|
|
|
A copy of this disc is on its way. I'm interested to hear a recording from Verizon Hall. As well, I've have a RBCD in route recorded at KKL Lucerne. Same ARTEC consultants involved with both halls. In the later case, I selected the latest recording from Lucerne Festival Strings (Shostakovich compositions). Both halls feature adjustable reverberation chambers to tune the acoustics. I've not been to either.
Any new impressions of the Eschenbach/Mahler recording?
|
|
|
Post by mdt October 19, 2006 (12 of 52)
|
|
JohnFerrier said:
In the later case, I selected the latest recording from Lucerne Festival Strings (Shostakovich compositions). Both halls feature adjustable reverberation chambers to tune the acoustics. I've not been to either.
Any new impressions of this recording?
Are you sure that was recorded in the KKL? Some discs i've seen show musicians at the KKL on the cover, but when looking in the booklet you can see they were recorded elsewhere.
I only know about Abbado Mahler2 and a Franz Schreker disc as RBCDs having been recorded in the KKL. On SA-CD the only one i know of is Beethoven Symph.1&2 with Basel Chamber Orchestra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mdt said:
Are you sure that was recorded in the KKL? Some discs i've seen show musicians at the KKL on the cover, but when looking in the booklet you can see they were recorded elsewhere.
I only know about Abbado Mahler2 and a Franz Schreker disc as RBCDs having been recorded in the KKL. On SA-CD the only one i know of is Beethoven Symph.1&2 with Basel Chamber Orchestra.
After not finding relavant info, I ordered not knowing for sure. It may be a studio recording. Thanks for tips on other recordings. The Lucerne Festival Strings probably wouldn't exercise the KKL hall much any way. Samples of their most recent recording sounds good to me, so it was worth a chance to find out. The Lucerne Festival website includes a CD shop (link below). I'd expect these to be recorded at the KKL : ). Later, I might try one of these discs.
CDs directly from Lucerne Festival (7 different discs from 2002 to 2006)
https://e.lucernefestival.ch/files/apps/shop/index.asp?MenuID=1151&Menu=2&ID=127&Item=10&page=list&mode=group¶m=2,
-
Actually, the more contemporary sound (v. Beethoven) of Franz Schreker is what I sought, but couldn't find. I'll order that one too. Thx, again.
-
As far as Beethoven, I see "recorded in the superlative acoustical setting of the culture and congress hall in Lucerne" in the description here...
http://www.oehmsclassics.de/cd.php?formatid=239
Very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To help Tower (brick/motar) liquidate their Seattle store, I picked up the KKL Luzern/Beethoven and the Verizon/Bartók both ARTEC concert hall SACD recordings.
So, my hall comparison is shaping up as follows:
Verizon Hall Philadelphia (2001)
Mahler/Eschenbach
Bartók/Eschenbach
KKL Lucerne (1998)
Beethoven/Antonini
Schreker/Axelrod
Though acoustically cool and dry, the Philadelphia Orchestra sounds crisp and refined in their new hall. Need more time for further comments. (I'll work on a seperate thread for hall acoustics, unless I have comments related to the Mahler/Eschenbach disc, a copy of which is in route.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must take exception to the views expressed here exclusively on the basis of the sound quality of this recording.
As you know, there are two versions of Mahler's 6th. Mahler originally wrote the score where the order of movements was Allegro - Scherzo - Andante - Allegro. He soon revised that order to Allegro - Andante - Scherzo - Allegro. During the Mahler revival of the 1960s, most of the major conductors of the time (Bernstein, Solti...) performed the work in the original order. Of late, many conductors have chosen the revised version. In my opinion, the original score is the more forceful; the revised one more classic in respecting the sonata form. Obviously, whichever version a conductor chooses is valid historically in that Mahler originally intended the first version to be performed then himself performed the revised version for his own first performance of the work.
In this new recording Eschenbach uses the original order of movements, but he also takes the orchestration of the revised version. That is to say, at the same time as changing the movement order Mahler lightened the orchestration. Thus, Eschenbach has chosen elements of the original and revised score, and combined them. As far as I know, this is the first time this has been done. I believe performing the original or revised scores historically valid, but choosing bits and pieces of both is ethically questionable.
For those interested in hearing what the originaly score sounds like it all its frightful savagery, I would send them to the recent Zander SACD. There at least the listener can experience this, the darkest of Mahler's works.
LAWRENCE SCHULMAN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Schulman said:
I must take exception to the views expressed here exclusively on the basis of the sound quality of this recording.
.
.
.
Interesting comments.
|
|
|
Post by fafnir October 23, 2006 (17 of 52)
|
|
Lawrence Schulman said:
For those interested in hearing what the originaly score sounds like it all its frightful savagery, I would send them to the recent Zander SACD. There at least the listener can experience this, the darkest of Mahler's works.
I believe that the scoring changes only occur in the last movement: omission of the third hammer blow and some relatively minor thinning of the orchestration as the movement concludes. The first three movements are not affected.
The Zander recording includes both version of the last movement so that the listener can decide for himself which version he likes best. As I mentioned in my review, the Zander is the slightly better recording, among other things bringing out more percussion detail, and is also a very fine performance.
|
|
|
Post by Peter October 24, 2006 (18 of 52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by ramesh October 24, 2006 (19 of 52)
|
|
Lawrence, we had a discussion on this site some time ago regarding the order of the middle movements. One of the regulars, Seth from memory, speculated that the Scherzo as the second movement was psychologically the more effective order, as its rhythm is effectively a sardonic parody of the first movement's march theme. Only a juxtaposition of these two movements, march annulled by ensuing parody, would make this apparent.
|
|
|
|
|
