More Blind Comparisons! - Symphonie fantastique

[MishaK]

While we're all having fun... and at the special request of PerfectWagnerite and Larry Rinkel, herewith the next blind listening comparison. This time, it's the Songe d'une nuit de Sabbat from Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique - a piece that really gives every section of the orchestra a good workout and requires some good attention to textures and colors.

As usual, the point is to listen and figure out critically what you think is distinctive about a performance, what works, what doesn't work about an interpretation. You can guess if you want, but don't have to. Like Greta, I ask that if you are certain you know which recording a given clip is from that you don't reveal it. Send me a PM instead. But you don't *have* to try to identify performers. I think all of these clips have something interesting to say about this piece and I think all of you will find something interesting here. Hopefully, you will also discover some recordings you didn't know about.

Here they are:

Clip A

Clip B

Clip C

Clip D

Clip E

Enjoy!

Edit: download links have been updated as yousendit ran out of bandwidth.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Thanks. Downloading right now.

Anyone know of a score other the one here? You know, something you can actually print out???

[MishaK]

Anyone know of a score other the one here? You know, something you can actually print out???

PW, that link prints just fine for me. What's the problem?

[PerfectWagnerite]

PW, that link prints just fine for me. What's the problem?

If you want to print page by page it prints fine because each page is a separate gif file. I was hoping for an entire pdf file. Oh well, I guess you have to pay for that.

[MishaK]

If you want to print page by page it prints fine because each page is a separate gif file. I was hoping for an entire pdf file. Oh well, I guess you have to pay for that.

Actually, I just hit print and the whole thing started printing.

[PerfectWagnerite]

My printer just prints the page I am currently reading

[Larry Rinkel]

Thanks. Downloading right now.

Anyone know of a score other the one here? You know, something you can actually print out???

http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphonie_fantastique_%28Berlioz%2C_Louis_Hector%29

Or head down to Patelson's. . . .

[PerfectWagnerite]

Thanks Larry !

Clip A: Sounds like an excellent modern digital recording, with warmth and sense of space. There is transparency and balance in the orchestral playing. Articulation is crisp and everything is well proportioned.  Those running 16th notes 5 bars after rehearsal #54 are precise and confident. Again those runs at the 8:50 mark are remarkably clear. Not the most "all out" kind of intepretation but a rather cool approach. Probably if you like this approach this is as good as it gets. Kind of sounds like Boulez/Cleveland but I haven't heard that in a while now.

Clip B: An older recording, dynamic range not as wide as A. THis is much more crazy approach that really lets the music rip. Again, marvelous string and solo wind playing. The strings practically sound decadently rich. There is so much body to the string sound even the oldish recording can't hide the fact. The winds are not as prominent as in clip A. Couple of instances some of the wind details get muffled a bit (where is the flute at rehearsal #68 or at the 4:40 mark). The E-flat clarinet, though is suitably eerie and screechy. Reminds me a bit or Ormandy/Philadelphia.

Clip C: Somehow I don't like this as much. Sounds like all the notes are there but the performance doesn't seem to exude the same kind of confidence and pride as either A or B. At times the strings wound a bit uncertain and weak (starting at about 15 bars after reheasal #81, towards the end of the movement). A rather jumpy and frenetic intepretation that never quite settles down and sounds rather rushed. To me this movement is really about dynamics, timbre, and balance contrast and less about just playing it as fast as humanly possible. The rather flat timbral texture in this C doesn't work for me personally. Interesting choice of not taking the slide on the octave Cs in the flute and oboes at measures 58-59 and 63-64. I don't claim to know anything about what Berlioz' intentions were but it sure looks like a slide to me in the score. The audience obviously liked the performance though, listen to the standing ovation at the end. No guess who this could be.

Didn't get a chance for C and D yet, maybe tomorrow.

[MishaK]

Some interesting comments, PW. I'll let you get to Clips D and E first, but perhaps you can describe what indicators about the orchestral sound make you think of the orchestras you have suggested (not that I am saying they are right or wrong). You mention the richness of the strings in B and in connection with C you mention that colors are important. Can you perhaps explain what colors you think the orchestra should produce in the various sections of this movement?

[mahlertitan]

a word of advice (not related to the topic), you don't want to use yousendit.com, because it keeps track of your bandwidth, once you exceed that bandwidth, you won't be able to upload anything.

the solution is: www.mediafire.com

[MishaK]

a word of advice (not related to the topic), you don't want to use yousendit.com, because it keeps track of your bandwidth, once you exceed that bandwidth, you won't be able to upload anything.

the solution is: www.mediafire.com

Thanks, MT. If anyone has problems with the downloads, let me know. For the time being, though, I don't think we'll exceed the bandwidth limitations.

Any thoughts on the clips?

[PerfectWagnerite]

Some interesting comments, PW. I'll let you get to Clips D and E first, but perhaps you can describe what indicators about the orchestral sound make you think of the orchestras you have suggested (not that I am saying they are right or wrong). You mention the richness of the strings in B and in connection with C you mention that colors are important. Can you perhaps explain what colors you think the orchestra should produce in the various sections of this movement?

I think this movement, in terms of execution, has a lot in common with Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, in that if the orchestra plays the hell out of the music that is 99% of the interpretation. Yes the orchestral writing is at times very difficult, like the final section Dies Irae and Witches Dance Together where there are all kinds of runs and cross rhythms. But Berlioz confines these tricky parts mostly to the violins which are the most agile in the orchestra and the flute section which is probably the most versatile woodwind. So he is definitely not asking for the impossible. I think the Roman Carnival Overture is way more tricky than this. Also in the beginning section when there are solos Berlioz is careful in doubling the part so that if someone fluffs the part at least it is covered elsewhere. For example in measure 10-17 the creepy shrill E-flat clarinet is doubled by the even more shrill piccolo. The Dies Irae theme in the basstuba is double by the bassoon. In the final section those 16trh notes runs in the flute are doubled by the violin. You kind of get the feeling that Berlioz doesn't quite trust the ability of the orchestra of his time, otherwise he wouldn't use so much doubling.

This also make the need for the various timbres of the orchestra sections to really stand out. In both A and B I just hear more differentiation in the sound. For example in A you can hear the flutes and violins distinctly and they sound charismatic, purposeful, and confident. In C I don't quite get that feeling. Also something as tricky as 5 bars before rehearsal #85 where the triplets are tossed around the string section. The rhythm must be exact, pronounced, to create a satanic kind of ostinato effect. Again this is better executed in A and B. I kind of associate the transparency in A with Pierre Boulez. The orchestra is not as important as he can achieve the same sound whether it is the Cleveland Orch., the CSO, or the Vienna Philharmonic. In B the body of the STRINGS kind of suggest the Philadelphia Orchestra. I don't think any other orchestra has that kind of sheen in the violins.

[MishaK]

Also in the beginning section when there are solos Berlioz is careful in doubling the part so that if someone fluffs the part at least it is covered elsewhere. For example in measure 10-17 the creepy shrill E-flat clarinet is doubled by the even more shrill piccolo. The Dies Irae theme in the basstuba is double by the bassoon. In the final section those 16trh notes runs in the flute are doubled by the violin. You kind of get the feeling that Berlioz doesn't quite trust the ability of the orchestra of his time, otherwise he wouldn't use so much doubling.

Do you really think this is "doubling" in the strict sense? If it were doubling, why not use an additional Eb clarinet instead of the piccolo? Why the relatively weak bassoons to "double up" the mighty bass tuba? Why not trombones? Don't you think this has more to do with color than covering fluffs? Which also raises the question whether this:

This also make the need for the various timbres of the orchestra sections to really stand out. In both A and B I just hear more differentiation in the sound. For example in A you can hear the flutes and violins distinctly and they sound charismatic, purposeful, and confident.

...is really the point here. Again, not saying your observations on the performers are necessarily incorrect, just curious what you think Berlioz really meant to accomplish with this rather unique orchestration.

[Gurn Blanston]

...Why the relatively weak bassoons to "double up" the mighty bass tuba?

Well, I think it was because originally it didn't have a tuba, it had ophicleides (sic), which were not necessarily mighty and perhaps a better match for the bassoons.

But yes, I DO think it has to do with tone color, which is quite lovely if you're a fan of the basses!

Excuse the interruption...

[MishaK]

Excuse the interruption...

I don't excuse interruptions unless you also bless us with your thoughts on the clips. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't excuse interruptions unless you also bless us with your thoughts on the clips. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I will download them at work tomorrow and burn them to CD to bring home. Not practical here in the wilderness...

[Larry Rinkel]

Well, I think it was because originally it didn't have a tuba, it had ophicleides (sic), which were not necessarily mighty and perhaps a better match for the bassoons.

Yes. Mighty as the tuba may be, it was not mighty enough to have existed in 1830, and in the Treatise on Instrumentation Berlioz specifically says that the ophicleide at least in middle register always should be covered by other instruments. And so the Dies Irae is first heard on four bassoons and two ophicleides, as is stipulated in the New Critical Edition now used for the Eulenburg score. My sources are a little confusing, however, as Gardiner states in his notes that he uses an ophicleide, 4 bassoons, and a serpent for this passage. Berlioz's inimitable remarks in the Treatise on this reptilian instrument make its use at least plausible:

The essentially barbaric timbre of this instrument would have been far more appropriate to the ceremonies of the bloody cult of the Druids than to those of the Catholic religion. There is only one exception to be made - the case where the Serpent is employed in the Masses for the Dead, to reinforce the terrible plainsong of the Dies Irae. Then, no doubt, its cold and abominable howling is in place.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Do you really think this is "doubling" in the strict sense? If it were doubling, why not use an additional Eb clarinet instead of the piccolo? Why the relatively weak bassoons to "double up" the mighty bass tuba? Why not trombones? Don't you think this has more to do with color than covering fluffs? Which also raises the question whether this:

...is really the point here. Again, not saying your observations on the performers are necessarily incorrect, just curious what you think Berlioz really meant to accomplish with this rather unique orchestration.

I think (and that is just my opinion based solely on aural perceptions, not because I have ANY knowledge whatsoever of what the correct way to orchestra is) by doubling the Eb clarinet with the piccolo Berlioz achieves the "backup' part and also the color part. Likewise for the basson basstuba combo, sort of like killing two birds with one stone.

Actually I don't quite like the tuba in that solo. Sounds rather clumsy and breathy, a tenor horn would have done the trick.

[MishaK]

Actually I don't quite like the tuba in that solo. Sounds rather clumsy and breathy, a tenor horn would have done the trick.

What do you (and everyone else here) think about how the tuba part is played in the Dies irae in the different clips posted here, keeping in mind what Gurn and Larry said about the original instrumentation? (I actually thought of posting the Gardiner recording specifically to illustrate this point, but decided against it since it's so easily recognizable - I don't think I'm giving away anything by saying that none of the posted clips is the Gardiner recording.)

[M forever]

Clip A: Sounds like an excellent modern digital recording, with warmth and sense of space. There is transparency and balance in the orchestral playing. Articulation is crisp and everything is well proportioned.  Those running 16th notes 5 bars after rehearsal #54 are precise and confident. Again those runs at the 8:50 mark are remarkably clear. Not the most "all out" kind of intepretation but a rather cool approach. Probably if you like this approach this is as good as it gets. Kind of sounds like Boulez/Cleveland but I haven't heard that in a while now.

The playing is indeed remarkably precise and cultivated, so it could indeed be Cleveland in general, but not this time - it's the Wiener Philharmoniker. Apparently there is a recording with Sir Colin D from the digital era, but I haven't heard it since I rarely ever listen to this piece. But that could be that. I actually enjoyed listening to that even though I am tired of the piece.

B and C are totally orchestras of the old French school (which includes the OSR of the Ansermet era and similarly French-influenced bands of that period and a little later). The slender, piquant woodwind, the buffet bassoons, the bright, narrow and open (and at times rather instable) brass, the scratchy lower strings, all that clearly points in that direction. I have no idea who conducts these. The conductor in C completely freaks out. Could be Munch live. But there are so many recordings of this piece and I hardly know any of them, so concrete guessing is rather futile.

D sounds like an American orchestra. Could be CSO. I heard the piece once live with them under Barenboim, but I don't remember much about the interpretation except that Barenboim got really excited near the end and started giving wrong entries with dramatic gestures. But they still came in in the right places which left Barenboim standing there looking rather silly. Afterwards I had dinner with some people from the orchestra and I asked the principal clarinet (who was one the people Barenboim had been gesturing at when he wasn't supposed to play) if it didn't get on his nerves when the conductor loses control, he shrugged and just said "I don't know what the hell Daniel was conducting, we just played Symphonie fantastique".
Interesting effect when the Dies irae comes around again and the tuba plays with that snarling sound. Apart from that, not so interesting.

E Hard to say. Sounds like a German orchestra at times (timing, string ensemble), but the muddy and distanced recording doesn't reveal much, probably be an older recording judging from the recorded sound and some of the timbres (60s-70s). Could be Berliner Philharmoniker or some other orchestra from the general Northeast German region. At times, I seem to hear some elements of a more Viennese style, but it's hard to tell with this recording. Good playing but not a very interesting performance.