CSO Ride/Rodzinski

[Dan Castillo]

Hi! I have a question regarding a very old recording of the Ride of the Valkries. It's the Chicago Symphony conducted by Artur Rodzinski and it's from the "CSO: First 100 Years" box set. I checked the Song and Wind discography and it's not listed there, so I assume Arnold Jacobs was not playing it. If not him, who played on this recording? Whoever it was sounded quite good.

Compared to my other recordings of this piece, this one stands out as being rather unique. Rodzinski takes a really fast tempo....somewhere around dotted-quarter equals 116-120. Was it customary to do this back in the "old days" or is this just the quirk of one conductor?

Also, at the first trombone entrance, there is this really interesting "tuba-ish" sound playing along with the section. Did they either (1) use a contrabass trombone, or (2) have Jacobs or whoever play the contrabass trombone part in the octave written? Could it also have been a custom to have tuba play the contrabass trombone part? I ask because on another really old (1920's) recording of this piece by the Berlin Phil, they do the same thing.

Thanks!
-Dan C

[bberlien]

Though it may not apply to this recording, often times conductors were forced to increase tempi to fit one side of a record. Long-playing records (LPs) were not released until 1948 - playing (an astounding!) 30 minutes per side. Standard 78rpm records could fit only 3 minutes per side for 10" discs, or 4.5 minutes per 12" disc. Many early orchestra recordings are made of arrangements, so that longer works would have cadences added for closure, you'd flip the disc and continue. I've seen a 78 of Don Juan with Reiner and Pittsburg (AJ on tuba) and I think it was on 2 or 3 records.

In 1948, Columbia Records unvailed the 33 1/3 rpm LP. That year they relased the first complete recording of Mahler 5 with Bruno Walter and the NY Phil. It may not be the cleanest playing ever, but that recording may just be the most musically correct. Check it out if you want to hear Bill Bell in his prime - sounds fantanstic.

[brianf]

The discography was based on a list the CSO did for their centenial in 1991. The Rodzinsky Ride was a CSO release for the 10 CD set for the 100th anniversary. Probably this was not on the list the CSO did in 1991 so it was not included in the Jacobs discography.

CSO releases are sometimes difficult to find, for example the VW concerto with Mazer. Try buying it! I have a copy, it exists but difficult to find. As far as the Rodzinsky Ride, Jacobs has to be on that.

[brianf]

So, you didn't research the discography for your book, but borrowed it from somewhere else - and didn't attribute it to them?

At best, that is called plagiarism. Some would call it theft.

True, there is a fine line between scholarly work and plagarism, it's called citing your sources. I once was at a lecture where material from my book was cited, including graphs - problem was the source was not cited. What a fiasco! Not citing sources is serious stuff.

Arnold Jacobs: Song and Wind contains a seven page bibliography and 21 pages of endnotes. What is being questioned here is the discography. Here is the heading: Appendix A: Arnold Jacobs Discography293

Here's endnote #293:

Appendix A: Arnold Jacobs Discography

293. Those that are only released by the CSO are listed as “Chicago Symphony Releaseâ€

[brianf]

It looks like an explanatory end-note.

That is exactly what it is, #293 is an endnote. The sources are also listed in the bibliography.

[brianf]

The specific source for this borrowed piece of scholarship is not appropriately cited. It is listed as a reference piece - not listed as borrowed it it's entirety. This is in fact theft.

Agreed. You as the author and your editor should come clean about this. This isn't your scholarship - you borrowed it from someone else and are passing it off as your own. It is academically dishonest and there is probably a copyright violation here.

These are really strong words and although I thought I explained how this section was put together, here's more:

The source in question is a list of all CSO recordings during their first 100 years. Mr Jacobs was only there 44 years - that cuts it down a bit. Then there are the pieces that have no tuba part - some pieces are apparent, others required looking at the score. Now it gets tricky, when Mr Jacobs was sick, someone else played on the recording. Those were difficult to find - had to talk to a number of people (who were cited).

There are also recordings done with other groups and/or conductors. A few discographies about conductors (Reiner/Pittsburgh - Stokowski) pick this up. The most difficult was the Gunnison recordings, I looked at the recordings Mr. Jacobs owned and put those in. Yes there may be more from Gunnison but there is no listing.

Is this complete? No way - there have been releases after publication and undiscovered recordings (like Gunnison). I just found out that Dick Schory did a few more recordings - even asked him what Arnold was on and he didn't remember and did not have all the recordings himself.

This section of the book came from a variety of sources. It is not "borrowed" material that is stolen from a single source, a lot of research went into the discography. Those endnotes took a lot of time and cost money (printing 21 pages of them). They are there for a reason - to lead further researchers to other sources.

The scholarship was correct, cited properly, and not stolen. Before publication the entire book was run past people in various fields (all mentioned in the preface) - doctors, librarians, some of the most senior Jacobs students, a who's who of players and, most importantly, Mr Jacobs himself. Mr Jacobs' standards were high, if there were any red flags caught by anyone, I would not have been authorized to publish the book.

That should put an end to the research for the Discography.


BTW - You're a respected member of this list who, like myself, have been here a while. You are not a kid screwing around - why are you jumping my case?

[Alex C]

This is in fact theft.

Gee, Harold, you could be sued for slander because you inferred and then stated that BrianF stole something. To defend yourself in court you would have to prove to a jury (not to yourself) that your allegations are true.

I should warn you that stronger cases than yours have been lost.

By your statements, you portray that you are an arbitor of whether a source has been "appropriately cited." However you probably don't have the legal background to assume that position or you wouldn't slander someone in public.

Apparently, the Chicago Symphony and it's representatives don't have a problem with Brian's work. God knows, he hasn't been keeping it from them.

If you have a complaint with Brian, call him on the phone or go see him at a convention. He isn't hard to find. One warning though, you'll find it's a lot harder to have a personal confrontation over something like this than it is to flame someone on the web.

Bottom line is: flamin' ain't appreciated.

[WoodSheddin]

take this offline