 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.162.211.17
How does this SACD sound? Can't seem to find actual opinions on this using the search.
Follow Ups:
I highly recommend Fischer/Budapest Festival Orchestra, (Philips 456 575-2), on CD -- yes, your read that right -- CD .I consider the sound in this case to be equal to my best sounding SACDs, (including, e.g. Fischer's Dvorak Symphonies 8 & 9, Philips 470 617-2).
Bill Bailey
_______________
Truth? Or beauty?
Of course, I do not own the original "shaded dog" releases of the Bartok/Reiner LPs, but much later reissues. I wonder if those audiophiles who tout the general superiority of LPs over digital media are taking into account the poor quality second generation master tapes and/or bad pressings that seem to be common in later reissues. Curiously, I hear the same slight "haze" in the SACD that I hear in my LPs, so maybe the same master tapes were used for the SACD as were used for my reissued LPs. But whatever the advantages of "the analogue sound", my LPs seem to have more background hiss and a slightly compressed dynamic range compared to the SACD.
I have not heard the SACD, but I do know something about the music, and for my money, all performances that do not take into account Georg Solti's manuscript sleuthing as evidenced on his early-1980s digital effort in Chicago are going to come up short musically. He found tempo and performance direction errors in the printed score.But just to prove that there is always someone who willfully wants to be perverse, I saw a recording last year (did not buy it) the Unique Selling Proposition of was that they left off the coda, which was composed and tacked on after the Boston Symphony debut. Like, duuh. Why not allow poor Mr. Bartok to have his final thoughts on the work portrayed?
Later,
JM
Reiner was friends with Bartok for decades, his student, and involved with this piece personally. If Bartok didn't like something about Reiner's conducting of the work, he'd have let him know.This is the definitive performance and recording as far as I'm concerned.
I really doubt your assertions.Here are the facts.
By 1944 Bartok was gravely ill with the cancer that would within the year kill him.
Reiner did have a large part in obtaining the commission for Bartok to write a new work for Koussevitsky's Boston Symphony Orchestra. Bartok rallied and completed the manuscript of the original version within two months.
During these times, Bartok's weight fell to under 90 pounds and he was close to being on life support, or the equivalent of the time. He was __very__ sick.
The Concerto for Orchestra was premiered in early December 1944. The work was repeated within 30 days. Bartok, however, correctly in my view, decided that the work ended too abruptly, and in early 1945 he wrote a coda--the energetic music that comes after the full stop.
Hopes for Bartok's health were dashed as he again got worse.
Bartok died in mid-1945--TEN YEARS before Reiner recorded the work.
Even if Reiner had conducted the work in 1945, I can't see how Bartok could have known whether the tempo markings in the score correctly followed those in the individual parts, or that the performance indications were as he intended. I can't see how Bartok could have heard the results of Reiner's conducting. Most of all, I can't imagine Bartok being able, in his condition, to hear--let's say over a radio broadcast networked by telephone lines, which was how they often did it--and be in good enough shape to make such judgments.
I am open to persuasion if you can prove Reiner conducted the Concerto for Orchestra before Bartok died, and that Bartok heard it, and that Bartok endorsed the results.
But even then, there are still the issues of the conflict in tempo markings between the parts and the score, and the performance directions, which Solti resolved by reference to the original manuscript of the revised version.
Reiner's remains a hearfelt and idiomatic version conducted from a score with errors in it.
Cordially,
John Marks
Thanks for your info.I think you are overweighing the significance of a couple details and missing the big picture. A performance does not have to be perfect to the nth degree to be a great performance. The Reiner release is indeed a great performance. Why not relax, forget about whether the tempo is slightly different than called for in a corrected score, and enjoy it as is?
Hi-I have not ever said anything negative about the Reiner performance, except that it was conducted from a score with errors. I can enjoy it, but I can't disregard that it embodies mistakes, that is, things Bartok did not intend, and had he lived longer might have corrected.
I assume that most conductors would agree that there is a substantial difference between "allegretto" and "allegro," and between a metronome marking of 74 and 94! That is what we are talking about for Mvmt II. But one of course could see how a handwritten 9 might be mistaken for a European 7.
Furthermore, the printed score calls that movement "Game of the pairs" (Giuoco delle coppie) whereas the autograph manuscript says "Presentation of the pairs" (Presentando le coppie). "Game" does not really make sense in terms of what the pairs of instruments do, but "Presentation" nails it, and makes clear that there is to be a sort of promenade or wedding procession, which does end in a mock Lutheran chorale.
Indeed, as the couples recess in reverse order, they are accompanied by additional instruments scurrying around--perhaps "the pitter-patter of little feet," and that would be a very fine Bartokian joke indeed.
Solti said that these textual clarifications made the work "a quite different piece." He also said that he had no doubt that thousands of previous performances, including his own, had been given with Mvmt. II at a wrong, too-slow, speed.
That being said, you can't have everything, and the sound of Solti's 1981(?) digital effort with Chicago is a bit astringent or chilly. I would not call it "definitive," but I certainly would call it necessary to a complete understanding of the work.
Look at it this way: if a conductor had never been told and could not figure out for himself that Mvmt. IV contains a parody of Shostakovich's "Leningrad" Symphony, wouldn't that result in him conducting those notes in a manner Bartok did not intend? I think that it is fair to say that Bartok expected all conductors and most audience members to catch the joke. In the same way, if you conceptualize Mvmt. II as a procession of couples with some almost Disney-esque personification, it moves differently than if it is a "game" like chess.
Cordially,
John Marks
Reminds me of something I just read last night. 'When Brahms was told that his First Symphony showed similarities to Beethoven's Ninth, he replied: "Any fool can see that"'
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
Interesting, thanks for the specifics.I will check out the Solti.
I am not familiar enough with classical music to catch all your references ("a very fine Bartokian joke"?), but I surely enjoyed the story and admire your literary style. Thanks for taking the time.
Regards,
Geoff
Reiner's relationship with Bartok is certainly significant, as are his greatness as a conductor and the greatness of the Chicago Symphony. But as great as his recording of the Concerto for Orchestra is, I've never understood the concept of the "definitive" recording. I've always felt a truly great piece of music can be successfully interprested more than one way. If we only had Reiner's Bartok, Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven Fifth, Heifetz's Sibelius violin concerto, etc., we would be worse off.
I agree with you. When I say "definitive," that does not mean one has to throw away all other recordings of the work.
Well, your post generated a lot of responses, but most were not to the point. I have nearly all the LS reissiues, and on my system the Bartok is one of the best, if not the best. For many I have made the comparison to the original vinyl, but this isn't one of those, so I am going on an absolute sense of how good the sound is. I find it very involving and compelling. In my experience all of the reissues are very good, but many do not come off very well when compared to an original vinyl pressing in good shape played on a first class system. For example, Ein Heldenleben is a por imitation of the original, as is Daphnis et Chloe. In an absolute sense, I find the latter to sound flat and uninvolving, with a tendency toward brightness that is not present on the original. On the other hand, the Chopin Ballads sound better on the SACD than the original. But many people do not have the original vinyl in excellent shape, so the comparion can't be made. We are fortunate to have these reissiues in what is generally excellent sound, though what you think of the performances is a different matter.jsm
find it preferable to the SACD but not by a huge margin. The sound on the LS's I have (SACD) is generally very good but it just doesn't seem to be as good as it could be. The Bartok has a slight "edginess" not on the vinyl e.g.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
and a notch above the XRCD version, which sounds a tad clinical to my ears in my system. Also superior sonically and, IMO, performance-wise to the Boulez on Sony.Note that the Concerto was originally a two-track recording. (The other two compositions on the disc were originally three-track.)
--Jim
You are raising an interesting point here, mentioning the two track versus three track origins.I'll stick my neck out again and state that of all the Living Stereo Sacds I have,(and I have all but two) the two track masters are better than and in some cases CLEARLY better than the three track ones!!!
The most obvious example being the truly fantastic Beethoven Violin Concerto which sounds MUCH better than the Mendelsohn on the same disc!!!
Ironically the Beethoven was recorded in 1955 and the Mendelsohn in 1959,but the Beethoven is so obviously superior as to make the Mendelsohn sound only ok, no more.The Beethoven still stands out as one of the most realistic recordings of a violin concerto ever made, IMO.
The same applies to the Organ symphony (three track ) versus the two track fillers.Again no contest!!! The two track masters are both more open ,clear and realistic!!!
I could go on, but these two examples are enough to prove my point I think!!!
Listen and behold!!! "See with thine ears" as the Bard said!!!
Less is more!!!
(It may not appy to genitals) but certainly does when it comes to recording technology and true HI FI!!!
of at least a couple of the Living Stereo releases (e.g., the Reiner Strauss). The question (raised on this board before) is what RCA was in fact using that third track for...a tantalizing question, given the Mussorgsky SACD's cryptic liner notes, which indicate that the Tchaikovsky "Marche miniature" didn't utilize the third track, perhaps "because the work is scored primarily in the treble register."I listen exclusively in two-channel, though I've improved phantom-center focus (and, with it, soundstage-wide and -deep cohesiveness) using acoustic treatment (a tandem pair of Tube Traps with diffusors facing outward) centered slightly behind the speaker plane. With this arrangement, the original two-track Living Stereos give up nothing in terms of left-right or front-rear flow, delineation, or articulation to the mixed-down three-tracks.
--Jim
.
See the first article!
... separate the strands of the orchestra--the strings sound like a group of individual string players working together; the xrcd strings are more of a massed force. Is this musically meaningful? Not particularly, and not to me."What a borderline asinine statement.
To me that is very important and SIGNIFICANT.Simply proof of more resolution!!!
Thanks. Glad you liked the review!
IMHO, all five the the Living Stereo SACD reissues I bought disappointed me in some way, and each of them in their own way. Not being much of a Bartok fan, I didn't buy that one, and don't intend to.If I were to characterize them overall, it would be to say that it appears to me as if the assignment to do these transfers was handed to the most junior of underlings who didn't bother to consider even their most basic option, that of choosing a proper tape machine.
I hope the second batch of these RCAs turns out OK. Otherwise I'll probably ignore any subsequent releases.
You have your opinion, but your second paragraph is1) Condescending, and
2) Nonsense
But since you consider my truthful opinion -- based on careful examination and comparison with alternative versions, I should add -- condescending and nonsensical, why don't you provide the proof to contradict what you ask of bublitchki?As with so many others that frequent forums, you choose simply to attack without any basis for doing so. My assumption is that, given a handle like yours anyway, that your goal in life is to thread crap and nothing more.
The truth is that you have been bad-mouthing the decision to offer a three-channel stereo layer on both the Mercury and RCA SACDs since long before they had even been transferred. I knew many months ago that you would be highly critical of the SACD releases if for no other reason than that you did not get your way. Your hatred of multi-channel has tainted all your opinions.You made the reckless charge in your post above, in case you have forgotten, that the most junior underling was assigned transfer duties and that not a thought was given to the playback machine. You're going to have to supply evidence of this. It's not for me to prove the falsity of your charge.
Sorry to break the news to you, sgb, but not everyone in professional audio is incompetent, and not everyone who disagrees with your golden ears is inexperienced and careless.
a Multi-channel segment, nor do I have ax to grind with those who prefer them. I choose to remain a two channel listener for a variety of reasons, none of which are germane to your charges.Since I have never even listened the multi-channel data on these, even though I would have the opportunity to do so, my comments were restricted to their stereo-only segments, and my opinions of the RCA releases still stand. Those opinions, BTW, are shared by a number of local audiophiles, all of whom have heard the RCA releases here in Louisiana at several different audiophiles' homes — not just mine.
My comments on the Mercury releases (as few of them as there have been here at AA) have all, quite to the contrary of what you claim, been quite positive. I've even put my 2¢ in on them over at Stephen's site (see link).
Even you cannot support your asinine charge that no thought was given to the playback machine and that junior underlings were in charge.Nice try, though, to switch the argument to whether you personally like the results. That falls into the OPINION category, and you are welcome to whatever OPINION you choose to have.
Regarding choice of a proper tape machine, I wonder how one deals with the notion that a modern machine was chosen because of its superior frequency response. Can it play back any frequencies not part of the original recording? If so, do we want to hear them? ;-)I thought it was already proven that a three-track Ampex 300 was best for the three-track tapes. They seem to be re-writing history over at SoundMirror.
You stated: "I thought it was already proven that a three-track Ampex 300 was best for the three-track tapes."Please supply your "proof."
Maybe when you "speak" to me in a civil tongue I will.And then again, maybe not.
Instead of offering your "proof," now you morph into Miss Manners and criticize the tone of my post. So much for your evidence.
Then stop demanding people jump through your hoops. In other words, GFY.
The Living Stereo SACDs are far from perfect.
But to my ears, on my equipment and on my room they are much better than the XRCD versions.
Two titles come particularly to my mind: The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony (Munch) (XRCD) and the Tchaikovsky 1st Piano Concerto (Cliburn) (XRCD24) are a painful and almost unbearable experience on XRCD while they are listenable and a pleasant aural experience on SACD.
.
I believe the xrcd's would sound best on a system that's on the warm, mellow side--like mine. On a more nearly neutral, or bright-leaning system, they may well have their less desirable traits emphasized: namely their leanness and cleanness.I can tell you that on all tubes (save for the player, which is an SCD-1), they sound damned marvelous.
Try the Mancini "Charade" soundtrack--an absolute KILLER disc. I can't imagine this one not being a knockout on any system.
Mine is an all tube equipment too (VAC pre and power), except for the SCD-1.
I find many XRCDs to be excellent but some are mediocre, even in the XRCD24 incarnation.
I think that we cannot assume that if it is an XRCD then it is excellent. The same can be said about SACDs.
True enough about assumptions regarding formats. Still, my experience with the xrcd24's must be incredibly lucky, because all I've heard are superb. Of course, not all the original tapes are of equal quality (nothing will ever make the Cliburn Tchaikovsky Concerto sound good). But discs like the Kondrashin Kabalevsky/Khatchaturian and the Capriccio Espanol/Italien are really tremendous (two of my favorite recordings anyway). The Stokowski Rhapsodies is excellent too. (Interested to see how that fares in its SACD incarnation.)
Yes, the Saint-Saens is one of the least good of the xrcds (and one of the first). The Cliburn is a mediocre-sounding recording to begin with, and I can't figure out why they keep picking it for these so-called "audiophile" series, other than that the performance was a huge seller--it's certainly not for its sonic qualities.In general, however, I find the xrcd24's to be superb, and the best of the lot.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
