Songs from this album are available to purchase as MP3s. Click on "Buy MP3" or
view the MP3 Album.
| |||||||||||||||
Listen to Samples and Buy MP3s
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Editorial Reviews
From the Artist
These acclaimed performances were recorded live in the Gewandhaus over the last three years, in preparation for the highly-anticipated complete cycles that Maestro Chailly and the orchestra will give in several major European cities in October and November 2011 - performances which will provide the platform for launching these important new recordings
This set of the nine Symphonies will also include selected Beethoven Overtures
Product Description
This complete cycle of Beethoven's nine Symphonies is a landmark event for Decca, for Maestro Chailly, and for the Gewandhaus Orchestra, where he has been Kapellmeister since 2005. The cycle showcases the finesse and musicality of the legendary Gewandhaus Orchestra - from the Haydnesque elegance of the first two symphonies, to the grandeur and drama of the choral Ninth Symphony
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
34 of 37 people found the following review helpful
Format:Audio CD|Amazon Verified Purchase
It is rare these days for the major labels to invest in projects of this magnitude, a Beethoven cycle from the most important conductor active today and one of the oldest orchestras in the world. Everything about this release had an air of importance about it and it nice to see that there can still be excitement (whether genuine or manufactured) for yet another Beethoven cycle. But the question at the end of day is whether the cycle is a success. And the answer to that is, of course, yes and no.
There is no question that Chailly is a brilliant musician and that his band is a spectacular ensemble. There are too many fine ensemble moments to catalogue individually, but the sparkling allegretto from the Eighth, the ferocious trio from the Fifth's scherzo, or the entirety of the Pastorale bespeak just how magnificent this ensemble really is. The strings rich and plush, the winds idiomatic, and the brass, horns especially, offering biting commentary on these tried and true war horses. Tutti passages never sound routine as Chailly unearths a kalidscope of colors from his players, such as in the andante from the first or the magnificent Konig Stephan overture.
What is most thrilling about this set, however, is that Chailly has a lot to say about this music, nearly all of it good. Chailly's intelligence is evident in the amalgam of styles on display here. Clearly, any cycle from the Gewandhaus must pay homage to its place in the history of the German tradition, and in that sense, Chailly's big string section and dramatic flair are in keeping with the interpretations from Karajan, Wand, and Blomstedt. At the same time, Chailly has as much of the spirit of Toscanni in him, coupled with the latest scholarship from the historically informed and period groups, with his brisk tempos and hard-hitting forward focus. This is most evident in his adagio from the fourth, a full two minutes faster than Bohm's "traditional" approach with the Vienna Philharmonic, and the finale from that same symphony, along with those of the second and eighth. What we are left with is big band Beethoven that is taught, athletic, angular, idiomatic, and, oddly individualistic.
Chailly opts for the Peter's editions of the symphonies, rather than the recent Barenreiter editions, which might raise a few eyebrows, but it affects mostly how the music is delivered rather than the notes proper. The result is smart - trumpets playing the entire main theme in the Eroica's coda, horns playing throughout the final bars of the Leonore overture, the "traditional" dynamic markings for the timpani in the scherzo of the ninth. Throughout, Chailly adds his own brilliant interpretive touches. These include some tinkerings with dynamics - subito fortepianos in cadence figures - unearthing oft-buried textures - the horns in the scene by the brook (!) - and imbuing the music with the extremes that make Beethoven so satisfying. This being Chailly, however, means that not all the choices work. Like Harnoncourt before him, Chailly is sometimes too much of an interventionist for his own good. The ritardando at the developmental climax of the first's allegro is purposeless while the diminuendo he slathers over the main theme of eighth's allegro run counter to Beethoven's intentions. Nor is Chailly string-heavy tonal palette always advantageous; strings smother wind details in the fifth's finale while the antiphonally placed second violins are sometimes obscured in tutti passages.
As far as the individual performances go, there are some real standouts, including a stellar Pastorale - brisk and brilliant, coupled with some of the most informative and idiomatic playing you are likely to hear. The First has the air of Toscanni and Wand about it, which is saying something, while the fourth and eighth sparkle with energy. The Eroica's funeral march is a gruesome affair while the entirety of the ninth is a success. The fifth and seventh are both excellent performance, even if, when compared to Szell or Vanska, they lack that last ounce of cosmic energy.
Yet, despite this long list of success, the cycle falls a hair short of perfection due to Chailly's hard-hitting approach. This is less a function of speed than it is tension; Chailly does not quite "let go" the way he should in the cantabile slow movement of the fourth, the dolce trio of the seventh, or in second's larghetto. In some ways, despite its obvious tonal and spiritual linkages to Toscanni and Karajan, there is a lot of Solti on display here. Big moments are spectacularly impressive, but some of the more tender moments feel muscle bound. Of course, Chailly is a far more sensitive and idiomatic conductor than Solti - I show my prejudice here - but his fiercely driven and explosively forceful Beethoven may not suit all tastes, most especially those that have yet to warm to fast Beethoven.
With that sole reservation, this set is well worth exploring. Chailly offers so much and his earnest, honest musicianship is infectious. His body, mind, and soul are entirely invested in this music, which is exactly what Beethoven requires. Recommended!
There is no question that Chailly is a brilliant musician and that his band is a spectacular ensemble. There are too many fine ensemble moments to catalogue individually, but the sparkling allegretto from the Eighth, the ferocious trio from the Fifth's scherzo, or the entirety of the Pastorale bespeak just how magnificent this ensemble really is. The strings rich and plush, the winds idiomatic, and the brass, horns especially, offering biting commentary on these tried and true war horses. Tutti passages never sound routine as Chailly unearths a kalidscope of colors from his players, such as in the andante from the first or the magnificent Konig Stephan overture.
What is most thrilling about this set, however, is that Chailly has a lot to say about this music, nearly all of it good. Chailly's intelligence is evident in the amalgam of styles on display here. Clearly, any cycle from the Gewandhaus must pay homage to its place in the history of the German tradition, and in that sense, Chailly's big string section and dramatic flair are in keeping with the interpretations from Karajan, Wand, and Blomstedt. At the same time, Chailly has as much of the spirit of Toscanni in him, coupled with the latest scholarship from the historically informed and period groups, with his brisk tempos and hard-hitting forward focus. This is most evident in his adagio from the fourth, a full two minutes faster than Bohm's "traditional" approach with the Vienna Philharmonic, and the finale from that same symphony, along with those of the second and eighth. What we are left with is big band Beethoven that is taught, athletic, angular, idiomatic, and, oddly individualistic.
Chailly opts for the Peter's editions of the symphonies, rather than the recent Barenreiter editions, which might raise a few eyebrows, but it affects mostly how the music is delivered rather than the notes proper. The result is smart - trumpets playing the entire main theme in the Eroica's coda, horns playing throughout the final bars of the Leonore overture, the "traditional" dynamic markings for the timpani in the scherzo of the ninth. Throughout, Chailly adds his own brilliant interpretive touches. These include some tinkerings with dynamics - subito fortepianos in cadence figures - unearthing oft-buried textures - the horns in the scene by the brook (!) - and imbuing the music with the extremes that make Beethoven so satisfying. This being Chailly, however, means that not all the choices work. Like Harnoncourt before him, Chailly is sometimes too much of an interventionist for his own good. The ritardando at the developmental climax of the first's allegro is purposeless while the diminuendo he slathers over the main theme of eighth's allegro run counter to Beethoven's intentions. Nor is Chailly string-heavy tonal palette always advantageous; strings smother wind details in the fifth's finale while the antiphonally placed second violins are sometimes obscured in tutti passages.
As far as the individual performances go, there are some real standouts, including a stellar Pastorale - brisk and brilliant, coupled with some of the most informative and idiomatic playing you are likely to hear. The First has the air of Toscanni and Wand about it, which is saying something, while the fourth and eighth sparkle with energy. The Eroica's funeral march is a gruesome affair while the entirety of the ninth is a success. The fifth and seventh are both excellent performance, even if, when compared to Szell or Vanska, they lack that last ounce of cosmic energy.
Yet, despite this long list of success, the cycle falls a hair short of perfection due to Chailly's hard-hitting approach. This is less a function of speed than it is tension; Chailly does not quite "let go" the way he should in the cantabile slow movement of the fourth, the dolce trio of the seventh, or in second's larghetto. In some ways, despite its obvious tonal and spiritual linkages to Toscanni and Karajan, there is a lot of Solti on display here. Big moments are spectacularly impressive, but some of the more tender moments feel muscle bound. Of course, Chailly is a far more sensitive and idiomatic conductor than Solti - I show my prejudice here - but his fiercely driven and explosively forceful Beethoven may not suit all tastes, most especially those that have yet to warm to fast Beethoven.
With that sole reservation, this set is well worth exploring. Chailly offers so much and his earnest, honest musicianship is infectious. His body, mind, and soul are entirely invested in this music, which is exactly what Beethoven requires. Recommended!
32 of 36 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bracing performances, gorgeous sound, and real vision...Chailly's Beethoven was worth the wait!
December 12, 2011
Format:Audio CD|Amazon Verified Purchase
I'll amend this review later with more blow-by-blow detail. Suffice it to say now, though, that this new Beethoven cycle from Chailly and the GOL will firmly be in the top tier for many serious listeners and collectors, as well as the novice who may have a few of the symphonies by various performers, but not yet a complete set/cycle.
Amongst many followers of musicological fashion, the de rigeur of the new Del Mar/Baerenreiter urtext has dominated discussion of current Beethoven performance practice, so it's worth noting that Chailly has used the "old" Peters Edition, but with an exactitude that has eluded--usually by design--several generations of conductors. Performing traditions have added layer upon layer of editorial gloss--"Karajan always drew out this figure," "Furtwangler started this accelerando two beats before the mark," that sort of thing--and indeed, Chailly's game was to seek out and examine the mark-ups by several of his musical mentors, weigh the evidence....and then land squarely on the side of Beethoven's "original" text (specifically the Peters edit thereof).
Brave words from a reviewer, and an even braver stand for a conductor--a rather facile postion that seldom survives scrutiny. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Chailly has done over the term of this multi-year studio cycle (no live relay patches here....hooray!). Many was the time that I went running to my miniature scores to see if what I'd heard was there--it's that startling at times--but rarely did Chailly come up short vs. the dynamic markings or the repeats (pretty much ALL of them). More importantly, though, was his attention to Beethoven's "controversial" crochet indications: startling tempos to match the eyebrow-raising dynamics. This is where we get deep into the weeds of original-performance controversy, as well as the old saws about how for whatever reason, "Beethoven didn't really mean it," or words to that effect. Scholars, performers, and listeners have been apologising for Beethoven's score instructions for 200 years, and so once again, here we go with another conductor who's promising to scrub the score clean from all the accumulated Victorian hagiographic varnish (the "Beethoven for the Oldsmobile" approach that drapes the composer in black and hangs him over the parlour mantle) and conductorial second-guessing and point-making. When done well, the old approach yielded Furtwangler, Klemperer, Bernstein, Karajan and the like--much received tradition and hitting of all the right tick-marks; done badly, and then it's pretty much any conductor of middling rank who seems mired in the mud. The Period Performance crowd have their own idols, with Hogwood, Norrington, Harnoncourt and Gardiner leading the publicity charge over the last 30 years. In the middle ground, Vanska & the Minnesota band: lean textures, brighter winds and brass, minimal vibrato, the new Del Mar edition score--a justly well-received blend of new scholarship and traditional presentation without the fat. So given all this, where do Chailly and the Gewandhaus Orchestra of Leipzig come in?
Like Vanska, tempos are brisk, rhythms are crisp, dynamics are precisely observed. But in Chailly's hands, we really do hear the Italianate brio of Toscanini--perhaps filtered by the watchful eye of a Gardiner. Here indeed is where Chailly knits things together. The inner rhythms that Beethoven stretched over multiple bars come alive in the quick tempos--faithful to Beethoven's challenging crochet markings--and sharply-etched dynamics. The long lines sing out with an almost Rossinian (I can see the brows tightening) bel canto, swept forward with a pinache that stands in sharp contrast to lesser didacticians like Norrington. Gone are the pregnant pauses inserted for melodramatic emphasis over the years, the swooning swells and close-ups that were more appropriate to the Hollywood soundstages. With Chailly, you can really hear the debt to Haydn being put paid by the close of Symphony #1; the truly revolutionary structure of "Eroica" with its still-arresting crags and cul-de-sacs of dissonance--relieved at the last second by triumphant resolution; and thunder-claps of tympany in the scherzo of the 9th, not to mention the truly rapturous singing in the choral finale. And, the genius of it all is that most of the heavy lifting is accomplished by sticking closely to Beethoven's markings.
No sonic Listerine to weather. Chailly's steel strings are well-informed by period practice (lean textures, minimal vibrato, and 1st/2nd L/R division), the winds are pungent, and the brass all but bark on occasion (when called for) in the best valveless style--though all such touches are tempered by an almost vocal quality to the long line. Yet, even more so than with Gardiner, there is a palpable excitement and "newness" to the proceedings. Vanska and Gardiner are close cousins here, though I think the palm goes to Chailly. The GOL of Kurt Masur in his hey-day was never this nimble, never this alive. Looking at my listening notes, I keep running across references to articulation in the low strings I'd never heard before, or wind figurations in counterpoint with the long line of the aforesaid strings....that sort of thing. The Eroica's funeral march is very much a military one, no longer suggestive of Prince Albert draped in black on his way to George's Chapel (I ran back to my old Karajan 1962 set--still a good one--and was promptly appalled all over again at the agogic slowness, fashionable for generations of listeners and concertgoers). The impression here, and indeed throughout the whole cycle of symphonies and a generous ration of overtures, is of a truly fine orchestra asked to do the extraordinary, to re-mold its signature burnished tone into a quicksilver tool at Chailly's disposal, equally committed to realising a performance vision. It's what I'd hoped to hear with Rattle's recent cycle with the VPO, but you can hear the orchestra fighting him from time to time. None of that here.
Lest I wax on further with the performances, on to the sound. We've a beautifully wide and deep soundstage, as well as a strong but well-managed hall ambience--a GOL signature left intact. It reminded me of John Culshaw working in Kingsway Hall, but with a more elegant/plush/upholstered sound, and more detailed. I don't have a desk-count for violins, but it feels like about half-strength, making the winds and brass more "present" without being spotlit. This also yields the dividend noted above, with the astonishing business of the cellos and basses allowed to "tell" without coming through as a low-pitched smear. You really do marvel at what serves as Beethoven's "motor," the precise bowing generating a virtual heartbeat of articulated motion. Less a product of discreet multi-miking than well-captured orchestral technique, this simple example of sonic clarity balanced from the podium bolsters Chailly's vision.
Price-wise the set is still a bargain, even though now more than the $35.80 I paid through Amazon's pre-order (look at their secondary sellers for a better break). Yet, compared to other full sets--not to mention the very nice hardbound booklet-with-sleeves album presentation style--it remains a very good deal. Closest comparison will be Vanska, as detailed above, though the monetary outlay for the latter is significantly more. I'm still keeping my old Karajan '62 set, along with Gardiner and Harnoncourt, my Vanska singles & various dribs and drabs from other worthies. The Symphonies have and will always summon great performances. But--and here's another listening notes observation--it's rare that I've smiled ear to ear as a Beethoven cycle progressed in front of me on first hearing. And the second, and the third. All the usual Amazon suspects will no doubt weigh in with correctives and citations ad nauseum, and that's all to the good. It means we're paying attention, and it is after all the "core" of the core repetoire. And, to be fair, I've been underwhelmed by Chailly in the past (his Mahler is VERY hit-and-miss). Nevertheless, THIS is truly a fine effort. The doubters may be in for a rather pleasant surprise.
Amongst many followers of musicological fashion, the de rigeur of the new Del Mar/Baerenreiter urtext has dominated discussion of current Beethoven performance practice, so it's worth noting that Chailly has used the "old" Peters Edition, but with an exactitude that has eluded--usually by design--several generations of conductors. Performing traditions have added layer upon layer of editorial gloss--"Karajan always drew out this figure," "Furtwangler started this accelerando two beats before the mark," that sort of thing--and indeed, Chailly's game was to seek out and examine the mark-ups by several of his musical mentors, weigh the evidence....and then land squarely on the side of Beethoven's "original" text (specifically the Peters edit thereof).
Brave words from a reviewer, and an even braver stand for a conductor--a rather facile postion that seldom survives scrutiny. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Chailly has done over the term of this multi-year studio cycle (no live relay patches here....hooray!). Many was the time that I went running to my miniature scores to see if what I'd heard was there--it's that startling at times--but rarely did Chailly come up short vs. the dynamic markings or the repeats (pretty much ALL of them). More importantly, though, was his attention to Beethoven's "controversial" crochet indications: startling tempos to match the eyebrow-raising dynamics. This is where we get deep into the weeds of original-performance controversy, as well as the old saws about how for whatever reason, "Beethoven didn't really mean it," or words to that effect. Scholars, performers, and listeners have been apologising for Beethoven's score instructions for 200 years, and so once again, here we go with another conductor who's promising to scrub the score clean from all the accumulated Victorian hagiographic varnish (the "Beethoven for the Oldsmobile" approach that drapes the composer in black and hangs him over the parlour mantle) and conductorial second-guessing and point-making. When done well, the old approach yielded Furtwangler, Klemperer, Bernstein, Karajan and the like--much received tradition and hitting of all the right tick-marks; done badly, and then it's pretty much any conductor of middling rank who seems mired in the mud. The Period Performance crowd have their own idols, with Hogwood, Norrington, Harnoncourt and Gardiner leading the publicity charge over the last 30 years. In the middle ground, Vanska & the Minnesota band: lean textures, brighter winds and brass, minimal vibrato, the new Del Mar edition score--a justly well-received blend of new scholarship and traditional presentation without the fat. So given all this, where do Chailly and the Gewandhaus Orchestra of Leipzig come in?
Like Vanska, tempos are brisk, rhythms are crisp, dynamics are precisely observed. But in Chailly's hands, we really do hear the Italianate brio of Toscanini--perhaps filtered by the watchful eye of a Gardiner. Here indeed is where Chailly knits things together. The inner rhythms that Beethoven stretched over multiple bars come alive in the quick tempos--faithful to Beethoven's challenging crochet markings--and sharply-etched dynamics. The long lines sing out with an almost Rossinian (I can see the brows tightening) bel canto, swept forward with a pinache that stands in sharp contrast to lesser didacticians like Norrington. Gone are the pregnant pauses inserted for melodramatic emphasis over the years, the swooning swells and close-ups that were more appropriate to the Hollywood soundstages. With Chailly, you can really hear the debt to Haydn being put paid by the close of Symphony #1; the truly revolutionary structure of "Eroica" with its still-arresting crags and cul-de-sacs of dissonance--relieved at the last second by triumphant resolution; and thunder-claps of tympany in the scherzo of the 9th, not to mention the truly rapturous singing in the choral finale. And, the genius of it all is that most of the heavy lifting is accomplished by sticking closely to Beethoven's markings.
No sonic Listerine to weather. Chailly's steel strings are well-informed by period practice (lean textures, minimal vibrato, and 1st/2nd L/R division), the winds are pungent, and the brass all but bark on occasion (when called for) in the best valveless style--though all such touches are tempered by an almost vocal quality to the long line. Yet, even more so than with Gardiner, there is a palpable excitement and "newness" to the proceedings. Vanska and Gardiner are close cousins here, though I think the palm goes to Chailly. The GOL of Kurt Masur in his hey-day was never this nimble, never this alive. Looking at my listening notes, I keep running across references to articulation in the low strings I'd never heard before, or wind figurations in counterpoint with the long line of the aforesaid strings....that sort of thing. The Eroica's funeral march is very much a military one, no longer suggestive of Prince Albert draped in black on his way to George's Chapel (I ran back to my old Karajan 1962 set--still a good one--and was promptly appalled all over again at the agogic slowness, fashionable for generations of listeners and concertgoers). The impression here, and indeed throughout the whole cycle of symphonies and a generous ration of overtures, is of a truly fine orchestra asked to do the extraordinary, to re-mold its signature burnished tone into a quicksilver tool at Chailly's disposal, equally committed to realising a performance vision. It's what I'd hoped to hear with Rattle's recent cycle with the VPO, but you can hear the orchestra fighting him from time to time. None of that here.
Lest I wax on further with the performances, on to the sound. We've a beautifully wide and deep soundstage, as well as a strong but well-managed hall ambience--a GOL signature left intact. It reminded me of John Culshaw working in Kingsway Hall, but with a more elegant/plush/upholstered sound, and more detailed. I don't have a desk-count for violins, but it feels like about half-strength, making the winds and brass more "present" without being spotlit. This also yields the dividend noted above, with the astonishing business of the cellos and basses allowed to "tell" without coming through as a low-pitched smear. You really do marvel at what serves as Beethoven's "motor," the precise bowing generating a virtual heartbeat of articulated motion. Less a product of discreet multi-miking than well-captured orchestral technique, this simple example of sonic clarity balanced from the podium bolsters Chailly's vision.
Price-wise the set is still a bargain, even though now more than the $35.80 I paid through Amazon's pre-order (look at their secondary sellers for a better break). Yet, compared to other full sets--not to mention the very nice hardbound booklet-with-sleeves album presentation style--it remains a very good deal. Closest comparison will be Vanska, as detailed above, though the monetary outlay for the latter is significantly more. I'm still keeping my old Karajan '62 set, along with Gardiner and Harnoncourt, my Vanska singles & various dribs and drabs from other worthies. The Symphonies have and will always summon great performances. But--and here's another listening notes observation--it's rare that I've smiled ear to ear as a Beethoven cycle progressed in front of me on first hearing. And the second, and the third. All the usual Amazon suspects will no doubt weigh in with correctives and citations ad nauseum, and that's all to the good. It means we're paying attention, and it is after all the "core" of the core repetoire. And, to be fair, I've been underwhelmed by Chailly in the past (his Mahler is VERY hit-and-miss). Nevertheless, THIS is truly a fine effort. The doubters may be in for a rather pleasant surprise.
32 of 41 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
Worth Hearing At Least Once, But Maybe Not A Collection Addition
December 14, 2011
Format:Audio CD|Amazon Verified Purchase
Let's start with what I find positive about this set.
First, the orchestra plays incredibly well.
Second, the recorded sound is superb. If every Beethoven cycle out there were afforded such an open, clean sound as this we might be better able to evaluate interpretive differences. You could take dictation from these recordings.
Third, the interpretations are a not atypical combination of what we might think of as traditional and modern approaches to these scores.
On the face of it, these recordings would look to be a welcome addition to any serious or not-so-serious classical collection. Yet to my way of listening, the set has major flaws.
To start with, I'm not won over by the fleet tempi Chailly adopts throughout this set. Not because the orchestra can't articulate the notes, but because I feel that the players are often not given the amount of time required to fully develop the tone on their instruments. This is most pronounced in Symphonies 1 & 2. It's an important aspect of orchestral playing to consider, and one that most conductors will compensate for by easing the tempo, that is, if their interpretation relies on a certain fullness of tone making their interpretive points (Böhm, Karajan & Bernstein spring to mind in this regard), especially in scoring points in establishing and underlining the forward harmonic motion. I dare say that were you to compare Chailly to Karajan, Bernstein or even most of the HIP versions that Chailly's tempi for every single movement of every single symphony in the cycle is faster than both the norm and even the faster-than-the-norm. Taking every repeat in every movement of every symphony hardly compensates for the music being played at a tempo that works against it the first time through.
The Eroica is fast and lightweight to a fault. The off-beat stresses in the first movement register for nothing. How can they when there's NO TIME allowed for the first beat of the bar to register, let alone the off beat accents that follow? The entire symphony is dispatched at a speed that seems to undermine the fact that it was the longest symphony ever written at the time of its premiere. It was also ground breaking - one of the most complex pieces of music written in matters of rhythm, harmony and the use of the orchestra. Yet, Chailly has somehow found a way to make THE most-consequential symphony ever written seem inconsequential! This music needs TIME to sink in, to register, to SOUND, and that it cannot do at Chailly's speeds.
The Fourth is OK in an average kind of way, though Chailly's allowing the brass to dominate the textures on each of their appearances presents the 4th as a precursor to the 5th, which to my way of thinking does not take the 4th on its own terms. The finale is just a hair too fast, and while the bassoonist is well able to handle the exposed solo lick in the movement, the later, shorter bassoon solo is buried by the strings and is almost inaudible. BTW - that exposed solo sounds as if it's from a different acoustic. I wouldn't be surprised if it was spliced in later from a different take, maybe even a take made by the bassoonist during a solo session.
Symphonies 5 - 8 find Chailly at his best. The 8th is very lively, possibly one of the best out there. The 5th is a bit one-dimensional at Chailly's speeds. Energetic, to be sure. Triumphant? No. The 6th may well be the best recording in the set and is a viable alternative to what's already in the catalog, but even it has a breathless quality that wears thin before reaching its conclusion. The 7th? Well, it very much reminded me of Solti/Chicago in the first movement, what with the strings fairly galumphing along. The famous second movement is objective to a fault. The third movement is simply too fast to allow the off-beat stresses to register, and Chailly doesn't help by playing the off beat measures in a rushed manner that negates any feeling of the meter shifting. It's as straight as an arrow. The finale is played well enough, though again, the fast tempo makes for a bit of a one-dimensional performance. I just never felt the finale was building to its ending. Even the half-step rumblings in the low strings that drove people of Beethoven's time nuts are under-characterized here.
The 9th leads me to echo what I said about the Eroica - I have to say that I've never heard the 9th presented as such an inconsequential piece of music as it is here. The first movement starts off well enough, but over the course of the movement it seems to become a smaller and smaller compositional conception in Chailly's hands. Oh, there's the occasional thwack from the timpani and some very strong and well-balanced brass interjections along the way, but these appear as if out of the blue. There's none of Bernstein's weight and gravitas here. No feeling of the inevitable and - more importantly - the inexorable that one gets from Furtwängler or Karajan. In Chailly's hands, the opening movement of the 9th rather traipses along by comparison.
The Scherzo is extremely driven and simply too fast to my ears. Chailly's interpretation of the ff/f markings in the final 3 bars ends with a subito piano on the final note of the movement. It sounds contrived to me - Chailly channeling his inner Mengelberg. Yes, yes, we all know that there's no dynamic marked on that final note (I think it's just an editor's error), but I can't for the life of me believe that Beethoven desired a weak ending to this movement. I've never heard this approach before. The overall dynamics marked are ff and f, and Chailly makes no attempt to play the second and fourth beats of those bars - ie: the beats without any dynamic indication - subito piano, so why play the very last note of the movement that way, especially when it occurs on beat one of the final bar, which is the strongest beat in the bar? To me, it's just a gesture - look what we can do! Turn on a dime and make you take notice.
And it's a bad gesture at that. Beethoven has just spent the better part of a half-hour-plus presenting highly agitated and loud music, even taking the unprecedented step of switching the position of the Scherzo from its typical third movement position to the second movement to open the symphony with the utmost gravitas. In any other performance, the third movement makes its appearance as a total change of pace. A hymn of beauty that bridges the emotional world of the two opening movements while setting up the triumph of the choral finale. By playing that final note of the Scherzo piano, Chailly telegraphs the calm that is to come in the Andante cantabile, giving away the rabbit in the hat that Beethoven has so meticulously prepared for the listener. One imagines that were Chailly to move over to stage direction he would have Mimi die at the end of the third act of La boheme, so inept are his choices in presenting the obvious and inherent DRAMA that Beethoven has writ large.
The third movement - which to me is the crowning achievement of this piece - is again too fast and basically a throwaway. Throughout it all the orchestra plays magnificently, but to what end?
The finale has been bettered by so many other versions that it's simply not even in the running. No drama or mystery to the "quasi un recitativo" basses & celli at the beginning. The solo quartet is no better than average. The choir sounds like a largish group (which is fine by me) but the sopranos tend to flat every passing high note. The tenor solo is too fast by a multiple of two and sounds, well, trite. It had me longing to pull out Norrington's admittedly way-too-slow version to counter Chailly's speed, but I couldn't as I dumped it off years ago. Yes, Beethoven marks the section "Allegro assai vivace", but he also marks it "Alla marcia," and I can't imagine anybody marching at the tempo Chailly picks here. The ensuing fugue is a little messy but thoroughly exciting. There's some very finely balanced and strong playing from the brass throughout the movement - really burnished tone that's worth hearing for its sake alone.
This 9th just doesn't connect with me. I'm sure many will find it exciting and dynamic. I don't. There are nice moments and interesting touches along the way, but the overall conception to me just doesn't work. That said, I'll most likely give it another listen in a few days or so, just to see if the problem lies with me and my 40 years of listening to everyone else in this piece.
Perhaps the worst thing I can say about this set overall is that there are no surprises left by the time you've made your way through it. The fast tempi and the aggressive brass playing that seemed so bracing in the first couple of symphonies one hears (whichever ones they happen to be) becomes something of an expected gesture by the end of the set. I found myself hoping that Chailly would surprise me by taking a slower tempo for the opening of the Eroica, or a more dancing attitude in the 7th. But alas, it was not to be. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and - apparently - what happens in Chailly's Beethoven 1 is also going to happen in Symphonies 2 through 9.
The set is full of highly individualistic interpretive gestures that may or may not sit well on repeat hearings and over the ensuing years. I say that in large part because of what I perceive as being the perspective of why those gestures were made by Chailly. I'm not saying that Chailly's interpretive gestures are more willful than those of others, but I do get that he's very much an in-the-moment performer who doesn't necessarily see himself as setting down his "definitive" or "for the ages" Beethoven cycle. Read more ›
First, the orchestra plays incredibly well.
Second, the recorded sound is superb. If every Beethoven cycle out there were afforded such an open, clean sound as this we might be better able to evaluate interpretive differences. You could take dictation from these recordings.
Third, the interpretations are a not atypical combination of what we might think of as traditional and modern approaches to these scores.
On the face of it, these recordings would look to be a welcome addition to any serious or not-so-serious classical collection. Yet to my way of listening, the set has major flaws.
To start with, I'm not won over by the fleet tempi Chailly adopts throughout this set. Not because the orchestra can't articulate the notes, but because I feel that the players are often not given the amount of time required to fully develop the tone on their instruments. This is most pronounced in Symphonies 1 & 2. It's an important aspect of orchestral playing to consider, and one that most conductors will compensate for by easing the tempo, that is, if their interpretation relies on a certain fullness of tone making their interpretive points (Böhm, Karajan & Bernstein spring to mind in this regard), especially in scoring points in establishing and underlining the forward harmonic motion. I dare say that were you to compare Chailly to Karajan, Bernstein or even most of the HIP versions that Chailly's tempi for every single movement of every single symphony in the cycle is faster than both the norm and even the faster-than-the-norm. Taking every repeat in every movement of every symphony hardly compensates for the music being played at a tempo that works against it the first time through.
The Eroica is fast and lightweight to a fault. The off-beat stresses in the first movement register for nothing. How can they when there's NO TIME allowed for the first beat of the bar to register, let alone the off beat accents that follow? The entire symphony is dispatched at a speed that seems to undermine the fact that it was the longest symphony ever written at the time of its premiere. It was also ground breaking - one of the most complex pieces of music written in matters of rhythm, harmony and the use of the orchestra. Yet, Chailly has somehow found a way to make THE most-consequential symphony ever written seem inconsequential! This music needs TIME to sink in, to register, to SOUND, and that it cannot do at Chailly's speeds.
The Fourth is OK in an average kind of way, though Chailly's allowing the brass to dominate the textures on each of their appearances presents the 4th as a precursor to the 5th, which to my way of thinking does not take the 4th on its own terms. The finale is just a hair too fast, and while the bassoonist is well able to handle the exposed solo lick in the movement, the later, shorter bassoon solo is buried by the strings and is almost inaudible. BTW - that exposed solo sounds as if it's from a different acoustic. I wouldn't be surprised if it was spliced in later from a different take, maybe even a take made by the bassoonist during a solo session.
Symphonies 5 - 8 find Chailly at his best. The 8th is very lively, possibly one of the best out there. The 5th is a bit one-dimensional at Chailly's speeds. Energetic, to be sure. Triumphant? No. The 6th may well be the best recording in the set and is a viable alternative to what's already in the catalog, but even it has a breathless quality that wears thin before reaching its conclusion. The 7th? Well, it very much reminded me of Solti/Chicago in the first movement, what with the strings fairly galumphing along. The famous second movement is objective to a fault. The third movement is simply too fast to allow the off-beat stresses to register, and Chailly doesn't help by playing the off beat measures in a rushed manner that negates any feeling of the meter shifting. It's as straight as an arrow. The finale is played well enough, though again, the fast tempo makes for a bit of a one-dimensional performance. I just never felt the finale was building to its ending. Even the half-step rumblings in the low strings that drove people of Beethoven's time nuts are under-characterized here.
The 9th leads me to echo what I said about the Eroica - I have to say that I've never heard the 9th presented as such an inconsequential piece of music as it is here. The first movement starts off well enough, but over the course of the movement it seems to become a smaller and smaller compositional conception in Chailly's hands. Oh, there's the occasional thwack from the timpani and some very strong and well-balanced brass interjections along the way, but these appear as if out of the blue. There's none of Bernstein's weight and gravitas here. No feeling of the inevitable and - more importantly - the inexorable that one gets from Furtwängler or Karajan. In Chailly's hands, the opening movement of the 9th rather traipses along by comparison.
The Scherzo is extremely driven and simply too fast to my ears. Chailly's interpretation of the ff/f markings in the final 3 bars ends with a subito piano on the final note of the movement. It sounds contrived to me - Chailly channeling his inner Mengelberg. Yes, yes, we all know that there's no dynamic marked on that final note (I think it's just an editor's error), but I can't for the life of me believe that Beethoven desired a weak ending to this movement. I've never heard this approach before. The overall dynamics marked are ff and f, and Chailly makes no attempt to play the second and fourth beats of those bars - ie: the beats without any dynamic indication - subito piano, so why play the very last note of the movement that way, especially when it occurs on beat one of the final bar, which is the strongest beat in the bar? To me, it's just a gesture - look what we can do! Turn on a dime and make you take notice.
And it's a bad gesture at that. Beethoven has just spent the better part of a half-hour-plus presenting highly agitated and loud music, even taking the unprecedented step of switching the position of the Scherzo from its typical third movement position to the second movement to open the symphony with the utmost gravitas. In any other performance, the third movement makes its appearance as a total change of pace. A hymn of beauty that bridges the emotional world of the two opening movements while setting up the triumph of the choral finale. By playing that final note of the Scherzo piano, Chailly telegraphs the calm that is to come in the Andante cantabile, giving away the rabbit in the hat that Beethoven has so meticulously prepared for the listener. One imagines that were Chailly to move over to stage direction he would have Mimi die at the end of the third act of La boheme, so inept are his choices in presenting the obvious and inherent DRAMA that Beethoven has writ large.
The third movement - which to me is the crowning achievement of this piece - is again too fast and basically a throwaway. Throughout it all the orchestra plays magnificently, but to what end?
The finale has been bettered by so many other versions that it's simply not even in the running. No drama or mystery to the "quasi un recitativo" basses & celli at the beginning. The solo quartet is no better than average. The choir sounds like a largish group (which is fine by me) but the sopranos tend to flat every passing high note. The tenor solo is too fast by a multiple of two and sounds, well, trite. It had me longing to pull out Norrington's admittedly way-too-slow version to counter Chailly's speed, but I couldn't as I dumped it off years ago. Yes, Beethoven marks the section "Allegro assai vivace", but he also marks it "Alla marcia," and I can't imagine anybody marching at the tempo Chailly picks here. The ensuing fugue is a little messy but thoroughly exciting. There's some very finely balanced and strong playing from the brass throughout the movement - really burnished tone that's worth hearing for its sake alone.
This 9th just doesn't connect with me. I'm sure many will find it exciting and dynamic. I don't. There are nice moments and interesting touches along the way, but the overall conception to me just doesn't work. That said, I'll most likely give it another listen in a few days or so, just to see if the problem lies with me and my 40 years of listening to everyone else in this piece.
Perhaps the worst thing I can say about this set overall is that there are no surprises left by the time you've made your way through it. The fast tempi and the aggressive brass playing that seemed so bracing in the first couple of symphonies one hears (whichever ones they happen to be) becomes something of an expected gesture by the end of the set. I found myself hoping that Chailly would surprise me by taking a slower tempo for the opening of the Eroica, or a more dancing attitude in the 7th. But alas, it was not to be. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and - apparently - what happens in Chailly's Beethoven 1 is also going to happen in Symphonies 2 through 9.
The set is full of highly individualistic interpretive gestures that may or may not sit well on repeat hearings and over the ensuing years. I say that in large part because of what I perceive as being the perspective of why those gestures were made by Chailly. I'm not saying that Chailly's interpretive gestures are more willful than those of others, but I do get that he's very much an in-the-moment performer who doesn't necessarily see himself as setting down his "definitive" or "for the ages" Beethoven cycle. Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Revelatory
It's as if Beethoven himself returned to demonstrate what he really meant with his markings.
The recording is also superb.
The recording is also superb.
Published 3 months ago by John A. Wallace-smith
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb interpretation
Riccardo Chailly knows how to capture his audience. First he takes us along at a tempi that, at times, leaves one rather breathless. It is irresistable listening. Read more
Published 8 months ago by J. O. Cook
3.0 out of 5 stars
A refined miniature of Beethoven
After Toscanini, Leibowitz, Scherchen, Mackerras, Gielen, Zinman, Norrington(Stuttgart),Harnoncourt,Abbado,Haitink,Fedosseyev and many others, comes once again a Beethoven cycle... Read more
Published 9 months ago by Codeluppi Alessandro Carlo
1.0 out of 5 stars
Do we really want to buy Beethoven for the orchestral sound...
Too quick, well scrubbed and relentless, not lingering anywhere to give us a glimpse of the noble.
I'm glad I bought only one CD at the bargain price. Read more
I'm glad I bought only one CD at the bargain price. Read more
Published 10 months ago by Ronald Haak
5.0 out of 5 stars
Just dig classics-Beethoven
It appears that we are all searching for the best set of 9 Beethoven symphonies. I quit doing that way back when. I found myself second guessing everything I heard. Read more
Published 13 months ago by James W. Galbraith
5.0 out of 5 stars
New and illuminating perspective on Beethoven
Riccardo Chailly and his fabulous players from Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra issued recently this appealing box set comprising 5 CDs devoted to the complete cycle of Beethoven... Read more
Published 14 months ago by P. Adrian
3.0 out of 5 stars
Highly touted, but it all sounds like HIP "updating" plus energetic...
Unlike most reviewers, I can't summon a great deal of enthusiasm for this new "updated" set of Beethoven symphonies. Read more
Published 14 months ago by Santa Fe Listener
5.0 out of 5 stars
Notable! ~This Set Deserves Your Attention
Recently, Beethoven symphony recordings have seemingly returned to modern instruments but carrying strong period influences. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Gregory E. Foster
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Beethoven
Great set, fantastic sound, and a vision of how the music should be presented. In many ways, Chailly offers nothing new, but a number of elements come together in this set. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Prunehead Guru
4.0 out of 5 stars
Some good, some great
This new cycle by Chailly and the Gewandhaus has a lot going for it. Chailly has clearly thought much about these interpretations, and perhaps that is the most important thing to... Read more
Published 17 months ago by J. Buxton
