# Best recordings of Mozart's late symphonies?



## Caryatid

What are your preferred recordings of Mozart's late symphonies? I'm thinking of symphonies 38-41, but sets of 35-41 or just 39-41 are also welcome.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

My favorites of the late Mozart Symphonies are 38,39 and 41. I prefer Klemperer and Szell here, and also Bruno Walter's mono New York Philharmonic performances of Numbers 39 and 41.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oh wow: there are many. There are those by Pinnock and by Krips (not as different interpretively as you might expect although the sound certainly is different). Norrington's last four symphonies with the London Classical Players is wonderful. And then there is Klemperer - very different but impressive. And both Harnoncourt and Savall have made recordings of the last three as one piece ... and both of these are very recommendable. Maag is also excellent as is Bruno Walter. I do also quite like Tate's big band accounts - a shame he was going against the emerging fashion when he made them. The Suitner recordings are also good, as are Bernstein's. I've not mentioned Beecham partly because he recorded them several times and it can get confusing ... but he had a special affinity with Mozart and should be checked out.

I suppose the Mackerras with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra is also recommendable - many love it - but I find it a little driven (which is for me the death of a Mozart performance). Karajan is too sweet for me in these works and Bohm is too focused on style. I didn't greatly like Marriner's Mozart either.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Harnoncourt and the RCO! I am not a great Mozart enthousiast (understatement), but I find #40 by this combination a great piece of music. Highly remarkable tempi, IMO very true to the music.


----------



## wkasimer

Bruno Walter, Frans Brüggen, Rene Jacobs, Christoph von Dohnanyi.


----------



## Knorf

There are so many good performances of Mozart, it's almost easier to tell you which to avoid. 

In the avoid column: Jeffrey Tate/ECO, boring, slow, overly precious. 

Not great: Neville Marriner/OSMF, less boring but still too precious. Karajan/Berlin, just don't come together for me. 

In the dark horse column: Gerard Schwartz/LA Chamber Orchestra, on Delos, believe it or not. Not at all a conductor I often recommend. Just 40 & 41, I think.

In the "I don't get it" column: Böhm/Vienna. Why do people like these? They're so square.

A few I like, in no particular order.
Harnoncourt, RCO or COE (modern), and Concentus Musicus Wien (period.)
Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic. 
Szell, Cleveland Orchestra. 
Pinnock, English Concert (period.)
Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra.

There are others. Walter, for sure.


----------



## wkasimer

Knorf said:


> In the "I don't get it" column: Böhm/Vienna. Why do people like these? They're so square.


Don't ask me - I've never understood why people recommend Böhm for Mozart. Much as I admire his work in other music (especially Richard Strauss), his Mozart is invariably charmless and dull. That's true of the symphonies, and just as true in opera. Wunderlich aside, it's hard for me to fathom why anyone would choose to listen to Böhm's Zauberflöte.


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> Don't ask me - I've never understood why people recommend Böhm for Mozart. Much as I admire his work in other music (especially Richard Strauss), his Mozart is invariably charmless and dull. That's true of the symphonies, and just as true in opera.
> Wunderlich aside, it's hard for me to fathom why anyone would choose to listen to Böhm's Zauberflöte.


Agreed on all points! I'm also not fond of Böhm's Beethoven Pastoral Symphony, at all.


----------



## Simplicissimus

I’m always up for listening to recordings of 35-41, and I’ve heard a ton of them. The two I keep in my collection are Harnoncourt/Concentus musicus Wien (period) and Szell/Cleveland (modern).


----------



## Heck148

Walter, Reiner, Szell are all very fine...Walter, both NYPO and ColSO - he always takes a warm, more "romantic" approach to Mozart, very lyrical, with beautiful vocal lines maintained [crucial to Mozart]
Solti was also a very fine Mozart conductor - I heard him conduct #s 39 and 41 live...very good, predictably muscular and energetic, but well-phrased and very clear. He recorded 38, 39, 40, 41...also a splendid #25 [CSO archival set - CSO - 1st 100 Years]


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

It’s really only the last three symphonies that hold my attention. Walter is the greatest Mozart conductor I’ve heard. You can just tell he has such passionate, loving enthusiasm for the music and he lavishes such warmth and beauty upon every phrase that it makes even people who are kinda lukewarm on Mozart like me shout for joy. Next Klemperer who, unlike Bohm, knows how to bring a “stoic Germanic” approach to the music while dropping the elephantine trudge. So light, graceful, and balanced. We can’t forget about Szell and his amazingly vital accounts (his Jupiter converted me to Mozart’s symphonies after previously hearing nothing but whiny, anemic HIP versions) and Bernstein’s rousing recordings in Vienna either. HIP Mozart normally isn’t my jam, but I really like Jordi Savall’s 2019 recording of the last three. Brash, impolite, and in-your-face, which ain’t a bad way to have your Mozart.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It's really only the last three symphonies that hold my attention. Walter is the greatest Mozart conductor I've heard. You can just tell he has such passionate, loving enthusiasm for the music and he lavishes such warmth and beauty upon every phrase that it makes


I love Walter's quote about Mozart: 
_"When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure."
_



> We can't forget about Szell and his amazingly vital accounts (his Jupiter converted me to Mozart's symphonies after previously hearing nothing but whiny, anemic HIP versions)


Right, Reiner is very similar - very virile, energetic, but clean and transparent....not sure about Szell, but I believe Reiner used reduced string sections for Mozart, which enhances the clarity, and lets the wonderful woodwind parts come thru with great clarity. Szell achieves this as well.

If you'll forgive me "tooting my own horn" - one of my favorite #38 "Prague" Symphony recordings is one which my own Chamber Orchestra produced in the late 90s - With a wonderful conductor, I contracted a great orchestra. Small string section, but really heavy hitters - I had Boston Symphony violinists, Boston Ballet, Esplanade Pops personnel in the string section, plus superb wind players....We only used 11 violins - 6-5 - but what a sound!! [strings were, IIRC - 6-5-4-3-2, (I think, it was a while ago)] 
Wonderful clarity, yet the string sound was certainly husky enough - really vigorous, gutsy performance.....terrific dynamic range...was a real highlight for me...


----------



## Animal the Drummer

wkasimer said:


> Don't ask me - I've never understood why people recommend Böhm for Mozart. Much as I admire his work in other music (especially Richard Strauss), his Mozart is invariably charmless and dull. That's true of the symphonies, and just as true in opera. Wunderlich aside, it's hard for me to fathom why anyone would choose to listen to Böhm's Zauberflöte.


I haven't heard that much of him in Mozart over the years so I'm not taking issue with this in any general way, but he did a fine job of accompanying Pollini in piano concertos 19 and 23 on a DG recording in (I think) the 70s.


----------



## ORigel

I have Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment's live performance of the last three symphonies.


----------



## Bigbang

No one has mentioned No.29 symphony. What a wonderful slow movement. There are some masterpieces aside from 35-41 promoted by the "marketing" department.


----------



## wkasimer

Animal the Drummer said:


> I haven't heard that much of him [Böhm] in Mozart over the years so I'm not taking issue with this in any general way, but he did a fine job of accompanying Pollini in piano concertos 19 and 23 on a DG recording in (I think) the 70s.


Since I'm a fan of neither Böhm nor Pollini, I haven't sought this one out.


----------



## VitellioScarpia

wkasimer said:


> Since I'm a fan of neither Böhm nor Pollini, I haven't sought this one out.


I enjoyed some 200 years ago Böhm's recording of the late 25 symphonies on DG (LP collection), Knorf's comments notwithstanding :lol:. However, I have not listened to it for many years. I have the Mackerras on CD but they never caught up with me... Any recommendations?


----------



## Knorf

Well, if you like the Böhm, but don't like Mackerras, I'd say give Harnoncourt a try. He made Mozart symphony recordings with the RCO, CoE, and CMW: all have their strengths.


----------



## Itullian

i would say Bernstein's set on DG.
Very good sound. And wonderful performance.


----------



## Knorf

I thought if VitellioScarpia found Mackerras a bit hard driven, he might find Bernstein's a bit that way as well. But maybe not! Anyway, I like them, myself.


----------



## Dirge

W. A. MOZART ~ The Last Six Symphonies (Nos. 35-41)
:: Casals/Marlboro Festival Orchestra; Festival Casals Orchestra of Puerto Rico (No. 36) [Columbia '59-'68] Sony Japan 3-CD set

Casals and company's virile, muscular performances really bring these symphonies to life for me, making most modern-day accounts sound fussy and effeminate by comparison. The playing is a bit roughhewn, and inner detail is correspondingly coarsened and degraded, but the shaping of the music and the spirit of the music-making are so to my taste that such negative thoughts are swept away in the moment. Listeners possessed of a more inside-out/detail-oriented nature will not be so enamored, I'm sure, but crusty old farts who can't hear worth a damn in any event will be as pleased as Punch.

If the set has a weak link, it's the recording of "Linz," which is less well-played and spirited than the rest: it was made in 1959 with the Festival Casals Orchestra of Puerto Rico, and so is the odd man out in this set. Still, it's a decent account, but it doesn't have that revitalized/rejuvenated Indian summer magic of the Marlboro accounts. There was a single-CD release of 35, 40 & 41 widely available for a time, but I've not seen 36, 38 & 39 on CD outside of the Sony Japan set.


----------



## Olias

Mackerras!!!!!!!


----------



## Joachim Raff

Daniel Barenboim and the ECO (EMI/Warner) have been my all time favourites. Quite ancient recordings but the performances make up for it.


----------



## Gray Bean

Harnoncourt: the RCO is beautiful, the CMW is Zany but might well be my favorite. It ain’t dull! 

Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic(DG)

I also agree that the Mackerras/Scottish CO is very good. Didn’t much care for his Telarc set. Not sure why. I’ve still got it so maybe I’ll give it another go.

For beauty of orchestral execution Levine/Vienna Phil (DG)


----------



## wkasimer

Dirge said:


> W. A. MOZART ~ The Last Six Symphonies (Nos. 35-41)
> :: Casals/Marlboro Festival Orchestra; Festival Casals Orchestra of Puerto Rico (No. 36) [Columbia '59-'68] Sony Japan 3-CD set


This is a great set, worth seeking out. I forgot about it - that's what happens when I rely on memory and don't actually look on the shelf to see what's there.


----------



## wkasimer

Gray Bean said:


> I also agree that the Mackerras/Scottish CO is very good. Didn't much care for his Telarc set. Not sure why. I've still got it so maybe I'll give it another go.


For me, the Telarc recordings are well executed but bland, lacking energy, imagination, and personality.


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> For me, the Telarc recordings are well executed but bland, lacking energy, imagination, and personality.


Yes, the performances on the Linn recordings open up quite a lot, and are much less "safe" sounding.


----------



## DarkAngel

Dramatic new entry Herzog 39-41 uses small size orchestra very clear textures, similar in style to Jacobs DHM, Naive label sound excellent as usual.........

If you liked Krivine LVB set for Naive, this is for you


----------



## VitellioScarpia

Gray Bean said:


> Harnoncourt: the RCO is beautiful, the CMW is Zany but might well be my favorite. It ain't dull!
> 
> Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic(DG)
> 
> I also agree that the Mackerras/Scottish CO is very good. Didn't much care for his Telarc set. Not sure why. I've still got it so maybe I'll give it another go.
> 
> For beauty of orchestral execution Levine/Vienna Phil (DG)


I have the Mackerras on Telarc.


----------



## Coach G

I'm glad to see so many in favor of Bernstein/Vienna on DG. Put me down likewise. Interesting that Bernstein was never known much as a champion of Mozart.


----------



## Knorf

Coach G said:


> I'm glad to see so many in favor of Bernstein/Vienna on DG. Put me down likewise. Interesting that Bernstein was never known much as a champion of Mozart.


I know, but Bernstein was great for Haydn, too.


----------



## Gray Bean

Agreed, Knorf. The box set of Bernstein and the NY Phil performing Haydn's symphonies is a real gem.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think the 38th is underappreciated, for several reasons. I like the principal theme of the slow movement (which uses all 12 tones of the chromatic scale, like the 24th piano concerto 1st movement)


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> I thought if VitellioScarpia found Mackerras a bit hard driven, he might find Bernstein's a bit that way as well. But maybe not! Anyway, I like them, myself.


But Mackerras _is _hard driven (to my ears). My memory of Bernstein is that he allows the music to breathe. My recommendation in this case would be Krips or Pinnock ... but Norrington's old disc of last four are also exceptional.


----------



## flamencosketches

wkasimer said:


> Don't ask me - I've never understood why people recommend Böhm for Mozart. Much as I admire his work in other music (especially Richard Strauss), his Mozart is invariably charmless and dull. That's true of the symphonies, and just as true in opera. Wunderlich aside, it's hard for me to fathom why anyone would choose to listen to Böhm's Zauberflöte.


I love Böhm's Zauberflöte! Which one do you like?

On topic: My favorites are Marriner/ASMF, Szell/Cleveland, Walter/Columbia, and yes, Böhm/Berlin (or Vienna).

Edit: And this thread has piqued my interest in Bernstein/Vienna. Going to check out that Jupiter they did with the goofy cover.


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> My memory of Bernstein is that he allows the music to breathe.


I have to admit, even after 40 years of being a Classical music lover, with assorted music degrees, and a professional career as a performer and composer, I never understand this comment. What does it mean? Slower tempi? Adding in pauses or breath marks where none are marked? Additional rubato? Marked pauses, extra long? What?

I can kind of understand Stravinsky's comment about the organ being a "monster that never breathes," although I certainly don't agree.

But in Mozart? 

Does it just mean a more "romantic" interpretation?


----------



## Coach G

Knorf said:


> I know, but Bernstein was great for Haydn, too.


I tried the Haydn symphonies all manner of ways, HIP and un-HIP, and Bernstein's Columbia/New York Philharmonic Orch. recs remain my favorite; though he only did the _Paris _and _London_ sets. It's interesting to me that while Bernstein was a great conductor across the repertoire, his monumental efforts at championing the much heavier symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich; are surpassed (at least in my own mind) by the feeling of ease and enthusiasm that he brings Haydn whose symphonies, in comparison, are just wonderful fun and games, free from any thickness or anxiety.

The other composer that Bernstein pretty much owns (apart from Bernstein's own compositions) is that of his friend Aaron Copland.


----------



## Knorf

I quite agree, Coach G. I do like the Haydn and Mozart he did with Vienna on DG, too. While a number of Bernstein's DG recordings are turgid and clogged with too much "feeling" (Tchaikovsky 6, Brahms 3), his Haydn and Mozart remained light and free.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Knorf said:


> I have to admit, even after 40 years of being a Classical music lover, with assorted music degrees, and a professional career as a performer and composer, I never understand this comment. What does it mean? Slower tempi? Adding in pauses or breath marks where none are marked? Additional rubato? Marked pauses, extra long? What?
> 
> I can kind of understand Stravinsky's comment about the organ being a "monster that never breathes," although I certainly don't agree.
> 
> But in Mozart?
> 
> Does it just mean a more "romantic" interpretation?


For me, "letting the music breathe" in Mozart is antithetical to speed-demon HIP versions that seem like they're engaging in academic exercises. Bernstein has the measure of the music, balances the textures, brings out the surprising richness of the orchestration, lets the melodies move and sing and the rhythms dance. Szell, Walter, and Klemperer do this in various ways as well. Ironically I remember hearing Bernstein's Haydn Paris symphonies and thinking they were interesting, but a bit too lead-footed and unidiomatic for me (nothing I dislike worse than an elephantine minuet - this has nothing to do with tempo but rather with unnecessarily heavy accents; Beecham does this with the lightest touch). But I'll have to give Lenny's Haydn a fair shot.


----------



## RogerWaters

I find Mozart's symphonies depend greatly on performance, perhaps more than some others.

My goto is Walter with the Columbia.


----------



## wkasimer

People might find this Hurwitz video useful. I agree with him about the Dohnanyi set - worth seeking out.


----------



## Guest

Didn't know about Dohnanyi, I'm a fan of his and should give it a listen.

My clear favorite is Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw. I still remember the shock of hearing it, Mozart played with real gusto---aggressive horns and trumpets, timpani not at all polite---as I'm sure Mozart would have loved to hear it played.


----------



## DarkAngel

Couple more small scale orchestra with clarified music detail and lifted rythms......Immerseel & Menuhin

Menuhin may sound like crazy choice but he is really good here and the Virgin label sound is excellent 

Also recent collected boxsets of late Mozart Symphonies (28-41) for Gardiner and Bruggens get much playtime for me while saving money and shelf space.......


----------



## Gray Bean

Menuhin doesn’t sound like a crazy choice to me! He also has a really good Beethoven cycle. Worth hearing.
Bruggen....you bet!


----------



## Bigbang

DarkAngel said:


> Couple more small scale orchestra with clarified music detail and lifted rythms......Immerseel & Menuhin
> 
> Menuhin may sound like crazy choice but he is really good here and the Virgin label sound is excellent
> 
> Also recent collected boxsets of late Mozart Symphonies (28-41) for Gardiner and Bruggens get much playtime for me while saving money and shelf space.......


Gramophone classical cd guide 1999 picked symphonies 40+41 Menuhin/Virgin top pick. I own it and consider it one of my best selections and I own quite a number of them


----------



## happyclassicalfeet

Rafael Kubelik with Bavarian Radio Symphony is beautiful, especially the slower, but not any less electrifying 40. Szell's Jupiter is I think, with 100% consensus, extremely clinical and textbook with no idiosyncrasies. My go-to Mozart conductor is Bohm and he's awesome with both Vienna and Berlin. His 25 is strange and very different from other 25s, but worth a listen definitely.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I also enjoy Bohm's Mozart sometimes. But don't you think he is just a little over-focused on form and formality?


----------



## wkasimer

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I also enjoy Bohm's Mozart sometimes. But don't you think he is just a little over-focused on form and formality?


I think that Böhm's Mozart is utterly lacking in charm. All of it.


----------



## Marc

wkasimer said:


> People might find this Hurwitz video useful. I agree with him about the Dohnanyi set - worth seeking out.


To be honest, I can't take Hurwitz all that seriously in this repertoire, because, to me, his anti-period instruments sentiments (for the classical period) are mostly based on prejudices. For instance, I'm listening to Frans Brüggen & his orchestra in KV 504 ("Prague") and I can't think of anything lacking in both sound and deliverance. It's beautiful, dramatic, vivid and breathing, and all those things I like to hear in Mozart.

This doesn't mean though that some of his selections aren't worth checking out. But I take many of his grumpy 'funny' comments with a large grain of salt.


----------



## flamencosketches

wkasimer said:


> I think that Böhm's Mozart is utterly lacking in charm. All of it.


I couldn't disagree more. Reading comments like this always brings on the same thought, "are we listening to the same recordings?"


----------



## starthrower

I don't reach for Mozart symphonies very often but I like my Klemperer set. And Bruno Walter too. But his mono stuff is probably better. I have an ancient Blomstedt CD on Denon that I haven't played in decades. I'm not sure if it's worth listening to? And one Szell CD which doesn't offer much poetry.


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> I think that Böhm's Mozart is utterly lacking in charm. All of it.


I have little fondness for it, myself.



flamencosketches said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Reading comments like this always brings on the same thought, "are we listening to the same recordings?"


Oh, I know. I get that feeling all the time. I dislike Böhm's oft-praised Beethoven 6 as well, and in fact gave away my copy a few years ago. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I may change my mind, someday.

Recently someone panned Boulez's terrific Mahler 3 as straight-laced and unemotional, and I thought, what recording were you listening to?! And that's speaking as someone who grew up with and loves Bernstein's Mahler 3! _De gustibus non est disputandum._


----------



## starthrower

I loved that Bohm 6th the last time I listened to it. I've yet to get back to the rest of the cycle. And I may not now that I have the Skrowaczewski set.


----------



## Knorf

starthrower said:


> I loved that Bohm 6th the last time I listened to it. I've yet to get back to the rest of the cycle. And I may not now that I have the Skrowaczewski set.


Yes, there are many who like it. I was always "But, why?" from my first listen, and never warmed to it.

ETA: Stan's Beethoven 6 is awesome!


----------



## starthrower

I'm beginning to think he was one of the least appreciated great conductors. But it was nice of Oehms to release that great box for his 90th birthday.


----------



## Gray Bean

I love that Boulez Mahler 3 but must admit that it surprised me! I didn't expect such a hot blooded 
performance from him. I guess I'll have to reevaluate his "Iceman" reputation.

In Beethoven 6, I'll take Bruno Walter any day. NYPO or Columbia SO.


----------



## Gray Bean

For the Mozart final three (in stereo):
Mackerras SCO
Bruggen OEC
Kubelik BRSO
Walter CSO
Harnoncourt CMW his last set. Kinda perverse but I adore it!
And, oh yes, Klemperer!


----------



## Bigbang

Gray Bean said:


> I love that Boulez Mahler 3 but must admit that it surprised me! I didn't expect such a hot blooded
> performance from him. I guess I'll have to reevaluate his "Iceman" reputation.
> 
> In Beethoven 6, I'll take Bruno Walter any day. NYPO or Columbia SO.


I know Walter 6 on Columbia SO but NYPO? Might be getting the Mozart works mixed up here.


----------



## Gray Bean

Bigbang said:


> I know Walter 6 on Columbia SO but NYPO? Might be getting the Mozart works mixed up here.


There's a Walter Beethoven 6 with the NYPO. Part of a complete cycle in mono. I discovered it in the Bruno Walter Big BOX.


----------



## Heck148

Gray Bean said:


> There's a Walter Beethoven 6 with the NYPO. Part of a complete cycle in mono. I discovered it in the Bruno Walter Big BOX.


I thought that CBS Walter LvB #6 was with Philadelphia??


----------



## Gray Bean

Yes...that’s correct! Slipped by me. I’ve been listening through the box and it is a treasure trove. I knew and loved that Columbia Symphony Beethoven 6 before I got the BIG BOX. The Mozart discs are so good and what a treat to hear Walter rehearse.


----------



## Granate

I'm resting from Haydn, and as I'm loving what I hear from the Beecham Royal Philharmonic recordings, I'm trying out the late symphonies he recorded with the London Philharmonic, on spotify. The Haydn-Mozart set by Beecham is really affordable right now.

I'm comparing the London Philharmonic, greyish mono studio recording to the brilliant RIAS studio performances Otto Klemperer conducted, along some live in Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Cologne, and Budapest. I'm yet to hear the symphonies Beecham recorded but Klemperer didn't, but Klemp is winning in livelyness by a landslide in every duel.










I also own the famous Bruno Walter studio recordings in New York of the late symphonies, but they had the same issue as Beecham now. I'm going to find out if they are worth listening again.


----------



## Granate

I'm listening to the Walter recordings mentioned above. Not as vibrant as the Klemperer but they are vibrant and colourful, with great SQ. Beecham can't do anything against them, although he recorded the Paris 31 and 34. The LPO 34 is rather rather good.

Very relieved. I really doubt I would play the Beecham LPO on cd apart from 34. I wanted to figure out if the Beecham Haydn-Mozart was better purchased sooner than later, but I guess I can wait until a new remaster arrives for the Haydn recordings.


----------



## wkasimer

Granate said:


> Very relieved. I really doubt I would play the Beecham LPO on cd apart from 34. I wanted to figure out if the Beecham Haydn-Mozart was better purchased sooner than later, but I guess I can wait until a new remaster arrives for the Haydn recordings.


What makes you think that there will be a new remaster? Or that it will represent an improvement? Not that it matters much to me, since I'm not a fan of Beecham's Haydn.


----------



## Granate

^^

It doesn't have a lot to do with the quality of the transfers, although I wish they sounded as clear as the many columbia mastertapes that have been reissued since 2014. There London Philharmonic recordings are really rough and dark. It's more of a matter of which edition should I collect and whether I should wait to Warner to reissue the Beecham Haydn set in the new Original Jacket editions like the Delius set, better looking and more inexpensive. Instead of spending 25€ to get a Haydn set (could be Mozart) that hasn't turned OOP and belongs to a big label, I could invest that money into rare opera recordings I love like a 1952 Metropolitan Don Carlo or Bayreuth Götterdämmerung and wait for those symphonies even if I would enjoy better symphony than opera cds. Hope you understood this TED talk. Thank you.


----------



## Guest

Karajan's is my favorite. I have the LP set and the SACD set.


----------



## CarlHaydn284

You should try Josef Krips with the RCO, the definite recording!


----------



## regnaDkciN

Marc said:


> To be honest, I can't take Hurwitz all that seriously in this repertoire, because, to me, his anti-period instruments sentiments (for the classical period) are mostly based on prejudices. For instance, I'm listening to Frans Brüggen & his orchestra in KV 504 ("Prague") and I can't think of anything lacking in both sound and deliverance. It's beautiful, dramatic, vivid and breathing, and all those things I like to hear in Mozart.
> 
> This doesn't mean though that some of his selections aren't worth checking out. But I take many of his grumpy 'funny' comments with a large grain of salt.


I enjoy David's commentaries, but I agree with you about his anti-HIP attitude being absurd. (It reminds me of a YouTube commentator who sought to "prove" that Bach conducted the _St. Matthew Passion_ at the general tempo of the Klemperer recording, and that anything faster was disrespectful to Jesus...)

As to his recommendations: when I was first getting into classical music as a teen, I picked up an LP set of the Szell traversal, because I'd read everywhere that they were considered unquestionably "The Best." I found them so excruciatingly boring and colorless that I concluded (hot take coming here) that Mozart was a great opera composer, but that his orchestral compositions were massively overrated -- superficial music for superficial aristocrats in powdered wigs. And, frankly, I held that opinion for a good two decades, because every performance I encountered seemed to be Szell-lite: music that was all on the "refined," polished surface but with nothing to engage the mind or heart. What finally cured me of that impression, although it might shock Hurwitz, was encountering Hogwood/Schröder's HIP traversal of the symphonies. Finally, a rendition of Mozart that didn't strike me as genteel background music for the effete aristocracy! Ironically, I later went on to discover Walter's anything-but-HIP renditions, and loved them as well. When it comes to modern-instrument versions of these works, Walter is my first choice, with Böhm as runner-up. However, after watching Hurwitz's video review, I thought it was time to give Szell a second chance, via Tidal. After all, when I first heard -- and dismissed -- his cycle, I was a teenage classical neophyte more drawn to romantic-era works (as teens often are). Now that I was (a lot) older and more appreciative of the varying styles of different eras, maybe I'd find my tastes had changed. Nope! I found it, if anything, more annoying to listen to, since I knew what other conductors of the same era and the same predilictions, like Walter and Böhm, could do with the works. It seemed as if the two of them really loved Mozart; listening to Szell, it almost felt like he didn't. Put it another way: Hurwitz points out that Szell criticized Walter's Mozart for "pouring chocolate sauce on the asparagus." It struck me that Szell's renditions might be described as "plain asparagus," except that I _like_ well-prepared asparagus. Maybe Szell's is like raw asparagus. Or maybe Brussels sprouts. Or spinach...as the old Irving Berlin song goes, "I Say It's Spinach (And the Hell with It)."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^So funny how experiences differ! My impression was literally the exact opposite of yours. I had only been familiar with the Brüggen recordings, and I wasn't a fan of the wimpy, scratchy, whiny strings and breakneck tempi. Then I heard Szell and I heard power, muscle, drive, fullness of texture, _bel canto_ phrases. Just how Mozart should be done. I like my Mozart to be big-boned and brash, and though I totally respect anyone's preference for period-instrument performances I think they work better in Baroque music, Haydn and Beethoven than Mozart.


----------



## Knorf

So, Mozart in a style that became mainstream a minimum of 30 years after he was dead. That makes sense, as much it does stating it "should be done" using a string sound and style that appeared 125+ years after he died.


----------



## Joachim Raff

Philharmonia Orchestra /Otto Klemperer

He was the ultimate Mozart conductor. The spacious texture and clarity are something else. It simply suits the music. The No.39 is delicious and my reference recording. I just cannot help but smile. Happy juice.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Then I heard Szell and I heard power, muscle, drive, fullness of texture, _bel canto_ phrases.


Which is strange, because that's precisely what I _don't_ hear in Szell. No concern for phrasing, balance, or beauty of sound, just a determined slog, because anything else would be "too romantic."

I note that you seem to be focused on how my discovery of period performances (in my case, it was the Hogwood; I've never heard the Bruggen) reignited my interest in Mozart's orchestral works. I would point out that my post made it clear that further investigation uncovered several big-orchestra recordings with modern instruments that didn't suffer from what I found totally lacking in Szell. Personally, I wish fate would have had it that I had found the Walter (or Böhm) recordings first, instead of the Szell (which reviewers in _High Fidelity_ and _Stereo Review_ assured readers were the ultimate performances), because, if so, I wouldn't have gone through almost twenty years of maintaining that Mozart was merely a good opera composer, but whose instrumental works were superficial and overrated.


----------



## jegreenwood

regnaDkciN said:


> Which is strange, because that's precisely what I _don't_ hear in Szell. No concern for phrasing, balance, or beauty of sound, just a determined slog, because anything else would be "too romantic."
> 
> I note that you seem to be focused on how my discovery of period performances (in my case, it was the Hogwood; I've never heard the Bruggen) reignited my interest in Mozart's orchestral works. I would point out that my post made it clear that further investigation uncovered several big-orchestra recordings with modern instruments that didn't suffer from what I found totally lacking in Szell. Personally, I wish fate would have had it that I had found the Walter (or Böhm) recordings first, instead of the Szell (which reviewers in _High Fidelity_ and _Stereo Review_) assured readers were the ultimate performances, because, if so, I wouldn't have gone through almost twenty years of maintaining that Mozart was merely a good opera composer, but whose instrumental works were superficial and overrated.


In my case, I love Szell (and "slog" is about the last word I'd use describe his interpretations). I also like Walter - mono and stereo. But I've never responded to Bohm - to me the word slog seems more applicable there.

I am curious about one thing - I have the old Odyssey twofer of Walter's stereo 35-41. Are there superior remasters?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

regnaDkciN said:


> Which is strange, because that's precisely what I _don't_ hear in Szell. No concern for phrasing, balance, or beauty of sound, just a determined slog, because anything else would be "too romantic."
> 
> I note that you seem to be focused on how my discovery of period performances (in my case, it was the Hogwood; I've never heard the Bruggen) reignited my interest in Mozart's orchestral works. I would point out that my post made it clear that further investigation uncovered several big-orchestra recordings with modern instruments that didn't suffer from what I found totally lacking in Szell. Personally, I wish fate would have had it that I had found the Walter (or Böhm) recordings first, instead of the Szell (which reviewers in _High Fidelity_ and _Stereo Review_) assured readers were the ultimate performances, because, if so, I wouldn't have gone through almost twenty years of maintaining that Mozart was merely a good opera composer, but whose instrumental works were superficial and overrated.


Definitely agreed on the Walter recordings (but not necessarily Böhm, I find him a bit too lead-footed). Walter represents the warm, charming, human side to Mozart as contrasted with Szell who is "bawdier." I'll have to give the Hogwood a shot. I do love Savall's recent HIP set of the last three.

I've also heard some interesting things about René Jacobs in this music, with some people saying that he has a lot of mannerisms that make it sound irritating. Any thoughts, anyone?


----------



## Cortot

I love Bruno Walter's pre-WWII recordings. Sweeter, energetic compared to late records. The 1938 recording of the 41st symphony is definitely my favorite:


----------



## regnaDkciN

jegreenwood said:


> I am curious about one thing - I have the old Odyssey twofer of Walter's stereo 35-41. Are there superior remasters?


I have the Odyssey set as well; it's actually a pretty good transfer. However, there is now a new high-res remaster of the set, available as downloads from Presto Classical. I listened to this version on Tidal last night, and it struck me as having somewhat fuller bass and a bit less "glare" in louder passages. I'm downloading the 24/192 version from Presto even as we speak.


----------



## jegreenwood

regnaDkciN said:


> I have the Odyssey set as well; it's actually a pretty good transfer. However, there is now a new high-res remaster of the set, available as downloads from Presto Classical. I listened to this version on Tidal last night, and it struck me as having somewhat fuller bass and a bit less "glare" in louder passages. I'm downloading the 24/192 version from Presto even as we speak.


Yeah - that's what caught my eye. (24/96 though).


----------



## PeterF

Walter is my first choice. The Klemperer is also a favorite. I like the MacKerras For a somewhat different approach than Either Walter or Kemperer. My dark horse selection for my list is by Janet Glover / London Mozart Players - who has not been mentioned by anyone.


----------



## Mannheim Rocket

Allegro Con Brio said:


> For me, "letting the music breathe" in Mozart is antithetical to speed-demon HIP versions that seem like they're engaging in academic exercises. Bernstein has the measure of the music, balances the textures, brings out the surprising richness of the orchestration, lets the melodies move and sing and the rhythms dance. Szell, Walter, and Klemperer do this in various ways as well. Ironically I remember hearing Bernstein's Haydn Paris symphonies and thinking they were interesting, but a bit too lead-footed and unidiomatic for me (nothing I dislike worse than an elephantine minuet - this has nothing to do with tempo but rather with unnecessarily heavy accents; Beecham does this with the lightest touch). But I'll have to give Lenny's Haydn a fair shot.


I wholeheartedly agree with this. I really do think more measured tempi are the way to go here. My litmus test is the minuet of the G Minor (#40). I've heard many recordings that blaze through it, and the effect of the sinister sounding counterpoint is completely lost. Bernstein, Walter, Klemperer, and Szell all have a measured approach that I think places clarity at a premium, and that for me is where the emphasis should be placed here.


----------



## Enthusiast

There are many good+ recordings of Mozart's later symphonies and a wide variety to choose from (Walter, Klemperer, Davis, Bernstein, Norrington, Pinnock, Savall ...). Today I have been listening to the Pristine retreads of Beecham's recordings with the Royal Philharmonic - really excellent!


----------



## Enthusiast

Mannheim Rocket said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with this. I really do think more measured tempi are the way to go here. My litmus test is the minuet of the G Minor (#40). I've heard many recordings that blaze through it, and the effect of the sinister sounding counterpoint is completely lost. Bernstein, Walter, Klemperer, and Szell all have a measured approach that I think places clarity at a premium, and that for me is where the emphasis should be placed here.


It's a small difference but I think it is less to do with speed than with a tendency of some to drive the music too hard. I'm not sure that is a fault with HIP performances specifically - Pinnock, for example, has a good feel for Mozart IMO but Gardiner doesn't. And then there is Mackerras, who is very popular (and not properly HIP) and for me he nearly gets there but still drives the music too hard and spoils it all.


----------



## Merl

Weirdly enough I've been playing the Adam Fischer recordings of 40&41 in the car today and I'm still not totally convinced by Fischer's vision. Maybe I just need to listen to them more. Very light and airy and beautifully played but perhaps I just want a bit more umph.


----------



## Guest

My two favorites are Bohm and Karajan. I prefer "big band" over period performances. (The latter is fine for Baroque music, though.)


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Got to agree. Case in point: the miraculous finale of the "Jupiter" is a special case, but overall my favourite Mozart symphony is no.39 and there's a very special magic in the way Karajan and the Berliners float that wonderful first movement intro.into life.


----------



## DavidA

Pinnock is really good on period instruments or on the opposite extreme Karajan


----------



## Axter

35-41.
Karajan/BPO is my absolute fav.


----------



## MusicInTheAir

As several have said, Klemperer and Szell. I think Szell's 39th is particularly excellent. Very moving second movement and the trio section are the standouts. I think Marriner did better with the last six on his EMI recordings. I especially like the "Linz" from that series. There isn't any Mozart with Klemperer that I don't like a lot. But I prefer the earlier recording of "The Prague" to his later stereo recording. A performance choice which may make you doubt my opinion. But I'll offer it anyway. I like the Casals' "Prague" symphony a lot. Next to Klemperer's, it's probably the next on my list. I also have these pieces conducted by Munchinger. And I like many of the performances quite a bit. I have the stereo EMI LP of Karajan's 38th and 39th, and have never liked it.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

To each his own. I kind of agree about the 38th, but find Karajan's account of the slow intro to the 39th symphony on that recording absolutely magical and have no problem with the rest of it.


----------



## Ulfilas

I listened to I think almost every version, and I found the combination of Harnoncourt's insightful musicianship and the exceptionally refined playing of the Concertgebouw pretty hard to beat.


----------



## Simon23

For a very long time I considered Bohm the best, and Walter is very close to him. Krips and Klemperer have been added to them now.


----------



## jim prideaux

Mackerras and the SCO(Linn)

Wonderful performance, superb recording.


----------



## joen_cph

Harnoncourt/Ctgeb, Karajan/EMI, Walter/stereo would be my primary selection of favourites so far.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

jim prideaux said:


> Mackerras and the SCO(Linn)
> 
> Wonderful performance, superb recording.


Ever since Linn recordings have become available on streaming and I have finally been able to hear these performances, I have to concur with you. Along with Walter's stereo recordings these are now my gold standard for the last three. The sound quality is audiophile standard, the small band makes a huge, punchy sound; there's no frilly, underplayed lack of substance as can be found in so many HIP recordings; pacing is perfect, and I found myself hearing so many delectable details of orchestration and counterpoint that had previously passed me over. For anyone getting to know the works one could hardly do better; previously I would have recommended Szell but my affection for all his recordings has plummeted downhill as I become more acquainted with the recorded catalog as his performances just sound too brittle, rote, and stiff.


----------



## mparta

I think one technical answer to "what's the best Mozart orchestral performance", for me, always goes to George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra. 
I've never heard orchestra playing that matches them.
I agree about the stiffness in Szell's Beethoven but I've never found that outweighed the general excellence of the Mozart performances. It's a commonplace amongst instrumentalists that this orchestra, especially in this repertory, remains unmatched, even with the generally higher level of performance in so many places. Even the English don't do their infamous substitute players for rehearsals anymore (ok, that was 100 years ago, but it's still hilarious).

I did like the Bernstein/Vienna set (he does that "let the horns roar" thing in the last movement of the Jupiter that has to be anachronistic, but whatever it is fun. I picked up a Perlman/Berlin recording because some critic thought it was the bee's knees, good but Cleveland holds the field. Vienna/Levine not so much. Bohm not really and von Karajan not a Mozart conductor I like with the BPO.

And of course, the gemuetlichkeit (did I get that right) of Bruno Walter, I grew up with those recordings and hold them in high esteem.


----------



## Granate

I'm making a list of all the recordings available for this repertoire. I think I'm done after browsing through Spotify and Discogs for the commercial history of the Mozart symphonies.

Can you throw here some live performances that are worth the listen? Could be historical in mono or stereo. But I thank rarities that raise my eyebrows.


----------



## Subutai

I don't believe I'm going to write this, but the last 3 symphonies as recorded by Simon Rattle with the BPO on their inhouse label is probably the best thing I've heard from him. Just before he decided to leave for London, then back to Bavaria. I think it's only available as a download and I haven't liked a thing from that guy but those 3. Pretty, pretty. Pretty Good.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I don't believe I'm writing this, but I'm bigly enjoying Karl Bohm's heavily upholstered Mozart Berlin symphony recordings on Deutsche Grammophon. And Karajan on DG, too.

However, however .... the desert island choice has just got to be Charles Mackerras with the Scotch Chamber Orchestra on Linn. Never done better, probably never will be.

Later, I shall draw myself a large glass of Scottish and listen to #39 from Charles and the SCO.


----------



## ArtMusic

Try Les Musiciens du Louvre on Youtube:


----------



## Sgfnorth

MacKerras (SCO), Jochum (with Bamberg SO) and Karajan (DG) are joyful in their different ways, Bohm conducts all of them seriously but I think there’s a certain melancholy in there. And Klemperer - kinda rustic, and like Bohm intent on letting you hear all the lines and all the notes. Best recorded sound - MacK on SACD. For my money.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

My favorite: Bohm BPO on DG. HIP: Bruggen on Philips.
Also recommend: Karajan DG 1970s, Klemperer EMI, Colin Davis on Philips, Krips on Philips, Mackerras on Teldec, Wand on RCA, Gardiner on Philips.


----------



## 89Koechel

(live recordings) - Will try to find some; there must be SOME gems, out there. BTW, last summer you mention Beecham/The Bearded Baronet, and there're still some available (from Amazon) from the old Columbia/Odyssey reissue label. Sir Thomas DID have his way (very fine) in much of music.


----------



## 89Koechel

Also, there is (at least) ONE live recording that should be of interest - the "old man"/Furtwangler - in Mozart's 39th. Yes, some of us REALIZE that Furtwangler's interpretations are controversial, and they were, decidedly, NOT recorded in the best of sonics ... but their merits are still extant & even remarkable, nonetheless. ... BTW, in "old men", no mention of Toscanini, in Symphony 41/"Jupiter"? Sure, he could PRESS some tempos pretty unrelentingly, but there's a grace and (necessary) impetus to his 41, also. Also, I have a Mozart 40th, conducted by Benjamin Britten (an old London LP), that's very fine, and well-paced.


----------



## mparta

I showed the Cleveland/von Dohnanyi in current listening a few days ago. Europeans can download those recordings, why they're not available in North America I don't know. But these are the best performances of Mozart's symphonies I've ever heard. The orchestra just sits a level above even the other greats in this music. I don't know whether von Dohnanyi drives or just gets out of their way, but for the empyrean playing and grace that most closely approximates what i think Mozart had in his inner ear (firmly attached to something divine, i'd say), these are the performances.


----------



## Simon23

Makerras with SCO was mentioned here several times. What about his early recordings with the Prague Orchestra? What is the difference?


----------



## wkasimer

mparta said:


> I showed the Cleveland/von Dohnanyi in current listening a few days ago. Europeans can download those recordings, why they're not available in North America I don't know.


They were issued in the USA as a set in the early 1990's, with some bizarrely coupled Webern (who thought that was a good idea?). I happened upon a used copy 25 or so years ago; it was my first sets of Mozart symphonies, and it's still a favorite version. It shows up now and then on Amazon Marketplace and eBay.


----------



## mparta

wkasimer said:


> They were issued in the USA as a set in the early 1990's, with some bizarrely coupled Webern (who thought that was a good idea?). I happened upon a used copy 25 or so years ago; it was my first sets of Mozart symphonies, and it's still a favorite version. It shows up now and then on Amazon Marketplace and eBay.
> 
> View attachment 153986


I guess if Mozart and Webern fans are mutually exclusive it forces the Mozarteans to hear Webern and the other way around. But I doubt any so diabolical thing was in the works, I bet they thought they couldn't sell Webern. Just sayin'


----------



## Enthusiast

HenryPenfold said:


> I don't believe I'm writing this, but I'm bigly enjoying Karl Bohm's heavily upholstered Mozart Berlin symphony recordings on Deutsche Grammophon. And Karajan on DG, too.
> 
> However, however .... the desert island choice has just got to be Charles Mackerras with the Scotch Chamber Orchestra on Linn. Never done better, probably never will be.
> 
> Later, I shall draw myself a large glass of Scottish and listen to #39 from Charles and the SCO.


Of those, I would agree that Bohm's Mozart has a certain feel; it is stylish. I'm afraid I don't find that with Karajan (too sweet and slick - his Haydn was better) or - heresy, I know - Mackerras, who I find efficient and "interpretively correct" but lacking in feeling. Mozart for me is music filled with a wide range of feelings. So, for the last three symphonies, I would put Walter, Beecham, Klemperer, Pinnock, Norrington, Savall, Harnoncourt and a good few others ahead of them.


----------



## brucknerian1874

Like many of you my favourite among the final triptych is 39. The recording I return to is by the SCO but not Mackerras. Jukka-Pekka Saraste is the man.

Very good 41 too. Alas, he didn't do 40.


----------



## Clloydster

Looks like I have quite a lot to learn here. I don't know half the names listed here. Hopefully I pick up some knowledge, but I don't think I'll get to half the recordings here.


----------



## Enthusiast

Then there is this. A modern orchestra with a HIP expert as conductor. But he does some strange things that seem very old fashioned to our ears like unexpected (to modern ears) glissandi and so on. I remember there was a member here who was a composition student, mostly with a taste for the very avant garde but who stated a couple of time that the HIP movement had Mozart all wrong and that Mozart would have expected glissandi and other approaches to phrasing that we now associate with rather romantic music. It may be that Minasi is demonstrating what he was talking about.

View attachment 154225


I asked on the "what are you listening to now" thread what others made of these accounts and I don't think many were very impressed. But I find them stimulating and enjoyable. I like them even more if I was sure they were legitimate!


----------



## Clloydster

I had the recordings of symphonies 35-41 on vinyl conducted by Bohm for a long time, but they got all scratched up, then damaged in a move. Slowly replacing my vinyl with CDs and digital downloads (my son got me an iPod a little while ago - mostly listen to podcasts but slowly putting classical music on there), but I got this album again, and really like it.

Quick question - what is HIP? I know what I think it is, but that doesn't seem to fit how it is being used here.


----------



## joen_cph

HIP stands for Historically Informed Performance, claiming to be better reconstructions of performances of early music as they've sounded in the original setting. Compared to for example the more romantically coloured performances of Baroque music, that were cultivated by conductors like Furtwängler, Mengelberg etc., later Bernstein, Karajan, etc.

Applies especially to music composed up to around 1850 or so, to both the way instruments are played, orchestral build-up, musical phrasing and style, what instruments are used, etc. Recently, HIP-principles have also been tried in relation to music from around 1850-1900.

Still, also HIP performances have gone their own way of changes, from proto-HIP traits say around 1960, to more thorough mindsets and variations from around 1970 and onwards, and generally, they can be very different from each other. Often however, tempi tend to be quicker, sometimes much quicker, and ensembles are often smaller in orchestral works.


----------



## Clloydster

Okay. Is it considered better? I have no clue what my Bohm recording is, but I'm guessing it isn't HIP? I really like it, though. What would be a good example of a HIP performance to try?


----------



## joen_cph

Clloydster said:


> Okay. Is it considered better? I have no clue what my Bohm recording is, but I'm guessing it isn't HIP? I really like it, though. What would be a good example of a HIP performance to try?


No, Böhm isn't HIP.

HIP has its fans, lot of them on this forum, and it's quite mainstream now. ... I tend to overall prefer non-HIP, finding that HIP has created machine-like, clockwork monotony at times, everything being too rushed, thin-sounding, etc.

Harnoncourt is an interesting figure in that respect, since he's provided very varied and intriguing HIP principles to the early Mozart symphonies, but also released several versions of the later symphonies - those with the Concertgebouw Orchestra of around no.25 and onwards surprisingly with a massive-sounding, heroic and Beethoven-masculine sound world, which I find very refreshing.

Here's a randomly picked Symphony no.11, showing the variety his approach can give this little, modest, very early work 



 and a good Finale from the likewise early Symphony 12 




Hogwood, Pinnock, Koopman and Kuijken would be some HIP Mozart conductors, but there are many examples of conductors who've placed themselves a bit between the various categories too. Adam Fischer for example, using some HIP principles in the performances, but not HIP instruments.

Gardiner I also find interesting for his Beethoven recordings in particular, he's very open and well-articulated about the reasons and thoughts behinds his projects. Such as in the 5th.


----------



## Enthusiast

The idea and the movement for HIP came out of scholarship and aesthetic contemplation concerning the performance of Baroque music and it has had a huge impact with that music. When it followed through on its early successes with Baroque music by applying its insights to Classical and Romantic music the results were often both interesting and attractive, at least as alternatives, but it is less clear to me that it was so driven by scholarship. I think its results with Mozart have not always been that compelling or revolutionary. For example, I think Pinnock's symphony recordings are excellent (the best overall survey as far as I am concerned) but were they that revolutionary? Their merits seem to be the merits of being good accounts of the works, albeit with a smaller orchestra and some new clarity, such as those we had from Krips, Maag and others. I don't think you can say anything so measured about the impact of HIP with Baroque music - the impact truly was revolutionary.


----------



## Heck148

I don't care for "HIP" performances on original instruments because I don't enjoy the sounds they produce....I find the deficiencies distracting. The [tonally] flat, nasal gut string sound makes me queasy [I'm glad to say, this has fallen out of favor, it seems], long lovely oboe lines played, sans vibrato, with a dead, colorless tone is hard to endure, for me.. How the music may have sounded in Mozart's, Haydn's, Beethoven's day is really of little interest to me...but that's just my viewpoint....

That said - I think the HIP movement has normalized some very good practices - use of smaller ensembles, shorter bow strokes in the strings, not everything played with "big-band" style, large string section, romantic full-bows, molto vibrato, etc...use of smaller string sections provides a fine clarity to the music, esp when performed on modern instruments....
I would note that some conductors were already doing this pre-HIP movement - I cite the Walter/ColSO recordings, and Reiner's performances of Haydn and Mozart....smaller sections, modern instruments - wonderful clarity, powerful dynamics.
Szell may have also, tho I'm not sure of the orchestra sizes for his recordings....he does achieve fine clarity of texture, along with beautiful execution.
Due to HIP, we are a far distance from the older, romanticized, big-band versions of baroque, classical music that were practiced by Ormandy, Karajan, Stokowski, and so many others...that's probably a good thing, it certainly presents that music in considerably different light....smaller ensembles, HIP practices, modern instruments is an overall winner for me....


----------



## MrMeatScience

I'm firmly in the HIP camp, probably more so than most people on this forum -- I am eager and willing to follow it up to around the 1920s, after which there are diminishing returns because there is a recorded legacy and the instruments were assuming more or less the designs they still have today, including moving away from gut strings. Unlike many, I do not find the timbres and style off-putting, but in some respects preferable to the sounds of modern instruments. There's less homogeneity of sound, which makes it easier to distinguish inner voices and hear everything that is going on (this really pays dividends in some composers, like Brahms and Schumann). The stylistic quirks that turn off some listeners, like portamenti or tempo modification, I find very expressive. 

I think a lot of the HIP movement misunderstands itself, though; it's not a return to older ways of making music in any sort of definitively correct way, which is of course unknowable. It is speculative and based on the best our scholarship can provide, but there's much that we'll never know. HIP is the product of a historicising impulse which results in a different relationship between performer and score than in the past, and in that sense it is deeply modern. But at the end of the day, it's a matter of preference really, and there are no wrong ways of making music, only different ones. (Well, maybe a few wrong ones )

For the last few Mozart symphonies, I have heard no recordings I prefer to Savall's, which I listen to regularly. But Pinnock and Hogwood are also well worth hearing, as are some historical recordings like Walter's. I know that Teodor Currentzis has been performing Nos. 40 and 41 in Spain in the last few days, did anyone hear those? I'd be curious to hear his interpretation.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Clloydster said:


> Okay. Is it considered better? I have no clue what my Bohm recording is, but I'm guessing it isn't HIP? I really like it, though. What would be a good example of a HIP performance to try?


What matters is what you like. Bohm is wonderful in the late Mozart symphonies, although the recording quality is a bit variable. You may enjoy a historically informed performance too, it comes down to taste.


----------



## Simon23

delete, I'm sorry.


----------



## Simon23

Heck148 said:


> I don't care for "HIP" performances on original instruments because I don't enjoy the sounds they produce....I find the deficiencies distracting. The [tonally] flat, nasal gut string sound makes me queasy [I'm glad to say, this has fallen out of favor, it seems], long lovely oboe lines played, sans vibrato, with a dead, colorless tone is hard to endure, for me.. How the music may have sounded in Mozart's, Haydn's, Beethoven's day is really of little interest to me...but that's just my viewpoint....
> 
> That said - I think the HIP movement has normalized some very good practices - use of smaller ensembles, shorter bow strokes in the strings, not everything played with "big-band" style, large string section, romantic full-bows, molto vibrato, etc...use of smaller string sections provides a fine clarity to the music, esp when performed on modern instruments....
> I would note that some conductors were already doing this pre-HIP movement - I cite the Walter/ColSO recordings, and Reiner's performances of Haydn and Mozart....smaller sections, modern instruments - wonderful clarity, powerful dynamics.
> Szell may have also, tho I'm not sure of the orchestra sizes for his recordings....he does achieve fine clarity of texture, along with beautiful execution.
> Due to HIP, we are a far distance from the older, romanticized, big-band versions of baroque, classical music that were practiced by Ormandy, Karajan, Stokowski, and so many others...that's probably a good thing, it certainly presents that music in considerably different light....smaller ensembles, HIP practices, modern instruments is an overall winner for me....


Very right post, thank you. I share your opinion about the sound of HIP. Unfortunately, this is not only not out of fashion, but also continues to develop. The saddest thing is that now these principles apply to romantic music - non-vibrato, etc.


----------



## sasdwf

Another vote here for Mackerras/SCO, a fine balance between big-band Mozart and their historically informed counterparts. I grew up listening to the Marriner set and later the Szell boxed set. Nowadays, if listening to the larger forces, I tend to listen to Bernstein, Klemperer, and Krips/RCO. 

I do like the earlier Mackerras set as well as Pinnock (great 25) but tend to reach for Hogwood or Immerseel/Anima Eterna when listening to historically influenced renditions.

Thanks to this thread I’ll seek out Bruno Walter’s takes. He’s a great conductor.


----------



## Parley

For an HIP, Pinnock is superb


----------



## happyclassicalfeet

38:

Hogwood, Academy of Ancient Music
Böhm, Berlin Philharmonic
Britten, English Chamber Orchestra

Favourite: Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra

39:

Böhm, Berlin Philharmonic
Muti, Vienna Philharmonic
Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra

Favourite: Reiner, Chicago Symphony

40:

Britten, English Chamber Orchestra
Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic
Levine, Chicago Symphony (yikes and apologies)
Böhm, Vienna Philharmonic

Favourite: Böhm, Berlin Philharmonic

41:

Reiner, Chicago Symphony
Hogwood, Academy of Ancient Music
Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic
Böhm, Berlin Philharmonic
Mehta, Vienna Philharmonic

Favourite: Böhm, Vienna Philharmonic

I don't like Szell's Mozart and I don't like the fast tempi and loud brass of Mackerras very much although his Prague repeats are phenomenal. 

EDIT: I prefer the heavy Vienna sound over the HIP sound.


----------

