# Furtwangler Sound Quality?



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Call me superficial, but decent sound, or the lack of it, has generally been a barrier for me with regards to vintage recordings. I seem to be OK with almost anything recorded from 1957 onwards and don't mind a fair amount of tape hiss, but find most earlier recordings unacceptable. They remind of listening to a shortwave broadcast on a transistor radio; which I have done in my youth. Indeed, much of my initial education in classical music was through listening to the Proms on the BBC World Service, on a definitely NOT HiFi radio.

Intro aside, as I try once again to understand the cult of Furtwangler, I am now listening to the Warner Classics Reissue of Beethoven's 9th (Bayreuth 1951 live recording), I am finding, much to my surprise, that the sound is acceptable!

So which recordings by Furtwangler have "acceptable" sound quality, in addition to artistic merit, and please note that in this case, sound quality may actually trump artistic merit!

This is the set I am referring to. I am currently listening to #9 and have sampled #1 and #5 which also seem acceptable; I realize that not all are of the same recording quality (e.g. #2 which is I believe the only surviving recording conducted by him).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

The best way to hear Furtwängler’s magnetic conducting in good sound are with his 1951 Schubert 9 and 1953 Schumann 4, both recorded in the studio for DG. There is also the 1954 Lucerne Beethoven 9 and the 1951 (I believe?) Emperor concerto with Edwin Fischer which is immortal in my view. And, somewhat surprisingly, you may find that his 1944 Bruckner 8 has quite acceptable sound for the age.

Oh, and the legendary Tristan und Isolde sounds great too.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

This would probably be a good choice if you want both sound and artistic excellence.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> This would probably be a good choice if you want both sound and artistic excellence.


That May 25, 1947 recording is my favorite Furtwangler performance of the 5th. The 1st movement and final minutes of the finale are unmatched IMO.

However, for best combination of sound and performance, I would opt for the May 23, 1954 performance. It almost sounds like stereo. The 6th from the same concert is also great, my desert island choice for that work.






His December 8, 1952 Beethoven Eroica a must for those who want to hear Furtwangler conducting his own BPO in a fantastic interpretation.






Another great one for sound is his unmatched 1951 Brahms 1st with the NDR SO. This recording on Tahra was one of the first ones that really made me a fan of his conducting.






His 1954 Lucerne Beethoven 9th is often recommended as a first choice for Furtwangler novices. It sports excellent sound quality in a work Furtwangler made his own.






The 1953 Deutsche Grammophon coupling of a live Beethoven 7th and 8th is fantastic (also on Tahra, if you can find it). One of the best Furtwangler recordings for combination of good sound in a live recording.






As Allegro con brio stated, his studio Schubert 9th and Schumann 4th on Deutsche Grammophon are both indispensable classics. And let's not forget his most universally acclaimed recording of all - the EMI Tristan und Isolde with Flagstad and Suthaus.

I would also second Allegro's recommendation of the 1944 Bruckner 8th. It may not have the presence of the above recordings, but it is very clean for its time, and it is maybe my favorite of all Furtwangler recordings. Just an astonishing interpretation.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That May 25, 1947 recording is my favorite Furtwangler performance of the 5th. The 1st movement and final minutes of the finale are unmatched IMO.
> 
> However, for best combination of sound and performance, I would opt for the May 23, 1954 performance. It almost sounds like stereo. The 6th from the same concert is also great, my desert island choice for that work.


I must admit a strong personal preference for faster recordings of Beethoven's 5th and therefore don't find the 1954 performances (both the Vienna and the BPO, although the BPO is obviously superior) that engaging. The finale of that 1947 recording almost has to be heard to be believed.

But, to the OP, if you don't mind slower performances the 1954 performance might be a better choice.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> And let's not forget his most universally acclaimed recording of all - the EMI Tristan und Isolde with Flagstad and Suthaus.


This is also (obviously) very good and the sound (Walter Legge did it) is about as good as it gets for mono, but it is a rather long introduction.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would also second Allegro's recommendation of the 1944 Bruckner 8th. It may not have the presence of the above recordings, but it is very clean for its time, and it is maybe my favorite of all Furtwangler recordings. Just an astonishing interpretation.


I was just listening to this last night; the performance is fantastic, especially in the first movement. I just wish the beauty of the adagio came through better than it does as I find myself wishing I was listening to the Karajan/BPO recording during the adagio.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

That Furt Bruckner 8th adagio is the most beautifully haunting I have ever heard. In fact I went through a really dark time in my 20s in NYC and I can remember listening to just that movement over and over.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There is a really good EMI studio recording of the Beethoven violin concerto with Menuhin, ca. 1954, with perfectly acceptable sound.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The Ermitage label has a good Beethoven 6th and Mozart piano concerto no. 20 with Lefebure (Lugano, 1954). 
It's also on other labels.

https://www.discogs.com/ja/Mozart-B...efébure-Concerto-Per-Pianofor/release/6245546


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

These three recordings are magnificent performances in remarkably good sound considering that the date from the early 1940's:

























The last one is the performance recommended by Brahmsianhorn.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> This would probably be a good choice if you want both sound and artistic excellence.


You think this is good sound quality? I guess it's relative but it sounds really terrible to me....and the orchestra isn't tight either.


----------



## George P Smackers (Jan 5, 2021)

I know what you mean about SQ of pre-1957 recordings. I feel the same way, but I'm also captivated by Furtwängler, so I seek out the best possible.

If you're into SACD, I found this PRAGA set, with both his 1944 (Vienna) and 1949 (Berlin) Bruckner 8 to be pretty amazing, in sound quality and artistic achievement:
https://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Sym...r+praga&qid=1610378960&sr=8-1#customerReviews

I also sat down and listened again to the whole of his famous 1952 _Tristan und Isolde_, with the Philharmonia and Kirsten Flagstad, Suthaus, etc., on EMI. It was a long listening session! But the sound was very satisfying.
https://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Trist...37&sprefix=furtwangler+tristan,aps,161&sr=8-2

No matter how good the engineers are-and the PRAGA set is amazingly good for 1940s recordings-it will still not be as good as what you get with the hi-fi revolution. Still, we can seek out the best possible, and the lacking SQ just sort of recedes from your attention. Otherwise how could we enjoy Charlie Parker?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

janxharris said:


> You think this is good sound quality? I guess it's relative but it sounds really terrible to me....and the orchestra isn't tight either.


It's the most exciting 5th I have heard. Who cares if the orchestra is always together? The whole point is that you don't make music like that when you are playing it safe. It was the final work on the program, and the eruption by the audience was so great that the American authorities feared it amounted to a nationalist rally. This was Furt's first concert in Germany after the war.

Agreed on the sound quality. It is rather thin. Also there is something strange about the Audite transfer, which I suspect this YouTube video is from. There is a strange skipping sound in some entrances. You don't hear this in the Tahra transfer.

The recording of the 5th from two days later is not quite as exciting, but the DG sound quality is much better. That is another good recommendation for the OP for combination of sound and performance.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

janxharris said:


> You think this is good sound quality? I guess it's relative but it sounds really terrible to me....and the orchestra isn't tight either.


I mean, it's not stereo, but you can clearly hear all the instruments without distortions which is generally my "good quality" standard for historical recordings.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Plenty of great sounding Furtwangler recordings are available including some super audio recordings from Japan. Shop https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/ and search for Furtwangler.

The Pristine label (https://www.pristineclassical.com/) has also redone a lot of Furtwangler recordings and their sound is legendary. You can listen to sound bytes at their site.

Furtwangler died 1954 so nothing anywhere is in stereo. Some Pristine recordings have what's called "ambient" stereo meaning they did the rerecording using an electronic or digital echo chamber. Stokowski used to make recordings that way in the 1950s; he could get a dozen players to sound like an orchestra of 75.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

haziz said:


> Call me superficial, but decent sound, or the lack of it, has generally been a barrier for me with regards to vintage recordings. I seem to be OK with almost anything recorded from 1957 onwards and don't mind a fair amount of tape hiss, but find most earlier recordings unacceptable. They remind of listening to a shortwave broadcast on a transistor radio; which I have done in my youth. Indeed, much of my initial education in classical music was through listening to the Proms on the BBC World Service, on a definitely NOT HiFi radio.
> 
> Intro aside, as I try once again to understand the cult of Furtwangler, I am now listening to the Warner Classics Reissue of Beethoven's 9th (Bayreuth 1951 live recording), I am finding, much to my surprise, that the sound is acceptable!
> 
> ...


I don't think it's superficial. Sound quality is important to many people, myself included.

For me, the tragedy is the lack of high quality Toscanini. But I would enjoy better Furty as well.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Nothing to do with Furtwangler, but as I listen for the first time to the Brilliant Classics Tchaikovsky Box Set, that I bought in 2011, but only took out of it's plastic wrapping today, one of the surprises is a 1950 recording of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto played by Leonid Kogan with the USSR State Radio Symphony under Vassily Nebolsin (never heard of him! Nebolsin that is, I am well aware of Kogan). The sound is exceptionally clean. The highs are a bit harsh, but the soviet sound engineers were clearly at their best that day! I started listening to a Oistrakh live recording from 1968 on the same disc and when the Oistrakh rendition of the same concerto ended, I was quite surprised by how clean the Kogan 1950 recording is! In many ways better recorded than the 1968 Oistrakh!


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There are about 200 Toscanini recordings at Pristine as well.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, it's not stereo, but you can clearly hear all the instruments without distortions which is generally my "good quality" standard for historical recordings.


I am grateful for your suggestion, however, I too do consider the recording quality of the 1947 performance (or at least this rendition on Youtube, which is not the best sound medium anyway, but I don't think it's Youtube's fault in this case), to be problematic. It is not a matter of stereo vs mono. The recording sounds very thin. It does, unfortunately fall below what I would consider "acceptable" sound quality. This unfortunately, makes me uninterested in listening beyond the first few minutes, regardless of the artistic merit of the performance.

An example of the few pre 1957 recordings that I am quite happy with, is the mid 1950s set of Beethoven piano sonatas by Wilhelm Kempff. Excellent sound (and coincidentally great artistic merit)! Mono or not, it does not matter.

I do genuinely appreciate your suggestion.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

As a big Furtwangler fan a major problem I find is the vast majority of reissues use noise reduction systems like CEDAR which just kill the sound of the orchestra. 

For one such egregious example is the huge blue box from Membran, the orchestra sounds like it is playing under water. But people prefer this to hearing the dreaded surface noise. Me, I will take the surface noise and full tonal color of the orchestra. So unfortunately that means hunting down individual CDs released on labels that are often defunct.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't think it's superficial. Sound quality is important to many people, myself included.
> 
> For me, the tragedy is the lack of high quality Toscanini. But I would enjoy better Furty as well.


Toscanini made many more studio recording than Furt. The problem is that he liked a dry acoustic to bring out his famed clarity and precision. I prefer more body and fullness.

The Schumann 4th is the best example of Furt for those who want to hear what he actually sounded like live. The orchestral sound is not as beautiful as Karajan, but this is not all on the recording equipment. Fury preferred a rougher, less manicured sound. His emphasis was on dramatic narrative, not beauty for its own sake.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

haziz said:


> I am grateful for your suggestion, however, I too do consider the recording quality of the 1947 performance (or at least this rendition on Youtube, which is not the best sound medium anyway, but I don't think it's Youtube's fault in this case), to be problematic. It is not a matter of stereo vs mono. The recording sounds very thin. It does, unfortunately fall below what I would consider "acceptable" sound quality. This unfortunately, makes me uninterested in listening beyond the first few minutes, regardless of the artistic merit of the performance.


Try this one from two days later. Much better sound quality. It's available on DG. I am less picky about sound, so I marginally prefer the May 25, but the May 27 arguably presents the best combination of sound and interpretation for a Furt Beethoven 5th. It is faster and fleeter than the May 23, 1954 BPO, even though that one has the best sound quality of all.






Online it is available here:










Or on a hard to find CD:


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Toscanini made many more studio recording than Furt. The problem is that he liked a dry acoustic to bring out his famed clarity and precision. I prefer more body and fullness.
> 
> The Schumann 4th is the best example of Furt for those who want to hear what he actually sounded like live. The orchestral sound is not as beautiful as Karajan, but this is not all on the recording equipment. Fury preferred a rougher, less manicured sound. His emphasis was on dramatic narrative, not beauty for its own sake.


I don't recall ever finding the sound quality for Furtwangler interfering with my ability to hear what he's doing. I almost always have that experience with Toscanini. I don't know whose fault it is, but the Toscanini ambience is like being strangled. I'm sure many hear the music through that obstacle or even don't hear it that way, but it makes me nuts and I rarely listen to Toscanini, both because of the recording quality and other things.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Toscanini's fault was David Sarnoff, who thought a dry acoustic would be compensated for by the richness added by his parlor sized radios and phonographs -- not understanding that you can't add what isn't there to begin with. :-


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

haziz said:


> I am grateful for your suggestion, however, I too do consider the recording quality of the 1947 performance (or at least this rendition on Youtube, which is not the best sound medium anyway, but I don't think it's Youtube's fault in this case), to be problematic. It is not a matter of stereo vs mono. The recording sounds very thin. It does, unfortunately fall below what I would consider "acceptable" sound quality. This unfortunately, makes me uninterested in listening beyond the first few minutes, regardless of the artistic merit of the performance.
> 
> An example of the few pre 1957 recordings that I am quite happy with, is the mid 1950s set of Beethoven piano sonatas by Wilhelm Kempff. Excellent sound (and coincidentally great artistic merit)! Mono or not, it does not matter.
> 
> I do genuinely appreciate your suggestion.


Sure! The standard people have for "good sound" varies quite a bit. Obviously, we're not talking about great stereo sound here so it becomes very fuzzy as to how bad of sound you can stand and in what ways. I mean, this is obviously horrendous (I don't know how one is even supposed to judge the merits of the performance)






but most commonly listened to historical performances are much better so it becomes a matter of opinion.

If I'm being perfectly honest, I thought I had posted a link to the 1947 performance he did for DG where the sound is much fuller (although something weird happened with the timpani so I kinda prefer the two days earlier recording for that reason as well).






As a side note, if you want to say you're listening to a wartime recording, and demand great stereo sound, there's always these,











and make sure to blink after reading the dates!


----------

