Böhm, which is known for its very fast tempi - ..... Wagner spent his life complaining about dragging tempi in his music. So much for German conductors all being ponderous.
you obviously have little understanding of the relationships of tempo, rhythm, pulse, phrasing and how they are combined to present a musical concept...

lennygoran
Posts: 19347
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by lennygoran » Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:25 pm

( is "Siegfried" really finer than "Götterdämmerung,")

No, good but gotterdammerung is the best! Len

hangos
Posts: 982
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:44 pm
Location: England

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by hangos » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:57 pm

lennygoran wrote:( is "Siegfried" really finer than "Götterdämmerung,")

No, good but gotterdammerung is the best! Len
I certainly agree with you, Lenny! IMHO the last part of the Ring is the one where Wagner is at his most assured and virtuosic, very few longeurs (once you've got past the Norns' prologue!) This opera (very much like a grand opera despite Wagner's own theories!) is the work of an alchemist at the height of his powers
Martin

Bro
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by Bro » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:36 pm


I found this on Youtube. It looks fascinating. An excerpt of what looks like a cinematic treatment of the Ring complete with realistic looking sets. Music supplied by the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan. One of the comments says they ran out of money mid way through Walkure.


Bro

stenka razin
CMG's Chief Decorator
Posts: 4005
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:59 am
Location: In The Steppes Of Central Asia

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by stenka razin » Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:47 pm

lennygoran wrote:( is "Siegfried" really finer than "Götterdämmerung,")

No, good but gotterdammerung is the best! Len
Lenny, you are so right about which the best, my friend. Gotterdammerung is my favorite, too. 8)

Regards,
Mel 8)
Image

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: I Love Siegfried !

Post by John F » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:56 pm

Bro wrote:I found this on Youtube. It looks fascinating. An excerpt of what looks like a cinematic treatment of the Ring complete with realistic looking sets. Music supplied by the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan. One of the comments says they ran out of money mid way through Walkure.
This is all of the Salzburg Ring that was filmed, with Karajan credited as the director, but from what I've read, it's not a straight take on the stage production as designed by Schneider-Siemssen. The soundtrack isn't the DG recording but a new one made during the Festival of 1973, with a largely new cast; Thomas Stewart is Wotan instead of Fischer-Dieskau, and after the untimely death of Erwin Wohlfahrt, Karajan's original Mime, Gerhard Stolze moved over to that role with Peter Schreier stepping in as Loge. Only Kelemen remains as Alberich. Apart from the loss of Wohlfahrt, the new cast looks stronger, at least on paper, and the DVD might be worth having for its audio alone.

Don't know about the money angle. According to Osborne's biography, Karajan was dissatisfied with the work of the production company Unitel, which produced this film, and formed his own company which from then on made all the Karajan videos. I can certainly believe that even Karajan, with his many moneyed connections, couldn't raise the scratch to rerecord and film the remaining three Ring operas, but I can't pin that down. It may be that after "Rheingold," which didn't turn out well, Karajan - with no other experience making films - realized he was out of his depth and didn't see his way artistically in the greater challenges that remained.

Haven't seen the "Rheingold" film except for this clip, but the professional and viewer reviews are very discouraging. The Nibelheim scene may be the only one that actually works visually.
John Francis

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 29 guests