# The myth of old recording = crappy vs new recording better, in classical music?



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

Ockay i have Brumel Earthquake missa in two version on from th 60'' on Brilliant box-set Omagnum mysterium, and a new recording of 2011, guess whitch i favor best, the old one...

But critic said the contrary of what i just said and bash this Box-set mrcilessly how wrong and unfair, th Brilliant version of Brumel's missa is stunning powrful vibrant.. while thee 2011 vrsion of it is tame a bit in power of the voice.

What is your cue on this old recording vs new one?
:tiphat:


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

The recording technology in the 1960s was good enough to create high-fidelity recordings. Some labels, Mercury comes to mind immediately, had good stereo recording technology even in the 1950s. Dorati's mono and stereo recordings from the 1950s of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture have yet to be topped IMO and is frequently used by audiophiles to demo equipment. Anyway, not all recordings from the 1960s sound great (just as not all modern recordings sound great), but I certainly wouldn't avoid recordings from that era on purely sonic qualities. 

I also have some mono recordings that I like. The sound quality may not be great, but the performance quality is good enough to make up for the sound quality deficiencies. Of course, even then there may be some cases where the sound quality is so bad that it cannot be ignored.


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

I personally prefer to listen to mono and 78 rpm recordings because that's when most of the artists I like were active. The sound is variable and it depends on who remastered it. I have some Rachmaninoff recordings where it feels like he is right there with you in the middle of the room and then there are others where the piano sounds like a banjo and can barely be heard. Even though the sound might not be the best, I wouldn't throw those recordings out the window because they are important as historical documents.

Personally, I don't think that the problem has to do with sound so much as editing and interpretation. As a pianophile, I prefer recordings that were made a long time ago because pianists like Horowitz, Rubinstein, Rachmaninoff, William Kapell, Richter, and others had distinctive styles and could be distinguished from each other. These days, I can't readily distinguish pianists from each other when I listen to them. There are some cases where I can, but there are others where I can't.

Another issue for me is the fidelity of the recordings. Before editing and splicing became common with the invention of magnetic tape, it simply wasn't possible for an artist's performance to be edited. If Kreisler played a bad note, then it would be recorded for all eternity. In some ways, those recordings are much more faithful to what the artists sounded like in the concert hall. Of course, though, that's just my opinion.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I more-or-less agree with what agoukass wrote above. The recordings from the 1950s onward - mostly by the large recording companies - have excellent sound quality. 

One of my favourite recordings is a 1953 Columbia recording of Claudio Arrau playing Liszt's E-flat major concerto. I have this on a vinyl (no outer sleeve!) and I bought it when it was re-issued on CD in 1996.

I definitely agree regarding the editing. Nowadays digital editing is really attempting to give the listener a sort of unrealistically perfect and ideal recording. Sometimes it ends up sounding flat because it just doesn't have the edge of live performance when the artist(s) have it give it all in one take.

There were a lot of ADD or mixed ADD/DDD recordings on earlier CDs and I always found the ADD better. It may have been a prejudice from being a listener from the vinyl era and hearing the artists I knew, but like many I found the DDD recordings too 'clean'.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I definitely agree regarding the editing. Nowadays digital editing is really attempting to give the listener a sort of unrealistically perfect and ideal recording. Sometimes it ends up sounding flat because it just doesn't have the edge of live performance when the artist(s) have it give it all in one take.


I have the complete opposite opinion of this. I prefer the recordings with edits. I also prefer performances done specifically for recording and not live performances. I don't want to hear audience noise or any gross mistakes in the recordings. No recording is ever going to be perfect, but I'd rather hear something that the conductor feels is fit for permanence than a single take/live performance with edits where there might be significant flaws.



> There were a lot of ADD or mixed ADD/DDD recordings on earlier CDs and I always found the ADD better. It may have been a prejudice from being a listener from the vinyl era and hearing the artists I knew, but like many I found the DDD recordings too 'clean'.


Some of my favorite recordings are actually ADD, but DDD can be very good as well. It just depends. It's not unheard of for 1980s/1990s digital recordings to sound a little thin to my ears. Some labels did a better job back then than others with digital it seems (Telarc's 1980s digital sounds great, CBS/Columbia/Sony 1980s digital sounds less great). The engineers have figured things out for the most part though and digital recordings now sound very, very good. I don't find them to be too clean and I don't find most analog recordings to be too noisy. Of course, good remastering techniques these days help those analog recordings sound even better.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Klassik said:


> I have the complete opposite opinion of this. I prefer the recordings with edits. I also prefer performances done specifically for recording and not live performances. I don't want to hear audience noise or any gross mistakes in the recordings. No recording is ever going to be perfect, but I'd rather hear something that the conductor feels is fit for permanence than a single take/live performance with edits where there might be significant flaws.


I don't prefer live recordings. I was just making the point that recordings done in the same spirit - with an artist giving a full performance in one take - have an edge to them. I also think that listeners who begin with classical music through recordings are set up for being led astray about how live performances are when they eventually get to to see them.


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

I've found that live recordings can be hit or miss. Sometimes, they can be truly transcendent experiences (some of Simon Rattle's recordings) and there are times when I wonder why the artist thought it was a great idea to have the crew there (Horowitz's London recital, for example). Of course, some people swear by live recordings because of their immediacy or because they feel like they're there, but it really depends on what you're looking for.

Editing has changed the way that we perceive artists. As I said before, the old recordings are much more faithful to what artists sounded like without editing or splicing. As technology has progressed and changed, it is possible for artists to achieve a perfection through multiple takes that they seldom would if they were sitting front of a piano or singing in a live opera. Indeed, there have been many times when I have listened to an artist that I really admired live and walked out of the studio feeling disappointed because the person didn't live up to my expectations.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I've commented on this elsewhere but the performance is always more important than the sound in my opinion. I think that, in earlier pre-stereo times, classical music was more popular and had less competition from other musical styles resulting in more money being poured into it and generally higher performance standards. The vast majority of my collection is pre-1980s (i.e. pre-digital recording) and a lot of it is mono recordings from the 50s or earlier. I agree with agoukass, musicians in that period tended to have more individual styles and to be more easily distinguishable from each other than is the case today.

With regard to live vs studio recordings, I tend to prefer live recordings as they seem to me to have more immediacy but, given my preferred period, the sound of live recordings made at that time can be challenging to say the least. However, it's amazing what modern remastering techniques can do. The other problem with older live recordings is that different movements of the same work, although recorded live, can often be taken from different performances on different dates (although those dates will generally be quite close to each other). This is the case with many of Furtwangler's live recordings. I assume this was largely due to limitations in how much music could be recorded at one time or possibly to technical issues with certain recordings etc. By contrast, most modern live recordings tend to be of one single performance.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm fine with live or studio recording.

What I find objectionable is when engineers fiddle with live recordings to remove any evidence that an audience was present, which usually robs the recording of hall ambience. Solti's second Meistersinger is a perfect example - recorded live, and you'd never guess it from listening. What I love about the early 60's Philips recordings of Wagner from Bayreuth is just that - these are obviously live performances and you can hear it.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Just a thought....
"Editing" seems to be a dirty word, but I concur: for studio (non-live) recordings, I prefer modern, edited versions. Editing recordings is akin to proof-reading a draft before a book is published: you wouldn't want to see typos and misspellings in books; why are mistakes in recordings considered good by some folks? If you were the artist, wouldn't you want your recording to sound its best? Before you go out, do you not check to see if you've remembered your pants?

Again, just one person's opinion here.

I also prefer digital masters to analog. For so many reasons: improvements in dynamic range, no wow/flutter speed issues, and no freaking tape hiss. I sometimes wonder if folks who prefer old analog recordings eschew high-def televisions and still use old black-and-white models with antennae, and swear that AM radio sounds better. 

-09


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Many of today's orchestral "live recordings" are composite recordings, that may have samples from repeat performances. Generally - one performance is taken as the best, but if there are errors, those short samples, or an entire section, can be taken from an alternate performance of the same series. usually, these are very brief and barely, if at all, noticeable. the hall, the acoustics, and the recording setup are consistent, so the sound will be virtually identical.

Re past recordings - many of the finest recordings are taken from live performances or broadcasts....there may be some small errors apparent, but with live performance, you get the flow, the sweep, the momentum of the live creation...
Toscanini and Reiner both preferred recording in large "chunks" - so that the flow could be established and maintained. Reiner would do this in the studio as well - many of his greatest recordings are "one take" affairs - last mvt of Scheherezade, last mvt of Pines of Rome, his VPO Till Eulenspiegel, his last and greatest Don Juan ['60] were all made on a single take. IIRC.
Toscanini intensely disliked start-and-stop recording. He liked big sections, straight thru.

other conductors went for moment by moment "perfection"....frequent stops, restarts....Ormandy was famous for this - "10 measures and stop, 10 measures and stop" - drove the musicians nuts, but of course, they liked the $$ from recordings!!
As a result - I always felt that Ormandy/Phila sounded much better live than on recording...the orchestra sounded glorious in live concert....IMO, the recordings had a stiffness, a lack of flow, that did not equal the live quality they achieved.

A long time ago, I read an article about usable, finished recording samples produced per recording studio hour...IOW - how much finished product was produced for each hour in the recording session - this was for American orchestras, from the 50s -60s...
the average was about 5-7 minutes finished product/per recording hour - Ormandy/Phila, Szell/Cleveland, Bernstein/NYPO were in this range, Leinsdorf/BSO were down to 2-4 minutes/hr, and Reiner.CSO were at an astounding 10-11 minutes per hour....[keep in mind, this time includes mandatory recording breaks for the orchestra - c 15-20' per hour]...don't recall if Mehta/LAPO were included....overseas orchestras VPO,LSO, BPO, etc were not included, IIRC.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Omicron9 said:


> Just a thought....
> "Editing" seems to be a dirty word, but I concur: for studio (non-live) recordings, I prefer modern, edited versions.


I've no problem with editing - spot fixes for a cracked note, inaccurate ensemble entrance, sloppy execution...recording engineers have long been very skillful at such edits. Again. many "live performance" recordings of the present may use alternate concert samples from the series to patch up small mistakes in the master performance..


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

At the other extreme, pianist Annie Fischer was a perfectionist and did not hesitate in her cycle of Beethoven sonatas to change, rerecord, edit and fiddle with things to an extreme. This was back in the 1970s, when those edits still had to be done with a razor and tape. The results are magnificent.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

You're really talking about performance preference, not sound quality. The critic has his preference; you have yours. Don't sweat it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

All I know is that the RCA recordings from the late 1950's-1960's of Charles Munch/Boston Symphony are so much better recorded than the digital crap the recording companies are laying on us at this time.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> All I know is that the RCA recordings from the late 1950's-1960's of Charles Munch/Boston Symphony are so much better recorded than the digital crap the recording companies are laying on us at this time.


The RCA Living Stereo recordings from Munch and Reiner are quite good indeed. I have a few of these recordings on CD. There's new recordings that I find to be very good as well though.

I wonder how much hall acoustics plays a role in things. I know that back in the day, the record labels would rent a church or something if the orchestra's regular hall had acoustic deficiencies. This is probably less likely to occur now with decreased production budgets, but it's not like halls with acoustic deficiencies have gone away. The hall acoustics limitations are another reason why I tend to not prefer live performances.

The decreased production budget might lead to less careful engineering/balancing/mastering as well. It seems like certain "best standards" for miking that were set in the 1950s and 1960s are sometimes ignored these days, but I would say things are better now than they were in the 1970s-1980s. There's probably a lot of factors at play really, but I don't think digital recording technology itself is to blame. While I've heard a lot of less than stellar digital recordings from the 1980s/1990s, Telarc was doing amazing work with their digital Soundstream recordings as far back as 1979 IIRC. I have one of those 1979 Telarc digital recordings and it sounds as amazing as anything else I've heard from a sound quality perspective.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Klassik said:


> The RCA Living Stereo recordings from Munch and Reiner are quite good indeed. I have a few of these recordings on CD. There's new recordings that I find to be very good as well though.
> 
> I wonder how much hall acoustics plays a role in things. I know that back in the day, the record labels would rent a church or something if the orchestra's regular hall had acoustic deficiencies. This is probably less likely to occur now with decreased production budgets, but it's not like halls with acoustic deficiencies have gone away. The hall acoustics limitations are another reason why I tend to not prefer live performances.
> 
> The decreased production budget might lead to less careful engineering/balancing/mastering as well. It seems like certain "best standards" for miking that were set in the 1950s and 1960s are sometimes ignored these days, but I would say things are better now than they were in the 1970s-1980s. There's probably a lot of factors at play really, but I don't think digital recording technology itself is to blame. While I've heard a lot of less than stellar digital recordings from the 1980s/1990s, Telarc was doing amazing work with their digital Soundstream recordings as far back as 1979 IIRC. I have one of those 1979 Telarc digital recordings and it sounds as amazing as anything else I've heard from a sound quality perspective.


Yes. The Munch/BSO Saint-Saens Organ Symphony, Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique and Brahms Symphony No. 1 can put to shame some recently recorded versions.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

chill782002 said:


> I've commented on this elsewhere but the performance is always more important than the sound in my opinion. I think that, in earlier pre-stereo times, classical music was more popular and had less competition from other musical styles resulting in more money being poured into it and generally higher performance standards. The vast majority of my collection is pre-1980s (i.e. pre-digital recording) and a lot of it is mono recordings from the 50s or earlier. I agree with agoukass, musicians in that period tended to have more individual styles and to be more easily distinguishable from each other than is the case today.
> 
> With regard to live vs studio recordings, I tend to prefer live recordings as they seem to me to have more immediacy but, given my preferred period, the sound of live recordings made at that time can be challenging to say the least. However, it's amazing what modern remastering techniques can do. The other problem with older live recordings is that different movements of the same work, although recorded live, can often be taken from different performances on different dates (although those dates will generally be quite close to each other). This is the case with many of Furtwangler's live recordings. I assume this was largely due to limitations in how much music could be recorded at one time or possibly to technical issues with certain recordings etc. By contrast, most modern live recordings tend to be of one single performance.


I agree except with the Toscanini performances. So maddening in their dimmest possible sound. Unlistenable for me!

Oh to have the great Toscanini/NBC 1939 legendary Beethoven Symphony cycle in serviceable sound!!

Beethoven is a bit jaded to me at this time, but I would make an exception for this great cycle.
I have three versions of it, promising improved sound, but, not really.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I agree except with the Toscanini performances. So maddening in their dimmest possible sound. Unlistenable for me!
> 
> Oh to have the great Toscanini/NBC 1939 legendary Beethoven Symphony cycle in serviceable sound!!
> 
> ...


I've heard the Naxos version is the best sounding but I don't have it myself, I tend to be a Furtwangler devotee when it comes to Beethoven. The same problem applies with regard to his recordings, particularly the wartime ones. Some versions sound better than others but none of them could honestly be said to sound good.

However, I do have Toscanini's live 1935 recording of Brahms' 4th symphony with the BBC Symphony Orchestra on EMI and that sounds perfectly acceptable, particularly for such an early live recording. Ironically it actually sounds better than his 1937 studio recording of the "Tragic Overture" with the same orchestra. I guess recording was a bit of a hit and miss affair in those days.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Old B&W films will always be popular. Old recordings are similar. We just have to figure out which ones still look and sound "good" to our personal noise tolerance.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Microphone technique was better in the old days, because it had to be. Noise was a thing to be overcome by closer-miking and hotter signals. I like these older, closer-miked recordings. Glenn Gould's recordings are like this, so are the Szell and Ormandy, and Bernstein recordings on Columbia. I love John McClure a a producer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I would rather hear Enrico Caruso singing in a room with the door closed down the hall from me than any of today's tenors right in front of me. Just my personal taste, but great art trumps all. Great sound only lasts during the first impression.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Hate to blow my own trumpet, but I've had a thread at TC a while ago about older recordings, and quite a few people (including myself) have many, many favorites among older recordings:
http://www.talkclassical.com/48313-do-you-like-old.html


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would rather hear Enrico Caruso singing in a room with the door closed down the hall from me than any of today's tenors right in front of me. Just my personal taste, but great art trumps all. Great sound only lasts during the first impression.


This confirms my point that performance standards were higher in bygone days. I can't remember the name of the guy who made some of the first bootlegs by surreptitiously recording brief snippets of opera performances around the turn of the 20th century but I do remember Clinton Heylin describing the recordings as not sounding too hot but revealing, "a level of virtuosity astonishing to modern ears". Like I said, the music was more widely popular and so more time and money was invested in making it and in acting as an incentive to draw talent. Caruso earned huge amounts of money by today's standards, far more than any contemporary opera singer with the possible exception of Pavarotti.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

chill782002 said:


> This confirms my point that performance standards were higher in bygone days. I can't remember the name of the guy who made some of the first bootlegs by surreptitiously recording brief snippets of opera performances around the turn of the 20th century but I do remember Clinton Heylin describing the recordings as not sounding too hot but revealing, "a level of virtuosity astonishing to modern ears". Like I said, the music was more widely popular and so more time and money was invested in making it and in acting as an incentive to draw talent. Caruso earned huge amounts of money by today's standards, far more than any contemporary opera singer with the possible exception of Pavarotti.


Caruso was the world's first recording superstar. But it wasn't just records people were buying. They were buying the new invention called the phonograph, just to hear Caruso!

And you may be speaking of Fred Gaisberg: http://www.diarci.com/2014/10/04/the-first-ar-man-fred-gaisberg/


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Caruso was the world's first recording superstar. But it wasn't just records people were buying. They were buying the new invention called the phonograph, just to hear Caruso!
> 
> And you may be speaking of Fred Gaisberg: http://www.diarci.com/2014/10/04/the-first-ar-man-fred-gaisberg/


I checked, the guy was called Lionel Mapleson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapleson_Cylinders


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

chill782002 said:


> I can't remember the name of the guy who made some of the first bootlegs by surreptitiously recording brief snippets of opera performances around the turn of the 20th century but I do remember Clinton Heylin describing the recordings as not sounding too hot but revealing, "a level of virtuosity astonishing to modern ears".


That was Lionel Mapleson, the Met's librarian. I've heard some of them, and they sound awful - you can't tell a damned thing from them.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> That was Lionel Mapleson, the Met's librarian. I've heard some of them, and they sound awful - you can't tell a damned thing from them.


According to the Wikipedia article, some of them sound reasonable but I don't know, I've never heard any of them myself. Walter Damrosch and Alfred Hertz would have been the principal conductors during this period. Mahler was principal conductor there from 1908-1910, Mapleson could have captured him if he'd been recording a little later.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Oh to have the great Toscanini/NBC 1939 legendary Beethoven Symphony cycle in serviceable sound!!


Try Immortal Performances - their recent release of the 1939 Toscanini/NBC Beethoven [complete] received very favorable reviews in "Fanfare":

http://immortalperformances.org/documents.php?d=13#57


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Microphone technique was better in the old days, because it had to be.


mike placement is crucial, IMO....so is the sensitivity, the frequency response of the microphones....you could have the greatest recording machines available, but if the ingoing signal is crappy, that's what you're going to get...



> I love John McClure a a producer.


yes - and Richard Mohr/Lewis Layton were the RCA counterparts to McClure at CBS.....those guys knew what they were doing, all told..many of the master tapes from those sessions in the late 50s-thru the 60s, are very good..the weak spot in the process was cutting the LP discs.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Ever since I became a classical music fan as a teenager back in the stone age , I can recall so many music critics who have tended to prefer old recordings over those of the present day . These critics have always tended to lionize the most famous musicians of the past, whether conductors, solo instrumentalists or opera singers and even the orchestras of the past . 
This has always struck me as a kind knee jerk response . These critics constantly use old recordings from the early years of the 20th century to around the 1850s as a stick with which to bash today's classical performers ,usually in an insufferably condescending and dismissive manner . 
The myth of the so-called "Golden age of opera " never dies . Opera singing has been in decline from the very first issues of such magazines as High Fidelity , which went under man years ago and others . 
Such legendary operas singers as Callas, Caruso, Fyodor Chaliapin, Rosa Ponselle, Titta Ruffo , Jussi Bjorling, Flagstad, Melchior and others are held up as the golden standard of opera singing .
Sure, these are undeniably towering figures in the history of opera and vocal recitals , but somehow, those of today are never good enough . Their ever technical flaw, real or imagined is exaggerated , and their virtues ignored or dismissed .
It's the same with legendary conductors of the past . Toscanini, Furtwangler, Walter, Klemperer, Beecham, Barbrolli , Mengelberg, Monteux, Munch , Koussevitzky and others - according to these captious critics, no conductor of the present day , with a possible few exceptions, can come remotely close to the greatness of these giants of the podium . 
With instrumentalists , Heifetz, Kreisler , Vladimir Horowitz. Artur Rubinstein , Casals, and other legendary names are godlike figures and no one of the present can hold a candle to them . 
Back in the god old days , musicians had real individuality and those of today are pretty much carbon copies of each other , all sounding alike and interpreting music the same way . 
Suposedly, orchestras in the past had unique , individual "sounds" of their own and there were national schools of orchestral sound in Germany, France and other European countries , and the top American orchestras all had unique, recognizable sounds and all American orchestras sound alike today .
But in fact, there is a double standard in reviews . Conductors, singerss and instrumentalists of the past are praised indiscriminately , and even when they are guilty of unmusical interpretive distortion they get away with it, while musicians of the present day are damned if they do, and damned if they don't . 
They are either accused of being pedantically literal in interpretation or mercilessly lambasted for being unfaithful to he score . Despite the claim that today's musicians are too literal, I wish I had a dollar for every review I have read, either of live performances or recordings, where they were blasted for being "mannered " and taking too many liberties with the music . 
But critics can't have it both ways . In the past 50 years or so , I have listened to countless recordings, on LP, tape CD , heard countless live performances in the flesh or over the radio and on television, and now on youtube . I was just a kid when I discovered classical music and fell madly in love with it . 
There are certainly some magnificent recordings from the first half of the 20th century , but I have heard so many in recent years which were in no way inferior . Different, not better or worse than past recordings . It's nowhere near as simple as these critics make it out to seem .


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I am always looking for the best balance of performance and sound that I can find. There are many very fine recordings, with high levels of both, all the way back into the 1950s. Earlier than that begins to get a bit dicey, although remastering has sometimes managed to pull out some pretty good sound even in some earlier recordings. A lot of much newer recordings seem to be missing something, but I am not really sure what it is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

superhorn said:


> Ever since I became a classical music fan as a teenager back in the stone age , I can recall so many music critics who have tended to prefer old recordings over those of the present day . These critics have always tended to lionize the most famous musicians of the past, whether conductors, solo instrumentalists or opera singers and even the orchestras of the past .
> This has always struck me as a kind knee jerk response . These critics constantly use old recordings from the early years of the 20th century to around the 1850s as a stick with which to bash today's classical performers ,usually in an insufferably condescending and dismissive manner .
> The myth of the so-called "Golden age of opera " never dies . Opera singing has been in decline from the very first issues of such magazines as High Fidelity , which went under man years ago and others .
> Such legendary operas singers as Callas, Caruso, Fyodor Chaliapin, Rosa Ponselle, Titta Ruffo , Jussi Bjorling, Flagstad, Melchior and others are held up as the golden standard of opera singing .
> ...


I heartily disagree. I started listening to classical music in the 80s and 90s as an adolescent. I assumed that new always means better, both with performers and recording quality. I heard about older performers but dismissed them because of the sound. Many of my friends were the same. Then of course came the phenomenon of "authentic performance practice" rendering older recordings not just old but "wrong." In short, the "knee-jerk" response you speak of was actually the assumption that new is always an improvement on old.

Then I went through a transformation as I began to hear what was missing in modern performances. I listened to older recordings and heard true artistry and fearless uniqueness. I realized that today we put too much emphasis on technical perfection, and that we seem to be afraid to take risks and truly emote. Far from "knee jerk" I became an explorer of all recordings, new and old. And I have to say the shoe fits. Most all my favorite recordings now are pre-1960. It doesn't make me a critical snob. I am simply an honest lover of great music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

On one of the Art of Conducting DVDs, a musician who was interviewed was very clear in stating that he thought the autocratic conductors, apparently a creature of the past now, actually did cause better performances to happen. (I don't know if that was true, but that is what was stated.)


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I heartily disagree. I started listening to classical music in the 80s and 90s as an adolescent. I assumed that new always means better, both with performers and recording quality. I heard about older performers but dismissed them because of the sound. Many of my friends were the same. Then of course came the phenomenon of "authentic performance practice" rendering older recordings not just old but "wrong." In short, the "knee-jerk" response you speak of was actually the assumption that new is always an improvement on old.
> 
> Then I went through a transformation as I began to hear what was missing in modern performances. I listened to older recordings and heard true artistry and fearless uniqueness. I realized that today we put too much emphasis on technical perfection, and that we seem to be afraid to take risks and truly emote. Far from "knee jerk" I became an explorer of all recordings, new and old. And I have to say the shoe fits. Most all my favorite recordings now are pre-1960. It doesn't make me a critical snob. I am simply an honest lover of great music.


I think that the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle here, and both opinions may be the result of changes to the recording industry. Before 1960, recordings were, by and large, made by "big names" who a) deserved their fame and b) had exclusive contracts with major labels. Lesser mortals didn't make commercial recordings, by and large. Look at the discography of any major orchestral work, and you'll find relatively few recordings before 1960 or so, and an exponential growth over the past couple of generations.

So in 2017, and for the past couple of decades, everyone makes records, either with a major label, a lesser label, or in some cases, a self-financed and self-produced recording. So it's no suprise that in 2017, a much greater percentage of recordings will be mediocre or worse. And it's that much harder for a genuine talent to be noticed among all of the dreck. And those genuine talents are no longer competing only with their peers - in 2017, listeners have access to virtually every recording made by every major artist since the dawn of recording.

In some repertoire, there have clearly been strides made in interpretation. As much as I love Casals recording of the Bach suites, I wouldn't dream of considering them superior in any way to modern recordings by Queyras, Geringas, Wispelwey, and a few others. On the other hand, Casals' conducting of the Schubert "Unfinished" hasn't been matched, in my opinion, by anyone since.

But there is a certain nostalgia bias in some quarters. I always raise an eyebrow when I read recommendations for Beecham's Magic Flute, where the only singer worth hearing a second time is Gerhard Husch as Papageno - the rest of the cast has been superceded countless times.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

chill782002 said:


> According to the Wikipedia article, some of them sound reasonable but I don't know, I've never heard any of them myself. Walter Damrosch and Alfred Hertz would have been the principal conductors during this period. Mahler was principal conductor there from 1908-1910, Mapleson could have captured him if he'd been recording a little later.


The only ones of these Met cylinders I've heard are the ones on The Cosima Era boxset, and you can barely tell there's music through all the noise; I've never been successful in identifying what's being played or sung on them. Historic interest, I guess, as to what the technology was like, but certainly not a way to enjoy the music or the performance. Maybe those are an outlier, I don't know.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> On one of the Art of Conducting DVDs, a musician who was interviewed was very clear in stating that he thought the autocratic conductors, apparently a creature of the past now, actually did cause better performances to happen. (I don't know if that was true, but that is what was stated.)


This could be true, it's hard to say. It just seems to me, but I could be wrong, that many of the big name conductors back in the day spent more time with their orchestras rather than jet-setting around the globe. That may not be true at all (or may only be true of some big name conductors), but if it is true, perhaps the conductors and musicians had a greater understanding of each other and they could develop a more unique sound.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

gardibolt said:


> The only ones of these Met cylinders I've heard are the ones on The Cosima Era boxset, and you can barely tell there's music through all the noise; I've never been successful in identifying what's being played or sung on them. Historic interest, I guess, as to what the technology was like, but certainly not a way to enjoy the music or the performance. Maybe those are an outlier, I don't know.


Possibly those are the ones made before he upgraded to using a large horn to capture the sound?

Found this on youtube, it's advertised as being one of the best sounding of Mapleson's recordings. It's certainly far from great but I don't think it's too bad for a 115 year old recording.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I agree except with the Toscanini performances. So maddening in their dimmest possible sound. Unlistenable for me!
> 
> Oh to have the great Toscanini/NBC 1939 legendary Beethoven Symphony cycle in serviceable sound!!
> 
> ...


I have this set of Toscanini's later cycle (~1950) and the sound is pretty good, but for some reason everyone wants the earlier 1939 Toscanini cycle. This one sounds great to me though:


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Florestan said:


> I have this set of Toscanini's later cycle (~1950) and the sound is pretty good, but for some reason everyone wants the earlier 1939 Toscanini cycle. This one sounds great to me though:


Friends of mine who are rabid Toscanini fans consider the 1939 performances to be better than the 1950 performances even though the sound isn't as good. Rather like the Furtwangler wartime Beethoven performances when compared to the late 40s/early 50s performances.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

chill782002 said:


> Friends of mine who are rabid Toscanini fans consider the 1939 performances to be better than the 1950 performances even though the sound isn't as good. Rather like the Furtwangler wartime Beethoven performances when compared to the late 40s/early 50s performances.


Probably so, but I can't appreciate a great performance with such poor sound. Also if I recall correctly, isn't the tempo a bit faster in the 1950 set? I am not into the slow stuff like Bruno Walter. At least this one is Toscanini with decent sound.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Florestan said:


> Probably so, but I can't appreciate a great performance with such poor sound. Also if I recall correctly, isn't the tempo a bit faster in the 1950 set? I am not into the slow stuff like Bruno Walter. At least this one is Toscanini with decent sound.


Absolutely and it's all a matter of personal preference. Love the cover of that set by the way; looks like the surface of the moon.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Don't get me wrong ; I certainly have great admiration for the great musicians of the past . But I still find much to admire in many recordings of the past 20 years or so . Older is not necessarily better .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

JAS said:


> On one of the Art of Conducting DVDs, a musician who was interviewed was very clear in stating that he thought the autocratic conductors, apparently a creature of the past now, actually did cause better performances to happen. (I don't know if that was true, but that is what was stated.)


One thing that has changed is how long, and how often, the designated Music Director conducts, and rehearses his orchestra. In the past - conductors settled in for long tenures with orchestras, and they had virtual unilateral power in choosing musicians - hiring/firing were the province of the conductor. Ormandy, Stock, Stokowski, Szell, Steinberg, Koussevitsky, etc spent years with the same orchestras, and thru many rehearsals and performances, and many selections of musicians, developed and preserved a particular sound for that ensemble. 
Nowadays, we have the jet-set scene, where a conductor may hold several posts simultaneously, and may only conduct that orchestra for a few weeks out of the season. regarding filling vacancies - the conductor only becomes involved at the final stage of selection. the early rounds are all controlled by the audition committees...
so - there is definitely something to be said for past practices in terms of unique sounds, individual styles, and approaches of various orchestras.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> Suposedly, orchestras in the past had unique , individual "sounds" of their own and there were national schools of orchestral sound in Germany, France and other European countries , and the top American orchestras all had unique, recognizable sounds.......


This is true - orchestras did have their own unique tone, and style....this was true of the top orchestras...now - there are many, many very fine musicians, but, IMO, styles and tones have become "homogenized" because of the present audition process...in past times - the conductor made the choice, unilaterally in many cases. he chose the sound and style he wanted. Now, early audition rounds are all determined by audition committees - so that a general, homogenized "Bb" approach is developed by students and young pros looking for orchestra jobs - the operative philosophy is to not do anything wrong, bizarre, or unique in the early rounds - "color everything between the black lines", do not offend anyone. One develops a rather middle-of-the-road "one size fits all" approach to performing orchestra auditions. Wait until the finals, with conductor present - to let it all hang out with the _espressivo_ 
It is very difficult now to identify a fine 2 tier orchestra now....they all sound very good, and the styles are pretty consistent.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've been through the audition process many times, even for the New York Philharmonic . The audition committee eliminates the vast majority of the candidates in the preliminaries . 
They will reject an applicant who doesn't have the specific sound and style they want even if he or she plays very well .
For example, a German oboist auditioning for a top orchestra in America would never be chosen, because German oboists have a much more pungent "reedy tone than American ones . 
This all behind a screen of course . 
The final audition is not behind a screen, but usually only 3 or four applicants have made it this far .
The music director listens to these finalists , not the ones in the preliminaries , but still has the final decision .In the finals, the candidates have a lot more time to play ; in the preliminaries you have a series of excerpts to play in front of you , and not nearly a much time in front of the audition committee . 
So it's still impossible for orchestras to sound alike . Orchestras consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concert halls with different acoustics .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

In past years, orchestras, esp the top ones, really did have their own sound...Ormandy hired every musician in the Phila orch by the end of his tenure...i think Szell did for Cleveland as well. The best orchestras can still pick and choose to a large extent....but when you get into the very fine 2nd or 3rd tier....it's very difficult to distinguish between them....can you really hear much difference between.. say Atlanta, Seattle, St Louis?? Very good players, indeed, but there is a homogenous, one-size-fits-all approach that has developed...much more homogenous, uniform than in former years...


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Heck, an orchestra should not have a one size fits all size for the varied repertoire it plays . It should be like a chameleon, able to change its sound and style depending on the music it is playing .
Ormandy was famous for his so-called "Philadelphia sound ", but he tended to apply that Philly sound to everything he conducted .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> Heck, an orchestra should not have a one size fits all size for the varied repertoire it plays . It should be like a chameleon, able to change its sound and style depending on the music it is playing .


Agree totally...different styles of music require different tone, articulation, rhythmic inflection.



> Ormandy was famous for his so-called "Philadelphia sound ", but he tended to apply that Philly sound to everything he conducted .


on recording - yes - the "Philadelphia sound" thing was applied to his recordings, to their detriment, IMO. The orchestra did not sound like that live, tho. I heard many, many wonderful live concerts with Ormandy/Phil and the flexibility and expression were really impressive.
but in the studio - they had to go for the "Philadelphia sound" stuff - enhance the strings - put a phony sort of gloss or sheen on the violins, recess the brass and WWs....
I always thought the orchestra sounded much better live, than on the recordings, with a few exceptions...

for me - the worst "one sound fits all" conductor was von Karajan - really monotonous [as in _monotone_-ous]....everything smooth, round and gooey....always legato articulation, no sharp edges or raucous accents - everything smoothed-over and polished...the throttle never goes past 85% or so....I can't stand it, I've tried many times to appreciate it, but it just doesn't work for me. always the same sound and approach regardless of the music - Beethoven, Ravel, Shostakovich, Sibelius, whatever...

OTOH - there were the great masters of orchestral variety of expression - they seemed able to generate different sounds that were most appropriate to the repertoire at hand - Reiner, Stokowski,Toscanini, Monteux to name a few...the flexibility of expression, the tone colors brought forth, are marvelous


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I agree. Karajan's performances could always be relied upon to be highly polished but they often seemed rather bland as well...


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I could not disagree more about Karajan . Like his interpretations or not, they were anything but "
bland ". They were also highly incisive when necessary , not at all "smoothed out ". 
And I've always preferred the sound of the Berlin Philharmonic to the Philadelphia orchestra .
The woodwinds were more pungent and characterful , and the brass had a much richer, darker more weighty sound than the Philadelphia brass, as good as they were under Ormandy .
The Philadelphians never had an authentic "German sound " under Ormandy , particularly the winds and brass . The Philadelphia was better suited to Russian and French music under Ormandy . 
I would take Karajan and the Berliners any day over Ormandy/Philly in Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler and Richard Strauss , for example . Karajan was much more idiomatic with these composers .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> ......I've always preferred the sound of the Berlin Philharmonic to the Philadelphia orchestra .
> The woodwinds were more pungent and characterful, and the brass had a much richer, darker more weighty sound than the Philadelphia brass, as good as they were under Ormandy.


"richer, darker more weighty sound" - to me that comes across as "tubby", diffuse, not focused...I never cared much for the vK/ BPO woodwind sound - again, bland, "tubby" - lacking in brightness and projection...._sans vibrato_ with the bassoons...I do have some recordings of BPO from HvK era that do sound really great - with different conductors - Salonen - Prokofieff R&J excerpts, Mehta - Strauss opera excerpts.... very fine....



> The Philadelphians never had an authentic "German sound " under Ormandy , particularly the winds and brass. The Philadelphia was better suited to Russian and French music under Ormandy.


Philadelphia was not trying to sound "German" like the BPO...so what?? Cleveland is not trying to sound like the LeningradPO or CzechPO either...."vive la difference"!!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I always thought the Philadelphia woodwinds, especially the oboes , were bland . Nice sound, but bland . 
They used to have trumpets which used a kind of jazzy vibrato , which is totally wrong for Austro/German repertoire . This has changed in recent years fortunately .
Many of Karajan's recordings with the Philharmonia orchestra and the Vienna Philharmonic are wonderful, too .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> I always thought the Philadelphia woodwinds, especially the oboes , were bland . Nice sound, but bland


 Philly had a great woodwind section - superb ensemble, phrasing and matched tones - not my favorite sound [I've always favored New York, Chicago, Cleveland style,but that's my training], but the Philly section was so solid, so excellent - their Woodwind 5tet recordings were released on Boston Records [Wayne Rapier, producer]...these are first rate...I heard the Philadelphia WW 5tet many times, years ago at Saratoga Summer concerts...amazing...



> They used to have trumpets which used a kind of jazzy vibrato , which is totally wrong for Austro/German repertoire.


The brass was good, but not the greatest, tho some superb individuals. I can't stand rotary trumpets, which the European orchestras insist on using, and unfortunately, this virus is spreading. The tone simply lacks "balls" - not enough brilliance, or projection - much too "blend-y" and subdued sounding. Maybe ok for Haydn, Mozart, some Brahms, but really inferior to piston valve instruments for any repertoire that features the trumpets. Also, the notes don't "pop" on rotary instruments - the hard, brassy articulations simply aren't there. 
I heard/saw a video of BPO trying to play a Latin-style work - "Huapango" by Moncayo, IIRC - the solo trumpet was trying to play the solos on a rotary valve instrument - it sounded comically bad, completely wrong style...



> Many of Karajan's recordings with the Philharmonia orchestra and the Vienna Philharmonic are wonderful, too .


Karajan never sounds wonderful to me...his VPO recordings are generally better, I think the VPO stuck to their basic sound more stubbornly than the BPO, which is good; they weren't so willing to accept the rounded off, smoothed over, suppressed HvK sound....the VPO plays rotary trumpets, but they get more brilliance out of them...
VPO at its best is awesome, like under Solti and Reiner. Tough outfit, but when challenged, they could really play.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

deprofundis said:


> Ockay i have Brumel Earthquake missa in two version on from th 60'' on Brilliant box-set Omagnum mysterium, and a new recording of 2011, guess whitch i favor best, the old one...
> 
> But critic said the contrary of what i just said and bash this Box-set mrcilessly how wrong and unfair, th Brilliant version of Brumel's missa is stunning powrful vibrant.. while thee 2011 vrsion of it is tame a bit in power of the voice.
> 
> ...


If it's an oft-recorded piece, chances are an older will be better. If it's a seldom recorded piece, then anything goes. :tiphat:


----------



## Scopitone (Nov 22, 2015)

sorry, wrong thread


----------

