Re-recordings: If at first......?

[Pulcinella]

Given the current interest in the ‘Wondering why some cycles remain unfished?’ thread, I thought a complementary thread might be based around second (or even third,….) recordings of the same work by the same performers/conductors. This was triggered by listening to the Boulez Sony version of Bartok’s Music for strings, percussion and celesta (I’m working through the box in a random way, rather than adopting JosephK’s admirable approach!) and wondering how his interpretation might have changed for the DG remake: there is lots of music in that set that Boulez recorded again later, sometimes with the same orchestra.

There are immediate and obvious instances: the first that springs to mind is Karajan’s Beethoven symphony cycles, where for example perhaps a nice contrast could be drawn between those and Mackerras’s different cycles, first with the RLPO and later primarily with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra; then there’s Gould’s (1955 and 1981) and Hewitt’s (released 2000 and 2016) takes on the Goldberg Variations; the list certainly goes on.

There is a section in the Rewind article each month in BBC MM where an artist says ‘I’d like another go at….’, which can make interesting reading, as there are often very cogent and understandable reasons given.

Are second thoughts usually for better, or for worse?

Over to you! I might come back on the Boulez Bartok later.

(PS: It was hard to come up with a snappy title for this thread; any better ideas, and might it even develop into a subforum? I'm sure our hosts can do the necessary.)

[cloughie]

I suggest Previn on Rachmaninov Sym 2 - recorded for RCA, 1966, in its cut version with the LSO, then for EMI, 1973 uncut, again with the LSO and then with the RPO for Telarc, 1985. The first one was very good but the cuts meant that it was totally eclipsed by the 1973, which is still top choice for many even now, the 1985 is a superb recording as are most Telarc CDs but the performance does not quite match the 1973.

To endorse the later is not always better the Kurt Sanderling 1956 recording with the Leningrad Phil for many years was the tralblazining recording of the work, his 1989 Philharmonia recording was disappointing in comparison with not onlybthe earlier recording but also fared badly in the light of the vast competiton now and then available!

[Richard Tarleton]

Fischer-Dieskau's 7 Winterreises, 3 of them with Gerald Moore....

At the miniature end of the scale, Julian Bream recorded Benjamin Britten's Nocturnal After John Dowland in 1965, having premiered it at Aldeburgh, and again (on one of his valedictory EMI CDs) in 1992, 27 years later. The latter was on a legendary Hauser guitar that Segovia was denied the use of by its owner, string maker Albert Augustine, whose widow lent it to Bream towards the end of his career.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that this is a very interesting topic, something that I've idly pondered quite a few times when I've noticed the four sets of Beethoven Symphonies conducted by Karajan on my shelves. I've never understood the "why did he bother - they all sound alike/the 1960s set is the best" lines of argument (except in the sense that some people don't like Karajan's "way" with these works); for me, each recoding [and the recordings of individual Symphonies scattered around his career] reveal different shadings and details. It's clear that the same mind is thinking about the works, but different perspectives are exlored in each one. It's like Cezanne returning to the image of the Mont Sainte-Victoire, or Rembrandt studying his own changing features throughout his life

It is as if these great works get under the skin of the performers, haunting them - the performing opportunities and possibilities so vast, that any single performance has to leave out as much as they include, and these omissions nag away until performers have to return to them again and again, each time trying to get "further in" to a work - and, if they're a famous "box office draw", like Karajan or Brendel, recording companies will be eager to publish the results of these "returns". And, of course, profits (a different type of "return") play a significant role: I suspect that many String Quartets would have been delighted to record the Beethovens repeatedly - but the "expenditure/returns" balance here is not as rewarding to companies as the sales of Symphonies, or the solo pianist.

We're very lucky.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

We're very lucky.

And so are Musicians - actors can't do this: imagine a sixty-year-old Hamlet or Romeo? The actors would have the skills and knowledge built up over their career enabling them to know how they'd perform the roles - but this would have to be kept in their own imaginations, along with the memories of what they'd done "wrong" when they were younger and the right age for the role!

[oddoneout]

Are second thoughts usually for better, or for worse?

I don't know about better or worse, but one hopes they will be different. Whether those differences are acceptable will depend on whether the second thoughts of the performer(s) accord with those of the listener, whose own views may not have changed, or changed in ways that diverge from the later recordings . My limited experience and knowledge doesn't always find, for instance, that later, more HIPP versions, of well known works are any more enjoyable; the changes may be justified and may well shed new light on a work - but that doesn't automatically make the personal listening experience better.

[LeMartinPecheur]

A parallel track to that of the performers' interpretations is the technology one. Think of Boult and the Planets through 78s, mono LP, stereo LP, quadraphonic (if he did one) and digital. This often went in parallel with any change of label for the artist - if they've made a killing in a particular work or repertoire for their old label, the new one will hope for a share of the loot by offering something New, Bigger, Better and more Hi-Fi!

In these days where the technology of the original recording matters less and less if the performance is good enough and great performance will always remain available (touch wood!), it's easy to forget how totally stereo led to the deletion of the mono catalogue except for a few deliberately 'historical' labels like HMV COLH and the odd RCA Victrola, and these were mainly focused on the 78 era rather than the mono LP.

[richardfinegold]

What About a Conductor such as Karajan, who had to have a complete Beethoven cycle once a decade to keep up with changes in recording techniques? IMHO his seventies effort was a waste, as the mannerisms that occasionally showed in earlier renditions came more to the fore and the music making sounded more calculated.

[Bryn]

What About a Conductor such as Karajan, who had to have a complete Beethoven cycle once a decade to keep up with changes in recording techniques? IMHO his seventies effort was a waste, as the mannerisms that occasionally showed in earlier renditions came more to the fore and the music making sounded more calculated.

And the '60s set followed hard on the rather better survey, with the same orchestra, by Cluytens. (Coat off hook, but no retraction, though that second Karajan survey is still worth having.)

[pastoralguy]

And the '60s set followed hard on the rather better survey, with the same orchestra, by Cluytens. (Coat off hook, but no retraction, though that second Karajan survey is still worth having.)

Well, except the Pastoral symphony which is not nearly as good as Karajan's 1970's version.

[Bryn]

Well, except the Pastoral symphony which is not nearly as good as Karajan's 1970's version.

That's what tipped the scales regarding my getting the Blu-ray of that '70s set to add to various copies of both that and the others (including those in both the DG and EMI/Warner big boxes).

[pastoralguy]

I've often wondered why Anne-Sophie Mutter re-recorded so much of the repertoire she'd already committed to disc under her mentor, Karajan. Her mannerisms were very much to the fore in these latter recordings with the breathy tones and a certain feeling that she was more interested in showing her mastery of the instrument with the music merely being a vehicle.

[pastoralguy]

That's what tipped the scales regarding my getting the Blu-ray of that '70s set to add to various copies of both that and the others (including those in both the DG and EMI/Warner big boxes).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sorry to be predictable and boring, but there are several examples of Strauss's Alpine Symphony that have been given a second or third go by the same conductor.

The composer's 1936 live recording was followed by a brisker studio recording, both fine in their own way (and an important lesson to OCD score gazers).

Karl Bohm recorded it 3 times, the 2nd & 3rd being the ones that made it to CD, and both very similar (and I find them dull).

Previn's interpretations are similar too.

Thielemann's 3 attempts are very fine indeed, but are very similar to one another.

Franz Welser-Möst has recorded it twice, both nightmarishly rushed in places, and right at the bottom of my list.

Mehta - very similar interpretations.

Karajan's CD and video versions are similar, but the recorded sound is better on the live DVD

Etc.


But an exception is Ashkenazy. His two recordings show how much the conductor rethought his interpretation, the second being leaps and bounds ahead of his earlier one.


So I would suggest a rerun is only worthwhile if the conductor has a good non-financial reason for doing so.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What About a Conductor such as Karajan, who had to have a complete Beethoven cycle once a decade to keep up with changes in recording techniques? IMHO his seventies effort was a waste, as the mannerisms that occasionally showed in earlier renditions came more to the fore and the music making sounded more calculated.

There is always the possibility of that sort of response, of course - my own opinion is that I prefer the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth from the '70s set to those from the '60s (which has the "better" Eroica and Fourth, with honours shared amongst the remainders - Six and Eight are even better in the '80s). But I wouldn't wish to be without any of these performances, and the very fact that we can point out our preferences between the performances makes it very clear that "changes in recording techniques" weren't the sole motivation for his returning to these works - what were those "changes" between the '60s and '70s for that matter?

If we don't particularly like a performer's reading of a work, then we may well wonder why they bothered to re-record it - and if we actively dislike such a reading, we may even wonder why they bothered to record the first time. But if we do respond positively to such readings, then the differences (as oddy said in #6, it's not necessarily a matter of "better or worse") are relishable: taking us, through the performer's reassessments of the works, closer into our own appreciation of them.