More Options
Beethoven: Triple Concerto/Brahms: Double Concerto
See larger image

Beethoven: Triple Concerto/Brahms: Double Concerto

Herbert Von Karajan/Berliner Philharmoniker/Sviatoslav Richter/George Szell/Mstislav Rostropovich/David Oistrakh/Cleveland Orchestra
28 Nov. 2005 | Format: MP3

£7.99 (VAT included if applicable)
Also available in CD Format
Song Title Artist
Your Amazon Music account is currently associated with a different marketplace. To enjoy Prime Music, go to Your Music Library and transfer your account to (UK).

Product details

  • Original Release Date: 1 Oct. 1998
  • Release Date: 28 Nov. 2005
  • Label: Warner Classics
  • Copyright: c 1997 EMI Records ltd
  • Record Company Required Metadata: Music file metadata contains unique purchase identifier. Learn more.
  • Total Length: 1:10:06
  • Genres:
  • ASIN: B001IP488Q
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 144,368 in Albums (See Top 100 in Albums)

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) 35 reviews
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful
Brahms - Double Concerto 28 Oct. 2005
By Angus - Published on
Format: Audio CD
It's interesting that there are quite a number of negative comments about this performance of the Beethoven here. I didn't dislike it, but it is true that I almost always jump straight to the Brahms' Double Concerto. The piece and the performance are beyond praise, quite frankly.

The same could be said of David Oistrakh. I know of nobody who can play Brahms and Beethoven as this Russian genius does: his performances of the violin concertos are -- adjective defying...

Do have a look at Oistrakh's performaces of Beethoven's violin concerto, either with Cluytens (perhaps not available now) or in the easily got hold of disc on Testament (Erhling). For the Brahms violin concerto there is also the other CD from EMI with Otto Klemperer from 1960, which is also great (but not a patch on this one. It does, howver an amazing performance of the Sinfonia Concertante, with Igor Oistrakh which is the stand-out performance on the CD.)
40 of 47 people found the following review helpful
Excellent versions of two famous concertos. 9 May 2000
By Mike Powers - Published on
Format: Audio CD
A wonderful version of Beethoven's Triple Concerto and Brahms' Double Concerto. These pieces are a superb coupling on one CD. David Oistrakh (violin), Mstislav Rostropovich (cello) and Sviatoslav Richter (piano) make a dynamic team with Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra for the Triple Concerto. All of Beethoven's passion and power shine through admirably. Again, Oistrakh and Rostropovich are in top form playing Brahms' Double Concerto, this time with George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra.
One minor problem is the CD's engineering, which lets the players down just a little bit. "Forte" passages seem too loud, and as a result lose some of their definition. This is less of a problem in the Brahms Double Concerto.
Despite this minor shortcoming, this is definitely the best recording to own of both Beethoven's Triple Concerto and Brahms' Double Concerto.
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful
grand and glorious 1 Feb. 2005
By Alejandra Vernon - Published on
Format: Audio CD
Historic for having three of the greatest musicians who ever walked the earth on one disc, these are also fabulous concertos, at once strong and graceful, melodic as well as grand, and beautifully played by these extraordinary masters.
David Oistrakh (1908-1974) has always been my favorite violinist, Sviatoslav Richter (1915-1997) one of the finest pianists of the 20th century, and Mstislav Rostropovich is almost a father figure in Russian music, whether as a superb cellist or conductor.
They share a similar heritage, having all lived in the Soviet Union (Oistrakh and Richter were born in the Ukraine, Rostropovich in Azerbaijan in 1927) during relatively the same time frame.

The Beethoven Triple Concerto was started in 1803, and it is fascinating to read in the liner notes how many compositions Beethoven had going at the same time, and major works, like the Eroica Symphony, the Waldstein Sonata, and Fidelio, and during this time managed to weave this marvelous (and unusual for its combination of instruments) piece into his composition schedule. As much as I love the Beethoven concerto, the Brahms "Double" is the winner for gets me in its opening bars of a strong motif, the passionate "conversation" between cello and violin, to come back forcefully to the motif, and it never lets up that intensity for its duration. Oistrakh and Rostropovich have never been finer in what is a definitive performance of this concerto.

The Beethoven, conducted by Herbert Von Karajan with the Berlin Philharmonic, and the Brahms, with George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra, were both recorded in 1969, and the sound has been well re-mastered and is very good for its age. Total playing time is 69'54.
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Fine versions. "Great recordings of the century"? Not quite, if only because of Oistrakh's previous recordings 22 Dec. 2010
By Discophage - Published on
Format: Audio CD
Although these two recordings were never meant as companions (unlike the Brahms violin concerto recorded by Oistrakh with Szell three days after the Double Concerto, respectively 12-13 and 16 May, 1969, Brahms: Violin Concerto / Violin Sonata No. 3), the pairing is logical. The two compositions are usual and logical bedfellows on disc because of their unusual array of soloists, the soloists here are shared (with the addition of Richter in Beethoven's triple concerto) and the Beethoven was recorded only a few months after the Brahms, on 15-17 September 1969. They are also excellent versions, although I would not place them among the "great recordings of the century", if only because Oistrakh's earlier recordings of both compositions for EMI (Beethoven in 1958 with his usual trio partners of those years Lev Oborin and Stanislav Knushevitzky under Malcolm Sargent, Brahms in 1956 with Pierre Fournier under Alceo Galliera, both with the Philharmonia), while not on a par sonically, were, overall, even better interpretively: Triple Violin Concerto.

The highly controversial English music critic Norman Lebrecht has given pride of place (so to speak) to Karajan's Triple Concerto in his list of "The 20 Worst Recordings Ever Made" - and it is pure crap, based on gossiping rather than listening, and apparently motivated by his general hatred of Karajan rather than by any fair hearing of the recording (see my review of Lebrecht's book for more, The Life and Death of Classical Music: Featuring the 100 Best and 20 Worst Recordings Ever Made). But, other than by the blanket Karajan-hatred entertained in some circles, the controversy around this recording is also stoked up by bitter comments made later by Richter about the recording process and the purported unhappiness of the three soloists with some of Karajan's tempi - although Richter's comments were very imprecise, not saying which or why (see the comments under J.B. Roberts' review for the exact comments and source).

I also found a webiste that briefly mentioned Richter's rehearsal anecdote, but also quoted Oistrah as saying that Karajan was "the greatest living conductor, a master in every styles." Anyway, to try and get a clue of what might have been the problem with Karajan's recording and tempi, I went back to Oistrakh's previous recording of the Triple Concerto with Sargent, but also listened to the live recording made in Moscow, only a few months after the recording with Karajan, under Kondrashin, a conductor with whom the trio had a long established artistic relation (documented back to 1947 for Oistrakh, 1950 for Richter and 1960 for Rostropovich), and whose first movement only, frustratingly, is included in EMI's 13-CD tribute, Rostropovich: The Russian Years, 1950-1974. So you'd think you'd find there whichever tempi the three artists were happy with.

And, indeed: Karajan leads a slightly more spacious first movement (17:49) than both Sargent (17:05) and Kondrashin (17:17). Now, is it for a difference of 30 seconds out of 17+ that Richter carped? Between Karajan and the two others the difference of timings is 3 to 4 %. Well, who knows, to a very fastidious mind, this might make a world's difference.

But seriously. Karajan's version needs to be listened to on its own terms, not in the light of what Richter later said about it. Karajan's first movement might be slightly less urgent than the two others', it expounds an expansive view, unfolding very naturally, almost nonchalantly at times even, more lyrical and polished than Kondrashin's (there is a kind of raging determinacy there with Oistrakh and Rostropovich in some of the more dramatic passages), but it sits well with this work, whose kinship with both the Pastorale (and indeed both works were conceived at the same time) and even with Schubert's Trout Quintet strikes me, and there is a great mood of playfulness in the exchanges between the three soloists. Now, if ever Oistrakh was, as Richter claimed, also unhappy with Karajan's tempi, it could not have been in the finale (12:52), since it is quasi-identical in timings with Sargent's (12:56), even the Allegro section before the coda (starting at 10:12 with Karajan and 10:16 with Sargent) is identical in both sections, and those tempi are eminently catholic, neither particularly urgent nor particularly spacious, eliciting a fine mood of genial playfulness.

Remains the Largo, then. It is frustrating not to have Kondrashin's, it would have been revelatory to see of the trio reiterated the very slow tempo adopted in 1969 or if it was something proper to Karajan. As beautiful as was the 1958 Largo, the effect here is hauntingly moving and the apex of this reading, with silky, caressing strings and three soloists with the tone and touch to sustain the time-suspended pace. Other than the most insincere and biased Karajan-bashers, I don't see how anybody with ears in functioning order could fail to be moved by it.

Sure I can fault Karajan and the sonics on a few details - but not his tempi, which other than the Largo are in fact very catholic: in particular, his orchestral textures in the outer movements are too thick and "symphonic" for the genial character he gives to the music, lacking crispness in the staccato playing of the strings, covering the extremes - basses and sometimes horns and oboes - in the tutti (which is inherent to the fact that the body of strings is basically too large for Beethoven's scoring) and too distant in relation to the soloists in the tutti of the Finale. But there aren't so many tutti in the Finale, and there is nothing in all this to diminish the value of this version. The relative thickness of the orchestra might have prompted me to give preference to the 1958 recording (Oborin and Knushevitzky have little to envy from Richter and Rostropovich in terms of technical authority and interpretive imagination, and Oistrakh's tone is even more beautiful than in 1969) but it is not on a par sonically, with significant tape hiss and the soloists not as clearly and brilliantly recorded as in 1969. And the 1969 Largo remains incomparable, second only to the one, similar in conception and even more beautiful in execution, by the 1962 Marlboro team of Serkin Laredo Parnas Schneider (Beethoven Triple Concerto/Brahms Double Concero: Serkin, Stern). Not that other approaches, more urgent, can't be conceived, but it is truly, in its own style, a classic.

It is fascinating to follow the artistic development of Oistrakh through his successive recordings of Brahms' double concerto. It confirms the general rule (but not an absolute one: Toscanini and Heifetz are notable exceptions) that performers mellow and pace down as they age. I haven't heard Oistrakh's 1946 (some sources say 1947) recording with Milos Sadlo and the Prague Radio Orchestra under Karel Ancerl, but I have his second studio recording, with Knushevitzky and the Leningrad Radio Orchestra under Karl Eliasberg, which discographic sources date from 1948 (although on my French Chant du Monde CD, volume 12 of their David Oistrakh Edition released in the late 1980s and listed nowhere, it sounds much better than what you'd expect of a Soviet recording from that vintage - see my review of David Oistrakh Plays Doubles for more details on that dating issue). While already displaying Oistrakh's unique lyricism, it is also faster than his subsequent studio recordings, and (thanks also to Eliasberg whipping his orchestra to great intensity), it is also more fiery, almost Heifetzian even, with an undertone of unrest and inquietude in the central andante. The 1956 recording with Galliera has more of a classical poise, Galliera goes slightly more for power and grandeur rather than bite and drive (which doesn't mean that it is dispassionate in any way), and the andante, taken at a very held-back tempo, is imbued with a uniquely tender lyricism.

Szell is even more expansive in the outer movements (compare his first movement 16:43 to Galliera's 16:04 and Eliasberg's 15:10) , but he avoids any impression of sluggishness thanks to the great mass and power of his orchestral outbursts, and the bite of his accents and staccato. Still, despite the 1956 early stereo with limited spread and significant tape hiss (especially when you crank up the volume), I would give the edge to the earlier version.

The 1969 recording isn't ideal either; it was the first recording made by the EMI engineers of the Cleveland Orchestra, and the orchestra doesn't have the clarity and transparency you'd expect of a 1969 recording, with even a hard edge in the tutti. There is also a thickness and lack of bounce of those tutti in the finale (try at 1:00), but that must be ascribed to Szell rather than to the sound engineer, and in that finale one may prefer Galliera's marginally stronger drive and bite. As recorded in 1969, Oistrakh doesn't quite reproduce either the angelic beauty and sweetness of tone of his former 1956 self. For all Oistrakh's and Rostropovich's involvement, there are some spots in the first movement where one also feels them tempted to over-express. But it is especially in the andante that Szell and his soloists fail to entirely recapture the special magic of the 1956 version.

Needless to say, all these remarks are only comparative. This is an outstanding version in its own right, and a safe recommendation for those who might be bothered by the more rustic stereo and pronounced tape hiss of the 1956 recording. But those who have never heard the 1956 Brahms andante must know that they will have missed something.
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Compelling Concerto Trio Captivates 6 Nov. 2003
By rodboomboom - Published on
Format: Audio CD Verified Purchase
Just coming off hearing a live performance of Brahm's Double, I hoped this was as powerful, and to my delight it is. The violin and cello in this recording are very much voiced together, and their harmonies are breathtaking yet strong.
This is first for Beethoven's Triple, and I am captivated. The first movement is powerful, sweet yet building to that confident, robust finish. The rippling piano in the Largo is so wonderful a backdrop for the strings to soar around and over. Then it cascades ever so quickly into that glorious Rondo. Here Karajan and the Orchestra really surge and shine
This is certainly a candidate for essential of these two magnificent concertos.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know

Look for similar items by category