sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) (10/09/84)
Some time ago, Greg Paley cited some old vinyl recordings whose sound he
prefers to that of recent CDs.
One of them, the Maazel/Cleveland version of Prokofiev's "Romeo and
Juliet" on London, is a particular favorite of mine. (The booklet
inside the box bears a 1973 copyright, however, so it's not that old;
the digitally recorded Telarc "Carmen Suites" released earlier this
year, for example, bears a 1979 (P) symbol.) Purists should note that a
session photo in London's booklet shows at least six microphone stands,
and my ears tell me they were all in use. For example, the lovely
brass band sound in section 24 on side 3 seems outdoorsy, as if heard
marching through a public square--exactly as the ballet
specifies--whereas some of the quiet woodwind passages earlier on the
same side appear to be in a small, intimate acoustic. Throughout the
recording, the apparent distance between the listener and the
performers varies. London specialized in such tomfoolery for years,
and producer John Culshaw makes a solid case for it in his memoirs,
"Ring Resounding", but two-mike sound it's not.
Greg also recommended RCA VICS-2042 (Reiner/Chicago performing "Pictures at
an Exhibition") so I bought the recommended pressing ("German Pressing" and
"RCA Ltd Record Division" on the back, "Teldec" on the disk itself).
The sound is indeed impressive for a late 50s/early 60s recording. Hiss is
low for the pre-Dolby era, I heard only one record-surface tick, and the
disk is cut at a healthy level. When somebody hits a drum, there's an
appropriately crisp thwack or dull thud. Cymbals and triangles shimmer,
brass passages soar out over the mixture of other orchestral sound, and the
dynamic range seems greater than today's average. Bass is a bit
understated, but definitely there.
The performance is, as one might expect, superb. The "Ballet of the Chicks"
is by itself worth the price of the record, liable to make you laugh out
loud.
Does the sound meet or surpass today's best digital recordings? I don't
think so. It is never painful to listen to, which is more than I can say of
a 1977 analog Giulini/Chicago recording of the piece with which I compared
it. RCA's errors are mostly sins of omission rather than commission, and
theology aside, I find the former a lot easier to tolerate. Overall there's
a lack of detail, as if the orchestra were behind a scrim.
Woodwinds in particular sound impossibly distant and vague. For
example, the wind, harp, and tremolo-string passages in "Catacombae"
are a soupy mixture of sounds, not like an ensemble of distinct
individual instruments playing together. In concert, or on a good
modern recording, you can hear the minute differences of tone from note
to note in a woodwind solo, as a clarinetist crosses the bridge, or a
bassoonist struggles to control the half-hole G. Here you just get a
pleasant generic woodwind sound. Similarly, the trumpet solo in
"Goldenburg und Schmuyle" has none of the raspy distortion you hear on
poor recordings, but none of the real rasp you hear in a concert hall
either.
String sound on this disk is rarely harsh and never metallic, but the
louder it gets, the more it sounds like a single remarkable hybrid string
instrument rather than a mass of individual players, spread across the
stage, blending together. This shows up particularly during the great
crescendo and decrescendo in "Bydlo" (which is incidentally one of Reiner's
most effective interpretations, bringing to mind the heartbreak of a
strong, dumb, ever-suffering animal). Giulini is the victim of either his
own bad taste or that of the record producer, since on the DG disk the
snare drum drowns out the rest of the CSO with ease.
When the entire orchestra plays fortissimo, all notion of individual
sections of the orchestra vanish under the shimmer and shatter of
distortion, with only the brass and an occasional cymbal cutting through.
At the end of the "Great Gate", for example, I'm accustomed to hearing
orchestra bells playing, gong-like, but I can't find the slightest hint of
them here (even the wretched Giulini recording reproduces them clearly).
Maybe this performance omitted them, but it seems more likely they got lost
in the pegging of the VU meters.
My conclusion? Rush out and buy the record. The performance is great
(modern recording technology just can't make Kunzels into Reiners) and
the sound is remarkably good for its age. I wish the old Ormandy,
Szell, and Bernstein performances were available on recordings of this
quality. But before getting too nostalgic about the good old days, I'd
suggest comparing this recording with the opening movement of the
Telarc "Carmen Suites" mentioned above. Telarc's strings, even in the
loudest passages, sound like a large number of individual instruments
spread across the stage; woodwinds sound like real players who are
actually in the middle of the orchestra rather than down a hallway
behind the stage.
Of course, different people are annoyed by different flaws in recorded
sound; and my audio system is distinctly mid-fi. If I have a chance
soon to play this record on a high-end system in a store, I'll let you
know whether the woodwinds join the rest of the orchestra, and whether
the orchestral bells reappear.
--
--Steve Correll
sjc@s1-c.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjcgreg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (10/16/84)
Steve, you need to hear the Reiner "Pictures" and the Telarc "Carmen" suite on better equipment. Don't be surprised if you find your comments about the relative sound qualities remain the same, but are reversed as to which recording they apply to. On the Magneplanar MG-III or Tympani IV (which I've heard driven by a Threshold amp) it's the digital recording that sounds as though there is a veil between the orchestra and listener and the analogue which removes that veil. As to the Giulini/Chicago "Pictures", I find this a well-conceived and satisfying performance, but have to agree with the negative comments on the recording. I have it on a reliable source that the DGG engineers were consciously trying to "improve" the sound of the Chicago Symphony - specifically, to make it sound like the Berlin Philharmonic. Or, rather, to make it sound like their recordings of the Berlin Philharmonic. Not only did this not work, but it squandered the resources available - i.e., the marvelous tonal qualities of the actual Chicago Symphony. I have to admit, however, that for all of the discussion of the recorded sound on these performances, the recording of this work which finds its way onto my turntable most often is the Toscanini/ NBC Symphony which I find has the power and force occasionally lacking in the Reiner performance and the animation and vibrancy occasionally lacking in Giulini's. The recorded sound is poor even for its time and requires some patience on the part of the listener to listen through to the actual playing. This poor recorded sound, which at least appears to have been reproduced honestly on the gold-jacket English "Toscanini Edition" series, is made worse by the additional treble boost and bass cut on the domestic RCA Victrola issue, and the phony echo and attempted spaciousness which further muddies the sound on the Italian "half-speed mastered" edition. - Greg Paley