CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Greatest Conductors: another silly list?
Posted by Terry Hopton on August 19, 2023, 1:20 pm
Perhaps I ought to post this with an apology or some kind of trigger warning: Classic FM has recently given us a list of the 25 'greatest conductors of all time'. Most of the entries seem fairly sensible although the diversity agenda is at work again. I am not sure if the list is in order of merit; but if it is I doubt if there would be widespread agreement on the ranking. I must add that I am somewhat bemused by the inclusion of Berlioz and Chevalier Saint-Georges as conductors - splendid though they may have been in their own time. the list is here: https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/instruments/conductor/best-maestros-all-time/
Where's Beecham ? Where's Carlos Kleiber's dad ? where's etc., etc., etc ?
Considering the basis of the choices that seems to have been operating when the list was made I'm surprised that Dean Dixon, Ruth Gipps and Ivy Benson weren't on it.
Previous Message
Perhaps I ought to post this with an apology or some kind of trigger warning: Classic FM has recently given us a list of the 25 'greatest conductors of all time'. Most of the entries seem fairly sensible although the diversity agenda is at work again. I am not sure if the list is in order of merit; but if it is I doubt if there would be widespread agreement on the ranking. I must add that I am somewhat bemused by the inclusion of Berlioz and Chevalier Saint-Georges as conductors - splendid though they may have been in their own time. the list is here: https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/instruments/conductor/best-maestros-all-time/
Silly? Yes. They left out Mantovani. Whoever made this list is a comedian - comedians are getting too many gigs these days, if you ask me.
Previous Message
No question about it...it's another silly list.
Where's Beecham ? Where's Carlos Kleiber's dad ? where's etc., etc., etc ?
Considering the basis of the choices that seems to have been operating when the list was made I'm surprised that Dean Dixon, Ruth Gipps and Ivy Benson weren't on it.
Previous Message
Perhaps I ought to post this with an apology or some kind of trigger warning: Classic FM has recently given us a list of the 25 'greatest conductors of all time'. Most of the entries seem fairly sensible although the diversity agenda is at work again. I am not sure if the list is in order of merit; but if it is I doubt if there would be widespread agreement on the ranking. I must add that I am somewhat bemused by the inclusion of Berlioz and Chevalier Saint-Georges as conductors - splendid though they may have been in their own time. the list is here: https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/instruments/conductor/best-maestros-all-time/
I think, Mr Tuxedo, that you are referring to the compiler(s) at Classic FM, rather than the original poster here, Terry Hopton.
Most readers of MWI would probably give up reading this absurd list, if they hadn't done so already, by the time they get to the fourth entry of Claudio Abbado, when we are informed that he founded the Lucerne Festival Orchestra - amazing really when you think that Abbado would have been around 5 years old when Furtwangler and Toscanini first conducted it.
Previous Message
It is my fervent wish that Mr Hopton will soon (very soon) find another - less irritating - hobby.
Or, is this Message Board now the official outlet for announcements about Classic FM's latest nonsense?
I find it a highly-irritating thought that whoever compiled this list for Classic FM was paid for doing so when any number of contributors to this message board would have been able to make a far more intelligent one gratis.
I listened to Classic FM a few times when it first hit the airwaves before deciding it wasn't for me; having seen some examples of the content of the associated magazine (courtesy of Mr Hopton et al.) I have decided not to buy a copy of it but to save my pennies to spend on journalism of more reliability, integrity and balance such as is to be found in The Daily Star.
Previous Message
I think, Mr Tuxedo, that you are referring to the compiler(s) at Classic FM, rather than the original poster here, Terry Hopton.
Most readers of MWI would probably give up reading this absurd list, if they hadn't done so already, by the time they get to the fourth entry of Claudio Abbado, when we are informed that he founded the Lucerne Festival Orchestra - amazing really when you think that Abbado would have been around 5 years old when Furtwangler and Toscanini first conducted it.
Previous Message
It is my fervent wish that Mr Hopton will soon (very soon) find another - less irritating - hobby.
Or, is this Message Board now the official outlet for announcements about Classic FM's latest nonsense?
You have to wonder who the BBC Magazine is aimed at. Many music lovers would see the appearance of these lists and rapidly cancel their subscriptions. As so often the BBC has dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. I have a horrible inkling that the G magazine is going the same way ("Best Beethoven" etc.)- although the choices there are more considered. If they had called it "Beethoven recordings to which you should listen"- might have been better?
Previous Message
I find it a highly-irritating thought that whoever compiled this list for Classic FM was paid for doing so when any number of contributors to this message board would have been able to make a far more intelligent one gratis.
I listened to Classic FM a few times when it first hit the airwaves before deciding it wasn't for me; having seen some examples of the content of the associated magazine (courtesy of Mr Hopton et al. ) I have decided not to buy a copy of it but to save my pennies to spend on journalism of more reliability, integrity and balance such as is to be found in The Daily Star.
Previous Message
I think, Mr Tuxedo, that you are referring to the compiler(s) at Classic FM, rather than the original poster here, Terry Hopton.
Most readers of MWI would probably give up reading this absurd list, if they hadn't done so already, by the time they get to the fourth entry of Claudio Abbado, when we are informed that he founded the Lucerne Festival Orchestra - amazing really when you think that Abbado would have been around 5 years old when Furtwangler and Toscanini first conducted it.
Previous Message
It is my fervent wish that Mr Hopton will soon (very soon) find another - less irritating - hobby.
Or, is this Message Board now the official outlet for announcements about Classic FM's latest nonsense?
Just to make it clear, the latest list that Terry Hopton referred to was from Classic FM; the BBC list in another thread was distinct from it (although almost as weird).
I take it that the "G" magazine refers to Gramophone magazine. I haven't seen a copy of it for some years but I can well-believe that things are going downhill there too. Everything seems like a race to the bottom nowadays.
I had subscriptions to both Gramophone magazine and Musical Times for around twenty years from the early 1960s when the quality and expertise of the contributors, generally speaking, could be relied upon. As well as wondering, like Mike Hardy, what sort of audience the present-day magazines are aimed at I'm even more intrigued to know who actually thinks up these largely preposterous lists and how (or if) they are qualified to write about music at all.
Previous Message
You have to wonder who the BBC Magazine is aimed at. Many music lovers would see the appearance of these lists and rapidly cancel their subscriptions. As so often the BBC has dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. I have a horrible inkling that the G magazine is going the same way ("Best Beethoven" etc.)- although the choices there are more considered. If they had called it "Beethoven recordings to which you should listen"- might have been better?
Previous Message
I find it a highly-irritating thought that whoever compiled this list for Classic FM was paid for doing so when any number of contributors to this message board would have been able to make a far more intelligent one gratis.
I listened to Classic FM a few times when it first hit the airwaves before deciding it wasn't for me; having seen some examples of the content of the associated magazine (courtesy of Mr Hopton et al. ) I have decided not to buy a copy of it but to save my pennies to spend on journalism of more reliability, integrity and balance such as is to be found in The Daily Star.
Previous Message
I think, Mr Tuxedo, that you are referring to the compiler(s) at Classic FM, rather than the original poster here, Terry Hopton.
Most readers of MWI would probably give up reading this absurd list, if they hadn't done so already, by the time they get to the fourth entry of Claudio Abbado, when we are informed that he founded the Lucerne Festival Orchestra - amazing really when you think that Abbado would have been around 5 years old when Furtwangler and Toscanini first conducted it.
Previous Message
It is my fervent wish that Mr Hopton will soon (very soon) find another - less irritating - hobby.
Or, is this Message Board now the official outlet for announcements about Classic FM's latest nonsense?
In a previous thread, Mr Lague mildly challenged my suggestion that something of a consensus on the quality of classical music and recordings can be derived from the collective opinions of "experienced, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and informed" writers and here questions whether the compilers of silly "best" lists are "qualified" to do so at all. Speaking as someone who has had the temerity to post lots of "best of" recommendations in my surveys and reviews, I hasten to confess that I make no such claim beyond a love of and long acquaintance with such music and am in no sense qualified by skill, talent or academic training to pontificate, but in the end we tend to gravitate towards commentators whose opinions chime with our own. I have certainly come to distrust the opinions of many "real musicians" some of whose judgements I have come to regard as positively perverse. This is not a new phenomenon; for example, Renata Tebaldi lamented the rise of a generation of conductors who knew little or nothing about the operatic repertoire and the mechanics of the voice, and could not play several instruments like those of the old school, and whose "guidance" was thus wholly unreliable and even counterproductive; I have commented on this elsewhere. So perhaps, ultimately, helpful critique is just as likely to be contributed by the "enthusiastic amateur" as the "qualified professional"...
I'm not sure how to respond to Ralph Moore's post, if any response at all is expected, that is, but I'll begin by recounting an experience, which I think might be relevant to the matter in question, of my own of some thirty or more years ago.
I went to a concert at the RFH where the American pianist Eugene List played three concertos in one programme, Shostakovich 1, Rachmaninov 2 and Tchaikovsky 1. A few rows ahead of me sat Joan Chisell, music critic for one of the broadsheets and acknowledged expert on Schumann. Ms Chisell had with her miniature scores of all the works being played and they were covered with written notes presumably in her own hand. Ms. Chisell , in the course of her career, must have heard at least two of the concertos numerous times but she still followed the scores throughout the performances in order to enable her to write a proper review. To my mind this shows that she knew her stuff, knew what she was listening for based on the scores and performed her job with integrity.
When I see things like the Classic FM review (which I could well-believe was compiled by a Diversity training officer who has built up a small cd collection in the last few years) I don't get any impression of someone who knows his/her stuff --Marin Alsop and Nadia Boulanger are there but not Ansermet, Ancerl, Walter, Kubelik (you could go through the alphabet) and, of those from the past ,why Chevalier de Saint-Georges but not Wagner or Mahler? The FM list is preceded by a statement which reads: "We explain through each choice what makes a maestro a master, and why these conductors are cemented as some of classical music’s greatest."
But after reading through some of the descriptions I'm reminded that Karajan had links to the Nazi party, that Stokowski conducted without a baton,that Ozawa wears a white turtleneck when conducting etc., but still haven't a clue why they've been picked out as masters in the art of conducting (which I'm sure they were) alongside Ms. Mälkki, Nadia Boulanger or Nathalie Stutzmann - about whom I have even less of a clue about.
This seems to be musical journalism of the most puerile kind.
On the question of how much trust to place on musical literacy - well, it depends. If I'd wanted an opinion on the popular musical theatre I think I might have trusted anything that Sir Noel Coward -who, it seems, couldn't read a note - might have said but if I wanted to buy a cd set of rather more complex musical material such as Bach's Art of Fugue I think I'd like to know I was getting advice from somebody who had studied the work and knew something about how the work should be realised and performed.
Speaking of Bach, I have often heard it said (I heard it when I was a student) that should "A real musician" be presented with a copy of a work consisting of nothing but notes on the stave they would be able to judge accurately things like tempo, dynamics, phrasing etc., from what they see on the page....the fallacy of such an argument is proved by examining editions of the "48" edited by, hopefully, "real musicians" like Czerny, Longo, Tausig, Busoni and others who, in many places don't agree on anything.
I'm afraid that I rarely read reviews nowadays. I don't really know whose opinion to trust -(although a picture of each reviewer can gradually be built up) and I've got such a large record library (that desperately needs to be winnowed) that I don't feel much need to add to it. If a performance contains poor ensemble, excruciating singing, masses of innacuracies or is badly recorded I'm grateful for the warning. Otherwise I tend to prefer my own judgement which far from being expert is , nevertheless, a poor thing but mine own.
Apologies for rambling but many of the points hinted at in Ralph Moore's post could be expanded at much length and would probably need a Tovey to do them justice....and even he was accused of being tedious at times !
Previous Message
In a previous thread, Mr Lague mildly challenged my suggestion that something of a consensus on the quality of classical music and recordings can be derived from the collective opinions of "experienced, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and informed" writers and here questions whether the compilers of silly "best" lists are "qualified" to do so at all. Speaking as someone who has had the temerity to post lots of "best of" recommendations in my surveys and reviews, I hasten to confess that I make no such claim beyond a love of and long acquaintance with such music and am in no sense qualified by skill, talent or academic training to pontificate, but in the end we tend to gravitate towards commentators whose opinions chime with our own. I have certainly come to distrust the opinions of many "real musicians" some of whose judgements I have come to regard as positively perverse. This is not a new phenomenon; for example, Renata Tebaldi lamented the rise of a generation of conductors who knew little or nothing about the operatic repertoire and the mechanics of the voice, and could not play several instruments like those of the old school, and whose "guidance" was thus wholly unreliable and even counterproductive; I have commented on this elsewhere. So perhaps, ultimately, helpful critique is just as likely to be contributed by the "enthusiastic amateur" as the "qualified professional"...
The difference is monumental. The magnificent Mr Moore offers well considered and documented opinions and makes no claims that his preferences are "the best" - just the results of his, personal, in depth studies. The "best lists" seems to be random thoughts of the musically uneducated. Carry on Mr Moore!
Previous Message
In a previous thread, Mr Lague mildly challenged my suggestion that something of a consensus on the quality of classical music and recordings can be derived from the collective opinions of "experienced, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and informed" writers and here questions whether the compilers of silly "best" lists are "qualified" to do so at all. Speaking as someone who has had the temerity to post lots of "best of" recommendations in my surveys and reviews, I hasten to confess that I make no such claim beyond a love of and long acquaintance with such music and am in no sense qualified by skill, talent or academic training to pontificate, but in the end we tend to gravitate towards commentators whose opinions chime with our own. I have certainly come to distrust the opinions of many "real musicians" some of whose judgements I have come to regard as positively perverse. This is not a new phenomenon; for example, Renata Tebaldi lamented the rise of a generation of conductors who knew little or nothing about the operatic repertoire and the mechanics of the voice, and could not play several instruments like those of the old school, and whose "guidance" was thus wholly unreliable and even counterproductive; I have commented on this elsewhere. So perhaps, ultimately, helpful critique is just as likely to be contributed by the "enthusiastic amateur" as the "qualified professional"...
Thank you very much, Mike; I am glad that you understand and appreciate the motives behind my effusions. I keep saying I am running out of music to survey, but then someone makes a suggestion or I am suddenly moved to investigate a work which appeals to me and offer some thoughts - but no; I never claim that my opinions are definitive. In fact, I am slightly surprised that I am not more often on the receiving end more robust objections to my pronouncements...
Previous Message
The difference is monumental. The magnificent Mr Moore offers well considered and documented opinions and makes no claims that his preferences are "the best" - just the results of his, personal, in depth studies. The "best lists" seems to be random thoughts of the musically uneducated. Carry on Mr Moore!
Previous Message
In a previous thread, Mr Lague mildly challenged my suggestion that something of a consensus on the quality of classical music and recordings can be derived from the collective opinions of "experienced, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and informed" writers and here questions whether the compilers of silly "best" lists are "qualified" to do so at all. Speaking as someone who has had the temerity to post lots of "best of" recommendations in my surveys and reviews, I hasten to confess that I make no such claim beyond a love of and long acquaintance with such music and am in no sense qualified by skill, talent or academic training to pontificate, but in the end we tend to gravitate towards commentators whose opinions chime with our own. I have certainly come to distrust the opinions of many "real musicians" some of whose judgements I have come to regard as positively perverse. This is not a new phenomenon; for example, Renata Tebaldi lamented the rise of a generation of conductors who knew little or nothing about the operatic repertoire and the mechanics of the voice, and could not play several instruments like those of the old school, and whose "guidance" was thus wholly unreliable and even counterproductive; I have commented on this elsewhere. So perhaps, ultimately, helpful critique is just as likely to be contributed by the "enthusiastic amateur" as the "qualified professional"...
I stated elsewhere my opinion that there were a number of contributors to this board who could create more realistic lists than the professionals writing for these magazines who, I deduce, must ascribe to the present doctrine that "what you are" carries more weight in society than "what you can actually do." I guess it's a form of the Old School Tie network and while, perhaps, being more laudable in intent it results in a general "Leveling down" which is apparent, for example, in some of these ridiculous "Best" lists that are escaping into the public domain.
Previous Message
The difference is monumental. The magnificent Mr Moore offers well considered and documented opinions and makes no claims that his preferences are "the best" - just the results of his, personal, in depth studies. The "best lists" seems to be random thoughts of the musically uneducated. Carry on Mr Moore!
Previous Message
In a previous thread, Mr Lague mildly challenged my suggestion that something of a consensus on the quality of classical music and recordings can be derived from the collective opinions of "experienced, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and informed" writers and here questions whether the compilers of silly "best" lists are "qualified" to do so at all. Speaking as someone who has had the temerity to post lots of "best of" recommendations in my surveys and reviews, I hasten to confess that I make no such claim beyond a love of and long acquaintance with such music and am in no sense qualified by skill, talent or academic training to pontificate, but in the end we tend to gravitate towards commentators whose opinions chime with our own. I have certainly come to distrust the opinions of many "real musicians" some of whose judgements I have come to regard as positively perverse. This is not a new phenomenon; for example, Renata Tebaldi lamented the rise of a generation of conductors who knew little or nothing about the operatic repertoire and the mechanics of the voice, and could not play several instruments like those of the old school, and whose "guidance" was thus wholly unreliable and even counterproductive; I have commented on this elsewhere. So perhaps, ultimately, helpful critique is just as likely to be contributed by the "enthusiastic amateur" as the "qualified professional"...
"having seen some examples of the content of the associated magazine I have decided not to buy a copy of it but to save my pennies to spend on journalism of more reliability, integrity and balance such as is to be found in The Daily Star."
I am sorry I missed this splendid comment of yours - it provided some much-needed mirth for this thread.