# Discussing Toscanini



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Toscanini was revered as one of the greatest conductors. I've had several of his discs and I picked up the large Complete RCA Album Collection. I've been working my way through it chronologically now nearly 3/4 of the way through, full discography here in the scans.

Quite frankly I am having a hard time coming to this conclusion. What I am consistently hearing is symphonies played quite briskly (this is understandable given many conductors of his era did this) and even lacking in some of the more subtle aspects. Some of these are symphonies that I have anywhere from a couple to more than a half different versions and know intimately. Even symphonies that I am less familiar with I can somewhat formulate what they will sound like by another conductor after hearing so much of the box and going back to revisit them.

To be fair to Toscanini I think that some it is down to the recordings being in mono and the Sony mastering engineers being a bit too aggressive with the noise reduction, two things that will make it harder to appreciate compared to the wide open, large dynamic sound of say something like Szell/CSO. Scrubbing too much off the treble will lose some of the delicate string sound and make things sound a bit "dead".

This is not a thread bashing him, but more trying to open up my mind and this is said in the most sincere sense since I am a big Horowitz fan. I can certainly appreciate the historical nature of these recordings, but I want to know if there is more to it than that. I'm sure alternate viewpoints will help or even any suggestions for performances to revisit in the box that people feel are exceptional. Thanks.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

It would be interesting to hear his recordings without having already heard other interpretations. I wonder how they would come across.

It is true that Toscanini doesn't get much love by modern classical enthusiasts.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

staxomega said:


> Toscanini was revered as one of the greatest conductors. I've had several of his discs and I picked up the large Complete RCA Album Collection. I've been working my way through it chronologically now nearly 3/4 of the way through, full discography here in the scans.
> 
> Quite frankly I am having a hard time coming to this conclusion. What I am consistently hearing is symphonies played quite briskly (this is understandable given many conductors of his era did this) and even lacking in some of the more subtle aspects. Some of these are symphonies that I have anywhere from a couple to more than a half different versions and know intimately. Even symphonies that I am less familiar with I can somewhat formulate what they will sound like by another conductor after hearing so much of the box and going back to revisit them.
> 
> ...


His late performances were fast. You need to hear his Beethoven Symphony Cycle from 1939 with the NBC Orchestra, when Toscanini was in his prime. One of the greatest Beethoven sets, ever.

Unfortunately, the sound is not the greatest.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> His late performances were fast. You need to hear his Beethoven Symphony Cycle from 1939 with the NBC Orchestra, when Toscanini was in his prime. One of the greatest Beethoven sets, ever.
> 
> Unfortunately, the sound is not the greatest.


I've been trying to purchase it  (my wanted ad here: http://www.talkclassical.com/50343-want-buy-toscaninis-1939-a.html)

Unfortunately I can't seem to find any place where I can stream it first and the price of the set is pretty expensive for a blind buy. The Complete RCA Collection in comparison was much, much cheaper on a per disc basis.

IMHO the brisk performances on the RCA box extend beyond Beethoven.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Toscanini has always been controversial. Many considered him a martinet. Many thought that he was a creature of promotion (David Sarnoff of NBC) and Poliitics (his Antifascist credentials were impeccable, unlike Furtwangler, Karajan, Mengelberg,and so forth).
His recording studio for NBC was notoriously bad, so what you are blaming on remastering is probably the original bad acoustics. He probably was more flexible in his relatively younger years, but the older recordings that hpowders allude to are expensive and not streamable.
When at his best, he was very good indeed, but there was a lot hype involved.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

My grandmother gave me her 10 disc Toscanini Beethoven Symphony set when I was quite young and it was my introduction to those symphonies. I remember telling her that I liked the symphonies but 'not that one with the singing'. She told me that 'one day you will'.

I still have the set though the box is in sorry shape. It's hard to listen to now due to the constricted sound and ticks and pops. Personally I think Toscanini was somewhat overrated. The tempo of the symphonies is too fast. Maybe some of it has to do with how many different versions of the symphonies I've heard since then.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

He was worth hearing in Otello, Falstaff, Missa Solemnis (Kipnis), La Mer (NBC 1953), Brahms 4, Beethoven symphony 1 (BBC), Mozart piano concerto 27 with R Serkin.

His earliest recordings are slow, there's some slow Parsifal. He said he had to escape the influence of German conducting to find his own authentic voice, which was indeed full of drive.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I think these days his reputation is pretty terrible in fact, he suffers from the "comme scritto" story, people think (maybe with some justification) that he confused the music and the score. 

I sometimes think that late Toscanini was a major major influence for the worse in post war music making, much more so than Furtwangler. That the technically slick and accurate, emotionally limited and rhythmically stiff performance styles of Boulez, Pollini, Gulda and others were all due to him, or rather, due to his style for RCA.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Toscanini was a giant, a truly great conductor...
He introduced, [along with Weingartner] the so-called "literalist" approach to interpretation - ie - going to the score to play as indicated, not applying all sorts of interpretive liberties - changes of tempo, luftpausen, ritardando, accelerando and distortion of the melodic lines, that are not indicated in the score....as had become quite customary during the Romantic era...[Furtwangler, Mengelberg, etc] 
However, Toscanini was in no way a straight, stiff metronomic interpreter - he his readings pulsate with energy, subtle changes of tempo and phrasing, and constant attention to the flowing melodic line.

He was a real stickler for orchestral sound, and ensemble - he knew exactly what he wanted..he would also "drive" an orchestra - really push tempi, and dynamics, loud and soft...
He produced so many great performances - hard to know where to begin - but his Dvorak #9 "New World" is tops for me, Resphigi Feste Romane, Tristan Prelude & Liebestod, the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies - outstanding throughout..Schubert 8 and 9, Verdi...the list goes on and on...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Excellent _New Yorker_ article on 'The Toscanini Wars': 
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/the-toscanini-wars

Toscanini is very important in the history of music and someone listeners should at least know about. The sound quality of some of his recordings is unfortunate, but they're not all bad. His recordings of the Brahms Symphonies are outstanding and IMO are ideally paced.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

duplicate post cancelled


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Excellent _New Yorker_ article on 'The Toscanini Wars':
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/the-toscanini-wars
> 
> Toscanini is very important in the history of music and someone listeners should at least know about.....His recordings of the Brahms Symphonies are outstanding and IMO are ideally paced.


For sure - His NBC Brahms set is outstanding - great #1, and his #4 is absolutely top-level, only rivaled by Reiner/RoyPO.
Great Tragic Overture, as well. 
His Beethoven was also A++ - esp '49 Eroica, #5, #9...


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

I feel I need to take the forum's advice and visit his earlier recordings, any suggestions for excellent performances from Immortal's list here: http://immortalperformances.org/documents.php?d=10#

Except the Beethoven 1939 cycle  I want to start with something smaller first.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Looks like the forums are working normally again, so I'll give this a bump.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

it is naive to judge about a performance by its recording.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Toscanini's performances only seem fast when compared to today's slowcoaches. Now everyone seems anxious to squeeze the last drop of emotion from a work by conducting it as slowly as possible. Toscanini was a great conductor - it's such a pity that so many of the recordings he left us are ruined by poor sound quality.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Toscanini's legend was both historic and emotional. He changed conducting in his time -- the first half of the 20th century -- and inadvertently started what is today's period performance practice standard by adhering to the score and not adjusting it to his whim. He wasn't perfect in this regard but, through the 19th century and into the 20th, conductors did anything they wanted to scores and interpreted them anyway they wanted. Toscanini believed the conductor should read the score, perhaps edit it, and play it. Thus his famous comment about Beethoven's Eroica being allegro non troppo to him when other people thought they heard Napoleon in the music.

He was the most famous conductor in the world in the prewar era and was a known and verbal opponent of Hitler and Mussolini. He cast a giant shadow over all other conductors, Furtwangler included, when the LP made its appearance in the 1940s because of the intensity of his interpretations. This lasted into the 1970s when critics all over the map still considered his terrible-sounding LPs the standard for performance. 

Herbert Russcol of the Boston Symphony, in his 1968 book "Guide To Low-Priced Classical Recordings," called Toscanini's Beethoven 5th symphony "unchallenged" for its "Promethean, heaven-storming quality." New York critic Martin Bookspan, in his 1970 book "101 Masterpieces of Music and Their Composers," called his 1950 recording of Debussy's La Mer, "a joy to hear" with "inexorable flow from first note to last." It should be noted this was before everybody and their brother recorded everything in sound much better than Toscanini ever had available.

Toscanini was a friend and collaborator with Puccini and Respighi, among others, and his interpretations of their music was considered the best. Kleiber's famous hard-driven DG recording of Beethoven's 5th and 7th symphonies was patterned after Toscanini's way with Beethoven. Listen to the two side-by-side and only recording technology will be different. Yet I think a misconception exists that Toscanini drove all music hard and into the ground. Listen to his Mendelssohn "Reformation" symphony for another take on his performance style.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

The sound quality of many of Toscanini's recordings is irrelevant as it merely reflects the period in which they were made. The vast majority of recordings by his contemporaries sound the same. With regard to him as a conductor, I must admit I prefer Furtwangler's approach to Beethoven but that's just personal taste. I know quite a few people who swear that Toscanini's 1939 Beethoven symphony cycle is the best ever made. I like his Brahms very much though, agree with Heck148 that his treatment of the "Tragic Overture" is exceptionally fine. However, there are no Furtwangler recordings of this piece to compare it with.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Double post, forum software was not showing my reply had gone through. Thought this was fixed.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> it is naive to judge about a performance by its recording.


I understand how my first post gave that impression since I mentioned mono, I did not mean it that way. I truly meant that I was separating the recording from the digital transfer (the mastering stage), where overly aggressive noise reduction may remove surface noise that many people might find offensive but it also removes higher frequencies from instruments leading to a dead sound; it's not doing the performance any favors and I know of a handful of instances where I have heard the same performance done more accurately to the source and my appreciation of the performance has gone up.

Discussing actual recordings I have absolutely no issue with early 20th century recordings and have hundreds of discs I regularly play, IME the best label being Naxos Historical for not only its superb selection of performances but also their conservatively done transfers from their sources.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Here's a bit of irony : The slowest Parsifal in Bayreuth history was by . . . . . . Toscanini !


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Here's a bit of irony : The slowest Parsifal in Bayreuth history was by . . . . . . Toscanini !


And he achieved it, so I have read, by trying to take Wagner's score markings literally.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Toscanini was of course a great conductor and the New York article does him justice. He was a phenomenal musician who raised standards of orchestral playing and transformed italian opera into drama. He was lionised in his life but now has become the butt of criticism by the mediocre and hate anyone having the success that has eluded them. There is an incredible artistic jealousy among some people who are second (or third) raters. We have seen a similar vilification of Karajan by those who actually couldn't hold a candle to him as a musician. Of course there are other ways of doing music. That is the great beauty of it. But we must look at the man's achievement and it was immense. It gave others the chance to build on it.
The problem with Toscanini's performances has recorded is the quality of the recording which even for its day was pretty poor. The notorious studio 8-H was much to blame as were the RCA engineers. But then of course reproducing equipment was not what it is today and could not have reproduced high-quality sound anyway. 
I hold Toscanini to be a giant among conductors, a view shared by the vast majority of musicians. The fact that he appears to have been a pretty awful man one a personal level should not detract from his achievement. He was a pioneer and set an example for others to follow.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

superhorn said:


> Here's a bit of irony : The slowest Parsifal in Bayreuth history was by . . . . . . Toscanini !


Since _Parsifal_ is my favorite opera and Toscanini is not my favorite conductor, I would give anything for a time machine in this case! Only a real genius of a conductor could succeed with tempos slower than those of James Levine, whose interpretation flirts with rigor mortis (which is probably why it impressed Bernstein, whose _Tristan_ prelude could occupy half the first act of _Tosca_). It's impossible to square Toscanini's success in the opera with the hard-driving Verdi recordings he made late in life.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Since _Parsifal_ is my favorite opera and Toscanini is not my favorite conductor, I would give anything for a time machine in this case! Only a real genius of a conductor could succeed with tempos slower than those of James Levine, whose interpretation flirts with rigor mortis (which is probably why it impressed Bernstein, whose _Tristan_ prelude could occupy half the first act of _Tosca_). It's impossible to square Toscanini's success in the opera with the hard-driving Verdi recordings he made late in life.


Of course Toscanini was into his late 80's and failing, late in life, in the mid 1950's. One must listen a lot earlier, for example, to his great 1939 NBC Beethoven cycle, relaxed when necessary, rhythmically dynamic, passionate...one of the greatest Beethoven cycles...this is when one needs to listen to Toscanini performances-in his prime-during the 1930's and 1940's. By the 1950's he was a shell of his former great self.

Listen to his Verdi Requiem and his Beethoven Missa Solemnis with Björling and Kipnis, both performances from 1940. Incomparable!

Toscanini had a photographic memory and conducted all operas without a score. Amazing!

But he WAS human and he cheated on his wife often....very, very often.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Any comments on the 1935 Brahms cycle, is this one of his best performances of these symphonies?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A couple of comments. His awful Studio 8H recordings are the result of David Sarnoffs misunderstanding of acoustics. He thought a dry acoustic could be rendered full when played through his resonant, living room-sized RCA radio sets and no one could convince him that you cant get what isnt there to begin with.

My first (and still favorite) Eroica was an LP of Toscanini's 1950 Carnegie Hall recording. A few years ago I was misplaying it in my head, and wondering how his Funeral March could be so gut wrenching -- until I got out the score, examined it, and listened again -- finding out that all the liberties I had been taking in my head were figments of my imagination, and that he followed the score just about verbatim -- and that the effect was a result of the focus and intensity of the playing. It was a real education.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it is interesting in that although certain critics have had a go at Toscanini, we now have HIP performances or those which are HIP informed of Beethoven which are far faster than Toscanini. It's fashion.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

MarkW said:


> *My first (and still favorite) Eroica was an LP of Toscanini's 1950 Carnegie Hall recording*. A few years ago I was misplaying it in my head, and wondering how his Funeral March could be so gut wrenching -- until I got out the score, examined it, and listened again -- finding out that all the liberties I had been taking in my head were figments of my imagination, and that he followed the score just about verbatim -- and that the effect was a result of the focus and intensity of the playing. It was a real education.


This was actually recorded in November 1949 and the late time of year would have meant that it was released in 1950. To me this is the greatest recording of this symphony. A similar performance in both emotional impact and tempo was made by Rene Leibowitz and the RPO for Reader's Digest. While the Toscanini is better the Leibowitz isn't far behind and it's in stereo.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Of course Toscanini was into his late 80's and failing, late in life, in the mid 1950's. One must listen a lot earlier, for example, to his great 1939 NBC Beethoven cycle, relaxed when necessary, rhythmically dynamic, passionate...one of the greatest Beethoven cycles...this is when one needs to listen to Toscanini performances-in his prime-during the 1930's and 1940's. By the 1950's he was a shell of his former great self.
> 
> Listen to his Verdi Requiem and his Beethoven Missa Solemnis with Björling and Kipnis, both performances from 1940. Incomparable!
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what the last sentence has to do with anything. Furtwangler and something like 9 illegitimate kids...hey, they were famous celebrities who were lionized then and now...when it comes to extra musical considerations, I'd rather remember Toscanini for his fierce Anti Fascism, his support of the fledgling Palestine Orchestra, than any dalliances he had with the occasional soprano


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The fact that he [AT] appears to have been a pretty awful man one a personal level should not detract from his achievement. He was a pioneer and set an example for others to follow.


That can be said of many of the greatest conductors - Certainly Reiner, Szell, Rodzinski, Stokowski, Mravinsky wouldn't win any "Mr Congeniality" contests...all could be pretty miserable human beings, Furtwangler wasn't all that nice either. 
But - they got results - powerful personalities - you have to be, to get 85 solo-virtuoso-wannabees to play something YOUR way, and not theirs...:lol:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The fact that he appears to have been a pretty awful man one a personal level should not detract from his achievement.


now you are talking... wish you say the same about Wagner.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The only thing I hated by Toscanini was a Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony, perhaps, proving to me that the music is irredeemable. If Toscanini couldn't breathe life into that dreary score, who could?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

hpowders said:


> The only thing I hated by Toscanini was a Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony, perhaps, proving to me that the music is irredeemable. If Toscanini couldn't breathe life into that dreary score, who could?


Svetlanov, Rostropovich and Pletnev -


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

hpowders said:


> The only thing I hated by Toscanini was a Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony, perhaps, proving to me that the music is irredeemable. If Toscanini couldn't breathe life into that dreary score, who could?


A modern recording technician, I suppose.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Since _Parsifal_ is my favorite opera and Toscanini is not my favorite conductor, I would give anything for a time machine in this case! Only a real genius of a conductor could succeed with tempos slower than those of James Levine, whose interpretation flirts with rigor mortis (which is probably why it impressed Bernstein, whose _Tristan_ prelude could occupy half the first act of _Tosca_). It's impossible to square Toscanini's success in the opera with the hard-driving Verdi recordings he made late in life.


Woodduck , the only complete Toscanini performance of a Wagner opera which has been preserved is a Meistersinger from the 1930s at Salzburg , with a cast of singers who were renowned in Wagner in their day but pretty much forgotten today , with the Vienna Philharmonic . 
But the sound is pretty much what you'd expect from a live recording from the 30s- not so great , not even as good as his RCA recordings from the notorious Stdio-8-H . 
But you can hear it on youtube .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> now you are talking... wish you say the same about Wagner.


I do. I perhaps do not say that is achievement is as great as some people do here, but he was certainly a composer of great genius. Anyone who can write music like the preludes to Parsifal is certainly a genius. Whether the genius was somewhat misplaced is a matter of opinion throughout the musical world.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Triplets said:


> I'm not sure what the last sentence has to do with anything. Furtwangler and something like 9 illegitimate kids...hey, they were famous celebrities who were lionized then and now...when it comes to extra musical considerations, I'd rather remember Toscanini for his fierce Anti Fascism, his support of the fledgling Palestine Orchestra, than any dalliances he had with the occasional soprano


I know Solti told a story of how he saw Klemperer in a dressing room, half naked and covered in lipstick marks. Klemperer then went on to berate Toscanini for having left his wife and gone to America. Solti thought that this was a bit rich coming from a man who hardly at that moment looked like the model of domesticity himself!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

superhorn said:


> Woodduck , the only complete Toscanini performance of a Wagner opera which has been preserved is a Meistersinger from the 1930s at Salzburg , with a cast of singers who were renowned in Wagner in their day but pretty much forgotten today , with the Vienna Philharmonic .
> But the sound is pretty much what you'd expect from a live recording from the 30s- not so great , not even as good as his RCA recordings from the notorious Stdio-8-H .
> But you can hear it on youtube .


Thanks! ..............


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Toscanini's dalliances ... are there famous conductors without them? My friend, a former arts reporter in a major city, told me this story when Stokowski came to conduct the orchestra:

After practice a call went out from Stokowski to the concertmaster:

"Have the first flutist meet me in my quarters," Stoki commanded.

"Should she bring her instrument?," the concertmaster asked.

"I don't know why."


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I have read that his earlier recordings are the superior ones in terms of style, if not recording quality. By the time he took the reigns of the NBC orchestra, he was already quite advanced in years. The earliest recordings that still exist, I believe, are with La Scala, and RCA has released these acoustic recordings - remarkably listenable, given their age. But they tend to be lighter pieces - no complete works.

Of his recorded works, I've heard that those with the New York Philharmonic are superior to NBC. His 1933 Beethoven's 5th recorded at Carnegie Hall is a great recording, and preserved in very good mono.

I don't know as much of Toscanini as I would like. To be honest, while I have listened to a lot, the only recording I have is an RCA release with the Beethoven Violin Concerto (Heifetz) and Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rubinstein) with NBC.

I would be interested in recommendations for other great performances - sound quality is secondary, so long as I can actually hear the work.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I would be interested in recommendations for other great performances - sound quality is secondary, so long as I can actually hear the work.


His 1935 live recording of Brahms' Symphony No 4 with the BBC Symphony Orchestra.

Apparently great lengths were gone to so the recording could be made without Toscanini being aware of it. He performed a series of concerts at Queen's Hall in London with that orchestra in the June of that year and I believe there are also other recordings from these available including a Beethoven Symphony No 7 and some Wagner, Elgar, Debussy, Mozart and Rossini.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I have read that his earlier recordings are the superior ones in terms of style, if not recording quality. By the time he took the reigns of the NBC orchestra, he was already quite advanced in years. The earliest recordings that still exist, I believe, are with La Scala, and RCA has released these acoustic recordings - remarkably listenable, given their age. But they tend to be lighter pieces - no complete works.
> 
> Of his recorded works, I've heard that those with the New York Philharmonic are superior to NBC. His 1933 Beethoven's 5th recorded at Carnegie Hall is a great recording, and preserved in very good mono.
> 
> ...


The entire 1939 Beethoven Symphony cycle.

The 1940 Verdi Requiem and Beethoven Missa Solemnis.

Toscanini in his prime. Too bad recorded sound was so lousy back then. He deserved so much better.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I would be interested in recommendations for other great performances - sound quality is secondary, so long as I can actually hear the work.


His Beethoven and Brahms symphony sets with NBC are great...wonderful performances...the Brahms #4 with NBC is cosmic, rivaled, equaled only by Reiner/RoyPO.
Respighi -Roman trilogy - terrific, esp Feste Romane...
Dvorak - Sym #9 - "New World" - one of his greatest efforts....
of course - AT's Wagner was world class as well - so many examples - but for sure Tristan - Prelude/Liebestod, NBC/'52 - amazing performance.
so many more.....


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I have no problem with any tempo issues regarding the '39 Beethoven cycle but the sound is so awful I just cant listen to it. Shame as id love to hear Toscanini's Beethoven recorded in digital sound. He certainly was an interesting conductor.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

hpowders said:


> The only thing I hated by Toscanini was a Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony, perhaps, proving to me that the music is irredeemable. If Toscanini couldn't breathe life into that dreary score, who could?


LOL, I was about to post how that is the only Toscanini recording I *do* like.

The Tchaikovsky 6 aside, Toscanini's interpretations of large works are compromised by his essential simple-mindedness. His greatest accomplishments were his ability to produce effects in the orchestra - precise articulation, breakneck speed, etc. He is best heard in shorter works, overtures and the like.

My two favorite Toscanini recordings are the Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. This is repertoire where he excels.

Leave Beethoven and Brahms to the conductors who understood the music.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Toscanini certainly had great orchestra control, and knew exactly the sound he wanted for any particular passage....but he also eccelled at producing the big line, the long melody...this enabled him to present great performances of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner etc...this ability contributed to his stature as an opera conductor, where understanding of structure, drama, ebb and flow are so crucial.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I had read that he was in his prime when he was with La Scala after WWI. Unfortunately, we only have the acoustic recordings, and no full symphonies. Keep in mind, he was born in 1867. He conducted his first symphonic concert in 1896. By the time he joined NBC, he had been conducting for 41 years.

I hear a lot of people complaining about his tempos. I wonder how much of that was dictated by the recording material of the time - you could only fit so much on one side of a vinyl disc. I don't know. I have read he was never that fond of recordings - perhaps because it restricted what he could do.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Merl said:


> I have no problem with any tempo issues regarding the '39 Beethoven cycle but the sound is so awful I just cant listen to it. Shame as id love to hear Toscanini's Beethoven recorded in digital sound. He certainly was an interesting conductor.


Figured I would give a reply to this old thread I started 

I've since managed to track down a used copy of Immortal Performance's reissue of the 1939 cycle (unfortunately now out of print), in my opinion while the recording quality isn't excellent the stunning transfers by Mr. Caniell make this an incredibly fine listen. I've now listened to the cycle a few times and derived great pleasure from it. The only performance I am not completely sold on is the 9th, but overall have to agree with others that have heaped praise on this cycle, certainly one of the finest complete cycles I've heard.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

His best Beethoven symphony recording IMO is the 1936 7th, a work well-suited to his style. It is a thrilling performance. Gramophone Magazine included it as one of their 100 greatest recordings of the century (alongside the Klemperer 3rd, Kleiber 5th, Bohm 6th, and Furtwangler 9th - good company!).

The 1933 5th is also quite good. I am not a fan of the 1939 cycle. By then his style had already become too driven.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

I played Toscanini's 1951 recording of Brahms Symphony 4 last night and it was a beautifully lyrical performance. The famous Kleiber (which I like as well) was uncouth in comparison


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

staxomega said:


> I played Toscanini's 1951 recording of Brahms Symphony 4 last night and it was a beautifully lyrical performance. The famous Kleiber (which I like as well) was uncouth in comparison


Brahms seems to lend itself well to Italian conductors, perhaps due to the lyrical aspects which you mention. They contribute a certain amount of elegance to the flowing lines. Cantelli's 3rd and De Sabata's 4th are also well-worth seeking out.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

staxomega said:


> I played Toscanini's 1951 recording of Brahms Symphony 4 last night and it was a beautifully lyrical performance. The famous Kleiber (which I like as well) was uncouth in comparison


Yes, this is one of the greatest of all Brahms #4s....the performance builds powerfully, the finale a really dramatic tour de force....Toscanini and Reiner top the field for me in this work...


----------

