Toscanini's way with the Beethoven symphonies sounds more petulant than viscerally exciting.
Aside from the dry, constricted and prehistoric dinosaur recorded sound, the performances have always stuck me as coarse, choppy, hectic, punchy, nervous, rushed, mechanical, joyless and stiffly regimented. I know this is heretical, but the famous Beethoven cycle with Toscanini and the NBC symphony on RCA has never been one of my favorites. I still like it for the sounds and the fact that it isn't like any of the others. He makes great Sibelius sounds but doesn't seem to catch the narrative. Segerstam is different but in a good and bad way. Most Sibelius sets I have heard are at least good but many are somewhat samey. But I do find myself unable to get excited about the famous Gardiner set - his approach is about his concept rather than the music - but have greatly enjoyed the later live recordings he made of some of the symphonies with the same forces because his vision seemed to have matured. Once I have heard one symphony and hated it (there have been a few of those) I don't go on to listen to the rest. As for Beethoven, I don't know any terrible sets (and I know lots of really good ones). And I know Haintink's Shostakovich is loved by many while I find it too tame. For example, I have never really liked Bertini's famous bargain (as it was then) Mahler set but many think it one of the best (or they used to at any rate).
I suspect this is going to turn into "one person's worst set another's good one".
0 kommentar(er)
