# Symphonie Fantastique Obsession!



## Ralphus

I have recently found myself in a completely unnecessary, yet fascinating obsession with obtaining recordings of Symphonie fantastique. I've loved the piece since childhood. The records in the house were Beecham and another on Hungaroton that I recently identified as this:









In the CD era I discovered the famous Davis/Concertgebouw recording and immediately felt it was just about perfect. I decided to put this to a test and so have splurged on:

Beecham (on CD), Dutoit, Harding, Immerseel, Jansons, Kegel, Kempe, Markevitch, Munch/Paris, Munch/Boston, Muti (CSO Resound), Pretre, Rattle.

Of these, I'm really enjoying Harding, Immerseel, and Munch/Paris. I can certainly hear the appeal of the famous Munch/Boston. Rattle is probably the most disappointing for me. Dutoit is lacklustre, and Kegel is weird.

I know I'm lacking the famous Paray recording, but so far I don't think Davis/Concertgebouw has been displaced.

Are there any other recordings that anyone strongly suggests?


----------



## realdealblues

I have probably 40 or 50 recordings of Symphonie Fantastique.

My favorites are:

Paray/Detroit








Bernstein/New York (Bernstein's 2nd recording from 1968)








Karajan/Berlin (Karajan's 2nd recording from 1975)








Munch/Boston (Munch's 2nd recording from 1962)








Davis with the Concertgebouw is also very good as you've noted. But we may obviously have different ears. I personally can't stand the Harding recording when he randomly doesn't follow the score, like his random slow down in the 4th movement after measure 33?!?! I can't stand Immerseel either, but then again I can't stand any of the multitude of recordings I've heard form him.


----------



## bigshot

Bernstein's is very good.


----------



## Pugg

The Paray and Muti for me, any day of the week.


----------



## andrecampana

My favorite movement is probably the one entitled "March to the scaffold"


----------



## Becca

I went through quite a few about a month ago and ended up choosing two and an honorable mention to go with the Davis/Concertgebouw...

Quite a wild ride...

View attachment 94210


Recorded at a concert. Perhaps a tad slower in the last movement but it works. As I have said elsewhere, it is like a slightly slow motion nightmare which is all the worse for being slower - exactly what this movement should be.

View attachment 94207


And the honorable mention: definitely not what one would expect given the typical perception of Klemperer and it has the additional virtue of the optional cornet part at the start of the Un Bal movement, apparently he was the first to do it in recording...

View attachment 94209


----------



## realdealblues

Becca said:


> I went through quite a few about a month ago and ended up choosing two and an honorable mention to go with the Davis/Concertgebouw...
> 
> Quite a wild ride...
> 
> View attachment 94210
> 
> 
> Recorded at a concert. Perhaps a tad slower in the last movement but it works. As I have said elsewhere, it is like a slightly slow motion nightmare which is all the worse for being slower - exactly what this movement should be.
> 
> View attachment 94207
> 
> 
> And the honorable mention: definitely not what one would expect given the typical perception of Klemperer and it has the additional virtue of the optional cornet part at the start of the Un Bal movement, apparently he was the first to do it in recording...
> 
> View attachment 94209


I also quite like Klemperer's recording. Can't go wrong with Martinon either. Great stuff!


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

What about Gardiner's on (I believe) Phillips? I find it a much better HIP recording than Immerseel's.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> What about Gardiner's on (I believe) Phillips? I find it a much better HIP recording than Immerseel's.


I know it is controversial, but I like Norrington's recording with the London Classical Players on EMI as well as Gardiner's on Phillips

I also have a very good version on Dutton by van Beinum with the Concertgebouw from 1946 that is well worth hunting out


----------



## Heck148

Ralphus said:


> Are there any other recordings that anyone strongly suggests?


Both Solti/CSOs - 1972, 1992 [live] are outstanding, with real bravura orchestra execution...
Mitropoulos/NYPO from 1956 is really great too. the March is slow, deliberate and sinister....the opening of the finale is really creepy.

I don't recommend any of the Munch versions that I've heard - [quite a few] - he takes the March too fast [who rushes to their execution??] - and the dotted rhythm breaks down. also, Munch loved to be spontaneous, and he loved to speed things up in performance - but this results in some real ensemble problems - aka sloppiness...probably exciting in live performance, but on repeated listening to recordings it becomes a bit annoying....
Never liked Paray too much after I heard some others - orchestra is just too thin and wimpy, compared with other groups. That's a common trait, IMO, of the Paray/Detroit Mercury recordings....Mercury got outstanding sound from the London SO, Chicago, and Eastman Wind Ensemble....never cared much for the Detroit or Minneapolis recordings, tho...too thin sounding..


----------



## Ralphus

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. It seems there will be no relief for my wallet. I will be seeking out the Barbirolli, Martinon, and Solti recordings for now. I have heard the Gardiner and it didn't appeal to me. Perhaps I owe it another listen.



> I personally can't stand the Harding recording when he randomly doesn't follow the score, like his random slow down in the 4th movement after measure 33?!?! I can't stand Immerseel either, but then again I can't stand any of the multitude of recordings I've heard form him.


I'm quite surprised I like the Harding so much. I enjoy his novel approach; he seems to maximize the weirdness and innovative nature of the score. I don't like the Dutoit, say, because it is so plain and, to me, uninspired, or at best uninvolved. I'd much rather hear a conductor take some liberties for the sake of an exciting performance. But, as you say, different ears.

As for Immerseel, I very much like his Beethoven cycle, his Liszt "Totentanz" and Ravel "Left Hand Concerto", but his Dvorak/Janacek disc was...ill-conceived, putting it politely. I like the use of the pianos in the Symphonie.


----------



## Bettina

Have you tried Liszt's piano transcription of Symphonie Fantastique? I recommend Todd Crow's recording of it. Here's the info on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Berlioz-Symp...73&sr=1-4&keywords=liszt+symphony+fantastique


----------



## AfterHours

It probably won't get mentioned, as it is fairly obscure among Symphonie Fantastique recordings, but Eliahu Inbal's is possibly the very best I've heard, and at least among them. It's a little longer than most renditions as it really articulates all the nuance, drama and stream-of-consciousness of the work.

This one: http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0003/606/MI0003606994.jpg?partner=allrovi.com


----------



## Pugg

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> What about Gardiner's on (I believe) Phillips? I find it a much better HIP recording than Immerseel's.


They should have stay away from the Berlioz those H.I.P people.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Pugg said:


> They should have stay away from the Berlioz those H.I.P people.


I disagree. The HIP versions revealed a lot about the texture of the music and the quality of the sound. I accept that they sound different to many ears .... and that many will prefer the lush sounds of the mid-to-late C20 but they are valid interpretations and I very much enjoy them.


----------



## realdealblues

Headphone Hermit said:


> I disagree. The HIP versions revealed a lot about the texture of the music and the quality of the sound. I accept that they sound different to many ears .... and that many will prefer the lush sounds of the mid-to-late C20 but they are valid interpretations and I very much enjoy them.


I disagree that they reveal more. Any good conductor can reveal all the texture and clarity of the music with modern instruments and a good recording. Otto Klemperer is one the most prime examples of texture and clarity. He knew "how" to balance an orchestra and because of his "old world seating chart" with divided strings you can often hear twice as much string detail that is lost from jamming all the violins on one side and Cellos and Basses on the other. To me the only thing you really hear differently is what it sounds like on a vintage instruments vs. modern ones.


----------



## Heck148

Do keep in mind tho, that Berlioz discarded the ophicleides [awful-cleides] ASAP, as soon as the valved Tubas became available. makes a huge difference, and it shows that Berlioz clearly did not favor "original instruments" for his Symphonie Fantastique...He hated ophicleides, "They are like an escaped bull jumping around in a drawing room"


----------



## Merl

I'm with you on the Kegel recording. Absolutely pants! Still not as bad as his dreadful Maher 1 and boring Beethoven cycle.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

realdealblues said:


> I disagree that they reveal more. Any good conductor can reveal all the texture and clarity of the music with modern instruments and a good recording. Otto Klemperer is one the most prime examples of texture and clarity. He knew "how" to balance an orchestra and because of his "old world seating chart" with divided strings you can often hear twice as much string detail that is lost from jamming all the violins on one side and Cellos and Basses on the other. To me the only thing you really hear differently is what it sounds like on a vintage instruments vs. modern ones.


I didn't say 'they reveal more' .... and I also very much like the texture and clarity of Klemperer (for example, his version of Beethoven 6th is one of my favourites) but HIP does sound different and that is not just vintage instruments vs modern instruments. Performance practice has changed and that also affects the texture and the quality of the sound.

You clearly don't think it adds much ... and that is up to you - its your choice. Enjoy!


----------



## AfterHours

I just heard the Norrington/SWR rendition of Symphonie Fantastique and it is _spectacular_ with _jaw-dropping_ sound quality and spatial dynamics, and every nuance of the score colorfully illustrated and emotionally evocative. I need to revisit the Paray, Munch (1962), and famous Davis rendition at some point in the near future, as I've been away from them for a while -- but right now I'd say this Norrington could be the very best version I've ever heard -- even better than the Eliahu Inbal one I recommended earlier on this thread.

Not to be confused with Norrington's earlier rendition with London Classical Players. I mean this one here: http://www.eclassical.com/shop/17115/art15/h3700/4713700-origpic-3765b2.jpg

VERY HIGHLY recommended!


----------



## hpowders

Solti/CSO and Munch/BSO are as good as it gets.

For this work, I prefer the glories of a great non-HIP modern orchestra.


----------



## Pugg

Headphone Hermit said:


> I disagree. The HIP versions revealed a lot about the texture of the music and the quality of the sound. I accept that they sound different to many ears .... and that many will prefer the lush sounds of the mid-to-late C20 but they are valid interpretations and I very much enjoy them.


Well we can agree to disagree .


----------



## ToneDeaf&Senile

Heck148 said:


> Do keep in mind tho, that Berlioz discarded the ophicleides [awful-cleides] ASAP, as soon as the valved Tubas became available. makes a huge difference, and it shows that Berlioz clearly did not favor "original instruments" for his Symphonie Fantastique...He hated ophicleides, "They are like an escaped bull jumping around in a drawing room"


I begin to feel more and more strongly that the ophicleide, when wielded by quality players, has gotten a bum rap. Case in point, here's *the ophicleide performing a piece Berlioz might well have been familiar with*. And here is *an excerpt from the Fantasique itself*, with both Ophicleide and Serpent. Not a bad sound at all, though I wish the ophicleide sound was more prominent in some passages. (I'm not arguing that the tuba shouldn't have won out, only that the ophicleide isn't necessarily the rancid instrument it is oft claimed to be.)


----------



## Heck148

ToneDeaf&Senile said:


> Not a bad sound at all, though I wish the ophicleide sound was more prominent in some passages. (I'm not arguing that the tuba shouldn't have won out, only that the ophicleide isn't necessarily the rancid instrument it is oft claimed to be.)


It's a pretty wimpy sound for that particular passage in the Symphonie Fantastique....definitely lacking in bass resonance and volume. To me, it is no surprise at all that Berlioz quickly opted for the valved tubas...


----------



## Ralphus

Thanks again for some more recommendations.



> I just heard the Norrington/SWR rendition of Symphonie Fantastique and it is spectacular with jaw-dropping sound quality and spatial dynamics, and every nuance of the score colorfully illustrated and emotionally evocative.


You've got me curious, now. I do have his Hanssler "L'Enfance du Christ" back home and remember not thinking much of it. I might look into Inbal too, if I can. I first knew Shostakovich #5 from him and quite like his Mahler #5 and #10.



> I'm with you on the Kegel recording. Absolutely pants! Still not as bad as his dreadful Maher 1 and boring Beethoven cycle.


You know, I like his Mahler #1, despite its rough-around-the-edgesness. But, the Symphonie fantastique is dull and then marred by seemingly over-dubbed and weird-sounding bells in the finale.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

TC introduced me to this work which I had always ignored. After listening to many recordings I puchased the Mackerras CD .









I'm quite happy with it.
I was also impressed with a recording of Ticciati conducting the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. 








The problem here was price. Although the mp3 download is only $8.99 . Someone talk me out of it!


----------



## AfterHours

After listening to Tilson Thomas' rendition, I'd have to include it on the short list, as another strong contender for the best overall recording of Berlioz's masterpiece.

This one:


----------



## hpowders

AfterHours said:


> After listening to Tilson Thomas' rendition, I'd have to include it on the short list, as another strong contender for the best overall recording of Berlioz's masterpiece.
> 
> This one:


Interesting. Never heard this performance!


----------



## AfterHours

hpowders said:


> Interesting. Never heard it!


I hope you give it a shot! For fans of this symphony, it is a must, stunning in every regard! (both sonically and performance)


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Preferred interpretations are:

Munch/Boston Symphony on RCA and Solti/Chicago Symphony on London/Decca


----------



## Bill Cooke

As this is in my top 5 favorite pieces of music, I've amassed a large collection of performances.

My favorites include:

Mitropoulos, NYP - He combines piano with the bells in the Witches' Sabbath for a genuinely creepy sound. Overall, an intense performance.

Davis, Concertgebouw - Most people's go-to, and I love it (especially the low brass in the Marche), but the reverberation in the recording hall is excessive. It didn't used to bother me, but now it does. 

Gardiner, ORR - This recording has the opposite problem of the Davis - it's too dry! But the period instruments offer a fascinating version and I like the weird sounds they bring to the final movement.

Leibowitz, LSO - A good, solid account, combining sensitivity with excitement

Beecham, ONRF - Hands down my favorite account of the pastorale movement. Beecham takes his time and wrings every ounce of romanticism out of this beautiful and sad music. His witch party is on the slow side, but suitably grim; and after hearing Markevitch's ridiculously slow rendition, I don't complain about it so much anymore.

Klemperer, Philharmonia - The best word I can think of to describe this one is serious. Very serious.

But my absolute favorite is actually a cheat. While this may be heresy to some, my favorite Symphonie Fantastique is a combination of two different performances. However, since these recordings were made by the same conductor with the same orchestra, I somehow feel justified for my crime.

So, my top version is a hybrid of: Munch/BSO '54 for movements 1 and 2.. and Munch/BSO '62 for movements 3-5. 

In '54, the opening "Reveries" expertly balances moroseness and passion, while his Ball has just the right touch of enchanted awe and barely controlled hysteria. But his '62 take blows '54 out of the water once we get to the latter movements. The Marche to the Scaffold is unbelievably dramatic, and may be too fast for some, but is just right for me. And while no Witches' Sabbath has ever been perfect for me (something usually spoils every great version, wether it's odd tempi or weak sounding bells), but this one comes pretty darn close.

One version I've sampled through Spotify and find very interesting is Harding with the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra. My impression so far is that it is very well played and emphasizes the grotesque aspects extremely well. The bells are more recessed than normal. They sound like they're coming from a considerable distance, but the sound they make is still very unsettling. I'll be purchasing this one eventually.


----------



## bharbeke

Bill,

Great list, and thank you for describing the different performances and what works for you about them in such detail. It is a skill I wish I had.

My favorite recorded version so far has been the one with Pierre Boulez and the Cleveland Orchestra. How does that one compare to the ones you listed?


----------



## Vaneyes

Favorite recording: VPO/Davis (Philips rec.1990.

Honorable mention: VSOO/Leibowitz (Westminster rec.1958).

Favorite covers: Munch & Monteux. 

















FYI

http://www.talkclassical.com/11979-recordings-symphonie-fantastique-5.html


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I get none of the mystical imagery when I listen to this piece but I still like it.


----------



## Merl

I have quite a few SFs but I really like this one a lot. A performance up there with Ticciati's Schumann cycle.










This one is indispensable:










I was also impressed with Dudamel's account (shoot me!). For once it was a performance worthy of the hype










PS. Totally agree about Rattle's tedious account. Probably one of the worst recordings Rattle's ever made.


----------



## Bill Cooke

bharbeke said:


> Bill,
> 
> Great list, and thank you for describing the different performances and what works for you about them in such detail. It is a skill I wish I had.
> 
> My favorite recorded version so far has been the one with Pierre Boulez and the Cleveland Orchestra. How does that one compare to the ones you listed?


Thank you, Bharbeke! I'd like to go back and review them all in greater detail - kind of like how Peter did that excellent and fun overview of The Planets.

I have never heard the Boulez performance. He doesn't strike me as the right conductor for this piece, but I should set aside my prejudgments and give it a chance. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll report back if I'm able to give it a listen.


----------



## Heliogabo

My entrance to this piece was via Boulez, and if I still like it my current favorite is Abbado (Chicago). I'm just discovering other Berlioz pieces, such an intriguing composer, shamely a bit underrated in my book.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

My favorite








Followed by these two


----------

