Mravinsky (stereo) has definitely been the reference recording since it came out. I have hardly ever read a review of Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies that didn't mention it as such - including Classics Today.
Being aged enough to recall the 1950's and 60's on the USA side of the pond, the Ormandy/PO recordings of Tchaikovsky symphonies were among the most played on the radio, the most mentioned in magazine and newspaper reviews, and the greatest in sales. If one went to the library to borrow a record of a Tchaikovsky piece, it was usually an Ormandy recording. For that place in time Ormandy's was the stake driven into the ground. Other recordings came along later which some admittedly prefer, but folks still refer back to Ormandy's; hence, it's a/the reference.
I still think Mravinsky/Leningrand is the reference recording for Tchaikovsky 4-6. Dave said "marketing does pay a factor...the Soviet Union is not one for marketing ever...". That may be true years ago when these recordings were not as well known and the cold war was still on-going. But we are in the 21st century and these recordings are very well known now. I have a feeling that the reason why Tchaikovsky 4-6 are not as popular as before is because these Mravinsky recordings are so good that people do not bother making new Tchaikovsky 4-6 recordings any more.
But there is no reference recording now because there is no consensus of the kind we experienced in the 60s and 70s. And when there was such a consensus, which was when Ormandy and Karajan recorded their Tchaikovsky, they were the reference.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Reading the comments and the reviews of the last 20 years - I think Mravinsky is the consensus - a recording everyone must listen for this repertoire - above all the others.
I am so glad that you include Karajan's late 1970s analog set. They have been my "go to" recordings for the last four decades. Although I have downloaded many of your recommended choices, particularly the Pathetique (I especially love Fricsay's), I regularly return to these.
So glad, Dave, that you didn't go for the low hanging fruit of the Mravinsky /Leningrad recordings. I love both the Ormandy and Karajan recordings of these works.
my first hearing of the Fourth was Ormandy's early mono recording (lovingly remastered in 2021 and sounding great at 96/24 on the streaming services); truly exciting; i remember asking my dad why he still had a mono recording (this would be me asking at the end of the 60s/beginning of the 70s), and that was the first time someone explained to me that it didn't matter if the performance was first rate; great lesson
As G. B. Shaw quipped, "Tchaikovsky wrote three symphonies and they are numbered four, five, and six." Well, I have multiple versions of all six and listen to all but the 3rd regularly. I think during the '60's before the yellow label made quite the inroads that it has since that time I was more "aware" of Ormandy. He was very highly regarded in the repertoire and his "instrument" (The Fabulous Philadelphians) had a tonality which seemed to support Tchaikovsky very well. Karajan's best Tchaikovsky is from the mid-70's. (which I think Dave alludes to) and that is also when he recorded the first three resulting in a complete set. BUT it is interesting to me that Karajan in Europe was the champion of "orchestral beauty" very similar to what Ormandy was in America. So apparently that "factor" needs to be considered in these reference recordings.
I don't buy Ormandy over Mravinsky as the reference here. I have been collecting classical recordings since 1970...the Mravinsky has been widely available for a very long time, it was DG who made these recordings while the orchestra was on tour and NOBODY talks about Ormandy as being a reference today, nor have they for a zillion years. As said below, Mravinsky always comes up.
Yes, he always comes up today, but until today the reference was Ormandy/Karajan. The classical music world has shrunk substantially since then, and memories are often short. I would not call Mravinsky the reference today either. There is no consensus today in the way that there was then.
@@DavesClassicalGuideI would argue that, from my point-of-view devouring the record sections of High Fidelity, Stereo Review and others as a teen, that the Mravinsky only became known in the early '70s when DG issued them as a box, but that they immediately jumped to reference status once issued. Incidentally, it appears to me that "Ormandy on Sony" is no longer in print, as the company has opted to release a big box of "Ormandy conducts Tchaikovsky" using his later RCA cycle in its place.
@@JamesDavidWalley One thing about that Sony/RCA switch you mentioned… If you want to hear string portamenti tastefully applied in a modern stereo recording (historical performance practice?), it’s on the Ormandy/Sony.
I tuned in to see if you had chosen Mravinsky. When you produced them, I was appeased. Then you took it all away. I guess they're just the best, but not the reference.
Sorry, but saying that the Mravinsky/Leningrad recordings didn't have a sufficient marketing value is simply not true. They were recorded in London for DG in the '60s and they have had the golden share of the market (in Europe at least) ever since. I never met anyone who wouldn't pick them as first choice, either individually or as a clump. But I wouldn't dare say that they are unequivocally the best, Ormandy is probably on par, and there is also Leonard Bernstein, just to mention two of them. About Karajan, well, I disagree with your opinion, but I must agree that there is a consensus around him. Incidentally, strange as it may be, I love Klemperer's recordings!
Yes, it is true. Both Karajan and Ormandy vastly outsold Mravinsky, and I don't need to point to any statistics to prove it. It's common sense. But beyond that fact, it's important to remember that both Karajan and Ormandy had substantial audiences of listeners beyond the usual classical music "ghetto," which Mravinsky certainly did not. We can't quantify this scientifically, but if you worked in the record business you would know that there is no comparison between Mravinsky and those other two conductors. I'm frankly surprised that this is even a question.
I wish people would listen to your reasoning behind what a reference recording is. They seem to just bang away at their favorites and don’t pay any attention to what you’re saying. They haven’t read all of the reviews you have. They don’t have the knowledge you have. You’ve been very clear that a reference according is not always. (many times. Is not). The best. Sheesh! I don’t know how you can make yourself more clear than you already have.
Ditto. The Mravinsky stereo recordings became better-known when DG packaged them as a 3-LP box set. Specifically in the US, a 1970s mail-order club called the International Preview Society licensed this DG box set (using low-cost static-prone Italian pressings), used very savvy marketing in publications like the New Yorker, Saturday Review and High Fidelity to sell tens of thousands of these Mravinsky box sets. I still have that IPS box set, with its "Carnegie Hall Selection Committee" description of why the Mravinsky/Leningrad recordings were so special.
@@peacearchwa5103 That's how I got them in 1976, and remember being bummed when the pressings turned out not to be the standard DGG German ones. Now, why wanted to get the Mravinskys is another matter. Back then I was subscribing to High Fidelity and Stereo Review and I think I'd also started Gramophone by then. Ads wouldn't have persuaded me but the Mravinskys must have been getting good mentions in some or all of those mags.
This is such a fascinating topic, particularly how it relates to this symphonic clump, and especially because often you appear NOT to agree with some of these reference recordings picks. I appreciate your candor, honesty and objective point-of-view
I understand the rationale of choosing Ormandy/Philly, given their commercial success and reputation in Russian music. Though I wonder how the Monteux/Boston recordings on RCA would stack up against them - an equally big-name conductor/orchestra combination, amazing playing by Boston and arguably better sound on Living Stereo, and available to the public earlier in the late 50's. Monteux's interpretations also seem very different to me than Ormandy or Karajan, with much swifter tempos and perhaps more balletic grace. I'm sure there was more than enough room for both approaches in the halcyon collecting days of the 50's-70's...
Slightly off-topic, but this week I asked two complete strangers at LA's biggest CD/record store(on Hollywood Blvd)- who were looking through the classical CD's-if each watches your reviews. Both do religiously, and the shopper I met today said "Thank God for David's reference recording series."
There's still a record shop on Hollywood Blvd? I haven't been there in years, but I thought they were all gone after Tower Records closed its shop on Sunset.
@@duvidl Amoeba Records; it moved a couple years ago from Sunset Blvd. They buy and sell used media of all music and video genres, and carry some new albums, including avant-,garde releases.
Dave, the Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra discography also includes the Delos digital recordings of the Fifth and Sixth symphonies from 1981/82. The audio quality is exceptionally natural and fine, but the performances are relatively pale compared with Ormandy's Sony recordings.
Mr. Hurwitz, sí, Mravinsly es genial, pero el Karajan de los años 70 es también modélico en su estilo. Gran comentario el suyo, como siempre. Tiene usted un gran gusto por la música.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Mr. Hurwitz, I am your most sincere admirer. His comments are always balanced and I love his sense of humor. Thank you very much and also thank you for responding to my comment. Hugs
I have been reading the comments on this one, and I feel the need to throw in my 4p's worth. Which may or may not be "worth" anything: but here goes. Back in the day, I tended - rightly or wrongly - to buy records on the basis of what the consensus of sources that I trusted recommended - because as a student I didn't have the money to throw around experimenting on my own. When I got my second set of Tchaik 4-6 [second because I had already inherited the complete set that I grew up with, which was Maazel/VPO], I don't remember Mravinsky being mentioned. I certainly didn't buy it. I got Ormandy - because I didn't like Karajan... So Mravinsky, on that basis, presumably couldn't have been the reference recording...
This surprised me too, as I was expecting Mravinsky. But I see Dave's point. Perhaps the issue with Mravinsky is that these recordings are too unique to be a reference. Noone had played Tchaikovsky like that before and noone has played it like that since (at least on record). I can't imagine any orchestra today daring to play that way (those awesome, parade ground trumpets for example) and so it just doesn't make sense to use Mravinsky as a frame of reference for other recordings.
I have the Mravinsky and Karajan versions. Pity that I don't have Ormandy's, but I do have Ormandy's recording of Tchaikovsky ballet music like Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty. These are good too.
Ormandy plays these ballets as though they were among the world’s greatest music. I prefer his Tchaikovsky ballets over HvK’s (I’ve elsewhere seen the latter’s touted as reference).
The stereo Mravinsky Tchaikovsky 4-6 were recorded in Berlin by DG and given worldwide distribution. I doubt they would have received the attention they have if they had been recorded by Melodiya with its poor distribution in the West.
I never said they were recorded by Melodiya. I said most of his legacy was recorded by Melodiya, which it was. And DG recorded these performances in London. And yes, they were available, but they were not promoted, especially once Karajan's versions started coming out on the same label.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I meant that had they been recorded by Melodiya, his main label in Russia, they probably would not have received the same distribution in the West that they got from DG You are right, they were recorded in London, not Berlin.
I would have gone for Mravinsky, but that's just my preference. By the way, I did hear the Leningrad Philharmonic in Carnegie Hall in the mid-1970's--Rodestvensky (sp?) conducting. Best string section I ever heard in my life. Whoo boy could they play. The winds and brass were "interesting"--full of character, as they say.
Here's a funny story: I saw the Leningrad Phil. in Boston in the mid-70"s. Roshdestvensky replaced Mravinsky who had decided not to make the trip, for whatever reasons. The first work on the program was Shostakovich's 15th Symphony, receiving its first performance in Boston. At intermission I saw Colin Davis (who was in town conducting the BSO) at the bar in the lobby and asked him what he thought. He said, "It's such a great orchestra. Why do they have to bring this shit with them?" 😄 (Incidently, I don't agree about the Shostakovich.)
Mravinsky (stereo) has definitely been the reference recording since it came out. I have hardly ever read a review of Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies that didn't mention it as such - including Classics Today.
No, it was never the reference--but it was often considered the best, as I explained. Don't confuse the two.
Sorry David: Mravinsky/Leningrand 👏👏👏🔥
Sorry , I find the Mravinsky pretty dry...🙄
Being aged enough to recall the 1950's and 60's on the USA side of the pond, the Ormandy/PO recordings of Tchaikovsky symphonies were among the most played on the radio, the most mentioned in magazine and newspaper reviews, and the greatest in sales. If one went to the library to borrow a record of a Tchaikovsky piece, it was usually an Ormandy recording. For that place in time Ormandy's was the stake driven into the ground. Other recordings came along later which some admittedly prefer, but folks still refer back to Ormandy's; hence, it's a/the reference.
I still think Mravinsky/Leningrand is the reference recording for Tchaikovsky 4-6. Dave said "marketing does pay a factor...the Soviet Union is not one for marketing ever...". That may be true years ago when these recordings were not as well known and the cold war was still on-going. But we are in the 21st century and these recordings are very well known now. I have a feeling that the reason why Tchaikovsky 4-6 are not as popular as before is because these Mravinsky recordings are so good that people do not bother making new Tchaikovsky 4-6 recordings any more.
But there is no reference recording now because there is no consensus of the kind we experienced in the 60s and 70s. And when there was such a consensus, which was when Ormandy and Karajan recorded their Tchaikovsky, they were the reference.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Reading the comments and the reviews of the last 20 years - I think Mravinsky is the consensus - a recording everyone must listen for this repertoire - above all the others.
I guessed Mravinsky but I totally get it. Thanks, Dave!
Dave, this is the first time I think you may have picked your favorites instead of the true reference recording(s). If not Mravinsky, then Markevitch?
They are not my favorites.
Mravinsky/Leningrand, without doubt
Markevitch is also great at Tchaikovsky. Mravinsky stands out much more in Shostakovich and Prokofiev, for my taste of course.
I am so glad that you include Karajan's late 1970s analog set. They have been my "go to" recordings for the last four decades. Although I have downloaded many of your recommended choices, particularly the Pathetique (I especially love Fricsay's), I regularly return to these.
That Columbia three LP box was the first classical music Christmas present my parents got for me (in the 60s). I still have it and still love it.
So glad, Dave, that you didn't go for the low hanging fruit of the Mravinsky /Leningrad recordings. I love both the Ormandy and Karajan recordings of these works.
my first hearing of the Fourth was Ormandy's early mono recording (lovingly remastered in 2021 and sounding great at 96/24 on the streaming services); truly exciting; i remember asking my dad why he still had a mono recording (this would be me asking at the end of the 60s/beginning of the 70s), and that was the first time someone explained to me that it didn't matter if the performance was first rate; great lesson
As G. B. Shaw quipped, "Tchaikovsky wrote three symphonies and they are numbered four, five, and six." Well, I have multiple versions of all six and listen to all but the 3rd regularly. I think during the '60's before the yellow label made quite the inroads that it has since that time I was more "aware" of Ormandy. He was very highly regarded in the repertoire and his "instrument" (The Fabulous Philadelphians) had a tonality which seemed to support Tchaikovsky very well. Karajan's best Tchaikovsky is from the mid-70's. (which I think Dave alludes to) and that is also when he recorded the first three resulting in a complete set. BUT it is interesting to me that Karajan in Europe was the champion of "orchestral beauty" very similar to what Ormandy was in America. So apparently that "factor" needs to be considered in these reference recordings.
I don't buy Ormandy over Mravinsky as the reference here. I have been collecting classical recordings since 1970...the Mravinsky has been widely available for a very long time, it was DG who made these recordings while the orchestra was on tour and NOBODY talks about Ormandy as being a reference today, nor have they for a zillion years. As said below, Mravinsky always comes up.
Yes, he always comes up today, but until today the reference was Ormandy/Karajan. The classical music world has shrunk substantially since then, and memories are often short. I would not call Mravinsky the reference today either. There is no consensus today in the way that there was then.
@@DavesClassicalGuideI would argue that, from my point-of-view devouring the record sections of High Fidelity, Stereo Review and others as a teen, that the Mravinsky only became known in the early '70s when DG issued them as a box, but that they immediately jumped to reference status once issued.
Incidentally, it appears to me that "Ormandy on Sony" is no longer in print, as the company has opted to release a big box of "Ormandy conducts Tchaikovsky" using his later RCA cycle in its place.
You are correct. Absolutely spot on. It was always Mravinsky over Ormandy, particularly in the Penguin Guide and Gramophone magazine.
@@JamesDavidWalley One thing about that Sony/RCA switch you mentioned… If you want to hear string portamenti tastefully applied in a modern stereo recording (historical performance practice?), it’s on the Ormandy/Sony.
I tuned in to see if you had chosen Mravinsky. When you produced them, I was appeased. Then you took it all away. I guess they're just the best, but not the reference.
They aren't "the best" either, although many call them that, but they are remarkable. The very idea of "the best" in that repertoire is just silly.
Sorry, but saying that the Mravinsky/Leningrad recordings didn't have a sufficient marketing value is simply not true. They were recorded in London for DG in the '60s and they have had the golden share of the market (in Europe at least) ever since. I never met anyone who wouldn't pick them as first choice, either individually or as a clump. But I wouldn't dare say that they are unequivocally the best, Ormandy is probably on par, and there is also Leonard Bernstein, just to mention two of them. About Karajan, well, I disagree with your opinion, but I must agree that there is a consensus around him. Incidentally, strange as it may be, I love Klemperer's recordings!
Yes, it is true. Both Karajan and Ormandy vastly outsold Mravinsky, and I don't need to point to any statistics to prove it. It's common sense. But beyond that fact, it's important to remember that both Karajan and Ormandy had substantial audiences of listeners beyond the usual classical music "ghetto," which Mravinsky certainly did not. We can't quantify this scientifically, but if you worked in the record business you would know that there is no comparison between Mravinsky and those other two conductors. I'm frankly surprised that this is even a question.
Klemperer’s fifth is awesome. Best of his 3.
@@neilford99 the 4th is also awesome. The weak point is the Scherzo of the 6th, too slow.
And Ormandy was the only one to record the 7th symphony.
I actually heard that lp of the "7th" before I heard 1,2, and 3.
I had to look that one up. Apparantly Tchaikovsky only orchestrated the first movement, right?
Spot on!! Karajan's 1970s recordings (and not just of these symphonies) are out of this world.
Unfortunately they were recorded by DG.
I wish people would listen to your reasoning behind what a reference recording is. They seem to just bang away at their favorites and don’t pay any attention to what you’re saying. They haven’t read all of the reviews you have. They don’t have the knowledge you have. You’ve been very clear that a reference according is not always. (many times. Is not). The best. Sheesh! I don’t know how you can make yourself more clear than you already have.
I agree. It's a problem.
Ditto. The Mravinsky stereo recordings became better-known when DG packaged them as a 3-LP box set. Specifically in the US, a 1970s mail-order club called the International Preview Society licensed this DG box set (using low-cost static-prone Italian pressings), used very savvy marketing in publications like the New Yorker, Saturday Review and High Fidelity to sell tens of thousands of these Mravinsky box sets. I still have that IPS box set, with its "Carnegie Hall Selection Committee" description of why the Mravinsky/Leningrad recordings were so special.
@@peacearchwa5103 That's how I got them in 1976, and remember being bummed when the pressings turned out not to be the standard DGG German ones. Now, why wanted to get the Mravinskys is another matter. Back then I was subscribing to High Fidelity and Stereo Review and I think I'd also started Gramophone by then. Ads wouldn't have persuaded me but the Mravinskys must have been getting good mentions in some or all of those mags.
Performances are subjective.
This is such a fascinating topic, particularly how it relates to this symphonic clump, and especially because often you appear NOT to agree with some of these reference recordings picks. I appreciate your candor, honesty and objective point-of-view
I just noticed that this Eugene Ormandy recordings not in first stereo box so I have to wait for second box.
Gosh, I was sure Markevitch would be one of the reference recordings! I totally understand your choices, however.
If 'reference recording' means what I thought that it means, it is not a matter of (David's) choice.
I'm grateful that the first recording of the 4th I first heard was Ormandy's.
Dave can you review the Cherubini Quartet Warner box please. I want to know what the Mendelssohn recordings are like in particular.
I understand the rationale of choosing Ormandy/Philly, given their commercial success and reputation in Russian music. Though I wonder how the Monteux/Boston recordings on RCA would stack up against them - an equally big-name conductor/orchestra combination, amazing playing by Boston and arguably better sound on Living Stereo, and available to the public earlier in the late 50's. Monteux's interpretations also seem very different to me than Ormandy or Karajan, with much swifter tempos and perhaps more balletic grace. I'm sure there was more than enough room for both approaches in the halcyon collecting days of the 50's-70's...
A very good ones. I love Monteaux/Boston.
Slightly off-topic, but this week I asked two complete strangers at LA's biggest CD/record store(on Hollywood Blvd)- who were looking through the classical CD's-if each watches your reviews. Both do religiously, and the shopper I met today said "Thank God for David's reference recording series."
Thanks for letting me know!
There's still a record shop on Hollywood Blvd? I haven't been there in years, but I thought they were all gone after Tower Records closed its shop on Sunset.
@@duvidl Amoeba Records; it moved a couple years ago from Sunset Blvd. They buy and sell used media of all music and video genres, and carry some new albums, including avant-,garde releases.
So which version of Karajans on DG is the reference ?
Dave, the Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra discography also includes the Delos digital recordings of the Fifth and Sixth symphonies from 1981/82. The audio quality is exceptionally natural and fine, but the performances are relatively pale compared with Ormandy's Sony recordings.
Yep.
Mr. Hurwitz, sí, Mravinsly es genial, pero el Karajan de los años 70 es también modélico en su estilo. Gran comentario el suyo, como siempre. Tiene usted un gran gusto por la música.
Muchas gracias!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Mr. Hurwitz, I am your most sincere admirer. His comments are always balanced and I love his sense of humor. Thank you very much and also thank you for responding to my comment. Hugs
I have been reading the comments on this one, and I feel the need to throw in my 4p's worth. Which may or may not be "worth" anything: but here goes.
Back in the day, I tended - rightly or wrongly - to buy records on the basis of what the consensus of sources that I trusted recommended - because as a student I didn't have the money to throw around experimenting on my own.
When I got my second set of Tchaik 4-6 [second because I had already inherited the complete set that I grew up with, which was Maazel/VPO], I don't remember Mravinsky being mentioned. I certainly didn't buy it. I got Ormandy - because I didn't like Karajan...
So Mravinsky, on that basis, presumably couldn't have been the reference recording...
Hi Dave, can we consider Karajan's set also as the referenfe for Tchaikovsky 1-6? And if so, would you also stick to Karajan for 1-3 alone?
No, we can't.
This surprised me too, as I was expecting Mravinsky. But I see Dave's point. Perhaps the issue with Mravinsky is that these recordings are too unique to be a reference. Noone had played Tchaikovsky like that before and noone has played it like that since (at least on record). I can't imagine any orchestra today daring to play that way (those awesome, parade ground trumpets for example) and so it just doesn't make sense to use Mravinsky as a frame of reference for other recordings.
Did Ormandy record these more than once? I was looking for them on Presto music and I think what I got are mono. Did he do them again in stereo?
He did some of them in stereo 3 times, for Columbia (Sony), RCA and Delos. The Columbia stereos are the ones to get if you can find them.
I really like Karajan on EMI remastered. It's fantastic! Mravinsky is very mechanical here, he doesn't convince me. Eugene is fabulous!😃
I have the Mravinsky and Karajan versions. Pity that I don't have Ormandy's, but I do have Ormandy's recording of Tchaikovsky ballet music like Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty. These are good too.
Ormandy plays these ballets as though they were among the world’s greatest music. I prefer his Tchaikovsky ballets over HvK’s (I’ve elsewhere seen the latter’s touted as reference).
The stereo Mravinsky Tchaikovsky 4-6 were recorded in Berlin by DG and given worldwide distribution. I doubt they would have received the attention they have if they had been recorded by Melodiya with its poor distribution in the West.
I never said they were recorded by Melodiya. I said most of his legacy was recorded by Melodiya, which it was. And DG recorded these performances in London. And yes, they were available, but they were not promoted, especially once Karajan's versions started coming out on the same label.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I meant that had they been recorded by Melodiya, his main label in Russia, they probably would not have received the same distribution in the West that they got from DG You are right, they were recorded in London, not Berlin.
I would have gone for Mravinsky, but that's just my preference. By the way, I did hear the Leningrad Philharmonic in Carnegie Hall in the mid-1970's--Rodestvensky (sp?) conducting. Best string section I ever heard in my life. Whoo boy could they play. The winds and brass were "interesting"--full of character, as they say.
Here's a funny story: I saw the Leningrad Phil. in Boston in the mid-70"s. Roshdestvensky replaced Mravinsky who had decided not to make the trip, for whatever reasons. The first work on the program was Shostakovich's 15th Symphony, receiving its first performance in Boston. At intermission I saw Colin Davis (who was in town conducting the BSO) at the bar in the lobby and asked him what he thought. He said, "It's such a great orchestra. Why do they have to bring this shit with them?" 😄 (Incidently, I don't agree about the Shostakovich.)
I always wonder why Karajan didn't record the Rachmaninoff Second symphony....
Mravinsky and Leningrad Tchaikovsky sound pretty hysterical to me. I just never listen to them. Sorry guys.
Wise comment. I tried them after all the fuss and thoroughly agree.