Cheap Arturo Toscanini Collection, Volume 10: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Music) (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Arturo Toscanini, Leonard Sharrow) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Arturo Toscanini Collection, Volume 10: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

The first time I ever heard this played (in a modern recorded performance) I was aghast at the arrogance that allowed the recording to be released. It was awful.

Toscanini and the NBC 1st violins are fabulous. It's platinum and diamonds all the way. Every moment scintillates. I defy any reader of this review to find a modern performance that comes close.

I challenge all young musicians who are entering symphony orchestras to listen to this recording and commit themselves to a restoration of these high standards of orchestra virtuosity and ensemble.

And these days, whenever I hear a fabulous old performance like this, my friends and I wink and say "as a general rule...".

Revisit This "Haffner" For A Sonic Surprise!
I would like to question an oft-repeated assertion about this recording of the "Haffner": that it is one of the worst sounding Toscanini disks ever made. Is that really true? I state emphatically that it is NOT, as judged from this excellent "official" CD transfer.

There seems to be a tendency in reporting on the so-called "quality" of recordings, to reiterate the 'consensus', based on a traditionally- held notion that can almost always be tracedto the utterance of an "authority", such as an early critical comment when the recording was first issued.

This view of the recording is then reasserted and elaborated upon: even after the performance, such as this disk, has been issued in 3 or 4 different electronic recording media, and re- engineered over and over again, we still fall back on the original "authority", in this case probably B. H. Haggin.

In the early 1980s, I obtained an absolutely pristine copy of a late-40s pressing of the 78 set of this Haffer recording. Indeed, the "raw" disks seemed somewhat tinny and cramped in sound; since there was the usual continual shellac hiss and grind (even in a mint copy) the softer details, room tone resonance, and inner voices were somewhat swallowed up in mechanical noise. One clearly heard the 'bursts' of sound at the climaxes but much less of the softer passages. There was very little bass, and if an attempt was made to equalise it by boosting the low end, this just increased the noise level at the bottom.

So the sound was poor and was less rich and realistic than the 1929 Victor PSNY recording of the same work by Toscanini (which, of course, had less highs, but benefit from the resonance of Carnegie Hall.)

But, today in 1998, judging from the BMG CD issue, is it now correct to critize the sound with the same broad brush? The conventional view is that the Studio 3A venue used for this recording was a smaller, drier broadcast studio, and -- indeed -- it probably was so. I would judge by ear that Toscanini's Studio 8-H had, typically, about 250 to 350 milliseconds reverberation decay; on a few NBC broadcasts, such as the 1940 Manfred Symphony and Petruchka one can hear an even longer reverberation tail that sounds quite natural. In auditing the Relief CD (CR-1831) of the Studio 8H rehearsals for this performance, one can clearly detect and identify unmistakable Studio 8H hall tone and reverberation. If one quickly switches to the BMG commercial CD issue from Studio 3A -- equalizing the sound levels -- a VERY close correlation can be achieved. The BMG copy does not simply reproduce the tinny old 78 rpm sound, but represents modern and sophisticated re- engineering of the old 1946 master, done by Seth Winner, using purist techniques with no fake stereo or echo; alternate 33.3 transcription disks and NOT the original 78 masters were no doubt used for at least some of the sides.

The Studio 3A reverberance is virtually identical to the hall tone of 8H in the rehearsal; the exact sonic balances of strings and winds, and the soundstage "picture" of the ensemble is almost identical to the Studio 8H rehearsal recording; only the distortion components and exact content of high frequencies differ. In the finale, the very clean, airy, and bright commercial recording sounds extremely similar in overall sonic balances to the rehearsal, save only for the added noise and distortion of the rehearsal acetates. The 3rd movement of the commercial CD sounds less clear, and has more background hiss than the finale, where the similarities between the rehearsal and commercial recording are greatest; yet the perspective and ambience are still the same.

In addition, this 1946 version has excellent verisimilitude to Toscanini's intentions, as judged from the rehearsal recording where he takes such exquisite pains to achieve clarity. One can hear every detail of complex passages, and can resolve each instrumental line of the various sections of the orchestra.

A "bad recording" is one which had some dreadful technical defect: a severe wow or flutter, a loss of detail, or a debilitating distortion that prevented one from properly auditing and evaluating the original musical performance. Here, one can study critically how Maestro interprets the finest microscopic details; there is no harmonic or intermodulation distortion greater than the average amount for the technology of the time; there is no wow or flutter; the noise level (while not absolutely consistent) is quite low; and the overall results are very satisfactory as a musical and historical document.

I recommend that the bass response be stepped up as desired: extra body can help offset the short hall reverberation time. The end result is that one can very clearly perceive Toscanini's 1946 perspective of the Haffner, and hear his consistent approach to dynamics, pacing, and expression: it is a "tight" performance, not far in spirit from today's modern unsentimental, lean, brisk period instrument interpretations, though Toscanini uses far more 'espressivo'.

However, the live broadcast is a quite different concept, with more agogics and inflection of phrasing, very slightly slower pacing, and a relaxation that places it closer in spirit to Bruno Walter's romantic geniality.

So, Haggin was not exactly wrong in condemning the original 78s, but we should move forward in forming new opinions, after fresh hearings of the best modern work (especially Winner's efforts, or authentic monaural undoctored airchecks.) The damage done by Haggin, Marsh, or any of the other old authors who decry "bad Toscanini recordings" is that modern readers might be tempted to dismiss the Toscanini legacy out of hand without giving it a fair investigation.

In conclusion, one must note that the Bassoon Concerto and Divertimento No. 15 are gramophone classics, long appreciated by old- time collectors. If one might prefer the live broadcast of the concerto for its extra spontaneity and sparkle, or the Bruno Walter / NBC Symphony performance from a 1939 broadcast (quite well reproduced on a Grammophono CD), nevertheless these Toscanini editions must take their rightful place in any historic collection!