Double double.

For this issue, Tom Lyle and I have decided to compare two recordings of a late 19th-century composition (completed in 1899) that has found a place in the collections of most music lovers and audiophiles--not to mention TV commercial soundtracks--Elgar's Enigma Variations. In a previous installment of our column, Tom and I were both quite favorably impressed by a budget-priced Naxos recording featuring the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra conducted by George Hurst (Naxos 8.553564). Recently, Telarc released a version performed by the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra under the baton of Paavo Jarvi (Telarc CD-80660), so we thought it would be interesting to compare these two versions.

Following our usual practice, Tom and I have refrained from discussing these two recordings with each other and have done both our listening and our writing completely independently. Because this is an odd-numbered issue, I will lead off with my findings and then Tom will close with his perspective on these two recordings.

KWN: When I first auditioned the Telarc recording, I was quite impressed. The sound was spectacular--never had I heard this music presented with this much power. Although the Enigma Variations is not a piece to which I listen often, I figured that this would be my new reference recording, the one that I would dig out of the pile whenever I needed a good shot of Elgar. When we decided to do this comparison for Double Double, I was already sure which version I would recommend.

However, the more I listened to the two recordings, the more I found myself returning to the Hurst version when I really wanted to listen for enjoyment. Although the Naxos recording does not have the sheer power of the Telarc, particularly in the deep bass, it is still a most impressive engineering job. The clincher, however, is the performance. Hurst seems to draw more expression from his players. When I listen to the Telarc disc, I am impressed by the sound and enjoy the music, but when I listen to the Naxos version, I am totally engrossed by the music, which is well served by the sound.

At a budget price, the Hurst recording on Naxos is quite a spectacular bargain, and the CD is filled out with additional compositions by Elgar that are worth a listen. I must add that the Telarc disc is although well worth owning, for in addition to the Elgar in spectacular sound, you get some top-notch Britten. I plan on keeping both CDs in my collection, but when I want to listen to just the Enigma Variations, it is more likely that it will be the Hurst recording that I pop into my player.

TL: All my favorite versions of the Enigma Variations are played by British orchestras. They aren't always conducted by the British, as illustrated by the outstanding account led by Andre Previn, but still, these orchestras most likely had Elgar compositions programmed into their seasons much more often then, let's say, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. That's not to say that the CSO is entirely made up of American-born players that never or rarely played the piece before. It's just that the British orchestras most likely are made of players that have either played, or have heard many other orchestras play this piece much more often. And a piece of music written by a British composer, played by a British orchestra, just makes more sense. It's in their blood.

At least that's what I assumed would be reflected in the playing of Paavo Jarvi and the Cincinnati on the Telarc CD. I was wrong. It is a fantastic version of this piece of music, every good as George Hurst and the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra on Naxos. Sure, the Bournemouth is a little more aggressive at times; they dig into the piece more than the Cincinnati does during the more turbulent sections of the score. But as I tried to delve deeper to find more examples of how one version was superior or inferior to the other in different sections of the piece, I was constantly distracted by the Telarc CD's superior sound quality. I guess this could be from the Telarc being a DSD recording (but perhaps not). The bass, (although a bit unrealistic) is huge, the midrange is nearly flawless, and the treble seems more lifelike and just smoother at times. The Naxos is no slouch, it is a great recording, and has served me well ever since it was recorded nearly ten years ago--but the Telarc is better in many areas. But of course, the recording quality is not why I'll return to the Jarvi version, it is because of the playing, and that is where the Cincinnati excels because it combines such as good performance with its excellent recording quality.

At the outset, I was going to call this one a draw because the Hurst on Naxos is so good, and even though I can only point to a few musical example of how it is superior to the Jarvi on Telarc, it is certainly its equal. And overall (and I think that is very important in a piece such as this, where the coherence of each movement in relation to the others is so important), it has remained my favorite digital version of the Enigma Variations. That is, at least, until the Jarvi came along and threatened to unseat it. And I think it has.