This has been something that's bothering me for a while. When people recommend the set, they will describe how it's superior to the Beethoven of Karajan/Klemperer/etc, how it's more authetic, cleaner, more beautiful, less romantic... which I can understand perfectly. But do people actually think that it's the only period Beethoven out there? Compare Gardiner's set to Bruggen's set and the superiority of Bruggen's Beethoven is shocking... that Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless... and yet Bruggen's set barely gets mentioned when there's a discussion about Beethoven Symphony Sets. I have heard Goodman's Beethoven too which I don't rate as highly as Bruggen but it's still is better than Gardiner's. So why do people keep recommending Gardiner? Is it the single most overrated recording in classical music history?

Gardiner? Meh. Go for Hogwood, Norrington and Paavo Jarvi.

I'm not a big fan of Gardiner's conducting, but his Berlioz, in particular "Harold in Italy" is very good. Definitely worthy of praise from myself.

As far as Beethoven is concerned, nobody touches Claudio Abbado's cycle on Deutsche Grammophon and this is coming from hearing and owning the Zinman, Klemperer (who is fantastic), and early Bernstein recordings. I'm not a big Beethoven fan at all, but I do enjoy what Abbado and the BPO did with his music. Quite a revelation for me, especially in terms of sound, style, and Abbado's attention to detail. He also handles the tempo a bit slower, which is a very nice touch.

Personally I love Gardiner... especially on earlier music... I wouldn't be without him on Beethoven... a great sense of urgency... pungency... and muscularity... but neither would I have him alone. Kleiber is unrivaled for the 5th, of course there's Karajan, Klemperer, among others.

Yes it is over rated.

I agree, it is.

I guess people rate it highly because they enjoy it the most - each to his own. That's the great thing about classical music and having so many interpretations to choose from (or you could look at it as a bad thing - because you never know if you've found the interpretation you like the best until you've tried them all!).

As a collector, I'm able to try out several different versions of a piece. Amongst the 22 different versions of the full ballet of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe" I own Martinon, Dutoit, Tortelier, and Boulez are still my favorites.

I thought this thread was about Beethoven, not Ravel.

I don't agree with the basic premise of your post that Gardiner's version is universally recommended as the best period performance. Where did you get that impression from? It does not accord with my reading of recommendations on several forums, where several others (including Bruggen's) are put forward. I am also deeply suspicious of people like you who come onto forums like this and slag off highly distinguished conductors with statements like "Gardiner's conducting is awful, no flow in his music, rush like crazy, soulless ..." Such OTT language does not help you make your case. In fact it's childish.

I am not sure what's the level of "universally recommended" you are talking about, but irregardless Gardiner's Beethoven is certainly highly rated and most other period sets live in its shadow... just start any discussion about "best Beethoven Symphony set" in any forum and his set will certainly be mentioned.

About the "slagging off" of Gardiner, I will admit that all his recordings I have heard so far doesn't impress me, so he would be one of the conductors which I don't get. But his Beethoven is actually the worst I have ever heard from him by a big margin, his conducting in it is just how I have described. So I am actually not sure why it's so highly rated when there's so many better options, period and modern, than it.

I agree. Gardiner only has one recording I'm actually interested in and it's out-of-print, which is a recording of Berlioz's "Harold in Italy." That's about it for me. His recording output is pretty uninteresting.

I'd have to agree as well, it is.

The best part about the Gardiner Beethoven set is the Ninth - he gets everything just right. Great singers, perfect tempi... Just fantastic. The 8th is pretty good as well, though in my humble opinion the rest of the symphonies on that set can easily be passed up with the likes of the Hanover Band's or the London Classical Players' sets. Thankfully they've released Gardiner's work with the Ninth separately...

__________________
With a handshake,
-Sorin Eushayson

[SorinFace]

You started out this thread by suggesting that people on other classical music boards seem to recommend the Gardiner set as the only period approach out there. You wrote:

"When people recommend the set, they will describe how it's superior to the Beethoven of Karajan/Klemperer/etc, how it's more authetic, cleaner, more beautiful, less romantic... which I can understand perfectly. But do people actually think that it's the only period Beethoven out there?"

I questioned your interpretation. I don't know which other boards you are basing your opinions on, but from my reading of several where the topic of HIP Beethoven has featured very much more strongly than here I would say that Gardiner is only one of several that gets mentioned as worthy of attention. Others include Norrington, Bruggen, Immerseel, Zinman, Harnoncourt, Mackerras. (I realise of course that these are not all period performance/period instruments.) Furthermore, as you can see from the responses here, there is hardly widespread recommendation of Gardiner's set. I therefore think that your starting premise is faulty.

You don't even like Beethoven, as you keep telling us to our great boredom. And what the hell has Berlioz got to do with HIP Beethoven?