classical life

20 comments

Do you want to comment?

Comments RSS and TrackBack URI

1. 
   MarK

   It can only seem Brucknerian to someone who never heard Bruckner performed by these same musicians. And this is probably the most Brucknerish of Schubert’s symphonies anyway. This clip could be a main audio illustration in an article about the definition of the word “excitement”. And perhaps the word “perfection” as well.

   Permalink, Reply

   February 19, 2015 6:01 pm
2. 
   kitsunebi

   I have Karajan doing this on EMI, but it sounds different (less raw) than this, but I also know he never recorded the 9th for DG. Which recording is this??

   Permalink, Reply

   February 19, 2015 8:25 pm
   • 
     Tim

     He did record it for DG and this is it I’m pretty sure. Sounds just like my vinyl.

     Permalink, Reply

     February 19, 2015 9:29 pm
3. 
   Lisa Hirsch

   I will have to listen to that. I spent most of the last 30 years mostly hating that piece and thinking it was a giant bore. A mediocre performance from MTT during the Schubert/Berg festival did not help.

   AND then last year Herbert Blomstedt conducted it and holy cow revealed it as the masterpiece it is: http://irontongue.blogspot.com/2014/04/blomstedt-in-nielsen-and-schubert.html

   Permalink, Reply

   February 19, 2015 8:29 pm
4. 
   kitsunebi

   Is Karajan’s the best Schubert 9? As exciting as it is, I’d be curious whether any of the following might have done it better (research I wouldn’t mind conducting):
   –Furtwangler, BPO
   –Szell, Cleveland
   –Bohm, BPO
   –Giulini, CSO
   –Fischer, Budapest FO
   –Abbado, Chamber Orch Europe
   –Solti, WienerPhil
   –Bernstein, NYPhil

   Permalink, Reply

   February 20, 2015 11:06 am
   • 
     Lisa Hirsch

     I have Szell/Cleveland and do not love it. I like Mackerras/Scottish Chamber Orchestra better, but I note that I haven’t heard either in years.

     Permalink, Reply

     February 20, 2015 11:16 am
   • 
     tmangan

     It’s the best I’ve heard, imo, but I have by no means heard them all. In fact, I probably haven’t heard that many because the Karajan was the first one I bought and I was always completely satisfied with it and therefore didn’t do a lot of exploring.

     Permalink, Reply

     February 20, 2015 11:44 am
5. 
   kitsunebi

   Speaking of Mackerras/SCO, his Schubert ’10’ and other unfinished symphonies (“realized by Brian Newbould”) on Hyperion is worthwhile IMO.

   Permalink, Reply

   February 20, 2015 3:24 pm
   • 
     Lisa Hirsch

     Thank you, I did not realize he’d recorded those! I wrote a paper long ago that transcribed and analyzed three of the symphony fragments – not the big one in Eb that Felix Weingartner orchestrated, but others.

     Permalink, Reply

     February 20, 2015 3:37 pm
6. 
   Deborah

   the way the recording is engineered (if you can tell) adds something atmospheric to the experience

   I don’t believe there was as much or any engineering in this performance not of Schubert but of Mahler. But the nature of the sound truly triggers the very meaning of the word “visceral.”

   http://symphonycast.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/popup.php?name=symphonycast/2015/02/23/symphonycast1_20150223_128

   It’s fascinating because when I switch back to listening to the Youtube recording of the performance led by Karajan, I at first think, oh, that sounds great. But then after experiencing a few more minutes of the piece, the lack of as many sound waves rolling throughout the location of where the playing took place (Berlin’s Philharmonie?) becomes more evident.

   Permalink, Reply

   February 23, 2015 10:41 pm
7. 
   MarK

   When comparing apples with oranges, resulting conclusions are highly suspect. There is always engineering involved in every recording. Just the microphones alone – their number, placement, quality, specifications – can change the aural result considerably. Of course, post-production is a very important element as well. And here we are talking about several decades worth of technological advancement plus a switch from analog to digital. Individual tastes of people who actually operate all that machinery obviously plays an important role as well. One thing i do know for sure though: during those several concerts that i have personally performed and particularly those i have attended as a listener at the Berlin Philharmonie, while seated in several different locations, the orchestral sound was consistently outstanding and acoustically the hall was always highly satisfying.

   Permalink, Reply

   February 26, 2015 10:43 am
8. 
   kitsunebi

   The best hall acoustically you’ve encountered (or would that be WDCH? :)?

   Permalink, Reply

   February 26, 2015 4:36 pm
9. 
   Deborah

   When listening to a rather recent recording of Mahler No 9 performed by the Concertgebouw, reportedly the best orchestra in the world playing in what has long been judged one of the top-3 concert halls in the world, the sound is somehow less compelling — it’s flatter, less robust, less detailed — than in the recording linked previously. There are fewer moments when I find my eyes misting up or my going “goosebump time!” .

   I was curious if the medium of Youtube was affecting the quality of sound of one recording compared with the one from SymphonyCast. But another performance of Mahler No 9 conducted by Dudamel with the same orchestra, in the same hall, and also posted to Youtube has an appeal similar to the broadcast from NPR, although the intrinsic sound volume appears to be a bit lower.

   Good way to test one’s sense of hearing!

   Permalink, Reply

   February 26, 2015 10:19 pm
10. 
    MarK

    A much better “way to test one’s sense of hearing” would be to see a medical professional. Listening to Mahler’s music is a worthy activity, but for other very different good reasons.
    There are several large concert halls i like and WDCH is certainly one of the better ones. But i do not want to rank them, because i know some much better than others – which may affect one’s judgement both ways – and therefore it would not be a fair comparison. Let me just mention one recent discovery: the three-year-old Maison Symphonique de Montreal is outstanding.

    Permalink, Reply

    February 27, 2015 3:30 pm
11. 
    Deborah

    Another way to test one’s sense of hearing….

    http://crosscut.com/2014/03/seattle-symphony-media-record-label

    There’s Sub Pop, Barsuk and now there’s another record label in town: Seattle Symphony Media, the symphony’s new in-house label whose three recordings will be out next month.

    “It’s raising the quality and the profile of our orchestra and we’re reaching new audiences,” explained the Symphony’s Executive Director Simon Woods at a recent media preview.

    The symphonies in London, San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta all have their own labels. “Seattle is a great recording orchestra. And we have a good, an incredible hall that sounds amazing,” added Woods, who worked as a record producer with EMI Classics in London in the early part of his career.

    The recordings are meant to capture the experience of sitting in the front section of Benaroya Hall, which Woods said has a more “natural” sound compared to the Technicolor experience of say, Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles.

    Just as beauty is altogether in the eye of the beholder, so apparently is ‘incredible” or “amazing” sound.

    Permalink, Reply

    February 27, 2015 9:00 pm
12. 
    MarK

    A tendency of listening to music with one’s eyes is a common malady, with some prominent critics among the afflicted. Using ears instead is highly recommended for that purpose.

    Permalink, Reply

    February 28, 2015 4:55 pm
13. 
    Deborah

    Speaking of which, and, yes, although tastes in sound are “individual” (as the professional critic below notes), there are many occasions when I find myself tuning into a listening experience and, at first, thinking the sound is fairly good. Then, after dealing with it for a while, the appeal starts to fade and the sonic properties of the music begin to droop. A case in point…

    http://www.artecconsultants.com/03_projects/performing_arts_venues/morton_meyerson_center/press/mcdermott_hall_press_02.html

    Tastes in concert-hall sound are as individual as in barbecue. And as the inaugural week progressed the hall’s adjustable acoustical features were being changed from one musical selection to the next. Initial reviews from a formidable posse of international music critics ranged from reserved to rapturous.

    Immediately, though, this particular critic heard a voluptuousness associated with such venerable halls as the Amsterdam Concertgebouw, the Vienna Musikverein and Boston’s Symphony Hall, but largely missing from 20th-century facilities. There was ample clarity, but it was set within a rich wash of reverberation. The bass response, often flimsy in thin-walled modern halls, was awesome.

    Between the opening and my 1999 move to The Dallas Morning News, I returned several times for concerts at the Meyerson. Fifteen years on, and with the experience of a lot of concert halls around the world, the Meyerson is still my favorite modern symphony hall and one of my favorites of any period. It’s not a perfect hall – there’s no such thing – but it’s a fabulous one.

    The newest major American concert hall, Los Angeles’ Disney Hall, has an almost preternatural pinpoint clarity, but not much warmth. Philadelphia’s Verizon Hall is strangely diffuse and uninvolving. Seattle’s Benaroya Hall lacks warmth in the bass and lower midrange.

    The Meyerson, by contrast, washes you in sound. I still marvel at the sonic sumptuousness, the way the sound can be felt moving in space. Release one of those big chords in a Bruckner symphony, and it disappears into the ceiling with a breathtaking “tail” of reverberation. The effect still sends chills down my back.

    How come my impressions of good sound — or a lack of such — are so different from that of the person (a full-time music critic, no less) who wrote the above?

    Permalink, Reply

    February 28, 2015 6:17 pm
14. 
    MarK

    A serious response to Deborah’s question would probably have to include a combination of reasons. First, any two persons listening would naturally have two different impressions. Second, apparently only one of these two is a professional music critic. Third, it appears that only one of the two has actually been inside of all the concert halls that are being mentioned. Feel free to add more reasons that may have slipped my mind at the moment.

    Permalink, Reply

    March 1, 2015 11:55 pm
15. 
    Deborah

    The fourth would be to read the full text linked previously, composed by a music critic who’s honest enough to cite the impressions of another professional music critic, not to mention musicians.

    The Meyerson isn’t perfect. As in any hall with stacked balconies, the farther you get under overhangs, the drier and less involving the sound will be. The worst sound is at the back corners of the orchestra terrace.

    In certain seats, you’ll hear disconcerting echoes off side walls and balconies. The DSO seats its trumpets and trombones at the right rear of the stage, but if you sit on the right side of the hall your ears may tell you the brasses are on the left – because their sound is bouncing off the left walls.

    Orchestra musicians complain that they have trouble hearing one another onstage.

    And some listeners simply prefer more analytical acoustics than you normally get at the Meyerson. When the Cleveland Orchestra played here three years ago, Cleveland Plain Dealer critic Donald Rosenberg complained that the Meyerson sound was too murky and reverberant. But he’s used to Cleveland’s Severance Hall, which many listeners, this one included, find too dry.

    Unless the recording engineer did a noticeably poor job in picking up the innate sonic qualities of the hall, I can detect lackluster traits fairly quickly—the quirks of the amateur musicians notwithstanding. That’s why I’d have more confidence in the discernment of the music critic from Cleveland instead of the one from Dallas.

    Permalink, Reply

    March 2, 2015 7:42 pm
16. 
    MarK

    As we can see, the reason number one is once again being proven by demonstrating how highly subjective all this is: substantial disagreements can occur even between comparably qualified listeners.

    Permalink, Reply

    March 3, 2015 12:35 am

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (Address never made public)

Name

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.