Complete Symphony Boxsets

[Bunny]

Very good, the finely remastered 60th recordings, you need no other!

Maybe you don't, but I always need more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more...


Here's another great one from the past which doesn't seem to be getting any attention.  It includes the piano concertos by Leon Fleisher which are my favorites.

[Brian]

I don't feel that [Dvorak] 1-3 are really necessary.

Well, 1 can be a bit of a drag (some good moments though), but No. 2 is a bucolic delight in my book! I love Suitner's account - in a classical symphony box for just $20. Gunzenhauser does well by the work too, though his box set is less recommendable.

[Bunny]

More from my collection:

     

Note: The Brilliant Classics box set of Mahler includes the Horenstein 3rd, and this one has no bronzing problems.

[Cato]

Well, 1 can be a bit of a drag (some good moments though), but No. 2 is a bucolic delight in my book! I love Suitner's account - in a classical symphony box for just $20. Gunzenhauser does well by the work too, though his box set is less recommendable.

The whole point of a box set is the obsessive-compulsive need for wholeness, like angelic understanding!   0:)

So of course you want the first 3 symphonies of Dvorak!!!  The only problem is: which one?

London's set with Istvan Kertesz is the all-around fave: although Kubelik's set is good, there is a reason why Kertesz had little to no competition in the these early symphonies.

Interesting that Järvi's cycle is seen as a failure: he often does quite well in out of the ordinary repertoire.

For the truly obsessive collector the solution is obvious: buy all of them, and then compare performances!

While your wife consults with her divorce lawyer!  

[Lilas Pastia]

Re, Dvorak's symphonies 1-3:

Why ever would you say that?

Well, that 's a good question. I think there's a difference between desirable and necessary. Any committed and longtime music lover will want them of course. A boxed set is a good way to acquire them, 'cause those sets are generally so affordable. But if collecting the really necessary works is what's important, then 1-4 are expendable. I can understand dupli-triplication of the others, but I wouldn't run after another version of 1-4. So, desirable yes, necessary, no. Although I'm an avid Bruckner collector, I could understand someone holding the same opinion about his symphonies 0-2. Or Shostakovich's 1-3 and 12. Those are best acquired through an entire set.

That being said, I'm not a fan of boxed sets. They can be almost indispensable only in certain cases: Haydn symphonies come to mind. It's not true  that a single conductor will be equally good at all the works of a large corpus. That's why I'd never place a firm recommendaton for a set of Beethoven, Bruckner, Dvorak, Schubert or Vaughan-Williams. There are clunkers in just about any set recommended. Including the Karajan Beethoven, Kubelik Dvorak, Jochum Bruckner (both) or Karajan Bruckner. Actually, the latter is mostly made up of clunkers !

[SonicMan46]

Beethoven Symphonies - HIP Box Sets - OK, own 2 complete cycles of these symphonies w/ modern approaches, but would like to acquire a HIP set - Hogwood & Norrington seem to be the obvious choices (acutally, I had a number of their CDs previously and 'dumped' them - just not completely pleased, not sure 'why'? May have been interpretations, 'early' CD recording techniques, 'thinness' of the sound, etc.).  BUT - what are the opinions of these HIP sets and any other recommendations?  Thanks - 

[quintett op.57]

I don't feel that [Dvorak] 1-3 are really necessary.

Not enough listening.

[Bunny]

Beethoven Symphonies - HIP Box Sets - OK, own 2 complete cycles of these symphonies w/ modern approaches, but would like to acquire a HIP set - Hogwood & Norrington seem to be the obvious choices (acutally, I had a number of their CDs previously and 'dumped' them - just not completely pleased, not sure 'why'? May have been interpretations, 'early' CD recording techniques, 'thinness' of the sound, etc.).  BUT - what are the opinions of these HIP sets and any other recommendations?  Thanks - 

The Hogwood is well worth the price of admission, but Norrington's later cycle on modern instruments is much better than the first (HIP) set.  If you have patience, Immerseel is working on a cycle with the Anima Eterna Orchestra to be released in 2008.  The other HIP Beethoven cycle that I know of is the Brüggen on Philips, but it's not that readily available and the prices are very high. 

[longears]

Beethoven Symphonies - HIP Box Sets - OK, own 2 complete cycles of these symphonies w/ modern approaches, but would like to acquire a HIP set - Hogwood & Norrington seem to be the obvious choices (acutally, I had a number of their CDs previously and 'dumped' them - just not completely pleased, not sure 'why'? May have been interpretations, 'early' CD recording techniques, 'thinness' of the sound, etc.).  BUT - what are the opinions of these HIP sets and any other recommendations?  Thanks - 

Snorrington puts me to sleep.  Haven't heard Hogswood in this repertoire--mostly because I have heard him in other.  I do like Brüggen, however--spicy, crunchy, conducted with a pulse instead of a metronome.

[Daverz]

Although I'm an avid Bruckner collector, I could understand someone holding the same opinion about his symphonies 0-2.

I actually think much more highly of Bruckner's 0-2 (0 was actually finished after 1) than of Dvorak's first three.  I don't think they are mere lagniappes in a Bruckner symphony box, but fully formed Bruckner symphonies, whereas the Dvorak works seem sort of half-baked at best to me.

Or Shostakovich's 1-3 and 12. Those are best acquired through an entire set.

I think you meant 2, 3 and 12.  1 is certainly one of Shostakovich's best symphonies.  I'd actually start there.

[Sergeant Rock]

London's set with Istvan Kertesz is the all-around fave: although Kubelik's set is good, there is a reason why Kertesz had little to no competition in the these early symphonies.

He has competition. Both Suitner and Rowicki are superb in the early symphonies, much better, in my opinion, than Kertesz. One has the sense that Rowicki especially takes these early works very seriously.

Going beyond the early symphonies, I honestly don't understand why Kertesz is continually cited as the best, not with recordings from Neumann, Szell, Dohnányi, Suitner, Davis, Kubelik, Rowicki available. All are better Dvorak conductors and have finer sound quality too (Kertesz's cycle is harsh compared to the competition). If the OP wants a Dvorak box, he would be better served by Kubelik, Suitner or Rowicki.

Sarge

[Cato]

He has competition. Both Suitner and Rowicki are superb in the early symphonies, much better, in my opinion, than Kertesz. One has the sense that Rowicki especially takes these early works very seriously.

Going beyond the early symphonies, I honestly don't understand why Kertesz is continually cited as the best, not with recordings from Neumann, Szell, Dohnányi, Suitner, Davis, Kubelik, Rowicki available. All are better Dvorak conductors and have finer sound quality too (Kertesz's cycle is harsh compared to the competition). If the OP wants a Dvorak box, he would be better served by Kubelik, Suitner or Rowicki.

Sarge

I will admit to a bias for the Kertesz because his were the first I came into contact with: similar perhaps to duck imprinting!  Certainly many reviewers agree here, but I have never heard Suitner or Rowicki in the symphonies, so as always, Sarge's opinion is not to be ignored here.

Daverz wrote:

I actually think much more highly of Bruckner's 0-2 (0 was actually finished after 1) than of Dvorak's first three.  I don't think they are mere lagniappes in a Bruckner symphony box, but fully formed Bruckner symphonies, whereas the Dvorak works seem sort of half-baked at best to me.

Amen!!!   0:)   Although Symphony "0" is not as memorable melodically as #1 or #2, it goes well beyond Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice effort.

[karlhenning]

I think you meant 2, 3 and 12.  1 is certainly one of Shostakovich's best symphonies.  I'd actually start there.

Hear, hear!

[karlhenning]

I will admit to a bias for the Kertesz because his were the first I came into contact with: similar perhaps to duck imprinting!  Certainly many reviewers agree here, but I have never heard Suitner or Rowicki in the symphonies, so as always, Sarge's opinion is not to be ignored here.

I'll happily sign on here.

I might add, as a relatively minor appendix, that I have something of a personal negative imprint of Suitner, as I witnessed a concert of Handel and the Beethoven Ninth that he conducted in Tokyo.  But then, too, I know better than to judge a conductor's entire work by one night's performance.

[Daverz]

About that Kertesz Dvorak box: I do like many of these performances, but I don't think I'd say you were missing a lot if you went with another set like Neumann.
However, his older 9th with the VPO is my fave of that work.  It's available from HMV Japan.

[Sergeant Rock]

I'll happily sign on here.

I might add, as a relatively minor appendix, that I have something of a personal negative imprint of Suitner, as I witnessed a concert of Handel and the Beethoven Ninth that he conducted in Tokyo.  But then, too, I know better than to judge a conductor's entire work by one night's performance.

Karl, my early experience with Suitner wasn't positive either. I recall the Cold War and the cheap, badly pressed LPs from the East with his name on them. They weren't taken seriously...at least by me. That was a mistake. He was much more than a stereotypical, plodding "Kapellmeister" and his set of Dvorak really is good. And what's even nicer: his recordings are still cheap 

Now, whether anyone else will prefer him to Kertesz, I don't know. It still comes down to personal taste. Kertesz (and Kubelik) have been twin kings of the hill for a long time; that probably won't change any time soon if ever, but I'll continue to speak up for the underdogs.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I will admit to a bias for the Kertesz because his were the first I came into contact with: similar perhaps to duck imprinting!  Certainly many reviewers agree here, but I have never heard Suitner or Rowicki in the symphonies...

My early experience of Dvorak, both live and on record, was Szell/Cleveland. I'm still a major fan of that orchestra in Dvorak, whether conducted by Szell or Dohnányi. But yeah, my first experience of the complete symphonies was also Kertesz. Critical opinion in the late 60s, early 70s, especially in the British press, heavily favored him and I signed on. I bought the box of LPs but was never really happy with it. Bought Kubelik's box: still the early symphonies didn't get much play. Neumann...things improved.

It wasn't until I bought Rowicki's box, though, that the early symphonies clicked for me. His tempos, finally, sounded right; his rhythmic inflections ideal in this music; his pacing leading to the climactic moments perfect. Like I said earlier, he seemed to take the music very seriously; he makes the music sound less like Dvorak and more like Dvorak's German models and, paradoxically, that's one reason Rowicki's interpretations work, I think.

There was another recent thread discussing this issue but I haven't been able to locate it. I'll keep looking.

Sarge

[Don]

That being said, I'm not a fan of boxed sets. They can be almost indispensable only in certain cases: Haydn symphonies come to mind.

Why would a box set of the Haydn symphonies be indispensable?

[hautbois]

If one is extremely familiar with how Beethoven is 'usually' interpreted  , this following set is highly recommendable - humourous, entertaining, fresh, shocking, passionate.:



p.s. The cover picture of Harnoncourt is not as funny as the interpretations, i promise.  No they are really good! Seriously!

[Bunny]

How about box sets of less familiar composers?  Those are the sets I find most valuable because they are great introductions to that composer.