# Survey of Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade recordings



## Brahmsianhorn

I've been surveying as many recordings as I could find over the past year and thought I would post the results here. These are listed in descending order - five stars being the highest - based on performance only, not accounting for sound quality. I believe that people can determine how important a factor that sound quality is for themselves, so I do comment on the sound and supply the date.

*Survey of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade Recordings*

Stokowski (1927) (Biddulph) (*****) - Stokowski at his best, combining passion, beauty, and an improvisatory interpretation that manages to sound just right. Although there is the inevitable constant hiss, the sound quality is surprisingly good for the period, with the lush Philadelphia sound vividly caught. This recording truly captures the essence of the work. There is an alternate take of the first movement which is even more committed than the original.

Stokowski (1934) (Cala) (*****) - The same collaboration as before with similarly magical results. Choice between this and the earlier Philadelphia recording will come down to taste. Interpretively, Stokowski is a bit more risk-taking at times in this later recording. I prefer the slightly more natural feel of the earlier version. The later recording does boast more clear sound, though the earlier recording has greater body and fullness accentuating the beauty of the Philadelphia strings.

Stokowski (1951) (Testament) (*****) - Stokowski's later versions find him slightly more wayward compared to the earlier Philadelphia accounts but still exhibiting his inimitable sensuousness. The 1951 Philharmonia account is simply ravishing with plenty of beauty, power, and gusto in abundance. The sound is somewhat muddy even for the time period, but it represents obvious improvement over the earlier accounts in presence, fullness and clarity.

Kondrashin (1979) (Philips) (*****) - This is my top choice in modern sound, supplying a perfect blend of color, excitement, and beauty. Given the excellent sound quality, it makes an ideal first introduction to the piece as Kondrashin's interpretation is one where everything sounds right. Herman Krebbers' lovely, authoritative account of the violin solo is a major bonus. The final movement is among the most powerful ever recorded.

Gergiev (2001) (Philips) (*****) - If you want unbridled passion, look no further. Gergiev's interpretation is seductive, impassioned and powerful in the best Russian tradition. This really knocks your socks off! Some find the interpretation too subjective, but for me Gergiev is one of the few to really capture the essence of the work in the same way as Stokowski's old Philadelphia accounts.

Beecham (1958) (EMI) (*****) - That Beecham touch and sensitivity works its wonders. Few if any have ever captured the ethereal dreaminess of the work like Beecham. Perhaps there is a certain lack of thrust and power compared to some others, but taken on its own merits the recording is essential listening. No consideration need be made for the 1958 sound, which is excellent and full-bodied.

Stokowski (1964) (Decca, Cala) (*****) - Stokowski is not quite as inspired as in 1951 and even a bit more mannered. However, with the vastly improved sound quality you get an invaluably vivid taste of Stokowski's way with the work. This stands among the handful of greatest stereo recordings in its thrust and passion. Essential for lovers of this work. If you value modern sound, this is the Stokowski version to get.

Van Beinum (1957) (Decca) (*****) - If you want a great vintage recording without the mannerisms of a Stokowski, look no further than Van Beinum. The performance is robust, exciting, romantic, and the Concertgebouw in their heyday perform gloriously. The sound quality lacks fullness and clarity in comparison to contemporary recordings from Beecham and Reiner, but this is more than made up for in the lush sounds emanating from the orchestra.

Previn (1968) (RCA) (*****) - Though his spacious, measured approach may not appeal to all tastes, Previn's earlier account blends poetic sensuousness with robust, overwhelming climaxes in an interpretation that is unerring in its inspired concentration and spontaneity. The London Symphony performs gloriously, and the sound quality is clear and full.

Goossens (1958) (Everest) (*****) - Another one of the more underrated Scheherazade recordings, this is one that truly captures the magical, evocative nature of the work with plenty of excitement and sensuousness in abundance. Goossens allows the music to unfold naturally, and many may prefer this approach to that of more celebrated readings. The Everest sound is a model of its kind in its brilliance and clarity.

Dobrowen (1953) (Archipel, Opus Kura) (*****) - Another great pre-stereo account in sound that is quite acceptable for the period. This is a red-blooded, passionate performance with plenty of beauty and nuance. The Philharmonia play as if their lives depend on it.

Golovanov (1950) (Russian Classic Collection) (****1/2) - You will not find a more brazenly intense version of the work than this. Indeed, some may find it too high octane and the interpretation a bit too heavy-handed. The virtuosic playing is incredible, with the beautiful violin solo by none other than a young David Oistrakh. This is one of those versions that falls into the category of those that pack an emotional wallop but are not meant for everyday listening. The 1950 sound is quite acceptable for the time.

Stokowski (1974) (RCA) (****1/2) - Stokowski returned to the recording studio a fifth time nearly half a century after his first effort. Again, the results are revelatory if not quite as inspired as in previous efforts. In terms of sound quality, none of his previous recordings match the clarity of this one, though the 1964 recording has plenty of body and is even more committed and thrilling.

Haitink (1972) (Philips) (****1/2) - A solid, central recommendation in excellent, full sound. The London Philharmonic plays gloriously, and the interpretation from Haitink is alert and dedicated if not quite as individual as some others.

Ormandy (1973) (RCA) (****1/2) - Ormandy's last recording in Philadelphia presents their best collaboration. The interpretation is rock solid and the playing is stupendous - lush, grand, tense, and with thrilling climaxes. Only a slight lack of forward impetus at times prevents this from rating higher.

Dorati (1958) (Mercury) (****1/2) - From the opening bars is it apparent that Dorati understands the sensuous nature of the work. This is one of the most exciting, rapturous of versions, recorded in excellent vintage Mercury sound. Things are taken somewhat on the quick side, and there is a relative lack of tonal opulence in the strings.

Reiner (1960) (RCA) (****1/2) - Arguably the most celebrated modern recording, particularly among audiophiles. However, on my list it falls short of that acclaim. No doubt the playing and sound quality are spectacular. However, despite its brilliance I get the feeling that this could be a performance of any orchestral work. Everything is done with great efficiency, but I fail to hear the sensuous spirit of Scheherazade come through as it does with those listed above.

Mackerras (1990) (Telarc) (****1/2) - This recording marries ethereal beauty with powerful attack in sound that is a marvel of clarity. The brass playing in particular is the most impressive of any Scheherazade recording I know. My only quibble with this interpretation is that in its clarity and perfection it misses some of the sensuous passion of others. As impressive an account as it is, I wouldn't want it to be my only version.

Matacic (1958) (EMI, Testament) (****) - Another great recording from the 1950s that captures the evocative magic of Scheherazade. The Philharmonia play beautifully, and the sound is good for the period. The interpretation may strike some as relatively pedestrian, but the music speaks in such a way as to make this a worthy choice.

Stokowski (1962) (Guild) (*****) - Any Stokowski recording of this work is going to be worth a listen, and this live recording certainly displays his flair and mastery of the score, if a bit more mannered and contorted as his later versions tended to be. However, even though the Philadelphia Orchestra is on top form the recording quality and performance itself are not competitive with his other versions.

Ansermet (1948) (Dutton) (****) - The extra flexibility and panache of Ansermet's earliest recording as compared to his later ones is pure gain. Despite its age the sound quality is very full and atmospheric though obviously more limited than the 1960 Decca recording.

Gaubert (1928-29) (Serie Contrepoint, Columbia 78) (****) - A virtuosic reading in surprisingly clear sound. Though the reading is on the fast side, the musicality is undeniable, exhibiting a romanticism and panache you don't find too often these days.

Silvestri (1967) (EMI, Royal Classics) (****) - Silvestri paces everything just right, with plenty of excitement in abundance even though the Bournemouth Symphony cannot match others in virtuosity. The sound is clear though has a certain cavernous quality.

Ormandy (1953) (Sony) (****) - Though Ormandy still shows traces of deliberateness, this account shows him and the Philadelphia Orchestra in much better form than in their later efforts. Things progress quite naturally and with plenty of excitement, virtuosity, and poetry in abundance. The sound is very decent mono. Unfortunately this has never made it onto CD.

Muti (1983) (EMI) (****) - Muti goes for broke in the first movement in an interpretation which may strike some as even too thrustful though certainly lush and impressive, enhanced by excellent, clear sound. The rest of the performance settles down a bit with plenty of sensuousness if missing the last ounce of inspiration.

Karajan (1967) (DG) (****) - This scores as an above-average effort due to the typical Karajan/Berlin lushness which highlights the ethereal beauty of the work. There is a certain lack of bite and excitement - perhaps even a bit of German heaviness at times - but those prioritizing beautiful sound will not be disappointed. Michel Schwalbe's violin solo is among the most beautiful in the catalogue.

Ansermet (1960) (Decca) (****) - A very beautiful vintage performance, though quite a bit on the careful side. Adherents of this performance see it as all the more evocative for its want of thrust and momentum. For me this is what I would classify more as a straight-forward, no-nonsense reading.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gould (1955) (RCA LP) (***1/2) - Gould serves up a sort of "Stokowski-light" interpretation. The results are not always entirely convincing, but it is a lush, free-wheeling reading with plenty of exciting moments. The sound is decent 1950's quality. This has not been released on CD.

Chailly (1994) (Decca) (***1/2) - Some lush, passionate playing from the Concertgebouw and excellent sound make this a solid version, though Chailly is not without a few distracting interpretive choices.

Temirkanov (1993) (RCA) (***1/2) - Though not quite as distinctive or nuanced as others, this is a solid performance in excellent sound. The interpretation is sensitive if not quite evoking the magic of, say, a Beecham. This issue will appeal to those wanting an idiomatic reading without too much interpretive fuss.

Monteux (1942) (RCA, Archipel) (***1/2) - Robust, exciting performance, though played at times terribly fast. Nevertheless it packs a dramatic punch. The 1942 sound is acceptable for the period though obviously no match for Monteux's later account.

Ashkenazy (1987) (Decca) (***1/2) - This is a lush, romantic reading in opulent sound. Ashkenazy's interpretation is sensitive even if at times there is a certain want of excitement. Overall this makes for a solid modern, digital choice.

Jansons (1988) (EMI) (***1/2) - There is plenty of sensuous poetry in this performance that avoids any excess of dramatic impact. Though this will not appeal to all tastes, there is a singularness of purpose that makes it worthy of consideration, particularly given the clear, beautiful sound quality.

Previn (1981) (Philips) (***1/2) - While no match for Previn's earlier effort, this Vienna Philharmonic traversal nevertheless stands as a solid performance in excellent sound. Everything is judged and paced well if lacking a certain amount of impetus and inspiration.

Fricsay (1956) (DG, Beulah) (***1/2) - A very sensitive, beautiful interpretation, though a little on the cool side. The first movement in particular lacks in momentum. The Berlin Philharmonic in its heyday displays plenty of color and body, though the mono recording lacks presence and body.

Rostropovich (1974) (EMI/Warner) (***1/2) - Much of this interpretation is somewhat on the slow side, even plodding at times, yet the final movement is quite thrilling. Rostropovich maintains a keen sense of phrasing throughout with lush playing from the Orchestre de Paris.

Ansermet (1954) (Decca, EMI) (***1/2) - This is taken at a much quicker pace than Ansermet's later recording, which at times serves only to accentuate the straight-forward nature of the reading. Though it lacks the later recording's more ethereal beauty and is rather dryly recorded, this one has a bit more drama, flow, and dash.

Monteux (1957) (Decca, RCA) (***1/2) - Monteux's phrasing is sensitive and admirable though missing the passion of his earlier version. The sound is adequate though not up to the standards of the best from the period.

Bernstein (1959) (Sony) (***1/2) - Although the New York Philharmonic plays brilliantly at times, the interpretation is too deliberate and self-conscious. You miss the free-flowing nature of the best readings. The last two movements fare better. The sound quality is bright and detailed, but there is a constant hiss present.

Kletzki (1960) (Classics for Pleasure) (***1/2) - Lovingly molded interpretation, beautifully played by the Philharmonia, though this is not a performance that will knock your socks off. The sound is adequate but no match for contemporaries like Reiner and Beecham.

Leinsdorf (1960) (EMI, Urania) (***) - The biggest selling point for this recording is the luscious Capitol sound, offering excellent clarity and accentuating the exquisite playing of the soloist. Otherwise the performance is not particularly distinctive, though there are moments of beauty and excitement.

Bakels (2003) (BIS) (***) - Competent if unspectacular performance. Strong points in its favor include a lovely violin solo, clear, opulent sound, and an exciting final movement.

Ormandy (1962) (Sony) (***) - The first thing that jumps out at you is the ravishing violin solo from Anshel Brusilow. This is a very sensitive reading, and the Philadephia Orchestra is second to none in brilliance and execution. However, Ormandy is often quite restrained and even metronomical, and this is not a performance for those looking for passion and thrust. The sound quality is very good for the period.

Scherchen (1958) (Westminster) (***) - Scherchen is never boring, and this recording is full of passion and moments of electricity. However, there are plenty of interpretive choices that feel forced and disrupt the natural continuity of the work. In addition, the sound is substandard and the playing often scrappy.

Dutoit (1990) (Decca) (***) - This is an under-powered performance to be sure. However, it carries appeal for those who prefer a more gentle interpretation and value beauty of sound.

Jarvi (1987) (Chandos) (***) - Another fairly careful reading that emphasizes the ethereal beauty of the work and downplays the more dramatic aspects. The approach is enhanced by the excellent sound quality.

Boughton (1988) (Nimbus) (***) - Delicacy is the hallmark of this performance, with contained lushness and beautifully sensitive phrasing, if a bit on the precious side, in a clear recording.

Skripka (2014) (EMG) (***) - These Moscow forces supply a strong, conventional interpretation that qualifies as a solid if not spectacular version.

Wordsworth (1993) (RPO) (***) - Truly a middle-of-the-road recording. The sound quality is decent, the interpretation is conventional, and the performance strikes the right chords without being particularly distinguished.

Masur (1999) (***) - Well-played, sensitive, if somewhat pedestrian and unremarkable rendition, featuring excellent sound and the New York Philharmonic on top form.

Mauceri (1987) (MCA, LSO) (***) - A relatively clean, competent performance in good, clear sound. There are some good climaxes and fine sensitivity, though at other times the interpretation is sluggish.

Serebrier (1999) (Reference Recordings) (***) - This is taken at a deliberately brisk pace. Certainly there are moments where the approach produces thrilling climaxes and attacks. However, we know from others that this work needs more room to breathe for the full effect to come through.

Litton (1988) (EMI) (**1/2) - Though the outer movements supply moments of excitement at the climaxes, this rendition is otherwise lacking in inspiration and any hint at the sensuousness nature of the work.

Fedoseyev (2005) (Melodiya) (**1/2) - A deliberately cool, detached approach that is saved only by an exciting account of the finale. Some see the reserved approach as refreshing. For me it goes too far in its attempt to eschew sentiment.

Schwarz (2011) (Naxos) (**1/2) - Though there are moments of lush phrasing, much of this performance is comparatively pedestrian. The sound is excellent, and this comes at budget price.

Mehta (1989) (Sony) (**1/2) - Despite some sensitive playing from the Israel Philharmonic, particularly the violin soloist, this is by and large an under-powered, underwhelming rendition.

Svetlanov (1969) (Melodiya) (**1/2) - Very cool, clean interpretation. For me, it is too uninvolved emotionally to warrant praise, but certainly there are some who will favor this approach.

Ozawa (1978) (DG) (**1/2) - A very tame, gentle approach. Though the phrasing is certainly sensitive at times, the interpretation is mostly faceless. The biggest selling point here is the sweet, sensuous playing of the violin soloist, Joseph Silverstein.

Dutoit (2010) (Onyx) (**) - Despite good presence and execution from the orchestra, as well as commendable sensitivity, this interpretation from Dutoit is less inspired than his earlier, already underpowered approach.

Frémaux (1988) (Collins) (**) - Fairly bland, faceless reading aside from a few moments of virtuosic brilliance in the outer movements.

Immerseel (2005) (Harmonia Mundi) (**) - Not only is this a "period instrument" performance with minimal vibrato, but the interpretation is cool and four-square, an apparent attempt to "authentically" present the score without any hint of a performer subjecting his will. I suppose some may like this, even as a novelty, but for me it robs the music of its natural essence.

Spano (2001) (Telarc) (**) - Though lauded in some quarters, this is little more than a well-recorded run-through. The orchestra plays well, but the interpretation is quite mechanical and robotic.

Chung (1993) (DG) (**) - Generally competent performance in excellent sound, but mostly devoid of any passion, excitement, or flair.

Barenboim (1993) (Warner) (**) - Well-played account from the Chicago Symphony but lacks passion and inspiration.

Maazel (1986) (DG) (**) - Largely dull, by-the-numbers, uninspired recording. Though uncontroversial and somewhat sensitive in spots, everyone involved seems to just be going through the motions.

Svetlanov (1979) (EMI) (**) - Though there are some moments of poetry, this interpretation is so contorted towards the slow and plodding that the effect of the work is lost.

Celibidache (1984) (EMI) (**) - Eccentrically slow. Certainly there are some lovely moments, but overall the performance simply does not hold together.

Perlea (1957) (Vox, Tuxedo) (**) - Though there are a few moments of decipherable musicianship, this is generally a sluggish, uninspired performance given a mostly perfunctory interpretation. The sound is adequate, though fairly confined and cavernous.

Yuasa (1995) (EMI) (*1/2) - A fairly comatose reading. Only the final movement has any moments of life, but overall this comes across like a first rehearsal.


----------



## joen_cph

A fine & interesting post showing good knowledge of classics, thanks. As far as I remember, I tend to like Celi more than you, but that's life. I agree about Kondrashin, Svetlanov and Scherchen, for example. I know only some of yours; the only one I have which is not on your list is Chalabala ))/CzechPO, but the sound isn't that good, and the performance, though fine and engaged, not superior to others, of course.


----------



## mbhaub

Very commendable and useful compilation. For the most part there's little to argue about. But there are a couple of issues for me. I've known this beautiful work for 50 years. It was among the first pocket scores I ever bought. I've played it many times, both as a percussionist and as a bassoonist.

1) It's always been interesting to me how well the London Symphony does with this music. Whether it's Goosens, Monteux, Mackerras - the LSO always shines through.

2) Rimsky-Korsakov was a genius and unquestionably one of the great orchestrators of all time. Any conductor who thinks he can improve this masterly score is either a egomaniac or dolt. And there are many who tamper with it. There's a passage near the end of III where a lot of conductors take the violin part up an octave (eg Spano, Temirkanov) contrary to what R-K wrote. If he had wanted it that way he would have written it. Same with added xylophones (Stokowski). For me, the most successful recordings follow the composer's writing.

3) Cuts in this score immediately rule a recording out. There goes Ormandy.

4) There are other issues of dynamics, tempos, and such that irritate me. One example: Reiner's recording is generally superb - one of the great IMO. But at the beginning of IV, he, like others, adds accents to the double bass part and turns the volume up. RK clearly marked that part pp with no accents or emphasis.

5) Stokowski is in a class of his own - the clown class. While I appreciate what he did in making music popular, bringing some unknown music to the US, and raising orchestral standards, his tampering with composer's music is unacceptable to me. For some reason he thought he could improve Scheherazade, a score he clearly loved. As bad as the added xylophone part in some of his recordings is, there is nothing more egregious than what he did in the 1974 RCA recording: at the close of I, but while the orchestra is still playing the closing chord, he has the solo violinist begin II. When I first heard it I thought this was a horrible editing error, but no, that's what Stokie wanted. Dramatically, I understand what the old fraud was doing. But it was wrong.

One other thing: I really enjoy the Immerseel recording quite a bit - it has a lot going for it and the period instruments are certainly part of the sound. But there's also the scrupulous attention to the details of the score that so many others miss or shrug off.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

joen_cph said:


> the only one I have which is not on your list is Chalabala ))/CzechPO, but the sound isn't that good, and the performance, though fine and engaged, not superior to others, of course.


Haha, I knew somebody right away was going to point out a recording I missed. Oh well, 70 recordings surely can't be the lot of them, can it? :lol:


----------



## joen_cph

There'll always be another one ... Chalabala is one of the more interesting conductors of the past, though . I'm re-listening to the LP right now, it is a lovely work. The sound quality is a good deal better in my LP issue than here: according to some sources, this is from 1953


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mbhaub said:


> One other thing: I really enjoy the Immerseel recording quite a bit - it has a lot going for it and the period instruments are certainly part of the sound. But there's also the scrupulous attention to the details of the score that so many others miss or shrug off.


Do you really believe this is how R-K would have heard it? It sounded like a "modern" interpretation to me. I can't imagine any late 19th-century performance sounding like this one.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strangely, I have listened to three of these in the past few days (two 5* and one 4.5*) and now this thread comes along! Maybe I'll go for a 2* next!


----------



## mbhaub

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Do you really believe this is how R-K would have heard it? It sounded like a "modern" interpretation to me. I can't imagine any late 19th-century performance sounding like this one.


Actually, I think it is closer to what he would have heard than the modern instrument versions. In his day, brass instruments had smaller bores, the bassoons in Russian orchestras were French models, the horns would have used some vibrato, the strings would have used gut, the timpani would have used calf skin as would the snare drum - things that Immerseel does. Of course, we'll never know. And it is a nice change of pace from the super-fantastic-showpiece the work has become. We'll never know exactly how RK heard it, but there is one hint: the 90 year old recording with Oscar Fried and the Moscow Symphony. Even then, the work was 40 years old, but it sounds very much like a modern version with a bit more string portamento, and more staid tempos. And Fried does some phrasing and string bowings that are quite unique. It's too bad that we don't have a recording by RK himself - it might clear up some of the still unanswered questions on rhythmic issues in the finale.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Regarding Immerseel, I am really asking more about the interpretation as a representation of late 19th century, not just the instruments used.

From my review above:

“Not only is this a "period instrument" performance with minimal vibrato, but the interpretation is cool and four-square, an apparent attempt to "authentically" present the score without any hint of a performer subjecting his will”

That seems to be a modern style of performing, objective as opposed to subjective. Very cool and unsentimental.


----------



## joen_cph

Here's the Fried recording


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

A favored work for me. I quite like Goossens work and Bernstein does well. But one not mentioned is Mario Rossi and the Vienna state opera orchestra from 1956. It is mostly available as a download.


----------



## Becca

A recording was made during rehearsals for the Decca/Phase4 recording of Scheherazade with Stokowski which can be found on the Cala release...


----------



## Larkenfield

_Scheherazade_ was one of the first magical works I ever heard and I never forgot the lurid cover of the Tops budget recording. At the time, classical LPs could even be found in racks at neighborhood liquor stores! It's a work that can still make one dream, ponder, and imagine. Lovely to read about all the recordings that have been mentioned here. The magic of this colorful work has led many people to fall in love with CM.


----------



## MarkW

More power to you I can't imagine listening to it that many times -- let alone that many performances In the '50s and '60s excerpts from Scheherazade were the go-to music for female Olympic figure skaters in the long program. I was glad to see its favor decline -- until Nancy Kwan revived it for her last Olympics in (I think) the '90s. It doesn't wear well with me. But that's just me and shouldn't detract from either R-K's genius or your taste.


----------



## david johnson

Congratulations on your effort of sampling the recordings of this fun selection. I enjoyed your comments. I keep a few Scheherazade recordings around myself - Reiner, Mackerras, Ansermet. I heard the Immerseel the other day and liked it. One I never cared for was Bernstein/NYPO.


----------



## Merl

mbhaub said:


> 1) It's always been interesting to me how well the London Symphony does with this music. Whether it's Goosens, Monteux, Mackerras - the LSO always shines through.


Yeah, the LSO certainly know their way around this one. Nice survey, Bhs, I know how much time it takes putting these together. I have my own favourites amongst these and agree that Mackerras, Kondrashin, Reiner, Dorati (still a slight favourite) , Ansermet and especially Gergiev are something special. I've never got on with Stokowski here. There's also a few other performances I like for different reasons - Immerseel, Serebrier, Ashkenazy, Goosens, Spano and Schwarz.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Kudos for this! And nice to see some more modern recordings being considered :devil::devil:

Really good to see both my preferred versions right towards the top, Kondrashin and Beecham. I find Dutoit on Decca more exciting than you seem to, as well as the privilege of wallowing in glorious sound! I also think Fricsay is excellent, despite the restrictions of the sound quality.

I used to have Kletzki on CfP too, LP. I cannot remember it's qualities, alas


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

CnC Bartok said:


> Kudos for this! And nice to see some more modern recordings being considered :devil::devil:


Modern recordings are always considered!

Anyone like Previn's early LSO account as much as I did? It was probably the biggest surprise of all the ones I surveyed. May he rest in peace.


----------



## joen_cph

I think historical or elder recordings are often forgotten or overlooked nowadays and found this survey very refreshing and interesting in that respect.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Argh! Just noticed my first major typo. This should be rated four stars (not five), as with the other recordings it is grouped around:

Stokowski (1962) (Guild) (****) – Any Stokowski recording of this work is going to be worth a listen, and this live recording certainly displays his flair and mastery of the score, if a bit more mannered and contorted as his later versions tended to be. However, even though the Philadelphia Orchestra is on top form the recording quality and performance itself are not competitive with his other versions.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

My local CM radio station plays Scheherazade from time to time. Seems like it's either Ormandy and Philadelphia or Bernstein and NYPO.


----------



## Larkenfield

I find it amazing that Leopold Stokowski (1882) was _alive_ when Scheherazade was written (1888). Rimsky-Korsakov was a contemporary and this was relatively new music close to the source of its creator. That's going _way_ back for a conductor who didn't make his transition until 1977.

Did it give him a special feel for sensually and imaginatively interpreting this colorful masterpiece? Yeah! I think it did. He would have viewed it as more of a new work rather than as an old chestnut as it's now considered. Rimsky didn't die until 1908 and Stokowski already 26.


----------



## Bill Cooke

Nice survey! I've wanted to do this myself, as I have quite a few recordings in my collection. My favorites are Beecham, Stokowski (Decca), Bernstein (NYP), Reiner and Kondrashin. It would be hard to pick the top one. They each do something uniquely magical.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> A recording was made during rehearsals for the Decca/Phase4 recording of Scheherazade with Stokowski which can be found on the Cala release...
> 
> View attachment 113815


Thank you for pointing this out! I had not heard it before. I love the quote at the very beginning:

"Music is not mechanism. Music is heart, is feeling, is passion, is impulse...We have to make a good recording, not a mechanical recording."

So fascinating to me personally as this quote essentially summarizes my criteria in this 70-recording survey, and I see why it is no accident Stokowski sits at the top.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Thank you for pointing this out! I had not heard it before. I love the quote at the very beginning:
> 
> "Music is not mechanism. Music is heart, is feeling, is passion, is impulse...We have to make a good recording, not a mechanical recording."
> 
> So fascinating to me personally as this quote essentially summarizes my criteria in this 70-recording survey, and I see why it is no accident Stokowski sits at the top.


certainly applicable to the present "Bernstein/Karajan" thread ...


----------



## AndorFoldes

Brahmsianhorn, I was listening to a popular version of Scheherazade on YouTube, and it made me think about this thread, and your survey:






How would you rate this version compared to the ones you have reviewed?


----------



## haziz

Thanks for this thread dedicated to one of my favorite compositions. It is unfortunate that this magnificent work is less popular now than it was in the past, both in the concert hall and on record.

My favorite recording is Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw with Krebbers on the violin, but I also thoroughly enjoy Reiner's, Ormandy, Ansermet, Gergiev and Mackerras. I probably should dig out my Mackerras' recording, I have not listened to it in a long while.

A magnificent composition that deserves to emerge from it's current relative neglect!


----------



## mbhaub

I can't understand why Scheherazade fell out of popularity, and indeed performances by major and even 2nd tier orchestras have dwindled. There are many smaller orchestras, even amateur groups, that can do it relatively well, but hearing it live with a great orchestra is still thrilling. Such beautiful music - how can anyone not like it? I get to hear it live this October. I've played it many times and I always have a good time, but I despise it when conductors decide that R-K needs orchestration help: there are any number of changes that are made - cuts even - that are just wrong (that's one reason I can never recommend Ormandy or Stokowski among other offenders). Just play it the way the composer wrote it and everything is just fine. Mackerras, Kondrashin, Reiner are all excellent and they sound fine, too. But for me the one recording that beats all the others is the 60 year old Eugene Goosens with the London Symphony. Sounds great, too.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Two recordings stand out for me:

1. Beecham: the best version I know, even if the sound isn't tip-top; and
2. Matacic: lacklustre first movt.but warms up fine after that - a special case for me as I'm (distantly) related to the conductor!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Beecham (1958) (EMI) (*****) - That Beecham touch and sensitivity works its wonders. Few if any have ever captured the ethereal dreaminess of the work like Beecham. Perhaps there is a certain lack of thrust and power compared to some others, but taken on its own merits the recording is essential listening. No consideration need be made for the 1958 sound, which is excellent and full-bodied.
> 
> Stokowski (1964) (Decca, Cala) (*****) - Stokowski is not quite as inspired as in 1951 and even a bit more mannered. However, with the vastly improved sound quality you get an invaluably vivid taste of Stokowski's way with the work. This stands among the handful of greatest stereo recordings in its thrust and passion. Essential for lovers of this work. If you value modern sound, this is the Stokowski version to get.


I agree entirely with your assessments of these two interpretations. They are my preferred choices.


----------



## Ethereality

I would remove the Stokowski and substitute this one:









Gilbert, New York Philharmonic, 2016/17


----------



## mparta

The Scheherezade in this set is out of this world. The delicacy and color are special, I think the conductor is Golovanov, but Oistrakh makes his mark.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mparta said:


> The Scheherezade in this set is out of this world. The delicacy and color are special, I think the conductor is Golovanov, but Oistrakh makes his mark.


Golovanov (1950) (Russian Classic Collection) (****1/2) - You will not find a more brazenly intense version of the work than this. Indeed, some may find it too high octane and the interpretation a bit too heavy-handed. The virtuosic playing is incredible, with the beautiful violin solo by none other than a young David Oistrakh. This is one of those versions that falls into the category of those that pack an emotional wallop but are not meant for everyday listening. The 1950 sound is quite acceptable for the time.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Here are three more reviews that were not in my original survey:

Chalabala (1953) (Supraphon) (****1/2) - Immensely characterful and exciting Czech performance in vivid mono sound with a rapturous account of the violin solo. There is a refusal to linger which occasionally gives the reading a perfunctory feel, but this nevertheless is a uniquely compelling version.

Markevitch (1962) (Decca, Doremi) (****1/2) - Strength and urgency are the hallmarks of this exciting performance with the London Symphony, vividly recorded. Some may find it somewhat lacking in charm, but there is likewise a consistency to the approach which is compelling.

Kempe (1967) (EMI, Testament) (****1/2) - A reliable choice for warm, present, sumptuous sound quality and orchestral color, even though the interpretation is somewhat lacking in inspiration.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Brahmsianhorn, did you see my post above? How would you rate this live Scheherazade with Segerstam/Sinfonica de Galicia:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AndorFoldes said:


> Brahmsianhorn, did you see my post above? How would you rate this live Scheherazade with Segerstam/Sinfonica de Galicia:


I will give it a listen. I will be honest, when I was surveying dozens of Scheherazades one after the other, it was easier to make comparisons. So hopefully I can provide a similar frame of reference without being as immersed in the work as I was during the survey.

I did listen to the Gilbert someone else mentioned and found it to be bland and lifeless. Why is that style the modern preference? I can understand emotional reticence as applied to certain other repertoire, but certainly not this one!


----------



## AndorFoldes

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I will give it a listen. I will be honest, when I was surveying dozens of Scheherazades one after the other, it was easier to make comparisons. So hopefully I can provide a similar frame of reference without being as immersed in the work as I was during the survey.


Great. I'm sure you know the piece well enough by now to give it a fair rating.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Resurrecting this thread because I am presently listening to the Ozawa/BSO recording - which I quite like and find very exciting in terms of percussion and contrabass. I would say it's my preferred version out of the 3 I own (Karajan/BPO, Reiner/CSO).

I'm also getting a bit of a Sibelius vibe out of the violins in the second act.... something I hadn't noticed before.

(FWIW, the Ozawa/BSO set on DG (8 discs) is available on Presto to download in Cd-quality FLAC for $13, and I have found it to be a very good deal at that price - it also includes an estimable Prokofiev Romeo & Juliet, and that's just what I've listened to thus far).


----------



## Apostata

Just a note of appreciation for this thread. This piece is a seminal listening experience for me and I appreciate the perspectives on the different approaches conductors took. The version I first purchased was the Ormandy 1972 w/ Philadelphia. Very happy to check these others out.


----------



## Rogerx

Apostata said:


> Just a note of appreciation for this thread. This piece is a seminal listening experience for me and I appreciate the perspectives on the different approaches conductors took. The version I first purchased was the Ormandy 1972 w/ Philadelphia. Very happy to check these others out.


Nice words from you, I should say stick around, lots of interesting topics.
So welcome to Talk Classical .


----------

