Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site olivee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!olivee!greg
From: greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Philadelphia Orchestra recordings
Message-ID: <476@olivee.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 13:02:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivee.476
Posted: Fri Sep  6 13:02:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 13:22:49 EDT
References: <830@whuxlm.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 94

> I heard recently (on National Public Radio) that Philadelphia
> Orchestra recordings were generally the best around for that
> genre.  

Best in what regard?  Sonically, interpretively, in terms of 
virtuosity of playing, or what?  Even if you were to settle on
one or more of these factors as determining "best", I'd find
it hard to accept a generalization about an orchestra that
has undergone major shifts in personnel during the time frame
you mentioned (1960-1980), been recorded by at least three
different recording companies (CBS, RCA Victor, EMI/Angel) using
a variety of recording producer/engineer teams and locales,
and has undergone a change of musical directorship that involved
two conductors of radically different musical approach and style
(Eugene Ormandy and Riccardo Muti).

I seriously question whether orchestras really have a
particular "sound" of their own, or if, in fact, the demands
of a particular conductor are not more of a determining factor.
Certainly, the sound of the Philadelphia under Muti (and as
recorded by EMI) is vastly different from that of the same
orchestra under Eugene Ormanday (and as recorded by CBS).
The "Philadelphia Sound", characterized by rich, mellow brass
sonorities and a sweet, satiny string tone, is something that
apparently first became reknowned when the orchestra was under
the direction of Leopold Stokowski.  I was born in 1952, and
therefore never heard the orchestra live during this period.
I've listened carefully to a number of recordings made at the
time and find it fascinating to hear the difference between the
playing of the orchestra under Stokowski in the early 40's
and the set of recordings the orchestra made under Toscanini
in 1942.  

Stokowski was, to my ears, a conductor who revelled in
virtuosity and a dazzling display of brilliant sonorities for
their own sake, usually at the expense of the shape and contour of the
music as the composer set it out in the score.  In this way, I
find his handling of the orchestra analogous to Heifetz' handling
of the violin and Horowitz' handling of the piano - astounding 
virtuosity in the technical mastery of an instrument and the production
of beautiful and exciting sounds, but no regard whatsoever for the
deployment of those sounds in an effective interpretation of music
as intended by the composer.  Under Stokowski's baton, the orchestra
supplied what was demanded of it.

Toscanini demanded virtuosity in that he wanted all of the notes in
an orchestral score played accurately and with the tone qualities
demanded by the score, but always within the framework necessary to
express the continuity of line and coherence of shape that are also
vital aspects of musicmaking but which were, again to my ears,
often unbearably distorted by Stokowski.  Under Toscanini's baton, 
the rich, turgid sonorities associated with the Philadelphia orchestra 
gave way to a leaner sound, amazingly precise and clear, but with a 
beauty and relaxation that were often not to be heard in his recordings 
with the NBC Symphony, good as those are.  These Toscanini/Philadephia
recordings were, incidentally, not issued at the time with the excuse
being that the masters had been somehow damaged.  It was apparently
more a political move, since the Philadelphia had, in the interim,
signed up with CBS, while RCA, having sunk a considerable amount of
money into the NBC Symphony Orchestra, wanted recordings of the same
music done with Toscanini and that orchestra.  In 1963 the Toscanini/
Philadelphia recording of the Schubert C-Major (generally referred to
as the "9th") was issued, and then, in the late 70's, RCA issued a
box of the full set.

When Ormandy took over the Philadelphia, he did not bring Stokowski's
flamboyance with him, but he did maintain a similar regard for the
actual sonorities of the orchestra that Stokowski had.  His flaccid
tempi and nebulous phrasing resulted in performances that I find
beautiful in sound but ineffective in shape and pacing.
I wouldn't compare Muti with Toscanini, since Muti does not, for my
tastes, have the same freedom from exaggeration and remarkable
consistency in realizing the shape and contour of a score in sound that
Toscanini did.  Nonetheless, he does demand, and get, a much leaner
and more precise sound from the orchestra than Ormandy did.  In fact,
those who liked the lush string tone under Ormandy may find the sinewy
sound Muti gets from the strings harsh and abrasive.

I've gone a good bit into Philadelphia history just to make the point
that, while you may enjoy a number of Philadelphia recordings, I wouldn't
recommend limiting yourself to one orchestra for the entire
symphonic repertoire.  In the case of the Stravinsky "Firebird", there
is also the opulent sounding playing of the New York Philharmonic under
Boulez that has an unrivalled rhythmic precision (VERY different from
the same orchestra under Zubin Mehta), or the power, clarity and
beauty of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra under Colin Davis that
should be heard.  Likewise, in the case of the Mussorgsky "Pictures",
there are the radically different performances the Chicago Symphony
recorded (admittedly with major gaps in time) under Reiner, Giulini 
and Solti that offer orchestral virtuosity beyond that of the 
Philadelphia but illustrate the different sounds the same orchestra
produced under different conductors.

	- Greg Paley