# Learning the difference between good and not-so-good performances



## CreamCat (Sep 8, 2009)

How does one develop the skills for knowing the difference between good and bad performances or recordings of music? I understand that this is to som extent a matter of taste and personal preferences, but still... What should I do to develop my own personal opinions about this matter?

Any tips, hints, advice and references to literature would be highly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Vic (Sep 2, 2009)

That's a very interesting topic!
I don't know too much about this, but I would say that generally speaking given the performance itself is good, a record improves with sound quality (i.e. can you hear the different melody lines etc.)
The more difficult question is the one about performance. I suppose you are right in that it depends on the taste, but often there are quite a few indicators (the libretto, the title, the occasion it was written for, letters of the composer etc) that show what sort of feeling he/she was trying to get across, and if you can hear this in the performance, it is a good one.
In symphonies, tempo is quite a crucial factor. I assume, it shouldn't sound as if it drags, but also shouldn't sound to rushed.
I think "bad performances" somehow don't engage the listener. Do others agree?
Again, I am no expert, and I am very much looking forward to hearing the responses from others.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I am no expert either, but generally I consider a performance good if the phrasing flows as I feel the composer intended. How do I know what the composer intended? I don't, but I can read what is generally accepted as the intent.

I lean toward performances that are a bit transparent yet still dynamic, where the performers do not insert too much of themselves into the interpretation, but leave you feeling you have heard the composer and not so much the performer. Thus, I like scholarly pianists like András Schiff, but find Glen Gould intrusive. Martha Argerich however can use exaggerated gestures and phrases but still somehow not sound intrusive. I cannot for the life of me understand what subtle thing she is doing to make the exaggerations wonderful to me. Again it must be a matter of taste.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

This is an excellent topic!

Like Weston said, I'm not an expert either. There are several factors I look for which are consistency, emotional content, proper use of tempi (some conductors absolutely butcher tempos and this sometimes works, but most of the time it doesn't), and lack of mistakes, which I know is hard, but in classical music it's much harder to cover-up mistakes. A good example of a mistake would a recording I heard of Mahler's Symphony No. 5 conducted by Václav Neumann and played by the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra where the first movement contained a very flat high note played by the trumpet player. I don't know if you're at all familiar with this symphony, but the symphony starts off with solo trumpet and it builds to this quick crescendo where the trumpet player has to hit this very high note, well this trumpet player hit a very flat-note, which I found to be unacceptable, thus this ruined the whole performance for me.

I'm pretty strict when it comes to grading performances, but I think the composer would have wanted nothing but the highest standard when an orchestra plays their music, so it should be played properly, but with feeling and vigor.

As far as grandoise or exaggerated gestures from the conductor or performer like Weston was talking about, this is also a take it or leave it thing for me. Sometimes a conductor's over-indulgence pays off and you get a very fine performance of great emotional intensity, but there are also other times, depending on the composer, where these over-indulgent inflections do not work. I can name a bunch of Leonard Bernstein performances off the top of my head where he's just way over-the-top. For me, it no longer becomes about the composer, it becomes more or less about the conductor, which is doing a huge disservice to that composer.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

There's a nice example: Shostakovich's fifth by Bernstein, early recording. He doesn't get it at all, the performance is incredibly bland and empty. There's virtually no emotion attached to it, the music flows into one ear and exits from the next, leaving nothing behind. I think it's virtually impossible to screw up this symphony, yet Bernstein somehow managed to do it. About 10-15 other conductors I've heard performing this symphony did not. Strange...

So, all in all, learning the difference between good and not-so-good performances is kinda an individual thing. Aside from horrible sound engineering or player(s) screwing up a passage (as in wrong notes played, not intentionally) I don't think one can say with absolute certainty that a record is either bad or good. Sure, it's a good bet you'll like Karajan's Beethoven, but will you like Norrington's? Do you like your Wagner grand and majestic or fast and energetic? And whose Chopin do you enjoy? As I said, very individual.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

CreamCat said:


> How does one develop the skills for knowing the difference between good and bad performances or recordings of music? I understand that this is to some extent a matter of taste and personal preferences, but still... What should I do to develop my own personal opinions about this matter?
> 
> Any tips, hints, advice and references to literature would be highly appreciated.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


It would have been helpful if you could have defined more carefully exactly what you mean by _performance_. Are you talking generally about all classes of classical music, or do you have in mind any particular type, e.g. solo piano, choral pieces, chamber works, orchestral pieces? Rather different considerations apply in each case.

In broad terms, for any newcomer to classical music the safest procedure is to buy only recommended versions rather than trust your own judgement. For this you just have to dig around to find the best sources of this information. For example, Amazon, Gramophone, Radio Station guides, and music Forums like this can be helpful. Personally I prefer to listen to or read professional advice from expert reviewers, and I especially like to listen to the BBC's Radio 3 weekly magazine programme, "CD Review".

Once you have a selection of the best recordings, then you might make a few comparisons with other versions that happen to come your way. In some cases, you may conceivably prefer the latter version, but I suspect that overall you will agree that the recommended ones are overall better. As you gain experience, then in due course your understanding of these issues will improve in terms of why and how the different version vary in quality. Without this first hand experience any involved discussion will likely seem way too academic.

However, keeping things simple and taking an example from an orchestral work, consider Beethoven's 5th Symphony. One of the most highly recommended versions is by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Carlos Kleiber. It is widely considered to be a near flawless performance, and some commentators have said that, of its type (see below), it so good that the like of it is unlikely ever to be matched gain. Compare this with just any old performance by A N Other and you'll immediately appreciate that it is far superior; the energy, control, flow, excitement, tension, fluidity is unparalleled. You should be aware that since the time of this recording in 1975 there has been a big growth in HIP versions of such works but that is another issue, which I won't go into.

Another example is Schubert's String Quintet D 956. This is one of the most highly regarded of all chamber works. It was written towards the end of Schubert's short life, and is almost a valedictory statement on his part as he realised that he was probably going to die fairly soon. The emotional cross-currents in this work, if performed well, are very moving. I have several versions of this work. The very best - e.g. by Alban Berg/Schiff, Hollywood/Reher, and the Rafael Ensemble - have the benefit of top class performers, using the best overall qualities of correct tempo, velvety sound and textures, achieving delicacy when needed, catching the right note of noble suffering, not too much vibrato. They are also technically good recordings (in acoustic terms), without the microphones being placed too close, or suffering from other irritating noise disturbances.

Yet another example is from the world of solo piano. One of the the greatest pianists of the 20th Centuiry was Alfred Cortot. He was certainly one of the best Chopin interpreters who had an intimate playing style, tinged with melancholy. His performances of, for example, the four ballades are absolutely unforgettable. These pieces are among Chopin's finest works and Cortot's rendition is superb. In my view his recordings knocks spots off versions by other extremely very highly ranked pianists such as Rubinstein. Compared with later performers, like Perahia, they positively shine, and in comparison with an average version by today's standards it's like comparing chalk and cheese.


----------



## Kuntster (Jun 8, 2009)

It's all completely subjective. The best suggestion is read, read, read and listen, listen, listen. You can't tell if a performance of a Beethoven piano sonata is good or not if you don't have any idea what time period he wrote it in. 

-Baroque, classical, romantic, etc... they all have different performance styles. Read and find out the history first. Then start listening. You'll find something you like.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Look for things where the volume is slightly off or little hickups in the flow of things. The tempo should be just right as well.

If you listen to any recording very well so that you know the piece and then listen to a different recording the differences seem to pop out try it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is a difficult question for me, as often I buy cd's which are hard to compare, as the works are not widely recorded or broadcast on radio. For example, I just bought a Naxos cd of the piano works of Turkish composer Ahmet Saygun, which are very obscure outside of that country.

All I'd like to add to what the others have said, is read the liner notes. Sometimes, part of them are written by the performer or conductor, explaining how they chose to perform the piece. I know this is quite common in Naxos cd's of piano works; I have two such cd's were the performer has explained in the notes how they chose to interpret the pieces, and why they chose a particular set of works to perform. To musical laymen like myself, these are very handy & interesting...


----------



## CreamCat (Sep 8, 2009)

Thank you everybody for your answers. They are certainly helpful! Especially thanks to Artemis for your extensive answer. I will follow your advice. I've already started to listen to CD review. Thank you for bringing my attention to it.

I will continue my aim of becoming one of those who can appreciate and have opinions on different interpretations of one and same piece of music.


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

YouTube is another useful tool. You can view many different variations of a composer's work by professional and amateur musicians.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Padawan said:


> YouTube is another useful tool. You can view many different variations of a composer's work by professional and amateur musicians.


YouTube is only for people who enjoy crappy audio.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> YouTube is only for people who enjoy crappy audio.


Also for those that think they are Gods gift to the music world


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think it all comes down to experience and personal preference. Initially you need to develop a knowledge of which solo performers and singers, conductors, and orchestras are truly world class (read up on them!). There are exceptions, as in everything, but by and large you are not going to get a truly poor recording of a given work if you choose a recording by one of the major orchestras (the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, the London Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the New York Philharmonic, etc...) The same holds true of top notch soloists, conductors, and singers. 
As you listen to a body of music and build a collection of the same you will learn that performers, conductors, and orchestras each have a unique sound or style. With experience you may learn that a given conductor or performer seems to have a better than average grasp upon what you imagine the intent of a given work by a given composer. Some conductors and performers are more lush and romantic in their interpretation. Others are muscular. Still others are nearly cold perfectionists... or very staid and workmanlike. Again... you develop a personal taste with time... and with further experience may even find you want multiple interpretations. I have a number of versions of _The Well Tempered Clavier_ by Bach. I find Angela Hewitt's to be the most transparent and perfect... but I love other versions as well. Sviatoslav Richter's interpretation is much more romantic... and fluid. Glenn Gould's is quite individual... but he discovers things that no one else imagined. Ralph Kirkpatrick offers a magical performance on the clavichord. With time you may even recognize that certain conductors/orchestras/performers work better for you within a certain genre of style. I was in no way thrilled with the historically informed performance versions of Beethoven's piano concertos because I feel his work demands the full grand piano... but I find the same historically informed performances work for me with Mozart. Again... read, listen to what others with more experience have to say... and then listen yourself and trust your own opinion.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> YouTube is only for people who enjoy crappy audio.


In your opinion, of course ... 

Granted, the sound quality that we hear on YT can only be as good as it was initially recorded. If one adds "&fmt=18" (without the quotes) to the end of the URL, the sound is greatly improved .

I've heard some pretty darn good sounds from YT's that have been professionally recorded ... then adding the &fmt=18 enhances it a lot.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andante said:


> Also for those that think they are Gods gift to the music world


Exactly, my friend.


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> YouTube is only for people who enjoy crappy audio.


LOL. The master has spoken so it "must" be so.


----------

