Double double. (The Music).

Here we go again, comparing two competing recordings of large-scale orchestral music; in this case, one of the original large-scale orchestral music compositions, Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique. Many issues ago, we compared an older (1991) Telarc recording (Telarc CD80271) featuring David Zinman leading the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra to a newer DG recording conducted by Pierre Boulez. As I recall, we split our recommendation, with TL favoring the Boulez while I opted for the Zinman. We thought it might be interesting to compare the venerable Zinman Telarc (which I would not be surprised to see reappear as a mid-price issue on Telarc) with the new Telarc recording (CD-80578, and there is also a dual-layer CD/SACD version, SCAD-60578), this one featuring Paavo Jarvi leading the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra.

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 even-numbered issue, Tom will lead off with his comments and then I will present things from my point of view.

TL: Many of my favorite CDs are on the Telarc label, and this Symphonie Fantastique conducted by David Zinman is one of them. Its privileged status occurred over time, even though I'm constantly wavering between it and Pierre Boulez' relatively recent version on DG. Still, it would take quite a superb version of this piece to unseat this champion.

The Telarc Zinman/Baltimore SO is so good that it's tough to single out a single reason why. Maybe it's the transparency of the solo instruments, which have an almost physical presence within a huge soundstage. Maybe it is the seemingly unparalleled depth of this soundstage. On the other hand, perhaps it is the excellent conducting of David Zinman and the near magical response by his orchestra that leads one through this tone poem's tale. But in all likelihood it is because this CD combines all these elements and more.

So along comes another version of this piece on the esteemed Telarc label, with the fabulous Cincinnati SO led by their new musical director, Paavo Jarvi. I'll probably never know the behind-the-scene reasons why they chose this piece to usher in the Jarvi era of the CSO, or if it were entirely the record label's choice. There must have been thousands of other candidates. It is doubtful that the folks at Telarc released this CD just so those with subscriptions to the CSO's season or those living in the state of Ohio could buy it. There has to be more to it than that justify recording this piece done by countless others, not to mention Telarc's own version with the Zinman and the Baltimore SO. Perhaps sales of the Zinman CD have declined to a level that warranted a new release of this masterpiece--it has been ten years, after all. But this really isn't the place to have this discussion; it is to judge this new version against the standard set by Maestro Zinman.

So, can I overcome my biases and pick an objective "winner"? In all honesty, probably not entirely. Nevertheless, after repeated listenings I've determined the following:

The timings of each movement are almost identical other than the Baltimore SO's slightly quicker pace in third movement; an Adagio titled Scene aux champs (Scene in the Country). Yet its slightly faster tempo is indicative of Zinman's spirited approach vs. Jarvi's comparative reading--even if the timings on the rest of the CD are essentially the same. Yet Jarvi gives the impression that he has broken each phrase of not only this movement, but also the entire piece into discrete sections that sound to me like they are detached from the previous or following phrase. It's as if they rehearsed this piece in sections, and then connected them for the performance. Please, I hope one takes this in the context that judged on its own this is a fine CD. And I know, my observations are extremely subjective, and one should assume that I would have a tough time demonstrating the above. But these shortcomings become more obvious to me in the later, more tumultuous sections. The seams are more audible.

In contrast, Zinman and the Baltimore SO sound as if they are one, playing the piece as if by memory. The recording supports them with its first-rate sound--each instrument and each section is markedly in focus. Yet their sound never becomes overly detailed as to sound artificial. The Jarvi CD is a great recording, too, supporting the Telarc tradition of audiophile sound. But compared to The Zinman, the Jarvi CD sounds "thick," almost as if one turned up the bass of a graphic equalizer secretly hooked up to my stereo. OK, I'm exaggerating a bit. Like I said, the Cincinnati disc is an excellent recording. Its soundstage is second to none. And even though one may claim that the bass goes deeper and is more earth-shaking, it still sounds syrupy in comparison.

With all due respect (and my respect is certainly genuine) I can see how KWN might be swayed by his allegiance to one of his home state's orchestras (and I admit one of the America's best). While one might counter that because I live in the "Baltimore/ Washington DC Corridor" that I may also give one version the home field advantage. In my defense I live one mile outside of DC, and to most Washingtonians, Baltimore might as well be a thousand miles away. Such is our ambivalence toward this otherwise fine city. But they do have an excellent orchestra--or at least they did in the early 1990s, when this version of Symphonie Fantastique conducted by David Zinman was released. And although the Cincinnati is a fine orchestra playing an excellent rendition of this piece, it cannot unseat this winner, and still champion.

KWN: Tom will probably be disappointed that I do not have much to say about these recordings, and he may even think that this is a case of my lack of enthusiasm for this music (in our previous comparison, I remarked that listening to this work over and over again had really burned me out, because I found the music less than satisfying over the long haul) has caused me to give this comparison short shrift. But that is not the case.

Instead, I am keeping my remarks brief because I found little to pick and choose from between these two fine recordings, both of which feature excellent performances in excellent sound. The newer Jarvi recording may be ever so slightly cleaner, but the older Telarc has a wonderful rich burnished sound that still holds up after more than a decade. They do not sound the same, but they sound close enough that I cannot see where sound quality would be a reason to choose one over the other. Overall, the older recording has a slightly darker, richer sound, and the newer recording may be just a tad cleaner and brighter, slightly closer in perspective, but still warm and spacious and very appealing. Perhaps if I were to hear the Jarvi through a good surround-sound SACD setup, I would have a different opinion, but the fact remains that we are comparing the two-channel CD versions.

In terms of performance, these are not significantly different interpretations. Tempi are similar throughout. Occasionally I felt as though one version seemed to have a bit more energy, but at other times I thought the other did. I thoroughly enjoyed them both. No burnout this time.

Overall, I believe a music lover would be well served by either Telarc recording. Those looking for the very latest technology for playback would be well advised to pick up the Jarvi SACD, while those looking for the best bargain for two-channel playback should be quite happy with the older Zinman. The other consideration might be the couplings: Jarvi offers the Love Scene from Romeo and Juliet, while Zinman includes the Roman Carnival and Les Francs-Juges Overtures. You make the call ...