# Why is Gardiner's Beethoven Symphony set so highly rated?



## scytheavatar

This has been something that's bothering me for a while. When people recommend the set, they will describe how it's superior to the Beethoven of Karajan/Klemperer/etc, how it's more authetic, cleaner, more beautiful, less romantic... which I can understand perfectly. But do people actually think that it's the only period Beethoven out there? Compare Gardiner's set to Bruggen's set and the superiority of Bruggen's Beethoven is shocking... that Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless... and yet Bruggen's set barely gets mentioned when there's a discussion about Beethoven Symphony Sets. I have heard Goodman's Beethoven too which I don't rate as highly as Bruggen but it's still is better than Gardiner's. So why do people keep recommending Gardiner? Is it the single most overrated recording in classical music history?


----------



## nickgray

Gardiner? Meh. Go for Hogwood, Norrington and Paavo Jarvi.


----------



## Mirror Image

I'm not a big fan of Gardiner's conducting, but his Berlioz, in particular "Harold in Italy" is very good. Definitely worthy of praise from myself.

As far as Beethoven is concerned, nobody touches Claudio Abbado's cycle on Deutsche Grammophon and this is coming from hearing and owning the Zinman, Klemperer (who is fantastic), and early Bernstein recordings. I'm not a big Beethoven fan at all, but I do enjoy what Abbado and the BPO did with his music. Quite a revelation for me, especially in terms of sound, style, and Abbado's attention to detail. He also handles the tempo a bit slower, which is a very nice touch.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally I love Gardiner... especially on earlier music... I wouldn't be without him on Beethoven... a great sense of urgency... pungency... and muscularity... but neither would I have him alone. Kleiber is unrivaled for the 5th, of course there's Karajan, Klemperer, among others.


----------



## tahnak

scytheavatar said:


> This has been something that's bothering me for a while. When people recommend the set, they will describe how it's superior to the Beethoven of Karajan/Klemperer/etc, how it's more authetic, cleaner, more beautiful, less romantic... which I can understand perfectly. But do people actually think that it's the only period Beethoven out there? Compare Gardiner's set to Bruggen's set and the superiority of Bruggen's Beethoven is shocking... that Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless... and yet Bruggen's set barely gets mentioned when there's a discussion about Beethoven Symphony Sets. I have heard Goodman's Beethoven too which I don't rate as highly as Bruggen but it's still is better than Gardiner's. So why do people keep recommending Gardiner? Is it the single most overrated recording in classical music history?


Yes it is over rated.


----------



## Mirror Image

tahnak said:


> Yes it is over rated.


I agree, it is.


----------



## bassClef

I guess people rate it highly because they enjoy it the most - each to his own. That's the great thing about classical music and having so many interpretations to choose from (or you could look at it as a bad thing - because you never know if you've found the interpretation you like the best until you've tried them all!).


----------



## Mirror Image

bassClef said:


> I guess people rate it highly because they enjoy it the most - each to his own. That's the great thing about classical music and having so many interpretations to choose from (or you could look at it as a bad thing - because you never know if you've found the interpretation you like the best until you've tried them all!).


As a collector, I'm able to try out several different versions of a piece. Amongst the 22 different versions of the full ballet of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe" I own Martinon, Dutoit, Tortelier, and Boulez are still my favorites.


----------



## Artemis

Mirror Image said:


> As a collector, I'm able to try out several different versions of a piece. Amongst the 22 different versions of the full ballet of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe" I own Martinon, Dutoit, Tortelier, and Boulez are still my favorites.


I thought this thread was about Beethoven, not Ravel.


----------



## Very Senior Member

scytheavatar said:


> This has been something that's bothering me for a while. When people recommend the set, they will describe how it's superior to the Beethoven of Karajan/Klemperer/etc, how it's more authetic, cleaner, more beautiful, less romantic... which I can understand perfectly. But do people actually think that it's the only period Beethoven out there? Compare Gardiner's set to Bruggen's set and the superiority of Bruggen's Beethoven is shocking... that Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless... and yet Bruggen's set barely gets mentioned when there's a discussion about Beethoven Symphony Sets. I have heard Goodman's Beethoven too which I don't rate as highly as Bruggen but it's still is better than Gardiner's. So why do people keep recommending Gardiner? Is it the single most overrated recording in classical music history?


I don't agree with the basic premise of your post that Gardiner's version is universally recommended as the best period performance. Where did you get that impression from? It does not accord with my reading of recommendations on several forums, where several others (including Bruggen's) are put forward. I am also deeply suspicious of people like you who come onto forums like this and slag off highly distinguished conductors with statements like "_Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless ..._" Such OTT language does not help you make your case. In fact it's childish.


----------



## scytheavatar

Very Senior Member said:


> I don't agree with the basic premise of your post that Gardiner's version is universally recommended as the best period performance. Where did you get that impression from? It does not accord with my reading of recommendations on several forums, where several others (including Bruggen's) are put forward. I am also deeply suspicious of people like you who come onto forums like this and slag off highly distinguished conductors with statements like "_Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless ..._" Such OTT language does not help you make your case. In fact it's childish.


I am not sure what's the level of "universally recommended" you are talking about, but irregardless Gardiner's Beethoven is certainly highly rated and most other period sets live in its shadow... just start any discussion about "best Beethoven Symphony set" in any forum and his set will certainly be mentioned.

About the "slagging off" of Gardiner, I will admit that all his recordings I have heard so far doesn't impress me, so he would be one of the conductors which I don't get. But his Beethoven is actually the worst I have ever heard from him by a big margin, his conducting in it is just how I have described. So I am actually not sure why it's so highly rated when there's so many better options, period and modern, than it.


----------



## Mirror Image

scytheavatar said:


> About the "slagging off" of Gardiner, I will admit that all his recordings I have heard so far doesn't impress me, so he would be one of the conductors which I don't get. But his Beethoven is actually the worst I have ever heard from him by a big margin, his conducting in it is just how I have described. So I am actually not sure why it's so highly rated when there's so many better options, period and modern, than it.


I agree. Gardiner only has one recording I'm actually interested in and it's out-of-print, which is a recording of Berlioz's "Harold in Italy." That's about it for me. His recording output is pretty uninteresting.


----------



## Sorin Eushayson

tahnak said:


> Yes it is over rated.





Mirror Image said:


> I agree, it is.


I'd have to agree as well, it is.

The best part about the Gardiner Beethoven set is the Ninth - he gets everything just right. Great singers, perfect tempi... Just fantastic. The 8th is pretty good as well, though in my humble opinion the rest of the symphonies on that set can easily be passed up with the likes of the Hanover Band's or the London Classical Players' sets. Thankfully they've released Gardiner's work with the Ninth separately...


----------



## Very Senior Member

scytheavatar said:


> I am not sure what's the level of "universally recommended" you are talking about, but irregardless Gardiner's Beethoven is certainly highly rated and most other period sets live in its shadow... just start any discussion about "best Beethoven Symphony set" in any forum and his set will certainly be mentioned.
> 
> About the "slagging off" of Gardiner, I will admit that all his recordings I have heard so far doesn't impress me, so he would be one of the conductors which I don't get. But his Beethoven is actually the worst I have ever heard from him by a big margin, his conducting in it is just how I have described. So I am actually not sure why it's so highly rated when there's so many better options, period and modern, than it.


You started out this thread by suggesting that people on other classical music boards seem to recommend the Gardiner set as the only period approach out there. You wrote:

_"When people recommend the set, they will describe how it's superior to the Beethoven of Karajan/Klemperer/etc, how it's more authetic, cleaner, more beautiful, less romantic... which I can understand perfectly. But do people actually think that it's the only period Beethoven out there?"_

I questioned your interpretation. I don't know which other boards you are basing your opinions on, but from my reading of several where the topic of HIP Beethoven has featured very much more strongly than here I would say that Gardiner is only one of several that gets mentioned as worthy of attention. Others include Norrington, Bruggen, Immerseel, Zinman, Harnoncourt, Mackerras. (I realise of course that these are not all period performance/period instruments.) Furthermore, as you can see from the responses here, there is hardly widespread recommendation of Gardiner's set. I therefore think that your starting premise is faulty.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Mirror Image said:


> I agree. Gardiner only has one recording I'm actually interested in and it's out-of-print, which is a recording of Berlioz's "Harold in Italy." That's about it for me. His recording output is pretty uninteresting.


You don't even like Beethoven, as you keep telling us to our great boredom. And what the hell has Berlioz got to do with HIP Beethoven?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Preferences for a given conductor seem as individual or personal as tastes for a given composer. There are those who swear by Karajan (I would almost include myself there) and those who despise him. There are those who find Boehm a boring old fart and others who sense the nobility of his conducting. On a composer of Beethoven's stature I would not be without several different interpretations. I rarely purchase box sets of the complete orchestral works of any composer because I wish to explore a variety... and because I find that where one composer does magnificent on one piece, on another he many be but merely serviceable. With Beethoven's symphonies I have recordings by Kleiber, Boehm, Solti, Karajan, Gardiner, Furtwangler, etc... each offers something unique in interpretation. Gardiner's efforts with Beethoven and others are well-regarded for many reasons... but so are Solti's and Karajan's (etc...) If you find he doesn't work for you, simply look elsewhere.


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Preferences for a given conductor seem as individual or personal as tastes for a given composer. There are those who swear by Karajan (I would almost include myself there) and those who despise him. There are those who find Boehm a boring old fart and others who sense the nobility of his conducting. On a composer of Beethoven's stature I would not be without several different interpretations. I rarely purchase box sets of the complete orchestral works of any composer because I wish to explore a variety... and because I find that where one composer does magnificent on one piece, on another he many be but merely serviceable. With Beethoven's symphonies I have recordings by Kleiber, Boehm, Solti, Karajan, Gardiner, Furtwangler, etc... each offers something unique in interpretation. Gardiner's efforts with Beethoven and others are well-regarded for many reasons... but so are Solti's and Karajan's (etc...) If you find he doesn't work for you, simply look elsewhere.


I agree with all you say.

If one wants a laugh at how many different opinions there are on the best HIP Beethoven sets, I wish I could refer colleagues here to one other message board site where the discussion of this topic has been going on for two years in one thread. But I can't do that because this post would be deleted. Let me just say that some of the exchanges are absolutely priceless comedy, including many contributions from one well-known character who reckons he's "_The Internet's No 1 Beethoven Fan"_, but who mainly attracts rude responses from most others. If anyone can make sense of any of which HIP Beethoven set is the best, I'd be very surprised.


----------



## Mirror Image

Very Senior Member said:


> You don't even like Beethoven, as you keep telling us to our great boredom. And what the hell has Berlioz got to do with HIP Beethoven?


Who said I didn't like Beethoven? Quit making up stuff. Since the topic is essentially about Gardiner's conducting abilities, I was just saying that his Berlioz is the only recording of his I would like to hear.

Please learn how to lighten up and not take everything so seriously.


----------



## science

This is interesting to me; Gardiner's has been one of only two complete sets of Beethoven symphonies that I own (the other is Zinman in the big Brilliant box of Beethoven), and the one that I listen to most, but I will get the Karajan 1963 soon. Is it possible that I will find myself enjoying these symphonies more?


----------



## Guest

Not only possible, but probable.

I've had the Gardiner set ever since it first came out. It was very exciting, at first. But I discovered, a couple of years ago, that I hadn't listened to it for many years. I put one of them on, I don't remember which now.

And I realized that if I were going to listen to Beethoven's symphonies, I was going to have to find some other performances. (I had had several different performances of each back in the LP days. Why did I think a single set would replace all those? Who knows.)

Anyway, I missed this thread first time around, so I must say I was quite intrigued by the high praise given to Abbado. I like Abbado generally, but would never have thought of him for Beethoven. I may have to visit the corner record store soon. (Don't hate me because I live two blocks from one of the few remaining classical music stores in the world. It's days are numbered. I am just enjoying it as much as I can before it folds up its tents and steals away.)


----------



## tgtr0660

Gardiner takes the soul out of almost everything he touches (Handel's Messiah is an exception.) I'll take the not-so "authentic" (authentic for whom??) cycles by Karajan, Toscanini and individual performances by Fricsay, Kleiber, Furtwangler, Klemperer, Bernstein and even Solti any day of the week...


----------



## Nix

BARENBOIM! 

He's so underrated. His 3,5,6,7 and 8 are particularly good.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Nix said:


> BARENBOIM!
> 
> He's so underrated. His 3,5,6,7 and 8 are particularly good.


I second that - I listened once again to Barenboim's cycle the other day and for me it definitely pushes the right buttons. I'd still like to hear the Gardiner, though.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Gardiner takes the soul out of almost everything he touches

Nonsense. Gardiner's Bach cantatas are magnificent. Nor would I be without his Monteverdi, Handel, Brahms _Requiem_, his recent Brahms Symphonic cycle... to say nothing of the Beethoven cycle and the unrivaled Schumann symphonies. Is he my only choice for any of these...? Of course not. I would not be without Karajan's Beethoven... Kleiber for the 5th... Ormandy for the 7th... etc... but the fact that Gardiner is a great conductor who has made many highly regarded or highly rated recordings does not undermine or negate all the alternatives. I still love Barbirolli and Furtwangler and other "old school" conductors as well. The new HIP recording of Mozart's operas by Jacobs are phenomenal and eye-opening... but I still love the old Josef Krips _Don Giovanni_.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm surprised a Gardiner/ORR Schubert symphony cycle hasn't been recorded yet - I thought that would have been right up his street. Perhaps he's just too busy. Hopefully one day we'll see one.


----------



## science

Or Gardiner/Haydn.


----------



## Guest

romanticlistener said:


> Or Gardiner/Haydn.


He did record Haydn's "The Creation." And I believe he has also recorded several of Haydn's masses. But as for his symphonies, maybe he'll take a break after recording Bach's 200+ cantatas before he dives into Haydn's 100+ symphonies.

Gardiner is not my favorite HIP conductor - but I enjoy him a great deal. Thus far, of Beethoven's symphonies, I only have Gardiner's recording of the 9th, and I enjoy it a lot. I also enjoy this symphony by Jarvi, Vanska, Fricsay, Szell, Karajan, and occasionally Furtwangler.

Why is Gardiner's Beethoven Symphony cycle so highly rated? Because a lot of people seem to enjoy these recordings. That is really the answer to the question. Regarding the comparison to Bruggen - I have heard a few of his Beethoven symphonies, and they just don't appeal to me quite as much. And I have read reviews that agree with that.


----------



## tgtr0660

For HIP conductors that don't strip the music off its soul, I prefer (with Bach at least) Herreweghe, Suzuki, Koopman. As I said, Gardiner shines in Messiah but doesn't do it for anywhere else. 

The HIP movement has gone too far at times. Norrington's atrocious Mahler is one example. I can take it (and like it) with baroque and even classical music but when romanticism starts to rear its head, I want my orchestras full, rich, with modern instruments, with lots of vibrato... And with emotion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

For HIP conductors that don't strip the music off its soul, I prefer (with Bach at least) Herreweghe, Suzuki, Koopman.

That's an interesting comment. I would think that Suzuki is far closer to a "soulless" Bach if such a thing were possible.


----------



## Manxfeeder

StlukesguildOhio said:


> That's an interesting comment. I would think that Suzuki is far closer to a "soulless" Bach if such a thing were possible.


Wow, I didn't think people could say that out loud!


----------



## tgtr0660

Manxfeeder said:


> Wow, I didn't think people could say that out loud!


BACH and "soulless" don't belong in the same sentence.. ever...


----------



## Guest

As far as period Beethoven symphony cycles, I have the Norrington and love most of it. Have not heard Gardiner on this work, but his interpretation of Missa Solemnis is my favorite. His work on Bach is exemplary. But it sounds like the consensus on the Beethoven symphonies is that it's not worth my time so I won't bother. Working my way through the Jarvi set this week.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I've said it many times. I cannot go with one single Beethoven set, at least for HIP. 

Gardiner's performances aren't always my cup of tea, but as stated above his Missa Solemnis is to die for. Everybody has their own idea of what Beethoven should be.


----------



## Novelette

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Nonsense. Gardiner's Bach cantatas are magnificent. Nor would I be without his Monteverdi, Handel, Brahms _Requiem_, his recent Brahms Symphonic cycle... to say nothing of the Beethoven cycle and the unrivaled Schumann symphonies....


Agreed, Gardiner's Monteverdi is magnificent. I'm also fond of some of his Bach, like the B Minor Mass. His Bach cantatas, I haven't heard yet, but I've heard other praise them as well. I think it's time to invest.


----------



## KenOC

Novelette said:


> Agreed, Gardiner's Monteverdi is magnificent. I'm also fond of some of his Bach, like the B Minor Mass. His Bach cantatas, I haven't heard yet, but I've heard other praise them as well. I think it's time to invest.


Another list, with comments:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R1L1EGKNY1ZC8X/ref=cm_pdp_sylt_title_2


----------



## DavidA

I have Gardiner's version of 3&4. It's fiery, fast and good.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I rate Gardiner's Beethoven cycle well but I have quite a few others; in fact, as far as I know, all the HIP complete cycles from Hogwood and Norrington's pioneering cycles to relatively more recent ones. Beethoven symphonies are at the very heart of western classical music, and nobody should have just one complete cycle. Variety of it is very revealing.


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> Another list, with comments:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R1L1EGKNY1ZC8X/ref=cm_pdp_sylt_title_2


Interesting that Norrington is so popular here and didn't get on the top 20 there.


----------



## Hausmusik

Gardiner's Beethoven appeals to me greatly. Among "HIP" Beethoven cycles, I prefer it to Hogwood and Norrington. (Don't know the Immerseel.) It's not my favorite cycle overall though--that would be Zinman these days--and no one cycle (that I know of) has it all.

I do think the praise that was heaped upon it when it first appeared, as though it was the Second Coming, was hyperbolic, and those blurbs still follow it around. So I'd say it is fair to argue, in that light, that it has been overrated.


----------



## Manxfeeder

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Beethoven symphonies are at the very heart of western classical music, and nobody should have just one complete cycle. Variety of it is very revealing.


I agree. I have several cycles, from historical to HIP, and I wouldn't want to be without any of them. Except Norrington; for some reason, he hasn't rang my chimes. I guess I need to go through his cycle again.


----------



## Guest

Norrington did nothing for me. I find Hogwood's more enjoyable, but for HIP, I do prefer Gardiner and Immerseel. However, I do still enjoy my "modern" performances (I put it in parenthesis, because some are over 50 years old) - Furtwangler, von Karajan, Klemperer, Jochum.


----------



## science

So I've got Karajan 63, Gardiner, and Zinman. Also, Furtwangler 9 and Kleiber 5 & 7. 

If I were to get a fourth cycle, I'd want it to blow me away. Something really different - make me hear the symphonies in new ways. 

If y'all think there's one out there that can do it, what is it?


----------



## Vaneyes

Interesting, that this thread's #2 poster (2009) mentioned *DKB/Paavo Jarvi*. I think this set has eclipsed all smaller-forced energy-driven bands for LvB, including ORR/Gardiner. That they did it with modern instruments, doesn't matter. The concise, heavily dynamic style is there in abundance.

I also think it's somewhat counterproductive to include all styles through all eras on one ratings list, but I do understand it's practically unavoidable.


----------



## ptr

I have the Gardiner Cycle and find it interesting, I belive it got a lot of Press because it was the first recorded cycle that very strictly adhered to timings set by Jonathan Del Mar in his (then) new edition of the Symphonies as published by Bärenreiter.
I don't mind the tempi Gardiner chooses, but them, nor is his Cycle the one I would go to as a first choice when I have the urge for a Beethoven-Symphony-Fest. 
Of other "HIP" versions I quite prefer Brüggen and Immerseel, with a traditional romantic orchestra Klemperer and Philharmonia, but most of all I like small orchestra version by Harnoncourt and Mackerras, the latter, whom I consider a much underrated Beethovian Conductor!

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows

Beethoven is Beethoven, it's all there in the score. The big differences I always hear from version to version are in tempo, and in the recording. 

The recording has far-reaching effects, depending on how it's miked. Some recordings, like the René Liebowitz on Chesky, used a classic old-style miking arrangement, maybe just two overhead mikes. Other engineers used more elaborate methods: John McClure always studied the score and put spot-mikes in areas he thought might need emphasis, to bring an instrument or musical line out. I really notice these details on something complex like Stravinsky.

The slowest on I've ever heard was the Otto Klemperer on EMI. 
The '63 Karajan is a good rendition, but I've never been able to "penetrate" the recording, which has harsh highs and too much hall ambience.
The Gardiner is an exquisite recording, from an engineering standpoint. It sounds so rich and dimensional. The HIP stringing of the violins might contribute to its smoothness.


----------



## KenOC

ptr said:


> Of other "HIP" versions I quite prefer Brüggen and Immerseel, with a traditional romantic orchestra Klemperer and Philharmonia, but most of all I like small orchestra version by Harnoncourt and Mackerras, the latter, whom I consider a much underrated Beethovian Conductor!


Mackerras is very highly regarded in some quarters -- I have his Mozart symphonies and they're great, although everybody says I got the wrong set! I recently got the new 2011 live Brüggen cycle and so far it seems top drawer. Can't compare it with the older cycle though.


----------



## Hausmusik

Following up on my earlier post: I tried to find some of those ecstatic blurbs for the Gardiner set on its initial release but can't. I think Hurwitz particularly fawned, but one can hardly accuse him of mindless fanboyism, because he has harshly reviewed Gardiner's Brahms cycle, particularly Symphonies 3 and 4.

From his review of the 4th: "The tinny sound of Gardiner’s band is more appropriate to Alvin and the Chipmunks than to Beethoven or Brahms....less an artistic experience than a museum exhibit, or academic exercise of some kind...this ossification of a once living performance tradition masquerades as authenticity. Dry sonics offer plenty of clarity but make the orchestra sound even more gaunt. Nobody needs this."

Yowza.


----------



## ptr

KenOC said:


> Mackerras is very highly regarded in some quarters -- I have his Mozart symphonies and they're great, although everybody says I got the wrong set! I recently got the new 2011 live Brüggen cycle and so far it seems top drawer. Can't compare it with the older cycle though.


I have both Büggen sets and like both much, as for Mackerras, I have the old complete Symphony set on Telarc and some of the newer on Linn. Bought the complete set just to have a reference for all Mozart symphonies in my collection but I notice that I quite prefer it to the newer issues, the Prague CO of the 90's seem to be a more jolly group and not as polished as their Scottish brethren. I much prefer Jolly to polished! :cheers:

/ptr


----------



## KenOC

"The tinny sound of Gardiner’s band is more appropriate to Alvin and the Chipmunks than to Beethoven or Brahms...."

Oooh, dat's nasty! I was (and still am) looking forward to hearing Gardiner's Brahms. His Schumann symphonies really renewed those works for me.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "The tinny sound of Gardiner's band is more appropriate to Alvin and the Chipmunks than to Beethoven or Brahms...."
> 
> Oooh, dat's nasty! I was (and still am) looking forward to hearing Gardiner's Brahms. His Schumann symphonies really renewed those works for me.


I really enjoy his recording of the Schumann symphonies - as far as that goes. They aren't my favorite symphonies, but I do enjoy Gardiner's recording. I do enjoy his Brahms symphonies as well. I actually prefer them to the Klemperer cycle, which is near blasphemy for me, given how much I enjoy Klemperer. His German Requiems (there is now a new one on his SDG label) are very nice, as well. But there are Gardiner recordings that are only meh to me. For example, I didn't care for his Handel Water Music, or his Messiah.


----------



## KenOC

ptr said:


> I have both Büggen sets and like both much, as for Mackerras, I have the old complete Symphony set on Telarc and some of the newer on Linn. Bought the complete set just to have a reference for all Mozart symphonies in my collection but I notice that I quite prefer it to the newer issues, the Prague CO of the 90's seem to be a more jolly group and not as polished as their Scottish brethren. I much prefer Jolly to polished! :cheers:
> 
> /ptr


Thanks! I also have the Mackerras Prague set, and have stayed awake nights stewing in regret and a general feeling of inferiority because so many say it's the "wrong" one! Now, at last, I can sleep soundly.


----------



## Hausmusik

I agree with Dr. Mike that Gardiner's Messiah is not so hot. His Mozart Requiem is worse.

Ken, I eagerly collected Gardiner's Brahms cycle as it came out, via eMusic back in the day. I like it a little more than Hurwitz does, but I think the best items are the Shicksaslied (sp?) and Alto Rhapsody.The symphonies are just not exciting enough to rise to first class. I guess the best of them is #2, because its more lyrical quality suits his somewhat less than barn-burning approach.

Gardiner's Schumann cycle is excellent, and IMO the best thing he's done along with the Beethoven cycle. But I don't think it nonpareil. Bernstein's VPO set is superb. So is Zinman's. It was Bernstein more than Gardiner who convinced me that these symphonies were worth a damn.


----------



## Hausmusik

KenOC said:


> Thanks! I also have the Mackerras Prague set, and have stayed awake nights stewing in regret and a general feeling of inferiority because so many say it's the "wrong" one! Now, at last, I can sleep soundly.


Ken, only thing I recall hearing against the Prague set is that the sound is not as state-of-the-art as the Linn. (Is that true?) But the price is right!


----------



## KenOC

Hausmusik said:


> Ken, only thing I recall hearing against the Prague set is that the sound is not as state-of-the-art as the Linn. (Is that true?) But the price is right!


The Prague set sounds quite good to me. Nothing in that department that might tempt me to another set, certainly. But I haven't heard the other set.


----------



## Guest

I have liked most everything I have heard from Mackerras. I have some of his Haydn recordings on Telarc, and a Dvorak recording on Supraphon, and another Brahms recording on Telarc. I keep meaning to buy his Linn recordings of the late Mozart symphonies.


----------



## Hausmusik

Yes, I need to join in the chorus for Mackerras. My favorite Mackerras recordings are his 6 Haydn symphonies on Telarc, his Schubert 5, 8 and 9 on Virgin, his Brahms 3 on Telarc, and his G&S Mikado. Like his Mozart symphonies on Linn as well. Haven't heard his Hyperion Beethoven cycle yet.

Only dud IMO is his Beethoven PC 3-5 on Linn, but I blame the pianist.


----------



## SixFootScowl

science said:


> So I've got Karajan 63, Gardiner, and Zinman. Also, Furtwangler 9 and Kleiber 5 & 7.
> 
> If I were to get a fourth cycle, I'd want it to blow me away. Something really different - make me hear the symphonies in new ways.
> 
> If y'all think there's one out there that can do it, what is it?


Perhaps this one. " This Beethoven set features the Hanover Band playing on period instruments with less musicians than the average orchestra. These were recorded in a spacious, atmospheric acoustic approximating where Beethoven would have premiered them. "


----------



## Guest

You know, this reminds me of a portion of the discussion going on elsewhere. 

Perceptions change over time, and perhaps performance styles change over time as well, matching those changes in perception.

And then a historian or two notices that the performance styles have changed and speculates about the original performance style.

And the rest is tragically HIP.

(Sorry. I did not really just give an opinion about HIP. I just couldn't resist the joke. My opinion, such as it is, is neither here nor there.)


----------



## DavidA

Gardiner gives a very good performance of number three in the film Eroica. His studio recording isn't so good really. I have his ninth as well but he muffs the slow movement, The last movement however is superb!


----------



## hpowders

Gardiner's set is highly rated because the name Gardiner is attached to it and therefore it is supposed to be good.

If the set had some unknown conductor's name instead, watch the panning by the critics!

The Beethoven symphonies have been interpreted to death. What more can anyone expect from another complete set, whether traditional or HIP?

It's like, "been there done that." So many sets to choose from with no further interpretive possibilities.

Time to accept what's already out there and move on. The water's already been totally extracted from the stone.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Science. Give the Hanover Band a try. Here are the clips.


----------

