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

The Phonograph Monthly Review December, 1928 78 never been recorded. Although he is entitled to the opportunity of re-recording his performances, typical of the best vein of Teutonic romanticism, Gabrilowitsch and Stock are the men best suited to produce satisfactory recordings of the Schu- mann works: Stock to do his own arrangement of the “Rhenish” , and Gabrilowitsch to do the three others. There is no particularly urgent need for an electrical Second , but the speedy release of a good First and a more competent Fourth would be very welcome. Schumann's orchestral works are by no means within the powers of every conductor. Not altogether satisfactory at their very best, his symphonies demand exceptional talents to save them from utter inadequacy. There is little evidence by which to gauge the possibili- ties of the other leading recording conductors. I imagine Morike, Beecham, Mengelberg, and Abendroth would all do well, but that is sheer guesswork. Blech, and other conductors of his type, should be emphatically ruled out, for while their performances infuse abundant energy into Schumann's veins, they are liable to kill him of tonal apoplexy. Koussevitzky, for example, gal- vanizes the First and Fourth into a semblance of furious life, but the strain on both music and listeners is too great. Dr. Nikisch possessed the secret of making this music speak intimately, not over-loud, and to the heart: would perhaps Coates remember it from his student days? Brahms' First is available in electrical versions by Stokowski, Klemperer, Abendroth, and Wein- gartner; the Second by Damrosch; the Third in a shortly forthcoming version by Stokowski; and the Fourth by Abendroth. Of the First I have as yet heard only the Stokowski set (plus, of course, the acoustical ones by Weingartner and Oskar Fried), so comparisons with the new versions must be deferred. But whatever the merits of the new Klemperer, Abendroth, and Weingartner sets, I hardly imagine there will be any necessity for owners of Stokowski's to discard it. In spite of a lack of dynamic range and an extreme re- ticence of the timpani, Stokowski's set remains one of the truly great achievements of orchestral performance and recording. References should be made again to Dr. Britzius' trenchant com- parison of the Stokowski and Weingartner read- ings The Phonograph Monthly Review for January, 1928, page 125.) Now that Weingart- ner has re-recorded his performance under vastly superior conditions, his reading can be compared directly and more fairly with Stokow- ski's. Klemperer and Abendroth unquestionably provide sound, sturdy performances, with Aben- droth's probably the more significant. Dr. Damrosch's Second is best passed over with haste. It is by no means adequate of the music nor up to the lofty standards set by the other Brahms recordings. Stokowski's Third is not yet available, but it may well be anticipated. Stock does the work nobly, Koussevitsky still better, but one need not fear for Stokowski's success. For the Fourth we have Abendroth's broad read- ing, sometimes not entirely irreproachable me- chanically or dynamically, but a work of superb strength and stature, comparable fairly with the grandeur of the music itself—perhaps the great- est that ever came from Brahm's pen. Given re- cording experience Koussevitzky might equal and surpass it, but for most other recording conduc- tors to attempt the task would be futile expendi- ture of time and energy. Conceding in advance the excellence of Stokow- ski's Third , we are left with the problem of an adequate Second . Of a mellower, duskier charac- ter than the other three, it becomes in many con- ductors' hands (not even excepting Toscanini's) quickly over-ripe. Again Koussevitzky's reading must be praised, as indeed all of his Brahms per- formances must be. Passing by him, we have Stock and Gabrilowitch again, both of whom could safely be relied upon. Or Casals, who con- ducts the Variations on a Theme of Haydn so well. Columbia is less fortunate in Brahms men, saving Weingartner, personification of traditiona- lism. There are few of the others, not excepting Beecham, who safely might be selected to record Brahms. Max von Schillings (Parlophone) comes to mind; also Hamilton Harty and his acoustical reading of the Academic Festival overture. But to be sure, that is not one of the symphonies. No matter; given a satisfactory Second , we shall have an incomparable Brahms list. Hector Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique is avail- able electrically in a complete version by Wein- gartner and in a new, incomplete version by Oloez. The latter, a French Odeon release, has not yet been heard at the Studio. There are three acoustical versions which have not been re- recorded and which are now all withdrawn, I be- lieve. The conductors were Rhene-Baton, Oskar Fried, and Dr. Weissmann, and all did well with the work. However it does not suffer at Wein- gartner's hands; the first electrically recorded symphony, his version is still to be seriously reckoned with. I doubt very much whether Cloez' reading is as well rounded. It is unfor- tunate that Harty, perhaps the outstanding Berlioz authority, should not have the opportunity of recording his celebrated performance of this symphony. A new set will probably be forthcom- ing before long from one of the Victor affiliated companies. Copolla or Blech are the most likely conductors; of the two perhaps the Frenchman would be the more appropriate. Tchaikowsky's first three symphonies are as alien to record catalogues as they are to the con- cert hall, but the Fourth , Fifth , and Sixth reflect their concert popularity in phonographic impor- tance. The Fourth is available only in the early electric version of Sir Landon Ronald; the Fifth in Stock's and Kitschin's electrical sets and Coates' acoustical one; the “Pathetique” . in Coates' electrical set and in several acoustical ones (Weissmann, Ronald, Wood, and Walter.) Ronald's Fourth is recorded with such marked inferiority that it would not be worthy of serious consideration even if the reading were more meritous than it is. Luckily, the problem of an adequate version, long a thorn in the sides of