London Blueback CS 6200: French Orchestral Favorites from Martinon and the PCO
Ibert: Divertissement
Bizet: Jeux D'Enfants
Saint-Saens: Danse Macabre, Le Rouet D'Omphale
Jean Martinon, conductorParis Conservatoire Orchestra
Pressing: UK, ED1
Condition: VG++
Stampers: ZAL-4957-2E, ZAL-4958-1E
Buckingham code: B
Date first published:
Performance: 8/10
Sound: 7/10
Price range: $25-80 (mean $40) on popsike.com
Comments: This album combines a number of very colorful and engaging French orchestral favorites by Ibert, Bizet, and Saint-Saens and presents them in very dynamic sound. The performances are quite enjoyable, especially Ibert's Divertissement, which consists of six movements assembled together from incidental music that Ibert wrote for the 19th century Labiche play The Italian Straw Hat. As fun as this music is (there are police whistles in the final movement), it has not been as frequently recorded as the other works on this record. Incidentally, Jeux d'Enfants was also recorded by Ernest Ansermet and the OSR for the same label (CS 6208). I found both soundstaging and imaging on this LP to be particularly impressive, both when listening in front of loudspeakers and with closed-back AKG K550 headphones. My primary qualm with this FFSS pressing is that there was a reasonable amount of mild to occasionally moderate distortion in loud musical passages, most noticeable on side 1 (which has 2E stampers) but also present on side 2 (which has 1E stampers). This makes me wonder if different stampers or perhaps later pressings might be preferable (our Decca/London guide shows London STS and Decca Ace of Diamonds and Eclipse reissues are available). My buddy Eric says that he has the second label wide-band FFRR pressing and really likes it. I think I may have to get my hands on this pressing -- I wager that it might be a sonic improvement in terms of clarity and distortion-free dynamics but might lack some of the FFSS tube magic. Without the distortion, though, this would, in my humble opinion, probably rank among one of the very best London/Deccas of this era. If any of you reading this have heard a different pressing, please feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts.
Once again, check out the price discrepancy between London and Decca. SXL 2252 sells for $22-656 with a mean of $225 on popsike.com. Higher prices are naturally associated with ED1 pressings. Based on my own listening experience, I would recommend potential buyers not to waste too much dough on first pressings of this Decca if sound quality is your main goal.
In Full Frequency Stereophonic Sound, this London scored an 8 for performance and 8 for sound but did not make the top albums or honorable mention list, perhaps for reasons similar to those I mentioned above.
I've linked this, the Ansermet Pictures, and CS 6208 into the living sxl blueback guide. The Decca of this is a $500 record. Its kind of a maddening record since you can probably collect all of these pieces with other music. Omphale's Spinning Wheel is rarer. Dance Macabre abounds. Ibert's Divertissement is on Shaded Dog LSC-2084 with Fiedler and the Boston Pops (always liked the cover, but never owned that one.) The Decca of this is 1E/1E and is presumably an earlier stamper. The Decca and London are always slightly different and I would seek out the earlier pressing if you must have the best at any price (this is not always the Decca.) Of course you can one up everyone with the 45 of the Divertissment on Decca SEC 5081, it's very cute. http://www.45cat.com/record/sec5081
ReplyDeleteI'll add that the 45 came out a year earlier. The Decca and London were only seperated by a month in Philip Stuart's Complete Decca pdf on Charm. I would take this to mean they were made at the same time, with the difference being a month to ship the vinyl over to the US for packaging. Another nod for the Decca here as I doubt very much that the best pressings would have been sent to the US in this situation. Again, possibly not as many sales in UK which would ensure all of the SXL were first run.
ReplyDeleteI must say I am disappointed with the tepid review of this blueback given the pricing of the SXL. At ten times the price the SXL seems a risky purchase. Our guide shows three reissues of this.
Thanks for the comments, Meles. I'm sorry you were disappointed by the review. Trust me, so was I since I just bought this album off the bay. I had high expectations. Don't get me wrong. I meant what I said when I said this is a dynamic album. Without the loss of clarity and distortion, it would be a real winner, but that was not the case with my pressing. I think that a later pressing, perhaps one that Decca cut with their new cutter, might correct this problem. I have asked Eric to look into this since he has the wideband FFRR. I take it you have not had a chance to hear this album?
Delete2E/1E is available on early (1966) copies of SDD 144- the 1E by then being from a secondary stamper (3)
ReplyDeleteThe 1976 ECS 782 is 4W/3W - rated by 'EMG' as an improvement.
The Saint-Saens items were issued on SEC 5089 (1E/1E) The Bizet wasn't. The 45's/LP got 1/1961 reviews.
Don't expect the 45's to be 'silent-surfaced'.
Thanks, Tin Ear! My friend Eric says that his FFRR stampers are 2E/1E as well. I've asked him to give it another listen and let me know his thoughts.
DeleteSDD marginally more 'open' with traces of treble 'glare' (no obvious distortion).
DeleteCymbal's don't seem very extended in either pressing.
ECS has a slightly deeper/more defined bass - without some 'old-fashioned wobble' (Ibert: Finale).
Somewhat routine compared to Decca's 1951 Desormiere/PCO 'Divertissement'.
I've listened to my FFRR (2E/1E) and it's a gorgeously recorded and vibrant recording. No distortion at all, and wonderful performances. I think that Martinon, like Monteux, didn't really make disappointing records. As a collector, I am as guilty as any other at wanting only FFSS labels with blueback jackets. But I have probably enjoyed more FFRR discs than FFSS discs -- and so, setting aside collector mania -- I think FFRR is generally the way to go. Both for sound and for financial reasons.
DeleteI think you are probably right about that with your last point, ejeden. My guess is wideband FFRR is better than the narrowband, but the difference may be subtle and it may be highly title dependent. You've now got me interested in the FFRR pressing.
DeleteI think mother number/stamper info would tell and interesting tale. I've not had as good a luck with FFRR and for many titles the Bluebacks are relatively cheap. FFSS BB has been very cheap for some time (Decca quite the reverse).
DeleteWell, it's all relative. I think that FFRR labels probably sell for 1/3 or so what the FFSS labels sell for. So for the pricier items, it may be a strategy worth employing.
DeleteIn my matrix reloaded post I write about Tchaikovsky Nutcracker and on that one the FFSS would be well worth $15 vs $5. Both had same matrix, but later mother/stamper codes appear to be culprit in removing the magic. FFRR with another matrix can be good and later pressings too, especially if the Blueback is known to be sonically challenged. STS of Karajan's Also Sprach is a prime example of where the original is hideous sounding. Its unfortunately, very challenging. EMI might be worse where it seems many of their pressings are strong.
DeleteI agree with you, ejeden. I'd like to do more side by side comparisons between FFRR and their original FFSS. From my experience, some of the FFRRs can sound quite different from their originals, sometimes more "modern" with less boosted treble and less distortion (although that might just be, as AndyW puts it, groove roar).
DeleteI think as we get later and later with pressings made from the same mother, sound quality is bound to deteriorate. I need to investigate just how important the Buckingham codes may be. I've got a number of opera recordings with many records in each set which will make for very fertile ground for comparisons. I expect that we are going to find that the Buckingham code is the key. I believe the real reason the original deccas our worth more is that they are more likely to have a better Buckingham code, an earlier letter in the name, and yet reality is that often London's will have better Buckingham code.
ReplyDeleteI have the 2E/1E FFRR SDD and I prefer it to my SXL copy which is also a 2E/1E. Ehether it is down to grove condition I do not know but it does have more depth and body
ReplyDeleteThanks again, AndyW. I haven't heard the SDD but am not surprised in the least that you find it sonically improved over the FFSS. I'm looking for a cheap London Stereo Treasury in the US for comparison.
DeleteMy SDD has the groove like the wide band SXL's and is contemporary with the SXL ED2 versions. I have not listened to a later pressing on the SDD label so don't know how these sound
ReplyDeleteI've heard both ... a few later SDDs without the groove (e.g. SDD 192, Ansermet conducts French Overtures) are actually pretty decent and sound more "modern" than the FFSS.
DeleteSDD 192 (FFSS large label) shows 2E/1E - the first side matrix apparently never having been used for pressings prior to '69/70 - and only up to 'K' on my May-ish '70 copy - side two being a secondary matrix (6) also K'...seems Decca invariably mastered 2 versions @ the time for initial release
DeleteMy SDD 192, not large label, has 3W/2W matrix numbers.
Delete