Both conductors make a horrible mess of what is, admittedly, Brahms' most difficult symphony to conduct well, but there's a useful lesson in these disasters that both listeners and artists would do well to learn.
The third is my favorite of Brahms's symphonies, I imprinted on Solti from the seventies. Instead of going forward to more modern recordings, more often than not I hit the stereo Walter and the EMI Klemps.
Arnold Rose, the veteran leader of the Vienna Philharmonic, played the work under Toscanini before the War. He said his conception was the closest to Brahms own. Toscanini was probably at his peak then so he may be right
“Cosmic transcendental Meshuggah” is the perfect description of the maestro! Sometimes it takes a little Yiddish to fully describe something. We never had that in my musicology seminars a million years ago. I love your channel. And I still have a lot to go through, especially as a paying member. Thanks again. 🙏👍🏻🙌
Hi Dave, I don't think we are relatives (Not unless we go back to the 15th century in Prague), but I just happened to run into your "Music Guide" here. Very knowledgable and amusing. As a violist in the orchestras of Indianapolis, Rotterdam,Toronto, and several others, I know quite a bit about "struggle" as you mention. I'm not quite old enough to have seen Toscanini, but I did study with 6 men who played under his baton in both the New York Philharmonic and the NBC. Thanks.
Agreed (mostly) even though I'm a Toscanini partisan for the 3rd, especially. Now, the greatest Brahms Violin Concerto I've ever heard is Ormandy/Phila/Stern. It is the most organic I've listened to. It is not so much with Stern as soloist, somewhat aloof/above/apart from the orchestra, such as Heifetz played. Stern's 1958 recording is almost as if an incredibly adept concertmaster were playing it, as if from within the orchestra. And with such a commited Brahmsian as Ormady! It's pure Brahms!
Finally, someone has the courage to say "The Emperor is NAKED." Mengelberg GOT this work. Jochum & Dorati, too, but @especially@ van Beinum & Bruno Walter. Furtwangler's December 1949 is sloppy even by @his@ live standards, but at least it's EMOTIONALLY convincing. His April 1954 is not even that: grim, heavy, angularly phrased, and just plain runs against the grain of the music, i.e., in it's own way almost as bad as Toscanini's 1952. Once again, you've made my day...Have great weekend.
It's too bad you can't play excerpts of these recordings and compare them to ones that you do approve of so we can really hear what the issue is. Contrast and compare is a very effective tool in argument.
Toscanini admitted that he didn't completely understand the Brahms Third. Before he made the studio recording he listened to recordings of his previous broadcasts of the work and tried to piece together an ideal version; obviously, it didn't turn out very well.
Dave: I’ve recently started to pick movements from different recordings and put together my own favorite version of a symphony. What is your opinion about that and can you think of symphonies that really would benefit from doing that? Or is it just wrong?
@@DavesClassicalGuide I forgot to mention that I rip my Cds and play my music with a streamer. That makes it easy to make playlists and pick movements from different recordings. Of course if you play CDs, it’s not worth it, I totally agree. I have an example, Attebergs symphony nr 3. I like the first and last movement from Järvis recording, but the second movement is not good, to say at least. Ehrlings recording has a very good second movement, but I don’t like the first movement at all, it sounds very mechanical.
I think the Brahms III is unusual because it is the story of a defeat. The great nineteenth century symphony, from the Jupiter to the Mahler Eighth, is supposed to be the record of a majestic, triumphant experience. But it always struck me that in in the Brahms Third, fourth movement, there is that sudden outburst in the middle, with stiff and savage chords that sound a bit like they had strayed in from a really nasty version of Beethoven's fifth, and that have not appeared in the music before and will not appear again - something dramatic, extreme, and coming in from outside to smash and bash and burn. And from then on the music progressively loses drive and tension, till it comes to rest in what is in effect a suitable tune for a slow movement. It's not a funeral march, but it's an admission that something has been tried and failed. That is probably why many conductors miss the point. Especially since the conductor himself tends to have something of a heroic image and self-image, and none had more of that than Arturo and Wilhelm. Performing a music of defeat was not natural for them.
I got to know Brahms' 3rd with this Toscanini recording. The first score, I bought, was the one of this symphony (together with Schönberg's 2nd string quartet). So I still don't get, what should be so wrong with the Toscanini. That doesn't mean, that I understand the music very much. But I like it, also in this recording. So it's great, that you explain, why you think Toscanini is horrible. Now I can compare him with Bruno Walter and Klemperer (and Gielen).
In fact I'm an analphabet at scores, in the sense, that i can follow and turn the pages. And I can also say, what the single notes are, but I don't get a melody or a harmony from the score. Using scores helps me to hear better, though.
I have a soft spot for Weingartner's old recording. Maybe a bit low on drama, but he doesn't overthink the piece. Same for Boult. But maybe the best approach is Szell in his first recording with the Concertgebouw. Just hit the gas and go. He does run through the second movement awfully quickly, but for me it works. By the time Szell set it down in Cleveland, his tank was only half full and the octane number was far lower. Speaking of the Concertgebouw, if one really wants a wild ride, there is Mengelberg, an admitted guilty pleasure. Stokowski, in various performances going back to the 1920s, is almost as nuts.
oh....! the contrast betwen your opinion in the video and the opinion i read in the ''dictionnaire des disques et des disques compact,magazine diapason ( 1991)'' about brahms 3 by furtwangler ( 1949)....i you translate some of the words in original text in french i read in the ''dictionnaire''....''-la troisieme symphonie de brahms est peut etre l,éroica de brahms,mais aussi son '' jardin secret '',et l'une des plus grandes symphonie de tous les temps,c'est du moins ainsi que l,entend furtwangler qui construit tout en tension,et en clarté d,articulation,l'allegro con brio..........l,allegro final débute tel l,orage, et s,acheve dans le poudroiement des demis teintes...furtwangler marie brumes et soleil avec un maximum d,intensité.....un des plus beaux disques de toute l,histoire et certainement le plus extraordinaire témoignage de l,art de furtwangler....prise de son excellente pour l,époque,mais on entend ...hélas...!,aussi bien les toux du public que les détails d,orchestre''-....i make a mistake to love this versions.?...who believe....?
When I first heard the 3rd, I just thought it was a piece of junk, and on reflection, I think it was because I listened to a bad performance of it. I later gave it a second chance and listened to the Bruno Walter, and that resurrected the symphony for me. I guess I still think it is the least great of Brahms’s symphonies (not bad, just less great than the others), which I think is partly linked to the level of difficulty that it takes to get it right. But in any case, this just goes to show the importance of performance and interpretation quality when it comes to informing our views on these pieces.
I just checked that Klemperer played those first two chords with clarity and absolutely no rising dynamic. Klemperer's Brahms is for me the bench-mark, even if he is "leetle" serious from time to time! But never dull. Just monumental, even in the Second, but that pays off in the first movement development [free fantasy is I believe what US musicologists call it], where the logical thing is realised with genius precision and much greater effect than a more volatile preparation. I have tried and tried to find better Brahms Symphony performances than Klemperer's. It is easy to find more volatility, more surface excitement, more glowing sounds [particularly in my experience Walter], but never found more sense of lava-flow inevitable momentum, and the definitely excitement of a long prepared and completely controlled explosion of emotion at the crucial moments. Perhaps Klemperer should have been more famous for his Brahms records than his Beethoven ... I would not be without either of course. Now I get back to you talk at about two minutes in! Thank you Dave. Sometimes you discuss music that means almost the reason for living for me! Best wishes from George
I listened to the rest of your talk having owned both the Toscanin [RCA] and Furtwangler [radio tape on EMI] and also Toscanini's live Royal Festival Hall/Philharmonia recordings on Testament and can only agree that neither of these famous maestros really got the piece. Brahm's Three is an Enigma only the most intelligent artists can get to the heart of. Needless to say, there is no Furtwangler or Toscanini Brahms in this residence, these days! Best wishes from George
There are so many ways to be bad and wrong, alas, fewer to be good and right, even fewer to be great. It's said that before recording the 3rd, Toscanini listened to all of his previous bouts with the piece and chose an "ideal" version with different movements over the years. That gambit seems to have paralyzed him and he produced the fail that is this recording. But I was recently listening to a 1938 performance (on the same program with a beautiful Tallis Fantasia) characterized by natural flow and flexibility combined with drama and intensity. But three years later it was fast and febrile and even angry. Go figure.
