Customer Reviews

Schubert: Symphonies (Complete)

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

 

 

The earlier Schubert symphonies are "new wine in old bottles," and pose a challenge for even the greatest conductors. Since they are (mostly) constructed on a Haydn/Mozart time-scale, it is tempting to "classicize" these works by playing them as if they WERE Haydn or Mozart - ignoring the new, more rustic, more expansive nature of their melodic and harmonic content. On the other hand, one can fall into the trap of savoring some of those movements too romantically, thereby pulling them out of shape. That being said, I happen to disagree MORE with the "classicizing" approach to Schubert's 1st through 6th. That is to say, if I must choose between an imbalance favoring the "bottles" or the "wine," I'll take the wine, thank you. Eric Fenby put it this way : "The formative works of an original mind are always interesting when played in the spirit of that mind's increase." (FENBY ON DELIUS, 1996 ed., pp. 144-45)

The authenticist Bruno Weil takes the 'classicizing' approach to its outer limit : he plays even the UNFINISHED as if it were by Stamitz, Quantz - or, at any rate, some Rococco work. But the fine line between classical poise and romantic expansiveness runs almost (but not exactly) evenly through these six Symphonies, fluctuating nearly imperceptably from work to work. For this reason, each of these works (no less than the UNFINISHED and GREAT) must be approached as its own sound-world, in terms of structure, harmony and melodic content. Otherwise, you get something sounding like either "second-drawer Mozart" or "weak Beethoven."

Sir Thomas Beecham was a master of these earlier works (except for the 4th, which he never recorded). In addition to his inner identification with Schubert's poetic moods and shadings, what enabled him to successfully advocate these Symphonies, perhaps more than anyone else in his time, was
1) his consummate mastery of the polished Mozartean turn-of-phrase
2) his vast experience with Delius (the ULTIMATE Nature Poet of music), which rendered him "in sync" with the rustic, nature-poetry of Schubert. But occasionally, even Sir Tommy could fall down in this territory.

Beecham's chief "competition" in half the early Schubert Symphonies was Eduard van Beinum who, with the Concertgebouworkest, recorded the Third through Sixth (but, sadly, NOT the First & Second). If Beecham was "beauty, charm and poetry," then perhaps Van Beinum was "unassuming purity, beauty and poetry."

In going through each performance in this set, my subjective standard has been this: whether or not it possesses enough energy, focus, beauty of playing, and "feel" for that Symphony's unique "DNA" - such that it can "make me forget" my other favorite versions. Overall, Kertesz's 1st, 2nd and 3rd fall short of this: they strike me as "boxed set performances". (That is, "The Company wants to put out a complete boxed set, and we have X number of allotted sessions, so let's get through them shall we.") In any case, Kertesz seems to get better with each successive symphony - that is, in order of composition, not of recording. (The 1st through 3rd and the 6th were recorded in October 1971; the 4th and 5th in April 1970; and the Overtures, the UNFINISHED and the GREAT are from November 1963.)

SYMPHONY NO. 1: This dates from 1813, when Schubert was only 16, and one year away from composing his first songs of genius. And yet, this Symphony's second movement is generally regarded as Schubert's first, truly characteristic lyrical outpouring. Kertesz takes it at a disappointingly brisk tempo, which is partially alleviated by the Vienna Philharmonic's magnificent tone. But overall, this version cannot hold a candle to the 1953 Beecham / RPO, where the innate personality of this early work is magisterially coaxed forth, via Beecham's rapport with his players and his painstaking turns of phrase.

SYMPHONY NO. 2: Johannes Brahms compared this symphony to a stretch of grass, dotted with so many flowers that you could not avoid crushing a few underfoot as you walked by. It is intensely melodic, reeks of Spring, and in spots anticipates the fleet, gossamer textures of Mendelssohn. Kertesz's interpretation is a bit more vital than with the 1st symphony. And because Kertesz takes the rarely played first-movement repeat, we get to hear its brief-but-deft "first-ending" transition (we get to hear several of these, in this cycle). Still, this movement works better without the repeat. Kertesz does not quite equal the heady atmosphere and style of either the 1949 Munch / Boston (on an old RCA "EP" set) or the 1954 Beecham / RPO.

SYMPHONY NO. 3 : This is smaller in time-scale and more polished than the 2nd. Throughout the early symphonies, Kertesz tends to take the Menuettos so briskly that, in order to offer contrast in the Trio section of these movements, he is compelled to make "gear shifts" into slower tempi which sometimes work, sometimes do not. (In this symphony, they DO work.) The Finale is rather Rossinian, and invites felicious playing from the Vienna Philharmonic.

Beecham's RPO 3rd is, deservedly, a well-loved classic. But to my ears it almost smacks of "taffy-pulling" , i.e., romantically making more of this small-scale work than Schubert may have intended. Overall, Van Beinum's 1955 tempi may come a bit of a shock, after the more leisurely Beecham. But this enables him to cover the first movement WITH the expositional repeat, in just slightly more recording time than Beecham takes it WITHOUT the repeat. And unlike parts of Kertesz's 3rd, it all comes off as NATURAL - that is, with no air of "special pleading." In any case, van Beinum's has become my favorite Schubert 3rd; even more exquisitely played, it may be to Beecham's, what the fleeting-but-powerful scent of a REAL clump of lilacs is to long-longering lilac perfume.

SYMPHONY NO. 4 : Kertesz broadens his overall approach to turn in a beautifully paced first movement, and he does nicely with the Finale and what William McKnaught described as the "country walk" of the second movement. (Its melody recalls the Andante of Mozart's "39th" and, reoccuringly, the phrase-ending-tag of "...morte mi da" from DON GIOVANNI !) But Kertesz nearly falls off his horse in the Menuetto, which is taken at a Tally-Ho-The-Fox kind of clip - necessitating one of those Trio-section "gear shifts" into a slower tempo. To my ears this jarrs a bit, but some may like it. My favorite Schubert 4th remains the 1961 Maazel / Berlin. There, the "country walk" really is just that; the Menuetto is a MENUETTO (not a Tarantella); and the outer movements, while kept reasonably taut, are given enough "tempo space" to beguile the listener with their lyricism. Van Beinum's 1952 Concertgebouw version, IMHO, just misses first place due to its uncharacteristically stodgy, meat-and-potatoes third movement.

SYMPHONY NO. 5 : This is generally the most technically polished and popular of the early Schubert Symphonies, and often described as "ineffibly Mozartean". True enough, but passages such as the Minuet's Trio are more "rustic" than "salon" - and , in fact most performances of the Schubert 5th tend to short-change the "rustic". (This is true even of Beecham's 1958-9 RPO version, less so of his 1937 LPO recording.) My preferred 5th is still Fritz Busch's 1949 Winterthur set ; granted, there may be some moments of rough-and-tumble ensemble, but it captures the "rustic" better than any other. Even so, Kertesz strikes a near-perfect balance between "salon" and "rustic" - thus out-performing both of Bohm's DG verions (Berlin & Vienna), with even better playing and sound. Van Beinum's 1946 Concertgebouw set has a scintillating first movement; a strangely lethargic second movement (strange, because even in Bruckner's Adagios, EVB was not one to dawdle like this); a scherzo & trio, the Decca master of which was apparently damaged, requiring some digital "patching" (which, at least on the Dutton CD, is only partially successful); and a decent Finale.

SYMPHONY NO. 6 : One of music's "Received Opinions" is that not until the UNFINISHED does the "mature symphonic Schubert" show himself. AU CONTRAIRE: as I see it, the "mature symphonic Schubert" first raises his head in the outer movements of the 6th (and perhaps there is a premonition of this as early as the first movement of the 2nd). Things are expanding; this sexy, buxom "Fraulein" of a romantic Symphony cannot quite fit comfortably into that Mozartean "corset". Still, this has not prevented even some great conductors from trying to squeeze Fraulein Sechste (Miss Sixth) into that corset. If you prefer this kind of approach, then Van Beinum's 1957 Concertgebouw (on Philips) may be the most successful 6th on record. Bohm makes a noble effort in the same direction, but it does not quite come off.

Beecham, in his 1944 LPO set (and less so in his slower, more langorous 1955 RPO remake), makes as strong a case for the Sixth as anyone has. But (IMHO) Kertesz has given us its most successful hi-fi/stereo realization. The music never "sags," and yet throughout, Fraulein Sechste is given enough "room" to shake out her tresses and radiate her rustic, slightly naughty charm. And there IS more "room", here: Kertesz takes the first & final movement repeats - which can be a mixed blessing, given the occasional awkward patches in these movements. (But for this, I might have preferred Kertesz over the 1944 Beecham.)

The three overtures, scattered throughout this box, are also must-haves. In the early Overture to DES TEUFELS LUFTSCHLOSS (which falls merely two catalogue numbers ahead of SYMPHONY NO. 1), Kertesz "massages" the weak middle section such that it can at least bear the "company" of the stronger outer sections, and so we can enjoy the whole thing without reservation. Kertesz and the Viennese are astounding in the ITALIAN and FIERABRAS Overtures, the FIERBRAS, in particular, exuding a Furtwanglerian sense of awe and spaciousness.

Sadly, Kertesz appears not to have recorded the ROSAMUNDE Overture and Incidental Music. (Even on E Bay, there are no available vinyl versions !). Fritz Lehmann's 1953 Berlin set is a winner, if you want it all. And of course, Furtwangler's live 1953 Overture is stupendous and spacious. But for REAL enchantment (and no fooling), leave no stone unturned to locate Van Beinum's 1952 Overture, Intermezzo No. 3 and Ballet Music No. 2. The Overture can be found in the "Volume 1" Universal box of EVB's Deccas; the remaining two items are only available (with the Overture) on a Japanese Decca CD. But do whatever you have to do, this side of the law, to get it...The "keening" woodwinds and the exquisite strings of EVB's Concertgebouworkest were at their post-war peak, and you could almost "smell the forest."

The opening of the UNFINISHED is so softly played that it is nearly inaudible. But the INTENSITY is there, and from this point onward, we encounter perhaps the greatest stereo UNFINISHED ever recorded. Certainly this is the only UNFINISHED that made me (temporarily !) forget Van Beinum on the one hand, and Furtwangler on the other. The Vienna Philharmonic, in 1963, still retained that legendary burnished tone which one can hear in the Solti RING. (Beginning in the mid-1960s, many of the older players who dated back to the pre-war days, began to retire, and their unique sound was soon gone forever. Certainly, it is less evident in the 1970-71 recordings of the early symphonies in this set.) Only Furtwangler, in his live 1952 Berlin UNFINISHED, "breathes" as naturally and deeply.

Finally, the "GREAT" : I am tempted to let this one-word caption stand for and by itself. (Why try to describe the ineffible?) Still, I will say that this ain't no "cooly-chiselled, classical" approach to the GREAT (as Philip Hart described Reiner's live GREAT). It is BIG, full-bodied and leisurely, but it never lacks underpinning rhythmic tension. This is all-important in the GREAT which, unlike Schubert's other Symphonies, has no real points of "repose". Still, the sheer tonal beauty of the Viennese, especially in the second movement, almost conjures up an illusiuon of such "repose" while remaining IN TEMPO : amazing ! For once, Furtwangler has met his match. (Contrary to popular opinion, I find Furtwangler's live Vienna Philharmonic GREAT of 1953 quite superior to the 1951 Berlin studio version.) Certainly I have heard no greater GREAT than this Kertesz (on disc, vinyl, tape, or cylindrical foil for that matter). Van Beinum's live 1950 Concertgebouw is closer to the "classicizing" approach, while remaining true to the spirit of this symphony. Szell took an even more "classical" take on the GREAT with his magnificent Cleveland Orchestra - adding an exciting (if rather nasty) "edge" to the proceedings. (Szell's theory was that Schumann, not Schubert, really invented the "romantic" symphony; I have always suspected that this compelled him to "classicize" the Schubert GREAT, after the fact.)

It would be a musical grace if Universal put out a 2-CD "Originals" set of Kertesz's Schubert, with the following (the timings WOULD fit):

DISC 1: the 5th & 6th, the FIERABRAS & ITALIAN Overtures
DISC 2: the UNFINISHED & GREAT.

These performances alone make this set indispensible.

I currently own three Schubert Symphony Cycles and this one by Istvan Kertesz and the Vienna Philharmonic is the best so far. The stereo performances, beginning in 1963 with the 8th and 9th Symphonies and the Overtures, with the remainder done in 1970 and '71, are first rate and the value is unbeatable. Compared to the other two Cycles I own, you get more music with the Kertesz than the Bohm in the form of three Overtures, and the performances are every bit its equal. It is also a better overall value (and better performances!) than the Karajan (currently available as four mid-line single discs in EMI's "Karajan Edition" series, though the label would be wise to reissue those performances as a competing slim, paper-sleeved box set). With that being said, my dad and I have yet to swap Schubert Symphony Cycles, so I cannot comment on accounts by Sawallisch, Menuhin or the new budget reissue by Sir Neville Marriner, which finishes the "Unfinished" and even completes a 10th Symphony. Despite that, I can't imagine a more successful Schubert Symphony Cycle from start to finish than this one by Kertesz.

Kertesz makes good use of the Vienna Phil. and its ability to add an aura of charm to anything (even Alban Berg). As one of the earlier reviewers notes, this charm bathes the first few symphonies. As much as I admire Harnoncourt in these works, and of course Thomas Beecham, the lilting insouciance of the Minuet in Sym. #1 would melt any heart. How strange that Kertesz, with such natural good humor and effortless rhythm, later became something of a difficult conductor, to the point that he parted early from the London Sym.

From Sym. #1 to #4 we are in the innocence of a pastoral paradise (Kertesz isn't interested in the teenage composer's tougher side,which Harnoncourt brings out in quasi-Beethoven style.) There's also a sweeping momentum to these readings -- they don't lapse into the dull impersonality of Bohm or the reticent propriety of Colin Davis -- and the large orchestra, recorded vividly in Decca's classic analog sound, adds a sense of occasion. Hard as it is do to, Kertesz turns these into "event" performances. If only Decca would remaster these recordings to remove some digital rawness and glare.

Sym. #5 and #6 are still loosely organized, but he has gained in assurance about what he wants to express. I'm not implying a major change; until the "Unfinished" appears, the composer seems to mine the same sunny terrain, with some passages of Sym. 4 excepted these are the only two minor key symphonies. I wish Kertesz had been more attentive in Sym. #5, which feels too generic. This is too familiar a work to amble through with a leisurely smile; something has to happen to catch your attention. Kertesz responds well, however, to the larger ambitions of Sym. #6 whenever Schubert becomes more forceful. In other hands the lighter parts can sound mincing, but not here. So far, five symphonies out of six have been superb, and if you already own great readings of the "Unfinished" and "Great" C major, these joyous early works will justify at purchase.

Does a cycle need to have outstanding accounts of the two unquestioned masterpieces in Schubert's symphonic career? Kertesz's "Unfinished" i more than professional, but at times he shies away from the music's undercurrents of mystery, and the dissonant eruptions in the first movement feel disturbing. They're just loud. Perhaps others will feel very differently, because there's plenty of force and power here. The second movement benefits from perfect Viennese poise; it fares very well, I think, on its own terms, but there really is more mystery and melancholy to be expressed.

The Scubert "Great" is a major enterprise compared to all that preceded it, and here Kertesz competes with Bruno Walter, Toscanini, Furtwangler, and Klemperer, to name only a few renowned conductors whose Ninths are acclaimed. Since Kertesz's premature death in 1973, there have also been fine performances from Sinopoli, Harnoncourt, and (for many British critics) Solti. Kertesz's approach is forceful, with strong accents punctuating the first movement. Yet I'm not quite sure it soars, and the brisk second movement, at a pace older conductors would never have favored, lacks repose. Clearly he feels more robustness in this music than I do. The Schrzo is straightforward (not a compliment), leading to an exciting finale that nonetheless fails to communicate the joy that this music should impart. The three overtures added as fillers are stylishly done -- I love the old-fashioned whiny oboe in the "Over. in the Italian Style."

Because the best things here are almost incomparable in their charm, I can see buying Kertesz's cycle as a first choice without hesitation, and if you enjoy his No. 5, 8, and 9 more than I do, noting can possibly go wrong.