Recordings That You Are Considering

[Spotted Horses]

That is nice to know that they recorded it professionally with state of the art equipment then.  They must realize that most of their audience doesn't drink the hipster analogue cool aid then.

Yes. At first I confused myself not noticing that they are different. It appears they put the "Inspiring Tube Sound" in the two channel program of the "Real Surround Sound" SACD, rather than a 2 channel reduction of he surround sound, as is customary.

[amw]

I listened to some samples of the Auryn, and something struck me. In the finale of the D-major Quintet they seemed to be playing the main theme with the straight chromatic descent. I remember the original LP notes of the Grumiaux recording drawing attention to the fact that this motif had been changed to a chromatic zig-zag figure in the original manuscript and first publication, and that this was just the sort of thing Mozart would do, despite the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe labeling it spurious and restoring the straight chromatic descent. Well, that's one difference between the Grumiaux and the Auryn. I wonder how many recordings use the zig-zag version?

IIRC the straight chromatic descent is more authentic, and it's never been proved that the alteration to a zig-zag figure was done by (or sanctioned by) Mozart himself. Thus, most recordings I know of use the chromatic descent. When I have access to my collection again (I don't at the moment) I'll take a moment to tabulate exactly which recordings do what.

[Spotted Horses]

IIRC the straight chromatic descent is more authentic, and it's never been proved that the alteration to a zig-zag figure was done by (or sanctioned by) Mozart himself. Thus, most recordings I know of use the chromatic descent. When I have access to my collection again (I don't at the moment) I'll take a moment to tabulate exactly which recordings do what.

The issue is that the alterations in the manuscript are not in Mozart's handwriting, but some speculate that Mozart could have decided on the alteration and instructed someone else to make the revisions to the manuscript. The account on the original Philips LP notes is shown below, second to last paragraph (I can barely read it by enlarging the image). The notes were written by Derek Cooke, who has some reputation as a Mozart scholar. I'm not sure which way I like it better.



The cover of the LP (which I owned when it was almost a new release) still brings up warm feelings.

[amw]

Yeah I do not know all the details either. One of my preferred recordings (Griller Quartet/Primrose) uses the zig-zag figure, which always sounds odd to me because I grew up with recordings that use the straight descent. In general a lot of older recordings use the zig-zag, while modern recordings tend to use the straight descent (and a few, like the Lindsays, recorded both), which suggests something about the current state of scholarship. But I don't know exactly what the consensus is.

[vers la flamme]

Thoughts?

[Florestan]

Thoughts?

Have not heard that but it's Haitink and Concertgebouw, should be at least very good.

[MusicTurner]

Thoughts?

I think they're quite good, there's a certain Brucknerian grandeur to them, and the Manfred Ouverture is my favourite recording of that great work.
But this is massively recorded territory. Sawallisch is very good too, probably a little lighter/slender. However, I didn't make a direct comparison of Haitink with Sawallisch or the others I own - Bernstein/DG, Skrowaczewski, or some Parays, Celibidaches, Abendroth, Barbirolli/NYPO, and Furtwängler, for example.

Karajan and Gardiner are among some of the other sets out there.

[Brian]

I don't have the Haitink but that description of Bruckner-like grandeur is really interesting. My sets were chosen for maximum contrast: Bernstein/Sony for bigness and size, Zinman for quasi-HIP, Gardiner for actually HIP, Chailly for the versions re-orchestrated by Mahler. Recently have been losing interest in Zinman (still like the others). Sounds like Haitink may be different from all of them.

[MusicTurner]

Well, maybe that's exaggerating a bit. But still ...

Others might have an opinion.

[Spotted Horses]

Thoughts?

That is triggering. It is the one installment of the Haitink edition that I did not get because, at the time, I wasn't a big fan of Schumann symphonies. The other sets from the series are among my absolute favorites, particularly Mahler and Bruckner.



I want it. (I want a lot of things)

[DavidW]

I don't have the Haitink but that description of Bruckner-like grandeur is really interesting. My sets were chosen for maximum contrast: Bernstein/Sony for bigness and size, Zinman for quasi-HIP, Gardiner for actually HIP, Chailly for the versions re-orchestrated by Mahler. Recently have been losing interest in Zinman (still like the others). Sounds like Haitink may be different from all of them.

My favorite is Dausgaard.  I want to listen to Barenboim soonish for a different direction.

[vers la flamme]

I don't have the Haitink but that description of Bruckner-like grandeur is really interesting. My sets were chosen for maximum contrast: Bernstein/Sony for bigness and size, Zinman for quasi-HIP, Gardiner for actually HIP, Chailly for the versions re-orchestrated by Mahler. Recently have been losing interest in Zinman (still like the others). Sounds like Haitink may be different from all of them.

Zinman/Baltimore or Zinman/Zürich?

[staxomega]

Yes. At first I confused myself not noticing that they are different. It appears they put the "Inspiring Tube Sound" in the two channel program of the "Real Surround Sound" SACD, rather than a 2 channel reduction of he surround sound, as is customary.

Thanks for bringing this up, it flew under my radar, I don't think I see Tacet releases in the New Releases thread that often. It's interesting because I don't think Tacet does box sets like this often or at all.

As for the tube microphones, these are what would have been used prior to solid state becoming mainstream (1970-ish cutoff?), and all those vintage recordings of classical music sound fine. IMO a modern, high quality tube or solid state microphone should sound pretty much be transparent. I have some Tacet releases that list their custom recording equipment and tube mics only in the booklet and I never would have guessed it from listening had I not read that.

[Brian]

Zinman/Baltimore or Zinman/Zürich?

Zurich on Arte Nova.

Thanks for bringing this up, it flew under my radar, I don't think I see Tacet releases in the New Releases thread that often

They don't have many new releases, sadly. Mostly the complete Scarlatti series from Christoph Ullrich and the random recitals by Koroliov. Every once in a while there is a "tube" recording of mainstream orchestral repertoire featuring obscure chamber orchestras from Poland or the Netherlands. I suppose those are on the theory that the sound will be so different, you won't notice if the performances are average.

[Mandryka]

[MusicTurner]

Turns out that there is a Music Web review
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Apr/Chopin_waltzes_FOR16882.htm

I know her Satie set as a bit too generally brisk, but hearing her Liszt Totentanz seemed convincing (in the good way ...), albeit many years ago. That's more or less what I know of recordings.

[Spotted Horses]

This seems like an inevitable purchase, given the stature of the artist.



One reservation is that over the years Decca piano sound has been problematic, despite their reputation for excellent orchestral recordings.

[Madiel]

This seems like an inevitable purchase, given the stature of the artist.



One reservation is that over the years Decca piano sound has been problematic, despite their reputation for excellent orchestral recordings.

I think it was the Schumann (which I haven't heard) that got criticised quite a bit for the sound. But there's certainly nothing wrong with the Chopin or the Rachmaninov.

[Brian]

This seems like an inevitable purchase, given the stature of the artist.



One reservation is that over the years Decca piano sound has been problematic, despite their reputation for excellent orchestral recordings.

I own the Ashkenazy "Artist's Choice" box, 60 CDs of solo and chamber and song repertoire. The sound is absolutely variable, with analogue mostly fine (to me) and the worst coming approx 1985-1995, when they took much longer than they should have to get acoustic depth correct on digital recordings. The most painful one to me is a disc of Prokofiev Romeo & Juliet + Cinderella transcriptions, repertoire that is like popcorn to me. I'd listen to it twice as much but for the glassy, colorless sound, which would have made sense in 1982 but not in its actual release year of 1996.

Of course, his body of work overall is still satisfying, and that box introduced me to a number of surprises which did not often get put in Ashkenazy hits boxes before. (Many of the analogue first readings of things he later did digitally, very recent passion projects, the Brahms horn trio, song cycles, etc.)

[Spotted Horses]

I think it was the Schumann (which I haven't heard) that got criticised quite a bit for the sound. But there's certainly nothing wrong with the Chopin or the Rachmaninov.

I got all or almost all of the Chopin when it was released in the double-decca series, and it's not bad. But even those strike me as having a tubby, too close and percussive acoustic, not at all as nice as the recordings Philips was making at the same time. The motivation for getting it is stuff I don't have, Beethoven, Schumann, Rachmaninoff (I have several releases, but not all of it) early recordings (which probably sound fine) and stuff I don't even know exists.

I own the Ashkenazy "Artist's Choice" box, 60 CDs of solo and chamber and song repertoire. The sound is absolutely variable, with analogue mostly fine (to me) and the worst coming approx 1985-1995, when they took much longer than they should have to get acoustic depth correct on digital recordings. The most painful one to me is a disc of Prokofiev Romeo & Juliet + Cinderella transcriptions, repertoire that is like popcorn to me. I'd listen to it twice as much but for the glassy, colorless sound, which would have made sense in 1982 but not in its actual release year of 1996.

Of course, his body of work overall is still satisfying, and that box introduced me to a number of surprises which did not often get put in Ashkenazy hits boxes before. (Many of the analogue first readings of things he later did digitally, very recent passion projects, the Brahms horn trio, song cycles, etc.)

I have to remind myself that the solo box doesn't contain the chamber music. The artist's choice box sounds like a good selection, except eventually they will come out with a complete chamber music box and I'll have to get it, making the artist's choice box redundant.