37 thoughts on “Reference Recordings: Beethoven Symphony Cycles”
I think I have about 12 box sets of Beethoven's Nine symphonies. And this set is one of them… nonetheless I included Bohm's classic version of the 6th inside that box just to make sure there's a great pastoral symphony contained within..😊
In addition to the "German orchestra by a (Austro) German Orchestra" argument, is the fact that it came from the pro Western German Federal Republic or West Berlin at least and not Eastern Germany or Soviet Europe something that then played for the reference status and the Berlin Philharmonic preeminence on the Western market ? It took me also some time to come to terms with unmusical political background regarding Karajan. Some critics then gave Schmidt Isserstedt with the Vienna Philharmonic reference status, though indisputably good too, I suspect for his 'cleaner' profile during the war. With apologies for the poor writing.
I get the sense that the most recommended Beethoven cycles don't tend to have a lot of standout performances. The Karajan 63 is a case in point: it's good across the board (except for the Pastorale, but how many cycles have no weak links?), but none of the individual symphonies is a top choice. The 9th (to my ears) comes closest, but the 77 recording is better. Likewise with Wand (again, the 9th is a standout) and to a lesser extent Szell (that Eroica really is a knockout, and 5 and 7 are also really good). Though, maybe my view is just skewed by Bernstein's two Mahler cycles, where at least half the entries in each can be prime recommendations.
So, for someone starting a collection (on a limited budget) which should we recommend: the reference recording (Karajan) which captures the full range of the work in question or 'the best' (Wand)?
I've grown up with Karajan and I do accept this status of reference recording. However, the real thrill for me nowadays is to discover someone and something else. I guess that's why there's no real connection between composer and conductor regarding reference recordings either. Likewise I do accept that cycle recordings are indeed different to the recordings of individual works. That's why the issue with the Pastoral doesn't matter. Although I do wonder why we should not go for what we really enjoy instead
This is the clear choice. You described it perfectly. I think the 63 set is as important a release in the symphony genre as the Solti Ring is to opera… It’s unavoidable, especially compared to his later efforts. even though the 77 cycle never quite reached the same level of acceptance, I also prefer a few of the 77 versions. The consistency of the 63 set has become more recognized over time. A Reference Recording should never go away…. And this one is available in every format. (That being said, the Dolby Atmos Spatial Audio remastering of the 77 cycle, on Apple Classical, sounds great. The remixing is quite good.)
I expected the reference set would be the one by George Szell. I have had it in my hands at the store, as I have had Karajan's 1963 DG set and his earlier one with the Philharmonia, but I always ended up buying something else, knowing that those sets come and go and are mostly available if I ever get the urge to buy them. Whenever I go into the record department of El Corte Inglés or FNAC (I live in Spain), I never know what I'll be taking home with me. I love the Sony boxes with stuff from the CBS and RCA catalogues. There are quite a few of those on my shelves. As for Karajan, I never really had a good opinion of the man. Someone who markets cycle after cycle of Beethoven symphonies, among many other re-recordings ad nauseam of works by other composers. comes across as a merchant rather than a musician. In Spanish, I call him El Churrero. It's a personal bias, I know. I can live with it.
That's the box set DG issued on the ocassion of their 100th Anniversary back in 1998. You got a point in what you last said: HvK + DG's image & merchandising power + German artists for the super iconic German composer, added to the nice visual presentation, it was meant to become a good package to rely on. Any reserves against Karajan's style here and there aside, it still is HvK. A legend conductor by all means (And I am no committed fan of his Beethoven for the record).
Hi Dave – any thoughts on William Steinberg's cycle with the Pittsburgh Symphony, which DG have just re-released in a "complete Command Classics Recordings" box?
Well I guessed this one correctly! I too prefer the ‘77, and thanks to your recommendation bought the Wand, which I love. Dave, I’m loving these, please keep going.
I actually like the gold cd mastering of the digital cycle, but be that as it may, I certainly agree that taken overall; what it meant in the classical recording world of the time; the intention of Karajan/BP/DG to make THE “modern” after-Furtwanger-Romanticism/post-Toscannini slick Beethoven cycle for the post war 1960’s; even the packaging with that Montblanc fountain pen burgundy coloring, this was the deal. Simply put, even at my local art league, over by the small stereo among all the cd’s of questionable music and value, there is a cd box set of the 1963 Karajan Beethoven symphonies.
I think Karajan himself would have fully understood and welcomed the concept of a "Reference Recording" – he was interested in music performance and recording (including the technical aspects of recording) in a way that few conductors at the time were. And of course his ambition was that the recordings the public would turn to would be the best – ie. those performed by his orchestra and conducted by *him*. You can be amazed or appalled by the ambition or arrogance, but he was a conductor who understood the power of recorded music and really embraced it. He'd be delighted that the '63 Beethoven Cycle was thought of as THE reference here.
I wonder why didn't Szell's set become "the" reference recording; in the end, it is superior to Karajan's both technically and conceptually. But in the late 70's (or early 80's, I should check) there was another set which was very highly prised (in Europe at least) and for some time it overcame Karajan's supremacy: Leonard Bernstein's live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic. Precautions were taken during the recording to minimise audience noise.
I'm pretty sure Walter's stereo cycle was boxed and out by 1963. It came with a beautifully designed, very big book. ("Booklet" doesn't do it justice.) Often, shall we say, mellow performances but masterful and sonically first rate. I also think HvK's 1977 cycle is mostly better than 1963.
One of the great things about this set is that it is not dominated by the 'big ticket' works. The performances of 1, 2, 4 and 8 are thrilling and very, very good.
My mother had two cycles: Toscanini and '63 Karajan. I therefore imprinted on them. When I was a teenager, I thought Karajan's Eroica funeral march was the most amazing thing I had ever heard. The quality of the orchestra playing was a revelation to me, and the sound quality over my parents' AR3 speakers lead to me (unfortunately) care about stereo equipment. I agree that Szell's Eroica is better, but I shall always love Karajan's.
In my mind, Szell is on such a high level that, for a minute there, I thought that would be the reference. But it had to be Karajan, it is in fact Karajan… I remember well, it is. I'm just loosing my memory, is all 😅.
Just wanted to say that I really enjoy this series, although I am an experienced orchestral musician I do not really know these classic recordings in great depth and its fun to get to know them. After watching your video I cued up the 63 recording of the 1st two movements of the 5th and really enjoyed it. It seemed to me that all aspects of the recording were top quality for 1963, with the orchestra in great form, the sonics well taken care of, and Karajan very successful in creating a lush and rich sound and sensitive attention to details. If the purpose of these recordings was to reestablish the prominence of the Berlin Phil in the performance of Beethoven after the war in stereo, then I would imagine that the recordings did this very well. For that I am thankful, the Berlin Phil should excel in their performance of this music.
To me, this one is a perfect illustration of what you mean by a reference recording and that entails. I understand why it is the reference recording and I don't particularly like it. Again, for me, it not even in my top 5 (10?). Yet, I completely understand that it IS the reference recording.
My pick for reference recording for Beethoven #5 would be Carlos Kleiber and Beethoven #6 would be Bruno Walter. The others I am not so sure. May be Toscanini for #7, Gunter Wand for #9?
Well, I was way off. As a regular reader of Fanfare and ARG from the late 70's onward (and yes, growing up stateside), I would have put my chips on Walter, who you mentioned in passing at the end. It always seemed to me that the reviewers on the Beethoven beat (and there WERE reviewers who focused on composers and genres in those days) used Walter and Klemperer for stereo references for cycles, perhaps because of the smorgasbord of Karajan cycles led to the temptation of mixing and matching individual performances from those cycles (though there was always Klemperer's mono Third), I would still rather listen to Walter all the way through precisely because his 6th/pastorale is so much better than Karajan's… though I know that has nothing to do with whether something actually is a reference cycle. And thanks, Dave, for the conversations!
I really love this set but I agree with you, David, on his ‘77 recordings, especially on the recently remastered bluray audio discs.
Eg. I had his ‘77 Ninth on the ‘90s DG Galleria release and I couldn’t listen to it. It suffered so much from HvK’s knob-twiddling: flat and in your face, horribly spotlit instruments and simply no room to breathe, not to mention an almost inaudible chorus.
I strongly suspect the remastering engineers went back to the drawing board with the master tapes and did a completely new remix. In this release of the Ninth a natural perspective has been restored, the choir is much clearer and you hear woodwinds. I think they’ve really dialled down the spotlight mics and given the main stereo mics plenty of room to shine and breathe.
As a result, my preference towards these ‘77 recordings is now definite, whereas before I would waver back and forth. I still love the ‘63 for the leaner sound and beautiful venue acoustic.
I think Karajan's 77 cycle is the better cycle both sonically and in terms of tempii. But 63 is just a historical touchstone, like Solti's ring or Bernstein's Mahler.
I've never understood the knock on Karajan's Pastoral. I own more than a dozen cycles in all manner of styles, and no one else's Pastoral has struck me as inherently more convincing.
Karajan's '63 set was the one my parents bought when I was in junior high. It was a part of the Time/Life Records series of boxed LP sets, "The Story of Great Music" or something like that. That was my introduction to Beethoven. (The only unfortunate thing about it was that the pressings were not by DG, but by Columbia! Yuck.)
I have the Von Karajan cycle on original LP…it's in perfect shape and the box still contains the letter, in German, to the producer. It stares at me from the listening shelf and I need to give it a spin.
I think I have about 12 box sets of Beethoven's Nine symphonies. And this set is one of them… nonetheless I included Bohm's classic version of the 6th inside that box just to make sure there's a great pastoral symphony contained within..😊
In addition to the "German orchestra by a (Austro) German Orchestra" argument, is the fact that it came from the pro Western German Federal Republic or West Berlin at least and not Eastern Germany or Soviet Europe something that then played for the reference status and the Berlin Philharmonic preeminence on the Western market ? It took me also some time to come to terms with unmusical political background regarding Karajan. Some critics then gave Schmidt Isserstedt with the Vienna Philharmonic reference status, though indisputably good too, I suspect for his 'cleaner' profile during the war. With apologies for the poor writing.
I get the sense that the most recommended Beethoven cycles don't tend to have a lot of standout performances. The Karajan 63 is a case in point: it's good across the board (except for the Pastorale, but how many cycles have no weak links?), but none of the individual symphonies is a top choice. The 9th (to my ears) comes closest, but the 77 recording is better. Likewise with Wand (again, the 9th is a standout) and to a lesser extent Szell (that Eroica really is a knockout, and 5 and 7 are also really good). Though, maybe my view is just skewed by Bernstein's two Mahler cycles, where at least half the entries in each can be prime recommendations.
So, for someone starting a collection (on a limited budget) which should we recommend: the reference recording (Karajan) which captures the full range of the work in question or 'the best' (Wand)?
That's one of the cycles I have. I enjoy it 'muchly'.
I've grown up with Karajan and I do accept this status of reference recording. However, the real thrill for me nowadays is to discover someone and something else. I guess that's why there's no real connection between composer and conductor regarding reference recordings either. Likewise I do accept that cycle recordings are indeed different to the recordings of individual works. That's why the issue with the Pastoral doesn't matter. Although I do wonder why we should not go for what we really enjoy instead
This is the clear choice. You described it perfectly. I think the 63 set is as important a release in the symphony genre as the Solti Ring is to opera… It’s unavoidable, especially compared to his later efforts. even though the 77 cycle never quite reached the same level of acceptance, I also prefer a few of the 77 versions. The consistency of the 63 set has become more recognized over time. A Reference Recording should never go away…. And this one is available in every format. (That being said, the Dolby Atmos Spatial Audio remastering of the 77 cycle, on Apple Classical, sounds great. The remixing is quite good.)
I expected the reference set would be the one by George Szell. I have had it in my hands at the store, as I have had Karajan's 1963 DG set and his earlier one with the Philharmonia, but I always ended up buying something else, knowing that those sets come and go and are mostly available if I ever get the urge to buy them. Whenever I go into the record department of El Corte Inglés or FNAC (I live in Spain), I never know what I'll be taking home with me. I love the Sony boxes with stuff from the CBS and RCA catalogues. There are quite a few of those on my shelves. As for Karajan, I never really had a good opinion of the man. Someone who markets cycle after cycle of Beethoven symphonies, among many other re-recordings ad nauseam of works by other composers. comes across as a merchant rather than a musician. In Spanish, I call him El Churrero. It's a personal bias, I know. I can live with it.
That's the box set DG issued on the ocassion of their 100th Anniversary back in 1998. You got a point in what you last said: HvK + DG's image & merchandising power + German artists for the super iconic German composer, added to the nice visual presentation, it was meant to become a good package to rely on. Any reserves against Karajan's style here and there aside, it still is HvK. A legend conductor by all means (And I am no committed fan of his Beethoven for the record).
Hi Dave – any thoughts on William Steinberg's cycle with the Pittsburgh Symphony, which DG have just re-released in a "complete Command Classics Recordings" box?
The 1963 Beethoven set was the first CD set I ever bought, thinking it was the best…. But that was a long time ago…
For me there’s only one name: Wand! But I have to recognize that Szell’s symphony n.3 and 7 are reference recordings
Even for me as an Austrian – Karajan was also Austrian – it‘s an easy task: George Szell & Cleveland Orchestra!
I preferred '63 HvK until I revisited Szell. Szell's performances, for me, are snappier and the CBS recordings have more clarity.
Well I guessed this one correctly! I too prefer the ‘77, and thanks to your recommendation bought the Wand, which I love. Dave, I’m loving these, please keep going.
Absolutely spot on discussion of the 63 set. Many thanks!!!
Respect, but not a fan of HVK.
The 63 Beethoven is not my favorite, but I sure do like it alot and agree that it should be considered a reference 👍
I actually like the gold cd mastering of the digital cycle, but be that as it may, I certainly agree that taken overall; what it meant in the classical recording world of the time; the intention of Karajan/BP/DG to make THE “modern” after-Furtwanger-Romanticism/post-Toscannini slick Beethoven cycle for the post war 1960’s; even the packaging with that Montblanc fountain pen burgundy coloring, this was the deal. Simply put, even at my local art league, over by the small stereo among all the cd’s of questionable music and value, there is a cd box set of the 1963 Karajan Beethoven symphonies.
I think Karajan himself would have fully understood and welcomed the concept of a "Reference Recording" – he was interested in music performance and recording (including the technical aspects of recording) in a way that few conductors at the time were. And of course his ambition was that the recordings the public would turn to would be the best – ie. those performed by his orchestra and conducted by *him*. You can be amazed or appalled by the ambition or arrogance, but he was a conductor who understood the power of recorded music and really embraced it. He'd be delighted that the '63 Beethoven Cycle was thought of as THE reference here.
I wonder why didn't Szell's set become "the" reference recording; in the end, it is superior to Karajan's both technically and conceptually. But in the late 70's (or early 80's, I should check) there was another set which was very highly prised (in Europe at least) and for some time it overcame Karajan's supremacy: Leonard Bernstein's live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic. Precautions were taken during the recording to minimise audience noise.
I'm pretty sure Walter's stereo cycle was boxed and out by 1963. It came with a beautifully designed, very big book. ("Booklet" doesn't do it justice.) Often, shall we say, mellow performances but masterful and sonically first rate.
I also think HvK's 1977 cycle is mostly better than 1963.
One of the great things about this set is that it is not dominated by the 'big ticket' works. The performances of 1, 2, 4 and 8 are thrilling and very, very good.
Your Reference Recordings series is like BBC radio 3 Building a library in concise form.
My mother had two cycles: Toscanini and '63 Karajan. I therefore imprinted on them. When I was a teenager, I thought Karajan's Eroica funeral march was the most amazing thing I had ever heard. The quality of the orchestra playing was a revelation to me, and the sound quality over my parents' AR3 speakers lead to me (unfortunately) care about stereo equipment. I agree that Szell's Eroica is better, but I shall always love Karajan's.
In my mind, Szell is on such a high level that, for a minute there, I thought that would be the reference. But it had to be Karajan, it is in fact Karajan… I remember well, it is. I'm just loosing my memory, is all 😅.
Just wanted to say that I really enjoy this series, although I am an experienced orchestral musician I do not really know these classic recordings in great depth and its fun to get to know them. After watching your video I cued up the 63 recording of the 1st two movements of the 5th and really enjoyed it. It seemed to me that all aspects of the recording were top quality for 1963, with the orchestra in great form, the sonics well taken care of, and Karajan very successful in creating a lush and rich sound and sensitive attention to details. If the purpose of these recordings was to reestablish the prominence of the Berlin Phil in the performance of Beethoven after the war in stereo, then I would imagine that the recordings did this very well. For that I am thankful, the Berlin Phil should excel in their performance of this music.
To me, this one is a perfect illustration of what you mean by a reference recording and that entails. I understand why it is the reference recording and I don't particularly like it. Again, for me, it not even in my top 5 (10?). Yet, I completely understand that it IS the reference recording.
My pick for reference recording for Beethoven #5 would be Carlos Kleiber and Beethoven #6 would be Bruno Walter. The others I am not so sure. May be Toscanini for #7, Gunter Wand for #9?
hi dave! a bit off topic from the video but i was wondering if you’d ever talk abt poulenc’s figure humaine?
Of course it’s Karajan! When I started off listening decades ago this was it! (Didn’t like it)
Well, I was way off. As a regular reader of Fanfare and ARG from the late 70's onward (and yes, growing up stateside), I would have put my chips on Walter, who you mentioned in passing at the end. It always seemed to me that the reviewers on the Beethoven beat (and there WERE reviewers who focused on composers and genres in those days) used Walter and Klemperer for stereo references for cycles, perhaps because of the smorgasbord of Karajan cycles led to the temptation of mixing and matching individual performances from those cycles (though there was always Klemperer's mono Third), I would still rather listen to Walter all the way through precisely because his 6th/pastorale is so much better than Karajan's… though I know that has nothing to do with whether something actually is a reference cycle. And thanks, Dave, for the conversations!
I really love this set but I agree with you, David, on his ‘77 recordings, especially on the recently remastered bluray audio discs.
Eg. I had his ‘77 Ninth on the ‘90s DG Galleria release and I couldn’t listen to it. It suffered so much from HvK’s knob-twiddling: flat and in your face, horribly spotlit instruments and simply no room to breathe, not to mention an almost inaudible chorus.
I strongly suspect the remastering engineers went back to the drawing board with the master tapes and did a completely new remix. In this release of the Ninth a natural perspective has been restored, the choir is much clearer and you hear woodwinds. I think they’ve really dialled down the spotlight mics and given the main stereo mics plenty of room to shine and breathe.
As a result, my preference towards these ‘77 recordings is now definite, whereas before I would waver back and forth. I still love the ‘63 for the leaner sound and beautiful venue acoustic.
Oh gosh. I haven’t heard this cycle since my college days. Late 1990s. WOW. Fabulous stuff.
I think Karajan's 77 cycle is the better cycle both sonically and in terms of tempii. But 63 is just a historical touchstone, like Solti's ring or Bernstein's Mahler.
I've never understood the knock on Karajan's Pastoral. I own more than a dozen cycles in all manner of styles, and no one else's Pastoral has struck me as inherently more convincing.
The 63 is his best but still HvK. Just too smooth out for me
Karajan's '63 set was the one my parents bought when I was in junior high. It was a part of the Time/Life Records series of boxed LP sets, "The Story of Great Music" or something like that. That was my introduction to Beethoven. (The only unfortunate thing about it was that the pressings were not by DG, but by Columbia! Yuck.)
I have the Von Karajan cycle on original LP…it's in perfect shape and the box still contains the letter, in German, to the producer. It stares at me from the listening shelf and I need to give it a spin.