2. music
  3. 1360441496

Beethoven Symphonies - best perf + sonics on CD

My CD's of Beethoven's symphonies were all issued in the late 80's or early 90's and sound flat and two-dimensional, with a back-of-the-house perspective. Vinyl is more dynamic but I can't tolerate the surface noise during the quiet passages. So, fellow A'gon members, I'm looking for your suggestions for the best sounding (good tone, big dynamics, front row perspective) and most thrilling performances of Beethoven symphonies on redbook CD. Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
crazee01
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,859 posts
 
To any and everyone:

What makes one recording great, and another, playing the same music, by the same orchestra and conductor, just run of the mill or even bad?

Think of HvK, the berliners and Beethoven's symphonies. Same conductor, same orchestra, but some are considered among the best ever, and some not so good.

This is true of throughout the classical world. Is it the conductor or the recording process that makes a classic? I realize both have to be at least good, but which is more important? How much 'wiggle room' does a conductor really have? I get the tempo thingy. But other than that?

I was thinking of Kleiber and Beethoven's 5&7. Is it a great performance or actually, just a great recording?

Thanks

Cheers
newbee
4,815 posts
 
For me tempo and orchestration are major factors in performances. I especially favor brisk tempos with a good beat, which I think more what Beethoven had in mind. I also like reduced orchestration where the inner instrumental detail becomes audible. For me both are sorely lacking in a lot of highly esteemed performances which seek grandiosity and gravity. I much prefer a sense of 'joy'. This is why I also prefer Kleibers style with the 5th for example. It is a great performance! Recording is OK, but I rarely pay any attention to the recording quality when it plays. It could sound as bad as Richter's Sofia performance of Mussorgsky's Pictures. Absolutely terrible recording of a live performance at which all of the audience members seemed to have colds. But the performance is transcendant and must be heard if you like this piece. It sets a standard against which others pale.

Fine recordings are just that, but without fine performances fitting my preferences they are not worth much to me. But we all hear differently.
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot
1,412 posts
 
Keep in mind that it's more difficult to play an instrument slow and soft than loud and fast. The job of an orchestra is to play as an ensemble and not as a group of soloists. In most respects, I see ensemble playing as being the responsibility of the conductor but one can only do so much with what they have to work with. Classical musicians must have a knowledge of performance practice and a technique which will facilitate the objectives of a conductor and/or composer. This is why some conservatories pay more attention to ensemble playing than coaching along solo careers. The pedagogy of these two disciplines are significantly different from one another.
Contrary to popular belief, musicians in the best orchestras will always make mistakes however they are often covered over or they're faint to the ear. Primarily what makes a good performance is difficult to pin down exactly but I've often found that the experienced and competitive groups will take on a sense of danger whenever they're motivated by artistic inspiration. An inspired Berlin Philharmonic playing Beethoven under the baton of a fiery Furtwängler will certainly result in memorable evening. This is why I prefer live performances or live recordings and why I tend to overlook errors. It also serves an orchestra well to have a loyal and intelligent audience.
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot
1,412 posts
 
Loydelee. his Stravinsky with the CSO is one of my favorites;

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=75678

He has an advantage when it comes to the Estonian, Latvian. Lithuanian and Scandinavian composers. He conducts from underneath as is the school in Estonia.
merlinus
44 posts
 
I greatly prefer most of LvB to be on a grand scale, spacious, exciting, raw, turbulent, full of sound and fury, yet signifying greatness. This takes large forces, and is why I eschew HIP.

SQ is also very important, so no matter how impassioned Furtwangler and Toscanini were, the sonics are almost unbearable, for the most part.

I find much of HvK to be overly polished and attempting to be profound, but winding up as little more than syrupy and grandiose. It's more about him than the music.

Bernstein can often be that way, but for me, his Mahler is unsurpassed.

The 1963 HvK Nos. 3 and 9 are excellent, and Kleiber's 5th is great. Not so much the 7th. And I enjoy Barenboim's spaciousness, but find that lacking in Vanska, despite the amazing SQ.

For the 9th, Fricsay is hard to beat, on all levels.

But as always, YMMV.
More to discover