William Hong wrote:

>Psychologically, the old scores are a big hurdle for me too when
>listening  to these recordings....gads, even the keyboard solo in
>the finale of #98 is  totally missing!  It doesn't help that EMI
>recorded the first half dozen of  the Londons in mono in 1958, when
>they were perfectly capable of giving Sir Thomas a stereo take.

Perhaps this why I only included some of the later London numbers in my
Haydn hit list under the 'Paris Symphonies' Thread.

I still think that Beecham's version of 101 is an incredible disc dispite
the variations from the correct score.

In Beecham's hands this work takes on an air of mystery.  The world is
changing and we know we are on the verge of a musical change.  The French
revolution is over and the Industrial Revolution is here.  (I think steam
age machinery when I hear the 'Clock' andante.) Haydn to Beethoven becomes
seamless and Haydn's role as a great master of change becomes clear.

Again, in Beecham's hands, 103 with its menacing drum roll is a
proto-romantic work.  A feeling that no one else quite captures.

The sound quality of these 1950's recordings is another matter.  If you
listen to a Frank Sinatra recording (remastered on CD) from the early
'50s you find superb quality with zero distortion and no tape hiss.

When you listen to a classical recording the sound is usually dire.
(There are odd exceptions like Britten's own recording of Noye's Flude.)
I would suggest the reason for this is purely one of economics.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]