# Blind Experiment



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Re: Recordings
Some colleagues of mine were discussing/wondering how influenced people were by what they read (reviews/guide books etc.) instead of listening objectively.

Hence, the blind experiment.

6 short excerpts from Beethoven's 5th. Each from a different conductor/orchestra.
*Rank them according to which is your favourite.*

This isn't about making anyone feel daft about their rankings. You won't find the Guatemalan High School Orchestra here. These are all interesting recordings (at least, I think so) but admittedly, some are more famous than others.

I guess this will either open peoples ears to different interpretations or it will justify that gold-standard CD in your collection.

I've purposely chosen stereo recordings...apples with apples and all that.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think at least a couple of those are the same recording! Or maybe the ears get tired after a very short time. Anyway here's my stab at it. Recommend no one reads this until after listening. Drag your cursor to highlight for easier reading.

1. I did not like the blurry phrasing. Clarity is poor -- sound is fair.

2. Too fast for me. Clarity is good. Phrasing is better. Contrast is better than above.

3. Sound is tinnier. Phrasing is perfect, but still too fast. Lower contrast between phrases.

4. Exact same recording as above? Well, maybe not. I hear some kind of brass ornaments I am not hearing in the other examples.

5. Better tempo for me. Better instrumental differentiation. Better phrasing and contrast.

6. Almost identical to 5. Possibly too slow. Possibly better dynamic contrast.

So my rank might be 5-6-4-2-3-1

Most interesting experiment.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

5-6-3-4-1-2 Very interesting way to analyse music!


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

This is nothing new to me: I listen to the 30-second samples on Amazon to determine my purchase candidates and selections all of the time. That is where the similarity ends, however. On Amazon, I can flip back and forth, so that I can almost immediately compare, _while the ink is still wet_, the shortest passages. Here, I was tempted to go back and listen again, but I decided that one sequential listening was all the experiment required. After the second clip, they all started to sound fairly much the same to me. Here are some impressions...

#1 seemed Karajanisch
#2 seemed less bombastic, so I thought of a HIP recording
#3 and #4 seemed more like #1
#5 seemed more like #2, or at least different than the #1, #3 and #4 group
#6 had me stumped, but I decided that, if it could be grouped, it would go with #2 and #5

I liked them all. I couldn't possibly rank them. I might be tempted to buy #2 first, then #1. After that, my ability to discern had become so overloaded, that a single listening would no longer provide any further useful results.

PS: After I wrote and posted this, I read Weston's post. We don't agree, but we both appear to have grouped the samples into close to the same 2 groups of 3.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Curiosity is getting the better of me: are you going to tell us the identities of the 6 recordings we listened to, Couac Addict?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

The most interesting thing for me is not being able to decide what I like best. I think I like the faster tempo ones until I get to the horn call.

#6 does the most with dynamics, but sounds almost stop-and-go with the tempo. #1 is muddy (Karajan?) but does end well (maybe will pay off better later in the movement).


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

5 or 6 for me. I'm not a fan of breakneck tempos. Also, you've cured me of any desire to listen to the 5th for a few months.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Y'all like the plushy, gentle 5 (very nicely played tho) and 6 (yuck)? Number 4 probably the pick for me with energy, direction and well defined playing, but none make we want to listen to the rest


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I like 4 best except for the marching band horn call. The details in the strings are wonderful.
I like 1 almost as much and the horns are in better taste.
I do not like 6.
The rest are in the middle.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

dgee said:


> Y'all like the plushy, gentle 5 (very nicely played tho) and 6 (yuck)? Number 4 probably the pick for me with energy, direction and well defined playing, but none make we want to listen to the rest


I agree with you about 5 and 6.

My favorite is no. 1 - I love the build-up of the climaxes and better integrated horn parts.

My ranking: 1-2-4-3-5-6.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2013)

I listened twice. I had no idea six different composers from six different periods could sound so much like Beethoven! **

I'm gonna try to rank in three groups:
best: 2, 5 // the faster ones
good: 6, 3 // 6 was the best of the pokeys
okay: 4, 1 // didn't like 1 much

I like brisker tempos, thinner strings, lots of detail, and a good balance between drama and lyricism.

Can't wait to see how big a fool I am!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

BPS said:


> I listened twice. I had no idea six different composers from six different periods could sound so much like Beethoven! **
> 
> I'm gonna try to rank in three groups:
> best: 2, 5 // the faster ones
> ...


We are oceans apart concerning our preferences. For me, this part of the 1st movement is all about drama, tension and power. I don't see detail or lyricism playing much of a role.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Firstly, thanks to all those that bothered to play. Secondly, I was fascinated by the responses.
I purposely chose 3 major label recordings and 3 indie/budget labels.
I also wanted a mixture of old/new recordings etc.

For what it's worth...a very rough tally gave us 
#5 (38pts) Jansons/Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra (BR Klassik)
#4 (34pts) Zinman/Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich (Arte Nova)
#2 (31pts) Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic (DG)
#1 (28pts) Chailly/Leipzig Gewandhaus (Decca)
#6 (27pts) Vanska/Minnesota orchestra (BIS)
#3 (27pts) Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic (DG)


We just made some major labels cry.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Not surprised with Karajan, and I'm not surprised I didn't like his. I don't currently own any of his Fifths but I don't like his 6th or 9th for these reasons. Why the rush?


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Very good idea, though I would have found it even more interesting if you'd included some HIP recordings (Gardiner, Brüggen, Van Immerseel).


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

No surprises Bavarian Radio Symphony sounded marvellous! Thanks Couac - I had an idea 4 (the Zinman) would be fairly recent but surprised by Vanska at Minnesota taking such a slow and steady approach. Nice exercise - FWIW DG needn't be too depressed as I thought their offerings were fairly decent


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I have to be honest.

They sounded exactly the same to me.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Interesting that the praised Kleiber recording scored so low! 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Ironically, I had said I would likely buy #2 first, and that's the one I bought this summer (but don't know that well yet, since I've only had Norrington's set since about 1990).


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

DrKilroy said:


> Interesting that the praised Kleiber recording scored so low!
> 
> Best regards, Dr


The catalyst for me choosing Beethoven's 5th. So many people swear by the Kleiber recording. It's great but is it living on past glories? The newer recordings were generally favoured on this thread.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Where did you get the points from? How many people voted?

Plus, you are only basing it on half a movement. 

A fun exercise, but I think it's too much to draw conclusions about living on past glories.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2013)

This was fun -- please post another one!

Maybe something by Brahms ?


PS - I re-listened and this time picked 3 and 6. No doubt if I take the test again tomorrow I'll get a different result.


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

BPS said:


> This was fun -- please post another one!
> 
> Maybe something by Brahms ?


It was a lot of fun, and I could only tell differences because some were faster than others. How about fewer choices, but a longer sample of each? (And maybe not quite as well-known a work -- it's actually hard for me to listen to Beethoven's 5th.)

A GREAT exercise! Please do it again!!!

- Bill


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Where did you get the points from? How many people voted?
> 
> Plus, you are only basing it on half a movement.
> 
> A fun exercise, but I think it's too much to draw conclusions about living on past glories.


Don't read too much into that. The sample is too small to be meaningful. The points were just from adding up everyone's preferences. It was meant as nothing more than a quick summary. I wouldn't throw away that Kleiber record just yet 

I can do more but maybe we should agree on the criteria first. 
Fewer but longer excerpts? (eg. 4x2mins) How many times can you tolerate the same excerpt?
HIP performances? Mono recordings? Should they be compared with traditional stereo etc.
Or, should the gloves be off and "anything goes".


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think it would be better to have the six excepts in six separate files, so that listeners can flip back and forth to hear the same passages in each.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Late to the party, but 5 and 6 I liked best. The first three I found really annoying for one reason or another. 4 was okay.


----------



## Bomkihl (Dec 16, 2013)

Nice blindest. I´ve only listened to the tracks ones and this is the first impressions: Nr 1 seems a bit slack in sound, quite old recording, nr 2 too fast and somewhat hasty in performance, nr 3 also a bit fast but more balanced and dynamic than 2, nr 4 good tempo, good balance, nr 5 very nice- this one has got the frightening chilly intentions, nr 6 not bad at all! I don´t know what records they are and what conductors but here´s my choice (best-worst): 5-6-4-3-2-1.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> I can do more but maybe we should agree on the criteria first.
> Fewer but longer excerpts? (eg. 4x2mins) How many times can you tolerate the same excerpt?
> HIP performances? Mono recordings? Should they be compared with traditional stereo etc.
> Or, should the gloves be off and "anything goes".


I think the number and length were just about right, but maybe 4-5 instead of 6.

Mono might be a problem because some people (i.e., me) would probably differentiate entirely based on that. Then again, if you think an older, mono recording helps to nail down one end of the spectrum, include it. I wouldn't suggest trying to deliberately exclude HIP.

And if you're taking piece recs: Schubert's 9th, first couple minutes of 1st movement.

Could do a solo pianist as well.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Don't read too much into that. The sample is too small to be meaningful. The points were just from adding up everyone's preferences. It was meant as nothing more than a quick summary. I wouldn't throw away that Kleiber record just yet
> 
> I can do more but maybe we should agree on the criteria first.
> Fewer but longer excerpts? (eg. 4x2mins) How many times can you tolerate the same excerpt?
> ...


You're the person in charge. I think it best for you to handle this any way you want.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I think I'll leave it as before. I can see how separating the recordings could be useful but it means converting them into 6 video files for youtube. It's not practical enough.

Brahms was requested, so...3rd symphony - complete with poached theme





#1 0'00
#2 1'25
#3 3'08
#4 4'32
#5 5'48
#6 7'04


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

This is real fun! And a piece I genuinely like this time

1 was generally OK but lost the flow a bit with fiddly rits and ralls, 
2 was a slow disaster - would switch off instantly (but the band sounded nice enough), 
3 sounds a bit messy in the orchestra (I bet it's old) although it was nice to hear some velvety trombones come through in the texture, 
4 had weird sound and a poor mix but a plenty of drive - the trumpets need to calm down tho - they bombed the little climaxes, 
5 is a nice take on it, doesn't indulge but still beautifully shaped - I'd listen to more of this one, WINNER for me
6 was just a bit slow and an older recording (messy edges in sound and playing), unremarkable


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Firstly, thanks to all those that bothered to play. Secondly, I was fascinated by the responses.
> I purposely chose 3 major label recordings and 3 indie/budget labels.
> I also wanted a mixture of old/new recordings etc.
> 
> ...


I had Kleiber first and Karajan second, which would seem to make me well out of step with the cognoscenti on TC.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

The Brahms:
I'd choose 1 as the best. The tempo is to my liking and the phrasing is quite nuanced and pleasant. 
The other ones in order from the second - 3rd, 5th, 6st, 4th and 2nd, which was painfully slow and destroyed the vitality of this work.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I'm less familiar with Brahms 3 than Beethoven 5 and am thus finding myself sympathetic with those who said they all sound the same. I had an easier time making judgments in the first portion than the rest.

#1 had the best beginning for me, the most dramatic, followed closely by #6. I agree that #2 is just too sluggish.

I appreciated the brisker tempo of #4, maybe in part for the change of pace. I kind of liked the brassy punctuations. 

#5 was good but sounded different dynamically, like it quieted down too soon. #3 seemed middle of the road.

I was wondering if #2 would redeem itself in the gentler parts later in the movement, but it didn't really for me. Maybe I was getting punchy by then.

I'd probably rate them 1-6-4-5-3-2.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

I like 2 and 4.

Inb4 the OP tells us they were all conducted by monkeys.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Beethoven:
Well, I found #1 too conventional, #2 too fast, #3 too soft in the soft parts, #4 very bright sounding, #5 the most dramatic, #6 conventional but likable. 5-4-6-3-1-2 

Brahms:
#1 was conventional, sound was poor; #2 was flaccid and slow; #3 was good; #4 was dramatic, but the brass was intrusive; #5 suffered from poor phrasing and definition of themes; #6 was clearly the best. 6-3-1-4-5-2


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I picked Karajan in the Beethoven one.

Brahms...my pick is #1...I'm also curious if #2 is Bohm.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2013)

The definitive order: 4-3-6-5-1-2

The CHIMP has spoken. Unless you want a pair of donkey ears I'd advise you to agree.


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> HIP performances?


What is a HIP performance?

- Bill


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

BillT said:


> What is a HIP performance?
> 
> - Bill


Historically Informed Performance

A movement known for using "usually" swifter tempos, period intruments, etc. and usually in an attempt to try to recreate how the listener may have heard things back in that time period.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> Historically Informed Performance
> 
> A movement known for using "usually" swifter tempos, period intruments, etc. and usually in an attempt to try to recreate how the listener may have heard things back in that time period.


...and the audience helps recreate the time period by pretending to have whooping cough during the quieter passages.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> I picked Karajan in the Beethoven one.
> 
> Brahms...my pick is #1...I'm also curious if #2 is Bohm.


Bohm didn't make the list


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Couac Addict said:


> Bohm didn't make the list


Then clip 2 has to be Bernstein in Vienna. They're the only two who I remember taking it so slow.

I put my answer in White Letters so as not to be a total spoiler if I'm correct.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

So.....................when do we find out who the Brahms performers were?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Brahms' 3rd

1. Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic
2. Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic
3. Alsop/London philharmonic
4. Walter/Columbia Symphony
5. Young/Hamburg Philharmonic
6. Klemperer/Philharmonia

It looks like Abbado was the most popular...with the Bernstein CD being destined as a new drinks coaster


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Schubert's 9th was requested. So, here it is.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Couac Addict said:


> Brahms' 3rd
> 
> 1. Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic
> 2. Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic
> ...


Interesting. I have the Abaddo and Alsop versions which I like very much. But, I liked Klemperer even better, picking blind in the order Klemperer, Abaddo, Alsop. But, it was mainly the sound quality that made me pick 6 over 1.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> But, I liked Klemperer even better


The real mystery about Klemperer is that despite being Jewish, his son still managed to become a Nazi Colonel.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Interesting. I have the Abaddo and Alsop versions which I like very much. But, I liked Klemperer even better, picking blind in the order Klemperer, Abaddo, Alsop. But, it was mainly the sound quality that made me pick 6 over 1.


Must be nice, my computer speakers are so bad I honestly can't hear "any sound quality difference". You could put a mono recording from 1930 on there and I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

By the way...the Schubert times are roughly

#1 - 0:00
#2 - 1:42
#3 - 3:29
#4 - 5:11
#5 - 6:50
#6 - 8:31

Still debating on this one...


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Ah, the last movement. Sneaky. Realdealblues' times tell us they're all about the same. 

1. Spritely and rhythmic, the most scherzo-like of the lot (which isn't a bad thing) 

2. More flexible with the tempo. Goes for more drama and gets a better early crescendo, but loses too much forward energy, IMO.

3. Somewhat abrasive brass at the start. Seems nice balance between the two preceding though.

4. The most conspicuously mono sound we've had so far. Sounds like an energetic performance, but it's hard to pick out all the details. Has a "waah-waah" thing going on about one minute in.

5. Sounds great coming after the one before. Very crisp, nice crescendo near the start. But strings sound different, maybe less full. 

6. Works up quite a ruckus, but I like that I can still hear all the instrument details, all those brass and wind accents. Probably the best of both worlds as far as rhythm and drama. 

I'd probably say 6-1-3-5-4-2, with 4 suffering for the sound quality.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2013)

No I am not David Hurwitz, but he seems to like my top three blind experiment choices:
4. Walter/Columbia Symphony - reference recording
3. Alsop/London philharmonic - 10/10
6. Klemperer/Philharmonia - reference recording

This is what he says:

_Indeed, in the entire history of the work on disc, there have been perhaps seven or eight truly great performances: Walter (Sony, stereo), Levine (RCA), Wand (his first one with NDR, on RCA), Klemperer (EMI), Jochum (EMI, with this orchestra), Dohnanyi (Warner/Teldec), and perhaps most surprisingly, Solti (Decca).

To this select list, add Alsop. This is not a judgment made lightly, but this is one hell of a fine performance of this most elusive symphony, perhaps closest in character to Dohnanyi's Cleveland version
_

I couldn't find Hurwitz' opinion of my trailing three choices:
5. Young/Hamburg Philharmonic - n/a
1. Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic - n/a
2. Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic - not sure (Insiders Only)

But I'm sure that he'd agree with my ordering if he could! 

Coincidence? Most definitely!


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> By the way...the Schubert times are roughly
> 
> #1 - 0:00
> #2 - 1:42
> ...


Thanks for that. I jotted them down but forget to post them.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

BPS said:


> No I am not David Hurwitz, but he seems to like my top three blind experiment choices:
> 4. Walter/Columbia Symphony - reference recording
> 3. Alsop/London philharmonic - 10/10
> 6. Klemperer/Philharmonia - reference recording
> ...


If it's any consolation, Walter's my preference for Brahms3 as well...and Kleiber for Beethoven's 5th


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

BPS said:


> I couldn't find Hurwitz' opinion of my trailing three choices:
> 5. Young/Hamburg Philharmonic - n/a
> 1. Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic - n/a
> 2. Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic - not sure (Insiders Only)


I can't tell you anything about the one from Young, but I can give you some info on the others.

*Abbado: Brahms 3*
This is a great Brahms Third, make no mistake about it. Most of Claudio Abbado's work has been so unmemorable that it's almost a relief to see him showing some of the excitement and fire that characterized his youthful recordings in this, Brahms's most difficult symphony. The _Tragic Overture_ is similarly fine, and the _Song of Destiny_, a work which refuses to live up to its title, sounds as good as it probably can. First-rate. *--David Hurwitz*

Hurwitz mentions Abbado's Brahms Cycle many times in his reviews of Brahms Symphonies. It is one of his reference recordings and he has always placed it on par with Klemperer's Cycle. He usually lists them as his Top 2 complete cycles.

*Bernstein: Brahms 3 (Vienna)*
Big, heavy, slow, mannered, and beautifully played, this performance has many gorgeous moments but even more irritating ones. Something about Brahms really put Leonard Bernstein on his worst behavior, as though the music's inherent emotional reticence forced the conductor to give it all the extra juice he could pump into it. Well, Bernstein had plenty of juice to pump, if you'll pardon the expression, but the result in Brahms is just a bad case of bloating. _*--David Hurwitz*
_


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

As to the Schubert...I honestly don't know. I'm stuck between 1, 3 and 6. I need better speakers...


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I also wanted to add as far as Bernstein's Brahms another account from Hurwitz on Bernstein's earlier Brahms with the New York Philharmonic from the 1960's which I happen to really enjoy.

"Leonard Bernstein's second Brahms cycle, with the Vienna Philharmonic for Deutsche Grammophon, featured some of the slowest, most self-indulgent music making of his career, though the playing as such was gorgeous. The earlier New York Philharmonic cycle can't compare with the Viennese for sheer beauty of sound, but Bernstein's performances are far more persuasive. Indeed, the best performance here is of the more difficult symphony of the pair-the Third-in which everything culminates in an exciting yet disciplined account of the passionate finale. In general, Bernstein offers straightforward, vigorous music making in both works, and the orchestra responds with fervor. There are more subtle accounts, perhaps, but few as bracing. Throw in excellently remastered sound, and the result is a very pleasant surprise in an area of the repertoire that isn't normally considered Lenny territory." _*--David Hurwitz*_


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Who's Hurwitz? A critic of note in America?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Couac Addict said:


> Who's Hurwitz? A critic of note in America?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hurwitz_(music_critic)

A bit controversial. He has written a nice book on Shostakovich's Symphonies and Concertos that I am using now in an extended listening exercise. Very helpful.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Beethoven All of the Above*

This shows you how messed up my ears are. I have performed this Beethoven symphony more than any other. Although I hear differences between the recordings, to my ears the differences are insignificant. I would be happy with any of the recordings.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Brahms*

I like all of them except the 2nd sample.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Schubert*

My reactions to this experiment reinforces the main reason I hesitate to participate in "what are the best recordings discussions". Again I like all of the samples. Of course I can hear differences. This conductor does it a little faster and that conductor handles the accents on the descending dotted eighth notes differently, but for me these differences are insignificant. They are all still Schubert.

Occasionally I run into recordings that I really dislike. Most of the time it is because the recording is bad and the that is usually the fault of the recording engineer. Sometimes I dislike a recording because it is a sloppy performance. Sometimes I dislike a performance because the tempo is too fast or too slow. This is why I disliked the second sample in the Brahms.

I really lack the wherewithal to put a value judgment on why this conductor's tempos are better than that conductor's. I will leave that discussion to people whose ears and backgrounds are superior to mine.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> My reactions to this experiment reinforces the main reason I hesitate to participate in "what are the best recordings discussions". Again I like all of the samples. Of course I can hear differences. This conductor does it a little faster and that conductor handles the accents on the descending dotted eighth notes differently, but for me these differences are insignificant. They are all still Schubert.
> 
> Occasionally I run into recordings that I really dislike. Most of the time it is because the recording is bad and the that is usually the fault of the recording engineer. Sometimes I dislike a recording because it is a sloppy performance. Sometimes I dislike a performance because the tempo is too fast or too slow. This is why I disliked the second sample in the Brahms.
> 
> I really lack the wherewithal to put a value judgment on why this conductor's tempos are better than that conductor's. I will leave that discussion to people whose ears and backgrounds are superior to mine.


I think that I mentioned this before...what prompted all of this is that someone was telling me that the guide books etc. were all saying that Kleiber's Beethoven 5 was the definitive recording. 
Definitive?
So are there people out there who have only listened to one recording of this symphony?
I'd be first in line to say that Kleiber's recording should be listened to by everyone....but not _only_ Kleiber. You need to compare it with others to find your favourite.

Those guide books are mostly nonsense, anyway. The critics are quick to say which is the 'best' but not why. I like Walter's Brahms 3 for the same reasons many don't like it.

The best recording is the one you enjoy the most. Hence, these samples. They're all by good conductors/orchestras but the anonymity removes the bias when choosing.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Pompous*



Couac Addict said:


> I think that I mentioned this before...what prompted all of this is that someone was telling me that the guide books etc. were all saying that Kleiber's Beethoven 5 was the definitive recording.
> Definitive?
> So are there people out there who have only listened to one recording of this symphony?
> I'd be first in line to say that Kleiber's recording should be listened to by everyone....but not _only_ Kleiber. You need to compare it with others to find your favourite.
> ...


I understand what your objective was.

This is really an exercise that is beyond me.

I have reread my post and it comes accross as a bit pompous and I apologize for that. Sorry that I was unable to do a better job of expressing my thoughts.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

That's okay. This thread has died off anyway so I think we're done. Either that, or everyone really hates Schubert 

Schubert's 9th

1. Fischer/Budapest Festival
2. Rattle/Berlin Philharmonic
3. Wand/Berlin Philharmonic
4. Furtwangler/Berlin Philharmonic
5. Krips/London Symphony
6. Solti/Vienna Philharmonic


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

I _*never*_ read about a work (unless an opera or ballet) without listening to it first. I want to develop my own opinion about things, no matter how accurate Hanslick be about Tchaikovsky's concerto!! - uhh, I didn't say that....

On a more serious note, I will listen to works without holding other people's opinions on them as my own before I have listened to them. It is like reading Charles Dickens or Lord of the Flies comments on Sparknotes without having read and understood the book(s) first!

Even so, I do like to read some background and opinions on works after I have listened to them. I find it interesting. I may hear things that not even the composer may have intended for them, and may notice things that I had not before.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I think the rankings were a bit of a lark. The ones I rated at bottom were still often interesting, and as said above, we're only hearing a small chunk of the entire work.

I found great benefit in listening carefully and noticing the differences among conductors (plus, I was killing time at the office). It actually helped me to notice details of the work more. So this was a great thread while it lasted.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

As far as the Beethoven 5th symphony is concerned (yes, I know, I'm late for the party before last): (i did listen 'blind')

Ist: 5. (Jansons/Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra) Weighty, measured. This is a more relaxed tempo, crescendos build nicely. I can follow the melodic line, much more musical that the first four.

2nd: 6. (Vanska/Minnesota orchestra) Another heavyweight. Brooding, introspective, nuanced. Slower than all the rest, maybe even ponderous at times. Spacious, rather magnificent.

3rd: 3. (Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic) This is OK, but does everyone do LvB 5 so briskly nowadays?. Not as bad as #2, though.

4th: 1. (Chailly/Leipzig Gewandhaus) Familiar, brisk tempi again. Unclear sound. An older recording?

5th: 4. Zinman/Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich

6th: 2. (Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic) Although this has greater clarity than most, it's terribly rushed.

I don't own any recordings of Beethoven 5!


----------

