On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:26:42 AM UTC-5, Pluted Pup wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 23:58:13 -0700, Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:43:43???AM UTC-5, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:32:41???PM UTC-5, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18???PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03???AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean
> Klemperer,
> > > > > > > who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc.. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I扉e got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs....any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)....that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > >
> > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven愒 done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > > The Japanese RCA issue of Ormandy's RCA stereo LPs (marketed by ArkivMusic) ran to 68 CDs and omitted a few items. I'm pretty confident the RCAs will be segregated out in their own big box. And yes, the discography is my work, thanks.
> > The first Ormandy Stereo box has been announced and posted on amazon.de--it covers records released 1958--63, but NOT the Beethoven "Eroica" (which lost its exposition repeat on later pressings and reissues) nor the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts recorded in 1957 and issued in stereo only on tape. Here's the url:
> > https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Eugene-Ormandy/dp/B0CDK8TYT5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QOQC308IUVU9&keywords=ormandy&qid=1691304617&s=music&sprefix=%2Cpopular%2C177&sr=1-1
> Was the mono version of the MSND excerpts included in the
> mono box?
Yes, along with mono versions of items that were first issued on mono LPs and later issued in stereo--they are in this new box in stereo. And, big news, the track list on the Amazon.com listing (just up) indicates the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts on disc 27, logically on the same disc as Serkin's recordings of the Mendelssohn concertos; and, it also indicates Bloch's Schelomo on disc 87 along with Strauss's Don Quixote. So, it seems they're doing a thorough job, which is a relief. Now, I wonder whether the LPs conducted by Stokowski and Munch, and the handful of items conducted by William Smith, will appear in volume 2. Their procedure with the mono "Columbia Legacy" box suggests so, but I'll write to producer Robert Russ anyway and remind him..

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:10:16 AM UTC-5, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:26:42 AM UTC-5, Pluted Pup wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 23:58:13 -0700, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:43:43???AM UTC-5, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:32:41???PM UTC-5, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18???PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03???AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean
> > Klemperer,
> > > > > > > > who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I扉e got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs....any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)....that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > > >
> > > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven愒 done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > > > The Japanese RCA issue of Ormandy's RCA stereo LPs (marketed by ArkivMusic) ran to 68 CDs and omitted a few items. I'm pretty confident the RCAs will be segregated out in their own big box. And yes, the discography is my work, thanks.
> > > The first Ormandy Stereo box has been announced and posted on amazon.de--it covers records released 1958--63, but NOT the Beethoven "Eroica" (which lost its exposition repeat on later pressings and reissues) nor the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts recorded in 1957 and issued in stereo only on tape. Here's the url:
> > > https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Eugene-Ormandy/dp/B0CDK8TYT5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QOQC308IUVU9&keywords=ormandy&qid=1691304617&s=music&sprefix=%2Cpopular%2C177&sr=1-1
> > Was the mono version of the MSND excerpts included in the
> > mono box?
> Yes, along with mono versions of items that were first issued on mono LPs and later issued in stereo--they are in this new box in stereo. And, big news, the track list on the Amazon.com listing (just up) indicates the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts on disc 27, logically on the same disc as Serkin's recordings of the Mendelssohn concertos; and, it also indicates Bloch's Schelomo on disc 87 along with Strauss's Don Quixote. So, it seems they're doing a thorough job, which is a relief. Now, I wonder whether the LPs conducted by Stokowski and Munch, and the handful of items conducted by William Smith, will appear in volume 2. Their procedure with the mono "Columbia Legacy" box suggests so, but I'll write to producer Robert Russ anyway and remind him.
Further, it looks like the Brahms Handel Variations are going to be on CD 12 along with the 1959 First Symphony.

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 3:16:52 AM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:10:16 AM UTC-5, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:26:42 AM UTC-5, Pluted Pup wrote:
> > > On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 23:58:13 -0700, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:43:43???AM UTC-5, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:32:41???PM UTC-5, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18???PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03???AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean
> > > Klemperer,
> > > > > > > > > who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I扉e got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs....any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)....that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven愒 done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > > > > The Japanese RCA issue of Ormandy's RCA stereo LPs (marketed by ArkivMusic) ran to 68 CDs and omitted a few items. I'm pretty confident the RCAs will be segregated out in their own big box. And yes, the discography is my work, thanks.
> > > > The first Ormandy Stereo box has been announced and posted on amazon.de--it covers records released 1958--63, but NOT the Beethoven "Eroica" (which lost its exposition repeat on later pressings and reissues) nor the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts recorded in 1957 and issued in stereo only on tape.. Here's the url:
> > > > https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Eugene-Ormandy/dp/B0CDK8TYT5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QOQC308IUVU9&keywords=ormandy&qid=1691304617&s=music&sprefix=%2Cpopular%2C177&sr=1-1
> > > Was the mono version of the MSND excerpts included in the
> > > mono box?
> > Yes, along with mono versions of items that were first issued on mono LPs and later issued in stereo--they are in this new box in stereo. And, big news, the track list on the Amazon.com listing (just up) indicates the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts on disc 27, logically on the same disc as Serkin's recordings of the Mendelssohn concertos; and, it also indicates Bloch's Schelomo on disc 87 along with Strauss's Don Quixote. So, it seems they're doing a thorough job, which is a relief. Now, I wonder whether the LPs conducted by Stokowski and Munch, and the handful of items conducted by William Smith, will appear in volume 2. Their procedure with the mono "Columbia Legacy" box suggests so, but I'll write to producer Robert Russ anyway and remind him.
> Further, it looks like the Brahms Handel Variations are going to be on CD 12 along with the 1959 First Symphony.

One mono Ormandy-conducted recording, the Schumann Cello Concerto with Pablo Casals, was omitted from the earlier set. Might that appear in the subsequent set as in an appendix or, more substantially, a complete Casals edition as this year is the 50th anniversary of his death (along with Ancerl, Klemperer and Szigeti - all having gotten recognized with various reissues).

Steve

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:05:52 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > >
> > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> >
> > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> I strongly suspect there will be three boxes total.
>
> 1958-63 - Columbia Stereo Vol 1
> 1964-68 - Columbia Stereo Vol 2
> 1968-80 - RCA Stereo
>
> The RCA stereos were remastered for the Ormandy Centenary Japanese release in 2001. Some of those tapes had deteriorated and needed to be baked (e.g.. Mahler 2) so they are unlikely to be remastered. All of the subsequent Sony boxes featuring these recordings have used these Japanese remasters. To my ears they sound fine and are unlikely to be substantially improved.
>
> It is also possible the (few) Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings from 1936-42 may be included in the RCA box. Or, they may be released as a smaller RCA Mono set. Ormandy held the title jointly with Stokowski from 1936-40. Ormandy was considered unproved by RCA and they preferred to record the orchestra with Stokowski. After Stokowski finally moved on, RCA recorded the orchestra with Toscanini. Ormandy's second-class status with RCA may have been one key reason he switched to RCA after the recording ban ended.
>
> DF
Pretty sure you meant Ormandy switched to Columbia after "second-class status" with RCA, yes?

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 2:58:16 AM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:43:43 AM UTC-5, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:32:41 PM UTC-5, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't.. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > >
> > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > The Japanese RCA issue of Ormandy's RCA stereo LPs (marketed by ArkivMusic) ran to 68 CDs and omitted a few items. I'm pretty confident the RCAs will be segregated out in their own big box. And yes, the discography is my work, thanks.
> The first Ormandy Stereo box has been announced and posted on amazon.de--it covers records released 1958--63, but NOT the Beethoven "Eroica" (which lost its exposition repeat on later pressings and reissues) nor the Mendelssohn MSND excerpts recorded in 1957 and issued in stereo only on tape. Here's the url:
> https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Eugene-Ormandy/dp/B0CDK8TYT5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QOQC308IUVU9&keywords=ormandy&qid=1691304617&s=music&sprefix=%2Cpopular%2C177&sr=1-1
Still working from the listing of contents on the Amazon.de site. Hope that a more detailed list will arise soon. In addition to the "omissions" noted earlier,
I'm puzzled by the Lalo Symphonie Espagnole on Disc 40. Is that the 1967 Stereo misplaced in this set or the 1956 in newly discovered Stereo?

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:12:14 AM UTC-4, Dennman6 wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:05:52 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't.. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > >
> > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > I strongly suspect there will be three boxes total.
> >
> > 1958-63 - Columbia Stereo Vol 1
> > 1964-68 - Columbia Stereo Vol 2
> > 1968-80 - RCA Stereo
> >
> > The RCA stereos were remastered for the Ormandy Centenary Japanese release in 2001. Some of those tapes had deteriorated and needed to be baked (e..g. Mahler 2) so they are unlikely to be remastered. All of the subsequent Sony boxes featuring these recordings have used these Japanese remasters. To my ears they sound fine and are unlikely to be substantially improved.
> >
> > It is also possible the (few) Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings from 1936-42 may be included in the RCA box. Or, they may be released as a smaller RCA Mono set. Ormandy held the title jointly with Stokowski from 1936-40. Ormandy was considered unproved by RCA and they preferred to record the orchestra with Stokowski. After Stokowski finally moved on, RCA recorded the orchestra with Toscanini. Ormandy's second-class status with RCA may have been one key reason he switched to RCA after the recording ban ended.
> >
> > DF
> Pretty sure you meant Ormandy switched to Columbia after "second-class status" with RCA, yes?

I am not so sure it was "second class" status as that CBS/Columbia under Ed Wallerstein, a former RCA executive, aggressively headhunted prominent Victor artists and organizations. Just a partial list: Pons, Melchior, Sayao, Traubel, Chicago Symphony, Busch Quartet, Budapest Quartet and many more.

DH

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:25:13 AM UTC-7, drh8h wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:12:14 AM UTC-4, Dennman6 wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:05:52 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc.. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > >
> > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists..
> > > I strongly suspect there will be three boxes total.
> > >
> > > 1958-63 - Columbia Stereo Vol 1
> > > 1964-68 - Columbia Stereo Vol 2
> > > 1968-80 - RCA Stereo
> > >
> > > The RCA stereos were remastered for the Ormandy Centenary Japanese release in 2001. Some of those tapes had deteriorated and needed to be baked (e.g. Mahler 2) so they are unlikely to be remastered. All of the subsequent Sony boxes featuring these recordings have used these Japanese remasters. To my ears they sound fine and are unlikely to be substantially improved.
> > >
> > > It is also possible the (few) Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings from 1936-42 may be included in the RCA box. Or, they may be released as a smaller RCA Mono set. Ormandy held the title jointly with Stokowski from 1936-40. Ormandy was considered unproved by RCA and they preferred to record the orchestra with Stokowski. After Stokowski finally moved on, RCA recorded the orchestra with Toscanini. Ormandy's second-class status with RCA may have been one key reason he switched to RCA after the recording ban ended.
> > >
> > > DF
> > Pretty sure you meant Ormandy switched to Columbia after "second-class status" with RCA, yes?
> I am not so sure it was "second class" status as that CBS/Columbia under Ed Wallerstein, a former RCA executive, aggressively headhunted prominent Victor artists and organizations. Just a partial list: Pons, Melchior, Sayao, Traubel, Chicago Symphony, Busch Quartet, Budapest Quartet and many more.
>
> DH

Ormandy was chosen initially as co-conductor with Stokowski to give the orchestra some leverage, but not to unsettle Stokowski too much. Stokowski didn't view Ormandy as a viable threat. Ormandy was less than a decade removed from being the concertmaster of a cinema pit orchestra while Stokowski was one of the highest-profile conductors in the world. When Stokowski finally resigned in 1940, RCA was still not convinced of Ormandy's marketability.. They felt much safer selling Philadelphia Orchestra recordings with Toscanini at the helm. It wasn't until about a decade of Philadelphia - the orchestra and the major donors - becoming comfortable with Ormandy and vice versa that he had the ground solidly under him. Launching a new recording contract with a new label after the recording ban ended was also a major part of Ormandy wiping the slate clean and creating his own legacy.

DF

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:31:39 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:25:13 AM UTC-7, drh8h wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:12:14 AM UTC-4, Dennman6 wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:05:52 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > > >
> > > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists..
> > > > I strongly suspect there will be three boxes total.
> > > >
> > > > 1958-63 - Columbia Stereo Vol 1
> > > > 1964-68 - Columbia Stereo Vol 2
> > > > 1968-80 - RCA Stereo
> > > >
> > > > The RCA stereos were remastered for the Ormandy Centenary Japanese release in 2001. Some of those tapes had deteriorated and needed to be baked (e.g. Mahler 2) so they are unlikely to be remastered. All of the subsequent Sony boxes featuring these recordings have used these Japanese remasters. To my ears they sound fine and are unlikely to be substantially improved..
> > > >
> > > > It is also possible the (few) Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings from 1936-42 may be included in the RCA box. Or, they may be released as a smaller RCA Mono set. Ormandy held the title jointly with Stokowski from 1936-40.. Ormandy was considered unproved by RCA and they preferred to record the orchestra with Stokowski. After Stokowski finally moved on, RCA recorded the orchestra with Toscanini. Ormandy's second-class status with RCA may have been one key reason he switched to RCA after the recording ban ended.
> > > >
> > > > DF
> > > Pretty sure you meant Ormandy switched to Columbia after "second-class status" with RCA, yes?
> > I am not so sure it was "second class" status as that CBS/Columbia under Ed Wallerstein, a former RCA executive, aggressively headhunted prominent Victor artists and organizations. Just a partial list: Pons, Melchior, Sayao, Traubel, Chicago Symphony, Busch Quartet, Budapest Quartet and many more.
> >
> > DH
> Ormandy was chosen initially as co-conductor with Stokowski to give the orchestra some leverage, but not to unsettle Stokowski too much. Stokowski didn't view Ormandy as a viable threat. Ormandy was less than a decade removed from being the concertmaster of a cinema pit orchestra while Stokowski was one of the highest-profile conductors in the world. When Stokowski finally resigned in 1940, RCA was still not convinced of Ormandy's marketability.. They felt much safer selling Philadelphia Orchestra recordings with Toscanini at the helm. It wasn't until about a decade of Philadelphia - the orchestra and the major donors - becoming comfortable with Ormandy and vice versa that he had the ground solidly under him. Launching a new recording contract with a new label after the recording ban ended was also a major part of Ormandy wiping the slate clean and creating his own legacy.
>
> DF

I can't agree. Look at the RCA recordings Ormandy was doing with the Philadelphia in the pre-war period. Mark Obert-Thorn has been remastering them for Pristine Classical. Quite a wide repertory, many major works and many, many discs. RCA must have regarded Ormandy as important in the Philadelphia's future. RCA never sold any of the Toscanini/Philadelphia recordings until over 20 years after the fact, and even tried to make the Old Man "forget" about those technically failed efforts. RCA apparently thought Ormandy's name important enough to insist on their contract and record the Nutcracker Suite with him after the orchestra had already started recording for Columbia..

DH

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:13:53 PM UTC-5, drh8h wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:31:39 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:25:13 AM UTC-7, drh8h wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:12:14 AM UTC-4, Dennman6 wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:05:52 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > > > > I strongly suspect there will be three boxes total.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1958-63 - Columbia Stereo Vol 1
> > > > > 1964-68 - Columbia Stereo Vol 2
> > > > > 1968-80 - RCA Stereo
> > > > >
> > > > > The RCA stereos were remastered for the Ormandy Centenary Japanese release in 2001. Some of those tapes had deteriorated and needed to be baked (e.g. Mahler 2) so they are unlikely to be remastered. All of the subsequent Sony boxes featuring these recordings have used these Japanese remasters. To my ears they sound fine and are unlikely to be substantially improved.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is also possible the (few) Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings from 1936-42 may be included in the RCA box. Or, they may be released as a smaller RCA Mono set. Ormandy held the title jointly with Stokowski from 1936-40. Ormandy was considered unproved by RCA and they preferred to record the orchestra with Stokowski. After Stokowski finally moved on, RCA recorded the orchestra with Toscanini. Ormandy's second-class status with RCA may have been one key reason he switched to RCA after the recording ban ended.
> > > > >
> > > > > DF
> > > > Pretty sure you meant Ormandy switched to Columbia after "second-class status" with RCA, yes?
> > > I am not so sure it was "second class" status as that CBS/Columbia under Ed Wallerstein, a former RCA executive, aggressively headhunted prominent Victor artists and organizations. Just a partial list: Pons, Melchior, Sayao, Traubel, Chicago Symphony, Busch Quartet, Budapest Quartet and many more.
> > >
> > > DH
> > Ormandy was chosen initially as co-conductor with Stokowski to give the orchestra some leverage, but not to unsettle Stokowski too much. Stokowski didn't view Ormandy as a viable threat. Ormandy was less than a decade removed from being the concertmaster of a cinema pit orchestra while Stokowski was one of the highest-profile conductors in the world. When Stokowski finally resigned in 1940, RCA was still not convinced of Ormandy's marketability. They felt much safer selling Philadelphia Orchestra recordings with Toscanini at the helm. It wasn't until about a decade of Philadelphia - the orchestra and the major donors - becoming comfortable with Ormandy and vice versa that he had the ground solidly under him. Launching a new recording contract with a new label after the recording ban ended was also a major part of Ormandy wiping the slate clean and creating his own legacy.
> >
> > DF
> I can't agree. Look at the RCA recordings Ormandy was doing with the Philadelphia in the pre-war period. Mark Obert-Thorn has been remastering them for Pristine Classical. Quite a wide repertory, many major works and many, many discs. RCA must have regarded Ormandy as important in the Philadelphia's future. RCA never sold any of the Toscanini/Philadelphia recordings until over 20 years after the fact, and even tried to make the Old Man "forget" about those technically failed efforts. RCA apparently thought Ormandy's name important enough to insist on their contract and record the Nutcracker Suite with him after the orchestra had already started recording for Columbia.
>
> DH
I don't know, Dennis. To quote my discography's Introduction, "At Victor, [Ormandy] played 'third fiddle' to the better-established Koussevitzky and Toscanini, but with the younger Columbia Records the Philadelphia Orchestra was the star attraction. The contract even stipulated that the Philadelphia Orchestra get top billing, and as many releases as any other artist. It further stated, 'If Phihladelphia repertoire in Victor catalog is remade by Victor with another major orchestra, we must permit Philadelphia an option on making it for us if it is to be made by Columbia.'" At Victor, Ormandy was the go-to guy for Richard Strauss and maybe Tchaikovsky (though not the Fourth), but not Wagner, Brahms (beyond the Second Symphony), Prokofiev, Beethoven (beyond the First), Debussy, Haydn, Mozart (beyond one divertimento), Prokofiev, and Shostakovich, all composers he recorded extensively for Columbia.

Rich

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 2:46:27 AM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:13:53 PM UTC-5, drh8h wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:31:39 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:25:13 AM UTC-7, drh8h wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:12:14 AM UTC-4, Dennman6 wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:05:52 PM UTC-4, David Fox wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, vhorowitz wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Gerard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Op vrijdag 7 juli 2023 om 18:10:50 UTC+2 schreef vhorowitz:
> > > > > > > > > > Got it, and that a valid (and sane!) attitude to have about it. And your comment about Klemperer not being in the "lush" category is of course true. When I wrote what I did about the lack of range, warmth & amplitude that does take some explaining. I think that the knock against earlier transfers in that regard is coming from my feeling that there's something "smaller" about the amplitude of those early transfers, IF you go back to good LPs of the recordings. I'm not even trying to say LP is "better" and digital sucks....I think these days digital CAN capture this aspect of the original tapes that, for whatever reason, digital in the earlier days couldn't. SOME of it is absolutely down to the transfer engineer's feeling that on CD we wanted less noise, so the baby was often thrown out with the bathwater. It still is, in many cases, but the analog to digital converters now are capable of giving us that "big fat analog" sound. What does that mean for the lean mean Klemperer, who was never out to seduce us with a creamy sonority? To ME, it means instead of the orchestra sounding about 15 feet wide and deep, that they cover a bigger "stage"....It's not simply soundstage and depth, but more vibrancy in the sound, less "tin fizz" to it. Why it is that good LPs have/had more of this? It's a mystery, but probably comes down to a combination of the digital transfer engineer's ears AND the equipment used for transfers (and it's improvement over the years).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hah, well, buying all of these sets NOW at my age, is either a challenge to myself that I'll be ornery enough to stick around long enough to listen to it all (hopefully with ears that still register enough to make it worthwhile) or a fool's errand, and something that will fetch $2 at Goodwill after my demise. Probably a combination of the two!
> > > > > > > > > Hopefully you will enjoy the new box a lot.
> > > > > > > > > I have still "work to do" with the Mozart, Brahms and Romantic Stuff boxes. I was curious about the box with Bach and Haydn and Rameau etc. but mainly for the Haydn symphonies, and ... actually I prefer the HIP conductors in that repertoire and I'm looking forward to what Chauvin will do (who is also busy with a Mozart cycle), hoping his box(es) will come while I can still enjoy listening to music.
> > > > > > > > To answer "VHorowitz's" question, the Mitropoulos box mixes Columbia and Victor originals.
> > > > > > > Duh, of course! Thanks. I’ve got that sitting about 3 feet from me but forgot. I wonder if, in this case, the fact that just the Columbia stereos alone are enough to fill 2 boxes of 100 cd each would dictate a further separation for the RCAs….any guess on the number of cds for those? Maybe 40 or so? If I had your discography handy, I could check :)….that is your work, Richard? Thank you for that!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I rather hope these next boxes will still be arranged roughly chronologically. I suppose the concerti could be separated out, but they haven’t done it that way that I remember. God knows, I probably have most of those concerti at LEAST once in previous boxes devoted to the soloists.
> > > > > > I strongly suspect there will be three boxes total.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1958-63 - Columbia Stereo Vol 1
> > > > > > 1964-68 - Columbia Stereo Vol 2
> > > > > > 1968-80 - RCA Stereo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The RCA stereos were remastered for the Ormandy Centenary Japanese release in 2001. Some of those tapes had deteriorated and needed to be baked (e.g. Mahler 2) so they are unlikely to be remastered. All of the subsequent Sony boxes featuring these recordings have used these Japanese remasters. To my ears they sound fine and are unlikely to be substantially improved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is also possible the (few) Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings from 1936-42 may be included in the RCA box. Or, they may be released as a smaller RCA Mono set. Ormandy held the title jointly with Stokowski from 1936-40. Ormandy was considered unproved by RCA and they preferred to record the orchestra with Stokowski. After Stokowski finally moved on, RCA recorded the orchestra with Toscanini. Ormandy's second-class status with RCA may have been one key reason he switched to RCA after the recording ban ended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DF
> > > > > Pretty sure you meant Ormandy switched to Columbia after "second-class status" with RCA, yes?
> > > > I am not so sure it was "second class" status as that CBS/Columbia under Ed Wallerstein, a former RCA executive, aggressively headhunted prominent Victor artists and organizations. Just a partial list: Pons, Melchior, Sayao, Traubel, Chicago Symphony, Busch Quartet, Budapest Quartet and many more.
> > > >
> > > > DH
> > > Ormandy was chosen initially as co-conductor with Stokowski to give the orchestra some leverage, but not to unsettle Stokowski too much. Stokowski didn't view Ormandy as a viable threat. Ormandy was less than a decade removed from being the concertmaster of a cinema pit orchestra while Stokowski was one of the highest-profile conductors in the world. When Stokowski finally resigned in 1940, RCA was still not convinced of Ormandy's marketability. They felt much safer selling Philadelphia Orchestra recordings with Toscanini at the helm. It wasn't until about a decade of Philadelphia - the orchestra and the major donors - becoming comfortable with Ormandy and vice versa that he had the ground solidly under him. Launching a new recording contract with a new label after the recording ban ended was also a major part of Ormandy wiping the slate clean and creating his own legacy.
> > >
> > > DF
> > I can't agree. Look at the RCA recordings Ormandy was doing with the Philadelphia in the pre-war period. Mark Obert-Thorn has been remastering them for Pristine Classical. Quite a wide repertory, many major works and many, many discs. RCA must have regarded Ormandy as important in the Philadelphia's future. RCA never sold any of the Toscanini/Philadelphia recordings until over 20 years after the fact, and even tried to make the Old Man "forget" about those technically failed efforts. RCA apparently thought Ormandy's name important enough to insist on their contract and record the Nutcracker Suite with him after the orchestra had already started recording for Columbia.
> >
> > DH
> I don't know, Dennis. To quote my discography's Introduction, "At Victor, [Ormandy] played 'third fiddle' to the better-established Koussevitzky and Toscanini, but with the younger Columbia Records the Philadelphia Orchestra was the star attraction. The contract even stipulated that the Philadelphia Orchestra get top billing, and as many releases as any other artist. It further stated, 'If Phihladelphia repertoire in Victor catalog is remade by Victor with another major orchestra, we must permit Philadelphia an option on making it for us if it is to be made by Columbia.'" At Victor, Ormandy was the go-to guy for Richard Strauss and maybe Tchaikovsky (though not the Fourth), but not Wagner, Brahms (beyond the Second Symphony), Prokofiev, Beethoven (beyond the First), Debussy, Haydn, Mozart (beyond one divertimento), Prokofiev, and Shostakovich, all composers he recorded extensively for Columbia.
>
> Rich

I agree it is complicated. Ormandy doubtless benefitted from the boycott of the Boston Symphony starting in 1940. By the time the BSO unionized and could record again after the strike they were out of the studios for four years. I have always suspected, without knowing anything about the sales figures, Stokowski's short run with his youth orchestra for Columbia was not much of a commercial success. In any event, he was quickly back to Victor, even before the strike. Toscanini would doubtless have had first choice of any repertory he wanted to record. Ditto for Koussevitzky. Moving to Columbia certainly gave Ormandy the chance to enhance his "brand" and become almost synonymous with the Philadelphia. Columbia certainly gave him more opportunities in the standard Germanic repertory, including a Beethoven Ninth. By then, though, he was competing at Columbia with Bruno Walter.