Instances where a conductor's earlier monoraul recording sounds better than his later stereo recording

[gggg...@gmail.com]

Concerning Ansermet's DAPHNIS ET CHLOE:

- A final marvel is the exquisite sharpness and sonic detail of the recording itself, which serves as an object lesson for those who sadly think of the monaural format as incapable of conveying the "realism" of stereo (or quad or surround, for that matter).

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/daphnis.html

[Marc P.]

My dream box set would be a collection of mono Ormandy from Sony.

Marc

[Sol L. Siegel]

gggg...@gmail.com wrote in
news:5b5f4751-5546-4ffd...@googlegroups.com:

Another good example is the first Boult Vaughan Williams cycle, for Decca.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

[furrybear57]

This is easy: Just about all of Bruno Walter's NY Philharmonic recordings. Especially his Mahler First, all four Brahms symphonies, all nine Beethoven symphonies, Schubert Ninth, Mozart symphonies, you get the drift....a pity Sony has never issued these separately in one box. Instead they mixed a relative few in with his flabby stereo Columbia Orchestra recordings in that Bruno Walter edition/collection.

[Bob Harper]

Can't speak about many of these, but the Schubert 9th with the NYPO is
one of the great ones--and the sound (from 1946) is outstanding.

Bob Harper

[chriskh...@gmail.com]

Actually, if I've understood aright, the OP was raising a slightly different question, of cases where the mono recording itself SOUNDS better.
It's not that difficult to compile a list of conductors who rerecorded much of their repertory in stereo in their late 70s, 80s and even 90s, and were still performing sufficiently well that their loving admirers didn't make too many comparisons with their earlier mono versions, most of which had long been deleted anyway. To Walter, Ormandy, Boult and Ansermet (already mentioned) we could add Monteux, Barbirolli, Bohm and doubtless many more. But would anyone suggest that Boult's 1950s VW symphonies actually sound better as recordings? Normally the question is whether we should take the better performance or the better recording.
So are there any cases where the earlier mono actually produces better sound?

[Bob Harper]

On 7/26/15 1:45 AM, themusicparlour wrote:
>> ....the Schubert 9th with the NYPO is one of the great ones--and

>> the sound (from 1946) is outstanding.
>

> Some may wonder where you found that 'outstanding' sounding transfer
> - as Googling only seemed to bring-up Prof.Ear's extremely-heavily
> downloaded Philips UK LP dub ...with his apologetic comments that it
> was dull-sounding (+ receiving A Genuine Anon Complaint!) - there's
> another apparently on a blog (somewhere) of the ML Columbia - and one
> (as on YouTube? - sounding muffled with disturbing digital artifacts)
> of the shellac set - or are you referring to the 2006 United Archives
> dub on UAR005-1 .. now OOP?
>

I am. I was lucky enough to pick it up some years ago on a whim. Glad I did.

Bob Harper

[cooper...@gmail.com]

Kempff's mono Deccas almost always sound better than his stereo DGs, imo. Cf. his late Brahms for a clear example. The DGs are thin and shrill, and seem to be a poor representation of the pianist's actual sound.

I'd also suggest that Karajan's EMI monos with the Philharmonia are among the best-sounding recordings that he ever made (thinking esp. of Jeu de cartes and Roussel Sym #4).

AC

[furrybear57]

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:45:11 AM UTC-5, themusicparlour wrote:
> >....the Schubert 9th with the NYPO is one of the great ones--and the sound (from 1946) is outstanding.
>
> Some may wonder where you found that 'outstanding' sounding transfer - as Googling only seemed to bring-up Prof.Ear's extremely-heavily downloaded Philips UK LP dub ...with his apologetic comments that it was dull-sounding (+ receiving A Genuine Anon Complaint!) - there's another apparently on a blog (somewhere) of the ML Columbia - and one (as on YouTube? - sounding muffled with disturbing digital artifacts) of the shellac set - or are you referring to the 2006 United Archives dub on UAR005-1 .. now OOP?

Speaking for myself, I have only heard the 2006 United Archives dub. I found Walter's conducting far better than the later stereo remake.

[Al Eisner]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015, cooper...@gmail.com wrote:

> Kempff's mono Deccas almost always sound better than his stereo DGs,
> imo. Cf. his late Brahms for a clear example. The DGs are thin and
> shrill, and seem to be a poor representation of the pianist's actual
> sound.

Are those mono recordings the one represented on this recent Eloquence set?
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Australian%2BEloquence/ELQ4806639

(The second volume referred to in the notes is
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Australian%2BEloquence/ELQ4808293.)

Thanks, Al
--
Al Eisner

[gggg...@gmail.com]

With regard to the 1958 EMI recording of Holst's The Planets with the BBC Symphony conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent, an Amazon customer said of a cd reissue in mono:

- The problem with this particular LP of The Planets is that it never sounded that good in any of its original stereo issues. Early stereo record cutters being what they are, the loud portions of "Jupiter" which run very close to the end of Side One had much distortion on them: major, annoying, shrill "shattering" distortion which can easily be heard on both the original EMI issue and its later stereo LP reissue on EMI's budget line, Classics for Pleasure. In fact it has been speculated that for the CfP issue, EMI used stampers derived from the same master disc and thus perpetuated the distortion.

The EMI mono record in good condition has always sounded much cleaner.

My thoughts on this current issue from "Discover Classical Music" is that it's in mono because it is derived from an LP, and the LP it comes from is mono, selected because of the sonic shortcomings of the stereo LP.

[cooper...@gmail.com]

Yes, although I know them on CD from GPOC Kempff I and have not heard the Eloquence issue.

AC

[Al Eisner]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, cooper...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:29:07 PM UTC-4, Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015, cooper...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Kempff's mono Deccas almost always sound better than his stereo DGs,
>>> imo. Cf. his late Brahms for a clear example. The DGs are thin and
>>> shrill, and seem to be a poor representation of the pianist's actual
>>> sound.
>>
>> Are those mono recordings the one represented on this recent Eloquence set?
>> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Australian%2BEloquence/ELQ4806639
>>
>> (The second volume referred to in the notes is
>> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Australian%2BEloquence/ELQ4808293.)
>>
>> Thanks, Al
>

> Yes, although I know them on CD from GPOC Kempff I and have not heard the
> Eloquence issue.

The contents differ a bit: the Eloquence includes Op. 79, while the
GPOC has some Schumann, including Kreisleriana, hence is longer in
total duration. The Eloquence appears to be more readily available
at a good price. Anyway, thanks for your alert about the sound
difference. (I only have the later DG of the alte works.)
--
Al Eisner

[cooper...@gmail.com]

Yes, I know the differences between the issues (the Kreisleriana is an early DG, iirc, not a Decca), but I was (and am) mainly interested in the late Brahms. Of course the GPOC set is o/p, so the choice is made for you, esp. if you want the additional stuff on Eloquence. I always thought that the recorded sound of Kempff's DG recording of the late works, which I have owned in LP, MC, and CD formats <SIGH>, undermined the fine performances. I prefer the Deccas, and wonder if they were remastered for Eloquence or if the GPOC versions where the two issues overlap.

AC

[Al Eisner]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, cooper...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:18:56 PM UTC-4, Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, cooper...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:29:07 PM UTC-4, Al Eisner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015, cooper...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kempff's mono Deccas almost always sound better than his stereo DGs,
>>>>> imo. Cf. his late Brahms for a clear example. The DGs are thin and
>>>>> shrill, and seem to be a poor representation of the pianist's actual
>>>>> sound.
>>>>
>>>> Are those mono recordings the one represented on this recent Eloquence set?
>>>> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Australian%2BEloquence/ELQ4806639
>>>>
>>>> (The second volume referred to in the notes is
>>>> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Australian%2BEloquence/ELQ4808293.)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Al
>>>
>>> Yes, although I know them on CD from GPOC Kempff I and have not heard the
>>> Eloquence issue.
>>
>> The contents differ a bit: the Eloquence includes Op. 79, while the
>> GPOC has some Schumann, including Kreisleriana, hence is longer in
>> total duration. The Eloquence appears to be more readily available
>> at a good price. Anyway, thanks for your alert about the sound
>> difference. (I only have the later DG of the alte works.)
>

> Yes, I know the differences between the issues (the Kreisleriana is an
> early DG, iirc, not a Decca), but I was (and am) mainly interested in
> the late Brahms. Of course the GPOC set is o/p, so the choice is made
> for you, esp. if you want the additional stuff on Eloquence. I always
> thought that the recorded sound of Kempff's DG recording of the late
> works, which I have owned in LP, MC, and CD formats <SIGH>, undermined
> the fine performances. I prefer the Deccas, and wonder if they were
> remastered for Eloquence or if the GPOC versions where the two issues
> overlap.

I would be more interested in having Brahms Op. 79 anyway. The more
detailed writeup at buywell.com (I have to admit I don't really
understand the difference between "Eloquence" and "Australian
Eloquence", which is what buywell calls it) says nothing about
a new mastering for this 2014 release. Anyway, I'll get it
regardless.
--
Al Eisner

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 4:44:39 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:

According to the following:

- Doráti’s 1812 Overture is one of the best-selling classical recordings of all time. His 1954 version is a better performance than the 1958 stereo remake...

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mercury-living-presence/

[Precious Roy]

> >
>
> My dream box set would be a collection of mono Ormandy from Sony.
>
> Marc

Me too.

[drh8h]

Regarding the original question, there are those alternate mono versions from France of Beecham performances of LvB 7 (RPO), Franck, Lalo, Bizet and Berlioz symphonies. All were made in 1957 and two years later, new stereo versions were rather quickly knocked off. Warner would do us a great favor to give us first-rate transfers of these mono versions, which except for the Berlioz, have never been issued on CD, not even to my knowledge by "private" labels. Good copies of the mono versions seem to be hard to come by. I have English and American copies of the Lalo/Bizet, and both have skips or locked grooves, although of course, not in the same places!

DH

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:

Isn't this a recent vinyl reincarnation of the later stereo performance rather than the more highly regarded earlier mono performance?:

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/107906?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiYLpiMnm5QIVNB-tBh2PywA-EAQYAiABEgJGC_D_BwE

[gggg...@gmail.com]

Can it be assumed that recent vinyl reincarnations are of a later stereo performance even if an earlier mono performance is more highly regarded?:

https://www.discogs.com/Ansermet-Ravel-LOrchestre-De-La-Suisse-Romande-With-Les-Choeurs-De-La-Radio-Romande-Lausanne-Daphnis/release/4975314

[Jerry]

Thanks for posting this information. I was not aware of the
mono vs. stereo duplication of the Beethoven, Franck, Lalo, and Bizet.

I was aware of both mono and stereo Symphonie Fantastiques
as documented in Michael Gray's Beecham Discography as follows:

MONO - 8&9 Nov. 1957 and 14 May 1958
HMV ALP 1633 and Capitol G 7102

STEREO - 30 Nov. and 1&2 Dec., 1959
HMV ASD 399 and Seraphim S60165

The CD issue of the MONO on EMI CDM 764032 (Beecham Edition)
is labelled as MONO, dated as 8&9 Nov. 1957 and 14 May 1958
and sounds 'flat' on headphones. So far, so good for my MONO CD copy.

However, there seem to be several other EMI CD re-issues
(CDC 747863; EMI Masters 918709; EMI Great Recordings
of the Century; a different EMI Masters 85182) that
either (a) don't indicate which recording is used
or (b) just state stereo with no date information; or
(c) state stereo but list a 1957 date.

Might there be some Beecham enthusiast who can say
which of these OTHER CD issues are definitely the
later, stereo recording?

Jerry

[Kerrison]

I wonder how Paray collectors feel about his mono Detroit / Mercury LPs where the same works were later re-recorded in stereo? ... These were Ravel's "Bolero," "La Valse" and "Rapsodie Esapagnole," the Cesar Franck Symphony, Wagner's "Flying Dutchman" Overture, Chabrier's "Espana," and Ibert's "Escales."

I've just been listening to Paray's 1953 mono "La Valse" on YouTube and it packs a hell of a wallop ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTf__Gv4ns

The 1962 stereo remake is also on YouTube and that is an excellent performance too but I'm inclined to think that sonically, even in mono, the first recording might just have the slight edge, not least in the timpani and percussion department ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz81nE4rDCU

Other opinions welcomed, of course!

[drh8h]

I have heard most all the cd issues of the Franck, Beethoven, Lalo and Bizet. They all are the stereo versions. There have been no cd issues of the mono versions I know of, not even "unofficial."

I believe all the other Berlioz Symphonie issues, including the GROC, are the stereo. Even the disc in the French "set" has the same timing, so it appears the 1957 Fantastique was reissued only once. I have always been amazed no one (say Testament) has ever thought to issue the mono versions. To some extent they are livelier performances, and while EMI's track record for sound in Paris was not always great, the sound is good enough.

DH

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 6:47:05 AM UTC-7, Marc P. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Concerning Ansermet's DAPHNIS ET CHLOE:
> >
> > - A final marvel is the exquisite sharpness and sonic detail of the recording itself, which serves as an object lesson for those who sadly think of the monaural format as incapable of conveying the "realism" of stereo (or quad or surround, for that matter).
> >
> > http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/daphnis.html
>

> My dream box set would be a collection of mono Ormandy from Sony.
>
> Marc

(On Youtube):

Tchaikovsky: "The Swan Lake-Ballet" (1957 ML 5201 LP Restoration) Ormandy / Philadelphia

[Tassilo]

How about the other way around? I think Stravinsky’s stereo recordings of Le baiser de la fée, Oedipus Rex, and The Rake’s Progress are better than his earlier monaural recordings. This is not mono versus stereo, but I think Boulez’s first recordings of Le soleil des eaux (EMI) and Pli selon pli (CBS) are vastly more vital and exciting than his later recordings on Erato and DGG, although all of them are in stereo. The Erato recording of Soleil des eaux is just about the most lifeless performance of a piece of music I have ever heard in my entire life. -Tassilo

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Concerning Ansermet's DAPHNIS ET CHLOE:
>
> - A final marvel is the exquisite sharpness and sonic detail of the recording itself, which serves as an object lesson for those who sadly think of the monaural format as incapable of conveying the "realism" of stereo (or quad or surround, for that matter).
>
> http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/daphnis.html

Concerning Holst's THE PLANETS, Boult's recording with the Philharmonic Promenade Orchestra?:

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/boult-1954/

[gggg...@gmail.com]

(On Youtube):

Holst: the Planets: LPO / Boult, 1954, Restored (in mono and pseudo-stereo)

[vih...@protonmail.com]

William Steinberg's Eroica sure sounds good to me, and I'm looking forward to comparing to the re-release
of the Command recordings (this month? Hope so).

[Frank Berger]

On 5/7/2020 7:48 PM, vih...@protonmail.com wrote:
> William Steinberg's Eroica sure sounds good to me, and I'm looking forward to comparing to the re-release
> of the Command recordings (this month? Hope so).
>

I have an order in at Presto. Speaking of Presto, I got an email that
they had shipped an order yesterday via FedEx and it arrived today. I
don't know how that's possible. I'm not complaining.

[vih...@protonmail.com]

I think I'll order it from them, too. Also, my first sentence should have said "Steinberg's mono Capitol Eroica", in case there was any confusion.