Furtwangler's discography has expnaded enormously--to over 250 CDs--thanks to live concerts and air checks. If we only had the present studio recordings from 1952, we would think that his approach to the Eroica was smoth, beautifully balanced, full-voiced, and not very dramatic. The frst movement is almost an amble, not just in its deliberate tempo but in mood as well---it's the most relaxed Eroica I've ever heard. The great funeral march is far from tragic; it sounds like a serene elegy. How strange that this emotional, frequently volaatile Beethoven conductor should take such a phlegmatic view. The Vienna Phil. plays with golden tone, despite the lack of attack in all movements, including the opening of the finale, which is low-key to a fault.

The Sym. 1 from the same sessions is just as genial and even more romantic than Bruno Walter's late recording in Los Angeles with the Columbia Sym., except that the Vienna Phil. plays much better. The moderato finale eschews any hint of Haydnesque wit. The mono sound on this remastering is quite natural, a bit murky, and blessedly free of wiry strings.

I'm not sure what to make of these two readings. They are masterful in their way, of course, but so far removed from what we think of as Beethoven's revolutionary impulse that listeners should be prepared.

In my opinion, Wilhelm Furtwangler's Beethoven readings are definitive. Actually, there are "authentic" readings with period instruments made by Harnoncourt, Norrington, Hogwood. But these Furtwangler readings (may be both in modern and authentic reading) are reference, I think. Wiener Philharmoniker, played with sensitive, powerful too. Furtwangler, of course, one of the greatest conductors of century, and these Beethoven recs. are his best.

The Symphony No. 1 performed joyful, lovely. Still, this symphony has a Haydn atmosphere and yet, it has the energy of youth. But the "Eroica" Symphony, has a typic Beethoven character. As you know, Beethoven had a soul of hero! And he actually loved Napoleon Bonaparte, becaues of he was a hero of French Revolution. And actually Beethoven called that symphony as "dedicaded to Napoleon". But then, Napoleon was to be Emperor and he started to attack to Austria, all of Wiener. So, Beethoven, in all during his life, hated Napoleon, and erased his name, then replaced it as "Symphony for a dead great hero" in other words "Eroica".

And Wiener Philharmoniker under the baton of Furtwangler, feels that soul of hero. They are played Beethovenian "sforzandos" (very accented fortissimo notes) very striking. The Marcia funebre is played drammatic, impressive.

The sound quality is very good mono, recorded in 1950's. Even, these are historic recs. And worth to listening.

At this price, you can not wrong with it. Highly recommended.

Using Toscanini as a comparison to Furtwängler's Beethoven seems particularly appropriate: not only because they were recorded around the same time - the two Symphonies featured here were taped in November 1952, while the "official" Toscanini recordings I use for reference (

) were made for RCA in 1949 (Eroica) and 1951 (First) - but also because they represent the opposite extremes in Beethoven interpretation. To simplify: Furtwangler slow, massive, heavy-weight, bringing to the fore the grandeur of Beethoven; Toscanini fast, relentless, energetic. The approaches are so apparently irreconcilable that they have stirred much controversy and bickering between their respective admirers and denigrators, and ever faced them with the issue: who is "right", who is "wrong"? Who is true to Beethoven and who isn't?

I once heard on public radio an anecdote about Furtwängler (haven't read the bios to check if it was true), which has him listening to a broadcast of Toscanini conducting a Beethoven symphony, rolling his eyes in contempt and uttering "I hope they won't believe that THIS is Beethoven". "They", meaning us, the audience, the listeners. Furtwängler may rest in peace: many, not only in Europe, seem indeed to have been convinced that yes, Furtwängler's IS Beethoven. Conventional wisdom is that Toscanini conducted everything too fast anyway.

Well, in my opinion, this Furtwängler pronouncement applies much better to Furtwängler himself. I look at the scores, I listen to this recording, and I am left wondering: if what a composer writes in his scores is any pointer to his intentions, how can anybody think that THIS is what Beethoven had in mind?

Let me not even enter the argument of the metronome marks Beethoven inscribed into his scores - it is always bemusing to see the imagination displayed by musicians who otherwise profess the utmost and most humble allegiance to the composer's intentions and score, in finding excuses NOT to observe these metronome marks: they were written years after the compositions; Beethoven was deaf; his metronome was faulty; he did not know how to use it; what you hear in your mind's ear is not the same has the actual realization of it through a physical orchestra - and so forth.

But independent of the metronome, just take the indications of character written at the beginning of each movement: "allegro con brio" (first movement of the First and Third symphonies), "allegro molto e vivace" (third and last movement of the same), "allegro vivace" (third movement of the Third), "allegro molto" (finale of the Third).

Granted, such literary indications do open up some range of, well, interpretation. How fast is an "allegro"? Nonetheless, it is always going to be somewhere in the fast gear, especially when, as here, the composer added "con brio" or "molto e vivace". How faster can you get? After all Beethoven could have added "moderato" or "ma non troppo" if he had wanted it to be not so fast.

By no stretch of the imagination can Furtwängler's tempos be considered anything close to "fast" and observant of Beethoven's character indications. Not just in comparison to others who do play fast (and Toscanini in the Eroica isn't as fast as his reputation, but Scherchen certainly is,

). But even in themselves, the impression they convey is, at the best, of "allegro moderato", or even "moderato". The first movement of the First is veritably "pedestrian" - and I don't necessarily use the word disparagingly: the gait is very, very leisurely. But truth is, when heard immediately after Toscanini, the impression of heavy-footed plodding is even more striking. Furtwangler takes 16:03 to get through the initial movement of the Eroica, compared to Toscanini's 13:44 (and the Italian conductor is far from setting the speed record here). If Toscanini's movement is Mark Spitz' front crawl, Furtwängler's is your and my breast stroke - after a good meal. And these comments apply to every movement.

And it is not just a question of tempo, although that counts for a lot. It also has to do with instrumental balances (woodwinds and brass are blurred, softening the edges and abrading the bite) and with the way Furtwangler has the orchestra utter the numerous accents, sf or sfp: heavy, resounding thuds, always softened, to the point of not even registering for many of them in the Eroica's first movement. Under Toscanini they sound like whip cracks, teeming with energy.

The same is true even in the "slow" movement of the First symphony: Beethoven wrote "andante cantabile con moto" - NOT "adagio" or "moderato geniale", or whatever. His indication strongly suggests that he wanted his movement to sing (cantabile), but also to flow and move forward. The First Symphony does NOT follow the Romantic symphonic architecture which calls for a slow movement in second or third position. Furtwängler makes it into a slow, balletic movement, and somewhat heavy-footed at that.

So it seems pretty obvious that Furtwängler is NOT true to the letter of these scores, at least as regards the essential element of tempo. Now, there's this old cliché about the letter and the spirit, according to which the "spirit" would lie not in the letter of the score, but - well, somewhere beyond. The Furtwänglerians will tell you that the "true spirit" of Beethoven lies not in such petty details as tempo and character indications, and that it is the grandeur and nobility of Furtwängler's approach that really conveys the "true" Beethoven spirit, not the hectic race of "time-beaters" like Toscanini. The spirit independent of the letter: so convenient when one has decided NOT to follow the letter. But prey, where does the elusive spirit lie, if not, first and foremost, in the letter? Certainly playing the letter is not a sufficient condition to attain the spirit; but isn't it a least a necessary one?

These considerations do NOT close the argument however. Maybe Furtwängler does not play what Beethoven wrote (at least as regards tempo, and I won't delve here in matters of instrumental balance), and hence probably not what Beethoven had in mind. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the musical message Furtwängler has to convey, and the tastes and preferences of those who admire Furtwängler's Beethoven. The written score, the composer's intentions, are but one word, and by no means the only one or the final one. The beauty of music is that interpretation can shed new and unexpected light on a composition, one that was never envisioned by the composer but nevertheless that is, in all senses, illuminating. I don't think Bruckner ever had in mind the lugubrious tempos adopted by various modern conductors in his symphonies, but I much prefer them played that way, with the sense of a vast cathedral of sound they convey. And I'd feel much more comfortable if Furtwängler and his admirers admitted to that ("granted, this is not what Beethoven intended, but it is as good, if not better than what Beethoven had in mind" or "it realizes the potential of Beethoven that even Beethoven did not intuit, just like the flower realizes the potential of the seed" or something like that), instead of claiming that THIS is Beethoven. No, this is certainly not what Beethoven intended, but this consideration should preclude no one from preferring it played precisely like that.

That said, sorry, friends of Furt, but I don't even feel like that with these particular recordings. As could be expected, the approach works better in the Eroica's Funeral March, with the proviso that "funeral" it is certainly, but so slow that it looses any sense of a march: Furtwängler turns it into a funeral lament, really. But on its own terms, it is convincing. But the rest? Furtwängler brings a sense of Beethovenian grandeur (and, in the Eroica's Scherzo and first few minutes of its finale, the character of a good natured and slightly clumsy peasant dance)? But what is hopelessly and irretrievably lost in the process, I find, is a sense of youthful brashness, exuberance, excitement, explosiveness, exultation, joy - all these values that I find in loads with Toscanini, or Scherchen, or Leibowitz (

), or Bernstein in New York (

), to mention only the oldies. To me Furtwängler's Beethoven's First and Third not only seem untrue to the composer's intentions, but sound merely ponderous and plodding, if not under valium. They generate no excitement.

Ultimately I would certainly recommend hearing these versions, if only for reference: they are so integral to our musical heritage. Yes, for a while, Furtwängler succeeded in convincing many, many music lovers that THIS was Beethoven, and this is indeed an approach that prevailed for decades, and is only now starting to give way to one truer to the letter - and possibly the elusive spirit. But I would first and foremost recommend NOT to stick only to these versions, for fear of developing an entrenched notion of Beethoven based on an interpretation that may have its points, but that certainly gives a seriously biased view of Beethoven. Listen to Furtwängler's Beethoven for Furtwängler, yes. But for Beethoven (and adrenalin), better go to Toscanini and all those who have followed his lead.

This CD contains the Beethoven 1st and 3rd synphonies performed by Wilhelm Furtwangler and the Wiener Philharmoniker in the early 1950's.

Furtwanglers 1944 version of the Eroica is his best version in my opinion, but given that none of the major music giants have released a cd with his 1944 recording on it, this is the best version available. It was briefly available on the Tahra label, but only a limited number were produced and now long out of print. All of Furtwanglers 1940's recordings from during the war are classics, though mostly mono recordings using budget 1940's sound equipment.

Other great conductors of the 3rd symphony were Szell, Bohm, Karajan and maybe Vanska, but Furtwangler has them all beat.

In regards to the first symphony, the copy on this CD is in my opinion the best version conducted by Furtwangler, even when you factor in his famous WW2 era recordings from the 1940's.

Having listened to several conductors perform the 1st, Furtwangler always stands out as the standard for a quality performance by bringing a sense of exitement or action/ avendture to the music. Karajan takes a heavy handed Germanic approach, Szell a precision/ pefectionist approach, Walter a poetic approach and Vanska a slightly Walter like approach with Szells precision and desire for perfection.

Lastly, I should point out that Furtwanglers WW2 and pre WW2 recordings and perfmances used period instruments, so that affects the sound quality in addition to the recording technology of the day. After the war, period instruments were deemed to expensive and the switch was made to more modern instruments.

If you like Furtwangler's recordings or want to give it a try, then buy this CD and the companion CD containing the 5th and 7th symphonies.