# Bad symphony cycles



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

There are many, many threads about 'what is the best...?', but just for a change, I'm interested in hearing about the very worst symphony cycles; the ones that really are to be avoided at all costs - and why! The chances are, I've probably got some of the cycles that others wouldn't want even if you paid them.
In particular, I'm keen to hear about cycles of the following composers symphonies, but it doesn't have to be just about these:

Beethoven
Shostakovich
Mahler
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius

Go on, out the shockers! :devil:
By the way, there are no prizes for anyone who interprets this as 'cycles of bad symphonies', which is a whole different ball-game.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I suspect this is going to turn into "one person's worst set another's good one". For example, I have never really liked Bertini's famous bargain (as it was then) Mahler set but many think it one of the best (or they used to at any rate). And I know Haintink's Shostakovich is loved by many while I find it too tame. As for Beethoven, I don't know any terrible sets (and I know lots of really good ones). Once I have heard one symphony and hated it (there have been a few of those) I don't go on to listen to the rest. But I do find myself unable to get excited about the famous Gardiner set - his approach is about his concept rather than the music - but have greatly enjoyed the later live recordings he made of some of the symphonies with the same forces because his vision seemed to have matured. Most Sibelius sets I have heard are at least good but many are somewhat samey. Segerstam is different but in a good and bad way. He makes great Sibelius sounds but doesn't seem to catch the narrative. I still like it for the sounds and the fact that it isn't like any of the others.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Georg Solti's Bruckner cycle in Chicago -- very unBrucknerian. His interest in speed and virtuosity worked against the qualities in Bruckner's symphonies. His was one of many Bruckner cycles that was also much too brassy. A Bruckner sound hears the tone of the brass, not the bell.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Because of economics, no one can afford to produce recordings, much less a whole cycle, that is "bad". Even the ones some people think are bad probably have some redeeming qualities for some listeners. I have dozens, maybe hundreds, of sets of symphonies by Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler, Tchaikovsky and Sibelius. There might be some sets that I enjoy better than others, but there are no really bad sets. Except....

Mahler. I have two awful sets. One is the set you use for your Avatar. I picked that up really cheap, like $10. There are a couple of performances that are decent. The sound on some (3 in particular) is dreadful. The other Mahler set that is not up to par is on the Capriccio label. The orchestra is decidedly third-rate, or worse. Intonation, tone, ensemble are terrible. The conductor's tempos are all wrong - maybe to compensate for the playing, but it doesn't help. Yet, I keep it around for some reason.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's hard to rate anything in musc as objectively badf )okay. Wellington's Victory maybe), but to my preference, I've never really taken to Bernstain's Mahler, and I've never really thought that Rattle's Beethoven had much to do with Beethoven.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bad is in the ear of the beholder (or be-listener). I got rid of the Hanover Band Beethoven symphony cycle, but the problem with that cycle may be more in the strange recording method than the actual playing.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Mahler. I have two awful sets. One is the set you use for your Avatar. I picked that up really cheap, like $10. There are a couple of performances that are decent. The sound on some (3 in particular) is dreadful. The other Mahler set that is not up to par is on the Capriccio label.


I agree, the set in my avatar is far from good, but it's so off-the-wall that it's worth keeping and I use it in my avatar as a bit of fun. The Tabakov set on Capriccio however is truly dreadful apart from the 3rd, and possibly the 9th. I used to have it but moved it on if only to gain some much-needed space. Never had I heard such an appaling 8th...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Like some have said, one person's bad is another's excellent, however this Beethoven cycle is a real turkey. Horrendous audience noise, badly miked (meaning you can hear the orchestra really closely - shuffling feet, page-turning, etc), boring accounts and a children's choir in the 9th symphony (honestly!). Nothing at all to redeem it. This even makes Kegel's utterly tedious Beethoven cycle sound good.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Merl said:


> ... a children's choir in the 9th symphony (honestly!).
> View attachment 104477


I have got to hear this! I avoid anything from Fedoseyev - he's terrible, but somehow keeps making recordings. But the 9th with children is a must-hear.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I have got to hear this! I avoid anything from Fedoseyev - he's terrible, but somehow keeps making recordings. But the 9th with children is a must-hear.


Honestly, I rarely dismiss a Beethoven cycle out-of-hand but it's just awful. When I first listened to this the first thing that struck me was the very intrusive coughing which at times is almost laughable (and I suspect it's the orchestra as well as the audience). After that comes the performances and they are just dull and slow (apart from a slightly better 7th) with pretty bad ensemble playing and dodgy-sounding strings. The children's choir in the 9th merely rounds off an appaling mess of a cycle. I wish I still had it on the HD but alas I deleted it (and I rarely delete any LvB cycles). If you get a chance listen to it. I seem to remember Fedoseyev sucking all the joy out of the 8th and Pastoral, in particular but it's been a while.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

larold said:


> Georg Solti's Bruckner cycle in Chicago -- very unBrucknerian. His interest in speed and virtuosity worked against the qualities in Bruckner's symphonies. His was one of many Bruckner cycles that was also much too brassy. A Bruckner sound hears the tone of the brass, not the bell.


Yes, I see how Solti's style could work against Bruckner's pathos....


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I know this is heretical, but the famous Beethoven cycle with Toscanini and the NBC symphony on RCA has never been one of my favorites . Aside from the dry, constricted and prehistoric dinosaur recorded sound, the performances have always stuck me as coarse, choppy, hectic, punchy, nervous, rushed , mechanical, joyless and stiffly regimented . 
Toscanini's way with the Beethoven symphonies sounds more petulant than viscerally exciting . And so rigid in tempo they could make a metronome seen cable of rubato ! His famous early recording with the New York Philharmonic when he was music director , years before the founding of the NBC symphony, is much,much better . 
The NBC symphony had an excellent string section, but the woodwinds sound harsh, unblended and seem to have an annoying rapid fluttery vibrato - you can almost hear the musician's fear of the overbearing Italian podium tyrant . The trumpets have an appallingly coarse, blaring tone which stands out like the proverbial sore thumb . 
I also like the Mahler cycle with Emil Tabakov and the Sofia Philharmonic more than others on this thread , and the playing and sound don't seem anywhere near as bad as the others find it . Pretty good, in fact . 
I also like Solti's refreshingly direct, unfussy way with Bruckner . His muscular style with this composer has its benefits with a composer who has seduced some conductors such as Giulini and Celibidache to turn the Bruckner symphonies into four slow movements .


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

superhorn said:


> I know this is heretical, but the famous Beethoven cycle with Toscanini and the NBC symphony on RCA has never been one of my favorites …
> 
> I also like Solti's refreshingly direct, unfussy way with Bruckner . His muscular style with this composer has its benefits with a composer who has seduced some conductors such as Giulini and Celibidache to turn the Bruckner symphonies into four slow movements .


I remember a review of the RCA Toscanini collection. The reviewer wrote "What was all the fuss about?" Maybe, in hindsight, Toscanini wasn't as great as some made him out. There are some things he did that are just dazzling, like the Beethoven 7th and the Dvorak New World. But I agree with you: I don't think his Beethoven, or Brahms for that matter, are all that great. There have been plenty of others who did everything at least as well if not better and in much, much better sound.

Solti's Bruckner - I like it too, a lot! It's straight forward. He realized that these are romantic symphonies, not some divine liturgical music. The coda of the first movement of the 6th is absolutely hair-raising. Solti and Karajan are my go to Bruckners.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

superhorn said:


> I know this is heretical, but the famous Beethoven cycle with Toscanini and the NBC symphony on RCA has never been one of my favorites . Aside from the dry, constricted and prehistoric dinosaur recorded sound, the performances have always stuck me as coarse, choppy, hectic, punchy, nervous, rushed , mechanical, joyless and stiffly regimented .
> Toscanini's way with the Beethoven symphonies sounds more petulant than viscerally exciting . And so rigid in tempo they could make a metronome seen cable of rubato ! His famous early recording with the New York Philharmonic when he was music director , years before the founding of the NBC symphony, is much,much better .
> The NBC symphony had an excellent string section, but the woodwinds sound harsh, unblended and seem to have an annoying rapid fluttery vibrato - you can almost hear the musician's fear of the overbearing Italian podium tyrant . The trumpets have an appallingly coarse, blaring tone which stands out like the proverbial sore thumb .


There is the 1939 NBC Toscanini Beethoven cycle, which I hear is very good, but I got the ~1950ish Toscanini NBC Beethoven cycle which has better sound quality.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Bruckner: four slow movements? Divine ? That's Bruckner for me


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

While it was very well accepted in most places, and while I like the conductor's work generally, I thought Vernon Handley's traversal of *Robert Simpson's symphonies* was, for the most part, a mess and a failure. When I listened to alternative versions of any of the symphonies, such as Horenstein's version of 3 or Boult's version of 1, they were at least twice as good as Handley, who didn't seem to "get" the Simpson oeuvre very well. Yet, he recorded them all to great reviews everywhere. As nearly as I could tell, only his recording of Symphonies 6 and 7 was convincing and completely successful. I thought all the others did Simpson no favors. This was a case, I guess, of something being called great simply because it was the only one available.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

larold said:


> While it was very well accepted in most places, and while I like the conductor's work generally, I thought Vernon Handley's traversal of *Robert Simpson's symphonies* was, for the most part, a mess and a failure.


Interesting. I have the Handley set and enjoy it but I must admit I've never heard Simpson's works conducted by anyone else. I will seek out the Boult and Horenstein recordings that you mentioned, thanks for the info.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

I've only heard the ninth but trust me when I say that this is 100% guaranteed to be the worst symphony cycle you have ever heard. It's actually so bad it becomes comical. This is the link to it on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-Van-Beethoven-9-Symphonies/dp/B00HT724JW

Note that all the positive reviews are basically copied and pasted from every one of Maximianno Cobra Amazon CDs. The best one is about how he brings out the 'tragic' part in the music. There's certainly a tragic part of these performances.

This is the youtube video of him conducting the ninth (



); if you think I'm exaggerating just start listening. The first thing you'll notice is it's 2 hours long, it's not often that someone makes it look like Celibidache's and Klemperer's versions look outrageously fast. One of the funniest parts is how into Maximianno Cobra gets really into and all the performers just look like they want to kill themselves especially in the fourth movement. I don't recommend actually sitting through the whole thing just skip around :lol:.

If you think the other symphonies must be better realise they are played with the same tempos but don't use a real orchestra.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Bruckner/Paternostro is the worst and most amateurishly uncoordinated, provincial recorded set, besides Cobra in Beethoven. I don't remember if there's a real orchestra in all of Cobra's set. Only Bruckner's 5th isn't an embarassing disaster with Paternostro.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

That Cobra Beethoven set: $114!!! And 13 disks! All 9 easily fit on 5 cds. Two alone for the Eroica. Weird.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> That Cobra Beethoven set: $114!!! And 13 disks! All 9 easily fit on 5 cds. Two alone for the Eroica. Weird.


That is worse than horrible. I just read that Cobra sampled real musicians then put the samples into a computer and synthesized the symphonic performances. From the sound clips it sure sounds like it.

I'd much rather listen to 4'33"!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Not many years ago there was a "stretched" version of the 9th playing continuously on the Internet. It had a 24-hour duration. Fun to listen to and try to figure out where in the symphony you were!

Maybe it's still out there somewhere, playing away...


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> That Cobra Beethoven set: $114!!! And 13 disks! All 9 easily fit on 5 cds. Two alone for the Eroica. Weird.


Maybe not at the tempos Cobra sets...


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Konwitchney Beethoven cycle. Bad playing, bad sound, a Conductor that was reputedly soused during the sessions—I had thought Beethoven was indestructible until I heard this.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Rudolf Kempe's Beethoven cycle in Munich on EMI. This is by far the blandest set of Beethoven's nine symphonies that I own. A brilliant conductor for some reason producing the most indifferent series of recordings. I don't understand. I dislike Toscanini here, but I can understand why many ooze praise with him, just don't expect me to join in. I would use the word "aggressive", but from now on I think I'll commandeer Superhorn's "petulant". La parola guista!

Among other composers, I find Ozawa's Mahler set rarely, if ever, really catches fire. Ditto unfortunately John Storgard's recent Sibelius set (useful for the 120+ seconds of Symphony No.8, err.......!) and Rostropovich's Shostakovich cycle. I don't think I have a bad Bruckner cycle, and I do have the Paternostro, which I really enjoy, I don't hear anything amateurish or provincial in it at all. And Solti. I don't think the whole picture is shown of Bruckner there, but his music is good enough to not merely rely on the ethereal and cerebral approach that is "the only way of doing Bruckner" these days.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I totally agree on the benefits of a livelier or more old school Bruckner playing, and thoroughly enjoy Abendroth or the DG Celi 3rd. But the MusicWeb review of the Paternostro set points to some of its flaws at least, albeit the reviewer is focusing a lot on details.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

MarkW said:


> It's hard to rate anything in musc as objectively badf )okay. Wellington's Victory maybe), but to my preference, I've never really taken to Bernstain's Mahler, and I've never really thought that Rattle's Beethoven had much to do with Beethoven.


In what sense? Wouldn't you call his recent set reminiscent of the Chailly's and Zinman's ultra-fast sets?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Robert Pickett said:


> Rudolf Kempe's Beethoven cycle in Munich on EMI. This is by far the blandest set of Beethoven's nine symphonies that I own. A brilliant conductor for some reason producing the most indifferent series of recordings. I don't understand. I dislike Toscanini here, but I can understand why many ooze praise with him, just don't expect me to join in. I would use the word "aggressive", but from now on I think I'll commandeer Superhorn's "petulant". La parola guista!
> 
> Among other composers, I find Ozawa's Mahler set rarely, if ever, really catches fire. Ditto unfortunately John Storgard's recent Sibelius set (useful for the 120+ seconds of Symphony No.8, err.......!) and Rostropovich's Shostakovich cycle. I don't think I have a bad Bruckner cycle, and I do have the Paternostro, which I really enjoy, I don't hear anything amateurish or provincial in it at all. And Solti. I don't think the whole picture is shown of Bruckner there, but his music is good enough to not merely rely on the ethereal and cerebral approach that is "the only way of doing Bruckner" these days.


I almost agree with you on Ozawa/Mahler. But a recent re-listen makes me realize that his Mahler isn't so bad after all. The 7th is one of the best. The playing of the BSO is top-drawer no matter what.

But the Rostropovich Shostakovich cycle? It's great - you could put together a better set by handpicking from others, but as a whole I think this is one of the best. He clearly understood the composer, he never had less than a first-rate orchestra. For me, his cycle (and his Prokofieff too) is very recommendable. It's just too bad Ormandy never did a complete set and that Kondrashin has such crappy sound.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

larold said:


> Georg Solti's Bruckner cycle in Chicago -- very unBrucknerian. His interest in speed and virtuosity worked against the qualities in Bruckner's symphonies. His was one of many Bruckner cycles that was also much too brassy. A Bruckner sound hears the tone of the brass, not the bell.


Love the Solti/CSO Bruckner set, it's my favorite, overall...i love the huge dynamic range, and stunningly powerful orchestra sound...much prefer it to the pedantic, stodgy Teutonic approach to Bruckner.


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

Robert Pickett said:


> Rudolf Kempe's Beethoven cycle in Munich on EMI. This is by far the blandest set of Beethoven's nine symphonies that I own. A brilliant conductor for some reason producing the most indifferent series of recordings. I don't understand. I dislike Toscanini here, but I can understand why many ooze praise with him, just don't expect me to join in. I would use the word "aggressive", but from now on I think I'll commandeer Superhorn's "petulant". La parola guista!
> 
> Among other composers, I find Ozawa's Mahler set rarely, if ever, really catches fire. Ditto unfortunately John Storgard's recent Sibelius set (useful for the 120+ seconds of Symphony No.8, err.......!) and Rostropovich's Shostakovich cycle. I don't think I have a bad Bruckner cycle, and I do have the Paternostro, which I really enjoy, I don't hear anything amateurish or provincial in it at all. And Solti. I don't think the whole picture is shown of Bruckner there, but his music is good enough to not merely rely on the ethereal and cerebral approach that is "the only way of doing Bruckner" these days.


If it is that bad then I wonder why the Asians are so attached to the Kempe Munich EMI Beethoven.
It has been reissued there in just every audiophile form, including SACD, SHM, HQCD. And in the outlandishly expensive Esoteric SACD series.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I almost agree with you on Ozawa/Mahler. But a recent re-listen makes me realize that his Mahler isn't so bad after all. The 7th is one of the best. The playing of the BSO is top-drawer no matter what.
> 
> But the Rostropovich Shostakovich cycle? It's great - you could put together a better set by handpicking from others, but as a whole I think this is one of the best. He clearly understood the composer, he never had less than a first-rate orchestra. For me, his cycle (and his Prokofieff too) is very recommendable. It's just too bad Ormandy never did a complete set and that Kondrashin has such crappy sound.


A contentious thread like this is bound to inspire disagreement, I suppose! I am afraid I find the Rostropovich set quite bland, and these sentiments came against expectations, as brilliant as his Lady MacBeth recording is, and as close to the composer as he was. The recording dynamic is a bit odd at times, big range, from too quiet to too loud (a la Vanska Sibelius on BIS?) I don't have a favourite Shostakovich cycle admittedly, none of the ones I have is absolutely ideal. Janssons is good, ditto Haitink, but neither is great in some of the bigger works (esp 4 and 10). Barshai is excellent, but I don't rate his orchestra. Petrenko is probably my best set, they are all very good, but there are few "wow!" performances. I'd put together a "best" cycle to be honest, and include performances by the likes of Mravinsky, Ancerl, Ormandy and Kondrashin....sound considerations affect all of these though.

Agreed that Ozawa's band are more than just pretty decent, but they still don't do much for me. I suppose I occasionally judge based on the odd let down, and Ozawa's 6th is noteworthily underwhelming. Admittedly so is Maazel's in Vienna, but he did one of my favourite 4th's there!


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

I can't say I know of a truly "bad" recorded symphony cycle for any of the composers.
If other composers can be included then I think the biggest stinker I have ever heard is the Dennis Russell Davies Haydn cycle on Sony. Uninspired direction, sloppy execution, lousy production (unnecessary audience applause), poor recording technique (channels sound switched on many).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I only heard two of them, but that was more than enough - Scherchen/VSOO set of Mahler symphonies, Westminster, IIRC, back before Mahler became standard fare for every major orchestra....
awful, dreadful playing - maybe they recorded them after performing a full length Wagner or Strauss opera??
I heard #5 [my first intro to the work] - I thought, how could a composer who produced such great pieces as Syms 1 and 2 produce such a dog as this #5?? 
Then I acquired Walter/NYPO, and it all made sense...
Heard #7, forget it, not even remotely close...Bernstein/NYPO eclipsed it by several [million] light-years....


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

And yet...Scherchen seemed to understand the 7th better than most, maybe anyone. The Vienna version isn't his only take on it. I have two other recordings he made and the one from "Tronto" (that's what the cd label says!) is far better. Scherchen's achilles heel is that he rarely - if ever - had a first-class orchestra to work with. His Vienna 7th though was the recording that for many of us was the first available of that enigmatic work. Came out long before Bernstein, Abravanel, Kubelik or anyone else. No doubt his reading was imprinted on us back in those LP days. I still own the original Westminster set (incredible liner notes!) as well as the cd remaster and can't imagine ever parting with either.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Yeah, Scherchen is uneven, but can be really interesting, for example in a temperamental approach and tempo choices that very few or no other conductors try, but which were no doubt much more common in Mahler performances back in the early 20th century. Such as the 6th from Leipzig. A pity about the cuts he made in some of the symphonies though, no.5 & 6 in particular.

The singers are uneven too, but a DLvdE would have been a great thing to have from him.

There´s a cheap, recently released Membran 10 CD box with some of Scherchen´s Mahler nowadays.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

chill782002 said:


> Interesting. I have the Handley set and enjoy it but I must admit I've never heard Simpson's works conducted by anyone else. I will seek out the Boult and Horenstein recordings that you mentioned, thanks for the info.


Same here, I've only heard the Handley recordings, nothing else to compare


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

larold said:


> While it was very well accepted in most places, and while I like the conductor's work generally, I thought Vernon Handley's traversal of *Robert Simpson's symphonies* was, for the most part, a mess and a failure. When I listened to alternative versions of any of the symphonies, such as Horenstein's version of 3 or Boult's version of 1, they were at least twice as good as Handley, who didn't seem to "get" the Simpson oeuvre very well. Yet, he recorded them all to great reviews everywhere. As nearly as I could tell, only his recording of Symphonies 6 and 7 was convincing and completely successful. I thought all the others did Simpson no favors. This was a case, I guess, of something being called great simply because it was the only one available.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Hyperion cycle received the approbation of Robert Simpson himself. What I do know is that Simpson and Handley were close acquaintances and I'd be surprised if Simpson would have sanctioned any of Handley's recordings for release had he found fault with any of them.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> And yet...Scherchen seemed to understand the 7th better than most, maybe anyone. The Vienna version isn't his only take on it. I have two other recordings he made and the one from "Tronto" (that's what the cd label says!) is far better. Scherchen's achilles heel is that he rarely - if ever - had a first-class orchestra to work with.


Really....that VSOO M5 recording was one of those party discs, we'd play along with PDQ Bach, everybody drunk, having a great time...the infamous mashed-potato-mouth trumpet solo always got everyone LOL, it went downhill from there...


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

There are at least 4 different Scherchen M5 - 
- Wiener StaatsOper Orchestra, 
- Philadelphia SO (has the best sound) 
- ORTF SO, 
- plus a RAI Milano SO.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

joen_cph said:


> There are at least 4 different Scherchen M5 -
> - Wiener StaatsOper Orchestra,
> - Philadelphia SO (has the best sound)
> - ORTF SO,
> - plus a RAI Milano SO.


Interesting - when was the PhilaOrch one recorded??


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Found this discography online for Scherchen in Mahler 5:

Vienna State Opera Orchestra.
67.06 (11.15+13.28+18.01+9.10+15.12)
rec. VII/1953
Westminster XWN 18571/2, WAL 207, XWN 2220, WST 220e, W-29734 (Released: XII/52;
deleted: VIII/71)
Nixa WLP 6207;
Millenium MCAD 80081 (CD) (1996)

3. Milan Radio Symphony Orchestra.
56.36 (15.18+13.21+5.28+13.16+9.13)
rec. Sunday, 8/IV/1962
Paragon LBI 53013,
Stradivarius STR 13600 (CD) (1988)

4. Philadelphia Orchestra
57.23 (12.48+14.01+5.45+15.25+9.24)
rec. Sunday, 22/XI/1964
tape [OTA]

5. Orchestre National de la Radiodiffusion Française.
51.12
rec. Tuesday, 30/XI/1965
Harmonia Mundi France HMA 5179, HMA 1905179 (CD)(1988)

Recording 1 is missing. No orchestra, no recording date!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Robert Pickett said:


> Recording 1 is missing. No orchestra......


Well that's a novel way to perform Mahler. I'm guessing it was an HIP arrangement created by Norrington who, no doubt, claimed that there were no orchestras when Mahler wrote it. The whole symphony could only be performed uses shouts, sticks, stamping and clapping. ;-)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sorry. This is the only contribution I can offer...

_Bad symphony! 
I can't deny! 
Bad, bad symphony! 
Til the day I die! _


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Merl said:


> Well that's a novel way to perform Mahler. I'm guessing it was an HIP arrangement created by Norrington who, no doubt, claimed that there were no orchestras when Mahler wrote it. The whole symphony could only be performed uses shouts, sticks, stamping and clapping. ;-)


No, Merl. You are wrong with this. There's plenty of tuneful humming that would more than suffice, especially in the Adagietto! :devil:

Can I please add "specified" before "orchestra". It might make more sense!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Robert Pickett said:


> Found this discography online for Scherchen in Mahler 5:
> 
> 4. Philadelphia Orchestra
> 57.23 (12.48+14.01+5.45+15.25+9.24)
> ...


That one would be interesting...


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I came across the Scherchen M5 from Milan in Europe a few years ago on a suspect label. I don’t Recall much about it except the dim sound.
I did some research on the Conductor Karl Ristenpart a few years back and it turns out that Scherchen was his step father and a mentor


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The Milan M5 has his usual eccentricities, and poor sound. As regards the playing - in general, Italian orchestras tend to overrated, IMO.


----------

