|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.190.203.46
In Reply to: RE: What's wrong with the eight others? posted by amioutaline? on September 13, 2014 at 05:02:58
Szell's Beethoven I'd call "stiff".... And obscuring melodic line in favor of background details.... Somehow, the B-7 was totally devoid of that....
I recently posted comments of Szell's B-2, with those citations. But his "stiffness" is consistent throughout. His read of the B-9 is indistinguished... The contrast between the nuance of the light melodies and horrific darkness is blunted. Too "monotone" and "autopilot" for my tastes. The B-8 final movement, B-4 opening movement, B-4 final movement, B-3 third movement also show Szell's characteristic "stiffness". I think Szell may have had some conceptions of how Beethoven should sound like, which I disagree with. (Contrast to Dvorak, which I think he's absolute tops.)
If Szell was tolerable with other Beethoven symphonies, the First and Fifth.... The Fifth only because it is so interpretation-friendly. His B-1 is OK as well (the final movement saves him). (The Cleveland Orchestra was also the perfect type of orchestra for the B-1.) So I'll give you those. But I don't like Szell at all with any of the others.
Follow Ups:
nt
IMO, the Szell is a terrific set, so something for all tastes, right? His Concertgebouw 5th is even better - listening to it is like reading the score. I doubt if I could live with a single set, but if I had to it might be Szell. Oddly, I have always felt that the Szell 7th was a good but not great performance, but then I feel that way about all of them except the Toscanini NYPO 7th made in 36. As an aside, I feel that Toscanini's later RCA set mostly likely does not represent his finest work, and the sound is variable, and not up to snuff for its time.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: