[ The MusicWeb Message Board ]

CELEBRATING 20,000 Classical CD reviews on-line; 21,000 visitors each day.
Return to MusicWeb International

Greatest Conductor Posted by Gil on August 6, 2005, 9:51 am 4.228.213.178 Who would you say is the best conductor around today? For me Toscanini was it last century. This century so far too soon for me to tell. phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phonesex telephone sex telephone sex phonesex phonesex telephone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex telephone sex phonesex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phonesex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex phone sex florida escorts

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Paul Serotsky on July 25, 2006, 1:51 pm, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" 80.229.144.169 In response, I would paraphrase Richard Strauss: "Do you know who the greatest conductor is? I don't. There are only good and bad conductors."

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by maw on November 29, 2005, 11:27 am, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" 61.86.102.251 Claudio Abbado Vladimir Ashkenazy Pierre Boulez Riccardo Chailly John Eliot Gardiner Valery Gergiev Neville Marriner Marc Minkowski Andre Previn Christian Thielemann Bernard Haitink Mariss Jansons Ingo Metzmacher Riccardo Muti Antonio Pappano Simon Rattle Wolfgang Sawallisch Franz Welser-Most

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by rudiantoro on February 27, 2006, 11:22 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 203.130.203.240 Herbert von Karajan is the greatest

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Baron Bliss on November 10, 2005, 10:08 am, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" 86.139.192.187 The finest conductor around in the UK at the moment is David Lloyd Jones. I can only imagine what delights he would achieve with orchestras such as the VPO and the BPO.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Kees de Leeuw on September 15, 2005, 4:18 pm, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" 131.211.197.75 That's a personal view! For the first half 20th Century: don't forget Paul van Kempen! For now I think of Riccardo Chailly and Valery Gergev.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by epicous on August 26, 2005, 4:23 am, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" 200.66.231.217 I think it is Frans Brüggen.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by john france on August 19, 2005, 1:01 pm, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" I truly believe that the search for the 'greatest' in anything is misplaced. There is no such thing as the greatest painter, writer or composer. The only nod in this direction that we can make is to think in terms of 'division'. I have no doubt that Toscanini is in the 'Premier Division! But so was Klemperer & Furtwangler....Today Rattle rings a bell!

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by David Lee on March 19, 2006, 9:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 198.164.98.92 My favorites have to be Furtwangler in all of his recordings Klemperer in alot of music especially Bruckner Reiner in Chicago Karajan in Sibelius and Bruckner Jochum in Bruckner

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on November 8, 2005, 9:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 84.67.198.152 John France stated: "I truly believe that the search for the 'greatest' in anything is misplaced. There is no such thing as the greatest painter, writer or composer. The only nod in this direction that we can make is to think in terms of 'division'. I have no doubt that Toscanini is in the 'Premier Division'! But so was Klemperer & Furtwangler....Today Rattle rings a bell!" I would argue that Bush, Kleiber, Klemperer, Mahler, Monteux, Nikisch, Rosbaud and Toscanini were the greatest of all conductors and were in a unique class of their own. But Rattle is certainly not of their class. My personal and provisional 'league table' of conductors is as follows: The 'Premier Division': Abendroth, Anèerl, Ansermet, Böhm, Boulez, Bour, Cantelli, Celibidace, Chung, Cluytens, Damrosch, Escenbach, Fried, Giulini, Furtwängler, Harnoncourt, Hindemith, Horenstein, Inghelbrecht, Jochum, Kleiber, Kondrashin, Koussevitzky, Krauss, Kreizberg, Lutoslawski, Maderna, Markevitch, Martinon, Mravinsky, Muck, Paray, Penderecki, Pfitzner, Reiner, Rodzinski, Sabata, Scherchen, Strauss, Stravinsky, Talich, Tintner, Walter, van Beinum, van Kempen, von Karajan, Wand, Weingartner. But Rattle? Rattle is certainly not in the ‘Premier Division’. The ‘Second Division’: Abbado, Ackermann, Argenta, Asahina, Atherton, Barshai, Beecham, Blomstedt, Boult, Bodanzky, Britten, Brüggen, Casals, Chailly, de Burgos, de Waart Dorati, Dutoit, Ehrling, Eötvös, Fistolari, Fricsay, Fournet, Gamba, Gielen, Goberman, Golovanov, Goodall, Gui, Janowski, Jordá, Kajanus, Kempe, Kertesz. Kletzki, Knappertsbusch, Konwitschny, Košler, Krips, Kubelik, Knussen, Lehmann, Leibowitz, Leitner, Levine, Mácal, Mackerras, Malko, Maag, Maazel, Masson, Mengelberg, Mitropoulos, Munch, Nagano, Pedrotti, Pretre, Rignold, Rossi, Rozhdestvensky, Santi, Schmidt-Isserstedt, Segerstam, Serafin, Shippers, Sinopoli, Szell, Steinberg, Stokowski, Suitner, Vänskä, van Hoogstratten, van Otterloo, Varviso, von Matacic, Weldon, Wolf, Zagrosek. But Rattle? Rattle is certainly not in the ‘Second Division’. The ‘Third Division’: Abravanel, Adler, Barbirolli, Barenboim, Berglund, Bernstein, Belohlávek, Bonynge, Bychkov, Cameron, Ceccato, Del Mar, Dixon, Dohnanyi, Fjeldstad, Gergiev, Goosens, Handley, Haitink, Jansons, Keilberth, Leinsdorf, Ludwig, Masur, Mehta, Muti, Järvi, Navarro, Neumann, Ormandy, Pappano, Pesek, Previn, Rostropovich, Sanderling, Sargent, Sawallish, Schurict, Silvestri, Simonov, Solti, Stein,Termirkanov, Wallenstein. But Rattle? Rattle is certainly not in the ‘Third Division'. The ‘Fourth Division’: Arwel Hughes, Ashkenazy, Daniel, Davis, Dodds, Downes, Elder, Gatti, Gibson, Groves, Herbig, Hickox, Inbal, Kaplan, Leppard, Lewis, Lockhart, Loughran, Marriner, Mata, Norrington, Ozawa, Pritchard, Rattle, Rizzi, Salonnen, Saraste, Sinaisky, Slatkin, Susskind, Tcheknavorian,Tennstedt, Tilson-Thomas, Weller, Welser-Möst, Wigglesworth, Wordsworth. It is in the 'Fourth Division' where Rattle rightly belongs.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Rob Linder on February 6, 2007, 4:50 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" You posted a fascinating list that includes many less celebrated figures that I admire such as Rosbaud, Ancerl, Ansermet, Hindemith, Maderna, Markevitch, Scherchen. It is really a fabulous list. However, just as you have your mantra: "But Rattle? Rattle is certainly not in the...", I will answer with "But Stravinsky? Stravinsky is certainly not in the...". I saw Stravinsky conduct on a number of occasions in Los Angeles in the 1960s and knew several of the musicians that worked with him regularly. Though I consider his recordings highly valuable as a reference, he was a really terrible conductor and the recordings could not have been produced if Bob Craft had not done the rehearsals. You have only to listen to the Rosbaud and Stravinsky recordings of Agon, both made with the Sudwestfunk orchestra. Though Rosbaud had carefully prepared the Sudwestfunk orchestra for Stravinsky, Stravinsky can barely hold the piece together.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by R Magri-Overend on February 10, 2007, 8:40 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 58.105.76.244 Greatest conductor eh? The answer is simple - me! When I get into the groove listening to anything energetic or rubato or romantic (especially by Tchaikovsky) my arms can't help but conduct. Sometimes my body can't help but get into the groove too. No doubt about it I AM THE GREATEST!

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Francophile_2002@yahoo.co.uk on January 9, 2006, 6:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" Like most people I only know most of these conductors from their recordings and some of the 'greats' had an aversion to recording - Furtwangler being the obvious example. I agree with Chris Howell: given this caveat, the choice of a 'greatest' will no doubt also be influenced by your prefered composers and even by favourite individual works. By all accounts Mahler was a magnificent conductor and reading these accounts I am persuaded that he was probably the best, but sadly we can never really know for certain. Amongst interpreters of Mahler's music on disk I would put Mitropoulos and Barbirolli in the first rank alongside Horenstein, and Beecham and Kajanus with them as interpreters of Sibelius. Who is the greatest Haydn (and Mozart) conductor? For me it has to be someone who respects, if he does not observe strictly , the 'original instruments' school & for the moment I rate Harnoncourt. In the Romantic classical tradition of Beethoven etc it has to be Furtwangler.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by John Hill on December 5, 2005, 12:25 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" RE Alex Russell's interesting list of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier conductors. Dear Alex: Although I really don't care too much where you put Rattle, I do have some questions. 1) This is a personal list. Is it based on the experience of actually listening to each of these conductors on records? 2) If so, how did you manage to rate Mahler? Are there any recordings of his conducting? 3) Where do you rank Svetlanov? Thanks, John

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on December 31, 2005, 9:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 84.67.194.137 RE Alex Russell's interesting list of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier conductors. Dear Alex: Although I really don't care too much where you put Rattle, I do have some questions. 1) This is a personal list. Is it based on the experience of actually listening to each of these conductors on records? 2) If so, how did you manage to rate Mahler? Are there any recordings of his conducting? 3) Where do you rank Svetlanov? Thanks Jon Dear John: To answer your questions: 1) Yes: as most of the conductors on my personal list are dead now I had no choice but to listen to them on record or CD although I saw a few of them in the flesh. I obviously did not hear Mahler conduct and Mahler did not leave us any recordings of his conducting. Otto Klemperer saw Mahler conduct the Beethoven 7 and said no one conducted it better. 2) I rate Mahler as a great conductor by what his contemporaries said of his conducting and also Toscanini greatly admired Mahler’s conducting as did Otto Klemperer who said to Peter Heyworth that Mahler was a greater conductor than Toscanini and to my mind Toscanini (and Klemperer) are the greatest conductors. So I think if both Klemperer and Toscanini rate Mahler as a great conductor – and they are great conductors in their own right - then it stands to reason that Mahler may have been the greatest conductor of all time; he was a far greater conductor than a composer – and only really composed as a hobby in his holiday breaks from conducting. 3) I saw Svetlanov with the LSO at the Royal Festival Hall in the late 70’s and rated him highly then but he went off later in his career due to alcoholism. Svetlanov's Mahler (and Bruckner) were rather crude and bland and he had no real rapport with these composers. Best regards Alex Russell

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by David Lee on March 19, 2006, 11:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 207.179.149.113 Bruno Walter is easily one of the greats....he consistently performed a wide variety of music very well and learned a good deal from Mahler. As to Reiner I cannot criticize any of his recordings negatively...however music is a live experience and apparently in the concert hall Reiner was very electric according to freinds of mine who saw him and worked under him. As to Karajan it is his choice as the greatest of all time that is difficult....... but he certainly created the image of the 'jet set' conductor. He has a wonnderfully wide and varied repetoire and was one of the few people in the mid 50s championing Reshigi and Sibelius. I also find his Beethoven always interesting although after the 62 cycle I wonder why he needed to record it three more time! The last cycle is boring !! Bernstein is a great Mahler interpreter so there...however I do have a weak spot for Lenny but not in Mozart and Beethoven. I also found Bernstein to be a fine opera conductor but less interesting as an orchestral conductor as he got older!!! That being said I really think Bernstein did wonders with Stravinsky and Mahler and his Mahler cycle in New York on CBS is groundbreaking with a super 9th! As to Kubelik he is one of the greatest musicians who ever lived and I have the great pleasure to play under him. HE would be the default choice for greatest underrated conductor of the last century. His Mahler cycle is very good and his Bruckner was very fine as well! So...where does that leave us...well Gunter Wand was quite popular as the current favorite but I always found his Beethoven a bit dull...Rattle is still finding his way but has a lot of learning I suspect in much repetoire. Harnoncourt is abrasive at times...Maazel never panned out as the great conductors. Mazur is very good but in a narrow spectrum.... It makes one realize how great some of these names were when I was growing up'' Hans Rosbaud Hermann Scherchen Guido Cantelli Carl Maria Giulini Erich and Carlos Kleiber Andre Cluytens Charles Munch

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by joseph B Daniel on January 3, 2006, 5:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 85.65.125.139 If such is Mr Eussel's appreciation of Mahler the composer, then indeed one can forgive his faltering 'musical ear' that was the basis for these poor observations.Chung and Esenbach before Abaddo, Bloomstedt before Bernstein!. Well, the chap is certainly original!

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by John Hill on January 3, 2006, 5:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" Dear Alex, Thank you so much for your response. Things are much clearer to me now. I like your approach, it seems well thought out. I'm sure you would admit, though, certain methodological inconsistencies in your system when you mix and match rankings based on 1) live impressions, 2) recorded impressions and 3) 2nd hand impressions (e.g. Klemp on Mahler). Anyway, very thought provoking material. Best, John

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by David Lee on October 17, 2006, 4:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 156.34.196.84 I think it very hard to come up with who is the greatest conductor...I do perceive a very strange cultural bias towards Toscannini but his NBC recordings have dreadful intonation and at times the orchestra sound more frightend of him...although Klemperer was pretty nasty too. so how is I have come about my ideals and concepts about what a great conductor is...well simply put many very great conductors in history were far more interested in the Live concert experience over the recording session. Han Knappertsbusch in the concert hall came alive in a way very few of his recording do. So...add the spectrum of what is the purpose of the recording and then we get into the dicey game of saying who IS THE greatest. ... Well, I think the late Herbert von Karajan conducted a very wide repetoire well and consistently. But, at times I feel we are getting the Karajan treatment in some of the repetoire he recorded...this means simply put tight ensemble with very little drama...his Ring cycle in the late 60s on Dg has always been something of a great dissapointment...it is slow dull and at times just plain academic sounding...so providing you with some of these thoughts is really key to such a huge undertaking as who is the greatest...'' Certainly Karl Bohm was more consistent in quality than either Karajan and Toscannini but he also didn't conduct such a wide repetoire as they did....

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Tsotne Tsotskhalashvili on March 16, 2011, 5:25 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 76.119.91.125 Philippe Herreweghe

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by chris howell on December 10, 2005, 8:01 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 213.215.159.48 surely there's a special category of conductor - "presumed greats" or something like that - which we just can't compare with most of those on Mr Russell's list because they were before the age of recording. As well as Mahler (who could theoretically have recorded something but only left a few piano rolls), Hans von Bülow, Hans Richter, Steinbach (Brahms's chosen interpreter) and Safanov (the "batonless conductor") are just a few of those working in the late 19th/early 20th century who sound from contemporary accounts to have been great, but how can we really rate them against conductors whose work can actually be heard? Chris Howell

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Marc Bridle on November 13, 2005, 12:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 86.132.104.127 I do find some of these choices inexplicable: Furtwangler is not listed as in a class of his own, but with the likes of Tintner and Boulez (both vastly overrated here). Strauss finds himself listed with Stravinsky, Hindemith, Pfitzner (ludicrous placing) and Penderecki when he had a much broader repertoire than any of them and left behind more estimable recordings (moreover, Strauss is as important as Mahler as a conductor/composer - where would Reiner and Szell be without Strauss?) Alex places five living conductors in his premiere division, but they are the wrong five in my view (Kreizberg is an especially perplexing choice). Eschenbach is important because he is imaginative and devoted to modern music, and a very fine Bruckner interpreter; but so is Barenboim who finds himself in the third division. I'm not sure what criteria has been used to compile these leagues but the most startling misplacement is Bernstein. I can see why Alex places him so low (based in part on his measure of how commercial conductors become) but Bernstein is a conductor of considerable stature (would he, I wonder, in a list of violinists, place Menuhin so low when he too broadened his musical horizons to take in the popular?) His Mahler is still amongst the most important to have been recorded, and his DVD cycle on DG gives a quite different measure of Bernstein's greatness as a Mahler conductor of the first rank to what many of us will know from his audio recordings. Moreover, I know at last three people who heard Bernstein do Mahler 9 live with the Concertgebouw in London and for all three of them the concert ranks not as just the greatest Mahler concert they have the heard, but as the greatest concert of anything they have heard. The simple truth about these lists is that on any given day a conductor in the third division can raise himself to the premiere. Muti is a very good example. It is also true to say that any conductor in the premiere division can fall to the third: Boulez can sometimes seem an incredibly lazy conductor in concert. But I am surprised one name appears so low on Alex's list, and that is Tilson Thomas. In at least two concerts I know Alex to have been to he has rated the Tilson Thomas performances as amongst the finest he has ever heard (albeit one after this list was compiled). In which case: is this a listing based on recordings alone, or does it take in much wider criteria?

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on November 13, 2005, 4:32 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 81.77.247.160 Marc Bridle rightly observed: "The simple truth about these lists is that on any given day a conductor in the third division can raise himself to the premiere. Muti is a very good example. It is also true to say that any conductor in the premiere division can fall to the third: Boulez can sometimes seem an incredibly lazy conductor in concert." A conductor can rise or fall from division to division depending on performances so – as I stated – my lists are - as I stressed - 'personal and provisional' and arbitrary: I have also seen Boulez and Muti in good form and in bad form in concert; even Furtwangler in concert could good be great or awful – as his 'live' recordings testify to. All conductors have an off night or are not at 'home' with certain composers and certain works. Furtwangler and Celibidache were not 'sympathetic' to Mahler's music - even though Furtwangler allegedly performed the Mahler 3rd Symphony and recorded some of the songs; and Toscanini did not have time for either Bruckner or Mahler (even though he performed Bruckner's 7th Symphony once with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra of which a tape exists); Mengleberg and Stokowski never touched Bruckner: so do we also judge conductors on what they 'cannot' conduct? I place Bernstein low on the league list table solely on the grounds that he cannot conduct the classical cannon (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) and argue my case in response to Baron Bliss: (see 'Greatest Conductors' here): Rattle is also 'low' on my league lists because he cannot conduct Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven or even Bartok, Janacek, Nielsen, Shostakovich, Sibelius or Stravinsky. However I whole heartedly agree with Bridle that Bernstein’s 'live' Concertgebouw Mahler 9th Symphony on Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft is one of the greatest performances in the catalogue and very difficult to surpass: arguably his greatest recording. Bridle continues: "But I am surprised one name appears so low on Alex's list, and that is Tilson Thomas. In at least two concerts I know Alex to have been to he has rated the Tilson Thomas performances as amongst the finest he has ever heard (albeit one after this list was compiled). In which case: is this a listing based on recordings alone, or does it take in much wider criteria?" I rated Tilson Thomas 'so low' based upon on his early Mahler 3rd Symphony with the LSO recorded for Sony as well as his most recent but still sterile studio cycle of Mahler Symphonies with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra but I also admired Tilson Thomas’ recent concert performances of Bruckner 9th Symphony and Tchaikovsky Manfred Symphony with the London Symphony Orchestra at the Barbican Hall. Yet recently I heard Tilson Thomas' San Francisco Symphony Orchestra concerts broadcast on BBC Radio 3 and found them dull and dreary: this may all sound rather contradictory but it is not: conductors can be dreadful in the studio and yet great in concert; or vice versa – and they all have there on days and off days. Even Klemperer in his old age could get bored by conducting. My 'personal and provisional' listing of leagues was based on studio recordings rather than 'live' performances that I have heard in the flesh. I deliberately emphasised the word 'provisional' as conductors can change and we can all change in our critical perceptions.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by David Lee on March 19, 2006, 9:24 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 198.164.98.92 I tend to regard the concept of greatness purely in terms of how fine a conductor can do with what forces he has at his disposal. There is also a danger of oversimplification what the criteria are. However, for me Furtwangler is certain the only conductor I know of who is interesting to listen to all of the time! Also, unlike Karajan and others he tends not to be the type of musician who says the same thing over again. For example....in Beethoven 9 which Furtwangler conducted on numerous occassions there is wonderful variances in tempi and interpretation yet the greatness of music making remains. Karajan and Szell seem so earthbound at times because of an overriding obcession with a perfectly steady tempo that it undermines phrasing.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on November 10, 2005, 9:08 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 81.79.19.131 Here is my list of the 10 most overrated and underrated conductors: 10 Underrated Conductors: Eugen Szenkar (German),Leo Borchard (Austrian) Oswald Kabasta (Austrian),Zdenek Chalabala (Czech),Roger Desormiere (French),Issay Dobrowen (Russian),Vittorio Gui (Italian),Vittorio Negri (Italian),Nello Santi (Italian), Witold Rowicki (Polish) Of course there are many more obscure, forgotten names so the above list are merely all the conductors I consider to be of the front rank. It is not exhaustive. 10 Overrated Coductors: Solti (Hungarian),Barbirolli (British/Italian),Previn (German/American,) Mehta (Indian/Jewish),Tilson Thomas (US), Stokowski (British), Colin Davis (British), John Pritchard (British), Welser-Most (Austrian), Leonard Slatkin US), Haitink (Dutch).

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alastair Bissland on December 16, 2005, 12:32 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" I was sorry to see you incude Haitink in the most overated of conductors. Surely his 1971 (Philips) recording of Mahler's 8th is one of the most genuinely emotive, well timed and crafted recordings of the 8th available? I'am pleasantly surprised to see you include Barbirolli, his turgid and stagnant recording of Mahlers 3rd has always been frustratingly overated. Any thoughts on Wyn Morris, the British conductor, always it seems overlooked, but nonetheless a fine conductor of the late romantics and early modernists. His Mahler 5th is a remarkably fine recording.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Gary Lemco on March 1, 2007, 12:23 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 67.164.111.206 You overlook Fernando Previtali, whom I saw in New York's Carnegie Hall in the early 1970's--he led an unforgettable Ma Mere l'Oye of Ravel and The Pines of Rome. Exquisite. His opera and concert collaborations were always top-notch.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by chris howell on November 10, 2005, 8:45 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 213.215.159.53 I wonder how useful these "divisions" are when many of these conductors showed special insights into particular works. Even if I did agree to the relegation of Beecham, Gui and Munch to the "Second Division", you would have to admit that Beecham's Delius and Sibelius, Gui's Rossini and certain of Munch's interpretations of Berlioz and Debussy match anything Russell's top eight or his "First Division" can do. Again, even if I accepted Schuricht's placing in the "Third Division", is not his Bruckner, at least, comparable with that of Bohm or Matacic? And what are we to make of conductors who have left recorded evidence of something like greatness in a very limited area - Chalabala in late Dvorak, Grondahl in Nielsen and other Danish composers - but whose achievements in other repertoire is not documented? Composer-conductors are very special cases. While I would happily rate Stravinsky above Britten as composers, surely Britten was a supreme interpreter of his own music and he did produce interesting performances of other people's music; can this really be said of Stravinsky? The possible criteria for these "divisions" are too variable. If interpretative magic and orchestral colouring are all, then Stokowski goes to the top; if interpretative fidelity is the first essential then Boult needs upgrading, and so on. While any "division" will be personal, a degree of public consensus seems to exist though there will always be room to plead special cases. Perhaps Mr. Russell would care to explain, citing all the evidence (records plus any personal recollections he has) WHY he believes Hugo Rignold and Anatole Fistoulari to have been the equal of Fricsay, Kempe and Stokowski, and superior to Bernstein, Ormandy, Sawallisch and Tennstedt. There seems to be a general public perception that this is not so; a REASONED reassessment of the former two conductors (of whose concerts I have not especially exciting memories, able though they undoubtedly were) would be interesting. Christopher Howell

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on November 11, 2005, 11:55 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 84.68.91.191 Reply to: Christopher Howell from Alex Russell I whole heartedly agree with Christopher Howell that 'divisions' are 'too variable' and arbitrary: Munch was first rate in French music but third rate in German music. I also agree with Howell that conductors can switch divisions depending upon their repertoire: Bernstein could not conduct Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms but excelled in Mahler and contemporary American music. Howell stated: "While any 'division' will be personal, a degree of public consensus seems to exist though there will always be room to plead special cases…WHY he believes Hugo Rignold and Anatole Fistoulari to have been the equal of Fricsay, Kempe and Stokowski, and superior to Bernstein, Ormandy, Sawallisch and Tennstedt. There seems to be a general public perception that this is not so; a REASONED reassessment of the former two conductors." Yes: while "a degree of public consensus seems to exist" – invariably it is always wrong or distorted because the 'public consensus' is largely manipulated by media made myths. Great art and great artists can never be judged by our contemporary cretins and critics alike. Remember: consensus science is bad science: like consensus conductors are bad conductors. I have no doubt that Simon Rattle is very popular with the 'general public' but this has much more to do with EMI PR and media manipulation: unlike Otto Klemperer – Rattle is politically correct, media friendly and smiles a lot: the antithesis of droll, dull, politically incorrect Klemperer. The 'general public' would far prefer Rattle's etiolated and effete, limp-wristed Beethoven to Klemperer's granite like macho muscular Beethoven. Today the servile 'general public' are served up anaesthetised dumbed-down Beethoven devoid of danger and trenchant terror. I said this was a 'provisional and personal' league table of conductors and not set in stone: and I have never followed what Howell nominates as: "a general public perception" since – as we know as regarding voting – public perception is always already blinded by media manipulated myth making: hence our 'popular' conductors for the 'public perception' are media manipulated constructs such as: Bernstein, Rattle, Solti and Tenstedt. Hugo Rignold and Anatole Fistoulari – not known at all by the 'general public' today – were very fine conductors and Fistoulari was a great conductor of Tchaikovsky's ballet music: yet neither are 'popular' with the 'public' today. Rosbaud, Tintner, Maderna and van Kempen – all first rate conductors – did not make many records and therefore remain largely outside 'a general public perception' yet they were all far superior to the media manipulated Bernstein, Rattle, Solti and Tenstedt. I would never go by what is nominateded as: "a general public perception" when it comes to the arts and music because the public lack critical perception and usually – if not always – have to be told what to like or what is 'good' or 'bad'. Even many of our art and music critics today lack a sense of autonomous diacritical perception and do not know what they are talking about. I also do not buy into that media made cliche: "the public imagination": the one thing the public do not have is an imagination: if they did they would buy obscure but imaginative conductors on CD like Maderna and Rosbaud or van Beinum and van Kempen.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by chris howell on November 16, 2005, 7:49 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 213.215.159.61 When I stated that there is a "general public perception" regarding the stature of certain conductors, I did not mean that this "consensus" must not be challenged. If I thought that, my own meagre contribution to recorded repertoire would hardly consist of Scott, Craxton and Stanford, while my reviews on the site of Giulini's Verdi Requiem, Klemperer's Beethoven 5 & 7 and Otter's "Music for a While" should be sufficient to prove that I don't lap up myths uncritically. But I hope I always explain why I go against the general view. To reply to my query as to WHY Hugo Rignold is to be considered the equal of Fricsay, Kempe and Stokowski and superior to Bernstein, Ormandy, Sawallisch and Tennstedt with the bland remark that he was "a very fine conductor" (and that's the end of the argument!) is not quite enough. What are the qualities which Mr Russell so admires in Rignold? How does he explain to the Birmingham audiences the fact that Rignold's CBSO was a decent enough provincial band which improved under Frémaux (not on Mr Russell's lists) and achieved its highest level under Rattle when, according to his divisions, it should have gone from bad to worse? Could Mr Russell not prepare an article or two about conductors whom he feels have been badly undervalued? I presume that his opinion of Rignold is based on live performances or broadcasts since Rignold made very few discs. But he did make some, I seem to remember a Dvorak "New World" and some Gershwin. According to Mr Russell's divisions, the former should be superior to Neumann, Ormandy or Sawallisch, the latter superior to Bernstein. If this is really the case then a campaign should be made to have these recordings reissued. According to my own recollections of Rignold, he had a tendency to spice up generally sound and sometimes vital readings with odd little eccentricities along the way, such as playing the last four chords of Tchaikovsky 5 adagio, or stemming the flow of an otherwise cogent Franck symphony by slamming on the brakes for a thoroughly pompous fortissimo reprise of the finale's second subject. I remember enjoying his Enigma and Beethoven 5 but I don't remember anything about them and I admit that he and the CBSO certainly made a good showing on the Lyrita Bliss record. Over to you, Mr Russell! Regarding Mr Russell's contention that "The 'general public' would far prefer Rattle's etiolated and effete, limp-wristed Beethoven to Klemperer's granite like macho muscular Beethoven", can we be sure of this? Klemperer's concerts always enjoyed a full house, even in his later years when in all truth the public would have done better to sit at home listening to his records of ten years earlier, and his Beethoven cycle has surely provided EMI with a handsome income over the years. On the whole his somewhat eccentric personal manners inspired affection more than anything, at least in England. Since the two conductors' careers didn't run parallel we shall never know for sure which would command the greater public following if the concert-going public could choose between Klemperer and Rattle today in Beethoven but I suspect it would be the former. Remember, too, that while "PR and media manipulation" may push an artist to the top of his profession in a short time, artists whose talents are only superficial have a way of falling as quickly as they rose. Rattle's career stretches back a fair number of years now and during that time many conductors, instrumentalists and singers have been hyped and then dumped. That Rattle has kept his prominent position must surely mean he has genuine gifts. Which is not to say we must not deplore a system whereby the lucky few get hyped and the others get nothing and we all have our lists of artists who might have benefited enormously if just a tenth of the hype lavished on Rattle had been diverted to them. Chris Howell

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Baron Bliss on November 12, 2005, 11:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 86.139.197.132 Alex, When you say that Bernstein could not conduct Mozart many critics and music lovers will disagree with you. My particular favourite of recording of all Mozart symphonies are the critically acclaimed and award winning accounts of the symphonies Nos. 40 & 41 with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on Deutsche Grammophon ‘Masters’ series 445 548-2. Several of his recordings of Haydn symphonies are highly acclaimed too.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on November 13, 2005, 5:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 81.77.247.160 Baron Bliss stated: "Alex: When you say that Bernstein could not conduct Mozart many critics and music lovers will disagree with you. My particular favourite of recording of all Mozart symphonies are the critically acclaimed and award winning accounts of the symphonies Nos. 40 & 41 with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on Deutsche Grammophon 'Masters' series 445 548-2. Several of his recordings of Haydn symphonies are highly acclaimed too." Yes: many critics and music lovers may very well disagree with me but I would argue Mozart would not. If you listen to Bernstein in Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41 'Jupiter' you will see that he simply does not critically follow what is written in these scores: Bernstein does not follow Mozart's tempo markings. In the 'Jupiter' Bernstein does not understand the jagged cross rhythms and dissonances in the first movement or the contrapuntal structure of the final. In both 40 and 41 Bernstein submerges and smudges the woodwind and makes Mozart sound like muzac by fetishizing and emphasising the strings whilst toning down the woodwind and brass. Why does Bernstein coat the VPO violin sound with a saccharine Stokowski or sweet Mantovani like slick glossy sheen? Why is Bernstein's 'Mozart' so effete, so cosy, so nice, so safe, so upholstered: so 'easy listening'? In Bernstein’s 'Jupiter' (not Mozart's) all the contrapuntal strands are smudged. Bernstein's 'Mozart' has nothing to do with Mozart and everything to do with 'Bernstein': slick, smaltz, smooth, streamlined devoid of drama, danger, darkness and dissonance. Why does Bernstein ignore Mozart's unambiguous tempo marking for K550 (1st and 4th movements) Molto allegro (very fast), also, very fast, - as observed by Harnoncourt, Bruggen, and surprisingly, Furtwangler? Why does Bernstein ruin Mozart's request and turn the Molto allegro into a comfortable (Gemutlich) andante? I ask Bliss as well as critics and so-called music lovers alike to listen to Otto Klemperer's performances of Mozart's 41 'Jupiter' Symphony with the Guerzenich Orchestra, (Pavilion des Sports, Montreux Festival, 9th September 1956) or with the Philadelphia Orchestra (Academy of Music, Philadelphia, 3rd November 1962); the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1968): here woodwind and brass are properly projected and not toned down and homogenised. Listening to these paradigms performances will make you all realise just where Bernstein goes wrong and exactly why Bernstein simply cannot conduct Mozart: there is a great divergence between what Mozart actually asks for and what Bernstein conducts and serves up. Bernstein dumbs-down Mozart (and Haydn and Beethoven) by smoothing out the orchestral textures thus silencing all the dark dissonances and dramatic dynamism inherent in these radical and revolutionary scores. Benjamin Britten could conduct Mozart!!! Bernstein could not!!! What does Bliss mean by 'critically acclaimed' - is he referring here to the lamentable and appallingly written Penguin Record Guide – the PR Bible of the Classical Record Industry? Where they award a naff Rosette as a sign of stature and approval? I would argue that he Penguin Record Guide is more of an advertising manual than a critical reference. Why does Bliss give such authority and kudos to critics or critical acclaim? Ignorance is certainly Bliss here: as we well know: many critics are uncritical and are some are merely subservient PR spokespersons for the music industry to push up flagging classical sales. Popularist platitudes like 'generally acclaimed' are merely meaningless sales spiel in the context of selling classical music which does not sell like it used to. Why does Bliss or anyone else need a conductor to be "generally acclaimed" as a sign of approval or value? Why are people today totally incapable of applying their own autonomous diacritical faculties, if indeed they possess any? Why do people have to be persuaded or told what to like through sales spiel like: "critically acclaimed"? If Bliss wants to hear Mozart's Mozart 40 & 41 and not Bernstein’s Bernstein 40 & 41 – I strongly suggest that he listen to: Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Franz Brüggen/Orchestra of the 18th Century: Philips 434149-2. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Nikolaus Harnoncourt and the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra: Teldec: 4509-97490-2. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Otto Klemperer and the Philharmonia Orchestra: EMI Angel: 7 47852 2. Mozart: 41 "Jupiter": Otto Klemperer and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1968): Testament: SBT8 1365. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": The Guerzenich Orchestra, Pavilion des Sports, Montreux Festival, 9th September 1956. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": The Philadelphia Orchestra (Academy of Music, Philadelphia, 3rd November 1962. These paradigm performances testify to the fact that Bernstein cannot conduct Mozart.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by vermeire jean-paul on May 20, 2006, 12:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" Anatole Fistoulari maybe forgotten great conductor. I will more information about his life. Thanks.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by David Lee on March 19, 2006, 9:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 198.164.98.92 I really think there are some great holes in the catalogue of recordings to do justice to the discussion of who is the greatest. Certainly I rate Bernstein fine in Mahler but lousy in alot of classical and early romantic works. As for other conductors many are so boring and full of themselves that they will never leave an enduring legacy. Among these are Tilson Thomas, Vanska, Mehta bores in alot of stuff, Marin Alsop is quite uniteresting...so the list goes on and on. IN fact I suspect classical music is dying a quick death. Furtwanger and Klemper were very different from the modern generation and were the last of rugged individualists. Now it seems conductors copy a recording they have learned from and pass it off as something original!

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Martin Walker on July 24, 2006, 11:11 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 213.36.156.185 Doesn't it depend on what they are playing? Certainly the great conductors for the central European classical repertoire are all dead, though it's true that changing the instruments used in the traditional orchestra has allowed some novelty in the interpretation of such works - but there are several wonderful conductors of 20th & 21st C repertoire, Gielen, Stenz & others, even if they cannot quite rival Scherchen, Rosbaud or Bour in straddling the two realms. What seems to have vanished is that impalpable gift of phrasing that depends upon the sense of harmonic rhythm rather than cold analysis of note-lengths & intervallic relationships. My favourite conductors are Furtwängler & Mitropoulos, with de Sabata (the greatest Beethoven #5!) & Toscanini for some things, especially live. Mengelberg is in the running too. The huge list of present-day conductors by "maw" that started this off (?) interests me not at all, I'm afraid, most are mediocre routiniers. I will give him Metzmacher. ;-)

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Marc Bridle on March 27, 2006, 9:49 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 86.132.95.205 'Now it seems conductors copy a recording they have learned from and pass it off as something original!' This is an interesting comment. In the film Taking Sides, about Furtwangler's post-WWII trial, Daniel Barenboim conducts a performance for the soundtrack of the opening movement of Beethoven's Fifth with exact regard to Furtwangler's tempi, dynamics and so on. The reality is that however close Barenboim is to Furtwangler's own performance in basic terms, his performance simply lacks the life force that Furtwangler brought to his own recording. Furtwangler is simply inimitable and it is this which makes him so fine an interpreter. His music-making goes beyond the notes when many are too content to simply play them.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alex Russell on November 13, 2005, 7:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 81.77.247.160 Addendum: Baron Bliss stated: "Alex: When you say that Bernstein could not conduct Mozart many critics and music lovers will disagree with you. My particular favourite of recording of all Mozart symphonies are the critically acclaimed and award winning accounts of the symphonies Nos. 40 & 41 with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on Deutsche Grammophon 'Masters' series 445 548-2. Several of his recordings of Haydn symphonies are highly acclaimed too." Yes: many critics and music lovers may very well disagree with me but I would argue Mozart would not. If you listen to Bernstein in Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41 'Jupiter' you will see that he simply does not critically follow what is written in these scores: Bernstein does not follow Mozart's tempo markings. In the 'Jupiter' Bernstein does not understand the jagged cross rhythms and dissonances in the first movement or the contrapuntal structure of the final. In both 40 and 41 Bernstein submerges and smudges the woodwind and makes Mozart sound like muzac by fetishizing and emphasising the strings whilst toning down the woodwind and brass. Why does Bernstein coat the VPO violin sound with a saccharine Stokowski or sweet Mantovani like slick glossy sheen? Why is Bernstein's 'Mozart' so effete, so cosy, so nice, so safe, so upholstered: so 'easy listening'? In Bernstein’s 'Jupiter' (not Mozart's) all the contrapuntal strands are smudged. Bernstein's 'Mozart' has nothing to do with Mozart and everything to do with 'Bernstein': slick, smaltz, smooth, streamlined devoid of drama, danger, darkness and dissonance. Why does Bernstein ignore Mozart's unambiguous tempo marking for K550 (1st and 4th movements) Molto allegro (very fast), also, very fast, - as observed by Harnoncourt, Bruggen, and surprisingly, Furtwangler? Why does Bernstein ruin Mozart's request and turn the Molto allegro into a comfortable (Gemutlich) andante? I ask Bliss as well as critics and so-called music lovers alike to listen to Otto Klemperer's performances of Mozart's 41 'Jupiter' Symphony with the Guerzenich Orchestra, (Pavilion des Sports, Montreux Festival, 9th September 1956) or with the Philadelphia Orchestra (Academy of Music, Philadelphia, 3rd November 1962); the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1968): here woodwind and brass are properly projected and not toned down and homogenised. Listening to these paradigms performances will make you all realise just where Bernstein goes wrong and exactly why Bernstein simply cannot conduct Mozart: there is a great divergence between what Mozart actually asks for and what Bernstein conducts and serves up. Bernstein dumbs-down Mozart (and Haydn and Beethoven) by smoothing out the orchestral textures thus silencing all the dark dissonances and dramatic dynamism inherent in these radical and revolutionary scores. Benjamin Britten could conduct Mozart!!! Bernstein could not!!! What does Bliss mean by 'critically acclaimed' - is he referring here to the lamentable and appallingly written Penguin Record Guide – the PR Bible of the Classical Record Industry? Where they award a naff Rosette as a sign of stature and a seal of approval? I would argue that the Penguin Record Guide is more of an advertising manual than a critical reference. Why does Bliss give such authority and kudos to critics or critical acclaim? Ignorance is certainly Bliss here: as we well know: many critics are uncritical and are some are merely subservient PR spokespersons for the music industry to push up flagging classical sales. Popularist platitudes like 'generally acclaimed' are merely meaningless sales spiel in the context of selling classical music which does not sell like it used to. Why does Bliss or anyone else need a conductor to be "generally acclaimed" as a sign of approval or value? Why are people today totally incapable of applying their own autonomous diacritical faculties, if indeed they possess any? Why do people have to be persuaded or told what to like through sales spiel like: "critically acclaimed"? Many of our contemporary conservative critics do not like Klemperer's or Harnoncourt's Mozart because they see it as far too strident and strange even ‘weird’ (yet it is very often strident, strange and weird music) and prefer Bernstein and Beecham’s civilised and homogenised ‘easy listening’ Mozart (‘Muzart’) as David Hurwitz confesses: "Nikolaus Harnoncourt's Mozart is controversial. Some listeners find it thrillingly unconventional--others find it just plain strange. He recorded all of these works once before, with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, and those version really were weird. Here, he seems to have moderated his impulses to take fast movements very, very fast, and slow ones very, very slow, and the result, while certainly not conventional, is an interesting alternative to the usual routine. " - David Hurwitz If Bliss wants to hear Mozart's Mozart 40 & 41 and not Bernstein’s Bernstein 40 & 41 – I strongly suggest that he listen to: Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Franz Brüggen/Orchestra of the 18th Century: Philips 434149-2. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Nikolaus Harnoncourt and the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra: Teldec: 4509-97490-2. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Otto Klemperer and the Philharmonia Orchestra: EMI Angel: 7 47852 2. Mozart: 41 "Jupiter": Otto Klemperer and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1968): Testament: SBT8 1365. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": The Guerzenich Orchestra, Pavilion des Sports, Montreux Festival, 9th September 1956. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": The Philadelphia Orchestra (Academy of Music, Philadelphia, 3rd November 1962. These paradigm performances testify to the fact that Bernstein cannot conduct Mozart.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Baron Bliss on November 14, 2005, 10:12 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 86.139.196.113 Thank you Alex for providing a most intersting list of suggested recordings of Mozart's Mozart 40 & 41. I know many of these and I would also agree how great many of these accounts are. I would not be so arrogant to state that my suggested recordings are ever the best available. I am only stating 'my' particular favourite recordings, which is my personal opinion. This is where opinion and facts can get confused. You state, "These paradigm performances testify to the fact that Bernstein cannot conduct Mozart." The fact is that they are paradigm recordings in your opinion to others they may not be. There is more than one way of interpreting a score and a lot is down to personal choice.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Paul on August 24, 2009, 8:18 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 149.101.1.121 I think Bernstein Mozart 41 was just superb, it's on my IPOD. I loved the way he did it , and who better than Vienna. I disagree with the commentator that Van Kempen and Tintner and other are superior to Bernstein Solti and others. I vehemently disagree. They are great but they have yet to outdo them. In Bruckner's eighth the miracle symphony I call it, Tintner didn't use the three terrifying thunder clasps of the timpani at the beginning of the last movement. Shameful! I have yet to hear Van Kempen however. Heard he was excellent. I don't think Strauss and I haven't heard much, was that great a conductor. I mean Parsifal Act I in an hour and a half? Give me break! Toscanini did at Bayreuth in 2 hrs. 10 minutes. the way it is supposed to be done! here are my favorites ARTURO TOSCANINI PIERRE MONTUEX CHARLES MUNCH SERGEI KOUSSEVITZKY WILHELM FURTWANGLER LEONARD BERNSTEIN BERNARD HAITINK EUGEN JOCHUM WILHELM MENGELBERG GEORGE SZELL ANTAL DORATI FRITZ REINER DIMITRI MITROPOLOUS BRUNO WALTER SIR THOMAS BEECHAM OTTO KLEMPERER HERBERT VON KARAJAN CLAUDIO ABBADO ERICH KLEIBER CARLOS KLEIBER ISTVAN KERTESZ ANDRE PREVIN RICCARDO MUTI GUISSEPPE SINOPOLI WHAT A LOSS

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by WILLIAM on January 7, 2008, 12:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 217.44.96.103 Ha Ha! Everyone's a critic! I see this thread suffers as the Gramophone reviews of the 60's and 70's did, in that everyone is far too snobby to appreciate Bernstein as one of the greats. Maybe none of you heard him live, or more likely it's just that awful snobbery inherent in so many. But at the end of the day, if you are lucky enough to hear a great performance live, and appreciate it as such, you would realise that it takes more than just a particular conductor. And if I may add my own jibe at Rattle, I've heard him live often, and his facial expressions are so awful that even if he managed a great performance it would be aesthetically ruined for me - ha ha - call me shallow.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Graham Eagland on October 20, 2008, 1:23 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 86.149.113.199 Sir Mark Elder by many a mile!

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Drasko on September 2, 2005, 10:25 am, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 194.106.170.67 Three names come to my mind: Claudio Abbado Pierre Boulez Nicolaus Harnoncourt

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by David Lee on March 19, 2006, 9:28 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 198.164.98.92 For me Furtwangler in everything he touched...sheer magic! Then I geuss its pretty tricky but Klemper and Karl Bohm are pretty close. As for Bernstein I think he is pretty weak in Beethoven and Mozart. Karajan is great in Beethoven and Sibelius but somewhat dull in Wagner.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Johan on May 11, 2007, 8:33 pm, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" Today, Zubin Metha is the greatest living conductor.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Chas Lee on July 11, 2007, 2:10 am, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" My favorite conductors in no particular order: Wilhelm Furtwangler Otto Klemperer Sergiu Celibidache Rafael Kubelik I must say among other conductors whose work I enjoy, these four inspire me like no other. If I had to choose one to whom I had to pledg allegiance... Klemperer!

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by Alfredo Labbé on July 14, 2007, 6:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" Dear Chas: I agree with you completely! Please, try the "new" Missa Solemnis (Testament SBT 1408, just released). While the sound -mono- is rather dull, Klemperer's interpretation is truly magnificent. Deste regards Alfredo

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by William Hicks on January 9, 2009, 2:19 pm, in reply to "Greatest Conductor" The greatest conductors, IMO, must include Gustav Mahler, Artur Nikisch, Arturo Toscanini, WIlhelm Furtwangler, Herbert Von Karajan, Felix Weingartner, Fritz Reiner, Pierre Boulez, George Szell, Bruno Walter, Karl Bohm, Leopold Stokowski, Serge Koussevitzky, Pierre Monteux, Charles Munch, Victor de Sabata, Ernest Ansermet, Erich Kleiber, Carlos Kleiber, and Otto Klemperer. There are several others whom I love and greatly admire, but who just miss being included in my "greatest" list.

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by chris howell on January 9, 2009, 7:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" 213.215.159.57 I daresay this we've been here before in this thread which ran a very long time when it was first started, but did you actually see Mahler conduct? Even if you're a hundred years old, you can hardly have memories clear enough to state objectively that he was greater than Beecham, Bernstein or Mravinsky (just to take three random cases you omit), which is what you are implicitly doing. Chris Howell

Re: Greatest Conductor Posted by José Schneider on January 22, 2009, 5:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor" I had the luck to see (hear) Kurt Sanderling conducting Brahms and Shostakovich in his late eighties, shortly before retiring, in Madrid of all places (our shabby National Orchestra, which is quoted by Kondrashin in his memoirs as the worst he ever conducted, suddenly sounded like the Berlin Philharmonic, or the likes). Well, the only thing I can say is that I have tried to buy all available records by him since, and I have not been let down once!

     « Back to index