Columbia SAX 2525: Malcuzynski's Rach 3

Columbia SAX 2515

Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor


Witold Malcuzynski, piano

Witold Rowicki, conductor

Warsaw National Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra

Pressing: ED1, blue/silver label


Condition: VG+


Date first published: 1963


Stampers:

YAX 1049-3
YAX 1050-3

Performance: 7/10

Sound: 6/10

Price range: $27-323 (mean $118)


Comments: A rare SAX from Polish pianist Witold Malcuzynski, who is no stranger to this blog site and whose other SAX recordings have received favorable reviews. This is his stereo recording of the Rach 3; his 1949 recording with Paul Kletzki and the Philharmonia was reportedly the first actual recording of the concerto intended for the LP. I have not had the chance to hear that mono version but can say that this one can't really compete with the likes of Byron Janis (Mercury or RCA) or Earl Wild, who give what I find to be more brilliant, less heavy-handed performances and are better recorded. The sound quality to this record, which I would describe as boxy and unnatural, is a major disappointment. Also notable is the presence of distortion in the louder passages, which can get a bit aggravating. The digital remaster cleaned up a lot of this noise and sounds far more pleasing to the ear. 





Comments

  1. Glad you like the Earl Wild Reader's Digest Box with all four Rachmaninoff Concertos, plus I think a version of Isle of the Dead. That is a budget choice and well recorded. Unfortunately it was pressed using the RCA Dynagroove process. My recollection from my many copies is that the Dynagroove did not mangle the sound too badly. (Rach PC2 from this box on Chesky CR2, but I don't have fond memories of the Chesky sound for that LP.)

    Its been a while, but I like the Ashkenzazy Rachmaninoff PC 3 on London CS6359. The right pressing of this might have the very desirable late blue back sound. The London LP would have more drive and bass than the two Janis recordings mentioned in the review of the Janis LSC Shaded Dog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've actually not owned the Earl Wild on vinyl but as a 24 bit/96kHz CD remaster on Chandos, which is excellent in quality. I owned the London Ashkenazy of which you speak, but sadly it didn't really do it for me. Sound was not exemplary to my recollection.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Then there's the whole of Earl Wild's Rachmaninoff box on the budget Quintessence label, but that label is an article in itself. Would love to hear your thoughts in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you compared Quintessence with Reader's Digest Dynagroove set from Earl Wild? I've never gone for Quintessence, so please mention any of interest (I might even have a few and have not listened to them.)

      Delete
  4. No wonder this recording is disappointing, chances are it was made by Polskie Nagranya, a state owned recording company and Poland's answer to Melodiya. This is clearly stated on the back cover of my copy of Brahms 1st Concerto that was recorded with the same soloist, conductor and orchestra, so I guess this recording was part of a batch whose distribution rights in the West were acquired by Columbia and were released under its label. The aforementioned Brahms is a solid interpretation, though the recording sounds boxy, even for a mono (I own the French FCX edition).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really like the cover on this one. Old Tin Ear used to complain about the Chinese being like a plague of locusts on EMI prices And this for up to $300 is a prime example.

      Delete
    2. It is a nice cover, I agree. In reading this post after all these years, I do wonder how much of this distortion I heard and bemoaned on these pricey SAX records was due to suboptimal care by the previous owners of the records. Perhaps the use of a heavy stylus or wearing out the groove with frequent listening? The records appeared visually very clean but holding a microscope up to the grooves might’ve told a different story.

      Delete
    3. I once bought an Australian pressing of the Brahms double Concerto with Oistrakh and Fournier for a few dollars. That was long before the shipping costs went sky high and people noticed that EMI Australia used the same stampers, labels and covers as EMI or Columbia UK, which has driven the prices for Australian Columbias through the roof.
      The record looked immaculate, but was completely unlistenable, all I could hear was distortion and noise. I am fairly sure that it was played with a blunt needle or the wrong needle for the record. I had to throw it away, it was frustrating.

      Delete
  5. Considering alternative recordings of the concerto: I like the 2nd a lot more, but I do know the Decca recording by Ashkenazy with Fistoulari accompanying, as well as the one with Byron Janis and Antal Dorati on Mercury. Also the mono RCA with Horowitz/Reiner (the sound is nothing to write home about) and a mono CLP with my fellow-country-woman Gina Bachauer at the piano and her husband Alec Sherman conducting. I may make a comparative listening soon, it has been a long time since I heard that concerto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen but never heard the Ashkenazy Decca record which you mentioned above. That'd be one I'd like to pick up one of these days.

      In addition to the Byron Janis recording on Mercury, there's also a Byron Janis on RCA Living Stereo (I wrote about it some years ago on this blog) from around the same time (perhaps a few years earlier), which is less common. I think the Mercury one is probably superior in terms of performance and sound, but I haven't done an A/B comparison.

      Speaking of Horowitz, there's also a later live version from the late 1970s on RCA with Eugene Ormandy conducting that is kind of wild and exhilarating. A little crazy in the third movement but with a bombastic ending. If we cross over into the digital realm, the version from your fellow countryman Stephen Hough on Hyperion is another excellent choice.

      Delete
    2. I have done some listening in the meantime. Turns out I have the Janis/RCA recording too, as a Victrola, with A1/8s-14S stampers, so not that far from the Living Stereo. Apparently it did not sell very well. It is one of the better versions, perhaps the best of all the above mentioned. The Ashkenazy, SXL 6057, has great sound, spacious and detailed, but the interpretation lacks passion, is strangely flat and ultimately boring. Such a shame.
      The CLP 1138 with Gina Bachauer (who by the way was Greek like myself :-) ) and Alec Sherman suffers from bad sound. The piano sounds dim and veiled, a grave failing for a recording of this work.
      The Mercury SR 90283 with RFR-6 stampers is great: virtuosic, with beautiful captured piano and orchestra, it is hard to decide between this and the recording of the Victrola with the same soloist. Ultimately I tend to favour the RCA, due to its more laid back, more spacious sound and the more sinuous, driven interpretation from Janis. The Mercury is more up-front in its recording, whereas Janis plays more relaxed-which is not meant as a critique, both approaches work very well. In the end it is a matter of personal preference.

      Delete
    3. Kostaszag, thank you for your impressions!

      I've also noticed the "up-front"-ness about the Mercury recordings. The sound of many of those is very immediate, as if you're just standing behind the conductor. I find that the case with many of the Howard Hanson/Eastman-Rochester, Frederick Fennell/Eastman Wind Ensemble, as well as the Dorati/Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra recordings. It's different on the Dorati/LSO recordings, which are a little more laid back to my ears.

      That's too bad that the Ashkenazy has great sound but isn't the most gripping performance.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts