Mozart Sym 41:reviews/opinions


I know that Tsquare started a thread on 12-19-01. Time for another thread on this great composition. For the longest time I placed the Bruno Walter/Columbia at top of list. Then I saw folks voting big on Klemperer/Philharmonia, which, from memory, I had issues with that recording. Recently I compared the 2 and seems that Klemperer takes all 4 movements a tad faster, which is a more enjoyable listening. The first movement is of tempo Allegro VIVACE, Walter's is way overcareful in execution. Especially Walter's 3rd movement is slow. Orchestras are close in quality, as well recording quality are excellent. Mackerras' recording is not that good for room acoustics, engineering, and the orchestra is OK. Mackerras tempos are good, except the 3rd movement clips along in a mechanical fashion. But I really enjoythe tempo in his 1st and 4th movement. All these recordings are recommendable. But the one I found to be exceptional in all areas,conducting,orchestra,tempo,sound quality, is from conductor James Levine. He has 2 recordings of the 40th and 41st. 40+41/Vienna P.O./DG label and 40+41/Chicago S.O./RCA label. The Chicago's 41st last movement is just spectatular! The one thing most important in the 41st is the tempo of the 2nd and especially the 3rd movement. Both orchestras move along with excellent execution. I definetly need more time to review these 2 with the Klemperer. All 3 are highly recommendable. Walter's is out of print, and a tad too careful=slow. The Mackerras' orchestra is a bit weak(wobbly) in the strings, and recording is steely,cold, echo-like. Levine really understands Mozart. The only other recording I have of his is the Sibelius Sym 2/Berlin/DG, not recommendable, and is out of print.
tweekerman

Showing 3 responses by tweekerman

Sugarbrie, No I do not read these publications. I posted this thread because I did not see Levine in the previous 41st sym thread. I felt Maestro Levine deserves be to in the spotlight for an exceptional performance,as well a grand standing ovation to both the Vienna and Chicago orchestras. Levine/Chicago puts fire into the 1st and 4th movement, seems the way Mozart intends. To my ears Levine delivers executes perfect tempo in all 4 movements, at least the way I like it. I'll say this though most will disagree, Levine has least "grand-orchestra" sound. Maybe Levine intended a smaller orchestra, not sure. But I prefer a "big-band" sound in the Beethoven symphonies. Yes Beecham as well does a great performance.
Buxter's review of the Walter/Vienna is right on. The orchrestra is not "big-band" sounding, yet has a full, rich presentation.. The orchestra's sections can be heard distinctly yet with incredible intergration, as Buxter's review, (mics were place properly and great engineering!!), except the quality is poor due to its 1940's date. I find the recording unusual in a good way, can't say exactly why???... the orchestra is playing with ease and like they're all happy! Tempo is excellent in all 4 movements, and the orchestra is all-star. Strings have a better sound than most modern recordings. Recommendable in spite of sound quality issure. (refer to Buxter's excellent review in the other 41st sym thread) Kublick/Barvarian takes the opening movement way,way, too slow.(this I believe is studio, not Sugarbrie's Live version). On the Pinnock...]-+%#?!@&:!^#=??... Conclusion, you can't go wrong on the; Klemperer/Philharmonia,Walter/Vienna,Walter/Columbia,Levine/Chicago,Levine/Vienna. When is someone going to start a Shostakovich thread?? I've been getting into his works lately. Very powerful compositions!!
Megasam, you may want to consider the Klemperer/Philharmonia over the Szell. Recently I received a used copy of the Levine/Vienna and Levine/Chicago, 3's 40+41. Tempo is beefed up over the walter/Columbia, but the Columbia is a superior orchestra over both Levine's orchestras. Kemplerer's recording is something to be considered in the Mozart Last 6. I'll listen to the Pinnock.