Beethoven Symphonies Cycle: Which is your #1 pick?

[Cato]

I'm not a fan of a uniform approach in all the symphonies. Beethoven's language evolved a lot between 1790 and 1825, and musical instruments underwent substantial improvements as well. The whole musical scene was in a state of flux.  It's highly unlikely that conducting style and playing were not affected by all these changes.

You remind me of a comment by a musicologist concerning C.P.E. Bach, who, the professor claimed, liked the clavichord, but did not like any other advances in keyboard technology very much at all, and stubbornly stuck with the clavichord.

Whether that was true or not Beethoven, like Haydn and others, considered C.P.E. Bach a major composer and a major influence.

I have an impression that, if Beethoven had the modern symphony orchestra at his disposal, he would have used it and used it to its fullest.

I think The Cleveland Orchestra with George Szell would be, for me a sentimental favorite for the complete symphonies.

I don't have a great deal of experience with Beethoven symphony cycles, but (Minneapolis/Vanska) is fantastic - both in sound quality and the way they are played.

Recommendations like this one do intrigue me!  I will look into this!

[San Antone]

For me, once I found Scherchen it was like Beethoven finally made sense to me, and I've found that holds true even beyond the symphonic works (Scherchen's complete Egmont is easily, in my opinion, the best of its kind, and one of the best classical recordings ever)

The flat, mono, sound keeps me from listening long to these recordings.  And because there are so many equally, IMO, rewarding performances in SOTA engineering and sound, I feel no need to spend much, i.e. any more, time with "historical" recordings like Scherchen's.

Currently listening to, and enjoying very much, Osmo Vänska/Minnesota.  But there are probably 6-12 other complete cysles made in the 21st century which I consider enough of variety and quality to keep me busy with these works, which TBH I don't often dip into, after decades of something like over exposure.

[Spotted Horses]

The flat, mono, sound keeps me from listening long to these recordings.  And because there are so many equally, IMO, rewarding performances in SOTA engineering and sound, I feel no need to spend much, i.e. any more, time with "historical" recordings like Scherchen's.

Currently listening to, and enjoying very much, Osmo Vänska/Minnesota.  But there are probably 6-12 other complete cysles made in the 21st century which I consider enough of variety and quality to keep me busy with these works, which TBH I don't often dip into, after decades of something like over exposure.

I have a side interest in historical performance style, when it seems unique enough to be distinguishable from contemporary performance style. Sometimes that means being imperfect in a charming way. In those cases I cultivate a mental filter, "what did they sound like in the studio for the audio to sound like this?" I think for European orchestras is has something to do with being in the process of recovering from the devastating after math of the war and having the exhilaration of making music again.

[hopefullytrusting]

The flat, mono, sound keeps me from listening long to these recordings.  And because there are so many equally, IMO, rewarding performances in SOTA engineering and sound, I feel no need to spend much, i.e. any more, time with "historical" recordings like Scherchen's.

Totally understand that, I personally love mono recordings, and I know you are correct when you are using the term "historical," but that is not the term I would use regarding Scherchen - instead, I found his recordings fresh.

[Jo498]

Scherchen has a 3rd and 6th in decent stereo and the mono recordings sound better to me than all/most of Toscanini's and Furtwängler's. Thanks for pointing out the Egmont; I have this on the shelves but I am not sure I ever listened to it.

[Spotted Horses]

In the end, I've decided it is perhaps ripe to revisit these work. I think it will be Harnoncourt COE and/or Bruggen, Orchestra of the 18th Century. Maybe something crazy like Norrington, London Classical Players.

[Leo K.]

To this day, Norrington and the London Classical Players is the cycle I most listen too. I think for Beethoven I am more into HIP style. But this year I have been exploring Karajan, Cluytons, Szell and Klemperer for something different. It's a great consideration!

[lordlance]

In the end, I've decided it is perhaps ripe to revisit these work. I think it will be Harnoncourt COE and/or Bruggen, Orchestra of the 18th Century. Maybe something crazy like Norrington, London Classical Players.

Bruggen recorded it twice. Which one are you going for? 

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Little dirty secret: If I can only have one, anyway, I wouldn't particularly care which one of, say, a dozen.

I might pick Abbado/Rome or, perhaps more likely, Jaervi/Bremen/RCA or Vanska/Minnesota, probably. Let's say Jaervi.

But if I was 'stuck' with so many of the ones mentioned here, I'm sure I could live with it, also. Barenboim/Stakap, Karajan '64 or, yes, 70s, Harnoncourt, even Gardiner. or Wand or maybe Chailly. If it has to be Schmidt-Isserstedt, that'd be fine, too.

I'm looking at the boxes on the shelf from my room right now. I would not take Kubelik or Kletzki (both have some *really* marvelous aspects but are, at the end of the day, too boring), nor Jansons, Thielemann, Rattle. Not Karajan 80s nor Philharmonia nor either of the live Japan cycles, definitely not either Klemperer, not Jochum (any), most definitely not Brueggen I (which is just too damn slow, despite lots of very lovely playing), most definitely not Fedosseyev, not Blomstedt, which are great-but-bland (I) and just-bland (II). Definitely not Bernstein II, which is a mess, and not Pletnev, though I kindof like it. Not Scherchen, not Szell (though, wait, I could live with Szell). Nothing wrong with Saraste/WDR but it's not going with me on that island if there's a better choice. Definitely not Toscanini, either, nor Furtwaengler. Not Haselboeck or whatever else might lurk on the shelves.

[LKB]

I hope I don't get kicked off the board for saying this, I still like Karajan/BPO, all three. 

Heresy... but we all have our guilty pleasures.

[LKB]

My own preferences are for von Karajan's 1963 DGG cycle and Hogwood on Decca/L'Oiseau-Lyre.

l usually just think my way through them though, and rarely listen to the recordings.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Definitely not Bernstein II, which is a mess,

Could you elaborate on this? I've had the 9th since forever (on vinyl), and I like it.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Could you elaborate on this? I've had the 9th since forever (on vinyl), and I like it.

Not to yuck your yumm, but I can't stand it. Though I used to love it. I wouldn't miss it. But it's not in my Top 20 of cycles. I would still keep it over some ostensibly, "objectively" better cycles, simply because it is definitely not boring and where it's good, it's very good... and it's definitely different. In that sense, I'd rank it with Pletnev. And I do _not_ mean that as an insult, in this case. ;-)


If you have access to ClassicsToday, the elaboration here: https://www.classicstoday.com/review/references-revisited-bernsteins-vienna-beethoven-cycle/

If not, here are some excerpts:

Something similar is going on in the opening of the First Symphony's finale. It's a humorous moment much in the spirit of Haydn where the music (after the portentous opening proclamation) tries to get going once, twice, trice, four times, five times – like a toy car trying to get over the hump – before it finally manages and is off to the races at blistering speed. Never mind that Bethoven won't have thought about toy-cars, the sense and motion is still the same. In Bernstein's hands, the opening slow notes that 'don't make it' are so slow as to appear abstract blotches of tone-paint that accidently dripped from the brush before the artist could agree on which line of approach to take. It's closer to Bruckner than Haydn. (He is, admittedly, with the majority of interpreters in the last century on this, including Szell.)

Eventually we arrive at the Ninth. Here – surely the most romantic of Beethoven's symphonies in our collective perception – we sense as though a hyper-romantic approach should work. That the work's timeless qualities should be capable of absorbing Bernstein's hyper-contrast, super-indulgent style (think of the candy-colors and neon lights and vibrant gas stations of the early photorealist artists like John Baeder or Robert Gniewek). That turns out not to be the case... because eventually Beethoven yields. Rarely is the Ninth the highlight of a cycle (Schmidt-Isserstedt being one of the notable exceptions); here it is the garish-glorious low-point. Or the Bernstein indulgence high-point.

The first two instrumental movements are fine: The heavy Allegro and an outstanding Molto vivace might lull you into tacit approval. But they precede a lyrically sluggish Adagio that is just shy of interminable – you pity the singers already sitting on hard benches, waiting for their cue some 25 minutes later. Where Bernstein takes 18 minutes, Pletnev (not the standard-setter, granted, nor necessarily an ideal) takes eleven. Then behold the finale. There's the very slow Presto/Tempo I, for starters... occasionally stretched by an exaggerated poco Adagio section (which accentuates a furious bar of Vivace). Then comes an Allegro assai episode that doesn't come anywhere near the tempo indication of "semiquaver = 80"; Bernstein settles for about 62bpm. The choral parts are – intermittently – absurdly slow. You're impelled to look at your watch mid-performance and begin to think it's a miracle the performance fits on one CD. With every syllable pushed out to equal weight, the choral parts attain the robotic quality of a jubilant anti-aircraft gun and the fermata over "vor Gott" is dragged out as if designed to test the chorus' collective lung volume. That said, you don't hear all the individual verbal shots fired, because for a good part, the Vienna State Opera Chorus makes one fairly diffuse noise.

[Spotted Horses]

I think that Late Bernstein on DG tends to be a hot mess, although sometimes it works in a crazy way, like Sibelius second symphony, and sometimes he is normal and brilliant, like the Schumann Symphonies. I think Brahms Symphony No 3 was the worst for me.

I remember when the Beethoven cycle was on American Public Television and the little talks that preceded the performance were interesting. For the 5th he was commenting that when you find Mozart sketches he tends to simplify for the final result, but Beethoven sketches tend to be too crude and undergo refinement. I recall he played some sketches for Beethoven's 5th on the piano and would comment, "see that's just not going anywhere," etc. An endearing moment was when he was playing a passage from the sixth symphony, transcribing on the fly from the orchestral score, and interrupted his discussion to interject, "sorry for all the wrong notes."

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Not to yuck your yumm, but I can't stand it. Though I used to love it. I wouldn't miss it. But it's not in my Top 20 of cycles. I would still keep it over some ostensibly, "objectively" better cycles, simply because it is definitely not boring and where it's good, it's very good... and it's definitely different. In that sense, I'd rank it with Pletnev. And I do _not_ mean that as an insult, in this case. ;-)

Interesting, thanks. For what it's worth, I've never found a totally satisfactory 9th (satisfactory meaning conforming to my own wishes and expectations, not Beethoven's). The piece itself seems to be problematic for home listening in a way I can't quite define.

I think that Late Bernstein on DG tends to be a hot mess, although sometimes it works in a crazy way, like Sibelius second symphony, and sometimes he is normal and brilliant, like the Schumann Symphonies. I think Brahms Symphony No 3 was the worst for me.

I remember when the Beethoven cycle was on American Public Television and the little talks that preceded the performance were interesting.

Yeah, I remember those! They had a formative effect on my listening habits. Maybe that's why I still like those recordings.

[André]

A too long fermata on 'vor Gott' is a cardinal sin. It wrings the tension out of the music and all momentum is lost. The bassoons before the tenor's Froh! Froh! seem to apologize for interrupting. 

[Brian]

A too long fermata on 'vor Gott' is a cardinal sin. It wrings the tension out of the music and all momentum is lost. The bassoons before the tenor's Froh! Froh! seem to apologize for interrupting. 

Agreed and I also think a too long opening 'O freeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunde' is a sin!

Little dirty secret: If I can only have one, anyway, I wouldn't particularly care which one of, say, a dozen.

I might pick Abbado/Rome or, perhaps more likely, Jaervi/Bremen/RCA or Vanska/Minnesota, probably. Let's say Jaervi.

But if I was 'stuck' with so many of the ones mentioned here, I'm sure I could live with it, also. Barenboim/Stakap, Karajan '64 or, yes, 70s, Harnoncourt, even Gardiner. or Wand or maybe Chailly. If it has to be Schmidt-Isserstedt, that'd be fine, too.

I'm looking at the boxes on the shelf from my room right now. I would not take Kubelik or Kletzki (both have some *really* marvelous aspects but are, at the end of the day, too boring), nor Jansons, Thielemann, Rattle. Not Karajan 80s nor Philharmonia nor either of the live Japan cycles, definitely not either Klemperer, not Jochum (any), most definitely not Brueggen I (which is just too damn slow, despite lots of very lovely playing), most definitely not Fedosseyev, not Blomstedt, which are great-but-bland (I) and just-bland (II). Definitely not Bernstein II, which is a mess, and not Pletnev, though I kindof like it. Not Scherchen, not Szell (though, wait, I could live with Szell). Nothing wrong with Saraste/WDR but it's not going with me on that island if there's a better choice. Definitely not Toscanini, either, nor Furtwaengler. Not Haselboeck or whatever else might lurk on the shelves.

I think that I might agree with this in its entirety. Owning Abbado/Rome, Jarvi, Barenboim, and Chailly, I feel spoiled for choice and like I don't necessarily need any others (even some others I also own like Gardiner, Wand, Kubelik, Szell, Scherchen, John Nelson, and Mackerras).

It is also a personality (maturity?) thing to some degree. Back in my 20s I was eager to split hairs between all of them Todd-style but now I can put on almost any and have a good time.

[Holden]

I have also been going through Klemperer's Warner Orchestral box, listening to his Beethoven and for some reason I have a difficult time with his Beethoven.  It seems slow and dragging. Yes, the details are wonderful and grand sound, the power, but I am not getting it yet. I wish I could get a handle on Klemperer's Beethoven and Mozart. I love his Mahler and Bach. Maybe this is because for many years I focused on HIP style Beethoven?

I remember when the 'reviewers' had the Klemeperer Eroica as the bees knees so I bought it. I just couldn't hear what they were talking about and could only conclude that turgid was the way to go because this is what it sounded like. Klemperer was near the end of his life at this stage and it shows in the way he conducted. That said, I do like his Mahler 4 as his conducting seems to suit a bucolic approach.

[prémont]

Back in my 20s I was eager to split hairs between all of them Todd-style but now I can put on almost any and have a good time.

I share that sentiment. Today there are very few which I don't find enjoyable in one way or another.

[Mookalafalas]

The flat, mono, sound keeps me from listening long to these recordings.  And because there are so many equally, IMO, rewarding performances in SOTA engineering and sound, I feel no need to spend much, i.e. any more, time with "historical" recordings like Scherchen's.

Currently listening to, and enjoying very much, Osmo Vänska/Minnesota.  But there are probably 6-12 other complete cysles made in the 21st century which I consider enough of variety and quality to keep me busy with these works, which TBH I don't often dip into, after decades of something like over exposure.

   Regarding historical sound, we all draw our line somewhere, but I'm curious about your opinion of sound in Scherchen. Are you referring to his cycle recorded on the Westminster label? Certainly not SOTA by modern standards, but it's stereo and has great sonics for mid-50s. Not Reiner in Chicago good, but...
   Anyway, I don't want to argue or anything, but I'd be surprised if you found that distractingly poor.