# Things you dislike about Golden Age recordings (early 1900s to end of WII)



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Many among us (including myself) have a strong, favorable bias for early music recordings, so I thought this change of topic might stir some conversation.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

A couple that stand out to me, specifically the first half of that period up until the 1930s
1) Under-development of the head voice. You need a balance of headvoice to allow the voice to "bloom" at the top and spin nicely. 
2) Female voices tended to sound fairly uniform in timbre. ex: If you compare Armida Parsi Pettinella (contralto) with Nellie Melba (coloratura soprano), they have mostly the same timbre. 

That said, these seem to be a phenomenon among the Lost and Missionary generations specifically. If you look at Greatest Gen'ers like Claramae Turning, Eula Beal or Eleanor Steber or Silent Gen'ers like Mary Costa, Reri Grist or Martina Arroyo, you get a lot more variety of timbre without the sacrifice of basic technique which would come in the 70s onward.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> A couple that stand out to me, specifically the first half of that period up until the 1930s
> 1) Under-development of the head voice. You need a balance of headvoice to allow the voice to "bloom" at the top and spin nicely.
> 2) Female voices tended to sound fairly uniform in timbre. ex: If you compare Armida Parsi Pettinella (contralto) with Nellie Melba (coloratura soprano), they have mostly the same timbre.
> 
> That said, these seem to be a phenomenon among the Lost and Missionary generations specifically. If you look at Greatest Gen'ers like Claramae Turning, Eula Beal or Eleanor Steber or Silent Gen'ers like Mary Costa, Reri Grist or Martina Arroyo, you get a lot more variety of timbre without the sacrifice of basic technique which would come in the 70s onward.


I'm not sure I understand the thread topic. Are you asking about recordings or singers? Here you're describing singers, but I think the characteristics you describe are largely a function of the recording technology, which had a way of imposing a similar sound on voices which would have sounded more distinct in life.


----------



## Francasacchi (7 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure I understand the thread topic. Are you asking about recordings or singers? Here you're describing singers, but I think the characteristics you describe are largely a function of the recording technology, which had a way of imposing a similar sound on voices which would have sounded more distinct in life.


The acoustic recording technology did not capture the overtones in many female voices at the time. In terms of some of their techniques, even with lighter voices, there was often a pronounced break between chest and middle voice. There was no fear of chest voice especially on the Latin Circuit. And this was not just a product of verismo. It was present among those whose careers were primarily 19th century careers like Patti. Also, a singer like Burzio who perhaps represents the excesses of verismo singing could still sing brilliant coloratura.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Dislikes?


The poor reproduction of the sound spectrum.
The undermixing of bass lines (which continued right up through the mid-1960s).
Pops, crackles.
There's also that odd "style" of singing that was popular; I don't know what it's called, but I know it when I hear it. Both in Classical and Popular music. Not all singers did it, but enough that it seems to be the "commonly accepted"  style of singing way back when.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

The Golden Age‘s fabulous soundscape and nutritional value of frying bacon and Coca-Cola.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are many old recordings that are quite fascinating and I'm deeply grateful that I can hear them: the Fried Mahler 2, the Elgar symphonies conducted by the composer, the Weingartner Beethoven symphonies, Holst conducting his own Planets...we can learn a lot from those recordings and others. Of special interest to me is the tempos conductors used. But here's the rub and my problem: are those tempos genuine and what they really wanted, or, did they have to speed up to get the right timing on a side of a 78 shellac record? Having to know where to stop for a side must have taken a lot of trial and error.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure I understand the thread topic. Are you asking about recordings or singers? Here you're describing singers, but I think the characteristics you describe are largely a function of the recording technology, which had a way of imposing a similar sound on voices which would have sounded more distinct in life.


Either are acceptable answers.


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

I don't like the fact that most earlier performances were rushed. That's why we didn't have a truly expressive Liebestod pre-1930s despite having so many great singers.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

There are a few factors that put me off recordings of this era. Most of them come down to the technology that was available at the time for capturing the performance. 

Technical

Firstly, the recording equipment available at that time wasn't good enough to record the full sound spectrum, and the elements that it did record weren't recorded with anything like a flat frequency response. This gives a very inaccurate reproduction of the true sound.

Secondly, wobble. There's no other word for it. When the oboe and clarinet are wobbling, you know that whatever vibrato the singers may of may not have used won't be reproduced properly. Recordings of this era generally have excessive wobble. I've even heard wobbly pianos from this era, and pianos don't wobble.

Timing. As has already been mentioned, you've got to make it fit onto one side of a 78 rpm record (or a cylinder in very early days). This tends to lead to a rushed tempo or incomplete recording. 33 rpm vinyl was bad for this, 78rpm is unbearably rushed at times. 

Style

I can't readily define what I dislike stylistically in *some*, by no means all, singers of this era. Worse, the recording quality means that I'm not entirely sure if it's the singers or the recording. I'm not a trained singer, so please forgive my terminology. There's "harshness" to many voices of this era, sometimes a "nasality" also, that I just can't enjoy. Sometimes harshness is good where called for, but to hear a harsh Mimi or Butterfly really doesn't work for me.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

There are good and bad recordings from any era. When it comes to Golden Age recordings the only things I don't like are the less than ideal sound and the dearth of complete recordings of operas. Imagine if we had a studio Trovatore or Aida with Ponselle, Martinelli, Castagna, Ruffo and Pinza! Or complete recordings with Caruso...

N.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> There are many old recordings that are quite fascinating and I'm deeply grateful that I can hear them: the Fried Mahler 2, the Elgar symphonies conducted by the composer, the Weingartner Beethoven symphonies, Holst conducting his own Planets...we can learn a lot from those recordings and others. Of special interest to me is the tempos conductors used. But here's the rub and my problem: are those tempos genuine and what they really wanted, or, did they have to speed up to get the right timing on a side of a 78 shellac record? Having to know where to stop for a side must have taken a lot of trial and error.


I believe it's well known that the original recording of Rhapsody in Blue had to be sped up for it to fit the time constraints of the media format at the time.


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

What I dislike is there aren't more of them.


----------



## skealey99 (4 mo ago)

It's only on occasion that I hear the beauty of the voice that brought me to all of this in the first place. Caruso's sound has immediate appeal to me almost all of the time but I don't believe I've ever heard a McCormack rendition which was remotely close to Caruso for the appeal of the sound. And apparently their natural instruments were considered to be comparable in attractiveness. Ponselle can make a rapturously beautiful sound or a harshly shrill sound.To me, not one of the pre-Tibbet baritones who obviously had magnificent voices, sounds close to what their reputations say they must have sounded like....maybe a bit of Ruffo. But in the Cortigianni contest I follow him with Bastiannini and its not even a discussion....for beauty of sound!!!! In a phrase...the voices on old records just don't sound good enough for me.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

This is sort of around the topic: I have three 33rpm recordings from 78rpm recordings of Ponselle. Listening to them on vinyl she sounds 2x as wonderful as on cleaned up CD recordings. I don't know yet if this applies to other golden age singers but it really surprised me. Her recordings did NOT sound like they were 100 years old on vinyl. 
I don't like the rushed up speed of pieces to fit on a side in 78's.


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

The Good
That they made the endeavour to record in the first instance.
That pioneers of recording didn't say "this is rubbish, why bother, what were we thinking, what's the point" and give up on the whole idea.
That they continued to improve recording technology.

Dislike
The sound quality
The media

I guess it's like everything else, technology, concepts, ideas, things, practises evolve over time. 
Sure, I'll listen for historical curiosity but not for enjoyment.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Only the limitations of recording technology are cause for regret. Recordings offer priceless documentation of what our forebears did with the music we love, and that can be understood pretty clearly if we know how the abovementioned limitations affected the sounds of people's voices and the musical choices they were sometimes forced to make. Perhaps because I was born during the era of the 78 rpm record and listened to many of them on sound equipment made to play them, I've never had any difficulty enjoying them.


----------



## Francasacchi (7 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Only the limitations of recording technology are cause for regret. Recordings offer priceless documentation of what our forebears did with the music we love, and that can be understood pretty clearly if we know how the abovementioned limitations affected the sounds of people's voices and the musical choices they were sometimes forced to make. Perhaps because I was born during the era of the 78 rpm record and listened to many of them on sound equipment made to play them, I've never had any difficulty enjoying them.


I think it is amazing that we can hear the voices of those like Adelina Patti and Lilli Lehmann whose careers were made in the 19th century.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Francasacchi said:


> I think it is amazing that we can hear the voices of those like Adelina Patti and Lilli Lehmann whose careers were made in the 19th century.


So true. Patti is said to have sung for Rossini as a young girl, and for Abraham and Mary Lincoln in the White House in 1862. In her prime Verdi called her the greatest singer in the world. Lehmann was picked by Wagner to be a Rhinemaiden at the first Bayreuth Festival in 1876, and then to be the first flower maiden at the premiere of _Parsifal _in 1882. Their recordings were made late in their lives, but still offer fascinating insights. I'm especially fond of Patti, whose freedom of expression in Cherubino's "Voi che sapete" from _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is sure to raise eyebrows in shock or delight. (Is Seattleoperafan listening?).


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

When I first started listening to opera and opera singers I actively avoided any recordings from before the second world war, mostly because I think I hadn't really learned to listen to them. Then I read John Steane's _The Grand Tradition _and his enthusiasm and love of singers and singing really enthused me and I started to seek them out. I'll have to admit I still find it hard to listen to pre-electric recordings. The women in particular are disadvantaged by the recording process, but I stil try. Once we get to electric recordings, few allowances need to be made for the voices, though the orchestras can still sound muffled and muddy.

I have both of EMI's Wagner and Verdi _Introuvables _box sets and the quality of the singing in both is in a different league from what we hear now.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Francasacchi said:


> I think it is amazing that we can hear the voices of those like Adelina Patti and Lilli Lehmann whose careers were made in the 19th century.


And I think it equally amazing that despite the limitations of the recording technology and the fact that they were caught so late in their lives we can tell that they were superb artists (well, at least, some of us can).

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

It's interesting to me which voices suffer from the acoustical process. I agree that it tends to be sopranos and higher voices singers in general (tenors don't usually sound as good as baritones and basses). But weirdly some very high voices singers sound really good in their acoustic recordings. For example, Amelita Galli-Curci sounds beautiful in most of her acoustic recordings. Maria Ivogun is another one whose acoustical recordings, even of high lying soprano arias like the Queen of the Night's, are delightful and don't have that weird sound. I think it has something to do with overtones. Destinn sounds weird in her lower middle where the voice takes on more chest participation, but her high pianissimo notes are gorgeous, even as recorded on the acoustic discs. In the Golden Age there was variation in how much chest participation different singers brought into their voices and how high they brought it. I find the most pleasant sopranos from the acoustic period are those who have chest participation but lean towards the falsetto as they go up. Ivogun is a perfect example. Her high notes are strong and clear, but her voice takes on a roundness and softness as it goes up that saves them from shrillness. I think this is from falsetto participation. Basically, I think that for whatever reason, acoustic recordings don't do well with the chest voice in the higher ranges. 

I dislike the crappy orchestras. I dislike the sense that I'm hearing a great artist but not _really _hearing them. I dislike the timing issue, as others have mentioned. I dislike the relative lack of complete recordings, as some have mentioned. I dislike that, aside from experiments like the Mapleson Cylinders, there are almost no live recordings. I think that some singers of that era did not treat the discs as their artistic legacy, but as either a curiosity or a promotional opportunity, and thus made choices that they might not have in an opera house. I also dislike that you can hear how many singers actually have to stand back as they approach their high notes. Well, actually, with my historical cap on, that's kind of cool... I dislike excessive noise and distortion. A little noise is fine. It just makes me feel cozy, like I'm listening on a rainy afternoon or by a crackling fire.


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I dislike the crappy orchestras. I dislike the sense that I'm hearing a great artist but not _really _hearing them. I dislike the timing issue, as others have mentioned. I dislike the relative lack of complete recordings, as some have mentioned. I dislike that, aside from experiments like the Mapleson Cylinders,* there are almost no live recordings*. I think that some singers of that era did not treat the discs as their artistic legacy, but as either a curiosity or a promotional opportunity, and thus made choices that they might not have in an opera house. I also dislike that you can hear how many singers actually have to stand back as they approach their high notes. Well, actually, with my historical cap on, that's kind of cool... I dislike excessive noise and distortion. A little noise is fine. It just makes me feel cozy, like I'm listening on a rainy afternoon or by a crackling fire.


Nice posts!

Btw, I just came across some live excerpts of Otello in 1926 with Zenatello and Lehmann. The sound quality was quite acceptable.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

OffPitchNeb said:


> Nice posts!
> 
> Btw, I just came across some live excerpts of Otello in 1926 with Zenatello and Lehmann. The sound quality was quite acceptable.


Nice to hear this. I guess the sound is "acceptable" because in order to hear the performance we have to accept the sound. But I don't think I'd have recognized Lehmann; if I listen long enough I can pick out moments where she resembles herself. Zenatello resembles Martinelli: plenty of squillo, not much subtlety. But it's a cruel role.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

ALT said:


> The Golden Age‘s fabulous soundscape and nutritional value of frying bacon and Coca-Cola.


I'm afraid I don't understand why some people run with joy towards recordings like these.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

damianjb1 said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand why some people run with joy towards recordings like these.


Because they give us a glimpse of what opera could be if people could use their ears. It gives us hope.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

damianjb1 said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand why some people run with joy towards recordings like these.


Most of the recordings we're talking about are not "like these." That one's a wax cylinder made by Lionel Mapleson offstage during a performance at the Met between 1901 and 1903. It gives us no real idea of what Lillian Nordica or Wagner's music sounded like, but one might well run with joy toward a precious bit of history wherein we hear one of the first recordings made of the human voice singing opera. You might equally run with joy toward an exhibition of ancient Egyptian surgical instruments, knowing that you'd run the other way should your doctor propose using them on your hip replacement.


----------



## ewilkros (8 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Nice to hear this. I guess the sound is "acceptable" because in order to hear the performance we have to accept the sound. But I don't think I'd have recognized Lehmann; if I listen long enough I can pick out moments where she resembles herself. Zenatello resembles Martinelli: plenty of squillo, not much subtlety. But it's a cruel role.


If, as the YouTube poster says, this is from the Rubini [LP] GV 85, and you're talking about "Già nella densa" etc, it's not Lehmann, it's Hina Spani from their studio recording, identified as such on the Rubini LP. In a famous example of The Brand X Catalog vs The Brand Y Catalog, Lehmann had an exclusive with [European] Columbia and everybody else was with HMV--so there shouldn't be a single note from Lehmann. Schade! Schande!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ewilkros said:


> If, as the YouTube poster says, this is from the Rubini [LP] GV 85, and you're talking about "Già nella densa" etc, it's not Lehmann, it's Hina Spani from their studio recording, identified as such on the Rubini LP. In a famous example of The Brand X Catalog vs The Brand Y Catalog, Lehmann had an exclusive with [European] Columbia and everybody else was with HMV--so there shouldn't be a single note from Lehmann. Schade! Schande!


Checking against another YouTube post, I find it is indeed Spani. Schande for sure.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

damianjb1 said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand why some people run with joy towards recordings like these.


It is really interesting to hear, albeit really badly, how some renowned singers of the era sounded then. I think it is too bad that no cylinders exist of, for example, Caruso or Destinn, to name but two. Maybe they were captured and their cylinders destroyed. Don’t know about Caruso but there are no live recordings at all in existence, cylinders or not, of Destinn. For shame.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Interesting website - Kind of a PITA to search through - Everything is really pricey - even the recordings which are still in print - 





__





Norpete.com







www.norpete.com





Norbeck, Peters, and Ford - Remembrance of Historical Performances Past - Since 1972


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Most of the recordings we're talking about are not "like these." That one's a wax cylinder made by Lionel Mapleson offstage during a performance at the Met between 1901 and 1903. It gives us no real idea of what Lillian Nordica or Wagner's music sounded like, but one might well run with joy toward a precious bit of history wherein we hear one of the first recordings made of the human voice singing opera. You might equally run with joy toward an exhibition of ancient Egyptian surgical instruments, knowing that you'd run the other way should your doctor propose using them on your hip replacement.


I worded my comment very poorly. I find these recordings fascinating. I've spent hours listening to the Mapleson cylinders. What frustrates me is that I, personally, find it almost impossible to get an idea, from these recordings, of what these singers actually sounded like. I wish I could - but I can't. However, I love the Otello recording posted in this thread. No problems there for me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

damianjb1 said:


> I worded my comment very poorly. I find these recordings fascinating. I've spent hours listening to the Mapleson cylinders. What frustrates me is that I, personally, find it almost impossible to get an idea, from these recordings, of what these singers actually sounded like. I wish I could - but I can't. However, I love the Otello recording posted in this thread. No problems there for me.


It's not just you. I don't think _anyone_ can tell from the Mapleson cylinders what _anyone_ sounded like. They have historical importance only.


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

There is a snippet of Tristan und Isolde with Nordica, Schumann-Heink, and Anthes, made in 1903 (!). Not as horrible as many Mapleson. You can hear the voice of 3 principals pretty well.

P/S: On second listening, I think this one is too good to be true. Especially the details of the orchestra. Can someone please confirm that this is not a hoax.


----------

