Also, MacMillan: Larghetto for Orchestra. Manfred Honeck, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. Reference Recordings FR-744SACD.
By Karl W. Nehring and Bill Heck
The album according to Karl:
This will be a review of this new release from two perspectives. My good friend and colleague Bill Heck and I were excited to see this new recording of the Brahms Fourth, a work we both hold in high regard, by the esteemed Pittsburgh Symphony under Manfred Honeck on Reference Recordings, a label we also hold in high regard. After a brief telephone conversation about the recording based on our first quick listens (mine only in my car), we decided that we would speak no more of it to each other and instead write independent reviews that we would not reveal to each other until they were posted. So here we go…
This recording made two immediate impressions on me. I loved its energy and drive, but I thought it sounded different from any other version with which I was familiar. My mental image of this work is of a sound that is led by the strings, especially the violins; however, on this version, the winds and brass seemed to carry pretty much equal weight. My immediate impression was that Honeck was fussing with things, perhaps trying to make his version stand out from the rest of the pack by bringing background parts to the forefront. However, my first impressions were admittedly based on listening in the car, and then my mono Bluetooth speaker (circumstances kept me away at first from my big system but I really wanted to hear the performance so I started listening right away on whatever gear was close at hand). On my car system, though, I was able to do a quick comparison to the Carlos Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra version, and from that DG recording I heard much more of the string-driven sound I had remembered.
When I finally got the chance to listen to the CD layer of the Honeck disc on my home system, I found myself becoming conflicted about just what to think, at least in terms of its sound quality. On the one hand, the sound is dynamic, rich, and full. On the other hand, the stereo imaging is a bit strange, a curious blend of a distant, reverberant hall sound (this is a live recording taken from concert performances) combined with what seems to be spotlighting of different sections of the orchestra, resulting in a sound something like a combination of the Telarc and London Phase 4 approaches. The liner notes from Soundmirror (the engineering firm Reference Recordings employs in Pittsburgh) offer a hint as to what might be going on: “While an important goal is to truthfully represent the acoustical event in the hall, another is to capture the composer's intention reflected in the score and its realization by the performer. To achieve these goals, extensive collaboration and communication between the artists and the recording team are of utmost importance. Based on our long experience of recording the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra in Heinz Hall, we chose five omnidirectional DPA 4006 microphones as our main microphones as our main microphone array. Supplementing those with ‘spot mics’ to clarify the detail of the orchestration, we worked towards realizing the above goals. Extensive listening sessions with Maestro Honeck and orchestra musicians were crucial in refining the final balance.”
I must say, though, that the more I listened to this recording, the less I fussed over nuances of the stereo imaging, and the more I enjoyed the performance, which I found compelling, and yes, the sound, which as I indicated above, is dynamic, rich, and full. Still, although I enjoyed the dynamism of the performance, I found myself wondering how it would compare to some other versions I had on hand, so I spent a good amount of time listening to several other recordings for the sake of comparing both sound and performance. I will now offer some capsule commentaries on those before concluding with my final thoughts on this new Reference Recordings release.
Carlos Kleiber, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. Deutsche Grammophon D 103114 (1981). This has long been a favorite version of many classical music lovers (crazily enough, while combing through boxes of CDs this past spring, I discovered that I had somehow acquired three copies of it). Kleiber’s version favors the strings, which have a rich, luxuriant sound. The engineering is not bad, but is nothing special. There is some sense of depth, but not to the extent of the other recordings. Overall, Kleiber brings some excitement and energy to the score, but at least to these ears, his recording no longer leads the field.
Leopold Stokowski, New Philharmonia Orchestra. RCA Victor Gold Seal 09026-62606-2 (1974). First, a quick caveat. The disc I auditioned is CD1 of a 2-CD set that also includes an excellent version of the Mahler Symphony No. 2. It purports to be digitally remastered to be optimized for Dolby Surround, although compatible for stereo. I’m not sure whether some of the sonic anomalies I noticed might be attributable to that remix. Those anomalies include some edginess to the treble and a tendency for the sound of the strings to bunch toward the middle of the image. The bass is not as full as would be ideal, but overall, the sound quality is not bad; it is just not as good as it seems it should have been, and I can’t help but wonder what a good remastering for stereo might sound like. That said, this is a dynamite performance, lively, colorful, and energetic. The ending of the first movement is rousing, the third movement has a marvelous transparency, and the finale builds to a passionate climax.
Fritz Reiner, The Royal Philharmonic. Chesky CD6 (1962). This performance was originally released on a Reader’s Digest LP in the 1960s, then later by RCA in several LP incarnations (I once owned and loved their Quintessence LP version back in my vinyl days)., In 1987, Chesky Records released both LP and CD remasterings; sadly, though, they are now out of print (Bill and I auditioned a library copy). However, JJP reviewed an HDTT remastering of this recording, you can read that review here. Both the sound and the performance are top-drawer, Although the sound is not quite as dynamic or full-range as the Reference Recordings disc, the imaging and overall balance are more natural. Reiner, like Stokowski, takes things at a lively clip, and the end result is quite exhilarating.
John Axelrod, Orchestra Sinfonica di Milano Giuseppe Verdi. Telarc TEL-34658-02 9 (2013). Who? Conducting whom? On Telarc? John Axelrod (b. 1966) is an American conductor who recorded a unique cycle of Brahms symphonies for in Italy for Telarc. The cycle comprised two 2-CD sets, each CD featuring a Brahms symphony recorded live in concert plus several Lieder by Clara Schumann featuring a soprano accompanied by Axelrod on piano. In general, Axelrod’s interpretation of Symphony No. 4 is more lyrical and less driven than those above, with more of a flowing, relaxed, singing quality. The sonics were a bit strange, however. Although the tonal balance was just fine, rich and full, the sound strings emanated from the middle of the stage and the rest of the orchestra often seemed to come from the left or right. I’m just not sure what the engineers were thinking on this one. It’s far from unlistenable, just a bit quirky sounding, with a smooth performance of the Brahms and an interesting, engagingly entertaining coupling.
Charles Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Telarc CD-80450 (1997). Partially to clear my ears of the big, brash sounds of the above recordings, and partially just to gain another perspective on the music itself, I decided to pull out the venerable chamber orchestra recording led by the esteemed Sir Charles Mackerras. This is a Telarc recording that sounds like a Telarc recording (unlike the Axelrod), with excellent imaging. Although the smaller forces result in an overall sound that lacks weight in comparison to the larger orchestras, they play with energy and drive. The sound of the horns stands out, giving off a more blatty than burnished sound; it made me smile, although I suppose others might react differently. And oh, that second movement… My goodness, Mackerras really nails it!
If the Stokowski were engineered a bit better (a little less brightness, a better stereo mix), it would be my first choice, and it is coupled with some truly outstanding Mahler. The Reiner is also terrific, and sounds amazingly good, but is hard to come by. The Kleiber has a more mainstream kind of sound, and the recording is not bad, just not in the same class as Honeck, Reiner, or Mackerras. Still, it is a safe choice, especially for those coming to the symphony for the first time. The Mackerras is a wonderful performance and recording, but (a) is a chamber orchestra performance that offers an interesting perspective but might prove unsatisfying to those looking for a “big” sound and (b) is part of a boxed set of the complete symphonies that is sadly out of print although not as hard to find as the Reiner. But for those who love the work and perhaps own several recordings of the Brahms symphonies, the Mackerras set on Telarc would be well worth seeking out. For those looking for a more lyrical take on Brahms, Axelrod is an interesting alternative, although the availability of his recordings is a bit dodgy. For those interested in such things, I have included a comparative table of movement timings for these recordings below.
Although my focus has been on the Brahms, this release also includes the Larghetto for Orchestra by the Scottish composer James MacMillan (b. 1959). At just under 15 minutes, it is an arrangement of a composition that the composer explains was originally a choral piece, “imbued with the singing quality of the original piece, but is also shaped by its sad and lamenting character.” It is somber in mood, quite a contrast to the rousing finale of the Brahms. Pleasant enough to listen to, but to be honest, I’m not quite sure why it was included on this release. No harm, no foul….
Okay, then, back to the Brahms, the primary focus of this review. Having considered several alternative recordings, where does this Honeck version fit in? What kind of recommendation does it earn? The short answers are: near the top; and yes, it is recommended. The long answers are a bit more complicated, so allow me to offer a bit more explanation. The Honeck is a powerful performance that really brings the score to life, and the engineering, although a mite puzzling, as described above, is still very impressive and certainly revealing of the score. As I listened to this recording, I found myself getting more and more excited about the Brahms Fourth. What a rousing symphony! The way it was conducted, performed, and recorded made me feel as though I was hearing it in a way I had never heard it before, the aural equivalent of wearing X-ray specs. However, I never could quite shake the feeling that this was not quite the way it was really supposed to sound. The brass and woodwinds really were not meant to have quite that much prominence. I would also point out the liner notes, in which Maestro Honeck goes into a great amount of detail about the work and his approach to conducting it. In the end, then, I would recommend this recording as one that a person who likes the Brahms Fourth really ought to hear, but I would not recommend it as the first recording for someone just discovering classical music.
KWN
The album according to Bill:
I must admit that it has been difficult to figure out what to say about this recording. I’ve seen a lot of buzz about it; even though I’ve avoided reading other reviews before writing mine, the headlines have been obvious. Indeed, there is much to love: the interpretation is better than solid; the liner notes written by Maestro Honeck are insightful, an education unto themselves; the playing is exemplary; and Reference Recordings is a label that has produced scores of excellent recordings. And yet, and yet….
Honeck’s notes refer to his desire to bring out the inner details, details which often are difficult to hear. He’s certainly right about the potential difficulty, and it is a tough balancing act to play this work in a way that allows the listener, without benefit of a score, to hear everything that’s going on without losing the thread of the work as a whole. But to make a long story somewhat shorter, and to severely strain a metaphor, I fear that this recording goes too far in the direction of pulling out the individual threads and loses wholeness of the cloth.
This issue – and it may be idiosyncratic – is most noticeable in the first movement. It's one thing to bring out the inner voices of, say, the woodwinds or the lower strings. It's another when the violins sink into inaudibility, which happens around the 6-minute mark. (There are multiple measures of rests in there; I’m referring to the parts in which the violins are indeed playing.) Another instance is around the 7-minute mark: yes, the string parts are marked pp, but the horns and brass also are pp and the latter simply dominate. Again, as we approach the final sustained notes at the end of the movement, the brasses are prominent enough to mask the upper strings almost completely.
In a similar vein, the low end where the double basses reside is a little too “audiophile.” Some so-called audiophile recordings display what seems like an elevated low end, the better to show off the bass capabilities of the audiophile’s system; think humungous bass drums on a few Telarc discs. (Of course, the more enthusiastic audiophiles rarely admit that maybe there can be too much of a good thing.) To my ears, some of the notes in the lower registers of the double basses bloom out too forcefully, exhibiting what sounds remarkably like a resonance at certain frequencies, something that I've never heard in a concert hall and do not hear in other recordings of this work. Not only does all this make the basses sound just too up-front, but they also feel detached from the rest of the orchestra.
More generally, there are times when the parts don't seem to quite coalesce. The brass, the strings, the woodwinds: all well-defined and yet somehow they all seem to be in separate places, not quite blending into one orchestra. Are those woodwinds and brasses staying back where they belong, or are they occasionally sneaking up to the front of the stage, the better to be heard? Of course, that’s an exaggeration to convey the impression, but you get the idea.
Should we attribute these issues to the conducting and playing or instead to the recording? Frankly, I can’t tell, although surely the latter is not helping matters.
Having taken on the role of skunk at the picnic (we’ll leave still more graphic images for another time), I’ll turn to more positive thoughts. And as I’ve been writing about sound, I’ll start with the positives there. The overall sound in the usual hi-fi terms is exemplary: smooth highs, the lows anything but missing, wonderful detail.
Moving on to other positives, the interpretation sounds well thought out and the results are mostly both lovely and powerful. The first movement truly is well-played, managing to sound fresh without crossing over to completely uncharted territory. Sometimes efforts to illuminate well-known works with fresh insights end up sounding just wacky; not so here. The little details that Honeck describes are within the mainstream of interpretation, but still add up to a version offering new perspectives.
Honeck’s notes speak of the vocal nature of the second movement, and that seems absolutely correct. Oh, I could quibble about the opening four measures featuring the horns, which to me seem a bit brusque. But that is one of the very few missteps that I noticed, and things improve quickly, with the orchestra truly singing. To take just one small example, the “exchanges” between the instrumental groups around 4:30 and onward are particularly well executed, allowing the music to flow so smoothly. Yet once in a while, the sonic issues that I worried about pop up again, mostly in more benign form, but present nonetheless. Just how did those woodwinds get into the front row – I thought they were behind the strings? And about those basses….
Speaking of the second movement, revisiting the Szell / Cleveland recording, preferably the sonically improved remastering from 2018, provides an interesting contrast. Not that it’s “better” than the Honeck / Pittsburgh one, but it is heartrendingly wistful, another take on some wonderful music.
The third movement takes off quickly and dramatically, but with never a hint of strain: it truly is rousing, by turns joyful, determined, and yes, even humorous. The occasional clouds of a minor key never really disturb the bright day filled with vitality. Interestingly, the sound that I found problematic earlier serves the music better here: the thrumming drums a little over four minutes in are particularly effective and don’t seem at all out of place.
In the fourth movement, the variations that make up the movement are particularly well-defined: again, the sound that seemed problematic earlier may help to clarify what’s going on – although, still, in a few spots, I felt that lack of coherence mentioned earlier. At any rate, the playing certainly is beyond reproach. For example, there is some particularly lovely flute and woodwind work starting around the four-minute mark, and the horns that follow immediately after do a very nice job indeed; these are just a few instances in which the technical ability of the Pittsburgh forces is fully on display. Moreover, there’s no shortage of drama, with sudden outbursts and huge dynamic contrasts. The quick tempi may bother some: for me, the movement seems on the border of sounding rushed, while some might find that it crosses that border. Still, Honeck is hardly off the beaten path in this regard: although he takes a brisk 9:34 for the entire movement; the widely acclaimed Kleiber / Vienna version beats that at 9:14. (However, I should note that Kleiber starts off at what seems a slightly slower pace, making up the time as things move along; subjectively, this seems not quite so brisk as the version under review.) In contrast, Klemperer takes a full minute more at 10:24, while my beloved Szell is even more leisurely at 10:34. The faster versions convey more straight-ahead drama; the slower ones perhaps deliver a more Hitchcockian sense of slowly approaching fate or disaster, even spookiness. If you haven’t heard both approaches, you should.
So where does all this leave us? The recording has grown on me since my first hearing: as I mentioned earlier, there is much to like. But for myself, I fear that the concerns about the sound and balances are deal breakers for a long-lasting relationship.
BH
To listen to a brief excerpt from this album, click here:
By Karl W. Nehring and Bill Heck
The album according to Karl:
This recording made two immediate impressions on me. I loved its energy and drive, but I thought it sounded different from any other version with which I was familiar. My mental image of this work is of a sound that is led by the strings, especially the violins; however, on this version, the winds and brass seemed to carry pretty much equal weight. My immediate impression was that Honeck was fussing with things, perhaps trying to make his version stand out from the rest of the pack by bringing background parts to the forefront. However, my first impressions were admittedly based on listening in the car, and then my mono Bluetooth speaker (circumstances kept me away at first from my big system but I really wanted to hear the performance so I started listening right away on whatever gear was close at hand). On my car system, though, I was able to do a quick comparison to the Carlos Kleiber/Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra version, and from that DG recording I heard much more of the string-driven sound I had remembered.
When I finally got the chance to listen to the CD layer of the Honeck disc on my home system, I found myself becoming conflicted about just what to think, at least in terms of its sound quality. On the one hand, the sound is dynamic, rich, and full. On the other hand, the stereo imaging is a bit strange, a curious blend of a distant, reverberant hall sound (this is a live recording taken from concert performances) combined with what seems to be spotlighting of different sections of the orchestra, resulting in a sound something like a combination of the Telarc and London Phase 4 approaches. The liner notes from Soundmirror (the engineering firm Reference Recordings employs in Pittsburgh) offer a hint as to what might be going on: “While an important goal is to truthfully represent the acoustical event in the hall, another is to capture the composer's intention reflected in the score and its realization by the performer. To achieve these goals, extensive collaboration and communication between the artists and the recording team are of utmost importance. Based on our long experience of recording the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra in Heinz Hall, we chose five omnidirectional DPA 4006 microphones as our main microphones as our main microphone array. Supplementing those with ‘spot mics’ to clarify the detail of the orchestration, we worked towards realizing the above goals. Extensive listening sessions with Maestro Honeck and orchestra musicians were crucial in refining the final balance.”
I must say, though, that the more I listened to this recording, the less I fussed over nuances of the stereo imaging, and the more I enjoyed the performance, which I found compelling, and yes, the sound, which as I indicated above, is dynamic, rich, and full. Still, although I enjoyed the dynamism of the performance, I found myself wondering how it would compare to some other versions I had on hand, so I spent a good amount of time listening to several other recordings for the sake of comparing both sound and performance. I will now offer some capsule commentaries on those before concluding with my final thoughts on this new Reference Recordings release.
Carlos Kleiber, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. Deutsche Grammophon D 103114 (1981). This has long been a favorite version of many classical music lovers (crazily enough, while combing through boxes of CDs this past spring, I discovered that I had somehow acquired three copies of it). Kleiber’s version favors the strings, which have a rich, luxuriant sound. The engineering is not bad, but is nothing special. There is some sense of depth, but not to the extent of the other recordings. Overall, Kleiber brings some excitement and energy to the score, but at least to these ears, his recording no longer leads the field.
Leopold Stokowski, New Philharmonia Orchestra. RCA Victor Gold Seal 09026-62606-2 (1974). First, a quick caveat. The disc I auditioned is CD1 of a 2-CD set that also includes an excellent version of the Mahler Symphony No. 2. It purports to be digitally remastered to be optimized for Dolby Surround, although compatible for stereo. I’m not sure whether some of the sonic anomalies I noticed might be attributable to that remix. Those anomalies include some edginess to the treble and a tendency for the sound of the strings to bunch toward the middle of the image. The bass is not as full as would be ideal, but overall, the sound quality is not bad; it is just not as good as it seems it should have been, and I can’t help but wonder what a good remastering for stereo might sound like. That said, this is a dynamite performance, lively, colorful, and energetic. The ending of the first movement is rousing, the third movement has a marvelous transparency, and the finale builds to a passionate climax.
Fritz Reiner, The Royal Philharmonic. Chesky CD6 (1962). This performance was originally released on a Reader’s Digest LP in the 1960s, then later by RCA in several LP incarnations (I once owned and loved their Quintessence LP version back in my vinyl days)., In 1987, Chesky Records released both LP and CD remasterings; sadly, though, they are now out of print (Bill and I auditioned a library copy). However, JJP reviewed an HDTT remastering of this recording, you can read that review here. Both the sound and the performance are top-drawer, Although the sound is not quite as dynamic or full-range as the Reference Recordings disc, the imaging and overall balance are more natural. Reiner, like Stokowski, takes things at a lively clip, and the end result is quite exhilarating.
John Axelrod, Orchestra Sinfonica di Milano Giuseppe Verdi. Telarc TEL-34658-02 9 (2013). Who? Conducting whom? On Telarc? John Axelrod (b. 1966) is an American conductor who recorded a unique cycle of Brahms symphonies for in Italy for Telarc. The cycle comprised two 2-CD sets, each CD featuring a Brahms symphony recorded live in concert plus several Lieder by Clara Schumann featuring a soprano accompanied by Axelrod on piano. In general, Axelrod’s interpretation of Symphony No. 4 is more lyrical and less driven than those above, with more of a flowing, relaxed, singing quality. The sonics were a bit strange, however. Although the tonal balance was just fine, rich and full, the sound strings emanated from the middle of the stage and the rest of the orchestra often seemed to come from the left or right. I’m just not sure what the engineers were thinking on this one. It’s far from unlistenable, just a bit quirky sounding, with a smooth performance of the Brahms and an interesting, engagingly entertaining coupling.
Charles Mackerras, Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Telarc CD-80450 (1997). Partially to clear my ears of the big, brash sounds of the above recordings, and partially just to gain another perspective on the music itself, I decided to pull out the venerable chamber orchestra recording led by the esteemed Sir Charles Mackerras. This is a Telarc recording that sounds like a Telarc recording (unlike the Axelrod), with excellent imaging. Although the smaller forces result in an overall sound that lacks weight in comparison to the larger orchestras, they play with energy and drive. The sound of the horns stands out, giving off a more blatty than burnished sound; it made me smile, although I suppose others might react differently. And oh, that second movement… My goodness, Mackerras really nails it!
If the Stokowski were engineered a bit better (a little less brightness, a better stereo mix), it would be my first choice, and it is coupled with some truly outstanding Mahler. The Reiner is also terrific, and sounds amazingly good, but is hard to come by. The Kleiber has a more mainstream kind of sound, and the recording is not bad, just not in the same class as Honeck, Reiner, or Mackerras. Still, it is a safe choice, especially for those coming to the symphony for the first time. The Mackerras is a wonderful performance and recording, but (a) is a chamber orchestra performance that offers an interesting perspective but might prove unsatisfying to those looking for a “big” sound and (b) is part of a boxed set of the complete symphonies that is sadly out of print although not as hard to find as the Reiner. But for those who love the work and perhaps own several recordings of the Brahms symphonies, the Mackerras set on Telarc would be well worth seeking out. For those looking for a more lyrical take on Brahms, Axelrod is an interesting alternative, although the availability of his recordings is a bit dodgy. For those interested in such things, I have included a comparative table of movement timings for these recordings below.
| Honeck | Kleiber | Stokowski | Reiner | Axelrod | Mackerras |
I | 12:38 | 12:45 | 10:48 | 11:11 | 13:16 | 12:02 |
II | 11:06 | 11:19 | 11:54 | 12:40 | 12:33 | 10:38 |
III | 5:54 | 6:04 | 6:00 | 6:28 | 6:26 | 6:05 |
IV | 9:26 | 9:12 | 8:56 | 9:44 | 10:05 | 10:06 |
Although my focus has been on the Brahms, this release also includes the Larghetto for Orchestra by the Scottish composer James MacMillan (b. 1959). At just under 15 minutes, it is an arrangement of a composition that the composer explains was originally a choral piece, “imbued with the singing quality of the original piece, but is also shaped by its sad and lamenting character.” It is somber in mood, quite a contrast to the rousing finale of the Brahms. Pleasant enough to listen to, but to be honest, I’m not quite sure why it was included on this release. No harm, no foul….
Okay, then, back to the Brahms, the primary focus of this review. Having considered several alternative recordings, where does this Honeck version fit in? What kind of recommendation does it earn? The short answers are: near the top; and yes, it is recommended. The long answers are a bit more complicated, so allow me to offer a bit more explanation. The Honeck is a powerful performance that really brings the score to life, and the engineering, although a mite puzzling, as described above, is still very impressive and certainly revealing of the score. As I listened to this recording, I found myself getting more and more excited about the Brahms Fourth. What a rousing symphony! The way it was conducted, performed, and recorded made me feel as though I was hearing it in a way I had never heard it before, the aural equivalent of wearing X-ray specs. However, I never could quite shake the feeling that this was not quite the way it was really supposed to sound. The brass and woodwinds really were not meant to have quite that much prominence. I would also point out the liner notes, in which Maestro Honeck goes into a great amount of detail about the work and his approach to conducting it. In the end, then, I would recommend this recording as one that a person who likes the Brahms Fourth really ought to hear, but I would not recommend it as the first recording for someone just discovering classical music.
KWN
The album according to Bill:
Honeck’s notes refer to his desire to bring out the inner details, details which often are difficult to hear. He’s certainly right about the potential difficulty, and it is a tough balancing act to play this work in a way that allows the listener, without benefit of a score, to hear everything that’s going on without losing the thread of the work as a whole. But to make a long story somewhat shorter, and to severely strain a metaphor, I fear that this recording goes too far in the direction of pulling out the individual threads and loses wholeness of the cloth.
This issue – and it may be idiosyncratic – is most noticeable in the first movement. It's one thing to bring out the inner voices of, say, the woodwinds or the lower strings. It's another when the violins sink into inaudibility, which happens around the 6-minute mark. (There are multiple measures of rests in there; I’m referring to the parts in which the violins are indeed playing.) Another instance is around the 7-minute mark: yes, the string parts are marked pp, but the horns and brass also are pp and the latter simply dominate. Again, as we approach the final sustained notes at the end of the movement, the brasses are prominent enough to mask the upper strings almost completely.
In a similar vein, the low end where the double basses reside is a little too “audiophile.” Some so-called audiophile recordings display what seems like an elevated low end, the better to show off the bass capabilities of the audiophile’s system; think humungous bass drums on a few Telarc discs. (Of course, the more enthusiastic audiophiles rarely admit that maybe there can be too much of a good thing.) To my ears, some of the notes in the lower registers of the double basses bloom out too forcefully, exhibiting what sounds remarkably like a resonance at certain frequencies, something that I've never heard in a concert hall and do not hear in other recordings of this work. Not only does all this make the basses sound just too up-front, but they also feel detached from the rest of the orchestra.
More generally, there are times when the parts don't seem to quite coalesce. The brass, the strings, the woodwinds: all well-defined and yet somehow they all seem to be in separate places, not quite blending into one orchestra. Are those woodwinds and brasses staying back where they belong, or are they occasionally sneaking up to the front of the stage, the better to be heard? Of course, that’s an exaggeration to convey the impression, but you get the idea.
Should we attribute these issues to the conducting and playing or instead to the recording? Frankly, I can’t tell, although surely the latter is not helping matters.
Having taken on the role of skunk at the picnic (we’ll leave still more graphic images for another time), I’ll turn to more positive thoughts. And as I’ve been writing about sound, I’ll start with the positives there. The overall sound in the usual hi-fi terms is exemplary: smooth highs, the lows anything but missing, wonderful detail.
Moving on to other positives, the interpretation sounds well thought out and the results are mostly both lovely and powerful. The first movement truly is well-played, managing to sound fresh without crossing over to completely uncharted territory. Sometimes efforts to illuminate well-known works with fresh insights end up sounding just wacky; not so here. The little details that Honeck describes are within the mainstream of interpretation, but still add up to a version offering new perspectives.
Honeck’s notes speak of the vocal nature of the second movement, and that seems absolutely correct. Oh, I could quibble about the opening four measures featuring the horns, which to me seem a bit brusque. But that is one of the very few missteps that I noticed, and things improve quickly, with the orchestra truly singing. To take just one small example, the “exchanges” between the instrumental groups around 4:30 and onward are particularly well executed, allowing the music to flow so smoothly. Yet once in a while, the sonic issues that I worried about pop up again, mostly in more benign form, but present nonetheless. Just how did those woodwinds get into the front row – I thought they were behind the strings? And about those basses….
Speaking of the second movement, revisiting the Szell / Cleveland recording, preferably the sonically improved remastering from 2018, provides an interesting contrast. Not that it’s “better” than the Honeck / Pittsburgh one, but it is heartrendingly wistful, another take on some wonderful music.
The third movement takes off quickly and dramatically, but with never a hint of strain: it truly is rousing, by turns joyful, determined, and yes, even humorous. The occasional clouds of a minor key never really disturb the bright day filled with vitality. Interestingly, the sound that I found problematic earlier serves the music better here: the thrumming drums a little over four minutes in are particularly effective and don’t seem at all out of place.
In the fourth movement, the variations that make up the movement are particularly well-defined: again, the sound that seemed problematic earlier may help to clarify what’s going on – although, still, in a few spots, I felt that lack of coherence mentioned earlier. At any rate, the playing certainly is beyond reproach. For example, there is some particularly lovely flute and woodwind work starting around the four-minute mark, and the horns that follow immediately after do a very nice job indeed; these are just a few instances in which the technical ability of the Pittsburgh forces is fully on display. Moreover, there’s no shortage of drama, with sudden outbursts and huge dynamic contrasts. The quick tempi may bother some: for me, the movement seems on the border of sounding rushed, while some might find that it crosses that border. Still, Honeck is hardly off the beaten path in this regard: although he takes a brisk 9:34 for the entire movement; the widely acclaimed Kleiber / Vienna version beats that at 9:14. (However, I should note that Kleiber starts off at what seems a slightly slower pace, making up the time as things move along; subjectively, this seems not quite so brisk as the version under review.) In contrast, Klemperer takes a full minute more at 10:24, while my beloved Szell is even more leisurely at 10:34. The faster versions convey more straight-ahead drama; the slower ones perhaps deliver a more Hitchcockian sense of slowly approaching fate or disaster, even spookiness. If you haven’t heard both approaches, you should.
So where does all this leave us? The recording has grown on me since my first hearing: as I mentioned earlier, there is much to like. But for myself, I fear that the concerns about the sound and balances are deal breakers for a long-lasting relationship.
BH
To listen to a brief excerpt from this album, click here:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. It will be published after review.