The regular visitors of my site know about my recent frustrations with my new Ortofon SPU cartridge for my “mono tonearm”: Is it all that Ortofon SPU can do? Today I made some alternations that more or less cured the audio problem and I decided to hit some “serious music” to see how my mono-tonearm would work out for me.

A few days ago Clark Johnson visited me and I played to him the Third movement of Mravinsky 1961 performance of Tchaikovsky IV. I love what Mravinsky did with this movement and I pretty much calibrate the bass balance of my playback using this Mravinsky performance. At the same time I was involved in a discussing within Massimo Nespolo Forum a subject why Valery Gergiev makes the Tchaikovsky IV sound “like a symphony on the edge of a nervous breakdown, a symphony whose hysterical themes, histrionic developments, excessive orchestrations, and unrestrained banality express the quintessence of incipient dementia.” So, the bias of Tchaikovsky IV was flying over me and walking to my shelf with the selected best performances even committed to a recording media I went to “T”-“Russians”-“Tchaikovsky” and pulled out my Mono versions of Tchaikovskys IV.

First I played Mengelberg with Concertgebouw from 1929. But the Tchaikovsky Fourth is not the Tchaikovsky Fifth and it should not yet be loaded with that pessimism and melancholy that Mengelberg spread all around that music. Paraphrasing George Balanchine the Fifth is about Tchaikovskys looked at the end parade that juts walked along the street and discovered that he is not among the parading people. The Fourth was before, and it was the first sensation of Tchaikovskys when he is looking at the parade currently walking along the street and feeling that he juts casual pedestrian and not a participant of the parade….

So, skipping the Mravinsky performance form 1957, Erich Kleiber from 1948 and 1941, Guido Cantelli from 1949, Eduard van Beinum from 1940, Dmitry Mitropoulos from 1940, Stokowski from twenties, Sanderling from mid 50s, Enescu with Russians right after the War and young Karajan from beginning of 50s I went to the incontestable king of the Tchaikovskys IV - Serge Koussevitzky

I have 3 recordings of Koussevitzky leading the Tchaikovskys IV – from 1935-36, 1946 and form 1949. I heard that there are 5 recordings of Koussevitzky all together but I did not hear the rest two. Koussevitzky recording from 1935-36 is very fine but the “fineness” of the First Movement is greater then the rest of movements, also the orchestra plays kind of being afraid of itself. The Boston Symphony sound in 1936 phenomenally well but they really do not let it go all the way down. The situation will be changed in 1949 years. However, before this, in 1946 Koussevitzky recorded the Tchaikovskys IV live at some kind of strange location. Sonically it is not Boston Symphony Hall or Tanglewool but something even… worth...
 
...And then the big year for the Tchaikovskys IV comes – the 1949. This year Sergey Koussevitzky recorded this work twice: the rehearsal and the actual performance in the Boston’s Symphony Hall. I did not hear the rehearsal.

RCA Victor LM-1008

The recording of Koussevitzky leading Boston Symphony in April 1949 is not juts the greatest performance of this work even was recorded but this is one of the greater musical event that ever was recorded. When you listen this performance is sounds like a studio recording – the music and the efforts of the musicians are so swiping that you will not hear any existence of audience in there. The melodism, the fantastic sense of rhythm combined with hair-raising force or orchestra make this performance to jump out of a scope of being juts a Tchaikovskys IV but rather this performance delivers a message what could me theoretically accomplished in symphonic music. The Boston Symphony orchestras dose such an unparalleled job that it might hurt your expectation… how an orchestras might sound. Each single note, each single phrase the Boston with Koussevitzky did in there are not just perfect but they define what the definition of perfection might be. If you feel that Mahler was on something when he suggested after his first movement of “Resurrection” the musicians and audiences should take 5 minutes to pose, to come down thier nerves…. then wait unit you hear what Koussevitzky with Boston did in 1949 with the Tchaikovskys IV’s First Movement! What they did dose not sound like Mahler’s hart–stopping musical “load” but rather like an musical defibrillator.

Really, this is quite different Tchaikovsky. Usually Tchaikovskys played like pussy-composer converting all his music in waltz-polka-like tragic. Those weepy crescendos are fine when you chew a Yankee-junkie hotdog while watching the July 4 firework and those ballet paradises are catchy but are they all that we can get out of Tchaikovsky?  Koussevitzky with Boston in 1949 made a keystone statement how it might be, ...might be if the conductor “knows” and the musicians “can”….

Boston Symphony Orchestra with Sergey Koussevitzky on podium in 1947

How, let return form where I started- the sound. Sonically this 1949 recording is absolutely magnificent and here is where the Ortofon SPU MONO shines in it glory. I know very well ho this recoding sounds with my reference stereo cartridges but the SPU MONO took it way further. This cartridge kind of put all together and brash music with some very beautiful warm colors. The very-very slight upper bass warmth and forwardness are still here but in context of THAT orchestra’s tone it dose not sound annoying but rather it sound very natural and very realistic. I made an experiment and tried to play this performance after the SPU MONO with my current best stereo cartridge (with a complex needle profile) but I stopped after the few notes. All together the Ortofon SPU MONO is excused for it’s minor upperbass faults and it settling down permanently to live in my playback.

Ronnie wrote:

I have been enjoying the "Euroclassic Notturno" (BBC?) program on swedish radio tonight.  As a happy rookie in the world of classical music, I seek advice on Tchaikovsky based on what I just heard; His Symphony No. 5. I thought: "Horrible waltz mixed with nice but superfluous 'soundeffects'. Got much better towards the end, sounded more inspired and unconventional. Perhaps a bit 'effect seeking'?" Do you think there are any Tchaikovsky works for me, given that impression? I really want to avoid that horrible waltzing, but it sounded as if he -could- have made some really interesting music. I've been listening super-nearfield, using a very FR-flawed but loaded mono setup, with a very Macondo-like upper bass channel. Many thanks to Romy and JLH for inspiration and building instructions! ...Then came a "Sonata in F minor" by Eckhard. Jesus Christ, that was superb! I'll try not to stray any further from the topic.

I would strongly encourage you, if you have interest in Tchaikovsky, to families yourself what he was going through in 1888 in his live, and perhaps to see if any other compositions from that period would be interesting to you.

If you look forward to dive deeper into this work then I would suggest a “mix” of two performances.

The first movement would be believe you or not but by Georgiev with Vienna Philharmonic. I have no idea what happen then but the orchestra did something absolutely phenomenal. It was the best play that I heard ever from Vienna Philharmonic and they did it with…. I am sorry …with the Georgiev! It kind of slower then might be but it is superbly balanced and with the “semantics” and assents that it overwhelmingly powerful.

The second movement incontestably owned by Mravinsky with Leningrad Philharmonic (the stereo version of 1961). Practically no one plays this movement properly from my perspective, as no one reached a culmination in the end of the movement with such recklessness and vigor as the Mravinsky’s orchestra. The second movement of the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth is fantastically melodic and superbly fluent but it has a catch: to me this movement is the most remarkable depicting of a female orgasm then I ever come across in music. So, the play should be with… that one… you know what….

The Third movement is a glyceriny abracadabra, very nice, with no “load” and it is a good relaxation before the last movement comes.

The last movement, and you would need go back to the Mravinsky and Leningrad Philharmonic 1961. There are “better” performances of it, more “musical” and more orthodox, but no one after or before Mravinsky had balls the size of Montana and no one squeezed out of orchestra so much testerone and Mravinsky did. The introduction of the main thyme in there, after a couple minutes of “preface” is phenomenal, and even the typically-crappy sounding Russian instruments have in the hands Mravinsky their own justifiable super-purpose in their crappynes. And, off course, when after another 2 minutes the Leningrad’s full orchestra will bloom with it’s full strength you buck up and hold your upper bass horn because it will fly.  The muscularity and at the same time orchestral X-ray like articulation of this last movement is out body experience and Mravinsky will hold it to the final note of the pieces.

 BTW, the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth by Mravinsky, last movement is for a very long time is my standard test for capacity of an upper bass in a playback installation. A properly implements upper bass channel should load a listening room with a certain amount of pressure. This pressure should have a VERY certain amount of drama and certain amount of fear, no more and no less. If the drama or if the fear were not there than it was not an upper bass horn but some kind of Wilson Audio loudspeaker.  If the drama and the fear were in incorrect proportions then the driver of the upper bass horn was not properly damped.

It interesting… the WGBH juts broadcasted "Live" a debut of Austrian conductor Manfred Honeck with Boston's Symphony playing:

Beethoven: Coriolan Overture
Schnittke: Concerto grosso No. 5 for violin and orchestra with Gidon Kremer
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5

I was as not able to listen form my office the whole broadcast but I did managed to ketch the Tchaikovsky Fifth.  I do not know… I think I begging to hate Boston Symphony again. The Firth movement was ruined and instead of juts listening my sick attention was jumping form one mistake to another. The Second Movement Mr. Honeck suddenly converted form radical supremacy into flowery mockery, after wish I jumped form my headphones and in order do not even listened the their movement. The last movement was also off the wall. Instead of the Tchaikovsky Fifth Manfred Honeck played a dialog between a German march for the unturned instruments and each instrumental group own vision of own tempo. I mean the entire movement was a oscillation between boredom of pure sonic irritation as when soon I was falling asleep some kind of idiot-trumpetest jump out of the orchestra and waked me up. In the end when Honeck somehow put them all together and tried to inject into music some American version of epic pathos into the closing coda the musical sounded juts as a putty irony.  I think this conductor and this orchestra should play soundtrack for The “Bravehard” but not the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth.

The polite Boston Symphony Hall visitors still applauded a little but very withdrawn. The quality of broadcast was very good. I am sure if the recording would be released publicly then it will make the HP’s “records to die for”

Rgs,
Romy the caT

Interesting that if to leave aside the “tragic” context of the Tchaikovsky’s Six then I would say that I like the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth more  then any other his symphonies. Sure it too much Slavic but it was kind of first Tchaikovsky’s “real” symphony. The Forth was kind of ingénues interpretation of Beethoven, socked into the “Swan Lake”. The First and the third movements of the Forth Symphony are phenomenal but the last movement is the pure and from my perspective completely unreasonable musical abracadabra, though quite complex abracadabra. The Fifth symphonies is much more reasonable, connected, justifiable, much more musical; it is purely the action of naked honesty. Tchaikovsky in the Fifth exploited the areas of own candidness that he never touched before only now he did it with very different level maturity and realization of the “program”.  The Tchaikovsky’s Fifth deserved to be heard again and again …

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Ronnie wrote:

Interesting how the greatness of their works, and the "mental illness" of Tchaikovsky and of Nietzsche (the guy who gave name to Dimas SS amp!) coincided in the end of the 1880-ies.

hifitodd wrote:

Romy, have you read the book that details Romy's relationship with Najda von Meck?  I don't want to change the thread to a discussion of whether or not Tchaikovsky is gay, but it is pretty clear through the letters that Tchaikovsky wrote himself that he had less-then-heterosexual feelings towards his wife, that he had a "condition," and of his uneasiness in general.

Anyhow, the relationship between Tchaikovsky and his wife could not illustrate anything and defiantly might not be the evident of the Tchaikovsky’’s self-elected homosexuality. The Tchaikovsky’s wife was idiot, a mentally, intellectually and feminine disturbed women. All motioned noted this, all Tchaikovsky’s surrounding motioned this, even her friends fro the conservatory had mention this. It is very much not surprised that being exposed to this women Tchaikovsky has a nervous break down. In fact a few years after the Tchaikovsky his wife behaved very diagnosable and very asocial and ended up in a metal institution. Should we blame Tchaikovsky for this?

Yes, I read his maters, his letters and many others things and this why I feel very comfortable to not consider that Tchaikovsky wasn't a homosexual.

Rgs,
Romy

Ronnie wrote:

I noticed that my turntables make a piece of nothing out of the third movement. The PC / DAC plays with vibrating deep bass and the whole room is creaking, while the turntables play very weak LF (but beautiful flutes).

1) Audio people foolishly chase those original DG pressings with tulips and so on but I would not advise to spin them. Also some of them are good but a huge number of them were pressed very badly and have very gray sound. For the Mravinsky 1961 recording I would suggest to got for the widely available box-set of the 4,5, and 6 Symphonies. They were pressed in Italy and have very-very good sound, much better then DG’s originals.

2) It is very common for analog people that thy do not have good sound (bass). Generally, you should switch from the same performance between analog abs digital and should you should not have different sound. With analog you should have very slightly better articulation (if we talking about bass) and better transient response of upper bass. All the rest is a fault of your analog set up.

3) I do not think that anyone would be able to debug your analog bass problem over Internet. It would require knowing a lot of details about your setup and what exactly you do with it.

Rgs,
Romy

PS: I probably should move it to the Audio forum…

It seems that all my analog-missing-LF-paranoia can be blamed entirely on that original DG pressing.
How could I know that I was using a superbly miserable pressing as my bass calibrator? It really made me give up on my turntables for a while there. 

Today I finished a DIY tonearm (a long and heavy one), and played the Italian pressing for the first time.
I was very proud of my achivement. Deep LF in spades! Then I compared it with the original, and all my DIY pride sank instantly. Heh heh heh. I'm not using the same TT, arm and cartridge as before, but I bet there's really nothing wrong with them after all.

Thanks for recommending the Italian box!!!

(Move to wherever appropriate if you wish. I just think it may be good to enlighten people who only have played the original, and believe that they have heard the Mravinsky #4!)


/Ronnie

Actually I use Koussevitzky 1949 version of Tchaikovsky’s IV (first movement) to assess my mono analog. There is not doubts in my mind that any more or less serious records enthuses much have a dedicated mono cartridge, preferably permanently installed. I use Ortofone SPU MONO into 64dB 7788-7721 phonostage.  So, how do I set the cartridge and make sure that the entire mono chains sound correct? I listen Koussevitzky leading the Boston Symphony performing the First movement of the Tchaikovsky Forth.

I am not a big fun of the other movements (there are better) but the first movement is something totally out of this world. I do not think Boston Symphony before or after played such phenomenally. There is so much going on there: tonality, articulation, phraseology, phonetics, syntax.. at all levels of sonic perception:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?postID=50#50

that 30 seconds of listening of the Koussevitzky Tchaikovsky IV give an instant objective depicture of the state of my mono analog chain

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

Interesting that if to leave aside the “tragic” context of the Tchaikovsky’s Six then I would say that I like the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth more  then any other his symphonies. Sure it too much Slavic but it was kind of first Tchaikovsky’s “real” symphony. The Forth was kind of ingénues interpretation of Beethoven, socked into the “Swan Lake”. The First and the third movements of the Forth Symphony are phenomenal but the last movement is the pure and from my perspective completely unreasonable musical abracadabra, though quite complex abracadabra. The Fifth symphonies is much more reasonable, connected, justifiable, much more musical; it is purely the action of naked honesty. Tchaikovsky in the Fifth exploited the areas of own candidness that he never touched before only now he did it with very different level maturity and realization of the “program”.  The Tchaikovsky’s Fifth deserved to be heard again and again …