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  February 2016

ARSCLIST February 2016

Subject:

Re: Rach 2nd

From:

James Roth <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:32:50 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Re: Rachmoninoff's 2nd Sym. on Brunswick:
Has anyone reissued that recording?  Is it still available?
Does anyone know the original Brunswick 78rpm album catalogue number?

Ben Roth


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis Rooney
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Rach 2nd

After Sokoloff's 1928 Brunswick recording (for which Rachmaninoff did collaborate on cuts to allow a 12-sided release; see THE PHONOGRAPH MONTHLY REVIEW for an article about it with Sokoloff's name on it) and the 1934 Victor Ormandy/MSO set (for which Rachmaninoff collaborated on different cuts), performances in the west were usually cut. However, in the fifties two Russian recordings appeared that opened up many of those cuts.
Nevertheless, a preference for the complete score on record did not definitively emerge until the eighties.

DDR

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Didn't Andre Previn "restore" this to full running length, for his 
> performances and recording with the LSO? Was it played full-length 
> previous to Previn's. The recording is still considered one of the 
> best versions of this. For the "shortened" version, check out the 
> Paray/Detroit version. You will be surprised if you don't think Paray 
> could do Russians or 20th Century.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Nagamine" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>
>
> Re:cuts in the Rachmaninoff 2nd symphony. There is an 
> Ormandy/Philadelphia video with shots of the violin parts where large 
> swaths are covered up where the cuts occur. In the case of this work, 
> I think the cuts leave out too much glorious music.
>
> Eric Nagamine
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> As for imposing cuts...it is not uncommon in art music, especially in 
>> opera.. Conductors also make changes in orchestration. Repeats, in 
>> say a symphony by Beethoven, are often omitted.
>> Regarding the Copland, the cuts in the finale are at a slow tempo and 
>> do make a difference. I would need to check the writing of Crist to 
>> see who made the two measure cut in the Koussevitzky performance. ............
>> Composers often "approved" cuts. Consider what Sokoloff did with the 
>> Rachmaninoff Second Symphony. These cuts were supposedly done with 
>> the composer's approval. The cuts amounted to over 10 minutes worth of music.
>> ........
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>    On Monday, February 22, 2016 10:32 AM, John Haley 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I wish you would do an article, Tom, setting forth all of those 
>> Mercury facts you have put in this post.  Nobody else knows all these 
>> things the way you do.
>>
>> As for imposing cuts...it is not uncommon in art music, especially in 
>> opera. Conductors also make changes in orchestration. Repeats, in say 
>> a symphony by Beethoven, are often omitted.
>> Regarding the Copland, the cuts in the finale are at a slow tempo and 
>> do make a difference. I would need to check the writing of Crist to 
>> see who made the two measure cut in the Koussevitzky performance.
>> I am reminded of a Koussevitzky broadcast of the Diamond Second Symphony.
>> Koussevitzky made a cut to accommodate the time allotted for the broadcast.
>> For the non-broadcast performance, he played it complete. Bernstein 
>> cut it when he performed the work with the New York City Symphony.
>> It is because of Koussevitzky that we have the familiar ending of the 
>> Bartok Concerto for Orchestra. Bartok supplied it at the request of 
>> Koussevitzky.
>> Composers often "approved" cuts. Consider what Sokoloff did with the 
>> Rachmaninoff Second Symphony. These cuts were supposedly done with 
>> the composer's approval. The cuts amounted to over 10 minutes worth of music.
>> Consider the Gershwin Second Rhapsody. It is usually performed in the 
>> version done by Robert McBride. That version was done, to the best of 
>> my knowledge, after the composer's death. The composer's own 
>> orchestration is much more interesting.
>> As to the ego of the conductor playing a part in this...well, you can 
>> look at it as a conductor's knowledge and perspective being a part of 
>> the process. Copland mentioned he was not totally appreciative's of 
>> Bernstein's cuts, but then Copland did write something like, "well he 
>> was probably right." Copland was very careful with what he did and 
>> would rarely revise...the Symphonic Ode being a major exception. But, 
>> it was Copland's choice to do so. Copland also reduced the size of 
>> the orchestra, making it less expensive to perform.
>> Even Toscanini made changes in orchestration.
>> Karl
>>
>>    On Monday, February 22, 2016 10:32 AM, John Haley 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I wish you would do an article, Tom, setting forth all of those 
>> Mercury facts you have put in this post.  Nobody else knows all these 
>> things the way you do.
>>
>> Re the Copland cuts, it is really astonishing today that a conductor
>> (Bernstein) would impose cuts of only ten measures (or in 
>> Koussevitzky's case, only 2 measures), on a poor contemporary 
>> composer who is obviously anxious, first of all, to get the work 
>> performed.  What possible difference could it make to an audience to 
>> hear 10 (or especially two) additional measures of music, as 
>> envisioned by the composer.  Even Szell felt to urge to "improve" 
>> what Bartok wrote.  Imagine that.  I could understand shortening a 
>> work by several minutes if is is getting dull (although I would 
>> rather hear the piece myself to judge that), but whacking out small 
>> numbers of measures seems like nothing more than the triumph of a 
>> conductor's ego.  Don't you wonder about putting the shoe on the 
>> other foot--how Bernstein would have reacted if another conductor had 
>> imposed small cuts on his "serious" compositions?
>>
>> Best,
>> John Haley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Eric:
>>>
>>> I have no idea why Mercury used the various colored labels. It could 
>>> have to do with what vinyl compounds were used, or the distribution 
>>> lists, or something else. I am pretty sure that Mercury's Richmond 
>>> plant, at least in the early 60's, used a quieter vinyl compound for 
>>> the broadcast-only pressings. I have plenty of Limelight albums 
>>> pressed there in the late 60's, with Broadcast Only labels, and the 
>>> vinyl is awful, so apparently some Philips cost-cutter changed the 
>>> protocol at some point. The early Richmond Mercury Living Presence 
>>> cuts, the ones with "RFR" in the deadwax, generally aren't bad. I 
>>> think a noisier vinyl compound was generally used for Philips USA 
>>> pressings of the same era. The PHS90000/PH50000 series was cut at 
>>> Fine Recording, from tapes sent over by Philips, and pressed at 
>>> Richmond. The USA cover art and liner notes were original to this 
>>> market, too. At first, after buying Mercury, Philips tried to 
>>> establish a unique label/brand in the US market. They never put 
>>> enough money behind it and never had any marketing skill, so it 
>>> didn't catch fire. They pulled the plug on all of this by the early 
>>> 70s, consolidating their classical record business in Holland. There 
>>> is also some overlap in the Mercury and Philips classical catalogs. 
>>> Mercury made a series of recordings for Philips, all released on the 
>>> Philips label, in 1961 in England. And, in the SR90400 range, there 
>>> are some recordings from Philips released under the Mercury Living 
>>> Presence label here. Mercury producer Harold Lawrence produced 
>>> recordings for Philips, notably Colin Davis/LSO Handel Messiah. And, 
>>> from
>>> 1965 on, Philips engineers made the Mercury recordings in England, 
>>> using their own version of the 3-spaced-omni mic technique, which 
>>> they called "M3."
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Nagamine" 
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link to the Penndorf page. I'd forgotten about his 
>>>> work on labels.  I found that he does mention that the colored 
>>>> labels were promo/for broadcast pressings in section 11. It's 
>>>> interesting that there were various colored promo labels when 
>>>> labels like Columbia generally only had white label promos. I think 
>>>> that RCA had no promo labels only the "for demonstration" stamp on 
>>>> the backs of their jackets. London only had those round promo 
>>>> stickers on the front of the jacket.  I don't think I've ever seen 
>>>> EMI or UK Decca promo labels.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Karl Miller about the Copland 3rd. I guess I need to 
>>>> purchase the Pristine release of Carnegie Hall performance of 
>>>> BSO/Koussevitzky.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> Eric Nagamine
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:00 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eric:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have answers to all your questions, but some info. See below.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Nagamine" 
>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>> >
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:21 AM
>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] A couple of Mercury questions for Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully Tom can answer a couple of questions..
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.      I've been sorting through a deceased friend's collection and I
>>>>> noticed there were many different colored labels in addition to 
>>>>> the normal Dark Plum or later Red labels. There's the common white 
>>>>> label promo, but I've also found Pink, Green, Yellow and Gold 
>>>>> labels in place of the normal plum or red labels on stereo SR 
>>>>> series discs. Some say promo and some
>>>>>
>>>>> don't.
>>>>
>>>> Any significance in this? I know some of the early mono Mercuries 
>>>> have
>>>>> the
>>>>> Gold Label and I think so does the Civil War sets, but these are 
>>>>> not
>>>>>
>>>>> those.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> First of all see this, from the late Ron Pendorf
>>>>>
>>>> http://ronpenndorf.com/labelography3.html
>>>> Ron got his information directly from Harold Lawrence, so I assume 
>>>> it's correct. Ron doesn't address the green, pink and yellow labels 
>>>> I have seen from time to time. I assume they have to do with 
>>>> promotional or other uses. Ping me off-list with some deadwax info 
>>>> on those records and maybe we can figure out some things. One thing 
>>>> I can tell you  is that the non-glossy sleeves of early issues, 
>>>> even if they have color printing on the back, indicate an inferior 
>>>> pressing from Mercury's own Richmond IN plant. The best pressings, 
>>>> 1951 through about 1962, were done at RCA Indianapolis and have an 
>>>> "I" somewhere in the deadwax. What has surprised me is how bad the 
>>>> Richmond "for broadcast only" white-label pressings are! Those were 
>>>> supposed to be the best vinyl, for broadcast. The examples I have 
>>>> did not shine a nice light on the quality of Mercury's plant.
>>>>
>>>> 2.      Do you know if the Dorati/Minneapolis Copland 3rd in the most
>>>>
>>>>> recent Mercury box has the uncut version of the finale? From what 
>>>>> I understand, every recording from the late 50's on use Leonard 
>>>>> Bernstein's cuts from the late 40's, even the 2 Copland led 
>>>>> recordings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not familiar enough with the work to know the answer. Here is 
>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>> video
>>>> said to be of that
>>>> movement:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZruGxBJwwg
>>>> BY THE WAY -- I can tell you that all the wow and flutter and 
>>>> distortion you hear in this lousy transfer DON't EXIST in the new 
>>>> CD reissue, thanks to Plangent Process.
>>>> The
>>>> work is available in Box
>>>> Set 3 and as a 96/24 download from HDTracks. We also got a much 
>>>> more full sonic spectrum, thanks to Andy Walter at Abbey Road 
>>>> Studios. If there were enough potential sales, and thus interest 
>>>> from the corporate parent, I'd remaster all the mono recordings the 
>>>> way we did Copland 3rd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any light you can shed on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're welcome!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric Nagamine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>


--
1006 Langer Way
Delray Beach, FL 33483
212.874.9626

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

December 2020
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