Brahms
Posted by: Tam on 09 April 2006
I've been thinking a fair amount about Brahms and his symphonies lately and thought I'd start a thread on the topic, then I did a search and discovered Fredrik had beaten me to it by some years with this interesting thread:
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/38019385/m/5671964576/p/1(suggest you read it first - probably much more interesting than anything I have to say
)
I would have posted on the end and brought it back but it is now locked. Ah well.
My introduction to Brahms' symphonies came just after the 2003 Edinburgh festival. Through sheer idiocy I decided not to come in time up for Mackerras's two concerts with the SCO where he played all four and the piano concerti with Schiff (the stupidity of this decision was confirmed both by the reports of family members who were there and listening to the radio broadcasts). I have been kicking myself ever since and this could happily have gone on the 'best concert you never went to' thread.
However, all was not lost because Mackerras has recorded them with the SCO on Telarc (the smaller forces are in line with the ones Brahms used for two of the premiers). What's more, we get a fourth disc containing a wonderfully illuminating interview (making this even more of a must for a Mackerras fan such as myself). I don't think the works suffer from the size of forces, in fact, the set is very satisfying indeed and I would have no trouble recommending it - I would write a more detailed review but I fear I don't know the works well enough to do so.
However, I have had in my mind ever since that I was only hearing part of the picture; what, I wondered, did these works sound like with a bigger band. I acquired two further cycles - those of Bernstein with the VPO and Haitink on LSO 'live'. I got the Bernstein principly because I'm a great fan of him as a conductor (and where he does well - Beethoven, Mahler, Mozart 40&41, his own work, etc. - he does exceptionally). Sadly, Brahms is not one of those areas and all but the 4th symphony (which is a wonderfully exhilarating) leave me utterly cold. I bought the Haitink cycle largely because at the time I was very much enamored of the label (I had bought several wonderful recordings from them and given the price, and the feeling that I was supporting the ensemble, I thought I couldn't go wrong); what was more, number 2, coupled with the double concerto, got a rave write-up in the gramophone. This was deserved as it remains a very enjoyable disc. The first symphony isn't bad, but it's nothing to write home about either. Three and four are disappointing and given four is alone on the disc, rather poor value too.
At this point I began to wonder if I actually liked Brahms (when what I should have done, but for some reason didn't, was to dig out my Mackerras cycle). However, I had a glance in the penguin guide which steered me towards Abbado (calling it the 'first choice among modern digital cycles), however, I wasn't about to pay the £60 that DG seemed to want for it. However, a few months back it was on special offer in my local CD shop and I snapped it up. Perhaps it was the fact I was coming to the set with such high expectations, but again I was disappointed. If anything, Abbado seems to lack energy and for the last couple of months it has sat on my shelves ignored. Then came the Szell/Cleveland cycle (I inherited it recently), and again I had reasonable hopes since I have considerable fondness for this combination. It wasn't unenjoyable, but neither did it blow me away, and I have not felt the urge to dust the discs off since I first listened to them a few months ago.
However, by this time I knew it was the interpreters not Brahms nor the scale of forces. About a year ago I attended a concert where Mackerras did both the Academic Overture and the 4th symphony with the Philharmonia and it was absolutely stunning (I found myself wishing he'd just record the symphonies with them too).
Recently I dug out my Mackerras cycle again and have been playing it a lot. There is a fantastic energy and time and time again it gets me wanting to armchair conduct (which I feel is always the mark of a good record). So, this week I dusted down the Abbado cycle again to give it a second chance, but it just doesn't engage me in the way Mackerras does (I now think I am going to get rid of it - a radical step for me).
However, all this leaves me without a strong 'big' orchestra cycle. I'm sure there must be one out there. On a whim I ordered, at budget price, Jochum's cycle (a conductor for whom I have great affection, and about whom a thread may shortly be forthcoming), so we shall see how that goes. I feel fairly confident that Fredrik will tell me that what I need is Boult, so perhaps I should give him a try. However, I would appreciate any other thoughts.
regards, Tam
p.s. Out of interest, is there a logic to having old threads get locked like this - I would much rather have simply brought Fredrik's back.
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by graham55
Tam
Not just mine, but the BPO's as well. It would never have worked, though, given CK's character and he was right to decline the post. A great shame, nonetheless.
Graham
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by Tam
Graham,
The notes of that Kleiber anniversary set suggested that the Tristan was the last ever studio recording he made, after he stormed out. Certainly, he is a conductor who's records are too few and far between. But, as you say, all that was a key part of who he was (and without that temperament he wouldn't have been the musician he was).
What is really sad is that he only once came to London (and never returned after he was slated in a review).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by graham55
Tam
I was at that very RFH concert, when he stood in at short notice for Karl Boehm. Sadly, it was the only time that I ever saw CK in the flesh.
In addition, he conducted quite a few times at Covent Garden. (Apparently, he liked to get about London on the upper decks of Routemaster buses.)
Speaking of storming out of studios, there was an infamous incident in (I think) Vienna, when Kleiber was recording Beethoven's Fifth Concerto with Michelangeli. Some unfortunate soul (orchestra leader perhaps) asked Michelangeli a question about tempo, Kleiber took offence and he was halfway up the autobahn home to Munich before the soloist, players and technicians quite realised what was up. Needless to say, that recording didn't get made, nor was one of La Boheme ever completed. I wonder if DG still have any tapes from any of these (and other?) abortive sessions.
Graham
Graham
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by Tam
Well, as it progresses, Jochum's stereo cycle gets finer. Personally, I rather preferred the Berlin first (which is probably one of the finest, if not the finest, I have heard). However, in the second symphony the newer disc is much finer. As with all (judging from the timings - the first movements are all several minutes longer, but, if anything, the other movements are shorter) the first movement repeats seem to be observed here, as opposed to the earlier readings. This second is wonderful, the finale is absolutely electric and, as a whole, much finer than my previous favourite from Haitink and the LSO.
Things get even finer with the 3rd. This is a magical reading. There are, perhaps, readings that give more beauty in the inner movements, in particular in the allegretto, however, the outer movements are stunning and the coherence of the whole reading is somethings special. It has to be said that the playing of the LPO is not quite so fine as that of the Berliners (though there is some wonderful stuff on offer - especially from the basses in the second).
While I haven't listened to the final symphony, I think Jochum is wonderful Brahmsian and all lovers of these works should hear some of these interpretations. Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, neither holds all the tricks. The Berlin first is outstanding, but then are the LPO second and third. Either way, if you haven't heard Jochum in Brahms you should.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by Tam
quote:
Originally posted by graham55:
I was at that very RFH concert, when he stood in at short notice for Karl Boehm. Sadly, it was the only time that I ever saw CK in the flesh.
What did he play?
regards, Tam
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by graham55
quote:
Originally posted by Tam:
What did he play?
regards, Tam
Tam
We're at the RFH on 9 June 1981, with Carlos Kleiber conducting the LSO in staple Kleiber fare: 'Der Freischuetz' Overture and Schubert's Third Symphony in the first half, with just Beethoven's Seventh in the second. No encores. Very fast, clean and dry, extraordinary (almost balletic) grace on the podium. The critics almost universally hated it.
It was far from perfect, but exciting as hell, paricularly as conductor and orchestra had only got to know each other a few days earlier, when they played the same concert at La Scala on 5 June.
The LSO had been due to play a quite different programme under Karl Boehm, who was then 'President' of the LSO and I was only able to get tickets because so many patrons had returned theirs on hearing that the old Nazi Boehm would not be conducting. As a result, the hall was partly filled by disappointed Boehm fans (like the two old coffin dodgers sitting next to me) who hadn't heard of his cancellation, plus avid Kleber fans who were there precisely because he had! As I recall, the RFH was far from full, although my memory may be playing tricks here. Some of the audience applauded wildly, others sat on their hands.
At the time, in the days immediately before the concert, there was much excited talk from the LSO that this was a new relationship for which the sky would be the limit. As a result of the reviews, the notoriously sensitive Kleiber vowed never to step on an orchestra stage in London again. A crying shame!
Graham
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by Tam
Thanks for that Graham - it must have been wonderful. Interestingly, one of the greatest concerts I ever went to also featured Beethoven 7 (albeit only with Daniel Harding).
Back to Jochum and the Brahms four rounds off the cycle nicely, though it is not nearly so fine as either two or three (and, indeed, possibly the weakest of the set) it is nonetheless an enjoyable reading. The second movement andante is probably move powerful than with the Berliners (though this may be helped by finer sound). However, when the 3rd movement arrives the superior playing of Berliners really shines through (especially in the triangle). The finale also lacks something of the weight.
All of which means the fact that the cycle is divided into two sets (1-3 plus overtures and 4 with Tennstedt's German Requiem) is much less off a disadvantage. The first set is well worth buying, as is the earlier DG cycle (which is preferable probably rests on whether the best readings of 1&4 or 2&3 are important to you).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 16 May 2006 by packerman
On a parallel with the Carlos Kleiber concert. The only time I ever saw Eugen Jochum was when he replaced Lorin Maazel at short notice for the Furtwängler Centenary concert with the Philharmonia at the RFH in 1986. Anyone else remember that? I was well pleased as he was one of my favourite conductors on record. Also he seemed so much more appropriate for a Furtwängler Centenary concert. Interesting to note he replaced Brahms 2nd Symphony with Mozart's Jupiter due to the lack of time available for him to prepare the programme. Not sure why Brahms is harder to prepare or perhaps Mozart was what he or the orchestra had been working on recently.
The next time I had a ticket to see Eugen Jochum he died before the performance.
Ian
Posted on: 05 July 2006 by Tam
Just saving this thread from death as I shall need it soon to post my comments on Boult's cycle of the symphonies (thank you Fredrik).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 05 July 2006 by pe-zulu
quote:
Originally posted by Tam:
post my comments on Boult's cycle of the symphonies (thank you Fredrik).
Dear Tam
I look very much forward to this, since I listened to these recordings for the first time only a short time ago (thanks to Fred). I think, Boult stresses Brahms´classical roots in a most distinguished way. And his interpretations are wonderfully human at the same time.
Regards,
Posted on: 05 July 2006 by Tam
Dear pe-zule (and Fredrik),
Due to my new job, and therefore much less time, I haven't had a chance to give them a proper listen yet, though the few brief exerts I have heard have impressed me very much. I think you're right about the classical approach - also the way holds the rhythm of the piece seems very good, I have a few other interesting thoughts, but will reserve them until I've heard a little more (sadly with a wedding and a 50th birthday to attend this weekend, I'm not sure when that will be
).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 05 July 2006 by pe-zulu
quote:
Originally posted by Tam:
sadly with a wedding and a 50th birthday to attend this weekend
regards, Tam
Cheer up dear Tam, these are festive occations.
Regards,
Posted on: 05 July 2006 by Tam
That was an unfortunate choice of smiley - I'm very glad to be going to both, but I want a good listen to the Brahms too.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 06 July 2006 by Tam
Well, I have just listened to the first symphony and initial impressions proved accurate: it did not disappoint. It does not, perhaps, have quite the Brucknerian sweep of Jochum's wonderful BPO account, but it very fine. Taught, I think is the right word, Boult has an excellent ear for detail and holds the tempi very well. Interestingly, the interpretation this reminds me of most is Mackerras, the only big difference being the slightly broader speeds here. But the same detail and drama is present.
I think it is also a very unmannered reading, it is difficult to put down exactly why it reminds me of Mackerras so, but there is a similar lightness of touch to their approaches. Anyway, it leaves me more convinced than ever that Fredrik (and, I am sure, others reading this) would enjoy his readings. I am sure I shall be enjoying the rest of these (I am particularly keen to hear how he manages three and the Haydn variations).
The playing of the LPO is excellent and it all leaves me very much wanting more.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 07 July 2006 by Tam
For what it may be worth, Jonathan Swain is building a library on Brahms 4 in CD Review on Radio 3 at around half nine tomorrow morning (I wish they wouldn't publish the 'choices' on the website before hand as it rather spoils things - then again, picking just one reading of this magnificent work is always going to be a little silly).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 07 July 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Tam,
The LPO was a wonderful corporate orchestra in the early 1950s. It did not have the best players, who all went to Beecham's RPO and Legge's Philharmonia, but was packed full of very experienced old players who had played under such a Furtwangler and Weingartner, R Strauss and many others before 1939, but essentially they were a team, rather than a collection of stars. They adored Boult, and he never once drew his fee from them [the LPO], because they were in a dire state financially by 1949 when he was engaged as chief conductor.
Certain actions by him preserved the band and allowed it to prosper again, and he continued as permanent chief till 1957, when he retired officially, but like many olf conductors, he simply carried on, and had a twenty year golden period with them. Really he had two orchestras that were devoted to him. The BBC SO and the LPO.
He even had an association with the VPO, which might surprise some people, as it started as early as 1933, when he introduced that great orchestra to Vaugham William and Elgar. [Can you imagine the Rose Quartet and the VPO in the Introduction and Allegro!] Later he brought the Planets and several Sibelius Symphonies to Vienna, all as Vinnese premieres! I bet those concerts would have been real events, but strangest to relate was their enthusiasm for his Mozart readings, which indeed might come as a shock, as no records exisit at all, as far as I can tell.
The story goes that he corrected a faulty bowing one day, and the orchestra demurred. He asked the librarian to fetch Mozart's autograph from the library upstairs, which he assured them he had studied in the time before 1914. He then showed them what none of them knew: What Mozart actually wrote! He was then accepted and the friendship became mutual!
I have ordered the Unfinished with the BBC SO under Boult which will hopefully be there tomorrow.
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 08 July 2006 by Tam
Well, for those who want to know Swain punts for Reiner and the RPO or Kleiber. However, unlike too many of these Library Builders, he does point out the futility of picking just one or two recordings. He also suggests that Mackerras is the best of the modern recordings.
This segment has encouraged me to seek out Furtwangler, though I am more than a little disappointed not to have heard any Celi and it's a shame he missed Jochum's LPO (though it isn't perhaps, quite so fine as the earlier BPO reading of the 4th).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 08 July 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Tam,
For once I listened to this. I find little chunks always disconcerting. A great reading cannot be appreciated in bits. For example the little bit he played of the Jochum BPO recording sounded rather fast and slick, though it might be fine in the context of the whole reading. Klemperer (part from the begining of the scherzo) sounded plain wrong and mannered, but within the context of the whole reading it is in fact merely an underlining of the Hungarian aspect (gypsy music - Zigauner mucic], which really is an element in the music, and so not a mannerism at all.
No Boult of course as it is all deleted, so as I have said before, Boult's mastery is something known by a diminishing number.
Weingartner got mentioned as a historical appendix, but you can test this for yourself!
It was fascinating that the reviewer pinpointed one thing that has always worried me about C Kleiber's Beethoven and Brahms recordings, which is not so much the lack of a bass-line as a lack of regard for its overarching structural weight. The harmonic changes introduced by the bass, particularly in the Brahms Symphonies are nodal points like no other!
Which brings us to Furtwangler: Here the bass-line drives the music, in the sense that transitions are led, with perfect clarity and extra-ordinary preganancy of expression and poise from thevery bass.
This is not the current style, but strangely finds its exact parallel with Boult, who understood that, as in Bach, for Brahms, the expression in the bass-line is of equal precedednce to the expression in any other line!
Have a happy exploration over the next few days! Fredrik
Posted on: 08 July 2006 by Tam
Dear Fredrik,
I agree about chunks - they often seemed never enough (would be interested as to whether the bits of Mackerras you heard made you interested to hear more - if so, drop me an e-mail as I have a suggestion for you).
The Jochum is brisk (as with all of the BPO cycle), but I find his 4th convincing, though the first as I have said several times, is the real highlight of the set (though it is not the kind of reading I would want as my 'only' recording). It is the only Jochum recording of non-Bruckner where I feel the need to talk about his Bruckner and the result it quite special.
I only listened with half an ear to Weingartner, as I shall do him justice at a later date.
I agree about Kleiber, and somehow the recording never really quite get on with that reading. I do like the Bernstein though, but once again the exert was so brief it's hardly representative.
Also, I don't think he played Toscanini's Testament reading did he, which seems odd, as I thought that was meant to be his finest.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 08 July 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Tam,
There was an all too brief extract from the live Philharmonia set under Toscanini at the point when somebody set a fire cracker off to annoy Toscanini! Well concert behaviour has improved somewhat on that showing - the poor flautist has a moment's shake, but otherwise it went along fine through the incident, but the rest of the set [in the other symphonies] has its nervous moments without the audience adding to it. The performance of the Fourth was not particularly rated, but said to be finer than his RCA studio set.
I think you will find Boult immensely satisfying in all the symphonies, and you have found already how fine the Tragic Overture is. What incredible strength and depth in the string playing! But all to nothing if the reading did not make such a strong characterisation of the music and its context.
I thnik the humour and bawdiness of the Accademic Festival Overture is pretty nicely caught as well mind you.
Happy listening, Fredrik
Posted on: 08 July 2006 by Tam
Dear Fredrik,
I did notice the firecracker, but didn't catch which performance it was.
I would write a little more now but I seem to be rather the worse for drink (my typing is proving more than a little difficult). However, I am finding Boult very satisfying.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 13 July 2006 by murphydog
Anybody heard the Wand cycle?
Cheers,Paul
Posted on: 23 July 2006 by Tam
Well, having listened to the whole Boult/LPO cycle (some of it twice as for some strange reason, I think I may have been in a funny mood last Sunday, symphonies 2 and 3 didn't overly impress first time around), I can thoroughly recommend it - what a shame, therefore, that it is currently deleted.
It is one of the few cycles I own where every symphony is convincing, the other notable being Mackerras (Jochum is fine both with the Berliners and the LPO, but I slightly feel one has to pick and choose between the the two cycles to get the finest work).
As I noted Boult has a similar attention to detail in these works that Mackerras brings but in other regards they are rather different (Mackerras tends to be brisker and he goes in for some rather sudden changes of tempo - based on comtemporary accounts of performances). However, Boult does not fall it to what I personally (though not Fredrik) regard as the Abbado trap of letting the works become dull.
There is a clarity to his reading (I don't really know how better put it), but the musical lines are all wonderfully distinct in a way that is sometimes lost - I think this is part of what makes these such a satisfying listen.
However, I don't think I rank any of these (with the possible exception of the 4th) as my favourite readings. In the first, fine the Boult is, I still feel he yeilds to Jochum (BPO) who brings something rather special to the work. In the second, Haitink and the LSO (in what is unquestionably the pinnacle of their cycle - the rest is best avoided) are also a must-hear. In the third I think Mackerras gives us a more beautiful slow movement. The fourth is, for me, the high point of the cycle and a wonderfully exciting reading (bettered only by the live account I attended from Mackerras and the Philharmonia - if only some enterprising recording company had had the presence of mind to capture those.....). In the overtures I think I still prefer Jochum with the LPO (though Marin Alsop's recent LPO issues - interesting to note just how many fine Brahms recordings have been made with this lot) and for the Haydn variations Mackerras is really something.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 23 July 2006 by Sigmund
I have the Wand cycle, on BMG, with the North German Radio Suypony Orch. If I remember correctly, Stephenson's Report gave it their recommendation which they did only if a piece got postive reviews from three or more major sources and no negative reviews. I seem to recall that Fanfare said it was a good middle of the road rendition, whatever that means.
Also, Chesky reissued the Reiner/RPO 4 sometime back.
Posted on: 24 July 2006 by Rubio
quote:
Boult/LPO cycle
Dear Tam,
Do you know where this can be purchased?
