# Ideal Brahms symphony cycle



## Brahmsianhorn

I have been listening to a lot of Brahms symphony recordings over the past month. My desert island choice will always be Furtwangler in the Music & Arts release (though I marginally prefer the 1949 Wiesbaden 4th over the wartime account). However I focused this month mainly on listening to stereo recordings.

In modern sound, I concluded the following as an ideal cycle of the symphonies:

*Symphony No. 1 - Leonard Bernstein/VPO (1983)*










Probably a controversial choice for many, this came down to Lenny's unbridled passion and the angst he finds in the score. It is so compelling that I found myself forgetting about whether the tempos for certain sections were conventional or not and simply allowing myself to be swept away. I think this particular symphony needs this sort of epic treatment.

Other choices:

Karajan/BPO '64
Horenstein/LSO
Walter/CSO
Klemperer/PO
Bohm/BPO '60

*Symphony No. 2 - Herbert von Karajan/BPO (1986)*










Karajan's lush, softer-edged approach for me works better in the 2nd than in the 1st. In his last digital recording it is pretty ideal in fact. And yet this also represents one of the most inspired recordings he made with the BPO, with a rousing finale.

Other choices:

Bernstein/VPO
Klemperer/PO
Walter/CSO

*Symphony No. 3 - Claudio Abbado/BPO (1989)*










I have heard this recording derided as sluggish in some quarters, but I disagree entirely. It has a perfect blend between lush, opulent sound and energy. The famous third movement Poco Allegretto is perfectly judged, and the outer movements are wonderfully spirited.

Other choices:

Cantelli/PO
Kempe/BPO
Van Beinum/RCO
Jochum/LSO

*Symphony No. 4 - Carlos Kleiber/VPO (1980)*










Revisiting this famous version reminds me why it is considered one of the greatest Brahms recordings of all time. The intensity in the fast sections goes without saying, but there is also an exquisite beauty throughout. I happen to like this even more than Kleiber's acclaimed Beethoven.

Other choices:

Abbado/BPO
Reiner/RPO
Van Beinum/RCO


----------



## MatthewWeflen

These are all fine choices. I think Karajan's 80s cycle is actually quite excellent from 1-4. The finale of the 1st gives me goosebumps.

But as far as my listening, the cycle that I return to most has been this 96k/24b high-res rendition of Karajan's 60s cycle:









It's available on HDTracks for a pretty reasonable price.

I wonder what people think of Gardiner's renditions. They... hurt my brain a bit.


----------



## Rubens

Eschenbach
Szell
Chailly
Kleiber


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, an ideal Brahms symphony cycle would be..._(holds breath)_


----------



## CnC Bartok

No.1: Czech PO/Jiří Bělohlávek.......or Szell
No.2: Vienna PO/Istvan Kertész......or Jochum
No.3: London PO/Eugen Jochum......or Skrowaczewski
No.4: Philharmonia O/Otto Klemperer.....or Kleiber


----------



## mbhaub

Chailly on Decca (the new recordings).
Mackerras on Telarc.
T. Sanderling on Darpro.


----------



## Judith

My favourite set is Muti and Philadelphia Orchestra. Was hooked when I listened to symphony no 4. One of best recordings I had heard


----------



## wkasimer

mbhaub said:


> T. Sanderling on Darpro.


I prefer his father's cycle with the Dresden Staatskapelle on Eurodisc.


----------



## mbhaub

wkasimer said:


> I prefer his father's cycle with the Dresden Staatskapelle on Eurodisc.


Yes, that's a fine one, too. And it comes with the Haydn Variations.


----------



## WildThing

In stereo? I guess off the top of my head my ideal cycle would be something like:

Symphony No. 1: Otto Klemperer/Philharmonia Orchestra
Symphony No. 2: Bruno Walter/Columbia Symphony Orchestra
Symphony No. 3: George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra
Symphony No. 4: Carlos Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Where there is more than one version mentioned, no necessary order of preference. All stereo unless otherwise indicated*:

Symphony No. 1: Klemperer/Philharmonia and Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw 
Symphony No. 2: Walter/Columbia Symphony (though I do prefer the Walter/New York Philharmonic interpretation in mono*); Kertesz/London Symphony and Klemperer/Philharmonia
Symphony No. 3: Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic 
Symphony No. 4: Walter/Columbia Symphony; Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw; Klemperer/Philharmonia and Kurt Sanderling/Dresden Staatskapelle


----------



## jegreenwood

MatthewWeflen said:


> These are all fine choices. I think Karajan's 80s cycle is actually quite excellent from 1-4. The finale of the 1st gives me goosebumps.
> 
> But as far as my listening, the cycle that I return to most has been this 96k/24b high-res rendition of Karajan's 60s cycle:
> 
> View attachment 117855
> 
> 
> It's available on HDTracks for a pretty reasonable price.
> 
> I wonder what people think of Gardiner's renditions. They... hurt my brain a bit.


Couldn't find it. Could you provide a link?


----------



## CnC Bartok

jegreenwood said:


> Couldn't find it. Could you provide a link?


I can only find that on vinyl. These CDs are the 60s recordings if that's what you're after?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

jegreenwood said:


> Couldn't find it. Could you provide a link?


https://www.hdtracks.com/brahms-the-four-symphonies


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Haydn67 said:


> Where there is more than one version mentioned, no necessary order of preference:
> 
> Symphony No. 1: Klemperer/Philharmonia (stereo) and Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw (stereo)
> Symphony No. 2: Walter/New York Philharmonic (mono)
> Symphony No. 3: Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic (stereo)
> Symphony No. 4: Walter/Columbia Symphony (stereo); Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw (stereo) and Kurt Sanderling/Dresden Staatskapelle (stereo)


Good call on the Kempe 3rd. That is one of the most solid stereo sets around, right up there with Abbado, Jochum, Karajan, Walter, and Klemperer. Van Beinum is also great, though I think the 2nd is in mono.

The greatest pre-stereo sets I know are Furtwängler (Music & Arts), Weingartner, Toscanini's 1942-43 NBC cycle (Music & Arts), Jochum/BPO (DG), and Walter/NYPO.


----------



## D Smith

Interesting list, Brahmsianhorn. I will have to revisit the Bernstein 1st. I bought that set a while ago and I liked it but didn't love it, at the time anyway. I agree with your choices as well as the other posters, but I'm surprised not to see Gunter Wand mentioned, who is a fine Brahms conductor. I also love Skrowaczewski, but he may be too 'leisurely' for some tastes.


----------



## jegreenwood

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.hdtracks.com/brahms-the-four-symphonies


Thanks!

Guess I needed to search for Brahms Berliner, not for Brahms Karajan.

I'll pick it up the next time HDTracks has it on sale.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

jegreenwood said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Guess I needed to search for Brahms Berliner, not for Brahms Karajan.
> 
> I'll pick it up the next time HDTracks has it on sale.


You won't be disappointed. I've been listening all day since this thread started. The sound quality is exceptional and the interpretations are exciting.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good call on the Kempe 3rd. That is one of the most solid stereo sets around, right up there with Abbado, Jochum, Karajan, Walter, and Klemperer. Van Beinum is also great, though I think the 2nd is in mono.
> 
> The greatest pre-stereo sets I know are Furtwängler (Music & Arts), Weingartner, Toscanini's 1942-43 NBC cycle (Music & Arts), Jochum/BPO (DG), and Walter/NYPO.


As you know, Kempe recorded Brahms sets with both the Berlin and Munich Philharmonics. Of all eight performances, his Berlin Third is the only one I find thoroughly satisfying.

As far as complete stereo sets go, Walter/Columbia, Klemperer/Philharmonia and Jochum/London Philharmonic are my preferences.

Top choices in mono for me are Jochum/Berlin, Walter/New York Philharmonic and Weingartner/London Philharmonic/London Symphony.

....Tracking back to your comment on the Van Beinum set, just to clarify, not only was his Brahms 2 recorded in mono, but his Brahms 3 was as well. I still own both of those lps. The Third was coupled with the Mendelssohn "Italian" Symphony. I still consider VB's interpretation of that latter piece to be one of the finest Mendelssohn 4ths ever made.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Wow, just listened to Beecham’s RPO 2nd on EMI. It is off the charts good and in excellent sound. One of the best I’ve heard.


----------



## jim prideaux

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, just listened to Beecham's RPO 2nd on EMI. It is off the charts good and in excellent sound. One of the best I've heard.


help me out if you will.......is the recording you mention the 1957 Edinburgh Festival performance on BBC label that is coupled with Beethoven's 2nd....I cannot find an EMI recording!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

jim prideaux said:


> help me out if you will.......is the recording you mention the 1957 Edinburgh Festival performance on BBC label that is coupled with Beethoven's 2nd....I cannot find an EMI recording!


No, not that one. This is a studio EMI recorded a year or two later.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Here you go, Jim! Beecham's on EMI:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brahms-Sym...rahms+beecham&qid=1557332402&s=gateway&sr=8-3


----------



## Merl

I like all the recordings you mentioned Bhs except one. I've never been able to enjoy Bernstein's VPO cycle (in the same way I don't like his LvB VPO cycle). It's really tough picking out individual recordings as I tend to play Brahms in cycles. Currently I'm revisiting Dohnanyi and Cleveland (an excellent set that some will like for its bright, crisp, driven qualities whilst others may think its a bit too lean for their tastes) . The Kleiber 4th is definitely a special recording though and Jochum's 1st, Van Beinum's 4th, Levine's Chicago 3rd and Sanderling's superb 3rd are awesome. I have so many Brahms cycles it's hard to pick favourites, tbh. I would urge people to give Belohlavek's cycle a try though. It's quite rustic (almost Dvorakian in parts) and met with some marmite reviews upon release but the playing of the Czech PO is a delight. As I said, some will love its quite traditional tempi and gorgeous playing whilst others won't take to it... Give it a go though. You can't go wrong with Walter's first (or 2nd) cycles either. Walter has a real tender way with Brahms that is quite beautiful at times. Levine has always been my go-to set though and Wand and Skrowaczewski are consistently terrific throughout.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Merl said:


> You can't go wrong with Walter's first (or 2nd) cycles either. Walter has a real tender way with Brahms that is quite beautiful at times.


Absolutely! I have no trouble happily seconding that.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Nice thread, Brahmsianhorn!

I got really impressed by the andante of:







This particular recording of this andante of Brahms 3 wraps up Brahms for me entirely.

I love Brahms 2 (DVD) by Kleiber and of course I agree wit you about the energetic 4th of Kleiber

3 as a whole work, I always have Karajan 63 as my number one

I will go listen to Abbado as he is so widely recommended here. I didn't see any Wand Recording here, I do like his style and will also dive into Wand's Brahms. At a first listen of Brahms 1, first part, I prefer Wand over Abbado and Bernstein.

As to Brahms 1, I just didn't find my all time favourite recording.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I am not a fan of LB’s 3rd or 4th. Too pulled around for me, especially the 3rd. The 2nd is a more natural interpretation.

As I stated earlier, LB’s 1st presents a special case for me. There are moments - most infamously in the final coda - where the tempo fluctuations are such a departure from the norm as to be dumbfounding. But if you suspend preconceptions, I think this is really one of the greatest 1sts. There is an angst and depth you don’t find in most other recordings. For a symphony modeled after Beethoven’s 9th, I think that works quite well. 

Go for Karajan ‘64 to hear a top notch conventional interpretation. Go for Bernstein to hear the passionate emotions of the work fully revealed.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am not a fan of LvB's 3rd or 4th. Too pulled around for me, especially the 3rd. The 2nd is a more natural interpretation.


I assume that you're talking about Bernstein, not Beethoven, yes?


----------



## Heck148

#1 - Toscanini/NBC, Solti/CSO, Wand /CSO is really good, too

#2 - Monteux/LSO, Bernstein/NYPO, Reiner/NYPO [live 3/60]

#3 - Reiner/CSO, Szell/CO, Walter/ ColSO

#4 - Toscanini/NBC, Reiner/RoyPO


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I assume that you're talking about Bernstein, not Beethoven, yes?


Ha! I may have actually crossed HvK and LB in my head


----------



## science

The recording of #4 that is included in the Karajan 80s cycle is actually the recording from the 60s cycle. Either he didn't get around to it, or he thought Kleiber's recording should go there. Anyway, I'd be happy with Abbado or Karajan 60s 123 and Kleiber 4.


----------



## Enthusiast

Is our adulation of Kleiber's every baton waggle because his recordings were not that many? I am often indifferent or worse to frequently praised Kleiber recordings (I think his Schubert Unfinished is ordinary compared to many out there and his Schubert 3 is deeply unsympathetic to the music, for example) but do agree his Brahms 4 is a great one. But there _are _others. It doesn't sweep the board and is, in any case, a rather individual account. He goes for thrills ... and gets them.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> Is our adulation of Kleiber's every baton waggle because his recordings were not that many? I am often indifferent or worse to frequently praised Kleiber recordings (I think his Schubert Unfinished is ordinary compared to many out there and his Schubert 3 is deeply unsympathetic to the music, for example) but do agree his Brahms 4 is a great one. But there _are _others. It doesn't sweep the board and is, in any case, a rather individual account. He goes for thrills ... and gets them.


It is all a matter of taste


----------



## Enthusiast

As always. Still, I feel taste goes overboard when his failures and also-rans are celebrated and his good ones end up pushing out good alternative views.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

science said:


> The recording of #4 that is included in the Karajan 80s cycle is actually the recording from the 60s cycle. Either he didn't get around to it, or he thought Kleiber's recording should go there. Anyway, I'd be happy with Abbado or Karajan 60s 123 and Kleiber 4.


Karajan recorded the 4th in the 80s. For whatever reason it wasn't put in that collection (it sounds superb).

https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symphony-No-Minor-Op/dp/B003R8V4L6/


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> As always. Still, I feel taste goes overboard when his failures and also-rans are celebrated and his good ones end up pushing out good alternative views.


Taste is irrational, always stays on board and is decisive in what are supposed hits and failures


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I don't think that is right. Taste is about discriminating. What you are describing is more like worship. That's OK but if it causes other views to be missed or ignored then it impoverishes you.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't think that is right. Taste is about discriminating. What you are describing is more like worship. That's OK but if it causes other views to be missed or ignored then it impoverishes you.


You're getting it wrong here. Every choice or preference is discriminating, be it here for one or another recording. As you and I obviously have a different taste, we are both ignoring other views and end up with our own views. Such is life. It becomes a bit awkward if not sad when you are trying to regard your own taste supreme over mine (or anyone else for that matter). As if your taste is 'better' than mine.:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

^ No, actually I am only responding to your words. You described worship when you said



> Taste is irrational, always stays on board and is decisive in what are supposed hits and failures


I'm merely describing my taste in saying that I revere some of his recordings (but not above all others) and dislike some others. You may disagree with that. Fair enough. But the reason I came to posting about Kleiber is because I am uncomfortable with the idea that he is without peer. I disagree with that sentiment and also do feel it can't be sustained. I am always uncomfortable with the idea that there is a "best" for much-recorded masterpieces. The idea seems to reject the greatness of the music which has so much in it that no one account can catch it all.

I have also argued that many of Kleiber's recordings do not even get close to being among the best. You may disagree with that which is fair enough.


----------



## jim prideaux

Skrowaczeski and the two Sanderling cycles ( Kurt in Dresden and Berlin).......if it is in fact a matter of taste then they are the three cycles I would find myself playing with the greatest frequency, along with Mackerras.

I do find it interesting how opinions and perceptions do vary.My initial exposure to the 2nd was with Giulini and the VPO and the work just never really 'clicked'-and yet I now read various comments about that cycle which are highly appreciative.

(oh and Bruno Walter and the CSO recording of the 2nd and 3rd)

and I forgot to mention Michael Gielen.


----------



## Heck148

D Smith said:


> .....I'm surprised not to see Gunter Wand mentioned, who is a fine Brahms conductor.


I mentioned his Brahms #1 with Chicago - fine recording...



> I also love Skrowaczewski, but he may be too 'leisurely' for some tastes.


Best Brahms #3 I've ever heard was live at Saratoga Performing Arts Center many years back - Skrowaczewski/Philadelphia...

they got it all...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't think that is right. Taste is about discriminating. What you are describing is more like worship. That's OK but if it causes other views to be missed or ignored then it impoverishes you.


As I said in my OP, I sampled as many Brahms recordings as I could the past month. Kleiber's 4th came out on top among stereo versions for the reasons I stated. It is rivaled only by Furtwängler and Toscanini IMO.

Reiner/RPO is a uniquely beautiful account, though not quite as intense in the finale.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ As I have explained, I don't hear recorded performances of great music as having a best. Choosing one by rejecting all others involves missing so much. And approaching great music as having a prescribed way - "this is how it is supposed to be" - is a gross simplification of what great music can be. I have noted that Kleiber's Brahms 4 is a great recording but there _are _others that tell us different things about the music. Give me a rich variety of successful performances any day.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> Choosing one by rejecting all others involves missing so much.


I don't think anyone is saying this. Off the top of my head, the recordings of the Brahms 4 on my shelf included 4 Furtwänglers, 3 Toscaninis, Weingartner, Stokowski, De Sabata, Reiner, 2 Walters, Klemperer, Kleiber, 2 Jochums, Barenboim, Abbado, and a soon to be ordered Van Beinum.

Celebrating the merits and greatness of a particular recording does not mean all others lose their significance.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ It is the idea that one or two can "come out on top" that I was questioning.


----------



## D Smith

I too have a problem ranking recordings in general. I prefer to group them in a top tier, which can be decidedly elastic in size. My top tier of Brahms' 4th, for example, would include at least 10 recordings I'm sure, probably more, but I don't attempt to rank them within that group as I love them all for different reasons. These types of discussions are very useful however for pointing out recordings I am unfamiliar with or haven't listened to in a long time, and it's always fascinating to see how differently people can hear the same performance.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, that's how I am too. And I do value recommendations of slightly off the beat candidates (and don't care at all if the recommender call _them _the best).


----------



## jegreenwood

MatthewWeflen said:


> You won't be disappointed. I've been listening all day since this thread started. The sound quality is exceptional and the interpretations are exciting.


Found it at Presto for much less than HDTracks - even on sale.

That was comparing Hi-Rez to Hi-Rez. If you're happy with CD quality or MP3, the price is even less.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Obviously with all the recordings I own I find value in many more than just one. To date, the only Brahms symphony recordings I recall selling off have been the Sanderling/Dresden set, which I found to be well played but rather dull comparatively.

I do rankings just for fun. Just like ranking your favorite cities does not mean you think all the rest should be destroyed.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Reiner/RPO is a uniquely beautiful account, though not quite as intense in the finale.


I love how Reiner's performance "grows" as it progresses...each movement seems to take it higher, then he really cuts loose in the finale, after the middle, chorale section....tremendous power, and clarity....Toscanini's is much the same....


----------



## Merl

I agree that it's difficult or foreign to some people to rank performances but others find it useful to do as an organisational tool and some readers can find recordings they are unfamiliar with and I do take account of those with similar tastes to mine. Personally I've no problems with those who rank performances. It's a personal preference ans some people really like doing it. Who are we to say that's wrong?


----------



## nospoonboy

*Brahms symphonies ranked*

I recently went through and compared all of my Brahms recordings (I have over 40 cycles)...these were the results ranked for each symphony.

*1st*
Sieghart (Exton)
Krivine (Denon)
Jochum (EMI Japan with London)
Nelsons (BSO Live)
Solti (Decca)
Kobayashi (Exton)
Rattle (EMI)
Albrecht (Exton)
Venzago (Sony)

*2nd*
Ticciati (Linn)
Albrecht (Exton)
Mackerras (Telarc)
Kubelik (Orfeo)
Jurowski (LSO)
Jochum (EMI Japan with London)

*3rd*
Janowski (Pentatone)
Albrecht (Exton)
Kubelik (Orfeo)
Chailly (Decca)
Sawallisch (Philips)
Jochum (EMI Japan with London)
Solti (Decca)

*4th*
Thielemann (DG)
Gardiner (Soli Deo Gloria)
Albrecht (Exton)
Orozco-Estrada (Oehms)
Ticciati (Linn)
Sieghart (Exton)
Kleiber (DG)


----------



## happyclassicalfeet

Kleiber 4 with VPO is choppy. 
1: Chailly, Leipzig Gewandhaus
2: Masur, Gewandhaus/Bohm VPO
3: Reiner, CSO
4: Chailly, Gewandhaus


----------



## Phil loves classical

happyclassicalfeet said:


> Kleiber 4 with VPO is choppy.
> 1: Chailly, Leipzig Gewandhaus
> 2: Masur, Gewandhaus/Bohm VPO
> 3: Reiner, CSO
> 4: Chailly, Gewandhaus


Agree about Kleiber's 4th. I find it indecent. Klemperer is much more to my taste. I'll try out the Chailly.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

My default response would be the Otto Klemperer cycle with the Philharmonia on EMI/Warner’s. It has been my favourite overall set from first listen. The sound and performance of the Orchestra, the recording and Klemperer’s interpretations are superb for my tastes.

Skrowaczewski, Bernstein (Vienna), Wand, Celibidache (both Munich and Italian cycles), Boult and Abbado (Berlin) cycles also come to mind but not before Klemperer.

Piecing together an ideal cycle from individual performances is difficult because my choices will likely change often. There are so many superb performances to choose from. 

At this moment, I would choose the following trying to avoid duplication:
Symphony No.1: Otto Klemperer & the Philharmonia 
Symphony No.2: Pierre Monteux & the London Symphony Orchestra 
Symphony No.3: Adrian Boult & the BBC Symphony Orchestra (ICA Classics Live Recording)
Symphony No.4: Leopold Stokowski & the New Philharmonia (BBC Legends Live Recording)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

1: Horenstein/LSO - A no-nonsense reading but with incredible reserves of power and dedication. Just a performance that feels so darned _satisfying._ I could just as well go with Böhm/VPO, Furtwängler/NDRS, or either Jochum.

2: Klemperer/Philharmonia - I find Otto a bit too stolid in the 1st and lethargic in the 4th (though I still like them a lot); IMO the 2nd and 3rd are where he really scores. I love how he lets rip in the finale and just lets his orchestra do its thing. Kleiber/VPO on video is also really superb, without the hyper-steroid overload that I feel he often injects: 




3: Kempe/BPO - One of the most gripping performances of anything I've ever heard; the outer movements have white heat and the middle movements are gorgeous without being sappy. Walter would probably be my runner-up, most likely one of the earlier versions before he mellowed out in the stereo recording.

4: Abbado/BPO: Yes, I like the famous Kleiber for its searing excitement, but too often I think he sounds a bit superficial. Abbado sounds more natural. Lots of lushness but IMO more unforced pacing and phrasing. But the most astounding to my preference is Furtwängler.


----------



## consuono

Merl said:


> I agree that it's difficult or foreign to some people to rank performances but others find it useful to do as an organisational tool and some readers can find recordings they are unfamiliar with and I do take account of those with similar tastes to mine. Personally I've no problems with those who rank performances. It's a personal preference ans some people really like doing it. Who are we to say that's wrong?


It's also human nature.


----------



## SearsPoncho

Brahms 1: Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic; Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic (60's)


Brahms 2: Walter/Columbia Symphony; Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic (80's); Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic


Brahms 3: Abbado/Berlin Philharmonic; Walter/Columbia Symphony; Mehta/New York Philharmonic


Brahms 4: C. Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic; Szell/Cleveland Orchestra


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Considering both sound and performance, my favorite Brahms symphony cycles are: 
1. Karajan 1980s DG
2. Kertesz VPO 
3. Karl Bohm DG
4. Abbado DG
Many may prefer Karajan's earlier sets, but I like his last cycle more, because it has a bit more details and breathing and better balance between instruments in certain sections. His 1960s cycle is a bit too straight forward and in his 1970s the brass sounds a bit dominant (such as in the last movement of the 4th).
The famous Kleiber's 4th is a bit overrated for me. His approach is generally fast-paced and a bit light-weighted which does not fit into this symphony very well. For example, at the end of the first movement, Kleiber does not use an obvious Ritardando as most conductors do. Also, the last movement sounds a bit rush.
Sanderling with Dresden is excellent in terms of performance, but the sound is overdone for both high and low frequency (sounds exaggerated).
Szell's interpretation is generally good, but a bit too straight forward for me. Also, the recordings sound a bit dry and edgy.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Updated favorites (in stereo only):

Symphony 1

Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw
Klemperer/Philharmonia Orchestra
Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra (1959 version)

Symphony 2

Monteux/London Symphony
Walter/Columbia Symphony
Steinberg/Pittsburgh Symphony

Symphony 3

Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic
Barbirolli/Vienna Philharmonic
Solti/Chicago Symphony

Symphony 4

Walter/Columbia Symphony
Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw
Reiner/Royal Philharmonic


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Since my OP two years ago I have come around to seeing Karajan’s more conventional 1964 1st as a better stereo first choice, though I still treasure the dramatic Bernstein/VPO.

And for top choice in the 2nd I have to say Klemperer is one of the few that give the symphony a degree of muscularity that really helps maintain interest. This is one work where I feel Abbado/BPO gets tedious with all the lush playing.

I would also add a couple of more 3rds to my list:

- Karajan/VPO from 1961 is beautifully played and unerring in its pacing.

- Reiner/CSO is a delight from start to finish, just a great example of how to maintain unforced lyricism


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Spot on regarding Karajan's 1960s recording of the 1st. I don't think there's a recording of any mainstream symphony that I've enjoyed more for a longer period of time, and the 1st isn't even my favourite Brahms symphony, which would be no.3 Klemperer my pick for that one).


----------



## Animal the Drummer

[Duplicate post]


----------



## Granate

1. Wand CSO
2. Kubelík WPO
3. Doráti LSO
4. Jochum LPO

Wait, so wasn't this thread about the game of choosing four different conductors and four different orchestras? *facepalm*


----------



## Enthusiast

consuono said:


> It's also human nature.


I may not be human, then! If you know twenty, thirty, forty performances of a great work can it really be that one single one is better that all the others and that another single one is better than all the others bar that top one? All I can do is say "I like these ten (or even fifteen) or so more than others that I have heard" and "these ten or so really sound like unsuccessful accounts to me" (with many more between these extremes). I would expect my choices to all be very different from each other.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Merl said:


> Personally I've no problems with those who rank performances. It's a personal preference and some people really like doing it. Who are we to say that's wrong?


Ditto.You're on the money, Merl. :cheers:


----------



## SanAntone

I don't rank recordings in general but have definite preferences for HIP/PI recordings. Regarding Brahms symphonies this means the Gardiner, Manze and Dausgaard sets.

I used to collect multiple complete sets of sonatas or other works for a couple of composers (Haydn, Beethoven) or works (_Pelleas et Melisande_; Durufle _Requiem_, Machaut _Messe de Nostre Dame_). Now that I listen mainly via streaming, there's no need for collecting anymore.


----------



## wkasimer

SanAntone said:


> I don't rank recordings in general.


Neither do I. First, I'm not sure how to rank them, because there are so many aspects - orchestral quality, conductorial interpretation, sonic quality, etc. - that are impossible to balance. Second, I find that ranking recordings such a chore that it spoils my enjoyment of the music.


----------



## larold

No selection would be perfect; here are some of my favorites:









Ancerl's dramatic first symphony has been described as "youthful" as opposed to philosophical. He gets to it and doesn't dawdle.









From Haitink's set with Concertgebouw Orchestra, glorious sound and relaxed performances.









Furtwangler and Berlin Philharmonic from October 24 - 1948, a lot better recording (Japanese EMI) than on Naxos. There was an earlier EMI transfer that muddied the great finale. This one is much better.

Some of my other favorite 4ths:

-- Furtwangler/BPO 1949 from Wiesbaden on tahra.
-- Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt with Brahms' hometown orchestra, Northwest German Radio Orchestra Hamburg, from 1968 seen on numerous labels including Vox LP.


----------



## happyclassicalfeet

I have changed my mind. Reiner RPO is the definitive Brahms 4 recording. By a distance. Reiner is a God.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

happyclassicalfeet said:


> I have changed my mind. Reiner RPO is the definitive Brahms 4 recording. By a distance. Reiner is a God.


I wouldn't necessarily call it "definitive" - could use a bit more life in the final movement - but one of the best for sure. Very beautifully played and recorded, and naturally paced by Reiner.


----------



## Enthusiast

happyclassicalfeet said:


> I have changed my mind. Reiner RPO is the definitive Brahms 4 recording. By a distance. *Reiner is a God*.


But he hasn't recorded much recently.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Current preferences:

Individual--stereo only

Symphony 1: Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw
Symphony 2: Monteux/London Symphony
Symphony 3: Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic
Symphony 4: Van Beinum/Amsterdam or Walter/Columbia Symphony

Other favorites stereo---

1) Klemperer/Philharmonia and Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra (1959)
2) Walter/Columbia and Jochum/London Philharmonic
3) Barbirolli/Vienna Philharmonic, Solti/Chicago Symphony and Walter/Columbia
4) see above
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Individual mono only favorites

Symphony 1: Walter/New York Philharmonic
Symphony 2: Walter/New York Phil. and Van Beinum/Amsterdam
Symphony 3: Jochum/Berlin Philharmonic and Weingartner/London Philharmonic
Symphony 4: Abendroth/Symphony Orchestra of the Middle German Radio (1950)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Favorite regular complete sets in stereo:

Walter/Columbia Symphony
Klemperer/Philharmonia
Jochum/London Philharmonic
-------------------------------------------
Favorite regular complete sets in mono: 

Walter/New York
Jochum/Berlin Philharmonic
Weingartner/London Symphony and London Philharmonic
-------------------------------------------
Additional favorite in both stereo (#s 1 and 4) and mono (#s 2 and 3):

Van Beinum/Amsterdam Concertgebouw


----------



## Heck148

happyclassicalfeet said:


> I have changed my mind. Reiner RPO is the definitive Brahms 4 recording. By a distance. Reiner is a God.


The Reiner/RPO performance is really great...along with Toscanin/NBC my favorites....The Reiner builds, thru each movement, so by the finale it's pretty cosmic....like Toscanini he really gives the orchestra the greenlight after the quiet, chorale-like middle section of the finale....terrific eruption of sound and excitement, delivered with power and precision....Kleiber, Solti and Furtwangler are definitely worthy of honorable mention as well...


----------



## Heck148

The Monteux/LSO Brahms 2 is really a great performance, exquisitely played and conducted, a standout in a crowded field....balances, dynamics, dramatic flow...all there...
It's my favorite along with the thrilling, live Reiner/NYPO from 3/60....this is great, live recording, the orchestra going full bore....the audience goes understandably nuts at the end...it must have been something live in the hall.


----------



## cybernaut

I can't pick favorites for particular symphonies....but I will say that Walter, Szell and Klemperer usually work great for me.

For a living conductor, I like Sieghart.


----------



## julide

abbado for the beautiful sound


----------



## perempe

happyclassicalfeet said:


> I have changed my mind. Reiner RPO is the definitive Brahms 4 recording. By a distance. Reiner is a God.


Unfortunately I don't have it, but it's on YouTube. Couldn't agree more.

I have Horenstein's Brahms Symphony No. 1, but some parts are too quiet for me.


----------



## Knorf

Choosing an "ideal" Brahms cycle seems like a near impossible task, unless you realize that no one conductor can possibly have all the answers to the questions those symphonies raise. Anyone wishing to "dig in" really needs multiple sets with different approaches. 

For me, there are few especially competitive candidates for an "ideal" cycle with American orchestras, excepting Walter/Columbia, one of the best ever. Having said that, Szell/Cleveland is well worth a listen. Merl is a strong advocate for Dohnányi/Cleveland, so I know I should give that one another listen someday.

Reiner is worth a go if you think Brahms should be conducted much the way your average schoolyard bully clobbers smaller children. 

I think the cycle I'm recommending as a first choice most often these days is Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken, but Abbado or Karajan* with Berlin, not to mention Wand with NDR, or Klemperer/Philharmonia, are certainly in the mix. I'm also very fond of Chailly/Gewandhaus, for an example of a superb performance influenced by the "Meiningen Tradition." 

*I'm beyond undecided as to which Karajan/Berlin cycle is my fave...

YMMV


----------



## cybernaut

Knorf said:


> Choosing an "ideal" Brahms cycle seems like a near impossible task, unless you realize that no one conductor can possibly have all the answers to the questions those symphonies raise. Anyone wishing to "dig in" really needs multiple sets with different approaches.


Precisely.

Just compare the Brahms 1st of Mackerass with Celibidache's and you will see just how huge a difference there can be in interpretation. And since it all comes down to a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong...or ideal. Just personal preferences.

I personally LOVE having a variety to choose from.


----------



## Knorf

cybernaut said:


> I personally LOVE having a variety to choose from.


As do I! Curiosity & imagination lead to rich experiences.


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> Reiner is worth a go if you think Brahms should be conducted much the way your average schoolyard bully clobbers smaller children.


That made me laugh. I do actually like what I have heard of Reiner's Brahms but his approach to Brahms is not very ... Brahmsian.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> That made me laugh. I do actually like what I have heard of Reiner's Brahms but his approach to Brahms is not very ... Brahmsian.


It's true that the Reiner/Toscanini/Solti tendency towards being robotic and metronomic is the opposite of Brahmsian warmth and sensitivity. They don't have the natural feel for it that conductors like Furtwängler, Abbado, Jochum, Karajan, and Kempe had, and that is why I would never recommend them as a first choice. Still, Reiner in the 3rd and 4th, and Toscanini in the 4th, have their lyrical moments such that they are worth hearing as alternatives.

However, I cannot forgive Reiner's cold, soulless treatment of my favorite piece of all time, the Brahms Violin Concerto. His vastly overrated collaboration with Heifetz manages to suck the heart out of this beautifully probing work and make it sound like a mechanical exercise. And I cannot blame Heifetz entirely, even though he was also known for cold playing, because he did a beautifully poetic version with Koussevitzky that counts among the best.


----------



## Heck148

Interesting....what is "Brahmsian"??
it's true that Toscanini, Reiner, Solti, Monteux do not play Brahms in the Teutonic fashion, which to me, is all too often, thick, murky, plodding and a bit stodgy...
the inner voices, the counter melodies are crucial....and Toscanini etc al, excel and bring these out, and while also providing great propulsion and drama..wonderfully expressive, as well...try the middle mvts of Reiner/CSO Brahms 3, 4/II, or "Tragic Overture" - the 2nd, legato, chorale-like theme is played so beautifully, cantabile flowing...really marvelous, non pareil....
..there is nothing robotical, mechanical, metronomic, cold or lifeless about any Toscanini, Reiner, Solti performance that I've ever heard....precision does not negate, or deny "espressivo" or passion....if anything, if enhances it.
Murky sloppiness does not necessarily equate with "molto espressivo".


----------



## Merl

Solti's Brahms is very underrated, IMO. Most people would expect him to give it a bit of a heavyhanded clobbering but he's very laid-back and ellicits some lovely, warm playing from the CSO. Just saying. I prefer Levine though.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> Solti's Brahms is very underrated, IMO. Most people would expect him to give it a bit of a heavyhanded clobbering but he's very laid-back and ellicits some lovely, warm playing from the CSO. Just saying. I prefer Levine though.


I think I mostly agree. Solti's Brahms is inoffensive, nothing special, but Levine achieved more.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> However, I cannot forgive Reiner's cold, soulless treatment of my favorite piece of all time, the Brahms Violin Concerto. His vastly overrated collaboration with Heifetz manages to suck the heart out of this beautifully probing work and make it sound like a mechanical exercise. And I cannot blame Heifetz entirely, even though he was also known for cold playing, because he did a beautifully poetic version with Koussevitzky that counts among the best.


I agree with your first paragraph, but not this one. I don't hear this recording as anything even emotely resembling "a mechanical exercise." That criticism to me seems totally overblown and unfair. For me, Reiner is usually a lot better when accompanying the likes of Heifetz or Rubinstein! And I love this recording! I love it's lucidity and poetry.


----------



## Highwayman

Heck148 said:


> Interesting....what is "Brahmsian"??
> it's true that Toscanini, Reiner, Solti, Monteux do not play Brahms in the Teutonic fashion ...


I really do not understand what is Monteux doing there. I hear no similarities between him and those three, especially with Brahms. In fact, I would rather group him alongside the "Teutons". I won`t get deep into the "Brahmsian" argument since it`s a far too ambiguous concept. To me, the Brahmsian concept has different subcategories to it like sound or temperament. My ideal Brahmsian sound is that thick sound as you are probably imagining plus screechy high-notes but the more important thing is the Brahmsian temperament which is the most important quality these three conductors in particular miss. To me, it`s not necessarily about warmth as Brahmsianhorn identifies it. Brahms`s music must be alive, it must have the forward momentum as all living beings. It does not mean it should be fast, conductors like Sanderling or Skrowaczewski get this with relatively slow tempi. Precision may not kill the Brahmsian temperament but it surely is not a friend of it. The term precision gives me the impression that it`s predictable and predictability is the arch nemesis of Brahms. Life is not predictable itself nor should be Brahms.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Reiner, Solti, Szell all learned music in the same "teutonic" (rather Germano-austro-hungarian) musical culture and tradition Brahms spent most of his life in. They are culturally as close to Brahms as Klemperer or Furtwängler, i.e. the differences between them are all part of the same culture and tradition, I'd say.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> I don't hear this recording [Heifetz/Reiner/Brahms VC]as anything even emotely resembling "a mechanical exercise." That criticism to me seems totally overblown and unfair. For me, Reiner is usually a lot better when accompanying the likes of Heifetz or Rubinstein! And I love this recording! I love it's lucidity and poetry.


Yes!! Great recording...I like Szeryng/Monteux also...Brahms was Monteux's favorite composer


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> That made me laugh. I do actually like what I have heard of Reiner's Brahms but his approach to Brahms is not very ... Brahmsian.


I hope it's clear my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. But I'm just not a Reiner fan in general...


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ Yes, I got it 100%. I do like much of Reiner's work - including his Brahms 3 (not so much the RPO Brahms 4, though) - and am struck by how many records of astonishing performances he made while at the same time hardly ever finding his work among my favourites for the works in question! He can drive things to hard (but that can be really exciting) and I often find him a little cold (his otherwise excellent Mahler 4 is an example).


----------



## Knorf

I admit I get a bit triggered by stuff like "Reiner was a GOD!!!!!1"

No, he was not. Reiner was just a conductor. He was also a very ugly man to all reports (and I don't mean his physical appearance); he was often known to be vindictive, petty, and just plain mean, a mean person who made mean music. Like I said, not a fan, because I rarely hear his performances as transcending his basic meanness.

BTW: I'm not expecting conductors or other musicians to always be nice people, necessarily. But to me, a lot of Reiner's interpretations sound like his personality. And he was _just a conductor_. They get way more credit than they deserve. So when I read "Reiner was a GOD," my response is   :lol:

On the other, if you told me Martha Argerich was a god, I'd be, "well you make a compelling argument!"

YMMV.

But, yeah, Enthusiast, I basically agree with you and feel the same.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I agree with your first paragraph, but not this one. I don't hear this recording as anything even emotely resembling "a mechanical exercise." That criticism to me seems totally overblown and unfair. For me, Reiner is usually a lot better when accompanying the likes of Heifetz or Rubinstein! And I love this recording! I love it's lucidity and poetry.


It sounds to me like they're showing off how fast they can play it. Give me Neveu, Krebbers, or Perlman for poetry.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Highwayman said:


> I really do not understand what is Monteux doing there. I hear no similarities between him and those three, especially with Brahms. In fact, I would rather group him alongside the "Teutons"..


Same here. Monteux was great in Brahms.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Same here. Monteux was great in Brahms.


Brahms was Monteux's favorite composer...with Monteux, there is always a transparency clarity along with a buoyancy...."lightness" does not do justice Monteux could bring great power and weight where needed....to me Monteux and Reiner were 2 conductors who always make a convincing case...they had musical instinct, talent that enabled them to consistently be "in the right ballpark" musically...
Totally different personalities - Monteux was courteous, generous to his musicians, Reiner was a nasty domineering sob....but they sure produced great music....musicians would play their best for them.


----------



## Parley

Knorf said:


> I admit I get a bit triggered by stuff like "Reiner was a GOD!!!!!1"
> 
> No, he was not. Reiner was just a conductor. He was also a very ugly man to all reports (and I don't mean his physical appearance); he was often known to be vindictive, petty, and just plain mean, a mean person who made mean music. Like I said, not a fan, because I rarely hear his performances as transcending his basic meanness.
> 
> BTW: I'm not expecting conductors or other musicians to always be nice people, necessarily. But to me, a lot of Reiner's interpretations sound like his personality. And he was _just a conductor_. They get way more credit than they deserve. So when I read "Reiner was a GOD," my response is   :lol:
> 
> On the other, if you told me Martha Argerich was a god, I'd be, "well you make a compelling argument!"
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> But, yeah, Enthusiast, I basically agree with you and feel the same.


It is said that Reiner looked like the film star Bela Lugosi's brother - and acted like him too!


----------



## Heck148

Many of the greatest conductors of previous times were not very nice people- Rodzinski, Reiner, Szell, Toscanini, Stokowski, Koussevitsky, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Boult were a few that were not going to be named "Mr. Congeniality".....
But musicians are like athletes in a way...everyone likes to play on a winning team, even if the coach is a real pr*ck.....


----------



## haziz

I am no expert when it comes to Brahms, however I do enjoy the entire cycles by the following conductors in no particular order:

Jochum/LPO
Abbado
Wand
Kurt Sanderling
Karajan
Walter
Klemperer


----------



## geralmar

Brahms Symphony 1, Kondrashin, Moscow Large Radio Orchestra (196?). L.P.

I have no Brahms expertise; however I usually think of him in lush, heavy string sound-- which is why I like as the antidote the raw, bracing orchestral sound of the 1960s Russian orchestra. (I miss when orchestras had "national" sound characteristics.) Anyway, while it might not be regulation Brahms, a Russian orchestra playing Brahms before international homonization set in is worth a listen. I doubt Brahms would have approved.


----------



## Becca

I am not much of a Brahms fan, particularly the symphonies, however when I do listen to them it has generally been the Klemperer set. That said, I've been quite impressed with Blomstedt's very recent 1st & 2nd with the Leipzig Gewandhaus and am hoping that the other 2 will be on the way before long.


----------



## MarkW

The ideal Brahms symphony cycle should have been written by Brahms.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Heck148 said:


> Many of the greatest conductors of previous times were not very nice people- Rodzinski, Reiner, Szell, Toscanini, Stokowski, Koussevitsky, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Boult were a few that were not going to be named "Mr. Congeniality".....
> But musicians are like athletes in a way...everyone likes to play on a winning team, even if the coach is a real pr*ck.....


My piano teacher knew Boult and didn't have a problem with him. He described him as reserved but not unfriendly.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Animal the Drummer said:


> My piano teacher knew Boult and didn't have a problem with him. He described him as reserved but not unfriendly.


That's quite sociable for the English.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

This thread has been helpful to me. I'm no expert on anything here but I love all four Brahms symphonies. I just picked up the Bruno Walter stereo cycle after re-reading this thread and it is really beautiful. I have Klemperer, Walter, Giulini and Alsop for complete cycles, and the much extolled Reiner 3 and Kleiber 4. 

If I were to choose right now I'd probably say:

1. Klemperer
2-4 Walter CSO


----------

