I really like Böhm’s with Berlin. They’re a bit slower like Otto’s, but the clarity is 100% there, and the woodwinds (especially oboe) moments are the loveliest I’ve heard.
You are absolutely right with Klemperer. He was the ultimate Mozart conductor. The spacious texture and clarity are something else. It simply suits the music. The No.39 is delicious and my reference recording. I just cannot help but smile. Happy juice.
What is so impressive about Klemperer in the late Mozart symphonies is the relative sense of weight and heft he brings to the preconceived and often fallacious frivolity that is so often portrayed in Mozart's symphonies. He brings out a wonderful foreshadowing of how strongly Beethoven would be influenced by Mozart. I also totally agree with your assessment about how impressive the forward projection of the woodwinds is in balance with the strings snd the sense of dynamic and emphatic shift between them with fabulous articulation and accent on rhythmn which even brings out a percussive almost syncopated forward propulsive element that betrays the relative lack of apparent speed. The balance between the light and darkness in mood is also fabulous. I am also interested to know how in the world he ended up with such fabulous recordings so many years ago of these symphonies. Many times even modern performances lack this depth, breadth and resonance of sound in recording.
First of, I have become a HUGE fan of your video reviews. I love your informative, yet NON-snobbish candor and insight. It's like having a chat in my living room. And you often make me laugh out loud. I, too, am a huge fan of Szell, Jochum, Schuricht and many others. I feel very validated that so many of your choices are in my collection. Now to my comment. I was able to find a stream of the Dohnanyi/Cleveland/Mozart & Webern. Oh my! Just listened to Haffner and Linz! What elegant, fluent and red-blooded performances. I think you mentioned, concerning this series, that they obviously LOVED the music. It comes through! Loving and yet unfussy. Playing that is peerless. Thanks for the suggestion. And I am enjoying the WEBERN as well!
I'm so relieved that you appreciate Szell. He is my polestar among conductors -- I grew up with him in the Cleveland area. I thought for a while that he was disappearing, along with a lot of other of the bests of western culture, so it does my heart good to see him understood.
Thank you for recommending Bruno Walter! This is an outstanding discovery for me...brilliant, indeed! As you say, these recordings are so much more touching than all polished modern recordings.
I'm glad you mentioned Sandor Vegh, who is, as you suggest, underrated and overlooked. He's one of my favorite Mozart interpreters. I always feel like I'm hearing something richer and different and attentive in his readings.
Just downloaded the Scottish CO/Mackerras 38-41 yesterday. I missed hearing them from my radio daze, when I practically wore 'em out. Oh man, how I admire Mackerraa in just about *anything*.
Your perceptive and accurate (I find them so) comments on 'authentic' instrument performance is a breathe of fresh air. Your enthusiasm is always welcome to listen to. Thank you
Thank you as always, Dave. Your comments about Klemperer being at his best in Mozart that is grim, which reminds me that he has an amazing recording of Don Giovanni. With Klemperer conducting Ghuairov as the Don, hell really sizzles.
Just listened to Sandor Vegh’s #41. It was like I heard the symphony for the first time. Inner melodies brought forward highlighted more than I’d ever heard before.
Love the way you speak here about the performances by Bruno Walter and the (partly) by him selected Columbia S.O. Have the records as well the CD. The rehearsal of the Linzer is a very special experience, I believe they recorded this without his prior knowledge, so its really spontanious...From Walter and Szell I love many late Haydn recordings as well. a rather late discovery for me.
I am more and more engaged by the 'classic' recordings of luminaries like Walter and Szell. Not so much discovering them - they have been around a long time - as finally getting around to really appreciating them as great recordings. Walter is my new favourtie conductor.
Totally agreed with everything! The Walter is some of the purest, most radiant, most exultant music making I know; the kind that just makes you want to smile due to the all-around loving enthusiasm. I also share your views on HIP for the Classical Era, with a single exception for Mozart - Jordi Savall’s 2019 recording of the last three. He gets a surprisingly big, weighty sound out of his band and the interpretations are bold, brash and impolite without sacrificing musicality.
My own favourite is Harnoncourt's series with the Concertgebouw, which is in the Teldec 250th Anniversary symphonies box (it's still available on Arkiv Music). For my tastes the combination of that wonderful orchestra and Harnoncourt is unbeatable. A good one to sample is his recording of no. 29, where he makes more of the piece than I thought possible!
The inclusion of Vegh made me very happy. Such a great disc! I must also mention a Testament cd with Rudolf Kempe with RPO and the Philharmonia in symphonies 34, 39 and 41. Fantastic!!
I'm sorry, I go crazy, you are right professor, your musical opinions are excellent and beautiful, I have already listened to several of your videos and they are inspiring, thank you for your beautiful and passionate videos. My respects and admiration. Cheers :)
I purchased Walter's "Mozart's The Last 6 Symphonies" recorded with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra 1959 - 63 based oin your recommendation as part of the CBS Masterworks Series and what a revelation. Before I started coming here, I considered this pairing one of the greatest for the romantic repetoire. They simply were so pleasant to listen to! I love the Beethoven Pastoral, Dvorak 8- Wagner Good Friday Music (from Parsifal), and Brahms 2/3 discs by Walter/Columbia. His Mozart is a revelation -- I thought it was like listening to Mozart for the first time. The Orchestra forces are so rich here --- something that I assumed started with Beethoven or perhaps late Haydn, certainly not in the laste 1700's. I think Mozart would be delighted to hear Walter his orchestra conduct his masterpiece symphonies 200 years after his demise.
For Symphony No. 40, my vote goes to Herbert Blomstedt and the Bavarian Radio Symphony on BR Klassik. Like Mackerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra, it is more of a straightforward/lean approach with rather upbeat tempos (especially the second movement). Totally respect your realistic and sober comments on faster tempos, but I feel like with this, the excitement, lightness, and style is there without feeling like it’s just being played to get it over with. I hear really good separation and balance between the instrument groups, beautiful harmonies and moving parts that I have not heard before, and very appropriate dynamics and accuracy - despite the faster tempos. Maybe we can chalk it up to really good recording/production techniques, but Blomstedt/BRS are very good too. No. 41 on this album is excellent as well for all the same reasons.
'Shawn Door' 😀These RUclips automatic chapter titles are hilarious sometimes. I happened to find the Klemperer EMI recordings (Mozart Symphonies, Overtures & Serenades) rather by chance yesterday in a second hand store. Glad I did though. The few discs I listened sounded great!
Goodness, I live in Cleveland and wasn't even aware of the Dohnanyi set! (Although now that I've looked it up, it was released while I was living in Boston.) Like many, my car does not have a CD player. So, I rip my favorite CDs to my laptop and copy them over to a thumb drive, which I take in the car. Since I have over 4,000 CDs, I have to be selective. There are two Mozart late symphony sets on my thumb drive (along with individual symphonies with various conductors): Walter and Szell. Looks like I have to get the Dohnanyi as well!
I love Charles Mackerras (although perhaps betraying my national sympathies there) and his SCO set is fab: top of the pile for me. I also have the complete symphony box from Adam Fischer with that wonderful Danish chamber ensemble, which supplements very nicely for zippy, rhythmic Mozart. I’m definitely going to search out the Szell for the symphonies - I have one or two of the concerto recordings with Casadesus - and also Walter. Thanks indeed for those recommendations! Interesting that you mention Harnoncourt! One of my sentimental faves is a live recording of the last three symphonies with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe (Teldec) in Vienna’s Musikverein on 5 December 1991, the anniversary of Mozart’s death. I was there in person and it remains a brilliant musical memory and memento.
My favorite Mozart clumps (in no particular order): 1. Bernstein/VPO...so incredibly beautiful, 2. Szell/Cleveland...perfection, 3. Bruno Walter box...the rehearsal excerpts are so interesting and enlightening, 4. Mackerras/SCO...the Prague set left me cold, but the Scottish set is a real barn burner!
Thanks for the comments on HIP for Mozart. I was actually mulling over Bruggen's sampling of the symphonies (along with other pieces). Szell and Klemperer sound like the way to go.
I generally like Bruggen too. Don't let me prevent you from sampling. Although he uses period instruments he's actually a highly romantic, interventionist conductor (rather like Harnoncourt)--quite anachronistic in fact, but often worth hearing.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I really like his--and Harnoncourt's--Haydn, so, yeah, I'll bet he does Mozart well. But I've got one HIP complete cycle (Linden & the Mozart Academy of Amsterdam in the big Brillian Classics "Symphonies" set); after hearing your recommendations, I think a good modern set of the last symphonies might be nice. Thanks for the reply.
Great! All milestones of Mozart Late Symphonies recordings! Mackerras for me is always really good. I like his recordings in every repertoire he did and I knew him the first time with a Mozart Late Symphonies recording on Telarc...wonderful! Personally another set which I love is Sir Thomas Beecham for the Late Symphonies of Mozart. Ok they are historical recordings, but...I think seriously that he anticipated something of the modern performance practice (and not only for HIP!)...amazing...
The set that I listen to maybe more than any other is a two-CD set of 36, 38, 39, 40, & 41 by Neville Marriner. I suppose some would find Marriner's sort of middle-of-the-road performances boring, but I love the way he does Mozart. There's nothing showy or flashy, but somehow for me the phrasings and tempi always feel just right. When I listen to other conductors, I often feel like I'm listening to Szell's Mozart or to Mackerras's Mozart or to Hogwood's Mozart, but somehow when I listen to Marriner, I just feel like I'm listening to Mozart.
Thank you for your nice reccomendations. My favourite Mozart symphony recordings are Otmar Suitner's with the Staatskapelle. The ones with Davis are very good but I like Suitner's a bit more because they are a bit livelier. My second favourite is Frans Brüggen. He plays on period instruments but with a more "Romantic" approach than his fellow HIPsters and I think that's a great combination.
@@DavesClassicalGuideI came back to this video because I’ve been listening to Suitner’s boxed 28-41 (with some serenades and a couple piano concertos) and it is WONDERFUL.
Another great review! Avoid the Great Performances release of the Szell 39 that was coupled with 35....the one with the newspaper headline cover. A sloppy editor chopped out Szell's slight relaxation at the end of the B section of the third movement. Instead, they pasted in a version with no relaxation. Other versions that I have heard are OK. Unfortunately, not the only instance of sloppy editing of a Szell reissue.
I have, and love the Bernstein recording you mentioned. I've also found that they've served as a great introduction to the later Mozart Symphonies for non-musician friends for, I think, the same reason you mentioned - they're a schmooze fest, full of love and beauty. When I've played them for friends, they find them instantly appealing. They're accessible, warm, and vibrant.
In the LP days I adored both Walter and Szell in Mozart. Now I listen to Mackerras with the SCO for 38-41 and the Prague CO for 25-29. I didn’t like his Prague recordings of the later symphonies and agree the Linn series is wonderful, but I do get tired of all the repeats!
Szell, Klemperer, Walter & Bernstein for me too. I had Mackerras's complete cycle and sold it. Just felt rushed. Might have to try his later recordings with the Scottish Camber Orchestra.
I recalled Sawallisch / Check PO recordings and listened to them once again. They are disciplined and fresh. Good combination of conductor’s character and orchestra’s character. I find only 4 (38 to 41), and I wish I could find 35 and 36. I’m speaking of Eurodisc recordings.
Love your reviews! I judge KV 551 by the finale coda. Bruno Walter's various recordings allow you to hear all of the voices in their magnificent entries. For the coda of 551, he is not outdone. I love Walter for Mozart. Of course, Szell is probably my favorite conductor of all, and his Mozart is incredible. My favorite Mozart symphony with Szell is KV 443 from 1947!
Dave et al, here is a Metternich alternative to your selections!!!! Abbado & LSO (DG) from 1980 in K 551 & K 550; Karajan Tokyo 1988 in K 543; Uncle Karl Bohm in the Prague with the Vienna Philharmonic from 1978; Herbie again in the Linz (DG not EMI); and Muti VP (as you rightly nominate) or Bohm & the Berliners from 1965 in K 338. Rejoice in the Klang! (If not the Soup!). Best wishes, B
My friend, violinist Paula from Laytonville, gave us some lyrics to start the Mozart Symphony No. 40. " It's a bird! it's a plane!, no it's Mozart!" My picks - 35- Ozawa -NPO; 36- Colin Davis- LSO; 38-Böhm- VPO; 39- Joseph Krips- LSO, 40- Britten- ECO; 41- Barenboim- ECO. Earlier favs- 29, 34.
David, I love your videos! I also mostly agree with your reviews and ideas! Just out of curiosity, wondering if you were related to Ben Hurwitz, Olav-Ha-Sholom? Don't wish to dredge up sad memories. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I listened to the Muti set and think it’s exquisite. Well, it’s a “set” on RUclips anyway. I wonder why 37 wasn’t included. Not recorded? I’ve since listened to 37 and my question was answered.
That Dohnányi set is a complete unknown to me, but I am so intrigued that I found probably the only copy out there (on Discogs) and snapped it up. I love the juxtaposition with Webern. Can't wait to listen.... (BTW the Muti VPO which equally intrigue me are pretty much nowhere to be found). I notice you have the latest SACD incarnation of the Klemperer (which I have on trusty LP). How do they sound?
I still love this set. The picks from Dave are in general splendid(despite some disagreements that should be credited to personal taste). Sad to hear that his opinion changed regarding Maag, since the swiss conductor was a natural mozartian. I would also add Suitner as a sleeper.
If you haven't heard Jochum Concertgebouw -- Eloquence - -give 'em a try. Big orchestra, of course, but fleet, dynamic performances in great sound. One of the rare oldtimers who believed in quick, even driven minuets, as he gave us in the Haydn London Symphonies as well.
I found Mackerras’s muscular approach to work very well for the Jupiter, but I didn’t like it as much for the earlier two. His is my favorite 41st, though.
Greetings David. Enjoy your talks so much. Every one so far. Curious about your thoughts on Karajan's 1976 recordings of the late Mozart symphonies on DG. I think them exceptionally polished, elegant, and lively. And looking forward to your thoughts on the forthcoming Ormandy/Philly mono box - a dream come true for lovers of the mighty Philly orchestra. Best to you and your cat. D
If I may ask, are the Leinsdorf Westminster/MCA/DG recordings any good? It appears these came out in a box around 2008, but I missed that somehow and now copies are being sold for astronomical prices due to it being out of print. Recently I have been revisiting recordings of my youth let's say. When I was 18-19 (1989-1990) I purchased 2 of the MCA cds at the PX at my military base in Korea. I do not know what I did with those discs since then, but I do not have them now and have not heard the recordings since and I remember very little of them. If they were rereleased again I would be a taker on that, if for no other reason than nostalgia. But I am wondering if I should waste my time worrying about it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Not if you appreciate the older style of orchestral playing. Leinsdorf was a wonderful Mozartean. He had precision, beauty of the phrases and exact perfect tempos in my opinion. The orchestra of course were members of the Royal Philharmonic of London. I still treasure the LPs from this era. He just played the music with no fuzziness.
Thank you so much for the wonderful recommendations. I only knew the bohm set before listening to you. It was very heavy handed performance and I didn't like it. But the szell which I'm listening to now is just wonderful. Thank you so much for this recommendation
Thanks! Actually I should have asked whether it includes the CSO stereo remakes which I haven’t heard yet. Thing is, I bought many years ago Sony’s Walter box-all 39 CDs of it. And here’s what I got: CSO: Symphonies Nos. 25, 28 & 29; NYP: Symphonies Nos. 35, 36 (rehearsal included), 38-41. Not a trace of the later CSO recordings of Nos. 35, 36 & 38-41. Moreover, the cardboard sleeves for the "Linz" Symphony and its rehearsal say they were recorded with the CSO in April 1955. The date is correct, the orchestra is not-it’s the NYP version we're hearing! Then you get the Beethoven with Joseph Szigeti, but not the one with Zino Francescatti. "Bruno Walter: The Edition" they called it. What were they thinking?
If Bruno Walter left only his mono NY Mozart Symphony cycle (the one you hold up in this video) and his stereo Brahms cycle, and his stereo DAS LIED VON DER ERDE, IMHO he would still be one of the greats. Integrity and strength, beauty and love. What a man. And it's sad that Szell never commercially recorded the "Prague." However, there is a live Szell/Cleveland "Prague" - and it just might be the best. It was here on RUclips but apparently removed.
I think that it’s crucial to hear a first-rate period orchestra live to really grasp just how great the differences are. On records they can adjust recording levels and other audio trickery until it all sounds very close to a recording of today’s Mahler/Stravinsky/Bartók ensembles. And they didn’t develop today’s instruments because late 18th and early 19th centuries instruments sounded bad. They did it because they were starting to play in much larger halls that demanded greater power and projection, and because instrument makers were trying to emulate the sounds of the Bel Canto singers. Earlier instruments had a short-sustain, rhythmic effect, and music composed for those pre-1840’s or -50’s instruments aimed to exploit those characteristics. I don’t think for a second that Mozart and Haydn heard their pieces played and thought, “It’s OK, but hopefully by the 20th century violins will be 3 or 4 times more powerful with harmonic series so dense, they’ll cover up the inner voices in the texture. When Stradivarius built his violins they were incomparable. They weren’t waiting until 300 years later for luthiers to put steel strings on, shorten the necks, and brace them back at an angle to bear the enormous new string tension. The instruments of Stravari’s day and especially of Haydn’s sounded as beautiful as ours; they just sounded beautiful in other ways.
And it's because they sounded bad. It was a combination of factors, not just one thing or the other. You are working too hard as an apologist for the HIP movement, with all due respect, and your perspective is a-historical. You assume, wrongly, that modern period instrument performances sound anything like actual performances back in the day, when we have no evidence for that whatsoever. There is no comparison in terms of performance standards, quality and consistency of instrumental manufacture, and too many other facts to list. If you like what the HIP movement is doing, that's fine, but it's a modern movement, plain and simple, responding to a modern aesthetic preference.
They don’t sound bad to me, nor to a large consensus of listeners, whether live or on record. Hogwood’s incomplete Haydn cycle, which you detest, has legions of fans who consider it their favorite Haydn. Some aspects of what the HIP players are doing are ahistorical, of course, but the instruments, the sororities and textures they create, and the implications of those things for performance practice are not.
If I’m working too hard it’s because it frustrates me to hear you direct so much invective towards one of my favorite chapters of the record catalog at every available opportunity. I’m not working at this topic as hard as you.
There is no "best" in standard repertoire. Just go for any of the performances in the recommended sets. I don't believe that Szell made a commercial recording.
This is an excellent survey. I especially appreciate the well deserved praise for Colin Davis. However, I am quite surprised that Karl Bohm didn't even get mentioned.
What are your thoughts about repeats? I think taking every one in the 2nd movement of the 40th throws off the proportions of the symphony. Conversely, every live Szell performance of the Jupiter I've heard takes the repeat in the first movement, but his recording does not...maybe to fit the whole symphony on one LP side?
I have heard everyone of these and I keep gravitating towards the Tate set with the ECO for the late symphonies as well as the early and there is an added bonus to the cycle...No Harpsichord Continuo!
I wish the Dohnányi/Cleveland set _was_ beautifully recorded, but to my ears they fall well belong the standard of other Decca recordings from this team (e.g. those of the Dvorak symphonies), with a relatively clogged sound, recessed brass and timpani, and a slightly hard edge to the upper strings
Hi David, I am just about to spring for an Eloquence twofer of many of the later symphonies by Colin Davis, which many say are much better than his Dresden ones. They are earlier than the Dresden ones. Any comment? I agree with Walter, Szell, and Boehm, in their own ways. I always find Mackerras disappointing fwiw..
Hello Raymond. Nice to see you here! Thanks for chiming in. Davis was always a terrific Mozart conductor, and you can get the earlier recordings with confidence.
RUclips captions interpreted your statement, per Szell: "intonational perfection," as "international perfection." LOL. Just thought you'd like to know.
'MacKerras did an earlier set with the Prague Chamber Orchestra, I never liked that set'. In your Mozart symphonies (complete set) video you tell us it's one of your favourites. Now, do you like it or not?
@@DavesClassicalGuide The one on 3 sep. 2020: Repertoire: The BEST Mozart Symphony Cycles (Boxed Sets). Your favourites are Fischer (dacapo) and MacKerras (Telarc).
@@stephanversmissen3953 Yes, and it still doesn't thrill me, but it's among the best of the batch. I don't have to love it to recommend it (though I'd be happier if I did). I respect the achievement.
Klemperer was a surprise. Never heard. I was classical marketing manager of EMI Classics in Brazil for 8 years - lost the chance :) I will look for it. Walter was really a special conductor. Gardiner's nº31 is great, but I agree - modern instruments work better in general. My question is - where did Szell failled for you? (just teasing)
Interesting to note that Szell made his conducting debut in St. Louis (while my grandfather was a 2nd trombone) and was seriously considered for music director. When Szell lost out, his manager stated that St. Louis "got what they deserved in Golshmann."
Well, as much as I like Gardiner and Bilson in the concertos, and Östman for the operas, I do really enjoy both Walter and Davis in the symphonies. Maybe their experience conducting the operas adds another dimension?
@@DavesClassicalGuide Good point. Yes, I like Gardiner in the operas too. His Don Giovanni reminds me of Walter in 1942! Anyway, has their ever been a more perfect sound for Mozart than that of the Dresden Staatskapelle?
I think I feel a little bit more favorable toward the goals of historically informed performance than you, but you make two really good points. First, that modern instruments and orchestras developed, in part, for the purpose of playing Classical repertoire, so while they may not be "authentic", there's a sense in which they're "legitimate". It's not as though in playing Mozart, they are being asked to play something alien to them. The other good point is about musicality. I feel like for some HIP people, the scholarly effort of achieving a period-authentic performance (which is an undertaking that, in itself, is totally legitimate and interesting) takes up a lot of attention that would otherwise be going toward the musical interpretation of the work itself (which is a very different thing!). Playing something on a period instrument, with no vibrato, at (the best guess at) a historically correct tempo, etc., does not add up to musicality. There are plenty of period instrument performances out there that do have real musicality and that are a joy to listen to - but there are also plenty that may be superficially accurate but simply don't *sound* good. I guess what I'm trying to say, very long-windedly, is that I think HIP is a perfectly valid and worthwhile movement, as long as it's not mistaken as a substitute for musical feeling and sensitivity.
I find it unbelievable you didn't mention Rene Jacobs and the Freiburger Barockorchester. Their recordings of numbers 38 to 41 are the best of the best. Full of drama, freshness and colour. And what about Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century. They deserve second place for me. Third come Gardiner and the English Baroque Soloists. Seems you are a bit preoccupied with American orchestras Mr. Hurwitz. In case you didn't notice... This being said: I like your channel !
Let's stay friendly here, but these versions are in no way inferior. Let us also say that your taste in classical performances in general is a bit weird, but that is not a problem. By the way, allmost all conductors of the American orchestras came from Europe, Bernstein being a notable exception. So be a bit more modest Mr. Hurwitz, about your so called fabulous American orchestras. Things have moved on since the days of Stokowski, Ormandy, Reiner and Szell Mr. Hurwitz. No use to keep hanging on to them like you do. We do agree on one thing: there should come out a Van Beinum/RCO box very soon. Keep up the good work !
Oops. Sorry! Szell made his U. S. conducting debut in St. Louis in 1930 and was part of a trio of people who conducted the orchestra on a regular basis along with Enrique Arboz and Golschmann
"What's not to love, guys?" I do love the Szell set but I've always been bothered and puzzled as to why this great Mozartian never recorded a Prague symphony. Does anyone know if there is perhaps a live Szell Prague? And Mr. Hurwitz, thank you for these videos! I have been enjoying them, I do value your insights. I've subscribed to your channel and your website and your reviews have helped me grow as a listener.
This ruclips.net/video/_eIMPei-YmQ/видео.html purports to be a Szell/Cleveland live preformance of Mozart's Symphony 38 'Prague'. Since I know nothing of the provenance of the upload, I certainly can't vouch that it is.
In Mozarts days most people heard these symphonies only once in their life, if ever, so discussions about tempo must have been very limited. Personally I feel a lot of disgust for the recordings you mention, because they are anachronistic. They are romantic Mozart, and they are meant to make the higher voices look good, mostly the violin. For example symphonie no.41 first mouvement. After the GP in the second theme I suddenly hear the viola part in Hogwood and Jacobs. In the recordings you mention that is impossible. Those recordings reminds me of what Heifetz said: "I can hear the cello and that is wrong". I like to hear other voices, too.
The funny thing about Mozart symphonies is that I used to regard them as bland, say, compared to Beethoven, until I heard Harnoncourt/RCO (I think it was No.36) which really highlights the propulsiveness and rhythm of the music because it is so punchy! But once I got into them, I came to prefer the very recording I used to find boring (Bohm, Karajan) over Harnoncourt because of the natural tempo and phrasing with velvety strings. (The only exception being Jupiter's last movement which is truly awe-inspiring) Which forces me to disagree with you on Mackrerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra - phrasing is indeed clipped and it just sounds comparatively small. (Mozart sounds better when it is played grand) I prefer his Prague output because where there are fewer such problems. Wand is among my favorites with did not make your list, as well as Vegh's 38/41 on Capriccio.
Mozart (unlike Joseph Haydn) didn't conduct from a harpsichord but rather from a fortepiano, so of course, we don't have evidence of that. We certainly know from eyewitness accounts Mozart did conduct this way in case of his operas. As for the performance of these symphonies, I think only one of the 3 late symphonies was *properly* performed in Mozart's lifetime, by the Tonkünstler-Societät in the Burgtheater conducted by none other, than Antonio Salieri. Whether he did so from the violin or a keyboard instrument, we may never know until a review or testimony shows up.
I don't think that is the issue. The question is not whether a keyboard was present, but rather given its likely presence, what did it actually play. I feel certain it was not a formal "continuo part" as we so often hear today. The reason a keyboard was always present was because "orchestral" concerts were seldom purely orchestral. There would singers, improvisations, solos, and other things requiring a keyboard. The fact that the composer or "conductor" may have sat there means nothing.
@@DavesClassicalGuide From what I understand, the most plausible explanation is this: orchestras needed a keyboard accompanist/conductor because one: they weren’t professional orchestral musicians, they were hired musicians for that particular occasion and two: whatever they did play, 99% of the time, it was played prima vista from a hastily scribbled manuscript, there were no rehearsal or measure numbers so if they messed up big time, they would have to start right from the beginning. They needed someone to help with important cues and certain musical material. There was either a konzertmeister who played the first violin and conducted with the bow or a kapellmeister who played the fortepiano. There was even a brief period where both of them were part of the orchestra. Worst case scenario the conductor would stomp with his feet or carry a big staff baton which he hit the ground with, creating unholy background noise. The more "tame" solution at the time was that they let the konzertmeister conduct with the bow of the violin, standing up, playing important material the musicians needed help with. This is how the premiere of Mozart's Paris symphony went as described by the man himself. But there was an Italian practice where two keyboards were part of the orchestra, the maestro and the ripieno (tutti player). “The fact that the composer or "conductor" may have sat there means nothing” I have to take issue with your last sentence, there is a myriad of relevant musicological literature on this subject, I won’t link you to a bunch of scientific articles hidden behind a paywall, let’s just say that as late as 1802 Koch wrote that people were still using harpsichord as a means of supporting singers and filling out the harmony by means of the thoroughbass. At an 1816 performance of a Clementi symphony, the composer played - according to an eyewitness - “isolated chords which he struck as an accompaniment on the piano”.
@@Kris9kris Yes, I know this and largely agree, but as your own evidence suggests, my question remains: what did they actually play? How often? All the time or only when necessary? Your comments suggest that in a modern performance scenario, with well-rehearsed professional musicians, the keyboard would be totally unnecessary and its interventions minimal, if at all. In order for HIP performances to be accurate to the reality, the continue would have had to be essential to support the orchestra because of its inadequacies, and not because the music demanded it. This is true of no HIP performance I have ever heard; and yet, we still have that continue, pounding away with soloistic verve. This is wrong.
@@DavesClassicalGuide “Your comments suggest that in a modern performance scenario, with well-rehearsed professional musicians, the keyboard would be totally unnecessary and its interventions minimal, if at all.” That’s why continuo-playing practically became outdated in the first half of the 19th century and certainly dead by mid 1850’s. “what did they actually play? How often? All the time or only when necessary?” Robert Levin explained this pretty well: composers only wrote down what was not instantly obvious to a well-educated musician of their time. My guess would be (I have to do the research so take it with a grain of salt) that there are no period manuals for conducting with the keyboard because it was so commonplace, and even if there are, the big irony of HIP is that there wasn’t a unified practice so what they did in Italy does not apply to certain parts of Germany and so forth… I guess some people played with soloistic impetus even then, and some people only gave hints to the orchestra. For the record, I really dislike needless purity spiralling in the HIP community, I would much rather hear a proper allegro/allegretto minuet for once - which nobody, I mean nobody does, not even hardcore HIPsters - than slightly more period-accurate strings…
I used to have a copy of the Colin Davis set you mention but I unloaded it a long time ago. His mozart, although pretty, sure put me to sleep. Boring. I went with the Krips/Concertgebouw instead.
I also was quite excited by the Hogwood Mozart recordings when they came out, and heard them in Chicago, at Northwestern and at the Auditorium Theater - not an ideal space for such a small group: they were like little mites in the cavernous Auditorium Theater. But I gradually lost interest, and now find the string tone on those recordings, painful to listen to. Your review is so timely: I've been listening to Klemperer, Walter, and Szell Mozart recordings these days.
Listening to the Dohnanyi set I always get a surprise when the Webern comes on after the Mozart. For a brief moment I panic that the CD player is having a catastrophic failure.
Thank you for calling out one of the most annoying trends in "period-style" performances of classical-era symphonic music: adding continuo parts. While Haydn and Mozart probably conducted their works from a keyboard in their own performances, there is no evidence that it served any purpose beyond keeping the orchestra together as a legacy from the performance practice of previous generations. I still have not heard any musical argument as to why continuo parts is necessary in this music, the way it is necessary in Baroque-era music to (1) reinforce the rhythmic continuity that was so essential to the Baroque era, and (2) to fill in the harmonies. Rhythm in the classical era became so much more fluid and dynamic which renders the continuo obsolete in that regard. As for harmonies, HA! Can anyone show a passage from a mature Haydn/Mozart symphony where the harmonies needs to be filled in? Next thing you know they're going to be adding continuo to string quartet performances to fill in all of the harmonic gaps in those works and make up for Mozart's lack of inner part writing (/s). The best of period performances use historical studies to bring new insights into these works and show us things we've been missing/not heard before in them. But many just make a failed attempt at a historical reconstruction which belies the timelessness of these masterpieces.
Well said! I would only add that the one thing historical performances also lacked was a modern conductor, so to put one of today's control freak HIP conductors in charge of an ensemble, leading them with fanatical precision, and then to add a continue part besides, is even more anachronistic.
“rhythmic continuity” What are you talking about? Continuo playing started as an accompaniment to metrically-free arias in the early renaissance. “The best of period performances use historical studies to bring new insights into these works” Then why did I not hear one single HIP performer play a proper allegretto/allegro minuet in a Mozart or Haydn symphony? And don’t even get me started on Neumann’s argument that Czerny and Hummel wanted to ‘Beethovenize’ Mozart - this has been conclusively disproven by the early Haydn/Niemecz organs. ruclips.net/video/-Rz9JcOaZw4/видео.html
I really like Böhm’s with Berlin. They’re a bit slower like Otto’s, but the clarity is 100% there, and the woodwinds (especially oboe) moments are the loveliest I’ve heard.
I've owned most of those Szell recordings of Mozart, on vinyl, for decades, and I can't imagine living without them.
You are absolutely right with Klemperer. He was the ultimate Mozart conductor. The spacious texture and clarity are something else. It simply suits the music. The No.39 is delicious and my reference recording. I just cannot help but smile. Happy juice.
What is so impressive about Klemperer in the late Mozart symphonies is the relative sense of weight and heft he brings to the preconceived and often fallacious frivolity that is so often portrayed in Mozart's symphonies. He brings out a wonderful foreshadowing of how strongly Beethoven would be influenced by Mozart. I also totally agree with your assessment about how impressive the forward projection of the woodwinds is in balance with the strings snd the sense of dynamic and emphatic shift between them with fabulous articulation and accent on rhythmn which even brings out a percussive almost syncopated forward propulsive element that betrays the relative lack of apparent speed. The balance between the light and darkness in mood is also fabulous. I am also interested to know how in the world he ended up with such fabulous recordings so many years ago of these symphonies. Many times even modern performances lack this depth, breadth and resonance of sound in recording.
As a devoted “Szellot”, I love how much you appreciate Szell and his genius… my favorite ever
First of, I have become a HUGE fan of your video reviews. I love your informative, yet NON-snobbish candor and insight. It's like having a chat in my living room. And you often make me laugh out loud. I, too, am a huge fan of Szell, Jochum, Schuricht and many others. I feel very validated that so many of your choices are in my collection.
Now to my comment. I was able to find a stream of the Dohnanyi/Cleveland/Mozart & Webern. Oh my! Just listened to Haffner and Linz! What elegant, fluent and red-blooded performances. I think you mentioned, concerning this series, that they obviously LOVED the music. It comes through! Loving and yet unfussy. Playing that is peerless. Thanks for the suggestion. And I am enjoying the WEBERN as well!
I'm very glad you found those Mozart recordings (and Webern). They are both wonderful.
I'm so relieved that you appreciate Szell. He is my polestar among conductors -- I grew up with him in the Cleveland area. I thought for a while that he was disappearing, along with a lot of other of the bests of western culture, so it does my heart good to see him understood.
Agreed. Severance Hall was my second home. Need more Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra. Stellar Mozart and Debussy.
@@frankporter6169 ...to say nothing of his Wagner, Richard Strauss, Beethoven & Schubert.
Thank you for recommending Bruno Walter! This is an outstanding discovery for me...brilliant, indeed! As you say, these recordings are so much more touching than all polished modern recordings.
So happy you enjoy them!
Yes, the Walter Mozart has been a standard bearer for Mozart recordings since their release.
I'm glad you mentioned Sandor Vegh, who is, as you suggest, underrated and overlooked. He's one of my favorite Mozart interpreters. I always feel like I'm hearing something richer and different and attentive in his readings.
Just downloaded the Scottish CO/Mackerras 38-41 yesterday. I missed hearing them from my radio daze, when I practically wore 'em out. Oh man, how I admire Mackerraa in just about *anything*.
Your perceptive and accurate (I find them so) comments on 'authentic' instrument performance is a breathe of fresh air. Your enthusiasm is always welcome to listen to. Thank you
Thank you as always, Dave. Your comments about Klemperer being at his best in Mozart that is grim, which reminds me that he has an amazing recording of Don Giovanni. With Klemperer conducting Ghuairov as the Don, hell really sizzles.
Just listened to Sandor Vegh’s #41. It was like I heard the symphony for the first time. Inner melodies brought forward highlighted more than I’d ever heard before.
Casals does the last six on Columbia. Definitely worth a listen.
For sure. They are wonderful.
Love the way you speak here about the performances by Bruno Walter and the (partly) by him selected Columbia S.O. Have the records as well the CD. The rehearsal of the Linzer is a very special experience, I believe they recorded this without his prior knowledge, so its really spontanious...From Walter and Szell I love many late Haydn recordings as well. a rather late discovery for me.
I am more and more engaged by the 'classic' recordings of luminaries like Walter and Szell. Not so much discovering them - they have been around a long time - as finally getting around to really appreciating them as great recordings. Walter is my new favourtie conductor.
Totally agreed with everything! The Walter is some of the purest, most radiant, most exultant music making I know; the kind that just makes you want to smile due to the all-around loving enthusiasm. I also share your views on HIP for the Classical Era, with a single exception for Mozart - Jordi Savall’s 2019 recording of the last three. He gets a surprisingly big, weighty sound out of his band and the interpretations are bold, brash and impolite without sacrificing musicality.
My own favourite is Harnoncourt's series with the Concertgebouw, which is in the Teldec 250th Anniversary symphonies box (it's still available on Arkiv Music). For my tastes the combination of that wonderful orchestra and Harnoncourt is unbeatable. A good one to sample is his recording of no. 29, where he makes more of the piece than I thought possible!
Harnoncourt is unsubtle. Brutal. His 38th with all the repeats is as long as an Eroica Symphony. Thumbs down.
The inclusion of Vegh made me very happy. Such a great disc!
I must also mention a Testament cd with Rudolf Kempe with RPO and the Philharmonia in symphonies 34, 39 and 41. Fantastic!!
I'm sorry, I go crazy, you are right professor, your musical opinions are excellent and beautiful, I have already listened to several of your videos and they are inspiring, thank you for your beautiful and passionate videos. My respects and admiration. Cheers :)
I purchased Walter's "Mozart's The Last 6 Symphonies" recorded with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra 1959 - 63 based oin your recommendation as part of the CBS Masterworks Series and what a revelation. Before I started coming here, I considered this pairing one of the greatest for the romantic repetoire. They simply were so pleasant to listen to! I love the Beethoven Pastoral, Dvorak 8- Wagner Good Friday Music (from Parsifal), and Brahms 2/3 discs by Walter/Columbia. His Mozart is a revelation -- I thought it was like listening to Mozart for the first time. The Orchestra forces are so rich here --- something that I assumed started with Beethoven or perhaps late Haydn, certainly not in the laste 1700's. I think Mozart would be delighted to hear Walter his orchestra conduct his masterpiece symphonies 200 years after his demise.
I like the Vegh reicordings on Decca. There are also live recordings of the late symphonies on the Orfeo label .
For Symphony No. 40, my vote goes to Herbert Blomstedt and the Bavarian Radio Symphony on BR Klassik. Like Mackerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra, it is more of a straightforward/lean approach with rather upbeat tempos (especially the second movement). Totally respect your realistic and sober comments on faster tempos, but I feel like with this, the excitement, lightness, and style is there without feeling like it’s just being played to get it over with. I hear really good separation and balance between the instrument groups, beautiful harmonies and moving parts that I have not heard before, and very appropriate dynamics and accuracy - despite the faster tempos. Maybe we can chalk it up to really good recording/production techniques, but Blomstedt/BRS are very good too. No. 41 on this album is excellent as well for all the same reasons.
'Shawn Door' 😀These RUclips automatic chapter titles are hilarious sometimes.
I happened to find the Klemperer EMI recordings (Mozart Symphonies, Overtures & Serenades) rather by chance yesterday in a second hand store. Glad I did though. The few discs I listened sounded great!
Goodness, I live in Cleveland and wasn't even aware of the Dohnanyi set! (Although now that I've looked it up, it was released while I was living in Boston.)
Like many, my car does not have a CD player. So, I rip my favorite CDs to my laptop and copy them over to a thumb drive, which I take in the car. Since I have over 4,000 CDs, I have to be selective. There are two Mozart late symphony sets on my thumb drive (along with individual symphonies with various conductors): Walter and Szell. Looks like I have to get the Dohnanyi as well!
I love Charles Mackerras (although perhaps betraying my national sympathies there) and his SCO set is fab: top of the pile for me. I also have the complete symphony box from Adam Fischer with that wonderful Danish chamber ensemble, which supplements very nicely for zippy, rhythmic Mozart. I’m definitely going to search out the Szell for the symphonies - I have one or two of the concerto recordings with Casadesus - and also Walter. Thanks indeed for those recommendations! Interesting that you mention Harnoncourt! One of my sentimental faves is a live recording of the last three symphonies with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe (Teldec) in Vienna’s Musikverein on 5 December 1991, the anniversary of Mozart’s death. I was there in person and it remains a brilliant musical memory and memento.
I absolutely agree, it's perfection.
My favorite Mozart clumps (in no particular order): 1. Bernstein/VPO...so incredibly beautiful, 2. Szell/Cleveland...perfection, 3. Bruno Walter box...the rehearsal excerpts are so interesting and enlightening, 4. Mackerras/SCO...the Prague set left me cold, but the Scottish set is a real barn burner!
Thanks for the comments on HIP for Mozart. I was actually mulling over Bruggen's sampling of the symphonies (along with other pieces). Szell and Klemperer sound like the way to go.
I generally like Bruggen too. Don't let me prevent you from sampling. Although he uses period instruments he's actually a highly romantic, interventionist conductor (rather like Harnoncourt)--quite anachronistic in fact, but often worth hearing.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I really like his--and Harnoncourt's--Haydn, so, yeah, I'll bet he does Mozart well. But I've got one HIP complete cycle (Linden & the Mozart Academy of Amsterdam in the big Brillian Classics "Symphonies" set); after hearing your recommendations, I think a good modern set of the last symphonies might be nice. Thanks for the reply.
Great! All milestones of Mozart Late Symphonies recordings! Mackerras for me is always really good. I like his recordings in every repertoire he did and I knew him the first time with a Mozart Late Symphonies recording on Telarc...wonderful! Personally another set which I love is Sir Thomas Beecham for the Late Symphonies of Mozart. Ok they are historical recordings, but...I think seriously that he anticipated something of the modern performance practice (and not only for HIP!)...amazing...
Great video. Thanks so much. I'd absolutely love for you to give recommendations for the best complete Mozart symphonies. The Haydn brothers too.
The set that I listen to maybe more than any other is a two-CD set of 36, 38, 39, 40, & 41 by Neville Marriner. I suppose some would find Marriner's sort of middle-of-the-road performances boring, but I love the way he does Mozart. There's nothing showy or flashy, but somehow for me the phrasings and tempi always feel just right. When I listen to other conductors, I often feel like I'm listening to Szell's Mozart or to Mackerras's Mozart or to Hogwood's Mozart, but somehow when I listen to Marriner, I just feel like I'm listening to Mozart.
I remember I used to enjoy four late symphonies with Chicago Orchestra and Fritz Reiner.
Thank you for your nice reccomendations. My favourite Mozart symphony recordings are Otmar Suitner's with the Staatskapelle. The ones with Davis are very good but I like Suitner's a bit more because they are a bit livelier. My second favourite is Frans Brüggen. He plays on period instruments but with a more "Romantic" approach than his fellow HIPsters and I think that's a great combination.
I should have included Suitner. They are excellent!
@@DavesClassicalGuideI came back to this video because I’ve been listening to Suitner’s boxed 28-41 (with some serenades and a couple piano concertos) and it is WONDERFUL.
Another great review! Avoid the Great Performances release of the Szell 39 that was coupled with 35....the one with the newspaper headline cover. A sloppy editor chopped out Szell's slight relaxation at the end of the B section of the third movement. Instead, they pasted in a version with no relaxation. Other versions that I have heard are OK. Unfortunately, not the only instance of sloppy editing of a Szell reissue.
Thanks for the heads up!
I have, and love the Bernstein recording you mentioned. I've also found that they've served as a great introduction to the later Mozart Symphonies for non-musician friends for, I think, the same reason you mentioned - they're a schmooze fest, full of love and beauty. When I've played them for friends, they find them instantly appealing. They're accessible, warm, and vibrant.
Klemperer could be stodgy (or sometimes too fast), but his late Mozart symphonies contain many delights.
In the LP days I adored both Walter and Szell in Mozart. Now I listen to Mackerras with the SCO for 38-41 and the Prague CO for 25-29. I didn’t like his Prague recordings of the later symphonies and agree the Linn series is wonderful, but I do get tired of all the repeats!
Szell, Klemperer, Walter & Bernstein for me too. I had Mackerras's complete cycle and sold it. Just felt rushed. Might have to try his later recordings with the Scottish Camber Orchestra.
Yes, everyone forgets Klemperer
I recalled Sawallisch / Check PO recordings and listened to them once again. They are disciplined and fresh. Good combination of conductor’s character and orchestra’s character. I find only 4 (38 to 41), and I wish I could find 35 and 36. I’m speaking of Eurodisc recordings.
You mean Czech Philharmonic?
@@jimcrawford5039 Yes it's Czech, not Check. Hmm...
Love your reviews! I judge KV 551 by the finale coda. Bruno Walter's various recordings allow you to hear all of the voices in their magnificent entries. For the coda of 551, he is not outdone. I love Walter for Mozart. Of course, Szell is probably my favorite conductor of all, and his Mozart is incredible. My favorite Mozart symphony with Szell is KV 443 from 1947!
but I am glad that Bruno is there. Many look him over but I completely agree with you: it goes straight to the heart with supreme musicianship
Dave et al, here is a Metternich alternative to your selections!!!! Abbado & LSO (DG) from 1980 in K 551 & K 550; Karajan Tokyo 1988 in K 543; Uncle Karl Bohm in the Prague with the Vienna Philharmonic from 1978; Herbie again in the Linz (DG not EMI); and Muti VP (as you rightly nominate) or Bohm & the Berliners from 1965 in K 338. Rejoice in the Klang! (If not the Soup!). Best wishes, B
Abbado and LSO is pretty bad...he was never a good Mozart conductor.
My friend, violinist Paula from Laytonville, gave us some lyrics to start the Mozart Symphony No. 40.
" It's a bird! it's a plane!, no it's Mozart!"
My picks - 35- Ozawa -NPO; 36- Colin Davis- LSO; 38-Böhm- VPO; 39- Joseph Krips- LSO, 40- Britten- ECO; 41- Barenboim- ECO.
Earlier favs- 29, 34.
I only have 3 sets of Mozart's late symphonies. Mackerras, Dohnanyi and Szell. I'm glad all three of them are on your list!
That's a great selection!
I really think Josef Krips and the Concertgebouw (recordings early 1970-ies) are worth considering too. The introduction of the Prague 38...
Has anyone heard the Pablo Casals set? I don't think that you can call it definitive, but I do think that it is a lot of fun.
It is excellent.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks. I didn't think that I was crazy.
David, I love your videos! I also mostly agree with your reviews and ideas! Just out of curiosity, wondering if you were related to Ben Hurwitz, Olav-Ha-Sholom?
Don't wish to dredge up sad memories.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
No, I'm not, but thanks for asking.
I listened to the Muti set and think it’s exquisite. Well, it’s a “set” on RUclips anyway. I wonder why 37 wasn’t included. Not recorded? I’ve since listened to 37 and my question was answered.
That Dohnányi set is a complete unknown to me, but I am so intrigued that I found probably the only copy out there (on Discogs) and snapped it up. I love the juxtaposition with Webern. Can't wait to listen.... (BTW the Muti VPO which equally intrigue me are pretty much nowhere to be found). I notice you have the latest SACD incarnation of the Klemperer (which I have on trusty LP). How do they sound?
They sound fine.
I recommend Maag's digital recordings. It came out as a boxed set in Japan. Remastered.
I liked them when they were released, but they haven't worn all that well for some reason.
I still love this set. The picks from Dave are in general splendid(despite some disagreements that should be credited to personal taste). Sad to hear that his opinion changed regarding Maag, since the swiss conductor was a natural mozartian. I would also add Suitner as a sleeper.
@@mauroluna7310 Agreed. Maag = Mozart/Mendelsohn = Consistent Clarity.
If you haven't heard Jochum Concertgebouw -- Eloquence - -give 'em a try. Big orchestra, of course, but fleet, dynamic performances in great sound. One of the rare oldtimers who believed in quick, even driven minuets, as he gave us in the Haydn London Symphonies as well.
I found Mackerras’s muscular approach to work very well for the Jupiter, but I didn’t like it as much for the earlier two. His is my favorite 41st, though.
Greetings David. Enjoy your talks so much. Every one so far. Curious about your thoughts on Karajan's 1976 recordings of the late Mozart symphonies on DG. I think them exceptionally polished, elegant, and lively. And looking forward to your thoughts on the forthcoming Ormandy/Philly mono box - a dream come true for lovers of the mighty Philly orchestra. Best to you and your cat. D
Thank you. Karajan very polished--too much so in my opinion.
If I may ask, are the Leinsdorf Westminster/MCA/DG recordings any good? It appears these came out in a box around 2008, but I missed that somehow and now copies are being sold for astronomical prices due to it being out of print.
Recently I have been revisiting recordings of my youth let's say. When I was 18-19 (1989-1990) I purchased 2 of the MCA cds at the PX at my military base in Korea. I do not know what I did with those discs since then, but I do not have them now and have not heard the recordings since and I remember very little of them. If they were rereleased again I would be a taker on that, if for no other reason than nostalgia. But I am wondering if I should waste my time worrying about it.
If you mean the Mozart symphonies, they're pretty good actually, but I don't think there's any need to make a special effort to get them (again).
@@DavesClassicalGuide yes, thank you
@@DavesClassicalGuide Not if you appreciate the older style of orchestral playing. Leinsdorf was a wonderful Mozartean. He had precision, beauty of the phrases and exact perfect tempos in my opinion. The orchestra of course were members of the Royal Philharmonic of London. I still treasure the LPs from this era.
He just played the music with no fuzziness.
Thank you so much for the wonderful recommendations. I only knew the bohm set before listening to you. It was very heavy handed performance and I didn't like it. But the szell which I'm listening to now is just wonderful. Thank you so much for this recommendation
You are so welcome!
Great overview! Just wondering, does the Walter set on Sony include his mono recordings with the NYP?
Yes.
Thanks! Actually I should have asked whether it includes the CSO stereo remakes which I haven’t heard yet. Thing is, I bought many years ago Sony’s Walter box-all 39 CDs of it. And here’s what I got:
CSO: Symphonies Nos. 25, 28 & 29;
NYP: Symphonies Nos. 35, 36 (rehearsal included), 38-41.
Not a trace of the later CSO recordings of Nos. 35, 36 & 38-41.
Moreover, the cardboard sleeves for the "Linz" Symphony and its rehearsal say they were recorded with the CSO in April 1955. The date is correct, the orchestra is not-it’s the NYP version we're hearing!
Then you get the Beethoven with Joseph Szigeti, but not the one with Zino Francescatti.
"Bruno Walter: The Edition" they called it. What were they thinking?
What about Krips'? I've been in love with them for a long time
I like them too. Toss 'em in the pile if you like--they just weren't clumped separately (but they were available individually).
Sadly, it appears the Krips box is now out of print although a copy of the box is currently for sale on ebay.. It is an amazing set.
I have a Philips LP-set with 9 Symphonies: 21, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 & 41. I love the Krips-approach with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, 🌬️🎶
Hello David. Would you recommend the big Bruno Walter box?
Yes.
If Bruno Walter left only his mono NY Mozart Symphony cycle (the one you hold up in this video) and his stereo Brahms cycle, and his stereo DAS LIED VON DER ERDE, IMHO he would still be one of the greats. Integrity and strength, beauty and love. What a man.
And it's sad that Szell never commercially recorded the "Prague." However, there is a live Szell/Cleveland "Prague" - and it just might be the best. It was here on RUclips but apparently removed.
I can’t find Szell’s Linz Symphony, unfortunately.
@@carteri6296 Sadly, there is none, live or commercial...
I think that it’s crucial to hear a first-rate period orchestra live to really grasp just how great the differences are. On records they can adjust recording levels and other audio trickery until it all sounds very close to a recording of today’s Mahler/Stravinsky/Bartók ensembles. And they didn’t develop today’s instruments because late 18th and early 19th centuries instruments sounded bad. They did it because they were starting to play in much larger halls that demanded greater power and projection, and because instrument makers were trying to emulate the sounds of the Bel Canto singers. Earlier instruments had a short-sustain, rhythmic effect, and music composed for those pre-1840’s or -50’s instruments aimed to exploit those characteristics. I don’t think for a second that Mozart and Haydn heard their pieces played and thought, “It’s OK, but hopefully by the 20th century violins will be 3 or 4 times more powerful with harmonic series so dense, they’ll cover up the inner voices in the texture. When Stradivarius built his violins they were incomparable. They weren’t waiting until 300 years later for luthiers to put steel strings on, shorten the necks, and brace them back at an angle to bear the enormous new string tension. The instruments of Stravari’s day and especially of Haydn’s sounded as beautiful as ours; they just sounded beautiful in other ways.
And it's because they sounded bad. It was a combination of factors, not just one thing or the other. You are working too hard as an apologist for the HIP movement, with all due respect, and your perspective is a-historical. You assume, wrongly, that modern period instrument performances sound anything like actual performances back in the day, when we have no evidence for that whatsoever. There is no comparison in terms of performance standards, quality and consistency of instrumental manufacture, and too many other facts to list. If you like what the HIP movement is doing, that's fine, but it's a modern movement, plain and simple, responding to a modern aesthetic preference.
They don’t sound bad to me, nor to a large consensus of listeners, whether live or on record. Hogwood’s incomplete Haydn cycle, which you detest, has legions of fans who consider it their favorite Haydn. Some aspects of what the HIP players are doing are ahistorical, of course, but the instruments, the sororities and textures they create, and the implications of those things for performance practice are not.
If I’m working too hard it’s because it frustrates me to hear you direct so much invective towards one of my favorite chapters of the record catalog at every available opportunity. I’m not working at this topic as hard as you.
What is (are) the best Prague symphony(ies) on its own? Has Szell ever conducted it by the way since it's not in the recording you recommended?
There is no "best" in standard repertoire. Just go for any of the performances in the recommended sets. I don't believe that Szell made a commercial recording.
This is an excellent survey. I especially appreciate the well deserved praise for Colin Davis. However, I am quite surprised that Karl Bohm didn't even get mentioned.
No set.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Ah, now I see he's included in the complete symphony review.
@@DavesClassicalGuide There is a set on DG DVD (12 Symphonies) with Wiener Philharmoniker - marvelous!!
What are your thoughts about repeats? I think taking every one in the 2nd movement of the 40th throws off the proportions of the symphony. Conversely, every live Szell performance of the Jupiter I've heard takes the repeat in the first movement, but his recording does not...maybe to fit the whole symphony on one LP side?
19:45 haha! great review, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
I have heard everyone of these and I keep gravitating towards the Tate set with the ECO for the late symphonies as well as the early and there is an added bonus to the cycle...No Harpsichord Continuo!
Another favourite clump (and clumpy it is, in a very good way): Karl Böhm from the 1960s.
So how many clumps in a bunch?
I wish the Dohnányi/Cleveland set _was_ beautifully recorded, but to my ears they fall well belong the standard of other Decca recordings from this team (e.g. those of the Dvorak symphonies), with a relatively clogged sound, recessed brass and timpani, and a slightly hard edge to the upper strings
Agree about Mackerras: Scottish over Prague.
No Bohm? What about Kubelik? I like the 60s Vienna recordings with him more than the 80s BRSO ones.
Nope. Neither. They're not bad of course, but not favorites of mine.
No Carl Bohm?????
Hi David, I am just about to spring for an Eloquence twofer of many of the later symphonies by Colin Davis, which many say are much better than his Dresden ones. They are earlier than the Dresden ones. Any comment? I agree with Walter, Szell, and Boehm, in their own ways. I always find Mackerras disappointing fwiw..
Hello Raymond. Nice to see you here! Thanks for chiming in. Davis was always a terrific Mozart conductor, and you can get the earlier recordings with confidence.
RUclips captions interpreted your statement, per Szell: "intonational perfection," as "international perfection." LOL. Just thought you'd like to know.
Thank you. Maybe it's better their way?
'MacKerras did an earlier set with the Prague Chamber Orchestra, I never liked that set'. In your Mozart symphonies (complete set) video you tell us it's one of your favourites. Now, do you like it or not?
What day is it?
@@DavesClassicalGuide The one on 3 sep. 2020: Repertoire: The BEST Mozart Symphony Cycles (Boxed Sets). Your favourites are Fischer (dacapo) and MacKerras (Telarc).
@@stephanversmissen3953 Yes, and it still doesn't thrill me, but it's among the best of the batch. I don't have to love it to recommend it (though I'd be happier if I did). I respect the achievement.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for response! I love your down to earth reviews. Greetings from The Netherlands.
My pleasure.
Bernstein and Britten. You know your stuff!
Klemperer was a surprise. Never heard. I was classical marketing manager of EMI Classics in Brazil for 8 years - lost the chance :) I will look for it. Walter was really a special conductor. Gardiner's nº31 is great, but I agree - modern instruments work better in general. My question is - where did Szell failled for you? (just teasing)
Szell did a miserable Janacek Sinfonietta and a very mediocre Prokofiev Fifth, which he conducted often. Like everyone, he had his weaknesses.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I am your fan. Thanks to answer.
@@maudia27 You are very welcome.
Interesting to note that Szell made his conducting debut in St. Louis (while my grandfather was a 2nd trombone) and was seriously considered for music director. When Szell lost out, his manager stated that St. Louis "got what they deserved in Golshmann."
Well, as much as I like Gardiner and Bilson in the concertos, and Östman for the operas, I do really enjoy both Walter and Davis in the symphonies. Maybe their experience conducting the operas adds another dimension?
Possibly, but Gardiner did the operas quite well. Perhaps it's the difference between a real conductor and a mere accompanist.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Good point. Yes, I like Gardiner in the operas too. His Don Giovanni
reminds me of Walter in 1942! Anyway, has their ever been a more perfect sound for Mozart than that of the Dresden Staatskapelle?
By the way, being a good mere accompanist is not the easiest thing in the world!
I now realize the K in Say K450, really means Klump 450 !
Bingo!
A "schmoozefest", I will possibly borrow this one from you!
I think I feel a little bit more favorable toward the goals of historically informed performance than you, but you make two really good points. First, that modern instruments and orchestras developed, in part, for the purpose of playing Classical repertoire, so while they may not be "authentic", there's a sense in which they're "legitimate". It's not as though in playing Mozart, they are being asked to play something alien to them. The other good point is about musicality. I feel like for some HIP people, the scholarly effort of achieving a period-authentic performance (which is an undertaking that, in itself, is totally legitimate and interesting) takes up a lot of attention that would otherwise be going toward the musical interpretation of the work itself (which is a very different thing!). Playing something on a period instrument, with no vibrato, at (the best guess at) a historically correct tempo, etc., does not add up to musicality. There are plenty of period instrument performances out there that do have real musicality and that are a joy to listen to - but there are also plenty that may be superficially accurate but simply don't *sound* good. I guess what I'm trying to say, very long-windedly, is that I think HIP is a perfectly valid and worthwhile movement, as long as it's not mistaken as a substitute for musical feeling and sensitivity.
Can't argue with that!
I find it unbelievable you didn't mention Rene Jacobs and the Freiburger Barockorchester. Their recordings of numbers 38 to 41 are the best of the best. Full of drama, freshness and colour. And what about Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century. They deserve second place for me. Third come Gardiner and the English Baroque Soloists. Seems you are a bit preoccupied with American orchestras Mr. Hurwitz. In case you didn't notice... This being said: I like your channel !
No actually, I didn't notice, but thanks for mentioning those (inferior) period instrument versions! ;)
Let's stay friendly here, but these versions are in no way inferior. Let us also say that your taste in classical performances in general is a bit weird, but that is not a problem.
By the way, allmost all conductors of the American orchestras came from Europe, Bernstein being a notable exception. So be a bit more modest Mr. Hurwitz, about your so called fabulous American orchestras. Things have moved on since the days of Stokowski, Ormandy, Reiner and Szell Mr. Hurwitz. No use to keep hanging on to them like you do.
We do agree on one thing: there should come out a Van Beinum/RCO box very soon. Keep up the good work !
Oops. Sorry! Szell made his U. S. conducting debut in St. Louis in 1930 and was part of a trio of people who conducted the orchestra on a regular basis along with Enrique Arboz and Golschmann
Thanks. Cannot agree more with you regarding the so called HIP performances.
"What's not to love, guys?" I do love the Szell set but I've always been bothered and puzzled as to why this great Mozartian never recorded a Prague symphony. Does anyone know if there is perhaps a live Szell Prague?
And Mr. Hurwitz, thank you for these videos! I have been enjoying them, I do value your insights. I've subscribed to your channel and your website and your reviews have helped me grow as a listener.
No, there is no live Prague by Szell
This ruclips.net/video/_eIMPei-YmQ/видео.html purports to be a Szell/Cleveland live preformance of Mozart's Symphony 38 'Prague'. Since I know nothing of the provenance of the upload, I certainly can't vouch that it is.
I do think that a lot of the period orchestral guys do take tempi far too fast, I like the ECO, Mackerras, etc.
In Mozarts days most people heard these symphonies only once in their life, if ever, so discussions about tempo must have been very limited. Personally I feel a lot of disgust for the recordings you mention, because they are anachronistic. They are romantic Mozart, and they are meant to make the higher voices look good, mostly the violin. For example symphonie no.41 first mouvement. After the GP in the second theme I suddenly hear the viola part in Hogwood and Jacobs. In the recordings you mention that is impossible. Those recordings reminds me of what Heifetz said: "I can hear the cello and that is wrong". I like to hear other voices, too.
The funny thing about Mozart symphonies is that I used to regard them as bland, say, compared to Beethoven, until I heard Harnoncourt/RCO (I think it was No.36) which really highlights the propulsiveness and rhythm of the music because it is so punchy! But once I got into them, I came to prefer the very recording I used to find boring (Bohm, Karajan) over Harnoncourt because of the natural tempo and phrasing with velvety strings. (The only exception being Jupiter's last movement which is truly awe-inspiring) Which forces me to disagree with you on Mackrerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra - phrasing is indeed clipped and it just sounds comparatively small. (Mozart sounds better when it is played grand) I prefer his Prague output because where there are fewer such problems.
Wand is among my favorites with did not make your list, as well as Vegh's 38/41 on Capriccio.
Many fine versions did not make my list. I am trying to be representative more than comprehensive. There's always room for more.
Mozart (unlike Joseph Haydn) didn't conduct from a harpsichord but rather from a fortepiano, so of course, we don't have evidence of that. We certainly know from eyewitness accounts Mozart did conduct this way in case of his operas. As for the performance of these symphonies, I think only one of the 3 late symphonies was *properly* performed in Mozart's lifetime, by the Tonkünstler-Societät in the Burgtheater conducted by none other, than Antonio Salieri. Whether he did so from the violin or a keyboard instrument, we may never know until a review or testimony shows up.
I don't think that is the issue. The question is not whether a keyboard was present, but rather given its likely presence, what did it actually play. I feel certain it was not a formal "continuo part" as we so often hear today. The reason a keyboard was always present was because "orchestral" concerts were seldom purely orchestral. There would singers, improvisations, solos, and other things requiring a keyboard. The fact that the composer or "conductor" may have sat there means nothing.
@@DavesClassicalGuide From what I understand, the most plausible explanation is this: orchestras needed a keyboard accompanist/conductor because one: they weren’t professional orchestral musicians, they were hired musicians for that particular occasion and two: whatever they did play, 99% of the time, it was played prima vista from a hastily scribbled manuscript, there were no rehearsal or measure numbers so if they messed up big time, they would have to start right from the beginning. They needed someone to help with important cues and certain musical material. There was either a konzertmeister who played the first violin and conducted with the bow or a kapellmeister who played the fortepiano. There was even a brief period where both of them were part of the orchestra. Worst case scenario the conductor would stomp with his feet or carry a big staff baton which he hit the ground with, creating unholy background noise. The more "tame" solution at the time was that they let the konzertmeister conduct with the bow of the violin, standing up, playing important material the musicians needed help with. This is how the premiere of Mozart's Paris symphony went as described by the man himself. But there was an Italian practice where two keyboards were part of the orchestra, the maestro and the ripieno (tutti player). “The fact that the composer or "conductor" may have sat there means nothing” I have to take issue with your last sentence, there is a myriad of relevant musicological literature on this subject, I won’t link you to a bunch of scientific articles hidden behind a paywall, let’s just say that as late as 1802 Koch wrote that people were still using harpsichord as a means of supporting singers and filling out the harmony by means of the thoroughbass. At an 1816 performance of a Clementi symphony, the composer played - according to an eyewitness - “isolated chords which he struck as an accompaniment on the piano”.
@@Kris9kris Yes, I know this and largely agree, but as your own evidence suggests, my question remains: what did they actually play? How often? All the time or only when necessary? Your comments suggest that in a modern performance scenario, with well-rehearsed professional musicians, the keyboard would be totally unnecessary and its interventions minimal, if at all. In order for HIP performances to be accurate to the reality, the continue would have had to be essential to support the orchestra because of its inadequacies, and not because the music demanded it. This is true of no HIP performance I have ever heard; and yet, we still have that continue, pounding away with soloistic verve. This is wrong.
@@DavesClassicalGuide “Your comments suggest that in a modern performance scenario, with well-rehearsed professional musicians, the keyboard would be totally unnecessary and its interventions minimal, if at all.” That’s why continuo-playing practically became outdated in the first half of the 19th century and certainly dead by mid 1850’s.
“what did they actually play? How often? All the time or only when necessary?” Robert Levin explained this pretty well: composers only wrote down what was not instantly obvious to a well-educated musician of their time. My guess would be (I have to do the research so take it with a grain of salt) that there are no period manuals for conducting with the keyboard because it was so commonplace, and even if there are, the big irony of HIP is that there wasn’t a unified practice so what they did in Italy does not apply to certain parts of Germany and so forth… I guess some people played with soloistic impetus even then, and some people only gave hints to the orchestra. For the record, I really dislike needless purity spiralling in the HIP community, I would much rather hear a proper allegro/allegretto minuet for once - which nobody, I mean nobody does, not even hardcore HIPsters - than slightly more period-accurate strings…
@@elaineblackhurst1509 That's good to know, thanks for the correction.
I used to have a copy of the Colin Davis set you mention but I unloaded it a long time ago. His mozart, although pretty, sure put me to sleep. Boring. I went with the Krips/Concertgebouw instead.
I also was quite excited by the Hogwood Mozart recordings when they came out, and heard them in Chicago, at Northwestern and at the Auditorium Theater - not an ideal space for such a small group: they were like little mites in the cavernous Auditorium Theater. But I gradually lost interest, and now find the string tone on those recordings, painful to listen to. Your review is so timely: I've been listening to Klemperer, Walter, and Szell Mozart recordings these days.
Plus: Hogwood took every last repeat! I'm with all those who like Walter, Szell, Klemperer. I'd add Kubelik.
Listening to the Dohnanyi set I always get a surprise when the Webern comes on after the Mozart. For a brief moment I panic that the CD player is having a catastrophic failure.
Thank you for calling out one of the most annoying trends in "period-style" performances of classical-era symphonic music: adding continuo parts. While Haydn and Mozart probably conducted their works from a keyboard in their own performances, there is no evidence that it served any purpose beyond keeping the orchestra together as a legacy from the performance practice of previous generations. I still have not heard any musical argument as to why continuo parts is necessary in this music, the way it is necessary in Baroque-era music to (1) reinforce the rhythmic continuity that was so essential to the Baroque era, and (2) to fill in the harmonies. Rhythm in the classical era became so much more fluid and dynamic which renders the continuo obsolete in that regard. As for harmonies, HA! Can anyone show a passage from a mature Haydn/Mozart symphony where the harmonies needs to be filled in? Next thing you know they're going to be adding continuo to string quartet performances to fill in all of the harmonic gaps in those works and make up for Mozart's lack of inner part writing (/s). The best of period performances use historical studies to bring new insights into these works and show us things we've been missing/not heard before in them. But many just make a failed attempt at a historical reconstruction which belies the timelessness of these masterpieces.
Well said! I would only add that the one thing historical performances also lacked was a modern conductor, so to put one of today's control freak HIP conductors in charge of an ensemble, leading them with fanatical precision, and then to add a continue part besides, is even more anachronistic.
“rhythmic continuity” What are you talking about? Continuo playing started as an accompaniment to metrically-free arias in the early renaissance. “The best of period performances use historical studies to bring new insights into these works” Then why did I not hear one single HIP performer play a proper allegretto/allegro minuet in a Mozart or Haydn symphony? And don’t even get me started on Neumann’s argument that Czerny and Hummel wanted to ‘Beethovenize’ Mozart - this has been conclusively disproven by the early Haydn/Niemecz organs. ruclips.net/video/-Rz9JcOaZw4/видео.html
BTW, the German word you're looking for is "Mutterleibssinfonien".
Thanks, but I like my version better.
Beecham once said that the harpsichord sounded like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof. 🤪
And it often does...