What was the most significant innovation
in the history of recording? After listening
to this Schubert Unfinished symphony
recorded in 1923 I'd say the introduction
of the microphone in 1925. This brought
faithful reproduction of a wide range
of instruments and the balance between
them. The recording horn used before
this was less sensitive and the art
of recording lay in finding an appropriate
compromise to convey the composer's
intentions. For example, at the beginning
of the second movement here, the bass
part Schubert scored for double bass
playing pizzicato and staccato is given
to tuba, with rather pleasingly benign,
rounded tone, but just staccato. An
example of the difficulty of balance
comes in the opening theme of the first
movement, where the clarinets mask the
oboes.
On the other hand, the small body of
strings and a necessary avoidance of
dense sonority at the climaxes produces
an engaging transparency of texture
and crisp rhythmic emphasis, comparable
to period instrument recordings in recent
times. A good example is the creative
tension (from 3:32) between the sustained
line of the clarinets, bassoons and
horns against the rhythmic thrusts of
the strings. Later (from 5:11) the dissonant
woodwind chords show up piquantly.
In common with most pre-microphone
recordings of symphonies, this one is
abridged. I think Pristine Audio ought
to indicate this clearly in the listing
on its website and on the cover, though
it is stated in the notes. These include
the speculation 'perhaps few record
companies at the time felt that few
of their customers would have the patience
to handle a longer recording'. Maybe,
but I think the technical difficulties
were a stronger factor. Complete recordings
soon became the norm after 1926.
What do you do if you only have around
13 minutes to record the Unfinished
symphony? You cover the main themes
by providing the exposition, give a
taster of the development and a fair
amount of the recapitulation. This makes
for an instructive listen alongside
complete recordings because it brings
home to you that it's the tension of
the development that makes the recapitulation
desirable and memorable. Weaken the
tension and you blunt the satisfaction
of its resolution.
What you actually get here, with reference
to the Barenreiter Urtext, is
I: bars 1-114, 170-239, 245-257, 267-311,
322-329, 338-368 (end).
II: bars 1-103, 142-201, 237-268, 305-312
(end).
So this is patchwork, but the patches
are sizeable: statistically 75% of the
first movement and 64% of the second.
Pristine Audio's notes undersell Wood
in stating 'less than half the usual
duration'. Beecham's 1937 complete recording
takes 23:05.
I was curious what the sound quality
of 1923 would be like and how different
the playing would be to that of today.
The sound quality I find agreeable.
This is a tribute to the transfer and
digital remastering. An effective balance
has been found between clean tone and
acceptable surface noise. The playing
is quite different but, like the sound,
you quickly adjust to it. More than
that, it has an attractiveness which
is hard to pinpoint. It's partly because
of the transparency of texture I mentioned
earlier. But in addition the playing
is totally unaffected. Schubert's emphases
emerge classically, without romantic
accretions. The sober calm of the shortened
first movement coda is effective without
any special pleading.
I compared Wood with the earliest recording
I have, the 1937 London Philharmonic
Orchestra/Sir Thomas Beecham (Dutton
CDLX 7014, no longer available). In
the first movement exposition (bars
1-114) Wood takes 2:30 whereas Beecham
takes 3:28. In the second movement opening
(bars 1-103) Wood takes 3:06, Beecham
4:05. This seems more a matter of approach
to the work than concern about the length
of disc sides.
The first movement is marked 'Allegro
moderato'. Wood stresses the Allegro,
Beecham the moderato. Wood achieves
an energizing animation in the violins'
running quavers accompanying the first
theme. Beecham is more concerned with
dramatic contrasts, but in comparison
is open to the criticism of 'too much
too soon'. It's good to hear Wood jolly
along the famous second theme (1:00)
where Beecham is leisurely. The portamento,
or slides, in the first violins when
they repeat this theme are a notable
feature of Wood's but not Beecham's
account. This portamento is entirely
natural, not an applied 'effect'. The
package from Wood is therefore one of
kinetic energy and flexibility. Beecham
is more disciplined but also stiffer.
The slow movement is marked 'Andante
con moto'. Not that slow then. Wood
stresses the con moto, Beecham the Andante.
Wood reveals the melodies with a gentle
naturalness. Beecham is more consciously
cultivated and contemplative. With Wood
there's more sense of spontaneity, of
something evanescent being glimpsed
in flight. Overall Beecham's is a rather
formal but recognisably modern performance.
Wood's isn't modern at all. The ambience,
the attitudes and approach which inform
it seem different. Is this closer to
what Schubert would have experienced?
Perhaps.
Interestingly, the notes point out
'Wood recorded this work twice', the
first time being 3 July 1919. This 1923
replacement version was issued with
the same catalogue numbers. The notes
don't say Wood recorded the work a third
time on 30 October 1933, unabridged,
with the London Symphony Orchestra (Dutton
2CDAX 2002, no longer available).
Even though a précis of an interpretation,
this makes for an extraordinary experience.
It's available in 3 forms: an MP3 download,
just a CD in an envelope, or a conventional
CD cased with booklet, at a rising scale
of prices.
Michael Greenhalgh
New Queen's Hall Orchestra/Sir Henry Wood
