Rachmaninoff Symphony No. 2 Temirkanov/RPO on EMI

[td]

This recording made in the dying days of analogue sound was a fine LP, then turned into an audiophile LP for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. Thereafter Temirkanov had another kick at the Rachmaninoff Second Symphony with the St. Petersburg Orchestra for RCA Victor in digital sound.

The RPO version, which stretches to almost 57:00 in toto, was issued on an EMI Red Line superbudget CD in 1999, but that is now deleted, of course, and someone is trying to sell their copy for $140.

EMI never pushed this reading, as they already had their "winner" in the Previn/LSO reading of the complete score, reissued so many times I have lost count. I am sure it is still in the catalogue in one form or another.

But are we really sure that the Previn is/was the one they should have been pushing all the time? I am certainly not. On CD the reading is just as powerful as it was on those analogue LPs, whether EMI, Angel, or MFSL pressings. You simply couldn't hide the quality of the recording. Temirkanov is, I guess, one of the most spontaneous conductors around and he whips up a real storm in this symphony, getting his usually phlegmatic British musicians to perk up and play their bloody hearts out.

Curious to know if any other collectors have stumbled upon the Red Line issue of this celebrated recording.

TD

[Sol L. Siegel]

td <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in
news:16986268-4707-4390...@googlegroups.com:

> Curious to know if any other collectors have stumbled upon the Red
> Line issue of this celebrated recording.

Never knew there was one. I have it in a Forte twofer, teamed with -
ironically enough - Previn's "Manfred." It's not the only time I
ever bought a twofer to get something that wasn't currently
available on a single CD.

Still my favorite recording of the symphony. (Uncut, but no
first-movement repeat.)

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

[td]

But Sol, the repeat would have put the performance well over the 60:00 mark.

Curious that EMI chose the Temirkanov performance instead of the Previn to accompany Previn's Manfred.

That Forte twofer seems to be a strange combo.

TD

[Gerard]

"td" wrote in message
news:16986268-4707-4390...@googlegroups.com...

================

I have it. Didn't listen to it a very long time. I can't remember it as
something very special.
This symphony has a lot of good recordings.

[td]

Indeed it does.

Roszdestvensky/BBC Symphony, Previn/LSO(EMI), Boult/LPO(heavily cut, however), Bychkov/OdP, and so on, and on.

But I think you might give the RPO/Termirkanov a fresh listen.

TD

[Martin Schöön]

Den 2014-02-01 skrev td <tomde...@mac.com>:
> This recording made in the dying days of analogue sound was
> a fine LP, then turned into an audiophile LP for Mobile
> Fidelity Sound Lab. Thereafter Temirkanov had another kick
> at the Rachmaninoff Second Symphony with the St. Petersburg
> Orchestra for RCA Victor in digital sound.
>
> The RPO version, which stretches to almost 57:00 in toto,
> was issued on an EMI Red Line superbudget CD in 1999, but
> that is now deleted, of course, and someone is trying to sell
> their copy for $140.
>

snip

>
> Curious to know if any other collectors have stumbled upon the
> Red Line issue of this celebrated recording.
>
> TD

The LP version is the only recording of Rachmaninoff's second
symphony I have ever owned. I searched for a recording for a
long time after having heard this symphony live with an
orchestra from Moscow. I dismissed several recordings as
sub-standard before I found Temirkanov's version.

/Martin

[Norman Schwartz]

td wrote:
> This recording made in the dying days of analogue sound was a fine
> LP, then turned into an audiophile LP for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab.
> Thereafter Temirkanov had another kick at the Rachmaninoff Second
> Symphony with the St. Petersburg Orchestra for RCA Victor in digital
> sound.
>
> The RPO version, which stretches to almost 57:00 in toto, was issued
> on an EMI Red Line superbudget CD in 1999, but that is now deleted,
> of course, and someone is trying to sell their copy for $140.
>

This one for $139?
ASIN: B002W5KTI4
http://www.amazon.com/Rachmaninov-Symphony-Khachaturian-Gayaneh-Ballet/dp/B002W5KTI4/ref=sr_1_13?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391458634&sr=1-13&keywords=Temirkanov+rachmaninoff
That shows as being 'DDD', so how can it derive from "the dying days of
analogue sound"?
(Perhaps EMI is wrong in its description.)

[td]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:01:38 PM UTC-5, Norman Schwartz wrote:
> td wrote:
>
> > This recording made in the dying days of analogue sound was a fine
>
> > LP, then turned into an audiophile LP for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab.
>
> > Thereafter Temirkanov had another kick at the Rachmaninoff Second
>
> > Symphony with the St. Petersburg Orchestra for RCA Victor in digital
>
> > sound.
>
> >
>
> > The RPO version, which stretches to almost 57:00 in toto, was issued
>
> > on an EMI Red Line superbudget CD in 1999, but that is now deleted,
>
> > of course, and someone is trying to sell their copy for $140.
>
> >
>
>
>
> This one for $139?
>
> ASIN: B002W5KTI4
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Rachmaninov-Symphony-Khachaturian-Gayaneh-Ballet/dp/B002W5KTI4/ref=sr_1_13?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391458634&sr=1-13&keywords=Temirkanov+rachmaninoff
>
> That shows as being 'DDD', so how can it derive from "the dying days of
>
> analogue sound"?
>
> (Perhaps EMI is wrong in its description.)

No, EMI is right in its description. The Gayaneh Ballet Suite is DDD, the Symphony is ADD.

TD

[Norman Schwartz]

Thank you!
Norman






Thany
>
> TD

[td]

You're welcome.

The asterisk next to the symphony and allied to the ADD indication on the bottom inlay card is not exactly large.

On the other hand the front of the CD proclaims DDD in large print. LOL

TD

[Gerard]

"td" wrote in message
news:3849b8a1-503d-4972...@googlegroups.com...

=============

I did (I'm still listening to it). It's a more impressive reading than I
remembered indeed.
But it's hard to tell how it compares to other recordings I have - I've no
time to listen to all (Ashkenazy, Golovchin, Jansons, Previn, Svetlanov,
Rozhdestvensky, Kitaenko, Ivan Fischer, de Waart, Sanderling (twice),
Ormandy, Paavo Järvi, Pletnev, Litton, Gergiev - maybe I forgot 1 or 2 other
reordings).

[td]

You can forget Gergiev (a dud), Ormandy (he was always cutting the piece), I think.

That shortens your must listen to list.

TD

[Bob Harper]

On 2/4/14, 2:32 AM, td wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:20:22 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:

(snip)

>>
>>
>> =============
>>
>>
>>
>> I did (I'm still listening to it). It's a more impressive reading than I
>>
>> remembered indeed.
>>
>> But it's hard to tell how it compares to other recordings I have - I've no
>>
>> time to listen to all (Ashkenazy, Golovchin, Jansons, Previn, Svetlanov,
>>
>> Rozhdestvensky, Kitaenko, Ivan Fischer, de Waart, Sanderling (twice),
>>
>> Ormandy, Paavo Järvi, Pletnev, Litton, Gergiev - maybe I forgot 1 or 2 other
>>
>> reordings).
>
> You can forget Gergiev (a dud), Ormandy (he was always cutting the piece), I think.
>
> That shortens your must listen to list.
>
> TD

The first Sanderling might be in mono and cut, but it's one of the great
ones. I read an interview with him once in which he said he couldn't do
it again, and his second recording, alas, proves him right.

Bob Harper

[td]

That recording allowed me to hear the work in its entirety for the first time way back in the 1950s, Bob.

I haven't listened to it for many, many years. DG reissued it on DG Originals. I must have that. Should get it out and give it another listen.

TD

[td]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:50:17 AM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:

> On 2/4/14, 2:32 AM, td wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:20:22 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> =============
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I did (I'm still listening to it). It's a more impressive reading than I
>
> >>
>
> >> remembered indeed.
>
> >>
>
> >> But it's hard to tell how it compares to other recordings I have - I've no
>
> >>
>
> >> time to listen to all (Ashkenazy, Golovchin, Jansons, Previn, Svetlanov,
>
> >>
>
> >> Rozhdestvensky, Kitaenko, Ivan Fischer, de Waart, Sanderling (twice),
>
> >>
>
> >> Ormandy, Paavo Järvi, Pletnev, Litton, Gergiev - maybe I forgot 1 or 2 other
>
> >>
>
> >> reordings).
>
> >
>
> > You can forget Gergiev (a dud), Ormandy (he was always cutting the piece), I think.
>
> >
>
> > That shortens your must listen to list.
>
> >
>
> > TD
>
>
>

> The first Sanderling might be in mono and cut.

Missed your comment about it being "cut". It was always hailed as the first intact performance. When Previn heard it he restored all his usual cuts he was so impressed.

What is "cut"?

TD

[Bozo]

>On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:32:36 AM UTC-6, td wrote:

Agree the Bolt/LPO excellent , even as cut.

I was fortunate ( in 1967 or 1968 ) to hear live in the hall Ormandy lead the then Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra in this symphony , his one and only time back to guest conduct the Orchestra since leaving them in 1936 . You can imagine the emotional ovation as he limped out, the programme consisting also of the Strauss " Don Juan " and " Heldenleben" in the first half. During the 3rd mov. of the Rachmaninoff, several of the ladies sitting adjacent to me were in tears ; the ovation at the end seemed to alarm several of the double basses when the shock wave hit them , and this even in big barn Northrup Auditorium.

[Bob Harper]

Going on memory here, Tom, but I had always understood that the first
Sandering (Leningrad PO) did contain some cuts. Just what and where I
don't know. Perhaps someone with more musicological knowledge can comment.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Wow, sounds like quite an occasion--and an enormous program as well.

Bob Harper

[O]

In article <_O8Iu.59905$bF1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>, Bob

For those interested for a listen, the Sanderling is on Spotify.

-Owen

[td]

I do believe it is intact. I don't have the score to hand - or the time to listen again at the moment.

TD

[Frank Berger]

I read that the 1956 Sanderling has cuts in the 4th movement that makes
for an abrupt finale.

[td]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:44:37 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> I read that the 1956 Sanderling has cuts in the 4th movement that makes
>
> for an abrupt finale.

I don't recall any abrupt finale.

Need more information than that. Too vague.

TD

[Frank Berger]

I just said what I remember reading. I don't copy down the citation.
Try looking it up. Or don't.

[Sol L. Siegel]

On 2/4/2014 2:53 PM, td wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:44:37 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> I read that the 1956 Sanderling has cuts in the 4th movement that
>> makes for an abrupt finale.
>
> I don't recall any abrupt finale.
>
> Need more information than that. Too vague.

I haven't had a chance to play my copy, but I recall distinctly that
there are a couple of brief, weird excisions right near the end in
places that no one else cuts, after playing the rest of the symphony
uncut. Odd. because beyond that (and the Leningrad's very distinctive
brass sound), it's one of the work's best recorded performances.

Sanderling's Melodiya recording of the 1st symphony also made cuts,
most notably in the first and last movements. I don't think they
hurt the piece one little bit. Has there ever been a CD of it?

[ron...@usa.net]

The Sanderling recording has seven cuts, two of which are in the first movement each consisting of 4 bars, and the remaining five in the last movement, consisting of 22 bars, 4 bars, 8 bars, 2 bars, and 32 bars. This last cut is somewhat jarring (rehearsal number 82 - fifth bar of rehearsal number 84), while the other six are quite unnoticeable. Needless to say, the first movement repeat is not observed.

As for the finale, it is certainly not abrupt.

Ron Whitaker

[wanwan]

Ormandy's RCA recording was uncut. It's said that he preferred the cut version that he did for Columbia. There's also the DVD which is also cut.

There was a Neeme Jarvi/Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra broadcast of an uncut 2nd Symphony that was excellent. Too bad it wasn't included in the anthology box.

-----------
Eric

[td]

Thank you, Ron.

I knew that someone would know.

TD

[Mark Obert-Thorn]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:03:14 AM UTC-5, wanwan wrote:
<<Ormandy's RCA recording was uncut. It's said that he preferred the cut version that he did for Columbia. There's also the DVD which is also cut.>>

It's interesting to watch on that DVD the shots from behind some of the players where you can see entire pages of their parts with paper pasted over the cut sections at several points.

Mark O-T

[gard...@gmail.com]

I had no idea that poor Rachmaninoff was so regularly butchered for recordings. Were these cuts to fit the admittedly lengthy symphony onto LP sides, or do the conductors think they know better than Rachmaninoff what the symphony should be? It's bad enough when they disregard marked repeats.

Mark

[David Fox]

On 2/5/14, 7:36 AM, gard...@gmail.com wrote:
> I had no idea that poor Rachmaninoff was so regularly butchered for recordings. Were these cuts to fit the admittedly lengthy symphony onto LP sides, or do the conductors think they know better than Rachmaninoff what the symphony should be? It's bad enough when they disregard marked repeats.
>
> Mark
>

As for "knowing better than Rachmaninoff", he was the one who pioneered
the practice. He habitually cut many of his works more and more over
time, usually to the detriment of the piece. The original version of
the Fourth Piano Concerto, for example, is revelatory if all you've
heard is the 1940 revision favored by the composer. So unfortunately
these cuts became accepted practice for decades as they were
composer-sanctioned. Ormandy, for example, worked from scores that had
editing marks in Rachmaninoff's own hand when the Philadelphia Orchestra
mounted it's Rachmaninoff Festival in 1939-41 with the composer
performing and conducting most of the key works. This was one of the
major reasons Ormandy never completely bought into the uncut version of
the Second Symphony.

DF

[td]

Frankly, the original version of the Second Symphony is interesting, but it really is too long. I like the cut version, have championed here the Boult version, released for a short period on CD. I like his tempos, his brisk, no-nonsense sensitivity, the lack of maudlin sentimentality. Indeed, I like everything about that reading, specially the sound.

So, I understand SR's inclination for second thoughts.

TD

[wade]

Boult Rach 2 was on CD? what about his Rach 3?

[Frank Berger]

CD version? I've never seen it anywhere. Are you sure? I have it on a
(cough) third party CD-R.

[wade]

found them. Boult Rach 2 was on Belart in the UK and Rach 3 was on a Decca Legends (also UK only I think) with the stereo Boult V-W 8.

[Bozo]

>On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:45:13 AM UTC-6, td wrote:

> Frankly, the original version of the Second Symphony is interesting, but it really is too long. I like the >cut version, have championed here the Boult version, released for a short period on CD. I like his >tempos, his brisk, no-nonsense sensitivity, the lack of maudlin sentimentality. Indeed, I like >everything about that reading, specially the sound.

Agreed, especially one of the best getting the tempo right at the climax of the 3rd mov., although the original version I can live with, too, my Boult the RCA lp.

[gard...@gmail.com]

Ah, the cutting makes much more sense then. Thanks.

Mark

[markm...@gmail.com]

>
> > As for "knowing better than Rachmaninoff", he was the one who pioneered
>
> >
>
> > the practice. He habitually cut many of his works more and more over
>
> >
>
> > time, usually to the detriment of the piece. The original version of
>
> >
>
> > the Fourth Piano Concerto, for example, is revelatory if all you've
>
> >
>
> > heard is the 1940 revision favored by the composer. So unfortunately
>
> >
>
> > these cuts became accepted practice for decades as they were
>
> >
>
> > composer-sanctioned. Ormandy, for example, worked from scores that had
>
> >
>
> > editing marks in Rachmaninoff's own hand when the Philadelphia Orchestra
>
> >
>
> > mounted it's Rachmaninoff Festival in 1939-41 with the composer
>
> >
>
> > performing and conducting most of the key works. This was one of the
>
> >
>
> > major reasons Ormandy never completely bought into the uncut version of
>
> >
>
> > the Second Symphony.
>
>
>
> Frankly, the original version of the Second Symphony is interesting, but it really is too long. I like the cut version, have championed here the Boult version, released for a short period on CD. I like his tempos, his brisk, no-nonsense sensitivity, the lack of maudlin sentimentality. Indeed, I like everything about that reading, specially the sound.
>
>
>
> So, I understand SR's inclination for second thoughts.
>
>
>
> TD

I'm with you on the notion that cuts are not necessarily a bad thing in the Rachmaninoff Second Symphony. I suspect I'm not with you in my high opinion of the 1959 Ormandy Columbia-CBS-Sony recording, which I find to be beautiful and exciting in its richly upholstered way. Ormandy opened up most of the cuts in his later recording for RCA, which I find not so special. I own the Boult-LPO on LP and admire it, but it's a bit chaste compared to the voluptuous sonorities of Ormandy's Philadelphians in their 1959 recording.

Mark


Mark

[td]

That too.

TD

[td]

I offered a copy here for sale a number of years ago. Anyone could have bought it. Steve de Mena jumped at it.

TD

[td]

I have a real problem with those voluptuous sonorities. SR himself lead a very mean, lean, Symphony No. 3. No 2 has enough lushness going for it just in the tunes without laying more on as Ormandy does with the PO.

The same holds true with his piano music. The leaner the better. Even Van Cliburn didn't give us "lush" so much as rich, transparent, and rhetorically just right.

TD

[David Fox]

I think the attitude toward the full-length vs the cut Symphony No. 2
mirrors the evolution of audience attitudes toward 1hr+ symphonies. As
audiences have become not only tolerant but appreciative of Bruckner,
Mahler, etc, the thought of a 1hr Rachmaninoff Symphony No. 2 no longer
seems as daunting or indulgent. Whether cut or uncut is better is a
matter of personal taste. Interestingly, Rachmaninoff's introduction of
his own cuts adds complexity to the typical "fidelity to the composer's
intentions" argument that typically favors uncut scores.

It's really case-by-case. I enjoy any good performance of the piece.
The cuts in the versions I've heard don't particularly bother me per se.
OTOH the Fourth PC sounds much more convincing in the original uncut
1929 version as recorded by Ghindin/Ashkenazy. Conversely, the original
1890-1 version of the First PC (recorded on the same Ondine disc) makes
far less sense to me than the 1917 revision.

DF

[David Fox]

Rachmaninoff could have chosen practically any orchestra to record his
major works. NYP, Boston, Chicago, and of course NBC were RCA
orchestras as well. He could have also assembled a personal pick-up
orchestra under the "RCA Symphony" umbrella or perhaps even a "SR
Symphony" moniker and tailored the sound to his liking. The facts are
Rachmaninoff chose Philadelphia and Philadelphia alone to record his
orchestral works, and even dedicated his final composition, the
"Symphonic Dances" to Ormandy and the orchestra. As I mentioned before,
when he agreed to participate in a valedictory series of performances of
his major works near the end of his life, he chose to do so with Ormandy
and the Philadelphia Orchestra. He was well-aware of its voluptuous
sound, both under Stokowski and Ormandy, and that had to play a
significant role in his emphatic, unambiguous choice. You may not like
your Rachmaninoff served up that way, but that's your choice.
Rachmaninoff's is not subject to debate.

BTW - I find his recording of Symphony No. 3 driven (if that's what you
mean by "mean"), but not lean at all. The orchestra he's conducting is
most definitely the late-1930's Stokowski/Ormandy Philadelphia Orchestra
- again, by his choice.

DF

[td]

There is no question that SR liked Stokowski's orchestra. Why not? It was probably the best orchestra in the country at that time.

But frankly, David, I think you don't do your argument any good by "imagining" reasons for his choice of the PO to record the Symphony No. 3 and Symphonic Dances. There were LOTS of deals being arranged at that time, the manager of orchestras also serving as managers of conductors and musicians, some of them truly egregious examples of conflict of interest. But that was the way the musical world operated at that time. Maybe even today, but now it's all under the table.

Just listen to SR's conducting. That will tell you everything you need to know about what he wanted. You will NEVER hear him milk his tunes unapologetically, as Ormandy later did in his recording of Symphony No. 2.

> BTW - I find his recording of Symphony No. 3 driven (if that's what you
>
> mean by "mean"), but not lean at all. The orchestra he's conducting is
>
> most definitely the late-1930's Stokowski/Ormandy Philadelphia Orchestra
>
> - again, by his choice.

Lean it is in its tightness and rhythmic snap. He could not have changed the sound of all those strings, of course. But he could stop them from luxuriating in his tunes. And he did. That's my point.

The bottom line for me with SR's music is, "less is more". When you see a lovely tune, just play it, don't milk it. That's Rachmaninoff's own style at the keyboard and on the podium. That's the lesson to be drawn from his own performances of his music. To ignore that stylistic discretion is to run counter to what the composer actually wanted from his music.

Horowitz understood this. Earl Wild understood it. Jorge Bolet understood it. Indeed, anyone who ever had the privilege of hearing SR perform his own music understood it.

Back to the cuts, however. Do try to get hold of that Boult Symphony 2. I think you might find it a refreshing tonic.

TD

[Willem Orange]

If ANYONE should understand the concept of "less is more" its you!!!!

[David Fox]

On 2/6/14, 3:42 AM, td wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:20:50 PM UTC-5, David Fox wrote:
>> On 2/5/14, 2:43 PM, td wrote:
>
>>> I have a real problem with those voluptuous sonorities. SR himself lead a very mean, lean, Symphony No. 3. No 2 has enough lushness going for it just in the tunes without laying more on as Ormandy does with the PO.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rachmaninoff could have chosen practically any orchestra to record his
>>
>> major works. NYP, Boston, Chicago, and of course NBC were RCA
>>
>> orchestras as well. He could have also assembled a personal pick-up
>>
>> orchestra under the "RCA Symphony" umbrella or perhaps even a "SR
>>
>> Symphony" moniker and tailored the sound to his liking. The facts are
>>
>> Rachmaninoff chose Philadelphia and Philadelphia alone to record his
>>
>> orchestral works, and even dedicated his final composition, the
>>
>> "Symphonic Dances" to Ormandy and the orchestra. As I mentioned before,
>>
>> when he agreed to participate in a valedictory series of performances of
>>
>> his major works near the end of his life, he chose to do so with Ormandy
>>
>> and the Philadelphia Orchestra. He was well-aware of its voluptuous
>>
>> sound, both under Stokowski and Ormandy, and that had to play a
>>
>> significant role in his emphatic, unambiguous choice. You may not like
>>
>> your Rachmaninoff served up that way, but that's your choice.
>>
>> Rachmaninoff's is not subject to debate.
>
> There is no question that SR liked Stokowski's orchestra. Why not? It was probably the best orchestra in the country at that time.
>
> But frankly, David, I think you don't do your argument any good by "imagining" reasons for his choice of the PO to record the Symphony No. 3 and Symphonic Dances. There were LOTS of deals being arranged at that time, the manager of orchestras also serving as managers of conductors and musicians, some of them truly egregious examples of conflict of interest. But that was the way the musical world operated at that time. Maybe even today, but now it's all under the table.
>
> Just listen to SR's conducting. That will tell you everything you need to know about what he wanted. You will NEVER hear him milk his tunes unapologetically, as Ormandy later did in his recording of Symphony No. 2.
>

I will make no claim that I know all of the facts and situations
regarding Rachaminoff's choice of orchestras. However, SR did not seem
like the sort of person prone to deal-making and compromise. We agree
that Rachmaninoff made a solid choice, and that it was a consistent
choice. He never recorded with another orchestra.

While Ormandy was no Toscanini or Mravinsky, his conducting certainly
wasn't flabby either. His style and temperament weren't suited to all
sorts of music, but his Russian repertoire (Tchaikovksy, Rachmaninoff,
Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc) usually had more than sufficient tension.
His Russian recordings would not be mistaken for "1001 Strings." I find
his 1959 recording of Symphony 2 lush but quite driven by modern
standards. In fact, I just re-listened to it right on the heals of
re-listening to Rachmaninoff's own recording of Symphony No. 3. Ormandy
is clearly less driven than Rachmaninoff but not by as much as you may
remember.

>
>> BTW - I find his recording of Symphony No. 3 driven (if that's what you
>>
>> mean by "mean"), but not lean at all. The orchestra he's conducting is
>>
>> most definitely the late-1930's Stokowski/Ormandy Philadelphia Orchestra
>>
>> - again, by his choice.
>
> Lean it is in its tightness and rhythmic snap. He could not have changed the sound of all those strings, of course. But he could stop them from luxuriating in his tunes. And he did. That's my point.
>
> The bottom line for me with SR's music is, "less is more". When you see a lovely tune, just play it, don't milk it. That's Rachmaninoff's own style at the keyboard and on the podium. That's the lesson to be drawn from his own performances of his music. To ignore that stylistic discretion is to run counter to what the composer actually wanted from his music.
>
> Horowitz understood this. Earl Wild understood it. Jorge Bolet understood it. Indeed, anyone who ever had the privilege of hearing SR perform his own music understood it.
>
> Back to the cuts, however. Do try to get hold of that Boult Symphony 2. I think you might find it a refreshing tonic.
>
> TD
>

I agree concerning the "less is more." I've never understood why SR's
approach to much of his own music is the exception rather than the rule
with subsequent interpreters. From the first time I heard his 1929
recording of PC2, there's a "rightness" to it that renders most other
recordings unsatisfying. As great as Rachmaninoff's technique and sound
were, these were not what made this recording great. He tends to push
when others pull. He finds plenty of color without needing to underline,
slow down, break the line, etc. I wonder how/why the other
school of Rachmaninoff playing developed. I can't understand why it
still more-or-less holds sway. FWIW I find Ormandy's first two
recordings (mono and stereo) of Symphony No. 2, as well as his recording
of the "Symphonic Dances" to be consistent with Rachmaninoff's own
style, though I'm sure if he conducted them himself they'd be somewhat
different.

In terms of contrasting style, I just listened to the
Sanderling/Leningrad recording. This is definitely lean and mean, but
perhaps more so than even SR ever envisioned. It works on its own
terms, but it's a tad too manic and driven for me, at least with regard
to how I understand the piece. If Toscanini had ever attempted the
piece it may have sounded something like this.

DF

[td]

Happy to listen to that old Ormandy recording again.

You're spot on about the Rachmaninoff style. He always makes his music sound right. Less definitely is more in his playing.

TD

[Mark Zimmer]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:17 PM UTC-6, td wrote:
> This recording made in the dying days of analogue sound was a fine LP, then turned into an audiophile LP for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. Thereafter Temirkanov had another kick at the Rachmaninoff Second Symphony with the St. Petersburg Orchestra for RCA Victor in digital sound.
>
>
>
> The RPO version, which stretches to almost 57:00 in toto, was issued on an EMI Red Line superbudget CD in 1999, but that is now deleted, of course, and someone is trying to sell their copy for $140.
>
>
>
> EMI never pushed this reading, as they already had their "winner" in the Previn/LSO reading of the complete score, reissued so many times I have lost count. I am sure it is still in the catalogue in one form or another.
>
>
>
> But are we really sure that the Previn is/was the one they should have been pushing all the time? I am certainly not. On CD the reading is just as powerful as it was on those analogue LPs, whether EMI, Angel, or MFSL pressings. You simply couldn't hide the quality of the recording. Temirkanov is, I guess, one of the most spontaneous conductors around and he whips up a real storm in this symphony, getting his usually phlegmatic British musicians to perk up and play their bloody hearts out.
>
>
>
> Curious to know if any other collectors have stumbled upon the Red Line issue of this celebrated recording.
>
>
>

> TD

For those looking for the EMI Red Line issue of the Termirkanov/RSO, some more reasonably priced new and used copies have recently come out of the woodwork in the $20 range on Amazon. I scored one and it is indeed pretty striking.