|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.226.222.125
In Reply to: RE: I'm not as sanguine about Solti - but I don't think it was all his fault posted by Chris from Lafayette on May 17, 2017 at 19:26:56
Reiner had the benefit of Orchestra Hall before the renovation. That it was a superb recording venue is borne out by the many fine recordings Dr. Reiner was able to make there. Before Reiner, Mercury made a couple of great recordings with the CSO under Rafael Kubelik.
By the time Solti came to town, Orchestra Hall was no longer such a great place to record. I don't know who or how the decision was made but it was decided that Medinah Temple would be the new recording home of the CSO. Some of the recordings made there are really not so bad even if they are not in the same class as the Reiner/Orchestra Hall ones. I'm thinking of the Brahms symphonies from the late 1970's which coincided with the end of the analog recording era. No doubt the Decca team benefited from almost a decade of experience there when those recordings were made. Consider too that the handful of recordings the CSO and Solti made in the Great Hall at the Krannert Center at the University of Illinois were generally well received as to recorded sound. The Beethoven 9th and Mahler 7th among others were recorded there.
I think too that Solti's recordings suffered from the industry's conversion to digital recording techniques. Decca as well as other labels seemed to have a hard time adjusting to the new technology, and perhaps Decca struggled more than most. Those Decca CD's from the 1980's are pretty harsh and unlistenable.
Follow Ups:
It's funny about what Decca was doing in Chicago during the Solti era. I haven't heard the Brahms set you mention, but I used to have the Solti/CSO and Maazel/Cleveland recordings of La Mer (both recorded by Decca), and the Maazel recording seemed far more natural than the Solti (better performance too - at least IMHO!). Heck, I'd even claim that many (although certainly not all) of the Decca Mehta/LAPO recordings from that era were better engineered than those with Solti and the CSO. In addition, during this same era, EMI made a number of recordings with Giulini and the CSO, and IMHO they got a far more natural sound than Decca was getting at that time for Solti. (OTOH, the Giulini/CSO recordings on DG were to my ears comparable to the Deccas in the audibility of the multi-miking.)
I suppose a lot of this is just personal perception, but I do think that we agree that Solti suffered somewhat from the engineering he received, especially during his earlier years in Chicago.
IMO Decca's best audio work in the US. For ex.: Mahler 3, Planets, Ein Heldenleben.
Certainly this is a recording that's under the radar for a lot folks, but I like it too!
As for the Planets, I like the engineering on that one somewhat less well (the 30 microphones always do me in!), although I seem to have acquired enough incarnations of it over the years! ;-)
This is one of a nicer Decca/London Solti/CSO recording @ Medinah Temple in 1979. ( I assume this is still analogue recording )Colin Moorfoot, Kenneth Wilkinson Michael Mailes are listed as engineers.
Natural and large soundstage. Warm midrange with powerful dynamics. Excellent low end reach and transient. Strings retain textures. Low self noise and above average low level details. Performance wise, this is a Wagnerian Brahms. :)
Solti's later digital Decca recordings are pretty painful to my ears.
2, 3 and 4 aren't bad by any means, just not superb, like his First.
Opus 33 1/3
It's essential to remember that Decca is a company, not a recording engineer. Even within a company, especially a very large company, engineers and producers vary widely in their recording approaches and goals, not to forget the acoustics of the space.
:)
Still, I think Solti could have been better served in Chicago.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: