Karajan Beethoven Sets -- Which One Shall Smite All Others Into Gooey Bits?

[Renfield]

Plus I think his later cycles showed the Toscanini influence to a much lesser degree. 

That. I would also consider Karajan part of that 'old school' (in fact, haven't I made a comment along these lines this week or the previous? I recall someone asking me why I would think that - oh yes, premont!), with the 1963 Beethoven and some of his contemporary BPO Brahms as exceptions/experiments, that he anyway veered away from in his subsequent re-recordings of the pieces.

If nothing else, Karajan considered himself a kappellmeister, as my 'fanboy' quote below (in my signature) testifies. He signed as such.


(Which is part of why I find collecting Karajan's recordings so exciting: tracing that sense of "evolution and variation in [his] personal style" that jwinter mentioned. And since he did a Beethoven cycle every decade from the 1950s onwards, these cycles are excellent reference points.)

[Bogey]

Here is my list of favorites for each:

1st HvK/BPO '85 Gets a bad rap by many, but I think it is truly sparkling.

2nd Hogwood/AAM

3rd Gardiner/Orchestre Révolutionnaire on the dvd Eroica

4th Hogwood/AAM-by default

5th HvK/BPO '62* followed closely by Giulini/L.A.

6th Hogwood/AAM

7th Bernstein/BSO Not the best performance, but still my favorite recording considering the significance of the event. Ashkenazy/Philharmonia for the performance.

8th HvK/BPO '62*

9th Dohnányi/Cleveland by a nose. Furtwängler/BPO of 1942 is very, very close behind.

As you can see, the HvK '62 makes it twice on the all-time list.  However, I enjoy 3-8 from the set at a high level.  So, this set is of great listening value to me.

[chankaiming]

I found discussion here contructive and stimulating.

I have investigate the legacy of Karajan earlier, and found then amoung the `old school' style of playing, Karajan paid most attention to details.

I have compared six versions of Beethoven symphony no.3 `Eroica', despite the slightly fleet tempo, Karajan succeeded in creating a true climax in first movement, while the detail of each part are well presented.

In the second movement, Karajan dynamic control is second to none, while keeping the tempo, Berlin philharmonic played brilliantly under his baton.

Certainly you won't hear the transparency of Zinman, the inevitability of Furtwangler, the heaviness of Klemperer, but Karajan version should be among one of the greatest.

Some may complaint that Karajan lacking last ounce of passion, I found him excellent in presenting composer's will, and presented it brilliantly.

[George]

Fascinating list!  I have Stokowski and Weingartner, and one of the Mengelbergs I think.  I know I've heard the Stokowski (though it's been a long time), but I honestly don't recall listening to the others (I was acquiring quite a bit of Beethoven at one point, and I don't think my listening ever quite caught up to the pile).  I will definitely give them a spin some time soon!

I have seen many folks recommend the Fricasy, I may have to pick that up...

I think it's one of Holden's favorites.

I'd like to hear the Mengelberg, I wonder if the ones LL recommends are still in print, on CD?

[Brian]

2nd Hogwood/AAM

4th Hogwood/AAM-by default

The Hogwood Fourth has been my favorite since the first time I heard it. It really is one-of-a-kind. I actually listened to his Second yesterday for the first time, and it was a great one too.

Going to have to check out that Cleveland Ninth.

EDIT: I voted banana

[Cato]

I found discussion here contructive and stimulating.

I have investigate the legacy of Karajan earlier, and found then amoung the `old school' style of playing, Karajan paid most attention to details.

I have compared six versions of Beethoven symphony no.3 `Eroica', despite the slightly fleet tempo, Karajan succeeded in creating a true climax in first movement, while the detail of each part are well presented.

In the second movement, Karajan dynamic control is second to none, while keeping the tempo, Berlin philharmonic played brilliantly under his baton.

Certainly you won't hear the transparency of Zinman, the inevitability of Furtwangler, the heaviness of Klemperer, but Karajan version should be among one of the greatest.

Some may complaint that Karajan lacking last ounce of passion, I found him excellent in presenting composer's will, and presented it brilliantly.

Stravinsky always complained about "interpretations" which thwarted the composer's will by ignoring markings in the score!

Chankaiming: is that baby in your picture a future musical prodigy?   0:)

[prémont]

I think it depends on the size and quality of the library you're trying to build.  If you are trying to keep it small and still cover all the essential bases, I think Bohm or Wand or Kempe would serve as well as Karajan as a single representative of the style.  If, on the other hand, you've been around the block, and have decided that a) you really like Beethoven, and want to explore him in depth, and b) old-school German Beethoven is the style you greatly prefer, and is where you want to focus your attention/purchases, then we get into the question of who do you need to hear to get a full representation of everything old-school German LvB has to offer?  At that point, I think you need some Karajan in the mix.  Even at that point, though, you don't need four sets.  Either the 60s or 70s set would serve the purpose.  My plan is to argue the merits of each.

If you reach the point that you do need 4 HvK sets, I think you're now collecting Karajan recordings, not Beethoven recordings; and what you're listening for is more instructive of the evolution and variation in Karajan's personal style, not necessarily of providing further insight into Beethoven's music.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and if you're somebody like M Forever who's deeply schooled in German orchestral performing traditions, that may be right up your alley.  But by that point you've entered a very narrow niche, and you don't need advice from knuckleheads like us. 

I have got an innate tendency towards completism too, and I usually have to figth against it. In the actual sitiation I have made up my mind, and my relative completism is directed towards Beethoven and not Karajan. I am interested in only those Karajan recordings, which have got something important to say about Beethoven. If Karajans 1960es set was meant to be a copy of Toscanini, do I then need it, as I have got the Toscanini set. Would the 1970es set be more rewarding as to Beethoven? I hear already clearly, that nobody recommends the 1950es set nor the 1980es set.

[jwinter]

I have got an innate tendency towards completism too, and I usually have to figth against it. In the actual sitiation I have made up my mind, and my relative completism is directed towards Beethoven and not Karajan. I am interested in only those Karajan recordings, which have got something important to say about Beethoven. If Karajans 1960es set was meant to be a copy of Toscanini, do I then need it, as I have got the Toscanini set. Would the 1970es set be more rewarding as to Beethoven? I hear already clearly, that nobody recommends the 1950es set nor the 1980es set.

If I was forced to pick one, and only one, set, I'd go with the 1970s one, as I wouldn't want to be without the 5th from that set, and the 6th & 9th are much improved (the 60's Pastorale is way over-Toscanini-ized, not good, and not even a real word for that matter).  The 70s is much more representative of Karajan's general style as evidenced in other recordings.  My actual rec, as I think I said at the beginning somewhere, would be to get the 60s set in SACD sound, and get the devious 2-fer of the 70s 5, 6 & 9 as a supplement.  The 2-fer has improved sound over the original big-box issue of the whole 70s set; haven't heard any of the subsequent reissues of the set to compare.  Or, if you have other desires Karajan-wise, you could look at the DG symphonies box for a bargain.

Very quickly, the 50s set has dim sound and little unique to justify putting up with it, IMO.  There are highlights to the 80s set, but it's generally not as strong as the other 2 DG sets.  The CD with the 8th and several overtures is quite enjoyable for one.

[Renfield]

I hear already clearly, that nobody recommends the 1950es set nor the 1980es set.

There is a 'semantic tension'(!) to note, here, between "appreciate" and "recommend". In my personal opinion, the most musically consummate Beethoven cycle that Karajan has recorded is his last one, the 1980s cycle on DG.

However, the numerous infelicities in the recording (qua recording - the sound), and the less consistent orchestral playing for Karajan's standards (which could disappoint those expecting to hear the 'picture perfect' Karajan of the 1970s - though when the playing is at its best, it is comfortably better than in any other Beethoven cycle under Karajan, and most under anyone else) result in my not being as willing to recommend it.

In other words, as I don't recommend recordings based solely on what I have enjoyed and appreciate, I would recommend the 1970s cycle first, as a complete testament of (purely) Karajan's own style of Beethoven interpretation. The later cycle might be a greater musical achievement (see especially the 3rd, 5th and 3/4ths of the 9th), but it has caveats that the second DG cycle does not.

The first DG cycle is, as we have already discussed, an 'exceptional' affair reflecting a stylistic amalgam that, though successful, is not representative of 'Herbert von Karajan's own' conception of Beethoven, as evidenced from both his earlier and later recordings.

And the 1950s cycle has a number of objectively extraordinary performances, like the 5th, 6th and 9th, but is just recorded using a less overwhelmingly accomplished ensemble than the Berlin Philharmonic, and thus ends up being recommended last; musically, however, it's as close to Karajan's 'own' Beethoven as the 1970s cycle - minus the fact of the intervening 20 years. It's fresher, but less authoritative overall.


How's that for a less hastily typed response?

[prémont]

JWinter and Renfield, you both recommend the 1970es cycle, and for the same reason: That it is the most representative of Karajans style. So my revised conclusion must be to acquire this and no more.

In this way my next Beethoven Symphony acquisitions will be Barenboim, Karajan 1977 and part of Dausgaard. But there are others, who´s importance I want to know. But this maybe belongs another thread.

[Brian]

premont, you have 999 posts. Make the next one special. 

[jwinter]

A related query -- which of Karajan's versions of the Missa Solemnis do you prefer?  After rummaging through my shelves, I'm actually pretty surprised to find that I don't have this work by Karajan -- I've got Bohm, Bernstein, Klemperer, Davis, Toscanini, Harnoncourt, and Gardiner, but no Herbie.

[Coopmv]

A related query -- which of Karajan's versions of the Missa Solemnis do you prefer?  After rummaging through my shelves, I'm actually pretty surprised to find that I don't have this work by Karajan -- I've got Bohm, Bernstein, Klemperer, Davis, Toscanini, Harnoncourt, and Gardiner, but no Herbie.

Unlike the Beethoven 9th, which I have close to 20 versions, Missa Solemnis is quite under-represented in my collection.  I think I have Karajan/BPO on an Angel LP-set and a version by Colin Davis on LP as well.  The only CD version I have is the version by Gardiner.

[dirkronk]

A related query -- which of Karajan's versions of the Missa Solemnis do you prefer?  After rummaging through my shelves, I'm actually pretty surprised to find that I don't have this work by Karajan -- I've got Bohm, Bernstein, Klemperer, Davis, Toscanini, Harnoncourt, and Gardiner, but no Herbie.

I find Herbie's 1958 Philharmonia recording (a Legge-produced EMI, recorded in Vienna w/ Schwarzkopf, Ludwig, et al.) to be the only one of his I need. It is lovely in so many ways, far preferable (IMO, of course, but perhaps not in yours) to his two later ones with Berlin, which I've heard but do not own. Keep in mind that I am anything but a Karajan fan, though my preferences come after many, many years of hearing him in a vast repertoire of recordings...never in person. Still, while I have comparatively few Karajan recordings in my collection, this is one that I never plan to get rid of.

FWIW,

Dirk

[Guido]

This thread has a brilliant title!


and: 20 versions of the ninth?!

[Renfield]

and: 20 versions of the ninth?!

I plead guilty to having more than 30; and over 50 5ths. It's not healthy, I know.


Re the Missa Solemnis, I only have the EMI, and haven't even listened to it (yet - it's in the big choral box, and the bulk of my EMI Karajan listening comes from the numerous, and mostly orchestral, EMI discs of his I had prior to buying the box set).

But I greatly appreciated a live one on DVD from (IIRC) the Salzburg Easter Festival.

[imperfection]

and: 20 versions of the ninth?!

Nothing wrong with that, seeing as the 9th is one of the greatest achievements of the entire western civilization.

[DarkAngel]

Wait just a minute................



EMI has remastered and re-packaged the 1952-55 Karajan set, selling for $18 new at Amazon sellers (Caiman etc)
The newest 2009 Penguin Guide has given it a rosette and moved it to top position of complete sets for
both performance and historical significance. They especially say the sound is very good now..........

I have placed an order

[Renfield]

Wait just a minute................



EMI has remastered and re-packaged the 1952-55 Karajan set, selling for $18 new at Amazon sellers (Caiman etc)
The newest 2009 Penguin Guide has given it a rosette and moved it to top position of complete sets for
both performance and historical significance. They especially say the sound is very good now..........

I have placed an order

Oh, [apologies to the moderators] for f***'s sake!

Why did they not include the remastered versions in their big 'Orchestral' box, then!?

Even I am irked when I have to buy the same Beethoven cycle a third time, Karajan or otherwise.


(That having been said, my above comments on the Philharmonia cycle still stand:

It's a wonderful, fresh cycle, eminently representative of Karajan's style as it would develop and inform his later Beethoven, particularly from the 70s onward. But the Philharmonia is no Berliner Philharmoniker, nor is the younger Karajan his older version; and in both cases, it shows.

If they've made miracles with the sound, it would be third on my list, still. )

[DarkAngel]

Oh, [apologies to the moderators] for f***'s sake!

Why did they not include the remastered versions in their big 'Orchestral' box, then!?

Even I am irked when I have to buy the same Beethoven cycle a third time, Karajan or otherwise.

Renfield
Looking at back of package on Amazon artwork it has been given the ART remaster treatment......just like all the GROTC series
Usually these are very good, I remember long ago comparing the Klemperer Mahler 2nd original CD to the ART remastered Great Recording of the Century version and it was very noticeable improvement......this might cost you some more money