What is the bar numbers for the first movement? More specifically, the Exposition,Development and Recap? Does anyone know where I can find it please? thank you.
That slow intro was a record setter up to that time, lasting a cool 2:36. And it has a remarkable resemblance in rhythmic pattern, and chromatic scale pattern, to the much later Symphony #7 of Beethoven! Of course the corresponding Allegros of the two symphonies are quite different: the Beethoven is joyous and heroic in quality, whereas this symphony is suave and smoothly classical.
After 44 years of listening assiduously to Mozart's last six symphonies, I believe this one is my favorite, even though it is the only one without a nickname. Hoomeyow!!
I have to say, even though I would've preferred there were no ads, their thoughted out placement did not go unnoticed and for that I have to thank you.
1. Simfonija Nr. 39 Es dur: 1. daļa, galvenā partija. 2:36 2. Simfonija Nr. 39 Es dur: 2. daļa, galvenā partija. 11:14 3. Simfonija Nr. 39 Es dur: 3. daļa, pamattēma. 20:00 4. Simfonija Nr. 39 Es dur: 4. daļa, pamattēma. 24:05
@@mach1chap Technically, it was probably the way round that they said; the actual chronology is irrelevant - it was what the piece reminded them of, to them, personally. I assume they'd heard the Schubert first, despite the Schubert coming second.
What is the bar numbers for the first movement? More specifically, the Exposition,Development and Recap? Does anyone know where I can find it please? thank you.
What is it about this recording where every instrument. Sounds so vivid? Is it engineering ? Sterio? Any audio philes out there to explain. It sounds like you are right THERE it's so electric!!! Makes other recordings sound dull
Thank you so much for putting this online! I humble opinion, i'm not too impressed with this performance. Strings are often out of tune -in development section of 1st mvt, especially when dividing in octaves...Tempos just so sluggish and rhythms weak. Shows how much Mozart performance and orchestral technique has come since then.
Probably one rehearsal, maybe one take. Can't compare to our digital recordings. But then again, you missed the superior sound of the wind section and the fact it is a LP recording. Seen in this light it is a great achievement.
@@bartjebartmans Yes, very poor logic. This is what happens when a gentleman watches music videos without the sound. I was thinking of 40 for some reason, but the comment applies to much of Mozart's work.
First of all they are excellent renditions and second of all they have NO copyright issues. One wrong upload and it will get blocked world wide. So what is the reason you ask? Not good enough for you?
Not. Very precise and clear performance with beautiful woodwinds. Especially clarinets. You know you are listening to a LP do you? Bass is not enough but is not the fault of the orchestra nor conductor. It is the recording.
@@bartjebartmans This performance is allright. It is difficult to appreciate due to the 1950ies sound quality. Everything had to be compressed, extremes in pitch and dynamics were filtered out so you hear not an orchestra but a bunch of violins and here and there some flutes in the distance. But this is what was available then.
This is how you perform Mozart. Elegant but with verve and drive. Amazing woodwind section, too bad the LP stifled the basses a bit, but what a superlative Mozart rendition. Schmidt-Isserstedt knew something about Mozart few knew/know.
This was originally, I think, the Mercury recording of c.1958, absolutely outstanding technically (the glassy string sound was noted at the time), with the London Symphony Orchestra on top form. With this, Schmidt-Isserstedt. not highly regarded by pundits, came out of the professional shadows. For me, balm for the wounds of anguished adolescence. Yes, elegance, drive, phrase, style, the performance has it all.
At the end of the exposition, at about the 5 minute mark, it sounds like the volume is being turned down. I don't hear that at the end the second time through, at about 7:30.
Tfrne it's lovely, from start to finish! This symphony doesn't have the fame of Mozart's last two, but it's more beautiful and in some ways more dramatic than the other two.
@@timothythorne9464 I know right? The difference between Mozart's 39th and 40th symphonies is like the difference between Beethoven's 3rd and 5th symphonies. Literally, if you look at the first movements of them all, you will find similarities between each of the pieces in the Mozart - Beethoven pairs and differences between the pairs. Mozart 39 - Beethoven 3 Both start with loud chords Rhythm in the first movements is very similar Both have C minor appearing in the first movement Dramatic minor key in the second movement in both symphonies, C minor being the key of Beethoven 3 second movement and F minor appearing out of the blue in the second movement of Mozart 39 and in such a dramatic way, not the deathly melancholy that I tend to feel when I am improvising in F minor Mozart 40 - Beethoven 5 Both have a motif that makes up all or almost all of the first movement. In Beethoven 5, this motif is a building block of the other 3 movements as well. In Mozart 40, it just seems to disappear after the first movement is over. Both have the first 3 movements in a minor key followed by a major key and then minor again. Relative major in Mozart and Submediant major in Beethoven. Mannheim Rocket figure appears in both symphonies, but in different ways(loud and dramatic vs quiet and mysterious) and in different movements(Finale vs Scherzo) Each of these Mozart - Beethoven pairs has so many similarities, especially between their first movements for me to say that it is likely that Mozart influenced Beethoven when he was writing both his third "Eroica" symphony and his fifth symphony, sometimes called the "Fate" Symphony because of the motif or the "Victory" Symphony because of it's use by the Allies in WWII.
