Talk:Wilhelm Furtwängler

Er furtwänglere

What's "Er furtwänglere" mean? "He is Furtwangler-esque"? Help a uni-lingual brother out. -- orthogonal 05:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Before charging Furtwängler with Nazism (once again - how original), maybe we could start by writing an article that does not contain blatant mistakes. The sentence "Later he became music director of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, the Salzburg Festival and the Bayreuth Festival, which was regarded as the greatest post a conductor could hold in Germany at the time" is inaccurate to say the least.

The syntax ("which was regarded as the greatest post...") suggests that there is or used to be a single directorship of all three (which wowuld also mean that Vienna and Salzburg are in Germany). What is more, and much worse, not only isn't there a music directorship of the three, but there isn't a music directorship of ANY of them.

The Vienna Philharmonic does not have a music director. It has NEVER had one. Furtwängler was in charge of three concert seasons in a row but never of the orchestra in itself.

The Bayreuth Festival does not have a music director either. A few conductors have been described as "advisers" or "chief advisers," which is different.

The Salzburg Festival does not have a music director either.

I suppose crammming so much nonsense into one sentence is some sort of feat, even by Wikipedia standards.

Furtwängler was not a politician, ha was not a Nazi leader, neither was he the director of a concentration camp. He was a musician. Yet the section about Nazism is twice as long as the section about music. And although the section about Nazism is so long, it never states explicitly that Furtwängler was never a member of the Nazi Party. S.Camus 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, write more material about him (that doesn't involve the Nazis) and add that he was never a member (provided that all such material is referenced, NPOV, etc.). Grover cleveland 15:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I have some questions for Furtwängler-experts, mostly based on that horrible film (which I must admit I have seen). In the film he is portrayed as claiming to have helped several jewish musicians escape. Is this correct? What about his hatred for Herbert von Karajan? And was he really forbidden to conduct after the war? 158.38.140.215 12:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film but would love to. It's probably more correct to say there was a mutual professional rivilery between Furtwangler & von Karajan, as often occurs among artists and other assorted egoists. Its a bit much to use the inflamitory hatred in this matter. Furtwangler was able to use his position as Conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic to keep certain seats assigned to members of the orchestra who were Jewish, intervening on their behalf with the Gauleiter of Berlin Josef Goebbels, to help them avoid deportation to concentration camps based on their national or religious origin. He was able to successfully argue that the quality of the Orchestrea would suffer, and thus German art & culture, because the musicians were irreplaceable.

Also, it must be born in mind the importance of symphonic concerts and musical performances in a society with strict political press censorship; in the absense of open political discussion among the populace, especially during wartime, people's time was filled (even given the new medium of radio) with plenty of music. Stage concerts, and this is true going back into the 19th century, really substituted for open political discourse. Theatre critics and their reviews in newspapers in both Russia, Germany & the Austro-Hungarian Empire, took the place of Editorial writers as existed in the English speaking world during the same time.

The Nazi bosses functioned essentially, under their doctrine of Socialism, as the replacements of the old fuedal lords which had existed prior to 1918. Thus they patronized the arts as fuedal lords were also benefactors. Goebbells was Furtwangler's patron. Herman Goring was von Karajan's patron. In a limited way one might even say Knappertsbusch was patronized by Hitler.

Like anyone who was known to have even social contacts with top Nazi's, after the war came under investigation. Thus until the investigation was complete, to determine whether or not the individual was a Party member and if so what was involvement in political affairs, and/or crimes. Furtwangler was apolitical in the trueist sense of the term; his life was art, not politics.

Albert Speer's book, Inside the Third Reich in the section on the moment by moment discription of the final hours in Berlin with Soviet Armies closing in fast, the Berlin Philharmonic had just finished a concert and Furtwangler approached him backstage and asked him if the rumors are true, that the war lost. He hadn't a clue of either the political or military situation. That is probably about the closest thing anybody can evercome to citing Furtwangler's interest in, or discussion of, politics.

btw what is the film title? --nobs

--- I don't see how Speer's anecdote can be correct. Every source I have seen -- including this Wikipedia article -- say that Furtwangler was in Switzerland at this time. --Cdixon 21:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Nazism

Why all the emphasis on Nazism in this article? Is it relevent? After all the man was a conductor and musician, not a politican. Why not concentrate on his musical achievements which are to my mind far more important. Wallie 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article does focuis on his music, but this is an article on his life, important parts of which coincided with the Nazi regime. If there is more material about his music that you've got sources for then it'd be great if you could add it. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, especially if you are talking about how his career in the United States was wiped out because of his decision to accept Nazi sponsorship. AlbertSM 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I once knew a woman who had a job (I think it was a humble clerical job) at the Berlin Philharmonic during the war years; her father was Jewish and committed suicide rather than endanger his family by staying alive. She had only praise for WF. I had to drag this out of her, because her painful memories of growing up in Berlin were still very raw forty years later; I wish I could have probed beyond her evasive generalizations. But she was very sharply attuned to both human character and to politics (she was very active in the civil rights struggles while living in NC), so her totally positive impression of her boss (who knows, maybe her lover too) counts for a lot. However, a careful reading of biographical material (I wish I could remember which library book I found this in) indicates that WF did gradually cave in and fully accept the Nazi regime - not enthusiastically, but he apparently not only appreciated and enjoyed the status they accorded him, but he is also supposed to have gone through his Nazi contacts to try to advance his own career at the expense of his rivals — Karajan in particular. Interestingly, while WF was more or less going along with the Nazi system, Karajan committed the cardinal sin of marrying a woman with a Jewish grandparent and K's career suffered somewhat as a result. Earlier, WF had indeed protested publicly against Nazi policies, and K is supposed to have been a hard-core Nazi, but several years into the Third Reich the story was apparently quite different. Incidentally, I love almost all of Furtwangler's recordings and despise almost all of Karajan's, so I'm adding this comment only for fairness' sake, since the conventional wisdom seems to be that Furtwangler was always pure, otherworldly and innocent, while Karajan was always a slimy evil careerist. Chelydra 13:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Chelydra 13:05, 9 August 2007

The section Third Reich controversy is peppered with requests for citations. I've got a couple of books - "The Twisted Muse" by Michael H Kater, and "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics" by Frederic Spotts - with which I might go through the first half of that section at least in about a week, unless anyone has any strong objections or is proposing to do something similar with more reliable sources. Alfietucker (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There is way too much weight given to Frederic Spotts' "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics". This is a laughably bad book and just does not pass critical muster. There are way too few references in general. Also, there is too much emphasis on the whole Nazi situation and not enough about the art. I think we're all agreed that WF was not a Nazi, that he helped dozens of Jews escape Germany and that he stayed in Germany for every reason except to support the Nazi party. It is deserving of two or three sentences but does not deserve its own section. Gingermint (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My congratulations to all concerned in writing and editing this section. I think it is exemplary. It marshals the facts, and lets the reader decide. Gwedi elwch (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Recommended Recordings

69.106.4.37 - thanks for adding more labels for recommended recordings. Can I ask why you deleted all mention of Classica d'Oro? I haven't heard the transfers myself, but some people at rec.music.classical.recordings have said they're OK, and they're currently available from arkivmusic.com

• Classical d'Oro, Gramofono 2000, Iron Needle, and many other Italian labels have been accused for pirating the work of more reknown labels such as Music & Arts or Pearl. Clearly, one cannot endorse labels that are the target of such criticism, let alone acknowledge their "work."--Seaface 13:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you personally don't like them, but I'm not sure why that should prevent other people from finding out about them. Grover cleveland 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To start out with, I didn't erase that section. I merely answered the question on this page. Actually, Music & Arts has issued a statement regarding such records (http://www.musicandarts.com/shame.html). As you can see in the statement, familiar names such as Mark Obert-Thorn have asserted that Grammofono 2000 has pilfered work he had done with Pearl. I'm sure that the person who did edit such labels out was aware of this. --Seaface 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we recommending recordings at all? We aren't critics. If there were some criteria we followed, such as "recordings listed by the subject as his favorites" or "Award winning recordings" then that'd be OK. But "Recordings admired by Wikipedia editors" is not a valid criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The French Furtwangler Society has an excellent list of recommended recordings (http://www.furtwangler.net/bestchoice.html). I'm a little hesitant to make the edits myself since I'm fresh to the practice. --Seaface 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• May I suggest to include Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, recorded 10-22 VI 1952 in London with the Philharmonia Orchestra, Ludwig Suthaus (Tristan), Kirsten Flagstad (Isolde) as this is widely regarded as the best recording of Tristan, and often considered one of the best Opera Recordings (EMI 7243 5 56254 2 7)? [Sander]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.240.49 (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Menuhin

I've removed this sentence from the article because it is POV and also needs significant factual backup.

His post war partnership with Jewish violinist Sir Yehudi Menuhin, speaks volumes both about Furtwängler's attitude and his acceptance by people sensitive about nazism.

• It doesn't explain the nature of Menuhin's "partnership" with Furtwangler -- was it anything more than a few joint performances/recordings?
• The fact remains that many other people "sensitive about Naziism" refused to accept Furtwangler after the war.

Grover cleveland 12:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all let me say, that seeing my "sensitive about Nazism" expression in quotation marks, I began to doubt whether it was correct use of language. I think it is not; a more unambiguous condemnation of nazism is needed. Let me apologise, but add that english is not my native language, so that was the best I could come up with at the moment.

I know about joint recordings and live performances. I don't know any more, but I think that even so it warrants being mentioned. In Menuhin's page it is mentioned.

About the other people who refused to cooperate with Furtwängler, although I don't know them, I am sure they could be numerous, but the fact remains, that open-mindedness varies greatly among people.

Let me add, that given all the Jewish people suffered from Nazism, it is wholly justified to have an aversion to anyone who might even remotely be affiliated with it. Still, in my opinion even if one member of the Jewish Music Community offered a hand of friendship to this man, it must signify something

Karajan, who was indeed a Nazi, did not have -to my limited knowledge- any significant(?) partnerships with jewish people.

In all, I think the expression I used should be changed, but Menuhin should be mentioned in some way in defense of Furtwängler. Atavi 13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

After your justified reservations, I did a web search using google, and keywords "Furtwangler Menuhin", and the first result is this:Institute for Historical Review. From a quick reading it seems you're quite right when you say that there were many people -it seems almost all- who objected to Furtwangler. But, as far as Menuhin himself goes, he did indeed (or at least his father did) defend Furtwangler.

" --Furtwängler preferred to swear fealty to Hitler. He accepted at Hitler's hands his reappointment as director of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. He was unfailing in his service to Goebbels' ministry of culture and propaganda ... The token saving of a few Jewish lives does not excuse Mr. Furtwängler from official, active participation in a regime which murdered six million Jews and millions of non-Jews. Furtwängler is a symbol of all those hateful things for the defeat of which the youth of our city and nation paid an ineffable price.

Among prominent Jews in classical music, only the famous violinist Yehudi Menuhin defended the German artist. After Furtwängler was finally obliged to withdrew his name from consideration for the Chicago post, a disillusioned Moshe Menuhin, Yehudi's father, scathingly denounced his co-religionists. Furtwängler, he declared,

--was a victim of envious and jealous rivals who had to resort to publicity, to smear, to calumny, in order to keep him out of America so it could remain their private bailiwick. He was the victim of the small fry and puny souls among concert artists, who, in order to get a bit of national publicity, joined the bandwagon of professional idealists, the professional Jews and hired hands who irresponsibly assaulted an innocent and humane and broad-minded man ...

" I don't know how reliable this source is, but all the same: CD Review " IT WAS NOT until the late 1940s that Menuhin, who had heard of Furtwängler's enormous reputation, and was full of admiration for him through recordings of various Beethoven and Brahms performances, decided to investigate for himself the damaging insinuations. He found no evidence of Furtwängler being a Nazi, and decided to collaborate with him. Because of Menuhin's own reputation as a humanist, "

page about Furwangler

" But support came from the unlikeliest of places. A Jewish-German journalist named Curt Riess initially attacked Furtwängler as a Nazi collaborator, but after seeing documentation of Furtwängler's acts of resistance during the war, Riess came around enough to write a book-length defense of Furtwängler's music and politics. At the same time, the Jewish-American violinist Yehudi Menuhin made a similarly thorough examination of the evidence about Furtwängler. Menuhin had refused to come to Austria to perform with Furtwängler in 1933, but he emerged in 1946 as one of Furtwängler's staunchest supporters, making a number of American enemies in the process. "

In light of all this, I am inclined to work on a new text about Menuhin's support for Furtwangler. Atavi 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it: mentioning Menuhin's support as an example of a prominent Jew who accepted Furtwangler is an excellent idea. Just be sure to also point out that many others continued to oppose him. Grover cleveland 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm glad we could find some common ground. Atavi 10:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I am more than a little disturbed that one of the primary sources cited for the rehabilitation of Furtwangler is an article from the Institute for Historical Review's magazine, a journal which is devoted to Holocaust denial. While the point made is essentially correct (Yehudi Menuhin did become one of the only Jewish musicians to work with Furtwangler after the war), the source is so extreme as to render the whole paragraph (and anything else derived from it) a NPOV issue, IMHO.

[don@astro.cornell.edu] - I agree with the previous paragraph that this particular reference is not credible, but the second one IS. Simply because something is stated in an unreliable medium doesn't make it false -- it makes it unreliable. The Holocaust is an extreme event in human behavior, but not everything in Germany during that period was extreme -- Germany had as many good people as any society, and also people trying to do good in ambiguous and difficult circumstances. Those who left did not find themselves in circumstances of moral ambiguity and life and death duress, either for themselves or for others. There is something shrill about those who insist on branding everything and everyone from that period in Germany with the "H" stamp -- it adds no wisdom to the real struggles that people engaged in, and it hides to some extent the physiognomy of the breakdown and horror that occurred. To some extent critics of Furtwangler act on the assumption that without being "proven innocent", he's guilty -- neglecting evidence acts in which he took uncomfortable public and private stands. That's not the way we judge people. Find evidence of guilt or give the man and artist the presumption of innocence he, and all people, deserve.

[don@astro.cornell.edu] - I transfer here two unsourced sentences which repeat a common smear. It should be backed up or left out of the article -- I've seen this before in other unsourced writings, but have never seen a reliable and verifiable account -- it could too easily have arisen from a certain tendency to equate Furtwangler's beliefs with those who ruled the state, possibly because of his established occasional inarticulacy. Hopefully the future will be kinder to those of us in the U.S. in the first decade of the 21st century. The removed sentences are: "His attitude towards Jews remains controversial today. On the one hand, he often lauded Jewish artists such as Artur Schnabel, and apparently saved some Jews—members of the Berlin Philharmonic—from concentration camps, but on the other he supported boycotts of Jewish goods and was critical of the Jewish domination of newspapers."

Furtwängler wiping hands after shaking "Hitler's"

The claim is made in the text that Furtwängler wiped his hand after shaking Hitler's hands. This misconception probably comes from the final clip in the movie Taking Sides by Istvan Szabo. It can be seen on youtube.com. However, this, to me, does not look like Adolf Hitler. The man is much too lean and youthful. Looks more like Joseph Goebbels to me. Sunwutzu 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

The movie director Istvan Szabo, in a recent appearance at the Goethe Institute in Washington DC, indeed confirmed that it was Goebbels. Nandt1 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

About change from GA-B class

WP:Good articles must meet certain quality standards and have passed through the Good Article nomination process. Then they may be listed as Good articles. I see no GA nomination or assessment here.--DO11.10 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt about it.It is clearly Goebbels.

Fair use rationale for Image:FurtwanglerBeethoven.jpg

Image:FurtwanglerBeethoven.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Furtwangler Bruckner 5 intro.ogg

Image:Furtwangler Bruckner 5 intro.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Composers project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class, but could use some attention. Read my detailed review on the comments page. Feel free to leave questions or comments about the review here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Conducting style section

The writer of this section uses links to youtube videos to source personal observations about the conducting.

Also, omits the important stuff--how the music SOUNDS! Furtwangler was known for very slow, gradual crecendos, appropriate for mature wagner, and for extreme drama. He was not a crisp gritty type like Keilberth or Bohm. But these too are personal observations. Anyway I think the whole section on conducting style should be axed or better-sourced. SingingZombie (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that whole paragraph consisted of original opinions, and for references the author linked to online videos of F's conducting! Totally inappropriate for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd that - though I make no claims for it - Bertha Geissmar's book "The Baton and the Jackboot" isn't listed in the bibliography. She was Furtwangler's secretary at the BPO, and later, in exile, Beecham's. Delahays (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Biography

The biography mentions the subject as being regarded under a shadow, but says nothing else about this. This ought to be clarified. 24.17.218.38 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)ATBS

Too many quotations?

I am not very happy with the notice about too many quotations. Some of these long quotations are from important witnesses to the truth of whatever issue they are writing about. This article covers topics of prime importance (such as Furtwängler's relations with Nazis and with Jews). Surely it is wrong for some anonymous and humble Wikipedia editor to paraphrase the words of: Furtwangler himself, Geissmar (who worked with him for 20 years), Friedelind Wagner, Goebbels, Hugo Strelitzer, Yehudi Menuhin, Neville Cardus and Henry Lewis? What these distinguished people actually wrote should be cornerstones of the article. They should not be filtered by some editor. No judge would allow that in court. No theatre director would paraphrase Shakespeare in a performance for grownups. (Cutting is another matter but it requires a lot of skill and risks POV.) The Wikipedia reader deserves the same direct level of information on important topics as the jury and the theatre-goer.

In the "Notable Recordings" section I think the issue is less clearcut because a critic's opinion of an individual recording is much less important than the moral worth and the artistic quality of Furtwangler himself. So I don't know.

Any other views?

Budhen (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Anyway I want to add more text in the future to the end of the biography and to the section "career". The best solution would be to move all the quotations in the "Notable Recordings" section to footnotes! This is what I did for the article on Furtwängler in French. I am currently very busy with my job, therefore I do not have much time. If you want to start... Cheers--Gatti fabien1 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The trouble with writing about music is that there is no agreed way of doing it. If you regard it as a social activity it will acquire other social characteristics, which will include issues of "moral worth and artistic quality" - not to mention others. If you regard it as anything else, you are going to get it wrong. Wittgenstein - who had musical kin - seems appropriate here - "Whereof one cannot speak....." 94.193.114.164 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wilhelm Furtwängler/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Wilhelm Furtwängler: 2008-11-23== This is an assessment of article Wilhelm Furtwängler by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? Good. ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good, but short on personal detail. ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good, but short on personal detail. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. List given appears to be incomplete ("notable"). ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Good, but could use more attention to (at least the notable) compositions. ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) OK, but article could use more images. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article has references and is moderately footnoted. Many fact tags in the Nazi section. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) Lead is too short. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article prose needs work (WP:MOS) (needs copyediting) fact tags need to be dealt with ===Summary=== This is a reasonably complete professional biography of the man. It is lacking in some personal details: we don't learn, for example, if he married or had children. He is clearly more well-known as a conductor, and the article rightly focuses on this. However, more words could be expended on the style and reception of his compositions (at least the notable ones). This article appears to be neglected; a sound file has been bot-removed, without editing to clean up behind the bot. The article could use more images, the ones present are minimally acceptable. The article's lead is short for an article of this length. Two paragraphs, including mention of the Nazi business, as it appears significant. The article has references, but needs more inline citations if it is to be considered for GA/FA. The article could use some copyedit; there are a few awkward constructions. Article is B-class, with room for improvement. Magic♪piano 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede needs to be fleshed out on his composing career

Although the general public probably does not agree, he considered himself a composer who conducted, rather than the reverse. Critical opinion on his output is fairly polarized - the lede needs to mention his composing endeavors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.50 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Bravo

Writing as a lifelong classical music listener and onetime DJ, I find this article - about such a difficult and intriguing subject - unusually articulate and thought-provoking. If anything about it is 'not encyclopedic' then so much the worse for that tradition. The quotes I see today are perfectly complementary and I wouldn't remove a word. The pains taken to depict this man's situation are much appreciated. Say what you will about his conducting style (this is not the place), this is one of WP's best articles concerning the role and significance of classical music today, and of its diverse interpreters. Twang (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the last comment by Twang. I think this is an extraordinarily well researched and well written article.Gwedi elwch (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Needs cleanup for continuity and to remove nonsense

This article has become difficult to read and appears to ramble in the long sections about Furtwängler's relationship with the Nazis. This is probably simply due to edits by people who have not been considering the flow of the entirety of the article. Many sentences seem factual, perhaps, but not terribly relevant. For example, the denazification court section has details like the paperwork for his defense getting lost (twice) and the malign motivation of Hans von Benda to claim Furtwängler was a Nazi. Some sentences are awkwardly worded and should be made clearer or removed. Consider the paragraph on the Soviets with its peculiar use (twice!) of the phrase "wanted to recover". And finally, there are some sentences which almost sound AI generated, such as the one that starts, “Grove Online states ...” without any explanation of who or what a "Grove Online" is. Presumably the sentence is regurgitating facts taken from the online edition of the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, but the citation actually given points to some other source. B9 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm 100% in agreement and heartily encourage you to improve the article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)