Mystery Orchestra

[M forever]

Well, they do indeed generally make very good and natural and undoctored recordings - but they do make them for good equipment. Not to listen to in the SUV.

Orchestre de la Suisse Romande. That explains why I had so much trouble with that. I have not heard any recent recordings of them, nor seen them live, and never in German repertoire. Explains the ensemble problems, though. From when is this recording and who's conducting?

Oui, Orchestre de la Suisse Romande. That may explain why it mystified so many people (I will explain below why I chose it, not for that reason, though).

But it does not "explain ensemble problems". It's not a bad orchestra at all. There aren't any serious ensemble problems here. Yes, the first trumpet entry could be a tiny little bit better and tune, and you are correct, there is an out of tune horn moment in "Hinterwäldler", although I think it's not the first, but one of the other horns which play the chromatic "Durchgang" (whatever that is called in English). I am not entirely sure either how much it really is out of tune or how much Inbal (yes, it is Eliahu Inbal) just brings out that second clash that most other conductors drown out.
And maybe a few other minor blemishes, but no "ensemble problems". Quite the contrary. But these are just tiny nitpicks. I can hear stuff like that on any given recording, on most recordings, live or studio, and much more than that on a lot of recordings, including by "top" orchestras.

The reason I chose it was because I discovered this little series of recordings with the OSR and Inbal which I had not known about. I generally appreciate Inbal's work, and I wanted to hear this orchestra in that repertoire, especially because I have a really very good live Mahler 3 with them already.

Honestly, I think it's totally awesome. Apparently that opinion is not shared by too many here, though.

I was immediately fascinated by the sound quality of the beginning pedal note. It has a deep, slightly snarly and very dark texture and you can just hear the basses tremolo stirring in the dark. On many recordings, I hear a low rumbling. Here, I "see" night. If you can't hear all that, then you have equipment problems.
Then the first trumpet entry - it could have been a little better in tune, but at least they come in really soft and without plop. This is a horribly difficult moment, and there are extremely few recordings which get that really right, and many which get ittotally wrong. I love the sound of the trumpets, too. A little slender, but luminous and with depth of tone and a gilded quality to it. Obviously piston trumpets, but sounding as "authentic" as few manage to do.
The three entries are also very nicely dynamically tiered, and the last one sounds just magnificent - not blaring trumpets drawing attention to themselves with how loud they can play, but a brigh beam of sonic light.
I also love the way Eliahu illuminates the chord structures of the tutti entries, how he microcontrols the dynamics of individual sections to shed changing lights on the crescendo chords, how he briefly lets the trombones "light up" in the lst tutti entry, like someone turning a reflecting object in his hands.
I think the final chord of the introduction sounds a little compressed, and the organ could indeed be a bit more "majestic". Or should it? But apparently Denon chose to record things here as they sounded in the hall, without "dramatizing" them sonically, and the way Inbal treats the organ here made me get a new idea of why Strauss chose to hold it over for a few moments. That is an interesting, somewhat puzzling idea. Maybe he wanted to achieve not a "majestic organ", but a kind of "composed reverb" effect here, to suggest a larger sonic space, a little cathedral like? If so, then the way Inbal treats it here is just "right" - if not the most "spacy" way.

I like the fine stranded and highly articulated string playing in the following "Hinterwäldler" section, and the way he opens textures and brings out inner structures in the following sections. The section beginning areound 5'45 has a sense of calm and at the same time tension which I sense rarely when I listen to this far-too-often-heard piece. A lot of interpreters just want to go on to the next "spectacular" section, not build tension. The passage around 6'30 also brings out a rarely heard effect, how you seem to have two sepearate time layers going on at the same time, with the calm motion suddenly invaded by the rising fixtures in the lower strings (here played with great impact and tone, and excellent articulation), and you can hear for a few moments how the first tempo layer gets slowly "sucked in" by the other layer.

Then great textural clarity in the following "Leidenschaften" section with careful highlighting of vital harmonic points. Inbal obviously has really studied the score. There is pleanty of fine detail and silky string strands in "Grablied", too, which reminded me how "new" this must have sounded when it was first heard. And it goes on and on like that. Plenty of detail and at the same time carefully layered textures. What I find most fascinating about the whole interpretation is Inbal's long-line control, the way he builds and keeps tension and moves fluently between the sections.

This is actually one of my favorite AsZ recordings now.

But apparently, the majority here do not agree with me, so I guess this will not be voted the favorite recording.

Let me know what you think about my observations. And, how much did I hear and how much did I "want" to hear? After all, I did not test blindly. Although I really had no "expectations" at all except that I know and value some of Inbal (actually very many) other recordings, and a certain curiosity about how the OSR would play this.


But which are the other Mystery Orchestras? Actually, although there are 5 clips left, there are only 3 more: in alphabetical order, Berliner Philharmoniker, Chicago Symphony, Philharmonia Orchestra. Yes, two of them appear twice. But which ones? And which clips are which orchestras?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Honestly, I think it's totally awesome. Apparently that opinion is not shared by too many here, though.

Yes, I had my say earlier. I rather liked it.


Well, from your list of remaining orchestras:


Clip 2:

Originally I had chosen American w/ the NYP. I'll stick with American and go with the CSO.

Clip 3:

Originally had no clue. Now CSO.

Bonus clip 3:

Originally Concertgebouw. Now BPO.

Bonus clip 4:

Originally LSO/LPO. Now Philharmonia.

Bonus clip 5:

Originally no clue. Now Philharmonia.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Oui, Orchestre de la Suisse Romande.

Ah, well, I missed that one, but I did at least choose central European...but by way of the VPO or BPO, though.

[MishaK]

Well, they do indeed generally make very good and natural and undoctored recordings - but they do make them for good equipment. Not to listen to in the SUV.

They do sound natural, I agree, but just a bit too far away. I'd like to feel like I'm in a good seat in the hall, not somewhere in the back.

But it does not "explain ensemble problems". It's not a bad orchestra at all. There aren't any serious ensemble problems here.

All true. Obviously we are nitpicking here. But the OSR does exhibit certain, shall we say, differences of opinion amongst its players here and there, more so in older recordings. I have a Symphonie fantastique with Ansermet that is quite inspired, but you can tell that the orchestra is being pushed beyond its limits. I'm a little more easiliy irritated by that than you prehaps, which also explains our different views on the Lamoureux, which I can only take in small doses.

The reason I chose it was because I discovered this little series of recordings with the OSR and Inbal which I had not known about. I generally appreciate Inbal's work, and I wanted to hear this orchestra in that repertoire, especially because I have a really very good live Mahler 3 with them already.

Honestly, I think it's totally awesome. Apparently that opinion is not shared by too many here, though.

I was immediately fascinated by the sound quality of the beginning pedal note. It has a deep, slightly snarly and very dark texture and you can just hear the basses tremolo stirring in the dark. On many recordings, I hear a low rumbling. Here, I "see" night. If you can't hear all that, then you have equipment problems.
Then the first trumpet entry - it could have been a little better in tune, but at least they come in really soft and without plop. This is a horribly difficult moment, and there are extremely few recordings which get that really right, and many which get ittotally wrong. I love the sound of the trumpets, too. A little slender, but luminous and with depth of tone and a gilded quality to it. Obviously piston trumpets, but sounding as "authentic" as few manage to do.
The three entries are also very nicely dynamically tiered, and the last one sounds just magnificent - not blaring trumpets drawing attention to themselves with how loud they can play, but a brigh beam of sonic light.
I also love the way Eliahu illuminates the chord structures of the tutti entries, how he microcontrols the dynamics of individual sections to shed changing lights on the crescendo chords, how he briefly lets the trombones "light up" in the lst tutti entry, like someone turning a reflecting object in his hands.
I think the final chord of the introduction sounds a little compressed, and the organ could indeed be a bit more "majestic". Or should it? But apparently Denon chose to record things here as they sounded in the hall, without "dramatizing" them sonically, and the way Inbal treats the organ here made me get a new idea of why Strauss chose to hold it over for a few moments. That is an interesting, somewhat puzzling idea. Maybe he wanted to achieve not a "majestic organ", but a kind of "composed reverb" effect here, to suggest a larger sonic space, a little cathedral like? If so, then the way Inbal treats it here is just "right" - if not the most "spacy" way.

I like the fine stranded and highly articulated string playing in the following "Hinterwäldler" section, and the way he opens textures and brings out inner structures in the following sections. The section beginning areound 5'45 has a sense of calm and at the same time tension which I sense rarely when I listen to this far-too-often-heard piece. A lot of interpreters just want to go on to the next "spectacular" section, not build tension. The passage around 6'30 also brings out a rarely heard effect, how you seem to have two sepearate time layers going on at the same time, with the calm motion suddenly invaded by the rising fixtures in the lower strings (here played with great impact and tone, and excellent articulation), and you can hear for a few moments how the first tempo layer gets slowly "sucked in" by the other layer.

Then great textural clarity in the following "Leidenschaften" section with careful highlighting of vital harmonic points. Inbal obviously has really studied the score. There is pleanty of fine detail and silky string strands in "Grablied", too, which reminded me how "new" this must have sounded when it was first heard. And it goes on and on like that. Plenty of detail and at the same time carefully layered textures. What I find most fascinating about the whole interpretation is Inbal's long-line control, the way he builds and keeps tension and moves fluently between the sections.

I agree with you on the Hinterweltler string opening (BTW, I believe it's Hinterweltler, not -wäldler). As I commented initially, this is done very nicely and I agree with your observations here. I disagree on the opening. It feels to me like it's over before it has really begun. Strauss writes here "sehr breit" and I just don't get that from Inbal. No.2 is more on the mark here for me. Likewise, for the organ, Strauss writes "volles Werk", so I doubt this was merely intended as an echo to suggest a larger sonic space.

[MishaK]

But which are the other Mystery Orchestras? Actually, although there are 5 clips left, there are only 3 more: in alphabetical order, Berliner Philharmoniker, Chicago Symphony, Philharmonia Orchestra. Yes, two of them appear twice. But which ones? And which clips are which orchestras?

Bonus 1: I'm now gonna say this is the Philharmonia.

Bonus 2: This is still BPO/Solti, as per my initial impressions.

Bonus 3: Philharmonia again?

Bonus 4: These sound like German trombones, so I'm gonna say this is BPO again.

Bonus 5: This is still the CSO. 

I just noticed how extremely well balanced the orchestra in Bonus 4 is in Freuden- und Leidenschaften. You can clearly hear the woodwinds, but not as a separate unit, but rather complementing and timbrally enhancing the strings. Really well done. Please tell us who the conductors are as well.

[M forever]

Thanks for these guesses and thanks for replying to my revelation in a civilized manner. I will reply myself later, but I have to take a nap now, I had a few really rough days. And I mean, really rough, that's why I have to take a nap now. But I think I already said that. Anyway, I will reply later. I think I said that, too.

One other thing I wanted to say is that I look forward to more guesses, but don't let yourself be influenced by what O Mensch wrote. I mean about his Bonus clip guesses. Not about the original clip. Well, that, too. He only said these bad things because he hoped it would be the IPO again.

No, not really. I was just kidding. That's an insider joke. Don't worry about what that means. So I have to place a smiley here I guess:



or maybe this one:



No, what I meant is, don't let yourself be influenced by his guesses. He may be right. Or he may be wrong. In any case, post what *you* think. Remember, nobody wins or loses.

Or actually, all of you who did not like the original clip lose.

That was a joke, too. Therefore I will place another smiley here. How about this:



In any case, I have to take a nap now.



I have the feeling I already said that.

[Greta]

M, I think one factor is it's quite different when you know a piece very well as opposed to when it's quite new to someone. I really haven't listened to this piece a whole lot beyond the famous opening. Boy, was I missing out. After hearing it so many times, I have a whole new appreciation for the piece. I would love to study the score. There are a few pieces that I know very well whose now favorite recordings of mine have some frankly appaling ensemble moments, though when I first heard the piece I totally could not have appreciated those recordings.

I can definitely get past the somewhat minor tuning problems in the Inbal, and the few balance issues. Your post as tour guide helps to listen for things in this recording. I think the strings are in particular very fine, the runs at the end of the Sennsucht are perhaps the most clearly played in all these clips. The phrasing is lovely in the Hinterwelten, these contemplative sections are where this recording works best for me. Not overly done. The Leidenschaften doesn't grab me as much as others, but it's still very good. I like his opening interpretation wise. It moves along, he doesn't hang the brass out to dry by pushing them to the limit right at the opening.

I've listened to them all more in depth and my opinions have changed some. It's hard to have a favorite with several good performances and a cursory listening, but I'd say my personal favorite is Bonus Clip #1. The orchestral balance is wonderful, the tempos work for me, and it's a very musical and passionate performance. Especially Leidenschaften is really fantastic, which balances out the added sweetness in the Hinterweltern. It seems to gather a breathlessness and wonderful tension with each crest that is finally released in a very satisying way in the dying, keening Grablied. #2 is also extremely good, the opening I like a lot and nice clarity of the lines in the Leidenschaften. #5 is power plus and yes, fast, but also romantic and a rather impressive opening. Lovely nostalgia in the Hinterweltern.

Bonus Clip 3 - I'm curious about this live one. This one is niggling at me. I retract some of the hyperbole I used before, I actually feel Leidenschaften isn't as intense as in others. The playing of this orchestra is so fine though, a very lush sound and wonderful balance. I think this could be Berlin. But what is the provenance of this recording? I don't know the recordings well enough to know if this live performance is from a regularly distributed CD. Possibly even a lesser known Philharmonia recording.

Checking possibilities at Amazon, #4 I think is Berlin. By the way, #4 is my least favorite. I am sure this is heresy. Wouldn't be surprised if it's Karajan. The playing is gorgeous. But Hinterweltern is too slow and Leidenschaften too fast compared. Can't get past that. #5 I really think Chicago. I think Solti appears twice. And possibly Maazel with the Philharmonia. I said before they were the orchestra of my favorite clip, so  I'll go with that team for #1. Wondering if #2 isn't Boulez and Chicago. 

My preview of this post says several new replies have been posted since you typed this. So I have not read, whatever M said to not see from O Mensch.  0:)

[M forever]

I can definitely get past the somewhat minor tuning problems in the Inbal, and the few balance issues. Your post as tour guide helps to listen for things in this recording.

Yes, but it is also definitely influencing. The exact opposite of blind testing.

I find it very interesting that you originally said this sounds like a 60s recording. Some other posters also commented negatively on the sound quality. That puzzled me somewhat since this is no doubt one of the best recorded Zarathustras from a (sound) technical point of view. But, as has also been said, some recordings, like many Denon recordings, are not made for mediocre equipment. Some good recordings fare well on mediocre and good equipment, some less so.

The recording style Denon uses is definitely not made to work well on bad equipment. It makes me shudder to think on what kind of equipment some people listen and then comment on "sound quality". Not necessarily here, I mean in general. There are recordings which are made to "impress" even on bad equipment, like a lot of the "in your face" Decca stuff, especially some of their 70s recordings. But they really don't sound that "great" by any standard.

Of course, we have to take into account that there are a number of different strategies for how to squeeze the huge sound of an orchestra into the small acoustical frame of a recording, just like there are different strategies to photograph or film big sceneries. And several of these strategies work well in their own ways. My main criterion is that a recording should sound more or less "natural". Yes, I know, no recording really sounds "natural", just like no pictures represents a view "correctly".
But some come fairly close, some sound completely "artificial". That's a very complex subject. In any case, I think this Denon recording sounds very, very good from a recorded sound point of view, and that's something I don't quite see as an "opinion" like musical questions. It really depends more on good equipment and trained ears. The perception of sound and how we hear it is obviously highly subjective and very hard to describe and discuss, but it can be learned to perceive sound very precisely. Otherwise, musicians couldn't play together with matched sounds.

I can definitely get past the somewhat minor tuning problems in the Inbal, and the few balance issues.

My point wasn't that one should not mind a few little booboos here and there if the recording is otherwise "worth it", kind of liking making unpleasant compromises. My point was whatever small blemishes there are here technically, there aren't any more or any more grave than on basically any other given recording, including those by "top" orchestras. On the contrary, there is some very outstanding, well sounding and beautifully phased playing here, and not just in one or two places. This is a "top shelf" performance from an orchestral technique point of view, no doubt. But some completely focused on the small blemishes, to a degee which puzzled me very much.

For me, it is also very interesting to see the comments while they are still blind and think about why this or that comment is made. I am still thinking about this, but I am beginning to suspect (very strongly, actually) that a lot of people don't separate at all between the subjective perception of "sound quality" and the emotional impact the sound and playing make on them on the one hand, and the purely technical aspects of music making on the other. So I think what people mostly hated about this recording is not these small blemishes (and the more we talk about this, the more astounded I am by how much these were focused on), but the "lack of emotional impact" the complete product made on them, I part I have to say because their sound equipment is obviously not good enough.

Which is all perfectly OK. No one is "forced" to like anything, everybody can listen on whatever equipment they want, everyone can like or dislike any kind of sound or playing.

What I am most interested in this context is not who is "right" or "wrong", but *how* we perceive music and recordings, and why we do so, and most importantly, *how to we discuss these things*.

I think this could be Berlin. But what is the provenance of this recording? I don't know the recordings well enough to know if this live performance is from a regularly distributed CD. Possibly even a lesser known Philharmonia recording.

Checking possibilities at Amazon, #4 I think is Berlin.

I said it many times before, I say it again, probably with no effect. Do what you like but I think you are totally completely wasting your time checking stuff like that on amazon. Do you have any idea how many recordings of this are floating around? I don't. But it must be *a lot*.

You have absolutely no way of knowing where I got the recording from. Maybe it is or was available through amazon. Or maybe not. Maybe it is only available in Europe. Or maybe not. Maybe it is from a CD I bought 23 years ago which has since then been OOP and shows up absolutely nowhere. Maybe it is a special Japan edition. Do you know how much stuff is available in Japan that is available nowhere else? Maybe it is a high quality live recording. Or maybe not.

I did not know until very recently that that Inbal recording did even exist. And neither did any of you. I just stumbled across it when I searched Inbal recordings on amazon because I had just listened to some of his nice Mahler recordings from the 80s.

Your time is much better spent just listening.

My preview of this post says several new replies have been posted since you typed this. So I have not read, whatever M said to not see from O Mensch.  0:)

I did not say that. Please do not misrepresent me. I never said you shouldn't read his post. I said, just keep in mind he may or may not be right about individual guesses. He made a lot of very precise observations in some cases, so I am "concerned" some people might just piggyback on his views because they might think it might be better to follow him than to form their own opinion. Did you see how Bunny apologized for having a different opinion from him earlier? That is exactly what I don't want people to do.
Not that I mind if you do. That is your choice. I am just saying, everybody's input is valuable. Do not let yourself be influenced to much by what others write.

This is supposed to be a blind listening discussion, not a blind listening and blind posting thread. Then it wouldn't be a discussion. On the contrary, it is good if people read other people's views and start discussing them. Just don't blindly follow anybody. Only blindly follow your own opinions.

[M forever]

OT: Blomstedt's Strauss disc on Denon is a demonstration disc IMO.

Hmm, yes, hmm, it does sound really good, but I wouldn't go that far and call it demo quality. I also remembered it as very good, but I just listened to it again after a while, and that reminded me that it does have a certain "brightness" and "harshness" which is something a lot of "audiophiles" complained about a lot in the early years of digital, in many cases without justification, in this case probably correctly. There is also a certain "digital haziness" which you can hear set in when the sound gets bigger. Still, a rather good recording, better than many and incredible orchestral playing. Actually, it's the sheer crystalline and crisp beauty of orchestral sound that is overwhelming, when the first tutti entry comes in, that leaves such a great impression that one is immediately taken in and doesn't mind the other small objections I raised. Kind of like EMI's earlier recording with Kempe which is sonically not at all that great as a recordng either, but it still "sounds great".

Which one is the best sounding recording of Zarathustra? I don't know. They all have "problems". That sound is simply too big and complex for recording media.

But Blomstedt/SD is definitely one of the best, despite the small reservations I made above.

What I want now is Sony to record the Staatskapelle Dresden again with Luisi. They already did Don Quixote and Ein Heldenleben, so that is not at all unlikely.

[MishaK]

What I want now is Sony to record the Staatskapelle Dresden again with Luisi. They already did Don Quixote and Ein Heldenleben, so that is not at all unlikely.

Thanks for reminding me! I remember seeing the announcement for their new Strauss recording. It seems to be available only in Germany sofar, though.     

[M forever]

Yes, but I will have it soon because I ordered it to be sent to my mother, and she will send it with a ton of other stuff I ordered from amazon.de and other European sellers. I pay for the shipping of that package of course, but it is still much less than the often outrageous shipping costs to the US for individual items.

I will reply to your above points later. I didn't mean to ignore you. It's just that I like Greta much better than you 

BTW, I did not say "echo". I said "composed reverb", like the kind of reverb that you get in really large and reverberant spaces, like big cathedrals, when the sound seems to hover in the air for a moment, and then slowly disappears into the distance. You can hear that kind of reverb at the very end of Barenboim's "Organ Symphony" recording, although it sounds a little funny there since it is tacked on. It may be possible that Strauss intended a similar effect here. Some concert halls have really big organs, but few have as "majestic" organs as some large churches. Some have just good medium sized ones. I wonder what size Strauss had in his inner ear when he wrote this. In any case, it's somehow better with the organ hanging over. I can't really explain why. But I guess that's why Strauss was a genius and I am not.

[MishaK]

In any case, it's somehow better with the organ hanging over. I can't really explain why. But I guess that's why Strauss was a genius and I am not.

What's also interesting is how in the preceding decrescendo-crescendo, the orchestra disappears and melts into the organ and then rises back out of it, only to suddenly leave the organ all by itself.

[Greta]

M can be a tough customer, can't he? 

I did not say that. Please do not misrepresent me. I never said you shouldn't read his post. I said, just keep in mind he may or may not be right about individual guesses.

I did not mean to misrepresent you. You said do not be influenced by his post. Which is for me extremely hard unless I do not read it at all. If I see comments or guesses from others it can immediately make me question my own, so I try hard not read their comments until after I have posted mine.

I said it many times before, I say it again, probably with no effect. Do what you like but I think you are totally completely wasting your time checking stuff like that on amazon. Do you have any idea how many recordings of this are floating around?

Oh tons, I would imagine. I only checked to see who recorded a piece with who after the hints, I am not familiar at all with the discography of this piece and I find it interesting. At least I was honest. It's part of the fun for me, I become aware of recordings I did not realize existed. I think it's pretty common to check discographies at some point, Que also did...and your response to him illustrates why I would "waste my time" doing such a thing.

Quote from: Que on 23-06-2007, 08:46:05
Not to cheat or spoil the fun or anything- but I just checked two conductors who came to my mind, it being a fairly modern recording and thinking of a combination of "objective" and "French": Seiji Ozawa (not French, but I consider his style very much French influenced/orientated) and Pierre Boulez.
I checked check if they recorded this piece with either BSO or CSO. And guess what? Ozawa recorded with the BSO, Boulez with the CSO. I didn't listen to on line samples btw - that definitely would spoil the fun.

Of course you can listen to clips or recordings you have and compare them. But that's totally up to you. Checking who made which recordings with whom already goes into that direction. And that's totally OK. It's developing a theory and trying to put it into context. We automatically do that, even in "blind" situations. There is no way around that.

About the era of the first clip (when was that Inbal recorded BTW?):

I find it very interesting that you originally said this sounds like a 60s recording. Some other posters also commented negatively on the sound quality.

For me: The faster string vibrato, and that of the solo trumpet, I associate with an older era. Some also commented on it sounding "French". I am not well versed in the historically French style of playing. Is this because of the vibrato? What is it about the style that says French?

Bunny and brianrein also commented on it being an "older" performance. What was the reason? The playing style, the sound quality? Bunny also thought the "rough playing" pointed to an older recording. This is something interesting to discuss. Why does patchy ensemble = older and very good ensemble playing = newer?

As far as the sound quality, it didn't particularly bother me nor did I think it perfect, it wasn't an issue for me. Does sound quality have any influence on guessing?

Just some questions to ponder.

[M forever]

About the era of the first clip (when was that Inbal recorded BTW?):

For me: The faster string vibrato, and that of the solo trumpet, I associate with an older era. Some also commented on it sounding "French". I am not well versed in the historically French style of playing. Is this because of the vibrato? What is it about the style that says French?

The recording was made in February of 1995 and I think it doesn't sound a day older than that. Very low, almost no hiss, very large dynamic range, basically no distortion, clarity and presence in all registers from the very bottom to the very top, good detail definition and placement. The fact that it is clearly audible that the organ comes from somewhere in the back, for instance, while it may not be "spectacular" enough for some (I am myself undecided, I like a bit more there, too, but I don't mind it the way it is in this recording either) speaks for it because it shows that it has a very realistic, deep sound picture (you can see in the picture I posted that the stage is indeed deep and narrow, and the organ pretty far back).
Some of these features are achievements of good recording engineering and are definitely present in older recordings as well, but the large and uncompressed dynamic range, the very clear lows and highs, the very low hiss and some other features "give away" that this can only be a rather recent recording.

Several posters pointed in the French direction, and I can only applaud them for their keen ears and sense of style, all the more since the OSR doesn't really sound "that French" anymore these days.
During the good old Ansermet days, they sounded very much more French, with some other elements such as maybe a bit darker and more solid brass and a bigger lower end to the strings than contemporary French orchestras. But that was decades ago, in a time when orchestras generally sounded much more "local".
Today, the OSR still retains some elements of that orchestral style, but they are also much more globalized than they used to be, like so many other orchestras. Some players also pointed in a very similar direction, to the Tonhalle-Orchester. I think they do indeed sound somewhat similar, not too surprisingly, the TOZ appears to me to have somewhat darker string sound and lean a little bit more in the "German direction" in general, but that can really just be an expectation I have and the difference may also be indeed caused by such factors as recording location and acoustics - I heard the TOZ a few times live, the OSR only once.

I would say that the hallmarks of the French style which can still be heard here are generally a somewhat leaner, brighter sound, more slender woodwinds and slightly brighter and more open brass, and rather silky strings with a silvery quality to it, I mean all that compared to the German orchestral style, although it is very hard to reduce both to just a few adjectives - these styles are really more spectrums than narrowly defineable styles.

Bunny and brianrein also commented on it being an "older" performance. What was the reason? The playing style, the sound quality? Bunny also thought the "rough playing" pointed to an older recording. This is something interesting to discuss. Why does patchy ensemble = older and very good ensemble playing = newer?

Generally yes, one can say that the general level of orchestral playing is higher now than it used to be, say, several decades ago. There are more technically really good orchestras around these days. There were always really good orchestras, but "technical perfection" was definitely not as widespread as it is today up to the 60s and even 70s, maybe.
That is obviously a very good thing, in principle, but it also has flipsides. The aim to play "technically perfect" has led to a lot of compromises being made as far as sound quality and stylistic individuality is concerned. Instruments are more andmore engineered to be easy and safe to play first and have a rich and variable sound second. That in itself is another completely different subject.

Wat Bunny and brianrein really meant I can not tell you, we will have to ask them. Like I said earlier, I do not understand what they meant by "rough ensemble". I am not saying that I disagree with her reaction in general because that is obviously everyone's personal thing, I am saying that I simply don't understand the "rough ensemble" part. Not even remotely. Like I also said earlier, there are not more "bad spots" in this recording than in most, actually far less than in many, and the ensemble is generally very good to excellent, with outstanding group articulation and a fine sense of tone and some really exquisitely sounded textures, points I pointed to in my "listening guide". Like I also said, I am beginning more and more to suspect that some people listen to these clips - or indeed anything they discuss in these forums - on very...uh...modest...equipment and if it isn't one of those recordings which "jump out at you" they are underwhelmed and begin blaing that on the quality of the playing as such. That is what *I* seem to have learned from these discussions. But I am still thinking about this.

[M forever]

They do sound natural, I agree, but just a bit too far away. I'd like to feel like I'm in a good seat in the hall, not somewhere in the back.

This recording puts you in row 11, seat J. Not any further back. We really have to discuss those listening setup questions. But let's do that in the other thread.

All true. Obviously we are nitpicking here. But the OSR does exhibit certain, shall we say, differences of opinion amongst its players here and there, more so in older recordings. I have a Symphonie fantastique with Ansermet that is quite inspired, but you can tell that the orchestra is being pushed beyond its limits. I'm a little more easiliy irritated by that than you prehaps, which also explains our different views on the Lamoureux, which I can only take in small doses.

I agree about those Ansermet recordings, I mean about the technical side, musically, that's a completey different discussion which does not belong her, but...uh...those Ansermet recordings are 40-50 years old. This here is in many respects - in some, I think, unfortunately - not the same orchestra anymore. Some elements of the of style are left, but probably very few if any of the players from the Ansermet era are still there, I guess. There are some elements here in which the ensemble sound is less blended, more "individualistic" than commonly heard these days. Maybe that is what you actually meant, but that's more a stylistic than a technical question.

I agree with you on the Hinterweltler string opening (BTW, I believe it's Hinterweltler, not -wäldler). As I commented initially, this is done very nicely and I agree with your observations here. I disagree on the opening. It feels to me like it's over before it has really begun. Strauss writes here "sehr breit" and I just don't get that from Inbal. No.2 is more on the mark here for me. Likewise, for the organ, Strauss writes "volles Werk", so I doubt this was merely intended as an echo to suggest a larger sonic space.

You are right, it is "Hinterweltler" although that is for me more or less the same thing. I think the word Hinterweltler doesn't really exist, although you never know in German, but I suspect Nietzsche made that up as variation of "Hinterwäldler" which is a very common word, with a fine and most likely intended change of meaning, but I am too shallow for such elaborate philosophical concepts, maybe that is why I confused that.
As for the tempo, Strauss actually conducted it faster, and IIRC, the tempo marking in the score is 1/4=60 (not sure though), so Inbal is actually "breiter" than that. But that doesn't mean it has to be played at Strauss' own tempo and you can of course have a different preference. I just love the way Inbal illuminates the structure of those chords, and how he keeps it "simple", no "entry of the gladiators" timpani, and the way those trumpets come in really softly, even though they are not 100% in tune the first time. Very few actually are in this place. It is horribly difficult, 4 trumpets all unisono coming in really softly on that fairly low note, completely open, a horror entry even for the best. Some are clearer here, but when they attack the notes too strongly, for me, they have already missed the music.

[M forever]

OK, now that I finally got around to reply to all the last posts and MO16 is fully under way, I think it is time to reveal the other Mystery Orchestras and Mystery Conductors who took part in this highly interesting round.

Thanks y'all for playing and lurking. I think this has been a fruitful and interesting discussion. But it is not necessarily over yet. I will post some thoughts on the clips and your comments later, and of course, you can continue the discussion, review the reviews, review your own opinions or just yell "I said that!" or "I wanted to say that, but then I changed my mind!!"

Also sprach Zarathustra is no doubt a very rewarding object for this kind of blind test, and Zarathustra will speak again here, but not right now. I have some more awesome recordings for you to listen to and review, be confused or fascinated by. But I think we need a little Zarathustra break now. For those who don't, I will upload the Inbal recording tomorrow, complete with the accompanying Till Eulenspiegel and Macbeth, as a reward for all who liked it, and as punishment for all who didn't...


Bonus 1
Philharmonia Orchestra
Semyon Bychkov
Recorded by Philips in 9/1989

Bonus 2
Berliner Philharmoniker
Georg Solti
Recorded by Decca live in concert in 1/1996

Bonus 3
Berliner Philarmoniker
Herbert von Karajan
From a TV recording of a concert on 5/1/1987

Bonus 4
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Pierre Boulez
Recorded by DG in 12/1996

Bonus 5
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Georg Solti
Recorded by Decca in 1975


Some of you made very close guesses, some guessed individual recordings correctly, some of you were very far off. But this game has only winners, no losers, and I am not going to give points. You all give points to yourselves as you feel you deserve them.

0:)

I just have to mention that O Mensch indeed correctly guessed the BP/Solti recording early on, if I don't mention that explicitly, he will get very upset. But then he also held the CSO for the BP in Bonus 4, and I think I will mention that at least 3-4 times in the near future.
   

[cx]

Bonus 1
Philharmonia Orchestra
Semyon Bychkov
Recorded by Philips in 9/1989

Very interesting. I really liked this one, especially for its interpretive merits. Probably would have never considered it before, having virtually no Bychkov recordings in my collection. I think I'll put this on my wish list.

--CS

[M forever]

You wrote some very good and concise reviews earlier which I found very interesting to read, especially about this Bychkov recording. It made me think a lot because this is probably the one which I like least of the 6 clips. But only probably. I don't spend much time thinking about rankings and nonsense like that. Let's say it disappointed me for reasons I will point out later, but your points about the interpretation gave me some food for thought.

Please contribute similar reviews to MO16 which has just started.

[MishaK]

But then he also held the CSO for the BP in Bonus 4, and I think I will mention that at least 3-4 times in the near future.
   

I indeed should have caught that. Then again, it's not entirely surprising, given how Barenboim changed the sound of the orchestra by the time that recording was made. I used to own that recording but culled it a while ago because it just didn't do it for me.

We need to get you to do some blind testing. 

Re: Bychkov, I would have never guessed him as the conductor of that clip. Makes me sad that I missed his Alpensinfonie with the CSO this past season. I see why you would possibly have some issues with that recording as opposed to the other clips here, but I found his pacing really remarkable. Especially how the Freuden- und Leidenschaften very gradually buids into an inexorable storm.

[M forever]

We need to get you to do some blind testing. 

I have done that myself very often, with results which were very telling for me myself. Sometimes I was spot on, sometimes surprisingly off. In every case, I learned a lot about my perception of music and sound. That is the main point.
When I started MO in RMCR, some other people, for instance Steven de Mena, ran similar games for a while and I nailed most of the clips immediately. You can go back and look at that, since that seems to be so important for you.

I don't find that so important myself really, but you still don't get it. It's not the people who get tested here, it's the music and performances. If they get tested, they don't get tested by me. I just provide the environment. What people make of it is up to them. They can test themselves and learn from it. Or they can fool themselves and refuse to learn. It's up to them, not me. I don't give points and declare winners or losers. I make comments which I think may be helpful to critically reflect on the listening and evaluation process. I learn myself from what people tell me when they give blind opinions. I often go back and relisten to the clips after someone has made an interesting post.

All that is much more than posting a few clips to "test" people.

You really don't get that at all since you are in that phase in which you already know a lot, but your problem is you think you know it all, and you take it very personally if that idea is contradicted. Right now, you are stuck in that phase and it "blurs" your perceptions much more than you even begin to realize. Your tendency to not see the overall pictures, but zoom in mercilessly on fairly minor and irrelevant points, and that fairly randomly, too, or based on very set preconceptions, is a very typical symptom of that. I can understand that because I, like basically anyone, went through a lot of these phases myself. Maybe at some point you begin to realize you really don't know that much at all, and that will be good, because then, and only then, the real adventure only really starts for you.

I am trying very hard to provide a relaxed and pressure free blind testing environment for those who want to benefit from these exercises, hopefully with clips which make sense and are fun to listen to and review.

You keep bringing an aggressive element in here which is quite contrary to what I am trying to do. I suggest you set up your own Mystery Orchestra (but with a different name, please) in which you can "test people". I will probably also swing by and see what's going on, but for now, please stay away from my threads. You are not welcome here anymore.

I look forward to visiting your "testing arena". Then you can finally "test" me.