# Collector's corner: Karajan's Beethoven cycle on Sony



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

A question has been puzzling me for years: Is the Sony video cycle a genuine 7th Beethoven cycle of Karajan, or does it use the DG 1982-84 cycle as its soundtrack?

Finally I have got my hands on this Sony video cycle, so I am going to find out by looking at recording data, comparing timings, listening for differences etc.

Some background on the Sony video cycle: These are the _staged_ performances that Karajan made using _glamorous_ lighting (as opposed to the usual concert hall-style uniform lighting) that he once famously (or infamously) utilised to create a new experience for home video. The video is a Telemondial production that has appeared on VHS, VCD, LD and DVD through the years. The DVD set that I have now got was re-issued in 2007, with the audio "re-recorded" at the Berlin Philharmonie - Sony played the original audio at the Philharmonie, re-recorded it and re-mixed it for 5.0 surround. I have been under the impression that the original audio came from the DG 1982-84 cycle, because Sony claimed its audio was originally recorded in 1982-1984. Whether this is true, we shall see.

However, one thing is sure from the outset. The Sony #9 and the DG 1983 #9 are definitely different, simply because the singers are different. In fact, the Sony cast is the same as another DG 1986 cast (not the 1983 that is included in the DG 1982-84 cycle). More on this when I compare the recordings later on.

... to be continued.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

The first thing I did was to look at all the recording dates stated by Sony and DG. I will say it upfront - They do not match.


Sony cycle (DVD)
Re-recorded 2007
Released 2007.Sony cycle (DVD)
"His Legacy for Home Video" series
Released c.1991.DG 1982-84 cycle (CD)
"1980s box"DG 1982-84 cycle (LP)
Original LP box#11984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN1984.JAN#21984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN1984.FEB#31984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN1984.JAN#41982.NOV1982.NOV.18-21 & 1983.NOV.29-DEC.061983.DEC1983.DEC#51983.SEP/DEC1982.NOV.18-21 & 1983.NOV.29-DEC.061982.NOV1982.NOV#61982.NOV1982.NOV1982.NOV1982.NOV#71982.NOV1982.NOV1983.DEC1983.DEC#81984.JAN/FEB1984.JAN/FEB1984.FEB1984.FEB#91983.SEP/DEC1983.SEP.21-281983.SEP1983.SEP

In fact, apart from #6, none of them matches.

Looking specifically at #4 & #5, in Sony's c.1991 release, they are coupled on the same DVD. When they put together the recording data for Sony's 2007 release, which has #4 & #5 on separate DVDs, they possibly got mixed up.

But I cannot tell why the other dates are different.

By the way, DG also stated different months for #2 in the "Karajan 1980s" box and the original LP box. That is typical of them.

I am afraid these official dates stated by the record companies are not telling me much that could be useful to determine if the Sony and the DG are the same cycle.

... to be continued.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OK, here's what I've gleaned about these video 'recordings' over the years but I may be wrong as there's so little info.....

Kiki, the question about HVK's video cycle is contentious for some and I can't truly answer it as I don't physically own it, as you do. However I've seen it and have read lots about it. Osborne claims that the performances are "mostly mimed". Some orchestra members challenged this and said that they performed as if "live" in the studio and the whole lot was recorded, with retouching - in particular, instrumental solos, and some players mimed to the playback but I'm not sure if this would be possible, to splice in another performance without hearing the difference. I think the truth is somewhere in between. Last time I watched it I did notice changes in sound when instrumental solos are playing and a sort of artificial highlighting in these parts but this was years ago and my memory might be playing tricks on me plus this may have been done just to emphasise those parts. When the brass plays they are certainly miming and this is true of the woodwinds too. What I can gather from my memories of it and from what I've read is that the bulk of what you see is a mix of live but mostly mimed sections, as Karajan wanted to highlight specific sections and recordings were done sectionally, in small parts. However, in truth I really don't know and, Kiki, your post has just confused me more! Osborne's book is usually pretty comprehensive but he kinda skips over all this, probably as this was released at a time when Herbie and the BPO were at loggerheads (that part of Osborne's book is particularly woolly about some of those recordings and he talks about tours more in that part of the book). Most of the former BPO players have remained tight-lipped about this topic, over the years, but those who have spoken said they played their parts for real. Whether these parts were actually recorded is another thing. I've read other Karajan books since but none address this particular topic. As for the recording of the 9th, I haven't got a clue. Where do these stand in regard to timings?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I have looked into #9 in details.

And I will state my conclusion first - This #9 from the Sony cycle was recorded in 1986, not in 1983 as Sony stated; and it is a different recording from the DG 1983 included in their 1982-84 cycle.

The most obvious difference is that they have different soloists.
Sony: Lella Cuberli, Helga Müller-Molinari, Vinson Cole, Franz Grundheber.
DG 1983: Janet Perry, Agnes Baltsa, Vinson Cole, José van Dam.

In fact, the Sony cast is the same as another DG #9 made in 1986. This 1986 studio recording is a gift CD that DG produced for the Salzburg Easter Festival in 1999, a not-for-sale collector's item. Therefore, forget the DG 1983 from the 1982-84 cycle. This Sony #9 has nothing to do with them.










Between the Sony and the DG 1986, the runtimes of all 4 movements are the same: 14:56, 10:23, 15:36, 23:54. They also sound the same, most apparently in the singing. Therefore I am convinced they are in fact the same recording.

There is also supporting evidence that Sony's 1983 date is wrong - tower.jp stated that the Sony was recorded in 1986, instead of 1983 as Sony stated. tower.jp is known to correct recording date errors from record companies. I have seen it several times with Mravinsky's recordings, which is a minefield as far as dodgy recording data is concerned. Therefore I would say, in general, tower.jp is more credible than the record companies themselves! In fact, I have also looked at several Japanese websites dedicated to Karajan's discography and they all stated 1986. After all, the Japanese are very pedantic about these things.

Onto the video. There is an audience! While the camera work focuses a lot on Karajan and the orchestra, there are a few cuts that show an audience in the background. However, there is neither audience noise nor applause.

The presence of an audience in the video does not imply that it was a live performance, because an audience could have been invited to fill the background during the filming session. It also does not imply that it was a one-take performance, because 1) they could have stopped to adjust their obsessive hair rim lighting that in fact changes angle in different cuts which would have been distracting for players and audience in a live situation, and 2) those cuts of incredibly clean framing of players are nearly impossible in a live situation so they were most likely isolated and staged.

There is another observation that I think is telling: the singers' lips do not synchronise with the audio! Close, but not exact. Also, Vinson Cole the tenor's facial expression looks particularly unnatural, that reminds me of low-budget music videos in which a singer sings but in fact he/she mimes. 

Therefore, while I am convinced that the audio came from the DG 1986 recording, I suspect the video was filmed separately, and the final DVD product has the DG 1986 audio dubbed over it. 

I think we can have a good laugh now, preferably with a glass of Lagavulin.



Spoiler: The data that I actually looked at



Last updated 2022-07-29
--
KK: Sony DVD "Re-recorded" 88697195439 (DVD #3: 88697195409): DVD disc label stated "(P) & (C) 2007, SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT".
KK: Sony DVD "Re-recorded" 88697195439 (DVD #3: 88697195409): DVD booklet stated "Recorded Sept. & Dec. 1983 at the Philharmonie, Berlin".
--
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SVD 46364: DVD back cover stated "RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21-28, 1983 IN BERLIN".
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SVD 46364: DVD back cover stated "A production on TELEMONDIAL", "(C) 1990 TELEMONDIAL".
Re: "Herbert von Karajan, Berliner Philharmoniker, Ludwig van Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 "Choral"".
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SVD 46364: tower.jp stated "1986年9月、ベルリン、フィルハーモニー・ザール".
Re "ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン/Herbert von Karajan, His Legacy- Beethoven: Symphony no 9".
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SVD 46364: wakuwakudo.net stated "収録：1986年9月19～29日".
Re "SONY DVD ƒJƒ^ƒƒOEƒŠƒXƒg0412".
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SVD 46364: karajan.info stated "Rec:1986.9.19.-9.29".
Re "www.karajan.info/concolor/1957/Performance-Beethoven3.html".
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SVD 46364: karajan.co.uk stated "SONY SVD 46364 (PAL)", "Beethoven Symphony No 9 :1986 B.P.O.".
Re "Herbert Von Karajan - Video, VCD and DVD Collection".
--
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SIBC-51 (9 DVDs): tower.jp stated "1986年9月19-29日，Berlin".
Re "ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン/カラヤンの遺産 ベートーヴェン･コレクション＜完全生産限定盤＞".
--
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SIBC-126: tower.jp stated "1986年9月19-29日　ベルリン".
Re "ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン/カラヤンの遺産　ベートーヴェン：交響曲第９番「合唱」／ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン、ベルリン・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団＜期間限定生産盤＞".
--
KK: Sony DVD "His Legacy for Home Video" SIBC-22: cdjapan.co.jp stated "86年9月19～29日収録。".
Re "Beethoven: Symphony No.9 "CHORAL" Herbert Von Karajan DVD".
--
KK: Sony LD "His Legacy for Home Video" 01.46 364.88: LD back cover stated "A production on TELEMONDIAL", "(C) 1990 TELEMONDIAL".
KK: Sony LD "His Legacy for Home Video" 01.46 364.88: LD back cover stated "(C) 1991 Sony Classical GmbH".
Re: "Herbert Von Karajan Beethoven Symphony No. 9 Sony 1991 Laserdisc German | eBay".
--
KK: DG CD 445 148-2GO: CD front cover sticker stated "Geschenk für die Förderer der SALZBURGER OSTERFESTSPIELE".
KK: DG CD 445 148-2GO: CD back cover stated "FIRST RELEASE ON CD", "NOT FOR SALE", "(P) 1990 Telemondial, SAM, Monaco".
KK: DG CD 445 148-2GO: CD booklet stated "First release on CD", "Recording: Berlin, Philharmonie 9/1986", "(P) 1990 Telemondial, SAM, Monaco", "(C) 1999 Deutsche Grammophon GmbH, Hamburg".
KK: DG CD 445 148-2GO: karajan.info stated "Rec:1986.9.19.-9.29", "*正規盤未発売の録音がある（音源はSony映像と同一）".
Re "www.karajan.info/concolor/1957/Performance-Beethoven3.html".
--
KK: DG LP 415 066-1GH7 (7LPs): LP booklet stated "Recordings: Berlin, Philharmonie, ... 9/1983 (op. 125), ..."
--
KK: DG CD "Karajan 1980s" 00289 479 3448 LC 0173 (78 CDs): Box booklet stated "Recording: Berlin, Philharmonie, September 1983".
--
KK: Karajan played Beethoven #9 only in the 1971 and 1984 Salzburg Easter Festival.
Re "Herbert Von Karajan - Easter Festival Programmes".
--
RESEARCH:
KK: Sony DVD "Re-recorded" 88697195439 & DG CD 445 148-2GO has the same runtimes 14:56,10:23,15:36,23:54.
KK: Sony DVD "Re-recorded" 88697195439 & DG CD 445 148-2GO have the same soloists.
--
KK: Sony DVD & DG 1983 (part of the 1982-84 cycle) are different recordings. Runtimes and soloists are different.
KK: Sony DVD and DG 1986 are the same recording.
KK: Either or both dates stated by Sony and DG could be wrong. Both companies are not credible from past experience.
KK: DG's 1986 date may be more believable, because tower.jp and others stated the Sony was recorded in 1986.
KK: Since tower.jp is known to correct wrong data from record companies, their 1986 date is the most credible.
--
KK: Conclusion: Recorded in 1986. Not 1983.



... to be continued.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> OK, here's what I've gleaned about these video 'recordings' over the years but I may be wrong as there's so little info.....
> 
> Kiki, the question about HVK's video cycle is contentious for some and I can't truly answer it as I don't physically own it as you do. However I've seen it and have read lots about it. Osborne claims in his book that the performances are "mostly mimed". Some orchestra members challenged this and said that they performed as if "live" in the studio with retouchings, in particular, instrumental solos, where players mimed to the playback but I'm not sure if this would be possible, to splice in another performance without hearing the difference. I think the truth is somewhere in between. Last time I watched it I did notice changes in sound when instrumental solos are playing and a sort of artificial highlighting in these parts but this was years ago and my memory might be playing tricks on me. When the brass plays they are certainly miming and this is true of the woodwinds too. What I can gather from my memories of it and from what I've read is that the bulk of what you see is a mix of live but mostly mimed sections, as Karajan wanted to highlight specific sections and recordings were done sectionally, in small parts. However, in truth I really don't know and, Kiki, your post has just confused me more! Osborne's book is usually pretty comprehensive but he kinda skips over all this, probably as this was released at a time when Herbie and the BPO were at loggerheads (that part of Osborne's book is particularly wooly about some of those recordings and he talks about toursore in that part of the book). Most of the former BPO players have remained tight-lipped about this topic, over the years, but those who have spoken said they played their parts for real. Whether these parts were actually recorded is another thing. I've read other Karajan books since but Mon address this particular topic. As for the recording of the 9th, I haven't got a clue. Where do these stand in regard to timings?


Thank you for your input, Merl! 

I agree with you. I am convinced that the singers in this Sony #9 mimed, and by induction, if they did, the orchestra probably did too.

And I am certain that the audio came from the DG 1986 (a different recording from the DG 1983 included in their 1982-84 cycle). Timings match and they sound the same. It's especially easy to tell with singers. 

Therefore, my conclusion is that Sony, or Telemondial rather, dubbed the DG 1986 audio over the _staged_ video footage. And to answer my initial question, this Sony #9 has nothing to do with the DG 1983 from their 1982-84 cycle.

However, the detective work for other symphonies may be tougher. 

E.g. The Sony #1 includes no exposition repeat, but the DG does; but this does not mean that they are different recordings.

E.g. Between Sony and DG, the runtimes of the first two movements of #5 are similar, but the runtime difference of the last two movements is more significant. I have seen something similar before with Mravinsky's recordings, where movements from different recordings were botched together to form a new release! I do not know if this is the case here though.

... the detective work will continue.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

This is really interesting to read. I knew about the 1983 DG Beethoven 9th but not about the 1986; has that been released on CD or is that only a video performance? Also, have you tried reaching out to Sony directly? They probably wouldn't be helpful but on the off chance that they were, it would at least give you a better clue.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Monsalvat said:


> This is really interesting to read. I knew about the 1983 DG Beethoven 9th but not about the 1986; has that been released on CD or is that only a video performance? Also, have you tried reaching out to Sony directly? They probably wouldn't be helpful but on the off chance that they were, it would at least give you a better clue.


Tbh, Monsalvat, I doubt Sony would be of much use. The best port of call would be DG and the engineers responsible for the 'recordings' but I doubt DG will be forthcoming and I suspect the engineers are mostly dead/retired. As far as the 'staging' of shots is concerned this was definitely the case and some of the players have gone on record as stating that they took part in these 'sectional mimes' but that they also played through the pieces as a proper orchestra well away from these mimed sections.

As far as the 1st symphony is concerned, in the 3 DG cycles, Karajan took the repeat in the 60s and 80s cycle but not in the 70s cycle. Could they have used the audio from the 77 cycle here? Here are the timings for the 1977 1st:

I. 7:45
II. 6:03
III 3:35
IV 5:27 

Could this be the answer? Btw, what would really help is if you had individual timings for the whole cycle, movement by movement, as I have all the timings of the 60s, 70s and 80s cycle in front of me right now (part of a project I never started). As Karajan's timings of all symphonies are remarkably similar across decades it's even more difficult but its fair to say, in general, that tempi in the 70s cycle are usually a little bit brisker (but not the 4th). However, there are other key differences in some movements that can help. For example he takes the exposition repeat in the third movement of the 6th in 1977 but didn't in the 60s and 80s sets. Does he take the exposition repeat in the video or not?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

FWIW Simon Rattle did a video interview on the BPO Digital Concert Hall where he talked about HvK at some length and one of the things that he mentioned is making videos where the orchestra mimed to an existing soundtrack - no surprise there. One interesting comment is when he said (approx.) "some of the musicians were miming to their now dead colleagues" which certainly implies that the soundtrack and video were not done at about the same time. It is very probably that those comments were based on first hand conversations with some of the musicians involved.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

From that nugget of info, Becca, I'm suspecting that some of these recordings are from the 77 set then. Kiki Poirot, we need your input again. If you can get those all-important movement timings I'm sure we can crack this case.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I will post the timings (with track silence deducted). It may take some time, as I am in the process of ripping the audio, and it's F1 weekend, Community Shield and I have new experiments planned in the kitchen tomorrow.

I will try my best at the detective work, Merl, but I am afraid I am no Poirot! 😅He has got more hair for sure, although my shaved head definitely looks neater.

I also doubt Sony or DG would be much help. I have asked other record companies similar questions, and their customer service did not have a clue what they were replying. I rather focus on screening other people's research results on the web, especially from the Japanese, since they are pedantic about these things and they have always been crazy about the Emperor (that's what they call Karajan).

Monsalvat, I believe DG never released that 1986 #9 on CD. It was not included in any previous incarnations of their "complete" Karajan boxes either. It was produced as a gift CD for the lucky people at the Salzburg Easter Festival. Having said that, straightly speaking, it is in fact available, not from DG, but from Sony on this #9 DVD.

Thanks Becca for the info. That is in line with I saw from the Sony #9 footage and it certainly raises the confidence level of my conclusion.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Two apologies to begin with. Firstly, for a sucking eggs thing, but have you tried looking at:









Karajan für alle.


Erlebe klassische Musik und tauche ein in das Leben und Wirken des Maestros.




www.discoverkarajan.com





All his recordings, concerts, radio broadcasts are listed here. For example there are 25 "Aufnahmen" and 76 "Konzerte" listed for Beethoven's 4th. The recordings seem to include some duplication, not the concerts.

You can look up by composer, work, location, date, seemingly wjatever thakes your fancy.

Secondly,
I don't have the time or energy to check your information myself. Put it down to laziness, on a good day I probably would try and help more.

Bit here are a couple of screenshots for the 4th...


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Thanks CnC Bartok! I didn't know this site. 

I hope they also do their research to correct wrong dates given by record companies. Yep, it has at least corrected the date of the Sony #9 to 1986, so that's good. (Tchaikovsky Research, for example, does little research, if not none, on recordings. It merely states the dates printed on the booklets.)

One thing that bothers me though, is that every recording is given a single date, but in fact a work could be recorded over a few days and in extreme cases over several years, e.g. the 75/76/77 le Sacre and Beethoven #1&#2.

Even so, this site should still be a great reference!


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> From that nugget of info, Becca, I'm suspecting that some of these recordings are from the 77 set then. Kiki Poirot, we need your input again. If you can get those all-important movement timings I'm sure we can crack this case.


Here are the Sony movement timings. 

The error range is around +/-1s and is independent of movement length.


Sony mvt timings (excl. silence)#1*8:02*, *6:22*, *3:53*, *5:46*#2*10:16*, *10:08*, *3:54*, *6:26*#3*13:58*, *16:04*, *6:09*, *12:04*#4*9:59*, *9:24*, *5:53*, *5:43*#5*7:15*, *9:18*, 4:53+8:41=*13:34*#6*9:05*, *10:16*, 3:08+3:26+8:21=*14:55*#7*11:11*, *8:05*, *7:33*, *6:36*#8*9:03*, *3:58*, *5:53*, *7:17*#9*14:56*, *10:23*, *15:36*, *23:54*

Over to you, Merl!

I will check out other people's research on the web and do some listening comparisons.

... to be continued.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> Here are the Sony movement timings.
> 
> The error range is around +/-1s and is independent of movement length.
> 
> ...


Right, looking at the timings and taking into account silences, etc it looks like symphonies 2-8 are very likely the accounts from the 80s cycle. The 9th is deffo not from the 80s cycle, as you suspected Kiki, and must be the 86 Salzburg recording you highlighted (times are miles out and don't fit either the 60s or 70s set either). The big anomaly here is the first movement of the first symphony. Here's the times for the three 1st symphonies:

1963 - 9:34* 5:53 3:58 5:51
1977 - 7:45 6:03 3:35 5:27
1985 - 10.11* 6:24 3:56 5:53
* repeat taken

The likelihood here is either they used the 1977 first movement and kept the rest of the 80s performance (times match pretty well don't they?) or they just edited out the repeat. Back to you, Kiki.😎


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I have looked into #1 in details.

Again, conclusion first: Sony is different from DG 1984 and other DG #1s. They are possibly different takes or different blends of takes recorded in January 1984, possibly in a period between 1984-01-23 & 01-31.

*Timing comparison:*

Again, all timings have silences deducted. Error range is approximately +/-1s. An error range of +/-1s should give a comparison granularity of 2s. Any difference between two figures within 2s should be treated as indistinguishable.

Sony: *8:02* (no repeat), *6:22*, *3:53*, *5:46*
DG 1984: *10:03* (*7:54* repeat deducted), *6:16*, *3:53*, *5:48*
DG 1984: Exposition repeat starts from 3:42 to 5:51 (duration = 2:09)
DG 1975/76/77: *7:44* (no repeat), *6:02*, *3:40*, *5:26*

Sony and DG 1984 do not match, even after subtracting the exposition repeat. Note that mvts 3 & 4 are very similar though.

Mvt 1 of Sony and DG 1975/76/77 also do not match.

*Spectrogram and listening comparison:*

I used Audacity to sync Sony and DG 1984, played them at the same time to find out if there is any difference. Result: They do not overlap perfectly, i.e. they are differnet.

Mvts 3 & 4: The spectrograms look very similar visually, but wherever I synchronised a passage between these 2 recordings, another passage would go a tiny bit out-of-sync.
Mvt 2: The Spectrograms look visually different. The first half of DG 1984 is faster.
Mvt 1: The beginning of DG 1984 (expo. repeat removed) is faster. The rest is similar. i.e. Sony is not a version of DG 1984 without the exposition repeat.



Spoiler: Here are the spectrograms if you want to look at them.



In these screen captures, Sony's spectrogram is put at the top, DG 1984 at the bottom.

Each jpeg is about 2MB in size.

Beethoven Symphony No. 1 comparison - Mvt 1 - Sony v DG 1984
Beethoven Symphony No. 1 comparison - Mvt 1 - Sony v DG 1984 (repeat removed)
Beethoven Symphony No. 1 comparison - Mvt 2 - Sony v DG 1984
Beethoven Symphony No. 1 comparison - Mvt 3 - Sony v DG 1984
Beethoven Symphony No. 1 comparison - Mvt 4 - Sony v DG 1984



*Recording dates found on the web:*

The most specific descriptions of Sony and DG 1984 that I could find are:
Sony: 1984-01-23 to 01-31
DG 1984: 1984-01

Specifically discoverkarajan.com (courtesy of CnC Bartok) stated very specific dates:
Sony: 1984-01-31
DG 1984: 1984-01-27

However, as I said in an earlier post, discoverkarajan.com always states only one date for each recording; but in reality, a recording is often recorded over a few days, and in extreme cases over several years. Therefore their very specific single-date dates for both Sony and DG 1984 should not be taken for granted.



Spoiler: The recording date info that I looked at



Sony DVD "Re-recorded" 88697195439 (DVD #1: 88697195389): DVD booklet stated "Symph. No. 1, 2, 3, - Recorded Jan. & Feb. 1984 at the Philharmonie, Berlin".
Sony DVD "Re-recorded" 88697195439 (DVD #1: 88697195389): discoverkarajan.com stated "31.01.1984".
Re "Karajan für alle.".
-
Sony DVD SVD 46363: DVD back cover stated "RECORDED JANUARY & FEBRUARY 1984 AT THE PHILHARMONIE, BERLIN".
Re "Herbert von Karajan, Berliner Philharmoniker - Ludwig Van Beethoven Symphonies Nos. 1 & 8".
-
Sony BD SIXC-30: tower.jp stated for Sym 1, 8 "1983年11月29日～12月6日(2)、1984年1月23日～31日(1)、ベルリン、フィルハーモニー".
Re "ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン/カラヤンの遺産 ベートーヴェン:交響曲第1番&第8番".
Sony BD SIXC-30: cdjapan.co.jp stated for Sym 1, 8 "収録年: 1983年11月29日～12月6日、1984年1月23日～31日".
Re "Karajan no Isan Beethoven: Symphonies Vol. 1 & 8 (Japanese Title) Herbert von Karajan (conductor) / Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra Blu-ray".
-
Sony DVD SIBC-122: tower.jp stated for Sym 1, 8 "1984年1月23-31日（第1番）、1984年2月18-24日（第8番）　ベルリン".
Re "ベルリン・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団/カラヤンの遺産　ベートーヴェン：交響曲第１番、第８番／ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン、ベルリン・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団＜期間限定生産盤＞".

--

DG 1984: discoverkarajan.com stated "27.01.1984".
Re "Karajan für alle.".
--
DG 1984: "Karajan 1980s" CD 48: 415 505-1GH: CD box booklet stated "Recording: Berlin, Philharmonie, January 1984".
-
DG 1984: Original LP box 415 066-1GH7 (7LPs): LP box booklet stated "Recordings: Berlin Philharmonie, ... 1/1984 (opp. 21, ...) ...".
-
DG 1984: UCCG-2051: CD back cover stated for Sym 1, 2, Egmont, Coriolan "録音: 1984年1月([1]-[4])、2月([5]-[8])、1985年12月([9],[10]) ベルリン、フィルハーモニー".
Re "Amazon.co.jp: ベートーヴェン:交響曲第1番&第2番、他: Music".
DG 1984: UCCG-2051: tower.jp stated for Sym 1, 2, Egmont, Coriolan "1984年1,2月, 1985年12月 ベルリン".
Re "ヘルベルト・フォン・カラヤン/ベートーヴェン:交響曲第1番・第2番 ≪エグモント≫序曲/序曲≪コリオラン≫".
DG 1984: UCCG-2051: cdjapan.co.jp stated for Sym 1, 2, Egmont, Coriolan "録音: 1984年1,2月、1985年12月 ベルリン".
Re "Beethoven: Symphonies Nos.1 & 2 [SHM-CD] Herbert von Karajan (conductor) CD Album".
-
DG 1984: UCCG-70086: tower.jp stated for Sym 1, 2, Egmont, Coriolan "1984年1,2月、1985年12月　ベルリン".
Re "https://tower.jp/item/2257977/ベートーヴェン：交響曲第1番・第2番-≪エグモント≫序曲-序曲≪コリオラン≫".
DG 1984: UCCG-70086: cdjapan.co.jp stated for Sym 1, 2, Egmont, Coriolan "録音: 1984年1、2月、1985年12月 ベルリン".
Re "Beethoven: Symphonies 1 & 2/Egmont Overture/Overture Coriolan Herbert von Karajan (conductor)/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra CD Album".
-
DG 1984: UCCG-9722 (5CD): tower.jp stated for all works "1982年－1984年　ベルリン".
Re "https://tower.jp/item/2363749/ベートーヴェン：交響曲全集-＜初回生産限定盤＞".
-
DG 1984: UCCG-90724: cdjapan.co.jp stated Sym 1, 2, Egmont, Coriolan "録音: 1984年1月 (1-4)、2月 (5-8)、1985年12月 (9, 10) ベルリン、フィルハーモニー".
Re "Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2. Etc. [UHQCD] [Limited Release] Herbert Von Karajan (conductor) / Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra CD Album".

--

Sony: 8:02, 6:22, 3:53, 5:46 (checked: no exposition repeat)
DG 1984: 10:03 (7:54 w/o repeat), 6:16, 3:53, 5:48 (checked: with exposition repeat)
DG 1984: Exposition repeat starts from 3:42 to 5:51 (duration = 2:09), i.e. 1st mvt without repeat = 7:54)



*Crunch time:*

Although the timings of Sony and DG 1984 are different, could these differences be caused by incorrect/inconsistent playback speed when Sony re-recorded it? I doubt it. The DG 1982-84 cycle is DDD, therefore playback speed should be determined by the 44.1kHz clock, not tape playback speed (even if the digital audio was stored on tapes). Even if there is something malfunctioning on Sony's playback clock, I seriously doubt only part of a movement would become faster as in this case.

Since I am paranoid, I compare the spectrograms of Sony #9 and DG 1986 #9 to verify my conclusion there: *Yes, they match exactly!*

Therefore, I am quite certain that Sony is different from DG 1984 and other DG #1s.

So when were Sony and DG 1984 recorded? It is likely that they are different takes or different blends of takes recorded in January 1984, possibly in a period between 1984-01-23 & 01-31.

Why would Sony and DG use different takes in their respective recordings? No idea.

That's all for #1. It rivals the most horrible Mravinsky recordings that I have investigated!

Out of curiosity, I did a quick spectrogram comparison between Sony and DG's #4 mvt 1, #7 mvt 4, #8 mvt 1. Oh no, they do not match! What have I got myself into?!

... to be continued, reluctantly.

--

Anyone who wants to play devil's advocate is welcome!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

So, what you're saying, Kiki, is that it looks like this can be classed as Karajan's 7th cycle! Those players from the BPO who said they played the whole cycle may be correct! Le gasp! 😲. I am impressed by your resilience. Btw, the reason I had those times to hand was they were part of a comparative review I was going to do of the 3 DG cycles. I cannot be bothered now. Lol


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> So, what you're saying, Kiki, is that it looks like this can be classed as Karajan's 7th cycle! Those players from the BPO who said they played the whole cycle may be correct! Le gasp! 😲. I am impressed by your resilience. Btw, the reason I had those times to hand was they were part of a comparative review I was going to do of the 3 DG cycles. I cannot be bothered now. Lol


The odds are getting higher that this Sony DVD cycle is a genuine 7th cycle, but then I have only scrutinised #1 & #9 so far, so the detective work should continue. Who knows what surprise will show up next!

But I need a break first! I am Sony'ed out at the moment.

One potential banana skin is my lack of knowledge in the commercial digital playback/recording workflow. Are there possible mishaps that could produce an incorrect/inconsistent playback/recording speed that is subtle enough to escape notice? A bad master clock perhaps, but I cannot image Sony falling victim to that.

Oh, Merl, I would love to read a comparative review from you of the 3 DG cycles, ideally adding also the EMI, the 66, the 77 and this Sony if it should prove to be a genuine cycle!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Here's an interesting story worth noting ... Klemperer did a studio recording of Petrouchka which didn't go very well. After reviewing the various takes it was decided that a good performance couldn't be assembled for release and so it was consigned to the archives. Fast forward a few decades and the folks at Testament (?) had the opportunity to review the materials and came to the conclusion that a good performance could indeed be put together from the material and did do so, albeit different from what EMI had considered. Gives a bit of pause to think.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Becca said:


> Here's an interesting story worth noting ... Klemperer did a studio recording of Petrouchka which didn't go very well. After reviewing the various takes it was decided that a good performance couldn't be assembled for release and so it was consigned to the archives. Fast forward a few decades and the folks at Testament (?) had the opportunity to review the materials and came to the conclusion that a good performance could indeed be put together from the material and did do so, albeit different from what EMI had considered. Gives a bit of pause to think.


I feel rather conflicted about these kind of artificial tricks used to produce "perfect" studio recordings. Great artists will remain great even under dubious circumstances - but having an entire orchestra, consisting of extremely talented musicians, miming to pre-recorded music like a bunch of Elvis-imitators... that's no less than perverted.
Regarding Klemperer, that's a problem case for me too. I even dislike the famous Mahler DLvdE, because the parts with Ludwig were recorded after the death of Wunderlich, resulting in a recording that has a disjointed and artificial feel, though it's almost unbeatable in the individual "numbers".


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Robert, the 'miming' was done for artistic effect on the video. If these performances were made up of sectional clips of recording surely either myself or Kiki would have noticed the editing but listening to a few of these recordings they don't sound sectional or piecemeal - they'd be slightly disjointed and none of these performances sound like that. It's hard cos Karajan's vision of the the Beethoven cycle varied little especially in the 70s and 80s and so timings for performances are pretty close (the guy was a walking metronome). The BPO knew these works like the back of their hand, knew how Karajan liked them being played, had just recorded them for a cycle and were playing them on tour so in theory they could easily have just knocked out another recording. By the way who is the producer /engineer on the Sony Dvd, Kiki? Are they different from the ones on the cycle (Breest / Glotz)? Here's a shot of the production notes from the original 80s cycle (not the Karajan Gold remasters) if it helps with your detective work. Recording dates are included. 
PS. I've read all the Karajan books and scoured the Karajan fan sites and no-one actually knows the answer to this question so if we do get to the bottom of this mystery it will be a first. To boldly go where no man has gone before......


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Becca said:


> Here's an interesting story worth noting ... Klemperer did a studio recording of Petrouchka which didn't go very well. After reviewing the various takes it was decided that a good performance couldn't be assembled for release and so it was consigned to the archives. Fast forward a few decades and the folks at Testament (?) had the opportunity to review the materials and came to the conclusion that a good performance could indeed be put together from the material and did do so, albeit different from what EMI had considered. Gives a bit of pause to think.


I suppose it is not unusual for performers and producers to record and select different takes of passages to put into the final product. 

According to a recording log that DG reproduced for the "Karajan 1970s" box, his Beethoven #9 was recorded over 7 sessions between 1975 and 1977. The chorus was recorded in 2 sessions that were 4 months apart, the first in Berlin, the second in Vienna; while the soloists were recorded in a separate session.

To say the obvious, the end product is certainly not a one-take, but something edited together from many takes.

It is the old cliché: a "studio" recording is an optimal presentation of a score under optimal conditions. It might give an illusion of a performance but it really is not.

Some conductors have said they prefer long takes, which is understandable, but they also know that they can repair any blemishes through patch-up takes. In fact, that applies to both "studio" and "live" recordings nowadays.

So what happened to those unused takes of this Beethoven #9? Presumably they are locked up in a basement somewhere, until, I suppose, someday someone "discovers" these tapes and come up with a brilliant commercial proposition with them.

In fact, something similar has happened to Karajan's 1955 EMI Beethoven #9. Both mono and stereo mixes exist, but over the years only the mono mix was released and re-issued many times. The stereo mix was released for the first time only in 2014. As far as the stereo mix is concerned, I think it sounds terrible; but it was a great proposition for Warner after they acquired EMI Classics and something like this would certainly arouse interest. Result: as a collector I bought it. I am sure many others did too.

By the way, I should also complain about recording dates.

Those 7 sessions of Karajan's 70s Beethoven #9 were held between 1975-01-23 & 1977-03-09.

But interestingly, DG's booklet gave the recording date only as: 1976-10-21 and 1977-01-27. 

It certainly does not mean that only takes made on these 2 days were used in the final product, because, e.g. the chorus and the soloists were not recorded on those 2 days. Record companies are often more causal about recording data than we may expect.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

...and, of course, there is one other factor to be considered, particularly with later HvK ... egomania


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Another strange thing is that whilst looking at the Karajan fur Alle site there are multiple recordings of symphonies 5 and 6 for example and some are radio recordings from the day earlier than the cycle recordings. Perhaps the dvd performances are culled from those? The 7th is proving very intriguing and is almost certainly not the 80s cycle release as times are very different. The booklet from the cycle gives the 7th recording date as Dec 1983 and visiting the site here's all the 7ths recorded that year.


Symphonie Nr.7
Ludwig van Beethoven
Berliner Philharmoniker
31.01.1983
RADIO

Symphonie Nr. 7 A-Dur op. 92
Ludwig van Beethoven
Berliner Philharmoniker
03.12.1983
RADIO

Symphonie Nr. 7 in A -Dur, op. 92
Ludwig van Beethoven
Berliner Philharmoniker
05.12.1983
STUDIO

Symphonie Nr. 7
Ludwig van Beethoven
Berliner Philharmoniker
06.12.1983
FILM

Notice how the studio and film recordings are a day in-between. If they were used for both then surely it would just say studio and film and the same date would be given? The studio and film recordings of the 4th are similarly given as a day apart and far enough out in 2 movements to suspect that these could be different recordings (both outer movements are 9 and 7 seconds different respectively). My brain hurts.... 🤯


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> Robert, the 'miming' was done for artistic effect on the video. If these performances were made up of sectional clips of recording surely either myself or Kiki would have noticed the editing but listening to a few of these recordings they don't sound sectional or piecemeal - they'd be slightly disjointed and none of these performances sound like that. It's hard cos Karajan's vision of the the Beethoven cycle varied little especially in the 70s and 80s and so timings for performances are pretty close (the guy was a walking metronome). The BPO knew these works like the back of their hand, knew how Karajan liked them being played, had just recorded them for a cycle and were playing them on tour so in theory they could easily have just knocked out another recording. By the way who is the producer /engineer on the Sony Dvd, Kiki? Are they different from the ones on the cycle (Breest / Glotz)? Here's a shot of the production notes from the original 80s cycle (not the Karajan Gold remasters) if it helps with your detective work. Recording dates are included.
> PS. I've read all the Karajan books and scoured the Karajan fan sites and no-one actually knows the answer to this question so if we do get to the bottom of this mystery it will be a first. To boldly go where no man has gone before......


The booklet of DG's original LP box is the same as yours. It stated this recording team:
Executive Producer: Günther Breest
Recording Producer: Michel Glotz
Balance Engineer: Günter Hermans
Editing: Reinhild Schmidt

Note that it also stated:
Recording of Symphonies nos. 5 & 6: TELEMONDIAL S.A.M.
(Post-recording Work: Engineer: Günter Hermans · Editing: Reinhild Schmidt)

Now, a surprise! The booklet of the "Karajan 1980s" box stated the same team except the editor for Nos. 5 & 6:
Editing: Ludger Böckenhoff









(Open image in another tab to see a full size jpeg.)

Before we get to the Sony, let's be clear that DG is not being consistent with the credits. However, there is obviously something different going on with Nos. 5 & 6 but I do not know what. Yet.

Here is the team that Sony stated:









(Open image in another tab to see a full size jpeg.)

Two persons were credited as Recording Engineer. Günter Hermans from the DG team, and Wolfgang Gülich.

Not surprised there are two names because Sony allegedly re-played the DG recordings and re-recorded them presumably by another engineer.

Alright, I don't think Sony's credit list tells me much. Thoughts?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Oh god, this is getting complicated. Wolfgang Gülich is Herbie's old EMI engineer. Strangely he's credited on other releases of the Sony dvd release below. Check out the recording dates at bottom, btw!









Ludwig van Beethoven, Herbert von Karajan, Berliner Philharmoniker - Ludwig Van Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 6 "Pastoral" & 7


View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2000 DVD release of "Ludwig Van Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 6 "Pastoral" & 7" on Discogs.




www.discogs.com


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> Another strange thing is that whilst looking at the Karajan fur Alle site there are multiple recordings of symphonies 5 and 6 for example and some are radio recordings from the day earlier than the cycle recordings. Perhaps the dvd performances are culled from those? The 7th is proving very intriguing and is almost certainly not the 80s cycle release as times are very different. The booklet from the cycle gives the 7th recording date as Dec 1983 and visiting the site here's all the 7ths recorded that year.
> 
> 
> Symphonie Nr.7
> ...


In fact, I was having a very bad headache during the last couple of days while I was investigating #1. I was so worried that I had to take an antigen test. Luckily the result was negative. So it must be Karajan who gave me the headache!

OK, seriously, comparing the Sony and DG 1982-84 cycle, so far we know:

#1 is very likely an alternative take of the cycle's #1.

#9 is certainly the 1986, not part of the cycle.

#5 & #6 are suspicious because of a different editor.

#4 & #8 are also suspicious. #4 is very likely a different one.

#7 has to be a different one.

... to be continued.


Merl said:


> Oh god, this is getting complicated. Wolfgang Gülich is Herbie's old EMI engineer. Strangely he's credited on other releases of the Sony dvd release below. Check out the recording dates at bottom, btw!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lovely!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

One of the things that is confusing me is the inclusion of Gulich and Bockenhoff on the credits. Gulich worked almost exclusively for EMI so although he worked with Breest, in engineering some of Breest's BPO recordings for EMI, that all stopped in the late 70s (although Karajan still had a contract running for limited releases for EMI but these weren't with the BPO but the VPO). By the 80s any new recordings featuring the Karajan/BPO combo were exclusive to DG, AFAIK, so I'm really confused why Gulich is involved and why he's only credited as engineer on the last movement of the 6th symphony (I found this out when I was scouring thru discogs). Bockenhoff's inclusion, Glotz's crediting and the the exclusion of Breest's name from the credits (he would have to have been credited if these were the 80s recordings) is even more confusing so all I can assume is these recordings are different and have nothing to do with the original cycle. The fact that Glotz was the the producer on the 77 cycle also implies that these recordings were from earlier in Karajan's career (but the times suggest they were later). All so confusing! 
I'll have a good skip-listen tomorrow and see what aurally I can work out.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Firstly apologies for the double post. What's making this very difficult is that there are differences between the original 80s cycle and the Karajan Gold remaster, especially in balance (I have both). I've also noticed a couple of definite edits that have been repaired from the original cd release . Soundwise the original cds were quite harsh on the brass, glassy and full of some very odd mixes (background instruments would artificially increase in volume as if boosted on recording desk (stay off those sliders Gunther). That was all fixed in the remastered Gold set, which sounds way better than I remembered. As far as the DVD is concerned the sound is slightly more bassy, blended and restrained. OK, so to what I've listened to up to now....

Symphony 1 - as Kiki has already said this is a definite alternative take of the *outer* movements but, apart from the mix, the inner movements are indistinguishable.
Symphony 2 - this is a tough one. It doesn't quite match up in bits but I'm suspecting this has had a lot of serious remastering and the first two movements sound very similar. The 3rd movement, however, has some minor differences and this may well be a different take. I found little difference in the final movement.
Symphony 3 - I'm convinced that this is the same performance from the cycle just mixed differently.
Symphony 4 - this one all sounds remarkably similar except the final movement, which does not seem to match up at all (it feels busier, brighter and better on the cycle too).
Symphonies 5&6 - again, apart from the mix I can hear little difference apart from the last movement of the 5th but I suspect these may be tiny changes from the remastering and listening to the original discs it's definitely looking like these are the same.
Symphony 7 - as was expected this is a slightly different version (it's not as good as the cycle) but the opening movenent is identical. Both inner movements are similar but have slight differences but the final movement sounds quite different.
Symphony 8 - the first three movements sound the same but there are differences in the final movement that make me think this is a better played and superior sounding take on the cd. It has more vitality.
Symphony 9 - we already know this is not from the cycle but is from the 1986 release.

So apart from discovering that the sound mix on the dvd, original cds and remastered Karajan Gold cds is very different what else have we discovered? We know that a few different takes are evident in some movements but the bulk is the 85 set and the 9th is different and from 86. I'm Karajanned and Beethovened out. Most timings don't exactly match and this is often due to silences before and after movements (+/- 5 or 6 seconds is a reasonable adjustment). So is this a 7th Karajan cycle? Well not really and it was produced by Glotz and not Breest. Back to you, Kiki! 😎


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

I have the Von Karajan cycle but not sure if it's the Berliner or Wiener Philharmoniker ,I'd have to run out to the car and check and I'm not doing that over this matter right now.
It's really good though,it's not my absolute favorite but it's pretty good.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OK, some historic perspectives of the time. Part of the problem with the 80s cycle and the dvd recording is its largely skipped over in the Karajan books as there was so much other very important stuff going on. Firstly Karajan was not well, still struggling with crippling back pain and having had major surgery, yet he had a full itinerary for the years 82-85. He was also in the midst of a huge and life-changing dispute with the BPO after the Sabine Mayer affair. Tensions were huge, legal disputes were rife and he and the BPO hardly spoke. Osborne is sketchy here but we know that Breest was busy remixing the 80s cycle and many of Karajan's other recordings so that occupied him for the best part of winter 83 to February 85. We know from letters that the Beethoven cycle was finally mixed completely (but still not to Karajan's liking) by September 85 as DG were pressing for completion and Karajan had other pressing problems (see above) and had lost patience with Breest, Glotz and the whole process. Osborne says that the Telemondial filming of the Beethoven took part from December 1983 to at least the end of January 84 and was very intensive. Other small sections were filmed in February but the film was not complete and the BPO were refusing to finish it. Perhaps the film featured Karajan so much because they had sections to fill where they could not get the BPO in to film. Who knows? 

Edit: I've just read a footnote by Osborne that says the recordings of the cds and the dvds are one of the same. As we know, that's not totally true but I'm gathering that what I said earlier about it being mainly the 85 set with a few alt takes and the '86 9th is sounding more like the real story. I' ve also just read an interview with Glotz where he said he took control of the music for the film as Breest was busy on other cd projects.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I have looked into #3.

Thought it would be easy, but alas, the Sony and the DG 1984 (from the 82-84 cycle) are not the same.

Again, conclusion first: The Sony and the DG 1984 are possibly different takes from the same recording sessions that took place from 1984-01-23 to 31. (The is the same period when Karajan also recorded other symphonies for the 82-84 cycle.)

*Timing comparison:*

Again, all silences deducted, error range +/-1s giving a comparison granularity of around 2s.

The timings of the Sony and the DG 1984 are similar, except that the DG is significantly slower in the finale.
Sony: *13:58*, *16:04*, *6:09*,* 12:04*
DG 1984: *13:59*, *16:01*, *6:07*, *12:13

Spectrograms and listening:*

First, I should elaborate one thing that I did not before: I use Spectrograms of both recordings to compare one thing only, and that is when every passage starts and ends. If they are the same recording, the "edges" in the spectrograms should coincide exactly. On the other hand, I do not worry about amplitude or frequency range. They are bound to look different on the spectrograms because they are different mixes.

The Sony and the DG 1984 sound the same when listening to them separately. However, the spectrograms show that they are subtly different. The tempo fluctuation seen throughout the whole piece implies that they are different takes.

Mvt 1: The spectrograms look almost the same, except the last 1/4 of the mvt where the DG slows down by around 2s. Playing them simultaneously, the music tends to sync, go out-of-sync, then sync again repeatedly while in the last 1/4 the DG goes significantly slower.

Mvt 2: The spectrograms look almost the same, but when the beginning is synchronised, it is easy to tell that, the DG keeps slowing down to as much as 4s, but towards the end it catches up and finishes around 2s faster overall. 

Mvt 3: The spectrograms look almost the same until the last 2 mins when the DG speeds up and finishes 2s faster.

Mvt 4: In the first 1/2, up to around variation 9 where the music turns tranquil, the spectrograms look the same but in fact, the difference in tempo is not consistent and it fluctuates within 1s. In the second 1/2 the DG slows down significantly to account for almost all of the 9s difference seen in the timing difference in the whole mvt. 

Let me emphasise one thing - I do not believe the differences seen here could be due to inherent granularity errors of Audacity, because when I was comparing #9 from Sony and DG, the timing edges occurred at exactly the same places, and the Sony and the DG also synchronised perfectly when I played them simultaneously.



Spoiler: Here are the spectrograms if you want to look at them.



In these screen captures, Sony's spectrogram is put at the top, DG 1984 at the bottom.

Each jpeg is about 2MB in size.

Beethoven Symphony No. 3 comparison - Mvt 1 - Sony v DG 1984
Beethoven Symphony No. 3 comparison - Mvt 2 - Sony v DG 1984
Beethoven Symphony No. 3 comparison - Mvt 3 - Sony v DG 1984
Beethoven Symphony No. 3 comparison - Mvt 4 - Sony v DG 1984



*Recording date:*

This Sony "Re-recorded" release stated *1984-01 & 02*, so did earlier Sony releases from their "His Legacy for Home Video" series.

DG in both the original LP box and the "Karajan 1980s" box stated *1984-01*. DG did not state February.

The most detailed date I could find is from tower.jp: *1984-01-23 to 31*. This is probably when the recording sessions were held.

discoverkarajan.com stated *1984-01-31* for the Sony and *1984-01-29* for the DG. While discoverkarajan.com's single-day dates are questionable, it stating two different dates for the Sony and the DG suggests there is a possibility that the Sony and the DG are not the same recording.

Note that Sony also stated February, which no other sources stated. Perhaps there were really recording sessions in February that DG did not care to tell us. Or, perhaps Sony was simply being casual because DG has coupled the Jan #3 and Feb #8 on the same CD in the past and stated generally Jan & Feb 1984 for both works. But these are only speculations.

From my experience, the recording dates stated by record companies big or small are often casual (in fact I think unprofessional from a data management point of view). The funny thing is that, DG's releases in Japan, for example, often state more detailed dates than in their global releases. I can only imagine the reason being them submitting to consumer pressure there. Yet, they still don't want to give the rest of us the same kind of details and accuracy.

Therefore, I will ignore the February stated by Sony. They are not credible. Just like DG. Just like most other record companies.

Conclusion: The Sony and the DG 1984 are possibly different takes from the same recording sessions that took place from 1984-01-23 to 31.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

That Eroica was the recording I thought that sounded the same on both versions so its interesting that you say they're different. If that's the case on the closest recording I could find then it's safe to say the rest is definitely going to be all different. This has been one helluva detective case, Kiki. Lol


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> That Eroica was the recording I thought that sounded the same on both versions so its interesting that you say they're different. If that's the case on the closest recording I could find then it's safe to say the rest is definitely going to be all different. This has been one helluva detective case, Kiki. Lol


The detective work continues... but it seems to be falling in to a pattern now - slightly different takes from the 82-84 sessions were used by Sony as the soundtrack; except #9 of course which is exactly the never-released DG 1986.

Some of these takes are not discernible by ear, at least for ordinary listeners like you and me. I wouldn't know their timing signatures were different if I didn't scrutinise them in Audacity.

I do wonder why Sony used these alternative takes. Any speculation? Glotz coming on board exerting his influence? Complicated legal/licensing/copyright issues? Wolfgang Gülich's involvement in #5/6 for the DG cycle is also fascinating.

By the way...

There's another Karajan Beethoven DVD cycle "produced" in the late 60s/early 70s with a similar kind of glamorous lighting. It was released by DG/Unitel. Did Richard Osborne say anything about that in his book? Did it use the DG 61-62 cycle as its soundtrack? (But that #9 has a different cast from the DG 62! Déjà vu!)


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> The detective work continues... but it seems to be falling in to a pattern now - slightly different takes from the 82-84 sessions were used by Sony as the soundtrack; except #9 of course which is exactly the never-released DG 1986.
> 
> Some of these takes are not discernible by ear, at least for ordinary listeners like you and me. I wouldn't know their timing signatures were different if I didn't scrutinise them in Audacity.
> 
> ...


Here we go again, lol. I'd always assumed the Unitel 70s set was mimed due to the posed shots of musicians in a line, etc, but now I'm starting to wonder. I'll have a scan through the Osborne in a minute but I dont recall him going into much detail about it. I'll be back!

Edit: there is discussion about the Unitel cycle in the link below. It still doesn't really answer the question. Btw, there is little in the book about the Unitel set. I know the videos were mostly recorded from 1971-72 and finally completed in 1973 (4th) except the 9th which is from 1968 and from what I've read is almost certainly a different 'live' version than the 63 set. You've got to ask yourself why Karajan would use recordings from almost 10 years earlier when the BPO performed all the Beethoven symphonies (bar the 9th) several times a year in concert and for radio performances. Timings will be important here as in the 70s Karajan's Beethoven (generally) speeded up, a little, for a time.



https://hvk1955.proboards.com/thread/183/karajan-concert-dg-dvd?page=1


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Btw, I've been watching lots of interviews with former BPO members. One of them was recalling the early 70s and discussing the first filming sessions. He said that sessions for filming (70s and 80s) were similar in that '*we recorded the symphonies first and then mimed back to the recordings*". If this is, in fact, the case, were these the recordings used in the soundtrack? If so we're looking at cycles 7 and 8. The plot thickens!

Edit: This is getting silly, as I've just read something that may be contradictory in an interview with the cameramen who worked on the 70s set who said,
"The members of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra were set up in novel arrangements and *played sections of each piece along with a pre-recorded track* as they were filmed from a variety of angles under special lighting. Karajan had a very clear idea of what the films should look like, and combining backlit close-ups of individual players and sections with larger groups and sequences of himself conducting.... "

By pre-recorded" do they mean recorded just before the video shoot or from an existing performance? Good grief!


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Interesting info. Thanks, Merl! It might well be an 8th cycle!

Alright, I apologize. I am a troublemaker. I should not have mentioned it at all. Not now.

I will finish comparing the Sony and the DG 82-84 cycle in Audacity first. We have probably guessed correctly what it is (cycle no. 7, a close cousin of the 82-84 cycle), so motivation for me is dropping, but I need to document the proof to finish it off, bar any unlikely surprise.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Merl said:


> Btw, I've been watching lots of interviews with former BPO members. One of them was recalling the early 70s and discussing the first filming sessions. He said that sessions for filming (70s and 80s) were similar in that '*we recorded the symphonies first and then mimed back to the recordings*". If this is, in fact, the case, were these the recordings used in the soundtrack? If so we're looking at cycles 7 and 8. The plot thickens!
> 
> Edit: This is getting silly, as I've just read something that may be contradictory in an interview with the cameramen who worked on the 70s set who said,
> "The members of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra were set up in novel arrangements and *played sections of each piece along with a pre-recorded track* as they were filmed from a variety of angles under special lighting. Karajan had a very clear idea of what the films should look like, and combining backlit close-ups of individual players and sections with larger groups and sequences of himself conducting.... "
> ...


That edit goes along with what Simon Rattle says in the video on the Digital Concert Hall site.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I have looked into the rest: #2,4,5,6,7,8.

Conclusion first: The Sony and the DG 1982-84 are different recordings.

*Spectrograms:*

The spectrograms of the Sony and the DG 1982-84 cycle are all different, although some of them are so similar that trying to distinguish them by ears would be near-impossible, especially since they are all different mixes.

#2: Visually very different between the Sony and the DG 1984.

#4: Movts 1,2,4 are visually different. Mvt 3 is almost the same, the first half is virtually the same, but in the second half the DG 1983 slows down, at the end by just under 1s.

#5: Movts 1,2,3 are visually different. Mvt 4 is almost the same, fluctuation in tempo varies in the range of 100-250ms. Sometimes the Sony is faster, sometimes the DG 1982 is faster.

#6: Very similar throughout, but upon closer examination, the DG 1982 is slightly faster, except in Mvt 2 where it is slightly slower.

#7: Visually very different.

#8: Visually very different.

The Sony vs DG spectrograms can be downloaded from here (zipped, 76MB). #1 - #8 are included. No #9 because it is obviously the DG 1986 so comparison is pointless.

*Recording dates:*

There are discrepancies between Sony and DG, but that's expected of them. I will take tower.jp's dates. They are the most specific and the most credible as I have explained before.

discoverkarajan.com is down at the moment so I cannot verify. However, it has generally stated different dates for the Sony and the DG, except #6 where it stated the same date but that still does not mean the Sony #6 and DG #6 are the same. As I explained before, the fact that discoverkarajan.com always states a single-day date for a recording is very suspicious making it not credible.

#2:
DG stated 1984-01 ("Karajan 1980s" box) and 1984-02 (original LP box).
Sony stated 1984-01 & 02.
tower.jp stated 1984-02-18 to 24.

#4:
DG stated 1983-12.
Sony stated 1982-12.
Sony also stated 1982-11-18 to 21 & 1983-11-29 to 12-06 in their "His Legacy for Home Video" series. (Sony stated these dates for both #4 & 5.)
tower.jp stated 1983-11-29 to 12-06.

#5:
DG stated 1982-11.
Sony stated 1983-09 & 12.
Sony also stated 1982-11-18 to 21 & 1983-11-29 to 12-06 in their "His Legacy for Home Video" series. (Sony stated these dates for both #4 & 5.)
tower.jp stated 1982-11-18 to 21.

#6:
DG stated 1982-11.
Sony stated 1982-11.
tower.jp stated 1982-11-18 to 21.

#7:
DG stated 1983-12.
Sony stated 1982-11.
tower.jp stated 1983-11-29 to 12-06.

#8:
DG stated 1984-02.
Sony stated 1984-01 & 02.
tower.jp stated 1984-02-18 to 24.

x x x x x x x x

That's it!

*Final Conclusion:

The Sony DVD cycle includes recordings that are different from the DG 1982-84 cycle.*
*
Although the Sony was probably recorded at roughly the same time as the DG cycle, except #9, which is exactly the never-released DG 1986, which is not part of the DG cycle.
*
*I am convinced that the Sony is a genuine 7th cycle, and it is a close cousin of the DG 1982-84 cycle.

A few supplementary words on the Sony DVD cycle:*

In this Sony "re-recorded" cycle, Sony have employed some really aggressive fade-in and fade-out. In some symphonies, a whole second is chopped off at the beginning or at the end of a movement.

The edges and the frequencies in the Sony spectrograms also look overly smudged relative to the DG. That means the dynamic changes are less sharp and the notes sound more reverberant. This could be the result of it being "re-recorded".

*What next:*

The DG/Unitel DVD cycle "produced" in the late 60s/early 70s, anyone?

The info Merl posted suggests it could well be an 8th cycle.

But that's for another day.


----------

