Steve Schwartz wrote: >I've never understood the preference for bland Beethoven over fine >Tchaikovsky. And you're being terribly unfair to Ormandy, who had one >of the finest recordings of the Beethoven Fourth Concerto, as well as >an affinity for Berlioz and the neoclassic Moderns. Ormandy has been terribly underrated in his stewardship of the Philadelphia Orchestra. He certainly maintained Stokowski's sound somewhat, and for a long period. There was a period, maybe in the 50s through the 60s where the Philadelphia may have been the best orchestra in the world or close to it. Admittedly, most of Europe's orchestras were down because of the war, but this is still saying something. During this period, the Chicago Symphony was deified, as was Cleveland. So, to some extent was Boston, at least in the strings. But Philadelphia was as good as any of them and maybe better. Part of the problem is that many of us knew all these orchestras solely through recordings. Chicago had the best of that venue during this period. Cleveland and Philadelphia were poorly served in comparison. RCA did magnificently by Chicago, and Orchestra Hall at the time was great for recording (if not so great for concerts). RCA had more trouble recording Boston, partly because of the difficulties they met in Symphony Hall (which is much better for concerts) and partly because RCA didn't always put their best people in Boston. Even then, who could tame that BSO brass? Cleveland and Philadelphia suffered a different fate. Of the three, I heard only Cleveland during this period, and I was shocked at how warm the orchestra sounded compared to its recordings. There was nothing cold about the sound whatsoever. Nothing. One story I heard may help explain this. (I have had told this before.) Supposedly, Szell had bookshelf speakers in his home, which he placed on the floor, thereby exaggerating the bass. Apparently, he had input into the recording process, and reacted to what he heard in his home by demanding a reduction in the bass. If true, this would explain some of the problems with the Cleveland recordings--but not all of them. Philadelphia was also ill treated by Columbia. Toward the end of Ormandy's tenure (during which he was reported not hearing very well), Philadelphia was recorded by RCA. Neither RCA nor Ormandy's declining powers helped much. EMI also recorded with Philadelphia, and those are among the best *sounding* of the Ormandy/Philadelphia years. They give us an idea. (Cleveland made at least one record for EMI, but I've never head the British pressing--I'd never evaluate an EMI recording from an American pressing). Years later, I discovered that German and Japanese pressing plans did much better with Columbia tapes than the Americans did--big surprise. Some Columbia recordings are actually very good if pressed decently. Unfortunately, I've not found any German or Japanese pressings of Cleveland or Philadelphia. CD is probably the way to go, but I've not really looked deeply into this. I should. All that said, Philadelphia may have wavered in Ormandy's last years, but it was a great orchestra in his prime if you can listen around the recordings. And many of those are underrated. Roger Hecht *********************************************** The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html