Beethoven Symphonies - best perf + sonics on CD

There are alot of great recommendations and comments here. I also like to see Bob Greenberg's set mentioned - I know him personally, and have always wholeheartedly recommended his series to "laymen" who are interested in learning more about classical music. For the more advanced musical students, they are a little simplistic, but his "word-score" concept is a fantastic way of explaining the basics to non-musicians. There isn't anything better out there, though I also love to recommend the famous composer Aaron Copland's book, What To Listen For In Music.

For me, the 40's/50's way of doing Beethoven is very slow and overly romanticized, though the best of them do make it work musically. Of all the older sets mentioned, I would prefer the Bohm, though he is not normally a conductor I would choose. That Beethoven set is in my opinion his very finest work. Another old set which I am very surprised at the lack of mention here, though, is the Szell/Cleveland set. While I don't always like his tempi, there is some very fine playing in that set by the Cleveland Orchestra.

Of the more modern conductors, by miles the best original instrument set is Gardiner's, which has been mentioned several times already. I am also a big fan of Claudio Abbado - those DVD's he did in 2001 with Berlin are absolutely amazing - Beethoven as it should be done on modern instruments. Incredible interpretations and performances, which always trumps sound quality IMO.

For Brahms, I also really enjoy Abbado's old set from the 70's, which was done with a different orchestra for each symphony, which is kind of interesting in itself. Also, the Szell/Cleveland set here is still considered by many musicians to be the gold standard. I wasn't going to be negative, but I cannot resist adding that I am generally not a fan of Toscanini for the German rep - the younger Italians, Abbado and Giulini do it MUCH better. I actually have never heard the Giulini Brahms set you guys have mentioned, I will have to try to find that on LP.

By the way, someone made the comment that the faster tempos were "how the early music people think they were played at the time," or something like that. This is now beyond question, with all the research that has been done in the last twenty years or so. Beethoven's metronome was indeed just fine, and he really did intend for the tempos to be that quick. And in Haydn and Mozart's time, tempi were often even quicker for Allegros, etc. Also, one of my personal pet peeves is how slow many conductors influenced by the greats of the 40's and 50's take Andantes. Andantes are supposed to be good walking tempos, as Gardiner and Abbado and others take them. And they definitely were so in the 18th century. OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Learsfool, I'm not sure that I agree with anything that you've said (ha, ha) all the same. Andante put out a nice Brahms set which contains Toscanini 1941, Walter 1936, Stokowski 1936, Mengelberg 1932, Monteux 1945, Sabata 1939, Furtwängler 1945, Weingartner 1938.

Learsfool, The next time you see Greensburg tell him thanks for me. My last formal music class was 1966 8th grade music. I have the vast majority of his courses, and several of them I have been through at least twice. I'm working my way through the Mozart chamber set now. As usual, he has opened my ears to some gems I was not familiar with.

On the Brahms , I admire much of what Abbado has done but I haven't heard his Brahms. i will check this out and probably the Szell also. I also would love to hear Welser-Most and the Clevelanders do a cycle. I heard them do the Violin Concerto with Zimmerman several years back and found it to be mighty fine Brahms.

I found the 1940 Toscanini Brahms to be very un-Toscanini like. Very Teutonic. Had I heard it without knowing i would never have guessed it was him.

On the Beethoven, the Gardiner set is a great one and it does get played, especially the 2nd. But you know, I just can't make the historically informed/original instrument approach my base camp. Its worthwhile, informative, enjoyable, but it speaks to my mind. Not my heart.

At this point in time, I find that Baroque and earlier music sounds better to my ear and simply more "right" when played on period instruments and with the prevailing scholastic ideas applied. Classic era music I like either way. By around Beethoven and beyond I prefer modern instruments.

Tempo is an area requiring pretty deep discussion. But I guess we have the time or we wouldn't be here!

I tend to believe that tempo markings are primarily dependent upon the overall aesthetic of the work. Back in the day of course, conductors had to speed up tempos in order to fit works onto a recording. This was a serious handicap with cylinders and 78's. Brahms is well known for writing in tempos like, 'fast but not too fast and certainly not slow'. What it comes down to I think is that neither Beethoven nor Brahms would expect tempos to be exactly the same between any one performance. Composers throughout time have understood personal interpretations of their scores as being part of the artistic process. I'd even be as bold as to say that there was more freedom given with respect to interpretation during these afore mentioned composers lifetimes than there is today. At the top of my head I am thinking of the Percy Granger Grieg Piano Concerto on 2L (a very interesting approach to using a piano roll).