It really pissed me off to read Karajanites shitting on Dohnanyi in Lebrecht's comment section. Much was made about Dohnanyi hating Karajan's interpretations. Well, according to Dohnanyi, Karajan clearly tried to stymy his career, and Dohnanyi had to go to America to achieve the stardom he frankly deserved more than Karajan ever did. As for his aesthetic objections, would you expect a light and balanced Erich Kleiber-like maestro like Dohnanyi to think differently of Karajan's virtuoso soup?
Dohnanyi's crime was saying out loud what half the music world clearly thought. Apparently he didn't think much of Bernstein or Rattle either. His taste wasn't entirely the same as mine, but Dohnanyi was a servant of music whereas music was a servant of Karajan.
Dohnanyi, like so many of his generation, was unforgiven for not being an adrenaline junkie. And as addicted to adrenaline as the 'big three' conditioned us to be (Karajan, Bernstein, Solti), the Karajan-spawn made us far more addicted: Maazel, Dutoit, Muti, Mehta, Gergiev, Ozawa, Levine... as far as I'm concerned, these are not artists of integrity. They had moments of greatness, particularly Levine and Gergiev I think, but they made us drunk on loudness, they deafened their orchestral musicians, they ruined their singers' voices. Any nuance in their performance was secondary. What we remember is the loudness, the overwhelming blare of the brass, the percussion that obliterates every harmonic change, the thick blanket of string vibrato. The poor wind players never stood a chance. Audiences may have come away shocked by the fire, but can it be a coincidence that this was the period when the classical music world may have burned down?
Compare this Salome to Karajan's famous one. The TV sound here is... ahem... not good, that's being charitable, and yet you hear more detail here than in Karajan's famous recording. Dohnanyi had more ability than nearly anybody, the Vienna Philharmonic apparently called him 'rabbit ears', and when he decided to do so, his baton technique could 'Kleiber' with the best of them. He could, if he wanted, drive an audience mad with excitement; but he wanted to lower the temperature, not raise it. He never took the easy way. He saved his virtuosity for the difficult 20th century music that truly demanded it and sent most of the audience home puzzled rather than electrified. Many a great soloist would prefer to send the audience home cleansed rather than stimulated, but that's a rare quality among conductors (except perhaps in his particular generation). I think that aim in music is infinitely more valuable.
In this period of my father's passing, I still don't have a full essay in me, but I wasn't going to get through this period of renewed Dohnanyi enthusiasm without some comment. Dohnanyi was perhaps the greatest conductor in a generation with lots of overrated names, and still many conductors who had many candidates.
Dohnanyi had a wider repertoire than nearly any major conductor born between 1920 and 1935, and among those with a wide repertoire, the only conductors who could do it all with similar excellence almost all the way through were probably Mackerras and Gielen (maybe Skrowaczewski)., But however brilliant, Gielen is unceasingly cool, while in Mackerras's giant repertoire he never found a space for new music. Dohnanyi's taste for new music took in everything from Birtwistle and Carter to Adams and Glass. He may have been austere, but he was never cold; beneath his reserve was unceasing warmth. he thought with his heart and felt with his brain. His only weakness? He couldn't do Mahler. But we have (had) great Mahler everywhere. A conductor of his time practically had to only pick up a baton to do excellent Mahler. For anyone mature enough to appreciate the subtle things he was doing, Dohnanyi did practically everything else magnificently.
The other names usually mentioned don't have Dohnanyi's uninterrupted excellence. Haitink almost never 'rubato'd', but Dohnanyi's rubato was subtly omnipresent. Abbado's 'sound' could be much too comfortable and luxuriant, Dohnanyi practically banned luxury. I love Harnoncourt, but he could not turn off his overwhelming personality, even when it got in the way. The more traditional the repertoire, the less Boulez seemed to care (and Boulez often seemed not to care in the revolutionary stuff he was famous for). but Dohnanyi had as much regard for tradition as innovation. Kleiber? Well, he wasn't a conductor in the sense that others were, he championed no unknown composer, he built no orchestra, he mentored no successors or soloists. He took from music without giving back. Dohnanyi gave back everything.
Dohnanyi was one of the greatest podium musicians there has ever been. Even to those who couldn't embrace his austerity, he should be a beacon of artistic integrity.
Danke meister. May your memory remain the blessing it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment