|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.173.45.66
In Reply to: RE: I think it's the other way around, Scott -- posted by rbolaw on June 13, 2016 at 12:38:42
I can't say I have ever been aware of an anti Columbia bias when it comes to performances based on the poor SQ.
OTOH I think I have seen a few examples of the bias in favor of rare records.
Follow Ups:
What I meant by that was, many American classical LP collectors have focused on the early RCA Living Stereo "shaded dog", Mercury Living Presence and London "blue back" labels, rather than on Columbia, when Columbia was arguably the top dog among American classical labels in its day.
Look at all the audiophile reissues for RCA, Mercury and London, and the relatively few for Columbia, for example. That's especially ironic, since I'm told the Columbia master tapes have outstanding sound and would be excellent candidates for audiophile reissue even though the original LPs may not have had the best sound.
Anyway, these things tend to correct themselves over the years.
They are better sounding recordings. There has always been a focus on SQ over performance with many audiophiles. While quantities of audiophile reissues are still not up to the same levels as for RCA, Mercury, and London/Decca they are on the rise. Personally I can't say that Columbia really stands out for me compared to the other three labels you mention when it comes to performance quality. They certainly stand up with them but I can't say they stand out. I find plenty of excellent performances on all four labels.
Of course another bias I often see is old is better than new bias. While there are plenty of excellent performances on all four of those labels there are plenty of newer performances that I like better in many cases. Performances with no cache of the golden ago of audio or the golden age of classical music performances.
for me, and others, there is a extra value in hearing a conductor or soloist who personally knew and worked with Rachmaninoff, Mahler, Strauss, Bartok, Prokofiev, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, etc.
I wouldn't try to argue that those recordings are "better" than newer ones, though.
Not that it makes any difference to me (LOL!), but I appreciate that some listeners are apparently sensitive to it.Anyway, I agree that at least some of those early stereo Columbia recordings (John McClure in charge?) sound excellent - the Bruno Walter recordings especially: Beethoven Sixth, Brahms Fourth (both of which I now have on SACD), Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (with the NYPO) - probably lots more. But I think that Columbia/CBS was also one of the first companies to foist their primitive ideas favoring multi-microphoned engineering on their musicians, especially (as I've mentioned before) in the absolutely wretched recordings produced by Andrew Kazdin, and especially with regard to his undermining of Szell's work in Cleveland.
Edits: 06/15/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: