Why No Living Stereo Issue of Beecham's Complete Messiah?

[Mark S]

It seems odd to me that Beecham's RCA Living Stereo Messiah has been
issued complete on RCA Gold Seal, and as a highlights-only disc on
Living Stereo (along with a few other highlight issues in the Basic
100 Series, etc), but has never been issued complete as a Living
Stereo issue.

This seems like a natural marketing choice. The complete recording has
always sold well enough, and I've got to think that there would be
good sales on a hybrid version of the complete recording in the Living
Stereo series.

Does anybody have any insider scoop on why the obvious is being so
obviously avoided?

[operafan]

I wonder if a reissue would improve the sound. The Gold Seal reissue
was bass-shy and very congested when things got loud. Some of the
other Gold Seal reissues (e.g., Brahms 2nd concerto with Gilels and
Reiner) were dramatically improved in later reissues.

[Ed Romans]

On Nov 14, 6:31 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Does anybody have any insider scoop on why the obvious is being so
> obviously avoided?

Don't quite understand your point - I haven't noticed that they've
released any LS SACDs since the last batch four or five years ago?

Ed

[Kimba W Lion]

operafan <peter....@gmail.com> wrote:

>I wonder if a reissue would improve the sound. The Gold Seal reissue
>was bass-shy and very congested when things got loud. Some of the
>other Gold Seal reissues (e.g., Brahms 2nd concerto with Gilels and
>Reiner) were dramatically improved in later reissues.

This raises the question of whether the Living Stereo highlights CD sounded
better than the complete Gold Seal edition.

[Dontait...@aol.com]

I totally agree with Mark and Operafan. My experience of the sound
of the Gold Seal reissue of the complete recording compared to the
rich-sounding RCA Victor LP set was so negative, like o-f's, that I
refused to buy the CDs. I didn't want to buy a "Living Stereo" CD of
just snippets, either. Although the sound of all "Living Stereo" CDs
were improved over their '90s CD counterparts.

So there we all are: waiting and hoping.

Don Tait

[Ed Romans]

On Nov 14, 10:35 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Although the sound of all "Living Stereo" CDs
> were improved over their '90s CD counterparts.
>

I've read this opinion before, and I guess it might be plausible for
older 1980s releases. But as far as I can tell the complete Beecham
Messiah was released c.1992 on CD which is about the same time the
Living Stereo CD series started to appear, so wouldn't the same sort
of transfer technology and care be being used?

Ed

[Bob Harper]

No answer (I'm scarcely an insider), but I second your desire for such
an issue.

Bob Harper

[Mark S]

On Nov 14, 3:16 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> No answer (I'm scarcely an insider), but I second your desire for such
> an issue.
>

I've been checking the online sites and I don't see a new LS release
anywhere in sight for this Xmas season, so I think it's safe to assume
we'll be waiting at least another year.

[Mark S]

Amazon lists a March 2009 release date for the LS Single-disc
highlights. I assume that disc was mastered using the now-standard LS
techniques and is not a reissue of the mastering done in 1992. Ergo,
there should be a difference in the sound quality between the Gold
Seal & LS versions.

[Ed Romans]

On Nov 15, 8:12 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Amazon lists a March 2009 release date for the LS Single-disc
> highlights. I assume that disc was mastered using the now-standard LS
> techniques and is not a reissue of the mastering done in 1992. Ergo,
> there should be a difference in the sound quality between the Gold
> Seal & LS versions.

I think this is just a quirk of the way Amazon.com lists the release
date when dealing with a CD that is now listed as an "import". The LS
single CD disc of highlights you are referring to was released in 1996
not 2009. I would have thought that it is extremely likely that it was
taken from the full GS release from 1992.

There is no such thing as the "now-standard LS techniques". The
original LS CDs were released from approximately the mid to late 1990s
and were dealt with by RCA in NY. In the mid 2000s SACD versions of
some of these were released with a new CD layer made at the same time.
These were dealt with by an external company called SoundMirror. They
haven't released any more of these since around 2006-7. Reiner's DLVDE
was one of the last.

Ed

[pianomaven]

It seems to me that the Beecham Messiah was a Decca project, Ed, not
unlike the Leinsdorf Walkuere, except that the recording did not
revert to Decca in the end but remained with RCA Victor. A give-away
would be the recording engineer. Wilkinson?

Moreover, the Soria Series album contained some variants, if I recall
correctly. I wonder if these were taken up in the Gold Seal CD issue.

In any event, the Beecham Messiah was one of many Messiahs signed by
Sir Thomas over his career. Another question would be which was the
best of those efforts and have they been reissued on CD? Don Tait
could probably answer that question as he is into 78 RPM recordings in
a way I am not. Beecham's last recorded Messiah was a rethink
originally started by Goossens, but then rethunk by Beecham himself
when he didn't think Goossens went far enough.

TD

[Ed Romans]

On Nov 15, 11:57 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Moreover, the Soria Series album contained some variants, if I recall
> correctly. I wonder if these were taken up in the Gold Seal CD issue.
>

The Gold Seal set has a 3rd CD containing some extra numbers.

Ed

[pianomaven]

So, it must be "complete".

TD

[wagnerfan]

Yes in the original and gorgeous Soria set Beecham placed on the
eighth side the numbers he had omitted from their original places in
parts two and three. That said and as interesting (or perverse) the
instrumention I find some of the conducting rather (Lord withhold thy
Lightening) rather dull and the whole thing does not have the life or
energy of the 1947 set. I do go back to it now and again for the
strong soloists. The story goes that Sutherland was the first choice
for the soprano but he fired her saying she was the wrong voice (he
was right) and instead brought in the superb Vyvyan Wagner fan.

[manrootfl]

Dont expect any new SACDs to arise out of the Sony/BMG house. they
dont have the interest in pursuing a niche market. I was amazed when
they issued the Zinman Mahler series as SACDs. Why they did that, I
have no clue. Sony has generally never understood when they had a
good idea (Columbia Historic series) or the guts to pursue it in spite
of the sales performance, outside the Domestic Japanese market where
it seems like everyone can issue ANYTHING at ridiculously high prices
and they keep making them. There are so many things in the BMG back
catalog of Living Stereo that still could be reissued as 3 channel
SACDs and would be greatly appreciated by the collectors who
care.

[Mark S]

On Nov 15, 3:57 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> In any event, the Beecham Messiah was one of many Messiahs signed by
> Sir Thomas over his career. Another question would be which was the
> best of those efforts and have they been reissued on CD? Don Tait
> could probably answer that question as he is into 78 RPM recordings in
> a way I am not. Beecham's last recorded Messiah was a rethink
> originally started by Goossens, but then rethunk by Beecham himself
> when he didn't think Goossens went far enough.
>

All of Beecham's various Messiah recordings have appeared on CD at one
time or another. The 1927 release is on Grammofono. The second version
(1947 - with Heddle Nash et al) is currently on Biddulph, remastered
by MOT.

I just checked my GS copy of the 1959 recording. RCA doesn't list the
original recording team, but I notice that the GS reissue was
supervised by Jack Pfeiffer.

BTW - the CD cover of the GS issue informs us that there's a "special
bonus disc with appendix" included.

It just seems strange to me that RCA has never done a LS issue of this
complete recording. They seem to have no problems at all re-re-re-
reissuing every Reiner recording when some new technology comes along,
so why not this Messiah? Believe it or not, Reiner was a tough sell
when I worked at the BMG Club. I wonder if CD sales justify all of
those reissues. I'm thinking it's a sign of laziness on the reissue
team, rather than responding to consumer demand.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d8c419e-75ff-4829...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

> It just seems strange to me that RCA has never done a LS issue of
> this complete recording. They seem to have no problems at all re-re-re-
> reissuing every Reiner recording when some new technology comes
> along, so why not this Messiah? Believe it or not, Reiner was a tough
> sell when I worked at the BMG Club.

Reiner? One of the greatest conductors of the 20th century?

> I wonder if CD sales justify all of those reissues. I'm thinking it's a
sign of
> laziness on the reissue team, rather than responding to consumer demand.

I bought all the SACD resissues (even the not-so-good performances, which
were very much in the minority) because I wanted to send RCA a message. It's
not clear they were listening. Considering that BMG only has to sell --
what, 2500 copies of each? -- to break even, it's surprising that this
series hasn't continued.

As for Beecham's "Messiah" -- I haven't heard it, but my understanding is
that it is not, shall we say, historically informed. Could that be the
reason?

[Ed Romans]

On Nov 15, 4:04 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
> As for Beecham's "Messiah" -- I haven't heard it, but my understanding is
> that it is not, shall we say, historically informed. Could that be the
> reason?

It had a rosette in the Penguin CD guide but my guess would be that in
the UK at least it would be way down the list of best selling versions
of the work.

Ed

[Mark S]

On Nov 15, 8:04 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Mark S" <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Believe it or not, Reiner was a tough
> > sell when I worked at the BMG Club.
>
> Reiner? One of the greatest conductors of the 20th century?

Yep. Tried as I did, he just couldn't compete with Maazel and Karajan,
who were the best-selling conductors at both the BMG Club and MHS when
I was at MHS. I can sort of see Karajan as his recordings and
reputation generate an obsequious following in the laity (along with
the earned critical acclaim), but Maazel was a surprise to me.

For example, I offered Reiner's LS "Concerto for Orchestra" recording
through both BMG & MHS during my stints. It did OK at BMG, not so good
at MHS, where it was completely outsold by the Dohnanyi/Cleveland
Decca recording. When it came to recordings of R Strauss, Karajan
always outsold Reiner by a wide margin at both places. I put that down
to people being informed - Karajan's Strauss outclasses Reiner's by a
very wide margin.

>
> As for Beecham's "Messiah" -- I haven't heard it, but my understanding is
> that it is not, shall we say, historically informed. Could that be the
> reason?

It may not be historically informed, but it has something going for it
that many HIP recordings lack - musicality. You should make the effort
to hear it sometime.

[pianomaven]

On Nov 15, 12:41 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 8:04 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:> "Mark S" <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Believe it or not, Reiner was a tough
>
> > > sell when I worked at the BMG Club.
>
> > Reiner? One of the greatest conductors of the 20th century?
>
> Yep. Tried as I did, he just couldn't compete with Maazel and Karajan,
> who were the best-selling conductors at both the BMG Club and MHS when
> I was at MHS. I can sort of see Karajan as his recordings and
> reputation generate an obsequious following in the laity (along with
> the earned critical acclaim), but Maazel was a surprise to me.
>
> For example, I offered Reiner's LS "Concerto for Orchestra" recording
> through both BMG & MHS during my stints. It did OK at BMG, not so good
> at MHS, where it was completely outsold by the Dohnanyi/Cleveland
> Decca recording. When it came to recordings of R Strauss, Karajan
> always outsold Reiner by a wide margin at both places. I put that down
> to people being informed -  Karajan's Strauss outclasses Reiner's by a
> very wide margin.

I wonder what yardstick you are using, Mark. In my book the opposite
is true, except perhaps on the scale of gooey unctuousness.

> > As for Beecham's "Messiah" -- I haven't heard it, but my understanding is
> > that it is not, shall we say, historically informed. Could that be the
> > reason?
>
> It may not be historically informed, but it has something going for it
> that many HIP recordings lack - musicality. You should make the effort
> to hear it sometime.

The story is probably apocryphal, but it is said that Beecham was
introduced to Karajan at Abbey Road one day. Beecham said he was
delighted to meet Karajan. "And what do you do, if I may ask?"

TD

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8d8c419e-75ff-4829...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>> It just seems strange to me that RCA has never done a LS issue of
>> this complete recording. They seem to have no problems at all
>> re-re-re- reissuing every Reiner recording when some new technology
>> comes
>> along, so why not this Messiah? Believe it or not, Reiner was a tough
>> sell when I worked at the BMG Club.
>
> Reiner? One of the greatest conductors of the 20th century?
>
>
>> I wonder if CD sales justify all of those reissues. I'm thinking
>> it's a sign of laziness on the reissue team, rather than responding
>> to consumer demand.
>
> I bought all the SACD resissues (even the not-so-good performances,
> which were very much in the minority) because I wanted to send RCA a
> message. It's not clear they were listening.

A letter would have been more effecive. At least someone would read it.
How can you imagine your particular purchases would be noticeable by RCA?

[Edward Cowan]

I have both of the earlier Beecham recordings of "Messiah," the 1927 on
Pearl GEMM CDS 9456 (likely deleted and no longer available; I must add
that this CD set is bronzed but still playable -- I'm hearing it now on
my Mac Book Pro); and the 1947 on Biddulph WHL 059/61, which was the
first truly complete recording. For some reason, the already heavily-cut
1927 recording omits no. 13, the "Pifa" (a.k.a. "Pastoral Symphony")
recorded not as part of the recorded oratorio but as a separate 78rpm
disk some time after the recording of the oratorio. I would have been
'nice' had Pearl seen fit to include it in the recording, though the
orchestra on the separate disk is unnamed. (See nos. 7 and 8 in Michael
Grey's Beecham discography.) Whenever I listen to the complete Pearl
set, I interpolate the "Pifa" from the 1947 recording.

Having heard the third Beecham recording, the subject of this thread, I
have decided that the alterations to the score are so absurd as to rule
out my ever acquiring it. That plinking harp in "Ev'ry valley" and the
cymbal crash at the start of "Hallelujah" are bad enough, but this
performance is full of such excrescences. (To hear Jon Vickers in the
tenor part, you must hear the early-1950's set cond. MacMillan. The rest
of the recording, apart from the chorus, is mediocre, almost a vanity
recording. Just hear the strange pronunciation of the alto soloist
("unto the sia-ties of Judah")! I have no knowledge of any CD reissue of
that recording. --E.A.C.

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

> Yes in the original and gorgeous Soria set Beecham placed on the
> eighth side the numbers he had omitted from their original places in
> parts two and three. That said and as interesting (or perverse) the
> instrumention I find some of the conducting rather (Lord withhold thy
> Lightening) rather dull and the whole thing does not have the life or
> energy of the 1947 set. I do go back to it now and again for the
> strong soloists. The story goes that Sutherland was the first choice
> for the soprano but he fired her saying she was the wrong voice (he
> was right) and instead brought in the superb Vyvyan Wagner fan.

--
hrabanus

[Mark S]

On Nov 15, 10:05 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Karajan's Strauss outclasses Reiner's by a
> > very wide margin.
>
> I wonder what yardstick you are using, Mark. In my book the opposite
> is true, except perhaps on the scale of gooey unctuousness.

First off, Karajan's BPO was a much more technically accomplished
band than was the CSO in Reiner's day. There is a rough-n-ready aspect
to the CSO playing that says "unrefined" to me, and says it in spades.
I don't think Strauss needs to be over-refined, but there needs to be
some level of refinement if his big pieces are to come off as not
being overwrought or banal.

Where Karajan prepares climaxes and allows the Strauss orchestra to
surge when called for, Reiner's Strauss is often static. I find it to
be loud, rather than dynamic. Also, it must be said that the CSO at
this point in their history did a lot of out-of-tune playing (check
out their CfO), and that can wreak havoc in the quieter sections of
these showpieces. It also hurts voicing and balances. I say that as
one who finds certain out-of-tune playing endearing (like the VPO or
Staatskp Dresden). Here, it's just annoying.

And I must say that against all preconceptions and expectations, DG
offers Karajan much better recorded sound than does RCA for Reiner. I
really do not hear how these Reiner LS recordings got their reputation
for having great recorded sound. To me, they lack depth and
atmosphere.

Finally, I must take exception to your statement that Karajan's
Strauss is gooey. Far from it. K scores all of the points there are to
be scored in Strauss, and he brings a remarkable clarity and beauty to
these scores that I feel many others miss.

So that's my yardstick. Yes, it's personal, but it's what I think.

[pianomaven]

And I think the precise opposite, Mark.

Your comments about out-of-tune playing in the CSO astonish me, while
I readily admit the BPO is a superb ensemble.

Ditto for the sound.

Perhaps you have not heard the originals on a sota system, Mark? Set
against the RCA Victor Living Stereo, the DG seem processed, like that
product fom Kraft they call cheese. The Philips recordings of Haitink
and the COA if the same period are, on the other hand, quite fabulous.
Listen to their Ein Heldenleben, for example.

That said, opinions can differ. None of our ears hear the same way.

TD

[wagnerfan]

Oh you are not alone - for some strange reason, Karajan, more than
many other conductors falls victim to gross generalizations regarding
his performances - often by those who have not actually heard them but
find it easier to just go with what they think is general opinion.
Always the easy way out for musical snobs but not the best way to
really listen, is it???? Wagner fan

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:b03e1ed3-97cc-493f...@j19g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 15, 8:04 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Mark S" <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message


>>> Believe it or not, Reiner was a tough
>>> sell when I worked at the BMG Club.

>> Reiner? One of the greatest conductors of the 20th century?

> Yep. Tried as I did, he just couldn't compete with Maazel and Karajan,
> who were the best-selling conductors at both the BMG Club and MHS when
> I was at MHS. I can sort of see Karajan as his recordings and
> reputation generate an obsequious following in the laity (along with
> the earned critical acclaim), but Maazel was a surprise to me.

> For example, I offered Reiner's LS "Concerto for Orchestra" recording
> through both BMG & MHS during my stints. It did OK at BMG, not so good
> at MHS, where it was completely outsold by the Dohnanyi/Cleveland
> Decca recording. When it came to recordings of R Strauss, Karajan
> always outsold Reiner by a wide margin at both places. I put that down
> to people being informed - Karajan's Strauss outclasses Reiner's by a
> very wide margin.

If you said Kempe's outclasses Reiner's, I'd agree. But Karajan's? I'll have
to dig through my EMI Karajan boxes.

>> As for Beecham's "Messiah" -- I haven't heard it, but my understanding
>> is that it is not, shall we say, historically informed. Could that be the
>> reason?

> It may not be historically informed, but it has something going for it
> that many HIP recordings lack - musicality. You should make the effort
> to hear it sometime.

As an ex-audiophile reviewer, I hate that word -- it implies euphony rather
than accuracy.

"Not historically informed" was a polite way of say "grotesquely
Romanticized". (Is it? I've never heard it.) As everyone knows, my favorite
is Gargler's, which I find a magnificently "musical" performance.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:8d8c419e-75ff-4829-a943-
373093...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

> I wonder if CD sales justify all of those reissues. I'm thinking it's a
> sign of laziness on the reissue team, rather than responding to consumer
> demand.

I would apply that supposition across the board, to the management teams at
all of the so-called "major" labels, as they are being run today.

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"pianomaven" <1pian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e4f06f3-308a-49f5...@n14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

> Ditto for the sound.
> Perhaps you have not heard the originals on a sota system, Mark? Set
> against the RCA Victor Living Stereo, the DG seem processed, like that
> product fom Kraft they call cheese. The Philips recordings of Haitink
> and the COA if the same period are, on the other hand, quite fabulous.
> Listen to their Ein Heldenleben, for example.

LS recordings vary, but they often have an "integrity" of image and timbre
that is very appealing. As far as I know, true LS recordings used only two
or three mics.

[wagnerfan]

Who the hell is Gargler???? Wagner fan

[pianomaven]

Nobody would ever accuse you of being a snob, of course.

What a dweeb!

TD

[pianomaven]

On Nov 15, 4:05 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:33:30 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Think, Dickey.

Oh, right. You can't.

TD

[William Sommerwerck]

> Who the hell is Gargler????

John Eliot Gargler.

[pianomaven]

On Nov 15, 3:48 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "pianomaven" <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Correct. And the Heldenleben from 1954 was probably only TWO mikes,
Bill. Very early stereo for RCA Victor.

TD

[Gerard]

Furtgargler.

[Kimba W Lion]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It may not be historically informed, but it has something going for it
>that many HIP recordings lack - musicality.

Darn! I was going to say almost exactly the same thing.

[wagnerfan]

Obviously you haven't heard it for awhile - John Eliot Gargler!!!!!!

Wagner Fan

[Dontait...@aol.com]

On Nov 15, 5:57 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> In any event, the Beecham Messiah was one of many Messiahs signed by
> Sir Thomas over his career. Another question would be which was the
> best of those efforts and have they been reissued on CD? Don Tait
> could probably answer that question as he is into 78 RPM recordings in
> a way I am not. Beecham's last recorded Messiah was a rethink
> originally started by Goossens, but then rethunk by Beecham himself
> when he didn't think Goossens went far enough.
>

> TD

To begin with, Beecham was a contrarian. He enjoyed upsetting
convention and standard thinking of the time. Whatever the time might
have been. Being naughty, in short. His three recordings of Messiah
demonstrate it.

The first, from about 1928 and about substantially complete, came at
the heyday of slow, gargantuan British performances of Messiah such as
the surviving Columbia 78s of excerpts from a performance at London's
Crystal Palace in 1926 with (the labels proclaim) 2,600 performers
conducted by Sir Henry Wood. The tempi are slow -- perhaps because of
keeping that many people together. In any case, Beecham's recording of
the time used a smallish orchestra and choir and had tempi that were
much faster than British audiences were accustomed to. Reviewers
considered it almost radical.

The 1947 recording might have fallen somewhere in the middle of any
Messiah tradition. I've always found it a bit dull frankly, but
confess to have not listened to it in several years. But although the
forces were apparently somewhat larger than the earlier version --
especially in some of the choruses, which Beecham augmented with more
voices (another of his innovations) -- they still don't sound as large
as the first of Sir Malcolm Sargent's Columbia recording of the
oratorio from about the same time.

Then the 1959 Beecham. By then, Hermann Scherchen had made his
pioneering first recording of Messiah for Westminster, with a small
orchestra and chorus and zippy tempi faster and more energetic than
anything previously on records. Sir Adrian Boult had recorded a
similar conception for Decca/London. People were talking about doing
Messiah perhaps as Handel might possibly have thought about and heard
it rather than the huge choruses and slow tempi, et cetera.

Enter Beecham in 1959, about to record Messiah again and as naughty,
contrarian as ever. If people were now going to do Messiah with small
forces, as he had and had surprised and annoyed them in the late '20s,
he'd now poke them again. My understanding is that it was Beecham who
commissioned Sir Eugene Goossens to make a provocative modern
orchestration of Messiah for the recording and, as Tom said,
subsequentially did his own work on it.

I think all of this should be kept in mind about Beecham's 1959
recording. Partly, he was being a scamp as usual. But, heard on its
own terms, there are remarkable subtlety and excitement in the
recording. With Beecham, as usual.

Don Tait

[wagnerfan]

Don - I wish I liked the 59 more and I know it has a somewhat
legendary status but frankly once the bizarre instrumentation wears
off I really don't find it all that lively or exciting rhythmically
(hearing an anvil clang isn't the same thing - after you have heard it
more than once its just the sound of an anvil).I don't find the tempi
particularly fast and I don't find a lot of life in the whole thing -
and I'm a Beechman admirer.
I think the authorship of the edition was thrashed out here awhile
back- Lady Beecham wrote a letter to Gramophon saying that Beecham
redid the Goosens markings in an all night session (or something like
that) just before the recording started. However others here stated
that they have seen the actual manucsript Beecham used for the
recording in a museum and the markings are all Goosen's. So I'm not
quite sure the issue is cut and dried though frankly I don't
particularly care. Wagner Fan

[Mark S]

On Nov 15, 2:03 pm, "Dontaitchic...@aol.com" <Dontaitchic...@aol.com>
wrote:

>   I think all of this should be kept in mind about Beecham's 1959
> recording. Partly, he was being a scamp as usual.

Just between you and me, I've been known to be something of a scamp
myself, occasionally posting thoughts in that take on our musical
sacred cows...

[Dontait...@aol.com]

On Nov 15, 5:32 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:03:07 -0800 (PST), "Dontaitchic...@aol.com"

> particularly care. Wagner Fan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't think I wrote that Beecham's tempi in 1959 are fast. Faster
than usual even by 1959 standards, that is. They're certainly peppier
than Sargent's in his 1950s remake, don't you think? Of course we all
hear things differently, which is normal and natural.

No, the issue of the Goossens revisions isn't at all cut and dried.
People have been arguing about it for decades -- whether what's heard
on the recording is entirely his work or whether Beecham revised it. I
must ask, though, whether what is in a museum, with Goossens'
markings, is the score Beecham used for the recording?

Don Tait

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:92026854-ec70-4168...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

It's not enough just to take pokes at musical sacred cows... You have to tip
them, as well.

[wagnerfan]

I have a copy of an article that appeared in the London Telegraph on
the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the recording and only Beecham
performance of that version in the UK in 1959. I can point to he
following two paragraphs

"Lady Beecham has now sold her husband's music library to Sheffield
University, including the disputed Messiah score - although the
Goossens estate maintains that it is its property. Anyone can now go
and see the handwritten manuscript to prove who really wrote the
orchestration. Apart from a few passages, the whole of the rest of the
work as recorded by Beecham was orchestrated by Sir Eugene Goossens

Jack Brymer, now 85, who was Beecham's favourite clarinettist, has
vivid memories of the 1959 Messiah recording in Walthamstow Town Hall.
"All the orchestral parts were marked 'Orchestrated by Sir Eugene
Goossens'," he says. "How can anyone claim that this is not Goossens's
work?""

Wagner fan

[Dontait...@aol.com]

On Nov 15, 8:56 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:51:04 -0800 (PST), "Dontaitchic...@aol.com"

[big snip]

> >  No, the issue of the Goossens revisions isn't at all cut and dried.
> >People have been arguing about it for decades -- whether what's heard
> >on the recording is entirely his work or whether Beecham revised it. I
> >must ask, though, whether what is in a museum, with Goossens'
> >markings, is the score Beecham used for the recording?
>
> >  Don Tait
>
> I have a copy of an article that appeared in the London Telegraph on
> the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the recording and only Beecham
> performance of that version in the UK in 1959. I can point to he
> following two paragraphs
>
> "Lady Beecham has now sold her husband's music library to Sheffield
> University, including the disputed Messiah score - although the
> Goossens estate maintains that it is its property. Anyone can now go
> and see the handwritten manuscript to prove who really wrote the
> orchestration. Apart from a few passages, the whole of the rest of the
> work as recorded by Beecham was orchestrated by Sir Eugene Goossens
>
> Jack Brymer, now 85, who was Beecham's favourite clarinettist, has
> vivid memories of the 1959 Messiah recording in Walthamstow Town Hall.
> "All the orchestral parts were marked 'Orchestrated by Sir Eugene
> Goossens'," he says. "How can anyone claim that this is not Goossens's
> work?""
>
> Wagner fan

Many thanks. This sheds light, perhaps definitive, on this oft-
argued subject.

Incidentally: in 1959 Beecham's and Goossens's association went back
about forty years. The very young Goossens, just beginning his
professional career, became something of an amenuensis for Beecham and
their cordial relationship never changed. When Goossens left the
Sydney SO in scandal and disgrace around 1958 and went home to the UK,
it was Beecham who came to his aid: got Goossens engaged for concerts,
including with Beecham's RPO, and HMV recordings with them. Perhaps
Beecham commissioned Goossens to do this Messiah project to help him
again.

I think I participated in a discussion about the Goossens Australian
scandal here a few years ago. It remains possible that he was framed
and was innocent. That is discussed in depth in the book about the
Goossens family published not too many years ago. I'd have to look for
my copy -- sorry.

Don Tait

[Edward Cowan]

I can recall that thread to which you refer. As for the book, _The
Goossens_ (sic! no apostrophe!), pp.379-381 relate the story of Goossens
and Beecham's "Messiah" project. And, as related on p. 380, the use of a
big cymbal crash at the start of "Hallelujah!" was Beecham's idea.
--E.A.C.

(PS: For any who are trying to locate this volume, here are the
bibliographical details: Carole Rosen, _The Goossens: A Musical
Century_. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1994. ISBN
1-55553-210-1. Hope this helps.)

Dontait...@aol.com <Dontait...@aol.com> wrote:

> I think I participated in a discussion about the Goossens Australian
> scandal here a few years ago. It remains possible that he was framed
> and was innocent. That is discussed in depth in the book about the
> Goossens family published not too many years ago. I'd have to look for
> my copy -- sorry.

--
hrabanus