Complete Toscanini RCA recordings

[Thornhill]

The latest large box set (84 CDs):

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Complete-RCA-Collection/hnum/1857127

[Oscar]

Thank you, God!

[Polluter Politika]

On Dec 30 2011, 11:11 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The latest large box set (84 CDs):
>

> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Com...

Not again!!!

[wkasimer]

On Dec 30 2011, 11:11 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The latest large box set (84 CDs):
>

> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Com...

Also listed at MDT today:

http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//88697916312.htm

Bill

[pianomaven]

ARGH!!!

[John Thomas]

On Dec 30 2011, 8:11 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The latest large box set (84 CDs):
>

> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Com...

The King of speedy Beethoven symphony performaces! Riccardo
Chailly, eat your heart out!

[Mark S]

Chailly is much faster than AT in Beethoven.

I'm thinking of getting this box. I am always amazed what one hears
when AT is conducting. Pick just about any piece of music that AT
recorded, listen to 5 other outstanding recordings first, then play
AT's version and you can't believe how right his version sounds, and
what detail and passion he brings to the table that seem to elude the
others.

[Rich]

> I'm thinking of getting this box. I am always amazed what one hears
> when AT is conducting. Pick just about any piece of music that AT
> recorded, listen to 5 other outstanding recordings first, then play
> AT's version and you can't believe how right his version sounds, and
> what detail and passion he brings to the table that seem to elude the
> others.

Recently I relistened to AT's Heldenleben, of all things, and it's
a performance unlike any other I've heard.

Rich

[O]

In article
<6ecacf67-5bb9-47f5...@lr19g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

It's true. It's not just rigorous time beating and mechanical
breakneck tempi, as his critics all assume. There's a pulse there,
electricity, a heart-at-the-throat urgency in everything he does.
Sometimes this just doesn't work, but when it does it's incredible.

-Owen

[John Thomas]

On Feb 9, 10:20 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:33 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30 2011, 8:11 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The latest large box set (84 CDs):
>
> > >http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Com...
>

> >   The King of speedy Beethoven symphony performances!  Riccardo

> > Chailly, eat your heart out!
>
> Chailly is much faster than AT in Beethoven.

Faster alone is not necessarily better. AT is King because he selects
just the right tempo to energize the performance to the maximum while
Chailly is just fast for fast's sake.

[Gerard]

John Thomas <abras...@gmail.com> typed:

Did he say so?

[J.Martin]

> I'm thinking of getting this box. I am always amazed what one hears
> when AT is conducting. Pick just about any piece of music that AT
> recorded, listen to 5 other outstanding recordings first, then play
> AT's version and you can't believe how right his version sounds, and
> what detail and passion he brings to the table that seem to elude the
> others.

Indeed. I would think that at this point it would go without saying--
his recordings have now stood the test of more than 50 years' time,
and if anything, they are more impressive than ever (sonic
considerations aside for the moment). His Beethoven might have
sounded overly fast to some listeners when the recordings came out,
but listening now with ears accustomed to HIP and HIP influenced
recordings, what impresses is the way in which he manages to sound
lyrical and flexible at those speedy tempos--much more so than some of
these recent recordings. (Compare, say, his Eroica from 1939 with
Chailly's.) So much of his work is distinctive, convicinging,
thrilling... fill in your own superlatives.

As with so many of these reissues, my only questions will be: has
anything been done to improve the sonics (which seems unlikely in this
case), and will I be able to buy it cheaply enough to justify
purchasing it, given that I already own piles of this material.

[wagnerfan]

I would be pretty sure its the same masterings as those in the big
box from years ago - who in the world at Rca or BMG or whatever the
hell it is now would be able to do a proper mastering ala Obert-Thorn
or Marston?? Wagner fan

[Mark S]

On Feb 10, 9:34 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I would be pretty sure its the same masterings as those in the big
> box from years ago - who in the world at Rca or BMG or whatever the
> hell it is now would be able to do a proper mastering ala Obert-Thorn
> or Marston?? Wagner fan

But there have been newer remasterings done since the original set was
issued in 1992, most notably, the Philadelphia recordings. One would
hope the best remasters were used in this latest set, rather than just
pooping out what was passed for a digital "upgrade" 20 years ago.

[pianomaven]

What an idiotic remark.

Neither of these gentlemen ever work with mastertapes in their
"remasterings". Usually 78 RPM pressings and LPs. Remasterings? Yeah,
sure.

TD

[David Fox]

If the new Rubinstein box is any guide, they'll select the most recent
remastering
they have available.

DF

[J.Martin]

>
> What an idiotic remark.
>
> Neither of these gentlemen ever work with mastertapes in their
> "remasterings". Usually 78 RPM pressings and LPs. Remasterings? Yeah,
> sure.
>

I was pretty sure this thread would degenerate into abusive bickering
over sound quality pretty quickly. And here we are.

We know, by now, that we can count on you to insist that digitial
conversions from the original analogue "masters" absolutely,
postively, under any and all circumstances must inevitably trump any
other such conversions, regardless of the relative competence of the
engineers involved, the quality of their source materials, the
condition of the original "masters" (however that term may be defined
with regard to the pre-tape era) or any other possible considerations.
Duly noted.

[wagnerfan]

Yes they did some of them over - I think I have them all (if I
remember right they had the wrong Beethoven Third attributed) - It was
the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies plus more - 20 CDs in all. Wagner
fan

[wagnerfan]

Yes yes he's boringly predictable--and just as clueless as ever. Ho
hum. Wagner Fan.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

John Thomas <abras...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:f810f204-3d5c-486c-bd5e-
de18b3...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

*cough*(Paul Paray)

I'll pass. BMG still owes me the wooden cabinet and special booklet that I
ought to have gotten for having bought the entire series from the start, as
it was issued, thus giving them the sales they needed in order to see the
project through to the end. I wrote to Günther Breest, and never had the
courtesy of a reply. I never got my box, so I hope he was buried in it.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers

[J.Martin]

> Yes they did some of them over - I think I have them all (if I
> remember right they had the wrong Beethoven Third attributed) - It was
> the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies plus more - 20 CDs in all.

Yes, there was the whole "disembodied head" series from about 2000,
which nobody seemed to like. So I doubt they would use those. And
the Beethoven symphonies and Verdi recordings were issued in box sets
in 2003 and 2006. I haven't heard the Verdi but the Beethoven was
different than either the original digital RCAs or the disembodied
head version--sounded less harsh than the 'original' with a bit of
reverb, not as processed than the 2000 version.

Anyway, it seems safe to assume they will choose from one of the
existing versions rather than spend money on a new remastering for a
budget reissue, which is a shame given all of the progress that's been
made in the realm of analogue to digital conversion. Sigh.

[Frank Berger]

IIRC the re-mastering swere not necessarily well-received by everyone. It
would be wishful thinking to just *assume* a re-mastering is better than the
previous one.

[wagnerfan]

Very true - often the first CD issues are the best. Wagner Fan

[Gerard]

wagnerfan <ivanm...@gmail.com> typed:

More often they are not.

[Mark S]

On Feb 10, 11:14 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
> John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following

> letters to be typed in news:f810f204-3d5c-486c-bd5e-

> de18b3f9d...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Dec 30 2011, 8:11 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The latest large box set (84 CDs):
>
> >>http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Com...
>
> >   The King of speedy Beethoven symphony performaces!  Riccardo
> > Chailly, eat your heart out!
>
> *cough*(Paul Paray)
>
> I'll pass.  BMG still owes me the wooden cabinet and special booklet that I
> ought to have gotten for having bought the entire series from the start, as
> it was issued, thus giving them the sales they needed in order to see the
> project through to the end.  I wrote to Günther Breest, and never had the
> courtesy of a reply.  I never got my box, so I hope he was buried in it.
>

You mean Gunter Hanssler. Breest was a producer for DG, IIRC.

[Mark S]

I very much preferred the sound and mix in those twofer Immortal
Toscanini versions from the early 2000s. They sound like a real
orchestra. I'd be happy if the whole AT set was redone using those
techniques.

[wkasimer]

On Feb 10, 4:41 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I very much preferred the sound and mix in those twofer Immortal
> Toscanini versions from the early 2000s. They sound like a real
> orchestra. I'd be happy if the whole AT set was redone using those
> techniques.

As I recall (and it's been a long time since I listened to Toscanini's
Beethoven), the "Immortal" featured artificially added reverberation
(and ugly covers).

Bill

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I very much preferred the sound and mix in those twofer Immortal
>> Toscanini versions from the early 2000s. They sound like a real
>> orchestra. I'd be happy if the whole AT set was redone using those
>> techniques.

> As I recall (and it's been a long time since I listened to Toscanini's
> Beethoven), the "Immortal" featured artificially added reverberation
> (and ugly covers).

If more than one mic was used, their outputs were mixed before reaching the
tape recorder. You can't change that ex post facto.

Reverb can lift years off the age of old recordings. But it should be
applied by the listener, through speakers to the side and rear -- not the
front.

[Mark S]

I don't know that reverb was added. More likely, they did something
with the phasing between the mono-converted-to-stereo channels to warm
up the sound. We did that on the mono tracks of the Robert Shaw Xmas
albums I produced when I was at BMG, and to great effect. Nobody knew
and nobody complained, though some listeners wrote me to express their
thanks that we had not done anything "artificial" to the obviously
wonderful engineering that went into producing the mono tracks back in
1952.

It's difficult to determine what, exactly, constitutes doing something
"artificial" to a recording, don't you think?

[Oscar]

On Feb 10, 10:08 am, pianomaven wrote:
>
> >  I would be pretty sure its the same masterings as those in the big
> > box from years ago - who in the world at Rca or BMG or whatever the
> > hell it is now would be able to do a proper mastering ala Obert-Thorn
> > or Marston??
>
> What an idiotic remark.
>
> Neither of these gentlemen ever work with mastertapes in their
> "remasterings". Usually 78 RPM pressings and LPs. Remasterings? Yeah,
> sure.

So was RCA's John Pfieffer an 'idiot' for using Ward Marston to effect
disk-to-tape transfers of all of his blue-chip artists' early sides in
the early 90's? Heifetz, Rubinstein, Toscanini, Koussevitzky, et al.,
were all handled by Marston. (Mastering, however, was done in-house at
RCA, and it was not very good, IMO, there are definitely veils to be
lifted.) Obert-Thorn and Winner may have contributed, too, but I have
seen Marston credited mostly in those Gold Seal discs from ~20 years
ago.

[Oscar]

On Feb 10, 10:33 am, David Fox wrote:
>
> > But there have been newer remasterings done since the original set was
> > issued in 1992, most notably, the Philadelphia recordings. One would
> > hope the best remasters were used in this latest set, rather than just
> > pooping out what was passed for a digital "upgrade" 20 years ago.
>
> If the new Rubinstein box is any guide, they'll select the most recent
> remastering they have available.

Correct. Which means we will likely be treated to a host of XRCD
masterings that have been issued over the last several years. HMV
Japan shows 11 still in stock http://tinyurl.com/78nlnyp

[M forever]

I wonder what led you to this statement because to me, it doesn't make
any sense. Chailly's tempi are basically fast because that is his
stylistic approach which is, like Toscanini's, based on taking
Beethoven's own tempo indications seriously, not "fast or fast's
sake", and while Chailly cites Toscanini as one important influence,
his own performances are musically and stylistically much more nuanced
than Toscanini's fairly mechanical and driven runthroughs. Plus the
playing of the orchestra in Chailly's is on a so much higher level
than in Toscanini's, and that's not just the technical quality of the
playing, but the music making which is far more engaged and flexible
where Toscanini's orchestra is just whipped on, a big chamber group
making music together under the direction of the conductor where with
Toscanini, the orchestra just executes the notes.
You don't seem to understand the basic stylistic approach here if you
think it's about "fast for fast's sake".

[Abbeddrose Bierce]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:01:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Reverb can lift years off the age of old recordings.

Bullshit

Abbedd

[Abbeddrose Bierce]

Reverb baths and fake stereo. Too bad you HATE Music

Abbedd

[Abbeddrose Bierce]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:13:59 -0800 (PST), Mark S
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's difficult to determine what, exactly, constitutes doing something
>"artificial" to a recording, don't you think?

Not for me. But I am not a pompous putz masquerading as an expert on
Musical sound

Abbedd

[M forever]

On Feb 10, 9:18 pm, Abbeddrose Bierce <ansermetn...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:13:59 -0800 (PST), Mark S
>

> <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >It's difficult to determine what, exactly, constitutes doing something
> >"artificial" to a recording, don't you think?
>
> Not for me. But I am not a pompous putz masquerading as an expert on
> Musical sound
>
> Abbedd

No, you are a sad fool masquerading as an expert on "Musical sound ".
And it is indeed extremely easy to tell that you do lots of very
artificial things to the recordings you "remaster".

[John Thomas]

> think it's about "fast for fast's sake".answer this.

Since I disagree with every one of your claims (and yes, I've recently
heard the Chailly) there's really no point in answering, though I
would point out that Beethoven's tempo markings have been questioned
by many; and that Chailly's recording of the St Matthew Passion speeds
along at a pace much like that in his Beethoven.

[M forever]

You say there is no point in answering - which simply means you have
nothing to argue your points - and you underline that by providing two
completely pointless replies. Well done! You don't seem to be that
well informed about the whole subject of the metronome markings
either. "Have been questioned by many" just means you read or heard a
few things, but you don't really know any details about that.
One can of course disagree about such things as basic stylistic
approaches or tempo choices, but it's sad you don't hear how nuanced,
engaged and very stylish the music making is in the Chailly cycle. I
guess you just hear the more superficial aspects of performances and
fill the rest in by applying your prejudices about the performers.
That's pretty common though.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following

letters to be typed in

news:e7897e34-00a9-462e...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

Yes, I meant Gunther Hensler. Breest also headed Masterworks for a while.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Reverb can lift years off the age of old recordings.

> Bullshit.

Do you have a hall synthesizer in your system? No? Then you don't know what
the hell you're talking aoubt.

[Abbeddrose Bierce]

Clueless as usual

Abbedd

[William Sommerwerck]

"Abbeddrose Bierce" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v8fcj71b7lmk9h736...@4ax.com...

> Clueless as usual.

Clueless about what? That the brain likes ambience, which is why concert
halls aren't acoustically dead? That two-channel playback can never properly
reproduce hall sound? That adding synthesized ambience that mimics the
effects of real-world concert halls greatly increases the illusion of
reality, and makes older recordings sound newer?

Why don't you stick a mouthpiece up your butt and fart? The noise emitted
would be more entertaining than anything you have to say.

[Steve de Mena]

Don't think there's been that much progress in AD converters in the
last 10 years to make a difference. Is that really where the fault
lies in Toscanini transfers up to now, the AD conversion?

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

Those twofers with the white backgrounds and pictures of T sounded
fine to me. Is that the "disembodied head" series "nobody seemed to
like"? Maybe it is just popular to complain about all Toscanini
transfers?
Steve

[Steve de Mena]

Oh my, ugly covers!!! We can't buy those!!

Spot checking some of the Beethoven from the 2003 box set on
headphones. Is this the same as the "Immortals" series? I'm hearing
pretty good early 50s sound. Clear, no obvious distortion. A little
dry & boxy, but my ears adjust pretty quickly, just as they do to most
classic later Furtwängler recordings.

I don't hear what I would classify as an "added reverb" sound to them.
(Reverbs today are worlds ahead of what would have been used in the
60s and 70s. I wouldn't be surprised if they are routinely used
discreetly in classical recordings, such as the Bricasti M7 I own).

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

Front (only) is what most classical listeners have.....

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

Have you heard any of these 11 Oscar? Thumbs up?

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/10/12 12:16 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> wagnerfan wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:08:33 -0800 (PST), Mark S
>> <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On Feb 10, 9:34 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would be pretty sure its the same masterings as those in the big
>>>> box from years ago - who in the world at Rca or BMG or whatever the
>>>> hell it is now would be able to do a proper mastering ala

>>>> Obert-Thorn or Marston?? Wagner fan

>>>
>>> But there have been newer remasterings done since the original set
>>> was issued in 1992, most notably, the Philadelphia recordings. One
>>> would hope the best remasters were used in this latest set, rather
>>> than just pooping out what was passed for a digital "upgrade" 20
>>> years ago.

>> Yes they did some of them over - I think I have them all (if I
>> remember right they had the wrong Beethoven Third attributed) - It was

>> the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies plus more - 20 CDs in all. Wagner
>> fan
>
> IIRC the re-masterings were not necessarily well-received by everyone.

They never are with Toscanini. It seems like it's just the accepted
thing to do, slam any new Toscanini remastering.

Listening to the 2nd movement of the 9th from the 2003 box set of
Beethoven symphonies as I write this. No complaints here. Not hearing
any trickery or "fakeness".

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/10/12 1:37 PM, Mark S wrote:

I guess that explains why Matthew never got his "wooden cabinet and
special booklet", despite being a crucial part of the success of the
reissue.

Years ago I used to listen to shortwave radio and would send in
reception reports to get QSL cards along with other collectible
trinkets back from the stations. At one point I sent in reception
reports to both Cuba and East Germany's shortwave stations. I didn't
know it at the time but I mixed up the reports, and the Cuban one
(Radio Habana?) went to the DDR and the East German one to Cuba. Many
months later I heard back from both of them, with QSL cards, as they
forwarded the ports to each other. (Letters in each mentioned this
fact). This really has nothing to do with classical recordings but I
think I should be able to tell a long-winded personal story that has a
flimsy connection to the subject at hand (Breest vs Hanssler).

I didn't do too bad in a 6th floor apartment in Los Angleles with a
high-end ICOM shortwave radio and a long wire antenna running between
windows outside the building. (Nighttime reception between source and
myself)

Steve

[William Sommerwerck]

"Steve de Mena" <st...@demena.com> wrote in message
news:afSdnfplfJVW-avS...@giganews.com...

>> not the front speakers.

> Front (only) is what most classical listeners have...

True. But that's no reason for them not upgrading their systems.

I've played ambient surround for listeners who react "So what?". Then, when
I shut off the ambient channels -- you should see the looks on their faces.

If you don't have a hall synthesizer, you don't know what you're missing.
Well, actually, you do -- the immersive sound of a hall.

[pianomaven]

On Feb 10, 6:58 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 10:08 am, pianomaven wrote:
>
>
>
> > >  I would be pretty sure its the same masterings as those in the big
> > > box from years ago - who in the world at Rca or BMG or whatever the
> > > hell it is now would be able to do a proper mastering ala Obert-Thorn
> > > or Marston??
>
> > What an idiotic remark.
>
> > Neither of these gentlemen ever work with mastertapes in their
> > "remasterings". Usually 78 RPM pressings and LPs. Remasterings? Yeah,
> > sure.
>
> So was RCA's John Pfieffer an 'idiot' for using Ward Marston to effect
> disk-to-tape transfers of all of his blue-chip artists' early sides in
> the early 90's?  Heifetz, Rubinstein, Toscanini, Koussevitzky, et al.,
> were all handled by Marston.

Incorrect. More misinformation propagated by amateurs via the
internet.

The RCA engineers did the vast majority of this work. Dan Guss
informed me that RCA Victor was under union obligations at that point
to employ their own engineers and their own studio. So, for the GPE we
had to employ the NY studio and its engineers to get any transfers
done from their tape archives.

Marston was responsible for the 78 RPM stuff. That's his thing.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Feb 11, 4:18 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Abbeddrose Bierce" <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Correct.

TD

[pianomaven]

The whole point of the XRCD CDs was the follow through from beginning
to end. NOT just the transfer of the tape to digital, but the rest of
the process. This part will be eliminated in the cheap box, of course.

TD

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Steve de Mena <st...@demena.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:SOudnX_2krqU9KvS...@giganews.com:

> On 2/10/12 1:37 PM, Mark S wrote:

>> On Feb 10, 11:14 am, "Matthew B. Tepper"<oyţ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> John Thomas<abrasax...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the
>>> following letters to be typed in news:f810f204-3d5c-486c-bd5e-
>>> de18b3f9d...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 30 2011, 8:11 pm, Thornhill<seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The latest large box set (84 CDs):
>>>
>>>>> http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Arturo-Toscanini-The-Com
>>>>> ...
>>>
>>>> The King of speedy Beethoven symphony performaces! Riccardo
>>>> Chailly, eat your heart out!
>>>
>>> *cough*(Paul Paray)
>>>
>>> I'll pass. BMG still owes me the wooden cabinet and special booklet
>>> that I ought to have gotten for having bought the entire series from
>>> the start, as it was issued, thus giving them the sales they needed in
>>> order to see the project through to the end. I wrote to Günther
>>> Breest, and never had the courtesy of a reply. I never got my box, so
>>> I hope he was buried in it.
>>>
>>
>> You mean Gunter Hanssler. Breest was a producer for DG, IIRC.
>
> I guess that explains why Matthew never got his "wooden cabinet and
> special booklet", despite being a crucial part of the success of the
> reissue.

22 October 1992



Mr. Guenter Hensler

President, BMG Classics

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10036



Dear Mr. Hensler:



I have been a big fan of the RCA/BMG Toscanini Edition since even before it
was begun. For example, I bought the 10 CDs of JVC's early Toscanini
series, at premium prices. I bought each of the subsequent American RCA
issues. And when the present complete edition began to be issued in 1990,
I bought every release as it came out, often on the day it became available
at my local store.



In short, my allegiance to this reissue series is unquestioned. I've been
a Toscanini collector for decades; indeed, I grew up with the 78s of his
1939 Beethoven 5th, and I have had practically everything on LP at one time
or another, including several discs from the Japanese 100-LP set that was
in its time the only long-play release of some of the performances.



Why do I even mention this, beyond my wish to give thanks that the series
was carried to a successful conclusion? It is because I see now that the
entire set has now been made available at a special price, a price which
includes such extras as a handsome glass-doored cabinet and a booklet with
a limitation number. I've seen it at one of my favorite stores, and it's a
beauty.



But, frankly, I am very annoyed. I have already bought each and every one
of the 82 CDs that make up this series. I have paid retail for them and,
in so doing, have been one of the very people who made it a commercial
success so that you at BMG Classics would continue it to its completion.
And now I find that the cabinet is not available at any special
consideration to purchasers of the entire set -- but at a price of more
than $100!



I find this pricing arbitrary, ridiculous and punitive. As you can see
from the attached, I have already paid out more than $800 (not including
state and local tax) for the Toscanini series. At my local Tower Records,
the complete set (with the cabinet and booklet) retails for $819.99, and
the cabinet alone for $131.00. As far as I am concerned, I have pretty
much already paid for the cabinet, and I feel you should make special
dispensation to those of us who were foresighted to buy all the CDs as they
came out. Without us, you wouldn't have your success in the first place!


Mr. Guenter Hensler

President, BMG Classics

22 October 1992

Page Two



I await your reply detailing a more equitable manner of making the cabinet
available to purchasers of the complete Toscanini Edition.



Sincerely,



<s>



Matthew B. Tepper



cc: John Pfeiffer

Martin Bookspan

[Doug McDonald]

On 2/11/2012 7:08 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>
>> Front (only) is what most classical listeners have...
>
> True. But that's no reason for them not upgrading their systems.
>
> I've played ambient surround for listeners who react "So what?". Then, when
> I shut off the ambient channels -- you should see the looks on their faces.
>
> If you don't have a hall synthesizer, you don't know what you're missing.
> Well, actually, you do -- the immersive sound of a hall.
>
>

Upgrading an existing stereo system to multichannel so it
really works with classical surround is not easy, as I
have recently found out.

Some years ago I purchased a 5 channel A-V receiver and
installed that in my system, using my old speakers (original KEF 105s)
and power amplifier (Hafler) for the stereo channels and some other
small KEF speakers I had used in my office for the three other channels.

This worked, reasonably well, in my old abode, for movies. It never
worked well for classical surround. I always supposed that that
was due both to speaker mismatch and also due to the fact that the
room was simply a bad one for imaging ... proper placement
of speakers and listener required the listener to sit on the oven,
which was uncomfortable especially near dinner time.

After moving to a new, much larger place with a big living room,
the stereo imaging improved dramatically. But the surround sound,
now even for movies, clearly was still lacking. I attributed this
to speaker mismatch. After listening to pink noise on numerous
small speakers, I found that Polk speakers best matched the
sound of the old KEFs. New KEFs are no longer available in my town.
I eventually settled on a particular few years old Polk model
and obtained three of them. They seem to work OK for
the center channel and near perfectly as the side channels, where
the match is not as critical.

I can't emphasize this enough: you really do need an excellent
tonal match for the three front speakers.

I'm not using a subwoofer ... the KEF 105s are fine for the
bass of music and adequate for movies. The receiver's bass
handling system works, according to various A-V test DVDs and
Blu-rays, quite nicely.

I did spend a bit of time tuning the surround synthesis parameters
of the receiver.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

[Mark S]

I'd mention that there were some very good engineers at the BMG
studios and some mediocre ones as well, union or not. There were also
a number of engineers who had been with BMG for years who had been
moved off full time status to freelance status. Not surprisingly,
these engineers ended up doing more projects for BMG than they did
when they were full time (at least that's what they told me). They had
more $ in their pockets but no health care benefits, which wasn't such
a problem as they all qualified for Medicare.

[Mark S]

On Feb 10, 4:02 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Chailly's tempi are basically fast because that is his
> stylistic approach which is, like Toscanini's, based on taking
> Beethoven's own tempo indications seriously, not "fast or fast's
> sake", and while Chailly cites Toscanini as one important influence,
> his own performances are musically and stylistically much more nuanced
> than Toscanini's fairly mechanical and driven runthroughs. Plus the
> playing of the orchestra in Chailly's is on a so much higher level
> than in Toscanini's, and that's not just the technical quality of the
> playing, but the music making which is far more engaged and flexible
> where Toscanini's orchestra is just whipped on, a big chamber group
> making music together under the direction of the conductor where with
> Toscanini, the orchestra just executes the notes.
> You don't seem to understand the basic stylistic approach here if you
> think it's about "fast for fast's sake".

"Toscanini's fairly mechanical and driven run throughs...with

Toscanini, the orchestra just executes the notes."

Michael - I was surprised to read those statements coming from you,
considering how often you've taken me and others to task for making
blanket statements about musicians and performances.

I'd be interested in hearing specifics from you concerning AT
recordings that support your claims.

[M forever]

My comments were indeed not very "specific", but they were already
much more specific than Thomas', so I think you should go to him with
that request first.

[O]

In article
<5a9ef467-cdfd-477a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, M

Well, there it is: M Forever has just mathematically, harmonically,
melodically, and rhythmically proven that Chailly is a far better
conductor than Toscanini in the Beethoven Symphonies. At first, I
wavered, but now I'm sold! There is no point in reply - it's all there
in black & white. How silly I was to think there was something extra
in Toscanini's music making when it was all here just staring me in the
face - the fact of Toscanini's inadequacies that Chailly so richly
fills. M Forever!

-Owen

[operafan]

On Feb 11, 8:08 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> If you don't have a hall synthesizer, you don't know what you're missing.
> Well, actually, you do -- the immersive sound of a hall.

What "hall synthesizer" are you using? In my experience with them,
these electronic circuits add a lot of reverb and out of phase
material to the signal source. You get some kind of echoey sound that
is immersive, but exactly what kind of hall does it sound like? Often
like a hall with muddy acoustics, but sometimes the effect is pleasant.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> If you don't have a hall synthesizer, you don't know what you're
>> missing. Well, actually, you do -- the immersive sound of a hall.

> What "hall synthesizer" are you using?

The JVC XP-A1000, or the Yamaha DSP-3000.

> In my experience with them, these electronic circuits add a lot of reverb
> and out of phase material to the signal source. You get some kind of
> echoey sound that is immersive, but exactly what kind of hall does it
> sound like? Often like a hall with muddy acoustics, but sometimes the
> effect is pleasant.

You can't get immersive sound through just two speakers.

These products add /nothing/ to the signal source. They synthesize delays
and reverberation, based on models of specific halls. The synthesized
signals are played through four additional speakers to the sides and rear.
Playing them through the front speakers (which both products permit)
produces exactly the kind of effect you describe.

You are under complete control. Not only can you choose the hall, but you
can vary many parameters, including hall size, initial delays, HF rolloff,
and so on.

[Steve de Mena]

What people have today are either 2-channel setups or "home theater"
setups with a center channel and two (smaller) rear channel speakers.
That is what record companies are going to cater to, hence more use of
SACD rear channels for ambiance versus the 70s idea that people would
have 4 equal speakers equally spaced around them. They're not going to
relese multi channel recordings that require the listeners alter their
speaker setup. It's not a matter of what sounds better, it's just not
practical to release the recoridngs in a format that a fraction of 1%
of customers will be able to appreciate.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/11/12 7:23 AM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:

> But, frankly, I am very annoyed. I have already bought each and every one
> of the 82 CDs that make up this series. I have paid retail for them and,
> in so doing, have been one of the very people who made it a commercial
> success so that you at BMG Classics would continue it to its completion.
> And now I find that the cabinet is not available at any special
> consideration to purchasers of the entire set -- but at a price of more
> than $100!
>
>
>
> I find this pricing arbitrary, ridiculous and punitive. As you can see
> from the attached, I have already paid out more than $800 (not including
> state and local tax) for the Toscanini series. At my local Tower Records,
> the complete set (with the cabinet and booklet) retails for $819.99, and
> the cabinet alone for $131.00. As far as I am concerned, I have pretty
> much already paid for the cabinet, and I feel you should make special
> dispensation to those of us who were foresighted to buy all the CDs as they
> came out. Without us, you wouldn't have your success in the first place!

Haven't we been subjected enough to this story about the cabinet and
"special booklet" enough times? We can't do anything about it.

Did Tower actually sell the cabinet alone for $131.00? If so, why
didn't you buy it? How "special" was the "special booklet". I imagine
at the time you already possessed Toscanini books that vastly surpass
that "special booklet" in contents.

I'm still confused about the cabinet. I thought it was only available
WITH the complete CD collection and that you were upset that you had
bought all the CDs and thus could not get the cabinet, (a somewhat
legitimate complaint) but now it looks like the cabinet was always an
item sold separately.

Steve

[Mark S]

I've got to agree with you on this one, Steve.

There's really nothing nefarious about a company - any company -
having different price points for their product being configured in a
different way for sale. It happens all the time. These days, one can
buy BD versions of movies for $5 when those same movies cost $20 in
their initial DVD format. One can purchase twofer movies on BD that
were only available singly and at a higher price on DVD.

Many symphony cycles that were issued on LP in the past were issued
one disc at a time at full price and later boxed together and sold at
as discount as a cycle. The same practice lasted well into the CD age.
This is especially true of big projects, like a Haydn cycle where a
company starts out with the hopes that their plan to record the entire
cycle materializes, but that they're depending on $ coming in from the
initial issues to not only prove the viability of doing the entire
cycle but helping to fund the continuation of the same.

As to Matthew's specific gripe over the RCA AT Edition, I'd start from
the point that the important thing about that cycle are the recordings
themselves, and not the packaging. Were it me, I'd be happy that I had
a couple of extra years of listening pleasure owning the individual
discs that I wouldn't have had had I waited for the complete set to be
issued in a fancy wooden box. If I really wanted the box and it was
available for individual sale, I would have gone ahead and purchased
it, the same way one goes ahead and purchases more shelving units if
their CD collection outgrows the available space. The other option
would have been to sell off all of the individual CDs to Record
Surplus and repurchase the ATE in the box at a time when RS was paying
decent $ for used CDs. Of course, one might lose more money in such an
exchange than they would by purchasing the box on its own, not to
mention that the advantage to hanging onto the single CDs is that
you've probably listened to all of them and have been able to replace
any defective CDs you may have purchased. Who wants to go through that
process again with 84 discs?

The bottom line is that the record companies don't owe consumers
anything. If they make enough mistakes or piss off enough customers,
they'll go out of business. Obviously, RCA didn't go out of business
by not offering Matthew his wooden box. That said, were I running the
zoo and had I received such a letter from Matthew, I may well have
contacted him directly to see if I could work something out with him,
and that something most likely would have been me offering to sell him
the box at cost, IF BMG had a way to accommodate such a sale in their
system (amazing how many things don't get done in business because
there's not an already established protocol). But I would have made
that call believing that any offer I made that wasn't an offer of
giving him the box for free was probably going to be rejected.

BTW - I should disclose that I worked at BMG during the time the ATE
was issued and that the mind-control chip that was implanted in my
cranium as a requirement for my being hired in the first place has
never been removed or - as far as I know - deactivated.
Whirr...click...on! Why worry about Toscanini when there are many fine
Helmut Lotti CDs available for purchase??? Did you ever get your copy
of Caruso 2000? Whirr...click...off!

[weary flake]

Steve de Mena <st...@demena.com> wrote:

this?:

http://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-van-Beethoven-Symphonies-Toscanini/dp/B0000CNTLU/

that set from 2003 hadn't received the fake stereo treatment.

The 2001 set received the fake stereo setup:

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonies-Missa-Solemnis-Box/dp/B000028DLA/

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:b6757f10-acc5-420d-b1c2-ca7189c1e462
@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> That said, were I running the zoo and had I received such a letter from
> Matthew, I may well have contacted him directly to see if I could work
> something out with him, and that something most likely would have been me
> offering to sell him the box at cost, IF BMG had a way to accommodate
> such a sale in their system (amazing how many things don't get done in
> business because there's not an already established protocol). But I
> would have made that call believing that any offer I made that wasn't an
> offer of giving him the box for free was probably going to be rejected.

"At cost" would have been acceptable to me. Even half price (assuming the
cost was less than that), I might well have jumped at. At the very least, I
would like to have had the courtesy of a reply. I received none.

[Mark S]

On Feb 12, 9:48 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "At cost" would have been acceptable to me.  Even half price (assuming the
> cost was less than that), I might well have jumped at.  At the very least, I
> would like to have had the courtesy of a reply.  I received none.

You should have received the courtesy of a reply.

Contrary to what one might imagine, classical record companies aren't
exactly inundated with correspondence from consumers. Replying to the
occasional letter could ave been handled by Hanssler's secretary.

[Mark S]

On Feb 12, 9:48 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:

>

> "At cost" would have been acceptable to me.

You would have been the exception to the rule.

You might recall the firestorm that erupted on rmcr back in my MHS
days when I tried to accommodate some old fart who had tried to rejoin
MHS as a new member and was rejected because his name and street
address was already in our database as a member, and our new-member
offers were clearly advertised as being for new members. I had a
number of e-mails with the man and offered him my best deal - that he
could rejoin MHS as a member in good standing (even though our DB had
him owing us $ from his past membership. I offered to wipe that debt
from our records.), but without his getting another one of our low-
priced, loss-leader new member offers.

He rejected my offer...and then proceeded to go public on rmcr with
what I thought had been private conversations. He accused MHS of
acting like Nazis (the owners of MHS are a Jewish family, BTW) that
reminded him of the oppression his people suffered under the Nazis.
Among his litany of complaints was the fact that he had rejoined the
BMG Club numerous times and had always got a loss-leader, el cheapo
"new member" offer from them, and that MHS not offering him the same
deal was akin to racism.

On and on it went.

What was clear to me in the exchange was that his only concern was
getting 6 CDs for $1 apiece. Period. He wasn't looking to get back in
the good graces of MHS. He was looking to game the system, the same
way he gamed the system with BMG.

That single experience with a consumer who was never going to be
satisfied with any bending over backward I could do had the effect of
getting me completely out of any future attempts at customer service,
which I thereafter left to the drones operating the MHS customer
service phones, and who didn't know Bach from Bacharach.

[Mark S]

> http://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-van-Beethoven-Symphonies-Toscanini/dp/B0...

>
> that set from 2003 hadn't received the fake stereo treatment.
>
> The 2001 set received the fake stereo setup:
>

> http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonies-Missa-Solemnis-Box/dp/B000...


The biggest fallacy in this discussion is the idea that the AT RCA
mono recordings made at the time accurately reflect what this
orchestra and this conductor sounded like in a concert hall. Is there
anyone who believes that this team sounded like the RCA recordings
were they heard live? Does anybody believe that any orchestra would
sound that way?

The answer, of course, is no. While the RCA recordings preserve many
musical aspects of AT's art, they do not accurately convey how this
orchestra actually sounded in the hall. We know that because many of
the musical aspects of an AT performance that were commented on and
beloved at the time by the press and public alike are not captured on
these recordings.

I am a HUGE fan of those 2001 "fake stereo" issues you deride, for the
simple fact that they are the first time I have heard AT RCA
recordings where the orchestra sounds like an actual orchestra, and
where the mind's ear doesn't have to compensate and re-imagine what is
coming out there speakers and put it into a context that accounts for
its shortcomings, as one has to do with most AT issues.

Yes, the 2001 issues don't accurately reflect the sound as captured by
RCA back in the day, but that recorded sound is as artificial and
unrealistic as it gets. At least the 2001 issues give us a closer
approximation of the AT magic, a magic which extended itself well
beyond the precision, passion and power that we DO hear on the typical
RCA issue of his recordings.

[Richard S. Sandmeyer]

In article <eJKdnagPD74k4qrS...@giganews.com>,

Steve de Mena <st...@demena.com> wrote:

Haven't we all had this experience? We buy the individual CDs of a
series at full price as they are released. Then on completion of the
series the label releases a box set that is in some way better than the
individual releases (reduced price, better notes, better packaging, or
whatever). I can recall similar experiences in the LP era.

Shrewd collectors who care about such things simply don't buy the series
until it is completed. That way, if it is released in a set at a
reduced price or with "extras" when completed, they minimize the regret
of buying too early. Other collectors for whom it is most important to
enjoy the individual releases as soon as they become available will
simply accept the possibility of missing a later, better deal on the set
(better in packaging, price, or whatever) as one of the risks of
collecting.

In Matthew's particular case, it seems like RCA should at least have
answered his letter, but I don't share his indignation at missing out on
the cabinet or the special booklet. Frankly, I'm surprised RCA even
made the cabinet available separately at all -- they must have ordered
more of them than they needed for the sets they pressed.

--
Rich Sandmeyer
rich dot sand at verizon dot net

[Mark S]

On Feb 12, 12:35 pm, "Richard S. Sandmeyer"

<rich.s...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> In Matthew's particular case, it seems like RCA should at least have
> answered his letter, but I don't share his indignation at missing out on
> the cabinet or the special booklet.  Frankly, I'm surprised RCA even
> made the cabinet available separately at all -- they must have ordered
> more of them than they needed for the sets they pressed.

It's a matter of getting a per-unit price that works in the balance
sheet.

Most likely, BMG got a better per-unit price to produce, say, 1,000 of
the wooden boxes than they would have having them done on demand, or
if they had only ordered 500. They did their calculations and
determined that X amount of sets would be sold complete in the box,
and that X probably wasn't 1,000. They would have hoped to sell all
1,000 as complete sets, and so they might have promoted it exclusively
as such for a while. Once the demand had peaked, they looked for a way
to sell off the wooden boxes they knew they couldn't sell as complete
sets and decided to sell the box separately.

[pianomaven]

Were his initials MBT?

Cheap. Gaming the system. Jewish. Whiner.

Fits the profile like a glove.

TD

[Mark S]

No. It was someone else.

[wagnerfan]

And thats all youi have to say to Deacon's comment, Mark???? Geeez.
Wagner Fan

[pianomaven]

On Feb 12, 3:35 pm, "Richard S. Sandmeyer"
<rich.s...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <eJKdnagPD74k4qrSnZ2dnUVZ5hWdn...@giganews.com>,

Agreed.

I have to admit that when the GPE was initiated there was no clear
idea how it would be packaged as a complete set. The complete set was
only issued in the summer of 1999. Contained in the lid of one of the
"brown"(actually bronze, the colour deriving from the interior bronze
of the Steinway piano frame) boxes was a cross-index book allowing the
purchaser of the complete edition to locate any of the many individual
pieces contained in those 200 CDs. Very practical tool, we thought at
the time. There was no other way of obtaining this item. It was never
available separately, only if one purchased the complete edition in
those two boxes.

I still have some of those books, as a matter of fact, and I have made
many of my friends who were interested very happy, indeed. But I do
regret that they were unavailable to the buyer of all the individual
volumes.

Perhaps they would have been, had not the comptroller of the Decca
Record Company, Limited, the new owners of Philips Classics (which was
crumbling around our feet as the last few employees of that once fine
company put together the final volumes of the edition) decided to sell
off all the unsold complete sets to some rack-jobber in the UK, who
subsequently sold them off around the world. And just as the Japanese
were about to launch the complete edition in Japan. At that point
there would have been zero interest in a cross-index booklet on the
market.

The classical record business is a merciless one and full of reckless
near idiots as well as committed lovers of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
Sometimes it is hard to tell them apart, however.

TD

[pianomaven]

All this is basic common sense, Mark.

Tepper is simply whining, as usual.

I, too, wish the additions to the new AR box were available
separately. I will NOT buy that set a second time.

TD

[Mark S]

On Feb 12, 1:01 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Were his initials MBT?
>
> >> Cheap. Gaming the system. Jewish. Whiner.
>
> >> Fits the profile like a glove.
>
> >> TD
>
> >No. It was someone else.
>
>   And thats all youi have to say to Deacon's comment, Mark???? Geeez.
> Wagner Fan

Yes. My fingers are already bleeding today from the overly long
missives I've posted in this thread and others. :)

[wagnerfan]

Uh huh - yeah sure Wagner fan

[pianomaven]

On Feb 12, 4:01 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:56:12 -0800 (PST), Mark S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And he ISN'T cheap? DOESN'T game the system? ISN'T Jewish? ISN'T a
whiner?

What's your problem, Dickey?

Oh, by the by. I take offense at the "Geeez", which is a slur on the
Son of God, in case you didn't know.

MOSES! What a dork!

TD

[M forever]

In your case, it is really easy though - you obviously belong to the
former group.

"HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA"

[William Sommerwerck]

"pianomaven" <1pian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6deff616-5271-41aa...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> The classical record business is a merciless one and full of reckless
> near idiots as well as committed lovers of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
> Sometimes it is hard to tell them apart, however.

The problem is that it's a business that isn't run as a business.

Classical music is a "product" like any other. You have to market it to
people who already want it -- which includes, among other things,
anticipating how they will react to your business decisions -- and sell it
to those who don't know much about it.

Unfortunately, classical music is too often left to lie rotting in the Sun,
in the hope that customers will gather 'round and kick the corpse.

You have to market the product. This includes having an active new-releases
Website, some way for listeners to index what they already own and what they
want to buy, etc, etc, etc.

I've been trying to complete my collection of DG 20/21 disks. At least
there's a site that lists most of DG's series, including titles no longer in
print.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"Richard S. Sandmeyer" <rich...@nospam.verizon.net> appears to have

caused the following letters to be typed in

news:rich.sand-81E01...@unknown.sj.astraweb.com:

> In Matthew's particular case, it seems like RCA should at least have
> answered his letter, but I don't share his indignation at missing out on
> the cabinet or the special booklet. Frankly, I'm surprised RCA even
> made the cabinet available separately at all -- they must have ordered
> more of them than they needed for the sets they pressed.

A simple "no" would have been better than no answer at all. At least then I
couldn't give this as an example of record companies "treating us as though
we simply do not exist."

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following

letters to be typed in news:491a09e7-b1c1-4f34-a453-
0a40dd...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 12, 9:48 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "At cost" would have been acceptable to me.
>
> You would have been the exception to the rule.

Very well; remember, I said I would have been happy with half-price. Or
maybe more. It would have been nice to have gotten a reply.

> You might recall the firestorm that erupted on rmcr back in my MHS days
> when I tried to accommodate some old fart who had tried to rejoin MHS as
> a new member and was rejected because his name and street address was
> already in our database as a member, and our new-member offers were
> clearly advertised as being for new members. I had a number of e-mails
> with the man and offered him my best deal - that he could rejoin MHS as a
> member in good standing (even though our DB had him owing us $ from his
> past membership. I offered to wipe that debt from our records.), but

> without his getting another one of our low-priced, loss-leader new

> member offers.
>
> He rejected my offer...and then proceeded to go public on rmcr with what
> I thought had been private conversations. He accused MHS of acting like
> Nazis (the owners of MHS are a Jewish family, BTW) that reminded him of
> the oppression his people suffered under the Nazis. Among his litany of
> complaints was the fact that he had rejoined the BMG Club numerous times
> and had always got a loss-leader, el cheapo "new member" offer from them,
> and that MHS not offering him the same deal was akin to racism.
>
> On and on it went.
>
> What was clear to me in the exchange was that his only concern was
> getting 6 CDs for $1 apiece. Period. He wasn't looking to get back in the
> good graces of MHS. He was looking to game the system, the same way he
> gamed the system with BMG.
>
> That single experience with a consumer who was never going to be
> satisfied with any bending over backward I could do had the effect of
> getting me completely out of any future attempts at customer service,
> which I thereafter left to the drones operating the MHS customer service
> phones, and who didn't know Bach from Bacharach.

Sheesh! I remember I had a brief dispute with MHS, which I think was about
not having received a shipment. The problem was quickly corrected, and I
believe I later contributed some reviews to the house organ, so obviously I
was satisfied with the response. My correspondence was with a Mr. Nissim.

[Taffy Brendel]

On Feb 12, 1:01 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:56:12 -0800 (PST), Mark S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Disappointing isn't it. Here is Mark who is usually so insightful on
so many things
turning a blind eye to Deacon's pernicious recourse to anti-semitic
stereotype.

But you see Mark has inoculated Deacon from any criticism or rebuke.
And why is that? Because as he stated in the past they had a nice
business relationship. Again, very disappointing especially as Mark
has
been able to change his mind on things, e.g., religion.

Taffy

[Gerard]

pianomaven <1pian...@gmail.com> typed:

>
> I have to admit that when the GPE was initiated there was no clear
> idea how it would be packaged as a complete set. The complete set was
> only issued in the summer of 1999. Contained in the lid of one of the
> "brown"(actually bronze, the colour deriving from the interior bronze
> of the Steinway piano frame) boxes was a cross-index book allowing the
> purchaser of the complete edition to locate any of the many individual
> pieces contained in those 200 CDs. Very practical tool, we thought at
> the time. There was no other way of obtaining this item. It was never
> available separately, only if one purchased the complete edition in
> those two boxes.
>
> I still have some of those books, as a matter of fact, and I have made
> many of my friends who were interested very happy, indeed. But I do
> regret that they were unavailable to the buyer of all the individual
> volumes.
>
> Perhaps they would have been, had not the comptroller of the Decca
> Record Company, Limited, the new owners of Philips Classics (which was
> crumbling around our feet as the last few employees of that once fine
> company put together the final volumes of the edition) decided to sell
> off all the unsold complete sets to some rack-jobber in the UK, who
> subsequently sold them off around the world. And just as the Japanese
> were about to launch the complete edition in Japan. At that point
> there would have been zero interest in a cross-index booklet on the
> market.
>

Do you mean a 190 pages book, sized like the individual volumes? That's what I
have (it's even in Dutch).
Or was there another book as well?

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/12/12 9:30 AM, weary flake wrote:

>> Listening to the 2nd movement of the 9th from the 2003 box set of
>> Beethoven symphonies as I write this. No complaints here. Not hearing
>> any trickery or "fakeness".
>
> this?:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-van-Beethoven-Symphonies-Toscanini/dp/B0000CNTLU/
>
> that set from 2003 hadn't received the fake stereo treatment.

Yes, that's what I have. I ended up listening to quite a lot of it.
Some of the loud choral parts in the 9th had a little distortion but
otherwise quite happy with the sound.

>
> The 2001 set received the fake stereo setup:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonies-Missa-Solemnis-Box/dp/B000028DLA/

REALLY?? Can someone else here confirm that in 2001 they were still
releasing fake stereo and not mentioning this fact on the front of the
CD? I had assumed this stopped in the 1960s era RCA Victrola cheap LP
days.

Searching for the word "stereo" in the Amazon reviews for this set
comes up with no hits.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/12/12 11:36 AM, Mark S wrote:

> I am a HUGE fan of those 2001 "fake stereo" issues you deride, for the
> simple fact that they are the first time I have heard AT RCA
> recordings where the orchestra sounds like an actual orchestra, and
> where the mind's ear doesn't have to compensate and re-imagine what is
> coming out there speakers and put it into a context that accounts for
> its shortcomings, as one has to do with most AT issues.
>
> Yes, the 2001 issues don't accurately reflect the sound as captured by
> RCA back in the day, but that recorded sound is as artificial and
> unrealistic as it gets. At least the 2001 issues give us a closer
> approximation of the AT magic, a magic which extended itself well
> beyond the precision, passion and power that we DO hear on the typical
> RCA issue of his recordings.

Mark, Interesting. I see these 2-fers at Record Surplus all the time
& never bought any as I assumed they were the same masterings as the
2003 box. I personally have not been a fan of "fake stereo" but at
your recommendation I will try one of the sets out as one should never
rule something out absolutely.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/12/12 9:57 AM, Mark S wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:48 am, "Matthew B. Tepper"<oy @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "At cost" would have been acceptable to me. Even half price (assuming the
>> cost was less than that), I might well have jumped at. At the very least, I
>> would like to have had the courtesy of a reply. I received none.
>
> You should have received the courtesy of a reply.

I agree.

> Contrary to what one might imagine, classical record companies aren't
> exactly inundated with correspondence from consumers. Replying to the
> occasional letter could ave been handled by Hanssler's secretary.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

The fact Matthew is Jewish is what I think we are disappointed that
you would point out. It wasn't necessary and seemed to be trying to
imply a stereotype.

Race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, political
affiliation, they're all best left out of this newsgroup.

Steve

[wagnerfan]

Agreed - a disappointing surprise. Wagner fan

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/12/12 10:10 PM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> "Richard S. Sandmeyer"<rich...@nospam.verizon.net> appears to have
> caused the following letters to be typed in
> news:rich.sand-81E01...@unknown.sj.astraweb.com:
>
>> In Matthew's particular case, it seems like RCA should at least have
>> answered his letter, but I don't share his indignation at missing out on
>> the cabinet or the special booklet. Frankly, I'm surprised RCA even
>> made the cabinet available separately at all -- they must have ordered
>> more of them than they needed for the sets they pressed.
>
> A simple "no" would have been better than no answer at all. At least then I
> couldn't give this as an example of record companies "treating us as though
> we simply do not exist."
>

In the 1970s as a teenager I seem to recall I generally got a reply
from "the majors" when I wrote them. Usually I would be asking for a
high quality 8x10 photo of an artist that I could get signed at an
upcoming concert. Often they said "no", that for various reasons those
were reserved for the press (rights issues, etc.), but at least I got
a personal reply.

Steve

[Gerard]

Steve de Mena <st...@demena.com> typed:

>
>
> Race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, political
> affiliation, they're all best left out of this newsgroup.
>
> Steve

This could apply to 99% of all posts in this newsgroup.

[Angelotti]

This applies to 100% of your postings
Hvdlinden

[wagnerfan]

Don't know about that but that was hardly the first time Deacon has
pulled that kind oobvious racism out of his rear end. Love when he
tries to backtrack after he gets caught but its too late. Then he
hypocritically pulls the "you used the word Geez" card when he has
more than once said he doesn't believe. I think he's just
forgetful---understandable. Pathetic really.
wagner Fan

[Gerard]

Angelotti <lind...@gmail.com> typed:

The usual BS from you.
My posts are not about race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality,
political affiliation.

[pianomaven]

Tepper's ethnicity is something of which he is particularly proud,
Steve. Are you suggesting he is not? If not, why?

Indeed, if pushed to employ a musical example, I would suggest that
Tepper stepped right out of Moussorgsky's pictures. The incessant
whiner.

Meep, meep, meep.

Enough, already.

> Race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, political
> affiliation, they're all best left out of this newsgroup.

Yes, probably.

Unfortunately this is hardly the case, as you know full well. I don't
need to cite examples for your pleasure. Remember: I am the Canadian
moose, Steve?

This group clearly doesn't adhere to the norms of PC behaviour,
particularly among the anonymous trolls, the WagnerFans, the
TaffyBrendels, et al.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Feb 13, 5:43 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:36:43 -0800 (PST), Angelotti
>

Oh get a life, Dickey.

You want to swear using the name of Jesus, by all means go ahead. But
don't whine when you are caught doing it.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Feb 13, 5:49 am, "Gerard" <ghendri_nospam-k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Angelotti <linden...@gmail.com> typed:

And the posters posts are not about music.

What, one might ask, ARE they about?

TD

[pianomaven]

Correct.

TD

[wkasimer]

On Feb 12, 3:56 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Were his initials MBT?

> No. It was someone else.

Here's the thread in question:

http://tinyurl.com/7cxehy9

Bill