Track Listing

1. Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op. 73: 1. Allegro non troppo
2. Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op. 73: 2. Adagio non troppo
3. Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op. 73: 3. Allegretto grazioso (Quasi Andantino) - Presto ma non assai
4. Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op. 73: 4. Allegro con spirito
5. Symphony No. 3 in F major, Op. 90: 1. Allegro con brio
6. Symphony No. 3 in F major, Op. 90: 2. Andante
7. Symphony No. 3 in F major, Op. 90: 3. Poco Allegretto
8. Symphony No. 3 in F major, Op. 90: 4. Allegro

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #14425 in Music
• Brand: Sony
• Released on: 1995-10-31
• Number of discs: 1
• Dimensions: .22 pounds

Amazon.com
The Columbia Symphony may not have been a first-class orchestra, but Bruno Walter trained them to do the right things, and they responded with first-class accounts of these symphonies. While there are instances of less than crack ensemble, there is also some very fine first-desk playing, and the performances as a whole are marked by a natural feeling of movement, phrasing, and expression. Walter's approach to the music is kindly, caring, and wonderfully whole--sunny but not overly brilliant, warm but not overly heated, sincere but not overly impassioned. Anyone who thinks that means the conductor was slow, shapeless, or indulgent should give this disc a listen. There is thrust here, and plenty of momentum. The recordings are closely miked and somewhat bass-heavy, but in Sony's new 20-bit remastering the sound is wonderfully alive and direct. --Ted Libbey

Amazon.com
The Columbia Symphony may not have been a first-class orchestra, but Bruno Walter trained to do the right things, and it responded with first-class accounts of these symphonies. While there are instances of less-than-stellar ensemble work, there is also some very fine first-desk playing, and the performances as a whole are marked by a natural feeling of movement, phrasing, and expression. Walter's approach to the music is kindly, caring, wonderfully whole--sunny but not overly brilliant, warm but not overly heated, sincere but not overly impassioned, and above all gemtlich. Anyone who thinks that means the conductor was slow, shapeless, or indulgent should listen. There is thrust here, and plenty of momentum. The recordings, made between 1959 and 1961, are closely miked and somewhat bass-heavy, but have benefitted immensely from Sony's state-of-the-art remastering. Considering the vintage, the sound is wonderfully alive and direct. --Ted Libbey

Customer Reviews

An Outstanding Second and Third!
Walter recorded his Brahms cycle in 1960 and the sound recording is as good as what we may have today. He certainly recorded a second and third symphony which are staying a favourite version for all of us who like the romantism of Brahms. Walter had a real sense of the polyphony which is characterized by the perfect balance between violin and cello, therefore the sound deployed by his orchestra is the most adapted for Brahms symphonies, where alternance of bass and treble strings is permanent. It is the most natural and the melody goes straight to your heart. There is no secret: listen for the first time, if it is good it should "tilt", and this one does! Sony did a perfect remastering like they did for most of stereo records of the Walter Edition, keeping sound of the Columbia orchestra natural and impressive. We can recommend this record for his authenticity and believe me, it is brilliant. Definitely a reference jointly with the more recent integral record by Kurt Sanderling and the Staatkapelle Dresden in 1997. I may recommend both versions which are budget price.

Some of the finest Brahms interpretation on record
There is something utterly idiomatically Brahmsian about this conductors' approach to these scores. Themes are played with a genuinely old fashioned Viennese style of cantabile, in a manner which sounds absolutely echt wienerisch and authentic. In other words themes are really allowed to 'sing'- something Walter constantly pleads for an orchestra to do in his taped rehersals. Particularly striking is how in comparison to most post-war conductors the wind section is allowed to stand out - there is none of that modern tendency to to force other instruments to blend into the upper strings to point that the orchestra begins to sound like a string orchestra. At times especially in the third symphony when the brass are really allowed to let rip along with the tympany - without ever once sounding crude. You would never hear that being done any more! Even in the string section it is actually possible to make out the different instruments. The more one listens to these performance over the years the more one comes to the conclusion that the style here must be very close to what Brahms would have expected to hear - keep in mind that Walter trained in Vienna at the end of the nineteenth century. Of course this would count for nothing if it were not for the fact that Walter plays these works with an deep affection and understanding of a sort that brings the listener closer to the soul of this music than perhaps anyone else. One listens to Walter in order to love Brahms.

Classic Brahms Second; Fine Brahms Third.
Virtually all reviewers have given this set very high praise, and most of it is certainly deserved. After re-listening to Walter's Brahms Second and Third, I made a comparison with another CD offering the same works. My resulting impressions were quite instructive and, frankly, also a bit surprising. Before commenting on this, however, I will add, like some of you, that I have listened to quite a few performances of these symphonies (overwhelmingly on long playing records). My preferred choices for the Second Symphony include both this Columbia/Walter reading AND his earlier mono New York Philharmonic account, Steinberg/Pittsburgh Symphony (nla), Kertesz/Vienna Philharmonic (nla), Schuricht/South German Radio Symphony, Weingartner/London Philharmonic and an especially fine recording from DGG's "Originals" series set with Eugen Jochum and the Berlin Philharmonic. For the Brahms Third, I would choose Jochum/Berlin, Weingartner and George Szell's Cleveland performance, the subject of my upcoming discussion.

Here are my comments regarding the comparison between the Walter and Szell sets of Brahms' Second and Third Symphonies (both on Sony): In the first movement of the Second, Szell does not rush the pace any more than Walter, but he is not Walter when it comes to revealing the poetry in that movement. Where Walter sounds flowing in a natural way, Szell, by comparison, sounds as if he is working to give the impression of a flow. Things sound too perfectly staged. In the second movement, Szell moves along a little faster than Walter and in doing so cools the sense of ardor that Walter brings to the music. Nor is Szell able to match Walter in the lilting portions of the third movement, though his virtuostic tendencies do show through in the more rousing passages. In the last movement, the Clevelanders are at their dynamic best, ending with a blazing conclusion. When all is said/heard and done, however, it is Walter's endearing approach that wins. And that's not to imply that he is without adequate dynamic emphasis, notwithstanding the customary brilliance of the Szell/Cleveland combo.

My surprise came in the Brahms Third, where I felt as if Walter and Szell had, to some extent, reversed personalities. I had never noticed this before. Maybe it was because I was hearing both takes in such close proximity. Another factor might have been the enhanced clarity wrought by Sony's 20 bit technology that was given to the Walter disc. In the first movement, I got the impression that Walter was working, somewhat deliberately, at times, in a manner reminiscent of Szell. Occasionally, emphasis on detail seemed a bit overdone. In the second and third movements, I didn't quite get the usual Walter sense of lovingly caressing the music. I found the prominence of tympani strokes in the background of some of the flowing melody of the third movement to be a little distracting. Finally, I felt Walter moved a little too briskly in some passages of the last movement. As for Szell, I found his journey to be more leisurely and more musically sensitive than Walter's. In both the second and third movements, in particular, Szell was more adept at letting the music breathe. Only in the beginning of the last movement did I wish for a little more (liveliness). However, as the movement proceeded, so did Szell in an exemplary way. His close was as satisfying as Walter's. In conclusion, I preferred Szell's Third to Walter's. That said, neither, I feel, can match the poetic expressiveness and melodic bloom Eugen Jochum brings to his loving mono performance with the Berlin Philharmonic (DG "Originals"). I may never hear a more wonderfully characterized Brahms Third than this. Incidentally, though excellent, his later London Philharmonic stereo Third on EMI does not quite have the same charm; moreover, he observes the exposition repeat in the first movement which, I feel, contributes to a less enjoyable listening experience.