Carlos Kleiber: The Myth Revealed

[Guest]

Carlos Kleiber, for many the greatest conductor of all time, is an enigma. Charles Barber's new book gives us the troubled, funny perfectionist behind the ecstatic music-making. A very interesting article by Tom Serrvice about a new book about correspondence between its author & the great conductor; with lots of links to very special youtube clips.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2012/mar/08/carlos-kleiber-myth-revealed

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Excellent clips, ammie

Tom Service had a good discussion with Barber about the book on Music Matters yesterday (could've been longer and more detailed, though!). The book's a bit pricey, however - definitely a Library reservation.

[Karafan]

Carlos Kleiber: hard to believe...but true!

I am eagerly dipping into Charles Barber's new book on Carlos Kleiber.

Having long placed his TV film of Beethoven's 7th from the Concertgebouw at the top of my list of (visual) recordings of that work, I was astonished to read that when in 1981 in London he conducted LvB 7, the Overture to Der Freischuetz and Schubert's 3rd the critics heaped vitriol on the performance. He was so hurt he asked the BBC to destroy the tapes (which they agreed to do) and he vowed never to conduct in London again (and he never did). He was an eminently sensitive artist and it was most certainly our loss!

K.

[NickWraight]

Karafan, the London critics did indeed halt Carlos Kleiber conducting in front of an orchestra in London again - the occasional ROH opera excepted. The strong rumour is, confirmed to me by one eminent but retired newspaper critic who did not review that concert, is that many of his colleagues colluded to write bad reviews. Seemingly for no other reason than they could not believe anyone was that good and he needed taking down several pegs. We know the result all to well and the effect it probably had on him for the rest of his life. You buys your paper; reads the crit and agrees or not, mostly not these days I have to say and the objective approach has largely gone.

[mathias broucek]

Sad but true. I would say that some of his live concerts that I've heard on unofficial CDs were driven VERY hard indeed and would not be to all tastes. But like late Celi (at the opposite extreme) you couldn't say they were other than extremely interesting. At best, his live recordings are astonishing - I'm thinking particularly of the Chicago Beethoven 5 and a Stuttgart Prelude & Liebestod.

What's all the more frustrating is how reluctant some critics can be to draw attention to concerts and records that are genuinely very poorly played . I once heard a Concerto for Orchestra at the Proms that was so badly played people (myself included) left, yet the next day's Daily Telegraph implied all was fine. Similarly the Giulini BBC Legends B minor Mass got an OK crit in Gramophone when IMHO (and that of some foreign crits) it's almost unlistenable.

[Tristan Klingsor]

I long for the day when a Radio 3 presenter opines that a performance, or piece, or player, or singer was rubbish.

[mathias broucek]

I long for the day when a Radio 3 presenter opines that a performance, or piece, or player, or singer was rubbish.

Quite. It's taken me a long time to realise that - for example - an oblique hint that a singer or choir's intonation may be ever-so-slightly imperfect means "way out of tune - don't buy this!"

I have some sympathy for the critics. In the past I did some concert reviews at the request of amateur choirs and it was always more comfortable accentuating the positives than identifying major weaknesses. However, paid record critics who will inevitably influence how people spend their money on commerical recordings surely SHOULD be more frank.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Oh, I've been to several concerts when it was quite obvious that the newspaper reviewer had stopped at home/ gone to the pub/etc.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But with regard to CD reviewers, it would be rather good if the reviewers in Gramophone/IRR published an issue where the reviewers declare their personal axes to grind.
Those I've been most aware of have been in the past were the late Alan Blyth's preference for voices in opera recordings being placed well forward, Trevor Harvey's monthly complaints about "excessive" dynamic range, even in the days of LPs, and (nowadays) those HIPPsters, who deride anyone who disagrees with them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

and (nowadays) those HIPPsters, who deride anyone who disagrees with them.

Hmm; I notice you name Alan Blyth and Trevor Harvey but not one of those (plural) "HIPPsters" who actually "deride(s) anyone who disagrees with them." I wonder why this is.

[makropulos]

But with regard to CD reviewers, it would be rather good if the reviewers in Gramophone/IRR published an issue where the reviewers declare their personal axes to grind. .

Why would that be "rather good"? I don't get it. No editor with any sense deliberately sends discs for review to someone who has a known loathing of a particular composer, or a grudge against a particular performer, or an axe to grind with a particular record company - I can't see how that would help anyone, least of all the readers. And exposing such things in public (which editors and reviewers usually discuss in private) would be an exercise in spite, prejudice and bile than I don't think would make for terribly edifying reading !

[mikealdren]

I've always believed that it's essential to get to know the reviewer over a period of time before relying on their views.

Most of us on this forum have our own opinion of the various CD reviewers and we are able to inform these opinions by listening to them demonstrate why they like/dislike various recordings. This is more difficult in print, musical taste is personal and we will always have those we agree with and those we don't.

I think EA makes an interesting point and I suspect that, sensitively handled, many reviewers would like to have the opportunity to discuss their likes and dislikes (as opposed to prejudices!) We had an interesting example with Roy Goodman's much commented upon CD review of the Beethoven Violin concerto where he started by laying out his personal views. I didn't agree with much of it but that's personal taste.

Mike

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Why would that be "rather good"? I don't get it. No editor with any sense deliberately sends discs for review to someone who has a known loathing of a particular composer, or a grudge against a particular performer, or an axe to grind with a particular record company - I can't see how that would help anyone, least of all the readers. And exposing such things in public (which editors and reviewers usually discuss in private) would be an exercise in spite, prejudice and bile than I don't think would make for terribly edifying reading !

You will know better than I do of how reviewing the procedures work. My point is merely that all reviewers are human and have strong likes and dislikes of their own. After years of reading a critic's reviews, we come to expect certain "idee fixes", such as those I've mentioned. But for newer readers it is less easy. As for "spite, prejudice and bile", that would be a risk, but only if negatively presented.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Hmm; I notice you name Alan Blyth and Trevor Harvey but not one of those (plural) "HIPPsters" who actually "deride(s) anyone who disagrees with them." I wonder why this is.

You can't libel the dead.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You can't libel the dead.