# Good Recent Recording of Beethoven Symphonies?



## kmisho

Can someone help me with a recent well-recorded, well-performed, uncontroversial set of the Beethoven Symphonies on CD?

Also no period style or instruments.

There are so many out there I'm having trouble finding one that's just plain good and lacks magnets for complaint. I used to love the old Szell set so I guess I'm basically asking for something Szell-like but with top-notch sound quality.

I heard the Barenboim and was not impressed. For instance, the powerful slow movement from the 7th Symphony was painfully slow.


----------



## nickgray

Paavo Jarvi
Vanska
Zinman
Gardiner
Immerseel
Norrington



kmisho said:


> For instance, the powerful slow movement from the 7th Symphony was painfully slow.


Yeah, I don't think too highly of these "uber-romantic" interpretations as well. While one can argue that sometimes they work (Celibidache, for instance, but in the end it's more of a curiosity than your daily musical bread), most of the times they end up being heavy, dull and slow.

Here's Norrington, one of the first so-called "period" performances (if not _the[/b] first) of Beethoven's symphonies:





_


----------



## Delicious Manager

I was surprisingly impressed with a couple of Beethoven symphonies I heard recently conducted by Christoph von Dohnányi. I listened blind, so had no idea who was conducting.


----------



## kmisho

Your suggestions so far sort of conform to what I've been seeing in other places (like Amazon reviews).

I'm also about this close to giving up on the idea of a cycle. Maybe the best way is X's is the best 5th and Y's is the best 7th,etc.

Some I've seen that appear to fall in the zone I'm looking for are the Wand and the Kegel cycles. Anyone wish to opine?


----------



## kmisho

Delicious Manager said:


> I was surprisingly impressed with a couple of Beethoven symphonies I heard recently conducted by Christoph von Dohnányi. I listened blind, so had no idea who was conducting.


The Dohnanyi is on my list of possibles. You're not the only one who was surprised by it.


----------



## nickgray

kmisho said:


> Some I've seen that appear to fall in the zone I'm looking for are the Wand and the Kegel cycles. Anyone wish to opine?


Wand is a "traditional" (or rather, untraditional) cycle, so if you're looking for period or quasi-period (proper tempi, proper orchestra size, but with modern instruments) - look elsewhere. I'm not familiar with Kegel. And personally, I'd get Gardiner - he's an amazing conductor and his Beethoven cycle is probably my favorite one. When it comes to Gardiner, he never disappoints.


----------



## Webernite

I don't like Norrington. I think he is possibly the worst period-instrument conductor I have ever encountered. For period Beethoven, I much prefer Tafelmusik's recordings.


----------



## kmisho

To be clear, I'm not looking for a period instruments or practice version as I am not at all convinced by that approach.

I studied period Baroque practice in college as a pipe organist so I'm not speaking from an entirely unwashed perspective. This is in itself is an interesting subject for discussion/debate and I think I'll start a thread on it.

I'm looking for something that someone after 1950 would call regular.


----------



## 1648

kmisho said:


> Can someone help me with a recent well-recorded, well-performed, uncontroversial set of the Beethoven Symphonies on CD?
> 
> Also no period style or instruments.
> 
> There are so many out there I'm having trouble finding one that's just plain good and lacks magnets for complaint. I used to love the old Szell set so I guess I'm basically asking for something Szell-like but with top-notch sound quality.
> 
> I heard the Barenboim and was not impressed. For instance, the powerful slow movement from the 7th Symphony was painfully slow.


 Uncontroversial Beethoven? Now who'd want that? 

The more recent ones I've liked (Harnoncourt/CoE, Immerseel/AE & Järvi/DKPhB) are all more-or-less period informed (albeit quite different), you could sample them on amazon but I doubt you'd enjoy them if you're looking for something in the vein of Szell. Are you familiar with the Leibowitz and Karajan cycles from the 60s?



Webernite said:


> I don't like Norrington. I think he is possibly the worst period-instrument conductor I have ever encountered. For period Beethoven, I much prefer Tafelmusik's recordings.


 The ones with Weil? Ugh.


----------



## nickgray

kmisho said:


> To be clear, I'm not looking for a period instruments or practice version as I am not at all convinced by that approach


Huh? Why not? Do you prefer your Beethoven taken slow with large orchestra? I mean I can understand one being unconvinced by period instruments, but unconvinced by the whole period approach? Huge orchestras and slow tempi are definitely not what Beethoven had in mind and there are lots of amazing sets out there with proper tempi, performed by a chamber orchestra with modern instruments.


----------



## scytheavatar

nickgray said:


> Huh? Why not? Do you prefer your Beethoven taken slow with large orchestra? I mean I can understand one being unconvinced by period instruments, but unconvinced by the whole period approach? Huge orchestras and slow tempi are definitely not what Beethoven had in mind and there are lots of amazing sets out there with proper tempi, performed by a chamber orchestra with modern instruments.


Your post shows everything that is wrong with the period movement, you know something is very wrong when some guys start to push their opinions onto others without caring about the different preferences and tastes of others.

Anyway, I strongly recommend Abbado's set with the BPO. It's reduced in size but not reduced in scope, power or vision. Otherwise Wand's set is a fine one and another good choice.


----------



## hespdelk

I second the recommendation of Abbado with the BPO for more recent sets - of the ones that I've heard definetly the best (in my opinion).

I'm also not a fan of period performance Beethoven symphonies - I've listened to several, and while they have shed new light on aspects of these works that I hadn't seen before, I don't really return to any of them simply for the pleasure of listening.

My personal favourite Beethoven cycle remains Karajan's first set on EMI - and f you can stand the antiquated sound, Toscanini's traversal also remains a standout. Many others too of course.. but that's getting quite off topic.


----------



## World Violist

I might well get crucified if I mention Osmo Vanska, but his is probably the most recent "big band" Beethoven on the market, and in glorious SACD from BIS. Others have put it down because it's not the outright revelation that it was said to be on first release, but it's a very solid cycle nonetheless from the two CDs of it I've had.


----------



## nickgray

scytheavatar said:


> Your post shows everything that is wrong with the period movement, you know something is very wrong when some guys start to push their opinions onto others without caring about the different preferences and tastes of others


You do realize that you can make the same exact case about "big band" performances? That it is these conductors who push their opinions, while period conductors actually try to play the music somewhat closer to the author';s original intent. And who said anything about not caring about the different preferences and tastes of others? Your post makes no sense. Besides, conductor's job, any interpreters job is to push opinions. That's what interpretation is about - you push your personal musical opinions to the public.


----------



## Webernite

Personally, I've got nothing against period instruments or modern instruments. But I do find that when I listen to recordings on modern instruments, I am most drawn to those conductors who bring out the counterpoint and illuminate the structure of the work (Carlos Kleiber, Karl Richter, Pierre Boulez, for example). To put it another way, I like performances on modern instruments most when they mimic the virtues of period performance.

Edit: As for whether period performances are in some sense "authentic," I'm not convinced. I just like how they sound.


----------



## scytheavatar

nickgray said:


> You do realize that you can make the same exact case about "big band" performances? That it is these conductors who push their opinions, while period conductors actually try to play the music somewhat closer to the author';s original intent. And who said anything about not caring about the different preferences and tastes of others? Your post makes no sense. Besides, conductor's job, any interpreters job is to push opinions. That's what interpretation is about - you push your personal musical opinions to the public.


You are the one who didn't care about the TC's preferences and tastes. He explictly said that he doesn't like the period movement and is not convinced by it. And why can't he feel that way about the period movement? The period movement has to a certain extent caused the modern generation of Beethoven conductors to give copypasta, streamlined performances that are in many ways predictable and often boring. I could write more about the drawbacks of the period movement, and at the same time the period movement does have its merits and pluses, but at the end of the day I think it's wrong to say that smaller orchastrals and less vibrato automatically means better performances. There's strength in the older style of Beethoven performances too.


----------



## nickgray

scytheavatar said:


> You are the one who didn't care about the TC's preferences and tastes. He explictly said that he doesn't like the period movement and is not convinced by it


Opinions are subject to change, surely you must know that. I'm sure he explicitly said many things in his life and then explicitly changed his opinion on these things. It's called learning. I'm just trying to say that the devil is not as black as he's painted, I'm not holding a gun to OP's head and forcing him to listen to period performances.



> I think it's wrong to say that smaller orchastrals and less vibrato automatically means better performances. There's strength in the older style of Beethoven performances too.


I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Indeed, period does not automatically means good and there are some damn good "old style" performances. Although I do think that some take it way too slow, heavy-handed and romantic and it ultimately ruins the performance. But then again, interpretation problems exist everywhere, doesn't matter if it's period or not.


----------



## kmisho

nickgray said:


> Huh? Why not? Do you prefer your Beethoven taken slow with large orchestra?


I actually don't like the ponderous old-style. But there are more recent non-period versions that are not overly slow. Also there are modern versions that use the standard size orchestra. The same thing is usually done with, for instance, Prokofiev's 1st symphony, which was written for a classical-sized orchestra and in a semi-classical style though Prokofiev can in no way be considered a classical-period composer. But still the work should be played with the forces for which it was written.


> I mean I can understand one being unconvinced by period instruments, but unconvinced by the whole period approach?


Since I invited this, I suppose I should explain. I think the value of knowing period style is that it can cast light on an aging work and suggest ways of getting the most out of them. But I do not believe in copying original style. Like it or not, modern tastes and styles prevail because modern musicians are plying to living audiences. So I believe any modern musician should be trained in period styles, but most definitely should not be trying to copy and paste them into the 21st century.


> Huge orchestras and slow tempi are definitely not what Beethoven had in mind and there are lots of amazing sets out there with proper tempi, performed by a chamber orchestra with modern instruments.


I also do not believe there is such a thing as proper tempi outside of what the actual music calls for. Beethoven may have been enamored of the metronome since it was a relatively new invention, but he was certainly aware that a tempo marking such as "allegro" was used precisely because it is non-specific. Besides, I am far from convinced that the composer is the best judge of tempo for his own work. I'm not alone in this.

Tempo is a slippery animal. I have some strong attitudes about it because of some experiences I've had. Long story short, I think tempos should be chosen based on what will sound right to the audience that will hear it. This is because I don't think a musicians job is to school the audience on the way a piece is supposed to sound. Their primary duty is make the audience they are playing for love what they hear.

Thus I think tempos are to be chosen based mostly on the time when the piece is played rather than the time when the piece was written. Players should know period practice and it should inform the way they play today but they should not feel ruled by it.

As far as period instruments, I think the main reason the instruments have changed was to make them better. So in my opinion modern instruments are usually literally better than old instruments.


----------



## kmisho

By the way, I decided to pick up the Dohnanyi. That doesn't mean my search is over. We'll see.


----------



## nickgray

kmisho said:


> But there are more recent non-period versions that are not overly slow. Also there are modern versions that use the standard size orchestra


Vanska. It's a very recent recording with standard orchestra.



> Like it or not, modern tastes and styles prevail because modern musicians are plying to living audiences.


Well, HIP is pretty popular. I suppose I just look at it from a different point of view - it's not about sounding "good", it's about approximating what the composer might've heard in his day and age. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but personally, I find it extremely interesting.



> Besides, I am far from convinced that the composer is the best judge of tempo for his own work


I sort of agree, but one definitely shouldn't play allegro when it clearly says adagio. A reasonable variation is fine, but certainly nothing extreme (with very few exceptions like Celibidache).



> So in my opinion modern instruments are usually literally better than old instruments.


Again, you're missing the point. It's not about better, it's about different.


----------



## World Violist

nickgray said:


> it's not about sounding "good", it's about approximating what the composer might've heard in his day and age.


This is everything that is wrong with HIP, in my mind. It is literally impossible to hear music in anything close to the same way as did the original audience. Look at it objectively: We can play it on original instruments and in a style based on accounts and old instruments, blah blah blah... but on the other hand, we've heard Mahler, Stravinsky, Webern, Bartok, et al. How can we possibly hear anything like the original audience did? We can say, "Oh yes, the beginning of Beethoven's 1st symphony was very shocking," but _we_ are not shocked. We aren't hearing what the composer might have heard.

There's a difference between appearance and essence.

EDIT: I would like to point out that I am actually a fan of HIP. I just don't like its mindset.


----------



## kmisho

nickgray said:


> Vanska. It's a very recent recording with standard orchestra.


Thanks. I'll check it out.



> Well, HIP is pretty popular. I suppose I just look at it from a different point of view - it's not about sounding "good", it's about approximating what the composer might've heard in his day and age. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but personally, I find it extremely interesting.


I see it's pretty popular. But I think there is some bandwagon effect. A lot of people talking about how great it is don't really know the details of what they're talking about. It can be interesting but that's fairly far down on my list of what I'm listening for when I listen to music. As a musician, I think knowing period elements has become mandatory. So when I listen to that sort of thing, I'm more studying than enjoying.



> I sort of agree, but one definitely shouldn't play allegro when it clearly says adagio. A reasonable variation is fine, but certainly nothing extreme (with very few exceptions like Celibidache).


 Sure. I'm assuming staying in the same ballpark.



> Again, you're missing the point. It's not about better, it's about different.


I don't know why anyone would prefer to listen to piano-forte when we have the modern piano. It's just plain better-sounding.


----------



## nickgray

World Violist said:


> This is everything that is wrong with HIP, in my mind. It is literally impossible to hear music in anything close to the same way as did the original audience.


I don't mean hearing it for the first time and at the same time forgetting every piece of music written after the composer you're hearing now. This is absurd. The goal is to simply recreate the sound to the best of our abilities, period (no pun intended). Or at least that's what I think about HIP. I don't see it as good sounding or bad sounding, in my opinion, this is a false dichotomy.



kmisho said:


> I don't know why anyone would prefer to listen to piano-forte when we have the modern piano. It's just plain better-sounding.


Brautigam has recorded tons of cds. So indeed there are people willing to listen to fortepiano. Why? It's interesting! By your logic, we shouldn't listen to Haydn's baryton trios just because baryton is an antiquated instrument. And what about harpsichord? Would you play WTC with harpsichord or modern piano? Would you play Vivaldi with harpsichord or modern piano? How should we play renaissance and pre-renaissance music? Should we even listen renaissance and pre-renaissance music?


----------



## Webernite

kmisho said:


> I don't know why anyone would prefer to listen to piano-forte when we have the modern piano. It's just plain better-sounding.


Ooh, controversial remark.


----------



## kmisho

nickgray said:


> By your logic, we shouldn't listen to Haydn's baryton trios just because baryton is an antiquated instrument. And what about harpsichord? Would you play WTC with harpsichord or modern piano? Would you play Vivaldi with harpsichord or modern piano? How should we play renaissance and pre-renaissance music? Should we even listen renaissance and pre-renaissance music?


That's not my logic.


----------



## kmisho

Delicious Manager said:


> I was surprisingly impressed with a couple of Beethoven symphonies I heard recently conducted by Christoph von Dohnányi. I listened blind, so had no idea who was conducting.


Thanks for the recommendation. The Dohnanyi was EXACTLY the type of version I was looking for.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

1) Has anyone heard The "Pastoral Symphony" with Ivan Fisher and Budapest Festival Orchestra?
2) What do you think about the cd of the "Emperor" concerto with Brautigam and Parrot? I've heard only 1st and 3rd concerti - and loved it.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## Keenan

I would recomend the Chamber orchestra of Europe with harnoncourt - Good impressions of all the symphonys and keep them fresh. Played on normal instruments and with modern techniques but used in a sensitive way! Norrington is quite hard core period performance so I would keep away from that. Another good choice you may be interested in is the Gewandhaus Orchestra with Chailly. Very decent recordings.


----------



## bigshot

HIP is interesting from a historical perspective, but for listening to music, expression is more important to me than authenticity. I find Romantic interpretations are much more expressive. I like conductors who have a personality, not just good taste.


----------



## Orange Soda King

I LOVE Gardiner's cycle!!


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Thielemann recorded a very good Ninth with die Wiener Philharmoniker, though I've not heard the rest. It's not "slow", btw.

***
From Dohnanyi I have onyl the Eroica and it is very good. But now I listen mostly to Paavo Jarvi's Eroica. He made me believe in it. Esp, the last movement is great with chamber orchestra. And marcia funebre is also great in Jarvi's hands.


----------



## Itullian

Krivine got raves. period instr.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I've recently heard Chailly's Eight (a friend of mine was listening to it). I have mixed feelings. It is quite good, though after Jarvi's bravura recording it seems to me a little bit relaxed, despite fast tempos.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re Dohanyi cycle (the OP's eventual pick), both the interps and engineering are disappointments. The tempi are often rushed, with detail lost. Balances are poor, wind nuance lost, timpani forgotten. The sound is on the bright side, becoming irritable at times.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Well, I am curious, who had already heard the whole Chailly's box set? What do you think of that?

I am espicially interested in your opinion in his perfomance of the *4th *for I'm thinking about buying it separately. So what do you think about his 4th?


----------



## Nothung

I just recently picked up Chailly, and I haven't made it all the way through the set but I've been very impressed with the couple I've listened to so far (not the 4th, unfortunately). The sound is uniformly excellent, and the performances are brisk and energetic but quite muscular. It sounds like a period performance with modern instruments. So you get the best of both worlds, really.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

TThanks, maybe I'll try it someday


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Wow! It seems to me that Esa-Pekka Salonen is working on Beethoven with Philharmonia. You can his interview on youtube. You can hear some fragments of their perfomance of the Seventh - pretty energetic.


----------



## tgtr0660

Webernite said:


> I don't like Norrington. I think he is possibly the worst period-instrument conductor I have ever encountered.


This couldn't be any truer. Norrington is dangerous for music. He is the worst conductor period.

Dohnanyi and Vanska should be ok. I have the Chailly cycle and finished listening to it a few weeks ago (I posted all comments in the current listening section). The set disappointed me overall, though it has good points. The style is too fast, light, makes some of the music sound background-music-worthy, takes a lot of drama and emotion off the music. The recordings are uniformly excellent and the playing is superb. But Chailly can't stand next to Karajan, Wand, Solti, Bernstein, Furtwangler, Szell. His is a style more in the school of Toscanini, though with less weight. In one word, his set is:

1. Good, very good. 
2. Good. 
3. Ok. He kills the marcia funebre though. 
4. Good. Among the best of the set. 
5. Bad. No drama, makes the second and third movement sound like elevator music, and totally fails in the build up to the fourth which is not triumphant at all. 
6. Atrocious. I've never heard a more irrelevant symphony. Then I listened to Walter's 6th again to remember why I've always enjoyed that work. 
7. Not bad in the outer movements but it trivializes the second, crucial one. 
8. Bad. I expected Chailly to shine here but he failed. He makes the 8th into a lot of inconsequential music. 
9. He dared to kill the ninth. The scherzo is decent. The adagio is a tragedy but not because of emotions poured into the music. The opening masterpiece runs quickly and without relevance, totally devoid of any majesty, sense of chaos or drama. The fourth movement has good moments mixed with awfully bad ones.


----------



## bigshot

I've got way too many Beethoven cycles, but Masur struck me as being very good for a fairly recent performance.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

*tgtr0660 *
Interesting review, thanks a lot!

BTW, what do you think about *Paavo Jarvi?* I love his "Eroica", including the Marcia funebre. Maybe his Seventh is too fast and in the Fifth I still prefer old Kleiber (Toscanini was also very good, but I've heard him only on youtube).


----------



## meaned

You know, Paavo Jarvi with the HR sinfonieorchester has been putting out some very enjoyable performances, though it is a bit of a hit and miss proposition for a cycle. The 3rd through 7th are great but somehow the 9th is not quite the engrossing hit it should be. 
I must say, given the OP's liking szell, I whole earedly recommend the entire cycle by Eugene Ormandy and the fabulous Philadelphians in the 60's... as recorded by Columbia records. Astonishing for the whole way through, and such inimitable woodwind/general soloist detail. The Pastoral is particularly wonderful. 
OK , so it is explicitly NOT a newer rec. it does fit the bill, however. 

For a newer good digital recording, big band, not extreme, solid: i go with the oh-so-shouldn't-be-bargain-priced Zinman Zurich cycle or (putting personal discomforts aside, due to some unpleasant allegations towards his conduct) Mikhail Pletnev and the Russian National Orchestra.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

There are also the recordings that were made by *Swedish Chamber Orchestra and Dausgaard* on SIMAX. I have only one disk with them. It's with the Seventh Symphony and 
"Egmont". I like it, though maybe I would prefer to hear the strings a little bit more... But the tempi in the Seventh is ideal, in my opinion (Jarvi, who made a great recoring of the "Eroica" is too fast in the Seventh and Vanska is too slow). The Danish soprano is good, but I'd like a little bit more bravura in her song about "Hosen und Hut".

Too bad Jarvi did not make an audiophile recording of the "Egmont". I think someone should try an Austrian soprano Julia Kleiter for it...


----------



## regnaDkciN

I had read good things about the Abbado/BPO cycle, and had been impressed by the _Eroica_ when I heard it on the radio, so bought the entire set (on DVD-Audio, no less!). Unfortunately, I found that the _Eroica_ was actually the highlight of the set, and most of the rest sounded bloodless and over-smooth. It was neither big-orchestra Beethoven, nor HIP, but somehow managed, for me, to combine the worst traits of both. I think the conductor and/or his label might have shared that opinion, because, strangely enough, the year after that set came out (2000), they released a completely-different cycle with the same forces, drawn from live performances. I've read that the second version is better, but I haven't heard it myself.

Personally, among the more recent sets, my preference is for the Haitink/LSO, which manages to combine being brisk and light-footed with still packing a great deal of emotional power. I also prefer his 9th above all others. Vanska has his great moments (including a fine finale to the 9th), but also enough points where it feels like he and his players are just going through the motions to preclude it from being a top recommendation for me.

Lastly, since someone mentioned Norrington (which isn't exactly a new set, having come out in the late 1980s): I share the misgivings of many about his set overall, but think his reading of the 5th deserves to be heard -- the first movement, in particular, is one of the most thrilling I've ever heard.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Haven't read thread, only title and I'm gonna say JOHN ELIOT GARDINER IS DA BOSS.


----------



## neoshredder

Better than Hogwood?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Better than Hogwood?


Yes of course. Hogwood gets the tempo wrong.


----------



## neoshredder

Thanks. I'll order the Gardiner one now.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Thanks. I'll order the Gardiner one now.


I haven't got either of them.


----------



## neoshredder

I'm kind of going into a Beethoven phase again. I definitely think his Symphonies are his best works. Maybe I might get into Romanticism after attacking it for so long.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> I'm kind of going into a Beethoven phase again. I definitely think his Symphonies are his best works. Maybe I might get into Romanticism after attacking it for so long.


I know how terrible Chopin's Piano Concerti are, but if you are thinking of purchasing a recording, get Dang Thai Son and orchestra of the 18th century conducted by Franz Brüggen.


----------



## Vaneyes

Another vote for Paavo Jarvi LvB. I must admit, it obliterates the previous BPO/Abbado inclination I had.


----------



## powerbooks

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Haven't read thread, only title and I'm gonna say JOHN ELIOT GARDINER IS DA BOSS.


Sorry but this thread is pretty old. The starting post asked for "no period style or instruments", so I guess Gardiner is out.

For me, Gardiner cycle is OK but not ideal. I like bigger sound Beethoven from modern instruments, also his approach especially for B3, B9 were kind of rushed to my taste.

I hesitate to make recommendation because the title thread did not like Barenboim, whom I felt that his cycle form last decade with Berliner Staatskapelle is on top of my recommendation list for "modern" recording. It has the rough edge of excitement from a kind of rusty German traditional orchestra sounds: not refined or smooth like Vienna or Berlin, but a real "Deutsche Ton"! Like the rough character of Beethoven. (Yes, it is true that B7 is the weak link of that set.)


----------



## Bas

I don't think they are widely, or easily available outside my contry (though there is a webshop), the Netherlands, however: I recently enjoyed the Beethoven Symphonies of mr. Frans Brüggen a lot. Played on authentic instruments by the Orchestra of the Eigteenth Century: http://www.orchestra18c.com/

In authentic tone, with autentic instruments, of outstanding sound quality! It seems to be 'softer' then most of today's recordings played on contemporain instruments.


----------



## superhorn

I recently borrowed the Chailly/Leipzig set on library interloan , and I'm very impressed by it . 
The tempi are quite brisk but never rushed , I've never heard the famous Gewandhaus orchestra sound so great on recordings, and the sound is both warm and clear .
The David Zinman/ Zurch Tonhalle set has similar virtues and is ridiculously cheap . It also features the solo woodwinds embellishing their parts at times like opera singers , which is intriguing. Some musicologists believe that this may have been done in Beethoven's time .
The Hyperion set with the late Sir Charles Mackerras and the Scottish chamber orchestra but with the Philharmonia in the 9th is also excellent . I haven't heard the earlier Mackerras set with the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic , but this has received some very enthusiastic notices .


----------



## Philip

neoshredder said:


> Thanks. I'll order the Gardiner one now.


neoshredder is now officially and undoubtedly the most influenceable member of the TC boards.


----------



## neoshredder

I did read the comments on Amazon as well. I like the period based as well as being recorded pretty recently.


----------



## bigshot

I see the value of period instruments in older forms of music, but not Beethoven on. I've heard period romantic recordings and they just sounded weaker overall. Gut stings and hide typany are fine, but that's about it.


----------



## neoshredder

Well I liked it. I'm not looking for the biggest sound. Gardiner made it more energetic than most Conductors who like to make it more dramatic and prolong it. I'll take the lively version.


----------



## bigshot

Peppy Beethoven is a virtue, I suppose. Gets it over with faster.


----------

