This is such fun - I always try to guess which reference recording you are going to present. For some, it’s easy. Some require more thinking. Thanks for all the education and context you provide with these talks. And greetings from Lesotho! And I got this one right!
My mother had two cycles: Toscanini and '63 Karajan. I therefore imprinted on them. When I was a teenager, I thought Karajan's Eroica funeral march was the most amazing thing I had ever heard. The quality of the orchestra playing was a revelation to me, and the sound quality over my parents' AR3 speakers lead to me (unfortunately) care about stereo equipment. I agree that Szell's Eroica is better, but I shall always love Karajan's.
I had this set back in my vinyl days and kind of missed it, after going all CD. Imagine my delight when, a couple of years ago, I stumbled on a library book sale and there among the CDs were the two volumes that comprise the cycle-for a buck a piece. Score.
Very Nice! Thanks for the discussion about the Beethoven cycles. I've always loved the two analog Karajan's Beethoven cycles he did for DG. I like the performances of the 77 better, but the audio of the 63 is far superior. Yes I listen to vinyl. Gasp!
I think Karajan himself would have fully understood and welcomed the concept of a "Reference Recording" - he was interested in music performance and recording (including the technical aspects of recording) in a way that few conductors at the time were. And of course his ambition was that the recordings the public would turn to would be the best - ie. those performed by *his* orchestra and conducted by *him*. You can be amazed or appalled by the ambition or arrogance, but he was a conductor who understood the power of recorded music and really embraced it. He'd be delighted that the '63 Beethoven Cycle was thought of as THE reference here.
Just wanted to say that I really enjoy this series, although I am an experienced orchestral musician I do not really know these classic recordings in great depth and its fun to get to know them. After watching your video I cued up the 63 recording of the 1st two movements of the 5th and really enjoyed it. It seemed to me that all aspects of the recording were top quality for 1963, with the orchestra in great form, the sonics well taken care of, and Karajan very successful in creating a lush and rich sound and sensitive attention to details. If the purpose of these recordings was to reestablish the prominence of the Berlin Phil in the performance of Beethoven after the war in stereo, then I would imagine that the recordings did this very well. For that I am thankful, the Berlin Phil should excel in their performance of this music.
Well I guessed this one correctly! I too prefer the ‘77, and thanks to your recommendation bought the Wand, which I love. Dave, I’m loving these, please keep going.
One of the great things about this set is that it is not dominated by the 'big ticket' works. The performances of 1, 2, 4 and 8 are thrilling and very, very good.
This is the clear choice. You described it perfectly. I think the 63 set is as important a release in the symphony genre as the Solti Ring is to opera… It’s unavoidable, especially compared to his later efforts. even though the 77 cycle never quite reached the same level of acceptance, I also prefer a few of the 77 versions. The consistency of the 63 set has become more recognized over time. A Reference Recording should never go away…. And this one is available in every format. (That being said, the Dolby Atmos Spatial Audio remastering of the 77 cycle, on Apple Classical, sounds great. The remixing is quite good.)
The stereo versions of that particular release are also remixed, and sound fine, too. Just like the Dolby Atmos mixes, they provide a much more natural hall-like acoustic, avoiding the oddly spotlit perspective of the original 1977 mixes.
Because of your comment, I listened to the '77 Symphony 4 in the new mix. What a difference! You can actually hear the woodwinds! A soggy performance becomes splendid! I wonder if HvK would have approved?
When i went to purchase an lp Beethoven cycle in 1973, the only box the store carried was Szell. I asked why. I was told that was the one set everyone chose. Still love it. But at least among University of Chicago undergrads, Szell was the reference and the set everyone had. At least thats my impression.
I can’t recall ever seeing a Beethoven Szell box on CD. When I started seriously collecting in the 90s every shop had Karajan boxes. My own Szell recordings are in the big Sony Szell box - his complete output for Columbia. But even now, if I prowl the used stores (since there are no longer any classical-only record shops) I have never seen a used Szell box.
@@MDK2_Radio There is a 5-CD Sony Masters box set dating from 2012. I wrote a highly-regarded review of this cycle on Amazon. There also was a boxed-set version of the 5 Sony Essential Classics CDs (the discs issued around 1992) plus a short-lived Sony Original Jackets Collection box set release from around 15 years ago.
Dave, I'm so glad you were able to articulate fully why this Karajan set managed to achieve "Reference Status." I only wish Columbia back in the day had pushed Szell's set as thoroughly as DG did Karajan's, because let's face it--Szell's is the far better reference candidate. Still, I understand your logic regarding the Karajan set. I imagine more than a few people on this thread will howl and scream over your selection, but I won't be one of them. Thanks!
I love the Szell performances except for one thing that drives me up the wall - the omission of key repeats. Oh, does that bother me. And it’s ironic because someone told me Karajan was notorious for ignoring repeats. But they are fabulous, as are Szell’s Mozart and Haydn symphonies.
@chrismoule7242 If that's true, I imagine part of the problem was that Columbia records had a complete Beethoven cycle from every major conductor they had under contract. In the 50s, they also had boxed the old Weingartner cycle on their budget Entre label.
During the 1970 Beethoven Bicentennial, Columbia Masterworks aggressively marketed their commemorative reissue of the Szell/Cleveland LP box set (7 LPs for the price of 4). The cover art of the 1970 7-LP box features a striking photographic montage of Szell conducting, which is visually quite interesting and memorable. This cover is also used on the current Sony Japan SACD box set. Originally, the Szell/Cleveland Beethoven box set was issued by Epic in early 1965 with a more generic cover art.
I well remember that, but how many times have Columbia (or their Epic affiliate, or even Sony) follow up in the intervening decades? Not as often as DG did for Karajan's obviously inferior efforts. I know the world, and especially the world of Classical Music is a different place now, but one thing should never change; if you have a recognized, product of critical acclaim, push it, push it constantly, thereby gaining an audience (and money), not just for today but for the next generation or two. DG figured it out long ago, and they're still to this day pushing their product from the early 1960's.@peacearchwa5103 @@peacearchwa5103
I think I have about 12 box sets of Beethoven's Nine symphonies. And this set is one of them... nonetheless I included Bohm's classic version of the 6th inside that box just to make sure there's a great pastoral symphony contained within..😊
Hi Dave - any thoughts on William Steinberg's cycle with the Pittsburgh Symphony, which DG have just re-released in a "complete Command Classics Recordings" box?
That is the very first "classical" record I purchsed in High School on vinyl --- and listened to it repeatesly for many years. I always wondered how good this cycle was.
I have the Von Karajan cycle on original LP...it's in perfect shape and the box still contains the letter, in German, to the producer. It stares at me from the listening shelf and I need to give it a spin.
I actually like the gold cd mastering of the digital cycle, but be that as it may, I certainly agree that taken overall; what it meant in the classical recording world of the time; the intention of Karajan/BP/DG to make THE “modern” after-Furtwanger-Romanticism/post-Toscannini slick Beethoven cycle for the post war 1960’s; even the packaging with that Montblanc fountain pen burgundy coloring, this was the deal. Simply put, even at my local art league, over by the small stereo among all the cd’s of questionable music and value, there is a cd box set of the 1963 Karajan Beethoven symphonies.
I've grown up with Karajan and I do accept this status of reference recording. However, the real thrill for me nowadays is to discover someone and something else. I guess that's why there's no real connection between composer and conductor regarding reference recordings either. Likewise I do accept that cycle recordings are indeed different to the recordings of individual works. That's why the issue with the Pastoral doesn't matter. Although I do wonder why we should not go for what we really enjoy instead
That's the box set DG issued on the ocassion of their 100th Anniversary back in 1998. You got a point in what you last said: HvK + DG's image & merchandising power + German artists for the super iconic German composer, added to the nice visual presentation, it was meant to become a good package to rely on. Any reserves against Karajan's style here and there aside, it still is HvK. A legend conductor by all means (And I am no committed fan of his Beethoven for the record).
though they sometimes end up with rather idiosyncratic choices which goes against the notion of a reference recording . For instance, on one occasion Karajan’s 63 recording of the ‘Pastoral’ along with Kleiber’s (live ) recording of the same symphony. Neither recording is a reference by any stretch of the imagination .
Yeah that was a particularly controversial one. However, they’re not doing “reference recordings” in Dave’s sense, they’re trying to recommend the best version if you’re only going to have one. Usually there’s a group of recordings surviving near the end and any of them are plausible. I think, too, that while the critics/ academics there usually acknowledge past “reference” versions, they have a bit of steer to consider very recent recordings, reflecting changing ideas about the works, and these often, but not always, do best there @@MorganHayes_Composer.Pianist
I'm pretty sure Walter's stereo cycle was boxed and out by 1963. It came with a beautifully designed, very big book. ("Booklet" doesn't do it justice.) Often, shall we say, mellow performances but masterful and sonically first rate. I also think HvK's 1977 cycle is mostly better than 1963.
Thanks for mentioning the Bruno Walter set of the Beethoven Symphonies. I fail to understand why it gets little mention in comparison reviews. Same for the Franz Konwitschny cycle with The Leipzig Gewandhaus Orch.
In my mind, Szell is on such a high level that, for a minute there, I thought that would be the reference. But it had to be Karajan, it is in fact Karajan... I remember well, it is. I'm just loosing my memory, is all 😅.
So, for someone starting a collection (on a limited budget) which should we recommend: the reference recording (Karajan) which captures the full range of the work in question or 'the best' (Wand)?
Dave already answered your question obviously but I'm strongly of the opinion that no collection is complete without the Szell recordings. Luckily, they're dirt cheap!
History question from a (relative) youngster: how did the '63 Karajan cycle stack up to the Szell in terms of marketing and reception? They were both released within a year or two of each other, no?
I really love this set but I agree with you, David, on his ‘77 recordings, especially on the recently remastered bluray audio discs. Eg. I had his ‘77 Ninth on the ‘90s DG Galleria release and I couldn’t listen to it. It suffered so much from HvK’s knob-twiddling: flat and in your face, horribly spotlit instruments and simply no room to breathe, not to mention an almost inaudible chorus. I strongly suspect the remastering engineers went back to the drawing board with the master tapes and did a completely new remix. In this release of the Ninth a natural perspective has been restored, the choir is much clearer and you hear woodwinds. I think they’ve really dialled down the spotlight mics and given the main stereo mics plenty of room to shine and breathe. As a result, my preference towards these ‘77 recordings is now definite, whereas before I would waver back and forth. I still love the ‘63 for the leaner sound and beautiful venue acoustic.
Does Karajan hold the record for most reference recordings ? There is also Prokofiev 5, maybe Shostakovich 10, you mentioned the honegger…and I’m not a opera guy but I’m sure he has a couple there too.
Well, I was way off. As a regular reader of Fanfare and ARG from the late 70's onward (and yes, growing up stateside), I would have put my chips on Walter, who you mentioned in passing at the end. It always seemed to me that the reviewers on the Beethoven beat (and there WERE reviewers who focused on composers and genres in those days) used Walter and Klemperer for stereo references for cycles, perhaps because of the smorgasbord of Karajan cycles led to the temptation of mixing and matching individual performances from those cycles (though there was always Klemperer's mono Third), I would still rather listen to Walter all the way through precisely because his 6th/pastorale is so much better than Karajan's... though I know that has nothing to do with whether something actually is a reference cycle. And thanks, Dave, for the conversations!
I wonder why didn't Szell's set become "the" reference recording; in the end, it is superior to Karajan's both technically and conceptually. But in the late 70's (or early 80's, I should check) there was another set which was very highly prised (in Europe at least) and for some time it overcame Karajan's supremacy: Leonard Bernstein's live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic. Precautions were taken during the recording to minimise audience noise.
The '63 cycle exists in a number of different remasterings (as does the '77 cycle), and some of the separate symphonies also got different remastering treatment for individual releases... There is a difference in sound between the '89 box Dave is holding and the remastering DG did for the SACD release (which they then put out as a "Hi Res" set on streaming services), for example. Your mileage may vary depending on how you listen. IIRC the biggest difference is the 9th (they brought the chorus back from the next county and somehow put it in a roughly similar acoustic from the Originals release onwards), but try before buying if you can, especially as some of the sets are OOP in physical format and the prices on the used market can be silly.
@@jameslee2943 So far as I'm aware the 'remasterings' are usually just re-transfers with (maybe) some global tone effects, noise reduction etc. and usually to the better. The 1977 Ninth has actually been remastered (i.e. remixed from the disparate mic recordings) in one release. And no, it's not a revelation.
I think Karajan's 77 cycle is the better cycle both sonically and in terms of tempii. But 63 is just a historical touchstone, like Solti's ring or Bernstein's Mahler. I've never understood the knock on Karajan's Pastoral. I own more than a dozen cycles in all manner of styles, and no one else's Pastoral has struck me as inherently more convincing.
To me, this one is a perfect illustration of what you mean by a reference recording and that entails. I understand why it is the reference recording and I don't particularly like it. Again, for me, it not even in my top 5 (10?). Yet, I completely understand that it IS the reference recording.
I get the sense that the most recommended Beethoven cycles don't tend to have a lot of standout performances. The Karajan 63 is a case in point: it's good across the board (except for the Pastorale, but how many cycles have no weak links?), but none of the individual symphonies is a top choice. The 9th (to my ears) comes closest, but the 77 recording is better. Likewise with Wand (again, the 9th is a standout) and to a lesser extent Szell (that Eroica really is a knockout, and 5 and 7 are also really good). Though, maybe my view is just skewed by Bernstein's two Mahler cycles, where at least half the entries in each can be prime recommendations.
After this video I unearthed the Karajan '77 Beethoven box. I put on the first cd. I survived symphony 1, but with symphony 4 I had to stop after the allegro vivace. No vivace there I'm afraid. It was unlistenable. Strange, I remembered it as fine (not excellent) Beethoven.
In addition to the "German orchestra by a (Austro) German Orchestra" argument, is the fact that it came from the pro Western German Federal Republic or West Berlin at least and not Eastern Germany or Soviet Europe something that then played for the reference status and the Berlin Philharmonic preeminence on the Western market ? It took me also some time to come to terms with unmusical political background regarding Karajan. Some critics then gave Schmidt Isserstedt with the Vienna Philharmonic reference status, though indisputably good too, I suspect for his 'cleaner' profile during the war. With apologies for the poor writing.
Possibly. Interesting idea! But remember also that Schmidt-Isserstedt's Decca LP cycle was appreciated by a generation (in the UK and the US) who had little or no awareness of the political background of either conductor. I knew Schmidt-Isserstedt personally, so I was aware of his background.
I expected the reference set would be the one by George Szell. I have had it in my hands at the store, as I have had Karajan's 1963 DG set and his earlier one with the Philharmonia, but I always ended up buying something else, knowing that those sets come and go and are mostly available if I ever get the urge to buy them. Whenever I go into the record department of El Corte Inglés or FNAC (I live in Spain), I never know what I'll be taking home with me. I love the Sony boxes with stuff from the CBS and RCA catalogues. There are quite a few of those on my shelves. As for Karajan, I never really had a good opinion of the man. Someone who markets cycle after cycle of Beethoven symphonies, among many other re-recordings ad nauseam of works by other composers. comes across as a merchant rather than a musician. In Spanish, I call him El Churrero. It's a personal bias, I know. I can live with it.
My pick for reference recording for Beethoven #5 would be Carlos Kleiber and Beethoven #6 would be Bruno Walter. The others I am not so sure. May be Toscanini for #7, Gunter Wand for #9?
If Klemperer loses out on the Beethoven symphony stakes, certainly his Fidelio - and possibly his Missa Solemnis- are surely reference 'possiblities'.....'
There's no question that Klemperer is the reference recording of Fidelio. But if a reference recording is the defined as the one that the critics seem to coalesce around, then Gardiner has a fair claim to being the reference for Missa Solemnis, although I am personally not as fond of that recording as are most of the critics.
That’s what makes the idea of a reference recording interesting, it may not be anywhere near the best cycle out there but it’s the main comparator most people have used by consensus.
@@ewaldsteyn469It’s subjective to a large degree. I’m not saying that Klemperer is necessarily a reference cycle (though I love it and use it as one personal reference point) but I wholeheartedly disagree with Klemperer’s Pastoral being grouped into being amongst the worst. When I listen to it, it feels right in itself and balances internally plus the recorded sound, the balance between strings and woodwinds is all wonderful.
![ปกติรีบตรง ไม่มีทรงรีบโกย : Gameboys [#73]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TnHXBorXoUU/mqdefault.jpg)
This is such fun - I always try to guess which reference recording you are going to present. For some, it’s easy. Some require more thinking. Thanks for all the education and context you provide with these talks. And greetings from Lesotho!
And I got this one right!
My mother had two cycles: Toscanini and '63 Karajan. I therefore imprinted on them. When I was a teenager, I thought Karajan's Eroica funeral march was the most amazing thing I had ever heard. The quality of the orchestra playing was a revelation to me, and the sound quality over my parents' AR3 speakers lead to me (unfortunately) care about stereo equipment. I agree that Szell's Eroica is better, but I shall always love Karajan's.
I had this set back in my vinyl days and kind of missed it, after going all CD. Imagine my delight when, a couple of years ago, I stumbled on a library book sale and there among the CDs were the two volumes that comprise the cycle-for a buck a piece. Score.
Very Nice! Thanks for the discussion about the Beethoven cycles. I've always loved the two analog Karajan's Beethoven cycles he did for DG. I like the performances of the 77 better, but the audio of the 63 is far superior. Yes I listen to vinyl. Gasp!
Absolutely spot on discussion of the 63 set. Many thanks!!!
I think Karajan himself would have fully understood and welcomed the concept of a "Reference Recording" - he was interested in music performance and recording (including the technical aspects of recording) in a way that few conductors at the time were. And of course his ambition was that the recordings the public would turn to would be the best - ie. those performed by *his* orchestra and conducted by *him*. You can be amazed or appalled by the ambition or arrogance, but he was a conductor who understood the power of recorded music and really embraced it. He'd be delighted that the '63 Beethoven Cycle was thought of as THE reference here.
Just wanted to say that I really enjoy this series, although I am an experienced orchestral musician I do not really know these classic recordings in great depth and its fun to get to know them. After watching your video I cued up the 63 recording of the 1st two movements of the 5th and really enjoyed it. It seemed to me that all aspects of the recording were top quality for 1963, with the orchestra in great form, the sonics well taken care of, and Karajan very successful in creating a lush and rich sound and sensitive attention to details. If the purpose of these recordings was to reestablish the prominence of the Berlin Phil in the performance of Beethoven after the war in stereo, then I would imagine that the recordings did this very well. For that I am thankful, the Berlin Phil should excel in their performance of this music.
Well I guessed this one correctly! I too prefer the ‘77, and thanks to your recommendation bought the Wand, which I love. Dave, I’m loving these, please keep going.
Oh gosh. I haven’t heard this cycle since my college days. Late 1990s. WOW. Fabulous stuff.
One of the great things about this set is that it is not dominated by the 'big ticket' works. The performances of 1, 2, 4 and 8 are thrilling and very, very good.
This is the clear choice. You described it perfectly. I think the 63 set is as important a release in the symphony genre as the Solti Ring is to opera… It’s unavoidable, especially compared to his later efforts. even though the 77 cycle never quite reached the same level of acceptance, I also prefer a few of the 77 versions. The consistency of the 63 set has become more recognized over time. A Reference Recording should never go away…. And this one is available in every format. (That being said, the Dolby Atmos Spatial Audio remastering of the 77 cycle, on Apple Classical, sounds great. The remixing is quite good.)
The stereo versions of that particular release are also remixed, and sound fine, too. Just like the Dolby Atmos mixes, they provide a much more natural hall-like acoustic, avoiding the oddly spotlit perspective of the original 1977 mixes.
Because of your comment, I listened to the '77 Symphony 4 in the new mix. What a difference! You can actually hear the woodwinds! A soggy performance becomes splendid! I wonder if HvK would have approved?
When i went to purchase an lp Beethoven cycle in 1973, the only box the store carried was Szell. I asked why. I was told that was the one set everyone chose. Still love it. But at least among University of Chicago undergrads, Szell was the reference and the set everyone had. At least thats my impression.
I can’t recall ever seeing a Beethoven Szell box on CD. When I started seriously collecting in the 90s every shop had Karajan boxes. My own Szell recordings are in the big Sony Szell box - his complete output for Columbia. But even now, if I prowl the used stores (since there are no longer any classical-only record shops) I have never seen a used Szell box.
@@MDK2_Radio There was a box of all the Beethoven symphonies and overtures with Szell/Cleveland Orchestra in the Essential Classics series.
@@MDK2_Radio I have Szell's Beethoven symphony cycle in a five disc set on Sony.
@@MDK2_Radio There is a 5-CD Sony Masters box set dating from 2012. I wrote a highly-regarded review of this cycle on Amazon. There also was a boxed-set version of the 5 Sony Essential Classics CDs (the discs issued around 1992) plus a short-lived Sony Original Jackets Collection box set release from around 15 years ago.
That's one of the cycles I have. I enjoy it 'muchly'.
Dave, I'm so glad you were able to articulate fully why this Karajan set managed to achieve "Reference Status." I only wish Columbia back in the day had pushed Szell's set as thoroughly as DG did Karajan's, because let's face it--Szell's is the far better reference candidate. Still, I understand your logic regarding the Karajan set. I imagine more than a few people on this thread will howl and scream over your selection, but I won't be one of them. Thanks!
I love the Szell performances except for one thing that drives me up the wall - the omission of key repeats. Oh, does that bother me. And it’s ironic because someone told me Karajan was notorious for ignoring repeats. But they are fabulous, as are Szell’s Mozart and Haydn symphonies.
Agreed. I have owned many sets and Szell is easily the best. But clearly they didn''t get the marketing push.
@chrismoule7242 If that's true, I imagine part of the problem was that Columbia records had a complete Beethoven cycle from every major conductor they had under contract. In the 50s, they also had boxed the old Weingartner cycle on their budget Entre label.
During the 1970 Beethoven Bicentennial, Columbia Masterworks aggressively marketed their commemorative reissue of the Szell/Cleveland LP box set (7 LPs for the price of 4). The cover art of the 1970 7-LP box features a striking photographic montage of Szell conducting, which is visually quite interesting and memorable. This cover is also used on the current Sony Japan SACD box set. Originally, the Szell/Cleveland Beethoven box set was issued by Epic in early 1965 with a more generic cover art.
I well remember that, but how many times have Columbia (or their Epic affiliate, or even Sony) follow up in the intervening decades? Not as often as DG did for Karajan's obviously inferior efforts. I know the world, and especially the world of Classical Music is a different place now, but one thing should never change; if you have a recognized, product of critical acclaim, push it, push it constantly, thereby gaining an audience (and money), not just for today but for the next generation or two. DG figured it out long ago, and they're still to this day pushing their product from the early 1960's.@peacearchwa5103 @@peacearchwa5103
I think I have about 12 box sets of Beethoven's Nine symphonies. And this set is one of them... nonetheless I included Bohm's classic version of the 6th inside that box just to make sure there's a great pastoral symphony contained within..😊
The 1963 Beethoven set was the first CD set I ever bought, thinking it was the best.... But that was a long time ago...
Hi Dave - any thoughts on William Steinberg's cycle with the Pittsburgh Symphony, which DG have just re-released in a "complete Command Classics Recordings" box?
That is the very first "classical" record I purchsed in High School on vinyl --- and listened to it repeatesly for many years. I always wondered how good this cycle was.
I regard the Steinberg/Pittsburgh cycle as very good indeed. It hasn't been widely cited by critics as "the" reference recordings.
I have the Von Karajan cycle on original LP...it's in perfect shape and the box still contains the letter, in German, to the producer. It stares at me from the listening shelf and I need to give it a spin.
I actually like the gold cd mastering of the digital cycle, but be that as it may, I certainly agree that taken overall; what it meant in the classical recording world of the time; the intention of Karajan/BP/DG to make THE “modern” after-Furtwanger-Romanticism/post-Toscannini slick Beethoven cycle for the post war 1960’s; even the packaging with that Montblanc fountain pen burgundy coloring, this was the deal. Simply put, even at my local art league, over by the small stereo among all the cd’s of questionable music and value, there is a cd box set of the 1963 Karajan Beethoven symphonies.
I've grown up with Karajan and I do accept this status of reference recording. However, the real thrill for me nowadays is to discover someone and something else. I guess that's why there's no real connection between composer and conductor regarding reference recordings either. Likewise I do accept that cycle recordings are indeed different to the recordings of individual works. That's why the issue with the Pastoral doesn't matter. Although I do wonder why we should not go for what we really enjoy instead
That's the box set DG issued on the ocassion of their 100th Anniversary back in 1998. You got a point in what you last said: HvK + DG's image & merchandising power + German artists for the super iconic German composer, added to the nice visual presentation, it was meant to become a good package to rely on. Any reserves against Karajan's style here and there aside, it still is HvK. A legend conductor by all means (And I am no committed fan of his Beethoven for the record).
Your Reference Recordings series is like BBC radio 3 Building a library in concise form.
though they sometimes end up with rather idiosyncratic choices which goes against the notion of a reference recording . For instance, on one occasion Karajan’s 63 recording of the ‘Pastoral’ along with Kleiber’s (live ) recording of the same symphony. Neither recording is a reference by any stretch of the imagination .
Heavens no!
Yeah that was a particularly controversial one. However, they’re not doing “reference recordings” in Dave’s sense, they’re trying to recommend the best version if you’re only going to have one. Usually there’s a group of recordings surviving near the end and any of them are plausible. I think, too, that while the critics/ academics there usually acknowledge past “reference” versions, they have a bit of steer to consider very recent recordings, reflecting changing ideas about the works, and these often, but not always, do best there @@MorganHayes_Composer.Pianist
I'm pretty sure Walter's stereo cycle was boxed and out by 1963. It came with a beautifully designed, very big book. ("Booklet" doesn't do it justice.) Often, shall we say, mellow performances but masterful and sonically first rate.
I also think HvK's 1977 cycle is mostly better than 1963.
Thanks for mentioning the Bruno Walter set of the Beethoven Symphonies. I fail to understand why it gets little mention in comparison reviews. Same for the Franz Konwitschny cycle with The Leipzig Gewandhaus Orch.
In my mind, Szell is on such a high level that, for a minute there, I thought that would be the reference. But it had to be Karajan, it is in fact Karajan... I remember well, it is. I'm just loosing my memory, is all 😅.
I find Szell's Beethoven recordings to be far more enjoyable for recreational listening compared to Karajan's.
So, for someone starting a collection (on a limited budget) which should we recommend: the reference recording (Karajan) which captures the full range of the work in question or 'the best' (Wand)?
Easy. Wand.
Dave already answered your question obviously but I'm strongly of the opinion that no collection is complete without the Szell recordings. Luckily, they're dirt cheap!
History question from a (relative) youngster: how did the '63 Karajan cycle stack up to the Szell in terms of marketing and reception? They were both released within a year or two of each other, no?
hi dave! a bit off topic from the video but i was wondering if you’d ever talk abt poulenc’s figure humaine?
At some point. Love the piece.
I really love this set but I agree with you, David, on his ‘77 recordings, especially on the recently remastered bluray audio discs.
Eg. I had his ‘77 Ninth on the ‘90s DG Galleria release and I couldn’t listen to it. It suffered so much from HvK’s knob-twiddling: flat and in your face, horribly spotlit instruments and simply no room to breathe, not to mention an almost inaudible chorus.
I strongly suspect the remastering engineers went back to the drawing board with the master tapes and did a completely new remix. In this release of the Ninth a natural perspective has been restored, the choir is much clearer and you hear woodwinds. I think they’ve really dialled down the spotlight mics and given the main stereo mics plenty of room to shine and breathe.
As a result, my preference towards these ‘77 recordings is now definite, whereas before I would waver back and forth. I still love the ‘63 for the leaner sound and beautiful venue acoustic.
Does Karajan hold the record for most reference recordings ? There is also Prokofiev 5, maybe Shostakovich 10, you mentioned the honegger…and I’m not a opera guy but I’m sure he has a couple there too.
I don't think he holds the record. I think he wished he did.
@@DavesClassicalGuidewho does hold the record?
@@mehmeh217 Ormandy?
@@martinhaub6828 Rattle?
@@ftumschk definitely not Rattle. It’s going to be someone whose recording career was 50s-80s.
Well, I was way off. As a regular reader of Fanfare and ARG from the late 70's onward (and yes, growing up stateside), I would have put my chips on Walter, who you mentioned in passing at the end. It always seemed to me that the reviewers on the Beethoven beat (and there WERE reviewers who focused on composers and genres in those days) used Walter and Klemperer for stereo references for cycles, perhaps because of the smorgasbord of Karajan cycles led to the temptation of mixing and matching individual performances from those cycles (though there was always Klemperer's mono Third), I would still rather listen to Walter all the way through precisely because his 6th/pastorale is so much better than Karajan's... though I know that has nothing to do with whether something actually is a reference cycle. And thanks, Dave, for the conversations!
Any thoughts on Muti with Philadelphia? I find the sound easily recognizable, but I don’t always prefer it.
I've had many thoughts, expressed many times here and elsewhere. Have a look at the big Muti Edition on Warner video.
@@DavesClassicalGuide 🙏
@@DavesClassicalGuide Ah, great artist, bad day! I have to agree, Dave. I wanted to love it but I just don’t.
Even for me as an Austrian - Karajan was also Austrian - it‘s an easy task: George Szell & Cleveland Orchestra!
The 63 is his best but still HvK. Just too smooth out for me
Respect, but not a fan of HVK.
The 63 Beethoven is not my favorite, but I sure do like it alot and agree that it should be considered a reference 👍
I wonder why didn't Szell's set become "the" reference recording; in the end, it is superior to Karajan's both technically and conceptually. But in the late 70's (or early 80's, I should check) there was another set which was very highly prised (in Europe at least) and for some time it overcame Karajan's supremacy: Leonard Bernstein's live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic. Precautions were taken during the recording to minimise audience noise.
I have a different looking box but it's the same cycle. I wonder if there are any remastering differences...
I doesn't matter.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Oh, thanks! I really enjoy your videos, they have rekindled my fascination and love of classical music.
The '63 cycle exists in a number of different remasterings (as does the '77 cycle), and some of the separate symphonies also got different remastering treatment for individual releases... There is a difference in sound between the '89 box Dave is holding and the remastering DG did for the SACD release (which they then put out as a "Hi Res" set on streaming services), for example. Your mileage may vary depending on how you listen. IIRC the biggest difference is the 9th (they brought the chorus back from the next county and somehow put it in a roughly similar acoustic from the Originals release onwards), but try before buying if you can, especially as some of the sets are OOP in physical format and the prices on the used market can be silly.
@@jameslee2943 So far as I'm aware the 'remasterings' are usually just re-transfers with (maybe) some global tone effects, noise reduction etc. and usually to the better. The 1977 Ninth has actually been remastered (i.e. remixed from the disparate mic recordings) in one release. And no, it's not a revelation.
@@jameslee2943 Thank you, that's good info.
I think Karajan's 77 cycle is the better cycle both sonically and in terms of tempii. But 63 is just a historical touchstone, like Solti's ring or Bernstein's Mahler.
I've never understood the knock on Karajan's Pastoral. I own more than a dozen cycles in all manner of styles, and no one else's Pastoral has struck me as inherently more convincing.
There's always an outlier. Most find it slick and superficial. And Karajan himself said he couldn't relate to it, which didn't help him.
To me, this one is a perfect illustration of what you mean by a reference recording and that entails. I understand why it is the reference recording and I don't particularly like it. Again, for me, it not even in my top 5 (10?). Yet, I completely understand that it IS the reference recording.
I get the sense that the most recommended Beethoven cycles don't tend to have a lot of standout performances. The Karajan 63 is a case in point: it's good across the board (except for the Pastorale, but how many cycles have no weak links?), but none of the individual symphonies is a top choice. The 9th (to my ears) comes closest, but the 77 recording is better. Likewise with Wand (again, the 9th is a standout) and to a lesser extent Szell (that Eroica really is a knockout, and 5 and 7 are also really good). Though, maybe my view is just skewed by Bernstein's two Mahler cycles, where at least half the entries in each can be prime recommendations.
For me there’s only one name: Wand! But I have to recognize that Szell’s symphony n.3 and 7 are reference recordings
After this video I unearthed the Karajan '77 Beethoven box. I put on the first cd. I survived symphony 1, but with symphony 4 I had to stop after the allegro vivace. No vivace there I'm afraid. It was unlistenable. Strange, I remembered it as fine (not excellent) Beethoven.
In addition to the "German orchestra by a (Austro) German Orchestra" argument, is the fact that it came from the pro Western German Federal Republic or West Berlin at least and not Eastern Germany or Soviet Europe something that then played for the reference status and the Berlin Philharmonic preeminence on the Western market ? It took me also some time to come to terms with unmusical political background regarding Karajan. Some critics then gave Schmidt Isserstedt with the Vienna Philharmonic reference status, though indisputably good too, I suspect for his 'cleaner' profile during the war. With apologies for the poor writing.
Possibly. Interesting idea! But remember also that Schmidt-Isserstedt's Decca LP cycle was appreciated by a generation (in the UK and the US) who had little or no awareness of the political background of either conductor. I knew Schmidt-Isserstedt personally, so I was aware of his background.
I preferred '63 HvK until I revisited Szell. Szell's performances, for me, are snappier and the CBS recordings have more clarity.
I expected the reference set would be the one by George Szell. I have had it in my hands at the store, as I have had Karajan's 1963 DG set and his earlier one with the Philharmonia, but I always ended up buying something else, knowing that those sets come and go and are mostly available if I ever get the urge to buy them. Whenever I go into the record department of El Corte Inglés or FNAC (I live in Spain), I never know what I'll be taking home with me. I love the Sony boxes with stuff from the CBS and RCA catalogues. There are quite a few of those on my shelves. As for Karajan, I never really had a good opinion of the man. Someone who markets cycle after cycle of Beethoven symphonies, among many other re-recordings ad nauseam of works by other composers. comes across as a merchant rather than a musician. In Spanish, I call him El Churrero. It's a personal bias, I know. I can live with it.
My pick for reference recording for Beethoven #5 would be Carlos Kleiber and Beethoven #6 would be Bruno Walter. The others I am not so sure. May be Toscanini for #7, Gunter Wand for #9?
If Klemperer loses out on the Beethoven symphony stakes, certainly his Fidelio - and possibly his Missa Solemnis- are surely reference 'possiblities'.....'
There's no question that Klemperer is the reference recording of Fidelio. But if a reference recording is the defined as the one that the critics seem to coalesce around, then Gardiner has a fair claim to being the reference for Missa Solemnis, although I am personally not as fond of that recording as are most of the critics.
I'd say Klemperer for both Fidelio and the Missa.
And the overtures!
Of course it’s Karajan! When I started off listening decades ago this was it! (Didn’t like it)
It has the worst Pastorale ever!!! It cannot be the reference cycle!
No, the worst Pastoral ever is a tie between Klemperer and Furtwangler, with their ridiculously slow tempos.
That’s what makes the idea of a reference recording interesting, it may not be anywhere near the best cycle out there but it’s the main comparator most people have used by consensus.
@@ewaldsteyn469It’s subjective to a large degree. I’m not saying that Klemperer is necessarily a reference cycle (though I love it and use it as one personal reference point) but I wholeheartedly disagree with Klemperer’s Pastoral being grouped into being amongst the worst. When I listen to it, it feels right in itself and balances internally plus the recorded sound, the balance between strings and woodwinds is all wonderful.
I mentioned that Karajan never "got" the Pastorale, but it doesn't matter in this context.
This Pastoral Symphony is excellent. It's a heavy, serious, yet energetic and dynamic performance. It's quick, but it doesn't skip over any accents.