Leon Fleisher, piano; George Szell, The Cleveland
Orchestra. HDTT 4311.
This review is dedicated to the memory of Leon Fleisher, who passed away on August 1, 2020.
By Bill Heck
Brahms’s music, especially his comparatively earlier works,
are the products of a passionate nature. Oh yes, I know, I know the image: Papa
Brahms, the bearded, cigar smoking figure creating dense orchestrations, with
“passionate” being the last word that might come to mind. But one listen to the
opening of this concerto, or of, say, the First Symphony, should dispel
that image. Surely the first movement of the First Piano Concerto, and
even more so the Andante of the Second Piano Concerto, suggest
conversations between two lovers, the first a fiery one of youth, the latter
more mature but even more deeply felt. (I leave to others the speculation that
the love interest was Clara Schumann.)
Similarly, George Szell seems to have had a reputation as a coldly analytical interpreter of classics. But how could anyone possibly hear this recording and think that? Szell and his Clevelanders understood the smoldering passion of Brahms’s music and delivered the performance that it deserves – and they had the chops to do it. One of the most precisely honed orchestras of the 20th century, the Cleveland players dig in from the start, clarifying Brahms’ complex passages with impeccable playing, the relatively quick but never rushed tempos befitting an irresistible force. Fleisher provides a counterpoint: plenty of power when needed, but grace and delicacy in quieter moments.
I distinctly remember finding a copy of this performance on
the Odyssey label, at that time Columbia’s bargain imprint. In hindsight, I
suppose that the sound was wretched, even by the standards of the day, but it
didn’t matter. As the opening notes crashed from the speakers, the hair on the
nape of my neck rose: the musical gods had descended from Olympus to play for
us. That initial shock wore off, but I remain convinced that the
Fleisher/Szell/Cleveland recording is one of the classics.
But if the good news is that the performance is wonderful, the bad news is that Columbia in 1957 (HDTT has it as 1958) was not in the forefront of great recorded sound. Their recordings of the Cleveland Orchestra were particularly concerning, with a sad tendency toward wiry highs and missing lows. (Legend has it that Szell himself was part of the problem. Supposedly his mono audio system had one speaker sitting directly on the floor, which led him to complain about muddy sound, with predictable adjustments by the recording engineers.) Fortunately, when Sony acquired the Columbia catalog some years ago, they remixed and reissued many of the recordings of the earlier era. I have the resulting set of the Concertos 1 and 2 in a double cardboard sleeve with copious liner notes – nice job, Sony! – and that version remains available, minus the cardboard packaging. The same performance, in what I believe to be the same remastering, has shown up in various compilations and combinations ever since. So how does the HDTT high-resolution transfer stack up in comparison?
Such a simple question, but surprisingly complicated to answer. Remember that the Sony version(s) seem to have gone through a complete remastering, while the HDTT transfer is taken directly from an early generation tape, described as “Transferred from a 4 track tape.” Even a cursory comparison shows that the Sony engineers, for reasons that are understandable but with effects both good and bad, made some significant adjustments. The most obvious is a redoing of tonal balance. The HDTT version, which I assume is closer to the original, exhibits a significant resonance in the upper bass/lower midrange, giving the sounds a “tubby” character. This effect, in turn, more obviously betrays the tape’s age. It just sounds like an old recording; by comparison, the Sony version sounds more modern. The question of tonal balance is not a complete showstopper, but it certainly is noticeable. Moreover, the HDTT is pitched slightly lower than the Sony version. That’s not a big deal for those not blessed with perfect pitch, but it is immediately apparent on comparison. Next, on the HDTT version, the upper strings (violins) are slightly more likely to shriek, sounding more aggressive than in real life. And finally, the piano is a little farther forward – not in a good sense, as it obviously was close-miked.
So far, the Sony version is ahead on points. Indeed, if you
never heard the HDTT version, you certainly could appreciate, even love, the
performance as rendered by Sony. (If I could be awed by that Odyssey LP, the
Sony CD certainly should impress!)
But. Further listening to the HDTT version slowly revealed its virtues. I found that I was hearing many details just a little more clearly, that the image had just a little more depth. The lower strings, cellos and double basses were a little easier to follow. The dynamic range, at least subjectively, seemed greater. When I returned to the Sony version, it sounded comparatively flat, somewhat two-dimensional, in comparison to the slightly more lifelike HDTT sound. As a bonus, the quieter passages for solo piano in HDTT sound were simply wonderful. For example, at about 5:45 in the first movement, the piano plays alone, gradually joined by the softest of accompaniments from the orchestra. Fleisher’s work in this section is heart-stoppingly beautiful, a wonder of pianistic touch. That beauty comes through in the Sony version, but it comes through even more clearly in the HDTT transfer.
So which version is “better”? Clearly the overall tonal balance of the remastered Sony version simply is superior. It took me awhile to get past the unfortunate balance of the HDTT transfer, and I can imagine that some listeners might never make the adjustment. The Sony version generally sounds more tidied up, more modern. But. But. But…those details, that depth, seeing – or rather hearing – just a little further into the music….
In the description above, you will have noticed repeated use of terms such as “slight” and “a little”; that was intentional, as the differences that work in favor of the HDTT version were not blindingly obvious at first listen. In the end, while I could understand another’s decision to stay with the commercial CD, I would go for the HDTT transfer.
BH
This review is dedicated to the memory of Leon Fleisher, who passed away on August 1, 2020.
By Bill Heck
Similarly, George Szell seems to have had a reputation as a coldly analytical interpreter of classics. But how could anyone possibly hear this recording and think that? Szell and his Clevelanders understood the smoldering passion of Brahms’s music and delivered the performance that it deserves – and they had the chops to do it. One of the most precisely honed orchestras of the 20th century, the Cleveland players dig in from the start, clarifying Brahms’ complex passages with impeccable playing, the relatively quick but never rushed tempos befitting an irresistible force. Fleisher provides a counterpoint: plenty of power when needed, but grace and delicacy in quieter moments.
But if the good news is that the performance is wonderful, the bad news is that Columbia in 1957 (HDTT has it as 1958) was not in the forefront of great recorded sound. Their recordings of the Cleveland Orchestra were particularly concerning, with a sad tendency toward wiry highs and missing lows. (Legend has it that Szell himself was part of the problem. Supposedly his mono audio system had one speaker sitting directly on the floor, which led him to complain about muddy sound, with predictable adjustments by the recording engineers.) Fortunately, when Sony acquired the Columbia catalog some years ago, they remixed and reissued many of the recordings of the earlier era. I have the resulting set of the Concertos 1 and 2 in a double cardboard sleeve with copious liner notes – nice job, Sony! – and that version remains available, minus the cardboard packaging. The same performance, in what I believe to be the same remastering, has shown up in various compilations and combinations ever since. So how does the HDTT high-resolution transfer stack up in comparison?
Such a simple question, but surprisingly complicated to answer. Remember that the Sony version(s) seem to have gone through a complete remastering, while the HDTT transfer is taken directly from an early generation tape, described as “Transferred from a 4 track tape.” Even a cursory comparison shows that the Sony engineers, for reasons that are understandable but with effects both good and bad, made some significant adjustments. The most obvious is a redoing of tonal balance. The HDTT version, which I assume is closer to the original, exhibits a significant resonance in the upper bass/lower midrange, giving the sounds a “tubby” character. This effect, in turn, more obviously betrays the tape’s age. It just sounds like an old recording; by comparison, the Sony version sounds more modern. The question of tonal balance is not a complete showstopper, but it certainly is noticeable. Moreover, the HDTT is pitched slightly lower than the Sony version. That’s not a big deal for those not blessed with perfect pitch, but it is immediately apparent on comparison. Next, on the HDTT version, the upper strings (violins) are slightly more likely to shriek, sounding more aggressive than in real life. And finally, the piano is a little farther forward – not in a good sense, as it obviously was close-miked.
But. Further listening to the HDTT version slowly revealed its virtues. I found that I was hearing many details just a little more clearly, that the image had just a little more depth. The lower strings, cellos and double basses were a little easier to follow. The dynamic range, at least subjectively, seemed greater. When I returned to the Sony version, it sounded comparatively flat, somewhat two-dimensional, in comparison to the slightly more lifelike HDTT sound. As a bonus, the quieter passages for solo piano in HDTT sound were simply wonderful. For example, at about 5:45 in the first movement, the piano plays alone, gradually joined by the softest of accompaniments from the orchestra. Fleisher’s work in this section is heart-stoppingly beautiful, a wonder of pianistic touch. That beauty comes through in the Sony version, but it comes through even more clearly in the HDTT transfer.
So which version is “better”? Clearly the overall tonal balance of the remastered Sony version simply is superior. It took me awhile to get past the unfortunate balance of the HDTT transfer, and I can imagine that some listeners might never make the adjustment. The Sony version generally sounds more tidied up, more modern. But. But. But…those details, that depth, seeing – or rather hearing – just a little further into the music….
In the description above, you will have noticed repeated use of terms such as “slight” and “a little”; that was intentional, as the differences that work in favor of the HDTT version were not blindingly obvious at first listen. In the end, while I could understand another’s decision to stay with the commercial CD, I would go for the HDTT transfer.
BH
The story I've heard is that Szell's speaker was behind a well-padded couch, which led him to demand more treble when he heard test pressings.
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard the HDTT version, but the remastering in the big Szell box is a big improvement over the previous 2-CD set.