It is a pity that the Beethoven—much the most engaging performance and recording here—is sandwiched between the two Tchaikovsky items, in which the digital sound is far more aggressive and biting, less spaciously presented. Ivan March noted this point in his original review, but the directness and clarity of CD brings it home even more sharply. The chorus in 1812 starts with a sudden intake of breath (as it seems), and for a digital recording the hiss is higher than it should be, at least at the start. High violin sound tends to be harsh, and the closeness of the whole orchestra makes the performance less, not more, involving, with little feeling of space and expansion at the end on the return of the chorus with cannon, carillon, etc. This may be marginally more recommendable as a performance than Daniel Barenboim's Compact Disc version on DG, but the sound in its equal closeness is more congested with instruments less well separated. Sir Colin Davis's Boston version (Philips 9500 892, 7/82) deserves to be transferred to CD. Both the present disc also include Marche slave, and there Maazel's faster, less indulgent treatment is preferable, though again the harshness of the recording makes sustained listening unattractive.
Quite different is the Beethoven, where the orchestra is set against a more spacious, more reverberant acoustic, and the various fanfares, procession and battles are most realistically presented with fine clarity as well as atmosphere. In this the engineers ably overcome the notorious problems of recording in the Musikvereinsaal in Vienna. Maybe it is only right that Beethoven—even at his least subtle—evidently suits that hall much better than Tchaikovsky does.'