Reiner's Scheherazade is good and since it was praised all over the places, we've got to have it. But then why not pick a few other recordings of Scheherazade to indulge ourselves into? After all it's such a fun work and filled with great melodies and sparkling effects that audio fans are longing for. So, after a decade or two, I've gathered over a dozen recordings and listened though all of them. My recommendation list would include
Fricsay 1953 DG mono
Ormandy 1953 Columbia mono *this is an Ormandy performance that will change your view about him if you have not heard much of his early mono ones. Tightly paced and full of energy!
Bernstein 1959 Columbia
Rostropovich 1974 EMI
Tjeknavorian 1979 Chalfont *An Armenian conductor with great gift. Not much recording can be found but most of them are very good. This Chalfont digital recording was done in the famous Watford Town Hall, London. Audiophile sound and the LSO played superbly.
And finally, Kondrashin's ship wreck section is always a good treat to your audiophile friends, especially when you have a system with good bass impact. One can actually feel the room shaking a bit when the bass drum hit hard!
Reminds me of the days when I was still using a pair of big B&W M801s, when I checked the CD info and found that the recording was using B&W loudspeakers,I felt a silly assurance arise...
And by the way, I am a novice when it comes to classical, and I stumbled on the Reiner, had no idea it had any reputation before I heard it and before my OP about it.
thanks again for the suggestions, I will have fun with them! sex after 70 is like trying to play pool with a rope
Yes, Scheherazade is great fun to the audio fans. I think this has a lot to do with Rimsky-Korsakov's skillful orchestration to arrange instruments and bring out wonderful effects that are pleasant to the ears.
I've read that Italian composer Respighi went to learn orchestration from him and in this part of Respighi's Church Windows might give us some traces of that orchestration skills.
that Song Of The Nightingale - paired with Lt. Kije on my Classic Records LP - might be the best "classical" record I own. Fantastic piece/playing/recording. Can't imagine a better version/recording.
I don't like it at all. I find the phrasing so heavy handed that it makes the music disjointed. The Reiner is my favorite. It's a simplistic, nuanced well executed no bullshit performance.
Of the one and only original blonde bombshell. MM was one in a million, there will NEVER be another like her! I'm going to post something of interest on MM in films soon...
funny thing though, if we weren't talking Beecham and Reiner but imagining which actress I would pick to play the part I would pick Audrey Hepburn in a heart beat. But I like them both.
I haven't heard the Beecham in a long time, but my last impression of it was that he was imposing too much rubato in places. Of course, the British critics loved this! (Oh! Listen to how Sir Thomas encourages the RPO players to play with so much individuality compared to those efficient robots in Chicago!) Who knows though, I might like the Beecham recording better if I heard it today! ;-)
In general, there's a lot to be said for no BS performances (like the Reiner performance!). ;-)
And I'm pretty sensitive to such things, when IMHO too much or too little is applied.
Reiner's Just feels "cold" and slightly rigid to me, interpretivly and as a recording. The soundstage just doesn't seem to open up, but luckily the subject matter isn't dealing with belly dancers, ship wrecks and sea storms, so it's not such a big deal.
I'm the first to defend Reiner from the usual stereotype but this time I agree.
From Beecham and Reiner Lps, to CDs to DSD Soundmirror and HDTT tape.
Of course different halls and engineering philosophies.
But to me, the more obvious, (not perfect!) ambiance and hall interaction of the Beecham reminds me of my own live listening experiences, hence the description more (not perfect!) naturalness.
There are such variations in the acoustics of actual concert halls. And even within a given concert hall there are often substantial differences in sound depending on where one sits. so what is "natural"n is in fact sonically all over the place. That makes it impossible to determine which of these recordings sounds more natural. There is no single reference and you will have all kinds of variables with the playback system and listening room. Preferences are inarguable and if you prefer the sound of the Beecham that is an entirely legitimate preference. But to say it's a fact that either recording is more natural would require us to comapre them against a single objective reference and that simply does not reflect reality.
the one you would need to do meaningful comparisons between these recordings and actual live orchestras in the concert halls they were recorded in. If you are talking about fact as opposed to preference as in "it is a fact that the Beecham sounds more natural" then you have to have an objective reference for what is natural and then proceed to do well designed A/B/hrC comparisons using objective standards of measured deviation from the hidden reference. THAT would be quite impressive. Particularly since you would have to organize this in coordination with two full orchestras that bear a meaningful similarity to the ones in those two recordings. It's not a "fact" it is your preference. There is no arguing preferences. But facts are objective in nature and verifiable.
Objective assertions of fact about the naturalness does not depend on which mastering you like. It doesn't move the goal posts for making a determination of fact. But I am glad you like it. Enjoy!
In Reply to: RE: Doesn't matter posted by Analog Scott on August 31, 2020 at 16:03:48
I can't tell you how many hours I've spent in the last 40 years playing within an ensemble or awaiting my turn while sitting in on rehearsals in the halls.
What does playing in a wind ensemble have to do with judging Beecham's recording of Scheherazade? Or are you trying to pull rank? Argumentum ad verecundiam is of course a logical fallacy (especially when the verecundiam is your own!), as I'm sure you know. ;-)
string pluck AND it's audible reflection off the local stage walls to be retained by the recording. I do. It's the kind of cue that tricks the brain into believing one is experiencing the live event. If one is not familiar with such live experiences, than one wont miss such cues at home. How I'd love to be blissfully-ignorant! I could go back to AM radio.
In my experience there are far more of the above types of audio spacial cues retained by the Beecham recording than the Reiner; that's why it sounds more "natural" to me. Can these retained cues be objectively-measured and tallied? Sure, why not? Let's have a shoot-out, your place. : )
If one wants to claim that recordings are either 0% "natural" or 100% "natural," then maybe we should be discussing the straw man fallacy instead? ; ) I never claimed that the Beecham was perfect, neither did I claim that the Reiner was anything less than above average.
Now, if we were talking foreign policy and I claimed to know better because I peeled potatoes on a Navy ship way back when, then I'd buy your Argumentum ad vercundiam bit. : )
They listen, right? I can't believe it was necessary to clarify, but forgive me if such clarification was needed.
First post:
"I can't tell you how many hours I've spent in the last 40 years playing (and listening) within an ensemble or awaiting my turn while sitting in on rehearsals (and listening) in the halls."
Follow up post is not a sidestep at all:
"If one is not familiar with such live experiences, than one wont miss such cues at home."
Do really believe that I wasn't referring to act of live listening in the first post?
. . . to spatial cues is by "playing within an ensemble"? Huh?
I suspect that Scott, being on tour with Yuja much of the time, has more live listening experience than either of us (at least over the, say, last decade or so). (EDIT: although until this past March, it was part of my almost-daily routine to be rehearsing or playing with string players in various environments - usually not concert halls however, unless we were making recordings or were in a competition or something similar)
I'm not on tour with Yuja "much of the time." Yeah I have done a few mini tours with her and travelled with her to London, Venezuela and for most of her west coast concerts. But I "mostly" work on movies and TV shows. With that said I can say I have been to well over 1,000 live classical concerts over the years probably in over 100 concert halls on 5 different continents. So I think it is fair to say that I am an "experienced" concert goer. And to that I say so what? I enjoy concerts. I don't dellude myself with the wrong headed belief that more concert experience = greater listening skills. All the listening experience of a life time of concerts doesn't change the basic realities of human aural perception. We, as humans, simply can't bank all the data we take in at a live concert. Not even close. Our aural memories are inherently unreliable as objective references to judge sonic accuracies. Practically useless. We don't remember sound as ifwe were human tape recorders. Not at all. We remember enough data points that we can algorithmically identify similar sounds from sounds of the past. what we *think* we remember is mostly the brain filling in all the missing pieces from the few aural data points we did retain. For the purposes of objectively judging audio playback aural memory is very unreliable. And as an avid and experienced concert goer I feel quite sorry for audiophiles who will try to use their rare trips to the concert hall to focus on forming some sort of aural memory to use as reference for judging audio and even worse as status for arguments of authority in audiophile forums. It's pathetic and a waste of what could have been a wonderful concert experience. As a person of many hobbies I can think of no other hobby that has anywhere near the self dellusional bullshit that audiophilia has. Not even close.
I am actually kind of curious as to what sort of convoluted logic lead to your response to my post. Or are you just trying to set new levels in the art of non sequitur?
But to answer your bizarre question. No, I am not saying that. Nor was I not not saying that. My post had nothing to do with your question. And your question in and of itself is problematic. recordings do not "preserve" anything of the original acoustic wave form. They *record* the electrical signal from the console. Do you understand the differences?
"I'll ask you again: is it Audiophilia "bullshit" and delusion to expect a recording to retain something as commonplace as few hall reflections?"
And I will answer again. It's a question that seems to exhibit a typical audiophile ignorance about how audio recording and playback actually works. *Recordings* record (not retain) the electrical signals that are fed to the recorder from the recording or mixing console. Those electrical signals are not acoustic wave forms. Recordings do not "retain" any acoustic waveforms (that includes room reflections if I wasn't being clear enough). They record electrical signals derived from microphonefeeds that when fed back into an audio playback system will produce an entirely new acoustic wave form in an entirely new acoustic space. And through a basic understanding of human aural perception audio engineers starting with Blumlein figured out a rudimentary way to set up microphones in an acoustic space that when recorded and played back through a propperly set up two channel loud speaker system will create some semblence of an aural illusion that reminds us of the spacial perception of a live experience. That aural illusion can include some sort of aural cues that remind us of what we percieve in regards to concert hall reflections. the playback is not accurate to the original wave form. Not even close. The effect is an aural illusion much like 3D TV. And the effect is at best reminicent of the perception one would have had at the original event. It is never an aural or perceptual match. The degree to which it comes close is highly subjective in nature.
I apologize for the long winded answer but your question as it stands is as absurd as asking what would happen if an irrestable force acted upon an immovable object? or what is north of the north pole? Questions that are loaded with false presumptions about the very nature of reality have to be carefully dissected to be propperly answered.
If a hall reflection in a recording even vaguely reminds the home listener of the real thing, isn't that what matters? Why not just stick with mono sound?
what the playback actually is and how it works is objective. What matters to you and what matters to me and what matters to any other audiophile is inarguable. But yes, the perception of imaging and ambience does matter to me. And I have no trouble forming subjective opinions about the relative merits of perceptual imaging and hall ambience of various recordings played back on my stereo system. The point, the original point and still the point is that I do not confuse my opinions or preferences with objective facts.
In so far as the Beecham vs the Reiner question I would have to go back and do a side by side comparison and focus on the recording quality. It'sbeen years since I last played the Beecham. I rejected the Beecham years ago based on the performance which was not to my liking. If i don't like a performance I don't care much if it sounds good or not.
If I were to make a side by side comparison maybe I would like the recording quality of the Beecham more, maybe not as much or maybe it would be a mixed bag and they are just different with no clear cut winner. But mine would just be another subjective opinion. Without an objective aural reference i could not begin to tell you which was more accurate (if that is what you mean by natural) and even the objective reference, which would have to be an actual orchestra in the original concert hall of the original recordings would be problematic. Sitting front row far right or far left will give you a completely different sound than sitting in the balcony on the opposite side. They are completely different and yet both are unquestionably "natural"/"accurate" since the notion of the naturalness or the accuracy of the original sound is absurd since it is the actual original sound.
As mentioned below, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't regard 60s Columbia Clasical string sound as harsh, and factually so, even if there were a seat in Manhattan Center that was more or less flattering.
I'm awaiting Chris' reply regarding his belief in the superiority of 5 channel. Will he regard 5 channel's superiority as fact or opinion...? : )
"As mentioned below, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't regard 60s Columbia Clasical string sound as harsh, and factually so, even if there were a seat in Manhattan Center that was more or less flattering."
There are a lot of people in this world who you can't think of so why arbitrarily narrow the field? Also you can't use what you imagine others would think as a reference. And maybe you are right. Dunno. But it is still subjective even if you actually have a near consensus.
as for empirical measurments absolutely one can make them and correlate them with preferences. But they are still preferences.
of course, attending live concerts. Doesn't matter if it's Yuja or 5th Grade Concert band: the live experience teaches one to expect the same holistic picture at home. Minus the coughs and sneezes!
My heart sinks when orchestral sound appears and disappears back into "no-man's land." Absolutely zero ambiance.
to suggesting that Rimsky's music should (gasp!) tell a story and the modern conductors just don't get it. So let's call it a draw. I think he's been reading my posts.
as a human to make any objective claims of fact about sound you need direct quick switching comparisons. You could have more experience with live music than any other human on the planet and you would stillbe human and you would still need to do direct quick switching comparisons. and I would say that playing within a given sectionof an orchestra would be a pretty bad reference since the recordings are from an audience perspective. But it still doesn't matter
And if you think your experience does trump an entire field of science there is nothing more to discuss. I have no time for people who are in denial of science.
All or nothing on spacial cues. What a complete load of crap. And if it were all or nothing it would be nothing in both cases given the fact that stereo can not create any kind of an aural illusion of the full envelopment of a concert hall. And let'snot forget your original claim that it is a "fact" that the Beecham is "more natural" than the Reiner. Absurd claim supported by even more absurd arguments.
Kind of ironic that you would find my position "absolutist" in nature while claiming your opinions about sound quality are objective "facts." Particularly opinions formed without doing reliable bias controlled comparisons with actual objective references. And no, your experience with live music is not an actual objective reference. Not even close.
Please forgive me for expecting just a few --just a few-- **commonplace** spacial cues heard live to be preserved in a recording.
I never said I wanted every energized atom in the room captured by the recording LOL. You sure make things complicated, but maybe that was your strategy?
It is an **opinion** that you get to have. You simply lack the resources to make a determination of fact on the subject. Facts such as that require direct bias controlled comparisons to an objective reference. But we have already been over this a few times. It's a simple reality that you seem to really struggle to understand. I am starting to wonder if you know what some words actually mean. Words like "fact" "objective" and "reference."
Doors and windows can be open. Stores and other businesses can be open. It's an adjective that has no objective measure in either audio or live music. It's one of the many obtuse vague descriptors used in audio that can mean almost anything.
Natural is another descriptor in audio that often suffers from the same vagueness. However there does seem to be some association with "naturalness" and perceptual accuracy. SOME.
Now it is actually a fact that a stereo recording and playback of a live acoustic event can and usually will create an illusion of aural imaging that is wider than a mono recording. and that difference is enough to create an aural illusion of space and positioning that a mono recording simply can not create. *that* is a fact. It is a fact that has been proven by actual testing and will hold up to any further testing. And it's the testing and the ability to withstand further testing that differentiates fact from opinion.
Nor is the string sound, as a rule, "natural." We all came to those same conclusions in unscientific ways. Different systems and listening rooms, etc. I dare say people would consider it a *fact* that Columbia Classical recordings are sub par. That said, I wouldn't want to be without many of them.
You never asked me. You don't know that I agree. And if you did ask me then I would come back with the same question. What do you mean by "open" and what do you mean by "natural?" My understanding of natural is "like how it is in nature." In this case "nature" being classical music played in a concert hall. And THAT is a profoundly wide range of sound and sonic characteristics. And it is simply too broad of a reference to make any kind of objective evaluation of any recording using "natural" as a standard. You may subjectively hold the opinion that one recording is more natural than another. But there is no meaningful objective measure. Sound quality varies just as much in concert halls as it does in audio. Open? What deos that mean? Seriously, what does that mean? I can't even begin to address how open one recording is vs. another recording without a meaningful objective definition.
read the same reviews and discussions regarding their pros and cons, and they subscribe to the same common glossary of audiophile terms found within those reviews and discussions.
From that perspective, I don't have a problem at all using terms like "open," "silky," "harsh," "transparent," "front to back depth," etc. and I'm confident most know what I'm talking about.
I assumed you'd be on the same page. What words do you use to describe a poor recording?
But when it comes to "open" as a description of a quality of a recording I don't know what you are talking about. And if you do know what you are talking about it really shouldn't be that hard to define it. "silky" that's another good one. But let's just focus on "open." what does that actually mean in this context? "Front to back" That's pretty straight forward. It's quite literally a perception of front to back audible perception of depth/distance of the aural images. super easy to define. Things like "bright" or "dark" are easy. Frequency response curves that emphasize or de-emphasize the treble region. "Transparent" again easy. Objectively it describes a lack of audible distortion in the audio chain. Subjectively it describes a lack of noticble audible distortion in the entire chain from microphones to ears. WTF does "open" Mean?
Just because a given listener doesn't hear them doesn't mean they aren't there. ;-)
Face it, one of the reasons you like that Beecham recording is because it's more distantly recorded, and, therefore, the mix of direct sound to reflected sound is more in favor or the latter (compared to the Reiner recording) - which is in line with your preferences. Nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean that there are no spatial cues on the Reiner recording. It's only IN YOUR OPINION that there are not enough spatial cues on the Reiner recording. In Scott's opinion (and mine) there are plenty of spatial cues there.
When it comes to the engineering, I like the Beecham recording too, but MY PREFERENCES are often for more close-up sound.
. . . but, yes, it's generally good to list examples of what you mean, along with whatever grand assertions one wishes to make. And of course that assumes that the person doing the listing is a reliable source of information! ;-)
Chris wrote: "That doesn't mean that there are no spatial cues on the Reiner recording. It's only IN YOUR OPINION that there are not enough spatial cues on the Reiner recording. In Scott's opinion (and mine) there are plenty of spatial cues there."
What I get from the Reiner (as issued on the BMG SACD) is plenty of side-to-side imaging but not a lot of depth. The Beecham has good side-to-side imaging but also more depth--you can hear which instruments were in front and which were farther back.
Of course, the ultimate :) in spatial cues might be the Stokowski/LSO Phase 4 special, in which every soloist is front/center and as large as the entire string section.
. . . then you still weren't hearing everything on the Reiner recording. . . for whatever reason. It IS microphoned closer, but the sound still opens out naturally. If you think the Beecham engineering represents the only valid way to record an orchestra, then, once again, I'd say that that's a very singular view.
To me, the Reiner recording has a more open and natural sense of Orchestra Hall in Chicago than the Beecham recording does. But maybe that's just me! ;-)
The slow mov't is nice and the strings are caught particularly well, but the whole thing just doesn't sound very "epic," nor are the woodwinds, (so captivating in Das Lied!) very "charming" compared to Beecham's EMI.
I was once the proud owner of a 4 Lp, single-sided 45 rpm set and still, no magic.
Beecham for me. For those who have not heard it, the HDTT tape transfer is best I've heard.
No. Sexism is not about the fact that there are differences between men and women. That is actually embraced by feminists (and most men also I might add).
Sexism is about using those differences to promote or use a double standard and act in a repressive, abusive, derogatory, way against women.
Not the same thing in the slightest as recognizing that there are differences, emotional and physical.
You are so 50's :)
sex after 70 is like trying to play pool with a rope
Concur. This is also the best of the Analogue Productions re-issues of which I have more than a handful. Also noteworthy in the series, the "Pictures", especially the presentation of the Tenor Tuba in Bydlo.
I like your choices (Beecham, Stokowski/LSO, Reiner). But the Stokowski, which was a multi-multi-miked Phase 4 recording, has overload distortion at climaxes, whether you're listening to the Cala reissue or any of the Decca CD remastered versions. It's unfortunate, but there is also the Stokowski/RPO version (same violin soloist) is better sound and a similar performance.
fstein found the soundstage on the Stokowski/RPO murky. Yes. but there is no overload distortion, unlike the Stokowski/LSO version, nor is it as horridly multi-miked (e.g., the clarinet dwarfing the entire string section).
Stokie's 1927 and 1934 recordings with Philadelphia are also quite murky :), but they are amazing performances. You can hear them in mp3 format at the link below, but I think they might also be found on YouTube.
That's amazing to hear about that Living Stereo collection set. There are of course some notable individual titles which exhibit overload distortion (the afore-mentioned Reiner/Scheherazade, the Munch Organ Symphony [at the end], the Stokowski "Rhapsodies" album [I THINK its overload distortion, but there's something wrong in any case, at least on the non-Wagner selections of the SoundMirror SACD I had]. . . But in general, Living Stereo recordings have a deserved reputation as true exemplars of the sonics of "golden age of stereo" recordings. Something must have gone really wrong with that CD collection you describe.
I also want to comment on pbarach's observation about that Stokowski Scheherazade on the Phase4 label. Unlike the Living Stereos, Phase4's were often notorious for distortion (overload and otherwise!), although I do have some of them (mainly the Bernard Herrmann stuff). Yeah, I know HP had a couple of Phase4's on his list, but he was crazy to include them IMHO! ;-)
if you were to sit in front of the system they were going through you would not be amazed, you would be annoyed ... a tweeter system that 'sizzles' north of 10KHZ is not just fatiguing, it's damn near enraging
+ at that point in time, if we were sitting in front of it together you would also feel compelled to hit the bricks
I wasn't very good company at that particular point in my life
some say that's true to this day but I'm comfortable with myself AND the criticism ... and darn near velveteen cuddly now! despite what srdavis imagines my mother's opinion might be ... gawd bless him
I have heard most or all of Living Stereo sets 1 and 2, and frankly I don't hear what you hear. I did NOT find all of the Living Stereo set unlistenable by any means. None of them were multi-miked, as far as I know. Some are on the bright side by today's standards (e.g., some of the Boston Pops recordings, Reiner's Respighi), but none were as egregiously shrill as the remastered Mercury Living Presence CD sets. There is a bit of overload distortion in the Orgab Symphont.
The Munch/BSO recordings all have excellent sound. AMong the best sounding of the Reiner recording in that box are Don Quixote, Mahler 4, Das Lied von der Erde, the Bartok disc, and Ein Heldenleben.
I'm glad your local library patrons will get a chance to hear these recordings.
The second Living Stereo set is more uneven regarding SQ. A number of the chamber music discs are very bass-shy.
. . . you'll hear some overload distortion in some of the louder sections. That's not to say that the Reiner album isn't very fine indeed. My favorite incarnation of it is the Analog Productions SACD (which preserves the original three channels of the master tape, as does the earlier SACD done my SoundMirror).
One of my other favorites is the Classic Records DVD-Audio (also available on plain old CD) of the performance by Pavel Kogan and the Moscow State SO (originally recorded, rather unexpectedly, in Vienna by Scott and Joanna Nikrenz). Kogan does not spare the whip in this performance, and yet, he has a sure instinct for knowing just how far to go while averting disaster. Unfortunately for me, even the DVD-Audio incarnation of this performance is only two-channel.
I like the Fedoseyev performances, the earlier one recorded for JVC at the beginning of the CD era (and later available on various Vox-related incarnations), and the latter one recorded for the Japanese Pony-Canyon company and now (I think) available on an Exton SACD - and I don't know if the SACD was re-mixed for MCh. The incarnation I have is the Canyon CD.
When it comes to surround sound, I was pleasantly surprised by the recording on Pentatone by the Russian National Orchestra, conducted by Carlo Ponti (the son of Sophia Loren!). Some folks are suspicious about this recording, and claim that Ponti must have had connections and had some strings pulled for him. But the proof is in the recording, and I thought it sounded great.
Of all the ones I've mentioned in this post, I'd probably recommend the Kogan recording the most.
I listened to a lot of different CD versions and the one I liked best, music, sound, and--my mania--concertmaster solos(!) was Dutoit/Montréal.
They did not record in the Stalinist poured concrete performance hall, but rather an old church with what I was told was a horsehair-plaster ceiling.
I loved the concertmaster solos (Schwalbé) in the Karajan modern-era one (dunno if there was an earlier), but the rest of it sounded a bit cold and not really engaged to me.
FWIW & YMMV, Arkivmusic's top recommend is Gergiev. They recommend it head-to-head against Reiner, FWIW.
BTW, one of my mentors was Boris Goldovsky. Early in his career, he was Reiner's conducting assistant. If I'd only had the brains (and the nerve) to ask him to record some oral history recollections about being a young man who spent a lot of time at Reiner's side.