Awhile back I presented a set of easy-listening tunes from Paul Weston's catalogue, one of which was titled "Swedish Rhapsody." There ensued a discussion about just what Swedish Rhapsody this was - there were two that were popular at about the same time, one by Charles Wildman and one by Hugo Alfvén.
Well, that one was the Wildman composition. And now we will give equal time to the Alfvén. But first a little explanation - Alfvén actually wrote three Swedish rhapsodies. The best known and best loved is the first, also called "Midsommarvaka," or "Midsummer's Vigil."
This LP combines the aged composer's own final recording of "Midsommarvaka," from 1954, with a 1957 version of the third rhapsody - the "Dalarapsodi" or "Dalecarlian Rhapsody" - with Stig Westerberg and the Stockholm Philharmonic. The LP begins with a brief and very noisy "Festspel," also from Stockholm.
This recording of "Midsommarvaka" has long been a favorite of mine. The performance by the Royal Swedish Orchestra and recording (the first stereo classical record ever made in Sweden) are extremely vivid, if at times a little crude. The "Dalarapsodi" is nearly as memorable.
Westminster issued this "Midsommarvaka" recording in the US a few times in the 1950s. Both times it included music from the ballet "The Prodigal Son." The stereo issue included Sibelius' "The Tempest" and the mono a few pieces by Ture Rangström. Here I've transferred the Swedish issue because it is the best pressing and includes the third rhapsody.
Buster my friend,
ReplyDeleteThis is most welcome! Alfven, of course, wrote tuneful,accessible music which has unfortunately waned in popularity. This is a most pleasant reminder of his craft. Can't wait for a listen!
Thanks,
Fred
Thanks Buster. I look forward to listening to this. Just a few days ago I listened to Alfvén's 4th Symphony, "From the Seaward Skerries", with Elisabeth Söderstrom, a singer I admire greatly.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteI am most fond of Alfven's symphonies, and have long had that record of the fourth.
See latest post at my portal for your request.
ReplyDeleteBuster, I just now listened to this, and it's absolutely beautiful. This music deserves to be much better known! I really think people like you, who take the time to write about these unjustly forgotten composers and compositions, do a great service. I know I'm hugely enjoying what I'm learning here -- this has become one of my favorite music blogs. Thanks for this Alfvén, and for your great generosity overall.
ReplyDeleteBill from Illinois
@ William - thank you so much for your note. It's a great pleasure for me to share the things I love (and even some things I don't love all that much). Music is absorbing on some many levels. Being able to write about it like this is a wonderful pastime for me.
ReplyDeleteRapidshare says that the link is dead, but thank you for all the live links and the music contained therein.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBuster, for decades this release has been one of my favorite "desert island disks" -- of course it was sold by me with my huge 13,000 platter collection, so your upload is most appreciated!
DeleteHere's an obscurity: a mid-fifties Westminster release, from a Discofil original source tape, of an obscure (though quite eloquent) piece by Lars Erik Larsson. Unfortunately, though a really mediocre sounding transfer of s. 1 of the LP was uploaded by someone on a now-long-defunct blog, I never got side 2, Wiren's 4th symphony. After some declicking, re-EQing, and NR, this cleaned up pretty well...I imagine that perhaps 5 people in this solar system are aware of this rare old record!
https://www3.zippyshare.com/v/CtX6DKG2/file.html
(105 MB lossless FLACs)
Like my brain, this expires in thirty days!
8h haggis
Thanks once more - I enjoy Larsson.
DeleteBuster, in complement to your wonderful Discofil early stereo record conducted by Alfven (one of my own vinyl treasures for many years), here is another issue by the same organization of the composer conducting two of his works, done the same year (1954) but in mono, not early stereo.
DeleteThe same orchestra and conductor and composer, then: in the Swedish Rhapsody No. 1, the famous "Midsommarvaka" (Midsummer Vigil); and the ballet-pantomime "Bergakungen" (Mountain King) from which a short suite has been derived, of 4 movements, concluding with the delightful Handmaid's Dance (one of the most familiar Alfven snippets.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, Buster: but isn't it true that us very old-time US television watchers would have heard Alfven's Midsummer as the signature tune for the old early-fifties' show "Mr. Peepers"? Or, was it another program? Inquiring minds want to know!
And, of course I'm sure you MUST have the Percy Faith version to adorn this reminiscence.
I found a transfer of this old Discofil LP on the web, but it was done by a European blogger and therefore the hum in the recording was 50 (not the US standard 60) Hz: VERY loud, plus overtones at 100 and 150. I don't think there's any excuse for that, these days. I looked thru his blog and perhaps intuited WHY: he uses what one might term, trying to be positive about it, "period equipment" including an antique variable-reluctance magnetic cartridge (one of the WORST offenders for hum pickup, by MY actual hands-on experience) plus a belt-driven turntable (which caused the OTHER low frequency signature signals throughout his transfer, wobbling up and down.) To make matters more frustrating, he encoded at a sampling rate of 96 kHz, in my opinion completely unnecessary unless today one used hi res mikes to do a live recording of a harpsichord, or Le Sacre, or a marching band, or a rock combo. This means the file sizes, even after FLACing, are huge...and are inefficient. (He asks for donations. Hmmm. Or should I say, "Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm...")
Well, I couldn't listen to it that way; so here's my absolutely OUTRAGEOUS, unjustified, and effronterous reaction. I have ELIMINATED almost all of the hummmmmms and rummmmmmbles, and to try to match the true-stereo Alfven, applied the "patented Haggisizing" ambience process.
I found an old Discofil cover on the web and cleaned it up a bit, to match.
If this is deemed mean-spirited of me, Buster -- and I can assure you, I had no such intent but only wanted to help my fellow music lovers and collectors -- feel free to erase it from your blog with my gracious understanding and acceptance. Apologies all 'round.
{111 MB, FLACs, with cover - LIMITED AVAILABILITY, as we cannot be sure that ZS will continue to offer this after 12/6/18 unless there are regular continued requests.}
https://www5.zippyshare.com/d/qW1oogDk/7252/Alfven%20cond.%20Alfven%20-%201954.zip
-or-
https://www5.zippyshare.com/v/qW1oogDk/file.html
Finally: thanks so much, Buster, for one of my favorite works: the Aafje Heynis version of Elgar's Sea Pictures. I found this today on your Twitter feed. Never heard the performance before! I must tell you, Buster, that YOU are the FIRST PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that I've *ever* followed on Twitter (having to pester my wife to supply her own log-in.)
8H Haggis
Non-techs: re my above comments on sampling rate: please don't confuse my dismissal of "a sampling rate of 96 kHz" when mastering a digital recording, with a "96 *kbs* sampling rate" for an mp3 file (which is NOT adequate at all for classical or other kinds of serious music.) The CD standard is 44.1 kHz sampling rate, allowing highs to be recovered up to 20,000 Hz for all practical purposes; 96 kHz sampling allows more overtones at supersonic frequencies to be reconstructed when converting back to analogue--but humans cannot HEAR them. If you are an insect, however, I'd recommend 96 kHz!
DeleteAll kidding aside, the problem is that you need ADEQUATE RESOLUTION for the analogue audio signal you are saving in digital mode. The CD standard is "good enough" for MUCH music, to the point that very few people can hear a difference between a 16 bit 44.1 kHz digital recording ("16/44") and a higher-res one such as 24 bits/96 kHz. Now, confidentially, I CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE--but only from a LIVE MIKE SIGNAL of a very demanding high dynamic range complex audio source: a live harpsichord, for instance, or a full symphony playing Le Sacre. The 16/44 sounds (comparatively) as good as a 320kbs mp3 compared to a CD; the 24/96 is *indistinguishable* at high volume from the live mike line feed...period. With ANY music.
Now, when you're transferring a mono 1954 vinyl record, with a dynamic range of about 45 dB, and no substantial highs about 15 to 17 khz, you do not REQUIRE 96 kHz initial sampling to 'get it all'...for about 99.99% of trained human listeners. 24/96 is *absolutely essential* for live modern stereo musical mastering--but it's mostly wasted on the transfers of antique LPs. (It makes some audiophiles "feel good"...but there's little more to it than that; usually, they fail the A-B tests I've conducted, when demonstrating differences.)
8H Haggis - retired pro audio engineer
8H -
DeleteI know the blog, I think - heavy hum at high bit rates. Nice records, though. So long as you don't identify the source and keep things light, I think you are OK. Not everyone has your technical knowledge, and most of them mean well (there is one conspicuous exception).
I barely remember Mr. Peepers (what a name), only that Wally Cox played the part.
Thanks for following on Twitter! It's great fun. I LOVE that performance of the Elgar - as much as the Janet Baker version.
How do these "Megas" work? I go to a logo, and there's nothing to click on.
ReplyDeleteMega works best in Chrome, Firefox and Opera. Make sure you get the whole link (all three lines).
ReplyDeleteRemastered version (Apple lossless):
ReplyDeletehttps://mega.nz/file/iMExRYQR#aCxyWaW-hebdEeR8SAtVPUEvsFNKHLEHXhDK1U8rGXY