# What happened to Ormandy's legacy?



## Lord Lance

The conductor who who conducted the Philadelphia Orchestra for 44 years. No conductors comes close expect von Karajan with Berliner Philharmoniker at 35 years. His records cover almost all genres. Unlike Karajan, he was an egoless conductor, easy to work with. Producers loved him because of his recording efficiency. Musicians loved him. Unlike Karajan, he let the works speak for themselves in a straight-forward manner.

Yet, today none of his records show up in any recommendations list. I've surveyed several websites and people and not a single one of them recommend Ormandy.

Were his records bad? Why aren't they much heard of? [One could've argued that he didn't record all many works but that isn't true. His output is massive.]


----------



## joen_cph

IMO early Ormandy, especially from the 50s due to ok sound, is really great and interesting - such as the mono Columbia Sacre and the Serkin and Stern concerto recordings. From around 65 or so they become more mainstream.


----------



## BRHiler

I've also noticed that a lot of his recordings have yet to be re-issued (again).

The recordings I have of his are good. They are very good, but they just don't do much for me.

I agree with joen though. From about 1965 onwards he seems to record for the sake of recording

I bought a box set of his 20th century composers from Arkiv music. 12 CD's, $33, not a bad deal. Anyway, I find that the more he goes into the 20th century, the less I like his interpretations. His Ravel, Strauss, and Holst were fine, but the Appalachian Spring I found utterly boring. Still, for the price, it's a good deal. A lot of these pieces were recorded in the 60's and 70's (going off the top of my head).

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=798159


----------



## Lord Lance

BRHiler said:


> I've also noticed that a lot of his recordings have yet to be re-issued (again).
> 
> The recordings I have of his are good. They are very good, but they just don't do much for me.
> 
> *I agree with joen though. From about 1965 onwards he seems to record for the sake of recording*
> 
> I bought a box set of his 20th century composers from Arkiv music. 12 CD's, $33, not a bad deal. Anyway, I find that the more he goes into the 20th century, the less I like his interpretations. His Ravel, Strauss, and Holst were fine, but the Appalachian Spring I found utterly boring. Still, for the price, it's a good deal. A lot of these pieces were recorded in the 60's and 70's (going off the top of my head).
> 
> http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=798159


Could you elaborate?


----------



## BRHiler

It's kind of hard to describe, and it's a very subjective opinion, but to me, his recordings lacked a certain passion, insight, etc., that his older recordings had. There's nothing wrong with them per se, but if I take Ormandy's Appalachian Spring vs. Bernstein's Appalachian Spring recorded within 10 years of each other, I'll go with Bernstein's every time. It could also be that he wasn't comfortable with some of the repertoire. I love his Strauss recordings and while his Roman Trilogy (Respighi) is very good, and very lush, it just lacks the drive and fire that say Riccardo Muti had.

Did that help? I feel like I"m bouncing all over the place!!!


----------



## Orfeo

^^^
While it is true that Ormandy was not as probing and rather too straightforward and monochrome in his approach, some of his recordings are pretty special. His recording of Ives' Second Symphony is something that grew on me, with the Philadelphia in top form as usual during that period. Bernstein's way with the NYP (DG) adds that extra poetry in the Symphony, but Ormandy's is no way negligible. But his Kodaly recordings (Dances of Dances of Marosszék , Dances of Galanta, and Concerto for Orchestra) are a shade better, and perhaps among the best in the market (the Philadelphia stings really shine through in these recordings) .


----------



## Rangstrom

His (or more likely Columbia's) choice of works to record was distinctly more adventuresome pre-'65. A lot of these have resurfaced on Albany and are worth a listen. Strange as it may seem now, Ormandy had the first studio recording of Shostakovich 13, 14 and 15. It was considered a bit of a risk (and on RCA at that) back then.


----------



## JACE

Ormandy's recording of Ives' "Three Places in New England" (Columbia/Sony) is really special. It's one my all-time favorite recordings because it was my very first introduction to Ives' music. Ormandy's recording of Ives' Holidays Symphony (RCA) is also excellent, especially the choral peroration at the end of "Thanksgiving and Forefathers' Day."

As Rangstrom mentioned, Ormandy was also a big supporter of Shostakovich. Nearly all of his DSCH recordings are recommendable -- particularly the First Cello Concerto with Rostropovich, which is an absolute classic.

Ormandy's Sibelius and Tchaikovsky are also very good and highly regarded.

So I wouldn't say Ormandy's overlooked. He just isn't as well-known or highly-regarded as other 20th century "giants" like Karajan and Bernstein. 

...At least that's my point of view.


----------



## hpowders

When I was growing up Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra were a sure thing choice. You would always get a fine interpretation, immaculately played. He was particularly fine conducting contemporary American music, Tchaikovsky and Sibelius.

With time, his legacy has faded. A different era.


----------



## Vaneyes

Hey, OPie, Ormandy's legacy is safe in the recording catalog, as is HvK's. No need to slight one, to pay tribute to another.

"I've surveyed several websites and people and not a single one of them recommend Ormandy." Really? I noted one of his Sibelius recs. yesterday on the Current Listening II thread. And not long ago on another TC thread, his Mahler 10. 

Maybe you're spending too much time elsewhere. You can regularly bask in Ormandy sunshine here. Cheers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

When I first began to seriously explore classical music, I purchased a good many of the "Great Performances" series. Any number of these were recordings by Ormandy that I would think of today as still more than respectable.



Beyond these, there are a number of Ormandy recordings that I consider "essential":



I agree that attempting to slight another conductor is unnecessary in attempting to assure Ormandy's position. That is especially true if the conductor you are attempting to compare Ormandy with is Herbert von Karajan. Very few conductors are going to stand up to that comparison... and I mean this not simply in a comparison of abilities... but rather simply based upon the sheer number of recordings by HvK that rank among the top recordings available of a given repertoire.


----------



## Lord Lance

I wasn't trying to compare Hvk with Ormandy, that would be insulting. HvK was a juggernaut with an astonishing amount of near definitive recordings. Arguably - Brahms, Beethoven, Dvorak and Schubert 9, Mahler 4,5,6 and 9, Bruckner, Haydn's Paris and London symphonies, Mozart's late symphonies, Strauss' Orchestral works, Tchaikovsky last 3 symphonies. 

Also, I didn't slight Ormandy. Rather I was displaying worry. Some people seem to get the idea that I am not a supporter.

It's good to know he isn't forgotten.


----------



## Antiquarian

I think Ormandy didn't have the flamboyant persona of Von Karajan or Bernstein, and this coupled with the fact that in the seventies Ormandy's name was associated with those ubiqitous "greatest hits" Columbia albums, hurt his legacy. Ormandy, at least in the circles that I frequented at the time, was viewed as "safe". His interpretations were very even, but not adventuresome or challenging for the listener. I think, now in retrospect, that we need to reassess his contributions: there is something to be said for the conductor who had very few clunkers in his performances.


----------



## bigshot

The thing with Ormandy was that he was at his absolute best in the mono era when his interpretations were very unique. Sure, he had great stereo recordings too all the way through the 60s, but the mono recordings, particularly the interpretations around the cusp between 78s and LPs were consistently his own. But unfortunately, young kids aren't big on mono and they aren't big on different sounding interpretations.

I have a 78 set of Strauss' Metamorphosen that is like nothing I have ever heard before or since. It is so much in its own world that it sounds like a lush movie soundtrack from the late 40s. It's completely eccentric, but doggone it, I keep thinking about it because within its own perverse aesthetic, it is perfect in a way.

The 20th century stuff they released the box of was his absolute worst. I remember getting the digital Bartok on vinyl and I listened to it over and over and it sounded fantastic, but the musicality was completely devoid of any kind of communication. I think as he got older, he just took repertoire that was handed to him without any particular attachment to it.

But in his prime in the late 40s and early 50s, he was truly unique. Not at all predictable, and not at all bland. I wish Sony would come out with a box set of that stuff. Sony could do wonders with the sound quality. Their recent remasters from that era are great.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I only know one thing about Ormandy. I bought Beethoven's Missa Solemnis conducted by Ormandy and love it. I tried about 6 other Missa Solemnis and none have replaced Ormandy's on my player.


----------



## Triplets

BRHiler said:


> I've also noticed that a lot of his recordings have yet to be re-issued (again).
> 
> The recordings I have of his are good. They are very good, but they just don't do much for me.
> 
> I agree with joen though. From about 1965 onwards he seems to record for the sake of recording
> 
> I bought a box set of his 20th century composers from Arkiv music. 12 CD's, $33, not a bad deal. Anyway, I find that the more he goes into the 20th century, the less I like his interpretations. His Ravel, Strauss, and Holst were fine, but the Appalachian Spring I found utterly boring. Still, for the price, it's a good deal. A lot of these pieces were recorded in the 60's and 70's (going off the top of my head).
> 
> http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=798159


That 20th Century Box is a steal. It cost me about $28 on Amazon. I also bought the Tchaikovsky box.
I love listening to his 1970s recordings. At the time they were issued most of them seemed to be duplications of his earlier Columbia recordings. The RCA lips had terrible surface noise and they didn't attract my interest. Now hearing the quiet digital transfers, with Ormandy and his magnificent Orchestra at their peaks, is a revelation.


----------



## csacks

I also started listening the Great Performances, by CBS, all the 100 cassettes, from Ravel to Janacek.
There were many recordings by Ormandy in between them, and some of them were my first experience with many compositions. But, by far, the one that more impact produced on me was his record of Beethoven´s 9th. I listened it one and other time. 







A very correct conductor, well balanced. Probably he was the representation of Claudio Abbado in between his generation. The conservative and balanced conductor.


----------



## joen_cph

Here´s the wild, early Sacre


----------



## nightscape

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Yet, today none of his records show up in any recommendations list. I've surveyed several websites and people and not a single one of them recommend Ormandy.


You will never hear a better Pictures.


----------



## Triplets

csacks said:


> I also started listening the Great Performances, by CBS, all the 100 cassettes, from Ravel to Janacek.
> There were many recordings by Ormandy in between them, and some of them were my first experience with many compositions. But, by far, the one that more impact produced on me was his record of Beethoven´s 9th. I listened it one and other time.
> View attachment 50460
> 
> A very correct conductor, well balanced. Probably he was the representation of Claudio Abbado in between his generation. The conservative and balanced conductor.


My roommate in College, 40 years ago, had that recording. I had Toscanini and Szell in the 9th and we used to make comparisons. Toscanini was the most exciting, Szell came undone in IV, and Ormandy was the safe choice with the best sound. I haven't heard the Ormandy since.


----------



## hpowders

Eugene Ormandy is one of the most underrated conductors in history. He was a terrific conductor of Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and contemporary American music.

Listen to his Sibelius 7th Symphony with the Philadelphia Orchestra. One of the two best.

The other ironically is Karajan/Philharmonia.

Both of these gentlemen were terrific conductors.


----------

