[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
75.18.228.82
I recently completed listening to the Saint Saens Symphony No. 3 (Organ) performed by the Orchestre Metropolitain du Grand Montreal with Nezet-Seguin conducting and Philippe Belanger on the organ. I usually don’t bother posting comments about music I don’t recommend. It takes far more effort than writing about something that moves me. But the Saint Saens is a favorite of mine and I also believe that it is an important draw for classical music repertoire generally and for the SACD format, so I decided to say something. The many virtues of this recording and performance notwithstanding that I found this disc to be a huge disappointment. The disc does include a coupling of surprise nuggets for organ devotees.
Actually, I found the performance, per se, to be pretty good. I found the interpretation to be more to my liking, overall, than Eschenbach’s with the Philadelphia Orchestra (see link below) that I enjoy very much albeit with some heedful caveats. I listened to both discs consecutively.
From an interpretive standpoint I didn’t find that much to chose between the two in Sections 1 and 4 that I will mention here. But in Sections 2 (Poco adagio) and 3 (Allegro moderato-Presto) the interpretations are worlds apart with Nezet-Seguin really nailing it, at least compared to Eschenbach in both. For example, in the 2nd Section Nezet-Seguin draws out the inner beauty of the music in a French Impressionistic way. It seems penetratingly insightful and nurturing in a way that Eschenbach accomplished, but to a lesser degree. With Nezet-Seguin you go away thinking, “I didn’t realize Saint Saens had so much to say”. And all along the organ is muscular but restrained as if to be signaling “just wait until 4th Section when I bust through these shackles”. In recent weeks I have come to realize that Eschenbach really drags out this Section, almost a full minute longer than practically any other performance I own and loses a bit in the translation, (but not fatally so).
But I found the Achilles hill of Eschenbach to be the 3rd Section and I have never really gotten past that, try as I might. Eschenbach takes a “Casey Jones at the throttle” approach and scurries through the section. While Nezet-Seguin doesn’t make any new discoveries (oh listen to me, what do I know), he does the 3rd Section “correctly” and satisfyingly, in my book.
So far it looks like Nezet-Seguin is ahead on points, far ahead. It’s his game to lose. All he has to do is hit the “gimme” shot. Well, he threw up (no pun intended) a soft brick. The “king of instruments” fell completely flat.
With every version of the Saint Saens that I own and especially since I heard it live I have always had this undefined but always heightened anticipation of the 4th Section where I literally brace myself for one of the truly great finale’s in all of orchestral music. But this time the anticipation was completely unfulfilled; the 4th Section fizzled from the first chord of the organ and never recovered. The power was short-circuited; there was no sense of room barometric change, real or imagined. Nothin’. This is a real double bogey because if you don’t get the organ right in the Organ Symphony you take a double hit for both performance and sound.
Plain and simple the organ wimped out. It is extremely weak; not just a “little weak”, it is pitiably weak. This is unpardonable. It really doesn’t matter to me why it wimped out because for me the performance failed the litmus test that calls for the “king of instruments”, in this Section, in this symphony, to assert itself in a most dominant and triumphant way; almost unfettered but still a team player within the context of the symphony.
But I will take a couple of guesses. Perhaps Nezet-Seguin directed the organist, Philippe Bélanger, to “pipe down” and erred on the conservative side in an attempt to achieve the optimum balance with the orchestra. This, of course, is a legitimate concern that must be addressed anytime the organ is performed in concert, especially at speed, with any other instruments or voices. Or this was an unfortunate engineering misjudgment brought about for the same concerns of balance. Or the results achieved were exactly what the conductor and engineers hoped for. Notice, I am not laying blame with the organist, even though this is, too, possible, but unlikely, in my opinion, for several key reasons, one of these being how Philippe Belanger acquits himself with the filler compositions on this disc. See below.
One can argue that this is a “symphony” and not a “concerto” and that in the confines of a symphony the organ is just another instrument to be given equal treatment. Well, I doubt if anyone familiar with the symphony would make that argument and if they did, I would point out that that is what the 2nd section accomplishes. But in this recording, in the 4th section the organist is “just one of the boys”. There is no excuse that where you least expect it the cellos are actually more audible.
Then, what was, initially, out of a fleeting curiosity, I decided to pull out my Telarc Ormandy/Philly LP from 1980. While my, new turntable/phono stage/cartridge set up is not quite ready for prime time, it has been coming along quite nicely so I said what the heck. (And this is why my comments continue on and don’t stop here). I initially planned to play excerpts, but that is even tougher to do with LP than with my SACD player (and fraught with danger). Besides I began to get intrigued the more I listened. Don’t get overly excited vinyl lovers; my intrigue was more for the performance than for the sound, although there is no denying that the sound was quite nice indeed.
I’ll just say that the Ormandy interpretation/performance is my favorite among the three versions. Ormandy, while not at all conservative or super careful, in my opinion, doesn’t make any of the blunders or near blunders anywhere along the line that pull down Eschenbach and Nezet-Seguin and all the while with great sound and musicianship. Eschenbach and Nezet-Seguin also have great and very good musicianship respectively, although the Orchestre Metropolitain du Grand Montreal seemed to be a wee bit stilted in places.
I found the recording engineering of the Eshenbach/Philadephia to be near top tier in many aspects, especially considering the organ/orchestra balance issues. The depth of the front to rear depth orchestra is especially noteworthy with Eshenbach/Philadephia, superior to the 1980 Telarc, but not superior to Telarc’s modern efforts. The Nezet-Seguin/Orchestre Metropolitain du Grand Montreal recording is good, but not great. It clearly does not compare to the other two in front to back depth and layering of orchestral groupings.
With regard to recording accuracy, I found the 4th Section of the Telarc to be a double-edged sword. The organ is more like what I remember a powerful organ to sound like, but the orchestral slam, especially the percussion and trombones, have a garish intrusion, that is far more pronounced that I am used to live. The low end of the Telarc is downright wicked. And even though it comes across as undefined and even if the dynamics may be closer to “real” it is still a poor facsimile because it is out of proportion. (I have expressed on several occasions, and it is widely known, that Telarc’s bass was often far out of proportion to the rest of the orchestra on many of its recordings during this era). And while my current system is far better equipped to deal with these resounding blows than my systems of yesteryears, the low end, particularly in the last minute/seconds of the finale, still tends to disfigure the music Hip Hop style on mine and every other system on which I have heard it. (The LP or the CD has been test disc staples of mine when auditioning systems over the years). But truth be told, I’m no purist and sometimes you throw accuracy out of the window in favor of frantic excitement. That’s what the Telarc LP (and CD) offers in spades.
On the Nezet-Seguin/Orchestre Metropolitain du Grand Montreal disc there are three superbly performed organ solos that are not even listed on the front cover show Belanger is not the wimp that one might otherwise conclude based on how the organ is portrayed in the Saint Saens. The three compositions, that include Louis Vierne, Charles-Marie Widor, and one other composer show without question, that if his wings are not clipped Belanger is quite capable of pulling all the stops while artistically keeping the instrument under securely firm reign. Unfortunately, his virtuosity with these compositions that are also wonderfully is not nearly enough to salvage this disc, whoese fortunes were firmly hitched to the Saint Saens Organ Symphony.
Robert C. Lang
A few years ago I found a site on the web that had a comparision of many recorded performances of this work in great detail. There may have been as many as 20 different performances. Unfortunately I can't find the URL right now, but someone may have it. I recall the Ormandy performance was one of the ones given a good review, but it was not at the top. Of course the more recent ones wouldn't be included, but it was an interesting read.
Anyone have the URL?
Joe
I remember reading a post on this topic on the Music Forum here a couple of years ago. I just found it (below) after a search.
Russell
I see it wasn't quite as many recordings as I thought. The reviewer puts a lot of emphasis on the degree to which the performance is true to the "French idiom." I think I have some vague idea what that means in contrast to a more Germanic or Italian approach. Whether one agrees with him or not, it is an interesting read. In fact, his highly recommended- Prêtre, Martinon and Paray- are among my favorites for this piece that I enjoy listening to from time to time, but is not one of my favorites.
Joe
I heard the inaugural concert of the new organ at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA in 1982. Virgil Fox helped with the design of the organ, but he died before its completion. For the premiere the church brought in Pierre Cochereau from Paris to play the organ in the Saint-Saens Third with his son conducting. The organ is huge with 5(!) 32-foot stops and 13,000+ pipes, probably more by now.
When the full organ opened the final movement, the sound was so incredibly loud that I thought the glass panes of the cathedral were going to shake loose and rain down on our heads. The orchestra was completely drowned out. The church gave a series of organ concerts with big names from the US and Europe for a few years, until tax problems with the IRS stopped the concerts. I never heard another performance that equaled that first experience. During intermission a demonstration of the organ was given. The lowest note of a 32-foot stop (16Hz) was played solo. The sound could be felt more than heard. I could feel the vibrations coming up through the seat bottom and the armrests. I started to get slightly nauseous, like a prelude to an earthquake.
The second part of the program was Ted Alan Worth playing the organ part of Joseph Jongen's Symphonie Concertante. I must admit it was a more satisfactory performance, as the organ and orchestra were always properly balanced, yet the organ still powerfully supported the music. Is there a SACD performance of the Jongen work? There is an old performance by Virgil Fox on a Capitol LP.
As to recorded performances of the Saint-Saens, I am partial to the Munch on SACD. The recording has held up remarkably well over the years. I also like the Marcel Dupre with Paul Paray on Mercury with its natural balance. I was disappointed with the early Telarc and also with the Nezet-Seguin, as well as Christian Schmitt with Johannes Wildner on a Audite SACD. I haven't heard the many other versions.
The Los Angeles Philharmonic recently did the Saint-Saens Third in the new Disney Hall with the new organ. I tried to get tickets, but the seats were sold out. Maybe there will be a recording.
Very nice review, Robert! I have the Nezet-Seguin disc and remember being let down a little by it at the end. It's really too bad, as it's quite good in other respects.
BTW, you do know that the Telarc Ormandy performance has been released on SACD, right? It's one of their 'Soundstream' reissues and sounds pretty impressive.
Best,
Russell
Yes, I am aware that the Ormandy/Philly has been reissued on SACD. I decided to pass on it after I bought a couple of the other Soundstream releases and was disappointed to find out that no effort was made to "fix" the over modulated bass that I believe afflicted those releases from that era. For example, the Maazel Tchaikovsky 4th has too much slam throughout. And I *love* slam, but not when it is out of proportion to that degree. At the time that artificial slam was a draw for me but as I gained more experience attending the symphony I found that that slam "au natural" is still quite thrilling and demanding of system resources. Telarc, too, learned or adjusted, and toned things down, but without having to forfeit the best and most consistent bass reproduction in the business.
Robert C. Lang
There was no low frequency EQ (or any EQ for that matter) employed on the Telarc Soundstream sessions, nor in subsequent years of Telarc classical sessions. In remastering the Soundstream sessions for SACD, certainly no EQ would have been used at that point either. The amount of low-end or "slam" was present at the original sessions. It was common practice at other classical labels in those days to tame down the natural dynamics and frequency response of an orchestra recording to accommodate the limits of analog tape and to fit the program on LP. Bob Woods and Jack Renner wanted to remove those artificially imposed limits on the music performances and recordings. The Soundstream digital system made it possible to do so. No artificial enhancement of the "slam" or low end response was needed and no extra microphones were placed near bass drum or timpani, etc.. Three mics across the front of the orchestra and that was it. One thing that I suspect did happen back then was that the musicians were enjoying the new-found "slam," too. We did have to restrain some overly-enthusiastic percussionists from over-doing it at times and still do ocassionally. The Telarc "slam" got a lot of attention for a very small independent label at a time that the music business (and Hi-Fi business) was languishing. The "slam" also enabled a lot of great music-making since. Those recordings hold up very well today as played on systems that have lots of dynamic power and depth. We've had lots of opportunities to revisit the original session masters and no one would think to change a thing on them.
Best Regards,Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
1) For sake of clarity, I never suggested (or even thought) that there was Low end EQ.
2) I initially said in the lead post:
***even if the dynamics may be closer to “real” it is still a poor facsimile because it is out of proportion. (I have expressed on several occasions, and it is widely known, that Telarc’s bass was often far out of proportion to the rest of the orchestra on many of its recordings during this era).*****
That is, during the era (early digital) a lot of record labels were trying to “show off” the new technology with resounding blows of the percussion, much as many audiophiles turn up their new subwoofers……at first. And no one could show off better than Telarc. As you mentioned Telarc got a lot of attention for its bass prowess. The dynamics and loudness of the percussion and other bass instruments may have been recorded closer to real, but perhaps, at the expense of the rest of the orchestra, where less than the needed attention was given to detail of making it, too, as realistic as the percussion. Two of the biggest offenders I found were the Grieg “Peer Gynt Suite” disc and the Maazel/Cleveland Tchaikovsky No 4.
Note that I have, I bet, 95% of the Telarc classical discs recorded during this era. I enjoyed them immensely, and frequently used them for showing off my systems and for auditioning. I still enjoy them, especially as my systems were better able to cope. It’s just that as I started attending more live acoustic events that I learned that in the real world, while the bass drum can be indeed powerful (more powerful than any recording, Telarc or otherwise, I have heard) there is still a sense of proportion (well, most of the time) that was lacking in some of these early digital Telarc recordings.
3) The “problem” of out of proportion bass, rarely exists any more in Telarc recordings, in my opinion, at least no more than for other labels. (Sometimes it will be done on “purpose”, such as with the SACD 1812 Overture”, in which, cannon fire aside, the bass was, too me, out of proportion, but still enjoyable, nonetheless). And it (out of proportion bass) went away rather quickly.
Clearly the decision for a recording change, whether it was mic techniques, toning down testy percussionist, etc., came from the top. Also, Telarc (for the last quarter century) has provided more “balance” between bass and the rest of the orchestra. Perhaps, just as it has been long understood that the organ and orchestra can not be treated equally from a miking stand point then, too, perhaps Telarc has better implemented percussion/orchestra balance. In spite of these changes or perhaps because of them, Telarc, for me, is the standard bearer for authentic low end reproduction.
Robert C. Lang
"It was common practice at other classical labels in those days to tame down the natural dynamics and frequency response of an orchestra recording to accommodate the limits of analog tape and to fit the program on LP"
Do not really know or understand how difficult it is to capture these low frequency high dynamic signals on analog tape, but on the consumer end the Telarc LP's, when they first showed up, REALLY taxed cartridges to their absolute limit, in fact we tried many high end cartridges back in those early days of digitally mastered LP's and most produced considerable distortion, related to mistracking, with Telarc LP's.
Not a criticism of Telarc LP's, to me this clearly demonstrates the inherent limitations of analog playback source when dealing with non-compressed classical orchestral recordings.
Vahe
with 3 microphones suspended from the ceiling and quite a ways back.
If memory serves me well Jack Renner (Telarc engineer) explained in an interview to TAS this accomplished three things it gave a smoother sound especially to strings, increased ambiance and allows bass frequencies (which are very long) to be both deep and have huge impact without the use of any equalization! There was over a page of text explaining how closely mic’ed bass instruments diminished bass response, some of it of course over my head. But maybe someone who has or remembers the interview could fill in the details.
But if the bass of these un-EQ'ed Telarc soundstream releases sounds out of proportion, does the bass on your system sound out of proportion with Reference Recordings LPs as well? Pomp and Pipes for one has even deeper and stronger bass than any of the Telarc Soundstreams except for the cannon shots on Telarcs 1812 Overture? If so could your speakers be too close to the rear walls? Most manufactures recommend 1 1/2 to 2 feet from the rear walls.
With the exception of a little subduing of the high end which may be caused by distance microphone technique coupled with 50kHz sampling my Telarc LPs and Soundstream SACDs have very realistic sonics with superb deep bass response. My 4-ohm Infinity Reference Kappa 7's have 12-inch woofers fed 325 watts by my Adcom GFA-555II Power Amp's so I can reproduce quite powerful bass! Which I really miss on recordings that are bass shy.
"Music is love"
Teresa
******, does the bass on your system sound out of proportion with
Reference Recordings LPs as well? Pomp and Pipes for one has even
deeper
and stronger bass than any of the Telarc Soundstreams except for the
cannon
shots on Telarcs 1812 Overture? If so could your speakers be too close
to
the rear walls? Most manufactures recommend 1 1/2 to 2 feet from the
rear
walls.**********
I should give some clarifications that may address your questions.
The bass heavy issues I experienced on the Telarcs from this era were heard on *any* “full range” system I have auditioned over the years.
1) It is important to note that the problem only happen on Telarc recordings made between about 1979 (dawn of the digital recording age) and about 1983 (I going from memory).
2) Jdaniel can confirm but I think we played a selection or two from “Pomp and Pipes” when he was over. I don’t recall a problem with the bass. Remember “deep” is not the problem. “Proportion” and as Jdaniel pointed out, master tape “distortion”, in the case of Telarc’s “Organ Symphony” are the culprit.
3) It’s been nearly a quarter of a century since Telarc made a recording that I purchased that have this problem. The problem disappeared very quickly during the 80’s. After initially being applauded for their prodigious bass Telarc began getting criticism in the press for having too much of a good thing. For sure, I have not experienced this problem on any of the couple of dozen (at least) Telarc/HeadsUP SACDs that I currently own. The bass is both deeply extended *and* realistic, the consistently best in the business as far as I’m concerned. I have plenty of space in my listening room that is well suited for deep bass and the speakers are set up, to the inch, precisely as called for by the manufacturer. See Inmate Systems for a placement description
****My 4-ohm Infinity Reference Kappa 7's have 12-inch woofers
fed
325 watts by my Adcom GFA-555II Power Amp's so I can reproduce quite
powerful bass!**
4) The deep bass problem I am referring does not manifests itself completely until substantially below the 37 hz –3 (if memory serves me correctly) roll off of the Kappa 7s. In the case of the “Organ Symphony” the problem is more like at 22 Hz full output, certainly below 25 Hz.
Also, a friend of mine has some Kappa Reference speakers (8s I think) that are about 14 years old. His woofers need refoaming. Have you dealt with this issue? What do you recommend?
Robert C. Lang
It is true the -3dB point on the Kappa 7's is 37Hz, they are supposed to have useful bass down to 25Hz according to a review at the time they came out. So I may not reproducing the problem areas of the early Telarc's since I’m sure there is nothing below 25Hz.
From what I understand Telarc started moving the microphones closer in as D/A converters started to improve. Could it be the distant microphoning that produced too much level in the ultra-low frequencies?
The foam on my woofers still looks and sounds new. My Kappa 7's are 15 years and 2 months old.
One thing I love about sealed acoustic suspension enclosures is their woofers near total lack of distortion. Most speakers made nowadays are bass reflex and I can hear tons of distortion putting my ear right on either the woofer or reflex duct. However with my Infinity woofers there is no audible distortion with my ears right up against the woofer.
Once I do hear distortion could it indicate that I need to replace the foam surrounds?
I have listened to many, many speakers in the last 15 years and the only ones I like better than Infinity are the larger Magnaplaners.
"Music is love"
Teresa
I can't speak to whether distant microphoning produced too much level in the ultra-low frequencies?
I have never owned a ported design so I can’t speak to the distortion levels but I understand that sealed systems do provide more abundant bass than a comparably rated ported system. That’s because a ported system’s bass falls off like a rock while a sealed system bass rolls off much more slowly. So, while a ported system rated to down –3db at, say, 40Hz truly has almost no meaningful bass below that point a sealed system bass response rated at 40 Hz –3db will roll off gently and produce a meaningful response for another 1/3 of an octave or so.
Of course, that same ported speaker can be designed significantly smaller and more efficient because of the port, that some say can make audible noises in some speakers. This is probably the main reason why there has been a proliferation of ported designs and a commensurate decline in sealed designs.
Regarding the foam surround, the low humidity in the Reno area may ensure a longer life for the surround. Don’t necessarily expect a gradual deterioration in the way the surround looks. One day things can look fine and the next day you see cracks and holes. There may be a deterioration in sound quality but it is unlikely that you will notice it because of the gradual nature of it. Once the surround is replaced you will quickly notice the improved bass definition
Robert C. Lang
"Music is love"
Teresa
bits of foam will break off.There will be holes in the surrounds. My four woofers in my I981 Infinity Reference Standard II's all had to be replaced in 1997. I was told by refoamer, Simply speakers Clearwater Fl.new foam would last longer (BTW they did outstanding job as evidenced by solid bass sounds which my Marantz SA11 produces. For more om my wonderful infinitys:
http://www.infinity-classicsy/models/Reference-series-1+b-2-10+A+B-1981-86/in
dex-Reference.htm
sorry for confusion
About a week ago, Nezet-Seguin was the guest host on the CBC morning programme "Music and Company". He played the final movement and gave a brief description as to how it was recorded. As I recall, he said that this was one of the few recordings where the organ and orchestra actually played together; usually they were recorded separately and then combined. He said that the symphony had been recorded in a great space that was not usually used for recordings because he wanted to ensure that all the dynamics of the performance would be captured. There is no question that he was very happy with the final movement and the recording of the symphony in general.
I was listening to this in my very good car radio. CBC has very good bandwith and this was a stunning performance on my car radio. I have the SACD RCA version, with which I am very pleased, and two others, but I thought that this was a super final movement. But I would have to listen to it again over my main system, as a SCAD, before I made a final judgment.
Again I tried to make it clear that Nezet-Seguin's overall "interpretation" is very good, in my opinion. It is that I personally place much weight on the 4th Section (least on the 3rd) and the execution with the weak organ did not cut mustard, severly spoiling the entire effort for me.
By the way, I don't believe Nezet-Seguin's recording is one of the few "where the organ and orchestra actually played together". I randomly pulled a half a dozen Organ Symphony recordings of the shelf and from what I can determine all of them were recorded with the organ and orchestra together. In fact, the liner notes generally went the extra step to explain the different from normal orchestra configurations that were employed to counteract the different pitch, timbre, and dynamics presented by the organ. Although one of the liner notes (Louis Fremaux with the City of Birmingham on Klavier label) generally mentioned, "controlled recording environment" even though the implication was that the forces were recorded together.
To be sure, I do have at least one recording, done on DG (with Dan Barenboim/Chicago Symphony I think), in which a big deal was made of the new technology to bring together the two forces, organ and symphony, that were recorded separately.
I'm pretty certain that the three performances that I compared in my comments were done "au natural”. And for sure out of the probably dozen Organ Symphonies I own the Nezet-Seguin is by far the weakest with respect to "execution" of the 4th Section.
Robert C. Lang
on Klavier 180 Gram LP and love it so much, this will be my one and only organ symphony. BTW all the Klavier 180 Gram LPs are superb!
"Music is love"
Teresa
Interesting comments. I still haven't heard the Eschenbach yet, but if there were any mov't I could live with being ruined, it would be the third. I believe that Mr. Renner of Telarc was not happy with the final chord as well--distorted on master tape. A sleeper performance of the Saint Saens for me is DeWaart with the Rotterdam on Philips, both lp and it's on SACD as well. OT, but what turntable did you end up with? I finally picked up a copy of the Shaw/Telarc Carmina Burana you have; it has one fatal problem: no gong/weak gong in the first and final sections. I still have fond memories of listening to your system. I'm sorry I looked so surprised when you opened the door to greet me: having approached your grand, palatial house atop a hill, I couldn't believe you were...
...so young. : ) I expected an old man rolling around in an electric wheelchair with a blanket on his lap. With the addition of a turntable it's now perfect, ha ha.
"You did seem visibly and hopelessly perplexed when I opened the door, and not because "you couldn't believe that I was so young", which I don't deny. That's OK; I get that all the time."
That actually *was* the reason. I was using "triple irony." When I lived in Davis and managed the Classical section of a little store called "CD Research," all of my listening buddies were old, retired professors at Death's Door with fabulous houses. Two in wheel chairs, one blind but still perky. He was some way famous geneticist back in the day.
I paid $50 for the Telarc at Mikrokosmos.com, (you gotta act fast for the popular titles), and sold at on Ebay for $100-something.
Thank you for your compliments on my system. Also, I, too, benefited from your visit (as I have from other Asylum Inmates who have paid me a visit). After you left I did some tweaking based on comments you made (perhaps unwittingly) and you also provided valuable input into my quest for a turntable.
Also, I *just* noticed, when you referred to the DeWaart Saint Saens as a "sleeper" performance that good right? Initially, I thought you meant boring (still thinking of the Nezet-Seguin).
Robert C. Lang
the Rotterdam (Pentatone) is better than the SF. Performance and sound. Not my favorite but a good and vigorous one.
Speaking of Edo de Waart have you heard his Also sprach Zarathustra with the Radio Philharmonic on Exton? What do you think?
Also, when you say "better than SF" what San Francisco disc or you referring to?
Robert C. Lang
De Waart recorded the Saint-Saens with the SFS and Jean Guillou as organist for Philips, and it was briefly available on CD. (I like this performance a lot, too--better than the Rotterdam one.) It was done at the same time (April 1984) as the Telarc Jongen CD (and solo Michael Murray CD) to mark the installation of the new Ruffati organ at Davies.
Russell
Jean Guillou was the featured organist again in SS No. 3, this time on Dorian label with Mata/Dallas Symphony recorded in their brand new orchestra hall, the sound of this CD is superb if you can tolerate Mata's slow tempos which is not easy after hearing Munch on RCA, to me the benchmark performance.
Vahe
I have Edo de Waart with the San Francisco Symphony on CD. I think I bought it more than 15 years ago and it's still one of my favourites.
You did seem visibly and hopelessly perplexed when I opened the door, and not because "you couldn't believe that I was so young", which I don't deny. That's OK; I get that all the time. Besides, my wife liked you when you seemingly took her side with your question "how is it that you have allowed him (me) to take over the living room (with my audio set up)" or something to that effect.
I'm glad to hear that you said that Renner acknowledged that the Telarc Organ Symphony, especially the final chords (but elsewhere too) was distorted. Now I know it's just not me.
How much did you pay for your Shaw/Telarc Carmina Burana LP?
What turntable did I settle on? I have updated Inmate Systems. I also posted lasted night in the Vinyl Asylum with a question. Perhaps you can help out.
Robert C. Lang
you opinions of the RCA recording would be valuable? I like it very much. but I'm not a music critic nor accomplished in music . but it still sounds very powerful and very enjoyable
Yes, and I will listen to it again soon. The Munch is amazingly well done even by today’s standards and *especially* compared the XRCD version. The RCA is rich and powerful. And the interpretation may be the best that I have. After I listen again I will makes offer comments.
Robert C. Lang
Back in the 1950's, when I was growing up in Boston, we lived about 10 minutes walk from Symphony Hall, and I had the good fortune to attend several concerts of the BSO with Charles Munch.
E. Powers Biggs was the resident organist then, and I heard him play the newly-installed Aeolian-Skinner organ in Saint-Saens Symphony No.3. Even to my youthful, untrained ears, it was a powerful performance. To this day, I remember walking home in a daze.
As you probably know, the Symphony Hall acoustics are legendary, considered to be among the best in the world. They are captured in all their glory by the RCA Living Stereo recording of Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony by Charles Munch and the BSO with Berg Zamkochian at the organ. I had the superb vinyl LP version for many years and later the 1993 redbook CD. This was and still is an outstanding recording both for Munch's impeccable interpretation and the spectacular sonics.
Since I've only had a universal player for a few months, I have not yet acquired very many SACDs. However, on my modded Marantz CDP, the Munch version still sounds great, and I would be interested in your review of the SACD.
I also have several other redbook CDs of Saint-Saens Organ Symphony, including the 1981 Peter Huford recording with Charles Dutoit and the Montreal Symphony, the 1980 Michael Murray version with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra and the 1961 E.Powers Biggs recording with Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. To my aging ears, all three are excellent both for sound and interpretation.
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions as to which SACD version you would recommend.
Thanks,
Barney
and easily bests the XRCD, which I thought sounded better than the Living Stereo RBCD. I've also owned this recording in several other guises, including the original RBCD, the original LP (non-'Shaded Dog' pressing), and the ".5" half-speed mastered LP reissue. (I guess you could say that I really like this performance!) The SACD beats 'em all, IMO. If I remember the liner notes correctly (I don't have the disc immediately at hand) the SACD was mastered from the original 3-track tapes, which were newly discovered. (All previous issues were made from second (or more) generation mixdowns, evidently.) This would account for the wonderfully fresh and alive sound on the SACD.
Russell
Hi BarneyT,
My abbreviated response to jygesq immediately above was regarding the Munch/Boston/Zamkochian (organ). Actually, I am happy that jygesq brought it up because I had not listened to it in a while. In fact, the last time I listened to it was after the announcement that Zamkochian had died three or four years ago.
This afternoon I had a brief opportunity to listen to the 4th Section/finale. And man it is indeed powerful and indeed well recorded and indeed well performed. No excuses needed for its 48th anniversary with respect to recording. I am very excited to discover this again and hope to listen to it in its entirety in the next few days.
Robert C. Lang
The more I think about it, I like what I like, whether others agree or not should not mattter. Many of the RCA living Stereo SACD are wonderful:
Pictures at Exhibition,New World Sym., Saint Sains org, Smyphony Fantastique,for the money and availabilty though amazon, these where truly
great on CD, but so much better on SACD!!
the Munch SACD version. I will definitely purchase it.
Since I am presently archiving a large bookcase full of CDs in WAV format on to my PC external hard drive, I am somewhat hesitant about purchasing SACDs unless the redbook layer is an improvement over the original version I already have. From what you said, the redbook layer of the Munch SACD is a remastered version of a recently discovered 3 channel recording.
Although I already have about 10 carefully selected SACDs of Van Cliburn, Julia Fischer, Antal Dorati, etc. that I listen to on my universal DVD/CD player, I am more frequently using my PC as my primary music source. It's not only much easier to catalog and access my recordings, but also, with specialized software and a USB DAC, can provide virtually error-free and better sounding playback than even my modded Marantz CDP.
Unfortunately, I cannot rip the SACD layer to my PC, since there is no DVD/CDR drive or software presently capable of playing/ripping the DRM encoded signal on a PC. As a result I am being very selective in purchasing SACDs.
Again, sincerest thanks for your response.
Barney
I believe the RBCD layer of the Munch SACD is derived from the DSD layer (as opposed to the Mercury SACDs, where the RBCD layer is the original CD mastering), so you should hear most of the benefits. Enjoy!
Russell
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]