# How can a mediocre performance ruin the listener's interest toward a new composition?



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Hello People,

Have you ever experienced such a situation? When you listen to a new composition but started with a badly-performed recording or a performance that isn't much to your taste, you won't have much interest in this new composition until you come across a better recording. I am currently listening to Brahms Symphony No.4 and Bach's St. Matthew Passion. I started the fourth movement of Brahms 4th with the Rattle recording, which does not sound distinguishing to me, ending up making me had very little appreciation and impression towards this composition. Then I listened to the Kleiber recording which is recognized as an outstanding one, then I found my interest in the fourth movement very quickly. Such thing also happened to me with St. Matthew Passion by Bach. I started with a HIP performance by Netherlands Bach Society and felt the Passion to be really boring. Today I listened to a Concertgebouworkest recording which sounded much better and I started to understand this composition much better. Do you have a similar experience?

KevinW


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

I find that loud and busy music especially requires great precision and coordination of the ensemble, else it sounds like unskilled bombast. I think that wrong recordings slowed down my appreciation of some of the Romantic masters because of that.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*How can a mediocre performance ruin the listener's interest toward a new composition?*

I reject the premise. A performance of a new work has never "ruined" it for me. Firstly, if it is truly a new work I have no reference of comparison and hence, the first performance is nothing more than my introduction to the work. I have never been very particular concerning performances, since I am much more interested in the music, under any circumstances.

I don't even think about the quality of a performance. I just absorb whatever is occurring, and it is usually good enough so that I come away with an enjoyable experience of the work. I've never understood people who are very picky about performances, e.g. intonation, tempo, wrong notes, etc. I hear through all of that and appreciate the totality of the work.

The saying "not seeing the forest for the trees" which would seem apt.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Oh, I think the premise is spot on. This is one of the issues I have with community/amateur orchestras. They usually don't play so well. Rhythmic accuracy is random, intonation non-existent, tone quality often wretched...I hate to think that a person's first hearing of something like the Beethoven 5th would be under such dire standards. Do they think that all classical music sounds so awful? 

Recording wise, it's no different. As a follower of the forgotten highways in music, I bought a recording of the Furtwangler 2nd - on Marco Polo. What a horrible piece of music. It was just wretched. No matter how many times I listened, nothing could redeem the work. Then along came the Barenboim/Chicago recording. My ears were opened! What a difference a great conductor, great orchestra and top-notch recording made. Suddenly I got it: the Furtwangler is still no masterpiece, but it's a darn sight better than that mediocre Marco Polo recording could reveal.

Yes indeed, a mediocre performance can hinder one's appreciation. And there surely are a lot of mediocre recordings out there that the unwary could fall for.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It used to ruin some works for me. Interestingly in Brahms 4th, I had Kleiber's version, which I didn't like, opposite of Kevin's reaction, and found some performance I liked which made me appreciate the work better. I think over time, I became a better listener, so that a performance not to my liking doesn't ruin it for me.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> It used to ruin some works for me. Interestingly in Brahms 4th, I had Kleiber's version, which I didn't like, opposite of Kevin's reaction, and found some performance I liked which made me appreciate the work better. I think over time, I became a better listener, so that a performance not to my liking doesn't ruin it for me.


Sometimes people have different preference on recordings. So it's definitely ok if you don't like Kleiber's version.



> I think over time, I became a better listener, so that a performance not to my liking doesn't ruin it for me.


This opinion by Phil makes a lot of sense to me. What I expected on Talk Classical before joining were discussions on people's favorite recordings of some compositions, but then I found that this rarely happens. I also incorrectly believed there would be tons of discussions on conductors and orchestras. In fact, people talk more about their favorite composers and compositions instead of these, and now I understand it is probably because listeners here on TC have very advanced listening and understanding skills, so they no longer need outstanding recordings to appreciate a certain composition.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

In general, I find HIP performances of Baroque works to be more accessible than performances with modern instruments.

For example, Bach's Mass in B Minor. The first time I listened to a recording with modern instruments, I hated it because it was so different than the 2012 BBC Proms version on Youtube.

But now, Klemperer's recording of the Mass in B Minor is my favorite...at least for the Kyrie and Credo.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There are many examples from history of works that (we are told) spent decades in the doldrums as a result of a terrible first performance. Rachmaninov's 1st symphony is an obvious example.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> There are many examples from history of works that (we are told) spent decades in the doldrums as a result of a terrible first performance. Rachmaninov's 1st symphony is an obvious example.


Rachmaninoff destroying the score so it could never be performed again (he thought) might have been a contributing factor, don't you think?

I've had the experience of reevaluating and upgrading my opinion of a work after hearing a superb performance.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I had that experience with Mahler Sym #5...
I learned Mahler's 2nd, then 1st in my early listening...I loved them both, and sought to widen my listening - I acquired 
#5, the old Scherchen/VSOO version on Westminster...gawd, awful...right from the start - the solo trumpet sounded like he was playing with his mouth full of mashed potatoes...it went downhill from there...

I couldn't believe that a composer capable of creating syms 1 and 2 could crank out such a turkey as this #5....
but then I got the Bruno Walter/NYPO version from 1947....a classic...and suddenly the whole piece made sense to me...

It's been a favorite ever since.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

A fine performance can indeed make one re-evaluate a piece of music, and change the character of it a lot. Unless the first performance has obvious, major flaws, it's not always easy to discover such future qualities in it, however. Quite often, I've only gradually come to really like works more, after hearing a special recording of them, or exploring many recordings of them.

But, to sum up:

_you don't necessarily know a piece after hearing just one recording of it._


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> I had that experience with Mahler Sym #5...
> I learned Mahler's 2nd, then 1st in my early listening...I loved them both, and sought to widen my listening - I acquired
> #5, the old Scherchen/VSOO version on Westminster...gawd, awful...right from the start - the solo trumpet sounded like he was playing with his mouth full of mashed potatoes...it went downhill from there...
> 
> ...


That Scherchen is pretty awful


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

That Scherchen probably shouldn't be one's introduction to Mahler's 5th. Later, one can find his tempo and phrasing choices interesting. It's quite possible that they reflect more creative tendencies and flexibilities in Mahler's own days. There's also a better-sounding version with the Toronto SO, and an ORTFSO one, and one with the RAI Milano O.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

joen_cph said:


> But, to sum up:
> 
> _you don't necessarily know a piece after hearing just one recording of it._


Yes and no. One doesn't really know a piece until one has studied the score.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

premont said:


> Yes and no. One doesn't really know a piece until one has studied the score.


That's saying that 99% of listeners, however many times they've heard a piece, don't really know what they're listening to. That the musician's technical knowledge and an in-depth study of a score is the only measure, and the rest unqualified.

Scores and their details can be studied endlessly; details and their role are debated; and some of the most pedestrian performances and unimportant comments I've heard about music were from 'score fanatics', pointing out a tiny-tiny detail, and forgetting for example more important, general occurrences or aspects in the music, style, architecture, mood, build-up, etc. That is one specialized way to approach music, but it's not necessarily the only 'legitimate' one for making a judgment - on a personal or subjective level of course, but I think also in more general terms, of at least some aspects of the music and music-making. Professional reviewers of concerts, recordings & CDs only rarely study the scores.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

joen_cph said:


> That's saying that 99% of listeners, however many times they've heard a piece, don't really know what they're listening to. That the musician's technical knowledge and an in-depth study of a score is the only measure, and the rest unqualified. Scores and their details can be studied endlessly; details and their role are debated; and some of the most pedestrian performances and unimportant comments I've heard about music were from 'score fanatics', pointing out a tiny-tiny detail, and forgetting for example more important, general occurrences or aspects in the music, style, architecture, mood, build-up, etc. That is one specialized way to approach music, but it's not necessarily the only 'legitimate' one for making a judgment - on a personal level, but also in more general terms of at least some aspects of the music.


To me, of course, it is not indifferent little things that are at stake, but the fact that a performer always looks at a composition through his own glasses so that any interpretation contains a wide range of subjective elements. The fact that listeners can become biased by the first performance of a given work they hear underscores this.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

premont said:


> Yes and no. One doesn't really know a piece until one has studied the score.


I might even go farther than that - one doesn't really know a piece until one has performed it. That's not to say that anyone can't appreciate a piece of music without performing it. But I've found that there are certain works - the Brahms Requiem and the Beethoven Missa Solemnis immediately spring to mind, but it's also been true, at least for me, with Beethoven symphonies - studying, rehearsing, and performing these works has allowed me to appreciate them on a completely different level.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

premont said:


> To me, of course, it is not indifferent little things that are at stake, but the fact that a performer always looks at a composition through his own glasses so that any interpretation contains a wide range of subjective elements. The fact that listeners can become biased by the first performance of a given work they hear underscores this.


Completely agree with this.

EDIT: 
And BTW, Scherchen, already mentioned in the thread, and one of the most controversial and 'subjectively charged' of conductors, also believed in the conductor's complete mastery of the score, before any performing it.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

wkasimer said:


> I might even go farther than that - one doesn't really know a piece until one has performed it. That's not to say that anyone can't appreciate a piece of music without performing it. But I've found that there are certain works - the Brahms Requiem and the Beethoven Missa Solemnis immediately spring to mind, but it's also been true, at least for me, with Beethoven symphonies - studying, rehearsing, and performing these works has allowed me to appreciate them on a completely different level.


Obviously, you'll find many different, further and enriching facets in works in that way. However, I don't think say having animosity against at least some aspects of a work or a performance are necessarily disqualified by not knowing the score - or knowing the score in detail.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> I might even go farther than that - one doesn't really know a piece until one has performed it. That's not to say that anyone can't appreciate a piece of music without performing it. But I've found that there are certain works - the Brahms Requiem and the Beethoven Missa Solemnis immediately spring to mind, but it's also been true, at least for me, with Beethoven symphonies - studying, rehearsing, and performing these works has allowed me to appreciate them on a completely different level.


There is a lot of truth in this which is consistent with my own experience. But very few of us play all instruments, and we therefore have to confine ourselves to the intellectual experience of the music via the score. This is what conductors do.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

wkasimer said:


> I might even go farther than that - one doesn't really know a piece until one has performed it. That's not to say that anyone can't appreciate a piece of music without performing it. But I've found that there are certain works - the Brahms Requiem and the Beethoven Missa Solemnis immediately spring to mind, but it's also been true, at least for me, with Beethoven symphonies - studying, rehearsing, and performing these works has allowed me to appreciate them on a completely different level.


True, but this is not possible for most people with most pieces, even halfway decent players (unless they are pretty good at playing piano/4 hand scores).

I generally think that the importance of particular interpretations/recordings is wildly exaggerated by aficionados and collectors. Nevertheless, I have experienced rarely that my appreciation for a piece increased immensely with a different interpretation and I can imagine people more sensitive to this than I am/was.
An example that come to my mind are Schubert's "Great C major" in the 1960s Karajan/Berlin/DG recording that was called "chromium heaven" by some guide or magazine. This seems a recording one either hates or loves. I got it at ca. 17 as my first recording of the piece because Karajan was considered the greatest conductor and it was fairly cheap being in some Karajan edition. Tbh I am still not the greatest fan of the piece in any interpretation but I was quite irritated and disappointed by the brutal and brassy sound. Back then I usually had read about famous pieces in guide books before ever having a chance to listen to them and I had already a Böhm recording of Schubert's 8+5 on LP, so I was rather excited about Schubert's Great symphony on CD. I just had imagined a different piece as the 9th but I think that Karajan way with it didn't help.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

premont said:


> There is a lot of truth in this which is consistent with my own experience. But very few of us play all instruments, and we therefore have to confine ourselves to the intellectual experience of the music via the score. This is what conductors do.


Of course. I only play one instrument (cello) and sing one part (tenor), both rather badly. But even so, I think that there's value to struggling with a work during rehearsals, particularly a dense, complex one.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> I had that experience with Mahler Sym #5...
> I learned Mahler's 2nd, then 1st in my early listening...I loved them both, and sought to widen my listening - I acquired
> #5, the old Scherchen/VSOO version on Westminster...gawd, awful...right from the start - the solo trumpet sounded like he was playing with his mouth full of mashed potatoes...it went downhill from there...
> 
> ...


My Mahler experience was starting out indifferent about Mahler's Fourth but then hearing a performance of it by the NY Phil that changed my mind. The scheduled conductor was taken ill and Ivan Fischer was called in as a last minute replacement. He was brilliant. So many subtle nuances of tempo and balance. I wish that performance had been recorded.


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

I experienced this effect in both directions:


A delay of enjoying a work by a mediocre performance. If a performance is very boring/bad in my taste, I may lose the concentration or even quit listening. Then it can take a while until I do another attempt with another recording. Only when I also follow the score, it can happen that I suspect an existing better performance, and search for it. 
When I really like the first recording of a work, I'm a bit biased and have to make an effort being open to other performances. But as it has already happened that I found an even better performance, I'm trying to be open-minded.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

verandai said:


> I experienced this effect in both directions:
> 
> 
> A delay of enjoying a work by a mediocre performance. If a performance is very boring/bad in my taste, I may lose the concentration or even quit listening. Then it can take a while until I do another attempt with another recording. Only when I also follow the score, it can happen that I suspect an existing better performance, and search for it.
> When I really like the first recording of a work, I'm a bit biased and have to make an effort being open to other performances. But as it has already happened that I found an even better performance, I'm trying to be open-minded.


Pretty true. Mediocre performances will make your appreciation towards some compositions stop. Many great compositions throughout music history were omitted just because of unualified performances and were "rediscovered" later.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KevinW said:


> Pretty true. Mediocre performances will make your appreciation towards some compositions stop. *Many great compositions throughout music history were omitted just because of unualified performances and were "rediscovered" later.*


At least as far as CPT era music is concerned, I've never heard of that before. Perhaps it happened rarely, but 'many great compositions'? Do you have examples?

I'm aware that some works were rediscovered well after their composition, but there were often reasons for that other than a poor initial performance.

In my experience, works of the CPT period are remarkably resistant to poor performances. In other words, I enjoy them whether played by professionals or amateurs, played fast or slow, played with eccentricities etc. Of course, I'll have favorites, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the 'lesser than'.

Some time ago, I went to performances of strict amateurs singing the main 4 Mozart operas with only a piano accompaniment. The joy and enthusiasm of the performers in just being able to perform these works made up for their limitations. But more importantly, the music itself still shone through wonderfully.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

DaveM said:


> At least as far as CPT era music is concerned, I've never heard of that before. Perhaps it happened rarely, but 'many great compositions'? Do you have examples?
> 
> I'm aware that some works were rediscovered well after their composition, but there were often reasons for that other than a poor initial performance.
> 
> ...


Beethoven's Violin Concerto: See Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_Concerto_(Beethoven)

*Ludwig van Beethoven composed his Violin Concerto in D major, Op. 61, in 1806. Its first performance by Franz Clement was unsuccessful and for some decades the work languished in obscurity, until revived in 1844 by the then 12-year-old violinist Joseph Joachim with the orchestra of the London Philharmonic Society conducted by Felix Mendelssohn. Since then it has become one of the best-known violin concertos, considered by Joachim himself to be the "greatest" German violin concerto.
*


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> It used to ruin some works for me. Interestingly in Brahms 4th, I had Kleiber's version, which I didn't like, opposite of Kevin's reaction, and found some performance I liked which made me appreciate the work better. I think over time, I became a better listener, so that a performance not to my liking doesn't ruin it for me.


Yes, I think I'm there too. My ear is very developed having taken Suzuki piano lessons!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

ORigel said:


> Beethoven's Violin Concerto: See Wikipedia:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_Concerto_(Beethoven)
> 
> ...


Yes, that would seem to qualify as one example.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Yes, that would seem to qualify as one example.


Other works were received negatively on their first performance but later became popular, sometimes in a performance soon afterwards. It is harder to find now famous pieces that were unpopular for a long time because of a bad first performance. But I remember another example-- Elgar's Cello Concerto, which was obscure until the 1960s because of a terrible first performance by the London Symphony Orchestra in 1919.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ORigel said:


> Other works were received negatively on their first performance but later became popular, sometimes in a performance soon afterwards. It is harder to find now famous pieces that were unpopular for a long time because of a bad first performance. But I remember another example-- Elgar's Cello Concerto, which was obscure until the 1960s because of a terrible first performance by the London Symphony Orchestra in 1919.


Pretty sure rite of spring was negatively received upon first listen too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

wkasimer said:


> I might even go farther than that - one doesn't really know a piece until one has performed it. That's not to say that anyone can't appreciate a piece of music without performing it. But I've found that there are certain works - the Brahms Requiem and the Beethoven Missa Solemnis immediately spring to mind, but it's also been true, at least for me, with Beethoven symphonies - studying, rehearsing, and performing these works has allowed me to appreciate them on a completely different level.


Interesting. I sang in the tenor section in both of those works, and found my appreciation of them much enhanced from being, so to speak, inside them. This was especially true of the _Missa Solemnis,_ which I sang in Washington, D.C. under Antal Dorati in the 1970s. Before that I didn't know the work at all well and hadn't been especially drawn to it when I heard it. I came away from the experience deeply impressed and have since enjoyed any opportunity to hear a good performance.

In general, performing music requires that we open our minds and sensibilities in order to find and express what a work capable of expressing. I've found that to be an incomparable path to deeper appreciation, at least in cases where my own musical skills were up to the task.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Pretty sure rite of spring was negatively received upon first listen too.


Yes, although I think more of the negative attention was focused on the choreography than the music, wasn't it?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

ORigel said:


> But I remember another example-- Elgar's Cello Concerto, which was obscure until the 1960s because of a terrible first performance by the London Symphony Orchestra in 1919.


The premiere was a disaster, but was the work really *that* obscure? It was recorded the following year, and while it's true that the work had a higher profile after Du Pre's recording, there were more than a half dozen recordings of the work before hers, featuring some pretty prominent cellists (Casals and Fournier, among others).


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, although I think more of the negative attention was focused on the choreography than the music, wasn't it?


Yeah because the dancers weren't cooperative at all.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think it was mainly because costumes and coreography were really different from what people were expecting/used to. Still, I think it was already far enough into the media age that a scandal at a premiere was good publicity for the piece.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Tokyo String Quartet's set of Beethoven string quartets bored me to tears, and I set them aside for more than a year. When I heard Emerson String Quartet's rendition of them, I was completely turned around on them and devoured them.

So while I wouldn't say they "ruined" the music, it did delay my appreciation of it. But any ruin can be repaired by a new and fresh (to your ears) recording. That's part of the magic of musical performance - when it is convincing, it transports you and wipes away past experience.


----------

