Blind Comparison: Brahms 2

[madaboutmahler]

Thank you very much for your votes so far, all very interesting to read!! Have sent more links to those who have asked, so if you are interested in the jollity of even more Brahms 2 exposition, please just let me know!

Bruckner 6 would be great, Greg!

Orfeo, I understand what you mean and I will look into using audio samples instead in the future if everyone prefers? I will have to explore software a bit more as I'm not quite used to Audacity yet!

[Brahmsian]

Thank you very much for your votes so far, all very interesting to read!! Have sent more links to those who have asked, so if you are interested in the jollity of even more Brahms 2 exposition, please just let me know!

Bruckner 6 would be great, Greg!

Orfeo, I understand what you mean and I will look into using audio samples instead in the future if everyone prefers? I will have to explore software a bit more as I'm not quite used to Audacity yet!

Thanks again, Daniel.  I personally don't see anything wrong with the current format of how the audio files are sent.  Kudos, young man! 

[NorthNYMark]

Thank you very much for your votes so far, all very interesting to read!! Have sent more links to those who have asked, so if you are interested in the jollity of even more Brahms 2 exposition, please just let me know!

Bruckner 6 would be great, Greg!

Orfeo, I understand what you mean and I will look into using audio samples instead in the future if everyone prefers? I will have to explore software a bit more as I'm not quite used to Audacity yet!

Thanks so much for doing this, Daniel.  What a fun exercise!  I would be interested in both other sample sets, if possible.  As to formats in the future, it is true that audio files that could be burned to a CD (and played over my speaker system) would probably allow me to make more reliable comments about sound quality, textures, etc.  On the other hand, I still enjoyed comparing the samples even over the computer, so I'm fine with sticking to the current format if that makes it easier for you.

[amw]

Having spent a couple of hours with the C group I found that there were a number of "key moments" I judged them by, and no performance managed to hit all of them. I then listened to the exposition from the 1 recording of the symphony I own to check if it was simply bias in favour of that one recording, but no, that one doesn't nail all the criteria either. So I have no idea where this particular mental picture of Brahms 2 actually came from.

There ended up being one I definitely wanted to hear the rest of, two that were very good but not perfect, and one I just didn't like. The rest were sort of... okay. Not terrible, but not quite the authentic Brahms 2 for me. In brief:

#8 C4 - Too many unnecessary tempo changes and rubatos. Speeding through the mysterious bit at the opening, then slowing down for the main theme, then speeding up for the first loud bit, then slowing down into the second theme.... A good quasi ritenente closing theme, but somewhat ruined by the orchestra not attacking one key chord together:



For some reason this chord seemed to be problematic -- C2, C3 and C7 also didn't handle it very well.

The end of the exposition had another random rit. in the middle. The timpanist was way too enthusiastic about his/her part. Overall I have little interest in hearing the rest of this version.

#7 C3 I could listen to this one. It's ok, just... doesn't have a whole lot to recommend it either way. I like the horns, they play well here. However, that one chord is, again, not done properly. The oboes don't sound very good here (I like the clarinets though); the timpani, by contrast to C4, are too wimpy; the trombones sound very shaky. The lead-in to the main theme has not one but three rits. One would have been pushing it; three is just excessive. The second theme is rather pedestrian. Overall it's just... pretty average.

#6 C6 This recording has possibly the best sonics of any of the C group, and the orchestra sounds very nice and autumnal. The interpretation however I didn't find very satisfying—an odd luftpause in the winds when the violins first come in, overly strident oboes, another excessive rit. into the main theme, a second theme that doesn't stand out enough from its surroundings and a fairly indistinct accompaniment rhythm in the passage leading up to that one chord. The chord itself, however, comes off practically seamlessly which is—surprisingly—exactly how Brahms wrote it in the score.

#5 C1 There's actually very little wrong with C1 except that, for some reason, the sound of the orchestra is a bit off for me. Could be the sonics, but I'm not sure; the trombones, again, are wobbly. This possibly has the longest unnecessary rit. into the main theme, but it picks up as it goes—a slight but tasteful rit. into the second theme, which is mercifully rubato-free, and a high-quality quasi ritenente with decent rhythmic precision.

#4 C5 If the subdued, melancholy and mysterious character of the opening of this one continued for the remainder it would likely have been my #1. For the first minute or so this is near perfect. Things start to go downhill with the even longer rit. into the main theme, and subsequent accel. Then, for some reason, the second theme drops down to what feels like andante sostenuto. It's all very tragic and mournful, but the momentum is somewhat lost and the return to full force with the quasi ritenente is less convincing, though the syncopations come off better. There's just a fraction of a second too long of hesitation before that one chord is attacked. I'm not sure why that fraction should make a difference, but it does. Nonetheless, for those who want a Brahms 2 that kicks the melancholy up a few notches, this one's probably it.

#3 C2 This is a good interpretation—initially it struck me as somewhat characterless, but it's grown on me. I think that may be more the orchestra than the conductor however. (The first oboist sounds really good; the horns are perfect; the articulation is usually excellent. However the syncopations leading up to that one chord sound more like triplets than semiquavers. A good orchestra, but perhaps a careless one? I'm thinking some kind of top tier AAA ranked international hotshot orchestra, so great they don't feel like rehearsing standard repertoire anymore? Could be totally off base here.) I would still characterise it as rather safe and middle-of-the-road. They play it well, but I'm not sure they have a real affinity for it.

#2 C8 I would love to hear this in a better transfer with fewer pops and crackles, if such exists. I'm not taking points off for the sound quality—I listen to this stuff through £10 USB speakers hooked up to my laptop, I'm in no place to criticise—but I can imagine some people might. Still, very listenable, even if the orchestra doesn't always hit the notes dead on, and for once we have someone who doesn't rit. into the main theme. The overall sound is very good and Brahmsian. The interpretation, in the end, is a bit too syrupy and romantic for my taste, particularly in the second theme (which, like C5, slows down from the main tempo, though in this case not very much and not for long), but gets extra credit for being almost rubato-free. Rhythms in the quasi ritenente section are sufficiently crisp.

#1 C7 This one does not have the best overall sound, or hit all the key moments. It even has a rit. into the main theme, which I've been complaining about this whole time. It's not a very lively interpretation, despite being no slower than the others; the fast and loud bits sound somewhat ponderous. That one chord also does not come off well at all. Nonetheless, this one was the best "big picture" of the C group; came closest to "Brahms 2" as I conceptualise it. A very muted, foreboding opening, not rushed; a bittersweet main theme (rit. and all) and an absolutely magical second theme, thanks to the strings' slightly detached articulation. I could see the end of the first movement from these interpreters being a real heartbreaker. I'm not sure how well the quasi ritenente and its follow-ups worked, but in terms of having a feel for the whole piece I thought this one came off best, and hope it advances so I can hear more of it. Also, the timpanist rocks.

C1 - 6/10
C2 - 7/10
C3 - 6/10
C4 - 4/10
C5 - 6/10
C6 - 6/10
C7 - 8/10
C8 - 7.5/10
if you like numbers

edit: As for wmv vs. samples, I would prefer audio samples, if possible—whether mp3, aac or lossless—or a single large audio file to a video file. My computer, being a mac, only handles Windows Media files with a fair amount of protesting. If you decide to stick with the current format though I won't bitch about it.

edit 2: top & bottom scores tweaked slightly.

[madaboutmahler]

Also, the timpanist rocks.

For percussion insiders, this may be a big clue to the performance, but I won't say any more :p

Brilliant comments, thank you very much! If you would like to do another group as well, please let me know!

[londonrich]

Thanks to Dan for setting this up and for letting me take part.

NB - my first ever blind comparison, and I'm not hugely au fait with the work in question. I got the same group as amw and my notes aren't going to be nearly as authoritative as his! In fact, I'm going to take another listen before I finally settle on an order.

But for now, here are my impressions after two listens:

C1
Of all the performances, this was the one I was most disappointed by it cutting off after a few minutes - but largely because I felt it took a while to get going. The first couple of minutes sound like a rehearsal run-through, and it's not until about 3:00 or so I start to like this version. Sound isn't the best of the versions in this group, but perfectly fine to me. I'd be interested to hear more of this recording.

C2
Like ams, this one has been growing on me, to the point where I might place it at the top of this group. It's not perfect, but I like so many of the moments in it. My feelings on this one might clarify on my third listen.

C3
Well, I have my suspicions that this is the version I have on CD that I always liked (if it is, it's a classic 60s version, if it's not it's one that resembles the interpretation of the symphony I'm most used to), but in this context it started to seem a bit sluggish to me. It's a fairly no nonsense approach and I suspect I'd quite enjoy the whole work in this version, but I'm not keen on all of the orchestral playing and the balance of the orchestra is a bit off to me.

C4
I liked C4 quite a bit more than amw, but I agree that the beginning is missing a sense of mystery - and the changes in pacing are a bit overemphasised. If C7 made this sound like a Beethovenian symphony, this version is pushing it towards a later tradition, almost Mahlerian or R. Straussian, if that makes any sense. Not 'correct', maybe, but I actually found it very engaging, and I'd like to hear more. 

C5
Definitely has the best opening - slow, mysterious. But the problem is the performance doesn't really pick up as the movement progresses. Ultimately it felt a bit lethargic to me.

C6
Very nice playing from this orchestra but it lacks a little drama for me. Lush might be the word. Like a very elegant, comfy sofa. But it's the quality of the orchestral playing rather than the conductor's overview of the work that keeps me listening.

C7
Not the most dramatic of the group by any means, but a good sense of where the movement is heading, and I might place this version higher if I heard the rest of the mvmnt. Liked the 'lullaby' section quite a bit, so this might do well in my list.

C8
Sounds like MaM got his 78 player for this one. Goodness, those are some crackles. Does a better transfer exist of this performance? Because it was one of the best of the bunch. Certainly the one I was most excited by on the first run through. Sound quality might knock it down in my list, though.

[Mookalafalas]

This thread is strangely interesting to read (strange as I don't have the recordings to hear, and so have no criteria with which to make sense of the reviewers' comments).  It reminds me a little of one of Japanese televisions most popular genres--food tasting shows.  People sample foods... that's it, strangely enough.  Unlike in this thread, they don't rank or even judge the foods, but just say "wonderful!" no matter what it is.  (Japanese TV is remarkably mindless.) I would request copies of the music, but I don't have time to listen to (much less compare) so many hours of music.  Still, thanks for the entertainment! I'm looking forward to seeing how it comes out. 

[londonrich]

Actually, in this case I found it like a series of blind dates where everyone seemed nice enough, but there was no one I was terribly excited about seeing again.

So, although I have an order for group C, the gap between first and last isn't huge - C5 isn't terribly much worse than C2.

C2, C7, C1, C4, C8, C6, C3, C5

[mc ukrneal]

Actually, in this case I found it like a series of blind dates where everyone seemed nice enough, but there was no one I was terribly excited about seeing again.

Great quote! I had this happen on a couple of listens in some previous works. Context will help a lot. It's interesting to follow one's own progression with the same versions heard in each round. Versions I liked in the first round have been complete duds when heard in context. Others I thought dull came to life when heard as a whole.

[TheGSMoeller]

Is Friday the deadline? I'll get group C done by then if it is.Thanks, Daniel. 

[madaboutmahler]

Thank you very much for your interesting comments and vote, Richard!

And Greg, shall we say by the end of the weekend? Would be great to get as many more votes in as possible by then! If anyone is up for seconds, please let me know!

[Brian]

B1: I actually felt so much deja vu that I checked to see if I did group B the first time. Nope, I did group A before. But like A1, B1 is a propulsive, gorgeously played mono recording with pacing I find just about perfect all the way through. This might be one of my favorite recordings of the first nine. 9/10;

B2: Period instruments. As much as I love the woodwind sound and the powerfully oomphy brass, I can't get over the inexpressiveness of the strings here. They seem to be striving for something a little too rustic. Great balance, though. Alas. 6/10;

B3: This is a live recording and it sounds like it was ripped off the 128kbps stream at Naxos Music Library. The opening phrases I found rather terse, actually, but the lullaby tune is just incredibly beautiful. It doesn't feel like it is relaxed into: it feels like the music builds UP to it. That's unique somehow. I like the way this performance is built. Feels right. 8/10;

B4: Whoa! This one is cookin'. I like how forward the horn is. I don't like the seasick feeling at some of the big dynamic changes (partly an effect of how crazily fast this is). Sometimes I really enjoy how hypersaturated this feels, but sometimes it leaves me wishing for a chance to catch my breath a little bit. 7.2/10;

B5: I'm actually not keen on this one. Whether it's the erratic winds around the climax or the erratic way the sample is "held together" this is certainly, uh, eccentric. 5.5/10;

B6: A little too dreamlike for the first three minutes - sleepwalks to the climax and then wakes up some. Not enough. I only noticed the lullaby had started when it was ending, but I guess that's on me for playing at the office. 5.4/10;

B7: Ah, that horn bassoon balance at the start! This feels like a big grand old-fashioned Kapellmeister type reading. It's straight-laced. I guess there's a place for that, especially given how competent it is. 6.5/10;

B8: I had to play this twice because the first time I didn't notice anything special about it. And then the second time... the same thing happened. 6.5/10;

Rankings 1-8: B1, B3, B4, B7, B8, B2, B5, B6

[NorthNYMark]

Thank you very much for your interesting comments and vote, Richard!

And Greg, shall we say by the end of the weekend? Would be great to get as many more votes in as possible by then! If anyone is up for seconds, please let me know!

I've already asked a couple of times, and sent you a PM, but just in case you haven't noticed, I would really love to get the links to one or both remaining groups (B and/or C).

Thanks so much!

Mark

[TheGSMoeller]

I've already asked a couple of times, and sent you a PM, but just in case you haven't noticed, I would really love to get the links to one or both remaining groups (B and/or C).

Thanks so much!

Mark

I just forwarded you group C. 

[NorthNYMark]

I just forwarded you group C. 

Ooh, thanks!!!!!

[Brahmsian]

B1: I actually felt so much deja vu that I checked to see if I did group B the first time. Nope, I did group A before. But like A1, B1 is a propulsive, gorgeously played mono recording with pacing I find just about perfect all the way through. This might be one of my favorite recordings of the first nine. 9/10;

B2: Period instruments. As much as I love the woodwind sound and the powerfully oomphy brass, I can't get over the inexpressiveness of the strings here. They seem to be striving for something a little too rustic. Great balance, though. Alas. 6/10;

B3: This is a live recording and it sounds like it was ripped off the 128kbps stream at Naxos Music Library. The opening phrases I found rather terse, actually, but the lullaby tune is just incredibly beautiful. It doesn't feel like it is relaxed into: it feels like the music builds UP to it. That's unique somehow. I like the way this performance is built. Feels right. 8/10;

B4: Whoa! This one is cookin'. I like how forward the horn is. I don't like the seasick feeling at some of the big dynamic changes (partly an effect of how crazily fast this is). Sometimes I really enjoy how hypersaturated this feels, but sometimes it leaves me wishing for a chance to catch my breath a little bit. 7.2/10;

B5: I'm actually not keen on this one. Whether it's the erratic winds around the climax or the erratic way the sample is "held together" this is certainly, uh, eccentric. 5.5/10;

B6: A little too dreamlike for the first three minutes - sleepwalks to the climax and then wakes up some. Not enough. I only noticed the lullaby had started when it was ending, but I guess that's on me for playing at the office. 5.4/10;

B7: Ah, that horn bassoon balance at the start! This feels like a big grand old-fashioned Kapellmeister type reading. It's straight-laced. I guess there's a place for that, especially given how competent it is. 6.5/10;

B8: I had to play this twice because the first time I didn't notice anything special about it. And then the second time... the same thing happened. 6.5/10;

Rankings 1-8: B1, B3, B4, B7, B8, B2, B5, B6

Thanks for participating and your feedback for Group B, Brian!    Quite different results from me! 

[Sergeant Rock]

Ooh, thanks!!!!!

And I just sent you the link to Group B

Sarge

[TimH]

It's a pleasure to participate in this blind review and to have the chance to listen to so many performances of this warm hearted and life affirming symphony.

Many of the Group C performances seemed quite similar in overall style and approach.

Two stood out as being rather different:

C4 with its historically informed approach and little string vibrato - very interesting and great recording, but with rather strange tempo changes which are disruptive.

C8 - very old and scratchy but actually remarkably clear and bright sound and a truly strong, lucid and engaging performance. Hope this gets through to next round!

For me C3 is spot on - everything integrated and well balanced and wonderful cellos.

C1 just behind C3 and C8 - flute vibrato seems a bit intrusive.

C5 takes bottom spot - continually loses momentum and rather mushy tutti sound, generally unremarkable.

So here is my order:

1. C3
2. C8
3. C1
4. C4
5. C6
6. C2
7. C7
8. C5

[TheGSMoeller]

Thank you very much for your interesting comments and vote, Richard!

And Greg, shall we say by the end of the weekend? Would be great to get as many more votes in as possible by then! If anyone is up for seconds, please let me know!

I'll have C votes in tonight, with or without comments, I promise. Thanks, Daniel!

[Pim]

I really worked at it, but I have to admit that it's too hard for me. I could manage discerning my top two (A4, A5, in that order) from my least preferred (A1), but I found it simply too tough to explain my opinion (A4 just picks it up so meaningfully with that great sound in the bass, cello, wood & brass) about all the recordings. I tried, looking at the score (btw, I found the piascore app for ipad to be really useful (free scores allowing annotations): http://piascore.com). But although I did find, for instance, a certain sudden decrease in tempo (e.g. A3 and A5) around bars 40-43 that weren't indicated in the score, I'd be at a loss to explain why exactly I find that to be (dis)pleasing (in A3 I didn't, and in A5 I did like it)  Not to mention that I wouldn't know how to consistently evaluate such moments across all 8 samples.
I guess I'm just starting to learn about comparative listening, and I'll have to restrict myself for a while to comparing two or three recordings max at a time in order not to get lost.
I'd totally understand if you wouldn't include my 'votes', and I'm really curious to find out who the performers of A4 and A5 are.
Thanks for letting me in on this, cheers
Pim
A4-A5 ........ A1