Discussion:
Holst conducts "The Planets"?
Add Reply
t***@yahoo.com
2008-10-13 01:54:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of Gustav Holst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?

I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?

Roger
Toby Winston
2008-10-13 02:20:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of Gustav Holst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
Roger
I have heard this recording and my answer is no. Boult is generally
authoritative for this piece; however there are also so many
alternatives. You ever hear Yoel Levi on Telarc for example? It has
terrific sound and is an interpretation to die for. I could go on ad
nauseum with this. Holst offers no insights at all, and the sound for
such a multicolored work is extremely substandard, why bother?
g***@gmail.com
2016-09-22 08:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of Gustav Holst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
Roger
I have heard this recording and my answer is no. Boult is generally
authoritative for this piece; however there are also so many
alternatives. You ever hear Yoel Levi on Telarc for example? It has
terrific sound and is an interpretation to die for. I could go on ad
nauseum with this. Holst offers no insights at all, and the sound for
such a multicolored work is extremely substandard, why bother?
According to the following:

- Holst's two recordings of the work are interesting but not satisfying musically. Whether that's because of the primitive conditions under which the recordings were made or Holst's inabilities as a conductor is unknown to me. His performances sound too perfuntory for a work loaded with such brilliant color.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/march99/holst.htm
g***@gmail.com
2016-09-27 09:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Toby Winston
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of Gustav Holst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
Roger
I have heard this recording and my answer is no. Boult is generally
authoritative for this piece; however there are also so many
alternatives. You ever hear Yoel Levi on Telarc for example? It has
terrific sound and is an interpretation to die for. I could go on ad
nauseum with this. Holst offers no insights at all, and the sound for
such a multicolored work is extremely substandard, why bother?
- Holst's two recordings of the work are interesting but not satisfying musically. Whether that's because of the primitive conditions under which the recordings were made or Holst's inabilities as a conductor is unknown to me. His performances sound too perfuntory for a work loaded with such brilliant color.
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/march99/holst.htm
According to this ranking, the 1926 recording is at #5:

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/
Edward A. Cowan
2008-10-13 02:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have the Holst recording of "The Planets" on Koch International
3-7018-2 paired with Vaughan Wiliams' recording of his Sym no.4 in
F-minor. I should suggest that you stop worrying about the 78's and get
the CD instead. --E.A.C.
--
hrabanus
Toby Winston
2008-10-13 03:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Edward A. Cowan
I have the Holst recording of "The Planets" on Koch International
3-7018-2 paired with Vaughan Wiliams' recording of his Sym no.4 in
F-minor. I should suggest that you stop worrying about the 78's and get
the CD instead. --E.A.C.
--
hrabanus
Why get the CD?? I suggest the original poster send me his money
directly to my bank account; at least somebody will benefit from the
transaction. The recording is terrible, the acoustic is also. The
recording is an utter horror to be nice.
t***@yahoo.com
2008-10-15 01:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
I have theHolstrecording of "The Planets" on Koch International
3-7018-2 paired with Vaughan Wiliams' recording of his Sym no.4 in
F-minor. I should suggest that you stop worrying about the 78's and get
the CD instead. --E.A.C.
--
hrabanus
Why get the CD?? I suggest the original poster send me his money
directly to my bank account; at least somebody will benefit from the
transaction. The recording is terrible, the acoustic is also. The
recording is an utter horror to be nice.
I don't do CDs.You ought to know that by now.

Roger
D***@aol.com
2008-10-13 18:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Edward A. Cowan
I have the Holst recording of "The Planets" on Koch International
3-7018-2 paired with Vaughan Wiliams' recording of his Sym no.4 in
F-minor. I should suggest that you stop worrying about the 78's and get
the CD instead. --E.A.C.
--
hrabanus
I agree. Especially because you wouldn't have to deal with the
record speed/pitch problem: both UK and USA Columbia recorded at 80
rpm rather than 78 until about 1927. And even then, the speeds of
British Columbia records could and did fluctuate during sides.

Unless you enjoy dealing with such things, of course, which is
possible.

Don Tait
Kip Williams
2008-10-13 02:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of Gustav Holst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
God knows. Some of those guys are just nuts -- deranged despots in their
little world. A book store I used to go to (generally overpriced) had
some 7" (and maybe 5") kiddie 78s, and no price. I asked his prices, and
he asked which ones I wanted, so I sorted out a pile I might be
interested in for the right price. He gave a price, and I started
sorting the ones I was willing to pay that much for. He exploded at me.
That was his price for them, and I should take it or leave it, and I was
a waste of his time anyway, I guess because I didn't want to pay $10 for
a halfway interesting book with half a cover. My dad was in the store,
visiting from out of town, since I had brought him in to see the place.

I never went back. I hope the bastard has kicked off by now. In poverty
would be too much to hope for.

Kip W
t***@yahoo.com
2008-10-15 02:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of GustavHolst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
God knows. Some of those guys are just nuts -- deranged despots in their
little world. A book store I used to go to (generally overpriced) had
some 7" (and maybe 5") kiddie 78s, and no price. I asked his prices, and
he asked which ones I wanted, so I sorted out a pile I might be
interested in for the right price. He gave a price, and I started
sorting the ones I was willing to pay that much for. He exploded at me.
That was his price for them, and I should take it or leave it, and I was
a waste of his time anyway, I guess because I didn't want to pay $10 for
a halfway interesting book with half a cover. My dad was in the store,
visiting from out of town, since I had brought him in to see the place.
I never went back. I hope the bastard has kicked off by now. In poverty
would be too much to hope for.
Kip W
I can't begin to tell you how many jerks like that I have come
across,which is just one of several dozen reasons I care to stick to
eBay.

Roger
j***@aol.com
2008-10-13 03:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of Gustav Holst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
Roger
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia,
one a late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the
1920s.

The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers
the later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well
prepared. I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the
electrical is the recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else
can correct me, because I can't find my Koch disc at the moment--
probably filed with the coupling.

Your interest in the obsolete 78s is commendable. Without nutty
collectors, nobody would be interested in such stuff. The rest of us
are quite happy to focus on the music itself in the easiest and most
convenient format possible.

--Jeff
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-10-13 05:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.

The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.

I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
Your interest in the obsolete 78s is commendable. Without nutty collectors,
nobody would be interested in such stuff. The rest of us are quite happy to
focus on the music itself in the easiest and most convenient format
possible.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Andrew Rose
2008-10-13 10:23:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
I hadn't heard this one, so downloaded the opening movement from eMusic
- Holst certainly takes it at quite a lick!

What's interesting to me is how this responds to the kind of
high-resolution re-equalisation that the XR process applies, and in this
case I think it's quite revelatory. Bearing in mind the fact that we're
dealing with a recording made using one of the very earliest microphone
recording set-ups it's no surprise that a lot of fine adjustment can
yield some improvement.

Naturally it helps that the source material, despite having been
compressed to MP3 format, was such a good MOT transfer to start with.

I've put together an MP3 (at 320kbps - though bear in mind it's been
lossy-compressed twice by now) of the first 2'50". This has only had EQ
and a little Ambient Stereo applied. I've done no noise reduction, from
which it may well benefit, as I'd really want an uncompressed source
before starting down that road.


http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3


The original recording was was downloaded from here:

http://www.emusic.com/album/London-Symphony-Orchestra-HOLST-Planets-The-VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS-Symphony-MP3-Download/10943782.html
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical

The online home of Classical Music: www.pristineclassical.com
D***@aol.com
2008-10-13 18:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: �the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. �Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.

As I wrote, Holst recorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instances Holst re-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.

Don Tait
J***@msn.com
2008-10-14 01:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.
  As I wrote, Holst recorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instances Holst re-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.
  Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
J***@msn.com
2008-10-14 01:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.
  As I wrote, Holst recorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instances Holst re-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.
  Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agree with Mr Tait; Holst recorded it twice and both versions are
available on cd. I have the Holst electrical 78 set in the basement.
Played on my Thorens with the correct needle it sounds excellent - so
far the transfers I have heard have not done the recording justice -
always too much filtering! Hauser (sorry about the first mistake post)
Toby Winston
2008-10-14 04:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@msn.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.
  As I wrote, Holst recorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instances Holst re-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.
  Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agree with Mr Tait; Holst recorded it twice and both versions are
available on cd.  I have the Holst electrical 78 set in the basement.
Played on my Thorens with the correct needle it sounds excellent - so
far the transfers I have heard have not done the recording justice -
always too much filtering!  Hauser (sorry about the first mistake post)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
and truly crappy both times, unless I was unclear earlier. This
thread should have been dead by now. I must have 200+ better versions
of this piece. I mentioned Levi, nobody knows it?? Some of you must. I
would hope.
j***@aol.com
2008-10-14 05:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
Post by J***@msn.com
Agree with Mr Tait; Holst recorded it twice and both versions are
available on cd. I have the Holst electrical 78 set in the basement.
Played on my Thorens with the correct needle it sounds excellent - so
far the transfers I have heard have not done the recording justice -
always too much filtering! Hauser (sorry about the first mistake post)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
and truly crappy both times, unless I was unclear earlier. This
thread should have been dead by now. I must have 200+ better versions
of this piece. I mentioned Levi, nobody knows it?? Some of you must. I
would hope.
Levi/Atlanta/Telarc is an underrated combination, as always. Well, not
always, but usually--and almost always very rewarding. The Planets was
one of their many fine recordings.

Still, the historical value of Holst conducting Holst is never going
to disappear, so we might as well live with what we have from him.
Listen to it a couple of times out of curiousity.

And if you have 200 version, or only 20 or 40, what's the chance
you're going to listen to any of one them more than a couple times
anyway?

--Jeff
J***@msn.com
2008-10-15 22:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@msn.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn't Holst record this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.
  As I wrote, Holst recorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instances Holst re-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.
  Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agree with Mr Tait; Holst recorded it twice and both versions are
available on cd.  I have the Holst electrical 78 set in the basement.
Played on my Thorens with the correct needle it sounds excellent - so
far the transfers I have heard have not done the recording justice -
always too much filtering!  Hauser (sorry about the first mistake post)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
and truly crappy both times, unless I was  unclear earlier. This
thread should have been dead by now. I must have 200+ better versions
of this piece. I mentioned Levi, nobody knows it?? Some of you must. I
would hope.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Keeping that "knucklehead" award all to yourself, I see! Hauser
D***@aol.com
2008-10-15 17:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Oct 13, 8:31�pm, ***@msn.com wrote:

[snip]
Post by J***@msn.com
Agree with Mr Tait; Holst recorded it twice and both versions are
available on cd. �I have the Holst electrical 78 set in the basement.
Played on my Thorens with the correct needle it sounds excellent - so
far the transfers I have heard have not done the recording justice -
always too much filtering! �Hauser
A tardy reply.

And I agree with Mr. Hauser. As we who collect and work with 78s
know, their sound, when played properly, is almost always superior to
transfers, no matter how well done. (I except some transfers, of
course, including those by Ward Marston and Mark O-T.) Much depends
upon the quality of the pressings available and the equipment used to
reproduce them, but there is very often more clarity of detail,
presence, and instrumental color when the original records are
properly reproduced than there is in transfers.

Holst's recordings of The Planets should not be judged by the CD
transfers that have been available. That's regrettable, but as a
collector who owns and knows excellent copies of the original records,
I can say that it's true.

As can (and does) Mr. Hauser.

Don Tait
Aaron Z Snyder
2008-10-14 05:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice...
It's completely serendipitous that I just more or less finished a
restoration (strictly for my own amusement) of the 1922/23/24 acoustical
version of The Planets, with my usual improvement in bass response, along
with other improvements. There are so darned many little thumps on these
discs that I so far haven't had the patience to remove them all, and
that's why I say "more or less" above.

Having just done this and having tried my own hand on the 1926
electrical, I can at least say something about both performances. The
acoustical Venus is about 50 seconds longer than the electrical one, and
the added relaxed feel is very noticeable. On the other hand, the "big
tune" from Jupiter begins much too quickly on the acoustical recording.
On both recordings, the "big tune" is split over two sides, and, in the
case of the electrical recording, the tempo is consistent from the first
side to the second. In the case of the acoustical recording, the already
too-quick tempo suddenly has the brakes put on it at the end of the side,
with the final note at the end of the side badly distended. When the
second side begins, Holst uses a more moderate tempo similar to that on
the electrical recording. Other than these two major differences, I find
both performances quite similar!

Incidentally, unless I'm hearing things incorrectly, it appears that
several of the cymbal clashes were eliminated from even the electrical
recording (!), as is also the case on the acoustical recording. There
seems to be precious little above 5 kHz on the electrical recording,
whereas the acoustical recording seems to go at least up to 3.5 kHz.

One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.

Aaron Z
Toby Winston
2008-10-14 05:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice...
It's completely serendipitous that I just more or less finished a
restoration (strictly for my own amusement) of the 1922/23/24 acoustical
version of The Planets, with my usual improvement in bass response, along
with other improvements. There are so darned many little thumps on these
discs that I so far haven't had the patience to remove them all, and
that's why I say "more or less" above.
Having just done this and having tried my own hand on the 1926
electrical, I can at least say something about both performances. The
acoustical Venus is about 50 seconds longer than the electrical one, and
the added relaxed feel is very noticeable. On the other hand, the "big
tune" from Jupiter begins much too quickly on the acoustical recording.
On both recordings, the "big tune" is split over two sides, and, in the
case of the electrical recording, the tempo is consistent from the first
side to the second. In the case of the acoustical recording, the already
too-quick tempo suddenly has the brakes put on it at the end of the side,
with the final note at the end of the side badly distended. When the
second side begins, Holst uses a more moderate tempo similar to that on
the electrical recording. Other than these two major differences, I find
both performances quite similar!
Incidentally, unless I'm hearing things incorrectly, it appears that
several of the cymbal clashes were eliminated from even the electrical
recording (!), as is also the case on the acoustical recording. There
seems to be precious little above 5 kHz on the electrical recording,
whereas the acoustical recording seems to go at least up to 3.5 kHz.
One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in  almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.
Aaron Z
I am beating a dead horse here, but Holst's performances are terrible.
Coates is also crap as was Goodman. Maybe Norrington is next on the
list?? Does the worst sound possible get any extra points?
Andrew Rose
2008-10-14 07:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice...
It's completely serendipitous that I just more or less finished a
restoration (strictly for my own amusement) of the 1922/23/24 acoustical
version of The Planets, with my usual improvement in bass response, along
with other improvements. There are so darned many little thumps on these
discs that I so far haven't had the patience to remove them all, and
that's why I say "more or less" above.
Having just done this and having tried my own hand on the 1926
electrical, I can at least say something about both performances. The
acoustical Venus is about 50 seconds longer than the electrical one, and
the added relaxed feel is very noticeable. On the other hand, the "big
tune" from Jupiter begins much too quickly on the acoustical recording.
On both recordings, the "big tune" is split over two sides, and, in the
case of the electrical recording, the tempo is consistent from the first
side to the second. In the case of the acoustical recording, the already
too-quick tempo suddenly has the brakes put on it at the end of the side,
with the final note at the end of the side badly distended. When the
second side begins, Holst uses a more moderate tempo similar to that on
the electrical recording. Other than these two major differences, I find
both performances quite similar!
Incidentally, unless I'm hearing things incorrectly, it appears that
several of the cymbal clashes were eliminated from even the electrical
recording (!), as is also the case on the acoustical recording. There
seems to be precious little above 5 kHz on the electrical recording,
whereas the acoustical recording seems to go at least up to 3.5 kHz.
One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.
Aaron Z
I am beating a dead horse here, but Holst's performances are terrible.
Coates is also crap as was Goodman. Maybe Norrington is next on the
list?? Does the worst sound possible get any extra points?
On the question of sound quality, did you listen to my posting? Nobody's
commented on it...


http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical

The online home of Classical Music: www.pristineclassical.com
Kip Williams
2008-10-14 12:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Rose
On the question of sound quality, did you listen to my posting? Nobody's
commented on it...
http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3
It sounded eminently listenable to me. I didn't feel like any part of
the sound was missing, except for the common fault of most 78s that
blunts the individuality of instruments within the orchestra.

I'm probably outside the mainstream anyway, as I listen to an organ
version of the work (and sometimes the two-piano version) more than I do
to the orchestral version, but as I say, this one felt satisfying to my
ears.

Kip W
Aaron Z Snyder
2008-10-14 15:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Andrew Rose
On the question of sound quality, did you listen to my posting?
Nobody's commented on it...
http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3
It sounded eminently listenable to me. I didn't feel like any part of
the sound was missing, except for the common fault of most 78s that
blunts the individuality of instruments within the orchestra.
I'm probably outside the mainstream anyway, as I listen to an organ
version of the work (and sometimes the two-piano version) more than I
do to the orchestral version, but as I say, this one felt satisfying
to my ears.
Andrew's sample does sound pretty good, within the limits of the source.
Holst was given a small hall to record the electrical Planets, and the dead
acoustics certainly don't help the sound at all. Yet, I would hardly call
the performances "terrible", as Toby Winston says. In particular, the
acoustical Saturn is quite moving, to say the least, especially with
restored bass.

I'd like very much to hear the organ versions sometime, especially Neptune,
which requires two players and a pencil.

Aaron Z
Kip Williams
2008-10-14 16:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
I'd like very much to hear the organ versions sometime, especially Neptune,
which requires two players and a pencil.
The one I'm familiar with is for two players. They don't mention the
pencil, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

That reminds me of Anthony Newman's organ recording of "Ride of the
Valkyries," in which he says he was assisted by several people, one of
whom had to crouch inside the case of the instrument. I'm not clear on
whether he used Lemare's solo version as a starting point, or if he
employed a duet version and went from there.

Kip W
Toby Winston
2008-10-15 02:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Rose
Post by Toby Winston
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice...
It's completely serendipitous that I just more or less finished a
restoration (strictly for my own amusement) of the 1922/23/24 acoustical
version of The Planets, with my usual improvement in bass response, along
with other improvements. There are so darned many little thumps on these
discs that I so far haven't had the patience to remove them all, and
that's why I say "more or less" above.
Having just done this and having tried my own hand on the 1926
electrical, I can at least say something about both performances. The
acoustical Venus is about 50 seconds longer than the electrical one, and
the added relaxed feel is very noticeable. On the other hand, the "big
tune" from Jupiter begins much too quickly on the acoustical recording.
On both recordings, the "big tune" is split over two sides, and, in the
case of the electrical recording, the tempo is consistent from the first
side to the second. In the case of the acoustical recording, the already
too-quick tempo suddenly has the brakes put on it at the end of the side,
with the final note at the end of the side badly distended. When the
second side begins, Holst uses a more moderate tempo similar to that on
the electrical recording. Other than these two major differences, I find
both performances quite similar!
Incidentally, unless I'm hearing things incorrectly, it appears that
several of the cymbal clashes were eliminated from even the electrical
recording (!), as is also the case on the acoustical recording. There
seems to be precious little above 5 kHz on the electrical recording,
whereas the acoustical recording seems to go at least up to 3.5 kHz.
One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in  almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.
Aaron Z
I am beating a dead horse here, but Holst's performances are terrible.
Coates is also crap as was Goodman. Maybe Norrington is next on the
list?? Does the worst sound possible get any extra points?
On the question of sound quality, did you listen to my posting? Nobody's
commented on it...
http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical
The online home of Classical Music:www.pristineclassical.com- HidYoue quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Was it like the last Tocanini thing? You did the best for what you
had. I am thinking of the awful sounding Corialian Overture thing. I
have (of course) have heard this torrtuous Holst does Holst, You
cannot correct such hideous sound quality. Have you or others, for
example, heard Litton; I have heard like more than a dozen of his
interprations of this piece, all mostly good. No body has mentioned
Levi, why? I guess because nobody has heard a benchmark recording of
this piece. Where are the true experts here. They seem to have mostly
dissappeared.

Jeff, for example stands out. the rest here, well what crap our
cultural niche is left with.
Andrew Rose
2008-10-15 09:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
Was it like the last Tocanini thing? You did the best for what you
had. I am thinking of the awful sounding Corialian Overture thing. I
have (of course) have heard this torrtuous Holst does Holst, You
cannot correct such hideous sound quality. Have you or others, for
example, heard Litton; I have heard like more than a dozen of his
interprations of this piece, all mostly good. No body has mentioned
Levi, why? I guess because nobody has heard a benchmark recording of
this piece. Where are the true experts here. They seem to have mostly
dissappeared.
Jeff, for example stands out. the rest here, well what crap our
cultural niche is left with.
I have no answer to that...
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical

The online home of Classical Music: www.pristineclassical.com
j***@aol.com
2008-10-15 16:55:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Rose
Post by Toby Winston
Have you or others, for
example, heard Litton; I have heard like more than a dozen of his
interprations of this piece, all mostly good ....
I have no answer to that...
Well I do...Hooray! My "Litton Fan Club" now has two dues-paying
members!

(As for the redacted part, I humbly acknowledge my bad taste in
historical recordings.)

--Jeff
g***@gmail.com
2020-07-29 05:42:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
Post by Andrew Rose
Post by Toby Winston
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice...
It's completely serendipitous that I just more or less finished a
restoration (strictly for my own amusement) of the 1922/23/24 acoustical
version of The Planets, with my usual improvement in bass response, along
with other improvements. There are so darned many little thumps on these
discs that I so far haven't had the patience to remove them all, and
that's why I say "more or less" above.
Having just done this and having tried my own hand on the 1926
electrical, I can at least say something about both performances. The
acoustical Venus is about 50 seconds longer than the electrical one, and
the added relaxed feel is very noticeable. On the other hand, the "big
tune" from Jupiter begins much too quickly on the acoustical recording.
On both recordings, the "big tune" is split over two sides, and, in the
case of the electrical recording, the tempo is consistent from the first
side to the second. In the case of the acoustical recording, the already
too-quick tempo suddenly has the brakes put on it at the end of the side,
with the final note at the end of the side badly distended. When the
second side begins, Holst uses a more moderate tempo similar to that on
the electrical recording. Other than these two major differences, I find
both performances quite similar!
Incidentally, unless I'm hearing things incorrectly, it appears that
several of the cymbal clashes were eliminated from even the electrical
recording (!), as is also the case on the acoustical recording. There
seems to be precious little above 5 kHz on the electrical recording,
whereas the acoustical recording seems to go at least up to 3.5 kHz.
One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in  almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.
Aaron Z
I am beating a dead horse here, but Holst's performances are terrible.
Coates is also crap as was Goodman. Maybe Norrington is next on the
list?? Does the worst sound possible get any extra points?
On the question of sound quality, did you listen to my posting? Nobody's
commented on it...
http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical
The online home of Classical Music:www.pristineclassical.com- HidYoue quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Was it like the last Tocanini thing? You did the best for what you
had. I am thinking of the awful sounding Corialian Overture thing. I
have (of course) have heard this torrtuous Holst does Holst, You
cannot correct such hideous sound quality. Have you or others, for
example, heard Litton; I have heard like more than a dozen of his
interprations of this piece, all mostly good...
(Recent Youtube upload - live performance):

HOLST The Planets | Singapore Symphony Orchestra conducted by Andrew Litton
drh8h
2020-07-29 22:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Toby Winston
Post by Andrew Rose
Post by Toby Winston
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
  Yes, Holst did record The Planets twice...
It's completely serendipitous that I just more or less finished a
restoration (strictly for my own amusement) of the 1922/23/24 acoustical
version of The Planets, with my usual improvement in bass response, along
with other improvements. There are so darned many little thumps on these
discs that I so far haven't had the patience to remove them all, and
that's why I say "more or less" above.
Having just done this and having tried my own hand on the 1926
electrical, I can at least say something about both performances. The
acoustical Venus is about 50 seconds longer than the electrical one, and
the added relaxed feel is very noticeable. On the other hand, the "big
tune" from Jupiter begins much too quickly on the acoustical recording.
On both recordings, the "big tune" is split over two sides, and, in the
case of the electrical recording, the tempo is consistent from the first
side to the second. In the case of the acoustical recording, the already
too-quick tempo suddenly has the brakes put on it at the end of the side,
with the final note at the end of the side badly distended. When the
second side begins, Holst uses a more moderate tempo similar to that on
the electrical recording. Other than these two major differences, I find
both performances quite similar!
Incidentally, unless I'm hearing things incorrectly, it appears that
several of the cymbal clashes were eliminated from even the electrical
recording (!), as is also the case on the acoustical recording. There
seems to be precious little above 5 kHz on the electrical recording,
whereas the acoustical recording seems to go at least up to 3.5 kHz.
One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in  almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.
Aaron Z
I am beating a dead horse here, but Holst's performances are terrible.
Coates is also crap as was Goodman. Maybe Norrington is next on the
list?? Does the worst sound possible get any extra points?
On the question of sound quality, did you listen to my posting? Nobody's
commented on it...
http://www.pristinestorage.com/PlanetsHolst26excerpt.mp3
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical
The online home of Classical Music:www.pristineclassical.com- HidYoue quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Was it like the last Tocanini thing? You did the best for what you
had. I am thinking of the awful sounding Corialian Overture thing. I
have (of course) have heard this torrtuous Holst does Holst, You
cannot correct such hideous sound quality. Have you or others, for
example, heard Litton; I have heard like more than a dozen of his
interprations of this piece, all mostly good...
HOLST The Planets | Singapore Symphony Orchestra conducted by Andrew Litton
There was a 3-cd set containing every extant Holst led performance of his music, including alternate versions. I cannot find the label or a link. It was on a label not usually associated with "classical" music. The transfers were by Mark Obert-Thorn, who if I remember is never acknowledged. These are his most recent transfers. If someone knows if this is still available, it would be the first choice for anybody curious about the composer's conducting. More available is probably a Naxos Historical by him of Planets and Vaughan Williams 4, quite improved on the Koch versions, in which if I remember, Mark applied artificial reverb to The Planets. His later transfers do not have this, and are better. Curiously, I think the lp debut of the 1926 recording on HMV also suffered from added echo.

DH
vhorowitz
2020-07-29 23:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here it is:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IOAY1VW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And this review gives the details not included with this barebones (but very welcome) release:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Nov14/Holst_recordings_EXM008.htm
drh8h
2020-07-30 00:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by vhorowitz
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IOAY1VW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Nov14/Holst_recordings_EXM008.htm
Thank you for finding this.

DH

j***@aol.com
2008-10-14 05:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
One can't complain that Holst rushed the tempi due to side length, since
in almost all cases there are no sides which exceed 3:30 in duration
(the most notable exception being the acoustical Venus, which has a side
slightly exceeding 4 minutes). The second side of Neptune is only 2:20!.
Frankly I prefer the swift tempi compared to the more common lumbering
tempi of today. Roy Goodman had a period instruments recording of The
Planets on Carlton for a while, and his tempi emulated those of Holst,
with the exception of Neptune, where he takes nearly a minute longer than
Holst to get through it. I think it is one of the best performances I've
heard in decent sound. These quicker tempi are most likely authentic.
The slow ones are just as "authentic"--the music is the same and the
interpretation is true to whatever the conductor wanted on a given
day, which is all Holst ever gave us, either.
Post by Aaron Z Snyder
Albert Coates, who gave the public premiere of The Planets, recorded
Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus in 1926, and Mars, in particular,
seems to leave Holst behind in the dust. It actually isn't that much
faster; it's just that the orchestra couldn't keep up with Coates.
You mean, Coates left Holst's music in the (interstellar) dust, or he
left his orchestra in the dust? :-)

--Jeff
t***@yahoo.com
2008-10-15 02:22:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn'tHolstrecord this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
  Yes,Holstdid record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.
  As I wrote,Holstrecorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instancesHolstre-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.
  Don Tait
Would the US version of the acoustic "complete" recording be on a
"flag" label set?

Roger
D***@aol.com
2008-10-15 17:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:48febb43-0e0f-4bb4-b67a-
Didn'tHolstrecord this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia, one a
late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the 1920s.
The acoustic recording (spread out over a number of sessions in September 22,
August, October, and November 1923, and February 1924), is or was available
on Pearl GEMM CD 9417, coupled with his other acoustical recordings: the two
Songs Without Words, "Beni Mora," and the St. Paul's Suite.
The electrical recording is all from 1926, sessions in June, July, September
and October, and I have it on Naxos Historical 8.111048, where the transfer
was done by Mark Obert-Thorn and the coupling is Vaughan Williams' Symphony
#4, conducted by the composer.
I remember eagerly buying the HMV LP of the 1926 recording when first issued
around 1972, and enjoying the transfer by Anthony C. Griffith, but let's face
it, we've come a long way since then, and MO-T is a far lighter hand with the
frequency filtering. Still, I find the two recordings primarily of
historical rather than exceptionally musical interest, for which latter boons
I'd recommend in preference the fifth, fourth, or first Boult recordings.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers the
later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well prepared.
I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the electrical is the
recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else can correct me, because I
can't find my Koch disc at the moment-- probably filed with the coupling.
I believe you are right, and I think they were also together on an EMI disc.
� Yes,Holstdid record The Planets twice. More than twice, actually,
about which more in a bit. First: in the USA the acoustical recording
was issued as Columbia Masterworks set 29. (A major rarity.) The 1926
electrical remake was issued originally as Masterworks set 83, then
reissued in the 1930s as set 359. In the UK the individual sections
were issued as single discs.
� As I wrote,Holstrecorded some of the sections more than twice.
Ronald Taylor gives the full, almost bewildering details in his
"Columbia Twelve-Inch Records in the United Kingdom
1906-1930" (Symposium Records, 1994). I haven't time to look up every
listing now, but in a number of instancesHolstre-recorded sections
and they were issued individually in the UK. They were issued in the
UK with the same catalogue number, and some were very short-lived on
the market. For acoustical versions and, perhaps, one or more
electrical one(s). Assembling complete sets with every issued take
would be a major collector's challenge.
� Don Tait
Would the US version of the acoustic "complete" recording be on a
"flag" label set?
Roger- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No. Not my copy, at least. They have the later gold-and-blue labels.

Don Tait
t***@yahoo.com
2008-10-15 02:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is anybody aware of a Columbia recording of GustavHolst,himself
conducting "The Planets" ?This probably dates from the 1920s,or early
30s.I had just learned of this particular recording myself.How common
is it?Did Columbia,or EMI keep it around for long?
I think I may have seen one,at a local antique mall.The trouble is,the
guy who has it,is an antique phonograph dealer,who personally sold me
about ninety,of his rarest,choicest classical,and R&B/early rock
78s,in 2005,for $2.00 each,and is still mad at me about it.I saw it in
his section of the store,the other day,but without a price.I didn't
care to hang around long enough to look it over.Is it rare enough to
go back,and pester him over ?
Roger
Didn'tHolstrecord this twice? They were both recorded by Columbia,
one a late acoustic, and the other an early electrical, both from the
1920s.
The comments on the Pearl CD issue of the acoustic recording considers
the later one less successful as a performance--hurried and less well
prepared. I haven't sat down to compare the two. I think the
electrical is the recording that Koch reissued on CD. Somebody else
can correct me, because I can't find my Koch disc at the moment--
probably filed with the coupling.
Your interest in the obsolete 78s is commendable. Without nutty
collectors, nobody would be interested in such stuff. The rest of us
are quite happy to focus on the music itself in the easiest and most
convenient format possible.
--Jeff
Go over to eBay Germany sometime,and take a gander at the prices for
good pre-WWII classical 78s.What do you think those dumb CDs are
mastered from anyway?

As an owner of 100s of postwar R&B 78s,postwar being about 1946-58,I
can say they all sound far superior to both the 45,and the CDs of the
same records.I agree with The Japanese,the electrical 78,and mono Lp
represent the pinnacle of classical recording.

Why on earth would anybody pay MONEY for a download.

Roger
j***@aol.com
2008-10-15 05:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@aol.com
Your interest in the obsolete 78s is commendable. Without nutty
collectors, nobody would be interested in such stuff. The rest of us
are quite happy to focus on the music itself in the easiest and most
convenient format possible.
--Jeff
Go over to eBay Germany sometime,and take a gander at the prices for
good pre-WWII classical 78s.What do you think those dumb CDs are
mastered from anyway?
What do you think engineers are for, anyway? I leave the remastering
to them.

If you're buying 78s in order to lend them to some expert for
remastering onto CD or other digital forms, then you're doing the
world an admirable service.

I leave eBay to people who don't have good local stores or other
dealers to patronize and for whom shopping is a competitive sport.

And, on eBay in particular, the prices, in case you haven't noticed,
have little relation to musical value.

Oh, yeah...the music. That's what this is all about. Forgot about that
part?
Post by t***@yahoo.com
As an owner of 100s of postwar R&B 78s,postwar being about 1946-58,I
can say they all sound far superior to both the 45,and the CDs of the
same records.I agree with The Japanese,the electrical 78,and mono Lp
represent the pinnacle of classical recording.
Why on earth would anybody pay MONEY for a download.
To hear some great music they can't find as easily or listen to as
conveniently some other way?

I don't lump the "Japanese" into one monolithic opinion--I've
encountered Japanese classical fans with all sorts of interests. But
one thing is for sure: the pinnacle of classical recording is whatever
era brings forth your favorite musicians.

Oh yeah...the musicians. Forgot about them already?

--Jeff
Kerrison
2008-10-15 07:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@aol.com
Your interest in the obsolete 78s is commendable. Without nutty
collectors, nobody would be interested in such stuff. The rest of us
are quite happy to focus on the music itself in the easiest and most
convenient format possible.
--Jeff
Go over to eBay Germany sometime,and take a gander at the prices for
good pre-WWII classical 78s.What do you think those dumb CDs are
mastered from anyway?
What do you think engineers are for, anyway? I leave the remastering
to them.
If you're buying 78s in order to lend them to some expert for
remastering onto CD or other digital forms, then you're doing the
world an admirable service.
I leave eBay to people who don't have good local stores or other
dealers to patronize and for whom shopping is a competitive sport.
And, on eBay in particular, the prices, in case you haven't noticed,
have little relation to musical value.
Oh, yeah...the music. That's what this is all about. Forgot about that
part?
Post by t***@yahoo.com
As an owner of 100s of postwar R&B 78s,postwar being about 1946-58,I
can say they all sound far superior to both the 45,and the CDs of the
same records.I agree with The Japanese,the electrical 78,and mono Lp
represent the pinnacle of classical recording.
Why on earth would anybody pay MONEY for a download.
To hear some great music they can't find as easily or listen to as
conveniently some other way?
I don't lump the "Japanese" into one monolithic opinion--I've
encountered Japanese classical fans with all sorts of interests. But
one thing is for sure: the pinnacle of classical recording is whatever
era brings forth your favorite musicians.
Oh yeah...the musicians. Forgot about them already?
--Jeff
Anyone up for down-loading (or down for up-loading) the first non-UK
recording of The Planets (well, the first four of them, anyway)? From
Victor Set M 929: Mars, Venus, Mercury, and Jupiter, recorded 1942
with the Toronto Symphony under Sir Ernest MacMillan (also isued on
Camden LP CAL 204 as the Dominion Symphony Orchestra).
Loading...