Otto Klemperer: The Remastered Edition

[Barbirollians]

I would much rather have a remastered Paul Kletzki Warner recordings box on the 50th anniversary of his death.

[smittims]

...if only to hear his recording of Artur Schnabel's Fantasia for orchestra!

[Keraulophone]

I just checked the Presto site to see if the kempe/Strauss is still available, and it is, at a ridiculously low price to boot. That would lead to some encouragement that perhaps Warner isn't as trigger happy with their deletion of these big boxes as Sony or Decca, for those of us on the fence...

.
However, in that particular case we are talking, IMHO, of one of the greatest recording ventures of all time - Staatskapelle Dresden/Rudolf Kempe/Richard Strauss/East Berlin recording venue (J-CK) and recording engineers who didn't mess it up (!) - nothing in this rep has come close since. Thus it should remain permanently in the catalogue or Warners are nuts.
.

[Lordgeous]

But why is the supposedly inferior Brilliant Box version priced at £194 (on Amazon) with Warners around £20???

[richardfinegold]

.
However, in that particular case we are talking, IMHO, of one of the greatest recording ventures of all time - Staatskapelle Dresden/Rudolf Kempe/Richard Strauss/East Berlin recording venue (J-CK) and recording engineers who didn't mess it up (!) - nothing in this rep has come close since. Thus it should remain permanently in the catalogue or Warners are nuts.
.

I couldn’t agree more. And as to the pricing discrepancies cited by Lord…s, it is due to bizarre Amazon algorithms. The Brilliant is scarcer.
So I ignored all my objections and ordered the OK from Presto. I’m going through a rough patch, having to put my mother in Detroit in Hospice, having to shuttle between here and there, and I wanted to cheer myself up. I ordered it Saturday and was stunned when it arrived Tuesday, as Presto orders usually take a few weeks to be fulfilled here. I listened last night to the Brahms Third, because I had just played that recording off of my server a week or so ago, and therefore have the most recent sonic memory of that record. The most immediate difference is in the treble, particularly in the flute or oboe. They leap out of the sound mix and sound much more like a live presence, and Petrushka’s description of more air around the instruments is most noticeable here. It applies less to the low strings and brass, which still have that cramped, mid fifties early stereo feel. I didn’t appreciate HD
description of of a sweeting of string tone and color, but it’s early days. Still, after the improvements that Warner worked with improving the already good sound of the Kempe/Strauss recordings , I was somewhat disappointed. The Strauss was recorded about 15 years after the Klemperer Brahms, so the limitations may be inherent in the original recording

[HighlandDougie]

The Strauss was recorded about 15 years after the Klemperer Brahms, so the limitations may be inherent in the original recording

I think that that is very much the case. Although the remastering team have worked wonders - but not miracles - with the source material, it is an inescapable fact that recordings made in the 1950s and 1960s are not necessarily up to the standards of recordings made 15 years later. Tape machines, mixing desks, microphone arrays etc had, I suspect, been subject to improvement in that time. And, without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest, I'm not sure that the Columbia and HMV recording teams had quite reached the pinnacle of excellence in the late 1950s which their Decca peers had achieved.

[richardfinegold]

The Bruckner Fourth is a very good transfer. I had bought the OK Bruckner box when it was released, and this Fourth has been my favorite ever since encountering it, but this edition shows great clarity. Again the winds sound as though they have been freed up a bit from the rest of the Orchestra.
I had never encountered the OK Mahler Four, and was cringing a bit at the idea of Schwartzkooff in the last movement, but I enjoyed it and her. It reminds me of the Horenstein Fourth, a bit darker than what I am used to

[Dave2002]

I think that that is very much the case. Although the remastering team have worked wonders - but not miracles - with the source material, it is an inescapable fact that recordings made in the 1950s and 1960s are not necessarily up to the standards of recordings made 15 years later. Tape machines, mixing desks, microphone arrays etc had, I suspect, been subject to improvement in that time. And, without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest, I'm not sure that the Columbia and HMV recording teams had quite reached the pinnacle of excellence in the late 1950s which their Decca peers had achieved.

Some of the issues about recording teams seemed to be subjective in the 1960s-1970s. I didn't particularly like Decca LPs over HMV at the time, but one day someone played for me a Decca LP on his much better kit than my own, and it really did sound better than most recordings I had heard up to then. Some of the reviewers - for example in the Gramophone - might have had really good kit, which could bring out the qualities of most LPs better than many of the readers of the magazines would experience. At the master recording level, even some companies - such as CBS - which were not thought by UK reviewers to have decent sound quality, did have engineers who could record a decent sound. What happened between the master tapes and the eventual LPs in some cases must have taken the edge off the master tapes - possibly deliberately, though recording to disc does need some compensation for the characteristics of the medium. Even Decca didn't always get everything right, and one Decca recording of music by Kodaly I have which was thought to be audiophile quality by reviewers has a glaring section which is just wrong - repeated twice. In other respects that recording by Istvan Kertesz is indeed very good. Some of the reissues of earlier recordings - such as those recordings by Mercury show that there were good quality masters available even in the 1950s-1960s.

Unfortunately since in some cases the masters have been lost, or were done to tape which has now suffered severe deterioration, sometimes the only option for remastering now is to work back from good copies of discs.

[smittims]

I used to find Decca stereo LPs more 'bassy' han EMI, and I was told inthe early Lp era they exaggerated the treble so that listeners would turn it back and avoid surface noise (this may be an urban myth).

I was also told thatthe famous 'Decca Phase Four' recordings were designed for audiophiles but also to sound good on a cheap stereo, to encourage low-budget collectors.

Schwarzkopf was not Klemperer's favourite soprano , but she was married to his record producer! QED. I prefer his other Mahler 4's, especially the Testament one with the astonishingly-pure Teresa Stich-Randall, who sang Sophie inthe Columbia 'Rosenkavalier' opposite Schwarzkopf's Marschallin.

[Dave2002]

I used to find Decca stereo LPs more 'bassy' han EMI, and I was told inthe early Lp era they exaggerated the treble so that listeners would turn it back and avoid surface noise (this may be an urban myth).

This might be relevant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#History

Chances are that many people had cheap turntable/amp combinations, so rather than putting in proper compensation curves to correct for the recording pre-emphasis, both equipment manufacturers and record producers relied on users adjusting the treble and bass balance to suit themselves. It doesn't necessarily follow that Decca's pre-emphasis was incorrect. Earlier I mentioned hearing a Decca recording played back on high quality (well, higher than mine anyway) equipment and I think that included a Decca ffss pickup and arm. One reason it might have sounded so good could have been that it matched the recordings better than other equipment would have done. Other kit might have matched recordings from other recording studios better.

[richardfinegold]

One is impressed here by the breadth of the repertoire that OK was allowed to record with EMI, versus the restricted repertoire that
Is displayed in the big Bruno Walter box. Walter box is entirely devoted to the Astro-German axis. Yesterday I listened to OK in Tchaikovsky Pathetique and Berlioz Symphony Fantastique. I had never heard either before.I don’t think that either record played to his strengths, but they are solid, extremely well played recordings. The sound on the Tchaikovsky certainly bests the contemporaneous Monteux/Boston series, long a favorite of mine that I have heard in every digital restoration. The Berlioz is a trice Teutonic for me, but it does make me reflect on how much Berlioz was influenced by Beethoven, and how the Beethoven Symphonies really gained appreciation historically when they were performed by the crack Paris Orchestra in the 1820s that Berlioz would of heard
I also listened to the Mozart Symphonies. These were favorite recordings that I played often in my youth. The string tone here is lovely

[Petrushka]

One is impressed here by the breadth of the repertoire that OK was allowed to record with EMI, versus the restricted repertoire that
Is displayed in the big Bruno Walter box. Walter box is entirely devoted to the Astro-German axis. Yesterday I listened to OK in Tchaikovsky Pathetique and Berlioz Symphony Fantastique. I had never heard either before.I don’t think that either record played to his strengths, but they are solid, extremely well played recordings. The sound on the Tchaikovsky certainly bests the contemporaneous Monteux/Boston series, long a favorite of mine that I have heard in every digital restoration. The Berlioz is a trice Teutonic for me, but it does make me reflect on how much Berlioz was influenced by Beethoven, and how the Beethoven Symphonies really gained appreciation historically when they were performed by the crack Paris Orchestra in the 1820s that Berlioz would of heard
I also listened to the Mozart Symphonies. These were favorite recordings that I played often in my youth. The string tone here is lovely

Try the Weill Kleine Dreigroschenmusik Suite (CD 49) and have your musical friends guessing who's conducting!

[richardfinegold]

I haven't had a lot of time to explore, but there are a lot of very interesting discs here. I am really enjoying the Stravinsky Symphony in 3 Movements and Pulcinella pairing. This is a great set for exploring and it is expanding my appreciation for OK

[smittims]

Comparing Klemperer with Walter reminds me of OK's famous remark on 'Face to Face':

'Bruno Walter is a very good conductor, a very romantic conductor, but he is also, not to misunderstand, he is a moralist. I am an immoralist. Absolutely!'

Although Walter's position as a Mahler interpreter is unique, his later recordings do seem to me to have a little reverential nostalgia about them which I don't think Mahler would approve . I often think Klemperer gets closer to Mahler the questing intellectual.

[Bryn]

I haven't had a lot of time to explore, but there are a lot of very interesting discs here. I am really enjoying the Stravinsky Symphony in 3 Movements and Pulcinella pairing. This is a great set for exploring and it is expanding my appreciation for OK

I am hoping that QOBUZ will have the individual discs' content available for download, as with the new Sony Robert Craft boxed set. They don't have the boxed set listed but they do have individual discs' content as downloads, some, at least, in high resolution.