Interview with John McClure on making records, Bruno Walter, Stravinsky, Bernstein, and others....
Rich S.
the name of the interviewer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Classic Interview: John McClure
I had heard many wonderful stories about the famous Columbia producer
John McClure and finally made contact with him earlier this year as we
prepared to reissue titles from the Columbia Classical catalog. I was
shocked to learn that Mr. McClure was not only responsible for nearly
all of the famous Bruno Walter recordings done in Hollywood, CA. in
the late 1950's and early 60's but also that he had also produced many
Ormandy records, 35 records with Stravinsky, and some 200 Bernstein
recordings! I contacted Mr. McClure, who is still quite actively
recording and mixing with the Boston Pops and others, to ask him about
the recording of the Brahms fourth Symphony with Bruno Walter with he
produced and is being released by Classic records this month as the
first in "The Legendary Columbia Classical Reissue Series". John
kindly faxed me an article he had written for High Fidelity magazine
in 1964, entitled "An Education and a Joy" - Bruno Walter's last years
in the recording studios, as a close working associate remembers them,
to prepare me for the interview that follows:
H: Reading the article that you wrote in High Fidelity in 1964, it
seems that you had gone out and effectively presented the idea to
Bruno to start recording again and I guess he was convalescing from...
M: Yeah, he had a heart attack during a preparation for a concert and
recording of Mahler's Second Symphony at Carnegie Hall. I think Dave
Oppenhiem had recorded several movements of that project but then
Bruno had a heart attack and wasn't able to complete it.
H: Did he have a heart attack during the session?
M: I don't think so. But around that time I think Bruno had done the
4th and 5th movements of the Mahler 2nd and the other three were not
recorded. Dave Oppenheim, just after he'd brought me out of Columbia
where I was a tape editor, said "Here sit down with these and put
together a splicing plan, splice these up (they hadn't been touched
since they had been recorded), take them out to Bruno Walter to see
what he thinks and then at the same time why don't you talk to him
about resuming recording.
H: Oh I see
M: So I did that and he agreed under certain stipulations - that he
wasn't going to leave California, and that we had to bring musicians
to him. I thought it was wonderful on the part of Columbia that they
would actually do that. I guess he was considered to be, even at that
time, a very important artist at Columbia.
H: I think I told you we're putting out the Brahms 4th with Walter
and the Beethoven Eroica is scheduled for December. Now, from your
recollection, and it probably varied across recordings, was there a
lot of editing that had to be done on those performances?
M: Not much, you see we never really recorded more than a movement or
two short movements in a day. There are a lot of movements that were
done in just one take and some with just one or two edits. On some of
the more difficult music there might be 4 or 5 edits in a movement but
much less than are done currently in recordings.
H: Now was Walter included in the process of deciding on takes to use
and so on?
M: Oh yeah he had input where to splice and what pieces to use. We'd
listen back to everything as we did it in the control room.
H: So playback was pretty important to the recording process.
M: Yes, playback was important. Bruno would listen and say: "Well
that's no good, don't use that, use this" or "Oh, I do that again".
H: So actually as the session was going on, you would record a part
he'd listen to it and decide to re-record a section instead of after
you've an entire performance?
M: Yes and I also used to get letters from him after the session -
sometimes a week, sometimes a month later - saying "It just occurs to
me that bars 120 through 125 there was something suspicious in the
tympani or something like that, would you go back and take a listen
and reassure me?" I'd do that and then I'd put together a test edit
and send it out to him and he would criticize it. He'd say "this is
fine, this is fine, I still am unhappy with the trio, check other
takes...if the other takes aren't better we'd better redo it at our
next meeting".
H: Was that level of involvement typical of other conductors that you
had worked with before? Was he more or less involved than others like
Bernstein or Ormandy ?
M: Ormandy would listen to a finished tape - he was quite easy about
this because he was very involved in the playback at the session. He'd
carry on a full conversation with somebody...you'd think "Oh my God
he's not even listening" then he'd point "That's no good", in
mid-sentence he'd say: "That's no good we'll redo that". With
Bernstein, we would listen to playbacks and then we'd definitely have
to make changes. Sometimes he'd come in and listen to the playback and
suggest changes in balance. He was always trying to highlight stuff to
make sure no one missed the point of this solo or that solo -
sometimes to the detriment of the overall perspective. I would say
that they were all pretty much involved.
H: Which is an interesting contrast with what I learned from the
Berniker experience when he was recording jazz musicians. There was
much less involvement on the part of the musicians and the producer
had a lot more rein to say this is it, this is right, this is what
we're going to go with. As opposed to here, where it seems that
conductors had uniformly more involvement.
M: I preferred that the artist be very much involved because I didn't
have that much faith in my musicianship. I was not a trained conductor
and I hadn't studied conducting and I wanted their inputs very badly.
I was afraid I'd miss something so I always pushed my people to stay
involved.
H: Which is a wonderful thing I guess because you learn as you go
along from these great masters and teachers really. So, do you recall
what the first in the series of sessions after he had agreed to return
to recording in Los Angeles?
M: I think we started with Beethoven Symphonies 1 and 2. Those were
the very first sessions.
H: And how long had he been off from recording?
M: A couple of years.
H: Oh really? So he had not conducted formally in a couple of years?
M: Yes, that's right. The only time he ever came back to New York and
worked in New York is when we did the Mahler 2nd with the
Philharmonic, that was in Manhattan Center. The rest of the time he
worked out there.
H: What was his demeanor with respect to the orchestra? I mean you
hear stories about conductors like Reiner, where it is well documented
that he...
M: And Toscanini, sure...
H: That they were just absolute authoritarians and the orchestras
feared them.
M: Yes, that's right.
H: I guess that is one way to rule - no judgment there about whether
it's good or bad. How do those situations contrast with Bruno Walter?
M: Well, it was always a cooperative thing, you know, he would make
suggestions. He was very stubborn about what he wanted, but it never
got didactic and it never got authoritarian, it was "Come, come, come
my friends."
H: As opposed to a show of power where Reiner would throw someone out
of the orchestra...
M: Oh, yeah, never.
H: So he was much more I guess, and this is based on some other
stories I've heard as well, of what you might think of as a cultured
gentleman.
M: Oh yeah, I think it's possible that his personality over the years
had mellowed somewhat. I understand when he was on the make as a
conductor in his twenties...and desperate to get ahead, not having
proved himself, he probably had a different kind of personality. He
probably was more opportunistic. There's the famous story of when he
was repeteur for Mahler in the Opera and the rehearsal pianist was
having a horrible time trying to play from this orchestral score, and
Mahler asked him, "Can you play this prima vista", and he [Bruno
Walter] said "Of course," and just sat down and played the thing right
from the full score.
H: So you started with the Beethoven First and Second?
M: And we worked our way basically chronologically up through
Beethoven, and then when the nine Symphonies were complete, then we
started the other stuff - the Brahms, the Wagner, and then at a
certain point we tackled Mahler...and when that worked he asked me if
I was familiar with Bruckner. I told him at that time not excessively.
I had everyone's opinion that Bruckner was just interminable and long
winded and kind of dull. He said I'm doing a concert of Bruckner
fourth with the LA Phil, and you should come and listen". I came and
listened, and I was quite blown away by it, of course. Then we started
by doing Bruckner 4 and 7, culminating in the greatest one, the 9th of
which we also have rehearsal documentation.
H: Yes, and that's one that is certainly on the list of recordings to
do. So the Brahms came some time after you had...
M: finished the Beethoven...
H: Was the orchestra pretty well determined at that point?
M: Yes, it changed very little. The first dozen men I think stayed,
Izzy Baker was the concertmaster. I'll never forget when we did
Histoire de Soldat with Stravinsky, Izzy came in - I don't think he'd
studied it. I don't even think he looked at the damn thing, and he
stood there, you know, chewing gum...and tossing off the Histoire de
Soldat like he'd been playing it for all his life. Quite amazing. But
they all stayed pretty much the same. Most of them from the L.A. Phil,
and then the sections would be filled out from the studios.
H: Over what period did all these cycles go...the Beethoven, and then
the Brahms, and the Bruckner and so on? What years and how many years?
M: We started in '58, I was out there in '57 looking for the hall. We
started recording in February each year. I would just move out there
with my family and I would try and run the department in NY by
telephone. I think it took us maybe two years, possibly three years
to do the Beethoven's...the four Brahms the next year....then we
started doing the Wagner and the Mozart's - the last 6 Mozart's...I'm
just sorry we never got to the Schumann's...and then there was the
Fidelio..
H: Was it the case that Bruno and the orchestra jelled over time or
did they really just hit it from the beginning?
M: Pretty much from the beginning. We really didn't have orchestral
problems. Occasionally, like the opening of the Academic Festival
Overture we did three different times because the accents just weren't
the way he wanted them. So he didn't just settle. But I would say that
they worked well together right from the very first session.
H: Now, about the hall that you used out in Hollywood - the American
Legion Hall. I guess it still exists?
M: It still exists but now they do drama theater there. There's been
a long running show that's been in there for like five years. It's an
impressive place.
H: Well, I can tell you that the sound that you got was top rate as
far as I'm concerned.
M: Yeah, it was really hard to make a mistake in there. It's just
like Abbey Road in London...you just put up a couple mikes, and you
look like you know what you're doing!
H: The sound is just really astonishing. However, in contrast, the
sound that you get off of the original LP's just really leaves a lot
to be desired.
M: Oh, I know, I know. I fought battles with our engineering
department over the years. They had little things they put in the
circuits, you know...."you have to do this otherwise you're going to
have over cutting on the bass in the grooves"...and "we have to do
this to compensate for this" and "our cutters have a difficulty unless
we just put this little thing in it" it was really difficult to argue
if you weren't a really well versed technologue you know, and I'm not.
You can cut them to sound ten times better now than you ever could
then.
H: Well, yes it's interesting to have you confirm that. What we do is
use the three-track session tape, and we cut directly from that.
However, we use an original LP to decide how much center channel you
mixed, you know, because we don't want to change the producer's
perspective on the balance and so forth - we really just want to go
from a more pure source and without limiting and compression. But what
we noticed is that in order to duplicate what the original LP sounds
like you have to do really heavy equalization
M: Really?
H: Yeah, I mean heavy equalization. And in the following way to, you
have to punch up, I would say in the 6.5 to 10 K range. It's almost as
if they were trying to make it "hi fi". You know where they were
trying to make it sort of sizzle, as opposed to what the session tape
sounds like - really natural and really wonderful and live...
M: I'd have no idea what the original session tapes sounded like
because - you've got realize that we were mixing them to our two track
machines that were really kind of weird and kind of noisy.
H: So there wasn't, as far as you're concerned, any sort of apparent
attempt on the part of Columbia to hype the sound? Were you involved
in all of the mix downs and the equalizations, and did you approve
things like reference disks and so on?
M: Oh yes, definitely. I don't remember punching up high-end so much.
I don't know at what point that came in...
H: That may be a side effect of the cutting gear or the mastering
gear of the age...its hard to say.
M: and the monitors
H: yeah it's true. Obviously if you had monitors that were somewhat
dull
M: You'd brighten it up and it'd sound fine, oh absolutely. I think
you can get a better idea of what original sound was like by listening
to the CD's rather than to original LP's.
H: Oh absolutely, and I think uniformly people have suggested that
the CD transfers are just far superior to what was originally done and
it probably was just a function of the equipment.
M: If we'd only had an Arthur Haddey at that time, it would have been
a whole different story.
H: You know, and that's a very good point actually, because...
M: But we didn't. We had an engineering department that wouldn't
presume to tell us how to work - but then they kept whole parts of
this a total mystery to us.
H: Which is an interesting thing because, in my opinion, when you
look back and compare Columbia pressings, with RCA or Decca , Columbia
does come in second place. However, when you compare the recordings
and the artists, Columbia was absolutely first rate - Period. Take the
Brahms 4th, which wells up a particular soft spot in my heart. The
recording is amazingly natural. In fact, overall the recording needed
very little EQ - just a little bit in the bass and just a little bit
on the very top ( up at 17.5 or 20K) to add a little bit of air that
may or may not have ever been there or may have deteriorated somewhat.
Everything else was flat.
M: Good.
H: And it just sounds wonderful and natural and live. I mean, it's
just sensational. And especially the tone -however they mic'd it,
particularly the double basses.
M: Radio Recorders, which was an independent company, furnished all
the equipment.
H: Bernie Grundman, who does our mastering, and I were listening to
the double basses, and the amount of authority that you can actually
feel. You know when you hear a double bass played live there's a it's
more than just an aural impact, there's a physical impact as well, you
can feel..
M: A little sub-harmonic kind of a...
H: yes, on the skin, and you can actually, feel it as it comes off of
the tape...I mean you can just feel the texture of the bass notes and
it's really superb.
M: Great.
H: Well it's interesting that you mention this Radio Recorders issue
because they did many of famous Verve recordings in their studios on
Santa Monica Blvd. in Hollywood.
M: They did, that's right ,they had a bunch of studios on Santa
Monica Blvd. Harry Roberts was in charge of that at the time...he was
a nice guy. I just saw a picture of him like a year ago, he was in his
80's and talking about some of their early sessions. We had a whole
bunch of different mixer guys...we had Lowell Frank and we had Alan
Emmig among others.
H: Now were these Columbia people?
M: These were, I think Lowell Frank worked for CBS, and Alan Emmig
did too. Later on we switched to Wally Heider, who furnished the
equipment.
H: Well that's interesting. Now, about the Brahms 4th. First, how did
Bruno Walter feel about Brahms?
M: Oh, well, you know, the same way he did about Beethoven...
H: Very important.
M: Oh yeah, you can tell what's important to him by the order in
which he
recorded stuff.
H: I see.
M: I mean, that was all picked by him.
H: Yeah, I see, and of course the Beethoven's were first.
M: The Beethoven's, and then we did the Brahms' and then we did the
Mozart's and then the Wagner's and Mahler's and Bruckners and...
H: I get the feeling from talking to you and others, and reading what
you and others have written that Bruno brought a certain calmness to
things, that he really knew what he was doing, and he really knew what
he wanted, and it was just a matter of getting it.
M: I think that is true.
H: Any personal notes on Bruno Walter the man? Was he a particularly
warm person?
M: Oh yeah, very much so, he was always teaching me German. My German
was fair but not great and he was always teaching me how to do that. I
remember particularly he'd try to get me to do the German 'r' back in
the throat..."you have to loosen the uvula and let it just flap" he'd
say - "Now here's a good exercise for you - say 'hard rrrroll...I
want a hard rrrroll" and he'd drill me. He and Delia, his companion -
the soprano - she was very sweet. She went everywhere with him, she'd
come to the sessions and they'd go out almost every night to Santa
Monica and walk along the palisades there. We (the family) would meet
them sometimes and walk along with them and they'd always be trying to
teach me vernacular. That was fun. His daughter Lottie was a big, like
almost six feet, tough-talking wise-cracking kind of a woman. I really
liked her a lot.
H: He was not that big, is that right?
M: No, he was tiny. He and Schoenberg and Stravinsky were all about
5' 4", 5' 3", something like that.
H: You know it's funny, because when I look at pictures of Stravinsky
because his face is so gaunt, I get the impression that he's tall -
but he was a very slight guy, huh?
M: Very tiny.
H: Now was Bruno the type that really enjoyed life, relished it,
enjoyed it, took advantage of it?
M: Oh, yeah, they'd go. They would take trips all over California and
he just loved that. Of course, so did Stravinsky. Stravinsky and Bob
Craft and Vera would go to New Mexico out to the Santa Fe Opera. Often
they'd drive down into Texas and New Mexico. They drove to San
Francisco and they'd go to the State and National Parks. They were
very much into that whole western scene. Bruno Walter and Delia would
make me little lists of places I had to see. Once I had to go down and
visit Joseph's Szigeti and his wife down in Palos Verdes and they
fixed us Goulash which was great - and Borscht.
H: Now did Bruno and Szigeti ever do any work together?
M: Well I'm sure they performed together in concerts. I think, at the
point I started recording Bruno that Szigeti was already very frail
and shaky and his pitch got worse and worse as he got older.
H: Now when you were recording Bruno Walter you were out in LA for
how many months at a time?
M: Two months, January - February.
H: Of each year?
M: Yep. Kids weren't in school yet so we'd just all pack off and just
go out and live in a motel there.
H: Hey, it's a that's a wonderful time of year to be in Los Angeles.
M: It was the rainy season...
H: When you were back in New York you were working with Bernstein and
Ormandy?
M: Yes, Bernstein, Ormandy, Mormon Tabernacle...
H: Did you do any of the Stravinsky's?
M: I did all of the Stravinsky's
H: You did ALL the Stravinsky recordings?
M: Like 35 LP's. They (Sony) just came out with a whole box of CD's.
I remixed it all for CD and resequenced them and it came out to 24
CD's. There's a project for you - you want to hear some good sounds?
The Firebird and Petrouchka which we did in the same hall with the
same orchestra as Bruno Walter - those were just fantastic. I think
the Sacre was the first thing I ever did with him
H: Really?
M: And that was in the St. George Hotel in Brooklyn right after a
concert that he'd given in New York. That was just after Oppenheim
left and I inherited Stravinsky and everybody else. And then when we
saw how well the Bruno Walter stuff had gone out there, then we
started recording out there a lot.
H: Now, how was Stravinsky as a conductor?
M: If it was stuff he was familiar with, then he was excellent.
H: So his own stuff?
M: Well, on his own earlier stuff that he had conducted in concerts a
lot he was just fine. His Petrouchka and Firebird are right up there
with the best. And a lot the 80's pieces, and stuff that he knew like
Apollo and Orpheus. Now from Agon on he started edging to serialism.
He was much less familiar and much less competent...and it took a lot
longer like pulling teeth to get some of that Sermon - Abraham and
Isaac and Movements. it was really difficult. But his earlier stuff
he did just fine on.
H: And you did a fair amount of work with Lenny (Bernstein) as well?
M: About 200 hundred records.
H: Oh my god - two hundred.
M: It starting in '59 with the Billy the Kid and the Shostokovich 5th
in Boston, which was the first record he made for us under the new
contract. They just had done this tour of Russia and came back into
Boston, it was the port of entry so we had a session in Symphony Hall.
First time I met him, first time I met the Philharmonic, first time I
ever worked in Symphony Hall...
H: Trial by Fire!
M: Yeah. I was lucky.
H: That's amazing.
M: And from then on we worked in New York...first at the St. George
Hotel and then at the Manhattan Center and then sometimes at Avery
Fisher, unfortunately.
H: Now the St. George Hotel that was it was a pretty good recording
venue.
M: It wasn't bad.
H: So, during those days there was a lot of recording going on?
M: Every week during the season we recorded. In those days a session
was like a three hour minimum call, but then you just kept adding
units and sometimes we'd go 7 - 8 - 9 hours straight until we just
couldn't stand up...and then we'd quit, and that was...
H: amazing!
david...@aol.com
exceptionally well recorded. It didn't hurt that McClure was a highly
competent musician capable of following a complex orchestral score and
noting problems in performances as they unfolded in front of the
microphones.
-david gable
Todd Schurk
Terrific fun this! Thanks so much-Todd S
Paul Goldstein
david...@aol.com says...
Not just Stravinsky - McClure was by far Bernstein's best producer at Columbia.
And his Bruno Walter records sound great too.
ansermetniac
Was he responsible for any of Lenny's recordings at Columbia?
Abbedd
ansermetniac
let me answer my own question. Ijust took the Candide Ov and WSS
selections out the library, by coincidence, this morning. Is John
McClure a Musician? Compare Bert Whyte's work in the same Manhattan
Centre not to mention the men who produced Ansermet's recordings.
If I was producer of the CD, I would have had a special producer's
note explaining the incredibly unmusical decisions made by the
producer of the original sessions and apologizing that the cd could
not be any better. And suggest that a seriously flawed version of
Lenny conducting his own Music is better than no recording. I would
have left out the fact that the WSS Music could be heard to be the
great Music it is in the superior conducting by Johnny Green , in the
Movie.
Who is the horn player during Somewhere. After I fixed the CD , I
could tell. The mastering of the cd magnifies and intensifies
McClure's abominations.
I would love to know what the Fanfare Reviewer said about the sound of
this Bernstein Century Release, if anything
Abbedd
Gerard
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:39:33 -0500, ansermetniac
> <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:55:47 -0800 (PST), "david...@aol.com"
> > <david...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The recordings that John McClure made with Stravinsky were all
> > > exceptionally well recorded. It didn't hurt that McClure was a
> > > highly competent musician capable of following a complex
> > > orchestral score and noting problems in performances as they
> > > unfolded in front of the microphones.
> > >
> > > -david gable
> >
> > Was he responsible for any of Lenny's recordings at Columbia?
> >
> > Abbedd
>
> let me answer my own question.
It was already answered before you put the question.
> Ijust took the Candide Ov and WSS
> selections out the library, by coincidence, this morning. Is John
> McClure a Musician? Compare Bert Whyte's work in the same Manhattan
> Centre not to mention the men who produced Ansermet's recordings.
>
> If I was producer of the CD,
We are so grateful that you was not.
> I would have had a special producer's
> note explaining the incredibly unmusical decisions made by the
> producer of the original sessions and apologizing that the cd could
> not be any better. And suggest that a seriously flawed version of
> Lenny conducting his own Music is better than no recording. I would
> have left out the fact that the WSS Music could be heard to be the
> great Music it is in the superior conducting by Johnny Green , in the
> Movie.
>
> Who is the horn player during Somewhere. After I fixed the CD
Since when can you fix a CD?
Simon Roberts
I guess you didn't read this portion of the interview:
"With Bernstein, we would listen to playbacks and then we'd definitely have
to make changes. Sometimes he'd come in and listen to the playback and
suggest changes in balance. He was always trying to highlight stuff to
make sure no one missed the point of this solo or that solo -
sometimes to the detriment of the overall perspective."
Simon
ansermetniac
Maybe if McClure allowed Lenny to conduct and not put all of those
mics INSIDE the orchestra and try to do the balance himself, changes
would not have to be made. Does anyone disagree that the Decca tree
OUTSIDE the orchestra is not musically superior to the Columbia way.
Columbia made the worst recordings of the mono and stereo lp eras.
Their recordings in the 40s were the equal of the other majors. Even
their 50s pop recordings were overprocessed to be musically phonier
then the other majors.
The worst hatchet job done to Music to please the masses is the
arrangements forced upon The Weavers by American Decca. Their 1955
Carnegie Hall Concert on Vanguard was like listening to a different
group. A Folk Group
Abbedd
Simon Roberts
>Maybe if McClure allowed Lenny to conduct and not put all of those
>mics INSIDE the orchestra and try to do the balance himself, changes
>would not have to be made. Does anyone disagree that the Decca tree
>OUTSIDE the orchestra is not musically superior to the Columbia way.
Bernstein, perhaps. And I would take just about any Columbia recording, stereo
or mono, over Decca's made before the end of the 1950s (and sometimes beyond),
with their nasty tubby bass and papery violins. (As far as these ears are
concerned, other companies in the 1950s made recordings that sound far superior
to either, including Vanguard and Westminster.)
Simon
ansermetniac
You can fix poorly eqd lps, but you cannot undo the garbage on Lenny's
masters
Do cds of the Decca LPS you hate, have the same defects?
Abbedd
Bob Harper
EMI's (stereo, one hopes) mics been
there for the occasion.
Bob Harper
John
> This was once online but now appears gone. Unfortunately I don't have
> the name of the interviewer.
THE INSIDE TRACK ON CLASSIC RECORDS ISSUE 9, 1997
The Classic Interview: John McClure by Michael Hobson
(unfortunately, the link is now dead so I'll not include it)
david...@aol.com
>Much as I love the Kleiber Figaro, it would have been nice had
> EMI's (stereo, one hopes) mics been
> there for the occasion.
That just goes to show how much perception varies. I've always felt
that EMI's recordings sounded far inferior to Decca's, Columbia's, and
RCA's well into the 60's, a case in point being the less than
spectacular sound accorded Giulini's famous recording of the Verdi
Requiem with Gedda et al. Nor have I ever felt that Decca's
recordings from the 1950's sound particularly bad: dated now, yes,
but not bad at all for the period.
And it does make a difference who the producer is. The recordings
that Andrew Kazdin made with Boulez and the New York Philharmonic
sound very impressive indeed, unlike the slightly earlier recording of
the Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta that Boulez recorded
with the BBC SO. Kazdin also has the signal distinction of being one
of the very few producers who could make good digital recordings in
the early digital era. Kazdin was invited to record the centennial
production of the Ring for Philips at Boulez's behest, and the results
still sound marvelous. Indeed, that Ring recording sounds far better
than Boulez's far more recent late DG recordings.
As for John McClure's recordings of Stravinsky's music, they have the
signal virtue of clarity: you can hear everything that's going on.
-david gable
Joey7
> On Nov 16, 6:24 pm, Bob Harper wrote:
> That just goes to show how much perception varies. I've always felt
> that EMI's recordings sounded far inferior to Decca's, Columbia's, and
> RCA's well into the 60's, a case in point being the less than
> spectacular sound accorded Giulini's famous recording of the Verdi
> Requiem with Gedda et al. Nor have I ever felt that Decca's
> recordings from the 1950's sound particularly bad: dated now, yes,
> but not bad at all for the period.
Seconded.
The 1950s & 60s EMI sound with its murky shallow bass and non-existent
high frequencies is frustrating. Some of the 24-bit CD remasters have
improved things, but give me Decca's powerful bottom heavy resonances
every time if given a choice.
Steve de Mena
I still think those masters are better than we think they are. I like
the Lenny Petrushka/Pulcinella Suite from the Great Performances
reissue from last year. It seemed like a veil (or veils) had been
removed, compared to most of the other Lenny NY Phil Sony CDs I've
heard over the years.
Haven't seen any new "Great Performances" reissues in awhile. A shame...
> Do cds of the Decca LPS you hate, have the same defects?
>
> Abbedd
Steve
david...@aol.com
> Haven't seen any new "Great Performances" reissues in awhile. A shame...
I have: "Boulez conducts Debussy" and "The Glory of Gabrieli" with E.
Power Biggs et al. Unfortunately, both releases are sonically
inferior to the best previous reissues of the same material, markedly
so in the case of the Debussy. (The Columbia Odyssey reissue of the
Debussy was not terribly good, but the reissue in Sony's Boulez
edition was much better than the new release.)
-david gable
Steve de Mena
I have the "Boulez conducts Debussy" set (which has been always listed
as an "Import" in the U.S.). I will have to listen to it closely
tomorrow. I might have an ancient Japanese CD release of that music
also, for comparison.
Steve
rkhalona
> In article <sclrj3525buk1b98qai39bs9058emov...@4ax.com>, ansermetniac says...
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:55:47 -0800 (PST), "david7ga...@aol.com"
> ><david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>The recordings that John McClure made with Stravinsky were all
> >>exceptionally well recorded. It didn't hurt that McClure was a highly
> >>competent musician capable of following a complex orchestral score and
> >>noting problems in performances as they unfolded in front of the
> >>microphones.
>
> >>-david gable
>
> >Was he responsible for any of Lenny's recordings at Columbia?
>
> I guess you didn't read this portion of the interview:
>
> "With Bernstein, we would listen to playbacks and then we'd definitely have
> to make changes. Sometimes he'd come in and listen to the playback and
> suggest changes in balance. He was always trying to highlight stuff to
> make sure no one missed the point of this solo or that solo -
> sometimes to the detriment of the overall perspective."
>
> Simon
McClure worked on Lenny's Brahms VPO cycle for DG (at least that's
what the credits say).
RK
Gerard
> david...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 11:33 pm, Steve de Mena wrote:
> >
> > > Haven't seen any new "Great Performances" reissues in awhile. A
> > > shame...
> >
> > I have: "Boulez conducts Debussy" and "The Glory of Gabrieli" with
> > E. Power Biggs et al. Unfortunately, both releases are sonically
> > inferior to the best previous reissues of the same material,
> > markedly so in the case of the Debussy. (The Columbia Odyssey
> > reissue of the Debussy was not terribly good, but the reissue in
> > Sony's Boulez edition was much better than the new release.)
> >
> > -david gable
>
> I have the "Boulez conducts Debussy" set (which has been always listed
> as an "Import" in the U.S.).
I have the same set, and I was glad to buy it (before and after hearing it).
I have no comparison (except my memory from the LP era). But "inferior" is not
what comes to mind.
david...@aol.com
> I have the "Boulez conducts Debussy" set (which has been always listed
> as an "Import" in the U.S.). I will have to listen to it closely
> tomorrow. I might have an ancient Japanese CD release of that music
> also, for comparison.
I haven't compared it to the Japanese set, although I still have it,
but the Boulez edition master strikes me as far better than the new
transfer. (The old Odyssey transfer was pretty wretched.)
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> I have the same set, and I was glad to buy it (before and after hearing it).
> I have no comparison (except my memory from the LP era). But "inferior" is not
> what comes to mind.
Comparison of a new transfer to your memory of the sound of the LP's
is not terribly helpful, which I only point out since this is the sort
of fact that you point out to other posters in thread after thread.
-david gable
Simon Roberts
Yes; sounded lousy on LPs, sound lousy on CD. I much prefer the Bernstein
"garbage."
Simon
Gerard
> On Nov 17, 4:36 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have the same set, and I was glad to buy it (before and after
> > hearing it). I have no comparison (except my memory from the LP
> > era). But "inferior" is not what comes to mind.
>
> Comparison of a new transfer to your memory of the sound of the LP's
> is not terribly helpful,
I realise that.
OTOH I've noticed that bad CD transfers (of recordings I used to listen to on
LP) were recognalizable as such. The same for good transfers.
> which I only point out since this is the sort
> of fact that you point out to other posters in thread after thread.
>
Anyhow, I was not disappointed at all with this set, and I'm sure that I heard
these recordings better (in beter sound) then before.
david...@aol.com
> Anyhow, I was not disappointed at all with this set, and I'm sure that I heard
> these recordings better (in better sound) then before.
You have a far greater faith in your memory of the sound of LP's than
I do: I don't think anybody's memory, including yours and mine, is as
good as you seem to think it is. I think the improvement in sound has
to be fairly dramatic to be noticeable without a side by side
comparison. I prefer the first remastering of the Solti Ring issued
on CD to a later one, but only because I could compare the two
transfers of Siegfried side by side. I have no doubt that I'd be
reasonably content with the new remastering of Boulez's CBS Debussy
recordings if I didn't already own a superior remastering to which I
could compare it.
-david gable
ansermetniac
> I prefer the first remastering of the Solti Ring issued
>on CD to a later one, but only because I could compare the two
>transfers of Siegfried side by side. I
Why was the first one better?
Abbedd
Gerard
I'm sure you're right about the reliability of the memory in these matters.
It is my impression that .... etc.
The point I wanted to emphasize is that these remasterings are not bad at all.
Your word "inferior" might suggest that they are bad.
OTOH I have in this same series the remastering of the recording by Stern and
Ormandy of Bruch's violinconcerto with Lalo's Symphonie Espagnole. "In my
memory" this has sounded better before, on LP.
I don't know where the truth is.
On the one hand I'm glad I have the Debussy recordings now on CD in what I
consider as good sound (and I enjoyed these recordings again, and I enjoyed
having them again available). On the other the Bruch/Lalo doesn't much to me
(thinking it sounded better before).
david...@aol.com
> > I prefer the first remastering of the Solti Ring issued
> >on CD to a later one, but only because I could compare the two
> >transfers of Siegfried side by side. I
> Why was the first one better?
You're expecting me to remember a subtle difference in the quality of
two transfers that I listened to back to back once several years ago,
which I am simply unable to do. All I can remember now is that I
liked the earlier transfer better and kept it.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> I'm sure you're right about the reliability of the memory in these matters.
> It is my impression that .... etc.
> The point I wanted to emphasize is that these remasterings are not bad at all.
> Your word "inferior" might suggest that they are bad.
Inferior and superior are comparative terms, and the new transfers of
Boulez's CBS Debussy recordings within the Great Performances series
are decidedly inferior to the transfers in Sony's Boulez edition,
which also represented a marked improvement over an earlier release on
Columbia Odyssey CD's, as more than one person here has remarked.
Given a choice, I'd pick the superior Boulez Edition over the inferior
alternatives.
-david gable
ansermetniac
I was not aware you were referring to subtle differences. With
Ansermet releases, the earlier CDs are less monkeyed with than the
later ones. How else can they justify making you buy them again. They
write 96k on it and all the critics hear it as better because they
think it should be. Too bad they dont realize that with the copying
of an analogue tape made in the 50s 60s or 70s , 44k is overkill.
Decca boosts the highs and all the critics hear a better transfer of
the original tape. A lack of the competency necessary to properly
criticize recorded sound, by critics, is a very serious problem to
the Classical Music Community and has always been .
Haggin told it like it is about the RCA efforts to modernize the AT
legacy and the critics that raved about it. He must have been a lonely
man at the Music critics conventions
Abbedd
david...@aol.com
> I was not aware you were referring to subtle differences. With
> Ansermet releases, the earlier CDs are less monkeyed with than the
> later ones.
The first (and superior) CD reissue of Solti's Ring was less "monkeyed
with" than the later reissue. Same label as Ansermet, of course.
-david gable
ansermetniac
>Inferior and superior are comparative terms
and say nothing about why. Is one superior because it is more
musically accurate or does that make it inferior. Or is one superior
because it has more crunch punch and munch, which are terms desrcibing
audio and not Music.
In the Beatle ng, superior can always be assumed to be more juiced. In
this NG, I assume that the members have more musical knoweledge and
can explain why they like one transfer over another. If one has more
presence then that is a valid reason to like on over another. Or if
one has more reverb. Based upon using churches over concert halls
leads one be believe that the classical music community likes reverb
and the necessary presence boosts for recordings. Maybe we should
start assuming that when a member of this ng prefers one mastering
over another and does not say why, it is because it has more reverb
and added presence.
Abbedd
david...@aol.com
> Maybe we should
> start assuming that when a member of this ng prefers one mastering
> over another and does not say why, it is because it has more reverb
> and added presence.
I don't think that's a safe assumption, Mr. Powell.
-david gable
ansermetniac
Why must I make an assumption. If you prefer one cd over the same
performance on another cd, tell us why. After all a very wise man
once said:
"Knowing what without knowing why, is not knowing what"
Abbedd
Gerard
> On Nov 17, 1:51 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm sure you're right about the reliability of the memory in these
> > matters. It is my impression that .... etc.
> > The point I wanted to emphasize is that these remasterings are not
> > bad at all. Your word "inferior" might suggest that they are bad.
>
> Inferior and superior are comparative terms,
I'm aware of that.
OTOH what one finds superior one day (or listening at one equipment) is not
necessarily superior another day (or listening at other equipment).
> and the new transfers of
> Boulez's CBS Debussy recordings within the Great Performances series
> are decidedly inferior to the transfers in Sony's Boulez edition,
Can you give details about in what way the Gr. Perf. issue is inferior?
> which also represented a marked improvement over an earlier release on
> Columbia Odyssey CD's, as more than one person here has remarked.
Do you remember who the other person(s) was (were)?
(I do remember that you have written about this before.)
Steve de Mena
For me, there are a few factors why one transfer could be better than
another - less audible processing effects (i.e. EQ and/or Reverb),
less audible tape hiss (which could be because they used a master tape
instead of a copy, and does not necessarily mean the hiss was removed
by processing), better dynamic range. For the Lenny Petrushka I
mentioned the latest CD had a more natural (though not perfect) sound
stage, less of a "multi-miked" sound, no artifical EQ, no fake
sounding reverb.
I can't seem to find any of the Boulez Debussy CDs here at the moment,
though I do have the lossles rip I did when I bought it, which I'll
listen to later. I wanted to see the actual CD so I could compare the
credits to see if different remastering engineers were used.
Steve
John
> On Nov 16, 9:38 am, Rich S. <schiebel*nos...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > This was once online but now appears gone. Unfortunately I don't have
> > the name of the interviewer.
>
> THE INSIDE TRACK ON CLASSIC RECORDS ISSUE 9, 1997
> The Classic Interview: John McClure by Michael Hobson
> (unfortunately, the link is now dead so I'll not include it)
On the other hand, it has been archived at the Internet Archive
Wayback Machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20020106015358/http://classicrecords.com/newsletter/newsletter/newsletter.cfm?Article=52
david...@aol.com
>I wanted to see the actual CD so I could compare the
> credits to see if different remastering engineers were used.
Of course they were. I don't have access to information about the
remastering of Boulez's CBS Debussy recordings issued on Columbia
Odyssey CD's, but here's the information for the other three CD
reissues. Only the producers of the original recordings are listed in
English on the back of the Japanese CBS Sony release:
[Japanese] CBS Sony 73DC-242-4
"Produced by Thomas Z. Shepard" (La mer, L'Après-midi, Jeux, Images,
Danses)
"Produced by Paul Myers" (Nocturnes, Printemps, Rhapsodie)
Sony Boulez Edition
Sony SM2K 68 327
"High Definition Remastering"
"SBM Super Bit Mapping"
"This recording was remastered using 20-bit technology for 'high-
definition sound' and remixed by Robert Rapley."
Sony Great Performances
Sony Classical 88697 00816 2
"This recording utilizes Sony's Direct Stream Digital (DSD) System and
SBM Direct."
"DSD Engineer: Todd Whitelock"
-david gable
Rich S.
wrote:
Very cool!
And thanks for identifying the interviewer.
Rich
Steve de Mena
> On Nov 17, 4:20 pm, Steve de Mena wrote:
>
>> I wanted to see the actual CD so I could compare the
>> credits to see if different remastering engineers were used.
>
> Of course they were.
I meant so that I could compare with other recent Great Performances.
I don't see the name Todd Whitelock mentioned on any of the other
recent Great Performances CDs I have.
I did order the Boulez Edition Debussy used from an Amazon reseller.
Steve
Gerard
> On Nov 17, 3:51 pm, "Gerard" wrote:
>
> > > Inferior and superior are comparative terms,
>
> > I'm aware of that.
>
> correct use of the term inferior?
The use might be correct, the term "inferior" stays connected to "bad, or very
bad". The term does have a not-comparitive meaning too (at least in other
languages); maybe not completely not-comparitive (it can be interpreted like
"much, very much worse" - even if your meaning is to say that there are only
extremely difficult to describe subtle differences).
> > Can you give details about in what way the Gr. Perf. issue is
> > inferior?
>
> Not any more, because I didn't keep the Great Performances transfer.
> In any case, it is extremely difficult to describe the subtle
> differences in sound between different transfers. There is only so
> much you can do with an extant recording after the fact. The latest
> technique for remastering does not invariably guarantee improvements.
> Far from it.
Is there a possibility that in this case "inferior" actually means "extremely
difficult to describe subtle differences in sound between different transfers"?
>
> But what do you care? I thought you were perfectly content with
> Sony's magnificent achievement with its latest re-re-reissue.
>
That's why I want to give this opinion.
Otherwise readers - of your comment - could think that these remasterings are to
be dissuaded at any price.
Next to this there's what you say about "subtle differences". In some
circumstances such differences might sound inferior, in other circumstances they
are juist subtle differences, and nothing more than that.
What is inferior in your perception (of that moment), might be not inferior at
all (in the ears of other people).
I have noticed such things after buying a new CD player. Things that were
"inferior" before, were actually slightly different, and it's hard to say which
one (of 2 remasterings) is inferior and which one is superior. There is some
difference, but it is up to somebody personal priorities to "decide" which one
is better. Those priorities or decisions might differ after a while.
The example I gave about Stern and Ormandy in their recording of Bruch an Lalo
(on Sony Great Performances). The remastering does not give the 'thrill' of the
LP, and in *that* way it is 'inferior'. But as a total this remastering might be
much better actually.
If you have no indication or details any more about why the new remastering is
inferior (to you), then there's only your assertion about some inferiority,
about which nobody knows the details.
david...@aol.com
> The use might be correct, the term "inferior" stays connected to "bad, or very
> bad". The term does have a not-comparitive meaning too (at least in other
> languages); maybe not completely not-comparitive (it can be interpreted like
> "much, very much worse" - even if your meaning is to say that there are only
> extremely difficult to describe subtle differences).
"Inferior" does more than connote "bad": it straight out means bad,
comparatively bad. It means "less good" by definition, which
naturally follows from the comparison. If X is inferior to Y, it's
less good than Y. Nor does Y have to be mentioned: it can be
implied. If you describe something as an inferior product, you mean
that it's less good than comparable products or less good than it
ought to be or less good than you expected it to be. And that's not
good, that's bad.
-david gable
Richard Schultz
: If X is inferior to Y, it's less good than Y.
I wasn't aware that the inferior vena cava was any less good of a blood
vessel than any other (not excluding the superior vena cava), but I admit
that I'm no expert in physiology.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Gerard
Not if the talking is about "extremely difficult to describe subtle differences
in sound:.
david...@aol.com
> I wasn't aware that the inferior vena cava was any less good of a blood
> vessel than any other (not excluding the superior vena cava), but I admit
> that I'm no expert in physiology.
It's not so much your lack of expertise in physiology that's a
problem: it's your failure to grasp the importance of contexts.
-david gable
Gerard
> On Nov 18, 11:07 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not if the talking is about "extremely difficult to describe subtle
> > differences in sound:.
>
> difficult to describe, it's possible for one transfer to be inferior
> to another. But you know that already.
But that does *not* make them _bad_ .
>
> I am sorry you're stuck with the inferior Great Performances
> transfer. C'est la vie.
>
They are only inferior in your perception, but you can't decribe why.
david...@aol.com
> They are only inferior in your perception
Of course! Nevertheless, there is an important difference between my
perception and yours: I've heard both of the transfers being
compared.
But you've changed the subject: you're no longer talking about
English usage.
-david gable
Gerard
> On Nov 18, 12:23 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They are only inferior in your perception
>
> Of course! Nevertheless, there is an important difference between my
> perception and yours: I've heard both of the transfers being
> compared.
But you don't remember the difference.
>
> But you've changed the subject: you're no longer talking about
> English usage.
>
About what?
Richard Schultz
have developed a sense of humor.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."