# works vs. recordings



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think I've noticed that on forums like this people feel much more free to criticize recordings than to criticize works. 

Do you think my observation is right? 

If so, do you have any theories that might explain it?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

1. There are more recordings than works and when you get tired of discussing Beethoven 5th you still have 2389749374349 recordings and cycles to discuss

2. New recordings appear much more frequently than new works and new issues are solid part of what we are discussing here


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

As you know, I will sometimes criticise works (as in the Bruch First Violin Concerto a few days ago) if they are the subject of a thread. However, Aramis has a good point - for every popular classical work there will be dozens of recordings to potentially discuss. Even some relatively obscure works can be found in up to half a dozen different recordings.

Maybe I should start a thread on underrated or overrated works ....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Aramis did make good points, I agree. 

Later I might start a thread asking how people decide to buy another recording of a work they already know well vs. buying a recording of a work they haven't heard yet.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

It's not surprising at all. If you simply say "I don't like Brahms 4" there's not much to be discussed. "I find it boring, turgid, incomprehensible", whatever.
What's more interesting is why you find some performances of the work leave you cold, but others feed your soul. The work is what it is - on paper. But the magic and the wonder comes when the piece is brought to life, and whether that life is vibrant and encompassing, or merely an animated corpse.

The thing with performance art - as opposed to visual arts or literature - is that there's a performer between the creator and the 'recipient'. And their role is so powerful. The right perfomer can make you reassess a work you've disliked all your life...
cheers,
GG


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

If you don't like a work that's highly respected by most classical music fans, chances are it's the recording you heard that sucks.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

People can 'like' works to different degrees depending on their preferences too. But certainly a decent recording, or trying several different ones with different approaches may help in some circumstances.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I take the view that the vast majority of classical recordings are of a high quality, whether or not the listener likes the performer/s involved. It's not easy to get a recording contract nowadays, or even to make an individual recording. A lot of the quality control is done by the major record companies for us, they don't let many substandard recordings happen in the first place. Same thing with reissues, they only get done if they are of a certain quality, low grade recordings of the past don't get much shrift in these financially tight times. Of course, connoisseurs will endlessly argue about this or that fine point, but I'm more interested in the "big picture" rather than thousands of irrelevant details. Out of the hundreds of recordings I've bought, I can only think of one that I was disappointed with so much to return it to the store. But that was more to do with the composer's style than the nature of the performance...


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

scytheavatar said:


> If you don't like a work that's highly respected by most classical music fans, chances are it's the recording you heard that sucks.


This is so true.......


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I suspect I agree with Andre, and with most of GraemeG's post except for the first sentence. 

It's not obvious to me that a discussion of various recordings of a single work would be more detailed than a discussion of various works. Either could reduce to "I like it" or "I don't like it," but both could be much more than that. 

Also, I think we could complement scytheavatar's insight (that often we don't like a work because we haven't heard a good recording of it) with the observation that sometimes we hear a good work or a good recording of that work at the wrong time somehow, and we think it sucks, but sometimes when we hear that work or recording again later we find ourselves appreciating it more than we had before. It can go the other way as well, with us coming to like a certain work or a recording less than before.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, I find that sometimes I am able to access a work just like that 'out of the blue' for no apparent reason. A lot depends on my mood & perhaps the fact that with repeated listens one gets used to the individual 'quirks' of a certain performer. Horowitz is a good example, he seemed to have done everything by his own book, but somehow he got it right through his sheer brilliance. I've read the same kinds of things being said about Glenn Gould & Ivo Pogorelich, but haven't been very well acquainted with their work to judge as yet...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Don't forget we spend _cash_ to buy the recording (in whatever format) and then allocate _time_ to listen, both of which are finite resources for all of us. So, we have every right to be critical, but being critical doesn't mean we do not end up buying the recording. Just the same, before I go to a new restaurant, I want to know how well others thought of the food, even if they may think the food was crap, I may still give the restaurant a chance.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Andre said:


> I take the view that the vast majority of classical recordings are of a high quality, whether or not the listener likes the performer/s involved. It's not easy to get a recording contract nowadays, or even to make an individual recording. A lot of the quality control is done by the major record companies for us, they don't let many substandard recordings happen in the first place. Same thing with reissues, they only get done if they are of a certain quality, low grade recordings of the past don't get much shrift in these financially tight times. Of course, connoisseurs will endlessly argue about this or that fine point, but I'm more interested in the "big picture" rather than thousands of irrelevant details. Out of the hundreds of recordings I've bought, I can only think of one that I was disappointed with so much to return it to the store. But that was more to do with the composer's style than the nature of the performance...


Quite frankly the suggestion that "a lot of the quality control is done by the major record companies for us" is quite laughable........ you have no idea how major record companies work, do you? There's that story about how Kubelik's Meistersinger was originally planned to be released by DG for that opera's centennial, but Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau did not want competition for his Hans Sachs and threatened to leave the company if it was released. The amount of politics and hype that goes behind some records is sickening. After a while it should be obvious that some artist's reputation far exceeds his actual ability, and they get their reputation only because of pushing from record companies.

Of course composers can get overhyped and overperformed too, but the thing is with countless works to be performed and a limited amount of records/concert hall hours to be given to these works it's never easy to get your work into the repertoire of most performers. So most highly regarded compositions are highly regarded for good reasons. While not all classical music fans actually have the luxury to compare multiple recordings and declare which recording is worthy of being the best representation of a composer's work. And very often what someone declares as the best recording of a work is nothing but the best recording he has heard so far.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

We will never reach a common understanding on which works are masterpieces. But fans of a certain piece might well reach a somewhat common understanding on which recordings of their favourite piece are.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

scytheavatar said:


> Quite frankly the suggestion that "a lot of the quality control is done by the major record companies for us" is quite laughable........ you have no idea how major record companies work, do you?


Probably not. I saw a copy of that Lebrecht book on this very topic, but did not buy it because I don't want to get flooded with negativity (stories like the one you rightly mention).



> The amount of politics and hype that goes behind some records is sickening. After a while it should be obvious that some artist's reputation far exceeds his actual ability, and they get their reputation only because of pushing from record companies.


You make a good point but I also think that my point is also worth considering. The market is a great leveller, not only more obviously in the more market driven genres like pop, but also in classical. Record companies will be loathe to get behind a performer if they are not up to a certain standard. It is true that during their later days artists like Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra and Maria Callas were not at their finest, but many people today decade(s) after their deaths still like their later recordings for some reason. Sometimes an artists' "charisma" for want of a better word can be an asset in itself. There is a market for this, just as there's still a market for recordings made in their better golden years...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I think I've noticed that on forums like this people feel much more free to criticize recordings than to criticize works.
> 
> Do you think my observation is right?
> 
> If so, do you have any theories that might explain it?


Many have cultivated a keen sense of discernment when it comes to performances -- not so many have done the same, or lack the vocabulary and mind-set, to criticize actual works.

"I don't like it because -- " It lacks structural integrity? -- details, please


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It might be difficult to separate the criticism of the work from that of the recording sometimes. For one thing some works may not have that many recordings and people won't have time to listen to alternative recordings of every work they hear anyway. So it may take quite a leap of the imagination to hear music played badly yet see it as having the potential under someone else to sound good, particularly if it is played _very_ boringly.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I take the view that the vast majority of classical recordings are of a high quality, whether or not the listener likes the performer/s involved. It's not easy to get a recording contract nowadays, or even to make an individual recording. A lot of the quality control is done by the major record companies for us, they don't let many substandard recordings happen in the first place. Same thing with reissues, they only get done if they are of a certain quality, low grade recordings of the past don't get much shrift in these financially tight times. Of course, connoisseurs will endlessly argue about this or that fine point...


You took the words right off my keyboard!

Also, I think listeners tend to accept works done by famous composers as 'gospel'. Few will say, Beethoven was a master, but that piece is junk. As a result, if a work was written by a great composer, criticism is generally directed at the shortcomings of the performance, at the inexperience of the listener or at the quality of the recording. To some degree, this is valid, since composers famously revise, destroy or rescind works, publishers reject works and recordings go out of print, but lesser works, without doubt, do escape the censors.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> You took the words right off my keyboard!
> 
> Also, I think listeners tend to accept works done by famous composers as 'gospel'. Few will say, Beethoven was a master, but that piece is junk. As a result, if a work was written by a great composer, criticism is generally directed at the shortcomings of the performance, at the inexperience of the listener or at the quality of the recording. To some degree, this is valid, since composers famously revise, destroy or rescind works, publishers reject works and recordings go out of print, but lesser works, without doubt, do escape the censors.


I do not wholly agree with "what record companies do" but we can be sure they do not record something they think bad, or at least, that won't pass muster and sell.

But the _reverence (Holy! Holy! Holy!)_ for some composers and particular works can be off the charts, near-mythical, and I think that does keep many from criticizing that which is well deserving of some negative criticism or at least a hearty re-evaluation of its worth -- leaving only those who are to some degree intrepid to speak up.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

A work certainly shouldn't just be judged by who composed it. People do give more chance to works by famous composers, this is partly because there are often many more recordings of such works.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think this is why is it easier to criticize works by modern composers. Few have trouble saying what a horrible piece it is, that it is worthless, unmusical, whatever, because there is no established cult of reverence for the composer. Once a composer becomes canonized, to continue the metaphor, it is more difficult to be critical of works without facing some criticism.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

brotagonist said:


> it is more difficult to be critical of works without facing some criticism.


Well anybody should be prepared to debate.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

It isn't very fashionable to criticize the music of major composers. When a recording is criticized, we don't seem to mind as much. There's more of a universal agreement of which composers are the best than of actual recordings. For example, there will always be people who think that Solti's Ring cycle is overrated. Those who think it's the greatest recording of the 20th century are not too offended by the dissenters, for the most part. Whereas, those who don't like Beethoven will probably meet with some criticism for their views.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Again though, if somebody isn't prepared for someone having a different view it's more their problem. Yes if you criticise a famous work somebody will most likely come along and defend it, but if that stops someone criticising I think that's weak. Assuming that is they have concrete points to make in the first place. If it's just a general dismissal of a composer then that's likely hard to sustain anyway if other people know the work involved in any detail. If it really is about what is just fashionable then people certainly have to think outside or challenge that. An unthinking mob mentality over something isn't something I like, I'd rather people came to their own conclusions even if I disagree with it.

People probably will defend recordings less as it could be seen even more as a matter of preference. Then again, there are some cult performers who some people could feel like defending very strongly as well.


----------

