BaL 13.04.24 - Brahms: Symphony 3

[gurnemanz]

Much reference to Abbado without specifying Berlin or Dresden. Both available on this newest DG Brahms collection. https://www.prestomusic.com/classica...-abbado-brahms

[Barbirollians]

Much reference to Abbado without specifying Berlin or Dresden. Both available on this newest DG Brahms collection. https://www.prestomusic.com/classica...-abbado-brahms

It seems clear from the context of the posts that it is the BPO/Abbado being referred to I think .

[gurnemanz]

It seems clear from the context of the posts that it is the BPO/Abbado being referred to I think .

I sort of knew that I was expected to assume that BPO was being referred to, but was impelled to bother to comment by having myself only just got to know the Dresden performance (via the new set I mentioned) and by the impression that the recording, preferred by some to the Berlin recording, tends to get overshadowed.

[Wolfram]

Is anyone else a particular fan of the 1949 Furtwängler? My tastes in most things are very much in the historically informed / hysterically misinformed direction but I must admit I spin that one probably twice as often as all the others on my shelves put together…

(And that one has the exposition repeat, so, win.)

Furtwangler’s 1954 recording omits the exposition repeat, but sounds world weary in places in comparison with his earlier recording. However, there is a lot of audience noise in 1949; 1954 is much better in that respect. The 1954 recording has some pitch instability, but is generally clearer than in 1949. But, in 1954 the descending string motif in the closing bars of the final is perfectly audible against the wind cords - if Furtwangler can get the balance right, why can’t the rest of them? I think 1954 just edges it for me, if for no other reason than the relative lack of audience contribution.

I’ve just finished listening to 14 recordings of this symphony - nothing, I know, compared to the vast number of versions available - and, if nothing else, I like it as a piece much, much better now than when I started listening.

Among the versions that I have, the ones that I would not want to be without are: Furtwangler, 1954; Bruno Walter (NYPO), not the later Columbia remake - there’s real fire on the roof in New York in the outer movements and a reflective sadness in the inner movements; and Abbado and Ivan Fischer from among more recent recordings in good modern sound.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I’m rather taken with VPO/Bernstein recording. Indeed I have his full set. Also the recorded sound is excellent too, even though early DG digital sound was often rather harsh.
Other VPO recordings of the work I have are, Barbirolli, Levine and Kertesz, though I’m less keen on the Kertesz.

I suppose this is my favourite Brahms symphony. I've listened to most of my recordings in the last few days, including the early Halle/Barbirolli and the 1954 Furtwangler. But if I had to choose one from my collection, it would be the VPO/Levine: beautifully played, directed and recorded. As for the luscious warm Viennese sound, that's just the way I like it.

[Barbirollians]

Furtwangler’s 1954 recording omits the exposition repeat, but sounds world weary in places in comparison with his earlier recording. However, there is a lot of audience noise in 1949; 1954 is much better in that respect. The 1954 recording has some pitch instability, but is generally clearer than in 1949. But, in 1954 the descending string motif in the closing bars of the final is perfectly audible against the wind cords - if Furtwangler can get the balance right, why can’t the rest of them? I think 1954 just edges it for me, if for no other reason than the relative lack of audience contribution.

I’ve just finished listening to 14 recordings of this symphony - nothing, I know, compared to the vast number of versions available - and, if nothing else, I like it as a piece much, much better now than when I started listening.

Among the versions that I have, the ones that I would not want to be without are: Furtwangler, 1954; Bruno Walter (NYPO), not the later Columbia remake - there’s real fire on the roof in New York in the outer movements and a reflective sadness in the inner movements; and Abbado and Ivan Fischer from among more recent recordings in good modern sound.

I find the sound of those NYPO/Walter recordings a bit tiring - has the remastering in the big Walter box tamed it ?

[Barbirollians]

I suppose this is my favourite Brahms symphony. I've listened to most of my recordings in the last few days, including the early Halle/Barbirolli and the 1954 Furtwangler. But if I had to choose one from my collection, it would be the VPO/Levine: beautifully played, directed and recorded. As for the luscious warm Viennese sound, that's just the way I like it.

I remembered the Levine recording got an absolute kicking in Gramophone at the time - and looking it up I see Jonathan Swain said he was glad of the opportunity of hearing the finale so explosively conducted but he would not be returning to the record ( he was even more critical of the Tragic Overture) and Robert Layton in his Quarterly Retrospect described it as crude, coarse and lack in any real personality. Hurwitz however loves it.

[akiralx]

I remembered the Levine recording got an absolute kicking in Gramophone at the time - and looking it up I see Jonathan Swain said he was glad of the opportunity of hearing the finale so explosively conducted but he would not be returning to the record ( he was even more critical of the Tragic Overture) and Robert Layton in his Quarterly Retrospect described it as crude, coarse and lack in any real personality. Hurwitz however loves it.

As I posted a few days ago, this is definitely my favourite - Levine conducts the work superbly and the finale is certainly dramatic and exciting but not at all crude in my view. Not sure that's a charge often levelled at the VPO (or Levine for that matter), especially in a composer so central to their repertoire.

[oliver sudden]

I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet but maybe that’s just because it’s too obvious: the strings at the end aren’t important just because it’s a nice tune, but because it’s the opening melody of the whole symphony… (major instead of minor, but a very important closing of the circle, and there’s no other Brahms symphony which has such explicit references across the movements, the other being the sudden eruption of the second movement in the middle of the finale).

It’s the sheer intensity of the 1949 Furtwängler that tips the scales for me (as well as the exposition repeat of course). I have no serious problem with the coughs in that context. I must hear the 1954 again though.

[Wolfram]

I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet but maybe that’s just because it’s too obvious: the strings at the end aren’t important just because it’s a nice tune, but because it’s the opening melody of the whole symphony… (major instead of minor, but a very important closing of the circle, and there’s no other Brahms symphony which has such explicit references across the movements, the other being the sudden eruption of the second movement in the middle of the finale).

It’s the sheer intensity of the 1949 Furtwängler that tips the scales for me (as well as the exposition repeat of course). I have no serious problem with the coughs in that context. I must hear the 1954 again though.

What you say about the string passage at the end of the finale is absolutely true and part of what makes this symphony so satisfying. Interestingly, the strings are marked pp sempre all the way through against a single p marking for the winds, which doesn’t change until almost the very end when Brahms writes diminuendo. If this is going to be played as written then it must be very difficult to balance if a small chamber orchestra sized string section is being employed, which I assume to be the case with Manze, and still maintain audibility. No problem for the full strings of the Berlin Phil. In a studio recording the producer must also share some of the responsibility for getting this right.

[Wolfram]

I find the sound of those NYPO/Walter recordings a bit tiring - has the remastering in the big Walter box tamed it ?

I don’t know is the answer. I have the two cd 2004 Sony Classic Recordings release, which gives no information on remastering. I don’t know if these are the same as those in the big box. But, just as Oliver finds no difficulty with the audience noise on the 1949 Furtwangler, so I am happy to listen past limitations on the sound quality of those New York recordings for the sake of a great performance.

[richardfinegold]

I suppose this is my favourite Brahms symphony. I've listened to most of my recordings in the last few days, including the early Halle/Barbirolli and the 1954 Furtwangler. But if I had to choose one from my collection, it would be the VPO/Levine: beautifully played, directed and recorded. As for the luscious warm Viennese sound, that's just the way I like it.

I have the Levine/CSO set, which was in a cutout bin a few years ago at the CSO Symphony Storehaven’t listened in a while but I don’t remember very fondly. Wondering if you have contrasted it with the VPO version?

[DoctorT]

Any takers for Chailly/Gewandhausorchester? Received good reviews a few years ago.

[Pulcinella]

Any takers for Chailly/Gewandhausorchester? Received good reviews a few years ago.

Yes, me!
Indeed I took the set (still shrink-wrapped) from a pre-charity shop disposal box put out by a neighbour, who was moving house.
I rather like it.

[Sir Velo]

As someone with a great fondness for Levine's 1980s recording of Ma Vlast with the VPO I feel impelled to hear the Brahms 3, particularly in light of the encomiums lavished on it herein. However, is this a case of caveat emptor (auditor?) given various Gramophone reviewers' brickbats hurled at it. Take this review, from Jonathan Swain, for example:

"Excepting the startling Toscanini NBC-style subito mp in the sixth bar (and at a ll subsequent repeat points), the first movement is responsibly conducted. Levine makes the most of the inner movements' crescendoing string themes, and his accentuation guarantees a dramatic trombones' entry in the slow movement. I am grateful for the opportunity to have heard the finale as explosively conducted as this, but shan't be returning to it again." Or, then again, Robert Layton in the Quarterly Retrospect:

" I t is all crude and coarse - and, above all, lacking in any real personality. I was reminded of Edward Seckerson's remarks earlier in the year about Levine's Chicago Symphony Orchestra disc of the Prokofiev First and Fifth Symphonies (DG, 1/95), for they apply no less here: "thy expression is so generalized that these big, imposing, implacable sonorities fail to mean anything . . . he has got his foot down on the power; the characterization passes him by".