Roger Hecht writes:

>>I mentioned a lot of Mehta recordings I've liked, but I'll admit that much
>>I find admirable about them is their sound.  AFter all, in the world of
>>audiophiles, it's always nice to find a performance that resembles live,
>>even if you have to give a notch musically. ...
>>
>>Anyone who loves orchestral music and can afford to do so must hear them
>>live in the Musikverein.  Such a sound I've never heard on earth before or
>>since.

And Norman Schwartz wrote:

>Can these two statements be reconciled? Is the VPO so good because the
>audio is good? Perhaps, (and rather unlikely), the VPO sounds good and
>unified because the sound is "forgiving" rather than being "analytical".

I'm not sure I follow this question.  I could be missing the point.  In any
case I should clarify mine.  In the first statement, I probably understated
Mehta's contribution because I was pushing the audio point.  Make no
mistake.  If the performances were not very good, I'd have no interest in
these recordings, great sound or not.  They are very good.

I have heard the Vienna Philharmonic in the Musikverein, the Vienna State
Opera, Boston's Symphony Hall and New York's Carnegie.  I found them
fabulous in all four, particularly the Musikverein and in Boston.  They
always played with a rare passion and a glorious sound, and when well
conducted they are just marvelously musical.  But in the Musikverein, you
hear all this and more.  And I wouldn't call the hall just forgiving.  It
transcends that.  There is beauty of tone and clarity.  Many have called it
the world's greatest hall, ahead of the Concertgebouw and Symphony Hall,
and I agree.

Halls do make a difference. Just as audiophiles have discovered that
listening rooms do. They are part of the experience. But the VPO is part of
the magic, no doubt about it. That I have felt everywhere I've heard them.

Roger Hecht