Customer Reviews

Beethoven: 9 Symphonies ~ Karajan

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

It's probably true that the 1962-63 DG Berlin set is the best of Karajan's four(!) recorded Beethoven cycles. But there is more to these earlier mono Philharmonia performances than the other reviewers seem able to appreciate. As interpretations, the Philharmonia recordings certainly sound less massive and brilliant than any of their DG counterparts. But to compensate, the Philharmonia performances achieve a freshness and naturalness that eludes DG's later stereo sets. In a word, the Philharmonia performances sound less self-conscious than the DG recordings, where you're always very much aware that the performances are about "Herbert von Karajan Conducts Beethoven." The Italian composer Bruno Maderna once contemptuously referred to Karajan's "chocolate Beethoven," and it was the Berlin recordings that lay behind that judgment, not these much less fussy-sounding Philharmonia performances. One explanation for the difference: Karajan didn't "own" London's Philharmonia Orchestra the way he came to own the Berliners, and the English orchestra's very unique and un-Karajan sound -- with strings recessed & winds front and center -- tended to resist the conductor's extreme preference for smoothed-out textures and soft attacks. (And, by the way, the Philharmonia's wonderfully colored woodwinds consistently outclasses the Berliners, no matter which Berlin cycle you turn to for comparison.) Finally, the mono sound on these recordings (only the 8th symphony is stereo) is much better than the other reviewers indicate. The recordings were produced by EMI legend Walter Legge, whose engineers were famous for securing a natural and warm sound quality, even in mono. I don't hear any harshness or shallowness at all, just a very attractive, well-defined orchestral sound stage where instrumental choirs register, but without unnatural spotlighting. The "Eroica," Fourth and "Pastorale" symphonies are particularly satisfying examples of Legge's very musical approach to recording. There's no question but that the DG stereo recordings sound more modern and high-tech than the Philharmonia recordings. But whether they sound more musical is another question entirely.

Karajan at his freshest and most inspired, the Philharmonia in its absolute prime...THIS is the Beethoven cycle for a newcomer to classical music- there's not a weak link in it ! It's sensuous and warm when it needs to be; it's austere and noble when it needs to be; it's deep when it needs to be; and it's "fleet-of-foot" when it needs to be. Nothing goes wrong...

The FIRST is like Haydn, with a touch of insolence- a great start to the cycle. And contrary to what another reviewer wrote, the THIRD isn't heavy or lumpish AT ALL- it DANCES. The SECOND and FOURTH prove to be almost as "pastoral" as the Pastoral. The FIFTH is all MUSIC- not Schopenhauerian metaphysics. And unlike the 1962 Berlin re-make of the Pastoral (where the first two movements are unconscionably rushed, so that it isn't a weekend in the country, but a lunch break in the city park), THIS one is as fresh as a field of Mount Rainier lupines after the rain. The SEVENTH is the greatest since the 1936 NY Toscanini - without T's rushing of the scherzo. The EIGHTH is all Rossinian gas & gaiters. The NINTH carves a new path to the heart of this work: spirituality, not ideology- and yet with all the colors of a Florentine fresco. (For some, this betrays the "core" of the NINTH, but it's good to hear it done THIS way for a change.)

But the amazing thing is how HvK and the producer of this set, Walter Legge, were able to conjure up a South German/Viennese sound from those British strings...Not to mention the solo horn passages by Dennis Brain !!!

The 1990 transfers are fully adequate. Still, a re-do would be welcome (don't hold your breath, music lovers). Karajan's next Beethoven cycle, the ballyhooed 1961-62 Berlin, is of course better known, and one of the best in stereo. It was the first to be internationally MARKETED as a cycle (JFK was given a complimentary copy on his last Euro trip in June 1963). But it was NOT THE FIRST TO BE RECORDED AS A CYCLE- all hype to the contrary. (Two such cycles, the stereo Bruno Walter/Hollywood, and the Josef Krips/LSO, had already been completed.)

When you compare the '61-62 Berlin with this earlier Philharmonia set, a conscious cleverness...a certain "been there, done that," has already seeped into the music: "This is PRODUCTION- Just LISTEN to our execution!" True, in the early 60s, Karajan's notorious penchant for gloss & smoothness hadn't yet taken hold; but the Philharmonia cycle is the more musical, organic experience of Beethoven.

You can get greater depth in Furtwangler; greater fire in Toscanini; perhaps greater "organic" structuring in Jochum and greater nuancing with Monteux (MY two other favorites for Beethoven)...But the Karajan Philharmoinia cycle is an ideal one for entering Beethoven's multi-faceted realm of thought and feeling. You can't lose.

The first of Karajan's four traversals of the Nine have several strikes against it: boxy '50's mono sonics instead of the meticulous engineering von K generally oversaw, an Anglophonic orchestra in its infancy instead of the conductor's preferred Viennese and Berliner puppets who spoke in his own Germanic idiom. But I maintain this is the best of Karajan's cracks at Beethoven perhaps because of these "flaws." Karajan's own fatal flaw was a worship of surface beauty at the expense of content and emotion, particularly fatal when turned on these symphonies. The means he employed were a lavish blended orchestral sounds, balance banished in favor of blend (culinary critiques of this sound likened it to "chocolate Beethoven" and "massaged kobe beef," and Szell probably had von K in mind when he mentioned smothering asparagus in chocolate) and fussy artificial engineering soundstages. Here, as a guest conductor, the Londoners may have been able to resist Karajan's fabled charismatic blandishments and been able to assert the individuality of their own sound; and the primitive engineering throws a spanner in the works of Karajan's pursuit of sound over sense: so what's left over are Karajan's strengths unecumbered by his deficits -- vigorous attack, rigorous sense of line, perfect tempos, and a chamber-like balance of the instrumental choirs that one hears in his best Wagner recordings. This is technocratic Beethoven at its best, like the Solti/CSO recordings. You won't hear a tour de force a la Klemperer, Walter, Furtwangler, Barenboim; but listening will be rewarded with consistency and a sense of the cycle as a contiguous whole, played and conducted with the utmost precision. And the sound is not nearly so bad as the nay-sayers here say. A little recessed, but you can hear everything. Moreover, unlike any other Karajan Beethoven cycles, as a result of the primitive recording, the winds are for once front and center, and the strings (which do sing beautifully) are backgrounded. And the brass and percussion, all but inaudible in the later DG sets, ring out loud and clear. Whether deliberate or not, this negates von K's later tendencies towards Wagnerian wallowing, and restores a much-needed classicism to his Beethoven. Weirdly enough, the balances make the Philharmonia sound a little like Harnoncourt's Chamber Orchestra of Europe (which is a good thing).

I am a great admirer of Karajan's Beethoven and can second all the praise given to this, his earliest Beethoven symphony cycle from London (it also includes a Coriolan and Egmont Over.). But I can also second the complaints about the sound. EMI was not in the vanguard of LP sonics, and during this same period (1951-55) recorded sound was all over the map. We were getting marvelous early stereo from RCA, incredibly ugly mono for Toscanini's NBC Sym. from the same company, excellent warm-sounding orchestral recordings for Bruno Walter from Columbia's 30th St. studio in New York, and just as good Kingsway Hall sound from EMI in London. These recordings are also from Kingsway Hall, but at least in this reissue they are murky, thin, and muddled, with the Philharmonia frequently placed too far from the microphones for real impact.

The glaring proof of these flaws is the Sym. #8, the sole performance recorded in stereo (1955), which jumps into vivid relief--the sound here is worthy of the great performance. I also find that the reviewers here, both pro and con, are exaggerating Karajan's change of style. The Amazon reviewer is mistaken to call this early Eroica ponderous--it's as fast as Karajan's later readings. Admittedly, he tends to be more thrustful and incisive in London than in Berlin, but Karajan's 1963 cycle is by no means mannered, smoothed-over, or glib. He is recognizably the same conductor in that cycle as in this earlier one. Any listener will recognize how compelling these London readings are; the question is really over the dated sonics.

P.S. Oct. 2009 -- I see that Naxos Historical (sold in the UK and Europe) has released the Sym. 1 and 3 from this set, remastered by Mark Obert-thorn. Let's see what he can do for the dry, boxy sound.

Este set de las nueve Sinfonías de Herbert Von Karajan es el primero que grabó el maestro, las versiones son de una extraordinaria calidad, donde se muestra la calidad interpretativa de las Sinfonías el Sr. Karajan, que después las perfeccionaría en sus versiones con los berlineses. Obviamente que el sonido no es de lo mejor, más tampoco es malo. Y para aquellos que nos gusta el ver la evolución de los grandes maestros este es un álbum para disfrutar. Los solistas que utiliza en la novena Sinfonía, son sencillamente sobresalientes.

There are a few things to concider: 1) The sound is terrible - pure and simple. We have to understand that Karajan is introspective, so the Karajan power is to be found within the sound. It has to wrap you, pull you in, and when only about 15 percent of it is being captured by the microphone, not to mention the most recordings not being in stereo ( short of the 8th ) - you could be made to believe that this is simply a boring performance, although anyone slightly familiar with Karajan's work, knows that Karajan is anything but boring. 2) The early fifties are the least interesting periond in Karajan's musical perfomances. This was the time when Karajan was just bursting out. He was not yet appointed musical manager of the Berlin Philharmonic, and as his biography will verify, at the time he was only interestd in "What could I do to knock them out", referring to the audience. This was also the time when Karajan concentrated most on technical precision and perfection, with hardly any personal tone of voice at all, or imagination, but again - that's the way it comes out of these recordings, very much could be because of the horrible sound. The recordings that reveal the Karajan we know and love are the recordings beginning in 1957. Don't bother with the rest. Excluding, however, the "Early Karajn" edition, with recordings from the thirties and fourties, which have a touch if genius about them, in spite of the sound.

This is by far the weakest of Karajan's 4 (!) recorded Beethoven cycles. The performances and orchestra are rather bland, and the sound quality is quite bad, with significant tape hiss and muddled frequency ranges throughout -- perhaps if this were 20-bit remastered to current standards, it would be more competitive. Only recommended for those who *must* have all 4 of Karajan's sets -- it's not truly terrible, by any stretch, but it's mediocre, and at this price you can do far better elsewhere.

If you're looking for a "vintage" (1940's or earlier) Beethoven set, try Furtwangler (my personal fave), or perhaps Toscanini. For beginners who just want to hear Karajan's Beethoven, stick with his middle 2 cycles -- both the 60s and 70s sets are outstanding.