It is good to have four such distinguished versions of the Triple Concerto to choose from, and it is good that commentators no longer casually relegate it to second-class status. Nevertheless, to imply, as does the new HMV sleeve-note, that the piece is comparable in statute to the Second and Fourth Symphonies or the Fourth Piano Concerto, smacks of thoughtless revisionism. As Deryck Cooke so persuasively explained on the note to the older Karajan recording (also HMV), there are good reasons why the music should be the way it is, but that does not make it a masterpiece of the order of the other Beethoven concertos.
Anyway, it may be indicative of the Triple Concerto's rather formalistic invention that all four performances are so similar in conception—there is simply less room for interpretative genius to manoeuvre. The new recording is a little quicker than the others, but there is no feeling of hast (except when Hoelscher seems to want slightly more movement near the beginning of the Rondo). The Beaux Arts version (Philips) is particularly well thought out, but the cellist, in may ways the most important protagonist, lacks the eloquence of Rostropovich (HMV) or Yo-Yo Ma (DG). None of the violinists is so imaginative as Oistrakh (some amazing articulation in the 2/4 episode of the Rondo, for example), but then Richter's piano is by no means ideally recorded (HMV). The Leipzig orchestra sounds splendid in a lovely warm acoustic, but then there is a tendency to blur, especially in the important crescendo-to-piano passages (such as the end of the very first phrase).
One could go on to produce quite an extensive balance-sheet; but in truth all these performances are first class. If pushed i would choose the DG Karajan; but if you are swayed by the inclusion of the violin Romances as a fill-up, Hoelscher's pleasing performances on the new record might well be a deciding factor.'