# Looking to buy a 'Rite of Spring'...but which one?



## techniquest

This is the first time I've asked for help in choosing a recording.
I look at my CD shelves and see that I have just one recording of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring'; an odd one that probably no one else has (Plovdiv Philharmonic / Petkov on Laserlight Classics).
So I'm looking to buy another but I want recommendations. The criteria that must be met are quite easy: it must be a clear (not 'muddy') stereo recording and I must be able to hear the percussion - a big thudding bass drum, ridiculously tinny high timpani, and a big splashy tam-tam. Obviously I have no problem in looking at cheap esoteric recordings, but I'm open to just about anything, big names or otherwise.


----------



## DavidA

Stravinsky's own is pretty terrific if you can accept a somewhat dated recording.


----------



## geralmar

I'm partial to the savagery of Multi/Philadelphia (EMI) and Ancerl/Czech Philharmonic (Supraphon).


----------



## jimsumner

You're probably going to want more than two. 

Again, if you can handle a somewhat dated--but clear--recording, the Bernstein/NYPO on Sony gets high marks for sheer savagery and you can get it packaged with Bernstein's Petrouchka.


----------



## Dawood

My pops bought me this about twenty years ago and it's still my favourite performance.









Zubin Mehta and the NY Philarmonic.

Teodor Currentzis have just released a new recording which I read a good review of - said it was very savage or something.


----------



## TxllxT

The best recording + one of the best interpretations


----------



## Becca

Spotify has a lot of Rites available, sample them and decide which appeals to you.


----------



## Guest

Be sure to listen to Dorati's second recording of this. Hey, listen to the first, too.

They're quite different. You should probably listen to both.


----------



## QuietGuy

Look for Bernstein's 1958 recording. My understanding is that it is this recording is THE definitive performance. (Take that with a grain of salt.) You can "preview" it on youtube.


----------



## Guest

Gergiev
No question


----------



## TxllxT

Jerome said:


> Gergiev
> No question


Very good indeed, but Dutoit's Decca recording is unsurpassed in quality.


----------



## Eramirez156

You might consider the Sony 10 CD box set *Igor Stravinsky: Le Sacre Du Printemps 100th Anniv* can be had for under $10 @ amazon market place.









Disc 1
Philadelphia Orchestra
Leopold Stokowski
(Recorded 1929/1930)
Disc 2
New York Philharmonic
Igor Stravinsky (Recorded 1940)
Disc 3
Boston Symphony Orchestra
Pierre Monteux (Recorded 1951)
Disc 4
Philadelphia Orchestra
Eugene Ormandy (Recorded 1955)
Disc 5
Columbia Symphony Orchestra
Igor Stravinsky (Recorded 1960)
Disc 6
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Seiji Ozawa (Recorded 1968)
Disc 7
Cleveland Orchestra
Pierre Boulez (Recorded 1969)
Disc 8
London Symphony Orchestra
Leonard Bernstein (Recorded 1972)
Disc 9
Philharmonia Orchestra
Esa-Pekka Salonen (Recorded 1989)
Disc 10
San Francisco Symphony Orchestra
Michael Tilson-Thomas (Recorded 1996)


----------



## Becca

QuietGuy said:


> Look for Bernstein's 1958 recording. My understanding is that it is this recording is THE definitive performance. (Take that with a grain of salt.) You can "preview" it on youtube.


As years go by I am increasingly of the opinion that 'definitive' does not exist, nor ever will.


----------



## JohnD

Becca said:


> As years go by I am increasingly of the opinion that 'definitive' does not exist, nor ever will.


I agree. I'm a big believer that in music, much is relative, not absolute.


----------



## Triplets

Karel Ancerl and the Czech PO


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Boulez on Sony and DG.

You could always opt for a different conductor...but why choose someone else anyway?


----------



## JohnD

Eramirez156 said:


> You might consider the Sony 10 CD box set *Igor Stravinsky: Le Sacre Du Printemps 100th Anniv* can be had for under $10 @ amazon market place.


I enjoyed reading the customer reviews of this set at amazon.com


----------



## Heliogabo

techniquest said:


> This is the first time I've asked for help in choosing a recording.
> I look at my CD shelves and see that I have just one recording of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring'; an odd one that probably no one else has (Plovdiv Philharmonic / Petkov on Laserlight Classics).
> So I'm looking to buy another but I want recommendations. The criteria that must be met are quite easy: it must be a clear (not 'muddy') stereo recording and I must be able to hear the percussion - a big thudding bass drum, ridiculously tinny high timpani, and a big splashy tam-tam. Obviously I have no problem in looking at cheap esoteric recordings, but I'm open to just about anything, big names or otherwise.


Well that Plovdiv/ Pletkov on Laserlight label was my first Rite, and for many years the only one. This was the recording that made me love this piece. I've heard it once again recently and I must say that I still like it a lot. 
Among the recent recordings with great sound that I know you can't go wrong with: Berliner / Rattle, SBYO/ Dudamel, and Bergen/ Litton. But Stravinsky's own recording is essential I think.


----------



## senza sordino

TxllxT said:


> The best recording + one of the best interpretations


This is the recording I have. Yes, OSM always had exceptional recordings, exceptional sound. I like this CD, but it might be a little too French and not savage enough.

I have a lot of CDs with Dutoit and OSM, not hard to find here in Canada.


----------



## Pugg

Muti for me, all the way :tiphat:


----------



## Adam Weber

I second the Bernstein and Boulez recommendations, but for a great "dark horse" recording, try Yoel Levi and the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra--a skull-rattling performance in striking Telarc sound.


----------



## Steatopygous

As always, it depends what you are looking for - passion? precision? clarity? musicality? top-quality recorded sound? Rhythmic clarity is important here, along with balance and momentum, in my view. It is a fabulous work. 

As it happens, the Rite is the work that I have most versions of in my collection - nearly 60. One of the reasons for this is a marvellous set I have of 38 recordings, including several for piano four hands, published by Decca on the centenary (2013 - 20 CDs). Sony's 10-CD set? Bah! Piffle! Except that it does in fact have some excellent accounts. I could not pick out just one or two accounts.

Sony is about to release (and has in other parts of the world) a 56-CD set (I think) of their complete archival Stravinsky conducting Stravinsky. It doesn't matter what it costs, I am going to have to have it.... But his own view of his work is not definitive because nothing is.


----------



## starthrower

Boulez on DG, which also has a great Petruschka.


----------



## Pugg

starthrower said:


> Boulez on DG, which also has a great Petruschka.


So has Muti, if you can find this one


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Adam Weber said:


> I second the Bernstein and Boulez recommendations, but for a great "dark horse" recording, try Yoel Levi and the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra--a skull-rattling performance in striking Telarc sound.


I gotta go with the Yoel Levi as well. Bernstein's 58 will always be my desert island performance, but Levi's is the perfect combination of the savagery of the 58 with the sound that Telarc was the master at.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Has nobody mentioned Markevitch yet? Both his mono and stereo versions are available on a Testament disc. Both versions are fantastic, but the stereo is thrilling. Anyone who loves the work ought to have this in their collection.


----------



## david johnson

try these- 

Ozawa/cso
Boulez/ortf
Stravinsky/Columbia sym
Bernstein 58
...so many enjoyable recordings of the rite


----------



## techniquest

Eramirez156 said:


> You might consider the Sony 10 CD box set *Igor Stravinsky: Le Sacre Du Printemps 100th Anniv* can be had for under $10 @ amazon market place.
> 
> View attachment 78071
> 
> 
> Disc 1
> Philadelphia Orchestra
> Leopold Stokowski
> (Recorded 1929/1930)
> Disc 2
> New York Philharmonic
> Igor Stravinsky (Recorded 1940)
> Disc 3
> Boston Symphony Orchestra
> Pierre Monteux (Recorded 1951)
> Disc 4
> Philadelphia Orchestra
> Eugene Ormandy (Recorded 1955)
> Disc 5
> Columbia Symphony Orchestra
> Igor Stravinsky (Recorded 1960)
> Disc 6
> Chicago Symphony Orchestra
> Seiji Ozawa (Recorded 1968)
> Disc 7
> Cleveland Orchestra
> Pierre Boulez (Recorded 1969)
> Disc 8
> London Symphony Orchestra
> Leonard Bernstein (Recorded 1972)
> Disc 9
> Philharmonia Orchestra
> Esa-Pekka Salonen (Recorded 1989)
> Disc 10
> San Francisco Symphony Orchestra
> Michael Tilson-Thomas (Recorded 1996)


This looks like a very interesting set. One question though; how many of these recordings are in mono?


----------



## Delicious Manager

GregMitchell said:


> Has nobody mentioned Markevitch yet? Both his mono and stereo versions are available on a Testament disc. Both versions are fantastic, but the stereo is thrilling. Anyone who loves the work ought to have this in their collection.


I second the Markevitch recordings; classic _Rite_s and among the best ever recorded.


----------



## realdealblues

Definitely the Leonard Bernstein 1958 recording. 

Perfect sound and the version that Stravinsky himself allegedly said "Wow!" after hearing.


----------



## gardibolt

The Bernstein may not be definitive, but it's terrific and you'll be hard pressed to find a better one.
Stravinsky's own is worth having too.


----------



## Celloman

Knock yourself out with Ozawa and the BSO.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Delicious Manager said:


> I second the Markevitch recordings; classic _Rite_s and among the best ever recorded.


I can't believe that you and I are the only ones to mention these blistering performances!


----------



## techniquest

GregMitchell said:


> I can't believe that you and I are the only ones to mention these blistering performances!


I have the wonderful Markevich / Philharmonia recording on Classics for Pleasure vinyl. I also have on vinyl the Tilson Thomas / Boston SO recording on DG. 
There are a ton of recommendations above (thanks guys) and I have listened to quite a few on Spotify and Youtube. At the moment the top runner is Gergiev / Kirov, but I really like the Levi / Atlanta rendition too - nice spacial stereo, I can hear everything where I expect to hear it, and wow what a thumper of a bass drum!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I own two Rites, Abbado and Gergiev, they're both excellent but I prefer the Gergiev.


----------



## Badinerie

Anatol Dorati, Detroit Symphony Orchestra. Vinyl Through Floorstanders is best, but this is the one I always go back to.

CD










Original LP cover of Rites.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I judge the Rite by highlights. The strings coming in after the intro, that savage stabbing just has to really kick. Bernstein's does it amazingly. The Glorification of the Chosen One has to have a relentlessness to it. Forgive me for going back to my childhood, but I think of that T-Rex in Fantasia when I hear it done "right". I also judge it harshly by the finale. I like to hear the brass clearly. Those highlights are the reason the Bernstein is my desert island recording. It is hard to believe that such a clean recording was made in 1958, but then again the 1950s were a time when we really advanced in sound engineering.


----------



## techniquest

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> I judge the Rite by highlights. The strings coming in after the intro, that savage stabbing just has to really kick. Bernstein's does it amazingly. The Glorification of the Chosen One has to have a relentlessness to it. Forgive me for going back to my childhood, but I think of that T-Rex in Fantasia when I hear it done "right". I also judge it harshly by the finale. I like to hear the brass clearly. Those highlights are the reason the Bernstein is my desert island recording. It is hard to believe that such a clean recording was made in 1958, but then again the 1950s were a time when we really advanced in sound engineering.


My brother used to collect old rock 'n' roll reissues and told me that the recording technology back in the '50s was really good, but the technology for reproducing the sound was poor. Today we have far better technology for reproducing the sound hence recordings from the '50s can sound so good. 
Looks like I might have to consider Bernstein's 1958 recording more seriously; his Mahler 3 from the same period is one of my faves 
By the way, the Gergiev / Kirov recording benefits from a really blistering 'Poem of Ecstacy' as the filler.


----------



## Delicious Manager

GregMitchell said:


> I can't believe that you and I are the only ones to mention these blistering performances!


Nor can I, although I suspect their 1950s vintage will have kept them out of the gaze of those obsessed with more modern performances. The stereo recording is pretty good for its time, though.


----------



## superhorn

I agree with Jerome about Gergiev/Mariinsky on Philips , plus Ancerl/Czech Philharmonic .
Gergiev is truly primitive and rough-hewn , with no glossy slickness of sound . It truly sounds 
RUSSIAN . I particularly like the final moment - Gergiev takes it somewhat slower than usual, and 
the crash is truly devastating !!!!
I remember the Ancerl recording fondly from long ago on LP before CDs existed . The sheer razor sharp precision of the great Czech orchestra's playing is amazing, with no loss of savagery .


----------



## Gouldanian

senza sordino said:


> This is the recording I have. Yes, OSM always had exceptional recordings, exceptional sound. I like this CD, but it might be a little too French and not savage enough.
> 
> I have a lot of CDs with Dutoit and OSM, not hard to find here in Canada.


Now wait a minute... What does it mean ''a little too French''? Soft?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Yeah, what do you mean "YOU people"?


----------



## DeepR

techniquest said:


> By the way, the Gergiev / Kirov recording benefits from a really blistering 'Poem of Ecstacy' as the filler.


Poem of Ecstasy a *filler*? If anything that other piece is the prelude.


----------



## JohnD

techniquest said:


> This looks like a very interesting set. One question though; how many of these recordings are in mono?


My guess is the first four.


----------



## ribonucleic

I feel like Boulez lets me hear more of the score than anyone else. A Pollini-esque reading, if you will.

At the opposite end of the scale, I first encountered the piece from the Maazel recording for Telarc. It's screamingly vulgar in both interpretation and dynamic range - so it gives you a taste of what the premiere audience must have felt.


----------



## techniquest

DeepR said:


> Poem of Ecstasy a *filler*? If anything that other piece is the prelude.


You know, you're absolutely right. I chose my words carelessly there.


----------



## nightscape

EDITED/Double post


----------



## nightscape

Three versions that I'm partial toward for various reasons. Different readings but all great performances.

*Stravinsky/Columbia*










*Levi/Atlanta*










*Nezet-Seguin/Philadelphia*


----------



## bassClef

Having collected over 50 recordings of the Rite (it's a mini obsession), I'd second the recommendation of these:

Bernstein/NY (58)
Levi/Atlanta
Ozawa/Chicago 

Also (not sure it's mentioned yet):

Chailly/Cleveland

You really can't go wrong with any of these.


----------



## Heck148

Great piece, ad a challenge for orchestra and conductor -

Bernstein/NYPO['58]
Solti/CSO/['74 Decca
Boulez/Cleveland ['69]/ CBS/Sony

for historical interest - Stokowski/PhilaO - 9/29/RCA Victor


----------



## hpowders

Try Valery Gergiev leading the Kirov Orchestra.


----------



## Medtnaculus

I'm a big fan of the Berliner with Karajan (has Bartok's concerto for orchestra too), and it really just packs the biggest punch. Outstanding quality and interpretation, save from a BLARING split in the trumpets in the procession of the sages.


----------



## Becca

Stravinsky did not like Karajan's Rite of Spring and was quite derisory of it. While I do not believe that the composer's thoughts should be gospel, I can easily imagine the basis of his dislike.


----------



## JACE

Boulez conducted the first _Rite_ I ever heard, and it's probably still my favorite:










I much prefer this earlier account to the DG re-make.


----------



## jailhouse

the recording of stravinsky conducting the rite is awful imo. The orchestra totally messes up the rhythms at points in the sacrificial dance and it sounds super sloppy. I can't understand why anyone would recommend it other than for historical reasons.

The boulez is good for slower takes of the ending. I think i like the Levi the best.


----------



## JohnD

I like Pierre Monteux's 1951 recording with the Boston Symphony Orchestra (on RCA, coupled with Petrouchka), and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Monteux since he conducted the legendary premiere performance of this piece that caused a near riot in 1913. (Can you imagine what the Rite of Spring sounded like to a 1913 audience?!)


----------



## DavidA

Karajan's second recording is pretty special


----------



## Delicious Manager

JohnD said:


> I like Pierre Monteux's 1951 recording with the Boston Symphony Orchestra (on RCA, coupled with Petrouchka), and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Monteux since he conducted the legendary premiere performance of this piece that caused a near riot in 1913. (Can you imagine what the Rite of Spring sounded like to a 1913 audience?!)


You know the 'riot' was a publicity stunt organised by Diaghilev, right?


----------



## Delicious Manager

Medtnaculus said:


> I'm a big fan of the Berliner with Karajan (has Bartok's concerto for orchestra too), and it really just packs the biggest punch. Outstanding quality and interpretation, save from a BLARING split in the trumpets in the procession of the sages.


Except that Karajan (as so often) smooths over all the rough edges and ruins the barbaric impact of this most iconoclastic of pieces. The LAST recording I would ever listen to.


----------



## Guest

My first was the one wich was much critisized but that does not matter.My second was with Solti and I still like it.


----------



## Pugg

]​
Great sound, great conducting by Riccardo Muti.


----------



## JohnD

Delicious Manager said:


> You know the 'riot' was a publicity stunt organised by Diaghilev, right?


What's your source?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## Medtnaculus

Delicious Manager said:


> Except that Karajan (as so often) smooths over all the rough edges and ruins the barbaric impact of this most iconoclastic of pieces. The LAST recording I would ever listen to.


I notice there are some fine details which are hard to hear in this recording, but the impact of certain sections far exceeds any other recording I compare it to. If anything this feels to me like it has more force behind it.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## techniquest

My problem with the Gergiev / Kirov recording, brilliant though it is, is that the tam-tam player seems to get lost at during the 'Dance of the Earth' at the end of part one, missing a cue and then adding an extra swish.


----------



## gHeadphone

I have a few copies which i love (Bernstein, Gergiev and Abaddo) but i really enjoyed the recent version by Teodor Currentzis, pretty lively!


----------



## TooManyNotes

The Bernstein NY is probably my overall favorite, although his sacrificial dance is kind of a dud. Ozawa/CSO has probably the most intense sacrificial dance I've heard....tympani player goes crazy! It actually grooves, and most performances I've heard sound flat footed by comparison... MTT's newer Rite of Spring is probably a good compromise and in excellent sound. Stravinsky's own is worth it for a surprisingly different take from the composer himself, but it's not my favorite to listen to.


----------



## adriesba

jailhouse said:


> the recording of stravinsky conducting the rite is awful imo. The orchestra totally messes up the rhythms at points in the sacrificial dance and it sounds super sloppy. I can't understand why anyone would recommend it other than for historical reasons.
> 
> The boulez is good for slower takes of the ending. I think i like the Levi the best.


There is a recording with David Zinman that includes a track with him discussing different versions of the piece. Apparently Stravinsky edited the score to make it easier for him to conduct. I think it was because of some strange time signatures for the "Sacrificial Dance". I don't know music theory though, so I probably can't explain this adequately.


----------



## adriesba

Currently my recommendation is the 1968 Ozawa recording. I could change my mind though as there are many recordings of this work and many that I have not heard.


----------



## MarkW

I'll mention a little-noted dark horse: Fruhbeck de Burgos with the Philharmonia ca.1970. For a smallish symphony orchestra, the Philharmonia has always had a full, rich, dark sound, and RFdB achieves a ferocity with it that has satisfied me for many years.


----------



## Heck148

MarkW said:


> I'll mention a little-noted dark horse: Fruhbeck de Burgos with the Philharmonia ca.1970. For a smallish symphony orchestra, the Philharmonia has always had a full, rich, dark sound, and RFdB achieves a ferocity with it that has satisfied me for many years.


I remember that one!! Good version...


----------



## adriesba

Which of the performances conducted by Monteux is the most essential? I've heard the 50th anniversary broadcast performance on YouTube, but I'm wondering how the other ones compare.


----------



## Heck148

adriesba said:


> Which of the performances conducted by Monteux is the most essential? I've heard the 50th anniversary broadcast performance on YouTube, but I'm wondering how the other ones compare.


I'd go for the Paris Conservatory Orch one, '56....on Decca...with Firebird, Petrushka...


----------



## Enthusiast

Among the more recent ones, I think those by Currentzis and Gergiev are among the best.


----------



## jegreenwood

There's a very active thread on this in Recorded Music.

Best recording of Le Sacre du Printemps?


----------



## ZeR0

Stravinsky himself recording it is my favorite.


----------



## adriesba

ZeR0 said:


> Stravinsky himself recording it is my favorite.


Which one in particular?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

adriesba said:


> Which of the performances conducted by Monteux is the most essential? I've heard the 50th anniversary broadcast performance on YouTube, but I'm wondering how the other ones compare.


1951 Boston Symphony on RCA, my favorite Rite


----------



## SONNET CLV

For those still interested in this thread, and in acquiring a recording of the _Rite_, I would suggest this one:









Details available at: https://www.discogs.com/Stravinsky-Various-Le-Sacre-Du-Printemps-100th-Anniversary-Collectors-Edition/release/10007816

This 20 disc box set from a couple of years ago presents over thirty orchestral interpretations of the Stravinsky masterpiece, and a couple of piano versions. It may not have everything, but it's a good start with plenty of "classic" versions.

See the track list at Discogs. I had the pleasure of submitting that monstrosity. But I listened to each of the recordings, too.


----------



## adriesba

I'm not sure which thread is the one where people are discussing recently. So I'll ask on both.

I keep seeing people mention what Stravinsky's own opinions were about various recordings. Where can I find what he said?


----------



## perdido34

It's in one of the books of Conversations co-authored by Robert Craft. I think he commented on Karajan's first version and Bernstein's NY Phil performance.


----------



## Varick

Pugg said:


> ]​
> Great sound, *great conducting by Riccardo Muti*.


Well, that might be a first.

V


----------



## Varick

I have Stravinksy with the Columbia and Rattle with the Birmingham. I'm not a fan of this piece (I marvel at it's popularity, hence I conclude that there is something that I am missing after 30 years and around 15-20 listens), but you can hear the energy in Stravinsky's performance.

V


----------



## caracalla

I think you should at least give a listen to the 1999 Gergiev/Kirov recording, as that was widely considered a game-changer and is certainly distinctive. Mother Russia reclaiming her own and so on. Emphasises the barbaric and then some. 

I'd got by for many years with Solti/Chicago, which is also a very powerful performance, though this now plays second fiddle to Gergiev in my own collection. I've also recently acquired the more analytical Boulez/Cleveland from 1969. This has always been very highly regarded, but it never appealed particularly to my own taste until I heard it on the car radio last year and it suddenly (and most unexpectedly) clicked. Possibly the contrast with Gergiev had something to do with that.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I for one am a huge fan of the Gergiev. Amazing sound and about as high-octane a performance as you can get. He does take a lot of liberties with the score that might rub a lot of people the wrong way though - especially in the last note! My overall favorite remains Bernstein/NY. I recently heard the Stravinsky/Columbia and thought it an excellent way to get to know the work, an exciting and transparent unraveling of the score. But others have brought us even more dynamic, visceral readings; which is really how I think this music needs to be done.


----------



## adriesba

So far my favorite three are:

Bernstein with New York 
Ozawa with Chicago 
Dorati with Detroit 

Of those, I think the Ozawa might be my absolute favorite. It's hard to decide though since there are several good recordings.


----------



## Knorf

This is controversial, but I actually prefer Bernstein's LSO _Le Sacre_ to the the NYPO recording. It holds together better, without nearly coming apart at the seems, buty without losing any musical intensity. I mean, you lose the intensity of an orchestra that sounds like it's about to train wreck, but I think that's worth losing.

_Le Sacre du Printemps_ has done very well in recordings. There are very few that I would disrecommend. Actually, Gergiev, whom I often like very much, has a _Le Sacre_ I do not recommend, because it takes far too many liberties (in my opinion.) But some people like it. >Shrug< I wanted to like it.

Bernstein/LSO
Ozawa/Chicago
Michael Tilson Thomas/Boston (believe it or not!)
Dutoit/Montreal
Fischer/Budapest

I think those are my top five, in no particular order, for today anyway. Tomorrow it will change.


----------



## Knorf

If you want to hear how devoid of excitement a _Le Sacre_ live performance can be, I posted the following in another thread.



Knorf said:


> Alrighty. If you need a gentle, soft-edged _Rite of Spring_, I got ya covered:
> [video]https://livefromorchestrahall.vhx.tv/2017-18-season/season:22/videos/igor-stravinsky-the-rite-of-spring?_ga=2.30135481.787587371.1588577832-2119110579.1588577832[/video]
> 
> (Apologies to my musician colleagues and friends in the DSO; I know it wasn't your fault. It was what Spano asked for.)





Knorf said:


> It's astonishing in it's soft-edged dullness. Everything is played safe. There is never any urgency, much less danger. Sad, really. I used to have this idea that Spano was good.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Knorf said:


> If you want to hear how devoid of excitement a _Le Sacre_ live performance can be, I posted the following in another thread.


Ya, that's a funny performance. Incredibly laid back. The only other thing I heard with Spano was Berlioz Requiem, which some reviews recommended, but i wasn't so impressed.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I guess I’m alone in my lack of admiration for Ozawa/CSO. I found it well-played and recorded but dull.


----------



## adriesba

I just got this CD of Stravinsky himself conducting (same but with a different cover) from Amazon:

View attachment 135377


The sound's not that great, but I liked the performance. I think I actually liked the interpretation better than Stravinsky's later stereo recording. Very interesting.

The CD is rare. There are very few for sale on the internet. I got mine for ~$32 when the other two I saw went for ~$120 and ~$180! Of course now that I bought it, there is now one new listing from a different seller on Amazon selling it for ~$8! If you want to get the CD for a price you can't beat (maybe your only chance to get it at such a low price), go quickly!

-> https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-in-Venice/dp/B000027SPV

Hopefully the seller put it in the right spot, and it's not a trick or something. If anyone gets it, let me know what you think of it.


----------



## adriesba

Is it just me, or does Monteux's recording with the Paris Conservatoire sound muffled? 

I had a hard time hearing certain frequencies when listening to it. Sometimes the percussion was barely audible, and the low frequencies seemed toned down, almost like someone turned the bass down on an equalizer. I just feel like other recordings from that time just don't sound like that. I'm wondering if Monteux's interpretation has anything to do with the strange sounds.

Why is the vinyl on RCA, but the CD is on Decca?


----------



## NLAdriaan

adriesba said:


> Is it just me, or does Monteux's recording with the Paris Conservatoire sound muffled?
> 
> I had a hard time hearing certain frequencies when listening to it. Sometimes the percussion was barely audible, and the low frequencies seemed toned down, almost like someone turned the bass down on an equalizer. I just feel like other recordings from that time just don't sound like that. I'm wondering if Monteux's interpretation has anything to do with the strange sounds.
> 
> *Why is the vinyl on RCA, but the CD is on Decca?*


Maybe because Decca recorded in Europe for RCA in the sixties and seventies?


----------



## adriesba

NLAdriaan said:


> Maybe because Decca recorded in Europe for RCA in the sixties and seventies?


What about the 50s? The recording is from 1956.


----------



## NLAdriaan

I don't know when it started exactly, but probably already in the fifties


----------



## Heck148

adriesba said:


> What about the 50s? The recording is from 1956.


Yes, Decca made some recordings forc RCA in the 50s....Reiner made recordings with VPO in 1956, recorded by Decca, but released by RCA... these have been released on cd by London/Decca. 
Same with some of the Monteux/LSO recordings from late 50s, early 60s.


----------



## adriesba

OK, that makes sense. I was so confused, lol. :lol:
I would sort of expect a little better sound for being recorded by Decca though. Maybe my expectations for the sound quality were too high. 
It just sounded like some parts of the orchestra were right there, while other parts sounded like they were behind a wall.


----------



## Heck148

adriesba said:


> OK, that makes sense. I was so confused, lol. :lol:
> I would sort of expect a little better sound for being recorded by Decca though. Maybe my expectations for the sound quality were too high.


Hmm...those Decca recordings from the 50s - the VPO, LSO ones, - had pretty good sound... was that Monteux/Paris Sacre a Decca engineered recording?? or was it RCA all the way thru??


----------



## adriesba

Heck148 said:


> Hmm...those Decca recordings from the 50s - the VPO, LSO ones, - had pretty good sound... was that Monteux/Paris Sacre a Decca engineered recording?? or was it RCA all the way thru??


I'm not sure. I looked at pictures of the case of the original vinyl, but I don't see anything about Decca on it. 
https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Rite-Spring/dp/B000KKCY2C

Were there contractual reasons for Decca to acquire the recording perhaps?


----------



## Heck148

adriesba said:


> I'm not sure. I looked at pictures of the case of the original vinyl, but I don't see anything about Decca on it.
> https://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Rite-Spring/dp/B000KKCY2C
> 
> Were there contractual reasons for Decca to acquire the recording perhaps?


I forget the exact arrangement, John Culshaw, of Decca, described it in "Ring Resounding", iirc...RCA apparently contracted Decca's on-site recording teams to make the actual recordings, but RCA held the sales and distribution rights....when that arrangement expired, I guess Decca was free to distribute them...(I might not have that exactly right)


----------



## adriesba

Heck148 said:


> I forget the exact arrangement, John Culshaw, of Decca, described it in "Ring Resounding", iirc...RCA apparently contracted Decca's on-site recording teams to make the actual recordings, but RCA held the sales and distribution rights....when that arrangement expired, I guess Decca was free to distribute them...(I might not have that exactly right)


I don't know. I have that book. I'll have to look in it to see what it says. The recording just didn't sound like a Decca recording to me.


----------



## Heck148

adriesba said:


> I don't know. I have that book. I'll have to look in it to see what it says. The recording just didn't sound like a Decca recording to me.


Probably not Decca...


----------



## adriesba

Heck148 said:


> Probably not Decca...


Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me (I'd have to listen and check), but I somewhat think it sounded kind of like the Reiner _Also Sprach Zarathustra _on RCA which was from around the same time.


----------



## adriesba

Well, I looked in _Ring Resounding_. It didn't say a whole lot, but on page 118 it mentions a "Decca/RCA relationship", saying that Decca distributed RCA recordings in some countries including the UK. According to Wikipedia, the companies broke ties in 1969: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_Records

It could be that Decca retained distribution rights even after that and thus released CDs of the recording.

As far as sound quality goes, I'm starting to think it may be more due to age of the recording than the company that recorded it. The 1957 Ansermet recording, which I'm pretty sure was actually recorded by Decca, doesn't have the greatest sound either. I can't remember where, but I think I read that the Monteux recording with the Paris Conservatoire Orchestra was the first stereo recording of the piece.

I do wish the recording had better sound though. I really enjoyed the interpretation. I heard things that sounded different from what I've heard in other recordings (maybe it's just the sound quality), and the performance was lively. I wonder if that is similar to how Monteux conducted it at the premiere.


----------

