BaL 22.04.23 - Schubert: Symphony no. 5 in B flat D. 485

[Joseph K]

Yet again - yet again - I ask "which Gaigg?" Two very different sounding recordings, DHM and CPO Live, interpretatively distinct too...?
Good grief people, its a very simple question.....

(As an admirer of the Orfeo, sure what "nasty" means in a critical context either, but I guess we can skip that one...)

I assumed he meant the Orfeo, whose string tone as I state in #60, I actually admire!

[jayne lee wilson]

I assumed he meant the Orfeo, whose string tone as I state in #60, I actually admire!

Er, no, "L'Orfeo Barockorchester" is the name of the orchestra which features on both recordings; the question is which recording: DHM (2012) or CPO (from the 2018 Schubertiade Hohenems live 2021)? God, how hard can it be? I dunno whether to laugh or to cry....

It's important as the 2012 Studio recording is the more polished and (very) immediately placed; the recorded sound is exceptional; the live CPO (Markus Sitticus Saal) much more spacious, set back in a vividly present acoustic, taking risks with an even more freely creative interpretation...

If anyone wants the physical product, the DHM Release c/w some rarely heard Overtures is often expensive now, but I saw some much cheaper ones at Amazon.de recently (momox aka medimops)... glorious album, grab it while you can...)

[Joseph K]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUwu6goq2w0

[Bryn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUwu6goq2w0

So, as the Youtube description says, the CPO (live) recording.

[Barbirollians]

Yet again - yet again - I ask "which Gaigg?" Two very different sounding recordings, DHM and CPO Live, interpretatively distinct too...?
Good grief people, its a very simple question.....

(As an admirer of the Orfeo (and listening again, rapt to the CPO 5th and the 8th earlier today, this must be the 5th or 6th hearing at least since I reviewed them for MWI last year), not sure what "nasty" means in a critical context either, but I guess we can skip that level of subjectivity ......)

The one in the complete set . Horrible nail down the blackboard violin tone at times.

[jayne lee wilson]

The one in the complete set . Horrible nail down the blackboard violin tone at times.

How did you hear it? Source, playback?
Please, please don't tell me it was low-bitrate (256 aac) on Youtube... this is unfair to performers and producers if used for critical assessment or comment.

[jayne lee wilson]

Listened to ORR/Gardiner as recommended by JLW & enjoyed it very much -- until the allegro vivace, where JEG displays his customary tendency to want to be the fastest kid on the block, stretching his players to the point where articulation suffers. Abbado's tempo here is within a hair's breadth of Jeggers, but the nimble COE players don't falter. JEG also indulges another favourite mannerism of hammering the first beat of the bar so that when something extra is called for at the end of the piece, he's sort of emptied the tank, or shot his bolt ( either metaphor available )....

[/

But with the ORR/JEG recording (Soli deo Gloria/Qobuz 24/48//CD) the Schubert 5th's final climax and conclusion are, very obviously, at a higher dynamic level than the opening section, and accelerate through to the end, with a sharper attack than earlier in the movement where this material is more lyrically, less emphatically articulated. JEG as usual has the whole movement thought-through - and clearly with a final flourish.

Nor is the finale especially fast. The CBSO with Gardner sets a quicker basic pulse in their (oddly muted) performance. Gaigg too, but she brings off a superbly dramatic, expressively wide-ranging performance on both occasions, with very flexible phrase and tempi in the live CPO reading. Still, the Land-Speed record for this finale probably goes to René Jacobs and his School of Rock (Pentatone CD), but their sheer playfulness in this movement should hopefully provoke as many giggles as gasps.

I was a great fan of the COE/Abbado (rec.1986-7) back in the day, but that glorious band are even more compelling live with Harnoncourt (ICA, Graz, rec. 1988 - interesting, that...)...

[mikealdren]

Just listened to the first movement with Böhm, Beecham, Wand/Köln and Abbado/COE.

Listened to Böhm and Beecham first lovingly phrased, quite slow but it really works. The others seemed very fast afterwards but I now that if I had reversed the order, Böhm and Beecham would have seemed funerial. Wand was the lest successful overall. Overall the symphony does need to be treated with affection rather than virtuosity.

[richardfinegold]

I listened to the JEG on Apple over the weekend. I enjoyed the first two movements but wasn’t able listen critically after that as life intervened. I am also interested in how differently we hear things. I have not heard the recording that Barbs , jlw and others are discussing , but I can imagine what Barbs is referring to as “screechy” violin tone. Without being pejorative let’s just say that it as different a sound as possible from say the sound produced by the Philadelphia Orchestra under Ormandy. Jlw, who knows quite a bit about audio as well as Music, seems to attribute this to digital compression, but I would say that the fundamental differences in sound between some period groups and a conventional early twentieth century orchestral string tone can be detected regardless of equipment and bit length, but we apparently don’t always hear and process sound alike

[Pianoman]

... but I would say that the fundamental differences in sound between some period groups and a conventional early twentieth century orchestral string tone can be detected regardless of equipment and bit length, but we apparently don’t always hear and process sound alike

I agree - surely the sound of a period Baroque ensemble's string tone and that of a modern orchestra is different because of many factors, but certainly not the bit-rate of the stream or download...in fact I can say that the Geigg version is the same from a 256kps source as in Hi-Res - that's listening critically through high quality headphones.

[Master Jacques]

I agree - surely the sound of a period Baroque ensemble's string tone and that of a modern orchestra is different because of many factors, but certainly not the bit-rate of the stream or download...

Quite so. The best performances transcend the audio medium, just as they transcend the choice of instrumental style. Compared with classic versions - I think especially of Beecham and Abbado - it perhaps tells us something about the relative limitations of the cpo Geigg performance of the 5th Symphony (I haven't sampled the remainder) that my thoughts often strayed away from the music, towards the scrawny sound of her strings, and their lack of balance with her woodwind. I found the performance neither revelatory, nor even especially enjoyable.

(Mind you, perhaps I ought to have been busier twiddling my integers!)

[RichardB]

I am very fond of the Gaigg recording. I can see how some might find the string sound "scrawny" but then I might describe the sound of "modern" string ensembles playing early 19th century music as "corpulent" or some such. We don't all have to like the same things. Since the question of reproduction equipment has reared its head: I have listened to music on everything from laptop speakers to studio control rooms, and while I do find it often more enlightening and/or exciting to listen with the highest possible quality equipment I can't recall an occasion on which this has really changed my mind about a particular piece of music or a particular recording. A human mind trained in musical appreciation (self-trained or institutionally) is a much more sophisticated piece of equipment than any conglomeration of circuits and wobbling cones.

[Joseph K]

I am very fond of the Gaigg recording. I can see how some might find the string sound "scrawny" but then I might describe the sound of "modern" string ensembles playing early 19th century music as "corpulent" or some such. We don't all have to like the same things. Since the question of reproduction equipment has reared its head: I have listened to music on everything from laptop speakers to studio control rooms, and while I do find it often more enlightening and/or exciting to listen with the highest possible quality equipment I can't recall an occasion on which this has really changed my mind about a particular piece of music or a particular recording. A human mind trained in musical appreciation (self-trained or institutionally) is a much more sophisticated piece of equipment than any conglomeration of circuits and wobbling cones.

I agree with all of this.

Occasionally, for me, and for whatever reason, I've actually preferred listening from a mini-speaker connected to my phone...

[Maclintick]

Quite so. The best performances transcend the audio medium, just as they transcend the choice of instrumental style. Compared with classic versions - I think especially of Beecham and Abbado - it perhaps tells us something about the relative limitations of the cpo Geigg performance of the 5th Symphony (I haven't sampled the remainder) that my thoughts often strayed away from the music, towards the scrawny sound of her strings, and their lack of balance with her woodwind. I found the performance neither revelatory, nor even especially enjoyable.

(Mind you, perhaps I ought to have been busier twiddling my integers!)

I agree. Listened to both studio & "live" L'Orfeo Barockorkester/Gaigg this morning. As might be expected, the DHM is superior in tuning and instrumental balance, deficiencies in which mar the CPO version. Mindful of Barbirollians earlier comments & plagued by the thought that I still hadn't found a period band performance to live with, as it were, I turned with relief to Orch 18th Cent. /Brüggen -- wonderful HIPP playing 30 years on, and with clear, natural sound perspectives in Philips best tradition.

I can't dismiss the notion that both JEG and Harnoncourt, in delivering those over-accented downbeats intended perhaps to undermine the symphony's reputation for gemütlichkeit, have convinced themselves that the 19 year-old Schubert erred by not including trumpets and drums with which to indulge their love of bang-crashery -- the antidote to fuddy-duddy old Tommy with his cigar and chilled White Ladies, perhaps..

[jayne lee wilson]

I agree - surely the sound of a period Baroque ensemble's string tone and that of a modern orchestra is different because of many factors, but certainly not the bit-rate of the stream or download...in fact I can say that the Geigg version is the same from a 256kps source as in Hi-Res - that's listening critically through high quality headphones.

To dismiss the bitrate as irrelevant to the perception of sound characteristics is truly astonishing.... it flies in the face of all we know.

I can hear the differences between youtube playback and CD/Hires very clearly here. They're not insignificant. When I began downloading in 2010, I started with a 256 kbps aac of the Cluytens Ravel works. This sounded OK in a "nothing wrong with it" fashion.... until I brought in the CD. Another world of realism, warmth, presence, spatial depth etc etc....so truer to the fastidious efforts of musicians and producers: the sounds and instrumental timbres they seek to capture. And fairer to use in one's critical assessments.

I carried out many such comparisons, and of course 320 kbps aac (as in BBC Radio) is the best lossy codec in general use. A surprising advance even on 256, but still audibly inferior to CD and 16/44.1. All variables in audio perception are down to the interaction between: ears/brain, equipment, and the room in which they are heard.

Why d'you think that 24/96 PCM has become the de facto standard for classical recording now?
D'you see no differences between SD and HD TV? Or an 8MP camera and a 64MP one?

I am amazed at the brusque dismissal of high-quality musical reproduction on a forum like this, the way it seems to betray a decades-long Great Tradition of Classical Recordings, recordings which of course were made with the best equipment available to the engineers of the time, with great and painstaking care.
If you make the truly bizarre claim that "The best performances transcend the audio medium" (what does "audio medium" mean here exactly?) your response might just have something to do with the equipment and the efforts that those engineers contributed, without all of which you would not have the glorious catalogue of such music to enjoy today. What a shame that listeners who have devoted much of their own lives to listening to and loving such music should treat it so casually now, apparently for no better reason than the free or very cheap (often unlicensed) availability.