wws@whuxlm.UUCP (Stoll W William) (09/05/85)
I heard recently (on National Public Radio) that Philadelphia Orchestra recordings were generally the best around for that genre. I don't have the most extensive library in the world (maybe 30-40 albums), but I had always thought that getting a good recording was a combination of luck and looking for "famous" orchestras (e.g., New York, Cleveland, London). When I realized that my very favorite record is Philadelphia performing Stravinski's "Firebird" and Mussourgsky's (sp?) "Pictures at an Exhibition", I decided that from now on I will try to only buy albums by Philadelphia. I was wondering if any netters had opinions on this, or if they could correct my generalization to "Philadelphia recordings made between 1960 and 1980 are good, but the others are so-so", or somesuch. Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws
scott@cornell.UUCP (Scott Smith) (09/05/85)
There is no 'best' orchestra; if you only buy recordings of the Philadelphia Orchestra, you will be getting inferior recordings of many pieces. Every orchestra and conductor has off days in the studio, and many records are in fact lemons, or at best bland. Instead, ask for advice from the clerks in your favorite store; if the store has a decent selection, they will frequently have clerks that know a great deal. Failing this, get a hold of a book such as the Penguin guide (a new edition has recently been put out). This book gives recommendations for practically anything you would want to get a recording of. You do not have to get the one they list as best (I often find myself in sharp disagreement with their judgements), but if they say the recording is good, you are at least not buying a lemon. Many people have preferences about what kind of sound and what kind of conducting they like; use such information when making a choice between a number of acceptable recordings (but try to find somewhere or someone who says it is acceptable!) The situation is also complicated by the fact that a good Beethoven conductor/orchestra does not make a good Stravinsky conductor/orchestra. For example, I will list some of my favorite conductors and orchestras for a few composers: Beethoven: Karajan or Bernstein; Berlin or Vienna Philharmonic Stravinsky: Stravinsky and nobody else (any orchestra) Schubert: Karl Boehm, Vienna Philharmonic Dvorak: Kubelik, Berlin Philharmonic Mozart: Hogwood and Academy, Boehm and Berlin or Vienna Debussy: Boulez Ravel: Boulez, NY Philharmonic (Karajan's Ravel is horrible) The more informed your decisions are, the better. scott scott@cornell, ..!cornell!scott
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (09/06/85)
> I heard recently (on National Public Radio) that Philadelphia > Orchestra recordings were generally the best around for that > genre. Best in what regard? Sonically, interpretively, in terms of virtuosity of playing, or what? Even if you were to settle on one or more of these factors as determining "best", I'd find it hard to accept a generalization about an orchestra that has undergone major shifts in personnel during the time frame you mentioned (1960-1980), been recorded by at least three different recording companies (CBS, RCA Victor, EMI/Angel) using a variety of recording producer/engineer teams and locales, and has undergone a change of musical directorship that involved two conductors of radically different musical approach and style (Eugene Ormandy and Riccardo Muti). I seriously question whether orchestras really have a particular "sound" of their own, or if, in fact, the demands of a particular conductor are not more of a determining factor. Certainly, the sound of the Philadelphia under Muti (and as recorded by EMI) is vastly different from that of the same orchestra under Eugene Ormanday (and as recorded by CBS). The "Philadelphia Sound", characterized by rich, mellow brass sonorities and a sweet, satiny string tone, is something that apparently first became reknowned when the orchestra was under the direction of Leopold Stokowski. I was born in 1952, and therefore never heard the orchestra live during this period. I've listened carefully to a number of recordings made at the time and find it fascinating to hear the difference between the playing of the orchestra under Stokowski in the early 40's and the set of recordings the orchestra made under Toscanini in 1942. Stokowski was, to my ears, a conductor who revelled in virtuosity and a dazzling display of brilliant sonorities for their own sake, usually at the expense of the shape and contour of the music as the composer set it out in the score. In this way, I find his handling of the orchestra analogous to Heifetz' handling of the violin and Horowitz' handling of the piano - astounding virtuosity in the technical mastery of an instrument and the production of beautiful and exciting sounds, but no regard whatsoever for the deployment of those sounds in an effective interpretation of music as intended by the composer. Under Stokowski's baton, the orchestra supplied what was demanded of it. Toscanini demanded virtuosity in that he wanted all of the notes in an orchestral score played accurately and with the tone qualities demanded by the score, but always within the framework necessary to express the continuity of line and coherence of shape that are also vital aspects of musicmaking but which were, again to my ears, often unbearably distorted by Stokowski. Under Toscanini's baton, the rich, turgid sonorities associated with the Philadelphia orchestra gave way to a leaner sound, amazingly precise and clear, but with a beauty and relaxation that were often not to be heard in his recordings with the NBC Symphony, good as those are. These Toscanini/Philadephia recordings were, incidentally, not issued at the time with the excuse being that the masters had been somehow damaged. It was apparently more a political move, since the Philadelphia had, in the interim, signed up with CBS, while RCA, having sunk a considerable amount of money into the NBC Symphony Orchestra, wanted recordings of the same music done with Toscanini and that orchestra. In 1963 the Toscanini/ Philadelphia recording of the Schubert C-Major (generally referred to as the "9th") was issued, and then, in the late 70's, RCA issued a box of the full set. When Ormandy took over the Philadelphia, he did not bring Stokowski's flamboyance with him, but he did maintain a similar regard for the actual sonorities of the orchestra that Stokowski had. His flaccid tempi and nebulous phrasing resulted in performances that I find beautiful in sound but ineffective in shape and pacing. I wouldn't compare Muti with Toscanini, since Muti does not, for my tastes, have the same freedom from exaggeration and remarkable consistency in realizing the shape and contour of a score in sound that Toscanini did. Nonetheless, he does demand, and get, a much leaner and more precise sound from the orchestra than Ormandy did. In fact, those who liked the lush string tone under Ormandy may find the sinewy sound Muti gets from the strings harsh and abrasive. I've gone a good bit into Philadelphia history just to make the point that, while you may enjoy a number of Philadelphia recordings, I wouldn't recommend limiting yourself to one orchestra for the entire symphonic repertoire. In the case of the Stravinsky "Firebird", there is also the opulent sounding playing of the New York Philharmonic under Boulez that has an unrivalled rhythmic precision (VERY different from the same orchestra under Zubin Mehta), or the power, clarity and beauty of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra under Colin Davis that should be heard. Likewise, in the case of the Mussorgsky "Pictures", there are the radically different performances the Chicago Symphony recorded (admittedly with major gaps in time) under Reiner, Giulini and Solti that offer orchestral virtuosity beyond that of the Philadelphia but illustrate the different sounds the same orchestra produced under different conductors. - Greg Paley
register@zhora.DEC (Mike Register, A.I. Applications) (09/10/85)
>I heard recently (on National Public Radio) that Philadelphia >Orchestra recordings were generally the best around for that >genre. I don't have the most extensive library in the world >(maybe 30-40 albums), but I had always thought that getting a >good recording was a combination of luck and looking for >"famous" orchestras (e.g., New York, Cleveland, London). >When I realized that my very favorite record is Philadelphia >performing Stravinski's "Firebird" and Mussourgsky's (sp?) >"Pictures at an Exhibition", I decided that from now on I will >try to only buy albums by Philadelphia. >I was wondering if any netters had opinions on this, or >if they could correct my generalization to "Philadelphia >recordings made between 1960 and 1980 are good, but the >others are so-so", or somesuch. >Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws When I was an undergrad in music school (Indiana Univ. 79-83) it was common knowledge that there were 5 orchestras in America which stood out from the rest. Those orchestras were: Boston, New York, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Chicago. There were also a couple of orchestras around that were pretty close to that select group (Los Angeles comes to mind). As to whether any one of these 5 put out the best recordings during 1960-1980, I think its probably a matter of personal opinion and what you listen for in an orchestral recording. Being a brass player myself, I naturally prefer orchestras with a strong brass section. In my opinion the Chicago Symphony has for a long time had the finest brass section in the world so I usually buy albums by that orchestra. My suggestion to a person starting an orchestral recording library is to sample recordings from all of these orchestras (at the same time sampling conductors) and determine for yourself what you like best in orchestral recordings. Usually this will lead you to either one or a group of orchestras and one or a group of conductors. Also keep in mind that what types of orchestral music you like will also determine what your favorite orchestras are. It seems you have done a bit of this exploration already. Cheers, Mike Register DEC A.I. Applications Group Hudson, Mass. UUCP: ...!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-rayna!register ARPA: register%rayna.DEC@decwrl
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
> Debussy: Boulez
Boulez wrote that he wanted to take the sheen off Debussy. If you like
that approach, then buy recording of Boulez conducting Debussy. However,
I would prefer to buy recordings of most other conductors for Debussy,
since I like the "sheen" and I feel that it is more impressionistic.
I thought that Boulez' rendition of Debussy was too dry and harsh.berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) (09/12/85)
In article <320@cornell.UUCP> scott@cornell.UUCP (Scott Smith) writes: >Instead, ask for advice from the clerks in your favorite store; if the >store has a decent selection, they will frequently have clerks >that know a great deal. I tried this at the local Tower Records, wanting to know the best version of Bruckner's Mass in E-minor, and wound up with a Motley Cru album. What happened?? -- "Don't let anyone steal your dream." Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900 (kerch@lll-tis.ARPA)
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/17/85)
> > Debussy: Boulez > > Boulez wrote that he wanted to take the sheen off Debussy. If you like > that approach, then buy recording of Boulez conducting Debussy. However, > I would prefer to buy recordings of most other conductors for Debussy, > since I like the "sheen" and I feel that it is more impressionistic. > I thought that Boulez' rendition of Debussy was too dry and harsh. I agree. In particular, I remember a Boulez recording of "La Mer" in which the various parts stuck out all over in a way which reminded me of a couch badly in need of reupholstering (or maybe a porcupine?). How's that for visual images from music? Blending of timbres seemed to be non-existent - rather strange for that piece! But maybe it was just the engineer's fault. Jeff Winslow "WHy do you hate the Socratic method?"