Regarding Ormandy, you have certainly opened my eyes to the depth and breath of his talent, not to mention the incredible virtuosity and gorgeous sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra. I have the mono box and have sampled from it. I am working my way through the first five years of stereorecordings and have been delighted by many of those recordings. And even if I didn’t find an interpretation particularly compelling I’ve always enjoyed listening to that glorious, glorious Orchestra. Thank you, David.
Same here. I bought the box of Stereo Recordings after hearing how Dave praised Ormandy in previous videos and have enjoyed it immensely. Very much looking forward to the rest of his stereo recordings.
As a new college music student in 2020, I was introduced to classical music through Mravinsky's album, which became my first Tchaikovsky late symphonies album. I later listened to Karajan, Ormandy, and many others out of curiosity, but as you said Mravinksy was my first experience with Tchaikovsky as a new listener.
I understand what you’re saying and thank you for saying it. You’re a great teacher. And today, you make me long for the days of the Tower Records classical music section, at certain locations, in its own separate annex.
Around 8 years ago I visited Tokyo and there was still a Tower Records flagship store that occupied a 9-story high-rise. They have a whole floor dedicated to Classical music. I don't know if they are still in business now, but if they are, then Japan is likely the only place. There was also a flagship HMV store in Hong Kong. Around 6 years ago, I visited the Hong Kong HMV flagship store, and they were finding ways to survive and to make better use of their 3-story store front. Instead of selling CDs and LPs, they were selling Hi-Fi equipment, doing music education, and having a coffee shop with live music
Sometime in the 70’s, my grandmother wanted to get me a recording of the Pathetique. At her local record store, Karajan was recommended but she bought the Ormandy because, well, Ormandy! Over the next 20 years or so, I managed to add the Karajan and the Mravinsky (the 4-6 set shown). References covered!
Ormandy's 1960 recording of the Pathetique is splendid. I have fond memories of it. Sometime in the 1990s I even had it on 4-track reel-to-reel tape (fabulous sound).
I agree. Great in every way. Exhilarating and moving. Not a reference but Pierre Monteux's recordings of Tchaikovsky Symphonies 4-5 with the Boston Symphony Orchestra seem to be forgotten. Great performances in excellent stereo sound. They were never published as a set though they are contained in the Pierre Monteux Complete RCA Stereo Recordings box, one of those smaller white and green boxes BMG/Sony put out. Worth having and hearing!
Big fan of Monteux's 5th, haven't listened to his 4th though. My favorite recording of the Sixth is Furtwangler with BPO, 1938. Angel released this on LP in the 50s, not sure if it did get on CD, accessible on here though.
Back in the '70s, one couldn't find the Mravinsky recording at a "normal" record store. I was turned onto them by my friend, who later played in the L.A. Philharmonic. But they were only available at a specialty record store located in downtown Evanston, Illinois, relatively close to Northwestern University's school of music. That store specialized in "imports" directly from Europe. It had EMI recordings with Nipper listening to his gramophone, the trademark of RCA in the US at the time. I not only got the Mravinskys but also the Bohm Strauss box set on LP. To your point about marketing, as someone who grew up with the Schwann Catalogue, I often find it a bit difficult to navigate the way classical music is organized by online sellers such as Amazon.
When my dad was working on his PhD his trips into NYU brought him near a similar sort of record store. He could never remember the name when i asked him years later. But some of the more interesting things on his shelves were the result of recommendations by the owner of that store.
I'm guessing that was during the early '70s. As far as I can tell, these recordings were unheard-of up to that point, even though they dated from 1960-61. What changed was their reissue in 1974 as an official selection of the International Preview Society, a sort of classical record club that would pick a recording (decided by the "Carnegie Hall Selection Committee") every few months and issue it in a deluxe box, complete with a letter from the aforementioned Committee, describing why it was a new landmark in recorded classical music, and then flogging it with full-page adds. (I should note that it took even me a while to notice that each and every one of said selections was a multi-disc set from Polygram. Hmmm...) At any rate, after having picked up a couple of their offerings, I saw this Tchaikovsky set advertised, and my first reaction, like that of many others, I suppose, was "Who???" But a strange thing happened over the next few months: this reissue started getting raves from music critics, who almost universally declared it a new standard in versions of these symphonies. Of course, DG immediately started selling it without the IPS's imprimateur, and, over the years that followed, it seemed to have become a consensus "best" every time the Tchaikovsky symphonies were mentioned. It really was rather astonishing.
@@JamesDavidWalley It was definitely in the early '70s. That particular store catered to musicians and record collectors who valued imports. I also shopped at the large Rose Records store in downtown Chicago, and even though it had a very extensive selection of classical recordings, it didn't carry the imports that the Evanston store carried. I got the recordings on LP. I know it was the early '70s because I moved to Phoenix in 1976 and have been here ever since.
@@hendriphile I wish I could remember the name of the store. If I remember correctly, the store was on Sherman Avenue, just south of Church Street. There was also a Bresler's Ice cream store and Gyros restaurant on Sherman. At the time, I worked as a music engraver/typesetter in a building across the street and slightly south of the store. There was also a really good burger restaurant nearby where I had the best sharp cheddar cheeseburger I've ever eaten (If I was Jewish, which I'm not, I always joke that I could never keep kosher because I really love a good cheeseburger (which is about as unkosher as one can get). Phil Donahue came into that restaurant once with his kids when I was there (this was before he started seeing Marlo Thomas). I also went into Audio Consultants to dream from time to time. My friend and I often ate at a "two menu" (one authentic and one American) Chinese restaurant near there.
Un set magnifico! Perfetta anche la ripresa sonora, gli archi dell’orchestra hanno una profondità “spaventosa”. Uno dei motivi per amare le registrazioni di musica classica. Peccato che Mravinski non abbia diretto di più in occidente!
The Mravinsky set ended up being my first. It appeared on CD just before I visited New York for the first time, and was part of a very heavy suitcase of CDs and books that I lugged back to Australia.
Very interesting. It seems to me that some misunderstandings might arise from each individual's referential environment. For example, when I started to become interested in classical music in the 90s in Europe, I was reading French reviews. At that time, Mravinsky was already considered the reference. Hence, I understand that for some people, me included, it was as a surprise that David chose Ormandy and Karajan. That said, the reasoning was clearly explained in the previous video.
Great video Dave! I have certainly been enjoying this series. Both as an interesting discussion of the history of classical recordings and a great source of cds to add to my collection!
I wonder if Dave would start a new series of videos on NEW Reference Recordings. It would be interesting to see which pieces have a NEW Reference Recording and how the New Reference compared with the original ones. There is another comment saying he "started to become interested in classical music in the 90s in Europe, reading French reviews", and Mravinsky was the reference recording for Tchaikovsky. I started to become interested in classical music in the 90s in Hong Kong, reading Chinese reviews, and Mravinsky was the reference recording for Tchaikovsky. I am sure, as Dave said in his video, that Ormandy and Karajan were the reference recordings in the 60's and 70's. Dave said Mravinsky's live recordings are usually not as convincing. I totally agree with that. Back in the days, I went to a CD store in Hong Kong and they were promoting Erato's Mravinsky live Tchaikovsky #5 claiming the recording was the newest and greatest Tchaikovsky #5 ever. I was a high school student back then and I used my pocket money to buy the really expensive full-price Erato Mravinsky live Tchaikovsky #5 and it was quite a disappointment.
How do you find time to listen to so many cds? My collection (c.1500) is tiny in comparison to yours, but I don’t have enough hours to enjoy them all! I certainly appreciate your reviews as you have introduced me to some wonderful artists and recordings that are new to me, and I thank you for that.
Hi Dave - off topic, but have you considered doing some conductor retrospective videos, i.e which cover an artist's entire recorded output rather than whatever box set from whichever label is currently available? The recent sad news about Sir Andrew Davis made me think that a video from you on his recorded legacy, which straddles (at least) Teldec, Chandos and Sony, would be very interesting. I know you did a video about the Teldec British Line box and no doubt some of his other recordings have popped up from time to time.
Well, I've been buying up nearly all your reference recordings, despite having a boatload of more modern recordings of the various works under discussion -and it's been fun, often enlightening, and always enjoyable to hear these recordings, from days when less was more. So, saying it's a waste of time doing these talks is just silly. But it has been quite irritating to see every new reference recording talk almost instantly replied to with 'for me, it's X' or 'my favourite is Y'... clearly, lots of people haven't grasped the concept of what you're talking about.
You absolutely hit the nail on the head. People just aren’t paying attention to him when he gives the criteria for a reference recording. He has time and time again clearly stated that it wasn’t necessarily the best or his favorite. It’s a matter of marketing and access and availability in many cases. Some of them have been the best and some of them have been his favorite, but some of these people are making arguments that just make them look ridiculous. I’m glad you get it!
Thanks Dave for another excellent educational chat. As someone who has only been listening to classical music for 3 years, and who loves these 3 symphonies, I find it a fascinating discussion. I’ve listened to the Mravinsky set many times and must admit that I really enjoy them. After Dave’s original video on these 3 symphonies, I sat down and listened to all 3 sets, Mravinsky, Ormandy and Karajan. And really enjoyed all 3. I totally understand what Dave says about a reference recording having to have/had availability and marketing. And that it’s not about favourite versions. But it was also mentioned that a reference recording is one that can be used to display the music concerned as it should be, and allow then others to be compared and contrasted. My point here I guess is that to my relatively uneducated ears, I found the 3 sets of these symphonies very different in interpretation. And so would it not be more difficult to compare others with them?
I don't think comparative listening is ever difficult. You just listen and let it happen, and you notice what you notice over time. At first, its will be gross details like tempo differences, then as you get to know the performances well the details begin to register. It's a process.
@@DavesClassicalGuidethanks Dave. I think I’m just one of those people who like to have a ‘target’ recording to compare to. And so having three (to me, very different) references, slightly confuses things. But, hey I guess we’re lucky to have so many wonderful references to check out and enjoy. This is a great series of videos for me. A huge help
I almost got in the comments to mention--but I didn't!--that when I was starting on these in the mid-90s, the Mravinsky recordings were lauded. (I'm tempted to say, they were the reference recordings in that snapshot of time.) But I assumed that you were correct regarding the references, over the longer haul. Mravinsky has been MY reference recordings, but as you've mentioned that's not the point of these videos/conversations.
I bought a used Mravinsky set of these works at Goodwill for $5 a few years ago. The box is a little beat up, but the records are in great shape. Something about the combination of composer, conductor, and orchestra adds to "Russian"-ness of the music.
The Sony Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings were released on their budget Essential Classics label, and I think these are still available as individual CD titles. The single-CD Essential Classics titles are also very common and cheap on the second-hand market. I'm fond of the Mravinsky/Leningrad renditions on their own merits, but would not want to be without other fine renditions of these cherished orchestral warhorses.
I just went to read the comments on your previous video. It’s crazy to see how many are essentially saying ‘everyone knows that Mravinsky is best’. This reveals two things: one, they have ignored your extremely clear criteria, but two - and more seriously here - they are spouting received ‘wisdom’. That they even believe there is a ‘best’ ironically suggests they have actually not listened to many at all. If they had they would know there is no such thing as a ‘best’ recording. These people are the annoying souls who spend their internet time trying to prove they know more than other people by regurgitating ‘answers’ they see most. They ruin discussion.
Thanks Dave for the interesting discussion. I remember the Mravinsky being on the shelves when it came out as a DG The Originals two disc set, which wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things. My friend bought that, but I was persuaded by the record store to buy the whole set with Muti and the Philharmonia, which was going for a good price and which I still enjoy.
I don’t know, I was thinking about this after viewing your video on Mozart 40. It seemed as though you were acknowledging that there can be a generational shift in what is considered a Reference recording. In that video you noted that Szell has largely supplanted Walter in influence in the late Mozart symphonies, yet your pick went to Walter because of the earlier breadth of its acceptance (or something like that; I forget the specific words you used). Need a performance come of age at a specific time in history to still be considered a Reference in 2024? Personally the Mravinsky Tchaikovsky recordings drive me nuts; there’s an acidic edge to them that feels alien to that music’s spirit (I often wish Koussevitsky could have been the Reference here: he grew up in tsarist Russia, and his Boston performances feel uniquely authentic to Tchaikovsky’s world along with being fabulous music-making). But there seems no doubt Mravinsky is cited more often than any other conductor in Tchaikovsky, and by my observation that’s been the case for 20 years or so. I do remember the time when it was hard to avoid Karajan and Ormandy in the Tchaikovsky bin at the record store, but seems a bygone era now.
I agree about the "acidic edge." I recognize that Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky recordings are remarkably played, but I can't say that I enjoy them. There's at least a dozen off the top of my head that I enjoy hearing more.
Mravinsky's set is wonderfully interesting. A set to hear over and over. But Karajan's, Ormandy's, Markevitch's, along with this one, are pretty much all equally good. It's difficult to define one over another because each have details and ideas that work better here and there, or that are just unique ideas and give the listeners different experiences. A difficult choice.
I went back and read the comments to your earlier reference selections of Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies, and boy Dave did you "poke the bear." I understood completely why Mravinsky wasn't the reference then, and perhaps still isn't now. It seems some out there take no notice that two of the factors that determine a reference recording are marketing and availability. I remember vividly and with great frustration decades ago, trying to secure a copy of the Mravinsky recording, traveling miles between record stores, stores which told me it would take weeks to special order, and would I rather buy Karajan or Ormandy instead? I have to say I get very frustrated when you're trying to explain what recording is a reference, only to run up against a wall of nostalgic opposition from your viewers who couldn't care less what you have to say unless it involves validating their personal favourite. I guess there must be a good deal of "musical insecurity" out there if all some want to hear is their opinion parroted back at them so that they can say to others "I told you I was right all along." Please people--just listen with an open mind, buy what appeals to you, and don't lose sight of what music collecting is all about in the first place...enjoying the music. Take care!
9:41 - "the romantic performance style particularly is on the outs" That's depressing... the Romantic era has always been my favorite era because of the raw passion and excitement, so I hope that trend changes soon
I’ve read almost all the comments (here and in the previous video) and I think in many cases it’s not a confusion between reference recordings and favorite recordings, but just the world is big. As a European, for me it was a surprise Mravinsky was not one of the chosen ones, because in at least some European countries it meets (IMHO) the conditions to be a reference recording. To be honest, when I heard it because of his fame, I was a bit disappointed, but maybe my expectations were too high - I prefer Markevitch, Monteux, Dorati, Karajan...
I think here in Europe the 'popularity'of the Mravinsky set grew as a consequence of the introduction of the compact disc. Have you any idea if the invention of the cd has influenced or shifted opinions about some 'reference' recordings? .
Dave, you alluded in your video to the way that classical music had been marketed and sold. I know because I’ve lived through it c. 1955 to date, but many if not most of your viewers may not now realize that we’ve lost record stores (Goodys to Tower), domestic US mass market periodicals (High Fidelity), catalogs (Long Player, Schwann, Gramophone catalogs), LPs that remained available for decades, and even physical product. If you won’t pen some account of that era I hope someone else will.
For me, Karajan is at his best in Tchaikovsky's fifth. I find he tends to rush the last movement of the Pathetique when instead it should be played with painful intensity. Not sure what to make of Mravinski, to be honest.
As someone who basically imprinted on and loves the Mravinsky (Stereo) versions of Tchaikovsky's 4, 5 & 6, I readily acknowledged it's not the reference for all the reason outlined - why isn't that understandable? As an aside, something I often wonder about the Mravinsky is that as they were recorded in London, how many defections were there?😊
Your pick of Ormandy and Karajan did baffle me because I NEVER saw Ormandy's or Karajan's set for reference. In the record shops was always Mravinsky. Even on the radio. My local library was a good example. They didn't have any of the Tchaikovsky by Ormandy or Karajan, but they certainly had Mravinsky. I didn't want to comment on your first video because I completely disagreed. Growing up, I saw no evidence of your "consensus" choice in my area. I remember hearing HVK 5th once. The symphonies I always heard on the radio and saw at the libraries were Mravinsky. So I can't see how you keep saying it wasn't promoted. My experience was the opposite. That's not to say it was not common in your area, but it wasn't in my area. Thanks for the fascinating discussion!
My comments were not based on "my area." They were based on my understanding of the market generally in the USA and Europe during the period in question. Judging from many of the comments posted here, your experience was atypical.
If it surprising that even after this video there still are people who JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND what makes a recording a REFERENCE RECORDING. ... How many commentators in past videos congratulated you on YOUR CHOICE when they agreed with the reference, and even among today's commentators at least one who again talked about being surprised by YOUR CHOICE of reference for the Tchaikovsky 4-6th symphonies. Is it beyond them to understand that the REFERENCE is based on a CONCENSUS OPINION, or are they just too hard headed to grasp/accept the concept? Seems to me, Mr. Hurwitz, that you will have to make peace with the fact that there are always going to be people who will think that you are cherry picking FERENCE RECORDINGS with your own private agenda in mind. ... anyway, thanks for a fascinating and very enjoyable series... at least for those of us who understand the idea of what a reference recoding is.
Isn't the most telltale sign of the current reference status of the Mravinsky set, the observation that conductors nowadays clearly seem to want to emulate it in terms of intensity, drive and phrasing? When I attend Tchai 4-6 concerts or watch YT videos of recent performances, what I'm hearing isn't Karajan or Ormandy, it's (pseudo-)Mravinsky.
I disagree. I don't hear him emulated at all. The closest anyone came was Jansons on Chandos, and that was decades ago. He was (at least in those days) a Mravinsky disciple in Tchaikovsky, but that was hardly typical then or now.
Interesting. I’m not especially fond of the Mravinsky recordings, and feel they were a bit of a Cold War cult. But I did a quick check in light of your talk on Amazon uk, and it’s especially easy to get the dg Karajan recordings, muti is quite easy second hand, Markevitch isn’t difficult, Jurowski isn’t difficult… I don’t know about Ormandy. But in short, no, it’s not necessary to converge on Mravinsky because everything else is unavailable and in big boxes. For younger collectors I wanted to say that.
I was about to jump up and down as I thought your only reference would be the Ormandy set, ready to scream about geographically skewed bias and so forth...then you added Karajan...and I chose to keep stumm, as Karajan probably adheres to your consensus criteria (that I still struggle with). I don't think Ormandy was considered a reference this side of the Atlantic. I better counter the foreseen rebuke: No, not because of some, stupid, chauvinistic nationalism, but I think his recordings were not as easily available in Europe as they were in the US. The reverse situation of the one in the US with the lack here of access to the Mravinsky recordings. Talking availability, popular appeal and prejudice, general consensus, your choice of Karajan makes very good sense. Due to the popularity and relatively easy availability of most records under the auspices of the yellow tulips (DG), I think the Mravinsky set, this side of the Pond, had a much larger, non-cultish following and could be considered the 2nd reference beside Karajan. Alors, the clever move to elevate the Mravinsky recordings to its NEW reference status - and hence leaving us with the reference-triptych of Mravinsky, Karajan and Ormandy is a stroke of genius, that can't offend anybody, I guess. Albeit, it might for some be a bit steep to stomach the designation 'NEW' in relation to a set of recordings of vintage 1960. Might a 'REAL NEW' or contemporaneous reference , though, be Vladimir Jurowski's splendid set from London?
@@petertaplin4365 In the US we relied on Schwann, the UK had Gramophone, Germany had Bielefeld, Italy Santandrea, but did Australia have a similar general catalog for your market? I never thought to ask about when I had the pleasure of shopping at Thomas' in Melbourne and sadly I think it is no longer there.
@@jerrygennaro9732 In Australia we mostly relied on Gramophone, BBC Music Magazine and Classic CD magic and the Penguin Guide, but also had access to Fanfare
@@jerrygennaro9732 As neighbouring Germany, I think the Bielefelder Katalog Klassik is exactly, what it says, namely a catalogue, only. For reviews and critical opinion, you would have to consult the magazine Fonoforum - or some of the larger German newspapers, if you can find one that still contains culture journalism and critique!
It does indeed seem people continue to have difficulty drawing the distinction between reference recordings and the best performances/their personal favorites. If Mravinsky wasn’t widely available, then it inherently fails to meet the requirements of a reference recording even if’s the very best. No one but true connoisseurs had it around to refer to. I recommend people watch the video on Mahler’s 8th. Solti’s recording is a good example which was truly used a reference for the piece (at a time when recordings of Mahler weren’t nearly as common) even if not a lot of us commenty people would name it their favorite today.
Dave, you mention the fact that Karajan damaged his reputation by recording Tch. 4-6 multiple times causing buyer confusion. Boulez may be the maddest example of he records too much. His limited 20th Century repertoire was recorded twice confusing buyers. Maddest of all was 2 box sets of Webern complete. The universe’s ability to absorb Webern probably peaked at 1 box. But a bit sad as Boulez was a talented conductor.
I agree with every word. As I commented last time. While we may argue that the world of classical music is under threat because of the way the business works NOW, we cannot doubt that we have the ability to access - almost instanteously - many, many recordings that were not readily available over most of the history of vinyl & early CDs. I am older than Dave and I can corroborate his view, on the same grounds - though of course without the same depth of knowledge as Dave has.
Oh my God, I can’t believe I’m commenting. I’m not even on any social media but I throw thought I’d throw my ha’penny worth in . I can understand how people are confused. You refer to reference recordings on all your classics today reviews but it appears you don’t mean reference recording you mean classics today recommended recording .I think that’s where the confusion lies. I have to say and it could be the fact that I live in the UK I’ve never heard Ormandy’s listed as a reference recommended. I’ve never heard them criticised either though . I have seen HVK’s recommended so that’s fair enough. Confusion understandable . Nastiness not understandable or acceptable but that’s usually the way online debate ends up these days
Well, I’m just gonna repeat. I was confused. When you call something a reference recording but in your reviews but you make no mention Ormandy at all. (By you, I mean classics today not you personally )it’s bound to lead to confusion. It’s seems like every reviewer has a different idea of what the reference recording is which surely isn’t your point. Surely that just makes it a recommendation. That’s one minor minor gripe! . I love this site and I totally take your point about a pro British bias in THE British press but I’m sure a similar thing happens in America .I’m really enjoying the chance to take a more global approach to listening to recordings and also one of the things I like about your posts is that you gets away from this idea of there being one recording that if you don’t own you’re not going to enjoy the work . I mean at the end of the day you’re listening to Beethoven Tchaikovsky Mozart and unless you’ve got an absolute disaster destroying it, you’re still probably gonna enjoy, the recordings very much. It’s a refreshing take and I enjoy it. I especially like your opinion that regardless of the history or the prestige of the performance if it’s not on the CD who cares. I love that. It shouldn’t be such a revelation, but it is. I was never fond of Kleiber Beethoven fifth and other holy cows of the music press. You encourage people to listen and make their own minds up and that I like. And as for your take on historically informed performance a high-five across the pond.!
When I became aware of the Mravinsky set I just had to get it because everyone was saying this was THE best set ever. Well played, no doubt. But ultimately disappointing lacking the fireworks of others. Not a reference set for me. It's still Ormandy and Monteux.
Regarding Ormandy, you have certainly opened my eyes to the depth and breath of his talent, not to mention the incredible virtuosity and gorgeous sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra. I have the mono box and have sampled from it. I am working my way through the first five years of stereorecordings and have been delighted by many of those recordings. And even if I didn’t find an interpretation particularly compelling I’ve always enjoyed listening to that glorious, glorious Orchestra. Thank you, David.
Same here. I bought the box of Stereo Recordings after hearing how Dave praised Ormandy in previous videos and have enjoyed it immensely. Very much looking forward to the rest of his stereo recordings.
As a new college music student in 2020, I was introduced to classical music through Mravinsky's album, which became my first Tchaikovsky late symphonies album. I later listened to Karajan, Ormandy, and many others out of curiosity, but as you said Mravinksy was my first experience with Tchaikovsky as a new listener.
I understand what you’re saying and thank you for saying it. You’re a great teacher. And today, you make me long for the days of the Tower Records classical music section, at certain locations, in its own separate annex.
Around 8 years ago I visited Tokyo and there was still a Tower Records flagship store that occupied a 9-story high-rise. They have a whole floor dedicated to Classical music. I don't know if they are still in business now, but if they are, then Japan is likely the only place. There was also a flagship HMV store in Hong Kong. Around 6 years ago, I visited the Hong Kong HMV flagship store, and they were finding ways to survive and to make better use of their 3-story store front. Instead of selling CDs and LPs, they were selling Hi-Fi equipment, doing music education, and having a coffee shop with live music
Sometime in the 70’s, my grandmother wanted to get me a recording of the Pathetique. At her local record store, Karajan was recommended but she bought the Ormandy because, well, Ormandy!
Over the next 20 years or so, I managed to add the Karajan and the Mravinsky (the 4-6 set shown). References covered!
I think it is a joy to have the No. 6 in any competent interpretation. Karajan was my first, but certainly not my last experience of this cathedral.
Ormandy's 1960 recording of the Pathetique is splendid. I have fond memories of it. Sometime in the 1990s I even had it on 4-track reel-to-reel tape (fabulous sound).
I agree. Great in every way. Exhilarating and moving.
Not a reference but Pierre Monteux's recordings of Tchaikovsky Symphonies 4-5 with the Boston Symphony Orchestra seem to be forgotten.
Great performances in excellent stereo sound.
They were never published as a set though they are contained in the Pierre Monteux Complete RCA Stereo Recordings box, one of those smaller white and green boxes BMG/Sony put out. Worth having and hearing!
Big fan of Monteux's 5th, haven't listened to his 4th though. My favorite recording of the Sixth is Furtwangler with BPO, 1938. Angel released this on LP in the 50s, not sure if it did get on CD, accessible on here though.
Back in the '70s, one couldn't find the Mravinsky recording at a "normal" record store. I was turned onto them by my friend, who later played in the L.A. Philharmonic. But they were only available at a specialty record store located in downtown Evanston, Illinois, relatively close to Northwestern University's school of music. That store specialized in "imports" directly from Europe. It had EMI recordings with Nipper listening to his gramophone, the trademark of RCA in the US at the time. I not only got the Mravinskys but also the Bohm Strauss box set on LP. To your point about marketing, as someone who grew up with the Schwann Catalogue, I often find it a bit difficult to navigate the way classical music is organized by online sellers such as Amazon.
When my dad was working on his PhD his trips into NYU brought him near a similar sort of record store. He could never remember the name when i asked him years later. But some of the more interesting things on his shelves were the result of recommendations by the owner of that store.
I'm guessing that was during the early '70s. As far as I can tell, these recordings were unheard-of up to that point, even though they dated from 1960-61. What changed was their reissue in 1974 as an official selection of the International Preview Society, a sort of classical record club that would pick a recording (decided by the "Carnegie Hall Selection Committee") every few months and issue it in a deluxe box, complete with a letter from the aforementioned Committee, describing why it was a new landmark in recorded classical music, and then flogging it with full-page adds. (I should note that it took even me a while to notice that each and every one of said selections was a multi-disc set from Polygram. Hmmm...) At any rate, after having picked up a couple of their offerings, I saw this Tchaikovsky set advertised, and my first reaction, like that of many others, I suppose, was "Who???" But a strange thing happened over the next few months: this reissue started getting raves from music critics, who almost universally declared it a new standard in versions of these symphonies. Of course, DG immediately started selling it without the IPS's imprimateur, and, over the years that followed, it seemed to have become a consensus "best" every time the Tchaikovsky symphonies were mentioned. It really was rather astonishing.
@@JamesDavidWalley
It was definitely in the early '70s. That particular store catered to musicians and record collectors who valued imports. I also shopped at the large Rose Records store in downtown Chicago, and even though it had a very extensive selection of classical recordings, it didn't carry the imports that the Evanston store carried. I got the recordings on LP. I know it was the early '70s because I moved to Phoenix in 1976 and have been here ever since.
@@hendriphile
I wish I could remember the name of the store. If I remember correctly, the store was on Sherman Avenue, just south of Church Street. There was also a Bresler's Ice cream store and Gyros restaurant on Sherman. At the time, I worked as a music engraver/typesetter in a building across the street and slightly south of the store. There was also a really good burger restaurant nearby where I had the best sharp cheddar cheeseburger I've ever eaten (If I was Jewish, which I'm not, I always joke that I could never keep kosher because I really love a good cheeseburger (which is about as unkosher as one can get). Phil Donahue came into that restaurant once with his kids when I was there (this was before he started seeing Marlo Thomas). I also went into Audio Consultants to dream from time to time. My friend and I often ate at a "two menu" (one authentic and one American) Chinese restaurant near there.
@@edwardcasper5231Thank you!
Un set magnifico! Perfetta anche la ripresa sonora, gli archi dell’orchestra hanno una profondità “spaventosa”. Uno dei motivi per amare le registrazioni di musica classica. Peccato che Mravinski non abbia diretto di più in occidente!
The Mravinsky set ended up being my first. It appeared on CD just before I visited New York for the first time, and was part of a very heavy suitcase of CDs and books that I lugged back to Australia.
Very interesting. It seems to me that some misunderstandings might arise from each individual's referential environment. For example, when I started to become interested in classical music in the 90s in Europe, I was reading French reviews. At that time, Mravinsky was already considered the reference. Hence, I understand that for some people, me included, it was as a surprise that David chose Ormandy and Karajan. That said, the reasoning was clearly explained in the previous video.
My experience is similar to yours. Mravinsky was already the reference at the time of my youth. Apparently our experience is atypical.
Great video Dave! I have certainly been enjoying this series. Both as an interesting discussion of the history of classical recordings and a great source of cds to add to my collection!
I wonder if Dave would start a new series of videos on NEW Reference Recordings. It would be interesting to see which pieces have a NEW Reference Recording and how the New Reference compared with the original ones. There is another comment saying he "started to become interested in classical music in the 90s in Europe, reading French reviews", and Mravinsky was the reference recording for Tchaikovsky. I started to become interested in classical music in the 90s in Hong Kong, reading Chinese reviews, and Mravinsky was the reference recording for Tchaikovsky. I am sure, as Dave said in his video, that Ormandy and Karajan were the reference recordings in the 60's and 70's. Dave said Mravinsky's live recordings are usually not as convincing. I totally agree with that. Back in the days, I went to a CD store in Hong Kong and they were promoting Erato's Mravinsky live Tchaikovsky #5 claiming the recording was the newest and greatest Tchaikovsky #5 ever. I was a high school student back then and I used my pocket money to buy the really expensive full-price Erato Mravinsky live Tchaikovsky #5 and it was quite a disappointment.
It's already started, and I will add to as appropriate. There's a playlist set up for it.
I love his 5th with its extreme tempo fluctuations in the first movement which are uniquely exciting!
How do you find time to listen to so many cds? My collection (c.1500) is tiny in comparison to yours, but I don’t have enough hours to enjoy them all! I certainly appreciate your reviews as you have introduced me to some wonderful artists and recordings that are new to me, and I thank you for that.
Hi Dave - off topic, but have you considered doing some conductor retrospective videos, i.e which cover an artist's entire recorded output rather than whatever box set from whichever label is currently available? The recent sad news about Sir Andrew Davis made me think that a video from you on his recorded legacy, which straddles (at least) Teldec, Chandos and Sony, would be very interesting. I know you did a video about the Teldec British Line box and no doubt some of his other recordings have popped up from time to time.
Well, I've been buying up nearly all your reference recordings, despite having a boatload of more modern recordings of the various works under discussion -and it's been fun, often enlightening, and always enjoyable to hear these recordings, from days when less was more. So, saying it's a waste of time doing these talks is just silly. But it has been quite irritating to see every new reference recording talk almost instantly replied to with 'for me, it's X' or 'my favourite is Y'... clearly, lots of people haven't grasped the concept of what you're talking about.
You absolutely hit the nail on the head. People just aren’t paying attention to him when he gives the criteria for a reference recording. He has time and time again clearly stated that it wasn’t necessarily the best or his favorite. It’s a matter of marketing and access and availability in many cases. Some of them have been the best and some of them have been his favorite, but some of these people are making arguments that just make them look ridiculous. I’m glad you get it!
People often only hear what they wish to hear.
Thanks Dave for another excellent educational chat. As someone who has only been listening to classical music for 3 years, and who loves these 3 symphonies, I find it a fascinating discussion.
I’ve listened to the Mravinsky set many times and must admit that I really enjoy them.
After Dave’s original video on these 3 symphonies, I sat down and listened to all 3 sets, Mravinsky, Ormandy and Karajan. And really enjoyed all 3.
I totally understand what Dave says about a reference recording having to have/had availability and marketing. And that it’s not about favourite versions. But it was also mentioned that a reference recording is one that can be used to display the music concerned as it should be, and allow then others to be compared and contrasted.
My point here I guess is that to my relatively uneducated ears, I found the 3 sets of these symphonies very different in interpretation. And so would it not be more difficult to compare others with them?
I don't think comparative listening is ever difficult. You just listen and let it happen, and you notice what you notice over time. At first, its will be gross details like tempo differences, then as you get to know the performances well the details begin to register. It's a process.
@@DavesClassicalGuidethanks Dave. I think I’m just one of those people who like to have a ‘target’ recording to compare to. And so having three (to me, very different) references, slightly confuses things.
But, hey I guess we’re lucky to have so many wonderful references to check out and enjoy.
This is a great series of videos for me. A huge help
I almost got in the comments to mention--but I didn't!--that when I was starting on these in the mid-90s, the Mravinsky recordings were lauded. (I'm tempted to say, they were the reference recordings in that snapshot of time.) But I assumed that you were correct regarding the references, over the longer haul. Mravinsky has been MY reference recordings, but as you've mentioned that's not the point of these videos/conversations.
I bought a used Mravinsky set of these works at Goodwill for $5 a few years ago. The box is a little beat up, but the records are in great shape. Something about the combination of composer, conductor, and orchestra adds to "Russian"-ness of the music.
The Sony Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings were released on their budget Essential Classics label, and I think these are still available as individual CD titles. The single-CD Essential Classics titles are also very common and cheap on the second-hand market. I'm fond of the Mravinsky/Leningrad renditions on their own merits, but would not want to be without other fine renditions of these cherished orchestral warhorses.
I just went to read the comments on your previous video. It’s crazy to see how many are essentially saying ‘everyone knows that Mravinsky is best’. This reveals two things: one, they have ignored your extremely clear criteria, but two - and more seriously here - they are spouting received ‘wisdom’. That they even believe there is a ‘best’ ironically suggests they have actually not listened to many at all. If they had they would know there is no such thing as a ‘best’ recording. These people are the annoying souls who spend their internet time trying to prove they know more than other people by regurgitating ‘answers’ they see most. They ruin discussion.
I guess it's just an occupational hazard.
Thanks Dave for the interesting discussion. I remember the Mravinsky being on the shelves when it came out as a DG The Originals two disc set, which wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things. My friend bought that, but I was persuaded by the record store to buy the whole set with Muti and the Philharmonia, which was going for a good price and which I still enjoy.
I don’t know, I was thinking about this after viewing your video on Mozart 40. It seemed as though you were acknowledging that there can be a generational shift in what is considered a Reference recording. In that video you noted that Szell has largely supplanted Walter in influence in the late Mozart symphonies, yet your pick went to Walter because of the earlier breadth of its acceptance (or something like that; I forget the specific words you used). Need a performance come of age at a specific time in history to still be considered a Reference in 2024? Personally the Mravinsky Tchaikovsky recordings drive me nuts; there’s an acidic edge to them that feels alien to that music’s spirit (I often wish Koussevitsky could have been the Reference here: he grew up in tsarist Russia, and his Boston performances feel uniquely authentic to Tchaikovsky’s world along with being fabulous music-making). But there seems no doubt Mravinsky is cited more often than any other conductor in Tchaikovsky, and by my observation that’s been the case for 20 years or so. I do remember the time when it was hard to avoid Karajan and Ormandy in the Tchaikovsky bin at the record store, but seems a bygone era now.
I agree about the "acidic edge." I recognize that Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky recordings are remarkably played, but I can't say that I enjoy them. There's at least a dozen off the top of my head that I enjoy hearing more.
Mravinsky's set is wonderfully interesting. A set to hear over and over. But Karajan's, Ormandy's, Markevitch's, along with this one, are pretty much all equally good. It's difficult to define one over another because each have details and ideas that work better here and there, or that are just unique ideas and give the listeners different experiences. A difficult choice.
I went back and read the comments to your earlier reference selections of Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies, and boy Dave did you "poke the bear." I understood completely why Mravinsky wasn't the reference then, and perhaps still isn't now. It seems some out there take no notice that two of the factors that determine a reference recording are marketing and availability. I remember vividly and with great frustration decades ago, trying to secure a copy of the Mravinsky recording, traveling miles between record stores, stores which told me it would take weeks to special order, and would I rather buy Karajan or Ormandy instead? I have to say I get very frustrated when you're trying to explain what recording is a reference, only to run up against a wall of nostalgic opposition from your viewers who couldn't care less what you have to say unless it involves validating their personal favourite. I guess there must be a good deal of "musical insecurity" out there if all some want to hear is their opinion parroted back at them so that they can say to others "I told you I was right all along." Please people--just listen with an open mind, buy what appeals to you, and don't lose sight of what music collecting is all about in the first place...enjoying the music. Take care!
9:41 - "the romantic performance style particularly is on the outs"
That's depressing... the Romantic era has always been my favorite era because of the raw passion and excitement, so I hope that trend changes soon
I’ve read almost all the comments (here and in the previous video) and I think in many cases it’s not a confusion between reference recordings and favorite recordings, but just the world is big. As a European, for me it was a surprise Mravinsky was not one of the chosen ones, because in at least some European countries it meets (IMHO) the conditions to be a reference recording. To be honest, when I heard it because of his fame, I was a bit disappointed, but maybe my expectations were too high - I prefer Markevitch, Monteux, Dorati, Karajan...
I think here in Europe the 'popularity'of the Mravinsky set grew as a consequence of the introduction of the compact disc. Have you any idea if the invention of the cd has influenced or shifted opinions about some 'reference' recordings? .
Only to the extent they maintained the availability of certain recordings and helped a consensus to solidify in their favor.
Dave, have you considered publishing a history of the classical music business, not from Edison and Berliner maybe, but from the LP era on?
I haven't. It would be far too much work and I don't think many would be interested. I'd rather be listening to the music!
Dave, you alluded in your video to the way that classical music had been marketed and sold. I know because I’ve lived through it c. 1955 to date, but many if not most of your viewers may not now realize that we’ve lost record stores (Goodys to Tower), domestic US mass market periodicals (High Fidelity), catalogs (Long Player, Schwann, Gramophone catalogs),
LPs that remained available for decades, and even physical product. If you won’t pen some account of that era I hope someone else will.
For me, Karajan is at his best in Tchaikovsky's fifth. I find he tends to rush the last movement of the Pathetique when instead it should be played with painful intensity. Not sure what to make of Mravinski, to be honest.
As someone who basically imprinted on and loves the Mravinsky (Stereo) versions of Tchaikovsky's 4, 5 & 6, I readily acknowledged it's not the reference for all the reason outlined - why isn't that understandable? As an aside, something I often wonder about the Mravinsky is that as they were recorded in London, how many defections were there?😊
Your pick of Ormandy and Karajan did baffle me because I NEVER saw Ormandy's or Karajan's set for reference. In the record shops was always Mravinsky. Even on the radio. My local library was a good example. They didn't have any of the Tchaikovsky by Ormandy or Karajan, but they certainly had Mravinsky. I didn't want to comment on your first video because I completely disagreed. Growing up, I saw no evidence of your "consensus" choice in my area. I remember hearing HVK 5th once. The symphonies I always heard on the radio and saw at the libraries were Mravinsky. So I can't see how you keep saying it wasn't promoted. My experience was the opposite. That's not to say it was not common in your area, but it wasn't in my area. Thanks for the fascinating discussion!
My comments were not based on "my area." They were based on my understanding of the market generally in the USA and Europe during the period in question. Judging from many of the comments posted here, your experience was atypical.
If it surprising that even after this video there still are people who JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND what makes a recording a REFERENCE RECORDING. ... How many commentators in past videos congratulated you on YOUR CHOICE when they agreed with the reference, and even among today's commentators at least one who again talked about being surprised by YOUR CHOICE of reference for the Tchaikovsky 4-6th symphonies. Is it beyond them to understand that the REFERENCE is based on a CONCENSUS OPINION, or are they just too hard headed to grasp/accept the concept? Seems to me, Mr. Hurwitz, that you will have to make peace with the fact that there are always going to be people who will think that you are cherry picking FERENCE RECORDINGS with your own private agenda in mind. ... anyway, thanks for a fascinating and very enjoyable series... at least for those of us who understand the idea of what a reference recoding is.
Isn't the most telltale sign of the current reference status of the Mravinsky set, the observation that conductors nowadays clearly seem to want to emulate it in terms of intensity, drive and phrasing? When I attend Tchai 4-6 concerts or watch YT videos of recent performances, what I'm hearing isn't Karajan or Ormandy, it's (pseudo-)Mravinsky.
I disagree. I don't hear him emulated at all. The closest anyone came was Jansons on Chandos, and that was decades ago. He was (at least in those days) a Mravinsky disciple in Tchaikovsky, but that was hardly typical then or now.
Interesting. I’m not especially fond of the Mravinsky recordings, and feel they were a bit of a Cold War cult. But I did a quick check in light of your talk on Amazon uk, and it’s especially easy to get the dg Karajan recordings, muti is quite easy second hand, Markevitch isn’t difficult, Jurowski isn’t difficult… I don’t know about Ormandy. But in short, no, it’s not necessary to converge on Mravinsky because everything else is unavailable and in big boxes. For younger collectors I wanted to say that.
I was about to jump up and down as I thought your only reference would be the Ormandy set, ready to scream about geographically skewed bias and so forth...then you added Karajan...and I chose to keep stumm, as Karajan probably adheres to your consensus criteria (that I still struggle with). I don't think Ormandy was considered a reference this side of the Atlantic. I better counter the foreseen rebuke: No, not because of some, stupid, chauvinistic nationalism, but I think his recordings were not as easily available in Europe as they were in the US. The reverse situation of the one in the US with the lack here of access to the Mravinsky recordings. Talking availability, popular appeal and prejudice, general consensus, your choice of Karajan makes very good sense. Due to the popularity and relatively easy availability of most records under the auspices of the yellow tulips (DG), I think the Mravinsky set, this side of the Pond, had a much larger, non-cultish following and could be considered the 2nd reference beside Karajan.
Alors, the clever move to elevate the Mravinsky recordings to its NEW reference status - and hence leaving us with the reference-triptych of Mravinsky, Karajan and Ormandy is a stroke of genius, that can't offend anybody, I guess.
Albeit, it might for some be a bit steep to stomach the designation 'NEW' in relation to a set of recordings of vintage 1960. Might a 'REAL NEW' or contemporaneous reference , though, be Vladimir Jurowski's splendid set from London?
Never saw the Ormandy in Australia either! We had Ormandy conducting Sibelius and Rachmaninov yes, but not Tchaikovsky!
@@petertaplin4365 In the US we relied on Schwann, the UK had Gramophone, Germany had Bielefeld, Italy Santandrea, but did Australia have a similar general catalog for your market? I never thought to ask about when I had the pleasure of shopping at Thomas' in Melbourne and sadly I think it is no longer there.
@@jerrygennaro9732 In Australia we mostly relied on Gramophone, BBC Music Magazine and Classic CD magic and the Penguin Guide, but also had access to Fanfare
That should read Classic CD Magazine!
@@jerrygennaro9732 As neighbouring Germany, I think the Bielefelder Katalog Klassik is exactly, what it says, namely a catalogue, only. For reviews and critical opinion, you would have to consult the magazine Fonoforum - or some of the larger German newspapers, if you can find one that still contains culture journalism and critique!
Sanderling's mono Tchaikovsky 4th symphony with the Leningrad Philharmonic on DG is even better than Mravinsky's!
No, it's not.
It does indeed seem people continue to have difficulty drawing the distinction between reference recordings and the best performances/their personal favorites. If Mravinsky wasn’t widely available, then it inherently fails to meet the requirements of a reference recording even if’s the very best. No one but true connoisseurs had it around to refer to.
I recommend people watch the video on Mahler’s 8th. Solti’s recording is a good example which was truly used a reference for the piece (at a time when recordings of Mahler weren’t nearly as common) even if not a lot of us commenty people would name it their favorite today.
Dave, you mention the fact that Karajan damaged his reputation by recording Tch. 4-6 multiple times causing buyer confusion. Boulez may be the maddest example of he records too much. His limited 20th Century repertoire was recorded twice confusing buyers. Maddest of all was 2 box sets of Webern complete. The universe’s ability to absorb Webern probably peaked at 1 box. But a bit sad as Boulez was a talented conductor.
I agree with every word. As I commented last time. While we may argue that the world of classical music is under threat because of the way the business works NOW, we cannot doubt that we have the ability to access - almost instanteously - many, many recordings that were not readily available over most of the history of vinyl & early CDs. I am older than Dave and I can corroborate his view, on the same grounds - though of course without the same depth of knowledge as Dave has.
Oh my God, I can’t believe I’m commenting. I’m not even on any social media but I throw thought I’d throw my ha’penny worth in . I can understand how people are confused. You refer to reference recordings on all your classics today reviews but it appears you don’t mean reference recording you mean classics today recommended recording .I think that’s where the confusion lies. I have to say and it could be the fact that I live in the UK I’ve never heard Ormandy’s listed as a reference recommended. I’ve never heard them criticised either though . I have seen HVK’s recommended so that’s fair enough. Confusion understandable . Nastiness not understandable or acceptable but that’s usually the way online debate ends up these days
And I would agree with the guy who thanked you for opening his ears to Ormandy. Sibelius 1 sublime
Well, I’m just gonna repeat. I was confused. When you call something a reference recording but in your reviews but you make no mention Ormandy at all. (By you, I mean classics today not you personally )it’s bound to lead to confusion. It’s seems like every reviewer has a different idea of what the reference recording is which surely isn’t your point. Surely that just makes it a recommendation. That’s one minor minor gripe! . I love this site and I totally take your point about a pro British bias in THE British press but I’m sure a similar thing happens in America .I’m really enjoying the chance to take a more global approach to listening to recordings and also one of the things I like about your posts is that you gets away from this idea of there being one recording that if you don’t own you’re not going to enjoy the work . I mean at the end of the day you’re listening to Beethoven Tchaikovsky Mozart and unless you’ve got an absolute disaster destroying it, you’re still probably gonna enjoy, the recordings very much. It’s a refreshing take and I enjoy it. I especially like your opinion that regardless of the history or the prestige of the performance if it’s not on the CD who cares. I love that. It shouldn’t be such a revelation, but it is. I was never fond of Kleiber Beethoven fifth and other holy cows of the music press. You encourage people to listen and make their own minds up and that I like. And as for your take on historically informed performance a high-five across the pond.!
When I became aware of the Mravinsky set I just had to get it because everyone was saying this was THE best set ever. Well played, no doubt. But ultimately disappointing lacking the fireworks of others. Not a reference set for me. It's still Ormandy and Monteux.