I wrote:

>>...  From my experience of comparing MR performances (as conductor), from
>>his CD cycle on Teldec and a few odd discs on other labels, with broadcasts
>>from the London festival, he's always less interesting, has less to say,
>>with his (heavily) edited non-live performances, especially those with the
>>NSO, in Washington wereas those with LSO are tighter and more well defined.

Mikael responded:

>I've heard the complete Teldec cycle twice, and I haven't (yet?) reached
>the simple conclusion that LSO is consistently better than NSO.

What seem like somewhat simplistic evaluations from my side, I hope to
infer, are not.  I have given much thought and ear-time to these recordings
over the years, both comparing the cycle internaly, as well as comparing
the separate symphonies to those I have found reigning at the moment.

>Overall I'm happy with the recordings, but it's not completely satisfactory.
>4 out of 5 would my rating be.

I would perhaps not give MR's cycle such over all high marks, I find it
being inconsistent, bothersome mishaps like the fifth (NSO), that makes
little sence in pacing and structure.  To the 14'th, which is up there as
a contender as the best (I know its an historical issue, recorded live in
Moscow in 1973, but I belive that it is a show and tel for my remarks, that
MR is a better "Live" conductor than he is in the studio.), And there is
the disc with the second and third symphonies, that forced me to completely
reevaluate these often discriminated works, DSCH himself did not regard
them highly, he even made Maxim promise never to conduct them.  But besides
those ill advised texts, celebrating the glory of the revolution et al.
used as ending salutations, both symphonies are musicaly important links
in DDS's orchestral ouvre.  I mean neither Bezymensky nor Kirsanov have
the stamina of a poet like Yetuchenko.  If a rating of 15 "Fives" were
possible, I would only give the cycle one for the 14'th.  There would be
three "Fours" (2, 3, 10) one "one" (5) and the rest of the bunch would get
"Threes", which summing up gives an average of: 3

>I only know #5,7 and 10 -12 well enough to make a comparison with other
>recordings.  They maybe lacking somewhat in intensity, but the recordings
>are definitely idiomatic.

I can agree with the idiomatic part, my main problem with MR are most often
over the choise of tempi, he is often quite away the speeds suggested in
the score, and then to my beliefs always on the slow side of the given
metronome markings, as in the 11'th way off.  (I know, I know, DDS often
said that the difrent conductors judgements on tempi where fine, and that
they were free make their own desicions, but to me; whats in the score
(manuscript) is a part of the composers vision, thus it should be regarded
with care and as a firm guideline, I added manuscript as we are all to
aware of the inconsistencies of printed editions.)

Deryk Barker continued:

>#11 is not one of my favourites, but Jarvi/GSO(Live) did a much better job
>back in 1990 or so........

Well, the "eleven" is one of mine, this event must have been prior to when
they recored it for DG, have to pull out the disc for a listen.  As far as
Jarvi and the fourth, his Chandos disc with RSNO is not bad at all, but I'm
still open to suggestions for a better version.

I still have a hard time making up my mind about Mravinsky.  Who AFAIK
never tuched the fourth..

peter lundin, gothenburg.se -  Counting the days: DSCH 100 (1906-2006)