# 50 greatest Mahler symphony recordings



## Brahmsianhorn

In commemoration of the conclusion of DavidA’s Mahler symphony recordings series, I thought I’d present my own Top 50 list. Feel free to chime in with yours.

1. 9 - Barbirolli '60
2. 8 - Horenstein
3. 1 - Walter '39
4. 6 - Barbirolli studio
5. 4 - Mengelberg
6. 3 - Adler
7. 7 - Klemperer
8. 5 - Barbirolli
9. 2 - Barbirolli '70
10. 2 - Klemperer '65
11. 4 - Barbirolli
12. 6 - Van Beinum
13. 5 - Horenstein
14. 4 - Guden/Walter
15. 7 - Scherchen
16. 3 - Horenstein
17. 4 - Seefried/Walter '50 
18. 1 - Barbirolli
19. 9 - Barbirolli '64
20. 7 - Horenstein
21. 2 - Klemperer '51
22. 4 - Kletzki
23. 3 - Barbirolli
24. 4 - Horenstein
25. 1 - Adler
26. 6 - Horenstein
27. 9 - Karajan '82
28. 5 - Shipway
29. 1 - Walter '54 live
30. 8 - Mitropoulos 
31. 9 - Klemperer 
32. 6 - Bernstein DG 
33. 9 - Walter '38
34. 1 - Mitropoulos
35. 6 - Mitropoulos '55
36. 5 - Schwarz
37. 2 - Scherchen
38. 9 - Horenstein '66
39. 2 - Mehta
40. 1 - Horenstein '58
41. 5 - Walter
42. 1 - Kubelik DG
43. 9 - Kondrashin
44. 4 - Szell
45. 2 - Stokowski '63
46. 3 - Bernstein Sony
47. 5 - Neumann '67
48. 2 - Rattle
49. 7 - Bernstein DG
50. 1 - Bernstein DG


----------



## techniquest

It's interesting, though a little concerning that, apart from Rattle in the 2nd, these are all recordings from the last century (and some way back over 50 years ago). Are there no modern recordings that could make a top 50?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Actually Rattle’s 2nd on my list would be the 80s recording. Newest recording on my list is Shipway’s 5th, dating from the mid 90s.


----------



## techniquest

Good grief, yes you're right - 1987 for the Rattle recording. So there are no recordings from this century in your list whatsoever; are there no modern recordings worthy of a position?


----------



## Larkenfield

Contemporary additional recordings

8 - Dudamel Simon Bolivar
7 - Michael Tilson Thomas LSO


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

techniquest said:


> Good grief, yes you're right - 1987 for the Rattle recording. So there are no recordings from this century in your list whatsoever; are there no modern recordings worthy of a position?


I don't think about dates when I listen to recordings. I only think about the recording. Why should I do otherwise?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't think about dates when I listen to recordings. I only think about the recording. Why should I do otherwise?


Indeed, why should you?

And is Rattle's CBSO Resurrection already over 30 years old? Where did all those years go???

My list would have a larger number of '70s and '80s releases in there, probably a few from the 1990s, and beyond a couple I can think of that are post-2000, not much from the past twenty years. I suspect great recordings take time to establish themselves as such?

Btw, I am hoping DavidA hasn't finished yet, not with two more symphonies left to consider.....


----------



## Granate

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In commemoration of the conclusion of DavidA's Mahler symphony recordings series, I thought I'd present my own Top 50 list. Feel free to chime in with yours.


WOW. I feel height fright. Comparing different recordings of different symphonies and ranking them would be almost impossible for me, not only with long symphonies by the ones of Gustav Mahler.


----------



## AlexD

I enjoy Tennstedt's version of Mahler Symphony no 2 with the London Philharmonic Orchestra recorded in 1989.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Granate said:


> WOW. I feel height fright. Comparing different recordings of different symphonies and ranking them would be almost impossible for me, not only with long symphonies by the ones of Gustav Mahler.


I just go by what I would grab for first in case of fire and then take it from there.


----------



## Merl

An impossible job. Couldnt even try to do this but one thing is for sure, that 50 would be an eclectic mix of the old, the new and the occasionally odd.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Fifty?? I'm not _that_ nuts about Mahler!


----------



## Bulldog

I have a special affection for Sinopoli's Mahler 5th.


----------



## GraemeG

Odd to note so widely-recognised a Mahlerian as Tennstedt entirely absent...
Graeme


----------



## Heck148

GraemeG said:


> Odd to note so widely-recognised a Mahlerian as Tennstedt entirely absent...
> Graeme


really...no Solti. no Giulini, no Abbado no Boulez, , yet Adler, Scherchen?? hard to take it seriously


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> really...no Solti. no Giulini, no Abbado no Boulez, , yet Adler, Scherchen?? hard to take it seriously


In other words, none of those who worked with the CSO. What is the world coming to?


----------



## Heck148

Solti recorded with LSO, Abbado performed/recorded with LSO, BPO, VPO, Boulez with VPO & Cleveland


----------



## chill782002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 15. 7 - Scherchen


Just out of interest, which Scherchen recording of the 7th is it that you're recommending? I have 3 (Wiener Symphoniker, live, 1950; Wiener Symphoniker, studio, 1953; Toronto Symphony Orchestra, live, 1965) and I think he may have made at least one other one.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> An impossible job. Couldnt even try to do this but one thing is for sure, that 50 would be an eclectic mix of the old, the new and the occasionally odd.


Agree. The problem is Mahler is a very personal composer and the recordings if his music are very personal - perhaps more so than any composer. Just read reviews on the Internet and you will see that truly one mans meat is another mans poison . We all have our personal favourites but to say which is the greatest is impossible. Certainly there are classic performances like Bruno Walter's Lied von Der Erde with Ferrier but there is a good deal of dispute whether that would be considered the greatest . And let's face it, even Mahler said he conducted himself his works differently at different times according to his mood! With also had on here people complaining about certain conductors ignoring Mahler's markings and then praising other performances which also ignore his markings! Even performances of the symphonies by those who knew Mahler are quite different. So I don't think there is any greatest recording of Mahler, let alone definitive ones - just personal favourites.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

chill782002 said:


> Just out of interest, which Scherchen recording of the 7th is it that you're recommending? I have 3 (Wiener Symphoniker, live, 1950; Wiener Symphoniker, studio, 1953; Toronto Symphony Orchestra, live, 1965) and I think he may have made at least one other one.


The '65 in Toronto


----------



## DavidA

Just to add that as the list of 50 contains performances not many will have heard of, to say they are 'the greatest' seems a bit exaggerated. Favourite, yes.


----------



## chill782002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The '65 in Toronto


How interesting. I think I'm right in saying that that one is the fastest performance of the 7th on record, clocking in at 68 minutes or so. I'm fascinated that your favourite recording of that symphony is the slowest (Klemperer's) and then your second favourite is the fastest. Are you particularly interested in recordings that vary as much as possible in their interpretation?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

chill782002 said:


> How interesting. I think I'm right in saying that that one is the fastest performance of the 7th on record, clocking in at 68 minutes or so. I'm fascinated that your favourite recording of that symphony is the slowest (Klemperer's) and then your second favourite is the fastest. Are you particularly interested in recordings that vary as much as possible in their interpretation?


I don't have preconditions for anything. The Scherchen was my favorite for many years before I finally heard the Klemperer. I was shocked at how much I liked the Klemp. It was like hearing the symphony in a whole new way.

In my opinion a great performance has nothing to do with tempo or other preconditions. It is essential to have an open mind. It's funny that people think nowadays I am biased towards old recordings. It used to be the opposite. I only wanted to hear new recordings in perfect sound. It was when I stopped seeking perfection that a whole new world opened up.

Someone mentioned Solti. When I listen to Solti I hear perfect, dazzling orchestral execution. The LSO 1st comes to mind. But I don't hear Mahler. I prefer flexibility to perfection, a human face behind the music making.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Just to add that as the list of 50 contains performances not many will have heard of, to say they are 'the greatest' seems a bit exaggerated. Favourite, yes.


Which ones have people not heard of? Obviously a recording that has been around for decades will have stood the test of time. Most of my choices are also favorites in Tony Duggan's online surveys, which are mandatory reading for Mahlerians even though I don't necessarily agree with all his opinions.


----------



## chill782002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't have preconditions for anything. The Scherchen was my favorite for many years before I finally heard the Klemperer. I was shocked at how much I liked the Klemp. It was like hearing the symphony in a whole new way.
> 
> In my opinion a great performance has nothing to do with tempo or other preconditions. It is essential to have an open mind. It's funny that people think nowadays I am biased towards old recordings. It used to be the opposite. I only wanted to hear new recordings in perfect sound. It was when I stopped seeking perfection that a whole new world opened up.
> 
> Someone mentioned Solti. When I listen to Solti I hear perfect, dazzling orchestral execution. The LSO 1st comes to mind. But I don't hear Mahler. I prefer flexibility to perfection, a human face behind the music making.


Fair enough. I wouldn't say that you are biased towards old recordings, the Scherchen was recorded in 1965 and the Klemperer in 1968, they're more recent than some Mahler recordings which date from 1940s and 1950s, or even Walter's famous 1938 recording of the 9th with the Wiener Philharmoniker. I agree with you about Solti by the way, his 1971 recording of the 7th with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra is not in any way a bad performance but there's nothing about it that makes it particularly stand out to me among the dozens of recordings of that symphony that I have.


----------



## Byron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> When I listen to Solti I hear perfect, dazzling orchestral execution. The LSO 1st comes to mind. But I don't hear Mahler. I prefer flexibility to perfection, a human face behind the music making.


I listen to Solti's Mahler if I want to hear Mahler bludgeoned to death. Which is pretty much never.


----------



## Merl

I wish people would stop using Duggan's reviews as the Mahler Bible and listen for themselves. Lots of great performances out there that Duggan doesn't even mention. Some of the Mahler recordings Duggan recommends are utter rubbish. Kegel's Mahler 1, Tony? It's awful. Could say the same about Britten's 4th, Boulez...... Etc. Whilst they are an excellent read and I do share some of his choices they are one man's opinions and they're 7 years outta date. And don't give me any of that "no-one's done a superb Mahler recording in the past 10 years" . It's not true. That's just blinkered.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I wish people would stop using Duggan's reviews as the Mahler Bible and listen for themselves. Lots of great performances out there that Duggan doesn't even mention. Some of the Mahler recordings Duggan recommends are utter rubbish. Kegel's Mahler 1, Tony? It's awful. Could say the same about Britten's 4th, Boulez...... Etc. Whilst they are an excellent read and I do share some of his choices they are one man's opinions and they're 7 years outta date. And don't give me any of that "no-one's done a superb Mahler recording in the past 10 years" . It's not true. That's just blinkered.


It's a bit insulting to insinuate that just because I agree with a lot of Duggan's reviews it means I don't listen for myself. My response was to the poster who claimed my choices don't have merit because they aren't esteemed elsewhere. So I referenced Duggan as someone agrees with a lot of my choices. Of course DavidA's conflation of popularity and merit is a separate discussion.


----------



## Bulldog

Merl said:


> I wish people would stop using Duggan's reviews as the Mahler Bible and listen for themselves. Lots of great performances out there that Duggan doesn't even mention. Some of the Mahler recordings Duggan recommends are utter rubbish. Kegel's Mahler 1, Tony? It's awful. Could say the same about Britten's 4th, Boulez...... Etc. Whilst they are an excellent read and I do share some of his choices they are one man's opinions and they're 7 years outta date.


I don't know if you're aware that Tony died a few years ago.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's a bit insulting to insinuate that just because I agree with a lot of Duggan's reviews it means I don't listen for myself. My response was to the poster who claimed my choices don't have merit because they aren't esteemed elsewhere. So I referenced Duggan as someone agrees with a lot of my choices. Of course DavidA's conflation of popularity and merit is a separate discussion.


My grievance with Duggan's reviews is not that they are bad or badly uninformed. Far from it! They are highly informative and interesting reviews on recordings that he, as a Mahler devotee for 40 years, treasured. My gripe is that many people see them as the definitive word on Mahler performances. I have mentioned this on MANY occasions on this site over the past 5 years so I'm hardly saying something new. That is not a personal insult to you, Brahmsianhorn, but a general observation. Much as I respect Duggan's views there's a group of people who take them as sacrosanct and refuse to accept any other recordings, as good or superior as they may be. I don't understand why you deemed this as a personal insult, yet someone can criticise you for your lack of newer recordings, yet you take no umbrance. And yes I do know Duggan died a few years back, Bulldog. I'm not dissing him, just the sort of blinkered attitude of people who follow them devotedly and exclusively. Part of me wishes he'd never written those surveys, much as I've enjoyed reading them. I hardly think that's insulting to anyone, tbh.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> My grievance with Duggan's reviews is not that they are bad or badly uninformed. Far from it! They are highly informative and interesting reviews on recordings that he, as a Mahler devotee for 40 years, treasured. My gripe is that many people see them as the definitive word on Mahler performances. I have mentioned this on MANY occasions on this site over the past 5 years so I'm hardly saying something new. That is not a personal insult to you, Brahmsianhorn, but a general observation. Much as I respect Duggan's views there's a group of people who take them as sacrosanct and refuse to accept any other recordings, as good or superior as they may be. I don't understand why you deemed this as a personal insult, yet someone can criticise you for your lack of newer recordings, yet you take no umbrance. And yes I do know Duggan died a few years back, Bulldog. I'm not dissing him, just the sort of blinkered attitude of people who follow them devotedly and exclusively. Part of me wishes he'd never written those surveys, much as I've enjoyed reading them. I hardly think that's insulting to anyone, tbh.


I'm not insulted by someone merely disagreeing with me. I'm insulted when someone insinuates that I don't come by my opinions honestly, for example let's say by ignoring newer recordings. If a recording from 2010 was worthy of my list it would be on there. I am not going to artificially inflate a newer recording's merits just to make things "fair." I listen, without preconception or bias.


----------



## Merl

You've explained why you like many older recordings and I have no beef with that and agree that there's a number of recordings on your Mahler list I view as indispenable. Also if you read back it wasn't me who was complaining about your lack of newer recordings. I also wasnt insinuating anything. The recent glut of Mahler threads has come with the usual mention of Duggan's reviews and I kinda roll my eyes now. As I said, much as they are really well written I wish he'd never done it as its become a sticking point in reviews of Mahler recordings. I can't find the the exact quote on here (from around 2015) but an ex-member of this site used those reviews to validate his opinions on one Mahler thread and it grated. And no, of course we aren't gonna agree (not that I could even do a Mahler top 50 without having a nervous breakdown).


----------



## Merl

BTW, Brahmsian, I've just done a quick count and there's 8 from your list that would be on mine.  I've never seen why people like that Shipway recording, though. It does nowt for me.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I counted eight too, but probably a different eight, because I'm younger than you..,.:devil:


----------



## Merl

Robert Pickett said:


> I counted eight too, but probably a different eight, because I'm younger than you..,.:devil:


Oi, you cheeky young whippersnapper! Lol.:lol:


----------



## chill782002

I'm pleased to see the 1939 Walter Symphony 1 get a mention, an outstanding performance and the first recording of that symphony. Just a shame that the sound is so utterly wretched. For an alternate "historic" recording of that work in decent (albeit mono) sound, I'm very partial to Scherchen's 1954 performance with the London Philharmonic Orchestra


----------



## techniquest

> I don't understand why you deemed this as a personal insult, yet someone can criticise you for your lack of newer recordings, yet you take no umbrance.





> Also if you read back it wasn't me who was complaining about your lack of newer recordings.


Just to be clear, I was neither criticising nor complaining. I made an observation and asked if there have been no recordings this century that could merit a top50 inclusion. That's all. In the OP's opinion - to which he has every right - there haven't been, and that's perfectly fair enough. Neither I, nor anyone else, is obliged to agree or disagree with his either his list or Tony Duggan's list. We should however be obliged to ensure that references to other members posts are accurate.


----------



## Red Terror

Oh look, World War III has broken out in a Mahler thread-yay.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I still don't understand how a recording from the 2010's can be described as among the "greatest", if it hasn't had the time to cement itself into such a position. 

BTW, am currently listening through my Gielen set, having been disappointed with his Sixth first few times around. Not any more. This is lean mean Mahler, little or no Schmaltz ladled on, emphasises the modern sounds M manages to create. His 7th is great, and am having similar feelings about his 9th


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's a bit insulting to insinuate that just because I agree with a lot of Duggan's reviews it means I don't listen for myself. My response was to the poster who claimed my choices don't have merit because they aren't esteemed elsewhere. So I referenced Duggan as someone agrees with a lot of my choices. Of course *DavidA's conflation of popularity and merit *is a separate discussion.


Not quite sure where this [somewhat dismissive do I hear?] comment comes from but I would point out that as music is meant to communicate to listeners then popularity might just indicate that this recording is communicating! Of course, it's not the only measure of greatness but could actually be an indicator. Duggan's reviews are certainly interesting and a reasonable starting point but he does have his prejudices like all reviewers (as do we all if we will only admit it) and as with any review can only be thought of as a starting point. We all know reviewers can be fooled by their prejudices as in the notorious case of fraud known as the Joyce Hatto affair.


----------



## DavidA

Robert Pickett said:


> *I still don't understand how a recording from the 2010's can be described as among the "greatest"*, if it hasn't had the time to cement itself into such a position.
> 
> BTW, am currently listening through my Gielen set, having been disappointed with his Sixth first few times around. Not any more. This is lean mean Mahler, little or no Schmaltz ladled on, emphasises the modern sounds M manages to create. His 7th is great, and am having similar feelings about his 9th


I don't know, Klemperer's Lied von der Erde was considered great from the moment it came out.

Interesting that reviews on Gielen either rate him very highly or are quite dismissive. Does appear to be the case of 'one man's meat...'


----------



## Enthusiast

Robert Pickett said:


> I counted eight too, but probably a different eight, because I'm younger than you..,.:devil:


I cam up with 9 and there are a couple I haven't heard so it may be one or two more. But the reason I came to this thread is because I have been forming an impression over the last year or two that we are actually living in the age when Mahler interpretations are more often at least reliably very good that used to be the case. There are some very fine recordings from the past and some very interesting insights in some of the more flawed performances as well. But in general, I think, Mahler performing has need been as good!


----------



## Enthusiast

Robert Pickett said:


> I still don't understand how a recording from the 2010's can be described as among the "greatest", if it hasn't had the time to cement itself into such a position.
> 
> BTW, am currently listening through my Gielen set, having been disappointed with his Sixth first few times around. Not any more. This is lean mean Mahler, little or no Schmaltz ladled on, emphasises the modern sounds M manages to create. His 7th is great, and am having similar feelings about his 9th


Well, I suppose we might be wrong about some recent issues but it seems to me that when you hear a great performance - in the concert hall or on record - you know it! Yes- Gielen is a great "new" voice in Mahler.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I couldn't comment on the Klemperer's initial reception, I think it came out the year I was born! :devil:

As to Gielen, I don't think anyone could say his are the last word in Mahler interpretation, and I certainly would not make that claim for him. But his readings generally are clear and superbly played (no bunch of amateurs, this SWR band!) and I am hearing things I don't in others'. In simple terms, I am really enjoying them! 

That said, my tastes in Mahler have shifted over the years. I am less inclined to enjoy the heart-on-sleeve approach these days, I really don't think it's the most important aspect of Mahler's music, as fundamental as it might be; for me this aspect needs reining in, not chucking in my face; as music, it's better than that, and can stand as is.

BTW, Michael Gielen is now 91, so I am sure he'd be delighted to be described as a "new" voice!!!


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ I do hope we never hear the last word in Mahler interpretation!


----------



## wkasimer

Robert Pickett said:


> I still don't understand how a recording from the 2010's can be described as among the "greatest", if it hasn't had the time to cement itself into such a position.


Why does it need "time to cement itself into such a position"? The recorded performance sounds exactly the same in 2019 as it will in 2069.


----------



## amfortas

wkasimer said:


> Why does it need "time to cement itself into such a position"? The recorded performance sounds exactly the same in 2019 as it will in 2069.


Will sound the same, but will be heard differently.


----------



## Merl

Red Terror said:


> Oh look, World War III has broken out in a Mahler thread-yay.


No need to get the popcorn out. This is pretty tame tbh.......now if I were to mention Wagner and Hitler in the same sentence that's when the fur would really start flying. :devil:



Robert Pickett said:


> I couldn't comment on the Klemperer's initial reception, I think it came out the year I was born! :devil:


Hang on, if that's 1967 you're only a few years behind me, Mr Pickett. You were making yourself sound like some 20-something on the last page (*growls at Bob)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Not quite sure where this [somewhat dismissive do I hear?] comment comes from but I would point out that as music is meant to communicate to listeners then popularity might just indicate that this recording is communicating! Of course, it's not the only measure of greatness but could actually be an indicator.


Not being dismissive, just stating my disagreement with this from a few pages back:

"Just to add that as the list of 50 contains performances not many will have heard of, to say they are 'the greatest' seems a bit exaggerated. Favourite, yes. "

Aside from disagreeing with the premise, I am also intrigued to know which of my 50 not many will have heard of. Funny, since another poster stated my list was not eclectic enough. I would actually agree more with that poster even though I would still not change a thing.


----------



## Bulldog

I would assume that all of the op's top fifty are well known to Mahler enthusiasts.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Really??? All of them?


----------



## wkasimer

Bulldog said:


> I would assume that all of the op's top fifty are well known to Mahler enthusiasts.


I'd consider myself a Mahler enthusiast, and I know about 35 of the 50. To know them all well, you'd have to be a Mahler obsessive. Nothing wrong with that, of course. :devil:


----------



## Guest

techniquest said:


> It's interesting, though a little concerning that, apart from Rattle in the 2nd, these are all recordings from the last century (and some way back over 50 years ago). Are there no modern recordings that could make a top 50?


Fischer's recordings on Channel Classics are getting fairly high praise - especially the 2nd. I'm listening to a few of them, and enjoying them. Quite honestly, I don't know that I have 50 total Mahler recordings. I'll have to go check.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I will say this about newer recordings - to the extent that they eschew "sentimentality" and emphasize efficiency, then yes I suppose I am biased against newer recordings. But I don't consciously think that as I listen.

Perfect example: Carlos Paita recorded primarily in the 80s, but his style was reminiscent more of the "old school." It is the style of the recording to which I respond, not the date. Paita's Mahler 1 is wonderful by the way!

I don't understand the point of newer recordings that hurry to get on with things and make everything as clean and inoffensive as possible. What is the point? Where is the art? That is how I respond, or rather fail to respond, to Honeck for example.


----------



## Granate

Bulldog said:


> I would assume that all of the op's top fifty are well known to Mahler enthusiasts.


I haven't listened to 12 of them. One of those is the Torino No.9 performance by John Barbirolli which I never considered next to his studio recording. I'm enjoying part of the first movement and I'm startled with the sound quality.

I may do a small mono Mahler challenge with him just like I did with Knappertsbusch and Bruckner. But boys, almost impossible to beat Tennstedt in liveliness.


----------



## realdealblues

If I get time I will think about doing a Top 50 recordings (I lost count of my Mahler recordings after 400 and that was years ago)

I have all the recordings mentioned but my list would definitely be vastly different as we have totally different ideas of how Mahler should be played. 

At least half of those listed wouldn't end up in my Top 100.


----------



## Merl

^^I'm surprised Tennstedt hasn't had many mentions, either, Granate. But he has now.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't understand the point of newer recordings that hurry to get on with things and make everything as clean and inoffensive as possible.


On the other hand, just because something is slow doesn't make it profound.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> On the other hand, just because something is slow doesn't make it profound.


Did I say that?


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 7 - Klemperer
> 4 - Kletzki
> 9 - Karajan '82
> 2 - Mehta
> 1 - Horenstein '58
> 4 - Szell


These are the ones I like most from your list, Brahmsianhorn. I do like plenty of others but many wouldn't be in my top 50. Originally I thought there were 8 but I much prefer Kubelik' s Mahler 1 on Audite and Walter's Columbia 1st. My head is mush tonight (hard day teaching) so I couldn't even add any of my own tonight.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

chill782002 said:


> I'm pleased to see the 1939 Walter Symphony 1 get a mention, an outstanding performance and the first recording of that symphony. Just a shame that the sound is so utterly wretched. For an alternate "historic" recording of that work in decent (albeit mono) sound, I'm very partial to Scherchen's 1954 performance with the London Philharmonic Orchestra


Glad you share my enthusiasm for the 1939 Walter, though I would not say the sound is wretched for a live 1939 performance. At least it is fairly clean. Bruno was certainly on fire that evening with Toscanini's orchestra! I wonder what his emotions were at the time having just fled Europe.


----------



## Bulldog

Heck148 said:


> really...no Solti. no Giulini, no Abbado no Boulez, , yet Adler, Scherchen?? hard to take it seriously


It's Brahmsianhorn's list, and he takes it seriously; that's all that's needed. What you or I think of his list is meaningless.


----------



## Granate

So I was quite irresponsible with my branding task for this afternoon and did a long search for Mahler recordings in mono that were available commercially on CD or just in Spotify or YouTube. This is the list I want to try soon. If the sensations are good, maybe I will postpone the Bernstein box for ever and pick these one by one. Thank you Brahmsianhorn!

*DKL *


K. Richter GWRO B004JESNYS
*No.1*


Barbirolli NYPO 59
Kubelík RAI Tor 54 B003UC49Y8
Walter NYPO ?? B004WEHKKS
*No.2*


Barbirolli BPO B0000BZYRI
Klemperer RCO 51 B003F1UWZO
Walter WPO ?? B004WEHKKS
*No.3*


Horenstein LSO 61 B00GBQBRRC
Mitropoulos KRSO 60 B004TWOXDU or B004JESO10
*No.4*


Kempe BBC SO 57 B00FABG4JK
Rosbaud SWRSO BB 59 B005IMZGXQ
Walter WPO 50 B003V4RK1O
Walter WPO 55 B000I0SEIM
*No.5*


Barbirolli NYPO 66
Horenstein BPO 61 _I have a great memory of this recording_
Rosbaud KRSO 51 B00ANUNXWY
*No.6*


Barbirolli BPO 66 B00016ZKQM
Barbirolli NPO 67 B002HESQNU
Mitropoulos NYPO 55 B0035L72P2
*No.7*


Scherchen WSO 50 B000028B1S
Barbirolli HO 60 B01CPQKXWQ
*No.8*


Horenstein LSO 58 
Mitropoulos WPO 60 B000026CYZ
Stokowsky NYPO 50 B0044ZQ8HQ
*No.9*


Barbirolli NYPO 62
Barbirolli RAI Tor 60 B003V4RJXI or B004WZ7A7A
Mitropoulos WPO 60
Scherchen WSO 51 B000028B0J
Walter WPO 38 B00006669L
*DLVDE*


Barbirolli HO
Reiner CSO 58 B007K57S8K
Rosbaud SWR BB B01MZ4SQSW
Walter WPO 52 B000I0SEIM
Walter NYPO 60 B004H8SKF8


----------



## Heck148

Bulldog said:


> It's Brahmsianhorn's list, and he takes it seriously; that's all that's needed. What you or I think of his list is meaningless.


true enough...I'm sure each listener would come up with different selections


----------



## Larkenfield

For more recent recordings, I would include the Boulez. He plays Mahler as more forward-looking than looking exclusively to the past, and he does not over sentimentalize the composer who actually had a lot of resilience in his lifetime. He would suffer losses and bounce back or he would have never written his 10th symphony after his 9th. I consider these terrific performances overall, starting with the 1st.


----------



## chill782002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Glad you share my enthusiasm for the 1939 Walter, though I would not say the sound is wretched for a live 1939 performance. At least it is fairly clean. Bruno was certainly on fire that evening with Toscanini's orchestra! I wonder what his emotions were at the time having just fled Europe.


I suppose I was a little harsh in describing the sound as utterly wretched, but it is quite poor, even for a 1930s live recording. I can think of several made earlier in the 30s than this that sound considerably better. However, performance ultimately matters more than sound and this is one of the all-time great performances of the 1st, even if its historical value is discounted.


----------



## chill782002

As an aside, how many members are familiar with Membran's 10 CD box of historical Mahler recordings?









Mahler generally works better for me in stereo, but it's fun to hear older mono recordings made before Mahler was part of the standard repertoire. Although some of Membran's releases are denoised to death, that doesn't seem to be the case here and the mastering is generally pretty good. I have no idea on what basis the performances were chosen but here they are:

1st - Rafael Kubelik / Wiener Philharmoniker (1954, studio) (I would have substituted Scherchen's aforementioned recording with the London Philharmonic Orchestra made the same year).

2nd - Otto Klemperer / Concertgebouw Orkest / Jo Vincent - Soprano / Kathleen Ferrier - Contralto / Amsterdam Toonkunstkoor (1951, live) (Can't argue with this one, great performance and very good sound given that this is a live recording and the date it was made).

3rd - Adrian Boult / BBC Symphony Orchestra / Kathleen Ferrier - Contralto / BBC Symphony Choir (1947, live) (Excellent performance by all parties involved and the first recording of this work but the sound is pretty poor. However, given that the recording was made off air to acetates by an enthusiast, I suppose that can be forgiven).

4th - Fritz Reiner / Chicago Symphony Orchestra / Lisa Della Casa - Soprano (1958, studio) (Very good performance in superb sound and the only stereo recording in the box. Personally, I would have kept the box all-mono and substituted Bruno Walter's 1945 premiere recording with the New York Philharmonic and Desi Halban covering the soprano role, as I think that is an even better performance. Maybe it was thought too well-known to merit inclusion).

5th - Bruno Walter / New York Philharmonic Orchestra (1947, studio) (Again, no argument, the first recording of this work and a great performance).

6th - Dimitri Mitropoulos / New York Philharmonic Orchestra (1955, live) (A legendary performance and probably my favourite pre-stereo recording of this work. Mitropoulos seems to have had a special affinity for the 6th).

7th - Hans Rosbaud / Sinfonieorchester des Sudwestfunks Baden-Baden (1957, live) (My favourite of all Mahler's symphonies. An interesting interpretation but I would have gone for Scherchen's 1950 premiere live recording with the Wiener Symphoniker as that emphasises the drama of the work more, I think).

8th - Leopold Stokowski / New York Philharmonic Orchestra / Frances Yeend - Soprano / Uta Graf - Soprano / Camilla Williams - Soprano / Martha Lipton - Alto / Louise Bernhardt - Alto / Eugene Conley - Tenor / Carlos Alexander - Baritone / George London - Bass / The Westminster Choir / Schola Cantorum of New York / Public School Boys' Chorus (1950, live) (I must admit that I'm not really a fan of this symphony so I suppose this will do as well as any, particularly as it is the first recording).

9th - Hans Rosbaud / Sinfonieorchester des Sudwestfunks Baden-Baden (1954, live) (The playing is a little ragged in places. Perhaps Scherchen's 1950 live recording with the Wiener Philharmoniker or, dare I say it, Walter's 1938 live premiere recording with the Wiener Philharmoniker? Too obvious maybe).

10th (Adagio only) - Hermann Scherchen / Wiener Symphoniker (1952, studio) (The first recording, very good interpretation and sound).

Das Lied von Der Erde - Bruno Walter / Wiener Philharmoniker / Kathleen Ferrier - Alto / Julius Patzak - Tenor (1952, studio) (An obvious choice, but an excellent one).

A purchase I'm very pleased with even if I would have made some changes in places. Brahmsianhorn (and anyone else who is interested), what changes would you have made for an all-mono box of Mahler historical recordings in the cases where this is not obvious from your original list?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

chill782002 said:


> I suppose I was a little harsh in describing the sound as utterly wretched, but it is quite poor, even for a 1930s live recording. I can think of several made earlier in the 30s than this that sound considerably better. However, performance ultimately matters more than sound and this is one of the all-time great performances of the 1st, even if its historical value is discounted.


The other Walter 1st that made my list is this one, a live NYPO from 1954. The sound is quite a bit better than the 1939 Walter 1st. Of course many will prefer the studio mono recording taped the next day and available on Sony, but for me the excitement in this live performance is much more palpable.


----------



## chill782002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The other Walter 1st that made my list is this one, a live NYPO from 1954. The sound is quite a bit better than the 1939 Walter 1st. Of course many will prefer the studio mono recording taped the next day and available on Sony, but for me the excitement in this live performance is much more palpable.


Thanks for the recommendation, I've never heard this one. Sorry for the delay in replying, got called away unexpectedly on a business trip.


----------



## DavidA

I cannot reach 50 but here are the recordings of the symphonies I have and/or enjoy:

No 1

Tennstedt / Kubelik / Bernstein (VPO)

No 2

Klemperer / Barbirolli (BPO) / Kubelik / Rattle (CBSO) / Mehta (VPO) / Tennstedt

No 3

Kubelik / Tennstedt / Mehta / Bernstein (NYPO) / Abaddo (VPO)

No 4

Szell / Kubelik / Tennstedt / Reiner

No 5

Barbirolli / Sinopoli / Bernstein (VPO) / Abaddo (CSO) / Karajan / Tennstedt / Kubelik

No 6

Karajan / Tennstedt (live and studio) / Szell / Kubelik / 

No 7

Rattle (live) / Tennstedt (live and studio) / Kubelik / Abaddo

No 8

I don't like this symphony very much but I have got Kubelik / Tennstedt / Chailly and am working on it!

No 9

Abaddo (BPO) / Karajan / Bernstein (BPO) / Tennstedt / Kubelik / Giulini

No 10 (complete)

Rattle (BPO)


----------



## chill782002

Thanks very much, I definitely need to hunt some of those down. I had no idea that Szell had recorded the 6th.


----------



## Larkenfield

chill782002 said:


> Thanks very much, I definitely need to hunt some of those down. I had no idea that Szell had recorded the 6th.


It's a tremendous live recording, one of my favorites even with the middle two movements in the reverse order (that I switched according to Mahler's published score). It starts off like a house afire.


----------



## realdealblues

chill782002 said:


> Thanks very much, I definitely need to hunt some of those down. I had no idea that Szell had recorded the 6th.


Just an FYI, Szell's is a live recording from 1967, it was released after his death (1970) in 1972 if memory serves so he never actually gave his "Ok" for it to be released so to speak. There is a little audience noise but it's not bad. The Cleveland Orchestra plays great as usual. It also has one of the fastest Andante's on disc which is interesting to hear. The only one I can think of who takes it quicker is Eschenbach. The Andante moderato is usually between 15-17 minutes, Szell's is 13:33.


----------



## Guest

i'll make it simple as i do not listen to recordings before 1980. my favourites are:
-pittsburgh-Honeck (1,3,4,5)
-brso-Jansons (2,5,7,9)
-rco-Jansons (1-8)
-rco-Chailly (1-10)
-bpo-Karajan (9)
-budapest fo-I.Fischer (1-7,9)
-bpo-Rattle (10)
-seattle so-Dausgaard (10)
-minnesota orch-Vänskä (2,5,6)
-finnish radio so-Lintu (1+Blumine)
-bpo-Abbado (3,7,9)
i do not get to 50 but Vänskä's cycle is to be continued. on the other hand I.Fischer will not record the 8th.there is still hope Honeck will complete his cycle.he is an outstanding conductor with a great orchestra.
hopefully this list will interest the members calling for fresh alternatives.


----------



## Heck148

why don't you listen to recordings made before 1980?? you're missing out on some of the greatest performances!! in very good sound, too....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I am too passionate about performances to purposefully censor from my ears any particular era of recording. That said, I find myself routinely not hearing what I would like from modern performances, which is genuine connection and identification with the music as opposed to simplistic showing off of technical virtuosity, precision, and expertise. When you hear a great recording truly transmitting the spirit of the music, it is as if the composer is right in front of you.

Also, I really think the older performers, being less self-conscious about perfection, were more risk-taking and shot more from the hip. Perhaps this is why the spirit of the music comes through, not to mention just more raw excitement. So much of what I hear today sounds cautious and stale, regardless of the tempo. The best performances have an improvisatory feeling.


----------



## Guest

dear bh; if i look at your list you seem to censor all versions after 1982; i just offer our members other alternatives without criticising your list; i have listened to most of your list in my younger days and have a particular fondness for horenstein (3,9) and barbirolli (5); but my vision of art is best represented by picasso's words; a work of art starts its life when it leaves my studio;when drafting sy 9 mahler also wrote to alma that the works of a person are the ephemeral and mortal part of him; what i mean is that our vision and interpretation of gm's symphonies will continue to evolve; some live versions that i have included in my list give plenty of opportunities to the conductors to shoot from the hip; the other point is that i doubt that many tc members have the opportunity to listen to so many versions, not to mention the storage difficulties


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am too passionate about performances to purposefully censor from my ears any particular era of recording. That said, I find myself routinely not hearing what I would like from modern performances, which is genuine connection and identification with the music as opposed to simplistic showing off of technical virtuosity, precision, and expertise. When you hear a great recording truly transmitting the spirit of the music, it is as if the composer is right in front of you.
> 
> Also, I really think the older performers, being less self-conscious about perfection, were more risk-taking and shot more from the hip. Perhaps this is why the spirit of the music comes through, not to mention just more raw excitement. So much of what I hear today sounds cautious and stale, regardless of the tempo. The best performances have an improvisatory feeling.


The risk taking point is well taken. But it can also get a little tiresome even when you have filtered out the risks that resulted in dullness or perversity. But to dismiss all modern performances for an alleged lack of "genuine connection and identification with the music" seems as eccentric as avoiding all performances from before 1980, especially when they (all modern performances - presumably those from after 1980?) are all found to be marred by "simplistic showing off of technical virtuosity, precision, and expertise". I'm trying to make sense of those statements in the light of Boulez, Gielen, Vanska and many others.

Is it about needing to have an opinion, a ranking, and finding this impossible in a situation were there is such an embarrassment of riches?


----------



## Enthusiast

marc bollansee said:


> .............my vision of art is best represented by picasso's words; a work of art starts its life when it leaves my studio;when drafting sy 9 mahler also wrote to alma that the works of a person are the ephemeral and mortal part of him; what i mean is that our vision and interpretation of gm's symphonies will continue to evolve; some live versions that i have included in my list give plenty of opportunities to the conductors to shoot from the hip; the other point is that i doubt that many tc members have the opportunity to listen to so many versions, not to mention the storage difficulties


A very well made point, I think.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> The risk taking point is well taken. But it can also get a little tiresome even when you have filtered out the risks that resulted in dullness or perversity. *But to dismiss all modern performances for an alleged lack of "genuine connection and identification with the music" seems as eccentric as avoiding all performances from before 1980*, especially when they (all modern performances - presumably those from after 1980?) are all found to be marred by "simplistic showing off of technical virtuosity, precision, and expertise". I'm trying to make sense of those statements in the light of Boulez, Gielen, Vanska and many others.
> 
> Is it about needing to have an opinion, a ranking, and finding this impossible in a situation were there is such an embarrassment of riches?


Absolutely! The standard of orchestral playing has increased astronomically in the last 50 years. I can remember critics complaining about 'thinness of tone' even in established, professional orchestras. It is a fact of life that orchestral playing is now much better than in the past but this shouldn't be confused with a lack of connection with the music. Actually you could say that with the modern virtuoso orchestra there is more chance of a connection with the music as the players do not have to struggle technically like in the past. Obviously there were great performances in the past but there are some equally great - and better played - performances now! To look on the past with rose tinted spectacles is a tendency of older people but as I'm now over 70 I qualify as one of them!


----------



## DavidA

chill782002 said:


> I suppose I was a little harsh in describing the sound as utterly wretched, but it is quite poor, even for a 1930s live recording. I can think of several made earlier in the 30s than this that sound considerably better. However, *performance ultimately matters more than sound *and this is one of the all-time great performances of the 1st, even if its historical value is discounted.


In Mahler especially sound matters, at least to me! How on earth can anyone judge how great a performance is if the sound is poor? It is just guess work.


----------



## Larkenfield

Those who grew up during the vinyl era have a distinct advantage over those who are so used to digital recordings and a quiet background that they really can’t pick up on how some of these vintage recordings really captured the age in which they were made. It’s possible to hear past the surface noise the realness and emotion of the performance. Those who are used to vinyl are usually just not as bothered by the recording process or surface noise of the time and they do not compare them to digital recordings which are all nice and tidy and clean and sometimes sterile. The digitally recorded sound can be superior but it doesn’t mean the performances is. 

Many of these vintage recordings were done by conductors who lived through the terrible war years when Mahler was banned. It’s quite possible that they have much much stronger feelings about the composer than those who didn’t live through that in their nice safe environment of today. That counts for something and these vintage recordings should not be discounted out of hand because of those who may be spoiled by the advantages of digital sound. 

But I also think it’s true there are fine Mahler performances now (Dudamel's 8th). I think most listeners start with modern recordings and then they become curious how the previous generations performed the music, some of whom actually knew Mahler such as Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer whether their performances are similar or not. To think that knowing him personally didn't count for something authentic and real doesn’t make much sense to me. Something may have been lost that was highly personal. Some of the Enrico Caruso recordings from 1903 have never been surpassed despite all the so-called advances in the recording process, and there have been some great Mahler digital transfers of vintage analog recordings.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> Those who grew up during the vinyl era have a distinct advantage over those who are so used to digital recordings and a quiet background that they really can't pick up on how some of these vintage recordings really captured the age in which they were made. It's possible to hear past the surface noise the realness and emotion of the performance. Those who are used to vinyl are usually just not as bothered by the recording process or surface noise of the time and they do not compare them to digital recordings which are all nice and tidy and clean and sometimes sterile. The digitally recorded sound can be superior but it doesn't mean the performances is.
> 
> Many of these vintage recordings were done by conductors who lived through the terrible war years when Mahler was banned. It's quite possible *that they have much much stronger feelings about the composer than those who didn't live through that* in their nice safe environment of today. That counts for something and these vintage recordings should not be discounted out of hand because of those who may be spoiled by the advantages of digital sound.
> 
> But I also think it's true that there are also fine Mahler performances now. I think most listeners start with modern recordings and then they become curious how the previous generations performed the music, some of whom actually knew Mahler such as *Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer *whether their performances are similar or not. To think that knowing him personally didn't count for something authentic and real doesn't make much sense to me. Something may have been lost that was highly personal. Some of the Enrico Caruso recordings from 1903 have never been surpassed despite all the so-called advances in the recording process, and there have been some great Mahler digital transfers of vintage analog recordings.


One is not saying there were not great artists and performances of the past but what I am saying is that there are great performances now with the advantages of far better orchestral playing and vastly superior recording. My first records were 78s not vinyl and I accumulated a large collection of classical LPs, many of which I now have on CD. Although early digital recording could be somewhat sterile at times, advances in recording techniques and also remastering have now made digital almost universal apart from a small percentage of people who collect Vinyl and say to them it gives a more natural recording. Unfortunately it is lost on me and I welcomed the CD with open arms as it was free of the clicks and pops of my LPs. 
I can't see why conductors who lived through the war years should have particularly stronger views on Mahler as he was practically unknown even in allied countries where his music was permitted. Obviously Klemperer and Walter are links with Mahler but just how valuable they are in terms of a performing tradition is questionable as they conducted him in completely different ways.
So I say while I don't necessarily discard the old in favour of the new, neither do I have such a rose tinted view of the old that I think it necessarily surpasses the new. For example, Jurowski's performance of Mahler 2 is one of the greatest on disc as is Abaddo's of Mahler 9.


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> Absolutely! The standard of orchestral playing has increased astronomically in the last 50 years. I can remember critics complaining about 'thinness of tone' even in established, professional orchestras. It is a fact of life that orchestral playing is now much better than in the past but this shouldn't be confused with a lack of connection with the music. ......Obviously there were great performances in the past but there are some equally great - and better played - performances now! To look on the past with rose tinted spectacles is a tendency of older people but as I'm now over 70 I qualify as one of them!


yes, there are many more excellent orchestra musicians around now, than there were 60-70 years ago...this means that there are many more good orchestras than there were in former times....BUT - I don't think that the best of today is necessarily better than the best of the past....in the past there were probably 4 or 5 top rank American orchestras, then another 8 or 10 2nd rank orchestras - very good, but not quite at the top...
now, I'm not sure we have more than 5 or 6 very top ensembles, but there are truly dozens, maybe even scores, of 2nd, 3rd rank orchestras that are very, very good...the lower levels of orchestras have risen quite dramatically.
I don't know if today's best really even match up with some of the greatest of the recent past....a lot has to do with conductors, many of whom hold several posts, and jet-set around the globe...we don't find conductors like Szell, Ormandy, Reiner, Steinberg, etc, who stayed with one orchestra for years, and built and trained that orchestra diligently.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> dear bh; if i look at your list you seem to censor all versions after 1982; i just offer our members other alternatives without criticising your list; i have listened to most of your list in my younger days and have a particular fondness for horenstein (3,9) and barbirolli (5); but my vision of art is best represented by picasso's words; a work of art starts its life when it leaves my studio;when drafting sy 9 mahler also wrote to alma that the works of a person are the ephemeral and mortal part of him; what i mean is that our vision and interpretation of gm's symphonies will continue to evolve; some live versions that i have included in my list give plenty of opportunities to the conductors to shoot from the hip; the other point is that i doubt that many tc members have the opportunity to listen to so many versions, not to mention the storage difficulties


Censoring means purposefully excluding. I have done no such thing. Incidentally the Shipway 5th on my list is from 1996. I also like the recent Barshai though not as much as others. I also like Rattle's 2nd and just heard him live in the 9th last summer. He probably is the greatest current Mahler interpreter.

The point is that I AM open to all eras recordings, which is the opposite of censoring. I just call it like I see it. Are we censoring new composers if we simply don't consider them to be at the same level of Bach and Beethoven? Or current pop music if they fall short of the Beatles?

I would love to hear a great interpreter of Mahler in today's world, believe me. But I am not going to artificially inflate someone's achievements just to be able to say I like the new stuff. I've listened to Honeck. His Beethoven is atrocious. His Mahler is competent. Am I supposed to lie to be cool? At least I'm not refusing to give it a chance.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Absolutely! The standard of orchestral playing has increased astronomically in the last 50 years. I can remember critics complaining about 'thinness of tone' even in established, professional orchestras. It is a fact of life that orchestral playing is now much better than in the past but this shouldn't be confused with a lack of connection with the music. Actually you could say that with the modern virtuoso orchestra there is more chance of a connection with the music as the players do not have to struggle technically like in the past. Obviously there were great performances in the past but there are some equally great - and better played - performances now! To look on the past with rose tinted spectacles is a tendency of older people but as I'm now over 70 I qualify as one of them!


I am still a mere lad of 44, but I think it is precisely due to the points you make that real spirit and identification with the character of the music suffers. Perhaps due to the advent of recordings we are preoccupied with technical perfection, which only stifles the process of making art. Instead of focusing on the spirit of the music people perform with fear and self-consciousness of making a mistake. I know this firsthand as a performer. Not to mention the insane preoccupation with "correct" interpretation as opposed to identification with the essence of a work from the artist's heart.

I have come to these opinions through years or performing and listening. I was first taught as a choral singer to sing straight tone and eschew emotion. And as a listener, like the lad on the previous page, I only listened to recordings in digital sound. But as the years went by I kept noticing a difference with the age old performers and recordings, and the further in time you go back the more stark the difference. Part of my motivation in later going to graduate school was to bring back the old ways. I have been swimming uptide, unfortunately.


----------



## DavidA

Heck148 said:


> yes, there are many more excellent orchestra musicians around now, than there were 60-70 years ago...this means that there are many more good orchestras than there were in former times....BUT - I don't think that the best of today is necessarily better than the best of the past....in the past there were probably 4 or 5 top rank American orchestras, then another 8 or 10 2nd rank orchestras - very good, but not quite at the top...
> now, I'm not sure we have more than 5 or 6 very top ensembles, but there are truly dozens, maybe even scores, of 2nd, 3rd rank orchestras that are very, very good...the lower levels of orchestras have risen quite dramatically.
> I don't know if today's best really even match up with some of the greatest of the recent past....a lot has to do with conductors, many of whom hold several posts, and jet-set around the globe...*we don't find conductors like Szell, Ormandy, Reiner, Steinberg, etc, who stayed with one orchestra for years, and built and trained that orchestra diligently.*


Interestingly one of the greatest orchestras, the Vienna Philharmonic has never had principal conductors. So I'm not sure that applies across the board. What we have lost is the podium tyrants like Toscanini, Szell and Reiner and also the musical dictators like Karajan. Whether musically we're richer or poorer for that is a matter of opinion. But orchestral playing these days is of such a standard I don't really think such people are appropriate in a more democratic age. Certainly the performance of Mahler 2 from Jurowski and the LPO is comparable to anything I've heard and the LPO isn't exactly one of the world's great orchestras.


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Perhaps due to the advent of recordings we are preoccupied with technical perfection, which only stifles the process of making art. Instead of focusing on the spirit of the music people perform with fear and self-consciousness of making a mistake. I know this firsthand as a performer. Not to mention the insane preoccupation with "correct" interpretation as opposed to identification with the essence of a work from the artist's heart.
> 
> I have come to these opinions through years or performing and listening. I was first taught as a choral singer to sing straight tone and eschew emotion. And as a listener, like the lad on the previous page, I only listened to recordings in digital sound. But as the years went by I kept noticing a difference with the age old performers and recordings, and the further in time you go back the more stark the difference. Part of my motivation in later going to graduate school was to bring back the old ways. I have been swimming uptide, unfortunately.


Funny how your ears tell you differently to what my ears tell me .... . Well, not funny, actually. It is what you would expect given the way taste is. I also don't recognise your theory for how the great musicians of the day miss out on the meaning of the music while recording (usually live) their interpretations. I suspect - but this is also only a theory - that there are certain interpretive styles that you like and that you are not ready to listen to newer, fresher thinking on Mahler. In that way you may be missing out on half of "what we know about Mahler".


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> *Funny how your ears tell you differently to what my ears tell me *.... . Well, not funny, actually. It is what you would expect given the way taste is. I also don't recognise your theory for how the great musicians of the day miss out on the meaning of the music while recording (usually live) their interpretations. I suspect - but this is also only a theory - that there are certain interpretive styles that you like and that you are not ready to listen to newer, fresher thinking on Mahler. In that way you may be missing out on half of "what we know about Mahler".


Frankly I too do not know what the gentleman is talking about when there are so many different recordings of works in differing styles. Doesn't seem to me to be what he calls the 'insane preoccupation with a correct interpretation'. As I say, I don't throw away my older recordings but I do embrace what is fresh and new joyfully. And btw my conclusions have also been reached by years of listening to classical music - more than 55 in fact!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> that there are certain interpretive styles that you like and that you are not ready to listen to newer, fresher thinking on Mahler. In that way you may be missing out on half of "what we know about Mahler".


Again, I listen, doesn't mean have to like...

You and I have different definitions of "progress." I think our current tastes reflect our modern values of efficiency and eschewing what we consider sentimentality. IMO we are a more superficial society today, less emotionally honest, less raw, more self-conscious about being slick and "modern." And the HIP movement is a reflection, paradoxically, of these modern tastes.


----------



## Guest

dear bh, let us call it a day; i think it was an interesting exchange; i respect your point of view although i believe in my own, because we cannot compare eras; there is also nothing above the live performance; that is why i am glad you mention enjoying the rattle performance of the 9th; we both need to adapt our lists so that they include today's best live performers of mahler symphonies; best marc


----------



## DavidA

Just to add to my point about today's excellence, here is Mahler's 6th played brilliantly (live) by an orchestra and conductor I'd never heard of!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mb, I will continue listening to newer recordings. If one is worthy of my list I will be sure to let you know.  

I will add finally that if anyone is suggesting that older recordings should be forgotten, ignored, or discarded, that is a position with which I passionately disagree. Ignorance of the past is not bliss. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> mb, I will continue listening to newer recordings. If one is worthy of my list I wilbyl be sure to let you know.
> 
> I will add finally that if anyone is suggesting that older recordings should be forgotten, ignored, or discarded, that is a position with which I passionately disagree. Ignorance of the past is not bliss. Quite the opposite.


I'm with you here, BH....there are simply too many great recorded performances from the past to write them off entirely.
I've been hearing live orchestra performances since late 50s. early 60s....i heard many great live concerts by Solti//CSO, Ormandy/Phila, , Bernstein/NYPO, Szell/Cleveland, etc....as a music student i was listening hypercritically, of course, with special attention to performance accuracy and performance standard...these orchestras were superb, incredibly good, the technical standard extremely high...
i listen to live performances today, whenever i can.....the orchestras are very good, but not better, and in several cases, not as good as those titans of previous years....i still listen the same way...as a professional orchestra performer for c50 years, i know how to listen critically. so I'm not just fondly recalling the "good old days".overall, the technical level of orchestras has risen most definitely, esp in the strings....winds, brass, percussion?? maybe, but I'm not at all convinced that the best of today are better than the best of the past.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I'm with you here, BH....there are simply too many great recorded performances from the past to write them off entirely.
> I've been hearing live orchestra performances since late 50s. early 60s....i heard many great live concerts by Solti//CSO, Ormandy/Phila, , Bernstein/NYPO, Szell/Cleveland, etc....as a music student i was listening hypercritically, of course, with special attention to performance accuracy and performance standard...these orchestras were superb, incredibly good, the technical standard extremely high...
> i listen to live performances today, whenever i can.....the orchestras are very good, but not better, and in several cases, not as good as those titans of previous years....i still listen the same way...as a professional orchestra performer for c50 years, i know how to listen critically. so I'm not just fondly recalling the "good old days".overall, the technical level of orchestras has risen most definitely, esp in the strings....winds, brass, percussion?? maybe, but I'm not at all convinced that the best of today are better than the best of the past.


What's your opinion of Stokowski/Phild? I just listened to a CD of his early 20th century recordings of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Mussorgsky's Night on Bare Mtn, and Saint-Saens. I find the free-wheeling virtuosity astounding.

Also, I earlier in this thread linked Walter's 1939 Mahler 1st with Toscanini's NBC orchestra. I think the combination of Walter's knowledge and passion for the score and the daring skill and virtuosity of the orchestra are breathtaking.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've listened to Honeck. His Beethoven is atrocious. His Mahler is competent. Am I supposed to lie to be cool? At least I'm not refusing to give it a chance.


..................


----------



## Becca

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've listened to Honeck. ... His Mahler is competent.


I would give it a solid 'B' ... perhaps B+ if the engineering/acoustic wasn't so 'in your face'.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What's your opinion of Stokowski/Phild?


Great!! wonderful orchestra....some amazing musicians...thst '29-30 "Rite" is a true classic. so is the Sheherazade from late 20s...delicious solo work!!



> I just listened to a CD of his early 20th century recordings of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Mussorgsky's Night on Bare Mtn, and Saint-Saens. I find the free-wheeling virtuosity astounding.
> Also, I earlier in this thread linked Walter's 1939 Mahler 1st with Toscanini's NBC orchestra. I think the combination of Walter's knowledge and passion for the score and the daring skill and virtuosity of the orchestra are breathtaking.


I've not heard that one, but I'm sure it's excellent. NBC was a great orchestra!! one of my teachers - Bill Polisi - was principal bassoon on that recording..


----------



## Larkenfield

DavidA said:


>


Yes, well done, even if the 1st movement is perhaps not as driving, fateful, or _Tragische_ as some of the earlier recordings of this great symphony, such as Szell's forceful performance with Cleveland. But yes, overall it's an excellent, sweeping performance with a conductor I'm not familiar with either. Such a relief to hear the Andante 2nd so listeners can catch their breaths... The Sinfónica de Galicia plays wonderfully in beautifully captured sound. Would love to have heard this one live. I find the performances of most modern symphony orchestras to be on a high level, and I sense that this particular one has an identity, a personality that they take pride in. Loved the portamentos (slides) he used in the strings in the Andante. I wish more conductors would do that.


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, I listen, doesn't mean have to like...
> 
> You and I have different definitions of "progress." I think our current tastes reflect our modern values of efficiency and eschewing what we consider sentimentality. IMO we are a more superficial society today, less emotionally honest, less raw, more self-conscious about being slick and "modern." And the HIP movement is a reflection, paradoxically, of these modern tastes.


I am not defending modern society or saying that everything gets better in the world! I am merely saying that we have had many Mahler performances of greatness since 1980. Do you think the more recent conductors are less musical because they live in a more corrupted world? There are many older performances that I love greatly but I don't hear greatness stopping as time progressed. If you are set on the past and cool to the more recent you are missing many very fine accounts of Mahler's music. That is your taste. Fair enough. But you are arguing with many who are richer than you in their love for some of the performances you love as well as those that tell us new and different things about Mahler.


----------



## jim prideaux

can I just interject to point out that in my opinion the Gielen recording of the 2nd is a wonderous thing!


----------



## DavidA

'And the HIP movement is a reflection, paradoxically, of these modern tastes.'

I would've thought it was more a reflection of trying to get back to what the composer actually would've heard in the performances of his day. Whether it is better or worse depends on your point of view, but to say it is a reflection of modern case is somewhat of a contradiction . This constant going on about how the old is better and the new can never be as good as the old reminds me of the way old guys go on about sport, that in the days of WG Grace Joe Root would've been lucky to back at number 11 , or that Mohammed Ali would not have lasted a round against John L Sullivan. Of course these are merely rose tinted reflections of a past age, as today's sportsman are fitter bigger and stronger than they have ever been. Similarly musicians are more skilful and more likely to give great performance of music than in the past. This especially applies to Mahler as orchestras today are far better acquainted with his music than in the past


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> I am not defending modern society or saying that everything gets better in the world! I am merely saying that we have had many Mahler performances of greatness since 1980. Do you think the more recent conductors are less musical because they live in a more corrupted world? There are many older performances that I love greatly but I don't hear greatness stopping as time progressed. If you are set on the past and cool to the more recent you are missing many very fine accounts of Mahler's music. That is your taste. Fair enough. But you are arguing with many who are richer than you in their love for some of the performances you love as well as those that tell us new and different things about Mahler.


We are venturing into straw man territory. I have never said I am set on the past or that modern recordings cannot compete with the past. I have said that by and large so far to my ears they don't, and I was theorizing as to why. That does not mean I am closed to the present. This whole discussion started as a result of someone saying we should not even listen to recordings of the past at all.

I listen to all recordings I can and simply offer my honest opinion. Period. I think people spend way too much time inferring bias instead of just taking people's tastes at face value. If there were a Barbirolli alive today I would be the first to hop on a plane and go hear him, believe me! (Actually he did conduct in Houston for a few years, but I wasn't yet born!)


----------



## CnC Bartok

jim prideaux said:


> can I just interject to point out that in my opinion the Gielen recording of the 2nd is a wonderous thing!


Interject all you like! Gielen seems to me to be a great Mahler interpreter. True, I struggled with his Sixth for a while, but his boxed set is one of my best investments of the past twelve months......


----------



## Merl

CnC Bartok said:


> Interject all you like! Gielen seems to me to be a great Mahler interpreter. True, I struggled with his Sixth for a while, but his boxed set is one of my best investments of the past twelve months......


And his Beethoven and Brahms cycles are excellent too.


----------



## DavidA

'I will add finally that if *anyone is suggesting that older recordings should be forgotten, ignored, or discarded*, that is a position with which I passionately disagree. *Ignorance of the past is not bliss. *Quite the opposite.'

Having searched through these comments no-one is saying that. What they are saying is that newer recordings should not be forgotten, ignored or discarded! As a historian I am certainly not ignorant of the past - but I do not live in the past! I live in the present!


----------



## Guest

thank you david a for reminding bsh we live in the present; i would also kindly request bsh to correct his statements; i never said you should not listen to records before 1980; i just said i did not listen to those any more; the reason is that i am not interested by the permanent collection of a museum, but rather by new exhibitions; the analogy with the visual arts is worth taking notice; most art lovers have seen the permanent exhibition and are keen to see something else; in the case of music be it classical or contemporary classical we do not have a choice if we want to see a live concert; we will see today's performers; live experience is more important than recorded music; a lot of recorded music is increasingly based on live concerts; therefore we need to get opinions from people who are knowledgeable about today's performers


----------



## NLAdriaan

There is something weird about conducting Mahler (and Bruckner). At least with the traditional European Mahler/Bruckner bands, BPO, VPO and RCO. The latter I hear quite often, as the Concertgebouw is 30 minutes drive from my home.

With these orchestras it is a privilege mostly reserved to the (former) chief (if there is any) or at least to a world class Mahler/Bruckner conductor. In Amsterdam the chief is actually mainly measured by his assumed Mahler/Bruckner qualities. When there is a new chief coming in, everyone holds his breath, how will he conduct Mahler/Bruckner....???? Usually journalists start with burning the new Chief to the ground for his first Mahler attempt (of course nothing compared to the earlier chief....) and after a few more symphonies they start to make a saint out of him. The same happens ever again, Chailly, Jansons and 'Metoo' Gatti all went through the same routine. So, who therefore gets to perform (let alone record) entire Mahler/Bruckner cycles with these top orchestras, is quite arbitrary and limited. 

Also, since the nineties, the recording market got slowly filled with Mahler cycles, as each major label had a respected digital Mahler cycle and production cost are huge for these projects. So, for instance Bernard Haitink never got the chance to finish his second Mahler cycle with Philips and the Berliner. Maybe also, the arrival of Abbado in Berlin had something to do with it, as Abbado started his own Berlin Mahler cycle. 

So, the (small and maybe totally irrelevant) point I want to make is that who gets to conduct and/or record what Mahler with one of the big Mahler orchestras is also influenced by ego/politics and economy. I don't know if this viewpoint is of any interest to this group, I leave it up to you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> thank you david a for reminding bsh we live in the present; i would also kindly request bsh to correct his statements; i never said you should not listen to records before 1980; i just said i did not listen to those any more; the reason is that i am not interested by the permanent collection of a museum, but rather by new exhibitions; the analogy with the visual arts is worth taking notice; most art lovers have seen the permanent exhibition and are keen to see something else; in the case of music be it classical or contemporary classical we do not have a choice if we want to see a live concert; we will see today's performers; live experience is more important than recorded music; a lot of recorded music is increasingly based on live concerts; therefore we need to get opinions from people who are knowledgeable about today's performers


I don't blindly follow fashion. I am more than just a listener. I am a performer as well. I feel we can learn a lot from recordings of the past. You obviously disagree.

One question. If according to your logic only the present time is relevant, then by that same logic shouldn't we only be listening to modern composers? Why should we stuff Beethoven into modern fashion? Why not leave Beethoven to the performers who understood him better and leave modern performance to those composers who are tailored to modern tastes?


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why not leave Beethoven to the performers who understood him better and leave modern performance to those composers who are tailored to modern tastes?


It could be argued that, with all we have learned from period practice in the last 20 or so years, the new performers understand Beethoven better. As I've said before, it's good to hear all sorts of Beethoven, old and new. We're never going to know which kinds of performance Beethoven would have approved of but arguably those trying to unearth the truth behind his intentions by fastidiously studying his life, his scores, his prescribed speeds (whether they are wholly accurate or not) and the history of period performance are perhaps closer to understanding him than some conductors of the past.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I disagree. Those who study and understand the spirit within the music and the harmonic language are closer to understanding the composer. Everything you need to understand a composer is what he left in the pages of the score. At the end of the day, music is music.


----------



## DavidA

'Why not leave Beethoven to the performers who understood him better and leave modern performance to those composers who are tailored to modern tastes?'

Well, there we have it! According to this gentleman no-one should be performing Beethoven today because the only ones who knew how to perform his music are dead! Tough luck on the Beethoven 250th anniversary in 2020 then. Are we just going to have to attend concerts with a Furtwangler hologram?


----------



## Merl

The irony is that many of those old conductors were schooled in the Wagner-esque way of slowing Beethoven down. I don't dislike it but, in reality, that was almost certainly not the kind of performance Beethoven heard (we'd know better if Coates had made decent notes). As Paavo Jarvi said, when recording his cycle,

_" I grew up in a conductor's family; and my introduction to the symphonies of Beethoven came from recordings by Bruno Walter, Klemperer and Furtwängler. I first heard this music as incredibly Brahmsian...... The old masters all treat the slower movements in particular with the ears and mind of someone who has already heard Wagner and his slower 'beautified' Beethoven. This is a historic misunderstanding. The kind of slow movement we tend to expect from someone after Wagner simply didn't exist in Beethoven's time."_


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> The irony is that many of those old conductors were schooled in the Wagner-esque way of slowing Beethoven down. I don't dislike it but, in reality, that was almost certainly not the kind of performance Beethoven heard (we'd know better if Coates had made decent notes). As Paavo Jarvi said, when recording his cycle,
> 
> _" I grew up in a conductor's family; and my introduction to the symphonies of Beethoven came from recordings by Bruno Walter, Klemperer and Furtwängler. I first heard this music as incredibly Brahmsian...... The old masters all treat the slower movements in particular with the ears and mind of someone who has already heard Wagner and his slower 'beautified' Beethoven. This is a historic misunderstanding. The kind of slow movement we tend to expect from someone after Wagner simply didn't exist in Beethoven's time."_


I am very sympathetic to the view that Beethoven and other great composers can be interpreted different ways. What I resist is the idea that there is 'one' way to do it. What actually owe mean when we say things like 'performers who understood him better' is 'performers who I enjoy personally.' Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> As I've said before, it's good to hear all sorts of Beethoven, old and new.


OK, good idea....



> We're never going to know which kinds of performance Beethoven would have approved of


Who cares?? really?? the music can speak for itself....I don't need anyone to tell me what is or isn't valid Beethoven...I'll make up my own mind...I also don't need someone to postulate all manner of metaphysical importance or cosmic significance to every harmonic half note in the score.

personally, I find it hard to believe that any composer of the past would not relish hearing their works played so splendidly on modern instruments...ensemble size is of course, important, the texture has to be clear enough....


----------



## Merl

Bourdon said:


> Are you suggestion that you are Innocent?


There's loads of ways of interpreting LVB's stuff or Mahler's symphonies (to get back on topic) . As you know one of my favourite cycles is Blomstedt and that's very 'traditional'. What I was trying to get over is that it's silly to say that the old conductors were always right. They had their own way of interpreting the music but that's not saying they were 'right'. As DavidA says, it's a personal preference.


----------



## Bourdon

Merl said:


> It wasnt me. A big boy did it and ran away! Nah, I know what you're saying, Heck. You're right. There's loads of ways of interpreting LVB's stuff or Mahler's symphonies ktp get back on topic) . As you know one of my favourite cycles is Blomstedt and that's very 'traditional'. What I was trying to get over is that it's silly to say that the old conductors were always right. They had their own way of interpreting the music but that's not saying they were 'right'. As DavidA says, it's a personal preference.


Frans Bruggen once said that Karajan did everything wrong but it was still very musical.If I remember well he was referring to a Bach recording Karajan made.Music is more than Just using the right rules.
I am a hip lover but no speed lover,tempo is essental and there is more involved in than Just speed


----------



## DavidA

Bourdon said:


> Frans Bruggen once said that Karajan did everything wrong but it was still very musical.If I remember well he was referring to a Bach recording Karajan made.Music is more than Just using the right rules.
> I am a hip lover but no speed lover,tempo is essental and there is more involved in than Just speed


I remember a program just when HIP was getting off the ground of 'blind' listening by critics of Bach's Brandenburgs. To their horror they found they had picked a recording by Karajan and the BPO which some of them had previously panned as 'incorrect!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> 'Why not leave Beethoven to the performers who understood him better and leave modern performance to those composers who are tailored to modern tastes?'
> 
> Well, there we have it! According to this gentleman no-one should be performing Beethoven today because the only ones who knew how to perform his music are dead! Tough luck on the Beethoven 250th anniversary in 2020 then. Are we just going to have to attend concerts with a Furtwangler hologram?


Are you understanding the point I was making? I was saying the logic behind saying we should only listen to modern recordings is the same as saying we should only listen to modern composers. The logic behind both is flawed. Of course we should keep the past relevant in today's world.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> in the case of music be it classical or contemporary classical we do not have a choice if we want to see a live concert; we will see today's performers; live experience is more important than recorded music; a lot of recorded music is increasingly based on live concerts; therefore we need to get opinions from people who are knowledgeable about today's performers


This is a direct quote from me to my Facebook friends minutes after seeing Rattle's Mahler 9th last summer:

"Wow. That was orgasmic. One of the best concerts I've ever attended. And having a box seat gave me a bird's eye view of the whole orchestra. The applause continued for nearly 10 minutes. They only stopped when he instructed the orchestra to leave the stage."

So I don't need you to lecture me on the virtues of live performance.

A recording, whether made in 1960 or 2010, is by definition a past experience. It cannot replicate a live concert experience.

The point of this thread was to present my view on the best recordings of Mahler's symphonies. Best means best, not most recent. If you are only interested in recent recordings, then you are by definition not interested in knowing what the best recordings are because you are restricting yourself to a subset of the recordings in existence. So why comment at all?

If you are interested in a real and honest discussion about my list not including enough recent recordings, then by all means suggest to me what is missing. But I will still compare them to the great recordings of the past, which you have made it clear you have no interest in doing. So again, why comment in the first place?


----------



## Larkenfield

Heck148 said:


> personally, I find it hard to believe that any composer of the past would not relish hearing their works played so splendidly on modern instruments...ensemble size is of course, important, the texture has to be clear enough....


Bravo. I can easily imagine the great composers of the past being highly interested in hearing their great music on the instruments of today-to personally experience how far music, instruments, and ensembles had come since their day. There were far more technical limitations in the instruments of an earlier day than now and the composers wouldn't have had to work around those limitations, such a certain limitations of range (the lowest and highest note of each instrument), chromatic passages and the elimination of awkward cross-fingerings, and other advantages. On the other hand, it would also have been fascinating to hear their opinions on the HIP performances of today and how authentic they supposedly sound.


----------



## Guest

hi folks: make sure you do not miss a live performance of mahler (or beethoven) by manfred honeck in the us, he is just the best conductor alive; ivan fischer is great in mahler in berlin; janssons is great in everything he does; so is andris nelsons and let us hope he will start a mahler cycle after his fabulous shostakovich cycle (still in progress);


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> hi folks: make sure you do not miss a live performance of mahler (or beethoven) by manfred honeck in the us, he is just the best conductor alive; ivan fischer is great in mahler in berlin; janssons is great in everything he does; so is andris nelsons and let us hope he will start a mahler cycle after his fabulous shostakovich cycle (still in progress);


Great, thanks for the heads up! I will go listen to Honeck live. And then I will go home and listen to Barbirolli.


----------



## Guest

you are making amazing progress; you are going to listen to today's conductors; congratulations


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> you are making amazing progress; you are going to listen to today's conductors; congratulations


I always have listened to today's conductors! I am trying to get you to listen to yesterday's conductors. That would be progress.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> Bravo. I can easily imagine the great composers of the past being highly interested in hearing their great music on the instruments of today-to personally experience how far music, instruments, and ensembles had come since their day. There were far more technical limitations in the instruments of an earlier day than now and the composers wouldn't have had to work around those limitations, such a certain limitations of range (the lowest and highest note of each instrument), chromatic passages and the elimination of awkward cross-fingerings, and other advantages. On the other hand, it would also have been fascinating to hear their opinions on the HIP performances of today and how authentic they supposedly sound.


Yes you are right. Obviously something like Beethoven's Hammerklavier totally outstripped the instrument of the day. But then Beethoven was deaf anyway so couldn't hear it apart from in his head. However, there are some works where the original instrument gives point. Mozart's horn concertos played on a natural horn sound very different. Why Mozart put those teasing side comments in because they are very difficult to play on a natural horn but not a modern valve horn. So there are things to be said on both sides.


----------



## Guest

bsh that's where you are wrong because i have heard most of the versions you have listed and i have told you i love horenstein and barbirolli; their sound is still acceptable to my ears as well (the same is not valid for most of your other versions); but i do not listen to them anymore (except for last week); to tell you the truth i do not go to see all the museums of visual arts i have already seen; the mona lisa does not improve with time; the same is true for recorded music; live music is also so much more exciting and i live only 20 minutes away from the bpo and 25 from the konzerthaus where ivan fischer conducts; my dream is to attend a concert in pittsburgh, not to listen again to the old records


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

marc bollansee said:


> bsh that's where you are wrong because i have heard most of the versions you have listed and i have told you i love horenstein and barbirolli; their sound is still acceptable to my ears as well (the same is not valid for most of your other versions); but i do not listen to them anymore (except for last week); to tell you the truth i do not go to see all the museums of visual arts i have already seen; the mona lisa does not improve with time; the same is true for recorded music; live music is also so much more exciting and i live only 20 minutes away from the bpo and 25 from the konzerthaus where ivan fischer conducts; my dream is to attend a concert in pittsburgh, not to listen again to the old records


I saw Thielemann's Bruckner 8th on my trip to Berlin a decade ago. Riveting. Perhaps my favorite symphony.

That's all fair, incidentally. I still don't see why you comment on the thread, however. The whole point was to discuss recordings, not live music.


----------



## DavidA

marc bollansee said:


> bsh that's where you are wrong because i have heard most of the versions you have listed and i have told you i love horenstein and barbirolli; their sound is still acceptable to my ears as well (the same is not valid for most of your other versions); but i do not listen to them anymore (except for last week); to tell you the truth i do not go to see all the museums of visual arts i have already seen; the mona lisa does not improve with time; the same is true for recorded music; live music is also so much more exciting and *i live only 20 minutes away from the bpo and 25 from the konzerthaus where ivan fischer conducts*; my dream is to attend a concert in pittsburgh, not to listen again to the old records


I agree but many of us don't live within striking distance of major orchestras.


----------

