1. Karl Bohm/Berliner Philharmoniker (10 x CD; 1995; Deutsche Grammophon) 2. Neville Marriner/Academy of St. Martin in the Fields (12 x CD; 1991; Decca) 3. Marriner/Krips/AoSMitF/RCO (12 x CD; 1996; Philips Classics) 4. Christopher Hogwood/Academy of Ancient Music (19 x CD; 1996; L'Oiseau-Lyre) 5. Jaap ter Linden/Mozart Akademie Amsterdam (11 x CD; 1991; Brilliant Classics) 6. Jeffrey Tate/English Chamber Orchestra (12 x CD; 2013; Warner Classics) 7. Trevor Pinnock/The English Concert (11 x CD; 2002; Archiv Produktion) 8. James Levine/Wiener Philharmoniker (11 x CD; 2015, Deutsche Grammophon) 9. Adam Fischer/Danish National Chamber Orchestra (12 x CD; 2013; Dacapo) 10. Charles Mackerras/Prague Chamber Orchestra (10 x CD; 2008; Telarc)
I have truly enjoyed Adam Fischer's complete set of symphonies by Mozart. They are indeed wonderful recordings that have given me many hours of immense pleasure and inspiration. Thanks for the excellent recommendation!
Thank you Mr. Hurwitz for this great Mozart talk. I can’t add something to your talk. My tought as an autodidakt music lover is: Mozart is a kind of a miracle. If the falling star had not hit the earth, nothing would have changed much. But he hit us, thanks to some overflown love. And thank every god for that. His music is as natural, as milk from a cow. If someone try to make more of it, it gets sour. When a new soloist or conductor come along, I wait to hear them play Mozart. If they havent lost there trousers then, I will follow them with great interest, like Jeffrey Tate After your talk of Mozarts last symphonies, I listened to the old Walter records. They hit me to the ground. I enjoy all your videos, because your love for music and its great players, are just right. Great is great, bad is bad. Greetings from Nielsens town.
For great Mozart symphonies, I'd start with No. 25, the "Little G minor," which may be the apotheosis of the "Sturm und Drang" symphonic style. No. 26 is a bit of a throwaway; No. 27 is one of his great three-movement symphonies; Nos. 28 and 29 are recognized greats (by George Szell and Benjamin Britten, among others); and No. 30 is remarkably playful/quirky, about as close to Haydn as symphonic Mozart gets. Second yours and others' estimation of Josef Krips & the Concertgebouw in the late symphonies - best big-band Mozart ever.
Krips was probably the greatest Mozartean ever.(but I don't know Britten's Mozart) It's really a pity he couldn't complete the whole cycle, it would have been a great joy to hear the earlier ones his way. But Marriner has the same way of playing, although he has not the "magic" Krips had. And yes, KV 199, 200, 201 are masterpieces.26 too, but it's naughty.. other composers from that time were very good, but not as good as Mozart, even in his early symphonies, never.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 as for "the best of the rest' I would add: J.C Bach Symphony in g minor, Vanhal Symphony in g minor and Bochherini's symphony "La casa del diavolo". They are imho the very best Sturm und Drang symphonies, masterpieces, coming very close to Mozart and Haydn.
@@pietstamitz1 May I also suggest listening to Franz Ignaz Beck's Symphony in G Minor, Op. 1, No. 1 (New Zealand Chamber Orchestra, Armstrong / NAXOS)? It's very memorable!
Hahaha, the story of Mozart's pre-natal creative exploits is an invaluable and unexpectedly fresh contribution to Mozart musicological scholarship. "In-vitro batch of symphonies", that really rules! 😀 It explains clearly and doubtlessly how he managed to write so many symphonic works in his short 35-year life that would take around 50-60 years of anyone just to rewrite as orchestral scores on music sheets.😄😄😄 Apart from these considerations, I like most Karl Bohm's and Neville Marriner's cycles. Jeffrey Tate's one is also excellent.
Pinnock's set is my go-to period set, for the quality of the recordings and performances. I don't know if there's one set to rule them all as far as modern performances. I typically reach for Neville Marriner, because he's kind of the reason I love mozart so much. I quite love Bohm's Mozart releases.
Kudos Dave, another wonderfully informative presentation. My go to complete cycles are the Tate for modern orchestra and Pinnock for period instruments, augmented by sets Harnoncourt for "early symphonies" and Levine for the "later ones". As I see the common notion for "later" period of symphonies starts from No. 21, in fact I'd put Nos 21, 25 (the wonderful "little g-minor"), 28 & 29 above anything up to the "Haffner".
I'm late to the party on this but appreciate your thoughts on the Mozart symphonies. I really like the Tate box you mentioned too and symphonies like No. 27 never registered until I heard his version of it. Now it's one of my favorites-the last movement in particular is amazing but Tate also brings out the wonderful slinky character of the 2nd movement too. In fact, I feel that Mozart really came into his own not with symphony No. 31 but earlier with No. 25 (at the ripe age of 16!).
Bravo Dave - and greetings from the Penal Colonies. I am a Bohm man in this domain. In terms of Mozart, we will never get a Berlin Phil again of that Klang being recorded in the Jesus Christus Church with a Master at the helm. Alas for the funereal finales of the first G Minor Symphony (no. 25 - K 183) or the Paris! With the passing of time, it is almost impossible to listen to the Hogwood cycle and its woeful intonation - even if Volume 1 is surprisingly a winner. Best wishes, B
The only complete set I have is by Eric Leinsdorf. While on CD, some are in mono, due to their age. They are very satisfying, and, as you point out, Dave, the early symphonies are little more than curiosities, so I supplement this with individual recordings of the later symphonies.
Thanks Dave, the Tate cycle has been my go to set since it was released. IMHO the most heartfelt and intense when required. For ex. the Prague symphony showcases these attributes very well.
I was a sadly late convert to Mozart when I worked round the corner from the Barbican and pitched up to a Tate concert. So I'm always happy to hear him praised.
Most interesting and informative survey Thank you! I'm pretty much in agreement all through with the exception of Böhm, maybe. And I would include 29 and 30 in the great ones.
The beauty of boxed sets is how economically priced they can be. Amazon for instance has the 10-CD Mackerras set for $32 and change free shipping! I have a few of the individual CDs but will indeed spring for the box.
Hi David! Please enlighten us! Although Symphony no.28 doesn't have timpani part, I clearly hear timpani in bars 1-2, 7-8 etc. in the beginning of Allegro Spiritoso with Mackerras/Prague Ch.Orch. Did Charles Mackerras make this addition by himself?
No. 31 impressed the hell out of C.W. Gluck when he heard it. Mozart's widow Constanze told the Novellos that her late husband could not stand his juvenilia.
Regarding Mackerras -- you're right, as usual! If you don't insist on comparing the youthful Mozart compositions to the more sophisticated ones he created as an old man in his thirties, you'll find in them a freshness and energy which is special. And what conductor was ever more gifted at bringing out the freshness and energy of a composition than Mackerrras?
“Your Grandmothers Jinglers!” 😄 Really enjoying your videos. They are informative, good humoured, and I really trust in your taste, because you articulate it well, so I can tell your passion is genuine. Thank you 🙏🏻
Does it really matter where you draw the line as to which are supposed to be important? It's best to just listen and decide for yourself what you like. A 'bigger' piece with more ostensible ambition isn't always better all the way through for me, even if having an amazing movement and moments. If someone aims at smaller scale and achieves exactly what it sets out to do that's fine. He became more consistent as he went on perhaps doing fewer patchier symphonies, but some of the earlier ones pre-31 are very good and consistent. And you could argue a certain simplicity and directness is part of his style anyway. I think he was always aiming to give pleasure (as you put it at the end).
Of course it matters, because not everyone wants all of the symphonies, and some (perhaps most) listeners are not hard core collectors and, pressed for time, want only the more mature works for their admittedly richer content. So "drawing the line" at the "Paris" Symphony is a convenient and reasonable place to give those listeners a place to start. I am not in this just to satisfy one kind of listener.
Thank you for recommending the Marriner set. I have never been much of a Mozart listener, but I was able to sample the Marriner set on RUclips, including the late symphonies with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Marriner and the Prague Chamber Orchestra make this music sound so fresh and peppy, compared to Böhm who’s performances I find quite dull and boring. Now I think I will be listening to a lot more Mozart.
I am so glad to have found this channel. I may not always agree with your choices but I always find your presentations agreeable. I was curious as to what your opinion of the Fischer set would be,. It has never resonated with me. I can't place my finger on it. It feels so lacking in a little of "this" or "that" and I think the culmination of all these little things leave me a bit underwhelmed. But I am not a huge Mozart guy and have a tendency to really scrutinized performers and conductors when it comes to his music. I do like the Mackerras set---despite the variances in sound quality. I also really like the Hogwood and Pinnock sets for their energy. Bohm may be old school and his pacing a bit conservative but he teaches one hell of a class. One very overlooked cycle is the old Gunter Kehr cycle from Vox with the Mainzer Kammerorchester. Sadly, while very inexpensive, It is only available as an mp3 purchase. The analogue sound is solid but the performances crackle with energy and are very entertaining.
IIRC, Hogwood once quipped that what the early music movement needed was its version of Otto Klemperer. A brilliant observation, IMO. I found Pinnock’s cycle to be faceless, culling it from the collection after a single listen, and I’m generally a fan of Pinnock. Böhm remains my choice here, with that Marriner/Krips box on Philips a nice alternative.
Yes, it was. I'm so bad with dates! I think I remember it as 1992 because that is when the deluge of recordings reached its peak. And he died on the cusp of the new year.
@@ThreadBomb No, actually thinking back on it, I was right. The "Mozart anniversary year" kicked off in December 1991 and ran through 1992--that was the year in question. It couldn't begin, obviously, until the actual date of his death and it ran for the year ending December 1992, so it was mostly 1992.
Not that it is of great importance, but I have quite a few EMI discs from that year with "Mozart 91" (the digits are inside the "o") on the cover. According to the back cover those were remastered and copyrighted already in 1990. So they were piling stocks in the year before already, pushed the selling throughout '91 (regardless that 5th December ) and tried to fork out the remaining stocks in the next year(s)...those greedy corporate guys... :-)
Mr. Hurwitz, Why do some of his symphonies have three movements and sometimes four? I'm listening to the box set of James Levine and the Vienna . Thanks for your help.
Mozart was greatly influenced by JC Bach and Italian opera, where he wanted lasting fame and success in composing. The symphonic overtures etal were generally in 3 movements.
The Leinsdorf set was on CD (a DG Original Masters box) for a while. I bought it as a lossless (FLAC) download from Presto Classical a couple of years back; they may still offer it. I generally like the performances but there are two caveats: 1) about half of the cycle is in mono, and 2) it only includes the symphonies numbered 1 through 41 (including 37, but none of the early ones that were later assigned numbers beyond 41 or which remain numberless). I own the Leinsdorf, the Marriner (complete Marriner on Philips, not the hybrid set with Krips doing the later symphonies), the Hogwood, and the Pinnock. I reach for Marriner and Pinnock most often when I want to hear some of the early symphonies; for most of the later ones (say from 25 onward), I have so many recordings that I doubt I could pick a single favorite for most of them.
Indeed, there was a Krips box about 13 years ago, which is now out of print. If anyone is looking for it, I found a new copy on Ebay: www.ebay.com/itm/264555554554
I actually think that 25 doesn't get enough credit as the first really interesting one. It seems I can't forget the quip (attributed to Glenn Gould, although who knows if he actually said it) that: "How good a composer could he have been if he had to write 28 symphonies before he could write a good one."
Heartily agreed on the Fischer cycle. The sound quality is terrific and the modern instruments render the symphonies that rarest of things: "non-squeaky" HIP. Bravo on an informative video.
I find Fischer fiddles about a little too much in the early symphonies. Also a bit too clean and clinical sounding. Marriner's early Mozart symphonies sound just right. Straight forward approach with a band that performed together for years. Philips knew what they were doing with that box set with the krips recordings. Super
Adám Fischer tends to fiddle about a bit in his recent Beethoven symphony cycle. Personally I like it, and his Mozart for that matter, but I can see why it might not be to everybody's taste.
@@DavesClassicalGuide His genius is litterally pouring out, streaming, flowing out of these works. A musical tide that overwhelms us two centuries later
I suspect the preference for Bohm is at least partly a matter of imprinting. I had the Marriner set first, and it feels right, having the lightness and charm I think are at the base of Mozart's appeal. Bohm by comparison seems dry and grim. Marriner rerecorded the later symphonies for EMI with mixed results. His disc of 36 and 40 is the one to go for - much more grand and intense than you'd expect. The Hogwood set is a shame. The orchestra was not really ready for such an attempt (they were better by the time they got to Haydn), and the sound they got is over-bright and unattractive. Also, I think the string section is too top-heavy. I suppose Pinnock has more personality - but I don't like his personality. I look forward to seeing that ultrasound of the genius in fetal form.
But in the late symphonies review you were really sniffy about Mackerras and the harpsichord continuos far preferring the Scottish recordings to Prague. I get there isn't a Prague complete set but wasn't that worth a wee warning.
Enjoyable review as always . I think you should join the 21st century and check out the streaming and download services when mentioning availability. The Krips/Marriner cycle is available as a CD quality download and can also be found on at least one of the two specialist classical streaming services.
Typically entertaining and instructive presentation- I hope you will follow up with the symphonies of Haydn- at the very least the Paris and London symphonies.
Don P I’m aware of that, but Dave rattled off a number of HIP groups in a joking manner. None of those groups have anywhere near such a pretentious title as the ORR.
I'm surprised there's never been a box set of the symphonies of Leopold Mozart. For me, his best work is the trumpet serenade with a very poignant slow movement and brisk Mozartian pomp elsewhere. The symphonies are like a cross between C P E Bach and Haydn.
A very fine survey, including the timeline of Mozart’s prenatal works. I like Levine here because the Vienna Phil has a great feeling for Mozartean structure and melodies. I dare say it swings at certain points. On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, I can’t think of James Levine anymore without thinking...ewwwwwww. I finally got around to the Mackerras you recommended Beethoven cycle and loved it, so I’ll dive into this Czech Chamber cycle eventually.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
1. Karl Bohm/Berliner Philharmoniker (10 x CD; 1995; Deutsche Grammophon)
2. Neville Marriner/Academy of St. Martin in the Fields (12 x CD; 1991; Decca)
3. Marriner/Krips/AoSMitF/RCO (12 x CD; 1996; Philips Classics)
4. Christopher Hogwood/Academy of Ancient Music (19 x CD; 1996; L'Oiseau-Lyre)
5. Jaap ter Linden/Mozart Akademie Amsterdam (11 x CD; 1991; Brilliant Classics)
6. Jeffrey Tate/English Chamber Orchestra (12 x CD; 2013; Warner Classics)
7. Trevor Pinnock/The English Concert (11 x CD; 2002; Archiv Produktion)
8. James Levine/Wiener Philharmoniker (11 x CD; 2015, Deutsche Grammophon)
9. Adam Fischer/Danish National Chamber Orchestra (12 x CD; 2013; Dacapo)
10. Charles Mackerras/Prague Chamber Orchestra (10 x CD; 2008; Telarc)
Thank you David for recommending Jeffrey Tate's complete Mozart symphony cycle. Absolutely beautiful and stunning. 🙂
Tate's Piano Concertos with Uchida are some of the best - Highly recommended.
@@Warstub Thanks but I'm not really a fan of Mitsuko Uchida. 🙂
I have truly enjoyed Adam Fischer's complete set of symphonies by Mozart. They are indeed wonderful recordings that have given me many hours of immense pleasure and inspiration. Thanks for the excellent recommendation!
Yes, me too! Though I tend to access the recordings more for the unknown/less heard symphonies (pre-25/early 30s)
Thank you Mr. Hurwitz for this great Mozart talk. I can’t add something to your talk. My tought as an autodidakt music lover is:
Mozart is a kind of a miracle. If the falling star had not hit the earth, nothing would have changed much. But he hit us, thanks to some overflown love. And thank every god for that.
His music is as natural, as milk from a cow. If someone try to make more of it, it gets sour.
When a new soloist or conductor come along, I wait to hear them play Mozart. If they havent lost there trousers then, I will follow them with great interest, like Jeffrey Tate
After your talk of Mozarts last symphonies, I listened to the old Walter records. They hit me to the ground.
I enjoy all your videos, because your love for music and its great players, are just right.
Great is great, bad is bad. Greetings from Nielsens town.
Thanks very much!
As always, wonderful recommendations. I was one of those asking for the Krips - and we finally got it! Thanks a lot
I love the Prague Chamber Orchestra cycle with Mackerras, it's well worth having
Love your energy and acuity!
(I own the Mackerrras - yes, a terrific box!)
Great review I just ordered Mackerrras's set.
For great Mozart symphonies, I'd start with No. 25, the "Little G minor," which may be the apotheosis of the "Sturm und Drang" symphonic style. No. 26 is a bit of a throwaway; No. 27 is one of his great three-movement symphonies; Nos. 28 and 29 are recognized greats (by George Szell and Benjamin Britten, among others); and No. 30 is remarkably playful/quirky, about as close to Haydn as symphonic Mozart gets. Second yours and others' estimation of Josef Krips & the Concertgebouw in the late symphonies - best big-band Mozart ever.
Krips was probably the greatest Mozartean ever.(but I don't know Britten's Mozart) It's really a pity he couldn't complete the whole cycle, it would have been a great joy to hear the earlier ones his way. But Marriner has the same way of playing, although he has not the "magic" Krips had. And yes, KV 199, 200, 201 are masterpieces.26 too, but it's naughty.. other composers from that time were very good, but not as good as Mozart, even in his early symphonies, never.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 as for "the best of the rest' I would add: J.C Bach Symphony in g minor, Vanhal Symphony in g minor and Bochherini's symphony "La casa del diavolo". They are imho the very best Sturm und Drang symphonies, masterpieces, coming very close to Mozart and Haydn.
@@pietstamitz1 May I also suggest listening to Franz Ignaz Beck's Symphony in G Minor, Op. 1, No. 1 (New Zealand Chamber Orchestra, Armstrong / NAXOS)? It's very memorable!
For great Mozart symphonies, I'd start with number 1.
Thanks for recommending Adam Fischer. Just streamed that performace and it's amazingly good.
Hahaha, the story of Mozart's pre-natal creative exploits is an invaluable and unexpectedly fresh contribution to Mozart musicological scholarship. "In-vitro batch of symphonies", that really rules! 😀 It explains clearly and doubtlessly how he managed to write so many symphonic works in his short 35-year life that would take around 50-60 years of anyone just to rewrite as orchestral scores on music sheets.😄😄😄 Apart from these considerations, I like most Karl Bohm's and Neville Marriner's cycles. Jeffrey Tate's one is also excellent.
Pinnock's set is my go-to period set, for the quality of the recordings and performances. I don't know if there's one set to rule them all as far as modern performances. I typically reach for Neville Marriner, because he's kind of the reason I love mozart so much. I quite love Bohm's Mozart releases.
Kudos Dave, another wonderfully informative presentation. My go to complete cycles are the Tate for modern orchestra and Pinnock for period instruments, augmented by sets Harnoncourt for "early symphonies" and Levine for the "later ones". As I see the common notion for "later" period of symphonies starts from No. 21, in fact I'd put Nos 21, 25 (the wonderful "little g-minor"), 28 & 29 above anything up to the "Haffner".
I have both the Pinnock and the Tate set. Both good in their own way. I want to get the Mackerras set too . Thanks Dave...
I'm late to the party on this but appreciate your thoughts on the Mozart symphonies. I really like the Tate box you mentioned too and symphonies like No. 27 never registered until I heard his version of it. Now it's one of my favorites-the last movement in particular is amazing but Tate also brings out the wonderful slinky character of the 2nd movement too. In fact, I feel that Mozart really came into his own not with symphony No. 31 but earlier with No. 25 (at the ripe age of 16!).
Hello Mr Hurwitz. Is there a possibility that you could go through one of the big boxes you often talk about. Ex. Complete Szell, Bernstein, Walter?
Oy!
there was a Decca set with Krips Mozart 21-41
Bravo Dave - and greetings from the Penal Colonies. I am a Bohm man in this domain. In terms of Mozart, we will never get a Berlin Phil again of that Klang being recorded in the Jesus Christus Church with a Master at the helm. Alas for the funereal finales of the first G Minor Symphony (no. 25 - K 183) or the Paris! With the passing of time, it is almost impossible to listen to the Hogwood cycle and its woeful intonation - even if Volume 1 is surprisingly a winner. Best wishes, B
The only complete set I have is by Eric Leinsdorf. While on CD, some are in mono, due to their age. They are very satisfying, and, as you point out, Dave, the early symphonies are little more than curiosities, so I supplement this with individual recordings of the later symphonies.
Thanks Dave, the Tate cycle has been my go to set since it was released. IMHO the most heartfelt and intense when required. For ex. the Prague symphony showcases these attributes very well.
I was a sadly late convert to Mozart when I worked round the corner from the Barbican and pitched up to a Tate concert. So I'm always happy to hear him praised.
Most interesting and informative survey Thank you! I'm pretty much in agreement all through with the exception of Böhm, maybe. And I would include 29 and 30 in the great ones.
The beauty of boxed sets is how economically priced they can be. Amazon for instance has the 10-CD Mackerras set for $32 and change free shipping! I have a few of the individual CDs but will indeed spring for the box.
Do you have an opinion on Mackerras Prague vs. Mackerras Scottish Chamber Orch.
I prefer the latter.
Hi David!
Please enlighten us!
Although Symphony no.28 doesn't have timpani part, I clearly hear timpani in bars 1-2, 7-8 etc. in the beginning of Allegro Spiritoso with Mackerras/Prague Ch.Orch.
Did Charles Mackerras make this addition by himself?
I really don't know. Many pieces had timpani parts added in various sources, of varying degrees of authenticity.
No. 31 impressed the hell out of C.W. Gluck when he heard it.
Mozart's widow Constanze told the Novellos that her late husband could not stand his juvenilia.
I've also enjoyed the Mozart cycle with Ton Koopman.Very brisk though improvisational feel with the timpani in parts.
Regarding Mackerras -- you're right, as usual! If you don't insist on comparing the youthful Mozart compositions to the more sophisticated ones he created as an old man in his thirties, you'll find in them a freshness and energy which is special. And what conductor was ever more gifted at bringing out the freshness and energy of a composition than Mackerrras?
“Your Grandmothers Jinglers!” 😄 Really enjoying your videos. They are informative, good humoured, and I really trust in your taste, because you articulate it well, so I can tell your passion is genuine.
Thank you 🙏🏻
Does it really matter where you draw the line as to which are supposed to be important? It's best to just listen and decide for yourself what you like. A 'bigger' piece with more ostensible ambition isn't always better all the way through for me, even if having an amazing movement and moments. If someone aims at smaller scale and achieves exactly what it sets out to do that's fine. He became more consistent as he went on perhaps doing fewer patchier symphonies, but some of the earlier ones pre-31 are very good and consistent. And you could argue a certain simplicity and directness is part of his style anyway. I think he was always aiming to give pleasure (as you put it at the end).
Of course it matters, because not everyone wants all of the symphonies, and some (perhaps most) listeners are not hard core collectors and, pressed for time, want only the more mature works for their admittedly richer content. So "drawing the line" at the "Paris" Symphony is a convenient and reasonable place to give those listeners a place to start. I am not in this just to satisfy one kind of listener.
Thank you for recommending the Marriner set. I have never been much of a Mozart listener, but I was able to sample the Marriner set on RUclips, including the late symphonies with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Marriner and the Prague Chamber Orchestra make this music sound so fresh and peppy, compared to Böhm who’s performances I find quite dull and boring. Now I think I will be listening to a lot more Mozart.
David, does Levine's set have the harpsichord continuo?
EDIT - I see it has harpsichord for symphonies 1-20.
"The Fried Chicken's" LMAO
Boehm, Mackerras and Hogwood are really top of the bill.
I am so glad to have found this channel. I may not always agree with your choices but I always find your presentations agreeable.
I was curious as to what your opinion of the Fischer set would be,. It has never resonated with me. I can't place my finger on it. It feels so lacking in a little of "this" or "that" and I think the culmination of all these little things leave me a bit underwhelmed. But I am not a huge Mozart guy and have a tendency to really scrutinized performers and conductors when it comes to his music.
I do like the Mackerras set---despite the variances in sound quality. I also really like the Hogwood and Pinnock sets for their energy. Bohm may be old school and his pacing a bit conservative but he teaches one hell of a class.
One very overlooked cycle is the old Gunter Kehr cycle from Vox with the Mainzer Kammerorchester.
Sadly, while very inexpensive, It is only available as an mp3 purchase.
The analogue sound is solid but the performances crackle with energy and are very entertaining.
Thanks for viewing, and for sharing your perspective on these sets.
IIRC, Hogwood once quipped that what the early music movement needed was its version of Otto Klemperer. A brilliant observation, IMO.
I found Pinnock’s cycle to be faceless, culling it from the collection after a single listen, and I’m generally a fan of Pinnock.
Böhm remains my choice here, with that Marriner/Krips box on Philips a nice alternative.
the Bohm and Krips are the very best! (and yet I like Hogwoods very earlies)
Wasn't that "Mozart Year" 1991?
Yep…he died on December 5, 1791.
Yes, it was. I'm so bad with dates! I think I remember it as 1992 because that is when the deluge of recordings reached its peak. And he died on the cusp of the new year.
@@DavesClassicalGuide 1992 was probably when the shelves were glutted with unsold Mozart from 1991.
@@ThreadBomb No, actually thinking back on it, I was right. The "Mozart anniversary year" kicked off in December 1991 and ran through 1992--that was the year in question. It couldn't begin, obviously, until the actual date of his death and it ran for the year ending December 1992, so it was mostly 1992.
Not that it is of great importance, but I have quite a few EMI discs from that year with "Mozart 91" (the digits are inside the "o") on the cover. According to the back cover those were remastered and copyrighted already in 1990. So they were piling stocks in the year before already, pushed the selling throughout '91 (regardless that 5th December ) and tried to fork out the remaining stocks in the next year(s)...those greedy corporate guys... :-)
Mr. Hurwitz, Why do some of his symphonies have three movements and sometimes four? I'm listening to the box set of James Levine and the Vienna . Thanks for your help.
Mozart was greatly influenced by JC Bach and Italian opera, where he wanted lasting fame and success in composing. The symphonic overtures etal were generally in 3 movements.
Thank you for remembering James Levine. Whatever he did (or didn’t do) in his private life, he is a great, great conductor !
I didn't find the lyrical aspects of his performance to be convincing. The lyricism was like a cake that had fallen in the middle.
adam frye I’d disagree, but, obviously, it’s a matter of taste
Didn’t Leinsdorf record a complete set of symphonies as well ?
Yes. But that's not the point, since it's not easy to source and hasn't been for decades.
@@DavesClassicalGuide But do you like it?
@@UlfilasNZ Yes, actually.
The Leinsdorf set was on CD (a DG Original Masters box) for a while. I bought it as a lossless (FLAC) download from Presto Classical a couple of years back; they may still offer it. I generally like the performances but there are two caveats: 1) about half of the cycle is in mono, and 2) it only includes the symphonies numbered 1 through 41 (including 37, but none of the early ones that were later assigned numbers beyond 41 or which remain numberless).
I own the Leinsdorf, the Marriner (complete Marriner on Philips, not the hybrid set with Krips doing the later symphonies), the Hogwood, and the Pinnock. I reach for Marriner and Pinnock most often when I want to hear some of the early symphonies; for most of the later ones (say from 25 onward), I have so many recordings that I doubt I could pick a single favorite for most of them.
I choked on cereal at "Your Grandmother's Jinglers"
Did I say that?
Excuse me, Decca released a box set of Joseph Krips Mozart late symphonies.
That's nice.
Indeed, there was a Krips box about 13 years ago, which is now out of print. If anyone is looking for it, I found a new copy on Ebay: www.ebay.com/itm/264555554554
@@kend.6797 Yes. That Decca box included 6 disks with symphonies 21-41.
@@michaelhartman8724 I know. I have the box.
Short-lived, but very much appreciated, indeed.
ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-haydn-should-be-mandatory.html
Why minus #37?
It's not by Mozart. It's by Michael Haydn (with an introduction by Mozart).
I'm looking forward to Nazgûl Snezick-Yeggin's cycle.
Me too.
I think the "Great" Mozart symphonies are 25, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 , 35 through 41.
I actually think that 25 doesn't get enough credit as the first really interesting one. It seems I can't forget the quip (attributed to Glenn Gould, although who knows if he actually said it) that: "How good a composer could he have been if he had to write 28 symphonies before he could write a good one."
I can believe Gould said something like that or similar, it's certainly vacuous enough.
Heartily agreed on the Fischer cycle. The sound quality is terrific and the modern instruments render the symphonies that rarest of things: "non-squeaky" HIP.
Bravo on an informative video.
It sounded a bit squeaky to me.
@@ThreadBomb You want squeaky, try Hogwood :-)
I find Fischer fiddles about a little too much in the early symphonies. Also a bit too clean and clinical sounding. Marriner's early Mozart symphonies sound just right. Straight forward approach with a band that performed together for years. Philips knew what they were doing with that box set with the krips recordings. Super
Adám Fischer tends to fiddle about a bit in his recent Beethoven symphony cycle. Personally I like it, and his Mozart for that matter, but I can see why it might not be to everybody's taste.
No Walter, or Klemperer ? I've always liked the late Walter in the last 3.
You are not paying attention. This talk was about complete sets only. I did another video on the late symphonies (or partial sets including them),
I must have missed that video,,ill have to look it up
I agree with Clarke Bustard. The symphonies 25, 27 & 29 already oozes genius even if they were written in Salzburg.
Yes. Positively dripping. Making a mess on the floor.
@@DavesClassicalGuide His genius is litterally pouring out, streaming, flowing out of these works. A musical tide that overwhelms us two centuries later
@@Raphael-fg9lc Oy!
Andrew Parrot: The Taverner Consort.
Er, yes. I know. I was just making a point.
Oh, ok. I never cared for him.
I like Fried Chickens better
If I needed a triple bypass, I think I’d forego the original instruments.
I suspect the preference for Bohm is at least partly a matter of imprinting. I had the Marriner set first, and it feels right, having the lightness and charm I think are at the base of Mozart's appeal. Bohm by comparison seems dry and grim. Marriner rerecorded the later symphonies for EMI with mixed results. His disc of 36 and 40 is the one to go for - much more grand and intense than you'd expect.
The Hogwood set is a shame. The orchestra was not really ready for such an attempt (they were better by the time they got to Haydn), and the sound they got is over-bright and unattractive. Also, I think the string section is too top-heavy. I suppose Pinnock has more personality - but I don't like his personality.
I look forward to seeing that ultrasound of the genius in fetal form.
But in the late symphonies review you were really sniffy about Mackerras and the harpsichord continuos far preferring the Scottish recordings to Prague. I get there isn't a Prague complete set but wasn't that worth a wee warning.
I have already discussed this in the comments section several times. Kindly have a look.
Enjoyable review as always . I think you should join the 21st century and check out the streaming and download services when mentioning availability. The Krips/Marriner cycle is available as a CD quality download and can also be found on at least one of the two specialist classical streaming services.
That's what you're here for. I'll join the 21st century by the 22nd, maybe.
So many complete Mozart symphonies - so few Haydn's ones - and his symphonies form a group far far far superior. A shame.
a "few" complete Haydn symphony recordings is more than enough.
Typically entertaining and instructive presentation- I hope you will follow up with the symphonies of Haydn- at the very least the Paris and London symphonies.
Kind of did the Paris Syms in talking about Harnoncourt's set...
You forgot The Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique. Or....maybe you didn't. ;-)
Don P I’m aware of that, but Dave rattled off a number of HIP groups in a joking manner. None of those groups have anywhere near such a pretentious title as the ORR.
@Don P Yes, I actually have read some of the rosters, and they do indeed overlap...as well as overlapping with all other HIP groups in London.
I'm surprised there's never been a box set of the symphonies of Leopold Mozart. For me, his best work is the trumpet serenade with a very poignant slow movement and brisk Mozartian pomp elsewhere. The symphonies are like a cross between C P E Bach and Haydn.
A very fine survey, including the timeline of Mozart’s prenatal works. I like Levine here because the Vienna Phil has a great feeling for Mozartean structure and melodies. I dare say it swings at certain points. On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, I can’t think of James Levine anymore without thinking...ewwwwwww. I finally got around to the Mackerras you recommended Beethoven cycle and loved it, so I’ll dive into this Czech Chamber cycle eventually.
I think Levine's melody is clipped like he is minimizing any flowery quality for the sake of dramatic effect but that is not Mozartian.