Koussevitsky for beginners

[m***@gmail.com]

This isn't quite the question that gets asked nearly monthly in these
parts about Furtwangler, which, while formulating the request for basic
guidance also shows a desire to come to terms with the contemporary cult
and overall importance of a name that is wedded to the history of music.
But here I am listening to a quite fine disk of Koussevitsky doing
Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann on Pearl, wondering why there are no
passionate voices here for his craft. Where there is regular talk of
Mengelberg, Ormandy, Toscanini, and even such drifters as Monteux (OK, San
Fran, but you get my point) and Horenstein, the man who made Boston stands
in the shadow of Munch and Leinsdorf in terms of local relevance.
A few seem to take the merit of his recordings for granted but don't say a
whole lot more (too busy complaining about Barbirolli, at least one of
them). But there's precious little other words- I think I see talk of
Kabasta and Stock more.
So, can I request a remedy? Favorites, please. And M.O-T., please feel
free to take this as an opportunity to plug your own disks without the
appearance of conflict of interest.
I would also be interested in opinions about Koussevitsky and his place
among his contemporaries.

According to Haggin:

- Two Koussevitzky-Boston Symphony performances that were not only examples of dazzling orchestral virtuosity but admirable statements of the music were those of Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony...And Prokofiev's Classical Symphony...

https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=fdad11a6475d35fa&hl=en&q=%22two+Koussevitzky-Boston+Symphony+performances+that+were+not+only+examples+of+dazzling+orchestral+virtuosity+but+admirable+statements++of+the+music+were+those+of+Mendelssohn's+Italian+Symphony%22&tbm=bks

[Sol L. Siegel]

Harold in Italy.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

[Bob Harper]

Post by Sol L. Siegel
Harold in Italy.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

The Foote Suite for String Orchestra. A minor piece, you say? Perhaps,
but not when K and those Boston strings play it!

Bob Harper

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Sibelius 2 and 5, and a fabulous live 1 (if you can find it).

[FrankB]

He certainly managed to skillfully excise from his Bruckner 8th
performance of Dec. 30, 1947, a very profound and monumental motif from
the first movement. He certainly could ould read the score... but did he
understand Bruckner? I am sure there are those of you who have heard the
recording I refer to.

I guess you refer to the Bruckner Eighth published by AS CD.
That rec. contains some very debatable cuts but K. had to keep the thing
under an hour, for broadcasting policy reasons...
Besides the cuts and the idiosyncracies, that is a tremendously exciting
performance -- I know it's "wrong" but I enjoy it immensely.
regards,
SG

That "reason" is a myth, Samir. Koussevitzky performed the Bruckner Eighth on several non-broadcast concerts, in Boston and New York, and critics made note of his cuts. What he performs is notably intense, but the cuts sprang from his own convictions.

[Frank Berger]

Post by FrankB

He certainly managed to skillfully excise from his Bruckner 8th
performance of Dec. 30, 1947, a very profound and monumental motif from
the first movement. He certainly could ould read the score... but did he
understand Bruckner? I am sure there are those of you who have heard the
recording I refer to.

I guess you refer to the Bruckner Eighth published by AS CD.
That rec. contains some very debatable cuts but K. had to keep the thing
under an hour, for broadcasting policy reasons...
Besides the cuts and the idiosyncracies, that is a tremendously exciting
performance -- I know it's "wrong" but I enjoy it immensely.
regards,
SG

That "reason" is a myth, Samir. Koussevitzky performed the Bruckner Eighth on several non-broadcast concerts, in Boston and New York, and critics made note of his cuts. What he performs is notably intense, but the cuts sprang from his own convictions.

Are you aware you responded to a 14 year old post?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by FrankB

He certainly managed to skillfully excise from his Bruckner 8th
performance of Dec. 30, 1947, a very profound and monumental motif from
the first movement. He certainly could ould read the score... but did he
understand Bruckner? I am sure there are those of you who have heard the
recording I refer to.

I guess you refer to the Bruckner Eighth published by AS CD.
That rec. contains some very debatable cuts but K. had to keep the thing
under an hour, for broadcasting policy reasons...
Besides the cuts and the idiosyncracies, that is a tremendously exciting
performance -- I know it's "wrong" but I enjoy it immensely.
regards,
SG

That "reason" is a myth, Samir. Koussevitzky performed the Bruckner Eighth on several non-broadcast concerts, in Boston and New York, and critics made note of his cuts. What he performs is notably intense, but the cuts sprang from his own convictions.

Are you aware you responded to a 14 year old post?

One of the features of the new Google groups is that you can revive old discussions which old Google groups prevented you from doing after a couple months of inactivity.

[Gerard]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by FrankB

He certainly managed to skillfully excise from his Bruckner 8th
performance of Dec. 30, 1947, a very profound and monumental motif from
the first movement. He certainly could ould read the score... but did he
understand Bruckner? I am sure there are those of you who have heard the
recording I refer to.

I guess you refer to the Bruckner Eighth published by AS CD.
That rec. contains some very debatable cuts but K. had to keep the thing
under an hour, for broadcasting policy reasons...
Besides the cuts and the idiosyncracies, that is a tremendously exciting
performance -- I know it's "wrong" but I enjoy it immensely.
regards,
SG

That "reason" is a myth, Samir. Koussevitzky performed the Bruckner
Eighth on several non-broadcast concerts, in Boston and New York, and
critics made note of his cuts. What he performs is notably intense, but
the cuts sprang from his own convictions.

Are you aware you responded to a 14 year old post?

One of the features of the new Google groups is that you can revive old
discussions which old Google groups prevented you from doing after a couple
months of inactivity.

==================

Do you realize that answering that old posts does not make much sense when
the former or original poster does not participate here since years?

[Willem Orange]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Berger

On Wednesday, April 28, 1999 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, samir ghiocel golescu

He certainly managed to skillfully excise from his Bruckner 8th
performance of Dec. 30, 1947, a very profound and monumental motif
from
the first movement. He certainly could ould read the score... but did
he
understand Bruckner? I am sure there are those of you who have heard
the
recording I refer to.

I guess you refer to the Bruckner Eighth published by AS CD.
That rec. contains some very debatable cuts but K. had to keep the
thing
under an hour, for broadcasting policy reasons...
Besides the cuts and the idiosyncracies, that is a tremendously
exciting
performance -- I know it's "wrong" but I enjoy it immensely.
regards,
SG

That "reason" is a myth, Samir. Koussevitzky performed the Bruckner
Eighth on several non-broadcast concerts, in Boston and New York, and
critics made note of his cuts. What he performs is notably intense, but
the cuts sprang from his own convictions.

Are you aware you responded to a 14 year old post?

One of the features of the new Google groups is that you can revive old
discussions which old Google groups prevented you from doing after a couple
months of inactivity.
==================
Do you realize that answering that old posts does not make much sense when
the former or original poster does not participate here since years?

Do you realize that others currently here may be interested in the posting even though the original poster is not here - or is that beyond the realm of your comprehension????

[Herman]

Post by Gerard
Do you realize that answering that old posts does not make much sense when
the former or original poster does not participate here since years?

particularly if you're responding to a 14 year old post with an even older book quote.

[O]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by FrankB

He certainly managed to skillfully excise from his Bruckner 8th
performance of Dec. 30, 1947, a very profound and monumental motif from
the first movement. He certainly could ould read the score... but did he
understand Bruckner? I am sure there are those of you who have heard the
recording I refer to.

I guess you refer to the Bruckner Eighth published by AS CD.
That rec. contains some very debatable cuts but K. had to keep the thing
under an hour, for broadcasting policy reasons...
Besides the cuts and the idiosyncracies, that is a tremendously exciting
performance -- I know it's "wrong" but I enjoy it immensely.
regards,
SG

That "reason" is a myth, Samir. Koussevitzky performed the Bruckner Eighth
on several non-broadcast concerts, in Boston and New York, and critics made
note of his cuts. What he performs is notably intense, but the cuts sprang
from his own convictions.

Are you aware you responded to a 14 year old post?

I would like to point out once again, that I am firmly against the move
to split rec.music.classical into rec.music.classical.recordings,
rec.music.opera, etc.

-Owen

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by O

Post by Frank Berger
Are you aware you responded to a 14 year old post?

I would like to point out once again, that I am firmly against the move
to split rec.music.classical into rec.music.classical.recordings,
rec.music.opera, etc.

Er, rec.music.opera was created afresh, not spun off of this group. I was
one of those who voted it into existence, and many times I have come to
regret part in that decision.

[Mike]

This isn't quite the question that gets asked nearly monthly in these
parts about Furtwangler, which, while formulating the request for basic
guidance also shows a desire to come to terms with the contemporary cult
and overall importance of a name that is wedded to the history of music.
But here I am listening to a quite fine disk of Koussevitsky doing
Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann on Pearl, wondering why there are no
passionate voices here for his craft. Where there is regular talk of
Mengelberg, Ormandy, Toscanini, and even such drifters as Monteux (OK, San
Fran, but you get my point) and Horenstein, the man who made Boston stands
in the shadow of Munch and Leinsdorf in terms of local relevance.
A few seem to take the merit of his recordings for granted but don't say a
whole lot more (too busy complaining about Barbirolli, at least one of
them). But there's precious little other words- I think I see talk of
Kabasta and Stock more.
So, can I request a remedy? Favorites, please. And M.O-T., please feel
free to take this as an opportunity to plug your own disks without the
appearance of conflict of interest.
I would also be interested in opinions about Koussevitsky and his place
among his contemporaries.
Thanks,
Mchael Weston

I got hooked on SK in law school when I discovered his terrific Harold in Italy recording with Primrose.

There's a new West Hill Radio Archives 2-CD set (WHRA-6049)that warrants more than the brief but very favorable mention it got in a recent Fanfare. It contains two 1942 concerts with the New York Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra including a terrific Shostakovich 5th, and the following, which I haven't listened to yet: Corelli-Pinelli: Suite for String Orch; Ravel: Daphnes & Chloe Suite #2; Debussy: La Mer; and Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5. The sound (at least on the Shostakovich) is amazingly good considering the age of the original recordings.

[wanwan]

Post by Mike

This isn't quite the question that gets asked nearly monthly in these
parts about Furtwangler, which, while formulating the request for basic
guidance also shows a desire to come to terms with the contemporary cult
and overall importance of a name that is wedded to the history of music.
But here I am listening to a quite fine disk of Koussevitsky doing
Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann on Pearl, wondering why there are no
passionate voices here for his craft. Where there is regular talk of
Mengelberg, Ormandy, Toscanini, and even such drifters as Monteux (OK, San
Fran, but you get my point) and Horenstein, the man who made Boston stands
in the shadow of Munch and Leinsdorf in terms of local relevance.
A few seem to take the merit of his recordings for granted but don't say a
whole lot more (too busy complaining about Barbirolli, at least one of
them). But there's precious little other words- I think I see talk of
Kabasta and Stock more.
So, can I request a remedy? Favorites, please. And M.O-T., please feel
free to take this as an opportunity to plug your own disks without the
appearance of conflict of interest.
I would also be interested in opinions about Koussevitsky and his place
among his contemporaries.
Thanks,
Mchael Weston

I got hooked on SK in law school when I discovered his terrific Harold in Italy recording with Primrose.
There's a new West Hill Radio Archives 2-CD set (WHRA-6049)that warrants more than the brief but very favorable mention it got in a recent Fanfare. It contains two 1942 concerts with the New York Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra including a terrific Shostakovich 5th, and the following, which I haven't listened to yet: Corelli-Pinelli: Suite for String Orch; Ravel: Daphnes & Chloe Suite #2; Debussy: La Mer; and Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5. The sound (at least on the Shostakovich) is amazingly good considering the age of the original recordings.

Is the new West Hill set from 41-42 season or the 42-43 season? Is the orchestra personnel from the Barbirolli era like Labate, Jaenicke, and Piastro?
-----------
Eric

[m***@gmail.com]

Are there any outstanding Youtube items?

[Kerrison]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Are there any outstanding Youtube items?

You could try the "accidental stereo" Tchaikovsky 'Pathetique' second movement from 1930. Those with long memories will recall that in the 1980s, some Californian collectors found that the issued Takes 1 and 1A of certain 78rpm discs provided a "binaural" effect when synchronised together. They said that although 78s were usually made in pairs, the second being a safety-back up to the first, occasionally each turntable had its own mike, rather than both being fed by the same one. They successfully synchronised pairs of 78s by Stokowski, Goossens and Elgar, with this Koussevitsky recording providing one such "binaural" example. So click the link and have a listen ...

http://youtu.be/64wCmG8XK8s

[William Sommerwerck]

"Kerrison" wrote in message news:56c4f0fe-a357-42fa-83e2-***@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, August 19, 2013 7:10:19 AM UTC+1, ***@gmail.com wrote:

http://youtu.be/64wCmG8XK8s

"The sound just opens up!"

Sure beats mono.

[William Sommerwerck]

One of the reasons this "recovery" is possible is that you are hearing
spaced-mic stereo, which depends primarily on arrival-time differences. Even
if the sync is off by a few milliseconds, no harm is done.

[William Sommerwerck]

The Stokowski Mendellsohn is... Well, you have to hear it. This is the pre-War
"Fantasia" Stokowski. Great sound and a smashing performance.

[Steve de Mena]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Are there any outstanding Youtube items?

You could try the "accidental stereo" Tchaikovsky 'Pathetique' second movement from 1930. Those with long memories will recall that in the 1980s, some Californian collectors found that the issued Takes 1 and 1A of certain 78rpm discs provided a "binaural" effect when synchronized together.

I think "binaural" were when small microphones were placed on a dummy
head where a person's ears would be, and intended to be listened to on
headphones. This just sounds like stereo to me.

Steve

[Kerrison]

Post by Steve de Mena

You could try the "accidental stereo" Tchaikovsky 'Pathetique' second movement from 1930. Those with long memories will recall that in the 1980s, some Californian collectors found that the issued Takes 1 and 1A of certain 78rpm discs provided a "binaural" effect when synchronized together.

I think "binaural" were when small microphones were placed on a dummy
head where a person's ears would be, and intended to be listened to on
headphones. This just sounds like stereo to me.
Steve

Here are some more examples of the "accidental stereo" 78s that these two Californians put together.

Goossens conducting Massenet in 1929 ...

Stokowski conducting The Rite of Spring, also 1929 ...

Elgar conducting Cockaigne in 1933, strikingly "stereo" after 2 minutes of Boult in mono ...

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Kerrison
Elgar conducting Cockaigne in 1933, strikingly "stereo" after 2 minutes
of Boult in mono ...
http://youtu.be/rI0RLMc-NGU

The Elgar stereo excerpt was issued on Naxos, I believe.

[William Sommerwerck]

I think "binaural" was when small microphones were placed on
a dummy head where a person's ears would be, and intended to
be listened to on headphones. This just sounds like stereo to me.

If you look at ads up to about 1958, when the stereo LP was introduced, stereo
recordings were often called "binaural".

[Steve de Mena]

Post by William Sommerwerck

I think "binaural" was when small microphones were placed on
a dummy head where a person's ears would be, and intended to
be listened to on headphones. This just sounds like stereo to me.

If you look at ads up to about 1958, when the stereo LP was
introduced, stereo recordings were often called "binaural".

Maybe, but this is 2013.

Steve

[gggg gggg]

This isn't quite the question that gets asked nearly monthly in these
parts about Furtwangler, which, while formulating the request for basic
guidance also shows a desire to come to terms with the contemporary cult
and overall importance of a name that is wedded to the history of music.
But here I am listening to a quite fine disk of Koussevitsky doing
Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann on Pearl, wondering why there are no
passionate voices here for his craft. Where there is regular talk of
Mengelberg, Ormandy, Toscanini, and even such drifters as Monteux (OK, San
Fran, but you get my point) and Horenstein, the man who made Boston stands
in the shadow of Munch and Leinsdorf in terms of local relevance.
A few seem to take the merit of his recordings for granted but don't say a
whole lot more (too busy complaining about Barbirolli, at least one of
them). But there's precious little other words- I think I see talk of
Kabasta and Stock more.
So, can I request a remedy? Favorites, please. And M.O-T., please feel
free to take this as an opportunity to plug your own disks without the
appearance of conflict of interest.
I would also be interested in opinions about Koussevitsky and his place
among his contemporaries.
Thanks,
Mchael Weston

According to this:

- Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5. Serge Koussevitzky, Boston Symphony (EMI; with other works conducted by Koussevitzky). There are good modern recordings of the Fifth—Mravinsky and the Leningrad Philharmonic is a great one—but nothing that has the special fervor of this vintage Boston Symphony performance from 1944 (sound is no better than O.K.). At that point, the B.S.O. really was the greatest orchestra in the world. Every section sings, even the trombones. Like Furtwängler, Koussevitzky takes liberties—slowing before climactic moments, for instance—that no one would get away with now. Such liberties are a matter of taste; there’s no hard-and-fast rule about them. Either they fit the music or they don’t. These fit.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/ten-perfect-orchestral-recordings