 |
 |
I believe that the EMI Previn and the Decca/London Kletzki/Suisse Romande were the 1st records to open up the cuts. Eric Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> Date: 2/23/2016 2:27 AM (GMT-10:00) To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [ARSCLIST] Rach 2nd 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > >