BaL 4.02.12 - Rachmaninov's Symphony no. 2 in E minor

[Sir Monty Golfear]

For me the Previn version is still the benchmark. Has anyone considered the faster paced RPO version under Temikirnov?.

[cloughie]

For me the Previn version is still the benchmark. Has anyone considered the faster paced RPO version under Temikirnov?.

Sanderling still my favourite - slight cuts but for many years the most complete - a beautiful performance.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rachmaninov-Symphony-2-Sergey/dp/B000001GXP/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1357120434&sr=1-1

[PJPJ]

Ashkenazy was my first recording of No 2 and I found it just a bit self-indulgent and slow . Previn on the other hand was superb from start to finish ........

That may, of course, be down to your perception of the recording:

Ashkenazy

1. 18:03
2. 9:36
3. 14:20
4. 13:02

Previn

1. 19:10
2. 10:10
3. 15:45
4. 14:17

[Thropplenoggin]

That may, of course, be down to your perception of the recording:

Ashkenazy

1. 18:03
2. 9:36
3. 14:20
4. 13:02

Previn

1. 19:10
2. 10:10
3. 15:45
4. 14:17

Furthermore, there's a 3CD Decca disc with the other two symphonies, Symphonic Dances, Isle of the Dead and The Bells currently to be had for a tenner at MDT. I own none of these works, though have come to know and marvel at the 'Isle of the Dead'. Am I about to break my January purchase hiatus?

[Nick Armstrong]

That may, of course, be down to your perception of the recording:

Ashkenazy

1. 18:03
2. 9:36
3. 14:20
4. 13:02

Previn

1. 19:10
2. 10:10
3. 15:45
4. 14:17

Thanks, PJPJ, I was going to query Barbi's comment when I first read it but without the evidence. Ashkenazy does seem on listening to be more incisive in the fast music, and indeed less langorous in the slow... Bracing, and very much with its own merits, but... well, I've already said what I think above.

[Barbirollians]

That may, of course, be down to your perception of the recording:

Ashkenazy

1. 18:03
2. 9:36
3. 14:20
4. 13:02

Previn

1. 19:10
2. 10:10
3. 15:45
4. 14:17

That is very interesting PJPJ . Quite plainly it is indeed a question of perception . I have not played the Ashkenazy for years but until I bought the Previn I thought that the symphony was rather too chocolate boxy all round . The Previn is just much more characterful and exciting than I remember the Ashkenazy being.

I shall have to dig the Ashkenazy out and listen again .

[PJPJ]

That is very interesting PJPJ . Quite plainly it is indeed a question of perception . I have not played the Ashkenazy for years but until I bought the Previn I thought that the symphony was rather too chocolate boxy all round . The Previn is just much more characterful and exciting than I remember the Ashkenazy being.

I shall have to dig the Ashkenazy out and listen again .

Slightly off topic, but referring also to johnb's post above.

A few years ago I was trying out speakers and convinced myself that for the money I couldn't do better than PMC, a view I still hold, as they suit me very well. I took along the first release of the Ashkenazy and, especially for an early digital effort, it sounded terrific, so much so I could hardly stop and put another disc on. There followed an hour and a half of various SACDs on audition, some in surround. I was interested to hear what the early Decca would sound like after all that, and it was, frankly, un-listenable. It played exactly as it had done an hour or two earlier, but in the mean time, my ears had got tuned to other and perhaps better methods of recording. In isolation and with uncontaminated ears, the Ashkenazy still sounds impressive today.

My PMC based set-up doesn't like the Petrenko recording on EMI but it sounds well enough on my less revealing system. EMI did better technically for Groves and co in the 1960s and 1970s. Fortunately, I kept the old equipment as historic recordings sound so much more comfortable on that.

Gergiev on LSO Live is also a gripping reading but not universally highly thought of by professional reviewers, due, if I remember correctly, to slight extremes of tempo. I would like very much to have the latest incarnation of Previn EMI, either the EMI Japan SACD, or the 24 bit download, either of which would not have the constriction in the sound quality of the CD releases.

[Barbirollians]

Dug Ashkenazy out . A cassette with a bit of hiss but indeed a very good recording- much beautiful playing but the slow movement just seems a bit over milked still to my ears . Still seemed longer than listening to the Previn !!!

[Sir Monty Golfear]

I find Gergievs LSO version has A very poor recorded balance. It is very dry and scratchy on the violins.
SMG

[PJPJ]

I find Gergievs LSO version has A very poor recorded balance. It is very dry and scratchy on the violins.
SMG

It is still a surprise to me how LSO recordings sound so very different depending on the equipment used. Your description matches my experience of several highly rated Mercury recordings, and they, in turn, may sound a good deal better on other systems.

[Barbirollians]

Such a shame that the Ormandy is in the cut version - what string playing from Philadelphia !

I have just compared the Cbow/Ashkenazy opening Largo with that of the LSO and Rozhdestvensky as I had them both on cassette. The latter albeit it is probably slower has much more life and character than the Ashkenazy which makes his recording I am sure seem slower than it is .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Such a shame that the Ormandy is in the cut version - what string playing from Philadelphia !

The CBS/SONY recording was cut, but the RCA recording from the early '70s was advertized as "complete" when it appeared on LP. This later version was the first recording of the work I bought - it didn't endear me to the work at the time.

[Sir Monty Golfear]

It is still a surprise to me how LSO recordings sound so very different depending on the equipment used. Your description matches my experience of several highly rated Mercury recordings, and they, in turn, may sound a good deal better on other systems.

I have to agree with you PJPJ,
I find some of the Mercury recordings quite shrill sometimes , but find some of the recordings exceptionally good. I do accept that speakers make a big difference in all of this. I use very good headphones too, and find that perhaps a lot of recordings suffer with to forward a balance on the 1st and 2nd violin sections. This in turn causes compression, hardness and distorted mass violin sound without any of the sweetness but not forwardness that can be had from a live concert balance.
The speakers I use are my own design. That is what I do.
If you are interested you can find out more on http://www.knightloudspeakers.com

Cheers Ian

[Barbirollians]

The CBS/SONY recording was cut, but the RCA recording from the early '70s was advertized as "complete" when it appeared on LP. This later version was the first recording of the work I bought - it didn't endear me to the work at the time.

I don't know that one - the CBS one is exciting but cut albeit in a version approved by the composer.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't know that one - the CBS one is exciting but cut albeit in a version approved by the composer.

This is it, Barbi:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Symphony-2-Rachmaninoff/dp/B000003EVK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357242303&sr=8-2

I also have a cassette tape with Boult conducting the "cut" version: very good (Boult's abilities over a wide range of Musics shouldn't surprise me as much as it does) - but the cuts rule it out as generally recommendable.