New recordings or old?

[Great Gable]

All of my purchases are of historical performances to some degree. I doubt that as much as  1% of my collection was recorded in the last 10 years. This is a concious decision on my part and for good personal reasons. Although I concede that many great performances can be found in the recent catalogue, I don't believe that they will out-perform the classic performances of the recent past. So, my interest is really within a narrow time-frame - approximately 1935 - 1990. It is further componded by my narrow range of musical interest - 1680 - 1900 (ish), so with no interest in new music the only item I might miss could be a recently discovered piece.

When I look for multiple copies of favourite pieces I always explore the historical. Well, to be honest, I could continue to do that and not run out of options for many years.

After my brief residency on this forum I seem to be absolutely alone in this - right or wrong?

[sidoze]

wrong. Though I explore contemporary recordings my main interest is in historical recordings, particularly historical piano recordings between 1920-1960. Unfortunately, unlike you, I feel that I've pretty much reached the end of exploring this period    (barring very rare LPs which I don't bother to hunt down).

[Great Gable]

Unfortunately, unlike you, I feel that I've pretty much reached the end of exploring this period    (barring very rare LPs which I don't bother to hunt down).

I've a long way to go before that happens!

[Grazioso]

I like to explore off the beaten path, which often means there's only one or two choices for a particular work, so I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing. That said, good sound is very important to me: I'm no audiophile, but music is sound after all, so the clearer and more realistic the instruments sound, the better. That makes a performance more immediate and lets me better hear nuances and details. I also know from experience that there are plenty of top-notch artists recording today; they're not all dead.

[Mark]

I like to explore off the beaten path, which often means there's only one or two choices for a particular work, so I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing. That said, good sound is very important to me: I'm no audiophile, but music is sound after all, so the clearer and more realistic the instruments sound, the better. That makes a performance more immediate and lets me better hear nuances and details. I also know from experience that there are plenty of top-notch artists recording today; they're not all dead.

Broadly speaking, I'm on the same, unbeaten path with you.

[hornteacher]

100% of my recordings were made after 1980.  I don't contend that all newer performances are better than older ones, but for me, I much perfer the crisper, clearer DDD sound quality rather than the warmer, atmospheric, analog.  However, I totally understand someone else's preference for the reverse.  It's nice to have to have choices to please everyone.

[The new erato]

I like historic recordings - but as most of my purchasing goes towards repertoire that wasn't available 10-20 years ago, or mainly available in substandard recordings, this really isn't an issue for me.

For core repertoire I tend to agree with you, but as I need only a limited number of recordings of that repertoire, as I said, noe an issue.

[gmstudio]

Although I concede that many great performances can be found in the recent catalogue, I don't believe that they will out-perform the classic performances of the recent past.

I think this is the only quibble I have. It's kind of a broad brushstroke, don't you think?

But, like others here, my taste in rep skews towards the obscure: lesser:known symphonies for me. So as you could imagine, it's very difficult to find more than one reading of a particular work.  I have to count on the fact that a recent release is as close to "definitive" as possible because it's highly unlikely that obscure symphonies will ever be recorded two or three times.

[marvinbrown]

All of my purchases are of historical performances to some degree. I doubt that as much as  1% of my collection was recorded in the last 10 years. This is a concious decision on my part and for good personal reasons. Although I concede that many great performances can be found in the recent catalogue, I don't believe that they will out-perform the classic performances of the recent past. So, my interest is really within a narrow time-frame - approximately 1935 - 1990. It is further componded by my narrow range of musical interest - 1680 - 1900 (ish), so with no interest in new music the only item I might miss could be a recently discovered piece.

When I look for multiple copies of favourite pieces I always explore the historical. Well, to be honest, I could continue to do that and not run out of options for many years.

After my brief residency on this forum I seem to be absolutely alone in this - right or wrong?

 I tend to side with you Great Gable, most of my collection is between 1950-1995 hardly any recordings from the past 10 years.  The reason: well the old recordings have the added advantage of having stood the test of time.  A lot very old recordings have been digitally remastered benefiting from technological advancements in recording of the past 10 years.

 marvin

[locrian]

Both. If you're to have a decent collection. Why deprive yourself of one or the other?

[Great Gable]

I think this is the only quibble I have. It's kind of a broad brushstroke, don't you think?

It's all personal preference. There's no way I will find anyone to beat my favourite pianists - Brendel,  Ashkenazy, Pollini, Kempf, Gilels, Perahia, Bishop-Kovasavich and Argerich. And certainly no-one who will come close to Furtwangler, Solti and Klemperer.

Don't forget, it's not other people's opinions that are important in these matters - it's our own personal taste.

[Keemun]

In selecting recordings, my first concern is (usually) performance quality.  (As I write this I am listening to Furtwangler's Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, which I prefer over the most recent recording I have by Vanska/Minnesota Orchestra.) 

I am less disposed to historical recordings of certain conductors such as Sibelius, Mahler and Bruckner.  Their symphonies require, IMHO, a certain level of sound quality for me to truly enjoy them.  I generally do not choose recordings of their symphonies made before 1960.  However, when it comes to concertos, sonatas, etc., I often select what I consider to be historical recordings because many of the soloists I like recorded pre-1960.

[Great Gable]

Both. If you're to have a decent collection. Why deprive yourself of one or the other?

Believe me, if I'm sticking to my favourites (see my last post) there's NO WAY I'm being deprived of a single thing.

[gmstudio]

Believe me, if I'm sticking to my favourites (see my last post) there's NO WAY I'm being deprived of a single thing.

But how do you know? 

[Great Gable]

Well, by sticking to those whom I consider the giants of recorded music, I am maintaining the highest possible standards and ensuring my collection is not de-valued one iota.

You're right I don't know - an easy stance for the Devil's advocate - but I do know that I can do no wrong with my heroes. Not once have any of them disappointed me. A new interloper may well do that!

As you can readily ascertain, I am very conservative in my scope of music and performers but hey, it suits me just fine.

[Mark]

As you can readily ascertain, I am very conservative in my scope of music and performers but hey, it suits me just fine.

Each to his own, of course.

[71 dB]

I avoid historical recordings for sound quality reasons.
I WANT crystal clear sound, if possible in multichannel SACD form.
I have only few historical recordings (Elgar conducting Elgar).
Most of my classical CDs are recorded after 1985.

[Great Gable]

I avoid historical recordings for sound quality reasons.

Well that is the one main drawback. It's especially galling to someone for whom recorded sound quality is normally paramount - namely ME!

Do any of you know the Steve Hoffman forum? He is a sound engineer who has morals and ethics - ie no EQ, no compression etc. Anyone interested in serious gear might want to check the forums out...

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/

[Mark]

Well that is the one main drawback. It's especially galling to someone for whom recorded sound quality is normally paramount - namely ME!

Yes, something of a paradox.

Perhaps you might invite a healthy challenge? You nominate an historical recording which you greatly treasure, and a member here has to find a high-quality, well-performed modern equivalent that they're confident will impress you. Could be fun.

[gmstudio]

He is a sound engineer who has morals and ethics - ie no EQ, no compression etc. Anyone interested in serious gear might want to check the forums out...

Woah woah woah woah...woah...WOAH...

As a sound engineer myself, I take issue with your stance that "morals and ethics" assumes "no eq, compression"...that's just nonsense. Propper mic placement itself is a form of EQing, setting levels is a form of compression.   EQ, compression, even natural reverb can all be used by a "morally ethical" engineer - nay, they MUST be.