Symphony No 3

[Tashibabes]

Some people have said that Beethoven's Eroica symphony is "too long and confusing". How far do you agree or disagree with this statement? I personally believe it stands as one of the best symphonies ever written. Haydn was said to have admired the work but criticised the first opening chords, and the length.

[Joy]

Personally, the first opening chords are my favourite of the piece. As for the length, that's personal taste, of course. When I saw it performed it lasted over 50 min. and the 2nd movement was 20 min. On my recording it's 49 min. total and the 2nd movement is 16.28. What I want to know is how long is it suppose to be originally when Beethoven wrote it? No Beethoven composition is too long for me.

Joy

[Chris]

My favorite (Szell/Cleveland Orchestra) is 47 minutes. The second movement is 15:34. The first is 14:46.

[NickB]

Originally posted by Chris:
My favorite (Szell/Cleveland Orchestra) is 47 minutes. The second movement is 15:34. The first is 14:46.

I also have the Szell/Cleveland and find the brisk tempos quite enjoyable. The recording "quality", though, is the least favorite of my recordings.

The timings of three recordings I have handy now are:

Cleveland/ Amsterdam/ Chicago/
Szell Jochum Solti (1989)
1. 14:46 18:31 17:57
2. 15:34 16:11 15:19
3. 5:34 5:59 5:32
4. 11:33 11:45 11:45
47:34 52:26 50:33

A few others...
Karajan 1962: 49:53
Harnoncourt: 47:49
Toscanini 1949: 45:42
Gardiner/Romantique: 44:29
Hanover Band: 42:51(!)

I'm still waiting for my Hanover Band set to ship from Amazon......

[Chris]

Originally posted by NickB:
[B]I also have the Szell/Cleveland and find the brisk tempos quite enjoyable. The recording "quality", though, is the least favorite of my recordings.[B]

Really? I don't think the recording quality is bad at all. What exactly do you find wrong with it?

[NickB]

Originally posted by Chris:
Really? I don't think the recording quality is bad at all. What exactly do you find wrong with it?

Tape noise (which gets exaggerated in Surround Sound systems such as I've grown fond of), and I guess I'd call it just a 'harshness' to the higher frequencies. Somewhat lacking in bottom end compared to other recordings I have. (It's been a long time since I've "talked audio" so bear with me.)

However, what's great about this set is how loud they are. And the stereo separation is pretty good. My Solti/Chicago set, OTOH, is more quiet and less stereorrific, but also less noise and the equalization is better to me. And his use of tympani is more dynamic.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by NickB:
I also have the Szell/Cleveland and find the brisk tempos quite enjoyable. The recording "quality", though, is the least favorite of my recordings.

Anyone familiar with the Walter Richter recording? I have it on tape, but it was ruined many years ago and I never really did get a good analytical listen to it. What I remember of it I quite liked for being bombastic and exciting.