I adore the Munch, love the Krips, and I've forgotten if I've ever heard the Szell. I guess I'm going to have to rummage around in the big Szell box and give it a listen. It sounds like I'm in for an experience. Thanks Dave for the reminder!
Both outstanding recordings and justly recognized references. I'm glad you mentioned the Krips/LSO, which has been my personal reference for a great many years.
Thank you for mentioning Josef Krips! I didnt know the Recording still now. This is really „Great“ as the title of the symphony says…bur its not the length. Krips gives The Symphony Unbelievable Energy.
I always assumed Krips to be the reference. Of course I have all of these and many more recordings of it that I love. I wasn't aware that the Krips had become difficult to find. Luckily I have it (London Historic ADRM CD).
I like to thank Dave for all the lovely moments that I've spend discovering the world of classical music that I didn't know about yet. Next to the Legion d'Honneur he really deserves an Oscar too. I'm buying myself a Krips version this time 🥳
Szell is my fav for so many things, including D. 944. He brings balance and musicality, as you said, with fiery intensity. The 1st and 4th movt codas do not disappoint. But the conductor I grew up on for D. 944 was Bruno Walter (Columbia). Perhaps not the "reference" as per your definition, but somehow he captures more of the lyricism of Schubert without losing too much of the sharpness. His tempi are a bit more laconic, but it all feels perfectly natural. No damn repeats, either! That's my vote for underappreciated gem of Schubert symphonies.
As a young college (music) student, I had to learn this piece for my music history class & it blew me away....fell deeply in love with it❤ I'm a Tuba player, and no tuba in Shubert, but I still love it deeply 😂
My go-to for a long time had been Blomstedt and the San Francisco Symphony. Great recording, but I need some more interpretations to truly appreciate the piece. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction again!
My "dark horse" in this piece has for a long time has been Thomas Schippers and the Cincinnati Symphony who brought such an individual approach to anything he conducted
Szell is the one. The very first one 9th I ever heard way back when. Then came Munch who almost caught up on RCA so I now have both. I really love this symphony.
Back in my LP days, I had two recordings of Schubert's 9th by Arturo Toscanini both on RCA. One was with The NBC Symphony and the other was with The Philadelphia Orchestra. Unfortunately I lived at a seashore community back then and a major flood destroyed most of my LP collection. At present in my CD collection, I have Leonard Bernstein and The New York Philharmonic doing Schubert's 9th with cuts on SONY and a version with all the repeats featuring The Chamber Orchestra Of Europe with Claudio Abbado conducting on DG. I'm happy with them even if they are not reference recordings. Thanks Dave... Forgot to mention I no longer live by the ocean. I traded it in for the mountains of Pennsylvania.
Again a nice review. I love the Szell. Maybe not a reference Recording but worth to listen is the Great with Enoch zu Guttenberg and the Orchester Klangverwaltung, recorded in Munich 2015.
I couldn’t agree more regarding those two references which I would complete with two versions that I also enjoy very much: Bruno Walter/New York and Harnoncourt/Chamber Orchestra of Europe (on ICA Classics).
Did not know the Munch so I cued up the 3rd and 4th movements and just loved it. Munch is a combination of brilliant musical conception and almost ecstatic emotion, really exciting. Orchestra needs to buckle their seatbelts, it is going to be fast and loud, thanks goodness the Boston Symphony of the time was so good.
The Krips/Concertgebouw recording was one of the first version I knew. I owned it in a cheap fake-stereo version that I bought when I was a college kid.
By coincidence BBC Radio 3 in the UK reviewed this symphony last week on Record Review and their recommendation was Harnoncourt with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe. Interesting.
For once, I enjoy the sweet balm of joining the Consensus Club. My reference triptych for this work, available for triangulation of the relative position of other performances, consists of: Szell, Furtwängler and Krips. These three performances each embody distinct aspects of the work: Szell's classisistic approach with ever so subtle gradations of tempo and timbre; Furtwängler's free agogics and forward, romantic propulsion; last, but not at all least, Krips' wonderful recording with the LSO, by some likened to a relaxed, joyous stroll through a very Viennese park on a pleasantly warm, sunny day without a trace of worry or care on the horizon!
@@melodymaker135 I like Walter's performance, too...and dote on his Schubert 8th. Böhm in his exciting live-recording of the 9th with the Dresden Staatskapelle is no slouch, either.
Sad that the Krips recording never seemed to stay in print for very long on CD. Eloquence released it coupled with his VPO "Unfinished" in 2011, but that is now OOP on CD (thankfully available to stream!).
@@peacearchwa5103I think that would have been the reference recording for many years IF it had been released when it was made instead of having to wait two decades . Spike Hughes heard him do it in 1938 with the BBC Symphony and was never happy with his NBC versions because they didn't come up to what he'd heard live. But when the 1941 Philly appeared he said that it was a great relief to him because it was finally what he'd heard in London. Somm has an amazing performance Beecham did with the RPO in the 50s but it was sadly never taken into the studios.
I love to hear that about Munch! I've got the Szell and treasure it, but Munch is more my style...'big picture'. Plus the 'Great' was the first I saw performed live.
I love Munch’s take on it. In fact, I didn’t like the 9th until I heard his recording. He converted me to it. I’ll have to listen to Szell’s and compare.
Absolutely right about the repeats… and I love the piece! It’s a brutally hard piece to balance and pace… I particularly don’t like overly slow Andantes…- it’s a classic “Schubert walking song…”
When you talk about 2 reference recordings it's motivating to go to listen to both of them and compare. And If I had to pick one, for the Sibelius 2 you mentioned I would pick Barbirolli/Royal Phil out of the 2, but for the Schubert's Great C major - I would pick Szell/Cleveland. I think it's because the symphonies are stylistically different, Schubert is more stately and majestic, while Sibelius turns out great in a more romantic, less disciplined approach.
First one I got many years ago on LP was Szell, by years ago I mean 1960 maybe +_. He made it sound like a great symphony. It has been my favorite since. I always thought Schubert would have been thrilled to hear it!
Yay! The Szell is famous, but I kept waiting for the Munch, which is my choice. An utterly compelling 9th, especially in the Scherzo; he makes it sound like Prokofiev. (Schubert's 9th is an utter masterpiece, by the way, even if it is very very hard to do.)
You can never go wrong with a George Szell recording anyway. As Mr Hurwitz himself wrote in his review of the big Sony Szell box: « Pull out any disc at random. Chances are you’ll be holding a reference recording for the work in question. »😉
Krips is my fave, but I’m a sucker for that delicious Decca-London sound (analog vinyl guy). I’ll revisit Szell and Munch thanks to Dave. I love the Bruno Walter too, but I bet many think it’s too slow, sensitive and ‘melty,’ as Toscanini might’ve put it 😂
I completely agree with everything in this video, the trickiness of the piece, how no modern recording has matched Szell, etc. It's a shame that the EMI/Warner recording is so hard to find, because it's interpretively identical to the CBS/Sony version -- it's actually crazy how similar the interpretations are -- but the EMI/Warner much better sound. I had the Sony version first in college, but I hated the sound quality, and then scoured other recordings for years but none of them did quite right by this tricky piece, until eventually I found... Szell again, just with better sound.
I agree wholeheartedly about the Szell/Cleveland recording (the first one). It's my go-to performance. What do you think of the recording with MacKerras and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment? That was on a 2-disc set with Symphonies 5 and 8 (using the version of the 8th completed by Brian Newbold). It was first released on the Virgin "Veritas" label but has been since reissued on Erato (both now owned by Warner). I remember hearing it and thinking that his observing the exposition repeat in the Finale made the entire movement seem a bit overblown (but still exciting). I originally thought that there was an additional repeat near the Coda that MacKerras observes, but on listening to the recording again I find that I was mistaken. Nevertheless, the entire symphony in this recording lasts 59:35, with the Scherzo taking 13:41 and the Finale 15:25! Were you by any chance thinking of this recording when you mentioned how some performances can take nearly an hour? MacKerras recorded the 8th and 9th again for Telarc with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra and, if I understand correctly, a third time with the Philharmonia Orchestra. The Telarc recording, however, features the standard edition of the "Unfinished". In both recordings of the 8th, IIRC, he observes the 1st-movement exposition repeat. In the Telarc 9th, the Scherzo clocks in at just 9:45, while the Finale is 26 seconds faster. (BTW, I'm not sure why the timings I listed are being hyperlinked. Maybe TH-cam does that automatically?)
Dave mentioned the Mackerras/OAE recording in passing at the end of the video. I own it (in its single-disc Musical Heritage Society incarnation), but haven’t played it in a while.
In regard to the hyperlinks: Yes, if TH-cam sees a timing, it thinks that you want a hyperlink to the video on which you are commenting. It also creates a nonexistent Web link if you forget to put a space after a period.
@@christopherjohnson2422 Thanks for clarifying that, I didn't hear him mention the MacKerras recording the first time I watched the video. I listened to the recording again yesterday and realized I was mistaken about the repeats. I just looked at a copy of the score on IMSLP and saw that the only repeat in the 4th movement is at the exposition. There is no other repeat after the Coda. I was confusing the Schubert 9th with Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony (K.551, also in C Major). In the 4th movement of that symphony, there is definitely a repeat after the Coda, which is hard to listen to. I think the only recording of No. 41 that manages to pull it off successfully is Levine's with the CSO.
I own Mackerras’ complete Mozart symphonies on Telarc. Wonderful performances, great audio engineering-but Mackerras insisted on taking every single repeat, even in the minuet da capos. That’s why I seldom play the discs. For Symphonies 1-24 (plus all the unnumbered juvenile works), repeats are OK, but not for the mature works.
A composer friend of mine suggested that the Great C Major suggested that had he lived Schubert would have been the proto-Mahler....very long symphonies...based in lieder....i can hear that in the C Major.....have played it in very good festival orchestras and dont much like it!~
I've always gone back to Furtwangler with the Berlin Phil, surprisingly (well, is it?) brilliant. However off I went and listened to the Munch and Szell. I'd take the Furtwangler over the Munch, but I just love, love, love the Szell. The balance is so great that I heard sections that I've never heard before, especially in the brass. I really like this series and look forward to more discoveries.
I feel like there may be some truth to the idea that various brilliant composers worked themselves to death. Imagine the masterpieces that were to come from Schubert, Mozart, Bizet, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bellini, Donizetti. And what Rossini could have produced had he not retired for decades after overworking himself. Perhaps we wouldn't have gotten many of the masterpieces we did from these composers had they not worked themselves to the bone! Yet why is it that Baroque and early classical composers lived relatively long lives, especially for their time and considering how much they toiled churning out gobs of music? Purcell and Pergolesi are the only "greats" who spring to mind as dying prematurely.
Sorry to ask, but what date is the Szell? Is it the 1970 recording made just before his death? I see earlier ones available with Szell and Cleveland (eg, 1957, which might be stereo). If I missed the year in the video, my apologies.
I couldn't agree more about Szell: BBC aside (😉), I still see it recommended as a recording of reference by reviewers at various websites. Munch not so much, though that is more than likely because I am not as familiar with past literature. Personally I think he does go too far with his reorchestration; it isn't just the first movement coda. Throughout the work he doubles woodwind parts with the trumpets, creating a much brighter sound than I suspect Schubert intended. Even though he never heard the work performed, Schubert certainly knew what a trumpet sounded like and what impact it would have on the overall sound of the work. And he definitely seems to be aiming for the tune to have a darker, mellower sound in the first movement coda--Wand, Bernstein, Blomstedt, Klemperer and countless others all show that if you simply double the winds and adjust the dynamics the coda can be a thrilling conclusion to the mvt without the brass band effect.
I agree that the Scherzo shouldn't be the longest movement, but Berwald was very specific with the duration when it came his own symphonies even though he only heard one of them. Schubert must have estimated the duration of the various movements?
On these things, I get, having watched your previous discussions of this, that these are the recordings you find most valuable But there’s no consensus on this more broadly so I admire the advocacy, but I don’t think you can claim these as the “references” on previous criteria (they’re not the recordings we like most) I don’t think there are “reference” recordings for this work, for a number of reasons, including the difficulty of the finale and the problems in doing the scherzo. That I can’t offer one is actually quite good I think.
I don’t know where you’ve been, but in my experience, the reference recordings for this work have been very clear. The fact that they happen to be two of my favorite performances is a coincidence. My personal version of choice most of the time is the Krips.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think you do know where I have been. I think this is a particularly difficult work for a reference. I don’t agree with the various discussions over here, but the last last one I heard didn’t mention either of those. There are so many, however problematic. I don’t think the “reference” is decidable nowadays, despite the wide availability of Szell etc back in the day in some markets.
If there are two Furtwangler recordings from the standard symphonic reportoire that might considered reference, one should be one of two Brahms 1 candidates, and the second should be his Schubert 9 -- the 1951 Berlin Phil performance on DG. Does it not belong on a reference list?
I don't disagree, although the Krips has always been my favorite. But the 1951 Furtwängler has achieved legendary status throughout the decades, and I really thought that would be the reference recording. Toscanini/Philadelphia also got a lot of praise as well.
Regarding period instruments, I think you are right about Schubert, and I think applies also to Beethoven and many others. The reason that instruments evolve is that the needs of composers are sometimes constrained by the instruments that exist in their times. I can't stand early Monteverdi on anything but period instruments, but Schuetz sometimes sounds robbed by them, for example, in my opinion. And if Norrington's recording of Symphonie Fantastique is useful for anything but a coffee coaster, it is to prove that period instruments make the music indecipherable.
The combination of intellect and musicality has yet to be duplicated, and TCO is, in many respects, still his orchestra. Dohnanyi and FWM have burnished the sound but it’s still GZ’s band. Interested to hear what you think of the recent FWM-C O recording
The very ending chord of the Symphony was originally written as with a quite ending I believe? The Boston Symphony Orchestra had the late great Vic Firth playing timpani. I had his signature timpani mallets myself
Sorry, but no. In Beethovenian style, Schubert's late-period handwriting became very difficult to decipher. His very large accent mark has in the past occasionally been errantly interpreted as a diminuendo (the same confusion comes on the last notes of the first movement of the "Unvarnished", er, "Unfinished"), but the Neue Schubert Ausgabe has clearly printed it as an accent. Inserting a diminuendo at the very end of this massive work would be utterly absurd...
That final note has long been a matter of controversy that seems to depend on how Schubert's score marking for it is interpreted. Either way is fine with me.
But an excellent programme to listen to and help make up your own mind about the relative merits of the recordings that were featured. On BBC Sounds and podcast, highly recommended.
Yes I was a bit surprised about that but there are so many recordings now that these podcasts have to be very clever in selection of variety and dealing with new stuff. For the record, I have the Szell recording, and very much like it, but I’m totally open to newer interpretations @@furdiebant
Somewhat off topic, Karajan recorded this piece three times : 1947; 1969 (perversely overgroomed) and 1979--this last one direct but almost brutal and impatient. After that he declared that the piece had defeated him and he was done with it. Perhaps he felt obligated to show up Furtwangler, and failed.
I think the 1947 recording is an outstanding, dynamic interpretation. It's a bit hard to listen to it because of the sonic qualities of the recording, however, especially the second movement with those shrieking high strings.
The reviews for the 1969 Karajan have been polarizing. Harris Goldsmith in High Fidelity loved it while the Gramophone hated it. It was never going to be a reference.
If ever there was a work that a conductor should make major cuts in, this is it. They have no problem butchering Tchaikovsky 5, Rachmaninoff 2, Scheherazade and more, but oh no, you can't cut Schubert or Beethoven! I loath playing it and never listen at home.
@@DavesClassicalGuide obviously you've never had to play the 2nd bassoon part with ask repeats intact. I wish people who make cuts in Tchaikovsky would leave it be.
@@martinhaub6828 Do you actually mean cuts, or just omitting some or all repeats? The latter is easier to justify (and Dave does). But just because an inner part is tedious or uninteresting doesn't mean a great symphony should be shortened. Schumann of course referred to its "heavenly length".
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D1 | Summer | เริ่มต้น สัปดาห์ตัดสิน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pWsl9LhC2Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I adore the Munch, love the Krips, and I've forgotten if I've ever heard the Szell. I guess I'm going to have to rummage around in the big Szell box and give it a listen. It sounds like I'm in for an experience. Thanks Dave for the reminder!
Both outstanding recordings and justly recognized references. I'm glad you mentioned the Krips/LSO, which has been my personal reference for a great many years.
Thank you for mentioning Josef Krips! I didnt know the Recording still now. This is really „Great“ as the title of the symphony says…bur its not the length. Krips gives The Symphony Unbelievable Energy.
I always assumed Krips to be the reference. Of course I have all of these and many more recordings of it that I love. I wasn't aware that the Krips had become difficult to find. Luckily I have it (London Historic ADRM CD).
Oh, I so love that recording
And what about Krips on ORFEO with the Wiener Symphoniker??
@@henkdem6756 The Krips/Wiener on ORFEO certainly is a really excellent live performance.
I like to thank Dave for all the lovely moments that I've spend discovering the world of classical music that I didn't know about yet. Next to the Legion d'Honneur he really deserves an Oscar too. I'm buying myself a Krips version this time 🥳
Thank you for watching and listening!
Szell is my fav for so many things, including D. 944. He brings balance and musicality, as you said, with fiery intensity. The 1st and 4th movt codas do not disappoint. But the conductor I grew up on for D. 944 was Bruno Walter (Columbia). Perhaps not the "reference" as per your definition, but somehow he captures more of the lyricism of Schubert without losing too much of the sharpness. His tempi are a bit more laconic, but it all feels perfectly natural. No damn repeats, either! That's my vote for underappreciated gem of Schubert symphonies.
As a young college (music) student, I had to learn this piece for my music history class & it blew me away....fell deeply in love with it❤
I'm a Tuba player, and no tuba in Shubert, but I still love it deeply 😂
When they did it at Yale, it had a tuba. Just for fun, I guess!
My go-to for a long time had been Blomstedt and the San Francisco Symphony. Great recording, but I need some more interpretations to truly appreciate the piece. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction again!
Try his latest one with Leipzig as well. It's REALLY good.
@@barryguerrero6480Wow! You're right! Thanks for pointing that out to me!
Canadian orchestral musicians (especially tendinitis-stricken string players) often refer to the piece as the Great C Monster...^^
To judge by how I experience this symphony, it's on one of the SHORTEST works ever written ...
I’ve heard that Great C Monster idea from a violinist acquaintance
My "dark horse" in this piece has for a long time has been Thomas Schippers and the Cincinnati Symphony who brought such an individual approach to anything he conducted
Szell is the one. The very first one 9th I ever heard way back when. Then came Munch who almost caught up on RCA so I now have both. I really love this symphony.
My great timpani teacher Cloyd Duff, who was Szell's favorite timpanist in the whole world told me that the first recording was the definitive one!
Back in my LP days, I had two recordings of Schubert's 9th by Arturo Toscanini both on RCA. One was with The NBC Symphony and the other was with The Philadelphia Orchestra. Unfortunately I lived at a seashore community back then and a major flood destroyed most of my LP collection. At present in my CD collection, I have Leonard Bernstein and The New York Philharmonic doing Schubert's 9th with cuts on SONY and a version with all the repeats featuring The Chamber Orchestra Of Europe with Claudio Abbado conducting on DG. I'm happy with them even if they are not reference recordings. Thanks Dave... Forgot to mention I no longer live by the ocean. I traded it in for the mountains of Pennsylvania.
Again a nice review. I love the Szell. Maybe not a reference Recording but worth to listen is the Great with Enoch zu Guttenberg and the Orchester Klangverwaltung, recorded in Munich 2015.
I couldn’t agree more regarding those two references which I would complete with two versions that I also enjoy very much: Bruno Walter/New York and Harnoncourt/Chamber Orchestra of Europe (on ICA Classics).
Did not know the Munch so I cued up the 3rd and 4th movements and just loved it. Munch is a combination of brilliant musical conception and almost ecstatic emotion, really exciting. Orchestra needs to buckle their seatbelts, it is going to be fast and loud, thanks goodness the Boston Symphony of the time was so good.
Krips recorded it with the Concertgebouw Orch. for Decca in the early '50's - also wonderful.
The Krips/Concertgebouw recording was one of the first version I knew. I owned it in a cheap fake-stereo version that I bought when I was a college kid.
By coincidence BBC Radio 3 in the UK reviewed this symphony last week on Record Review and their recommendation was Harnoncourt with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe. Interesting.
For once, I enjoy the sweet balm of joining the Consensus Club. My reference triptych for this work, available for triangulation of the relative position of other performances, consists of: Szell, Furtwängler and Krips. These three performances each embody distinct aspects of the work: Szell's classisistic approach with ever so subtle gradations of tempo and timbre; Furtwängler's free agogics and forward, romantic propulsion; last, but not at all least, Krips' wonderful recording with the LSO, by some likened to a relaxed, joyous stroll through a very Viennese park on a pleasantly warm, sunny day without a trace of worry or care on the horizon!
I fear some may think Bruno Walter’s performance (which I like) is a nap on a comfy bench in said park
@@melodymaker135 I like Walter's performance, too...and dote on his Schubert 8th. Böhm in his exciting live-recording of the 9th with the Dresden Staatskapelle is no slouch, either.
Sad that the Krips recording never seemed to stay in print for very long on CD. Eloquence released it coupled with his VPO "Unfinished" in 2011, but that is now OOP on CD (thankfully available to stream!).
I also love Toscanini’s performance with the NBC Symphony Orchestra.
Don't we all?
I enjoy that 1953 performance but give special note to Toscanini's 1942 performance with The Philadelphia Orchestra.
@@peacearchwa5103I think that would have been the reference recording for many years IF it had been released when it was made instead of having to wait two decades .
Spike Hughes heard him do it in 1938 with the BBC Symphony and was never happy with his NBC versions because they didn't come up to what he'd heard live. But when the 1941 Philly appeared he said that it was a great relief to him because it was finally what he'd heard in London.
Somm has an amazing performance Beecham did with the RPO in the 50s but it was sadly never taken into the studios.
I love to hear that about Munch! I've got the Szell and treasure it, but Munch is more my style...'big picture'. Plus the 'Great' was the first I saw performed live.
The Great C Major Symphony is fun to play for the trombones.
I love Munch’s take on it. In fact, I didn’t like the 9th until I heard his recording. He converted me to it. I’ll have to listen to Szell’s and compare.
Absolutely right about the repeats… and I love the piece! It’s a brutally hard piece to balance and pace… I particularly don’t like overly slow Andantes…- it’s a classic “Schubert walking song…”
When you talk about 2 reference recordings it's motivating to go to listen to both of them and compare. And If I had to pick one, for the Sibelius 2 you mentioned I would pick Barbirolli/Royal Phil out of the 2, but for the Schubert's Great C major - I would pick Szell/Cleveland. I think it's because the symphonies are stylistically different, Schubert is more stately and majestic, while Sibelius turns out great in a more romantic, less disciplined approach.
First one I got many years ago on LP was Szell, by years ago I mean 1960 maybe +_. He made it sound like a great symphony. It has been my favorite since. I always thought Schubert would have been thrilled to hear it!
Does it have to be "made" to sound like a great symphony? I always thought it was one, period.
Adrian Boult's live performance on BBC Legends series has to be near the top version.
No, it doesn't.
My two ex aequo reference recordings are Szell and Vegh
Yay! The Szell is famous, but I kept waiting for the Munch, which is my choice. An utterly compelling 9th, especially in the Scherzo; he makes it sound like Prokofiev. (Schubert's 9th is an utter masterpiece, by the way, even if it is very very hard to do.)
You can never go wrong with a George Szell recording anyway. As Mr Hurwitz himself wrote in his review of the big Sony Szell box: « Pull out any disc at random. Chances are you’ll be holding a reference recording for the work in question. »😉
Krips is my fave, but I’m a sucker for that delicious Decca-London sound (analog vinyl guy). I’ll revisit Szell and Munch thanks to Dave.
I love the Bruno Walter too, but I bet many think it’s too slow, sensitive and ‘melty,’ as Toscanini might’ve put it 😂
I completely agree with everything in this video, the trickiness of the piece, how no modern recording has matched Szell, etc. It's a shame that the EMI/Warner recording is so hard to find, because it's interpretively identical to the CBS/Sony version -- it's actually crazy how similar the interpretations are -- but the EMI/Warner much better sound. I had the Sony version first in college, but I hated the sound quality, and then scoured other recordings for years but none of them did quite right by this tricky piece, until eventually I found... Szell again, just with better sound.
The Szell-EMI version is not hard to find at all. It is in the Warner Recordings 1934-1970 box that can be found very easily online.
I agree wholeheartedly about the Szell/Cleveland recording (the first one). It's my go-to performance.
What do you think of the recording with MacKerras and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment? That was on a 2-disc set with Symphonies 5 and 8 (using the version of the 8th completed by Brian Newbold). It was first released on the Virgin "Veritas" label but has been since reissued on Erato (both now owned by Warner). I remember hearing it and thinking that his observing the exposition repeat in the Finale made the entire movement seem a bit overblown (but still exciting). I originally thought that there was an additional repeat near the Coda that MacKerras observes, but on listening to the recording again I find that I was mistaken. Nevertheless, the entire symphony in this recording lasts 59:35, with the Scherzo taking 13:41 and the Finale 15:25! Were you by any chance thinking of this recording when you mentioned how some performances can take nearly an hour?
MacKerras recorded the 8th and 9th again for Telarc with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra and, if I understand correctly, a third time with the Philharmonia Orchestra. The Telarc recording, however, features the standard edition of the "Unfinished". In both recordings of the 8th, IIRC, he observes the 1st-movement exposition repeat. In the Telarc 9th, the Scherzo clocks in at just 9:45, while the Finale is 26 seconds faster.
(BTW, I'm not sure why the timings I listed are being hyperlinked. Maybe TH-cam does that automatically?)
Dave mentioned the Mackerras/OAE recording in passing at the end of the video. I own it (in its single-disc Musical Heritage Society incarnation), but haven’t played it in a while.
In regard to the hyperlinks: Yes, if TH-cam sees a timing, it thinks that you want a hyperlink to the video on which you are commenting. It also creates a nonexistent Web link if you forget to put a space after a period.
@@christopherjohnson2422 Thanks for clarifying that, I didn't hear him mention the MacKerras recording the first time I watched the video. I listened to the recording again yesterday and realized I was mistaken about the repeats. I just looked at a copy of the score on IMSLP and saw that the only repeat in the 4th movement is at the exposition. There is no other repeat after the Coda. I was confusing the Schubert 9th with Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony (K.551, also in C Major). In the 4th movement of that symphony, there is definitely a repeat after the Coda, which is hard to listen to. I think the only recording of No. 41 that manages to pull it off successfully is Levine's with the CSO.
I own Mackerras’ complete Mozart symphonies on Telarc. Wonderful performances, great audio engineering-but Mackerras insisted on taking every single repeat, even in the minuet da capos. That’s why I seldom play the discs. For Symphonies 1-24 (plus all the unnumbered juvenile works), repeats are OK, but not for the mature works.
A composer friend of mine suggested that the Great C Major suggested that had he lived Schubert would have been the proto-Mahler....very long symphonies...based in lieder....i can hear that in the C Major.....have played it in very good festival orchestras and dont much like it!~
Munch's is the first version I heard and is my "reference" recording (not my favorite - that's Skrowaczewski on Mercury).
I've always gone back to Furtwangler with the Berlin Phil, surprisingly (well, is it?) brilliant. However off I went and listened to the Munch and Szell. I'd take the Furtwangler over the Munch, but I just love, love, love the Szell. The balance is so great that I heard sections that I've never heard before, especially in the brass. I really like this series and look forward to more discoveries.
That's quite fair. Furtwangler's is unquestionably one of the great performances.
I feel like there may be some truth to the idea that various brilliant composers worked themselves to death. Imagine the masterpieces that were to come from Schubert, Mozart, Bizet, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bellini, Donizetti. And what Rossini could have produced had he not retired for decades after overworking himself. Perhaps we wouldn't have gotten many of the masterpieces we did from these composers had they not worked themselves to the bone!
Yet why is it that Baroque and early classical composers lived relatively long lives, especially for their time and considering how much they toiled churning out gobs of music? Purcell and Pergolesi are the only "greats" who spring to mind as dying prematurely.
I don't think this generalization is true at all.
Sorry to ask, but what date is the Szell? Is it the 1970 recording made just before his death? I see earlier ones available with Szell and Cleveland (eg, 1957, which might be stereo). If I missed the year in the video, my apologies.
1957, stereo
@@DavesClassicalGuide Many thanks!
I couldn't agree more about Szell: BBC aside (😉), I still see it recommended as a recording of reference by reviewers at various websites. Munch not so much, though that is more than likely because I am
not as familiar with past literature. Personally I think he does go too far with his reorchestration; it isn't just the first movement coda. Throughout the work he doubles woodwind parts with the trumpets, creating a much brighter sound than I suspect Schubert intended. Even though he never heard the work performed, Schubert certainly knew what a trumpet sounded like and what impact it would have on the overall sound of the work. And he definitely seems to be aiming for the tune to have a darker, mellower sound in the first movement coda--Wand, Bernstein, Blomstedt, Klemperer and countless others all show that if you simply double the winds and adjust the dynamics the coda can be a thrilling conclusion to the mvt without the brass band effect.
I agree that the Scherzo shouldn't be the longest movement, but Berwald was very specific with the duration when it came his own symphonies even though he only heard one of them. Schubert must have estimated the duration of the various movements?
Who knows? I strongly doubt it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide According to Wikipedia, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde played it through once, but it was deemed too difficult and too long.
On these things, I get, having watched your previous discussions of this, that these are the recordings you find most valuable
But there’s no consensus on this more broadly so I admire the advocacy, but I don’t think you can claim these as the “references” on previous criteria (they’re not the recordings we like most)
I don’t think there are “reference” recordings for this work, for a number of reasons, including the difficulty of the finale and the problems in doing the scherzo. That I can’t offer one is actually quite good I think.
I don’t know where you’ve been, but in my experience, the reference recordings for this work have been very clear. The fact that they happen to be two of my favorite performances is a coincidence. My personal version of choice most of the time is the Krips.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think you do know where I have been. I think this is a particularly difficult work for a reference. I don’t agree with the various discussions over here, but the last last one I heard didn’t mention either of those. There are so many, however problematic. I don’t think the “reference” is decidable nowadays, despite the wide availability of Szell etc back in the day in some markets.
If there are two Furtwangler recordings from the standard symphonic reportoire that might considered reference, one should be one of two Brahms 1 candidates, and the second should be his Schubert 9 -- the 1951 Berlin Phil performance on DG. Does it not belong on a reference list?
No, it does not.
I don't disagree, although the Krips has always been my favorite. But the 1951 Furtwängler has achieved legendary status throughout the decades, and I really thought that would be the reference recording. Toscanini/Philadelphia also got a lot of praise as well.
A legend among who?
Regarding period instruments, I think you are right about Schubert, and I think applies also to Beethoven and many others. The reason that instruments evolve is that the needs of composers are sometimes constrained by the instruments that exist in their times. I can't stand early Monteverdi on anything but period instruments, but Schuetz sometimes sounds robbed by them, for example, in my opinion. And if Norrington's recording of Symphonie Fantastique is useful for anything but a coffee coaster, it is to prove that period instruments make the music indecipherable.
The combination of intellect and musicality has yet to be duplicated, and TCO is, in many respects, still his orchestra. Dohnanyi and FWM have burnished the sound but it’s still GZ’s band.
Interested to hear what you think of the recent FWM-C O recording
ITYSSUI. IOAA. AL.
The only other potential contender is Bohm/BPO (1963). Constantly in circulation and generally highly regarded.
Except his live Dresden version is seen as even better.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yes, true. More exciting and spontaneous, but sound is not that great.
Good, Mr. Hurwitz!
How about Szell's EMI 1970 recording ?
How about watching the video and paying attention to what I say?
Give em hell, Dave !!!! yuk yuk
Hurwitzed!!!
The observation about late Schubert being not of his time is on target; example D960 Sonata in B flat
please review the new mahler 6 by rattle!!
It’s very good, just like his recent Mahler 9 with the same orchestra
Do we need a Krips Box?
There's another one from Scribendum and possibly another one coming from Eloquence.
@@leedsleeds8091 The Eloquence box (Vol. 1) should be out next week.
The very ending chord of the Symphony was originally written as with a quite ending I believe? The Boston Symphony Orchestra had the late great Vic Firth playing timpani. I had his signature timpani mallets myself
Sorry, but no. In Beethovenian style, Schubert's late-period handwriting became very difficult to decipher. His very large accent mark has in the past occasionally been errantly interpreted as a diminuendo (the same confusion comes on the last notes of the first movement of the "Unvarnished", er, "Unfinished"), but the Neue Schubert Ausgabe has clearly printed it as an accent. Inserting a diminuendo at the very end of this massive work would be utterly absurd...
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh Agreed. The last chord should end forte for sure
That final note has long been a matter of controversy that seems to depend on how Schubert's score marking for it is interpreted. Either way is fine with me.
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh No one says that the diminuendo at the end of Dvořák 9 is musically wrong.
That's because Dvorak is clear about it. The soft ending of Schubert 9 is one of the stupidest things in music.
Tell this to the BBC who just named their reference recording!
Oh dear!
I heard that but perhaps you should name it for others…
@@murraylow4523 Harnoncourt and COE. No mention of my beloved Szell! :(
But an excellent programme to listen to and help make up your own mind about the relative merits of the recordings that were featured. On BBC Sounds and podcast, highly recommended.
Yes I was a bit surprised about that but there are so many recordings now that these podcasts have to be very clever in selection of variety and dealing with new stuff. For the record, I have the Szell recording, and very much like it, but I’m totally open to newer interpretations @@furdiebant
Somewhat off topic, Karajan recorded this piece three times : 1947; 1969 (perversely overgroomed) and 1979--this last one direct but almost brutal and impatient. After that he declared that the piece had defeated him and he was done with it. Perhaps he felt obligated to show up Furtwangler, and failed.
I think the 1947 recording is an outstanding, dynamic interpretation. It's a bit hard to listen to it because of the sonic qualities of the recording, however, especially the second movement with those shrieking high strings.
@@dickiebobradio1304 I’ve not heard that one. But after it was made, Walter Legge discouraged Karajan from programming the piece on tour.
The reviews for the 1969 Karajan have been polarizing. Harris Goldsmith in High Fidelity loved it while the Gramophone hated it. It was never going to be a reference.
I enjoy a non European reference for such great symphony
What are you talking about? Szell and Munch were non-European? Never mind a good chunk of each orchestra!
@@DavesClassicalGuide both are non European orchestra
But I have a slightly preference for Szell
If ever there was a work that a conductor should make major cuts in, this is it. They have no problem butchering Tchaikovsky 5, Rachmaninoff 2, Scheherazade and more, but oh no, you can't cut Schubert or Beethoven! I loath playing it and never listen at home.
That's not argument in favor of "butchering." That's an argument for you staying away from the music and leaving it to those who do love it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide obviously you've never had to play the 2nd bassoon part with ask repeats intact. I wish people who make cuts in Tchaikovsky would leave it be.
@@martinhaub6828 Do you actually mean cuts, or just omitting some or all repeats? The latter is easier to justify (and Dave does). But just because an inner part is tedious or uninteresting doesn't mean a great symphony should be shortened. Schumann of course referred to its "heavenly length".