Search - Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz [Vienna] Schubert, Karl Böhm :: Beethoven: Symphony No. 6, Schubert: Symphony No. 5 / Böhm, Vienna Philharmonic Orch.

Lots to admire here, but not a first or only choice!

SwissDave | Switzerland | 05/12/2006

(4 out of 5 stars)

"This is one of those "legendary" recordings that makes me wonder if it's only me who's unable to fully grasp its virtues. Which is why I read through all the reviews here, and I must say, they all make sense to me, one way or the other.

The stubbornly slow and rigid tempos are something to admire and allow for plenty of detail that otherwise might go unnoticed, and yet, is a Pastorale that makes it possible for one to read a book or check upon one's e-mails ideally paced?

I also agree with other reviewers here that the 2nd movement is made to sound or rather "feel" similar to the 1st, which I find, to say the least, surprising - is so little contrast among the first two if not three movements really what Beethoven had in mind? On the other hand, I am sure many listeners will find the leisurely "walking pace" of the 2nd movement "Scene by the Brook" to be of singular serenity.

Orchestral precision is truly fine, especially in terms of details, and the Viennese lean-texturedness is just at the opposite side of the spectrum than Karajan and his Berliners (at his later worst, not his earlier best). Winds and strings, although the former do not necessarily have more "glow" (as David Hurwitz seems to be claiming) than in other top recommendations (see further below), are certainly worthy of praise.

The recording has always been somewhat bass-shy, so much so that the concentration on Bohm's "plastic (pliant?) middle voices" (as one German critic said in 1972) becomes, well, inevitable. It's still well-balanced enough and nicely transparent, but a more physical bottom end might even have improved one's view of the interpretation, hard to tell. The "Storm" of the 4th mouvement nonetheless sounds very believable. The last movement, however, would definitely have profited from bass making itself heard as well as felt.

Having said that, I fully agree with everyone saying the Pastoral should not sound impressionistic, but that its purpose is to express "Empfinden", i.e. the feelings or joy connected to being in the countryside. What I get in Bohm's is primarily peace of mind, per se admirable enough, but is that all there is to this? There is no shortage of other top recordings such as those by Walter (both, the Columbia boasting fine stereo sound), Cluytens/BPO (1955 mono, but don't make the silly mistake to overlook it as a result!), Leibowitz/RPO (awesome stereo sound by the legendary Kenneth E. Wilkinson is a definite plus, especially in the Chesky remastering!), Szell/Cleveland, even Karajan's 1963 BPO version (admittedly just the first version I got to know as a child) all seem to prove the contrary. And yet, naivity and simplicity does equal beauty in places. Bohm may not be for everyone, but I won't disagree with anyone who loves this. To refer to it as THE first choice or an only one, well, that I simply can't.

Certainly this is the finest remastering of these recordings (I like Bohm's Schubert, to which similar comments would apply as to the Pastoral, i.e. again, I like it yet better livelier, with greater contrast, more flexible tempos - and Beecham's or Maag's elegance maybe?) to date.

Having said all this, these interpretations are worth knowing and the coupling would make it a nice present to a classical music newbie.



Greetings from Switzerland, David."