Richard Pennycuick:

>My first exposure to Mahler 2 was Klemperer's 1963 version on EMI and I
>was surprised to find that as I heard other versions, their tempos for
>the first movement were usually slower than Klemperer's.  The only other
>Mahler symphony I've heard him conduct was the 7th, and that *was* slow.

That is a surprise.  My first experience with Klemperer was with his
Beethoven, when he was so old he had to sit, and it was slow.  The slowest
piece of all was the scherzo of Beethoven's Ninth, which was almost
bizarre, but fascinating just the same.

>I always find it harder to listen to a slower version of a work (ie by
>comparison with the 'imprinted' one) than a faster one.  I wonder if
>this is generally the case.  Comments?

My first acquaintance with Brahms' symphonies--half a century ago--was
with Toscanini's, and I didn't like them.  In fact, I found them irritating,
especially the second, until I heard Bruno Walter's.  I had the same
experience with Beethoven's Second Symphony (same conductors; they had
a very different notion of what andante meant) and with some of Mozart's
piano concerti (different performers.)

Shostakovitch's Sixth Symphony is mostly very slow.  My first acquaintance
with it was one of Kondrashin's performances, which were fine.  Then I
heard Bernstein's late recording of it, the general opinion of which was
that it was much too slow, I belielve, but it never struck me that way..

On the other hand there is music by Handel and Haydn which struck me as
ponderous and dull until I heard lighter and livelier performances.

Jim Tobin