• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Seminal symphonic recordings

DBeauregard

DBeauregard

Jan 22, 2013
40
0
#1
I'm becoming incredibly interested in orchestral music and I want to learn more about it, particularly through listening to historic recordings of various symphonies.

I know this is an extremely broad question but what the hell, what are some of your favorite historical recordings of the famous symphonic music written throughout the ages?
 
#3
What do you mean by "historic"? Are you looking for wax cylinders and 78's? Period instruments?

Most of the very best recordings have been made in the last 20 years or so. Recording technology has come a long way, and orchestras keep getting better. For instance, Pierre Boulez has been gradually releasing a set of Mahler Symphonies which I don't think can be improved upon. [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#5
PaulCannon said:
What do you mean by "historic"? Are you looking for wax cylinders and 78's? Period instruments?

Most of the very best recordings have been made in the last 20 years or so. Recording technology has come a long way, and orchestras keep getting better. For instance, Pierre Boulez has been gradually releasing a set of Mahler Symphonies which I don't think can be improved upon. [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Click to expand...

Not necessarily looking for wax cylinders and 78s. I suppose what I mean by "historic" is recordings made from the 1930s moving forward. I'm interested in listening to recordings that may have influenced some of today's modern composers and conductors.

Recording technology certainly has come a long way over the past 20 years or so. That being said, in my opinion there is sometimes a certain energy that I feel comes through in older recordings---an edginess that's sometimes lost in the recordings of today. Granted, I'm sure that's due in most part to the the way they were recorded.

I'll definitely check out Boulez' Mahler symphonies. Thanks for the input.
 
#6
DBeauregard said:
Recording technology certainly has come a long way over the past 20 years or so. That being said, in my opinion there is sometimes a certain energy that I feel comes through in older recordings---an edginess that's sometimes lost in the recordings of today. Granted, I'm sure that's due in most part to the the way they were recorded.
Click to expand...
I once found a 75-disc set of the complete Toscanini at a garage sale and bought it for maybe $20. Edgy? I suppose. They're certainly out of tune. Toscanini had a habit of picking absurdly fast tempos, so many of the records are sloppy as a result. It's also the epitome of non-informed, 20th century schlock. Bach, Mozart and Haydn all sound like Verdi.

Toscanini's opera recordings are very interesting, though still prone to the same problems as his orchestral work. It's nice to hear what La Scala and the Met were like around 1940 and 1950. He had personally known Puccini and Verdi, so I suppose his recordings are as historically informed as could be.

As for Karajan, that's another can of worms. As long as I'm disparaging long-dead conductors, I'd like to point out that a great deal of classical music's current "image" problem could be traced directly back to Karajan. He was essentially the face of European orchestral music for a generation, directing both the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics simultaneously. He put out an absurd number of recordings, none of which are good. He had a talent for taking a rather shocking piece like Beethoven's 3rd symphony, rounding the edges and turning it into easy listening. It's no longer revolutionary, exciting music -- Karajan's recordings are meant to be enjoyed in the background, while you sit in an armchair and read a book. I ****ing hate Karajan.
 
#8
Mahler and Beethoven are great recommendations, but I agree with Paul that Karajan and Toscanini aren't the way to go. I'm going to put myself even further into the doghouse and say that I find Bernstein overrated, as well. I don't love his tempi and for most works you can find a better interpretation.

Beethoven is hugely important for the bass, and his fifth and ninth symphonies are regularly called on auditions. As a listener, I like Szell's recordings of Beethoven. Szell is also a good choice for Mozart.

For Mahler, I second Paul's recommendation of Boulez. Boulez is oft-maligned, but I think he gets Mahler right. In particular, I like his recordings of Mahler 1, 2, 6, and Das Lied von der Erde. For Mahler 3, I like the recent live recording with Janssons and the Concertgebouw. The best Mahler 4 I've heard is Ivan Fisher's with Budapest Festival Orchestra. Mahler 5, I'd go for Barenboim. For Mahler 7, I like Tilson-Thomas's recordings (also Barenboim). I don't have a pick for Mahler 8, and for 9 I'd go with Barbirolli or Rattle.

You might also want to listen to the symphonies of Brahms - for starters, Abbado and Marin Alsop have good recordings. Simon Rattle's Ein Deutches Requiem is also excellent.

You should also find a good recording of Shostakovich 5 - I like a recent live recording that the NY Phil made with Lorin Maazel, although it's only available on iTunes, as far as I know. I'm a little biased because I attended that series, but I think it's got the right amount of fire, bombast, and irony.
 
#16
PaulCannon said:
I once found a 75-disc set of the complete Toscanini at a garage sale and bought it for maybe $20. Edgy? I suppose. They're certainly out of tune. Toscanini had a habit of picking absurdly fast tempos, so many of the records are sloppy as a result. It's also the epitome of non-informed, 20th century schlock. Bach, Mozart and Haydn all sound like Verdi.

Toscanini's opera recordings are very interesting, though still prone to the same problems as his orchestral work. It's nice to hear what La Scala and the Met were like around 1940 and 1950. He had personally known Puccini and Verdi, so I suppose his recordings are as historically informed as could be.

As for Karajan, that's another can of worms. As long as I'm disparaging long-dead conductors, I'd like to point out that a great deal of classical music's current "image" problem could be traced directly back to Karajan. He was essentially the face of European orchestral music for a generation, directing both the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics simultaneously. He put out an absurd number of recordings, none of which are good. He had a talent for taking a rather shocking piece like Beethoven's 3rd symphony, rounding the edges and turning it into easy listening. It's no longer revolutionary, exciting music -- Karajan's recordings are meant to be enjoyed in the background, while you sit in an armchair and read a book. I ****ing hate Karajan.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with you, my only caveat being that I like the way Karajan conducted some Romantic works. I have a vinyl of the Berlin Phil playing Symphonie Fantastique with Karajan at the front and the 4th movement's pretty special.

If you want something really interesting, listening to Tafelmusik (from Toronto) play Beethoven 8 is an cool experience.

eerbrev
 
#17
PaulCannon said:


I'm not sure what's more shocking: how fast the recitatives really are, or how slow the Turkish march is marked.
Click to expand...


Not to get hung up on this, but I need to vent...

I've listened to many of these break-neck versions of B9, and I find that the tempi destroy the essence of musical expression in the recitative. The low strings cease to speak with passionate interjections in opposition to the reiteration of earlier themes; instead, their voices become belly laughter. Same with the Turkish march—too fast, and it's no longer a rousing march of universal brotherhood, but rather a comical circus calliope.

I don't know how some conductors can justify such gross distortions of musical expression.

(End of rant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled TalkBass thread...)
 
#18
csrund said:
Not to get hung up on this, but I need to vent...

I've listened to many of these break-neck versions of B9, and I find that the tempi destroy the essence of musical expression in the recitative. The low strings cease to speak with passionate interjections in opposition to the reiteration of earlier themes; instead, their voices become belly laughter(...)I don't know how some conductors can justify such gross distortions of musical expression.
Click to expand...

Well, in the case of the Recitative, that's how fast it's actually marked (i.e. "Presto"). I was always told that there was some sort of slow down or something written in the score to justify the slow-down, but there's a First edition of the score (pub. Schott) and the note underneath the line says "Selon de caractre d'un Recitative mais in Tempo", which roughly translated means "according to the character of a Recitative But in tempo".

You can argue that the music is "better" doing it at a slower tempo, but it's not the way Beethoven wrote it, and it's hard to justify THAT much of a tempo difference. Beethoven's metronome has been tested and proved to be accurate, so we can't use that as an excuse anymore, so where does that leave us? A lot of how we perceive music comes for how we first experience it, so it makes sense that someone like you or I feels that the tempo should be slower because that's the way we've always heard it. Doing otherwise sounds "wrong" somehow.

eerbrev
 
#19
eerbrev said:
...You can argue that the music is "better" doing it at a slower tempo, but it's not the way Beethoven wrote it...

eerbrev
Click to expand...

You're right, eerbrev. There seems to be no ambiguity about Beethoven's instructions. I just played the ninth about six weeks ago with a conductor who did his dissertation on B9 performance practices, and he was adamant about being as faithful as possible to the tempi as marked (while making reasonable concessions to hold the ensemble together). He seemed to find a good zone that was a viable resolution between the instructions and tradition.

I think I'll likely always find strictly literal interpretations like the Norrington recording to be a distortion of the underlying message of the Ninth, however. To be even-handed, there are also, of course, outrageous interpretations on the other end of the spectrum—the recitative so lethargic it sounds like the players have molasses in their veins.

B9 is such a powerful work, I think everyone will always regard its expression in a deeply personal frame of reference, shaped, as you pointed out, by the composite of our personal experience and the way the music speaks to us.

(Interesting thing regarding the metronome theory, too. I've found it odd that anyone could believe that Beethoven was genius enough to compose one of history's greatest scores while deaf as a stone, yet somehow not realize that his metronome was whacked out. That never added up to me.)

Cheers!
 
#20
For me, the only Symphonie Fantastique recording is a recent one by Robin Ticciati with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. It's unexpected but brilliant. The smaller group has plenty of oomph, but they add some clarity that I haven't heard in other recordings.

I also forgot to mention a recording of Beethoven 9 conducted by Franz Welser-Most. This isn't a recording for general enjoyment of Beethoven: it happens to have the basses very high in the mix, so you can hear them very clearly. I usually pull this one out for inspiration when I'm preparing the ninth for a concert.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back