Historical Recordings

[George]

Posted this on the Schubert thread but since its historical...


Got this today:



After listening through the first set of Impromptus, I must say I find it at least a bit too fast and especially too unrefined for my taste. I can say that the last two of D 935 were exceptions to this, epecially the superb B flat Impromptu, which was flawless. Otherwise, the qualities of Schnabel's playing that worked so well in his Beethoven just didn't speak to me in his Schubert. I only wish that more of that profoundity that he found in the LvB slow movements were present here. He had many of what would later be Richter's qualities, minus the slower, solemn tempi. Its obviously a question of liking his interpretation, for he certainly could have played these more expansively if he had so chosen. If you like your Schubert with less sniffing of the flowers and more muscle and rawness, then this is the set for you. Unfortunately, the EMI remaster is poor as usual. In fact this will be my last EMI purchase of a Historical recording, assuming there exists an alternative. Its just not worth the money saved IMO. There's way too much strange noise for a 1950 performance IMO. They cut much of the upper frequency out as well. I had read that this was the best transfer of these performances. If it is, its a damn shame. However, I doubt that MOT on M&A didn't do a much better job, but I wasn't prepered to shell out the $60 for the set. Having heard these performances, I won't be getting any more of Schnabel's Schubert.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes, please try them. Their sound is different from the others: it has the immediacy and "purist" quality of Pearl but at the same time it's much firmer in the lows. Some say it approches the original sound of the 78rpm's best. Will be very interested in your opinion!

Yeah, as we all know, that's the trick, isn't it? Duplicating exactly the sound of the original 78's! To date, I've yet to hear a CD (or LP) transfer that truly captures the magic of an original 78.

But that's no knock on the high quality transfer work out there. It's just that there are, of course, limitations. Can't get around it.

I remember my first encounter with the sweet-toned tenor Jussi Björling on a worn and weathered 78 of my grandmother's and found him so appealing I just had to have more.

The quest for a quality CD transfer to match that 78 was was my first lesson in what historical transfers were all about. Upon finding a CD I remember how disappointed I was in the timbrel greyness compared to the 78. Frequencies were shaved off (and this was Pearl! ) and the sound stage lacked the three-dimensional quality of the 78. This meant that Björling's uniquely pearly voice came through with much less impact.

So if the day ever comes that 78 transfer work breaks through that mystical "Don't Lose The Frequencies" barrier it will be a happy day indeed.

Anyway, Q, I'll keep my eyes peeled for Opus Kura and give you an update at the appropriate time.

[Bogey]

Unfortunately, the EMI remaster is poor as usual. In fact this will be my last EMI purchase of a Historical recording, assuming there exists an alternative. Its just not worth the money saved IMO. There's way too much strange noise for a 1950 performance IMO.

That is just it George.  When it comes to historical recordings, I am going to limit myself to just one of each and not own multiple transfers of the same recording.  However, with that said, this means I may find the "best available" and if a better one turns up down the road then I will trade them out.  The reason for this is that some of these transfers seem to be here and gone in a blink of an eye and OOP ones may take a while to locate, let alone be able to sample in person.

[Holden]

George - some interesting observations. I was just wondering what your favourite performance of the Impromptus was.

[George]

George - some interesting observations. I was just wondering what your favourite performance of the Impromptus was.

I was actually happy with my Brendel (his Philips analog recording, in a Two-Fer), but wanted another take. I tried Lupu, who I like, but feel he plays many of them too slow and perhaps too refined. He seems to reside at the opposite end of the spectrum with respect to Schnabel. I still don't believe that I have found a favorite and will continue to search for one. Other than Schnabel, who do you like in these works? Edwin Fischer is held in high regard by many (even higher than Schnabel) and I have liked what I've heard on the online samples, so I will try him next. Another one I am curious about is Pires set it seems to be OOP and I saw it used recently. Have you heard these? Also, I sure wish Moravec records them, I bet they'd be great!

I had a Music History professor in school who once said that a collegue of his was of the belief that "no one can play Schubert." I don't think he agreed, but perhaps there's something to her statement. I tried many pianist's Schubert before Richter's recordings of the sonatas finally clicked for me. Others, like Klien and Brendel, I certainly enjoyed, but they failed to make me feel how special this music really is. With the Impromptus, I can certainly see the greatness in the composition, I just hope I can find someone who is a match for these ears.   

[Holden]

George - the only complete set I own is by Murray Perahia. I've had it for many years and have yet to find a set to surpass it. Yes, individual performances of some of the Impromptus are better but overall I'll stick with MP.

[lukeottevanger]

Here's an historical no-brainer as far as I'm concerned:



Hearing Bartok play his own music is enlightening, even if the sound needs some further work (if it can be done).

Yes, that's a fantastic one, and to my mind is the perfect complement for another 'historical no-brainer':


(this one isn't precisely the same as the one I have, on Dante and impossible to find now, but the main pieces - the 2nd and 3rd Violin Sonatas, and the 3rd Piano sonata - are the same)

And one more which, unsurprisingly, falls down completely on sound quality but picks up again big-time on significance and raw emotional power: the second performance of the Berg VC, just after Berg's death, conducted by Webern (emotionally unable to conduct the premiere), performed by Krasner, who found the acetates in his house decades later:

[George]

Just got this today and wanted to post some thoughts about this classic recording. Many, many critics have placed this recording ahead of all of the recorded versions of these works (Impromptus) so I feel as though I had to hear them. First off, while they are not my favorite, I like the performances much more than Schnabel's. Fischer certainly plays this gorgeous music with more polish and beauty. However, his tempos are even faster than Schnabel's. I realize that this probably had to do with the time restriction on the old '78s. However, the fact remains that these Impromptus were probably played at a tempo that Fischer would not have chosen if conditions were otherwise. Therefore, what results is an inauthentic interpretation. I hadn't really thought about this before, but it certainly represents a considerable limitation in historical recordings in general. In modern recordings, we do not have this problem. We get to hear exactly what the pianist wishes to record. So I feel torn in general about historical recordings. Perhaps others have their own thoughts about this issue, but I have decided to take a break from historical recordings. The biggest reason for this is that I cannot think of one instance in which I have preffered a historical performance over all others. Moreover, they are often difficult to find, requiring too much time to track down in my opinion. At first this was part of their allure, but now I have found myself spending too much time pursuing recordings and not enought time listening to them. Lately, I've even had headaches from listening to the surface noise on them.

Getting back to the Fischer CD, in the final analysis, I need to say that I prefer a more expansive Schubert. Fischer's technique is so strong that in many cases, it does not even feel fast. In others though, much serenity and beauty is lost. The transfers sound great for their age, and the coupled Wanderer Fantasy is excellent. However, I can't help but feel that modern sound recordings (Lupu, Brendel, etc) better convey the gorgeous melodies in this music. Much like with Chopin, I feel that the sound quality plays an important role in my overall enjoyment of a Schubert performance.   

[Bogey]

Thank you George.

[George]

Thank you George.

I hope the next one will be good news. 

[Bogey]

I hope the next one will be good news. 

This next statement in a way "piggie backs" on your comment George:

I have been wondering that when it comes to historical recordings if we are not dealing with a layer that I ave not seen discussed here that is not present in modern recordings.  What I am referring to is the fact that when most of the historical recordings were made wasn't it more difficult for artists to get their performances recoded because the technology was such that there were not as many recording studios to ac comadate a variety of artists.  Therefore, only those considered the crème de la crème had the opportunity to record Hence, the repertoire of recordings was not only smaller than today, but the pool of performers that had a chance to record was as well.  Any truth to this?

[George]

I have been wondering that when it comes to historical recordings if we are not dealing with a layer that I ave not seen discussed here that is not present in modern recordings.  What I am referring to is the fact that when most of the historical recordings were made wasn't it more difficult for artists to get their performances recoded because the technology was such that there were not as many recording studios to ac comadate a variety of artists.  Therefore, only those considered the crème de la crème had the opportunity to record Hence, the repertoire of recordings was not only smaller than today, but the pool of performers that had a chance to record was as well.  Any truth to this?

Interesting question, Bill. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. 

[Poetdante]

Schnabel- Beethoven sonatas on Pearl.

Edwin Fischer- Bach WTC on Pearl.

Cortot- Any Schumann or Chopin recordings (various labels)

Serkin- Mono LvB sonatas on Sony and Music and Arts (has the greatest Waldstein ever, IMO)

I've heard so many times about Schnabel's historical recording,
what is the attractive point of this recording?
I really love Beethoven's sonatas, so I consider to buy some more complete set.

Cortot's 'straightforward' Schumann is marvelous!
Especially, I can't never play like him on the 'Carnaval' Op.9.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

...I cannot think of one instance in which I have preffered a historical performance over all others.

You've just touched on the crux of my occasional disagreements with historical enthusiasts (not that that was really your point ). I, too, find much to enjoy in the here and now of recorded art music and I simply can't fall in line with the "it's all soooo much better in the past" party line.

Not that historical recordings should be dismissed. No one's saying that. But give credit where credit is due: modern interpreters do a bang-up job in this most difficult of musical terrain.

Like it or not today's artists are still that: artists.

(Flame suit on! )

[Que]

Just got this today and wanted to post some thoughts about this classic recording. Many, many critics have placed this recording ahead of all of the recorded versions of these works (Impromptus) so I feel as though I had to hear them. First off, while they are not my favorite, I like the performances much more than Schnabel's. Fischer certainly plays this gorgeous music with more polish and beauty. However, his tempos are even faster than Schnabel's. I realize that this probably had to do with the time restriction on the old '78s. However, the fact remains that these Impromptus were probably played at a tempo that Fischer would not have chosen if conditions were otherwise. Therefore, what results is an inauthentic interpretation. I hadn't really thought about this before, but it certainly represents a considerable limitation in historical recordings in general. In modern recordings, we do not have this problem. We get to hear exactly what the pianist wishes to record. So I feel torn in general about historical recordings. Perhaps others have their own thoughts about this issue, but I have decided to take a break from historical recordings. The biggest reason for this is that I cannot think of one instance in which I have preferred a historical performance over all others. Moreover, they are often difficult to find, requiring too much time to track down in my opinion. At first this was part of their allure, but now I have found myself spending too much time pursuing recordings and not enough time listening to them. Lately, I've even had headaches from listening to the surface noise on them.

Getting back to the Fischer CD, in the final analysis, I need to say that I prefer a more expansive Schubert. Fischer's technique is so strong that in many cases, it does not even feel fast. In others though, much serenity and beauty is lost. The transfers sound great for their age, and the coupled Wanderer Fantasy is excellent. However, I can't help but feel that modern sound recordings (Lupu, Brendel, etc) better convey the gorgeous melodies in this music. Much like with Chopin, I feel that the sound quality plays an important role in my overall enjoyment of a Schubert performance. 

Thanks George for your thorough review! You raise several issues.

OK - first the recording itself. Honestly, the notion that Fischer's Schubert might be too fast never even crossed my mind. I don't think fast playing in historical recordings is always caused by the short playing time of 78rpms (3 or 4-5 minutes). It's true that with short pieces or movements with a duration around the limit, artist tried to fit the piece on one record instead of just spilling over the another. Looking at the playing times of the impromptus, this could have been the case with two of them, which are just under or over 5 minutes..
As for the interpretation - you're right: this is certainly not an expansive reading, maybe Fischer would have liked the HIP recordings with Badura-Skoda I bought recently!

As for the value of historical recordings in general. True, the fact that they are historical doesn't make them valuable in itself and sound limitations are definitely a disadvantage. Artists are artists, whether historical or present day. It is just that historical recordings give us the opportunity to appreciate artists that recorded during four decades. I wouldn't like to miss out on the art of artists like Casals, Schnabel, Fischer, Furtwängler and many singers. Of course, they are not necessarily preferred to the many artists recorded in the decades that followed, but may of them are for me (together with modern colleagues) still a primary choice - despite sonic limitations. But that is entirely personal!

Not every "legendary artist" needs to be to our own personal taste.
Maybe that is the real issue you raise: one does not have to like Schnabel or Fischer just because that is the generally received wisdom.

Q

[George]

I've heard so many times about Schnabel's historical recording,
what is the attractive point of this recording?

Perhaps because:

1. It was the first complete set of the sonatas ever recorded. This makes it special for this reason alone, however, I suspect that for older listeners, being that this is the one that they imprinted on, they hold it dear.

2. Schnabel play as how many feel Beethoven would have played these works, with great fire and forward momentum. The fast movements are fast and the slow movements are slow.

3. Schnabel finds an incredibly profound depth in the slow movements. I can think of only a handful of pianists who even approach him in that respect. Gilels is the only pianist that comes to mind who comes closest, but unfortunately his outer movements often lack the urgency Schnabel brings to this music.   

[George]

You've just touched on the crux of my occasional disagreements with historical enthusiasts (not that that was really your point ). I, too, find much to enjoy in the here and now of recorded art music and I simply can't fall in line with the "it's all soooo much better in the past" party line.

No, I think this actually was one of my points. I'm sure glad I've heard some of these historical artists, but they haven't displaced my overall favorites. I agree that there are some people who claim everything was better long ago, but that's certainly not my position. I'm more inclined to say that "its different in the past." For some that difference is preferable to all others, for me it isn't. Many of my favorites were recorded long ago, especially the '60s for some reason, but I agree with you, they aren't good simply because they are old.

Not that historical recordings should be dismissed. No one's saying that. But give credit where credit is due: modern interpreters do a bang-up job in this most difficult of musical terrain.

They certainly do. In fact, I have ordered Maria Joao Pires's Schubert Impromptus to try next. I saw a great documentary about her master classes and really was taken in by her style and ideas about music.

[George]

OK - first the recording itself. Honestly, the notion that Fischer's Schubert might be too fast never even crossed my mind. I don't think fast playing in historical recordings is always caused by the short playing time of 78rpms (3 or 4-5 minutes). It's true that with short pieces or movements with a duration around the limit, artist tried to fit the piece on one record instead of just spilling over the another. Looking at the playing times of the impromptus, this could have been the case with two of them, which are just under or over 5 minutes..

Certainly I agree that the faster timings aren't always due to short playing times of the 78s, but in the places where this is this case, what we hear on record is an interpretation that does not reflect the artist's true conception of the work. This I feel is a tragedy. Especially because I shudder to think what Richter's recorded Schubert would have sounded like had he been born in an earlier time. Plus, if only half of the recordings of the 78 era were affected, that has to have had an incredible impact on later interpretations. They set a standard that was later followed and influenced generations of performers. So, if their interpretation was compromised by the technology of the time, then pianists were therfore influenced by inauthentic interpretations.   

Not every "legendary artist" needs to be to our own personal taste.
Maybe that is the real issue you raise: one does not have to like Schnabel or Fischer just because that is the generally received wisdom.
Q

Yeah, I was kind of raising many different points. 
I think what I have learned is that its not a good idea to avoid historical recordings simply because of sonic limitations, nor is it wise to buy them just because many others have loved them, because they are "classic." Now that I have heard a lot of them, I now have a better understanding of what my personal taste is. I think that this is the most important thing of all for me, to listen to enough recordings to really know what things I like and what things I don't like in a performance. Unfortunately, I am not the type of collector who has the money to buy freely and I need to be selective about what I buy. Really knowing what I like enables me to find more recordings that I like. After all, isn't that our goal here?   

[Bogey]

As posted on the purchase thread:

From the Music & Arts Program label:

   

Based on the available samples, I am pleased with the transfers here, but even more so with what I can hear within the performances, especially on the Brahms' set....I will report more when they arrive.

[Michel]

Great thread; I love historical recordings..

I would recommend this quarterly magazine to anyone who is interested:

http://www.classicrecordcollector.com/