# Brahms: Symphony #4 in E minor, op. 98



## science

Brahms's fourth is one of the most beloved and popular symphonies; it must be one of the highlights of Brahms's amazing career. Wikipedia has a nice article about it, including a little analysis that amounts to a nice listening guide, particularly to the 4th movement.

One thing not mentioned there: March 7, 1897 was the last time Brahms heard his own music performed in concert. He'd been diagnosed with cancer, he sometimes felt too sick to go out, and he knew the end was near. On that date, Hans Richter conducted this symphony, and Brahms received a standing ovation, which moved him to tears. It's a poignant moment in the life of a great composer.

Anyway, do you like this symphony? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?

And of course, what are your favorite recordings? You can find some excellent recommendations in Trout's blog post on this work.


----------



## Larkenfield

The tango in the finale!


----------



## CnC Bartok

Of course, it's a Titan among Symphonies! I'd struggle to describe it as beloved, though, it is an immensely harrowing listen, or can be. The final movement is almost devoid of music, albeit jaw-droppingly awesome, but it leaves me drained. I think it's Brahms's best Symphony, with absolutely no disrespect to the other three.

Kleiber is an obvious favourite, but I'd also add Eugen Jochum's London recording, Klemperer, and for an understated but incredibly satisfying and musical rendition, Belohlavek.


----------



## Marsilius

Mengelberg's recording with the Concertgebouw Orchestra is, in my view, unsurpassed. The first movement is especially impressive. It's available very cheaply on the Naxos Historical label.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I love it. Absolutely love it. The only reservation, a very minor one, is that the slow section of the 4th movement, although technically awesome, can be a bit tedious to listen to. 

I've listened to over a dozen performances and Kleiber is by far the best one.


----------



## Heck148

A great work, that builds beautifully from movement to movement, culminating in the great chaconne-finale, a true marvel of composition.
Toscanini/NBC and Reiner/RoyalPO are the best I've ever heard...Solti/CSO is very fine also.


----------



## Art Rock

My favourite symphony of the four, and one of the best works of one of the greatest composers imo. I normally don't care for comparing different versions - I have Karajan (DG), Boult (EMI), and Gardiner (DG), all sound fine to me.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Though Brahms has been my favorite composer for over 60 years, I've never enjoyed the final movement of the Fourth Symphony as much as its first three movements. Nonetheless, Klemperer/Philharmonia, Walter/Columbia Symphony, Van Beinum/Amsterdam Concertgebouw and Kertesz/Vienna Philharmonic continue to be my top choices. If I had to pick one set only, it would be Klemperer's.


----------



## Merl

I like Brahms' 4th a lot (but prefer his 2nd and 3rd). Its a dark, melancholic piece but thats what i like about it. Of sll the recordings i have (around 100 i reckon) its tough to say my favoufite is (as it changes often) but Levine/CSO, Dohnanyi/Cleveland, Sanderling/Dresden, Klemperer, Kleiber, Jochum, Giulini CSO and as a dark horse, Loughran.


----------



## Judith

Love his symphony no 4 as I do most of his works. Like the first movement best with the gentle introduction. Favourite recording, Riccardo Muti and Philadelphia Orchestra.


----------



## amfortas

Judith said:


> Love his symphony no 4 as I do most of his works. Like the first movement best with the gentle introduction.


There's an introduction?


----------



## MarkW

Which Brahms symphony I feel like listening to depends greatly on my mood at the time, but there is no question the 4th is the most elemental and the one you want to save if three of them had to disappear. The coda in the first movementis one of the great leadings-up to the end in all of music. 

My childhood orchestra was the BSO under Leinsdorf, and although he drove a lot of people crazy, his Fourth is actually interpretively very good (although Klemperer's scherzo with its subtle luftpausen is remarkably effective). One of Leinsdorf's quirky theories that works is that each of the variations in the last movement should occupy the same length of time (except the slow ones, which should be twice as long). This does avoid a tafffy-pull, and does away with the pretentious slow-down at the end that never did the music any favors. Wierdest, but not half bad, is a recording that DGG let one of their producers -- Otto Gerdes -- make in the late sixties with the BPO. The balances and voicing are unusual, but they work in a strange way.


----------



## MusicSybarite

My favorite Brahms symphony with no hesitation. It's the only symphony by him where the 4 movements convince me completely. The development of the ideas in the 1st and 4th movements never cease to amaze me. This is one of the greatest symphonic pinnacles. Walter/Columbia (the 1st movement is the best I've ever heard from any recording), Karajan/BPO and Muti/Philadelphia work excellent to me.


----------



## SONNET CLV

So many fine comments here concerning the Brahms Fourth. It remains a symphony dear to my heart. I recall my first hearing of it, from an LP record in a four LP set by Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony. I had known the First for a while prior to purchasing the PSO set, and I listened to symphonies 2 and 3 before turning to the 4th. I enjoyed each of the Brahms symphonies greatly, but the 4th seemed in a class by itself, much closer to the elemental power of the First than to its two middle siblings. Today I'm hard pressed to name a favorite Brahms symphony (I'm happy I know them all), but the Fourth is indeed special, and I return to it often in my listening sessions. And I still have that Command Classics box set of the Brahms 4 Complete Symphonies featuring William Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony. It's a treasure.


----------



## Eramire156

SONNET CLV said:


> So many fine comments here concerning the Brahms Fourth. It remains a symphony dear to my heart. I recall my first hearing of it, from an LP record in a four LP set by Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony. I had known the First for a while prior to purchasing the PSO set, and I listened to symphonies 2 and 3 before turning to the 4th. I enjoyed each of the Brahms symphonies greatly, but the 4th seemed in a class by itself, much closer to the elemental power of the First than to its two middle siblings. Today I'm hard pressed to name a favorite Brahms symphony (I'm happy I know them all), but the Fourth is indeed special, and I return to it often in my listening sessions. And I still have that Command Classics box set of the Brahms 4 Complete Symphonies featuring William Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony. It's a treasure.
> 
> View attachment 106951


I love that set Brahms Symphonies, I recently purchased this set, and it already one favorite Brahms cycles


----------



## Room2201974

The 4th is the first symphony that I got into, studied, and fell in love with. I've heard it so many times that I burnt out on it long ago. But I think it's truly a monumental work. That lovely theme of the first movement built on thirds and sixths.......the 2nd movement that has no development section...the wonderful set of variations in the last movement. Good stuff there I think.

The latter works of Brahms, as with the latter works of Beethoven, show a process of "distillation." Brahms on compositional steriods! He got "better" over time. I'm currently in love with Op 115, the Clarinet Quintet in B minor!


----------



## EdwardBast

The first movement is a marvel. The thematic material is rich and flexible, maybe inexhaustible. So many different facets are explored and new transformations and permutations are still coming in the coda, making it, IMO, one of the most dynamic opening movements Brahms wrote. I could, but won't, rave about the rest of the symphony too. Great orchestration. A wonderful, dark jewel of a work.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

SONNET CLV said:


> I still have that Command Classics box set of the Brahms 4 Complete Symphonies featuring William Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony. It's a treasure.
> 
> View attachment 106951





Eramire156 said:


> I love that set Brahms Symphonies, I recently purchased this set, and it already one favorite Brahms cycles


I agree with both of you. Steinberg's Brahms is very fine. I once had the pleasure of talking with him backstage following a concert he gave with the Pittsburgh Symphony at Florida State University. He was a gregarious man, with a marvelous sense of humor.


----------



## Room2201974

Haydn67 said:


> I agree with both of you. Steinberg's Brahms is very fine. I once had the pleasure of talking with him backstage following a concert he gave with the Pittsburgh Symphony at Florida State University. He was a gregarious man, with a marvelous sense of humor.


Did you study at FSU?


----------



## GraemeG

Someone once said that there were three symphonies that end in catastrophe & despair: Mahler 6, Sibelius 4 and Brahms 4. Brahms 4 doesn't have one note that could be added to improve it, nor one taken away. I've played it only once but was in awe - as ever with Brahms - of the architecture. I've lived with Kleiber's recording for years too, and it would be hard to top. 

I'm going to buy a ticket to hear Barenboim & the Berlin SK play it later this year. So far, I struggle to recall a live performance which has ever truly grabbed me. I suspect it's not an easy work to bring off. I heard Solti/CSO do it thirty years ago, which was the most memorable. Since then, I heard live performances by Giulini (VPO), Previn (RPO), Hans Vonk (Sydney SO), Gergiev (VPO) which haven't ever quite caught fire somehow. Gergiev was only twelve years ago. There may have been other I don't have the programs from, but I certainly don't recall the performances.

Brahms may not have been the most gifted, or natural of composers (Schubert, Mozart, Mendelssohn). But it's the craftsmanship, the professionalism (in the best sense), the way it works so well, that wins me over. The refusal to publish anything second rate. There's a lot to admire.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Heck148

SONNET CLV said:


> And I still have that Command Classics box set of the Brahms 4 Complete Symphonies featuring William Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony. It's a treasure.
> 
> View attachment 106951


Steinberg/PittsSO Brahms set on Command - very fine set, for sure....TMK, these never made it to CD [??]


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Room2201974 said:


> Did you study at FSU?


Yes, while majoring in government during a good portion of the 1960s. During that time, Hungarian composer Ernst Von Dohnanyi was Professor of Music there, as was Richard Burgin, former concertmaster of the Boston Symphony. Ellen Taafe (now Ellen Taafe Zwilich), who I saw perform while there, also graduated from the FSU School of Music. She later became the first female composer to win the Pulitzer Prize for Music.


----------



## Enthusiast

I love all of the Brahms symphonies but 3 and 4 are my favourites. For 4 there are many recordings I would be extremely reluctant to live without -

Abbado
Harnoncourt
Karajan 
Kempe (Munich PO - available in an unmissable bargain box with live accounts of Klemperer's Beethoven)
Sanderling
Svetlanov
Walter

And also the Toscanini recording made live in London (for example, from Pristine).

There are other good ones (Klemperer, Kleiber, Szell ...) but with those above I would probably have the work covered for now.


----------



## Pyotr

The Philadelphia Orchestra plays Brahms symphonies often. They usually perform one or two, but a couple season's ago they played all four. It was great. There's nothing like sitting in the conductors circle listening to one of these masterpieces. 
As far as which one I like the best it's hard to say, but #4 is as good as any of them


----------



## CnC Bartok

Heck148 said:


> Steinberg/PittsSO Brahms set on Command - very fine set, for sure....TMK, these never made it to CD [??]


There's a Brahms First in the Steinberg EMI Icon box set, but the other three Symphonies are absent.....

I found a CD set on Amazon UK, on the MCA (?) Label, says Steinberg/Pittsburgh, but the sole review refers to Eschenbach! £105 if you are willing to take the risk!


----------



## Josquin13

I first heard the Brahms 4th via Eugen Jochum's EMI recording with the London Philharmonic. I still value that performance (& imprinted on it), but over the years have come to enjoy a number of other Brahms 4ths: from conductors C. Kleiber, Walter, Kertesz, Jochum Berlin, Sanderling Dresden (Eurodisc), Haitink RCO (Philips), and Masur. Yet, I've recently discovered a Brahms quote that has made me reconsider how I view Brahms symphonies, and how they are best conducted and performed:

When conductor Pierre Monteux was a teenager he played in a string quartet called the Geloso Quartet, which performed a Brahms quartet privately for the composer in Vienna. Afterwards, Brahms remarked to Monteux,

"It takes the French to play my music properly. The Germans all play it much too heavily." (Canarina, p. 24)

Brahms comment is a significant clue about how he wanted his music to be played--i.e., in a more classical vein; in contrast to the heavy thickness and slowness of the late Romantic German conductors. Judging by the comment, it doesn't seem very likely that Brahms would have been overly keen on the conducting of Wilhelm Fürtwangler, Karl Böhm, Otto Klemperer, and Herbert von Karajan in his symphonies, who were all be prone to heavy, thick, slow "late Romantic" performances.

While Monteux is thought of as a French specialist--having given the world premieres of important new works by Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky, etc. (a total of 19 significant premieres in Paris), it was the music of Brahms that meant the most to Monteux. He loved Brahms above all other composers. Yet, surprisingly, Monteux's Brahms conducting divided critics: some raved about his Brahms, such as William Mann, who said that Monteux was a "supremely authoritative" Brahms conductor, while others, such as Neville Cardus criticized Monteux's Brahms for not being in accordance with the heavy Germanic approach. Cardus wrote,

"In Germanic music Monteux, naturally enough, missed harmonic weight and the right heavily lunged tempo. His rhythm, for example, was a little too pointed for, say, Brahms or Schumann." (Jonathan Swain, "Reputations-Pierre Monteux", Gramophone, January 1998, p. 35)

Unfortunately, the record companies, such as the Decca company, took their cue from Cardus, as they only invited Monteux to record Brahms 2nd symphony over the course of his long career. Which shows how prevalent the Germanic understanding, or rather misunderstanding was--if we take our cue from Brahms himself--of Brahms symphonies during the late Romantic era. Granted, there were German conductors that took a more classical or Haydn-like approach to Brahms, such as Walter & Masur (as the Leipzig Gewandhaus tradition was more closely linked to the classical era of Beethoven and to Mendelssohn than to the late romantic era), but they weren't the norm.

With that said, Monteux expressed a dislike for making studio recordings:

"You may give an excellently played, genuinely felt performance of a movement, but because the engineer is not satisfied because there is some rustling at one point, so you do it again and this time something else goes wrong. By the time you get a "perfect" take of the recording the players are bored, the conductor is bored, and the performance is lifeless and boring. ... I detest all my own records. (The Times, March 1959.)

Therefore it's probably best to turn to Monteux's live recordings of Brahms. I tend to most enjoy Monteux's live recordings myself, as the studio recordings are sometimes a bit staid & boring, as Monteux admitted. Fortunately, there are live Monteux performances of the Brahms 1st, 3rd, & 4th symphonies that have appeared on CD.

Here's a live Monteux recording of the 4th that I expect Brahms lovers won't want to miss, especially in light of Brahms' comment to Monteux:










Judging by his comment to the young Monteux, I think Brahms would have liked this performance enormously.


----------



## Merl

If you want a Brahms 4th thats not too heavy, has fantastic inner detail and superb recorded sound you should listen to Ticciati's account. It's very impressive (and reminiscent of Mackerras) .


----------



## Over the Rainbow

One of my preferred symphony
- Schuricht Bavarian Radio Symphonie Orchestra 1961
- Karajan 78 & Kleiber


----------



## SONNET CLV

Eramire156 said:


> I love that set Brahms Symphonies, I recently purchased this set, and it already one favorite Brahms cycles


Glad to hear you approve of this set.
I see in my collection that I have the CD pressings on the MEMORIES REVERENCE label (MR2249/2250), but I haven't listened to them yet, even after several years of owning the set, since my LPs are still in great shape and I tend to prefer vinyl.


----------



## jegreenwood

Tidal has Steinberg's Brahms 4th. In hi-rez even (MQA).

Someone should check Spotify.

Edit - also available on CD from Presto.


----------



## science

Here is a brief but interesting discussion about allusions to Beethoven in this symphony.


----------



## DavidA

I am not a huge fan of Brahms' symphonies but I have got a few recordings of this, among whom Stokowski in his 90th year is incredibly vital. Karajan from his 1977 set is good but C Kleiber is on fire with this work.


----------



## PeterF

All 4 of Brahm’s symphonies are high on my list.
These are all versions I very much enjoy.

Walter / Columbia Symphony
Klemperer / Philharmonia Orch.
Jochum / London Philharmonic
Carlos Kleiber / Vienna Philharmonic
Giulini / Los Angeles Philharmonic
Haitink / London Symphony


----------



## ccar

Carlos Kleiber famous "studio" Brahms 4th was recorded by DG in 1980, with the Vienna Philharmonic. But there are at least 7 other live versions of the 4th by C. Kleiber, in a variety of labels or private recordings, including a video from a 1996 concert with the Bavarian Orchestra, also available in a DG DVD. 
Personally, I tend to prefer Carlos Kleiber live recordings where sound quality is not impressive but I usually feel a less polished and more intense dramatic impulse. The video from 1996 is very interesting to see, those who want to listen a more "rugged" Carlos may try listening his 1994 concert with the Berlin Philharmonic and there is even a wonderful recording of his 1979 Vienna performance - that probably inspired the studio recording the following year. However, for the Brahms 4th I believe it is very difficult to match the power and energy of his 1980 studio recording. To go further we may need to deep dive into Furtwangler's revelatory and probably unmatched 1943 recording.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The 1943 Furtwangler is very fine, but I think a more intense recorded performance was 1949 in Wiesbaden, coupled with an equally great Mozart G minor.

Top choices:

Wilhelm Furtwängler (1949) (Tahra, Preiser, Seven Seas)
Felix Weingartner (EMI, Living Era, Andante)
Arturo Toscanini (1935) (EMI, Arkadia)
Carlos Kleiber (DG)
Claudio Abbado (DG)

Additional listening:

Wilhelm Furtwängler (1943) (Tahra, Music & Arts)
Wilhelm Furtwängler (1948) (EMI)
Arturo Toscanini (live 1952) (Testament)
Victor de Sabata (DG, Andante)
Leopold Stokowski (BBC)
Fritz Reiner (Chesky)
Rudolf Kempe (Testament)
Eugen Jochum (EMI)


----------



## ccar

The joy of listening to music is much more than a pleasure of the senses or an intellectual exercise. It may evoke our emotions, memories or even personal experiences. That's why all great works or artists may touch us in a deep way. With music and particularly when we are only listening to recordings and not to a live performance, there is always a sense of representation that we may also build with our imagination.

With old recordings the quality of the sound may sometimes be difficult or almost impossible to overcome but many times the "music" we get from the old masters may bring much more than with many digital performances. In some cases, we may even get a sense of the particular time of an historical performance and get a kind of emotional atmosphere of the moment.

These personal comments are brought by the mention to the Furtwangler 1943 versus 1949 recordings of the Brahms 4th. The overall sound quality is much better in the take of 1949 and it is indeed a very good, more polished and straightforward performance, with lots of the inner tension that Furtwangler could infuse. But I am still more moved with the fantastic drama of the 1943, full of darker colors, overbearing silences and so many unusual dynamics in the phrasing. Maybe it's only in my imagination or perhaps there is something from those Berlin war days that passes through into the music.

_During the war she (Maria Yudina) had given The Well-Tempered Clavier at a splendid concert, even if she polished off the contemplative Prelude in B-flat minor from Book Two at a constant fortissimo. At the end of the concert, Neuhaus, whom I was accompanying, went to congratulate her in her dressing-room.
'But, Maria Veniaminovna,' he asked her, 'why did you play the B-flat minor Prelude in such a dramatic way?' 
'Because we are at war!'

(from Sviatoslav Richter Notebooks)

_


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I listened to the Klemperer last week, and I found it to be an example where for me the monumental, plodding-forward approach does not work. This is a symphony that needs to move, and by that I don't mean be played at a fast tempo. What I mean is it needs flexibility and dynamism. Klemperer is kind of like a person on the dance floor who simply bobs up and down. Sometimes the unwavering commitment to a single pulse works, even casts a spell. In the case of such a complex, varied piece like the Brahms 4th I think it does not work so well.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ccar said:


> Maybe it's only in my imagination or perhaps there is something from those Berlin war days that passes through into the music.


My three favorite Furtwangler recordings are all from those dark WWII days - Beethoven's 9th and Coriolan overture, and Bruckner's 8th - and I have no doubt the circumstances bled into the intensity of the music-making. They needed it more than ever.

I will add that post-war Germany was no picnic either. Furtwangler's amazing 1947 Beethoven 5th, his first concert after the war, inspired such an emotional response from the audience that the American authorities feared a riot. I have no doubt that the emotions were largely to do with reclaiming their culture and way of life again after having their country decimated.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ccar said:


> These personal comments are brought by the mention to the Furtwangler 1943 versus 1949 recordings of the Brahms 4th. The overall sound quality is much better in the take of 1949 and it is indeed a very good, more polished and straightforward performance, with lots of the inner tension that Furtwangler could infuse. But I am still more moved with the fantastic drama of the 1943, full of darker colors, overbearing silences and so many unusual dynamics in the phrasing.


Every Furtwängler recording has something different and unique to offer. I compared these two again today. Yes, the 1943 is quite dark and eloquent. I think for me what really separates the 1949 is the final movement. It is cataclysmic. The offbeat chords at the return of the main theme sound like jarring thunderbolts. Maybe it also helps that I have the Tahra remastering. It is just such an energetic concert where Furtwängler was really on.

In fact, this makes my list of Top 30 Furtwängler recordings (yes, I'm that much of a fan):

1. Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 (3/22/42)
2. Brahms, Symphony No. 1: 4th movement (1945)
3. Bruckner, Symphony No. 8 (1944)
4. Beethoven, Coriolan overture (1943)
5. Wagner, Tristan und Isolde (1952)
6. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5 (5/25/1947)
7. Brahms, Symphony No. 1 (1951)
8. Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 (1944)
9. Bruckner, Symphony No. 9 (1944)
10. Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen excerpts (1937)
11. Brahms, Symphony No. 4/Mozart, Symphony No. 40 (1949)
12. Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6 (Pathetique) (1951)
13. Schubert, Symphonies Nos. 8 & 9 (1953)
14. Mozart, Don Giovanni (1953)
15. Beethoven, Symphony No. 6 (Pastoral) (5/23/54)
16. Brahms, Symphony No. 2 (1945)
17. Schumann, Symphony No. 4 (1953)
18. Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen (1950)
19. Beethoven, Symphonies Nos. 7 & 8 (5/53)
20. Bruckner, Symphony No. 5 (1942)
21. Brahms, Requiem (1947)
22. Beethoven, Fidelio (1953 live)
23. R. Strauss, Sinfonia domestica (1944)
24. Beethoven, Symphony No. 4 (1943)
25. Brahms, Symphony No. 3 (1954)
26. Bruckner, Symphony No. 7 (5/1/51)
27. Haydn, Symphony No. 88 (12/5/1951)
28. R. Strauss, Till Eulenspiegel's lustige Streiche (1943)
29. Bruckner, Symphony No. 4/Schumann, Symphony No. 1 (10/29/51)
30. Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 5


----------



## DavidA

ccar said:


> The joy of listening to music is much more than a pleasure of the senses or an intellectual exercise. It may evoke our emotions, memories or even personal experiences. That's why all great works or artists may touch us in a deep way. With music and particularly when we are only listening to recordings and not to a live performance, there is always a sense of representation that we may also build with our imagination.
> 
> With old recordings the quality of the sound may sometimes be difficult or almost impossible to overcome but many times the "music" we get from the old masters may bring much more than with many digital performances. In some cases, we may even get a sense of the particular time of an historical performance and get a kind of emotional atmosphere of the moment.
> 
> These personal comments are brought by the mention to the Furtwangler 1943 versus 1949 recordings of the Brahms 4th. The overall sound quality is much better in the take of 1949 and it is indeed a very good, more polished and straightforward performance, with lots of the inner tension that Furtwangler could infuse. *But I am still more moved with the fantastic drama of the 1943, full of darker colors, overbearing silences and so many unusual dynamics in the phrasing. Maybe it's only in my imagination or perhaps there is something from those Berlin war days that passes through into the music.*
> 
> _During the war she (Maria Yudina) had given The Well-Tempered Clavier at a splendid concert, even if she polished off the contemplative Prelude in B-flat minor from Book Two at a constant fortissimo. At the end of the concert, Neuhaus, whom I was accompanying, went to congratulate her in her dressing-room.
> 'But, Maria Veniaminovna,' he asked her, 'why did you play the B-flat minor Prelude in such a dramatic way?'
> 'Because we are at war!'
> 
> (from Sviatoslav Richter Notebooks)
> 
> _


Probably from your imagination, I would think. The notes are the same.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Probably from your imagination, I would think. The notes are the same.


I get the sense maybe that you don't hear the emotion in music performance. It's there. Many of us hear it. We also hear when it's not there.

Music is not just notes and rhythms. As a professional performer for 20 years I can attest to that.


----------



## DavidA

I must confess I can never quite see the fascination some people have with elderly recordings where you can`t hear half the notes, especially when there are classic performances from people like Kleiber and a terrific one from Stokowski (if you want a previous generation) all in very good sound.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> I must confess I can never quite see the fascination some people have with elderly recordings where you can`t hear half the notes, especially when there are classic performances from people like Kleiber and a terrific one from Stokowski (if you want a previous generation) all in very good sound.


I already have this with pre 60's recordings or with deplorable more recent recordings like Italian radio issues or Russian orchestra recordings. If the orchestra sounds like from a tin can, I can't connect. From the early recordings, I actually only treasure Furtwanglers Tristan (EMI), Yudina's piano recordings and Horensteins Mahler (which are even recorded around 1970, but somehow sound like earlier recordings).

Back in the hay day of CD, you could release and sell just about anything.

Fortunately there are enough modern recordings of all kinds of works that share artistic value and great sound quality


----------



## NLAdriaan

science said:


> Brahms's fourth is one of the most beloved and popular symphonies
> 
> And of course, what are your favorite recordings?


And yes, Carlos Kleibers studio recording with WPO is my absolute favourite.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I already have this with pre 60's recordings or with deplorable more recent recordings like Italian radio issues or Russian orchestra recordings. If the orchestra sounds like from a tin can, I can't connect. From the early recordings, I actually only treasure Furtwanglers Tristan (EMI), Yudina's piano recordings and Horensteins Mahler (which are even recorded around 1970, but somehow sound like earlier recordings).
> 
> Back in the hay day of CD, you could release and sell just about anything.
> 
> Fortunately there are enough modern recordings of all kinds of works that share artistic value and great sound quality


The Furtwangler Tristan is in pretty good sound actually, having been made by Legge. Actually most of his recordings from that period are very listenable to - Sabata's Tosca, Karajan's opera recordings, etc.. Not modern sound but quite tolerable.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> The Furtwangler Tristan is in pretty good sound actually, having been made by Legge. Actually most of his recordings from that period are very listenable to - Sabata's Tosca, Karajan's opera recordings, etc.. Not modern sound but quite tolerable.


I do absolutely agree with Legge's great qualities and would like to add to that John Culshaws work for Decca in the sixties, the next level of recording.


----------



## NLAdriaan

And back on topic to Brahms 4, the Passacaglia form of the fourth movement strikes me most, again especially in the electric version of Carlos Kleiber. The dance format from the 17th century is IMO served best with the dance-like approach that Kleiber gets out of the Wiener Philharmoniker. A few weeks ago I went to the Concertgebouw to hear Haitink conduct the Concertgebouw in Brahms 4. However impressive, for me it just didn't match Kleiber almost 40 years ago.

Interesting to find that where Brahms stopped, Webern started with his Passacaglia opus 1. Boulez with the Berliner gives us a swinging Webern (if at all possible in his account of opus 1.

Wonderful that this music is so readily available for us to enjoy in all kind of approaches!


----------



## Merl

Kleiber, Levine, Skrowaczewski..... So many great 4ths.....so little time to listen to them all.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I do absolutely agree with Legge's great qualities and would like to add to that* John Culshaws* work for Decca in the sixties, the next level of recording.


Absolutely! Some of these recordings sound incredibly modern.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I must confess I can never quite see the fascination some people have with elderly recordings where you can`t hear half the notes, especially when there are classic performances from people like Kleiber and a terrific one from Stokowski (if you want a previous generation) all in very good sound.


Didn't you just recently say on a previous thread that you are an admirer of the 1941 Horowitz/Barbirolli Rachmaninoff 3rd? That is an atrocious sounding recording, much worse quality than the Furtwanglers under discussion here. What do you see in that recording when you can easily acquire Argerich in much better sound, or even Horowitz himself with Reiner?


----------



## ccar

DavidA said:


> Probably from your imagination, I would think. The notes are the same.











I can always imagine different versions of the "same notes" - early mono, early stereo, modern stereo and digital


----------



## Larkenfield

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Didn't you just recently say on a previous thread that you are an admirer of the 1941 Horowitz/Barbirolli Rachmaninoff 3rd? That is an atrocious sounding recording, much worse quality than the Furtwanglers under discussion here. What do you see in that recording when you can easily acquire Argerich in much better sound, or even Horowitz himself with Reiner?


The sound quality, though not great, improves as the performance continues. It doesn't help that this isn't a particularly good digital transfer because of its somewhat bright and metallic sound, suggesting that the original lp had a warmer, better sound. The recording is a valuable opportunity to hear Horowitz when he was in his 30s rather than in his 70's. The tempos and Horowitz's interpretive abilities are on full display in a concerto that he loved and so often played. Horowitz was one of Rachmaninoff's favorite pianists-they were close friends-which says something about both the composer and the pianist that might be of particular interest historically.

For those familiar with both Argerich and Horowitz, the only thing similar is the notes they play but not necessarily the interpretation, and perhaps Horowitz has greater insight into this marvelous concerto from hearing Rachmaninoff play it personally.

When a performance is exceptional-and I'd say this one is-some listeners are able to forget the limitations of sound quality; they can hear past that to what's important: the spirit and intentions behind the performance, whether all the details can be heard compared to modern sound.

There are many reasons to hear a recording like this that are hard to put into words regardless of its technical limitations. If one starts with the recordings of today or goes back only a few years, contemporary listeners may have no idea of the background that went into the modern recordings of today. Many of these vintage recordings that people consider trash in sound quality were the very ones that shaped someone like Dudamel and others, and there are listeners who are curious about what recordings the modern conductors of today may have been influenced by.

But it takes a sufficient degree of _curiosity_ to get to the heart of the music of these older so-called crappy sounding recordings-and sometimes the surface noise can be awful-and hear past the technical limitations, recordings that are sometimes too easily dismissed and transcend the limitations of the technical shortcomings that younger listeners simply aren't used to because they've been spoiled by digital recordings.

Nevertheless, if one is interested in the history of the music and its evolution, there is a great advantage to hearing these vintage recordings that often have qualities that have been passed on today, or perhaps never duplicated, such as the use of the portamentos in the string section in some contemporary recordings that were more commonly used in the Mahler performances of 70 or 80 years ago. Its use comes from the era of vintage recordings and passed on to now. A good example is Willem Mengelberg's outstanding live performance in 1939 of the Mahler 4th, with Mendelberg being a former colleague of the composer. The sound quality is outstanding and so is the interpretation and its details.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Larkenfield said:


> The recording is a valuable opportunity to hear Horowitz when he was 36 rather than when he was in his 70's. The tempos and Horowitz's interpretive abilities are on full display in a concerto that he loved and so often played. Horowitz was one of Rachmaninoff's favorite pianists-they were close friends-which says something about both the composer and the pianist that might be of particular interest historically.


Absolutely agree. I think the Horowitz/Barbirolli Rach 3rd is the greatest concerto recording in existence.

I was having a bit of fun with DavidA for poo-pooing "elderly" recordings after having just sung the praises of this Horowitz Rach 3rd. Of course great musicianship transcends sonic limitations. Most of us here know that, and even DavidA knows that.


----------



## DavidA

ccar said:


> View attachment 113223
> 
> 
> I can always imagine different versions of the "same notes" - early mono, early stereo, modern stereo and digital


But you have different paintings not the same notes!


----------



## ccar

DavidA said:


> But you have different paintings not the same notes!


Actually the "same notes" from these paintings may be found in Luke 24:30-31

_"When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight."_

In music, like painting, sculpture or literature, the "same notes" can indeed have different readings over the centuries, sometimes even from the same interpreter - like two beautiful (but different!) Caravaggios above.


----------



## DavidA

ccar said:


> Actually the "same notes" from these paintings may be found in Luke 24:30-31
> 
> _"When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight."_
> 
> In music, like painting, sculpture or literature, the "same notes" can indeed have different readings over the centuries, sometimes even from the same interpreter - like two beautiful (but different!) Caravaggios above.


Yes I did realise it was the supper at Emmaus. But painted different ways. I had one off the Caravaggios (not the original) on my wall. By you can't compare four different paintings of the same scene to four different interpretations of the same music. Not valid.


----------



## DavidA

_Didn't you just recently say on a previous thread that you are an admirer of the 1941 Horowitz/Barbirolli Rachmaninoff 3rd? That is an atrocious sounding recording, much worse quality than the Furtwanglers under discussion here. What do you see in that recording when you can easily acquire Argerich in much better sound, or even Horowitz himself with Reiner?_

I acquired the Horowitz / Barbirolli as I was curious as to the performance but I would certainly not recommend it to anyone as a first choice. Nor would I say Horowitz was the only one worth having.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> _Didn't you just recently say on a previous thread that you are an admirer of the 1941 Horowitz/Barbirolli Rachmaninoff 3rd? That is an atrocious sounding recording, much worse quality than the Furtwanglers under discussion here. What do you see in that recording when you can easily acquire Argerich in much better sound, or even Horowitz himself with Reiner?_
> 
> I acquired the Horowitz / Barbirolli as I was curious as to the performance but I would certainly not recommend it to anyone as a first choice. Nor would I say Horowitz was the only one worth having.


Completely agree. I recommend Janis/Dorati as a first choice. But strictly as a performance I consider Horowitz/Barbirolli to be the greatest. I value them both.

Just like I recommend the Kleiber Brahms 4th as a first choice but consider the 1949 Furtwängler to be the greatest performance.


----------



## ccar

DavidA said:


> ...I think this shows how differently we react to different interpretations and what a subjective thing it is . Also, the fact there is no definitive recording of these works. To me that's a great thing because it means a great variety of interpretations... .


I can't agree more ...


----------



## NLAdriaan

Larkenfield said:


> Many of these vintage recordings that people consider trash in sound quality were the very ones that shaped someone like *Dudamel* and others, and there are listeners who are curious about what recordings the modern conductors of today may have been influenced by.


Dudamel was born in 1981, which is almost exactly the date that, according to some of the opinions here, the modern era began and most grumpy old conductors had left the stage or had 'ceased to be' . Dudamel was shaped by Dutoit and Rattle, themselves not even from the old era. It seems unlikely that Dudamel even had time to listen to all the historic recordings that we like to discuss here, as he rushed to the conductors stage like Speedy Gonzalez.

In the meantime, you might want to look and listen to this 'modern' Rach 3 in great shape, from the time that Dudamel was still in dipers (at least, I assume) :tiphat::


----------



## StrE3ss

Someone have listen Mravinsky Brahms 4 ?


----------



## Heck148

StrE3ss said:


> Someone have listen Mravinsky Brahms 4 ?


Yes, I have that one...it's good....haven't listened to it in a while, tho....


----------



## ArgumentativeOldGit

I got to know this in my student days, when I bought an audiocassette (remember them?) of the then new recording by Carlos Kleiber, not knowing at the time how legendary this recording would become. That reading has perhaps coloured my view of the work: I still tend to see it as dark, passionate, austere, unyielding. Of course, other interpretations I have heard since have given me different perspectives: I can now see there is much lyricism in it too, and gentle nostalgia and melancholy as well as ferocity. The recording I tend to listen to most nowadays is one from the late 70s with the Venna Philharmonic conducted by Karl Böhm, which is dark and passionate without short-changing the lyricism. But there are so many great recordings, it is invidious to single any out.

I find it fascinating comparing this work to another last symphony of a great symphonist – Tchaikovsky’s 6th (premiered only a few years after Brahms’ 4th). Both are great tragic symphonies, and both were composed by composers in their early 50s; and, curiously, both have 3rd movements that, in a different symphony, could easily have provided a rousing finale. But in both cases, the display of exuberance is followed by tragedy. But how different these finales are! Tchaikovsky’s finale is utterly desolate: towards the end, there is one final passage of heroic striving, but all we are left with afterwards is the music fading away into silence. In contrast, Brahms’ finale seems to be – if it is not too fanciful to describe it thus – a sort of unblinking stare at the sun. It seems to express a determination to face whatever may come, and those final brass fanfares seem like the last trump itself. (Sorry to get so extravagant in my descriptions, but I know of no other way to explain what this music makes me feel.)

For me, personally, these are the two great peaks of the Romantic symphony – the greatest symphonies between Beethoven and Mahler.


----------



## ccar

StrE3ss said:


> Someone have listen Mravinsky Brahms 4 ?


_"I ask you to play with full volume and focus. You shouldn't fall out!"_

Many will not associate Mravinsky with Brahms but he often included the symphonies in his concerts, particularly the Fourth, and also left us quite a few recordings (of all the 4 symphonies) and even an interesting rehearsal video that may shed some light into Mravinsky's approach:






For the Brahms Fourth there are at least 3 different recordings with Mravinsky conducting:

29 Dec 1954, Moscow, USSR State SO - 11.54 / 10:15 / 5:36 / 9:49
14 May 1961, St Petersburg, LPO - 11:54 / 10:01 / 5:44 / 9:56
28 Apr 1973, St Petersburg, LPO - 12:28 / 10:07 / 6:06 / 10:10

The 1973 recording it's a live take but comes in good stereo and is the more widely known. We can easily recognise the lush sound of the old Leningrad Philharmonic, with the characteristic woodwind and "russian brass" colours. For me it's a very architectural "straight" reading, with great attention to precision, clarity, polished orchestral balance and detail but not very dramatic, with no big dynamic effects nor emphatic phrasing. The 1961 is also a live recording in good mono sound. I don't feel this performance much different from the 1973 take: perhaps the orchestral balance and the small dynamic details are less refined but maybe there is a bit more edge and drive. In 1954 the Moscow USSR State Symphony (later directed by the great Eugeny Svetlanov) has not the luxurious opulence of Mravinsky's Philharmonic and the recorded sound is much more compressed. But curiously I feel it is in this 1954 concert that Mravinsky shows a more spontaneous or direct sense of urgency, with a more chiseled but also more expressive phrasing (somehow reminding me of a Toscanini).


----------



## Larkenfield

NLAdriaan said:


> Dudamel was born in 1981, which is almost exactly the date that, according to some of the opinions here, the modern era began and most grumpy old conductors had left the stage or had 'ceased to be' . Dudamel was shaped by Dutoit and Rattle, themselves not even from the old era. It seems unlikely that Dudamel even had time to listen to all the historic recordings that we like to discuss here, as he rushed to the conductors stage like Speedy Gonzalez.
> 
> In the meantime, you might want to look and listen to this 'modern' Rach 3 in great shape, from the time that Dudamel was still in dipers (at least, I assume) :tiphat::


You have _no idea_ of what Dudamel has heard and are wasting the time of the readers by _guessing_ what Dudamel has probably not heard. The point is this: that some of the conductors of today have _heard_ many vintage recordings, which others may turn up their noses at because of the sound quality, that were done_ before their time,_ before they were born, and they were influenced by them... Not every conductor today has heard Furtwangler live, but conductors such as Daniel Barenboim have heard his recordings because he has mentioned his admiration of Furtwangler on different occasions and referred to some of his recordings. The point is not exclusively about Dudamel... But to imagine that Dudamel hasn't heard the vintage recordings of Furtwangler, one of the most esteemed conductors of all time? Well, I don't think so and Furtwangler died in 1954, 27 years before Dudamel was born. The subject has come up for him:

Dudamel in a discussion with Barenboim on Bruckner: "I wanted to start with the Ninth," Dudamel explains, "and I remember Barenboim telling me that the first Furtwängler Bruckner was the Ninth, and also that it was Barenboim's first Bruckner." Now, what are the odds that Dudamel didn't know who Furtwangler was already and hadn't heard some of his soul-shattering vintage recordings? Zero!


----------



## cyberstudio

My vote goes to Giulini/VPO although I heard it only a few times when I was younger. Given the fact that the Symphony ends in catastrophe Giulini's maniac depressive tendency would be a great pairing. Not to mention his weight and seriousness are a perfect fit for Brahms, too.

After that Walter/Columbia of course. There is this sense of urgency and intimacy in his interpretation, without the kind of desolation Giulini depicts.

I didn't really get Jochum(Dresden). If I would rather listen to Abbado than him on this symphony... you know... (Not a big fan of Abbado but he did deliver the goods this time (BPO), plus the recorded sound is amazingly good. It is lighter in mood, which I personally do not prefer, and I especially dislike the almost-happy-ending.)

Celibidache had a great live performance with Munich, too. It was so normal (in a good way) that every now and then I had to check my player - was I really playing Celibidache but not somebody else? His is what I would turn to when I don't feel like putting up with Walter's tape hiss.

Guess what I will buy myself the next month when the complete Giulini DG set will be released?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Pulled out my old Reiner the other day and was reminded of its beauty. One of the best for sure, particularly if you prefer a natural, unforced interpretation. Also a great Egmont Overture thrown in as well.


----------



## Merl

Van Beinum knocked out a top symphony 4, too.


----------



## nospoonboy

Merl said:


> Van Beinum knocked out a top symphony 4, too.


I love Beinum's Brahms recordings!
Does anyone have any information about the following 4ths? I am very interested in the Jochum live with BRSO


----------



## Merl

nospoonboy said:


> I love Beinum's Brahms recordings!
> Does anyone have any information about the following 4ths? I am very interested in the Jochum live with BRSO
> View attachment 120661
> View attachment 120662


Right NSB, ive been doing my homework and those Green hill classical cds are a real oddity. All have absolutely no recording information on them but I spoke to a Brahms enthusiast who reckons the Brahms 4 is the one i linked below. The Mozart is almost definitely nicked from his 1950s Mozart recordings and IS the BRSO. As for the Van Beinum are you sure these are not just bootlegged versions of the Pnillips recordings? If they are earlier i found the cover to a Brahms 3 on CBS from the 1940s but i lost the link and couldnt find it again. Think it was on Van Beinum's discog list over on Discogs (but no recording dates). Anywhere here's the link to the Jochum Brahms 4 / Dresden...hope it helps

https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Concerto-Jochum-Staatskapelle-Dresden/dp/B01BWGG6ZS


----------



## nospoonboy

I have heard from two people who assure me that the Brahms 4 on Green Hill is a broadcast performance with the RCO, not the Staatskapelle Dresden orchestra from the Weitblick release. But without the recording to make a comparison (I have the Weitblick disc) it is hard to say.

There was a Brahms 3 that Beinum did with the RCO in 1951 (the Philips Dutch Masters cycle was a '56 recording). He also recorded Brahms 1 in Sept '51 (on Decca Eloquence) and Oct '51 (in a RCO live box set). But I found no other reference to another recording/broadcast of Brahms 2 or 4 that Beinum did other than the Philips cycle.

I was hoping someone had the discs to verify some of this info. Thanks for your homework! 



Merl said:


> Right NSB, ive been doing my homework and those Green hill classical cds are a real oddity. All have absolutely no recording information on them but I spoke to a Brahms enthusiast who reckons the Brahms 4 is the one i linked below. The Mozart is almost definitely nicked from his 1950s Mozart recordings and IS the BRSO. As for the Van Beinum are you sure these are not just bootlegged versions of the Pnillips recordings? If they are earlier i found the cover to a Brahms 3 on CBS from the 1940s but i lost the link and couldnt find it again. Think it was on Van Beinum's discog list over on Discogs (but no recording dates). Anywhere here's the link to the Jochum Brahms 4 / Dresden...hope it helps
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Concerto-Jochum-Staatskapelle-Dresden/dp/B01BWGG6ZS


----------



## Merl

nospoonboy said:


> I have heard from two people who assure me that the Brahms 4 on Green Hill is a broadcast performance with the RCO, not the Staatskapelle Dresden orchestra from the Weitblick release. But without the recording to make a comparison (I have the Weitblick disc) it is hard to say.
> 
> There was a Brahms 3 that Beinum did with the RCO in 1951 (the Philips Dutch Masters cycle was a '56 recording). He also recorded Brahms 1 in Sept '51 (on Decca Eloquence) and Oct '51 (in a RCO live box set). But I found no other reference to another recording/broadcast of Brahms 2 or 4 that Beinum did other than the Philips cycle.
> 
> I was hoping someone had the discs to verify some of this info. Thanks for your homework!


The plot thickens. Does the Jochum Brahms 4 sound like a radio broadcast? Is it stereo? Intrigued.


----------



## nospoonboy

I am also intrigued by the Jochum Brahms 4...I was looking for a copy to purchase and could not find one. I'm still on the hunt.


----------



## Merl

Im not the only person who thinks that Brahms 4 may be the Dresden one. In a review of Tate's Mozart symphony 30 recording over on Amazon , one buyer says this,
*
"In #30 Tate is equally good, but so are Krips/Philips and the great Eugen Jochum/BRSO/Green Hill (coupled with a Jochum/Dresden Brahms 4)."*


----------



## nospoonboy

Merl said:


> Im not the only person who thinks that Brahms 4 may be the Dresden one. In a review of Tate's Mozart symphony 30 recording over on Amazon , one buyer says this,
> *
> "In #30 Tate is equally good, but so are Krips/Philips and the great Eugen Jochum/BRSO/Green Hill (coupled with a Jochum/Dresden Brahms 4)."*


Oh my dear Sherlock...if only we could get our hands on one and solve the mystery


----------



## nospoonboy

Merl,

I think I have a better culprit for the Green Hill disc. A performance with the RCO from 1/17/76 that has been released on Tahra.


----------



## Merl

nospoonboy said:


> Merl,
> 
> I think I have a better culprit for the Green Hill disc. A performance with the RCO from 1/17/76 that has been released on Tahra.
> View attachment 120737
> View attachment 120738


Possible too. Whatever its almost certainly not the BRSO. Im still going for Dresden. Lol


----------



## Mark Emanuele

I just posted my recording of this magnificiant work on my YouTube Channel:


----------



## Joachim Raff

My favourite is a newer version by BAM and the Tudor label. I love the smaller labels and somewhat overlooked orchestras. But what makes this even better is its actually one of the best i have heard in a long time.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My list of favorites, in order:

Wilhelm Furtwängler (1949) (Tahra, Preiser, Seven Seas) *****
Wilhelm Furtwängler (1943) (Tahra, Music & Arts) ****1/2
Wilhelm Furtwängler (1948) (EMI) ****1/2
Felix Weingartner (EMI, Living Era, Andante) ****
Arturo Toscanini (1935) (EMI, Arkadia) ****
Otto Klemperer (1954) (Testament) ****
Arturo Toscanini (1952) (Testament, Pristine) ****
Victor de Sabata (DG, Andante) ****
Carlos Kleiber (DG) ****
Leopold Stokowski (Phild.) (Archipel) ***1/2
Bruno Walter (1934) (Koch, Kipepeo, Pristine) ***1/2
Eugen Jochum (1970) (Walhall) ***1/2
Claudio Abbado (DG) ***1/2
Fritz Reiner (Chesky) ***1/2
Eduard van Beinum (Philips) ***1/2
Rudolf Kempe (Testament) ***1/2
Herbert von Karajan (1978) (DG) ***
Willem Mengelberg (Teldec, Naxos) ***1/2
Leonard Bernstein (DG) ***1/2
Leopold Stokowski (IMP) ***1/2
Karl Böhm (1938) (Warner, Iron Needle) ***1/2
Eugen Jochum (EMI) ***1/2
Eugen Jochum (DG) ***1/2
Bruno Walter (Music & Arts) ***1/2
Hermann Abendroth (1927) (Biddulph) ***1/2
Bruno Walter (1951) (Sony, IDI) ***1/2
Karl Böhm (DG) ***1/2
Arturo Toscanini (RCA) ***1/2
Sergei Koussevitzky (Pearl) ***1/2
Carlo Maria Giulini (DG) ***1/2
Bruno Walter (Sony) ***1/2
Istvan Kertesz (Decca) ***1/2
Otto Klemperer (EMI) ***1/2
Leonard Bernstein (Sony) ***1/2 
Sergiu Celibidache (DG) ***1/2
Stanislaw Skrowaczewski (IMP) ***
George Szell (Sony) ***


----------



## Knorf

I'm getting the feeling that Hrůša is an underrated conductor. His _Ma Vlast_ is excellent! (That's all I know of his work.)

The Brahms 4 that's gotten my attention recently is the superb Skrowaczewski on Oehms, with the Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern. (Damn that's a long name for an orchestra!)

Stan's Brahms Fourth Symphony for me is a clear highlight in his 90th birthday box of awesomeness, easily competitive with any of the best Brahms Fourths I have heard. Highly recommended!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

One of the towering pinnacles of the symphonic repertoire. In any decent performance the coda of the first movement should sound like the gates of hell being unleashed - I feel physically exhausted by the time I reach the end, like a lifetime's worth of melancholy and rising tension is contained within a single movement. Sometimes I think of it as driving into a blizzard that intensifies by the minute until we are stuck in a pure white-out with death on the horizon. It's one of the greatest movements in all music IMO; a masterclass of composition. I actually like it better than the famous finale. There's also a golden moment in the second half of the Andante where the full string choir is unleashed in all its glory to belt out a gorgeous dreamy chorale - that moves me to tears every time. I consider Furtwangler to be the greatest interpreter, but I'm also a sucker for Jochum and Abbado in Brahms. Kleiber is undoubtedly a fantastic performance, but I _want_ to dislike it because people seem to treat it as the greatest event in recorded history. Two popular ones that I'm not big on are Walter/Columbia (too genial and lightweight) and Klemperer (too lush, lethargic, and overripe).


----------



## Mark Emanuele

Joachim Raff said:


> My favourite is a newer version by BAM and the Tudor label. I love the smaller labels and somewhat overlooked orchestras. But what makes this even better is its actually one of the best i have heard in a long time.
> 
> View attachment 135072


Thank you for your very kind words.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> One of the towering pinnacles of the symphonic repertoire. In any decent performance the coda of the first movement should sound like the gates of hell being unleashed - I feel physically exhausted by the time I reach the end, like a lifetime's worth of melancholy and rising tension is contained within a single movement. Sometimes I think of it as driving into a blizzard that intensifies by the minute until we are stuck in a pure white-out with death on the horizon. It's one of the greatest movements in all music IMO; a masterclass of composition. I actually like it better than the famous finale. There's also a golden moment in the second half of the Andante where the full string choir is unleashed in all its glory to belt out a gorgeous dreamy chorale - that moves me to tears every time. I consider Furtwangler to be the greatest interpreter, but I'm also a sucker for Jochum and Abbado in Brahms. Kleiber is undoubtedly a fantastic performance, but I _want_ to dislike it because people seem to treat it as the greatest event in recorded history. Two popular ones that I'm not big on are Walter/Columbia (too genial and lightweight) and Klemperer (too lush, lethargic, and overripe).


Comparing your remarks to my list above, our tastes align amazingly!


----------



## Heck148

I just heard the Kleiber/VPO Brahms #4 the other night..it's very good, well-played, well-conducted....I don't place it at the top with Toscanini/NBC and Reiner/RPO, but it's a fine performance....


----------



## Merl

Joachim Raff said:


> My favourite is a newer version by BAM and the Tudor label. I love the smaller labels and somewhat overlooked orchestras. But what makes this even better is its actually one of the best i have heard in a long time.
> 
> View attachment 135072


Nice to see some more modern recordings in here with the more well-known ones, Raff. There's been some tremendous recordings of Brahms 4 since many of the classic accounts we know were recorded. Hrusa, Sawallisch (LPO), Gielen, Chailly, Jansons, Barenboim, Zinman, Harnoncourt, Young, Skrowaczewski (Saarbrucken - much better than his Halle recording), Haitink, Dohnanyi, Wand (live and studio), Alsop, Nelsons, Krivine and Bychkov are just some examples. I probably return to Janowski's superb 4th or to Levine's wonderful (Vienna or Chicago - that are both amazing) recordings more often than others but that's because I adore them. .


----------



## Knorf

Merl, have you heard the recent Barenboim Brahms with the Staatskapelle Berlin? I admit to being curious about it. I ask because you've heard so many recent recordings of this symphony. I'd like to know more about the Bychkov as well.

(Obviously anyone who only wishes to hear Brahms on dim monophonic recordings, played by a scrappy, underrehearsed orchestra, and a conductor who can't to any discernment hold a steady tempo, can skip this part of the discussion. )


----------



## The3Bs

At the begining of the 2000's I started a rather nomadic professional life and most of my belongings had to go into storage... I end up building a Case logic with about 50 CD's I could have with me... In it I had 2 Brahms 4th:

Szell/Cleveland (Sony)
Stokowski/New Philarmonia (BBC classics)

The Szell I love for the tautness, drive and specially the 4rth movement and its "violent" passion and this remained for a long time my favorite until I got a few years ago the Walter/Columbia SO... this manages an even more dramatic finale than Szell's.

I have in the meantime also listened t Kleiber/Wiener that is also very good but does not IMHO reach the peaks of the two mentioned on the 4rth movement.

Of the "even more" older recordings I also like Wilhelm Furtwängler (need to find which version though).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Merl, have you heard the recent Barenboim Brahms with the Staatskapelle Berlin? I admit to being curious about it. I ask because you've heard so many recent recordings of this symphony. I'd like to know more about the Bychkov as well.
> 
> (Obviously anyone who only wishes to hear Brahms on dim monophonic recordings, played by a scrappy, underrehearsed orchestra, and a conductor who can't to any discernment hold a steady tempo, can skip this part of the discussion. )


No judgment here at all, huh?  I tried a Barenboim/Teldec many years ago, and it sounded like a carbon copy of Furtwangler except it was on valium.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Merl, have you heard the recent Barenboim Brahms with the Staatskapelle Berlin? I admit to being curious about it. I ask because you've heard so many recent recordings of this symphony. I'd like to know more about the Bychkov as well.


Yeah, I like that set. Nice sound. The 3rd is a bit of a write-off but the rest is very good indeed. Have you tried Wand or Levine in Brahms, Knorf? As for Bychkov it's not for everyone (some won't like it and I get that) and it's more Brahms-lite but it's worth a listen as some prefer this approach (Ticciati is similar) . I like Bychkov's 4th but I'm less convinced elsewhere. You need to listen as there's so many Brahms sets around and I like old and new. For every Nelsons there's Barbirolli and for every Barenboim there's Walter or Furtwangler. So many styles and so many recordings. The last set I listened to as a whole cycle was Alsop (a cracker) but before that it was Walter's mono cycle (which is excellent too). I won't discount any set because of age but I admit to struggling if the sound is particularly bad (but that's a personal thing and some don't feel the same).


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No judgment here at all, huh?


Not from me! :angel:


> I tried a Barenboim/Teldec many years ago, and it sounded like a carbon copy of Furtwangler except it was on valium.


Yeah, I won't argue against that observation. I hope the new one is better.



Merl said:


> Have you tried Wand or Levine in Brahms, Knorf?


Yes, I own the Wand/NDR cycle, and love it.

I'm not such a Levine fan, not merely because of his despicable proclivities but because outside of major American 20th or 21st rep., I've rarely been convinced. And I'm not highly motivated to reconsider, we'll say.



> As for Bychkov it's not for everyone (some won't like it and I get that) and it's more Brahms-lite but it's worth a listen as some prefer this approach (Ticciati is similar) . I like Bychkov's 4th but I'm less convinced elsewhere. You need to listen as there's so many Brahms sets around and I like old and new. For every Nelsons there's Barbirolli and for every Barenboim there's Walter or Furtwangler. So many styles and so many recordings. The last set I listened to as a whole cycle was Alsop (a cracker) but before that it was Walter's mono cycle (which is excellent too). I won't discount any set because of age but I admit to struggling if the sound is particularly bad (but that's a personal thing and some don't feel the same).


If the sound is bad, I won't listen to it more than once or twice, because I can't live with it. Having said that, I'm often glad I heard it. I dig at Furtwängler obsessives affectionately, because they totally deserve it, but I also admit, with only a few exceptions, I'd say about every Furtwängler recording I've heard was really, really worth hearing. In some cases, for example the wartime Beethoven _Coriolan Overture_, I'll probably never hear it played with greater intensity.

I probably have enough Brahms sets in my collection. Modern favorites in my collection are Abbado, Chailly, Skrowaczewski, and Wand.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> One of the towering pinnacles of the symphonic repertoire. In any decent performance the coda of the first movement should sound like the gates of hell being unleashed - I feel physically exhausted by the time I reach the end, like a lifetime's worth of melancholy and rising tension is contained within a single movement. Sometimes I think of it as driving into a blizzard that intensifies by the minute until we are stuck in a pure white-out with death on the horizon. It's one of the greatest movements in all music IMO; a masterclass of composition. I actually like it better than the famous finale. There's also a golden moment in the second half of the Andante where the full string choir is unleashed in all its glory to belt out a gorgeous dreamy chorale - that moves me to tears every time. I consider Furtwangler to be the greatest interpreter, but I'm also a sucker for Jochum and Abbado in Brahms. Kleiber is undoubtedly a fantastic performance, but I _want_ to dislike it because people seem to treat it as the greatest event in recorded history. Two popular ones that I'm not big on are Walter/Columbia (too genial and lightweight) and Klemperer (too lush, lethargic, and overripe).


I admire Allegro con Brio's desire to feel exhausted after listening to the Brahms Symphony No. 4, and his fantasy of driving into a blizzard that intensifies by the minute until we are stuck in a pure white-out with death on the horizon. I think I can really grasp the musical experiences he describes so vividly. It is a beautiful way to appreciate music.

One of my classical music friends told me long ago, "Franz, you have an unsurpassed ability always to pick out and favor the most lackluster recorded version of any piece of music." He liked intensity, too. I think of the guiding light of my musical taste as "controlled brilliance," which I admit translates generally into "lighter" readings. Therefore, it is to listeners with predilections similar to mine that I address my suggestions. To those who find my taste philistine, I do hope they will enjoy a good laugh at my expense.

I have four versions of the Brahms 4th in my collection and it's unlikely that I will buy any more, as I acquired these as the results of careful research and consideration over 30 years. I do like to listen to this gem of the repertoire in other versions on the radio or streaming and am always especially eager to hear new recordings of it. My choices:

Walter/Columbia SO, 1960, CBS Masterworks. I agree with Allegro con Brio's description of it, but I love it for those qualities. Walter is one of my favorite interpreters of Beethoven symphonies, too, because his management of tempi and dynamic range is, to my ear, perfect, and I consider these properties of Romantic symphonies to be of great importance.

Stokowski/New Philharmonia Orchestra, 1973, RCA Red Seal. This one is dramatic and brilliant. I know this is a pretty dark work, but everything Stoki did twinkles for me with joy and *fun*. I want to get up and applaud at the end.

Dorati/London SO, 1963, Mercury Living Presence. This is smooth and flowing with controlled pathos. It is the least dark reading of this symphony that I know, and I like it for that. It is not going to exhaust anyone; rather, I find it energizing.

Sawallisch/Wiener Symphoniker, 1962, Philips. What I consistently like about Sawallisch is that his readings are totally unaffected and explore the underlying clarity of complex harmonic structures. This is the version of this symphony in which I really hear and appreciate its structure in every respect. Bland? Perhaps for some, but this would be my choice for the "most underappreciated Brahms 4th."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The3Bs said:


> Of the "even more" older recordings I also like Wilhelm Furtwängler (need to find which version though).


Most people are in agreement that there is not too much to choose between his different versions as his interpretations changed little, although the consensus is for the wartime recording. Great as that recording is, in my view his 1949 reigns supreme as it displays his gift for flexibility and elasticity at its best.






And I'd be remiss if I didn't add the most valuable video footage we have of his gifts, the final minutes of the Brahms 4th:


----------



## Knorf

Antal Dorati! I forgot about him. His Brahms is great!


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Antal Dorati! I forgot about him. His Brahms is great!


There's so much great Brahms out there (old and new) it's scary.


----------



## MarkW

For whatever reason, for about a week and a half around last Thanksgiving (including the entirety of car trips to and from Maine), I had the whole last movement circling in my head like a huge ear worm. It always amazes me that Brahms could bind discrete variations into a coherent, logically flowing, inevitable whole that seems to lack most of what holds a typical movement together, but works powerfully. I still don't know quite how.


----------



## perdido34

Just listened to Stokowski/New Philharmonia (RCA/Sony box set, not the live performance on BBC Classics). Very exciting performance. Stokowski steps on the gas bigtime at the end of the first and fourth movements, so it won't be to everyone's taste. Great sound for 1975.


----------



## Joachim Raff

I always thought Brahms was performed in a over stodgy manner. It is a great put off for me. After listening to these guys perform his symphonies put him into a different light. Light and actually lively airy and the detail is fantastic. The recordings are superbly balanced. Listening to his fourth now and its great to hear his music in this idiom.


----------



## The3Bs

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Most people are in agreement that there is not too much to choose between his different versions as his interpretations changed little, although the consensus is for the wartime recording. Great as that recording is, in my view his 1949 reigns supreme as it displays his gift for flexibility and elasticity at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'd be remiss if I didn't add the most valuable video footage we have of his gifts, the final minutes of the Brahms 4th:


:tiphat: Thank you for sharing this... It is a great Brahms 4th.

Of course I would prefer great sound... but I learned long ago that of you wanna hear and learn how music was being done in a different age and hear some of the greats, then you tune your years and brain ... and just enjoy...


----------



## flamencosketches

What's the slowest Brahms 4 out there? I like the recordings I have (Klemperer, Alsop, & Kleiber) but sometimes I feel like it could stand to be much, much slower. I could picture the music holding together really well at even half the tempo of these accounts. 

Please, don't be a [email protected] and say Klemperer; his is actually the fastest in my library.


----------



## Knorf

Celibidache's on EMI is 11'15".

ETA: this is _not_ a recommendation.


----------



## realdealblues

flamencosketches said:


> What's the slowest Brahms 4 out there? I like the recordings I have (Klemperer, Alsop, & Kleiber) but sometimes I feel like it could stand to be much, much slower. I could picture the music holding together really well at even half the tempo of these accounts.
> 
> Please, don't be a [email protected] and say Klemperer; his is actually the fastest in my library.


You could try:
Kurt Sanderling/Staatskapelle Dresden (1972)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Vienna Philharmonic (1989, Live)
Herbert Von Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic (1988)
Leonard Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic (1981)

I find them a little on the slower side...


----------



## Kiki

Adding one more - Simon Rattle is pretty slow. His 2008 EMI recording clocks at 42+ mins. His 2017 BP recording is over a min faster, but still over 41 mins. (Although they are no way near the Bernstein/VPO's 44 mins.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Celi's is definitely the slowest I have heard. I can somewhat admire his Zen mediation approach in Bruckner, but the Brahms has me scratching my head. Just seems like turning the music into something it's not.


----------



## Knorf

I don't know why I only listed Celibidache's Brahms 4 timing of the last movement, without saying so. Anyway, the whole thing is slow. Slow, slow, slow. And then again, slow.

In the words of possibly the greatest conductor (in ability, not status) I ever played for, Peter Erős,_ "Slow is not beautiful. Slow is not expressive. Slow is not profound. Slow is slow!" _(It helps if you imagine his tenor voice and charming Hungarian accent.)

Celibidache's Brahms is not the most beautiful, or the most expressive, or the most profound. It's just the slowest on record.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Well, that I don’t agree with. Going slower doesn’t automatically make an interpretation more profound. But certainly there have been times I have come across the same conductor’s recordings and find the slower rendition to be more dedicated and thoughtful. So going slower **can** result in more profundity, but it is not a prerequisite, nor does it guarantee the intended effect.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, that I don't agree with. Going slower doesn't automatically make an interpretation more profound. But certainly there have been times I have come across the same conductor's recordings and find the slower rendition to be more dedicated and thoughtful. So going slower **can** result in more profundity, but it is not a prerequisite, nor does it guarantee the intended effect.


Does the interpretation affect the tempi or do the tempi affect the interpretation? I think that with good recordings and though-through interpretations, no matter if slow, mid-paced, or fast, it's the former. An interpretation sometimes sounds as if it truly _requires_ a certain tempo. A fast-paced recording can sometimes be significantly more profound than a slow one, if the interpretation is spot-on. The same way a slow recording can be much deeper than a fast-paced one. Is this because of the tempo? Not really. It's because this specific tempo fits the interpretation and the composer. A fast recording can be very thoughtful as well (after all, isn't that part of the reason why we have all those Adagios and Andantes ), and a slow one can be simply dull if the tempi don't serve their role as a "mere" part of the interpretation. In short, I think that the tempo matters in the context of the whole interpretation but not as some independent element which itself affects conductor's vision of the piece. I'm fairly sure that most conductors first create the interpretation and then decide which tempi most effectively conveys their desired idea.


----------



## Knorf

I think what Annaw writes here is closest to Maestro Erős's point. There is a tempo that serves best the musical interpretation, and that is all.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Fair enough. What I can’t stand is when I find a recording that someone else thinks is too slow, and I think it is deeply profound, and then the reply back is that I only think that because it’s slow. No, that’s not the reason.


----------



## Enthusiast

All this stuff about profundity is not relevant to slow speeds - whether from Celibidache or anyone else - and what matters with unusually slow speeds is how the conductor uses them to do that s/he might not otherwise have been able to. When Bernstein goes slow it is often an aspect of his pulling speeds around so as to underline an emotional point and, for me, the result often sounds indulgent and the flow is disrupted. Celibidache, in his late Munich phase, often used slow speeds to enable to music breathe and to engineer a drawn out but devastating climax or special moment. Personally, I nearly always find that his music making flows really well and is totally coherent despite his slow speeds. Speed is not the most important aspect of keeping the music moving. 

I like Celibidache's Brahms a lot. It is true it is different but since when does character become an unwanted quality? It is certainly Brahms - it is very much Brahms. I experience his slowness only in comparison with what I had previously been used to and by the time I am five minutes into the piece I am no longer finding it slow. What matters is that it never drags! But it does deliver a wonderful variety of sometimes luscious, sometimes stern and always very Brahmsian soundscapes. Being able to do this is the key to performing the Brahms symphonies, I think. 

I am always amazed when listeners don't get this and I find myself suspecting (but I am surely wrong!) that those who dislike his slow speeds make up their minds very quickly and may even stop listening. You need to let go of memories of other performances and focus on the music. Personally, I find his Brahms 4 more involving and rewarding than many highly regarded recordings.


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> Celibidache's Brahms is not the most beautiful, or the most expressive, or the most profound. It's just the slowest on record.


I had a set of Celi's Brahms and got rid of it as it bored the pants off me and I prefer keeping my pants on! Brahms' music is weighty enough without slow speeds into the bargain. Interesting Backhaus (who knew Brahms) adopted brisk speeds when playing his music.


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> Celibidache, in his late Munich phase, often used slow speeds to enable to music breathe...


Frankly, an ICU ventilator does a better job. The tempo definitely doesn't drag inside of one.



> Speed is not the most important aspect of keeping the music moving.


Indeed not. "Slow is slow."



> I like Celibidache's Brahms a lot...I am always amazed when listeners don't get this and I find myself suspecting (but I am surely wrong!) that those who dislike his slow speeds make up their minds very quickly and may even stop listening.


I've given Celibidache's performances more than sufficient chances to convince me. They do not. I find that they _do_ drag. I find them self-indulgent and esthetically distasteful. _De gustibus non est disputandum_.



> You need to let go of memories of other performances and focus on the music. Personally, I find his Brahms 4 more involving and rewarding than many highly regarded recordings.


Look, I'm glad you like it. Certainly don't stop liking it on my account, or that of anyone else.

But when music marked "Allegro" is performed "Grave" don't expect me, for one, to be okay with it. I don't need "Brahms Symphonies Reimagined As Wagner's _Parsifal_." If it works for you, lovely.

But please don't assume I haven't given those recordings a chance, or that I am incapable of listening with an open perspective. Sometimes, for me, an interpretation just goes too far.


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> I had a set of Celi's Brahms and got rid of it as it bored the pants off me and I prefer keeping my pants on! Brahms' music is weighty enough without slow speeds into the bargain. Interesting Backhaus (who knew Brahms) adopted brisk speeds when playing his music.


Will people on this forum stop undressing during symphony recordings. We've had shirts and pants off. The only thing I've ever taken off during a symphony performance are my glasses. You lot are weird! :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> Look, I'm glad you like it. Certainly don't stop liking it on my account, or that of anyone else.
> 
> But when music marked "Allegro" is performed "Grave" don't expect me, for one, to be okay with it. I don't need "Brahms Symphonies Reimagined As Wagner's _Parsifal_." If it works for you, lovely.
> 
> But please don't assume I haven't given those recordings a chance, or that I am incapable of listening with an open perspective. Sometimes, for me, an interpretation just goes too far.


I have not been assuming anything about your listening - or anyone else's - before arriving at a view on it ... but we all know the feeling you get when someone else doesn't respond to something you love. And we all know that what we hear is just what we hear. I do believe you are missing some incredible music making but I know you are not alone in that. It seems we look for very different things in Brahms.


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> ...we all know the feeling you get when someone else doesn't respond to something you love.


I do, yes. All too well.

But, Enthusiast, the overlap of music you and I both love is pretty dang huge to all appearances, based on what I've read from you here on TC, so I'm not at all concerned about a miss when it comes to Celibidache!



> And we all know that what we hear is just what we hear. I do believe you are missing some incredible music making but I know you are not alone in that. It seems we look for very different things in Brahms.


As with many things, maybe I'll give Celibidache another listen in this repertoire someday. You've nearly convinced me.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I have not been assuming anything about your listening - or anyone else's - before arriving at a view on it ... but we all know the feeling you get when someone else doesn't respond to something you love. And we all know that what we hear is just what we hear.* I do believe you are missing some incredible music making *but I know you are not alone in that. It seems we look for very different things in Brahms.


I am missing some incredible music making - incredible to me that someone could take it that slowly.


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> I do, yes. All too well.
> 
> But, Enthusiast, the overlap of music you and I both love is pretty dang huge to all appearances, based on what I've read from you here on TC, so I'm not at all concerned about a miss when it comes to Celibidache!
> 
> As with many things, maybe I'll give Celibidache another listen in this repertoire someday. You've nearly convinced me.


Thanks for this. The thing I find a little difficult with Celibidache with some composers (particularly Beethoven but also Brahms to some extent) is not the speed so much as the rather soft-grained (lack of bite in the violins) that he often uses. That takes me a little getting used to. If you wanted to check him out in a different and perhaps very unexpected composer you could try his Tchaikovsky. I find his Munich recordings of the last three symphonies quite devastating ... very different to, say, Mravinsky but (to me) just as powerful.

The other thing is that his recordings before he went to Munich - including those on DG (like his last Brahms set to be issued separately from other composers) - is that his approach was less slow (some of them were rather fast) but that in some the speeds were pulled around a bit. I think he always had that gift for long arching phrases but to me it is the recordings of his old age in Munich that are special. As you know, it does amaze me when "people with taste" don't hear it!


----------



## Merl

I'm just listening to Jordan's new Brahms cycle this morning and the first symphony is rather slow, ininvolving and a bit boring. What a shame. I like Jordan but this is not a good start. I'm going to skip to the 4th next and try that out. If that's a duffer I can guarantee the rest will be, too.









Edit: the 4th was a bit of a duffer! The 3rd however was surprisingly much better.


----------



## NeilP

Ironically I first heard it played live by a bunch of amateurs in a church back in the early eighties, I thought it was brilliant!

My fav recording is Vienna Philharmonic with Karl Bohm on Deutsche Grammophon (1976)


----------



## MelodicOne

Totally agree Enthusiast. Like you , i find that the slow speed in Celibidaches's Brahms and (many other pieces),enables the music to breathe and show its beauty. He was a wonderful conductor/musician and often find that his performance of a piece is the one
that becomes a favourite.


----------



## MelodicOne

Totally agree Enthusiast. Like you , i find that the slow speed in Celibidaches's Brahms and (many other pieces),enables the music to breathe and show its beauty. He was a wonderful conductor/musician and often find that his performance of a piece is the one
that becomes a favourite.


----------



## brucknerian1874

The 4th has been a firm favourite since I first heard it. I think it was Marek Janowski on ASV with the RLPO on cassette. I'm listening to one of the finest accounts ever as I write this. Clue...it's Merl's dark horse.

Besides that one, I most often listen to Karajan, Kleiber, Haitink, Giulini and Mackerras. I like Harnoncourt and Berglund too.

Of the recent ones I've heard, Janowski in Pittsburgh stands out, as does Alsop's deceptively straight-forward LPO reading.

Looking forward to trying Stan the Man, Hrusa and Steinberg. I also have to dig out and re-listen to a Tahra Furtwangler live disc I have somewhere.

May the 4th be with you, tomorrow and every day...


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I suspect my order of preference of the Brahms symphonies wouldn't be widely shared on here. I've loved no.3 since I was first getting into classical music as an 8-9 year old and it's my favourite of the four by a country mile. I like the others too, the 4th included, but none of them gets close to no.3 in my affections.

For both no.3 and no.4 I turn first to Klemperer on EMI.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I hold the Third above the others in my affections as well. My preferred interpretation is Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic. I also like Walter/Columbia Symphony and Barbirolli/Vienna Philharmonic. Favorites in the Fourth are Van Beinum/Amsterdam Concertgebouw and Walter/Columbia Symphony.


----------



## Merl

There's lots of sleeper 4ths out there if you are prepared to listen and not just following the Kleiber and Co herd. Sawallisch knocked out a blinder in his patchy LPO cycle, Alsop is impressive, Dohnanyi is terrific, Loughran is a keeper, and Blomstedt did a great job on it . Then there's Nelsons, Chailly and further off the beaten path Jansons, Rowicki, Albrecht, Kertesz, Ansermet and Jarvi without having to listen to something that sounds like it was recorded in the middle of the M61, under a blanket during the Boer war, on the outside of a wax crayon or in a coughing festival before the end of WW2. Have a listen around - there really are some great sleeper 4ths if you're prepared to shop around.


----------



## Heck148

The Kleiber/VPO Brahms 4 is very good, definitely one of the better ones....but it doesn't reach, for me, the very top in this we work- those honors go to Toscanini/NBC and Reiner/RPO...Solti/CSO is good, from his overall excellent set....
Brahms 3 is the most difficult to play and conduct...quite the challenge...mvts I and IV present substantial challenges- the basic rhythm and pulse in the former, the gauging of the climaxes in the latter....a lot of pretty decent ones, not a lot of all-stars...


----------



## Varick

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No judgment here at all, huh?  I tried a Barenboim/Teldec many years ago, and it sounded like a carbon copy of Furtwangler except it was on valium.


I feel that way about most of Barenboim's recordings. Him, Zubin Mehta, and often Ozawa had a gift for sucking the life out of so many of the pieces they conducted.

V


----------



## Varick

To the OP: I find Furtwangler to be top notch. Then I would have to go with Kleiber. I probably listen to Kleiber more often because of sound quality vs Furty. Klemperer is great in the first two mvmts, but he looses something in the 3rd & 4th Mvmt. I still have not put my finger on it yet, but it's just below my conscious level. Nothing that makes it bad per se, but something that knocks it out of contention with Furty or Kleiber.

An unkown version that is difficult to find is a recording from 1991 by Leif Segerstam conducting the Staatsphilharmonic Rheinland-Pfalz. He did all four symphonies and they are very well done and have excellent sound. His are definite sleepers.

V


----------



## SearsPoncho

Larkenfield said:


> The tango in the finale!


The "Tango" that's in the second theme of the exposition in the first movement!

Brahms' greatest composition. If someone wanted to assert that it was the greatest symphony ever written, I wouldn't necessarily go out of my way to argue with him or her. Same if one wanted to argue it was the greatest composition written. I might not agree with that because he has some stiff competition from the other 2 B's, but it's not crazy talk or hyperbole.

The classic Carlos Kleiber recording with the Vienna Philharmonic deserves its much-lauded reputation. He had me from the opening bars.


----------



## ORigel

I love the two-piano arrangement by the composer. There are videos on Youtube of performances.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I almost always find Brahms' two-piano arrangements both enlightening and enjoyable in their own right. Not sure if this belongs in the "unpopular opinion" thread, but for me some of his chamber works for strings work at least as well in their two-piano arrangements.


----------



## Knorf

Brahms's two-piano arrangements (or original pieces as well) are absolutely fabulous. They offer a truly wonderful alternative dimension into his musical world.


----------



## Helgi

As much as I love Furtwängler in Brahms, listening to a recording of the 4th earlier today (BPO, '48 on Audite) it started out with the usual goosebumps, but by the third movement I got the feeling they were trying to hard, just thrashing around and losing sight of the whole.

Cooling down a little now with Walter and the NYPO.

ETA: Also, Charles Munch/BSO. No mention of them in this thread? There's a great (to my ears) Brahms 4th from 1950.


----------



## Bill Cooke

My favorite Brahms 4 is Karajan's 1955 account with the Philharmonia Orchestra. For me, it has the perfect balance of poetry and intensity.


----------



## PuerAzaelis




----------



## Kiki

PuerAzaelis said:


>


Excellent, highly expressive performance from Myung-Whun Chung. It is very similar to Chung's commercial recording with the Czech PO on Exton, which I think is a real sleeper.


----------



## mparta

Need more love for this on here. The orchestra just plays for him, which I think is a cultural thing, as in he was a scary guy, probably not gonna get away with what Sargent and Boult let us do, much less Thomas the little pill heir. (I am a great admirer of Beecham, but too fun to remember where his money came from. His virtues are certainly different than those of Reiner). Some of the most unforgettable clarinet playing on record, so important in Brahms. I wonder who that is, I know the names of Brymer and De Peyer but not whether they were Beecham's.

Not exactly on, but for those who are interested there's the choice of recordings to hear in the NYTimes today and the Kubelik Mercury CSO set is there. I think they say there's a Brahms 1, which I didn't know. Those recordings are very problematic for me, because some of the reissues are in horrific sound, and it's the Mercury recording technology that made them so remarkable in their time, other than some great performances of course.


----------



## Heck148

mparta said:


> Need more love for this on here. The orchestra just plays for him, which I think is a cultural thing, as in he was a scary guy, probably not gonna get away with what Sargent and Boult let us do, much less Thomas the little pill heir.


Yes, Reiner/RoyPO is the best, along with the great Toscanini/NBC....The Reiner just grows with each movement...



> Some of the most unforgettable clarinet playing on record, so important in Brahms. I wonder who that is, I know the names of Brymer and De Peyer but not whether they were Beecham's.


I think it's Jack Brymer - he played in RoyalPO from 1947-63...later went o BBC, then LSO..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Brymer

Gervase De Peyer was principal in LSO from 1956-73.


----------



## PuerAzaelis

It is a strange work for me to get into - at first listen it left me cold. I found it to be in a kind of unrecognizable style - its themes and melodies are too rapid for me to grab hold of. However the more I listened to it the more I appreciated its dynamics and modulations.


----------



## mbhaub

PuerAzaelis said:


> It is a strange work for me to get into - at first listen it left me cold. I found it to be in a kind of unrecognizable style - its themes and melodies are too rapid for me to grab hold of. However the more I listened to it the more I appreciated its dynamics and modulations.


You ought to try to find a copy of Leonard Bernstein's book The Infinite Variety of Music. There's a chapter about the 4th and the analysis he gives is revelatory. Such as the disarmingly simple accompaniment to the first theme is really the theme stretched out. Fascinating reading, if you can find the old book.


----------



## PuerAzaelis

TYVM I added that Kindle edition to my wish list ...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

PuerAzaelis said:


> It is a strange work for me to get into - at first listen it left me cold. I found it to be in a kind of unrecognizable style - its themes and melodies are too rapid for me to grab hold of. However the more I listened to it the more I appreciated its dynamics and modulations.


It's definitely the least overt of Brahms's symphonies in the way it speaks. It's a bit mercurial, especially the last movement.


----------



## EvaBaron

Can anyone recommend a very exciting performance? I’ve imprinted on the famous Kleiber recording and it’s very beautiful, nuanced, expressive, detailed and tragic. And it’s probably the best recording ever made of this symphony. But the only issue I have with Kleiber’s recording is the endings of the first and last movement. While very good, they can sometimes be just a tad too slow for my tastes and it may be very dramatic that way, but I’d love a recording that is a little bit more exciting. Basically faster, but also great orchestral playing like the Kleiber recording


----------



## Highwayman

EvaBaron said:


> Can anyone recommend a very exciting performance? I’ve imprinted on the famous Kleiber recording and it’s very beautiful, nuanced, expressive, detailed and tragic. And it’s probably the best recording ever made of this symphony. But the only issue I have with Kleiber’s recording is the endings of the first and last movement. While very good, they can sometimes be just a tad too slow for my tastes and it may be very dramatic that way, but I’d love a recording that is a little bit more exciting. Basically faster, but also great orchestral playing like the Kleiber recording


OTTOMH:

If you want excitement, look no further than Furtwängler. I`m not sure how fast they are but I`d say Jochum, Klemperer and van Beinum all have at least one very exciting performance each. If you want something more recent, Thielemann fits the bill I think. I`m not into HIP or chamber orchestra stuff when it comes to Brahms but those types tend to be faster than usual. Dausgaard is a good example for that if you want some speed. If you _really_ want something fast there are some absurdly fast performances by Toscanini and Stokowski but I cannot really say I`d "recommend" them.


----------



## Heck148

EvaBaron said:


> Can anyone recommend a very exciting performance? I’ve imprinted on the famous Kleiber recording and it’s very beautiful, nuanced, expressive, detailed and tragic.


Toscanini/NBC, Reiner/RoyPO ....these are great performances which are above Kleiber's very fine effort...Furtwangler is good, too.
But I find that both Toscanini and Reiner build so powerfully to the finale...it is really thrilling to hear them let their orchestras cut loose.....


----------



## RobertJTh

I'm not the biggest fan of Jochum's Berlin cycle (I think the London remake is hardly less fine, in much better sound), but the 4th is magistral. If you can stand the gritty mono sound, you're in for a treat. Exciting as heck.


----------



## Kreisler jr

IIRC the sound on the DG Berlin Jochum is considerably better than any Furtwängler or Toscanini from a few years earlier.. and probably better than Walter/NYPO as well. Mono, but rather full bodied, dynamic and not much distortion.


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> IIRC the sound on the DG Berlin Jochum is considerably better than any Furtwängler or Toscanini from a few years earlier.. and probably better than Walter/NYPO as well. Mono, but rather full bodied, dynamic and not much distortion.


I'll have to listen to the set again then. My recollection is that the musical enjoyment was seriously hampered by the recording quality - strange because I usually don't mind historical recordings, and I'm a bit of a Furtwängler nut myself (a "cultist" like Hurwitz would say).

Maybe it has something to do with being used to a lot of Jochum in fine stereo recordings so one doesn't really associate him with mono recordings (though of course he started his career on record pre-war). While with Furtwängler we accept that everything he did is preserved in (good or bad) mono.


----------



## neoshredder

Absolutely love this Symphony! Listening to it now with Kleiber conducting.


----------



## vincula

I've got many different renditions of the work. I love this work. I find myself listening to *Van Beinum/Concertgebouw* quite a lot these days. 

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Waehnen

I have versions by at least Karajan, Kleiber, Berglund, Haitink, Sawallisch and Furtwängler. For some reason Sawallisch still comes to mind when I think of the most definite recording for me. The first movement is so intensive!


----------

