|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.44.22.213
To cut to the chase, I find both the Vanska and Haitink Beethoven 9th SACDs to be wonderful discs for performance and for recorded sound. After reading passionate remarks for and against about one or the other I was prepared to choose sides. But I have been listening to both the last few days and have really learned to appreciate and celebrate their differences. In fact, it’s their qualitative differences that have compelled me to listen to the 9th more intently (and more frequently) than I have ever done so previously. We are *very* fortunate to have SACD releases of this caliber to be released in such close proximity. This is to be celebrated.I would not call the performances, night and day; they are not. But differences, to me, are clearly apparent. Both performances are spirited and done with passion. But I would call the Vanska performance more “Beethoven-classical” and the Haitink performance more “Beethoven-romantic”. Both performances have a wonderful precision about them. Both conductors exercise tight reign over their well-rehearsed orchestras. But I seem to hear a slightly more Mozart influence in Vanska. In this way, Vanska is a bit more “sprightly”. Haitink seems to be further along the classical-romantic cusp, especially with the power of the cellos and basses (although both recordings are excellent in this area).
Vanska, at less than 66 minutes, is the shortest Beethoven 9th out of the 7 that I own. (The longest version I own is the rather lumbering 76 minute performance of Carl Bohm). Vanska, while spirited, never seems rushed, although the entry of the vocalists in the finale just seems to enter a bit “early” compared to other interpretations I have heard, including the Haitink. This is definitely *not* a bad thing, it just has taken a little bit of getting used to.
Haitink’s full performance is 2 ½ minutes longer than Vanska, most of the extra length in the finale. But it is never labored; not in the least. The passion is unmitigated from beginning to end.
The recordings, too, both of them, are excellent, although neither break new ground with respect to fidelity. The clarity is top tier (the timpani, as well as the low strings, and vocals are excellent), but they both fall short of the best with respect to depth of soundstage, for example. The recorded sound is very different between the two discs. The Vanska sound has a not too slight, but distinct “ambient” character about the space (when compared to Haitink). I initially thought that this was due to the mix of the rear channels. But this same character is audible with two channel playback, so it may very well be the hall. This is not an issue and I found that I adjusted to it within a minute or two. The Haitink, on the other hand, is a wee bit dry (compared to Vanska). But again any sense of this disappears very quickly as the performance unfolds.
So I find these two to be exceptionally fine interpretations and recordings that I recommend without hesitation. I find my enjoyment for both to be in a statistical dead heat (Haitink with a slight lead).
Robert C. Lang
Follow Ups:
This is a "Period" rendition I bought maybe 15 years ago. It is a real barnburner but I felt it sounded thin. But I have had a real bias against "period" pieces so I may take a fresh listen.
Robert C. Lang
i have the karajan cycle on RBCD, and have been interested in purchasing the SACD version. is the improvement in sound appreciable? how do the haitink and vanska performances compare, particularly in the 9th?
I do have the Karajan (1977) version on SACD. Frankly, I didn't know I had it (or forgot I had it). And it's multi-channel! So, I will give that one a spin.
Robert C. Lang
thanks- i was thinking of the 1962 version, which over all is preferable i think. i do have the 1977 9th on RBCD, which i quite like.
Thanks for sharing this discussion . . . Among the 7 others that you own, is the Solti/Chicago recording from the late 1960s one of them?If you've heard it, what's your view of that performance?
I have a Solti but it's misfiled and I will have to hunt it down. But is it the same one you have? I think mine dates from 1975. In any event, I found it exhilarating, but I have not heard it in a long while.
Robert C. Lang
Prolly older than 1975.The performance was originally released on vinyl, then on dolby-B processed 7 1/2 ips reel-to-reel tape (which I bought in like 1971 or 1972). I have the tape, which eventually succumbed in the odd way that tape does (miscellaneous squeals that appear without warning) to having been recorded at extraordinarily high levels. Some years later, I found the same performance re-released on CD and bought it, just for the performance. The CD release is not the best from a sound quality standpoint.
I make no claim to being an aficionado but everyone who hears that recording, finds it exciting.
I dunno, maybe the cognoscenti find it overcooked.
Was just interested in your opinion and a comparison of it (if you have it) with the two SACD releases you've mentioned. I'm on the lookout for a sonically better recording, but I want an exciting performance also.
Well you all know that I detest the Haitink performance (primarilly because I like this conductor so much and I know he is capable of far better; I have many of his Concergebouw/Decca recordings).Haitink's LSO-live 9th sounds stale and passionless to me...like weeks old bread, it does not sustain or nourish me artistically. I've heard far better recordings on redbook CD (such as the Gunter Wand/RCA recording that I recently purchased thanks to a recommendation from a board member).
If you want a really run-of-the-mill, artistically uninspired, safe, boring recording of the 9th Symphony, then I would recommend Haitink's LSO-live disc, otherwise there are better versions...Solti, Harnoncourt, Wand...on redbook CD.
It took me several listens to Vanska before it began to take root. Perhaps you should listen to Haitink again.
Robert C. Lang
I don't think the Haitink LSO-Live Beethoven 9th recording is really good enough for a second listen (though I will probably get around to it someday). I've had my heart broken once already by it and once is enough. Bottom line: There are better recordings.
I have about a dozen recordings of the 9th and have heard it in person three times, the most memorable being with Solti conducting his debut concert as the conductor of the LA Philo. It's fundamentally a question of conception, and I see the 9th as a grand work, one of towering porportions and great significance. The first movement prepares us for the great minutes ahead, building tension and a sense that something great is about to happen. Vanska conducts like a human metranome, with clipped notes that significantly lighten the mood of the music and make it sound more like early Mozart than Beethoven. For me the first movement sounds like a nice, but rather ordinary piece of music. The second movement is better, but the third I found a lack of clarity as to what was going on. I just didn't make it to the last movement. The sound was good (MCH), but not great.The above comments are of course just opinions representing one person's tatstes. I can't say Vanska's perfromance is bad. What I am saying is that it isn't to my liking, for what that's worth, probably not much. If you are a fan of Furtwangler (which I am not), this performance is about as far from his as you can get.
Joe
I completely agree with yours and Russell's remarks about Vanska's approach. You, Russell, and I agree that the Vanska has a more "Mozartian" approach to Beethoven's 9th than what is "typical". (Although I do disagree that Vanska sounds like "early Mozart", except that even "early Mozart" definitely sounded like Mozart). Even the untrained ear (yours truly) does not have to dig deep to uncover this very salient difference.It almost makes you (me) wonder if Vanska and Haitink were reading the same score. And while I prefer Haitink, I find the differences very intriguing and these differences have compelled me to delve into Vanska approach, in particular, and Beethoven's 9th, in general, more deeply than I have in the past. It seems that Vanska approach is very calculated and in no way accidental. Perhaps he dug *too* deeply into music to come up with an interpretation that he believed what was originally intended. Or maybe he has hit on something.
Remember this music dates back to 1817-1821 that is far closer to the classical period than to the Romantic era. And we (as human beings) have well documented tendencies to make things bigger, grander, more exciting, and more dramatic, with larger orchestral forces that may have been originally envisioned 150-180 years ago, because it is better suited to our tastes. You see this a lot with early pieces that are done with modern instruments and larger forces. Sometimes they are on the existential edge of being transcriptions without being called so. But when we here "period" pieces we tend to like the "modern" versions better (at least I do) because that what we are use to.
We will always have a reasonably good idea as to what Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra" or Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" are *suppose* to sound like because we can go back and listen to recordings done by the composers themselves or read about which ones they felt hit the spot. (Of course, we will also, without hesitation, criticize the composer himself). But unfortunately the earliest (recorded) references that we have for most classical music that we enjoy today were done 200-150 years after the fact.
It definitely has taken me multiple listens to begin to see merit in Vanska's approach. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I wrote in this forum that Vanska's approach didn't "grab me" like it has some other listeners. I have since begun to accept it as a viable alternative to the other favorite, more readily palatable, interpretations.
At the same time I highly recommend Haitink's Beethoven 9th that is probably my favorite recorded in the digital era and would most appreciate you comments on it.
Robert C. Lang
Maybe it was just too different from my favorite performances for me to accept it in the first listening. I'll give it some more listenings. For what it is worth, Berlioz wrote the Symphonie Fantastique in 1826, just about five years after this was completed, and that is romanticism through and through. Frankly, though, I still find it hard to believe that Berlioz wrote a work like that in 1826. Regardless, given such Beethoven symphonies as the 3rd and 5th, I don't think it's expecting too much for what I percieve of as grandeur and power. For my tastes, the 1st movement should be set a tone of depth, of serious intent, not of the lightness conveyed by the clipped, to me abreviated chords.But I make no claim to expertise in these matters, and my "tastes" are a product of my prior experience. For example, I happen to like the Klemperer performance, though the singing is weak, and that performance is very different from Vanska's. It's great that we can sit in our own house and have so much to choose from! It took me some effort to hear the 9th the three times I heard it in person, and that was over 45 years. I still have never heard the 3rd in person, though I have more than 10 recordings of it.
I ended up getting the Vanska the other day (it was on sale at Virgin) and, while I liked it a lot more than his Beethoven 3rd, I still found in it many of the same qualities that I didn’t like in his 3rd, though to a less objectionable degree. Don’t get me wrong--I liked the Vanska a lot, but I still prefer Haitink’s warmer, more give-and-take approach to the cooler, more ‘precise’ approach of Vanska. ('Romantic' versus 'classical' approaches, as you say.) Indeed, the military-like precision with which Vanska’s orchestra plays makes it seem just a bit aloof by comparison, which is why I didn’t take to his recording of the 3rd. It’s still exciting to hear, however.I'm convinced that a lot of my extremely positive reaction to the Haitink has to do with how his performance has been recorded--it's got a much more close-up perspective (but not unnaturally so, and certainly not overly dry and claustrophobic as on many of the other LSO Live recordings), and it helps that the timpani are emphasized. That, combined with the tendency for Haitink to ‘lean’ more into the big climaxes, makes for a more exciting and visceral listening experience, at least for me.
Layman's post below and also the second review on sacd.net.I feel in the long run I would be doing a disservice to myself if I did not go ahead and give this particular Haitink recording a try. Most opinions towards it are quite favorable. I could probably live with the Vanska SACD recording only to this point for the 9th since I enjoy it immensely but I have spent money on other SACDs in the past that perhaps afterwards I most certainly wouldn't consider in the same league as this Haitink recording.
Have you noticed relatively little to no mention on the Masur or Karajan LvB cycles since the Vanska and Haitink recordings have been released? I don't have any of those whatsoever any therefore cannot comment on their quality but I think I know why there hasn't been much chatter on them at all lately!
Thank again Robert for taking the time to give us your opinion. You most certainly are on a roll and so is SACD. Happy New Year!!
Thanks for the commentary.I own the Vanska one but not Haitink (Although I have the No. 6/2 and 3 from the LSO Live set and like them very much).
I like the performance of the Vanska, and the recording is great. But the 4th movement soloist - their phrasing sounded a bit odd....In terms of sheer hair-raising experience of the 9th, I would go for Karajan (1962 in SACD) or Bernstein 1989 (Redbook). Both offer out-of-the-world performances (from 2 ends of the spectrum) and good recordings.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: