Beecham's La Boheme-Is it Me?
TerriN
favorite recording of La Boheme. Granted, I am fairly new to opera so
I may not always know what is technically correct but I certainly know
what I like and I enjoy this recording immensely. So my question is
"Is it me or is this guy dead wrong?"
"Beecham's 1956 studio recording of Puccini's La Bohème is now
released on EMI's Great Recordings of the Century series. The stellar
cast looks great on paper but fails to capture the human warmth and
drama of Puccini's masterpiece. Swedish tenor Jussi Björling as
Rodolfo has a winning, boyish timbre with remarkable high notes but he
sounds emotionally distant. Soprano Victoria de los Angeles was not in
good voice. In "Sì, mi chiamano Mimi" she sounds strained and even
chokes on a high note. The supporting cast is fine, with Robert
Merrill as Marcello and Giorgio Tozzi as Colline. Lucine Amara's
Musetta is vocally dry and rather demure in "Quando men' vo." Beecham
leads the RCA Victor Orchestra in a brisk and spirited reading of the
score, at odds with the singers' apparent insecurity and lack of
involvement. The acoustic of the Manhattan Center, where the recording
was made over an eight-day period, is acoustically boxy, dry and
harsh. The Abbey Road Technology "noise shaping" via the Prism SNS
system (whatever that means) has done the original two-track analogue
recording no favours. Notes and libretto in German, French and
English." Philip Anson.
Mitchell Kaufman
> As I was surfing the web tonight I found this review regarding my
> favorite recording of La Boheme. Granted, I am fairly new to opera so
> I may not always know what is technically correct but I certainly know
> what I like and I enjoy this recording immensely. So my question is
> "Is it me or is this guy dead wrong?"
This review is what's commonly known as a guy trying to show how smart he is by
taking a position in direct opposition to virtually the entire body of criticism
of this recording.
And it's not even *my* favorite Boheme.
To take just a few of his points:
"Soprano Victoria de los Angeles was not in good voice."
Bull.
"In 'Sě, mi chiamano Mimi' she sounds strained and even chokes on a high note."
Really? Which one?
"Beecham leads the RCA Victor Orchestra in a brisk and spirited reading of the
score"
Beecham's reading has been called a lot of things, but "brisk" isn't usually one
of them.
"The acoustic of the Manhattan Center, where the recording was made over an
eight-day period, is acoustically boxy, dry and harsh."
Actually, it's acoustically spacious, reverberant and sweet.
"The Abbey Road Technology 'noise shaping' via the Prism SNS system (whatever
that means) has done the original two-track analogue recording no favours."
Wrong again. The remastering is excellent.
"Notes and libretto in German, French and English."
O.K....I'll give him that one.
MK
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:af4ad1a4.02091...@posting.google.com:
> As I was surfing the web tonight I found this review regarding my
> favorite recording of La Boheme. Granted, I am fairly new to opera so
> I may not always know what is technically correct but I certainly know
> what I like and I enjoy this recording immensely. So my question is
> "Is it me or is this guy dead wrong?"
Mr. Anson's review seems to be a minority report.
--
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
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
comes...@webtv.net
certainly not at her best here - and indeed does sound distinctly
strained at times. Most unfortunate, although she still betters many a
soprano. Bjoerling was never known for his warmth, but with a voice of
such sheer beauty, who cares? And when I listen to his sobs in the last
act, the term "emotionally distant" somehow just doesn't come to mind.
BTW, I understand that he was, in fact, ill when he recorded this. If
so, it doesn't show. Everyone else sounds fine to me; Beecham presents
an understanding reading; and the mono is clear and rich - at least in
the last remastering prior to the GRC edition - haven't heard yet the
latest EMI version. (No doubt, they'll i$$ue a couple of newer ones
before year'$ end.)
As always, I find it a little fascinating that different people hear the
same thing in such different ways. But they do, and will continue to do
so.
~ Roger
Parterrebox
the overrated Karajan recording and thinks BOHEME is *supposed* to sound like
dinosaurs mating.
Oisk17
Boheme at the Met. The gist of the quote (and if someone else has the exact
words, feel free to correct me) was "Anyone who is unable to appreciate this
performance has no place among civilized human beings." A bit over the top.,
no?
The recording remains my favorite Boheme. Interesting that the reviewer refers
to Beecham's "Brisk " reading of the score...I believe that Grandpa Dave's main
objection to this recording is that it is not brisk enough! And I trust Dave's
judgement far more than that of this critic. (I also fail to hear the "strain"
in De Los Angeles's voice)
Regards,
Paul
Leonard Tillman
>As I was surfing the web tonight I found this
> review regarding my favorite recording of La
> Boheme. Granted, I am fairly new to opera so
> I may not always know what is technically
> correct but I certainly know what I like and I
> enjoy this recording immensely. So my
> question is "Is it me or is this guy dead
> wrong?"
Terri, be assured the the critic is deader-than-dead wrong. The
Beecham La Boheme is to many of us, myself included, the finest. To
many others, it's at least among the top five.
In any case, your own preference is the way to go.
As the great actor Lee J. Cobb wisely asked,
"Critics! Who the ^&*& are *they* to criticize?"
Best,
LT
"I'm about to try optimism, -- but I know it won't do any good.. "
lav...@webtv.net
Yes it may be you to someone who doesn't care for this recording. You
can tell me how wonderful De Los Angeles was in person till your blue in
the face but I can't stand her recordings. God knows I have read the
"we all agree" reviews and have tried to find that something special,
but my ears do not like her singing. It's as simple as that. She had
a wonderful career and is beloved by many but you can't tell people what
to like, they do that themselves.
gerberk
are making love,its just wonderful.It made me want to buy anything they ever
recorded.He is the best of tenors and she with Callas and Tebaldi and a few
others is the absolute top of sopranos.Nothing recorded today can match
this.So its a silly review as far as i see it.
TerriN heeft geschreven in bericht ...
Basil
I understand that a resourceful audio executive realised that all the artists
were in NY at that particular time and he rounded them up. Beecham was delighted
and probably the one who leaked the news to the exec as he had long wanted to
record de los Angeles. I think it is a most uplifting Boheme. I continue to
honour it (highlights only version) and de los Angeles was the first to sing
when I moved to this house in rural New South Wales. Bjoerling certainly was ill
and perhaps died within a couple of years. I think too that the recording was
over 2 years - de los Angeles was unhappy about something which may account for
the comments on her voice. She is not my favourite soprano for me as I think she
lacks depth, warmth and fullness in her voice but her body of work is certainly
of a standard all her own.
Beecham was always very amusing about singers. I'll look up some of his funnies
and post them later.
Nina O'Flynn
(Please check that kn...@acay.com.au appears as my address)
Alan Margolies
starting with an early lp version, and have never found any defects in
the singing, the conducting, or the playing. And the sound has been
always satisfactory. I have not heard the most recent release but
would be surprised if the sound is not as good as the previous cd
releases. If anything, I recall the phony stereo LP version made by
British EMI, not pressed in the US (I believe engineered by Griffith)
at one time--it was one of the few of its type issued by EMI if there
were any others--and the discussion about whether it was real stereo
because supposedly there were some second signals being recorded
(similar to the rumors of those second signals on early Toscanini
broadcasts going to South America) but the discussion ended soon.
Manhattan Center was known for its good lively sound and many, many,
good sounding performances were recorded there. An acquaintance of
mine played the violin in that recording and always spoke highly of
the performance from the point of view of one who was there.
Bjorling's voice is not the early Bjorling but it is good as are the
other performers.
But I have never felt the passion in the singing, the conducting, or
the playing, that I have always felt in some other releases, most
specifically the Gigli recording. (And even the Toscanini
performance, but this is a very personal response.) Gigli's warmth
just has always gotten to me in a very positive way, and I know that
there are those who don't respond this way to this great singer. And
to change the subject slightly, I am not at all referring to most
recent NAXOS release because of the shrill sound (compared to other
releases of the same performance) despite the fact that it was
engineered by Ward Marston.
David7Gable
>one
>of them.
Indeed, Beecham is the one reservation I have about this set. He more or less
set out to be the anti-Toscanini when he made this recording. Unfortunately,
he more or less succeeded. But de los Angeles and Bjoerling are magnificent.
-david gable
Edward A. Cowan
NBCSO broadcast... <g>
Another "brisk" one was a telecast of some years ago cond. by veteran
Oliviero de Fabritiis, a performance that seemed to get everything at
just the right tempo, this coming not long after a Met broadcast cond.
James Levine in which virtually none of the tempi were right. --E.A.C.
Oisk17 <ois...@aol.com> wrote:
> The recording remains my favorite Boheme. Interesting that the reviewer
> refers to Beecham's "Brisk " reading of the score...I believe that Grandpa
> Dave's main objection to this recording is that it is not brisk enough!
--E.A.C.
Commspkmn
<< Indeed, Beecham is the one reservation I have about this set. He more or
less
set out to be the anti-Toscanini when he made this recording.>>
Beecham did know Puccini and reviewed the score of Boheme with the composer.
Ken Meltzer
Mitchell Kaufman
> If anything, I recall the phony stereo LP version made by
> British EMI, not pressed in the US (I believe engineered by Griffith)
> at one time--it was one of the few of its type issued by EMI if there
> were any others--and the discussion about whether it was real stereo
> because supposedly there were some second signals being recorded
> (similar to the rumors of those second signals on early Toscanini
> broadcasts going to South America) but the discussion ended soon.
As for "phony," while it's true that the recording wasn't made with
stereo in mind, there are a few other points to consider.
The earliest of RCA's stereo recordings, including the Reiner "Also
sprach Zarathustra" and "Heldenleben" and Munch "Symphonie fantastique"
of 1954, used a two-mike setup (which RCA soon abandoned for three
channels, subsequently mixed down to two: this largely eliminated the
"hole-in-the-middle" effect of the two-mike stereo recordings and
enabled the engineers to adjust the center fill in the stereo mixdown).
The "Boheme" was a two-track recording, but not for stereo--rather it
was ostensibly recorded that way for post-production balancing
flexibility. (RCA wasn't yet recording opera and other large scale
vocal/choral works in stereo, though they'd made experiments--a short
section of the Munch "Damnation of Faust" from 1954 survives in stereo.)
For this reason, orchestra and chorus were recorded on one channel, and
soloists on the other.
What EMI attempted in the '60s was to create a conventional stereo
balance from the two-track masters. To this end, they had to apply
differential EQ to each channel when dubbing the orchestra to "stereo,"
thus creating a subtle spread, not unlike what was commonly done (not
always so subtly) in those days when "reprocessing" mono material into
fake stereo was a common practice.
The fact that the voices were recorded on a separate track, however,
provided the EMI engineers with the ability to use the mixer to pan the
voices around the stereo "stage" independently of the orchestra, thereby
creating the illusion of stage movement. This was fake stereo only in
the sense that it wasn't recorded that way, but it was real stereo in
that there was a genuine left-right difference signal: the voices did
actually "move around."
Obviously there were limitations: unlike a recording staged for stereo
(like Decca's set with Serafin from a few years later), singers had to
stay on the same plane when singing together--they couldn't "split" them
because they were recorded on the same channel. On the other hand, when
the score allowed the engineers to pan the voices around, the effect was
spacious and striking. To a great extent it *sounded* like true stereo,
and opened up the soundstage and made the voices stand out against the
orchestra.
So I think it's not quite accurate to dismiss this effort as "phony
stereo." It was actually a clever idea, and very well-executed.
Incidentally, it was issued in the U.S. by EMI/Angel on the budget
Seraphim label, which had both this and the mono version in the catalog
at the same time.
I prize my "stereo" Beecham "Boheme," and hope someday EMI will see the
light and issue it on CD.
MK
gerberk
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2002/May02/Beecham_Boheme.htm
Nice pages on a truly fine soprano:
GRNDPADAVE
Not only are Bjoerling and De los Angeles at their best, but Merrill does some
of the finest singing I have ever heard from him.
It is Beecham's syruppy sentimentality that weighs down the score,
His insistence upon slow tempi smooths out and thereby distorts Rodolfo's
disingeniuous remarks from the real grief he reveals in "Una terribil tosse."
Beecham claims he went over the score with Puccini. But I wonder if his
110-minute marathon is as authentic a fulfillment of Puccini's intentions as
Toscanini's 96-minute sprint.
De los Angeles is marvelous in her way of suggesting Mimi's frailty even when
singing ff.
Despite some misgivings I have about choices Di Stefano makes in the Votto
recording, Callas' Mimi strikes me as the most vital realization.
At the opera's conclusion, be it noted, nobody comes close to Di Stefano in the
expression of grief at Mimi's death. Marcello's "Coraggio" (as in Toscanini's
performance) precedes the 3 ff chords. Di Stefano interpolates a horrified,
"No.!!"
Despite Beecham's shortcomings, they do not diminish, imho, the excellent
performances by De los Angeles, Bjoerling and Merrill.
==G/P Dave
Mark D Lew
GRGOY...@aol.com (TerriN) wrote:
> As I was surfing the web tonight I found this review regarding my
> favorite recording of La Boheme. Granted, I am fairly new to opera so
> I may not always know what is technically correct but I certainly know
> what I like and I enjoy this recording immensely. So my question is
> "Is it me or is this guy dead wrong?"
Probably neither. A reviewer is just a guy with an opinion. Individuals
have different tastes.
mdl
Alan Margolies
original sender said that the newest cd release is in stereo? I
wonder if that is another misstatement or if it is. I will check it
out at Tower next time I am there. Has anyone else checked this out?
Commspkmn
original sender said that the newest cd release is in stereo? I
wonder if that is another misstatement or if it is. I will check it
out at Tower next time I am there. Has anyone else checked this out?
>>
It is monophonic.
Best,
Ken Meltzer
Jon A Conrad
was the one our local library had (the old RCA pressing) when I was first
curious about opera in 7th grade. I was entranced by the sound-world it
created, and by the poignancy of the story in this rendition. I didn't
really think in terms of competitive interpretations at that age; this
simply became "what LA BOHEME sounds like" for me.
A few years later I was in college and heard other recordings of it for
the first time. (Callas, Tebaldi/Serafin) I was shocked! How could anyone
let it sound like this, when "my Beecham" was so glowing and glorious? Of
course with further experience I came to appreciate the values of a
variety of different approaches. But I'm afraid that for me, it's still
Beecham all the way in this opera. It's how I fell in love with the piece.
For all that, I don't take Beecham's statements, about how he knew Puccini
and discussed it with him, and his interpretation is thus the correct one,
very seriously. This is the sort of nonsense that people are apparently
willing to believe in the world of music -- "X coached with Gounod for
half an hour, her interpretation is therefore authentic" sort of thing.
I don't doubt that they really met and talked and all, but great
interpreters have minds of their own and end up doing what they want to
do. So, forget any historical connection with the composer. I just like
what I hear in this recording.
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
Commspkmn
<< For all that, I don't take Beecham's statements, about how he knew Puccini
and discussed it with him, and his interpretation is thus the correct one,
very seriously.>>
Jon-
I think we can take parts one and two seriously, the third, less so.
<<This is the sort of nonsense that people are apparently willing to believe in
the world of music -- "X coached with Gounod for half an hour, her
interpretation is therefore authentic" sort of thing.
I don't doubt that they really met and talked and all, but great interpreters
have minds of their own and end up doing what they want to do.>>
And many times, great performers offer another interpretive approach that the
composer hadn't previously considered, but ends up liking.
Ken Meltzer
Pat Finley
> A review of the original recording was quoted in the program notes for La
> Boheme at the Met. The gist of the quote (and if someone else has the exact
> words, feel free to correct me) was "Anyone who is unable to appreciate this
> performance has no place among civilized human beings." A bit over the top.,
> no?
>
> The recording remains my favorite Boheme. >
>
> Paul
My favorite, too. This is one of the few operas in which I have a
really strong preference for a particular recording over the others
I've heard -- not that I've heard all that many, compared to many
folks here.
(I have a number of "reverse preferences", though -- cases in which
there is one recording that I really don't care for.)
Incidentally John Conrad's comment that "this is how Boheme is
supposed to sound" (or words to that effect) because he heard this
recording a number of times in his formative years is not unlike this
listener's reaction (and likely a number of other people's reactions)
to Placido Domingo. We happened to hear him first -- in my own case
largely because I came to opera through the avenue of videos, where
his presence is particularly noteworthy -- we liked what we heard
(having nothing else to compare it to) and there you are.
Pat
Riuz Pineiro
the favorite boheme for the fags
Skip
"Riuz Pineiro" <bispi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:707a3c7d.02091...@posting.google.com...