comparing recordings

[coffee]

How important is it to you to compare different recordings of the same work?

Is it an essential part of your classical music experience? Or just important? Or not important at all, just something that you happen to do from time to time?

[Holden]

How important is it to you to compare different recordings of the same work?

Is it an essential part of your classical music experience? Or just important? Or not important at all, just something that you happen to do from time to time?

I'm basing my reply on the fact that this is the on the beginners forum.

I wouldn't go overboard on comparing recordings of music that are new to you at this stage. Seek recommendations, choose one and get the CD/MP3 download. Once familiar with the music then you can look to find a recording that is more meaningful than the one you have in your collection.

However, if you know the piece well (because you've played it or whatever) then make some comparisons. The members of this forum are always happy to help you with their advice and choices

[Elgarian]

How important is it to you to compare different recordings of the same work?

Is it an essential part of your classical music experience? Or just important? Or not important at all, just something that you happen to do from time to time?

Depends what you mean. I hardly ever (except for the sake of some specific discussion with someone else, here) compare recordings directly, to try to determine precisely what the differences are. There are a few favourite pieces of music where I have a lot of recordings (eg Elgar's violin concerto, of which I have about 15), but that's primarily an attempt to keep the music fresh, because I listen to it so much. Favourite performances do emerge, but only gradually, and not by direct comparison.

There's the case of Sibelius's symphonies, where I love the symphonies but never found any recordings that quite got to the heart of what I felt was needed, so I accumulated several box sets on a quest to find my perfect Sibelius. But that sort of thing is rare.

Then there are things like Wagner's Ring, where the variations introduced by different singers alone make it worthwhile to own several versions, let alone the differing approaches of different conductors.

Then sometimes, either here, or in one of the music magazines, a particular recording of a work I'm fond of will get such a good review that I decide to try it.

But in terms of sitting down specifically to listen to the differences between alternative recordings - no, I hardly ever do that.

[canninator]

Two things really, of the repertoire in the Classical Guitar, my instrument, I will happily listen to and compare multiple recordings. I will compare all aspects of technique and musicality to determine what the particular performer brings to the piece and how it can inform my own playing. I find this an interesting and satisfying approach to the music.

In regular repertoire I don't really have the time to do this so am happy to take recommendations on given recordings, an exception to this is the piano repertoire where I do have multiples but don't necessarily have the skill at the instrument to dissect the approach of the different performers bar the obvious aspects of tempo, dynamics, and rhythmic flexibility.

[North Star]

If I have one recording of a piece, that is performed well enough (how picky I am depends on the piece), and the instruments (HIPPI/modern), tempi, playing technique (accuracy), vibrato, and rubato are all immaculate, I'm more interested in records of other pieces than alternative interpretations.
Regarding HIPPI/modern, I draw the line on Beethoven, regarding the instruments. Earlier than that sounds much better with fortepiano or harpsichord, but by Beethoven the modern piano has many advantages, too. Schumann, Chopin & Liszt work on both, after that the period pianos don't usually offer anything special. PI strings are a must up to Bach, and much preferred in Beethoven (and earlier), too.

[knight66]

I almost never do direct comparisons. I have multiple versions of my favourite works, but as I tend to specialise in vocal music, the different voices are the pull as well as the variations in interpretation.

In non-vocal music, again, I have various versions of favourite works, but over time I find I narrow my listening to the versions I am most attracted to.

The only direct comparisons I do carry out are prompted by posts here and then I check something up or check my memory before contributing.

I read and listen to opinions. But I don't do comparisons before buying.


Mike

[Superhorn]

    It's always fascinating to compare different recordings . But there's one problem ;  often, the first recording you get to know a work with can spoil you to others. You get accustomed to that particular recording and often  when you hear a different approach it may bother you .
For example, you may get accustomed to the tempos on the first recording you hear, and the next ones you hear may seem either too slow or too fast by comparison . This has happened to me more than a few times in the past, but you CAN get accustomed to other recordings .
    There can never be one  absolutely definitive recording of any given work .  No performer has a monopoly on any  work .

[prémont]

Like Knight I only rarely do direct comparisons, finding these harmful to my listening experience. I rather concentrate upon the recording I am listening to without thinking on others. Only afterwards I may compare the impression with my impression of other recordings. But generally I listen to different recordings for the sake of variety, and not for the sake of comparison.

[marvinbrown]

I'm basing my reply on the fact that this is the on the beginners forum.

I wouldn't go overboard on comparing recordings of music that are new to you at this stage. Seek recommendations, choose one and get the CD/MP3 download. Once familiar with the music then you can look to find a recording that is more meaningful than the one you have in your collection.

However, if you know the piece well (because you've played it or whatever) then make some comparisons. The members of this forum are always happy to help you with their advice and choices

  I have to agree with Holden  here.  Assuming you are new, I would advise you not to concern yourself too much with multiple recordings or comparing recordings of works unfamiliar to you. You are better off spending that money exploring new composers and new works.

  Personally I like to compare recordings of works that I love and am very familiar with (IE Wagner's Ring, Tristan and Parsifal) or recordings that are radically different from one another (IE Solti's blazing Mahler Symphony Cycle vs. Bertini's more docile Mahler Symphony Cycle).  Other than that I am pretty much a "one recording suits me fine" kind of guy!

  marvin

[Bulldog]

I regularly do comparison listening, finding it the best way to get to the heart of various interpretations of a particular work.

[Mandryka]

Where comparative listening helps me most is in understanding the development of a performer.

One of the consequences of using a squeezebox is that comparative listening becomes very very easy to do.

[coffee]

Two things really, of the repertoire in the Classical Guitar, my instrument, I will happily listen to and compare multiple recordings. I will compare all aspects of technique and musicality to determine what the particular performer brings to the piece and how it can inform my own playing. I find this an interesting and satisfying approach to the music.

In regular repertoire I don't really have the time to do this so am happy to take recommendations on given recordings, an exception to this is the piano repertoire where I do have multiples but don't necessarily have the skill at the instrument to dissect the approach of the different performers bar the obvious aspects of tempo, dynamics, and rhythmic flexibility.

I liked this answer. I have sometimes thought that to understand any kind of music you have to approach it like a musician.

[coffee]

Where comparative listening helps me most is in understanding the development of a performer.

One of the consequences of using a squeezebox is that comparative listening becomes very very easy to do.

You are the same Mandryka from amazon.com message boards? If so, it seems to me that your main thing is comparing recordings.

[techniquest]

Hi coffee - for me comparing recordings and reading about comparisons is part of the whole experience. For example I have 43 recordings of Mahler 2 and about 30 of Mahler 3 accumulated over nearly 40 years and I will continue to listen to, compare, enjoy and collect recordings of these works (among many others) as it is part of what I enjoy when it comes to the classical music experience.
Radio programs such as R3's 'Building a Library' are all about making these comparisons and a great deal of what we see here on this forum is about comparisons. However, taking points already made, it is not essential to do this and a piece of music can of course be enjoyed and appreciated in just one single recording. That recording becomes your own experience of the piece which will remain personal to you no matter how many others you may hear in the future; and that's really nice because it becomes yours.

[mahler10th]

I don't know why I do it, but now and then I compare the waveforms and timings of compared works.  This usually happens when I hear something played in a way that's unfamiliar to me.  It is a wee geek in me that wants to do this, and has no  function other than to make me interact more with the music.     By comparing identical music played by different conductors and orchestras this way, I dsicover what kinds of twists and turns I like in music, and discover which composers and conductors I prefer.  Of course, there's no need for me to map music on a sound editor to discover these things, but sometimes I do it anyway.

[Mirror Image]

I don't know why I do it, but now and then I compare the waveforms and timings of compared works.  This usually happens when I hear something played in a way that's unfamiliar to me.  It is a wee geek in me that wants to do this, and has no  function other than to make me interact more with the music.     By comparing identical music played by different conductors and orchestras this way, I dsicover what kinds of twists and turns I like in music, and discover which composers and conductors I prefer.  Of course, there's no need for me to map music on a sound editor to discover these things, but sometimes I do it anyway.

Don't worry, John, you're amongst geeks here. I think when a person acquires more than one performance of a work, then naturally comparisons will be done. I might like the way x conductor used a specific tempi to this section or I like the way y conductor made the brass burst through the orchestral texture in that section, etc. In the end, it's these changes that either a: appeal to us or b: make us desperately seek out an alternative performance.

[mahler10th]

I was compelled to compare waveforms and the like when I heard Kubeliks Mahler 10 (Adagio).  It made me cry.  The violins in it were crying, and I joined in.  I wanted to compare the timings and peaks of the crying violins with other Mahler 10ths to see if anyone else made their violins cry (after the big bang, 3/4 of the way through.)  Alas, I did not find any other with the same impact, though many were better recorded.

[Mirror Image]

I was compelled to compare waveforms and the like when I heard Kubeliks Mahler 10 (Adagio).  It made me cry.  The violins in it were crying, and I joined in.  I wanted to compare the timings and peaks of the crying violins with other Mahler 10ths to see if anyone else made their violins cry (after the big bang, 3/4 of the way through.)  Alas, I did not find any other with the same impact, though many were better recorded.

Yes, sometimes an interpretation comes along that just hits us in the right places. I remember hearing Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe for the first time under Jean Martinon with the Orchestre de Paris and thinking this sounded fantastic but something was missing and then I heard Charles Dutoit's recording of it and I found what was missing a sunrise scene to end all sunrise scenes. Dutoit may get a lot of slack for lacking emotion and being too technically inclined, but this performance puts all of those opinions to rest.

[coffee]

Hi coffee - for me comparing recordings and reading about comparisons is part of the whole experience. For example I have 43 recordings of Mahler 2 and about 30 of Mahler 3 accumulated over nearly 40 years and I will continue to listen to, compare, enjoy and collect recordings of these works (among many others) as it is part of what I enjoy when it comes to the classical music experience.
Radio programs such as R3's 'Building a Library' are all about making these comparisons and a great deal of what we see here on this forum is about comparisons. However, taking points already made, it is not essential to do this and a piece of music can of course be enjoyed and appreciated in just one single recording. That recording becomes your own experience of the piece which will remain personal to you no matter how many others you may hear in the future; and that's really nice because it becomes yours.

Wow, I can't imagine listening to 43 different recordings of Mahler 2. I don't think I'd be able to remember what more 6 or 7 are really like.

It's fine with me that this is your thing, but it cannot be my thing because of all the music I haven't heard yet. If I tried to do something like that with a work, I would never get to Handel's organ concertos, Glass's operas, Canteloube's songs, Stravinsky's later period, Mozart's piano quartets, Haydn's piano trios, Clementi's sonatas, Medtner or Alkan, Mendelssohn's Elijah, Josquin, Xenakis, and so on....

[North Star]

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.