|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.246.4.82
In Reply to: RE: Bruckner beckons, but I need some advice... posted by Doktor Brahms on January 04, 2017 at 07:38:29
The classic choice is Jochum. There is a set on Brilliant at a low price
Follow Ups:
Dealing with dynamic range in recordings is a tricky question, and frankly the options are all over the market. In Bruckner, one of the earlier recorded cycles -- Haitink -- is a good choice. As a generalization, the earlier analog recordings will have a somewhat reduced dynamic range when compared to current digital technology.
Regarding the Ninth Symphony: I agree completely with the sentiment that this should be considered only as a four-movement work; that, after all, was Bruckner's stated -- and emphatic -- intent. One has two choices: follow the first three movements with the Te Deum, which was a possibility offered by the composer himself; or, follow the first three movements with one of the reconstructions of the surviving torso of the Finale left behind at Bruckner's death. I prefer the second choice.
There are several excellent recorded performances of the 4-movement Ninth. Very recent and excellent IMO is the new Gerd Schaller/Philharmonie Ebrach recording on Profil. This newest Schaller disc contains Maestro Schaller's own reconstruction of the Finale, and I find it very persuasive and a superb interpretation overall. Note that in his earlier recording, Schaller recorded the completion by William Carragan -- also highly recommendable. For the other "major" reconstruction by the team of Samale, Mazucca, Phillips and Cohrs [SMPC for short, thank God!], I prefer the hard-to-find recording on Camerata by Kurt Eichhorn and the Bruckner Orchestra of Linz, Austria. Excellent in all regards. I do not care for Simon Rattle's venture with the Berlin Philharmonic, while well-played -- as one might expect -- I find it cold and uninvolved. My reaction, and YMMV.
John Proffitt
It just makes more sense that way. Loads of folks have disagreed with me, emphatically.
They are free to "disagree, emphatically" all they want -- just so that they are aware, therefore, they are placing their personal taste above the declared wishes of Bruckner himself. That historical fact can not be ignored.
John Proffitt
. . . (I forget who it was), who strenuously opposed trying to perform the fourth movement of the Ninth Symphony, because, as he claimed, it would be the height of arrogance for someone to try to complete Bruckner's greatest fugue for him! ;-)
I would pose one question to the biographer, or to anyone who takes this position: would you then discard the Mozart Requiem, Puccini's Turandot, Mahler's 10th, Bartok's Viola Concerto, etc. because other hands had the "arrogance" to bring to a reasonably completed form that which the composer was unable to finish due to death? I think not.
John Proffitt
I mean, he was practically holy! A Saint!* Oh! The sacrilege of someone else's completing the last movement of the Ninth!
*Well, except for his preference for 16-year-old girls.
Hah! Very true.
John Proffitt
A follow up comment regarding newer Bruckner symphony boxes: In the stere (2-channel) world I give the highest marks to the Japanese Camerata label and its breathtaking cycle of recordings with the Bruckner Orchestra of Linz, Austria. From a technical standpoint, these are the best engineered and best sounding Bruckner recordings you are likely to hear. Stunning. Interpretation-wise, they range from very good to the very best. Kurt Eichhorn died before he could complete the set -- he conducts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and these are all very fine. IMO, Eichhorn's 5 and 9 are as good as anything you will find anywhere. Utterly magnificent. The Camerata set was completed by Martin Sieghart, who does 1, 3, and 4; and Theodor Guschlbauer, who does the D-Minor of 1869 in a recording that was originated from Austrian Radio. The Guschlbauer is good, but not up to the high technical standards that the Japanese recording team from Camerata gave Eichhorn and Sieghart.
The complete Schaller cycle on Profil is both well-performed and well-recorded by the Bavarian Radio. It is noteworthy that Schaller opts for a number of alternative versions of some of the symphonies and symphony movements. Schaller and Profil have released two "supplementary" albums, the new Symphony 9 performance I mentioned above and a stunning two-disc set of the Mass No. 3 in F-Minor and Psalm 146, along with some seldom-heard pipe organ works of Bruckner.
Looking at high-resolution multi-channel Bruckner, the Blomstedt/Leipzig Gewandhaus cycle on Querstand is, as the Germans say, Spitzenklasse! Head of the Class superb and not one less-than-fine performance in the set, captured in natural, smoothly detailed surround sound. Highest recommendation.
I have not been able to warm to the Jankowski cycle on Pentatone SACD. Sorry -- my problem, but it is what it is.
And I cannot comment, other than to bring to the group's attention, the emerging cycle on SACD from Gramola Records of Vienna, which I am engineering in the Basilica Church of St. Florian under the musical direction of the young French maestro Rémy Ballot. So far we have done 8 and 9, already released, and 6 to come out in the next few weeks. I will be in St Florian this August to record 5 -- a very exciting proposition!
John Proffitt
by Remy Ballot on Gramola Records but not the other ones you mentioned.
Can't wait!
3 was not my recording, but rather an informal "Konzertmitschnitt" that was released by Gramola after the fact. I was engaged the following summer 2014 to record 8 in 5.0 surround and summer 2015 to record 9 -- both of those are out now on Gramola SACD. I recorded 6 in summer 2016, and it is scheduled for release in a few weeks. This coming August we will record 5 and in 2017, Symphony 7. These are the only Bruckner symphony recordings recorded in the Basilika of St Florian and intended from the start as high-res surround sound. A few video productions (Cleveland Orchestra) done in the Basilika have multichannel soundtracks derived from a multi-miced TV production (Video producers hate to se mics in their camera shots, thus the resort to many closely spaced mics for the sound pickup.), but do not sound either realistic or very coherent, IMO. Opinions on this vary, of course. My recordings use just 5 omnidirectional Neumann condenser mics, carefully placed, which feed individually and directly into each of 5 inputs on the digital recorder. No EQ, no signal modification whatsoever.
John Proffitt
I remember seeing the review of the performance of the 8th in Stereophile - congrats, sounds like a marvelous achievement. I plan to check it out.
So you did the recording of the 9th without the 4th movement - was there any discussion about that?
Thanks in advance,
Tom
Regarding the performance and recording of 9: yes, there was discussion but my participation in the discussion came too late to influence that decision. Each summer's schedule is firmed up about 18 - 24 months in advance. Maestro Ballot was receptive after I made some intensive lobbying for this, but the prior arrangements of the Brucknertage Music Festival made such a "change of plans" impossible.
John Proffitt
Chris, you are very kind -- and I appreciate your comment! I will be completely honest and tell you, when the maestro and the orchestra musicians express similar thoughts about the recorded sound, I feel as if I've accomplished something deeply satisfying. For many years I recorded the Houston Symphony for radio broadcast, using rehearsals and (usually) multiple performances to place and adjust three or four spaced omni mics "just right" in what is essentially a mediocre space: Jones Hall. Time and again the musicians would tell me: what I hear on your tape is better than anything in the hall itself. So, that's been my paradigm for quite some time. You actually can hear two examples released commercially on Koch International Classics: Bruckner 2 and Bruckner 6 with Eschenbach conducting.
St. Florian is a similar case, in that the highly reverberant Basilica is a difficult listening space for the audience -- a huge, undifferentiated blur of sound with the orchestra up front. My challenge was to find the sweet spot, where we have orchestral focus and clarity and yet capture the fantastic ambience. Multichannel surround, done with as few mics as possible, seems to do the trick and the response from the musicians, in particular, has been positive. Most annoying of course is the individual -- or reviewer! -- who insists on listening -- and reviewing! -- the stereo layer. Totally not the same as multichannel, obviously....
John Proffitt
At least as I've heard it and understand it. 3 spkrs. in the front, 2 in the back? Or am I misunderstanding the surround you do? Obviously I'm no surround expert and don't have a surround system.
As a musician (jazz) I hear from various places on stage depending on size of band and setup. Never thought of an inside the band spot as superior to what you hear out front.
Sure. The industry standard 5-channel Surround Sound set-up, which is the most common, is as follows:Speaker #1 Left Front
Speaker #2 Right Front
Speaker #3 Center (front)
Speaker #4 Left Surround (rear)
Speaker #5 Right Surround (rear)In the majority of classical music 5 channel surround recordings (usually designated 5.0), the front three speakers reproduce the direct soundstage of the musicians -- orchestra, ensemble, soloists, whatever. The two rear-placed speakers reproduce the natural, reflected hall ambience/reverberation from the concert hall in which the musicians are performing. The combination of this, when done well, reproduces the audio impression of sitting in the concert hall with natural realism.
Some 5.0 recordings of classical repertoire bring some of the performers into the two rear speakers to, in effect, put the listener into (1) the center of the ensemble or (2) in the case of a symphony orchestra, roughly in the same space as the conductor. The second goal is usually what I plan for in my 5.0 recordings, such as the Bruckner symphony recordings in the St Florian church.
I hope this helps! Once you try and hear a good surround system, it is very hard indeed to be satisfied with POS (Plain Old Stereo).
John Proffitt
Edits: 01/06/17
Yeah, using the rear for hall ambience makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.Does Chesky do the kind of surround I was thinking of where the rear 2 channels are actually instruments/vocals rather than just for ambience/decay - thereby providing an illusion of being in the center of the band? I know Dave (played in his band many moons ago) and vaguely remember a rap with him about it.
Edits: 01/06/17
Am not familiar with Chesky jazz surround recordings. But "immersion surround" would not surprise me at all. There are some classical recordings made with the listener in the center of the orchestra. Very "unnatural" but it can be exciting. The Tacet SACD of the Beethoven Ninth puts you "in the middle" and is very enjoyable IMO.
John Proffitt
IIRC that "immersion" style sound was what my rap with Chesky was about. I can't get into that perspective. Too fake. Nobody hears perfect balance when playing in a band, and no audience member sits in the middle of the band.
I like your surround concept, but don't foresee a surround setup in my future. As a geezer with around 2,000 lp's and 7-800 cd's I expect to be a 2 channel guy until I exit.
Nothing wrong with that! Suggest, however, that you visit a friend with a good surround system just to hear how the others do it....
John Proffitt
nt
I have heard some great surround setups. Still prefer 2 channel
Alan
n
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: