Secondary to his Bruckner? (the recordings of Eugen Jochum)
Posted by: Tam on 13 May 2006
The title, for me, says it all. It is motivated by the liner notes of several sets of mine, all of which seem to start off by excusing the conductor "he may have been known for his Bruckner but his Beethoven/Brahms/Haydn (delete as appropriate) is very good too". And, on most of these sets I come away wondering what on earth there is to excuse.
Actually, my first encounter with Jochum was not through Bruckner at all, but rather with his Brahms in the form of the piano concertos with Gilels. Indeed, I don't think those liner notes do make the Bruckner comment. However, I wasn't entirely bowled over by those readings and, though I do love the orchestral playing, I am not entirely convinced by Gilels (as has been discussed on other threads); however, the second in particular has grown on me.
My next encounter with Jochum was accidental: coming across his Beethoven symphony cycle for under £10 was not something I was about to pass up. And here I met the 'Bruckner comment' for the first time. Indeed, the very first sentence of the notes says it "represents an interpretation by a conductor who was not necessarily regarded as a 'classic' Beethovenian but who enjoyed a reputation as the ultimate authority on Bruckner". Indeed the whole note amounts to something of an excuse "Even so, we should not dismiss his Beethoven as less successful than, or secondary to, his Bruckner". Quite why they feel the need to go on like this is beyond me since this set more than stands on its own and is one of the most satisfying cycles I have (and one of the very few I would be genuinely happy living with were I only allowed one - though that would be terribly unfair). The set has been wronged by its bridging of the mono and stereo eras (though the sound is, in fact, superb throughout) and hasn't always had the place in the catalogue it deserves (it also leaves me convinced that people should not be allowed to use the word 'Beethovenian'). This is a shame.
At the same time, I also picked up, at budget price, Jochum's EMI/Dresden Bruckner cycle. And, to some extent, this does explain the constant references to his Bruckner, because it is so very fine (indeed, it is much the most satisfying of the Bruckner cycles I own, but I will not discuss it here as I have done so at length on other threads).
Recently, partly because I felt a lack of 'big orchestra' Brahms, and partly because of several penguin guide rosettes, I went on something of a Jochum spending spree picking up both his Brahms cycles and his Haydn London symphonies.
The DG BPO Brahms notes again make the Bruckner comment, though in this case it is more justified. In the first place because the finale of the first, in particular, has a very Brucknerian feel to it. I have discussed this set in the Brahms thread and will say only that they are the only Jochum discs so far that have seriously disappointed me (because they are rather too rushed). The same cannot be said, so far, of the later EMI/LPO stereo set. I've only listened to the 1st and the two overtures, but it has been wonderful. The readings seem slightly slower (and timings support that), but not so much so as to cause problems and the result would seem to be just right.
Finally, this morning, the London symphonies turned up. Until now my guiding light has been Bernstein. I love the joy he brings to his Haydn readings. Jochum is not quite the same, but involving and exciting in a different way, and I am enjoying these very much indeed. Number 94 'the surprise' was wonderfully, well, surprising and fresh. Given Amazon are currently doing this set for just shy of £15 (and given the fillers of 88 and 98 with the BPO and 91 with the BRSO) there's little excuse not to pick it up.
So, what is the point of this thread? Well, firstly that Jochum did a lot more than Bruckner, and much of it is very good indeed. Secondly, it makes me wonder what other gems there may be out there. It strikes me that Jochum lacks the critical or popular following of many of his peers and I wonder whether some of his recordings languish unreleased (since a search online doesn't seem to turn up so many as I would expect) or simply unnoticed. But, really, I just wanted to celebrate a great conductor and some of his great recordings.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Tam
Incidentally, this particularly for Fredrik, we mentioned the Jochum DG Bruckner 4 in another thread. I got round to having another listen to the Dresden reading this afternoon. Wow. It is devastating and the finale is by no means a let down in the way that it can sometimes be. This set is really worth having.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Tam,
Klemperer was dogged with the reputation as being primarily a Beethoven interpreter, which he described as a sort of 'dog-collar round his neck.' His comment was that if an artist musician is sucessful in one area, he will be successful in many others. His opinion is that there is no great artist who had only expertise in only one small area of the repertoire.
In my view E Jochum was a great artist, and I do wonder about DG's sleeve note writers when they perpetuate the myth that he was first and foremost a Brucknerian. He was among the front rank of Brucknerians of course, but really he was among the front rank of conductors of his time, and like R Kempe, or A Boult, was barely recognised as such, which attitude is a product of our media driven age. None of these men were much interested in the spotlight, and so the media is faced with the embarrassment of promoting a non-media personality. Artistic considerations have little to do with it, I would think.
On another tack it is interesting that Rachel Podger and Tasmin Little, have not sort to market their recordings of Violin playing on alluring photos, but the quality of their playing Consequently other more media friendly lady violinists have been considerably more exposed and have made higher sales! What a way to buy music on records! Choice based on the looks of the artist rather than the quality of their playing.
We live in a world of squewed perspectives indeed! The whole thing is topsy-turvy!
All the best from Fredrik
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
On another tack it is interesting that Rachel Podger and Tasmin Little, have not sort to market their recordings of Violin playing on alluring photos
That's because they're ugly bastards, not any artistic high-mindedness!
EW
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear EW,
No they are not. I've seen both and they both blessed with that indefinable feminine beauty which does not seem to need any help at all to shine through! An old fashioned sort of beauty seen in such as Kathleen Ferrier for example.
All the best from Fredrik
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by graham55
EW
You're hardly a gentleman! If Rachel wants to come round to my place for a shoulder to cry on, she's more than welcome at any time.
Tam
I think that I have a higher opinion of Jochum's stereo/mono DG Brahms cycle than you. And, although I've never heard the EMI/Dresden Bruckner Fourth, it would have to be a hell of a performance to trump the earlier DG/Berlin one. Not that anyone's about to topple Celi/Swedish RSO, of course!
Graham
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Earwicker
..hmm, I'll save myself for Viktoria Mullova. You can have Rachel!
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear EW, and Graham,
Rachel is mine, so don't make an old man even more disappointed by coming along and nicking my baby!
Fredrik [Low bandwidth smiley].
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by graham55
Fredrik
I'll tell Rachel that when she comes round later. (EW's welcome to his ice maiden, though!)
Graham
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Graham,
I don't stand a chance do I?
It is odd though, how the music media, and the gramophone companies promote a pseudo-sex thing nowadays, rather than the bald fact of the playing. I find that ver sad, and indeed where would such Greek Gods (NOT) as Furtwangler and Klemperer have got nowadays with such lookers as Rattle in the reckoning? It makes one think I suspect.
AAll the best from Fredrik
PS: I remeber the memorial concert at the RFH for Jochum, when Lovro von Matacic counducted the Philharmonia in Haydn's Bear Symphony (No 83? from the Paris set), and Beethoven's Choral. It was the best Symphonic Performance I ever encountered. A ver special moment indeed...
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by graham55
Fredrik
The last truly great conductor died, in my view, when Carlos Kleiber passed away. But then, I don't think that you share my admiration for his recorded legacy and he'd more or less retired ten years before his death.
With the 'instant-results-now!' culture that we live in, I think that we can agree that we shan't see that calibre of conductor again. Which is why you and I spend all our money on reissues. Perhaps Antonio Pappano may prove me wrong, although I don't possess any of his recordings?
And, to confess a little fib, I don't think that Rachel is coming around my gaff later. She said someting about having to be in Hereford tonight.
Graham
PS Before Tam corrects me, I do hold Chuck Mackerras in very high esteem, but I wouldn't place him on a level with the absolutely greatest.
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Graham,
I do agree about Carlos Kleiber and do struggle with those three famous DG recordings! [Beethoven Five and seven plus Brahms Four].
I think the idea of studio perfection creates more problems than it solves. The only Klieber I have is one live recording. New Years Day 1989. On that alone I would describe him as the greatest (then) living conductor. It seems a shame that he was not really enthusiastic to perform, and thus we are ceratinly deprived of some great music making.
I can't afford to get them at the moment, but I would be fascinated to read of any live concerts that have been issued from him.
Fredrik
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by graham55:
(EW's welcome to his ice maiden, though!)
She'll do for me!
On topic, Jochum is tragically underrepresented in my CD collection. This is due in part to my antipathy towards Bruckner, whom he championed, and to be honest the only recordings of his I've ever REALLY taken into my small dark heart are the Brahms piano concertos with Gilels (still unsurpassed, it's worth adding) and Meistersinger - a recording made, in my view, by F-D as Sachs.
That said, from what I've heard, Jochum certainly knew how to make an orchestra sound, and had a natural ability with large choirs (ref Meistersinger and the Bruckner Masses). His towering mastery of Brahms's architecture is undrerpinned by a fine sense of contrapuntal texture - I love the way he and Gilels handle the daunting coda to the second movement of the Brahms no 2; the slow movement in this recording I doubt will ever be surpassed; it is what I can only call sublime in the extreme.
So I like what I've heard but need to hear more!
EW
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by graham55
Fredrik
As I have tried to explain elsewhere, I belive that in his studio recordings Carlos Kleiber was trying for a level of perfection which he understood was not attainable 'live'. I think that all his studio recordings, not just the three that you mention, are in that way idealised. It's a hell of a shame that you don't enjoy Wagner, as otherwise I'd demand that you study his 'Tristan' closely. What he achieved there could never be achieved 'live', although DG (no doubt with an eye on the meter) were keen for him to record it 'live'!
If my house were burning down, that 'Tristan', plus Jeff Buckley's 'Grace', would be the only CDs that I'd have to escape with.
Graham
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Tam
Dear Graham,
From what I've heard Jochum's recording of Bruckner are pretty similar. Celi's are towards the top of recordings I want to listen out for. I shall refrain from debating with you as to the greatness of Sir Charles
. However, I wonder about Giulini, who surely qualified as a great conductor. As far as Pappano goes, he's been impressive when I've heard him (and his Tristan may well follow Kleiber fairly closely - it is dedicated to him). I must say, what I have heard of the Kleiber Tristan has impressed me very much, and I suspect I shall pick it up at some point.
Dear EW,
I think it may be worth giving his Bruckner a chance - it is like no other I've ever heard and convincing in a way Bruckner so often isn't. Still, if you're looking to hear more Jochum, and given your antipathy for Bruckner, both the Beethoven and Haydn (the latter currently insanely cheap on Amazon) are probably safer bets.
Dear Fredrik,
The bear is 82, 83 is the hen. I envy you very much for having seen that performance. Incidentally, there's a great disc of Bernstein and the NYPO doing both 82 and 83. And, while I'g going this off-topic way, does anyone know of a good set of paris symphonies? I don't have all of them.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Tam
I'd also add, re the Jochum/BPO mono Brahms - I think I'm possibly a little to picky when it comes to Brahms (I disliked Abbado because it was a little too slow for my liking and lacked energy and my problem with Jochum was that he was too brisk and that sapped away a lot of the beauty). That said, the 1st on that set is very fine (indeed, it is arguably above the later stereo reading). And the set as a whole is not bad, but, for my liking, just feels a little rushed in places. I also think, that it is mono throughout, not mono/stereo as Graham suggested.
Is anyone aware of his Schubert and Wagner recordings? I also believe he has done some Mozart, particularly some of the masses.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
quote:
Originally posted by Tam:
Dear Fredrik,
The bear is 82, 83 is the hen. I envy you very much for having seen that performance. Incidentally, there's a great disc of Bernstein and the NYPO doing both 82 and 83. And, while I'g going this off-topic way, does anyone know of a good set of paris symphonies? I don't have all of them.
regards, Tam
You have email! Fredrik
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Tam
Dear Fredrik,
As do you.
regards, Tam
p.s. Darn this 45 minute edit thing - that should have read "I'm going" not "I'g going"!
Posted on: 14 May 2006 by Tam
What effect, I wonder does mood have on listening? I know this topic has been raised before, but the reason I mention it in the context of this thread is that earlier today I had another listen to Jochum's DG 3rd (with the BPO). Over in the Brahms thread I rather slated this reading saying it was altogether too rushed and lacked any of the beauty this symphony should have. On listening to it again today, I really am at something of a loss to know why I wrote that (I'm not sure I'd quite place it as the the finest interpretation I've heard of the work but it was certainly very fine). I now wonder if I ought to give two and four another listen and whether, perhaps, I owe this set something of an apology.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by graham55
Prompted by this thread, I listened to all four of Jochum's BPO Brahms symphonies today. Sure enough, the tempi are flexible, but you get the sense that there was a strong bond between conductor and players, with real fire in their bellies in the Fourth.
All four are indeed mono (Tam is quite right), although the Third was recorded in April 1956. Were DG particularly slow off the mark with stereo? Can't say that I give a bugger*, mind you.
Graham
* Do you suppose that typing such words causes red lights to flash around Mr Meredith's work station?
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by Tam
Dear Graham,
As to mono/stereo - bear in mind that in '56 stereo was only just emerging. Looking at my Jochum Beethoven cycle, the stereo accounts start from about '58 onwards.
Of course, the great Kempff mono Beethoven sonata cycle (also DG) has some recordings dating from '56.
Interestingly, the notes in my DG Furtwangler live Berlin recordings 42-44 notes that engineer responsible was also responsible for making some of the first experimental stereo recordings.
regards, Tam
* clearly not!
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by graham55
Fair point, Tam, but....
I have a treasured RCA 'Living Stereo' CD of Reiner conducting Strauss's Heldenleben and Zarathustra, recorded on 6 and 8 March 1954 respectively. Still amongst the best recordings of anything at all that I possess.
Decca's Mozart 250th birthday operas (E Kleiber in 'Figaro', Krips in "Don Giovanni' and Boehm in "Cosi' and 'Zauberfloete') were all recorded in stereo in Vienna in 1955.
And EMI managed to catch Klemperer of all people in stereo in Oct 1955 in Beethoven's Seventh.
I have a suspicion that DG thought that stereo was a 'fad' and were sitting on the fence at the time.
Graham
Posted on: 15 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Stereo recordings were first done in Brtain in 1934. This was no secret as the patents were granted at the time for a system developed by AD Blumlein, who also pionerred the television system of black and white on 405 lines used well into the 1970s. He developed the first mono recording system for 78s that circumvented the Western Electric patents in use at EMI in 1932, and which continued up to 1950, which is long lived by any standards.
Blumlein's theories were a practical possiblity (in view of replay) with the advent of tape and EMI began experiments with stereo tapes in 1954, though the tape recorders were rather prone to falure. The principal recording was always mono, and so if the stereo set broke, then no make up would be made to get a complete recording. The Klemperer Beethoven Seven was complete, but not from the same takes as the mono set was issued!
Stereo was also made by the German Radio during the War, and they must have been aware of Blumlein's work, which still is the basis today. He called it Bi-enaural.
The Recording Engineer for almost all of Furtwangler's radio broadcasts and archive recordings from 1939 onwards was a man called Freidrich Schnapp, and he had an at least interesting relationship with Furtwangler, who himself had strong views on balance and microphone placing for the radio and gramophone. He was a one microphone man, which happened to be why he respected Schnapp!
I am not at all sure that DG were suspiscious of stereo. They set out in 1956 on a new cycle of the Bach Organ works with Walcha, exactly to use the new technique (to them) to get the most precise sonority of the instruments used. The first big effort was the Art Of Fugue, which sounds as if recorded last week, and not fifty years ago!
All the best from Fredrik
Posted on: 16 May 2006 by Tam
Dear Fredrik,
Thanks for the information.
You are, of course, quite right about the Art of Fugue. It sounds wonderful. (I would thoroughly commend it to everyone, where it available outside of the 12 disc box set - come on DG! - Indeed, I hardly need to tell you that too much of Walcha's output is unavailable in this country - I was hoping my Goldbergs and Well Tempered, shipped all the way from France, might come today but sadly not).
I think it was Tony L (proprietor of the other place) who commented on a thread about recording techniques that it is interesting just how good stereo was when the first recordings emerged (though this may be down to just how long it had been in the works (if the first experiments occured in the 30s).
I don't know if you caught CD Review this week but there was a fascinating piece by an engineer who had restored a lot of old recordings for Naxos Historical (worth listing again for). Indeed, he made some interesting points, suggesting that in some cases, one can do better restoring from 78s than from the original masters (if they are in poor shape). However, I rather lost faith in him when they got onto the subject of 'accidental stereo'. Apparently, this is when two different mono masters of the same sessions were made using different micing arrangements and thus a 'stereo' recording can be pieced together (though why on earth you'd want to try and do this is beyond me).
regards, Tam
Posted on: 16 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Tam,
The man is talking through his proverbial about accidental stereo, and does his credibility no favours at all!
AC Griffith who was one of the senior enginerrs at EMI in the period stradling shellc, LP and stereo, and who pineered the transfer of 78s, writes authorititvely on the subject and completely nails the myth!
Though there might be separate sets of microphones at sessions, because of the risk of failure and wasting time establishing a new set up, if two lathes were cut simulateously, these were always connected to the same micrphone set up! This was to avoid a changeable balance between sides on 78 sets. The myth started because if you marginally desynchronise two masters of the same microphone signal what you get sounds like an imaging of various pitches because of the comb filter effect. This is similar to the way pseudo-stereo used to be made from mono masters. One listen will soon tell you that a clean mono transfer of a decent mono recording always presents the music more credibly!
As for shellac transfers, I will cut and paste something I posted the other day. Again based on what Griffith and Keith Hardwich (his successor in the EMI restoration department) wrote about it all.
All the best from Fredrik
Posted on: 16 May 2006 by Tam
Dear Fredrik,
I'm glad to hear you say that. It did sound silly to me at the time (which was a shame because up to that point I was gaining a lot of respect for the man).
It does amaze what can be done with old recordings - they played part of Beethoven's 'spring' vioin sonata (I forget the proper opus number, or the artists involved) which sounded fantastic, and once again called into question 'who needs stereo'?
regards, Tam
