New recordings or old?

[Don]

I stipulated from the outset that those were not the only conceivable choices. I am asking which of the two you would select if they were the only two choices. Perfectly reasonable question.

Come on Larry - it isn't reasonable.  Who in his/her right mind would pick the boring and unimaginative performance?

[Gurn Blanston]

What doesn't thrill me about some current HIP practices is an attempt to sound as non-HIP as possible in order to pelase those who have a problem with the HIP recordings of earlier decades.

Don,
I'm curious here if you are making reference to the Gardiner Beethoven cycle. While I happen to love it, one of the criticisms I have frequently read (especially from people who admit to preferring period instrument performances) is that it sounds so slick and smooth it might as well be a modern instrument performance, and that the reason (as they perceive it) is that Gardiner didn't want to chance alienating and losing customers who didn't like HIP. In the mini-review that M wrote a couple of months ago, this was one of the points he made, and I was in agreement with him, that Gardiner didn't share the bit of roughness or possibly raggedness that Hogwood or Norrington display. I happen to like a bit of a rough edge ordinarily, and I like both of those cycles except for some tempo choices, but I simply can't fault the quality of Gardiner's group's playing.



----------------
Now playing: Vienna PO / Muti - Haydn 7 Last Words for Orchestra pt 6 Sonata V

[Larry Rinkel]

Come on Larry - it isn't reasonable.  Who in his/her right mind would pick the boring and unimaginative performance?

Well, yes, of course I was playing the devil's advocate here. But Mr. Masolino, in telling us there's "no need to bother with modern-instrument Beethoven symphonies as far as I am concerned," in effect has answered my question whether he intended to or not. From my perspective, it's as unfortunate to turn one's back on the great modern-instrument performances of the past as to discount totally the contributions of the HIP movement.

[Renfield]

Going back to the original topic:

My own collection of about a thousand discs (without any of those mega-sets of billions of discs, I'll note ) contains recordings spanning a full century: 1907-2007.

And if fact, something interesting is that (although most of the older recordings I have are indeed among my favourite recordings), the complete set of recordings I tend to consider my collection's finest are more-or-less split between the pre-1960's era and the post 1960's era.

If you forced me to "ditch" either part, I'd be sad to about the same extent, in terms of the music itself. In general terms, however, recordings made as far back as 100 years also function as "time-travelling capsules", of sorts: so I will admit I might value them further than the more recent ones.

So overall, I'm in the "why limit your horizons?" group, though with a certain amount of sentimentality, to sum this post up.

[Grazioso]

it's easy to get obsessed with sound quality, the gear you listen with etc...and to start listening to that rather than the music ... many hi fi buffs are afflicted with that.

I can easily imagine that, yet you'd think sound quality would, to a reasonable extent, be important to any lover of music. Would you be content looking at a master painting through dark, scratched sunglasses, or would you want to see it as the painter the intended, with all the vibrant colors and small details clear? I want a horn or a violin to sound like one, and not just some muffled, generic thing playing notes. I want to hear all the subtle details of orchestration. I want to hear the full power of a fortissimo tutti passage blaring out at me.

[Mark]

I can easily imagine that, yet you'd think sound quality would, to a reasonable extent, be important to any lover of music. Would you be content looking at a master painting through dark, scratched sunglasses, or would you want to see it as the painter the intended, with all the vibrant colors and small details clear? I want a horn or a violin to sound like one, and not just some muffled, generic thing playing notes. I want to hear all the subtle details of orchestration. I want to hear the full power of a fortissimo tutti passage blaring out at me.

I'm with you. Sound quality is almost always my primary concern ... though I no longer question the value of great, historical performances.

[longears]

Sound quality on a recording doesn't deter my enjoyment of killer playing and great performances...
Oh and I enjoy much jazz, but it hasn't ever produced anything of the complexity & depth of a Bach St. Matthew Passion or a B minor Mass. 

Apples and pomegranates.  You want some deep and complex jazz, try Charlie Mingus's Let My Children Hear Music.

RE the topic in general, my two cents (if anyone cares): 
Sound quality does matter to me, but I'll take what I can get.  I've some excellent mono recordings from the '50s, stereo from the '60s and '70s, not much of anything from the '80s, and some pretty good digital from the late '80s to present.  Good digital remastering of older analog recordings sounds perfectly good to my ears.

Insofar as "historic" recordings go, unless I have a particular interest in earlier performance practice or the idiosyncrasies of a given performer, I generally prefer a performance in good quality sound (full frequency range, realistic timbre & dynamics) and find no dearth of great ones made in the past half century.

The claim that performers of our time just don't measure up to giants of the past strikes me as unadulterated horseshit.  I suspect the general quality of musicianship in the post-War era is probably leaps and bounds ahead of that in the era between the wars, and the number of extraordinary virtuosos on virtually every instrument these days presents a wealth of riches the likes of which the world has never before seen. 

[Que]

 I suspect the general quality of musicianship in the post-War era is probably leaps and bounds ahead of that in the era between the wars, and the number of extraordinary virtuosos on virtually every instrument these days presents a wealth of riches the likes of which the world has never before seen. 

Ho humm... 

Try some Schnabel, Casals, Furtwängler, Weingartner, Heifetz, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Busch Quartet or Edwin Fischer... Maybe things become a little clearer then. 

Q

[Great Gable]

The claim that performers of our time just don't measure up to giants of the past strikes me as unadulterated horseshit. 

To my knowledge no-one has stated that modern interpreters don't measure up! I DID state that my particular favourites could not be beaten to my ears but that's not remotely the same thing at all and neither was it a statement regarding ability.

[longears]

Try some Schnabel, Casals, Furtwängler, Weingartner, Heifetz, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Busch Quartet or Edwin Fischer... Maybe things become a little clearer then. 

I don't understand the Schnabel worship other than in an historical sense--those early recordings were a landmark--because he seems pretty sloppy to me.  Casals was terrific but there's no certainly no dearth of fine cellists today. Horowitz was damned proficient but lacked soul so seems a peculiar choice to support your claim.  Heifetz was marvelous and Rubinstein remains a personal fave; I think both would be among the first to applaud the quality of musicianship among performers today and the conditions that have made this flowering possible.

Y'all are welcome to prefer Heifetz to performers of today.  Am I not welcome to respect and enjoy Shaham or Vengerov or Mullova or Repin equally as much?  But you trespass beyond expressions of mere preference when you slam two or three generations of gifted, devoted musicians as unequivocally inferior to their predecessors.  I know that point of view is commonplace on this and other similar forums, but I must respectfully disagree. 

[Que]

I don't understand the Schnabel worship other than in an historical sense--those early recordings were a landmark--because he seems pretty sloppy to me.  Casals was terrific but there's no certainly no dearth of fine cellists today. Horowitz was damned proficient but lacked soul so seems a peculiar choice to support your claim.  Heifetz was marvelous and Rubinstein remains a personal fave; I think both would be among the first to applaud the quality of musicianship among performers today and the conditions that have made this flowering possible.

Y'all are welcome to prefer Heifetz to performers of today.  Am I not welcome to respect and enjoy Shaham or Vengerov or Mullova or Repin equally as much?  But you trespass beyond expressions of mere preference when you slam two or three generations of gifted, devoted musicians as unequivocally inferior to their predecessors.  I know that point of view is commonplace on this and other similar forums, but I must respectfully disagree. 

You're reading things into my reaction that are not there. I'm not suggesting that pre-war performers are universally to be preferred to post-war performers, nor do I deny you your enjoyment (or mine!) of the latter category.

I did, however, reject your claim that pre-war musical standards, or "quality of musicianship" as you put it, were/was in any way inferior.

Q

[longears]

I see...thanks for the clarification!  Other posters have claimed that contemporary performers don't measure up.  Glad to see you aren't among them--especially since I've come to value your recommendations!

And please let me clarify, too.  I did not say that "pre-war musical standards, or 'quality of musicianship'" was inferior to today's, but that the general quality today is superior (meaning there is a greater number of better trained and more musically astute performers in the post-War era) and that there are more virtuosos performing today than ever before. 

[Que]

I see...thanks for the clarification!  Other posters have claimed that contemporary performers don't measure up.  Glad to see you aren't among them--especially since I've come to value your recommendations!

And please let me clarify, too.  I did not say that "pre-war musical standards, or 'quality of musicianship'" was inferior to today's, but that the general quality today is superior (meaning there is a greater number of better trained and more musically astute performers in the post-War era) and that there are more virtuosos performing today than ever before. 

Thanks for that! 
But I think there are a few factors to consider. Firstly, in the old days the process of recording was exceptional and reserved for a few selected artists only. Secondly, they couldn't record several "takes" of a piece, the best bits being "glued" together afterwards. In that respect, the "perfection" of present day performers is an artificially manufactured illusion.

Q

[longears]

the "perfection" of present day performers is an artificially manufactured illusion.

I've heard many in person and can attest that there's nothing artificial or illusory about extraordinary technical prowess married to passionate, informed musicianship among many of today's notable performers.

[Que]

I've heard many in person and can attest that there's nothing artificial or illusory about extraordinary technical prowess married to passionate, informed musicianship among many of today's notable performers.

Indeed!   But musicians still make mistakes as always...
I'm not convinced musicians are generally "better" now than in the old days.
It is said that the artistic level of the Concertgebouw Orchestra was at its heights in the '30s, never to be equaled later. I don't know about the last statement, but the artistic level then was in any case not less than in modern times.

Q

[longears]

Indeed!   But musicians still make mistakes as always...
I'm not convinced musicians are generally "better" now than in the old days.
It is said that the artistic level of the Concertgebouw Orchestra was at its heights in the '30s, never to be equaled later. I don't know about the last statement, but the artistic level then was in any case not less than in modern times.

We're talking apples and pears.  I'm not addressing the absolute artistic level, but the number of musicians at the highest levels.  How many "World Class" orchestras or soloists were there in the '30s, and how many today?  Were there any in the U.S. back then?  In the States we've gone from none to the big five to what today amounts to a big ten (Cleveland and 9 others) in less than a century.  There's a pool of enormous talent in Asia that's only recently entered the field.  I presume that post-War prosperity, stability, and expanding democratization have enriched the field even in Western Europe. 

Anyway, I don't really want to argue, just present an opposing point of view to one so often expressed here (by some) that it usually passes uncontested.

[Que]

We're talking apples and pears.  I'm not addressing the absolute artistic level, but the number of musicians at the highest levels.  How many "World Class" orchestras or soloists were there in the '30s, and how many today?  Were there any in the U.S. back then?  In the States we've gone from none to the big five to what today amounts to a big ten (Cleveland and 9 others) in less than a century.  There's a pool of enormous talent in Asia that's only recently entered the field.  I presume that post-War prosperity, stability, and expanding democratization have enriched the field even in Western Europe. 

Anyway, I don't really want to argue, just present an opposing point of view to one so often expressed here (by some) that it usually passes uncontested.

If we are just talking numbers, I won't argue that.

Q

[drogulus]

      I have a fatal weakness for "Golden Age" recordings from the early years of stereo, roughly from 1953 to somewhere in the mid '60s. The reason for this is an almost perfect storm of legendary artists, superbly balanced recordings and classic performances. It was a very special era. Also, many of these recordings were in the stores when I started with classical music, and I remember seeing them.