What is your all-time FAVORITE symphony? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : What is your all-time FAVORITE symphony?



kexodusc
07-19-2004, 06:03 AM
I've always liked Beethoven's 5th the best but until recently I've only owned mediocre quality recordings that didn't do it justice.
But I just purchased Beethoven's 5th and 7th conducted by Kleiber performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on the Deutsche Grammophon label the other day and I'm absolutely blown away by the quality. Finally...
The 5th is probably my favorite symphony and I dare say could be the best ever. It's certainly the first I recommend to others, and I think was even the first that I was introduced to years back.

So I'd just like to know, what are some of your favorite symphonies and which recordings of these would you recommend. Are there any other versions of Beethoven's 5th worth a listen?

-Jar-
07-19-2004, 07:05 AM
I've always liked Beethoven's 5th the best but until recently I've only owned mediocre quality recordings that didn't do it justice.
But I just purchased Beethoven's 5th and 7th conducted by Kleiber performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on the Deutsche Grammophon label the other day and I'm absolutely blown away by the quality. Finally...
The 5th is probably my favorite symphony and I dare say could be the best ever. It's certainly the first I recommend to others, and I think was even the first that I was introduced to years back.

So I'd just like to know, what are some of your favorite symphonies and which recordings of these would you recommend. Are there any other versions of Beethoven's 5th worth a listen?

First of all, I'd like to 2nd that the Kleiber 5th/7th combo is one fantastic cd. Definately belongs in any classical cd collection. That said, it's very difficult for me on this Monday morning to actually come out and say what my favorite symphony is.

I've often said this (my opinion of course): the Mahler 9th is the "greatest" (whatever that means) work ever composed in the history of music. It's not even 100 years old yet, but I think time will be kind to it and future generations will come to appreciate it's power even more. That said, would I call it my favorite? Not sure. "My favorite" might mean what symphony I am enjoying the most currently. That could include several. It might also include that work which moved me the most in a live concert. I saw Mark Wigglesworth conduct the Cleveland Orchestra a few years ago in Cooke competed version of the Mahler 10th. Amazing.. just.. that's what music making is all about. Totally involving, soul shaking, tear jerking music. I can't say I've ever had a musical experience quite like that one. Though about 12 years ago a concert by the same orchestra under Dohnanyi totally destroyed me with their take on the Mahler 9th. As far as Mahler's earlier symphonies go.. my favorites change as the years ago by. For a while I was more obsessed with the 5th. I can't say right now I'm more into any one Mahler symphony just because I don't have a lot of time right now to sit down and listen. As far as recordings of the 9th go, there are a lot of great ones.. Guilini and Karajan are my favorite two, though Karajan has a couple to choose from, some prefer his later live recording from the early 80's, I own the 70's analog version, which isn't quite as intense.

Another long-time favorite of mine is a Teldec recording of Mistislav Rostropovich conducting the Shostakovich 5th. I think in time this will be known as one of the greatest works of the 20th century. It's power is just overwhelming. I'd love to hear Rostropovich conduct it live someday but I doubt I'll have the chance.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000000SNG/qid=1090248741/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_20/102-8242206-6519313?v=glance&s=classical

And, another one that's been a long time favorite of mine is the Bruckner 7th. My current favorite recording of the work is by Karajan and the Vienna Philharmonic, which, just happens to be the last recording of Karajan's career. From the Amazon website:

<i>"This recording of Bruckner's Seventh Symphony was Maestro Karajan's very last recording. Karajan, of course related to Bruckner more than with any other composer, so what a great recording to go out with. This album is truly majestic. Karajan, like no other, is able to bring out the mystical aspects of Bruckner's symphonies that make them so unique"</i>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001GKC/qid=1090248581/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8__i2_xgl15/102-8242206-6519313?v=glance&s=classical&n=507846

-jar

Mr MidFi
07-19-2004, 07:41 AM
Interesting...I just went to a Chicago Symphony Orchestra performance of the 5th last night, at the outdoor Ravinia Festival venue. It's one of those big fancy-ass, grassy picnic zones where you can't even see the stage (unless you spring for pavillion seats), but it was a beautiful night and a very robust performance. Very assertive and up-tempo.

I also love the 5th, but have to give his 9th a slight edge. But I'm far from knowledgeable. My current disc of the 5th is less than great. It's Leonard Bernstein conducting (I forget) on the DG label. When I was younger, I loved my vinyl record of Eugene Ormandy and the Philly Orchestra. I'll have to look out for that Kleiber disc.

And, of course, I look forward to Pat_D's contribution to this thread.

kexodusc
07-19-2004, 07:59 AM
Interesting...I just went to a Chicago Symphony Orchestra performance of the 5th last night, at the outdoor Ravinia Festival venue. It's one of those big fancy-ass, grassy picnic zones where you can't even see the stage (unless you spring for pavillion seats), but it was a beautiful night and a very robust performance. Very assertive and up-tempo.

I also love the 5th, but have to give his 9th a slight edge. But I'm far from knowledgeable. My current disc of the 5th is less than great. It's Leonard Bernstein conducting (I forget) on the DG label. When I was younger, I loved my vinyl record of Eugene Ormandy and the Philly Orchestra. I'll have to look out for that Kleiber disc.

And, of course, I look forward to Pat_D's contribution to this thread.

Yeah, the 9th is another great, and I too am a fan of Mahler. I don't mean to use this thread to determine the greatest symphony ever...we'd be here an awefully long time and someone would probably end up bloody. Besides, it's quite subjective. Favorites should suffice.

I also have an excellent version of Holst's "The Planets", but I can't recall the conductor or orchestra at this time...I seem to recall it's an SACD/CD hybrid though...could be wrong. That's another one of my all-time favorites. I have to say, of the few symphonies I have been fortunate to see performed "well", "The Planets" is probably one that benefits the most from the live venue. More than any Beethoven symphony I've seen. Especially the power in "Mars" and "Jupiter". I'll have to report back as to which recording I have.

Dusty Chalk
07-19-2004, 09:32 AM
Dvorak's 9th, by far. Every single movement is beyond compare. It really "takes me there". A good rendition is better than sex.

I don't like Beethoven so much -- I like the first movement of the 5th (you need to here PDQ Bach's/Peter Schickele's version), the second movement of the 7th, and the last movement of the 9th, and the rest are "okay", but bore me easily. Live is a different story. (Any recommendations on 3rd movements? I'd like to collect the complete set.)

I like some Rachmaninov and some Tchaikovsky as well.

kexodusc
07-19-2004, 09:38 AM
Dvorak's 9th, by far. Every single movement is beyond compare. It really "takes me there". A good rendition is better than sex.

I don't like Beethoven so much -- I like the first movement of the 5th (you need to here PDQ Bach's/Peter Schickele's version), the second movement of the 7th, and the last movement of the 9th, and the rest are "okay", but bore me easily. Live is a different story. (Any recommendations on 3rd movements? I'd like to collect the complete set.)

I like some Rachmaninov and some Tchaikovsky as well.

Rachmaninov (and his 37 spelling variations) Piano Concerto's 2 & 4 are great works.

A bit more contemporary, I also like Gorecki's Symphony 3 (Symphony of Sorrowful Songs) with Johanna Kozlowska...Used in millions of movies, and "borrowed" by Hans Zimmer in "Gladiator".

Dave_G
07-19-2004, 11:49 AM
I know very very very little about classical music, but I have 2 Rimsky-Korsokov titles that I enjoy a lot, and 1 disc called "Orchestral Favorites" or something like that by the Cincinatti Pops Orchestra or something (it's a Telarc disc). It's like rock and roll symphonic music.

But I rarely listen to this type of music, maybe I need to check more of it out.

Dave

Javier
07-19-2004, 03:35 PM
The 5th no other shymponic work has more gossebump factor than this one for me ( close competitor Stravinsky firebird suite), Agred on The Kleiber CD with both 5th and 7th i own the SACD version and it is fantastic other versions i own are Karajan on DG, and Maazel on sony.
I just recently started into Mahler but just starting to enjoy the 1st and 5th so more to go.

Dusty Chalk
07-19-2004, 04:41 PM
Rachmaninov (and his 37 spelling variations) Piano Concerto's 2 & 4 are great works.Agreed. The only reason I don't get more enthusiastic about his orchestral symphonies is because I know of what he is capable. The only reason I don't like his symphonies more, is because they pale in comparison to his piano concertos. But if you listen to them on their own (the symphonies, that is), they really aren't half bad. I definitely enjoy them more than Beethoven's or Mozart's. I think it's the Russian in me.

Ditto Tchaikovsky (except replace "piano concerto" with "ballet music" -- Swan Lake, Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet).

tentoze
07-19-2004, 05:24 PM
My knowledge of classical is very limited, but of what I am familiar with, I have to say Schumann's Symphony Number 3, Rhenish. Emotional music at a fundamental level for me.

RobotCzar
07-19-2004, 05:50 PM
This should at least be a "top five" (ala the movie High Fidelity), but I think any attempt at less than 10 is too limiting.

First, let's exclude LVB as his symphs are in a separtate league (i.e., what are your top five favority Beethoven symphonies?

So, I will answer my top five NON-Beethoven (for today, as this list changes based on what I have heard and learned recently):

- Prokofiev 1
- Shostakovitch 5
- Brahms 3
- Tchaikovsky (how do you spell hiim?) 4
- Mozart 40

Pat D
07-19-2004, 06:29 PM
My knowledge of classical is very limited, but of what I am familiar with, I have to say Schumann's Symphony Number 3, Rhenish. Emotional music at a fundamental level for me.
Schumann's 3rd! Oh yes! A wonderful work, also the 4th. Actually, I like them all. Any favorite recordings? Actually, I like Antoni Wit on Naxos as well as any, but Haitink and Szell are also excellent.

Pat D
07-19-2004, 06:49 PM
Interesting...I just went to a Chicago Symphony Orchestra performance of the 5th last night, at the outdoor Ravinia Festival venue. It's one of those big fancy-ass, grassy picnic zones where you can't even see the stage (unless you spring for pavillion seats), but it was a beautiful night and a very robust performance. Very assertive and up-tempo.

I also love the 5th, but have to give his 9th a slight edge. But I'm far from knowledgeable. My current disc of the 5th is less than great. It's Leonard Bernstein conducting (I forget) on the DG label. When I was younger, I loved my vinyl record of Eugene Ormandy and the Philly Orchestra. I'll have to look out for that Kleiber disc.

And, of course, I look forward to Pat_D's contribution to this thread.
I haven't visited the Chicago area for several years, but I have gone to a number of concerts at Ravinia over the years. One can take the train north from Chicago right up to the entrance. I remember hearing a concert with soprano Sumi Jo some years ago.

I agree that Carlos Kleiber's performances of Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies are great, but I find the sound mediocre. On the other hand, I have some others which I think are at least as good which are much better recorded, notably Karajan's 1962 version on DG (I have it on LP) and Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic on Chesky.

I like all the Beethoven symphonies, but my favorite is the Eroica, no. 3, with Ansermet, Leibowitz, or Schmidt-Isserstedt, although I have some other good ones (Karajan, Marriner). Other favorites are nos. 4, 6 , 7 and generally, I like Ansermet, Leibowitz and Karajan. Ansermet is not so good on no. 9, which is smooth but not exciting, and my favorites are Suitner on Denon and Leibowitz on Chesky.

tentoze
07-19-2004, 06:54 PM
Schumann's 3rd! Oh yes! A wonderful work, also the 4th. Actually, I like them all. Any favorite recordings? Actually, I like Antoni Wit on Naxos as well as any, but Haitink and Szell are also excellent.
The one I'm most familiar with (going from foggy memory here, don't have the record with me) is Muti and The London Philharmonia (I think) and I believe it is on Angel. Seems that I may also have a Bernstein one that I never liked as much as the Muti. And, I agree, the 4th is excellent, but I've listened to it much less than Rhenish. The hair still stands up on my neck when I play it, and as I said, my knowledge of classical is minimal.

Pat D
07-19-2004, 07:30 PM
I've always liked Beethoven's 5th the best but until recently I've only owned mediocre quality recordings that didn't do it justice.
But I just purchased Beethoven's 5th and 7th conducted by Kleiber performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on the Deutsche Grammophon label the other day and I'm absolutely blown away by the quality. Finally...
The 5th is probably my favorite symphony and I dare say could be the best ever. It's certainly the first I recommend to others, and I think was even the first that I was introduced to years back.

So I'd just like to know, what are some of your favorite symphonies and which recordings of these would you recommend. Are there any other versions of Beethoven's 5th worth a listen?
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony isn't one of my favorites, though I have learned to like the work. Kleiber's performances are great, but the sound is strange. I find Leibowitz on Chesky and Karajan (1962) on DG to be at least as good and much better recorded.

My favorite Beethoven Symphony, and indeed, my favorite symphony, is probably the Eroica, no. 3. I like Ansermet and Leibowitz very much although I have some other good ones. The next favorite would be no. 6, the Pastorale, with Ansermet or Leibowitz.

You haven't asked for the greatest symphonies, which was wise, but for favorites and favorite recordings. Here's some of my favorites:

Haydn, Symphonies nos. 22 (the Philosopher), 24, and 77 (not on the same CDs), with Nicholas Ward and the Northern Chamber Orchestra on Naxos.

Haydn, Symphony no. 82 (the Bear or l'ours), Marrniner, ASMF, on Philips. The other Paris Symphonies, nos. 82-87 are wonderful, too.

Haydn, Symphony no. 94, with Joseph Krips on London.

Of course, there are other interesting 18 century symphonies, too, by some of Bach's sons, Kraus, Vanhal, and others, easily available on Naxos.

Mozart, Symphonies 35 (Haffner) and 41 (Jupiter), with Krips and Leibowitz on Chesky. Colin Davis does a wonderful Jupiter, too. The HIP (Historically Informed Performances) by Hogwood and Pinnock are very fine as well. I have the Pinnock set of all the Mozart symphonies, very fine performances, well recorded and quite cheap.

Schubert's 8th (Unfinished) and 9th (the Great C Major) are very well done by Suitner on Denon. Krips is also very fine for the Great C Major symphony and many like Solti, though I don't. Sinopoli's recording of the Unfinished Symphony and Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony is excellent.

Schumann, Symphonies 1-4. George Szell did a notable analogue set and Haitink's is very fine too, with more realistic sound. I actually enjoy Antoni Wit's performances for Naxos as well as ny.

Mendelssohn, Symphonies nos. 3 (Scotch) and 4 (Italian). Dohnanyi's recordings are very fine, in fulll rich sound. For no. 3, my favorite is Peter Maag's old London recording.

Brahms, Symphonies 1-4. The Bruno Walter stereo set on Sony is wonderful. For no. 4, my favorite is Fritz Reiner on Chesky, a great performance and recording.

I rather like Monteux's recording of Tchaikovski's 5th and the old Mitropoulos recording of no. 6, the Pathetique Symphony.

Bruckner, Symphonyies 4 and 7, with Tintner on Naxos.

Rachmaninoff, Symphonies nos. 1-3, Ormandy, Philadelphia Orchestra, on Sony. Previn is also good for no. 2, and I also heard a good recording by Anissimov on Naxos.

Sibelius, Symphonies nos. 2 and 5. The old Maazel set is very good, and I prefer his no. 5 to any others I have heard. Barbirolli and Colin Davis have done great recordings of no. 2.

Mahler, Symphony no. 4, Maazel, on CBS. I would also suggest Das Lied von der Erde, which many consider a symphony, with Walter, Karajan, and no doubt others. I am not a big Mahler fan but I enjoy these.

I like Prokofiev's Classical Symphony, no. 1, and Ansermet did a nice recordings of it.

I have never warmed up to Shostakovich's Symphonies.

There are many other 20th century symphonies, but most have not attained favorite status with me.

mg196
07-19-2004, 07:38 PM
Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music is the greatest symphony ever written.

kexodusc
07-20-2004, 03:26 AM
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony isn't one of my favorites, though I have learned to like the work. Kleiber's performances are great, but the sound is strange. I find Leibowitz on Chesky and Karajan (1962) on DG to be at least as good and much better recorded.

That's funny the Karajan/DG recording is on of the "mediocre ones" I wanted to replace...just curious...what is it you like about it? I dont' find it "bad", just a tad bit dull. I suppose all classical recording suffer from this to some extent. Haven't heard the Chesky one...might be worth an audition.


You haven't asked for the greatest symphonies, which was wise, but for favorites and favorite recordings.

Been down that road before...the biggest problem I have with classical music is finding decent quality recordings of certain pieces. Quite often, I thought movements or entire works were bad, only later to find out it was the conductor or the recording that ruined it. This must be a problem for many people attempting to get into classical music. And most music stores still carry limited selections, an uphill battle all the way.

Pat D
07-20-2004, 05:46 AM
That's funny the Karajan/DG recording is on of the "mediocre ones" I wanted to replace...just curious...what is it you like about it? I dont' find it "bad", just a tad bit dull. I suppose all classical recording suffer from this to some extent. Haven't heard the Chesky one...might be worth an audition.



Been down that road before...the biggest problem I have with classical music is finding decent quality recordings of certain pieces. Quite often, I thought movements or entire works were bad, only later to find out it was the conductor or the recording that ruined it. This must be a problem for many people attempting to get into classical music. And most music stores still carry limited selections, an uphill battle all the way.

Beethoven's Fifth has always seemed rather bombastic to me and it is often played that way. Now, if you think Karajan is dull, Ansermet is even more cool and collected and you probably would find it soporific. But I find it makes the musical structures clear, and in the right mood, I really like that. My brother used to like a CBS recording by Pierre Boulez, which I find very dull, though as I recall the sound was very good. I'll have to get it out and play it some time. Maybe I'm seduced by the sound on that Karajan recording (which everyone says sounds better on LP). With my new speakers, many recordings sound different, and this is one that sounds really great. The Berlin Philharmonic was and is a great orchestra, and they played it very well. You might very well like Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic, though. I have them all and find it a very strong series.

I find that most good music will tolerate many different interpretations quite well.

kexodusc
07-20-2004, 05:56 AM
I find that most good music will tolerate many different interpretations quite well.

I find this to be true as well. It's often not the interpretations that I dislike as much as the recording quality. That said, I'd rather listen to a bad recording of music I like than a good recording of today's radio crap. It's all relative, I suppose.

I don't have enough classical on vinyl. :(

Pat D
07-20-2004, 05:57 AM
Dvorak's 9th, by far. Every single movement is beyond compare. It really "takes me there". A good rendition is better than sex.

I don't like Beethoven so much -- I like the first movement of the 5th (you need to here PDQ Bach's/Peter Schickele's version), the second movement of the 7th, and the last movement of the 9th, and the rest are "okay", but bore me easily. Live is a different story. (Any recommendations on 3rd movements? I'd like to collect the complete set.)

I like some Rachmaninov and some Tchaikovsky as well.
Ah yes! Peter Schickele's "New Perspectives in Music Appreciation." I played this and my wife couldn't stand it--she would rather hear the music without those guys talking--she was doing other things and I don't think she caught the analogy with the sports play by play commentary.

Did you every hear Anna Russell's retelling of Wagner's Ring Cycle operas, all done in 20 minutes? And everything she says is true: "I'm not making this up, you know!"

Dusty Chalk
07-20-2004, 10:59 AM
Ah yes! Peter Schickele's "New Perspectives in Music Appreciation." I played this and my wife couldn't stand it--she would rather hear the music without those guys talking--she was doing other things and I don't think she caught the analogy with the sports play by play commentary.The funny thing is, I actually learned a few things from that commentary. It really did increase my appreciation of the work. "What does he think this is, a concerto?"
Did you every hear Anna Russell's retelling of Wagner's Ring Cycle operas, all done in 20 minutes? And everything she says is true: "I'm not making this up, you know!"Not yet, but welcome to my wish list. I'll have to track that down. Hmmm...do you suppose I should look in "classical" or "comedy"? I'll start by finding out where PDQ Bach is categorized...
I find that most good music will tolerate many different interpretations quite well.Quote of the day.

Walker
07-20-2004, 02:01 PM
Another long-time favorite of mine is a Teldec recording of Mistislav Rostropovich conducting the Shostakovich 5th. I think in time this will be known as one of the greatest works of the 20th century. It's power is just overwhelming. I'd love to hear Rostropovich conduct it live someday but I doubt I'll have the chance.

Do you know Shostakovich 5th by Semyon Bychkov? It's also great.
Walker

-Jar-
07-20-2004, 08:30 PM
[
Do you know Shostakovich 5th by Semyon Bychkov? It's also great.
Walker

I think a friend of mine had that, but it's been years since I've heard it.

There are lots of great 5ths out there, and it's interesting how the impact of the work can change depending on how certain sections are handled. The ending can be triumphant (probably how the Russian government <i>thought</i> it was meant to be) or tragic or even extremely bitter. I have a video tape of Mistislav conducting the piece at a place called Wolf Trap. I wonder if it's available anymore. It's amazing watching him conduct. The end he's almost doing a Lenny immitation, as if his baton was a sledgehammer and he's beating those last final notes of the piece into submission, and the audience right along with them..


-jar

Pat D
07-21-2004, 04:09 AM
I find this to be true as well. It's often not the interpretations that I dislike as much as the recording quality. That said, I'd rather listen to a bad recording of music I like than a good recording of today's radio crap. It's all relative, I suppose.

I don't have enough classical on vinyl. :(
The first recording of Beethoven's Fifth I really liked was an old Westminster LP with Arthur Rodzinski conducting. This LP is cut at a very low level and the sound is rather distant and not very wide range, though it's smooth sounding and not unpleasant. I am not sure now what I saw in it then! Anyway, I often like really old vocal recordings but not many old orchestral recordings, although some are not unpleasant. But generally, I look for excellent performances rather than excellent sound, though sometimes one can have both. Many of my favorite orchestral recordings are fairly early in the stereo era.

-Jar-
07-21-2004, 04:41 AM
The first recording of Beethoven's Fifth I really liked was an old Westminster LP with Arthur Rodzinski conducting. This LP is cut at a very low level and the sound is rather distant and not very wide range, though it's smooth sounding and not unpleasant. I am not sure now what I saw in it then! Anyway, I often like really old vocal recordings but not many old orchestral recordings, although some are not unpleasant. But generally, I look for excellent performances rather than excellent sound, though sometimes one can have both. Many of my favorite orchestral recordings are fairly early in the stereo era.

One of my best friends in High School had a significant classical vinyl collection even before we started buying cds. He started young. We used to rock out with the Toscanini Beethoven cycle. No, they don't sound the best by any means, but the performances are classic. He even happened upon an extra set and gave one to me! I haven't spun one of those albums in years though. Might be fun to get them out and spin a few.

-jar

-Jar-
07-21-2004, 07:48 AM
<I>But I just purchased Beethoven's 5th and 7th conducted by Kleiber performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on the Deutsche Grammophon label the other day and I'm absolutely blown away by the quality. Finally...
</i>

How sad.. Carlos Kleiber just died.

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMainTemplate.asp?storyID=2163&newssectionID=1

Walker
07-21-2004, 08:39 AM
I'm just starting to enjoy classical music. I'm planning to buy more classical cd's but it's so hard to distinguish the cheap terrible ones from the good ones.
I need help, what should I buy (my favorite composer so far is Shostakovich).
Thanks,
Walker

-Jar-
07-21-2004, 09:30 AM
I'm just starting to enjoy classical music. I'm planning to buy more classical cd's but it's so hard to distinguish the cheap terrible ones from the good ones.
I need help, what should I buy (my favorite composer so far is Shostakovich).
Thanks,
Walker

I know there are a million sub $5 a disc cd's out there.. you see them in stores all the time.. esp. in their own display cases. I don't have the answer as to the quality of these, as I haven't bought one in years. The one "cheapie" classical label that has a very good reputation for recording quality and performance integrity is the Naxos label. You will find their cd's for $5 or $6 a piece. Great way to start building a collection.

Until you get to know the reputations and sounds of the various conductor/orchestra combinations, it's hard to know what you're getting. It took me years to get familiar with the main group of conductors and orchestras, and now there is a whole new generation of younger conductors out there. I'll list a few that you might want to look out for, but so much of it depends on taste that it's hard to recommend one conductor as being good at "everything"..

The old guard (don't shoot me if I forget someone):
Bruno Walter
Otto Klemperer
Leonard Bernstein
Eugene Ormandy
George Szell
Georg Solti
Herbert von Harjan
Jasha Horenstein
Rafael Kubelik
Pierre Monteaux
Fritz Reiner
Erich Kleiber
Karl Bohm
Leopold Stokowski
Arturo Toscanini
Wilhelm Mengelberg
Antal Dorati
Ernest Ansermet
Charles Munch
William Steinberg
Erich Leinsdorf
Sir John Barberolli
Sir Thomas Beecham
Hermann Scherchen


The next generation:
Pierre Boulez
Klaus Tennstedt
Lorin Maazel
Kurt Masur
Claudio Abbado
Leonard Slatkin
Stanislaw Skrowaczewski
Christoph von Dohnanyi
Herbert Bloomstedt
Zubin Mehta
Michael Tilson Thomas
Edo de Waart
Ricardo Muti
Eduardo Mata
Guiseppe Sinopoli
Seiji Ozawa
James Levine
Neeme Jarvi
Riccardo Chailly
Charles Dutoit
Sergiu Celibidache
Bernard Haitink
Simon Rattle
Nikolaus Harnoncourt

*whew*

then there are a ton of younger conductors.. though I'm not as familar with them as I am with those listed above.. most of the recordings in my collection are by those I've listed..
I can't say all their recordings are good, but if you're looking for classic performances, these are the names to look for, in my opinion..

-jar

skeptic
07-21-2004, 09:57 AM
I just fininshed listening to a recording of the 5th on the Arts Channel with Abbado conducting the Berlin Philharmoinker at the Saint Cecilia Academy in Rome. As much as I love the 1962 Von Karajan recording myself and I've probably got close to two dozen different recordings on CD and vinyl, I must say that this performance just blew me away and is the equal of any of them.

This single piece of music IMO is the one single greatest piece of music ever written by anyone. It is like an atomic volcano that never stops exploding. It seems perfect in every conceivable way. Had Beethoven written nothing else but this symphony, that alone would have made him the greatest composer who ever lived. Don't get me wrong, I love many of the other symphonies mentioned here including the Dvorak 9th, the Shostakovich 5th, (not much on most Mahler) but I can't ingnore the Tchaikowsky 5th and 6th, the Mozart 40 and 41, and the other big Beethoven symphonies, 3,7,9 and even 6 but none can equal the perfection and power of the 5th. As long as human beings don't retreat to caves and still admire great works of art, this will be one of humanity's most prized treasures.

Walker
07-21-2004, 09:57 AM
Thank you so much.

kexodusc
07-21-2004, 10:22 AM
I just fininshed listening to a recording of the 5th on the Arts Channel with Abbado conducting the Berlin Philharmoinker at the Saint Cecilia Academy in Rome. As much as I love the 1962 Von Karajan recording myself and I've probably got close to two dozen different recordings on CD and vinyl, I must say that this performance just blew me away and is the equal of any of them.

This single piece of music IMO is the one single greatest piece of music ever written by anyone. It is like an atomic volcano that never stops exploding. It seems perfect in every conceivable way. Had Beethoven written nothing else but this symphony, that alone would have made him the greatest composer who ever lived. Don't get me wrong, I love many of the other symphonies mentioned here including the Dvorak 9th, the Shostakovich 5th, (not much on most Mahler) but I can't ingnore the Tchaikowsky 5th and 6th, the Mozart 40 and 41, and the other big Beethoven symphonies, 3,7,9 and even 6 but none can equal the perfection and power of the 5th. As long as human beings don't retreat to caves and still admire great works of art, this will be one of humanity's most prized treasures.

It seems I'm not the only one who shares the sentiments that the 5th (there's lots of "5th's", but Beethoven's was THE 5th) could very well be the best symphony ever.

Walker: One of my music teachers gave me an old LP to get me started with classical music. He told me I should listen to it several times, and to dedicate the time to listen to it from start to finish before I derive an opinion. I remember him telling me this is what most people associate with the words "classical music" (in terms of style and sound). It's always been my favorite and always my first recommendation to new listeners.
Skeptic's not the only one that thinks Beethoven should have been canonized for the 5th. If you haven't picked up one of the versions people like in this thread, I'd recommend you do so as a good starting point.

-Jar-
07-21-2004, 10:49 AM
As long as human beings don't retreat to caves and still admire great works of art, this will be one of humanity's most prized treasures.

that's awesome... though I think even if this happens people will still be singing "da-da-dah Dahhhhhh" :)

that reminds me of an interesting quote from the modern composer Anton Webern, one of the early 12 tone composers of the early 20th century:

When asked if his music would endure.. he replied "One day children will whistle my melodies in the street"

one more interesting factoid about the Beethoven 5th. The work starts with a rest, not a triplet.. The first 3 notes of the famous 4 don't start "on" the beat, but they are pick-ups to the 4th note, which is on the beat. It's not "One-Two-Three Four...." .. it's " *rest* and 4 and One...." or *eight rest* *eigth note* *eigth note* *eigth note* *half note*.. I guess you have to know a little about music for it to make sense. I had always assumed the work started off with a triplet. :)

-jar

nobody
07-21-2004, 11:37 AM
My answer on this one is pretty typical and boring.

Ever since Clockwork Orange and a live performance soon after, I've always been partial to Beethoven's 9th Symphony. I've listen to Solti's version on CD a lot and am used to it, but also like Ormandy's version with the Philedelphis Symphony and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir that I've got on vinyl. There may well be better versions out there, but I have a CD and record that I like and figure there's a lot more classical I need to get to know before I get 37 versions of one thing, even if it is my favorite.

I'm seeing a bunck of stuff on here that I need to look into. Thanks for the suggestions.

skeptic
07-21-2004, 01:31 PM
Why is Beethoven's 5th Symphony the greatest of all.

In the more than 50 years I've heard this piece of music, I'll bet I've heard it through from beginning to end over 1000 times. I couldn't count the number of times I've heard parts of it. Yet after all of those times, my fascination with it is not even slighly diminished, in fact if anything it is greater than ever. There's so much to it that people have been discussing it, interpreting it, arguing over it, and explaining it for 200 years and will likely continue at it for at least another two hundred years.

One thing about most great music of this type is that it contains a driving rhythm that rarely lets up for very long. This is not a simple boom boom boom but a powerful force that seems unstoppable like a vast raging river which can't be dammed up. The last movement is so joyful and explosive that it practically bursts. When Beethoven introduced the chorale from Schiller's "Ode To Joy" in the last movement of the 9th symphony with the words; "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!, Sondern last uns angenehmere anstimmen un freudenvollere!" "O friends, no more these sounds!, Let us sing more cheerful songs, more full of joy!", he couldn't possibly have had his mind anywhere near the last movement of the fifth symphony because no more joyful music exists anywhere.

Pat D
07-21-2004, 01:39 PM
My answer on this one is pretty typical and boring.

Ever since Clockwork Orange and a live performance soon after, I've always been partial to Beethoven's 9th Symphony. I've listen to Solti's version on CD a lot and am used to it, but also like Ormandy's version with the Philedelphis Symphony and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir that I've got on vinyl. There may well be better versions out there, but I have a CD and record that I like and figure there's a lot more classical I need to get to know before I get 37 versions of one thing, even if it is my favorite.

I'm seeing a bunck of stuff on here that I need to look into. Thanks for the suggestions.
My approach, too, by and large. I go mostly for new repertoire and stop actively looking when I find a recording or two I really like. Much as I like performers (and am a minor one myself), I think the composers are the greatest artists. For some favorite works I have several versions. Of course, if I come across a good deal on a version I think I'd like because I've heard it or heard of it, I may get another one, but I don't generally keep looking for different ones.

Of course, when people come looking for the "best" version, I am seldom able to accommodate them because I haven't listened anywhere near all of the different recordings . . . :)

skeptic
07-22-2004, 04:38 AM
I don't know if anyone will ever be whistling Anton Webern's music anywhere and it is rather presumptuous of him to try to climb Mount Olympus and sit next to Beethoven. I know I don't whistle any of it.

When you sit in a concert hall with about two thousand other people and hear any of this music live, several things come to mind.

First, with 100 musicians playing together sitting across a performing stage and this huge carefully designed, carefully tuned hall reverberating all of that sound for a second or two as one note leads to the next and the conductor adjusts his tempo to tune his performance to the hall, you will NEVER get anything like that sound out of two boxes or panels in your living room. Reproducing that sound is far beyond the current state of the art. Anyone who disagrees obviously hasn't heard it and what is lost with even the best recordings and equipment we have, are qualities indespensible for the full enjoyment and understanding of this music.

Second, no other genre including the only other one I take seriously which is jazz, has anything even remotely like it. This is very sad and someday, it may not be true any longer but the truth is that as of the early twenty-first century, no other type of musical composition or performance can match this kind of music in most of its aspects which make it so endlessly compulsive to listen to. I know statements I have made like this one has angered a lot of people but they should consider that there is nothing about a symphony orchestra or classical music which cannot contain jazz within it. Orchestras have or can have all of the insturments any jazz band has including drums, cymbals, trumpets, saxophones, tubas, trombones, clarinets, and can have guitars, pianos, basses, in fact several of each and can have other instruments jazz bands usually don't such as french horns, bassoons, oboes, english horns. And then there's about sixty other string instrument players which add qualities no jazz band can match. Symphonic music can also incorporate all of the construction techniques jazz uses including syncopation and blue notes. In fact there are symphonic jazz compositions, the most famous of them being Rhapsody in Blue. Perhaps one day, we will see jazz mature into a highly competitive genre of its own rivaling what we call classical music for the most complex and grandiose works, but it is well to keep in mind that it is less than 100 years old and by historical standards it's just getting started.

nobody
07-22-2004, 04:52 AM
It doesn't piss me off...you can think whatever you want. Personally, I think you are confusing complexity with quality. I've yet to discover an art form where this idea holds up across the board. Not all great poetry is lengthy and complicated. Not all painting that are great are monstrosities with hundreds of colors and shadings. And, not all great music requires an entire symphony.

Are you arguing that great art is that which is most difficult to produce or what?

I'm actually a bit curious as to why you would think a single form of music is so obviously superior to all others.

skeptic
07-22-2004, 06:59 AM
Within its enormous range of colors is a vast pallet to paint from. The possibility for constructing compositions from the simple to the epic in a seemingly infinite variety exists. The best minds over the centuries have taken up the challenge to paint from this largest pallet to create their greatest works. It is true that the quality of architecture doesn't necessarily follow the scale available to the architect but when the building materials are limited and the possibilities are limited, the results generally show it. It would be impossible for the Pueblo indians to build out of adobe the Palace of Versailles no matter how ingenious or ambitious they were. The limits of their tools and materials made even the faintest glimmer of a thought of such a project out of the question. This is not to say that the Taj Mahal, a relatively smaller structure is not beautiful and doesn't attract admirers from all over the world including architects who regard it as a unique gem. But it just gets eclipsed by much more ambitious accomplishments of other times and places.

Furthermore, with hundreds of years head start, there has been far more opportunity to make advancements and for more people to explore both the theoretical foundations underlying the art form and to explore and enlarge its limits. Classical music didn't start full blown by a long shot. It took hundreds of years to evolve from the simple ditties of the Renaissance to the Baroque and Racoco eras of the 17th and 18th centuries. This is not to say that jazz will not evolve to become a major force in music to challenge classical forms especially since at the moment, IMO the creative drive in the evolution of classical music is in hibernation if not altogether dead.

As for other genres, they are much easier to dismiss for what are for me obvious reasons.

nobody
07-22-2004, 07:22 AM
In your architectural examples, you seem to be leaving out such works as the pyramids, made when tools and materials were quite slim for the picking. Yet, in their simplicity and grandeur, they rival anything else ever produced. You mention indians. Have you ever seen some of the ancient Aztec temples?

Your reasons for other genres are not so obvious to most people here. There are even many classical composers from the modern era, with vastly more knowledge and insight to their own genre who would disagree with you. But, I won't get into that arguement.

If you want infinite possibilities to catapult a genre to the top of the heap...you should really start paying attention to electronic music. As digital technology increases the sounds artists can use to create, you really do have an infinite pallet to choose from, including everything a classical symphony encompasses, and then some. Of course, it is still in it's childhood right now, but there has been considerable progress in the last couple decades.

I tend to agree that classical is in decline these days, if for no other reason than it's realitively low level of popularity gives it a much smaller pool of musicians and composers to draw from. At some point, it just becomes a numbers game.

-Jar-
07-22-2004, 08:34 AM
As for other genres, they are much easier to dismiss for what are for me obvious reasons.

there's to much amazing music out there to dismiss any genre entirely. to me, the conduit matters not. As long as the composer(s) make that magical musical connection with my brain, I care not if they're banging on cans and pluckin rubber bands.

Some folks do not see music this way. That's their choice. I just shudder to think of all that I would miss if I focused on anything else other than the <i>music</i> itself.

Orchestra
Rock band
Syth
Organ
Jazz Combo
Harmonica
Melodica

All are capable of making magic music to my ears. As long as the composer(s) is saying something that connects with my brain.. that's #1 with me.

-jar

mad rhetorik
07-22-2004, 08:34 AM
Hey Skeptic. Since that flame match last week I've been meaning to ask you about Frank Zappa. Have you heard any of his work? He did a lot of fascinating things with pop, rock, jazz/fusion, avant-garde, and classical, and is considered a composer in many circles (not to mention, he was also one of the greatest guitarists to walk the earth, but that probably doesn't impress you).

Frank was one of the leading pioneers of the synclavier. The most notable of his electronic works, <b>Jazz From Hell</b>, is often regarded as one of the most complex and difficult electronic albums ever made, owing a good bit to Zappa's favorite composer Varese. It hasn't aged very well (technology has evolved a lot since 1987), but it won a Grammy in 1987 for Best Rock Instrumental. Later on, Zappa recorded the album <b>Yellow Shark</b> playing his synclavier material with the Ensemble Modern (Peter Rundell as conductor). It is excellent classical music (one of the few classical pieces I actually enjoy), very well-recorded, and anything but a "pop artist does classical" novelty. If you haven't heard it you should.

I also read that you had an interest in fusion. Might want to try <b>Hot Rats</b> too. It's one of my favorite Zappa albums.

mad rhetorik
07-22-2004, 08:36 AM
there's to much amazing music out there to dismiss any genre entirely. to me, the conduit matters not. As long as the composer(s) make that magical musical connection with my brain, I care not if they're banging on cans and pluckin rubber bands.

All are capable of making magic music to my ears. As long as the composer(s) is saying something that connects with my brain.. that's #1 with me.

Exactly.

DarrenH
07-22-2004, 10:16 AM
Or electronic music.

Just can't picture that.

He mentioned he took jazz seriously but does he enjoy jazz/fusion? Or is he strictly pre-1960's jazz. Or does he enjoy some modern jazz from bands like The Dave Holland Quintet or Martin, Modeski and Wood?

I can't picture Skeptic listening to Mahavishnu Orchestra or Tony Williams Lifetime or Billy Cobham or Al DiMeola or the second incarnation of Chick Corea's Return To Forever.

Or how about Weather Report or Herbie Hancock? It's all instrumental jazz/fusion type music with heavy use of electric piano/electronic synthesizer instrumentation.

Maybe he does. Who knows. It's all very good music and technically challenging. Something I enjoy very much.

Cheers,

Darren

mad rhetorik
07-22-2004, 10:23 AM
Or electronic music.

He mentioned he took jazz seriously but does he enjoy jazz/fusion? Or is he strictly pre-1960's jazz. Or does he enjoy some modern jazz from bands like The Dave Holland Quintet or Martin, Modeski and Wood?

I can't picture Skeptic listening to Mahavishnu Orchestra or Tony Williams Lifetime or Billy Cobham or Al DiMeola or the second incarnation of Chick Corea's Return To Forever.

Just can't picture that.

Darren

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=41897&postcount=24

See last paragraph.

First-lineup Mahavishnu Orchestra is great fusion too. I should've mentioned that.

Pat D
07-22-2004, 11:16 AM
In your architectural examples, you seem to be leaving out such works as the pyramids, made when tools and materials were quite slim for the picking. Yet, in their simplicity and grandeur, they rival anything else ever produced. You mention indians. Have you ever seen some of the ancient Aztec temples?

Your reasons for other genres are not so obvious to most people here. There are even many classical composers from the modern era, with vastly more knowledge and insight to their own genre who would disagree with you. But, I won't get into that arguement.

If you want infinite possibilities to catapult a genre to the top of the heap...you should really start paying attention to electronic music. As digital technology increases the sounds artists can use to create, you really do have an infinite pallet to choose from, including everything a classical symphony encompasses, and then some. Of course, it is still in it's childhood right now, but there has been considerable progress in the last couple decades.

I tend to agree that classical is in decline these days, if for no other reason than it's realitively low level of popularity gives it a much smaller pool of musicians and composers to draw from. At some point, it just becomes a numbers game.
I do have to wonder about progress in the arts. Are the modern artists greater than the prehistoric cave artists? Are later plays greater than many of the ancient Greek plays, the Aeschylus' Oresteia and Sophocles' Oedipus trilogies, for example. Are the poets better? Even the philosophers, are they better now? We discussed that at the university.

Then there is smaller and larger pieces. There is a wonderful song by Antonio Caldara, "Come raggio di sol," which I do (so did Gigli), which is very simple and very perfect--such an economy of means! Horowitz apparently liked to play many of the smaller piano pieces in the repertoire. What about Beethoven's late quartets, just two violins, a viola and a cello? Or Schubert's Quintet in C?

On the other hand, there are advances in techniques and I do like many of the big, complex works with orchestra and sometimes chorus.

Anyway, you are surely right that great music can be composed using modern techniques and technology.

I wouldn't want to be without the old or the new, the small and the large.

There is an interesting story by Jack Vance, "Assault on a City," in Terry Carr, ed., Universe 4, New York, Random House, 1974, which takes a view critical of the complex life and art. The protagonist is a young woman, about 16 or 18, I think, from the outer worlds and her adventures on a visait to a populous and decadent world. She proves very resourceful and her comments on complex societies and their art getting away from real life are fascinating. I recommend it to you and to skeptic. I have long found it very striking and thought provoking.

nobody
07-22-2004, 11:24 AM
I wouldn't want to be without the old or the new, the small and the large.

There is an interesting story by Jack Vance, "Assault on a City," in Terry Carr, ed., Universe 4, New York, Random House, 1974, which takes a view critical of the complex life and art. The protagonist is a young woman, about 16 or 18, I think, from the outer worlds and her adventures on a visait to a populous and decadent world. She proves very resourceful and her comments on complex societies and their art getting away from real life are fascinating. I recommend it to you and to skeptic. I have long found it very striking and thought provoking.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. I like art from many eras and in many styles.

I will have to check out that book. I'm just about finished with the one I'm reading now, and I may have to make that next on my list. It sounds interesting. Thanks.

skeptic
07-22-2004, 02:15 PM
You raise many interesting points nobody. The great pyramids in Egypt are primitive yet undeniably great architecture not only in size alone but in their concept and the mathematics which must have gone into designing them. I've visited the Mayan ruins in Talum but not Chechenitza or the Incan ruins at Machu Pichu. Yet they also are undeniably great architecture. How these and other ruins which seem to defy our understanding of the assumed ability of these primitives to move and manipulate the massive stones they did will probably always remain part mystery. Unfortunately no great epic of masterful architecture in jazz music exists YET. At least not one I'm aware of. From the rave reports of John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" last summer and fall, I had hoped to see that some efforts were being made in that behalf but sadly, from a compositional point it was a big disappointment. It seemed small and constricted in many ways.

Am I interested in fusion? I'm still digesting Chick Corea's album "Change." I have an open mind about it. Very abstract but not without interest.

As for electronic music, I think I'm going to dig out my old recordings of Sobotnik's compositions "Silver Apples of the Moon" and "The Wild Bull." I never did get a recording of "Touch" which was supposedly one of his best compositions. These were all recorded on Nonesuch Records. As for Zappa, I don't know anything about him.

Is the development of classical music in suspended animation or even dead? It sure seems that way. The lack of originality, imagination, ingenuity, in current composition is painfully evident at least in what has come into the public view. Don't even talk about "genius" because that just doesn't exist right now. You know standards have gotten low when compositions of Leonard Bernstein are placed on a pedistal. He was far better at analyzing and performing great music than he was at writing it. Meanwhile, much of the trash of the mid and late 20th century by composers like Delajoio are now being widely discreditied as even the critics have to admit that the emperor had no clothes.

Rob B in CT
07-22-2004, 02:51 PM
I'm just starting to enjoy classical music. I'm planning to buy more classical cd's but it's so hard to distinguish the cheap terrible ones from the good ones.
I need help, what should I buy (my favorite composer so far is Shostakovich).
Thanks,
Walker

In addition to Naxos being an inexpensive way to build a classical collection, you might consider joining BMG. I know that they often get criticized here, but their 12 for the price of 1 offer is tough to beat. Once you become a full member, if you wait for their buy 1/get 3 free offers, discs average $7 or so. Their classical selection is better than most genres, too. Good quality labels that they often feature include Hanssler, Hyperion, DG, EMI, and London. Favorite artists I've purchased from them include Misha Maisky (Bach Cello Sonatas and Vivaldi/Boccherini cello concerti) and the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra (Haydn Symphony 22, Philosopher, as well as supporting Maisky on the concerti). Their catalogs are a useful way of introducing new composers and recordings, too. Enjoy your exploration! End of advertisement...

Davey
07-22-2004, 03:43 PM
...I just purchased Beethoven's 5th and 7th conducted by Kleiber performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on the Deutsche Grammophon label the other day and I'm absolutely blown away by the quality.
Yeah, I have the SACD hybrid of that one and it does sound pretty good for a DG, even though it was apparently done from their 24/96 PCM transfers instead of the preferred analog to DSD. Wonder what it sounds like in surround? I only do stereo so haven't played the surround section. I do tend to agree with Pat in that it isn't one of my all time favorite works because of its bombastic leanings, but it is always enjoyable. I usually tend toward less complex and more quirky compositions, my favorite probably being the Concierto de Aranjuez. I have about six LPs of this music including Pepe Romero, Alexandre Lagoya, John Williams and two by Narciso Yepes but my favorite by far is Siegfried Behrend on guitar with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Reinhard Peters and recorded in 1960 (DG 139 166). The guitar playing is so passionate yet relaxed and the sound so colorful and alive. Just a wonderful performance and recording.