Norman Lebrecht

[~Linda~]

Today I received a letter from Karajan’s discographer, John Hunt. He had written his response to an article written by Norman Lebrecht in the “London Evening Standard”. He asked me to post it on my website and I have added it to his contribution in the Visitor Section of the site:

www.karajan.co.uk/visitor.html#visit8

However, his request prompted me to start this new category on the Forum and so to start the discussion I have posted John Hunt’s response to Norman Lebrecht's contentious article:

A response by John Hunt to Norman Lebrecht's London Evening Standard article
("Don't turn a monster into a myth" on 30th January 2008)

Lebrecht's hatred for the twentieth century's key conducting figure is by now well-known, and is almost as recurrent a theme in his journalistic hack-work as the prediction of classical music's imminent collapse.

I first came across Lebrecht in 1990 at a public lecture he gave in London's Wiener Library, in which he set out to demolish the significance of not only Herbert von Karajan but also Wilhelm Furtwängler. I subsequently sent Lebrecht a list of the factual errors which largely invalidated his monstrous argument that both conductors had been official representatives of the National Socialists.

The current article again illustrates Lebrecht’s disregard for factual accuracy, reducing his argument to the rantings of an envy-ridden obsessive. Just to cite a couple of the incorrect assertions, Karajan was not “booted out” of the Philharmonia, nor did he exclude Bernstein, Solti, Harnoncourt and Barenboim from conducting concerts with the Berliner Philharmoniker. And on the subject of a £200 million fortune, is Lebrecht aware of the vast amount of Karajan’s money which was ploughed back into the record industry for purposes of technological research?

Anyone who has actually interviewed the current holder of the Berlin conducting post would have learned that Simon Rattle could not be further from claiming Karajan as a mentor!

One wonders if Lebrecht’s condemnation would be so harsh if Karajan had been Jewish?

[Rosy]

Dear Linda, I'm sorry for this bad information.

***************************************************************************
Now, I read what wants to comunicate Mr. Lebrecht.

Rosy

[darkehmen]

I have very mixed feelings about having a board dedicated to "the critics." It seems to me that this just empowers their criticisms, gives them an importance that they don't actually have. I don't even give a fig about record reviewers, let alone about some two-bit muckraking journalist.

Plus, in the act of reproducing the critics' statements (even if only to refute them), one ends up giving them a greater megaphone, greater visibility. It's giving these worms what they want -- an equal footing with the great man that they're forever attacking, hitching their wagon to Karajan's name. They don't deserve such a status. They don't deserve any more publicity.

The only reason anyone knows this man's name is because he attacks Karajan -- a clever stratagem on his part to increase his book sales.

I'm not saying that their comments should be ignored altogether, but to give them their own forum...I don't know. I'd rather have people who are becoming introduced to Karajan's music for the first time learn about what's great about him, not what some resentment-filled individuals have squawked. I think the refutation of their whining can be worked into other boards.

Just my two cents.

---

As for the critic in question, his whole assertion is ridiculous. He "criticizes" Karajan for espousing "populist, heroic" art. It's absurd that these words could be used as negatives. Anyone who begins from the premise that "heroic" is somehow a bad thing is not someone I have any time for.

I admire Karajan's work precisely because it's heroic, which for me is a de facto positive. And as for populism, that means that it is, in fact, popular with the public. You know -- the audience. Karajan's appeal to the general public, to the audience, helped bring classical music to millions of people who would never otherwise have become interested in it. The modern slighting of that audience has diminished classical music, increasingly making it an irrelevant marginal art, of interest only to other music-makers, and to those fringe proponents of "modern art" in any guise.

So in essence, this person is trying to say that Karajan should be disliked because he is a great conductor, and is popular. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

By extension, the only worthwhile performance would be one that the audience dislikes. Well, that's basically what we have today in classical music. It's madness -- but the establishment has gotten what it wanted, and it's basically taken down the entire art-form in the process.

There is only one true creative nullity in the music world, and that's a mud-raking critic.

[Rosy]

...I reflected on the article of that newspaper and on all the ugliness that I read about this topic. I read carefully what darkehmen wrote; my thinking coincides whit his, the add a few comments. I knew that sooner or later we would have with topic. How do you explain darkehmen, the time is propitious to take advantage; so-called writers speculating on who lived no more; derive profits, shouting at the scandal, but not tell anything new.Minds very poor!This is the sadness. Karajan has never claimed justifications; He chose silence, favoring his caracter, but this not helped. But his attitude did not helped him.When he was interrogated, he gave explanations. He said this. Then, when he was 80 years old, he spoke. But there is the phrase to stress: we cannot judge things and facts that don't understand. The historical period must be condemned, but we cannot judge people and what was in their hearts. This said the great Maestro, during the age of the wisdom. About the Norman Lebrech's article, does not deserve comment.


Rosy

[darkehmen]

The rest of the man's criticisms are equally ludicrous, and the very things he criticizes are the very things that I admire.

For example, he asserts, "Karajan despised modernism, shunned most living composers." Leaving aside the fact that HvK's many recordings of 20th-century composers are among his most honoured creations, I find that a lot of modernism is worth despising, and I certainly don't consider it any loss that Karajan didn't record more of it. Indeed, in many cases, the only reason that I have a recording of a 20th-century work is because Karajan created it, and given a choice, I'd rather he have recorded more Baroque, Classical, or Romantic works.

He criticizes HvK because his opera productions are those of an earlier age -- and again, this is exactly what I love about them. I wish the opera productions of earlier ages had been recorded and filmed for posterity, but since this wasn't possible (as the technology was not yet available), thank God that Karajan brought these works to life in faithful, noble, heroic interpretations, that shine like beacons today, when one is surrounded by cookie-cutter, assembly-line postmodern productions.

Creativity? Good Lord, HvK was not only the most creative of conductors (no rival there), but a true Renaissance man in the present day. Who else so demonstrably merits such a distinction? Besides his unique and captivating musical interpretations, he was a brilliant stage director, a terrific acting coach, and, most important of all (next to his conducting), the finest film director of orchestral performance there has ever been. Any one of these careers would have distinguished him as a creative genius; put together, his was easily the most creative musician since the war.

The critic contrasts aesthetics vs. meaning. What a spurious dichotomy. How is meaning to be achieved in music except through aesthetics? And how in the world is an ugly aesthetic any more "meaningful" than a beautiful aesthetic? Ugliness is easy and superficial. Beauty (and the Sublime, for Karajan's recordings exhibit both) works on a much deeper level, imparting far more profound and lasting meaning to a listener, who engages with a beautiful work in a way that he never can with an ugly one.

Oh, and what, pray tell, does the critic dream up when he asks for recordings that are more "intellectual" (his word)? What is an "intellectual" reading of a symphony vs. one that isn't? One that stops the music in mid-movement for a science lecture? And funnily enough, Karajan was the one conductor whose interests were so diverse that he could have actually given such a lecture.

But the kicker of all is when the critic calls HvK "counter-democratic". You just have to sort of shake your head when you read something like that, because it's like saying the Pacific is "counter-ocean."

Let's leave aside the matter of what possible importance "democracy" could be in music. Even if we go with the critic's notion that it somehow matters, then every time a listener buys a record, he casts a vote for which conductor her prefers most. And Karajan, who easily has the most "votes" of any musician (since the public has always preferred his recordings to those of anyone else), was therefore by far the most democratic conductor of all. The public elected him, fair and square, in the most irrefutable of ballots. And Karajan's principal aim -- which was to bring classical music to as many listeners as possible, even to those who were not fortunate enough to see his productions during his lifetime -- was the most democratic of ideals.

The critic's article is just an exercise in randomly hurling words-that-convict at Karajan, criticisms that are false and meaningless, but which close down rational thought, and "stick" in some people's minds, just because the terms are so unfavourable today. It's a standard trick in journalism -- or politics.

But the very aspects of HvK's art that the critic disparages are in fact the conductor's strengths, and the areas where the critic claims Karajan is absent are where he presence is most demonstrable.

[lee]

Apologies for coming late to this discussion - I'm not sure how I overlooked it, but I fear that this section may get a lot of postings over the next few months whilst we have to endure various publication's revisionist "celebrations" of the 100th anniversary of HvK.

In a strange kind of way, I must confess to quite liking Norman Lebrecht. The targets of his writings are often pertinent and his conclusions more often than not are spot on (his comments on British musical life, for example). The problem is when he allows hyperbole and personal prejudice to cloud his arguments, as he clearly did in his Evening Standard article and, equally notoriously, in his book "The Maestro Myth". As Darkehmen suggests, perhaps his religious background doesn't lend itself to a rational analysis of those individuals who were caught up in the horrors of the Third Reich.
A good example of this was an article he wrote some years back in the Daily Telegraph on the retirement of Kurt Sanderling. Personally I think that the subject matter was spot on, an often overlooked great conductor at last getting his due, but Lebrecht cannot help blotting his copybook by lauding Sanderling for knowing when to step down (on his 91st birthday), unlike HvK and Karl Bohm who carried on until the bitter end, often "nodding off" during mid-performance (his words, not mine). Now it doesn't need me to point out the contradiction of comparing someone who retired at 91 with Karajan who died when he was 81. But it may need me to point out to Mr Lebrecht and others, that Karajan's last recording, made in his 81st year, of the Bruckner 7th Symphony, was included in Lebercht's list of his Top 100 Recordings of all Time. So the man clearly contradicts himself, as and when it suits him to do so.

Sadly though, there's more. BBC Music Magazine has devoted its March issue to covering the 100th anniversary too, with articles on his early years and recorded legacy, including one by the equally contemptible Michael Tanner. I have written a letter to the magazine, which I very much doubt will be published (too critical, too close to the bone maybe ?) and have reproduced it here to give a flavour of what to expect:

"Many words and accusations have been leveled at Herbert von Karajan both during his lifetime and after (although the suggestion that he was a "monster" on the March cover would seem to be stretching credibility to its furthest extremes); however, no-one denies that the fruits of Karajan's labour were the result of considerable hardwork and meticulous attention to detail. It's a pity that the latter quality did not transcend to the pages of the BBC Music Magazine's 100th Anniversary assessment of this conductor; from the inverted photo of Karajan conducting the BPO (violas to the left of the conductor ??) to the photo of the Maestro "recording with Montserrat Caballe in 1966" (Karajan never went into the studios with the Spanish diva - the photo was of Regine Crespin), one wonders about the absence of the usual high standards of this magazine. Similarly in Michael Tanner's article, his description of Karajan's Telemondial video recordings " in which one could see him, eyes closed. reverent expression ..." is simply wrong; by the time that Karajan was committing his " legacy" to film, the debilitating back problems meant that he could no longer conduct with his eyes shut (has Mr Tanner actually viewed the films he's talking about ?). Even Erik Levi's reasonably balanced assessment of the conductor's early years contained serious misinterpretations of the dates of Karajan's Nazi party membership (surely Mr Levi is aware of the research of the late Gisela Tamsen as featured in Hunt's"Philharmonic Autocrat" and Osborne's "A Life in Music" that sets out the definitive sequence of events in this area ?).
Perhaps most surprising of all is that the magazine declined to attempt to describe the phenomenon that was Karajan; that to most people, he seemed to encapsulate the mystique, charisma and glamour that a conductor should embody more than any other who practiced this craft; and it was this that helped filled concert halls wherever he was performing and made his his recordings best sellers. "

No, I don't think they would dare publish it !

[darkehmen]

lee said:

I fear that this section may get a lot of postings over the next few months whilst we have to endure various publication's revisionist "celebrations" of the 100th anniversary of HvK.

Nice critique of this BBC magazine, which simply reminds me yet again why I avoid most everything that's published bout Karajan, and will continue to do so. Seriously, what do I care what these people think?

But must this section "get a lot of postings over the next few months"? I wonder. One can easily end up devoting all of one's energies to refuting the negatives, rather than affirming the positives. Too much of this, and one can end up talking more about Karajan's critics than about Karajan himself.

I think what would make this forum a refreshing place is if it concentrated on what was great about Karajan. That's what I hoped it would be in the first place -- a relief from every other music forum, where disputes go on interminably, and to no purpose.

The problem, I think, is that many people labour under the illusion that the critics are somehow "fair-minded" or "balanced," and can be refuted with fair-minded or balanced rebuttals, when this is patently not the case. The critics work backward from "I'm against Karajan," and then make up whatever phrases or assertions they can think of, not matter how absurdly false they are, as long as they'll stick in the readers' minds. Truth, facts, these things don't matter to them. True propagandists, they know that to most readers, the assertion is the proof. How many readers are going to bother to check the facts for themselves. "If the BBC says it, it must be so."

And given the innate subjectivity of art, they have a field day.

If these critics must be addressed, then I think the way that's been adopted so far is the best one -- avoid republishing their words (since doing so simply gives them a greater megaphone), and simpy post the rebuttals.

[prahcello]

lee said:

Sadly though, there's more. BBC Music Magazine has devoted its March issue to covering the 100th anniversary too, with articles on his early years and recorded legacy, including one by the equally contemptible Michael Tanner. I have written a letter to the magazine, which I very much doubt will be published (too critical, too close to the bone maybe ?) and have reproduced it here to give a flavour of what to expect:

"Many words and accusations have been leveled at Herbert von Karajan both during his lifetime and after (although the suggestion that he was a "monster" on the March cover would seem to be stretching credibility to its furthest extremes); however, no-one denies that the fruits of Karajan's labour were the result of considerable hardwork and meticulous attention to detail. It's a pity that the latter quality did not transcend to the pages of the BBC Music Magazine's 100th Anniversary assessment of this conductor; from the inverted photo of Karajan conducting the BPO (violas to the left of the conductor ??) to the photo of the Maestro "recording with Montserrat Caballe in 1966" (Karajan never went into the studios with the Spanish diva - the photo was of Regine Crespin), one wonders about the absence of the usual high standards of this magazine. Similarly in Michael Tanner's article, his description of Karajan's Telemondial video recordings " in which one could see him, eyes closed. reverent expression ..." is simply wrong; by the time that Karajan was committing his " legacy" to film, the debilitating back problems meant that he could no longer conduct with his eyes shut (has Mr Tanner actually viewed the films he's talking about ?). Even Erik Levi's reasonably balanced assessment of the conductor's early years contained serious misinterpretations of the dates of Karajan's Nazi party membership (surely Mr Levi is aware of the research of the late Gisela Tamsen as featured in Hunt's"Philharmonic Autocrat" and Osborne's "A Life in Music" that sets out the definitive sequence of events in this area ?).
Perhaps most surprising of all is that the magazine declined to attempt to describe the phenomenon that was Karajan; that to most people, he seemed to encapsulate the mystique, charisma and glamour that a conductor should embody more than any other who practiced this craft; and it was this that helped filled concert halls wherever he was performing and made his his recordings best sellers. "

No, I don't think they would dare publish it !

If I may continue on this issue, please let me vent, because I am disgusted.

Now, I'm not one to get angry or emotional when reading a music magazine, but as soon as I saw the cover of the BBC Music mag, I knew what would be discussed.

"Karajan's character was fascinatingly awful and his misuse of singers ruined some promising careers, as he became a pervert of music-making."
Michael Tanner wrote the above, and this already in the first page, where some of the contributors are mentioned. One wonders how much he thought before he decided to use such adjectives to describe Karajan. And it is his article that offends most. The other articles, by Erik Levi and David Breckbill are more or less objective.

Tanner quotes Karajan in completely the wrong context. For example, "...Furtwaengler died in 1954 at just 68 - Karajan always said it was the happiest day of his life." Readers unfamiliar with Karajan will, by the end of Tanner's article, think that Karajan was indeed a monster with comments like the above.

As for his accusation of Karajan ruining promising voices ('perversity' is the word he uses), this is an oft-repeated cliche, and one that is not correct. In a recent (March 08) interview in a German magazine, Christa Ludwig (who is a 'soprano' according to the BBC Music magazine) was asked about Karajan and about his reputation of making the "voices kaputt" by putting singers in roles that were too heavy for them. Ludwig responded, "It was so easy to sing with him. He knew how to help, whether and when you needed a bit more time or breath... He did not destroy anyone's voice. It all depends on the individual, whether to take on a role or not. One must know what one wants.....
And one could sing almost anything with him. Freni told me once, that she would have sung Sarastro with Karajan."

The BBC Music magazine asks, "If a conductor has a tainted personal history, should we still listen to his music?" The answer is, why should that matter? In my opinion, he did join the Nazi party for his career. And yes, that might seem careerist, or opportunistic, but who are we to judge? Most of us were not there when Hitler ruled Germany, and it was a different and hard time for everyone. And as a newcomer in the musical world, it's even more difficult.
And the fact is, many artists had a less-than sparkling personal life. Janacek was a misogynist, for example, and here I quote Mr N. Lebrecht: "Aesthetically, and scientifically for that matter, lack of moral fibre is no impediment to genius. Byron was a rotter. So were Shelley and Dylan Thomas. Picasso was no paragon. Rodin was a bit of a nuts, and as for Klimt, Schiele and the Viennese school... decadent, the lot of them."

But are the above and other flawed artists judged and vilified like Karajan is? No. Their personal history and defects might come up in discussion, but then it's on to other, more IMPORTANT matters. Not with Karajan.

It has become the norm for people to think that they can attack Herbert von Karajan on a personal level, based on his admittedly flawed past. They say that he should have done more to repent his Nazi past. He chose silence, as another member wrote, and that, I think, comes from his character. By most accounts, he was a shy person behind his public persona. A shy person does not talk when confronted.

And isn't any human being flawed? Is someone's past a criteria on which we can judge another human being? I don't know many artists who are so judged and attacked, and so publicly.

The fact that the BBC Music magazine decided to discuss his Nazi past is not the most important issue for me. I am a fan of Karajan, but I am definitely not a blinded one who chooses to believe that he was perfect. He was not. He was a human being with many flaws.
But the level of bias, personal attack, and sheer inaccuracy of the articles did, and still does, disgust me. In their "Anniversary" issue, they accuse Karajan of being opportunistic, but I think the real opportunist here is the BBC magazine, and critics like Norman Lebrecht, who make money from stirring mud (as they say) about Karajan. The timing, depending on how you feel about it, was either incredibly bad and in bad taste (like I feel it was), or amazingly perfect, so that the magazine could sell more copies. A 100th anniversary is certainly not the right time to do such a thing.

For me, following their Karajan issue, this particular magazine has become the musical equivalent of the Sun (a British tabloid). Who knows, if they continue with their hard work (incredibly incompetent research, inverting photos so that violists are shown holding the bow with the left hand, personal attacks etc etc etc...), then they might just have to rename the magazine into something more worthy of a real tabloid.

I could write more, but will stop now. I apologise if this has been too long.

Paul

[darkehmen]

prahcello said:

the real opportunist here is the BBC magazine, and critics like Norman Lebrecht, who make money from stirring mud (as they say) about Karajan. The timing [was] so that the magazine could sell more copies.

For me, following their Karajan issue, this particular magazine has become the musical equivalent of the Sun (a British tabloid).

Bingo. That nails it. It's a staple of the modern media -- "controversy sells."

Beyond that, there is also the extremely obvious point that this is all politically motivated. If Karajan had been a hard Leftist, none of this would have mattered. None. It's the orientation of Karajan's politics (as perceived by these people) that motivates much of this -- that, and, as discussed before, the personal vendettas of individuals motivated by "victor's justice."

If anything, the writings of the press on Karajan simply demonstrate how music writing has devolved from the realm of philosophy (as it was in the 19th century) into the realm of journalism. When one reads political reporting, does one ever see one side be fair toward the other? No, of course not. It's all "spin" -- every possible item twisted into propaganda, into outright falsehood, so as to cast the opponents in the worst possible light.

Today's music writing still tries to pretend that it is somehow politically neutral. Not at all. Not anymore. It's become as intensely partisan as any other journalism today -- tabloid, as you say (but what journalism isn't tabloid when it comes to politics)?

At least Goebbels openly called his department the "Ministry of Propaganda" (no equivocation there). These people are propagandists without acknowledging it.

[David]

Here’s another one!

This time it's from one Ivan Hewett writing two days ago in the Daily Telegraph here in the UK.

www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/03/13/bmivan113.xml

I’m not really able to add anything further to what has already been said in the excellent opinions and comments in this topic by Linda, John Hunt, Rosy, Darkehmen, Lee, Waldstein and Prahcello.

In a strange sort of way though, I find all of this stuff to be mildly amusing in that it is so obviously yet just another publicity seeking gimmick by yet just another second-rate hack. I expect that there will be several more to follow before 5th April.

In the case of Hewett though, the humour is compounded when one reads the résumé of his own activities on battleofideas.org.uk -

www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/site/speaker_detail/68

[Rosy]

Dear David,

if you want , you try to find the right words to express your feelings and your considerations. I'm certain. The difficulty is to stay calm and respectful in front of clear misuse of intellect. I became very sad when I think that human race is unable to overcame the instinct denigrate their contemporaries. There is nothing worse in thinking to win Fame and Money with the poison!

**********************

Repetitia iuvant:

I repeat the words of the Maestro that I wrote in my previous post : " You cannot judge those who have lived a particular historical period, a reality that cannot understand "

*********************

I think balance the comments of Darkehmen.
Don't allow these individuals to ruin a time when there is only Music and an Interpreter who has dedicated his entire life to this sublime Art.

Regards

Rosy

[mahalo]

I would like to refer to only one point against his comment.

"Remember! Karajan 08" is the slogan that's going up all over Japan.

As far as I know, that is not true at all.
Some magazines or TV programs are being / will be dedicated to Karajan.
Several big CD shops which have large classical music stocks have their special
selling corners which sell Karajan's CD/DVDs.
However, ordinary citizens in Japan nowadays do not know Karajan's name.
At least, Karajan is much less famous than the following persons.
Most Japanese know Seiji Ozawa, Midori or Kaori Muraji who are very popular classical musicians.

One impressive truth. No centenary concert which will be dedicated to Karajan has been fixed yet in Japan.
There is a possibility that BPO or VPO will hold it in Japan, which is not declared officially yet - it is even mid March today.
What does Lebrecht know about Japan?
I don't know Lebrecht in detail, but I agree with John Hunt's view against him.

I would like to tell him the following finding.
"Karajan 08" is a tab name in www.karajan.org which is being set up in Austria.

[prahcello]

I agree that a section in this forum for the critics only reinforce their so-called "importance".

I also think that reaction is necessary. I would like to suggest that the members of this forum express their feelings to the critics in question, and the editors of the magazines that publish their rubbish.

And one thing that gets me is that it is basically only in England that such hatred is shown, time and time again. When was the last time that you read something actually objective about Karajan in the British press?

The reason why I said the above is because Karajan cannot defend himself now. He is no longer here to do that, and these critics are simply making money and getting away with writing biased opinions which shouldn't be published in the first place. I wonder what Richard Osborne thinks about all the hullaballoo that has gone on in the recent months?

I apologise again for my venting, but I feel like that something should be done to change the way people perceive Herbert von Karajan. They should be encouraged to listen to his music without prejudice, but with so many the critics Karajan-bashing in this anniversary year (although not only), I feel that the bashing will only continue...

[~Linda~]

prahcello said:

And one thing that gets me is that it is basically only in England that such hatred is shown, time and time again. When was the last time that you read something actually objective about Karajan in the British press?

I totally agree and get incensed with the things that are written.

I don't know whether you have seen them or not but I have just put the following scans on the Centenary page of the website. They are from the "Radio Times" regarding Saturday night's edition (22nd March) of the "The Archive Hour" on BBC Radio 4:

Reading the above I hope that this programme may have a more positive approach to Karajan and his legacy. We will have to see..................

[David]

An interesting response by Michael Henderson to Messrs. Lebrecht and Hewett has appeared recently in the Daily Telegraph here in the UK.

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/22/do2205.xml

There is even the opportunity to post a comment if you so wish!