If we've had a thread on this already, forgive me.
I was listening this evening to Marin Alsop conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra (Naxos) in Brahms' Third Symphony, and was reminded of a time when I heard the work's beautiful poco allegretto third movement played very leisurely indeed. I didn't catch the names of the performers at that time (it was a Radio 3 broadcast from several years ago), and have ever since wanted to find a recording that has a more drawn-out third movement.
Anyone here got a suitable recommendation? ???
(Needless to say, any discussion in this thread of this symphony is more than welcome - let's not restrict ourselves to just the third movement. ;))
There is always late Celi if drawn out is desired. But you do have to wonder why then Johnny Broom bothered to write poco allegretto.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 16, 2007, 02:06:06 PM
There is always late Celi if drawn out is desired. But you do have to wonder why then Johnny Broom bothered to write poco allegretto.
Oh, I know it's wrong. Call it a guilty pleasure. :D
I've just listened to a sample of Abbado's outing with the BPO on DG over at Amazon, and it sounds very much like something I might enjoy. A bit 'big band' for some, but if it's anything like his spacious, big-boned Beethoven cycle with the VPO (also on DG), I'm guessing I'll like it.
Quote from: Mark on October 16, 2007, 01:32:36 PM
I was listening this evening to Marin Alsop conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra (Naxos) in Brahms' Third Symphony, and was reminded of a time when I heard the work's beautiful poco allegretto third movement played very leisurely indeed. I didn't catch the names of the performers at that time (it was a Radio 3 broadcast from several years ago), and have ever since wanted to find a recording that has a more drawn-out third movement.
Yes, Alsop has no urge to smell the roses in that particular movement. :) The most achingly emotional performance I've heard was a bonus track on a Vienna New Years' Concert DVD, oddly enough, with no performers credited.
I find Kertesz's recording of the Brahms symphony cycle to be the finest available, overall. The movement you speak of is given ample time to breath is Kertesz's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic.
For the poco allegretto try Haitink. He's pretty leisurely. My old (OOP) recording w/ him and the Boston SO clocks in at 6:37.
Haven't heard any of his latest attempts...
Ah, Brahms' Third! Just about the only symphony I've never heard a recording of that satisfies me. And I have more Brahms cycles than I can remember. (Edit for precision: around 15, when last I counted them.)
In any case, the one I like the most, but is not played/recorded the best, in my collection, is Karajan's 80's recording of the work.
Other favourites include the superb-but-not-exactly-Brahms Furtwangler/WPO (EMI), the Walter/Columbia SO (or the Walter/NYPO, both currently Sony), the Abbado/BPO (DG) you mentioned, the earlier Wand/NDR one (RCA), also Sanderling's account with the Staatskapelle Dresden (RCA); Mengelberg's with the Concertgebouw (Naxos), even! :o
But being entirely serious, I just can't say I've heard the third part of this symphony with the right "swing", the first one with the right "thrust", and the last one with the right "angst", all in the same recording. (Or "right" for me, that is.)
However, I have my hopes up for the only Karajan/BPO Brahms Third I don't have, the 60's one, which is finally being reissued properly this year. :)
Now, concerning your specific "demands", can I ask you to specify what you mean with "drawn out"? Because there's "melodic, waltzy" drawn-out, and there's "autumnal, ponderous" drawn-out, a la Sanderling or Mengelberg. ;)
Quote from: Renfield on October 17, 2007, 02:31:02 AM
Now, concerning your specific "demands", can I ask you to specify what you mean with "drawn out"? Because there's "melodic, waltzy" drawn-out, and there's "autumnal, ponderous" drawn-out, a la Sanderling or Mengelberg. ;)
I think I just mean slower, more leisurely. :)
There was an wonderful interpretation of the 3rd Symphony by Karl Böhm with the VPO. It was mono and old. I had it in LP but never found it on CD.
It was the most natural, fluent version I ever heard.
Giulini or Cantelli with the Philharmonia, Haitink with the Concertgebow, Walter with Columbia and Furtwängler with the BPO are my favorites, after Böhm.
Quote from: Mark on October 17, 2007, 03:17:00 AM
I think I just mean slower, more leisurely. :)
Try the
Sanderling/Staatksapelle Dresden one, on RCA. Not exactly my cup of tea in the third movement, but this is about as "leisurely" as you can get. ;)
Quote from: Renfield on October 17, 2007, 04:13:05 AM
Try the Sanderling/Staatksapelle Dresden one, on RCA. Not exactly my cup of tea in the third movement, but this is about as "leisurely" as you can get. ;)
Cool, thanks. I like Sanderling's work a lot.
Quote from: Mark on October 17, 2007, 04:14:16 AM
Cool, thanks. I like Sanderling's work a lot.
Oh, it's quite an outstanding cycle, that one: magnificent 1st Symphony, too, and of course the excellent 3rd Symphony.
Just not
it. :(
(Where "it" is a rather intangible quality I find myself seeking in a recording of Brahms' Third. In fact, I don't even know where I've developed this expectation from, but for me that symphony must be like a poem without words. Tough luck, eh? :P)
Quote from: Renfield on October 17, 2007, 04:13:05 AM
Try the Sanderling/Staatksapelle Dresden one, on RCA. Not exactly my cup of tea in the third movement, but this is about as "leisurely" as you can get. ;)
This is the one that I was going to rec as well. Probably not everyone's cup of tea but a very interesting and engaging account that is worth many listens.
Allan
Quote from: val on October 17, 2007, 03:47:17 AM
There was an wonderful interpretation of the 3rd Symphony by Karl Böhm with the VPO. It was mono and old. I had it in LP but never found it on CD.
It was the most natural, fluent version I ever heard.
Perhaps related to this?
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=26706
Quote from: Mark on October 16, 2007, 01:32:36 PM
If we've had a thread on this already, forgive me.
I was listening this evening to Marin Alsop conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra (Naxos) in Brahms' Third Symphony, and was reminded of a time when I heard the work's beautiful poco allegretto third movement played very leisurely indeed. I didn't catch the names of the performers at that time (it was a Radio 3 broadcast from several years ago), and have ever since wanted to find a recording that has a more drawn-out third movement.
Anyone here got a suitable recommendation? ???
(Needless to say, any discussion in this thread of this symphony is more than welcome - let's not restrict ourselves to just the third movement. ;))
Try Klemperer 1957, Karajan 1964, and Abbado 1989.
Of course I've always loved Solti's...but I've recently been enjoying this one.
I recently heard Bohm on DG - I can't be sure, but this might've been the version I heard on the radio a few years back. :)
Quote from: Mark on October 16, 2007, 01:32:36 PM
....and have ever since wanted to find a recording that has a more drawn-out third movement. Anyone here got a suitable recommendation? ???
This one:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/ngmg/BRBER3.jpg)
At 7:04 it's the slowest Poco Allegretto I'm aware of. Anyone have a slower one?
Besides Bernstein, I own:
Kertesz/Vienna Phil
Szell/Cleveland
Maazel/Cleveland
Wand/SONDR
Klemperer/Philharmonia
Abendroth/RSO Leipzig
Sanderling/Dresden
Barenboim/Chicago
Mackerras/Scottish Chamber
Jochum/LPO
Furtwängler Berlin Phil '49
Furtwängler Berlin Phil '54
My favorite Thirds: Furtwängler '49, Wand (gorgeous third movement, ideally paced IMO) and Sanderling.
Sarge
Bump!
So, has anyone came across any good recordings recently? I've heard good things about Janowski in Pittsburgh and there is quite a bunch of live ones on Orfeo - Klemperer, Keilberth, Mitropoulos, Ansermet. Or Monteux and Tennstedt on BBC. Any impressions?
Also is Furtwangler in Turin 1954 with BPO on Myto any good?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 18, 2007, 04:14:12 AM
At 7:04 it's [Bernstein] the slowest Poco Allegretto I'm aware of. Anyone have a slower one?
Levine in Vienna takes 7:06 but doesn't give impression of being particularly slow.
Hmm, I always seem to agree with that guy "head-case," I wonder what happened to him. Kertesz/VPO is the way to go, the best Brahms I've heard, overall. Unfortunately NLA, I believe, but always floating around in used copies.
Quote from: Drasko on June 13, 2009, 08:33:14 AM
Bump!
So, has anyone came across any good recordings recently? I've heard good things about Janowski in Pittsburgh and there is quite a bunch of live ones on Orfeo - Klemperer, Keilberth, Mitropoulos, Ansermet. Or Monteux and Tennstedt on BBC. Any impressions?
Also is Furtwangler in Turin 1954 with BPO on Myto any good?
Levine in Vienna takes 7:06 but doesn't give impression of being particularly slow.
I need to get the Janowski at some point: his Pittsburgh 4th is outstanding, and his earlier 3rd is very good indeed. (Not to mention I've heard him do the piece live, and that was also very good, if a little sloppy.) Otherwise, I have the highlighted among the above.
Klemperer's is extremely intelligent, and better than the EMI
I think - I haven't listened to that one for a long while. Mitropoulos' has really bad sound (relatively speaking), but is an interesting account, if more of a curio than anything else due to just how horribly constricted it sounds, and some scrappy playing. Tennstedt on BBC disappointed me, fairly bland.
I am certainly looking for opinions on Keilberth and Ansermet. :)
Quote from: Renfield on June 13, 2009, 02:54:12 PM
Klemperer's is extremely intelligent, and better than the EMI I think - I haven't listened to that one for a long while. Mitropoulos' has really bad sound (relatively speaking), but is an interesting account, if more of a curio than anything else due to just how horribly constricted it sounds, and some scrappy playing. Tennstedt on BBC disappointed me, fairly bland.
Excellent! Mitropoulos and Tennstedt crossed of the list (and Torino Furtwangler, forgot I have his other '54 recording). Was planning Brahms 3 binge but there are too many interesting looking candidates, so it's gonna be slow but long one.
So far on the wishlist:
Clemens Krauss/VPO ('30 Preiser) heard excerpt on radio, liked it a lot
Bruno Walter/VPO ('36 Opus Kura)
Arturo Toscanini/NBC one of the live ones, not sure which yet but leaning towards '46 on M&A
Klemperer/VSO ('56 Orfeo)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Philharmonia ('62? EMI) unfortunately only from Japan
Sergiu Celibidache/Stuttgart (70s DG) currently cheap on German Eloquence
of the recent ones already mentioned Janowski and I'm very curious about Bychkov but it seems available only as a set. Bychkov flew under my radar for long time (Onegin excepted) till I was mightily impressed wit his Rachmaninov 2nd on Philips.
Kertesz, mentioned by Baron and his nut-case alter-egos, and especially Van Beinum seem toroughly out of print at the moment.
For Keilberth, Ansermet and Monteux I'll try to find more input.
Great thirds? Interesting question! :) I guess this thread might come in handy: Brahms Symphony Cycles (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,2787.0.html).
As for the third, honorary mentions go to: Klemperer (EMI); Kempe (Testament); Walter/NYPO (Sony/UA) (havent heard that '36! :)); and Reiner (RCA).
BTW is the Mitropoulos that Renfield was referring to the NYPO live '52? :)
Don't worry about Van Beinum's Brahms, I have that cycle (Philips Dutch Masters) and it is quite interesting but not echt Brahms.
Q
Quote from: Que on June 14, 2009, 04:23:32 AM
Don't worry about Van Beinum's Brahms, I have that cycle (Philips Dutch Masters) and it is quite interesting but not echt Brahms.
But I want to worry! I have and like very much Van Beinum's 1st (stereo) and given that I don't really like the piece that much the reason for my liking might exactly be the
non-echtness. It's swift, flowing, very elegant and beautiful, maybe not the most dramatic & profound and touch streamlined, but again, too much profundity can cause indigestion.
QuoteBTW is the Mitropoulos that Renfield was referring to the NYPO live '52?
No, I believe we were talking about Concertgebouw on Orfeo (don't know the date offhand). So, if there is decent sounding Mitropoulos 3rd do point me in its direction.
Quote from: Drasko on June 14, 2009, 04:08:07 AM
Excellent! Mitropoulos and Tennstedt crossed of the list (and Torino Furtwangler, forgot I have his other '54 recording). Was planning Brahms 3 binge but there are too many interesting looking candidates, so it's gonna be slow but long one.
So far on the wishlist:
Clemens Krauss/VPO ('30 Preiser) heard excerpt on radio, liked it a lot
Bruno Walter/VPO ('36 Opus Kura)
Arturo Toscanini/NBC one of the live ones, not sure which yet but leaning towards '46 on M&A
Klemperer/VSO ('56 Orfeo)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Philharmonia ('62? EMI) unfortunately only from Japan
Sergiu Celibidache/Stuttgart (70s DG) currently cheap on German Eloquence
of the recent ones already mentioned Janowski and I'm very curious about Bychkov but it seems available only as a set. Bychkov flew under my radar for long time (Onegin excepted) till I was mightily impressed wit his Rachmaninov 2nd on Philips.
Kertesz, mentioned by Baron and his nut-case alter-egos, and especially Van Beinum seem toroughly out of print at the moment.
For Keilberth, Ansermet and Monteux I'll try to find more input.
For once, my obsession with Brahms' 3rd symphony might be useful to someone else. ;D
The 1936 Walter, which I have on Andante, is superb. Easily Walter's best, compared to either the NYPO or the Columbia version, I'd say it's one of the most musically satisfying performances of the work I own (at least in terms of what I want from the piece).
The 1946 Toscanini is excellent; the M&A sound is quite unforgiving. It's still probably his best, better than the studio NBC version, and not as noticeably 'different' as the live Philharmonia: it just 'breathes' more, without the protracted singing-ness of the latter.
The Stuttgart Celibidache is one of those rather cerebral readings of his, but cohesive and worth listening to - certainly less traditional than the Munich version, although whether that's a good thing depends on the listener. I consider it an effective reading.
Finally, Bychkov. Bychkov's cycle feels
generally interesting, without being
specifically impressive; at least as I'm inclined to see it. His third is like a more minimalist Celibidache, minus some of the more obvious quirks. A, but not A+ for me.
I didn't know Giulini did a Philharmonia 3rd, but I certainly hope it doesn't fall spectacularly apart at the finale like his Chicago 4th. ::)
Edit: Yes, it's the Concertgebouw Mitropoulos 3rd I was referring to, as well. Colour me interested in the New York version, though!
Quote from: Renfield on June 14, 2009, 08:42:48 AM
For once, my obsession with Brahms' 3rd symphony might be useful to someone else. ;D
(http://operawebclub.com/papageno/style_emoticons/default/good.gif)
QuoteThe 1946 Toscanini is excellent; the M&A sound is quite unforgiving. It's still probably his best, better than the studio NBC version, and not as noticeably 'different' as the live Philharmonia: it just 'breathes' more, without the protracted singing-ness of the latter.
Wasn't even considering studio NBC nor Philharmonia. The ones in the running are all live NBC - '38 on Guild, '41 on Naxos and that '46 on M&A.
(http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/t_200/musicartscd1077.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CH848QW5L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QJ07GC77L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
QuoteThe Stuttgart Celibidache is one of those rather cerebral readings of his, but cohesive and worth listening to - certainly less traditional than the Munich version, although whether that's a good thing depends on the listener.
To this listener Celibidache in Stuttgart is preferable to Munich almost by default. And since it's 5 euros I'll certainly pick it with my next German order.
QuoteI didn't know Giulini did a Philharmonia 3rd, but I certainly hope it doesn't fall spectacularly apart at the finale like his Chicago 4th.
(http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/pictures/s/13/22/TOCE-13162.jpg)
No need to bother, just found that it's out of print even in Japan.
Quote from: Drasko on June 14, 2009, 01:28:10 PM
Wasn't even considering studio NBC nor Philharmonia. The ones in the running are all live NBC - '38 on Guild, '41 on Naxos and that '46 on M&A.
(http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/t_200/musicartscd1077.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CH848QW5L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QJ07GC77L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Interesting. I even see a Tallis Fantasia there, in that Guild disc!
And I seem to not have written 'his best
I've heard' as I thought I had - though it's really quite good, the 1946.
Quote from: Drasko on June 14, 2009, 01:28:10 PM
To this listener Celibidache in Stuttgart is preferable to Munich almost by default. And since it's 5 euros I'll certainly pick it with my next German order.
Really? I'd be inclined to generally agree about his Brahms, but is his Bruckner from Stuttgart also better?
I'm asking as I've considered the relevant DG set a few times, but never actually bought it. (Though this is off-topic.)
Quote from: Renfield on June 14, 2009, 06:10:18 PM
Interesting. I even see a Tallis Fantasia there, in that Guild disc!
Guild disc has very good review from Hurwitz and is currently on sale at europadisc.
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=5354
http://www.europadisc.co.uk/classical/76650/Toscanini_conducts_the_NBC_Symphony_Orchestra.htm
QuoteReally? I'd be inclined to generally agree about his Brahms, but is his Bruckner from Stuttgart also better?
I'm asking as I've considered the relevant DG set a few times, but never actually bought it. (Though this is off-topic.)
I don't have his complete Stuttgart Bruckner, but those I do have (7-9), yes, I definitely prefer to their Munich counterparts. Stuttgart 7th was one of my favorite 7ths around (I'm saying
was just because haven't listened to it in really long time).
In Stuttgart he was a great conductor, in Munich he was The Man with the Plan, and I'm not sure I buy the plan.
I picked up the Australian Eloquence release of the Ansermet cycle (inc. the requiem) last year. I don't recall his 3rd specifically, but have a general impression that the set was very average in every respect (I am an occasional admirer of Ansermet's, particularly in French music).
Quote from: Renfield on June 13, 2009, 02:54:12 PM
I need to get the Janowski at some point: his Pittsburgh 4th is outstanding, and his earlier 3rd is very good indeed. (Not to mention I've heard him do the piece live, and that was also very good, if a little sloppy.) Otherwise, I have the highlighted among the above.
Klemperer's is extremely intelligent, and better than the EMI I think - I haven't listened to that one for a long while. Mitropoulos' has really bad sound (relatively speaking), but is an interesting account, if more of a curio than anything else due to just how horribly constricted it sounds, and some scrappy playing. Tennstedt on BBC disappointed me, fairly bland.
I am certainly looking for opinions on Keilberth and Ansermet. :)
Janowski's Pittsburgh 2/3 is the very best of the series. #1 and #4 are less outstanding, in my opinion.
The Ansermet makes an interesting comparison, interest is enhanced by the unique sonorities of a French Orchestra. Not revelatory, but interesting.
This one can be passed by. Not particularly interesting in any aspect.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517B1MGZC2L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3001
I actually don't agree with Mr.Carr Jr. on two basic premises of his review. The sound isn't really that bad as he describes it, usual early 60 broadcast mono and the tempos aren't predominantly slow at all (13:34, 7:54, 6:09, 9:06, exp.repeat taken in I), just feels so. Main problem in my opinion is drab playing of BBC Northern SO, especially the wind section lacking any verve and panache whatsoever, so whenever they have the lead their better safe than sorry approach drags performance into lethargy and stupor, losing any sense of flow. Monteux shares part of the blame for allowing them far to much elbow room. This mostly marres the first movement, performance picks up some life later but too late. I generally don't mind less than perfect playing, especially live, but this cautious and colorless playing is just not very interesting.
Haven't listened very closely but Schumann's 4th with BBC SO does sound like far more interesting affair.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41XklH-KUFL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Johannes Brahms - Symphony No.3 in F, Op.90
Berliner Philharmoniker, live 27.04.1954 Titania-Palast, Berlin
Mighty fine inner movements. Wonderfully passionate Andante with some soaring string playing and Poco Allegretto exhibiting fine touch for swell and release. Outer movements, with their rhythmic trickiness don't really work into Furtwangler strengths. He tends to iron some corners and occasionally feels like watching overweight boxer: heavy on the punch but slow in retreat. Berliners play well and even the sound is quite good. The 3rd is definitely Brahms symphony that least suited Furtwangler, but I have to say I enjoyed it far more than expected. It is his least successful foray into Brahms but it didn't stroke me nearly as disastrous as is sometimes asserted in reviews.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 18, 2007, 04:14:12 AM
This one:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/ngmg/BRBER3.jpg)
At 7:04 it's the slowest Poco Allegretto I'm aware of. Anyone have a slower one?
I was looking at this topic and found this question. It´s one of those (probably) useless details, but Jascha Horenstein, Baden-Baden 1958, is slower - Poco Allegretto - 7:21
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41A1WEWM2CL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
I like Brahms' 3rd Symphony. It makes me happy. :)
People say that there's no such thing as a bad performance of Brahms - no matter what tempo, what ensemble, conductor/soloists, it allways sounds good - but I find this symphony to be the exception. I thought that this symphony was as grand and wide as it was bland and bloated - until I heard Klemperer. Never going back.
Quote from: Dana on September 20, 2009, 09:06:00 PM
People say that there's no such thing as a bad performance of Brahms - no matter what tempo, what ensemble, conductor/soloists, it always sounds good
I wouldn't say that. The orchestral textures of those midcentury symphonies are quite tricky, as are the rhythmic intricacies. Same wih Schumann.
Quote from: Dana on September 20, 2009, 09:06:00 PM
People say that there's no such thing as a bad performance of Brahms
I've never heard that said, and I agree with Herman it's quite difficult to pull off a well played Brahms symphony. I've only heard that "no such thing as a bad performance" said about one single composer and that is Bach, and Bach is the only composer I can think of that has been played in every conceivable style, and his works transcribed from keyboard to organ to symphony orchestra to string quartet... yet he still remains Bach. Can't say I've seen anything like that with Brahms or any other composer for that matter. :)
Well, then I've said it :) Except for the 3rd Symphony, I've never heard a bad performance or recording of Brahms. That's not to say that Brahms is an easy composer to pull off - Brahms is tricky to pull off, and there's a big huge leap between a passable performance of Brahms and a truly fantastic one.
Bach, on the other hand, now there's someone of whom I've heard countless uninspired, unimaginative, and uninformed performances. Now there's a composer who requires a sure-handed performer. What a perfect example of a composer where the written note doesn't come close to telling the whole story.
I recently heard a really fine performance of this on an anthology of Chicago Symphony performances,live and recorded ,by Fredrick Stock, who led the orchestra from around 1905 to the early 40s.
This is one of the most swift and urgent performances of the symphony I've ever heard, but it's not at all rushed or perfunctory . Stock certainly doesn't let the grass grow under him !
This set also contains recordings by Kubelik, Rodzinski and the all but forgotten Belgian conductor Desire Defauw , including Kubelik in the Roussel 3rd, Hindemith Symphonoic Metamorphese by Hindemith and Pictures at an exhibition, Rodzinski's Mendelssohn Scottish,
Defauw in Franck's Chausseur Maudit and Prokofiev's Scythian suite etc.
This was put out by the orchestra .
Quote from: Drasko on June 19, 2009, 11:52:34 AM
This one can be passed by. Not particularly interesting in any aspect.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517B1MGZC2L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/210CWWGSK3L._SL160_AA115_.jpg)
But the live Brahms 3rd from Monteux-Concertgebouw (30 Oct 1960) in this Tahra set is a must.
Unfortunately, it's now very difficult to get.
Carlos
Quote from: ccar on September 30, 2009, 06:19:35 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/210CWWGSK3L._SL160_AA115_.jpg)
But the live Brahms 3rd from Monteux-Concertgebouw (30 Oct 1960) in this Tahra set is a must.
Unfortunately, it's now very difficult to get.
Carlos
Thanks for the tip, I'll keep my eyes open for it.
My slow trawl through Brahms' 3rds came to a stall lately, but I just got the Mravinsky recently so that'll be next stop. Current favorites are Koussevitzky, live Pretre and perhaps bit unexpectedly James Levine (VPO, DG).
Quote from: Drasko on October 01, 2009, 06:00:10 AM
Thanks for the tip, I'll keep my eyes open for it.
My slow trawl through Brahms' 3rds came to a stall lately, but I just got the Mravinsky recently so that'll be next stop. Current favorites are Koussevitzky, live Pretre and perhaps bit unexpectedly James Levine (VPO, DG).
Now
that's interesting. And I found a new copy on Amazon.com (marketplace) for the equivalent of £10 with shipping, so it's on the way. :D
Just ordered this one, should be interesting.
Quote from: Drasko on October 01, 2009, 06:00:10 AMMy slow trawl through Brahms' 3rds came to a stall lately, but I just got the Mravinsky recently so that'll be next stop.
Please report!
Quote from: Drasko on June 14, 2009, 04:08:07 AM
So far on the wishlist:
Clemens Krauss/VPO ('30 Preiser) heard excerpt on radio, liked it a lot
Bruno Walter/VPO ('36 Opus Kura)
Arturo Toscanini/NBC one of the live ones, not sure which yet but leaning towards '46 on M&A
Klemperer/VSO ('56 Orfeo)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Philharmonia ('62? EMI) unfortunately only from Japan
Sergiu Celibidache/Stuttgart (70s DG) currently cheap on German Eloquence
For Keilberth, Ansermet and Monteux I'll try to find more input.
Some personal impressions about some other of your (interesting) list options:
Krauss – for me some sort of an intimate elegant reading of the Brahms 3, with a sense of linear thread across the work ; the smoothness of the VPO (in 1930 !) is there but sometimes you may feel the need of more drama or roughness.
Keilberth (Bamberg 1963) - enjoyed his reading very much; and his other Brahms symphonies recordings are also superb (Bamberg, Hamburg, Berlin,Tokyo)
Toscanini – when choosing you may also look for the less well Known NBC 1942 (20 Dec broadcast)
And if we are looking for the less mentioned Brahms big league conductors, what about Abendroth and Knappertsbusch ?
Carlos
Quote from: Drasko on June 14, 2009, 04:08:07 AM
Excellent! Mitropoulos and Tennstedt crossed of the list.
I Know many of us (sharing the same nonlethal but incurable disease) probably won't have the time in life to relisten all our collected CDs over the years. And for some favorite composers, works or performing artists even the number of different versions in the shelves will be hard to confess. The only sense I may see in this is to discover and enjoy a piece of music in diverse enriching perspectives and to exercise our personal sensibility (and individual taste) for the art of musical expression.
I am sorry for the justification but it helps me coming back to this topic and try to rescue one of my favourite conductors. Obviously we cannot have them all but I wouldn't "cross Mitropoulos of the list" .
AFAIK there are 4 Mitropoulos recordings of Brahms S3 - NY 1952, Florence 1953, NY 1958 and Salzburg 1958. This last one (Orfeo) is with the Concertgebouwn Orchestra and in a quite good vintage sound. The reading is a very poetic account, with wide tempo and dynamic changes but a unique feeling of orchestral singing and transparency. Personally I also enjoy the more energetic and dramatic approach I feel in NY and in the Maggio Fiorentino but the sound quality may deter some of the more digitally trained ears.
Carlos
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BdsFuZ2bL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: ccar on October 04, 2009, 07:55:42 AM
I am sorry for the justification but it helps me coming back to this topic and try to rescue one of my favourite conductors. Obviously we cannot have them all but I wouldn't "cross Mitropoulos of the list" .
I believe he was referring to the specific recording, rather than the conductor's reading of the 3rd in general. Note the preceding conversation - speaking of which, I am surprised you would call the sound on the Orfeo 3rd 'quite good', especially for as late as 1958.
May I ask, however, on which label the two New York recordings are currently available? I would be delighted to hear a better overall reading from Mitropoulos in the 3rd, as, even beyond the sound, I found the Orfeo generally uncompetitive (as you can read above).
Quote from: Renfield on October 04, 2009, 09:09:56 AM
I believe he was referring to the specific recording, rather than the conductor's reading of the 3rd in general. Note the preceding conversation - speaking of which, I am surprised you would call the sound on the Orfeo 3rd 'quite good', especially for as late as 1958.
May I ask, however, on which label the two New York recordings are currently available? I would be delighted to hear a better overall reading from Mitropoulos in the 3rd, as, even beyond the sound, I found the Orfeo generally uncompetitive (as you can read above).
Yes, I understand we are all just referring to the specific Brahms S3 in this topic.
And I am sorry if we disagree but considering the Orfeo 1958 is a live mono broadcast recording (taken from the Austrian Radio archives) it sounds quite good indeed. Much better than the same year (1958) NY Philharmonic recording I refer below. And it carries very well, at least for me, the beauty and interest of the performance. As I said previously, perharps I am always listening to too many versions of the same work. And surely I don't intend to put this (or any) recording in any kind of ranking or "competition". But my point is I find it difficult to accept we should refuse to consider it because of the sound, as I really enjoyed listening to it. For those who want to try it, just look for the beautiful singing of the orchestra in the Poco Allegretto.
Others Mitropoulos Brahms S3 : New York 1952 (Urania); Maggio Fiorentino 1953 (Urania); New York 1958 (Asdisc or Arkadia). I believe only the last one is OOP and more difficult to find.
Carlos
Quote from: ccar on October 04, 2009, 10:52:50 AM
And surely I don't intend to put this (or any) recording in any kind of ranking or "competition". But my point is I find it difficult to accept we should refuse to consider it because of the sound, as I really enjoyed listening to it. For those who want to try it, just look for the beautiful singing of the orchestra in the Poco Allegretto.
'Uncompetitive' meaning 'unextraordinary' (NB the latter is not an English word, to my knowledge). As for the sound, speaking as someone who ranks among his favourite Beethoven 5ths the very first one, by Nikisch, sound is far from my sole deciding factor. But seeing as this is music we are listening to, thus by definition 'sound', I find the sonic particulars of a recording inseparable from the rest, if ignorable.
And I fully encourage anyone interested to, indeed,
try any recording they want. Surely, however, given how we are not electing the Best Brahms 3rd, some leeway in what I (or you)
recommend is a given? If you enjoy it, then good for you! :)
Different people differently perceive and react to recorded sound ad sound quality. Rest is semantics.
For instance I can tolerate huge amount of extraneous noises and other approximations of historical recordings while can't stand typical Chandos modern recording finding it diffuse and undefined while most would call that same Chandos sound state of the art, but at the same time I like the sound of Christophe Rousset's Bach recordings on Ambroisie, which some consider wet and over reverberant. Or even funnier I thought of Valek's Supraphon Martinu cycle to be very dry and slightly recessed, while Daverz though of it to be muffled and thick, and BBC reviewer found it over reverberant, now it surely can't be all this at the same time but we all definitely heard it differently.
Quote from: ccar on October 04, 2009, 04:50:46 AM
Some personal impressions about some other of your (interesting) list options:
Krauss – for me some sort of an intimate elegant reading of the Brahms 3, with a sense of linear thread across the work ; the smoothness of the VPO (in 1930 !) is there but sometimes you may feel the need of more drama or roughness.
Keilberth (Bamberg 1963) - enjoyed his reading very much; and his other Brahms symphonies recordings are also superb (Bamberg, Hamburg, Berlin,Tokyo)
Toscanini – when choosing you may also look for the less well Known NBC 1942 (20 Dec broadcast)
And if we are looking for the less mentioned Brahms big league conductors, what about Abendroth and Knappertsbusch ?
Carlos
And what about Weingartner/LPO?
Very nice, if you ask me.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DDXG6657L._SS400_.jpg)
Q
Quote from: Que on October 04, 2009, 05:44:30 PM
And what about Weingartner/LPO? Very nice, if you ask me.
Q
Q
Very fine indeed. I remember having a very good impression when I listen to it almost 20 years ago now. But one of the interesting things in a forum like this is to get new ideas and to refresh your own view. I went to the shelves to try the Weingartner again, with the Brahms F major. My copy is the "old" EMI References set and I could not compare it with yours in terms of sound.
When relistening to Weingartner I was drawn in my mind to the Krauss S3 I heard today (to give it the previous comment) and also to a recent edition of a Fritz Busch Brahms 2nd I very much enjoy. Its the same flowing inner tension, like a strong current beneath an apparently calm sea. But not like a Furtwangler, nor a Toscanini. And miles away from Mengelberg or Mitropoulos. Thank you for helping me to recall.
Carlos
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/03/d3/9c62225b9da0b3184501b010.L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: ccar on October 04, 2009, 07:19:24 PM
My copy is the "old" EMI References set and I could not compare it with yours in terms of sound.
IMO the sound of the ASV Living Era issue is a marked improvement in comparison with the EMI, I mean maybe not the standard of Opus Kura or Biddulph but it can certainly stand up against Naxos or Andante. Transfers were done by David Lennick and Graham Newton.
Q
And what about the numerous versions of 2 other great Brahms conductors: Knappertsbush and Abendroth. Any comments ?
Abendroth - Leipzig 1949; Prague 1950; Czech 1951; Leipzig 1952; Berlin RSO 1956
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/classical_albums/cov200/cl900/l993/l99363uivnz.jpg)(http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/classical_albums/cov200/cl200/l284/l284543643b.jpg)
Knappertsbusch - Berlin 1942; Berlin 1944; Berlin 1950; Vienna 1955; Dresden 1956; Vienna 1958; Stuttgart 1963.
(http://www.cdconnection.com/covers/613833.jpg) (http://www.cdconnection.com/covers/701528.jpg)
Quote from: ccar on October 10, 2009, 04:02:53 PM
(http://www.cdconnection.com/covers/613833.jpg)
What a useful thread this is proving to be, toward alerting me to Brahms 3rds I do not own which are 'relevant to my interests'! First the Levine, now in my hands (with many thanks to
Drasko - the performance is indeed unexpectedly special), and now this. :D
Edit: Which, to clarify, I just ordered from Amazon.com
Edit 2: Since, to further clarify, Knappertsbusch's Brahms 4th in Orfeo is very dear to me.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ki2VgrZ%2BL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Live recording, Moscow, 27.01.1972
(incorrectly dated by Doremi as Leningrad, 30.11.1971)
An excellent third which doesn't fully work for me. Mravinsky is surprisingly relaxed in Brahms, if I'd say gentle nobody would believe me, so I won't. Not rhapsodic though, there is no singing out of phrase endings or indulgent tempos, but soloists are given ample time, nothing is rushed and there is very little of the drivenness usually associated with Mravinsky. Most astonishing is the huge dynamic range of orchestra and even more control of those dynamics by Mravinsky, from deafening tutti to pianissimo in a blink of an eye. Given that it is live, concert recording orchestra plays superb, no missed cues, no noticeable fluffs, tight ensemble. Recorded sound is surprisingly good, up close and clear with good dynamic range, not ideal clarity in the tutti but perfectly acceptable, audience audible but not too distracting. I think this is different recording than the one on Melodiya coupled with fourth (edit: it actually is the same recording).
Why it then doesn't fully work for me? It's the finale, up to there everything is perfectly fine (no exposition repeat in first, but I can live with that) and I'm still not completely sure what exactly bugs me there. I think it's two things: Mravinsky doesn't emphasize the cross rhythms as much as I would like, I like the finale to stutter amidst all the thrust and the Leningraders sound bit streamlined, second thing I don't like the way he keeps the horns far too much in check, it could be concert balance but I doubt.
Maybe someone else would have different opinion, so I've uploaded entire finale for anyone to hear:
[mp3=200,20,0,left]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/24/2018019/mravlenbrahms3fin.mp3[/mp3]
I'll re-listen to the whole performance sometime soon, Drasko, now that I've my external hard drive (finally) up again.
But I can at least confirm that this is the same as the Melodiya (the version I have, coupled with the 4th), unless a specific member of the Moscow audience had an uncanny tendency to cough in the finale on exactly the same place, and in exactly the same manner! ;)
Edit: Wrong city!
Quote from: Renfield on October 12, 2009, 08:49:48 AM
But I can at least confirm that this is the same as the Melodiya (the version I have, coupled with the 4th), unless a specific member of the Leningrad audience had an uncanny tendency to cough in the finale on exactly the same place, and in exactly the same manner! ;)
In fact they are. I have 3 differently dated Mravinsky Brahms S3 versions (DOREMI 30 Nov 1971; MEMORIA 1965; BMG Moscow 1972) with the SAME recording - the correct date seems to be the BMG Melodiya - Moscow 27 Jan 1972. (Note that other symphonies in these editions are not all repeated).
But the other Mravinsky Brahms S3 I have (RUSSIAN DISC CD10905) is indeed a different recording (I could confirm this by comparative listening). The recording date of this other performance is 30 Nov 1971 (incorrectly claimed in the DOREMI). And there is also a rehearsal of this performance, probably recorded in the same day - we know this because Mravinsky tells the musicians during the rehearsal
"we'll do it now formally, but at night it will be with INSPIRATION" !!
Quote from: ccar on October 12, 2009, 12:42:06 PM
In fact they are. I have 3 differently dated Mravinsky Brahms S3 versions (DOREMI 30 Nov 1971; MEMORIA 1965; BMG Moscow 1972) with the SAME recording - the correct date seems to be the BMG Melodiya - Moscow 27 Jan 1972. (Note that other symphonies in these editions are not all repeated).
Thank you for the information, I'll edit my previous post accordingly. Kenzo Amoh's Mravinsky discography (http://www32.ocn.ne.jp/~yemravinsky/discography.htm) also confirms about Memoria release being misdated, but it has not been updated recently so it doesn't include Doremi set. I'm guessing Doremi dates should be correct for 1st and 4th (there's only one 1st and the 4th sounds like 70s recording). Would you know if the 2nd is dated correctly?
Quote from: Drasko on October 12, 2009, 01:39:04 PM
Would you know if the 2nd is dated correctly?
I had already compared my versions of the 3rd before and so my previous comment was quick and easy. But for the 2nd I need more time for a carefull listening. I will then post my "results". But maybe some other forum member already has an answer ?
Quote from: Drasko on October 12, 2009, 08:22:32 AM
Maybe someone else would have different opinion, so I've uploaded entire finale for anyone to hear:
[mp3=200,20,0,left]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/24/2018019/mravlenbrahms3fin.mp3[/mp3]
None? How boring.
Quote from: Drasko on October 17, 2009, 10:09:37 AM
None? How boring.
I have this recording in the BMG/RCA incarnation. It's not my favorite third by a long shot, but I do find it very interesting in terms of how Mravinsky treats a number of passages. I hear what you mean about this movement not really clicking. It's a little disjointed. There are moments of real drama, but it seems disconnected from the action in between. There are two things that I think are the source of this: firstly, the orchestra/conductor seems to lose the dramatic thread here and there and they fall back into a kind of disengaged routine for just long enough to make the whole not quite want to connect. Secondly, there is always an undercurrent of discomfort in Brahms. Either the harmonies or the rhythms aren't quite straight. Something is always not quite what it 'should' be. What seems major can turn into minor at the blink of an eye and any given passage is usually pregnant with the possibility of that happening at any moment. But what the Leningraders do here is that they play the more joyous moments with near total nonchalance, without a trace of a cloud in the sky, with no portent of tragedy. So when that big crashing chord hits, it seems to come out of nowhere, not linked to what was going on before. It just doesn't seem to develop quite organically. This may indeed be a balancing issue, with bass line pedal points not adequately stressed. They are often the ones that often unsettle things.
Quote from: Drasko on October 04, 2009, 01:57:46 PM
For instance I can tolerate huge amount of extraneous noises and other approximations of historical recordings while can't stand typical Chandos modern recording finding it diffuse and undefined while most would call that same Chandos sound state of the art, but at the same time I like the sound of Christophe Rousset's Bach recordings on Ambroisie, which some consider wet and over reverberant.
And thanks for that, too! I have the same reaction, but tell that to our old friend M and he will have you hanged, verbally at least. ;) I will qualify that this is somewhat a result of the equipment used for the playback. Some recordings just sound vastly better on speakers and some better on headphones. I am still convinced that the popularity of Karajan and Solti recordings among the general public has a lot to do with the fact that they sound "rich" or "exciting" on crappy stereo equipment, while said crappy equipment can't do justice to recordings that actually closely approximate the sound of the performance they're meant to reproduce.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 18, 2009, 04:20:59 PM
I have this recording in the BMG/RCA incarnation. It's not my favorite third by a long shot, but I do find it very interesting in terms of how Mravinsky treats a number of passages. I hear what you mean about this movement not really clicking. It's a little disjointed. There are moments of real drama, but it seems disconnected from the action in between. There are two things that I think are the source of this: firstly, the orchestra/conductor seems to lose the dramatic thread here and there and they fall back into a kind of disengaged routine for just long enough to make the whole not quite want to connect. Secondly, there is always an undercurrent of discomfort in Brahms. Either the harmonies or the rhythms aren't quite straight. Something is always not quite what it 'should' be. What seems major can turn into minor at the blink of an eye and any given passage is usually pregnant with the possibility of that happening at any moment. But what the Leningraders do here is that they play the more joyous moments with near total nonchalance, without a trace of a cloud in the sky, with no portent of tragedy. So when that big crashing chord hits, it seems to come out of nowhere, not linked to what was going on before. It just doesn't seem to develop quite organically. This may indeed be a balancing issue, with bass line pedal points not adequately stressed. They are often the ones that often unsettle things.
Still boring since we're mostly agreed 8). Yes, there does sound to be some discrepancy in approach between generally laid back and relaxed shaping of lyrical parts (rather than routine) and intensity with which tutti kick in, plus Mravinsky's preferred rather sharp dynamic shifts, which also can add to the feeling of disjointedness.
QuoteIt's not my favorite third by a long shot...
Which would be?
Quote from: O Mensch on October 18, 2009, 04:24:49 PM
I am still convinced that the popularity of Karajan and Solti recordings among the general public has a lot to do with the fact that they sound "rich" or "exciting" on crappy stereo equipment, while said crappy equipment can't do justice to recordings that actually closely approximate the sound of the performance they're meant to reproduce.
Could be, never really thought about that.
QuoteAnd thanks for that, too! I have the same reaction, but tell that to our old friend M and he will have you hanged, verbally at least. ;)
He, he. Didn't know he was keen on 'warm' acoustics. I remember he agreed with me about acoustic of Wands Lubeck Bruckner recordings being unacceptable. Shame he managed to get himself hanged in the end, while even kitsch-artist and religious fanatic over whom he got banned is back among us. Oh, golly, what joy.
Quote from: Drasko on October 19, 2009, 11:56:20 AM
Which would be?
I'm not entirely sure... I like Wand/NDR, I like Abbado/Dresden, Barenboim/CSO... have yet to get my paws on Kempe.
Quote from: Drasko on October 19, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
I remember he agreed with me about acoustic of Wands Lubeck Bruckner recordings being unacceptable.
Churches are problematic in general. I don't know if you've seen the 1992 BPO European Concert. At the end of the first movement of the Schubert 8 (I think) there is a moment after the final chord ends and a few seconds later Barenboim looks at the ceiling with an expression as if to say "What?! The reverb *still* isn't over?!"
Quote from: O Mensch on October 19, 2009, 12:37:50 PM
I like Abbado/Dresden...
Now that is something I'd love to hear. That's early 70s cycle with four different orchestras? Didn't know it was ever released on CD, and after checking it seems it has been, on Belart, used copies are not exactly cheap though.
QuoteChurches are problematic in general. I don't know if you've seen the 1992 BPO European Concert. At the end of the first movement of the Schubert 8 (I think) there is a moment after the final chord ends and a few seconds later Barenboim looks at the ceiling with an expression as if to say "What?! The reverb *still* isn't over?!"
I know. Just recently listened to potentially very interesting recording of Mozart Requiem (Malgoire on K617) ruined by church reverb, unintelligible words, skewed orchestral balances, a pity.
Haven't seen that 1992 European Concert, but the final chord is the least problem, that one you can let bounce around.
Quote from: Drasko on October 20, 2009, 03:19:08 AM
Now that is something I'd love to hear. That's early 70s cycle with four different orchestras? Didn't know it was ever released on CD, and after checking it seems it has been, on Belart, used copies are not exactly cheap though.
I don't know about CD, I have it on LP. The 2nd with BPO was reissued on CD as part of the DG centennial collection.
Quote from: Drasko on October 20, 2009, 03:19:08 AM
Haven't seen that 1992 European Concert, but the final chord is the least problem, that one you can let bounce around.
Yes, but it's a hilarious moment on the video. It was filmed at the Basilica of the Escorial in Spain.
Speaking of the Brahms 3rd, and even though I've still not had time (yes, I know ::)) to revisit the Mravinsky, I did just listen to part of the Chailly cycle, which I received as a present for my birthday a few weeks back, including the 3rd.
And it really is a 3rd worth mentioning, I think, least of all for the fact that it really is sumptuously recorded and played. I'm not usually one of those people who gush over a recording purely on the basis of how it sounds, but here, the difference is marked.
Also, more importantly, although it seems to suffer from the general 'under-reading' that I feel is a thread running through most of Chailly's work sans his Mahler, it's more his rarely pressing dramatic points, or wilfully generating gravitas, than any lack of cohesion to blame. Case in point, the finale is one of the most impressive I've heard in a modern recording, likely for the very fact that it flows without losing its thrust in the process - consistent with Chailly's measure bearing fruit, vs. an 'accidentally' good reading.
So well worth hearing, I'd say, even if not in the very first tier. Similar to what I'd say for Barenboim's CSO reading on account of the third movement, if that gives you any further indication as to where I rank it; if you will, a solid A-. :)
Speaking of Brahms symphonies, has anyone heard the Janowski set that has been praised to the heavens?
Quote from: O Mensch on October 20, 2009, 08:11:34 AM
Speaking of Brahms symphonies, has anyone heard the Janowski set that has been praised to the heavens?
The Pentatone? I think it was mentioned before around here. Personally, I've heard the 4th, which I liked. Given how much I also like his earlier 3rd from Liverpool (IIRC; quite an under-appreciated recording), though, I likely should invest in the new one...
Quote from: Renfield on October 20, 2009, 07:21:14 AM
Also, more importantly, although it seems to suffer from the general 'under-reading' that I feel is a thread running through most of Chailly's work sans his Mahler, it's more his rarely pressing dramatic points, or wilfully generating gravitas, than any lack of cohesion to blame.
Not to digress, but:
Just a quick note to say that overall I find Chailly quite accomplished in his interpretive choices over a broad range of repertoire, with a nod to his prowess in 20th century music.
I enjoy his skill at drawing in any number of musical elements to weave a tight, controlled musical line that needn't be pestered by finicky "dramatic" eruptions (not that there's anything wrong with drama, of course). It's this very 'cohesion' (as you put it) that draws me in to Chailly's musical vision. And seldom have I been let down. :)
Sorry, digression over...
No problem with the digression. I do like Chailly a lot in a variety of stuff, but found his Brahms recordings disappointingly uninvolved.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 20, 2009, 09:12:36 AM
No problem with the digression. I do like Chailly a lot in a variety of stuff, but found his Brahms recordings disappointingly uninvolved.
I used to own Chailly's recording of the second symphony and, to be honest, had the same misgivings (haven't heard the rest of the cycle).
Which took me by surprise initially. I had been used to Chailly really passing muster at every turn but sadly had to admit defeat with this one. Oh, well. A bad day? Bad days? Or pressed into service to record the cycle by Decca?
Although, admittedly, Renfield's description of the third intrigues me.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 20, 2009, 05:46:55 AM
I don't know about CD, I have it on LP. The 2nd with BPO was reissued on CD as part of the DG centennial collection.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411MTSF8D3L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.de/Sinfonie-3-Claudio-Abbado/dp/B000026HMS
BPO 2nd should be also on Eloquence.
Quote from: Drasko on October 12, 2009, 01:39:04 PM
Thank you for the information, I'll edit my previous post accordingly. Kenzo Amoh's Mravinsky discography (http://www32.ocn.ne.jp/~yemravinsky/discography.htm) also confirms about Memoria release being misdated, but it has not been updated recently so it doesn't include Doremi set. I'm guessing Doremi dates should be correct for 1st and 4th (there's only one 1st and the 4th sounds like 70s recording). Would you know if the 2nd is dated correctly?
The DOREMI Brahms S2 (dated 12 Jun 1978) is identical to the JVC VDC-1010 edition (dated 12-13 Jun 1978). Comparative listening, particularly of the last mov., leaves me little doubt they were taken from the same performance. The recording date should indeed be June the 12th and not the 13th (this should be a live recording from the Mravinsky-Leningrad appearance at the Vienna Festival and the Brahms D major was performed on the 12th).
The Melodyia (1000801) and the Memoria (991006) editions are also identical to each other but probably from another performance - in the same year but at the St.Petersburg/Leningrad Philharmonic Great Hall on April 29th.
It is very interesting to compare these two Mravinsky recordings (April and June) because in many details they are very similar and almost look the same performance. If you compare the timings of the first 3 movements they are almost exactly the same.
Carlos
Quote from: Drasko on October 20, 2009, 09:45:01 AM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411MTSF8D3L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.de/Sinfonie-3-Claudio-Abbado/dp/B000026HMS
Have you heard that? I make a big circle around Belart ever since owning their transfer of Kubelik's 1959 VPO Ma Vlast which had the most horrid congested sound of any recording I've ever owned.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on October 20, 2009, 09:43:12 AM
I used to own Chailly's recording of the second symphony and, to be honest, had the same misgivings (haven't heard the rest of the cycle).
[...]
Although, admittedly, Renfield's description of the third intrigues me.
For what it's worth, I found the 2nd, on the same disc, less notable than the 3rd; indeed, 'uninvolved' wouldn't necessarily be that uncharitable a descriptor. And the same approach afflicts the 3rd's 1st movement as well, this fact being on the '-' side of the 'A-'.
Quote from: Drasko on October 12, 2009, 08:22:32 AM
An excellent third which doesn't fully work for me. Mravinsky is surprisingly relaxed in Brahms, if I'd say gentle nobody would believe me, so I won't. Not rhapsodic though, there is no singing out of phrase endings or indulgent tempos, but soloists are given ample time, nothing is rushed and there is very little of the drivenness usually associated with Mravinsky. Most astonishing is the huge dynamic range of orchestra and even more control of those dynamics by Mravinsky, from deafening tutti to pianissimo in a blink of an eye. Given that it is live, concert recording orchestra plays superb, no missed cues, no noticeable fluffs, tight ensemble. Recorded sound is surprisingly good, up close and clear with good dynamic range, not ideal clarity in the tutti but perfectly acceptable, audience audible but not too distracting. I think this is different recording than the one on Melodiya coupled with fourth (edit: it actually is the same recording).
Why it then doesn't fully work for me? It's the finale, up to there everything is perfectly fine (no exposition repeat in first, but I can live with that) and I'm still not completely sure what exactly bugs me there. I think it's two things: Mravinsky doesn't emphasize the cross rhythms as much as I would like, I like the finale to stutter amidst all the thrust and the Leningraders sound bit streamlined, second thing I don't like the way he keeps the horns far too much in check, it could be concert balance but I doubt.
Maybe someone else would have different opinion, so I've uploaded entire finale for anyone to hear:
If I took it correctly, "To stutter amid the thrust" in this last movement of the F major, as you put it, is to look for some sense of hesitation between the driven currents, to enhance the tension between the light of the singing themes and the dark, violent pulsating rhythms, eventually resolving in the smoothing quietness of the finale.
This kind of clarifying hesitation is what I usually sense when listening to Furtwangler. Contrary to the consistence of the Mravinsky approach (the different versions of the Brahms I heard are remarkably similar) the 1949 and 1954 versions of the F major by Furtwangler are good examples of two very different readings from the same conductor – look for the ample respiration and intimacy of the last movement in 1954 and compare it with the driven energy and violence in 1949.
And, perhaps fortunately, we the simple listeners may also like it differently in different moments of our life.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:DzpiqjH4BNVZvM:http://www.musicandarts.com/cdimages/804.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411TD7G50AL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Carlos
Quote from: ccar on October 20, 2009, 11:26:27 AM
The DOREMI Brahms S2 (dated 12 Jun 1978) is identical to the JVC VDC-1010 edition (dated 12-13 Jun 1978). Comparative listening, particularly of the last mov., leaves me little doubt they were taken from the same performance. The recording date should indeed be June the 12th and not the 13th (this should be a live recording from the Mravinsky-Leningrad appearance at the Vienna Festival and the Brahms D major was performed on the 12th).
The Melodyia (1000801) and the Memoria (991006) editions are also identical to each other but probably from another performance - in the same year but at the St.Petersburg/Leningrad Philharmonic Great Hall on April 29th.
It is very interesting to compare these two Mravinsky recordings (April and June) because in many details they are very similar and almost look the same performance. If you compare the timings of the first 3 movements they are almost exactly the same.
Carlos
Wow! Thanks for the info, and the effort.
I'm quite impressed, you have all four recordings. Yours must be one huge collection.
Quote from: ccar on October 20, 2009, 04:28:41 PM
....the 1949 and 1954 versions of the F major by Furtwangler are good examples of two very different readings from the same conductor – look for the ample respiration and intimacy of the last movement in 1954 and compare it with the driven energy and violence in 1949.
And, perhaps fortunately, we the simple listeners may also like it differently in different moments of our life.
Haven't heard the 1949, will give it a try.
Completely agree, I said something similar in Bruckner 8th thread some time ago, which works for Brahms' 3 as well - thankfully there is quite enough different excellent readings around to satisfy everyones taste, and potential changing of those tastes during ones time.
Quote from: Drasko on June 13, 2009, 08:33:14 AM
...So, has anyone came across any good recordings recently?...
Not "recently," but my perennial favorite Brahms set is by Wolfgang Sawallisch and the Vienna Symphony (not Philharmonic); very naturally flexible. You don't realize just how free Sawallisch is with the tempo until you try to conduct along... :D
The Celi Brahms set is also good, and less "drawn-out" than you might expect, but for some reason the Third on that set is a little
too flexible for me. Just my taste. I tend to like my Brahms not too slow and heavy and drawn-out. :)
I'm still looking for a recording of the third which is as con brio as Karajan but more passionate.
I listened to the recommended Sanderling/Dresden, but wtf, where is the con brio? Same with Bernstein and Celi (of course...)
Dorati, Jochum, or Szell will give you what you want.
I've just rushed through this thread after a long absence, so forgive me not mentioning any names:
I too like the Orfeo Mitropoulos (& the badly recorded NYPO performance), but it is not my favourite. My favourite is the (sometimes erratically played) version by Hermann Scherchen, where the "stuttering" and almost desperately tormented quality comes to the fore in the last movement; other conductors have all disappointed me here, just when I expect the symphony's true climax followed by that ineffably "all passion spent" coda. I get Walter out occasionally, ditto Mravinsky & Wand. I haven't explored any more recent recording than the latter; I just cannot believe that Chailly et al. are going to ring my bell. In fact I believe that the age of great conductors of classical music has passed: I have consistently got more thrills from concerts/recordings of modern music, from Xenakis to Lachenmann, than from more traditional fare in recent interpretations. I haven't liked anything by Gardiner so far, outside of Bach (hated that much touted Missa Solemnis!), so I am waiting rather tepidly for reports on his new 3rd.
Quote from: mjwal on October 31, 2009, 08:30:46 AM
I haven't liked anything by Gardiner so far, outside of Bach (hated that much touted Missa Solemnis!), so I am waiting rather tepidly for reports on his new 3rd.
Occasionally affable steely blitzkrieg Brahms. But the choral works on the disc are well worth it!
Quote from: mjwal on October 31, 2009, 08:30:46 AM
My favourite is the (sometimes erratically played) version by Hermann Scherchen, where the "stuttering" and almost desperately tormented quality comes to the fore in the last movement; other conductors have all disappointed me here, just when I expect the symphony's true climax followed by that ineffably "all passion spent" coda.
Is this one from Lugano (on Tahra)?
Quote from: rappy on October 26, 2009, 11:04:23 AM
I'm still looking for a recording of the third which is as con brio as Karajan but more passionate. I listened to the recommended Sanderling/Dresden, but wtf, where is the con brio? Same with Bernstein and Celi (of course...)
I can't comment on Karajan. But if you look for a
con brio reading of the Brahms 3rd I would name Hermann Abendroth. There are at least 4 Abendroth recordings of the S3 (Leipzig 1949; Prague 1950; Czech 1951; Leipzig 1952; Berlin RSO 1956.) but for the sheer drive sensation I would go for the Berlin 1956 or the Leipzig 1952. (the 1952 Berlin Classics is probably more easy to find).
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cypVzoUA0vhwHM:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KhVX0toGSyc/Sf2hNNwpcrI/AAAAAAAAAMc/t1i6OMIR_Nw/s200/brahms%2B4%2Babendroth.jpg)(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:dKo865oRmQtKWM:http://www.tahra.com/images/products/145.jpg)
Quote from: mjwal on October 31, 2009, 08:30:46 AM
I too like the Orfeo Mitropoulos (& the badly recorded NYPO performance), but it is not my favourite. My favourite is the (sometimes erratically played) version by Hermann Scherchen, where the "stuttering" and almost desperately tormented quality comes to the fore in the last movement; other conductors have all disappointed me here, just when I expect the symphony's true climax followed by that ineffably "all passion spent" coda.
Scherchen is also a favorite of mine, as a conductor, a musician and a personality. And his wonderful Indian Summer at Lugano produced some of the most impressive musical experiences I may imagine. I already mentioned in another thread his Beethoven's symphonies and rehearsals which for me are even more special than his Brahms. But probably we do belong to same Scherchen (and Mitropoulos) fan club.
Carlos
Quote from: rubio on October 31, 2009, 09:07:19 AM
Is this one from Lugano (on Tahra)?
This sounds like something for me to look out for. I don't always like what Scherchen does, but it's always interesting...and the description of this interpretation makes it sound unusually different from the norm.
Yes, Carlos, the same club, indeed. I wasn't there in Lugano, but in a way I was - when German radio decades ago played a series of Beethoven symphonies with rehearsals. I don't know when I've ever been so off my head as with the rehearsal of the 7th, it was all there in the room, the demented cries of encouragement and the mediocre orchestra being pushed over the top - dionysian is the word. After that I managed to tape the actual performance - which wasn't quite so exciting, but still great.
To answer rubio's question, I've got the Brahms #3 on Aura + the Dvorak concerto w/Fournier, but it is from Lugano, I think. The only Scherchen I have on Tahra - whenever I look, they're either o.o.p or too expensive for me (I hardly ever spend more than 15 Euro per CD at most) - is the 1950 Mahler #3 with Rössl Majdan, which I love.
Quote from: mjwal on October 31, 2009, 08:30:46 AM
I haven't liked anything by Gardiner...(hated that much touted Missa Solemnis!)
Amen, brother!
Quote...so I am waiting rather tepidly for reports on his new 3rd.
The Hurwitzer says: "Gardiner's view of the Third Symphony is like a fan: it blows and sucks at the same time." :D
Full review here: http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12498
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 17, 2009, 11:17:04 AM
The Hurwitzer says: "Gardiner's view of the Third Symphony is like a fan: it blows and sucks at the same time." :D
Full review here: http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12498
Sarge
But he also says Toscanini and Furtwängler (!!!) "screwed up" the 3rd symphony too. I'm not crazy for Gardiner's, but I'd listen to it five times a day and ask for more, if the alternative were endorsing
that statement.
I can't compete with the collections of many here. I think Karajan is good, Thomas Sanderling less so. But what I really love is an interpretation with Furtwängler ( I think 1952 ), life, not so bad sound. There is agogic, especially in the first set and I really got the impression to listen to this music completely afresh. I liked that alot.
Regards
Martin
Quote from: Renfield on November 17, 2009, 12:15:25 PM
But he also says Toscanini and Furtwängler (!!!) "screwed up" the 3rd symphony too.
Yeah, the guy's completely mad ;D Seriously, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Fürtwängler's Third (18.12.49 with the Berlin Phil) is my absolute favorite version of the symphony. Nonetheless, I think I'll trust him about Gardiner's.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 21, 2009, 10:41:04 AM
Nonetheless, I think I'll trust him about Gardiner's.
Indeed; I've found that in most instances, when Hurwitz awards less than 5 in the artistic category, he has very good reasons for doing so, and expresses them clearly, citing the original scores. I'm looking forward to seeing how he
eviscerates reviews Simon Rattle's new Brahms cycle*.
*I haven't heard it, but I know what Hurwitz thinks of the Rattle/Berlin partnership from reviews like this one. (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11122)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 21, 2009, 10:41:04 AM
Yeah, the guy's completely mad ;D Seriously, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Fürtwängler's Third (18.12.49 with the Berlin Phil) is my absolute favorite version of the symphony. Nonetheless, I think I'll trust him about Gardiner's.
Sarge
Oh yeah, he's mostly right on Gardiner's 3rd. Rather, as if most often the case with his rubbish*, nothing he reports about the performance is an outright lie; but the end result is entirely in line with Gardiner's "previous efforts in the series".
It's just that the 3rd takes on a more disagreeable appearance when treated in the steely manner Gardiner reserves for Brahms' music, so as to 'properly de-romanticise it' - what he calls being faithful to Brahms' intentions, if I remember correctly an interview he gave for Gramophone around the time the first issue was released. It (the 3rd) becomes colourless, instead of 'edgy'.
Conversely, the choral works on the third volume are wonderful in my opinion (using Abbado's readings as a comparison, also very good, also in my opinion), and not at all bad just because the 3rd isn't excellent, so we thus we have to reject everything about the disc like a baby - how was it that
M put it? - "shitting all over the place because that's the only way it can attract attention".
* Even though the last sentence, above, makes it obvious how vehemently I dislike Hurwitz's brand of 'reviewing', I'd like to make it plainer:
I have no problem with Hurwitz's skill with turns of phrase - though it impresses me little, both within the context of his profession and in general. Others are as eloquent, but not as inclined to show off. But his way of selectively, vehemently condemning particular recordings without a seeming afterthought for what people might find to
like in them, always looking at what they should
dislike, is wrong.
Not because, as a method, it's been outlawed. In fact, it's quite useful, this sort of viciousness in criticism (see: E. Hanslick). Yet like Hanslick, Hurwitz never makes it explicit that this is his manner of approach, while reviewing within the context of other people who do not subscribe to the cult of Authority of the Reviewer-God, like Jed Distler; Hurwitz is a century too late, and proud of it. He is inconsistent, much like M pretending to be a force of nature, all the while he's still a human, and IMO not one of the most musically knowledgeable critics, either.
Finally, and crucially, I do not enjoy anyone
eviscerating (cf.
Brian's post) anything, because to me, this betrays a total lack of respect for its source. Is Hurwitz smarter than Gardiner? Is Gardiner smarter than Hurwitz? Does it matter? In my world, criticism has absolutely no relation to comparing the size of one's di-
knowledge with that of others', but is rather an act of intelligent assessment,
on paper.
For example,
"The finale, taken at a ridiculous tempo given the range of feeling that the music wants to express".
What the f[ornicate] does that mean, apart from 'I did not like his speed in the finale'? I do not
want to have to take for granted that 'Hurwitz knows', when he does not put down on paper anything other than the critics' equivalent of booing or cheering for a record. Hanslick, in direct comparsion, not only backed up, but
based his viciousness on the grounds of a consistent theory of aesthetic excellence, that stands on its own philosophical merits enough to be studied still. Hurwitz is just a cheap imitation, destroying the value of his informed views with the inconsistency with which he applies them; he is M, only he gets paid for being a music critic, and so I much prefer M.
On a separate and less extended note, Simon Rattle's reading of the 3rd was an interesting one to me, though not a top choice.
As usual, he brings out the structural undercurrents, and formal cogency of the piece, but it just feels like he should have given it a little more of an opportunity to breathe... On the other hand, it's very informative: much like Bernstein's!
(For comparison, I loved Rattle's 2nd, and the 1st past the opening movement, which also had the issue I report with the 3rd, above.)
Quote from: Brian on November 21, 2009, 10:53:00 AM
Indeed; I've found that in most instances, when Hurwitz awards less than 5 in the artistic category, he has very good reasons for doing so, and expresses them clearly, citing the original scores. I'm looking forward to seeing how he eviscerates reviews Simon Rattle's new Brahms cycle*.
*I haven't heard it, but I know what Hurwitz thinks of the Rattle/Berlin partnership from reviews like this one. (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11122)
I reviewed Rattle's Brahms cycle (among other recent BPO recordings) at length HERE (http://tonicblotter.blogspot.com/2009/11/little-rattlebpo-record-guide.html).
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 17, 2009, 11:17:04 AM
The Hurwitzer says
The Sorinater says: anything Hurwitz hates must be good! 8)
Surprised by the criticism of Gardiner here but I absolutely agree. I have three of his recordings (Bach B-minor Mass, Schumann's Peri oratorio & the Carissimmi disc) and find all of them conducted unmusically. Up until now, I've been surrounded by universal praise for Gardiner and absolutely perplexed by it. Anyway, thanks for knowledgeable commentary about the beautiful Brahms 3rd. Don't want to derail the thread.
Quote from: val on October 17, 2007, 03:47:17 AM
There was an wonderful interpretation of the 3rd Symphony by Karl Böhm with the VPO. It was mono and old. I had it in LP but never found it on CD.
It was the most natural, fluent version I ever heard.
For the first time on CD. And fantastic performance it is! Not to be missed. Sound quality is very fine for the age (1953, mono)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ewFn4rtRL.jpg)
Quote from: Drasko on April 09, 2011, 05:23:04 AM
For the first time on CD. And fantastic performance it is! Not to be missed. Sound quality is very fine for the age (1953, mono)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ewFn4rtRL.jpg)
So it
is a different performance from the later one. Thanks! :D
This is my first post here.
Reading the posts of this intriguing thread, I was surpised not see Dohnanyi's Cleveland version ever mentioned (if it was, I must have missed it). I don't have such an extensive knowledge of the discography to be able to compete with the Veteran members (and am especially ignorant, with historic recordings).
But Dohnanyi's solid and straightforward performance seems like a very worthwhile one.
One version that was indeed mentioned a few times is Wand's, to which my preferences go.
I completely agree with posts critical of Hurwitz's "John Wayne" style (although it was one of his reviews which lead me to Dohnanyi's version).
Quote from: Drasko on April 09, 2011, 05:23:04 AM
For the first time on CD. And fantastic performance it is! Not to be missed. Sound quality is very fine for the age (1953, mono)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ewFn4rtRL.jpg)
I'll check this one out (here in Aus they are widely available in stores) - I would have assumed this was from Bohm's mid-70s VPO cycle (whose 2nd is my favourite for that work).
Quote from: quark on June 14, 2011, 02:42:24 AM
This is my first post here.
Reading the posts of this intriguing thread, I was surpised not see Dohnanyi's Cleveland version ever mentioned (if it was, I must have missed it). I don't have such an extensive knowledge of the discography to be able to compete with the Veteran members (and am especially ignorant, with historic recordings).
But Dohnanyi's solid and straightforward performance seems like a very worthwhile one.
One version that was indeed mentioned a few times is Wand's, to which my preferences go.
I completely agree with posts critical of Hurwitz's "John Wayne" style (although it was one of his reviews which lead me to Dohnanyi's version).
(A bit late to notice, as usual...)
Hello quark! In all honesty, I have no idea why I haven't heard Dohnanyi's version yet. However, given the standard of his other symphonic recordings with the Cleveland Orchestra, I have no reason to think it
isn't worthwhile.
Further, a live Dohnanyi cycle of the Brahms symphonies has recently been released in two installments by Signum Classics, the first installment of which (2nd/4th) I
have heard, and liked enough to want to hear the other, at some point. :)
A Brahms cycle (which no-one has mentioned) by James Loughran and the Halle Orchestra together with other orchestral works is reviewed favourably here
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2002/Dec02/Brahms_Loughran.htm
James Loughran was principal conductor of The Hallé as of the 1971-1972 season, succeeding Sir John Barbirolli. He held the post until 1983, and was conductor laureate of The Hallé from 1983 to 1991. You can hear three perfomances of his with other orchestras on
www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/tapes.php
as well as a Brahms Third symphony from Bruno Walter and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra from 1936
here
www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/transcriptions_07.php
which also contains Solomon with the Haydn Variations.
Quote from: early grey on August 24, 2011, 08:04:49 AM
A Brahms cycle (which no-one has mentioned) by James Loughran and the Halle Orchestra together with other orchestral works is reviewed favourably here
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2002/Dec02/Brahms_Loughran.htm
James Loughran was principal conductor of The Hallé as of the 1971-1972 season, succeeding Sir John Barbirolli. He held the post until 1983, and was conductor laureate of The Hallé from 1983 to 1991. You can hear three perfomances of his with other orchestras on
www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/tapes.php
as well as a Brahms Third symphony from Bruno Walter and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra from 1936
here
www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/transcriptions_07.php
which also contains Solomon with the Haydn Variations.
It's a nice cycle, to be sure. My taste in Brahms is generally skewed towards the more Germanic approach, if you will, but Loughran imbues the music with a very pleasant 'lift'. It's smiling, genial, but unstodgy Brahms. :D
That Walter 3rd you mention, on the other hand, is in my shortlist for my favourite recording of the symphony. However, I mostly refrain from bringing it up on account of the sound being quite historical-listener-oriented.
As a performance, however, it has singular fire and emotional commitment. Vintage Walter.
Edit: You can find it in an Andante box dedicated to Brahms' symphonies, which is sadly OOP as far as I know.
My personal favourite recording of Brahms' 3rd symphony would probably be the excellent performance from the Vienna Philharmonic and James Levine on DG. This is a very engaging and expressive performance with the VPO on top form, with tempi that seem perfect from Levine. On amazon.co.uk I have published my full review.
[asin]B000001GLY[/asin]
My favourite after the Levine would be the recording Gardner made with the Orchestre Romantique et Révolutionnaire. What a wonderful, glowing sound they produce!
[asin]B002JIBCIU[/asin]
Daniel
Quote from: madaboutmahler on August 30, 2011, 07:34:07 AM
My personal favourite recording of Brahms' 3rd symphony would probably be the excellent performance from the Vienna Philharmonic and James Levine on DG. This is a very engaging and expressive performance with the VPO on top form, with tempi that seem perfect from Levine. On amazon.co.uk I have published my full review.
Same here Daniel, that is also my favorite. :)
The DG Levine (thanks to Drasko, IIRC) is one of the best modern ones I've heard, too, if a tiny bit too unwieldy. :)
I'm looking forward to hearing his Chicago Brahms, on the strength of that recording.
As for the Gardiner, we discussed it a few pages back. Not my thing, at least presently. Maybe I'll put it on one day and appreciate it at last; certainly, I liked Gardiner's 1st, and the bits of his 4th I've heard (the only one I don't own).
I think Bruno Walter / Columbia is reference.
Also like
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B98D1ZWBL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Very similar to Walter
(http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/imgs/s300x300/4316812.jpg)
Highly Romantic.
Klemperer is not enough con brio, and too serious in general.
Haitink a good straightforward version with great orchestra.
Harnoncourt is a great quieter version, more chamber like.
Quote from: Clever Hans on August 30, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
I think Bruno Walter / Columbia is reference.
Also like
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B98D1ZWBL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Very similar to Walter
I know a lot of people venerate that Walter, and I liked it, but it's always sounded a little 'flabby' around the edges. The superlative earlier 1936 account (as discussed above) is by all accounts its 'tighter', more propulsive cousin.
However, the in-between New York version that - going by the trend in this thread - someone is bound to bring up, is probably not better than either; faster but less elegant than the Columbia, and not nearly as heartfelt as the Vienna.
All three of them rank very highly in my book, though.
And I must once again bemoan my lack of that Kertesz. :(
One day!Quote from: Clever Hans on August 30, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
Klemperer is not enough con brio, and too serious in general.
Haitink a good straightforward version with great orchestra.
Harnoncourt is a great quieter version, more chamber like.
Ha! Indeed. Although I find his style has merit, taken on its own terms.
And though I'm not very fond of the Haitink (too plain?), the epithet 'quieter' is spot-on for the (superb) Harnoncourt.
Quote from: Renfield on August 31, 2011, 03:16:07 PM
I know a lot of people venerate that Walter, and I liked it, but it's always sounded a little 'flabby' around the edges. The superlative earlier 1936 account (as discussed above) is by all accounts its 'tighter', more propulsive cousin.
However, the in-between New York version that - going by the trend in this thread - someone is bound to bring up, is probably not better than either; faster but less elegant than the Columbia, and not nearly as heartfelt as the Vienna.
All three of them rank very highly in my book, though.
And I must once again bemoan my lack of that Kertesz. :( One day!
Yes the 1936 is interpretively maybe the best 3rd on record (although a lot of people cite the Cantelli) but the sound is obviously not good. Incidentally, Gramophone agreed with your assessment of the New York version versus the earlier account.
Kertesz held Walter as one of his conducting influences, and again the Gramophone warmly endorsed all of Kertesz' performances as being very natural and unaffected except the 1st, because it took too long to settle into a tempo in the allegro.
Apparently this symphony is very difficult to conduct and unfortunately many conductors don't seem to understand what con brio means, or poco allegretto, for that matter, and prefer to caramelize the whole thing.
While you bemoan your lack of the Kertesz, I'll bemoan my lack of the Monteux/LSO 2nd.
Quote from: Clever Hans on August 31, 2011, 04:45:28 PM
Yes the 1936 is interpretively maybe the best 3rd on record (although a lot of people cite the Cantelli)
The Cantelli, ugh. It's not a recording that every really
settled, with me. I like Toscanini more, from that angle.
On the other hand, the Mendelssohn 4th on the same disc (Testament release) is my favourite recording of the work!
Quote from: Clever Hans on August 31, 2011, 04:45:28 PM
Apparently this symphony is very difficult to conduct
It really is!
Part of what got me so fascinated with this symphony above and beyond the other three is that on the one hand, it's a shatteringly vulnerable, powerful work as written. On the other hand, so very few conductors and ensembles seem able to let it speak for itself! Everyone seems itching to make their own statement, above and beyond Brahms' own; which has, of course, had the side-effect of producing a good tradition of niche readings (e.g. the Klemperer, or the late Bernstein). But the interpretational 'mainstream' is awfully lacking in the 3rd symphony, compared to the 1st, or the ubiquitous 4th.
A relatively underrated (IMO), if a little grandiose recording of the 3rd, with similar technical drawbacks to the Columbia Walter (i.e. occasional - here rather
surprising - orchestral lapses) is the 1988 Karajan; and the 1960 (Vienna) before it.
(The other studio Karajan 3rds, from '64 and '77, suffer from the interpretational-ants-in-my-pants syndrome.)
Quote from: Renfield on August 31, 2011, 05:43:25 PM
On the other hand, so very few conductors and ensembles seem able to let it speak for itself! Everyone seems itching to make their own statement, above and beyond Brahms' own; which has, of course, had the side-effect of producing a good tradition of niche readings (e.g. the Klemperer, or the late Bernstein). But the interpretational 'mainstream' is awfully lacking in the 3rd symphony, compared to the 1st, or the ubiquitous 4th.
A relatively underrated (IMO), if a little grandiose recording of the 3rd, with similar technical drawbacks to the Columbia Walter (i.e. occasional - here rather surprising - orchestral lapses) is the 1988 Karajan; and the 1960 (Vienna) before it.
(The other studio Karajan 3rds, from '64 and '77, suffer from the interpretational-ants-in-my-pants syndrome.)
So true.
By the way, the vienna Karajan is now available in this incarnation
http://www.deccaclassics.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&PRODUCT_NR=4782661&SearchString=karajan+brahms+3&UNBUYABLE=1&per_page=50&flow_per_page=50&presentation=flow
I have an indulgent weakness for Bernstein's Vienna third -- it's over the top, but gorgeous. I listened to it recently, and followed it up with Furtwangler... I was tempted to start smoking just so I could have a cigarette after that... :)
I'm currently waiting for the mailman to bring Levine's re-released Chicago Brahms set (along with Casadesus' Mozart and a few other gems that Sony/RCA's recently let out of the vaults) -- after hearing so many good things about it over the years it'll be interesting to finally hear it for myself. I do like the CSO in Brahms -- Solti's Brahms set is about the only recording of his that gets many spins in these parts.
Earlier this week I watched the first episode of Fawlty Towers. That's Brahms! That's Brahms's Third Racket!
Since this recording hasn't been mentioned yet, I want to throw out a recommendation for Daniel Harding's recording. (http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symphonies-Nos-3-4/dp/B000R3QYZK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320781176&sr=8-1)
None of the recordings of the third I've heard (by Mackerras, Solti, Wand) were quite satisfactory, but this one is excellent! Well judged tempi, excellent winds, beautiful strings, and he has a good sense of rhythm. The digital sound and the fact that it's an HIP-influenced interpretation with a chamber orchestra certainly help, too. I have a few more recordings on my shelf to explore (and a few more coming in the mail), but this one is a favorite.
The fourth on that disc is not as great as the third; he tends to be faster than I like and I feel he loses some of the drama of the piece, however it is beautifully played. It won't be replacing anyone's favorite, but it is a solid fourth. The third is worth the price of admission alone, anyway.
(http://img.hmv.co.jp/image/jacket/400/50/7/0/017.jpg)
http://hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/5070017
Georges Pretre's 2008 live account of Brahms' 3rd is finally getting an official release. Unfortunately it looks like Japanese release only, though Weitblick CDs often come up at amazon marketplace.
It's a magnificent performance in the old school fashion of fluid tempos and free rubato, but never jarring, wonderfully flowing and song like. When recorded broadcasts back in 2008 were making rounds many people were quite impressed (me included).
For those who'd like to hear it, while unable to get Japanese release I've uploaded broadcast recording I have. Sound is very good and clear with only a bit of dynamic compression in the louder parts (radio style). Here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?2b5kblaax925sbx
Hi,
Brahms' Third is one of my favorite symphonies. I enjoyed reading this (http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/brahms-symphony-no-3-which-recording-is-best?utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=GRAM%20ENews%20Bulletin%20%2803.02.2014%29&utm_content=article2_headline) comparison of recordings on the Gramophone website.
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 04, 2014, 04:11:03 PM
Hi,
Brahms' Third is one of my favorite symphonies. I enjoyed reading this (http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/brahms-symphony-no-3-which-recording-is-best?utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=GRAM%20ENews%20Bulletin%20%2803.02.2014%29&utm_content=article2_headline) comparison of recordings on the Gramophone website.
I'm glad to see a positive mention of Haitink's first recording in that survey. I recently picked it up, and found it excellent all around. Just like his 2nd, which I found equally excellent. If 1 and 4 are this good, then that's an awesome cycle!
Quote from: Velimir on February 04, 2014, 07:30:37 PM
I'm glad to see a positive mention of Haitink's first recording in that survey. I recently picked it up, and found it excellent all around. Just like his 2nd, which I found equally excellent. If 1 and 4 are this good, then that's an awesome cycle!
It
is an awesome cycle! :)
Q
When I got my first ever Brahms three-quarter cycle at age 10 No. 3 became my immediate favourite of the lot, and possibly still is. (I liked the last movement best, I think.) If you trust the judgment of a 10-year-old, that cycle was Jochum/LPO on EMI. (Symphonies 1-3 and the overtures in the release I picked up, I don't know if he did a 4.)
Quote from: amw on February 05, 2014, 01:59:10 AM
When I got my first ever Brahms three-quarter cycle at age 10 No. 3 became my immediate favourite of the lot, and possibly still is. (I liked the last movement best, I think.) If you trust the judgment of a 10-year-old, that cycle was Jochum/LPO on EMI. (Symphonies 1-3 and the overtures in the release I picked up, I don't know if he did a 4.)
Yes, he did.
http://www.amazon.com/Symphony-German-Requiem-Johannes-Brahms/dp/B000002SEV/
And in the mono era:
http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-4-Symphonies-Johannes/dp/B000001GS0/
Quote from: Que on February 04, 2014, 10:02:48 PM
It is an awesome cycle! :)
It is!
And his Boston recordings are very good, too!
Quote from: Marc on February 05, 2014, 09:49:36 AM
And his Boston recordings are very good, too!
Yes, I agree. The Boston cycle is an underrated gem. The quality is on the high side no question.
Unfortunately the timing was all wrong for this cycle. By the time of its release Philips's Haitink/Concertgebouw marketing machine was in full swing and most likely the only folks interested in the Boston cycle were fans of the Boston Symphony.
Then more recently of course came the LSO cycle and I can still remember all the hype and marketing surrounding that cycle.
So wedged in-between those two high-profile cycles the Boston cycle simply sank without a trace.
Shame because it really is a cycle of distinction.
It is great to read the positive comments about Haitink's Boston cycle. I've owned the Boston 4th for many years and have always enjoyed it, however, due to rarely (if ever) hearing mention of the cycle I always figured it to be unpopular. I'm now interested in obtaining the remaining symphonies.
After reading so many good things about Haitink's Boston Brahms cycle, I just acquired Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (No. 1 is considerably more expensive than the rest).
Quote from: Jay F on February 05, 2014, 04:00:02 PM
After reading so many good things about Haitink's Boston Brahms cycle, I just acquired Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (No. 1 is considerably more expensive than the rest).
Yes, I noticed that too.
Quote from: Marc on February 05, 2014, 09:49:36 AM
RE Haitink:
And his Boston recordings are very good, too!
Thanks, Marc. I bought all of these on Amazon Marketplace and am enjoying them more than any Brahms symphony cycle I've heard before.
[asin]B00000E4SU[/asin]
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on February 05, 2014, 01:19:37 PM
Yes, I agree. The Boston cycle is an underrated gem. The quality is on the high side no question.
Unfortunately the timing was all wrong for this cycle. By the time of its release Philips's Haitink/Concertgebouw marketing machine was in full swing and most likely the only folks interested in the Boston cycle were fans of the Boston Symphony.
Then more recently of course came the LSO cycle and I can still remember all the hype and marketing surrounding that cycle.
So wedged in-between those two high-profile cycles the Boston cycle simply sank without a trace.
Shame because it really is a cycle of distinction.
The Boston cycle is perhaps the best Brahms cycle Haitink did, ore mature than the Amsterdam RCO cycle, and more together and compellign than the LS. Don't forget the 2nd Piao Concerto with Emmanuel Ax and the Boston / Haitink on Sony, it's integral to the cycle, imo.
I think Haitink's Boston cycle didn't get that much praise because the BSO was supposed to be in bad shape at the time. People listened to the records with a preconceived idea.
Quote from: Herman on February 12, 2014, 01:28:34 AM
Don't forget the 2nd Piao Concerto with Emmanuel Ax and the Boston / Haitink on Sony, it's integral to the cycle, imo.
Thanks. I'll give it a try. :)
I knew a thread like this existed! (I even posted in it, wow)
Quote from: amw on January 27, 2016, 02:26:46 AM
If anyone has suggestions for other Brahms 3s to investigate, let me know.
From the suggestions in this thread I will listen to
Walter/Columbia (I know Walter/NYPO, which is generally excellent but a bit too fast in the last movement)
Krauss
one of the Furtwänglers, if I can figure out which one is which (the ones on Qobuz aren't tagged by recording date, but there's one on Audite [duplicated on a few other labels], another on Urania, possibly more)
Levine
Haitink/Boston
Böhm/Vienna
Dohnányi/Philharmonia (I liked their No. 2 quite a bit)
Harding
Abbado/Berlin
possibly Klemperer or Karajan/Vienna but not sure yet
Quote from: amw on January 27, 2016, 02:55:43 AM
Levine
There are two Levines - Chicago and Vienna - I haven't heard Vienna, but I love Chicago - still, be safe and try both ;)
Thinking Abbado/Berlin may be my current favorite, but Levine/Chicago is close.
Quote from: amw on January 27, 2016, 02:55:43 AM
Krauss
The Krauss has been posted complete on youtube recently:
https://www.youtube.com/v/M6G_ozRlsPs
Quote from: amw on January 27, 2016, 02:55:43 AM
Levine
If it's recent Levine, I'd avoid it like the plague. I heard him do it live with the Met Orchestra at Carnegie a few years ago, and he dragged out the thing to the point of statis.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 27, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
If it's recent Levine, I'd avoid it like the plague. I heard him do it live with the Met Orchestra at Carnegie a few years ago, and he dragged out the thing to the point of statis.
When the doctor commanded "less activity,"
Jimmy interpreted it as
not excluding his conductorly routine ....
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2016, 04:03:55 PM
When the doctor commanded "less activity," Jimmy interpreted it as not excluding his conductorly routine ....
:laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 27, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
If it's recent Levine, I'd avoid it like the plague. I heard him do it live with the Met Orchestra at Carnegie a few years ago, and he dragged out the thing to the point of statis.
Neither recording is recent; the RCA (Chicago) is from the (late)? 1970s, the DG (Vienna) is from around 1990, or maybe mid-nineties. I do not remember the third in particular, but overall they are comparably fleet performances, maybe even "erring" in the other direction, that is, too much Toscaninian brio and not enough "autumnal warmth".
Quote from: Brian on January 27, 2016, 03:04:25 PM
There are two Levines - Chicago and Vienna - I haven't heard Vienna, but I love Chicago - still, be safe and try both ;)
I'll check to see which one was mentioned in the thread. Might also listen to other random recordings as the mood strikes, though.
Also I may or may not post mini-reviews in here for as long as my brain is still interested in listening to different interpretations of brahms 3 and can tell the differences between them.
Quote from: Jo498 on January 27, 2016, 10:56:20 PM
Neither recording is recent; the RCA (Chicago) is from the (late)? 1970s, the DG (Vienna) is from around 1990, or maybe mid-nineties. I do not remember the third in particular, but overall they are comparably fleet performances, maybe even "erring" in the other direction, that is, too much Toscaninian brio and not enough "autumnal warmth".
The one I heard in 2012 or so was less "autumnal warmth" than "hot summer nap." I don't know if I've simply evolved, or Levine has gotten more somnolent in Romantic repertoire over the years, probably a combination. But the last "live" (I used the word ironically) Ring Cycle I heard from him at the Met was so soporific I thought it a huge waste of money, and when he had to bow out of Parsifal I was delighted; at least there's a chance we'll get someone with a pulse.
And yet he also did a helluva job conducting an Ives and Carter program around this same time.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/55/80/0724354548055_600.jpg)
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.
Harding/Bremen Chamber Orchestra/Erato is I assume the Harding recording alluded to earlier. As far as seasons go, it's wintry rather than autumnal. The texture is light and somewhat fluffy, like fresh snow, and every one of Brahms's many lines is brought out in relief. In spite of all the clipped (presumably HIP-influenced) articulation and sharp attacks, however, the first movement fails to "go". Not in terms of tempo (which is pretty much identical to Kertész's, whose reading is one of the most thrilling, though much less flexible) but in terms of energy levels. Perhaps the orchestra is a bit underpowered, I don't know—though that's possibly the conductor's fault for never really letting them play loudly and tapering every phrase with a diminuendo. The woodwinds and horns are excellent, regardless. Slow movement is kept flowing, though it's cold (lacking the passion brought by Günter Wand & the Hamburgers), like a calm but icy river. 'Bones don't blend well at the end and even sound somewhat menacing, I suspect they're jobbers though. Fewer clipped phrases here, as well.
I was wondering if maybe a few sparks of warmth would develop, particularly in the finale. The third movement is balletic, perhaps something out of The Nutcracker with snowflakes floating down. (I'd probably listen to a Tchaikovsky 6 with Harding, if he could be persuaded not to hold back so much on the fffs and ffffs.) The fourth movement is notable for its tonal beauty, which is not what it should be notable for in my view, and again never really convinces in its more energetic passages, though hints of warmth start to creep in during the climactic section leading up to the recapitulation. And again during the return of that theme during the coda, enough to create a kind of resolution that is effective and somewhat touching. I mean, maybe that's just hypothermia, but who knows. Again, I don't mean cold in the sense of unemotional (though it is quite reserved, which is not exactly the same thing), just in the sense of... literally cold as well as quiet, lonely, Schubert Winterreise-ish. The parts of this symphony that are loud/passionate/energetic, in this recording, often feel like shouting loudly on an empty snow-covered pasture: like dropping sounds into a deep well of silence.
Not really the kind of thing I'm looking for, so this goes to the bottom of the list, for now. (I'm sure I could easily come up with 10 worse recordings that I've heard, but I'm wiping the slate clean for now, so recordings "only" have to compete with Jochum/LPO, Kubelik, Wand and Kertész at this point!)
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/52/76/0002894297652_600.jpg)
And now, Mr. Popular, #1 choice of BBC Radio 3's "Building a Library", Gramophone, and possibly even David Hurwitz. I don't remember.
Somehow (again I think it's phrasing and articulation) Abbado fills the music with warmth and passion from the very start. Maybe this is the summer recording. There's no heaviness to the textures, in spite of a relative lack of clarity and super-careless Berlin strings. (Or maybe that's digital watermarking? I'm streaming this and it is DG after all.) There are actually a few places where I'd prefer a heavier, more mysterious and shadowy feeling, eg in the transition back to the 1st movement recapitulation. The other thing affecting this Greatest Recording of All Time seems to be—dare I say it—a lack of long-range planning. Every individual phrase is near-perfect, but somehow they don't lead into one another with the sense of inevitability I got from Kertész. On the other hand, the emotional side of things is played up enough that it doesn't bother you. A "heart" rather than "head" performance.
The Berlin woodwinds are even better than the Bremen ones (predictably), and the equally flowing andante manages to be both more serene and more emotionally involving. Abbado does not lend the music any of its strangeness or magic found in Harding's recording, which made that andante retain interest despite its lack of passion. Instead he aims for an uncomfortable mix of Wand-style passion and Kubelik-style serene nobility, which makes the passion sound... somewhat unmotivated and even excessive. Like I said, lack of long-range planning. If the symphony's first two movements are a "light half" and the second two a "dark half", it's the dark half where Abbado picks up and tries for real ambiguity instead of the frequent declarations of "I'm happy now! Now I'm sad! Now I'm happy! Now I'm mysteriously noncommittal!". I think this is one of the most beautiful Poco allegrettos I've heard in spite of its lack of a strong rhythmic sense (and presence of great slowness); it sounds genuinely conflicted in a way that springs from the material instead of being imposed upon it. The finale is doom-laden with a powerfully surging second theme, just as I like it, although I could ask for a bit more power at the beginning. (Later on this is delivered.) Perhaps the cellos are allowed to dominate the horn in the second theme, but that's a minor issue. Though I'm not sure the transition to the coda is very well accomplished, the coda itself is excellent, giving the impression of hard-won rest even though our ears ~3 minutes ago were insisting that the rest was not hard-won but simply a result of the violent, dramatic, tragic music of the main section just sort of running out of steam.
I think the finale would be very close with the finale of Jochum/LPO (current favourite for that movement) if it came down to a contest, and the Poco allegretto is better than anyone else's. However, I have reservations about the coherence of the first two movements. I wonder why "predominantly light with dark bits" seems so much harder to pull off than "predominantly dark with light bits".
Current leaderboards:
01. Jochum/LPO [review necessary]
02. Kertész
03. Abbado
04. Wand/NDR (RCA)
05. Kubelik
06. Harding
Every one of these Brahms 3s is in my top 10, so there's that >_>
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0000/993/MI0000993958.jpg)
I had certain expectations going into Mackerras/SCO—fast, hard driven, somewhat underplayed, thin textures—and these were mostly delivered upon. The first movement is almost rushed, with some of the notes in the opening theme sounding as though they're just a fraction of a second early. Nonetheless I don't find the tempi quite so mechanical as some of Mackerras's critics do (*cough*)—the small accelerandi/ritardandi are well judged, though at this speed the calm ending of the movement seems a bit unpremeditated. The slow movement is taken at a moderate tempo and is calm with little emotional excess and great mystery; very well done, but the contrasts are underplayed. In the gossamer-light third movement Mackerras continues to play up the mystery and ghostliness, suggesting forces unheard behind the music. At least the equal of Abbado's—a marvelous performance, I can't decide if it's my favourite or not (possibly would need to be a bit more dance-like for that). As for the finale, it's an exercise in creating the impression of greater orchestral power than (I suspect) the Scottish Chamber Orchestra is capable of—restrained but perfectly judged use of timpani and brass fortissimos, + keeping a tight leash on dynamics elsewhere. Articulation (pesante) and speed (fast) do the rest. A quite unexpected aspect of this performance is one of the best evocations of "heroic striving" in the second theme—something I would have expected more of from the "romantic" conductors like Kubelik and Wand, but apparently they didn't do as well at it.
Overall the performance ends more strongly than it begins, though the ending isn't so original hermeneutically (he brings the dynamics down just after the climax to suggest a collapse, then redemption emerging from the ashes or whatever). The other thing that bothered me increasingly over time was what I can only describe as a tendency to play groups of notes identically just because they are identical, without regard for their different positions in a sequence/phrase/musical sentence. I think that's a minor thing though. The performance is otherwise on a level with Wand/NDR for the most part; if I rate it higher, it's mostly for the Poco allegretto.
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0000/982/MI0000982731.jpg)
Once again I seem to be juxtaposing a "head" performance with a "heart" one—though György Szell and the Western Reserve Orchestra display an equal if not greater affinity for the structure of the work. Somewhat unusually, the passionate development section of the first movement is played with an almost total absence of drama (more notable because of how much drama was on display in the exposition), and lead to a calm retransition of great depth. This isn't a flaw so much as a long-term structural strategy which pays off at the start of the coda, where rather than accelerating as Mackerras, Kertész, etc do to add excitement, he can coast on the pre-existing exposition drama, create a big climax that isn't attempting to compete with a different big climax in the development, and quiet down to a very convincing ending. Clever girl. (Szell's tempi are much more fluid than almost anyone else's except Kertész's and Kubelik's so far.) The slow movement, similarly, describes a single long arc, with less attention paid than usual to the ups-and-downs of the individual sections. It's a bit less successful only because he doesn't bring the arc quite high enough—it doesn't shake the impression of a movement dominated by disciplined serenity, without enough ambiguity to be satisfying.
The third movement is excellent if without the "something extra" brought by Abbado/Mackerras; very straight until the big ritardando at the end, which is kept dynamically restrained. The finale doesn't quite thrum with power and energy—I'm not sure why, since it's only a few seconds slower than Jochum or Mackerras. If anything, it's a bit over-romanticised. Again Szell favours continuity over contrast, somewhat counterintuitively, which has a "classicising" effect at the cost of some excitement and drama; and again he's playing the long game, keeping one eye on the start of the coda through the whole movement. The coda has a sense of resignation rather than transfiguration, which is also fairly unusual.
The truth is, though—although I can recognise all the nice things about this performance, it didn't really gel in the way I wanted it to. Perhaps that's Szell's single-minded focus on structure, which might make this a great first choice for someone who's never heard Brahms 3 before—and the performance is widely regarded as one of the best—but apart from the first movement I was not especially moved.
I wasn't sure if this was Szell or just too much Brahms 3, so of course I had to put on another performance.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/22/71/5099706447122_600.jpg)
It was Szell.
After about thirty seconds I was prepared to call this performance definitive. Apart from the lack of repeats, of course (damn it). Tempi are ideal. The lyricism/passion duality of the first movement is brought out better than I've heard elsewhere with absolutely no soft edges or interpretive confusion—it's both tragic/passionate and pastoral/lyrical at the same time. Which is kinda the point of a duality. The slow movement is disturbed under the calm surface, as it should be; the high, suspended two-note figures that intrude throughout the movement have the effect of dark shapes swimming under a rippled surface. The Poco allegretto's dance origins are emphasised through vibrant bass notes (that was intentional, right?); it is a light and fairly objective performance, not quite as balletic as Harding maybe, but also not quite as searching as Abbado. The finale establishes its high energy immediately through the sotto voce opening and maintains a different sort of continuity (high nervousness) to Szell's reading, though probably not as much continuity as the mad dash for the finish line I remember from Walter's NYPO recording. Walter isn't the last word in orchestral heft and power (that would be Wand or Jochum), comparatively fleet (actually more so than Mackerras), and setting the template for Jochum by not relaxing the pace or internal agitation of the music until the very end, so that the final chorale and return of the first movement's material seem like an unearned benediction, a halo cast over the music. A very different effect from Szell, both equally valuable, I think.
Downsides: the Columbia Symphony Orchestra (or whatever this is—supposedly a pick-up band of LA area players handpicked by Walter or something) isn't very good. Lacks a certain amount of fire. Um... some of it is merely excellent as opposed to a world benchmark. I can't think of much else, honestly. I am curious to revisit Walter's NYPO performance as well as the third one that reportedly exists (don't remember whether it's earlier or later). Meanwhile, this takes first place, though not quite as definitive as I'd initially imagined (and could eventually be displaced).
Leaderboards:
01. Walter/Columbia
02. Jochum/LPO [review necessary]
03. Kertész
04. Abbado
05. Mackerras
06. Wand/NDR (RCA)
07. Kubelik
08. Szell
09. Harding
Brahms symphonies happen to be an old passion of mine. :)
Bruno Walter's New York traversal will definitely be a notch up (or two) artistically, more intense and tightly knit, more accomplished in execution.
[asin]B00020HCH2[/asin]
And here is your "other" Brahms 3 by Bruno Walter - a prewar recording with the Vienna Philharmonic.
Opus Kura is a guarantee for a natural, high quality transfer.
[asin]B000ICMDAU[/asin]
Q
Quote from: amw on January 29, 2016, 01:57:05 AM
God, what an ugly dude. And such a bad, washed out photo. ...
I was wondering if maybe a few sparks of warmth would develop, ...
Not really the kind of thing I'm looking for, so this goes to the bottom of the list, for now.
Expectation bias kicking in? ;) (And how could it not?)
I didn't know Kertesz had recorded Brahms 3, but (without hearing it) he sounds like the right man for the job, to me.
Quote from: Que on January 31, 2016, 02:51:40 AM
Bruno Walter's New York traversal will definitely be a notch up (or two) artistically, more intense and tightly knit, more accomplished in execution.
I just ordered that. I don't know any of Walter's 3rd's, but I remember we had a Walter 4th at my parents' house that I thought outstanding. He did one passage in particular in the second movement that I've never heard matched (not that I listen to every Brahms 4th in existence). It is the return of the second theme in the recapitulation, where first the strings play the passage quietly in E major, and then they soar an octave above in forte, with syncopated rhythms. I suspect you all know the spot. I have yet to hear another performance that matches Walter for passion at that moment; other recordings (like Mackerras) just play the notes.
I'm so glad these mini-reviews are happening. This is new GMG essential reading...and has inspired a need for me to listen to the Third Symphony, pronto. Kertesz is on the shelf and heading for the CD player.
Quote from: amw on January 31, 2016, 01:33:33 AM
Apart from the lack of repeats, of course (damn it).
This is a pet peeve of mine as well. Back in the 50s and 60s it was almost de rigueur for performers to ignore indicated repeats. Toscanini cut the repeats in Beethoven's 5th, even though the first movement is very short, and also in the Eroica, even though there is documentary evidence that Beethoven insisted on keeping it. Pianists routinely cut the repeat in the finale of the Appassionata, even though Beethoven puts in a note specifically requiring it. But even Gunther Schuller, who wrote a whole book arguing for total fidelity to composers' scores, left out the first movement repeat in his Brahms 1.
Of course you can rip the CD to a file and edit it so as to add the repeat. This is easy with LvB 5 where the repeat is literal. Conversely, I ripped the CD from the new Sony Stravinsky box to remove a mistaken repeat in the second movement of Jeu de Cartes. But this is harder with something like Brahms 3 where there are first and second endings. I suppose you can splice in a couple of bars from a recording that does have the repeat. I did something like this once when transferring an LP of a Mozart violin sonata recording that had no commercial CD reissue; the LP had a huge pop that stuck the needle, so I patched in a couple of bars from another version. Took some adjusting for tempo and dynamics, and maybe not quite kosher, but it worked.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/61/26/0002894782661_600.jpg)
I only had time for one Brahms 3 today and picked Karajan/Vienna at random. (Karajan's recordings are always referred to by date, unfortunately I don't know what date this is. Qobuz says 1962 but it's hardly reliable. I thought the Karajan Brahms to watch out for was 1963, but maybe I got it mixed up with something else.) My first thoughts were energetic, dramatic and a little superficial, but on the other hand hardly anyone else was getting this kind of clean, professional sound out of orchestras in the 1960s (compare the Columbia Symphony Orchestra above). A strong rhythmic sense is apparent in the first movement with its many 6/4 and 9/4 cross-accents, which gradually rose in my estimation as I listened. K is good at the details here—it seems like the coda will never run out of steam despite its diminuendo, but a single, well-placed and suitably long silence before the final section absolutely sweeps away the built-up momentum.
The slow movement is on the fast side of things, kept restrained for the most part. Unfortunately there's very little in the way of darkness or mystery here, of undercurrents propelling the music here and there. The climaxes are surprisingly tasteful, nowhere near as Wagnerian as Abbado's, while still feeling like climaxes—at the same time, the unrelenting happiness doesn't grant them much heft. The Poco allegretto on the other hand is deeply ambiguous, with a kind of cool objectivity and surface polish masking deeper mixed feelings. Has almost no dance feeling, sort of like Abbado, in this case due to persistent rubato. The finale is on the fast side but avoids any flashiness or drama. A reviewer described it as "serious", which seems a good epithet. I would also describe it as "relaxed"—in fact the overall impression left by this performance is of relaxation and geniality, the ambiguity being more like vague flashes of other emotions across a mostly untroubled psyche. Thus the fundamental problem of the finale (transitioning from a violent and stormy allegro to a reconciliation or resignation) is essentially evaded by making the allegro itself not more than slightly stern, which I suppose makes the end more convincing, or something. It does little to change my negative opinion of Karajan, but there are a few nice moments that do things I haven't heard elsewhere, I guess.
01. Walter/Columbia
02. Jochum/LPO [review necessary]
03. Kertész
04. Abbado
05. Mackerras
06. Wand/NDR (RCA)
07. Kubelik
08. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
09. Szell
10. Harding
@Sforzando: The issue with the first movement repeat in the symphony is that the first ending changes the character of the wind attacks of the opening chords, which are never played the same way as they are at the beginning. So you'd need to splice those in from a different recording as well... and as it happens those two chords sound completely different in every single recording and it's really obvious. Like I've not yet heard two performances where the two opening chords sound remotely similar, even performances using the same orchestra only a couple of years apart. I have no idea why that is.
Quote from: amw on February 01, 2016, 03:07:45 AM
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/61/26/0002894782661_600.jpg)
(Karajan's recordings are always referred to by date, unfortunately I don't know what date this is. Qobuz says 1962
The CD booklet says the recording sessions took place 29 Sep-8 Oct 1961. The Brahms was published in 1962, the Dvorak 1965.
Sarge
Quote from: amw on February 01, 2016, 03:07:45 AM
@Sforzando: The issue with the first movement repeat in the symphony is that the first ending changes the character of the wind attacks of the opening chords, which are never played the same way as they are at the beginning. So you'd need to splice those in from a different recording as well... and as it happens those two chords sound completely different in every single recording and it's really obvious. Like I've not yet heard two performances where the two opening chords sound remotely similar, even performances using the same orchestra only a couple of years apart. I have no idea why that is.
Yes, I know. It's an approximation. Make of it what you will; it all depends on how important the repeat is to you. Once the repeat gets going the discrepancies between recordings are not likely to make much difference.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/56/15/0724356951556_600.jpg)
Re-evaluating Jochum/LPO while I still remember Walter/Columbia (and hopefully shortly before evaluating Walter/Vienna). My favourite Brahms symphony recording still holds up, warm and passionate and energetic, with great rhythmic vitality (particularly in the hemiolas and cross-accents). Jochum has Karajan's sense of perfect timing, but perhaps a little more depth. The development section of the first movement launches with somewhat less fury than I remembered, though I can't think of a recording I've compared so far that does better, apart from possibly Walter. This recording positions itself within, essentially, a large stylistic middle ground, but towards the fleeter/more driven end of that middle ground—I can see potential criticisms that it lacks gravitas or is too literal, but I don't see those as issues in this piece—and more fluid in tempo than most. The first part of the first movement coda is utterly ferocious, which I like, but which (as in Mackerras) does not prepare the ending very well, Jochum not nailing the pause as Karajan does. There is however a strong sense of much left unsaid and unresolved after the first movement; probably not what Brahms intended, but prepares the rest of the symphony well.
The second movement is on the slow side (over 9 minutes) but takes a comparatively impassioned approach as well, the music never feeling really settled. Jochum hits the sforzandi pretty hard, I've noticed. The Poco allegretto is more dynamically restrained and objective than most of the recordings here—certainly more so than Karajan whom I recently praised for being dynamically restrained and objective—while possessing a fair bit more of a dance feeling. Its closest relative is probably Harding, strangely enough. That I like it better is mostly due to Jochum's sense of timing. (Anyway Harding's third movement was the best part of his recording >_>) Not a reading for anyone who thinks this movement should be emotional, though; the emotions are well buried and only surface gradually towards the end. Can't call it a favourite. Finale is, as I have described elsewhere, perfect, whip-crack powerful (and even then with its full extent held in reserve til the climax) and ending in a sinner's prayer rather than outright redemption. Like Walter, Jochum does not allow the music to relax until the final bars.
I don't know if this necessarily deserves its No. 1 spot back, since I didn't like the third movement so much, but this is probably on the same level as Walter/Columbia. So... something.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/52/71/0002894497152_600.jpg)
And now for Jochum/BPO, since I don't know that anyone has actually sat down and compared the two. Received wisdom has it that the LPO set has a better 3rd and 4th, whereas the BPO set has a better 1st and 2nd, but we shall see!
Obviously this is very similar, some of the rhythmic syncopations in the first movement sounding almost identical. Some of the polish is gone—interpretively I mean, eg transitions between sections aren't always as smooth as they could have been—and some energy is added. I will say that some of the slower/more lyrical passages are played with greater affection than in the LPO version, and the coda of the first movement is done slightly better. The slow movement on the other hand doesn't have the same continuous unsettled feel, and is calmer and more pastoral, except for a few passages that are more energetic and passionate. This approaches but does not match Abbado's reading for manic-depressive disorder. Also should mention that it doesn't really do as much for me as the LPO one, for whatever reason. Just kinda boring. Poco allegretto is good; retaining its ambiguity but with more colour and warmth. Sometimes. Then it disappears for a moment and you're like, whoa, why is this so dark suddenly? And then comes back like nothing happened. It's almost fun, inasmuch as that adjective can apply to this movement. With the finale I expected more power than LPO but perhaps less coherence. I was surprised to find, if anything, less power—it's louder, the accents are harsher, but it doesn't get moving nearly as well. The second theme, however, is near-perfect. I dunno, Gene has a way with that theme. Otherwise there are only a few moments in the main body of the movement that approach the LPO recording. Ending has the same conception, which clearly dated back at least this far (possibly as far back as his first recording in 1938, which however I have no interest in hearing at this stage).
Not bad, but overall, it seems received wisdom had the right idea...
01. Intentionally Left Blank
02 (tie). Walter/Columbia
02 (tie). Jochum/LPO
03. Kertész
04. Abbado
05. Mackerras
06. Wand/NDR (RCA)
07. Kubelik
08. Jochum/BPO
09. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
10. Szell
11. Harding
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0000/984/MI0000984414.jpg)
I didn't look for the Opus Kura issue, which may or may not have better sound quality; it's 1936 mono, though, I'm not expecting any miracles. Walter/Vienna may be overall the fastest performance of the 3rd (despite the faster finale in the NYPO version). With the repeat, the first movement would come in at around 11:35 (8:48 as it is). Certainly, this is a driven performance. But it does not feel rushed in any way—in fact the tempi seem close to ideal, and I presume would have been mainstream at the time. I've heard better first movements, but not many of them: possibly the Columbia first movement is more moving, but Walter's sense of rhythm seems to be stronger here than in his late recording, and the VPO is, of course, a much better orchestra.
The outstanding quality of this performance I think is the naturalness of its phrasing, a quality akin to Kertész and very few others (maybe Szell?). This prevents the slow movement from feeling rushed despite its rapid tempo (7:33—the fastest so far, displacing Wand, I think), while granting it the impassioned feeling of the first movement not compromised by its many changes of mood. The third movement is excellent, occupying an ideal mezza voce (neither spiderweb fairy music, nor passionate romantic groaning) with a strong dance feeling. That feeling is in itself what contributes to its ambivalence, rather than any "interpretation": the passionate main theme juxtaposed with the light-footed rhythms. It occurs to me actually that this is one of the least "interpreted", most purely Brahmsian performances of the symphony. The finale, like the late recording, establishes its power and energy from the very beginning rather than waiting for the first outburst. A slight slowdown at the start of the second theme is in bad taste, but the theme is well delivered in itself (perhaps not quite to a Jochum/Mackerras standard, though) and disintegrates into violence quite convincingly. Overall, this is an incredibly exciting performance, and not in the way the NYPO performance is exciting (i.e. the "is the orchestra going to be able to hold together?" kind of excitement); close to ideal in tempo and not letting up until the very end, when the chorale seems to appear from another world to quell the music's disturbed heart. In other words it's like the Columbia performance except better (though with some really obvious intonation lapses).
This recording I think comes about as close as possible to hearing the symphony conducted by Brahms himself. (Though he probably wouldn't have left out the repeat.)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/616K9BVa5ML.jpg)
Re whoever said Levine was slow... yeah he is kinda slow. The Andante takes 9:40, the Poco allegretto 7:06. The first movement is only a bit slower than average, but due to a kind of rhythmic lack of incisiveness it sounds slow. (Finale is average though at 8:46, we'll see what that's like when we get there.) This has a kind of Karajanish smoothness and classicism, though in spite of its autumnal trappings the first movement still has that undercurrent of passion and rage that is essential to a good performance. When this undercurrent has to be brought to the surface, however, as in the development section, it doesn't convince as much; it feels somewhat routine, even. Throughout the first movement I tried to put my finger on what was wrong and at some point I think I realised it was me—this is Brahms very much in the "grand manner", slow and noble and with great beauty of tone rather than much energy, possibly the same reason I didn't respond so well to Kubelik. This grand manner does well suit the end of the first movement, where a slowish coda does not build too much excitement before relaxing into the calm conclusion.
The opening theme of the slow movement sounds almost like a Bach chorale (I'm not sure I mean that in a complimentary way, but other people might). The slow tempo lends the movement a hushed and reverential attitude which does not always mesh well with the moments of darkness and uncertainty. What does work very well is that two-note "theme" that gets bandied about the orchestra at various moments, the high notes glassy and the low ones foreboding. The mid-movement climax is handled well, though perhaps without the, well, grandeur that the "grand manner" seems to require, lmao. I can't shake the impression of the movement as quite Wagnerian, but it's good for a' that. Poco allegretto is probably about as slow as you can pedal the bicycle without falling over—but you notice, whereas you don't notice so much in Abbado's recording. I think the idea is to be very melancholy and everything, but it doesn't work for me; the movement needs enough brightness to create a source of internal tension. The finale is stern and austere, rather than particularly dramatic, and has the sense of an inevitably unfolding tragedy, with the music then continuing past the end to suggest the dawning of a new day. Levine keeps the tempo more or less steady all the way through rather than slowing down for the coda, and he underplays the chorale and final cyclic return just enough that we know this isn't a redemption; it's simply the music being brought full circle. In the end, I liked it more than I was expecting to. Probably more than Kubelik tbh. But Kubelik's Poco allegretto is better and less boring, so, who knows.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/48/07/5028421940748_600.jpg)
Unexpectedly for a modern recording, van Zweden/RFOH leaves out the first movement repeat. No idea why (the CD is only 72 minutes, the repeat wouldn't take it much past 75). Also unexpectedly, this recording doesn't have any of the stiffness I remember from his Bruckner 6—in fact there's almost too much rubato. The rhythmic syncopations and hemiolas throughout the first movement are well brought out with Karajanesque crispness and a similarly Karajanesque lack of significance—actually this reminds me a lot more of Karajan than Levine did. van Zweden, however, is more superficially exciting, bringing the romanticism of the work more to the fore. Also, the Dutch horn players are doing work. (Well, the Bavarians did too, but then I expect it of them I guess... don't think I've heard much from this orchestra.) The slow movement is the most middle-of-the-road recording I've heard yet, not to say average. In too-extreme readings the movement can sound hyperactive, manic-depressive, stolid and reverential or simply incoherent. van Zweden just plays what Brahms wrote, and it seems Brahms knew what he was doing in that regard, because the pastoral/disturbed character certainly comes through without the conductor's interference. My minor quibble is the actual climax of the movement (five rapid first violin notes), which falls completely flat; my major quibble is the failure to sound the depths.
The Poco allegretto follows Jochum/LPO in, I guess, a tradition? of objective, slightly detached readings. It's less to my taste, though well phrased and with a decent sense of mystery; it feels too straightforward (this is a movement that should be anything but). Some tenderness, also, might be appreciated. With two strong finales today, van Zweden was up against a fair bit of competition, so I don't judge him as harshly for a finale that is somewhat flat. It does "go", but it doesn't shatter. It strikes a balance between tragic readings and dramatic stormy ones, but that's not a balance that should be struck; both of those positions work fine, but the intermediate doesn't. That said, principal horn does great with the second theme, adding lots of character; if only the cellos had done the same so it wouldn't sound like two simultaneous interpretations. Oh well. The coda kills momentum immediately, and the sostenuto is a bit more than "un poco", which I suppose is van Zweden's concession to interpretation; it creates the sense of an "epilogue" looking back on the music from a great distance.
As far as the "middle ground" goes, if you have Levine at the more broad/spacious end and Jochum or Wand at the more urgent/driven end of that ground, van Zweden sits pretty much exactly in the middle. Maybe very slightly towards the Levine end, but not significantly. This might be a good first recording for someone exploring Brahms's symphonies due to what could be called its interpretive neutrality, but even so I'd give preference to Kertész, who is only slightly more expensive these days.
(Please remember that the leaderboards reflect my own personal preferences rather than which recordings are "best".)
01. Walter/Vienna
02 (tie). Walter/Columbia
02 (tie). Jochum/LPO
03. Kertész
04. Abbado
05. Mackerras
06. Levine/Vienna
07. Wand/NDR (RCA)
08. Kubelik
09. van Zweden
10. Jochum/BPO
11. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
12. Szell
13. Harding
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71xJ9zvRCBL._SL1300_.jpg)
As usual when recommending historic recordings people only mention the date, not anything that might be more helpful such as a record label or whatever. So I have no idea which Furtwängler/BPO performance this is. From the sound quality I'm guessing 1903 and it's a transfer from wax cylinder. The first movement timing (13:16) is misleading as this is quite the most ferociously driven performance I've heard; I'm guessing he pulls the tempo around massively in all the quiet bits. It's very exciting and emotionally coherent, but perhaps overinterpreted. The andante (on the slow side) is very affectionately done, but at the loss of some character in the more ambivalent, emotionally ambiguous bits—I can see why some claim Furt didn't "get" the symphony, though I think it's more that his nature is to prioritise his own vision over Brahms's. Again, despite its timing (9:43), it doesn't feel particularly slow in the way that Levine/VPO did.
The third movement is actually one of the best readings I've heard, albeit somewhat operatic. The overdramatisation isn't such a bad thing since it is pressed into the service of fundamental ambiguity. I think where this symphony is concerned, my tastes run towards contrast. The finale starts off very slowly for some reason, before breaking out abruptly into standard Furtwänglerian hijinks as soon as the dynamics exceed mezzo-forte. That said, while the tempo pulling was less obnoxious in the first movement, in the finale it's much more obtrusive and robs the music of a lot of intrinsic power. I thought he'd figured this out when he didn't speed up so much during the development section, but as soon as the recap came along, it's suddenly Prestissimo assai con molte note sbagliate until the coda again. The coda itself at least is fairly well done, suspended and emotionally distanced, but without a coherent movement preceding it, not particularly moving. I think this may be my least favourite finale so far. The other three movements are good, but with significant idiosyncrasies. I can't really do much with it unfortunately.
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0003/790/MI0003790725.jpg)
Listening to this partly as a curiosity—I don't think this recording has ever been talked about much on here—and partly out of admiration for the Staatskapelle Dresden woodwinds, whom I've always had a crush on. Conductor I know nothing about.
From the beginning this recording resembled Levine/Vienna so closely I wondered if it had been modelled on it: not only the plush orchestral sound and "grand manner" but even the phrasing and dynamics of the opening theme. I'm not going to A/B them, mind. Perhaps there's a little more surface energy in the development section of the first movement. Perhaps the movement's also lacking that undercurrent of passion—though I would hesitate to call the performance superficial; it's more on the lyrical side, unexpected for a grand-manner performance, but as far as lyrical, unproblematic Brahms goes I certainly prefer it to Karajan. The conducting is honestly nothing special; I'm tempted to say the Staatskapelle more or less carries the recording. Thielemann departs slightly from Levine in the andante, which is warm and lyrical rather than reverent, and again completely lacking in any sort of bittersweetness. Those repeated two-note figures have some of Harding's coldness, but Thielemann doesn't contextualise them well, and they sound unprepared and have no repercussions.
The third movement is slow, but less melancholy than Levine's, which works to its advantage. The slowness doesn't. I think the only slow performance of the movement I've heard that was good was Abbado's. It tends to lose momentum (this one has no dance character whatsoever) though at least here the bittersweetness is brought out—and the reprise unaccountably carries a lot of weight. I also greatly admire how quietly the SD can play when it wants to. The finale follows Levine in being on the slow side, but makes more concessions to drama; that said, the foreboding quiet bits come across much better than the loud energetic bits. As well, slow tempi sort of ruin the second theme, which then becomes too relaxed (Kertész avoided this problem by letting the horn dominate and the dynamics stay loudish). Slightly annoyed that, like Furt, Thielemann plays quiet parts slower than loud parts, though I suppose everyone does and he's just making it noticeable for some reason (or not skilled enough to avoid making it noticeable, either one). Also can't avoid a feeling that everything's a bit too rounded off. Thielemann slows down a fair bit for the coda, which is softly reverential, and therefore misses out on Levine's masterstroke of situating the coda after the end of the drama.
tl;dr I'm a SD fangirl but if you're not, consider getting Levine/Vienna instead of this one >_>
(http://cdn.naxosmusiclibrary.com/sharedfiles/images/cds/hires/5099750817322.jpg)
Ah, yes. You can tell it's the NYPO just from the first chord. I've heard some say Walter's middle recording is his best, others say it's neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring when you have the other two. In some respects (apart from the incredibly fast finale) it's a "compromise" between the two—slightly more relaxed than the proud and fiery Vienna reading, slightly more driven than the warm and autumnal Columbia one.
The first thing that struck me when listening to this was the "dark heart" of the first movement, the quiet and brooding passage that leads back into the recapitulation. By comparison with the other two Walters, it seemed glossed over—not as dark as it should have been. The moment passes quickly and leads into a powerful recapitulation, but gave the impression that this is going to be a driven recording without the pride, as it were. The coda is sufficiently ferocious as to almost fall apart, which as I recall is a recurring theme in this recording ;) and its conclusion is hardly soft and redemptive, coming across instead as a moment of exhaustion after the movement is strictly over.
The slow movement seems to me very similar to the Columbia recording, but not quite as involving, somehow. Maybe doesn't have sufficient duality. I might also be getting a little tired of this piece, who knows. Poco allegretto is again quasi-uninterpreted, like the Vienna one, and equally good (and in marginally better sound). Actually maybe Walter's best third movement? I'm not sure. The finale... I think we've been over this. Repeatedly. Basically it's too fast. Also Walter is surprisingly sloppy with the rhythms, having lost some of that 1936 control. It's exciting; a train about to derail, I'm sure, is also exciting. He does get points for a truly superb 2nd theme, though. And those little squealing runs in the flutes and oboes work so well! So I can't punish him too much for it. The coda initially seems like the beginning of a new buildup but gets abruptly derailed into its unearned tranquility (not very tranquil at this tempo, admittedly) and a well-controlled ending. I'd say this is merely very good instead of excellent, and yes, Columbia or Vienna would both be preferable. But that's just me.
(Leaderboards have been reshuffled slightly as I listened again to Kertész and Jochum/LPO. The latter has many more individual moments that I love and is moment for moment more powerful, dramatic, lyrical and whatever. But I can't deny that, somehow, Kertész made the stronger impression after listening. His recording has an "inevitability" Jochum's doesn't reach.)
01. Walter/Vienna
02. Walter/Columbia
03. Kertész
04. Jochum/LPO
05. Abbado
06. Walter/NYPO
07. Mackerras
08. Levine/Vienna
09. Wand/NDR (RCA)
10. Kubelik
11. Thielemann
12. van Zweden
13. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
14. Jochum/BPO
15. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
16. Szell
17. Harding
Quote from: amw on February 08, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71xJ9zvRCBL._SL1300_.jpg)
As usual when recommending historic recordings people only mention the date, not anything that might be more helpful such as a record label or whatever. So I have no idea which Furtwängler/BPO performance this is.
It's the '49 (18.12.49). I have it on the ArchipelRecords label.
Sarge
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DFUA4asfL.jpg)
Scherchen's recording of this piece is definitely a spacious one, and one that grows more engaging as one gets used to the bad sound and incredibly shaky orchestra. The main exception to that spaciousness is the first movement, where he takes the "con brio" marking literally, as many don't (I'm looking at a couple of 15 minute recordings) and, notably, doesn't slow down at all in the dark/mysterious passage leading into the recap. In fact this is the only recording I've heard where that passage pulses with suppressed energy. It's an interesting effect, though I'm not sure it works. The rest of the movement has a good natural flow, including an exceptionally fine Coda.
The slow movement is quite slow, almost but not quite soporific. (10:25) It possesses great depth of feeling, often attempting to imbue each and every note with some unfathomable and inexpressible significance. What's lacking is long-range planning, so that at times the movement sounds a bit aimless. I think this is over-focus on detail, rather than the speed (another recording I'm planning to audition, Manze/Helsingborg SO, takes 10:18 and has generally been well received—I'll compare when I get to it). In this sense, Scherchen is the anti-Szell, who over-focused on long-range planning at the cost of detail... the problem with Brahms is you need both the focus on detail and the long-range planning. Well, most composers, I suppose. The third movement is very delicate and tender, which is nice, but not exceptional where it comes to exploring the emotional ambiguities. The finale is slow (9:32) and leaden-footed, possibly an acquired taste. I can see it possibly working, but it's just as easily possible to convey heaviness and brusqueness at a quicker tempo that grants the music more movement. Scherchen does not slow down much at all at the Un poco sostenuto, I suppose because the momentum would break down completely if he did. The coda is effectively understated, which I guess is something.
Overall a performance that doesn't hang well together—sorry to whoever recommended it. It seems like the finale often makes or breaks a performance, somehow.
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0001/008/MI0001008782.jpg)
Kempe recorded Brahms 3 twice, once with the BPO and once with the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra. I chose the former at semi-random and have to say, this is pretty much exactly how I like my Brahms. (Apart from the absence of repeats; though, like Walter, he makes it fairly convincing.) The first movement is full of tension and energy, which only make its lyricism more intense. Rhythms have an incisiveness I've rarely heard. Like Scherchen he also doesn't slow down for the dark/mysterious bit in the middle of the first movement in order to give it more potential energy; again, I'm not sure how well it works. Though this is mostly a straight performance of the score there are some accelerandi I personally consider in bad taste, but oh well.
The relaxation at the end of the first movement is incremental, which makes the exhausted ending a bit more conclusive than in cases where the fierceness of the beginning of the coda abruptly dies away. Again, there's a sense of unfinished business, and the andante picks that up, starting intermezzo-like but with the disturbed undercurrents coming to the surface more quickly than in most other recordings. Overall this may be the least settled andante I've heard, whose climax doesn't linger but seems to be pushing forwards before abruptly losing the thread. The third movement is unusually bright and intelligently articulated (both on the small and large scales), dance-like, wearing its emotional vacillations proudly instead of cloaking them in shadows the Abbado way. As with Walter/VPO I think I like it because of how little interpretation there is. The finale is as foreboding as one would wish, though a bit lacking in heft (also I don't really like slowdowns in the second theme). Instead we get an unusual emphasis on all the different contrapuntal lines that run through it, with some really excellent bass sforzandi at various points. The full weight of the orchestra is held in reserve, only appearing in the central climax and right towards the end before the music collapses into the coda—again, an incremental collapse, not sudden, and there is no real slowing of tempo. Exceptional in this recording is the final chorale, which sounds as though it comes from a very great distance, and as though the little violin figures are in fact the "foreground" rather than an accompaniment, watching the distant chorale unfold: an ending that I suppose could be called visionary.
Certainly one of the most engaging performances so far. I'm putting it in the top five; a higher finish isn't out of the question, but I'd have to listen to Munich (and also compare with the Walters).
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/24/67/0743213036724_600.jpg)
Continuing my SD kick! This time with Kurt Sanderling, who is notable for having apparently decided "Allegro con brio" actually means "Andante ma non troppo". (10:57 without the repeat) Reportedly, his second recording is even slower. (I'm not sure I will seek that one out.) I don't really see what is gained by taking the first movement so slowly. Almost all of the tension is lost, the rhythms lose a lot of incisiveness despite Sanderling's sharp articulation, and the mysterious retransition no longer comes across as a vast opening out of space. The slow tempo might work better if Sanderling evoked the warm nobility of Kubelik, but instead he seems to be trying for Brahms's Pastoral Symphony, this being a questionable candidate for the position (No. 2 would have worked better). On the plus side, the orchestral playing (and dark-hued sound) is amazing. Though they're maybe holding back a bit in order to fulfil their conductor's wishes? Wishful thinking on my part? The second movement is actually taken at a reasonable tempo (8:54) and continues with the idyllic manner. One thing Sanderling is pretty good at is making the music almost disappear, but again, maybe that's more the Staatskapelle (there were moments like that in Thielemann, too). And as the movement goes on it becomes tinged with sadness, though never working up enough substance to become interesting.
The third movement is melancholy and a bit wallowy, which I suppose you need sometimes >_> For what it is, it is very pleasant, though I found myself wishing for Kempe or Furt's greater ambiguity (among extraverted readings) or Abbado or Mackerras's greater introversion (among melancholy readings). Also I hate to criticise my beloved Staatskapelle but is that Kenny G on the horn in the reprise? The finale begins with an air of suppressed menace that augurs well, and continues with a kind of dramatic nobility—no hysterics here. The tempo feels slowish though it's not really (9:04 is only a bit above average). There is, again, a bit too much tonal beauty, not enough struggle, not enough incisiveness in the attacks, and absolutely none of the uncertainty that is essential to the movement; at the same time, as far as a finale in the "grand manner" goes I suppose it's perfectly good. The question is more, where was this conductor for the first three movements? The coda is hymnlike and softly redemptive, but we can't quite believe there was ever any real danger, so what exactly is being redeemed? (I suppose this is the "Storm" and "Song of Thanksgiving After The Storm" of Brahms's Pastoral.)
I'll grant that slow tempi may be an acquired taste, but for me the killer here is interpretive flatness. (There were many points in the first movement where I just sort of tuned out and had to go back and re-listen to.) Others will disagree. I know it's a very well-regarded Brahms 3 after all.
01. Walter/Vienna
02. Walter/Columbia
03. Kertész
04. Kempe/BPO
05. Jochum/LPO
06. Abbado
07. Walter/NYPO
08. Mackerras
09. Levine/Vienna
10. Wand/NDR (RCA)
11. Kubelik
12. Thielemann
13. van Zweden
14. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
15. Scherchen
16. Jochum/BPO
17. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
18. Szell
19. Harding
20. Sanderling/Dresden
It's been a long time I listened to it but in my recollection I found the 3rd the weakest of Sanderling's. The others are mostly also slowish and mellow but it works better (or they are not quite that slow and mellow).
Interesting that Walter/NYPO is your least favorite of Walters because as a cycle this one seems to be more highly regarded than the later/earlier ones, and similar for Jochum where I was only faintly aware of the existence of the stereo recording whereas the mono/BPO cycle has been recommended many times.
Did you/do you plan to listen to any of Toscanini's?
Quote from: Jo498 on February 12, 2016, 12:00:12 AM
Interesting that Walter/NYPO is your least favorite of Walters because as a cycle this one seems to be more highly regarded than the later/earlier ones, and similar for Jochum where I was only faintly aware of the existence of the stereo recording whereas the mono/BPO cycle has been recommended many times.
It's possible the NYPO cycle is better overall and No. 3 is simply not its strong point. I haven't heard the other symphonies.
I'm not sure what to make of my response to the Jochum/LPO set—obviously, I grew up with it, so I may like it better than its worth however much I try to be objective. It's not a well regarded cycle as far as I can tell—on here almost nobody likes it, and in reviews it's sometimes considered inferior to his BPO set, and, even when positively reviewed, given second/third/etc place to whatever interpretive extreme the reviewer favours: whether that may be Klemperer, Abbado, Walter, Szell or Gardiner. (Mind, I have not heard Klemps and Gardiner yet, but probably will.) Certainly Jochum is middle-of-the-road, though towards one end of that middle, and therefore will get less attention.
If you ask my recommendations, first choice for a Brahms cycle would be Kertész, and then as supplements if you want a more driven, energetic, emotionally extreme performance, Jochum/LPO, whereas if you want a warmer, more spacious, full-blooded romantic performance, Kubelik. (It's possible one of the Walters or Kempes will become a top recommendation instead, in future.) As far as LPO vs BPO I think the BPO is definitely superior in the 1st symphony and marginally so in the 2nd, but the LPO blows the BPO away in the 3rd and 4th.
Quote
Did you/do you plan to listen to any of Toscanini's?
No, not unless recommendations for a specific one are forthcoming. (I may listen to Cantelli, whose interpretation is supposedly a superior paraphrase of Toscanini's, but praise for it is rare and usually qualified.)
I will probably also listen to some or all of these:
Karajan '64, van Beinum, Kempe/Munich, Furtwängler '54, Haitink/BSO, Manze, Klemperer/Philharmonia, Tennstedt, Barbirolli/Vienna, Böhm/Vienna, Gardiner, Alsop, Giulini, Dohnányi/Philharmonia, Reiner
unless I get bored of this comparison, or decide not to, or some other recordings take my fancy instead.
What I'm mostly looking for is a wide range of views about the symphony and how it works and is put together. Even some of the performances I don't rank well have dealt with aspects of the piece in ways I'd never imagined, eg Harding's icy cold Andante, Szell's careful energy rationing and Sanderling's oh-so-dignified and resolutely anti-psychological finale.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51LBSO6fTFL.jpg)
(this performance also to be found in the EMI/Warner ICON box set)
Cantelli's first movement tempo is fairly broad, which makes me doubtful this is a true Toscanini paraphrase >_>. One thing he's not very interested in is rhythmic ambiguity; though the first phrase of the first movement can't help but be heard as two against three, he always makes clear that two-in-a-bar is the dominant pulse, and enforces it almost metronomically across the movement except in a few places where blurring is unavoidable to Brahms's use of syncopation (even then, the downbeats are always subtly but perceptibly marked—even in the middle of tied notes, or on rests. No idea how he got them to do that). This is a very "Classical" reading but with its own emotional ambiguities; never particularly demonstrative and never feeling particularly happy either. The Philharmonia is darkly coloured, especially in the development section, and the movement feels consistently agitated and unsettled, despite the strong pulse grounding it—the end is the first glimmer of warmth. I'd sometimes wish for a bit more freedom in the phrasing, mind.
The second movement is a true andante, played with a bit more affection, and perhaps a bit less individuality. Cantelli brings close attention to Brahms's colours in this movement, differentiating them in clear blocks (perhaps like a Mondriaan painting instead of the usual hazy wash conductors apply to Brahms). The disturbed central climax convinces, and its ripples radiate outwards quite a distance on either side, so that the music doesn't feel particularly settled for a long time afterwards. This in turn sets up Cantelli's first significant tempo alteration, a big rit. near the end of the movement, which in turn sets up another one at the very end. From there on, Cantelli's metronomic pulse becomes much freer, but the interpretation also loses some of its Classicism. The third movement is an excellent Romantic approach, perhaps somewhat similar to Furtwängler though not quite as subjective (the trio section sounds almost ironic, as though trying to distance itself). The slightly louder and heavier than usual opening of the finale is again more Classical—it's not being set up as a foreboding introduction as some conductors do, but given full weight as the main theme—and the mysterious appearance of the chorale and subsequent violent transition are surgically done. A tense but not heroic second theme is fully in keeping with a Classical approach to the movement, as is the lack of overdramatisation in the closing theme; and thankfully, he keeps the tempi steady, though not so strict as in the first movement. The development section is somewhat lacking in vitality, unfortunately, but it actually doesn't spoil enjoyment too much. The coda seems like the lead-in to a new explosion of violence (like Walter/NYPO) but, less abruptly, develops into a gentle final return that is expressive without profundity. Particularly notable again is the expert handling of orchestral colour.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/36/46/0886444214636_600.jpg)
Having praised Cantelli's use of colour I thought I'd turn next to Mr Colourist himself. This recording is a pleasure to listen to, not only because of the sound quality but also because of the almost perfectly judged placement of instrumental lines so that everything is audible. Reiner's take on the first movement is fairly brisk and no-nonsense, apart from his commitment to bringing out every nuance of Brahms's orchestration, and though he does allow himself much more rhythmic freedom than Cantelli. Reiner is also a classicist as far as structure and affect go, but his take on the movement is much less melancholy (without necessarily being superficial—there's a bit of pain under the lyricism). The second movement is slow (in fact, longer than the first movement, though the first movement exposition repeat is omitted) and "seriously happy"—content without excitement, though with hints of other emotions that occasionally come to the surface. Despite the structural clarity he brought to the first movement, Reiner presents this movement almost as an organic fantasy, though with enough hints of structure to make the blurring of lines at the recapitulation quite satisfying. The emotional weight is delivered very differently, through agogic hesitations, rhythmic control and tempo changes, rather than any use of orchestral power or volume.
The third movement belongs to the category of more objective readings—it is not particularly dance-like and avoids overdramatisation. Certainly more Classical than Cantelli's, but also without his ambiguity. I'm not sure how much I like it—it doesn't have the feather-lightness of Mackerras either, and while it's in the same category as Jochum's second Poco allegretto Jochum possibly managed a little more effect by keeping the music even more restrained. The finale perhaps gains a bit more Romanticism simply by beginning very quietly, though maybe this worked better in performance—and the phrasing of the chorale is much more Classical. As far as finale readings go it is stern and tragic but not wild and dramatic, the performance bringing out a kinship to the Tragic Overture with an atmosphere of extreme foreboding and an optimistic second theme inevitably crushed by uncaring forces. There is a gradual build to a powerful climax at the start of the recapitulation, and my favourite horn section plays an excellent second theme for the combined 20 seconds it gets in the spotlight. The music's energy dissipates incrementally after the return of the second theme, creating the effect of anger ebbing away and a final reconciliation—not as spiritual as the overtly redemptive readings, possibly due to restrained dynamics in the chorale section. I didn't turn off the recording in time and thus heard the opening chords of Beethoven's 1st, which fit perfectly after the end of the Brahms, but even without them one gets the feeling of a resolution that de-problematises a cataclysmic movement, again a pretty common strategy in the classical era (see not only examples that set the finale of a minor-key work in the major, but even more basic ones: e.g. the coda in the first movement of the Eroica, which turns the opening theme—an agent of destabilisation throughout the work—into a perfectly stable and normal eight-bar unit).
Two enjoyable recordings today, though I think I'd have to rate Reiner higher despite his somewhat lacklustre third movement—his recording is cumulatively engaging and presents a valid alternative to the more Romanticised "mainstream" with greater conviction. I probably prefer him to Mackerras though some re-listening may be required eventually. 1 thru 13 are all very close at the moment.
01. Walter/Vienna
02. Walter/Columbia
03. Kertész
04. Kempe/BPO
05. Jochum/LPO
06. Abbado
07. Walter/NYPO
08. Reiner
09. Mackerras
10. Cantelli
11. Levine/Vienna
12. Wand/NDR (RCA)
13. Kubelik
--------
14. Thielemann
15. van Zweden
16. Furtwängler/BPO (EMI)
17. Scherchen
18. Jochum/BPO
19. Karajan/Vienna (Decca)
20. Szell
21. Harding
22. Sanderling/Dresden
The Third Symphony promptly strikes a heroic note with the announcement of a "motto" theme to be heard recurringly. It is given out in three powerful ascending chords for horns, trumpets, and woodwind. The highest voice, consisting of F, A flat, F, is said to stand for Frei aber froh (free but happy), Brahms having adopted that as a personal slogan. Parenthetically, it might be pointed out that Brahms never married. One analyst discerned "occult dramatic signification" in the way Brahms uses the "motto" device at one point.
The three challenging chords serve to introduce the majestic first sub;ect, chanted by the violins with viola and cello support. The second subject consists of a repeated phrase in pastoral mood first allotted to clarinet and bassoon. At one point the solo oboe is heard uttering the three "motto" notes. In the development section horn and oboe join in another return of the "Frei aber froh" (FAF) motive. The three introductory chords usher in a restatement of earlier material.
Clarinets and bassoon give out the gentle hymn-like opening theme of the Andante movement (C major, 4/4). A resemblance has been noted between this melody and an episode in both the overture and finale of Herold's opera Zampa. The theme is then freely varied.
The third movement (Poco allegretto, C minor, 3/8) replaces the usual scherzo and is more in the style of a romanza in melancholy vein. The movement contains a tender and contemplative melody first assigned to the cellos.
The impassioned and heroic finale (F minor, 2/2) opens with a spectral theme rustling through the strings, "with all the haste of a vision in a dream." Horns and cellos later chant a sturdy song of brighter cast. There follows what amounts to a clash between opposing moods of gloom and jubilation. The gloom vanishes. Presently echoes of the "motto" theme are heard and the strings bring back, in tremolo, what Apthorp called the "ghost" of the chief theme of the first movement.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rnAFhWjgL.jpg)
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.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71i%2BxCU28SL._SL1263_.jpg)
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.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/25/20/0761203772025_600.jpg)
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.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/12/68/0002894316812_600.jpg)
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
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!
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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).
Bear in mind I am sick today and maybe not 100% lucid
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KQX5ME99L.jpg)
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?
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0000/980/MI0000980461.jpg)
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
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.
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'.
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/59/42/0724356274259_600.jpg)
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
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/28/04/0843183070428_600.jpg)
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
Quote from: amw on January 29, 2016, 01:57:05 AM
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/55/80/0724354548055_600.jpg)
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.
::)
(http://d250ptlkmugbjz.cloudfront.net/images/covers/31/56/8712177045631_600.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/917hKrzyJ5L._SL1500_.jpg)
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