Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1928-12)

December, 1928 The Phonograph Monthly Review 77 Recording Conductors By ROBERT DONALDSON DARRELL Recorded Symphonies; Continuation The Haydn symphonies in both electrical and acoustical versions are almost all completely sat- isfactory. Barbirolli’s “London” and Harty’s “Clock" sets are both excellent. The old versions of the “Surprise”, “Farewell ”, “Oxford”, and Number 88 were good acoustically and in all likelihood they will be no less pleasing when they are re-recorded. The manufacturers wisely avoid giving recorded Haydn performances into the hands of a conductor who would be liable to spoil them by over-brilliance and over-effort. And luckily the fresh roadside flowers offered by Haydn do not tempt virtuosos to tear them up by the roots, as they would the musical orchids and passion flowers of Tchaikowsky, Scriabin, and their ilk. Mozart is a more serious obstacle to recording conductors and directors. Harty’s D major and Barbirolli’s C major . (No. 28) are perhaps the only interpretations to receive general favor. Two new electrical sets of the E flat symphony have just appeared in England to dispute the claims of the mediocre Strauss version; until a chance has been had to hear what Weingartner and Kleiber do with the work, comment must be reserved. The former should do well; I am not familiar with many of the latter’s records. Mal- colm Sargent’s G minor is a fair work-a-day per- formance, but this lovely music needs subtler in- terpretative insight than that of a work-a-day repertory conductor, even of Sargent’s compet- ence. Weissmann’s acoustical set was very un- satisfactory, or I should be inclined to think of him as a likely choice. Remembering the inde- scribable dynamic delicacy and emotional pene- tration of Beecham’s concert performance of a little-known C major symphony (No. 34, not the one Barbirolli has recorded), I can think of no one preferable to him for the G minor. Or I wonder if the poetic sensibilities of Pedro Mor- ales might not enable him to do well with the work, too? Few of our recording conductors, no matter what their powers in other directions, possess the qualities essential for an expression of the rare and fragrant beauty of this symphony. But I forget, there is Sokoloff .... An apt choice, for he possesses the positive gifts and his weak- nesses of impact and incisiveness would hardly handicap him noticeably here. The “Jupiter” symphony in the versions by Coates, Strauss, and Godfrey has given rise to a discussion of no slight acerbity. A single hear- ing should convince every experienced student of the work that Coates for all the vigor of his Men- uett and Finale, is too hasty, too impulsive for a logical and satisfying performance. Godfrey am- bles through the work in prosaic fashion, dis- playing as complete a lack of personality, or individuality, or any evidence of either mental or physical life as I have yet to come across on re- cords. Which leaves Strauss alone in the field with his unimpressive, restrained reading of quiet virtues that grow very dear on familiarity, but which by no means can be said to reflect the innate grandeur of Mozart’s greatest orchestral essay. Who could achieve its heights in a re- corded performance? It is hard to discover, for the conductors most successful with Mozart on records (Harty, Barbirolli, Fried) have demon- strated their qualities only in works of a lighter and more delicate texture. Blech’s energetic and yet glowing way with the Marriage of Figaro overture might indicate his suitability. (Curi- ously, the overture itself is more pleasing in Gaubert’s performance, for Blech’s hand is so powerful as to come close to stripping the wings from this frail butterfly; the “Jupiter” is of tougher, more-resisting stuff and would profit by the intenser treatment.) Heidenreich’s acousti- cal version had a splendid first and second move- ment; perhaps the weakness of the third and finale were due in large part to the recording and the orchestra, less impressive than the modern recording skill and the Berlin State Opera House Orchestra of Dr. Muck’s new disks. Apart from him, there is almost no one whose record- ings are of a nature from which to draw any satisfactory conclusions regarding his possibili- ties for success with the “Jupiter” The two recorded Schubert symphonies have been amply discussed. The only comment which might be added to those already made in the re- views and in the Schubert summary last month is one of surprise over Blech’s ever having been chosen to conduct the H. M. V.-Victor set of the C major symphony. His reading was a debated one in the concert hall, the object of considerable critical asperity. Muck—were he not apparently reserved exclusively for Wagnerian works,— Abendroth, or Stock would have been a sounder choice than Blech for this particular work. Columbia’s choice of Harty was of course the wisest one, although either Beecham or Mengel- berg—were the latter available—safely might have been given the work. But for the fortuitous mechanical handicap, Harty easily would have won indisputable supremacy over Blech. Of the four Schumann symphonies only the Fourth is electrically recorded. Pfitzner’s con- ception of the work is sound, although perhaps somewhat unresilient (he is no longer a young man), but the recording is decidedly inferior.- Pfitzner also played the acoustical version of the First and Second : the “Rhenish” symphony has