# Beethoven: Hogwood's Cycle



## AClockworkOrange

I'm in the process of thinning down my music collection and I am contemplating Hogwood's Beethoven Symphony Cycle to complement the set of Piano Concertos.

My question is this - would it be worth picking up or would it simply overlap or compare negatively against the two HIP cycles I already have - Frans Bruggen & Orchestra of the 18th Century and Jos Van Immerseel & the Anima Eterna?


----------



## realdealblues

While I'm not a fan of Period Instrument Beethoven, I have owned all three you listed. Personally I would pass on the Hogwood. Bruggen is the best of that lot in my opinion and to me it would just be overlap. There is nothing that I find that really sets Hogwood's cycle apart or makes it stand out.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

realdealblues said:


> While I'm not a fan of Period Instrument Beethoven, I have owned all three you listed. Personally I would pass on the Hogwood. Bruggen is the best of that lot in my opinion and to me it would just be overlap. There is nothing that I find that really sets Hogwood's cycle apart or makes it stand out.


Thanks for that Realdealblues. I suspected that there would be an overlap but it never hurts to check 

Period instrument-Beethoven has slowly grown on on me thanks to finding the right performances, not only in Beethoven but also (and largely due to) Haydn and Schubert.

Frans Bruggen was the cycle which truly won me over with Beethoven, it was the 'gift' for renewing my subscription to the BBC's Music Magazine and really surprised me.

Immerseel is a little hit and miss in Beethoven for my tastes though his Schubert is divine.

I do still prefer modern Orchestras, particularly with Beethoven - it would take something unthinkable to displace Furtwangler, Klemperer et al. but I'm growing to enjoy a different perspective on the music _approximating_ historical practice can offer, depending on the composer and the performance.


----------



## realdealblues

Yeah, I flip flopped. I started out with modern performance (and by modern I mean Szell, Klemperer, Bernstein, Bohm, etc.) and then I went to Period Instrument stuff for a couple years, but the more I listened to it, the more it grew tiresome to me. I found most of the Period Instrument crowd lacking what I consider "personality" and I'm sorry but I like more vibrato and legato than most Period Instrument guys allow. 

I don't care about exact fidelity to the score. From what I've read over the years most of the early guys like Mozart and Bach used to improvise all the time during when playing their own works and didn't play them exactly as written. I like someone to inject their own view point and personality into a performance as long as it is done with taste and makes the whole work still feel like a uniform work. For years I've described it as a flow or a pulse throughout the entire work. I prefer when the movements flow naturally into one another, where the rhythms and tempos feel like they naturally fit and blend with each other. If someone wants to pause an extra second here or there to try to build a little more tension or whatever, that's fine with me as long as it feels natural when the work is listened to as a whole piece.

My other thought has always been, these guys were innovators. When the Fortepiano came out they didn't keep writing for Harpsichord anymore. They were always progressing and looking to new things and in my mind I don't have any doubt that if Beethoven or Mozart or Haydn or Schubert could hear their works played with a modern full-sized orchestra that they wouldn't prefer it over what they had at the time.

Period Instrument stuff is interesting from a historical aspect to me because "yes, this is how it might have sounded", and there certainly is a place for it, but I think these great composers were always progressing and looking for bigger and better ways to make things bigger and bolder. Just my own personal belief but one I hold to this day.


----------



## Guest

If you want one more HIP Beethoven symphony cycle, I would go with John Eliot Gardiner's, over the Hogwood. Hogwood is good - I have a few of them - but the sound is really thin.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DrMike said:


> If you want one more HIP Beethoven symphony cycle, I would go with John Eliot Gardiner's, over the Hogwood. Hogwood is good - I have a few of them - but the sound is really thin.


Good to know. I have Hanover Band's cycle and that sound is thin. I don't like thin.


----------



## Lord Lance

Honestly, the intonation and general sound produced in Hogwood's cycle is very jarring. Immerseel and Gardiner are better. Bruggen's Rotterdam Ahoy cycle from 2011 is a little too purist for my taste, so can't comment.


----------



## Junqueira

I - like _realdealblues _- prefer modern performances, but if you are interested in HIP, Eugen Jochum also has a good set. In my opinion it's better than Hogwood's, although Bruggen is still the best...
About Immerseel, his Symphonie Fantastique with Anima Eterna is spetacular!


----------



## GreenMamba

Jochum did a HIP cycle? I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Brouken Air

GreenMamba said:


> Jochum did a HIP cycle? I find that hard to believe.


I would suggest Gardiner for a period performance which is the only version sustaining comparision with modern versions. In the case of Jochum, it's not the orchestra or the interpretation which are HIP, but the conductor...:devil: (Don't misunderstand me, I adore Jochum).

:tiphat:


----------



## AClockworkOrange

realdealblues said:


> Yeah, I flip flopped. I started out with modern performance (and by modern I mean Szell, Klemperer, Bernstein, Bohm, etc.) and then I went to Period Instrument stuff for a couple years, but the more I listened to it, the more it grew tiresome to me. I found most of the Period Instrument crowd lacking what I consider "personality" and I'm sorry but I like more vibrato and legato than most Period Instrument guys allow.
> 
> I don't care about exact fidelity to the score. From what I've read over the years most of the early guys like Mozart and Bach used to improvise all the time during when playing their own works and didn't play them exactly as written. I like someone to inject their own view point and personality into a performance as long as it is done with taste and makes the whole work still feel like a uniform work. For years I've described it as a flow or a pulse throughout the entire work. I prefer when the movements flow naturally into one another, where the rhythms and tempos feel like they naturally fit and blend with each other. If someone wants to pause an extra second here or there to try to build a little more tension or whatever, that's fine with me as long as it feels natural when the work is listened to as a whole piece.
> 
> My other thought has always been, these guys were innovators. When the Fortepiano came out they didn't keep writing for Harpsichord anymore. They were always progressing and looking to new things and in my mind I don't have any doubt that if Beethoven or Mozart or Haydn or Schubert could hear their works played with a modern full-sized orchestra that they wouldn't prefer it over what they had at the time.
> 
> Period Instrument stuff is interesting from a historical aspect to me because "yes, this is how it might have sounded", and there certainly is a place for it, but I think these great composers were always progressing and looking for bigger and better ways to make things bigger and bolder. Just my own personal belief but one I hold to this day.


*Possible ramble alert* :lol:

First of all, I agree on your definition of Modern 

I agree with practically everything you say here, especially with regards to personality and a degree of individuality in the interpretation on the music. My favourite Conductors - Furtwängler, Klemperer, Bernstein and Celibidache certainly injected their personalities into the music to various degrees whether it was intended or not. Celibidache in general and Bernstein particularly so in his latter DG recordings. Where the works retain cohesiveness - the flow or pulse as you quite rightly phrase it - I find it generally preferable.

I believe Klemperer made a rather clear view in regards to period practice along the lines that we don't listen to music as people did back in time and that no matter what we do the best we will achieve will be a loose approximation at best. I could be wrong as I cannot put my hands on the article I am sure I saw it written.

Your comment on innovation is an interesting one. It should have been clear to me but I either had a blind spot or took that factor for granted. I certainly agree that they would seize on the opportunities presented by modern orchestras and undoubtedly work to push onwards.

That said, my preferences are somewhat skewed in the Piano department. I have grow to really appreciate the Forte Piano, in large thanks to Ranald Brautigam. Whilst I adore modern Piano recordings from JS Bach onwards, I find the difference in tone of the Forte Piano in works such as Beethoven very complimentary. I wouldn't part with Pires, Uchida, Brendel, Gould, Hewitt et al. but there are times where I think taking a step back can be beneficial. Different approaches for different moods.

I think the problem with much of HIP is a tendency for it to sound too mechanical. Coming back to the issue of personality, conspicuous in its absence in much of the HIP I initially heard, much of it sounds hollow and repetitive. I initially thought this was because I discovered much of the music I love from older recordings - Furtwängler et al. but as I have listened to more music from different periods in different approaches I think it may have been the recordings I heard.

The thin sound and your comments on Vibrato and Legato ring true. Robin Ticciati takes this point quite a way on his Schumann cycle with the SCO resulting in a disappointing listening experience - taken further than _John Eliot Gardiner's own cycle which in comparison sounds significantly fuller and infinitely more enjoyable_. That said, both are hybrids rather than on Period Instruments.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

DrMike said:


> If you want one more HIP Beethoven symphony cycle, I would go with John Eliot Gardiner's, over the Hogwood. Hogwood is good - I have a few of them - but the sound is really thin.


I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

I enjoyed JEG's Schumann so I may pick this up down the line and let the Harnoncourt cycle go from my collection. With Beethoven, I'll only pick up a new cycle if I first thin one of my existings cycles out. Harnoncourt and Barenboim are both considerations for ripping then culling at present.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I have listened to Gardiner's Beethoven 3rd symphony many times over and it is very good. I have not heard the other symphonies with Gardiner.


----------



## BartokPizz

DrMike said:


> If you want one more HIP Beethoven symphony cycle, I would go with John Eliot Gardiner's, over the Hogwood. Hogwood is good - I have a few of them - but the sound is really thin.


I actually believe that the Hogwood has excellent sound and bite and on balance I prefer it to Gardiner, though I like both. Those are the only HIP cycles I know.


----------



## Boothvoice

BartokPizz said:


> I actually believe that the Hogwood has excellent sound and bite and on balance I prefer it to Gardiner, though I like both. Those are the only HIP cycles I know.


I also prefer the Hogwood...the recording is excellent..you can make out individual instruments in the recording soundstage..much cleaer than any other I've heard...and the interpretive approach is excellent. I return to this set frequently ...more than I do the older Klemperer or Karajan (63) cycles in my collection...


----------



## Merl

This is hard for me, as I have all the HIP sets mentioned in this thread and like something about them all (I'd even say that Herreweghe's cycle has some merit!). Would I bother with Hogwood if I already had Bruggen and Immerseel? Tough one merely because I really like Hogwood's accounts of the first two symphonies. I could live without the rest but those are two excellent period performances and I had them before Immerseel. I rate Immerseel's set very highly (the 6th and 7th I deem as reference recordings) but could I do without Hogwood's early symphonies? Hmm..... My advice..... Buy the early symphonies individually.


----------



## SixFootScowl

So is Hogwood fast tempo? How fast? How does he compare to Zinman?


----------



## realdealblues

Fritz Kobus said:


> So is Hogwood fast tempo? How fast? How does he compare to Zinman?


Yes and no. I don't find that Hogwood goes as fast in "some" of the slow movements.

Hogwood
Symphony #5
1st - 6:49
2nd - 10:30
3rd - 8:18
4th - 11:41

Zinman
Symphony #5
1st - 6:52
2nd - 8:49
3rd - 7:19
4th - 10:34

Hogwood
Symphony #9
1st - 13:59
2nd - 13:37
3rd - 10:43
4th - 24:58

Zinman
Symphony #9
1st - 13:43
2nd - 12:15
3rd - 11:32
4th - 21:51


----------



## Merl

For me speed doesn't come into the equation, Fritz (lol). It's often the forward momentum of performances that matters, whether they are slower, middle paced or quick. There's very little between the two you mentioned but the performances are very different soundwise. For me, i find Zinman's cycle has good balances but the performances are a bit bare and lack the inspiration that someone like Maag injects into the set. Hogwood is rugged but the recordings lack a bit of bass and oomph but they're certainly propulsive. This suits the first two symphonies and the 7th in the Hogwood set but the 9th sounds toothless. The Hanover Band are much more gutsy but the recording is poor and it ruins the set. Shame, as this would be a top notch cycle with the kind of sound Herreweghe was given.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Yes, I had the Hanover Band set and got rid of it. 

True, tempos should be secondary to enjoyable performance.


----------



## JSBach85

Thank you for your suggestions. I listened to some symphonies of Gardiner through youtube and I liked them so much that I ordered the box of Gardiner last week. I also wondered about Hogwood for Beethoven, being my favourite conductor for Mozart's symphonies and also recently ordered La Clemenza di Tito that may be my favourite recording for this Mozart opera. As for Immerseel, I've just seen this set:










Anyone own it or listened to it?


----------



## KenOC

JSBach85 said:


> Thank you for your suggestions. I listened to some symphonies of Gardiner through youtube and I liked them so much that I ordered the box of Gardiner last week.


Gardiner is a darned good choice IMO. It narrowly bested Karajan's first DG set in a poll on another site.


----------



## Triplets

Gardiner set was ballyhooed quite insistently when it was released. I had a Piano teacher at the time of it’s release who was most emphatic that I buy it (I didn’t like her and and resisted for that reason alone) and swore that this was exactly the way they were performed in Beethoven’s time. Since she was old enough to have been present at the original performances perhaps I should have paid some heed. I was looking for a HIPP set of the Symphonies at the time, chanced upon the Hogwood in a second hand store for about a tenth of the price of the Gardiner and have enjoyed it ever since. To be fair to my witch of a former Piano teacher, there were many critics at the time whose reactions to Gardiner were similar unbridled enthusiasm.
Just last week I streamed the JEG 5&7 and enjoyed them immensely. The tempos are a mite breathless her and there but the playing stays under control and it was an invigorating listening session. Really both JEG and Hogwood seem to provide excellent HIPP Beethoven that doesn’t make me feel shortchanged for lack of a “real Orchestra “.


----------



## shadowdancer

KenOC said:


> Gardiner is a darned good choice IMO. It narrowly bested Karajan's first DG set in a poll on another site.


We do have a nice recordings rank (thanks to our fellow member @Trout) where it is possible to notice how Gardiner is highly considered:
http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/trout/1628-rr-4-beethoven-symphony.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/trout/1637-rr-12-beethoven-symphony.html


----------



## SixFootScowl

Gardiner's Beethoven 3rd Symphony is very good.


----------



## realdealblues

I'm in the minority when it comes to Gardiner, I find his cycle unlistenable. I will take just about anyone over Gardiner.


----------



## wkasimer

To be honest, I find Hogwood's set a little bit anemic. Gardiner's is good, but with him, as usual, I have the feeling that it's an HIP set for people who don't really want to hear HIP, but want to say that they do.

My favorite HIP sets are Bruggen's first one on Philips, and this one conducted by Emanuel Krivine:


----------



## Triplets

I find Bruggen a little uninvolving, in Beethoven and just about every other Composer as well. I understand the 'anemic' remark about Hogwood. It has a lot of those early HIPP issues-scrappy strings, the occassional squaly oboe, etc--but for me succeeds despite the problems.
Krivine is expensive. I used to have it as a playlist on Spotify but then it was withdrawn, probably over the pittance of royalties issue. I did enjoy it


----------



## SixFootScowl

realdealblues said:


> I'm in the minority when it comes to Gardiner, I find his cycle unlistenable. I will take just about anyone over Gardiner.


I must say that other than Beethoven's third, I have gravitated away from Gardiner works. He did a very strange LvB Leonore recording that is a hybrid of 1805 and 1806 with some revisions back from 1804 notes and I think possibly some from 1814. Well the booklet has a great chart comparing the three versions anyway. Also think he used narrator or other voices than the singers for the spiel part. Needless to say, it is not one I listen to very often at all.


----------



## Josquin13

Among Gardiner's period Beethoven recordings, only his 7th, 9th, and Missa Solemnis, & Mass in C have stood out to me as excellent performances:

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Me...&sr=1-1&keywords=Gardiner+beethoven+mass+in+c
https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Mi...-2&keywords=Gardiner+beethoven+missa+solemnis
https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Mi...-1&keywords=Gardiner+beethoven+missa+solemnis
https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Sy...16236527&sr=1-7&keywords=Gardiner+beethoven+9

Otherwise, Gardiner is too often 'off the mark' in his other interpretations, IMO, to strongly recommend his Beethoven cycle in preference to others. However, all of the period conductors come up short in the 9th (though I've not heard Weil or Krivine) except for Gardiner, whose 9th is certainly welcome from that standpoint. Otherwise, given that most of the period conductors are at their very best in the 7th (especially Immerseel), I don't feel it's necessary to buy Gardiner's set on account of his excellent 7th. I also recall that Gardiner's 2nd performance of the "Eroica" (from the "Eroica" film) is preferable to his DG Archiv 3rd, though I don't know if that performance has ever been issued on CD. Lastly, I know some think highly of Gardiner's 2nd Symphony, but personally I prefer Hogwood and Harnoncourt in the 2nd.

Hogwood's cycle with the Academy of Ancient Music is at its best in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th symphonies, in my view. Hogwood is the only period conductor that brings the same depth of interpretive understanding to the 2nd movement of the 4th that I hear in Paul Kletzki's highly regarded 4th with the Czech Philharmonic (one of my benchmarks for this symphony). Which separates Hogwood's 4th from all the other period 4ths I know; even though admittedly many of the period conductors are terrific in the 4th movement. I've also enjoyed soprano Arleen Auger's singing in Hogwood's 9th, and would say his 9th is probably more effective and skillfully handled than Bruggen and Immerseel's. But that isn't saying a lot. For some reason, the 9th seems to be foreign territory to Baroque musicians/specialists turned period conductors--even among those with a lot of experience in the early classical repertory, such as Hogwood and Bruggen. Although, not surprisingly, they all seem to excel where Handel's influence is more apparent in Beethoven, such as in the 7th--with its prominent use of horns and percussion, & woodwinds, and a 2nd movement strongly influenced by a Handel Sarabande.

As for Bruggen, it depends on which of his two Beethoven cycles you're talking about. His interpretations on his 2nd live cycle from Rotterdam (on Glossa), made in his final years, are often very different from the 1st studio cycle for Philips. Personally, I prefer Bruggen's earlier cycle by a wide margin (though, as noted, I was disappointed with his Philips 9th). The earlier studio interpretations are more insightful and mainstream or less quirky, in my view. Indeed, Bruggen is particularly good in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, & 7th symphonies on the Philips cycle, with his Eroica standing out among period 3rds, IMO.

As for Immerseel, his cycle has some weak movements, especially in the earlier symphonies (roughly between 1-5). But Immerseel more than makes up for it with a brilliant 7th & a very good 8th. I'd even go as far as to say that Immerseel's 7th--where the period Viennese horns and woodwinds he's chosen are most effective--is one of the most thrilling and enjoyable 7ths I've ever heard. (The set is worth purchasing just to get that one performance, IMO.) If you want to check out Immerseel's 7th, it's on You Tube (along with the rest of his cycle):






So, as always with cycles, each one has its strengths and weaknesses.

If anyone's interested in HIP performances on modern instruments (with smaller string sections), I'd recommend sampling from four cycles--(1) Bernard Haitink's LSO live set, (2) Giovanni Antonini's recently completed cycle with Kammerorchester Basel (though I've yet to hear his 9th), (3) John Nelson's cycle with the Orchestral Ensemble de Paris, and (4) Nicholas Harnoncourt's cycle with the COE. (Others have liked the Mackerras set in Scotland, which definitely has it's merits, Zinman in Zurich, which I didn't overly care for (though I didn't listen to the whole cycle), and Chailly's cycle in Leipzig, which I found overly driven & bit relentless overall, but very well played--with a very good Eroica.

Nelson's may be the most enjoyable of these cycles overall, but frustratingly, he doesn't pull off the finale of the 9th very well--after starting terrifically in the first three movements. In contrast, Haitink has something special to say in the 9th, a work that he has excelled at in the past. Though I still prefer Haitink's earlier live 9th on Philips (from around 1982), and his studio 9th from the 1989 RCO Philips set, for the most part, over his more recent LSO 9th. Haitink's 6th with the LSO is also very good.

As for the best of Nelson's cycle, his Beethoven 8th is particularly fine--one of the finest I've ever heard. Nelson understands this very classical symphony better than most conductors. Indeed his 8th compares favorably to my benchmarks--Casals in Marlboro, Jochum in Amsterdam, Furtwangler in Stockholm, Pfitzner, and Markevitch on Phillips. It's on You Tube, if anyone's interested:


















As for Giovanni Antonini, I don't know his cycle as well as others, but will say that he probably gets as close as any of the HIP and period conductors towards pulling off the crucial transition between the 3rd and 4th movements in the 5th, where most conductors come up short, IMO. But that's not saying a lot, as I don't think he's in the same league with Furtwangler, Haitink & the RCO, Jochum with the LSO, and Masur with the NY Philharmonic--all of whom understand this important transition exceptionally well.

As for Harnoncourt, his cycle has a few duds too (like most), as with his 4th & 5th (which not surprisingly in re-recorded on period instruments). But his 2nd and 6th are exceptional, & particularly his 2nd, which is among the finest I've heard (along with Van Beinum & the Philharmonia in 1958, Kubelik RCO & live Audite, Masur 1 & 2 in Leipzig, & Nelson):


----------



## KenOC

Here's a list of the "best" recordings of each Beethoven symphony -- in fact the 10 best of each , in order!

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/beethoven-symphony-frankencycle


----------



## Merl

Lots of interesting thoughts on this subject. Some people dislike Gardiner but I rate his cycle highly. It's not as fast as some think. Yes, it's brisk in places (the first movement of the 9th is zippy) but otherwise he's not motoring thru it all. In his Pastoral he's nowhere near as fast as Scherchen, Chailly or Pletnev, for example. Even when he is quick he holds a great line thru performances and gets his rhythms right. As others have said, the Krivine set is very good but I'm not convinced by the 3rd, 5th and 9th (he's excellent elsewhere). Totally agree about Nelson's 8th, though. Excellent account. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Norrington's 2nd cycle with the SWR. Apart from an odd 9th, that divides opinion, the rest of the set is impressive. I 'reviewed' Weill's set in the Current Listening thread months back. I'll see if I can find my comments. I do remember it's a mixed bag, tho. Great 3rd and 7th, I recall and a tedious Pastoral and uninspired 9th.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Here's a list of the "best" recordings of each Beethoven symphony -- in fact the 10 best of each , in order!
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/beethoven-symphony-frankencycle


Which goes to show there is no accounting for taste!


----------



## Josquin13

Merl--I thought Krivine's 1st & 2nd missed the mark. For me, they came off as fairly superficial performances (at least the ones that I listened to on You Tube), and especially in the 2nd, which has a more intense light and dark struggle going on in it than I think people often realize (having been composed around the difficult time of Beethoven's "Heiligenstadt testament"), despite the 2nd's surprisingly positive resolution. I don't think Krivine gets all that. Admittedly, I haven't heard the rest of his cycle, but if Krivine fails to convince in the 3rd, 5th, and 9th, as you say, how good a Beethoven conductor can he be? 

I realize that Gardiner's isn't as fast as certain other conductors in the opening two movements of the pastoral, such as the ultra-speedy Carlos Kleiber. But I have to ask--is Beethoven walking through the gentle countryside, and enjoying all its vivid sights and sounds--such as birds chirping, and a babbling brook--with a sense of joy and wonderment, or is he sprinting? Why should conductors take us through these pictorial sights and sounds in a blur? Why not linger for a while, so that we can take it all in? 

This is one instance where I think the older conductors--such as Casals, Klemperer, Giulini, and Furtwangler--actually had the right idea. With Casals & Klemperer, there's no racing past the birds, they allow the listener to pause enough to hear the chirping clearly. Surely, that's what Beethoven intended?, otherwise, why put the birds in the movement in the first place, if he didn't intend for them to be at least slightly lingered over? Especially when you consider that the first two movements must be in strong contrast to the later terrifying fury of the violent storm, in order for the whole symphony and the subsequent final "thanks to the Godhead" to make any sense. I don't think Gardiner's is a bad performance, but at the same time I don't get all that in his 6th, at least not enough so (and certainly not with C. Kleiber & Chailly, who sound like they're on racing bicycles). 

I suspect the best conductors of the 6th are avid nature lovers, who know what is is to take long, joyous walks through the countryside. By all accounts, Pablo Casals fits the bill, & not surprisingly, I find his 6th near ideal.

KenOC--Since you've posted our old Amazon forum Beethoven "Frankencycle", I wanted to add (for others here) that due to difficulties with my computer around the time of our voting for the "best" 7th, I wasn't able to vote for the 7th. & If I had been, I would have voted for Immerseel's 7th all the way, which would have given it the necessary support to easily beat Gardiner's 7th! (& likely others too). (Even without my votes, I see that it finished in the top ten.) Plus, I would have definitely nominated Nelson's 8th (among others), which didn't happen either. So I guess I'm still protesting our results for those two symphonies!! d-mn computer.

Also, the lists of what became our "favorites" for each symphony--that is, our top 10 for each (which were voted on by the whole group) were, IMO, often more interesting (& I think more valuable to others) than the single recording that actually won for each symphony: considering that most people openly confessed that they hadn't heard all of the nominated recordings in contention, and were merely voting for their favorites. 

So, I'm grateful that you've kept and posted those top 10 lists, along with the winners for each symphony, as I hadn't saved our lists, to my regret, and am happy now to be able to do so. Thanks.


----------



## Merl

Josquin13 said:


> Merl--I thought Krivine's 1st & 2nd missed the mark. For me, they came off as fairly superficial performances (at least the ones that I listened to on You Tube), and especially in the 2nd, which has a more intense light and dark struggle going on in it than I think people often realize (having been composed around the difficult time of Beethoven's "Heiligenstadt testament"), despite the 2nd's surprisingly positive resolution. I don't think Krivine gets all that. Admittedly, I haven't heard the rest of his cycle, but if Krivine fails to convince in the 3rd, 5th, and 9th, as you say, how good a Beethoven conductor can he be?
> 
> I realize that Gardiner's isn't as fast as certain other conductors in the opening two movements of the pastoral, such as the ultra-speedy Carlos Kleiber. But I have to ask--is Beethoven walking through the gentle countryside, and enjoying all its vivid sights and sounds--such as birds chirping, and a babbling brook--with a sense of joy and wonderment, or is he sprinting? Why should conductors take us through these pictorial sights and sounds in a blur? Why not linger for a while, so that we can take it all in?
> 
> This is one instance where I think the older conductors--such as Casals, Klemperer, Giulini, and Furtwangler--actually had the right idea. With Casals & Klemperer, there's no racing past the birds, they allow the listener to pause enough to hear the chirping clearly. Surely, that's what Beethoven intended?, otherwise, why put the birds in the movement in the first place, if he didn't intend for them to be at least slightly lingered over? Especially when you consider that the first two movements must be in strong contrast to the later terrifying fury of the violent storm, in order for the whole symphony and the subsequent final "thanks to the Godhead" to make any sense. I don't think Gardiner's is a bad performance, but at the same time I don't get all that in his 6th, at least not enough so (and certainly not with C. Kleiber & Chailly, who sound like they're on racing bicycles). /QUOTE]
> 
> Josquin13, I like Krivine's cycle but it's not as good as Immerseel for me. Like you said before, Immerseel's 7 is superb, as are the 6th and 8th in my book. I also rate his 3rd and 4th too. The first 2 are good. I like few HIP 5ths and 9ths because I like big-band, big sound 5th and 9ths (just a personal preference). The only exception to this is Gardiner, who knocks out a very good 5th and top-notch 9th (only in my opinion). It's all on personal taste. Realdealblues loves his Klemperer cycle whilst I think some of it is good and some is turgidly slow and dull. He hates Gardiner whilst I think it's a superb cycle We also want different things for Beethoven symphonies. My kinda 5th is Markevitch, Kleiber or Honeck but I appreciate lots of different accounts. HIP LvB symphonies apart from 5 & 9 are usually fine with me and there are some lovely accounts out there, too. It also depends what I'm in the mood for.Today I was playing Gardiner's 8th in the car (a performance I like a lot). I followed it with Munch's 9th (after the bombast of that anything seems tame). As far as Gardiner's Pastoral is concerned I dont feel it's too fast. It suits me just fine but it's not my favourite.... There are great slower ones (Bohm, Barenboim., Kubelik, etc.). Speed in the Pastoral is not important to me. It's how the conductor guides you thru the country. Does it sound jolly? Does it sound natural? I'd be interested what you make of Immerseel's Pastoral First Movement. He's certainly no slouch.


----------



## Granate

KenOC said:


> Here's a list of the "best" recordings of each Beethoven symphony -- in fact the 10 best of each , in order!
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/beethoven-symphony-frankencycle


I hope I can start my challenge soon to come up with a list like this! Only 13 Wagner Rings left!


----------

