But then in more recent times - the amount of recording they do in Manchester has relied on BBC studios which are most certainly NOT overly resonant - they are pretty neutral spaces acoustically. Likewise for their London recordings many use the Watford Colosseum which I think is a great recording space - as evidenced by its use by a whole raft of companies. The choice of St. Augustine's for the Sinfonia of London is clearly a very specific artistic/technical choice which has certainly given these recordings an aural "signature" whether you as a listener like that or not. I would again defend the Respighi recording as being a remarkable balance of cinematic scale and detail which suits this particular work. I am not quite sure how an orchestra is meant to evoke outdoors except by sounding as if its playing on the other side of a valley.
As it happens with the Roman trilogy - a version I am very fond of both musically and technically is Maazel/Pittsburgh/Sony where the production team did a series of recordings revisting the idea of a single microphone array suspended above and behind the podium. But again the concept of a "credible soundstage" presumes that the ideal recording should always be a concerthall-like presentation of the sound. Often that is the case but sometimes with some works I have to say I enjoy a more "immersive" experience (Telarc in Cincinnati take a bow!)
On a different angle, I would demur from "the excellence of the Chandos recordings" regarding, for example, Wilson's Roman trilogy disc. This seems to encapsulate a particular (British?) affectation for setting large orchestral recordings in overly resonant acoustics, where the wash of ambient sound not only obscures inner detail, but can fail to provide the home listener with a truly credible soundstage. These Respighi works, by their very titles, suggest music of the outdoors, and the Chandos venue of Saint Augustine's, Kilburn, seems (and certainly sounds to me) hardly appropriate.
I should add that I'm not alone in my observations - in a recent review of a Neeme Järvi CD on this site, Steve Vasta remarks that "the Chandos team reverts to its former default, an overresonant ambience that thickens the fuller textures".
Until late last year I had not had the opportunity to hear any John Wilson/Sinfonia of London recordings. Then a very generous son sent me 6 for Christmas. Since then my responses have gone from ”excellent” to “good in parts”. This set me wondering why such a change; I came to the conclusion that my first thoughts were clouded by the excellence of the Chandos recordings and the brilliance of Wilson’s orchestra.
As examples – the much lauded Pines of Rome is indeed good but surely, as a performance, nowhere near Reiner; just listen to Reiner’s build up in the final section and then compare with Wilson. Similarly on the ”Escales” disc – sounding brilliant – the Ravel is really rather poor when compared to another recent release by Trevino. Wilson has perfect playing but absolutely no atmosphere.
Finally, at the risk if heresy, the latest string music cd was also, a rather lesser, disappointment. In particular the Elgar which, from the stand-point of Barbirolli, lacks passion and “sweep” and often stutters along and all sounds a bit dis-jointed. The VW is better but again, to me, lacks the passion – that Silvestri and Barbirolli my markers here, bring to it.
I could go on and bore you but you get the point I hope! As I say, I seem to be a minority of one; are critical ears being deceived by the excellence of the playing and recording? Or do I need to seek advice from an audiologist?
OK, this is controversial, and no doubt will get a strong MWI response!
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb