# Curative Brahms cycle?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.

So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.
> 
> So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


Not Gardiner for me, nor Mackerras. Try Barbirolli/VPO, Harnoncourt, Adam Fischer, the later Giulini recordings


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.
> 
> So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


I've heard a bit of Gardiner's recordings of Brahms and I must say they've brought out the clarity and excellence of music composition more so than any other recording I have heard, with extremely passionate playing. I haven't heard the Mackerras.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.
> 
> So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


Must say I feel the same about Brahms symphonies.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2013)

How are you guys smelling your music? I want in.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Gardiner certainly opened my ears (and nose) to Brahms Although a Brahms fan told me that you don't like Brahms if you like Gardiner's recordings. Then again his Schumann symphony set seemed didn't seem interesting to me at all. YMMV


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2013)

I am the same way with Brahms' symphonies, and it is the Gardiner set that makes me listen to them. Maybe they aren't the best, but they are the best for me, and the only way I can enjoy them.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

The Brahms symphonies, for some reason, seem to be difficult to record cleanly. At a concert I never seem to have a problem hearing the wonderful inner melodies that Brahms has placed in the winds and lower strings. The timpani come across on recordings as something between inaudible and mushy, while the real Brahms in concert uses them with gusto. Then I go home, listen to the recordings, and I wonder if the sound engineer forgot to take the plastic covers off the microphones.

This has been a forty-year problem for me - my earliest recordings were LP's with Szell and Cleveland, then with Bernstein and NYPO. More recently, I got Bernstein and Vienna on CD. If these guys can't do it, who can? 

Then I heard the 4th symphony with Mackerras, and it was a great improvement. I guess if you want to hear a pair of clarinets, it will be easier if they are accompanied by 30 strings rather than 60. I bought the set, and... well, it is a significant improvement in sound quality. Now my problem is with Mackerras' tempi (generally too fast) and the quality of the string players in the orchestra. Kind of like going to a concert...

But I do listen to this set, and it even sounds OK turned into an WMA file on an iPod.


----------



## Pip (Aug 16, 2013)

The newest set issued has a great set of reviews. I have heard two of them complete and the rest in review highlights.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brahms-Symp...qid=1383660783&sr=1-1&keywords=brahms+chailly








I would not recommend the Barbirolli to someone who has difficulty in getting into Brahms - I love JB in Brahms, but they are a bit on the heavy side and also slow.
If the above does not appeal then -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brahms-Symp...qid=1383660977&sr=1-1&keywords=brahms+karajan







Karajan was alway a little "fleet of foot" with Brahms and they are superbly played.
The above set is at bargain price and were recorded in the mid 70s.

It is difficult to go wrong with the Karajan as a starter. Great sound.
The Chailly is modern and clean sounding , muscular but not heavy. Great.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_KenOC_, I searched the Internet, was unable to find a cure for your problem. The only remaining chance for you is to go to India, climb a mountain, and hope there is a guru on top.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

This, along with others questions about other "cycles," bothers me. As with any other composer's symphonies, sonatas, quartets, etc., I look for (and hear) different things in different works -- and tend to have a favorite performance of any individual work that may or not have anything to do with other performances by the same artists. In my college years, as I got into Beethoven's string quartets, I accumulated a bunch of cycles, including at least 6 then current cycles of the late quartets, and found that my favorite performances of any given works were often by different ensembles. 

For instance, my childhood orchestra was Munch's/Leinsdorf's Boston Symphony. I went to a lot of concerts and accumulated a lot of their recordings. Leinsdorf's Brahms First and Fourth were superb. His Second and Third were awful. I looked elsewhere for good performances. Similarly for almost any other artist's integral cycle of some composer or another. Listen widely and find out what works for you, piece by piece.

george


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Brahms was a chamber music composer who dabbled a bit in orchestral work. Forget the symphonies and focus on the clarinet quintet, and the piano quintet, and the string quintets and sextets. That sort of thing. 

Seriously though, I grew up with the third symphony, and it remains my favourite of the four. I have a nice recording by Claudio Abbado with the Berlin Philharmonic, including the Song of Destiny and the Tragic Overture.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Pip said:


> The newest set issued has a great set of reviews. I have heard two of them complete and the rest in review highlights.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brahms-Symp...qid=1383660783&sr=1-1&keywords=brahms+chailly
> View attachment 27873
> 
> ...


I recommended the Barbarolli/VPO because the approach is pastoral. But probably Harnoncourt is my top choice, hard to say.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

GGluek said:


> This, along with others questions about other "cycles," bothers me. As with any other composer's symphonies, sonatas, quartets, etc., I look for (and hear) different things in different works -- and tend to have a favorite performance of any individual work that may or not have anything to do with other performances by the same artists. In my college years, as I got into Beethoven's string quartets, I accumulated a bunch of cycles, including at least 6 then current cycles of the late quartets, and found that my favorite performances of any given works were often by different ensembles.
> 
> For instance, my childhood orchestra was Munch's/Leinsdorf's Boston Symphony. I went to a lot of concerts and accumulated a lot of their recordings. Leinsdorf's Brahms First and Fourth were superb. His Second and Third were awful. I looked elsewhere for good performances. Similarly for almost any other artist's integral cycle of some composer or another. Listen widely and find out what works for you, piece by piece.
> 
> george


Sometimes I think that the four Brahms symphonies are really all one work, like each one is a "movement" of a four part mega-symphony. So I think that considering Brahms cycles makes more sense than Mozart cycles or Beethoven cycles.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

quack said:


> Gardiner certainly opened my ears (and nose) to Brahms Although a Brahms fan told me that you don't like Brahms if you like Gardiner's recordings. Then again his Schumann symphony set seemed didn't seem interesting to me at all. YMMV


The Brahms fan was right.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Sometimes I think that the four Brahms symphonies are really all one work, like each one is a "movement" of a four part mega-symphony. So I think that considering Brahms cycles makes more sense than Mozart cycles or Beethoven cycles.


But that is because there are only four.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.
> 
> So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


Which ones do you think should be light or nimble?


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I've heard each of the Brahms symphonies one time in their entirety so far. I liked them all, so I can't say I identify with anyone's problems with them being cold, unemotional, or anything else. Here are the performances that worked for me:

1: Abravanel, Utah Symphony Orchestra (off of the Big Brahms Box from Bach Guild, outstanding performance)
2: The Phoenix Symphony (live concert, no recording)
3: Haitink, Chamber Orchestra of Europe (solid performance)
4: Kleiber, Vienna Philharmonic (outstanding performance)

Hopefully, at least one of these connects with another listener.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Of course, there is no one "right" way to perform the Brahms symphonies, or those of any great composer .
But I must confess that I just love the big-boned, sumptuous recordings made by the Vienna Phil. in the
Musikverein and the Concertgebow in its famous namesake hall , where there is a rich , colorful wash
of gloriously plush sonorities , and antiseptic clarity of different parts be damned
I recently borrowed the earlier Chailly recording of the 4th from my library , made when he was music director of the 
Concertgebow (I haven't heard his new Gewandhaus set ) , and I just loved the ripe ,blended sonorities . 
Frankly , the allegedly "authentic " Brahms recordings of Norrington and Gardiner , of which I've heard some,
are positively anemic by comparison . These guys have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater .
Mackerras is somewhat better , but give me ful-blooded , ripe Brahms any day .


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Brahms symphonies and 'light' doesn't compute, methinks. My favorites:

1: Furtwängler, 1945 finale only, 1951, 1952 - avoid the 1950 RCO one; Giulini VPO, Toscanini
2: Bernstein VPO, Furtwängler 1945, Walter NYPO
3: Szell RCO, Jochum BPO
4: Klemperer, Furtwängler 1943

Of course you can check out the classic ones: Kleiber 4, Karajan and so forth. Unfortunately I'm no Gardiner or Mackerras supporter. It took me some time to like the Brahms symphonies too: I was nearly falling asleep the first time, thought that was loooong ago.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Lighter and more nimble...as I glance across my 30 or so complete cycles of Brahms Symphonies I guess I would suggest you go with Mackerras.

If you don't like those, then Hilltroll's advise is your only course of action.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have the Karajan set - wonderfully played.
I've also a Brahms 4 conducted by Stokowski when the old lad was around 90! Wonderfully fleet performance.
I think it's so irritant that Brahms should not be too slow else he gets dead boring. You get lost in the textures.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I have the Karajan set - wonderfully played.
> I've also a Brahms 4 conducted by Stokowski when the old lad was around 90! Wonderfully fleet performance.
> I think it's so irritant that Brahms should not be too slow else he gets dead boring. *You get lost in the textures*.


Such an interesting remark -- the way that textural aspects are pushed into second place compared with melody, harmony, counterpoint. I wonder why. I mean why shouldn't a Brahms symphony or a Beethoven QUartet performance focus on textures?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

These symphonies,Brahms,Scumann, are passionate romantic works.
I hate what Gardiner and the like, do to them.
They're no longer Brahms and Schumann to me.
Karajan, Bernstein, Klemperer, Celibidache , all get it. Walter too.

If you must have rushed, unfeeling HIP ,I think Goodman for Schumann and Mackerras for Brahms.
yuk


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

superhorn said:


> Frankly , the allegedly "authentic " Brahms recordings of Norrington and Gardiner , of which I've heard some,
> are positively anemic by comparison . These guys have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater .
> Mackerras is somewhat better , but give me ful-blooded , ripe Brahms any day .


Authentic? I thought that by the time of Brahms, the orchestra and instruments were pretty much what they are today.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Authentic? I thought that by the time of Brahms, the orchestra and instruments were pretty much what they are today.


Brahms was very keen on natural (valveless) brass instruments which is fine for the trumpets but would have made his horn parts very difficult to play. I don't know what these guys play on but they may be using converted natural horns with two or three valves - certainly differetn beasts to what most orchestras would use today. Expect narrower bored trombones to give a lighter sound too. Timpani sticking a bit lighter as well. Bassoons, oboes and clarinets are likely to be different instruments too. Can't speak for the strings but maybe lighter strings and bows? Lower tuning overall - that makes it sounds different

But more than that - it's also performance practice. Aiming for different sounds, blend, articulation etc will have a huge effect on what comes out. And we know about these because of books, treatises and recordings etc. I'm no expert on romantic HIP though

Amazes me, by the way, that noone really got Brahms before or since teh age of celebrity consuctors whose recordings have dominated teh market and radio waves for the past 60 years ;-)


----------



## Bradius (Dec 11, 2012)

Karajan and Gardiner do it for me. I have an old Toscaninni LP from my grandfather of the four symphonies which is great too. I've found that Brahms' symphonies just get better with repeated listening. Took me about ten listens to his First before I really 'got it'. Now I really love that symphony! Stick with it. It's worth the effort.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

dgee said:


> Brahms was very keen on natural (valveless) brass instruments which is fine for the trumpets but would have made his horn parts very difficult to play. I don't know what these guys play on but they may be using converted natural horns with two or three valves - certainly differetn beasts to what most orchestras would use today. Expect narrower bored trombones to give a lighter sound too. Timpani sticking a bit lighter as well. Bassoons, oboes and clarinets are likely to be different instruments too. Can't speak for the strings but maybe lighter strings and bows? Lower tuning overall - that makes it sounds different
> 
> But more than that - it's also performance practice. Aiming for different sounds, blend, articulation etc will have a huge effect on what comes out. And we know about these because of books, treatises and recordings etc. I'm no expert on romantic HIP though
> 
> Amazes me, by the way, that noone really got Brahms before or since teh age of celebrity consuctors whose recordings have dominated teh market and radio waves for the past 60 years ;-)


What does your last sentence mean--it would be a good idea if you corrected after typing out your posts.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

There is no cosmic rule that everyone must like Brahms.

The fact that some people don't does not diminish my enjoyment one iota.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> There is no cosmic rule that everyone must like Brahms.


It's okay not to like Brahms, as long as you don't like Wagner either. 



> The fact that some people don't does not diminish my enjoyment one iota.


Nowadays, I actually derive a certain enjoyment out of it when I find out no one likes a piece that I do like.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

moody said:


> What does your last sentence mean--it would be a good idea if you corrected after typing out your posts.


Don't you know what a consuctor is? And I thought this was a music forum! ;-)

I was merely suggesting our tastes and preferences are shaped by what is available to us


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Brahms wrote his horn and trumpet parts as though they were for natural brass instruments , but by the time he began 
to write orchestral works the valved horn had become the norm in orchestras , and he knew he could not expect
them to use the old fashioned instruments .
This is true of his great horn trio, too . So the horn players have to be very adept at trnsposition, which means
playing F horns (now usually a double horn with b flat tubing added ) , and have to read from horn parts in
other keys . Fortunately, I was always good at this and it helped me . I've had plenty of experience playing
the Brahms symphonies and his other orchestral works . 
Since the double horn in F and b flat came out around 1898, a year after he died, if you insist on being "authentic"
you would not use double horrns in Brahms . But that's just nit-picking .
The single f horn has great tone in the middle register but is extremely difficult to play with any accuracy in the 
high register . The shorter b flat horn gives you much better accuracy in the high register because the high notes are 
not as close on the hrmonic series to each other as the F horn, but the tone in the middle register is markedly
inferior in the middle register , so the double horn gives you the best of both worlds .
The b flat tubing lies below the f tubing, and a thumb valve switches the instrument on and off between the f and
b flat tubing .


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Forgive the horn dorkery but I recall evidence that Brahms preferred the trio on natural horn for quite a while - in fact I seem to remember he insisted on it for performance. If I had more time I'd dig it up. My impression (and received wisdom from discussions with mystical old horn players) is that the first symphony is probably intended for natural horn (look at that solo in the second mvmt!) but after that the reality probably set in. The big solos in symphonies 2, 3 and 4 would sound a bit zip/puff on natural horn and the stopped stuff in Academic Festival Overture would be downright impossible - so his concepts and writing probably changed over time with increasing exposure to orchestral practice.

Also, I doubt I'd sound the same on my Geyer wrap monstrosity as I would on 3 valve F horn from 1860 - but then I'd probably sound rusty and terrible on both! Anyhow, I definitely think period instruments even if they're terms of difference

There's a good introductory article about Brahms and HIP here: http://www.bsherman.net/Brahms_Diapason_Sherman_English.htm

(interesting to see he apparently preferred the second note of slurs to be short (think of the opening phrase of Symphony 2) - more "classical period" and certainly not what you get from Karajan, for instance)

It's a robust and honest critique of some of the overly optimistic claims made early by HIP proponents and how the newer Gardiner HIP recordings are vastly improved. I'm listening to the 2010 Symphony 3 right now (which I find can easily get bogged down) and it's fantastically alive to my ears (the horns are definitely playing with the hand at times - ie the C horns in mvmt 1 - which doesn't always work so great). But maybe next time I might want to listen to Rattle and Berlin luxuriate - and that's cool too

YMMV with HIP but I'm happy to see some well thought through new takes on this repertoire

Excuse the lengthy discursive posts - but if you get me onto horns, Brahms symphonies and the value of HIP choices as part of a diverse listening culture I'll get enthusiastic


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.
> 
> So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


I don't know about a "Brahms cure," but certainly purchasing the symphonies performed by the Philharmonia Orchestra/Arturo Toscanini - Testament Mono 1952 Recorded Live, will if nothing else be a memorable listening experience. I mainly collect historical recordings and may be a little biased, but these recordings from the Royal Festival Hall taken from two concerts are more an event than just another recording.

Toscanini more than any other conductor seemed to have an electric force running through him when in front of an orchestra and whatever he performed is always to my mind is an experience even if you don't actually like the featured composer in the run of things. Sometime ago I was speaking to an older man who was much devoted to classical music and I asked him what his greatest musical experience had been, and he answered being at one of the concerts mentioned above in 1952, and coming from a person who had attended hundreds if not thousands of concerts in his lifetime! Toscanini's Brahms could have no higher praise - go and listen.


----------



## Pip (Aug 16, 2013)

With Reference to the Toscanini post above! they can be sampled at the Pristine Audio web site. complete movements are available to sample and the complete Tragic overture from the first Concert.
Definitely worth listening to. The complete two concerts can be downloaded. alternatively they are available on Testament CD box set.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Toscanini definitely has a fire about him. It will never be a boring listen... unless you're simply a boring person.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Actually , reports of Karajan's excessive smoothness of texture have been greatly exaggerated . 
In fact, there is still plenty of incisiveness in his performances of whtever repertoire .
Yes, it's not politically correct by the standards of dogmatic HIP , but his Brahms symphony recordings 
are simply gorgeous .
If anyone was guilty of excessive smoothness, it was Ormandy and the Phildelphi orchestra . They were very good in some repertoire ,
such as Russian music , but the so-called "Philadelphia sound" was often nothing but generalized plush sounds ; a kind of 
homogenized , syrupy tonal goo . Ormandy tended to use the plush Philadelphi sound in kind of one size fits all manner,
no matter what the repertoire .


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Definitely not Klemperer if you want light and nimble!



KenOC said:


> I have always had a problem with the symphonies of Brahms. They remind me, vaguely, of the musty smell of my grandparents' house when I was small. I had felt much the same about Schumann until I got the Gardiner set of symphonies, which pretty much cured that.
> 
> So now I'm looking for a "Brahms cure." Gardiner has done these, as has Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Which might be more effective? Or are there other choices? I really need something lighter, more nimble... Advice is appreciated!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The Toscanini recordings on the complete RCA box set have been remastered perfectly. You won't hear them better anywhere else, and the box is a stone cold bargain for the price.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I seem to have gotten an advance set of the Brahms symphonies played by Riccardo Chailly and the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. It floats my boat pretty well. Chailly's approach (like his Beethoven) has big orchestra, modern instruments, HIP mentality, excellent articulation and precision, appealing vigor, and very good sound. Not musty!


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Some years ago, my mother bought for me the Mackerras It's my only recordings of The Brahms symphonies, but I'm quite happy with them. Indeed, they sound much better than our attempt at Brahms with my local orchestra. It's tricky to play, which always tells me there is a lot going on. The first and second violins are not supposed to be together, and as far as I know, Brahms wrote with this in mind when the firsts and seconds sat on opposite sides of the conductor. Many modern orchestras sit the two groups together on the left of the conductor. That's how we sit, but this is changing again isn't it? Back to the way it was 100+ yrs ago.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

senza sordino said:


> Many modern orchestras sit the two groups together on the left of the conductor. That's how we sit, but this is changing again isn't it? Back to the way it was 100+ yrs ago.


Perhaps our orchestras are noticing (at long last) that we've invented stereo!

I have the Mackerras 3 and 4 of Brahms and like them a lot (unlike several here). I'm waiting for 1 and 2 in the mail. Then my life will be complete. For a day or two.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just a follow-up note: Chailly is my most curative Brahms cycle! Beefy enough, but crisp and fresh. Mackerras seems by comparison thready and maybe a bit frayed around the edges.

Anyway, I can now listen to Brahms's symphonies with a good deal more patience than before.


----------



## Ruyooka (Nov 25, 2013)

I have been wondering about the Chailly Brahms recordings. Read good review of it in Gramophone Magazine. How different is it from, say, the Gunter Wand with the NDRO?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Brahms' Fourth was ruined for me when it was used for years as the music for the local Channel 7 10:00 evening news; thus imprinted, it will forever remind me of a newscaster wearing horn rimmed glasses, a musical tickertape signalling the end of a programming day, as fatigue begins to set in, and yawns compel us to bed, to face another grinding routine of school. Yes, it does have a certain "Morse code" feel to it, and those fourths give it an almost "modern" sound. Yet, it is the modernity of routine efficiency.


----------



## astronautnic (Mar 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Just a follow-up note: Chailly is my most curative Brahms cycle! Beefy enough, but crisp and fresh. Mackerras seems by comparison thready and maybe a bit frayed around the edges.
> 
> Anyway, I can now listen to Brahms's symphonies with a good deal more patience than before.


Totally agree, the best cycle on Brahms yet imo. Concert of Gewandhausorchester with Chailly in Paris some 3 weeks ago proved to be a real "eye" (ear)-opener, absolutely breathtaking


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

astronautnic said:


> Totally agree, the best cycle on Brahms yet imo. Concert of Gewandhausorchester with Chailly in Paris some 3 weeks ago proved to be a real "eye" (ear)-opener, absolutely breathtaking


Not very important in musical terms I guess, but I warm to Chailly from these interviewettes about his Brahms cycle, and clips of his effervescent, joyous conducting style - I think I'd enjoy playing under him (and what a great start to the First that is):


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2015)

nathanb said:


> How are you guys smelling your music? I want in.


It's just synaesthesia. You've either got it or you haven't. I get nauseous when I smell Shostakovich.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

In response to the OP, I thought I would put in a plug for Anrew Manze.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Chailly's version has been a great pleasure for me lately and I hope to finish those relatively soon.


----------

