In the Seventh, Kleiber is still terrific, but perhaps not so clearly ahead of his competitors. My main quibble is that he has the violins play the last phrase of the second movement pizzicato - and to my ears, the effect is jarring. Walter, Solti, and Muti deliver performances which can compete with Kleiber's here - but this is incontestably a distinguished recording. Having both of these performances on one CD for such a small price makes it a no-brainer. Buy it!


Which classic Fifth is best, Kleiber, Karajan, or Bernstein?   February 7, 2006
Santa Fe listener
53 out of 58 found this review helpful

When Carlos Kleiber released his classic Beethoven Fifth in 1975 with the Vienna Phil., it made his reputation overnight, and the recording was greeted as a revelation. At the time I wondered if this was really true, since two older Fifths from the early Sixties, Karajan with the Berlin Phil. and Bernstein with the NY Phil., seemed quite wonderful already. Now I have the latest remastering of each, so I decided to sit down and compare them.

Sonics: The Kleiber recording was never one of DG's best--edgy, a bit thin, lacking in warmth. In its "Originals" reissue things are improved but not drastically so. However, neither Karajan nor Bernstein sounds appreciably better, the main difference being that these conductors asked for heavier weight in the lower part of te orchestra and were given wider stereo by the engineers. There is still some shrillness in the strings at loud volume on all three CDs. I would say that Karajan's latest SACD remastering gives him the edge. The trumpets at the beginning of the finale, for example, sound more exciting and easier on the ear.

Tempos: It's remarkable that all three ocnductors hear the Beethoven Fifth at the same tempo in every movement, within a few seconds of each other. (Karajan times out faster in the finale because he skips the exposition repeat, which Kleiber and Bernstien both take). The main exception is Bernstein's first mvoement, which at 8:30 takes a full minute longer than the other two and sounds stodgy by comparison (heard in isolation it comes off as measured and grand, a traditional approach in this movement, except for the ever-fleet Toscanini).

Interpretation: Here is where Kleiber's reputation stands or falls. I think if I played these three recordings blind, the finales would be identical to any listener. Karajan's first movement is more propulsive than Kleiber's--a surprise since Kleiber was praised for finding new energy in this worn-out music. In the second movement, where Kleiber always seemed light and expressive, the other two are, also. The scherzos are more or less identical. Only Bernstein's measured first movement gives away his performance, yet with careful listening it emerges that Karajan's phrasing is a bit on the stiff side, while Kleiber's orchestra seems a shade more alert and expressive.

In all, these are all performances to live with a long time. To me, it was surprising that Kleiber wasn't as revolutionary as I'd thought three decades ago. If it makes a difference, I once put five versions of the first movement on a CD to see which was preferred by some friends in a blind listening test. The Kleiber easily won, so maybe there is something special here after all. Second place went to Reiner's great recording from the Fifties on RCA.


Just misses greatness   March 20, 2002
47 out of 61 found this review helpful

While I acknowledge that these are very good performances of two classics of the orchestral repertory, I don't think they are quite in the elite group of truly classic recordings. Tempi are perfect, especially in the Fifth; the Allegretto and Finale of the Seventh seem to me to be ever so slightly too quick. The orchestral playing is glorious, as could be predicted from the Vienna Philharmonic (with the exception of a weak first bassoon). At times, as in the first movement of the Fifth, the demonic intensity of these performances is almost unbelievable. So ... why isn't it a great recording?

The most objective reason is the sound. Although silent and clear, the recording sounds extremely "dark" to me, as if it were recorded underground somewhere - and looking at the cover certainly doesn't help matters! But this isn't the real problem, because I gladly tolerate less-than-perfect sound.

The main problem is that these recordings miss two important aspects of Beethoven interpretation: mystery/spirituality and lyricism. The transition between the Fifth's third and fourth movements is an example of where Kleiber's relentlessly straightforward approach fails: he entirely misses the swirling mystery of the strings and timpani, and so the radiant opening of the final movement is merely a sonic climax, not a spiritual one. The other problem area is the slow movements. Although beautifully played by the VPO, they simply do not sing. I was particularly disappointed in the Seventh's Allegretto. I approved of Kleiber's quick tempo, but the performance didn't speak to me at all.

However, in the other movements, especially the first of the Fifth and the opening and closing movements of the Seventh, the performances are truly unbelievable. The relentless intensity of the Fifth's opening has been frequently commented on, but the Seventh has been relatively overlooked. The finale, with its antiphonally divided violins enhancing the drama, is incandescent.

Overall, a fine effort, but probably not my first choice. I realize mine is a dissenting view, but in my opinion there are important aspects of these symphonies which Carlos Kleiber doesn't realize.


All hype aside, this is THE Beethoven 5th to own!   October 28, 1999
Eddy Oquendo (New York, New York USA)
46 out of 56 found this review helpful

So much has been written about this incredible performance that I don't feel the need to engage in overblown, highbrow, classical snob's rhetoric; it's all been said before. Yes, it's all true, but here's the skinny on this gem: Beethoven's 5th symphony is, quite simply, music from the gut, and Carlos Kleiber makes that clear; if rock music had existed back in Ludwig's day, this is what it would've sounded like! This recording is so exciting that, by the end of the performance, you'll be like Keanu Reeves after a huge wave; swept away and shaking your head, "Whoah!" The sound quality is outstanding for it's time; so many great, older recordings gather dust on the shelf due to their poor sonics. Now, this is the real kicker, not only is this performance worthy of a full price tag on it's own, but it's coupled with a, nearly as great, rendition of Beethoven's 7th symphony at mid-price! This is, without a doubt, one of the best classical music values on the market. It's not often in life that you can get the "best for less;" this is one of those rare occasions where you can. Enjoy!


Dissenting opinion on Kleiber's 5th (7th similar).   June 23, 1999
31 out of 43 found this review helpful

No offense to the overwhelming number of Carlos Kleiber fans, but ears and tastes do differ. It all depends on how you hear the music. (Because this symphony is so ridiculously popular, I suspect many reviewers may no longer be able to hear it at all!)

Kleiber's is an extroverted, straightforward, relatively rigid (some might say 'precise') reading, with lots of fortissimo firepower. That's fine, but it's not my concept of the symphony. To me, the 5th is truly and justly famous for the menacing tension it can generate. Some conductors have succeeded in conveying this, but to me, Kleiber doesn't. There are also bad interpretative misses in key passages: for instance, in keeping with the general hearty spirit of this performance, Kleiber gives the all-important mysterious transition to the finale with minimum possible mystery.

My main objection is really the seeming lack of longer-range sense of where the music is going. A good old interpretative tenet says that important musical events must be highlighted, at least enough for the listener to grasp them. Kleiber doesn't do this quite as well as he could. For starters, he uses inflexible rhythm and phrasing. OK, that might still leave open some other avenues of expression, like dynamics. Unfortunately, here the important harmonic events (often fortissimo dissonances) don't get the extra stab of volume they'd need, though there's plenty of loudness in general. In my opinion, Kleiber shoots his symphony in the foot by building his crescendos too early, and by using nearly uniform volume in his series of sforzando accents culminating in crucial dissonances. I'd prefer more dynamic restraint and a bit more 'hesitation' in phrasing to give an impression of holding something in reserve, of hinting at some abstract danger in the works. (The 7th suffers even more from Kleiber's general rhythmic inflexibility, and becomes almost 'thumping'.)

None of this is particularly bad in a single passage, but to me, the cumulative effect is that instead of Beethoven's nailbitingly tense construction I start to hear too much of Kleiber's structure, a rather less interesting bunch of soft and loud passages. This is something that may not bother you at all, and I'm happy to let others enjoy their Kleiber CD's. But, if you don't hear the 5th as a familiar 30-minute fit of bland fury, but as a tense piece possessing its fair share of the tremendous intellectual and emotional concentration which so distinguishes this composer's music, another conductor might work better for you.