Top 10 recordings in tems of technical quality of playing

[ajlee]

I read this Amazon review regarding Szell's recording of Hindemith & Walton:
"[...] purely in terms of the technical quality of the playing, this is one of the top ten classical recordings ever made. It's so close to perfection as to be beyond perfection [...]"

While I don't doubt Szell/Cleveland's technical wizardry, I'm curious about what you would consider to be the "Top 10 Most Technically Perfect" orchestral recording. I personally won't be able to make such a list b/c I'm a novice in orchestral music; I started collecting/listening to orchestral works less than 2 years ago.

So I'd love to hear your opinions!

[Herman]

I wouldn't take these Amazon reviews so seriously.

Also there's a type of individual, mostly found in the US, who thinks it's impossible to top Szell.

[ajlee]

I wouldn't take these Amazon reviews so seriously.

I understand. I didn't mean to quote that review and use it as a fact. I was simply inspired by that statement to start a thread in which people might share some orchestral recordings they feel are impeccably played and from which I, an orchestral recording collector, could benefit.

[Herman]

I understand. I didn't mean to quote that review and use it as a fact. I was simply inspired by that statement to start a thread in which people might share some orchestral recordings they feel are impeccably played and from which I, an orchestral recording collector, could benefit.

well, I could imagine some people would consider Boulez' Mahler and Debussy recordings for DG to be impeccably played (orchestras like the Berlin Philhamonic, Cleveland, Vienna and Amsterdam can play anything flawlessly) and directed with the utmost precision.

And yet I'm not sure these would be top recommendations. And not just because of the problematic DG sound.

[Scarpia]

Orchestral standards are so high and recording engineers are so adept at editing away any imperfection that any modern recording is essentially perfect.  I don't see any way to identify recordings with outstanding technical perfection.   

[ajlee]

[...] and recording engineers are so adept at editing away any imperfection that any modern recording is essentially perfect.  I don't see any way to identify recordings with outstanding technical perfection.

Ah...that's one important fact I didn't think about. You're right then; I shall try a different approach. XD

[Scarpia]

Ah...that's one important fact I didn't think about. You're right then; I shall try a different approach. XD

It might be a more interesting question with regard to live performance.  But even so, the technical skill of an orchestra doesn't come across in ability to play the notes, so much as in ability to execute the most exquisite interpretive nuances.  Then technical skill and quality of interpretation get mixed up.

[Brian]

At first I thought this was such a silly topic I wouldn't even read the thread, and then I thought about it momentarily but decided I wouldn't be able to answer until I'd heard every recording ever. Then I realized I do have a nomination.

Any combination of Osmo Vanska + Minnesota Orchestra + Ludwig van Beethoven. This includes the new concertos disc with Yevgeny Sudbin. With some headphones and BIS' engineering, one can hear absolute technical perfection - every note is right, every instrument is in exactly the right "place" at each chord. Many reviewers have noted that the pianissimo playing is unlike anything they've heard before. Even the spontaneity is precisely executed. In a way, that's why I don't like the cycle: you can tell that its moments of sheer abandon and excitement have been planned well in advance. I thought I'd want to hear the first and second violins cleanly divided on the soundstage, and the violas distinctly audible throughout, and every instrument type occupying a distinct spot on the aural landscape - but the Vanska/Beethoven recordings are so perfect that they almost feel mechanized. They're absolutely unquestionably great. Top 10? I don't know, but they're note-perfect across 6 CDs and counting. And that's why they just miss being my cup of tea.

[ajlee]

About Vanska/Minnesota/Beethoven:

I actually feel somewhat the same! I own the symphonies set, and the technical perfection of the playing was something of a marvel; however, the "aftertaste" was that it felt somewhat clinical. Granted, Vanska and co. delivered an overall impressive vision on these works with high discipline, very wide dynamic range, and those hard-hitting accents. At the end, however, it felt like something was missing...

And that kind of feeling I don't get from Szell's equally well-played Beethoven cycle. No matter how precise the Cleveland orch sounds, Szell still manages to let the music sound like there's more life and blood in it. I suspect it has to do with phrasing.

[MishaK]

Not sure if I could make a top 10. But here are a few that stick out in my recollection on a purely technical level:

Strauss Don Juan: Reiner/CSO
Bach Sonatas & Partitas for violin: Hilary Hahn
Bach Cello Suites: Radek Baborak (horn!)
Debussy La Mèr: Rattle/BPO
Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit: Michelangeli (live Prague on Music & Arts)
Mahler 5: Chailly/RCO

Also there's a type of individual, mostly found in the US, who thinks it's impossible to top Szell.

Orchestral standards are so high and recording engineers are so adept at editing away any imperfection that any modern recording is essentially perfect.  I don't see any way to identify recordings with outstanding technical perfection.   

Yes, but you somewhat exaggerate both. While orchestral playing standards are very high these days, unless you have a very good conductor on a particularly electric evening, there will still be evident issues, perhaps not obvious lapses, but a certain tenseness that happens when players are uncertain of the leadership and play it safe, instead of freely. I hear the CSO, legendary for its supposed technical perfection, live all the time here, and there are very very few concerts I would call "perfect". And the same goes for other major orchestras. Likewise, while engineers can do quite a bit of magic, you still need multiple takes from the same players to put together a good disc. Some passages cannot be parsed into bits because there is too much going on and the reverb from other passages enters and you can never recreate the exact sound to be able to just cut and paste and cover up a blooper. Plus, this work takes excruciating amounts of time, not only the musicians' time, who need to sit for a patch session, but also the editors'. To cover up a split second of coughing can take over a full day's worth of work. In these days of limited budgets that just isn't done as much as you think. Recordings are done live from a set of maybe three subscription concerts with maybe a half hour patch session thrown in at the end, if absolutely needed. That's it.

[Scarpia]

Yes, but you somewhat exaggerate both. While orchestral playing standards are very high these days, unless you have a very good conductor on a particularly electric evening, there will still be evident issues, perhaps not obvious lapses, but a certain tenseness that happens when players are uncertain of the leadership and play it safe, instead of freely. I hear the CSO, legendary for its supposed technical perfection, live all the time here, and there are very very few concerts I would call "perfect". And the same goes for other major orchestras. Likewise, while engineers can do quite a bit of magic, you still need multiple takes from the same players to put together a good disc. Some passages cannot be parsed into bits because there is too much going on and the reverb from other passages enters and you can never recreate the exact sound to be able to just cut and paste and cover up a blooper. Plus, this work takes excruciating amounts of time, not only the musicians' time, who need to sit for a patch session, but also the editors'. To cover up a split second of coughing can take over a full day's worth of work. In these days of limited budgets that just isn't done as much as you think. Recordings are done live from a set of maybe three subscription concerts with maybe a half hour patch session thrown in at the end, if absolutely needed. That's it.

I don't disagree with that, but when you are including interpretive risk, you are blurring the distinction between technical quality and artistic merit.  I made the point somewhere above that professional orchestras are all at the level where playing the notes is not the issue, but having the assurance for extreme interpretations.

Regarding editing, I though that with all-digital recording/mixing stations it has become standard now to use in excess of 100 microphones, so that the editor can literally drop the 2nd oboe out of the mix and overlay the 2nd oboe part from another take.

[MishaK]

I don't disagree with that, but when you are including interpretive risk, you are blurring the distinction between technical quality and artistic merit.  I made the point somewhere above that professional orchestras are all at the level where playing the notes is not the issue, but having the assurance for extreme interpretations.

But without interpretive risk, technical perfection doesn't come into play. If you don't take risks, e.g. play a *real* pianissimo, where on a brass instrument you risk losing the tone completely, and instead stay within a mp-f range, you're not using all your technical arsenal. What you are playing might be not entirely "wrong", but it isn't the height of technical finesse. A musician who takes risks and still plays flawlessly is playing at a much higher technical level than one who plays just the right notes in the right order. But that's not even all that I mean with "stiffness". An inspired orchestra plays with color and a singing line that is missing when they're playing it safe. Again, that is part of technical finesse. Not all can produce the same color palette as the best. That too is technical skill. And I am not talking about "extreme" interpretations. Just the chemistry that is there when an orchestra has faith in its conductor and knows it can follow him vs. the situation where they're unsure what he wants and therefore play with a certain tentativeness. In both examples the conductor could be a complete objectivist of the most unadventurous kind, but only the former would elicit playing of technical refinement.

Regarding editing, I though that with all-digital recording/mixing stations it has become standard now to use in excess of 100 microphones, so that the editor can literally drop the 2nd oboe out of the mix and overlay the 2nd oboe part from another take.

You exagerate. I haven't counted the mics in Orchestra Hall (the overhead ones are permanently installed anyway - they add a few on stage, depending on repertoire). But it's certainly not in the three digits. My guess is somewhere closer to 30-40. Whatever you do, you can't just "take out the 2nd oboe" and overlay it from another take, because the oboe doesn't play in a vacuum. Even if you have a mic right in front of the 2nd oboe, all the other mics are picking up the oboe as well, though from a distance. Plus, the oboe's mic is picking up all the other instruments as well. And no two takes are completely identical in terms of what everyone else is doing and what is happening with the reverb. Bad editing can be most easily picked up due to incongruities in the reverb right around the splice.

[Scarpia]

But without interpretive risk, technical perfection doesn't come into play. If you don't take risks, e.g. play a *real* pianissimo, where on a brass instrument you risk losing the tone completely, and instead stay within a mp-f range, you're not using all your technical arsenal. What you are playing might be not entirely "wrong", but it isn't the height of technical finesse. A musician who takes risks and still plays flawlessly is playing at a much higher technical level than one who plays just the right notes in the right order. But that's not even all that I mean with "stiffness". An inspired orchestra plays with color and a singing line that is missing when they're playing it safe. Again, that is part of technical finesse. Not all can produce the same color palette as the best. That too is technical skill. And I am not talking about "extreme" interpretations. Just the chemistry that is there when an orchestra has faith in its conductor and knows it can follow him vs. the situation where they're unsure what he wants and therefore play with a certain tentativeness. In both examples the conductor could be a complete objectivist of the most unadventurous kind, but only the former would elicit playing of technical refinement.

I don't disagree with any of that, I just don't see how you can draw a boundary between "technical perfection" and general quality of a classical performance. 

You exagerate. I haven't counted the mics in Orchestra Hall (the overhead ones are permanently installed anyway - they add a few on stage, depending on repertoire). But it's certainly not in the three digits. My guess is somewhere closer to 30-40. Whatever you do, you can't just "take out the 2nd oboe" and overlay it from another take, because the oboe doesn't play in a vacuum. Even if you have a mic right in front of the 2nd oboe, all the other mics are picking up the oboe as well, though from a distance. Plus, the oboe's mic is picking up all the other instruments as well. And no two takes are completely identical in terms of what everyone else is doing and what is happening with the reverb. Bad editing can be most easily picked up due to incongruities in the reverb right around the splice.

My memory may be faulty, but I remember reading a story about how EMI recorded the new years concert in Vienna and had it on the street within weeks because of their uber-high tech digital mixing setup which allowed them, among other things, to replace a flubbed horn note with the same phrase, repeated later in same performance.  I was in Davies when they recorded Mahler 10 for SACD release, and I think there could easily have been 100 microphones on stage, many many more than their usual setup. 

Incongruity of reverb is not a problem, since the reverb is picked up by microphones which are back in the hall.  All they do is a fade in and fade out one one spotlight microphone, so there is little reverb involve and no cut.

In any case, I'm not in the business so I don't know any of this with certainty.  I'm just very skeptical of an evaluation of technical perfection in studio recordings.

[MishaK]

I don't disagree with any of that, I just don't see how you can draw a boundary between "technical perfection" and general quality of a classical performance. 

Point being that there can be plenty of extremely artistically satisfying performances that are, however, far from being perfect on a technical level. E.g. take most Furtwängler performances, or anything with a French orchestra.

In any case, I'm not in the business so I don't know any of this with certainty.  I'm just very skeptical of an evaluation of technical perfection in studio recordings.

Sure, that skepticism is not out of place. But few people these days do studio recordings. The time and money just isn't there.

[Scarpia]

Sure, that skepticism is not out of place. But few people these days do studio recordings. The time and money just isn't there.

But that's part of my concern.  They do it live, but heavily miked so they can adjust the balances on the mixing console as they please.

[MishaK]

But that's part of my concern.  They do it live, but heavily miked so they can adjust the balances on the mixing console as they please.

What you can do in the editing room isn't unlimited. Plus, when you have a competent conductor, he's likely already getting the sound he wants from the orchestra and the editing will be more to make sure that the final product sounds as life-like as possible. FWIW, all concerts I have attended that ended up being recorded pretty much sounded the same live as they did later on disc. Wall of sound with Muti live and on disc, while everything was transparent with Boulez live and on disc, etc.

[Scarpia]

What you can do in the editing room isn't unlimited. Plus, when you have a competent conductor, he's likely already getting the sound he wants from the orchestra and the editing will be more to make sure that the final product sounds as life-like as possible. FWIW, all concerts I have attended that ended up being recorded pretty much sounded the same live as they did later on disc. Wall of sound with Muti live and on disc, while everything was transparent with Boulez live and on disc, etc.

I was in the hall when they recorded the Mahler 3 Bernstein did for DG with the New York Philharmonic.  The end of the piece sounded much better on record than live.  The closing more or less fizzled in the hall, them must have edited on something from rehearsal to fix it.

[MishaK]

I was in the hall when they recorded the Mahler 3 Bernstein did for DG with the New York Philharmonic.  The end of the piece sounded much better on record than live.  The closing more or less fizzled in the hall, them must have edited on something from rehearsal to fix it.

Yes, DG in the 80s did a lot of fixing up. Recall M's discussion in the old forum of how different Karajan's Alpensinfonie sounded live vs. on the DG Gold disc. But at that time with that label and with those conductors the sky was the limit. The things I witnessed (all CSO Resound releases except Haitink's Mahler 1, a number of Barenboim's Teldec releases with CSO) there were no such drastic surprises.

[Scarpia]

Yes, DG in the 80s did a lot of fixing up. Recall M's discussion in the old forum of how different Karajan's Alpensinfonie sounded live vs. on the DG Gold disc. But at that time with that label and with those conductors the sky was the limit. The things I witnessed (all CSO Resound releases except Haitink's Mahler 1, a number of Barenboim's Teldec releases with CSO) there were no such drastic surprises.

Teldec sound, I trust.

[ajlee]

--- Quote from: Herman on January 22, 2011, 01:19:39 AM ---Also there's a type of individual, mostly found in the US, who thinks it's impossible to top Szell.

--- End quote ---

Hey! Regardless of how inevitably a few European egos would be poked, you have to admit that in CERTAIN regards to technicality, Szell's Cleveland Orch were---and probably still are---unmatched.