Mystery Orchestra 16

[Nipper]

Stopping isn't expressedly written in the score, but certain notes could only be obtained with stopping or half-stopping anyway. The question is whether or not sometimes the composer wrote these notes *intending* the slightly muffled (or "choked") but at the same time "metallic" sound of the stopped notes.
For instance, the long f (sounding a flat) in the first horn at 4'04-4'06 is indeed half-stopped, and so are the first notes of the "sighing" motif heard in the horns twice at 4'14-4'17 and the "screaming" motif at 4'46 - Beethoven indeed writes sf here, and he must have had something like that in mind, I guess. The question is if one finds that the "scream of terror" the Mystery Performers produce at 4'46 is over the top or just "right".
The attack of the natural horn is indeed very round ("booo" instead of "taaa") and can be slightly brittle ("pfooo") in soft dynamics, and it is rather darker or rounder sounding than more or less all modern horns (only the Vienna horns come very close) - but that is the way these instruments sounded.
Right at 4'07, that's just piano with horns mixed with clarinets and bassoons though. I wouldn't expect them to be any "brighter" here.

Thank you so much for these very informative comments. (I knew I'd learn something by participating.) This whole thread is just terrific reading, especially now that I've gone back to see what other people said. One minor observation--I guess our track timers must be slightly out of synch, because precisely at 4:07 in clip C I have what I'm pretty sure is a lone horn (definitely no clarinets or bassoons) sounding "ta ta ta ta-."  A pity, since it is so handy to use those timings in discussion.

A post-romantic notion, maybe, or maybe it is just a *different kind* of expressiveness, a different expressive vocabulary than what you are used to and expect. But that is actually a complete separate discussion in itself.

Yes, it would be, wouldn't it. Your observation here about different expressive vocabularies is sharp.

I was gratified to notice that other people concurred with my observation that the weightiness (or bottom-heaviness) of the strings in clip A was distinctive, and that we seem to have at least partial agreement that the tempo in A is measured but effective, given that weightiness. Someone guessed Colin Davis and the Dresden for A, and I think that is a real possibility, though I don't know the recording. I'm basing this partly on the sound of the hall and the orchestra (known to me from Kurt Sanderling's early 1970s Brahms cycle), and partly on the reputation of Davis's Dresden cycle for being rather staid. And maybe one could call Clip A staid--this was what I meant by comparing it to Walter (by which I meant Walter's Indian Summer CSO cycle). But what nobility and monumentality! And what a pleasure to the ear! 

And one other minor note...I don't know German, but my guess at an English equivalent for "Zasur" is "caesura." 

Thanks again for a most interesting and entertaining game.  I look forward to learning the identities of the performers.

[M forever]

One minor observation--I guess our track timers must be slightly out of synch, because precisely at 4:07 in clip C I have what I'm pretty sure is a lone horn (definitely no clarinets or bassoons) sounding "ta ta ta ta-."

It is very unlikely that we have different timings. We both have the exact same clip (I also opened it with several different media players to doublecheck, but not surprisingly, they all have the exact same timings).

See attached pic, bar 387ff. But the clarinets and bassoons can also be very clearly heard.

Yes, it would be, wouldn't it. Your observation here about different expressive vocabularies is sharp.

Although it is not my observation, really. That's what HIP proponents like Harnoncourt and many others have said for *decades* now. Especially Harnoncourt with his highly interesting essays about rhetorical elements in earlier music, but many others as well, have time and time again pointed out that the main point of the exercise is not to find out what is "authentic" or "correct" in  dogmatic-scholarly sense, but what differences in musical vocabulary and styles existed.

It is completely nonsensical to assume that music always "worked" the same way and that performance styles haven't changed at all.

If you look at old pictures, you can see how the way the portrayed persons and elements are arranged changes drastically over time, and many pictures contain very explicit "rhetorical" elements. For instance, in baroque art the people in the pictures are often posed very explicitly, with highly expressive and dramatic gestures. It is therefore not at all too far-fetched to assume that similar elements were used in other arts. And we don't just have to assume. There is actually *a lot* of contemporary literature and other evidence. Yes, people back then theoreticized a lot about their arts and esthetics, too, and if you start reading some of that stuff, it is actually pretty amazing how big the difference between "conventional" interpretive styles which "just play the notes" or which play them with a, say, late romantic", set of techniques and expressive elements, and however little or much we know about the period performance practice is.

At the same time, all this music has been interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries, and that interpretation and reception history has created a large body of traditions which are valid in themselves. So it's not "HIP vs romantic" or anything like that, it's all just about being aware of and understanding these styles. Not all "HIP" efforts are automatically "right" or good, but we can learn a lot from many of them.

I think one actually enjoy particular styles, like a "conventional" or "late romantic" style, much more if one is aware of these things.

So all the people which lead these endless discussions about how "authentic" or "right" HIP is, or how totally "inauthentic" it allegedly really is ("we can't listen to that because no matter what they do, we still have 'modern' ears" - one of the most idiotic and very common arguments in the history of music reception) basically don't understand what they are talking about at all.



Back to the subject, Beethoven can definitely be approached in many different ways. You or me or anyone may find this or that approach more interesting, stimulating, and that probably also changes over time, but I think what really counts is how well and convincing it is done, no matter what the basic approach is.

[Nipper]

Yes, okay, you've convinced me the track timers are in synchronization after all. I do have what I think must be measure 387 precisely at 4:07.  Phew, that's a relief.

That said, I must say it is extremely difficult for me to detect more than one instrument playing in the recording at that measure! I would never have believed it could be possible if you hadn't produced the score and confirmed for me that the clarinetist and the basoonist are not asleep at that entrance in the recorded performance. I don't think this is an issue of playback equipment quality, but rather one of my shallow knowledge of the sound of different instrument blends, and especially my lack of familiarity with period instruments.  And of course the notes in question are very short. Perhaps it is precisely the fact that I thought it was just a lone horn there that made me expect a to hear a different sound.

Anyway, I'll admit that the tempo for this clip starts to sound more plausible now that I have listened to it a few more times. The first time through I thought they had to be kidding. But with this ensemble, at least, I still feel that I'm losing more than I'm gaining by taking it so fast.

[M forever]

Well, it's very close to Beethovens metronome mark (1/4=108) which is pretty fast. They do show that it is generally possible to play that tempo, especially with a smaller orchestra and the lighter, more lucid sound of the instruments, particularly the strings. There are a few passages which may be underarticulated, or one might think that it doesn't all have to be very staccato, that's where "interpretation" begins.

That still doesn't mean one has to accept this reading as a whole. It may be technically mostly successful, but that doesn't mean one has to find it convincing. Or you one can. That is mostly up to the individual listener.

One thing that one can "check" though is if they do apply musical means. Do they just race through the piece, or are there variations in inflection and nuances of expression? Do they work with color and different articulations? Stuff like that. But then one has to keep in mind that the stylistic vocabulary employed may not be the same as in more "standard" performances, so one can not necessarily "demand" the same means of expression, e.g. a lot of rubato or tempo changes to "make points". Rather than changing the tempo, many HIP performances strive for flexibility between the bar lines, by lengthening or shortening values, letting the notes fall off between the barlines (in other words, the first beat is often noticeably heavier than 2,3,4, if the bar has that many beats) or between bars or even groups of bars.

[Nipper]

Well, it's very close to Beethovens metronome mark (1/4=108) which is pretty fast. They do show that it is generally possible to play that tempo, especially with a smaller orchestra and the lighter, more lucid sound of the instruments, particularly the strings.

I'm curious: why is it that the tradition of playing much slower than Beethoven's metronome mark got so firmly entrenched in the first place? (Feel free to point me to a relevant link on the web if you don't feel up to another lecture!)

Rather than changing the tempo, many HIP performances strive for flexibility between the bar lines, by lengthening or shortening values, letting the notes fall off between the barlines (in other words, the first beat is often noticeably heavier than 2,3,4, if the bar has that many beats) or between bars or even groups of bars.

That's interesting. When you give us your own commentary on these clips, I would be very curious to know whether there are examples of this technique being used in Clip C.  (In the meantime I will listen for myself and see whether I can hear any.)

[M forever]

I'm curious: why is it that the tradition of playing much slower than Beethoven's metronome mark got so firmly entrenched in the first place? (Feel free to point me to a relevant link on the web if you don't feel up to another lecture!)

I don't really have a link with any articles on the web specifically about that. Maybe someone else does.
But basically, that's a very common phenomenon. Almost all music tends to get played slower and slower, probably as people discover more and more "meaning" in the music. Then sometimes there are tendencies to go back. If you listen to some Bruckner recordings from the first half of the century, for instance, many of them are very fast by modern standards. But you will find a similar development in almost every part of the repertoire.

Plus orchestras got bigger, the romantic style in general got more and more expansive, different schools of interpretation developed, those that emphasized the "classical" element, those that searched for more and more "meaning" and the "bigger gestures" in music - again, just as the stylistic vocabulary of the romantic era got more and more expansive, people felt the need to apply these new ways of expression to oder music. They wanted the "big" Beethoven symphonies to sound as "impressive" as Wagner. But at the same time, there have always been schools of interpretation that placed more emphasis on the "classical" proportions.
And other factors. As orchestras got bigger, instruments changed, got louder, and the typical concert halls got bigger and bigger.
These are just a few basic factors, though. But that's what makes it so interesting to listen to different interpretations. Not only are they, well, different, they also have a lot of connections and stylistic associations to developments in interpretation and reception. You can analyze which playing style, tempo choices, styles of phrasing, etcetc belong to which stylistic environment, and that makes it doubly interesting. Because these things are typically not just completely random, but there are very complex ideas and stylistic environments which are reflected in good musical interpretation. 

[M forever]

Now we are fairly deep in detail discussion.

I see the additional clips have been downloaded numerous times, too. Those that have listened to them, or are about to, do you need a little more time to formulate your reviews? Otherwise, I will soon start to reveal he Mystery Performers.

[Greta]

Finally back for the others.  I say probably, give everybody another day? Downloading and sitting down listening to don't always get to happen at the same time...

Now we are fairly deep in detail discussion.

This is fun! I must say Nipper's comments, what I read of, are so detailed and well-described. Do you play an instrument Nipper? Cool to see articulation talk, I notice stuff like that too as a wind player.

I'll try my best with these, this movement is kind of hard to describe what and where you're hearing something without going with timings, a lot of repeated figures. When I'm done I'm will to go back and listen for what you guys have described, very specific! 

Clip A - I listened to this again in juxtaposition with B and I like it better, on headphones this time. Noticing divided strings, and especially when the whole orchestra plays the Fate motif tutti w/ the timpani and with a rest following, that ring reminds me so much of Telarc. I have several Levi and Previn recordings that this sound is reminiscent of. But here it's too expansive actually, Beethoven seems to be enveloped by the acoustic, his directness kind of dissipates. Wish I could place that clarinet. Winds seem European to me. I like the weight on the first note of the slurred and staccato downward 8th notes (1:17)

Clip B - Similar tempo as A. Nice weight in beginning on long note Fate motif. (0:42) The last of the 3 eighth notes there, is shorter, dah-dah-dee-daah, actually throughout I notice this, to give more emphasis to the long note? Well, I can hear the hall a lot here too (2:22) This orchestra has a bigger sound, coming from the orchestra, not so much the recording. Oboe has a prominent bright tone, thinnish. I hear a lot of detail in this recording. Call and answer between the strings nice later on. Bassoons sound stuffy. This seems like a British orchestra for some reason. Strings lush and kind of silky. Brass are pretty brazen (5:29), makes me think of like LSO or Royal Phil. Recorded sound fine for me, better than A, it has more oomph, rings but doesn't mush together. The strings are recorded fairly forward, nice.

Clip C - So much interesting stuff here to talk about! Without getting my metronome out he feels closer to like 120 (march tempo) than 108, the others are very close to the marked tempo, it seems. This orchestra is tuned at a slightly higher pitch. No idea if this has anything to do with period instruments, but the horns at 1:25 sound very distinctive and different, hey, great sounding recording, the location of the instruments feels odd though, rather than a semicircle in front of me, it seems like a group of trumpets directly to my right, and horns on the opposite. Bruggen or Gardiner comes to mind. Latter maybe. Focused performance.

Interpretation - Huge amount of detail. Notes very clipped. 1:24 is what a "stopped" horn sounds like pretty much, natural horns don't sound even on every note, different quality of timbre on different notes. Stopped horns on scores written + over note. This dynamic very interesting on the long notes <>! (esp. 2:38) 4:46 even sounds like they have a mute in, which I'm sure they don't. Really drives in and attacks after the oboe solo, pushing the tempo. The "military" section, coda, very marcato. Lively and full of character. This conductor has specific things to say about Beethoven. Man that <> is grating though. Wouldn't recommend for a first 5th, but it's unique, I like it, but I like idiosyncrasy anyway.

OKay, back for other two after lunch.

[Greta]

At the same time, all this music has been interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries, and that interpretation and reception history has created a large body of traditions which are valid in themselves. So it's not "HIP vs romantic" or anything like that, it's all just about being aware of and understanding these styles. Not all "HIP" efforts are automatically "right" or good, but we can learn a lot from many of them.

I think one actually enjoy particular styles, like a "conventional" or "late romantic" style, much more if one is aware of these things.

So all the people which lead these endless discussions about how "authentic" or "right" HIP is, or how totally "inauthentic" it allegedly really is ("we can't listen to that because no matter what they do, we still have 'modern' ears" - one of the most idiotic and very common arguments in the history of music reception) basically don't understand what they are talking about at all.

Back to the subject, Beethoven can definitely be approached in many different ways. You or me or anyone may find this or that approach more interesting, stimulating, and that probably also changes over time, but I think what really counts is how well and convincing it is done, no matter what the basic approach is.

Great post! Wholeheartedly agree. Before recordings existed, we can only find out what past performers did by extensive research. Playing styles have even changed over only the last fifty years. A case could be made for HIP Mahler for example, replicating performance practices of 100 years ago. (Maybe it exists, I don't know.) Which would be different than we're used to hearing, but more recent so not as much as say HIP Haydn and Beethoven. HIP is not something mystical or strange. HIP can even be just being very faithful to the composer's intentions based on research, timings of performances if he conducted it, firsthand accounts.

Stopping isn't expressedly written in the score, but certain notes could only be obtained with stopping or half-stopping anyway. The question is whether or not sometimes the composer wrote these notes *intending* the slightly muffled (or "choked") but at the same time "metallic" sound of the stopped notes.

Yes, that why they have the different timbres, I couldn't think how to explain it! There are no keys so, lip and hand movement controls the pitch. The hand inside the horn bell is laid flat and tilted to stop/half-stop, this, in a sense I think, lengthens or shortens the pipe, lowering or raising the pitch (horn players feel free to add and correct!) The part about which specific pitches are stopped was also very interesting, I'd like to learn more about period instruments.

Right at 4'07, that's just piano with horns mixed with clarinets and bassoons though. I wouldn't expect them to be any "brighter" here.

It's a beautiful color LvB wrote there, in that recording Nipper, the horn is just *barely* audible, mostly bassoon with a touch of clarinet but the combined color, sounds almost like a different instrument.

But that's what makes it so interesting to listen to different interpretations. Not only are they, well, different, they also have a lot of connections and stylistic associations to developments in interpretation and reception. You can analyze which playing style, tempo choices, styles of phrasing, etcetc belong to which stylistic environment, and that makes it doubly interesting. Because these things are typically not just completely random, but there are very complex ideas and stylistic environments which are reflected in good musical interpretation.

This is exactly why I collect multiple recordings of a work I like nowdays, they are actually more tempting than unheard things sometimes. Because that moment when you hear something new interpretationally, that I-wouldn't-have-thought-that-worked-that-way but wow, really makes it worth it. And the better you get to know a work, the more you can appreciate the finer details of different recordings! It is fun if you have many recordings of something to trace when along the timeline a certain affectation or trend set in, discovering hallmarks of past interpreters and how younger conductors have learned from and synthesized these elements also is interesting.

[Greta]

Last two:

Clip D - Another good performance. Nice orchestral balance, no section sticks out too much. Another conductor that has really studied the score. He illuminates the little permutations of the Fate theme traveling across the orchestra. The sections dovetail off of each other well. Bassoons sound a little funny still. At 2 minutes, also this one is graceful. Lovely oboe solo that takes its time, it sounds very mournful. Expansive sound. Perhaps American.

Clip E - Nice quicker tempo. I like the energy here. They seem more "into" the piece than D, I feel urgency. The string attacks are very together, they seem to dig in with bow a little. Also nice oboe solo, very little vibrato. Good bassoons. Actually the winds are gorgeous here, pearly sounding. This is really an attractive performance too. I think this is European, Berlin maybe. Karajan even. Beautiful tone all around. Very musical playing and some intensity.

[M forever]

Thanks for these detailed observations. I will reply a little later and then maybe start revealing the Mystery Performers. Doesn't look like any of the lurkersdare to come "out of the shadows".

But we had a lot of highly interesting posts anyway, and very constructive discussions focusing on musical detail and context. Maybe that will encourage some of the lurkers to participate in future rounds. As has been seen here, nobody gets "ridiculed" for asking questions or making observations which may or may not be "correct". But a lot of detail observations and questions got cleared up in the discussions.

I have to go and get some pizza now, so there is still time to post comments and/or guesses.

[Drasko]

Original clip:
Heavier than I initially thought
Big boned string section with rather soft attack
Lots of Dresden mentions but brass sound bit bright for Dresden to me
Very reverberant acoustics, me generally no like
But do like that oboe cadenza

[from the new world]

Thanks for these detailed observations. I will reply a little later and then maybe start revealing the Mystery Performers. Doesn't look like any of the lurkersdare to come "out of the shadows".

But we had a lot of highly interesting posts anyway, and very constructive discussions focusing on musical detail and context. Maybe that will encourage some of the lurkers to participate in future rounds. As has been seen here, nobody gets "ridiculed" for asking questions or making observations which may or may not be "correct". But a lot of detail observations and questions got cleared up in the discussions.

I have to go and get some pizza now, so there is still time to post comments and/or guesses.

As one of the lurkers, I thought I would put my own thoughts down. Firstly, some mention of the Davis Dresden recording. Since I have it, I would say clip B is far closer than the others, particularly in the sound. Though it is played in a similar vein, the second subject seems a little too pushed along. Clip A to me seems less well controlled, and the brass seem to have less impact than they should. I would also say the strings are a little muddy, in that they are not as articulate as other string sections. In comparison, clip C is so transparent and obvious. The only recording that I can think of that goes so fast is the Norrington Stuttgart recording. I am sure there are others, but I am not going to go looking for them.

[Nipper]

Yes, this is fun. I especially like listening again for what other people have noticed, and I have to say that I've probably done well over an hour of listening, all told, just to this one section of the symphony. But you know what?  It really is such fantastic music that I don't feel I am anywhere near getting tired of it. There are so many wonderful different blends of instruments in this score. I don't usually think of Beethoven as a composer who is full of different colors and inventive effects, probably because I am so used to his sound that I take it for granted, and because we have other later composers like Ravel and Strauss and even Mahler who at times seem to be much more fascinated with blends and colors than with an overarching structure or a musical argument. But Beethoven has wonderful colors, too--something that I appreciated more as a result of focusing just on that one bit at measure 287 where I naively thought I was hearing pure horn in Clip C.

My new favorite bit of the movement is at 3:20 in B, leading into the oboe solo. There is a quiet part there where the wind lines are weaving in and out of each other and the blends are just magical. I don't think I ever really noticed how magical before.

By the way--I noticed one thing in Clip B the last time I listened to it that no one has mentioned, which is that there is an emphasis and I think a slowdown  (at 3:28) just before the oboe solo that I didn't really notice in the other clips.  I have the impression that the conductor in B is the one out of all 5 who is most willing to change tempo in order to emphasize certain points. I also would like to retract what I said about lack of togetherness on some of the attacks in B. I may be talking through my hat here, but I think what I was noticing was maybe a different style of attack.  On the chords at 0:27-0:29 in B, for example, I think not all the string instruments are starting the note at exactly the same moment in the way they seem to in A. But the effect is not really "ragged." It's just softer.  I have rattling around in my brain the sentence "This is Vienna--it's together, but not exactly!" But my memory of just where I heard this is sketchy.  It could have been video footage of a youth musicians' workshop of some kind conducted by members of the Vienna Philharmonic. Anyway, as I remember it the person delivering this admonition was talking about the orchestra's philosophy of how to take an attack (at least in the particular music they were playing), and I thought it was a wonderful soundbite, so it stuck in my mind, and I was reminded of that in listening to B. So now I've got two possibilities for the VPO, both B and D, though I don't know how to square that with my feeling that the winds in B sounded nasal and therefore French. (Talk about stereotypes!) 

Anyway, I am looking forward to learning the identities of the performers, though in some ways that almost seems beside the point. I guess what I'm really looking forward to is M's meta-commentary.

P.S. I'm not a musician, Greta, but I'm tickled that you thought I might be! I do love going to concerts and (obviously) listening to recordings and reading about music. I have a lot to learn, though.

[m_gigena]

Emerging lurker here. 

Well, it's very close to Beethovens metronome mark (1/4=108) which is pretty fast.

I'm curious: why is it that the tradition of playing much slower than Beethoven's metronome mark got so firmly entrenched in the first place?

But basically, that's a very common phenomenon. Almost all music tends to get played slower and slower, probably as people discover more and more "meaning" in the music. Then sometimes there are tendencies to go back. If you listen to some Bruckner recordings from the first half of the century, for instance, many of them are very fast by modern standards. But you will find a similar development in almost every part of the repertoire.

For a consistent period of time I had the impression some performers reduced their tempi as an attempt to be able to cover more expressive facets of the works they play. Not only because it's somehow easier to handle expression following slower metronome marks but also because it tends to sound more serious and grand. (On the subject, you hardly hear a Hammerklavier at 1/2=138, alla breve as it is. Even the fabulous Gilels plays it slower: it sounds massive and eloquent, but it's not the impulsive introduction Beethoven wrote).
I don't have much experience on purely orchestral works, but I did notice while starting to cover repertoire that a 38 minute Toscanini's Brahms first was about 11 minutes shorter than Sanderling.
Other piano example is Pogorelich, whose slow readings are an allowance to speak clearly all the voices and articulate each idea with ease.

[Greta]

P.S. I'm not a musician, Greta, but I'm tickled that you thought I might be! I do love going to concerts and (obviously) listening to recordings and reading about music. I have a lot to learn, though.

You are a precise listener and do a great job of describing interpretative details.

I think you will find the next Mystery game quite fun, I will be leading it and it is a very interesting work.

Nice to see the lurkers here, it's actually the process of this game I think is so fun, and how it makes you really get to know a piece well!

[M forever]

We have had a lot of very interesting comments here, and now I think it is time to reveal the Mystery Performers.

Several of you guessed the general stylistic direction of the orchestral playing heard in A fairly correctly but found it hard to positively identify the actual orchestra. And that is understandable since there are so many top level orchestras in Germany and their playing style is more a spectrum than a narrowly defined "sound ideal", and the actual results can vary quite a bit depending on the actual orchestra and conductor. The kind of very rich and deep sound heard in clip A can be produced by a number of orchestras, depending of what the conductor wants from them.

Several of you pointed at the Staatskapelle Dresden because that orchestra is known for it's very rich and at the same time well defined sound. I think their general sound has some brighter and elements and a slightly firmer core than what you hear in A, but that's speaking from the perspective of someone who kows what he is listening to - and there are so many variables such as the acoustics of the hall and the recording itself that these impressions can not be dismissed as "wrong", especially not under the conditions of total blind testing.

However, some of you have stepped into the "trap" of following hearsay. Several of you said "I hear that's what Davis' Dresden cycle is like, so maybe that's it". I wouldn't do that unless I actually know the recording. As you will be able to hear, Davis' Beethoven 5 is actually quite different sonically and musically from what "you heard about it".

Personally, I think it's an interesting combination of superb, highly refined orchestral playing in great, colorful and clear sound and an actually pretty lame interpretation. Some of the other symphonies in the cycle fare better, but I feel Davis' 5th is really way too "tame" and "reined in". He really just relies on the great playing, but I also have a feeling that he keeps the orchestra held back all the time. That's not just a matter of the slowish tempo. Other conductors, such as Furtwängler, Böhm, or Bernstein, are even slower yet at the same time much more "dramatic" and "compelling".
Davis' reading is very nice to listen to, you can hear everything, every note is shaped very carefully. It's not a "high voltage" performance but one which takes a somewhat distanced view at the musical substance and the orchestral playing which has some merits, too.
But for me, it's definitely over at 6'36 when he doesn't even allow the little charge accumulated up to that point to propel the orchestra on. I can literally hear him step on the brakes there, jerk the leash back, and I don't find that very good at all. The rest of the performance is very "nice", too, with a very beautiful and lyrical 2nd movement, but I think all that is not quite enough.

Anyway, judge for yourselves. Since that recording was mentioned so often, I have uploaded the complete first movement for you as a little bonus:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2um5zt

[M forever]

Back to our Mystery Orchestras.

These are the recordings you heard in this round:


Clip A

Günter Wand and the NDR Sinfonieorchester live at the Musikhalle Hamburg in 1992 (and yes, that hall really sounds like that, it is roughly from the same period as the Concertgebouw and not all that different from it in some respects; you can see some pics here - one of the few old halls in Germany which survived the war).





Clip B

Claudio Abbado and the Wiener Philharmoniker in a live recording from 1987, part of this complete cycle.





Clip C

Roger Norrington and the London Classical Players on period instruments in their highly controversial but very stimulating complete cycle from the mid-80s (no exact date for this recording in the booklet).





Clip D

(Sir!) Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in their second complete cycle, a studio recording from the late 80s (again no exact date).





Clip E

Günter Wand and the NDR again, this time in their studio recording from 1988. I believe the recording was made in the same hall as the live one.

[Greta]

Wow, I really liked Wand, but I like the one from the set (E) the most of all the clips. Not counting Norrington (C), I guess, a thing unto itself. I loved it though.

I'm actually getting better with this game, I at least got the region right for the Wand and Solti. 

[Valentino]

Fun game. Educational game. I'll be in for the next round (if I'm not on the beach that is).

So C was Norrington. I did not fall for it. I have 2, 7 and 8 from that cycle and did find them quite stimulating the last time I had a listen. Time for a relisten.

So I liked the earlier Wand (E) the most. Interesting!