The Work Most Likely to Fail on Recordings
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ส.ค. 2022
- OK, I'll give away the secret. It's the Berlioz Requiem, which will come as no surprise to many collectors. Watch the video to find out why most recordings are such utter disasters.
- เพลง
I was once one of 900 choristers doing the Verdi Requiem at the MassMutual Center in Springfield, Mass. The first time the singers massed together for rehearsal, conductor Kevin Rhodes skipped the warmup, skipped the Introit, and went straight for the Dies Irae. And he wasn't satisfied until we all gave it our all and then some. I later asked him why he did that. He told me that given the limited rehearsal time, he was going to make damned sure that we nailed the Dies Irae which, if it failed to make an enormous impact, would drag the whole piece down with it. It turned out very successfully. Oh, if we could only have followed it up with the Berlioz, though it would have taken every tubist north of Philadelphia.
When it can be made to work, I do enjoy the idea of the brass delivering the antiphonal, apocalyptic statement, “You’re surrounded. You can run, but you can’t hide.”
I've given the Berlioz Requiem the good ol' college try many, many times and have not been able to get through it. Not one time! So after hearing this review it all started to make sense to me... it wasn't me, or my lack of understanding. I happen to love all kinds of Requiem settings. So, I just finished listening to the BSO/Munch Berlioz Requiem in its entirety, and all I can say is Wow, just WOW. I am left utterly speechless. Bravo Mr. Hurwitz, you continue to be spot on in your music recommendations.
Thanks for sharing!
I remember a concert at St. Paul’s years ago. We were seated near the back and eventually realised that the distant rumbling we could barely hear was the music we had paid to hear. Great building, lousy concert venue. Left early and went to the pub.
Hi Dave! As I've said before, we had our differences back in rec.music.classical.recordings, but we've both mellowed, and I enjoy your videos for the way they make me think, and in a few cases have caused me to reassess old preferences, and in some cases seek our new repertoire and performers. I was stunned when your picks for Puccini operas agreed with mine straight down the line! I'm no Puccini expert, but I do know what I like; and for some reason, Doris Chalfin at American Record Guide sent me all the Puccini releases for review when I wrote for that mag about forty years ago.
Now, as to the Berlioz GMdm: I can't disagree with your picks of Munch/Boston and Davis' first recording (he did it thrice more: a video with the Bavarians, a live one for Profil from Dresden, and his farewell recording on the LSO's own label). I would hesitate to say that all the others are lousy, though there are certainly some ranging from acceptable down to supremely awful (Yuri Kochnev, not even tolerable enough to be a party record).
I do agree that Ozawa's Boston reading for BMG was disappointing, considering that he has long been a fine Berliozian and has programmed the work again and again over the decades. I was shocked at how diffused and distant the recording was. The SACD (yes, there was one, from a label called Edition) was no improvement. However (not your kind of "however," but bear with me), Ozawa brought his forces to Suntory Hall the following year, and the Blu-ray of that is far better engineered. I no longer have a multi-channel set-up, but those who do might like to try it out.
There are plenty of college performances that have been released on disc (my criteria for collecting is for physical media that are "round and flat"), and those are mostly curiosities, such as the two (!) conducted by Karel Husa of all people; the 1972 UCLA performance conducted by Donn Weiss is of personal interest because I am among the "extra" choristers. (Composer Paul Chihara is a back-desker in the violas, by the way.)
Valery Gergiev, good friend of Vladimir Chernobogovich Putin, did two performances on consecutive days in Birmingham, England, and both were issued as "instant" CDs. I have two copies of the white package one from 15 October 2009, and am still seeking the black package one from the following day. (I am up for a trade if anyone has it.)
Not to give a long list, but in addition to Davis 1 and Munch 1, I suggest Ormandy for the budget-conscious, or McCreesh for the HIPsters -- after all, it's got those serpents and ophicleides!
I heard this in the old Carnegie Hall where the wood floors vibrated and we all levitated.
My personal experience of this work was in Christchurch, New Zealand in...hmmm...the late 1960s...maybe early 70s. The city didn't actually have a town hall at the time and the venerable Civic Theatre would have had to exclude listeners to get the requisite number of actual performers in. So....for the "Arts Festival" of that year, and under the guiding genius of Sir Malcolm Sargeant, no less, and using lots and LOTS of tarpaulins, the King Edward Barracks was renamed Festival Hall....and, by God! a fair effort was made to roster the required number of players (based on the then National Orchestra - now the NZ Symphony) for the Berlioz, plus a coupla thousand audience. It was, really, a quasi-outdoor performance (maybe the Funebre et Triomphale would have been more apposite?). What fired this memory from deep inside my psyche? Christchurch was a hotbed of amateur brass band music at the time, and By God! ...the four specified "brass bands" mentioned by Dave H were sited at the specified points and the sounds, if somewhat fighting against the military acoustics, were Friggin" SPECTACULAR! Christchurch is also, as a footnote, this first place in NZ to present the Mahler 8 (in 1979) , with the NZBC Symphony Orchestra in their new Town Hall.
The Philips recording from 1969 with the LSO under Colin Davis is my favorite. I love this masterpiece.
Berlioz: "The Requiem of a Thousand."
I agree entirely with you, Dave. That Munch/Boston recording, especially on SACD, is an astonishing performance and one I shall always relish no matter how often I hear it.
I once wrote to Mr. Tepper about these recordings. We agreed that McCreesh's period performance is their equal. It's one of my favorites.
I wouldn't say it's their equal, but it is very special and remarkable, in part for the use of serpents and ophicleides, and the choruses singing in French-accented Latin!
@@classicalduck I seem to recall that you were pondering ranking it in your top five recordings. I would certainly take it before Colin Davis's London Symphony performance. I've not yet listened to Munch, however, so I can't say how I would compare it to that performance.
Nelson's recording in St Paul's was presumably done because it was a big event in St Paul's which inspired Berlioz to 'go large' -- was it one of those Handel spectaculars with 3000-person choirs the Victiorians loved, I can't recall just now... Of course that's no excuse for trying to record the Requiem there - or pretty much anything else. My first Requiem was at the Albert Hall, with 16 timps in a line across the stage, and the brass groups beside and behind the audience, spread equidistantly around the circle of the hall. Spectacular surround-sound. I have no idea if the performance was any good apart from that, it was those big moments that remained in my memory. As I got to know the Requiem I realised the big moments - and the vast orchestration.- while vital, are actually the odd-parts-out; as you said DH, the Requiem is as much (or more) about the quieter moments, the unique instrumental groupings, the detail work, the clarity and precision. You need both done well to get the most out of the Requiem. I haven't heard Pappano but I guess I should; in the end though, the only real way to hear the Requiem is LIVE!!
C. Davis's LSO Live recording was also made in St. Paul's, and also an acoustic disaster. On the other hand, Spano/Atlanta had a rather dry venue--the performance was clearly recorded but oh so boring.
I guessed this one immediately. I saw a live performance of it at the Sydney Opera House with its then (now fixed) appalling acoustics.
Yep! The Munch/Boston version stands way up there. It's never been dethroned, nor even approached in its perfection. And I can only agree with Dave's final comment: it's astonishing to see so many epic failures with today's sound technology. Just weird.
Sweet, get to dunk on Roths performance of this I saw in London. They managed to gather 400 musicians only to blast through the big moments at a fast tempo. Had I closed my eyes I would have guessed it was a 40 piece orchestra. The quiet sections were fine, but as you say without large contrasts the piece can't take off
Thanks so much for the review. So Berlioz assigned the brass to the four quadrants of the venue. Today we have DSD and Blu-ray to provide faithful surround sound, so why aren't there (recommended) recordings exploiting this technology?
No, he did not. He assigned the brass to the four corners of the stage occupied by the singers and players.
And all this time I have been blaming this on 2-channel🙂.
Back in the rec.music.classical.recordings days you and Matthew B. Tepper were two of the most interesting to read, for sure. 20 years or more ago when I was making space I shipped him all my Fanfares. I wonder if those still exist.
In a box in storage somewhere! I stopped taking the magazine regularly when I got married, so someday a library is going to benefit from a donation.
@@classicalduck Howdy, It's me Olin!
My first encounter with the Requiem was the Munch recording. RCA put it out in a Grand Style, with the Soria Series, with booklet with color plates and the box was covered in a faux leather look. I still have it, but listen to the CD for greater ease.
I got it around the time it came out, but the LP is long gone (gave a lot of stuff away when I got drafted). I've never been without a recording it it in some form.
Having read about the piece as a teen, I borrowed a copy from my high school library. It was that very RCA-Soria/Munch edition. What a performance to get imprinted on!
I imprinted with the stereo Westminster with Herman Scherchen and still reach for the Munch, Boston recording
I also have to put in a word for Scherchen. Real effort and heart went into that recording, and though the chorus sound probably isn't everyone's favorite I think it's unique.
Leonard Bernstein recorded the Berlioz Requiem at the great hall of Les Invaldes in Paris, the same space for which Berlioz wrote the work in the first place. Hermann Scherchen's 1963 recording was also made at Les Invalides. Also, I had read before that Berlioz wanted the four brass ensembles at each corner of the great hall, thereby basically pioneering quadraphonic sound (though Gabrieli had done that with his brass ensembles van earlier!). Berlioz was a pioneer in a lot of different ways: I've long regarded the "Symphonic Fantastique" as the first piece of psychedelic music because it used quite elaborate orchestral effects and was intended by its composer as a musical depiction of the experience of using drugs.
What Berlioz wanted is what he wrote in the score, which is what I read.
I'd like to put in a word for the Abravanel/Utah recording (made in the Mormon Tabernacle but NOT with the MT Choir) originally on Vanguard but since remastered on HDAD. Abravanel had a firm, idiomatic and practiced hand on the piece and his forces; heard in the original 1971 quad format in surround in the remastering it is nearly apocalyptic in those big moments and also clear and well-defined in the rest. Those Vanguard engineers and Abravanel's involvement in the recording process produced excellent results. It may not be the summit among interpretations but I'd add it to a short list of Berlioz Requiems along with Dave's win, place and show trifecta.
I wouldn't. It's better than many others, but the playing is not world class and I don't find the engineering to be that impactful.
@@bbailey7818 Unfortunately the improved sound quality only makes the poor tone and intonation in the brass bands all the more obvious.
@@paxpaxart4740 Interpretively, I also find Abravanel superior to some other higher profile recordings, Previn's rather uninteresting (and not all that well recorded) EMI version for example. The discrete directionality in surround that Utah offers still seems to unique. Still, Dave's top three are the must haves.
When this recording came out, I heard it at the Grand Central Station Demonstration Room that Acoustic Research used to have in NYC. Yeah it was loud but it didn't eclipse the impact conveyed by the Munch/BSO.
@@hendriphile Out of curiosity, did they demo the quad version. Btw, back in the 70s I remember some very ho-hum 4 channel demos but hearing some of those recordings now (via Pentatone, Dutton, etc.) can be jawdropping. But I'm not a golden ears audio freak by any means, I can derive musical satisfaction and instruction even from the very first French-recorded Berlioz Requiem from 1942 cond. Jean Fournet on Columbia.
My first recording was Davis/LSO and then I heard Robert Shaw with the ATL/SO in concert. For some reason, the Davis recording was more exciting than the concert and has remained a favorite over the years. I subsequently bought the Shaw Telarc recording. Shaw renders the choral aspects nobly and with great precision, the orchestral contribution is impressive, but he does not convey the public, spectacular aspects. Thanks for the Bernstein and Munch suggestions.
'Munch seemed not to care much' gave me a smile.
With groups that large you will run into nearly impossible phase issues while recording, which is why a cathedral recording fails, apart from uncontrollable reverb. Even in a "studio" environment. Which live room would be large enough?
Thank you for this. I love the Requiem, having sung it as part of a "recruit everyone who's in a choir for the chorus" performance in the late 80s at Ohio State. The choir part has no alto line (other than for one of the later parts) so I was singing tenor as the Last Judgement occurred. I was just grinning along at your descriptions of the Tuba Mirum, and can attest that the best place to be for that is right up in the midst of it. We were in a fairly small hall (not a cathedral) with two of the brass bands just offstage and it was mindblowing. I still have my old recording of Atlanta with Shaw conducting (hey, CDs were still almost new at that point) and maybe it's time for a better one.
Man, for as great a recording as the Munch may be, I always have difficulties with it for its breathless pacing in the pivotal flutes and trombones section in the Agnus Dei that leads into the Te Decet Hymnus. Berlioz has the tempo marked at 56, and any faster than that really takes away from atmosphere of the moment. The Davis recording gets the pacing beautifully right (imho, obviously), but (like the Bernstein) is marred by bewilderingly bad intonation in the trombones. I don’t know that any recording has gotten every part of that section really right, but I did hear it exquisitely performed live by the Chicago Symphony with Boulez in 2003. Boulez should be in the same discussion as Davis or Munch as a great Berlioz conductor, but the polemics about him always seem to get in the way.
The bad recordings don't help either.
You're so right!! I once heard a performance in St Paul's conducted by Gergiev. It was a big disappointment. Almost everything disappeared in the (non) acoustics of this place. The brass bands were a mess. The only live performance i liked was one in the St Denis Paris conducted by Colin Davis
Just watching this video now, and am going to guess why the Berlioz Requiem is not suitable for a large chamber or cathedral. Reverb reflections? The piece is so heavy in choral.
Matthew B. Tepper? Cool!
Fruhbeck de Burgos did it with all the bands on stage with the BSO.
The only way the Berlioz is going to succeed in home listening is for some really wealthy individual to underwrite the huge expense and hire the musicians as the score indicates, put the performers in one of the massive Hollywood sound stages and have great movie sound engineers do the recording in something akin to 9.2.2 Dolby Atmos and put it on a Blu Ray disk. That's the only way the NSEW brass ensembles will ever be clearly positioned and it will take a couple of subs and plenty of separate speakers to clarify the image. Then all four of us who have the suitable set up and care enough about the music can buy it.
Hear, hear!
I rather liked the Pappano interpretation and performance and thought that the lack of size came from the microphones, but those are just my ears. Canarena is phenomenal too. But obviously a great tenor isn’t why you buy a Berlioz, but a bad one is reason to get rid of one.
The most disappointing one, for me, is Dutoit. He had the right forces and the decca engineers, and he just turned the most boring performance imaginable, and as you often note, afraid of playing forte.
Thanks for covering this one Dave!
So, when he wrote this, could this ACTUALLY have been performed given his instructions? I mean were there such numbers even available to him?
On special occasions, why not? Think of the Handel festival performances in the UK that had been going on for half a century. Giant choral and orchestral extravaganzas were not uncommon.
...and its my favorite piece of classical music. I was introduced to the piece from the mid-90s recording of Ozawa / Boston, which I now think is one of the worst recorded performances of the Requiem. I also agree that the John Nelson recording (Nelson's Te Deum recording from the 90s was excellent) and the Dudamel / Notre Dame performance on TH-cam are garbage.
I agree that Munch and Bernstein are the best recordings.
Are there any truly excellent digital recordings? I think I've heard them all and most are decent but not great, some are just bad, but none are really good.
Really? I still like the Ozawa Edition, but maybe I need to study the other ones
I see you’ve avoided talking about the HIPpies…..surely a wise decision.
No, Dave doesn't often seem to like 'HIP' anything. I would usually chose a HIP/period instrument performance over any 'modern' one for ANY music before 1900, if it is available. However, in this work, my touchstone has always been Colin Davis. People like Eliot Gardner and Dave's favourite, (Sir) Roger Norrington, although much praised in the English press/music magazines, don't get near it , for one reason or another. BUT!! Mc Creesh -- that another matter entirely! He has the size of forces, the amazing colour available by using period brass (Cornets a pistons, for example, as well as ophicleides, etc,.) [plus superb sound engineering despite the use of a Cathedral as the venue, plus French-accented Latin -- absolutely marvellous! I had never even heard of the Much version - so I'll stream it from somewhere. I once heard Beecham do it live -- now that really was something else!!
Cathedrals just aren't good recording venues...I still wonder HOW the engineers of Gunter Wand's magnificent Bremen Bruckner 8th pulled it off.
I have the three recordings that Dave recommends and I agree with his verdict. I also have the Beecham (mono) and the Previn (digital).
I do think the Beecham would have been a contender if it had been recorded in good stereo, but as it was not, it is just an interesting historical document of his approach. One really needs stereo (or more) to fully appreciate this work.
I've only listened to the Previn once (I acquired it in the EMI Previn big box), so I'd need to listen again before ranking it. My first listening created a positive impression, but it didn't jump immediately to the top of my list.
I heard the Symphonie funebre et triomphale in a large church with too much reverb...just saying!
I still think the LSO/Davis recording is still the best available - even though a microphone was placed in front of the most over-zealous tenor in the chorus. The really quiet moments are just as astonishing as the big ones. There are so many things that can go wrong in this work, ensemble is a nightmare, and I would single out the Lacrimosa as being the hardest movement to get together. McCreesh's recording is excellent, though lacking the theatricality of Davis or Bernstein.
What's the deal with french orchestras and choirs ? Are they all that bad ?
No.
Well, I used to say, "I thought French orchestras were awful, and then I heard a Spanish one." But Dave's fervent support of L'Orchestre de la Société des Concerts du Conservatoire has given me reason to reconsider. By the way, the Bernstein recording of this work (also first-rate, as Mr. H. attests) was given in the place of the first performance -- sort of. Les Invalides has, or had, two churches on either side of an altar: L'Église Saint-Louis, and L'Église du Dome. The acoustics were spoiled for all time when some guy named Napoleon Bonaparte got himself entombed in the latter, with the place hollowed out to make room for the five coffins they put his remains in, to make sure he could never get out again. You know, like those little Russian dolls. What a burn! In any event, when I visited Paris I went to Berlioz' tomb at Montmartre, and (here I'm reverting to being a woo woo Californian) didn't feel his presence there, but I certainly DID feel it at Les Invalides. Make of that what you will.