In Praise of Eugene Ormandy
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> I just picked up a two CD thing on Biddulph entitled "The Art of
> Eugene Ormandy", who was the head of the Philadelphia O when probably
> most of us were growing up. At that time, in the 1950's and 1960's,
> Ormy to the American record buying public was sort of like Karajan in
> the 1970's and Neeme Jarvi in the 1990's -- seemed to record
> everything in sight, and consequently was slighted for it. I know for
> myself that I used to dislike his recordings because they were so
> "establishment" and he looked like everyone's wealthy and successful
> uncle (don't we all have one?)
>
> Later on I began to appreciate some of his fine touches, the middle
> part of the Serenade in "Harold" for example is perfectly done, and
> his version of Harris #3 is still the one I go back to (not least
> because only he and Jarvi of recordings contains that little extra 18
> bars before the storm.)
>
> Now that he's gone and we no longer have the equivalent of the Dallas
> Cowboys of classical orchestra inflicted on us ("America's Team") I
> think we can step back and appreciate what he had wrought. Ormy, that
> is.
>
> The 2 CD's carries O's career from his arrival to the US in the early
> 20's, his planned violin recitals fell through, and he was relegated
> to the last desk in the pit orchestra in a silent movie palace. The
> first recordings are three acoustic pieces, Ormandy had a pretty good
> if schmaltzy violin tone. The second is a very good "Song of India."
> Next there are a couple more bonbons with his then-wife on harp
> (including Dvorak's "Passengers will please refrain, etc." Humoreske.
> Then there are two cuts of Ormandy and "his salon orchestra",
> including a piece entitled "Southern Rhapsody", 4 1/2 minutes of
> Stephen Foster, etc. culminating in a contrapuntal treatment of Swanee
> and Dixie. You have to hear it to believe it.
>
> There follows an excruciatingly long version of "Was It a Dream?"
> replete with Whiffenpoof vocalizations and contributions from the
> Dorsey brothers.
>
> Next we have FOUR ten inch cuts from the Minneapolis Symphony,
> including an oddity by a guy named "Zador" (father of Pia?) a
> Hungarian piece that showcases a "tarogato" which sounds like a
> clarinet, saxophone and bassoon.
>
> THEN we get four pieces with the Phabulous Philadelphians, including
> one of those meandering Miaskovsky symphonies (#21) and Strauss'
> Domestica, which was the first electric recording of the piece, and,
> not counting Strauss' own, probably the only recording until the '50's
> (corrections on this point welcomed, the only other ones I know of are
> Krauss/VPO early '50's and Reiner in '56 -- prior to Szell, that is.
> Then everybody recorded it.)
>
> Finally, there's a Part I of Mahler's 8th, with the Hollywood Bowl
> Orchestra recorded off acetates in 1948. The sound for this is good.
>
> I would recommend this compilation highly. It has some great rare
> performances, and some oddities as well.
I second your recommendation, and very enthusiastically. REVELATION OF
POSSIBLE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST: I helped a bit with determining the date
of, and spellings of the names of soloists in, the Mahler movement; for
this I receive credit in the booklet, and Mark Obert-Thorn was kind
enough to send me a comp on his dime. And that's all.
Eugene Zador was a composer who seemed to live the last couple of
decades of his very long life in Los Angeles. I remember occasionally
the late, lamented KFAC would play a piece of his, something painfully
naive and banal. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Note that practically everything in this set is a first appearance on
long-playing media. The Barber Essay appeared on a recent Pearl CD of
early recordings of that composer's works, and the Miaskovsky was once
the LP coupling for the Bartok Piano Concerto #3 with György Sandor.
I received my copy in the dwindling days of 1999, and I was expecting to
include it on my "Top Ten List" of releases for that year, except that I
didn't get around to making that list. No matter; since it actually was
released *this* year (despite the 1999 copyright date), I'll put it on
this year's list right now!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If Ormandy were alive
today, he would bestride the classical music world like a colossus. We
are indeed poor no longer to have his like among us.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Ehrlich606
Michael A. Abelson
>
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If Ormandy were alive
> today, he would bestride the classical music world like a colossus. We
> are indeed poor no longer to have his like among us.
>
Ilya Murometz, and they are superb! (Although Ilya has the worst sound I
ever heard - - artificial reverb, clotted textures, nebulous
directionality and Dynaflex.)
--
Mike Abelson
David Hurwitz
Ormandy. In his day, he was as highly regarded as any conductor alive, not
just by record collectors, but also by his collleagues, particularly
soloists who regarded him as the greatest concerto accompanist that ever
lived. In addition, his Sony recordings routinely outsold (and continue to
outsell) Bernstein, Szell or Walter, which is why he made so many in the
first place, and was then given carte blanche to record and re-record
everything in sight by RCA (a big mistake, as it turned out, and one which
record companies seem never to have learned). The record-buying public, it
would seem, has always been more than satisfied with the quality of his
work.
The fact is that Ormandy's reputation among certain vociferous critics and
enthusiasts has always been low largely because of the late Romantic
repertoire than he championed (Tchaikovsky was never more "out of fashion"
in professional and academic music circles than in the 60s and 70s), as well
as his relationship to the "big labels" who were being so roundly trashed
then, as now, by critics and collectors alike (and often for good reason,
though not with respect to him). The idea that his reputation is in need of
"rehabilitation" is, in my view, more a function of the selective hindsight
of today's classical music fanatics who now compare him to many now
"legendary" conductors who weren't even on the radar screen as remotely
comparable to Ormandy in the 50s, 60s and even 70s when he was
active--Ancerl? Kondrashin? Martinon? Boult????? Jochum?Markevitch?
Barbirolli?--be serious! Good, even great conductors all, but hardly (or in
any event much less) known on disc during this period, especially in the
United States.
Ormandy was the natural victim of the classic music fan's delight in
"conspiracy theory" collecting (great artistry and big business are mutually
incompatible, greatness is always unrecognized until its too late, if it's
on a major label it must be bad, any attempt at advertising or marketing is
"hype" and therefore evil, any obscure piece of garbage by an unknown artist
that gets released by some pirate label in horrible sound is inherently
fabulous and further evidence of the conspiracy to surpress true artistic
greatness, etc, etc.). We've heard the litany over and over, oftimes (gasp!)
in this very group. That doesn't mean all of these things are not sometimes
true, but it's very much a case by case sort of thing, and the fact is that
had it not been for the work of CBS, RCA, EMI, DG, Philips and Decca, this
group would have little reason to exist and very much less to talk about.
I find it ironic, now, that Ormandy is now benefitting from the same
tendencies among classical music fans that originally condemned him,
especially "the theory of posthumous rehabilitation." This combines the
totally ahistorical point of view outlined above and marries it with the
"everything old and neglected must really be great" prejudice also just
described, and produces a "new" picture of this poor, misunderstood artist.
It's all bunk. Ormandy was a great conductor by any definition, particularly
respected during his lifetime by a huge and admiring public which included
many hard core collectors and critics, and his legacy, especially that
preserved on Sony, has been largely and continuously available to anyone who
wanted to listen since at least the1960s. The records haven't changed, nor
has their quality; only our perspective has.
--
David Hurwitz
Executive Editor
http://www.classicstoday.com
dhur...@classicstoday.com
Ehrlich606
Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>It's all bunk. Ormandy was a great conductor by any definition, particularly
>respected during his lifetime by a huge and admiring public which included
>many hard core collectors and critics, and his legacy, especially that
>preserved on Sony, has been largely and continuously available to anyone who
>wanted to listen since at least the1960s. The records haven't changed, nor
>has their quality; only our perspective has.
You make some good points but I think you might be overdoing it. When an artist
is successful -- I mean top of the world successful -- people become skeptical
of their infallibility. Then what happens is that you start seeing if, in
fact, the recordings of so-and-so are as great as everyone says they are. Then
you start to resent the glut on the market.
For example, in the '60's, I much preferred Bernstein and Szell to anybody.
That was due to their style; Bernstein built to large undisciplined but
invariably exciting climaxes and Szell had analytical and rhythmic qualities
that were infectious. Compared to these, Ormandy's style -- if I could
characterize it -- which emphasized beautiful tone in all choirs, splendid
articulation in the strings (seemingly always well caught in recordings), but
which pulled back from overpowering the listener (esp. in the brass) seemed
less satisfying.
By the early '70's however I already found myself hoarding certain Ormy
recordings as the "preferred" versions of some pieces. And that's it.
Nowadays I would give him honorable mention for a number of pieces, and top
honors for a few, but I don't think -- for example -- that I will ever prefer
his versions of say Prokofiev #5, Shostakovich #10, or Sibelius #2 to,
respectively, Bernstein, Karajan (1966), or Barbirolli. That's just the way it
is.
I certainly never questioned that Ormandy was "great", however, I freely admit
that the marketing overload tended to get to me sometimes. He probably had
more LP covers of soft-focus smiling models than the Ray Conniff singers,
always prominent embellished with little blurbs like "Romantic!". And let's
not forget the seemingly endless supply of bonbon albums, for every conceivable
market share, Relaxation (with the little blurb, "Relaxing!"), Travel,
Showpieces ("Exciting!"), French Showpieces ("Romantic!"), Russian Showpieces
("Spectacular!"), ad nauseam!
But again part of what makes this set so interesting it that it shows EO in the
round, from his origins, not just as the patrician leader of the "WORLD'S
GREATEST ORCHESTRA!" (as the CBS hype always had it) but as a musician who
worked his way up. That's part of why I recommend the collection -- it makes
him more "human"
David Hurwitz
<<I have in no way undermined Ormandy BTW, and have agreed with Matthew's
sentiments about him, but I seriously doubt, that amongst this group, in
hindsight, that he would be considered (on the basis of his recordings),
as striding like a colossus amongst the likes of Bernstein, Szell and
Reiner.>>
I think I made it clear that I am talking about reputation in the United
States, and I can say without equivocation that Ormandy was frequently cited
in the same breath as Bernstein, Szell and Reiner during his lifetime.
Whether he would be so classed among(st) this group in hindsight is
irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that he was NOT
underestimated for the most part during his lifetime, particularly not in
the US. As to "the group" not classing him with those artists now, well,
that's "the group's" problem. He certainly belongs with them. I agree that
his recordings stand or fall by comparison to what's out there, and they
stand pretty damn well. At the very least he was clearly Reiner's equal, if
not superior.
David Hurwitz
obviously).
David Hurwitz
artist
> is successful -- I mean top of the world successful -- people become
skeptical
> of their infallibility. Then what happens is that you start seeing if, in
> fact, the recordings of so-and-so are as great as everyone says they are.
Then
> you start to resent the glut on the market.
I certainly see your point, but all it proves is that even "music lovers"
derive a substantial portion of their estimation of an artists 'worth' from
completely non-musical considerations. Who cares what record companies or
promoters say? All that matters is what the records sound like. Right? Are
one's own half-baked theories about the economics or business practices of
the classical music industry reason to resent an artist, or to denigrate
recordings that one has not heard (or listen with the express intent of
"proving" the marketing to be false)? One of the first things I learned when
starting to collect records, largely based on reading Gramophone, is that
there are any number of reasons for "liking" a recording that have nothing
at all to do with actually listening to the music.
My basic point: you are right, Ray, the final arbiter of quality must be the
recordings themselves. Notwithstanding the evidence of those recordings, we
live in a world in which listeners of all stripes--casual, fanatical,
professional critics and self-styled amateurs, even the musicians
themsevles--just as often DO NOT LISTEN to the evidence, or do so with so
many preconceived notions and prejudices so as to render the experience a
complete waste of time.
Curtis Croulet
>were hardly known. In the sixties, Ancerl featured prominently...etc.
To the average person interested in classical music in the USA during the
1960s, these were not well-known names, and I feel confident in including
Martinon in that list, even though he conducted the CSO. When I say
"average person," I don't mean the people who were reading High Fidelity
then or who contribute to this newsgroup now, but the average person who
every now and then might hanker for a nice recording of Tchaikovsky's
Pathetique. For them Ormandy and Philadelphia represented consistency and
quality, a reassuring brand name. To the American classical-buying public
at large, the artists you mention were unknowns. Kondrashin was known
mainly for his Cliburn accompanyments and Capriccio Espagnole/Italien disc.
As for Ancerl, I never saw a Supraphon LP until the 1970s. He was known
mainly for the Supraphon recordings issued on Parliament in the early 1960s,
including one of the stodgiest Beethoven 5ths ever recorded. Having bought
that, it was years before I bought another Ancerl disc.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> And finally, I have always agreed (considering there are certain
> conductors around today who are hyped up to the gills, and who shall
> remain nameless), with Matthew's favoutite Ormandy comment. It is one
> of his favourite sayings, next to " .... hope you DIE of starvation
> .... " <g>
Ever hear of the Fauré Requiem? Well, it always reminds me ....
David Grayshan
glamorous personality than they and so he was far less in the limelight.
On his day - and there were enough of those - he produced scorching
performances. His long tenure at Philadelphia was not due to his mediocrity.
But his natural reserve and lack of showmanship did count against him.
Regards,
David.
Raymond Hall wrote:
(Snip)
Raymond Hall
>
> "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If Ormandy were alive
> > today, he would bestride the classical music world like a colossus. We
> > are indeed poor no longer to have his like among us.
> >
> I will second that. I just dug out his LPs of the Dvorak Seventh and
> Ilya Murometz, and they are superb! (Although Ilya has the worst sound I
> ever heard - - artificial reverb, clotted textures, nebulous
> directionality and Dynaflex.)
>
time, and subsequently later as well, because the colossal figures of
Reiner, Szell, Walter, Bernstein, HvK, Boult, Barbirolli, Jochum,
Ansermet, Markevitch, Kubelik, Martinon, Kondrashin, Ancerl, and so on,
and so on, where does one really stop ...., and many other "greats",
bestrode the podium at the same time as he did. Comparisons can often be
odious.
I agree with Matthew's comment, that today, without so many of these
these imposing figures mentioned above, he would stand out *far more* in
a *far less* exalted field of musical interpreters.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Raymond Hall
Supraphon, Kondrashin on (Melodya, my first Shosty), and Markevitch (my
first Le Sacre), not to mention Fricsay (my first LvB), Cluytens,
Monteux, Bernstein's CBS Mahler set, and his recordings of American
works. I can't speak for the USA, but in Europe Ancerl was a common name
amongst record collectors. I know, because I bought nearly every
Supraphon LP issued. And Szell was my first Concerto for Orchestra LP.
Because in the UK, they were more readily available than Ormandy
recordings, and cheaper.
I have in no way undermined Ormandy BTW, and have agreed with Matthew's
sentiments about him, but I seriously doubt, that amongst this group, in
hindsight, that he would be considered (on the basis of his recordings),
as striding like a colossus amongst the likes of Bernstein, Szell and
Reiner.
> "conspiracy theory" collecting (great artistry and big business are mutually
> incompatible, greatness is always unrecognized until its too late, if it's
> on a major label it must be bad, any attempt at advertising or marketing is
> "hype" and therefore evil, any obscure piece of garbage by an unknown artist
> that gets released by some pirate label in horrible sound is inherently
> fabulous and further evidence of the conspiracy to surpress true artistic
> greatness, etc, etc.). We've heard the litany over and over, oftimes (gasp!)
> in this very group. That doesn't mean all of these things are not sometimes
> true, but it's very much a case by case sort of thing, and the fact is that
> had it not been for the work of CBS, RCA, EMI, DG, Philips and Decca, this
> group would have little reason to exist and very much less to talk about.
>
> I find it ironic, now, that Ormandy is now benefitting from the same
> tendencies among classical music fans that originally condemned him,
> especially "the theory of posthumous rehabilitation." This combines the
> totally ahistorical point of view outlined above and marries it with the
> "everything old and neglected must really be great" prejudice also just
> described, and produces a "new" picture of this poor, misunderstood artist.
> respected during his lifetime by a huge and admiring public which included
> many hard core collectors and critics, and his legacy, especially that
> preserved on Sony, has been largely and continuously available to anyone who
> wanted to listen since at least the1960s. The records haven't changed, nor
> has their quality; only our perspective has.
>
well acknowledged as the chief honcho of the Philadelphia orchestra.
Because he concentrated on the more popular classical repertoire, he may
have sold well, what with the blurb (maybe rightly) about the great
Philadelphia sound, and their strings. But because he sold well, doesn't
necessarily imply that his intrinsic qualities as an artist, his
artistic stature, were in alignment with his sales figures, surely?
Michael Jackson sells (sold) well too, but IMHO he is/was a load of
crap.
Maybe your perspective, on your side of the pond has changed, because as
you admitted, your exposure to many European artists like Ansermet,
Fricsay, Monteux, etc., was more limited than in Europe.
I really don't think my perspective has changed. He was always a great
conductor, yes, and a good accompanist, and furthermore was a gentleman
as well (not that that is really relevant), and his CBS 1960 Pathetique
I still regard very highly, as I do other recordings.
But we have the ability to compare him with many others today. His
recordings must stand or fall against those comparisons, and not be
overly exalted and regailed simply because they sold well at the time.
Just my 5c worth.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
ESH Tooter
student in Pittsburgh and always bought a season sym subscription for the
ridiculous price of fifty cents a concert for a first-rate seat. Steinberg was
conductor at the time, but each year the press and public eagerly awaited
Ormandy's visits. There was no shortage of appreciation of his musicianship.
It was best evidenced by the players themselves. I knew some at the time.
They always praised him highly, and when he led them they never sounded better.
Personally, I have no special love for Ormandy's way with music or for much of
the repertory he championed. I feel that way, not because he was a corporate
sweetheart or anything else. There are just other conductors whose way with
music and choice of works move me more. I know there are others who feel as I
do. Rehabilitate???? No crusade needed. This thread would be far more
interesting if those who really like his conducting point to the recordings and
moments they like.
Raymond Hall
>
> RH wrote:
>
> <<I have in no way undermined Ormandy BTW, and have agreed with Matthew's
> sentiments about him, but I seriously doubt, that amongst this group, in
> hindsight, that he would be considered (on the basis of his recordings),
> as striding like a colossus amongst the likes of Bernstein, Szell and
> Reiner.>>
>
> States, and I can say without equivocation that Ormandy was frequently cited
> in the same breath as Bernstein, Szell and Reiner during his lifetime.
> Whether he would be so classed among(st) this group in hindsight is
> irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that he was NOT
> underestimated for the most part during his lifetime, particularly not in
> the US. As to "the group" not classing him with those artists now, well,
> that's "the group's" problem. He certainly belongs with them. I agree that
> his recordings stand or fall by comparison to what's out there, and they
> stand pretty damn well. At the very least he was clearly Reiner's equal, if
> not superior.
>
than to note the fact that his exposure was far greater in the USA than
in Europe, at the time of his recordings. His recordings at the time of
release in the UK were nearly always full-price, which I could never
afford. Most collectors who were on student's grants, went for the
cheaper labels like their beloved Heliodors and Decca Eclipses, and the
Supraphons were always cheaper too. But, as we agree on the fact that
his recordings stand or fall by comparison as to what is out there, I
still fail to see how the general concensus of the group (if indeed
there is such a concensus of opinion), becomes a "problem" for the
group.
Just a matter of choice, surely?
I will add, though, that I found Ormandy a very fine Sibelian (the
Legends for EMI, a 7th on CBS), and he recorded a couple of devastating
Pathetiques, fine Rach symphonies (2nd chopped), and a superb Ein
Heldenleben, as well as Orff's Carmina Burana, amongst many great
concerto recordings.
And finally, I have always agreed (considering there are certain
conductors around today who are hyped up to the gills, and who shall
remain nameless), with Matthew's favoutite Ormandy comment. It is one of
his favourite sayings, next to " .... hope you DIE of starvation .... "
<g>
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Sol L. Siegel
>I just dug out his LPs of the Dvorak Seventh and
>Ilya Murometz, and they are superb! (Although Ilya has the worst sound I
>ever heard - - artificial reverb, clotted textures, nebulous
>directionality and Dynaflex.)
What about the inner-groove distortion in the Dvorak, the worst I
have ever encountered (Dynaflex again)? I sent several copies back
to Indianapolis in a vain effort to get a listenable copy and
was told they considered it perfectly acceptable. And this
ranks with Monteux as my favorite recorded performance.
Dare we hope for High Performance?
As for Ilya, Ormandy really loved this piece, which he
played in a version lasting about an hour, or midway between
Stokowski and complete. I heard him do it live twice, both
brilliantly. He could be wildly uneven in concert, especially
near the end when his hearing was going and dynamic range
became progressively restricted, but in certain works,
including Ilya, the Dvorak 7th, the Shostakovich 15th
and the Sibelius Leminkainnen Suite, he could summon up
blazing passion as well as orchestral mastery.
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
-----------------------------------
"An intellectual: Someone who has been educated beyond the limit of his/her
intelligence." - Arthur C. Clarke
(Remove "junkfree" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
John Grabowski
>
> > You make some good points but I think you might be overdoing it. When an
> artist
> > is successful -- I mean top of the world successful -- people become
> skeptical
> > of their infallibility. Then what happens is that you start seeing if, in
> > fact, the recordings of so-and-so are as great as everyone says they are.
> Then
> > you start to resent the glut on the market.
>
> I certainly see your point, but all it proves is that even "music lovers"
> derive a substantial portion of their estimation of an artists 'worth' from
> completely non-musical considerations. Who cares what record companies or
> promoters say? All that matters is what the records sound like. Right? Are
> one's own half-baked theories about the economics or business practices of
> the classical music industry reason to resent an artist, or to denigrate
> recordings that one has not heard (or listen with the express intent of
> "proving" the marketing to be false)? One of the first things I learned when
> starting to collect records, largely based on reading Gramophone, is that
> there are any number of reasons for "liking" a recording that have nothing
> at all to do with actually listening to the music.
Sometimes when I gather with classical music listeners, I'll put
something on and either not say what it is or, even more often, say it's
XX when it's something the opposite. Sometimes I'll deliberately put on
someone a person claims is "always awful," "worthless," etc. and say
it's someone else. The responses I get when folks don't know what
they're listening to (and don't know how they're "supposed" to be
reacting) can be very amusing sometimes.
John
--
I wish I would have missed the train [at Pennsylvania Station]. Then
there would have been no America for me. America... [makes gesture of
disgust] --Sviatoslav Richter
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.
John Grabowski
> By the early '70's however I already found myself hoarding certain Ormy
> recordings as the "preferred" versions of some pieces. And that's it.
> Nowadays I would give him honorable mention for a number of pieces, and top
> honors for a few, but I don't think -- for example -- that I will ever prefer
> his versions of say Prokofiev #5, Shostakovich #10, or Sibelius #2 to,
> respectively, Bernstein, Karajan (1966), or Barbirolli. That's just the way it
> is.
Funny, for the Prokofiev 5th I'd prefer Ormandy to all others I've
heard, but it's the RCA recording, which I don't think too many people
on this ng have heard, that gets top vote from me. I wish RCA would
release it on CD.
PGoldst515
>not superior.
No, nor was Ormandy a "great" conductor. Are any of his readings of Mozart,
Beeethoven, Schubert or Brahms profound? I don't think so. For me that is
QED.
Reiner's Beethoven 5 and 7 and Brahms 2 and 4 establish him as a conductor in a
higher category than Ormandy, and it makes no difference that Ormandy made 50
times as many recordings.
Ormandy was a fine conductor in an era of great ones. True in 1960, true in
2000.
Paul Goldstein
Ehrlich606
Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>My basic point: you are right, Ray, the final arbiter of quality must be the
>recordings themselves. Notwithstanding the evidence of those recordings, we
>live in a world in which listeners of all stripes--casual, fanatical,
>professional critics and self-styled amateurs, even the musicians
>themsevles--just as often DO NOT LISTEN to the evidence, or do so with so
>many preconceived notions and prejudices so as to render the experience a
>complete waste of time.
>
I don't mind the name mix up (you fixed that elsewhere) but there are two
points worth making.
First, no one listens to music without extra-musical considerations most of the
time. I said _most of the time_ not all of the time. There are reasons for
that, but part of it is that without some pre-selection we would never know
what to listen to.
Face it, if all, say, the top 1000 pieces in the classical repertoire were
simply numbered like license plates, and you just listened to, say, WXI 457,
er, excuse me, Beethoven's 5th, how you gonna know how to find #6?
That's for composers but the same applies to conductors. We collect certain
conductors because (a) we know them by name to be good, or (b) because they're
good and cheap. Personally, I can't think of too many Ormandy records that
knocked me for a loop in my teens, so I didn't go out of my way to collect him
at full-price. It was a lot cheaper to get Szell, Toscanini, Furtwangler,
Reiner, and others, plus many of them were classics.
Now, that also goes to Ormandy's popularity, not necessarily with us, but in
general. I mean, how many recordings of "Dance of the Tumblers" does a man
need? However, I would bet you that there were probably more Ormandy records
sold of various bonbons than any "serious" repertoire. That, in turn, led back
to the larger repertoire. In other words, after some guy buys five or six
"Ritual Fire Dance" albums by Ormandy, you _know_ he's gonna buy Ormandy's
Beethoven set if he has a mind to buy Beethoven. I will fearlessly proclaim,
however, that Ormandy's Beethoven is strictly average, and the recordings are
horribly congested. On the other hand, let's give credit where credit is due.
Under his baton, the "Bacchanale" from Samson and Delilah has never sounded
more -- convincing.
All this by way of saying that popularity per se is meaningless. Very popular
conductors are usually lemming-popular and simply sell more junk than someone
else. This doesn't mean that Ormy wasn't good. He was. But no conductor's
recordings are automatically good just because he is "popular" or "sells a lot
of records."
It's also quite possible, nay, probable, that Ormandy got put into a market
niche by CBS and more or less went along with it. In the '60's, if you wanted
severe intellectual, you got Szell (after all, he wore glasses!) If you wanted
passionate intellectual, you got Bernstein taking trips with Berlioz, doing
improvs with the NYPO as part of the "Music of our Time", and just generally
dominating the 20th C. repertoire. If you wanted "romantic" you got Ormandy.
That's just the way it was.
As a matter of fact many of my favorite Ormandy recordings were when he had a
chance to do something a little off the beaten track, given the market-niche
allotted to him. Hindemith. Ives. Harris. Delius. Prokofiev #4 (symphony or
piano concerto). He was excellent in all of these. Other times, he was just
average. Beethoven. Brahms. etc.
HOWEVER, if it just so happens that you know that Ormandy is releasing a
recording of something really heavy, like, say, Ives, you're gonna be a little
skeptical until you hear it, and skepticism isn't going to sell a lot of
records, unless you are a critic and get them all for free! :)
OK, so that's one way in which extramusical considerations affect your record
purchases and your attitudes to composers and conductors. Unavoidable.
The other way in which the effect takes place comes when you shell out hard
earned bucks for an artist you respect, say, Toscanini, Furtwangler, so on.
This recording has got to be good, because I just spent $10 on it! We all know
the feeling. And we all know the feeling when we start rationalizing the
performances, too. "An unusual example of X's oeuvre.... At times it may
appear slack, and lacking in grip, the orchestra may seem out of tune, and the
climaxes may appear dull and lacklustre, but it is only in the final chords,
when one's eye wanders to the label and sees "Made in UK" that one realizes
that X had planned this all along, and has committed to disc a shattering etc."
And they give it a rosette.
Given how much recordings cost, and the choices you have to make to buy them, a
full price recording that fails to satisfy is liable to not only turn you off
to an interpreter, but even make you angry at him/her/it. Similarly, having to
pick through 75 different repackagings of _Danse Boheme_ with Ormandy is bound
to make you think twice about picking him, versus say Bernstein, for Prokofiev,
and is also bound to make you think that Ormandy is some kind of airhead.
Unless you are one of those people who thinks that a conductor has to record
"Russian Sailor's Dance" half a dozen times until he "gets it right."
Recently, I was listening to Shostakovich's #10. So I took five recordings and
put them on the CD player and listened. In one, tubas came out really strong
in the central first movement climax. OK, that's Solti and Chicago. Another,
the brass pierced the scherzo. OK, that's the BPO, Karajan, 1985. Another,
the snare drum was perfectly articulated and so were the rest of the choirs.
That's Cleveland, and Dohnanyi. Then there was another one. The string tone
was immaculate, and at first I thought it was BPO, it was well-paced,
well-wrought, maybe Cleveland, no, I could hear some weird details that I
hadn't heard before. That was Ormandy.
I guess the point is, all these versions were excellent. I might like a
different one at different times. Anyway, Ormy was definitely in the top
class. But he also made his share of bad recordings and he also recorded lots
of trashy stuff. In saying some nice things about him now, there's no reason
to forget the reasons why we made fun of him in the past.
David Hurwitz
Mozart,
> Beeethoven, Schubert or Brahms profound? I don't think so. For me that
is
> QED.
>
> Reiner's Beethoven 5 and 7 and Brahms 2 and 4 establish him as a conductor
in a
> higher category than Ormandy, and it makes no difference that Ormandy made
50
> times as many recordings.
Nonsense. This is only true if you regard the success with the German
standards as the be all and end all of musical greatness, which I personally
do not. And even if you do, I find Ormandy's Brahms generally superior to
Reiner's and neither's Beethoven to be at all special, except possibly
Reiner's Ninth. Reiner also conducted some pretty unimpressive Mozart (his
"Jupiter" was positively perverse) and Schubert. Ormandy's Schubert was, on
the other hand, both warmer and more stylish than Reiner's.
Sheer quantity of recordings has nothing to do with "greatness," though
maintenance of the highest standards in a huge range of repertoire over time
certainly might. Ormandy's Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovich,
Mahler (Tenth and Das Lied), Barok (finer than Reiner), Hindemith, Berlioz
as well as his championship of countless other composers from Ives to
Penderecki as much entitles him to the appelation "great" as to any other
musician this century. To deny the potential for real greatness outside the
limited repertoire of the Viennese classics is both musically myopic and
qualitatively false.
You are also making the assumption that Reiner's claim to "greatness" rests
substantially on his performances of these same Viennese classics, and I
don't know anyone who would agree with that. Take away his Strauss,
Mussorgsky, Respighi, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy and other late Romantics, and
I doubt his reputation would even be much worth discussing today,
particularly when set against Furtwangler, Toscanini, Szell, Walter, Jochum,
Karajan, Bohm, Monteux and many others. It may be that quality matters more
than quantity, but as documents of an entire life's work, two Beethoven and
two Brahms symphonies do not make or sustain an artist's reputation.
David Hurwitz
This was a long post, and one which I do not disagree with, on the whole,
but for one big point.
Popularity, folks, is not the sole arbiter of an artist's reputation, but
it's a damn important one, and this includes both popularity among fellow
artists and with the public at large. It is far from meaningless. It is, in
the final analysis, the fundamental basis of any reputation. I hear it
mooted about constantly in support of Furtwangler's "greatness," for
example, that he was the most "highly regarded" (i.e. "popular") conductor
in Germany with both the public and his colleagues. We recently had a
posting attesting to this very fact.
To claim that popularity doesn't matter is absurd. If it doesn't matter,
then what does? Artistic quality? And who determines that? What single
person will everyone in this newsgroup acknowledge as their "authority" in
this regard? As soon as we rely on more than one person to substantiate an
opinion or evaluation of worth, "popularity" becomes a critical issue. I may
say, for example, that I don't see a lot of the greatness in Furtwangler's
or Ormandy's or Karajan's recordings. This is a matter for discussion and
debate: the extent to which recordings substantiate their reputations. But I
would never deny the existence of their reputations in the first place,
particularly as a function of their popularity with both audiences and their
colleagues over time.
We like to sneer at the zillions of people who rush out and buy David
Helfgott or Charlotte Church, but the most interesting thing about this sort
of popularity is precisely the fact that it doesn't last. For me, this is
proof of the basic intelligence of the general public: after all, who cares
about Helfgott now, but they're still buying Ormandy and Bernstein, aren't
they? The short term appeal of such "fads" speaks for itself. People will
buy Helfgott or Church because of the "marketing" and the "hype," but anyone
who works in a record shop will tell you that when it's a specific piece of
music they want, rather than a "flavor of the month" person or performer,
they buy the real thing.
And popularity with a general audience is far more important than popularity
with "hard core" listeners. Why? Because in the final analysis, we grant the
acolade of "greatness" to artists who we believe "communicate" better than
others, who "reach" more people. We make recommendations to our fellows
based on our individual assessments of an artists' universality, our belief
that someone else will enjoy what we enjoy. This is a purely quantitative
assessment: the more people who agree with us, the greater the artist's
reputation. Attempts to limit this group to a select audience of dedicated
listeners (members of rmcr only? concert goers? people with college
degrees?) are both snobbish and self-defeating because they depend on
establishing a "threshhold" for musical understanding, and this we know is
totally false. A construction worker with a fifth grade education is every
bit as capable of understanding a Beethoven symphony as is a college
professor.
And lest this statement raise a few eyebrows, let me remind you that the
composers we most revere had little or no formal education at all, sometimes
amounting to virtual semi-literacy as we understand it now. Musical
perception is not a function of breeding or education. It is innate. There
is nothing more pernicious (or untrue) than the idea that classical music
must necessarily be limited to the province of "true believers". Dismissal
of the FACT that sales of literally hundreds of thousands of Ormandy LPs,
"pops" collections or not, indicates a much larger audience for classical
music than they are willing to accept as "legitimate", doesn't alter the
reality. Rather, it's a function of the fact, also mooted in this thread,
that there are many non-musical reasons for listening to and prefering
classical music, and top among them must be the need to support one's own
sense of cultural superiority and self-worth. The need to "make fun" of
Ormandy's "pops" collections, or those who bought the LPs, is not a musical
issue at all, but a function of this depressingly non-musical phenomenon.
All of which is a long way of saying that Ormandy's "pops" records, even if
we do not agree that they enhanced his reputation, certainly did nothing to
harm it. Their musicality and superior quality speak for themselves. The
resentment that "hard core" listeners may harbor towards him because of
their popularity is arrogant, snobbish, misplaced, stupid, and in the final
analysis self-defeating to the extent that it blinds them to the quality of
his many, many "serious" releases, not to mention their undervaluing his
achievement in the standard repertoire (Brahms in particular). Furthermore,
his work with good quality "Pops" collections brought more people to the
classics, and gave more people more pleasure, than any other conductor
alive, Bernstein included, in the 50s and 60s. Who cares if his Beethoven
does not now impress us? It was certainly not a disgrace, and to the extent
people bought his Beethoven as a result of his many more popular
collections, good for them!
Curtis Croulet
Well, I don't think Ormandy was ever quite as dominant as Fluffy was during
the 70s and 80s, but his was a name that the average person would recognize.
Curtis Croulet
>the other hand, both warmer and more stylish than Reiner's.
Ormandy did a *very* nice Schubert Ninth.
Curtis Croulet
average, and > the recordings are horribly congested.
No matter what you think of him as a musician, you're wrong IMHO about the
sound of the recordings. Some of the late 50s-early 60s recordings,
especially those recorded in the Broadwood Hotel, have a presence that has
never been surpassed, the gain-riding notwithstanding. You can close your
eyes and truly feel that you are in the presence of a great orchestra.
paulgo...@my-deja.com
"David Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > No, nor was Ormandy a "great" conductor. Are any of his readings of
> Mozart,
> > Beeethoven, Schubert or Brahms profound? I don't think so. For me
that
> is
> > QED.
> >
> > Reiner's Beethoven 5 and 7 and Brahms 2 and 4 establish him as a
conductor
> in a
> > higher category than Ormandy, and it makes no difference that
Ormandy made
> 50
> > times as many recordings.
>
> Nonsense. This is only true if you regard the success with the German
> standards as the be all and end all of musical greatness, which I
personally
> do not. And even if you do, I find Ormandy's Brahms generally
superior to
> Reiner's and neither's Beethoven to be at all special, except possibly
> Reiner's Ninth. Reiner also conducted some pretty unimpressive Mozart
(his
was, on
> the other hand, both warmer and more stylish than Reiner's.
>
You are demolishing straw men. I never said that Reiner's reputation
rests on his Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Nor does it make any difference
if some of Reiner's performances of this music were not so great. Nor
did I say that this area of repertoire is a "be all and end all"; only
that it is central and essential. The point remains that Reiner's
better performance of the core German classics - of which there are
many - are in a completely different league than Ormandy's. And I
don't think any conductor deserves to be called great if he did not
produce a meaningful number of great performances of the core German
repertoire, which Ormandy did not. If you think otherwise, so be it.
--
Paul Goldstein
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Raymond Hall
>
> Raymond Hall wrote:
> >
> > And finally, I have always agreed (considering there are certain
> > conductors around today who are hyped up to the gills, and who shall
> > remain nameless), with Matthew's favoutite Ormandy comment. It is one
> > of his favourite sayings, next to " .... hope you DIE of starvation
> > .... " <g>
>
>
> Well, it always reminds me ....
>
Of mush?
And did I just hear the echo of spittoons in the distance ....
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Simon Roberts
: > I will fearlessly proclaim, however, that Ormandy's Beethoven is strictly
: average, and > the recordings are horribly congested.
: No matter what you think of him as a musician, you're wrong IMHO about the
: sound of the recordings. Some of the late 50s-early 60s recordings,
: especially those recorded in the Broadwood Hotel, have a presence that has
: never been surpassed, the gain-riding notwithstanding. You can close your
: eyes and truly feel that you are in the presence of a great orchestra.
I find him decidedly variable (as with Fluffy), but admire several of his
recordings in part for that reason. I tried on a lark (found a cheap used
copy) the Sony twofer containing Brahms 1 and 2 (mainly because
Stokowski's Tragic Overture comes with them) and it struck me, as I was
listening to it, that compared to Karajan's various recordings of it, this
was in a different class as orchestral playing, sound, and conducting (not
the most interesting performance around, nor the most exciting, but a
superlative example of a "central" interpretation).
I also think it may be a shame that he didn't do more opera; one of the
highlights of the Philadelphia Orchestra box is a track that the reviews
have generally overlooked, Maynor's superlatively sung "Depuis le jour",
which is enhanced immeasurably by Ormandy's accompaniment, probably the
best I've heard, featuring some very effective violin portamenti.
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 paulgo...@my-deja.com wrote about Reiner:
[snipped]
As not precisely Reiner's warmest fan, I found exciting and idiomatic
his... J. Strauss recordings.
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
"samir ghiocel golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100021...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
Like Yoda you speak.
Matty
Ehrlich606
(Simon Roberts) writes:
>
>I find him decidedly variable (as with Fluffy), but admire several of his
>recordings in part for that reason. I tried on a lark (found a cheap used
>copy) the Sony twofer containing Brahms 1 and 2 (mainly because
>Stokowski's Tragic Overture comes with them) and it struck me, as I was
>listening to it, that compared to Karajan's various recordings of it, this
>was in a different class as orchestral playing, sound, and conducting (not
>the most interesting performance around, nor the most exciting, but a
>superlative example of a "central" interpretation).
>
Who the heck is Fluffy?
Back to Ormandy, summarize responses to several posts.
I believe that a conductor whose greatest public exposure is in the bonbon
repertoire is bound to have a bias against him. How could it be otherwise,
unless we want to say that "Jalousie" is equivalent to the Ninth Symphony?
Ormandy wasn't quite the vulgarizer that Fiedler was (and I mean that in the
positive, culture-to-the-masses sense), but he did a lot of that kind of stuff,
and one's perception of his ability to do more serious stuff is affected
thereby. I don't know why it is "elitist" to make that observation. Frankly, I
can't see why anyone would object to that observation.
Same goes with his Beethoven, etc. boxed sets. If I progress from Ritual Fire
to Russian Sailors and then to William Tell, and then want to try LvB, I'll go
Ormandy. BUT: what am I expecting Ormy to bring me? Beethoven in the context
of someone who is used to 1812? Or Beethoven in the context of a long
tradition of serious music making? In other words, the masses may buy Ormy
because of the background they may have had in classical music purchases, but
that doesn't mean that because Ormy's versions outsell everyone else by 500%
that they are 500% better, or even that they are as good as someone else. This
is what I mean about the unimportance of popularity, in terms of interpretive
quality.
[Personal Note: Actually, when I was a kid, I liked Ormandy's renditions of the
bonbon repertoire. When I make fun of pieces like "Dance of the Tumblers"
that's because I can remember a time when I thought it was hot stuff. I don't
think it's so hot now, although my kids like it. That's not because I am more
educated or more intelligent than my kids. It's because I have listened to
this stuff for a lot longer than they have.]
So how good was Ormandy in serious repertoire, and, like it or not, in the
Central European repertoire, which is central to the classical music tradition?
The consensus is that in the Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms axis he was strictly
average. I liked his Schubert Great C major. It was better than Szell or
Bernstein, but not as good as half a dozen European recordings. He did the
usual bleeding chunks of Wagner. Better than Bernstein, not as good as Szell.
Some of his Strauss was very good. Some of it wasn't. Szell was usually
better.
His Dvorak was good.
So much for that part of the repertoire.
I have discussed many other pieces that he did that I liked, I haven't heard
the RCA Proko #5, would be interested in hearing that when and if it is
re-released. He did some excellent St. Saens with Entremont. His Rachmaninov
concertos were easily outshone by others. His Tchaikovsky was excellent, but
not necessarily the best. Ditto the other French masters. Ditto Respighi.
So -- somewhat surprisingly we have have a situation where all of the Ormandy
stuff that I really like -- with the exception of Berlioz' Harold -- is 20th
Century music!
In terms of the 50's and 60's, and comparing orchestras and conductors:
Interpretatively weaker than Szell in almost everything, but two completely
different sounding bands, so, comparisons on that level are meaningless.
Better sounding and more disciplined play (some might say more controlled play)
than Bernstein, but Bernstein was usually more exciting.
Everybody was better than Munch, Leinsdorf and Steinberg in Boston. (Not to
slight them, they did some excellent stuff, e.g., Steinberg's Mathis is better
than Ormy's, in my opinion.)
Chicago under Reiner had an even better sound and even more disciplined play
than the Philadelphians, plus Reiner could do some things with Beethoven and
Brahms that were very effective that Ormandy did not achieve. Post Reiner
Chicago was not competitive.
Nobody else in the USA really counted in those days. (Apologies to Mercury)
Europeans: HvK was excellent in bonbon repertoire, as well as the French and
Russian and Central European classics. For the Central Europeans you also had
Bohm, Jochum, and many others.
So -- if Ormandy was great -- and he was -- he was part of a crowd of great
ones.
Next question: Who is great today? Christian Thielemann?
Lani Spahr
he did with Philly and I love the sound of the Philly during his tenure. I
have nothing but admiration for him, so please enjoy the following:
.........................................................
Over the years that Eugene Ormandy was conductor of the Philadelphia
Orchestra, some members of the orchestra kept track of malapropisms
and funny inconsistencies in his directions to them. These Ormandy
examples were published in the March 1987 issue of Local 802's journal
_Allegro_. Herewith a selection:
Congratulations to each and every one of you for the concert last
night in New York and vice versa.
I'm conducting very slowly because I don't know the tempo.
I am thinking it right but beating it wrong.
I can conduct better than I count.
Why do you always insist on playing when I am trying to conduct?
Don't ever follow me, because I am difficult.
It is not as difficult as I thought it was, but it is harder than it
is.
The notes are right, but if I listened they would be wrong.
It is not together, but the ensemble is perfect.
Start three bars before something.
Did you play? It sounded very good.
I need one more bass less.
Brass, stay down all summer.
Accelerando means in tempo. Don't rush.
I don't want to repeat this a hundred times. When you see crescendo,
it means p [piano].
We can't hear the balance yet because the soloist is still on the
airplane.
Please follow me because I have to follow him and he isn't here.
..he is a wonderful man, and so is his wife.
Bizet was a very young man when he composed this symphony, so play it
soft.
That's the way Stravinsky was--Bup, bup, bup. The poor guy's dead
now. Play it legato.
This is a very democratic organization, so let's take a vote. All
those who disagree with me raise their hands.
It's all very well to have principles, but when it comes to money you
have to be flexible.
Thank you for your cooperation and vice versa.
I never say what I mean but I always manage to say something similar.
I don't mean to make you nervous, but unfortunately I have to.
Now we will play something we have never played before. I didn't
mean that. Mahler wrote it as the 3rd Movement of his 4th
Symphony. I mean the 4th Movement of his 1st Symphony - we play
it third. The trumpet solo will be played by our solo trumpet
player. It's named "Blumine" - which has something to do with
flowers.
With us tonight is William Warfield, who is with us tonight.
(On the occasion of the death of David Oistrakh) I told him he'd
have a heart attack a year ago, but unfortunately he lived a year
longer.
I conduct faster here so you can see my beat.
The next movement is still in the factory.
Think of your girlfriend or boyfriend or whomever you want to.
At every concert I've sensed a certain insecurity about the tempo.
It's clearly marked quarter note = 80, uhh, 69.
All of you are ready to start so I must be ready.
It's not important. It's only important when it's late.
It's difficult to remember when you haven't played it before.
I cannot give it to you so try to watch me.
I was trying to help you so I was beating wrong.
The minute you slow down a fraction, you're behind.
I wrote it the right way so it was copied the wrong way right - I
mean the right way wrong.
Who is sitting in that empty chair?
Bass Clarinetist: What note do I have?
EO: The score is written out the way you hear it the way you play it
- and I have to transpose back to normal.
Tubist: Long note?
EO: Yes, make it seem short.
I guess you thought I was conducting, but I wasn't.
You have to do two things. Watch it and me.
Even if the right instruments are not here, we will play it anyway.
It's only a short piece.
Intonation is important, especially when it is cold.
I purposely gave you a slower tempo, because I did not know what the
right one was.
Suddenly I was in the right tempo -- but it wasn't.
My bowings are only general.
After two minutes after this time, and I am already there.
This is one bar you should take home.
I never know where I am.
Tonight is the night when 300 years ago Johann Strauss was born.
That's why this year is important.
Something went wrong. It was correct when I studied it.
There was confusion since I stood here 35 years ago.
During the rests -- pray.
It has no rhythm, but it will because it's so much faster.
Don't play louder, just give it more.
I don't get into politics, general or musical, but just call me if
you get jury duty. Even in New Jersey I was able to help somebody.
More basses because you are so far away.
Relax. Don't be nervous. My God, it's the Philadelphia Orchestra!
You're looking at me so strangely.
I purposely didn't do anything and you were all behind.
It can either be too soon or too late or not together.
I go forward in tempo.
There is a shadow on every page.
You know who you are.
EO: To the Woodwinds: There are no woodwinds at Number 6.
Woodwinds: We're at number 15.
EO: I know. That is why.
Start 4 and be 42.
EO: Percussion a little louder
Percussion: We don't have anything.
EO: That's right, play it louder.
As pp as possible -- even softer.
That C major chord is always out of tune. I don't know why -- it
can't be you.
Let me explain what I do here. I don't want to confuse you any more
than absolutely necessary.
(To William Smith) Did you play?
WS: Yes.
EO: I know. I heard you.
I think one thing and say another.
It's hot as hell as can be.
Start at B. No. Yes. No. Yes. NO.
Watch me closely -- only one can spoil it.
It's so legato it's difficult to splice. Sibelius was famous for
that.
I can see none of you are smugglers, that's why it's so loud.
You notice I go faster and slower, faster and slower. It is all in
relation to the previous tempo.
The tempo remains pp.
Without him here, it is impossible to know how fast he will play it,
approximately.
We do not know when he is coming. He is coming tomorrow.
Someone came too sooner.
After one performance it will be perfect.
That's the way it was every time I studied it.
Serkin was so sick he almost died for three days.
We have to play it longer because there are no numbers or letters.
Don't think you are looking at me because you are not.
I mean what I meant.
Even when you are not playing, you are holding me back.
Not one of you told me I was too slow - I know I was too slow - why
didn't you tell me?
He was listening so I don't remember.
I know this music from memory, not from the music.
I always feel I do it too slow, but then others do it faster.
Chorus, I am sorry you have to stand so long, but can you stand
again?
Beauty is less important than quality.
there is a number missing. I can see it.
That was perfect. It was just the opposite from what I said
yesterday.
Yes, the mutes are already on. You took them off in the beginning.
I am glad you asked me, or am.
You know me. I'm a maniac when it comes to rhythm.
I forgive you for shaving yourself.
It's marked accelerando, so you push ahead.
Q: is that a G or a G# Maestro? EO: Yes.
Why do you always start after my beat then rush to catch up? Do you
want us to stay behind?
(Before walking on stage) Is the audience all here?
Tonight I'm going to listen with my ears.
Muti is going to do the Alpine Symphony this year. He will do it
well because it is not very well known.
I will beat in six because of the distance.
(In reference to Willy Knappell's death) Death is an awful thing. I
don't believe in it myself.
(To Kendall Betts) When you have those dark glasses on, I can't tell
whether you're looking at me or doubling.
Write it down in your own handwriting.
(To the horns) The trouble is not with you; it is with me. I have to
catch him and then it is too late.
Let's start at 35 because I don't know where it is.
(To Cindy Williams, violinist) I don't think I've ever met you. Are
you Swedish?
If you don't have it in your part, leave it out because there is
enough missing already.
--
Cheers,
Lani Spahr
Bruckner Symphony Versions Discography
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/lspahr
samir ghiocel golescu
Lani Spahr wrote:
Thank you. They are hilarious!
Simon Roberts
: Who the heck is Fluffy?
Karajan. The name caught on somewhat around here after I reported that,
according to Osborne's biography, a female sponsor (or some such; I forget
precisely who) called him that as a nickname.
Simon
Mr. Mike
<o...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Eugene Zador was a composer who seemed to live the last couple of
>decades of his very long life in Los Angeles. I remember occasionally
>the late, lamented KFAC would play a piece of his, something painfully
>naive and banal. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
This guy used to do orchestrations for Miklos Rozsa's films.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> I don't get into politics, general or musical, but just call me if
> you get jury duty. Even in New Jersey I was able to help somebody.
I thought that he was a Nixon friend who commiserated with RN about his
political opponents?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
samir ghiocel golescu
On 15 Feb 2000, Simon Roberts wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
>
> : On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
>
> : > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> : > >
> : > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> : >
> : > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> : > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
>
> : In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
> : tabula rasa! (-:
>
> A good thing to be in this case. I don't think I've ever experience
> anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
> (except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
>
> Simon (risking having his naturalization revoked)
Be careful, old pal! The Mengelberg Case, The Furtwangler Battle will pale
in front of the Star Wars War! Pray do not wake up the Apocalyptic Beast!
regards,
SG (-:
Edward A. Cowan
> No one has mentioned his LvB Missa solemnis yet. It was my first
> introduction to this work and I still enjoy this performance a lot. To
> my knowledge it is still available in the budget Sony Essential
> Classics series.
When I attended one of the concert performances of the Missa solemnis
that preceded the recording, I was amazed to learn from the program
booklet (which I still have) that this was the first presentation of
this work in the history of the Philadelphia Orchestra!
-- E.A.C.
Raymond Hall
>
> Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
Does the film Star Wars (second one) ring a bell? The all-wise,
all-knowing shrivelled up thing-a-me-bob with the pointed ears, that
Luke Skywalker meets after crashing into a swamp. Remember?
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
ESH Tooter
>
> Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
Does the film Star Wars (second one) ring a bell? The all-wise,
all-knowing shrivelled up thing-a-me-bob with the pointed ears, that
Luke Skywalker meets after crashing into a swamp. Remember? >>
Mr. Samir,
I think Mr. Yoda sang an excellent Erlkoenig.
Mr. Tooter
Matthew B. Tepper
dontch...@nospam.com is reputed to have iterated as follows...
I'm glad he did *something* worthwhile.
Simon Roberts
: On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
: > >> Like Yoda you speak.
: > >
: > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
Marc Perman
>I find him decidedly variable (as with Fluffy), but admire several of his
>recordings in part for that reason. I tried on a lark (found a cheap used
>copy) the Sony twofer containing Brahms 1 and 2 (mainly because
>Stokowski's Tragic Overture comes with them) and it struck me, as I was
>listening to it, that compared to Karajan's various recordings of it, this
>was in a different class as orchestral playing, sound, and conducting (not
>the most interesting performance around, nor the most exciting, but a
>superlative example of a "central" interpretation).
I enthusiastically agree about Ormandy's Brahms 1 and 2; where are 3
and 4?
Several Ormandy recordings that I previously didn't know have made a
very positive impression on me: in addition to the Brahms, his DSCH 15
(just reissued on BMG), Schoenberg Verklarte Nacht from the Philly
Centennial set, and Hindemith's Mathis der Maler symphony with the
Bavarian RSO on Orfeo. His well known Rachmaninoff symphonies and
Sibelius 2, 7, and Legends are among the best available recordings of
those works.
Marc Perman
David Hurwitz
> very positive impression on me: in addition to the Brahms, his DSCH 15
> (just reissued on BMG), Schoenberg Verklarte Nacht from the Philly
> Centennial set, and Hindemith's Mathis der Maler symphony with the
> Bavarian RSO on Orfeo. His well known Rachmaninoff symphonies and
> Sibelius 2, 7, and Legends are among the best available recordings of
> those works.
If you like those, try these (all Sony):
Sibelius 1
Respighi Church Windows
Ravel La Valse (probably the best ever, hidden on an Essential Classics
collection)
Debussy Nocturnes
Berlioz Requiem
Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, Danse Macabre, etc.
Roussel Bacchus et Ariadne (move over Charles Munch!)
Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (on of the great "sleepers" in the catalogue)
Vaughan-Williams/Delius Collection (take that Tommy Beecham!)
Shostakovich Symphonies 1, 4 and 10
...that's for starters. Unfortunately, there's so much still unissued,
including one of the best ever "Pictures at an Exhibition."
Sol L. Siegel
>: In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
>: tabula rasa! (-:
>
>A good thing to be in this case. I don't think I've ever experience
>anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
>(except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
>
>Simon (risking having his naturalization revoked)
>
I assume you mean the "real" first movie and not the "new"
one last year.
samir ghiocel golescu gol...@students.uiuc.edu responded:
>Be careful, old pal! The Mengelberg Case, The Furtwangler Battle
>will pale in front of the Star Wars War! Pray do not wake up
>the Apocalyptic Beast!
More relevant might be the sad case of Karl Muck, who was
interned and deported as an enemy alien, in part because people
thought the arrangement he played of "The Star-Spangled Banner"
sounded too "German". (It was by Victor Herbert.)
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
-----------------------------------
"An intellectual: Someone who has been educated beyond the limit of his/her
intelligence." - Arthur C. Clarke
(Remove "junkfree" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
Curtis Croulet
held against him. In any case, the older conductors mixed light music with
the heavy classix more frequently than the current tribe.
Curtis Croulet
When I made my comment about the sonic "presence" in some of Ormandy's
recordings, Sibelius 1 on a Columbia LP was one I particularly had in mind.
For personal reasons I have very fond memories of Ormandy and the
Philadelphia from their tour appearances in San Diego, particularly a
concert in Balboa Park in September 1964. The main work on that program was
Rach 2. After that night, it became impossible for me to think poorly of
the man, and I wince when I see him dismissed as a peddler of pops.
phlmaes...@my-deja.com
> If you like those, try these (all Sony):
>
> Sibelius 1
> Respighi Church Windows
> Ravel La Valse (probably the best ever, hidden on an Essential
Classics
> collection)
> Debussy Nocturnes
> Berlioz Requiem
> Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, Danse Macabre, etc.
> Roussel Bacchus et Ariadne (move over Charles Munch!)
> Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (on of the great "sleepers" in the
catalogue)
> Vaughan-Williams/Delius Collection (take that Tommy Beecham!)
> Shostakovich Symphonies 1, 4 and 10
> ...that's for starters. Unfortunately, there's so much still unissued,
> including one of the best ever "Pictures at an Exhibition."
>
> --
> David Hurwitz
I'll add my personal favorite Ormandy recording to that list and it's
one of his final ones.
His final recording of Also Sprach Zarathustra on EMI was brilliant;
infinately better than either the Columbia/Sony or RCA recordings of
the same piece. EMI dropped it out of the catalogue a few years back. I
see used copies of it around and it can also be found at some HMV
stores on their own midpriced lable, which contains previously released
EMI recordings.
phlmaes...@my-deja.com
=?iso-8859-1?Q?oy=FE=40earthlink=2Enet?= wrote:
> Eugene Ormandy said:
> >
> > I don't get into politics, general or musical, but just call me if
> > you get jury duty. Even in New Jersey I was able to help somebody.
>
his
> political opponents?
>
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper
Nixon apparently had a fondness for the Philadelphians. They played at
one of his innaugurations, and were of course the orchestra selected to
visit China when Nixon and Kissenger were in the process of opening
relations with that country in the early 70's.
Nixon also came to a concert in Philly once and took the time to send a
get well card to Stokowski at the height of the Watergate scandal.
I guess this is proof that everyone has some redeeming value :).
Barry
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Unfortunately, there's so much still unissued, including one of the
> best ever "Pictures at an Exhibition."
It's like Sony doesn't realize there's a market for them. And now the
excuse of the Ormandy centenary is past.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Tony Movshon
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> : On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
>
> : > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> : > >
> : > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> : >
> : > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> : > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
>
> : tabula rasa! (-:
>
> A good thing to be in this case. I don't think I've ever experience
> anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
> (except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
Have you ever heard "Palestrina"?
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Michael Weston
next to the other Szell items on the disk.
m
David Hurwitz (hurw...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Sibelius 1
: Respighi Church Windows
: Ravel La Valse (probably the best ever, hidden on an Essential Classics
: collection)
: Debussy Nocturnes
: Berlioz Requiem
: Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, Danse Macabre, etc.
: Roussel Bacchus et Ariadne (move over Charles Munch!)
: Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (on of the great "sleepers" in the catalogue)
: Vaughan-Williams/Delius Collection (take that Tommy Beecham!)
: Shostakovich Symphonies 1, 4 and 10
: ...that's for starters. Unfortunately, there's so much still unissued,
: including one of the best ever "Pictures at an Exhibition."
:
: --
:
:
:
Ehrlich606
Hurwitz" <hurw...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> Several Ormandy recordings that I previously didn't know have made a
>> very positive impression on me: in addition to the Brahms, his DSCH 15
>> (just reissued on BMG), Schoenberg Verklarte Nacht from the Philly
>> Centennial set, and Hindemith's Mathis der Maler symphony with the
>> Bavarian RSO on Orfeo. His well known Rachmaninoff symphonies and
>> Sibelius 2, 7, and Legends are among the best available recordings of
>> those works.
>
>If you like those, try these (all Sony):
>
>Sibelius 1
<yawn>
>Respighi Church Windows
This from an LP with the Birds. Excellently done. The Pope piece is a good
demo.
>Ravel La Valse (probably the best ever, hidden on an Essential Classics
>collection)
Excellent, but I still say Munch's BSO version is a notch crazier (heartbeat,
waltz, machine gun)
>Debussy Nocturnes
Excellent Faun Afternoon, thanks to the flautist.
>Berlioz Requiem
Verdi Requiem good also
>Saint-Saens "Organ" Symphony, Danse Macabre, etc.
He really did do the Bachanale better than anyone else. Both recordings of the
Organ were excellent: CBS and RCA.
>Roussel Bacchus et Ariadne (move over Charles Munch!)
>Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (on of the great "sleepers" in the catalogue)
>Vaughan-Williams/Delius Collection (take that Tommy Beecham!)
Agreed. "Brigg Fair" even better than Tommy!
>Shostakovich Symphonies 1, 4 and 10
and I forgot the Shost 13 and 15 on RCA. Both excellent, and to my mind
unsurpassed, this is because they both have tricky quiet finales that call for
finesse.
>...that's for starters. Unfortunately, there's so much still unissued,
>including one of the best ever "Pictures at an Exhibition."
>
Doesn't anybody still have LP's? I have several thousand of them, and probably
about 250 Ormandys. I only say that anent the flourescent colors on the
"Pictures" LP (coupled with Bald Mountain, excellent)
--and--
St. Saens 2 & 4 w/Entremont (best #4) (CD)
WARNING: Symphony on a French Mountain Air royally sucked on LP. Either the LP
was wrong, or the pitch was wrong, but something goes horribly wrong at the
end. (Compare Munch, much better)
Haydn/Mozart -- Did an LP in the 60's with "The Clock" and something else.
Pretty good.
Hindemith -- Philly Mathis (now CD) was good, but the flip side was better with
Szell.
However, he redid the Weber pieces on EMI (one of the best) along with a very
good Concert Music.
Mahler #1 w/Blumine. -- Very good recording of unusual layout
NOTE: The problem with his Bruckner (he did 4 and 5 for CBS and 7 for RCA) is
that most of us are used to a Central Euro sound and O tends to be kind of
brisk, but they aren't that bad.
Prokofiev 4 & 6 -- This is something I wish would be re-released, #4 in
particular, using the revised version has the kind of rhythmic infection and
attention to detail that you will find in the best O recordings.
Ives -- Three pieces (RCA -- LP) the best "Black March" and "Housatonic" I
know, not as good in the CBS incarnation. Flip side is the Harris I have
praised elsewhere.
Brahms: German Requiem in English flipped with the Rubbra orchestration of the
Handel variations. A stinker.
Rimsky: Unfortunately, RK is hackneyed these days, but Sch was good, and so was
Russian Easter. However, for those two pieces, everyone is back seat to Reiner
and Maazel (Cleveland) respectively.
Schubert Great C major (#9) -- One of the best sounding, an excellent effort,
but, again, several Europeans are better.
Strauss -- Nothing super special here, although Zarathustra and DQ on CBS are
good enough (certainly better than Bernstein). The Z recording in its time
probably had only one serious rival, Reiner. The Domestica I got the other
day, made in 1936, is as well played as Szell or Kempe. Surprisingly good.
See, he was good.
Sol L. Siegel
>Ives -- Three pieces (RCA -- LP) the best "Black March" and
>"Housatonic" I know, not as good in the CBS incarnation.
Perhaps not- but I wouldn't mind having his Ives 1st Symphony back.
Brendan R. Wehrung
> Beecham seems to have built a career on lollipops, but it doesn't seem to be
> held against him. In any case, the older conductors mixed light music with
> the heavy classix more frequently than the current tribe.
> Curtis Croulet
> Temecula, California
>
>
Heldenleben and the Sibelius 7th are "lollipops"?
Brendan
John Grabowski
about him that very much irks me is that he's a conservative who
recorded little more than Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky and other big,
lush crowd-pleasers. In fact Ormandy performed more than his share of
modern, "difficult" music, and while he was not always the conductor of
first choice for some of this repertoire, he actually fared better at
adapting his "sound" to much of it than other conductors did. Despite
their rep as musical conservatives, the Philly Orch premiered or gave
second performance to a good deal of the modern repertoire. Stokowski
began that tradition, and Ormandy continued it.
John
--
I wish I would have missed the train [at Pennsylvania Station]. Then
there would have been no America for me. America... [makes gesture of
disgust] --Sviatoslav Richter
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.
John Grabowski
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
>
> > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> > >
> > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> >
> > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
>
> In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
> tabula rasa! (-:
>
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, there was this film called
Star Wars, you see.......
Matthew Silverstein
"Simon Roberts" <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:88aebs$lq0$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
>
> : On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
>
> : > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> : > >
> : > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> : >
> : > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> : > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
>
> : In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
> : tabula rasa! (-:
>
> anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
> (except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
>
We shall revoke far more than your naturalization, blasphemer! Last time I
listen to any of your recommendations her. Anyone who doesn't like Star Wars
obviously cannot understand or even love classical music. You are not a human
being. You are a worm. You are even lower than David Hurwitz!
Matty
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> In article <38A86BC1...@earthlink.net>,
> oyţearthlink.net wrote:
> > Eugene Ormandy said:
> > >
> > > I don't get into politics, general or musical, but just call me if
> > > you get jury duty. Even in New Jersey I was able to help somebody.
> >
> > I thought that he was a Nixon friend who commiserated with RN about
> > his political opponents?
> >
> > --
> > Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Nixon apparently had a fondness for the Philadelphians. They played at
> one of his innaugurations, and were of course the orchestra selected
> to visit China when Nixon and Kissenger were in the process of opening
> relations with that country in the early 70's.
Yes, as I recall it was the 1973 inauguration, and Van Cliburn played
the Grieg Piano Concerto, while the National Symphony (which usually
performed at such events) was snubbed. (The previous day, an orchestra
consisting largely of NSO members had performed the "Mass in Time of
War" under Bernstein, and I think they did the recording session during
the inauguration.)
I'm sorry, wasn't it actually the Boston Symphony which went to China?
There was an RCA Dynawarp recording of Respighi "Pines of Rome," some
Chinese folk-tune done up as an orchestral march, and the hilariously
horrid "Yellow River" Concerto -- played by, who, Daniel Epstein?
> Nixon also came to a concert in Philly once and took the time to send
> a get well card to Stokowski at the height of the Watergate scandal.
> I guess this is proof that everyone has some redeeming value :).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
Thomas Deas
>
>
> > We shall revoke far more than your naturalization, blasphemer! Last time
I
> > listen to any of your recommendations her. Anyone who doesn't like Star
Wars
> > obviously cannot understand or even love classical music. You are not a
human
> > being. You are a worm.
>
> > You are even lower than David Hurwitz!
>
> > Matty
>
> attempted a figure of speech. (-:
>
But Samir, what if P. Hairywig starts posting here?
samir ghiocel golescu
samir ghiocel golescu
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Raymond Hall wrote:
> Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> >
> > "Simon Roberts" <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:88aebs$lq0$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > > samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > : On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > : > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> > > : > >
> > > : > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> > > : >
> > > : > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> > > : > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
> > >
> > > : In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
> > > : tabula rasa! (-:
> > >
> > > A good thing to be in this case. I don't think I've ever experience
> > > anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
> > > (except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
> > >
> > > Simon (risking having his naturalization revoked)
> >
> > We shall revoke far more than your naturalization, blasphemer! Last time I
> > listen to any of your recommendations her. Anyone who doesn't like Star Wars
> > obviously cannot understand or even love classical music. You are not a human
> > being. You are a worm. You are even lower than David Hurwitz!
> >
> > Matty
>
> No, you have got it completely wrong. He is really a dinosaur trapped in
> a time warp. The present doesn't exist for him. Samir has never heard of
> Woodstock, man. When Samir watches a film, they have to be in good old
> black and white, preferably scratched to buggery, and naturally (if
> sound is featured) in crackly mono. Star Wars was in living colour, with
> surround stereo sound, and is about "the FUTURE". It is thus tainted,
> according to him/her/it, or whatever the correct personal pronoun is for
> a dinosaur.
To an Asimov and A. C. Clarke reader, this is a bit unfair. Don't forget,
though, that the real the future is in the past! Even Asimov inspired
himself, in his "Foundation" cycle, from Edward Gibbon's "The Decline..."
regards,
SG
(who has better hopes for the future than what it was portraitized in Star
Wars I, the only one he saw, in 198X)
Thomas Deas
"Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:38A9E4AC...@bigpond.com...
>
> You mean you haven't seen all three?
4, surely?
Don Drewecki
Any thoughts on Ormandy's Fledermaus recording with the Met Opera, anyone?
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
samir ghiocel golescu
On 15 Feb 2000, Steven Chung wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.100021...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> # > Star Wars was in living colour, with
> # > surround stereo sound, and is about "the FUTURE". It is thus tainted,
> # > according to him/her/it, or whatever the correct personal pronoun is for
> # > a dinosaur.
> #
> # To an Asimov and A. C. Clarke reader, this is a bit unfair.
>
> Surely an admirer of Asimov and Clarke can't truly appreciate Proust and
> Shakespeare...
I said a reader, not an admirer.
SG
(just kidding)
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> To an Asimov and A. C. Clarke reader, this is a bit unfair. Don't
> forget, though, that the real the future is in the past! Even Asimov
> inspired himself, in his "Foundation" cycle, from Edward Gibbon's "The
> Decline..."
Asimov also drew his inspiration for that series from "Iolanthe."
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Surely an admirer of Asimov and Clarke can't truly appreciate Proust
> and Shakespeare...
Shakespeare, certainly yes. It's the obsessed *Heinlein* fans you have
to worry about!
samir ghiocel golescu
On 15 Feb 2000, Steven Chung wrote:
> In article <88cpq9$sj5$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Silverstein <matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> # "Steven Chung" <s...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
> # news:88cms5$mir$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> # > Surely an admirer of Asimov and Clarke can't truly appreciate Proust and
> # > Shakespeare...
> #
> # Indeed!
>
> I'm not -entirely- kidding...
That "not entirely" will make Mr. Silverstein happy, I'm sure (-:
Otherwise, if I understood you correctly, you feel that between my
consistently "elitist" position in regards of music and my appreciating
Asimov there is a discrepancy--and indeed there is, I will not try to hide
that. Not to excuse myself (it's too late for that (-:) but the way I
enjoy (enjoyed, actually, as a cherished teenager's experience) Asimov is
considerably different than the way I "participate" in Shakespeare or
Proust (do your remember the lengthy parallel Proust draws between music
and the flowers' dreamy fragrances, BTW)?
I have never felt Asimov was a great writer, more kind of
exceptionally good, imaginatively conceived "consumist" literature, good
for vacations and train trips. I very much esteem Asimov in his overall
personality, his incredible wasting himself in tens of thousands of
activities, most of them accomplished decently to excellent, his
absolutely outstanding intelligence, memory and adaptive capacity, his
unique sense of humor, lack of (human! not aesthetic) fanaticism, his
tolerance and understanding of different Weltanschaaungs. He is one of the
few symbols of contemporaneity I feel able to admire, because brings
into light the few features of my time I am in love with: the greatest
artists "technically" in my home, the fact that I can go (or not) to the
church and/or to the synagogue, the fact that I can live in USA and feel
at home, the fact that I can speak my mind out and tell some unpleasant
truths, trough Internet, to demagogues who were used only with the
newspaper-type monologue, the fact that I know I have friends I can
communicate with, in France, Holland, Australia, Japan or England... Is it
needed to be repeated that, in a higher order, Asimov's whole output has
not the aesthetic value of one of Shakespeare's best metaphors? I don't
think so.
I may be, by divine and historic nemesis, humanly closer to Asimov,
whom I shall continue to admire for what is to be admired, but at
least my aspirations, as, and when, a humble receiver of true art, are, I
like to hope, higher.
Somehow your "unkidding" half related to (let me rephrase) "you cannot
perceive as great art Asimov AND Shakespeare & Proust" finds my
understanding.
regards,
SG
(who still listens, sometimes, to Edith Piaf--what is the purpose of a
principle if not to be trespassed?)
Edward A. Cowan
> Despite
> their rep as musical conservatives, the Philly Orch premiered or gave
> second performance to a good deal of the modern repertoire. Stokowski
> began that tradition, and Ormandy continued it.
Indeed so: The recent book on the history of the orchestra (_The
Philadelphia Orchestra: A Century of Music_, ed. John Ardoin.
Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1999, ISBN 1-56639-712-X) contains in
an appendix the list of WP's and AP's performed by the orchestra during
its first century of existence. One of these that I attended was the AP
of Penderecki's "Utrenja" (Sept., 1970).
-- E.A.C.
Edward A. Cowan
[snip]
>
> Doesn't anybody still have LP's? I have several thousand of them,
and probably
> about 250 Ormandys. I only say that anent the flourescent colors on the
> "Pictures" LP (coupled with Bald Mountain, excellent)
There was a later RCA LP of "Pictures," and there was also a video of
Ormandy conducting that work. FWIW, "Pictures" was the second work on
the last concert I ever heard Ormandy conduct (Academy of Music,
October, 1982), which began, interestingly and appropriately enough,
with Hindemith's "Mathis der Maler". The last work was the Rach 2nd
concerto, which I decided to hear anyway, knowing it would be my last
experience of Ormandy live... (I was up in Philly to defend my
dissertation at Penn. I won.)
[snip]
> Haydn/Mozart -- Did an LP in the 60's with "The Clock" and something else.
> Pretty good.
Haydn Sym. #96, "Miracle" (Columbia MS-6812)
Ormandy's Haydn deserves reissue. I am aware of the following, having
all of them:
No.7, "Le Midi" and no.45, "Farewell" (Columbia ML-4673)
No.88 (Columbia ML-4109, from 78s) (with Mozart: Sym.#39, cond. Szell)
No.96 and 101 (Columbia MS-6812)
No.99 and no.100, "Military" (Columbia ML-5316)
Sinfonia concertante (Columbia MS-6061 (with Mozart: Sinfonia
concertante for winds, also Phila./Ormandy), the Haydn now on Sony SBK
62 649) The Mozart is, I think, also now to be had on CD.
Trumpet concerto (Gilbert Johnson, tp.) (Sony SBK 62 649) (not published
on LP)
(NOTE: There were also a short movement from "Creation" and from the
String Quartet, Op.3, no.5 (attrib. Haydn, said to be the work of a
certain Romanus Hoffstetter). I have never heard these.)
> Hindemith -- Philly Mathis (now CD) was good, but the flip side
was better with Szell.
This is the pairing on a Sony CD -- Ormandy's "Mathis" with Szell's
Weber Metamorphoses. I have the original stereo LP (and an earlier
monophonic recording of "Mathis" with an earlier mono recording of the
"Concert music" (Columbia ML-4816). There was also an Ormandy recording
of "Nobilissima visione" (Columbia ML-4177) that I should like to hear.
> However, he redid the Weber pieces on EMI (one of the best) along with a very
> good Concert Music.
> Mahler #1 w/Blumine. -- Very good recording of unusual layout
The original LP of this Mahler 1st (RCA-Victor LSC-3107) had poorish
sound. There was a later digitally remastered LP reissue of this that
sounded much better (RCA AGL-1-5274). I heard Ormandy conduct this
symphony with the "Blumine" movement, as heard in the recording.
Personally, I prefer the work without that movement.
[snip]
> Prokofiev 4 & 6 -- This is something I wish would be re-released, #4 in
> particular, using the revised version has the kind of rhythmic infection and
> attention to detail that you will find in the best O recordings.
I hang onto my LPs of those two recordings for dearest life! I second
the motion for their reissue on CD.
[snip]
> Schubert Great C major (#9) -- One of the best sounding, an excellent effort,
> but, again, several Europeans are better.
Rhythmic unsteadiness mars the last movement of Ormandy's recording of
the Schubert "Great" C-major symphony, a pity since this work was on
Ormandy's first concert with the Philadelphia Orchestra when he
succeeded Stokowski there in 1936 (Oct.9). (To be sure, he and Stoki
shared the podium in Philly until ca. 1940.)
> Strauss -- Nothing super special here, although Zarathustra and DQ on CBS are
> good enough (certainly better than Bernstein). The Z recording in its time
> probably had only one serious rival, Reiner. The Domestica I got the other
> day, made in 1936, is as well played as Szell or Kempe. Surprisingly good.
Worth restoring would be Ormandy's 78rpm set of "Ein Heldenleben," which
I have on a Camden LP. There is a CD of his recording of "Don Quixote"
with Emanuel Feuermann. I have just ordered the new two-CD set on
Biddulph that includes his recording of the "Sinfonia domestica". FWIW,
his last published RCA LP recording was of Strauss: "Tod und Verklärung"
and the "Metamorphosen".
I recently listened to his stereo RCA LP of Sibelius Sym. No.1, a
glorious performance (but is this slightly cut?) that allows the music
to unfold in blazing lyricism. The sound is stunning. (And I must state
here that, to my ears, the stereo RCA's in general offer a truer image
of the Philadelphia Orchestra as I knew it from 1966/68 and 1970/71 --
and a few later individual concerts heard up to 1982 -- than is heard on
any of the Sonys.)
-- E.A.C.
Soyara
about because he was extremely efficient in his sessions and that these
trifles were done in the remaining time.
I'd love to see an Ormandy discography sometime; I think we could conclude
that his work extended well beyond "bonbons." Thanks to Albany (and not!!!
Sony "Classical") we have releases of his Piston, William Schuman, Harris,
Vincent, and Dello Joio. He did the Ives 1st Symphony and "Three Places in
New England" for Columbia and the 2nd and 3rd Symphonies for RCA as well as,
if I remember rightly, the Holidays Symphony. There was a fine Schuman 9th
and New England Tripych as well as Persichetti's "Sinfonia Janiculum." I
wore out his recording of Penderecki's "Utrenja, The Entombment of Christ."
(fat chance _that_ will ever be re-released!). Add to these fine recordings
of Sibelius, Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Shostakovich... Ormandy, the 20th
Century specialist?
I suppose the earlier you go, the less persuasive Ormandy is, though I'd like
to get his "Christ on the Mount of Olives" and see his "German Requiem" on
CD. And I would admit that his German repertoire is less exalted than many
conductors of his time. His Brucker 5th and Te Deum are probably the worst
recordings of those pieces you could get. But then again I think the world
of Neeme Jarvi, even though his Brahms is terrible.
--
Greg Hlatky
www.borzoi.net/soyara
Raymond Hall
>
> "Simon Roberts" <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:88aebs$lq0$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> >
> >
> > : On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
> >
> > : > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> > : > >
> > : > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> > : >
> > : > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> > : > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
> >
> > : In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
> > : tabula rasa! (-:
> >
> > A good thing to be in this case. I don't think I've ever experience
> > anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
> > (except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
> >
> > Simon (risking having his naturalization revoked)
>
> We shall revoke far more than your naturalization, blasphemer! Last time I
> listen to any of your recommendations her. Anyone who doesn't like Star Wars
> obviously cannot understand or even love classical music. You are not a human
> being. You are a worm. You are even lower than David Hurwitz!
>
> Matty
No, you have got it completely wrong. He is really a dinosaur trapped in
a time warp. The present doesn't exist for him. Samir has never heard of
Woodstock, man. When Samir watches a film, they have to be in good old
black and white, preferably scratched to buggery, and naturally (if
sound is featured) in crackly mono. Star Wars was in living colour, with
surround stereo sound, and is about "the FUTURE". It is thus tainted,
according to him/her/it, or whatever the correct personal pronoun is for
a dinosaur.
Maybe we should rename him Fred Flintstone.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Raymond Hall
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> though, that the real the future is in the past! Even Asimov inspired
> himself, in his "Foundation" cycle, from Edward Gibbon's "The Decline..."
>
> SG
> (who has better hopes for the future than what it was portraitized in Star
> Wars I, the only one he saw, in 198X)
You mean you haven't seen all three? Brings out the kid (child) in
everyone.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Raymond Hall
>
> "Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:38A9E4AC...@bigpond.com...
> >
>
Haven't seen the latest one. Is it any good?
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
phlmaes...@my-deja.com
> I'm sorry, wasn't it actually the Boston Symphony which went to China?
> There was an RCA Dynawarp recording of Respighi "Pines of Rome," some
> Chinese folk-tune done up as an orchestral march, and the hilariously
> horrid "Yellow River" Concerto -- played by, who, Daniel Epstein?
>
> Matthew B. Tepper
\ I guess it's possible that the BSO also went to China during that period,
but when the Philadelphians went to China a couple times in the past decade
or so, I remember vividly that it was well publicized that they were the
first orchestra to go there at Nixon and Kissenger's request in the early
70's. There were some emotional stories of Chinese musicians crying tears of
joy when they had the opportunity to play under a top western conductor
(Ormandy) at an informal gathering. Barry
Ehrlich606
eac...@anet-dfw.com (Edward A. Cowan) writes:
>
>> Strauss -- Nothing super special here, although Zarathustra and DQ on CBS
>are
>> good enough (certainly better than Bernstein). The Z recording in its time
>> probably had only one serious rival, Reiner. The Domestica I got the other
>> day, made in 1936, is as well played as Szell or Kempe. Surprisingly good.
>
>
>Worth restoring would be Ormandy's 78rpm set of "Ein Heldenleben," which
>I have on a Camden LP. There is a CD of his recording of "Don Quixote"
>with Emanuel Feuermann. I have just ordered the new two-CD set on
>Biddulph that includes his recording of the "Sinfonia domestica". FWIW,
>his last published RCA LP recording was of Strauss: "Tod und Verklärung"
>and the "Metamorphosen".
>
Thanks. This is the kind of informative post I enjoy reading: I learned
something. You obviously are an Ormandy conoisseur and I think you will be
delighted with the two CD's. Report back to the group!
Tony Movshon
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Tony Movshon wrote:
> > Simon Roberts wrote:
> > > samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> > > : On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > : > >> Like Yoda you speak.
> > > : > >
> > > : > >Who is Mr. Yoda? (serious question)
> > > : >
> > > : > It's Master Yoda and he is/was a 900 year old Jedi master who's last
> > > : > pupil was Luke Skywalker.
> > >
> > > : In what regards fundamental American cultural references, I seem to be
> > > : tabula rasa! (-:
> > >
> > > A good thing to be in this case. I don't think I've ever experience
> > > anything quite like the aching boredom of the first movie in that series
> > > (except perhaps a day's worth of "Continuing Legal Education").
> >
>
> Yes, I did, and probably you heard it as well, as long as you mention it.
> But tell me, I'm just curious, did you listen to it?
Yep. Though I drifted off from time to time.
Tell me, I'm just curious, did you *enjoy* it?
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu