Shostakovich Symphonies, Cycles & Otherwise

[Don]

I'm a little surprised at the skepticism some have about the sound quality of the Kondrashin set.  I'll take it on faith that the newly remastered set has better sound than the Aulos or even earlier sets.  However, I've not had any problem with the sound quality on the Aulos set, finding that the performances easily overcome sonic limitations.  Cortot, Richter, Oistrakh, Casals, Toscanini, etc. all overcome sound deficiencies; Kondrashin is on this level also.

[Steve]

I'm a little surprised at the skepticism some have about the sound quality of the Kondrashin set.  I'll take it on faith that the newly remastered set has better sound than the Aulos or even earlier sets.  However, I've not had any problem with the sound quality on the Aulos set, finding that the performances easily overcome sonic limitations.  Cortot, Richter, Oistrakh, Casals, Toscanini, etc. all overcome sound deficiencies; Kondrashin is on this level also.

I haven't actually heard much of the Aulos set beyond some online previews. It was a friend of mine who warned me against buying it because of the poor sound quality. So, I really can't be sure about the sonics on that set. I will say that there nearly every review that I have read about this new set speaks to some improvement in the sound. As far as I can tell, the sonics are still not optimal- but overall, they aren't an obstacle to enjoying the music. Sorry, I can't be more helpful on the matter.

[Greta]

I'm watching this thread as I don't have a Shosty set, in fact despite loving this composer, I'm not familiar with all his symphonies yet. 

I don't have the $$$ to spend on a cycle this month, but this summer I'm definitely going for one after I've thought about it. I have no idea who I'd like.

The 5th Symphony is one of my all-time favorites and I finally got to hear it live this year in a surprisingly great performance by our regional symphony. I also simply adore his Piano Concertos and lately have been spending time with the Fitzwilliam's Complete String Quartets. Brilliant stuff.

I may have a chance to borrow the Rostropovich set sometime, would it be an okay introduction?

[Michel]

I'm a little surprised at the skepticism some have about the sound quality of the Kondrashin set.  I'll take it on faith that the newly remastered set has better sound than the Aulos or even earlier sets.  However, I've not had any problem with the sound quality on the Aulos set, finding that the performances easily overcome sonic limitations.  Cortot, Richter, Oistrakh, Casals, Toscanini, etc. all overcome sound deficiencies; Kondrashin is on this level also.

Absolutely agree, Don. The obsession everyone is having over sonic's here is bizarre. Especially with regard to Barshai, as we don't go about suprised that a recent LSO release has "good sonics", so why should we with Barshai? Its a modern recording for christs sake (and yes I know they haven't mucked about with it like they used to in Russia) but that is what we should expect...although in saying this, I still think it is unbalanced - worse, in some places than lets say a pre-war recording (since a lot of those may have distortion, but at least they have balance, something the Barshai systemically lacks in places)


But regardless of all this, like you say, sometimes sonics don't matter and most of the time, they should only be considered a nice bonus. There are other things far more important.

[Michel]

Does anyone have any views on this box set generally? (as opposed to the conducting - ie, the sound, the quality of the release, etc?)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MRAVINSKY-Shostakovich-Symphonies-6CD-Box-MELODIYA-NEW_W0QQitemZ140114625953QQihZ004QQcategoryZ43585QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[SimonGodders]

Hi Michel,

Tiny thread here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,13452.0.html

Was listening to the 12th last night. As said before, the sound is a little 'agricultural' on some, partic. the 5th IIRC. Yet the intensity....Mravinsky just piles on the pressure in these works until you're pummelled into submission. Layer after layer, quite relentless interpretations. Therefore despite the sound, essential listening methinks.

[BachQ]

Sound is still less than optimal. However, it is no longer a obstacle in the way of being able to appreciate this excellent conducting. Quite amazing.

Thanks . . . . . . . That's pretty much what I was assuming . . . . . . . 

[BachQ]

The newly remasterd, 11CD set with the eyeglasses.

Might I add, that the packaging qualtity was extremely poor. The whole unit seems very flimsy.

Did you purchase your Kondrashin set at Russiandvd.com for 79,99?

[BachQ]

Sometimes sonics don't matter and most of the time, [sonics] should only be considered a nice bonus. There are other things far more important.

Does anyone have any views on . . . . the sound, the quality of the release, etc?

So with Mravinsky, sonics/sound quality IS important; but with Barshai and Kondrashin, sonics/sound quality ISN'T important . . . . . . .

[George]

Did you purchase your Kondrashin set at Russiandvd.com for 79,99?

I did! Last night. 

[George]

So with Mravinsky, sonics/sound quality IS important; but with Barshai and Kondrashin, sonics/sound quality ISN'T important . . . . . . .

To me, if the performance is superb (as with much of Richter's recordings or Serkin, Rachmaninov or Schnabel's historical recordings), then the sonics automatically become a secondary issue. If they are not superb, then issues like sound and price become more important.

[Michel]

So with Mravinsky, sonics/sound quality IS important; but with Barshai and Kondrashin, sonics/sound quality ISN'T important . . . . . . .

I wasn't referring to Sonics, I was referring to the quality of the transfers, etc.

And that does make a massive differance, because it is things like the transfer that seriously affect the balance, etc. And, moreover, the reason why I am interested in transfers, is really to ask the question, "is this the CD to get, or should I aim for another transfer?" - not questioning the performance itself. Like when you compare exactly the same performances between Naxos Historicalm and Pearl, for example.

So, despite what you think, you haven't caught me out! Although you probably don't understand this, as you dont' seem to have any idea of historical performance and transfers.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Absolutely agree, Don. The obsession everyone is having over sonic's here is bizarre. Especially with regard to Barshai, as we don't go about suprised that a recent LSO release has "good sonics", so why should we with Barshai? Its a modern recording for christs sake (and yes I know they haven't mucked about with it like they used to in Russia) but that is what we should expect...although in saying this, I still think it is unbalanced - worse, in some places than lets say a pre-war recording (since a lot of those may have distortion, but at least they have balance, something the Barshai systemically lacks in places)


But regardless of all this, like you say, sometimes sonics don't matter and most of the time, they should only be considered a nice bonus. There are other things far more important.

That's not what Don is saying, Michel.

And as far as "obsessed with sonics"...who's obsessed with sonics??

Not I.

As I've mentioned before my all-time favorite Shostakovich symphony recording is Koussevitzky's Boston Symphony recording of the 9th from 1947!

And it's on LP!!!!!!!

So, no, sonics isn't an obsession in these parts.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I wasn't referring to Sonics, I was referring to the quality of the transfers, etc.

And that does make a massive differance, because it is things like the transfer that seriously affect the balance, etc. And, moreover, the reason why I am interested in transfers, is really to ask the question, "is this the CD to get, or should I aim for another transfer?" - not questioning the performance itself. Like when you compare exactly the same performances between Naxos Historicalm and Pearl, for example.

So, despite what you think, you haven't caught me out! Although you probably don't understand this, as you dont' seem to have any idea of historical performance and transfers.

If sound doesn't matter then get any 'ol transfer you want!

[Michel]

What is he "not saying". I don't reference this post other than "absolutely agree". I then move on to make another point.

But to make it explicit: I absolutely agree, Don, who cares about sound when superb musianship is abundant?

Happy? 

[karlhenning]

I did! Last night. 

We await your report! :-)

[karlhenning]

Interesting discussion on 'sonics'.

Two of the matters important to my ears are:  how the musicians are playing;  and "depth of field" in the musical texture, whether I can hear (and how well I can hear) all that's going on, how well it is balanced, how together it all is.

As to how the musicians are playing, the sound quality of the recording itself is irrelevant, ironically – an analogy might be the composition of a photo, regardless of the condition of the print.

For the latter point, there are many factors which can spoil what might, for instance, be in other respects an outstanding performance:  poor balance on the part of the players, poor balance or otherwise faulty imaging in the micing or mixing, unflattering acoustics in the space.

In a profound sense, I don't care how exactly it went wrong, when I'm listening to a recording;  the important thing is, the recording is for whatever reason not "displaying" the piece and./or performance properly.  Figuring out just where the fault (or collective fault) lies, is a distant second, by me.

[karlhenning]

Welcome, Greta!

. . . I may have a chance to borrow the Rostropovich set sometime, would it be an okay introduction?

At least one neighbor has found it wanting in some respect.

[karlhenning]

And one impression I had as I listened through my survey of firsts was Bob Z's frank remark at the outset of his review, that one could readily find favorite accounts of all the symphonies without reference to the Barshai.  Still, I confess myself pretty sturdily disappointed in the First here;  it is perhaps the sixth of those from the Barshai set that I've had occasion to listen to (including the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Thirteenth), and of these, the account of the First seems to me below the mean.  FWIW, on one hand, I should not condemn the set for the lowest point on the curve (if it be the lowest);  on the other, it does seem like setting off on the wrong foot . . . .

[George]

I apologize to the rest of the group that I have not revisited and posted about my Rozhdesvensky DSCH #1. I shall do so this week.

Also, for those who are curious about RussianDVD.com as a seller of the Kondrashin, I can tell you that they are an impressive seller with outstanding customer service. My copy should be here by the end of the week, so I am obviously stoked.