 |
 |
I don't think any Brahms cycle comes close to Kurt Sanderling's. This set is perfect in every way, including sound and performance. I can't even think of what version would run a distant second. db Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 23, 2014, at 12:41 PM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Well, all the great conductors could be impatient with sloppy playing, but > that's not what happened as a routine matter with the world's great > orchestras that Dorati conducted, and not even in very good regional > orchestras like Dallas had. All of the leading orchestras in that era had > no problem with delivering the goods and did not deserve abuse. I have > never heard anyone describe Dorati as "warm" and "liked." Obviously he > must have been very nice to the record company that was a major factor in > sustaining his career. > > I also like Steinberg's Pittsburgh Brahms cycle, but Munch's Brahms > symphonies (the RCA ones, not always the live ones) are also really great, > altho he never recorded the third symphony and there is no live one > either. Munch (who as a violinist had studied with Flesch had been > Furtwangler's concertmaster) brought something of the sense of urgency and > orchestral phrasing to the Brahms Symphonies that we hear in great older > recordings, such as the superb Weingartner's, which can make "modern" > recordings seem very pale by comparison, and RCA recorded Munch/BSO > stunningly. Reiner also "got it right" with Brahms, as he did with > virtually everything he ever conducted. His Brahms Third Symphony with CSO > is magnificent in every way. And Walter's mono cycle with the NY Phil is > wonderful. I guess everyone has favorites with staples like this. With > Dorati, things are correct but not inspired. I never tire of the Brahms > symphonies. > > Best, > John Haley > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Hi John: >> >> Musicians who recieved Dorati's wrath, for sloppy playing or ill >> preparation, tended to feed the "reports" of his alleged ill temper. He >> actually was a warm person, much liked by those who made recordings with >> him. He was also known to be generous and to take regional orchestras to >> very high levels of competence. I'm sure he battled hard with American >> unions, and he got into quite a fight with unions and management when he >> was in Detroit late in his career. We very much disagree on his recordings, >> many of his are my favorites for various pieces (definitely at least partly >> a product of being brought up on those performances, but I have listened to >> the other "consensus favorites" for most works). He was interested in >> making precise and exciting recordings, but less coldly precise than Szell >> (who I also like very much). Dorati, especially in his Mercury era, rarely >> turned out dull moments. His later work on Haydn, both the symphonies and >> the operas, is still considered "the canon." I find it interesting that he >> was so good with Haydn but also with Stravinsky and Copland. I happen to >> agree that his Brahms cycle is OK but not great, to my taste. I'm not a >> huge fan of Brahms in the first place, so I'm picky. I think that's a case >> where the Szell treatment is quite good, but I really like what Steinberg >> did with Pittsburgh (again, probably because that's what I was brought up >> on), and also Solti/Chicago (which surprised me because I usually don't >> consider Solti "the best" at any symphonic recordings but never "the worst" >> -- Solti/Chicago also made a surpringly excellent "Rite of Spring" >> recording, more furious than you'd ever expect). Anyway, Dorati was very >> much liked and admired by the Mercury team, despite the occasional meltdown >> when the orchestra wasn't getting it right. His approach to music matched >> their approach to recording (get it right, overcome all obstacles, have no >> patience for sloppiness, do things boldly and with great intensity, be >> ambitious and optimistic). >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:47 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Records Ruin the Landscape >> >> >> Re Tom's comments on Dorati. Dorati was the conductor in Dallas for a >>> while, and he left behind him there a reputation as a particularly nasty >>> character, personally, to work for or with, and I recall having seen >>> elsewhere some comments that orchestral musicians generally disliked him >>> very much. Of course he was not alone in that. The Mercury CD's of his >>> Brahms Symphony cycle are all in stereo, and it is very good, not great. >>> Try as I might, I have never been able to "fall in love" with his records. >>> Extreme competence as a conductor, but not the heart that other great >>> ones brought to the task, including the three other great Hungarians who >>> preceded him with leading conducting careers in the US, Reiner, Ormandy >>> and >>> Szell, all of whom made greater records (musically) than Dorati. I am >>> sure >>> Dorati must have his great fans; I am just not one of them. >>> >>> Best, >>> John Haley >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dennis Rooney <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> À propos the above comments, it was Doráti who conducted the MSO in the >>>> local premiere of Mahler's Third (I believe the year was 1953), but >>>> Mitropoulos had earlier recorded the First and Ormandy did an important >>>> "Resurrection" there, recorded in concert by Victor in 1935. Steve >>>> Smolian's recollection of academic opposition to Mahler is important to >>>> note; however, Mahler was played by the larger U.S. orchestras, >>>> sporadically but regularly from the teens on. Ernst Kunwald led a >>>> performance of the Third in Cincinnati (May Festival) in 1913. >>>> Unquestionably, Mahler was a beneficiary of the long-playing record, even >>>> before stereo, with important recordings by Scherchen, Adler, Rosbaud, >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> DDR >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Don: >>>>> >>>>> Mercury didn't adhere to any "standard canon of classical music" except >>>> in >>>>> that Paray and Dorati both liked Beethoven and Dorati liked Brahms and >>>>> Tchaikovsky so those composers were well represented. Otherwise, Dorati >>>>> made plenty of records of Hungarian, Russian, Czech and other Eastern >>>>> European composers, plus an on-going series of well-received American >>>> and >>>>> European modern-classical composers. Paray usually stuck to French >>>> music >>>>> and Romantic era classical. Hanson was all about modern American music, >>>> for >>>>> the most part. Fennell was into a variety of things from marches to >>>> "pops" >>>>> to wind arrangements of symphonic music. None of this was "standard >>>> canon," >>>>> and it was Mercury's main point of difference (note that there is not a >>>>> complete Beethoven cycle on Mercury Living Presence, never a 9th >>>> recorded >>>>> and no released stereo 4th or 8th; if I recall correctly one of >>>> Dorati's >>>>> Brahms symphonies was mono-only too). I would say the reason no Mahler >>>> was >>>>> recorded was that none of Mercury's conductors or orchestras performed >>>> or >>>>> advocated Mahler, the exception being Barbirolli (who was actually >>>> under >>>>> contract with Pye). It's also worth noting that Walter and Bernstein >>>>> started making well-received Mahler recordings in the "golden era" >>>> (late >>>>> mono/early stereo LP era). No sane record producer would spend very >>>> many >>>>> resources competing with Columbia's Bernstein publicity machine. >>>> Columbia >>>>> and RCA were much more obsessed with recording every note of every >>>> piece >>>>> from Beethoven to the 20th century, "standard canon" material, usually >>>> by >>>>> multiple conductors and orchestras. Finally, it's worth noting that >>>> Dorati >>>>> brought forth a lot of new-to-recordings material from Tchaikovsky like >>>>> original scoring for the ballets, first recording of "1812" as it was >>>>> originally conceived, first recording of the complete Suites. Dorati >>>> also >>>>> premiere-recorded several modern pieces. Hanson's recording tally is >>>> full >>>>> of premieres by the very nature of his American Music Festivals. >>>> Fennell >>>>> hunted down original band music never recorded and not heard since the >>>>> original bands, including Confederate sheet music found in attics for >>>> "The >>>>> Civil War" albums. None of this is "standard canon of classical music" >>>> by >>>>> any stretch. Mercury buyers were not wanting the Reader's Digest Guide >>>> To >>>>> Great Music, but Mercury made sure not to get so out there on every >>>> release >>>>> that they couldn't sell records. This was part of what doomed Everest >>>> -- >>>>> too much stuff that no one had heard of, no matter how well recorded. >>>> The >>>>> last thing they did, as they were in the midst of shutting down, was a >>>>> mediocre Beethoven cycle with Krips. >>>>> >>>>> To part of your point, it's doubtful that Mahler symphonies were being >>>>> performed out in places like Minneapolis or Detroit in that period, or >>>> that >>>>> audiences were demanding it. But, I think if you checked concert >>>> repertoire >>>>> around the US, they were being performed here and there through the >>>> years. >>>>> >>>>> -- Tom Fine >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:47 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Records Ruin the Landscape >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> There are no Mercury recordings of any of these (or of Mahler), which >>>>>> shows they were not in the standard canon of classical music in the >>>>>> 1950s. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Don Cox >>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 1006 Langer Way >>>> Delray Beach, FL 33483 >>>> 212.874.9626 >>> >>>