What's amazing about Toscanini's La Mer is how transparent he renders the textures of the piece, without making it sound like a musical disection. Too often, we get Debussy bathed in a misty, impressionistic half light. Toscanini (much as Charles Munch did in some of his Debussy recordings) reveals the details and underlying complex structures of the piece - indeed, I was struck by how modern, and at times dissonant he makes it sound! For what it's worth, my go-to is Serge Baudo's very underrated LPO version, which was on EMI Eminence, coupled with a great Jeux.
Toscanini visited The Netherlands twice: in 1937 and 1938. In both years he conducted the Residentie Orkest of The Hague and in both years he conducted a piece by Debussy: in the second year Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune which was recorded by Dutch radio. Fortunately the recording was released on LP in the late seventies and later published on CZcams. Sadly, the performance of La Mer was not recorded, but all the people I spoke who were there spoke with immense and unreserved admiration as one of the decisive musical revelations of their life. For the Dutch composer Rudolf Escher it was a reason to publish a short book (in Dutch) on La Mer. After more than 80 years, this is still one of the best Dutch publications on Debussy. In the nineties the Dutch composer and musicologist Marius Flothuis, who from 1955 to 1974 was the artistic manager of the Concertgebouw Orchestra, was asked to select from a huge collection of recordings of La Mer the best three. His answer: Toscanini, Van Beinum and Boulez. For me this judgment still stands. I don't know a fourth who is just as good (and universally judged as good) as these three.
Karajan recorded it four times: on EMI with the Philharmonia in 1950s mono and Berlin in the 70s; in the 60s and 80s on DG, both Berlin. Whatever the deficit in textural clarity, I find with him, at least in the '64 recording, that the ocean really surges and swells where so many versions can get lost in the details.
I have a 1953 Toscanini "La Mer" recorded in Carnegia Hall and released in 2004 as a Guild 2-CD set (GHCD 2271/2). The set includes about 90 minutes of rehearsal of "La Mer." I haven't compared the 1950 and 1953 recordings. My stereo favorites are Rosenthal and Van Beinum.
RCA, after trying to get a published La Mer out of Toscanini for years, very smartly held the sessions after the orchestra had played it over and over in the 1950 tour. They also decided to use 8H instead of Carnegie because the dry acoustic exposed the detail and clarity he wanted. Another historic La Mer is Koussevitzky's unique Boston recording, which is very special. C'mon Sony, let's have a complete Koussevitzky box! Yes, he failed to hit the target a number of times but so has every performer.
I learned "La Mer" from this Toscanini recording, and it's always been my favorite. What makes it really special is he totally avoids the mushy "impressionist" approach a lot of conductors take. Toscanini got incisive, razor-sharp attacks from his NBC players. I've long been struck by the irony that Debussy is labeled an "Impressionist" composer when in fact he hated Impressionist art and would have resented his music being compared to it. My favorite stereo "La Mer" is Markevich's and my favorite recent one is Andriss Nelsons with the Concertgebouw on their own label. One to avoid: Mikko Franck's on Alpha, which you have to have because the rest of the disc contains "C'est l'Extase," a stunning orchestration by Robin Holloway of 10 songs Debussy wrote to texts by Paul Verlaine, beautifully sung by Vannina Santoni.
My first was Giulini's with the Philharmonia but the more I got to know the work, the more I liked other performances. Certainly Toscanini is brilliant, as you say, but I might also put forward Reiner. As in his Scheherazade, Reiner combines brilliance with (a touch of) sensuality and the Chicago Symphony play like gods.
I was somehow expecting Karajan's DG stereo recording, but Toscanini's mono recording is great. If you have the chance to get the Toscanini Complete RCA collection for a good price, then jump at the chance, there are so many great recordings included. I got mine from ebay, for very little money, a great investment and so many hours of great music.
I thought that, in the stereo era, Reiner’s or Hatink’s were spoken of as “reference” versions (Classics Today even says “this one” in its 10/10 review of the Reiner, although that might be more for the Respighi Living Stereo issue coupling)
For some reason I clicked on this expecting you to say Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony and I was getting ready to type a snarky comment about how the orchestra must have sounded great if you could hear it above the tape hiss. La Mer is my go to example of something I point at when demonstrating the superiority of digital audio to a vinyl fetishist.
@@matthewwalther1904 Maybe it’s just in the CD remaster, but holy moly is that tape hiss loud. Loud enough to call attention to itself at least and make me consciously aware of its presence. Good to hear it’s not as pronounced on the vinyl. I definitely prefer the 80’s Boulez, at least as far as CD pressings go.
First dip into La Mer, Leinsdorf/L.A. Phil on Pickwick L.P. Later years, Giulini/Philharmonia, Koussevitzky, Reiner, Silvestri. Toscanini with Philadelphia too. Can't really evaluate off the cuff now.
I have not heard this particular Toscanini recording--I will have to check it out. Among stereo recordings, I have long liked the Szell/Cleveland, which has the type of clarity and intensity often associated with Toscanini.
I've mentioned this before but in the Nutcracker Arab Dance I can invariably here the tambourine in mono recordings like Toscanini's 1951 or even Stokowski's 1926; but I have quite a number of stereo and digital recordings where it vanishes out of earshot. Very irritating.
Dear Dave: These videos have been a great library building series. However I do recall in one of your earlier videos where you talked about the parameters by which the references recordings were selected, you seemed to mention that only stereo versions are being considered here - I don't recall in which video(s) you may have mentioned it (there are too many videos!) but thought it may be good to clarify, given that this is not a stereo recording. Good choice nonetheless.
There are exceptions to every rule. It's mostly stereo, but if the reference really is an earlier recording in good enough sound I'll go for it. I really try to let the music dictate the choice.
I'll say one thing Dave, when you come up with a surprise "Reference" you advocate for it well. I never once considered Toscanini in this piece, but I'll take you at your word and give it a listen. Like you Dave I've always believed Karajan's version from the 60's to be overrated. When you have the likes of Reiner, Monteux and Munch out there and somehow Karajan manages to be the stereo reference--PLEASE! I suspect this was another example of someone's thumb on the British critical "scales." I lived in the UK in those days, and believe me, their musical review establishment would twist themselves into pretzels to avoid praising any recording from the other side of the pond. You'd almost think there were no orchestras in the US if all you had to go by was the "Group Think" in the British Press of the 1960's through the mid-1980's. While I enjoy several of Karajan's recordings, what I couldn't then or can't now abide by is the "Karajan Kult." His version of La Mer is the perfect example of the "Group Think" that deprives those younger classical collectors out there from reaching into their wallets fully informed of the performance options available. Thanks so much Dave for being the necessary corrective, "Keeping it Real" when it comes to enjoying good music. Take care!
Your comments about the British press and its attitude towards US orchestras is "right on". I surely agree that Toscanini is #1 here, and the variety of alternatives here shows that the piece has been well-served on recordings. I like several others, especially Martinon, Boulez. After reading these comments, I must trot out the Koussy.
Ah, the DG Debussy box included, as the main version, the late Bernstein / Rome recordings. Interesting. But also pretty awful. And as the "historic" recording Karajan's. And boy, it sounds better, it's better played, it's better interpreted... it just blows Lenny - no pun intended - out of the water.
This is a wonderful La Mer, but I can't bring myself to listen to my Toscanini records since I heard him viciously tearing into one of his players. I know... he demanded high standards, he was a perfectionist, it was a different time (etc etc), but I found his attitude totally disgusting.
Yes, he yelled during rehearsals. And yet, it was never personal, and the players did not take it as such. Instead, they dug in and gave him everything they had. I have heard a tape of a gathering at Toscanini's house in Riverdale, where one of his players can be heard telling him, "you have no idea how badly we play for other people." He said this to Toscanini with affection.
He behaved as no conductor could do today, certainly. His rages could be terrible as with his Death & Transfiguration rehearsals.But he never capriciously fired a player as Reiner or Koussevitzky did. The first clarinet player of the NBC had some weaknesses which Toscanini heard even over shortwave when he was in Italy. The orchestra manager wanted to replace him but Toscanini worked with him in private and he remained there for all 17 years of the orchestra's existence. When Szell appeared with the orchestra early on and stopped the orchestra some 50 times in a rehearsal of the Eroica first movement, Toscanini had a fit and told Szell ( in the dressing room) to let the orchestra play, get the feel of the music. and make corrections afterwards. If you read Haggin's The Toscanini Musicians Knew or Antek's book, you'll find that the players mostly loved him. They never got bored during one of his rehearsals. When you hear extensive rehearsals, you'll hear mostly calm and patience.
@@ftumschk Oh boy. Well, if you really want to run background checks on artists ( all artists) before listening, reading, or viewing, you’re gonna end up missing out on a lot of great art! I mean right off, you might as well skip just about everyone in jazz. I mean for example, Miles Davis was a wife beater so I guess you’re gonna chuck your copy of “Kind of Blue” in the trash if you own it. Right? Chopin was unpleasant snob; apparently a real asshole. No more Chopin? Szell? Reiner? Nope. Nope. And after Bradley Cooper’s film “Maestro,” it was shocking to read the negative comments about Leonard Bernstein - people disgusted by his “lifestyle” ( nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Seriously? Great art has often been made by bad people. So what? That you want your artists “good” and without fault smacks of Victorian moralism. Who said artists “owe us” to be good people?
What's amazing about Toscanini's La Mer is how transparent he renders the textures of the piece, without making it sound like a musical disection. Too often, we get Debussy bathed in a misty, impressionistic half light. Toscanini (much as Charles Munch did in some of his Debussy recordings) reveals the details and underlying complex structures of the piece - indeed, I was struck by how modern, and at times dissonant he makes it sound! For what it's worth, my go-to is Serge Baudo's very underrated LPO version, which was on EMI Eminence, coupled with a great Jeux.
Toscanini visited The Netherlands twice: in 1937 and 1938. In both years he conducted the Residentie Orkest of The Hague and in both years he conducted a piece by Debussy: in the second year Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune which was recorded by Dutch radio. Fortunately the recording was released on LP in the late seventies and later published on CZcams. Sadly, the performance of La Mer was not recorded, but all the people I spoke who were there spoke with immense and unreserved admiration as one of the decisive musical revelations of their life. For the Dutch composer Rudolf Escher it was a reason to publish a short book (in Dutch) on La Mer. After more than 80 years, this is still one of the best Dutch publications on Debussy.
In the nineties the Dutch composer and musicologist Marius Flothuis, who from 1955 to 1974 was the artistic manager of the Concertgebouw Orchestra, was asked to select from a huge collection of recordings of La Mer the best three. His answer: Toscanini, Van Beinum and Boulez. For me this judgment still stands. I don't know a fourth who is just as good (and universally judged as good) as these three.
Martinon, Reiner, Szell, and maybe five or six others.
Karajan recorded it four times: on EMI with the Philharmonia in 1950s mono and Berlin in the 70s; in the 60s and 80s on DG, both Berlin. Whatever the deficit in textural clarity, I find with him, at least in the '64 recording, that the ocean really surges and swells where so many versions can get lost in the details.
I have a 1953 Toscanini "La Mer" recorded in Carnegia Hall and released in 2004 as a Guild 2-CD set (GHCD 2271/2). The set includes about 90 minutes of rehearsal of "La Mer." I haven't compared the 1950 and 1953 recordings. My stereo favorites are Rosenthal and Van Beinum.
RCA, after trying to get a published La Mer out of Toscanini for years, very smartly held the sessions after the orchestra had played it over and over in the 1950 tour. They also decided to use 8H instead of Carnegie because the dry acoustic exposed the detail and clarity he wanted.
Another historic La Mer is Koussevitzky's unique Boston recording, which is very special. C'mon Sony, let's have a complete Koussevitzky box! Yes, he failed to hit the target a number of times but so has every performer.
I heard that one in High School. I think I still have the first one I heard, Szell/Cleveland. I must re-listen to Arturo! Thanks.
I learned "La Mer" from this Toscanini recording, and it's always been my favorite. What makes it really special is he totally avoids the mushy "impressionist" approach a lot of conductors take. Toscanini got incisive, razor-sharp attacks from his NBC players. I've long been struck by the irony that Debussy is labeled an "Impressionist" composer when in fact he hated Impressionist art and would have resented his music being compared to it. My favorite stereo "La Mer" is Markevich's and my favorite recent one is Andriss Nelsons with the Concertgebouw on their own label. One to avoid: Mikko Franck's on Alpha, which you have to have because the rest of the disc contains "C'est l'Extase," a stunning orchestration by Robin Holloway of 10 songs Debussy wrote to texts by Paul Verlaine, beautifully sung by Vannina Santoni.
I just listened Esa-Pekka Salonen's live version with L.A. Philharmonic and I don't know what to say.
My ears liked it.
I love the sea, so La Mer impresses me deeply. If I manage to find this recording, be very happy to listen to it.
My first was Giulini's with the Philharmonia but the more I got to know the work, the more I liked other performances. Certainly Toscanini is brilliant, as you say, but I might also put forward Reiner. As in his Scheherazade, Reiner combines brilliance with (a touch of) sensuality and the Chicago Symphony play like gods.
I was somehow expecting Karajan's DG stereo recording, but Toscanini's mono recording is great. If you have the chance to get the Toscanini Complete RCA collection for a good price, then jump at the chance, there are so many great recordings included. I got mine from ebay, for very little money, a great investment and so many hours of great music.
I thought that, in the stereo era, Reiner’s or Hatink’s were spoken of as “reference” versions (Classics Today even says “this one” in its 10/10 review of the Reiner, although that might be more for the Respighi Living Stereo issue coupling)
For some reason I clicked on this expecting you to say Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony and I was getting ready to type a snarky comment about how the orchestra must have sounded great if you could hear it above the tape hiss. La Mer is my go to example of something I point at when demonstrating the superiority of digital audio to a vinyl fetishist.
I have the Living Stereo LP. No hiss. (And I also assumed this would be the reference.)
@@matthewwalther1904
Maybe it’s just in the CD remaster, but holy moly is that tape hiss loud. Loud enough to call attention to itself at least and make me consciously aware of its presence. Good to hear it’s not as pronounced on the vinyl. I definitely prefer the 80’s Boulez, at least as far as CD pressings go.
First dip into La Mer, Leinsdorf/L.A. Phil on Pickwick L.P. Later years, Giulini/Philharmonia, Koussevitzky, Reiner, Silvestri. Toscanini with Philadelphia too. Can't really evaluate off the cuff now.
I incorrectly assumed the reference would be Munch/BSO. I've not heard this one but this is from the furniture box set, correct?
Yes, but it's available elsewhere.
I have not heard this particular Toscanini recording--I will have to check it out. Among stereo recordings, I have long liked the Szell/Cleveland, which has the type of clarity and intensity often associated with Toscanini.
So true. There's a lot to be said for mono recordings. Not everything has been improved with stereo.
Walter Legge would agree 😂👍
I've mentioned this before but in the Nutcracker Arab Dance I can invariably here the tambourine in mono recordings like Toscanini's 1951 or even Stokowski's 1926; but I have quite a number of stereo and digital recordings where it vanishes out of earshot. Very irritating.
@@bbailey7818 You can also hear it in Stoki’s 1940 Fantasia soundtrack… but then, that’s stereo!
Dear Dave: These videos have been a great library building series. However I do recall in one of your earlier videos where you talked about the parameters by which the references recordings were selected, you seemed to mention that only stereo versions are being considered here - I don't recall in which video(s) you may have mentioned it (there are too many videos!) but thought it may be good to clarify, given that this is not a stereo recording. Good choice nonetheless.
There are exceptions to every rule. It's mostly stereo, but if the reference really is an earlier recording in good enough sound I'll go for it. I really try to let the music dictate the choice.
Are you THE Gerald Finley, the baritone? If so, I admire your work.
@@donaldjones5386Good question! I've admired him ever since his volumes of Ives songs on Hyperion.
I'll say one thing Dave, when you come up with a surprise "Reference" you advocate for it well. I never once considered Toscanini in this piece, but I'll take you at your word and give it a listen. Like you Dave I've always believed Karajan's version from the 60's to be overrated. When you have the likes of Reiner, Monteux and Munch out there and somehow Karajan manages to be the stereo reference--PLEASE! I suspect this was another example of someone's thumb on the British critical "scales." I lived in the UK in those days, and believe me, their musical review establishment would twist themselves into pretzels to avoid praising any recording from the other side of the pond. You'd almost think there were no orchestras in the US if all you had to go by was the "Group Think" in the British Press of the 1960's through the mid-1980's. While I enjoy several of Karajan's recordings, what I couldn't then or can't now abide by is the "Karajan Kult." His version of La Mer is the perfect example of the "Group Think" that deprives those younger classical collectors out there from reaching into their wallets fully informed of the performance options available. Thanks so much Dave for being the necessary corrective, "Keeping it Real" when it comes to enjoying good music. Take care!
Your comments about the British press and its attitude towards US orchestras is "right on". I surely agree that Toscanini is #1 here, and the variety of alternatives here shows that the piece has been well-served on recordings. I like several others, especially Martinon, Boulez. After reading these comments, I must trot out the Koussy.
Make that "your comment".
Ah, the DG Debussy box included, as the main version, the late Bernstein / Rome recordings. Interesting. But also pretty awful. And as the "historic" recording Karajan's. And boy, it sounds better, it's better played, it's better interpreted... it just blows Lenny - no pun intended - out of the water.
Yes, it does. That late Bernstein stuff was horrible.
This is a wonderful La Mer, but I can't bring myself to listen to my Toscanini records since I heard him viciously tearing into one of his players. I know... he demanded high standards, he was a perfectionist, it was a different time (etc etc), but I found his attitude totally disgusting.
hey, if it works.
@@williamlansbury3752 He struck me as a total monster; a veritable Roland Freisler of the podium.
Yes, he yelled during rehearsals. And yet, it was never personal, and the players did not take it as such. Instead, they dug in and gave him everything they had. I have heard a tape of a gathering at Toscanini's house in Riverdale, where one of his players can be heard telling him, "you have no idea how badly we play for other people." He said this to Toscanini with affection.
He behaved as no conductor could do today, certainly. His rages could be terrible as with his Death & Transfiguration rehearsals.But he never capriciously fired a player as Reiner or Koussevitzky did. The first clarinet player of the NBC had some weaknesses which Toscanini heard even over shortwave when he was in Italy. The orchestra manager wanted to replace him but Toscanini worked with him in private and he remained there for all 17 years of the orchestra's existence.
When Szell appeared with the orchestra early on and stopped the orchestra some 50 times in a rehearsal of the Eroica first movement, Toscanini had a fit and told Szell ( in the dressing room) to let the orchestra play, get the feel of the music. and make corrections afterwards.
If you read Haggin's The Toscanini Musicians Knew or Antek's book, you'll find that the players mostly loved him. They never got bored during one of his rehearsals.
When you hear extensive rehearsals, you'll hear mostly calm and patience.
@@ftumschk
Oh boy. Well, if you really want to run background checks on artists ( all artists) before listening, reading, or viewing, you’re gonna end up missing out on a lot of great art! I mean right off, you might as well skip just about everyone in jazz. I mean for example, Miles Davis was a wife beater so I guess you’re gonna chuck your copy of “Kind of Blue” in the trash if you own it. Right? Chopin was unpleasant snob; apparently a real asshole. No more Chopin? Szell? Reiner? Nope. Nope. And after Bradley Cooper’s film “Maestro,” it was shocking to read the negative comments about Leonard Bernstein - people disgusted by his “lifestyle” ( nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Seriously?
Great art has often been made by bad people. So what? That you want your artists “good” and without fault smacks of Victorian moralism. Who said artists “owe us” to be good people?