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