Double Double.(The Music)

Here we go once again, two guys who never learn, embarking on yet another comparison of two competing recordings of large-scale orchestral music, and not merely large-scale orchestral music, but rather a piece of large-scale orchestral music with soloists and chorus, Ralph Vaughan Williams's majestic Symphony No.1, "A Sea Symphony." Tom and I thought it would be interesting to compare recent two recordings of this sonic spectacular, the highly acclaimed 2002 Telarc recording featuring Robert Spano leading the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus with Christine Goerke, soprano, and Brett Polegato, baritone (Telarc CD-80588), and the new Naxos recording with Paul Daniel leading the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra and Chorus with Joan Rodgers, soprano, and Christopher Maltman, baritone (Naxos 8.557059).

As always, Tom and I have refrained from discussing these two recordings with each other and have written our remarks entirely independently. Because this is an odd-numbered issue, I will lead off with my observations and then Tom will present things from his point of view.

KWN: There are comparisons where right away I pick a favorite and then just have to force myself to go through the motions of carefully comparing the two recordings, and there are comparisons where the two recordings seem so similar that it is really hard to pick a favorite because they sound so much alike. This comparison is both and neither: both, because when I first started comparing the two recordings, I had a clear favorite, and had to force myself to carefully listen to both, but then found that the more I listened, the more I found to like about both, making it hard to pick a favorite; neither, because although at first listen I had a favorite, I enjoyed both recordings so much that I certainly did not have to force myself to listen more extensively to both, but they certainly did not sound alike.

Confused? Let me try explaining this comparison again, a little more slowly.

When I first compared the two recordings, my preference was clearly for the Telarc. Although the Naxos had a more spectacular overall sound (surprisingly, the Naxos bass is more powerful, and the overall sound more up-front), the Telarc seemed more natural, with a more relaxed and realistic sound field. The soloists in the Naxos sounded too spotlighted in comparison to the Telarc. I found myself wondering whether the Naxos had been recorded on tube equipment, in fact, because some of the sound seemed to have that extra layer of harmonic richness so favored by many audiophiles, but which to these ears always sounds like an added effect. I would imagine, however, that the difference in sound has much more to do with microphones and their placement than it does with the electronics used in the recording gear. At any rate, although I was surprised to hear the Telarc recording "outgunned" in some ways by the Naxos effort, I preferred the Telarc sound overall because of its spatial characteristics and thought that my preference was pretty well decided already.

However, as I listened more to the two recordings, I came to have more regard for the sound and performance captured by Naxos. Although it did not sound as natural as the Telarc, it certainly suited the music well; moreover, there was an excitement in the UK performance that seemed to make the US performance seem a bit restrained in comparison. Some of this judgment may rest upon the more emphatic sonics of the Naxos recording rather than any difference in the actual performance, as judgments of sound and performance are sometimes intertwined in our overall perception of a recording.

What started out, then, as a clear preference for the Telarc release became less and less clear as I continued to listen to both discs. What I thought would be an easy choice became quite difficult indeed.