# Recordings vs. live performance



## cmb (Dec 20, 2006)

Over on the opera-l newsgroup, there is quite the lively debate going on regarding how some voices just don't make the transition from recorded from to live in the house.

E.g. a particular voice records well but in the house sounds extremely small/large/unfocused on multiple listenings.

I _know_ this is extremely subjective, but do you find the same for ensembles, soloists, etc.? I am just thinking back to the first time I heard the Baltimore Symphony live under David Zinman, and it damn near killed me it was so wonderful.

Thoughts?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

In terms of orchestral music, the engineers and directors are so incredibly important in this process. I think it's more a question of their technical experience and competance rather than some intrinsic quality of the soloist or orchestra.


----------



## Lynx (Nov 2, 2006)

Doesn't it all come down to whether or not you crave perfection?

Take, for example, recordings of 'The Last Night of the Proms'. The reproduction isn't always that great, but you can feel the energy and enthusiasm of both the musicians and the Promenaders. Listen to the playlist as studio recordings and they lose their magnetism.

Lynne


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2007)

I agree with lynx, there is a magic in a live performance [warts and all] that you will never get in a recording, even a recording of a live performance. the atmosphere cannot be recorded, even the cough from 4 rows back, adds to the ambience, a recording is always a compromise, I wonder if tomorrows technology will deliver anything more realistic??. Until then I am stuck with my Cds and Hi Fi.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I've recently bought some live recordings made here in London of Berlioz operas ('Trojans', 'Damnation of Faust' and 'Beatrice and Benedict'). And other live performances (well, stated to be) of JE Gardiner and the Monteverdi Choir doing Bach Cantatas (several volumes). But in all cases there is no audience to be heard, no applause, etc. 

There are now some truly wonderful DVD's of classical performances. I've suddenly got a great love of Berlioz and now have the 'Damnation of Faust' on DVD (live) which I would recommend to anyone. 

At the same time, I have in my vinyl record collection some works that I simply don't think can be bettered by any other technology. A good valve amplifier and a high quality needle/cartridge can produce results so warm and 'real' I still rate vinyl records as highly as CD's. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of some amazing vinyl recordings never bettered (though I have heard them on CD format not as good). A friend of mine says that mono records are the ONLY sort of recording worth listening too !!!

Certain live recordings (coughs or no coughs) are definitely among my 'desert island discs'. But so too are certain studio recordings.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

I do not mind live performances provided there is not too much background noise (audience coughing) and provided the piece is played faithfully, and not too many errors. For something like "Last Night of the Proms", the very essence of the event is that there is a lot revelry etc, so I do not think that is a good example to promote live recordings. Several other types of radio performances are inevitably live, and in that case, obviously, you have to expect some audience noise and, consequently, less than perfect sound fidelity.

Some performers tended to prefer live performances of their works. For example, I have several live recordings by the likes of Horowitz, Richter, Toscanini, and Mravinsky. In a few cases they are rather spoiled in my view by too much audience noise. On the other hand, I have some live recordings of other works where there's no audience noise at all. So there's no general rule.

Generally, however, if there is choice, I prefer audience-free recordings, especially for chamber works and piano concertos. I especially dislike bad piano notes. It is not so bad with many other instruments but a few bad notes on piano, especially in slow solo pieces, and it throws it. Bad piano notes are even worse with Mozart, where there is little scope for error in getting away with it because of the clean style. Mostly, I find studio (non-audience) chamber works far better, as audience noise is absent and any errors can be removed. The best piano sets I have are studio-based by Ashkenazy (Mozart, Schumann) which are excellent.

I never used to be so fussy, but I am afraid if you invest in decent kit to play it all with, then bad recordings will show up all the more.

Topaz


----------



## linz (Oct 5, 2006)

I prefer 'Studio' preformances to 'Live' preformances primarily for the reason of ringing in perfection to the preformance through retake upon retake. This is most notable when it comes to opera. I had Thielemann's Parsifal, and I absolutely couldn't stand it with all the 'steps', 'clangs', etc, etc.. The main point of a 'Live' recording is to immortalize the moments in the concert hall where some were fortunate enough to actually have been there in the flesh. Many are just as fine as 'Studio' preformances, MANY ARE NOT.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2007)

What I was referring to was an actual live performance not a recording taken at a performance, repeatedly hearing a cough, a bad piano note or whatever on a recording gets on your nerves, you begin to expect it and that can be infuriating, who wants to hear a mistake repeated time after time, thankfully they now edit those annoying little thing out of the recording. 
Topaz, thanks for the size 2 font lol


----------



## linz (Oct 5, 2006)

*A recorded live preformance is an 'actual' live preformance also!*


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Unfortunately, it is not always obvious that a recording is live or studio. I have been caught out like in the past with a few CDs, mainly large orchestral works. Unless it's obvious, I suppose it would be possible to find out beforehand by doing some research but sometimes I can't be bothered, especially with individual CDs. I guess it's cheaper for the record companies to do a recording of a live event rather than pay for a special one-off for recording purposes. This, I suspect, is usually the main motive, rather than anything altruistic on the part of the record companies.

Before spending out on an expensive box set of, say, a Wagner opera it's definitely worth investigating the matter beforehand. In fact I am a lot more careful these days, and investigate things more carefully, and don't buy any live recordings if there is a choice.

Over Xmas, I listened, on radio, to a live recording of Bizet's _Carmen_ from the Royal Opera House, London. There was lots of stage noise etc, but somehow I found it acceptable and didn't worry about it. However, I wouldn't buy a CD of that same event. Strange, I guess, but maybe it's easier to put up with unwanted noise you don't know is coming, compared with noise you know is already there.

Topaz


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2007)

linz said:


> *A recorded live preformance is an 'actual' live preformance also!*


 Agreed it is a recording of a live event, but what you hear through your system is not always what was recorded, if there are any extraneous noises that are bad they are usually edited out, also if say an orchestra makes a hash of some little thing this too can be edited out and replaced with something from another recording that they have made. Even complete movements have been substituted in the past if the orch did not perform it very well on the night, and the orch have previously or subsequently recorded the work, I know it is cheating but it is done.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

It's not so much the extraneous noises or even the odd mistake that creeps into a live concert that bothers me in live recordings. The fact is that very often the conductor and orchestra will take a different approach during performance versus recordings.

The live atmosphere of a performance sometimes can allow for certain liberties that may sound out of place on a recording. These "liberties" can be as basic as the TEMPO. Extreme tempos, either fast or slow, generally do not work on recording, but in performance, an extremely fast (but maybe a little sloppy) tempo can be very exiting, and an extremely slow tempo can allow the piece to breathe. On a recording, these extremes often sound ridiculous.

Case in point, any Celibidache Bruckner recording. Celibidache did not make any commercial recordings during his lifetime. After his death, his wife and son allowed the archive performance recordings with the Munich Philharmonic to be released, with the proceeds going to children's charities. Celibidache was hailed as a Bruckner genius, and perhaps in the atmosphere of the concert hall these performances were astounding. But on recording, they are sick and twisted distortions, the slow movements often being completely devoid of pulse.


----------



## 4/4player (Nov 17, 2006)

I beg to differ...
I think a live performance will always be better than a recorded one. You not only hear the music..but you have a visually model to look at(the performance and conductor)..the performers need an audience to perform and get excited to perform in front of...long ago and still today, concerts were regarded as social events/gatherings. Everytime I go to a concert performance..Im surounded by old people O_O,lol..hope I didn't offend anybody!
4/4player


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

*4/4: * We are only talking about *listening* to a live recording with an audience, versus a studio recording without an audience. Obviously, watching a concert (either live or on a DVD) is bound to involve an audience. The advantage of a studio recording is that the sound quality is generally better (no coughs etc), and re-takes can be done to get it right. The idea that only live recordings with an audience provide a spirited performance is rubbish. A studio performance can be got just right depending on the conductor/artists' preferences. This is not to say that live performances can't be any good. On the contrary, many are very good, but we are talking about the generality of cases, not individual recordings.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

*4/4*, to clarify further, as a performer I prefer live concerts and as a listener I prefer live concerts.

But I don't like listening to _recordings_ of live performances.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

All this is slightly mind-boggling. There seems to be an element of cross-talk.

I have tried to enumerate the various possibilities, which I see amounting to 8, distinguishing between a *performer* (like Kurki), a *listener* (sound, no vision), as a *viewer of a live context*, or *viewer of recorded material* as in a DVD or a TV broadcast of a recorded event:

1. Performer, with audience (i.e. a normal concert)
2. Performer, no audience (i.e. for a studio recording)
3. Listener, with audience, live event (eg a live radio transmission with audience)
4. Listener, with audience, recorded event (eg a radio transmission of a recorded live concert) 
5. Listener, no audience, recorded event (end resut of 2 above)
6. Viewer of live material, with audience (same as 3 but vision as well)
7. Viewer of recorded, with audience (same as 4 but vision as well)
8. Viewer of recorded, no audience ( same as 2 but with vision)​
N.B. I think the above are the main posibilities. Other minor possibilities may exist but it would be pedantic to list them.

Items 1 and 2 are not relevant for me. 
As a listener, I prefer 5 among 3-5
As a viewer, I obviously like 6. 
As a viewer of recorded matrial, I am indifferent between 7, 8

Phew! Who asked this question in the first place? The question is more complex than they thought, and hence it's not surprising the answers are somewhat confusing (at least to me).

Topaz


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2007)

Well, I thought we were supposed to be discussing :
recordings v Live performance, 
as opposed to recordings v recordings of live performances
But then I get easily confused


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2007)

perhaps we should take a vote on what we are discussing lol


----------



## 4/4player (Nov 17, 2006)

I agree you, Topaz and Andante, I think I got easily confused with this post, and the end result was the wrong response on page 1 of this thread!,lol. But I think it would be a much better disscusion of recording VS. live concert. It will also open up broad ideas and Im sure a lot of members will respond to it

4/4player


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2007)

As a performer, in a live performance that you know is not being recorded you do take a different approach , you take chances and not the safe way, but the moment you know it is being recorded for posterity then you tend to play safe, at least the majority do, it's a bit like when you practice at home its easy but, when playing the same piece for your teacher it can become all fingers and thumbs, so, a live performance has that bit extra and some times a lot extra, for perfection go recorded for excitement go live.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Andante said:


> ...but the moment you know it is being recorded for posterity then you tend to play safe...


My goodness this is so true.

My orchestra played for a concert in November that was being broadcast live on Czech Radio 3. I was playing it so safe that it didn't really feel like a performace, I fealt I was working a large mechanical clock (reference to Kodaly not intended). It came off rather well on the radio, the audience responded well, but the orchestra unanimously felt that the "concert" wasn't really a "concert".


----------



## cmb (Dec 20, 2006)

You have _me_ to blame for this, but it has generated a lot of light and heat, which is what I was hoping for.

I find the comments form performers who say they feel they have to "play if safer" because they know its being broadcast particularly interesting.

Or maybe frustrating - I for one would like to hope that was the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Teo (Jun 11, 2007)

*listening with more than the ears*

I'm a newby and hope I'm not out-of-place... Fantastic discussion(s) though!



4/4player said:


> I beg to differ...
> I think a live performance will always be better than a recorded one. You not only hear the music..but you have a visually model to look at(the performance and conductor)..the performers need an audience to perform and get excited to perform in front of...long ago and still today, concerts were regarded as social events/gatherings. Everytime I go to a concert performance..Im surounded by old people O_O,lol..hope I didn't offend anybody!
> 4/4player


I was moved recently when an artist explained, on a TV show, that in the past, music involved the listener. You got dressed, went excitedly to the theatre with everybody _that was somebody_ and experienced the music collectively. You would never want to talk, or read, or do anything! You truly were part of the experience.

Nowadays (I'm just paraphrasing) we are trained NOT to listen fully, music is often in the background and we have to not get distracted by it! Talk about how much it is not collective: in a bus, or an office where headphones are allowed, there might be many different people listening to different music at the same time!
-------------------
Reviewing, Topaz explained that I'm in the wrong topic as well?

For me it gets worse, I was sure Katherine Hepburn was really playing Clara Weik/Schuman's pieces in the movie where she played Clara Weik... and later found out she didn't, but was glad she was good enough to fake it that well? I suppose they had to make a fake piano that didn't play for her to fake it on stage? How terrible for the piano!

Topaz, if you take into consideration people faking playing, or lip-syncing, there are even more possibilities as to what is being discussed! 

Personally, I like to improvise, and found out that the Masters could for maybe 30 minutes on a theme given them? At that time there was NO recording, so they wouldn't be afraid they'd give away too many techniques - except if some people had the equivalent of a photographic memory... or took notes fast!

What I think, is that the whole, entire, best to worst technologies for recording, makes improvisation.. into.. "fast composing" and changes what improvising is! Maybe.... eliminated improvising?  _at the least, recordings changed standards, and perfection could be attempted which wasn't so important for live, where more mistakes are forgotten - not "rewound and replayed"_


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Welcome, Teo! And thanks for digging up this very important thread... I was hoping that it would expose something about *today's listeners*, points which you touch on.

Unfortunately, *Topaz* is no longer active in this Forum. It's a shame, as in my opinion, he was one of the best debators that I've seen "in the game".


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

Hi Teo, you are right that a lot of music is heard as opposed to listened to.
Your comments on improvisation is spot on as well, in say, a jazz club you can hear both true improvisation and rehearsed phrases, and you must be prepared for wandering and deviation in improvisation as well as the odd mistake, at least from ordinary musicians perhaps not the masters,


----------



## Teo (Jun 11, 2007)

*u r angels*

Hey I'm really honored to be able to share ideas with you all!

Truly there are many diagonal, obtuse and 4 dimensional ways to approach the topic all together. I plop, I mean popped, I mean pop music, they seem to have simply given up on even announcing that things are pre-recorded, I mean, you can't do acrobatics and have your pitches and volumes perfect - and I'd prefer to hear an off note to know if .. hello! Is anybody there! .. sorry, the last topic I want to be associated with is popcorn I mean popover I mean pop music...

I really am interested in where improvisation went. I understand - only in the last 2 years I've been studying classical - that ornamentation was the order of the day, for years! Things were not written in stone at all... in fact I found a huge table I need to study of possible ornamenting possibilities - and this smashes the myth that only jazz is "feeling" and "allows individuality!" Not that I don't respect a good jazz musician, and personally I think good gospel piano is probably the most beautifully ornamented!

On improvisation: Why is it so disregarded nowadays (in general)? Why isn't there at least a 5 minute - should be 15 or 30 - improvisation in performances, wasn't that the standard?

Do you think recording has had an impact on improvising?

One reason I am so interested is, I am a great improviser, and recently... I'm really proud of it! 

I mean, I WILL be very good at it, but I bring to classical some bags of tricks in that vein.. you can hear some here, though they'll be better as I get better! http://WebPageExperience.com/mid/PlayMidiImpromptu.htm

I may study singing, and Mario Lanza, I have heard, was well, cute, could sing great, but not for a whole opera. Maybe this made him perfect for the movies? It's funny how someone may be weaker in something, which allows them to focus on something else - like when virtuoso pianists stop performing and perhaps start teaching!

This seems a digression, but I always wonder why people who don't tour, say, Vladamir Ashkenazy stops touring, he could record tons hum? Someone will hate me for what I'm about to say, but it seems to me that if some really talented performers, maybe stop touring, and start teaching or recording - or setting up virtual co-composing or webcasts or something, well, if talented people entered into "Popular Culture" it would have more talent, and maybe genuineness?

Thanks for your time, sorry to blab.

Love and light being, Teo Do (Re, Mi, Fa, Soul....)


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2007)

Cadenza's were meant to be improvised, both Mozart and Beethoven were excellent at improvisation, perhaps with recorded music no one takes the chance?


----------

