Tchaikovsky Sym. - Böhm/LSO/DG
Randy Lane
opinions mixed in), it seems a good time to ask for opinions about
Böhm's Tchaikovsky 4-5-6 made for DG with the LSO around 1980.
With the exception of a Japanese two-fer with all 3 symphonies
( still available from HMV Japan - http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/1414744
)
only # 5 has ever appeared on CD to my knowledge
(Amazon - http://tinyurl.com/3s5nnx8 )
From the lone Amazon review, I know the interpretations will be
typically broad-tempo'd in the Böhm tradition.
Bob Harper
Don't remember ever having heard the 4 or 6, but I did hear the 5th many
years ago. It struck me as 'Germanic', if I may use such code, and was
something like the Gunter Wand performance--another 'Germanic' reading.
I liked both. I've heard Wand's more recently and appreciate the sense
of structure he brings to the music.
Bob Harper
Gerard
>
> 'Germanic' reading. I liked both. I've heard Wand's more recently and
> appreciate the sense of structure he brings to the music.
>
The same has been said about Klemperer's recording (of #5).
Those things are nice to hear once or twice (and another time). But they don't
really do justice to a great part of the music.
Steve de Mena
Doesn't that Japanese issue "count"? Seems strange to discount it
like you have.
Steve
M forever
So in order not to be "Germanic", a performance can not have a "sense
of structure"? Mravinsky's performances must be extremely "Germanic"
then.
Randy Lane
I wouldn't mention it if it didn't "count", but due the limited
distribution and often short availability time of Japanese-Only
releases I prefer in a post like this to differentiate them.
jrsnfld
There's your Böhm, and then's there my Böhm. The former is the guy you
think is broad tempo'd and sober and solid and "structural"...sort of
a more sensuous and elegant Klemperer-type. That's the guy you hear on
DG. He doesn't interest me.
Then there's the other Böhm, the one who often whips up overwhelming
drama, yet keeps the performances direct and fleet balanced with
appropriate weight and power in sometimes hair-raising eruptions of
spontaneity. Yeah, that faster, unbuttoned Karl Böhm is not on DG, but
you can find him in concert, in a Tchaikovsky 4th. I know I heard it
once, but I can't find it on my shelf at the moment. It may be the one
that's on Orfeo, with the Czech Philharmonic at the Salzburg Festival.
The coupling on that two-fer disc is Gilels in the Beethoven PC 5.
--Jeff
M forever
There is plenty of good Böhm stuff on DG, too. Not all of it
necessarily particularly "broad tempo'd" either. Like the Brahms
symphonies (among the best I think), some of the Beethoven symphonies
(especially the 6th), pretty much all of his Strauss, the Bruckner 7
and 8, and others.
jrsnfld
Yes I know much of it is very good, and I enjoy many of those discs.
He earned that reputation for broad tempi (not from his very early
recordings, of course) even though there are exceptions. I happen to
like some of his "slow" recordings.
But his excellent work on DG sounds to me like a different conductor
than he is (often) in concert recordings.
--Jeff
M forever
What about live recordings on DG?
Randy Lane
>
> - Show quoted text -
My feelings too.
I especially do not apply "broad-tempo" to his Wagner.
The combination of the Amazon review of the Tchaik 5 and some comments
about "slowness" on RMCR about his Beethoven 9ths (a post I start when
I had just obtained the Philips mono recording from the 50s) prompted
me to use the term "broad-tempo" in my original post.
M forever
His last Beethoven 9 - his last recording of anything - is very, very
slow, but it has some interesting musical aspects to it. So I like it
even though it is not one of my favorites.
Mark Stenroos
> His last Beethoven 9 - his last recording of anything - is very, very
> slow, but it has some interesting musical aspects to it. So I like it
> even though it is not one of my favorites.
Agreed, while for me, his earlier 9th with Vienna (from his complete
cycle) featuring Jones, Troyanos, Thomas and Ridderbusch as soloists
happens to be my favorite B9 of all time.
Randy Lane
Gerard
>
> There is plenty of good Böhm stuff on DG, too. Not all of it
> necessarily particularly "broad tempo'd" either. Like the Brahms
> symphonies (among the best I think), some of the Beethoven symphonies
> (especially the 6th), pretty much all of his Strauss, the Bruckner 7
> and 8, and others.
Among the others his recordings of Schubert #9, "broadish" in its best form.
M forever
Oops I just realized the last one features Domingo and Norman - your
two biggest hate objects!
Mark Stenroos
Yep. They sort of ruin that version for me.
BTW - surprised to see you averring that I "hate" those two singers.
Maybe Berger & Harper are wearing off on you with the hate thingy.
Paul Goldstein
Randy Lane says...
>
>Having recently discussed Abbado's Tchaikovsky in depth (with some HvK
>opinions mixed in), it seems a good time to ask for opinions about
I listened to my LP of the 5th recently. I remember liking it back in the day,
but this time I found it pretty dull, The slow tempi are not per se the
problem.
There is a general lack of drama, and very little in the way of enlivening
detail.
Edward Cowan
December, 1970, in a performance of _Fidelio_, he whipped his way
through the Leonore Overture no.3 in a most exciting fashion. (The
audience applauded enthusiastically, as almost always with Böhm at the
Met.) Then I heard that overture with the other Böhm in Philadelphia
with the VPO in a concert that also included Schubert's "Unfinished"
symphony (slow and langorous) and Strauss' "Ein Heldenleben," which was
brilliantly performed. Here, in the Beethoven, was the slow, methodical
Böhm, as dreary as could possibly be imagined, and the fast and
brilliant Böhm all in one concert. Sometimes, however, you look at a
Böhm DG LP, such as that of his late VPO recording of Mozart's "Prague"
symphony, with its timing of nearly thirty minutes, and you wonder how
Böhm could have taken so long over a symphony that is usually heard in
around twenty-five or so minutes. The answer is, that he observes the
repeats! And this performance is by no means slow and methodical.
To be sure, there are repeats, and then there are repeats. I once heard
C. P. Flor conduct that same Mozart work with the Dallas SO. It wasn't
slow but it was methodical, even to the inclusion of even the repeats
within the repeats. And the performance seemed endless... --E.A.C.
jrsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
> Then there's the other Böhm, the one who often whips up overwhelming
> drama, yet keeps the performances direct and fleet balanced with
> appropriate weight and power in sometimes hair-raising eruptions of
> spontaneity. Yeah, that faster, unbuttoned Karl Böhm is not on DG, but
> you can find him in concert, in a Tchaikovsky 4th. I know I heard it
> once, but I can't find it on my shelf at the moment. It may be the one
> that's on Orfeo, with the Czech Philharmonic at the Salzburg Festival.
> The coupling on that two-fer disc is Gilels in the Beethoven PC 5.
>
> --Jeff
--
hrabanus
Greg
That Orfeo Tchaikovsky 4 is indeed fantastic, one of the best imo.
Complicating the stereotype of sober studio and exciting live is the
studio Brahms 1 with the BPO from around 1959 (not the one in the
cycle). This recording is just phenomenal in all respects -
conducting, playing, sound. Possibly my favorite stereo version of
that piece overall. So, perhaps the younger Bohm could bring some
fire to the studio as well.
Greg
Bob Harper
And the live Schubert 9 with the SD.
Bob Harper
jrsnfld
I'd like to hear that 9th (timing under 65 minutes, eh?). From that
period I've only heard his Dresden Bruckner, but I remember liking it
very much. The 4th of that time was faster than the later Vienna
recording, if I remember correctly. The timing is shorter, too, but I
don't know the difference between the two editions involved.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
Actually the whole set is mostly very broad, but I really like it,
even in the so-called "lighter" symphonies, like 6. It's probably my
favorite set of Schubert symphonies, even though Harnoncourt is strong
competition and completely different. The Beethoven cycle is similarly
"broad" at its best: like the opening movement of 5, which would be
way too slow in practically anyone else's hands, but sounds just right
in Böhm's.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> I have heard the two different Böhms live. At the Metropolitan Opera,
> December, 1970, in a performance of _Fidelio_, he whipped his way
> through the Leonore Overture no.3 in a most exciting fashion. (The
> audience applauded enthusiastically, as almost always with Böhm at the
> Met.)
I have a Böhm/Met Fidelio and it is indeed very exciting, very fine
Beethoven. Again, hard to imagine how the same conductor was so
methodical and stately in his nearly contemporaneous recordings of the
same composer. However, it is very interesting to hear your story of
the two Böhm's in the same concert. Proof that they traveled together
and probably even knew each other! :-)
Then I heard that overture with the other Böhm in Philadelphia
> with the VPO in a concert that also included Schubert's "Unfinished"
> symphony (slow and langorous) and Strauss' "Ein Heldenleben," which was
> brilliantly performed. Here, in the Beethoven, was the slow, methodical
> Böhm, as dreary as could possibly be imagined, and the fast and
> brilliant Böhm all in one concert. Sometimes, however, you look at a
> Böhm DG LP, such as that of his late VPO recording of Mozart's "Prague"
> symphony, with its timing of nearly thirty minutes, and you wonder how
> Böhm could have taken so long over a symphony that is usually heard in
> around twenty-five or so minutes. The answer is, that he observes the
> repeats! And this performance is by no means slow and methodical.
>
> To be sure, there are repeats, and then there are repeats. I once heard
> C. P. Flor conduct that same Mozart work with the Dallas SO. It wasn't
> slow but it was methodical, even to the inclusion of even the repeats
> within the repeats. And the performance seemed endless... --E.A.C.
>
I felt almost the same way with Levine's 37 minute G-minor...I just
wanted it to keep going and going, and it almost did!
--Jeff
Randy Lane
I share your curiosity for the same reasons. I own several Bohm
Bruckner recordings with the Dresden forces from that era! And they
are considerably faster in most cases than his later stereo
recordings. he timings on the Beethoven are indeed interesting. I
ordered a reasonably priced used copy, so I will get my chance in a
week or so?
Bob Harper
I assume you mean giving him practice at expressing it. I don't hate
anyone here, and I see no evidence that Frank does either.
Bob Harper
M forever
You use a lot of hate rhetoric rather than rational arguments, so Mark
was right in making that point, even though he was obviously joking in
this context.
Frank just thinks it's OK to discriminate against women which is
roughly 50% of the human population.
Steve de Mena
I bought that Japanese release 5 years ago and it's still available.
Steve
Steve de Mena
The Brahms Symphonies, Bruckner 7th and 8th, are great. Not broad
tempo'd and sober. However, I do remember hearing the thrilling
Brahms 4th the first time and being surprised it was Böhm.
Steve
Bastian Kubis
> Complicating the stereotype of sober studio and exciting live is the
> studio Brahms 1 with the BPO from around 1959
[1960, I think]
> (not the one in the cycle).
How do you like the VPO cycle? I have only heard 3 and 4 once, quite a
while ago, and my memory of those is... umm, such that I never felt the
need to revisit them (or get to know 1 and 2). I thought they /were/
broad-tempoed in a bad way, and without many features to make up for that.
> This recording is just phenomenal in all respects -
> conducting, playing, sound. Possibly my favorite stereo version of
> that piece overall. So, perhaps the younger Bohm could bring some
> fire to the studio as well.
I don't know whether it is my favourite stereo recording of the piece,
but certainly close enough. [And surprisingly the similarly fabulous
one with the BRSO on Orfeo is, well, similarly fabulous, but not
"better", I thought.] I once tried to make up my mind about the
much-hyped (by some) Karajan Brahms 1 from the 60s, and compared it with
all the BPO versions I had: Furtwängler, Jochum, Böhm, Kempe, Karajan
70s, Karajan 80s (I think I did not have Abbado then), and I ended up
preferring /all/ of them to Karajan 60s (which I subsequently got rid
of). And despite very much liking the slow(ish) mono versions, the Böhm
really stood out (in its very different way).
Bastian
Greg
> Greg wrote:
> > Complicating the stereotype of sober studio and exciting live is the
> > studio Brahms 1 with the BPO from around 1959
>
> [1960, I think]
>
> > (not the one in the cycle).
>
> How do you like the VPO cycle? I have only heard 3 and 4 once, quite a
> while ago, and my memory of those is... umm, such that I never felt the
> need to revisit them (or get to know 1 and 2). I thought they /were/
> broad-tempoed in a bad way, and without many features to make up for that.
That's pretty much my reaction. Not enough tension to support the
slowish tempo. I don't think listening to 1 and 2 will change your
opinion.
>
> > This recording is just phenomenal in all respects -
> > conducting, playing, sound. Possibly my favorite stereo version of
> > that piece overall. So, perhaps the younger Bohm could bring some
> > fire to the studio as well.
>
> I don't know whether it is my favourite stereo recording of the piece,
> but certainly close enough. [And surprisingly the similarly fabulous
> one with the BRSO on Orfeo is, well, similarly fabulous, but not
> "better", I thought.] I once tried to make up my mind about the
> much-hyped (by some) Karajan Brahms 1 from the 60s, and compared it with
> all the BPO versions I had: Furtwängler, Jochum, Böhm, Kempe, Karajan
> 70s, Karajan 80s (I think I did not have Abbado then), and I ended up
> preferring /all/ of them to Karajan 60s (which I subsequently got rid
> of). And despite very much liking the slow(ish) mono versions, the Böhm
> really stood out (in its very different way).
>
> Bastian
Agreed again. I would take every single Brahms 1 on your list over
Karajan 60s, including Abbado. (There's also now a Rattle version
with the same orchestra, and I would probably take that one too.) I
don't much care for the 70's Karajan either, at least in part for its
horrible sound, but the digital one is quite good. I also like the
live BRSO Bohm, but would not hesitate to pick the earlier studio one
over it. The orchestra plays with some semblance of the intensity and
clarity that it had a few years earlier for Jochum, but with better
sound. I think of this recording as an ideal safe recommendation to
make for Brahms 1 - nothing quirky about it, but just really intense
and well done all around.
Greg
Bastian Kubis
> Agreed again. I would take every single Brahms 1 on your list over
> Karajan 60s, including Abbado. (There's also now a Rattle version
> with the same orchestra, and I would probably take that one too.) I
> don't much care for the 70's Karajan either, at least in part for its
> horrible sound, but the digital one is quite good.
Yes, the digital one is my favourite (among Karajan's on DG), too. I
decided I only wanted to keep one Karajan Brahms cycle (as he is
probably not close to being a favourite in any one of them), and I opted
for the digital one against the one from the 70s - slightly regretting
that he never combined the rougher surface, the more interesting sound
picture of his last go with the slightly greater urgency tempo-wise of
the 70s cycle in 2/iv and 3/iv.
> I also like the
> live BRSO Bohm, but would not hesitate to pick the earlier studio one
> over it. The orchestra plays with some semblance of the intensity and
> clarity that it had a few years earlier for Jochum, but with better
> sound.
But apart from the sound, the interpretations are quite different from
each other in parts, don't you think so (and both quite wonderful)?
Just take the introduction to 1/i, which is more in the slow,
Furtwangler mould with Jochum, and much more urgent, forward-pressing
with Böhm.
> I think of this recording as an ideal safe recommendation to
> make for Brahms 1 - nothing quirky about it, but just really intense
> and well done all around.
... and (potentially) ridiculously cheap, too!
Bastian
Greg
<snip>
>
> > I also like the
> > live BRSO Bohm, but would not hesitate to pick the earlier studio one
> > over it. The orchestra plays with some semblance of the intensity and
> > clarity that it had a few years earlier for Jochum, but with better
> > sound.
>
> But apart from the sound, the interpretations are quite different from
> each other in parts, don't you think so (and both quite wonderful)?
> Just take the introduction to 1/i, which is more in the slow,
> Furtwangler mould with Jochum, and much more urgent, forward-pressing
> with Böhm.
Oh yes, certainly. Jochum does more overt Furtwangler-ish shaping
than Bohm, which some love and some find controversial. All I meant
to suggest was that the orchestra itself was both fired up and razor-
sharp for both conductors. For Karajan a few years later they sound
rather more bloated and thick.
Greg
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:3133377a-896a-4a87-8949-134605c8d106
@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
I have a vague memory that some reviewer -- perhaps for High Fidelity or
Stereo Review, back in their day -- raved about it.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
M forever
> On May 11, 7:51 am, Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Greg wrote:
> > > Complicating the stereotype of sober studio and exciting live is the
> > > studio Brahms 1 with the BPO from around 1959
>
> > [1960, I think]
>
> > > (not the one in the cycle).
>
> > How do you like the VPO cycle? I have only heard 3 and 4 once, quite a
> > while ago, and my memory of those is... umm, such that I never felt the
> > need to revisit them (or get to know 1 and 2). I thought they /were/
> > broad-tempoed in a bad way, and without many features to make up for that.
>
> That's pretty much my reaction. Not enough tension to support the
> slowish tempo. I don't think listening to 1 and 2 will change your
> opinion.
I like that cycle a lot. Some of the performances (e.g. #3) are among
my favorites. They may not be the most terribly "exciting" or driven
performances, but I find them musically very convincing. Everything
flows naturally, the fine detail falls nicely into place, and the
music making is very stylish and idiomatic, refined but not mannered.
Everything sounds "just right".
M forever
> Greg wrote:
> > Agreed again. I would take every single Brahms 1 on your list over
> > Karajan 60s, including Abbado. (There's also now a Rattle version
> > with the same orchestra, and I would probably take that one too.) I
> > don't much care for the 70's Karajan either, at least in part for its
> > horrible sound, but the digital one is quite good.
>
> Yes, the digital one is my favourite (among Karajan's on DG), too.
Same here. There may be a little bit of nostalgia behind why I like
this cycle because I heard all the live performances around the time
they made these recordings, and they were very impressive. The last
Karajan concert I heard was Brahms 3 and 4. Plus, by that time DG had
worked out their recording esthetic a little better so these
recordings don't sound as "digitally harsh" and glaringly "in your
face" as their recordings from the early 80s, like the Beethoven
symphonies which sound really unpleasant - live, it sounded much more
smooth and rich, rather like the sound on the 1977 cycle.
The late Brahms cycle sounds much better although the sound still is a
little compacted and a little blary at times. Live, it sounded much
rounder and fuller but at the same time, surprisingly transparent. One
could hear almost all the inner detail. There is a live recording of
the 1st from Tokyo from the mid-80s which represents better than those
DG recordings what it actually sounded like live. Still, those are
nice examples of a "bigger" Brahms style and I do enjoy listening to
them from time to time.
It was particularly fascinating to hear all the Brahms symphonies
first with Karajan, then with Abbado (who started recording his cycle
just before he became principal conductor), then briefly later with
Harnoncourt - same orchestra, three completely different approaches
all of which are musically very satisfying in their very different
ways though.
Sava Savanovic
conducting the VPO. Decca recording from 1953
Terry
One Brahms cycle that should never be OOP, in my opinion, is that of Boult,
on EMI. But, apart from the paucity of repeats, I probably enjoy Karajan in
these symphonies more than most. He never seemed to have no trouble with
the third.
--
Cheers, Terry
Gerard
>
> One Brahms cycle that should never be OOP, in my opinion, is that of
> Boult, on EMI.
I liked it when it was on LP. But regret having bought the CDs as well.
> But, apart from the paucity of repeats, I probably
> enjoy Karajan in these symphonies more than most. He never seemed to
> have no trouble with the third.
"He never seemed to have no trouble with the third."
Do you mean that he always had trouble with the third?
Or the other way around?