Shostakovich Symphonies, Cycles & Otherwise

[snyprrr]

Jansons is excellent in the Eighth.

Waht is the single Must Have Mravinsky? I would guess the 12th! But, besides, which one of the Mighty Ones- 5, 8, 10? Is it the Audiophile 5th? (which isn't quite clear which one it is?) What's the Single Best Mravinsky? (does that really mean "the one with the least amount of coughing?)

[snyprrr]

THIS MAXIM 4th on Supraphon is pretty good! It's true, he does bring out the hallucinatory aspects of the 'Moderato con moto'. Nice, pungent sound- oh, and some absolutely great wind playing, especially the all-important piccolo.

I'm not all the way through yet, but do take a look-see, it's got a lot of things going for it. Maybe not brutal power, but you do hear the bass drums come down with attitude.

[Karl Henning]

Told you it was good.

[snyprrr]

I thought everyone was waiting for Petrenko's 13th? It's here- how come no word on GMG?

[Karl Henning]

Have you heard it?

[Brahmsian]

I thought everyone was waiting for Petrenko's 13th? It's here- how come no word on GMG?

Order is on its way. 

Patience.....grasshoppah! 

[kishnevi]

Order is on its way. 

Patience.....grasshoppah! 

Mine too.

[Herman]

No, I meant set it for each media once- of course you have to change volume between records. Each record has its OWN sweet spot that one should be able to set and forget... "should". (or, any recording engineered by a loving engineer- I don't expect the non-committal to make good recordings)

I mean, are you a FAN of having to change volume in the middle of a piece?? All these recordings of the 11th where you can't barely hear the awesome opening? I mean, aren't they as artificial as an engineer riding the fader? Just put me in the 3rd row- set it and forget it. I don't want to be the percussionist, and I don't want to be the usher at the back of the hall (or the ticket agent out front).

"I want what I want and I want it now."

As I know the term "sweet spot" refers to the place where you sit, as a listener, to get the best effect from you hifi equipement.

I don't ever listen to music such as DSCH  -  with its changes between a whisper and giant tutti  -  without turning up and down the volume when needed. It's nobody's fault, except the composer's, who created his music for the concert hall primarily.

[aukhawk]

Then it is the fault of the mastering engineer, whose job it is to translate from one medium (live experiece) to another (home listening).  Though (s)he is probably only acting on instructions.

[Karl Henning]

That sort of translation is of necessity a cascade of compromises.

[Jo498]

There is a certain kind of "audiophile" listener who wants to have a huge dynamic spectrum on recordings, despite the obvious drawbacks on social life.

[snyprrr]

There is a certain kind of "audiophile" listener who wants to have a huge dynamic spectrum on recordings, despite the obvious drawbacks on social life.

you mean like "Forever Alone"?

[NorthNYMark]

There is a certain kind of "audiophile" listener who wants to have a huge dynamic spectrum on recordings, despite the obvious drawbacks on social life.

This is probably true, but some people seem to misunderstand the audiophile critique of recent "brickwalling" mastering trends (mainly in pop/rock music, but reportedly creeping into classical as well) as being motivated by what you describe.  Generally, even pop and rock recordings tended to have dynamic ranges of between 10 and 14 db, and that has been reduced over the past twenty years or so to averages closer to 7 or so via digital limiting software.  This is usually done to raise the average recording level to what had previously been reserved for the loudest peaks (and therefore make the overall recording louder); the problem is that this distorts aspects of the sound and produces a more fatiguing listening experience.  Those who oppose dynamic range limiting are not necessarily hoping for the huge, macrodynamic crescendo effects of classical music (though a minority probably values this), but just want a "normal" dynamic range such that a cymbal crash, for instance, actually sounds like a cymbal crash rather than white noise.  Some people actually get headaches from listening to overly dynamically compressed music (since your ears so rarely get the momentary breaks that a normally fluctuating dynamic tends to produce).

Classical dynamics are different--I sometimes wonder why classical performers produce such nearly inaudible ppp sections (often for extended periods) that if you turn up the volume just enough to barely hear what they are playing, you risk damaging your hearing when the tuttis come in.  But I would rather that be adjusted at the level of the performance than by a mastering engineer messing with the dynamic range after the fact.  Or, more practically, by the recording (not mastering) engineer using analog compressors, which produce a much more pleasant sound than that produced by digital limiting.

OK, "audiophile" rant over. 

[kishnevi]

I thought everyone was waiting for Petrenko's 13th? It's here- how come no word on GMG?

Playing it now.  Very very good.

[Jo498]

As I do not listen to Pop/Rock I have no experience with the "loudness wars".

But I could never understand complaints of audiophile classical listeners against older, "less dynamic" recordings, because I share the impression that some (admittedly very good) newer recordings have impractically wide dynamics and I cannot remember a single occasion when I disliked a (historical) recording because the differences in dynamics were not wide enough (I might have forgotten, there are bad recordings, but most of the time they are bad for other reasons.)

[snyprrr]

Playing it now.  Very very good.

How is that opening? Is the very first note very low, or normal? How close is the choir? errr... how are the dynamic levels???haha

impractically wide dynamics

THAT'S what I'm talking about!!

This is probably true, but some people seem to misunderstand the audiophile critique of recent "brickwalling" mastering trends (mainly in pop/rock music, but reportedly creeping into classical as well) as being motivated by what you describe.  Generally, even pop and rock recordings tended to have dynamic ranges of between 10 and 14 db, and that has been reduced over the past twenty years or so to averages closer to 7 or so via digital limiting software.  This is usually done to raise the average recording level to what had previously been reserved for the loudest peaks (and therefore make the overall recording louder); the problem is that this distorts aspects of the sound and produces a more fatiguing listening experience.  Those who oppose dynamic range limiting are not necessarily hoping for the huge, macrodynamic crescendo effects of classical music (though a minority probably values this), but just want a "normal" dynamic range such that a cymbal crash, for instance, actually sounds like a cymbal crash rather than white noise.  Some people actually get headaches from listening to overly dynamically compressed music (since your ears so rarely get the momentary breaks that a normally fluctuating dynamic tends to produce).

Classical dynamics are different--I sometimes wonder why classical performers produce such nearly inaudible ppp sections (often for extended periods) that if you turn up the volume just enough to barely hear what they are playing, you risk damaging your hearing when the tuttis come in.  But I would rather that be adjusted at the level of the performance than by a mastering engineer messing with the dynamic range after the fact.  Or, more practically, by the recording (not mastering) engineer using analog compressors, which produce a much more pleasant sound than that produced by digital limiting.

OK, "audiophile" rant over. 

shall we make a new Thread??? right on br-u-tha

[kishnevi]

How is that opening? Is the very first note very low, or normal? How close is the choir? errr... how are the dynamic levels???haha


THAT'S what I'm talking about!!

shall we make a new Thread??? right on br-u-tha

Sorry, I was listening to the music, not the engineering.

[NorthNYMark]

As I do not listen to Pop/Rock I have no experience with the "loudness wars".

But I could never understand complaints of audiophile classical listeners against older, "less dynamic" recordings, because I share the impression that some (admittedly very good) newer recordings have impractically wide dynamics and I cannot remember a single occasion when I disliked a (historical) recording because the differences in dynamics were not wide enough (I might have forgotten, there are bad recordings, but most of the time they are bad for other reasons.)

I tend to agree, if the "less dynamic" recordings in question are from, say, the analogue stereo era.  If you mean actual "historical" recordings (which to me usually implies wartime or earlier mono recordings), I can see the problem, in that the tuttis tend to sound extremely congested (and sometimes distorted) due to the lack of recording headroom.  Something like Furtwängler's famous wartime Beethoven's Fifth is an example of a recording that is basically unlistenable to me for that reason. 

In defense of the audiophiles who prefer the extreme dynamics of more recent recordings, once you get used to hearing something approaching the full dynamics of real, live instruments, conventional recording dynamics can sound very artificial in comparison.  I will admit a liking for the sound of the analog compression used on the Decca and RCA recordings of the late '50s and early '60s--to me, those recordings have a tubey, euphonic warmth that I often prefer to the more "accurate" presentation that we tend to get from the most recent recordings.  I also am more protective of my hearing than many who love to blast music at concert hall levels, so the most extreme dynamic range doesn't work for me. Still, digital dynamic range compression at the mastering stage almost always sounds awful, and I have heard that Sony among others has been doing that with some of their recent budget classical reissues (though I haven't noticed it yet myself).

[André]

I have two cycles (Barshaï and Kondrashin). But since there are a few symphonies I don't really relate to (1-3, 12), and  others I like but don't feel impelled to sextuplicate (6, 9, 10, 13, 14) that leaves 6 I really dig (4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15).

Recently I listened to the Rozhdestvensky Ministry of Culture version of 4 (the first movement of which is my fave among all DSCH, a symphony unto itself). I was awed and overwhelmed. Better even than Kondrashin-Concertgebouw and Haitink-Chicago.     

I then listened to an mp 3 of Rozh-Ministry 8th symphony and, Bingo again ! Wow !! I thus decided to scour Amazon for more Rozh-Ministry of Magic Shostakovich and, after deciding against buying an integral set for 2599$, I went for symphonies 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 11. 

........................................................

Just listened to the Tenth under Karel Ancerl (Czech Philharmonic, 1956 DGG-Supraphon). Remarkable, if decidedly severe, even forbidding.

[Cosi bel do]

I have two cycles (Barshaï and Kondrashin). But since there are a few symphonies I don't really relate to (1-3, 12), and  others I like but don't feel impelled to sextuplicate (6, 9, 10, 13, 14) that leaves 6 I really dig (4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15).

Recently I listened to the Rozhdestvensky Ministry of Culture version of 4 (the first movement of which is my fave among all DSCH, a symphony unto itself). I was awed and overwhelmed. Better even than Kondrashin-Concertgebouw and Haitink-Chicago.     

I then listened to an mp 3 of Rozh-Ministry 8th symphony and, Bingo again ! Wow !! I thus decided to scour Amazon for more Rozh-Ministry of Magic Shostakovich and, after deciding against buying an integral set for 2599$, I went for symphonies 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 11. 

........................................................

Just listened to the Tenth under Karel Ancerl (Czech Philharmonic, 1956 DGG-Supraphon). Remarkable, if decidedly severe, even forbidding.

The Rozhdestvensky complete cycle is also in my opinion the best on record. It's a shame Melodiya won't release it again but they have a funny way to manage their catalogue (the BMG releases 15 years ago were not very good in terms of remastering, but they made these recordings available for a few years).
Anyway, keep looking because you're right, there's no better set than this one.

By the way, Rozhdestvensky should not be missed in concert, he is really a fascinating character.