# You may think I'm crazy



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

I'm there has been a million discussions on the Beethoven cycle I'm sure and I'm not starting another at all just promoting an idea.

My opinion which will be laughed at is that I prefer Arturo Toscanini for Beethoven symphonies and as the 20th century's best conductor.

I do love Furtwangler Klemperer,Von Karajan,Haitink and Bernstein too and I have heard all those not to mention Ozawa many others,and I have enjoyed all of those for sure.

Even though the recordings are old I now almost exclusively turn to Toscanini for Beethoven symphonies,the power in unmatched,although the tempo's are brisk the power is undeniable.

I still love Furtwangler for Bruckner 8 and Bernstein for Mahler 9 and Klemperer for Mozart I like Toscanini for Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

crazy, indeed, to reopen the can of worms..








Explain fascination with Furtwängler


I have been wanting to start this thread for some time now but have been concerned that it would start a firestorm * however interest has gotten the better of me so... I have long been wondering what it is about Wilhelm Furtwängler that so many people continue to find his performances to be so...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Nothing wrong with this! 

I still reach for Cleveland/Szell's 9th, despite it never being on anyone's list for "great 9th's."


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Do you have a preferred Toscanini cycle? I have the RCA recordings, but I would like to get my hands on the 1939 cycle eventually.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The problem with Toscanini for me is the sound quality. Let's face it, it sucks. There isn't single Toscanini recording that is "hii-fi" by any measure and to make listening at home as good as possible, the better the sound, the better the experience. It's too bad, just 10 years too late for the great stereo sound RCA could do in that era. I do own, and listen to, a lot of mono from that era, but when it comes to favorite _*recordings*_, no mono one will make that list. But yes, Toscanini's Beethoven is remarkable - thrilling, energetic, profound even. It is not the only way to do Beethoven. There were several sets made later that have vastly superior sound and played very much in the Toscanini manner. Chief among them is the much underrated and not so well known set from Reader's Digest. Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic play the daylights out of the music, it moves, is exciting and the vocal quartet in the 9th is possible the finest ever assembled. Producer Charles Gerhardt did a heck of job putting this together. The coda of the 3rd is unmatched by anyone, including Szell: it's played as written at a whiplash tempo and the accents are exactly right. The attention to detail in the whole set is amazing. It's too bad that the set isn't easily available anymore. And comparing it two other sets made at the same time, Walter and Karajan, is fascinating. It may not be Toscanini, but it's awfully darn close and the sound is far, far superior.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Manxfeeder said:


> Do you have a preferred Toscanini cycle? I have the RCA recordings, but I would like to get my hands on the 1939 cycle eventually.


I don't own any Toscanini albums ,the best I think are the 1939 recordings I'd say,all on youtube.
The 1953 recording are obviously better sound quality but musically passed his prime.

The Beethoven cycle I own on CD is the Van Karajan which I got in a used record store mainly because it was on sale at a used CD store.Never seen Toscanini in any record store ,although have never lived very close to large cities.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> The problem with Toscanini for me is the sound quality. Let's face it, it sucks. There isn't single Toscanini recording that is "hii-fi" by any measure and to make listening at home as good as possible, the better the sound, the better the experience. It's too bad, just 10 years too late for the great stereo sound RCA could do in that era. I do own, and listen to, a lot of mono from that era, but when it comes to favorite _*recordings*_, no mono one will make that list. But yes, Toscanini's Beethoven is remarkable - thrilling, energetic, profound even. It is not the only way to do Beethoven. There were several sets made later that have vastly superior sound and played very much in the Toscanini manner. Chief among them is the much underrated and not so well known set from Reader's Digest. Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic play the daylights out of the music, it moves, is exciting and the vocal quartet in the 9th is possible the finest ever assembled. Producer Charles Gerhardt did a heck of job putting this together. The coda of the 3rd is unmatched by anyone, including Szell: it's played as written at a whiplash tempo and the accents are exactly right. The attention to detail in the whole set is amazing. It's too bad that the set isn't easily available anymore. And comparing it two other sets made at the same time, Walter and Karajan, is fascinating. It may not be Toscanini, but it's awfully darn close and the sound is far, far superior.


You have to get used to bad quality for sure,for a number of reasons I have owned a lot of low quality recordings and bad stereo equipment.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

prlj said:


> Nothing wrong with this!
> 
> I still reach for Cleveland/Szell's 9th, despite it never being on anyone's list for "great 9th's."


I never got to know Szell well I think mainly because for an American smaller city orchestra I preferred Boston/Ozawa

Szell has a stellar reputation,always wondered why he didn't try to better than Cleveland.Although the Cleveland orchestra has always had a good reputation despite Cleveland itself being the heart of the rust belt.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> crazy, indeed, to reopen the can of worms..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thread subject was supposed to be Toscanini not Beethoven cycles.I would not open that can of worms for sure LOL


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

bagpipers said:


> I don't own any Toscanini albums ,the best I think are the 1939 recordings I'd say,all on youtube.
> The 1953 recording are obviously better sound quality but musically passed his prime.
> 
> The Beethoven cycle I own on CD is the Van Karajan which I got in a used record store mainly because it was on sale at a used CD store.Never seen Toscanini in any record store ,although have never lived very close to large cities.


Similar story here. My *Beethoven Symphonies box set* is by *János Ferencsik* with the *Hungarian State Symphony Orchestra*.

It's very nice. Nothing controversial, nothing _truly_ extraordinary, although the *5th Symphony* rocks, as does the first movement of the *9th*.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

pianozach said:


> Similar story here. My *Beethoven Symphonies box set* is by *János Ferencsik* with the *Hungarian State Symphony Orchestra*.
> 
> It's very nice. Nothing controversial, nothing _truly_ extraordinary, although the *5th Symphony* rocks, as does the first movement of the *9th*.


Seiji Ozawa with the BSO did a lights out fifth symphony ,also saw it at Tanglewood


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> There were several sets made later that have vastly superior sound and played very much in the Toscanini manner. Chief among them is the much underrated and not so well known set from Reader's Digest. Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic play the daylights out of the music, it moves, is exciting and the vocal quartet in the 9th is possible the finest ever assembled


I noticed the complete Leibowitz cycle is part of Amazon's The Genus of Beethoven download for $2.69. Shucks, I can barely get coffee for that price.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

prlj said:


> Nothing wrong with this!
> 
> I still reach for Cleveland/Szell's 9th, despite it never being on anyone's list for "great 9th's."


One thing I like about Szell's 9th is, I'm a fan of the french horn, and it sounds like the horns are right under the recording microphones in that one.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

There's nothing wrong with liking Toscanini's Beethoven cycle. It is brisk as you say and lean. To me it nearly anticipates the HIP movement except that it's done much better.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Manxfeeder said:


> One thing I like about Szell's 9th is, I'm a fan of the french horn, and it sounds like the horns are right under the recording microphones in that one.


Yes, exactly! The horns are part of the reason I love it so much...and a yardstick by which I measure all other recordings.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> One thing I like about Szell's 9th is, I'm a fan of the french horn, and it sounds like the horns are right under the recording microphones in that one.


I still enjoy my first _Ninth_ that I purchased in LP form as a teenager in the 1980s with Eugene Ormandy, the Philadelphia Orchestra, Mormon Tabernacle Choir plus soloists. It's a very lyrical _Ninth_ from a conductor not known as a great champion of Beethoven or any music outside the Late Romantic/Early Modern repertiore.










Is it really that good or am I just thinkng that for sentimental reasons?


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

bagpipers said:


> I never got to know Szell well I think mainly because for an American smaller city orchestra I preferred Boston/Ozawa
> 
> Szell has a stellar reputation,always wondered why he didn't try to better than Cleveland.Although the Cleveland orchestra has always had a good reputation despite Cleveland itself being the heart of the rust belt.


Hey now!  Cleveland has a lot to offer, and is absolutely one of the top orchestras in the world. A ton of top players study at schools here in the region - Cleveland Institute of Music, Oberlin, Baldwin-Wallace, just to name a few. NE Ohio churns out a ton of great musicians, all due to the presence of the Cleveland Orchestra.

Szell didn't need to do "better than Cleveland," because he was already at the top of the game when he was here.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

prlj said:


> Hey now!  Cleveland has a lot to offer, and is absolutely one of the top orchestras in the world. A ton of top players study at schools here in the region - Cleveland Institute of Music, Oberlin, Baldwin-Wallace, just to name a few. NE Ohio churns out a ton of great musicians, all due to the presence of the Cleveland Orchestra.
> 
> Szell didn't need to do "better than Cleveland," because he was already at the top of the game when he was here.


I know Cleveland has a good orchestra never been there though


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I would recommend listening to more than Klemperer, Furtwangler, Karajan, Haitink, Bernstein and Owaza for Beethoven symphonies. You might discover interpretations you like even more than Toscanini. Chailly’s 1st is basically toscanini but in modern sound. Kleiber and Szell I would recommend as well, with Kleiber for the 4th and 5th and Szell for the 2nd and 7th


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> I'm there has been a million discussions on the Beethoven cycle I'm sure and I'm not starting another at all just promoting an idea.
> 
> My opinion which will be laughed at is that I prefer Arturo Toscanini for Beethoven symphonies and as the 20th century's best conductor.


Not crazy at all..I love Toscanini's Beethoven....always have....Reiner, too....they are very convincing in this repertoire....can be lean and mean, but also lyrical and poetic as well..always plenty of drive and energy.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> I never got to know Szell well I think mainly because for an American smaller city orchestra ....
> Szell has a stellar reputation,always wondered why he didn't try to better than Cleveland.Although the Cleveland orchestra has always had a good reputation......


Szell built Cleveland into a great orchestra, one of the all-time bests...he had no incentive to leave..


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

prlj said:


> Hey now!  Cleveland has a lot to offer, and is absolutely one of the top orchestras in the world. A ton of top players study at schools here in the region - Cleveland Institute of Music, Oberlin, Baldwin-Wallace, just to name a few. NE Ohio churns out a ton of great musicians, all due to the presence of the Cleveland Orchestra.
> 
> Szell didn't need to do "better than Cleveland," because he was already at the top of the game when he was here.


Completely off topic: back 100 years ago or so, Cleveland was by all accounts a vibrant, modern, beautiful city. Then something went wrong, manufacturing left and it became the Mistake by the Lake. The river caught fire. There are still some pockets of terrible, grinding poverty. But there's a lot to offer: I've traveled there just to hear that incredible orchestra in Severance Hall and have always had a good time. Compared to a lot of places, it's a very walkable city. Museums galore and one of the friendliest pubs I've ever been in. Out of curiosity I even went to the Kirby vacuum factory - a manager thought that was so amazing that he gave me a personal tour! I'm not a Rock n Roll fan, but the museum is wonderful. Best Italian food ever, even better than what you can find in Philly. There are many American cities larger than Cleveland than can't boast of an orchestra anywhere nearly as good. But who can? I stayed with friends in Chagrin Falls - a small suburb right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Anyone who wants to visit hallowed classical music ground needs to go to Cleveland at least once.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I quite enjoy Toscanini's Beethoven as well, the sound is not good but the performances have drive and passion and are very exciting in my opinion. His Ninth from 1952 remastered is still my go-to recording for this awesome symphony.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The sound of these Toscanini recordings is not great, it's not even among the best to be found around 1950 but it's not horrible either and mostly quite listenable, even to those used to more recent recordings, I think. In fact, it could be that the dry and direct sound adds to the excitement...
However, as the Toscanini style "won" historically, and now we have had for over 30 years fast and lean Beethoven both on modern and historic instruments, I don't think that Toscanini's (or Leibowitz', although I'd chime in with the general recommendation) is quite as essential listening as it probably was in the 1960s or even 1980s when the speed and lean energy stuck out more clearly among many of big, broad, mainstream recordings.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> I would recommend listening to more than Klemperer, Furtwangler, Karajan, Haitink, Bernstein and Owaza for Beethoven symphonies. You might discover interpretations you like even more than Toscanini. Chailly’s 1st is basically toscanini but in modern sound. Kleiber and Szell I would recommend as well, with Kleiber for the 4th and 5th and Szell for the 2nd and 7th


I have heard other conductors,it takes a few listens though,if I had more time.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I guess it's very much a matter of taste, or rather, a matter of what you are looking for in performances and interpretations.
I personally find it very hard to enjoy the work of exponents of the "objectivist" Toscanini school. I find them often lacking in expression, driven by relentless forward propulsion and with an obsession for clarity and transparency even when the music doesn't ask for it.

I don't think that the aesthetics of Toscanini have their place in modern music making. They were a product of their time and appear as dated to me as the occasional excesses of Furtwängler, at the other end of the spectrum. There's no use in claiming one school of conducting "won" and the other one lost - because the most successful conductors of today always apply a healthy mix of both schools and avoid the extremes.
But then again, one's personal preferences can make one lean towards one side, and in my case it's the "Furtwänglerian" side, definitely. I love interpretations with a great deal of flexibility in tempo that avoid any sense of rigidity and infuse the music with warmth and natural tension. I don't care about technical perfection. It's fine if it's there but it's no requisite for a satisfying performance.

And there's the issue of a conductor's personality too. Toscanini, Reiner and Szell were dictators, who used tyrannical methods to get the results they wanted. One can argue that all that matters is the result, and if the results are great, the methods used to get there must be great as well. But when I listen to their records, I feel I can sometimes hear that they were made using military discipline, driven by a certain amount of uncompromising fanaticism that one can find fascinating but that often strikes me as unpleasant.
Take Toscanini's NY Beethoven 7 - regarded as one of the greatest 7ths ever recorded. I find it creepy, obsessive, even scary in its single-mindedness.
Or Szell's Beethoven 3, also hailed as a great milestone, to me it sounds cold and heartless. I take the complete opposite (Barbirolli's BCC SO 3rd) over it any time, because of its intense lyricism and the human touch Barbirolli lends to the music. Sure, Barbirolli wasn't a great orchestral trainer and rigorous orchestral discipline wasn't really his thing. But when listening to his recordings you get the feeling that the orchestra and the conductor are one breathing, living organism, with all its qualities and defects - not a perpetually unfailing machine with a robot at the helm.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

pianozach said:


> Similar story here. My *Beethoven Symphonies box set* is by *János Ferencsik* with the *Hungarian State Symphony Orchestra*.


RLY? You have their Beethoven 9th? I think they're the only ones who get the tempo of the Mozart requiem right, btw. (I should check out their Beethoven 9th as well.)







> "I have taken particular care to write _andante maestoso_ upon it, so that it should not be played fast – for if a fugue is not played slowly the ear cannot clearly distinguish the new subject as it is introduced and the effect is missed".-Mozart, on the K.394 fugue (in a letter to Nannerl)


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

RobertJTh said:


> I guess it's very much a matter of taste, or rather, a matter of what you are looking for in performances and interpretations.
> I personally find it very hard to enjoy the work of exponents of the "objectivist" Toscanini school. I find them often lacking in expression, driven by relentless forward propulsion and with an obsession for clarity and transparency even when the music doesn't ask for it.
> 
> I don't think that the aesthetics of Toscanini have their place in modern music making. They were a product of their time and appear as dated to me as the occasional excesses of Furtwängler, at the other end of the spectrum. There's no use in claiming one school of conducting "won" and the other one lost - because the most successful conductors of today always apply a healthy mix of both schools and avoid the extremes.
> ...


I also don’t really like Szell’s 3rd, it’s crazy how sometimes he can come over as very exciting and at other times how you describe him. But when I hear Beethoven’s 3rd piano concerto by Fleischer/Szell and listen to the 3 minute long orchestra part that precedes the piano entry I realise what a genius he was


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

RobertJTh said:


> And there's the issue of a conductor's personality too. Toscanini, Reiner and Szell were dictators, who used tyrannical methods to get the results they wanted. One can argue that all that matters is the result, and if the results are great, the methods used to get there must be great as well. But when I listen to their records, I feel I can sometimes hear that they were made using military discipline, driven by a certain amount of uncompromising fanaticism that one can find fascinating but that often strikes me as unpleasant.


I believe that this is the essence of your post, and explains perfectly why many people (including you) seem to dismiss Toscanini's recordings as subpar (other than due to the sound quality of them): because he was rigourous and perfectionist, and made quite high demands from his orchestra. This, today, is seem as tyrannism against the musicians by many and is _really _(I think) what makes you people dislike his recordings so much, even if actually they are top notch (except for the sound).



RobertJTh said:


> But then again, one's personal preferences can make one lean towards one side, and in my case it's the "Furtwänglerian" side, definitely. I love interpretations with a great deal of flexibility in tempo that avoid any sense of rigidity and infuse the music with warmth and natural tension.


This "flexibility in tempo" is exactly what I dislike about Furtwängler's performances of Beethoven: to my ears, under his baton his music loses it's momentum and becomes rhythmically turgid. And I want my Beethoven to sound like Beethoven, not like Wagner or Bruckner.



Kreisler jr said:


> However, as the Toscanini style "won" historically, and now we have had for over 30 years fast and lean Beethoven both on modern and historic instruments, I don't think that Toscanini's (or Leibowitz', although I'd chime in with the general recommendation) is quite as essential listening as it probably was in the 1960s or even 1980s when the speed and lean energy stuck out more clearly among many of big, broad, mainstream recordings.


At least from what I know, I will take most Toscanini performances over most fast performances by today conductors, HIP or not. Contrary to what a few other members are saying here, I think that his are full of _pathos _and fire, in my view crucial for Beethoven, but at the same time without mannerisms. The only real problem I see in Toscanini is the sound.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I listened to the 3rd Brahms Symphony by Toscanini today. He made the music sound strong indeed. So I do not consider you crazy.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I haven't listened to Toscanini except for the 1936 NYP Beethoven 7 recording. The sound is too poor for it to be my favorite recording of that symphony.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Nope, not crazy. My own favorite is Blomstedt/Dresden Staatskapelle.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

RobertJTh said:


> I guess it's very much a matter of taste, or rather, a matter of what you are looking for in performances and interpretations.
> I personally find it very hard to enjoy the work of exponents of the "objectivist" Toscanini school. I find them often lacking in expression, driven by relentless forward propulsion and with an obsession for clarity and transparency even when the music doesn't ask for it.
> 
> I don't think that the aesthetics of Toscanini have their place in modern music making. They were a product of their time and appear as dated to me as the occasional excesses of Furtwängler, at the other end of the spectrum. There's no use in claiming one school of conducting "won" and the other one lost - because the most successful conductors of today always apply a healthy mix of both schools and avoid the extremes.
> ...





RobertJTh said:


> I guess it's very much a matter of taste, or rather, a matter of what you are looking for in performances and interpretations.
> I personally find it very hard to enjoy the work of exponents of the "objectivist" Toscanini school. I find them often lacking in expression, driven by relentless forward propulsion and with an obsession for clarity and transparency even when the music doesn't ask for it.


I'm not even sure what the objectivist school is other than it sounds like more of a Klemperer/Toscanini thing than a Furtwangler/Von Karajan thing.

I go by the individual not the catagory,it's the personal touch I like not the abstract philosophy.I like Furtwangler too and Van Karajan.Just like I love Rubenstein and Glenn Gould too.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Xisten267 said:


> I believe that this is the essence of your post, and explains perfectly why many people (including you) seem to dismiss Toscanini's recordings as subpar (other than due to the sound quality of them): because he was rigourous and perfectionist, and made quite high demands from his orchestra. This, today, is seem as tyrannism against the musicians by many and is _really _(I think) what makes you people dislike his recordings so much, even if actually they are top notch (except for the sound).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would not call the Toscanini recordings sub par but it can't be denied that they are old I think most would agree the 1939 were his best.In 53 he was over 90 and past his musical prime.

A lot of people especially rocker's dismiss CD's and say only records are good but that does not mean the music is not great.I grew up on 8 tracks and loved them.Sound quality is only a tenth of the total quality of a recording.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There were some fine Beethoven conductors in the past but I feel we are lucky to be living through times that have thrown up a great many more - this is a golden age of Beethoven conducting! Also, I do wonder about the idea that one conductor is better in Beethoven than all the others. One of the wonderful things about Beethoven is how well his music responds to a wide variety of interpretive approaches. There are at least ten sets of the symphonies that I could not choose between and when you get down to each individual symphony the number increases.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> There were some fine Beethoven conductors in the past but I feel we are lucky to be living through times that have thrown up a great many more - this is a golden age of Beethoven conducting! Also, I do wonder about the idea that one conductor is better in Beethoven than all the others. One of the wonderful things about Beethoven is how well his music responds to a wide variety of interpretive approaches. There are at least ten sets of the symphonies that I could not choose between and when you get down to each individual symphony the number increases.


Andris Nelsons should be in here but embarrassingly I have not seen him in concert yet,I should see more concerts!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> Andris Nelsons should be in here but embarrassingly I have not seen him in concert yet,I should see more concerts!


I guess Nelsons is OK. He does a fine job. But for me there are many more striking sets. Leaving aside HIP performers (which I'm guessing you don't go for) for a moment there are still many fine Beethoven sets. The Norrington set made in Stuttgart is one, Adam Fischer another, Gielen a third and then there is Vanska (rather cerebral but very focused). And some people rave about Skrowaczewski's set. If you include HIP performances, the best (IMO) are Haselbock (for most of the symphonies but not the 9th) and Savall. These all have the advantage of being quite distinctive - there is no point collecting sets that follow similar approaches - and very successful.


----------



## ttc359 (11 mo ago)

like Toscanini, dont like sound quality, as mentioned above. But instead of a cycle, there are individual stereo recordings that can please. Scherchen's Eroica for example, or Munch's 9th. These are fast, biting performances.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I feel like the 9th works better with a slow and heavy approach, so more old school. Fricsay is a great example of perfect pacing


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

ttc359 said:


> like Toscanini, dont like sound quality, as mentioned above. But instead of a cycle, there are individual stereo recordings that can please. Scherchen's Eroica for example, or Munch's 9th. These are fast, biting performances.


I have not really heard the Toscanini cycle if it even exists.I have heard the 4th,5th,7th and 9th actually of his.The only full cycle I have ever heard is Von Karajan because I got the 4 CD set cheap at a used record store.

I am not so much of a fan of the 1st,2nd,3rd,6th and 8th to fret over the conductor.
I am not the type to fret over conductors in general,my interest in this site is as a composer and pianist.I am no expert on recordings or live performances.I have only been to 4 concerts in the last 18 years,I don't get out much.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

EvaBaron said:


> I feel like the 9th works better with a slow and heavy approach, so more old school.


We disagree here: to me, heavy, yes, but not slow. I prefer it fast, taking into account Beethoven's own metronomic markings for it. In the premiere, with Beethoven himself conducting (or at least trying to conduct), it took 63 minutes for the _Choral_ to be played, so my ideal performance couldn't last much more than that.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

bagpipers said:


> I never got to know Szell well I think mainly because for an American smaller city orchestra I preferred Boston/Ozawa
> 
> Szell has a stellar reputation,always wondered why he didn't try to better than Cleveland.Although the Cleveland orchestra has always had a good reputation despite Cleveland itself being the heart of the rust belt.


The Cleveland Orchestra under Szell was considered the finest American orchestra in the 1960s.


----------



## Wigmar (7 mo ago)

bagpipers said:


> I'm there has been a million discussions on the Beethoven cycle I'm sure and I'm not starting another at all just promoting an idea.
> 
> My opinion which will be laughed at is that I prefer Arturo Toscanini for Beethoven symphonies and as the 20th century's best conductor.
> 
> ...


I am sure I will listen with interest to Beethoven performed by Toscanini. To this day, I do not have any recording with Toscanini, although I have all Beethoven symphonies with Furtwangler. Maybe I should give it a try and listen to a sample 🎼


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> In the premiere, with Beethoven himself conducting (or at least trying to conduct), it took 63 minutes for the _Choral_ to be played.


Can I ask you for a source on that?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

RobertJTh said:


> Can I ask you for a source on that?


Sure. I read that in Jan Swafford's _Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph_. I don't remember exactly in which chapter/page though, but I can look for it if you think it's necessary. If I recall correctly, it was Karl (Beethoven's nephew) who said to someone who was visiting the composer that the premiere of the _Choral_ took 63 minutes.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Xisten267 said:


> We disagree here: to me, heavy, yes, but not slow. I prefer it fast, taking into account Beethoven's own metronomic markings for it. In the premiere, with Beethoven himself conducting (or at least trying to conduct), it took 63 minutes for the _Choral_ to be played, so my ideal performance couldn't last much more than that.


Can you recommend me a fast but heavy performance? I want to know what I think of it. Do you think the 6th should be played fast as well? I feel like it needs to be relaxed so I prefer a slow approach. The 9th and 6th are the only Beethoven symphonies where I prefer a slow approach, and judging from Trout’s list of recommended recordings I’m not the only one


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

EvaBaron said:


> Can you recommend me a fast but heavy performance? I want to know what I think of it.....


Try some of these and see what floats yer boat, EvaB.

Mackerras / RLPO
Gardiner
Norrington / Stuttgart (not the crappy LCP) 
Lan Shui / Copenhagen


Or for slightly slower but brisk and weighty

De Vriend
Skrowaczewski 

All fine 9ths

PS. If you like bombast try Munch's famous late 1950s Boston 9th. Play it loud but make sure the neighbours are out. You've been warned.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

EvaBaron said:


> Can you recommend me a fast but heavy performance? I want to know what I think of it.


Sure. In addition to Merl's recommendations, I would like to suggest the Toscanini with the NBC SO I mentioned earlier in this thread. I prefer the 1952 recording because of sound quality, far from ideal but in my view quite reasonable for Toscanini. I think that the performance is powerful, fiery and passionate, one of the best "fast" Ninths I know in my humble opinion. You can listen to it on youtube if you want (here's the link to it).



EvaBaron said:


> Do you think the 6th should be played fast as well? I feel like it needs to be relaxed so I prefer a slow approach. The 9th and 6th are the only Beethoven symphonies where I prefer a slow approach, and judging from Trout’s list of recommended recordings I’m not the only one.


No, I'm with you on it. Böhn/VPO (1971) is my current favorite recording, but I'm very optimistic about a Bernstein/VPO I recently acquired (I didn't listen to it yet).


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Merl said:


> Try some of these and see what floats yer boat, EvaB.
> 
> Mackerras / RLPO
> Gardiner
> ...


Nice, I don't know half of these 9ths and should probably listen to them in the future. 

Could you please recommend me a fast and heavy performance of Beethoven's #4? It's the only Beethoven symphony whose recordings I own never satisfied me.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Xisten267 said:


> Nice, I don't know half of these 9ths and should probably listen to them in the future.
> 
> Could you please recommend me a fast and heavy performance of Beethoven's #4? It's the only Beethoven symphony whose recordings I own never satisfied me.


The same suspects as above but especially Skrowaczewski's Saarbrucken 4th which is a reference for me. But don't take my word for it, listen to any one of these for the 4th too.. 

Dohnanyi
Fischer (Adam)
Saraste
Dausgaard
John Nelson
Gielen (Hannsler)
Blomstedt /Leipzig
Immerseel


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> Could you please recommend me a fast and heavy performance of Beethoven's #4? It's the only Beethoven symphony whose recordings I own never satisfied me.


Give Konwitschny/Leipzig 4th a try. To me it's the best performance in an already excellent cycle - and one of the great 4th's out there.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> Could you please recommend me a fast and heavy performance of Beethoven's #4? It's the only Beethoven symphony whose recordings I own never satisfied me.


Bernstein/NYPO, Gielen/SWF, Mackerras/Liverpool (or whatever the orchestra on the classics for pleasure discs). And probably Scherchen and Leibowitz but it's ages I listened to them and don't quite recall their way with #4, a slightly underrated piece but still not a great favorite of mine (except the slow movement).


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Xisten267 said:


> Sure. In addition to Merl's recommendations, I would like to suggest the Toscanini with the NBC SO I mentioned earlier in this thread. I prefer the 1952 recording because of sound quality, far from ideal but in my view quite reasonable for Toscanini. I think that the performance is powerful, fiery and passionate, one of the best "fast" Ninths I know in my humble opinion. You can listen to it on youtube if you want (here's the link to it).
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm with you on it. Böhn/VPO (1971) is my current favorite recording, but I'm very optimistic about a Bernstein/VPO I recently acquired (I didn't listen to it yet).


That Böhm/VPO is also my favorite recording of the 6th. Never heard Bernstein VPO but his Nypo 6th is excellent so I hope the later one is as well for you. I will listen to that Toscanini


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Merl said:


> Try some of these and see what floats yer boat, EvaB.
> 
> Mackerras / RLPO
> Gardiner
> ...


Thanks Merl! I’ll try Mackerras and Munch


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Xisten267 said:


> Nice, I don't know half of these 9ths and should probably listen to them in the future.
> 
> Could you please recommend me a fast and heavy performance of Beethoven's #4? It's the only Beethoven symphony whose recordings I own never satisfied me.


I really like the fourth and the only performances that have ever satisfied me that I have listened to are Bernstein/Nypo, toscanini second cycle and my absolute favorite: C. Kleiber/BSO (live). This performance is fast, urgent and has a lot of energy, more so than his famous studio 5th and 7th


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> ...
> 
> Could you please recommend me a fast and heavy performance of Beethoven's #4? It's the only Beethoven symphony whose recordings I own never satisfied me.


I would consider a moderately fast #4 to be under 33 mins (with exposition repeat) or under 30 mins (without).

Riccardo Chailly at 29:40 (with repeat, well under 33 mins) is genuinely fast and the Gewandhausorchester is properly weighty. His fast tempo played the big band way does not please everybody though.

There are many Carlos Kleiber #4s. Among those that I have heard, most are moderately fast at 29+ mins (no repeat) and the one that plays the repeat is at over 33 mins which is not really fast. The only one I have heard that I consider properly fast is the 1986 NHK recording at 28:24 (no repeat). However, I am not sure I would classify Carlos Kleiber as "heavy". It's more like "polished" to me.

Emmanuel Krivine, Ádám Fischer and Charles Mackerras are all reasonably fast at 31+ mins (with repeat). Krivine is gritty and alive, A. Fischer is charismatic, while Mackerras is more orthodox. Again I do not see them as "heavy". Maybe Mackerras, but only marginally. Your mileage may vary.

Jordi Savall and Jos van Immerseel are only moderately fast at 32+ mins (with repeat), but they might fit your "heavy" criteria more closely with their richer and bigger sound.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've always been a huge admirer of Furtwangler . He was a true titan of the podium with possibly the most profound mind in the history of conducting . Yes, his Beethoven is controversial, but it's never struck me as being "turgid" in any way , and while he certainly uses considerable. flexibility of tempo , his flexibility is always highly musical and never arbitrary, willful and. self-indulgent , nor were his tempi alway particularly slow in Beethoven and other composers .
And when he does use unusually slow tempi , there is still plenty of inner tension which prevent the music. from becoming in any way flaccid . There is also a grandeur and nobility in his Beethoven recordings which often makes those Toscanini seem merely hectic, punchy, nervous, rushed , choppy, and metronomically rigid.. More petulant than viscerally exciting .
But his classic. recording of the 7th with the NY Phil. is much better .


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> This "flexibility in tempo" is exactly what I dislike about Furtwängler's performances of Beethoven: to my ears, under his baton his music loses it's momentum and becomes rhythmically turgid. And I want my Beethoven to sound like Beethoven, not like Wagner or Bruckner.





superhorn said:


> I've always been a huge admirer of Furtwangler . He was a true titan of the podium with possibly the most profound mind in the history of conducting . (...) There is also a grandeur and nobility in his Beethoven recordings which often makes those Toscanini seem merely hectic, punchy, nervous, rushed , choppy, and metronomically rigid.. More petulant than viscerally exciting .


One man's trash is another man's treasure. What more could I say?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I just listed some fast ones, Kiki. I wasn't really concentrating on the 'heavy' attribute as the two rarely go together. Btw, the Lan Shui is pretty swift at just under 31 mins.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

There is a wartime (1942 or 44, I think later on DG CD and also Music and Arts, I think it was from the tapes that had ended up in Russia until the 1980s) LvB 4th with Furtwängler that is still not fast but flowing and quite big and dramatic. I think even a skeptic would not deny that Furtwängler is impressive in passage like Intro -> fast section of first movement but of course this is not the whole piece and it will overall not be for the ones demanding Toscanini- or Kleiber-like fleetness.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> I just listed some fast ones, Kiki. I wasn't really concentrating on the 'heavy' attribute as the two rarely go together. Btw, the Lan Shui is pretty swift at just under 31 mins.


I checked it out on Spotify. Lan Shui's first movement is not only swift, but also crisp. I like that! Great timpani also, but that's not a surprise since you obviously recommend it. However, the two middle movements are more moderate in tempo, especially the Scherzo which sounds slower than its 6-min timing suggests. Not bad at all, but not really fast which is the subject here. The finale is moderately fast, with good urgency, but it pales a little bit in comparison with the first movement, probably because the first movement is so outrageously good. Good one, Merl!


----------



## Ulrich (5 mo ago)

bagpipers said:


> I'm there has been a million discussions on the Beethoven cycle I'm sure and I'm not starting another at all just promoting an idea.
> 
> My opinion which will be laughed at is that I prefer Arturo Toscanini for Beethoven symphonies and as the 20th century's best conductor.
> 
> ...


There’s nothing to laugh about. Toscanini is regarded by many to be the best Beethoven performer on record. For me personally, the sound quality of those recordings is just too big an obstacle to overcome.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> I never got to know Szell well I think mainly because for an American smaller city orchestra I preferred Boston/Ozawa
> 
> Szell has a stellar reputation,always wondered why he didn't try to better than Cleveland.Although the Cleveland orchestra has always had a good reputation despite Cleveland itself being the heart of the rust belt.



Cleveland for many decades was considered America's top orchestra, and one of the best in the world! This is partly or mainly thanks to Szell himself, who was a fairly strict taskmaster and did seem to whip them successfully into a superb ensemble.

Nothing wrong with Boston, and since I live in Western Mass. not too far from Tanglewood, I do love my "local band"! A superb ensemble!

Size of the city is not necessarily the only criterion for how good the local orchestra is. The New York Phil. is often regarded as the weakest, or at least the least coherent of the "big five", although still a very fine orchestra. Great individual players but somewhat lacking in cohesion seems to be a common criticism targeted at them. I used to live in Long Island and Queens more than 20 years ago so for a few years the NY Phil. was my "local band" as well.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

haziz said:


> Cleveland for many decades was considered America's top orchestra, and one of the best in the world! This is partly or mainly thanks to Szell himself, who was a fairly strict taskmaster and did seem to whip them successfully into a superb ensemble.
> 
> Nothing wrong with Boston, and since I live in Western Mass. not too far from Tanglewood, I do love my "local band"! A superb ensemble!
> 
> Size of the city is not necessarily the only criterion for how good the local orchestra is. The New York Phil. is often regarded as the weakest, or at least the least coherent of the "big five", although still a very fine orchestra. Great individual players but somewhat lacking in cohesion seems to be a common criticism targeted at them. I used to live in Long Island and Queens more than 20 years ago so for a few years the NY Phil. was my "local band" as well.


I'm also in W Mass about 40 minutes out of Tanglewood in Northern Berkshire county area not far from Mt Greylock.

I saw the Telegraph string quartet last month at the white church in Charlemont as part of the Mohawk Trail concert series.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

It was Toscanini with the NBC ('56?) that drew my attention to the 8th. It's excellent and the sound is bearable.


----------



## janwillemvanaalst (5 mo ago)

Funny, your topic reminded me of something I recently read on Wikipedia about conductor Günter Wand: 

As still a young conductor, a journalist asked him how he’d consider interpreting Beethoven's ninth symphony, more like Arturo Toscanini or rather like Wilhelm Furtwängler. Wand answered laconically: "Like Beethoven".


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

janwillemvanaalst said:


> As still a young conductor, a journalist asked him how he’d consider interpreting Beethoven's ninth symphony, more like Arturo Toscanini or rather like Wilhelm Furtwängler. Wand answered laconically: "Like Beethoven".


Of course Toscanini and Furtwängler would have given the same answer 
It's remarkable that conductors who are often accused of idiosyncrasies are mostly perfectly convinced that everything they do is in the spirit of the composer. While some of the blandest, least imaginative Kapelmeisters out there will insist that their interpretations are unique and inimitable.


----------



## Ulrich (5 mo ago)

janwillemvanaalst said:


> Funny, your topic reminded me of something I recently read on Wikipedia about conductor Günter Wand:
> 
> As still a young conductor, a journalist asked him how he’d consider interpreting Beethoven's ninth symphony, more like Arturo Toscanini or rather like Wilhelm Furtwängler. Wand answered laconically: "Like Beethoven".


That’s no wonder for him to say this, since Wand strived to be a strict originalist. But to answer the journalists question, one would have to say, that Wand was definitely more in the Toscanini camp. So I think his Beethoven cycle would be a good alternative for someone who likes Toscanini but wants a better recording quality.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

janwillemvanaalst said:


> Funny, your topic reminded me of something I recently read on Wikipedia about conductor Günter Wand:
> 
> As still a young conductor, Wand answered laconically: "Like Beethoven".


Beethoven was supposedly bad but without recording it's hard to know how bad.He must have been a passionate conductor but not likely a competent conductor.And of coarse his metronome was notoriously too fast so his time keeping must have been rip roaring speed.
He would have been at the least an entertaining conductor for sure,especially when his hands are still moving and the music has stopped.


----------



## Ulrich (5 mo ago)

bagpipers said:


> Beethoven was supposedly bad but without recording it's hard to know how bad.He must have been a passionate conductor but not likely a competent conductor.And of coarse his metronome was notoriously too fast so his time keeping must have been rip roaring speed.
> He would have been at the least an entertaining conductor for sure,especially when his hands are still moving and the music has stopped.


Some of the performances of his symphonies that Beethoven himself had any part in are said to have been disastrous. I‘m not sure this really was due to a lack of talent on his part. Beethoven is known to have been impatient and choleric. Not exactly the best qualifications to work with a large orchestra.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Ulrich said:


> Some of the performances of his symphonies that Beethoven himself had any part in are said to have been disastrous. I‘m not sure this really was due to a lack of talent on his part. Beethoven is known to have been impatient and choleric. Not exactly the best qualifications to work with a large orchestra.


Interestingly tonight is the 90th birthday celebration of John Williams at Tanglewood by the BSO with Yo Yo Ma and many others.
I should go but I don't have the motivation plus it's likely sold out.

Back on topic ,yea I think all Beethoven's conducting outings were disastrous,yes he was terse and abrupt and had in modern terms IBS and was going deaf and worked poorly with people.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> Beethoven was supposedly bad but without recording it's hard to know how bad.He must have been a passionate conductor but not likely a competent conductor.And of coarse his metronome was notoriously too fast so his time keeping must have been rip roaring speed.
> He would have been at the least an entertaining conductor for sure,especially when his hands are still moving and the music has stopped.


All current evidence contradicts this completely. There have been numerous papers published and research carried out by the Beethoven Project, etc saying that there was nothing wrong with his metronome. If you believe his marks are too fast then that's personal opinion or based on misinformation from hearsay / lazy critics who haven't studied the evidence. Remember that Beethoven performances slowed significantly in the 19th century.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Merl said:


> All current evidence contradicts this completely. There have been numerous papers published and research carried out by the Beethoven Project, etc saying that there was nothing wrong with his metronome. If you believe his marks are too fast then that's personal opinion or based on misinformation from hearsay / lazy critics who haven't studied the evidence. Remember that Beethoven performances slowed significantly in the 19th century.


Yes many people say his metronome was ok.In general analog metronomes in general are not as accurate as the newer electric metronomes.Time keeping in general is more accurate today .I would not be surprised if Beethoven's metronome was off being most metronomes were off in those days.Modern analog metronome's can't compete with electric ones.

Beethoven's metronome could have been to slow so you could be right in that fashion.


----------

