Conductors Re-recordings

[richardfinegold]

I've been listening to the "Eugene Ormandy Conducts 20th Century Classics" box set over the past few weeks. Most of these recordings are taken from Ormandy's last phase when he recorded for RCA. I hadn't bought any of them at the time (except for the Rach/3 Piano Concerto).
Most of these recordings duplicated music he had recorded the previous two decades on the Columbia label. I spent a good part of that decade at University at the University of Michigan. The Philadelphia Orchestra had a close relationship with the music school there, with a great deal of the faculty comprised of ex Orchestra personnel. I had many friends studying in the Music School under these players, and the word was that the Orchestra players had tired of the conductor, who was growing deaf, asking for louder playing, and beginning to face a mutiny. None of this made me want to buy any of these recordings. By the time I had graduated Ormandy had been forced out and Muti was in, and the Philadelphia Orchestra gradually lost it's distinctive sound.
I don't have any of the Columbia recordings to make any comparisons, but most of the performances are spirited, energetic music making, with first rate sonics. They don't convey the impression of a doddering Conductor with a mutinous Orchestra on his hands.
This has made me to think about conductors who have recorded extensively, had great longevity, and who tended to make many recordings through the years. A short list would be Karajan, Ormandy, Monteux, Boult, Bernstein, Bohm, Boulez and Haitink, but I'm sure that many others can be conjured by Forum Members. I wonder why these maestros feel the need to leave repeated documentation of their interpretation of many works.
One obvious reason would be advances in recording technology. One can certainly understand wanting to repeat a recording in stereo
that had been made in mono, particularly if on 78s. Most of the time this is to greedily commercial.
The most obvious offender is Karajan. Take his Beethoven cycles. His first in mono with the Philharmonia may be his best. His repeat, in stereo and with his new Orchestra, the BPO, is a landmark of the catalogue. however, his last two are clearly superfluous. By the time of his Digital remake, clearly made for no other reason than to cash in on the new technology, he had degenerated into a caricature of himself. His vitality is sapped and it sounds as if he is trying to conjure earlier magic by closing his eyes and letting the Orchestra play on autopilot.
Ormandy's RCA recordings clearly are an attempt of a new label to try to repeat past artistic and commercial successes in updated sound.
The results seem to suggest that he was largely successful, but what a pity he didn't record many of the works that he premiered during his lengthy tenure.
I really can't fathom Haitink. I have seen him guest in Chicago many times, and he is a man of great vitality who seems wholly caught up in the music. Yet he has released up to 5 versions of some works. Surely the world wouldn't be poorer if he had confined himself toperhaps three.
I'm waiting for the next Colin Davis Sibelius cycle, probably on Blu Ray this time.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Y'know something, richard; I'm getting the distinct impression from your posts that you don't like Karajan?

[Petrushka]

They only do it to feed the collecting mania of people like me!

[Pabmusic]

...This has made me to think about conductors who have recorded extensively, had great longevity, and who tended to make many recordings through the years. A short list would be Karajan, Ormandy, Monteux, Boult, Bernstein, Bohm, Boulez and Haitink, but I'm sure that many others can be conjured by Forum Members. I wonder why these maestros feel the need to leave repeated documentation of their interpretation of many works...

An interesting subject. Of course there are a number of reasons, but I think I can shed some light on the Boult story. He had a very long recording career (1920-1979) during which there were considerable advances in technology. We lost his 1925 acoustic recording of Bantock's Hebridean Symphony with the City of Birmingham Orchestra simply because it wasn't released in time before electronic microphones arrived (he never re-recorded that one). His last sessions (Parry) in 1979 used experimental digital in parallel, though that version was never issued. Obviously, some 78 rpm performances were re-recorded (The Planets, Elgar 2, RVW 6 & Job, Schubert 9) when LPs arrived, though there was sometimes quite a gap. His 78 rpm Elgar 1 from 1949 had to do until 1967, for instance.

But I think more significant with Boult was the number of different record companies he recorded for, especially in the 50s and 60s. He recorded Elgar 2 five times for four companies - 1944 (HMV 78 rpm), 1956 (Nixa), 1963 (Waverley), 1967 (Lyrita) and 1975 (HMV). Job was done for HMV (78 rpm), Decca, Everest and HMV again. The Planets for HMV (78 rpm), Nixa, Westminster, HMV and HMV again (I met Sir Adrian in February 1978, and he said "They want me to do The Planets yet again!" Note the 'yet'.)

I think in Boult's case he viewed himself as a sort of 'jobbing conductor', whose task was to produce the best performance of whatever was before him - that had very much been his philosophy at the BBC, when the workload was huge, and I think he carried on that attitude for the rest of his career. It probably explains the truly huge number of recordings he made as a concerto accompanist. Also, I don't think he chose his own recording programmes very much - they were chosen for him because he was a reliable conductor who could turn his hand to almost anything. I think that, had he been allowed his way, he would have recorded many more of the German classics, for instance - particularly some Wagner opera.

I acknowledge this is (possibly) the opposite of the 'perfectionist' approach you seem to find with some other conductors.

[Barbirollians]

An interesting subject. Of course there are a number of reasons, but I think I can shed some light on the Boult story. He had a very long recording career (1920-1979) during which there were considerable advances in technology. We lost his 1925 acoustic recording of Bantock's Hebridean Symphony with the City of Birmingham Orchestra simply because it wasn't released in time before electronic microphones arrived (he never re-recorded that one). His last sessions (Parry) in 1979 used experimental digital in parallel, though that version was never issued. Obviously, some 78 rpm performances were re-recorded (The Planets, Elgar 2, RVW 6 & Job, Schubert 9) when LPs arrived, though there was sometimes quite a gap. His 78 rpm Elgar 1 from 1949 had to do until 1967, for instance.

But I think more significant with Boult was the number of different record companies he recorded for, especially in the 50s and 60s. He recorded Elgar 2 five times for four companies - 1944 (HMV 78 rpm), 1956 (Nixa), 1963 (Waverley), 1967 (Lyrita) and 1975 (HMV). Job was done for HMV (78 rpm), Decca, Everest and HMV again. The Planets for HMV (78 rpm), Nixa, Westminster, HMV and HMV again (I met Sir Adrian in February 1978, and he said "They want me to do The Planets yet again!" Note the 'yet'.)

I think in Boult's case he viewed himself as a sort of 'jobbing conductor', whose task was to produce the best performance of whatever was before him - that had very much been his philosophy at the BBC, when the workload was huge, and I think he carried on that attitude for the rest of his career. It probably explains the truly huge number of recordings he made as a concerto accompanist. Also, I don't think he chose his own recording programmes very much - they were chosen for him because he was a reliable conductor who could turn his hand to almost anything. I think that, had he been allowed his way, he would have recorded many more of the German classics, for instance - particularly some Wagner opera.

I acknowledge this is (possibly) the opposite of the 'perfectionist' approach you seem to find with some other conductors.

Michael Kennedy's biography of Boult would tend to bear out your impressions re his recordings but his Indian summer HMV recordings do appear to have been a collaborative effort and after the very successful Brahms 3 he was allowed to record much of what he wanted - though sadly they refused to give him some singers for his Wagner excerpt LPs.

We of course now can hear them so cheaply in the marvellous from Bach to Wagner box .

[Pabmusic]

Michael Kennedy's biography of Boult would tend to bear out your impressions re his recordings but his Indian summer HMV recordings do appear to have been a collaborative effort and after the very successful Brahms 3 he was allowed to record much of what he wanted - though sadly they refused to give him some singers for his Wagner excerpt LPs...

Yes, I think that's right. His last recording was definitely his choice, and he was disappointed because the orchestral parts couldn't be found for "From Death to Life" so he had to re-record the Symphonic Variations instead.

The Brahms 3 was unplanned. The sessions in August 1970 were for The Enigma Variations, Job, the Folk Song Suite and Fantasia on Greensleeves. Six sessions were planned with the LSO, but Boult knocked it all off in fewer than five, so Christopher Bishop asked Boult what he'd like to do. The answer was Brahms 3, and it was completed within the time, with the first movement in one take.

He completed the Brahms cycle with the LPO. It was his second Brahms cycle, the earlier one being for Nixa between 6-25 November 1954, when he recorded all four symphonies, the Academic Festival and Tragic Overtures, Haydn Variations, Alto Rhapsody, Mendelssohn Scottish and Italian symphonies, and Schubert 9th!

[richardfinegold]

Y'know something, richard; I'm getting the distinct impression from your posts that you don't like Karajan?

I understand how you could reach that conclusion. For the record, I greatly admired his first two Beethoven Cycles, as I indicated in the O.P.; I just don't see the reason, outside of commercialism, for the subsequent two. his recording of Mahler/6 was my introduction to the piece and still my favorite; I also admire his Mahler 5 and 9. I think his Sibelius is excellent; I use his EMI recording of the 4th Symphony whenever I demo stereo equipment. I love his Tchaikovsky Winter Dreams. His early Brahms recordings are admirable. I love his Shostakovich 10th. He is also my favorite Bruckner conductor, and his last Bruckner recordings, IMO, exceed his earlier recordings, which I wish was the case with other composers that he compulsively re recorded.
I don't care for most of his French Music ("Das Mer"), his Mozart, and most of his other Russian music, but every conductor had their strengths and weaknesses.
As for his Politics and his Humanity, I think it is fairly clear that he was an opportunist, a shameless self promoter, and an intriguer. He was Anti Semitic, but not virulently so. In spite of my snipes at his Nazi Party Memberships, which as a Jew, I have a hard time refraining from digging the needle in, I don't consider his, or any other musicians, politics when I evaluate their artistry.
There is no question that Karajan was an incredible artist, and that he made dozens of great recordings, and that he deserves to be remembered and lauded for all of that. He was many other things that were less laudatory as well. He was a human, not a God, although his PR machine would frequently blur that distinction, and as a member of our species, he made many mistakes that we all make. His mistakes were acted on a grander stage than the rest of us will ever get to trod across, and thus are subject to our judgement.

[richardfinegold]

I acknowledge this is (possibly) the opposite of the 'perfectionist' approach you seem to find with some other conductors.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. That would fit my preconception of Boult's personality.

[Dave2002]

An interesting subject.

...

We lost his 1925 acoustic recording of Bantock's Hebridean Symphony with the City of Birmingham Orchestra simply because it wasn't released in time before electronic microphones arrived (he never re-recorded that one).

Did "they" lose the master disc then? Break it? Could that recording still be out there? If it was recorded on wax that's probably long gone, but they might have made a metal master from the wax version. Perhaps the recording company felt there was no need to release acoustic recordings once the era of electrical recordings had started, or to keep masters from the acoustic era.

On a technical and semantic point, were the microphones electronic or electrical? Slightly nit picking this, as I think they were electrical, but probably fed a signal into an amplifier before the disc cutter, so the overall combination would be electronic. I'm sometimes not sure of the distinction between the two words, though some devices are usually only considered electrical - vacuum cleaners for instance, though someone will probably make a vacuum cleaner with GPS and wi-fi with an IP address, so that will be an electronic machine.

[Pabmusic]

...Could that recording still be out there? If it was recorded on wax that's probably long gone, but they might have made a metal master from the wax version. Perhaps the recording company felt there was no need to release acoustic recordings once the era of electrical recordings had started, or to keep masters from the acoustic era...

Yes indeed, that recording could still be out there. It was a [British] Columbia recording, so it could be in the 'lost Columbia recordings' archive somewhere. Please take note, owners of the lost Columbia archive.

[While we're on this subject, perhaps EMI might find the HMV recording from 1920 of Butterworth's A Shropshire Lad., and the 1921 Bliss's Rout]

...On a technical and semantic point, were the microphones electronic or electrical? Slightly nit picking this, as I think they were electrical, but probably fed a signal into an amplifier before the disc cutter, so the overall combination would be electronic. I'm sometimes not sure of the distinction between the two words, though some devices are usually only considered electrical - vacuum cleaners for instance, though someone will probably make a vacuum cleaner with GPS and wi-fi with an IP address, so that will be an electronic machine.

[I'd not say 'slightly' ]

I have no idea. It was the first step forward from acoustic recording, and it made such recordings antiques overnight.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But I think more significant with Boult was the number of different record companies he recorded for, especially in the 50s and 60s. He recorded Elgar 2 five times for four companies - 1944 (HMV 78 rpm), 1956 (Nixa), 1963 (Waverley), 1967 (Lyrita) and 1975 (HMV). Job was done for HMV (78 rpm), Decca, Everest and HMV again. The Planets for HMV (78 rpm), Nixa, Westminster, HMV and HMV again (I met Sir Adrian in February 1978, and he said "They want me to do The Planets yet again!" Note the 'yet'.)

This was what sprung to mind from the outset. Bernstein recorded many works for CBS, and then rerecorded them for DG. Many of Barbirolli's Pye recordings were followed by newer EMI ones. Even some of HvK's duplication was a result of him switching between EMI, Decca and DG.

[Thropplenoggin]

Agree about this being very interesting.

Of course, younger conductors who've only recorded in digital are also inclined to re-record. One only has to think of Herreweghe with Bach's Mass in B Minor. First, on Virgin Classics in pretty weedy sound; second, on Harmonia Mundia, with those stellar soloists; and now on his own label (PHI), and no doubt in SACD.

I wonder if anyone has compared these three versions to see how they differ as performances, not just in recording quality.

[Dave2002]

[I'd not say 'slightly' ]

I have no idea. It was the first step forward from acoustic recording, and it made such recordings antiques overnight.

Come on - it's not that big a deal!
Please forgive me - it's Sunday anyway.

Thanks for highlighting the issues regarding acoustic recordings, and missing performances/recordings.

Richard

I'm interested in your comments re Ormandy. I had assumed that many of the RCA recordings were in fact the same as some of the earlier Sony/CBS ones, though perhaps remastered.
I have been thinking of getting this Sony set - http://www.sainsburysentertainment.c..._source=google even though it contains some works which I have already, which is I think the set you have been listening to.

One of the first Ormandy recordings I had was of Mendelssohn Violin Concerto with Oistrakh - superb.

I didn't realise that Ormandy redid some of his performances later on as you have mentioned. Most of my CDs and LPs are the Sony or CBS ones. I also didn't know about Ormandy's gradually increasing deafness - but I suppose it tends to happen to us all to a greater or lesser extent. A pity - both for him and for us!

[Pabmusic]

Come on - it's not that big a deal!
Please forgive me - it's Sunday anyway.

Thanks for highlighting the issues regarding acoustic recordings, and missing performances/recordings...

[Mandryka]

I understand how you could reach that conclusion. For the record, I greatly admired his first two Beethoven Cycles, as I indicated in the O.P.; I just don't see the reason, outside of commercialism, for the subsequent two. his recording of Mahler/6 was my introduction to the piece and still my favorite; I also admire his Mahler 5 and 9. I think his Sibelius is excellent; I use his EMI recording of the 4th Symphony whenever I demo stereo equipment. I love his Tchaikovsky Winter Dreams. His early Brahms recordings are admirable. I love his Shostakovich 10th. He is also my favorite Bruckner conductor, and his last Bruckner recordings, IMO, exceed his earlier recordings, which I wish was the case with other composers that he compulsively re recorded.
I don't care for most of his French Music ("Das Mer"), his Mozart, and most of his other Russian music, but every conductor had their strengths and weaknesses.
As for his Politics and his Humanity, I think it is fairly clear that he was an opportunist, a shameless self promoter, and an intriguer. He was Anti Semitic, but not virulently so. In spite of my snipes at his Nazi Party Memberships, which as a Jew, I have a hard time refraining from digging the needle in, I don't consider his, or any other musicians, politics when I evaluate their artistry.
There is no question that Karajan was an incredible artist, and that he made dozens of great recordings, and that he deserves to be remembered and lauded for all of that. He was many other things that were less laudatory as well. He was a human, not a God, although his PR machine would frequently blur that distinction, and as a member of our species, he made many mistakes that we all make. His mistakes were acted on a grander stage than the rest of us will ever get to trod across, and thus are subject to our judgement.

Richard Osborne's 'HvK: A Life In Music' (probably the finest muso-biography I've ever read) goes into illuminating detail about the reasons for the glut of Karajan Beethoven cycles: afaicr, the DG set was first broached as a tactic to lure Karajan away from EMI in the early sixties: it was successful, but by the early seventies, EMI (apparently) badly wanted Karajan back (despite their disappointment over his underwhelming account of the Triple Concerto for them in 1969). Karajan played the two companies along very cleverly for a couple of years until DG, fearing that EMI was about to play its ace by offering Karajan another Beethoven cycle, jumped in and made the offer first. His final, digital cycle was a similar gambit on DG's part, though I think it also had something to do with the Telemondial deal.

Had he not chosen to pursue music, Karajan would have been a very effective centre-right politician during the post-WW2 era. He had all the chops!

As to his Nazism/anti-semitism....well, I can't agree with you there, mainly due to the absence of concrete evidence. Yes, he joined the Nazi Party (early, and twice) but by the early 40s, he had fallen out of favour with the regime (that's if he was ever actually IN favour with it; the Nazi top brass still seemed to prefer Furtwangler) and had married a quarter-Jewish woman, which would not have helped his cause much. It has also been asserted that he married her for her money. In any case, I think the only 'crime' Karajan can be accused of is the unprincipled pursuit of self-interest. The one consistent thread that runs through his life is the need to look after Number One.

Although he was shunned by the 'Kosher Nostra' (Barenboim, Zukerman, et al), a lot of Jewish musicians seem to have had no qualms about working with him (or if they did have qualms, they were able to silence them). Appearing/recording with the best-selling maestro of the era (in Europe, at least) made deafening economic and artistic sense.....