Reggie rehearsing Tristan in 1981

[Prommer]

Anyway, loved Remedios's explanation of his various signals from the pit...

For me, he is the ultimate interpreter from whom to learn one's Wagner - in part because Mastersingers (especially) and the Ring - leap from the page as a result.

The slower tempi allow one to hear the work in its greatest amplitude, especially if you don't have infinite time with which to go back over a work time and again to hear what you have missed.

There are details heard not often before, but there is also a sense of structure which contains and makes sense of the motivic tapestry.

Above all, it is so clearly inhabited and lived inside-out by its performers.

[DracoM]

Sorry, but I'm firmly with with Ferney on Reg.

It was the way he navigated without any oomph in the dramatic scenes that always puzzled me. Wagner varies tempi, attack, orchestration, context a heck of a lot, but Reggie seemed to motor through it all as if slowly parading and waving to the crowd. He was lucky IMO that he and ENO had the singers who desperately needed to cope with his eccentricities to maintain their reputation on the international scene. RH / AR in their different ways were better than OK, did him proud and themselves, and there is little doubt from the cheap seats which were all I could afford that the band always seemed to play for him.

I just found his readings a bit of an instant cure for insomnia. His politics I had not the slightest awareness of at all.

Chacun a son gout etc..................

[Conchis]

I think it's instructive an point to say that too much is read into what was in the heads of Bruckner, Wagner et al. It's all logical, but that's all. How you can know whether Richard Wagner was 'bothered' about this or that is a grand assertion on your part and you have quite some neck.

Regarding the merit of Goodall, it's all purely subjective. Some people believe that he was the greatest Wagner conductor ever. When I first heard his Ring something happened to me that was even bigger than my hitherto own personal ''Wagner Moment", which was hearing Furtwangler's Tristan. What I can't stick, like you yawn at the Karajan Nazi party comments, is the people who crawl out of the woodwork every time, to tell us all that Goodall held some odious views. We know that. It's banal. If you're worried about anti-semitism and fascism, just look out the window.

I think you're guilty of creating your own personal mountain out of a very tiny molehill here. If you (carefully) re-read my initial post, you'll hopefully understand that Goodall's fascism wasn't the issue I was raising - it was Burton's dishonest determination to ignore it in his documentary because to bring up the harsh facts of what Goodall did in WW2 would not fit in with the picture he wanted to paint of a gentle, scholarly introvert whose personal diffidence, rather than his noxious politics, lost him opportunities. That just wasn't true and Burton was wrong to perpetuate that nonsense. Then again, had he been determined to attempt the plain, unvarnished truth, it's doubtful he would have secured Goodall's co-operation in the making of the programme.

The Nazi accusations are boring when levelled against the likes of Karajan - but then Karajan was a professional musician working under a fascist regime. Reginald Goodall had no such excuses.

[Conchis]

Sorry, but I'm firmly with with Ferney on Reg.

It was the way he navigated without any oomph in the dramatic scenes that always puzzled me. Wagner varies tempi, attack, orchestration, context a heck of a lot, but Reggie seemed to motor through it all as if slowly parading and waving to the crowd. He was lucky IMO that he and ENO had the singers who desperately needed to cope with his eccentricities to maintain their reputation on the international scene. RH / AR in their different ways were better than OK, did him proud and themselves, and there is little doubt from the cheap seats which were all I could afford that the band always seemed to play for him.

I just found his readings a bit of an instant cure for insomnia. His politics I had not the slightest awareness of at all.

Chacun a son gout etc..................

I"m wondering how influenced (if at all) James Levine was by the Goodall school of Wagner interpretation: I hear many of Goodall's vices (but few of his virtues) in Levine's relentlessly slow motion renderings of the scores.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I hear many of Goodall's vices (but few of his virtues) in Levine's relentlessly slow motion renderings of the scores.

I agree totally - very well put.

[Prommer]

you'll hopefully understand that Goodall's fascism wasn't the issue I was raising - it was Burton's dishonest determination to ignore it in his documentary because to bring up the harsh facts of what Goodall did in WW2 would not fit in with the picture he wanted to paint of a gentle, scholarly introvert whose personal diffidence, rather than his noxious politics, lost him opportunities.

Will re-watch and see if this is mentioned.

[Beef Oven!]

I think you're guilty of creating your own personal mountain out of a very tiny molehill here. If you (carefully) re-read my initial post, you'll hopefully understand that Goodall's fascism wasn't the issue I was raising - it was Burton's dishonest determination to ignore it in his documentary because to bring up the harsh facts of what Goodall did in WW2 would not fit in with the picture he wanted to paint of a gentle, scholarly introvert whose personal diffidence, rather than his noxious politics, lost him opportunities. That just wasn't true and Burton was wrong to perpetuate that nonsense. Then again, had he been determined to attempt the plain, unvarnished truth, it's doubtful he would have secured Goodall's co-operation in the making of the programme.

The Nazi accusations are boring when levelled against the likes of Karajan - but then Karajan was a professional musician working under a fascist regime. Reginald Goodall had no such excuses.

But he was a gentle, scholarly introvert whose diffidence lost him opportunities. There are far too many examples of people with unsavory political views or actions, who did not get held back that contradicts your statement (Clemens Krauss, Herbert von Karajan, Edgard Varèse, Carl Ruggles, Karl Bohm to name just a few). If Goodall had been carear-savvy, he wouldn't have been held back, it can be argued. But he just wasn't that sort of person.

It's entirely possible to be gentle, scholarly, introverted and hold unsavory political views. Just like it's possible to be loud, brash, ignorant but also compassionate.

Burton wasn't being dishonest, he just doesn't see it like you do. And he was better placed and more qualified than you, in this.

And Conchis, I have re-read your post (no need for your qualification about carefully, it is a straight-forward post) and it is you who appears to be the dishonest one, not Burton. Your claim that you are merely pointing to Burton's 'dishonest' approach is fundamentally contradicted by the last sentence of your post. The interview is not about his career. His career is not discussed. There is nothing misleading about that interview. Perhaps it's you that needs to carefully re-read your post and watch the interview again.

[french frank]

One helpful principle that used to be applied …

Another helpful principle is that members do not start making personal accusations about other members because of what they say. We may have our views about other members because of what they say, but the helpful principle is not to make accusations against them.

When we have new members joining all the time they aren't always aware of some of the subtleties of longstanding unwritten forum etiquette.

[LeMartinPecheur]

We know all about his odious political views. We don't need reminding every single time something is mentioned about him.

Is this a forum purely for know-it-all oldies? Do we totally discount the possibility that someone here doesn't yet know of RG's fascist leanings? Surely we ought to be open to the possibility that young people might come here to learn??

Because picking our artists (creators and performers) is such a hugely complex task I would certainly favour newbies listening to WG's Wagner without prejudice and deciding if it (he) speaks to them. If it doesn't, end of story but please try someone else, perhaps not quite so slow If it does, there may be a a decision to be made about whether political opinions outweigh artistic insight. But if this is a stumbling block, maybe you shouldn't be listening to Wagner anyway??

Though a lifetime grappling with these problems/contradictions may still be good for you...

[Conchis]

But he was a gentle, scholarly introvert whose diffidence lost him opportunities. There are far too many examples of people with unsavory political views or actions, who did not get held back that contradicts your statement (Clemens Krauss, Herbert von Karajan, Edgard Varèse, Carl Ruggles, Karl Bohm to name just a few). If Goodall had been carear-savvy, he wouldn't have been held back, it can be argued. But he just wasn't that sort of person.

It's entirely possible to be gentle, scholarly, introverted and hold unsavory political views. Just like it's possible to be loud, brash, ignorant but also compassionate.

Burton wasn't being dishonest, he just doesn't see it like you do. And he was better placed and more qualified than you, in this.

And Conchis, I have re-read your post (no need for your qualification about carefully, it is a straight-forward post) and it is you who appears to be the dishonest one, not Burton. Your claim that you are merely pointing to Burton's 'dishonest' approach is fundamentally contradicted by the last sentence of your post. The interview is not about his career. His career is not discussed. There is nothing misleading about that interview. Perhaps it's you that needs to carefully re-read your post and watch the interview again.

The fact that he was 'better placed' and 'more qualified' than me (or you, for that matter) only makes his dishonesty more flagrant. The whole central thesis of The Quest For Reginald Goodall is fatally flawed because of Burton's refusal to discuss the elephant in the room.

A friend of mine, who knew virtually nothing of Goodall, watched the film. His comment: 'This man is holding something back and the interviewer (Burton) is colluding in that holding back.'

[Conchis]

And I suppose I ought to add, for reasons of fairness, that the principal reason Goodall was overlooked/sidelined during Solti's tenure at Covent Garden was that Solti didn't care for Goodall's music-making; Lebrecht (always a questionable source) claims that the 'Mosleyite fascist' Goodall 'had to be moved' when Solti took over but that may have had more to do with Covent Garden apparatchiks not wanting their new M.D. to be upset rather than through any diktat of Solti's.

Apparently, when Goodall belatedly became a 'name' conductor after the Sadlers Wells Meistersinger in January 1968, Solti attended a performance and congratulated Goodall afterwards, though this may only have been a 'statesmanly' gesture.

[Barbirollians]

Shame to see the Clemens Krauss nonsense repeated again - as anyone who has read Safe passage by Ida Cook would know .

[Beef Oven!]

Shame to see the Clemens Krauss nonsense repeated again - as anyone who has read Safe passage by Ida Cook would know .

Nonsense? Facts, actually.

In 1935, Erich Kleiber resigned his position as director of the Berlin State Opera in protest against Nazi policies (many non-Jewish anti-Nazis did this). Clemens Krauss dropped what he was doing in Vienna and stepped in. Jews and anti-Nazis were being replaced in Banks, Universities, Orchestras, municipal positions etc. Krauss was one of those people willing to step into the breach.

The question has often been asked as to how the Nazis were able to take such a grip on the whole country. Part of the answer lies with the willingness of people to behave in a despicable manner and take over from dismissed jews and anti-Nazis. It is argued that without the willingness of these people to step into the 'vacated' positions in the cultural, educational and municipal life of Germany, the Nazis machine could not have achieved such overwhelming power.

The behavior of these people in the Third Reich is nothing less than odious. Krauss had also previously replaced the non-Jewish anti-Nazi, Fritz Busch in the preparation of Strauss's Arabella.

I haven't read the book you mention, but it cannot possibly refute or offer an alternative story to what I have set out in the foregoing because they are indisputable facts. And I don't know how far the book covers Krauss's believed application to join the Nazi Party in 1933, or the benefits he may or may not have enjoyed with his close association with at least one senior Nazi.

And here is an important distinction between you and me on these matters. I have never denied that Goodall held political views that were odious. But you are denying Krauss's behaviour with your sophistry, in referring to the Ida Cook book.



.

[Beef Oven!]

Another helpful principle is that members do not start making personal accusations about other members because of what they say. We may have our views about other members because of what they say, but the helpful principle is not to make accusations against them.

Which is one of the reason why a post would be deleted not because of its content per se, but because it was clear where it would lead the thread. It leads to the sort of thing you mention, among others of course.

If you look at posts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 you will see a rather pleasant exchange between enthusiasts. Then we had the politics introduced. Those posts used to be nipped in the bud.

[Conchis]

Nonsense? Facts, actually.

In 1935, Erich Kleiber resigned his position as director of the Berlin State Opera in protest against Nazi policies (many non-Jewish anti-Nazis did this). Clemens Krauss dropped what he was doing in Vienna and stepped in. Jews and anti-Nazis were being replaced in Banks, Universities, Orchestras, municipal positions etc. Krauss was one of those people willing to step into the breach.

The question has often been asked as to how the Nazis were able to take such a grip on the whole country. Part of the answer lies with the willingness of people to behave in a despicable manner and take over from dismissed jews and anti-Nazis. It is argued that without the willingness of these people to step into the 'vacated' positions in the cultural, educational and municipal life of Germany, the Nazis machine could not have achieved such overwhelming power.

The behavior of these people in the Third Reich is nothing less than odious. Krauss had also previously replaced the non-Jewish anti-Nazi, Fritz Busch in the preparation of Strauss's Arabella.

I haven't read the book you mention, but it cannot possibly refute or offer an alternative story to what I have set out in the foregoing because they are indisputable facts. And I don't know how far the book covers Krauss's believed application to join the Nazi Party in 1933, or the benefits he may or may not have enjoyed with his close association with at least one senior Nazi.

And here is an important distinction between you and I on these matters. I have never denied that Goodall held political views that were odious. But you are denying Krauss's behaviour with your sophistry, in referring to the Ida Cook book.

In the arts, as in politics or any other profession, there will always be ambitious people who are not unduly troubled by ethics. That's always been the case and always will be.