LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  December 2010

ARSCLIST December 2010

Subject:

Re: Rachmaninoff Concerto #2 recording by the composer [was: The TV thread...}]

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:42:43 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)

So is LCT-1014 the same or not as LM-6123? (first complete reissue in a 
set of the 4 Concerto and Paganini Rhapsody).

(This was a Christmas present that I begged for. When I opened the 
package, which was obviously records, I was greeted by a recording of 
Bach Organ Music! My mother had found one on the Somerset label or some 
cheapie groc store label and included that on the top to throw me off 
and surprise me, which she did!)

I didn't own LCT-1014, but there was a public library copy that I heard 
a long time ago. I never compared the two. I didn't realize all this 
about the alt takes until I heard the complete LP reissue, which is 
different from LM-6123, (and by then the library's copy of 1014 was long 
gone). Or some sides are different. I have never done a detailed 
comparison. I remember my astonishment at first hearing of the little 
slip towards the end of the third movement.

joe salerno



On 12/8/2010 11:28 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
> From: Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]>
>> BTW, no doubt the Rach 2nd on that old RCA LP is the electronic recording.
>> The timing is slightly different from the acoustic version on the CD and
>> some of the playing is different, but remarkably similar interpretations,
>> I guess Rach and Skoki liked how they did it the first time. I thought the
>> instrumentation was clever on both versions, working around a limited
>> medium to get the point across clearly.  -- Tom Fine
>
> I could have (and should have) told you that LCT-1014 was the electrical
> because I have it, and that RCA never issued the acoustical version on
> microgroove (incomplete, of course) until the box series "The Complete
> Rachmaninoff".  You never did identify the 1992 CD with the acoustical
> -- is it RCA from the box set or a pirate issue -- and whether side
> three is the newly found acoustical or the segment from the electrical.
>
> I am not so sure about whether it was Rach and Stoki liking the original
> recording as much as the fact that Rach performed this in concert more
> than 100 times and HE knew how he wanted to play it.  But remember,
> LCT-1014 like all the microgroove issues of the electrical are NOT from
> the approved M (Master) takes but from the secondary HC (Hold
> Conditional)takes.  You are not really hearing the takes that Rach
> really preferred.  For that you have to go to the Ward Marston reissue
> CD or Mark Obert-Thorn's Naxos issue.  These are the only issues of the
> approved takes since the scroll label pre-war pressings.
>
> When I discovered the substitution and the forged paperwork at BMG my
> feeling was that there was not all that much difference among the takes
> other than perhaps a bit more precision, most obviously on side ten.  A
> review I came across yesterday when I was looking for the issue numbers
> makes a statement that there is an interesting comparison between the
> two sets of takes of the 1929 electrical recording by Jonathan Yungkans.
>   No mention of a comparison with the acoustical version from five years
> earlier is given.  This is from the review of the Biddulph of the
> alternate takes from my sets transferred by Mark, and he also reviews
> the Naxos Mark did on the same page.
>
> http://www.flyinginkpot.com/2001/03/rachmaninov-the-second-piano-concerto-recordings-survey-part-3-historic-inkpot/
> "The alternate and original takes are similar in general approach.
> However, numerous details arise that accrue to a substantially different
> performance – not really better than the approved takes, but with
> altered weights and measures – more impetuous in some spots and looser
> in others. Playing this disc and the Naxos side by side, I was amazed
> how the changes added up. Since Rachmaninov re-recorded very little of
> his music, this disc becomes a doubly-fascinating document, as well as a
> rare glimpse into the composer’s mind."
>
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager