Customer Reviews

Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique/Roméo Et Juliette

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is, to my mind, one of the truly great Berlioz interpretations. This is not really disputed by earlier reviews, but there have been comments on the sound. It is worth noting that the recordings made by RCA from '54 to '56 were really experiments with no clear intent to market the results. As John Pfieffer, the producer, noted in any number of interviews, the stereo recordings were made while commercial monaural sessions were going on. In some cases, they did not even continuously monitor the stereo as it was being laid down on tape. The biggest problem, since they were using a two- or three-mic setup, was finding the ideal position to produce a good balance between direct and reverberant sound. Boston Symphony Hall is much more reverberant than Chicago Symphony Hall and caused more problems of the type noted by some listeners, but also ended up producing some of the most spectacular results once the sweet-spot was found. The Munch: Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony is a good example.

Many of these recordings were not even released in stereo at first, having to wait until this CD series was created in the mid-90's. I think this one was, though, first on stereo reel-to-reel tape and then on LP. I do recommend that anyone interested in this great performance snap up the CD while it is still available. As many know, BMG has a much lower commitment to the classics than they used to and are axing many titles as they sell out. And the great John Pfieffer and Richard Mohr are no longer around to protest.

Happy listening.

Charles Munch managed the contradictory feat of performances that tingled with excitement without being crass, and managed clarity without being clinical about it. A very old-school conductor in that regard. This nearly half-century-old "Symphonie fantastique" is a case in point. I can't think of anyone else in my experience who has so neatly brought out the hints of delirium inherent in Berlioz's score--while maintaining Gallic unflappability. At times the whole thing threatens to come unglued, and that sense of living dangerously is probably what Berlioz intended (the neatly-organized performances of Sir Colin Davis, which for some are the standard in this symphony, are anything but "on the edge"). In this he is aided by the very French-sounding Boston Symphony, of which he was then music director, and while their technical smoothness probably didn't reach its peak under Munch's direction, you get the sense that they would go anywhere the sometimes unpredictable maestro asked. RCA's engineers were a little less helpful, producing dry, close-up (if immediate) early stereo that sounds more dated than the historic Strauss recordings they'd made with Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony earlier that year (1954). The sound improves greatly in the apt (and deliciously done) coupling from seven years later: the "Scene d'amour" from "Romeo et Juliette." It was at a performance of Shakespeare's play that Berlioz not only resolved to set the Bard's tale of "star cross'd lovers" to music one day, but also first laid eyes on the actress who became the indirect inspiration for "Symphonie fantastique" (and later, Mrs. Berlioz).

Charles Munch was conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra from the late 50's through the early 60's. He was most famous for her interpretations of French music, especially Berlioz. His performances are rich in color, expression, power and excitement. While there are many fine, newer recordings, there is probably no finer performance on disc of this work. And the sound, though vintage early '60's, used advanced recording techniques and is excellent.

Munch seems to be the ultimate Berlioz interepreter. I have heared 3 of his Symphonie's ( the one performed in Portugal from a live performance) and all of them are excellent. A real master.

In 1954 Fritz Reiner recorded Also Sprach Zarathustra and Charles Munch the Symphonie fantastique, and in their Living Stereo reissues one could mistkae them for contemporary recordings, so clear, detailed, and dynamic are they. In terms of atmosphere and spaciousness, they surpass many current recordings. For far too long RCA abused them with edgy early digitual reissues, but now they've been given a new lease on life, and the lease keeps being extended--now BMG has issued a hybrid SACD of this classic.

What makes me even more grateful is that in 1954 making stereo tapes was an act of faith on the part of the engineers, who set up separate mikes for the mono version; there was no playback equipment yet devised for the home market that could play stereo LPs, and wouldn't be for several more years.

Of course it's the performance that counts most here, and Munch is light, spontaneous, and always careful to keep the music fresh. The fact that he doesn't turn the Symphonie fantastique into a sonic blockbuster is what makes the sound so delightful--we are never bludgeoned. I'm baffled by the description of Munch's approach as go-for-broke. The March to the Scaffold is, if anything, a bit understated, and the Witches' Sabbath, though spectral, doesn't strain for ghoulishly lurid effects.

In sum, I was as delighted with Munch's restraint as I was with the sound. A classic in the Berlioz discography.

No matter how many times Charles Munch slaughtered the Symphonie Fantastique, he still remained incapable of coming to grips with a very basic truth of musicology: Berlioz was not Mozart. No one can fault the classical precision of an orchestra playing this work under his direction -- the fault lies in the loss of the romanticism through the dull, boring, and terribly SLOW tempi which seem to be necessary to achieve that precision. Melodies which should swirl upward in dizzying spirals move instead with the plodding step of a heavily-laden hiker pacing himself on a steep slope. Melodies which should fall in shimmering cascades instead descend like a leaky tire. Granted, Munch made the listener hear every note of Berlioz's technique as a composer -- what he did NOT make you hear is the firely romanticism which was the eccentric Hector Berlioz.

The disappointments begin with the very opening. Those of us accustomed to more passionate renditions wonder at once "did I put the right CD in the drive? Can this really be the Symphonie Fantastique?" It actually takes a few bars before such a listener can even recognize it. Over the years, the one movement Munch did at a consistently correct tempo is the March to the Scaffold. And, in this recording, he came close -- perhaps for the first time -- to the correct tempo for the second movement, although the harp arpeggios still sound painfully plucked note by note instead of really "played." But the other three movements remain typical Munch Berlioz, the sort that make the listener want to make cranking motions while groaning "come ON, get a MOVE on, you can DO it, Charles, just move your hands about 50% faster, get the LEAD out, man ....."

I've heard almost all of the versions of Symphonie Fantastique, and this one was probably the worst. I've heard middle school bands that have better brass sections than this orchestra. The entire Boston brass section on this recording is horrible - especially the low brass. The percussion is not together witht he rest of the ensemble, and there are really strange sounds coming from the timpani. I don't know what people are hearing to rate this any higher. If you want to get a good performance matched with great recording quality, then get the version done by Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco Symphony. That's the best version out there right now.