I've just received this boxset, Karajan ~ Beethoven The Symphonies 6 SACD's boxset
(http://www.audiophile.com.ua/pics/discs/large/Karajan_Beethoven_TheSympho.jpg)
I already had the single SACD of the 7th & 8th, which is excellent, but decided to take the plunge and get the boxset. I've read the version of the 6th is poor but the rest, especially the 5th are brillant. The set includes a bonus SACD of a rehersal of the 9th.
I've some wonderful listening ahead :)
I invite your comments.
Which of his 3 (that I know of) cycles would this be, Sol? :)
8)
That looks like the 1963 set which is much better recorded than the '80s set. I haven't heard the '70s set so I can't comment on that one.
I believe Karajan has done four complete Beethoven symphony cycles.
Yes, the one I've just got is from 1963.
Quote from: Solitary Wanderer on April 12, 2007, 05:03:17 PM
I believe Karajan has done four complete Beethoven symphony cycles.
Yes, the one I've just got is from 1963.
Yes, if you count the '50s mono Philharmonia set on EMI.
The 1963 cycle is just wonderful, and the 6th is amongst its best IMO. The SACD remastering is excellent, even the stereo layer sounds better.
The 70th cycle is differently recorded, but that does not mean that it is worse, the sound is very good. And interpretation is more to my liking.The tempi are in some cases higher, and the ensemble is more tight. There is simply more drive. Equally good.
The 80th cycle does add a certain refinement which is at times to creamy for me, but still a wonderful achievement. Sound is lush but lucid.
It's an excellent set. I haven't heard the SACD layer, but the standard is indeed improved. I used to prefer the 70's set to the 60's largely for the sound -- I now prefer the classic 60's by a hair. This would certainly be my HvK Beethoven rec.
If you want a little more, there's a recent bargain 2-fer of the 5th, 6th, & 9th from Karajan's 70's set (also remastered) that would make a great supplement -- the 6th is notoriously the weak link from the 60's set, the 9th is probably Karajan's best of his numerous recordings, and the 5th is by far my favorite recording of the piece.
I have the cycle from the Complete Beethoven Edition which was also a major remastering. Is the sound quality improved enough to justify upgrading?
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000001GZ4.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS500_.jpg)
Quote from: Bunny on April 13, 2007, 06:48:47 AM
I have the cycle from the Complete Beethoven Edition which was also a major remastering. Is the sound quality improved enough to justify upgrading?
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000001GZ4.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS500_.jpg)
Yes Bunny I think it is!
Quote from: Bunny on April 13, 2007, 06:48:47 AM
I have the cycle from the Complete Beethoven Edition which was also a major remastering. Is the sound quality improved enough to justify upgrading?
It's significantly better than the standard budget box of the 60's set -- I haven't heard the complete Beethoven version, so I can't comment on that...
Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 08:22:47 AM
Yes Bunny I think it is!
I also have this 'Edition version'.
If the SACD's stereo layer is better, hmm...;;;
I think the cover of this box set is really cool. Mayber Karajan like that. :)
Anyway, in the three DG Beethoven cycle of Kajaran(I haven't heard EMI's 50's set),
I can't estimate them in overall, but I just pick some playing.
60's - No.3, No.5
70's - No.5, No.9
80's - No.3, No.7
70's No.9 is fully dynamic and elaborate!
Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 08:22:47 AM
Yes Bunny I think it is!
I guess you probably have the Complete Beethoven Edition as well as the newer SACD set so you would know. I just don't know if I want to spend more money unless it's really spectacularly better. Is the sound multichannel (3 or 4 speakers) or merely 2 channel SACD? And if it's multichannel, was it taped for 3 or 4 speakers or is it just being mixed for multichannel sound? I bought the SACD release of Kleiber's Beethoven 5 and 7 and the improvement in sound was not worth the cost of the new set.
Listened to #3 & #4 last night.
#3 was sensational!
Happy to hear that my friend. :)
It's too bad that Karajan never recorded a complete Beethoven Symphonies set with the Vienna Philharmonic. Now THAT would have been something special.
I (to this day) think that orchestra can play rings around any other in the world-including the Berlin Philharmonic.
Quote from: Bunny on April 13, 2007, 06:48:47 AM
I have the cycle from the Complete Beethoven Edition which was also a major remastering. Is the sound quality improved enough to justify upgrading?
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000001GZ4.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS500_.jpg)
According to David Hurwitz, maybe not:
"This classic set was very well remastered as part of DG's complete Beethoven Edition, and here on SACD stereo the improvement is small but noticeable, perhaps not so much in terms of brighter timbres or increased clarity, but as a function of added warmth and naturalness--a touch more depth to the sound image and a greater sense of fullness."
-David Hurwitz
Quote from: Harry on April 12, 2007, 10:58:09 PM
The 1963 cycle is just wonderful, and the 6th is amongst its best IMO. The SACD remastering is excellent, even the stereo layer sounds better.
The 70th cycle is differently recorded, but that does not mean that it is worse, the sound is very good. And interpretation is more to my liking.The tempi are in some cases higher, and the ensemble is more tight. There is simply more drive. Equally good.
The 80th cycle does add a certain refinement which is at times to creamy for me, but still a wonderful achievement. Sound is lush but lucid.
My short account of his performance of the Pastorale in the 1963 set is that he conducts it as a symphony rather than as a tone poem. I happen to like several others even better but it's still an interesting Pastorale. I just have the cheap CD set, which sounds quite good.
Quote from: Xenophanes on April 15, 2007, 03:52:58 PM
I just have the cheap CD set, which sounds quite good.
Me too! I have found no reason to upgrade. :)
Quote from: George on April 15, 2007, 03:39:29 PM
According to David Hurwitz, maybe not:
"This classic set was very well remastered as part of DG's complete Beethoven Edition, and here on SACD stereo the improvement is small but noticeable, perhaps not so much in terms of brighter timbres or increased clarity, but as a function of added warmth and naturalness--a touch more depth to the sound image and a greater sense of fullness."
-David Hurwitz
I have both sets, old style cd and sacd....and the stereo sound is barely noticeable ;D
Makes me wonder why I shelled out money for the sacd set ;)
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 15, 2007, 04:04:23 PM
I have both sets, old style cd and sacd....and the stereo sound is barely noticeable ;D
Makes me wonder why I shelled out money for the sacd set ;)
Victim of marketing? ;D
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 15, 2007, 04:04:23 PM
I have both sets, old style cd and sacd....and the stereo sound is barely noticeable ;D
Makes me wonder why I shelled out money for the sacd set ;)
Well maybe it really depends what sort of equipment you have my friend.
To my ears the sound is much better as the original remastering, whatever Hurwitz says, there is not little of everything more, but add at least 50% better definition, naturalness, dept, and good timbres.
I have both re-masterings, so could make a-b comparison.
Quote from: Harry on April 15, 2007, 10:43:57 PM
Well maybe it really depends what sort of equipment you have my friend.
To my ears the sound is much better as the original remastering, whatever Hurwitz says, there is not little of everything more, but add at least 50% better definition, naturalness, dept, and good timbres.
I have both re-masterings, so could make a-b comparison.
Mornin' Harry, how's the weather over the sea? Hot, slightly foggy and gloomy in the UK today.
To me, running either on my Sony or Pioneer unit there is not that much difference on two channel stereo. Tried them in store and on my equipment, same goes for other associates. This is in two channel stereo, in surround its a different matter, and definately not worth the extra shell out of money, when it can be spent on other goodies, and other competetive sets of the same variety ;D
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 15, 2007, 11:32:16 PM
Mornin' Harry, how's the weather over the sea? Hot, slightly foggy and gloomy in the UK today.
To me, running either on my Sony or Pioneer unit there is not that much difference on two channel stereo. Tried them in store and on my equipment, same goes for other associates. This is in two channel stereo, in surround its a different matter, and definately not worth the extra shell out of money, when it can be spent on other goodies, and other competetive sets of the same variety ;D
Would you believe it 27 degrees! The hottest days in 300 years here, that is for a April month. so the same here yes.
I compared the stereo layers of both sets on my primary and secondary units with some of my friends, and compared the SACD layer on Marantz and Musical Fidelty machines, the last one a 16,000 pounds machine, and we all came to the conclusion that the difference was huge.
But hey, its not a big deal right. You are right and I am, its all subjective right.
Have a nice warm day my friend. :)
I can expect the difference to be huge on a 16,000 machine ;D That's where money is better spent elsewhere. Imagine buying a machine for 16,000 Euro or 16,000 Euro's on music...not much of a choice is there? ;D
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 15, 2007, 11:46:27 PM
I can expect the difference to be huge on a 16,000 machine ;D That's where money is better spent elsewhere. Imagine buying a machine for 16,000 Euro or 16,000 Euro's on music...not much of a choice is there? ;D
Well I did both, so no pain there as you know. ;D
This thread has made interesting reading ... especially as I've just put down £10 on what I suspect is the very first release of the '63 cycle on CD:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GGE4XT54L._SS500_.jpg)
Quote from: Mark on December 01, 2007, 03:46:20 PM
This thread has made interesting reading ... especially as I've just put down £10 on what I suspect is the very first release of the '63 cycle on CD:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GGE4XT54L._SS500_.jpg)
I gave this set away about 2 years ago, and I am almost certain it was first issue on cd at the time.
I now have the SACD set, which was my Free intro to the Britannia Music Club R.I.P
For a tenner, worth every penny. No doubt somebody will come on and tell us about the cuts in the Pastoral spoiling the set ;)
Quote from: Mark on December 01, 2007, 03:46:20 PM
This thread has made interesting reading ... especially as I've just put down £10 on what I suspect is the very first release of the '63 cycle on CD:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GGE4XT54L._SS500_.jpg)
Mark - I just checked the Penguin guide of 1994 - there was already a version on CD around then (DG 429 036-2)
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on December 01, 2007, 04:05:29 PM
No doubt somebody will come on and tell us about the cuts in the Pastoral spoiling the set ;)
Cuts? What cuts? :o
Quote from: Great Gable on December 01, 2007, 04:24:23 PM
Mark - I just checked the Penguin guide of 1994 - there was already a version on CD around then (DG 429 036-2)
Given that catalogue number, I think this
is the first CD release.
It's not a cut, but a standard repeat not taken. You can't miss it when it doesn' arrive ;) Quite jarring and hard to explain. Of the myriad Pastorales recorded, this must be th eonly one not to take that repeat!! I bought that set 12 years ago (at least) with the exact same cover. Can't tell about the catalogue number, though.
I'll probably plunge for a cheapo just-issued-reissue of the Philharmonia versions, going for 25$ at Archambault (coincidentally, approx 10 pounds :D)
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 01, 2007, 04:52:28 PM
It's not a cut, but a standard repeat not taken.
Repeat not taken (scherzo) = omission = why did he do this? ;)
But as you say, its not much to write home about and I for one find it barely missable
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on December 01, 2007, 07:21:30 PM
Repeat not taken (scherzo) = omission = why did he do this? ;)
Given the brisk tempos, perhaps he was rushing across the pastoral greens, in an effort to get to the 7th symphony. :-\
This thread reminds me about two things:
1) That I had underestimated this remastering, for the SACD edition, which is indeed rather superb. (I had some grudges with the 9th, until I realised it was simply recorded that way.)
2) That I definitely need to remember to find some time one afternoon and do that Karajan 9th cross-comparison. It's very telling, for the "spirit" of the rest of each of his four sets, the 9th. ;)
(Incidentally, I hope I don't need to add that I agree with this first Karajan DG Beethoven cycle being great. Though I find the differences in quality smaller than others seem to, between it and both of his later cycles; perhaps even his earlier one, too...)
The BPO in the first cycle is still recognizably the same orchestra one can hear in contemporaneous recordings by other conductors: Böhm, Jochum, Keilberth, Kubelik...
In the 1977 cycle it is substantially different. Sectional personality has given way to the orchestra sounding like one giant instrument capable of a multitude of colours. Each one has its adherents, and there are successes in both cycles.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 02, 2007, 06:48:46 AM
The BPO in the first cycle is still recognizably the same orchestra one can hear in contemporaneous recordings by other conductors: Böhm, Jochum, Keilberth, Kubelik...
In the 1977 cycle it is substantially different. Sectional personality has given way to the orchestra sounding like one giant instrument capable of a multitude of colours. Each one has its adherents, and there are successes in both cycles.
I believe Val also likes the 1977 cycle. If the rest is as good as the 9th (the only one from that cycle that I own), then I am sure it's excellent. I know that both 9ths have their strengths and I am glad to have them.
Interestingly, the Pastorale in the 1977 cycle sounds very good (repeat taken in III) even though it's actually faster than the brusque 1963 version.
I heard all the Beethoven symphonies live with Karajan in the 80s when they recorded them again for CD - the cycle which originally had the horrible "sun god" covers - and he didn't take the repeats in the live performances either. Something I could never agree with. I want all the repeats. I also think that the scherzo should be repeated in the 5th symphony, as research has shown that may have been an option that Beethoven wanted, and it makes sense.
Interestingly, Brahms apparently didn't mind when the repeats were not taken in his symphonies. His opinion was that if a piece is already well known, the exposition repeat is not necessary as the listeners will know the material and be able to follow what is going on in the development. Still, many pieces, including Brahms' and Beethoven's symphonies, have such nice transitions which get lost when the exposition goes directly into the development.
Fascinating! I certainly couldn't agree more with Brahms :D, but it's true that, when well done, transitions do include interesting material (modulations). One of the most elaborate 'bridges' is in Mendelssohn 4:I. OTOH, one of the most abrupt ones in in Beehtoven 5:IV. One really wonders if Beethoven did want the material to be repeated. Under certain conductors it works, under others (typically those who take the opening of the movement by the throat), it doesn't.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 03, 2007, 05:26:46 PM
One of the most elaborate 'bridges' is in Mendelssohn 4:I. OTOH, one of the most abrupt ones in in Beehtoven 5:IV. One really wonders if Beethoven did want the material to be repeated. Under certain conductors it works, under others (typically those who take the opening of the movement by the throat), it doesn't.
But that's not Beethoven's fault. I think that particular repeat is very important. Again, having known the symphonies at first from Karajan's recordings and live concerts, I didn't know the repeat "acoustically" although I had seen it in the score, and I well remember when I first heard the repeat taken (which was either in Bernstein's or Kleiber's WP recording), I almost fell off the chair or whatever I was sitting or lying on when I listened to that.
Just reissued: the 1977 set at budget price.
(http://img.hmv.co.jp/image/jacket/190/26/3/6/193.jpg)
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 05, 2007, 04:57:34 AM
Just reissued: the 1977 set at budget price.
(http://img.hmv.co.jp/image/jacket/190/26/3/6/193.jpg)
Just acquired the '77 set on the DG Galleria imprint. Got each of the six discs for next to nothing, so I'm very pleased. :)
Regarding the lack of repeat in the '63 'Pastoral', bring it on. :D I think it works absolutely mavellously, and this is now my favourite recording of the symphony, at least in terms of the final three movements. (Oh, and the first CD release of the entire cycle which I recently bought doesn't suffer from any sound quality issues that bother me. ;))
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 05, 2007, 04:57:34 AM
Just reissued: the 1977 set at budget price.
(http://img.hmv.co.jp/image/jacket/190/26/3/6/193.jpg)
From the looks of it, I bet it isn't available in the USA. :-\
Quote from: George on December 05, 2007, 06:49:00 AM
From the looks of it, I bet it isn't available in the USA. :-\
I try searching for it in Amazon I guess it is not there...
But seriously you can easily find the '50s, '60s, and '80s set. How many HVK Beethoven cycles do you really need? Unless you are a HVK nut or completist you probably don't need all four right?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 05, 2007, 06:59:38 AM
I try searching for it in Amazon I guess it is not there...
But seriously you can easily find the '50s, '60s, and '80s set. How many HVK Beethoven cycles do you really need? Unless you are a HVK nut or completist you probably don't need all four right?
Right. Though I would pick up the 70s set if I saw it cheap.
I'd too. I picked up the '60s set for $12 and the '80s for about $20. If I see either the '50s or '70s for $20 or less I'd pick it up. Not that I really listen to them much but it is cool to have all four on the shelves in your living room to show people (not that I have that many guests).
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 05, 2007, 07:24:37 AM
I'd too. I picked up the '60s set for $12 and the '80s for about $20. If I see either the '50s or '70s for $20 or less I'd pick it up. Not that I really listen to them much but it is cool to have all four on the shelves in your living room to show people (not that I have that many guests).
;D ;D ;D
I hear ya. (Though no guests is a good thing in my shoebox)
I like to have it because I admire the conductor, the composer and will one day do enough comparative listening to write a blog/book/review or whatever. I have compiled tons of info on the Beethoven sonatas in three notebooks. ::)
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 15, 2007, 11:32:16 PM
To me, running either on my Sony or Pioneer unit there is not that much difference on two channel stereo. Tried them in store and on my equipment, same goes for other associates. This is in two channel stereo, in surround its a different matter, and definately not worth the extra shell out of money, when it can be spent on other goodies, and other competetive sets of the same variety ;D
Quote from: Harry on April 15, 2007, 11:40:43 PM
I compared the stereo layers of both sets on my primary and secondary units with some of my friends, and compared the SACD layer on Marantz and Musical Fidelty machines, the last one a 16,000 pounds machine, and we all came to the conclusion that the difference was huge.
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on April 15, 2007, 11:46:27 PM
I can expect the difference to be huge on a 16,000 machine ;D That's where money is better spent elsewhere. Imagine buying a machine for 16,000 Euro or 16,000 Euro's on music...not much of a choice is there? ;D
Interesting exchange. That is why blind testing is so interesting and essential. The power of suggestion is hard to overestimate. For 16,000 Euro (or pounds or whatever), it just *has* to sound so much better. It just *has to*. It *really* has to. I would bet as much on that Harry and his friends couldn't even tell the differences reliably in a blind test. I have seen it many times. And I would win that money. Some of those "high end" machines do actually sound a little different, but not because they are so much better, some of them even have slightly boosted corner frequencies or other "fine touches" which suggest to people thsat it somehow sounds better or more "alive". Nothing that can't be achieved with properly set up and calibrated equipment for a fraction of the money.
Carefully gauged EQ is the key. It's all in the EQ, as Mark (not GMG's) would say :D.