Brahms' Third Symphony

Started by Mark, October 16, 2007, 01:32:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amw



This doesn't have quite the immediacy of Kempe's Berlin Third. In the first movement my impression is: a little more subdued, a little less intense. This works to its advantage in the development section, where he probably achieves greater mystery and depth despite driving the music forward just as hard, but for the rest of the movement what one mainly remembers are the more lyrical, pastoral passages. There's not a lot of weight to the tuttis, whether that's Kempe's fault or the orchestra's I don't know. (Probably not the recording—Walter gets plenty of weight out of the VPO in 1936, and Furtwängler 1949 has some of the greatest orchestral power despite being recorded on a potato.) The second movement is excellent, having traded out the more Romantic tension and disturbance of the BPO version for a more Classicised tension—e.g. emphasising the way the mysterious two-note figures that recur throughout the movement create harmonic conflicts and then resolve into the next ones. So we await our resolution and Brahms, inevitably, supplies it, and it's very satisfying.

The warmth of this performance makes it somewhat "autumnal" I suppose—in this piece you can't really get away from the colder seasons. The third movement follows the interpretive line set up in the BPO version (bright, open, lots of contrast) but manages to be even better. The finale (already the weakest part of the BPO version) has also been subject to Kempe's de-dramatisation, and works well but is not as engaging—although I am pleased to report that the second theme is taken at the main tempo this time. The music relaxes even more into the ending, but this time the chorale is foregrounded (actually I wonder if being backgrounded in the BPO recording was simply a mistake, albeit an inspired one), which makes the ending less visionary, if no less moving.

I don't like it as much as I like the BPO recording, but then he set himself a pretty high bar with that one. In approach he's moved towards one that is less tense overall and perhaps more "classical", and the orchestral colours are less sharply defined. As far as my personal taste goes this one is probably within a few places of Wand in either direction (most likely above). I may have time to listen to another Brahms 3 today, but if I don't, I'm posting this now.

amw



Karajan/BPO/1964 comes from a Brahms cycle at one point regarded as definitive. Karajan, these days, has fallen somewhat out of favour, and other approaches (in particular ones that are closer to what the composer actually wrote) are usually preferred. That said, on here I have heard people advocate for every Karajan Brahms 3rd (there are at least five) except the 1977 Berlin one, so we'll see how this goes. In the first movement he contrives to produce the effect of a broad and spacious tempo while in fact driving the music forward at a reasonably fast clip. The mellowness of the articulation has something to do with it, possibly. This is a "plush" recording and a somewhat Romantic one, not quite in the grand manner of a few others but without particularly sharp definition in the rhythms or accents; it seems as though Karajan moderates anything slightly extreme in Brahms, both peaks and valleys, though some passages that evince great nobility (such as the horn calls in the development section) come off exceptionally well.

The second movement is speedy (7:43) and has some of the frozen quality captured so well by Harding, though the central climax resorts to a more cliché "heart that beats beneath the ice" interpretation. If I had to judge I would say its superficial quality comes not from the tempo but from a metronomic adherence to it for the first six minutes or so (the remainder of the movement is better, somewhat). The third movement has not much in the way of tension or, indeed, much emotional charge at all. It's beautifully played, but especially on the part of the string players (winds are much better) a certain musicality—some kind of sense of what the notes mean in relation to one another, where they are going—is more or less absent. I can't believe it would be under-rehearsal, not from Herbie, so am not sure what it is (orchestral rebellion? him simply not having a good handle on the piece at this point?) The fourth movement is a fine middle-of-the-road account, moderate in tempo, drama and energy. It pulls its punches—it's hard to determine why, again I think articulation and rhythmic crispness have something to do with it (HvK got better rhythms out of the VPO, iirc), and held-back dynamics to an extent. The coda on the other hand is archetypical; redemptive as many accounts are, except almost all of those accounts postdate Karajan. And he does make it quite convincing.

Overall this is pretty much an "average" recording. Nothing wrong with it, not much that's special about it.



Wow this is fast. The timings are misleading; Manze likes to pull the tempo around, though it's usually not too intrusive. (The exposition repeat is the most glaring exception.) I like the sharp and clearly differentiated types of articulation throughout the first movement, and the starker, less fluffy textures. Though I have to say, this isn't quite as "classical" as the likes of Mackerras; not only the tempo fluctuations but also the focus on surface drama and on bringing out every polyphonic line, both of which are pretty anti-Classical. At the same time the structure is very clearly delineated, showing the influence of Szell—I can see why this is a "hybrid" performance, combining the Mackerras sound with the Jochum "hard driven" Romanticism with the Szell classicising impulse. Which is an almost impossible bar to clear, but to my ears Manze is very successful, if not quite living up to his ambitions; partly it's the orchestra, whose playing is serviceable but no Scottish Chamber Orchestra/Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique, and partly it's simply that he's not as good a conductor as either of those three people. lmao. Still, there is a lot to like in this first movement, which eventually justifies almost all of its interpretive decisions.

The andante is very slow at 10:18 and has a reverential and mysterious air, almost neo-Bachian at times. Its climaxes are underplayed to the degree that they don't sound like outpourings of emotion as in, e.g. Karajan, more like a kettle gradually boiling over and then subsiding (presumably one of those automatic ones that turns off by itself). I don't think the reverential low-tension approach works at this tempo, but I think I've said something similar about every slow Andante approach except Reiner's, so possibly the tempo itself simply doesn't work for me except in rare cases. The third movement is perhaps the fastest I've looked at so far (5:29) and very objective in some respects—admirable is the clarity of the soft playing, not so admirable is the return of Kenny G in the reprise. I can't say it's anything special apart from that. The finale is much better from the start, a powerful & generally appealing reading—somewhat Walteresque but without the slowdowns in the second theme. At the same time, I'm mentally comparing it to Mackerras, and it suffers by the comparison, as the SCO is capable of more power and more mystery and Mackerras isn't trying to be three different conductors at once. I wonder if Manze wanted to create a "reference" recording that would become a first-line recommendation, and therefore tried to cram in as much of the 20th century Brahms tradition as he could in order to do all of the successful things and avoid all of the unsuccessful things done by other conductors (in his opinion)... I don't have the notes, but reviewers talk about how he has a lot of original ideas that he tried to get into the music. Maybe it's just me that hears in those original ideas a synthesis of a lot of other people's original ideas.

Hmm, this went off on a tangent and meanwhile the recording ended. That said I think it was a pretty good ending that maintained the flow of the movement. One can't accuse Manze of incompetence. Still, I'd go for Mackerras over this one.



Slower than it sounds—Giulini's interpretation, as I suspected, is vaguely similar to Kubelik (and presumably Haitink whom I'll listen to at some point in the twenty-first century), if slightly more mannered. Still, apart from all those stretched-out notes, this is a remarkably natural and open performance, a bit summery for its speed. For a big band, grand manner performance Giulini's surprisingly graceful, bringing out the dancelike qualities in the more dramatic moments of the first movement (the start of the development section sounds like a very angry waltz) and playing the lyrical bits with delicacy and affection (and sometimes affectation). As usual, a nice thing with slow tempos is the retransition to the recap, which has a powerfully coiled quality here, like something just waiting to explode. The recap is suitably explosion-like in response (perhaps one of the most dramatic ones), though this doesn't last long and doesn't seem to have any repercussions, Giulini returning to form afterwards.

The slow movement continues with a basically natural feeling, excellent phrasing and the same eccentricities, which become less noticeable as the recording goes on. It's unambiguously happy and positive and indeed doesn't seem to be aiming for anything beyond that. There is a sense, throughout, that Giulini simply isn't taking the drama very seriously, but we'll see what eventuates when the symphony spins over to its dark side. This starts with the third movement, unusually slow (7:00—only Levine/Vienna, and Bernstein/Vienna which I don't plan to listen to, are slower that I know of). Unlike in Levine's case the slowness works here. Giulini had a good sense of the long line and achieves an understated melancholy with only glimpses of brightness, though the rubato and tempo shifts once again become distracting. In any case, this is one of the most inward and Romantic versions and would be my answer to the question posed in the OP a decade ago. The finale is dramatic and tense (and only on the slowish side of average). It lacks, perhaps, the heroic quality of the best "romantic" versions, but Giulini also abandons his rubato and brings cumulative orchestral power to bear, so it comes off better than the other movements—good horns in the second theme, too. Nonetheless, there's a certain cumulative lack of energy—no individual section sounds under-energised, but the overall impression by the time the coda arrives is a movement that's been on the brink of exhaustion for some time, making its collapse inevitable. The end is softer than usual and envelopes the listener like a warm fuzzy blanket, another effect similar to the Kubelik recording. It's good, though I must say I do prefer the end of the symphony to have a sort of icy clarity instead.

I got more emotional effect out of Kubelik, who's a bit darker-hued, but I can't say this is any worse—just different.

Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these? Like I'm not planning to stop at the moment, just sorta wonder whether I'm making people more or less interested in Brahms's 3rd :P



I've also spent some time (well, like half an hour) agonising over the ordering of the top five. There really shouldn't be an order at all—I like all of them and simply respond to them all differently. But there is a definite separation between the top five and the next tier down, which is the Really Good Tier as opposed to the Amazing Tier. So this order is semi-arbitrary.

01. Walter/Vienna
02. Kempe/BPO
03. Kertész
04. Walter/Columbia
05. Jochum/LPO
--------
06. Abbado
07. Reiner
08. Walter/NYPO
09. Mackerras
10. Cantelli
11. Levine/Vienna
12. Kempe/Munich
13. Wand/NDR (RCA)
14. Kubelik
15. Giulini
16. Manze
--------
17. Thielemann
18. Karajan/BPO/1964 (DG)
19. van Zweden
20. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
21. Scherchen
22. Jochum/BPO
23. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
24. Szell
25. Harding
26. Sanderling/Dresden

Dancing Divertimentian

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these?

I do. That Giulini you just posted is perhaps my favorite third. "Natural" is an apt description for his approach to the piece although I feel his tempos do move along enough so as to not feel unduly sluggish. I love his clarity, too - those "Brahmsian" felicities are played up nicely.

Your list is interesting. Nice to see Jochum/LPO making the grade - I have it, too.

Another fave of mine that might be worth an audition some day is Jansons/Oslo on Simax. Jansons isn't the Giulini type. Whereas Giulini plays up the detail and warmth Jansons takes a "macro-view" of the work, with big phrases and dark (very dark), husky tones. One thing he has in common with Giulini is his penchant for broadness - his overall timing is similar. But the lusciousness is striking.

All this backed by sensational sonics!
Veit Bach-a baker who found his greatest pleasure in a little cittern which he took with him even into the mill and played while the grinding was going on. In this way he had a chance to have the rhythm drilled into him. And this was the beginning of a musical inclination in his descendants. JS Bach

mc ukrneal

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these? Like I'm not planning to stop at the moment, just sorta wonder whether I'm making people more or less interested in Brahms's 3rd :P

Yes, very interesting. Please keep them coming as long as you are listening...
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Brian

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these? Like I'm not planning to stop at the moment, just sorta wonder whether I'm making people more or less interested in Brahms's 3rd :P
I am! Initially it made me go running for some favorite recordings - particularly Kertesz - but then I achieved Brahms Burnout and needed to take a good long break from the symphony. Still in that break period, although the idea of listening to it again is starting to get more appealing.

How you're avoiding Brahms Burnout is ... something maybe you can teach us  :P

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: Brian on February 22, 2016, 06:28:09 AM
I am! Initially it made me go running for some favorite recordings - particularly Kertesz - but then I achieved Brahms Burnout and needed to take a good long break from the symphony. Still in that break period, although the idea of listening to it again is starting to get more appealing.

How you're avoiding Brahms Burnout is ... something maybe you can teach us  :P

I just bought Walter/Columbia based on your essay, and maybe I'll get the Kertesz. And do you know the Steinberg? He did the symphonies for Command Classics long ago, and though I don't recall his 3rd, I thought his 2nd terrific. But then, 2 and 4 are my favorites from the symphonies, much more than 1 and 3.
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."

Jo498

Yes. I get burned out just by reading, even without listening... ;) but I plan to listen so some of mine with your remarks in mind.
I am not fond of the supposedly quintessentially "Brahmsian" 3rd movement, but quite fond of the outer ones and I liked to play the clarinet parts of the second theme of the first an the beginning of the andante for myself when I still played it. I love the energy of the first movement and also how Brahms completely inverts the character of the two themes in the development. This is for me one of the most obvious examples for the poetry of musical development/forms.
Tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre.
- Blaise Pascal

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM...the third movement, unusually slow (7:00—only Levine/Vienna, and Bernstein/Vienna which I don't plan to listen to, are slower that I know of).

Eschenbach/Houston is the slowest I've heard: 7:44.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Marc

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM
[...] Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these? Like I'm not planning to stop at the moment, just sorta wonder whether I'm making people more or less interested in Brahms's 3rd :P

I'm still reading.
No 3 is probably my favourite symphony of Brahms, and it's always interesting to read something coherent about its recordings.
So: thanks for all your efforts!

(And curious if you're going to include Haitink.)

premont

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM

Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these? Like I'm not planning to stop at the moment, just sorta wonder whether I'm making people more or less interested in Brahms's 3rd :P

I do, even if I had to take a rest midway through.

PS: Do not forget Adrian Boult's recordings. He made two.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

premont

Quote from: Marc on February 22, 2016, 11:39:33 AM
I'm still reading.
No 3 is probably my favourite symphony of Brahms, and it's always interesting to read something coherent about its recordings.
So: thanks for all your efforts!

(And curious if you're going to include Haitink.)

Nice to see you here again Marc. :)
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Marc

Quote from: (: premont :) on February 22, 2016, 12:16:28 PM
Nice to see you here again Marc. :)

Working, listening to music and ... sometimes (still) lurking here.

:)

Topic suggestion: Van Beinum & Concertgebouw (mono).
If accessible.

amw

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on February 21, 2016, 05:55:53 PM
Your list is interesting. Nice to see Jochum/LPO making the grade - I have it, too.
That is quite possibly imprinting. I knew the performance since childhood before hearing another one (in fact listened to the set so often the first CD became unplayable). The set doesn't get looked at often (the BPO one is better known) so it's hard to find more neutral views.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on February 21, 2016, 05:55:53 PM
Another fave of mine that might be worth an audition some day is Jansons/Oslo on Simax.
Quote from: (: premont :) on February 22, 2016, 12:15:21 PM
PS: Do not forget Adrian Boult's recordings. He made two.
Ok!

Quote from: Jo498 on February 22, 2016, 07:05:40 AM
Yes. I get burned out just by reading, even without listening... ;)
Quote from: Brian on February 22, 2016, 06:28:09 AM
How you're avoiding Brahms Burnout is ... something maybe you can teach us  :P
I've been very close to it a few times (not sure how much longer this can go on for—obviously I will post further reviews even if they occur many months later). Usually the discovery of a recording that does something I would never have imagined serves to re-ignite interest. Also, while I have pretty much the entire piece memorised (and have for some years) I can also follow with the score with an eye for details. I'm not sure otherwise—I do a lot of comparative listening as a matter of course (it's a useful skill to have as a composer) and of course this is one of my favourite pieces, which it isn't for most people.

Quote from: Marc on February 22, 2016, 07:06:07 PM
Topic suggestion: Van Beinum & Concertgebouw (mono).
If accessible.
Supplied by a kind reader! It's high on the list.

Drasko

Quote from: amw on February 21, 2016, 05:05:21 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone still read these?

Yes, definitely, with pleasure. Brahms' 3rd is one of my favorite symphonies, and it's always interesting to read someone elses well considered thoughts on it, and on various recordings. Of which I'd put forward, as worth hearing: Serge Koussevitzky/Boston Symphony (Pearl), Clemens Krauss/VPO (Preiser) and Georges Pretre/ Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester (Weitblick). 


amw

#174
Bear in mind I am sick today and maybe not 100% lucid



Welcome to Brahms's Third, Part 769342: Day of the Dutchies! In the left corner, weighing in at approximately 32,967 pounds, we have Eduard van Beinum and the Concertgebouworkest or however the fuck that's spelled. We set out with a somewhat leisurely Allegro con brio that favours a very long line. Though he omits the repeat, van Beinum is a classicist, and of the old-fashioned sort who lets the two themes set up contrast through tonal levels rather than imparting them with any emotional character. Also presumably the old-fashioned sort who thinks of sonata form as three-part rather than two-part, with two expositions (both starting with a more agitated theme and moving to a calmer one that represents a raising of the pitch level) and a final recap+coda as an essential unit that resolves matters by presenting both of the main themes in both of their emotional guises at a stable pitch level. If that made no sense, whatever. It's a good performance. I want to say low on tension, and for some reason "Mozartian" is coming to mind, except Mozart is usually more dramatic, so I don't know why it is.

The second movement is very calm and nice and flowing—more Romantic. Only I think this is a valid way of playing Brahms pace Que, as the "Romantic Classicist". (Or was that Mendelssohn? But it's also Brahms according to dudes like Furtwängler who like to go on about how Brahms was Born In The Wrong Century and is actually trans-era'd, beethoven/beethovenself pronouns please. I don't agree that it's reflected in the music, but maybe Brahms did feel that way sometimes.) The articulation, tempo and flow of the music may be Romantic, but the Classical stiff upper lip predominates emotionally, apart from a certain amount of restrained wit as one exposes all the little games Brahms plays with motives and themes and so on. Closest comparison so far: Cantelli? But less colour and a freer pulse. Everything is quite inevitable, but there is not enough uncertainty so that (unlike the best performances) its inevitability is only obvious after the fact. Third movement could be an unusually doleful minuet, though turning more waltzlike in the middle section. I'm not sure why it's so dancelike, the basses are light as feathers and the pulse is unsteady, but you can definitely see a young couple dancing quietly across a concrete pad that used to be the Grand Ballroom, back before the Sixty-Minute War. Dancy approaches are always successful and in this case seems to play into his basic idea.

Finale starts slow. And stays slow, or at least feels slow (the pulse is pretty steady). A magnificently noble second theme does not make up for a certain lack of drama at the beginning, but surprisingly the slow tempo doesn't detract from a sense of energy. The metronomic pulse, though... b-o-ring. The sheer power of the climax will wake a listener up, probably, but the second theme is a bit worn down the second time around and afterwards the music feels like it's flagging and gradually collapses. This does work though, in retrospect. To make up for his slowness in the Allegro, Beinum follows up with the fastest Poco sostenuto coda apart from one or another of the Walters (a bit over 2 minutes from the viola solo). In fact he doesn't slow down at all, and the final chorale is dynamically very restrained. I'm not sure what he was going for but to me it sounds routine. Overall, good though. Does anyone like the Beinum/LPO Third on Dutton instead of this one? Or is it not as good?



And in the other corner we have Bernard Haitink and the Boston Symfoniorkester, weighing in at only 28,579 pounds because of that time when too many reviewers made fun of Seiji Ozawa's height and he responded by only hiring orchestra members who were shorter than him. Anyone else ready to Feel the Bern? Let's do this! We've got another slow Allegro con brio, this time with more sharply sprung rhythms in the first theme and a bit more hesitation in the second. One nice thing about this recording (though I think I've said this about 7210349218 of them so far) is that you can hear pretty much every single instrumental line. Well done Philips. (are they the same guys who made screwdrivers?) I don't like the slowness of the second theme actually, 'Tink's got his sort of Romantic Grand Symphonic thing going on. At the same time I get a sense of intense concern for structure—he doesn't do lines as long as Beinum's, but everything's being calculated so that at certain points we can look back and go "Oh THAT's what that was for 25 minutes ago". Haitink is the Romantic Szell. We have a very low-energy development section where my mind wandered a bit, a somewhat better recapitulation where the angry energetic bits are played with slightly too much tenderness. The coda is passionate but absolutely not ferocious and very dignified, which is actually interesting.

The other thing I noticed is that Haitink is a lot more metronomic than van Beinum, himself far from the very model of a modern taffy-puller. We'll see how that goes. The second movement is taken at a more normal tempo, very Szene am Bach. Comfortable, safe, somewhat Wagnerian in the climaxes ('twas the era; Abbado's recording was a year or two earlier and Giulini's just before the nineties), and generally perfectly well done, but doesn't quite have van Beinum's inevitability let alone an actual sense of duality. So, not one of the great Andantes. The third movement is also nice, wallowy and pleasant like watching a cold, miserable snowstorm through the window in your centrally heated house and reminiscing about how heartbroken you were when a girl you liked but had never talked to moved to a different country 20 years ago and you Never Saw Her Again. Wasn't that awful? There is a place for that in Brahms, but 'Tink doesn't commit to it and it just sounds like... well... one of those dudes who mope over girls they never talked to for twenty years. Seriously, grow up. The finale is more than a bit low-energy. I'm not going to say it sounds like a read-through, there's heaps of orchestral precision, but not a lot more. Things pick up in the development section, which actually does start to sound like a mounting tragedy, and the recap is even better, storming to a halt before collapsing in tears. (One can set the words "There, there." to the wind chorale.) So in retrospect the last movement is a cumulative account and the performance as a whole, I guess, hangs together well and does pretty much what it promises it'll do in the first 30 seconds. (And the metronomic tempi which continue through the last movement even stop bothering me after a while.)

If you like your Brahms warm, unproblematic and low-drama, then, the Netherlands may be for you. Van Beinum more strongly rec'd but if you like Sanderling, Giulini or Thielemann you'll probs also find this Haitink enjoyable. Also if you like Szell, but wish he was slower and in better sound. I haven't heard the other two and not sure I plan to.

01. Walter/Vienna
02. Kempe/BPO
03. Kertész
04. Walter/Columbia
05. Jochum/LPO
--------
06. Abbado
07. Reiner
08. Walter/NYPO
09. Mackerras
10. Cantelli
11. Levine/Vienna
12. Kempe/Munich
13. van Beinum/Concertgebouw
14. Wand/NDR (RCA)
15. Kubelik
16. Giulini
17. Manze
--------
18. Thielemann
19. Karajan/BPO/1964 (DG)
20. van Zweden
21. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
22. Scherchen
23. Haitink/Boston
24. Jochum/BPO
25. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
26. Szell
27. Harding
28. Sanderling/Dresden

amw

No real listening lately due to lack of time & computer problems, though I did hear Furtwängler '54 which is slow and surprisingly good, except again for the finale. (I currently have the Mackerras, Kempe BPO and Walter NYP cycles on my phone and may relisten to them.)

Instead, something else. A reliable source has suggested that parts of the symphony may have originated as incidental music (or something like that) for Goethe's Faust. This included speculation that the "motto theme" is in fact simply a representation of Faust's name (F-A(u)s) rather than Brahms's alleged motto "Frei aber fröhlich" (sp?), that this concept was explicit for the middle two movements and even after its abandonment Brahms continued to hint at sublimated Faustian themes (first movement = return to youth? coda of finale = mystical chorus? etc. mostly speculation in the source I read tho). I wonder what people think of this idea, or whether anyone knows more about it.

Marc

Quote from: amw on February 29, 2016, 08:18:44 PM
No real listening lately due to lack of time & computer problems, though I did hear Furtwängler '54 which is slow and surprisingly good, except again for the finale. (I currently have the Mackerras, Kempe BPO and Walter NYP cycles on my phone and may relisten to them.)

Instead, something else. A reliable source has suggested that parts of the symphony may have originated as incidental music (or something like that) for Goethe's Faust. This included speculation that the "motto theme" is in fact simply a representation of Faust's name (F-A(u)s) rather than Brahms's alleged motto "Frei aber fröhlich" (sp?), that this concept was explicit for the middle two movements and even after its abandonment Brahms continued to hint at sublimated Faustian themes (first movement = return to youth? coda of finale = mystical chorus? etc. mostly speculation in the source I read tho). I wonder what people think of this idea, or whether anyone knows more about it.

My 'first Brahms piece' (when I was around 20 years of age) that I listened to was the Tragic Overture, which was probably also meant for Faust. I thought it was great.
When I first heard the 3rd, I thought that especially the 1st and 4th movement breathed kind of a similar atmosphere, but I must admit I never related that to the 'motto theme'.

amw



A shorter review today. Klemperer's recording lacks much in the way of incisiveness, and initially there wasn't much to draw me. Quite honestly, my impression is of averageness, and performances that are only average are things I have progressively less patience for—maybe at the beginning of the comparison I'd have rated it higher. Everything in the first movement is played properly, the long lines are sufficiently long, the rhythmic complexities are noticed (though not dwelled upon), and the primary mode is lyric, perhaps somewhat in the manner of Giulini. The most striking passage is the entry of the main theme in the horn in the development section, where the music suddenly gains in breadth and emotion, but many other conductors also bring that out. I like the slow movement more, which is very dark-hued and bittersweet, one of the least pastoral and comforting readings. The third movement belongs to the tradition of emotional restraint, avoiding any hint of coyness in the middle section (thanks to the quasi-louré wind articulation), which reinforces a sense of emotional darkness and even tragedy under the surface of the music. The last movement is hieratic in its solemnity, with an unusually (for the interpretation) strong and emotional second theme; essentially sounding like a further refinement of the Tragic Overture. Like the Tragic Overture it's essentially static, with even the slow and redemptive ending feeling like something built into the scene rather than a character development or a deus ex machina. It is a very impressive ending though.

I think the last movement ties the interpretation together, but still don't get the first movement. It just sounds bland, almost as much so as Karajan. Any fans of this recording want to comment? I know you're out there, you've been recing it in this thread after all



Hmm, this is fast, and the balance seems off? And the brass are kinda ugly? I tried both the 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 FLAC streams... Anyways. Not the worst sounding recording in here. Jeggers likes these sharp pointy staccatos a bit too much, though at least they aren't in the second theme. The tempi in this recording are actually very close to those in Walter/VPO which suggests a possible model, though Jegs, bless his heart, is no Bruno Walter. The ends of phrases sound rushed, the tempi are metronomic and yet any attempts at tempo fluidity sound forced. Anyway that's enough complaining from me. First movement overall is ok (very Classical but, like Mackerras, with the benefit of a lifetime of actually conducting Classical music), flows well despite the strictness of its tempi, main attraction being the rhythm, which is in sharp relief. Structure is clearly defined from the phrase level upwards, but it never sounds analytical. Second movement seems kinda superficial at first, but the occasional really quiet/underplayed* passages reveal more below the surface, and I wish there were more of them. Like someone else (Beinum?) overall effect is inevitable but with no real sense of duality. Third movement is actually way more extraverted than Klemps, which seems a strange choice for a Classical interpretation. It's also much happier and more ordinary, with the middle section taken much faster for no reason supported by the score (perhaps an attempt to make the interpretation more interesting). Fourth movement is notable for being as fast as Walter/NYPO, a recording that is exciting but barely holds together. Gardiner predictably holds it together better and levers the excitement up, but like Walter takes the second theme more slowly than the main tempo. I do think this tempo is a perfectly valid choice for the movement, and gives it a nervous jerkiness somewhat reminiscent of e.g. Beethoven. The frantic energy substitutes for more traditional drama in the creation of atmosphere. The coda is a not wholly convincing return to a pastoral mode with redemptive undertones—if you are using a very fast tempo, I think something different needs to be done here. (That said, somewhere down the line I stopped noticing the ugliness of the brass and came to quite like them, especially the horns, who I think are using natural instruments for some reason? the valve horn certainly existed in Brahms's day, so I'm not sure why. or maybe they're just stopping a lot of notes)

* Actually, playing something super quietly is a form of overplaying in itself. Underplaying would be doing everything mezza voce.

I like the outer movements of the Gardiner but it's not great conducting, and the inner movements cause the mind to wander, in my case. Perhaps I'll come to like it better in time. Klemps may improve if I ever come to enjoy the first movement.

01. Walter/Vienna
02. Kempe/BPO
03. Kertész
04. Walter/Columbia
05. Jochum/LPO
--------
06. Abbado
07. Reiner
08. Walter/NYPO
09. Mackerras
10. Cantelli
11. Levine/Vienna
12. Kempe/Munich
13. van Beinum/Concertgebouw
14. Wand/NDR (RCA)
15. Kubelik
16. Giulini
17. Klemperer/Philharmonia
18. Manze
--------
19. Gardiner
20. Thielemann
21. Karajan/BPO/1964 (DG)
22. van Zweden
23. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
24. Scherchen
25. Haitink/Boston
26. Jochum/BPO
27. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
28. Szell
29. Harding
30. Sanderling/Dresden

Jay F

Quote from: amw on January 29, 2016, 01:57:05 AM


God, what an ugly dude. And such a bad, washed out photo. Warner was wise to reissue it with a deer or something on the cover, but this is the issue I'm listening to, so you must share my pain.

That's what classical music needs more of, reviews à la John Simon.

::)

amw



I didn't know this existed. And wow. This is much more enjoyable for me than his other one. I think the interpretation has the same structural-romantic approach as the Cleveland recording; it seems the only major difference is that this performance is more exciting and dramatic, and tends slightly more to dynamic extremes. This works very well with the sense of architecture and strategic delay of expectations, enough so that I now want to re-evaluate the Cleveland performance to make sure I wasn't too harsh on it. First movement is actually fairly close to Kempe (BPO) in many respects, though in less clear sound and somewhat more driven. In the Andante, which is taken quite fast (7:40) the phrasing is exemplary, though the music is at times almost too unsettled, and perhaps a bit superficial in its excitement. I'm reminded again of Beethoven, and suspect is part of a classicising tendency on Szell's part, but the very clear overall shape avoids the "sectionalisation" preferred by some Classical-type interpreters and makes the movement feel like a single, inevitable thought.

Third movement is buoyant and rhythmic, another waltz; doesn't overdo the melancholy autumnal stuff either, but hints at it enough to create the necessary bittersweetness. Fourth movement is more successful at the continuous approach (and C'gebouw horns are awesome in the second theme), being sober and tragic but without the usual loss of energy. Maybe the crystallised rage of Klemperer is a comparison, though I find Szell's direction more lucid and the solemnity to improve in this case with the faster tempo. As with most of the best interpreters, the power comes from articulation and controlled dynamic spikes rather than an aural blitzkrieg. As in the Cleveland recording the coda is resigned, and even gently ironic; certainly more bitter than sweet.

So yeah! I am the only person alive who thinks so, but this is almost certainly better than the Cleveland performance. Though I will re-evaluate it with this one in mind to be sure. A positional improvement may not be out of the question.

01. Walter/Vienna
02. Kempe/BPO
03. Kertész
04. Walter/Columbia
05. Jochum/LPO
--------
06. Abbado
07. Reiner
08. Szell/Concertgebouw [tie]
08. Walter/NYPO [tie]
10. Mackerras
11. Cantelli
12. Levine/Vienna
13. Kempe/Munich
14. van Beinum/Concertgebouw
15. Wand/NDR (RCA)
16. Kubelik
17. Giulini
18. Klemperer/Philharmonia
19. Manze
--------
20. Gardiner
21. Thielemann
22. Karajan/BPO/1964 (DG)
23. van Zweden
24. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
25. Scherchen
26. Haitink/Boston
27. Jochum/BPO
28. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
29. Szell/Cleveland................for now
30. Harding
31. Sanderling/Dresden