Back in the sixties I heard two recordings of the Symphonie Fantastique one by Bernstein and then one of Boulez. Both really blew me away. Didn't have to be on anything except the highs of this beautiful music.
Glad you mentioned Karajan II. At the end of the 4th Movement, he pauses ever so slightly after the loud "Guillotine chop" so that the two "plunk plunks" of the head falling off the chopping block are clearly heard. Best bells ever in the 5th indeed!
Hallo David! Yes, I agree: the Symphonie Fantastique conducted by Karajan and by Paray are absolutely stunning. Paray really is very fast - maybe the fastest performance available, but so wonderful! In my humble opinion I think that Colin Davis is a very refined interpreter of this Symphony...I've got different recordings of it because I love Berlioz...one also that struck me was Myung-Whun Chung and the Orchestre de l'Opéra Bastille. But there's another which is absolutely astonishing, very well played and recorded and also with a rich sound of bells in the finale: this is The Hague Philharmonic Orchestra with Willem van Otterloo conducting...for me is one of the best performances ever of the Symphonie Fantastique...van Otterloo is on the fast side like Paray...he has recorded in the 50s the Fantastique also with the Berliner Philharmoniker and they have never played it at the ages of Furtwangler, Celibidache and so on. So van Otterloo spent much time to teach how rightly play the notes to Berliners! Unbelivable, right?! Anyway, personally, I strongly recommend the Symphonie Fantastique with The Hague Philharmonic and Willem van Otterloo conducting. I'm sure that also Berlioz from the Olympus of great musicians would have appreciated it! :D
Munch and Berlioz is a win, win. His interpretations of Symphonie Fantastique, Romeo and Juliet, L'Enfance du Christ, and the Requiem are without peer ,
I agree that the 1962 Munch/BSO is the finest account overall.Karajan/BPO from the 1970’s is surprisingly inspired and well balanced. Colin Davis actually left four recordings of the SF: three on Phillips with the LSO, RCO, and the VPO, respectively, and one with the LSO, on LSO Live. I’ve heard them all except for the VPO; good but not very exciting. Glad you mention Bernstein ‘63, MTT, Paray, and Markevitch; we have them and they are excellent. I have soft spots for the Abbado/CSO, Muti/PhdO, and Beecham recordings.
So glad that Paray gets a mention - his is still the Fantastique that (for me) most captures the spirit of the work, and it's incredibly exciting too (as well as having some ear-opening orchestral balance). The one you don't mention that I've always liked a lot is Van Beinum's Concertgebouw recording on Decca. Completely agree about the Davis versions.
@@davecook8378 It always seemed lazy that they just re-printed the same paragraph about certain recordings in the next edition. It always seemed like they should same something new or re-evaluate each time.
Muti/Philadelphia is also another good one. I know the Muti/Philly recordings have gone relatively unnoticed, but they are uniformly excellent. Sleepers!
Thanks for clarifying about the two different Munch recordings. I had no idea. I've only heard the Living Stereo one and thought, "it must just be me" - I could see what the big deal was. I'll seek out '62 one.
ME TOO! I can't believe I missed this. Just heard the 60's one for the FIRST TIME and it just about set my hair on fire. WOW is this an exciting performance! I ordered the whole Munch Berlioz box I got so excited (it's such a better deal than it used to be!).
The Igor Markevitch has been my favourite recording for some time along with his Damnation of Faust. I also enjoy Thomas Beecham’s recording on EMI. I haven’t heard either of the Much recordings so I will look into these.
I still maintain that nobody got the measure of the crazy spontaneity of the Sinfonie Fantastique better than Stokowski. His 1968 live recording with the Philharmonia has the greatest adrenaline rush of the finale of all time (acknowledged by the roar of the audience afterwards)
I have come across several recordings of the Symphonie Fantastique made in Paris in the early days of stereo, when Parisian orchestras still had their distinctive sound. As noted in the video, there is Igor Markevitch with the Lamoureux. There is also Pierre Dervaux with the Colonne; Ataulfo Argenta and Constantin Silvestri, both with the Conservatoire, Sir Thomas Beecham with the French Radio Orchestra, Louis Fourestier with Cento Soli and Pierre Michel LeConte with the Paris Opera Orchestra. None of these may challenge Munch in Boston for top prize, but they all have a special ring of authenticity in their customary playing of the piece.
David, thank you so much for these videos. I am loving them. However, with the Symphonie Fatastique, the 1930 recording from Monteux with the Paris Symphony Orchestra holds a special place in my heart. I'm sure you must have heard the story behind it. Supposedly Monteux got a copy of the score marked up by Edouard Colonne. As a young man, Colonne had admired, met, and known Berlioz, and notated in the score the kind of tempos and phrasing that he heard in the composer’s own performances of his music. These score changes were passed on to Monteux, who also carefully notated them. But when the Nazis invaded France in 1940, they stole all of his scores, including the Symphonie Fantastique. Monteux claimed that because of this he could never reproduce these effects again. This is a very different performance than most others. In some ways it's closer to the wonderful Bernstein version you mentioned in the video (though with much worse sound). Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your take on this.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but I just think the sound is too lousy to tell what's going on aside from gross contrasts in texture and, of course, tempo. I get the provenance, but it doesn't impress me as a performance. And I don't believe that Monteux couldn't reproduce the "special" details. One tends to remember that sort of thing; and moreover, if he really believed what he said and there was a recording available and he STILL couldn't recapture those details, then we know that they are not audible on the recording because then he (or anyone) simply could have copied them. Right? So by all means, enjoy the performance--but for what it is, and not for what it purports to be.
The MTT story reminds me of reading a neuroscientist from an Ivy League school writing that he and two colleagues agreed on the best music for coming off a bad acid trip: Haydn’s string quartets.
I remember a comment made about the Bernstein Royal Edition, that Prince Charles' watercolors were an amazingly blue-blooded addition to these red-blooded performances. I love that.
Munch (either one) and Colin Davis/Concertgebouw for me. Two very contrasting performances. The Davis emphasizes the lyrical qualities that are in abundance in the first three movements, and Davis was great with bringing out the form and structure. It may not be hysterical and white hot, but neither is it boring; it is supremely lyrical, and plays up that side of Berlioz. Munch, of course, is very spontaneous and brings out the hysteria and weirdness. I think they are both great, but in very different ways.
Ormandy and Solti really knew how to work with the Symphonie Fantastique. Very different but excellent. Oh...and Beecham! But most recordings are horrible. Davis did two or three recordings....very clear but emotionless.
Just stumbled on a video of this piece here on TH-cam with Beecham and the National Radiodifussion France. On vynil- RCA (1959). And wow. Better than the remaster. I won't say it's the greatest performance ever. However, Beecham has a certain intensity that's hard to put into words. Kind of a push and pull effect throughout. The march is slightly slower, but not sluggish. You also hear the nuasances in the strings in the waltz. Surprisingly, he gives a rougher edge to the brass Especially in the finale which is downright frightening. And yes, he plays the third just past the sixteen minute mark. But it doesn't drag. Again maybe not a top ten rendition, but it's definitely worth a listen. Just didn't know if anybody remembers this recording.
Sold on the 1962 Munch/BSO. Followed your recommendation and got a good download of it. Revelatory. Put me in such a good mood after the first listening.
Wait until you hear his live 1960s live performance with the BSO. Even better. The finale is absolutely mesmeric! Get that one. You will be astounded by it.
Agree with you on the Munch recording. I was surprised you didn't include Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. That was my first experience with the Berlioz symphonie.
I purchased the Karajan as an LP when it came out ... and wore it out; since replaced with Cd; and have ordered the newly available CD version with the enhanced CD technology. Will try and get the last two versions you mentioned to see if they really match up to Karajan.
i lucked out and found a paray recording. it is with the detroit orchestra and that is not the one you recommended. so my back up is the munch rca victrola (the latter one) it is sitting in my 'cart' and i am trying to decide whether i can order it b4 i get my roommate's rent and my social security. of course i have the $ and these things do disappear, so i will go ahead. on the morrow. thanks for your comments on these recordings
In 1969, had the very good fortune to hear a VERY young Michael Tilson-Thomas (subbing for an ailing Erich Leinsdorf) conduct the Boston Symphony Orchestra in Bizet's Symphony in C and Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique at Symphony Hall. It was pretty great. The brass (Ghitalla, Voisin, Come, etc.) and the percussion (Firth, Press, etc.) shone. I don't think I've heard a better one since.
I looooooove the Markevich/Lamoruex performance. The orchestral sound is unique and Markevich's interpretation is a wonder. I do like the old Davis/Concertgebouw record (the coronet has a ball!) as well as the Muti/Philadelphia performance (the bass trombone, Charlie Vernon I think, is a monster in the 4th movement). Munch 1...yes. Karajan 2...yes, for those bells! Janowski...yes. Tilson-Thomas...yes. Mehta/LPO...yes.
I might have added the Silvestri to the usual suspects, but agree the 1962 Munch is my favorite, too. That said, I happen to love the Davis/RCO. And I can't say I like the Klemperer any less than e.g. the Paray.
Maazel and Cleveland on Telarc is the first one I had (and one of my first CDs). I find it a bit stiff, but I keep thinking it must be me, it's Telarc after all and must be terrific given the label's rep for sound quality. I do like it, particularly the third movement, which is lovely.
David, what is the rule for repeats in Fantastique? Colin Davis observes them. There are only repeats for mvt 2 and mvt IV, right? In which case, Davis is really not that much slower, aside from the Countryside mvt where he really luxuriates in comparison to say Paray. Anyway, I do like Davis. But I'm now curious to sit down and give those other guys you mentioned a go! Cheers.
I’m so commenty that I cannot help writing here about Kegel/Dresden PO version. Serious and heavy, not elegant, not demonish, maybe somewhat cold, still burning undersurface. Quiet enthusiasm. The bell sound of the 5th movement is unique. The recording is superb. Worth trying as the 11th or 12th collection.
Regarding more recent recordings I think Rattle/BPO, Barenboim/West Divan Orchestra, Jansons/Bavarian Radio SO, and finally Daniel Harding/Swedish Radio SO are all very good indeed. As for classic recordings, to add to the Munch recommendation, what about Louis Fremaux with the LSO on Collins? Very good indeed.
I love the Jansons recording. Lean, detailed, fighting-machine, but not the finicky micro-controlled futzing that can sometimes dull his excellent efforts.
Mackerras with the Royal Philharmonic is the one I grew up with. Why is it not mentioned much? It has a wonderfully played cornet solo in the second movement and the last note at the end of the final movement is held longer than most recordings. It's such a satisfying conclusion to the insanity, like waking up from a nightmare. I think it has ruined me for the Fantastique. It's always my point of reference for comparisons and I feel nothing has surpassed it yet, although Paray comes close in my list. Who knows? That may just be due to emotional value for me.
And now we have another Fantastique on the market, with Celibidache and his Munich forces. It was released a few days ago. I'm curious and anxious at the same time. Will it be Anton Berlioz? Does anyone has any thoughts about it? Hit or miss?
I have been listening and collecting classical music for 20 plus years; confidently, I can say I know something about it and the recordings of it. I need to make a suggestion for a couple pieces of French Music you should review. Since this is a review of a French Composer it seems the logical place to put it. Suggestions: 1. Ernest Chausson - Symphony in B flat major and his Poeme for violin and orchestra. His symphony is astoundingly good and the "Poeme' is dramatically romantic. I know your a piano person, but I am a violin person. Vibrato.vibrato.vibrato: the violin sings...the piano...well...it doesn't...I still very much enjoy what has been written for the piano---it's great!---but---I enjoy the violin more!! CD rankings: a. 1st-choice-RCA-The Boston Sym. conducted by C. Munch and the Poeme with David Oistrakh, violinist b. 2nd choice-Decca-Double CD-Set with the OSM conducted by C. Dutoit. This set also has a very nice comparably version of the Poeme and nice vocal piece. The second cd has Chausson's Piano Quartet and a Piano concertish Quartetish piece which are both very nice. It's really too bad but, I wish Chausson knew how to ride a bicycle....... 2. Camille Saint-Saens - La Foi (3 Symphonic Pictures), Op. 130 and the Suite algerienne, Op. 60. Cd rankings: La Foi: a. I like EMI 's recording with Michel Plasson conducting. It's coupled with an organ piece and Symphony No. 3. Suite algerienne: a. The only recording I have is on NAXOS and I have listened to another on youtube. It's OK. But, I like the coupling on NAXOS - because you get the Suite in D major and one in D minor and a Serenade transcribed for Orchestra. It's all very good....performance and sound. I watched your review on "Magnard's Symphony No. 4". I enjoy Chausson's Symphony and Saint-Saens' "La Foi" more the Magnard's #4.....
One recording of the Fantastique you rarely hear about it Ernest Ansermet and La Orchestra d' la Suisse Romande. I believe it was recorded on the London label.
Regarding those bells in the last movement, Christoph Eschenbach recorded the piece with the Corchestre de Paris, which supposedly possesses the actual chimes/bells that Berlioz used at the work's premiere. At least that's what Maestro Eschenbach said when I was working at Ravinia Festival while he served as music director for a number of years. Unfortunately, I can find no documentation in the notes accompanying the recording itself that confirms that fact.
The extra Davis you were trying to remember is the one he did with Vienna Phil in the 90s, his third for Phillips, no less! I doubt it would shed any new light on the work, though. I have his two earlier ones, and enjoyed them for years, but now you've got me curious to hear the Markevitch, Paray and Munch 2!
I don't think so. Stereo is audibly superior generally, but well-made mono recordings can be perfectly satisfying. That's all that needs to be said about it. After that, it depends on the quality of the engineering.
I actually enjoy the first three movements. I first heard this symphony as an 11 year old, the first LP I bought - Silvestri and the Paris Conservatoire Orchestra, I loved it. I agree Munch is superb! Does anyone else find Martinon's annoying in the second movement - that trumpet drives me crazy!!! the rest is great though.
I thought the very first note the cornet plays in that movement was a bit off. I just had a listen to refresh my memory and, indeed, it doesn't sound quite right. Maybe it's just me.
My first recording was Norrington’s. But now I have bought the Martinon and Munch versions, I will never listen to Norrington’s again. Like all of your suggestions, those two recordings are superb. I will, however, add one that you might not like - FX Roth’s second go at it, the one from 2019 (he clearly realised that his first one wasn’t very good). It’s pretty fiery and good - up there with the Munch. Surprising, I know.
Hello. I hope you don't mind me being pedantic; but the Bernstein "Royal Edition" leaflet you hold up states that the recording is the 1968 version. You are, in fact, correct: it is actually the 1963 recording, mislabeled as the 1968 recording. The 1968 recording is on a "Great Performances" CD. (I stole this info from the John Fowler review on amazon.com.)
I read somewhere that the excerpts of the Symphonie incorporated into Bernstein's lecture track, "Berlioz Takes A Trip," were from the 1968 performance, not the 1963 recording. It is supposedly of a different, wilder character than the earlier recording, and liked by some for its psychedelic flavor.
Hello, Pardon my interruption. Of the 1372 languages you appear to speak, I am curious. You never miss a chance to diss the major British music publication. So, other than your own very fine periodical, is there a current English language publication you consider to largely get their critiques right? And beyond that, what foreign language publication do you consider the best? Thank you.
I started listening to classical in the late 1970s and Gramophone was my bible. How foolishly was I. There's a TH-cam video with Munch conducting the work in Harvard in 1962. Don't know if this is the same version Dave recommends but it's worth watching just to see the intensity of the playing especially at the end. Of course Munch conducts without a score.
Dave, I wish you would have addressed which good recordings, if any restore the coronet parts in the waltz. They are idiomatically written ( recall Arban and Saint-Jacome ) and add a welcome touch of contrast.
Dave, your insight as a percussionist has benefited many of your listeners. Of course, details you comment on are my determinative of your overall recommendation. Similarly, I have insight as a trumpeter. I would not tell someone to drop other considerations in choosing performances. But the cornet parts in the waltz are delightful. Many composers wrote separate trumpet and cornet parts in the same work and they were written in contrasting style-Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Kodaly, Franck, come to mind. There is a wonderful 2 cornet flourish at the end of the Franck Symphony which is usually buried in the mix-except when I played it- Ha!😎
Hi David. I agree with most of your choices. I am more enthusiastic about the Davis Concertgebouw version than you are ( I think the best of his four recorded versions. The others are the early LSO (Philips), the later LSO one under that orchestra's own label LSO LIve (his last one) and the forgotten Vienna Phil. version on Philips which came after the Concertgebouw one. As for MTT, I personally think he only had an affinity for American music and all else he did was frankly boring even with an ensemble like the SFS but that is my opinion, so... But yes Munch is the one- I have both of his and i frankly don't care which one I listen to. Munch lets the orchestra rip, esp, in the last movement where they are almost literally on fire. Same with Lenny's NY Phil. The recording which i personally do not understand all the adulation for is the Beecham with the French Nat'l Radio Orchestra. That one is a snoozefest. Love Beecham in most everything else he does but his Sym. Fantastique is one to avoid.. I have not heard Martinion and Janowski but I'm sure they are fine.
Gardner is a (as usual) a cold fish; Norrington/Stuttgart impressed me initially, just as his Beethoven did, because the orchestra plays so well, but like all of these versions that are more ideological than musical I find that it doesn't bear repetition. It's a one-time experience. My colleague Christophe Huss swears by Roth (his second version on Harmonia Mundi), so I'll have to give that another listen. I respect his opinion very highly.
David Hurwitz hi Dave! Thank you. I’ve asked about Norrington earlier recording with LCP. This one with SWR is quite good /IF you will take off whole ideology bullsh...)
Keith Parmenter HIP ideology itself is not so bad with Berlioz music. I find Gardiner recording cognitively exciting for example. But Norrington is genuinely boring...avoid it like Covid-19 Keith! Cheers from Poland!
Hi Damian I''m not against HIP per se, but think the problem with much HIP practice is that it becomes not just a means to an end but the end in itself, often without musical sense. I agree Gardiner's version is better than Norrington's, but for me it's still a bit stiff and seriously lacking in atmosphere, partly because choosing to record in such a cramped, unappealing acoustic just because it was where the work was first performed makes little artistic sense. But you know it would be boring if we all liked the same things! For me for an HIP version my choice is Immerseel's with Anima Eterna Brugge. As DH says keep listening Damian! Best wishes Keith
Completely agree with the choices - Munch '62 and Tilson Thomas splendid - but as I have more versions than the mind can comfortably conceive, let me put a word in for Argenta and the Paris Conservatoire on Decca (wonderful authentic French playing) and Immerseel's period version which is great and has the quirkiest bells, in that they are not bells (you just need to listen to understand!) Oh yes - haven't we all been on the end of some dubious Gramophone recommendations?
Actually they are pianos - two of them! Yep it is a bit of a shock, and I'm not saying it's preferable, but it's an interesting take. There's precedent for this too - Berlioz performed it this way according to his memoire, and in my score Berlioz states 'If 2 bells are not available..large enough to produce one of the 3 C's and one of the 3 Gs as written, it is better to use pianofortes' (Dover from Breitkopf & Hartel edition 1900-1910). It is difficult getting bells that large for concert use. Anyway for me it's not a deal breaker, as I really like the rest of the performance. Anyway just enjoy whatever version of this remarkable work you listen to. Cheers.
I thought I was an outlier for not liking the Colin Davis recordings. I've heard the three of them, and each time kept thinking that I must be missing something, since everyone seems to rave about them, but they just seemed dull to me. Thanks for the recommendations!
Yes, I finally had to admit that Davis just didn't deliver the goods, when so many others did. Why are we so afraid to accept the evidence of our own ears?
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think Davis's reputation as a Berliozian might cloud some people's judgement. I love his Berlioz opera recordings, but some of his orchestral ones strike me as a bit uninspired.
I agree. I kept thinking I was missing something. I own three of the Davis recordings and just couldn't figure out why the first three movements in particular didn't seem to excite me.
I just discover a Fantastique directed by André Vandernoot, Very professionnal and quite good. Anyway, I always prick up an ear on every Vandernoot recordings I found, He is so interesting and fantastic conductor. What do you think about it?
@@DavesClassicalGuide What I like the most is discovering unknown, obscured or forgotten conductors and found that sometimes they are as good as the one we are used to hear about.
Hello David - I am a keen follower of your reviews - last night I listened to this symphony conducted by the late Ataulfo Argenta with the Paris Conservatoire - and was surprised it sounded different from other popular versions - are you aware of this particular recording ? Thanks
I have a Symphonie Fantastique story to share. One of my classical music friends from years ago really liked this symphony and told me that he got the recording with Boulez. "Boulez??!" I asked incredulously? My friend shared with me later that my expression was one of surprise and disgust. Indeed, I can't imagine this symphony conducted by Boulez.
For me it’s Davis/Concertgebouw, Tilson Thomas, and Gardiner (for period instruments). I also have fond memories of Ansermet with those fantastically (!) low bells that was my LP choice. Munch is too slapdash for me.
I really wanted to like the Gardiner, after suffering from the travesty that was Norrington's LCP version, but alas no. Admittedly it's better than Norrington's, but is still very staid and seriously lacking a sense of occasion and atmosphere (party because they choose to record in such a cramped and unappealing acoustic. I know they choose the venue because it was where the work was first performed, but it works against the performance for me). My HIP choice is Immerseel's.
Keith Parmenter I haven’t heard the Immersel and only wanted Gardiner to hear the ophicleide and serpent. I also like having the additional cornets in the Ball, which add color to the texture. Davis also adds them, while Tilson Thomas does not. In any case, I will not be listening to Gardiner very often. I much prefer modern instruments in this work.
@@johnwright7749 Immerseel is really worth a listen. The only thing I'd 'caution is that it's initially a bit of a shock in Songe d'une nuit de Sabbat, that instead of bells, Immerseel uses two Erad pianos (getting properly tuned bells has always been a problem in this work). There's precedent for this - Berlioz performed it this way according to his memoire, and in my score the notes states 'If 2 bells are not available..large enough to produce one of the 3 C's and one of the 3 Gs as written, it is better to use pianofortes' (Dover from Breitkopf & Hartel edition 1900-1910). Anyway not saying it's preferable but better than some of the bell options we've been given in the past. Sorry my usual verbosity kicked in! Just enjoy whatever version of this remarkable work you listen to. Regards Keith
The Gramophone insists on pushing Davis (RIP) as a great Berliozian. Never quite agreed. Good at times? Of course. His Grand Messe is good - maybe even a top 10. But just that. Gramophone's gratuitous glorification of British conductors would be endearing if it wasn't so blanket and pervasive. Markevitch and Munch all the way!
I like a lot of Davis' Berlioz but his Symphony Fantastique recordings (I own 3) have never seemed very exciting or engaging in the first 3 movements. I have been thinking this for years, but figuring "there must be something I'm missing---keep listening!". I'm glad he came out and said it. I just heard Markevitch and the late Munch and they are so engaging from start to finish!
We should also remember about the insane Oskar Fried recording from mid 30. It is a great pity that the sound quality is so bad! As for the French sonorities - we have also Pierre Monteux 1930 recording with Orchestre de Paris and two recordings made by sir Thomas Beecham in the late 50's ;) As for the crazy versions - the are three recordings (two by the Philharmonia Orchestra from 1968 and live recording with ASO from 1970) by Stokowski. The sound is fat and lush and the tam-tam crescendos are there! ;)
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm curious if it's a matter of miking or hiring additional harpists. It sound as if there was at least 10 of them ;) And the phrazing is amazing there!
@@oskarapeta2895 It was a Phase 4 recording, with millions of microphones.If you want to hear Stoki's harp addition at it's most radical, try his Houston "Magic Fire Music" on Everest. It's unbelievable.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for recommendation, I didn't know this interpretation! ;) Phase 4 explains a lot, but this two live recordings sound very similiar in this aspect (but of course they are not Phase 4).
recent recording of la fantastique with leonard slatkin on naxos at lyon,france is my best ( otherwise i like this complete ravel orchestral music with slatkin on naxos and saint saens organ symphonies too but the choice of other work on cd saint saens is very poor...)....in addition of la fantastique slatkin conduct the Waltz of fantastique with addition of cornet...interesting
@@DavesClassicalGuide ok. Your french colleagues of le diapason d'or included it into one of their boxes called "Les indispensables". Anyway, I agree with your recommendations about SF. Tilson Thomas is not so distant from Munch..🤗
Just out of sheer curiosity: why is Pierre Boulez not in this list? Is he perhaps one of the "dull" ones? To my ears he is not, quite the opposite in fact!
Avoid Norrington's LCP version like the plague. Gardiner's - boring and dry acoustic. I'd try Immerseel's with Anima Eterna Brugge, not sure what label. Very entertaining IMHO
Why do you not choose Charles Dutoit et the MOntreal Symphony Orchestra. Technically it is fantastic. And the way Dutoit played with the color of the sound is absolutely gorgeous
I think the best Fantastique to make recording was Sir Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony, on Decca/London..... (I cannot stand the Munch read of this work.)
I have had both the older (1954) recording by Munch and the recording by Paray for decades. Munch's "dream of a witch's sabbath" is a Technicolor nightmare; Paray's reading was bland by comparison
I was completely wowed when I heard the Tilson Thomas so I'm glad he's up there with the best!!!
Back in the sixties I heard two recordings of the Symphonie Fantastique one by Bernstein and then one of Boulez. Both really blew me away. Didn't have to be on anything except the highs of this beautiful music.
Glad you mentioned Karajan II. At the end of the 4th Movement, he pauses ever so slightly after the loud "Guillotine chop" so that the two "plunk plunks" of the head falling off the chopping block are clearly heard. Best bells ever in the 5th indeed!
hells bells
It's Karajan III, he did one with the Philharmonia which is not as engaged on EMI
@@sgfnorth Yep. I stand corrected.
My favorite recording is the London Symphony Orchestra with Sir Colin Davis. Very rowdy, loud and engaging!
Hallo David! Yes, I agree: the Symphonie Fantastique conducted by Karajan and by Paray are absolutely stunning. Paray really is very fast - maybe the fastest performance available, but so wonderful! In my humble opinion I think that Colin Davis is a very refined interpreter of this Symphony...I've got different recordings of it because I love Berlioz...one also that struck me was Myung-Whun Chung and the Orchestre de l'Opéra Bastille. But there's another which is absolutely astonishing, very well played and recorded and also with a rich sound of bells in the finale: this is The Hague Philharmonic Orchestra with Willem van Otterloo conducting...for me is one of the best performances ever of the Symphonie Fantastique...van Otterloo is on the fast side like Paray...he has recorded in the 50s the Fantastique also with the Berliner Philharmoniker and they have never played it at the ages of Furtwangler, Celibidache and so on. So van Otterloo spent much time to teach how rightly play the notes to Berliners! Unbelivable, right?! Anyway, personally, I strongly recommend the Symphonie Fantastique with The Hague Philharmonic and Willem van Otterloo conducting. I'm sure that also Berlioz from the Olympus of great musicians would have appreciated it! :D
Munch and Berlioz is a win, win. His interpretations of Symphonie Fantastique, Romeo and Juliet, L'Enfance du Christ, and the Requiem are without peer ,
Ah, rehabilitation is here.
My first acquaintance with the Fantastique was through Roger Norrington's recording.
Need I say more?
I agree that the 1962 Munch/BSO is the finest account overall.Karajan/BPO from the 1970’s is surprisingly inspired and well balanced. Colin Davis actually left four recordings of the SF: three on Phillips with the LSO, RCO, and the VPO, respectively, and one with the LSO, on LSO Live. I’ve heard them all except for the VPO; good but not very exciting. Glad you mention Bernstein ‘63, MTT, Paray, and Markevitch; we have them and they are excellent. I have soft spots for the Abbado/CSO, Muti/PhdO, and Beecham recordings.
So glad that Paray gets a mention - his is still the Fantastique that (for me) most captures the spirit of the work, and it's incredibly exciting too (as well as having some ear-opening orchestral balance). The one you don't mention that I've always liked a lot is Van Beinum's Concertgebouw recording on Decca. Completely agree about the Davis versions.
I love all your reviews. The Norrington was so funny. And you are so cute.
Glad you like them!
"I believed what I was told by Gramophone!" How many of us could ruefully admit to that?
Love your reviews!
Thank you!
Me too!
@@davecook8378 It always seemed lazy that they just re-printed the same paragraph about certain recordings in the next edition. It always seemed like they should same something new or re-evaluate each time.
Muti/Philadelphia is also another good one. I know the Muti/Philly recordings have gone relatively unnoticed, but they are uniformly excellent. Sleepers!
I agree. Quite good.
Thank you for the advise, my wife is on the hunt now, for Christmas. I could listen to "Songe d'une nuit du Sabbat" on TH-cam. Incredible.
Thanks for clarifying about the two different Munch recordings. I had no idea. I've only heard the Living Stereo one and thought, "it must just be me" - I could see what the big deal was. I'll seek out '62 one.
Confused me too, I kept wondering what was wrong with me!
ME TOO! I can't believe I missed this. Just heard the 60's one for the FIRST TIME and it just about set my hair on fire. WOW is this an exciting performance! I ordered the whole Munch Berlioz box I got so excited (it's such a better deal than it used to be!).
The Igor Markevitch has been my favourite recording for some time along with his Damnation of Faust. I also enjoy Thomas Beecham’s recording on EMI. I haven’t heard either of the Much recordings so I will look into these.
You'll go to Hell just for listening to the Markevich recording. Utterly demonic.
Don’t know the symphony recording with Markevitch however his Damnation of Faust is the best conducted I’ve ever heard.
I still maintain that nobody got the measure of the crazy spontaneity of the Sinfonie Fantastique better than Stokowski. His 1968 live recording with the Philharmonia has the greatest adrenaline rush of the finale of all time (acknowledged by the roar of the audience afterwards)
Never mind the tam-tam crescendo that Berlioz didn't write...
I have come across several recordings of the Symphonie Fantastique made in Paris in the early days of stereo, when Parisian orchestras still had their distinctive sound. As noted in the video, there is Igor Markevitch with the Lamoureux. There is also Pierre Dervaux with the Colonne; Ataulfo Argenta and Constantin Silvestri, both with the Conservatoire, Sir Thomas Beecham with the French Radio Orchestra, Louis Fourestier with Cento Soli and Pierre Michel LeConte with the Paris Opera Orchestra. None of these may challenge Munch in Boston for top prize, but they all have a special ring of authenticity in their customary playing of the piece.
I generally agree with the picks but would add the Monteux/SFS recording from the early 50s.
David, thank you so much for these videos. I am loving them. However, with the Symphonie Fatastique, the 1930 recording from Monteux with the Paris Symphony Orchestra holds a special place in my heart. I'm sure you must have heard the story behind it. Supposedly Monteux got a copy of the score marked up by Edouard Colonne. As a young man, Colonne had admired, met, and known Berlioz, and notated in the score the kind of tempos and phrasing that he heard in the composer’s own performances of his music. These score changes were passed on to Monteux, who also carefully notated them. But when the Nazis invaded France in 1940, they stole all of his scores, including the Symphonie Fantastique. Monteux claimed that because of this he could never reproduce these effects again. This is a very different performance than most others. In some ways it's closer to the wonderful Bernstein version you mentioned in the video (though with much worse sound). Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your take on this.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but I just think the sound is too lousy to tell what's going on aside from gross contrasts in texture and, of course, tempo. I get the provenance, but it doesn't impress me as a performance. And I don't believe that Monteux couldn't reproduce the "special" details. One tends to remember that sort of thing; and moreover, if he really believed what he said and there was a recording available and he STILL couldn't recapture those details, then we know that they are not audible on the recording because then he (or anyone) simply could have copied them. Right? So by all means, enjoy the performance--but for what it is, and not for what it purports to be.
The MTT story reminds me of reading a neuroscientist from an Ivy League school writing that he and two colleagues agreed on the best music for coming off a bad acid trip: Haydn’s string quartets.
I remember a comment made about the Bernstein Royal Edition, that Prince Charles' watercolors were an amazingly blue-blooded addition to these red-blooded performances. I love that.
Munch (either one) and Colin Davis/Concertgebouw for me. Two very contrasting performances. The Davis emphasizes the lyrical qualities that are in abundance in the first three movements, and Davis was great with bringing out the form and structure. It may not be hysterical and white hot, but neither is it boring; it is supremely lyrical, and plays up that side of Berlioz. Munch, of course, is very spontaneous and brings out the hysteria and weirdness. I think they are both great, but in very different ways.
Ormandy and Solti really knew how to work with the Symphonie Fantastique. Very different but excellent. Oh...and Beecham! But most recordings are horrible.
Davis did two or three recordings....very clear but emotionless.
Just stumbled on a video of this piece here on TH-cam with Beecham and the National Radiodifussion France. On vynil- RCA (1959). And wow. Better than the remaster. I won't say it's the greatest performance ever. However, Beecham has a certain intensity that's hard to put into words. Kind of a push and pull effect throughout. The march is slightly slower, but not sluggish. You also hear the nuasances in the strings in the waltz. Surprisingly, he gives a rougher edge to the brass Especially in the finale which is downright frightening. And yes, he plays the third just past the sixteen minute mark. But it doesn't drag. Again maybe not a top ten rendition, but it's definitely worth a listen. Just didn't know if anybody remembers this recording.
Sold on the 1962 Munch/BSO. Followed your recommendation and got a good download of it. Revelatory. Put me in such a good mood after the first listening.
Wait until you hear his live 1960s live performance with the BSO. Even better. The finale is absolutely mesmeric! Get that one. You will be astounded by it.
Agree with you on the Munch recording. I was surprised you didn't include Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. That was my first experience with the Berlioz symphonie.
Well, had I known it was your first experience I would have included it!
I purchased the Karajan as an LP when it came out ... and wore it out; since replaced with Cd; and have ordered the newly available CD version with the enhanced CD technology. Will try and get the last two versions you mentioned to see if they really match up to Karajan.
i lucked out and found a paray recording. it is with the detroit orchestra and that is not the one you recommended. so my back up is the munch rca victrola (the latter one) it is sitting in my 'cart' and i am trying to decide whether i can order it b4 i get my roommate's rent and my social security. of course i have the $ and these things do disappear, so i will go ahead. on the morrow. thanks for your comments on these recordings
In 1969, had the very good fortune to hear a VERY young Michael Tilson-Thomas (subbing for an ailing Erich Leinsdorf) conduct the Boston Symphony Orchestra in Bizet's Symphony in C and Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique at Symphony Hall. It was pretty great. The brass (Ghitalla, Voisin, Come, etc.) and the percussion (Firth, Press, etc.) shone. I don't think I've heard a better one since.
I looooooove the Markevich/Lamoruex performance. The orchestral sound is unique and Markevich's interpretation is a wonder. I do like the old Davis/Concertgebouw record (the coronet has a ball!) as well as the Muti/Philadelphia performance (the bass trombone, Charlie Vernon I think, is a monster in the 4th movement).
Munch 1...yes.
Karajan 2...yes, for those bells!
Janowski...yes. Tilson-Thomas...yes.
Mehta/LPO...yes.
I might have added the Silvestri to the usual suspects, but agree the 1962 Munch is my favorite, too. That said, I happen to love the Davis/RCO. And I can't say I like the Klemperer any less than e.g. the Paray.
Maazel and Cleveland on Telarc is the first one I had (and one of my first CDs). I find it a bit stiff, but I keep thinking it must be me, it's Telarc after all and must be terrific given the label's rep for sound quality. I do like it, particularly the third movement, which is lovely.
David, what is the rule for repeats in Fantastique? Colin Davis observes them. There are only repeats for mvt 2 and mvt IV, right? In which case, Davis is really not that much slower, aside from the Countryside mvt where he really luxuriates in comparison to say Paray. Anyway, I do like Davis. But I'm now curious to sit down and give those other guys you mentioned a go! Cheers.
I’m so commenty that I cannot help writing here about Kegel/Dresden PO version. Serious and heavy, not elegant, not demonish, maybe somewhat cold, still burning undersurface. Quiet enthusiasm. The bell sound of the 5th movement is unique. The recording is superb. Worth trying as the 11th or 12th collection.
Regarding more recent recordings I think Rattle/BPO, Barenboim/West Divan Orchestra, Jansons/Bavarian Radio SO, and finally Daniel Harding/Swedish Radio SO are all very good indeed. As for classic recordings, to add to the Munch recommendation, what about Louis Fremaux with the LSO on Collins? Very good indeed.
I love the Jansons recording. Lean, detailed, fighting-machine, but not the finicky micro-controlled futzing that can sometimes dull his excellent efforts.
Mackerras with the Royal Philharmonic is the one I grew up with. Why is it not mentioned much? It has a wonderfully played cornet solo in the second movement and the last note at the end of the final movement is held longer than most recordings. It's such a satisfying conclusion to the insanity, like waking up from a nightmare. I think it has ruined me for the Fantastique. It's always my point of reference for comparisons and I feel nothing has surpassed it yet, although Paray comes close in my list. Who knows? That may just be due to emotional value for me.
And now we have another Fantastique on the market, with Celibidache and his Munich forces. It was released a few days ago. I'm curious and anxious at the same time. Will it be Anton Berlioz? Does anyone has any thoughts about it? Hit or miss?
I have been listening and collecting classical music for 20 plus years; confidently, I can say I know something about it and the recordings of it. I need to make a suggestion for a couple pieces of French Music you should review. Since this is a review of a French Composer it seems the logical place to put it.
Suggestions:
1. Ernest Chausson - Symphony in B flat major and his Poeme for violin and orchestra. His symphony is astoundingly good and the "Poeme' is dramatically romantic. I know your a piano person, but I am a violin person. Vibrato.vibrato.vibrato: the violin sings...the piano...well...it doesn't...I still very much enjoy what has been written for the piano---it's great!---but---I enjoy the violin more!!
CD rankings:
a. 1st-choice-RCA-The Boston Sym. conducted by C. Munch and the Poeme with David Oistrakh, violinist
b. 2nd choice-Decca-Double CD-Set with the OSM conducted by C. Dutoit. This set also has a very nice comparably version of the Poeme and nice vocal piece. The second cd has Chausson's Piano Quartet and a Piano concertish Quartetish piece which are both very nice. It's really too bad but, I wish Chausson knew how to ride a bicycle.......
2. Camille Saint-Saens - La Foi (3 Symphonic Pictures), Op. 130 and the Suite algerienne, Op. 60.
Cd rankings:
La Foi:
a. I like EMI 's recording with Michel Plasson conducting. It's coupled with an organ piece and Symphony No. 3.
Suite algerienne:
a. The only recording I have is on NAXOS and I have listened to another on youtube. It's OK. But, I like the coupling on NAXOS - because you get the Suite in D major and one in D minor and a Serenade transcribed for Orchestra. It's all very good....performance and sound.
I watched your review on "Magnard's Symphony No. 4". I enjoy Chausson's Symphony and Saint-Saens' "La Foi" more the Magnard's #4.....
One recording of the Fantastique you rarely hear about it Ernest Ansermet and La Orchestra d' la Suisse Romande. I believe it was recorded on the London label.
Regarding those bells in the last movement, Christoph Eschenbach recorded the piece with the Corchestre de Paris, which supposedly possesses the actual chimes/bells that Berlioz used at the work's premiere. At least that's what Maestro Eschenbach said when I was working at Ravinia Festival while he served as music director for a number of years. Unfortunately, I can find no documentation in the notes accompanying the recording itself that confirms that fact.
I don't believe it for a minute.
The extra Davis you were trying to remember is the one he did with Vienna Phil in the 90s, his third for Phillips, no less! I doubt it would shed any new light on the work, though. I have his two earlier ones, and enjoyed them for years, but now you've got me curious to hear the Markevitch, Paray and Munch 2!
Yep, that's it.
I have the Davis with Vienna , I like it too. I remember to have listened Much 62 on LP , I’ll will buy the JVC version.
@@GeorgesGondard I love it. It is a great recording, imo.
@David Hurwitz can you make a video about stereo and mono recordings diffrances and which is better for symphonic music
I don't think so. Stereo is audibly superior generally, but well-made mono recordings can be perfectly satisfying. That's all that needs to be said about it. After that, it depends on the quality of the engineering.
I actually enjoy the first three movements. I first heard this symphony as an 11 year old, the first LP I bought - Silvestri and the Paris Conservatoire Orchestra, I loved it. I agree Munch is superb! Does anyone else find Martinon's annoying in the second movement - that trumpet drives me crazy!!! the rest is great though.
I do like Dutoit...definitely more than Davis! Mostly for the last 2 movements though. I love the brass.
Oh, and Järvi in Cincinnati! That's a great modern one too.
Listening to Martinon now. What a fantastic cornetist in Un Bal.
I thought the very first note the cornet plays in that movement was a bit off. I just had a listen to refresh my memory and, indeed, it doesn't sound quite right. Maybe it's just me.
My first recording was Norrington’s. But now I have bought the Martinon and Munch versions, I will never listen to Norrington’s again. Like all of your suggestions, those two recordings are superb. I will, however, add one that you might not like - FX Roth’s second go at it, the one from 2019 (he clearly realised that his first one wasn’t very good). It’s pretty fiery and good - up there with the Munch. Surprising, I know.
could we have your opinion on Karajan's mono 1952 with the Philharmonia? I thought it superior to his later Berlin recordings.
I would agree with you that it's better than his first DG version, but I think his last recording is pretty special.
Hello. I hope you don't mind me being pedantic; but the Bernstein "Royal Edition" leaflet you hold up states that the recording is the 1968 version. You are, in fact, correct: it is actually the 1963 recording, mislabeled as the 1968 recording. The 1968 recording is on a "Great Performances" CD. (I stole this info from the John Fowler review on amazon.com.)
I read somewhere that the excerpts of the Symphonie incorporated into Bernstein's lecture track, "Berlioz Takes A Trip," were from the 1968 performance, not the 1963 recording. It is supposedly of a different, wilder character than the earlier recording, and liked by some for its psychedelic flavor.
Hello, Pardon my interruption. Of the 1372 languages you appear to speak, I am curious. You never miss a chance to diss the major British music publication. So, other than your own very fine periodical, is there a current English language publication you consider to largely get their critiques right? And beyond that, what foreign language publication do you consider the best? Thank you.
De gustibus non disputandum est. Never ask a critic that question.
I started listening to classical in the late 1970s and Gramophone was my bible. How foolishly was I.
There's a TH-cam video with Munch conducting the work in Harvard in 1962. Don't know if this is the same version Dave recommends but it's worth watching just to see the intensity of the playing especially at the end. Of course Munch conducts without a score.
The MTT cocaine bust was around the same time as his Cleveland Carmina Burana, and the recording sounds coked up. Very exciting!
Dave, I wish you would have addressed which good recordings, if any restore the coronet parts in the waltz. They are idiomatically written ( recall Arban and Saint-Jacome ) and add a welcome touch of contrast.
And I couldn't care less about them. Sorry.
Dave, your insight as a percussionist has benefited many of your listeners. Of course, details you comment on are my determinative of your overall recommendation. Similarly, I have insight as a trumpeter. I would not tell someone to drop other considerations in choosing performances. But the cornet parts in the waltz are delightful. Many composers wrote separate trumpet and cornet parts in the same work and they were written in contrasting style-Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Kodaly, Franck, come to mind. There is a wonderful 2 cornet flourish at the end of the Franck Symphony which is usually buried in the mix-except when I played it- Ha!😎
Great. I just have listen to the Klemperer version. Wow!! Klemperer approach is very destabilizing...
Hi David. I agree with most of your choices. I am more enthusiastic about the Davis Concertgebouw version than you are ( I think the best of his four recorded versions. The others are the early LSO (Philips), the later LSO one under that orchestra's own label LSO LIve (his last one) and the forgotten Vienna Phil. version on Philips which came after the Concertgebouw one. As for MTT, I personally think he only had an affinity for American music and all else he did was frankly boring even with an ensemble like the SFS but that is my opinion, so... But yes Munch is the one- I have both of his and i frankly don't care which one I listen to. Munch lets the orchestra rip, esp, in the last movement where they are almost literally on fire. Same with Lenny's NY Phil. The recording which i personally do not understand all the adulation for is the Beecham with the French Nat'l Radio Orchestra. That one is a snoozefest. Love Beecham in most everything else he does but his Sym. Fantastique is one to avoid.. I have not heard Martinion and Janowski but I'm sure they are fine.
...and what about Gardiner and ...Norrington (both of course are „Sir”)?
Gardner is a (as usual) a cold fish; Norrington/Stuttgart impressed me initially, just as his Beethoven did, because the orchestra plays so well, but like all of these versions that are more ideological than musical I find that it doesn't bear repetition. It's a one-time experience. My colleague Christophe Huss swears by Roth (his second version on Harmonia Mundi), so I'll have to give that another listen. I respect his opinion very highly.
David Hurwitz hi Dave! Thank you. I’ve asked about Norrington earlier recording with LCP. This one with SWR is quite good /IF you will take off whole ideology bullsh...)
@@damiangruszczynski7451 I'd avoid the Norrington LCP version like the pandemic... unexciting and driven by a misguided performance ideology
Keith Parmenter HIP ideology itself is not so bad with Berlioz music. I find Gardiner recording cognitively exciting for example. But Norrington is genuinely boring...avoid it like Covid-19 Keith! Cheers from Poland!
Hi Damian I''m not against HIP per se, but think the problem with much HIP practice is that it becomes not just a means to an end but the end in itself, often without musical sense. I agree Gardiner's version is better than Norrington's, but for me it's still a bit stiff and seriously lacking in atmosphere, partly because choosing to record in such a cramped, unappealing acoustic just because it was where the work was first performed makes little artistic sense. But you know it would be boring if we all liked the same things! For me for an HIP version my choice is Immerseel's with Anima Eterna Brugge. As DH says keep listening Damian! Best wishes Keith
Have you heard the Carlos Païta recording? It's absolutely nuts, it's amazing
He mostly was nuts!
Completely agree with the choices - Munch '62 and Tilson Thomas splendid - but as I have more versions than the mind can comfortably conceive, let me put a word in for Argenta and the Paris Conservatoire on Decca (wonderful authentic French playing) and Immerseel's period version which is great and has the quirkiest bells, in that they are not bells (you just need to listen to understand!)
Oh yes - haven't we all been on the end of some dubious Gramophone recommendations?
The Argenta is one of my favorites from when all I could afford was the London STS numbers.
@@presbyterosBassI I got it on a barebones, Pickwick CD reissue. Good version
Immerseel's bells sound like a Piano. Yuk!
Actually they are pianos - two of them! Yep it is a bit of a shock, and I'm not saying it's preferable, but it's an interesting take. There's precedent for this too - Berlioz performed it this way according to his memoire, and in my score Berlioz states 'If 2 bells are not available..large enough to produce one of the 3 C's and one of the 3 Gs as written, it is better to use pianofortes' (Dover from Breitkopf & Hartel edition 1900-1910). It is difficult getting bells that large for concert use. Anyway for me it's not a deal breaker, as I really like the rest of the performance. Anyway just enjoy whatever version of this remarkable work you listen to. Cheers.
what year did the 2nd Karajan recording come out? very challenging to figure out online. There are many many covers out there
1974
I have the JVC Remastering of the Munch 1962 performance, for those interested in h-end sound.
Thanks for another great commentary/review. What's the date on Karajan 2?
ca. 1976
I thought I was an outlier for not liking the Colin Davis recordings. I've heard the three of them, and each time kept thinking that I must be missing something, since everyone seems to rave about them, but they just seemed dull to me. Thanks for the recommendations!
Yes, I finally had to admit that Davis just didn't deliver the goods, when so many others did. Why are we so afraid to accept the evidence of our own ears?
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think Davis's reputation as a Berliozian might cloud some people's judgement. I love his Berlioz opera recordings, but some of his orchestral ones strike me as a bit uninspired.
@@ftumschk I think that is a very fair statement.
I agree. I kept thinking I was missing something. I own three of the Davis recordings and just couldn't figure out why the first three movements in particular didn't seem to excite me.
What year was the Karajan II from?
I just discover a Fantastique directed by André Vandernoot, Very professionnal and quite good. Anyway, I always prick up an ear on every Vandernoot recordings I found, He is
so interesting and fantastic conductor. What do you think about it?
I enjoy Vandernoot too, quite often.
@@DavesClassicalGuide What I like the most is discovering unknown, obscured or forgotten conductors and found that sometimes they are as good as the one we are used to hear about.
@@martinrichard572 Fun, isn't it?
You have to be French or at least fluent in French to enjoy Martinon's recording of Lelio. The actor is terrific. It's a fascinating work.
No, you don't, but I suppose it doesn't hurt.
Hello David - I am a keen follower of your reviews - last night I listened to this symphony conducted by the late Ataulfo Argenta with the Paris Conservatoire - and was surprised it sounded different from other popular versions - are you aware of this particular recording ? Thanks
Sure. It was one of my first recordings of the piece. Thank that wonderful, Paris Conservatory Orchestra!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for your endorsement - I got to know Ataulfo Argenta through his Espana recording - a pity he died early - best wishes
And Daniel Harging's version?
I'll go with Munch and the Boston Symphony Orchestra on RCA. The later Munch has great sound too !
You could certainly do worse!
I have a Symphonie Fantastique story to share. One of my classical music friends from years ago really liked this symphony and told me that he got the recording with Boulez. "Boulez??!" I asked incredulously? My friend shared with me later that my expression was one of surprise and disgust. Indeed, I can't imagine this symphony conducted by Boulez.
Retired first violinist here. I love the slower tempos of the last movements! Think of what is taking place musicacally
Never hear anything about Ansermet/OSR. For utmost clarity, give it a try. Like you, I love Munch & Bernstein, too.
For clarity and charisma, there's Markevitch. Ansermet never did insanity well.
For me it’s Davis/Concertgebouw, Tilson Thomas, and Gardiner (for period instruments). I also have fond memories of Ansermet with those fantastically (!) low bells that was my LP choice. Munch is too slapdash for me.
I really wanted to like the Gardiner, after suffering from the travesty that was Norrington's LCP version, but alas no. Admittedly it's better than Norrington's, but is still very staid and seriously lacking a sense of occasion and atmosphere (party because they choose to record in such a cramped and unappealing acoustic. I know they choose the venue because it was where the work was first performed, but it works against the performance for me). My HIP choice is Immerseel's.
Keith Parmenter I haven’t heard the Immersel and only wanted Gardiner to hear the ophicleide and serpent. I also like having the additional cornets in the Ball, which add color to the texture. Davis also adds them, while Tilson Thomas does not. In any case, I will not be listening to Gardiner very often. I much prefer modern instruments in this work.
@@johnwright7749 Immerseel is really worth a listen. The only thing I'd 'caution is that it's initially a bit of a shock in Songe d'une nuit de Sabbat, that instead of bells, Immerseel uses two Erad pianos (getting properly tuned bells has always been a problem in this work). There's precedent for this - Berlioz performed it this way according to his memoire, and in my score the notes states 'If 2 bells are not available..large enough to produce one of the 3 C's and one of the 3 Gs as written, it is better to use pianofortes' (Dover from Breitkopf & Hartel edition 1900-1910). Anyway not saying it's preferable but better than some of the bell options we've been given in the past. Sorry my usual verbosity kicked in! Just enjoy whatever version of this remarkable work you listen to. Regards Keith
The Gramophone insists on pushing Davis (RIP) as a great Berliozian. Never quite agreed. Good at times? Of course. His Grand Messe is good - maybe even a top 10. But just that. Gramophone's gratuitous glorification of British conductors would be endearing if it wasn't so blanket and pervasive. Markevitch and Munch all the way!
I like a lot of Davis' Berlioz but his Symphony Fantastique recordings (I own 3) have never seemed very exciting or engaging in the first 3 movements. I have been thinking this for years, but figuring "there must be something I'm missing---keep listening!". I'm glad he came out and said it. I just heard Markevitch and the late Munch and they are so engaging from start to finish!
His Symphonie Fantastique with Vienna Phil is pretty awesome. Best witches sabbath ever.
We should also remember about the insane Oskar Fried recording from mid 30. It is a great pity that the sound quality is so bad! As for the French sonorities - we have also Pierre Monteux 1930 recording with Orchestre de Paris and two recordings made by sir Thomas Beecham in the late 50's ;) As for the crazy versions - the are three recordings (two by the Philharmonia Orchestra from 1968 and live recording with ASO from 1970) by Stokowski. The sound is fat and lush and the tam-tam crescendos are there! ;)
And Stoki does remarkable things with the harps in the second movement as well!
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm curious if it's a matter of miking or hiring additional harpists. It sound as if there was at least 10 of them ;) And the phrazing is amazing there!
@@oskarapeta2895 It was a Phase 4 recording, with millions of microphones.If you want to hear Stoki's harp addition at it's most radical, try his Houston "Magic Fire Music" on Everest. It's unbelievable.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for recommendation, I didn't know this interpretation! ;) Phase 4 explains a lot, but this two live recordings sound very similiar in this aspect (but of course they are not Phase 4).
recent recording of la fantastique with leonard slatkin on naxos at lyon,france is my best ( otherwise i like this complete ravel orchestral music with slatkin on naxos and saint saens organ symphonies too but the choice of other work on cd saint saens is very poor...)....in addition of la fantastique slatkin conduct the Waltz of fantastique with addition of cornet...interesting
Dave, what do you think about the Cluytens version?
It never thrilled me.
@@DavesClassicalGuide ok. Your french colleagues of le diapason d'or included it into one of their boxes called "Les indispensables". Anyway, I agree with your recommendations about SF. Tilson Thomas is not so distant from Munch..🤗
@@michelangelomulieri5134 I know. I'm not saying it's bad---just not a favorite.
A pretty sensible overview. No Beecham though? that surprised me a bit.
Beecham's is not one of his better recordings, IMHO. A bit sluggish.
I just played some of the Norrington on youtube, and I want to slash my wrists.
Just out of sheer curiosity: why is Pierre Boulez not in this list? Is he perhaps one of the "dull" ones? To my ears he is not, quite the opposite in fact!
He is perverse. You can like him, but it's not idiomatic Berlioz.
What about version on period instruments? Gardiner, "Les Siècles"...
Even though I usually really like Gardiner's performances, this time it is quite boring, especially relatively to Xavier Roth
Avoid Norrington's LCP version like the plague. Gardiner's - boring and dry acoustic. I'd try Immerseel's with Anima Eterna Brugge, not sure what label. Very entertaining IMHO
I think another performance which should be mentioned and be at the very top is the one by Les Siecles conducted by Francois-Xavier Roth
@@clavessin12 Yes, this is the one I was talking about. Forgot to mention it. Thanks
Why do you not choose Charles Dutoit et the MOntreal Symphony Orchestra. Technically it is fantastic. And the way Dutoit played with the color of the sound is absolutely gorgeous
Because it sucks.
I always vie for the modern recordings. Down with hissy analog
I think the best Fantastique to make recording was Sir Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony, on Decca/London..... (I cannot stand the Munch read of this work.)
Don't worry. It will pass.
The Colin Davis version does have a great cover, though.
I’ll have to look at the Minch. Another vintage one I like is Beecham’s.
I have had both the older (1954) recording by Munch and the recording by Paray for decades.
Munch's "dream of a witch's sabbath" is a Technicolor nightmare; Paray's reading was bland by comparison