Re: Shostakovich's 8th symphony?


jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
Michael Schaffer wrote:
I have Jansons. The performance is well prepared and musically
interesting, but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact
for this music.

What do you think is the cause of that? Are they too small an
orchestra? Does their recording venue have anything to do with it? The
engineers of the recordings there?

Dunno. They play very well, but they just don't have a very impactful
sound. I heard them in Berlin playing Mahler 5 with Jansons which was a
good concert. They have a precise ensemble and pleasant sound which is
fairly lucid and transparent, kind of like the SFS, but less colorful.
But rather bass light. I enjoyed that concert and, to a degree, the
Sibelius symphonies they recorded with Maazel (although they are not
exactly the greatest Sibelius recordings out there, hard to believe
this is the same conductor who did those phenomenal recordings 25 years
earlier. Well, in a way, he wasn't anymore).

The latter-day Maazel Sibelius is something I've only dabbled in,
mainly to hear the orchestra...his Vienna set was so good I didn't feel
a great urge to hear him try again, even though I love the way
Pittsburgh plays. I suppose my initial resistance to multiplying
recordings by the same conductors of the same pieces has broken down
over time that I will finish hearing this series on Sony.

Generally, I agree with what you're saying (on CD, that Mahler 5 is
stunning, though.), and am always puzzled by how "bass light" San
Francisco sounds to me compared to my favorite orchestras (I think
anyone with a taste for Furtwangler eventually likes to hear lots of
bass; but to correct the Pittsburgh problem, all you really need to do
is buy a pair of Grado headphones just for their CDs).

I don't really see it as a "problem". It is a different sound and
playing style. Yes, sometimes they lack some weight and depth, but a
very precise lean bass sound can have some merits too.
This is caused by a number of factors. The choice of instruments,
obviously, the playing style of the bass players, the preferences of
the conductors who shape the sound of the orchestra.
The main "problem" is that the majority of bass sections in American
orchestras still play on 4-string instruments, usually with a
mechanical extension for the notes below E. Most 4-string instruments
are smaller and easier to play (especially to play *in tune*) and they
also can have a leaner, brighter sound which may or not project better,
or let's say, easier, in higher registers. But they generally lack the
depth and width of tone you only get from big-bodied 5-string
instruments with long string lengths. Also, the extension is a
practical device to add some low notes to a 4-string instrument, but it
is a bit awkward to play. Some fast passages don't work on the
extension at all, and generally, the low notes do not sound as full and
organ-like bwwwoooom as on a 5th string. The 4th string actual gets a
little too long when you play the extended notes, so the string gets a
little too slack and the tone is rather slack too.
In Germany, Austria, Czechia etc, it is customary for the entire
section to play on big 5-string instruments. There is also a strong
tendency in other countries to go that route. Some time ago, several
major orchestras, like the Philharmonia, Orchestre de Paris, and
Orchestre National de F, have bought complete sets of 5-string
instruments for their bass sections, with a very noticeable difference.
These are all new matched instruments from the workshop Pöllmann in
Cologne which are solid, decent instruments, if not exactly the same
thing as old noble master instruments from Italy, Tyrolia, Southern
Germania, or Bohemia as as owned and played by the BP, for instance.
Their instruments are also all *very* and have a very dark, boomy
sound. Or like the very fine Austrian and Hungarian basses owned by the
Wiener Philharmoniker. A lot of the Czech instruments have a "rough",
grainy sound which provides a very strong and punchy, if less rounded
off, basis for their sound.
However, the most important element, as always, is the playing style.
As you probably know, there are two different styles of bass bows,
usually called French (held from above, like the cello), and German
(held from the side, like the viola da gambe), although they are
actually from neither country. They basically come from the violin and
viola da gamba families of string instruments. The French bow is
usually heavier and shorter, the German longer and lighter and the frog
is taller to fit in the palm of the hand.
You can play very nicely with both types, but there is a playing style
cultivated especially in Germany which is characterized by longer
bowings and the occasional use of the entire length of the bow even in
loud and fast passages. This is an area where you can't quite go with
the French bow.
Finally, another very important element is timing. When you listen to
older recording like, e.g. Furtwängler, you will hear that the sound
is usually build up from the bottom and the basses often play a
fraction ahead, drive the sound from below. Tutti chords are often
begun from the bass and almost "arpeggiated" upwards. Same about
pizzicati. This is very important for the development of a bigger,
rounder sound since the lower notes take more time to develop in the
room.

I'm glad for the descriptions and information. We've been over this
before and it's useful to remind everyone of the technical factors
involved in the sound. In a way, though, as you note, generalities in
equipment can be overcome by one factor or another by specific players
or styles, etc. I still am not sure how to explain what I hear in some
orchestras, like Pittsburgh, based on what you are saying, because
other American orchestras as diverse as Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston,
Milwaukee, New York, Washington DC, LA Phil, the MET, Dallas, etc.
choose to have more impact, or more darkness or richness from their
basses. Which of these orchestras play with 5-string bases regularly?

None really. I think there may be a tendency towards more 5-strings,
but none of these orchestras has more than a very few, many of them
still have none and play relatively small instruments with extensions.
I know this is a taboo subject for Americans, since you all think that
in America everything must be and is bigger, faster, louder, but
unfortunately no orchestra in the New World, as technically
accomplished as they are, has a string sound as distinctive as such
ensembles as the KCGO, ONF (few people think of that since French
orchestras in general are rarely seen as true top ensembles, but the
French string sound is absolutely marvelous), BP, SD, SOBR, WP, CP,
StPP, to name just a few. The unity of tradition which makes a great
and unmistakeable string sound is simply not there. It even noticeably
begins to fade when you get to England. Many wonderful and highly
accomplished players, nice sound, but nothing distinctive.
It was very interesting for me to be able to compare the BP and CSO
literally back-to-back when they came to Berlin for several concerts
and I could hear one orchestra in rehearsal during the afternoon, then
the other in concert at night, and the other way around, for nearly a
week. I had a concert project with a chamber ensemble that I managed at
that time going on at the same time in the chamber music hall, so I
could wander over to the large hall and sit in their rehearsals from
time to time.
The CSO definitely has one of the best American bass sections. They
impress with a very high degree of precision and clarity, work a lot
with the bow fairly close to the bridge in forte and the sound projects
very well but doesn't have the "hum" and the weight which the BP basses
have which in their turn can sound a little too dark and diffuse
sometimes. A huge difference is also in the pizzicato sound: the CSO
pizz is very percussive and penetrates the texture very clearly but is
a little dry while the BP pizz is very round and swings like a bell and
seems to lie under the orchestral textures like logs rather than
penetrate them.
It was also very interesting for me to spend some time one afternoon
with a bass player from the CSO who after the orchestra had left stayed
behind for a few weeks to play as a guest with the BP. They had given
him two of their instruments (5-strings of course) to chose from. One
was a Bohemian instrument with a very sinewy, dry, but strong sound,
the other an Italian bass with a very rich, smooth, creamy sound.
His playing style was very precise with a clear, focused tone and
extremely well articulated. He played the opening arpeggio of "Ein
Heldenleben" across all strings with all notes sharply defined. The
traditional German style is to play this extremely legato and even
slide up the G string all the way to the high G of the first phrase.
He played both instruments and then asked me to play both for him so
that he could hear what they sounded like from a few feet away.
Needless to say, he dug the Bohemian instrument more because it suited
his sharply outlined playing style better than the very dark and
"hummy" Italian instrument. But I suggested that the latter might still
be a better choice for him because the result would get him closer to
the tarditional style. He liked that idea and was very happy playing
the Italian instrument.

A very good balance between dark, rich, and focussed is the LA bass
sound which is very sonorous. On the opposite end of the spectrum is
the Philadelphia sound which is pleasant and dark, but doesn't have
much weight at all.
When I heard the SFS in Davies Hall, I could hardly hear the basses
even though I sat very close to the orchestra. That may also be in part
due to the less than ideal acoustics of the hall. One thing "shocked"
me a little: one or two of the bass players were actually standing!
That is a big nono in German orchestras, because it destroys the
optical harmony of the section and also because you can weigh into the
instrument much better when you sit down, and then lean back and pull
all your arm and upper body weight into the instrument. A lot of
players actually prefer to stand when playing solo or chamber music
(myself included), but big orchestra playing is a very different
matter. That may in part answer your question: some of these orchestras
simply have no grown orchestral sound tradition. Their individual
members may be highly virtuoso players who can wizzard thtugh the most
dazzling solo pieces, but good orchestral sound needs a much earthier
approach.


About the PSO/Maazel Sibelius recordings: I think these are actually
much better than their reputation. The problem here is that a lot of
people, like myself, tore the box out of the shrinkwrap expecting
something like the older cycle, but in newer sound (although the Decca
sound of his first cycle isn't all that "old") and maybe with somewhat
brighter colors. But that's not what it is. Maazel's tendency to slower
tempi and a more laid back approach and polished sound is quite
different from what he did in the 60s, but if you look at it as it is
without comparing it, there's a lot of interesting elements there too.
For instance, the 3rd which you also mentioned benefits from very clear
and shiny textures. The orchestra sounds light and open, but that works
very well here and I enjoy the clarity of detail. The one big
disappointment for me was when that fabulous horn motif which crowns
the first section of the exposition returns in the recapitualtion. This
is a very important moment, and one which rarely comes off really well.
The first time around is sounds good. Later, the horns fail to slur the
notes as indicated and sag away for a moment before they "recover" and
finish the motif nicely, slurred, with that certain "howling" effect
that that that passage needs. Strange.
I also listened to the Swan which I think is actually a very nice
performance, despite the very slow tempo. But Maazel manages to fill
that with musical tension and he also gets some extraordinarily
beatiful vibrant playing from the strings. The meticulous attention to
balance and detail creates a very dense athmosphere, although I find
the stopped horn notes should have been a little less direct and more
mysterious. The playing of the (uncredited) eh solist is, like you
said, impeccable and very well articulated. But I find his sound very
thin and artificial, almost too technical (listen to the very steady
ample vibrato on the long note beginning around 9:30 - it almost sounds
like a sampled or synthsized sound, not like a person playing), and not
very colorful, nor his playing very expressive or eloquent. Maybe he
was the victim of Maazel's very slow tempo here. But he sounds like a
plastic Swan floating around Tuonela. I find the sound and playing of
the principal oboe (in the third symphony) much nicer.
The Mravinsky recording is much more musical. The eh is technically
much less polished, but very eloquent. The sound is a little strange
though. It appears rather flat (how much of that is the recording?) and
has that snarling, buzzing element to it. I wonder if that may have
been cause by lack of good reeds or if that is simply the tonal
esthetic. In any case, I guess it must have been very difficult in the
USSR to get good reeds. I am told they only grow in Southern France, if
that is a correct information.
Another recording I listened to is Segerstam's recent Helsinki account
which is very dark and warm and features a lady called Sanna
Niemikunnas which gives one of the best Swans I have heard. The sound
is darker and fuller and much more expressive than on the Maazel
recording, and the playing much more eloquent and musical. Overall,
this is one of the best versions I have heard.
I wonder if there is a recording with a Viennese eh. Somehow I thought
Maazel also recorded the Swan with the WP back then, but I think I may
be wrong here. AFAIK, the only piece other than the symphonies they
recorded is Tapiola.


I assume the uncredited English horn is Harold Smoliar. I don't find
his playing plastic or his vibrato mechanical, but I do have other
favorites in this piece. In any case I agree that the slow tempo
probably made a difference in what he could do with the phrasing and
sculpting of the line. The problem with USSR players in Mravinsky's
period might have been related to the availability of good French cane
or good instruments, but I've played on lousy instruments with lousy
reeds and I don't think one has to be a spectacular player to overcome
such limitiations, most of the time. Still, it is a testy instrument.



i also love San
Francisco's color and musicality. They're well suited for a wide
repertoire.

"Clean" is a word I often use for Pittsburgh's historic tendencies.
Reiner, Steinberg, Previn, Maazel, Jansons...their preferences in music
directors is if anything even more consistently in this direction than
Cleveland's with Leinsdorf, Rodzinski, Szell, Maazel, and Dohnanyi.
Only Previn could be said to lean toward voluptuousness (I am not
talking about his taste in women). LA Phil this is not.

The LAP indeed has a richer and warmer sound, and the basses are among
the best sections among US orchestras, they have a fairly sonorous and
punchy sound.

Listen to the opening of Sibelius 3, however. That cleanliness is
godliness in this movement, but it's not just a precision. Listen to
the sound as the strings get really soft just before the 3 minute mark.
It's a really lovely texture, hushed but crystal clear and beautifully
tuned. More orchestras should play like this. I wonder what some of
those exciting Steinberg recordings (like their Tchaikovsky and
Shostakovich) would sound like in similar hall ambience and recording
technology/perspective. I suspect they would not have the kid gloves
that Jansons was wearing when he turned in that fine but somewhat
disappointing Shostakovich 8. (Litton is your man, at least in terms of
balances and textures.)

Why any American orchestra, with those supposedly decibel-daring winds,
would want to balance in this pristine, delicate way, is a mystery, eh?
;-) However, move ahead three or more minutes in that Sibelius 3 and
the timpani sounds oddly distant and wimpy, even though I can clearly
hear some force going into the strokes. Maybe the engineering or the
hall is more of a factor than previously assumed. Check out, for
instance, their Telarc Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 2. Still somewhat slim
bass, but there's relatively more resonance and presence on the low end
overall. One might prefer this balance (though I do like everything
else about Sony's sound in the Sibelius).

I might be interested in hearing some of those older recordings. I was
very impressed by Steinberg's Also sparach Z and Planets with the BSO.
I once heard a Reiner recording of Concerto for O which was very well
played but also was some of the most sterile and stiff music making I
have ever heard on disc. Which Steinberg recordings can you recommend?

The real problem is the recording quality. I just can't judge. The MCA
and EMI releases I've heard on CD were not attractive, and so I have
bought few Steinberg CDs to supplement what I have on LP. Since I do
not consider Reiner's work sterile or stiff, I'm not sure what to
recommend of Steinberg's in Pittsburgh. His Beethoven, Brahms,
Shostakovich, Bruckner, and Tchaikovsky have all impressed me for one
reason or another but might strike you as rather brisk and light.
"Nimble" but not "numb" to the music, in my opinion. Maybe I'll revisit
a few of these records in coming weeks.

--Jeff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barenboim Mahler 7
    ... one of the "thinner" sounding orchestras I've heard was Berlin ... It's a different sound concept, but if you don't get it, ... buying his first DG recording. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Shostakovichs 8th symphony?
    ... but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact ... They play very well, but they just don't have a very impactful ... Francisco sounds to me compared to my favorite orchestras (I think ... playing style. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Prokofiev symphony #5 by Paavo Jarvi
    ... 5s from him on the radio, with three different orchestras, and they ... The sound is flatish, dryish, and the ... The playing is generally ... The ct review mentions Muti's Philadelphia recording as one of the ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Shostakovichs 8th symphony?
    ... but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact ... They play very well, but they just don't have a very impactful ... Francisco sounds to me compared to my favorite orchestras (I think ... playing style. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Shostakovichs 8th symphony?
    ... Isn't Maxim's recording on Collins? ... but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact ... playing style. ... The choice of instruments, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)