# Comparative study: Beethoven Leonore III Overture



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Inspired by Shrime's excellent comparative studies of recordings, I thought I'd try one of my own. So here's 8 recordings of Beethoven's Leonore Overture No.3, Op.72b. I chose this piece because a full symphony was too long and Leonore isn't (15 minutes for the very broadest readings). Also, it is one of Beethoven's most popular overtures, frequently performed in concert and often recorded. There's a mix of performances here but I haven't included anything too 'historic' (all have good or better sound). Some of the recordings are live and although a couple may seem more recognisable most aren't very obvious. These are not my 8 favourite recordings of Leonore 3 but there is one of my personal favourites in this collection. I thought I'd go for some different styles. Beware, many of these recordings aren't from dedicated symphony cycles (Leonore 3 is a popular makeweight on orchestral releases)!

However, if you know the identity of these recordings please don't reveal conductors or orchestras but feel free to rank them in order from favourite to least favourite and maybe add some details of what you thought of the recording, performance, etc. A quick sentence would suffice (or more for those who want to write more).

In a few weeks (or possibly less depending on whether anyone's interested) I'll let you know what the winning recording was and then reveal all the recordings used. In the interests of discovery try not to cheat. You might find a recording by a performer you hadn't previously heard or rated. I actually tried to cheat using identifying software but out of the 8 recordings only one was successfully identified (and that was the 3rd time round after 2 wrong answers). Here's the Dropbox link, below.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3rk7w6z11pr4ns4/AABvbc39sJAkqtKimQ-DL1kQa?dl=0

Hope you join in!


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

Okay, here's my stab at it. I liked 7G the best, followed by 5E, 3C, 8H, 6F, 2B, 4D, and 1A. All of them were very good. There were none that I actively disliked.

Notes on each, written as I was listening to them:

1A - winds and timpani well forward, good modern sound although somewhat shrill, solid, precise, middle-of-the-road interpretation but lacking in intensity, nuance, dynamic range, and programmatic inspiration, excellent orchestra rank=8

2B - live in concert, good mono sound although orchestra seems far away, introduction is slow, mysterious, and suspenseful, main section a little slow and lacking in intensity but played with nuance and expression, well-played by orchestra with good flute solo, sparks don't fly in main section, not enough contrast in mood, coda is precise and at first a little slow but ends well rank=6

3C - good pianissimo in introduction with expression and mood contrast, excellent dynamic range, main section really takes off, good modern sound on the distant, resonant side, lots of nuance and expressive variety, trumpet is really offstage and sounds like an attention-grabbing interruption, recapitulation a little staid but secondary theme is expressive, coda is jubilant as required rank=3

4D - need to turn volume down because of high recording level, fast introduction too chirpy - should be more mysterious, modern sound on the shrill side lacking dynamic range, too fast and straightforward lacking expressive variety, good intensity but other moods lacking, no nuance or tempo variety, well-played by orchestra, coda is best part although shrill rank=7

5E - introduction too slow but better than too fast, excellent modern sound with winds well forward, main section has a nice rhythmic kick to it to make up for moderate tempo, good dynamic range, secondary theme played with a slight tempo modification, trumpet sounds really offstage, response to it is appropriately hopeful, in general excellent expressive variety, excellent coda is very fast rank=2

6F - good mono sound, fast but suspenseful, expressive introduction, good pianissimos, played with lots of dynamic and expressive range, violins lack presence, good difference made between first and second trumpet call, recapitulation lacks take-off and is somewhat prosaic, no suspense leading up to coda which is played steadily rank=5

7G - introduction moderately slow and mysterious, main section is fast and intense with a nice rhythmic kick to it, excellent modern sound with lots of detail, well-played by orchestra, development section is suspenseful and doesn't get too repetitious, excellent expressive variety and mood delineation, recap has nice sense of arrival, good suspense leading up to coda,
excellent coda is very fast and has same tempo as 5E, rank=1

8H - fast but nuanced introduction, historically-informed with quick detached chording, main section is chirpy with those sudden detached sforzando chords, sound is modern with lots of detail and favors the treble, winds are well-forward and play with expression and nuance, offstage trumpet stops the action nicely, flute solo sounds rushed, recap really takes off, no suspense leading to coda because it's too fast, coda is light with few violins but played with expressive variety rank=4


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Thanks hustlefan. Great review. An interesting start. Be fun to see what others think too.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2018)

Exciting! I'll definitely take part as I love these kinds of things. I might make a new one myself soon......

But in the meantime I'll give myself a few days to get through these recordings before I get back to you 

And here's a link to the score for those who (like me) are interested in following along: http://ks4.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/9/96/IMSLP01738-Leonora_oberture_No._3_Op._72.pdf


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2018)

Alright lets see.......................

A: Nice clarity in strings at allegro, but too metronomic for my taste. Dynamics played very straight, the swells around pages 12-13 in the score are an exception that also just sounds a bit out of place as well. Repeated passages and sequences lack variety in the way they are performed, quickly loses direction. Not much attempt to connect dynamic shape and tempo to the actual structural phrasing and the underlying architecture of the composition itself. Overall it is very well articulated and the orchestra is well-balanced, but the music just seems to have no sense of direction or purpose. The conductor plays it safe with a very non-intrusive and literal reading, but it falls flat. Rank = 8

B: A more nuanced interpretation, but the orchestra certainly doesn't sound world class and the players seem to lack a sense of ensemble togetherness at times. They don't blend well in tutti passages. At soft dynamics, however, they sound fantastic. The development section is good and has a sense of direction, but it was sandwiched between two soggy slices of exposition and recap that seemed to miss the mark....that being said, I prefer this one to A. Rank = 6

C: The orchestra is very colourful and the musicians have a really good sense of their role in the overall texture; they blend together well and also can be very clear when they need to be. The fortes in the intro are nice and weighty as well. The quiet start of the allegro is very characterful and has a good sense of momentum, but the development section tends toward the predictable and even the monotonous in more repetitive passages. I reckon the conductor needs to lead the interpretation here more! Towards the recap, when the flute and bassoon have their little duet, I just thought that was a memorable moment, lighthearted and fun. All the varied 'characters' and 'emotions' that can be drawn from the work are there some of the time, and other times I don't think they are drawn out of the music enough. Rank = 3

D: This lot really know how to play loud, although sometimes I feel it's done for a cheap thrill rather than as part of an intelligent interpretation. The opening introduction is the best thing about this performance; the string vibrato is very expressive and there are a variety of types in there rather than a simple continuous tone common to other recordings. I like that! For most of the piece, however, the transitions were just too choppy. I suspect that might be due to a very rigidly metronomic reading. The music is really well articulated and dynamics fairly often are what makes the music really come alive, but as I mentioned before, there are many instances where it sounds like dynamics are just used for a cheap thrill. Almost everything after the very good intro sounds a bit glossed over with a very 'uniform' overall timbre. The woodwinds sound particularly cold and lifeless. Rank = 7

E: Pianissimo strings sound great here, but the clarinets sound a bit obnoxious on page 2 of the score. The tutti fortissimos in the intro also sound terrific. This performance has a similar kind of energy to D, I think, particularly with the dynamics; sometimes they are used well, but sometimes it sounds like that cheap thrill we got earlier. The tempo modification at the start of the second subject of the exposition and brought back in the recap is lovely, but I would have enjoyed some more of this to really draw out some more expression in the music. Page 48 in the score is also really well handled in terms of tempo. Rank = 1

F: The intro seems more nervous than anything. It struggles to find footing for the first couple of minutes, but when it does, the intro ends up sounding a little too robotic, lifeless and basically just going through the motions. At the allegro, the first crescendo into the tutti is quite nice, and the brass really blazes like a harsh ray of sunlight. Mostly this performance leaves me a bit confused more than anything. The repetitive phrases and sequences sound either directionless or veers into a _weird_ direction before quickly teleporting back to where the music needs to go at the start of the next phrase. A tad confusing. Rank = 5

G: Beautiful opening bars, chorale-like clarinets and bassoons. Sometimes the tempo drags in the intro. The orchestral fortes are bold and full, but could be a little more intense (perhaps some musicians are being a bit shy? idk). The allegro doesn't quite land until a couple of bars in, but then the music is certainly tightly controlled from here until the end. The crescendos tend to reach their loudest point a little to early, and therefore losing a little bit of that driving momentum that is confidently established. The second subject is very lyrical, but still retains that forward momentum, I like that a lot. Development section sounds very tightly controlled, again, full of that momentum and great sense of direction. The music here sounds like it is in safe hands, but only at the coda does it sound directionless and perhaps a bit pedestrian as it has pretty much reached its destination. It isn't too bad though, perhaps a bit _too_ controlled more than anything. Rank = 2

H: The intro, although too metronomic and launches in too quickly, has a remarkable dynamic shape overall and the sense of direction is quite present. There is a real sense of bite and joy in the allegro. Transitions between passages are too choppy, like the listener is being jerked from one idea to the next. Beethoven was well known for his very expressive use of rubato and wide ranging, flexible tempo. That aspect of his playing would have worked wonders here, particularly to transition from one mood to another. Instead, the music often sounds mechanical, and the potentially vibrant moods and characters that are very _nearly_ there in this performance aren't yet apparent. The repetitive phrases and sequences throughout are predictable and pedestrian for the majority of the piece. On the plus side, the winds and brass sound absolutely gorgeous, and I love how pared back the beginning of the presto is until the entire string section launches in to those furious scales. Rank = 4


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Thanks Shrime. Excellent survey. Have you guessed any yet? If you do...... Sssshhhhh!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'll study the principal flutist for those recordings for you! After all, it's known as some of Beethoven's best writing for flute _ever_, and set a standard for flute-writing afterward.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2018)

Merl said:


> Thanks Shrime. Excellent survey. Have you guessed any yet? If you do...... Sssshhhhh!


If anything I thought D might be Karajan but I doubt it.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

shirime said:


> If anything I thought D might be Karajan but I doubt it.


All will be clear soon. Btw, one of these recordings is slightly controversial for reasons that may not be obvious.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Inspired by Shrime's excellent comparative studies of recordings, I thought I'd try one of my own. So here's 8 recordings of Beethoven's Leonore Overture No.3, Op.72b. I chose this piece because a full symphony was too long and Leonore isn't (15 minutes for the very broadest readings). Also, it is one of Beethoven's most popular overtures, frequently performed in concert and often recorded. There's a mix of performances here but I haven't included anything too 'historic' (all have good or better sound). Some of the recordings are live and although a couple may seem more recognisable most aren't very obvious. These are not my 8 favourite recordings of Leonore 3 but there is one of my personal favourites in this collection. I thought I'd go for some different styles. Beware, many of these recordings aren't from dedicated symphony cycles (Leonore 3 is a popular makeweight on orchestral releases)!
> 
> However, if you know the identity of these recordings please don't reveal conductors or orchestras but feel free to rank them in order from favourite to least favourite and maybe add some details of what you thought of the recording, performance, etc. A quick sentence would suffice (or more for those who want to write more).
> 
> ...


OK, first two, all I've heard so far:
A: Typical modern major orchestra style. High modern level of playing and ensemble, but too fast, and intonation problems in the winds and brasses probably resulting from the orchestra as a whole tuning too sharp. Performances like this helped create the HIP movement in reaction. Good modern flute playing, though.
B: Live performance, and maybe not ideally recorded, but better all around. Still quick but not as rushed, and not tuned hyper-sharp like A. Hard to compare dynamics due to differences in recording.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm surprised that the improved version, Leonore #4, was not included!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Inspired by Shrime's excellent comparative studies of recordings, I thought I'd try one of my own. So here's 8 recordings of Beethoven's Leonore Overture No.3, Op.72b. I chose this piece because a full symphony was too long and Leonore isn't (15 minutes for the very broadest readings). Also, it is one of Beethoven's most popular overtures, frequently performed in concert and often recorded. There's a mix of performances here but I haven't included anything too 'historic' (all have good or better sound). Some of the recordings are live and although a couple may seem more recognisable most aren't very obvious. These are not my 8 favourite recordings of Leonore 3 but there is one of my personal favourites in this collection. I thought I'd go for some different styles. Beware, many of these recordings aren't from dedicated symphony cycles (Leonore 3 is a popular makeweight on orchestral releases)!
> 
> However, if you know the identity of these recordings please don't reveal conductors or orchestras but feel free to rank them in order from favourite to least favourite and maybe add some details of what you thought of the recording, performance, etc. A quick sentence would suffice (or more for those who want to write more).
> 
> ...


OK, now for the next two:
C: Ahh, sounds like we're stepping back in time to the analog era, maybe the post-Toscanini era of Szell, Reiner, Ormandy and Munch? More relaxed and lyrical than B or certainly A, still pre-HIP mid-century modern. This is the style I grew up with.
D: Back to more recent digital, with modern intensity, more modern than A and a bit more tempered, with a hint of HIP-influence. C is still my favorite.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm confused ... an earlier post said that 2 of them were mono and they definitely are not, especially B which was done in a very resonant acoustic (Royal Albert Hall?) which makes me wonder if I am hearing the same as others?

P.S. Perhaps someone can tell me how you can truly do HIP without splitting the violins left/right? There is only one of these which seems to do that ... D


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2018)

Merl said:


> All will be clear soon. Btw, one of these recordings is slightly controversial for reasons that may not be obvious.


Love a bit of controversy! Can't wait to find out which one.......perhaps the live one? Idk but the musicians in that one didn't sound too great to me.

Listening to all of these a second time today, I kinda get the feeling that none of the recordings really stand out as the best, but there are a few that really don't sound that great to me. I also get the feeling, from looking at the score, that way more can be done with this overture in terms of interpretation than any conductors here are willing to go. Perhaps in the early part of the 20th century things might have been a bit more interesting, and Merl avoided the more historical performances for this comparison.......


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

shirime said:


> Love a bit of controversy! Can't wait to find out which one.......perhaps the live one? Idk but the musicians in that one didn't sound too great to me.
> 
> Listening to all of these a second time today, I kinda get the feeling that none of the recordings really stand out as the best, but there are a few that really don't sound that great to me. I also get the feeling, from looking at the score, that way more can be done with this overture in terms of interpretation than any conductors here are willing to go. Perhaps in the early part of the 20th century things might have been a bit more interesting, and Merl avoided the more historical performances for this comparison.......


Two things to note here. Becca is correct. ALL of these performances are stereo. A couple may sound more monoaural just due to poorer separation but all are stereo. The reason that i didnt go for very historic recordings is i just cant bear them. When the sound is really poor i turn off. Nothing worse than sinewy, old violin sound. It turns my stomach. Pre-1950 is often (but not always) my cut-off for historic recordings, tbf. One of these performances is from the 1950s, one is from the 60s, one from the 70s, a few from the 80s and some more recent ones.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I'm surprised that the improved version, Leonore #4, was not included!


 Thats really funny. Never seen that one before. The 'oompah' band was great. :lol:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Becca said:


> I'm confused ... an earlier post said that 2 of them were mono and they definitely are not, especially B which was done in a very resonant acoustic (Royal Albert Hall?) which makes me wonder if I am hearing the same as others?
> 
> P.S. Perhaps someone can tell me how you can truly do HIP without splitting the violins left/right? There is only one of these which seems to do that ... D


No HIP performances that I can tell in A - D. I'll try to listen to the rest today. For me, the hallmarks of a HIP orchestra sound include, (1) smaller ensemble, i.e., fewer strings; (2) different sound in certain instruments, especially drums, basses and winds; (3) different use of vibrato, not necessarily none. But since the 1960s, I believe the HIP movement has had an impact on orchestral performance generally. Also, I've seen many non-HIP orchestras split the violins left and right. Perhaps that's an example of HIP influence.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Also, I've seen many non-HIP orchestras split the violins left and right. Perhaps that's an example of HIP influence.


You don't have to go HIP to split the violins, it was common practice even after WW2. It can make a substantial difference in many 19th century works where you can hear the antiphonal effects. As an example using Leonore 3, just listen to the Klemperer/Philharmonia recording of the work. There are things there that you hear quite clearly which would otherwise get masked when the 1st & 2nds are grouped together. Listen around the 5.15", also from the start of the coda at 12.30".


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> shirime said:
> 
> 
> > If anything I thought D might be Karajan but I doubt it.
> ...


I've got recording D, unless I'm very much mistaken.... I think Karajan threw him into a lion's mouth when he was young, and not too long ago he had his jaw dropped onto the floor when a journalist mentioned Bernrstein's Beethoven to him during an interview.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> I've got recording D, unless I'm very much mistaken.... I think Karajan threw him into a lion's mouth when he was young, and not too long ago he had his jaw dropped onto the floor when a journalist mentioned Bernrstein's Beethoven to him during an interview.


If you know......ssshhhhhh!!!! Anyway, which ones do you like, Kiki?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> If you know......ssshhhhhh!!!! Anyway, which ones do you like, Kiki?


Haha. Certainly, sir! I'm still trying to find meaningful words to describe my reaction, but I definitely like E the most, followed by D, then the group of F, G and H. Unfortunately A, B and C turn me off. I especially dislike B and C. I like to listen to them again to make sense of my negative reaction.

I think D is the only recording among the eight that I've got. Will be intrigued to know who the performers are, and what controversy there is among them!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> Will be intrigued to know who the performers are, and what controversy there is among them!


The 'controversy' is quite dull, so dont expect anything riveting, lol. It regards one of the artists involved in one of the recordings (or not as the case may be).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Inspired by Shrime's excellent comparative studies of recordings, I thought I'd try one of my own. So here's 8 recordings of Beethoven's Leonore Overture No.3, Op.72b. I chose this piece because a full symphony was too long and Leonore isn't (15 minutes for the very broadest readings). Also, it is one of Beethoven's most popular overtures, frequently performed in concert and often recorded. There's a mix of performances here but I haven't included anything too 'historic' (all have good or better sound). Some of the recordings are live and although a couple may seem more recognisable most aren't very obvious. These are not my 8 favourite recordings of Leonore 3 but there is one of my personal favourites in this collection. I thought I'd go for some different styles. Beware, many of these recordings aren't from dedicated symphony cycles (Leonore 3 is a popular makeweight on orchestral releases)!
> 
> However, if you know the identity of these recordings please don't reveal conductors or orchestras but feel free to rank them in order from favourite to least favourite and maybe add some details of what you thought of the recording, performance, etc. A quick sentence would suffice (or more for those who want to write more).
> 
> ...


OK, E and F. E is another modern digital effort. The introduction is ponderously slow, then it gallops away in the modern super fast way. Another excellent modern flute player. Some intonation problems. F sounds like another oldie but goodie from the analog or early digital era. The tempos are much better judged than in E, more relaxed and unforced. Beethoven can take a lot of pushing and pulling and still be great, but it's interesting how some of the more recent efforts here (at least so I think) try to force things, whereas in C and F they are allowed to happen.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Inspired by Shrime's excellent comparative studies of recordings, I thought I'd try one of my own. So here's 8 recordings of Beethoven's Leonore Overture No.3, Op.72b. I chose this piece because a full symphony was too long and Leonore isn't (15 minutes for the very broadest readings). Also, it is one of Beethoven's most popular overtures, frequently performed in concert and often recorded. There's a mix of performances here but I haven't included anything too 'historic' (all have good or better sound). Some of the recordings are live and although a couple may seem more recognisable most aren't very obvious. These are not my 8 favourite recordings of Leonore 3 but there is one of my personal favourites in this collection. I thought I'd go for some different styles. Beware, many of these recordings aren't from dedicated symphony cycles (Leonore 3 is a popular makeweight on orchestral releases)!
> 
> However, if you know the identity of these recordings please don't reveal conductors or orchestras but feel free to rank them in order from favourite to least favourite and maybe add some details of what you thought of the recording, performance, etc. A quick sentence would suffice (or more for those who want to write more).
> 
> ...


And G and H. G: Muddy recording, wind and brass soloists artificially highlighted, balances off, harsh sound (early digital?) somewhat conservative directing, but an excellent orchestra with fine soloists and a very good flute solo. H: Another muddy recording with too much reverb. Other than A, perhaps the worst from the perspective of sound quality, though it doesn't have the annoying soloist highlighting of G. The brisk intro works for me, and the relatively light approach, but not the clipped phrase endings of the A theme and elsewhere, and the whole thing is tossed off a little too perfunctorily for me. This is high operatic drama, after all.

So I'll have to go with C as my favorite, and A as my least favorite (except for the first rate flutist). Thanks for setting this up!


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Here’s my take. 

E. Ranked 1st.
Dramatic, fun and electrifying throughout. 
Even steps up another gear towards the end to great effect.
Played from start to finish in one go.

D. 2nd
Glorious playing. Mesmerizing pianissimo. Well balanced orchestral sound. 
Maybe a little bit cold. Very modern sounding. 
Badly engineered, blown recording. Doesn’t do justice to the performance.

H. 3rd.
Dramatic, fun and electrifying also.
A few sudden pushes sound a little bit unnatural.
Occasionally the dynamics of some instruments sound artificial and blown.

G. 4th.
Great suspense in the intro. Exciting throughout.
Occasionally lacks a bit of subtleness.
Bright, glossy violins straining the ears.

F. 5th.
Easier on the ears. No pushing. But less exciting.
Some notes pops out like marbles. Delightful.

C. 6th.
Well balanced orchestral sound.
Volatile speed at places but that sounds spontaneous.
Unfortunately, rich, creamy, big-band Beethoven turns me off.

B. 7th.
Pulling the tempo in a rather noticeable way.
Feels a bit on the flat side until it steps up the voltage towards the end. 
The thunderous timpani can't save the day.

A. 8th.
Pulling the tempo and dynamics from note to note at a few places.
Small irritations here and there spoils the whole piece for me.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

With a game like this, I like to make my own critiques before reading anyone else's, though I did read Becca's posts. Now that I've read the others, I thank you all for the detailed and insightful comments. Though these are all clearly top orchestras more than capable of doing an excellent job with this piece, I find recordings of a standard like this are often plagued by conductors trying too hard to put their individual stamp on the proceedings. I think that applies to some of these selections. For that reason and others, a more spontaneous live performance is often better. Only one of these sounded like it was a performance in front of a live audience, though it's sometimes hard to tell.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Only one of these sounded like it was a performance in front of a live audience, though it's sometimes hard to tell.


Maybe there's more than one live performance, here!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Maybe there's more than one live performance, here!


Not surprising, as they are often made in a way that all but eliminates the audience noise. That would explain some of the muddy sound in a couple of them.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Tbf, the muddy sound may have been part my fault as I ripped them all to 256k. Should have left them in FLAC but thought they'd take too long to load for most people. Only 2 are live. Some very famous names in this list too. Any guesses on them?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Tbf, the muddy sound may have been part my fault as I ripped them all to 256k. Should have left them in FLAC but thought they'd take too long to load for most people. Only 2 are live. Some very famous names in this list too. Any guesses on them?


Not likely your fault, as there is a difference between muddy sound and bad digital sound, which is also in evidence. As all are in stereo and one is from the 1950s, there's a good chance that oldest one is Munch and the Boston Symphony on RCA from 1956. That most likely would be C. I guess the other possibility would be Ansermet and the OSR, which was recorded in 1959, but Munch is my guess. Then A is tuned sharp in the European manner of Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic, but it could be any number of other European orchestras too. H does show some HIP influence with its brisk tempos and clipped phrasing, as someone else mentioned, so that would like be 1980s or later. Hard to say otherwise.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

fluteman said:


> .......there's a good chance that oldest one is Munch and the Boston Symphony on RCA from 1956. That most likely would be C. I guess the other possibility would be Ansermet and the OSR, which was recorded in 1959, but Munch is my guess. .


Well done, Fluteman, the first one (Leonore A) is Ansermet and the OSR. The symphonies are much better than the overtures in this set. He does push and pull and drive the symphonies but it works in those (especially the 9th). Its less successful in the overtures (he drives Coriolan really hard).









Leonore H is HIP. It's from this set of very good overtures by Zinman. I like this disc a lot more than his symphony cycle of Beethoven.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> I'm confused ... an earlier post said that 2 of them were mono and they definitely are not, especially B which was done in a very resonant acoustic (Royal Albert Hall?) .....


Great spot, Becca. Yes Leonore B was recorded at the Royal Albert Hall and is a makeweight on this Rudolf Kempe disc with the BBC SO, a live disc from the 1975 Proms (I thought it was earlier, tbh). Personally I find this one very dull (like most of Kempe's Beethoven). It wasn't very popular in our study either.










I'm surprised no one has guessed Leonore D yet. It's proved a very 'marmite' recording for you guys (some love it some don't like it). Very much like this man's Beethoven cycle. Personally I love both. You must guess it?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> Well done, Fluteman, the first one (Leonore A) is Ansermet and the OSR. The symphonies are much better than the overtures in this set. He does push and pull and drive the symphonies but it works in those (especially the 9th). Its less successful in the overtures (he drives Coriolan really hard).
> 
> View attachment 108925
> 
> ...


So the flutist in A is the great Andre Pepin (1907-1985), probably the best flute solo, or at least one of the three best, of the group. If I wanted to seem like a hot shot I could have done some online comparisons and maybe come up with a couple more answers, as I have my suspicions for some of the others, but that would be silly.

It's odd how European orchestras began to tune very sharp after the war. I think the worldwide superstardom of Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic made it more universal, Ultimately, American orchestras followed suit, and a=440 seems to be a thing of the past in many ensembles.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2018)

Merl said:


> Leonore H is HIP. It's from this set of very good overtures by Zinman. I like this disc a lot more than his symphony cycle of Beethoven.
> 
> View attachment 108927


I have Zinman's Beethoven, but I've only listened to the symphonies and not the overtures! I might have to investigate this a little more.

Actually, considering the 'sound' of D, could it be Chailly? Also HIP-inspired?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2018)

Merl said:


> Great spot, Becca. Yes Leonore B was recorded at the Royal Albert Hall and is a makeweight on this Rudolf Kempe disc with the BBC SO, a live disc from the 1975 Proms (I thought it was earlier, tbh). Personally I find this one very dull (like most of Kempe's Beethoven). It wasn't very popular in our study either.


Surprised that this was BBC SO playing! Must've been before Boulez worked his magic with the orchestra.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Merl said:


> I'm surprised no one has guessed Leonore D yet. It's proved a very 'marmite' recording for you guys (some love it some don't like it). Very much like this man's Beethoven cycle. Personally I love both. You must guess it?


Chailly/Gewandhaus :tiphat:


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

fluteman said:


> ..... I find recordings of a standard like this are often plagued by conductors trying too hard to put their individual stamp on the proceedings....


Couldn't agree more. I suppose in this crowded and competitive field of the standard repertoire, they need to create something _special_ in order to sell to the record companies, the journalists, the critics, and the record buying public.



Merl said:


> Tbf, the muddy sound may have been part my fault as I ripped them all to 256k. Should have left them in FLAC but thought they'd take too long to load for most people.....


Much as I despise MP3, I think it is the right format to use because I believe most people should have no problem downloading/playing it.

These 256kbps Leonore files have the majority of data loss above 16kHz. (See the spectrograms of Leonore D below, FLAC at the top, MP3 at the bottom.) Nowadays my hearing can detect up to around 17kHz but only faintly, so theoretically any loss I can detect should be minute. A younger person may detect more losses at the high frequencies and therefore, relatively, might find these files more bass-prominent than the original. But then I think 256kbps MP3 is a good compromise.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> ....
> 
> Leonore H is HIP. It's from this set of very good overtures by Zinman. I like this disc a lot more than his symphony cycle of Beethoven.
> 
> View attachment 108927


Brilliant. Another case where Zinman is better than what common prejudice suggests.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Yes, Leonore D is Chailly. 







As I said with Ansermet, a case where the symphony cycle is better than the overtures but tbf to Chailly Leonore 3 works much better on the original disc when coupled with the symphonies . There are certain conductors who made a speciality out of the overtures. I didn't include Munch because I thought it would have been even more obvious than Chailly. In fact I left off nearly all of my favourites on purpose as I thought the timings might give them away. So there's no Szell, no Karajan, etc. I'll tell you about the 'controversial' recording when I've had my breakfast.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

So to controversial recording and that's Leonore F. It's from this disc which came out on the infamous budget label, Point Classics.









As fluteman correctly worked out this is another oldie from the analogue age. The problem is that no-one is quite sure who the artists on the discs are. It SAYS it's the Karajan-for-the-cheapies, Anton Nanut, but as this is one of the performances that fraudster and charlatan (see also the charlatan thread) Alfred Scholtz circulated and subsequently sold on to the world and his wife, often with changed names, pseudonyms, etc, we can't be sure. Is it a recording by Scholtz himself (under various pseudonyms) ? It could be a bottlegged or stolen performance of Horvat, Melles or Swarowsky from the early 60s or there's a 50% chance it might be Nanut. I looked on the list of recordings that have been certified as being Nanut's and this is not on it. The fluidity with the tempo could suggest Nanut but to me it sounds a little older than that. I doubt we'll ever know now. However it is a nice, warm and pretty reasonable (if unspectacular) account. Just goes to show that there's some decent stuff knocking round on those budget discs. Incidentally, if you see the Signature Series Beethoven Symphonies set around buy it. It's got half of Nanut's budget near-complete Beethoven cycle on it (they're definitely his) , including a superb 7th and perfectly judged 8th. He never recorded the 9th. That was credited to Phillipe Duvier, another of Scholtz's pseudonyms. Lol.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2018)

Well, recording F to me sounded confused, confusing and now there's even more confusion about who _actually_ conducted it; how very apt!


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2018)

Well who were C and G? I remember rating G quite highly, but I feel as if the musicians playing in C were far better than the conductor, whoever that was (perhaps a non-musician?). I'm not even sure if that makes sense, really, but I remember that the actual blend and balance of the orchestra, the way the musicians played with and responded to one another were the highlights, but the overall direction it took from the conductor left me wishing they just had someone else........

G was really interesting, very _controlled_ and quite musical throughout. There was something very clear-headed about it, but also something quite safe and uncontroversial.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

shirime said:


> Well, recording F to me sounded confused, confusing and now there's even more confusion about who _actually_ conducted it; how very apt!


And that's why I don't think it was Nanut's. Nanut's Beethoven has a very clear vision and if there was something Nanut knew how to do it was to keep the forward momentum. That recording doesn't have that drive. Also Nanut's Beethoven is pretty brisk. Only 50‰ of those recordings on the budget labels were actually made by Nanut. The rest are the product of Scholtz's imagination. Personally I think that's a Scholtz performance with a scratch East European orchestra! 
Anyway Leonore C (fluteman's favourite) was from this set of symphonies. Surprised, flutey? It's Muti and the Philadelphians. IMO, it's not a bad performance and Muti let's the music flow quite organically. The remaining two performances (and on balance the most liked) are not from cycles. Leonore G and E to follow.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Shrime, you summed up Leonore G perfectly! Safe, clear-headed and musical sum up Tennstedt's vision of all the Beethoven he recorded. Recording G actually comes from this very good, dedicated set of Beethoven Overtures disc. I must admit to liking and respecting Tennstedt's Beethoven a great deal. He always seems to make good judgements and has a very clear vision of the music. Top comments, folks. Only one recording left, Leonore E. It was most people's favourite..... Any ideas, Shrime?

View attachment 108938


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> Yes, Leonore D is Chailly.
> View attachment 108934
> 
> As I said with Ansermet, a case where the symphony cycle is better than the overtures but tbf to Chailly Leonore 3 works much better on the original disc when coupled with the symphonies . There are certain conductors who made a speciality out of the overtures. I didn't include Munch because I thought it would have been even more obvious than Chailly. In fact I left off nearly all of my favourites on purpose as I thought the timings might give them away. So there's no Szell, no Karajan, etc. I'll tell you about the 'controversial' recording when I've had my breakfast.


Among recent Beethovens, I find Chailly's more enjoyable than most, certainly entertaining, amid a bit cold. It's certainly like marmite. :lol: However, I think the biggest problem of Chailly's is the overblown recording, common on his Decca discs from that period, e.g. his Brahms and the 2 discs with Stefano Bollani.

Chailly also said he applied metronome speeds closer to what was common in Beethoven's time. For a layman like me, that means _Allegro is fast_. However I've also read magazine critics saying he didn't really. Did he?

He also said that [even] the Gewandhausorchester had to develop new techniques to play at the speed that they did. I don't know what that means, but he certainly sounds like a great promoter.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Beethoven's metronome markings will always be controversial and the debate will rage on. I think the faulty metronome myth has been debunked but did he put in those marks to stop his symphonies being played too slow (something he hated)? Personally, I think he'd be perpetually spinning in his grave after hearing what Celi did to them, especially the Eroica. Chailly's tempi are 'near' metronome markings but not bang-on. Interestingly, there's been plenty of recordings of Beethoven over the years that have been closer to metronome markings. Check out Scherchen's 50s recordings to hear the Pastoral, Eroica and 8th played at speeds faster than Chailly (the Eroica and 8th are played at a frantic clip with the 8th actually being faster than the metronome). Chailly's Beethoven usually gets labelled as a bit 'cold' possibly because he keeps up the pressure in driving the music. I like it a lot but others think it lacks warmth and charm and is too speed focused. It's certainly brilliantly played. I can't agree with the haters but personally I prefer Gielen, Norrington (Hannsler only) and Skrowaczewski in Beethoven. They keep up the brisk pace but know when to take their foot off the gas and let the music breathe. This was equally true of older conductors of faster Beethoven, like Leobowitz, Scherchen et Al. For example Scherchen's Pastoral sets off like he's driving a formula one car through the countryside but he slows down and then speeds up again, giving the feeling that its not too fast. It also makes it more thrilling.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2018)

Merl said:


> Shrime, you summed up Leonore G perfectly! Safe, clear-headed and musical sum up Tennstedt's vision of all the Beethoven he recorded. Recording G actually comes from this very good, dedicated set of Beethoven Overtures disc. I must admit to liking and respecting Tennstedt's Beethoven a great deal. He always seems to make good judgements and has a very clear vision of the music. Top comments, folks. Only one recording left, Leonore E. It was most people's favourite..... Any ideas, Shrime?
> 
> View attachment 108938


Got no clue who E is. Compared to most of the others, I found it simply more musical.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> So to controversial recording and that's Leonore F. ...
> 
> View attachment 108935
> 
> ...


More than riveting, Merl! This kind of lack of factual accuracy in the classical record industry, esp. in the early days, drives me crazy. Reminds me of EMI's 2-box complete Karajan, which is worse, because there are actual errors in the booklet, in the tracklists, recording dates, orchestras etc. :lol:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OK, so onto our winner and it's a man who specialised in Beethoven Overtures. This guy produced two LvB cycles that I don't care for too much. He was inconsistent, often OTT and is adored by many and vilified by others. Recording E was from a live (honestly, it's hard to tell) recording of various Beethoven works from this set.









Yep it's Bernstein but playing live with the BRSO at the 1976 Amnesty International gig. Really it's a testament to Lenny that he got such a good sound out of an orchestra he'd had limited rehearsal time with. Although, for me, Bernstein's Beethoven symphonies were often problematic he always knocked out consistently excellent performances of the overtures. This disc has the good and bad of Bernstein's Beethoven all in one place. One disc contains all his excellent accounts of the overtures with the VPO, another contains his sloppy, turgid 9th at the Berlin Wall, a weird, OTT 5th and worst of all a shocking 7th in with the BSO just before he died. On balance his VPO Leonore 3 is better but I thought that might be guessed so I plumped for this rarer recording and to my mind it's no wonder it was the most popular here as it is very good. It definitely improves at it goes on (probably the BRSO adapting to Bernstein as they go along, lol). There's an even better Bernstein Leonore 3 on the Carnegie 85 years disc, an incendiary live performance that opened the gig and brought the house down. Absolutely superb account and one you should hear. I'll list a few of my personal faves of Leonore 3 later.

So there you have it. The recordings were:
A Ansermet / OSR
B Kempe / BBC SO
C Muti / Philadelphia
D Chailly / Leipzig
E Bernstein /BRSO
F Nanut / Ljubljana RSO (highly doubtful)?
G Tennstedt / LPO
H Zinman / Tonnhalle


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2018)

This was most fun! It's great to see the results; I couldn't have picked any of them except for the Chailly having heard his complete cycle sans overtures. At some point I will probably listen to more of this overture and compare these with some more historical interpretations.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. As I said, at the outset, these are not my favourite Leonore 3s, just a sample of some of the many that are out there. Amongst my favourites are:

Szell / Cleveland (rugged and fun) 
Bernstein (Carnegie 85 live - effervescent )
Ashkenazy / Philharmonia (warm and lyrical)
Tilson Thomas / SFSO live (superb sound and coupled with a terrific 7th symphony - superb disc). 
Karajan / BPO (77)
Steinberg / Pittsburgh

They're just off the top of my head. I'll probably edit this later. Bubbling under.....Chailly (exciting) , Harnoncourt (better than the cycle), Klemperer (warm and solid), etc. What are your favourites?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> ...
> 
> View attachment 108941
> 
> ...


Now I have to do a Chailly act of dropping my jaw onto the floor at the mention of Bernstein's name! This is nothing like Bernstein's Beethoven symphonies with the VPO. This is way more "lively" than what I'd have expected. An eye opener!

This is fun, Merl! Thanks for setting this up. Definitely should do this again!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> Now I have to do a Chailly act of dropping my jaw onto the floor at the mention of Bernstein's name! This is nothing like Bernstein's Beethoven symphonies with the VPO. This is way more "lively" than what I'd have expected. An eye opener!
> 
> This is fun, Merl! Thanks for setting this up. Definitely should do this again!


Yes, I've always felt the same. Bernstein's VPO cycle has always been boring, for me (and many others) but he's always excelled in the overtures. I suppose they're shorter and more 'up his street'. And yes, it has been fun. What do you suggest next for a blind comparison? Brahms Tragic Overture, Tchaikovsky's Cappricio, another short Beethoven work, etc?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> ...
> 
> Amongst my favourites are:
> 
> ....


Merl, which disc is your Karajan/BPO Leonore III included in? DG included only a 65 and an 85 with the BPO in their complete Karajan edition. (Even though DG did exclude some other recordings that they had released in the past but that's another story.) On the other hand, EMI included only one in their box, but with the Philharmonia recorded in 53. Wondering if there is another source...


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> .... What do you suggest next for a blind comparison? Brahms Tragic Overture, Tchaikovsky's Cappricio, another short Beethoven work, etc?


What's the criteria? I'm imagining -
A piece around 10 to 20 mins approximately;
Contains enough music;
Preferably central repertoire so that most people will be familiar with;
Popular enough to have got many wide-ranging recordings that most people couldn't have known them all.

Brahms, Tchaikovsky, or another Beethoven or Wagner overture would be good. I'd vote for Capriccio Italien. It would be nice to choose a piece outside the Austro-German repertoire since we just did one, two in fact including shirime's even though I missed that.

For further consideration perhaps a Rossini overture or a Dvořák symphonic poem? Or Mendelssohn's Die Hebriden overture or Schubert's Rosamunde overture if we prefer Austro-German? Or even Ravel's La Valse (or Bolero even though it has got no music in it but the timings could divide opinions.)


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> Merl, which disc is your Karajan/BPO Leonore III included in? DG included only a 65 and an 85 with the BPO in their complete Karajan edition. (Even though DG did exclude some other recordings that they had released in the past but that's another story.) On the other hand, EMI included only one in their box, but with the Philharmonia recorded in 53. Wondering if there is another source...


Ahh, it seems you are right. I have the Karajan Symphony Edition (77 cycle) and I always assumed the Leonore 3 on disc 3 was recorded about the same time, but I've just looked and you are right. It's copyrighted (in small text on the back page) as 1966! That's the one I meant, anyway. Can't believe I never spotted that (and it sounds later, tbh).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> What's the criteria? I'm imagining -
> A piece around 10 to 20 mins approximately;
> Contains enough music;
> Preferably central repertoire so that most people will be familiar with;
> ...


Great suggestions, Kiki. Yeah. Piece no more than 15mins really (and preferably shorter than that). A Dvorak tone poem would be a bit long (all about 20mins). I might go with the Capriccio if that suits. A bit shorter (11mins max unless you're Celi - he probably dragged it out to 2 hours)! I've got loads of those to go at. Sound good?


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2018)

Something from the 2nd Viennese School might be a good one to do.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

shirime said:


> Something from the 2nd Viennese School might be a good one to do.


Depends on how many versions are available of certain works. Really it needs to be a very popular and well-recorded piece (more than 20 different accounts at least) so we're not limited to a small number of recordings (that are more recognisable). I'll have a look at other options later but if you have any more suggestions, fire away!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> OK, so onto our winner and it's a man who specialised in Beethoven Overtures. This guy produced two LvB cycles that I don't care for too much. He was inconsistent, often OTT and is adored by many and vilified by others. Recording E was from a live (honestly, it's hard to tell) recording of various Beethoven works from this set.
> 
> View attachment 108941
> 
> ...


I totally disagree about the 5th from the 1976 Amnesty concert. I think it is the greatest stereo 5th ever recorded. Carlos Kleiber's version leaves me cold my comparison.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll advance the notion that the next project not be orchestral - perhaps an organ work or a popular movement from a chamber work or keyboard sonata.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> I'll advance the notion that the next project not be orchestral - perhaps an organ work or a popular movement from a chamber work or keyboard sonata.


Ooh, sounds like a plan! I like the idea of a chamber piece, in particular. Any suggestions, Bulldog? Remember it's gotta be summat with multiple versions.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I totally disagree about the 5th from the 1976 Amnesty concert. I think it is the greatest stereo 5th ever recorded. Carlos Kleiber's version leaves me cold my comparison.


Opinions are what make us all different, Brahmsianhorn (and this comparative study has certainly proved that). Glad you enjoy Bernstein's very individual 5th (it's certainly not boring) and thanks for your involvement in the thread. I wish more people would get involved in these studies! .


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Merl said:


> Ooh, sounds like a plan! I like the idea of a chamber piece, in particular. Any suggestions, Bulldog? Remember it's gotta be summat with multiple versions.


Dvorak's Piano Quartet no. 1 (1st movement) - 14 versions on ArkivMusic.
Brahms - Violin Sonata no. 1 (1st movement) - over 100 versions.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> ... Personally, I think he'd be perpetually spinning in his grave after hearing what Celi did to them, especially the Eroica. ... Scherchen's Pastoral sets off like he's driving a formula one car through the countryside but he slows down and then speeds up again, giving the feeling that its not too fast. It also makes it more thrilling.


I have a Celi joke. _I heard him playing Prokofiev 5 in concert back in around 1993 and it's still ringing in my ears._ Both supporters and detractors can take this positively by interpreting it in different ways.

Seriously, I'm intrigued about Scherchen. Only know his Mahler (which I like, except the cuts!). Googled a few complete Beethoven of his. Is there a particular set that you're referring to?

(I hope he was driving a Merc, as speeding up and slowing down (amid involuntarily) sounds like a Ferrari to me. :lol


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

What about Kreutzer Sonata, 1st mov.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

There's two Scherchen cycles. Both were available through Tahra but since they stopped trading I dunno what's happened with the rights to these (Scherchen's family part-owned Tahra). The Westminster studio cycle of the 50s is recorded with 2 different orchestras (LPO under a pseudonym and Vienna State) and should be heard. His Live Lugano 65 cycle is roughly recorded with an inferior orchestra but you should hear it to believe some of the speeds. The 8th is mental!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

jdec said:


> What about Kreutzer Sonata, 1st mov.


Great suggestion!!!!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Merl said:


> Great suggestion!!!!


If you want Beethoven followed by another Beethoven.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> If you want Beethoven followed by another Beethoven.


True. Anyone would think I'm Beethoven obsessed.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> And that's why I don't think it was Nanut's. Nanut's Beethoven has a very clear vision and if there was something Nanut knew how to do it was to keep the forward momentum. That recording doesn't have that drive. Also Nanut's Beethoven is pretty brisk. Only 50‰ of those recordings on the budget labels were actually made by Nanut. The rest are the product of Scholtz's imagination. Personally I think that's a Scholtz performance with a scratch East European orchestra!
> Anyway Leonore C (fluteman's favourite) was from this set of symphonies. Surprised, flutey? It's Muti and the Philadelphians. IMO, it's not a bad performance and Muti let's the music flow quite organically. The remaining two performances (and on balance the most liked) are not from cycles. Leonore G and E to follow.
> 
> View attachment 108936


No, I'm not surprised. The Muti was one of those I was going to listen to and see if it matched. Then I could come back here and "guess" right, but really, who cares what I'm able to guess, not even me. I need to get back to Philly and hear them in their new venue. The old Academy of Music was a hoot, truly like going back to the 19th century, and of course, it's still there.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Merl said:


> OK, so onto our winner and it's a man who specialised in Beethoven Overtures. This guy produced two LvB cycles that I don't care for too much. He was inconsistent, often OTT and is adored by many and vilified by others. Recording E was from a live (honestly, it's hard to tell) recording of various Beethoven works from this set.
> 
> View attachment 108941
> 
> ...


When you said it was "controversial" I knew right away you almost surely meant Bernstein. Other than the HIP types, I can't think of another controversial Beethoven interpreter, at least in the stereo era.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Incidentally, Ive been doing some detective work regarding Leonore F. The same recording is attributed to Alfred Scholz and the LPO (didn't happen) and Albert Lizzio & the LSO (Lizzio, as we know, is a pseudonym). The recording is exactly the same in each case. As i said earlier in the thread, this one is usually attributed to Nanut and various orchestras (RSO Ljubljana, Ljubljana SO, Slovenian Symphony Orchestra).one thing is for sure it's a European Orchestra but it definitely doesnt sound like Nanut (i know his Beethoven symphony recordings well). One person ive spoken to is sure this is one of Scholtz's own with either the Austrian Radio Orchestra or his Southwest German Philharmonic (however, he allegedly accredited the best performances to himself, regardless of whether he'd conducted in them or not) and agrees it's not Nanut. Another Beethoven devotee i spoke to reckons it's a performance by a (pretty decent) scratch orchestra or that it's a bootlegged run-through performance from a Hungarian source (possibly the Budapest SO). The truth is no-one knows (or cares too much). I think i agree its one of Scoltz's. It definitely sounds like his other Beethoven performances.


----------

