# Merl and Knorf with more stuff & nonsense: Nielsen's Symphony No. 4



## Knorf

Disclaimer: it's possible that no one should pay any attention whatsoever to anything Merl and I blather on about in this thread. Apologies for errors, stupidity, missing your favorite recording if we did, and terrible taste, in advance.

*Comparison of recordings of Carl Nielsen's Symphony No. 4, Op. 29 "Det Uudslukkelige"*

Something to know: quite a few recordings of this symphony include subtle to massive tempo pullbacks in the codas of the first and last movements, which are explicitly not marked in the score. In fact, in the tempo marking at the end of the fourth movement, on page 105, is "Tempo giusto," which means "in strict time," and is marked half note = 96. Many recordings that are oft highly praised are much, much slower than that and then slow down even further, but no slowdown is marked until the "Rall." in the last bar over literally the very last timpani triplet. The effect is ruined if it happens sooner.

I actually don't necessarily have inherent animus towards a choice like that, but I have noticed certain commentators are far more likely to praise recordings that do it, and then criticize those that don't as "rushing through the climax" or something like that, although in fact they're doing precisely as Nielsen asked.

I'd suggest that a performer doing what the composer wanted-and explicitly asked for in the score and parts-should not be held against them.

So I confess that I tend to prefer not engaging in any big slowdowns in Nielsen that he hasn't marked. I understand the temptation for them, especially near the end of the first and last movements, but I think it detracts from Nielsen's intention and is a mistake in terms of what the symphony is actually about; the music should lean forward in confidence at the end, like a sprinter winning a race, and not indulgently wallow in the moment.

That's for afterwards. With your favorite drink in hand.

Many reviewers also focus way too much on the big timpani duel, or on the big brassy moments, and neglect that the essential _context_, created by the woodwinds and strings, especially the fascinating alteration between solos and tuttis, is what makes those moments powerful.

*Paavo Berglund, Royal Danish Orchestra
RCA, 1987*

Like a military tactician whose superb foresight, flexibility, and discipline achieve victory against all odds, Paavo Berglund is simply excellent in this symphony, with an extraordinary performance from Carl Nielsen's own orchestra, in which Nielsen once played in the second violin section.

Probably many will prefer someone like Schønwandt, because of the former conductors' more Romantic concept and truly top-shelf orchestral execution. But for me, it is with the likes of Berglund and Dausgaard where I find the nearly ideal performance, where I can lose myself in this extraordinary music, after the interpretive model laid out by Grøndahl.

The orchestral playing of the Royal Danish for Berglund is great but admittedly not quite as impressive as in the Schønwandt; here there are comparably good, or at times even superior, woodwinds, but at times more rather recessed/blended brass, and not always quite as brilliant strings.

Berglund plays it interpretively straight, with no fussing about with the tempos, tending to be on the side of Nielsen's own tempo markings, and therefore quite brisk, but never excessively so. I prefer this, as should be clear. It seems that many prefer something else. Nevertheless, in the end it's the likes of Berglund and Dausgaard for me who most plumb the depths of pathos, who reveal the struggle and overcome it, and who really find the true meaning of "Inextinguishable."

The conclusion of the fourth movement in Berglund's account expresses sheer relief as much as it does glorious triumph, and here for me this is a moment of extraordinary frisson, oddly enough even without the more usual brass über alles of rival recordings. And I'm not quite sure how Berglund does it. Maybe the simple lack of fussiness is the secret? Honestly, it might be.

One more note about this recording: I think it is notably the finest performance of the woodwind choir in the second movement of any recording I have heard. Their poetry and lyricism are absolutely sublime and songful, and in all honesty, I'd treasure this recording for this alone.

Small downsides: the timpani duel is terrifying, but the reverberant acoustic of the recording makes it quite muddy. Some will dislike this, as well as the (at times) relatively recessed brass.

*Thomas Dausgaard, Seattle Symphony Orchestra
Seattle Symphony Media, 2015*

This with Berglund is as close to an ideal performance interpretively as I have ever heard. Tempi are judged correctly, and are generally in line with what Nielsen marked without coming across as inflexible or unduly strict. The performance of the orchestra is excellent, top shelf in almost every section, especially in the timpani and low brass. The strings however are not quite as brilliant or full as some competitors, not that they're anywhere near bad. Perhaps the woodwinds, while better than all of their American rivals, still aren't quite to the level of the best Scandinavian recordings, but in general everything is very, very good. At times the tubist veers towards overbalance, but that's been a Seattle Symphony feature for a couple decades, and I don't necessarily mind it myself. Here it doesn't become the problem that distracts me so much in Blomstedt's SFSO recording.

But this is an eloquent and well-paced performance, one that delves into the pathos and darkness in the score without flinching, and one where triumph has been earned after great suffering, elevated by the struggle, as it were. It's a performance I can get lost in. Superb, and highly recommended!

*Sakari Oramo, Royal Stockholm Symphony Orchestra
BIS, 2012*

Another tremendously good performance, one that really bares its teeth but doesn't neglect the importance of lyricism. In most respects, there's naught to separate this one from my other favorites listed above. The playing is superb, and this might be the best recording in audiophile terms of any of them. Tempo choices are just great. So, where to rank this one, if I must? Well, in honest truth I'd rather not rank any of these top performances, but when I think about it, I realize a couple things.

First: which recordings make the most of the wonderful, soaring passages for the woodwind choir? All recordings include conductors who know you must bring the blazing brass and timpanic bombast, but that can unbalance things significantly if the lyric qualities of this symphony are neglected (looking at you, Alan Gilbert, not to mention Blomstedt). And the woodwinds here are really excellent. But, somehow, I find myself thinking more affectionately of the recordings I listed above this one.

Second: there's the timpani barrage of the fourth movement. If you wish to hear very precisely and correctly how the two parts synchronize contrapuntally, this is the recording for you. It's sensational! In a sense. But shouldn't those parts be played with just a bit more wild abandon, even or perhaps necessarily at the expense of absolute precision?

*Michael Schønwandt, Danish National Symphony Orchestra
Da Capo, 1999*

Schønwandt and the Danish National offer another very nearly ideal performance, and in a superb recording. The performance is powerful and poetic. The studio recording is slightly more propulsive than the live video, but they're very similar and both are truly excellent; the live video mainly has one or two additional, trivial performance glitches. The orchestra plays with tremendously impressive quality, as good as any of the absolute best Nielsen recordings out there, or better, with each instrumental choir rising to the occasion in triumph. The famous timpani volleys are notably terrifying. This might be the best played recording I auditioned.

In terms of the interpretation, I have one or two very minor quibbles about a couple tempo indulgences in the places I talk about above, but as I said most listeners it seems will probably like them, or at least not object, and again I don't really object other than that I notice them and think "that's not marked in the score" each and every time. No big deal, right? But there they are. At least with Schønwandt they're relatively subtle.

It's a great performance, with tremendous sound, and I really do enjoy returning to it often.

*Alexander Gibson, Royal Scottish National Orchestra
Chandos, 2006*

Another terrific performance which could easily and rightly be at the top of the list for many lovers of this symphony. Again, only the finest margins separate any of these top recordings, in all honesty.

Tempo choices, phrasing, dynamic contrasts, and full commitment to the pathos and drama of this work are all there with Gibson, and are all very convincing. If I have a quibble, it's that the woodwinds-who play superbly in the soft dynamics of the second movement-struggle a little to maintain consistency and strength of tone, which at loud dynamics gets a bit strident, and suffer from occasional wayward intonation. (At least they don't play it safe, though! But it's enough to bother me.) The brass are strong but rather bright. To balance those comments out, this might be my favorite of all for the timpani battle, which is ferocious and detailed, but not overly correct.

I also like that this recording is coupled with some of Nielsen's other non-symphonic orchestral works, as well as a couple tone-poems by Sibelius, rather than another symphony.

*Colin Davis, London Symphony Orchestra
LSO Live, 2010*

Without out a doubt, this is a dynamic and highly detailed recording, with superb orchestral execution and an excellent recorded sound highlighting a very well-conceived performance. But somehow for me, the interpretation, while it seems to tick all of the boxes, don't quite present quite the same quality of focus and unity of purpose as the absolute best. That last statement is very highly subjective; many listeners will love this recording, and really there's no especially good reason not to.

A highlight is that this is a fabulous realization of the timpani battle! However-and I can't believe I'm writing this-the timpani are slightly over-prominent in the first movement.

Sir Colin is a very noisy conductor. No stomping on the podium like Alan Gilbert, but lots of moaning and groaning and grunting and baleful wailing. Be warned.

*Launy Grøndahl, Danish State Radio Orchestra
His Master's Voice, 1951*

Fans of this symphony should hear this performance. The recording is more-or-less passable monophonic, but what's good is that Grøndahl nails nearly every tempo and transition, and the playing by the woodwinds is extraordinarily excellent, both as a choir and as soloists, with excellent balance except for an occasionally slightly over-balanced piccolo. The strings have a lovely sound but are sometimes a bit less polished than the modern rivals. The brass, though, are more of an issue, with a few too many moments of questionable intonation, and timpani don't come through with much detail.

The main thing I like about this important historic recording is the confirmation of what the tempi should be and what the woodwind choir should sound like in terms of phrasing, blend, and balance.

But here's the rub: there are plenty of modern recordings that do just exactly that as well, or better, in vastly superior sound. If you want the Grøndahl tradition in modern sound and overall better orchestral performance, the clear choices are Berglund, Dausgaard, Gibson, Oramo, and to some extent Schønwandt.

*Alan Gilbert, New York Philharmonic Orchestra
Da Capo, 2014*

This is a powerhouse performance. The NYPO sound like the world-class orchestra that they are, with some of the finest low brass you'll hear anywhere, tremendous strings, plummy woodwinds; also, it's a superb recording in every way. The timpani volleys are glorious and detailed, and you want to cheer at the end, as you should.

But there are a few problems. Gilbert perhaps misses out occasionally on some of the more lyric qualities of this symphony; he shifts into overdrive a bit easily, and sometimes a bit early. The woodwind soli in the second movement are not that well blended as a choir and phrased too much like a recitative for my taste, with dynamically flat long notes, and in general lacking the song-like quality I prefer. That comment applies to numerous other sections as well; too much dynamically limited playing in lyrical sections as a rule.

And how I wish someone had given Gilbert a quieter, softer podium. His stamping around in the last movement is very audible and quite distracting.

And, yes, Gilbert is all in in terms of indulgent tempo slackening in the climactic moments at the ends of the first and fourth movements. Again, I don't hate it, but I personally can never ignore it.

*Herbert Blomstedt, San Francisco Symphony
Decca (London), 1988*

I'm a Blomstedt fan, and really wanted to like this recording. And, I do, more or less. I mean, in most respects it's really excellent. It's powerful and well phrased, with drama aplenty.

But it vaguely disappointed me when it was released and received all that great praise, and it still does. Why? A few reasons. The woodwinds are kind of weak. They underplay almost every marked dynamic, and almost never go for a real _fortissimo_ as a woodwind choir. Individually, there are a few strong solo performances, but as a choir they're too controlled, play it safe, and are overall a bit disappointing. Remember, we're talking about very fine margins. They do better than the NYPO with Gilbert in the second movement in terms of phrasing, but a bit worse overall as a choir in the first and last movements. (Enfeebled woodwinds are a common problem in American orchestras since the 1970-80s, when technical perfection became the path to winning auditions, rather than overall artistry. Some conductors also palm down the woodwinds' loudness all the time, but I don't think Blomstedt does that. I could be wrong.)

The tuba is always overbalanced in this recording. For example, there are some passages when the horns and trumpets are marked fortissimo, but the low brass only forte, and yet you hear tuba the most. I mean, the player sounds great, but it's just a little too much, and to me it quickly gets distracting.

Finally, there's the coda of the last movement, page 105 to the end. It's not "Tempo giusto" in this recording; actually, it's barely over half the marked tempo at half note = 96, and then slows down further. The timpani "Rall." at the end has zero impact as a result, with nowhere to go. Something about this undoes everything else the movement has fought for. It's an interpretive choice I simply cannot accept, at least not when it's this extreme, not just because Nielsen didn't call for it, rather also because I think it's clearly an interpretive mistake. Also, the fact is that the woodwinds' lines are those that should predominate towards the ends of the last phrase, before the last timpani statement, but they just don't, and so it's simply balanced incorrectly and disappointingly.

So, while there truly is much to like about this performance, including tremendously good strings, horns, trumpets, and timpani, in the end I'm not especially interested in hearing it more. Overrated, but not dismissible.

*Herbert von Karajan, Berliner Philharmoniker
Deutsche Grammophone, 1981*

Oddly enough, there were a few years in the 1980s when Karajan's Nielsen 4 was the only recording of the symphony available on compact disc! The surprise to me (but why?) is that this is an excellent performance, with numerous wonderful details. I guess I had assumed that Karajan's Berliner Philharmoniker could provide the tonal beauty and orchestral heft the symphony needs, but perhaps not the incisiveness and brute aggression. That's not quite correct. It definitely does, to a point. This is a soaring performance, with the glorious and distinctive sound of the Berliner Philharmoniker at its peak under Karajan. And it's an excellent recording, but look for the "Karajan Gold" remastered release.

The biggest issues that make this a lower preference for me are the slow tempi and overall interpretive approach that is just too stately. It's very beautiful, and powerful certainly, but the threat is a bit insufficient, and bit too indirect. Imagine riding in a brawny Mercedes on the German Autobahn, with a great driver, and sometimes a wide-open throttle: it's exhilarating to a point, but, really, you're quite comfortable and not in any immediate danger. It's a Karajan cliché, but apt in this case. There are moments in the fourth movement where the danger does get real, but all threats are overcome without too much trauma or sweat. The plush suspension smooths out any bumps.

Very enjoyable to hear once, but admittedly that's all.

*Esa-Pekka Salonen, Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra
CBS Records/Sony Classical, 1986*

I rate Salonen pretty highly in general, but my guess is someday he'll want to revisit this, and I hope he does. He made this recording at 26, and considering that it's quite remarkable. There's a lot to like: much great playing albeit in a somewhat indifferent recording. However, Salonen has some pretty significant tempo management problems, losing momentum and energy for no particular purpose, and he does the massive unmarked slowdowns in the first and last movements that I don't like. The third movement comes off the best.

*Leonard Bernstein, New York Philharmonic Orchestra
CBS Records/Sony Classical, 1970*

A huge problem with Bernstein's Nielsen 4 is that it sounds like a rehearsal run-through. There are pitch problems everywhere, wrong notes galore, botched entrances, false entrances, and much general sloppiness, with one very interesting exception, for later discussion. The most egregious wrong note occurs in the first oboe in the second movement, and it's so glaring I just cannot understand why another take wasn't made. The worst of this is that so much of the playing is really tentative, as if players aren't quite sure, yet, how it all holds together.

And there are severe problems with the tempo dragging. Because it always slows down, it never catches fire, and the odd phenomenon occurs-not for the first or last time with Bernstein-where a new section that is supposed to be slower ends up being faster.

But there are some positive elements. With a few rehearsals, this might have been really good, and you can hear that. In general, the balance between instrumental choirs is excellent; Bernstein was clearly not going to let this be nothing more than a "brass, Brass, and MORE BRASS" type of performance. The last movement was clearly rehearsed the most and comes off the best in every regard, although it still slows down too much and too soon in the coda. And the timpani battle: well, the players clearly had had a sectional. They're very precise and correct, with excellent detail and in general it's very exciting, but it still sounds a little safe compared to the best performances out there.

In the end, this is another recording where I want to be able to recommend it, but I can't. It's just way too undercooked.


----------



## Merl

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond......

Welcome to the Nielsen Masterchef kitchen. A number of celebrity conductors have been submitting their Nielsen 4th Symphony main meals. This amateur foody has been assessing their dishes thoroughly, through extensive tasting, and here are my thoughts.

Experienced Chef* Blomstedt* was first up and impressed with a lively, engaging and very tasty San Fransciscan meatloaf. Great ingredients and all elements were there making this food-lover smile whilst relishing Blomstedt's joyous flavours. I may have preferred a bit more spice in the final moments of tasting but generally this was a hugely impressive dish carried off well by such an excellent chef. A contender.

Maestro *Salonen* cooked up a much tamer Nielsen fish pie. Where some of his competitors found joy there's something missing from Salonen's recipe and tapping on the crusty pie case I detected a dullness in sound. Whilst there's plenty of flavours I failed to distinguish all of these on my palate and it felt congested. It all left a rather ho-hum taste in my mouth and left me ultimately disappointed.

Popular Chef *Karajan* was much more experienced here and his Nielsen souffle was rich and very satisfying. The filling was occasionally a a tiny bit stringy but it was so successfully prepared that I couldn't complain about anything. Mr Karajan was a whoilly safer pair of hands than the previous contestant and dished out what I consider to be very accomplished comfort food, leaving me will a full stomach and a feeling that I was always in very safe hands. One to consider for the final places.

Legendary cook, *Bernstein*, on the other hand failed to deliver a satisfying main meal, opting to serve up a big, stodgy New York pudding that seemed to take ages to get through and tasted of very little. Self-indulgent, far too big and fattening, I supect that this food would have been more appropriately served up on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Not what I was expecting from a chef who otherwise prepares very high-quality Nielsen dishes. Oh dear!

*Sir Colin Davis* may be a world-renowned chef but I took little away from his rather stiff Nielsen beef wellington. None of his flavour comnbinations particularly impressed me and I actually started to feel a little disappointed with this fare. It was pleasant enough but I expected more going on, especially whilst the cooking process was at its slower moments. In the end it was all a bit samey and predictable.

The next main served up was a one from Chef *Dausgaard*. I know my fellow American judge rated this highly but it didnt impress me as much. Dausgaard's lamb tagine was certainly exotic enough, full of rich flavours and lovely colours but I wasn't convinced by the aftertaste in the final moments. Don't get me wrong, it's a very impressive dish but, for me, the taste combinations didn't quite combine as effectively as the best meals sampled today. One that might split opinions but certainly very accomplished and well-produced cooking from Mr. D and co.

*Kuchar* supplied a more rustic take on his Nielsen main with a Czech-inspired goulash that was mighty tasty and very well prepared. There was a lot to admire here (hs other Nielsen meals are very good too)and I was impressed by Kuchar's pacing throughout the cooking process. The only thing that let this one down was the slightly ragged presentation from using slightly lower quality equipment for cooking. Perhaps with Chef Karajan's Berlin cooking utensils this could have been a real contender but it's an admirable effort and hugely enjoyable.

However, better was to come in the shape of Chefs Gilbert, Oramo and Schonwandt. *Gilbert* delivered a powerful New York Nielsen pizza crammed with flavour that really packed a punch in the spice department. I found this to be a killer meal that I will soon be sampling again. Hugely enjoyable and brilliantly prepared 'take no prisoners' food. Similarly, Chef *Schonwandt* served up an extraordinary Danish buffet that edged Mr. Gilbert. Full of vitality and colour, this meal was a joy from beginning to end. Examining Chef Schonwandt's cooking skills I was struck by the sumptuosness and stringy sweetness of his cheese dish, lovingly prepared in quieter moments, and hugely impressed by how joyfully well he seemed to cook when the tempo of his cooking increased. The result was a terrific meal that fully satisfied me. Another top 3 choice. Chef *Oramo*'s Swedish meatballs were similarly impressive and he finishes with a flurry. This was equally as impressive as Gilbert and beautifully produced. Chef *Berglund* was also very impressive but the lack of quality bass in his fish dish I found to be a drawback keeping it from the being as impressive as some of the others just mentioned, even though it's certainly an exciting preparation.

Along the way I also sampled Nielsen hot-pot by Chef *Barbirolli* (poor ensemble of Mancunian ingredients), *Schmidt* (A solid enough meal of London jellied eels but not as impressive as its reputation), *Jensen* (well-prepared but his ingredients now seem terribly out of date and don't sound too appetising) and *Martinon* (his cooking was particularly dry and offputting and,tbh, the only part of his Chicago burger I liked was the bit with the jalapenos at the very end - the rest lacked any sense of charm or indeed grandeur).

*There can only be one Masterchef winner though and that is.........Sir Alexander Gibson*









Gibson's Scottish-inspired chicken balmoral with crisp seasonal vegetables was simply gorgeous. Fantastic textures, gorgeously cooked in sauce that was not rich and creamy but had oodles of flavour a zippy tang. I felt myself constantly returning to this dish because everything felt right about it from the way it was produced to the way it was snappily prepared. Presentation was incredible and the combinations danced on the palate throughout. Some may think it lacks a tiny bit of subtlety but I've never had a Nielsen 4th meal as well prepared, as exciting and with such a powerful kick provided at the very end of this sensational main.

I would have sampled some more Nielsen mains but tbh I'm full for now and I've possibly sampled the best already. However, if you have any other suggestions for Masterchef contenders then fire away. I could always squeeze another one or two in tomorrow.


----------



## annaw

Thank you for the reviews! They are wonderful and thoroughly enjoyable. 

I think Nielsen was a top-notch symphonist and now I’m really looking forward to sampling some of the recordings I haven’t heard yet. That Gibson is really great and super driven, which is IMO very important for a good Nielsen performance, but I’m also fond of Oramo’s recording (which is in great sound!).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Guys, I seriously love this. I tell you, you've got something with great potential here! I do love this symphony but don't know many recordings so I will not comment on your assessments, but just a general observation - all the recordings by Gibson/Royal Scottish that I've heard (their Sibelius cycle, Walton 1, and some other British orchestral stuff) have the most in-your-face, powerful-as-hell brass I've ever heard outside of Chicago. Are Scottish lungs especially hardy? Or did the recording engineers just go way over-the-top miking the brass section?


----------



## Simplicissimus

These are good! The thing for me is, I basically like “Das Unauslöschliche,” but the two CDs I have — Salonen and Martinon — are not recordings that I (and you guys) think are good. I got them by chance. A friend gave me the Salonen because he didn’t like it and the Martinon came in a box set with other CDs I wanted. The recording level of the Salonen is so low and the overall soundstage is so shallow that I find it almost unlistenable. The Martinon is somehow not satisfying though the recording is fine. I once in Germany heard a live radio broadcast of this symphony by I think the Frankfurter Opern- und Museumorchester, but then frustratingly they haven’t recorded it. So I am delighted to have Knorf’s and Merl’s takes on this really interesting symphony.


----------



## Heck148

Martinon/CSO - great performance, from 10/66 the real classic for me....has everything....real drive, lyricism, excitement. The orchestra was really on a mission with this one - virtuoso woodwinds, sizzling strings, and I knew low brass players who wore out multiple lps of this one, a real "how to"guide to orchestra playing....great dueling timpani in finale..
This has been released a few times on cd, but the best one, ime, is the Martinon/CSO/RCA complete set of his Chicago recordings....great collection


----------



## Merl

Heck148 said:


> Martinon/CSO - great performance, from 10/66 the real classic for me....has everything....real drive, lyricism, excitement. The orchestra was really on a mission with this one - virtuoso woodwinds, sizzling strings, and I knew low brass players who wore out multiple lps of this one, a real "how to"guide to orchestra playing....great dueling timpani in finale..
> This has been released a few times on cd, but the best one, ime, is the Martinon/CSO/RCA complete set of his Chicago recordings....great collection


Id heard the hype and was expecting great things but this performance just didn't do it for me, Heck. The finale, yes but before that so many others frame the other movements better. Schonwandt, for example has gorgeous woodwinds that just sound much better. I still enjoyed it but I just couldn't get enthused about it, like others have. Similarly I've seen some older people say about the Barbirolli but some of the playing from the Halle is just wretched. Intonation issues galore. However, we all hear different things.


----------



## Becca

A few general comments...

- Blomstedt's SFSO recordings are one of the very (very) few complete cycles that I own and I think quite highly of his 4th. His live 5th with the BPO is superb.
- The Barbirolli/Halle version on Pye is how I got to know the symphony. There is also a live performance on BBC Legends, which are you referring to?
- I have been very impressed by Schonwandt's Nielsen and his 2nd (live?) is at the top of my list, 
- I don't know Gilbert's NYPO recordings but his live 3rd with the BPO is no better than a B+

If I were to do a blind comparison of the Nielsen 4th (which I won't), I would almost certainly add this from the Royal Danish Orch. into the mix...






What is about some English conductors (ok, Barbirolli & Rattle) who only do the 4th?


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> A few general comments...
> 
> - Blomstedt's SFSO recordings are one of the very (very) few complete cycles that I own and I think quite highly of his 4th.


I heard Blomstedt conduct Nielsen 4 live with BSO, some years ago...Levine had just taken over....very excellent performance, orchestra sounded terrific
..I didn't care for Blomstedt's phrasing of the main theme, the descending scale melody in mvt I and IV.He had them play it legato, not articulated enough (like Martinon)...but that's pretty nitpicky....it was a fine concert...
My first exposure to this fine work was a Vox, or Turnabout LP Markevitch/Royal Danish Orch...it was ok, but then the Martinon came out and totally blew it away....it's never been equaled, ime...I have heard the Schonwandt recording, but it didn't make much impression on me...Bernstein was quite good, (his #s 3 and 5 are very excellent) but not enough to take top spot...


----------



## Merl

Becca said:


> - The Barbirolli/Halle version on Pye is how I got to know the symphony. There is also a live performance on BBC Legends, which are you referring to?


It's the 1963 Pye one that's now on Warner. I listened on Spotify. There were some sour notes on that one from the off and I gave up on it quite quickly. I didn't have time to try out Rattle's 4th but I'll have a listen this weekend if I can. It is interesting that not many English conductors give it a shot.

There were lots we missed out - Rattle, Blomstedt (Danish NRSO), Mehta, Barbirolli (BBC), Neeme and Paavo Jarvi, Leaper, Dudamel, Mann, Storgaards, Vanska, Markevitch, Bostock (I have that cycle), Bryden Thomson, Rozhdestvensky, Menuhin, etc but we didn't have the time to get through them. If I have some time in the next few days I might drop in a few comments about some of those. Interested to hear the Mehta and Dudamel especially, tbh.


----------



## Kiki

"Stately", as Knorf said, resonates with me about how I feel about the Karajan. Usually I don't like _slow_, but the real problem here is that the beginning and the end sound rather underwhelming to me. On the other hand, the quieter music and the loud, glorious strings in the middle are sublime. Overall I think this is a very pleasant Nielsen 4, probably not a complimentary way to describe a Nielsen 4 recording, as it's like watching a duel between two noblemen in an old movie where you definitely get the drift but it's done elegantly and look rather harmless. However, it is easy to swallow and it would be a good introduction to Nielsen, as it was for me all those years ago.

I like the aggression of the Colin Davis (LSO Live), something I don't usually associate him with; but on the other hand, I'm afraid I don't appreciate it falling all over place - overall it sounds disjointed to me. (I also don't like the fact that the DSD files that can be copied directly from the BD disc of this set contain some serious flaws. Fortunately the 24/96 files are OK.)

I didn't know the Alexander Gibson recording, so I went to Spotify. Perhaps a bit measured overall, but it sounds coherent and very consistent throughout the piece. I really like this. Thanks Knorf and Merl for this recommendation!


----------



## Malx

Interesting stuff gents - Oramo and Berglund are my current favourites albeit that Oramo is blessed with far superior sound.


----------



## Knorf

Malx said:


> Interesting stuff gents - Oramo and Berglund are my current favourites albeit that Oramo is blessed with far superior sound.


I can't argue with that!

My feeling is that it is the final mastering that is letting us down a little (I mean, it's not _that_ bad) in the Berglund recording. It improves in the other discs released later. (1 & 4 were first.)


----------



## Malx

Knorf said:


> I can't argue with that!
> 
> My feeling is that it is the final mastering that is letting us down a little (I mean, it's not _that_ bad) in the Berglund recording. It improves in the other discs released later. (1 & 4 were first.)


I have the Berglund in the Sony box that came out in 2015 but I can't see any indication of remastering - to be fair the sound isn't desperately bad its more the fact that the BIS sound for Oramo is pretty near perfect.


----------



## Knorf

Indeed, I do not think the Berglund set has ever been remastered. In all honesty, the boxes with 2 & 5, 3 & 6 don't need it. (Best EVER no. 6, by the way.) 

But as I said in my OP, the Oramo is probably the best recorded of all of them.


----------



## D Smith

Thanks Merl and Knorf for your comprehensive and funny reviews. I don't listen to this symphony often enough to really comment, but I do have the Davis, Martinon and Karajan recordings (the Karajan is on now, and yes I've listened to it more than once, many times in fact . Looking forward to your next batch of insights.


----------



## jim prideaux

Listening to Berglund and the Royal Danish......thanks for the inspiration!


----------



## Granate

Thank you for this thread. I think I'm missing out in lots of things while I work and I also listen to Nielsen symphony recordings as part of my challenge. I'm struggling because I find very little to make comment about these symphonies. They have more condensed details in 30 minutes than a whole Bruckner symphony, and that's terrible when my mates interrupt me so much in office.

I'm finishing now the last two No.4 recordings from the challenge, Now Listening to Oramo and followed by Salonen. I hope that your comments don't contaminate the opinion I'm building on all the recordings and sets. I think that the Karajan recording will remain my favourite. Deliver emotions but I repeat that I'm scarcely able to make a developed comment about any Nielsen recording because of the conditions of the challenge.






This Markevitch recording took me absolutely by surprise. While the Oramo and Salonen recordings are still remaining, I ended up holding great esteem for the Gilbert, Blomstedt SF, Blomstedt DRSO and Paavo Järvi in Frankfurt. The winner that Merl praises, Gibson, also took me by surprise and took a high mark.

That's all, I have to leave to research some things for next week's work.


----------



## Merl

Granate said:


> Thank you for this thread. I think I'm missing out in lots of things while I work and I also listen to Nielsen symphony recordings as part of my challenge. I'm struggling because I find very little to make comment about these symphonies. They have more condensed details in 30 minutes than a whole Bruckner symphony, and that's terrible when my mates interrupt me so much in office.
> 
> I'm finishing now the last two No.4 recordings from the challenge, Now Listening to Oramo and followed by Salonen. I hope that your comments don't contaminate the opinion I'm building on all the recordings and sets. I think that the Karajan recording will remain my favourite. Deliver emotions but I repeat that I'm scarcely able to make a developed comment about any Nielsen recording because of the conditions of the challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Markevitch recording took me absolutely by surprise. While the Oramo and Salonen recordings are still remaining, I ended up holding great esteem for the Gilbert, Blomstedt SF, Blomstedt DRSO and Paavo Järvi in Frankfurt. The winner that Merl praises, Gibson, also took me by surprise and took a high mark.
> 
> That's all, I have to leave to research some things for next week's work.


The Gibson recording is terrific. For me, it has everything but what I really like is how snappy and precise it is and then how exciting it becomes. It nwver loses fovus. I will listen to the Markevitch (probably today) and a few I mentioned above. I'm actually halfway through the Mehta at te moment so I'll feedback when I've finished it.


----------



## annaw

Merl said:


> The Gibson recording is terrific. For me, it has everything but what I really like is how snappy and precise it is and then how exciting it becomes. It nwver loses fovus. I will listen to the Markevitch (probably today) and a few I mentioned above. I'm actually halfway through the Mehta at te moment so I'll feedback when I've finished it.


As it happens, I'm just listening to Gibson's recording at the moment (this thread is a very good excuse :lol. It's been insightful to listen to Nielsen's and Sibelius' symphonies alternatively today. Until now, I haven't seen too many similarities between the two but turns out I've been mistaken...

Listened to the Karajan earlier today as I realised I have never listened to it before. A really glorious recording and to be honest I'm somewhat surprised how spot-on Karajan's interpretation was, considering that not all good Sibelius conductors are great Nielsen conductors. It's a wonderfully triumphant symphony and I guess Karajan had had quite a bit of practice with heroic interpretations thanks to Beethoven symphonies. Anyways, it was extremely enjoyable, although the only time I really wanted him to be a bit more risky was during the timpani battle, which felt a bit too "safe", especially compared to Gibson's thunderous last movement.


----------



## jim prideaux

jim prideaux said:


> Listening to Berglund and the Royal Danish......thanks for the inspiration!


And a new acquisition......Bis recording of Vanska and the BBC Scottish S.O.......VERY IMPRESSIVE!


----------



## Merl

Hey Knorfmeister, I've been catching up on some more interesting recordings of the 4th via Spotify. First I listened to *Mehta* and the LAPO and that is a cracker of a 4th. Thrilling, eminently well-played and a joy from start to finish. The only mild drawback here being the sound, which is a little recessed (sounds like a thin film has been spread over the orchestra) but this is probably due to its age. However that's a minor quibble as it's a terrific 4th. A sleeper 4th is the *Neeme Jarvi *recording. I really enjoyed this one. There's lots of presence here and Jarvi doesn't undersell the finale in any way. The woodwinds earlier are lovely. This was better than Blomstedt for me. One recording that I was both impressed and annoyed by is the *Vanska* / BBC SO. The performance is terrific and its a brisk one and Vanska injects a great deal of excitement. The first movement is one of the best I've heard, the 4th movement is savage and the whole performance is great. Unfortunately the sound is frustratingly low, possibly caused by the rather poor acoustic of the venue. It's such a pain as it deadens the timpani and really only sounds at its best when cranked up to very high levels. Again this is a great performance but I've still to hear anything that trumps Gibson, in my book.


----------



## CnC Bartok

The annoying thing with all this is it tends to kill off anything other than agreement on my part. I adore the Nielsen symphonies, with this one very high on the list of course. But I don't really have favourite recordings of any of them, and although by a whisker I'd put Blomstedt SFSO down as the "best cycle around", I wouldn't stake a kidney on that.
Same with individual symphonies. The first Inextinguishable I heard was Schmidt, and the Indistinguishable label seemed to stick there, alas. But as a lone voice in the wilderness, I then heard Rattle and his CBSO recording, and I still really like that one. Apologies for having cloth ears and no taste.


----------



## Orfeo

To be fair regarding Bernstein's CBS recording with the NY Philharmonic, we must remember that Nielsen was a recent discovery by the 1960s outside Denmark, and his idiom as well as physicality were an acquired taste. Bernstein, like many musicians during that time, was getting to know Nielsen and his inner world, and it paid off quite well. So while this recording is not exactly an ideal point of reference, it's not that bad.

That said, allow me to mention *Bryden Thomson with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra (RSNO)* which is part of the overall excellent Chandos set. While it lacks that last degree of impetus or bite of a Blomstedt or even of a Jarvi, it still has a lot going for it.


----------



## Roger Knox

I've always thought that music critics should have food tasters, though for a different reason. Anyway it appears that the two occupations can be combined with great success!


----------



## annaw

oops, wrong thread


----------



## Knorf

annaw said:


> oops, wrong thread


But now you owe us some Nielsen Symphony 4 recordings comments!


----------



## annaw

Knorf said:


> But now you owe us some Nielsen Symphony 4 recordings comments!


Haha, true that. Might as well do that tomorrow . As it happens, I want to see if I'm able to hear the under-rehearsedness (let's suppose that's a word) in Schmidt's recording. Some seem to be more bothered by it (assuming that it exists) than others.


----------



## Merl

I listened to *Bostock*'s Nielsen 4 yesterday and it's a decent effort but he doesn't bring out the subtleties in the score that others do. It's not bad though and Bostock's 5th is very enjoyable. That Bostock cycle isn't bad and I was quite surprised by it.BBtw, CnC, I've not heard Rattle's 4th. I'll give it a go.II sstill jhave qquite a few tto listen to.


----------



## Kiki

I apologize up front for saying mainly things that are not related to music...

I've had Neeme Järvi's Nielsen set from DG for years. IMO he's usually a safe pair of hands. I like his Nielsen 4, tender and exciting at all the right places. The trouble I have with this set is not musical - It came with the second disc missing! Very annoying. Since I'd torn off the wraps, I couldn't really go back to the CD shop for a refund.

That reminds me, years ago, I'd bought other CDs in the USA where they packaged the disc outside of the jewel case in hard transparent plastic, so customers could always see clearly that, yes, the disc was included! I know this sounds ironic, while this kind of packaging is obviously not environmentally friendly. But then, what should I do when I buy a CD if the disc is put inside the jewel case, as usually the case? Ask the shopkeeper to open the jewel case for me to check if the disc is really there? That sounds paranoid. (Think with Amazon these days they would refund without questioning my honesty. Progress!)

I don't have Neeme Järvi's BIS CD of Nielsen 4. I've always been wary of BIS' engineering mismanagement, or more specifically, their mulish hanging on to using pre-emphasis coding on CDs well into the 90s, and more seriously their notorious reputation of selling digital flac files of old recordings without de-emphasizing the pre-emphasis coding. 

But out of curiosity, I tried to listen to the BIS 4th on Spotify. (It's free, after all!) Does it sound more manic than the DG? It certainly sounds thinner. Is that because of Spotify's poor sound quality? Am I imagining things because of my "prejudice" against BIS? Honestly I couldn't pay enough attention to tell any difference in the performance from the DG, which was apparently recorded only a month later than the BIS.

Seriously, does anyone have Neeme Järvi's BIS CD of Nielsen 4 & 6? Any opinion?

(Merl, were you talking about the DG or the BIS?)

I wouldn't mind the CD having pre-emphasis coding. I can de-emphasize it when I rip it. But I would avoid buying any digital files of old recordings from BIS, of which there is no certain way to tell if it is pre-emphasis coded.


----------



## Malx

Merl said:


> I listened to *Bostock*'s Nielsen 4 yesterday and it's a decent effort but he doesn't bring out the subtleties in the score that others do. It's not bad though and Bostock's 5th is very enjoyable. That Bostock cycle isn't bad and I was quite surprised by it.BBtw, CnC, I've not heard Rattle's 4th. I'll give it a go.II sstill jhave qquite a few tto listen to.


I bought the cheap Bostock Nielsen box a number of years ago but found it on the whole not to be as good as the discs I already had. If someone hadn't heard Nielsen before I guess the box would serve as a reasonable introduction but ideally as a launching pad to higher places - the box ended up being traded in.


----------



## annaw

annaw said:


> Haha, true that. Might as well do that tomorrow . As it happens, I want to see if I'm able to hear the under-rehearsedness (let's suppose that's a word) in Schmidt's recording. Some seem to be more bothered by it (assuming that it exists) than others.


Okay, I cannot hear anything technically lacking in the playing but I think I should create a stronger imprint or learn to read sheet music to really evaluate that. But in my overall assessment I have to agree with largely everything that Merl already said - it's a decent recording but nothing earth-shattering or eye-opening.


----------



## Knorf

Kiki said:


> That reminds me, years ago, I'd bought other CDs in the USA where they packaged the disc outside of the jewel case in hard transparent plastic, so customers could always see clearly that, yes, the disc was included! I know this sounds ironic, while this kind of packaging is obviously not environmentally friendly.


I remember that, too. You're speaking of those old "blister" packs, with the program note booklet packaged above the jewel case? Those were horrible. But I think the idea behind them was almost surely nothing more than loss prevention. The jewel case alone is pretty small...


----------



## Merl

Kiki said:


> I
> 
> Seriously, does anyone have Neeme Järvi's BIS CD of Nielsen 4 & 6? Any opinion?
> 
> (Merl, were you talking about the DG or the BIS?)
> 
> I wouldn't mind the CD having pre-emphasis coding. I can de-emphasize it when I rip it. But I would avoid buying any digital files of old recordings from BIS, of which there is no certain way to tell if it is pre-emphasis coded.


Kiki, its the BIS Jarvi I was talking about and yes I agree it's deffo still got pre-emphasis on it (as I said there's a lot of 'presence). It was from Spotify. However, as a performance I really enjoyed it. I should have said that it's a bit' bright ' but that's what I was getting at. I've not heard the DG one so I can't comment.


----------



## Kiki

Knorf said:


> I remember that, too. You're speaking of those old "blister" packs, with the program note booklet packaged above the jewel case? Those were horrible. But I think the idea behind them was almost surely nothing more than loss prevention. The jewel case alone is pretty small...


Was it the booklet instead of the disc that was packaged above the jewel case? You're probably right. My memory has been fading. Yes, those were horrible! :lol:



Merl said:


> Kiki, its the BIS Jarvi I was talking about and yes I agree it's deffo still got pre-emphasis on it (as I said there's a lot of 'presence). It was from Spotify. However, as a performance I really enjoyed it. I should have said that it's a bit' bright ' but that's what I was getting at. I've not heard the DG one so I can't comment.


A quick comparison on Neeme Järvi's timings of the DG and the BIS shows that overall the timings are almost the same, but individual movements are quite different - the 3rd mvt on DG is considerable slower while the 4th mvt is much quicker. A greater contrast I guess, although without really comparing the 2 recordings. He certainly didn't hang around in the 4th movement in either recordings! I really need to hunt down a cheap copy of the BIS CD!


----------



## JAS

My recollection is that CDs first came out in packaging that made them the height of a record bin (and half the width). That was presumably meant to allow reuse of the existing record bins that most stores had at the time. I suspect that putting the booklet on top was intended to let you see it as you flipped through the bin. It is pretty rare, but I have bought a few CDs fairly recently that are still in that original packaging.


----------



## Knorf

JAS, you're right that the old blister packs allowed for the re-purposing of record bins, although you needed a new divider, since they're much narrower.


----------



## Josquin13

Granate,

Thanks for the link to Igor Markevitch's wonderful performance of the Nielsen 4th! I didn't know that he'd recorded any Nielsen. Markevitch was a great conductor, IMO. I did a search, and found that he also made a highly regarded LP recording of Nielsen's 4th for Vox Turnabout, with the Royal Danish Orchestra: https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Nielsen...gor+markevitch'&qid=1605745259&s=music&sr=1-1. However, I don't know if that performance has ever made it onto CD--unless the Doremi disc contains the same performance? Do you or anyone else know?

As much as I admire Oramo, Salonen, and others, I doubt there's any conductor today that can rival or better what Markevitch does with this symphony...

Merl writes, "One recording that I was both impressed and annoyed by is the Vanska / BBC SO. The performance is terrific and its a brisk one and Vanska injects a great deal of excitement. The first movement is one of the best I've heard, the 4th movement is savage and the whole performance is great. Unfortunately the sound is frustratingly low, possibly caused by the rather poor acoustic of the venue. It's such a pain as it deadens the timpani and really only sounds at its best when cranked up to very high levels."

It could be a stereo dependent issue, but I have the same problem with a good portion of Vanska's BIS recordings, such as his Lahti Sibelius Symphony cycle. The dynamic range is so wide and extreme that I find I have to frequently get up to turn the volume up and down throughout the performance, which is annoying. I suppose they're best listened to on headphones (or as you say, crank up the volume to "very high levels"--that is, if you can take the extreme loudness). Which is a shame, because Vanska can be a first rate conductor in Sibelius, and I gather in Nielsen, too; although I've not heard his Nielsen myself.


----------



## Merl

Josquin13 said:


> Granate,
> 
> Thanks for the link to Igor Markevitch's wonderful performance of the Nielsen 4th! I didn't know that he'd recorded any Nielsen. Markevitch was a great conductor, IMO. I did a search, and found that he also made a highly regarded LP recording of Nielsen's 4th for Vox Turnabout, with the Royal Danish Orchestra: https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Nielsen...gor+markevitch'&qid=1605745259&s=music&sr=1-1. However, I don't know if that performance has ever made it onto CD--unless the Doremi disc contains the same performance? Do you or anyone else know?
> 
> As much as I admire Oramo, Salonen, and others, I doubt there's any conductor today that can rival or better what Markevitch does with this symphony...
> 
> Merl writes, "One recording that I was both impressed and annoyed by is the Vanska / BBC SO. The performance is terrific and its a brisk one and Vanska injects a great deal of excitement. The first movement is one of the best I've heard, the 4th movement is savage and the whole performance is great. Unfortunately the sound is frustratingly low, possibly caused by the rather poor acoustic of the venue. It's such a pain as it deadens the timpani and really only sounds at its best when cranked up to very high levels."
> 
> It could be a stereo dependent issue, but I have the same problem with a good portion of Vanska's BIS recordings, such as his Lahti Sibelius Symphony cycle. The dynamic range is so wide and extreme that I find I have to frequently get up to turn the volume up and down throughout the performance, which is annoying. I suppose they're best listened to on headphones (or as you say, crank up the volume to "very high levels"--that is, if you can take the extreme loudness). Which is a shame, because Vanska can be a first rate conductor in Sibelius, and I gather in Nielsen, too; although I've not heard his Nielsen myself.


Jossy, you may well have hit the nail on the head. When I first heard the Vanska LvB cycle, for example, the sound was an issue for me and ruined the whole set. I first listened to that BIS set through speakers and at lower volumes. When i revisited the cycle a month or so ago I played it at high volume through ear buds. I also agree about the Vanska Lahti Sibelius. I rarely play it but its not because i dont like it.....it just doesnt sound great at low volumes.


----------



## annaw

Kiki said:


> Was it the booklet instead of the disc that was packaged above the jewel case? You're probably right. My memory has been fading. Yes, those were horrible! :lol:
> 
> A quick comparison on Neeme Järvi's timings of the DG and the BIS shows that overall the timings are almost the same, but individual movements are quite different - *the 3rd mvt on DG is considerable slower while the 4th mvt is much quicker*. A greater contrast I guess, although without really comparing the 2 recordings. He certainly didn't hang around in the 4th movement in either recordings! I really need to hunt down a cheap copy of the BIS CD!


Did you take into account that the fourth and third movements are a bit differently separated in the BIS recording? I was initially shocked by the timing differences as well but this seems to explain it:

"I have purposely included the _Con anima_ introduction to the fourth movement of Symphony No. 4 within the actual track code (4) for the fourth movement, in order to achieve the original approach to that movement." - Lennart Dehn, producer

Haven't compared them side-by-side myself, so I don't know if the difference comes from the conducting as well. The overall timings are _exactly_ the same for both recordings (33'56''). I even read somewhere that Järvi took the BIS 4th and 6th recordings to DG but even if that was possible, the sound quality is so considerably different that the theory feels a bit sketchy.


----------



## Kiki

annaw said:


> Did you take into account that the fourth and third movements are a bit differently separated in the BIS recording? I was initially shocked by the timing differences as well but this seems to explain it:
> 
> "I have purposely included the _Con anima_ introduction to the fourth movement of Symphony No. 4 within the actual track code (4) for the fourth movement, in order to achieve the original approach to that movement." - Lennart Dehn, producer
> 
> Haven't compared them side-by-side myself, so I don't know if the difference comes from the conducting as well. The overall timings are _exactly_ the same for both recordings (33'56''). I even read somewhere that Järvi took the BIS 4th and 6th recordings to DG but even if that was possible, the sound quality is so considerably different that the theory feels a bit sketchy.


Good point! I didn't; and I didn't compare the two recordings either. The recording dates given by DG and BIS are only a month apart, so I would not be too surprised if Neeme Järvi's approach in both would be in fact similar rather than different.


----------



## starthrower

Bostock was in fact my introduction to the Nielsen cycle which I love, so the ten or fifteen bucks I spent on that cheap Membran box was well worth it. I've since picked up the Blomstedt SF cycle which sounds great to my ears that will never pick up on all the nuances or shortcomings noticed by a professional orchestra musician like Knorf.

Everybody seems to love Gibson, and I've collected his Sibelius recordings on those old Chandos discs. I haven't heard any of his Nielsen. But since Chandos has seen fit to re-issue a number of older titles like the Bax symphonic works, why haven't they kept the Gibson recordings in print?


----------



## starthrower

Merl said:


> I listened to *Bostock*'s Nielsen 4 yesterday and it's a decent effort but he doesn't bring out the subtleties in the score that others do. It's not bad though and Bostock's 5th is very enjoyable. That Bostock cycle isn't bad and I was quite surprised by it.BBtw, CnC, I've not heard Rattle's 4th. I'll give it a go.II sstill jhave qquite a few tto listen to.


I just listened to Bostock's 4th, two times, and I couldn't get into it. But I love his 3rd on the same disc. It just sounds a lot sharper and more focused. His 4th sounds kinda hazy so maybe there are some details buried in the mire? I'll have to get out my Blomstedt set and give no.4 another spin. And after that I'll listen to Gibson on Spotify.


----------



## Merl

starthrower said:


> I just listened to Bostock's 4th, two times, and I couldn't get into it. But I love his 3rd on the same disc. It just sounds a lot sharper and more focused. His 4th sounds kinda hazy so maybe there are some details buried in the mire? I'll have to get out my Blomstedt set and give no.4 another spin. And after that I'll listen to Gibson on Spotify.


The biggest problem with the Bostock cycle is not primarily the performances, which are largely decent . Its the variable sound. The 5th, for example, sounds good but the 3rd and 4th sound slightly muddy at the top end and this buries the detail. Even in the 6th (arguable one of Bostock's better performances) there's some murkiness at the top. I think it also depends on which set you have. That cycle has been issued on Membran (twice - once as the Quadromania set), Scandinavian classics and on Classico. I have the Quadromania discs (see pic below) but I believe the Classico is the better transfer yet there is no indication the set has been remastered. I can't say as I haven't heard the Classico set. Interestingly, that Bostock set really polarised opinion. Musicweb, and Allmusic loved it whilst ClassicsToday just called it average. Most Amazon listeners were extremely satisfied with it too (yes, I know that's not wholly a recommendation but it's had very few average or negative reviews from almost 40 reviews). I'm not bothered as it cost me £1.60 brand new and for that price I'm more than happy with it and don't view it as negatively as Classicstoday did. I'll have to listen to the Scandinavian Classics version on Spotify and see if there's a difference between that and my Membran box.


----------



## starthrower

I have the cheap Membran set which is probably not the best. I switched to Blomstedt and cranked it up. That last movement is a whirlwind of power and virtuosity. I'm now listening to the 5th. I have to say that No.4 is not my favorite among the six. But No.5 is so great that 4 pales in comparison. At least to my ears, but it's still a fine symphony. In fact, next to Mahler, the Nielsen cycle is right near the top of 20th century symphonies for me.


----------



## Becca

I have listened to 2 recordings of the 4th over the last week (Blomstedt/SFSO & Gibson) and have been very struck by just how many echoes of the 5th & 6th that I hear. It's as though Nielsen were trying out some ideas which he then used in the last 2 symphonies.


----------



## starthrower

I'll have to listen for that, Becca. Since I had to crawl under the bed to retrieve a box of CDs I'm gonna listen to this entire Blomstedt set a couple of times. The sound is great on these CDs with hefty low end. That bass drum in the final movement of no.6 rocks my living room.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I must have missed this the first time around Knorf and Merl. Great reviews! 

I own three of these renditions (Davis/LSO, Karajan/BPO, Kuchar/Janacek) and they're all three good in different ways. I think Kuchar is my general listening pick.


----------

