Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5: reviews and thoughts

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Riccardo Chailly and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. 1980.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Nice start. Good tempo (slower, but not too slow), good sound, nice tone to the clarinet, and good balance. Pause is a bit long for me, but nice full dynamic shifts (so crescendos and such take quite some time to effect, which could be especially great later on). Into the next section, we are off at a nice pace. You can really hear all the different instruments (good transparency). Strings have nice fullness and brass have nice weight too (though not the best I've heard). Rubato/tempo changes are handled very organically. They are almost imperceptible in that you realize the tempo has changed, but that change has not drawn overly much attention to itself. Very lyrically done.  Climaxes are not as supercharged as some, but very nicely handled. Precision of playing is high too, which helps provide great impact. 'Solos' are very well played. You can really hear lots of details – the orchestra plays this at a very high level.

Second Movement: Foreboding (and slow) beginning. Really lets the harmonies shine through. Great start. Horn solo is very fine. No vibrato, but a sweet tone. It's played a bit more longingly than some (in this the orchestra is a great help). High tones (of horn) seem to edge out of tune at times. Integration with the orchestra is well done.  Tempo changes go hand in hand with the dynamic changes. Again, climaxes are not as supercharged as some of them, but they are still quite effectively done. Tempo changes aren't quite as deftly handled as they were in the first movement, and are a bit jerky every so often. Pauses toward the end are very effective as the brass ring out and that echo is allowed to continue. Beautiful ending.

Third movement: Waltz is excellent. Pacing is good. Dynamic changes are excellent. Very nicely done. One doesn't feel the runs are being too heavily stressed, which is sometimes a complaint I have – they are done just right here.

Fourth Movement: Stately start. The use of pauses and accents is really well done at the start. Changes in dynamics (details) are good. It flows nicely, though slightly faster. Into the allegro vivace (after the timpani roll downbeat), it moves along at a nice pace (timpani really audible). Different departments seem to initially have slightly different ideas about the tempo, but this is almost immediately resolved. This is fast, but not manic (though timing is among the faster ones). And they speed up a bit as it heads toward the middle-end. Strings have a nice bite here. Brass are on the lighter side here (sound is there, but just not as weighty as some do it). This version generally holds to the faster speed. There are some minor unison issues, but they never stay long enough to become anything but a momentary issue. Again, climaxes could be a little bit bigger, but they are still very well done. Trumpets play well in the end sections. And they fly in the presto! Now this is what I'm talking about (intense, fast, and precise). Last section does not slow down much. Last four notes are slower. 

Overall: Good. This is a solid version. It has some beautiful lyrical and romantic qualities. Ultimately, it is very well performed. Horn solo was not my ideal (just one too many times struggling with being in tune). Waltz, on the other hand, was pretty ideal for me.  Fourth movement had a nice speed to it.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13452/?search=1

[jochanaan]

I've found that Chailly does just about everything well, and always seems to draw the best from an orchestra.  But I'm a little prejudiced: the first Chailly recording I heard was the Varèse set.

[Brahmsian]

Neal, I know this thread has been around for months, but today is my first reading of it.

Wow, I cannot believe how many recordings there are of the 5th!  Shouldn't surprise me, it is such a fantastic symphony.

The strings opening of the 2nd movement, followed by the entrance of the horn, is truly my favourite moment probably in all classical music.  So beautiful, it really is indescribable.  It overwhelmed me and astonished me when I first heard it.  It still does.

I've had the fortune of hearing it performed live twice.

The only recording I have is Muti/Philharmonia Orchestra.  I love it, even though Brian does not. 

Neal, thank you for embarking on such a magnificent project! 

[North Star]

I've found that Chailly does just about everything well, and always seems to draw the best from an orchestra.  But I'm a little prejudiced: the first Chailly recording I heard was the Varèse set.

Agreed, based on the 16 CD collection (I don't think I listened to the Varèse disc first - probably the Bruckner 7th, but I did listen to most of them in a couple of days, good times )

[mc ukrneal]

Yes - Chailly is quite dependable I think. Here he does a fine job too.

As to Muti, I always thought he did a good job as well. I think the problem with Muti is that there are two performances and I sometimes see them mixed up. So it is not always clear which performance is being discussed. Eventually I will get to both of them.

[Daverz]

Most recent 2:

Matacic: exciting and driven
Monteux/Boston/RCA: classical and poised.  Beautifully played and recorded.  My favorite so far.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Sir Thomas Beecham and the London Philharmonic Orchestra. 1939.

Available in these editions:


Sound: Considering its age, the sound is quite clear with minimal hiss. The orchestra is not as forward as some and the highs can be congested, but remarkable sound frankly for a recording of this vintage. Listening here to the EMI recording (so cannot comment on the other). There are some record-like scratchy sounds in the third movement which irritated about halfway through to the end of the fourth movement, so kind of a bummer, but now just average for the period I suppose.

First movement: Slow start, with full clarinet sound. Into the next section, we speed up to a moderate tempo. It is played with limited rubato and the tempo is held steady. It is actually very exciting. The steady tempo means it really gets a straight-forward take, with no stretching or pulling of tempos here! The sound is mostly fine too – occasionally some instrument or other is too far back in the sound, but it doesn't happen often enough to spoil my enjoyment. And when tempos change, they occur organically. Dynamics are actually quite good (and phrasing as well). They play with great precision and accuracy too. It is played with great energy (which you really feel throughout). Every now and then though, there is a brief letdown by the strings in unison.  Though the timing is not super fast (on the faster side at just over 14 minutes), I think this is deceptive, because the beginning is slow, but the end (and much of the middle too) is quite fast, so it is actually quite a fleet movement once you get past the opening.  Slightly abrupt ending.

Second Movement: Subdued start. Horn solo is actually very nice. The instrument is a hair back, but the tone is steady and attractive. Woodwind 'solos' are fine (perhaps too far back in the soundstage, but that is a recording issue) and this movement gets time to breathe. Tempo, though not quite as fast as the first movement, is still fairly quick. Still, I would not say it feels rushed. It just doesn't linger. I like some of his small tempo nuances/rubato, where he will speed up a hair in a phrase or a few bars, making a certain phrase sound very fresh. Yet for the most part, there are no sudden changes in tempo that really hurt some other performances. Also of interest, he doesn't make big pauses as I have noted some do. I'd say he could have given a hair more space to them, but I do prefer his approach compared to the long pause. Climaxes are very effective, which make the softer parts that much more effective as well.

Third movement: This movement is a bit more laid back. Style is fine, though not quite as stylized as the VPO of Kubelik, for example. There is not much rubato here, but there are tempo changes (where strings seem pressed to keep up in their runs).

Fourth Movement:  Stately beginning, with plenty to hold the interest (in phrasing and dynamics). And then into the allegro vivace, on the top of the roll (no downbeat), they set off at a moderate pace.  Very nicely done too, with a lot of verve and energy. Precision here pays off in spades. Tempo is pretty constant, in the early going, though it changes as usual in the middle to later sections. Everything feels quite natural here (except for the sound), with phrasing, temp, dynamics, and unison all focused into making this movement work. Ending slows to a nice fanfare-like speed, though last four notes are slowed down quite a bit.

Overall: Good. This is not a lush, warm, luxurious version. If you crave that, you might find this disappointing. It is precise, mostly on the fast side, and full of energy. It also has even poorer sound from the middle of the third movement on. But (and I surprise myself when I say this, because I did not expect it) I really enjoyed it! It's quite good. I would not be upset if someone complained that this is even excellent! I love how precisely they play.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[Daverz]

Really enjoy the movement by movement discriptions.  Thanks, again.

[jochanaan]

Beecham's sounds like one to hear!  As I said, I tend to prefer T5 with some drive and punch, so I'd probably like this one a lot--if I can find it.

[Brian]

Next up: Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. 2006. Live.

Available in these editions:

Aside from the four elongated final chords (also something Jurowski/LPO does, in the live CD I was there for the taping of), this is a gripping account and one that persuades me totally. Neal, you're dead right: Manfred Honeck is one of the handful of conductors right now who seems to be doing original things with old warhorses by really preparing tons of interesting new insights into phrasing, rubato, orchestral textures, etc. Doesn't hurt that the Pittsburgh Symphony has become a powerhouse. The whole series would be unmissable if the price were tolerable. On NML, it's unmissable, even in inferior sound.

[mc ukrneal]

Aside from the four elongated final chords (also something Jurowski/LPO does, in the live CD I was there for the taping of), this is a gripping account and one that persuades me totally. Neal, you're dead right: Manfred Honeck is one of the handful of conductors right now who seems to be doing original things with old warhorses by really preparing tons of interesting new insights into phrasing, rubato, orchestral textures, etc. Doesn't hurt that the Pittsburgh Symphony has become a powerhouse. The whole series would be unmissable if the price were tolerable. On NML, it's unmissable, even in inferior sound.

I was getting ready to listen to another new version, but I decided to listen to this one again. It bears repeated listening well. The sound really does add another dimension (but a lot of the effectiveness is thanks to the amazing precision), but I understand the restrictions you may have. Still, I'm sure you are hearing the benefit anyway. I find it a terribly enjoyable version.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Vasily Petrenko and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. 2008. Live.

Available in these editions:

This one is only available as an mp3 download.

First movement: Subdued start. Clarinet has a nice tone. Tempo is not too slow, seems appropriate. Some long pauses and some staccato phrasing give this a bit of a stop and go feeling in the beginning. No real speed up in the allegro con anima (maybe there is one, but it doesn't really feel faster, at least until they start to get going a few bars later). Attacks are legato. And suddenly they speed up and just as suddenly slow down a bit, so a bit too much artificial tempo changes. Still, they have exciting climaxes. And as they continue, the speed generally stays at a faster tempo. In general, this is one of the speedier first movements. Unison is strained at times – there are some small hiccups between departments. Though mostly, there is good discipline. There seems to be some inconsistencies in staccato and legato – while one department is playing it one way, some others plays it the other. There is no lingering here – this is a fiery, straight ahead approach. They miss on some tender moments, but they catch the thrill of it quite well. The tempo changes continue to be a bit abrupt at times.

Second Movement: Beautiful start, but on the faster side. Horn has a beautiful sound, but it comes in too strong on the first notes (so much so that it may ruin the mood for some). The solo is also played with little nuance and is not as interestingly played as some others. A disappointment I'm afraid. When the winds and strings come in, I am transported. Strings have a very nice fullness to them (and I find they often provide the most detailed phrasing). Tempo is on the fast side, but climaxes are still very well done. Tempo changes are still a bit too abrupt. On the other hand, they have a nice bite when you want it. It is definitely on the faster side though and can be very exciting.

Third movement: Tempo on the fast side. Phrasing here seems weakest of the movements. It captures the style just fine. It is straight-forward.

Fourth Movement: Stately start. Opening is not the slowest, but there are certainly faster. Could have been a bit more detail in the phrasing (particularly in the loudness level). And then we are into the allegro vivace (enter after the downbeat after the timpani roll) – at a fastish pace. It speeds up a bit at times though. Textures are a bit thick in places (timpani is part of it – quite audible in several places and covers the orchestra at times).  But climaxes are handled pretty well, and they have a nice fullness of sound to them (and the tempo continues to be generally on the fast side). There are details I think don't work, but the overall conception is pretty good. It has more intensity than many I have heard so far. Not enough of a break/pause into the false ending (almost none). Tempo continues to be quick. And they fly at the presto, but perhaps some minor unison issues at the start. And the ending is also taken at a very fast clip. A little more differentiation might have been nice. And the last four notes are out of tempo and slow down.

Overall: Good. Most people seem to compare Petrenko and Dudamel. In this particular case, there is no need, because Petrenko is way ahead on this piece. The horn solo is the biggest disappointment for me. Someone who likes Petrenko will probably enjoy this. I thought the performance did not capture a lot of the details I like, but was generally fast and exciting. Stylistically, it sounds like he has this piece in his blood (despite any issues I might have).

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/July09/Tchaikovsky5_RLPO.htm

Sorry for the slowdown, but life and work have been so busy. I hope to speed things up closer the end of the year.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Andris Nelsons and the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. 2008.

Available in these editions:   

This performance comes from the same year Petrenko made his, so this should be interesting.

First movement: Slow, somber start. Clarinet is clear and full toned, though not quite as detailed as some (plays a hair loud throughout the opening without enough dynamic changes). Strings have nice body and a nice dark tone at the start. Into the next section, we are off at a slow to moderate pace. The orchestra has a nice, full sound and play this opening very intensely. Very exciting.  Tempo does not shift too much at the start at all. Strings do sound a little bit back in the soundstage when they have their picked runs in some quiet moments. I'd like to hear the trumpets a bit better when they have some prominent moments (also seem a bit recessed at times, especially disappointing in some climaxes). As they get going, Nelsons does make a few sudden and abrupt tempo changes (from quite slow to quite fast). Nelsons is not quite as bad as Gergiev in terms of how often he makes the abrupt tempo changes (or in how extreme they are), and that makes a difference as the movement has better flow here. Woodwinds sound excellent. Dynamic changes are good here and much better than some that seem to play too much at one loudness.

Second Movement: Beautiful start (not too fast). Horn solo is very prominent. It is has a warm tone, though perhaps too close in proximity (like it was sitting in front of the orchestra as a soloist), and is well played. Tempo is too flexible with too many speed ups and slowdowns. I don't mind some shifts here or some rubato, but sounds too shaped (manipulated) and not natural enough.  It is when the tempo is allowed to flow at one pace (more or less) that the movement works best (which is not often enough, and usually in the quieter sections). Lower brass edge toward crude on a couple of climaxes (sounds like they are overblowing). Uch – they are rushing through the climaxes. It is one thing if they are taken at a fast tempo, but here they feel rushed because the tempo is accelerating through too many parts of those climaxes. Ending is suitably subdued (though tempo is now super slow).

Third movement: Tempos flow nicely. Phrasing is not quite as nuanced as some, but the overall line is nicely highlighted. Style is a bit more forceful and staccato (so less subtlety and nuance) and lots of little details stick out (good because you hear them, but also distracting from the main line because of how prominent they are).

Fourth Movement: Stately, but at a slightly faster pace. Trumpets sound better highlighted here (so not sure what was going on earlier). Dynamics don't change as much as they could. And then we are into the allegro vivace (during the timpani roll). The tempo is slow to moderate to start. It is well controlled, but lacking in some excitement. There is just not enough detail here to keep me as interested as I usually am. It is not until the tempo changes that we finally get a little bit of excitement. But what it is missing is detail in change of dynamics. It feels like this doesn't change very much, so much so that it feels unvaried.  And strangely, despite no qualms about pushing and pulling the tempo in earlier movements, there is very little of that here. In fact, it is neutered of these tempo shifts to a large degree (especially compared to other versions). And finally, when it should go fast, it is surprisingly slow (though it speeds up as it goes along). The last section is faster, and sounds a bit anemic (because they have continued to play too loud throughout the ending without enough detail).

Overall: So so. I was so hoping to give this one a higher rating, but it just doesn't deliver. It's not terrible (and they do have some enjoyable moments), but overall I think they miss the mark. The orchestra is quite disciplined, so the issue is in the interpretation, not the playing (per se). Too much tempo manipulation and then there is surprisingly little change in tempo (actually difficult to accomplish this in the fourth movement).

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalcdreviews/5624906/Tchaikovsky-Symphony-No-5-CD-review.html
http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_cd_review.php?id=7268
http://www.classical-music.com/review/tchaikovsky-symphony-no-5
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/reviews/album-tchaikovsky-symphony-no-5---hamlet-ndash-nelsons--cbso-orfeo-1722837.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/24/tchaikovsky-hamlet-album-review
http://www.allmusic.com/album/tchaikovsky-symphony-no-5-hamlet-overture-mw0001425889

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Andrew Litton and the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra. 1989.

Available in these editions:   


First movement: A slow, somber start. Clarinet has a very attractive sound, while the phrasing is quite nice too. It's a slow one though, with this version of the movement among the slowest on disc. Pauses are longer too, but since everything is slower, they don't seem to be overlong. Into the next section we are quite slow as well – sounds like we are trudging through the muck and just cannot go faster! Phrasing is still good though as the notes are held to the end. Sound is excellent and the orchestra sound fantastic when they get going. They speed up a bit into the climax, which is very well done. In the second climax, the tempo increases a bit (and suddenly). I also found that the horns did not change dynamics at all, which made it a bit leaden  - would have liked a bit more detail there. In general, phrasing is not as detailed as it could be (for example, some small crescendos or decrescendos that others do are absent). I must say that I don't find the slower tempo an issue. He does it pretty well (he keeps the structure clear, for example), though I think he could have made even more of it with some additional details. His tempo changes on the other hand, I found somewhat distracting because he starts from such a slow tempo (compared to others) and then powers ahead in some moments (it is jarring).

Second Movement: Beautiful start. Horn solo is beautifully played (with a warm tone). It is not at all in your face, and seems quite ethereal (as if floating at times). No vibrato. Lower strings have a really nice sound as well. Upper strings don't have quite the weight that some do, but neither is thin either. Climaxes again go a bit faster in tempo.  Here the line is less well held though in the middle section. The timpani play too loud in some climaxes (and for too long). With Litton, climaxes and faster tempos are very much connected (even more than most). I felt that sometimes they arrived at climaxes too early, and because of slow tempos he generally takes it that means they last longer too (though they create impressive sounds).

Third movement: Nice waltz. It is subdued in use of attacks and loudness, particularly at the start. String runs are more attractive to me as they don't seem to be as heavy or harsh.

Fourth Movement: Stately start. Here details are better too. And then we are into the allegro vivace (at the top of the timpani roll), and we are off at a slow to moderate pace. It then speeds up a hair, which I found beneficial. Unison among departments is strained a couple of times. I enjoyed the sound they produced – it has a nice fullness that is so helpful here. But I found the combinations of tempo and detail to be somewhat disappointing. Climaxes are made more interesting, but getting from one to the next is too static. And then the tempo suddenly takes off. Followed by a major slowing. Tempos seem to be a bit random here, as if being done for dramatic impact in the moment (regardless of how it affects the movement as a whole or the relationship between sections). Tempos in last sections are generally restrained until the presto, where they finally take off. And in the last section, they don't slow down too much initially, though it does slow a as it reaches the end. Final notes are taken slower.

Overall: So So. While climaxes seem pretty strong, I sometimes got the feeling that it focused too much on them and not enough on the connections in between. Details and phrasing could have better, though there are times they are as good as anyone (which make those times when they are not all the more frustrating). I enjoyed the horn solo, and I liked the sound they produced overall for the most part. If you like some speed (faster tempos), then this is one to avoid. Ultimately – would I want to listen to this again? Not really.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
https://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=69455
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-6267/?search=1
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/May09/Tchaikovsky_Litton_6932382.htm
http://www.classical-music.com/review/tchaikovsky-symphonies

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Leonard Slatkin and the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. 1988.

Available in these editions:   


First movement: Nice start, with attractive tone from the clarinet (and good balance with the orchestra too). Tempo is tad on the slower side, but totally works for this music. Pause is a hair long, but lots of juicy details make this a great start. Then we are off a decent clip in the next section. The tempos are a bit of a push and pull. There are a couple of places where it slows down (and boy does it really slow down). I think the tempo changes are too extreme when they slow down (because of just how much they slow down), but others may find it more exciting.  I think the issue I have is that it seems to halt the momentum of the piece. I guess it feels too calculated. Technical issue at 13:10 or so (bad edit?). Then suddenly at the end we are pitched forward at an absurdly fast pace only to slow down suddenly for the subdued ending.

Second Movement: Another nice start. Chords sound so beautiful (with wonderful dynamic shifts). One of the best in recent listens for sure (and perhaps overall too). Horn solo is straight-forward, but the horn has a lovely tone. Oh, this one just melts me. There is no rush and it is taken at a nice tempo. One of the top horn solos so far for me in terms of beauty and tenderness.  Strings that take up the theme after that – wish they had a little bit more weight and fullness (though well played stylistically). Here the tempo changes are much less abrupt too, which creates a much better flow. The climaxes, in general, are a bit restrained (maybe controlled is the better word).  Right before the fanfare, the tempo slows down a whole lot.   

Third movement: Tempo is moderate, but this is a subdued waltz (more elegant than fiery for sure, though lacking the style that some orchestra bring to it). String runs seems a bit ragged at the start. The style of it also creates this strange 'beat type' sound at certain times. Ok, but not special.

Fourth Movement: Stately, slow start. Details in the opening not as well done (crescendos and decrescendos are more limited in impact, for example). Then into the allegro vivace (coming in after the timpani roll and downbeat), we are off at a pretty good speed, but the tempo keeps fluctuating. It could be planned, but it gives the impact of not really being together. The orchestra sounds a bit thin here at times and so the impact is not quite as great as many others. Very staccato playing in the brass does not really sound good (even sounds a bit clipped in multiple sections). Tempos generally flow ok, but they do seem to almost randomly quicken or slacken at times (so sudden and abrupt). Some unison issues again. We approach the presto at glacial speed (very little excitement here). And then we are off at a decent clip (though no real change into the ending). Last notes slowed.

Overall: So so. A real shame, because the horn soloist produces such beauty! But therein lies the problem I think – the approach seems to focus on the beauty of the moment or the sound to the detriment of the flow and line. There are also too many abrupt shifts in tempo as well as too many extreme slows (that did not make sense in the context of some of the much faster tempos). This one just did not do it for me.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: John Barbirolli and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. 1939.

Available in these editions:   

Sound: Listening to the Dutton – there is lots of congestion and scratches, though sound underneath is fairly true (and it does get a little bit better as it goes along). So not ideal (and not a first choice by any means), but not so bad considering the vintage. The audience keeps coughing in the quiet parts though!

First movement: A bit faster start, but quite strongly accented (and very precise). Lots of nice details in the opening (with pleasant sounding clarinet in any case). Into the next section, it is quite slow, with very strong accents / staccato. Great precision though makes for great intensity. Tempos change with the dynamics. This staccato approach is incredibly intense. And then we are flying along and it is as intense as any version I have ever heard. Wow. When it slows down, it does so in waves so that the abruptness of it is greatly diminished.  Still, tempos are definitely pulled around a bit. If the intensity wasn't so off the charts, I'd probably be irritated! Climaxes are congested, but the precision of the playing (and how they keep to the tempo without any mistakes) is really quite mind-boggling. This is perhaps the best execution I have heard yet. Here perhaps is what Gergiev and ilk have been trying to accomplish with their big changes in tempo, except here everything is much better executed. What I do particularly like is how much detail in the phrasing there is. If this were in decent sound, it might very well have been the best I ever heard. Stunning!

Second Movement: Nice opening, and so beautiful in weight and sound. Horn solo is not as sweet as some but still pretty good (with vibrato). It is at least played with assurance. The amount of coughing does drive me a bit nuts though! Solo sounds best when playing with the other 'soloists' and orchestra. There is some gorgeous playing here, with lots of crescendo/decrescendo effects and other phrasing details. If the first movement was incredibly intense, this movement has really much more of a romantic and lyrical impact. I love the contrast. Tempo does add some speed in the middle sections, but mostly around the climaxes. The weight and sound of brass is good (though lows not as full as some, almost assuredly because of the recording, but this does reduce impact of the last climax). Nice ending.

Third movement: The second fastest on record. This just flies. At the start, they sound a bit pressed to keep up. But once they get going, they settle down. Those who feel this is just a filler movement might like it. Overall, it's a bit frayed, but it certainly is a big contrast to the previous movement (perhaps a bit too intense?).

Fourth Movement: Stately start, though a hair on the faster side. Contrasts are pretty good in this opening (and it is a quite dynamic start). And then they head into the allegro vivace (played here after the downbeat of the timpani roll, though it crescendos and then seems to die a bit and then there is a downbeat), and they are off at a fast (though not manic) pace. It slows down a bit and I get the feeling that perhaps the orchestra is tiring out (they have been really put to the test here). But then they seem to rally a bit, and we are back to an intense finale. And alas, we have the cuts that were so typical of this time.  Some unison issues are appearing in this movement. Tempos are changing regularly, and it is generally exciting playing. Ending sections are fairly modest in tempo (though it slows down dramatically before the presto, where it takes off again). The final section slows to a crawl (weak transition), but then speeds up quite a bit. It then slows again before the final four notes, which are in tempo. 

Overall: Good. I really loved the intensity and utter control/discipline of the first movement. The approach is noticeable EVRERYWHERE, but that is where it really shines. The third movement is just too fast and it loses cohesion. The level of playing is generally quite good. It's a very bright sound that may wear over time. But it is generally an exciting version that really shines. The quality of the sound holds it back from being a first choice, but this could be an interesting version for someone who likes the approach and wants an alternative.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[jochanaan]

I'm beginning to notice a pattern. Earlier recordings fast and tight, with great detail; later ones beautiful but slow and less coherent -- unless they're Russian... Makes one wonder what happened to the great conductors...

[Que]

I'm beginning to notice a pattern. Earlier recordings fast and tight, with great detail; later ones beautiful but slow and less coherent -- unless they're Russian... Makes one wonder what happened to the great conductors...

Slow-motion was, with some notable exceptions (Fricsay, Walter, Szell a.o.), the conducting disease of the post war period. I wouldn't, for instance, touch any Giulini or Celibidache box set with a ten foot pole...(no offense)

But we can see in this new century a tendency in the opposite direction. I claim this as a major influence of the HIP movement on the conducting of main stream (Classical & Romantic) orchestral repertoire.

Q

[Karl Henning]

No, no;  no offense in calling an artistic practice a disease, I see that 

[Karl Henning]

But we can see in this new century a tendency in the opposite direction. I claim this as a major influence of the HIP movement on the conducting of main stream (Classical & Romantic) orchestral repertoire.

I'm not sure we can so easily decide between the chicken and the egg, in this issue.