# Works performed twice or more by the same artist... preferences?



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

1.) The most famous example, perhaps: Gould's early and late performance of the Goldbergs. I can't decide which I prefer. Depends on time of day, season, etc... They're both masterpieces.
2.) There's Schiff's early and later performances of the WTC and Partitas. The later recordings are light years ahead of the earlier performances—for me.
3.) I was just noticing Isabella Faust's earlier and later recording of Beethoven's Violin Concerto. I think I might like her recording with Belohlavek better than the Abaddo, though Gramaphone includes the latter in their Top 50 Beethoven recordings.
4.) Järvi, Davis and Vänskä have done early and late recordings of the Sibelius symphonies—complete cycles. I would be interested in opinions on these. I have the early set of the Järvi with Gothenburg and have been happy with them but wouldn't mind recommendations on a newer cycle.
5.) And others that you know about...


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I think a great number of well-known artists do repeat recording for important compositions. Here are a few examples:
1. H.v.Karajan: Symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Mozart, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius etc. Operas of Mozart, Verdi, R.Strauss etc. Some Concertos. Many prefer his 1960s performances, but I like his 1980s version of Brahms, Bruckner and Richard Strauss more. 
2. Brendel recorded the Beethoven sonata cycle at least 3 times. I like his 1970s Philips recordings of the early sonatas and 1990s version of the late ones. He also did repeat recordings for the works of Schubert and Mozart for example.
3. Beaux Arts Trio: they did almost all important piano trios at least twice, including Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky etc. No big changes in terms of performance before Greenhouse's leave, better sound quality since 1970.
4. I Musici did Vivaldi's four seasons several times. I have none of them.
5. Just like HvK, Jochum did repeat recording of important symphonies (Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner etc.).
6. Many well-known soloists worked with different conductors, keyboardists etc. on the recordings of great concertos, chamber works and sonatas. For examples, those well-known recordings by Fournier, Rostropovich, Oistrakh, Szeryng, Grumiaux etc.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

I have a "live" version.
In 1990 I watched Barenboim conduct the Berlin PO at the Royal Festival Hall London. Schubert 8 and Beethoven 3. A fair concert, but not outstanding.
Twenty eight years later, in 2018, I watched him conduct the identical program, this time with the Berlin Staatskapelle in the Sydney Opera House.
A fair concert, but not outstanding. Overall progress in the intervening period = about nothing...!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

vtpoet said:


> 4.) Järvi, Davis and Vänskä have done early and late recordings of the Sibelius symphonies-complete cycles. I would be interested in opinions on these. I have the early set of the Järvi with Gothenburg and have been happy with them but wouldn't mind recommendations on a newer cycle.


There are three Sibelius sets from Colin Davis but it isn't easy to sort out the first two (LSO and Boston) - both have different successes and near misses IMO and his approach to the music seems to vary widely. The third set (LSO Live) seems to give us the Sibelius that his decades of experience had led him to and often seems the best of him. Vanska's two sets are very different. The Lahti set is well known and seems to give us fine accounts of the Sibelius we know well. His Minnesota set is quite special. I am not so much a fan of the CD with 2 and 5 - I tend to want more oomph than he gives us - but the rest and very fine indeed: there is so much care taken, so much telling detail and yet they flow beautifully and build wonderful climaxes. They are quite unlike any other Sibelius.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The best of both worlds "Gouldberg" is Salzburg live 1958 or so (it was also in the "white edition", not an obscure bootleg).

Furtwängler's wartime Beethoven and Schubert 9 is usually MUCH better than later studio recordings, or even later live recordings, most important for me in Beethoven's and Schubert's 9th.

Juilliard quartet (but there were some personnel changes) late 1950s - late 1960s usually considerably better than 1970s-90s.

Rubinstein: usually 1920s - early 40s are the most fiery, 1960s the most mellow, with ca. 1950 recordings sometimes striking the best balance


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Complete sets of Beethoven piano sonatas:

Barenboim 4 (I don't like any of them)
Kempff 2 (ditto)
Buchbinder 3 (love them all, but like his 2014 set best)
Gulda 3 (the stereo one is preferable)

Wispelwey recorded the Bach cello suites 3 times - the first one is relatively mainstream (and I find it a bit bland); the second and third recordings are similar in conception, the main difference being the instrument pitch.

And then there are Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau's 342 recorded performances of Winterreise....


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Arthur Grumiaux recorded the Beethoven concerto twice, with Alceo Galliera and Colin Davis respectively at the helm. The Davis recording has the better orchestral playing (Concertgebouw as against New Philharmonia) but the soloist was on once-in-a-lifetime form in that first recording, especially in the Elysian slow movement, excellent though he was under Davis later.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've found most people are more energetic, passionate and adventurous the first time around and more studied, slower and more philosophic on repeat. I would give the following examples:

Karajan 1963 vs. 197_ set of Beethoven symphonies

Bruno Walter's mono vs. stereo Beethoven symphonies

Any of Walter's Mahler symphonies he recorded from 1930-1960 against the so-called Indian summer stereo remakes on Columbia/Sony.

Adrian Boult's recording of Holst's The Planets from the 1950s vs. the stereo remakes.

Boult's set of Vaughan Williams symphonies from the 1950s vs. the stereo remakes.

Alfred Brendel's Beethoven piano sonatas on Vox from the 1950s vs. the stereo versions he made later.

Just about anyone else in creation who recorded something once and did it again.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

larold said:


> I've found most people are more energetic, passionate and adventurous the first time around and more studied, slower and more philosophic on repeat.


That's been my impression as well. I was noticing that with the Vänskä. His performance of the 3rds Andantino was already slow with the Minnesota Orchestra, but he made it positively soporific with the Lahti Symphony Orchestra, and yet I read a lot of praise for his Lahti performance. Järvi actually picks up the pace in his second cycle. I think I prefer the second Järvi over the first and over both Vänskäs.

Edit: Oops. Reversed the order of Vänskä''s recordings...


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I have the first Wispelwey set. I bought them at one of his early concerts in a small auditorium that was more like a classroom with roughly thirty listeners and all his new CDs being sold on a table. I've been meaning to buy the latest set. I usually hear many prefer it as their favorite.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

*Works performed twice or more by the same artist... preferences?
*
Leonard Bernstein practically recorded the entire classical music basic repertoire once for Columbia in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s; and then he did it AGAIN for DG during the 1980s.

Generally, I find the Columbia recordings that were made mostly with the New York Philharmonic to be more enthusiastic, more energized; more spontaneous, and more "swinging"; and I'd say that there are very rare examples where you really can't go wrong with a Bernstein/Columbia (now Sony) recording across the repertoire.

The DG recordings are different: They are heavier, more contemplative, more spacious. Sometimes Bernstein slows things down to the extreme, as with his infamous DG recording of Tchaikovsky's _6th_ where he pushes the usual 43 minutes to nearly an hour. While I give Bernstein credit for trying to bring about something new; to me it doesn't always work. While I've learned to love the Bernstein's DG recording of Tchaikovsky's _6th_; the somewhat lethargic Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler symphony cycles seem to make me long for the earlier crack Columbia recordings. That recording he did of Beethoven's _9th_ for DG to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall was awful, maybe the worst Beethoven 9 I have on record, and I have over a dozen.

The incomplete Sibelius cycle that Bernstein made with DG and the Vienna Philharmonic is good, though. While Bernstein does slow Sibelius down to a snail's pace, the dynamics are so intense that it brings forth a Sibelius cycle like no other. Also good, and surprising, are the Bernstein/Mozart recordings also made with the Vienna Philharmonic on DG; and here Bernstein brings forth a Mozart that is fresh,beautiful, and clean; overlooked for being thoroughly un-HIP at a time when HIP was all the rage; and a great set of Mozart recordings from a conductor not especially known as great Mozart champion.

Some Bernstein/DG recordings I'd recommend:


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

HIP Mozart was still "cutting edge"/niche in the late 1980s. DG made a complete? recording of the symphonies with Levine/Vienna in that time (as well as on Archiv Pinnock HIP). So big band/famous conductor Mozart was not unusual at all 30-35 years ago.

I also tend to prefer Bernstein/NYPO/Columbia/Sony and I don't care enough for Sibelius to check out the late DG recordings. But some of the DG Beethoven (3,6,9, not the "Freiheit" but ca. 1980 Vienna) and especially Mahler (esp. 5+6 Vienna Phil) are very good.

I have the big pink Rubinstein box but could never be bothered to systematically compare his up to 4 recordings of many concertos and some solo works. He could still be extremely good at 80 or beyond as the often fantastic late chamber recordings with the Guarneri Q or Szeryng etc. show. But of this chamber repertoire there are very few earlier recordings and often the late ones have just the much better stereo sound speaking for them. (As Feuermann was really special the Brahms B major, Schubert and Beethoven B flat major trios from ca. 1940 are still worthwhile, though.)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Berstein gets high marks elsewhere. Elsewhere, and maybe this question interests me more than others, I ran into David Hurwitz:






Believe it or not, this is the first I've heard of him (I don't spend a lot of time with multimedia/Youtube on the internet). He generally seems to prefer earlier recordings by various conductors and artists, and does so in a dismissive but humorous way.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Regardless of the HIP "dictatorship" we seem to be in sometimes, I'm a big Karl Richter fan. He conducted several recordings of the St Matthew Passion afaik, but my favorite (and THE recording of that work, to me) is his first one from 1958.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

dissident said:


> Regardless of the HIP "dictatorship" we seem to be in sometimes, I'm a big Karl Richter fan. He conducted several recordings of the St Matthew Passion afaik, but my favorite (and THE recording of that work, to me) is his first one from 1958.


I grew up with the Richter set on cassette, but it was always a slog for me, and even more so after the really good (not Harnoncourt-eek!) HIP performances started coming out. Even before HIP was a thing, Richter was just sooooooo slow, ponderous and warbly (can't recall which version I owned). When the first good HIP performances came along, I was sold. I can still listen to Richter and enjoy it, but it's really for the nostalgia more than anything else. Same for Brandenburgs-may have been Otto Klemperer but I was just a kid. I can listen to them and enjoy them but...


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

On the other hand most HIP performances I've heard are just too thin, wheezy and waaaaay too fast...as if "adagio" meant "allegro moderato" way back when. Different strokes I guess. I've never understood the virtue of putting a performance under the restrictions that Bach himself may have despised. And those creepy countertenors (sorry)... Although I do like some Gardiner and Suzuki recordings.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

dissident said:


> Regardless of the HIP "dictatorship" we seem to be in sometimes, I'm a big Karl Richter fan. He conducted several recordings of the St Matthew Passion afaik, but my favorite (and THE recording of that work, to me) is his first one from 1958.


Hi darling there's a dictatorship but I think performing styles have altered. It is appreciated that Bach should be performed with more pring and lighter textures. Some of the old Richter cantata recordings are still mighty impressive, mind you, and he was radical in his day by using a small choir. The 1958 recording is his best as when he recorded it again he had got slower and ponderous.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

dissident said:


> those creepy countertenors (sorry)...


Yes. On that score. Yes. I agree with you 132.5%. I just **do not get** the fetish as regards countertenors. They're not even historically informed! Why? Why, why, why? I really **do not like** the timbre of their voices and not one even remotely competes with the best altos. It's the reason I still prefer Koopman's complete and Kuijken's (best ever IMHO) incomplete cycle.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

JTS said:


> Hi darling there's a dictatorship but I think performing styles have altered. It is appreciated that Bach should be performed with more pring and lighter textures. Some of the old Richter cantata recordings are still mighty impressive, mind you, and he was radical in his day by using a small choir. The 1958 recording is his best as when he recorded it again he had got slower and ponderous.


Yeah styles have shifted, but I sometimes wonder if people really think HIP _sounds better_ or if they think it's just the proper thing to do ("this is what Bach heard!") and so convince themselves that it sounds better. I do have a distaste for the overblown Klemperer and Karajan recordings of Bach, but I prefer Richter and Rilling *most of the time* to any of the HIP recordings I've heard. The only period non-keyboard instrument that I think sounds better than its modern equivalent is the oboe.

But...that's all a subject for another thread.

As for Gould 1955 vs 1981, I much prefer the 1981 recording. Although I have to be grateful in a way for the 1955 version: that was my first exposure to the Goldberg Variations (as it probably was for many, many others).


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

dissident said:


> ...As for Gould 1955 vs 1981, I much prefer the 1981 recording. Although I have to be grateful in a way for the 1955 version: that was my first exposure to the Goldberg Variations (as it probably was for many, many others).


Having come to classical music as a teenager in the early 1980s, I actually came FIRST to Gould's 1981 version and then came to the 1955 a bit later. Side-by-side, while the 1955 is far more dazzling; the 1981 is more contemplative and interesting regarding dynamics. The 1981 is pretty much my go-to "Goldberg" but it has a good deal of Gould's signature singing and groaning which has never bothered me much; but be warned if it annoys you!

My 1980s recordings of the Goldbergs by Gould:


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

I've always given the nod by a nose to Gould's 1969 CBC Radio recording of the Berg Sonata for Piano, Op. 1. I admit there is much to applaud in the earlier 1953 Hallmark recording, especially when one focuses on Gould’s uncommon approach to manual asynchrony and tempo, a feature which is perhaps even more tellingly expressed in his remarkable 1958 Stockholm studio recording where the enhanced quality of the recording allows the nuances of his approach to the Berg Sonata to shine through. Then again, I wouldn't want to be without Gould's pellucid and highly revealing live Moscow Lecture-Recital performance from 1957 or even the less well known CBC Musicamera television presentation filmed in 1974, much less the ORTF documentary recording from that same year. Let me just say that these recordings bear witness to significant shifts in Gould's aesthetic.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I've found most people are more energetic, passionate and adventurous the first time around and more studied, slower and more philosophic on repeat...That's been my impression as well. I was noticing that with the Vänskä._

I think that is the reason they redo something -- they have another take on it and the first one (likely) made money for everyone.

How one responds to a first or remake, in my opinion, depends on their age, experience and zeal. I think the younger and more passionate the more likely they are to better respond to the first, the older and more experience and philosophic the more they better respond to those traits.

I found this myself with Vaughan Williams tone poems by Boult from the 1950s and his 1970s stereo remakes. The older ones were more hard-driven, more passionate, speedier. The remakes were more measured, philosophical and richer in spiritual values. When I was 50 I liked the originals. At 70 I like the remakes better.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

dissident said:


> Regardless of the HIP "dictatorship" we seem to be in sometimes, I'm a big Karl Richter fan.





> On the other hand most HIP performances I've heard are just too thin, wheezy and waaaaay too fast..


Yes, I like Richter's recordings as well....b minor Mass is really great...for me, forget HIP, I just don't care to hear those instruments...._"thin, wheezy"_..._wimpy_ is a good description.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

dissident said:


> .... if they think it's just the proper thing to do ("this is what Bach heard!") and so convince themselves that it sounds better.


I've heard that argument presented often - "this is what xxx heard!"....so what??meaningless to me....that was then, this is now...I can't believe that composers of the past would object to hearing their works performed so beautifully on modern instruments.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Coach G said:


> Having come to classical music as a teenager in the early 1980s, I actually came FIRST to Gould's 1981 version and then came to the 1955 a bit later. Side-by-side, while the 1955 is far more dazzling; the 1981 is more contemplative and interesting regarding dynamics. The 1981 is pretty much my go-to "Goldberg" but it has a good deal of Gould's signature singing and groaning which has never bothered me much; but be warned if it annoys you!
> 
> My 1980s recordings of the Goldbergs by Gould:
> 
> ...


I've always preferred the 1955 performance for its spontaneity and I've also got a live recording of Gould playing it in concert. The 1971 is of course extraordinary in its way.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Heck148 said:


> I've heard that argument presented often - "this is what xxx heard!"....so what??meaningless to me....that was then, this is now...I can't believe that composers of the past would object to hearing their works performed so beautifully on modern instruments.


The argument is of course that it is a different sound they had in mind. I can see both sides of the argument.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

JTS said:


> The argument is of course that it is a different sound they had in mind....


Eh, so what?? It is what it is now.
Should the NBA go back to hanging up peach baskets for each game??


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> Eh, so what?? It is what it is now.
> Should the NBA go back to hanging up peach baskets for each game??


Meh. Let's redo Da VInci's paintings. Why clean and restore them when we have modern paints and colors. Is it is what it is now. Should the NBA go back to hanging peach baskets or what? And don't even get me started on the Sistine Chapel. All that old cruft can't compete with Latex paints... Should the NFL go back to leather helmets? I ask you....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

vtpoet said:


> Meh. Let's redo Da VInci's paintings.....


False equivalency...nobody is altering the original work.
According to this nonsense, we would have to have the original performers presenting the work, you know, for full "authenticity"...except that they have been dead for centuries....
We have no idea what the ideal sound Bach, Beethoven, Mozart might have heard in their minds so long ago.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> False equivalency...nobody is altering the original work.
> According to this nonsense, we would have to have the original performers...


Bah... blah... blah... You mean you didn't like my analogy? You thought my analogy was nonsensical and a false equivalence? I wonder what point I could possibly be making..... I mean, yes, let's discuss HIP performance if you want, but without resort to nonsense analogies-like sports analogies for example...


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> Bah... blah... blah... You mean you didn't like my analogy? You thought my analogy was nonsensical and a false equivalence? I wonder what point I could possibly be making..... I mean, yes, let's discuss HIP performance if you want, but without resort to nonsense analogies-like sports analogies for example...


Well, the analogy doesn't quite hold up because the painting doesn't really rely on performers. It already is what it is. But on the subject of HIP and the Goldbergs, I've been listening to several performances on harpsichord and I'm starting to understand the view that performing this work on a piano is a pale imitation. There really is a huge difference.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

vtpoet said:


> let's discuss HIP performance if you want,....


*I don't want to*...I'm not going to argue about the value of HIP, authenticity, "what the composer heard during his life", etc...*because it is of no interest to me*....it has no significance to me....I don't give a cr*p what Bach "might have heard" in 1731...It's not important to me.

I don't like the sound of original instruments...the inadequacies of the sound I find distracting [wimpy, wheezing, thin, clucking, chattering...] such that it interferes with my enjoyment of the music....
That's my preference....no argument presented here or anywhere is going to make me suddenly enjoy the sound of original instruments....I simply don't care for it. period.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Heck148 said:


> *I don't want to*...I'm not going to argue about the value of HIP, authenticity, "what the composer heard during his life", etc...*because it is of no interest to me*....it has no significance to me....I don't give a cr*p what Bach "might have heard" in 1731...It's not important to me.
> 
> I don't like the sound of original instruments...the inadequacies of the sound I find distracting [wimpy, wheezing, thin, clucking, chattering...] such that it interferes with my enjoyment of the music....
> That's my preference....no argument presented here or anywhere is going to make me suddenly enjoy the sound of original instruments....I simply don't care for it. period.


Well one final word on HIP: it's speculative. There's no way to tell for sure what Bach heard in 1731. It's what Leonhardt and Harnoncourt and some others thought Bach might have heard. Now as far as the Goldbergs are concerned that's one instance in which Bach called for a specific instrument: a double-manual harpsichord. But period-style strings and flutes, no. Give me the modern forms any day.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

dissident said:


> Well one final word on HIP: it's speculative. There's no way to tell for sure what Bach heard in 1731. It's what Leonhardt and Harnoncourt and some others thought Bach might have heard. Now as far as the Goldbergs are concerned that's one instance in which Bach called for a specific instrument: a double-manual harpsichord. But period-style strings and flutes, no. Give me the modern forms any day.


Well, I very much like the sound of original instruments (up to a point of course). The original Bach trumpet was valveless, for example; and for many, many years trumpeters couldn't play the Bach trumpet on a modern valveless trumpet. Why, you might ask? Because the modern valveless trumpet was too well built. Somewhat by accident, it was discovered that what allowed valveless trumpet players to play all those high notes, were all the bumps, dents and bruises that were part of building those brass instruments by hand. That's the beauty of original instruments. Because of their imperfections and limitations, they often have very different and unique sounds compared to modern instruments, which can sound homogeneous and, well, boringly smooth and predictable. No two fortepianos sound alike, and the differences between violins is all the more pronounced when played without all the modern additions and conveniences. That's what I like about HIP and why it is indeed comparable to restoring a painting. These old string instruments and woodwind instruments are like the old paintings in the sense that decades and decades of additions and rebuilds have no doubt very much altered and homogenized their sounds. But, getting back to the original theme of this thread, I often find that I prefer a given artist's first performance on an "original" instrument over a later "informed" performance on a modern instrument because of the instrument itself. I'm trying to think of an example right now. I'll add it as soon as I have one. Harnoncourt comes to mind...

*Edit:* Schiff, like most I think, has gone from modern to original instrument. I prefer Schiff's Diabeli, for example, on the fortepiano rather than his earlier version on the modern concert grand.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> No two fortepianos sound alike, and the differences between violins is all the more pronounced when played without all the modern additions and conveniences.


No two modern string instruments sound alike, either. The modern additions to the cello, at any rate, allow for more projection and range. I can (and do) still use gut strings on mine. As for the fortepiano...well, that's why I excluded keyboard instruments. And I'd still prefer the modern Boehm flute to a traverso. The Baroque oboe I think sounds better than the modern.

Regarding Schiff, if he starts performing Bach on a harpsichord or clavichord, he'd be going wholly HIP I guess...and if Bach played by Schiff, Tureck, Gould or Perahia are "acceptable", I don't know why Karl Richter or Rilling wouldn't be.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

dissident said:


> No two modern string instruments sound alike, either.


True. But the homogeneity among modern stringed instruments is greater than among restored instruments---some of that coming down to the bows and strings used. My hunch is that many listeners who dislike HIP prefer modern instruments precisely for their greater homogeneity in sound.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> True. But the homogeneity among modern stringed instruments is greater than among restored instruments---some of that coming down to the bows and strings used. My hunch is that many listeners who dislike HIP prefer modern instruments precisely for their greater homogeneity in sound.


I don't really. I think the characteristic of modern strings and playing technique that I prefer over "period" types is more power. A lot depends on the strings used. There's a much greater difference in *sound* between Rostropovich and Fournier, or Yo-Yo Ma and Steven Isserlis than between Schiff and Perahia. And anyway, a lot of the virtuosi are playing 17th and 18th century instruments to begin with, although certainly altered and rebuilt over the years. And then there's the thorny question of vibrato.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

to address the OP - this can be a mixed bag...older v newer performances by same artist...

ie - for me, Bernstein presents a mixture -

Generally I prefer his earlier [NYPO] versions of orchestra works, but not always - some notable exceptions -

I greatly prefer his 2nd take on Shostakovich 1, and 7 [Chicago] to his earlier versions...
I also like his later Mahler 3 and Copland 3 on DG, with NYPO, but otoh, I think his 60s recordings of Schuman 3 and Harris 3 are better than the 2nd efforts with NYPO on DG...
His 60s complete Sibelius set is vastly preferable, to me, to his later VPO one...


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

In principle, I don't like Bernstein because he's from an older generation of conductors; and I really do approve of HIP; but then whenever I hear Bernstein, I really like him. He always sounds fresh and engaging.

Also, I thought of another set of recordings. I have both: Badura-Skoda's early and later recordings of Schubert's piano sonatas, his first on a modern grand and his second set on a period piano. Not sure which I prefer.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

There's also the 2 recordings (that I know of) of Bruno Walter conducting the Mahler Ninth: the 1938 live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic and another one with the Columbia Symphony from about 1960 or '61. I love both of them for different reasons, although for historical poignancy I'd probably go with the 1938 despite its poorer sound.


----------

