comparing recordings

[coffee]

Well, you should increase the amount of comparing performances as you get to know more works. This way you also ensure a steady flow of CD purchases. And notice that techniquest has been listening to classical music for 40 years - there's no need to hurry.

Oh man, that is one thing I do not need to ensure. I need to find a way to cut back on purchases.

[eyeresist]

Welcome, back, Coffee!

[coffee]

Welcome, back, Coffee!

Thank you!

What a friendly thing to do. I will have to do stuff like this sometimes.

[Madiel]

It's probably blasphemy around here, but to me comparing recordings is what reviewers get paid to do, and one of the reasons I read reviews is so that they can do much of the work and I can read the results.

For this to work, of course, you need to have some trust in the reviewers.  So I actually find it valuable to read some reviews of works/recordings I already know, as this helps give me some idea if the magazine's/website's opinions tend to align with my own.

As a result, it's not often that reviewers lead me wrong. I've got a fair idea, for instance, about the kinds of comments in the Penguin Guide that are likely to be a positive sign that I'll like the recording being reviewed (although sadly the comments in that guide are getting shorter and shorter).  And these days it's frequently possible to find a few different reviews of the same item and see if there's some kind of consensus.

I've rarely done direct comparison myself. Mind you, it's early days on this forum for me so who knows what may happen to my approach.  I just participated in a blind listening test, only to discover that the best recording is technically out of print and that while I adored one of the sampled movements, the other one from the same recording didn't entirely thrill me. I'm not sure it's of great benefit to me to know all that. The extra information risks me going on a quest for perfection instead of settling for very good, satisfying performances.

[Sammy]

It's probably blasphemy around here, but to me comparing recordings is what reviewers get paid to do, and one of the reasons I read reviews is so that they can do much of the work and I can read the results.

OH NO!!  You're being way too logical and efficient about it.  Those of us who do compare recordings want you to cease and desist.

By the way, I've shaken off the habit of comparing recordings.  I'm into a new phase - listening to nothing.

[eyeresist]

As a result, it's not often that reviewers lead me wrong. I've got a fair idea, for instance, about the kinds of comments in the Penguin Guide that are likely to be a positive sign that I'll like the recording being reviewed

You should bear in mind that the Penguin reviews are not all written by one person, so you will encounter some inconsistencies in taste.

The extra information risks me going on a quest for perfection instead of settling for very good, satisfying performances.

Just how dangerous or unhealthy is this "risk" of seeking great performances?

[Madiel]

Just how dangerous or unhealthy is this "risk" of seeking great performances?

It depends. Are we discussing my wallet, the physical space taken up by my CD collection, the number of years it takes me to get through a complete cycle of listening to the CD collection or the number of hours spent browsing online music stores?

[snyprrr]

We have become gods

[Madiel]

We have become gods

We have indeed. Occasionally I come across something that reminds me that it's not so long ago that people had little prospect of hearing many pieces of music unless they lived in the same city as the composer.  And that a performance of a new work from distant, exotic lands was something of an event.

[Gurn Blanston]

I just have a foggy, but favorable memory of their interpretation in the Op. 50.

BTW, I feel that everyday I'm more skeptic of the benefits of comparative listening. If it's not to my taste, I know almost immediately. If it is, the general picture seems more important than comparisons movement by movement.

As you know, I have been anti-CL for years, rarely venturing beyond 'I like that' or 'I wasn't too excited by that'. When I am pressed for an answer I'll go a bit further. But these are questions that I haven't even settled in my own mind, so it is hard to give much out to someone else. People who are adamant that something is 'the best' or 'really sucks' always sort of make me wonder. I don't know that there IS a best, or that if something 'really sucks' that a company would have invested a good deal of money into recording and distributing it. So, as San says, on its own merits is the right thing for me.

[Mandryka]

I think comparative listening helps me to get beyond an " I like it"/"I don't like it" level of reaction. Comparative listening helps me to get the cost/benefit of interpretive decisions.

An example would be Mosaiques in op 64/2/ii, who are lively and alluring. There are clear benefits to their style. It was only when i compared what they do to what Festetics do that I became aware of the costs.

More generally, without a comparative approach I find it quite hard to see what exactly a performer's doing and why - to move to a more objective position. I suppose an alternative would be to listen with the score. I remember really only appreciating how nuanced Hantai's Frescobaldi is when I compared it with Leonhardt's.

Where the style is very original and personal, a comparative approach gets in the way for me because you just end up thinking that what you're hearing is weird and silly. An example would be Sokolov's Pastoral sonata, which is for me unbearable if listen to it with another more standard performance in mind, but wonderful if I approach it with a more open mind.

[Gurn Blanston]

I think comparative listening helps me to get beyond an " I like it"/"I don't like it" level of reaction. Comparative listening helps me to get the cost/benefit of interpretive decisions.

An example would be Mosaiques in op 64/2/ii, who are lively and alluring. There are clear benefits to their style. It was only when i compared what they do to what Festetics do that I became aware of the costs.

More generally, without a comparative approach I find it quite hard to see what exactly a performer's doing and why - to move to a more objective position. I suppose an alternative would be to listen with the score. I remember really only appreciating how nuanced Hantai's Frescobaldi is when I compared it with Leonhardt's.

Where the style is very original and personal, a comparative approach gets in the way for me because you just end up thinking that what you're hearing is weird and silly. An example would be Sokolov's Pastoral sonata, which is for me unbearable if listen to it with another more standard performance in mind, but wonderful if I approach it with a more open mind.

While I have great respect for what you are saying here, I think that it goes to the root of the different reasons that people listen to (recordings of) music in the first place. Speaking only for myself, I want to hear a very good realization of the score, but my interest in that is not to hear different ideas of the players, it is to hear the music itself. Sure, a fresh and different POV is fine, and maybe (probably) will influence me into getting other recordings by artists with similar views in order to hear something from them. But analyzing the minutiae of why a player did this at bar 235 while a different one did this instead really doesn't interest me. Perhaps it is because my approach to any composer, no matter how much I love the music, is from the direction of his/its place in the history of music, not so much as in the technical performance of same.

Ultimately though, I have virtually no interest in the all-consuming chase to discover 'the best' (not saying you do either, Mandrake, but certainly many do). I want to hear the music played well, preferably on suitable instruments (that is, suitable according to my personal standards), and simply derive whatever satisfaction and enjoyment comes from that. Probably the same reason that I don't read critics. I don't really care what they think, I really only care what I think. Selfish bastard! 

[Karl Henning]

. . . I want to hear the music played well, preferably on suitable instruments (that is, suitable according to my personal standards), and simply derive whatever satisfaction and enjoyment comes from that.

Damn it, wish I'd said that : )

[Gurn Blanston]

Damn it, wish I'd said that : )

Thanks, Karl. I probably got that idea from you sometime, somewhere....

[Gurn Blanston]

You very eloquently expressed my own view. 

Thanks, San.

I think that there are equal numbers on both sides of the dichotomy. People have all sorts of reasons for pursuing an interest. As long as either side respects the other, there should be no friction there. Of course, there IS friction, but it is needless, stemming usually from a failure to empathize. Of course, it isn't OUR side that fails there....     

[Gurn Blanston]

I completely understand the other approach, and as I've said before on this forum I will from time to time engage in that kind of listening.  But for me it is rare exception and not the norm.  I find that almost all recordings are of such a generally good quality that I can enjoy them without any problem, and as you said, it is the work that I am really interested in, not any performer's "take" - so, a recording that no one will claim as "the best" will still be very enjoyable listening for me if I am at all interested in he music being played.

"The XYZ Quartet? You haven't even heard that work until you've heard the ABC Quartet play it in 1935. You can get it in Singapore for just $350, delivered". 

[Gurn Blanston]

But it must be admitted that it is good, in a way, for all that there are people -- a vast majority -- who (seem to) overly care about the performers' takes and are intent on making top-10 lists (again, not referring to you specifically, Mandyrka). Otherwise there's no point to the recording business and, as a result, no 10 pages of back-and-forth, though good-natured, "I prefer the Mosaiques/Festetics to the Festetics/Mosaiques".

Now, to Haydn. How did he spend his Friday evenings?

True enough, Navneeth. The evolution of performance styles would not be possible without people who aren't satisfied with the status quo. There are times, though, when I get the distinct impression that some people are more concerned about whether Player A ornamented the half-cadence at the end of the exposition more than is tasteful, while Player B didn't ornament it enough, than they are about whether Haydn's sonata in c# is a wonderful piece of music to enjoy.  And that concerns me, although it shouldn't, I suppose, since I already know it is and have listened to it dozens of times by a couple of dozen players.

[Opus106]

There are times, though, when I get the distinct impression that some people are more concerned about whether Player A ornamented the half-cadence at the end of the exposition more than is tasteful, while Player B didn't ornament it enough, than they are about whether Haydn's sonata in c# is a wonderful piece of music to enjoy.

But they obviously like that music a lot -- why would they otherwise obsess over details like that? (I'm not including pro/am reviewers, those brave souls who man the front lines taking the bullets for us. ) And by analysing the performance at whatever level, I don't think they are in any way devaluing the music in question. (I mean, you can say "This is a wonderful piece of music!" only so many times before it comes trite.)

If anything I'm much more 'austere' than you are, in this respect: in most cases, get one middle-of-the-road performance and be done with it. The question of any kind of comparison doesn't arise at all, and it's music all the way. My only wish is that, those people who compare recordings do it in a more objective and specific way and avoid nebulous statements which make sense only to them.

[Gurn Blanston]

But they obviously like that music a lot -- why would they otherwise obsess over details like that? (I'm not including pro/am reviewers, those brave souls who man the front lines taking the bullets for us. ) And by analysing the performance at whatever level, I don't think they are in any way devaluing the music in question. (I mean, you can say "This is a wonderful piece of music!" only so many times before it comes trite.)

If anything I'm much more 'austere' than you are, in this respect: in most cases, get one middle-of-the-road performance and be done with it. The question of any kind of comparison doesn't arise at all, and it's music all the way. My only wish is that, those people who compare recordings do it in a more objective and specific way and avoid nebulous statements which make sense only to them.

Oh sure, you gotta like the music first, or why bother? I just seem to come away from reading that sort of stuff with a feeling that the person never even just sat and listened to the music itself, only to the mechanics involved in its realization. Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe not.

Actually, for every composer except the Big 3, I'm right there with you. But you can never have enough Haydn, and rarely ever have enough Mozart. But 3 or 4 complete sets of Beethoven are usually enough....

[Mandryka]

While I have great respect for what you are saying here, I think that it goes to the root of the different reasons that people listen to (recordings of) music in the first place. Speaking only for myself, I want to hear a very good realization of the score, but my interest in that is not to hear different ideas of the players, it is to hear the music itself. Sure, a fresh and different POV is fine, and maybe (probably) will influence me into getting other recordings by artists with similar views in order to hear something from them. But analyzing the minutiae of why a player did this at bar 235 while a different one did this instead really doesn't interest me. Perhaps it is because my approach to any composer, no matter how much I love the music, is from the direction of his/its place in the history of music, not so much as in the technical performance of same.

Ultimately though, I have virtually no interest in the all-consuming chase to discover 'the best' (not saying you do either, Mandrake, but certainly many do). I want to hear the music played well, preferably on suitable instruments (that is, suitable according to my personal standards), and simply derive whatever satisfaction and enjoyment comes from that. Probably the same reason that I don't read critics. I don't really care what they think, I really only care what I think. Selfish bastard! 

My view, Gurn,  is that musical performances are works of art, some of them great works of art.

As far as compositions are concerned, it's true that I'm curious about reception history.