Your Favorite Symphonies

Yes, it's funny: Beethoven sort of defined the concept of the symphony as a major genre. And yet how often does one sit through an entire Beethoven symphony?

My favorite Beethoven: 4. LvB's love-song to the orchestra. (Giulini / La Scala, or Colin Davis / Dresden)

Mozart: 39 comes first. The finale is just one huge party. Next Jupiter and Paris. Then Prague and Linz. (Böhm and Harnoncourt)

Schubert: big C, obviously. How did he do it? again there's so much love for the sheer sound the orchestra can make in this piece, and the piece wound up in a drawer, only to be saved by Schumann.

Schumann: 4 is just loads of fun (Gardiner).

Brahms: 4, 2, 3 (Haitink / Boston). Have listened to these works for more than twenty years on a regular basis. Never a dull moment.

Bruckner: 6 (Blomstedt) The last three of course are loftier, but am I going to listen to the entire 8 in the comfort of my home?

Dvorak: 8 (Kertesz)

Sibelius: 6 (Ashkenazy); fascinating from start to finish.

Rachmaninov: 3

Stravinsky: Symphony in 3 Mvts; Jeu de Cartes

Prokofiev: 6

Shostakovich: 6 (Haitink: also for the sheer beauty the Concertgebouw unfurls the orchestral colors, one after another). Next 5 and 8.

I'll add Debussy's La Mer and Images (Boulez) and Bach's first Orch Overture (Koopman).

Why? I think conceptually the symphonic genre is no longer about the compositional structure. Symphony is about celebrating the orchestral sound. Maybe that's also why I'd rather go to a concert than expose myself to these big canvases at home on a daily basis. Chamber music and piano music works much better at home.

Herman

[This message was edited by herm on SUNDAY 24 February 2002 at 13:49.]

[This message was edited by herm on SUNDAY 24 February 2002 at 13:59.]

I love Schosta 5, but actually still need a copy. Suggestions please?

Pete.

Hi Pete,

Haitink with the Concertgebouw is a clear recommendation, and it's probably still around inthe midprice single disc version. (The entire 1 - 15 budget box is pretty attractive too.)

Another good one, also on Decca, is Ashkenazy with the Philharmonic. It's a little faster and not as luxurious.

Herman

In reality, however, there's conflicting stories about Mravinsky's claims on Shostakovich's Symphonies.

According to Kurt Sanderling, who used to conduct the Leningrad Phil all the time, Mravinsky showed up to conduct the first nights and make the recordings, while K.S. performed these works more often, which would make for a more intimate grip on the music.

The Leningrad / Petersburg recordings are interesting for the special sound world of this orchestra - clarinets almost sounding like saxophones. Mravinsky's recordings are interesting - if they're not too badly recorded and sloppily performed - for a very Spartan take on Shostakovich. (The idea that you have to do Shos. in a rough, satirical way, is also just a notion. Why would Shos have orchestrated his work so sublty and delicately, if he wanted it to sound like a military band?)

Ownership? That's just myth.

Herman

I have the recording we're talking about - along with D.S. 5 by Haitink, Ashkenazy and by Maxim Shostakovich on Collins (kinda boring) - and I find I don't play it when I want to hear this piece.

So, I'm not saying Pete shouldn't get it; it just wouldn't be my first or only choice. And, as I said, I don't really believe Mravinsky has the exclusive inside dope on Shostakovich.

The orchestral characteristics are a plus of course.

Herman

For what it's worth here's a few of my favorites:

Beethoven 3: Klemperer
Beethoven 9: Furtwangler 1942 or Bayreuth (1951?)
Brahms 3: Walter
Bruckner: 5: Furtwangler 1951
Bruckner 8: Van Beinum or Wand or Karajan or Guilini or Barbirolli or Horenstein
Haydn: Late Symphonies: Colin Davis
Mahler 9: Barbirolli
Mozart 41: Charles Mackerras
Nielsen 5: Bernstein
Schubert 9: Wand
Shostakovich 4: Rattle
Shostakovich 15: Haitink
Sibelius 7: Karajan (gulp)
Stravinsky - Symphony of Psalms: Stravinsky
Vaughan Williams 4: Vaughan Williams
Vaughan Williams 5: Vernon Handley

David

I bet that's the Chandos recording by Richard Hickox of the London Symphony.

In all fairness I have to say I checked my Liz Wilson Shostakovich Remembered (Faber), a kind of oral history of the composer, with a long quote by Mravinsky, recounting how the Fifth Symphony was one of his first big premieres. So he prepared meticulously, checking with D.S all the time.

We're supposed to think this is what Mravinsky did with every next symphony. That's what M. suggests. Others suggest different things - but they have a special interest, too.

This, of course, is not where it ends. My personal experience has been that often interpretations get more interesting and expressive as they move out of the composer's control. So the composer's seal of approval is not necessarily a recommendation.

So, back to favorite symphonies, please!

Herman

Shostakovich 11

Brahms 3

Beethoven 7

looking at your excellent list I'm kind of intrigued. There's these American orchestras, in pretty deep central European stuff: Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'd expect a music lover from Poland to prefer Berlin, Vienna or what have you...

Of course Leinsdorf and Solti were only part time Americans.

BTW I forgot Nielsen 4 / Blomstedt on my Sissy List

Herman

Shostakovich - 5th - Bernstein Columbia
8th - Kondrashin Angel
10th - Karajan DG

Mahler 1st - Walter Columbia
4th - Berstein Columbia

Tchaikovsky 5th - Ashkenazy London
6th - Solti London

Beethoven 7th - Reiner RCA

What's the sound quality like on the Mengelberg Naxos?

David

good to see Mozart's C-minor Mass on your sissie list. It's one of those works (like the first string quartet in Mozart's "Haydn" set) you can literally hear the breakthrough to new musical forms and freedom. IMO Gardiner's recording is best.

Are you familiar with the Herreweghe recording of the Mozart Requiem? It's on Harmonia Mundi. Perhaps it's even better than the Gardiner version. Gardiner's Choir is great in the dramatic thing (plenty of that in the masses); Herreweghe's choir perhaps has a more churchy character.

Bruckner: I'd start with either the Fourth or the Seventh.
In the fourth I really like Blomstedt with the Dresden, or Bohm with the Vienna, or Klemperer with Bayern.
Seventh is pretty good in the spanking new Wand / Berlin.

Life without Bruckner, though, is eminently possible. I listen to Bruckner maybe once a year. Okay, maybe twice. Or does the "twice" ruin my shot at a Sissy Award?

Herman

I was in a CD shop yesterday, but they only had Mengelberg Brahms 3 with one movement from Brahms 1. I knew I should have bought it.

Will check out the 2 and 4 and report back.....

BTW I suprised by your aversion to Sibelius - the guy defintely wrote some weak pieces, but Symphonies 4-7 are come across as very structurally sound. Personally Mahler comes much closer to being on the sissy list.

David

For using the word 'asparagus' in a symphony, this seems entirely appropriate.

David

Do you mind terribly if I have a Homeric Laugh at your expense, just once?

I don't know why JWSz asked you for a Beethoven recommendation - he was bound to get an antiquated, crappily recorded "legendary" performance recommended.

However, this time you went one better. And let me tell you why.

Recommending - no surprise there - a wartime Furtwangler recording with no hint of a doubt whatsoever is a little funny because in the real world Beethoven Opus 18, no 4 in c minor is a STRING QUARTET - just like the other opus 18 works.

Since when is Furtwangler a string quartet? Since when is a string quartet a symphony - even or odd-numbered?

If you had actually read JWSz's mail you could have figured he was talking about a chamber music occasion.

So perhaps it's just as handy if I give a couple of ensembles that have recorded the Early Beethoven string quartets: a lot of people like the Alban Berg Quartet; there's the Melos and frankly it's very hard to go wrong with the Opus 18 set. (As long as you don't ask Vuk)

Oh, and Vuk, this is all in a friendly manner; it's just that I'm sometimes a little baffled by the monolithic way you put your rather personal views.

Herman

[This message was edited by herm on FRIDAY 01 March 2002 at 17:52.]

Herman

Hi John,

i wouldn't recommend the Kodaly Quartet on Naxos. It's a rather mediocre band, playing sufficiently well, but never good enough to break your heart over a piece.

By the way: the op 18 c minor is a very accessible piece. You don't really need to prepare! However, you will want to hear the piece after you've been to the concert, and I do recommend you get a good recording by an ensemble of some stature.

[Why don't you tell us who is playing at the concert? Oh, and at chamber events lace panties is a given; did no one tell you?]

Hi Jonathan,

excellent idea, the Jochum box. I have the vinyl collection. Jochum in my mind beats Fürtwängler in that he has these same awe-inspiring moments of intensity, but he also has a kind of Schubert-like jollity. And of course his orchestral sound is way better.

So do it. But don't start at the start.

Herman

The Jochum recordings are pretty expensive, so I wouldn't get this unless you can track it down for significantly less. Regarding, Vuk's choices for Bruckner

4th: Furtwangler would certainly not be my first choice for this - it's a pretty unusual performance and something like Bohm on Decca is a far safer choice. IMHO the Bohm is probably the most recommendable with Wand/BPO coming a close second. The Bohm has a very natural sounding recording which gives you the impression of being in front of an orchestra, rather than what seems to be the trend these days which is to make it sound like you are conducting the work.

8th: The Karajan is a good allrounder for this work. There is a significant difference between the Haas and the Novak editions of this symphony, which means I'd make sure you pick a Haas edition. The new Gunther Wand/BPO is also excellent and is in stunning sound. Furtwangler (who unfortunately uses a modified Haas) again has a very individual view of this work - Richard Osborne call it neurotic. It certainly has a very tragic feel to the work - which I don't think is entirely in keeping with Bruckner's intentions. But if you want to sample this then, I prefer the two March dates (I think 1951) that were recorded in the Tatania Palast. Despite the poorer sound, audience coughing and the planes flying overhead (certainly gives the recording a live feel) it takes Furtwangler view of the work to an extreme.

Symphony No 9: If you want to try a good performance of this work in first class sound then the Barenboim/BPO is excellent. The Furtwangler recording of this on DG is also excellent, in many ways better than his interpretations of 4 or 8.

7th - Karajan or Chailly also recommended

Symphony No 5. I'm suprised Vuk did't recommend this, as IMHO his best symphony after 8, if not as approachable as 4, 7 or 9. Furtwangler 1951 is in a class of it's own, but if you want something in more modern sound, then Dochnanyi, Chailly or Sinopoli.

David

As you said Herm I found the Mravinski unsubtle, Spartan, like a Military Band, and not too delicate. But it was exciting. I enjoyed it. Much better than the two other recordings I have. I now feel I should get the Hatink [I have his 7th, 8th and 11th] but there's so much new music to buy that I am now torn.

Steve

don't be torn! Three Shos Fives is quite a collection. The Halle and the Wigglesworth are, of course, not as interesting as the Mravinsky or the Haitink. I guess that's the price you pay for cheap CD's... Though the Haitink shouldn't be too expensive either.

Oh, and recently I noticed I had forgotten to reply to your Wuorinen query. The music I talked about is recorded by Koch International, which is a full price label.

You like chamber music, don't you? does that include piano solo? In that case I would recommend that Peter Serkin disc I have talked about a couple of previous times. It features an excellent Wuorinen piece, and lots of other 20th C guys. The disc is titled "The Ocean that has no West and no East" and it's also on Koch. Lotta bang for yr buck, IMO

Herman

"A really nice thread.

But Brahms really sucks."

-----

Wel, Ferror, clearly you've put a lot of thought into this. So what kind of symphonic stuff do you approve of?

Herman

of course there's no need to like Brahms. If you like the composers you mentioned, you've got your work cut out for you for ages to come.

The concept of originality, though, is a difficult one. Composing, as the word implies, is to a large degree the art of combing.

Bach, one of the greatest geniuses in music, was a very conservative composer. He was not as famous as his sons and cousins, because he stuck to the traditional forms (counterpoint, fugue, canon, what have you), while his famous cousin Carl Philip Emmanuel B composed these brilliant loose crazy pieces on the keyboard. He was a major influence on Joseph Haydn and even on Mozart. Still J. S. is the Bach genius.

Even Mozart's genius and originality is to a large extent based on his astounding flair for making unusual combinations. So often you can tell he's thinking: "Oh, I'm going to do a Haydn finale here, or let's do a Johan Christian Bach here." The instinctive way Mozart used his flabbergasting erudition in music history (in an age when there were virtually no music libraries: he just ran into a shelf of J.S. Bach at one of his patrons, he literally hoovered his way through those scores, and thus kick-started his musical maturity.

Brahms often is described as dour and dull. It was a very stupid move of his to position himself as a latter day Beethoven symphonist. Yet, there's no comparison: his language is completely different, having Schumann and Mendelsohn in the back of his mind, too, and his own unique personality. Remember Schoenberg called him a progressive - not an imitator, but an initiator.

Or let's take Shostakovich, whom we've been discussing last week. A combinator-composer. After playing through his 14th quartet he said, "And did you like the Italian bit?" He was talking about the second track, that romantic solo for the first violin. Clearly he had had a "Italian" model in mind, though you can tell he had been thinking of Beethoven's Op 130 Cavatina, too - and Beethoven had clearly been borrowing from Mozart's late quartets and Italian opera.

So I don't know about originality.

Nonetheless: enjoy whatever you're enjoying. There's enough for all of us out there.

Herman

Dariusz