Ormandy. Was: Most Overrated Conductors of all time

Kyungsoon

unread,

Oct 26, 1997, 2:00:00 AM10/26/97

to

Lani Spahr wrote:

> There are some Ormandy things that I would absolutely NEVER want to be
>
> without:
>
> Mahler 10th

Well, it *is* the only recording of the Cooke I. It kind of wins by
default, no?

But anyway, I'm no great fan of Ormandy, but I will give him this: he's
a great conductor if you want to learn a piece, as in hear it for the
first time. It's as nuetral as you can get. Then you can go on to
explore other interpretations.

Edward A. Cowan

unread,

Oct 26, 1997, 2:00:00 AM10/26/97

to

Robin wrote:
>
> I'm pretty new to classical music. Should I listen to Ormandy first then?
>

You could do a lot worse! <g> Actually, Eugene Ormandy gets trashed
for no good reason by many people. I heard him for three years when
I was in graduate school at Penn (1966/68, 1970/71), and I hugely
enjoyed them. Not everything was of Deep Metaphysical Significance
in his conducting, but the music was presented honestly and with
that incomparable "Philadelphia Sound" -- barring, that is, the
dryness of the Academy of Music.

You might start with his Tchaikovsky (Sony, not BMG/RCA, even though
the latter, offering only Syms.#5 and #6 on CD -- he recorded all six
plus the "Manfred" for that label -- offers a more authentic image of
how the orchestra sounded live), which was ungimmicked and
straightforward. (That is, btw., the way I'll have my PIT, thank you...)
And his concerto accompaniments were terriffic. --E.A.C.

Robin

unread,

Oct 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/27/97

to

> But anyway, I'm no great fan of Ormandy, but I will give him this: he's
> a great conductor if you want to learn a piece, as in hear it for the
> first time. It's as nuetral as you can get. Then you can go on to
> explore other interpretations.
>
>

I'm pretty new to classical music. Should I listen to Ormandy first then?

Robin

Steve Wolk

unread,

Oct 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/27/97

to

Kyungsoon wrote:
>
> Lani Spahr wrote:
>
> > There are some Ormandy things that I would absolutely NEVER want to be
> >
> > without:
> >
> > Mahler 10th
>
> Well, it *is* the only recording of the Cooke I. It kind of wins by
> default, no?
>

> But anyway, I'm no great fan of Ormandy, but I will give him this: he's
> a great conductor if you want to learn a piece, as in hear it for the
> first time. It's as nuetral as you can get. Then you can go on to
> explore other interpretations.

Lani didn't say that it was his/her favorite, just a recording he/she
wouldn't want to be without. I was no great fan of Ormandy while he was
alive, but the decline of the orchestra since his death is distressing
to me. To keep an orchestra at or near the top of the heap for 40 years
means you must be doing something right. He may not have been a
Furtwangler or Toscanini, but he was an honest MUSICIAN who gave a damn
about what he did and never short-changed his audience. And virtually
every soloist he accompanied sang his praises. I know that my
net-friend, Simon Roberts, feels that he made everything he conducted
sound the same and there is some truth to that. But what a sound it
was! There wasn't an orchestra in the world that could match it.

Steve Wolk

Lani Spahr

unread,

Oct 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/27/97

to

Steve Wolk wrote:
>
> Kyungsoon wrote:
> >
> > Lani Spahr wrote:
> >
> > > There are some Ormandy things that I would absolutely NEVER want to be
> > >
> > > without:
> > >
> > > Mahler 10th
> >
> > Well, it *is* the only recording of the Cooke I. It kind of wins by
> > default, no?
> >
> > But anyway, I'm no great fan of Ormandy, but I will give him this: he's
> > a great conductor if you want to learn a piece, as in hear it for the
> > first time. It's as nuetral as you can get. Then you can go on to
> > explore other interpretations.
>
> Lani didn't say that it was his/her favorite, just a recording he/she
> wouldn't want to be without.

Yes, HE certainly wouldn't want to be without it. :-}
^^^^
--
Cheers,
Lani Spahr

Michele Harvey

unread,

Oct 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/27/97

to

>> > But anyway, I'm no great fan of Ormandy, but I will give him this: he's
>> > a great conductor if you want to learn a piece, as in hear it for the
>> > first time. It's as nuetral as you can get. Then you can go on to
>> > explore other interpretations.

Although I am not a hard-core classical recordings collector, it does seem to
me that Ormandy has really fallen out of favor in recent years. However, my
favorite version of the full Nutcracker Suite is still an Ormandy recording.
It was released in 1973 on RCA Red Seal as part of the "Tchaikovsky's Greatest
Ballets" series (it was Vol 1, Swan Lake was Vol 2, and Sleeping Beauty was
Vol 3, which I also have).

Unfortunately, I only have these recordings on the original factory cassette
tapes I ordered from the RCA Record Club 20 odd years ago (I was only about 10
at the time!), and I can't seem to dig up a CD issue anywhere.

So if there are any comparable versions of the full Nutcracker (I don't want
highlights - I want the real thing!) out there on CD - even if you find them
boring and neutral :-) - please let me know via email. I am in the process of
exploring other interpretations (as it were) but I'm really fond of this
original recording, and would love to have it (or something nearly like it) on
a format I can't wear out with overplaying!

Michele

These views do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
DIVX : the V is silent
--
To reply, take the last letter off userid and stick it on the front instead

G. Brown

unread,

Oct 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/27/97

to

One of my fondest memories is hearing Maestro Ormandy conduct his great
orchestra at the Saratoga summer festival...it was near the end -but he
still had it very much together...I hope the musical revisionists do him
justice one day...
..gb

> Steve Wolk wrote:
>
> >I was no great fan of Ormandy while he was
> >alive, but the decline of the orchestra since his death is distressing
> >to me. To keep an orchestra at or near the top of the heap for 40 years
> >means you must be doing something right. He may not have been a
> >Furtwangler or Toscanini, but he was an honest MUSICIAN who gave a >damn
> about what he did and never short-changed his audience.
>

> Well put. I had similar feelings in my salad days. With time, I've come to
> appreciate this "honest" musician more. For anyone that feels Ormandy was
> never thrilling, I suggest his Tchaik 4 on Sony Essential Classics SBK 46334 -
> maybe THE great recording of this piece.
>
> As a performing musician myself, I can appreciate a man like Ormandy. Sure, the
> Carlos Kleiber's of the world have a lot to say to audiences when the deign to
> come down from their ivory towers and offer we peasants their heavenly
> bestowed insights into the classics, but I have as much - or perhaps, more -
> respect for the Ormandy's of the world who give it their best day in and day
> out. After all, if it wasn't for the Ormandys, there be no one to keep an
> orchestra in shape for the arrival of a Kleiber on a guest jaunt.
>
> Longevity in a career need not mean mediocrity. Ormandy may have had the
> misfortune of being compared to his peers - Szell, Reiner, Karajan, Toscanini,
> Walter, etc. etc. I wonder how we'd view this man today if put up against the
> world's current crop of conductors (of course, Ormandy would have a hard time
> getting a job today, what with being follically challenged up top!!).

Marksten

unread,

Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97

to

Radcliffe Bond

unread,

Oct 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/29/97

to

It's always surprised me how common broadcast recordings
of the New York Philharmonic are compared with those
of the other members of the "big five". So when I came
across a tape of an Ormandy broadcast from 1955, I
snapped it up. It was only a 1 hour broadcast on CBS
of Wagner's Faust Overture and the Rachmaninoff 2nd
Piano Concerto with Emil Gilels. I thought Gilels
was terrible but Ormandy's performance of the Faust
Overture made Toscanini look sick. It was tremendous!

unread,

Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97

to

The Melsons wrote:
>
> By 1979 Ormandy was frail and hard of hearing - don't judge him by
> that late phase of his career. His prime was the 1950s and 60s, when
> he and his Philadelphia Orchestra were at their peak. If you wanted
> deep intellectual insights or a Furtwaengler type who would reshape
> the music to make a point, Ormandy was not your man. But if you wanted
> to hear the notes, played beautifully and in tune, with no apologies
> for the weight and strength of the sonority, Ormandy and Philadelphia
> were unbeatable. I spent many a Friday afternoon or Saturday night as
> a teenager peering down from the crow's nest in the Academy of Music
> marveling at the music they produced.

>
> Their decline began in the late 1960s, about the time they switched
> from CBS to RCA.

I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra regularly during the AY (academic

Edward A. Cowan

unread,

Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97

to

ALHelmbr wrote:
>
> Edward A. Cowan wrote, extolling Ormandy's performance of, among other things:

>
> >Penderecki: Utrenja, The Entombment of Christ
>

> I recall this LP very well, since my local library got it when it was brand
> new. Although I found this work just a bit on the shallow side (not uncommon
> for Penderecki), it certainly made a powerful impact in Ormandy's hands. I was
> once an Ormandy basher myself, but the more I hear, the more I believe that he
> was capable of real greatness at times. He only lapsed into regular mediocrity
> at the very end.

I plan to give this item another hearing RSN, as I'm teaching a course
on the Faust legend (works read include the original _Faustbuch_ of
1587, Goethe's _Faust_/I, Grabbe's _Don Juan und Faust_ (a real hoot,
btw.), Lenau's _Faust_, Busoni's _Doktor Faust_, and Thomas Mann's
_Doctor Faustus_; the last item is the only one to be read in English,
as this is an undergraduate course -- all other items are read in
German). Why, you ask? Because, when I heard Ormandy's performance of
_Utrenja_ with the Phila. Orch. during 1970/71, I was reading the Mann
novel in a Thomas Mann seminar at Penn, and a fellow-student in the
class was with me at that performance. We agreed that _Utrenja_
sounded a lot like the fictional Adrian Leverkühn's ("Faust's") work,
"Apocalypsis cum figuris"... --E.A.C.

ALHelmbr

unread,

Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97

to

Edward A. Cowan wrote, extolling Ormandy's performance of, among other things:

>Penderecki: Utrenja, The Entombment of Christ

I recall this LP very well, since my local library got it when it was brand
new. Although I found this work just a bit on the shallow side (not uncommon
for Penderecki), it certainly made a powerful impact in Ormandy's hands. I was
once an Ormandy basher myself, but the more I hear, the more I believe that he
was capable of real greatness at times. He only lapsed into regular mediocrity
at the very end.

August Helmbright

Radcliffe Bond

unread,

Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97

to

Back in the 1930's, there was an NBC program
called "The Magic Key Of RCA". It was a variety
program which combined popular and classical
music as well as dramatic readings. The
emphasis seemed to be the promotion of current
RCA recordings.

One program from 1936 featured the Minneapolis
Symphony under Ormandy from Northup Auditorium.
The performances were live (no recordings
allowed back then) but there was no audience.
Each piece was introduced by Ormandy.

They played a Bach transcription and the
Weinberger Bagpiper piece, but the prize was
Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun.
Ormandy played it slowly and sensuously - it
was positively erotic! A great performance.

David A. Fox

unread,

Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97

to

I'd argue that Ormandy is actually on of the most underrated
conductors of all time. His current rating is not all that high, and
the quality of his accomplishments are a lot more notable than he is
generally given credit for.

I grew up in Philadelphia listening to the orchestra throughout the
70's and the 80's. While I confess to the inevitable hometown bias,
I can honestly say that some of the most beautiful sounds I've heard
in an orchestral hall have occurred with Ormandy on the podium. I've
lived for the past 10 years in New York City and have attended a wide
variety of orchestral concerts, so I think there is a healthy amount
of perspective in my judgment

Why is it easy to trash Ormandy? Several reasons. One, classical
music enthusiasts tend to be collectors and catalogers. It is handy
to put people, ensembles, composers, etc. into discreet categories.
There is such a volume of music, composers, orchestras, conductors,
soloists, etc., that no human being can legitimately absorb this
deluge and judge from a perspective of completeness. So, we
short-hand and stereotype. I am as guilty of this sin as anybody. If
I've formed a dislike to conductor X or pianist Y, I will be extremely
unlikely to purchase his/her new recording or attend their latest
concert. I will form an image of the performance based on my
expectations. This image will become fact in my mind (right, wrong,
or otherwise), unless I am provided with other facts in the form of
reviews, word of mouth, or those kind enough to post to these
newsgroups. If these sources are also basing their opinions on
preconception rather than primary data, this becomes a vicious cycle.
I believe that Ormandy was branded early (and unfairly) by the
cognoscenti, and that his reputation has never completely recovered.

Ormandy came to fame in a manner which almost guaranteed him a
second-tier reputation. While he had some quality conservatory
training in Budapest (with Bartok, among others), he started out in
America as a vaudeville and movie-pit violinist. He achieved his
initial commercial recognition by recording a flood of what were then
budget-label recordings of standard repertoire with the Minnesota
Symphony. There were very much the "Naxos" recordings of their time:
cheap, comprehensive, but often surprisingly good (listen to the
recent re-release of his Mahler #2). Many of these recordings were
his first-ever traversals of these pieces. While this provided an
excellent training-ground for a conductor in his 30's, these
recordings helped brand him as a "hack".

Stokowski was starting to have regular problems with the board of the
Philadelphia Orchestra by the early 30's. In 1932, his decision to
mount large-scale, expensive modern repertoire (such as Schoenberg's
Gurrelieder) at the depths of the Depression almost lead to his
dismissal. The board was looking for a competent, reliable
"fall-back" that was everything Stokowski was not. Stokowski actually
welcomed Ormandy's appointment as assistant conductor. He thought
this provided him even more leverage with the Board, as they would
never have the nerve to replace someone of his stature (second only to
Toscanini in America) with someone as young and inconsequential as
Ormandy.

In 1936, Stokowski pushed the board a little too far, and the board
promoted Ormandy. This was somewhat a comedy of errors, as each side
vastly miscalculated the other. The Board thought Stokowski would
capitulate. In the event that he wouldn't they entertained serious
thoughts of engaging Otto Klemperer. When this fell to materialize,
they concocted some sort of joint Ormandy/Stokowski appointment until
roughly 1940. The orchestra still recorded on RCA with Stokowski
through most of this period (including the Fantasia soundtrack).
After this, RCA even used Toscanini as the conductor of their most
marketable orchestra rather than risk the use of Ormandy.

Ormandy proceeded for the next 45 years of so to lead what is still
considered to be one of the greatest orchestras ever assembled. So as
not to shatter stereotypes, the critics found ways to praise the
orchestra in spite of Ormandy. The most popular refrain was that he
was nothing more than a caretaker for the great "Stokowski sound".
Another was that he was something of an acoustic "bimbo": his sound
(especially the strings) were beautiful, but the interpretations were
empty.

Let's consider the first assessment: Ormandy as caretaker. Exactly
how does one do this for 45 years? I remember vividly the first time
I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra live in 1976. By that time, there
was only one player (Hornist Mason Jones) who was a Stokowski
appointee, yet they were the famous Philadelphia Orchestra from the
first note to the last. This was one of the most thrilling virtuoso
ensembles I'll ever hope to hear. And I think each word bears
emphasis. "Virtuosity" requires a sound foundation in technique,
talent, inspiration, nurtured by back-breaking work. Combining that
in "ensemble", even with many talented professionals, is often an
incompatible objective (anybody who is familiar with the New York
Philharmonic will need no further illustration). Yet the Philadelphia
Orchestra, in the Ormandy era, was most often described as a great
instruments, dazzling in its virtuosity, playing as one. This does
not happen without a strong-willed individual on the podium imagining
the outcome beforehand and meticulously working to achieve its end.
Somehow, I have trouble picturing Ormandy leading rehearsals by
playing Stokowski recordings and saying, "Hey, you guys remember this
stuff, do what the other guy told you to do."

And what of other orchestras? Why didn't Chicago keep the "Reiner
sound" through the 60's? Nobody mistook the Cleveland Orchestra under
Lorin Maazel for the orchestra under Szell. And last but not least,
how long did it take the Philly sound to get dismantled by Muti? Yet
Stokowski continues to get the credit for Ormandy's orchestra for the
ensuing 45 years.

The "bimbo" charge is somewhat at odds with the facts as well.
Ormandy is branded as someone who could play Tchaikowsky well,
accompany soloists, but who was eminently bland otherwise. While I
will concede that his aesthetic was not ideally-suited to all types of
music (whose is?), I would counter that his successes were more varied
(and had a higher degree of difficulty associated with them) than he
is often given credit for. His Sibelius, Bartok, Prokofeiv, and
Shostakovitch (especially the late symphonies) are marvelous. This is
20th Century music that is not exactly Boston Pops material. During
the late 70's, the orchestra led a season-long Stravinsky festival
featuring many of his later, less-familiar works. While I did not
particularly care for much of the music, I remember Ormandy made it
"dance" and seem more consequential than it may have actually been.
And what, exactly, is wrong with being one of the best conductor of
his era in Tchaikowsky, Rachmaninoff, and late romantic music? There
are several Russian conductors who are currently carving careers out
of this repertoire alone.

Would I rank Ormandy among the greatest conductors of the century? My
first reaction would be not to. Yet, would I rank the Ormandy
Philadelphia as one of the great orchestras of the century?
Absolutely. So who takes responsibility for that? It would be
ludicrous to assign credit to anyone other than Ormandy. If the job
of a conductor is to shape his orchestra into the best ensemble
possible and to consistently deliver the highest-quality performances,
then Ormandy's success as a conductor is self-evident. To paraphrase
Jean-Paul Sartre, "You are what you do." By that metric, Ormandy
deserves to be ranked as one of the greats.

If anyone dislikes a particular Ormandy performance, please be
specific and cite the recording. To dismiss his entire oeuvre as
"weak" or "bland" does a disservice to fifty-plus years of outstanding
accomplishment.

David A. Fox

Premise Checker

unread,

Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97

to

I have found ormandy to be all most always a big bore: too much composer
and too little conductor. Music is a performing art and the personality of
the conductor is a major part of music. But there are a couple of ormandy
recordings that I do like: Orff: Carmina Burana, which has the clearest
diction of any recording I know, and an early stereo LP of Bach's boys,
played in a big-hearted, warm way. I also find Bernstein to be either
boorish or uninteresting. Yet his Vivaldi stereo LP is a delight. Of
Heifetz I like very little and never connect his pyrotechnics up with the
music. I find nothing of Carry-On of interest.

That said, it was ormandy's mono LP of the Beethoven 5th and the Mozart
40th that were my first exposure to the music, about 1956. I really
enjoyed the disc then, but if I play it today I'm really, really bored. I
know the music too well, much too well. I can hardly even listen to these
great masterpieces any more, and only really thrilling performances can
get me to pay attention. For the Beethoven, it's the live Mengelberg
recording, and for the Mozart is the second stereo Klemperer recording.

Advice: get to know the music first, then you'll start demanding a great
conductor to balance the composer with the performer. But you don't have
to choose ormandy or any of the others you will come ultimately to regard
as dull. My favorites are Mengelberg, Scherchen, Coates, and Mravinsky.

Of today's conductors, Harnoncourt is the one who almost always
contributes much interpretive vigor. Go for him and never shy away from
anything from the 78 rpm era. The ones that have made it to CD are usually
as interesting as most of those done in the stereo era.

I'm giving my personal reactions, of course, and I'd like to see others
give their suggestions about conductors with strong personalities. The
ones I've named far from cover even the standard repretoire.

Simon Roberts

unread,

Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97

to

NotInDFace (notin...@aol.com) wrote:
: >I have found ormandy to be all most always a big bore: too much composer

: >and too little conductor. Music is a performing art and the personality of
: >the conductor is a major part of music.

: I'm going to address a larger issue here. This is something that has sort of
: bothered me since I've begun frequenting this newsgroup. Everybody here is so
: concerned with the conductor. I'll admit that the conductor plays a huge
: role, and as this guy admitted, so does the composer. But aren't you all
: forgetting the little guy? The musicians in the orchestra!!!! They aren't
: mechanical freaks who just play whatever the conductor wants. Each person in
: that orchestra puts his/her own musical tastes into the music. I think that
: when you have near 100 musical minds working together, it is so amazing. I'm
: not trying to say that the composer is unimportant. I'm merely trying to say
: that the beauty of music, orchestra music in particular, is all these
: musicians working together to reach a common goal. Don't downplay the
: importance of those folks.

Sure; but there's no escaping the fact that the guy waving his arms about
on the podium is responsible for the interpretation: just compare the
Vienna Philharmonic, say, conducted by Furtwaengler, Karajan, Boehm,
Abbado, Harnoncourt, Gardiner....

Simon

Mike Davis

unread,

Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97

to

Premise Checker wrote:
>
> I have found ormandy to be all most always a big bore: too much composer
> and too little conductor. Music is a performing art and the personality of
> the conductor is a major part of music.

Have to disagree a bit here. Both you and Darin M., in a post against
the
Chopin of Rubinstein, state that the problem is a lack of interpretation
of the music. For me (personal opinion only, of course), I think the
best way to *learn* music is to listen to a performance played the way
the composer wrote it. Since we don't often know how the composer might
have played it him/herself, a *definitive* version (whatever THAT is)
should be largely transparent to artist coloring. So, if I want to
*learn*
a piece, I don't want lots of "ham" from conductor or soloist. That
doesn't mean a dull, lifeless, plodding trip through the notes, but
the most exciting performances are best appreciated after hearing
a good, sound, middle of the road example.

Once I "know" the work, then I like variety, interpretive flair, etc.
and
can enjoy artistic variance. But without the "baseline" of a score
played "as written", it is hard to appreciate the genius of a radical
approach. Example: I love Gould's Bach, but would not recommend it as
a first version for a new listener.

Mike Davis
mailto:mda...@clandjop.com

Gerrit Stolte

unread,

Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97

to

chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) wrote:

David,

I'm not all that familiar with Ormandy's recorded legacy, but I hope
this will not be held against my argumentation. I certainly
appreciated your defense/praise of Ormandy, my critcal comments are
more or less theoretical, if you don't mind.

>I grew up in Philadelphia listening to the orchestra throughout the
>70's and the 80's. While I confess to the inevitable hometown bias,
>I can honestly say that some of the most beautiful sounds I've heard
>in an orchestral hall have occurred with Ormandy on the podium. I've
>lived for the past 10 years in New York City and have attended a wide
>variety of orchestral concerts, so I think there is a healthy amount
>of perspective in my judgment

It certainly depends on the variety of different orchestras that
performed those concerts. If other high profile orchestras such as
CSO, BPO, VPO, LPO etc, etc were performing, the hometown bias will
certainly be eliminated. If, however, most performances were by one or
two orchestras, probably even with the same conductor, the perspective
becomes rather limited. The fact remains, that some of your earliest
concert experiences are connected with the Philadelphia Orchestra.
While hometown bias may be overcome, sentimental bias probably not.

>Why is it easy to trash Ormandy? Several reasons. One, classical
>music enthusiasts tend to be collectors and catalogers. It is handy
>to put people, ensembles, composers, etc. into discreet categories.

Hmmm, apart from being a generalztation, the main objection I have
here is that the categorization is not as present with classical music
fans, as compared to rock music fans. Classical music still gets only
limited public attention (altough there relatively more classical cds
produced than rock and jazz). So, imo, it takes a very open mind to
approach classical music in the first place, especially over the last
thirty years, with the advent of rock music.

[snipped]

>Ormandy proceeded for the next 45 years of so to lead what is still
>considered to be one of the greatest orchestras ever assembled. So as
>not to shatter stereotypes, the critics found ways to praise the
>orchestra in spite of Ormandy. The most popular refrain was that he
>was nothing more than a caretaker for the great "Stokowski sound".
>Another was that he was something of an acoustic "bimbo": his sound
>(especially the strings) were beautiful, but the interpretations were
>empty.

>Let's consider the first assessment: Ormandy as caretaker. Exactly
>how does one do this for 45 years? I remember vividly the first time
>I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra live in 1976. By that time, there
>was only one player (Hornist Mason Jones) who was a Stokowski
>appointee, yet they were the famous Philadelphia Orchestra from the
>first note to the last. This was one of the most thrilling virtuoso
>ensembles I'll ever hope to hear. And I think each word bears
>emphasis. "Virtuosity" requires a sound foundation in technique,
>talent, inspiration, nurtured by back-breaking work.

Two points here. Stokowski was not only one of most popular conductors
of his time, but probably one of the most individualistic, with an
easily identifiable sound. While Reiner, Szell, Toscanini etc all had
personal approaches to interpretation, the difference was probably not
as huge between those three, as between any of them and Stokowski.
That you praise the Phd. Orch. as a virtuosic ensemble, shouldn't lead
you to believe that Ormandy is over- or underrated. Virtuosity per se
is no virtue in my opinion. The different approaches of various
conductors is what makes the music tick. There would be no need for
hundreds of different recordings of a certain composition, if the only
achievable goal were to be virtuosity. Virtousity should enable the
ensemble to play a vide variety of different musical styles. But this
is only a starting point. Virtuosity alone is bland, personality makes
a performance memorable, at least in my opinion.

>And what of other orchestras? Why didn't Chicago keep the "Reiner
>sound" through the 60's? Nobody mistook the Cleveland Orchestra under
>Lorin Maazel for the orchestra under Szell. And last but not least,
>how long did it take the Philly sound to get dismantled by Muti? Yet
>Stokowski continues to get the credit for Ormandy's orchestra for the
>ensuing 45 years.

Again, Reiner was not Stokowski in terms of individuality. Of course,
there was a Reiner sound, but that was a lot more mainstream than the
Stokowski sound.

[snipped]

>Would I rank Ormandy among the greatest conductors of the century? My
>first reaction would be not to. Yet, would I rank the Ormandy
>Philadelphia as one of the great orchestras of the century?
>Absolutely. So who takes responsibility for that? It would be
>ludicrous to assign credit to anyone other than Ormandy. If the job
>of a conductor is to shape his orchestra into the best ensemble
>possible and to consistently deliver the highest-quality performances,
>then Ormandy's success as a conductor is self-evident. To paraphrase
>Jean-Paul Sartre, "You are what you do." By that metric, Ormandy
>deserves to be ranked as one of the greats.

For me it's rather difficult to label one orchestra as being among the
great of the century. There are and have been so many great
orchestras. How to rate them without the subjextive criteria of
personal taste? I'd be more willing to grant Ormandy the status of a
great conductor if he had performed high quality concerts with various
orchestras. Look at Toscanini, Furtwaengler, Bernstein, Klemperer.
They all excelled with different orchestras. Furtwaengler recorded
memorable perfomances with with the BPO, the VPO, the Bayreuth
Festival Orchestra, even the rather mediocre ensemble of RAI (Italian
Radio Station). Toscanini had the NYPO, the NBC Symph, some with the
Philadelphia, VPO.

> If anyone dislikes a particular Ormandy performance, please be
>specific and cite the recording. To dismiss his entire oeuvre as
>"weak" or "bland" does a disservice to fifty-plus years of outstanding
>accomplishment.

That is certainly true. And to gain a little perspective, I'd be
curious to learn about some of the most memorable perfomances of
Ormandy with the Phd. Orchestra. Any recommendations?

>David A. Fox

Gerrit

To reply via e-mail, remove "nospam*" from my adress

John Steffes

unread,

Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97

to

On 1 Nov 1997 22:52:06 GMT, notin...@aol.com (NotInDFace) wrote:

>>I have found ormandy to be all most always a big bore: too much composer
>>and too little conductor. Music is a performing art and the personality of
>>the conductor is a major part of music.
>

>I'm going to address a larger issue here. This is something that has sort of
> bothered me since I've begun frequenting this newsgroup. Everybody here is so
> concerned with the conductor. I'll admit that the conductor plays a huge
> role, and as this guy admitted, so does the composer. But aren't you all
> forgetting the little guy? The musicians in the orchestra!!!! They aren't
> mechanical freaks who just play whatever the conductor wants. Each person in
> that orchestra puts his/her own musical tastes into the music. I think that
> when you have near 100 musical minds working together, it is so amazing. I'm
> not trying to say that the composer is unimportant. I'm merely trying to say
> that the beauty of music, orchestra music in particular, is all these
> musicians working together to reach a common goal. Don't downplay the
> importance of those folks.

Agreed. Sometimes I choose recordings by *orchestra/ensemble* rather
than conductor. I bet if I played the exact same piece of music from
the same composer (like Beethoven's 5th) by the same orchestra (BPO)
and from the same era but different conductor, perhaps most in this
newsgroup would not be able to tell the difference. It's kinda like a
blind taste test between Coke and Pepsi.

The orchestra (read: musicians) have just as much to do with quality
of the performance as the conductor. Some orchestra's have no
conductor at all - like Orpheus, and yet are able to produce excellent
quality performances. (I like Orpheus' performance Vivaldi's Four
Seasons)

Simon Roberts

unread,

Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97

to

Distribution:

Mike Davis (mda...@clandjop.com) wrote:

: Premise Checker wrote:
: >
: > I have found ormandy to be all most always a big bore: too much composer
: > and too little conductor. Music is a performing art and the personality of
: > the conductor is a major part of music.

: Have to disagree a bit here. Both you and Darin M., in a post against

: the
: Chopin of Rubinstein, state that the problem is a lack of interpretation
: of the music. For me (personal opinion only, of course), I think the
: best way to *learn* music is to listen to a performance played the way
: the composer wrote it. Since we don't often know how the composer might
: have played it him/herself, a *definitive* version (whatever THAT is)
: should be largely transparent to artist coloring. So, if I want to
: *learn*
: a piece, I don't want lots of "ham" from conductor or soloist. That
: doesn't mean a dull, lifeless, plodding trip through the notes, but
: the most exciting performances are best appreciated after hearing
: a good, sound, middle of the road example.

I think you're right; but it's misleading to characterize such
performances as playing the music "the way the composer wrote it"; even
composers who filled their scores with markings/instructions (call them
what you will) couldn't convey everything that the composer wanted, and
even if the composer had a clear idea of what he wanted (composers
notoriously play/conduct their music differently from how it appears in
scores), there's no way to reduce it all to a score; and of course the
further back into history you go the fewer "instructions" composers put
into their scores. So there's no way to keep the interpreter out; the
"good, sound, middle of the road" performances you sensibly advocate to
beginners are as much interpretations as are those by the ham merchants.

Simon

Steve Wolk

unread,

Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97

to David A. Fox

David A. Fox wrote:

>
> On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:33:49 GMT, stolte@nospam*stud.uni-frankfurt.de
> (Gerrit Stolte) wrote:
>
> >chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) wrote:
> >
>
> >It certainly depends on the variety of different orchestras that
> >performed those concerts. If other high profile orchestras such as
> >CSO, BPO, VPO, LPO etc, etc were performing, the hometown bias will
> >certainly be eliminated. If, however, most performances were by one or
> >two orchestras, probably even with the same conductor, the perspective
> >becomes rather limited. The fact remains, that some of your earliest
> >concert experiences are connected with the Philadelphia Orchestra.
> >While hometown bias may be overcome, sentimental bias probably not.
>

> Among the orchestras I've seen/heard live: Berlin Philharmonic,
> Vienna Philharmonic, Vienna Symphony, Dresden Staatskapelle, Bavarian
> Radio Symphony, Orchestra de Paris, London Symphony, Royal
> Philharmonic, London Philharmonic, Philharmonia, BBC Symphony, St.
> Petersberg, Moscow Symphony
>
> American: Boston, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, St. Louis,
> Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Houston,
> Montreal, Toronto...and, of course, Philadelphia.
>
> I'm lucky enough to live 1 block away from Carnegie Hall, and I'm very
> bad at avoiding temptation...

>
> >
> >> If anyone dislikes a particular Ormandy performance, please be
> >>specific and cite the recording. To dismiss his entire oeuvre as
> >>"weak" or "bland" does a disservice to fifty-plus years of outstanding
> >>accomplishment.
> >
> >That is certainly true. And to gain a little perspective, I'd be
> >curious to learn about some of the most memorable perfomances of
> >Ormandy with the Phd. Orchestra. Any recommendations?
> >

> Quite a few:
>
> Tchaikovsky: 4 (Sony), 5 & 6 (BMG or Sony. Many on these newsgroups
> are partial to the Sony's, but I have a perverse preference for the
> BMG's)
>
> Tchaikovsky Ballets/Suites: Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, Nutcracker,
> Romeo and Juliet, etc (various compilations, Sony or BMG)
>
> Rachmaninoff: 3 Symphonies (Sony) + Symphony #2 (BMG)
> Symphonic Dances: (Sony). Piece was
> dedicated to Ormandy and the Orchestra.
>
> Sibelius: Symphonies 1, 2, 5, & 7 (Sony), 2 (BMG)
> Shorter orchestral works (Sony & BMG)
>
> Prokofiev: Symphonies: 1 "Classical", 5 (Sony)
> Love for Three Oranges, Romeo and Juliet (Sony)
>
> Shostakovitch: Symphonies 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 (Sony..not sure all are
> currently available)
>
> Holst: The Planets (BMG and Sony)
>
> Mussorgsky/Ravel: Pictures at an Exhibition (Sony, BMG, and
> EMI?)
>
> Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique (Sony)
>
> R. Strauss: Also sprach Zarathustra + Don Quixote (Sony)
>
> J Strauss: Waltzes (BMG)
>
> Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, Miraculous Mandarin Suite
> (Sony)
>
> Gershwin: American in Paris, "Porgy and Bess" Suite (Sony)
>
> Saint-Saens: Symphony #3 (Sony & BMG)
>
> Concerto Accompaniments:
>
> Just for starters...
>
> Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerti 1, 3, & 4 (w/Rachmaninoff) BMG
> Piano Concerto #2 (Rubinstein, RCA LP, nla)
>
> Mendelsson Concerti: Serkin and Stern (Sony): what a great sleeper
> of a budget disk. Buy several...make great holiday presents.
>
> Tchaikovsky Violin: Perlman (EMI)
>
> Chopin #2, etc.: Rubinstein (BMG)
>
> Brahms 1 & 2: Serkin (Sony), Stern
>
> Grieg: Rubinstein (1942, BMG), Cliburn
>
> Prokofiev: Violin 1 &2: Stern (Sony)
>
> Prokofiev: Piano 1 &3: Graffman (Sony)
>
> This was just off the top of my head...my apologies for glaring
> omissions.
>
> David A. Fox

I think its also important to mention here the yeoman service Ormandy
gave to 20th century American composers. I doubt if any other conductor
gave us as many recordings of Piston, Harris, Schuman, Creston,
Blitzstein, Yardumian, Vincent, etc. as he did. And they were
unfailingly excellent performances. He wasn't a Furtwangler, Toscanini
or Stokowski, and never tried to be. I don't think there was anyone
else in as prominent a conducting post as his who was less given to
self-promotion. Certainly, his successors in Philly have not been up to
his level.

Steve Wolk

unread,

Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97

to John Steffes

John Steffes wrote:
>
> Agreed. Sometimes I choose recordings by *orchestra/ensemble* rather
> than conductor. I bet if I played the exact same piece of music from
> the same composer (like Beethoven's 5th) by the same orchestra (BPO)
> and from the same era but different conductor, perhaps most in this

> newsgroup would not be able to tell the difference. (small snip)

Wanna bet?

> The orchestra (read: musicians) have just as much to do with quality
> of the performance as the conductor. Some orchestra's have no
> conductor at all - like Orpheus, and yet are able to produce excellent
> quality performances. (I like Orpheus' performance Vivaldi's Four
> Seasons)

You're comparing apples and oranges. Orpheus ain't a symphony
orchestra.

Steve Wolk

Haizen Paige

unread,

Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97

to

In article <345D60...@erols.com>, sjw...@erols.com wrote:

> David A. Fox wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:33:49 GMT, stolte@nospam*stud.uni-frankfurt.de
> > (Gerrit Stolte) wrote:
> >

> > >chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >It certainly depends on the variety of different orchestras that
> > >performed those concerts. If other high profile orchestras such as
> > >CSO, BPO, VPO, LPO etc, etc were performing, the hometown bias will
> > >certainly be eliminated. If, however, most performances were by one or
> > >two orchestras, probably even with the same conductor, the perspective
> > >becomes rather limited. The fact remains, that some of your earliest
> > >concert experiences are connected with the Philadelphia Orchestra.
> > >While hometown bias may be overcome, sentimental bias probably not.
> >

> > Among the orchestras I've seen/heard live: Berlin Philharmonic,
> > Vienna Philharmonic, Vienna Symphony, Dresden Staatskapelle, Bavarian
> > Radio Symphony, Orchestra de Paris, London Symphony, Royal
> > Philharmonic, London Philharmonic, Philharmonia, BBC Symphony, St.
> > Petersberg, Moscow Symphony
> >
> > American: Boston, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, St. Louis,
> > Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Houston,
> > Montreal, Toronto...and, of course, Philadelphia.
> >
> > I'm lucky enough to live 1 block away from Carnegie Hall, and I'm very
> > bad at avoiding temptation...
> >
> > >

> > >> If anyone dislikes a particular Ormandy performance, please be
> > >>specific and cite the recording. To dismiss his entire oeuvre as
> > >>"weak" or "bland" does a disservice to fifty-plus years of outstanding
> > >>accomplishment.
> > >
> > >That is certainly true. And to gain a little perspective, I'd be
> > >curious to learn about some of the most memorable perfomances of
> > >Ormandy with the Phd. Orchestra. Any recommendations?
> > >

I grew up with the Ormandy sound via Columbia records. Loved his
Rachmaninoff symphony performances, especially the 2nd; I used to play
that over and over (the slow movement side of the disk) and soak up the
emotion. What I remember about him most is that the music always seemed to
come first. He had a special gift of getting himself, his ego out of the
way and placing the music itself in the primary position -- where it
belongs. If it hasn't already been mentioned, Ormandy really shined by
helping others to shine. I mean someone like Rubenstein, who received such
terrific support during a recording of Brahms 2nd piano concerto, as an
example, very late in both their careers. A wonderful performance -- never
rushed, never hurried; just pure luxuriant sound. But I think the problem
now with some conductors is that they are expected to be a public draw
through the sheer force of their personality. While that may be a public
relations necessity, I think what somehow gets lost is the performance of
the music the composer's way, not the conductor's way. Both must work
together in harmony, of course, but I think this is the proper order. For
instance, when I'm listening to a Bernstein performance, I'm more aware of
the conductor rather than the composer. But this was never true with
Ormandy. I always think of the composer first, then the conductor -- and I
feel that this the most natural order. Where the self is not, the music
is.

Haizen Paige

BrtherJohn

unread,

Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97

to

In article <345d2d50...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,

chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) writes:

>
>Tchaikovsky: 4 (Sony), 5 & 6 (BMG or Sony. Many on these newsgroups
>are partial to the Sony's, but I have a perverse preference for the
>BMG's)

I don't think his RCA accounts come close to the earlier CBS ones.
However, the Delos versions (5 and 6) are even worse.

>Tchaikovsky Ballets/Suites: Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, Nutcracker,
>Romeo and Juliet, etc (various compilations, Sony or BMG)

Agree, especially on RCA.

>Rachmaninoff: 3 Symphonies (Sony) + Symphony #2 (BMG)
> Symphonic Dances: (Sony). Piece was
>dedicated to Ormandy and the Orchestra.
>
>Sibelius: Symphonies 1, 2, 5, & 7 (Sony), 2 (BMG)
> Shorter orchestral works (Sony & BMG)

Don't forget his EMI Legends! Also wished that RCA would reissue his
accounts of the 1st, 5th and 7th Symphonies.

>Prokofiev: Symphonies: 1 "Classical", 5 (Sony)
> Love for Three Oranges, Romeo and Juliet (Sony)
>
>Shostakovitch: Symphonies 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 (Sony..not sure all are
>currently available)

The 15th is on RCA and should be rereleased hopefully during my lifetime.
I like his RCA 5th, though it's not better than the CBS version.

>Holst: The Planets (BMG and Sony)

Is there a Sony version? How does it compare to the RCA?

>Mussorgsky/Ravel: Pictures at an Exhibition (Sony, BMG, and
>EMI?)

>Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique (Sony)
>
>R. Strauss: Also sprach Zarathustra + Don Quixote (Sony)

He's done Zarathustra for CBS, RCA and EMI. All good performances too.

>J Strauss: Waltzes (BMG)
>
>Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, Miraculous Mandarin Suite
>(Sony)
>
>Gershwin: American in Paris, "Porgy and Bess" Suite (Sony)
>
>Saint-Saens: Symphony #3 (Sony & BMG)

The earlier version with Biggs is definitely preferable to Fox, which is
only marginally preferable to his disasterous account on Telarc.

>Concerto Accompaniments:

>Just for starters...
>
>Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerti 1, 3, & 4 (w/Rachmaninoff) BMG
> Piano Concerto #2 (Rubinstein, RCA LP, nla)
>
>Mendelsson Concerti: Serkin and Stern (Sony): what a great sleeper
>of a budget disk. Buy several...make great holiday presents.
>
>Tchaikovsky Violin: Perlman (EMI)
>
>Chopin #2, etc.: Rubinstein (BMG)
>
>Brahms 1 & 2: Serkin (Sony), Stern
>
>Grieg: Rubinstein (1942, BMG), Cliburn
>
>Prokofiev: Violin 1 &2: Stern (Sony)
>
>Prokofiev: Piano 1 &3: Graffman (Sony)

Actually, this last one was with Szell/Cleveland, not Philly.
Ormandy/Gilel for Chopin's 1st (not to mention Brailowsky's version! Is
this on CD? On lp, it was coupled with Liszt's Todentanz.)

Brthe...@aol.com (John Blair)

The Melsons

unread,

Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97

to

On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 03:09:16 GMT, chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David
A. Fox) wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:33:49 GMT, stolte@nospam*stud.uni-frankfurt.de
>(Gerrit Stolte) wrote:
>

>>chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) wrote:
>>
>
>>It certainly depends on the variety of different orchestras that
>>performed those concerts. If other high profile orchestras such as
>>CSO, BPO, VPO, LPO etc, etc were performing, the hometown bias will
>>certainly be eliminated. If, however, most performances were by one or
>>two orchestras, probably even with the same conductor, the perspective
>>becomes rather limited. The fact remains, that some of your earliest
>>concert experiences are connected with the Philadelphia Orchestra.
>>While hometown bias may be overcome, sentimental bias probably not.
>

>Among the orchestras I've seen/heard live: Berlin Philharmonic,
>Vienna Philharmonic, Vienna Symphony, Dresden Staatskapelle, Bavarian
>Radio Symphony, Orchestra de Paris, London Symphony, Royal
>Philharmonic, London Philharmonic, Philharmonia, BBC Symphony, St.
>Petersberg, Moscow Symphony
>
>American: Boston, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, St. Louis,
>Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Houston,
>Montreal, Toronto...and, of course, Philadelphia.
>
>I'm lucky enough to live 1 block away from Carnegie Hall, and I'm very
>bad at avoiding temptation...
>
>>

>>> If anyone dislikes a particular Ormandy performance, please be
>>>specific and cite the recording. To dismiss his entire oeuvre as
>>>"weak" or "bland" does a disservice to fifty-plus years of outstanding
>>>accomplishment.
>>
>>That is certainly true. And to gain a little perspective, I'd be
>>curious to learn about some of the most memorable perfomances of
>>Ormandy with the Phd. Orchestra. Any recommendations?
>>

>Quite a few:

>
>Tchaikovsky: 4 (Sony), 5 & 6 (BMG or Sony. Many on these newsgroups
>are partial to the Sony's, but I have a perverse preference for the
>BMG's)
>

>Tchaikovsky Ballets/Suites: Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, Nutcracker,
>Romeo and Juliet, etc (various compilations, Sony or BMG)
>

>Rachmaninoff: 3 Symphonies (Sony) + Symphony #2 (BMG)
> Symphonic Dances: (Sony). Piece was
>dedicated to Ormandy and the Orchestra.
>
>Sibelius: Symphonies 1, 2, 5, & 7 (Sony), 2 (BMG)
> Shorter orchestral works (Sony & BMG)
>

>Prokofiev: Symphonies: 1 "Classical", 5 (Sony)
> Love for Three Oranges, Romeo and Juliet (Sony)
>
>Shostakovitch: Symphonies 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 (Sony..not sure all are
>currently available)

#15 was recorded for RCA

>
>Holst: The Planets (BMG and Sony)

Did they record this for CBS-Sony? I'm aware only of the RCA-BMG.

>
>Mussorgsky/Ravel: Pictures at an Exhibition (Sony, BMG, and
>EMI?)

The EMI Philly recording is with Muti, I believe.

>
>Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique (Sony)
>
>R. Strauss: Also sprach Zarathustra + Don Quixote (Sony)

Ormandy also recorded Also Sprach for RCA-BMG and EMI!

>
>J Strauss: Waltzes (BMG)
>
>Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, Miraculous Mandarin Suite
>(Sony)
>
>Gershwin: American in Paris, "Porgy and Bess" Suite (Sony)
>
>Saint-Saens: Symphony #3 (Sony & BMG)

Ormandy/Philly also recorded this for Telarc, with Michael Murray.

>
>Concerto Accompaniments:
>
>Just for starters...
>
>Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerti 1, 3, & 4 (w/Rachmaninoff) BMG
> Piano Concerto #2 (Rubinstein, RCA LP, nla)
>
>Mendelsson Concerti: Serkin and Stern (Sony): what a great sleeper
>of a budget disk. Buy several...make great holiday presents.

I agree - especially the piano concerti.

>
>Tchaikovsky Violin: Perlman (EMI)
>
>Chopin #2, etc.: Rubinstein (BMG)
>
>Brahms 1 & 2: Serkin (Sony), Stern
>
>Grieg: Rubinstein (1942, BMG), Cliburn
>
>Prokofiev: Violin 1 &2: Stern (Sony)
>
>Prokofiev: Piano 1 &3: Graffman (Sony)

Graffman's stereo versions are with Szell/Cleveland. Are there earlier
versions with Ormandy?>

Mark Melson

Steve Wolk

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

to BrtherJohn

BrtherJohn wrote:
>
> In article <345d2d50...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) writes:
>
> >

> >Tchaikovsky: 4 (Sony), 5 & 6 (BMG or Sony. Many on these newsgroups
> >are partial to the Sony's, but I have a perverse preference for the
> >BMG's)
>

> I don't think his RCA accounts come close to the earlier CBS ones.
> However, the Delos versions (5 and 6) are even worse.
>

> >Tchaikovsky Ballets/Suites: Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, Nutcracker,
> >Romeo and Juliet, etc (various compilations, Sony or BMG)
>

> Agree, especially on RCA.

>
> >Rachmaninoff: 3 Symphonies (Sony) + Symphony #2 (BMG)
> > Symphonic Dances: (Sony). Piece was
> >dedicated to Ormandy and the Orchestra.
> >
> >Sibelius: Symphonies 1, 2, 5, & 7 (Sony), 2 (BMG)
> > Shorter orchestral works (Sony & BMG)
>

> Don't forget his EMI Legends! Also wished that RCA would reissue his
> accounts of the 1st, 5th and 7th Symphonies.
>

> >Prokofiev: Symphonies: 1 "Classical", 5 (Sony)
> > Love for Three Oranges, Romeo and Juliet (Sony)
> >
> >Shostakovitch: Symphonies 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 (Sony..not sure all are
> >currently available)
>

> The 15th is on RCA and should be rereleased hopefully during my lifetime.
> I like his RCA 5th, though it's not better than the CBS version.
>

> >Holst: The Planets (BMG and Sony)
>

> Is there a Sony version? How does it compare to the RCA?
>

> >Mussorgsky/Ravel: Pictures at an Exhibition (Sony, BMG, and
> >EMI?)
>

> >Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique (Sony)
> >
> >R. Strauss: Also sprach Zarathustra + Don Quixote (Sony)
>

> He's done Zarathustra for CBS, RCA and EMI. All good performances too.
>

> >J Strauss: Waltzes (BMG)
> >
> >Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, Miraculous Mandarin Suite
> >(Sony)
> >
> >Gershwin: American in Paris, "Porgy and Bess" Suite (Sony)
> >
> >Saint-Saens: Symphony #3 (Sony & BMG)
>

> The earlier version with Biggs is definitely preferable to Fox, which is
> only marginally preferable to his disasterous account on Telarc.
>

> >Concerto Accompaniments:
>
> >Just for starters...
> >
> >Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerti 1, 3, & 4 (w/Rachmaninoff) BMG
> > Piano Concerto #2 (Rubinstein, RCA LP, nla)
> >
> >Mendelsson Concerti: Serkin and Stern (Sony): what a great sleeper
> >of a budget disk. Buy several...make great holiday presents.
> >

> >Tchaikovsky Violin: Perlman (EMI)
> >
> >Chopin #2, etc.: Rubinstein (BMG)
> >
> >Brahms 1 & 2: Serkin (Sony), Stern
> >
> >Grieg: Rubinstein (1942, BMG), Cliburn
> >
> >Prokofiev: Violin 1 &2: Stern (Sony)
> >
> >Prokofiev: Piano 1 &3: Graffman (Sony)
>

> Actually, this last one was with Szell/Cleveland, not Philly.
> Ormandy/Gilel for Chopin's 1st (not to mention Brailowsky's version! Is
> this on CD? On lp, it was coupled with Liszt's Todentanz.)
>
> Brthe...@aol.com (John Blair)

Toward the end of his career, I believe he began to suffer from
Alzheimer's. There is no doubt that the performances of this time
suffered because of it. He should have retired a few years earlier than
he did, but it is understandable that he should have found it so hard to
let go of the orchestra he had been with for so long.

Steve Wolk

Steven Correll

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

to

In article <345d2d50...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
David A. Fox <chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [...lots of recommendations for worthwhile Ormandy recordings...]

I would like to add a plug for the following:

Shostakovich: Symphony 13 (US premiere)
Hindemith: Concert Music for Strings and Brass, Mathis de Maler
--
Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == s...@netcom.com

William Lloyd

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

to

I would add that IMHO by far the best recording ever of the Orff "Carmina
Burana" was Ormandy's, with the Rutgers University Choir [the last good
thing to come out of Rutgers?? - I mean, before it became a bastion of
"political correctness"?] and Harve Presnell [whose most recent public
appearance I know of was, of all things, as the father-in-law in "Fargo"].

David A. Fox <chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<345d2d50...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:33:49 GMT, stolte@nospam*stud.uni-frankfurt.de
> (Gerrit Stolte) wrote:
>

> >chabelo@NO_SPAMix.netcom.com (David A. Fox) wrote:
> >
>
> >It certainly depends on the variety of different orchestras that
> >performed those concerts. If other high profile orchestras such as
> >CSO, BPO, VPO, LPO etc, etc were performing, the hometown bias will
> >certainly be eliminated. If, however, most performances were by one or
> >two orchestras, probably even with the same conductor, the perspective
> >becomes rather limited. The fact remains, that some of your earliest
> >concert experiences are connected with the Philadelphia Orchestra.
> >While hometown bias may be overcome, sentimental bias probably not.
>

> Among the orchestras I've seen/heard live: Berlin Philharmonic,
> Vienna Philharmonic, Vienna Symphony, Dresden Staatskapelle, Bavarian
> Radio Symphony, Orchestra de Paris, London Symphony, Royal
> Philharmonic, London Philharmonic, Philharmonia, BBC Symphony, St.
> Petersberg, Moscow Symphony
>
> American: Boston, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, St. Louis,
> Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Houston,
> Montreal, Toronto...and, of course, Philadelphia.
>
> I'm lucky enough to live 1 block away from Carnegie Hall, and I'm very
> bad at avoiding temptation...
>
> >

> >> If anyone dislikes a particular Ormandy performance, please be
> >>specific and cite the recording. To dismiss his entire oeuvre as
> >>"weak" or "bland" does a disservice to fifty-plus years of outstanding
> >>accomplishment.
> >
> >That is certainly true. And to gain a little perspective, I'd be
> >curious to learn about some of the most memorable perfomances of
> >Ormandy with the Phd. Orchestra. Any recommendations?
> >

> Quite a few:

>
> Tchaikovsky: 4 (Sony), 5 & 6 (BMG or Sony. Many on these newsgroups
> are partial to the Sony's, but I have a perverse preference for the
> BMG's)
>

> Tchaikovsky Ballets/Suites: Sleeping Beauty, Swan Lake, Nutcracker,
> Romeo and Juliet, etc (various compilations, Sony or BMG)
>

> Rachmaninoff: 3 Symphonies (Sony) + Symphony #2 (BMG)
> Symphonic Dances: (Sony). Piece was
> dedicated to Ormandy and the Orchestra.
>
> Sibelius: Symphonies 1, 2, 5, & 7 (Sony), 2 (BMG)
> Shorter orchestral works (Sony & BMG)
>

> Prokofiev: Symphonies: 1 "Classical", 5 (Sony)
> Love for Three Oranges, Romeo and Juliet (Sony)
>
> Shostakovitch: Symphonies 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 (Sony..not sure all are
> currently available)
>

> Holst: The Planets (BMG and Sony)
>

> Mussorgsky/Ravel: Pictures at an Exhibition (Sony, BMG, and
> EMI?)
>
> Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique (Sony)
>
> R. Strauss: Also sprach Zarathustra + Don Quixote (Sony)
>

> J Strauss: Waltzes (BMG)
>
> Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, Miraculous Mandarin Suite
> (Sony)
>
> Gershwin: American in Paris, "Porgy and Bess" Suite (Sony)
>
> Saint-Saens: Symphony #3 (Sony & BMG)
>

> Concerto Accompaniments:
>
> Just for starters...
>
> Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerti 1, 3, & 4 (w/Rachmaninoff) BMG
> Piano Concerto #2 (Rubinstein, RCA LP, nla)
>
> Mendelsson Concerti: Serkin and Stern (Sony): what a great sleeper
> of a budget disk. Buy several...make great holiday presents.
>
> Tchaikovsky Violin: Perlman (EMI)
>
> Chopin #2, etc.: Rubinstein (BMG)
>
> Brahms 1 & 2: Serkin (Sony), Stern
>
> Grieg: Rubinstein (1942, BMG), Cliburn
>
> Prokofiev: Violin 1 &2: Stern (Sony)
>
> Prokofiev: Piano 1 &3: Graffman (Sony)
>
>

Clifford Ando

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

to

On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Steve Wolk wrote:

> Certainly, his successors in Philly have not been up to his level.
>
> Steve Wolk

That is certainly and sadly true. A great orchestra, always undermined by
a bad hall, and for more than a decade ill-served by Muti and Sawallisch
(though less so by the latter, I suppose).

Clifford Ando an...@yorku.ca
Programme in Classical Studies 736-2100 ext. 70476
York University
4700 Keele St.
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3

dtritter

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

to

Anybody who doubts the marvellous qualities of Ormandy on the podium
need only listen to anything "conducted" by Muti. And to prove that the
trash that one perpetrated in Philadelphia was no accident, one only
need listen to his La Scala stuff. Does he have a godfather somewhere?

dft

G. Brown

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

to

Yes!...his name was Nino Rota....check out THE MAESTRO MYTH by
Norman Lebrecht-the Kitty Kelly of music critics.....

Simon Roberts

unread,

Nov 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/5/97

to

$9e98bda5@blloyd> <345F0F...@bway.net>
Distribution:

dtritter (dtri...@bway.net) wrote:
: Anybody who doubts the marvellous qualities of Ormandy on the podium
: need only listen to anything "conducted" by Muti. And to prove that the
: trash that one perpetrated in Philadelphia was no accident, one only
: need listen to his La Scala stuff. Does he have a godfather somewhere?

This seems a trifle excessive, perhaps a case of protesting too much?
Muti's esteem around here plummeted when -- and only when -- it appeared
that he and the orchestra/city no longer got along well. I happen to
think that he was at his best 20 years ago, but he's hardly the
incompetent your use of quotation marks suggests. I'm not alone in
thinking his EMI recordings of the Schumann symphonies, Carmina Burana,
his first Verdi Requiem, the Cherubini masses and requiems at or near the
top of the recorded heap. And trashing Muti is hardly an effective way of
praising Ormandy ....

Simon

Peter Mark

unread,

Nov 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/9/97

to

In article <632st1$8...@firewall.template.com>,
Michele Harvey <har...@template.com> wrote:
>
>>> > But anyway, I'm no great fan of Ormandy, but I will give him this: he's
>>> > a great conductor if you want to learn a piece, as in hear it for the
>>> > first time. It's as nuetral as you can get. Then you can go on to
>>> > explore other interpretations.
>
>Although I am not a hard-core classical recordings collector, it does seem to
>me that Ormandy has really fallen out of favor in recent years. However, my
>favorite version of the full Nutcracker Suite is still an Ormandy recording.
>It was released in 1973 on RCA Red Seal as part of the "Tchaikovsky's Greatest
>Ballets" series (it was Vol 1, Swan Lake was Vol 2, and Sleeping Beauty was
>Vol 3, which I also have).

my 2 cents about ormandy:

when i was in high school in a phila. suburb (70s), i used to hear ormandy
conduct. he was already fairly old, and many folks thought he didn't
have the energy or excitement he used to, or that other conductors had.

still, he made some outstanding recordings with the phila orch:

my absolute all-time favorite recording of scheherezade is with
ormandy, phila, and anshel brusilow playing the violin solos.
(ormandy/phila made another one without brusilow.) it's a beautiful
recording, and the violin solos are especially so.

other composers that ormandy is good with:

tchaikovsky, rachmaninoff, sibelius, kodaly.

>So if there are any comparable versions of the full Nutcracker (I don't want
>highlights - I want the real thing!) out there on CD - even if you find them
>boring and neutral :-) - please let me know via email. I am in the process of
>exploring other interpretations (as it were) but I'm really fond of this
>original recording, and would love to have it (or something nearly like it) on
>a format I can't wear out with overplaying!

don't know if it's on CD, but ernest answermet and the orchestre de la
suisse romande made a wonderful recording on london of the complete
nutcracker. that's also one of my favorites.

peter mark
pe...@seattleu.edu

Peter Mark

unread,

Nov 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/9/97

to

In article <3457fece....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,

The Melsons <ame...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>By 1979 Ormandy was frail and hard of hearing - don't judge him by
>that late phase of his career. His prime was the 1950s and 60s, when
>he and his Philadelphia Orchestra were at their peak. If you wanted
>deep intellectual insights or a Furtwaengler type who would reshape
>the music to make a point, Ormandy was not your man. But if you wanted
>to hear the notes, played beautifully and in tune, with no apologies
>for the weight and strength of the sonority, Ormandy and Philadelphia
>were unbeatable. I spent many a Friday afternoon or Saturday night as
>a teenager peering down from the crow's nest in the Academy of Music
>marveling at the music they produced.
>
>Their decline began in the late 1960s, about the time they switched

>from CBS to RCA. To sample them on record at their finest, try these
>CBS-Sony recordings:
>
> Dvorak CC (Rose)
> Tchaikovsky Rococo Variations (Rose)

[ rest of long list deleted ]

i heartily 2nd these recommendations (as well as a number of the
other recordings in the list mark nelson gave). i also agree with
mark's assessment of ormandy's strengths and weaknesses.

the rose/ormandy/phila recording of the dvorak cello concerto
remains my favorite (and i've heard a bunch). the sound is
extraordinary, the playing is extraordinary, the quality of the
cello tone is extraordinary.

really an amazing recording.

peter

BrtherJohn

unread,

Nov 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/10/97

to

In article <645mgq$sls$1...@mozart-1.seattleu.edu>, pe...@news.seattleu.edu
(Peter Mark) writes:

>
>the rose/ormandy/phila recording of the dvorak cello concerto
>remains my favorite (and i've heard a bunch). the sound is
>extraordinary, the playing is extraordinary, the quality of the
>cello tone is extraordinary.
>
>really an amazing recording.
>
>

This is certainly one of the best sounding Ormandy recordings I've ever
heard. Rose may not be the bombastic player, but surely this one of the
most lyrical interpretations. Again, superb sound with top-notch
conducting, btw.

Brthe...@aol.com (John Blair)