Customer Reviews

Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 'Eroica' / Overtures: 'Leonore' Nos. 1 & 2

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

 

 

This mono performance, recorded in 1955, is not the same one which was released in the Klemperer legacy series (that was a stereo performance, recorded in 1959), but it is far better as an interpretation. The first movement is magnificent and it sounds as though it was recorded in a complete take. The funeral march is a little too fast, and the principal oboe does not sound sad at all, but apart from that I am sure everything is as Beethoven would have wanted it. This is a very well known recording and it deserves special attention. It is a pity that Klemperer slowed down by the time the stereo performance was made, for he ruins the first movement, and therefore the whole symphony, by his plodding tempo. Yet amazingly the stereo recording gets all the acclaim. Avoid it and buy this mono performance.

This Eroica is a stunner. It hardly sounds like a mono recording, so good is the recording. It is a much better interpretation than the stereo which is slower. Here Klemperer is in his element. Tempi are well-judged and flows smoothly. You are magnetized from first to last and the performance never sags. Great recording indeed. This Eroica is on Grammophone's top 100 Classical List and I can say it deserves its reputation. The reviewer below must be extremely sensitive to sonics. I listen to a lot of both mono and stereo recordings because a lot of the mono are classics (unfortunately). I can say that this mono sound is the best mono you can possibly get. In fact, if you are listening on speakers (NOT WALKMAN HEADPHONES), you probably can't tell that it's mono - just a hint. If you listen on headphones it's more obvious but the mono is still far better than normal mono.

Klemperer sober, unsentimental funeral march is the hallmark for me here. In the booklet you can read that even Karajan, whose 1962 Eroica is one of the best in the catalog was expecting some day to conduct the funeral march the way Klemperer does. The whole account is electrifing, very dramatic, powerful and the balance of the orchestra perfect, every line is well articulated. One of the best ever!!!.

This performance of the Eroica is The Bee's Knees. The mere fact that it's in mono simply pales next to its soulful magnificence. I love it, and I fail to see how anyone could fail to do so - what's more I'd wager Beethoven would have loved it too... yes, it's that good

I disagree profoundly with those who call this performance turgid or plodding; there is a momentum and grandeur in Klemperer's interpretation which carries the listener on an inexorable wave of sound. Direct comparison between Klemperer and, say, Harnoncourt, reveal, for all the latter's lightness of touch, that it is not so much a question of tempi which separates them as that of phrasing and emphases. (However, I must here observe that as Harnoncourt gets through the first movement with the repeat in the same time it takes Klemperer to do so without, either Harnoncourt is insanely fast or Klemperer really is taking his time - but, for me, both performances work supremely well and simply point to the latitude a great conductor has in interpreting Beethoven - especially given the unreliability of the composer's metronome markings.) Klemperer certainly avoids the worst excesses of his later mannerisms by keeping everything moving despite the solidity of the punched-out accents. Both the outer movements build to electrifying climaxes.

I consider this to be great recording in that it succeeds triumphantly in convincing us that this is one very convincing way of performing the "Eroica" - but obviously not the only way. It is, if you like, an essential supplement (if that's not an oxymoron) to a fleeter, sharper, more "classical" approach such as Harnoncourt's - and in certain moods, I feel it's my preferred way.

I am not so thrilled by the two "Leonora" overtures; they are enjoyable, if less finely detailed accounts - but you buy this disc primarily for the inimitable Third. My four stars are a recognition of the fact that the sound is clean, slightly boxy mono, with a little distortion at the loudest points.

So, apparently, there is this brewing controversy about which is the better recording of the Eroica by Klemperer, between this mono recording of 1955 and his better known stereo remake from 1959 (Symphony 3 or The Klemperer Legacy: Beethoven Symphony No.3 ("Eroica"); Grosse Fuge). Let me enter the fray, then; my title states clearly whose side I am championing.

The pro-1955 have given here the reasons of their preference, I'll develop the reasons to prefer the 1959 remake. Sorry for the seemingly dry stats, they are just to give an objective basis to subjective impressions.

First, at least in the first and third movements, the basic conception of both versions is remarkably the same. It is almost to the second in the scherzo; the first movement in 1955 is overall swifter by some 45 seconds, but still, the opening pulse is almost the same: in 1959 Klemperer crosses the repeat bar at 3:34, against 3:28 in 1955 - not a dramatic difference, then.

What both versions have in that first movement is a very characteristic sway, a gently rocking beat that is established by the deliberate pace and remains under the music's explosions. But that Klemperer in 1955, while establishing the same basic pulse, should finish ahead of Klemperer in 1959, points to the fact that there is indeed an added bite and urgency in 1955, perceptible from the begining but even more pronounced as the movement unfolds; Klemperer in 1959 remains remarkably stable and deliberate in his beat. Klemperer's accents in 1955 ara also slightly more biting and explosive; they are heavier in 1959, but also sometimes more powerful. Still, these differences aren't enough to make up for the deficiencies of the 1955 sonics: the mono recording is distant and unidimensional, robbing the music of much of its power and impact. The kind of massive and powerful approach that Klemperer sets forth needs the spacious and vivid stereo sound that he gets in 1959 to convey its full impact; in 1955 it is more a case of having to imagine that impact, rather than actually feeling and experiencing it. The 1959 stereo also lets you fully enjoy the antiphonal placement and dialogues of first and second violins. In the scherzo (which, I find, at its easy-going trot, lacks in both cases the kind of bubbling energy conveyed by the brisker approach of Toscanini and the likes, although, heard "on its own" rather than comparatively, it makes its effect), thanks again in part to the vivid sonics, there is much more instrumental character, in particular with the horns in the central trio: 1955 is like a black and white photocopy.

The interpretive differences are more pronounced in the two other movements. The finale is slighly but perceptibly more urgent in 1955 (in 1959 Klemperer's stateliness here oversteps the limit that turns it into plodding). All things are relative, of course: the urgency of the 1955 finale still doesn't make it a very urgent finale. But it is really in the Marcia Funèbre that the two versions stand out markedly. In 1959 Klemperer is slow, funeral indeed, more a lament on the plights of mankind than a true march, or if a march one with a huge cross on the shoulders: 16:47 of trudging to the Golgotha. This is the kind of approach already illustrated by Furwängler (17:16 in 1952 with the Vienna Philharmonic, Symphonies 1 & 3), and later (in 1963) by Karajan (17:02, Symphonies 1 & 3). In 1955 Klemperer is considerably swifter: 14:36; Klemperer fans may be surprised to know that this is faster than Toscanini (who, contrary to his reputation, is far from fast in the Funeral march; I have his 1949 recording, Symphony 1 & 3). In fact, and by way of paradox for the "slow" Klemperer, this swiftness places him into the opposite extreme: Toscanini, Munch, Walter, Bernstein, Szell are all between 15 and 15:30 and lump into a "mainstream". At 13:18 Scherchen is the speedy rabbit (and the closest to Beethoven's jaw-dropping metronome mark, Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 3 & 6) but, among the versions from the 1950s and 1960s, I've heard only Leibowitz who takes it, like Klemperer, under 15 (Symphonies No. 1 & 3).

Preference for either of Klemperer's Marcia Funebre is a matter of taste, of course. But far all the vehemence that the greater urgency allows for, my point here is: what is the point of a "swift" Klemperer? For "swift" we have Scherchen and Leibowitz and Toscanini, that was their trademark (to say nothing of the Historically-informed performers of today). What makes Klemperer, and Klemperer's Beethoven, so unique among a zillion others, is that he is slow, deliberate, massive and ponderous. Indeed, his 1959 Marcia has a unique eloquence. Add to that that, again, the great 1959 sonics lend it an instrumental character that the 1955 version can't even start to emulate. Just try at 9:11, when the horn erupts: it is grandiose. 1955 by comparison is anonymous here.

There are many excellent to outstanding versions of the Eroica, and, from Furtwängler to Scherchen, many and widely differentiated options to choose from. What makes Klemperer unique is that very deliberation and massiveness that some amateurs seem to take exception with. For all its additional bite and urgency, and partly because of its indifferent sonics, I find the 1955 version ultimately rather anonymous. The unique character, the "authentic" Klemperer is in 1959.

But, to cap it all, let me put everybody in agreement, the advocates of 1955 and the champions of 1959: in our enchanted kingdom of music, the best of both worlds exists. It is called "Barbirolli". Barbirolli recorded the Eroica in 1967 for HMV and it's been reissued by Dutton (Symphony 3 / Elizabethean Suite). Now THAT is truly one of the great recordings of the past century. It has the deliberation and massiveness of both Klemperers. It has fine stereo sonics, maybe not as outstanding as Klemp' 59, but that's something you will hear only on close comparison. It has none of the stodginess of Klemp' 59 and all the bite and muscle of Klemp' 55. It has the brisk and ebullient scherzo of Toscanini. Last but not least, it has the slowest Marcia Funebre I've ever encountered - 18:10 - and the effect is extraordinary: Atlas bearing the burdens of mankind on his shoulders. This is the version of "the Eroica by Klemperer" that the amateurs of Klemperer need to have in their collection.

I love some of Otto Klemperer's Beethoven. And in this release we have two terrifically-performed overtures (though I would have preferred his performance of the even-better Leonora No. 3 to the No. 2 herein). For those overtures alone, this CD can be justified.

But I'm not as taken with the Eroica as many other reviewers here are. I know with Klemp you're going to get a heavy, "granite" reading, with tempi generally on the slow side. Still, as Furtwangler and Karajan, anomg others, have demonstrated, you can make the piece work this way. Their recordings of the work, which reflect the grimness *and* the exultation, are among my favorites.

But the present recording sounds too "flat-footed" for my tastes. There's no fire, no intensity to the first movement of this symphony that reinvented the genre. You don't get the feeling of Beethoven flinging open the shutters of his pad and yelling, "I will triumph over my adversities starting NOW!" Those slamming chords that begin this work--BAM! BAM!--are among the most thrilling in all of music if they're done right. The buildup to the recapitulation and the ba-ba-ba-baaam rhythm in the coda--presaging his own Fifth symphony--is about as thrilling as music gets. Here my blood pressure stays put, the hairs on my back continue their slumber. It's not just a matter of tempo. There's a grimness here that to me is inappropriate for this blazing work. Now, perhaps not surprisingly, the funeral movement comes off the best--here the portentousness is very convincing, the climax shattering. This is the highlight of the performance. But the sun does not come out in the next movement, making this performance rather monochrome. And boy, do Klemperer's scherzos limp. The finale suffers from the same issues as the first movement to my ears--grimness, not enough contrast in mood or touch or texture. The big coda, my favorite part of the movement, which begins with a soulful oboe solo, just doesn't have the lift, the grand delivery, the benediction, that makes the 45-minute investment of my time worthwhile.

Sound is typical EMI mono, meaning it's also somewhat gray and in a vacuum. With great Eroicas from the same period by Karajan, Furtwangler, Bernstein, Szell, Jochum and the always-overlooked Cluytens (which just might be my personal favorite), I don't know if I really need this on my shelf. Wish I could be more positive about the great Klemperer, who does in fact do a really intense, energetic Beethoven's 8th (on the Music & Arts label), but there you have it.

My favorite performances of Beethoven's third are Szell's well-known Cleveland cut and Rudolf Kempe's sterling Testament (live 1974 with the Royal Philharmonic -- get it if you have never heard it. You are in for a very great hour!) recording. The second movements from these two are cut in stone with some of the damndest playing and direction I have ever heard. They are so teriffic in the second movement, I have difficulty describing the precision, definition, and passion with which they play. And are they ever great on the rest of it. I do not have room here to praise them enough. (How I regret losing Rudolf Kempe in his 60's! What a loss! What a very great conductor he was!) They have excellent overall schemes, great direction, and stupendous orchestral playing. I can't count how many times I have listened to the third, and there are not a lot of winners on great performances. However, there are a lot of very good performances. Now to Klemperer.

K's 3rd is very good, but it does not have a lot of pop. Not a lot of plain ole "ummph!" Not like Szell's or Kempe's. (And I remember an old Solti VPO LP performance I liked many years ago, but do not know if it is in existence today.) But K's scheme is very good, the playing is great, and Klemp --like Solti on many performances -- often wins on points because of his discipline and magisterial approach. He has a convinced orchestra and probably liked this performance himself. The sound is good enough to not be a minus factor.

This one is good enough to be in your library if not first on your picks. It is very good. How high it ranks will be your choice, but believe me, it does rank. It is very good.

When I purchased this disc of Klemperer's 1955 mono performance of Symphony No. 3, I also possessed the EMI "Klemperer legacy" 1998 re-release of the 1959 stereo recording.

To me, this earlier recording is disappointing. The sound is boxy and claustrophobic--quite unlike the "legacy" remastering, which is far more forward and dynamic. While the tempi and flow of the earlier performance make it more cohesive, much of the granitic power often cited as the hallmark of Klemperer's Beethoven is sacrificed. If you can still obtain the "legacy" release, you might want to pass on this one or consider obtaining both performances.

A reviewer below suggests that this mono Eroica from 1955 is a litmus test--anyone who loves music should be able to tell that a genius is at work on the podium here. I feel closer to another reviewer who dissents and finds Klemperer's reading low-powered and undramatic. I'm sure the superlatives given to it are sincere, but the first movement drags, has no rhythmic punch, stays fairly near mezzo forte, and therefore differs from every reading I've thought of as great from Bernstien, Karajan, Furtwangler, Reiner, etc.

The Funeral March starts at a pulse that actually feels quicker than the opening Allegro, and in fact the timing of 14+ min. is three min. faster than Karajan's 1963 version. (The feeling of being quicker is due to the basic unit in this movement being an eighth note, while in the opening movement it's a quarter note.) The faster pace makes the funeral march less solemn (not in itself a wrong decision), but the contrast with the slow Allegro creates an unusual effect. Here Klemperer's steady flow makes it seem as if the music was composed in one arching sweep.

The Scherzo is taken at a measured pace, without much tonal or rhythmic contrast, and the Trio remains at the same tempo, where other conductors are either faster or slower. By now the listener has either given in to Klemperer's approach as one of integrity and classicism or as--dull. The finale continues the same tendencies, with low contrast, steady pulse, and direct expression eschewing any heightened drama or heroism. The fillers are mono versions of the Leonore Over. #1 and #2 done in a similar vein.

The reviewer below who dissented from the vast majority also bucks the Gramophone reviewer, who finds this recording magnificent. Frankly, I'm baffled. I love Klmeperer and the Eroica, but for me this performance never caught fire.