I am curious about this. Something by Rachmaninov perhaps? Richard Strauss?
Maybe this is disqualified by the parenthetical adjective, but I'd say the Shostakovich Fourth.
Eine Alpensinfonie, op.64 ?
Someone is about to crash his speakers, I can feel it. $:)
Thomas
Any Kancheli symphony deserves a go :-*
Edit: my eyes totally failed with the "popular" part $:)
This mostly depends on the recording. Some conductor/orchestra combinations draw more dynamics out of the music than others. Solti and Chicago are noted (some would say "notorious") for drawing out dynamic extremes, as are Karajan/Berlin, while Ormandy/Philadelphia, as fine as they sound, generally don't work in the extreme ends of the "dynamic scale."
But it's also true that certain music, because of orchestration or written dynamic levels, tends to evoke dynamic extremes. Among those I would nominate Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique, Harold in Italy and Requiem; Bruckner's last three symphonies; Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony (that pppppp in the bassoon part!); Debussy's La Mer and Images; Holst's The Planets (much of "Mars" is written at the fff level); Ravel's Boléro (we tend to forget just how extreme its dynamics are since they change so gradually); Varèse's Amériques and Arcana; and just about anything by Mahler, especially his Second and Third Symphonies.
Depends on your definitions of all sorts of parameters, including 'popular', but I'd say Tchaikovsky 6 fulfils all remits pretty well. Also, its most extreme marking - pppppp - is juxtaposed with an ff which makes for one of the most extreme jumps in dynamics in the 'popular' repertoire.
FWIW there are some composers who use in dynamics in a rather different way, so that large accumulations of p's and f's are not at all uncommon. Albeniz - perhaps unexpectedly - is peculiar in this respect, but leaping above the pack is Ligeti, whose piano etudes (for example) range from pppppppp to ffffffff.
Thanks guys!
I guess it's HVK's Tchiakovsky 6th, then. Unless you think Bernstein or Mravinsky's might have a greater dynamic range?
I asked because I need a CD to use to burn-in my new interconnects for my CD player and I have been told to use a good orchestral recording with a wide dynamic range to accomplish this.
Quote from: George on September 02, 2008, 08:46:01 AM
Thanks guys!
I guess it's HVK's Tchiakovsky 6th, then. Unless you think Bernstein or Mravinsky's might have a greater dynamic range?
I asked because I need a CD to use to burn-in my new interconnects for my CD player and I have been told to use a good orchestral recording with a wide dynamic range to accomplish this.
Being something of a computer nerd, I like the reason you asked the question George. ;D I am now away to listen to HVK's Tchiakovsky 6 with the volume up! :-\
Ah that's a slightly different question. I'm not the person to ask on this sort of technical recordings question, but am I right in recalling that there was a vogue for recordings with an artificially wide dynamic range a while ago. I'm thinking of some of Rattle's CBSO recordings for some reason - but as I say, this isn't an area that's ever interested me much, and I'm probably wildly wrong.
And as a further FWIW, remembering that someone suggested Kancheli above - it's true that his predominantly quiet music is infamous for sudden, volcanic eruptions, and the only classical CDs I remember seeing with warning stickers and advice for care of speakers are of Kancheli's music!
Quote from: mahler10th on September 02, 2008, 08:50:39 AM
Being something of a computer nerd, I like the reason you asked the question George. ;D I am now away to listen to HVK's Tchiakovsky 6 with the volume up! :-\
Beware of the start of the development in the first movement! $:)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on September 02, 2008, 08:50:55 AM
Ah that's a slightly different question. I'm not the person to ask on this sort of technical recordings question, but am I right in recalling that there was a vogue for recordings with an artificially wide dynamic range a while ago. I'm thinking of some of Rattle's CBSO recordings for some reason - but as I say, this isn't an area that's ever interested me much, and I'm probably wildly wrong.
I have his Mahler 2 with the same forces. Perhaps that will work if you are correct? Unfortunately, the symphony is split between two discs. :-\ Movement 1 on CD 1, the rest on CD 2.
Quote from: George on September 02, 2008, 08:56:36 AM
I have his Mahler 2 with the same forces. Perhaps that will work if you are correct? Unfortunately, the symphony is split between two discs. :-\ Movement 1 on CD 1, the rest on CD 2.
Yes, it ought to do the trick - the last movement will suffice!
Quote from: George on September 02, 2008, 08:46:01 AM
I guess it's HVK's Tchiakovsky 6th, then. Unless you think Bernstein or Mravinsky's might have a greater dynamic range?
Possibly equal, but I doubt they would be greater. I don't know about Mravinsky, but Bernstein's recordings are usually not noted for their extreme pianissimos, while Karajan's often are. 8) Of course, that may be mostly the difference between Sony/Columbia and DG. ;D
As solo piano recordings are known to be the most difficult recordings to reproduce realistically on sound equipment, I would say solo piano works should be considered.
Interesting.....wanting to see if I was right to remember old comments about wide dynamic range in Rattle's CBSO recordings I ran a Google search and came up with this (http://www.acoustica.org.uk/impulse/taus%20_review.html) - a report on a loudspeaker test, with a few comments on how it performed with a variety of CDs, one of which is indeed a Rattle/CBSO disc of Szymanowski's 3rd, a disc which I can attest does indeed have an extraordinarily large range (the climax of that symphony is one of the most massive in the repertoire :o ).
Quote from: sound67 on September 02, 2008, 08:12:56 AM
Eine Alpensinfonie, op.64 ?
That's my guess. A staggering achievement.
In my opinion, only the Shostakovich 4th (and perhaps some of the work of Aaron Copland) has matched it, from an overall quality perspective, since its publishing.
I should elaborate, I don't rate the above pieces according to their range alone, but at least as much for their obviously painstaking craftmanship. Of course, that's just my personal standards.
Die Alpensinfonie just seemed to be the career summit for Strauss, combining his Wagner and Mozart fetishes with his earlier, more 20th century "experimental", side.
Tchaikovsky's 6th has quite the range as well.
Quote from: sound67 on September 02, 2008, 08:12:56 AM
Eine Alpensinfonie, op.64 ?
If it's between this work and the Tchaikovsky 6th, the Strauss wins by a landslide, or should I say
avalanche? ;D
For my money:
Pines of the Appian Way, Ottorino Respighi.
One piece sprung immediately to mind and that is the Reiner recording of the William Tell Overture. So soft at the beginning that I think I've got the volume too low and yet I don't dare turn it up as i know what's coming.
Quote from: George on September 02, 2008, 08:46:01 AM
I guess it's HVK's Tchiakovsky 6th, then. Unless you think Bernstein or Mravinsky's might have a greater dynamic range?
In terms of recorded performances Kondrashin's live recording from Japan has the widest dynamic range. Kondrashin was famous for bringing out the most extreme dynamics and that particular Japanese tour makes for spectacular listening with the hall's acoustics (or lack thereof?).
Shostakovich 4 was the first thing that came to mind for me but I would probably choose Tchaikovsky 6 on reflection too. Unfortunately haven't heard Eine Alpensinfonie in concert yet, I'm sure it's quite the experience...
Of course The Gothic has some of the loudest things imaginable (with that number of people playing and singing, it would, wouldn't it?), but also moments of the most intense quietness, such as the bass clarinet links between 2nd and 3rd movement.... For the same reason, the Berlioz Requiem is a good bet too - its quiet music is as extreme in its own way as all those drums and brass bands are.
In live concerts, the loudest (and most dynamic) musical events I have heard were the Alpensinfonie and Zarathustra with Karajan and, not surprisingly, given the large forces, Mahler 8 with Abbado. That's not just a function of the number of performers, though, also of the density of the musical textures, and the performers, the way they play. In general, the loudest orchestra I have heard was the BP under Karajan, Abbado toned that down a little bit, or made it more slender and less massive, compact, but they also could play incredibly soft, like at the beginning of Eine Alpensinfonie which was extremely soft but you could still hear all the notes of the cluster clearly; HvK had rehearsed that very carefully and spent a lot of time balancing all the voices which resulted in an effect I have never again heard, it sounded as if the Philharmonie was covered in knee deep fog. I also remember that one very quiet variation which sounds like fragments of organ music coming from very far in Brahms' Haydn Variationen (don't remember which number it is), and that was played by the full string section with a lot of sound, but so quiet that it was as if it was a string quartet. But a string quartet with a very big sound, just from very far away.
But loudness or the impression thereof is no necessarily a function of "loud", forced, aggressive playing. It is more a function of quality and richness of sound. A lot of orchestras don't have that though in the highest degree, so many can play quite loud, but few really "loud".
I also remember specifically how enormous the sound of the Orchestre National de France was when they played Daphnis et Chloé one time in Berlin - the sound was very unforced, very lucid, very unaggressive, very refined, but it was so rich and well balanced, it literally filled the room. When the big outburst of sound came after the long flute solo, I had the feeling one could float to the other side of the room on that sound.
On disc, it's obviously a different story. Anything can be recorded with the full useable dynamic range of the medium, even a solo flute.
Quote from: George on September 02, 2008, 08:46:01 AM
I asked because I need a CD to use to burn-in my new interconnects for my CD player and I have been told to use a good orchestral recording with a wide dynamic range to accomplish this.
Since this is a pure placebo effect which has no basis in physical reality, you can use whatever CD gives you a warm feeling inside. In fact, I suggest you infuse the CD with essence of lemon grass before playing it and the cables will have a lovely, fresh, breezy quality.
I missed the part you quoted. That is pretty hilarious, and also, of course, complete nonsense from a technical point of view. The voltages and currents going through the cables and connectors aren't enough to "burn in" anything on a home system.
I completely agree with Shostakovich's 4th and the Alpine Symphony being here...
but for dynamic range, you can't forget Mahler's 3rd! I can't think of anything else with a greater dynamic range.....
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 02, 2008, 01:31:31 PM
I completely agree with Shostakovich's 4th and the Alpine Symphony being here...
but for dynamic range, you can't forget Mahler's 3rd! I can't think of anything else with a greater dynamic range.....
Thanks Greg! I'm going with the Alpine Symphony for the purposes of this thread. Much thanks for all the useful suggestions! :)
I'm not sure if Scriabin's first piano sonata qualifies as 'popular'. It only indicates loudness up to fff ending sfff, which is probably about as loud as the piano will play. On the other hand the mid section of the finale is marked 'quasi niente'; it doesn't matter how many p's a composer writes, one can't get quieter than that!
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 03, 2008, 04:23:28 AM
I'm not sure if Scriabin's first piano sonata qualifies as 'popular'. It only indicates loudness up to fff ending sfff, which is probably about as loud as the piano will play. On the other hand the mid section of the finale is marked 'quasi niente'; it doesn't matter how many p's a composer writes, one can't get quieter than that!
Well, if you're talking
written dynamic ranges, there's no end of extreme markings in music written around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century; you'd think that was an extreme time or something! ;D Varèse's
Octandre goes from
ppp to
sffff in short order; Tchaikovsky's markings are similarly extreme, as previously discussed, as are Holst's for The Planets. Even Rachmaninoff's famous/notorious Prelude in C# minor goes from
ppp to
fff, with (as I recall; I haven't seen the printed music for a while) a
sffff or two during the climax.
Thanks guys! I have received more than enough suggestions to achieve my goal. Therefore, I am locking this thread (for the second time.) :)