Which Ring?

Get the Krauss and be content with the best sung Ring you'll find, as well as one of the best conducted.

Of the others I’ve heard, I don't like Solti. He is too heavy-handed and melodramatic, and the artificial sound annoys me. I enjoy the Bohm. I find that he emphasizes the drama more than Solti, and if his tempi can be a bit fast at times, I must say that I don’t think he rushes through anything. If you think Bohm is fast, avoid Boulez. He is fast and basically operates at white heat throughout. His Siegfried is smokin’, though, and possibly my favorite. (I like the set and am currently working my way through the DVD cycle.) Joseph Keilberth’s 1952 Ring is a mixed bag, with the first two operas faring not as well as the last two. (I don’t like Inge Borkh much, and she doesn’t help things.) His Siegfried and Gotterdammerung are both superb though. (He has much the same cast as Krauss.) From Barenboim I’ve only heard Siegfried, and while the first two acts are good, the third is something of a snoozer, the Wanderer-Erda scene, in particular. I’ll probably buy it when it is reissued on DVD. My next Ring will either be Furty’s studio set or Kna’s ’56 Bayreuth set.

But for now I say just get the Krauss in the Archipel transfer.

--

Todd

I have the Solti set on LP (DMM pressings from late 70s/early80s) and CD. I'd like to go for the Krauss but am worried about how it actually sounds. I'm not expecting superfi, but could you comment on the sound, please?

Graham

Todd - Thanks for your comments, fascinating and informative as always.


Rereading my original post, I realise it may have come across very critical of Bohm, and that I didn't enjoy it, this is very much not the case. However, it was very different to what I'm used to (but if it weren't what would be the point of owning two, or more, recordings).

I too am awaiting the Barenboim on DVD as every time a ring comes to DVD Gramophone says something along the lines of 'good, but of course the Barenboim (unavailable) is best'. I'm also flirting with the idea of the rereleased Boulez (mainly out of historical curiosity.

I think Graham has pretty neatly summed up my concerns about the Krauss set the Gramophone review said that the sound was greatly improved but that's not the same thing as being good. I recently picked up Furtwangler's beethoven symphony cycle on EMI and on one or two of the radio relays from the 40s the sound is absolutely terrible. The 9th, coincidentally from Bayreuth, is stunning.


regards,

Tam

To the Krauss sound: it is definitely 50s mono. Das Rheingold is more distant and resonant than the other works, and suffers from an unusual channel balance (though mono, it sounds as though one channel has more info), and the dynamic range is obviously limited, and so on, but overall, the sound is more than adequate. Voices are mostly clear and the orchestra sounds in better proportion than studio and more heavily manipulated live recordings. It’s not a pristine Mercury mono recording, but it certainly is far superior to the admittedly hideous LvB Second in the Furty cycle.

--

Tam and Todd

Call me an impulsive old bugger, but I've ordered the Krauss set. It's under £47 and I may be dead within the month (although I bloody well hope not!).

Furtwaengler and Beethoven is another thing too. He didn't visit the studio with the Wiener PO for EMI for Symphonies 2, 8 or 9 in the 1950s, so they cast around desparately for old recordings to make a "cycle" for 2 and 8. In my opininion, and producer Walter Legge's apparently, they went for the lazy option with the 1951 Bayreuth 9th. There is a quite glorious 9th with the Philharmonia, recorded in Lausanne (a few months before the great man died) on 22 August 1954. Legge couldn't get clearance for its release, but the French label Tahra got clearance some 30 years later. I have it on a single Tahra CD released in 1994 in glorious (mono) sound, but I believe that Tahra have rereleased it in even better sound since, on a 2CD set(?).

Graham

Short answer: Furtwangler at the Rome Radio in 1953. Why? Because it is conceived as a sound only performance. Oratorio if you like. Furtwangler knew and heartily detested Wagner in his youth and would reach 40 before he grew to comprehend that it is all surface and effect with no content, but yet still a major Western piece of Art in itsd revolutionary departures, even if it is all synthetic emotion rather than based in any reasonable understanding of the human condition! [Furtwangler Notebooks 1924/54]. Yet by 1954 he was the undisputed greatest Wagnerian on the podium, and EMI started the first Ring on commercial records, with Valkiry, completed three weeks before the great conductor died of pneumonia.

Why do I say Rome in 1953? Because, for the purposes of the gramophone, Furtwangler's reading had already been set down in Live seesions of one scene per evening over a month in fine conditions in the autumn of that year, and without the singers ever being too exhausted before the last acts.

Now that is all fine and good, but what gives this recording its status? It is simply that Furtwangler felt that the visual elements tended to obscure the musical values, and so what we get is a conception that is designedly symphonic (and the oppsite of the verissmo Italian approach of Toscanini), but most significantly a view that gave the maximum weight to the sinsing voice and its strange Germanic version of the Norse legend. All the kitch is defined within a huge arch of honest address. Always faster than the traditional speeds it is true to Wagner's intention both in balance (favouring the voice) and tempi, where the tradition at Bayreuth since the 1920s had been to slow down the music and reverentialise it. Karl Muck started this before the First World War and Toscanin adhered as a slave to this approach. Furtwangler, like Mahler was far too searching an artist to accept convention or tradition and set about restoring what might now be called an authentic approach. Bohm also followed this approach. It just so happens that the recordings are always acceptible, and sometime phenomenal.

I have to confess that after more than 20 years, I have to say I find Wagner's conception even more repelant than I did when I first encountered it, but that is my lose. But the Furtwangler set from Rome is fine enough for me to have sat through each opera, even if not for four nights in a row! Also it is (or was) a very budget issue (on EMI) as it has long since been paid off. Interestingly the studio effort is less fine as a musical excecution, even if somewhat better played and in a fine recording. [Wakure only].

Among the others, Bohm is first rate in the musical sense, but Kraus was already trying to tip the balance towards the orchestra. Kempe would only five years later propose enlarging the pit at Bayreuth to "get a bigger orchestra in!" Wagner, the practical musician, knew what he had written required the singers to have the aid of a sonically handicapped orchestra, and naturally enough the pit was not altered, because control still rested with his familly, even aftet the Second World War. The Boehm set on Philips retains Wagner's intended balance, while some of the details are not quite as we would expect in a studio recording (in terms of accuracy, and occasionally a tension is built up that has more to do with stress than artistic intent). Fortunately the Furtwangler set aviods this, because of the factor of being recorcorded, both live, and only one scene at a time.

Finally, to describe the recording of Krauss as being better than the Furtwangler reading Beethoven Symphony No 2 (VPO in RAH in 1948) is not sayong much. That has to be the worst recording I have encountered on a commercial release. I guess the only reason it emerged at all (and I once had it on an EMI Pathe Marconi LP), is that it was all EMI could lay their hands on, having no fine German radio tape or studio effort to issue with the context of the complete cycle. On the other hand the RAI tapes of the Rome Ring are never less than acceptible and and always musically well balanced.

I am sorry that this is the view of someone who finds this music very hard to take, but it is a considered view, and an attempt to be posotive and helpful,

Fredrik

Graham - I hope you mean that in a 'I might get hit by a bus tomorrow' sort of a way

I too am tempted by the low price (but I think there's too much on my 'to be listened to' shelf as is!). I'll be interested to hear your thoughts when you've listened to it.

I really wouldn't call the 9th on the Furtwangler/Beethoven set a lazy choice, I think it's a rather wonderful recording.

Fredrik - Very interesting indeed. Have you heard the Furtwangler La Scala recording (because that might make interesting comparison). It has a better cast than the Rome recordings (and a better orchestra). Unfortunately it also has savage cuts (particularly with regard to the Wanderer in Siegfried).



regards,

Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:

[...]

Fredrik - Very interesting indeed. Have you heard the Furtwangler La Scala recording (because that might make interesting comparison). It has a better cast than the Rome recordings (and a better orchestra). Unfortunately it also has savage cuts (particularly with regard to the Wanderer in Siegfried).

regards,

Tam

Concerning the La scala set, No doubt the Orchestra was not on virgin territory - The Rome Orchestra had to learn the music from new, but what a teacher!

Naturally the Rome set is complete, and the issue of the cast is by no means all one way. With such a large cast, how could it ever be. Also the problems of very long and taxing opera parts leads to the singers being more stressed in the final acts than the fresh collegues in Rome. The audience in Rome are very good and really are not a nuisance at all, whereas Italian opera audiences come second to no one in their early showing of their approval. The Scala recordings really are not very good, and I personally find the spoken work of the promter (audible more often than not, unfortunately) to be very difficult to take amonst all the other distractions. In Rome naturally the problem simply does not arrise.

But all of this would be for nothing if the Rome Cycle was characterister by routine or dullness. There is no doubt that the the Scala Cycle has all the exitement of a live performance, but what the Rome has is a greater sence of progression right throught the whole cycle, with details clearly framed within both the induvidual opera and the whole cycle. I'd say Furtwangler's vision (he said as much to his wife, Dr Elisabeth Furtwangler in letters) is clearly and grippingly presented, as I observed above as a symphonic arc, where the voices carry the story and the orchestra bears them "as on salt water," to quote what Schwartskopf had to say about his acompaniments in the pit.

Of course the point is that the set was done live, but that the last rehearsals were also taped and so there is a degree of choice when the tapes were selected even if wholesale editing was not undertaken. I am not sure that the proposed studio effort which only got as far as Valkiry, would have been any more musical, even if it would have had the benefit of the best recording techniques of the day. The Rome set is not seriously flawed in this respect, especially as the CD and DMM issues on LP were from the original RAI tapes rather than the metal parts used for the original EMI release.

Its horses for courses. Some would prefer the Scala, and some the Rome, and some the Krauss etc. Personally I admire the continuity and flow Furtwangler managed in Rome, and as I said above the whole project was conceived as a broadcast event to be recorded under ideal radio studio conditions (but with an audience), and even though Furtwangler admirably understood the fact that this music is all surface effect, his comment was ,"and what effect!" He understood the task as well as anyone, and the recording is the result of six weeks work on the part of some of the greatest Wagnerian soloist and conductor of that day or any day!

It should also be cheap. If you can't find it I have the LPs in mint condition, which you can have for nothing if you want!

Fredrik

Tam,

As a post script, let me say that I have owned the Boehm (four Philips CD sets), Walkiry with Solti (Decca LPs second hand, and played through twice before they went!), Furtwangler Scala (CD of now unremembered origin, given to a friend who enjoyed them) and also the EMI Rome DMM LPs, which were most closely approached musically by the Boehm, even if I would say that Boehm's grip on the long term architecture was not so clear as Furtwangler's Symphonic accompaniment and shaping, which seems to have a wonderful unity with the soloists, rather as if everyone was carried along by the prematurely old Furtwangler's presense. There is no question of the singers being drowned by the orchestra or straight jacketted by Dr F, but rather a tremendous excitement at what was undoubtedly an experiemnetal style of performing, designed exclusively for the home listener, but never-the-less, performed as a live event. Its not the only successful effort, but it is the only one to have withstood twenty years of study for me, before I have finally grown irredemably tired of the musical methods of Wagner himself! If you want the records, it might be more expensive than buying new, but if you want to fetch them I live in Hereford, so we could arrange a meet one Saturday morning, though you will understand I don't want to post my address on a public Forum.

Fredrik

Tam

I'm not planning on doing anything silly and have far too much music to listen to to sign off any time soon. In the light of recent events, my comment was rather flippant, insensitive and silly, though. Apologies!

When I said that the Furtwaengler set was a "lazy" choice, what I had in mind was that it was the "obvious" choice: EMI were at Bayreuth in 1951 with tapes rolling to capture Karajan in Meistersinger. So, when the great man died a few years later without completing his EMI Vienna set, that was an easy choice. I have it, and it's very, very good - even verging on great.

But the Philharmonia one from 1954 is astonishing. A quite superb performance and an amazing recording. I listened to it this morning after my earlier posting, for the first time in a couple of years, and was quite shattered by its power and immediacy (could have been put on tape yesterday). You really owe it to yourself to hear it!

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Tam

[...]

But the Philharmonia one from 1954 is astonishing. A quite superb performance and an amazing recording.

Graham

Absolutely agreed that the Lucerne Beethoven Choral under Furtwangler is reasonably seen as the best performance left by Furtwangler, but in terms of live Choral's don't over look Klemperer in 1961 in the Royal Festival Hall (also with the Philharmonia, in a perfprmance that will remove any missapprehension the Klemperer was a dogged or dull conductor. It is a good 7 or 8 minutes shorter than the Furtwangler Lucerne recording! Yet it never sounds driven, but the architectural structure is so strong and sane that it hardly shows as a phenomemnon. Art concealing art if you like! Thsi is my second favourite with the 1942 Stockholm Furtwangler effort with Vienese soloists and The Stockholm Philharmonic and a fine choir. Incidentally I am sure this name applied to the Stockholm band then. Was it not Konsertfoereningsorchester or some such in 1942? Would a Swedish Forum member like to comment on this?

Fredrik

Graham,

No need to apologise at all.

Understand totally what you mean by 'lazy' when you put it like that and will certainly be looking out for the Philharmonia recording now.



Fredrik - Thanks again for the interesting review (I may look into the Furtwangler). Thanks also for the kind offer of the records, but I'm not going to take you up on it, mainly because (as I mentioned in one of the other threads) I'm playing less and less vinyl these days.


regards,

Tam

Back on the ring.... I have the Boehm set on philips, and used to have the Solti set. Also got Barenboim's Valkyrie and Levine's Gotterdammerung.

I got annoyed with Solti in the end, exactly as somebody said earlier, it melodramatic, hard driven to the point of ugliness at times. Boehm by comparison makes less of the music (or rather does not make too much of it) and to my mind the advantage of the Bayreuth recording is that it lets the voices flow unimpeded. I think Birgit Nilsson sings more beautifully for Boehm - I find her hard and shouty for Solti. I think Theo Adam is more dramatically effective than Hotter for Solti e.g. Act 2 monologue of Walkure, although Hotter is more moving in the big moments - e.g. farewell scene.

The only real problem in the Boehm set is Leonie Rysanek's Sieglinde... she was definitely having a hard time that day. I can't remembr who does it on Solti's set but she was very good.

Levine's Gotterdammerung could have been great but Siegfried is underpowered and Brunnhilde squally, although I think Hildegard Behrens is dramatically effective.

I don't know about Furtwangler and Krauss... I have heard Furtwangler's studio VPO Walkure and quite enjoyed it but basically I find scratchy mono recordings very difficult to enjoy regardless of the performance. I frankly loathe Furtwanglers LvB 9th from Bayreuth Festival.

Just my 2p worth...

I too dislike bad mono recordings, but there are some great ones out there (a lot of recordings on Testament and Furtwangler's Tritan and Isolde).

Out of interest, did you see the Scottish Opera ring at the Edinburgh Festival two years back?



regards,

Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
I too dislike bad mono recordings, but there are some great ones out there (a lot of recordings on Testament and Furtwangler's Tritan and Isolde).

Out of interest, did you see the Scottish Opera ring at the Edinburgh Festival two years back?

I've got that Furtwangler Tristan.... still prefer Boehm's live bayreuth set with Windgassen!

I saw and enjoyed all of the Scottish Opera Ring - apart from Gotterdammerung... my wife had a baby about 2 weeks before it was on so my priorities were elsewhere, and we then missed out on tickets for the Glasgow production a few months later. Oh well... we'll probably get another chance in 20 years or so, should Scottish Opera survive that long.

We very much enjoyed what we did see, surprised how good Matthew Best was as Wotan, even though he was apologising in advance for throat problems. I found Ricahrd Amrstrong's conducting too slow in Walkure, the music lost momentum and meaning as a result, but found it greatly improved for Siegfried a year later.

I agree that Walkure was a little slow (though I only saw it when they did the whole thing together). In general though, I think the orchestral sound was one of highlights of the cycle.

Best was good, as was most of the rest of the cast. In my view the strongest point was just how good the production was (i.e. sets/costumes and blocking of scenes so there was plenty going on in those bits where the ring can drag somewhat). The productions I've seen since (be it Levine on DVD or the recent ENO and Royal Opera House ones) have only served to underscore just how right they got it. It's a shame that the financial cost of mounting it has taken such a toll on Scottish Opera. I hope it does survive long enough (and well enough) to mount another.



regards,

Tam

I've been away for a long weekend and, on my return this evening, I found that my Krauss Ring (Bayreuth '53 on Archipel) had been delivered. But it's roasting enough in London tonight without ascending to Valhalla, so it will just have to wait. Although I am tempted.....

But the point of the post was to pass on a couple of Ring related items gleaned from the new issue of Gramophone.

First, it has a review of the Furtwaengler RAI '53 Rome Ring from Gebhardt, said to be "considerably cheaper" than the EMI set. Anyone know if this set is licensed from EMI/RAI or whether it's a 50 year on "copyright buster"?

Even more intriguingly, the article refers to "the forthcoming 1955 Testament/Decca stereo Ring". Can anyone shed light on cast/conductor or the circumstances of this hitherto unreleased recording? I'll be a bit cheesed off if it turns out to be Krauss in better sound!

For the sake of completeness, I should say that the magazine also reviews Barenboim's Ring plus the new Domingo/Pappano Tristan (tempted!) and the rerelease of Carlos Kleiber's sublime version.

Quite a few weeks for Wagnerians, I think.

Graham

When I read the article it sounded like a they had the rights to that ring now, as opposed to emi. But presumably the work would now be out of copyright anyway.

I was also intrigued by the testament/decca stereo ring (especially given testament is normally mono stuff) - possibly has to do with the Götterdämmerung they already have (I think it was gramophones reissue of the year in their last awards, but I could be wrong).

I should confess that when I was in London the other week I picked up the Krauss ring. So far have only listened to Rheingold but it's okay (and certainly sounds like stereo on the first few discs as opposed to mono). Singing is very good, though the orchestral sound is pretty terrible. Still, I am very much enjoying it.

As for the Domingo Tristan, from what I listened to on the gramophone cd today, sounded pretty poor, I'm not in a rush to get out my chequebook.


regards,

Tam

Tam

The forthcoming Testament release can't be part of the Kna cycle already issued, as that was in mono and from the reopening year of '51.

Nor, I now discover, could Krauss have been in the pit, as he died in '54.

The Gebhardt website gives the full "remastered in 2005 from original master tapes" spiel for the Furtwaengler Ring, so I may have to go for that one next - unless the Testament set is "special" indeed.

Graham

Graham,

Thanks for the info.

A quick google reveals this from the gramophone forum (which I didn't even know existed):

quote:

Wait until the 1955 live stereo Ring is issued on Testament. Keilberth conducts and the singers include Astrid Varnay, Wolgang Windgassen and Hans Hotter. This Ring was recorded by Decca and should be quite something. The Solti is horribly upbeat and overdriven, with little sense of long overarchign phrasing. The brass blow far too hard for Solti too adding to the aggressive feel of the recording. Whilst we wait for the Keilberth why not try the 1951 live Bayreuth Gotterdammerung conducted by Knappertsbusch, the final scenes of Gotterdammerung on a single midprice Chandos CD conducted by Goodall or Furtwangler's RAI 1953 Ring. Barenboim's Rhengold is also a good buy. This weekend I've just found a 1951 live Walkure from Geneva which has quite blown me away. Sound is extremely full with the orchestra much better caught than the priate Bayreuth broadcasts of the era. A conductor I've never heard of - Denzler - conducts with drama and insight and the singers include Werth, Ralf, Alsen, Grob-Prandl & Hofmann. Kind regards, David Harbin Nottingham, UK

Personally, from reading the gramophone article, I'm not too keen to hear the Furtwangler. I think my next purchase will most likely be the Goodall Ring (I'd quite like to have one in English - heretical though it might be!).



regards,

Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam

[...]

Personally, from reading the gramophone article, I'm not too keen to hear the Furtwangler. I think my next purchase will most likely be the Goodall Ring (I'd quite like to have one in English - heretical though it might be!).



regards,

Tam

Be sure to realise that Goodall IS very slow. He makes the efforts of Klemperer, in the last years of his career, sound positively spritely. If you Want wagner's [un]heavenly lengths 30 per cent longer than anyone else Goodall is your man, and he has the singular advantage of being in English, which makes the plot that much more obvious, which may or may not be a good thing...

Fredrik

Fredrik,

Thanks for the heads up. Won't be anytime soon anyway. I thought it might be on the long side when I noticed Rheingold was on 3 discs not the more usual two.

It's a shame nobody recorded the Mackerras ring when he revived the Goodall production during his tenure at ENO.



regards,

Tam

Narya,Nenya or Vilya ?

So, I've been away for the last few days and have had to listen to Clemens Krauss conducting the "Ring" over my CD Walkman and headphones. Only managed Rheingold and Walkuere so far, but they've been quite wonderful.

They sure as heck don't have Solti's heft, but the singing is marvellous and the orchestra (from what we can hear) is quite amazing!

Graham

Graham,

Quite agree. Once I got used to the totally different sound (to solti), I have been totally hooked. If anything, I think the set had just got better and better. The Siegfried (which can drag something terrible) was wonderful last night.

I love what solti does with the ring, but in some respects, I think it's more 'solti' and slightly less operatic, if that makes any kind of sense.


regards,

Tam