Do we really want one conductor's Beethoven symphonies? Isn't it better to pick horses for courses—Boult for No. 6, Davis for No. 7, Toscanini (perhaps) for No. 3, Furtwangler, Karajan or Jochum for No. 9? Nevertheless, Klemperer's justly famous set, uneven though it is, has the advantage of generally clear recording supervised by the late Walter Legge and playing by the Philharmonia that rarely falls below an astonishingly high and consistent standard. By reissuing these historic records—made between 1956 and 1960—under the title of "Klemperer Edition", EMI mark the centenary of Klemperer's birth on May 14th in handsome fashion. The digital remastering, allied to the DMM process, is an unqualified success, except in the finale of Symphony No. 9 which betrays its age. Reviewing No. 7 in January 162, EG complained of difficulty in getting reasonable violin tone. I would be surprised if he were to say that now. A feature of the stereo issues, notably in No. 6, was the benefit to the listener of Klemperer's placing of the second violins on his right. This is even more marked now, and I rejoice particularly in the horn section of those days, a burnished glow one all too rarely encounters.

The performances do, I think, justify the almost legendary status they have acquired over nearly 30 years, although the proposition that Klemperer gave us the score and nothing but the score is untenable. There are rallentandos that are Klemperer's, not Beethoven's, and divergences from strict dynamics. None is offensive, but it is stupid to saddle any conductor with the responsibility of giving 'the last word' on Beethoven. There can be no last word, thank goodness. The apparent severity and no-nonsense 'truthfulness' of Klemperer's Beethoven came as a salutary corrective in the 1950s, a reminder of a Germanic tradition that had perhaps been unfairly disparaged. His interpretations attracted epithets like 'monumental' and 'granite-like', which suggested a certain severity, even (dare one say it?) dullness. This is not really just to a great conductor who, as one can hear, was a capable as the next man of poetic and romantic insights. Listen to the colouring of the introduction to Symphony No. 4 and to the subtle tempo fluctuations in the scherzo of No. 7. Above all, listen to the relaxed and sunny performance of No. 2 which also—and this is what is remarkable—still relates the music to the later Beethoven without contrived emphasis.

As for Klemperer's 'slow tempos', these have become the norm, such was his influence. Even so, the scherzo of the Pastoral lumbers whereas the allegretto of No. 7 sounds right. The finale of No. 7, though, is unexciting, as is the first movement of No. 5. Apart from a glorious opening to the finale, this No. 5 is a bit too consciously 'grand'. Bernstein's electric charge is preferable here (DG 2531 311, 2/81—nla). The crown of the set is undoubtedly the Eroica, in which the noble sculpting of the music's outlines encloses a mass of detail counterpointed by the tensions just beneath the surface. In the Choral, the finale must be accounted a failure: of the soloists, only Ludwig is in good voice; Hotter was having an off-day and Lovberg is wholly unsatisfactory.