# Does classical music in concerts sound better than recordings?



## Queequeg

I attended a NY philharmonic concert that included the Korngold Violin Concerto and Beethoven's 7th symphony and the latter performance was possibly the greatest thing I've ever heard in my life. Maybe it was a combination of listening to one of the world's best orchestras and having orchestra seating but the listening experience at the Lincoln Center was unlike any recording I have ever heard and I was just so overwhelmed by it, particularly the finale. I was also able to hear many parts by instruments and intricacies in the pieces that escaped me in recordings. Is it expected for everyone to have a better listening experience at concerts than in recordings?


----------



## starthrower

From my experience, hearing the strings in a good concert hall always sounds better than on a CD. They have a smoother, silky sound without the harshness you hear on recordings.


----------



## ptr

Yes, classical music always sounds better live, how much better depends on how crappy your HiFi-system is!

/ptr


----------



## LancsMan

In general yes - although I guess some of this may depend on the quality of your hi-fi equipment. 

However I sometimes find that classical pieces by Mozart and Haydn are performed in halls too big for the forces involved - and can loose some of their impact thereby.

Also there are problems with distractions (audience noise or even seat discomfort) in the concert hall. 

As well as the sound quality there is something almost theatrical in attending say a performance of a Mahler symphony. Just occasionally I prefer a recording - for example in the fourth movement of the Mahler's seventh symphony - there are parts for guitar and mandolin. I've preferred hearing this movement recorded as against live because the recordings tend to bring forward these instruments in the balance. From my experience they can be a little 'lost' in the concert hall. For the same reason some may prefer to hear a violin concerto recorded where the soloist again tends to be brought forward in the balance.


----------



## Guest

It depends where you are sitting in the room.


----------



## Bulldog

Queequeg said:


> Is it expected for everyone to have a better listening experience at concerts than in recordings?


That would be a general expectation but doesn't apply to everyone. I know plenty of folks, including myself, who much prefer the listening experience in the home environment.


----------



## brotagonist

Queequeg said:


> Is it expected for everyone to have a better listening experience at concerts than in recordings?


Like Bulldog, I prefer to listen at home. I think that part of the listening experience is the listener's comfort. Sitting in a huge hall with coughing and shuffling strangers in stiff chairs lacking legroom, etc., is a recipe for squirming and distraction.

Now, if I had free lifetime memberships to the local philharmonic, chamber music society etc., I would probably attend sometimes, but it's not always convenient for me.


----------



## JACE

I love recordings, and I treasure my music collection. I'd estimate that more than 99% of my music listening is with recordings.

That said, almost all of the _most_ moving musical experiences I've had have been at LIVE music performances. And this is true for all genres -- jazz, classical, rock, whatever. Generally speaking, if it sounds good on a recording, it will sound even better in concert.

George Szell likened recordings to "having sex on the phone"! I'm not sure that I'd go that far. 

But there's no substitute for being there.

That's how I feel about it.


----------



## Ukko

It all depends on the 'quality of the experience' and your listening experience. The concert hall can be distracting, even if it's only the visual input.


----------



## hpowders

Man I WISH I could have heard Toscanini conduct live, instead of the crap left to us.


----------



## Albert7

It all depends... for example, the Kleiber recording of Beethoven's 5th and 7th beat any live performance I have ever seen in my life. However, a recent performance of Turandot live at the Utah Opera moved me more than any recording of that opera.


----------



## pianississimo

Listening to a recording is a different experience to a live concert. I couldn't get through my day without my iPod playlist but live music has qualities you will never hear even with the best performance recordings on the finest equipment. 

I remember my first concert vividly. I was overwhelmed by the sense of space in the orchestral music and the subtleties of colour from the different ranks of the strings. I sat close to the stage so I could watch the pianist and could hear the scrape of bow on string and the breathing of the wind players. Every note filled me with a sense awe at of how many years of training and practice was accumulated on that stage and how much preparation had gone into this concert.
It was a living performance and so much the richer for it. 
Also seeing the instruments I noticed things I hadn't heard in all the times I'd listened to my recordings just because I could see where the sounds came from. 

The difference is not the same for other types of music. I've been to rock concerts and the crowds sing and chant and clap and shout all through the performance - which is itself seldom as polished as the studio recorded cd.
A classical concert is about the sound and the living space that it occupies. A studio recorded CD is not likely to be any more polished or perfect but will lack that space which orchestral music needs to give it it's full potential.


----------



## hpowders

Given a modern orchestra, I would rather hear a live performance than a recording. No worries as to balance or volume.

Also, most of the time, a live performance will be more exciting than a non-spontaneous recording.


----------



## Radames

hpowders said:


> Given a modern orchestra, I would rather hear a live performance than a recording. No worries as to balance or volume.
> 
> Also, most of the time, a live performance will be more exciting than a non-spontaneous recording.


Yes. Live performance is so much better in so many ways. That's why I go to 150 concerts a year.


----------



## Albert7

On other note, I always prefer studio rap albums rather than any live recording. For example Public Enemy sounds horrid on their live recordings.


----------



## mountmccabe

LancsMan said:


> Also there are problems with distractions (audience noise or even seat discomfort) in the concert hall.





brotagonist said:


> Like Bulldog, I prefer to listen at home. I think that part of the listening experience is the listener's comfort. Sitting in a huge hall with coughing and shuffling strangers in stiff chairs lacking legroom, etc., is a recipe for squirming and distraction.





Ukko said:


> It all depends on the 'quality of the experience' and your listening experience. The concert hall can be distracting, even if it's only the visual input.


Curious! I find myself far more easily distracted at home; there are too many other things to do. But in the concert hall there is nothing else but to listen to the performances. I am listening to music right now but if I were in a concert hall I would be focusing on it.

I suppose I could take the same time I'd spend in a hall and sit down with a recording and focus on it but it misses the rituals of the attendance, the dedicated environment, the necessarily scheduled nature of the concert. In addition to the spontaneity, the superior acoustics of performance spaces (compared to my living room!), etc.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ yes - there are lots of distractions at home .... yes - there are irritating distractions at the concert hall

But I guess I have more control over the distractions at home - I can make a cup of tea before the music starts, I can switch the phone off, I can listen when Mrs H is out of the house, I can choose to sit where I don't look out of the window etc. In general, at the concert hall I have to put up with irritations that I have little control over ... for example, at a recent concert, I had to put up with one of the ushers using her mobile phone in my eyeline (even taking flash photos of the performer as he played).


----------



## pianississimo

The usher taking pictures? That's a new one! I sometimes take a picture after a performance at the final bow. It's a keepsake more than anything else. I wouldn't do that during the performance. 

I did once cough quite loudly during a recital recorded for radio. It came out of nowhere, without warning and I was powerless to stop it. It was just the one cough but it sounded like the cough of an ill thunder god!! Of course I listened to the broadcast later and yes you could hear me! The shame!


----------



## arpeggio

I hate coming across as an elitist musician but actually playing the Beethoven _Seventh_ is a magnificent experience, even with an incompetent, imperfect amateur orchestra.


----------



## senza sordino

Generally, live music should sound better than a recording. No matter how good your speakers and amplifier are, live should be better. And you get the visual context as well watching and hearing it live that can add to the experience.


----------



## opus55

I guess my home audio system is crappy. My system just cannot reproduce the layers of instruments with depth and clarity of concert hall. Interestingly, I've become more interested in live performance of chamber music lately. Sitting close to the players and watch them perform and breath together makes music so _live!_


----------



## Andreas

To me, well-engineered recordings sound better than live performances for a couple of reasons: in a concert hall, there's always "ambient noise" by the audience, people shifting in their seats, unwrapping candy, thumbing through the programme notes, loud breathing through the nose, etc. Secondly, orchestras, during fortissimos, regularly hit levels of volume that exceed my pain threshold, even though I always sit in the middle back. More generally, lous passages quickly become uncomfortably harsh sounding. Third, hall acoustics, especially concerning the piano. Whether it's concertos or solo recitals, the piano always sounds muddy is a hall. I love a dry, crisp, non-pedal piano sound, but in a hall I haven't heard that yet. But maybe the hall I go to is just crap.


----------



## papsrus

Andreas said:


> ... Third, hall acoustics, especially concerning the piano. Whether it's concertos or solo recitals, the piano always sounds muddy is a hall. I love a dry, crisp, non-pedal piano sound, but in a hall I haven't heard that yet. But maybe the hall I go to is just crap.


I agree with this. I seems you have to choose your seat carefully when attending a piano concerto. In a large hall, particularly one that is less than optimal acoustically, some say sitting left of center is better than on the right. (What hall do you attend in Germany?)

The thing that makes attending a concert special or unique for me is the feeling that everything has led up to the moment of the first note. The years of practice by the individual musicians and the preparation collectively to play the pieces selected have all led to this moment, shared among the musicians and the audience.

At home I have a fairly decent sound system and listen to music all day long as loudly as I want. But the experience is a more arbitrary one. I can choose to start or stop whenever I like, or listen to something twice if I want. Nothing in particular has led up to the moment I hit the "play" button.


----------



## Declined

Yes. Absolutely. It sounds so much richer.


----------



## Cosmos

Overall, yes, but it depends.

The orchestra sounds rich when you're live. You can't get the same experience from headphones, IMO. The sound fills the room and takes you away, even if they're playing a work that isn't a favorite, the live performance can still captivate and arrest you.

My only exception is when you're hearing a work that you love. There is the possibility that, after listening to and getting used to your favorite interpretation, listening to a different interpretation might disappoint you.


----------



## Albert7

I love both options although I prefer to spin my albums on my iPod or iPhone.


----------



## bharbeke

To answer the title question, the concerts do sound better than recordings. I hear the melodic and background lines much more clearly live, and the visual aspect helps determine a focus for my mind and ears. As for the experience, there are some minor annoyances either way you listen, and the live performances that achieve excellence more than outweigh those annoyances.


----------



## Albert7

For me it all depends... I remember having lousy seats behind a pole during a concert at the Philadelphia Academy of Music. Never good. And the Kimmel Center had some frequency dropouts which made the soloist lose about a tenth of the notes. It was not pleasant either.

So recordings are consistently better than live performances for replicating all of the frequencies.

however, I do like the social aspect of going to a concert and hanging out with some great folks.


----------



## papsrus

albertfallickwang said:


> For me it all depends... I remember having lousy seats behind a pole during a concert at the Philadelphia Academy of Music. Never good. And the Kimmel Center had some frequency dropouts which made the soloist lose about a tenth of the notes. It was not pleasant either.
> 
> So recordings are consistently better than live performances for replicating all of the frequencies.
> 
> however, I do like the social aspect of going to a concert and hanging out with some great folks.


Not sure when you were attending Kimmel, but from what I've read they've improved things with the hall's adjustable acoustics, and as always, good seats are going to offer better projection from the orchestra than behind-the-pole seats.

Went to a concert at Avery Fisher last month and sat in rear row of first balcony at the back of the hall for the first half. Muffled. No good. Moved to orchestra level near the rear for second half. Much better!

Always well worth it to find out where the best (or better) seats are. The box office is often reluctant to give advice. I've usually gotten the boilerplate "it's personal preference" response when seeking advice there. Understandable, as they don't want to be held accountable if for whatever reason you're less than satisfied with your seats.


----------



## Albert7

papsrus said:


> Not sure when you were attending Kimmel, but from what I've read they've improved things with the hall's adjustable acoustics, and as always, good seats are going to offer better projection from the orchestra than behind-the-pole seats.
> 
> Went to a concert at Avery Fisher last month and sat in rear row of first balcony at the back of the hall for the first half. Muffled. No good. Moved to orchestra level near the rear for second half. Much better!
> 
> Always well worth it to find out where the best (or better) seats are. The box office is often reluctant to give advice. I've usually gotten the boilerplate "it's personal preference" response when seeking advice there. Understandable, as they don't want to be held accountable if for whatever reason you're less than satisfied with your seats.


Indeed, recordings always give a consistent experience with the same equipment. Concert halls not... it's hit and miss.


----------



## Vaneyes

Sometimes it does.


----------



## Albert7

There are just so many variables that this comes a pretty moot point. For example, the sonic engineer is key to the recording and the acoustics of the hall is key to the concert. One can't really predict beforehand which one will be better.


----------



## papsrus

Maybe. But if you're sitting orchestra level, center, toward the front for an inspired performance by a top tier orchestra, there's nothing quite like it. 

If you're in the rear of an acoustically problematic hall, surrounded by distracted audience members with an orchestra just going through the motions, that's another story.

So yeah, you're right, lots of variables. But at its best the concert experience is enveloping, inspiring, thrilling, maybe even overwhelming.

IMO.


----------



## Albert7

Glenn Gould hated live performances and gave up those in 1964... for him the recording studio was a total haven. So there's one fascinating opinion.

here you go:






The concerts dying out is pretty cool idea but again the social aspect is integral to me.


----------



## vonta24

I just love music and attending such music concerts is really fun for me. I am also a singer and want to plan for a good music concert in my area. Can you suggest me some good event planning who can do this for me?


----------



## echo

of course not - music is incorporeal


----------



## echo

ooops i meant of course


----------



## Albert7

After listening to live concerts, I am feeling a lot less comfortable being in public places so I have decided that recordings provide a much better experience at home. In fact, TinyChat has provided a great outlet for sharing live performances in the comfort of one's own home. I can eat a meal or drink some beer while the music/video is playing.

New technologies have allowed us to access classical music in creative ways that are just incredible. The future is nigh.


----------



## Saintbert

Sitting in a concert hall (which is rather rare for me) I find myself more immediately taken in by the music. It's less analytical, more of an experience where emotion takes over. Listening to a recording, I don't always have the same attention. But then again, it pays off when I do, and I wouldn't want to lose the joy of going back to my favorite recordings. I can well understand Glenn Gould's thinking in this, although I have a problem with the way he'd sometimes piece his recordings together in the editing. There needs to be a sense of the live and the living in a recording, for me. Producing a record is an art in itself, and that I enjoy exploring, the art of crafting a fleeting moment into permanence.


----------



## Albert7

Lately I've been more engrossed with recordings lately, particularly with electroacoustic recordings... live performances can have the visuals be distracting and for a dude like me who has ADHD then that would be issue if I want to focus on analyzing the music itself, particularly if I want to follow with a score in hand.


----------



## padraic

I'm usually not a fan of MTT's Mahler, but I saw him perform Mahler 2 live and it was one the greatest musical experiences of my life. There must be something to actually experiencing it live.


----------



## Wunderhorn

Live sound is the most natural way of delivering and experiencing the music, I can't rate that high enough.
However there is one thing I can do at home: Turning up the volume and have my own personal earthquake!

Another thing: Many, many things that I would be interested to experience in a concert hall are never being performed and the only option is the recording, for which I thank the heavens that I have that...


----------



## SixFootScowl

I just heard Beethoven's Fifth for the first time tonight at a live concert. Before that, all I ever heard were recordings. There is a huge difference.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> I just heard Beethoven's Fifth for the first time tonight at a live concert. Before that, all I ever heard were recordings. There is a huge difference.


Beethoven's 5th live? Here's a story you may like.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Wagner, conducting a Court Concert at Dresden during the insurrection of 1848, felt his spirits sink as each number of the programme seemed to bring a deeper gloom over the audience, and gradually to extinguish all applause. Leaning down from his desk, he whispered to the leader of the violins, 'What is to be done?' 'Oh! go on,' said the leader, 'there is still the C-minor coming, and all will be right.' And so it was; for with the magic sound of the opening bars, everyone's spirit revived, applause burst from the benches, and it was as if a bright light shone into the room."

--Sir George Grove, "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies," 1896 edition


----------



## Radames

And it's not just the SOUND. There is the spontaneity of live music that doesn't usually come through in a recording. And you can be surprised because you not exactly sure how it's going to be played. With your old recording you know exactly what you will hear.


----------



## Vaneyes

Does classical music in concerts sound better than recordings?
It's supposed to, but Geffen Hall continues to struggle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/a...l-plans-continue-in-fits-and-starts.html?_r=0


----------



## Marinera

It is experienced differently. There is more volume to the sound, and by that I don't mean that it is louder, it is as if it has the larger 'body', more 3D , and it takes more space and spans bigger and somewhat differently around you than listenting to the recording. There is somehow much moreinformation; my brain has to adjust to process each time I hear a live concert, at least it feels to me so. And additionaly music can be felt, but it depends more on where your seat is.

Note: And it is absolutely thousands of times better with singers if they are heard live. It is simply incomparable. In recording hearing a vocal soloist is somewhat like seeing a cut out of mountain from the picture, there's no scale. In live concert with singers you get a scale of their vocals.


----------

