Ok, now I have your attention. For those of you who don't listen to classical, drop out here. For those of you who think the sound quality of a recording has a minor influence on the value of the interpretation, stick around.I would bet a nickel (here, Jasmine, hold my bet) that everyone here thinks that a great performance that happens to be an old recording, with somewhat tinny mono sound greatly overweighs a less compelling performance in modern stereo sound. I think both count and I also think there are enough performances recorded that it is likely for MOST music that a modern recording is more true to the composer's intentions. You know; what would Beethoven choose to spin on the platten or CDP?
One point I want to make: Listen to recordings of classical symphonies (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) that are old but venerated. Pretty thin in the bass, but that doesn't affect the music, right? I say wrong! I heard a live performance of Brahms 1st and Beethoven's 8th two nights ago. There were four basses. Sounded good and balanced to me. Then I read in Mozart's letters that he (not LVB, not Mahler, not Wagner) wanted TEN (10!) basses in his later symphonies. Haydn wanted six! They both wanted to increase the balance of bass to violins. So do you really think you are hearing what Mozart was composing when you listen to a 1937 recording of the "Jupiter"? I think not. And I bet there are four new recordings with modern sound with very acceptable, even excellent performances that more clearly represent the musical conversation Mozart, LVB and others intended.
So, I just don't accept the argument that we should ignore the effect of the quality of sound when evaluating a recorded performance. It counts and it counts big. Now go back and listen to your "thin" performances (regardless of when recorded) and imagine what it could have been.
PS: Some conductors and recording engineers "thin" out a recording too. Too bad.
PPS: I am obviously ignoring the debate on whether a performer should try to be "true" to the composer in most ways. I also think most people have dumped the "original instrument" fad by now, so that is moot.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Your're all Wrong!! - BobH 10:11:55 03/10/00 (19)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - Serge 07:23:46 03/11/00 (0)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - Dr. T 15:14:03 03/10/00 (4)
- Exactly what I was trying to say! Thanks!!! (nt) - BobH 15:29:20 03/10/00 (3)
- No - Rob 16:32:50 03/10/00 (2)
- APPOLOGIES TO ALL - BobH 08:40:55 03/13/00 (1)
- Not necessary - Rob 15:21:55 03/13/00 (0)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - David Aiken 14:28:10 03/10/00 (0)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - BobH 13:17:39 03/10/00 (7)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - Rob 14:04:50 03/10/00 (3)
- Oh, well. - BobH 15:23:50 03/10/00 (2)
- Re: Oh, well. - Rob 16:44:50 03/10/00 (1)
- Re: Oh, well. - BobH 10:29:12 03/13/00 (0)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - patrick S 13:44:08 03/10/00 (2)
- Ah, that's more like it! - BobH 15:09:42 03/10/00 (0)
- Amen <nt> - Rob 14:15:27 03/10/00 (0)
- the value of sound - patrick S 11:41:41 03/10/00 (1)
- Re: the value of sound - dgs 12:40:37 03/10/00 (0)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - Rob 10:52:19 03/10/00 (0)
- Re: Your're all Wrong!! - Rob 10:43:08 03/10/00 (0)