Your recent great conductor article

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Your recent great conductor article

The omission of both, Gustav Mahler and Dimitri Mitropolous to your recent Gramophone article listing 25 great conductors, is inexpilcable. Who made these decisions?

 

 

 

Petertrumpet wrote:

Petertrumpet wrote:

The omission of both, Gustav Mahler and Dimitri Mitropolous to your recent Gramophone article listing 25 great conductors, is inexpilcable. Who made these decisions?

You do have to wonder. Not only is Mahler off, but Dudamel is on. Quite unbelievable. Dudamel may eventually become a great conductor, but I don't think anyone in their right mind could think he is one at the moment. I am also not convinced that Hogwood really has a place there, pioneering though he obviously was. Norrington (not on the list) is certainly a much better conductor and also equally pioneering in approach. Barenboim might raise an eyebrow, too..........given the lack of evident "great" recordings from him as a conductor.

Others that come to mind: Sinopoli, Tennstedt, Victor de Sabata, Erich Kleiber, Rudolph Kempe, Kurt Sanderling.........

Overall, the list is obiously a little Anglocentric, as usual in this publication. 

Herbert Blomstedt etc.

I don't know why such lists are ever attempted. In the eyes of many there are always going to be omissions and questions about those included (Dudamel, for example, and no mention of Herbert Blomstedt, Vaclav Talich, Constantin Silvestri, Frederick Stock and so on - name your favorite).

Bliss
50 of the best rather than...The 50 best...

If we are talking about the same article, as I saw it from the website of the esteemed publication, it has this wrong..."The 50 greatest conductors of all time" as its title. However, in the following sentences, the Gramophone states..."Here are 50 of the best...". I think with this sentence the inclusion or omission of any conductor reflects only the publication's view of who may be in this list. From a first glance of the 50 names, I would not exclude easily anyone of them (except for the case of Dudamel, as a premature decision), but I would also argue about the omission of quite a few other conductors who could be there, for one or the other reason (T. Serafin for his Opera legacy or T. Koopman or M. Suzuki for their baroque contributions).

Parla

Since the entries are related

Since the entries are related to the "Gramophone Hall of Fame", it seems a bit crazy to expect them to include Mahler since we have no recorded evidence of him as a conductor (only piano rolls)!

TedR wrote:

TedR wrote:

Since the entries are related to the "Gramophone Hall of Fame", it seems a bit crazy to expect them to include Mahler since we have no recorded evidence of him as a conductor (only piano rolls)!

It only says "Here are 50 of the best, mostly drawn from the Gramophone Hall of Fame, and there are many more besides....", so membership of the HoF is hardly a criterion for entry.

As for whether Mahler was a great conductor or not, there is overwhelming evidence that he was. We don't need recordings to prove that, anymore than we need recordings of Liszt to prove he was a great pianist. 

True but it seems pointless

True but it seems pointless to expect Mahler to be on a list that is designed  to inform peoples' future record buying (whether you agree with who else is on the list).

 

Ted

 

 

TedR wrote:

TedR wrote:

True but it seems pointless to expect Mahler to be on a list that is designed  to inform peoples' future record buying (whether you agree with who else is on the list).

I suppose so. Though the main purpose of the list is simply to fill up dead space in a magazine. It is the kind of all-purpose filler material that lies about in filing cabinets, waiting for its moment. Chief, we're three pages short this month. Shall we chuck in the 50 top conductors stuff or do you fancy another another ad for the annual subcription.......?

Log in or register to post comments

Gramophone Subscriptions

From£67/year

Gramophone Print

Gramophone Print

no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Reviews

Gramophone Reviews

no Print Edition
no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Digital Edition

Gramophone Digital Edition

no Print Edition
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe

If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.

© MA Business and Leisure Ltd. 2019