The Eroica Symphony

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I've always said the metronome marks are wholely reasonable when used in the manner B himself directed, and that period instruments and practise are the most appropriate, and in this recording the orchestra even uses the correct temperement and pitch.

On this point, I don't see the logic in the Savall version of taking the Poco Andante in the finale at 84/88 when B marks 108. If he accepts all B's other markings, why not this one? Beethoven marks the funeral march Adagio assai with a marking of 80 - Savall takes the poco andante at virtually the same speed (84).

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
On this point, I don't see the logic in the Savall version of taking the Poco Andante in the finale at 84/88 when B marks 108. If he accepts all B's other markings, why not this one? Beethoven marks the funeral march Adagio assai with a marking of 80 - Savall takes the poco andante at virtually the same speed (84).

I agree absolutely. Truely I cannot understand the mindset of conductors.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[dice45]

Originally posted by Rod:
Whilst on this subject, check out a blistering new recording of the 3rd by Jordi Savall and Les Concert Des Nations (Astree, ES 9959). Period instrument (of course), great sound, generally observing B's metronome tempi, mid-price here in London (£8.99). To be played only when cats, dogs and humans of a weak and sensitive nature are safely locked away out of earshot!!

Hello Rod,

will check out your recommendation very soon and come back with comments.

Whilst on this subject, check out a blistering old recording of the 3rd played by Erich Kleiber cond. Concertgebouw Orch., Decca LXT 5215.

My only recommendation? No. The Toscanini/NBC SO recording (on RCA LM-6901)simply is magical! (Toscanini did not play all symponies well, some really are goofs, but the Eroica is just magic!)

One recommendation for the complete , all-9-symphonies recording of René Leibowitz/RPO London (On RCA Custom RDS-43, made for Reader's Digest (no, I'm not kidding)).
This box set contains 9 wonderfully played symphonies with 3rd ,5th and 9th outstanding.
The 6th sympony is maybe played a bit too fast. Nevertheless I like it very much.
Oh, before I forget it: breathtaking sonics!
The Beethoven-loving audiophile's choice.

As I talk about sympony hints from the past,
the 5th Beethoven by Leibowitz is the second on my personal preference table, together with Erich Kleiber cond. Concertgebouw Orch., Decca LXT 5358 (or LXT 2851, please use old-fashioned spherical stylus).
Both recordings have outstanding sonics, too, and the Kleiber mono recording makes you ask why Stereo ever was developed.

My first preference is Serge Koussevitzky cond.Boston SO, RCA Victor LM-1021. I wonder whether this gem has been re-issued on CD. I hunted it in vain; If anyone out there succeeds, please tell me!
Sonics: ancient

May I add that my recommendations are musically oriented; I like good sonics and take them as a bonus, as an add-on. But my recommendations are not affected by this at all.

Being a vinyl LP person, I do not know order codes or CD labels for those reocrdings, but apart from the Koussevitzky recording I know the exist(-ed) on the CD market. Have fun hunting and I would be gald if you tell me the CD order codes.

Greets,
Bernhard

[Rod]

Originally posted by dice45:
Hello Rod,

will check out your recommendation very soon and come back with comments.

Whilst on this subject, check out a blistering old recording of the 3rd played by Erich Kleiber cond. Concertgebouw Orch., Decca LXT 5215.

My only recommendation? No. The Toscanini/NBC SO recording (on RCA LM-6901)simply is magical! (Toscanini did not play all symponies well, some really are goofs, but the Eroica is just magic!)...

I'm sure your recommendations will be of interest to many here, but for me, I've spent too much time listening to baroque instruments and find there modern counterparts tonally mundane by comparison, so these days, if there is the choice available, I only consider these period instrument ensembles such as Le Concert des Nations or the Hanover Band.

Regarding sonics, I personally need a good sound to enjoy the music repeatedly. Many recordings these days have a dry or unambient accoustic which makes the music difficult to listen to. Often these recordings are very close-miked, which makes the sound unrealistically large. Also with regard to concertos or vocal music, the soloist is too loud in the mix compared to the orchestra - which may benefit the ego of the soloist, but is unrealistic musically.

Originally posted by dice45:

Being a vinyl LP person, I do not know order codes or CD labels for those reocrdings, but apart from the Koussevitzky recording I know the exist(-ed) on the CD market. Have fun hunting and I would be gald if you tell me the CD order codes.

Greets,
Bernhard

I appreciate the benefits of vinyl, but with classical music especially they are outweighed by the benefits of cd's. I've got some Handel music that would need at least 5 or 6 vinyl disks to fit the all music on! I had a recording of the 9th on vinyl that cut the adagio in two (half on side A, half on side B) to fit the wole work on one disk!!


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Michael]

Originally posted by Rod:
I had a recording of the 9th on vinyl that cut the adagio in two (half on side A, half on side B) to fit the wole work on one disk!!


[/B]

I had a vinyl disc that did that too - must have been the same one! The first recording I ever had of the "Waldstein" split the last movement due to some peculiar programming. To this day, I feel an inclination to rise and turn over the record half-way through the finale. Long live CD.

Michael

[Joy]

I have a package containing the 9 symphonies,
(by the London Symphony Orchestra for the London Festival Edition 1975), and it took 7 LP's for the entire 9 Sym. Also have the 5th
Sym on 4 records, believe it or not. Wonder how they crammed 9 entire Sym into 7 LP's and then one Sym took 4 LP's? I have to agree with Michael, long live CD's.
Joy

[Joy]

Originally posted by Rod:
I appreciate the benefits of vinyl, but with classical music especially they are outweighed by the benefits of cd's. I've got some Handel music that would need at least 5 or 6 vinyl disks to fit the all music on! I had a recording of the 9th on vinyl that cut the adagio in two (half on side A, half on side B) to fit the wole work on one disk!!

I must have the same record of the 9th that you do, Rod. Mine does the exact same thing.
Annoying, isn't it?
Joy

[Michael]

Originally posted by Joy:
Also have the 5th Sym on 4 records, believe it or not. Wonder how they crammed 9 entire Sym into 7 LP's and then one Sym took 4 LP's? I have to agree with Michael, long live CD's.
Joy [/B]

The Fifth Symphony on four discs? That must be a record, Joy, if you'll pardon the pun. The only recording I know of the Fifth that takes four black discs is the first ever made in 1913 by the Berlin Phil conducted by Arthur Nikisch. It was released on four double-sided shellac records which were sold seperately. This meant that you had to turn the record over half-way through each movement.
In those days there were instruments that simply would not record - lower strings in particular and these parts had to be given to trombones and tubas. I have a copy of that recording on CD and the accompanying picture shows about forty musicians crushed together next to a huge recording horn.
The amazing thing about the record is that while the quality is painful in the extreme by today's standards, an awful lot of the music gets through.
I don't suppose that's the one you have, Joy? It might be worth a fortune!

Michael

[Joy]

Originally posted by Michael:
The Fifth Symphony on four discs? That must be a record, Joy, if you'll pardon the pun. The only recording I know of the Fifth that takes four black discs is the first ever made in 1913 by the Berlin Phil conducted by Arthur Nikisch. It was released on four double-sided shellac records which were sold seperately. This meant that you had to turn the record over half-way through each movement.
In those days there were instruments that simply would not record - lower strings in particular and these parts had to be given to trombones and tubas. I have a copy of that recording on CD and the accompanying picture shows about forty musicians crushed together next to a huge recording horn.
The amazing thing about the record is that while the quality is painful in the extreme by today's standards, an awful lot of the music gets through.
I don't suppose that's the one you have, Joy? It might be worth a fortune!

Michael

Very funny pun, I like it, Michael. May I ask you what it is you mean by double-sided shellac records? I never hear the term shellac pertaining to a record before. It does say on each of my records "Philharmonic Transcription." Strangely enough it does not have the name of the conductor or even the orchestra! That's all it says. It did come in a package though and there is a paper with it entitled "Ludwig Van Beethoven An Appreciation by Samuel Chotzinoff". On my four disks, (eight sides), you do have to turn the record over half-way through each movement. (Be still my foolish heart, you don't suppose???) You wouldn't kid me about something like that, would you Michael? I did find it at an antique shop.
Joy

[Michael]

Originally posted by Joy:
Very funny pun, I like it, Michael. May I ask you what it is you mean by double-sided shellac records? I never hear the term shellac pertaining to a record before. It does say on each of my records "Philharmonic Transcription." Strangely enough it does not have the name of the conductor or even the orchestra! That's all it says. It did come in a package though and there is a paper with it entitled "Ludwig Van Beethoven An Appreciation by Samuel Chotzinoff". On my four disks, (eight sides), you do have to turn the record over half-way through each movement. (Be still my foolish heart, you don't suppose???) You wouldn't kid me about something like that, would you Michael? I did find it at an antique shop.
Joy

I was only joking, Joy, when I suggested that your discs might be the original 1913 ones. It would really be a chance in a million! Up to the time when the long-playing record came out, there must have been a lot of different versions of the Fifth Symphony and, in those days, it would take four shellac discs playing at 78 revolutions per minute, as each side could only hold about three to four minutes. Shellac was the material from which those early records were made. It was breakable and noisy and quite unsuitable for the long-playing record so, for that, the material was changed to vinyl, in the early fifties.
Those recordings of your are intriguing, though! Do they play at 78 rpm or the long-playing speed of 33 and a third rpm? In other words, can you play them at the same speed and on the same machine as you would play an LP?
Is there any other indication of the publisher of the discs? "Philharmonic Transcription" makes it sound more like an English production than a German.
Sorry for raising your hopes! Any vinyl or shellac experts out there?

Michael

[Michael]

Joy, I've tried to find out about Samuel Chotzinoff but my information is sketchy. He appears to have been a Russian-American pianist, and is mentioned in recording sessions that took place in 1911 to 1918. I think he gave a talk in the interval of a Toscanini broadcast and he appears to have written a work of fiction called "Eroica" which was published in 1930. (I wonder what that was about!)
I think your records may be by the New York Philharmonic - but I'm not really sure as Thomas Beecham is mentioned in one of the references to Samulel C. So the plot thickens!

Michael

[Rod]

Originally posted by Joy:
I must have the same record of the 9th that you do, Rod. Mine does the exact same thing.
Annoying, isn't it?
Joy

It was a DG release fron their 'Galleria' re-issues series, by Karajan and the BPO. My last vinyl record. Yes it was bloody annoying but I should have done as my mother says - "always read the label". The notes on the back of the cover identified this disection. I relied on tape for a long while before converting to CD.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Joy]

Originally posted by Michael:
I was only joking, Joy, when I suggested that your discs might be the original 1913 ones. It would really be a chance in a million! Up to the time when the long-playing record came out, there must have been a lot of different versions of the Fifth Symphony and, in those days, it would take four shellac discs playing at 78 revolutions per minute, as each side could only hold about three to four minutes. Shellac was the material from which those early records were made. It was breakable and noisy and quite unsuitable for the long-playing record so, for that, the material was changed to vinyl, in the early fifties.
Those recordings of your are intriguing, though! Do they play at 78 rpm or the long-playing speed of 33 and a third rpm? In other words, can you play them at the same speed and on the same machine as you would play an LP?
Is there any other indication of the publisher of the discs? "Philharmonic Transcription" makes it sound more like an English production than a German.
Sorry for raising your hopes! Any vinyl or shellac experts out there?

Michael

Michael, you big kidder you! I figured you were joking. I don't have that kind of luck!
I have found some gems in antique stores though. Thanks for the info, very interesting. Anyway, my records play at 33 1/3 so they must be more recent, no? Isn't that strange that they don't have any name or date or anything on the records? All they say is "World's Greatest Music" and then "Philharmonic Transcription." I wish they had a date on them. That would make it a lot easier. I did notice it says "Made in USA (in eight parts)," so that solves that puzzle. On the front package cover all it says is "Beethoven Symphony No 5 in c minor." Funny it wouldn't say anything else. Oh, well, I thought if it was worth something I could quit working. Maybe next time. Thanks again.
Joy

[dice45]

Hello Rod,

I would appreciate a constructive spirit! As far as I can remember, I gave specific hints in addition to your hint in the style of "did you try this, too?". I did not try to put anything you hinted down.

I'm sure your recommendations will be of interest to many here, but for me, I've spent too much time listening to baroque instruments and find there modern counterparts tonally mundane by comparison, so these days, if there is the choice available, I only consider these period instrument ensembles such as Le Concert des Nations or the Hanover Band.

Did you try out those specific recordings I hinted? Or is it unnnecessary to do so for turning them down? Which you do, IMO, in a very skilled and subtle yet effective way.

Regarding sonics, I personally need a good sound to enjoy the music repeatedly. Many recordings these days have a dry or unambient accoustic which makes the music difficult to listen to. Often these recordings are very close-miked, which makes the sound unrealistically large. Also with regard to concertos or vocal music, the soloist is too loud in the mix compared to the orchestra - which may benefit the ego of the soloist, but is unrealistic musically.

Sorry for having to ape you, "Many recordings.. " "... these recordings ..." "... these days ..." "...the soloist ...", very sorry, but you are dwelling in generalities, IMO. Did you listen to one of these specific recordings? Yes or no?

Musically those recordings are outstanding; I may say this as with this opinion I have much company, many grey beards with much music experience among them.

The recordings of my hints are made before 1964 without exception. Those days a microphone console had 1 to 3 channels for mono, up to 6 for stereo, which was rearely used: not many surplus channels for helper microphones, isn't it?

The Leibowitz recording is a 2 microphone recording done in Kingsway Hall by Kenneth Wilkinson. An acoustically holographic 3D image of the orchastra.

The Kleiber recordings are done by Victor Olof; for the 5th I have specific info: it is a mono recording issued 1951 (and re-cut/re-issued 1954). The Kleiber mono recording of the 5th is a time window: you stand at this window and listen to the orchestra of the year 1951 playing Beethoven's 5th with not even a curtain between you and the orchestra.

The Toscanini recording are from 1949 to 1952; they do sound quite fresh and pleasant, and they too are mono. One has no problems concentrating on singel instrument groups, yet the overall sound is very integral as it should be.

Same with the Koussevitzky recording (provided a king-size spherical stylus is used), which is from late 40ies or very early 50ies (also mono).

Not a single recording is fitting into the stated prejudices.

You are stating the Hanover Band to be one of your personal references (I read this on several posts of you). It truly is not mine. I examined different Beethoven recordings of the Hanover Band at the record shop and -- well, I did not buy them.

I appreciate the benefits of vinyl, but with classical music especially they are outweighed by the benefits of cd's.

A bit courageous, such general statement with no self-protecting aconym like IMO on it, isn't it?

How would you describe and grade different properties and their different appearances on vinyl and on CD to prove such a statement?

If you look on my website, you will find I might be the guy knowing exactly what he is talking about on vinyl. On CD, well, I am not that knowledged, I just have my listening experiences.

Two of my friends have managed independently to build fancy DIY CD players which (finally *sigh*) are singing, making music (needless to say their circuitry uses vacuum tubes where possible). But their CD players still do not create the 3rd dimension, they deliver depth and left/right but no height. No way to the acoustically holographic 3D image and not yet the musicality a medium quality turntable/preamplifier setup is both able to create. But, I must admit, they avoid to create the virtual sand between the teeth a usual CD player is creating. Maybe you like sand between the teeth, I do not.

Oh should not forget to tell: both friends prefer to listen to their turntables if the music is available on vinyl. No question to them and not to me either, although both invested considerable time/money to design and develop their CD thing and I would expect inventor's pride to cause a certain preoccupation for the own work.

I've got some Handel music that would need at least 5 or 6 vinyl disks to fit the all music on!

You are kidding, this shall be a reason? With so much pros and contras around this reason? There are shellac records, too, suffering much more under their 3:20 minutes limit. Nevertheless works too long for that were issued on shellac and some of them contain magical performances which are unequalled today, take the Bach Chaconne played by V.Prihoda with a round bow for example. Sounds like an organ!

You are not forced to hassle with a late Beethoven string quartet on shellac, but I do like it! (goes over 8 to 12 disc sides)

And some works are too long even for CD. Try out something written by John Cage and you will see. Moot point.

I had a recording of the 9th on vinyl that cut the adagio in two (half on side A, half on side B) to fit the wole work on one disk!!

You should not blame the vinyl disk for the goof of one producer or cutting engineer. And sometimes they really do goof.

Some other times they are forced to do so by the length of the material. If I want to listen to one of those fantastic early free jazz recordings by John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman, I have to turn the record as the piece goes over two full sides. Of course, today those recordings are available on CD. But those CD re-issues sound like crap. Such big crap that I prefer to listen to my vinyl 1st pressing.

I have a box set of the available Beethoven piano sonatas played by Solomon. Magic recordings IMO, BTW. But they are so stupidly distributed over the 12 sides that I have to change the record for three major sonatas, the opus 111 among them. But do you really believe I choose another pianist? For this reason? C'mon!

If I were to choose some records to take with me on a lonely island, this box set would be on the stack (and the 2nd SQ recordings of the Budapest SQ).

Bernhard.

[dice45]

Originally posted by Michael:

Sorry for raising your hopes! Any vinyl or shellac experts out there?

Michael

Hello Michael, hello Joy, hello all,

Michael seems to know shellacs, he reports "while the quality is painful in the extreme by today's standards, an awful lot of the music gets through." I can assure you, if the disc is played with correct equipment and the right stylus, there comes more music through that through any other system. The pain in the extremes, can't follow that, there is not much at the extremes of the frequency range. Depending on the age, I would expect to get a range starting at 50 to 100 Hz and going up to 5 to 12 kHz. What you adress as pain may be record wear or distortion due to wrong stylus.

Shellac records have some midrange frequency qualities easily outperforming even vinyl. Such as the impression of ambience (virtually being there), body of the instruments, tone colour saturation, tone colour distinctability.

To those wondering how to spot a shellac disc: it looks like a vinyl disc, is much thicker, either completely made from shellac or having a core of cardboard or similar stuff. Outer diameter usually is 250 or 300 mm and the diameter groove diameter is 70 to 80 mm instead of 112 mm vor vinyl.

Shellac records are incredibly resistive to friction wear but do not stand any sort of impact as they are very brittle. Particularly a too low tracking force causes damage not keeping the stylus in permanent contact with the groove wall so the stylus hits the groove wall with an impact . Shellacs stand a tracking force of up to 250 grams.

Shellacs have a limit o 3:20 minutes per side. They have constant groove-to-groove distance; things like Füllschrift, RoyalSound, margin control increasing the total playtime by stuffing grooves together as tight as possible do not exist for shellacs.

Shellacs are played with a nominal speed of 78.26 rpm. But this value can vary from 60 to 120 rpm for certain issues.

Nearly all shellacs are direct-to-disc recordings; as with vinyl direct-to-disc recordings (maybe even more) the sound hits you as immediate as a car accident.

Nearly all vinyls are recorded to magnetic tape, then processed and processed and processed and processed and then cut into a lacquer disc. So they usually sound not as immediate as shellacs.

All mechanical records need playback equalization, also shellacs. But according to (partially) ignoring of this fact or wishful thinking at some record companies, playback equalization varies wildly, depending of record label and year.
Evident that the right equalization has to be used: it can be tried out easy which one if a preamp with different switchable EQs
is available.

Shellacs do not make "dummp" when hit like a vinyl disc, the make a "cleengg" sound. But be careful hitting them. They break very easy.

If you think now that standarization was out of fashion AFA shellacs were concerned, you are dead right.

Hoping this helps.
Bernhard