# Blind Comparison - Beethoven 7th



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Here it is, another in the blind comparison series in which I present a number of performances for your edification and enlightenment but without identifying the culprits. Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to listen and comment without the biases that often enter into our judgments.

It is possible that someone will recognize one or more of these performances in which I case I request that you not post the information and ruin the fun for others  Feel free to PM me should you want to check answers or just know the details before I post them.

I know that some people are a bit intimidated by these, concerned that perhaps they will love or hate someone or group who they normally hate or love, but don't be, it's all in fun and who knows, you might find that some of the received wisdom is wrong.

There are 5 versions here of Beethoven's 7th, all done with traditional (i.e. 20th century) performing style, no HIPsters - not that I have anything against them but that would be a bit like comparing grapes and kumquats :lol: Please don't feel that you have to listen to all of all of them, pick and choose if you wish.

Each of these links takes you to a folder which contains separate files for each movement...

A - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZS04xkZjX2XpgzmgujeldwKVCt4ifXOjd0k
B - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZzF4xkZfvONASJX0o0FoMa4cfFUjhtq0kjV
C - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZQF4xkZkeS0F0pooBRq8oa6IFN9o4yxI08y
D - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZbF4xkZnH3B33HIGDhmUH3J9NdLIJpHVQ9X
E - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZfF4xkZm4yqeTT3fuBwr97G6buc7SUbYU27

Enjoy


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

D > C > E > B > A

D is the most charming thing ever, omg 

C is probably dynamically performed more to my liking, but the instrumental balance of D is near perfect for capturing this type of work imo.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

All traditional-style? OK, thanks for the heads up, now I know what to expect. But, kumquats? That brings back some dark memories from my childhood. Now I really need to stay alert! :lol:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I only had a chance to listen to a few snapshots. B caught my ear as it's older and stylistically different so I delved in there. Ok performance but the allegretto is a bit dirgeful. Unique tone of orchestra reminded me of Karajan's first Philharmonia cycle. Sound acceptable (is this mono?) . Strange recording. 50s? OK but nothing special. I'll try and listen to another later.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

All I will say is that they are all definitely stereo


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Let me emphasize that the object is not to guess the orchestra and conductor (but go ahead if you want to), rather it is to comment on the performance, interpretation, etc, without the biases inherent in knowing who did it.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Ensemble A is the only orchestra that took the Exposition repeat in the final movement so that's the only one I care about. For me, ignoring Exposition repeats is a crime against the composer and destroys the overall balance of harmonically stable vs harmonically unstable music (which is one of the basic tenants of classicism).


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I’ve gone through the first movement of all five recordings a few times. 

A
1st mvt: Good momentum and it sounds effortless. No dragging. Good balance among the instruments.

B
1st mvt: Those silky strings are so overwhelming... Otherwise, this is an account that is dragging at places, but it is also expressive and dramatic.

C
1st mvt: The background noise is entertaining. During the intro, someone was probably spooked while another person could have fallen onto the floor... Otherwise this is a fluent, high-octane first movement.

D
1st mvt: Sounding deliberate in many places, but to good effect. 

E
1st mvt: Very deliberate/articulated in expressions, and this is applied consistently throughout, although more apparent in the first half. Good balance. Octane rating is also high.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> Let me emphasize that the object is not to guess the orchestra and conductor (but go ahead if you want to), rather it is to comment on the performance, interpretation, etc, without the biases inherent in knowing who did it.


Alright, keep yer hair on, Becca! I was just commenting on the sound! :lol:

Ok, I've listened to all but one of these, now so here's what I think.

A - Consistently good throughout. Very impressive orchestral playing from a top orchestra and an enjoyable live performance. Nice recorded sound. Realistic soundstage
B- Decent but drags especially in the allegretto and in other places. Lots of quirky little expressive touches that sometimes come off but my least favourite of the 4 I've heard.
C - Rough and ramshackle live recording. Performance is a bit rough around the edges at times with some moments of untidy ensemble but that's its charm, tbh and the orchestra come in like a fire engine for the main choon in the first movement. I really like this one. It's dynamic and the finale is thrilling.
E - Another live recording and again I like this one too. Unlike C, it's very tightly controlled and the presto really skips nicely. Well paced and the briskest one here. Another blazing finale.

Not listened to D yet so i'll comment on that later or tomorrow. My favourites aren't in here but they're all OK or better. I keep thinking I know A and E but I think it's just my ears playing up as knowing Becca they're probably obscure even for a LvB symphony crank like me. Btw, I dont care whether they take the exposition repeats or not.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Personally I'd rather that they didn't take the repeat as IMO it doesn't add anything structurally and makes the movement seem a bit repetitive.

Merl: I was going to make that comment even before seeing your post, it was only intended to encourage those who were unsure about taking part.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> Personally I'd rather that they didn't take the repeat as IMO it doesn't add anything structurally and makes the movement seem a bit repetitive.
> 
> Merl: I was going to make that comment even before seeing your post, it was only intended to encourage those who were unsure about taking part.


I know Becca. I just wanted to wind you up!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I seem to be doing this! So far I have heard A and E, liking E a lot more than A. I'm not wanting to do more than two a day so I should have a result in a couple of days.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Right, I just got through D and whilst it's not a 'bad' performance I just found it a bit dull. The recording balance is very clear. even over-spotlighting the winds a bit too much at times, whilst the strings sound a bit undernourished. Woolly timpani and a lack of umph. A bit graceful for a seventh for me. First movement good but Allegretto drags and the presto is wimpy, slow and lacks forward momentum. Spices up a bit in the finale but this live recording is a bit tame for me. Bottom of the pile at the moment.

I'll have another listen tomorrow and rank them but up to now C and E are my faves.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I seem to be doing this! So far I have heard A and E, liking E a lot more than A. I'm not wanting to do more than two a day so I should have a result in a couple of days.


I understand, that's about all I can manage!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I seem to be doing this! So far I have heard A and E, liking E a lot more than A. I'm not wanting to do more than two a day so I should have a result in a couple of days.


Same here - it'll take me a week to get through these.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Working my way through. Here are my thoughts:

A - "Just right" tempii, nice sound, with tympani forward enough. Good dynamics between sections, with plenty of bass and treble to round out the sound. 1st movement expansive and uplifting, 2nd weighty and filled with pathos, 3rd is sprightly, 4th has the "dance." Excellent. Both the best recording and the best rendition. Reminiscent of Karajan, Kleiber, or Rattle.

B - Recording is lacking in the bass register, thus strings have a squeaky feel. Tempii are quite slow for my tastes. Ponderous 1st movement kind of puts me to sleep. 2nd keeps me asleep. Wretched. All momentum is lost, and it's too quiet by half. 4th movement is less a dance than a dirge. The more I listened, the more I hated it. Verging on Maximiliano Cobra awfulness. Perhaps Celibidache?

C - not as bad as B, but the tempii are sluggish. Sound is so-so - good dynamics, but the recording seems to get muddy when things get loud. Earlier 20th century perhaps? The emotional weight is present but gets dragged a bit by the sluggishness. 3rd and 4th movements are a breath of fresh air after the first two. Inconsistent. Reminiscent of Furtwangler, Klemperer, or Muti (but obviously too early for Muti).

D - 1st movement sounds like it's going to be peppy but then bogs down. Fluctuating tempii make it hard to settle down and listen, but not in a good way. Seems too conductor driven. Fluctuating volume as well. Nice percussion provides weight, but the tempo is all over the map. 2nd movement drags and sheds drama. 3rd and 4th are fine. This reminds me of Bernstein.

E - Good but not great sound. Weighty strings, good brass. But when things get loud it gets muddy. Tempo is a shade slower than I like, but not horrendous. 2nd movement is well done, retaining momentum and preserving pathos. Good dynamics and layering of strings. The 3rd actually feels oddly rushed to me, especially after the first 2 movements in this rendition. But it's well played to be sure. The 4th's tempo is fine, but something about the dynamics between sections makes it feel elephantine. I can't really think of an analog in my collection, so I have no guess.

Order of preference:
1. A
2. E
3. C
4. D
5. Getting hit by a bus
6. B

I am relatively certain that Becca will be picking more bespoke recordings than ones from my cycles. So my "guesses" above are more comparisons than anything.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Working my way through. Here are my thoughts:
> 
> A - "Just right" tempii, nice sound, with tympani forward enough. Good dynamics between sections, with plenty of bass and treble to round out the sound. 1st movement expansive and uplifting, 2nd weighty and filled with pathos, 3rd is sprightly, 4th has the "dance." Excellent. Both the best recording and the best rendition. Reminiscent of Karajan, Kleiber, or Rattle.
> 
> ...


Hahaha ha! This really made me laugh. Nice one, Matt


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I’ve done some more listening.

A
1st mvt: Good momentum and it sounds effortless. No dragging. Good balance among the instruments.
2nd mvt: Beautiful and very deliberate pianissimo. Love the speed and the chamber quality.
3rd mvt: Sensible tempo. Lively and agile, even in the often-dragging B section.
4th mvt: Powerful jumping yaks. Sensible tempo to maintain the stamina.

B
1st mvt: Those silky strings are so overwhelming... Otherwise, this is an account that is dragging at places, but it is also expressive and dramatic.

C
1st mvt: The background noise is entertaining. During the intro, someone was probably spooked while another person could have fallen onto the floor... Otherwise this is a fluent, high-octane first movement.
2nd mvt: Slow, beautiful and grand.
3rd mvt: Grand. Good contrast in tempo and mood between A and B sections.
4th mvt: Is it imitating beauty and excitement or is it genuinely beautiful and exciting? 
My impression of the 1st movement wasn't bad. However when I listened to the rest, I instinctively resisted it. The 2nd & 3rd movements are not my cup of tea for sure, but the last movement poses a more serious problem for me - it sounds insincere.

D
1st mvt: Sounding deliberate in many places, but to good effect.

E
1st mvt: Very deliberate/articulated in expressions, and this is applied consistently throughout, although more apparent in the first half. Good balance. Octane rating is also high.
2nd mvt: No sentimentality. Didn't try to woo the listener. Yet so mesmerizing, especially in the variations.
3rd/4th mvts: This is music. This is not crowd-pleasing bombast. I'm impressed. There are no yaks in sight here (either to admire or to make fun of). A bit unusual, but I like this.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I listened to them all one more time last night and this morning and here's my final summative assessment....

A - The more I've played this the more it's impressed me. It's a good, sensible account with depth and some superb playing. It's fairly moderate tempi throughout but the forward momentum is strong.
B - conversely the more I've played this the more it's gone down in my estimation. It's sluggish at times, the orchestra don't seem convinced by the conductor's vision of the symphony and there's some very annoying foibles that detract, especially the conductor's 'pregnant pauses' before big moments to ramp up the excitement (there's a really bad one of these before the big choon in the first movement that sticks out like a fridge in a field). Not for me but I'm not as damning as Matt on this one and there are some lovely moments too.
C - this one puzzles me. I do like it but, as Kiki points out, there's a contradiction between the inner and outer movements. The outer movements are much better for me. Stylistically I have little idea who it is but I'll PM Becca a guess later based on what I've heard.
D - No, I'm just not keen in this one. It starts with lots of promise (don't be fooled by the timings as this isn't a slow first movement) but from there the middle movements lack cohesion and the presto is boring. Even the finale can't save this one and it's a great finale. 
E - My favourite here. I can hear the conductor's vision. It's got power and this orchestra wants to move but it's all sensibly held back until the finale when it's "tapps aff" (a Scottish expression) and they motor to the finish line.

None of these would supplant my fave 7ths but thanks Becca for choosing recordings I'm fairly sure I'm unfamiliar with or maybe haven't heard in a very long time. 

So my ranking is
1st - E
2nd - A
3rd - C
4th - D 
5th - Cleaning the oven out
6th - B


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

First "getting hit by a bus", then "cleaning the oven out", you guys are good! :lol:

I just realised I have actually got the B recording, so I'll leave it at dragging but expressive and dramatic. 

I'll listen to D in full tomorrow. The first movement didn't sound too bad to me, but the whole performance seems to have polarised opinions here. Um, let's see.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> First "getting hit by a bus", then "cleaning the oven out", you guys are good! :lol:
> 
> I just realised I have actually got the B recording, so I'll leave it at dragging but expressive and dramatic.
> 
> I'll listen to D in full tomorrow. The first movement didn't sound too bad to me, but the whole performance seems to have polarised opinions here. Um, let's see.


Tbf, I was probably a bit harsh on it as I liked the outer movements a lot but felt the Presto totally ruined it. Listening to the Allegretto again I've maybe been unduly nasty to it and it should be above cleaning the oven out. After speaking to Becca, after my guesses to her, and finding out who it was I was quite surprised actually as I think I have it but it may not be the same performance. Off to investigate.

Edit; D is not the same performance as mine. Had a listen on the HD and the presto is definitely better on mine. Different recording dates too.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I've listened to all five recordings, straight through, because that's how I usually listen; I don't normally switch between recordings for individual movement comparisons. Reading some of the comments, I sometimes feel as though I'm listening to completely different recordings. I recently played cello in a performance of this symphony.

Performance A - seemed rather middle of the road to me. I like to hear crisp attacks on forte passages, and these were lacking, not helped by the rather diffuse and unfocused sound of the timpani. The Allegretto seemed rather matter-of-fact. The Scherzo had some interesting dynamic contrast, but they seemed either artifically boosted in the control room, or at least plastered onto the music, rather than developing organically.

Performance B - was pretty much a no-go for me. The tempo in the first movement isn't vivace, and I can barely hear the timpani. While I like the measured tread of the Allegretto, it's really slower than it should be, and the wind playing is rather stiff and metronomic. Likewise, the slow Trio in the third movement is interesting, but the winds don't seem to know what to do with all that extra time. The Allegro isn't con brio, and the timpani are behind the beat even at that tempo.

Performance C was much better. It sounds like a big orchestra, and they play with a lot of weight, which gives the Allegretto something that the other performances don't. And the third and fourth movements are exhilarating - there's nothing quite like hearing a large orchestra playing at breakneck speed, and the Allegro finale is breathtaking.

Performance D has the advantage of better sonics. It's also the most polished of the five performances. I hear HIP influences, particularly the size of the orchestra and the frequent lack of vibrato in the violins, which sometimes makes them seem excessively bright in tone. I don't hear much enthusiasm in the first movement; it sounds like professionals going through the motions. On the other hand, the Allegretto is better - the slow tempo works well in context of the performance. The third and fourth movements are very polished and crisply articulated, but I don't hear a lot of passion.

Performance E is probably my favorite of the five. The orchestra is fine, as is the sound quality. The first movement is very naturally done, with refined dynamic gradations that don't beat me over the head. Unlike the other performances, this second movement really *is* played Allegretto, and while the feel is completely different from, for example, performance D, it is refreshing to hear. The third movement is played at a very, very brisk tempo - which from experience I know is quite a challenge - it really moves forward, but I sense that the winds don't really have time to do much more than get the notes out in the Trio. The finale is played about as fast as it can be played, but it's never breathless, and I like hearing an orchestra playing right at the edge of playability.

I have no clue about any of the conductors or orchestras.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks to everyone to has taken part and posted comments and I look forward to seeing more from others in the next day or two. Meanwhile feel free to PM me if you want an early peek at the list of conductors/orchestras.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> Tbf, I was probably a bit harsh on it as I liked the outer movements a lot but felt the Presto totally ruined it. Listening to the Allegretto again I've maybe been unduly nasty to it and it should be above cleaning the oven out. After speaking to Becca, after my guesses to her, and finding out who it was I was quite surprised actually as I think I have it but it may not be the same performance. Off to investigate.
> 
> Edit; D is not the same performance as mine. Had a listen on the HD and the presto is definitely better on mine. Different recording dates too.


That shows once again another day another performance and the result can be rather different. Something similar in previous blindcoms almost got me with Roth's Rite and definitely got me with Harding's Mahler 10 Adagio. Kudos to Becca! Getting caught out is not a problem. In fact I quite enjoyed discovering what a performer would do in the same piece of music on a different day.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

...and that some performers who you are otherwise not impressed with, can surprise you!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> I've listened to all five recordings, straight through, because that's how I usually listen; I don't normally switch between recordings for individual movement comparisons. Reading some of the comments, I sometimes feel as though I'm listening to completely different recordings. I recently played cello in a performance of this symphony.
> .


Your final sentence explains why you and others on this thread hear things differently in a performance. You are a musician with musical training. I'm just a bloke from a Manchester Council Estate who loves Beethoven symphonies. We aren't going to be listening in the same way. That's the point of these comparisons anyway. We all have different thoughts (although recording B has had a savaging on here - unsurprisingly). I wish I had the musical training to speak about recordings the way you do Wkasimer. When I write my LVB cycle reviews part of me feels like a fake as I don't have the musical theory and knowledge to discuss whether a piece is being played at a true allegretto or not. All I can say is I like it because it makes me feel a certain way, the recording quality, the sound of the orchestra, the balances or the tempo is too slow, etc as that's all I can discuss with confidence. I can't even compare with the score as I can't read scores.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Merl said:


> Your final sentence explains why you and others on this thread hear things differently in a performance. You are a musician with musical training.


I wouldn't call myself a "musician" or even a "cellist". I play the cello - that's about it. The only real difference between us is that I know how hard it is to play the cello part.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> I wouldn't call myself a "musician" or even a "cellist". I play the cello - that's about it. The only real difference between us is that I know how hard it is to play the cello part.


If you heard my attempts at guitar playing you'd definitely class yourself as a musician.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I’m done!

A
1st mvt: Good momentum and it sounds effortless. No dragging. Good balance among the instruments.
2nd mvt: Beautiful and very deliberate pianissimo. Love the speed and the chamber quality.
3rd mvt: Sensible tempo. Lively and agile, even in the often-dragging B section.
4th mvt: Powerful jumping yaks. Sensible tempo to maintain the stamina.

B
1st mvt: Those silky strings are so overwhelming... Otherwise, this is an account that is dragging at places, but it is also expressive and dramatic.

C
1st mvt: The background noise is entertaining. During the intro, someone was probably spooked while another person could have fallen onto the floor... Otherwise this is a fluent, high-octane first movement.
2nd mvt: Slow, beautiful and grand.
3rd mvt: Grand. Good contrast in tempo and mood between A and B sections.
4th mvt: Is it imitating beauty and excitement or is it genuinely beautiful and exciting?
My impression of the 1st movement wasn't bad. However when I listened to the rest, I instinctively resisted it. The 2nd & 3rd movements are not my cup of tea for sure, but the last movement poses a more serious problem for me - it sounds insincere.

D
1st mvt: Sounding deliberate in many places, but to good effect.
2nd mvt: Utterly slow. Utterly beautiful.
3rd mvt: Big contrast in tempo between the A section and the B section. The yaks have already come out in the A section.
4th mvt: The yaks have taken over the stage.

E
1st mvt: Very deliberate/articulated in expressions, and this is applied consistently throughout, although more apparent in the first half. Good balance. Octane rating is also high.
2nd mvt: No sentimentality. Didn't try to woo the listener. Yet so mesmerizing, especially in the variations.
3rd/4th mvts: This is music. This is not crowd-pleasing bombast. I'm impressed. There are no yaks in sight here (either to admire or to make fun of). A bit unusual, but I like this.

Overall, C is definitely bottom for me. 

B is simply not something I appreciate, while A seems a safe bet anytime.

I think there is a maverick quality in both D & E. E sounds more frenetic. But The jumping yaks in D have got more character, although that slow Allegretto is not really my cup of tea. Therefore I'd put E slightly ahead of D.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^Fascinating


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Weren't jumping yaks the problem that Beecham had with the work?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

^ I've no idea if he actually disliked that constant pounding in the music, but surely he was making fun of it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Oh yes, he was putting the music down. But then the music put him down, too: his recording of the 7th did indeed bring yaks to mind. He was not a great Beethoven conductor.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

This time I allowed lots of space between the recordings. I think this helped me to like B more than most other contributors as I'm sure its slowness and relatively muffled sound would have jarred if I had listened to the fleet and slick A just before it. I also sat back a bit and tried to let the whole talk to me as I normally do when listening to a disc for pleasure (rather than to assess it). Despite my awful memory I did not make notes or concentrate on details while listening this time. I think such analysis is a poor way of finding the recordings I would want to live with. I should really listen to them all again but time will not allow that.

A - Starts nicely with life and some interesting - affectionate and yet pointed - phrasing. But does it lack personality? Isn't it more efficient than inspired? The big moments are delivered but somehow not lived. A fairly brisk funeral march for the second movement. Some of it is lovely and it is well paced. But it does sometimes sound a little jaunty. The 3rd movement is well done but again I wanted a bit more personality. The sudden launch of the 4th movement as soon as the 3rd has finished sounds a little clumsy to me. The movement itself is good and exciting at the end … but where is the wildness and why is it not uplifting? The whole lacks a distinctive Beethoven sound. A good performance but, on one hearing at least, it isn't that memorable and I can't imagine reaching for it among my too many recordings.

B - The sound is a bit limited but no matter. It takes a somewhat old-fashioned approach (but no matter). Slowish but nice build of small climaxes and shaping. I find myself hooked fairly early on so that the slowness is merely incidental. But I do feel that, as the 1st movement progresses, it does get a little bogged down - the conductor seems to be trying to make a calm centre in the movement … . The 2nd movement is slower than many but has some lovely moments and is well done and properly paced. The 3rd movement is too slow - where is the dance? The 4th is slow again. Gritty and not without wildness, it builds quite powerfully. The performance has overall shape and coherence but this slow scherzo and then slow finale … it's the sort of thing Klemperer did in his later days. Anyway, despite its weaknesses a fine performance.

C - I really liked the 1st movement - it is really well put together. The 2nd also is excellent. Why do I prefer it to some of the others? I'm not sure but somehow it is more personal (more organic?) and it is filled with different shades of mood and meaning, well put-together and well-paced. There is lots of life in the Scherzo. I didn't hear the contradiction between the inner and outer movements that some have referred to.

D - Nice start … strong and well enough paced. Not slow or fast. 2nd movement is a rather "classical" but it works well enough. The 3rd is also OK and uncontroversial although a bit more life would be nice in the Assai Meno Presto sections (but then the conductor does seem to be doing what Beethoven asks. The 4th movement is also good and relatively uncontroversial - but not so wild. I heard it as a relatively safe performance - genuinely good but not special.

E -Strong, traditional sounding. Everything in its place, coherent, a little muscular in the 1st movement, nice dancing in the 3rd with a good Beethoven sound. It is not in the detail so much as in the whole but this one has what A was missing. The 4th movement is wonderfully wild - as it should be. A nice performance, not radical but the real deal.

I think all were good in their ways and would prefer listening to any of them to being hit by a bus or even cleaning the oven. So, all are good to me … but I really need something very special for a work that I have heard so often and already have some 35 recordings of. This led me to prefer E, C and B to the others because I think they offer us something real, something that gets under the skin of the work … and this listener.

*Preferences: E/C > B > A/D *


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I ended up listening to C& D again as I'd made my mind up about the others. I stand by my comments on recording C. Liked it though! D has definitely grown on me though. Again I was more critical of the inner movements initially so I concentrated on those. Whilst the Presto still doesn't convince me the Allegretto is actually very well done so my revised ranking remains fairly similar with some changes

1st - E
2nd - A
3rd - D / C
4th - Cleaning the cat litter out
5th - B

Tbh, apart from B the rest are very good performances, in their own ways, but would I swap any of them out for any of my best 7ths? No. Like Enthusiast, I have so many recordings of this symphony that a recording would have to be very special to break into the top ten.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Oh yes, he was putting the music down. But then the music put him down, too: his recording of the 7th did indeed bring yaks to mind. He was not a great Beethoven conductor.


I disagree completely. He conducted a wonderful 7th. And his 2nd is a reference recording.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Then we are in complete disagreement about that one then.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Is there anyone else who is in the process of, or wishes to participate in this comparison?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Becca said:


> Is there anyone else who is in the process of, or wishes to participate in this comparison?


I've gotten through A and most of B.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Becca said:


> Is there anyone else who is in the process of, or wishes to participate in this comparison?


I'm not finding enough time to listen to all of them all the way through as I would need to in order to make any decent comments. I've certainly been enjoying other members' contributions on this very interesting comparison. I did listen to the first two movements of all five, and based just on that experience I can say that I find B simply unlistenable, A and C very enjoyable, D OK, and E a bit OTT and too intense. But I am much less an aficionado of Beethoven symphonies than the other members contributing here anyway.

Thank you, Becca, for presenting this blind comparison!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Just started C!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Great, the more, the merrier


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

A - Straight-forward, meticulous, pedantic, clinical, boring, lifeless, uninspired, amateurish, some okay phrasing here and there, a bit more life in the faster movements, the finale ends very well. They should have just released the finale alone.

B - Musical though extremely sluggish in spots particularly in the outer movements (was this conductor near death?), good awareness of overall architecture, some beautiful phrasing and powerful moments, but the outer movements simply lack momentum. This sounds like an interpretation that might have been excellent in the conductor's younger days, but I'm just guessing.

C - Very powerful and exciting, THIS is Beethoven, beautiful phrasing, obvious understanding of the harmonic structure, wonderful tempo shifts, slow basic tempo that mostly works except for just a few sluggish moments. I'm guessing Klemperer here - similar to Furtwangler but less elastic - a great performance by an obviously elite Beethoven conductor.

D - Elegantly musical, not terribly powerful or exciting, fairly fleet, serviceable if not entirely compelling, not great command of architecture, conventional, inoffensive, detached, kinda boring, straight tone gets annoying in Allegretto, fast movements are light and fleet but lack power.

E - Very compelling from the get-go, intense, uniquely inspired, powerful, fleet but flexible, very driven, a bit too much in spots, Allegretto feels too rushed and clipped, lacks power, 3rd movement never breathes, 4th movement is exhilarating. Overall very compelling if not as complete a view of the work as C. I would guess this has to be live Carlos Kleiber. 

So C and E are keepers. B and D have a few things going for them but not worth more than a listen. A is forgettable save for an exciting end to the final movement.

I rate on a 5-star scale:

C ****1/2
E ****
B/D ***
A **1/2


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

seitzpf said:


> But I am much less an aficionado of Beethoven symphonies than the other members contributing here anyway.
> !


They're ain't no aficionados here, seitzpf.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

It's fascinating to go back now and read other comments. In most cases it seems we hear the same things even if we have different preferences and reactions.

But the one that really perplexed me was D, to the point where I wondered if I had heard the same recording as everyone else. I am relistening now and generally stand by my comments except to say that I think poor D suffered a bit with me by coming right after C. It is still a fairly tame, conventional reading in my view, and not that bad, but certainly it would sound less interesting right after my hearing what I judged to be the best of the lot.

My guess is that D is from within the past 15 years. Everything is too contained in my view to have possibly been recorded earlier than 2000. I guess for me D is kind of like Beethoven's 4th symphony, sandwiched in between the two Nordic giants of C and E. :lol:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Unless request otherwise, I will post the details later this afternoon (Friday 24th)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Here are the specifics...

A - Berlin Philharmonic Orch. / Kirill Petrenko (live 2019)
B - Philharmonia Orch. / Otto Klemperer (studio 1955)
C - East-West Divan Orch. / Daniel Barenboim (live Proms 2012)
D - Royal Concertgebouw Orch. / Ivan Fischer (live 2015)
E - Royal Concertgebouw Orch. / Carlos Kleiber (live 1983)

The Klemperer is the earlier (and faster!) of his B7 recordings. It was primarily recorded in mono but they also did an experimental stereo recording alongside it which wasn't released until much later.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Well, I guess I don't feel so bad about my guess on C considering Barenboim idolizes and emulates Furtwangler, but wow I cannot believe B was Klemperer's mono recording! His live 1957 is one of my favorites. A ton more energy than this one.

And, oh boy, I guess I'm already not a Petrenko fan seeing as how I called his interpretation "amateurish." Yikes.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I was quite pleased with my guesses. I like Barenboim's Beethoven. His Berlin cycle is a keeper - big-boned and granitic. Shame the West-Eastern Divan set wasn't as good cos I really wanted that to be a great cycle but it was still a damn good set. It was such a great idea forming the orchestra as a project against ignorance and prejudice. Fantastic comparison as always Becca and no Rattle! Lol

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I can tell you right now I am listening to live Klemp 1957 and it is a ton more inspired than this 1955 studio. I did say in my review of B that it seemed like a conductor with an excellent grasp of the work that simply lacked inspiration in that particular performance. There is a weird interpretive thing he does with a certain passage in the opening movement that oddly stops the momentum. It’s jarring and unsettling in both recordings.

Incidentally, I looked up this studio 7th on Amazon, and it looks like Matthew already had left a review:

“I couldn't believe how excruciating it was to listen to such great music played at such an agonizing tempo. The 7th is supposed to bounce and spring in the 1st and 3rd movements, and then move at a lightning clip in the finale. But no. The 1st movement plodded along with no real purpose. The scherzo was damaged by the fact that OK doesn't play the soft "ghost" section of the main body of the movement, instead making it just as loud as the first time you heard it. That's part of the greatness of the Beethoven 7th, part of what makes it magic. But no dice for OK. And the finale just plods away until you don't care anymore. Play this outside of all 7 Eleven's and you'll keep everyone away! Terrible.”


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I can tell you right now I am listening to live Klemp 1957 and it is a ton more inspired than this 1955 studio. I did say in my review of B that it seemed like a conductor with an excellent grasp of the work that simply lacked inspiration in that particular performance. There is a weird interpretive thing he does with a certain passage in the opening movement that oddly stops the momentum. It's jarring and unsettling in both recordings.
> 
> Incidentally, I looked up this studio 7th on Amazon, and it looks like Matthew already had left a review:
> 
> "I couldn't believe how excruciating it was to listen to such great music played at such an agonizing tempo. The 7th is supposed to bounce and spring in the 1st and 3rd movements, and then move at a lightning clip in the finale. But no. The 1st movement plodded along with no real purpose. The scherzo was damaged by the fact that OK doesn't play the soft "ghost" section of the main body of the movement, instead making it just as loud as the first time you heard it. That's part of the greatness of the Beethoven 7th, part of what makes it magic. But no dice for OK. And the finale just plods away until you don't care anymore. Play this outside of all 7 Eleven's and you'll keep everyone away! Terrible."


Not guilty. The writing isn't half bad, though.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am more than a little surprised at the dislike of the Klemperer. Yes I can understand the issues with his slow tempi (which is nothing compared to his later stereo recording and then the REALLY slow 1970 performances), but once I start listening and stop thinking about the speed, it is like riding a wave, it just carries you along inevitably. I'd rather have slow (within reason) than boring.

Incidentally, what is the live 1957 performance being referred to?


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Becca said:


> Here are the specifics...
> 
> A - Berlin Philharmonic Orch. / Kirill Petrenko (live 2019)
> B - Philharmonia Orch. / Otto Klemperer (studio 1955)
> ...


The Youtube video of D is very good, very nicely done IMO.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Becca said:


> Incidentally, what is the live 1957 performance being referred to?


I assume it's this one:


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

> C - East-West Divan Orch. / Daniel Barenboim (live Proms 2012)


This was the biggest shock for me. I heard parts of their commercial set, and dismissed it as little more than just playing the notes. I didn't get as far as #7. Listening now to the commercial set, it's not terrible, but it's a bit slower than the live Proms version Becca used, and doesn't have the same level of energy - perhaps the orchestra players were made nervous by the recording process.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> I assume it's this one:
> 
> View attachment 134535


All those 1957 live Beethoven recordings on Testament show Klemp at his best IMO. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 9th all shine.


----------



## Templeton (Dec 20, 2014)

I didn't really get a chance to listen to all of the recordings properly but had wondered whether E, which was my favourite, was a Kleiber recording, although I recognised that it wasn't the VPO or Bayerisches Staatsorchester ones. I had intended to relisten to the RCO one, to compare, but didn't get the chance. Beecham was the other consideration but I thought that the tempo was probably a little slower than his recording, based upon recollection. 

I thought B was probably Celibidache but again did wonder about Klemperer, solely on the basis of tempo. I had also queried Fricsay, as I recalled his recording being slower than usual but surely not that slow; again, I didn't have the chance to check back to my own copy.

I must listen to A again, as I wasn't wowed by Petrenko's performance of the 7th at the Proms, a couple of years ago, but attributed it, at the time, to the acoustics at the Royal Albert Hall, particularly given the superlative reviews from the critics. Mind you, the Schmidt performance was superlative.

I would never have guessed A, C or D.

This is my favourite classical work, so I appreciate your having posted this, Becca. Just wish that I had been able to engage in it more. I will, however, spend some time listening to them all (well, maybe not B so much) over the weekend. Thanks again.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I thought B sounded Klemperer-like. It could never be Celibidache as the slowness seemed incidental and a little perverse rather than a way to open out the sound or produce sublime moments as it would have done with Celibidache (and, anyway, the sound placed the recording year long before Celibidache's slow period) but despite the perversity of the speeds Klemperer still produces a powerful and convincing Beethoven account! I'm not surprised about Kleiber but am delighted to know that the Barenboim was so good. It is bad news, I think, that Kiril Petrenko sounded so superficial: it's the first time I have heard him and now feel I am missing nothing!

Thanks to Becca for another good blind listening experience. The use of a longer piece worked for me but then these are times when I have time on my hands.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Have to admit, an impression of K. Petrenko's signature sound has been gradually forming in my mind through these blindcoms, and he does seem to be a safe pair of hands but he's not someone whose work would blow me away.

I knew B was Klemperer and I have nothing more to add to my comments.

I actually have Barenboim's Decca cycle with the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. Once I put that Decca B7 on when a friend came over and wanted to hear classical music (because I had just bought this cycle). Half way through the first movement, I was already feeling embarrassed by its old-fashioned ways but the real thorn was it sounded dull. Haven't compared it with the Proms performance, but my reaction to C tells me that C was made in the same mold. And I did find C insincere!

Iván Fischer's Budapest B7 on Channel Classics is pretty good. As for D, I probably rated it a bit higher than most did. There is a maverick quality in the poundings that has a different character than in other recordings, which, now that the identity has been revealed, reminds me of his relaxing and joyous Mahler 7 Finale. There is a similar character here, that I find a bit unorthodox, and that makes it stand out for me.

And E… is this Carlos Kleiber B7 the same as the one on the Unitel DVD? (If so, I need to hunt it down.) It certainly sounds a lot more lively than his DG B7. Again I find it a bit unorthodox in the sense that the pounding does not sound like the heavy (even clumsy) pounding one will often hear. I hesitated to call that spontaneous. With hindsight, perhaps an illusion of spontaneity is a more appropriate description. :lol:

Thanks Becca for organising this blindcom! Great selections! It's enjoyable as ever!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ No worries that we hear things differently .... but you suggest that old fashioned ways are embarrassing. I wonder why you feel that? It seems to me that there were many performances of yore that are nothing special (just as there are in today's recordings) but there are also many that are exceptionally good (just as there are in today's recordings). Do you disagree?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

^

I never meant to generalise that the old-fashioned ways were embarrassing.

That Barenboim/Decca B7 is the kind of old-fashioned way that I don't enjoy (On the other hand, I enjoy a George Szell type of B5 with the Concertgebouw, for example, which is also old-fashioned.), yet I put it on when I was asked to select a recording to play. Therefore I felt embarrassed.

Old-fashioned ways do not mean embarrassing. They don't mean great either. The vice versa is true for any "modern" way. Therefore I don't disagree with you. In fact I agree with you,


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

These were the guesses I sent Becca before her reveal.

_"A - I hope I'm right here but this has the BPO sound to it. It's fairly modern so I'm guessing either Abbado or our good friend Mr Rattle. Nice performance. Well conducted and fluid whilst being fairly traditional.
B - this perplexed me for a while as it's older and sounds like the Philharmonia but it doesn't sound like Karajan so it could be Barbirolli, Giulini or even earlier (Klempy or Toscanini). Not a recording I particularly like and I doubt I'll be revisiting.
C - this one has me very puzzled. It's not a great recording and it's hard to tell if it's newer or not because of the acoustic but I'm suspecting it's 80s and maybe recorded in a ropey location so I'll go with Tennstedt. BBC SO? Is that the Albert Hall?
D - this could be the sort of performance that Bernstein would make in later years but it isn't and I think it's more recent. I really have no idea about this one. Tempi are fluid to say the least. Not a clue so as a total shot in the dark I'll say Gergiev. Lol.
E - this doesn't sound like a top tier orchestra in parts but as it goes on they really dig in and impress and the level of playing is high in other parts but it's live so rehearsal time may have been at a premium. Again not a clue so I'll say Fischer / RCO."_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Kiki said:


> ^
> 
> I never meant to generalise that the old-fashioned ways were embarrassing.
> 
> ...


I love Furtwangler's Beethoven and was always baffled by views that Barenboim was giving us the sort of Beethoven that Furtwangler would have done. It always seemed to me that you always sense a pulse and a direction with Furtwangler (even though he changes speeds a lot) whereas you don't with Barenboim. But I did really like this example of Barenboim's art.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I love Furtwangler's Beethoven and was always baffled by views that Barenboim was giving us the sort of Beethoven that Furtwangler would have done. It always seemed to me that you always sense a pulse and a direction with Furtwangler (even though he changes speeds a lot) whereas you don't with Barenboim. But I did really like this example of Barenboim's art.


I don't hear the Furtwangleresque comparisons either, especially on the Berlin set. I think some people just generalised as it was an older-styled set in the Germanic, heavy-hitting stylee but there's big differences in phrasing and articulation. It's a top cycle, immaculately played and well-conceived in superb sound. The Divan (Beethoven for all) cycle was far less interesting and far less acclaimed probably cos he did it so much better the first time round. The first set also never slacks in forward momentum whilst the Divan set gets bogged down, especially in the odd numbers (the 5th is especially far too contrived) but it's still a decent set, just not in the same league as the Berlin one. I have the Proms 2012 Divan set on mp3 rarely play it but maybe I should. Listening quickly, this morning, he changes his interpretations again, going back to the style of the Berlin set, but they're only 128k radio rips and the sound is compromised (which is why many of us thought it was an older recording) . Perhaps I need to buy the DVDs and listen to how they sound as the YouTube rips and my rips are not great. Unfortunately it's the Royal Albert Hall so maybe that's as good as it will get. As we know, Becca, that place does not have the best acoustic for orchestral (or even rock music) recordings!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I stated my guess that C was Klemperer based on its being Furtwanglerian but lacking his elasticity. Of course I also thought it was pre-70s due to the recording quality. But Barenboim certainly fits the bill as I have always seen him as directly following Furtwangler's basic architecture but in a less spontaneuous manner. Still, this Proms concert is much more exciting than anything I remember previously from DB. (although decades ago I remember being bowled over by his Teldec 9th)

I am still perplexed about reactions to D. How can anyone find such a careful, boring, convention interpretation anything like a Bernstein or even a Gergiev? To me it was obvious this was a newer recording and style, and it is not surprising to end up being Fischer. Petrenko would not have surprised here either. This is the modern style which I of course detest - cut out the fat, streamline everything, in the name of...what exactly? Economy? Efficiency? This is Beethoven!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks to everyone who took part in this, or even just took the time to comment, it makes the effort more than worth while


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> Thanks to everyone who took part in this, or even just took the time to comment, it makes the effort more than worth while


We've done fair few of these now, Becca. I always enjoy them.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Can someone explain to me what a "superficial reading" is, and how it applies to the Petrenko?

I doubt *they* thought they were creating a superficial reading.

Is it a way of discussing tempo? It seems like faster renditions are called superficial, while dreary slow readings are praised as "emotional" or "insightful."


----------



## Templeton (Dec 20, 2014)

Merl said:


> These were the guesses I sent Becca before her reveal.
> 
> _"A - I hope I'm right here but this has the BPO sound to it. It's fairly modern so I'm guessing either Abbado or our good friend Mr Rattle. Nice performance. Well conducted and fluid whilst being fairly traditional.
> B - this perplexed me for a while as it's older and sounds like the Philharmonia but it doesn't sound like Karajan so it could be Barbirolli, Giulini or even earlier (Klempy or Toscanini). Not a recording I particularly like and I doubt I'll be revisiting.
> ...


Love your comments, Merl, and it just goes to how first impressions can be so easily misleading. I was really confused by E too. I love the video recording of this but didn't immediately reconcile it and thought that maybe Becca had plucked an obscure Kleiber recording, maybe La Scala. Well done on identifying the BPO for A.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Can someone explain to me what a "superficial reading" is, and how it applies to the Petrenko?
> 
> I doubt *they* thought they were creating a superficial reading.
> 
> Is it a way of discussing tempo? It seems like faster renditions are called superficial, while dreary slow readings are praised as "emotional" or "insightful."


I think it was me that used that term - I remember because I was in a hurry but wanted a more precise word - so I will try to explain. I found the Petrenko (as I described in my main post) to lack a distinctive Beethoven sound and to be a rather "generic" (oh dear, another vague word!). I didn't feel he told me anything new or anything particularly moving about the music and all seemed rather under control ... not because his orchestra were good and well-prepared (clearly they were) but because Petrenko took no risks and did not present the music's Dionysian side - the dances didn't dance and the thrills seemed plotted rather than natural. We don't have to agree about it, of course.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Templeton said:


> Love your comments, Merl, and it just goes to how first impressions can be so easily misleading. I was really confused by E too. I love the video recording of this but didn't immediately reconcile it and thought that maybe Becca had plucked an obscure Kleiber recording, maybe La Scala. Well done on identifying the BPO for A.


Thanks, Templeton. Not too bad assumptions for a working class kid, raised on glam rock, with no musical training and with no understanding about what constitutes good Beethoven. Mind you, if my guesses had been a mile out, like usual, I wouldn't have said a thing. Lol. :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Can someone explain to me what a "superficial reading" is, and how it applies to the Petrenko?
> 
> I doubt *they* thought they were creating a superficial reading.
> 
> Is it a way of discussing tempo? It seems like faster renditions are called superficial, while dreary slow readings are praised as "emotional" or "insightful."


Not anything to do with tempo. Kleiber was very fast and I generally loved it.

It has more to do with flexibility and artistic awareness and sensitivity. I hated the Petrenko as much as you hated the Klemperer. I called it clinical and meticulous. No attempt to dig beneath the surface, which is why I think someone called it superficial. The tempo was very metronomical, like someone reciting Shakespeare in monotone. Beethoven is drama, inherently. Another way of looking at it is if someone in an English class did a report on a great novel and completely ignored the major themes, instead focusing merely on what the characters said and did on the surface with no attempt to examine the meaning. That is what I call superficial.

As to what Petrenko thought...some artists really are tone deaf as to understanding musical inflection. Others consciously refuse to dig deep into musical scores on philosophical grounds. Toscanini is the most infamous example of the latter. Toscanini reminds me of Dr. Zeus in Planet of the Apes. Zeus was not ignorant like the other apes. He knew the existence of truth beyond the ape "lawgiver" but he willfully ignored and repressed it. He viewed it as dangerous. That was Toscanini.

Toscanini on Beethoven's Eroica:

"To some it's Napoleon, to some it's philosophical struggle, to me it's allegro con brio."


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Hey guys (and Becca). This has nothing to do with this comparison, but since we have a group assembled talking about the 7th I'll bring this up: Many years ago I was on a Czech Philharmonic kick, and somehow wound up with an album of B-7 by the CPO under Kletzki. It was a serviceable performance, but in the finale, in the places where the main theme comes to a semi-stop (measures 6, 10, et seq.), where virtually every other conductor known to me emphasizes the DUM-da-da-DUM rhythm, Kleztzki brought the otherwise unheard viola swirl to the front instead. Can't say it was revelatory, but was a nice change of pace and I amused a lot of friends with it. Anyone out there know it? Or know of any other forces that have done that?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I can tell you right now I am listening to live Klemp 1957 and it is a ton more inspired than this 1955 studio.


I found my copy of the live Klemperer 7th on Testament (I bought it a while back, but hadn't played it because a) the review in Fanfare suggested that it was dreadful and b) I couldn't find it in the piles of unfiled CD's.

It's an improvement over his studio efforts, certainly. Tempo isn't everything, of course, but I note that in virtually every movement, the live recording is faster - often considerably so - than any of the studio versions.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

MarkW said:


> Hey guys (and Becca). This has nothing to do with this comparison, but since we have a group assembled talking about the 7th I'll bring this up: Many years ago I was on a Czech Philharmonic kick, and somehow wound up with an album of B-7 by the CPO under Kletzki. It was a serviceable performance, but in the finale, in the places where the main theme comes to a semi-stop (measures 6, 10, et seq.), where virtually every other conductor known to me emphasizes the DUM-da-da-DUM rhythm, Kleztzki brought the otherwise unheard viola swirl to the front instead. Can't say it was revelatory, but was a nice change of pace and I amused a lot of friends with it. Anyone out there know it? Or know of any other forces that have done that?


Aye, i like Kletzki's set. It has a few quirky moments like that and it's quite broad but the even numbers are really nice, especially the 4th. That 7th isnt a great one, tbh. Lol


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

While I'm perseverating over the Beethoven 7th, does anyone have an opinion about which of Furtwängler's and Mengelberg's recordings (there are several for each conductor) are to be preferred?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> While I'm perseverating over the Beethoven 7th, does anyone have an opinion about which of Furtwängler's and Mengelberg's recordings (there are several for each conductor) are to be preferred?


I love Furtwangler's 1953 DG, coupled with an excellent 8th. It is less taut perhaps than earlier accounts, but more flexible and engaging IMO. And the sound is undoubtably the best he had for this symphony despite its being live. Very present and full.

That said, certainly the 1943 is the most intense, more Kleiber-ish. But I enjoy the 1953 the most. 1950 EMI is no slouch either, though not as viscerally inspired IMO.

I am not a big fan of Mengelberg's Beethoven, though his 9th was quite good. I cannot remember much about his 7th.


----------

