# Recordings of Beethoven 8



## licorice stick

Ah, that dwarf Beethoven symphony, wedged between mountains. I have been comparing recordings, and so far, two have stood out as exceptional. Plodding is the mortal enemy of this symphony, a vice to which Karajan (in Mvt. III), Furtwangler (with Vienna Phil), Knappertsbusch and many others fall victim. Vanska and Abbado give fine performances due to orchestral polish but the piece still sounds like even-symphony filler. The ideal Beethoven 8 must oscillate between throbbing urgency and wry merriment -- to paraphrase the oft repeated analysis, it is the Pandora's box of Beethoven's revolution refashioned into Haydn's enamel snuffbox.

Monteux/Vienna Phil (1957): Monteux puts the scherzando back into Allegretto scherzando. I now think this indeed should be the fastest movement of the symphony. Not to perpetuate a stereotype, but this recording has a necessary finesse missing in stodgier German interpretations.

Toscanini/NBC Phil (1952): Toscanini allows the perfect ebb and flow of tempi. The inner line flows through the texture, and pizzicati dance like they were written by Rossini.


----------



## bharbeke

I've heard quite a few performances that I would strongly recommend:

Dudamel, Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra of Venezuela
Klemperer, Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra
Abbado, Berlin Philharmonic
Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra (1970s)
Szell, Cleveland Orchestra
Vanska, Minnesota Orchestra


----------



## MarkW

My favorite is the Schmidt-Isserstedt/VPO, which is gorgeously played, has all the gaiety you want, and whose menuetto has extraordinary flow that I never tire of.


----------



## licorice stick

I haven't heard some of bharbeke's recommendations. Here are impressions of Dudamel.

Mvt. I: Many of the notes are held too long, blunting critical angularities in the line. A very pretty interpretation, but much too lackadaisical for my taste.
Mvt. II: Very traditional, also without extreme contrasts, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Mvt. III: Positively ponderous, like an obese man wading through syrup. I like the balance with the vigorous cello in the trio, although the difficult melodic lines in the clarinet and horn are butchered.
Mvt. IV: Definitely the best movement, I can't nitpick anything.


----------



## Boston Charlie

I like the Toscanini/NBC recording for reasons already expounded upon by the OP. Bernstein with the NYPO seems to capture the joy-like spirit of Haydn.


----------



## licorice stick

Impressions of bharbeke's Solti recommendation:

I: Typically underperforming Chicago woodwinds choke on some of the short notes, but otherwise good.
II: Is Stalin conducting this? I vividly picture Solti manhandling his baton, the modern equivalent of J.-B. Lully pounding his staff for time.
III: Another brutalist Soltviet monument. How many violins died to produce this slab?
IV: I love the great, honking trick opening in this one. The relentlessness of the Solti machine serves this movement well. And of course there's the expected sample of God-awful Chicago woodwind tuning, a proud tradition.


----------



## licorice stick

Yes! That Bernstein recording is so buoyant and virtuosic.


----------



## Heck148

Toscanini/NBC is a long time favorite, so is Szell/Cleveland...to excellent Chicago versions - Reiner. From live concert, archival 2 disc set, and Monteux/CSO DVD, from early 60s...great to see the small quick beat of Maestro Monteux...no delayed beat, draggy stuff...great playing, right at front edge of the beat.


----------



## KenOC

Favorites from another place, another time.

Symphony No. 8 in F major, Op. 93 (composed 1812, premièred 1814)
1 - Paul Kletzki, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra
2 - John Eliot Gardiner, Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique Archiv - http://tinyurl.com/gsxft9z
3 - Riccardo Chailly, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra - 



4 - Charles Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra
5 - Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Chamber Orchestra of Europe - 



6 - Claudio Abbado, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra 2002 live
7 - Pierre Monteux, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra - 



8 - Jos van Immerseel, Anima Eterna
9 - Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra 1963 - 



10 - Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra


----------



## DaveM

My first recording of the 8th was the Toscanini/NBC -the full set was given to me by my grandmother at the time. But now it has a major flaw: it's mono. A marker of all the Beethoven's symphonies was his remarkable interplay between the various winds, violins and cellos. (IMO he was a consummate composer in his use of the winds though, surprisingly, he never composed concertos for them.) Listen to the modern Bernstein/Vienna 8th in stereo. In the first, third and fourth movements, there is wonderful crosstalk between the 1st violins on the left and the winds (most notably the bassoon) and cellos on the right.

These works were composed for live performance and this back and fourth mentioned above was on purpose and can only be fully appreciated in stereo (we do have 2 ears after all). Not to mention that in too many mono recordings the winds get lost in a maze of violins and cellos.


----------



## licorice stick

Regarding the Immerseel/Anima Eterna, I'm not captivated, and there's too much lurchy period instrument stuff that makes me seasick.

DaveM raises a good point about composing in stereo, but I am surprised by just how much detail cuts through in the Toscanini. Beethoven was an above average composer for winds, but pales in comparison to Weber, who was composing hyper-virtuosic wind concerti, symphonies and chamber music at the time Beethoven was writing this symphony.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Modern sound: Karajan '62 or Bohm

Otherwise, the most musically satisfying version by far is:


----------



## licorice stick

Ah, that Furtwangler performance is characteristically good and preferable to his VPO recording. I'm still not sold by the slow and bucolic interpretation of the Minuet, but if you're going to do it slowly, you can't do it vehemently like Solti. And the momentous accelerandi in the last movement work like a charm -- I was hoping to encounter a recording with exactly that effect.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

licorice stick said:


> Ah, that Furtwangler performance is characteristically good and preferable to his VPO recording. I'm still not sold by the slow and bucolic interpretation of the Minuet, but if you're going to do it slowly, you can't do it vehemently like Solti. And the momentous accelerandi in the last movement work like a charm -- I was hoping to encounter a recording with exactly that effect.


My copy is on Deutsche Grammophone and is a much better transfer than the YouTube video. In fact it is one of the best Furtwangler live transfers I have heard. The coupled 7th is equally great.


----------



## bharbeke

From licorice stick's detailed comments, it is apparent to me that:

1. I do not listen with an ear for orchestral detail, just go for the overall impression.
2. A fantastic final movement counts for a lot and will help me forgive many things from the middle.

I hope that this thread helps many people find a recording they like of this symphony and elevates its regard just a little bit. It is my 2nd favorite Beethoven symphony after the 5th.


----------



## licorice stick

Typically I listen for the gestalt, occasionally for detail. But I like the threads on this site that try to sift through recordings for the absolute best ones. Combine enough opinions and tastes and a few often obscure recordings will come to the fore.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I have several favorites in addition to the ones I mentioned earlier. 

In rough order:

Furtwängler (1953) (DG, Tahra, Music & Arts, Andromeda) 
Karajan (1962) (DG)
Böhm (DG)
Barbirolli (PRT, Dutton)
Pfitzner (Preiser, Naxos)
Van Kempen (Philips)
Karajan (1983) (DG)
Walter (Sony)
Casals (Sony)
Jochum (Philips)
Beecham (EMI)
Bernstein (DG)


----------



## Merl

Some recordings that stand out include (off the top of my head):

Karajan 63
Chailly
Nelsons
Dudamel 
Blomstedt
Davis

and best of all ....... Markevitch!!!


----------



## wkasimer

Hermann Scherchen:


----------



## Judith

What about Riccardo Muti and Philadelphia Orchestra. Have box set of Beethoven and they are wonderful performances.


----------



## Merl

Judith said:


> What about Riccardo Muti and Philadelphia Orchestra. Have box set of Beethoven and they are wonderful performances.


It's a good cycle and a solid 8th but the 7th is the standout of that cycle for me (he totally nails it), Judith. I'm not a huge Muti fanboy but his symphony cycles are always good quality if not my premier choice (eg Brahms, Schumann). Btw I missed out Dausgaard's athletic and vibrant 8th, Gardiner's joyful 8th and Kletzki's beautifully played 8th.


----------



## Judith

Also, love 4th & 7th by Joshua Bell and ASMF


----------



## licorice stick

Ok, Jansons/BRSO in Tokyo is the best recent recording that I have heard, and it happens to be with my favorite conductor and orchestra:


----------



## wkasimer

licorice stick said:


> Ok, Jansons/BRSO in Tokyo is the best recent recording that I have heard, and it happens to be with my favorite conductor and orchestra:


This is the same performance, on a commercial release:


----------



## licorice stick

Indeed, I once listened to that cycle, which is variable overall, but apparently has a great rendition of the 8th.


----------



## Olias

My personal favorite:

Mackerras/Royal Liverpool Phil


----------



## Enthusiast

I cannot start with a view of how it should sound or what a great performance of it should achieve and, maybe because of this, could never choose a favourite. But Harnoncourt (with the CoE) is excellent and I think 8 is one of the more successful of Gardiner's set. I do also like Haitink's LSO Live version. Steinberg's account is really good (and can be downloaded for free on http://www.rediscovery.us/conductors2.html) and I do also like Klemperer's. There must be so many others that I just cannot remember to mention right now!


----------



## Merl

Enthusiast said:


> There must be so many others that I just cannot remember to mention right now!


That's my problem. I have so many LvB 8ths (well over 100) that remembering my favourites is difficult off the top of my head. For example, i just thought of another 8th that I really like - Skrowaczewski. Oh and I agree with Olias, that Mackerras 8th with the RLPO is a cracker. That's a excellent, brisk, rough and tumble cycle. í ½í¸


----------



## Joachim Raff

Funny enough I was watching Hurwitz doing his analysis on his YouTube channel. I like to look at the comments and someone did mention the below version which is a live performance. It is quite something. Very jovial, clear, concise. The live audience does not detract from the performance but probably enhances the ambience. Very atmospheric. I enjoyed immensely.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It’s funny hearing Hurwitz knock my favorite version, Furtwängler, as the “worst.” I listened to dozens of 8ths in my survey a few years ago, and regardless of historical approach I heard none that possessed the same level of phrasing, musicianship, or understanding of harmonic tension as the Furtwängler. It is a conducting clinic. As usual, Hurwitz’s approach is to decide on a strict “right” way (serving his own aggrandizement) which by necessity eliminates a recording that does not conform, as opposed to allowing a recording to rise or fall according to its merits without strict preconceptions.


My four essential 8ths:

Wilhelm Furtwängler/BPO (1953) (DG, Tahra, Music & Arts, Andromeda)

Herbert von Karajan/BPO (1962) (DG)

Karl Böhm/VPO (1971) (DG)

Sir John Barbirolli/Hallé Orch. (1958) (PRT, Dutton)


And further listening: 

Hans Pfitzner (Preiser, Naxos)
Paul van Kempen (Philips)
Herbert von Karajan (1983) (DG)
Bruno Walter (Sony)
Pablo Casals (Sony)
Eugen Jochum (Philips)
Sir Thomas Beecham (Sony, EMI)
Felix Weingartner (Naxos, Opus)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)
Roger Norrington (EMI)


----------



## Heck148

Toscanini
Reiner
Szell
Monteux
Solti


----------



## Merl

Lol, I just watched a certain critic's video and knew a few noses would be put outta joint. Tbh, I mostly agree with him, although Wand and Toscanini wouldn't be in my top ones. They're all solid enough picks, though, but Markevitch, De Vriend, Gardiner, Norrington 2 and possibly Mackerras and Chailly would have to be in there. I agree that the Dresden Blomstedt, Scherchen and Kletzki are crackers though. With so many good quality 8ths available it's a thankless task trying to find the very best, though. Even Colin Davis did a really good one in his largely dull and forgettable cycle.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's funny hearing Hurwitz knock my favorite version, Furtwängler, as the "worst." I listened to dozens of 8ths in my survey a few years ago, and regardless of historical approach I heard none that possessed the same level of phrasing, musicianship, or understanding of harmonic tension as the Furtwängler. It is a conducting clinic. As usual, Hurwitz's approach is to decide on a strict "right" way (serving his own aggrandizement) which by necessity eliminates a recording that does not conform, as opposed to allowing a recording to rise or fall according to its merits without strict preconceptions.


I think that Hurwitz was trolling you.

My choices are Casals and Scherchen.


----------



## KenOC

Merl said:


> Lol, I just watched a certain critic's video and knew a few noses would be put outta joint. Tbh, I mostly agree with him, although Wand and Toscanini wouldn't be in my top ones. They're all solid enough picks, though, but Markevitch, De Vriend, Gardiner, Norrington 2 and possibly Mackerras and Chailly would have to be in there. I agree that the Dresden Blomstedt, Scherchen and Kletzki are crackers though. With so many good quality 8ths available it's a thankless task trying to find the very best, though. Even Colin Davis did a really good one in his largely dull and forgettable cycle.


Hurwitz put Kletzki in first place, as did a voting game on recordings of the 8th some years ago on the now-defunct Amazon forum. It's available on YouTube and is certainly very fine.

For the record, here are the 8ths as ranked on the Amazon forum:

1 - Paul Kletzki, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra
2 - John Eliot Gardiner, Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique Archiv - http://tinyurl.com/gsxft9z
3 - Riccardo Chailly, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra - 



4 - Charles Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra
5 - Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Chamber Orchestra of Europe - 



6 - Claudio Abbado, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra 2002 live
7 - Pierre Monteux, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra - 



8 - Jos van Immerseel, Anima Eterna
9 - Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra 1963 - 



10 - Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra


----------



## Knorf

Selecting a single favorite Beethoven Eighth is impossible; there are simply too many good recordings out there. A short list of my own favorites might include, in no particular order but very roughly chronological:

Karajan/Berliner Philharmoniker (1963, but really any of them)
Szell/Cleveland Orchestra
Steinberg/Pittsburgh Symphony
Norrington/London Classical Players
Abbado/Berliner Philharmoniker (either; they're basically indistinguishable and equally good)
Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken Radio
Immerseel/Anima Eterna Brugge
Haitink/London Symphony


----------



## Merl

KenOC said:


> Hurwitz put Kletzki in first place, as did a voting game on recordings of the 8th some years ago on the now-defunct Amazon forum. It's available on YouTube and is certainly very fine.
> 
> For the record, here are the 8ths as ranked on the Amazon forum:
> 
> 1 - Paul Kletzki, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra
> 2 - John Eliot Gardiner, Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique Archiv - http://tinyurl.com/gsxft9z
> 3 - Riccardo Chailly, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra -
> 
> 
> 
> 4 - Charles Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra
> 5 - Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Chamber Orchestra of Europe -
> 
> 
> 
> 6 - Claudio Abbado, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra 2002 live
> 7 - Pierre Monteux, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra -
> 
> 
> 
> 8 - Jos van Immerseel, Anima Eterna
> 9 - Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra 1963 -
> 
> 
> 
> 10 - Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra


Well that's certainly a decent list. Not seen that before. The good thing about those recordings in that particular list is they're not just there solely by reputation. There are some LVB recordings that have a far greater reputation than they deserve.


----------



## Kiki

I'm definitely in the minority: Emmanuel Krivine and La Chambre Philharmonique!  Hogwood, Haselböck, A. Fischer, Chailly, Immerseel, Herrewegh, Brüggen (the earlier one) are all nice; so are Scherchen (the crazy one from Lugano) and slow Toscanini (1939)/Weingartner (1936)/Solti (the digital one).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> There are some LVB recordings that have a far greater reputation than they deserve.


Not really. Reputations have to be earned somehow. Unless you believe in some sort of conspiratorial cabal magically telling everyone what to think.

Whether you respond to a recording's reputation has to do with personal aesthetic. I don't generally fancy Toscanini/Reiner/Szell/Solti in Beethoven, but I can understand why some people do, and thus where they get their reputations from.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Not really. Reputations have to be earned somehow. Unless you believe in some sort of conspiratorial cabal magically telling everyone what to think.


It's called time, hindsight and reflection. Critics say this album or that album is the new greatest, radio stations or labels push it out to the masses and a generation later it's not talked about anymore. Many sacred cows of one generation disappear. Everyone of some sort of popularity will have a few cult followers who will still be around to maintain their magical pig was somehow more special than anyone that comes after but as time passes each generation chooses new favorites based on any number of criteria.

The average 18 year old starting out listening to classical music today doesn't know the people who died more than 50 years ago now. They are going to look for and listen to modern recordings. A few may research and look back but the majority will not and the majority will certainly not look back to the mono era just because of advances in sound technology.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Of course there will always be recency bias among the young, but some like myself will “graduate” from the preoccupation with sonics and discover why recordings from Furtwängler, Schnabel, the Busch Qt, etc garnered their reputations. It does not change the essential point that the reputations exist for a reason. Young people closing their ears to the past has no bearing on that fact, anymore than legions of Justin Bieber fans diminish the greatness of Beethoven and Bach.


.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Of course there will always be recency bias among the young, but some like myself will "graduate" from the preoccupation with sonics and discover why recordings from Furtwängler, Schnabel, the Busch Qt, etc garnered their reputations. It does not change the essential point that the reputations exist for a reason. Young people closing their ears to the past has no bearing on that fact, anymore than legions of Justin Bieber fans diminish the greatness of Beethoven and Bach..


Of course it changes their reputations because, they are all but forgotten. They no longer have a reputation. No one is singing the praises of The Busch Quartet anymore, nor of Furtwangler or Schnabel or even Toscanini for that matter other than an extremely small group of devoted fans.

Sound quality has nothing to do with believing that in someway you're "graduated" above and beyond others, that is entirely ego.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Did I say graduated above others? I said graduated as in I previously had a more simple understanding of music that didn’t allow me to appreciate the greats of the past. The degree to which others have the same experience is up to them. 

Music is more than just simply duplication of notes and rhythms in clear sound. It took me a while to understand that.

It’s no different than my coming late to Mahler. The long, complex works were too difficult for me to grasp in my younger days. But now I have “graduated” to understanding and appreciating Mahler.

.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Reputations have to be earned somehow.


But once earned, they often become "received wisdom".


----------



## Merl

Reputations (bad or good) don't have to be earned. Some people take what they are told as 'The truth' if it's said loudly enough by influential people. You only have to look at the world of politics across the world to see that. Some people will believe ANYTHING they are told. There's a lot of emperor's new clothes recordings out there. One look at that crappy 250 Greatest Recordings of all Time over on Gramophone's site can tell you you that.


----------



## Knorf

Emperor's New Clothes? In terms of _recordings_ themselves?

I must disagree. The overwhelming majority of recordings old and new but especially since about 1950 are at least acceptably good by any reasonable professional expectation.

The actual most appropriate target for "Emperor's New Clothes"-type clichés _by far_ are those critics who, with an engorged, magnificent pretense that is frankly embarrassing (or should be), act like their listening tastes and priorities alone are valid. Warning sign: pompous statements of "best" and "worst," smugly delivered; anyone with a regular "CD from Hell" column.

But what I have seen more than anything is very simply explained. Mass media arose with the Boomer generation, and Boomers carry with them the pretense that whatever was deemed praise-worthy when they were growing up is _ipso facto_ the best ever. This is human nature, frankly, but no one has been more spoiled by media attention and adulation than Boomers and the things they grew up with.

N.B. thankfully some people are better than this. Merl is an example for sure, which is why I trust his recommendations. "Received wisdom" when it comes to the arts must _always_ be challenged!


----------



## Merl

Thanks for the kind words, Knorfster, but as you said only *some* people are better than this. There are plenty out there who won't challenge these assumptions, who won't listen and just take these recordings as 'The greatest' without actually comparing them to other lesser known recordings /artists. When I started listening to CM seriously I was probably guilty of this too but not now. No recording is sacrosanct these days. There's stuff I listened to 5 years ago that I wouldn't give the time of day to now. Hearing so many different recordings of works I like has really opened my eyes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

If a recording has stood the test of time, there is most often a reason. It is not a conspiracy. There is no such thing as a classical music cabal controlling everything.

Sometimes a particular reviewer may just simply not like a recording. But when you then say the reputation is unearned, you are essentially anointing yourself as a God above other opinions, making it sound like everyone else is a thoughtless lemming just repeating what others say. Hurwitz is terrible at this. If he personally doesn't like, for example, the Ferrier DLVDE, it becomes a thing in his mind where everyone who disagrees with him is simply pretending it is great out of nostalgia and ignoring its defects. That is Hurwitz's own narcissism at work.

Then you have a recording like, say, Solti's Ring Cycle. It is frequently listed as among the greatest opera recordings in existence, and yet many Wagner aficionados will tell you it is overrated. Well, is it really overrated if enough people say it is? You end up with a consensus - great sonics, groundbreaking recording, great singers, but conducting that is less than idiomatic. That all adds up to the reputation of the recording.

Reputation is nothing more than an accumulation of opinions over which no one person has a monopoly. (not even Hurwitz, much to his chagrin)


----------



## Merl

There was once a consensus of opinion that a certain British TV and radio celebrity was a nice guy. A bit odd but a 'real personality'. He did lots of great work for charity and his local hospital and the consensus of opinion from the British public was he should get a Knighthood. He was duly given one. The consensus of opinion was that he thoroughly deserved it. Some of us always thought he was a nonce. Some of us were right. Reputations can be very, very wrong.


----------



## Joachim Raff

Merl said:


> There was once a consensus of opinion that a certain British TV and radio celebrity was a nice guy. A bit odd but a 'real personality'. He did lots of great work for charity and his local hospital and the consensus of opinion from the British public was he should get a Knighthood. He was duly given one. The consensus of opinion was that he thoroughly deserved it. Some of us always thought he was a nonce. Some of us were right. Reputations can be very, very wrong.


When you have a protection racket called the BBC, the Great British public will believe anything. After all, BBC would never do anything wrong, especially giving and supporting a platform for a paedophile. Jim and auntie definitely fixed it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> There was once a consensus of opinion that a certain British TV and radio celebrity was a nice guy. A bit odd but a 'real personality'. He did lots of great work for charity and his local hospital and the consensus of opinion from the British public was he should get a Knighthood. He was duly given one. The consensus of opinion was that he thoroughly deserved it. Some of us always thought he was a nonce. Some of us were right. Reputations can be very, very wrong.


I understand your general point, but I don't think it is an apt comparison.

We have ears. We can hear recordings for ourselves. They aren't locked in a safe somewhere. If a recording is pleasing to enough ears, its reputation takes off. If not, it does not. It is capitalism at work.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If a recording has stood the test of time, there is most often a reason.


Yes, but sometimes the reason is that the record companies keep reissuing that recording, and critics and listeners keep saying the same thing about it.


----------



## Knorf

Here's the bottom line for me. Critics are useful when they are helpful in directing you to new experiences. They are not useful⁠—in fact "diabolical" wouldn't be far off⁠—when they try to push you into disliking or stepping away from the things you already like.

(For example, I allowed certain critics to push me away from Karajan. Fork that. Now I know better! Luckily I never forsook Karajan's Strauss, which is too obviously really good. That was my return path.)

If you like something, please, don't feel any need to seek validation for liking it, not from anyone. It's totally unnecessary, or worse: corrosive. Celebrate what you like! And don't be offended just when someone else doesn't like it.

All I would add is to exhort everyone to remember to keep yourselves open to new experiences, or you'll miss out on so much that is wonderful and unexpected, whether it's new recording of Beethoven or something else altogether.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I'll add that it is of course possible and common for a recording to lack a reputation simply due to lack of marketing and circulation. Obviously.

But I don't think recordings that remain popular for decades do so simply because the population is being manipulated. The movie Cleopatra was one of the most expensive, start-studded, hyped movies ever. It was a flop.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll add that it is of course possible and common for a recording to lack a reputation simply due to lack of marketing and circulation. Obviously.


This is true. The obsession with celebrity (even in classical music) in our culture, as well as sundry other factors, mean that many very worthy or even great recordings sometimes slip through the cracks.

I'd put Skrowaczewski's Saarbrücken recordings in that category. So glad Merl and others helped me find them! Stan was never a huge celebrity (why the f not? I'll never know) but to me he was obviously as good as the best.



> But I don't think recordings that remain popular for decades do so simply because the population is being manipulated. The movie Cleopatra was one of the most expensive, start-studded, hyped movies ever. It was a flop.


Of course no one is obligated to like something just because everyone else does, but anything that has stood the test of time, and remains widely loved, has done so for a usually damn good reason.


----------



## Merl

I'm not getting at these recordings, as such, it's just I'd like it if people wandered off the beaten track a bit more, rather than sticking with the same-old-same-old. Without it people would never find the Stans of this world.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Did I say graduated above others? I said graduated as in I previously had a more simple understanding of music that didn't allow me to appreciate the greats of the past. The degree to which others have the same experience is up to them.
> 
> Music is more than just simply duplication of notes and rhythms in clear sound. It took me a while to understand that.
> 
> It's no different than my coming late to Mahler. The long, complex works were too difficult for me to grasp in my younger days. But now I have "graduated" to understanding and appreciating Mahler.


Your implication was that you have graduated above others who are preoccupied with good sound. So because someone wants to actually hear the bassline Beethoven wrote which is inaudible and covered up by distortion that they are missing out on a great performance because your ego hears "something special" in it.

Music is exactly that, notes, rhythms, sounds, etc. Even something such as Cage's 4'33 has you listening to the sounds of the room. What is the point if you can't hear them? If you can't hear the implied harmony between the notes or the the basslines or the woodwinds or timpani because they are distorted and lost in the mix, etc. why should someone listen to it?

There are tangible aspects you can listen for in music such as rhythm, intonation, harmony, melody, etc. but whatever revelatory "feelings" beyond the tangible aspects, ie. where you may feel this performance is in some way a "spiritual awakening" because of this or that are drawn entirely out of your own brain and not necessarily something anyone else is going to hear or experience because each mind is unique.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> I'm not getting at these recordings, as such, it's just I'd like it if people wandered off the beaten track a bit more, rather than sticking with the same-old-same-old. Without it people would never find the Stans of this world.


I couldn't agree more! I knew where you were coming from, my friend. We're on the same page.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Your implication was that you have graduated above others who are preoccupied with good sound. So because someone wants to actually hear the bassline Beethoven wrote which is inaudible and covered up by distortion that they are missing out on a great performance because your ego hears "something special" in it.


Again, I am not saying "graduated" in relation to anyone else. I am describing my own personal journey.

I remember laughing with my friends over old recordings where the balances were all off. It took a great deal of maturity on my part to explore for myself why some of these recordings have inspired so much reverence and discover this for myself. It was the proverbial "ah, ha" moment of discovery. Absolutely I consider that a "graduation" in the same sense as learning to appreciate Mahler or Shostakovich if all you have hitherto been able to appreciate are classical composers.



realdealblues said:


> There are tangible aspects you can listen for in music such as rhythm, intonation, harmony, melody, etc. but whatever revelatory "feelings" beyond the tangible aspects, ie. where you may feel this performance is in some way a "spiritual awakening" because of this or that are drawn entirely out of your own brain and not necessarily something anyone else is going to hear or experience because each mind is unique.


Your final point is where I strongly differ with your characterization. The emotional aspects of the music are built into the composition and it is the job of the performer to unearth these emotions. It is not a haphazard, imaginary, random process, as you characterize it. So when I hear from others about how a particular performer unearthed the depth of the composition, that is something that is a collective experience across generations, whether you acknowledge it or not.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your final point is where I strongly differ with your characterization. The emotional aspects of the music are built into the composition and it is the job of the performer to unearth these emotions. It is not a haphazard, imaginary, random process, as you characterize it. So when I hear from others about how a particular performer unearthed the depth of the composition, that is something that is a collective experience across generations, whether you acknowledge it or not.


Ego continuing to defend a personal belief structure. Emotions are not written into music. They may attempt to suggest something or a composer may even write a program to describe something to you, but it's always up to the listener to infer from it what they hear. It's an entirely personal reaction.

Just because someone hears a minor tonality doesn't mean it's meant to be "sad". A minor chord sounds sad to you because you have been taught that a minor chord is sad sounding and a major chord is happy sounding, nothing more. Many compositions were written for a commission ie. to get paid with many composers later remarking they put no feeling into it. You may feel the work has some depth for you personally, but again that is your own mind searching for meaning, which is understandable as it's a very human trait, but it's no more written into the music than your talk about a secret cabal controlling the music world.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Ego continuing to defend a personal belief structure. Emotions are not written into music. They may attempt to suggest something or a composer may even write a program to describe something to you, but it's always up to the listener to infer from it what they hear. It's an entirely personal reaction.


It's not a personal belief structure. It's an experience. I experienced hearing recordings on a different level.

You are arguing that emotional reactions to music are random. That is completely false. It does not mean that every listener necessarily feels exactly the same emotion in lock step. But to say that there is nothing inherently emotional in the reactions to music is delusional, as anyone who has been in an audience leaping to its feet at the conclusion of Beethoven's 9th can attest.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not a personal belief structure. It's an experience. I experienced hearing recordings on a different level.
> 
> You are arguing that emotional reactions to music are random. That is completely false. It does not mean that every listener necessarily feels exactly the same emotion in lock step. But to say that there is nothing inherently emotional in the reactions to music is delusional, as anyone who has been in an audience leaping to its feet at the conclusion of Beethoven's 9th can attest.


Your belief structure is just that. You believe you experienced something on another level and again speak of superiority because you experience hearing things on a different level...fevered ego.

I'm saying that everyone reacts to music in their own way. Have been to dozens of performances of Beethoven's 9th. You feel the need to leap to your feet with a heartful of joy after such an experience, good for you. I clap because the orchestra played well. The lady next to me was bored to tears and is thankful it's over. The man on the other side of me jumped up startled and clapped because everyone else did while he was taking a power nap. Each experience is personal to that individual. They interpret the emotional response of their own choosing, not because the music predetermines they "feel something". The music may have made them feel something, it may have made them feel absolutely nothing. Could be boredom, happiness, sadness. It's unique to each individual. Beethoven didn't compose the work saying "with this succession of notes I am instilling this emotion so that everyone will stand up and feel a heartful of joy", although he might hope that it would bring joy to some.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Again, you are arguing that emotional reactions are random. There is a big difference between that and the other extreme, which is claiming everyone's emotions go in lock step, as I said in my prior post.

Taste and emotions are not random phenomena. Otherwise there would be no point to art.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, you are arguing that emotional reactions are random. There is a big difference between that and the other extreme, which is claiming everyone's emotions go in lock step, as I said in my prior post.
> 
> Taste and emotions are not random phenomena. Otherwise there would be no point to art.


Of course they are. That is the purpose of art, for one to interpret as one sees fit. A Painting can elicit any response from an individual just as a succession of notes can.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Here, let Snoopy demonstrate


----------



## realdealblues

The music during Snoopy's happy dance makes me think of death and destruction and agony in a bloodsoaked field. During his crying fit I feel like a happy joyous afternoon out on the Danube. I have a total different emotional response to what I am hearing than what Snoopy does. Or I could say the first march makes me feel orange and the second makes me feel polka-dot because I associate those colors with those things. 

Tomorrow I may feel different when I hear it. It's entirely random based upon my brain and my life at that particular moment as it is for everyone unless they are going by what they have been "taught" as to how it "should" make them feel.


----------



## RogerWaters

realdealblues said:


> Of course they are. That is the purpose of art, for one to interpret as one sees fit. A Painting can elicit any response from an individual just as a succession of notes can.


What CAN happen, on the one hand, and what USUALLY happens, on the other, are different issues.

Of course a painting can elicit a huge variety of response from some individuals. However, the relationship between a (successful) artist's intended effect and the effect on MOST individuals is fairly robust.

If it wasn't, he or she would be out of a job.


----------



## realdealblues

RogerWaters said:


> What CAN happen, on the one hand, and what USUALLY happens, on the other, are different issues.
> 
> Of course a painting can elicit a huge variety of response from some individuals. However, the relationship between a (successful) artist's intended effect and the effect on MOST individuals is fairly robust.
> 
> If it wasn't, he or she would be out of a job.


Have yet to see one out of a job. Who's to say they have an intended response to begin with? I can think of hundreds of successful artists who honestly don't care what their audience thinks. They are either selfish and do something because it's what they do and if someone enjoys it then it's just an added bonus, or they just want to provoke a response of some kind not caring what that response is. Not every work is meant to have you plumb the depths looking for hidden meanings and some are left for you to entirely interpret on your own.

Music can make you feel any emotion on any given day. Beethoven may have intended everyone to feel joy during his "ode to joy" but it doesn't stop millions of people finding it boring and feeling only annoyance which I would consider far from robust.


----------



## Knorf

realdealblues said:


> Music can make you feel any emotion on any given day. Beethoven may have intended everyone to feel joy during his "ode to joy" but it doesn't stop millions of people finding it boring and feeling only annoyance which I would consider far from robust.


Here's the emotion Adrienne Rich found in her poem "The Ninth Symphony of Beethoven Understood at Last as a Sexual Message"

A man in terror of impotence
or infertility, not knowing the difference
a man trying to tell something
howling from the climacteric
music of the entirely
isolated soul
yelling at Joy from the tunnel of the ego
music without the ghost
of another person in it, music
trying to tell something the man
does not want out, would keep if he could
gagged and bound and flogged with chords of Joy
where everything is silence and the
beating of a bloody hand upon
a splintered table.

(ETA: I do not personally experience a response to Beethoven's Ninth that resembles this poem.)


----------



## realdealblues

Knorf said:


> Here's the emotion Adrienne Rich found in her poem "The Ninth Symphony of Beethoven Understood at Last as a Sexual Message"
> 
> A man in terror of impotence
> or infertility, not knowing the difference
> a man trying to tell something
> howling from the climacteric
> music of the entirely
> isolated soul
> yelling at Joy from the tunnel of the ego
> music without the ghost
> of another person in it, music
> trying to tell something the man
> does not want out, would keep if he could
> gagged and bound and flogged with chords of Joy
> where everything is silence and the
> beating of a bloody hand upon
> a splintered table.
> 
> (ETA: I do not personally experience a response to Beethoven's Ninth that resembles this poem.)


Entirely my point. Music can elicit a different response on any given day. You aren't in the mood for Beethoven and you listen to it you may have an entirely different feeling than on a day when you are in the mood for it. You're having a bad day thinking about suicide vs a day when everything in your life is going right you may have an entirely different emotional response. It changes more often than not for many people despite what someone might have intended or not have intended. Everyone is entitled to their own response.

If Mr. Horn or anyone else wants to believe they can hear Mr. Furtwangler "plumb emotional depths" and that the music is infused in some magical way that dictates a particular response, fine, that is his right, I never said he couldn't experience that, but when Hurwitz or anyone disagrees with him he chooses to give a defensive passive aggressive response on how he listens on a different level as if his listening experience is in some way special because his ego tells him he hears something deeper and that we are incapable of hearing which I find offensive because we all hear things differently, period.

Perhaps I like to actually hear the individual instruments clearly on a newer recording because I don't believe the music has an automatic dictated emotional response and I choose to let it develop naturally each time I hear the work or I choose to listen on an academic level that day to hear how a harmony line or a counterpoint line, etc. is written. Perhaps it elicits no emotional response at all, that could be my experience for the day.

Your listening experience is special to YOU, no one else which is as it should be. Each individual should listen and wait for their own response and if someone hates your favorite recording so be it, instead of making the a halfway insinuation that you just don't know how to listen to music right.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Mr. Blues,

You’re engaging in embellishments and distortions.

Again, when I talk about a deeper experience I am not comparing myself to anyone. I am describing my experience. Some days I may be in the mood for something “deep.” Some days I may be in the mood for something “light.” Some days I’m not in the mood to think deeply about anything.

It’s like being in a conversation about mundane, surface topics, and then turning the conversation to deeper emotional or philosophical topics that are more challenging. Toscanini is like the first conversation (“I hear only Allegro con brio”) whereas Furtwängler is like the second conversation, plumbing the depths to discover and reveal what it is that moves us when we hear the Eroica.

The crux of this debate is not whether you have a right to your preference, or whether it is good or bad. The debate is over the contention of some, including Hurwitz, that those who claim to hear emotional or philosophical depth are just imagining things that are not there. That the emperor has no clothes. That it’s all cultish quasi-religious behavior. A poster on this board made that exact contention on the Furtwängler discussion thread.

I can testify that there is such a thing as deeper truth and emotional connection. And others have heard it too. There’s nothing “special” or earth shattering about this. Otherwise all of Greek philosophy and what came after was I suppose an exercise in futility.

Now, when you state that this is egotistical of me to say, it is you who are being defensive, not me. I’m not making any of this personal. I’m responding to an argument with which I disagree.

Finally, you keep harping on emotional reaction being entirely random and individual. I disagree completely. Part of the point of art is connection. And connection happens when we share things that we all can relate to as humans. When Beethoven chooses chords and harmonic changes and development of themes, he is not doing it randomly. It can all be broken down to explain the emotions we tend to feel as the work progresses. It is not simply random. To contend otherwise is denial of reality.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Mr. Blues,
> Toscanini is like the first conversation ("I hear only Allegro con brio") whereas Furtwängler is like the second conversation, plumbing the depths to discover and reveal what it is that moves us when we hear the Eroica.


Oh, boy, here we go again!! 
you are assuming that there is some sort of extra-musical message - "depths to plumb", or whatever...many of us find the "Allegro con brio" to be the "message" - that we may find very moving, exciting, stimulating, interesting or whatever.
RealDeal is making the point that the music - the actual sounds - do not contain of convey any extra-musical "message" as such. it is sound waves moving thru the medium of the environment.....each listener is free to attach whatever concept, idea or "meaning as he/she sees fit....but this applies only on an individual basis - and is not any universally applied principle.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Um...wrong? 

I answered what you said in my post above. I’m not assuming anything. It’s been proven through my and others’ experiences over centuries. If there was nothing to it, Furtwängler wouldn’t be a thing.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Before this rabbit hole is explored too much more, you're all correct.


----------



## 13hm13

About Hurwitz's recent choices ... some in his list are indeed v. good. 
But none of them engages like Zinman/Tonhalle's 1997 recording. Easily the fastest I've heard -- almost USSR-era orchestra fast -- but all is well controlled and thrilling. 
That whole Zinman/Tonhalle LvB cycle is outstanding. Too bad that team couldn't replicate same level of playing with their subpar Mahler cycle.


----------



## Merl

Back in the days of the old Google groups there was a Gunther Wand recording of the 9th with the NHK, from the NHK's New Year concert, that was spoken about with maniacal verve. It was "cataclysmic", "monumental", "iconoclastic" and a heap more. It was unavailable at the time but there was a poor bootleg recording of it doing the rounds so, being the Beethoven symphony nerd I am, I naturally grabbed it. Sonically it was awful, you could hear little detail but the thing sounded utterly mammoth with what sounded like immense crescendos and power but you could discern little else from this sonic mess. Still it was spoken about as "legendary" by several forum menbers. It achieved a cult status, notoriety and life of its own, revered by a growing number of group members as THE 9th to hear and they would discuss elements of the performance that were simply impossible to hear from the dreadful recording we had. Years later it was (thankfully) released in excellent stereo sound by tte NHK. I listened again and, although it was a good 9th, it was really not that special and certainly didn't convey any otherworldly message to me. After years of being mentioned in any Beethoven discussion it was never mentioned again. Whilst reputations can be earned they can also be created.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Mr. Blues,
> 
> You're engaging in embellishments and distortions.
> 
> It's like being in a conversation about mundane, surface topics, and then turning the conversation to deeper emotional or philosophical topics that are more challenging. Toscanini is like the first conversation ("I hear only Allegro con brio") whereas Furtwängler is like the second conversation, plumbing the depths to discover and reveal what it is that moves us when we hear the Eroica.


A distortion and embellishment based on your own fevered ego. This is only your perception.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The crux of this debate is not whether you have a right to your preference, or whether it is good or bad. The debate is over the contention of some, including Hurwitz, that those who claim to hear emotional or philosophical depth are just imagining things that are not there.


More fevered ego. It's their brain receiving auditory signals to which they are drawing these conclusions. These are unique to each individual. The performer puts their personal emotion into it. They may be thinking about a loved one they lost while they perform yet you don't hear that, you hear whatever it is you want to here.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I can testify that there is such a thing as deeper truth and emotional connection. And others have heard it too. There's nothing "special" or earth shattering about this. Otherwise all of Greek philosophy and what came after was I suppose an exercise in futility.


"You" can testify as to your perception. It's your belief from your ego that you have a greater connection to others who believe the same thing. Perfectly normal human behavior, but just that a behavior based upon your perception and your ego. You are welcome to it. I'm sure many predators feel a "special connection" to their victims. Doesn't mean it's real. It's simply their beliefs are nothing more than their beliefs in their own head.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Now, when you state that this is egotistical of me to say, it is you who are being defensive, not me. I'm not making any of this personal. I'm responding to an argument with which I disagree.


No I'm not being defensive you are. You have contended with hundreds of posts to say that modern conductors and performers have no ability to convey this "special meaning to you" which is indeed a manifestation of your own mind. You make illusions to the point that in some way the only great conveyers such as Furtwangler can speak to you. Others who say there is no such metaphysical experience such as Hurwitz put you into a defensive passive aggressive mode because they have attacked your personal belief structure and your sacred cow as you claim to know better which leads to your constant bullying and superiority complex which is what I have taken offense too. It's not a personal defense. It's that you continually contend that your beliefs are the correct ones which is incorrect because others have unique experiences just as you do.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Finally, you keep harping on emotional reaction being entirely random and individual. I disagree completely. Part of the point of art is connection. And connection happens when we share things that we all can relate to as humans. When Beethoven chooses chords and harmonic changes and development of themes, he is not doing it randomly. It can all be broken down to explain the emotions we tend to feel as the work progresses. It is not simply random. To contend otherwise is denial of reality.


Again your fevered ego because I have attacked your perception of reality. You have no personal knowledge that Beethoven didn't use a specific chord or harmonic change simply because he though it was "neat" or simply "sounded good". You're drawing your own personal conclusions based on what you perceive from your own ego. Nothing more.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Um...wrong?
> 
> I answered what you said in my post above. I'm not assuming anything. It's been proven through my and others' experiences over centuries. If there was nothing to it, Furtwängler wouldn't be a thing.


Again your ego. You claim proof where there is none. It's your belief and your perception. Furtwangler was a public figure. He will have a following. It's no more magical than eating food and defecating. It's human nature.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ....I'm not assuming anything. It's been proven through my and others' experiences over centuries. If there was nothing to it, Furtwängler wouldn't be a thing.


Yes, you are assuming, based on your own beliefs...isn't it possible to enjoy Furtwangler's performances for the sound they produce, without any extra-musical applications??


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Whilst reputations can be earned they can also be created.


What's my reputation?


----------



## wkasimer

Merl said:


> Back in the days of the old Google groups there was a Gunther Wand recording of the 9th with the NHK, from the NHK's New Year concert, that was spoken about with maniacal verve. It was "cataclysmic", "monumental", "iconoclastic" and a heap more. It was unavailable at the time but there was a poor bootleg recording of it doing the rounds so, being the Beethoven symphony nerd I am, I naturally grabbed it. Sonically it was awful, you could hear little detail but the thing sounded utterly mammoth with what sounded like immense crescendos and power but you could discern little else from this sonic mess. Still it was spoken about as "legendary" by several forum menbers. It achieved a cult status, notoriety and life of its own, revered by a growing number of group members as THE 9th to hear and they would discuss elements of the performance that were simply impossible to hear from the dreadful recording we had.


aka "received wisdom".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> A distortion and embellishment based on your own fevered ego. This is only your perception.


You're simply creating your own reality to fit your argument.



realdealblues said:


> More fevered ego. It's their brain receiving auditory signals to which they are drawing these conclusions. These are unique to each individual. The performer puts their personal emotion into it. They may be thinking about a loved one they lost while they perform yet you don't hear that, you hear whatever it is you want to here.


The point is that it's not random. Again, creating your own reality.



realdealblues said:


> "You" can testify as to your perception. It's your belief from your ego that you have a greater connection to others who believe the same thing. Perfectly normal human behavior, but just that a behavior based upon your perception and your ego. You are welcome to it. I'm sure many predators feel a "special connection" to their victims. Doesn't mean it's real. It's simply their beliefs are nothing more than their beliefs in their own head.


Never said I have a greater connection. Again, your own reality.



realdealblues said:


> No I'm not being defensive you are. You have contended with hundreds of posts to say that modern conductors and performers have no ability to convey this "special meaning to you" which is indeed a manifestation of your own mind. You make illusions to the point that in some way the only great conveyers such as Furtwangler can speak to you. Others who say there is no such metaphysical experience such as Hurwitz put you into a defensive passive aggressive mode because they have attacked your personal belief structure and your sacred cow as you claim to know better which leads to your constant bullying and superiority complex which is what I have taken offense too. It's not a personal defense. It's that you continually contend that your beliefs are the correct ones which is incorrect because others have unique experiences just as you do.


Never said my perception was unique or special. I said it is shared by many others, who Hurwitz refers to as "cultists" because he doesn't hear the same thing. The person going on the attack is Hurwitz. Again, you're creating your own reality.



realdealblues said:


> Again your fevered ego because I have attacked your perception of reality. You have no personal knowledge that Beethoven didn't use a specific chord or harmonic change simply because he though it was "neat" or simply "sounded good". You're drawing your own personal conclusions based on what you perceive from your own ego. Nothing more.


I took a course on Beethoven's string quartets where the professor went into great detail into how the harmonic progressions relates to the emotions we feel at that moment. Emotions can be broken down and explained scientifically. Again, you are creating your own reality.



realdealblues said:


> Again your ego. You claim proof where there is none. It's your belief and your perception. Furtwangler was a public figure. He will have a following. It's no more magical than eating food and defecating. It's human nature.


On that last part we agree. It is completely natural. So why try so hard to deny it?

.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're simply creating your own reality to fit your argument..


I'm stating tangible facts. You're speaking of things that you and you alone claim to know.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Never said my perception was unique or special. I said it is shared by many others, who Hurwitz refers to as "cultists" because he doesn't hear the same thing. The person going on the attack is Hurwitz. Again, you're creating your own reality.


You do with every post, but if you feel the title of "cultist" fits you then again you are welcome to wear it. He is right from his perspective. Your fevered ego in defense mode and now also playing the victim.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I took a course on Beethoven's string quartets where the professor went into great detail into how the harmonic progressions relates to the emotions we feel at that moment. Emotions can be broken down and explained scientifically. Again, you are creating your own reality.


He can claim and make whatever connections he wants, it doesn't make them true. I can claim that I just talked to Beethoven's spirit and he told me you're entirely wrong and Furtwangler's spirit also chimed in to tell you to lay of the worship as he's not a holy relic. Doesn't make it anymore more or less true.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> On that last part we agree. It is completely natural. So why try so hard to deny it?


Deny what? I have denied nothing. I have only said that you have your perceptions but you continue to express them as if somehow they are truth for all.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What's my reputation?


That's a loaded question, BHS, and we're in polite company. . :devil:


----------



## realdealblues

Merl said:


> That's a loaded question, BHS, and we're in polite company. . :devil:


:lol: God bless Merl


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think we are back to the crux of the debate from last summer: Just because people have different perceptions, it doesn’t mean truth does not exist at all.

There is a truth that we all feel in various ways connected to. Otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing our various perceptions of it on this forum.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think we are back to the crux of the debate from last summer: Just because people have different perceptions, it doesn't mean truth does not exist at all.
> 
> There is a truth that we all feel in various ways connected to. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing our various perceptions of it on this forum.


Each person lives "their own" truth. We all feel connected to our own truths in our own ways. We all experience our own truths in our own ways. That is the heart of the matter and on that I agree.


----------



## Merl

Right, now what's this thread about, again? Oh yes.... Beethoven's 8th.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Beethoven’s 8th has never been so interesting


----------



## Eclectic Al

Oh wow. Back to this again. Today I feel a little bit more inclined towards the BH position - although not too much.

What do I know for certain?
Pretty well nothing.

What do I feel reasonably confident about?
That there is an objective world out there, and we are evolved organisms within it. That our brains (in some way) host our consciousness, those brains and our consciousness being key parts of our evolution. We are an evolutionary success, in that we are still around. Because of that we can infer that there is some read-across between the objective world we are part of and our consciousness of it. Not "truth", but "effective appreciation", where by effective I mean sufficient to effect our continued survival.
That in the physical world there is a degree of order (or it would all fall apart!), which includes matters such as that twanging strings disturb air and that we can sense such things (with our ears) which relay "sounds" to our consciousness. That some relationships between sounds are simpler than others (octaves, major fifths, etc), and we can sense that. Some other sounds are less "harmonious" (to coin a word) or contain so many random overtones as to become messy. In other words, not all note relationships are the same, and that is objective rather than subjective.

What do I feel somewhat confident about (but less than above)?
That we find is spontaneously easier to accept purer tones and tone relationships, giving rise to a natural feeling for harmony, but that we can also be trained to appreciate more complex sound structures, and that our appreciation will be culturally shaped - unlikely to be purely individual, but likely to vary according to our common exposure to different "musical" approaches to sound within the culture we mature within or learn about.
That hearing does not just convey sounds to our consciousness, but that we have also evolved to communicate using those sounds, leading to a situation where our consciousness is structured to apprehend "meaning" within what it senses as "structured sound", which could be words or music or morse code, as well as spoken language.
Because of this dual situation it may or may not be that music "carries" meaning, but we have a sense that it does, which in the end may be much the same thing.
Those creating a structured musical sound (composers and performers) may be aware that it tends to make them feel happy or sad or whatever. Because there is an evolved similarity in our brains others may be more likely than not to have similar feelings - dependent on their own cultural experiences.
That over many, many years of musical development the ability to communicate mood, elation, feelings of sublimity has become quite effective.

Hence, in summary I feel reasonable confident that BH is correct, in that he receives profound feelings when he listens to music, and that many others likely feel similarly about the same pieces of music or performances. Where I part company with him is that I don't think this relates to any high, objective truth. I think it is a reflection of our common humanity, although for me that means that it counts for more.

I am sure professionals have made much more learned attempts to talk about this sort of stuff, but that's my stab.


----------



## realdealblues

Merl said:


> Right, now what's this thread about, again? Oh yes.... Beethoven's 8th.


Don't roll your eyes at Beethoven's 8th, it's a masterpiece!

Right...which one was the best again? :devil: :lol:

I would like to know if there is a particular section from any of the movements of the 8th symphony which you find particularly interesting. Is there a specific part in particular that draws your attention each time you hear it? (And I direct that towards everyone, not just my friend Merl)


----------



## Eclectic Al

realdealblues said:


> Don't roll your eyes at Beethoven's 8th, it's a masterpiece!
> 
> Right...which one was the best again? :devil: :lol:
> 
> I would like to know if there is a particular section from any of the movements of the 8th symphony which you find particularly interesting. Is there a specific part in particular that draws your attention each time you hear it? (And I direct that towards everyone, not just my friend Merl)


The very start. Why? Because I have been led to think that the 8th is not up there with the odd numbered ones 3, 5, 7 and 9. When I hear the start I immediately remember that number 8 is really good, but a few days later I know I will still have an underlying sense that it is a "slight" work. Is it somehow less memorable?


----------



## realdealblues

Eclectic Al said:


> Oh wow. Back to this again. Today I feel a little bit more inclined towards the BH position - although not too much.
> 
> What do I know for certain?
> Pretty well nothing.
> 
> What do I feel reasonably confident about?
> That there is an objective world out there, and we are evolved organisms within it. That our brains (in some way) host our consciousness, those brains and our consciousness being key parts of our evolution. We are an evolutionary success, in that we are still around. Because of that we can infer that there is some read-across between the objective world we are part of and our consciousness of it. Not "truth", but "effective appreciation", where by effective I mean sufficient to effect our continued survival.
> That in the physical world there is a degree of order (or it would all fall apart!), which includes matters such as that twanging strings disturb air and that we can sense such things (with our ears) which relay "sounds" to our consciousness. That some relationships between sounds are simpler than others (octaves, major fifths, etc), and we can sense that. Some other sounds are less "harmonious" (to coin a word) or contain so many random overtones as to become messy. In other words, not all note relationships are the same, and that is objective rather than subjective.
> 
> What do I feel somewhat confident about (but less than above)?
> That we find is spontaneously easier to accept purer tones and tone relationships, giving rise to a natural feeling for harmony, but that we can also be trained to appreciate more complex sound structures, and that our appreciation will be culturally shaped - unlikely to the purely individual, but likely to vary according to our common exposure to different "musical" approaches to sound within the culture we mature within or learn about.
> That hearing does not just convey sounds to our consciousness, but that we have also evolved to communicate using those sounds, leading to a situation where our consciousness is structured to apprehend "meaning" within what it senses as "structured sound", which could be words or music or morse code, as well as spoken language.
> Because of this dual situation it may or may not be that music "carries" meaning, but we have a sense that it does, which in the end may be much that same thing.
> Those creating a structured musical sound (composers and performers) may be aware that it tends to make them feel happy or sad or whatever. Because there is an evolved similarity in our brains others may be more likely than not to have similar feelings - dependent on their own cultural experiences.
> That over many, many years of musical development the ability to communicate mood, elation, feelings of sublimity has become quite effective.
> 
> Hence, in summary I feel reasonable confident that BH is correct, in that he receives profound feelings when he listens to music, and that many others likely feel similarly about the same pieces of music or performances. Where I part company with him is that I don't think this relates to any high, objective truth. I think it is a reflection of our common humanity, although for me that means that it counts for me.
> 
> I am sure professionals have made much more learned attempts to talk about this sort of stuff, but that's my stab.


You're late to the party today! But I do appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## realdealblues

Eclectic Al said:


> The very start. Why? Because I have been led to think that the 8th is not up there with the odd numbered ones 3, 5, 7 and 9. When I hear the start I immediately remember that number 8 is really good, but a few days later I know I will still have an underlying sense that it is a "slight" work. Is it somehow less memorable?


Perhaps it is less memorable to you or maybe you just need to hear it a few hundred more times


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Each person lives "their own" truth. We all feel connected to our own truths in our own ways. We all experience our own truths in our own ways. That is the heart of the matter and on that I agree.


I fundamentally disagree. No one "has" truth. Truth is something we seek. It is never a finished product. There is no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth. There is only THE truth, which no one can ever fully realize.

That is why I am so opposed to the Toscanini philosophy. Saying it is Allegro con brio and nothing else implies that it is self-evident. Truth is never self-evident. It is something we seek, and that is the way Furtwangler operates. He is always seeking. An interpretation is never finished.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Relistening to the Scherchen. It hangs together better than a lot of his other frenetic readings. Definitely a fun listen.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Hence, in summary I feel reasonable confident that BH is correct, in that he receives profound feelings when he listens to music, and that many others likely feel similarly about the same pieces of music or performances. Where I part company with him is that I don't think this relates to any high, objective truth. *I think it is a reflection of our common humanity*, although for me that means that it counts for me.


This is more along the lines of what I am talking about. It is common, shared. No one has a monopoly on it. There is no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth. We all have something valuable to share, which is a perspective on the ultimate truth which none of us can ever fully realize.

What Hurwitz says is that he possesses the truth and those who see something else are "cultists" or whatever other insults he conjures up. He seeks to disavow and invalidate the experiences of others. This is antithetical to humanity.

The reason I detest people like Toscanini and Hurwitz is this: They have one goal, to be seen as an unquestioned authority figure. So they claim that truth is finite and tangible and that they possess the truth, and we should all listen to them.

The reason I so admire someone like Furtwangler is that he has the humility to recognize truth as something that exists apart from him, something unattainable and finite. Furtwangler is willing to be unsure, willing to always be questioning himself and everything around him. That takes courage, and it is something I trust more than the chest thumping authoritarians.

.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I fundamentally disagree. No one "has" truth. Truth is something we seek. It is never a finished product. There is no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth. There is only THE truth, which no one can ever fully realize.
> 
> That is why I am so opposed to the Toscanini philosophy. Saying it is Allegro con brio and nothing else implies that it is self-evident. Truth is never self-evident. It is something we seek, and that is the way Furtwangler operates. He is always seeking. An interpretation is never finished.


And we are back to superior ego again. Of course there is only "your" truth. Your truth is that "you believe" that there is a need for seeking. "You believe" it is never finished. That is not everyone else's truth. Toscanini lived "his truth" that Allegro con brio is what it is. It is no different than choosing to believe in God or not. It is a "personal truth" that you choose to live by. It is not "truth" for everyone else.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The reason I detest people like Toscanini and Hurwitz is this: They have one goal, to be seen as an unquestioned authority figure. So they claim that truth is finite and tangible and that they possess the truth, and we should all listen to them.
> .


And yet here you are claiming everyone should "instead" listen to you. You possess the "real" truth. You again are making my point. It's your "personal truth" that you choose to live by. They have their own. There is no one truth. There is only the truth that you see based on your own personal belief structure.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> And we are back to superior ego again. Of course there is only "your" truth. Your truth is that "you believe" that there is a need for seeking. "You believe" it is never finished. That is not everyone else's truth. Toscanini lived "his truth" that Allegro con brio is what it is. It is no different than choosing to believe in God or not. It is a "personal truth" that you choose to live by. It is not "truth" for everyone else.


How many times do I have to repeat this? No one has a monopoly on the truth, including me!!!


----------



## Art Rock

Well, it looks to me that there is some agreement on this side issue then. Why not drop it and focus on the 8th. 

I have the Karajan on DG from the 70s. It is a symphony that I like to hear, but not more than that - and as such I would rank it lower than 3,4,5,6,7. I find it difficult to pinpoint, but for me it lacks something.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That is why I am so opposed to the Toscanini philosophy. Saying it is Allegro con brio and nothing else implies that it is self-evident.


It makes no such implication...it is Allegro con brio...that is a fact...if the listener wishes to attach a greater meaning, an inner message, fine, it is perfectly possible to apply all sorts of emotional or expressive content to Toscanini's version, or to listen to Furtwangler's with no extra-musical message at all...it is up to the listener...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Art Rock said:


> Well, it looks to me that there is some agreement on this side issue then. Why not drop it and focus on the 8th.
> 
> I have the Karajan on DG from the 70s. It is a symphony that I like to hear, but not more than that - and as such I would rank it lower than 3,4,5,6,7. I find it difficult to pinpoint, but for me it lacks something.


I like the Furtwangler precisely because he does not reduce it to a small symphony. It sounds like Beethoven. Other interpretations make it sound Mozartian, more like the 1st and 2nd. Furt's intepretation gives it grandeur. Bohm is also excellent.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The reason I detest people like Toscanini and Hurwitz is this: They have one goal, to be seen as an unquestioned authority figure. So they claim that truth is finite and tangible and that they possess the truth, and we should all listen to them.
> 
> The reason I so admire someone like Furtwangler is that he has the humility to recognize truth as something that exists apart from him, something unattainable and finite. Furtwangler is willing to be unsure, willing to always be questioning himself and everything around him. That takes courage, and it is something I trust more than the chest thumping authoritarians.


Oh, please..Furtwangler was just as authoritarian as Toscanini or any other great conductor...they all have a concept of what the music should sound like, and must take an authoritarian approach to impress this view on the motley collection of soloist/virtuoso wannabes in the orchestra...all of whom have their own ideas of how the music should sound.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> It makes no such implication...it is Allegro con brio...that is a fact...if the listener wishes to attach a greater meaning, an inner message, fine
> .it is perfectly possible to apply all sorts of emotional or expressive content to Toscanini's version, or to listen to Furtwangler's with no extra-musical message at all...*it is up to the listener*...


And the performer.

I completely agree with you. It is a choice whether to delve "deeper."


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How many times do I have to repeat this? No one has a monopoly on the truth, including me!!!


First time, but thanks for stating it for the record.


----------



## realdealblues

Art Rock said:


> Well, it looks to me that there is some agreement on this side issue then. Why not drop it and focus on the 8th.
> 
> I have the Karajan on DG from the 70s. It is a symphony that I like to hear, but not more than that - and as such I would rank it lower than 3,4,5,6,7. I find it difficult to pinpoint, but for me it lacks something.


It's been probably 2 years since I've heard Karajan's 70's recording of the 8th. I'll have to give it a fresh listen.


----------



## Merl

realdealblues said:


> Don't roll your eyes at Beethoven's 8th, it's a masterpiece!
> 
> Right...which one was the best again? :devil: :lol:
> 
> I would like to know if there is a particular section from any of the movements of the 8th symphony which you find particularly interesting. Is there a specific part in particular that draws your attention each time you hear it? (And I direct that towards everyone, not just my friend Merl)


Lol, its the outer movements that do it for me in the 8th. Getting those right is the key for me. If its sluggish or dull in the 1st movement it rarely recovers.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And the performer.
> 
> I completely agree with you. It is a choice whether to delve "deeper."


It is totally subjective to the individual if there is a depth into which to delve deeper.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> Lol, its the outer movements that do it for me in the 8th. Getting those right is the key for me. If its sluggish or dull in the 1st movement it rarely recovers.


I like the quirky menuet - with all of its intentionally misplaced accents...the trio is really clever also - with the horns and clarinet...


----------



## Merl

Heck148 said:


> I like the quirky menuet - with all of its intentionally misplaced accents...the trio is really clever also - with the horns and clarinet...


Aye, Heck, that minuet is a real throwback to Beethoven's past (so it seems to me) but really inventively done. I didn't get this movement when I first heard it but it grew on me. Kletzki carries it off really well


----------



## joen_cph

Scherchen has been mentioned; Mengelberg, likewise one of the most original in this work, has not.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> Aye, Heck, that minuet is a real throwback to Beethoven's past (so it seems to me) but really inventively done.


Yes, it is the only Beethoven symphony that has a minuet rather than a scherzo...it is a real hoot - misplaced [intentionally] accents abound!! Sym #1 lists mvt III as minuet, but it is really a scherzo - 3/4, 1 to a bar....


----------



## RogerWaters

Heck148 said:


> It is *totally *subjective to the individual if there is a depth into which to delve deeper.


I would think this is obviously false, if there is any kind of robust relationship between skill and quality.

Is there depth to a student orchestra performance of Beethoven's 8th? Would you _really_ say a parent who is going off the deep end in appreciation of her son's orchestral performance is just as correct as someone who is in raptures over Furtwangler?

Moral: you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater when arguing against the idea of musical objectivity, proclaiming that there are no regularities between the intentions of composers/conductors and the emotions ellicted in audience members.


----------



## Heck148

RogerWaters said:


> I would think this is obviously false, if there is any kind of robust relationship between skill and quality.
> 
> Is there depth to a student orchestra performance of Beethoven's 8th? Would you _really_ say a parent who is going off the deep end in appreciation of her son's orchestral performance is just as correct as someone who is in raptures over Furtwangler?


They may both be valid responses to the music, yes??
The existence of some over-riding, extra-musicaI "meaning" to a work is certainly open to question.
There is no proof of such a thing...
Also - the insinuation that Furtwangler's performances are loaded with extra-musical meaning and Toscanini's are not is a ridiculous premise....I asked before and received no answer - is it possible to find great emotion, great message in Toscanini's performance?? Is it possible to simply enjoy the sounds of a Furtwangler performance without perceiving any great esoteric concept, or "message"??


----------



## RogerWaters

Heck148 said:


> They may both be valid responses to the music, yes??
> The existence of some over-riding, *extra-musicaI "meaning"* to a work is certainly open to question.
> There is no proof of such a thing...


What do you mean by this concept?

Musicians obviously have certain emotions in mind when they create music, and, of course, they choose certain combinations of notes, rhythms and colours to elicit similar emotions in listeners. Same goes for conductors, although they of course operate within the constraints of a pre-existing score.

I would think these artists would think their music has been successful if it gets this 'message' across, wouldn't you- that is, if it has the intended effect on the audience.

If this is 'extra-musical meaning' then it obviously exists and music is not primarily about the random subjective responses of listeners.


----------



## Heck148

RogerWaters said:


> What do you mean by this concept?


What is the emotional "meaning", the extra-musical message of Beethoven Sym #8?? Or Bartok Concerto for Orchestra??
Music is sound, occurring over time...there is no objective, extra- musical idea involved, unless the composer specifies a "program".
If the listener conceives such a concept, it is on an individual basis..
That a conductor seeks a deeper meaning, probes the extra-musical depths - does not establish, objectively, that such meanings or depths actually exist.
That a conductor delivers an "Allegro con brio" performance does not mean that the listener cannot attach an extra-musical idea..


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Your problem is in trying to define everything objectively. The whole point of searching for meaning is that it can never be defined. You’re trying to put it in a box.

This is why I think of Toscanini/Reiner/Solti as “limited.” There’s no exploration, no searching. Everything is kept in a finite, self-evident little container. There’s so much more to the music that you never hear.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The fundamental point is that no one chooses their response to music, anymore than people choose their sexual orientation, or taste in food. It is what it is. None is more or less valid than another. It is simply what we experience. No one can define that experience for someone else.

If I hear the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th and think literally every time I hear it going on three decades that it’s the closest realization to an ideal 9th I’ve ever heard, that’s my experience of it. It’s not a choice.

If someone like Hurwitz hears the same recording and thinks it’s “garbage,” that’s simply his experience of it. And when Toscanini sounds simplistic and limited to my ears, that’s just my experience. There’s no point in arguing to “change” someone’s mind.

But it is important to share those experiences, I think. And it is silly to shame or put down others for simply having different taste.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your problem is in trying to define everything objectively.


No, incorrect - I'm stating that any extra-musical, metaphysical concepts are entirely subjective, depending on the listener's perception/imagination. 


> This is why I think of Toscanini/Reiner/Solti as "limited." There's no exploration, no searching.


Complete baloney. Toscanini/Reiner/ Solti/Mravinsky, etc produce performances of great excitement, impact and impressive sonorities, over the entire range of sonic production - happy, sad, mournful, fierce, etc, etc, etc....
They achieve these sonorities by superior conducting and superb orchestral execution. 
I find Toscanini and Reiner much more exciting, inspiring, uplifting at the end of Eroica mvt I than Furtwangler [who isn't bad] - they achieve a more rousing, inspiring sound from the orchestra....whether or not they are "probing into the greater depths" of the music is totally irrelevant to me. maybe Furtwangler should have paid more attention to the orchestral execution instead of groping for some unknown metaphysical, pseudo-construct for which NO evidence actually exists.
That said, I find many of Furtwangler's performances to be exciting, stimulating, interesting on the basis of the sound produced - but I'm in no way aware, or interested in some extra-musical, ethereal concept with which some may imagine the music to be imbued... 


> Everything is kept in a finite, self-evident little container. There's so much more to the music that you never hear.


Total nonsense...I hear more in Toscanini, Reiner, Solti than I do in Furtwangler as a general comment. I don't worry about stuff that's not audible....I go by what I hear.

If one wants to add these extra-musical concepts to one''s listening enjoyment - great, no problem...what is pretentious is to claim that anyone who doesn't grasp or seek these ethereal concepts is somehow shallow, incomplete, or an insensitive or incompetent listener who is "missing something". that is horsesh*t.....


----------



## Art Rock

*To all participants in this sometimes heated discussion: heated is fine, but please do not resort to personal attacks. Stick to the Terms of Service:




Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Eclectic Al

I have to say that I acquired a ridiculously cheap Reiner CSO collection a while ago - 199 Czech Kr for so much. I wouldn't have done so except for the price.
However, his LvB 5 blew me away, and little has disappointed in any way as I plough through. Whatever his philosophical stance, the results were often marvellous. Unfortunately, it did not include a LvB 8.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> *what is pretentious is to claim that anyone who doesn't grasp or seek* these ethereal concepts is somehow shallow, incomplete, or an insensitive or incompetent listener who is "missing something". that is horsesh*t.....


Never said that. If we take personal offense anytime someone criticizes our favorite conductors, there would be no end to it.


----------



## Becca

I should have guessed that when a thread about a particular piece of music grows the way this one has, the amount of discussion about the actual symphony is inversely proportional to the length of the thread.

BTW, here is as close to an objective truth as you are likely to get in this and similar threads ... no amount of discussion about truth (or the lack thereof) is going to change any opinions, however it just might end up in someone getting a warning or being banned.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Never said that. ....


Yes, you did:


> BH - There's no exploration, no searching. Everything is kept in a finite, self-evident little container. *There's so much more to the music that you never hear*


I hear what's there, for sure....nobody hears what's not there.....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Yes, you did:
> 
> I hear what's there, for sure....nobody hears what's not there.....


So we're back to misquoting again? Here is the entire quote in context:

" This is why I think of Toscanini/Reiner/Solti as "limited." There's no exploration, no searching. Everything is kept in a finite, self-evident little container. There's so much more to the music that you never hear."

I was criticizing certain conductors with whom I have a philosophical disagreement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> I have to say that I acquired a ridiculously cheap Reiner CSO collection a while ago - 199 Czech Kr for so much. I wouldn't have done so except for the price.
> However, his LvB 5 blew me away, and little has disappointed in any way as I plough through. Whatever his philosophical stance, the results were often marvellous. Unfortunately, it did not include a LvB 8.


Never been too keen on Reiner's Beethoven, but I admire his Brahms 3rd and 4th. Very natural and beautifully done, especially 4.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> I have to say that I acquired a ridiculously cheap Reiner CSO collection a while ago - 199 Czech Kr for so much. I wouldn't have done so except for the price.
> However, his LvB 5 blew me away, and little has disappointed in any way as I plough through. Whatever his philosophical stance, the results were often marvellous. Unfortunately, it did not include a LvB 8.


There is a live Reiner/LvB #8 - from 2/6/58 - recorded live by WBAI....I was just listening to it again, and it is thoroughly delightful - certainly one of the best I've heard....Reiner/CSO at their best....Reiner accomplishes remarkable clarity in some notoriously difficult spots in this work - for Beethoven it is pretty thickly scored in places - some conductors and orchestras simply cannot solve it.
1. the recap of mvt I - this is played by the celli/basses/bassoons - the "bass" section..many times it simply does not sound thru - the thick texture, and low register of the tune simply doesn't project. With Reiner, it projects quite clearly
2. mvt 1 - the alternating opening motifs played by different woodwinds entering, answering each other...this frequently gets clouded, and not all the voices cut thru - Reiner keeps the accompaniment down, so that these entrances sound clearly
3. mvt III menuetto - 2nd strain - the solo bassoon enters with the main theme - if the strings are loud here, the bassoonist has to blow his brains out to project thru the texture...again, Reiner keeps it the accompaniment down [without slowing down!!] and principal bassoonist L. Sharrow plays most beautifully and expressively, not having to force....
This is a recording of live performance, so their is no post-performance knob-twiddling or processing....quite remarkable.

Reiner always exercised superb control of his orchestra, and the evidence is here...the opening of the symphony simply bursts out of the speakers with exuberance - Beethoven instantly demands our attention....amazing impact of sound!!
in the finale - the opening measures are soft,_ pianissimo_, for the first 18 measures. Reiner sets a fast tempo - but very soft, he makes them hold the pianissimo - then _sempre fortissimo_ simply explodes forth!! a real eruption of sound!!

A friend of mine played viola in Chicago all during the Reiner years - I asked him once if Reiner drilled the orchestra on that practice - the maximum "wallop" of sound on tutti chords?? He said something like <<no, not specifically, it's just how he conducted....if he didn't like what he'd heard, he'd do it again, until he got what he wanted..he'd be glaring around the orchestra to spot the miscreants who weren't with it...rarely had to do it more than once>>


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So we're back to misquoting again?


I'm not misquoting....you said it...
"There's so much more to the music that _you_ [I, we, us] never hear."
We don't "hear" it because it isn't there??


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Never been too keen on Reiner's Beethoven, but I admire his Brahms 3rd and 4th. Very natural and beautifully done, especially 4.


My inexpensive set seems to lack a Brahms 4. However, it has Brahms 3, and I see that on my own little rating system I gave it 5 out of 5.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I'm not misquoting....you said it...
> "There's so much more to the music that _you_ [I, we, us] never hear."
> We don't "hear" it because it isn't there??


Dude, I did not mean literally YOU. I meant it in the sense that ONE never hears when they listen to those conductors. Stop trying so hard to infer things.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> My inexpensive set seems to lack a Brahms 4. However, it has Brahms 3, and I see that on my own little rating system I gave it 5 out of 5.


Reiner's Brahms 4 was recorded with the Royal PO in 10/62 - it should be available...great recording, along with Toscanini/NBC the top of the heap, imo...C. Kleiber is very good, but Reiner and AT head the list....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I meant it in the sense that ONE never hears when they listen to those conductors.....


And that's what I am saying is nonsense...they [One, us, we] never hear it with any conductor...because it isn't there....prove that it is...
for you individually, it is there, but don't try to expand it into some sort of universal truth that applies to everyone...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> And that's what I am saying is nonsense...they [One, us, we] never hear it with any conductor...because it isn't there....prove that it is...
> for you individually, it is there, but don't try to expand it into some sort of universal truth that applies to everyone...


Universal truth is a standard, nothing more. It is impossible to define. But it exists, or we wouldn't care.

Some people define perfection as playing correct notes and rhythms.

Some people define perfection in more oblique terms. And when you strike gold, it's better than any simple note perfect performance could ever be.


----------



## Knorf

Igor Stravinsky said:


> For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention⁠-in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.


He was right, you know.

Can we move on, please?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Nope. Emotional exchange is inherently part of the musical experience or we wouldn’t care. Stravinsky was limited and immature. 

Now, whether music necessarily expresses something tangible, like program music, that I do not agree with.


----------



## joen_cph

I won't be talking about Aristoteles, who disagreed with that in #133.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Reiner's Brahms 4 was recorded with the Royal PO in 10/62 - it should be available...great recording, along with Toscanini/NBC the top of the heap, imo...C. Kleiber is very good, but Reiner and AT head the list....


Both Toscanini and Reiner make my list of essential Brahms 4ths. Their renditions very nearly approach, dare I say it, TRUTH. 

Furtwängler (1949) (Tahra, Preiser, Seven Seas)
Weingartner (EMI, Living Era, Andante)
Toscanini (1935) (EMI, Arkadia)
Klemperer (1954) (Testament)
Kleiber (DG)
Abbado (DG)
Reiner (Chesky)
Van Beinum (Philips)

Incidentally, I have NEVER bought Toscanini's contention that he hears only Allegro con brio, any more than I buy Hurwitz's contention that emotional responses to music amount to imaginary twaddle. In both cases they merely wanted to make their own aesthetic sound more authoritative. Antonin Scalia did the same on the Supreme Court, using supposed "fidelity" to the written law to cloak his own biases.

Toscanini was a very emotional, passionate conductor, better than what we have today.


----------



## Merl

Just saying.....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Universal truth is a standard, nothing more. It is impossible to define. But it exists, or we wouldn't care.


There are very, very few universal truths...the value of "c" - perhaps [tho that may vary in a black hole]...Planck's constant?? maybe...the Taoist concept of the interaction of all matter, energy, thought, in an ever-changing universe..?? perhaps...

"Some people define perfection as playing correct notes and rhythms."
No musician that I know of subscribes to this.



> Some people define perfection in more oblique terms. And when you strike gold, it's better than any simple note perfect performance could ever be.


I agree - a note perfect rendition, devoid of any musical expression is pretty useless....a passionately played, expressive performance, with a few technical glitches may have great musical value.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Both Toscanini and Reiner make my list of essential Brahms 4ths. Their renditions very nearly approach, dare I say it, TRUTH.


They are magnificent renditions...very powerful and expressive.



> Incidentally, I have NEVER bought Toscanini's contention that he hears only Allegro con brio, any more than I buy Hurwitz's contention that emotional responses to music amount to imaginary twaddle.


Toscanini delivered...I've no idea what his mindset was regarding the message of the music...we've only got the sonic results to go by, and they are indeed, impressive...
I don't follow Hurwitz, and I am therefore not too interested in his opinion. of course, music may evoke an emotional response, it should!!..it is human communication....people will respond...great composers use artistic creative technique to produce these sounds...
How each individual responds is up to each listener. but to say that art/music evokes no response from the audience/observer is pretty silly.



> Antonin Scalia did the same on the Supreme Court, using supposed "fidelity" to the written law to cloak his own biases.


please, don't even mention that disgusting, hypocritical phony in the same thread as great artists like Toscanini, Furtwangler or Reiner...[I know political commentary belongs on another thread....mea culpa]



> Toscanini was a very emotional, passionate conductor, better than what we have today.


yes, for sure....I favor those conductors who generate tremendous energy, alertness, risk-taking, a "swing-for-the-fences" approach to music-making...they produce exciting, riveting, passionate performances....Toscanini, Reiner, Furtwangler, Solti, all had it - so did Bernstein, Mravinsky....they gave their musicians the "green light"....They were powerful personalities who could control the orchestra...but they would let loose on the reins when needed, and the results are memorable...immortal, even....their performances continue to be adored, praised, appreciated [and purchased!!] to this day.... 
It is not by accident that great musicians of the past are still revered today....


----------



## Knorf

No, Stravinsky was right. In fact, he was very rarely wrong about anything he put into print. You can deny what he said all you like, like you can deny gravity, but you go ahead and jump off that roof carrying nothing but ordinary clothes, and we'll see how much your denial is worth.

So, yes, there are some Universal truths, in fact. Gravity is one. The non-existence of telepathy, whether cliamed to be transmitted via sound waves or any other medium, is another.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nope. Emotional exchange is inherently part of the musical experience or we wouldn't care. Stravinsky was limited and immature.


By 1936 Stravinsky was widely recognized as one of the greatest composers, ever. He was also 51. So, he was neither limited nor immature.

It is very well known that certain odors or fragrances can conjure up vivid memories, and sometimes provoke strong emotions with them, sometimes unexpectedly. Maybe the smell of burning wood summons up pleasant memories of a family campout, for example.

But somehow no one is confused into thinking it's the smells themselves that express or carry the memories. Certainly not. They are attached to a memory by the human brain receiving them, and the reappearance of that connection is incidental to the particles' substance in the air which comprises the fragrance. The odors communicate and express nothing whatsoever inherent to themselves.

Furthermore the wood burning smells that bring up cozy memories of grandma's cabin in the woods and her fireplace in the winter to one person, to someone else might remind them of a horrific tragedy, the fear and horror when their house burned down and everyone in their family but them died in agony.

Music likewise does not carry inherent meaning or expression. Emotion attached to music is formed by the experiences and expectations in the brain of the listener. That's it. For one person, Beethoven's Third Symphony will throw them into an ecstasy such that they are driven to tear their clothes off; to another it's just forking boring and it's rather the music of Nicki Minaj which does that for them. Neither experience is invalid in itself, but neither is either an inherent property of the actual music.

To one person, it's horrifying discord and noise; to another, it's a prelude for piano by Rachmaninoff.

A composer's state of mind, their emotions while composing, their intention, anything at all in terms of inspiration, are all in line with a listener's experience only in so far as the attached musical tropes are agreed upon, consciously or otherwise, as the basis of shared, established cultural expectations and experiences. Otherwise, without those established tropes from past experience, which are not an inherent compoment of music, it's a chaotic system and the listener has no idea, and can have no idea, as to what the intended emotions of the composer (if any) were, from the music alone, certainly not without being told.

Sure, there are onomatopoetic possibilities. For example: some low rumbling sounds, some haphazard string pizzicatos, and you might bring to the listener's mind impending rain. But that's not _expressing_ rain, or the fear that the picnic will be ruined; it's just manufacturing a sound with different means to resemble another sound.

The performer also does not communicate emotion via the medium of musical performance. Despite all myths to the contrary, what a musician is thinking about overwhelmingly most of the time is first of all counting (dancers, too, by the way), and concentrating on not screwing up what they practiced. This goes for conductors as well: mostly counting, and maintaining a physical pattern with just enough showboating so the audience thinks there's emotion happening, but don't forget to cue the timpani. The conductor or any musician has way too much to do in the moment, mostly counting, to be deeply involved in any particular _feeling_.

(I mean, maybe some people get off on counting numbers... I'm not one to kink shame...)

Getting back to conductors. No one conductor can have an inherently greater or more valid emotional reality about a composition than another. Not possible. You might prefer one who sticks pretty close to the text. Or another who is constantly taking liberties. Neither is more or less expressive of emotion, of some farcical emotional truth that is basically pure superstition.

Telepathy is not real.


----------



## Becca

The only Universal Truth in the arts is that there isn't one.


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> The only Universal Truth in the arts is that there isn't one.


Indeed! You try to box in art, and say to art, this box defines you and nothing else does, what art immediately does is give you the finger and bust right on out


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

For the last time, will anyone listen to me when I say that the universal truth I am talking about is an abstract concept and NOT something concrete? I feel like I’ve been making this point for a year and still no one gets it. It is something we strive for, nothing more. You can’t make a statement “this is a universal truth.” It’s undefinable.

Why is this not a semantic point? Because the alternative is to say that everything we do is random, aimless, and has no purpose behind it, and I don’t believe that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> The only Universal Truth in the arts is that there isn't one.


Right. That statement is an attempt at universal truth, which can never be defined. You just made my point perfectly.


----------



## Becca

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry so instead I will slightly mangle a quote...

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the [Universal Truth] is, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory mentioned, which states that this has already happened."


----------



## Knorf

Yay! A Douglas Adams quote!

And, oh yeah, it's totally already happened.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

We are all in agreement here that universal truth can never be reached or defined.

Why do you think it was such a big deal that Judaism defined God as “he who has no name?” Because the idea was the infinite unknowable, contrasting with the tangible idols of worship that preceded. The concept is the same.

Universal truth only exists in the abstract. But if it didn’t exist in that abstract, then everything would be random and we wouldn’t even care to be having these discussions.


----------



## Becca

Don't include me in 'we are all...' ...and on that note I am out of here.


----------



## Art Rock

*Once again, discussion has gone completely off-topic.

The subject of this thread is Recordings of Beethoven 8. Please stick to that topic, and if anyone wants to discuss other matters, open a thread with that subject to do so.

Posts not directly related to the subject may be deleted.*


----------



## Merl

Art Rock said:


> .
> 
> Posts not directly related to the subject may be deleted.











As I said before, although I love all movements of the 8th, I have a real passion for the outer movements and think that, especially, the finale is terrific in the right hands. It can take a fair degree of interpretive choices too but I love how Scherchen and Chailly shape it. Yeah, I know they're both very quick but both are such a thrill too and both conductors unfold the music even at such high speeds. Chailly really does get bags of detail in and there's even time for some air around the instruments, which, given these tempi, is some achievement. The horn playing sounds superb throughout that Chailly set but it's exceptional here. Scherchen slightly lightens the strings to get full effect in his finale (but you'd never know it).


----------



## Eclectic Al

Getting back (sort of!) to Beethoven's 8th, I think one aspect of it that I like is that it is relatively unblemished with extraneous baggage. The Eroica has that nonsense about Napoleon, the 5th has that fate business, 7th is saddled with the apotheosis of the dance quote, and the 9th all that universal brotherhood shtick - even worse as it is saddled with words, the curse of music.

The 8th is just a piece of music - and all the better for that. There's a lightness (in a good sense) with an interpretation of a piece of music that ignores extra-musical associations, and the 8th lends itself to that. It doesn't have (so far as I am aware), nonsense like that stuff about hammer blows in Mahler's 6th. Extra-musical associations tend to generate performances that over-emphasise particular aspects based on those associations, rather than focusing on musical "rightness".

I really like Strauss' Metamorphosen, but I don't like that I can't help but think of it as a lament for German culture (and boy there was a lot to lament at the end of WWII). Plenty of other pieces bring in extra-musical associations, say Mendelssohn's F minor quartet as a lament for Fanny (- I never thought I'd write that phrase ), but I'd really rather not know, and just enjoy the work of art abstracted from any background biographical stuff.

Back to Beethoven 8: a taut presentation of the score, with no extra-musical baggage - ideal.
I listened to Schmidt-Isserstedt the other day, and liked the performance, but the sound was only OK with some glassiness on the violins in the finale, so I docked it half a star on my little rating system.
I also listened to de Vriend, and that was fun, but only an occasional spicy treat, I think. It started well, but I found some of the effects a bit too blatant for my taste - drum interjections, that sort of thing. I got the sense of an attempt to pursue a performance style, with the art not being quite successful at concealing art.
On Reiner/RPO, I checked online yesterday, and it looked like I could pick it up for something like £70-£100. It's not going to happen at that price.


----------



## Kiki

Merl said:


> View attachment 151814
> 
> 
> As I said before, although I love all movements of the 8th, I have a real passion for the outer movements and think that, especially, the finale is terrific in the right hands. It can take a fair degree of interpretive choices too but I love how Scherchen and Chailly shape it. Yeah, I know they're both very quick but both are such a thrill too and both conductors unfold the music even at such high speeds. Chailly really does get bags of detail in and there's even time for some air around the instruments, which, given these tempi, is some achievement. The horn playing sounds superb throughout that Chailly set but it's exceptional here. Scherchen slightly lightens the strings to get full effect in his finale (but you'd never know it).


I remember reading Chailly saying that he and the Gewardhausorchester players had to develop new playing skills to handle the fast tempi. I don't know if that's an artist's entrepreneur mumble jumble, but he and his players certainly have achieved amazing articulation, and that shows the intricacies amid all the excitement.

Scherchen/Lugano's tempi are even crazier. It's always running the risk of falling over the wrong side of the line to become a cheap thrill, but I'm really amazed by how much he was able to press and release (very subtly) at such speed to make it sound so interesting. On the other hand, his RPO rendering sounds more normal, more middle of the road (only relatively speaking), so others might find this more appealing, but personally I love the crazier one.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’m glad we’re getting back to talking about the 8th as opposed to random topics. Threads should stick to one topic. This is true across the internet, universally speaking.

I don’t like performances that make the 8th sound light and trivial. Making the 8th more interesting and meaningful - more like Beethoven instead of Haydn - is my preference, as shown in my favorite interpretations by Furtwängler, Karajan, Böhm, and Barbirolli. 

I think the writing is much more rich than the fleet speed demons reveal. There’s nothing “right” about trivializing the music, and there is nothing programmatic about allowing the work’s full dimensions to come out with greater opulence and attention to the harmonic gradations and narrative. It’s actually a very grand, powerful symphony. Very Beethoven.


----------



## Knorf

Art Rock said:


> *Once again, discussion has gone completely off-topic.
> 
> The subject of this thread is Recordings of Beethoven 8. Please stick to that topic, and if anyone wants to discuss other matters, open a thread with that subject to do so.
> 
> Posts not directly related to the subject may be deleted.*


This isn't a thread for formal debate.

All good conversations wander. To stifle a conversation that drifts off topic is to stifle conversation itself. And it should be obvious to anyone that the last page that drifted in fact concerns topics directly pertinent to this thread anyway.

So with this _stunningly_ unnecessary and unduly heavy handed post, I'm out.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

The 8th is one of many highlights in Cyprien Katsaris' brilliant survey of Liszt's Beethoven symphony transcriptions. If it's still available, I can thoroughly recommend the whole set.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Well that's certainly a decent list. Not seen that before. The good thing about those recordings in that particular list is they're not just there solely by reputation. There are some LVB recordings that have a far greater reputation than they deserve.


This was the comment that got us off topic specifically from the Beethoven 8th. We started talking about how reputations come to be, and the conversation branched from there.

I agree with Knorf. Why are we stifling conversation?


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This was the comment that got us off topic specifically from the Beethoven 8th. We started talking about how reputations come to be, and the conversation branched from there.
> 
> I agree with Knorf. Why are we stifling conversation?


My comment was about Beethoven 8th recordings and not mumbo jumbo about objective / subjective / universal truth (again) and Brahms 4th recordings. Myself and a few others tried in vain to get this thread back on topic after it developed into a slanging match. However, do what you like. I'm out too. Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> My comment was about Beethoven 8th recordings and not mumbo jumbo about objective / subjective / universal truth (again) and Brahms 4th recordings. Myself and a few others tried in vain to get this thread back on topic after it developed into a slanging match. However, do what you like. I'm out too. Feel free to have the last word.
> 
> View attachment 151830


Merl, I didn't say you did anything wrong. Quite the contrary. I was showing how innocent the whole thing was from the beginning. It was an interesting point that led to lively discussion.

I feel sometimes like I'm one of the few people here who see discussion as an exchange of ideas as opposed to a cage match where someone wins and someone loses. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just like good discussion.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread began as a discussion of recordings of Beethoven's 8th. Many posted about their views. Eventually the thread moved into more philosophical issues, discussion of Beethoven's 8th diminished, and fewer people contributed. There were several attempts by multiple people to move the thread back to the OP. When the discussion returned to the OP, more people contributed. Diversions continued along with further attempts to bring the thread back. It seems clear that relatively few people wish to discuss the diversions and more wish to discuss the OP topic.

In general there is no problem with thread diversions. If the topic veers off and many follow, fine. We've seen that repeatedly on TC. But if a diversion causes those interested in the OP topic to not post _though they would prefer to do so_, it's probably unfair to those wishing to discuss the OP topic.

So my suggestion to those wishing to discuss these diversions is simply to start a separate thread. Anyone interested can post in that thread, and those uninterested should stay away. If that thread gets diverted, those involved can decide whether to follow or to request the thread remains on the OP topic(s). This thread could then get back to discussions of recordings of Beethoven's 8th, and presumably everyone will have a place to discuss what they wish.


----------



## fbjim

there is a purity to the 7th and 8th that I love. Out of all the Beethoven symphonies, excepting the early ones, and the 4th, they're the ones which aren't associated with programmatic concepts (Eroica, 6 explicitly, though arguably the 5th and 9th as well), they're just Beethoven. The best thing about art music for me is how it can create emotional affect through purely abstract means - I don't have anything against program music (I love Berlioz, after all) but music is at its most magical when it creates emotion out of abstract nothings, which is why i love the 7th, 8th, and the Schubert Great C Major so much

also the 8th has the best finale movement in any Beethoven symphony. take that, 9th!


----------



## vincula

Lucky strike. One kind soul at the local charity shop saved this album (and other candies) for me. The woman has taught piano for years and does know her bit. She told me I had impeccable taste. Few young men listen to this, she added. I was flattered by the old lady's compliment .









Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Haydn70

fbjim said:


> there is a purity to the *7th and 8th *that I love. Out of all the Beethoven symphonies, excepting the early ones, and the 4th, they're the ones which aren't associated with programmatic concepts (Eroica, 6 explicitly, though arguably the 5th and 9th as well), they're just Beethoven. The best thing about art music for me is how it can create emotional affect through purely abstract means - I don't have anything against program music (I love Berlioz, after all) but music is at its most magical when it creates emotion out of abstract nothings, which is why i love the 7th, 8th, and the Schubert Great C Major so much
> 
> also the 8th has the best finale movement in any Beethoven symphony. take that, 9th!


Those are my two favorite Beethoven symphonies. And I too love the Schubert 9th.

The first movement of the 8th is my favorite movement from all the symphonies. As for the finale, I just might have to agree with that it is the best of any...certainly better than that of the 9th. The only finales that I enjoy as much (or almost as much) are those of the 5th, 7th...and the 2nd! Not saying they are as good, just saying how much I like them. The finale of the 7th is very close though.


----------



## mparta

Art Rock said:


> Well, it looks to me that there is some agreement on this side issue then. Why not drop it and focus on the 8th.
> 
> I have the Karajan on DG from the 70s. It is a symphony that I like to hear, but not more than that - and as such I would rank it lower than 3,4,5,6,7. I find it difficult to pinpoint, but for me it lacks something.


I don't know how to rank them, that's almost choosing a favorite child. 
I do have a little 8th story.
It's my story and I'm right about my story.
I was on a train from Zurich to Muenchen. I'm sure that is true. Although perhaps it was... no, never mind, Muenchen will do.
I pulled out my iPod and for no particular reason chose the 8th, the early 60's HvK/BPO. 
I'm sure that was it and no one can say otherwise. Or maybe it was... no, that will do.

I was astonished by the Rolls Royce quality of the opening and everything thereafter. Nothing little about it. I think I've known the symphony since I was young, it has some pretty distinguishable if not unforgettable-- nope, it's unforgettable-- tunes, but the BPO in the hands of HvK on that day made it new for me. I think I had Monteux and the HvK/BPO when I was young, and I have no reason to think the Monteux wasn't good nor can I explain what I missed before from HvK.
Or maybe it was Bernstein....

Anyway, a performance I would have heard before, but every conceivable piece of context was different, and it blew me away. I will not forget.
What was I saying?...

What a wonderful piece of music. And so nice to discuss that.


----------

