|
|
|
current93 said:
Before this one I've never known that Mahler 4 could be real wall-shaker.
First I beg pardon for my brassy suggestion below:
I have heard the Mahler 4th 2 or 3 times in Boston's Symphony Hall. That hall has excellent (among the finest in the world) acoustics. I don't remember any performance in which the symphony was a "wall shaker"... Unlike the 6th for example about which I remember my brother-in-law exclaiming after the concert, "When you see that guy with the bass drum pick up those sticks, you know something big is going to happen!"
So I am guessing that the big bass some of you are seeming to appreciate is not really high fidelity but rather an effort via "post processing" to please some people who do not spend enough time in the concert hall to be discerning. People who really do not know what this symphony ought to really sound like.
(God willing) we will be attending a performance of the 4th this coming season and I will be especially listening to see if I am misspeaking or I am correct!
|
|
|
Post by cherrell July 21, 2012 (12 of 24)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
First I beg pardon for my brassy suggestion below:
I have heard the Mahler 4th 2 or 3 times in Boston's Symphony Hall. That hall has excellent (among the finest in the world) acoustics. I don't remember any performance in which the symphony was a "wall shaker"... Unlike the 6th for example about which I remember my brother-in-law exclaiming after the concert, "When you see that guy with the bass drum pick up those sticks, you know something big is going to happen!"
So I am guessing that the big bass some of you are seeming to appreciate is not really high fidelity but rather an effort via "post processing" to please some people who do not spend enough time in the concert hall to be discerning. People who really do not know what this symphony ought to really sound like.
(God willing) we will be attending a performance of the 4th this coming season and I will be especially listening to see if I am misspeaking or I am correct!
This Honeck Mahler 4 is quite extreme; all of Honecks Mahler is. It certainly gives us walls of sound too. Which isn't perhaps the best in this Mahler symphony. Regardless, Honeck has some incredible players at his disposal and he REALLY lets them do their thing. The principle brass players, Mr. Caballero in particular on the french horn, can blow the house down. Lord knows what their Mahler 2 will give us. Some really love Honecks Mahler, others find it amateurish. That's not for me to decide. He's one of the few conductors who really let's orchestra go.
In the 4th I like Previn with the same forces, Stenz, Fischer and Kondrashin on Melodiya sometimes, you know, when you need something different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
First I beg pardon for my brassy suggestion below:
I have heard the Mahler 4th 2 or 3 times in Boston's Symphony Hall. That hall has excellent (among the finest in the world) acoustics. I don't remember any performance in which the symphony was a "wall shaker"... Unlike the 6th for example about which I remember my brother-in-law exclaiming after the concert, "When you see that guy with the bass drum pick up those sticks, you know something big is going to happen!"
So I am guessing that the big bass some of you are seeming to appreciate is not really high fidelity but rather an effort via "post processing" to please some people who do not spend enough time in the concert hall to be discerning. People who really do not know what this symphony ought to really sound like.
(God willing) we will be attending a performance of the 4th this coming season and I will be especially listening to see if I am misspeaking or I am correct!
For maximum objectivity before blaming Exton for cheap tricks such post-production bass boost, you should listen to 4th symphony in this particular recording and live in Heinz Hall in Pittsburgh. The bass boost sounds so natural and effortless and appears not throughout all for movements, but at the climax of the 3rd movement.
Also I want to comment your statement that the big bass is not really high fidelity but rather an effort via "post processing" to please some people who do not spend enough time in the concert hall to be discerning. Firstly I appreciate your ability to attend such a world-class venue as Boston's Symphony Hall. But may I ask: do you always listen SACDs or music live with scores in your hands? How do you know what this symphony ought to really sound like? Do you realize that people invented recordings in all possible fidelities to please themselves as they don't have enough time to spend in the concert halls in Pittsburgh, Boston, London, Berlin or Moscow.
Please before attending a performance of the 4th this coming season (in Pittsburgh I assume?) listen to this SACD and examine properly the score. Your report will be priceless If you deign to post it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
current93 said:
Also I want to comment your statement that the big bass is not really high fidelity but rather an effort via "post processing" to please some people who do not spend enough time in the concert hall to be discerning. Firstly I appreciate your ability to attend such a world-class venue as Boston's Symphony Hall. But may I ask: do you always listen SACDs or music live with scores in your hands? How do you know what this symphony ought to really sound like? Do you realize that people invented recordings in all possible fidelities to please themselves as they don't have enough time to spend in the concert halls in Pittsburgh, Boston, London, Berlin or Moscow.
Please before attending a performance of the 4th this coming season (in Pittsburgh I assume?) listen to this SACD and examine properly the score. Your report will be priceless If you deign to post it here.
1) How do I know what this symphony really ought to sound like?
I don't really *KNOW* it is inference through time over many performances and the concurrence of these performances that allow me to recognize the symphony from others....they sound pretty much the same. Perhaps Honeck did something unusual. Perhaps he made the climax of the 4th sound like the 6th. Not having been there, of course I really don't know do I?
But there are obvious questions concerning the history of its performances vis a vis the performance of this new one.
2) Do you realize that people invented recordings in all possible fidelities to please themselves ...
Yes in fact that was my very point. Either it went down accurately or it was "goosed up" to satisfy some who think this sort of thing is impressive.
Unfortunately the up coming performance next spring is again in Symphony Hall with the BSO. I am not trucking down to Pittsburgh to satisfy a speculation about which I am more than 60% certain.
As an aside, I have a little prejudice here owing to more than a dozen Exton releases in my library that were listened to once or twice and dismissed as sub-standard in that for them sound manipulation appears to me to be the "order of the day"
I realize there is nothing in my post here that you will find satisfying and I am sorry for that. I didn't want to "poke" anyone over this merely wanted to suggest that alternative which I sincerely believe is really the source of the differences expressed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Honeck did something unusual. Either it went down accurately or it was "goosed up" to satisfy some who think this sort of thing is impressive.
As an aside, I have a little prejudice here owing to more than a dozen Exton releases in my library that were listened to once or twice and dismissed as sub-standard in that for them sound manipulation appears to me to be the "order of the day"
I'm just a bit curious concerning the above. First, why would you purchase as many as a dozen Exton recordings if you were convinced Exton was sonically manipulating in undesirable ways? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Second, you assume that the recordings were "goosed up" suggesting that they artificially manipulated, but you apparently have no specific knowledge of Exton's recording practices, which may simply involve microphone placement and mix and/or positioning of the instruments.
Third, you conjecture whether Honeck has done anything unusual. The reviews of his Mahler make it quite clear that his interpretations ARE a bit different and, in my opinion, mostly refreshing.
Now, all this seems to me to be supercilious nonsense.
As with all record companies, some performances are better than others and the quality of the sound also varies a bit among recordings. The thing to bear in mind, I think, is that recordings do not sound identical to a live performance, which, in any case, will vary a bit depending on the location of one's seats. Recordings often have more detail and a different balance than you are likely to encounter at a live performance. And, recording techniques and equipment do vary somewhat among recording companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
why would you purchase as many as a dozen Exton recordings if you were convinced Exton was sonically manipulating in undesirable ways?
For a while Extons were not widely available here. Then suddenly several titles opened up.
I bought them all at once based on their desirability as repertoire otherwise unavailable to me on SACD at that time. Consequently, by virtue of my trust, I got burned. These were the first sonically unsatisfactory SACDs I ever heard. (Apart from some bargain Membrans I never played after one hearing)
Also after checking my library I see that my number was a little bit of hot air. I really only got 9 not more than 12. I Apologize for whatever misunderstanding that may have entailed.
I actually have some other Japanese labels that I associate with the "Exton Sound" and probably confused the 2 or 3 additional discs with the Extons lumping them all together.
Finally the conclusion that the Exton sound is inferior and artificial was not reached immediately for all discs. The worst was sadly the Mozart PCs 17 AND 20 with Ashkenazy which I would otherwise have prized highly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Finally the conclusion that the Exton sound is inferior and artificial was not reached immediately for all discs. The worst was sadly the Mozart PCs 17 AND 20 with Ashkenazy which I would otherwise have prized highly.
Right. The Ashenazy/Mozart was one of the ones they sent me as a sampling of their releases some years back. None of the others were as bad but none were impressive.
I have not heard any recent ones.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 22, 2012 (18 of 24)
|
|
cherrell said:
This Honeck Mahler 4 is quite extreme; all of Honecks Mahler is. It certainly gives us walls of sound too. Which isn't perhaps the best in this Mahler symphony. Regardless, Honeck has some incredible players at his disposal and he REALLY lets them do their thing. The principle brass players, Mr. Caballero in particular on the french horn, can blow the house down. Lord knows what their Mahler 2 will give us. Some really love Honecks Mahler, others find it amateurish. That's not for me to decide. He's one of the few conductors who really let's orchestra go.
In the 4th I like Previn with the same forces, Stenz, Fischer and Kondrashin on Melodiya sometimes, you know, when you need something different.
I have to agree with Windsurfer. Except for that moment in the 3rd movement, I wouldn't characterize any parts of the 4th as a "wall shaker."
Pittsburgh is a very fine orchestra, but loudness is a poor way to measure the quality of an orchestra. Playing loud is easy. Playing softly with a wide range between p and ppp is what's hard to do. I'm lucky to be able to go to Carnegie Hall a lot and hear a variety of orchestra's from all over the country and world. Tthe biggest difference between the top tier and second tier orchestras is volume -- the second tier are always the louder ones.
|
|
|
Post by cherrell July 23, 2012 (19 of 24)
|
|
seth said:
I have to agree with Windsurfer. Except for that moment in the 3rd movement, I wouldn't characterize any parts of the 4th as a "wall shaker."
Pittsburgh is a very fine orchestra, but loudness is a poor way to measure the quality of an orchestra. Playing loud is easy. Playing softly with a wide range between p and ppp is what's hard to do. I'm lucky to be able to go to Carnegie Hall a lot and hear a variety of orchestra's from all over the country and world. Tthe biggest difference between the top tier and second tier orchestras is volume -- the second tier are always the louder ones.
I don't think of the 4th as a wall shaker either, nor should it be played as one. Honeck gives us moments in his recording that are wall shakers, smaller than other Mahler wall shaking, but much more than is needed in the 4th. It's like that with all of Honecks Mahler, F=FFF if you play horn or trumpet in this orchestra. Previns recording with Pittsburgh is a proper 4th.
You are correct that how loud an orchestra plays is a bad way to measure how good an orchestra is. That seems to be how Pittsburgh is judged.Even seeing an orchestra live isn't always a good judge either. I saw the Concertgebouw last May in Leipzig do Das Lied with Luisi. It was one of the most lifeless performances I've ever seen. Technically brilliant but pretty dead. I also heard a 2nd tier orchestra play Mahler 6 to 15 curtain calls for David Zinman and his band, also in Leipzig.
For me, music making will always trump recording quality, or technical brilliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
Tthe biggest difference between the top tier and second tier orchestras is volume -- the second tier are always the louder ones.
Not necessarily so. When Davies Hall was first opened in San Francisco, people complained about the acoustics and the lack of orchestra volume. Then followed a guest appearance by the Vienna Phil., which apparently filled the hall with sound. The acoustics have been fixed, but volume is not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends, doesn't it? I haven't heard Honeck's Mahler 4, but his interpretations are his own and the Exton recordings seem to bring out the brass a bit. Perhaps Honeck looks at them contrary to the advice of Beecham.
|
|
