First of all, he is an extraordinary voice master. Ka Lao fully explored the acoustic beauty of modern orchestras. After listening to his records (except pretending to be an insider), every music lover will at least admit that we must call karajan a master just because of his strong contrast, elaborate phrases and brilliant timbre. Of course, many times you can find traces of excessive carving in karajan's short phrases, and even criticize that such carving makes the music look superficial and not touching enough. However, it is totally biased to deny karajan.
Second, the old card has far-reaching influence. This is too obvious. He created a unique style of conducting art, and made many unprecedented attempts in conducting art, for example, people often say that the precision of toscanini's rhythm and the integration of Futvingler's improvisation and inspiration (this attempt has far-reaching historical significance whether it achieves the expected success or not); Another example is his contribution to Berlin Philharmonic and his influence on the artistic style of many contemporary conductors. As for so many excellent records he has recorded, how many fans get a glimpse of classical music just by listening to his Beethoven? Karajan made a great contribution to the popularization of classical music.
Again, this is the overall evaluation. To tell the truth, my attitude towards karajan is: appreciation and respect, but I am not particularly fond of it or obsessed with it. So I didn't try to analyze or feel deeply. Of course, there are obvious differences between karajan's styles in the 1980s and those in the 1960s and 1970s, but it is difficult for me to describe them in accurate words. Feeling, karajan's many interpretations in his later years, in addition to the above-mentioned characteristics, personal feelings, at first glance, are really not easy to produce * * * sounds, the tension is reduced, and the timbre is not as charming as it was in his early years (of course, it is still the world's top level), and sometimes it is too elaborate, while others are a bit lifeless (you can compare the 80' s version of Bejiao with the 60' s version of Bejiao). But if you listen carefully, you can still hear something flashing. For example, Richard Strauss and Mahler in their later years were concise, sophisticated, delicate, profound and absolutely generous. If the landlord wants to know karajan's command art in his later years, he can listen to these recordings. Another example is the people who are often criticized. If you listen carefully, you will also hear a particularly sincere feeling. Take the New Year concert that the landlord said. Of course, music is a matter of different opinions, and everyone's feelings are reasonable, but my feelings are different from those of the landlord. I think karajan's 1987 is the pinnacle of the Vienna New Year concert I have ever heard, but Zhan Sen is one of the most dissatisfied performances. Jansons' Eastern European style may sound a little fresh on the Viennese waltz, but the taste is not right at all. It's not as elegant, sincere and moving as karajan's 1987, even the texture is a little cloudy, and it's not as charming as karajan's timbre. Karajan scene can be said to truly reflect the demeanor of a generation of masters. I feel that even if the works of the Strauss family are so ordinary, karajan can dig up something more intriguing. That "golden melancholy" is extremely mellow. I have never heard of anyone who can interpret the works of the Strauss family so emotionally.
It seems that it has become a popular fashion for some people to accuse karajan and other deductive masters. Of course, art is allowed to criticize, even the master is no exception. For a conductor like karajan, naturally some people like it and some people don't. The question is, how many of these critics really base their conclusions on careful analysis and understanding of karajan's voice? Or just show how good your taste is by derogating from authority without foundation? In my opinion, many popular arguments about karajan are entirely the result of some people pretending to be insiders or following other people's suggestions, such as "only sound effects but no feelings". Can the feelings of music be expressed without sound? What are the emotionless recordings in karajan? Perhaps, skilled musicians will be taken for granted by these people that they have no feelings. Remember Holovitz's famous saying, if you want to surpass a craftsman, you must first have the skill of a craftsman. A person who is really listening to music instead of being arty would never say such vague words. In my opinion, karajan's challenge in his later years is sublimation, which is a new attempt of art. Since it is a challenge, sublimation and attempt, there are bound to be achievements and failures. Those who only stare at karajan's failures several times obviously don't know what height karajan wants to achieve through his attempts. I just want to say that no matter what shortcomings karajan has, he is karajan. At least, he is greater than those who abuse him.