Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Beethoven Symphonies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beethoven Symphonies - Page 20

post #286 of 944
6/22/05 at 10:42am
Actually, the Vänskä 4th symphony is probably one of the best 4th's I've heard, even if the 5th isn't better than Kleiber's.
Reply
post #287 of 944
6/22/05 at 9:03pm
I have been studying with Beethoven's Symphonies these days. Among all complete sets I have, I really prefer Szell's cycle, Bernstein's cycle and Bohm's cycle. If Toscanini's NBC cycle weren't mono version and not so fast, his works should be the best overall. However Solti 1973 cycle probably deserves the best sound quality among Karajan, Szell, Bernstein, Bohm and Monteux. It is said that Abbado's set also sound perfect, but I don't have experience with his set.

Here are my favorite versions of individual symphony:

Symphony No. 3: Karajan 1963 and Furtwangler 1953. If Furtwangler 1953 hadn't been mono sound, it would have been better than Karajan 1963. Szell and Bernstein are also good, but not as impressive.

Symphony No. 5: Carlos Kleiber's classic performance certainly stand alone on top of all. Furtwangler 1944 must give Kleiber some clue how to manage this symphony more energitic and dynamic, but its sound quality frustrates listeners too much. Dorati's mercury living presence recording delivers the topmost sound. Reiner's RCA living stereo is a treasure worth finding out, his fluent and smooth conducting technique is very very entertaining.
Szell, Karajan 1963, Bernstein and Toscanini are also excellent. Bernstein's 1st chapter seems too slow and Toscanini's 1st chapter is extremely powerful. However it is alway a torture to listen Toscanini's recording.
Monteux and Solti seem a little bit disordered and ill-controlled.

Symphony No. 6: Bohm, Monteux and Bernstein come to top among all copies I have heard, however Monteux's recording seems too old and somewhat noisy. Dorati's is a fantastic Audiophile recording with excellent performance. Szell's No 6 is also beautiful but not as good as those top orchestras such as VPO and LSO. Karajan 1963 sounds very harsh and very not-pastoral. Besides Karajan, Giulini's No. 6 is also wierd, but I can tell that he was trying to perform in a creative way different from the traditional approaches, however the result is unsuccessful.

Symphony No. 7: Everybody seems ok with this symphony. I still prefer Kleiber's style and Dorati's recording.

Symphony No 9: Bernstein, Furtwangler 1951 and Solti stand in the front line than others. Bernstein and Solti's recordings are unexpectable superb. Bohm, Karajan 1963 and Szell are very good too. But I just have a little strange impression on Karajan 1963 and I can't figure out what it is.
Reply
post #288 of 944
6/22/05 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneamour
Symphony No 9: Bernstein, Furtwangler 1951 and Solti stand in the front line than others. Bernstein and Solti's recordings are unexpectable superb. Bohm, Karajan 1963 and Szell are very good too. But I just have a little strange impression on Karajan 1963 and I can't figure out what it is.
You really should hear Furtwangler's '42 and '37 performances of the 9th. Stylistically, the '37 has more in common with '51, but there is a fire and a confidence there - through the tape hiss and lacquer damage - that is not there in '51. The '42 9th really needs no introduction. It is the best performance currently on disc--from any conductor. Bernstein's '89 Berlin performance is probably the best live 9th, all things considered, and he channels Furtwangler's '51 reading, despite being too slow. I think the entire 4th movement takes around 28 minutes. Furtwangler stayed right around 25 minutes from '37-'51 based on his recordings. Von Karajan was right in that neighborhood, too (based on the '63 and '77 cuttings).

Von Karajan's '63 really lacks emotion for me. He seems devoid of any feeling one way or the other. Like Pierre Boulez can be at times. His '77, though, has emotion in spades, and manages to sound very good (though steer clear of the SACD). I think his '77 cycle was, on the whole, better and underrated. His 80s digital cycle deserves the opprobrium it receives.
Reply
post #289 of 944
6/22/05 at 11:02pm
I have Furtwangler 1937 London living recording. The sound is super bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PSmith08
You really should hear Furtwangler's '42 and '37 performances of the 9th. Stylistically, the '37 has more in common with '51, but there is a fire and a confidence there - through the tape hiss and lacquer damage - that is not there in '51. The '42 9th really needs no introduction. It is the best performance currently on disc--from any conductor. Bernstein's '89 Berlin performance is probably the best live 9th, all things considered, and he channels Furtwangler's '51 reading, despite being too slow. I think the entire 4th movement takes around 28 minutes. Furtwangler stayed right around 25 minutes from '37-'51 based on his recordings. Von Karajan was right in that neighborhood, too (based on the '63 and '77 cuttings).

Von Karajan's '63 really lacks emotion for me. He seems devoid of any feeling one way or the other. Like Pierre Boulez can be at times. His '77, though, has emotion in spades, and manages to sound very good (though steer clear of the SACD). I think his '77 cycle was, on the whole, better and underrated. His 80s digital cycle deserves the opprobrium it receives.
Reply
post #290 of 944
6/22/05 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneamour
I have Furtwangler 1937 London living recording. The sound is super bad.
To wit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSmith08
Just bought Furtwangler's 1937 9th on Music and Arts. The sound quality, if possible, is worse than his famous '42 outing, and the performance is different. Steer clear of this one if you like decent sound quality--or quality at all.

However, as far as a historical recording goes, this one is almost priceless. There is more in common with the '51 Bayreuth recording than the '42. While there is not quite the sense of exultation and release in '37 (it was just another performance) as there was in '51. The anger and turmoil of '42 is really not to be heard on this disc. He is making the 9th with a skilled orchestra, skilled soloists, and a good choir. I think, had Furtwangler not been absolutely enslaved by the Nazis and crushed in the aftermath, that this would have been his 9th. As it is, the prospect of a spiritual and commanding 9th without anger or fear from Furtwangler was dashed in '39 or so.

This one was recorded with the Berliners in London, so I assume there was a tour to show the world that Adolf Hitler's Germany was not totally bereft of culture or decency (it was, we just didn't realize the depths of the depravity and evil yet). I cannot comment with any certainty on how good of a performance this is as far as a total standpoint goes. The recordings are just too far gone. What I do see is a workmanlike performance of Furtwangler's prewar, stock 9th. Brilliant, religious, spiritual, but not tortured or relieved in the way later ones would be. This is just a conductor at the top of his game and in good health. It helps to no end that he happened to have the greatest vision of the 9th.

If you are interested in hearing pure Furtwangler--before the fall, tracing his evolution in this piece (1937-1942-1951-1954), or just hearing a good 9th with awful sound, this is the one. Otherwise, stick with '51 or someone else.
Reply
post #291 of 944
6/23/05 at 9:22am
One day technology will be able to make these old recordings sound more palatable. Until then I'm going to stick with newer recordings that can rival the old ones for insight. I just can't keep buying and buying and buying and buying and...


Famous last words here.
Reply
post #292 of 944
6/23/05 at 11:02am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunnyears
One day technology will be able to make these old recordings sound more palatable. Until then I'm going to stick with newer recordings that can rival the old ones for insight. I just can't keep buying and buying and buying and buying and...


Famous last words here.
Delete the head-fi account, cut that ethernet or modem cord now!

We're not addicts, we can stop any time we want!
Reply
post #293 of 944
6/23/05 at 12:52pm
I do sort of like how those old recordings sound. There is something satisfying about having to struggle to enjoy the music. If Furtwangler had recorded on super-duper-digital, I don't know if I would appreciate him the same way. In some ways, the old lacquer/magnetic tape recordings sound more alive and more inviting than the cold rasp of the early digital recordings. However, digital is such now that there isn't really a difference. Also, the depth and detail of digital is nice.

Also, like the prophetic Professor in a bad sci-fi movie: "We may have made those old recordings sound better, but at what cost? At what cost?"
Reply
post #294 of 944
6/23/05 at 12:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSmith08
I do sort of like how those old recordings sound. There is something satisfying about having to struggle to enjoy the music. If Furtwangler had recorded on super-duper-digital, I don't know if I would appreciate him the same way. In some ways, the old lacquer/magnetic tape recordings sound more alive and more inviting than the cold rasp of the early digital recordings. However, digital is such now that there isn't really a difference. Also, the depth and detail of digital is nice.

Also, like the prophetic Professor in a bad sci-fi movie: "We may have made those old recordings sound better, but at what cost? At what cost?"
I agree and disagree here, I think I'd take a latter-day analog recording over an early digital recording, but more current digital recording (like DSD) can render a very natural sounding and very clean recording. But it the end it's about the performance, I used to avoid old mono recordings, but I have learned to love some of them just as much as the most recent SACD recordings. But I still have moments when I wish I could time travel with some hi-def recording equipment!

Scott
Reply
post #295 of 944
6/23/05 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottder
I agree and disagree here, I think I'd take a latter-day analog recording over an early digital recording, but more current digital recording (like DSD) can render a very natural sounding and very clean recording. But it the end it's about the performance, I used to avoid old mono recordings, but I have learned to love some of them just as much as the most recent SACD recordings. But I still have moments when I wish I could time travel with some hi-def recording equipment!

Scott
Clearly, there is a line between good, old mono and Furtwangler's '37 London 9th. Even a good remaster of his '42 Berlin 9th is head and shoulders above it. I am, though, a historical recordings nut. I love good recordings, but there are sound issues with many of them. However, I refuse to let them deter me from otherwise magnificent recordings. Sometimes, hiding in the mists of bad storage, hiss, and primitive recording technology, there is indeed the "bright spark of divinity." I'm Walter Cronkite, and this has been National Geographic
Reply
post #296 of 944
6/23/05 at 1:28pm
Thread Starter 
and let us not even breathe the V word *cough*vinyl*cough*. That is a siren song of another order.
Reply
post #297 of 944
6/23/05 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottder
and let us not even breathe the V word *cough*vinyl*cough*. That is a siren song of another order.
Vinyl isn't so much a storage medium than an obsession. You're right, we don't need to get into a vinyl vs. CD debate. Suffice it to say that both are perfect and both sound as the composer intended, but in different ways. PM me if you want more.
Reply
post #298 of 944
6/23/05 at 1:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSmith08
Vinyl isn't so much a storage medium than an obsession. You're right, we don't need to get into a vinyl vs. CD debate. Suffice it to say that both are perfect and both sound as the composer intended, but in different ways. PM me if you want more.
Well not a debate so much as material available (aka selections still avaialble on vinyl that have yet to make an appearance on CD, and may never make that jump). But that, as they say, is another thread.

Scott
Reply
post #299 of 944
6/23/05 at 3:53pm

So far off-topic it's ridiculous

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottder
Well not a debate so much as material available (aka selections still avaialble on vinyl that have yet to make an appearance on CD, and may never make that jump). But that, as they say, is another thread.

Scott
My absolute favorite 6th (Ansermet / OSR) is not available on CD - vinyl only. I love vinyl and am obsessed, but the music drives the bus for me regardless of format. (I am an SACD guy too). Like psmith, I have also taken a recent liking to the old historical mono sound - although the '37 Furty sounds like it'd be a little rustic. I just got the '23 Fried Mahler 2nd - now that's a historical recording!!!!!

Here's an interesting link to an article about REALLY historical recordings, and old-time performance practices:

http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/joachim4.html

I've always wanted to hear an old '78 played on a non-electric gramophone - they are supposed to sound a lot better. The reason they sound so noisy today is apparently that the pickups on modern equipment are too sensitive.
Reply
post #300 of 944
6/23/05 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis
My absolute favorite 6th (Ansermet / OSR) is not available on CD - vinyl only. I love vinyl and am obsessed, but the music drives the bus for me regardless of format. (I am an SACD guy too). Like psmith, I have also taken a recent liking to the old historical mono sound - although the '37 Furty sounds like it'd be a little rustic. I just got the '23 Fried Mahler 2nd - now that's a historical recording!!!!!

Here's an interesting link to an article about REALLY historical recordings, and old-time performance practices:

http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/joachim4.html

I've always wanted to hear an old '78 played on a non-electric gramophone - they are supposed to sound a lot better. The reason they sound so noisy today is apparently that the pickups on modern equipment are too sensitive.

The '37 London recording is probably one of those recordings that would define the genre, if not for careless storage and deterioration. At the end of the instrumental part of the 4th movement--right before the terror fanfare and the bass solo, where the theme is fully exposed, it is clear that this was one of the greatest performances ever. However, I doubt anything could have been done to save it. The '42 is so paradigmatically different that it isn't worth the trouble of comparing them.

I could sit and pontificate on historical recordings for hours, but that needs another thread. Any volunteers?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Beethoven Symphonies