You don't hear as much about this set as you do his later "Live" set from the Edinburgh Festival.

I own and enjoy both sets. I know a lot of people though who do not like his 9th from his earlier set, and a lot of sets get judged by the 9th.

Another strike against it is cost. You can pick up the Gardiner set brand new from Amazon for like $18, where Mackerras is close to $50.

If they lowered the price into a competitive market at $20 I think you'd see it sell far more often and I think more people would give it a try. I think that's why his has Mozart caught on. His complete Mozart Complete Symphonies box set is the cheapest out there and it is a very fine set of recordings.

I also agree and believe Sir Charles was never pushed by record companies very well either.

 

The set came in at #12 in a poll of cycles from another forum. One comment from a voter: "Mackerras on modern instruments, like Immerseel on period ones, gives the fullest, most vibrant, and intense realization of HIP sensibilities, making Gardiner sound almost polite and even apologetic and Norrington just plain eccentric."

 

Interesting...I'd be interested in seeing the results of that poll.

 

The world is full of injustice!

Still waiting for a CD boxset for Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen/Paavo Jarvi LvB cycle. LP and DVD boxes available, but no CD box.

 

I think the EMI set is the better set, the more even set. The Hyperion set does a better job with Nos. 5 & 9, particularly 9. It's so good, it made me wish Sir Charles had Philharmonia O. for the distance.

Overall, the EMI has more punch. The Hyperion seems lazy in several, by comparision.

I give the EMI set Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8. Eroica (always my biggest concern) is a disappointment for both.

No significant sound preference. :tiphat:

 

I'm interested in what seems to be so commonly disliked about the 9th in the RLPO (EMI) cycle.

Is this a 'it's too fast' thing?

 

Here's a quote from one review I've read that seems to reflect the general feeling:

"But it is the Choral which, annoyingly, is the least satisfactory performance in the set. The first movement is great - powerful, full of sensational contrasts, and very dramatic. The Scherzo, too, is very fine, and I was delighted to hear the famous high Fs from bass trombone (CD5, track 2, 6:50), which Berlioz loved so much, so very clearly. The slower tempo for the Trio, which took some getting used to, works very well, makes great musical sense, allowing awkward bassoon, horn and oboe solos to be played with grace and style as they surely should be.

The slow movement and finale, though, are a different story. The sublime Adagio molto cantabile never achieves the kind of inwardness it must have if it is to be the spiritual core of the work - though I fully acknowledge that Mackerras may not conceive of it as such - and always sounds hurried. The players are clearly having to consciously resist their urge to phrase more spaciously, with the result that the music doesn't breathe in the way that I feel it should. Similarly with the finale; passing over the sad fact that the RLPO 'cellos and basses are not heard at their best in the recitativo sections at the start of the movement, there is still a feeling that Mackerras is relentlessly pushing forward, determined never to allow the music to relax or 'spread'. This is most painfully evident in the B major quartet for his otherwise impressive group of soloists (CD5, track 9 1:19), who sound here deeply uncomfortable (though Terfel is, as ever, magnificent throughout the movement). The recording is not kind, either, to the RLP Choir, who struggle at times to project their tone convincingly through the orchestral textures."
​

 

Mmm, I'm not arguing with you at all but it's interesting that if you ignore the names of Mackerras and Terfel, this review would, almost word for word, resemble SO many other reviews I've seen of 'modern' Beethoven cycles, including Chailly and Gardiner. "The players sound like they can't keep up, the soloists are out of breath, the choir struggles.....blah, blah, blah, blah, blah".

I can't help but wonder if there's a reason for the common thread here. Is this a genuine problem with these modern cycles or a problem with critics brought up on Furtwangler and Karajan who can't adjust their ears and minds to a different pace?

There do seem to be a surprisingly high number of critics (and listeners) who cannot reconcile themselves to a Symphony No.9 that comes in at any less than 73 minutes. As such, they start to insist there are 'issues' with such performances as they just won't concede that this is what Beethoven actually intended and that the metronome markings are correct.

I personally can't relate to this as, for me, the third movement is destroyed when played at anything slower than 14 minutes - maximum. It does NOT sound ''spiritual'' at 17 or 18 minutes long - it sounds meandering and confused, because that's not how Beethoven wrote it. The music simply falls apart when played that slow.

I for one cannot hear how they sound "deeply uncomfortable" at that point in the fourth movement. If they sound "deeply uncomfortable" in Mackerras' 9th, then the same applies to any one of about two dozen recent Chorals.

Just putting the idea out there.

 

Thank you for that. So, in a rough nutshell, it IS the speed issue. Mmm. How do people feel about similarly (or even faster) third movements like Zinman's or Gardiner's, in light of this?

 

Is the Abbado/BPO (red box) another underrated cycle?

 

Not top-rated by most, but very good. There was a set of live performances made at the same time that are just as good, available on DVD for half the price of the CDs.

 

Is this the most underrated Beethoven symphony cycle?I'm talking about Sir Charles Mackerras with the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra.

Maybe you could make a case for it being underrated outside the British Isles.

In my dilettante opinion, the most underrated Beethoven symphony is Steinberg/Pittsburgh.

 

I think it's underrated in general, including in the UK.

I am not familiar with the Steinberg Beethoven, although I assume it's an 'old school' Karajan sort of affair?

Interesting that Mackerras actually takes the fourth movement of the 9th even faster at his subsequent Beethoven reading in Edinburgh on Hyperion. He obviously didn't doubt his chosen pace after the RLPO (EMI) cycle.

 

I bought the RLPO set yesterday at a charity shop for just £2-50. Not sure about the fast speeds but will listen with interest

 

Wow this is an old thread but i'll dip my oar in and say that this cycle is probably in my top 20 LvB cycles. I think it's an excellent set and have absolutely no problems with Mackerras' tempi throughout the 9th. His scherzo is really good. This is what I wrote in my review of that cycle in Part 5 of my LvB symphony cycle reviews....


Of Mackerras' 2 LvB cycles I've gotta admit to this being my slight favourite. Yes, I know the RLPO playing is a little bit rough at times but that earthiness is what makes this set so appealing. This is rugged Beethoven, sometimes a little too unhinged and unrestrained. It's the kind of 'HIP' cycle that picks you up and throws you around the room a little but I like that in my Beethoven. Speeds are brisk but Mackerras' phrasing is great and he never sounds like he's competing in a speed competition. Symphonies 2,7 & 8 are my favourites here but tbh there's no bad performance. The Eroica is a little unconvincing but again it's hardly a poor one....it just never seems to get going and gets a bit leaden. The 8th sings though and is enhanced by a slightly bright recorded sound (which is across the set) and is superb. If you see this around in a secondhand shop near you get it. You wont be disappointed.

Grade B+

Incidentally, you can now pick this set up very cheap on the secondhand market. I grabbed it for less than £4, a few years back, and still love it. In fact, i think i was a bit stingy with my rating of this cycle and view it as an A- cycle now. Symphonies 7&8 are terrific.And yes, i stand by my original review. I think this is a better cycle than Mackerras' 2nd live cycle. Its more exciting, more boisterous and much more how I prefer my Beethoven.Some may view it as a bit driven but I'm certainly not one of those. As for those who constantly complain that quicker Beethoven is 'too rushed' or 'too unemotional' well I agree with the earlier poster who opined that those people are stuck in the mid to late 20th century and the warped Wagnerian view of Beethoven.

 

I nominate Cluytens

 

With the Berlin Philharmonic? Absolutely. Cluytens recordings, on the late, lamented Classics For Pleasure label, were my introduction to the Beethoven symphonies, and they still stand up very well. The "Eroica" in particular has rarely been bettered.

 

^^^ They were good but I've always thought of them as "justly famous" (at least for British audiences) rather than undeservedly underrated.

 

Schmidt-Isserstedt/VPO.

 

I have the Mackerras / RLPO and have been listening. They are fresh, bright performances which are mid way between HIP and traditional. Certainly it is preferable to Chailly because, while the speeds are brisk, they hardly ever seem rushed. Of those I have listened to the first movement of the Pastoral was rather matter of fact and the slow movement of the 9th too fast for my taste. On the vexed question of LvB's metronome markings, one wonders whether a stone deaf composer (as he was when he got round to doing them) could actually have got them right. Having said that, given the approach, this is a very good set. However, my first choice is the Karajan / BPO (63) set for the superb playing and excellent engineering.