# Blind Comparison - Symphonie Fantastique



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

After the success of my first blind comparison and just in time for the weekend and to keep you out of mischief, I offer another full symphony comparison, this time Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. Having learnt from the first, this time performance links will take you to a directory which contains sub-links to each movement for that performance.

Let me emphasize that the goal of this is not to just guess the performance (but if you want to do that, go for it!) but to offer comments and opinions about the performances without preconceived notions of the orchestra and conductor. As before, if you recognize the performance, please don't announce it and spoil the fun for others. You can always PM me with thoughts or to ask for the answers. Also as with the previous comparison, I lean strongly towards live performances and there are no obscure conductors or orchestras, beyond that you are on your own 

A - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZU8aM7ZxVd8YXB3mOk2IBWhPv4gXftdsIVy

B - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZkYaM7ZiW4UNN0WHILzNO3ukaDJb4KxLL7X

C - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZRYaM7ZU0Qcpsd0r8BVMGy4qnnxuQhryVDV

D - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZjYaM7ZKOeBRm5eEbF2oXj7du4xN537KrKk

E - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ8SaM7ZAMChsKWtNG5XSOYaGv7fJzFFunGV


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

My apologies, I apparently loaded the same set of files into both C & D. I have corrected it. That's what comes of doing things at 10pm!


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

I wonder if people are reluctant to put the many many hours that would be required into listening to Symphonie Fantastique 5 times (at least) in order to comment meaningfully on your post. Perhaps try a shorter work, like under 5 minutes.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Another member has already done some of about 15 minute length which seems to be about minimum to give a chance of getting a sense of the performance, 5 minutes would be far too short. I chose to do a full length symphony as I knew that there were folks who were interested in a different sort of challenge and I had a good response to my first comparison using the Mahler 4th symphony.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

OK, well and good. I don't really understand what you mean by getting a sense of a performance. That should be possible no matter the duration.


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

I'm going to listen to all five at least twice each. I'm an electric, water and sewer guy and I approach music much like most of you approach electric, water and sewer utilities. You don't know much about it but you greatly appreciate it. My work allows me from time to time hours in the day when I when I don't have to devote much thought to the tasks and I am able to listen to music carefully. I'm going to make a project of this, I don't know if I will be able to form a cogent opinion but if I can I will get back to you with it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Go for it ... any opinions are worth sharing.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm in Becca. Will start today. I have quire a few SFs but I bet I haven't got any of these. Lol


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Just listened to A. Four more to go. Up to now only the 4th and 5th movements grabbed my attention. I'm finding it to be a _Symphonie Bombastique_.

And why did he dedicate it to Nicolas I of Russia? The man was a reactionary lunatic.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Btw, Becca, are there any faves of yours in here or are they just 5 'randomers'?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Thanks Becca for setting up another comparison. I’ve listened to (a) and (b) so far. It will probably take a while before I can find time to listen to the rest.

berlioz-a

It would be hard not to be distracted by the sheer amount of breathing, grunting, stamping, and probably a broken gas pipe somewhere as well. Other than that I like the fluency in the quieter music, although not so much the roughness in the louder music.

The dreams and the ball are a little pedestrian. I particularly don’t like the sentimentality of the exaggerated pause and slow down in the ball.

Things get better from the Scène aux champs onwards. I like the idyllic shepherds. The loneliness depicted after the thunder is striking. 

The heavy footsteps (musically not physically) when marching to the scaffold are heart-sinking enough, the brass that rush the march on are distressing, but is that due to the not-so-beautiful playing? At least that’s effective.

The sabbath is wild and haunting. Just a bit slow, but it’s consistently slow throughout the piece.

berlioz-b

I find the playing perfumed with finesse. Overall speaking, the voltage is often not quite high enough, and it is always toned down at the beginning of a movement and only let loose at the end.

It does feel affectionate throughout.

(b) fits my perception of a “normal” performance of Symphonie Fantastique. Not much to complain about, but not very memorable either.

(a) is more memorable despite its flaws.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Just dipped my toe in with Perormance D (where I finished listening to your last comparative study). Firstly it sounds VERY familiar and almost as though I've heard this one before (I may even have it - I have lots of SFs). Older, stylish performance and a bit too restrained for me. The strings in the Marche au Supplice are nice and deep and that movement is particularly successful but the final movement didn't do it for me at all. No denying the quality of the conducting but the start and end don't have enough umph.

Edit: Just listened to the first and 2nd movements of recording A and it's another older performance. Very broad first movement that doesn't quite get going but the 2nd is much better (apart from a strange anomaly I picked up that didn't sound right....don't ask - I'm crap on discussing musical terms). Agreed with a previous comment about the extraneous noises from the conductor. Lots of groaning and grunting. Sounds like he's got severe stomach ache. Currently halfway through and it's definitely improving. Live performance.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Just finished Recording A, Becca, and it's a rather broad, fraught and emotional one with a lot of tension. A decent older performance and despite the non-musical noises there are some lovely touches. The bells in the 5th movement sound particularly good.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Merl - there is one amongst them which I enjoy


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> And why did he dedicate it to Nicolas I of Russia? The man was a reactionary lunatic.


Perhaps he was sending Nicholas I a message with the Marche au Supplice :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm on the last movement of the B recording. Feels like _deja vu. _I liked this recording better, as a recording, but the music is the same. 
First movement still just sounds like something stolen from Beethoven's waste paper bin, and at 15 minutes it's too long. Second movement is a waltz, that's basically it. There are loads of better waltzes.

In recording A the third movement passed me by, but I listened more intently here. There are good bits, but it drags.

Fourth movement: pretty straightforward and short.

As you'll know from my attempt to scale Mount Mahler, I need extra materials alongside just listening and I read a some reviews that asked why he hadn't ended the work on the fourth movement, but the last movement is actually the best movement.

I don't know if I can even come up to scratch with regard to the premise of this thread, because up to now they sound _roughly_ the same. The music reminds me somewhat of Mahler, with its stopping and starting and grotesque dances.

I need to go away and leave this to the aficionados .


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"The music is the same" ? Wow, I hadn't noticed that :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Becca said:


> "The music is the same" ? Wow, I hadn't noticed that :lol:


Now you're just mocking me! I probably deserve it.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> First movement still just sounds like something stolen from Beethoven's waste paper bin . . .


Doesn't sound like Beethoven to me. Which pieces?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

amfortas said:


> Doesn't sound like Beethoven to me. Which pieces?


All of them cut up and glued back together on a new sheet of paper.


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

My favorite is D, followed by A, E, B, and C.


A - first movement has a slow, lamenting introduction, main section is not vivacious, no exposition repeat, strings have some portamento, sound favors the violins, second movement waltz is moderate in speed, dignified and aristocratic, third movement flows nicely, idyllic and lyrical at first, changing to anxiety in the middle part that isn't overdone, with the last part of the movement the best - peaceful and resigned, march to the scaffold is straightforward without exaggeration, the oddities and originality of the score are not emphasized, final movement takes a slow tempo, interesting in its clarity but everything should be more feverish and volatile, bells oddly include a piano, overall the interpretation is dignified and clear but it's too slow and lacks emotional intensity, rank = 2

B - violins throughout the first movement are volatile and quickly changing in dynamics as indicated in the score, exposition is repeated, tempo is standard and so is the rest of the movement with nothing showing special insight or commitment, waltz is quick, slow movement has a gorgeous-sounding orchestra but expressive specificity is lacking, march to the scaffold is fast as is usual, exposition is repeated, coda is the best part, witches' sabbath is fast, overall the interpretation emphasizes orchestral virtuosity at the cost of emotional expressivity or musical insight, rank = 4

C - resonant sound aims for sensuality, conductor does not keep the same tempo for more than a few bars, emotionally undisciplined and unrestrained, odd melodic lines emphasized, exposition not repeated, coda is slow and solemn, waltz theme is carefully and accurately phrased, expressive possibilities are explored with a slower-than-usual tempo, unorthodox and interesting to hear once, third movement starts out fast and lacks melancholy but the middle section is slow and expressive, tempos are all over the place and are not integrated, march to the scaffold is not too fast but mood is too cheerful and lacks anything sinister, last movement is appropriately weird and spooky, bells at first include cymbals, the interpretation is too unrestrained and is interesting to hear once but not more than that, rank = 5

D - first movement introduction and first section are intense and volatile, no exposition repeat, development section speeds up in an expressive way, coda is not too slow, waltz has a prominent harp, theme is phrased musically with nuance and has a nice dance-like lilt to it, soulful english horn opens the third movement, tempo is slow but works well because it is expressively alive to the music, excellent wind soloists, march to the scaffold has a slow, steady tempo and is nicely weird and sarcastic, witches' sabbath is moderate in tempo and portrays all the varied moods accurately including some humor, rank = 1

E - first movement is detailed in its restless expression and has better sound than D, exposition is repeated, coda is appropriately solemn, waltz has lift and momentum, third movement is slow and expressively blank except for the last section where it has some sense of lonely alienation, march to the scaffold is quick and lacks anything sarcastic or sinister, witches' sabbath is fast and virtuosic, the first two movements are excellent but the last three are mostly superficial, rank = 3


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

hustlefan said:


> My favorite is D, followed by A, E, B, and C.
> 
> A - first movement has a slow, lamenting introduction, main section is not vivacious, no exposition repeat, strings have some portamento, sound favors the violins, second movement waltz is moderate in speed, dignified and aristocratic, third movement flows nicely, idyllic and lyrical at first, changing to anxiety in the middle part that isn't overdone, with the last part of the movement the best - peaceful and resigned, march to the scaffold is straightforward without exaggeration, the oddities and originality of the score are not emphasized, final movement takes a slow tempo, interesting in its clarity but everything should be more feverish and volatile, bells oddly include a piano, overall the interpretation is dignified and clear but it's too slow and lacks emotional intensity, rank = 2
> 
> ...


While I don't completely agree with your commentary, I really like how you did it. Thank you!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> All of them cut up and glued back together on a new sheet of paper.


I think Berlioz even used some of the same notes as Beethoven.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I would hate to be a professional critic! For one thing, blind or not, when I “sit to decide what I think of it”, I always seem to find myself arriving at a very different view to the one I form from just listening in a relaxed way. And, then, I do agree that long pieces (whole symphonies etc.) are the best way to do this sort of blind tasting …. But listening to lots of back-to-back recordings is not easy. I do do it sometimes but then I choose the work and the order in which I play the various versions and I make sure I won’t be sitting through any that are not my cup of tea. And, after all that, I have to remember what each one felt like – which would take me more than one hearing to do.

I know (or think I know) quite a number of SFs and there may be one of them in this batch (I haven’t checked or compared). Anyway, for what it is worth …

A – I did enjoy some parts of this but on the whole found it a bit dull. This is a work that needs to sparkle or to crackle … and this one didn’t do either. Was it a French orchestra? Rank: joint 4.

B – There is more life and shape to this. I enjoyed many moments (as I did with A – different moments, different qualities) and, unlike A, each movement did seem to paint the picture (or tell the story) that Berlioz claimed to be painting (or telling) – but in a polite and sane way. As it progresses I long for a little more substance to the sound and for something more special … the work dies if the performance can’t manage to deliver that. Rank: joint 4.

C – After B it was nice to hear some emotional turbulence! I liked the slanted phrasing in introduction to the 3rd movement and the pacing later on in that movement (probably the most difficult movement to bring off). There is a lot of shaping and speed variation but the pulse is served, rather than disturbed, by this and the music retains its interest. Rank: 3.

D – This is the one I think I know but whether or not I am right, it is the first one where I get a sense from the start that we are in the hands of a master. There is urgency and turbulence, there are many beautiful details and the music builds without having seemed slack to achieve this. Nothing in the first three movements is exaggerated but we have all the mystery, all the passion, all the yearning that we need. The third movement is masterly in the way that it seems to stand still without seeming dead or asleep before moving forward. Rank 1.

E – Not as distinguished as D but I liked this one – a fine performance, well-paced and characterised but perhaps not very distinctive. Rank: 2.

I really should go back and hear them again to see if I still think the same things!


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

I think Michael Steinberg puts it well:

"From the vantage point of the end of the twentieth century, we can see fairly easily that the beginnings of a new music were to be found in two places where not every observer in 1830 would have thought to look: in the works of Beethoven and Bach. And the better we know the _Fantastique_, the more clearly we can sense in it the presence of Beethoven and of that classical tradition Beethoven brought to so remarkable a pass. At the same time, however deeply he was indebted to Beethoven, Berlioz strove to write "new music." He succeeded. The _Fantastic_ symphony sounds and behaves like nothing ever heard before. Berlioz's orchestra is as new as Paganini's violin and Liszt's piano; his expressive intentions and his willingness to stop at nothing in their realization are unheard of depatures."


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I would hate to be a professional critic! For one thing, blind or not, when I "sit to decide what I think of it", I always seem to find myself arriving at a very different view to the one I form from just listening in a relaxed way. And, then, I do agree that long pieces (whole symphonies etc.) are the best way to do this sort of blind tasting …. But listening to lots of back-to-back recordings is not easy. I do do it sometimes but then I choose the work and the order in which I play the various versions and I make sure I won't be sitting through any that are not my cup of tea. And, after all that, I have to remember what each one felt like - which would take me more than one hearing to do.


When I do this kind of listening, I make it a point of only doing one complete version a day, with perhaps a brief sampling of parts of another to refresh my memory of particular differences. It totally baffles me how someone can listen to dozens of versions of the same work and then rank them in order! I have difficulty putting a handful into more than 2 or 3 categories!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Right, I listened to a bit of Recording D again and I definitely know it and have it. I've only skip-listened to B & E up to now as I've had a super-busy weekend so I'll catch up on them this week. I did play a bit of recording A again this morning and it's intriguing me. This is a conductor well versed in this symphony and I like the sinister quality of the reading but it is a bit slow, even though it does build tension very well. 
Played recording C this morning and it's pretty high-octane stuff (was it recorded in a cave?). This is one of those conductors who really went for it, I'm guessing. An emotional reading and one I can imagine really liking when I play it more. Tempi all over the place. Reminds me of a certain old conductor's Beethoven symphonies (this reminded me particularly of a rather 'crude' LvB 9th that I love but others find 'unrestrained'). Orchestral ensemble a bit ropey at times so I'm guessing this aint a top-tier orchestra but that's part of its appeal. Best last movement up to now. 
I'll get to B & E this week.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> When I do this kind of listening, I make it a point of only doing one complete version a day, with perhaps a brief sampling of parts of another to refresh my memory of particular differences. It totally baffles me how someone can listen to dozens of versions of the same work and then rank them in order! I have difficulty putting a handful into more than 2 or 3 categories!


One per day would be good but I am not often in a position to do that for most days over a week. I listened in two sittings but am not happy that I got close to feeling what most of them were doing.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Listened to Recording B today and it's a bit safe and dull for me. Whilst it's very well-played it did very little for me and i couldn't relate to it. Just not enough emotional impact for a recording of SF. I'll have a listen to E tomorrow.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

For those interested in the performances which I included, but without spoiling it for those who are still listening...
(To read them, click on "Reply With Quote")

A - Sir John Barbirolli / SWR Symphony (concert performance)
B - Riccardo Muti / Chicago Symphony (concert performance)
C - Charles Munch / Hungarian Radio Symphony (concert performance *)
D - Sir Thomas Beecham / French Radio Orchestra (ORTF) (studio performance)
E - Rafael Kubelik / Bavarian Radio Sympony (concert performance

* - It appears that this performance was a pre-concert run-through that was recorded without Munch's knowledge. There was a small invited audience which probably accounts for the very reverbrant acoustic.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Im not looking at that till tomorrow, after ive listened to E and said my bit.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OK, since I've been up since 5.30 (after the cat vomited a huge hairball and then did a giant poo in her litter tray) I've finally had chance to listen to Recording E in full. So here's my final thoughts before I ruin it for myself by revealing Becca's answers. They rank as such;

#1 D - The best account of the five. Suitably dark and heavy where needed. A classic account and one I've had years (so I got it straight away). 
#2 C - Despite the cavernous recording, sometimes suspect ensemble and tempi variations to the max I loved the spirit of this one. Loved the way the conductor just goes with the flow. 
Guess - as I alluded to a few days ago (the turbulent and crude LvB 9th) it sounds like Munch but I have Munch's BSO accounts so I'm confused. Otherwise Scherchen? 
#3 E - I'll take this one marginally over recording A as its steady-paced and lyrical. Definitely an older conductor with a great feel for rhythm and pulse. Good account but lacks a bit of character at the end. 
Guess - Blomstedt / some French orchestra 
#4 A - This is the one that has me really scratching my head. I like this very broad account but it is a long one but I suspect this is an old-school conductor who doesn't mind taking his time. I like this account for its individuality though. 
Guess - really haven't a clue, tbh, except that it's live, analogue (early 70s judging by sound). Could be any old-boy. French orchestra? 
#5 B - for me this is the only account I didn't like much. In fact I found it rather dull, indeed. Some nice moments of pizzicato but otherwise largely forgettable performance.
Guess - early digital, European conductor and orchestra. Haitink? Not a clue.

So there's my guesses. Off to check my answers and see how wide of the mark I am. Lol.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Sorry for a third post on the run. Becca, I never knew about that recording (will PM you). Some interesting choices and my guesses weren't as bad as I thought they'd be. I'll say no more.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

These are the 5 performances...

A - Sir John Barbirolli / SWR Symphony (concert performance)
B - Riccardo Muti / Chicago Symphony (concert performance)
C - Charles Munch / Hungarian Radio Symphony (concert performance *)
D - Sir Thomas Beecham / French Radio Orchestra (ORTF) (studio performance)
E - Rafael Kubelik / Bavarian Radio Sympony (concert performance

* - It appears that this performance was a pre-concert run-through that was recorded without Munch's knowledge. There was a small invited audience which probably accounts for the very reverbrant acoustic.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> Merl - there is one amongst them which I enjoy


OK, let's see if I can guess, Becca. I don't have you down as a Munch fangirl (that sounds wrong lol), B and E aren't curious or dark enough....... So it's either Beecham's classic recording or the slow, emotional Barbirolli account. I'm sticking my neck out and going with Barbirolli. Am I right? There is something about that recording that appeals to me too.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Merl said:


> OK, let's see if I can guess, Becca. I don't have you down as a Munch fangirl (that sounds wrong lol), B and E aren't curious or dark enough....... So it's either Beecham's classic recording or the slow, emotional Barbirolli account. I'm sticking my neck out and going with Barbirolli. Am I right? There is something about that recording that appeals to me too.


Correct! The last two movements remind me of one of those slow-motion nightmares which seems all the worse for moving slowly, and that can fit the music just as well as more hectic tempi. Also the way that Barbirolli plays the waltz with that classic luftpause.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am briefly resurrecting this year old thread in order to mention an exceptional new recording of the Berlioz ... Francois-Xavier Roth and Les Siècles on Harmonia Mundi. I have seen two reviews so far which extol this recording and I have to agree. Listen to it!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Becca said:


> I am briefly resurrecting this year old thread in order to mention an exceptional new recording of the Berlioz ... Francois-Xavier Roth and Les Siècles on Harmonia Mundi. I have seen two reviews so far which extol this recording and I have to agree. Listen to it!


Everything I've heard from Roth so far has been Fantastic (pun not intended). Must check this out. Hasn't been released in physical cd format in the US yet.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Everything I've heard from Roth so far has been Fantastic (pun not intended). Must check this out. Hasn't been released in physical cd format in the US yet.
> View attachment 126546


However it is available on Spotify


----------

