These are all fine choices. I think Karajan's 80s cycle is actually quite excellent from 1-4. The finale of the 1st gives me goosebumps.

But as far as my listening, the cycle that I return to most has been this 96k/24b high-res rendition of Karajan's 60s cycle:

It's available on HDTracks for a pretty reasonable price.

I wonder what people think of Gardiner's renditions. They... hurt my brain a bit.

 

These are all fine choices. I think Karajan's 80s cycle is actually quite excellent from 1-4. The finale of the 1st gives me goosebumps.

But as far as my listening, the cycle that I return to most has been this 96k/24b high-res rendition of Karajan's 60s cycle:

View attachment 117855

It's available on HDTracks for a pretty reasonable price.

I wonder what people think of Gardiner's renditions. They... hurt my brain a bit.

Couldn't find it. Could you provide a link?

 

Eschenbach
Szell
Chailly
Kleiber

 

Yes, an ideal Brahms symphony cycle would be...(holds breath)

 

No.1: Czech PO/Jiří Bělohlávek.......or Szell
No.2: Vienna PO/Istvan Kertész......or Jochum
No.3: London PO/Eugen Jochum......or Skrowaczewski
No.4: Philharmonia O/Otto Klemperer.....or Kleiber

 

Chailly on Decca (the new recordings).
Mackerras on Telarc.
T. Sanderling on Darpro.

 

T. Sanderling on Darpro.

I prefer his father's cycle with the Dresden Staatskapelle on Eurodisc.

 

My favourite set is Muti and Philadelphia Orchestra. Was hooked when I listened to symphony no 4. One of best recordings I had heard

 

In stereo? I guess off the top of my head my ideal cycle would be something like:

Symphony No. 1: Otto Klemperer/Philharmonia Orchestra
Symphony No. 2: Bruno Walter/Columbia Symphony Orchestra
Symphony No. 3: George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra
Symphony No. 4: Carlos Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra

 

Where there is more than one version mentioned, no necessary order of preference. All stereo unless otherwise indicated*:

Symphony No. 1: Klemperer/Philharmonia and Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw
Symphony No. 2: Walter/Columbia Symphony (though I do prefer the Walter/New York Philharmonic interpretation in mono*); Kertesz/London Symphony and Klemperer/Philharmonia
Symphony No. 3: Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic
Symphony No. 4: Walter/Columbia Symphony; Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw; Klemperer/Philharmonia and Kurt Sanderling/Dresden Staatskapelle

 

Where there is more than one version mentioned, no necessary order of preference:

Symphony No. 1: Klemperer/Philharmonia (stereo) and Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw (stereo)
Symphony No. 2: Walter/New York Philharmonic (mono)
Symphony No. 3: Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic (stereo)
Symphony No. 4: Walter/Columbia Symphony (stereo); Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw (stereo) and Kurt Sanderling/Dresden Staatskapelle (stereo)

Good call on the Kempe 3rd. That is one of the most solid stereo sets around, right up there with Abbado, Jochum, Karajan, Walter, and Klemperer. Van Beinum is also great, though I think the 2nd is in mono.

The greatest pre-stereo sets I know are Furtwängler (Music & Arts), Weingartner, Toscanini's 1942-43 NBC cycle (Music & Arts), Jochum/BPO (DG), and Walter/NYPO.

 

Interesting list, Brahmsianhorn. I will have to revisit the Bernstein 1st. I bought that set a while ago and I liked it but didn't love it, at the time anyway. I agree with your choices as well as the other posters, but I'm surprised not to see Gunter Wand mentioned, who is a fine Brahms conductor. I also love Skrowaczewski, but he may be too 'leisurely' for some tastes.

 

.....I'm surprised not to see Gunter Wand mentioned, who is a fine Brahms conductor.

I mentioned his Brahms #1 with Chicago - fine recording...

I also love Skrowaczewski, but he may be too 'leisurely' for some tastes.

Best Brahms #3 I've ever heard was live at Saratoga Performing Arts Center many years back - Skrowaczewski/Philadelphia...

they got it all...

 

Wow, just listened to Beecham’s RPO 2nd on EMI. It is off the charts good and in excellent sound. One of the best I’ve heard.

 

Wow, just listened to Beecham's RPO 2nd on EMI. It is off the charts good and in excellent sound. One of the best I've heard.

help me out if you will.......is the recording you mention the 1957 Edinburgh Festival performance on BBC label that is coupled with Beethoven's 2nd....I cannot find an EMI recording!

 

Here you go, Jim! Beecham's on EMI:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brahms-Sym...p/B00000DO3Y/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Brahms+beecham&qid=1557332402&s=gateway&sr=8-3

 

I like all the recordings you mentioned Bhs except one. I've never been able to enjoy Bernstein's VPO cycle (in the same way I don't like his LvB VPO cycle). It's really tough picking out individual recordings as I tend to play Brahms in cycles. Currently I'm revisiting Dohnanyi and Cleveland (an excellent set that some will like for its bright, crisp, driven qualities whilst others may think its a bit too lean for their tastes) . The Kleiber 4th is definitely a special recording though and Jochum's 1st, Van Beinum's 4th, Levine's Chicago 3rd and Sanderling's superb 3rd are awesome. I have so many Brahms cycles it's hard to pick favourites, tbh. I would urge people to give Belohlavek's cycle a try though. It's quite rustic (almost Dvorakian in parts) and met with some marmite reviews upon release but the playing of the Czech PO is a delight. As I said, some will love its quite traditional tempi and gorgeous playing whilst others won't take to it... Give it a go though. You can't go wrong with Walter's first (or 2nd) cycles either. Walter has a real tender way with Brahms that is quite beautiful at times. Levine has always been my go-to set though and Wand and Skrowaczewski are consistently terrific throughout.

 

You can't go wrong with Walter's first (or 2nd) cycles either. Walter has a real tender way with Brahms that is quite beautiful at times.

Absolutely! I have no trouble happily seconding that.

 

Nice thread, Brahmsianhorn!

I got really impressed by the andante of:

This particular recording of this andante of Brahms 3 wraps up Brahms for me entirely.

I love Brahms 2 (DVD) by Kleiber and of course I agree wit you about the energetic 4th of Kleiber

3 as a whole work, I always have Karajan 63 as my number one

I will go listen to Abbado as he is so widely recommended here. I didn't see any Wand Recording here, I do like his style and will also dive into Wand's Brahms. At a first listen of Brahms 1, first part, I prefer Wand over Abbado and Bernstein.

As to Brahms 1, I just didn't find my all time favourite recording.

 

I am not a fan of LB’s 3rd or 4th. Too pulled around for me, especially the 3rd. The 2nd is a more natural interpretation.

As I stated earlier, LB’s 1st presents a special case for me. There are moments - most infamously in the final coda - where the tempo fluctuations are such a departure from the norm as to be dumbfounding. But if you suspend preconceptions, I think this is really one of the greatest 1sts. There is an angst and depth you don’t find in most other recordings. For a symphony modeled after Beethoven’s 9th, I think that works quite well.

Go for Karajan ‘64 to hear a top notch conventional interpretation. Go for Bernstein to hear the passionate emotions of the work fully revealed.

 

I am not a fan of LvB's 3rd or 4th. Too pulled around for me, especially the 3rd. The 2nd is a more natural interpretation.

I assume that you're talking about Bernstein, not Beethoven, yes?

 

#1 - Toscanini/NBC, Solti/CSO, Wand /CSO is really good, too

#2 - Monteux/LSO, Bernstein/NYPO, Reiner/NYPO [live 3/60]

#3 - Reiner/CSO, Szell/CO, Walter/ ColSO

#4 - Toscanini/NBC, Reiner/RoyPO

 

The recording of #4 that is included in the Karajan 80s cycle is actually the recording from the 60s cycle. Either he didn't get around to it, or he thought Kleiber's recording should go there. Anyway, I'd be happy with Abbado or Karajan 60s 123 and Kleiber 4.

 

Karajan recorded the 4th in the 80s. For whatever reason it wasn't put in that collection (it sounds superb).

https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symphony-No-Minor-Op/dp/B003R8V4L6/

 

Is our adulation of Kleiber's every baton waggle because his recordings were not that many? I am often indifferent or worse to frequently praised Kleiber recordings (I think his Schubert Unfinished is ordinary compared to many out there and his Schubert 3 is deeply unsympathetic to the music, for example) but do agree his Brahms 4 is a great one. But there are others. It doesn't sweep the board and is, in any case, a rather individual account. He goes for thrills ... and gets them.

 

It is all a matter of taste

 

As always. Still, I feel taste goes overboard when his failures and also-rans are celebrated and his good ones end up pushing out good alternative views.

 

Taste is irrational, always stays on board and is decisive in what are supposed hits and failures

 

^ I don't think that is right. Taste is about discriminating. What you are describing is more like worship. That's OK but if it causes other views to be missed or ignored then it impoverishes you.

 

You're getting it wrong here. Every choice or preference is discriminating, be it here for one or another recording. As you and I obviously have a different taste, we are both ignoring other views and end up with our own views. Such is life. It becomes a bit awkward if not sad when you are trying to regard your own taste supreme over mine (or anyone else for that matter). As if your taste is 'better' than mine.:lol:

 

^ No, actually I am only responding to your words. You described worship when you said

Taste is irrational, always stays on board and is decisive in what are supposed hits and failures

I'm merely describing my taste in saying that I revere some of his recordings (but not above all others) and dislike some others. You may disagree with that. Fair enough. But the reason I came to posting about Kleiber is because I am uncomfortable with the idea that he is without peer. I disagree with that sentiment and also do feel it can't be sustained. I am always uncomfortable with the idea that there is a "best" for much-recorded masterpieces. The idea seems to reject the greatness of the music which has so much in it that no one account can catch it all.

I have also argued that many of Kleiber's recordings do not even get close to being among the best. You may disagree with that which is fair enough.

 

Skrowaczeski and the two Sanderling cycles ( Kurt in Dresden and Berlin).......if it is in fact a matter of taste then they are the three cycles I would find myself playing with the greatest frequency, along with Mackerras.

I do find it interesting how opinions and perceptions do vary.My initial exposure to the 2nd was with Giulini and the VPO and the work just never really 'clicked'-and yet I now read various comments about that cycle which are highly appreciative.

(oh and Bruno Walter and the CSO recording of the 2nd and 3rd)

and I forgot to mention Michael Gielen.

 

^ As I have explained, I don't hear recorded performances of great music as having a best. Choosing one by rejecting all others involves missing so much. And approaching great music as having a prescribed way - "this is how it is supposed to be" - is a gross simplification of what great music can be. I have noted that Kleiber's Brahms 4 is a great recording but there are others that tell us different things about the music. Give me a rich variety of successful performances any day.

 

Choosing one by rejecting all others involves missing so much.

I don't think anyone is saying this. Off the top of my head, the recordings of the Brahms 4 on my shelf included 4 Furtwänglers, 3 Toscaninis, Weingartner, Stokowski, De Sabata, Reiner, 2 Walters, Klemperer, Kleiber, 2 Jochums, Barenboim, Abbado, and a soon to be ordered Van Beinum.

Celebrating the merits and greatness of a particular recording does not mean all others lose their significance.

 

^ It is the idea that one or two can "come out on top" that I was questioning.

 

I too have a problem ranking recordings in general. I prefer to group them in a top tier, which can be decidedly elastic in size. My top tier of Brahms' 4th, for example, would include at least 10 recordings I'm sure, probably more, but I don't attempt to rank them within that group as I love them all for different reasons. These types of discussions are very useful however for pointing out recordings I am unfamiliar with or haven't listened to in a long time, and it's always fascinating to see how differently people can hear the same performance.

 

^ Yes, that's how I am too. And I do value recommendations of slightly off the beat candidates (and don't care at all if the recommender call them the best).