Ask Dave: Tips on Critical Listening
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- So, you want to listen more critically--to learn how to distinguish a good performance from a bad one, to hear the music more intently and purposefully? Here are some tips and suggestions, and a simple initial challenge to get your musical gears turning in the right direction.
Musical Examples courtesy of Ondine, Naxos and Supraphon Records - เพลง
My favorite is D) David. You're the best. Thanks so much for this and all of your videos. You're the incarnation of generosity and congeniality.
As for the performances, I would rank them 1) B, 2) C, 3) A. My (personal and lay) criterium is that B sounds to me the most nuanced performance, in which I can better perceive the highs and lows, the heavy and light, the clear and the dark - it is "intense", if you wish; A), on the other hand, sounded to me the most plain, linear, cold, reatrained - it may well be the one closer to what Beethoven had in mind, I don't know.
As an overheard symphony B is definitely the most interesting to my ears. The almost "contrapunctal" clarity, the humoresque pauses, the little glissando some instruments make in the background, I found them refreshing, fun, original and however faithful to the piece.
C scared me at first ! The slow pace is in such contrast with the two previous excerpts, it sounded like the record started at the wrong speed. But then I felt frustrated when it stopped hoping for the dramatic dark, romantic come back of the theme.
A sounds like beethoven's fifth indeed not bad at all but in a rush maybe, too impatient and distracted, like a "lets get over it, we heard a billionth times" stance
My ranking is:
B - elegant and dramatic, not too fast nor too slow.
C - too slow and not dramatic enough, but very elegant and precise and fun.
A- too detached, not dramatic enough and way too fast for my ears.
Last Monday I heard the eroica performed by the ipo under lahav Shani, and it was one of the best performances I heard. Particularly in the second movement which moved me to tears and was one of the most touching performances I have heard so far. Just a beautiful performance.
Very interesting and topical subject. The best part of classical music is that one's listening experience evolves over the years, such that one's taste changes with time through wider listening. What used to be revelation may become "blah" later, and one perseveres until an "aha" moment is reached. And it is OK to enjoy and appreciate very different versions of a work. That is the wonder of classical music, which is why we love it so much!
Viewing your past two videos on Critical Listening has given me the same satisfaction I experienced decades ago when I read Copland’s “What to Listen for in Music” for the first time. Bravo! And thank you!
I read that same book when I was a teenager and loved it!
As novice, my choices are A, C, B. Performance A sounds closest to what I hear in my head when it comes to the fifth. It is fast, crisp and clear-nothing sounds out of place. Performance B was also brisk but I didn’t find it as convincing as A; something was lacking. Performance C was more conventional and certainly the slowest of the three. Yet I also liked it because of its clarity and phrasing; it sounded nearly perfect to my ears.
First of all, I'm one of the newbies. Now, for the performances, I would rank them as follow:
1. C (Kletzki) - this is the one that I felt more traditional to me for the pacing, that I like, but also the weight, I don't know, I seemed to listened to lower sounds, that "ba dum", "ba dum" and the brass, very imposing)
2. B (Fischer) - This one I liked very much too, a little faster, but particularly the wood winds I think and maybe the brass, it came out a lot more on the surface, very cool)
3. A (Trevino) - The obvious is the speed, but other than that, it seemed good to me, it covered the basics and it sounded like the 5th by Beethoven)
Holy cow, Batman! More, more, more please, Dave!
Personally I ordered them B) Fantastic detail and dynamics, A) Clarity and freshness, C) Grandeur, richness and depth….but ultimately I don’t think it matters one iota! Each has things to commend it and different aspects to enjoy. As you said, it’s not about awarding a “Best of…” award, and clinging onto that for ever, it’s about appreciating differences, and being aware of how those differences might affect your own personal enjoyment.
One thing you didn’t touch on, and which often colors my enjoyment, is the technical standard of the recording - a clever conductor or engineer can often ‘tweak’ a particular instrument or detail, and draw attention to something which makes you hear a favorite passage in a totally new light.
As I said before - MORE please!
Fun/enjoyable video.
Glad you made it and very well done....we need more lessons like this in our Music Schools 👍
A and C are tied, for me. Trevino and Kletzky each set a tempo and stick with it. Trevino is faster, but never loses detail. Kletzky is slower but not slower and slower. I happen to have both of these sets and will listen to them on my own system later this afternoon. Thank you for sending me in their direction.
B is catastrophically quirky. Changes of dynamics and tempo in mid-phrase, notes dropping out in the soft parts. These are abuses that a chamber orchestra makes possible, but are precisely what chamber players must avoid. This recording drives me nuts from micro-second to micro-second!
A, C, B
At first I preferred C as it gives the music time to breath but decided that with the slow tempo it doesn't have the necessary energy which is is so important to the music. I ended up preferring A as, although I think it could have been a bit slower, it has the best combination of tempo and sound. The problem with B is that it is too fast, to mechanical in tempo and I don't like the lack of vibrato in the strings which gives the music a cold thin quality.
My "imprint" by the way is Toscanini conducting the NBC Symphony which I heard as a child and was the first piece of classical music I enjoyed.
This exercise shows the problem with comparative listening. There are a lot of comments about Kletzki's slow performance. An impression perhaps made deeper due to the choices for comparison. Both of which, for me are a little on the fast side. I also don't think you should've let us know who the performers were, because with information like that can come certain prejudices we have for or against certain conductors. At any rate, if I were looking for a Beethoven's 5th to buy, I don't know that I would have chosen any of these performances. My immediate reaction was to rank them as C B A. They were all very well played (technically speaking). But I found A way too lacking in tension. B was also very much from the modern school of orchestral playing. However, I did hear more tension in the interpretation. But there were moments where there could've been tension where there wasn't. The tension was built most successfully in C.
I agree: Next time, if possible, keep the performers a secret.
A great talk. Eminently sane and helpful for newcomers. To your point about not conflating speed and excitement: one of my other musical loves is heavy metal, where blazing speeds are commonplace. The clunkers in that genre are great illustrations of how it's indeed very easy to be fast and simultaneously boring or unimaginative. To wit, there's a drummer whose extreme technical ability draws oohs and ahs, but him simply playing the same pattern at lighting speed, with a robotic lack of feeling and ignoring what night serve the song better, is a snooze fest for me.
1. A
2. B
3. C
For the first movement of Beethoven’s 5th, I think the most important thing is that the tempo allows the music to maintain tension and energy. Typically, I also prefer the non-periodish performances, however, I put B second only because the tempo was more brisk than C, which I thought lacked energy. I put A first because it was a tempo that I liked, and also more romantic in the playing.
1. C - Kletzki - Bad sound, but the emotion is there and it gets me.
2. B - Fischer - Best dynamics, good sound, idiomatic - could be the best on the whole, but based only on this fragment I like Kletzki more.
3. A - Trevino - I don't like this one, maybe precise, but seems like it was made in a hurry - clinic, no emotion.
@ David Hurwitz - great ideea, please make more of this kind of videos. Also, please tell us witch one you like more. Thank you!
I am not a particularly critical or perceptive listener, and I often don't hear much difference between different performances of the same work. But there have been a handful of recordings that have really stood out to me and given me new appreciation for a piece that I was already familiar with. One of those was Szell's recording of Haydn's 94th ("Surprise") symphony, which impressed me partly because it was faster and livelier than the version I was familiar with. And another was Szell's Brahms 4th symphony, which impressed me partly because it was slower and dreamier than the version I was familiar with.
C. A. B. I like my LvB on the full weightier side, and not rushed, I like the music to breathe. "A" was fast but weightier than the Chamber Orch so wins out by a small margin. Great video to serve the audience, I love this kind of thing. Thank You Dave.
B - tight playing/articulation, enjoy the little pauses and variety of tempi (not drastic but noticeable), also the little crescendos (just before the first climax) on horns then winds is much more audible
C - classic tempo of the time of the recording, enjoy the drama and lyricism that it draws out
A - too fast, just fast, little else to say
(I wrote this whilst listening to the rest of the video... Just trying to stop complaints about my comments on A after hearing your little tip at the end about speed - I'd already written it 🤣)
Very very very enjoyable video and fascinating to read everyone else's comments/views.
Now... Have a little vacation time please!! 😎
Performance B is definitely my #1: it was masterfully articulated/phrased, crisp, swift, had incredible dynamics, and interesting voicing. More strings would be nice, but it's not a dealbreaker. Next is A which sort of sounds like a standard modern recording of the 5th, not terrible, but didn't leave an impression. C is by far the worst to my ear mainly because of the sluggish tempo. It sounds like Kletzki is suffocating the orchestra. Almost like he's desperately trying to stop the music from being exciting. I'm not part of the "faster is better" school, but the 5th really needs speed! The drama can't be fully captured through just extreme dynamic shifts.
I liked C, :/
@@stuf159 that's ok! I think the point is for dave to see all the different opinions that we have. Seems like many other people like C as well, it's just way too slow for me.
I like Kletzki for the wind playing and clarity. A didn't make an impression on me, either, but it might make an impression on a beginner!
@@JG_1998 I like Klemperer's early 70s forty minute recording of the Fifth, so I'm okay with slow tempi
@@patrickhackett7881 The orchestra sounds really good in the Kletzki version, I've just never been a fan of very measured Beethoven playing. I think a lot of his music should be neurotic sounding, lethal and on the verge of frenzy. Not just in terms of tempo either. The really slow Klemperer recordings aren't my cup of tea, but I feel like at least he had more to say. If someone is going to take a piece like the 5th slowly they better have something unique to offer!
I really like and appreciate this idea and the exercise. Close/critical listening is definitely something I want to familiarize myself with more, as well as comparing and contrasting different recordings, which is not something I have done a lot of. I have heard a couple of different 5ths before (60s Karajan and Carlos Kleiber). Your discussion of imprinting is certainly spot on as I find that I strongly associate my preferred tempo of this work with the Karajan tempo, which is the first classical recording I ever bought in my life in 2009, long before I actually started to become more interested in classical music in general, earlier this year.
Because of that, the Trevino and Fischer are too fast for my preference, and the Kletzki is a little too slow, but I think the Kletzki allows the music to breathe a little bit more in a way that I prefer, which I think most benefits the slow middle section. The first two examples feel rushed in comparison for me.
Despite the tempo, I feel like the Fischer recording lacks force and clarity, and is probably my least favorite of the three. The Trevino is growing on me a bit more as I repeat it, but is still overall faster than the tempo I identify with the work. Fischer's 5th sounds thinner than the others, unwilling to hold onto notes, which provides a more 'crisp' sound but also makes it feel incomplete to me.
Really, if I just played the Kletzki at about 1.15x speed, it would probably rank up there for me with the ones I'm more familiar with. The tempo just hangs a bit too much, but I prefer just about everything else about how this sounds.
"This isn't about coming up with one choice and then dying" - I loved this line for its comedic value, but also for how it precedes this important sentiment: "It's about the possibility of change and growth and the differences that we can savor".
C is nr 1 for me today. The tempo, the suspension, the realease, the singing themes, the underlying rythm and contrast. Then B. The brass and wind is more up front, creating suspension. Then C. Beautifully played, but more like a run through of what is written on paper. Not dangerous at all. On the other hand I am allergic to pompous exaggerations, so it might grow on me. It is honest.
C - It's Kletzki with the CPO! I'm obviously biased towards it but this recording had a very nice range of dynamics and tempo that led to SUCH an expressive and emotionally rich performance. The slower pace compared to the other two recordings also made it way easier to hear a lot of the nuance in the instrumentation.
B - I liked the chamber instrumentation, I liked being able to hear the brass parts so clearly, it just doesn't match recording C, tempo felt a little too fast to really pick up on everything happening but that could just be preference
A - At the ripe old age of 20 myself I was almost hoping the new young guy would be the best but this just wasn't, the tempo was so fast it blew over a lot of the music. The balance was also very string heavy. It was missing a lot of the depth that B and especially C had
You said everything I was going to and in the same order!
I would rank them C-B-A
My favourite was Kletzki because even though it was an initial shock for me the tempo of the performance (probably because of the other two) this was the one that showed me more of the emotions that I think are right for the first movement of Beethoven’s 5th (anguish, fear and rage all mixed up) and because of the tempo I had time to absorbe all of these feelings communicated by the music
I prefered B to A because A sounded a bit rushed and I had to praise B for its big sound even though they are a chamber ensemble
Thank you for another amazing video and take care Dave!
I enjoyed all three... each had their unique qualities and approaches; however, I prefer large orchestra and "weightier" sound for Beethoven's 5th. Fischer's approach, "fate" lightly rapped on my window. Trevino... "fate" knocked on my door, but no one was home. Kletsky... "FATE" knocked my doors open and made me question my life's choices.
#1 - C (Kletsky)
#2 - A (Trevino)
#3 - B (Fischer)
Hey Dave, as always, a great talk! Hokay, here we go: A. Quick and snappy, not as full as I prefer. B. Bright and light. C. I love the gravitas of the opening, prefer the fuller sound of this orchestra, although the recording sounds a bit muddy. C is my pick, because I prefer a fuller sound for my Beethoven. I am curious about the other recordings you mention in your talk, and will try to find them here on TH-cam. By the way, I have heard some snippets of those new recordings of Nezet-Seguin on TH-cam and 🙄. I am aware that DG and others only upload what they consider their best from various recordings...but oy.
Excellent video as usual. I would rate the three C, A, B... B had opening tempi that switched too quickly and it seemed to inconsistently. A is good, well played and fully textured, but almost too fast. Then there is Kletzki, which I know from prior TH-cam videos you have made. Finally, on slow, I just saw a Blomstedt/NDR TH-cam presentation of the Schubert 9th which was an hour long, easily the longest I have ever heard. But it was wonderful, rich, full, and I heard things for the first time. So, slow is not always bad, a priori, something I can only now admit at nearly age 71!
Mine ranking was C, B, A. C had the tempo I like, B has the listening only a chamber group can accomplish so that put A in third on their verison of the fifth.
I had a Bernstein conducted 1812 Overture imprinted on me at an early age and now I can't hear the brass chorale leading into the finale at anything other than the slow and EXTREMELY rubato tempo that Lenny hits out with. Still my fav version. Great video, helps me focus my own thoughts on this type of listening.
I rank B last, because it sounds underpowered to me. Easier to parse out the instruments, but I think that is less important with Beethoven 5. I like the breakneck A best, but the slower C leaves some room to build the power of the movement. The A comes out guns-blazing. So, if I must, my rankings: A, C, B.
Ranking (from favourite to least favourite): C, B, A.
C: The most emotive and impactful of them all. The more conventional tempo makes the initial 'da, da, da, daaaaaa!' that we all know and love somewhat more of a statement whose echoes linger throughout the rest of the passage.
B: When I saw this was a chamber orchestra I was initially prejudiced (as I usually like the force of a full orchestra) but Fischer gets the most out of the forces at his hand. I don't like the faster tempo, it takes away from the sense of tension.
A: A fast tempo like B, however, the chamber orchestra seems better equipped for it. I almost have the sense that Trevino is simply going through the orchestral motions. Didn't garner a real sense of heroic struggle at all.
Rock steady cd holding, as usual Dave.
My listening skills need improving, but what I got simply was:
C sounded like the conventional Beethoven 5th dramatic phrasing - A & B didn't follow that convention their dramatic interpretation was lighter. A sounded more agile/colourful than B's.
The quality of a particular recording and the acoustic choices or compromises it represents is a factor in our response to it. Some find it more difficult than others to separate those from the actual performance.
I once asked Stanley Kubrick what he expected from a critic. His answer was terse, enlightening and might--just might--fringe on Mr. Hurwitz' talk. "What did the director try to do? How well was it done? Was it worth doing?" Take it or leave it
@@harryrolnick763 Maybe it wasn’t clear but my comment related specifically to the sound quality (fidelity) of a recording as opposed to and apart from any performance criteria. Your reply should probably be it’s own separate comment. While interesting it seems unrelated to the intent of my comment.
This was a good exercise, just asking us to listen, respond, rank. Knowing next to nothing, I enjoyed just making stuff up. Like: B (my #1) sounds risky & translucent, and C (my #3) sounds stately & self-cherishing. Huh? I hardly know myself what I mean. I don't really know yet what to listen FOR, or what to call the things I think I hear. Maybe we could have a Listening Vocabulary video (a sort of audio glossary) with comparative examples, such as: This is what we mean by "rhythmically precise" or "dynamic" or "underpowered" or "elegant" or "faceless" etc -- all words I see others using.
Top choice: C (difficult choosing between B and C)
Last choice: A (no difficulty choosing)
Oh this is so much fun.
LAST CHOICE - A)
The Trevino is a great performance, but not enough personality to show me something different in this familiar music, no new possibilties here. Thus, in that way, very much like 50 others I've heard.
TOP CHOICE - C)
Kletzki, but I have to write a few words about the Fischer:
A brilliant performance with a ton of personality. The horn and winds swells I kinda like; there's decent attention to accenting, and his way of handling Beethoven's banging chords (thinking about the endings of some phrases), some tenuto and some more staccato, adds great interest and excitement. Doubt LvB actually notated those swells, the crescendo-decrescendo (wouldn't be surpised if he put a little hairpin under them, however). No vibrato or very narrow if at all, which works for me (I never want to hear an individual vibrato in a string section, my per peeve). Not sure I like some little touches of rubato and at one point a little pause (or was it a rhythmic deviation?) that dumbfounded me but considering how interesting it was overall, I can overlook. I do fear for what bigger mannerisms he might show elswhere in the work. I'm now driven to find the Fischer and listen to the entire work. AND, to go check his Eroica, his 7th, and the first monumental 3/4ths of the 9th. Ok, all of it (maybe it'll be revelatory and have me forgive Beethoven for his finale).
Kletzki:
Some adjustment is required to critically listen after such a tempo contrast, so I got up for a snack before resuming. His slower tempo allows breathing and, as some have said of Klemperer, a granite-like strength. Based only on this tiny piece of a big symphony, I must choose Kletzki. OMG, being able to hear, so clearly, those lower strings part...just that alone almost makes it for me. Delicious. Like Fischer, it has personality but no distortions that would make me wonder whether this or that was in the score. It has majesty, it breathes deeply enough to allow time for the drama to fully unfold, almost as though every phrase grows a like an organism. I'm not familiar with Kletzki's 5th, but I know and love his Eroica so I feel I had a ballpark idea how his would go.
For me is B-C-A. I like the sound better of the chamber ensemble (it has more room for the music to breathe and the tone is velvetish). I find it more exciting because the dynamics between loud and soft are more prominent and Fischer sits in the mittle in terms of speed.
Seeing as you ask me: C, B, A. Kletzki gives the music the time needed for it to breathe - compare the horn call at the start of the 2nd subjects: - his works, the others both sound rushed - Trevino expecially. And what's with the the tiny but definite pause after that call in Fischer? Others may like it, but to me it immediately jams the the brakes on unnecessarily in what is actually otherwise an interesting and clear, precise, graded performance. Kletzki's is also, despite the greater size of his orchestra, just as clear & defined. However - I like them all! I just like them in a funny order!
And, by the by, my own Beethoven symphonies are all Szell...
1. C - Kletzki: The most moving to me, just celebrating the notes. Isn't the tempo similar to Klemperer's 1959 version?
2. B - Fischer: An ok fast one
3. A - Trevino: A superficial fast one
I think Klemperer's 1959 is even slower, but there's always spring in his step
C B A ~ C ranked # 1 for me. The 5th needs muscle, and to my ears the older recording really delivered. B ~ had good instrumental color, but lacked low-end-punch. A ~ for me (anyway) was a light weight, all surface shimmer, no depth, and no real excitement. Great exercise. Thank you.
C - The performance that has a natural flow. The woodwind section is clear and defined.
A - Like a 'run of the mill' performance. Brisk but no real tension or imagination.
B - Thin and spikey. No real flow but abrupt impact in clarity.
1: B. I love the textures, the character, the little interpretive flourishes. Sounds fun!
2: C. Nice balance of detail and ensemble. I feel like I can hear everything individually but also as a whole.
3: A. Very smooth and clean sounding, but I find it lacking in dynamism and personality.
This is really a "Where the fun begins" video Mr Hutwitz so here is my preferences and why:
C - Kletzki
B - Fischer
A .....well I guess it has to be Trevino even if I would rather like to leave him out.
Reason: I´m a traditionalist listener for whom Beethovens 5th represents the epitome of "The Serious Classical Symphony" and simply has to be excecuted with a maximum of gravitas and drama. Which to my ears is most ideally achieved by steadfast building up of tension through timing, phrasing and dynamics. Some may argue that the score/the notes themselves contains the drama. That is what Trevino serves us with his mere fast-and-furious playthrough which allows no time for dramatic tension build up.
Fischer is much closer to my ideal - and I can´t be impartial either because it is to a high degree Fischer´s merit that the Danish Chamber Orchestra (whom Fischer has headed since 1999) exists to this day, after the orchestra in 2014 was officially disbanded as a state financed ensemble within Danish State Radio (budget cuts!).
However a chamber size orchestra will always sound to me like a substitute for the real thing when we speak Beethoven.
Which leaves me with Kletzki whose performance is closest to how I like my Beethoven, as Kletzki exorts the tension and drama building potential very well. However with one big BUT: Kletzki overaccentuates the opening four note motiv, making it sound unnecessarely pedantic compared to Fischer´s way (too much gravitas). Otherwise Kletzki enjoys the right size orchestra which he uses to great advantage in terms of dynamics etc.
A STRONG recommendation in connection with Beethovens 5th is the Italian ERMITAGE release from 1998 (ERM 126 -2) where Hermann Scherchen reherses the symphony with the rather scrappy sounding RTSI (Radio Orchestra of Italian Switzerland) followed by a live recording of the concert on the 26th february 1965. THIS is a "High Octane Drama Beethoven 5" where Scherchen indulges in "Luftpausen" between the chords and strong dynamic contrasts. A real display of "paly for your life" musicianship which I believe that Beethoven should be all about.
Tough choices here. I’m leaning towards C as my top favorite. The tempo, the sound, and the overall performance were all much to my liking. B is right behind it, it was nice to hear a smaller ensamble play it. A is well organized tonally and while it is the fastest of the three, I would go to it whenever I wanted to hear a faster LVB 5th.
For the record, my first 5th was Antal Dorati’s LSO from MLP, but it’s the ‘63 Karajan that I’m the most used to. I have Böhm’s LVB cycle on DGG as well as the LSO with Colin Davis and the Hanover Band Cycle.
Thanks David - great comparison. Yes, “C” is slower than the other two, BUT, like a good story, if you can find that tension, you can ride it longer and “C” delivers the tension. So, in my humble opinion, I like C, and then B and then A. BUT I MUCH prefer C to all the others because I can really hear the depth of the orchestra. Perhaps the slower pace allows for the time to really hear DEEP as well as linearly - or maybe the orchestra is just better. But C tells a better story.
In my opinion, C must be first. For first, it’s the only execution that actually plays the theme as it’s supposed to be. The forth note of the theme is a minim with a corona on top, so it’s supposed to last more than its actual value. The second time the theme is repeated, the minim actually is extended and supposed to last almost the double than the first time. Beethoven asks for emphasis on these notes. The tempo is slower than A and B, but the pace is inexorable and builds up more tension. So when we get at the “piano and dolce”, the momentary relaxation of the tension is more evident.
B has a reduced orchestra, so the winds section stand out more than in the A and C. i.e the bassoons at the beginning after the theme stands out, so it’s nice to hear some details that usually are covered by the string section.
A doesn’t have the qualities of B and C, so it seems to me the less interesting.
B>A>C.
A and B are nearly the same speed - slightly faster than I prefer; C is too slow.
A: Full orchestra, a bit harder to distinguish individual instruments. Sounds a bit compressed, not as dynamic as B.
B: Chamber orchestra makes it easier to capture individual instruments. The dynamic range seemed better than A. Some of the horn (?) entries seemed a bit too prominent, also the reverb seemed more noticeable and perhaps a bit too much.
C: Too slow. The older recording quality was noticeable - midrange too prominent relative to the treble and base.
I like clarity and definition in a recording so B was the winner for me.
From the excerpts, for me A is the winner although faster than expected, somehow great in both overall orchestral balance and highlighting woodwind solos in good way, and I really enjoy the flow of the music. I like the "springy" rather than harsh accents, for me they still kept the power and gravitas of the work.
Of the other two I slightly prefer C, slow but organic sounding build up to louder sections and probably just closer to overall sound I am used to than B - would be interested to hear how the movement develops. Maintains sense of gravitas.
In B the smaller orchestra would take getting used to. However, the music seemed to be a series of segments rather than conveying overall sense of development and flow. Every moment seemed to need to highlight something different (often interesting in itself) but did not cohere for me.
1. C (Kletzki)-- While it is not my favorite recording of the Fifth due to its rather "staccato" texture, I love its wind playing and clear textures. So it gets top spot.
2. A (Trevino)-- when I hear Beethoven's Fifth, I expect to hear something like that recording. (So if I was going to buy a new Beethoven Fifth CD, I'd pass over Trevino if the rest of it is as "middle of the road" as the exposition because I've already "heard it." However, this type is the standard interpretation for good reason)
3. B (Fischer)-- the string sound is too thin, especially in the "Fate knocking on the door" motifs
I like performance B best. It seemed clearer or more distinct, perhaps the smaller ensemble allowed the instruments to sound more distinct. I also liked the rhythm which seemed not too slow.
B - I normally shy away from chamber ensembles in big orchestral works because I prefer the full orchestra sound more often than not. However, in this comparison, I thought the performance had the greatest clarity of textures and parts. It didn’t sound sludgy, which I feel Beethoven can if players too heavy.
A - I like the modern sound of the recording and the sonics were good. But I thought the dynamic range of the performance was not as well executed as with ‘B’ and some of the lines were played quite as clearly.
C - I might have placed this performance higher if I heard it first. After two quick tempos, the slower felt a little sluggish. But I think with more listening I could like the slower tempo more. My biggest complaint was the sonic quality of the older recording. I thought it sounded thin and “tinny” in some places as opposed to the other two.
When C began, I thought I'd find the tempo too sluggish, but it allowed momentum to build and create a feeling of inevitability while, at the same time, keeping me in anticipation for what came next. B seemed more rhythmic and dancelike, with an engaging interplay among the voices. A felt like speed for speed's sake; exciting in its way, but a bit lightweight.
Would you consider doing an exercise like this again, only without identifying who's who beforehand?
(Side note: Kletzki conducted the first live concert I ever heard, with the Philadelphia Orchestra, when I was about 13 or 14. Hearing that sound up close and personal was literally a life-changing experience, one that turned me on to the world of classical music for good.)
No, I wouldn''t. You folks know all of these people and frankly I'm not interested in the opinions of the already converted. This is for people who don't know who they are and aren't influenced by my mentioning them. That's why I DID mention them.
My first choice is Selection C, but it's close. It's still definitely an allegro tempo (the slowest 1st mvt I think I've heard is Jochum's), but it goes for more rhythm clarity and accent, which I like. C also has I think the most prominent basses and timpani. B almost had it first for me because, while it had the softest basses and timpani, had the most grabbing dynamics to my taste. And it has my curiosity about how much more attention the recording brings to details like those woodwind crescendos, or that extra space, compared to A,given between the horn part and the legato theme entering just after it.
and if I ever get to appreciate George Szell's conducting it would be a huge accomplishment on your part Dave. :-P
I’d rank these #1: B, #2: C, #3: A. In B, Fischer’s performance, I like the contrasting tempo between the two themes and the rhythmic detail Fischer draws out here and there, where performance A renders the four-note motive pretty much the same way with each iteration. In C, I like the long phrases that Kletzki organizes the music into, and I liked the sweet tone of the woodwinds in the second theme. Performance A I liked, but next to the other two it has a wind it up and let it run effect.
1 is B. Chamber Orchestra is very transparent emphasizing harmony and quicker tempo.
2 is A. Best live recording. Masterfully recorded with fabulous conductor and musicianship.
3 is C. Real deal, full scale, balls to the wall, take no prisoners, old school Beethoven at his best.
1. C is by far the most communicative, to me - the only one of these where I really *felt* the journey from minor to the relative major, and was clear on what was being "said" by each of the phrases on the way there. It's certainly slow for my taste, but they make pretty good use of the time. It's the only one of these that didn't feel like it was needlessly trying to "liven up" the piece.
2. B probably has the most attractive sound and the cleanest playing, and is reasonably communicative overall (sensible, anyway), but it gives undue importance to speed and energy and to making all the momentary orchestral effects pop out, and generally doesn't feel quite like Beethoven is the one speaking.
3. A sounds like a conductor trying to impart a superficial notion of "urgency" and "excitement." If the idea is for propulsion to be its own reward, it ought to at least be steady. This mostly just sounded like anxious rushing. (That said, when I returned for a second listen, it grew on me a little. Maybe in a certain mood I could get something out of anxious rushing.)
Thanks for doing this! Lots of fun to think about my reactions and read others'.
1. C: I closed my eyes, when I opened them I saw the ghost of Beethoven in my room. It gets to the core with pronounced detail. Not a fan of the muffled brass (I believe french horn?) 2. A: Fast but clean. Puts me in the mood for a productive frenzy. Sharp precision. 3. B: at first I thought the 8th to fermata half notes sounded off but on second listen maybe it lacks bass. Somethings off. Overall weaker sound but still interesting. I'd like to hear more.
B - I like the compromises and there is space to breathe due to the smaller ensemble. It gave me the chills.
A - it is the most dense in a good way. It just seems too perfect... it is more industrialized.
C - C'mon! Just do it!!!
FWIW, my favorite was B, my least favorite was A. C was in the middle, and much more similar to the performances I am used to (obviously the main difference was that the two modern performances were much faster than the older performances with which I am more familiar). I found A to be breathlessly fast, whereas B allowed the phrases to breathe more to my ears (and after hearing A and B, C felt too slow). What I also really liked about B was the crisp articulation and the rhythmic vigor, which I think had something to do with the degree of staccato and the dynamic contrast. There were some horn swells that I found a little discomfiting, but the offbeat string accents in B and the pianissimos were more striking and helped me hear the phrasing more. I felt A did not have enough breath between the phrases so it really passed by so fast I could not take it on. Also, as a point if fact on Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, John Lennon swore up and down and so far as I know to the end of his life that it was not a song about LSD. Since he was hardly reticent about admitting his drug and alcohol use, it seems to me a credible denial. FWIW, I was raised exclusively on classical music by my obsessed father, listened more to other genres for much of my life, but have always returned to classical music as my base of reference (and I have been playing classical and jazz piano for 55 years, albeit only the latter for money).
Honestly, by the time Paul Kletzky's 5th rolled around I could not remember anything of the first performance you played. The slower tempo was impactful (I vouch, if you played the later Klemperer recording it would have struck me even deeper). But this is THE symphony in which the gravitas must be brought to the fore. As far as the overall sound, I really preferred Fischer's Danish forces, lean but no less "mean", as in I did not perceive any sonic discrepancies to the supposedly bigger orchestras - and a tremendous "joie de vivre" contained within! So my choices of the 3 would go: B, C, A. And, while we are at it, I must point out I cannot honestly make the final distinction until presented with a fragment of the corresponding Finales of the same Symphony. I think the interpretation of the Finale is more of a "deal breaker" than that of the opening bars... honestly. \m/
I have the whole cycle by Fischer and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. "joie de vivre" is right! :)
Thanks for the great talk! BTW, are you aware of the so-called Bruckner experinents by German music psychologists? I think the English term is ”repeated recording illusion”. During a classical radio show, listeners were asked to choose (out of 3 versions) their preferred interpretation of the same Bruckner passage. Actually, it was one and the same recording. However, listeners wrote very conving arguments for or against one interpretation (manipulated by the moderator's presentation of the conductor's personality). I was told, the experiment was repeated also at a conference of German musicologists, and almost all fell for it.
C: Kletzki: The slow tempo adds to the sense of struggle. Also the holding on to notes.
A: Fischer: I hear instruments that I have not really noticed before. I noticed the bassoon part at the beginning.
C: Trevino: Very bright and fast. Seems too flippant to me.
Dave, with regard to the emphasizing of instruments, etc. I know that this is part of the interpretation. But does this tend to change with performance practice, when the recording was made, etc?
Sure it does.
C Kletzki
B Fischer
A Trevino
A and B both lack the gravitas. A also sounds a bit rushed. The dramatic gravitas is to be found in C. But an important point here is that I have prejudices. After 45 years of listening and comparing I still am grounded in the 1970s. Karajan, Klemperer et al. To my ears A and B are a bit light and fluffy. I also love the 1970s sound of the Czech PO. But I must add this comment that will make you despair. I also love Currentzis doing Beethoven to death, in the 5th and in the 7th. Best wishes - thought provoking video.
It doesn't make me despair. You like what you like.
@@DavesClassicalGuide A kind reply. Thank you.
True to your word, Dave, you gave us three well played and exciting performances; this wasn’t an exercise in telling good from bad. After three listenings I like them in this order: B, C, A. But I would happily listen to any of them again. What I liked about Fischer’s was his surprise highlighting of some orchestral details, and I also enjoyed the sound of the smaller orchestra. I was afraid that after two very fast performances, Kletski’s would sound too deliberate, but that didn’t happen. Much as I like the quick tempos, his showed that the Fifth doesn’t necessarily need to be hurried along. Trevino was more apt to lose phrasing along the way, but not egregiously so.
B - so exciting; C - old school - very rich; A - bland and hopeless
Just what I would have said!
For me it was : C - A - B
The main reason I preferred C, was the tempo. It seemed slightly slower than the others and, perhaps because that’s how I (think) I remember hearing it for most of my life (I’m in my early 50s), it felt most comfortable to me. The other two just felt a slight bit too quick for me. B comes next for me - it sounded slightly fuller and ‘meatier’ than C.
B
C
A
C was my imprint version, the one I always remember--it seems the most balanced, with no area standing out above the others...the "safest" version.
A was new to me and struck me as very powerful, and one that will probably make a strong impression on a new listener. It seemed too fast and the strings seemed to dominate. It also seemed to lack the nuance of the others.
B was new to me and I immediately liked the way you can hear the wind instruments much more--it also semed to have more nuance with strong/soft passages in tone. I prefer this nuance especially in a piece that can be so dominated by the "fireworks" option.
1. C - Kletzki: Full bodied, powerful; good pacing; emotive
2. B - Fischer: Interesting faster recording, clean; strong accents; I want to hear it again
3. A - Trevino: Too fast, lightweight, completely forgettable;
Suggestion: It would be interesting to do this without announcing the performers/ensemble to minimize performer bias.
Yeah I agree I heard the name "Kletzki" and it was pretty much over; despite me trying to be completely objective it was by far my favorite of the three
I am inclined towards C, because of your great vid about B V best recordings! I even decided to purchase it uncompressed (CD).
For me and now, B was new and I place it to the middle. On one side is exciting because of the woodwind and brass parts and the work in the middle voices. The sonics is very much about a "magnifier lens into the partitura" that I like! On the other side, the power is downscaled on a chamber orchestra (price for transparency!), and I hear some musical decisions not to serve the symphony itself, but tries to gain more effect substituting the missing power-ability. It is fine though, no claims here, I just have this remark.
A sounded the most common, and hence, I really did not find exciting details to listen to in it. Symph V is exciting in itself, and it is just a great performance, just I was missing the presentation of my favourite details and while they were missing, I got no compensation. In a live performance, where the parts can be heard so much more transparently, A can also do a great job, but a recording is a different thing.
So, C and B (in that order, very close to each other) and then definitely A.
This is tricky. For me the primary worth of a recording is: does this hold my attention; does it invite me to listen to other recordings by this team in the same repertory; do I remember things about it after I have listened to it? In full disclosure, I own all three recordings (C purchased on Dave's recommendation, because I hadn't encountered it before). They are all good, all well played. Most importantly, they each have something different and memorable to say. I have reached the point in Beethoven collecting (exceeded only by the near-encyclopedic extent of my Mahler collecting), where I am no longer interested in finding the "ideal" recording. I just cycle through them as the mood hits me. A is fast, but it has a relentless energy and steadiness that transcends speed, but builds and does interesting things with the texture. C is slower, but clear, in a classic sense. B is middle of the road, but well and beautifully shaped, in accordance with the personality and habits of the conductor. A and B are both informed by HIP practice (A more so), but without the mannerisms that can sink those efforts. C is slower and weightier, reminding me of Szell a bit, but the playing is always lively and interesting. Ranking them would be for me a pointless exercise, because close listening put them almost in three different genres in my mind. They are all good, all well
Well said about the primary worth of a recording. I immediately gravitated towards A and B precisely because they immediately caused my ears to perk up vis-a-vis all the other performances I've heard. If a performance makes this warhorse sound fresh and makes me want to dig into it yet again and hear what these particular performers have to say, more power to them, regardless of what my more-onsidered opinion might be down the road.
Ranking: C, A, B
C: Textures are well-balanced; lovely legato phrasing; uses dynamics to build intensity
A: Fast and metronomic without contrast; perfectly competent, but dull
B: Limp, choppy phrasing caused by (or at least exacerbated by) lack of vibrato
Performance B impressed me the most. It was clear and rhythmically exciting without becoming too fast or mechanical. I would like to hear how he handles the rest of the piece hoping that he saved some excitement for the coda. Next is Performance C which had a sluggish tempo and thin bass which was somewhat compensated for by the clarity of the woodwind textures which aren’t as audible in other performances. It was more fascinating than enjoyable. Performance A was too airy and cautious. It seemed like the conductor was embarrassed to play this music in a heroic and forceful manner.
Engaging segment, thanks. C,B,A. C preferred by far. The variations in tempo and dynamic emphases, and the communication between strings, brass and woodwinds all combine into expressive music. The strings are lovely. Performance A is awfully rushed, lacking in each of the qualities I appreciate in A. Crass. Performance B I put second; there’s some attention to dynamics but it lacks weight, the first and last bars make no impression, the strings sound is notably thin. Still feels rushed.
Hello!
I do agree with some other commenters that knowing the performers up-front can create some partiality (Even critics do this). For me, I'm partial to the Czech Philharmonic from let's say pre-1990, and the Kletzki performance is a fine one. The tempos are the old-school tempos and some of the more seasoned listeners may be accustomed to hearing that, but most performances these days are much lighter and quicker. It's just tempo and I have no problem with it. The sound - or should I say personality - of the orchestra is as important to me as the performance.
#1 - Kletzki - The full weight of the Czech Philharmonic behind him. I certainly wouldn't want to hear the work played at this tempo every time, but that's why we have multiple recordings in our collection.
#2 - Trevino - Enjoyed very much. Nice sounding orchestra, good tempos, well-recorded.
#3 - Fischer, A. - Passing on this one. Orchestra too small, played around with dynamics too much, probably would get old on repeated listening. Not a conductor I've taken much interest in (see - my partiality kicking in).
Yes, but as I said, the people for whom knowing the performers creates partiality are not the people for whom this video was intended.
C then A then B comfortably behind the other two, i think size in this piece is critical to give it dramatic grandiosity intended by Beethoven. I though C had a more extreme dynamic range and contrast and felt the orchestra was also better, though the recording is old. It would be great to ear Dave's opinion as well :)
Hi Dave, that was a wonderful video and a fun exercise. However, I really believe you shouldn't have told us who the performers were before letting us listening to it.
There's a show on the French radio France Musique called "La tribune des critiques de disques". And the concept is very similar to the one in your video: you take three critics, they do a blind audition of several versions (usually five or six) of the same piece of music, and they get to name the best one. And the fact that it's a blind audition (the names of the interpreters are revealed at the end) is what makes it really interesting. Because we may have prejudices against some conductors, or even against the idea of a chamber orchestra playing Beethoven. It forces us to detach from our beliefs and judge the recordings for what they are.
And that's how, in their episode dedicated to Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto, they end up trashing two versions that have a reference status (Argerich and Ashkenazy), while sleeper versions actually came on top (Shelley and Kocsis). I think it's really funny.
And maybe there's something to learn from that. Are these recordings really that good? Or do we think they're good just because they've been recommended over and over?
Anyway, I hope you're going to do more of these because it's really fun and engaging.
My ranking was B, C and A by the way. None of these sounded like my ideal performance to be honest. Version A was really lacking in drama and energy in the brass. I normally like the period instrument style (swift tempos, prominent trumpets and timpani...) but I didn't like the reduced strings forces of version B. And version C did everything right, I just don't click with that tempo. A middle ground between B and C would probably be a performance for me.
Take care!
Coming late to this, but here we go:
A) That famous opening's taken briskly -- maybe a bit too precipitate, even perfunctory? I like the clarity of the texture, the prominence of the winds --though with repeated listening the prominence of the flutes became distracting, even grating. I'd have liked a stronger base line. Not too emotionally involving, but brings out fresh elements. The "style" strikes me as more Mozartian than Beethovian, if that makes sense.
B) The opening is still "rushed" for my taste, although I appreciate a somewhat richer string tone there (I think). Here the brass are the stars of the show for me. This struck me as, again, "'Mozartian" -- but now the Mozart of Don Giovanni; a bit darker It struck me as more "episodic" than A. Despite these differences, very similar in overall "heft" to A -- I honestly wouldn't have identified one as more "chamber-y" or "period-y" than the other.
C) Yup, this is different -- and more what I'm used to in phrasing/pacing in the opening (reflecting the influence the Szell, C. Kleiber, and Klemperer recordings have had on me!) More expressive strings; now the bass line finally makes itself properly felt! More of a sense of build-up and release -- in a way, a nice combination of the forward momentum I got in A and the greater sense of change/variation between "episodes" in B.
So, ranking:
1) C -- the greater sense of drama and drive, plus that bass line puts C ahead for me; it also seems to "wear' better on repeated listening. On the other hand, I think hearing A and B first increased my appreciation of C -- their textural clarity provided a nice "map" of the different lines in the work, so that my ear could pick out elements in C that I probably wouldn't have been listening for otherwise. So in a sense, A and B "improved" C for me.
2)&3) B might just edge out A -- it does strike me as having a bit more drama -- but I worry that I'm being influenced by my appreciation for Fischer's other work, combined with "flute fatigue." Both were well-played, and on first hearing refreshing; I did enjoy the incisiveness of both -- but am not sure I'd return to them often.
Performance C is my favorite. Even if it was the slowest of the three, it was still Allegro with an overall excitable attitude with the best sound. Performance A was good, but for me it was a little flat with a lack of excitement compared to C. Performance B paid the most attention to inner detail, but the interpretation was too micromanaged at the expense of the bigger picture, and the non vibrato playing in the violins was annoying. Generally All good performances. But, from most favorite to least favorite: C,A,B.
A: Kletzki : sounds terrific B: Fischer: sounds textural C: Treviño: sounds so so
I’m relatively new to classical music (only really heavily since 2018). However, I’ve heard Beethoven’s Fifth (usually just the exposition) since childhood. My first purchase of it was Abbado with the Vienna Phil. Over the past thirty-odd years I listened to it enough to know pretty much what to expect. I’m listening with earbuds, so fidelity is not good.
C Kletzki is favorite, because it is pretty much what I expected.
A Trevino is my least favorite, because my expectation is the 5th should go at a stately pace. It feels rushed. I have 2 HIP versions and while style is what it is, they each handle the speed better.
I had a hard time choosing between B and C, but I think the C performance just gives the starting notes the gravitas it deserves. It starts a bit too slow for my liking, but it picks up after a while and becomes faster only when it absolutely needs to. The A performance felt a little flat and it didn't really seem to have patience to slow down when it needed to
I would rank C -Kletski 1st because it has the right tempo, excellent strings and excellent sound. Trevino 2nd. I ranked it 2nd primarily because it was too fast for me. Fischer 3rd because a chamber orchestra is a bit thin sounding but the tempo was excellent.
1. B - Character and nuanced. 2. C - Elegant and grand. 3. A - Rushed & academic.
BCA .
I really felt B was more dynamically varied than A . And the woodwinds of A sounds really soft .
C before A coz it is nice to hear the textures better .
B - Fresh, interesting phrasing like I haven’t heard before. Fewer instruments and very good recording make it sound detailed and it tickles my brain.
A - Solid, convenient & conventional. Meets my bias for this piece. The extra fast pace gives it an unpleasant hasty character.
C - I guess the slow pace and strong accents were intended to import more gravitas. But this movement has enough gravitas already. So instead of getting the idea of an elephant moving dynamically towards me, I get more the impression of a heavy ox-cart being pulled uphill.
I agree with your remarks, B made me want to hear the whole piece. C was way to heavy and A sounds like any average recording of the 5th to me.
Performances have different perspectives. I was wondering: what should I as a listener pay attention to? I can play an instrument but I'm not professionally trained. So I was wondering what tips you would have for someone in my situation.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
1 C Kletzki - Rich sound, spacious tempo, emphatic and beauty intertwined.
2 A Trevino - Rich woodwind and string sound.
3 B Fischer - Can't hear the violins drowned out by winds and especially percussion. The crash bang wallop version of the three.
I have to admit that I knew the Kletzki performance would be best without listening. Perhaps a "blind tasting" might be in order to test us properly?
A - brisk tempo, even pacing, great sound, blended sound overall
B - brisk tempo, variable pacing, great sound, nice percussion
C - mid tempo, slightly variable pacing, thinner recorded sound, nice percussion
So my ranking is A-C-B. I find tempo changes within a movement rather distracting (as much as I love Fischer's Haydn and Mozart, his Beethoven kind of drives me nuts). I find Beethoven's 5th really benefits from a steadier tempo within each movement, because of its forward driving mood. Tempo changes feel like detours from that drive. They were all pretty good, though.
B, C is very close, A less so.
My preference for B may be recording quality (miking, etc.) rather than performance. I felt the individual voices were clearer and balanced. In C they were clear, but sometimes the woodwinds felt a little strident.
C had the most verve in my opinion. That made up for the voicing.
My major complaint with A was that it didn't make it clear that the piece starts on an off beat. The very first notes felt a lot like a triplet. I like that motif best when the second note gets the accent.
I like to think of a piece as having a thread that runs through it. What you would hum if you disregarded which instrument was playing at any moment. I thought B established that thread the best.
I would choose none of the three as a favourite or even in my top 5.. But they are all interesting to hear.
C - Kletzki - This is the Meat-and-Bones Beethoven sound I enjoy - this is a bit too much Branagh doing "Hamlet" and trying to sound like Gielgud for me, but the slow tempo gives it gravitas.
A - Trevino - It seems a little Light and fleetfooted for me. I like a more dramatic Beethoven.
B - Fischer - I don't like the absence of vibrato at all. It sounds feeble to me, rather ghostly than dramatic, and the horn crescendos and things are exaggerated. It feels underfed and oversped.
Thanks for a stimulating hour spent in your company.
The first two are very close for me. Both seem to have the same tempo, or are close; while C is rather slow. C is my #3 by a wide margin-it is slow, the strings sound thin, and the horn tone is weak. Both A & B sound light, in the sense of fleet, but A gets the nod there, However, B is so close in tempo and strong string tone, and has the better horn tone. So B is my #1.
Indeed faster is not necessarily better. Somehow performance C feels the best, because the more lyrical second subject can be played then with more feeling. There is time for phrasing. Still, A and B are lighter and also convincing. So, you see the problem.
Well Said.
C. Kletzki. A good sense of dramatic anticapation. The clarity of the different sounds makes for a sweet listening experience. Beautiful tempo. I think this is one of the best, not just of these three but of all 5ths.
A. Trvino. A clear and rich sound clearly differentiating the parts. I don't value sonics as much as artistry, but boy this pops even through youtube.
B. Fischer. A distant 3rd. Thin stringed Beethoven doesn't do it for me. Adam's slower tempo made the iconic sounds seem like a pantomime. Not a fan of this one.
David, I've revisited these recordings as you advised in your latest vid. I don't know why I thought Fischer had a slower tempo. He's not slow at all. He's speedy compared to Kletzki, but slower than Trevnio. I'm not prejudicial about tempos. There's room for differing tempos in my mind. I am biased against smaller groups playing Beethoven's symphonies though. I so much prefer larger forces playing, a smaller group sounds like they are making fun of the piece - I know Fischer isn't actually making fun. I have Paavo Jarvi's Bremen small-band cycle still in its factory wrap. I'll see if I can listen to it with an open mind.
After one listen to each, close tie for 1 and 2, but I'll say: 1) A for its sheer power and energy--this is the muscle car version 2) B for the very different balance, presumably because of the different forces, as well as some interesting articulation and 3) C sounds way too timid and deliberate and plodding, like they're afraid to step on a cow patty while tip-toeing through a field :) Now, I need to go back and listen again...
1) performance C (a bit on the slowish side, but the arc of tension is solid and the interpretation is full of warmth, emotion and character)
2) performance B (also very good but less unified and intense than perf. C)
3) performance A (irresistibile drive, a bit rushed, though, and, compared to the other two performances, it sounds almost loveless)
#1 - C. It sounds more traditional to me. I like it, although a bit slower than what I'm used to.
#2 - B. I noticed some things in the performance that I haven't noticed with larger ensembles. Pretty interesting.
#3 - A. It sounded too fast and somewhat unengaging - a little too light and airy.
I'm going to say
A.
C
B.
Paul kletzki has a great orchestral sound, but too slow.
B was crisp but Beethovens 5 needs a full size orchestra.
A. Was a good speed and a good compromise. I need to listen to the rest of the symphony under those various conductors...
ABC. A is lean and swift and exciting. B is too, but the wiry string sound is a turnoff. C is that old-school, slow Beethoven that I don't care for. Of course judging any recording from only 1:30 is not fair. In the case of the 5th the make or break is can I hear the contrabassoon in the finale?
A was my number one; it had weight of tone but wasn't too sluggish in tempo. Brass and woodwind came through wonderfully. C was my second choice. Powerful, and superbly accented phrasing. Just wished the woodwind was more prominent. B was, by long chalk, least favourite - lightweight in tone, too fast and strangely bulging woodwind phrases. Didn't find it particularly compelling.
A: Too fast for my taste. Also it didn't get as quiet as B in places, I found it less exciting.
B: Similar tempo to A, but I felt more progress within the music. It felt less rigid than A, perhaps because of the differences in the dynamics.
C: That's more like it. To me, the fifth is such a monumental work, it just needs some gravitas. Letting the theme sink in at the beginning helps in my opinion. Perhaps this isn't periodically accurate, perhaps Beethoven intended it to be light and somewhat quick and I am willing to accept that and listen to those recordings, at least from time to time. But when I listen to the fifth, I want to experience all the might and influence the music has had over the past 200 years. It's something that grew to it, at least for me.
So, my Rating is:
1. C
2. B
3. A
But I'm really wondering how a critic, like you yourself, would look at these examples and what things you would focus at in these short excerpts.
Your talks are just the best didactic material about classical music since Bernstein (and, in Austria, Marcel Prawy, who talked about opera only).
Well, my ranking: C - B - A
It's about my personal taste, what a symphony should be like. Starting with many of Haydn's symphonies and at least Beethoven's third, it should matter as a statement of the composer: Here I am, now listen to me.
A and B, both, are, in my opinion, too fast. The symphony seems too lightweight to fulfil my assumption. Moreover, Fischer's (B) seems to me out of balance. The strings are too weak to balance the all too dominant winds. But, other as Trevino (A), whose balances are right, Fischer builds much tension from start to the end of the exposition. Trevino does that not. I presume that he will relocate the tension in the development section. In both performances, the solo horn call is a let-down, because it seems of no importance. Having said all this, I prefer Fischer, because of my impression that there is more tension in it and I can hear what's happening, whereas in Trevino's, because of the fast tempo, I hear just a rushing of many notes.
Kletzki's tempi are much slower, and from the start, this symphony matters. The orchestra has a weighty body of strings, the winds are prominent with clear and crisp colours. Kletzki builds much more tension, because of the slower tempo, he can differentiate between growing and loosing tension, between struggle and triumph, and so, the solo horn call, seems of importance: Hark! Change the tone! This up-and-down of intensity and tension gives Kletzki's performance much energy, and that's why I prefer it.