Which Meistersinger? Kna or Furtwangler?
Feuillade
The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch studio recording.
The other is the Furtwangler live recording.
Any comments on which one is preferable? I know the Furtwangler is
less-than-complete, but I also know that Kna was not at his best in the studio.
Does that make it a wash?
Any and all comments will be greatly appreciated.
Tom Moran
"A vote for Bush is a vote for Satan.
It's as simple as that."
-- John W. Kennedy
Richard Loeb
with great warmth and tenderness climaxing in an unforgettable Third Act
that is really incredible. It also has the great Paul Schoffler, a step or
two away from his best but still the best complete Sachs on record, the
voice and interpretaion warm and telling. I don't think I could dislike a
Gueden interpretation if I tried and she is a delicious Eva, as a matter the
cast is up and down the list is better then the Furt - Treptow is even
better than the awful Lorenz caught on a very bad day at Bayreuth. The sound
is bit heavy towards the voices on the Kna but I don;t mind - one of the
great recordings and a very special one. If you need opinions on any others
feel free to ask Richard
"Feuillade" <feui...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041018202741...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Mitchell Kaufman
> Any comments on which one is preferable? I know the Furtwangler is
> less-than-complete, but I also know that Kna was not at his best in the
> studio. Does that make it a wash?
I'd think Richard's recommendation is on target, though he's more
familiar with the Kna than I am. The Furtwängler has just been reissued
by Music and Arts in unbelievably improved sound, supposedly the
equivalent of a recent Japanese edition. It now sounds better than most
live recordings of the '50s, much less the '40s--really superb; it blows
an atrocity like the Opera d'Oro out of the water.
Unfortunately, the disfiguring cuts and the lousy singing remain. I
certainly wouldn't recommend it as anyone's first or only Meistersinger.
Still, the conducting is magnificent--fiery and inspired, and among the
motley crew of singers, I do like Müller's Eva. As a supplemental
choice, especially if you're a Furtwängler fan, it's worth having.
MK
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Feuillade wrote:
> I'm wondering about which of two Meistersingers to buy.
>
> The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch studio recording.
>
> The other is the Furtwangler live recording.
>
> Any comments on which one is preferable? I know the Furtwangler is
> less-than-complete, but I also know that Kna was not at his best in the studio.
> Does that make it a wash?
>
> Any and all comments will be greatly appreciated.
Why not wait for the Zurich Opera DVD from last December,
with Jose Van Dam's bravura Hans Sachs? (According to TDK,
it should be released by EMI the end of this year.)
Richard Loeb
against it - you can't have a great Meistersinger without a great Sachs and
van Dam never had the vocal goods for that part - I'm a great fan of his but
he just does not have the vocal mea bns needed to nail that part - he didn't
have it on the Solti Chicago recording and things haven't improved - I
really think he shoud concentrate on French Lieder - an area that
desperately needs an artist of his integrity and intelligence Richard
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cl1q9...@news4.newsguy.com...
William Kasimer
news:20041018202741...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> I'm wondering about which of two Meistersingers to buy.
>
> The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch studio recording.
>
> The other is the Furtwangler live recording.
Just curious - is there a reason why the choice is between these two? For
various reasons, they're among my least favorite Meistersinger recordings.
Bill
William Kasimer
news:20041018202741...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> I'm wondering about which of two Meistersingers to buy.
>
> The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch studio recording.
>
> The other is the Furtwangler live recording.
Just curious - why are you limiting your choices to these two?
Bill
Feuillade
>"Feuillade" <feui...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering about which of two
>> Meistersingers to buy.
>> The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch
>> studio recording.
>> The other is the Furtwangler live
>> recording.
> Just curious - is there a reason why
> the choice is between these two?
Well, I already have a bunch of different Meistersingers (Toscanini on Andante;
two diferent remasterings of Karajan 51; Kempe; Karajan's studio recording;
Kubelik on Myto and Sawallisch), and since these two recordings are
particularly famous I thought I should probably get at least one of them.
At some point I'd also like to get Jochum's.
> For various reasons, they're among my
> least favorite Meistersinger recordings.
Now it's my turn to ask: why are they among your least favorite recordings?
And do I already have your favorite recording?
Feuillade
> "Feuillade" <feui...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering about which of two
>> Meistersingers to buy.
>> The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch
>> studio recording.
>> The other is the Furtwangler live
>>recording.
> Just curious - why are you limiting your
> choices to these two?
As I said in a previous post, I'm not. I already have several Meistersingers
(I don't even count the two I have on LP since I do not at the moment own a
turntable).
But these two seem to be among the more famous recordings, and it seems to me
that it might be worth my while to own at least one of them, and possibly both.
I should probably rephrase the question and ask: since I'll probably end up
getting both of them eventually, which one should I get first? :)
David7Gable
In the case of the Knappertsbusch recording, I pretty much agree with Richard
right down the line. The Knappertsbusch Meistersinger is easily one of my
favorite recordings of anything. For years I avoided anything conducted by
Knappertsbusch because of his reputation in some quarters as a slow and
ponderous conductor who was also inordinately sloppy The fact is his
Parsifal's may be slow, but this Meistersinger is anything but:
Knappertsbusch's tempi are consistently quicker than the tempi Kempe takes in
either of his recordings, for example, in the same ballpark as Kubelik's. As
for Knappertsbusch's reputation for sloppiness, that's a result of his
preference for the spontaneity of performance to the rigors of rehearsal, and
the Knappertsbusch spontaneity is marvelously in evidence even in this studio
performance.
Alert and unfailingly musical in late 19th-century German repertory,
Knappertsbusch had the most amazing instincts for phrasing Wagner, and he turns
in a warm, supple, and propulsive performance here. Everything is
distinctively shaped, Knappertsbusch phrasing everything from the individual
motive to the ongoing flow, from the local detail to Wagner's long flexible
sections with unselfconscious mastery. He's attentive at every moment, giving
everything from the nuance on up to the massive effect precisely the right
weight, the right degree of emphasis. Everything in the continuum emerges with
a distinctive shape, every line in the counterpoint unfolds well motivated, and
the interactions between conductor and orchestra are a marvel to hear. In
short, this is the very model of truly great conducting.
Paul Schöffler is Knappertsbusch's masterful and thoughtful Sachs. He may be
in fresher voice in a couple of live Meistersinger's from the 40's, but this is
nothing if not a worthy souvenir of a brilliant Sachs. Hilde Güden,
Knappertsbusch's Eva, was the most musical, expressive, and intelligent singer
imaginable and this recording finds her in especially fresh and youthful voice.
Gunther Treptow, Knappertsbusch's Walther, was never a truly great singer. At
least he never possessed a great voice while his vocal production was often
strained and awkward, but he sings with such passion and gusto, such conviction
and sensitivity to the words he's singing, that I'm able to overlook sounds
that will drive many another opera fancier away in horror. There's nothing to
complain about in Dermota's intelligent and sweet-voiced David. Dermota turns
in some of the most ravishing singing available on records.
In short, my vote goes for Knappertsbusch.
-david gable
Andrew T. Kay
[...]
>For years I avoided anything conducted by
>Knappertsbusch because of his reputation in some quarters as a slow and
>ponderous conductor who was also inordinately sloppy The fact is his
>Parsifal's may be slow,
They're not really, unless the comparison is to Boulez. The famous, exalted one
with Jess Thomas and Hans Hotter (I've never found it the be-all and end-all,
myself, but never mind) is actually faster (250:12) than the two stereo
versions that are perhaps most often recommended alongside it, Solti (260:10)
and Karajan/DG (255:58).
--Todd K
David7Gable
Boulez, whose tempi approximate those used by Hermann Levi in Wagner's
lifetime. (Boulez has also come to admire Knappertsbusch in recent years.)
-david gable
David7Gable
Which Kempe? In addition to the stereo recording on EMI, there's a recording
made more or less contemporaneously with the Knappertsbusch on Decca.
-david gable
Larry L. Leatherlash
Hans Sachs: Bernd Weikl
Veit Pogner: Kurt Moll
Kunz Vogelgesang: Michael Schade
Konrad Nachtigall: Hans Wilbrink
Sixtus Beckmesser: Siegfried Lorenz
Fritz Kothner: Hans-Joachim Ketelsen
Balthasar Zorn: Ulrich Ress
Ulrich Eißlinger: Hermann Sapell
Augustin Moser: Roland Wagenführer
Hermann Ortel: Rainer Buese
Hans Schwarz: Guido Götzen
Hans Foltz: Friedemann Kunder
Walther von Stolzing: Ben Heppner
David: Deon van der Walt
Magdalene: Cornelia Kallisch
Nightwatchman: René Pape
Bavarian State Opera Chorus
Bavarian State Opera Orchestra
Conductor: Wolfgang Sawallisch
Recorded in co-production with Bavarian Radio
Recording: April 1993, Studio 1, Bayerischer
Rundfunk, & Herkulessaal der Residenz, Munich
EMI CDS5 55142-2 (4) (07/1994)
CD1 69'18" CD2 71'16" CD3 66'31" CD4 49'36"
Richard Loeb
1951 Urania/Vox one though that one has a certain sponteneity due to the
recording conditions but Lemnitz is past it , Frantz is spectaculalry sung
but dull, Aldenhoff is awful and the rest of the cast id no great shakes.
Richard
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019020621...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Richard Loeb
"Larry L. Leatherlash" <larryl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96076834.04101...@posting.google.com...
William D. Kasimer
> > For various reasons, they're among my
> > least favorite Meistersinger recordings.
>
> Now it's my turn to ask: why are they among your least favorite recordings?
For the Furtwaengler, the singing is mostly awful, and the cuts are
pretty disfiguring. WF's conducting is wonderful, but even he can't
raise the level of this one to acceptable level.
The Kna is a different story. I know that others (particularly David
Gable) feel differently, but I find it slow and perfunctory, and the
sound is only so-so, with the voices too far forward. Schoeffler's
OK, but he was in vastly better voice in the two available recordings
from the early 40's with Boehm and Abendroth. Treptow is, to my ears,
a very enthusiastic Walther, but a real trial to listen to, so to
speak.
> And do I already have your favorite recording?
I have several favorites: Kubelik, Solti 2 (despite the conducting,
much of the singing is glorious), Sawallisch (with some misgivings
about Weikl), Karajan 2 (ditto for Adam). I'd certainly buy any of
these long before buying the Furtwangler or Kna recordings, although
the WF is very cheap, as I recall, and the sound, for its time, is
quite good on the M&A issu.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:kfednfA1I_s...@comcast.com:
> Didn't everyone know this moron would show up Richard
THEN WHY DID YOU REPEAT HIS ENTIRE POST?
Please indicate to me in what fashion you did not behave like an idiot here.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Richard Loeb
some do have other virtues. For me Sachs should have warm, brown voice and
the interpretation should be direct and human. Of course that means you have
to have the Schorr recordiings, as a matter of fact the Schorr commercial
recordings mean more to me than any of the complete commercials.However
using my above criteria that knocks out (in comercial recordings)
1- both Solti's - Bailey is out of sorts on Solti I and van Dam is miscast
in Solti II
2- both Karajans - in Karajan I at Bayreuth 1951 Edelmann sings well enough
but where is Sachs?? In Karajan II Adam hardly fits the vocal bill.
3- Keilberth - Wiener's tight dry voice is not a Sachs voice
4- Kempe I and II- Frantz sings wonderfully in Kempe but couldn't be
duller - he is marginally better in that respect in Kempe II but the voice
has aged.
5- Sawallisch - shame Weikl couldn't have been caught ten years earler - the
interpretation is sincere but there are problems with pitch.
6- Varviso - same as above goes for Ridderbusch - caught too late - his
earler excerpts were worlds better.
7 - Knappertsbusch I - Schoffler is knowing and very detailed - the voice
has lost some puch since his earlier 1940 live peformances but he recovers
for a very secure and powerful third Act - as does, strangely, the entire
performance.
8- Kubelik - Stewarts interpretation is so good he almost makes us forget
that the voice isn't warm or full enough.
There are many, shall we say, semi- commercial recordings - of these I would
recommend
Jochum Munich 1949 - a superb performance that caught everyone in good voice
(Hotter is awfully good here) and the whole has an inspired feel to it -
very exhilirating
Abendroth Bayreuth 1943 - very similar to the above although of course
recorded under very different circumstances - the fact that these are both
live and well recorded doesn't hurt.
Just my thoughts
Richard
"Feuillade" <feui...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019000901...@mb-m18.aol.com...
GRNDPADAVE
>Date: 10/19/2004 10:24 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <O6SdnVnbjPp...@comcast.com>
How do you feel about Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau in the Jochum recording?
My impression is that had Hermann Prey been the lead baritone, this recording
would knock everyone's Sachs off.
==G/P Dave
Richard Loeb
calls for, at this late date the vocalism was starting to suffer and too
many lines are punched out and over-emphasized. He was a superb Kothner BTW.
I don't know if Prey would have been able to pull it off, perhaps, I saw his
Beckmesser at Bayreuth and he was very very good. Richard
"GRNDPADAVE" <grndp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019113021...@mb-m11.aol.com...
David7Gable
>recording conditions
Stereo or mono, the Kempe/EMI is so slow and dull I ditched it long ago. There
are any number of livelier recordings, either of the distinctively shaped echt
Wagnerian Furtwängler/Knappertsbusch type or of the super slick powerfully
efficient smooth modern type à la Kubelik or Solti.
It saddens me to place the Kubelik in this class, but the more I listen to his
recording, the more I find it insufficiently sharply etched, excessively
smooth, lacking in distinction. My affection for Knappertsbusch is in part an
affection for a long gone era: the era of truly distinctive phrasing.
Conductors and musicians are afraid to do anything any more.
We've long since entered the age of technical super perfection in orchestral
playing, but we've also entered the era of an unprecedented timidity in
responding to the shapes supplied by composers, and there are even two
misleading ideologies in place to defend the new blandness: the idea of
"fidelity to the score" and the myth of the Historically Informed Performance.
An aesthetic response to a work of art depends on the recognition of the shapes
in the work, the shapes constituting the work, and a performer's aesthetic
response is embodied in and revealed in the phrasing he uses to bring out the
shapes. Fidelity to the score is a far more timid and modest goal. The
inordinate emphasis on fidelity narrowly defined characteristic of our era is
unprecedented in the history of music.
-david gable
Richard Loeb
not slow and dull it is one of the most distinctively rhythmic versions out
there - in the first Act he beautifully delineates the beginning of each
scene and always goes for the drama and color of each moment - one of my
favorite opera conductors Richardnews:20041019154644...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Noam
Stolze is not perfect but is lots of fun, none of the timidity David Gable
wrote about - no one sings or conducts like that anymore - NoamWagner -
Meistersinger, , , , "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O6SdnVnbjPp...@comcast.com...> Its hard for me to recommend a
Feuillade
Richard Loeb
voice - far better in 1949 - but I agree it is a fun performance if in
somewhat congested sound - I always wondered what performance this was since
that production was heavily booed on opening night and you don't hear that
on the CDs Richard
"Noam" <noameitan_nospam!!!@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ihjdd.173312$4h7.31...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
David7Gable
>recommend
Do you know the two live Knappertsbusch recordings with Della Casa? I'd be
curious what your reaction to them is.
-david gable
David7Gable
>somewhat congested sound - I always wondered what performance this was since
>that production was heavily booed on opening night and you don't hear that
>on the CDs
But it was booed because of Wieland's production, no?
-david gable
David7Gable
>not slow and dull it is one of the most distinctively rhythmic versions out
>there - in the first Act he beautifully delineates the beginning of each
>scene and always goes for the drama and color of each moment - one of my
>favorite opera conductors Richard
As is often the case, your posts make me want to listen again. Indeed, I
generally like Kempe. (Literal tempo isn't everything, but Kempe's are
literally slower than Knappertsbusch's both times out.)
-david gable
Richard Loeb
Kna Cd 1-72 Kempe II - Cd 1 - 67
Cd 2 - 73 Cd 2 - 73
Cd 3 - 71 Cd 3 - 69
Cd 4 - 49 CD 4 - 49
Kempe 1 - CD 1 - 68
CD 2 - 72
Cd 3 - 66
Cd 4 - 50
So Kna studio does come in slower - plese do hear the Kempe again - what
always amazes me is the changes the tempi in the first Act so each of the
little scenes in that Act have their own character and definition - the
playng of the Berlin Phil is glorious. Richard
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019221442...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Richard Loeb
time, The audience does not wait for the production team to come out for the
booing to begin - believe me I have heard it there many times Whew!!! the
booing begins as the curtain comes down - you heard this year at the
dreadful Parsifal, then storms of applause for the singers who had to go
through it, then storms of boos for the production team when they appear
news:20041019221905...@mb-m16.aol.com...
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Well that wasn't his question but since you brought it up I would advise
> against it - you can't have a great Meistersinger without a great Sachs and
> van Dam never had the vocal goods for that part - I'm a great fan of his but
> he just does not have the vocal mea bns needed to nail that part - he didn't
> have it on the Solti Chicago recording and things haven't improved - I
> really think he shoud concentrate on French Lieder - an area that
> desperately needs an artist of his integrity and intelligence Richard
Did you HEAR any of the Zurich performances? I did, and I
can't agree with your assessment. IMO Van Dam is one of
those opera singers who does much better in on-stage
performance than in studio recordings of operas. However
excellent his recordings may be, there's a little "something
extra" when he's actually singing for a live audience - and
especially when he's acting as well as singing a role.
(Perhaps that's one reason the Solti recording was made with
an audience in attendance?)
>
> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cl1q9...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>
>>Feuillade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm wondering about which of two Meistersingers to buy.
>>>
>>>The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch studio recording.
>>>
>>>The other is the Furtwangler live recording.
>>>
>>>Any comments on which one is preferable? I know the Furtwangler is
>>>less-than-complete, but I also know that Kna was not at his best in the
>>>studio.
>>> Does that make it a wash?
>>>
>>>Any and all comments will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Why not wait for the Zurich Opera DVD from last December, with Jose Van
>>Dam's bravura Hans Sachs? (According to TDK, it should be released by EMI
>>the end of this year.)
>>
>
>
>
Richard Loeb
Bayreuth 52 and Frantz Munich 55) However the 52 Bayreuth is really
wonderful and the new Archipel transfer is tremendous - Kna is really really
on - I find the 1955 a bit less interesting, perhaps because I heard the 52
first - but both have a lot of the excitement of the live peformances
Certainly Kna ia more animated if a bit less, how shall I say, loving, than
the commercial set.news:20041019221710...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Richard Loeb
actor to be sure - but he was 64 years old when those performnaces went on
and the voice shows signs of wear - what do you expect - the man has ben
singing forever - I am a fan of his too but in my opinion he has the wrong
voice for the part - BTW I don't think the Chicago performances added much
since they were concert performances, not even semi-staged - I like Soltis
way with Wagner for the most part (though its not my favorite kind of Wagner
conducting) but he really couldn't get a fix on this work. Best Richard
velynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cl4ib...@news1.newsguy.com...
Andrew T. Kay
>>The Kempe on EMI is not stereo but mono - it is better cast than the old
>>1951 Urania/Vox one though that one has a certain spontaneity due to the
>>recording conditions
>
>Stereo or mono, the Kempe/EMI is so slow and dull I ditched it long ago.
>There
>are any number of livelier recordings, either of the distinctively shaped
>echt
>Wagnerian Furtwängler/Knappertsbusch type or of the super slick powerfully
>efficient smooth modern type à la Kubelik or Solti.
As we've discussed before, with only minor surgery (two of your four named
conductors have made better recordings), this paragraph would sum up exactly
how I feel about -- and what I did with -- Kempe's extravagantly praised
_Lohengrin_. I tried repeatedly, but never found it other than soporific and
enervated in the extreme.
--Todd K
Richard Loeb
matter - they whole thing sounds over=-spliced and studio bound unlike the
Meistersinger. The Meistersinger also has better sound even though it is
mono - the Jesus Christe Kirche always gave good sounding recordings and the
venue used for the Lohengrin (Theater an der Wien) was used I think only one
time - the sound is diffuse, the chorus has no impact and it sounds like it
was put together from a million pieces of tape - the Meistersinger and his
other operas don't sound that way at all Richard
"Andrew T. Kay" <lastredl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041020001019...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Mitchell Kaufman
> As do I but I truly believe it is not all Kempe's fault in the Lohengrin
> matter - they whole thing sounds over=-spliced and studio bound unlike the
> Meistersinger. The Meistersinger also has better sound even though it is
> mono - the Jesus Christe Kirche always gave good sounding recordings and
> the venue used for the Lohengrin (Theater an der Wien) was used I think
> only one time - the sound is diffuse, the chorus has no impact and it
> sounds like it was put together from a million pieces of tape - the
> Meistersinger and his other operas don't sound that way at all Richard
Richard: have you heard the original LPs? And by "original," I mean the
ones from the early-to-mid '60s, when the recording was issued. I
recently auditioned a mint condition set, and the sound--while not of
audiophile quality--is far superior to the EMI Great Recordings of the
Century issue on CD.
Even if your reference for this recording is the LP set, I have a
problem with Wagner on CD as a matter of principle. I think the things
that CDs are most incapable of providing are the things that Wagner's
music needs the most, especially in the big ensembles--as in Lohengrin.
They have very little "capaciousness," for lack of a better word; the
LPs, OTOH, can expand sonically to allow the ensembles to make their
full impact. The CDs sound as if they were recorded in a telephone
booth; the LPs sound as if they were recorded in a genuine, large space,
albeit a not particularly reverberant one, at least as presented here.
The CDs are hard and steely on top, whereas the LPs are as easy to
listen to in the loud passages as in the soft.
I find these observations apply in varying degrees to all Wagner I've
heard on LP and CD. The Lohengrin happens to be one of the most extreme
examples. However, even the best CDs--among which I'd cite the most
recent Decca issue of Leinsdorf's Walküre, one of the greatest
recordings ever issued from the sonic standpoint--suffer very audibly in
comparison to their LP counterparts, questions of surface noise,
inner-groove distortion, or other vinyl artifacts notwithstanding.
Mind you, these are purely relative observations. On their own, the
Lohengrin CDs provide a fair representation of the recording--if one
hasn't heard the LPs.
Thankfully, even the less than ideal sound can't negate the Elsa of
Elisabeth Grümmer, one of the most sublime performances of any Wagner
role on record.
MK
Richard Loeb
about the sound (off the top of my head the High Fidelity review referred to
the problem) , of course if you hear differently thats fine. And I'm afraid
I can't agree about the Leinsdorf Walkure sound - again I'm thinking of the
Hi Fi review but that recording was not able to tame the acoustics at
Wathamstow Town Hall (it was not a Culshaw produced recording even though
licensed through Decca) Compare Nilssons low notes on that recording and the
later Solti and you can hear the difference. I found much of the sound
diffuse with little impact. Now as to the comparison between LP and CD I
heartedly agree that sometimes the LPs sound better. e.g. the Solti
Gotterdammerung on LP has a Sofiensaal warmth that the CDs lose and many of
the Callas recordings sound worlds better on certain LP incarnations than
the awful job the EMI engineers have done on her material e.g. the wretched
Callas Edition of 1997. I have found myself buying mint copies of certain LP
issues to get a warmth of sound sometimes missing from the CDs - not to say
that many Cds don't give spectacular results - it's just that it depends on
the recording and the remastering - one is not necessarily always better
than the other. Best Richard
"Mitchell Kaufman" <forg...@iaint.disclosinit> wrote in message
news:1gly6i4.jv5bbo1t5i651N%forg...@iaint.disclosinit...
Richard Loeb
exactly an oil painting, but the voice had a feminine warmth that was just
beautiful - one of my favorite artists - she is superb on the Kempe
Meistersinger and her Agathe on the Keilberth complete Freischutz is utter
perfection - a treasurable artist Richardnews:b9idnehitoD...@comcast.com...
Mitchell Kaufman
> Mitchell - when the Lohengrin was first issued on LP there were complaints
> about the sound (off the top of my head the High Fidelity review referred
> to the problem) , of course if you hear differently thats fine.
Well, as I said, taken on its own, it's not really of audiophile
quality, especially when one considers the generally high standards of
opera recording in that era. Certainly it's not even vaguely competitive
with something like the Leinsdorf Lohengrin, which--some of the
less-than-ideal vocal performances notwithstanding--is in glorious
sound. High Fidelity thought as much in their review at the time of
release.
> And I'm afraid I can't agree about the Leinsdorf Walkure sound - again I'm
> thinking of the Hi Fi review but that recording was not able to tame the
> acoustics at Wathamstow Town Hall (it was not a Culshaw produced recording
> even though licensed through Decca) Compare Nilssons low notes on that
> recording and the later Solti and you can hear the difference. I found
> much of the sound diffuse with little impact.
We've discussed this before--it's starting to ring a bell. I believe
that last time regarding Nilsson, I suggested that by the time of the
Solti recording five years later, her low notes were simply better.
The recording wasn't produced by Culshaw (the producer was Eric Smith of
Decca, the son of Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt), but it was recorded by one
of the greatest engineers of all time--perhaps the greatest--Kenneth
Wilkinson.
> Now as to the comparison between LP and CD I heartedly agree that
> sometimes the LPs sound better. e.g. the Solti Gotterdammerung on LP has a
> Sofiensaal warmth that the CDs lose
If you think the records are good (and they are), listen to the open-
reel tape version some time, which in many respects is even better.
The Solti Ring on CD is a major conundrum in its own right. There have
been two editions on CD, both of which apparently utilize the same
digital tapes prepared for the digitally-mastered LP edition around
1980. The latest issue, if you carefully read the notes by James Lock,
was not remastered--it was merely "de-hissed" using the CEDAR system, a
practice which can have its own negative sonic consequences. Assuming
this is the only sonic difference between the two CD editions, there are
actually valid reasons to prefer the first one.
In spite of my general reservations about CD, there's been a lot of
progress in digital technology since 1980. What Decca needs to do is go
back to the original analog tapes and make a brand-new digital transfer,
preferably in DSD format to allow issuance of an SACD version. Ideally,
this would also include a new PCM layer, so that owners of CD-only
hardware could benefit as well.
> and many of the Callas recordings sound worlds better on certain LP
> incarnations than the awful job the EMI engineers have done on her
> material e.g. the wretched Callas Edition of 1997. I have found myself
> buying mint copies of certain LP issues to get a warmth of sound sometimes
> missing from the CDs - not to say that many Cds don't give spectacular
> results - it's just that it depends on the recording and the remastering -
> one is not necessarily always better than the other. Best Richard
Absolutely: there's no shortage of miserable LPs and excellent CDs, even
of the same recording. For example, in hopes of improving on the old and
less than ideal CD issue (fake stereo spread among other problems), I
recently picked up two LP sets of the Milanov/Björling Trovatore: one,
the original issue, complete with a kind of wire hanger inside the box
holding the records and sleeves (I've never seen anything like it), and
sporting the early-'50s RCA red label with silver print and no dog; two,
a mid-'50s pressing with a conventional box and the brick-colored shaded
dog label.
The result? Both pressings were horrible. The sound was distant and
pinched, with some very audible echo applied. The performance was almost
unrecognizable as the one we know and love. The CDs, problems and all,
were so superior they were in another galaxy. Even the cheapie, floppy
Victrola LPs from the '70s were vastly better.
So don't take my comments as a sweeping indictment of CDs, though I know
it reads that way. The problem with CDs is not so much the inferiority
of transfers vis-a-vis LPs; it's more a question of the limitations of
conventional PCM digital technology in revealing everything of
which the original recording is capable.
MK
Richard Loeb
the latest in technology - isn't SACD supposed to go back to what the
engineer heard or something like that??? That would be something to hear
since it would replicate the Sofiensal sound.
Yes the Leinsdorf Lohengrin does have spectacular sound - I think even at
this point it would hold the record as the most expensive opera recording in
history - shame about the females. Richard
Mitchell Kaufman" <forg...@iaint.disclosinit> wrote in message
news:1glya2u.179w1woizzs9vN%forg...@iaint.disclosinit...
Stephen Worth
Mitchell Kaufman <forg...@iaint.disclosinit> wrote:
> So don't take my comments as a sweeping indictment of CDs, though I know
> it reads that way. The problem with CDs is not so much the inferiority
> of transfers vis-a-vis LPs; it's more a question of the limitations of
> conventional PCM digital technology in revealing everything of
> which the original recording is capable.
I've done a lot of testing, digitizing great sounding LPs and comparing
the CD dub to the LP. I can't detect any difference. I've come to the
conclusion that the difference in major label releases is all a matter
of mastering. Recording technology has very little to do with it,
except to the extent that it allows for more noodling.
Also, there's nothing wrong with CEDAR de-hissing if it's done well.
The trick is to make sure it doesn't touch the program, and that a tiny
bit of high frequency hiss is left in to make the sound feel a little
more open and brighter. I listened to the Solti remaster, and I thought
they did a great job on preserving the high frequencies in the program,
and not so great on leaving that tiny bit of high frequency hiss.
See ya
Steve
--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Stephen Worth
<loe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> isn't SACD supposed to go back to what the
> engineer heard or something like that?
That's sales pitch. The original engineer heard what he heard way back
then. Today, we get to hear what the remastering engineer chooses to
make it sound like. Whether the reissue is better or worse than
previous releases is more a matter of the choices of the reissue
engineer than it is the original engineer.
Richard Loeb
"Stephen Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote in message
news:201020041233498644%ne...@vintageip.com...
Stephen Worth
<loe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It's funny that after awhile the hiss doesn't seem to bother me
Hiss can be irritating if a dynamic filter is adjusted too high. It
"pumps" up and down along with the volume of the program. With older
recordings, a lot of the hiss sits above the frequency range of the
recording itself. There's no reason not to roll it off. The only
problem with rolling *all* of it off is that a little bit of high
frequency hiss can fool the ear into thinking it hears high frequencies
in the program that aren't there. The exact same limited range
recording can sound better with a little bit of hiss than it does
without any. Believe it or not, in certain cases, engineers add hiss to
muffled recordings to make them sound better.
David7Gable
>Bayreuth 52 and Frantz Munich 55) However the 52 Bayreuth is really
>wonderful and the new Archipel transfer is tremendous - Kna is really really
>on - I find the 1955 a bit less interesting, perhaps because I heard the 52
>first - but both have a lot of the excitement of the live peformances
Is Della Casa in palpably better shape vocally in 52 or 55? Or neither?
-david gable
Richard Loeb
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041021135518...@mb-m10.aol.com...
David7Gable
>they did a great job on preserving the high frequencies in the program,
>and not so great on leaving that tiny bit of high frequency hiss.
Steve, there were two remasterings for CD of the Solti Ring: the initial
release that featured the same portraits of Solti and Wagner on the cover of
each of the Ring operas and a second "new and improved" remastering that
recycled the original LP covers in flimsier boxes. Which one are you
discussing here?
I think the Siegfried is by far the best conducted installment in the Solti
Ring and it's the only installment in the Solti Ring I couldn't live without,
so I bought the second mastering and compared the two. I preferred the first
for reasons that I no longer remember since I didn't keep the second, but the
differences were barely perceptible, and hearing one or the other days apart
rather than side by side, I seriously doubt I could have said whether I was
listening to the first or the second remastering.
-david gable
Stephen Worth
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
> I preferred the first
> for reasons that I no longer remember since I didn't keep the second, but the
> differences were barely perceptible, and hearing one or the other days apart
> rather than side by side, I seriously doubt I could have said whether I was
> listening to the first or the second remastering.
I had the first release on CD, and I wondered about the remaster. A
friend of mine bought it, and I did an A-B comparison and came to
pretty much the same result you did.
Elizabeth Hubbell
> There are many, shall we say, semi- commercial recordings - of these I would
> recommend
>
> Jochum Munich 1949 - a superb performance that caught everyone in good voice
> (Hotter is awfully good here) and the whole has an inspired feel to it -
> very exhilirating
>
> Abendroth Bayreuth 1943 - very similar to the above although of course
> recorded under very different circumstances - the fact that these are both
> live and well recorded doesn't hurt.
>
> Just my thoughts
> Richard
Not a bad roundup. Much thanks.
I don't know if readers here might still find this useful, but I've also
put up some thoughts of my own on what I view as the more attractive
sets out there, at
http://www.operacast.com/meisters.htm
Cheers,
Geoffrey Riggs (Assoluta Monster)
www.operacast.com/assoluta.htm
Larry L. whip-Lash
Hans Sachs: Bernd Weikl
Veit Pogner: Kurt Moll
Kunz Vogelgesang: Michael Schade
Konrad Nachtigall: Hans Wilbrink
Sixtus Beckmesser: Siegfried Lorenz
Fritz Kothner: Hans-Joachim Ketelsen
Balthasar Zorn: Ulrich Ress
Ulrich Eißlinger: Hermann Sapell
Augustin Moser: Roland Wagenführer
Hermann Ortel: Rainer Buese
Hans Schwarz: Guido Götzen
Hans Foltz: Friedemann Kunder
Walther von Stolzing: Ben Heppner
David: Deon van der Walt
Magdalene: Cornelia Kallisch
Nightwatchman: René Pape
Bavarian State Opera Chorus
Bavarian State Opera Orchestra
Conductor: Wolfgang Sawallisch
Recording: April 1993, Studio 1, Bayerischer
Rundfunk, & Herkulessaal der Residenz, Munich
EMI CDS5 55142-2 (4) (07/1994)
CD1 69'18" CD2 71'16" CD3 66'31" CD4 49'36"
William D. Kasimer
> >that production was heavily booed on opening night and you don't hear that
> >on the CDs
>
> But it was booed because of Wieland's production, no?
If I recall correctly, this was the production that one critic
referred to as "Die Meistersinger ohne Nurnberg".
Bill
Richard Loeb
some improvments as the years went on. His second Meistersinger didn't fare
much better with the audiences. Richard
"William D. Kasimer" <wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3fdb806.04102...@posting.google.com...
ebloch
even available on CD? Has it ever been?
ernie b
Larry L. backLash
gggg...@gmail.com
> I'm wondering about which of two Meistersingers to buy.
>
> The first is the 1951 Knappertsbusch studio recording.
>
> The other is the Furtwangler live recording.
>
> Any comments on which one is preferable? I know the Furtwangler is
> less-than-complete, but I also know that Kna was not at his best in the studio.
> Does that make it a wash?
>
> Any and all comments will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> "A vote for Bush is a vote for Satan.
> It's as simple as that."
> -- John W. Kennedy
Recent Youtube upload:
Furtwangler: 1937 DIE MEISTERSINGINER Highlights with the Vienna Philharmonic
Juan I. Cahis
(mono) too.
--
Enviado desde mi iPad usando NewsTap, Juan I. Cahis, Santiago de Chile.
Loftus Becker
first two not as much. Schöffler is a great Sachs. Furti's cast is not
as good, but there are many unique moments. Someone else recommende the
Kempe, which is most of the time my favorite. If you want Kna at his
best, look for one of his Bayreuth recordings (even though Josef
Greindl, um, doesn't have the ideal voice for Sachs).
The ones I return to most often are Kempe, Kna, and – for something
completely different, terrible sound, but sometimes overwhelming – the
Toscanini from Salzburg. The excerpted performance with Lehmann as Eva
is even better, but incomplete.
kable
> David Gable wrote:
> [...]
> >For years I avoided anything conducted by
> >Knappertsbusch because of his reputation in some quarters as a slow and
> >ponderous conductor who was also inordinately sloppy The fact is his
> >Parsifal's may be slow,
> They're not really, unless the comparison is to Boulez. The famous, exalted one
> with Jess Thomas and Hans Hotter (I've never found it the be-all and end-all,
> myself, but never mind) is actually faster (250:12) than the two stereo
> versions that are perhaps most often recommended alongside it, Solti (260:10)
> and Karajan/DG (255:58).
>
> --Todd K