Beethoven Symphonies on Record

[Daverz]

Tomassini has not mentioned any of my favourites. OK he's a music critic but has he really listened to as many of the recordings as he can? Take the Eroica. Why would you choose the Bernstein over acknowledged great performances by Toscanini, Monteux (Concertegebouw), Leibowitz, Furtwangler.....

The Bernstein is one of my favorites.  Why should he slavishly choose an "acknowledged great performance" over his own favorite?

[Holden]

The Bernstein is one of my favorites.  Why should he slavishly choose an "acknowledged great performance" over his own favorite?

Good point. I've heard the Bernstein and it didn't really grab me.

[Biffo]

Another vote for Bernstein/NYPO (Bernstein/VPO is a turkey), my second favourite after Erich Kleiber and the VPO. As far as these other 'great' performances are concerned, who is doing the acknowledging? I have Monteux and Leibowitz and both are fine performances but they wouldn't  have immediately sprung to mind as 'acknowledged greats'.

[Marc]

Welcome back.

Q

November 2013... thanks to jwinter, who kicked this thread, I'm very curious now: has Premont bought the Menuhin set again... and changed his mind about it?

(Apologies for interfering in the Lenny debate.)

[prémont]

November 2013... thanks to jwinter, who kicked this thread, I'm very curious now: has Premont bought the Menuhin set again... and changed his mind about it?

I wrote that I would consider a purchase. Maybe I didn't find a set at a decent price, maybe my motivation wasn't that great after all, and I probably thought that Beethoven's symphonies were all too well represented on my shelfs (50+). What happened was that I forgot about it, my musical radar turning in other directions.

[San Antone]

Tomassini has not mentioned any of my favourites. OK he's a music critic but has he really listened to as many of the recordings as he can? Take the Eroica. Why would you choose the Bernstein over acknowledged great performances by Toscanini, Monteux (Concertegebouw), Leibowitz, Furtwangler.....

He didn't, CORINNA da FONSECA-WOLLHEIM chose Bernstein's for the third.  Most of the symphonies have a different person choosing, Tommasini chose for #1 and #9.

[Marc]

I wrote that I would consider a purchase. Maybe I didn't find a set at a decent price, maybe my motivation wasn't that great after all, and I probably thought that Beethoven's symphonies were all too well represented on my shelfs (50+). What happened was that I forgot about it, my musical radar turning in other directions.

Except for the 50+, that's quite... recognizable.

[Jo498]

Can someone post the NYT list? It's not free to look at, apparently.

[Brian]

Can someone post the NYT list? It's not free to look at, apparently.

Here's the list with the author who selected each

1: Klemperer/Philharmonia '57 (Anthony Tommasini)
2: Norrington/London Classical Players (Joshua Barone)
3: Bernstein/New York (Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim)
4: Haitink/London (Zachary Woolfe)
5: Boulez/Philharmonia (Seth Colter Walls)
6: C. Kleiber/Bavarian State Orch live 1983 (David Allen)
7: Honeck/Pittsburgh (David Allen)
8: Gardiner/ORR (Joshua Barone)
9: Furtwangler/Bayreuth '51 (Anthony Tommasini)

It's certainly an eclectic list.

[Jo498]

I have not heard all of them but the Bernstein Eroica might be the least controversial choice

[André]

Boulez in the 5th is an outlier choice from the (far) left field. I find it infuriating to listen to. What a waste!

[Marc]

I could not make such a list... but for most of Beethoven's symphonies, I prefer a period instruments sound. Which means I like the recordings of Brüggen (twice), Hogwood and Van Immerseel, just to mention a few.

Of the 'modern' instruments recordings that I know, I do recall great performances of Nos. 1 & 6 by Sawallisch/Concertgebouw Orkest, No. 5 by C. Kleiber/Wiener Phil, No. 8 by Morris/London SO, and No. 9 by Haitink/Concertgebouw, the latter with an impressive vocal quartet (Popp, Watkinson, Schreier, Holl).
But my knowledge of these works is a bit limited. I don't have a huge load of discs and boxsets, compared to many other Beethoven fans.
If I would have to choose one set of 'modern' instruments recordings, it would probably be a tie between Leibowitz/Royal Phil and Haitink/Concertgebouw. Well, no, not a tie really. In the end, I'd pick Leibowitz, for its overall freshness.

[Marc]

I could not make such a list... but for most of Beethoven's symphonies, I prefer a period instruments sound. Which means I like the recordings of Brüggen (twice), Hogwood and Van Immerseel, just to mention a few.

Of the 'modern' instruments recordings that I know, I do recall great performances of Nos. 1 & 6 by Sawallisch/Concertgebouw Orkest, No. 5 by C. Kleiber/Wiener Phil, No. 8 by Morris/London SO, and No. 9 by Haitink/Concertgebouw, the latter with an impressive vocal quartet (Popp, Watkinson, Schreier, Holl).
But my knowledge of these works is a bit limited. I don't have a huge load of discs and boxsets, compared to many other Beethoven fans.
If I would have to choose one set of 'modern' instruments recordings, it would probably be a tie between Leibowitz/Royal Phil and Haitink/Concertgebouw. Well, no, not a tie really. In the end, I'd pick Leibowitz, for its overall freshness.

I knew I forgot something, so... in the 'end', from the cycles that I have, I would pick these:

HIP and period instruments: Van Immerseel/Anima Eterna
'Old skool' (yet very modern): Leibowitz/Royal Phil
HIP on 'modern' instruments: De Vriend/Netherlands SO (forgot this one, it's a great set - performances with lots of energy and passion, with great sound quality, too)

[André]

+ 1 for the De Vriend set!

[prémont]

+ 1 for the De Vriend set!

Yes, I am also a friend of that set.

[Holden]

+1 for Leibowitz - especially his Eroica

[Handelian]

I've been working my way through Chailly's set over the past couple of weeks.  Not quite finished yet, but so far I have to say that I'm quite impressed.  I would agree that it is both "intense" and "dark": it's beautifully recorded, and he gets great clarity of texture from the orchestra, yet while everything is audible, he still manages to give the music the weight and power that it needs, despite the very swift tempo.  The speeds are fast but on the whole the performances seem very natural rather than forced; he's particularly good in those symphonies that require a flowing sense of rhythm.  I listened to his 7 & 8 just this morning; the 7 is excellent (though I wish he'd slow down and smell the roses just a bit in the opening of the first movement), and I'll agree with xochtl that the 8 is one of the best I've ever heard. 

Chailly's is the first set I've heard that consistently takes what we've learned through period performance, revised scores, original metronome markings & the like, and applies it convincingly and with deep emotion, with a modern orchestra.  It's all a matter of personal taste, and again I'm still not quite finished with my 1st listen.  That said, I think I can already say that among recent (last 15-20 years) cycles on modern instruments, the only set I own that I would rank alongside Chailly is Barenboim's with the Staatskapple Berlin (although that is very different in character; I haven't heard his new one). 

To provide some context, to my ears I greatly prefer Chailly to Zinman (whose Beethoven I've always disliked, although the piano concertos aren't as bad as the symphonies, and I quite like his Schumann for some reason).  If I wanted a modern set I would give Chailly a clear edge over Abbado (at least the 1st two sets; the DVDs from Rome I thoroughly enjoyed, though some of that is surely the visual element), Haitink's London set (good, but not at this level), Vanska (who leaves me cool, though I can't quite say why), Rattle (terrible, one of the very few I've sold), or Harnoncourt (fascinating but a little too mercurial for my every day use).  I would even give it a small edge over Wand's, although I tend to think of Wand more as of the previous generation.  There are lots of recent Beethoven sets that I haven't heard of course; I'd like to try Mackerras, and am morbidly curious to hear Pletnev and Thielemann.

At any rate, I'm still absorbing the Chailly, but I would say that it's definitely worth exploring.  It will probably end up somewhere in my top 10 cycles overall.  (Not that I sit around ranking Beethoven cycles all day, but heck, it beats workin'  )

I have the Chailly and am always disappointed when I hear it. Playing and recording brilliant but the tempi are simply too fast thanks to the over-slavish regard for Beethoven's metronome markings. As Jan Swafford has pointed out LvB was deaf by the time he put them in so made no allowance for the difference in what he could hear in his head and what is actually practical. The orchestras in Beethoven's day could not possibly have played it at the speeds indicated so they are an indication of his intention but there to be modified in practice. Chailly constantly sounds rushed imo.

[MusicTurner]

I have the Chailly and am always disappointed when I hear it. Playing and recording brilliant but the tempi are simply too fast thanks to the over-slavish regard for Beethoven's metronome markings. As Jan Swafford has pointed out LvB was deaf by the time he put them in so made no allowance for the difference in what he could hear in his head and what is actually practical. The orchestras in Beethoven's day could not possibly have played it at the speeds indicated so they are an indication of his intention but there to be modified in practice. Chailly constantly sounds rushed imo.

It is a subject with many aspects. The fast metronome markings also apply to some relatively early Beethoven works, e.g. op.18 quartets (1801, one year before the Heiligenstadt document), though they were added later, and Beethoven liked extremes in tempi
https://www.cbc.ca/music/read/this-is-what-happens-when-you-actually-follow-beethoven-s-metronome-marks-1.5014521
https://thebeethovenproject.com/how-fast-shall-we-play/

Many orchestras with HIP ambitions tend to play the symphonies at extreme speed too, often to the fast side.

[Handelian]

It is a subject with many aspects. The fast metronome markings also apply to some relatively early Beethoven works, e.g. op.18 quartets (1801, one year before the Heiligenstadt document), though they were added later, and Beethoven liked extremes in tempi
https://www.cbc.ca/music/read/this-is-what-happens-when-you-actually-follow-beethoven-s-metronome-marks-1.5014521
https://thebeethovenproject.com/how-fast-shall-we-play/

Many orchestras with HIP ambitions tend to play the symphonies at extreme speed too, often to the fast side.

It's important to realise that although Beethoven was perhaps the first notable composer to indicate specific metronome markings in his music, this was not done in 1817, when his hearing loss was by then quite considerable. Hence he was recalling the tempi from memory. Swafford says that as a composer himself he has often put metronome marks on his own pieces and he invariably has to scale them down a couple of notches when he actually hears the piece played. I think the quote, "A metronome marking gives us a basic indication of the composer's intention regarding the speed and to a certain extent character of a piece. But within the piece there are of course innumerable deviations from that speed, which is not to be seen as a straight-jacket." That is right. It is the speed that is natural. Certainly we know that Beethoven's musicians simply couldn't manage the speeds indicated in many his markings. Was he so impractical? It is the speed that makes the music tell that is important.

[MusicTurner]

One of the aspects is that even though a user might be totally deaf, the metronome is visually/physically indicating speed as well, as further indication. As an early propagator for some HIP ideas regarding the symphonies, Scherchen for example succeeded in playing the indicated metronome markings back in the 60s - 50s, including with the rather provincial orchestras such as the Svizzera Italiana. Today's it's more common and perfected say with Gardiner & his specialized HIP orchestra.

Some have suggested that maybe Beethoven's own metronome had a fault, but it sounds unlikely to me - and also generally, why wouldn't someone have objected then, which to my knowledge doesn't seem to have been the case?