Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

As I told before: screw the after war recordings of the Bruckner 9! I think it is not about the performances itself but the way in witch they are recorded. For whatever reasons Bruckner sound very strangely recorded if it is not live and if the poly-microphone techniques were uses. At least it requires taste the unfortunately many (if not all) sound engineers do not demonstrate. For instance the wonderful performance of Celibidache with Stuttgart Radio from beginning of 70s I find completely unlistenable. It mixes in so strange way that when I hear it I think that my speakers are broken as sounds pop up from all redirection at completes rand one locations and volumes.

Today I received from Israel the Mravinsky 1980 recording of the Bruckner 9 with Leningrad Philharmonic. Mravinsky recorded the peace 3 times: mid 50s, 1980, 1982, all recordings were “live”. I am not big fan of the Mravinsky orchestra from 80s, and I do not particularly like the Mravinsky’s readings from that time. But what was the most insulting that this recoding was like any other after-war recordings had that “audio quality: that destroyed the entire work.

I do not need to hear the distinct string section in the Bruckner 9. I do not need the “clarity”. To me the correct “Bruckner Sound: is something that I call “accordion sound” what everything is melted together and act as one “pressure force”.  Gabriel Garcia Marquez described the Bruckner’s sound as sounds coming from stones spinning in a washer machine. I think something like this was possible only in war-time recordings and then, the recording technologies become “too inappropriately good” to record Bruckner…

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site