# Still Cannot "Get Over" Mono and Old Recordings



## Centropolis

I started listening and buying just over a year ago. In the beginning, a few of you mentioned that in order to hear good performances, I have to get over the fact that some of the good performances are older and some in mono. Most of the CDs I've bought to far are kind of the recommended ones from 60's, 70's and 80's. I don't have too many "modern" recordings by living conductors and performers.

I've tried hard to get into the really old recordings such as the Hindemith Conducts Hindemith boxset. I just can't get into the sound. I know it's supposed to be about the music and not the quality of the recording but when it's on the other end of the spectrum, I find it really hard to enjoy the music.

Do you guys have this problem? Or is it a newbie thing?


----------



## JACE

Sometimes older recordings are problematic for me. 

Generally speaking, I find that mono recordings from the 50 are fine. But stuff older than that is very hit or miss. 

Also, solo instrumental or chamber works were easier to record than big orchestra pieces. Less dynamic range to deal with. So old solo piano recordings or string quartet recordings are usually easier to "hear" than symphonies, imo.

All that said, I'd say, "Don't to sweat it. Find what works for you and roll with that." 

There are many classical fans who focus on the newer stuff with top-shelf sound. And I think that's great. Whatever floats your boat.


BTW: Love your avatar image. BSG was fantastic!!!


----------



## Bulldog

I hold to the premise that a great performance overcomes sound deficiencies.


----------



## bigshot

When I started listening to classical music, I bought only modern recordings. All I was listening to was the composition itself, not the particular performance. I had preferences for conductors and pianists, but that was based more on technical grounds and the sound quality of their recordings, not their creative interpretation. Instead of buying multiple copies of the same work, I read the books and bought the ones with the "rosettes" to make sure I got "the good one". Then I moved on to a totally different work.

After about 15 years of this, I had become pretty familiar with the core repertoire. I had "rosette" disks of most of the major works. I was browsing in a used CD store one day and I saw a disk of Russian music by Stokowski. I remembered him from Fantasia and it was cheap, so I picked it up. When I got home, I popped it in the player and my mind was blown. I was familiar with the works from my "rosette" disk, but here was a version that was totally different and yet alive and perfect in a new way. I went out and bought more Stoki... and then discovered Walter, Toscanini and Munch.

I dived into historical recordings, particularly of opera, and discovered amazing things that just don't exist any more. I started collecting 78s and digitally restoring them myself. I even bought a Victrola to play my Caruso records on, so I could hear it the way people back in the beginning of the 20th century heard it.

I now have a massive library of classical music with as many as 25 different versions of the same symphony from all different time periods. I have it all on shuffle play on my music server, so I never know what is going to come up. But I've gotten to the point where I can instantly recognize the Czech Philharmonic by the sound of the woodwinds, and I know if I am listening to Karajan or Solti without looking to see.

Performance is something you don't recognize the importance of until you know the repertoire inside and out. Give it 15 years or so. You'll get there.


----------



## PetrB

JACE said:


> Sometimes older recordings are problematic for me.
> 
> Generally speaking, I find that mono recordings from the 50 are fine. But stuff older than that is very hit or miss.
> 
> Also, old solo instrumental or chamber works were easier to record than big orchestra pieces. Less dynamic range to deal with. So old solo piano recordings or string quartet recordings are usually easier to "hear" than symphonies, imo.
> 
> All that said, I'd say, "Don't to sweat it. Find what works for you and roll with that."
> 
> There are many classical fans who focus on the newer stuff with top-shelf sound. And I think that's great. Whatever floats your boat.


I somewhat agree with the comment about recordings ca. the 1950's and those from before that date.

There are older recordings I can only hear as 'of interest' -- a document, and extract what was remarkable about the performance, etc. that I would never own, or want to listen to repeatedly.

On the other hand, there are some of a generation who can not sit through any full-length black and white film, and that, I think, is much to their loss.

Go with what ever works for you _now_. You are literally at the point where you have just entered the front door and are still standing in the entryway of an beyond immense building, and what you listen to, how you perceive it and what you get out of it are bound to change over time.


----------



## JACE

Bulldog said:


> I hold to the premise that a great performance overcomes sound deficiencies.


All things being equal, I agree.


----------



## JACE

PetrB said:


> Go with what ever works for you _now_. You are literally at the point where you have just entered the front door and are still standing in the entryway of an beyond immense building, and what you listen to, how you perceive it and what you get out of it are bound to change over time.


Yes! So very true!


----------



## Vaneyes

OPie, it isn't just a newbie thing. It's a real concern.

I use historical recs. as supplemental hearing, not starters. They can be enjoyed and appreciated for interpretations mostly. Wrong notes are often prominent because they recorded without today's penchant for editing, or engineering capabilities.

On average, solo artists are your best listening bet. Then chamber. Orchestral is a distant third, with sounds that are just plain atrocious--it's hard appreciating anything from that mess.

Happy listening to whatever.:tiphat:


----------



## Radames

My ear adjusts after a while. Like when I listen to a community orchestra instead of the Boston Symphony. But I don't usually buy mono recordings because there are usually good stereo recordings of everything except some rare stuff. My favorite Beethoven 3rd is still the 1957 Szell.


----------



## Chordalrock

If good sound wasn't an intended part of the experience, there wouldn't be Steinway.

Live performances are of course the best you can get, but after that, recordings from the past ten years should be a priority.

Focusing on the nuances of performance to the point that only a few sixty year old recordings satisfy you is a hobby for those who are tired of the music itself or just very **** about how it should be performed (been there, done that, so I get to say this).


----------



## Headphone Hermit

I listen to loads and loads of very old recordings - heaps of them. I have very sensitive ears and very good hearing ..... but when I listen to a well-remastered CD (eg by Mark Obert or Marston etc) I simply do not hear the cracks and hisses that put so many other people off - I just hear the music *through* the interference. Similarly, I don't care about the limitations of the piano, orchestra etc etc etc .... I just thoroughly enjoy the musical interpretation.

Was I always like this? NO .. no ... no!

I remember buying Callas' version of Gluck's _Iphigenie_ about 18 years ago and hating the poor sound quality. It really IS poor - EMI acknowledged so on the dust jacket, but even so, I wrote and objected that they could sell something with so many fade-outs, distortions, hisses, clicks, stage noises (at one moment, it sounds like sacks of potatoes are dropping on the stage - it is a ballet scene), glugs and other extraneous noises. I didn't listen to it for years after. Eventually, I gave it another go .... and suddenly, from the first few bars, I could feel the excitement of the occasion and the intimacy of a live recording - I was there, in the 1950s with some bloke with a chesty cough a few rows behind me, and a sneezer a few seats along from me, I could hear the singers moving about on the stage in front of me. I was there - in an occasion that I would never experience first-hand.

That introduced me to the world of the historical recording and from there I started exploring all those famous (and generally-forgotten) singers, performers and conductors from the past ... and hours of enjoyment have followed .... for me, anyway!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Chordalrock said:


> Live performances are of course the best you can get, but after that, *recordings from the past ten years should be a priority*.


Even if I were not an enthusiast of historic recordings, I would scoff at this!

There are heaps of recordings from the last century that are top-picks for their sound quality as well as their interpretation .... for example the Coin version of Haydn's Cello Concertos that I was listening to this week (1986, I think) ..... de los Angeles' Chants D'Auvergne (1950s?), lots of Decca opera recordings from the 1960s onwards etc etc etc


----------



## joen_cph

I personally don´t find Hindemith/Hindemith that good. IMO, you should try solo piano works & piano concertos.

An example: a lovely waltz by Scriabin, played by Bashkirov (1958)





Beethoven´s 23rd by Richter (1960)





Bach: Preludes & Fugues from WTC, by Feinberg (1961)









Historical corner:

Chopin 2 Nocturnes - Moriz Rosenthal (1862-1948) 1935





Chopin Tarantella - Arrau 1938





Debussy Prelude a l´Apres Midi ...
George Copeland, piano, 1933


----------



## Chordalrock

Headphone Hermit said:


> Even if I were not an enthusiast of historic recordings, I would scoff at this!
> 
> There are heaps of recordings from the last century that are top-picks for their sound quality as well as their interpretation .... for example the Coin version of Haydn's Cello Concertos that I was listening to this week (1986, I think) ..... de los Angeles' Chants D'Auvergne (1950s?), lots of Decca opera recordings from the 1960s onwards etc etc etc


I don't know about heaps. I've listened to a fair share of recordings from the ADD era, the strings are often harsh, and often just not a good sound quality regardless of the instrument. Not a law of nature, just a rule of thumb. Recordings from the 1990s are of course usually OK.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Chordalrock said:


> I don't know about heaps. I've listened to a fair share of recordings from the ADD era, the strings are often harsh, and often just not a good sound quality regardless of the instrument. Not a law of nature, just a rule of thumb. *Recordings from the 1990s are of course usually OK*.


OK??? only OK??? now, you're having a laugh, surely???


----------



## Chordalrock

I think what went on in the vinyl era was that sound engineers knew the vinyl would add certain frequencies to the sound that would make the recorded sound seem warm and soft. Then when the masters were transferred onto CDs, the sound ended up seeming harsh. (If you use computer to listen to music, you can actually increase softness a little bit by tweaking the equaliser but ideally you'd go for a newer recording.)


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ 

I'm not disputing that there is a difference between ADD and DDD as a process (or that digital remastering caused problems at times) but I have DDD recordings going back into the 1980s .... hence more than 10 years ago.

Sticking to recordings from September 2004 onwards is unnecessary if you want high-quality sound


----------



## Prodromides

Centropolis said:


> Do you guys have this problem? Or is it a newbie thing?


While long-time collectors and newbies alike have individual issues and preferences regarding sound quality, I have no "problem" myself with monaural recordings.
I am rather fond of mono albums, especially since I have collected soundtracks years before collecting classical. In the soundtrack 'niche', there may be no alternative stereo/digital recordings on many titles. The mono original is likely to be the only recording that will ever be available so my motto is to get a copy of it while it is still in print.


----------



## Guest

I don't buy into the notion that if you want to hear the great performances, you have to go with old recordings. Yes, there are some very good old performances, but there are also such to be found among new recordings.

I have come to where I can appreciate older recordings, but initially I couldn't. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that it was not very clear, especially with orchestral works, and so it was harder to enjoy the works, especially if I did not yet know them. After becoming acquainted with enough works, though, I could then go to older recordings, and, being familiar with the work itself, I could then enjoy the older recordings. Still, sometimes you just want that clarity of a newer recording. 

If you can come to appreciate older works with not as good recording quality, there are some real gems to be had. If not, there is nothing that is going to impede your appreciation for classical music by listening to modern recordings - contrary to the beliefs of some, quality performances didn't disappear with the advent of stereo and digital recordings.


----------



## bigshot

Headphone Hermit said:


> Even if I were not an enthusiast of historic recordings, I would scoff at this!
> 
> There are heaps of recordings from the last century that are top-picks for their sound quality as well as their interpretation


The best sounding recording I've ever heard was Fiedler's Living Stereo Offenbach, recorded in 1953. The second stereo recording made by RCA.


----------



## bigshot

Chordalrock said:


> I don't know about heaps. I've listened to a fair share of recordings from the ADD era, the strings are often harsh, and often just not a good sound quality regardless of the instrument. Not a law of nature, just a rule of thumb. Recordings from the 1990s are of course usually OK.


My bet is that your frequency response is boosted around 2-4kHz. Older recordings were designed to be played back with a calibrated response. With a flat frequency response it doesn't matter if it is old or new, it is balanced. No shrillness, no boominess.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> contrary to the beliefs of some, quality performances didn't disappear with the advent of stereo and digital recordings.


I can name a few things that exist only in older recordings... opera recordings with singers on the level of Caruso, Melchior, Callas and Flagstadt. Conductors with unique personal styles like Toscanini and Stokowski. The opportunity to hear works conducted under the supervision of the composer.


----------



## Chordalrock

Headphone Hermit said:


> ^^^
> 
> I'm not disputing that there is a difference between ADD and DDD as a process (or that digital remastering caused problems at times) but I have DDD recordings going back into the 1980s .... hence more than 10 years ago.
> 
> Sticking to recordings from September 2004 onwards is unnecessary if you want high-quality sound


My impression is that the first decade of DDD recordings, especially the first half of the 80s, wasn't one marked by very high production quality generally speaking. I've read something to that effect as well.

You'd think they would have learned to use the new technology by the 90s but once more my impression is that recordings from the past ten or fifteen years are better. Just a vague impression though.


----------



## Vaneyes

Chordalrock said:


> My impression is that the first decade of DDD recordings, especially the first half of the 80s, wasn't one marked by very high production quality generally speaking. I've read something to that effect as well.
> 
> You'd think they would have learned to use the new technology by the 90s but once more my impression is that recordings from the past ten or fifteen years are better. Just a vague impression though.


I can appreciate your quest for impressive newly-recorded sound, but as someone has already noted, by doing this you've eliminated a lot of great artists. Artists who are dead, or if alive, beyond their best.

I won't suggest mono to you, but you can go back to the 1950's and take advantage of today's technology via new remasterings. To not always try to balance performance and sound seems a waste to me. Happy listening.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I can name a few things that exist only in older recordings... opera recordings with singers on the level of Caruso, Melchior, Callas and Flagstadt. Conductors with unique personal styles like Toscanini and Stokowski. The opportunity to hear works conducted under the supervision of the composer.


Well, I also don't buy that all the good opera singers are now dead. Yes, there were great singers in the past. And they get to remain wonderful in our memories, because they are no longer alive to make mistakes. Did genetics change in the last 100 years so that opera singers today are somehow genetically inferior, that all the great ones are in the past? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

There are plenty of conductors with unique personal styles today being recorded with excellent clarity. Or even that were recorded in the earlier days of stereo and digital recording technology. Bernstein, Klemperer, Karajan all had unique personal styles. Harnoncourt, Hogwood, Savall, Gardiner, Minkowski, Jacobs - all unique personal styles. And as for hearing works conducted under the supervision of the composer, well, that all depends on what composer we are discussing. There are plenty of modern composers that have been able to supervise the conducting of their works. But then did Toscanini conduct Beethoven under Beethoven's supervision?

I am not saying that older pre-stereo, pre-digital recordings can't be good, or even great. I just don't buy this conceit that the great times of classical performances and recordings are behind us. I think that many people who grew up with those older recordings are predisposed to prefer them, and carry a bias forward with them. Everybody looks at their early days as some golden era, and nothing new can ever quite match it. I do it today regarding new pop music, complaining that it is all crap compared to the pop music of my youth, and my parents said the same about my pop music compared to theirs.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Well, I also don't buy that all the good opera singers are now dead.


Have you heard Caruso, Melchior, Callas and Flagstad? Who today comes anywhere close? Modern opera singers can't match Galli-Curci, Gigli or Chaliapin either. Opera in the beginning decades of the 20th century was mainstream. Caruso sold millions of records at almost a week's wages per disk. Opera today is a fraction of what it used to be.

Klemperer, Karajan and Bernstein are the only ones in your list that are instantly recognizable by sound. And they've all been gone for decades. Toscanini and Stokowski are INSTANTLY recognizable from the first bar. Try to tell the difference between Abbado and Barenboim in a blind test. I bet you can't do it.

The more you know about historical recordings, the more you know how unique they were. It isn't just a generational thing. I listen to recordings made in my Grandfather's time, not my own.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Performance is something you don't recognize the importance of until you know the repertoire inside and out. Give it 15 years or so. You'll get there.


Rubbish.

As for the OP, my preference is for well-recorded stereo and not mono. I may be 'missing out' on great performances by maestros of the early and mid 20th C, but while there are orchestras and conductors who still want to perform and record the repertoire, there will be great new recordings to listen to.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

I like many modern recordings. I like many historic recordings

I like many modern performers. I like many historical performers

I like many modern performances. I like many historical performances.

There are many high quality modern recordings. There are many high qaulity historical recordings

Top quality performers, performances and recordings did not die with the advent of the stereo/digital (insert next phase) age. Top quality performers, performances and recordings did not arise with the advent of the stereo/digital (etc) age.


Then it gets to a matter of taste and personal preference - which may (or may not) develop with time and experience


----------



## david johnson

The mono recordings I have are great fun to hear


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Headphone Hermit said:


> I like many modern recordings. I like many historic recordings
> 
> I like many modern performers. I like many historical performers
> 
> I like many modern performances. I like many historical performances.
> 
> There are many high quality modern recordings. There are many high qaulity historical recordings
> 
> Top quality performers, performances and recordings did not die with the advent of the stereo/digital (insert next phase) age. Top quality performers, performances and recordings did not arise with the advent of the stereo/digital (etc) age.
> 
> Then it gets to a matter of taste and personal preference - which may (or may not) develop with time and experience


I'm with you. I listen to music not sound! Admittedly some old recordings require a certain amount of forbearance. One needs to adjust one's ears, listen beyond the sound to the music making. This is certainly true of many old live recordings and of pre-electrical recordings, which I do have trouble with. That said, it is easy to discern the greatness of, say, Caruso through the pre-electrical process.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> I like many modern recordings. I like many historic recordings
> 
> I like many modern performers. I like many historical performers
> 
> I like many modern performances. I like many historical performances.
> 
> There are many high quality modern recordings. There are many high qaulity historical recordings
> 
> Top quality performers, performances and recordings did not die with the advent of the stereo/digital (insert next phase) age. Top quality performers, performances and recordings did not arise with the advent of the stereo/digital (etc) age.
> 
> Then it gets to a matter of taste and personal preference - which may (or may not) develop with time and experience


I'm an audiophile myself but not an audioslave.

Luxuriating in great sound is a special bonus.

But what's always of fundamental importance to me is 'performance.'

Excellence.

Excellence.

_EX_-cel-lence.

Everything else is just wind in the chimes.


----------



## Woodduck

If I did not know the work of musicians who recorded before the era of accurate sound reproduction, I would know a great deal less about music and the possibilities of its performance than I do.

Persist in listening for the performance behind the sound, and lights will come on for you, one after another.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> If I did not know the work of musicians who recorded before the era of accurate sound reproduction, I would know a great deal less about music and the possibilities of its performance than I do.
> 
> Persist in listening for the performance behind the sound, and lights will come on for you, one after another.


Novelty isn't synonymous with quality; not necessarily so.

So many new recordings I find are actually retrogressive as far as performance standards and interpretive insight goes; more like, "here today, gone later today."

I'm not knocking _any_ contemporary artist-- no I love and worship them. They bring wonder, awe, and most importantly, 'beauty,' into the world; and for this, I sit at their feet.

Its just when I dispassionately weigh and assay the performances and singers of decades ago and compare and contrast them with those of today-- I tend to find those of today severely wanting.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> As for the OP, my preference is for well-recorded stereo and not mono. I may be 'missing out' on great performances by maestros of the early and mid 20th C, but while there are orchestras and conductors who still want to perform and record the repertoire, there will be great new recordings to listen to.


Check back with me when you hit the 15 years listening to classical music mark!


----------



## bigshot

GregMitchell said:


> One needs to adjust one's ears, listen beyond the sound to the music making. This is certainly true of many old live recordings and of pre-electrical recordings, which I do have trouble with. That said, it is easy to discern the greatness of, say, Caruso through the pre-electrical process.


Strangely enough, the problem there is with modern audio reproduction quality, not the original recordings themselves. I have an acoustic Victrola which plays with a steel needle and horn, and acoustic records sound loud, clear and present when I play them on it. But if I get the same record on a CD, it can sound scratchy distant and thin. Acoustic records were designed to be played back acoustically. They weren't designed to be played on a modern electronic turntable.

When I play a Caruso record on my Victrola, the volume is overwhelming and the horn projects the image of the singer into the center of the room. It's quite uncanny.


----------



## Badinerie

The performance aspect is precisely what I enjoy about old recordings. Orchestras sounded different because conductors and audiences expected different things from the music.
Modern orchestras and musicians are far more into technical precision than expression. There was a great program on the Open University many years ago covering this very aspect of recorded music. We are far more "uptight" these days.

I must add though I do have many early 78's which have a wonderful "ringing tone" which doesnt seem to make it to the digital transfers. 
I have many Mono records from the 50's and 60's that sound just as good as stereo recordings do. I have talked to people whe regard Stereo as a form of distortion and cant wait till this "gimmicky fad " is over :lol:


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Check back with me when you hit the 15 years listening to classical music mark!


Why, will something magical have happened?

I have limited resources and cannot afford to luxuriate in every performance of the repertoire, just so I can determine whether Toscanini and Furtwangler were better than Chailly and Rattle or Sondergard and Petrenko.

Furthermore, if classical music is to survive, it needs us to patronise living orchestras and living conductors. If we all took the view that no one has done decent interpretations since 1950 and stuck with our cherished masters, we'd have no one left working to compare them to!

I have made a choice based on what I prefer. You must do as you will.


----------



## Badinerie

In fifteen years Music will be beamed straight into our brains from space, our Jet Packs will finally arrive and who knows what else? 
Enjoy the Moment. The only constant in life is change.


----------



## Guest

Badinerie said:


> The performance aspect is precisely what I enjoy about old recordings. Orchestras sounded different because conductors and audiences expected different things from the music.
> Modern orchestras and musicians are far more into technical precision than expression. There was a great program on the Open University many years ago covering this very aspect of recorded music. We are far more "uptight" these days.
> 
> I must add though I do have many early 78's which have a wonderful "ringing tone" which doesnt seem to make it to the digital transfers.
> I have many Mono records from the 50's and 60's that sound just as good as stereo recordings do. I have talked to people whe regard Stereo as a form of distortion and cant wait till this "gimmicky fad " is over :lol:


Sorry, I just don't get this. Are you saying people in the past didn't want technical precision, i.e. playing the music correctly? That makes no sense. Maybe we can quibble over orchestral size and historic versus modern instruments, but arguing whether the musicians should play the notes the composer wrote seems absurd. I proudly proclaim I want to hear the music performed correctly.

And then I just don't buy that mono recordings of yesteryear can sound as good as modern stereo recordings. And I am not going to track down an old Victrola to test it. For the same reason I don't believe standard definition televisions from 50 years ago could deliver a picture as clear as a new HDTV.


----------



## Centropolis

My intent wasn't to dismiss the mono or old recordings. I really was just wondering if there are people out there that struggles like me to enjoy the older recordings. I don't think any of us are relly saying the older and mono recordings are not worth listening to. I believe some of us just prefer more modern recordings.

I think one thing is clear, recording technology has gotten better and you can't really dispute that fact. I am sure there are talented sound engineers back in the day but nowadays, they have a lot more technology to work with to get the sound they want.

Again, I am not saying the older recordings are not good. Just saying that everything else being equal, the newer recordings are easier to digest by newbies like me.

I often listen to classical music CDs for an hour or two....then put on a Jack Johnson CD afterwards....then was surprised that my stereo system sounded so different.


----------



## hpowders

What I wouldn't give to hear Arturo Toscanini performances in modern sound.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> I have limited resources and cannot afford to luxuriate in every performance of the repertoire, just so I can determine whether Toscanini and Furtwangler were better than Chailly and Rattle or Sondergard and Petrenko.


Good luck choosing between Toscanini and Furtwangler for Beethoven symphonies! They aren't even close. There is no "better" only "different". That's what you'll find out in fifteen years when you get to where you know the music like the back of your hand. You'll hear something that is as good as your "better" version, but reveals something totally different about the music. Then you'll realize the value of performance.

It's easy to select a "better" recording based on appropriate tempi and first class digital sound. There are dozens of those to choose from, and all in the modern era. But if you develop an ear for interpretation, suddenly there is a multitude of choices, all just as valid as any other, and some of the best are historical recordings. All the appropriate choices you made early on in your journey fade into the background, because appropriate and expressive are often opposing forces.

Like I say, this is something you develop an appreciation for as you become more familiar with the music. When you are first starting out, just hearing the music being played nicely is enough.


----------



## bigshot

Badinerie said:


> In fifteen years Music will be beamed straight into our brains from space, our Jet Packs will finally arrive and who knows what else?


You can bet Toscanini will still be being beamed into brains in that far distant future!


----------



## realdealblues

My preference is towards stereo sound but I can listen to mono without issue. Often times I will forget about modern technology and the current era when listening to mono recordings. I will often close my eyes when listening to Furtwangler at night and picture myself in a little cabin, maybe in some woods somewhere in Germany in 1942, sitting in my favorite chair by the fireplace and imagine myself clicking on the radio for the evening. Unlike a lot of people, I like to use my imagination. When I paint a picture I don't look at something and paint it, I use my imagination and paint what's in my mind. So sometimes, I like to put myself in the time period and think about how much people enjoyed turning on their radios for entertainment or winding up their gramophones because this was their entertainment. There were no TV's or video games.

As far as modern recordings, in a very general sense I can say I don't care for most modern recordings because a lot of them just follow the pack. You don't have a lot of guys trying a new spin on something. You also don't hear a lot of individual personality. If you take someone like Leonard Bernstein you can often hear the mans love and excitement on a lot of recordings. It just seeps through and hits you and you can feel how excited he is and how much love is in his heart for music in general. A lot of guys I hear today don't project that. They often just seemed all too reserved and going through the motions. 

Also, a good deal are HIP performances and I personally don't agree with a lot of the HIP ideals. No vibrato or some weird bowing technique or whatever. You weren't around in 1700 to hear it, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I don't think if they were still alive today that they would prefer it. Then you have things like playing Beethoven's 9th with a chamber orchestra. Maybe it did sound like that back in the day, but I don't believe for one minute that if Beethoven were alive today he would choose "Period Instruments" and "Small Chamber Orchestras" over "Modern Instuments" and "Modern Sized Orchestras" and anyone who does think he would have, hasn't read much about the man himself in my opinion.

Now obviously not all modern recordings are bad. There are some new ones I really enjoy but on the whole I prefer personality and character so yes, I will listen to Leonard Bernstein or Otto Klemperer or Karl Richter or Rudolf Kempe or whomever because I get personality, style and substance where many people today are only interested in trying to follow the letter of the score without any room for imagination.


----------



## satoru

Centropolis said:


> My intent wasn't to dismiss the mono or old recordings. I really was just wondering if there are people out there that struggles like me to enjoy the older recordings. I don't think any of us are relly saying the older and mono recordings are not worth listening to. I believe some of us just prefer more modern recordings.
> 
> I think one thing is clear, recording technology has gotten better and you can't really dispute that fact. I am sure there are talented sound engineers back in the day but nowadays, they have a lot more technology to work with to get the sound they want.
> 
> Again, I am not saying the older recordings are not good. Just saying that everything else being equal, the newer recordings are easier to digest by newbies like me.
> 
> I often listen to classical music CDs for an hour or two....then put on a Jack Johnson CD afterwards....then was surprised that my stereo system sounded so different.


 I used to be unable to stand historical recordings, like you. I purchased some remastered CDs and hated them (this was back in middle 80'). Then things changed:

* Better reproduction of sound out of CDs: The DAC chip evolved tremendously after the first generation of CD player. During 80' and 90', there were rush of new ideas poured into DAC chips, to get better sounding system. Now, it has more or less settled down. 
* Better re-mastering of old recordings: Digital filters to remove hiss and cracks evolved, too, as the digital filters in DAC evolved. As more and more of hissing can be removed, it came to a point that some people prefer moderate removal to complete removal, or no removal (they claim it removes some essence in music as well). As your preference is unique to yourself, finding what you like is essential.
* Better equipments for sound reproduction, especially headphones/earphones (on cheap side): There are more varieties and style than ever. All of them sound different. Some are more tolerant to historical recordings than others.

There was a guy who posted samples (first 1 minute) of different remastering of Schnabel's Beethoven's piano sonata No. 14, 2nd movement (recorded in 1933). You can try and see which version you like the best (if any). If you can stand one of them, then you will be able to find remastered historical recordings enjoyable to your ears.

Download link for the samples


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Good luck choosing between Toscanini and Furtwangler for Beethoven symphonies! They aren't even close. There is no "better" only "different". That's what you'll find out in fifteen years when you get to where you know the music like the back of your hand. You'll hear something that is as good as your "better" version, but reveals something totally different about the music. Then you'll realize the value of performance.
> 
> It's easy to select a "better" recording based on appropriate tempi and first class digital sound. There are dozens of those to choose from, and all in the modern era. But if you develop an ear for interpretation, suddenly there is a multitude of choices, all just as valid as any other, and some of the best are historical recordings. All the appropriate choices you made early on in your journey fade into the background, because appropriate and expressive are often opposing forces.
> 
> Like I say, this is something you develop an appreciation for as you become more familiar with the music. When you are first starting out, just hearing the music being played nicely is enough.


I wasn't choosing between Toscanini and Furtwangler. I picked two random, but dead conductors to compare with four random but living.

You seem fairly determined to patronise those who aren't as refined and discerning as you. It may be unintentional of course. But please stop telling me how I'll get better at this in the future. It might have taken you 15 years...


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Sorry, I just don't get this. Are you saying people in the past didn't want technical precision, i.e. playing the music correctly? That makes no sense.


It makes no sense to you because you live in a different era. Back then, classical music wasn't about making recordings. It was about performing live every single week. When they weren't playing orchestral concerts, the musicians were performing nightly in pit bands in theaters. LIVE performance for a REAL AUDIENCE was what they were focused on. This meant that they could experiment with different approaches to the score. If it worked, they went with it. If it didn't, they knew that the experiment was just for one night and tomorrow they could try something different.

If you look into the performance practices of the first half of the 20th century as carefully as you look into HIP, you'll realize that it was a golden age of its own aesthetic. When Toscanini took the podium to play Beethoven, you heard Toscanini as well as Beethoven. Put Stokowski up on the stand and you'd get an entirely different experience with the exact same score. Neither was right and neither was wrong. They were just different.

And OH THE DIFFERENCE! Toscanini could pull out the tension and passion in the music like no other conductor, and Stokowski could create layers of textures that floated through the strings and made the music breathe like it was alive. No one today does anything like that. They play the music *properly* and in so doing, ignore a lot of the life beneath the surface.

Your HDTV reference is actually a perfect analogy. You could point an HD camera at a bowl of fruit and get a clear picture of it. But it wouldn't be the same as if Cezanne painted it. Performance is a creative interpretation- a reimagining, just like a painter uses to decide how to present an image on canvas.

Your misunderstanding about the sound of the Victrola is exactly the same as with interpretation. The goal today is clinical perfection. Back then, that wasn't possible, so they tuned phonographs like they would tune a musical instrument. You don't expect a cello to sound like a violin. You just want it to sound like a very good cello. Victrolas are like that. The phonograph manufacturers had acoustic workshops where they would experiment with materials like mica and wood and steel, along with shapes like tubes and horns to create a euphonic sound that was its own expressive world. Some aspects of the sound would be played down, accenting the aspects that were startlingly real sounding. They tailored a sound that wasn't natural, but it was realistic.

Some things about acoustic phonographs are beyond what the most advanced stereo systems today can produce. For instance, to record acoustically, the singer would stand about six feet from a wooden horn that channeled the sound through a tube to a cutting stylus that etched it into the grooves of the record. Playback was a mirror image of this with a steel needle and vibrating diaphragm that produced sound through a tube and out through a wooden horn. This acts like a sonic projector. If you sit at the proper angle, the image of the singer who stood six feet from the recording horn is now standing six feet in front of the playback horn. It's as if a ghost is in the room singing. You have to hear it in person to understand it. Nothing recorded electronically sounds like this, except perhaps 5:1 in a very good setup.


----------



## bigshot

Centropolis said:


> Again, I am not saying the older recordings are not good. Just saying that everything else being equal, the newer recordings are easier to digest by newbies like me.


But all things are only equal if you don't take *interpretation* into account.


----------



## Bulldog

realdealblues said:


> Also, a good deal are HIP performances and I personally don't agree with a lot of the HIP ideals. No vibrato or some weird bowing technique or whatever. You weren't around in 1700 to hear it, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I don't think if they were still alive today that they would prefer it.


I have a different view. First, it's nothing more than speculation to assume that you know what the musicians of 1700 would prefer if they were alive today. Second, we know that there is a large audience today that loves HIP performances with little to no vibrato.

It's great that you know your personal preferences, but assigning those preferences to music-makers from over 300 years ago makes no sense to me.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> I wasn't choosing between Toscanini and Furtwangler. I picked two random, but dead conductors to compare with four random but living.


Toscanini and Furtwangler are a million miles from random. That is like saying Bach and Beethoven are the same thing. The only reason that they fit in the same category for you is because you don't know a lot about them other than to know that they are "old dead guys". Imagine if you grouped composers in your head that way! When you say Toscanini and Furtwangler to me, I hear two very different things that are both equally valid. The same way Bach and Beethoven are.

There is absolutely nothing patronizing about commenting on the differences in the way people with a few years of experience in classical music look at it, and the way that people with a few decades do. I was where you were once. Nothing wrong with it. You're on the same road, you just started off on your journey later than I did. I have no doubt you will end up at the same point in the road I am currently in eventually. I'm simply giving you a peek at what lies over the hill for you in the future.


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> It's great that you know your personal preferences, but assigning those preferences to music-makers from over 300 years ago makes no sense to me.


And why is 300 years ago the arbiter of how music should sound today? Music comes to life through interpretation and performance. To decide that you can't do anything that wouldn't have been done 300 years ago is tying your hands and preventing you from finding new and contemporary approaches to the universality of music. It's fine to preserve objects in a museum once they are dead and reduced to dinosaur bones. But hopefully classical music isn't that bad off yet.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Toscanini and Furtwangler are a million miles from random.


They _are _random in that I could have picked any two 'dead guys' (Stokowski, Beecham, Boult, Klemperer...etc etc) to stand for 'old'.



bigshot said:


> That is like saying Bach and Beethoven are the same thing.


Only if you are completely determined to misunderstand what I'm saying.



bigshot said:


> you don't know a lot about them other than to know that they are "old dead guys".


Is that right? How do you know what I know? Any evidence?



bigshot said:


> There is absolutely nothing patronizing about commenting on the differences in the way people with a few years of experience in classical music look at it, and the way that people with a few decades do. I was where you were once. Nothing wrong with it. You're on the same road, you just started off on your journey later than I did. I have no doubt you will end up at the same point in the road I am currently in eventually. I'm simply giving you a peek at what lies over the hill for you in the future.


You might believe you are not transmitting 'patronising', but I can tell you it's the way I'm receiving. You're not just 'commenting on differences'. However, the label is less important than the facts of what you're saying. I've not 'just started off'; when I 'started off' in relation to you is of no relevance, since there's no need for me to compare my experience of music with yours; there is no inevitability about where I might end up, and pretending to know so is just daft; I don't need a peek.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> It makes no sense to you because you live in a different era. Back then, classical music wasn't about making recordings. It was about performing live every single week. When they weren't playing orchestral concerts, the musicians were performing nightly in pit bands in theaters. LIVE performance for a REAL AUDIENCE was what they were focused on. This meant that they could experiment with different approaches to the score. If it worked, they went with it. If it didn't, they knew that the experiment was just for one night and tomorrow they could try something different.
> 
> If you look into the performance practices of the first half of the 20th century as carefully as you look into HIP, you'll realize that it was a golden age of its own aesthetic. When Toscanini took the podium to play Beethoven, you heard Toscanini as well as Beethoven. Put Stokowski up on the stand and you'd get an entirely different experience with the exact same score. Neither was right and neither was wrong. They were just different.
> 
> And OH THE DIFFERENCE! Toscanini could pull out the tension and passion in the music like no other conductor, and Stokowski could create layers of textures that floated through the strings and made the music breathe like it was alive. No one today does anything like that. They play the music *properly* and in so doing, ignore a lot of the life beneath the surface.
> 
> Your HDTV reference is actually a perfect analogy. You could point an HD camera at a bowl of fruit and get a clear picture of it. But it wouldn't be the same as if Cezanne painted it. Performance is a creative interpretation- a reimagining, just like a painter uses to decide how to present an image on canvas.
> 
> Your misunderstanding about the sound of the Victrola is exactly the same as with interpretation. The goal today is clinical perfection. Back then, that wasn't possible, so they tuned phonographs like they would tune a musical instrument. You don't expect a cello to sound like a violin. You just want it to sound like a very good cello. Victrolas are like that. The phonograph manufacturers had acoustic workshops where they would experiment with materials like mica and wood and steel, along with shapes like tubes and horns to create a euphonic sound that was its own expressive world. Some aspects of the sound would be played down, accenting the aspects that were startlingly real sounding. They tailored a sound that wasn't natural, but it was realistic.
> 
> Some things about acoustic phonographs are beyond what the most advanced stereo systems today can produce. For instance, to record acoustically, the singer would stand about six feet from a wooden horn that channeled the sound through a tube to a cutting stylus that etched it into the grooves of the record. Playback was a mirror image of this with a steel needle and vibrating diaphragm that produced sound through a tube and out through a wooden horn. This acts like a sonic projector. If you sit at the proper angle, the image of the singer who stood six feet from the recording horn is now standing six feet in front of the playback horn. It's as if a ghost is in the room singing. You have to hear it in person to understand it. Nothing recorded electronically sounds like this, except perhaps 5:1 in a very good setup.


Look, we are talking about different things here. Interpretation and recording are totally different. The means of recording the music are irrelevant to how the music is interpreted by a particular conductor.

As for the means of recording, with your example of the singer standing in front of the horn, that may be the case. But what do you do when you have a whole orchestra, and you are cramming all those different sounds from different parts of a room into that horn? You just don't get the fidelity you need. Yeah, great, if you can be there in person, that is the best. But an older mono recording does NOT sound like what you would have heard in a concert hall. A newer digital stereo recording sounds a whole lot more like what you would hear in a concert hall. So regardless of how the music is interpreted, I am looking at which means of recording is going to most faithfully reproduce for me what the performers play. On a very small scale of a solo performance, maybe the difference isn't as striking - you don't need stereo for a single voice or single instrument. But for an orchestra? I don't think your Victrola can do that justice.

Interpretations are interpretations. So what you are telling me is that conductors in the past interpreted music differently than they now do. Okay. I'll accept that. And you seem to have a preference for those interpretations of the past. Okay. Fine. No problem there. I have different tastes when it comes to interpretations. Take HIP, for example. It is only an interpretation. What is wrong with trying to present to people what the composer initially wanted presented? I have no problems with other interpretations. I like both my Klemperer and Herreweghe Bach St. Matthew Passions - both vastly different interpretations. But it is funny you comparing HIP to preserving old fossils, then talking up the old Victrola fossil recordings from 60+ years ago over the newer interpretations of today. You want to preserve the musical practices of that era, and that is perfectly fine. It seems silly, though, to criticize the desire to preserve, or restore (if you believe it) the practices of even earlier.

I have no problem with older recordings and older interpretations. I just don't believe that those are the only interpretations that can be considered great, and I don't believe that the recording and playback technologies of that period hold a candle to what we have today, which more accurately transmit to the listener the experience of witnessing a performance in person, regardless of the interpretation.


----------



## Bulldog

bigshot said:


> There is absolutely nothing patronizing about commenting on the differences in the way people with a few years of experience in classical music look at it, and the way that people with a few decades do. I was where you were once. Nothing wrong with it. You're on the same road, you just started off on your journey later than I did. I have no doubt you will end up at the same point in the road I am currently in eventually. I'm simply giving you a peek at what lies over the hill for you in the future.


I think each of us is on our own road and it's way out-of-line for you to be so arrogant and patronizing concerning another TC member.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

How does a thread like this end up so acrimoniously?

If you don't like historic recordings, then fine. If you do, then go ahead and enjoy them.


----------



## Badinerie

> You could point an HD camera at a bowl of fruit and get a clear picture of it. But it wouldn't be the same as if Cezanne painted it


Nice one Bigshot!


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> I think each of us is on our own road and it's way out-of-line for you to be so arrogant and patronizing concerning another TC member.


I'm simply sharing my experience. I've gotten advice along the way from a lot of musicians and musicologists who know a lot more than I do and have experienced things that I haven't experienced yet. Their knowledge didn't make me insecure. On the contrary, I was very happy to have people that I could ask for breadcrumb trails to follow. That's how you learn things.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Look, we are talking about different things here. Interpretation and recording are totally different. The means of recording the music are irrelevant to how the music is interpreted by a particular conductor.


Actually the advent of recording changed performance styles drastically. In the early days of recordings, musicians made records as a novelty... to make a little extra money on the side. Their primary source of income and focus of attention was live performance. Live performances weren't fixed for all time, so they felt free to experiment and learn from the feedback they got from the audience. As recording quality improved, the whole dynamic shifted, and recordings became the focus and the live performances were the sideline. The main difference between a live performance and a recording is that a recording is fixed in time, never changing. The decisions you make while being recorded are there forever. You can't just try something different the next night. This led to a totally different approach to music making. Instead of spontaneous experimentation, musicians moved toward creating "definitive" performances. This was terrific for technical issues of musicianship, but it wasn't so good for musicality.

Older recordings still value spontaneity over technical perfection. There's a much broader range of interpretation and the performances are more expressive emotionally. That is what people like me who love historical recordings are seeing in them that we don't see in modern recordings. Modern recordings sound very good and are consistently are of high technical quality. They are excellent for hearing the piece as it was written with no performer making his mark on the work. But older recordings are better for opportunities for great performers to take classic works and reinvent them by injecting their own emotions and point of view into the performance. Every performance is a fresh slate to start again. That's why historical recording collectors will have dozens of different versions of the same symphony... they are all very different. And modern recording collectors will tend to have a generic modern romantic interpretation and a HIP one. Because those are the only two flavors that exist in modern classical music recordings.

If you look to the times the composers lived, you might find historical things to emulate that were peculiar to that time period... types of instruments, sizes of bands, etc. But you would also see liberties being taken with the score that no one would dare to do today... improvised cadenzas, filigrees, reworking of scores to make them suit the performers, reorchestration, transcriptions, etc. Period performance was probably a lot freer and more improvisational than even the practices of the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## Vaneyes

With the crazy sounds and pitches of original 78s and early LPs, I'm not sure one can decipher much from the interpretations or anything else. But when things do seem right, usually after the meticulous efforts of Historical remasterers, the greats are great for a reason.

Recorded sound never challenged concerts until the stereo era. That's when musicians first became worried.


----------



## Bulldog

bigshot said:


> I'm simply sharing my experience. I've gotten advice along the way from a lot of musicians and musicologists who know a lot more than I do and have experienced things that I haven't experienced yet. Their knowledge didn't make me insecure. On the contrary, I was very happy to have people that I could ask for breadcrumb trails to follow. That's how you learn things.


Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were an insecure person. Anyways, I agree with most of what you wrote above.


----------



## Vaneyes

"You could point an HD camera at a bowl of fruit and get a clear picture of it. But it wouldn't be the same as if Cezanne painted it"

You're right. I'd eat the fruit in the photograph.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think Cezanne ever painted a banana!


----------



## bigshot

Vaneyes said:


> Recorded sound never challenged concerts until the stereo era. That's when musicians first became worried.


That isn't true. I've read magazine articles about the evils of radio and talking pictures. Those two things replaced records, pit bands, and a lot of live performance during the depression years. Record sales dropped like a stone when radios hit the market. Just like streaming is doing to iPods and CDs today.


----------



## KenOC

The struggles among musicians, the recording industry, and broadcasters has been long and complex. For instance, during a fee dispute: "During a ten-month period lasting from January 1 to October 29, 1941, no music licensed by ASCAP (1,250,000 songs) was broadcast on NBC and CBS radio stations."


----------



## bigshot

World War II rationing had a huge impact too. Shellac was needed for bombs.


----------



## Badinerie

bigshot said:


> I don't think Cezanne ever painted a banana!


And that made him a bad man? :lol:


----------



## Guest

So let's explore this business of 'performance'.

Would someone like to offer a concrete example of performance differences between an older, mono recording and a newer/ What am I (allegedly) missing by preferring more recent stereo recordings?

Shall I start? How about these two versions of Beethoven's Eroica? Toscanini and Chailly (presuming that these Youtube performances are what they say they are, of course). I already own a Tosca (in a bargain download set), but this is the first time I've heard the Chailly











In this case, my instant preference is for the Toscanini performance, but the Chailly recording. Chailly's scherzo seems slightly sluggish in comparison to Tosca's, but the recording allows me to hear much more clearly what all parts of the orchestra are doing (I'm listening on headphones on my PC - not ideal, but better enables this quick online listening challenge!)

Which would I buy on CD? Probably the Chailly...unless of course someone points me to an even better 'modern' interpretation!


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Actually the advent of recording changed performance styles drastically. In the early days of recordings, musicians made records as a novelty... to make a little extra money on the side. Their primary source of income and focus of attention was live performance. Live performances weren't fixed for all time, so they felt free to experiment and learn from the feedback they got from the audience. As recording quality improved, the whole dynamic shifted, and recordings became the focus and the live performances were the sideline. The main difference between a live performance and a recording is that a recording is fixed in time, never changing. The decisions you make while being recorded are there forever. You can't just try something different the next night. This led to a totally different approach to music making. Instead of spontaneous experimentation, musicians moved toward creating "definitive" performances. This was terrific for technical issues of musicianship, but it wasn't so good for musicality.
> 
> Older recordings still value spontaneity over technical perfection. There's a much broader range of interpretation and the performances are more expressive emotionally. That is what people like me who love historical recordings are seeing in them that we don't see in modern recordings. Modern recordings sound very good and are consistently are of high technical quality. They are excellent for hearing the piece as it was written with no performer making his mark on the work. But older recordings are better for opportunities for great performers to take classic works and reinvent them by injecting their own emotions and point of view into the performance. Every performance is a fresh slate to start again. That's why historical recording collectors will have dozens of different versions of the same symphony... they are all very different. And modern recording collectors will tend to have a generic modern romantic interpretation and a HIP one. Because those are the only two flavors that exist in modern classical music recordings.
> 
> If you look to the times the composers lived, you might find historical things to emulate that were peculiar to that time period... types of instruments, sizes of bands, etc. But you would also see liberties being taken with the score that no one would dare to do today... improvised cadenzas, filigrees, reworking of scores to make them suit the performers, reorchestration, transcriptions, etc. Period performance was probably a lot freer and more improvisational than even the practices of the first half of the 20th century.


It seems, then, that you aren't able to experience the best performances, because all you have to go on now are recordings. They may be early recordings, but still recordings, and one would presume the conductors conducted differently knowing it was being recorded, based on your assertions. Additionally, I don't believe in the devil-may-care attitude you attribute to the freedom of experimenting. Toscanini is distinctive - he has a style - not because he did a different thing everytime, but because he had a way of interpreting the music that was distinctive of him, and Stokowski the same.

When it comes down to it, you simply prefer these earlier conductors. Presumably, the only truly great conductors are the ones who never recorded anything, as they would never be tied down to any influence of wanting their best performance recorded. I guess it is the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - the purest conducting is only by those that were never recorded. Presumably, even those broadcast by radio were also impacted by all of this, as it was a one-shot to get it right.

And for today, there are absolute equivalents - live recordings. No second takes, no stopping and redoing a section or movement.

You have a different opinion over what is the best way to interpret the music. To extend your analogy, you are comparing photography to impressionistic painting. Guess what - both are recognized as art forms. And photography still allows for individuality. You can alter exposure, lighting, a wide variety of things. Two people can take vastly different pictures of the same subject. Impressionistic painting isn't the only way to inject individuality. You just seem to prefer it to photography - and that is perfectly fine. Painting is an older art form than photography.


----------



## Guest

At any rate, it is an absurd argument. The issue is enjoying older mono recordings. If one doesn't mind the inferior recording technology (and yes, no matter how much you wish it weren't so, the recording capabilities of the pre-stereo era are inferior to today), there are great performances to be heard. But, in my opinion, there are also great performances to be had in stereo, or in digital stereo. For earlier stereo recordings, the remastered RCA Living Stereo recordings that they have been re-releasing are absolutely amazing. Anyone who wants great sound quality won't be disappointed with these. Digital certainly isn't mandatory for excellent sound quality. EMI has also been doing a great job with their remastering. And mono need not be detrimental for those who want good sound quality. For solo, or duet recordings, stereo really isn't essential. For example, Stlukesguild listed a wartime recording of Schubert's Winterreise, recorded in Berlin, in mono, that sounded great.

My advice: if right now you don't enjoy the older mono recordings because of sound quality, give it some time, then give it another try.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> In this case, my instant preference is for the Toscanini performance, but the Chailly recording.


That's a bingo! There are a million well recorded Eroicas, but there was only one Toscanini.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> It seems, then, that you aren't able to experience the best performances, because all you have to go on now are recordings.


Two things... you keep saying "best". I've never said that. I've said unique and expressive. And I *have* been able to experience these great performances *because* of the old recordings.



DrMike said:


> Additionally, I don't believe in the devil-may-care attitude you attribute to the freedom of experimenting. Toscanini is distinctive - he has a style - not because he did a different thing everytime, but because he had a way of interpreting the music that was distinctive of him, and Stokowski the same.


I can only assume you don't know much about Stokowski. He was called a "magician" because of the totally unexpected things he could pull out of music. He rehearsed for a few technical details, then performed with no baton, just his hands pulling out the strands of the music as he felt them. There is a wide range of different performance styles with the same work over the years. This wasn't "devil may care", it was inspiration. Sometimes it failed him and a performance didn't work. But usually he was able to hit the ball out of the park in ways that modern conductors never even get close to. Toscanini was more rigid, but his energy level was where he put the unique stamp on his music. There is considerable difference between Toscanini performances. Perhaps the biggest most gold plated example of the freedom of golden age conductors to express themselves through the music is Furtwangler's wartime Beethoven 9. You will never find another 9th that sounds remotely like it. It's a million miles from being "the one best 9th" but it's a masterpiece of conducting nonetheless.

I really think this is something that takes time to be able to sense, and I'm not being condescending saying that. When you sit down and listen to a CD, you are listening to abstract musical notes. You can't see the musicians, you have no idea who they are, you just hear the music. But when you have some experience with the music under your belt and you know it inside out, you start to see the personality of the performance through the cracks. It isn't in the notes themselves, it's in the spaces between them and the differences.

As you read newsgroups devoted to classical music, you can tell the number of years that a person has been studying classical music by their approach to it. Younger listeners talk about the composers and works more, and divide performers and performances into two categories- "proper" and "wrong". Karajan is always bad. HIP is always better. Older listeners discuss the relative merits (not necessarily drawbacks) to the differences between performers. For instance, if you look at the thread on Pavarotti, younger listeners either say Pavarotti is unlistenable or is better than Domingo... Black or white. Older listeners tend to discuss the *aspects* of his performance as they relate to other performers and performances... acting, vocal tone, range, breath control, phrasing, etc. Opera and vocal music are interesting sub genres of classical music because they tend to be more difficult for younger listeners to come to terms with. That is another barometer of how far down the road with classical music you are. That's one of the areas I am learning more about every day.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> For earlier stereo recordings, the remastered RCA Living Stereo recordings that they have been re-releasing are absolutely amazing. Anyone who wants great sound quality won't be disappointed with these.
> 
> My advice: if right now you don't enjoy the older mono recordings because of sound quality, give it some time, then give it another try.


Good advice. Or just hold it until you are ready for it. I did that with Bach for over a decade. I just wasn't ready for it.

It's interesting you mention the Living Stereo series, because as I understand it, there was a certain desperation at that time to record a lot of material very quickly because they knew that the era was coming to an end and they wanted to document the remaining giants before they were gone. RCA/Victor has always been focused on doing that. They did it in the acoustic era too with opera singers. They realized that the golden age of opera was waning and documented Caruso and Melba and Galli-Curci while they could. If you look at record catalogs during that era, it's more than half opera. Once Caruso was gone, Victor moved on to orchestral music (chiefly Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra).


----------



## Guest

I'm confused. You said:



bigshot said:


> Two things... you keep saying "best". I've never said that. I've said unique and expressive.


and yet your posts are littered with qualitative comparisons.



bigshot said:


> The best sounding recording I've ever heard ...





bigshot said:


> Have you heard Caruso, Melchior, Callas and Flagstad? Who today comes anywhere close? Modern opera singers can't match Galli-Curci, Gigli or Chaliapin either.


This one takes the biscuit:



bigshot said:


> There is no "better" only "different". [...] all just as valid as any other, and some of the best are historical recordings. All the appropriate choices you made early on in your journey fade into the background, because appropriate and expressive are often opposing forces.





bigshot said:


> If you look into the performance practices of the first half of the 20th century as carefully as you look into HIP, you'll realize that it was a golden age of its own aesthetic. [...] They play the music *properly* and in so doing, ignore a lot of the life beneath the surface.


If you maintain your position that you're really only talking about 'different', then I'm safe choosing a modern performance 
because I'm only missing yet another interpretation, not quality.

I notice you don't take up my invitation to listen, compare and offer some kind of insight. I get the impression that for you, Toscanini is "the best" and that's all there is to it.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> If you maintain your position that you're really only talking about 'different', then I'm safe choosing a modern performance because I'm only missing yet another interpretation, not quality.


That's correct. You get one perfectly valid form of interpretation. But it's by no means the only one, and a variety of interpretations can reveal depth in a work the way looking at a diamond from different angles reveals different facets. It isn't as easy to recognize performers by personal style with modern recordings than in older ones. We live in an age that values technical quality over personal expression. But that is fine if you are primarily interested in the composition and just want a straightforward presentation of the work itself. Appreciation of interpretation comes with experience. It's like beer. You can go out and get a bottle bottle of a particular brand of beer and drink it and enjoy it and say "I like this beer." But after a while you might want to experiment and get a taste for the variations. So you go out and get a pilsner or a stout or bock beer or a Trappist ale and appreciate the differences between different kinds of beers. Instead of looking at beer, you find yourself looking at the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN beers. Maybe that makes it clearer to you.

One other thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the sort of equipment used to play back the newer and older recordings. A well calibrated speaker system presents historical recordings MUCH differently than modern headphones do. Historical recordings were designed for playback on speakers, not earphones. Mono recordings take on the acoustic of the room and don't sound like they are inside your skull the way they do on cans. Also, speakers are usually calibrated for a totally flat frequency response. All frequencies are presented at the same level. Many modern headphones are "colored" to emphasize upper mids and high frequencies. This adds "detail" and is described as being "revealing" for rock music. But with historical classical recordings, it can emphasize the frequencies that can be strident and distorted in older recordings. If those frequencies are presented in a balanced response, as they would be through speakers, it isn't as objectionable. If you are limited to just headphones, I can fully understand why older recordings sound bad to you. That isn't the way to listen to historical recordings.

One trick that those who don't have fancy speaker systems might try is to play historical recordings in your car or on a portable boom box. You'll find that they are much less objectionable that way, and you might just start to understand the value of a wide variety of interpretation over better sound quality.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> That's correct. You get one perfectly valid form of interpretation. But it's by no means the only one, and a variety of interpretations can reveal depth in a work the way looking at a diamond from different angles reveals different facets. It isn't as easy to recognize performers by personal style with modern recordings than in older ones. We live in an age that values technical quality over personal expression. But that is fine if you are primarily interested in the composition and just want a straightforward presentation of the work itself. Appreciation of interpretation comes with experience. It's like beer. You can go out and get a bottle bottle of a particular brand of beer and drink it and enjoy it and say "I like this beer." But after a while you might want to experiment and get a taste for the variations. So you go out and get a pilsner or a stout or bock beer or a Trappist ale and appreciate the differences between different kinds of beers. Instead of looking at beer, you find yourself looking at the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN beers. Maybe that makes it clearer to you.
> 
> One other thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the sort of equipment used to play back the newer and older recordings. A well calibrated speaker system presents historical recordings MUCH differently than modern headphones do. Historical recordings were designed for playback on speakers, not earphones. Mono recordings take on the acoustic of the room and don't sound like they are inside your skull the way they do on cans. Also, speakers are usually calibrated for a totally flat frequency response. All frequencies are presented at the same level. Many modern headphones are "colored" to emphasize upper mids and high frequencies. This adds "detail" and is described as being "revealing" for rock music. But with historical classical recordings, it can emphasize the frequencies that can be strident and distorted in older recordings. If those frequencies are presented in a balanced response, as they would be through speakers, it isn't as objectionable. If you are limited to just headphones, I can fully understand why older recordings sound bad to you. That isn't the way to listen to historical recordings.
> 
> One trick that those who don't have fancy speaker systems might try is to play historical recordings in your car or on a portable boom box. You'll find that they are much less objectionable that way, and you might just start to understand the value of a wide variety of interpretation over better sound quality.


Why is it you assume this dichotomy of either technically impressive or personally expressive, as if the two are mutually exclusive? By your implication, those with the most personal expression are the poorest quality players, while those most technically precise are robots without souls. I don't buy it.

I think it is absolutely possible to be both. I'm sorry if all those you value for their personal expression were crappy in terms of technicality.

I know many people like to say that Heifetz was a very cold player, all precision and no soul - but that isn't what I hear. I don't follow along with a score to judge how many of the notes are correct and in place, banging along with my shoe hammer as in Wagner's Meistersinger. I know people like to say similar things of Marc-Andre Hamelin - extraordinary technical precision, but no soul, but that isn't what I hear when I listen to, for example, his Alkan recordings, or his recent Haydn recordings.

I don't buy your either/or approach. So what if people today demand more precision - precision and personality are not mutually exclusive. Do you really think that composers never expected people to play their music as written, or worried that, were they to play exactly what was written, their music would be soulless? That in order for people to truly enjoy their compositions, they would have to rely on the performers to fudge it a lot? That makes no sense.

Like I said - you just prefer the interpretations of Stokowski and Toscanini, et. al. That is great. But that doesn't mean that more modern interpretations are somehow soulless just because they weren't recorded with inferior recording technology and reproduced on inferior playback media.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> That's correct. You get one perfectly valid form of interpretation. But it's by no means the only one, and a variety of interpretations can reveal depth in a work the way looking at a diamond from different angles reveals different facets. It isn't as easy to recognize performers by personal style with modern recordings than in older ones. We live in an age that values technical quality over personal expression. But that is fine if you are primarily interested in the composition and just want a straightforward presentation of the work itself. Appreciation of interpretation comes with experience. It's like beer. You can go out and get a bottle bottle of a particular brand of beer and drink it and enjoy it and say "I like this beer." But after a while you might want to experiment and get a taste for the variations. So you go out and get a pilsner or a stout or bock beer or a Trappist ale and appreciate the differences between different kinds of beers. Instead of looking at beer, you find yourself looking at the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN beers. Maybe that makes it clearer to you.
> 
> One other thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the sort of equipment used to play back the newer and older recordings. A well calibrated speaker system presents historical recordings MUCH differently than modern headphones do. Historical recordings were designed for playback on speakers, not earphones. Mono recordings take on the acoustic of the room and don't sound like they are inside your skull the way they do on cans. Also, speakers are usually calibrated for a totally flat frequency response. All frequencies are presented at the same level. Many modern headphones are "colored" to emphasize upper mids and high frequencies. This adds "detail" and is described as being "revealing" for rock music. But with historical classical recordings, it can emphasize the frequencies that can be strident and distorted in older recordings. If those frequencies are presented in a balanced response, as they would be through speakers, it isn't as objectionable. If you are limited to just headphones, I can fully understand why older recordings sound bad to you. That isn't the way to listen to historical recordings.
> 
> One trick that those who don't have fancy speaker systems might try is to play historical recordings in your car or on a portable boom box. You'll find that they are much less objectionable that way, and you might just start to understand the value of a wide variety of interpretation over better sound quality.


Also, are you saying that the historical recordings were meant to have a lot of hissing and distortion at the fortes and fortissimos and weak in the bass? They weren't tailor-made for anything. They were trying to make as state-of-the-art as they could at that time. I doubt anybody at that time said, "wow, that is just as realistic as if I were in the concert hall!!!!"

Why not just say, "well, the horse is actually the superior form of transportation over the car, so long as you need to travel only where there are no roads and the only form of fuel you have are oats." Horses aren't superior - but in their time, they were the best option. But better technology has since overtaken them. Sure, some people still like to ride that horse, and prefer the experience, but horses can't do what cars can.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Why is it you assume this dichotomy of either technically impressive or personally expressive, as if the two are mutually exclusive?


Why is it that he fails to respond to any of my challenges? Why is that he assumes I've only got headphones to listen with?

When you're on a soapbox, it's very difficult to hear what anyone else is saying.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Why is it you assume this dichotomy of either technically impressive or personally expressive, as if the two are mutually exclusive?


They aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to be expressive and technically proper. There is a small subset in the middle there where they intersect. But a lot of great historical recordings interpret in ways that don't fit the modern definition of proper- baroque music performed unashamedly non-HIP, altering the arrangements, changing metronome markings and tempi from the letter of the score, free bowing, unique orchestral seating arrangements, and do all sorts of things that would be discouraged today. This freedom allowed them a broader range of expression than modern performance style, which focuses on expression within a narrower range of accepted performance style. It's possible to be expressive within the constraints of modern performance practice, but the golden age conductors had much more latitude and they used it. No conductor alive today will take the risks and experiment the way the golden age ones did. Not that they do a bad job, just that there is nothing today like what was done in the past. If you want to hear a broad range of different approaches and interpretations, you have to listen to historical recordings.

By the way, I agree with you... people who say Heifetz was a cold player can't have ever heard Heifetz. And Hamelin is a very good player, but I wouldn't categorize him as one of the most technically perfect ones. It's good that you judge playing based on what you hear rather than the general consensus in internet forums. Most people who post about classical music online repeat opinions like parrots of music they've never even taken the time to listen to carefully.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Also, are you saying that the historical recordings were meant to have a lot of hissing and distortion at the fortes and fortissimos and weak in the bass?


Historical recordings generally have a light bed of surface noise, but plenty of bass. The records travelled at 78rpm, they had a groove that was ten times larger, and had a much shorter playing time per side. This allowed for LOTS of headroom for big fat bass. The upper octave above 10kHz is what is missing from pre-hifi recordings, not bass. If you're interested in what historical recordings actually sound like, I'd be happy to give you some links. I've transferred a bunch of great 78s from my collection. I have transfers of records that are 100 years old that are remarkably listenable considering they were made before microphones or electrical recording.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> Why is it that he fails to respond to any of my challenges?


Are you referring to Toscanini vs Chailly? Because I have Eroicas by both of them and I agree with you, the Toscanini is the better performance and the Chailly has better recording quality. But there are a million conductors with modern recordings of Eroica as good as Chailly, but there was just one Toscanini. He was totally unique, particularly in this work. Thankfully the newest remaster of the complete Toscanini box set has an Eroica that sounds very good. Much better than back in the LP days.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Are you referring to Toscanini vs Chailly?


No. I asked


> Would someone like to offer a concrete example of performance differences between an older, mono recording and a newer? What am I (allegedly) missing by preferring more recent stereo recordings?


Your response was to agree with my example. So far, so good, except that your contention has been that I won't be able to do this until after 15 years have elapsed. You then don't offer one of your own.

Then there's your claim that you 'never said best' which I countered with examples where you did, explicitly, and where, implicitly, you talk about past performances being qualitatively better (not simply 'different') than modern ones. You also failed to acknowledge that your assumptions about other posters and their experience (never mind their equipment) are false.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> They aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to be expressive and technically proper. There is a small subset in the middle there where they intersect. But a lot of great historical recordings interpret in ways that don't fit the modern definition of proper- baroque music performed unashamedly non-HIP, altering the arrangements, changing metronome markings and tempi from the letter of the score, free bowing, unique orchestral seating arrangements, and do all sorts of things that would be discouraged today. This freedom allowed them a broader range of expression than modern performance style, which focuses on expression within a narrower range of accepted performance style. It's possible to be expressive within the constraints of modern performance practice, but the golden age conductors had much more latitude and they used it. No conductor alive today will take the risks and experiment the way the golden age ones did. Not that they do a bad job, just that there is nothing today like what was done in the past. If you want to hear a broad range of different approaches and interpretations, you have to listen to historical recordings.
> 
> By the way, I agree with you... people who say Heifetz was a cold player can't have ever heard Heifetz. And Hamelin is a very good player, but I wouldn't categorize him as one of the most technically perfect ones. It's good that you judge playing based on what you hear rather than the general consensus in internet forums. Most people who post about classical music online repeat opinions like parrots of music they've never even taken the time to listen to carefully.


Alright - so you liked the liberties that "golden age" conductors took with the music they were performing. That is fine. I guess I would liken it to a Shakespeare play performed exactly as written, versus modern adaptations to different settings and historical events. Both equally valid. Sometimes, though, we like to see what the original intent of the author/composer was.

One point of quibbling - you talk of liberties in experimenting with unique orchestral seating arrangements. How exactly does this get transmitted in a mono recording? One of the drawbacks of mono is that it all tends to be flat - all the sound comes out together. Now, with a stereo recording, you can hear the different instruments in different directions. My favorite piece for experiencing this is Tallis' 40-part motet Spem in alium, which, as I have read, was meant to be performed in something like a theater in the round, where the sound comes at you from all sides. A mono recording would not capture that - all the sound would be mono-directional. So I am curious how one would detect such arrangements in an older mono recording. Is it merely a case of instruments further away being picked up less than those closer? And could that have been an influence on such arrangements? Would the normal seating arrangements have resulted in some instruments being completely lost in a recording with the technology on hand, so they had to rearrange to preserve that somehow? Whereas now, with the ability to place multiple microphones around, you don't have to worry about such problems? What I am trying to ask is was this particular thing you like about older historical recordings truly a reflection of the personal expression of the conductor, or an adaptation to the realities of the technology for recording and reproducing the music, whether on radio or on vinyl/shellac?


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> No. I asked (didn't quote)


I think I answered that... Furtwangler's Wartime Beethoven 9. But Toscanini's Eroica or Stoki's Bach transcriptions with the Philadelphia certainly qualify too. As does Walter's 1935 Act 1 of Die Walkure. I'd be happy to link you a transfer of that if you are interested.

I have been really clear about my appreciation for a wide range of interpretation, not one single best kind of performance. That is the clear difference between old and new. And that is also something it took me about 15 years to be able to realize myself. I'm not criticizing you. You shouldn't feel defensive about being young. It's preferable to the alternative. You have decades and decades to learn and grow. That's a good thing, not an insult.


----------



## bigshot

Sorry for breaking up your quote, but you asked several different things all together.



DrMike said:


> Alright - so you liked the liberties that "golden age" conductors took with the music they were performing. That is fine. I guess I would liken it to a Shakespeare play performed exactly as written, versus modern adaptations to different settings and historical events. Both equally valid. Sometimes, though, we like to see what the original intent of the author/composer was.


I was just watching a YouTube video yesterday of a linguist talking about how spoken English of Shakespere's time was a totally different accent from any in use today. It gave some examples of rhymes and interesting word rhythms that exist in the original old English, but not in modern spoken English. Sometimes even HIP isn't HIP!



DrMike said:


> One point of quibbling - you talk of liberties in experimenting with unique orchestral seating arrangements. How exactly does this get transmitted in a mono recording? One of the drawbacks of mono is that it all tends to be flat - all the sound comes out together.


Stokowski and Victor experimented with all sorts of interesting recording and room acoustic techniques. The sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra, particularly the strings, is entirely unique. Some of this was due to the band itself. But a lot of it was the way they arranged the orchestra and set up the hall with baffles. I read a biography of Stoki that went into great detail about it. Very interesting. Even the acoustically recorded 78s by Stokowski have a one-of-a-kind sound signature.

Mono recordings are meant to be played in a room through a speaker. The sound takes on the acoustic properties of the room itself, and along with the depth cues in the recording, it can give a very satisfying sense of three dimensional space. Especially the straightforward way they miked before WW2. I've heard mono 78s that you would swear were stereo because the room they recorded in and the miking setup they used captured such vivid depth cues. I distinctly remember a country record by Eddie Arnold and the Tennessee Plowboys where you could close your eyes and position every instrument in the band, not left to right, but front to back. They had some techniques that aren't being used any more I suspect. But that is just sound... music is what really matters.



DrMike said:


> What I am trying to ask is was this particular thing you like about older historical recordings truly a reflection of the personal expression of the conductor, or an adaptation to the realities of the technology for recording and reproducing the music, whether on radio or on vinyl/shellac?


No, it's definitely the unique personalities of the performers. Tell me, if I put on the same symphony by Abbado, Barenboim and Rattle, do you think you could put the conductor to the performance without looking? I play that game every day, because I have a music server in my house playing 24/7. Whenever I hear a performance I really like, I try to guess who it is. Then I look at my phone and see who it is. I can ID a lot of conductors from the 60s and before. As soon as it gets into the 70s, it gets a lot harder. The era of the superstar conductor has faded.

One thing I want to mention. I have a huge library of modern digital recordings too, and my speaker system is a tweaked out 5:1 set with very clean sound and a very flat response. I use DSPs to process the historical recordings and add presence to them. It's not that I don't care about sound quality. I know a lot about it. I've produced sound for TV and rock videos. It's just that sound isn't my primary concern. A lifelike performance means much more to me than lifelike sound. I like good sound. I devour great music with passion.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I think I answered that... Furtwangler's Wartime Beethoven 9. But Toscanini's Eroica or Stoki's Bach transcriptions with the Philadelphia certainly qualify too. As does Walter's 1935 Act 1 of Die Walkure. I'd be happy to link you a transfer of that if you are interested.
> 
> I have been really clear about my appreciation for a wide range of interpretation, not one single best kind of performance. That is the clear difference between old and new. And that is also something it took me about 15 years to be able to realize myself. I'm not criticizing you. You shouldn't feel defensive about being young. It's preferable to the alternative. You have decades and decades to learn and grow. That's a good thing, not an insult.


I'll not pursue this fruitless discussion further, since you're stuck on one note and refuse to play any other tune, even to the extent of _continuing _to make odd assumptions about me. I certainly hope that I've got decades left, but perhaps not as many as you seem to think.


----------



## bigshot

Those examples aren't what you were looking for?

I'm 55, don't I get to call you kid?! (wink)


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Those examples aren't what you were looking for?
> 
> I'm 55, don't I get to call you kid?! (wink)


I'm 55 too. Now what?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

MacLeod said:


> I'm 55 too. Now what?


you could always try: "My Dad's older than your Dad!"

That was always a popular line of argument in the playground


----------



## Figleaf

bigshot said:


> Some things about acoustic phonographs are beyond what the most advanced stereo systems today can produce. For instance, to record acoustically, the singer would stand about six feet from a wooden horn that channeled the sound through a tube to a cutting stylus that etched it into the grooves of the record. Playback was a mirror image of this with a steel needle and vibrating diaphragm that produced sound through a tube and out through a wooden horn. This acts like a sonic projector. If you sit at the proper angle, the image of the singer who stood six feet from the recording horn is now standing six feet in front of the playback horn. It's as if a ghost is in the room singing. You have to hear it in person to understand it. Nothing recorded electronically sounds like this, except perhaps 5:1 in a very good setup.


That's a beautiful image- the singer as a sort of aural hologram. I've heard this same effect on my Columbia horn gramophone (sadly no longer working) and on a friend's EMG. CDs and mp3s are great for convenience and for sourcing recordings that would be unobtainable or prohibitively expensive in their original format, but you don't get the same goosebump-inducing sense of presence as you potentially do with a gramophone. I think the best sound I've heard on CD remasters was in my third year digs at university, in an enormous, high ceilinged, wood panelled Georgian sitting room. I had a pretty ordinary, cheapish boombox type of CD player and you would have thought that the sound would just vanish in that huge space, but in fact it was big and mellow. Too bad I had to move out when the summer term was up!


----------



## Centropolis

For whatever reason, I have the ability to start threads that somehow by the second page, turns into war of words even though I have no intention of doing it at all.


----------



## Blancrocher

Centropolis said:


> For whatever reason, I have the ability to start threads that somehow by the second page, turns into war of words even though I have no intention of doing it at all.


And that's without using words like "atonal" and "modern." You have a rare gift, Centropolis.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Sorry for breaking up your quote, but you asked several different things all together.
> 
> I was just watching a YouTube video yesterday of a linguist talking about how spoken English of Shakespere's time was a totally different accent from any in use today. It gave some examples of rhymes and interesting word rhythms that exist in the original old English, but not in modern spoken English. Sometimes even HIP isn't HIP!
> 
> Stokowski and Victor experimented with all sorts of interesting recording and room acoustic techniques. The sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra, particularly the strings, is entirely unique. Some of this was due to the band itself. But a lot of it was the way they arranged the orchestra and set up the hall with baffles. I read a biography of Stoki that went into great detail about it. Very interesting. Even the acoustically recorded 78s by Stokowski have a one-of-a-kind sound signature.
> 
> Mono recordings are meant to be played in a room through a speaker. The sound takes on the acoustic properties of the room itself, and along with the depth cues in the recording, it can give a very satisfying sense of three dimensional space. Especially the straightforward way they miked before WW2. I've heard mono 78s that you would swear were stereo because the room they recorded in and the miking setup they used captured such vivid depth cues. I distinctly remember a country record by Eddie Arnold and the Tennessee Plowboys where you could close your eyes and position every instrument in the band, not left to right, but front to back. They had some techniques that aren't being used any more I suspect. But that is just sound... music is what really matters.
> 
> No, it's definitely the unique personalities of the performers. Tell me, if I put on the same symphony by Abbado, Barenboim and Rattle, do you think you could put the conductor to the performance without looking? I play that game every day, because I have a music server in my house playing 24/7. Whenever I hear a performance I really like, I try to guess who it is. Then I look at my phone and see who it is. I can ID a lot of conductors from the 60s and before. As soon as it gets into the 70s, it gets a lot harder. The era of the superstar conductor has faded.
> 
> One thing I want to mention. I have a huge library of modern digital recordings too, and my speaker system is a tweaked out 5:1 set with very clean sound and a very flat response. I use DSPs to process the historical recordings and add presence to them. It's not that I don't care about sound quality. I know a lot about it. I've produced sound for TV and rock videos. It's just that sound isn't my primary concern. A lifelike performance means much more to me than lifelike sound. I like good sound. I devour great music with passion.


No, I can't distinguish one conductor from another. If I have listened to it enough, I might be able to distinguish one recording from another. I don't have the time, or the income, to listen to all of the different permutations of a given composition. Where I am lucky, with certain favorites, I have sampled various recordings. But I do detect differences between modern conductors, enough so that I have been able to determine which recordings I prefer, but can't tell you the specific reasons, other than they sound better to me. Thus I can tell you that, in terms of Beethoven's symphonies (just an example, since these are works I have more experience with than most others), in terms of HIP recordings, I absolutely detect a difference between Hogwood and Gardiner and Immerseel, and greatly prefer Gardiner. Put those three together, and tell me they all sound the same - I don't think you can honestly say that. I also know that Vanska's cycle sounds different than Karajan's, and they both sound different from Szell's and Klemperer's. And I love all 4 of them, and they don't sound the same - but blindfold me and I couldn't necessarily tell you which from which, aside from the fact that Klemperer's tends to have slower tempos and a few of them are in mono.

What is my point? Simply this. Experimentation and uniqueness is not gone in classical music. They have just moved on to new ways of interpreting. Maybe they don't experiment in the same ways that Toscanini and Stokowski did, because that has already been done. Maybe the exploration of historic performance practices today is comparable with experimenting with orchestral arrangements in those days. In much the same way that composition has changed. Composers are no longer composing in the Baroque style, or the Classical style, or the Romantic style, because we are in a different era, and new practices in composition are being used. Things change. No - people aren't conducting works the way they did back in the first half of the 20th century - because we have moved on to new practices. In some ways this has been influenced by recording technology - now sound can be delivered crystal clear, and so maybe they do focus more on the technical precision, because the lack of it is now more readily apparent with such recording technology. But to say that modern conductors are now all carbon copies of one another just begs incredulity. They aren't. Like I said - go listen to Hogwood's, Gardiner's, and Immerseel's Beethoven symphony recordings and tell me they all sound the same - if you do, I will have to call ******


----------



## Mahlerian

bigshot said:


> No, it's definitely the unique personalities of the performers. Tell me, if I put on the same symphony by Abbado, Barenboim and Rattle, do you think you could put the conductor to the performance without looking? I play that game every day, because I have a music server in my house playing 24/7. Whenever I hear a performance I really like, I try to guess who it is. Then I look at my phone and see who it is. I can ID a lot of conductors from the 60s and before. As soon as it gets into the 70s, it gets a lot harder. The era of the superstar conductor has faded.


The Rattle would usually be the one of the three that I end up liking the least...

Anyway, are you sure that you're not identifying the older recordings by the _sound_ of the recording more than by the interpretive decisions of the conductor? If we took newer recordings and were able to apply filters and such that made them sound similar to older analog recordings of the 50s and 60s, would you be able to tell immediately which was which?

As you are fond of telling us regarding 24-bit audio, if you can't test it blind, you're able to fool yourself easily.


----------



## satoru

Centropolis said:


> For whatever reason, I have the ability to start threads that somehow by the second page, turns into war of words even though I have no intention of doing it at all.


Don't worry about us, old geezers, as we like to fight with words! (They are 55, I'm 53.)
Sit back and enjoy to scene of wars, unless you want to fight one of your own.
Pass me some popcorn, please. 

Music is an interesting category among what mind does, where personalities play a huge part in it. There are a lot of wars going on the topic of musical tastes. Somehow, we feel like ourselves are been attacked when we are criticized for our tastes on music. It caused by the fact that some of the factors are beyond our control. There is a proposal to study the linkage between genes and music appreciation:

Genomics approaches to study musical aptitude

In following decades, we will learn a lot more about our tastes on music. Stay tuned!

PS: By the way, did you have had chance to listen to some of the restorations of Schnabel's Beethoven from the link I posted? I'm just curious to know whether all of the different restoration did or didn't work for you. Among the downloadable restorations, Pearl leaves the noise most, while Nuovo Era removes to most, Naxos coming in between. Enjoy!


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> No, I can't distinguish one conductor from another. If I have listened to it enough, I might be able to distinguish one recording from another.


Even if you don't know anything about the recordings, I would be able to play Beethoven's 3rd and 5th for you by Toscanini and Stokowski and you would instantly be able to put the two Stokis together and the two Toscaninis. They are that different. There are no two living conductors that I have been able to discern an unique stylistic signature of the conductor like that. I can tell differences between modern recordings, but I'm not talking about individual recordings. I'm talking about being able to say "That is Toscanini." from the first few bars without ever having heard that particular recording before.


----------



## bigshot

Mahlerian said:


> Anyway, are you sure that you're not identifying the older recordings by the _sound_ of the recording more than by the interpretive decisions of the conductor?


I really don't think so, because Stokowski recorded in acoustic, early electrical, hifi mono, analogue stereo and digital, and I can spot most of his performances a mile away. He even played with dozens of different orchestras, so it isn't the sound of the band either. The string textures are totally unique. It's a combination of free bowing and the balances he chose along with the incredibly beautiful phrasing. And Furtwangler and Toscanini both recorded in the same era with the same limitations and those two are miles apart too. Toscanini is actually the easiest one to ID based on style. Bernstein and Karajan are close behind.

Interesting story... I have a musician friend who has a very good ear. He doesn't listen to much classical music, but I played some of Bernstein's Mahler for him and he listened very carefully for a while. Then he turned to me and said, "Is the conductor or the composer gay?" My jaw hit the floor. I told him the conductor was. He didn't know Bernstein from Adam but he could detect something like that in the music. I asked him how he knew that and he said that it was the way the emotions were presented and how it changed from one emotion to another. I can't fathom that, but the only way to explain it is for a very strong personality to have a very strong influence on the music.


----------



## bigshot

satoru said:


> Don't worry about us, old geezers, as we like to fight with words!


Actually, I'm not fighting at all. I'm just talking about the things I think about. I think a lot about music and try to figure it out. I test my theories by sharing them with others and listening to their theories. That back and forth is the grist that hones appreciation to a sharp edge. Talking about music is a good thing. Everyone should do it, and no one should feel insecure. It's how all of us learn.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Even if you don't know anything about the recordings, I would be able to play Beethoven's 3rd and 5th for you by Toscanini and Stokowski and you would instantly be able to put the two Stokis together and the two Toscaninis. They are that different. There are no two living conductors that I have been able to discern an unique stylistic signature of the conductor like that. I can tell differences between modern recordings, but I'm not talking about individual recordings. I'm talking about being able to say "That is Toscanini." from the first few bars without ever having heard that particular recording before.


Really? If I were to play for you Beethoven's 3rd and 5th by, say, Vanska, Gardiner, and Immerseel, you wouldn't be able to discern them by their styles of conducting? I find that REALLY hard to believe. Perhaps, then, it just stems from your having trained your ear for so long with Toscanini and Stokowski.


----------



## satoru

bigshot said:


> Actually, I'm not fighting at all. I'm just talking about the things I think about. I think a lot about music and try to figure it out. I test my theories by sharing them with others and listening to their theories. That back and forth is the grist that hones appreciation to a sharp edge. Talking about music is a good thing. Everyone should do it, and no one should feel insecure. It's how all of us learn.


I kept myself quiet for the most of the exchange of opinions here, because I didn't need to do so as your opinions are pretty much in-line with my own (except few I haven't had a chance to experience by myself). Yes, recording technology changed the performance style forever... Whether it's good or not, I cannot comment, only that I enjoy recordings from 30's or 40's, in addition to modern recordings.

By the way, when both sides are not persuade by the logic of the other, even after lengthy discussions, it looks like a "war" from a bystander viewpoint, regardless of mood of the participants. I'm just saying 

Limited by the budget, time and space at home, my only source of music is digital formats (CD, Files, etc) and I rely on others for old recordings, either commercial or not. I run into old posts you mentioned about your own restorations. Do you still make them accessible?

One more thing. Your story on Bernstein reminds me of Philip Brett's papers on Britten, dating back to 1976, related Britten's sexual orientation to his music, and what kind of reaction it caused.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I love recordings from *both* the "Toscanini/Furtwangler" mono era and the newer stereo era (ever the populist). Of course I can tell the difference between Furtwangler and Toscanini based on their distinctive "sound", but to say that there are no differences between the modern "stereo conductors" is perhaps only admitting that _you_ can't tell the difference between them. That doesn't mean there are none.

I instantly regret commenting on this thread. :wave:


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Really? If I were to play for you Beethoven's 3rd and 5th by, say, Vanska, Gardiner, and Immerseel, you wouldn't be able to discern them by their styles of conducting?


I wouldn't be able to match the 3rds and 5ths together unless one was HIP and one wasn't. (or historical instruments vs modern) That's the only style I can easily recognize in modern conducting. I suppose I could tell the Vanska by that distinct BIS overdone dynamic range and thick low bass. But that is the recording, not the conductor.


----------



## bigshot

satoru said:


> I run into old posts you mentioned about your own restorations. Do you still make them accessible?


I'd be happy to give you links to whatever you are interested in. Off the top of my head, I have Wagner: Walkure Act 1 Walter / Meistersinger Act 3 Bohm / Walkure Act 3 Rodzinski / Melchior Arias / Gluck Orfeo with Ferrier / Beethoven: Diabelli Variations Schnabel / Mahler Sym 9 Walter / Mendelssohn Reformation Munch / Siblius Sym 5 Kajanus / Stravinsky Conducting Rite and Firebird / Weimar Era Wagner Orchestral music / Handel Concerto Grossi Op 6 Busch... I have more, but I can't think of them right now. I also have 20s dance band collections and a collection of pioneering recordings of popular music from 1906 up to WW1. Just let me know what you're interested in.


----------



## Celloissimo

bigshot said:


> Wagner: / Melchior Arias


I'd actually be very interested in hearing this. If you could post a link to it that would be awesome!


----------



## bigshot

Here you go...

Without question, Lauritz Melchior and Kirsten Flagstad were the premiere Wagnerians of their time. Their 78's for Victor recorded in the thirties and early forties are treasured by record collectors all over the world. This collection is culled from two mint condition sets, "Lauritz Melchior" (Victor M 749) and "Three Famous Scenes From Wagner" (M 671). The balance of the voices is quite forward, and in most cases that would be a serious drawback, but the voices of Melchior and Flagstad can stand up to the close perspective. Highlights include a beautiful love duet from the prologue of Gotterdammerung, Melchior's vividly acted Rome Narrative from Tannhauser, and a generous chunk of the Love Duet and Liebstod from Tristan und Isolde Dedicated Wagnerians and dabblers alike will fine lots to enjoy in this music-packed 78 minute collection.

Track 01: Steersman's Song - Der Fliegende Hollander: Act I
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner01.mp3

Track 02: Hammer Song: "Ho! Ho! Schmiede, mein Hammer!" - Siegfried: Act I
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner02.mp3

Track 03: Lohengrin's Narrative "In Fernem Land" - Lohengrin: Act III
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner03.mp3

Track 04: Rome Narrative - Tannhauser: Act III
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner04.mp3

Track 05: "Am Stillen Herd" - Die Meistersinger: Act I
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner05.mp3

Track 06: Preislied - Die Meistersinger: Act III
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner06.mp3

Track 07: Duet: "Zu Neuen Thaten" - Gotterdammerung: Prologue
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner07.mp3

Track 08: Love Duet: "O Sink' Hernieder" - Tristan und Isolde: Act II
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner08.mp3

Track 09: Liebstod: "Mild Und Leise" - Tristan und Isolde: Act III
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner09.mp3

Track 10: Brunnhilde's Immolation: "Starke Schneite" - Gotterdammerung: Act III
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/scenesfromwagner10.mp3

Bonus Track: Wagner: Hymn to Venus: "Dir Tone Lob!" Tannhauser: Act I
http://www.vintageip.com/oldstuff/records/VIP-OP-1001BonusTrk.mp3

(find someone today that can sing like this! WOW!)


----------



## Guest

satoru said:


> I kept myself quiet for the most of the exchange of opinions here, because I didn't need to do so as your opinions are pretty much in-line with my own





DiesIraeVIX said:


> I instantly regret commenting on this thread. :wave:


And yet the OP is simple enough to comment on - it doesn't need a 'war' for people to exchange views - and there are a number of related issues that have emerged that also only need people to say what they think, or offer their own example.

Wait around long enough and you'll find someone to express your opinion for you. That begs the question: if we all waited to read what someone else writes, would there be any posts?

There's a curious idea that listening to other people's opinions is in some way more noble than getting in and offering your own. It isn't. They are of equal value. Why not jump in and tell us whether you agree that you need 15 years experience to be able to note differences between performances/interpretations? Or whether you can hear a stereo effect when listening to mono recordings (I can't)? Or whether the current living conductors are all wasting their time with their interpretations because the dead have done it all?

I suppose it's more entertaining (for some reason I don't fully comprehend) to have watched three members have a 'war' than it is to shoot your own gun.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

MacLeod said:


> There's a curious idea that listening to other people's opinions is in some way more noble than getting in and offering your own. It isn't. They are of equal value. Why not jump in and tell us whether you agree that you need 15 years experience to be able to note differences between performances/interpretations? Or whether you can hear a stereo effect when listening to mono recordings (I can't)? Or whether the current living conductors are all wasting their time with their interpretations because the dead have done it all?


To be fair, MacLeod, that _is _what I did. I made my voice heard with my opinions on the matter. I agree with you and DrMike. My last statement was clearly meant to be humorous. Also, sometimes I don't feel like inserting myself into another TC argument/discussion (exchange of ideas, whatever you wanna call it). Sometimes, I just don't want to. I pick my "battles", that's my decision. You're extrapolating way too much from satoru and my comments.



MacLeod said:


> I suppose it's more entertaining (for some reason I don't fully comprehend) to have watched three members have a 'war' than it is to shoot your own gun.


You're turning it into something else. The people who aren't commenting and shooting their respective guns aren't delighting in watching people argue, or being entertained. Why would someone assume this? You strangely addressed the two people who actually _did_ "shoot their guns". What about the hundreds of others who didn't comment at all. Your comment is a bit misdirected. We're not the "non-shooting TC pacifists" you're looking for. Even then, though, there's nothing wrong with not commenting and just reading people's thoughts on the matter. Not everyone comments on every thread, some threads just aren't near and dear enough to my interests, so I don't waste a post that wouldn't really add anything of value.


----------



## Guest

I suppose that, unless we totally, 100% agree with another person, we just shouldn't comment, otherwise we are engaging in a war. There is this notion lately that contradicting or gainsaying anybody is just completely unseemly on a discussion forum. What the hell are we here for? I know I am not converting anybody - I'm not trying to. But I come away from these debates, usually with more information than when I started, and more fully cognizant of how I feel on a particular topic. I still hold my original opinions regarding mono vs. stereo recordings, but have learned something more about other opinions, even if I don't fully agree with them.

I didn't realize that this forum was purely for preaching to the choir, and any form of dissent should simply be quashed before it is even uttered. Seriously - how lame and boring would this forum be if every response to every post is, "you are so right, I totally agree with everything you have said?"


----------



## DiesIraeCX

You're not addressing my post, are you?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I wouldn't be able to match the 3rds and 5ths together unless one was HIP and one wasn't. (or historical instruments vs modern) That's the only style I can easily recognize in modern conducting. I suppose I could tell the Vanska by that distinct BIS overdone dynamic range and thick low bass. But that is the recording, not the conductor.


Well, yeah, some are HIP, and some aren't - because those are the different styles of these different conductors. Stokowski and Toscanini experimented with different seating positions. Gardiner experiments with different instruments and performing practices, trying to reproduce, as nearly as he believes, what an audience would have heard back in Beethoven's time. Immerseel also seeks something similar, but his style is to experiment with even more scaled-down numbers and faster tempos. And Vanska's style is to experiment with the performance practices used during Beethoven's time, while utilizing modern instruments. Those are all different interpretations and performance styles.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> You're not addressing my post, are you?


Nope. Just the complaints that there are *gasp* disagreements on this forum.


----------



## satoru

bigshot said:


> I'd be happy to give you links to whatever you are interested in. Off the top of my head, I have Wagner: Walkure Act 1 Walter / Meistersinger Act 3 Bohm / Walkure Act 3 Rodzinski / Melchior Arias / Gluck Orfeo with Ferrier / Beethoven: Diabelli Variations Schnabel / Mahler Sym 9 Walter / Mendelssohn Reformation Munch / Siblius Sym 5 Kajanus / Stravinsky Conducting Rite and Firebird / Weimar Era Wagner Orchestral music / Handel Concerto Grossi Op 6 Busch... I have more, but I can't think of them right now. I also have 20s dance band collections and a collection of pioneering recordings of popular music from 1906 up to WW1. Just let me know what you're interested in.


Wow, you have an impressive list. As Schnabel's Beabelli Variations is mentioned elsewhere, why don't I start with it. Also, Sibelius No. 5 by Kajanus is famous and I'm curious to hear it. Thanks a lot!


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> To be fair, MacLeod, that _is _what I did. [etc]


My apologies. Although I cited your post, my aim was not specifically at you, just your point that you regretted commenting. I think that's a shame.

Where I was using 'you' I should have used 'one' - but some readers find that...pompous (?)...I was really addressing those who had thus far offered no real opinion either way - such as satoru and his points about 'war' and that he felt he didn't need to comment because someone else had already put his/her point of view.

Too many threads reduce to 'an exchange of views' between just two or three people, with some sitting on the sidelines rather than adding their perspectives. I know it can be a challenge to 'insert' oneself, but without shades of opinion, we often see only polarities.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> Or whether you can hear a stereo effect when listening to mono recordings (I can't)?


I'll elaborate on that if I didn't make it clear... In a good sized room with a pleasant live acoustic, a mono speaker on one end of the room will blend with the ambience of the room and create the illusion of depth. Some of that is due to the liveliness of the room, and some is due to the depth cues in the recording that indicate perspective on the instruments (which are closer, which are further away).

I have a 5:1 speaker system and my AV receiver has a DSP that synthesizes a 5:1 spread from stereo recordings. It works VERY well. Very sophisticated sound processing. It works almost as well with mono recordings. When I play a hifi mono recording from the early 50s through the DSP, it is very difficult to tell if it is stereo or mono without listening for specific instrument placement (i.e.: violins on the left) Certain Toscanini recordings were infamous in the LP era for having "dry sound". The studio they recorded was good, but it had absolutely no room acoustics. When I got the Toscanini box, the first thing I did was to take one of those recordings and run it through the DSP in my receiver that recreates the ambience of the Vienna Sofiensaal. The results were amazing. It didn't sound dry or dead any more. Really nice acoustic.

So it is possible with a good speaker setup and digital processing to make mono sound much better than it sounds with headphones.


----------



## bigshot

satoru said:


> As Schnabel's Beabelli Variations is mentioned elsewhere, why don't I start with it. Also, Sibelius No. 5 by Kajanus is famous and I'm curious to hear it. Thanks a lot!


Beethoven Diabelli Variations: Artur Schnabel 1937
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3

Beethoven Eroica Variations: Artur Schnabel 1937
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeleroica.mp3

Liner notes:

It isn't often that masterpieces emerge from trivial stunts, but that is exactly what happened in the case of Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. Anton Diabelli, a music publisher, wrote a simple waltz melody and was brazen enough to ask the leading composers of the day, including Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt, to write a single variation apiece. Beethoven's initial reaction to the idea was negative. He called Diabelli's waltz a mere "cobbler's patch". But he finally agreed to compose not just a single variation, but a complete set of variations.

Beethoven's achievement stands alongside Bach's Goldberg Variations as the ultimate expression of the musical form. In his book, The International Record Book, David Hall describes Beethoven's Diabelli Variations as having "an emotional range as broad and deep as life itself." Hall quotes Robert Haven Schuffler as saying, "Beethoven could squeeze blood out of bricks. And he made rubies of the blood, and platinum of the residue of the bricks, and organized these products into miracles of design that would have put Benvenuto Cellini to shame."

The Eroica Variations are a masterpiece in their own right, paling in significance only in comparison to the Diabellis. Using a musical theme from the Creatures of Prometheus ballet, which was later used in his third symphony, Beethoven created a virtuoso showpiece for piano. The Eroica Variations contain power and optimism that belied the depression and frustration Beethoven himself was feeling about the progression of his deafness when he composed them.

Artur Schnabel was one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. He is best known for his complete cycle of Beethoven Piano Sonatas and the piano music of Franz Schubert. David Hall wrote, "While there are technical slips and moments of rhythmic inflexibility in some of his readings, Schnabel makes us completely unaware of anything coming between the listener and the music. Beyond this, no interpreter can go."

Schnabel refused to record prior to 1929, expressing a distrust of the medium. He wrote in his autobiography, "One of the chief reasons for my refusal was that I did not like the idea of having no conrol over the behaviour of the people who listened to music which I performed- not knowing how they would be dressed, what else they would be doing at the same time, how much they would listen..." In private he was more blunt, saying that he didn't want to be playing a Beethoven Sonata on record while the listener sat in a bathrobe eating a ham sandwich. He was equally distrustful of the technology of reproducing pianos. When a representative of the Duo-Art piano company proudly told him that their player piano was able to reproduce 16 distinct levels of dynamics, Schnabel dryly replied, "That's unfortunate, because I play with 17."

Schnabel's Beethoven is firmly established as a benchmark, towering among the greatest recordings of piano literature. There have been numerous releases of these recordings over the years, but the quality varies greatly. These records were never released on high quality shellac, only in inferior European pressings. The level of crackle in these disks is very high. To correct for this, many transfer engineers use heavy noise reduction and compression settings to flatten the sound out. Even at the time, technicians at His Master's Voice encouraged Schnabel to not play the pianissimo passages quite so quietly, saying that some of the notes couldn't be heard over the surface noise. Schnabel replied that he didn't intend for all of the notes to be heard... some were to be just felt.

Listening to the original 78rpm records of these great works for the first time proved conclusively to me that Schnabel was absolutely correct. The dynamic balances in these recordings are perfect, and each note is given its own individual coloring. Any attempt to compress or re-equalize the recording would destroy this delicate balance. That's why my main goal in restoring these performances was only to only eliminate as much noise as I could without compromising the piano tone. I've been working on this CD for the past year, and I have thrown out hundreds of hours of work and started over twice. The challenges presented by the crackly British shellac proved to be the perfect testing ground for my restoration techniques. After many hundreds of hours of work, I have finally reached a result that I am satisfied with. I think it does justice to both Schnabel and Beethoven. I hope you agree.


----------



## bigshot

And here is the Sibelius... Enjoy!

THE SOUNDING SILENCE

Knudage Riisager

Johan Hye-Knudsen conducting Det Kongelige Kapel (Recorded September, 1939)
Qarrtsiluni: http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/soundingsilence01.mp3

Jean Sibelius

Robert Kajanus conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra (Recorded June, 1932)
Tapiola: http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/soundingsilence02.mp3
Pohjola's Daughter: http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/soundingsilence03.mp3
Symphony No. 5 in E flat major: http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/soundingsilence04.mp3

Liner notes:

Knudage Riisager and the Sounding Silence

Knudage Riisager was born in Estonia, and at the age of three relocated to Copenhagen. He studied politcal science as well as music, and throughout his life, he wrote extensively on politics, economics as well as musical theory. But composition was the main focus of his life. He began his musical career in Paris in the early 1920s, where he came to know Ravel, Stravinsky and the group of young composers known as "Les Six" (Darius Milhaud, Francis Poulenc, Arthur Honegger, Georges Auric, Louis Durey and Germaine Tailleferre). This French influence set him apart from contemporary Nordic composers, and his Neo-Classical ideology put him at odds with much of the modernistic German music of the day. "Oddness is a pathological phenomenon in art, an element that leads to a constant widening of the gap between art and humanity" Riisager wrote. "While distinctiveness is an expression of artistic strength, odd music has no future. Society does not want it and has no use for it... Art is not for cranks, it is for living human beings."

Riisager became fascinated with the Eskimo culture of Greenland. This interest led to the composition of a tone poem titled Qarrtsiluni, which describes the Eskimo ceremony to greet the dawn after the long Arctic night. Riisager captured a unique sound in this work... He wrote, "When I have been alone skiing for many hours through snowy wastes in the mountains, moments come when the silence sounds and becomes an intangible reality... In this sounding silence, there is something like the experience of music... This isolated silence is a rounded whole, without preceding or succeeding sound. That is what is so strange about it. It is moving. It is what the Greenlanders call Qarrtsiluni."

In Qarrtsiluni, Riisager creates an eerie feeling of isolation. Native drumming emerges as from a distance, so quiet at first, it might be the beating of the listener's own heart. The sound builds steadily as the winds blow across the frozen tundra and the sun rises slowly over the horizon. This particular performance was recorded under the supervision of the composer in 1939 by the orchestra of the Royal Theater in Copenhagen conducted by Johann Hye-Knudsen. It was the premiere recording of the piece.

Jean Sibelius: The Musical Voice of Finland

Jean Sibelius was born in 1865 near Helsinki. He played the violin, and began composing at the age of ten. As a youngster, he studied the poetry and mythology of his native Finland... in particular the folk tales known as the Kalevala. At first, he seemed destined for a more ordinary career, but in his early 20s, he abandoned study of the law in favor of a musical education at the Helsinki Music Institute. He later studied in Berlin and Vienna, and with the publication of his first symphony, it became clear that a new musical voice was on the scene. Around the turn of the century, Russia was putting pressure on the Finns. Sibelius' best known composition, Finlandia became a rallying point for his countrymen. His fervently nationalistic music made him a hero, and his music spread the Finnish cause to the entire world.

Stylistically, Sibelius worked within traditional forms, but sought to simplify and streamline the internal structure of the music. He created a highly unique "sound world" with harmonies and sonorities that evoked the feeling of the Scandinavian countryside. Tapiola has been described as being to the Northern forests what Debussy's La Mer is to the sea. It describes the power and beauty of nature with amazing force and grandeur. The conductor and composer Constant Lambert praised Tapiola by saying, "Sibelius, like a Newton or an Einstein, revealed the electrifying possibilities that are latent in the apparently commonplace." Pohjola's Daughter gave Sibelius the opportunity to illustrate a folktale from the beloved Finnish saga, the Kalevala. The hero of the story, Vainamoinen asks the maiden to marry him. She agrees, but sets impossible tasks for Vainemoinen to accomplish before they can wed. Sibelius' masterful orchestral suites are colorful and full of variety. They're bracing and pure, like water from a cold mountain spring. Great conductors, including Wood, Toscanini, Richter and even Richard Strauss championed his music. But Sibelius wasn't satisfied. He was plagued by self-doubt, and was highly critical of his own work, going so far as to rewrite or even destroy drafts of pieces that he wasn't satisfied with.

The composition of the Fifth Symphony was a terrific struggle for Sibelius. Originally, it had four movements, but a year after its debut, he combined the first two movements into a single unit. Four years later, he was still dissatisfied, and rewrote the entire work, settling on the version we are familiar with today. There is no question that his revisions were a great improvement. The Fifth Symphony in its completed form evokes a certain feeling of timelessness. From the organic build up of the first movement, to the reflective tranquility of the second, to the powerful horns of the third and the stabbing chords that end the work... Sibelius had created a truly great symphony worthy of standing alongside those of Beethoven.

But to the musical society of the time who championed forward thinking composers like Stravinsky and Schoenberg, Sibelius was seen as a hopelessly reactionary nationalist working in outdated forms. His austere classicism seemed out of touch with the changes in society following the first World War. In all, Sibelius composed seven symphonies, a violin concerto and a number of amazingly beautiful tone poems over a period of about thirty years. But with the completion of Tapiola in 1926, he ceased composing altogether. Sibelius lived for another thirty years in retirement, offering no explanation for his withdrawl from the musical scene. He turned his back on his continually growing international fame, and refused to travel outside of Finland. It was speculated that his self-doubt and the criticism of the musical elite had silenced him.

The Conductor... Robert Kajanus

These legendary recordings were made in June of 1932 by Sibelius' friend, Robert Kajanus. Kajanus was instrumental to the tremendous growth of Finnish music through the turn of the century, founding the Helsinki Philharmonic and leading it for over fifty years. He composed several notable orchestral works, including the tone poem Aino, based on a folk tale from the Kalevala. But when he came in contact with the music of Sibelius, he set aside composing for a career as a conductor. He worked closely with Sibelius on his interpretations, and his recordings of the First, Second, Third and Fifth symphonies have come to be regarded as definitive.

Kajanus told an amusing story about his friendship with Sibelius... He was dining in a small restaurant outside of Helsinki with Sibelius and a group of friends, when he revealed that he would have to leave soon to conduct a performance of the Helsinki Philharmonic. Sibelius protested his departure, arguing that an assistant could easily conduct in his absence. Kajanus reluctantly excused himself to make a phone call to let the theater manager know he wouldn't be able to make it to the performance. But when he got to the phone, he felt guilty for neglecting his responsibility. He picked up his hat and coat and took the train to Helsinki without saying goodbye to the group. He conducted the program, returned on the night train and arrived back again at the restaurant to find Sibelius and company still ensconced just as he had left them. As he sat back down at the table, Sibelius looked over at him and said, "My! That was a long phone call!"


----------



## OlivierM

Headphone Hermit said:


> I was there, in the 1950s with some bloke with a chesty cough a few rows behind me, and a sneezer a few seats along from me, I could hear the singers moving about on the stage in front of me.


With all due respect for your enjoyment, and with heaps of apologies for the late answer, I am strongly in favor of beheading then impaling on stage the people who cough during concerts.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Well, yeah, some are HIP, and some aren't - because those are the different styles of these different conductors. Stokowski and Toscanini experimented with different seating positions.


Toscanini and Stokowski used the exact same orchestras to produce two completely different emotional impacts. In fact, Stoki guest conducted Toscanini's NBC Orchestra on occasion and produced a "Stokowski sound" with them.

When I talk about interpretation, I'm not talking about different instruments or seating positions, I'm talking about totally unique ways of phrasing, instantly recognizable balance of strings, emotional transitions from mood to mood, most of all PERSONALITY in the conducting. It isn't "performance style" in the way that HIP is performance style, it's style in the sense of a uniquely personal expression.

This is something that can be described roughly in words, but only if you have heard it. If you don't listen to historical recordings and you aren't familiar with many of Stoki or Toscanini's recordings, it is something you probably can't picture. It is VERY different from the way things are done today.

The golden age was the era of the superstar conductor. People went to hear Toscanini, not necessarily Beethoven. Today, we live in the era of "Let the music do the talking". The conductor is expected to present the music and only the music... not make a personal mark. A good modern performance isn't judged by how vivid the conducting is, it's judged by how accurately it presents the composer. That is a totally different mind set.

Probably the last of the old style conductors were Karajan and Bernstein. Both of them received a lot of criticism for being "willful" and trying to "overshadow the music". People objected to Karajan's lush orchestral tone and Bernstein's heart-on-the-sleeve passion. But in the golden age of conducting, no one objected to Stokowski's lush orchestral tone or Toscanini's heart-on-the-sleeve passion. On the contrary, that was exactly what they went to the concert hall to hear.

Bernstein and Karajan recorded in the stereo era, so maybe you can relate to what I'm saying through them. But Bernstein and Karajan aren't anywhere near as concentrated in this aspect as Toscanini and Stokowski. Those two were giants.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Toscanini and Stokowski used the exact same orchestras to produce two completely different emotional impacts. In fact, Stoki guest conducted Toscanini's NBC Orchestra on occasion and produced a "Stokowski sound" with them.
> 
> When I talk about interpretation, I'm not talking about different instruments or seating positions, I'm talking about totally unique ways of phrasing, instantly recognizable balance of strings, emotional transitions from mood to mood, most of all PERSONALITY in the conducting. It isn't "performance style" in the way that HIP is performance style, it's style in the sense of a uniquely personal expression.
> 
> This is something that can be described roughly in words, but only if you have heard it. If you don't listen to historical recordings and you aren't familiar with many of Stoki or Toscanini's recordings, it is something you probably can't picture. It is VERY different from the way things are done today.
> 
> The golden age was the era of the superstar conductor. People went to hear Toscanini, not necessarily Beethoven. Today, we live in the era of "Let the music do the talking". The conductor is expected to present the music and only the music... not make a personal mark. A good modern performance isn't judged by how vivid the conducting is, it's judged by how accurately it presents the composer. That is a totally different mind set.
> 
> Probably the last of the old style conductors were Karajan and Bernstein. Both of them received a lot of criticism for being "willful" and trying to "overshadow the music". People objected to Karajan's lush orchestral tone and Bernstein's heart-on-the-sleeve passion. But in the golden age of conducting, no one objected to Stokowski's lush orchestral tone or Toscanini's heart-on-the-sleeve passion. On the contrary, that was exactly what they went to the concert hall to hear.
> 
> Bernstein and Karajan recorded in the stereo era, so maybe you can relate to what I'm saying through them. But Bernstein and Karajan aren't anywhere near as concentrated in this aspect as Toscanini and Stokowski. Those two were giants.


Well, for me, I definitely still sense differences between conductors. Perhaps one of the differences may also be that a lot more conductors are recorded today than before, and so then you only heard the truly stand out ones.

At any rate, it is all academic to me. I have listened to both Stokowski and Toscanini. Admittedly I don't have a fancy sound system to detect the various nuances you mention. I do a lot of my listening through headphones. I don't mind mono recordings. My only turntable is a relatively cheap one that allows me to convert vinyl to mp3, so that I can listen to what few vinyl records I have while away from the turntable - primarily my Mravinsky recording of Tchaikovsky's 4-6 Symphonies.

I listen to what I like. I have absolute favorite conductors from the past as well as the present. Klemperer is one of my favorites - doesn't matter if it is stereo or mono. I really like Vanska's Beethoven symphony cycle. I know that there are many fans of the old 78's and the "golden age." Maybe I much prefer to hear the composer than the conductor - I don't think so. Anybody who has multiple recordings is clearly looking for both - that combination of the composer and the conductor. I guess I like my relative ignorance - it is bliss. I couldn't tell you where the violins should normally be placed, so it doesn't matter to me if a conductor moves them. I don't mind tweaking tempos. I like the experimentation that Jacobs does with varying tempos in his Mozart operas. I'm not enough of a vocal expert to tell you singer X from 1935 is vastly superior to singer Y from 2008.

All things being equal, I like the beautiful, crystal clear sonics of modern digital stereo recordings. And while I also enjoy several older mono recordings, if they were to suddenly vanish, I don't believe that I will be absolutely robbed of the ability to hear excellent performances with only the modern catalogue from which to choose.

Like I said - my ignorance means bliss.


----------



## Bulldog

MacLeod said:


> My apologies. Although I cited your post, my aim was not specifically at you, just your point that you regretted commenting. I think that's a shame.
> 
> Where I was using 'you' I should have used 'one' - but some readers find that...pompous (?)...I was really addressing those who had thus far offered no real opinion either way - such as satoru and his points about 'war' and that he felt he didn't need to comment because someone else had already put his/her point of view.
> 
> Too many threads reduce to 'an exchange of views' between just two or three people, with some sitting on the sidelines rather than adding their perspectives. I know it can be a challenge to 'insert' oneself, but without shades of opinion, we often see only polarities.


I'd be glad to offer my opinion, but I would need to know the subject matter. This thread has been all over the place.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> When I talk about interpretation, I'm not talking about different instruments or seating positions, I'm talking about totally unique ways of phrasing, instantly recognizable balance of strings, emotional transitions from mood to mood, most of all PERSONALITY in the conducting. It isn't "performance style" in the way that HIP is performance style, it's style in the sense of a uniquely personal expression.
> 
> [...]
> 
> But Bernstein and Karajan aren't anywhere near as concentrated in this aspect as Toscanini and Stokowski. Those two were giants.


On your first point, I'll not speak for anyone else enjoying this thread...but...yes, I get it. I already did. I got it in 1981 when I bought my second version of _The Planets Suite_ (Boult) where I had become used to Sargent.

On your second point, you're back to 'best' and not just 'different'.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> and digital processing


That's the giveaway, really. But then, all electronically processed music is a step away from The Real Thing (whatever that is) and I'm sure that you experience a different sound sitting in the stalls of a live performance than if you're stood right behind the conductor or sat up in the gods (I'm picturing the Royal Albert Hall).


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> I'd be glad to offer my opinion, but I would need to know the subject matter. This thread has been all over the place.


I think there've been only two main themes. One about mono v stereo, and one about 'interpretation' or 'performance'. In both cases, the question has been whether, when choosing what to listen to (and buy), putting higher quality (stereo) reproduction before creative interpretation means that we modern listeners are missing out on the best performances.

I expressed a _preference _early in the thread - for modern recording - but in fact have some older and mono recordings that I'm very happy with. I don't agree with bigshot's contention that modern recordings are all about technical fidelity and not about creative interpretation.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Schnabel refused to record prior to 1929, expressing a distrust of the medium. He wrote in his autobiography, "One of the chief reasons for my refusal was that I did not like the idea of having no conrol over the behaviour of the people who listened to music which I performed- not knowing how they would be dressed, what else they would be doing at the same time, how much they would listen..." In private he was more blunt, saying that he didn't want to be playing a Beethoven Sonata on record while the listener sat in a bathrobe eating a ham sandwich.

:lol: I'm going to have to keep this in mind when at sit at the computer in the summer months in my underwear, a big glass of stout at hand and Bach or Mozart playing. :lol:


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Schnabel refused to record prior to 1929, expressing a distrust of the medium. He wrote in his autobiography, "One of the chief reasons for my refusal was that I did not like the idea of having no conrol over the behaviour of the people who listened to music which I performed- not knowing how they would be dressed, what else they would be doing at the same time, how much they would listen..." In private he was more blunt, saying that he didn't want to be playing a Beethoven Sonata on record while the listener sat in a bathrobe eating a ham sandwich.
> 
> :lol: I'm going to have to keep this in mind when at sit at the computer in the summer months in my underwear, a big glass of stout at hand and Bach or Mozart playing. :lol:


Do you think he also worried that cameras stole his soul?


----------



## Wood

I love many acoustic recordings, and have a Gigli CD, originally recorded from 1918-24, playing right now. 

My recommendation is for the OP to persist, as there are sounds to be heard on early recordings which are no longer recorded today. Historical recordings can provide a large chunk of our hobby. For many of us, singers such as Gigli, Caruso and Supervia have never been bettered.

It would be nice to get a working old gramophone one day.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't see this as an either/or issue. I have recordings from across the spectrum from the 1920s (very few) through the present. Limiting myself to only more recent recordings would result in a loss of many fine recordings made by some of the greatest singers, soloists, and conductors. In some instances I would agree that certain older recordings haven't been matched by contemporary recordings. No more recent recording of Wagner's ring has the advantage of singers like Kirsten Flagstad or Lauritz Melchior. No modern recording of Tosca (among other operas) rivals that of Victor de Sabata with Maria Callas. But the same is true in reverse. I have no doubt that we live in a "golden age" of recordings of the Baroque and earlier music. We are also living in a "golden age" when it comes to counter-tenors... where this is not so immediately true of other operatic singers. I tend to have at least two recordings of most of the works that I really like or consider of great importance: one in commonly "historic" with the other more recent... often HIP.


----------



## Figleaf

DrMike said:


> Do you think he also worried that cameras stole his soul?


At least one (somewhat atypical) opera singer had similar thoughts about the phonograph when he said 'The soul of Jean de Reszke cannot be captured on wax'. I'm not sure how serious he was, but he was certainly resolute. Later he would complain wryly that his only legacy to posterity would be the cigarettes that bore his name. There's no pleasing some people!

Right- I'm off to buy some Quorn ham and find my bathrobe so I can listen to Artur Schnabel.


----------



## Bulldog

MacLeod said:


> I think there've been only two main themes. One about mono v stereo, and one about 'interpretation' or 'performance'. In both cases, the question has been whether, when choosing what to listen to (and buy), putting higher quality (stereo) reproduction before creative interpretation means that we modern listeners are missing out on the best performances.


In some cases, avoiding historical recordings will mean avoiding the best performances. But why avoid anything? I acquire both mono and modern recordings; that way I get the best of both worlds.

As for the premise that modern performers don't approach the creative levels of earlier artists, that notion can only be tested by years of listening. Overall, I'd say that this premise doesn't hold water. It is important to mention that we hear on modern recordings a large group of artists who will be forgotten as the years move on; with historical recordings, we listen to the best of the best from whatever era.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Like I said - my ignorance means bliss.


And like I said, your perceptions might change as you gain more experience with the repertoire. Just familiarizing yourself with composers and their works and not worrying around interpretations can take an awful long time. That took me 15 years. Some people might get around to considering that a little faster, or take a little longer. But no one comes out of the box being able to separate interpretation from composition. That takes being able to compare a wide range of interpretations of the same work... and that takes time.


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> As for the premise that modern performers don't approach the creative levels of earlier artists, that notion can only be tested by years of listening. Overall, I'd say that this premise doesn't hold water.


I agree with you too. I just see a wider range of interpretation in the past. That doesn't mean that current interpretations aren't creative. It just means there aren't as many different kinds. Also, anyone with a clear frame of reference has to admit that some areas, like opera singing, were undeniably better in the past, and others like the wide variety of Baroque music available today, are clearly better now.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> On your second point, you're back to 'best' and not just 'different'.


The key term there was "concentrated". Stokowski and Toscanini are like distilled versions of Karajan and Bernstein. Karajan and Bernstein were still great, just not as huge in this respect. If you want to ask me "best", I'll say Stokowski, yes. Toscanini, no. But that has to do with a lot of things that Stokowski accomplished in his long life, not just any particular recording.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> That's the giveaway, really. But then, all electronically processed music is a step away from The Real Thing


As are all recordings. The goal is to create well organized sound through technology and creative engineering.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> In some cases, avoiding historical recordings will mean avoiding the best performances. But why avoid anything? I acquire both mono and modern recordings; that way I get the best of both worlds.


I'm not sure anyone said 'avoid': I certainly didn't, and I don't think the OP did either.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> The key term there was "concentrated". Stokowski and Toscanini are like distilled versions of Karajan and Bernstein. Karajan and Bernstein were still great, just not as huge in this respect. If you want to ask me "best", I'll say Stokowski, yes. Toscanini, no. But that has to do with a lot of things that Stokowski accomplished in his long life, not just any particular recording.


I don't want to ask you 'best'. I want you to stop claiming you're only saying 'different' (as you have in more than one post) when clearly you're not.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> I don't agree with bigshot's contention that modern recordings are all about technical fidelity and not about creative interpretation.


I never said that. You're hearing me say things I'm not saying. I'd be happy to clarify if you are interested.

In a nutshell, I'm not saying "better". I'm saying "a wider variety". And I'm saying that choosing a recording because of sound quality before performance is putting the cart before the horse. I'm also saying that in order to be able to discern differences in interpretation, you need to be totally familiar with the work and have had the opportunity to be able to hear a wide variety of interpretations. That takes time. With the vast width and breadth of the classical repertoire and history of recording, that process can take a decade or more.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I never said that. You're hearing me say things I'm not saying. I'd be happy to clarify if you are interested.
> 
> In a nutshell, I'm not saying "better".


In a nutshell, that's exactly what you have repeatedly said.

As for your first point, no, you didn't say that in so many words, but it's a reasonable inference from your first post (#4) on the subject.



> When I started listening to classical music, I bought only modern recordings. All I was listening to was the composition itself, not the particular performance. I had preferences for conductors and pianists, but that was based more on technical grounds and the sound quality of their recordings, not their creative interpretation. Instead of buying multiple copies of the same work, I read the books and bought the ones with the "rosettes" to make sure I got "the good one".


In any case, I was giving a brief summary for bulldog's benefit, not giving a refined analysis. No, I don't think you need to clarify.


----------



## Figleaf

bigshot said:


> Interesting story... I have a musician friend who has a very good ear. He doesn't listen to much classical music, but I played some of Bernstein's Mahler for him and he listened very carefully for a while. Then he turned to me and said, "Is the conductor or the composer gay?" My jaw hit the floor. I told him the conductor was. He didn't know Bernstein from Adam but he could detect something like that in the music. I asked him how he knew that and he said that it was the way the emotions were presented and how it changed from one emotion to another. I can't fathom that, but the only way to explain it is for a very strong personality to have a very strong influence on the music.


Bigshot, you've posted some fabulously insightful and informative things on this thread, but the gay theory doesn't convince me. I may not be the best judge of this as a straight person who doesn't really 'get' orchestral music, but I don't see how there can be a distinctively homosexual style of conducting. (A limp way of holding the baton maybe? JOKE!!!) I mean, if you can't even tell gay singers by their voice and style, I don't see how you could infer it from where Bernstein puts the violins or whatever conductors do. I think your friend is pulling your leg- perhaps he's one of those people who thinks that gayness is intrinsically hilarious, like the writers of Will & Grace seem to. Gay composers on the other hand- I've got no idea whether there's such a thing as distinctively homosexual music. No doubt there's a considerable literature on this subject, though it's never occurred to me to seek it out until today!

Anyone got any thoughts about gay conductors?


----------



## Bulldog

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure anyone said 'avoid': I certainly didn't, and I don't think the OP did either.


I'm the one who used that word - never said anyone else did.


----------



## Mahlerian

Figleaf said:


> Anyone got any thoughts about gay conductors?


Tilson-Thomas, Bernstein, and Alsop come to mind first...there are rumors about Boulez. Even without adding him in, though, I don't see much in the way of conclusions you can draw regarding style.


----------



## Vaneyes

bigshot said:


> That isn't true. I've read magazine articles about the evils of radio and talking pictures. Those two things replaced records, pit bands, and a lot of live performance during the depression years. Record sales dropped like a stone when radios hit the market. Just like streaming is doing to iPods and CDs today.


Re stereo recordings causing worry for conductors and musicians, there you go with your apples and oranges again. Enough with Cezanne.



bigshot said:


> I don't think Cezanne ever painted a banana!


After seeing his other dreadful fruit, who cares.


----------



## Vaneyes

figleaf said:


> ....Anyone got any thoughts about gay conductors?


Only that maybe they should think twice before turning their backs to the audience.


----------



## bigshot

MacLeod said:


> As for your first point, no, you didn't say that in so many words, but it's a reasonable inference from your first post (#4) on the subject.


Straw man much?


----------



## bigshot

Figleaf said:


> Bigshot, you've posted some fabulously insightful and informative things on this thread, but the gay theory doesn't convince me.


To tell you the truth, I don't really understand it either. But my buddy is very perceptive about music, and it was an honest question, not a pejorative. There was something he was sensing... not a bad thing... that tipped him off. It's interesting that interpretations can have hidden levels like that. I think it's pretty amazing actually. I like Bob Fosse and Gene Kelly, but their choreography quite different. Perhaps that is similar to what my friend was hearing.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I never said that. You're hearing me say things I'm not saying. I'd be happy to clarify if you are interested.
> 
> In a nutshell, I'm not saying "better". I'm saying "a wider variety". And I'm saying that choosing a recording because of sound quality before performance is putting the cart before the horse. I'm also saying that in order to be able to discern differences in interpretation, you need to be totally familiar with the work and have had the opportunity to be able to hear a wide variety of interpretations. *That takes time. With the vast width and breadth of the classical repertoire and history of recording, that process can take a decade or more*.


Unfortunately, that takes more than just time. It also takes money. While listening to many different recordings may open me up to what you describe, I may go broke long before. As it is, I also buy most of my music electronically through iTunes. My budget is limited, so I prefer to limit what I get to the most bang for my buck, and look for those with great reviews for both sound quality and performance. And I won't likely be collecting Victrolas and old 78s and getting DSPs to tweak the sound quality. If I am lucky, i can hook my iPod up to our simple home theater on the rare occasion I can get the house to myself.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Unfortunately, that takes more than just time. It also takes money.


Yup. But it's a better way to spend time and money than video games!


----------



## psu

All of this seems a little overwrought. One should keep in mind that in the end the only real goal here is finding a recording of a piece of music that you can enjoy and live with.

While one doesn't really want to buy the best possible sound in an awful performance it is also not necessarily rational to go after the best possible performance in awful sound. These things trade off in a continuous spectrum, IMHO. It's not a simple question of A or B. If you don't like how older mono recordings sound, just leave them on the shelf for now. Maybe if you come back later they'll seem better. If you find that all modern recordings seem generic and soulless, my advice is to do the same. Maybe if you come back later you'll find out that modern conductors are actual humans with their own personalities.

Finally, if you *do* find yourself interested in a particular piece and want to hear it in a lot of different ways, spotify is a great modern way to do this. I recently went through a bout of Ring obsession and was basically able to sample almost every well known historical and modern recording of the cycle on the service before deciding to pick up a few recordings to "keep".


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Yup. But it's a better way to spend time and money than video games!


Not according to my kids. And it is also a hard sell for my wife, explaining why one would need so many recordings of the exact same piece. And at any rate, it isn't a tradeoff between classical music and video games.

Additionally, as was mentioned before, the "golden age" does not seem to have been quite as golden for baroque works. Don't get me wrong - I like my Klemperer Bach recordings, but it does tend to make most of Bach seem like a funeral dirge. These revered conductors of yours may have excelled when it came to composers that they had either known, or at least knew other conductors who had known them, or were less than a century separated. But when it came to baroque, I think we are now in the golden age. In addition, early/renaissance music is also experiencing a wonderful rebirth here in the digital stereo age.


----------



## Guest

So for someone who is having a hard time getting into mono recordings, what are the highest recommended ones that people would put forward - at least among those relatively easy to obtain and relatively inexpensive? Assuming the average listener doesn't own a Victrola, and is looking for CDs and is not willing to plunk down hundreds of dollars on a rare CD?


----------



## Wood

DrMike said:


> So for someone who is having a hard time getting into mono recordings, what are the highest recommended ones that people would put forward - at least among those relatively easy to obtain and relatively inexpensive? Assuming the average listener doesn't own a Victrola, and is looking for CDs and is not willing to plunk down hundreds of dollars on a rare CD?


I'm enjoying the Prima Voce series of opera singers from the golden age.

Huge box sets of the great pre War maestros represent great value for money and get fine reviews, though they remain on my wishlist for the time being.

It is a good question, Dr Mike. I would like to see some extensive recommendations for economical recordings made prior to the mid fifties.


----------



## Bulldog

DrMike said:


> Not according to my kids. And it is also a hard sell for my wife, explaining why one would need so many recordings of the exact same piece. And at any rate, it isn't a tradeoff between classical music and video games.
> 
> Additionally, as was mentioned before, the "golden age" does not seem to have been quite as golden for baroque works. Don't get me wrong - I like my Klemperer Bach recordings, but it does tend to make most of Bach seem like a funeral dirge. These revered conductors of yours may have excelled when it came to composers that they had either known, or at least knew other conductors who had known them, or were less than a century separated. But when it came to baroque, I think we are now in the golden age. In addition, early/renaissance music is also experiencing a wonderful rebirth here in the digital stereo age.


Totally agree. With some exceptions, Bach performances sucked until HIP came to the forefront.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Totally agree. With some exceptions, Bach performances sucked until HIP came to the forefront.


Yeah, I think the ornateness of baroque tends to get overwhelming when projected onto a large modern orchestra. Keeping with my favorite example, there is a world of difference between Klemperer's and Herreweghe's St. Matthew Passions.


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> Totally agree. With some exceptions, Bach performances sucked until HIP came to the forefront.


With the exception of Stokowski's transcriptions, of course.


----------



## bigshot

If I had to pick one historical recording that stands head and shoulders above any other recording made since, it would be Bruno Walter's Act 1 of Die Walkure from 1935 with Lauritz Melchior, Lotte Lehmann and Emmanuel List. The conducting is truly great... other recordings may approach it on that level, but the singing is absolutely spectacular. No one has ever sung Siegmund and Sieglinde like that.

I have a wonderful transfer from Z shellac that is mind blowing. But you'll need a libretto. Otherwise you won't be able to appreciate the acting and word pointing in the singing. People complain about the long narratives in Wagner, but Melchior and Lehmann present them for what they are... storytelling. Each character describes what is happening from their own point of view and vivid acting is needed to put it across. Die Manne Sippe... oh my! Perfection! And Siegmund describing his battle is like seeing it in front of your eyes. Then the love scene comes along and the high notes come out with incredible ringing tones. Nothing like it in any other recording.

This one actually is a "best". Wagner performances are always compromises, but there is no compromise in this one.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> If I had to pick one historical recording that stands head and shoulders above any other recording made since, it would be Bruno Walter's Act 1 of Die Walkure from 1935 with Lauritz Melchior, Lotte Lehmann and Emmanuel List. The conducting is truly great... other recordings may approach it on that level, but the singing is absolutely spectacular. No one has ever sung Siegmund and Sieglinde like that.
> 
> I have a wonderful transfer from Z shellac that is mind blowing. But you'll need a libretto. Otherwise you won't be able to appreciate the acting and word pointing in the singing. People complain about the long narratives in Wagner, but Melchior and Lehmann present them for what they are... storytelling. Each character describes what is happening from their own point of view and vivid acting is needed to put it across. Die Manne Sippe... oh my! Perfection! And Siegmund describing his battle is like seeing it in front of your eyes. Then the love scene comes along and the high notes come out with incredible ringing tones. Nothing like it in any other recording.
> 
> This one actually is a "best". Wagner performances are always compromises, but there is no compromise in this one.


For my own personal edification - anything other than opera? I am not the wildest about opera in general - whether it is modern or old. Anything in the solo instrument category, or orchestral, or chamber? I like choral works and Lieder as well - just not so much opera.


----------



## bigshot

Also, from a historical context, no one should go without hearing Furtwangler's blistering 1942 Beethoven's 9th. It isn't a definitive performance by any stretch of the imagination, but it's proof that a conductor can make an indelible personal statement through classical music.

In a similar vein, Bruno Walter's last recording with the Vienna Philharmonic before the Nazis invaded Austria... Mahler's 9th. It's a nostalgic and heartbreaking performance that distilled the end of an era in a single symphony. Again, not definitive... It starts out kind of scrappy because the orchestra was clearly worried and upset about their future. But by the end, they were expressing their tragic situation through the music.

I have a transfer of the Mahler I can post if anyone is interested. I'm sure the Furtwangler is on YouTube.


----------



## bigshot

Opera is to historical recordings as baroque is to modern. Each age has its specialties.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Also, from a historical context, no one should go without hearing Furtwangler's blistering 1942 Beethoven's 9th. It isn't a definitive performance by any stretch of the imagination, but it's proof that a conductor can make an indelible personal statement through classical music.
> 
> In a similar vein, Bruno Walter's last recording with the Vienna Philharmonic before the Nazis invaded Austria... Mahler's 9th. It's a nostalgic and heartbreaking performance that distilled the end of an era in a single symphony. Again, not definitive... It starts out kind of scrappy because the orchestra was clearly worried and upset about their future. But by the end, they were expressing their tragic situation through the music.
> 
> I have a transfer of the Mahler I can post if anyone is interested. I'm sure the Furtwangler is on YouTube.


I've heard Mahler's Vienna 9th - it is interesting from an historical perspective, but not one of my favorites for that work. Kind of like the Walter/Ferrier Das Lied von der Erde.

I am never quite sure - that 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th - is that the one on EMI with the Bayreuth orchestra? Or is that a different one? Because I have the Bayreuth one on EMI - not sure what the performance date is, though, but I thought it was post-war.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Opera is to historical recordings as baroque is to modern. Each age has its specialties.


Ah well, I guess that is why I don't have more historical recordings.


----------



## Mahlerian

DrMike said:


> I am never quite sure - that 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th - is that the one on EMI with the Bayreuth orchestra? Or is that a different one? Because I have the Bayreuth one on EMI - not sure what the performance date is, though, but I thought it was post-war.


Different. The Bayreuth is for the reopening of the festival after the war. The EMI version of the event is rather controversial, as it came out that it was not really the performance as described, but edited together from various sources including rehearsals.


----------



## psu

I have some old Beecham recordings of the Schubert symphonies that are great.

Beecham and Haydn, similar. These might be early stereo, or a mix. I'm not sure.

Toscanini is also a goto, and has the advantage that they were made close to the early stereo age and also a lot of them are on Spotify if you want to listen there without shelling out a lot of money.

I think Bruno Walter made some mono recordings of the Mozart symphonies.

These are all post war though. I have not explored much earlier than that except in jazz (Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong).

Also, BTW: I disagree with the whole HIP and Bach. Most of my favorite Bach is either explicitly not HIP or is somewhat HIP-influenced but with modern instruments and larger groups.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Opera is to historical recordings as baroque is to modern. Each age has its specialties.


Yeah, but surely there are non-operatic works that are standouts as well - and not just for historical reasons, like the Walter Mahler 9th and 1942 Beethoven 9th from Furtwangler - but truly great in the way you have been telling us? You have reverence for Stokowski and Toscanini - don't they have must listen to recordings?


----------



## Itullian

The EMI Furtwangler Beethoven set is great.

And his mono Bruckner recordings as well.

Schnabels Schubert and Beethoven

Gieseking's Debussy

to start


----------



## Bulldog

bigshot said:


> With the exception of Stokowski's transcriptions, of course.


For me, those transcriptions were the worst, but I'm aware that many folks love them.


----------



## Figleaf

Wood said:


> I'm enjoying the Prima Voce series of opera singers from the golden age.
> 
> Huge box sets of the great pre War maestros represent great value for money and get fine reviews, though they remain on my wishlist for the time being.
> 
> It is a good question, Dr Mike. I would like to see some extensive recommendations for economical recordings made prior to the mid fifties.


You mean the Nimbus Prima Voce ones? I like those but I wouldn't recommend them to a historic reissues newbie. The huge amount of reverb they add is not to everyone's taste. (Is it accurate to talk of them 'adding' reverb? I suppose it's done in quite an authentic and honest matter, by playing the records on an EMG in a concert hall, although the rather cavernous acoustic sounds more like a giant bathroom than a theatre.) With regard to voices, it tends to flatter the brighter Italian sounding voices at the expense of mellower ones. For example, on 'The era of Adelina Patti'- the first of their compilation CDs I bought- Patti and Marconi are the winners, with their beautiful but worn voices given a flattering soft focus, like the silk stocking over the camera lens that made aging screen goddesses like Dietrich and Garbo seem unlined and youthful. Mellower French voices fare less well, with Maurel and Renaud sounding woolly and muffled. (Marston did a fine job with Renaud but their Maurel transfers are dull toned. Pearl captured his timbre better but they didn't bother correcting the wild pitch fluctuations on the G&Ts,which makes them all but unlistenable. The best Maurel transfer I ever heard was by Joachim Leufgen, of Des noirs pressentiments, which appeared as a bonus track on a CD of a 50s performance of Iphigenie en Tauride starring Leopold Simoneau. Talking of Gluck and of Joachim Leufgen, I recently bought the Affre CD in the Hamburger Archiv für Gesangskunst series which is the one recital disc of this greatest of tenor voices and contains a ravishing performance of the aria from Armide, but the whole CD is in disappointingly dull, echoey sound with abrupt starts and finishes to the tracks and more typos in the track listing than you would think possible. The transfers are especially poor given that the originals are mostly from OK sounding Odeon originals and not the notorious Pathes. But I digress.)

So to get back to Nimbus, I would say that recital discs by singers their method happens to flatter- broadly speaking, Italians, higher voices and anyone recorded electrically- are generally recommendable, but I have a problem with their refusal to vary their approach according to the success or otherwise of the results. In the recital discs I have, Herold and McCormack sound radiant but Ruffo sounds terrible- or maybe I just hate his voice. Better in my view is Symposium, which has the most comprehensive catalogue of all and quite an old school, noninterventionist approach to transfers with minimal filtering of noise. Some of their stuff has been improved upon by Marston: the Scaramberg transfers on Early French Tenors are almost shockingly vivid- you can even hear him breathe!- whereas Symposium's are faint sounding by comparison. We mustn't forget Naxos, which is doing the complete McCormack and complete Schipa one CD at a time, in Ward Marston transfers and at bargain price. The now defunct Romophone is worth seeking out secondhand- I've got the Plançon, Battistini, Garden, Calvé, Clement, McCormack and Hahn and I wouldn't fault their transfers at all. Preiser are pretty good in their Lebendige Vergangenheit series, though it's mostly German/ Wagnerian singers- I wouldn't be without their Franz or Schorr discs and the transfers are great although they date back to the 90s at least. Malibran are good for French stuff- I wouldn't say the transfers were as clear as a bell, but those old Pathes have their limitations in whatever format.


----------



## RobertKC

Centropolis,

Let me start by saying that I know perhaps 1% of what some other TC members know about classical music and opera. I just know that I love some of it, and I enjoy listening via my collection of tube-based hi-fi equipment.

Second, I'm not sure that I have any great new insight, but I'm a retired guy with too much time on his hands, so here's my 2.5 cents. 

IMO the most important thing is the art - either it moves you, or it doesn't - as long as the sound quality of the recording doesn't distract you. And people differ in their tolerance to audio distortion. For me the issue with old recordings is whether or not I can "listen through" sonic imperfections. For example, some listeners who are used to LPs don't hear the "clicks" and "pops". On the other hand, someone who grew up listening to CDs might complain that they are not able to "hear past" the surface noise of an LP. The LP aficionado would probably reply: "What noise?" - much like some parents can enjoy a meal in a restaurant oblivious to their screaming kids …

As others have commented, some people find that some recordings from the early days of DDD (mid 1980s) are unlistenable. To me, the violins in my 1983 CD of Berstein's recording of Barber's Adagio for Strings sound so harsh that it's unbearable. On the other hand, my modern hi-resolution digital recording (FLAC download) of Barber's Adagio by the Dogma Chamber Orchestra has no trace of harshness, and for me this definitely tips the balance in favor of the modern recording.

Stepping back in time, for me some 1950's - 1980's analog recordings have "good enough" sound quality that I can focus on the music, and not be distracted by the sound. (Depending on the mastering, and how it's delivered to the consumer, some have excellent sound.) As someone else commented, many RCA Living Stereo re-mastered recordings that are delivered on SACD are good examples (and they're reasonably priced). Here's an SACD of music recorded in the 1950's that I enjoy without reservation:










(I also occasionally enjoy my 1950s mono LP of this recording.)

Here's a different example involving an "historic" recording: I occasionally enjoy this re-mastered SACD of Furtwangler's Beethoven 9 from 1954. This is the oldest recording in my modest collection that I routinely listen to. In other words, this is the lowest audio quality that I normally tolerate. (I'm listening to this recording via my Fisher 500C in my office as I type this.)










On the other hand, I don't routinely listen to the famous 1942 Furtwangler recording - to my ears the sound is way too poor in quality. (On my CD, it says that it was recorded by a private individual onto seven 12-inch 78 rpm discs from a radio broadcast.) IMO it is worth hearing on very rare occasion, because it is unique - a different intensity from his 1954 performance. (Just for fun I've connected my CD player to my AM radio transmitter and am currently listening to this 1942 recording via my 1936 Philco 680 in my office. In my opinion this is a novelty - fun once in a while - but definitely not how I normally listen to classical music.).

Stepping back further in time - sadly, I've never heard a 78 on a gramophone. I think it would be an interesting experience. (I own restored consumer audio products from every decade from the 1920s to present, but no gramophones.) However, I imagine that for me listening to a gramophone would be a novelty - fun once in a while - but not for serious enjoyment of music.

Jumping forward to current technology, when I listen to some modern high-resolution recordings (e.g., delivered as 24bit/192kHz downloads), I'm astonished by the sense that the performers are in my listening room. And I can listen for hours without "listener fatigue". As others have commented, good audio quality is much more difficult to achieve with a large scale orchestra vs. a string quartet. I enjoy this high-res recording of Mahler's 2nd Symphony because it sounds great - and that's very difficult to achieve on a hi-fi system due to the dynamic range between the 4th and 5th movements: http://www.hdtracks.com/mahler-symphony-no-2-in-c-minor While others may argue that it's not the best performance, I don't care - I like it.

Bottom line, there's no right or wrong answer - to each his (or her) own. I think that each individual has to decide their level of tolerance for audio distortion, and whether or not a vintage recording has something unique enough to offer that makes it worth enduring lower audio quality. I, like many others, am anxious to hear the re-mastered Maria Callas recordings that date from 1949 to 1969. (I'll probably wait to see if these recordings will be delivered in a high-res consumer format.) And, it's on my To-Do list to spend more time listening to earlier opera singers like Caruso, even if the sound quality isn't very good. And I'm starting to listen to some of the links for vintage recordings that bigshot posted. (Thanks bigshot for posting these.)


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> For me, those transcriptions were the worst


why? Have you heard Stoki's original recordings with the Philadelphia or later versions? (Or worse yet, modern conductors trying to do them.) Catlett and Stoki were a formidable combination. They did great things with Mussorgsky too. Not to mention the wonderful Wagner symphonic synthesis series.


----------



## bigshot

One can't "routinely listen" to Furtwangler's 1942 9th. There is nothing routine about it. It's a fierce denunciation of the Nazis right under their very noses under the guise of performing the music of their idol! You have to understand what this performance meant. This isn't just another Beethoven's 9th. It wasn't even meant to be a recording. It was a spit in the eye to Hitler with spectacular musicianship to boot. Furtwangler took the 9th and made it speak in ways it probably wasn't ever meant to, but boy! was it eloquent and powerful all the same.

I can't believe anyone could listen to this and not know something was going on.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> You have reverence for Stokowski and Toscanini - don't they have must listen to recordings?


Everything by Stokowski and Toscanini should be listened to. Even their misses are amazing.

By the way, the reason I suggested the Mahler and Beethoven were not because they were the best recordings of those works. Far from it. I suggested them because bubbling under the surface is the unmistakable passion of the performers. They are personal statements by Walter and Furtwangler using Mahler and Beethoven as the vehicle. That is extremely rare in any age, and even more rare in orchestral music that requires teamwork, but it is unheard of for a conductor to do anything like this today. I suppose the last time it was done was when Bernstein played the 9th at the fall of the Berlin Wall.


----------



## bigshot

Figleaf said:


> You mean the Nimbus Prima Voce ones? I like those but I wouldn't recommend them to a historic reissues newbie. The huge amount of reverb they add is not to everyone's taste.


That reverb works if you have the ability to decode the multichannel format they were recorded in. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and in stereo, all of the channels get piled up on top of each other in a blurry mess. The way those were recorded was to put the rolls royce of acoustic gramophones in a concert hall and mike it in surround sound capturing the presence of the hall. That is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about Victrolas taking on the sound of the room. Unfortunately, without multichannel, it doesn't work.


----------



## bigshot

Here is a grainy, B&W, poor old recording that still never fails to make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.






And again, you have to know the reason for the passion. Rubinstein was a Pole, playing the music of a Polish composer in front of a Russian audience on his first trip to Russia since he was a child prodigy. You can hear him claim victory in every note.


----------



## Figleaf

bigshot said:


> That reverb works if you have the ability to decode the multichannel format they were recorded in. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and in stereo, all of the channels get piled up on top of each other in a blurry mess. The way those were recorded was to put the rolls royce of acoustic gramophones in a concert hall and mike it in surround sound capturing the presence of the hall. That is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about Victrolas taking on the sound of the room. Unfortunately, without multichannel, it doesn't work.


Aha, 'multichannel'. I guess these modestly-priced CDs require some fairly expensive equipment to sound optimal. What about the voices that Nimbus doesn't flatter- would they sound normal again in multichannel?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> One can't "routinely listen" to Furtwangler's 1942 9th. There is nothing routine about it. It's a fierce denunciation of the Nazis right under their very noses under the guise of performing the music of their idol! You have to understand what this performance meant. This isn't just another Beethoven's 9th. It wasn't even meant to be a recording. It was a spit in the eye to Hitler with spectacular musicianship to boot. Furtwangler took the 9th and made it speak in ways it probably wasn't ever meant to, but boy! was it eloquent and powerful all the same.
> 
> I can't believe anyone could listen to this and not know something was going on.


I will say that I am ignorant. How does one make a statement with the symphony - how did Furtwangler make a statement with this symphony? Not meaning to be snarky here. I have heard more than you say this about this performance - but how exactly does one send that kind of a message through with a performance?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Everything by Stokowski and Toscanini should be listened to. Even their misses are amazing.
> 
> By the way, the reason I suggested the Mahler and Beethoven were not because they were the best recordings of those works. Far from it. I suggested them because bubbling under the surface is the unmistakable passion of the performers. They are personal statements by Walter and Furtwangler using Mahler and Beethoven as the vehicle. That is extremely rare in any age, and even more rare in orchestral music that requires teamwork, but it is unheard of for a conductor to do anything like this today. I suppose the last time it was done was when Bernstein played the 9th at the fall of the Berlin Wall.


Those examples were driven by circumstances. And I would argue that there are examples since then - maybe fewer, but only because such moments might also be rarer. You are talking about events immediately before or during a World War. Alright. So there is Bernstein's "Ode to Freedom." There have been others. It isn't my favorite, but Tilson Thomas recorded Mahler's 6th symphony in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. That is a similar circumstance. So we have modern recordings that also have historic importance and are definitely a product of those events.


----------



## bigshot

Stokowski is 88 years old here, working with a very young orchestra for the first time in a new hall. Look at his hands and what they draw out of the phrasing and dynamics. As I watch this, as familiar as I am with Stoki's sound, I can hear him guiding the orchestra away from the way everyone else plays to the way HE plays. You can hear the orchestra starting to get it, then fall out, then the clap and he pulls them right back in again. He is sculpting the sound here, starting with a square block and making something organic out of it. Sinewy, fluid, beautiful...

Contrast that with this...






Check out the balance of tremendous authority and lyrical beauty. Rhythm is paramount here. Incredibly precise. Look at the difference in his stick technique (of course Stoki never used a stick). Toscanini is rhythmically perfect down to a microscopic scale. He never lingers or indulges. He takes his work seriously and strives for absolute passion and absolute precision. It builds to a fierce climax. Real power on display here. Raw energy harnessed for accuracy as well.

I really think seeing a performer helps you hear the personality in the performance. A lot of times we'll put on a CD and zone out on abstract sound. It isn't abstract though. It's PEOPLE MAKING THE SOUNDS. And those people are expressing themselves through the "brilliant marks on the paper" as Stokowski so eloquently puts it in this clip.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> I will say that I am ignorant. How does one make a statement with the symphony - how did Furtwangler make a statement with this symphony?


Here is how I understand it, some folks here might have better knowledge of the history behind this than I do. I've just read a little and listened to the performance... It was a command performance for many of the heads of the Nazi party. Goebbels was in attendance. Furtwangler had tried to just focus on music and stay out of politics, but Goering was using "Germanic Arts" to put forward Nazi politics. Everyone in Germany knew what was going on. The Nazis were sweeping across Europe and the Jews were disappearing. The Vienna Philharmonic had been gutted in 1938 and Hitler had appointed Ministers of Culture who were calling the shots. Furtwangler looked around the concert hall and saw all the swastikas everywhere and decided he had enough of the Nazis. He took music that usually expresses hope and joy and turned it into the angriest most condemning sort of statement possible. Totally fierce. You have never heard the 9th played like this before and it probably will never be played like that again. He refused to let the "Ode to Joy" represent the Nazis. Instead he made it sound like them. Brutal. Fierce. I'm sure it took a great deal of courage. I don't know all the details, but that is the story I heard about it.


----------



## bigshot

Figleaf said:


> Aha, 'multichannel'. I guess these modestly-priced CDs require some fairly expensive equipment to sound optimal. What about the voices that Nimbus doesn't flatter- would they sound normal again in multichannel?


I've never found equipment that can decode them myself. It's a CD format that never caught on. I was just told that they sounded great in multichannel by an opera fan who went out and got a player specifically for these recordings. I should check again and see if my new Oppo can play them. It might be able to. I had a multichannel Stokowski CD from the RCA box set, but I could never figure out how to get that one to play in multichannel either.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

With regards to Furtwangler's 1942 Beethoven 9th, of course it isn't a matter of fact that his performance was a response to the horror that Furtwangler was surrounded by, but it is asserted by quite a few people. I, for one, certainly don't think it's unrealistic that a performance can reflect or respond to the times. There can be actual musical reasons for this, not just intangible reasons like how "fiery" or "intense" the 1942 recording is. Here's a very good article by conductor Kenneth Woods, who wrote a post on it here. Definitely worth a read. Here are a couple pertinent sections to get you started:



> What seems clear to me, though, is that Furtwangler's approach to this music was deeply affected and informed by what was happening around him. Whatever his motivations, these performances don't sound like anything else in his output- they don't really sound like anything else in the history of recording. When I hear them, they seem utterly part of their time, for good and ill- they're almost like newsreels, but a thousand times more affecting.
> 
> Of course, in the dark and violent years between 1933 and 1945, Furtwangler was far from the only artist whose work came to reflect the times. Shostakovich's music underwent a massive shift in style in the 1930's, after which his music came to be ever-more informed by and reflective of the many tragedies of his time. The slow movement of the 5th Symphony was immediately recognized by many listeners as a requiem for those exterminated in the Stalinist Terrors. Shostakovich himself said that the 7th Symphony was a memorial for the Leningrad that Stalin destroyed and Hitler merely finished off. The irony in all of this was that Shostakovich was the most private man imaginable, and yet his life's work became such a powerful public statement.


Woods is still very balanced about it, though. He doesn't claim to know that it was a backlash or protest against the Nazi regime.



> Frankly, it seems absurd to me to try to absolve or indict a man I never met. I would like to think that the apocalyptic fury and violence of Furtwangler's War-era Beethoven was his cry of existential protest at a society that had collapsed into murderous insanity, but I can never know that for certain, and we must remember who paid for these concerts, and who cheered for his performances.


----------



## Bulldog

bigshot said:


> why? Have you heard Stoki's original recordings with the Philadelphia or later versions? (Or worse yet, modern conductors trying to do them.)


Yes, I've heard him conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra. I'm sure he does a fine job, but there are three strikes against him based on my preferences. I'm not keen on Bach transcriptions, hate modern orchestra Bach (mainly for those traditional sour strings) and have no affection for romanticized Bach.


----------



## bigshot

Well, to appreciate historical recordings, you need to move beyond concepts of right and wrong and be able to judge works on their own terms. But that's OK. You have criteria for Bach. Go with that until something comes out of left field and surprises you. I wasn't able to fully appreciate Bach until 20 years down the road anyway. It's only in the past few years I have been able to approach it. Bach is a very complicated jewel. It has many different facets.


----------



## bigshot

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I, for one, certainly don't think it's unrealistic that a performance can reflect or respond to the times.


I think if the performers don't express something personal and real to themselves, they are doing it wrong!

I've never seen it mentioned, but Furtwangler's "puppet on a string" conducting style seemed to become particularly pronounced during this time. There is a newsreel of him performing in a hall full of swastikas, and he is bobbing around like someone else is controlling his actions. Never seen anything like it. I wonder if he was performing a pantomime of how he felt standing on stage like a puppet for an audience full of wolves?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Well, to appreciate historical recordings, you need to move beyond concepts of right and wrong and be able to judge works on their own terms. But that's OK. You have criteria for Bach. Go with that until something comes out of left field and surprises you. I wasn't able to fully appreciate Bach until 20 years down the road anyway. It's only in the past few years I have been able to approach it. Bach is a very complicated jewel. It has many different facets.


Oddly, I came to appreciate Bach much quicker than most others. The Goldberg Variations connected almost immediately with me. And a lot of that come from non-Romanticized Bach. I think that re-interpreting Bach, particularly in the early half of the 20th century, made him a bit too dense.

The Stokowski transcriptions are okay for me - more of a curiosity. I don't mind transcriptions - I like to hear Bach reinterpreted. I have a recording of the Art of Fugue performed by a saxophone quartet that I really enjoy. But I don't get what is so special with these transcriptions - just, basically, performing Bach with instruments not originally intended. People still do that. That doesn't particularly make Stokowski stand out for me. And while I don't mind his transcription of the amazing Passacaglia, I still prefer it performed on organ, particularly by the amazing Walcha.


----------



## bigshot

The reason Stokowski's Bach transcriptions are so remarkable is that Stokowski was an organist and a conductor capable of Technicolor brilliance in the strings. Add to that the talented arranger Lucien Cailliett assisting and you have a dynamite setup. Everyone knows just the one transcription from Fantasia. That's fine, but it isn't at all representative of the rest. Most are ravishingly beautiful and atmospheric like Debussy or Ravel, not big and bombastic like Wagner.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> The reason Stokowski's Bach transcriptions are so remarkable is that Stokowski was an organist and a conductor capable of Technicolor brilliance in the strings. Add to that the talented arranger Lucien Cailliett assisting and you have a dynamite setup. Everyone knows just the one transcription from Fantasia. That's fine, but it isn't at all representative of the rest. Most are ravishingly beautiful and atmospheric like Debussy or Ravel, not big and bombastic like Wagner.


I guess my major issue with this "golden age" conductors is that, for all your praise of their personal interpretations, I find they typically interpreted in one direction - bigger and more bombastic. They seem to have been incapable of ever seeing an interpretation that meant less numbers and more intimate. Thus Stokowski had to take Bach and transcribe him for a massive modern orchestra. That is fine, and in many ways it works. But for me, all to often, it took works that started out nimble and vibrant and turned them large and ponderous. Something like Bach's St. Matthew Passion - while by no means a "happy" work, becomes a massive inevitable force rolling along, consuming all it it's path under the baton of a Klemperer, while under a Herreweghe, it presents both the pain and the suffering of the Passion, but also suggests some hope in it all. There are merits to both. But I think the vibrancy of Bach gets somewhat drowned out in these massive romanticized interpretations. For me, modern, and yes, HIP performances of Bach, and other Baroque, and even many Classical works, are superior.


----------



## bigshot

Did you play that video? You are talking about something totally different than the video you have in the quotes there. That was my point actually... Everyone knows Stokowski's Bach Transcriptions from Toccata and Fugue in D Minor from Fantasia, but that one isn't at all representative of the rest of the transcriptions. The video I just posted is highly sensitive and personal. Absolutely ravishing string tone. It's the sort of music that makes people cry, not big bombastic Wagner tubas and fanfares.

The best advice I can give anyone when it comes to the arts is to not have preconceived ideas about what things are and what they aren't based on the "general consensus". Many critics of the arts (especially internet ones!) are too busy feathering their own nests and padding their own egos to actually look objectively at the work they're talking about. And far too many of them talk at length about things that they really haven't sat down and listened to. Always approach works you might not have considered before with an open mind and apply your own personal criteria for judging. Don't let the "general consensus" blind you to something that is truly special.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Did you play that video? You are talking about something totally different than the video you have in the quotes there. That was my point actually... Everyone knows Stokowski's Bach Transcriptions from Toccata and Fugue in D Minor from Fantasia, but that one isn't at all representative of the rest of the transcriptions. The video I just posted is highly sensitive and personal. Absolutely ravishing string tone. It's the sort of music that makes people cry, not big bombastic Wagner tubas and fanfares.
> 
> The best advice I can give anyone when it comes to the arts is to not have preconceived ideas about what things are and what they aren't based on the "general consensus". Many critics of the arts (especially internet ones!) are too busy feathering their own nests and padding their own egos to actually look objectively at the work they're talking about. And far too many of them talk at length about things that they really haven't sat down and listened to. Always approach works you might not have considered before with an open mind and apply your own personal criteria for judging. Don't let the "general consensus" blind you to something that is truly special.


I did listen. And I have also heard other of his transcriptions, like of the Passacaglia. They are fine and all, but you said it yourself - the video you posted is reminiscent to you of Debussy and Ravel. I like my Bach to be reminiscent of Bach. That doesn't mean I won't listen to these things. Someone, some time back, posted a video of, I believe, Furtwangler conducting the Stokowski transcription of the Passacaglia - meant by the OP to be held up to scorn, but I enjoyed it. But not as much as my Walcha recording of the Passacaglia on an organ. If a conductor changes a work enough, are we listening anymore to the original composer or the conductors? Sometimes I like the conductors - especially ones like Klemperer. More often I prefer the original composer.

Debussy and Ravel are fine - but I don't always like to hear Bach interpreted like he were Debussy or Ravel. Tell me - did Stokowski ever conduct Debussy or Ravel like they were Bach? Or Wagner like he was Monteverdi? Beethoven like he were Vivaldi? No. But I could see him conducting Vivaldi like he were Beethoven. They only seemed to interpret one way. And now there is a new movement to conduct Bach like he is Bach, or Vivaldi like Vivaldi, or Beethoven like Beethoven.


----------



## bigshot

I don't mind stylistic experimentation at all. Again, it's the difference between a mindset that says that there is a "proper" way, and a mindset that says, "Try it. Let's see how it works." I really wish there was more experimentation in conducting and performing. I think Stokowski and Glenn Gould get closer to Bach's essence than many "proper" performances simply because the focus on the inner emotions, not the external details around them.

Interpretation is supposed to reveal something unique about a work... finding a new way to get at its essence. All roads lead to Rome, and a variety of interpretations can lead to Bach.

By the way, Furtwangler never performed Stokowski's transcriptions. The only conductor who did during Stokowski's lifetime I believe was Ormandy. Unfortunately, Stokowski took the transcriptions with him when he died. No other conductor (with the possible exception of Bamert) has ever gotten close to rivaling Stokowski himself with these. Probably because the way they were performed was just as important to the impact as the "masterful marks on the page". Ultimately, that sums up Stokowski's greatness. The score is just the beginning. It takes a magician to bring centuries old marks to life, not a historian.

But it's fine that you don't care for opera or historical recordings. That just assures you that there will be wonderful new things to discover for the first time when you get old!


----------



## Guest

You keep on with this conceit that eventually, everybody is going to come to your conclusions. There is an inherent arrogance in that.

There is no superiority in your preferred Stokowski - only your preference. You dismiss HIP conductors as "historians." They are all different, and no less capable of interpreting the music in so many different ways - but they like to keep Baroque Baroque. They don't see a need to make Baroque Romantic. The problem with Stokowski, in this given example, seems to be that, either he couldn't conduct baroque, or he just didn't want to. He wanted everything to sound like it was written no earlier than 1890. 

You like the beauty in a Stokowski interpretation of Bach. Well, I prefer a Bach that is played more like Bach would have - I like to hear the music, not the conductor. Neither of us has the correct choice. We just prefer different things. And there is nothing that says that your choice is the better one, and eventually I will come to it as well. I will listen to others, but that doesn't mean I will ever come to love them as you do. 

Stokowski had a style that I don't prefer - to see all music through the lens of late Romantic performance style. He had a hammer, so everything to him looked like a nail.


----------



## bigshot

Mark Twain once said, "The older I get, the smarter my Dad gets."


----------



## bigshot

When I was a teenager back in the 40s, Leopold Stokowski shared for some years the podium of the New York Philharmonic. His co-director was the late Dimitri Mitropoulis and together they contributed to that memorable Sunday afternoon series on CBS radio, which was one of the few redeeming features of American broadcasting in the years after World War II. Running opposite the Stokowski/Metropoulis programs on CBS was NBC's entry in the symphonic sweepstakes, a series featuring the orchestra which bore the network's name, which was created for and conducted by Arturo Toscanini.

The attitude of the young people of my generation toward these weekend music specials was rather interesting. It was generally bandied about by my conservatory friends that you were either a Stokowski fan or a Toscanini devotee. There was apparently no middle ground, except perhaps that which was occasionally occupied by Bruno Walter. According to the academic banter of that time, Toscanini embodied most progressive musical virtues. His performances were direct, straightforward and emotionally objective. Whichever notes, dynamic marks or tempo indications appeared before him in the score were, to the best of his and the NBC Orchestra's ability, what you heard. For Toscanini, the composer's notational suggestions were gospel.

Not so with Stokowski. He was and is, for want of a better word, an ecstatic. Stokowski is involved with the notes, the tempo marks, the dynamic indications in the score to the same extent that a filmmaker is involved with the original book or source which supplies the impetus- the idea of his film. So, Stokowski's performances either stand or fall depending on the degree he can infuse them with a sense of his own commitment to the project. And happily for those who became addicted to his way of making music, there's rarely been a more committed, more imaginative, more resourceful artist than Leopold Stokowski.

There was however another reason for the disrepute into which Mr. Stokowski's interperative techniques had fallen in those years, besides that penchant for a neo-literalist performing style which the young people of my generation espoused. He was not only a popularizer- a man who thought nothing of transforming the keyboard works of Bach into massive orchestral statements. But more than that, he was a film personality. In the mid-1930s, he'd relinquished his post as the conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra, in which he single-handedly transformed the standards of orchestral playing in North America, in order to join Deanna Durbin and Donald Duck on the silver screen in Hollywood.

"I go to a higher calling." he was reported to have said to the press conference which was called to announce his departure, and if one can filter out the inevitable quotient of defensiveness which one may assume to infiltrate a remark of that kind, it was a remarkably revealing comment.

Technology for Stokowski was a higher calling. He was indeed the first great musician to realize that the future of music would inexorably wound up with technological progress, and that communications media were in fact the best friend that music ever had. Many of his recordings… and all of which I know from personal experience where he maintains a firm hand in relation to the processes of production… were years ahead sonically.

But the real benefit of his interest in technology, I think, was that it enabled Stokowski to resist the inhibitions induced by those pre-technological attitudes toward music-making which created the stratified roles of performer, listener and composer; and which held that those roles would ever remain separate and distinct. For Stokowski, I think, those distinctions are themselves are the single greatest danger that the artist must face. And I suspect that the enormous appeal of his music-making over the last sixty years or so is precisely his realization of that fact, and his willingness to act upon the assumptions that follow from it.

Stokowski is 88 now, at least he was when I interviewed him for this program. Nothing in his manner, his outlook or the vitality of his music-making suggests the incipient nonagenarian, but it's perhaps useful to recall that Stokowski was born while Wagner was still alive, and when Brahms died, Stokowski himself was already a teenager.

In theory, his outlook and his art should represent the aesthetic attitudes of a bygone era, or eras. But in fact, because of his extraordinary warmth and humility, his remarkable receptivity to new ideas, and above all because in his lifetime we've already seen nothing but triumph. But the essential humanity of those technological ideas which have informed all of his work as a musician, Leopold Stokowski is very much a man of the future.

-Glenn Gould
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A8262AE9A18CA0E


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Mark Twain once said, "The older I get, the smarter my Dad gets."


True, but my dad also could never program the VCR. I am a dad now myself, and also recognize that I am not always right. In matters of taste and preference, though, that Twain quip is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## Bulldog

bigshot said:


> Well, to appreciate historical recordings, you need to move beyond concepts of right and wrong and be able to judge works on their own terms. But that's OK. You have criteria for Bach. Go with that until something comes out of left field and surprises you. I wasn't able to fully appreciate Bach until 20 years down the road anyway. It's only in the past few years I have been able to approach it. Bach is a very complicated jewel. It has many different facets.


Bach's been my main man for decades, and I don't appreciate your condescending and wrong-headed attitude as to how to appreciate historical recordings or what directions I need to move toward. You appear to possess a lot of knowledge and insight concerning sound reproduction; I pay attention to that. In other areas, you're just another board member with opinions.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> When I was a teenager back in the 40s, Leopold Stokowski shared for some years the podium of the New York Philharmonic. His co-director was the late Dimitri Mitropoulis and together they contributed to that memorable Sunday afternoon series on CBS radio, which was one of the few redeeming features of American broadcasting in the years after World War II. Running opposite the Stokowski/Metropoulis programs on CBS was NBC's entry in the symphonic sweepstakes, a series featuring the orchestra which bore the network's name, which was created for and conducted by Arturo Toscanini.
> 
> The attitude of the young people of my generation toward these weekend music specials was rather interesting. It was generally bandied about by my conservatory friends that you were either a Stokowski fan or a Toscanini devotee. There was apparently no middle ground, except perhaps that which was occasionally occupied by Bruno Walter. According to the academic banter of that time, Toscanini embodied most progressive musical virtues. His performances were direct, straightforward and emotionally objective. Whichever notes, dynamic marks or tempo indications appeared before him in the score were, to the best of his and the NBC Orchestra's ability, what you heard. For Toscanini, the composer's notational suggestions were gospel.
> 
> Not so with Stokowski. He was and is, for want of a better word, an ecstatic. Stokowski is involved with the notes, the tempo marks, the dynamic indications in the score to the same extent that a filmmaker is involved with the original book or source which supplies the impetus- the idea of his film. So, Stokowski's performances either stand or fall depending on the degree he can infuse them with a sense of his own commitment to the project. And happily for those who became addicted to his way of making music, there's rarely been a more committed, more imaginative, more resourceful artist than Leopold Stokowski.
> 
> There was however another reason for the disrepute into which Mr. Stokowski's interperative techniques had fallen in those years, besides that penchant for a neo-literalist performing style which the young people of my generation espoused. He was not only a popularizer- a man who thought nothing of transforming the keyboard works of Bach into massive orchestral statements. But more than that, he was a film personality. In the mid-1930s, he'd relinquished his post as the conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra, in which he single-handedly transformed the standards of orchestral playing in North America, in order to join Deanna Durbin and Donald Duck on the silver screen in Hollywood.
> 
> "I go to a higher calling." he was reported to have said to the press conference which was called to announce his departure, and if one can filter out the inevitable quotient of defensiveness which one may assume to infiltrate a remark of that kind, it was a remarkably revealing comment.
> 
> Technology for Stokowski was a higher calling. He was indeed the first great musician to realize that the future of music would inexorably wound up with technological progress, and that communications media were in fact the best friend that music ever had. Many of his recordings… and all of which I know from personal experience where he maintains a firm hand in relation to the processes of production… were years ahead sonically.
> 
> But the real benefit of his interest in technology, I think, was that it enabled Stokowski to resist the inhibitions induced by those pre-technological attitudes toward music-making which created the stratified roles of performer, listener and composer; and which held that those roles would ever remain separate and distinct. For Stokowski, I think, those distinctions are themselves are the single greatest danger that the artist must face. And I suspect that the enormous appeal of his music-making over the last sixty years or so is precisely his realization of that fact, and his willingness to act upon the assumptions that follow from it.
> 
> Stokowski is 88 now, at least he was when I interviewed him for this program. Nothing in his manner, his outlook or the vitality of his music-making suggests the incipient nonagenarian, but it's perhaps useful to recall that Stokowski was born while Wagner was still alive, and when Brahms died, Stokowski himself was already a teenager.
> 
> In theory, his outlook and his art should represent the aesthetic attitudes of a bygone era, or eras. But in fact, because of his extraordinary warmth and humility, his remarkable receptivity to new ideas, and above all because in his lifetime we've already seen nothing but triumph. But the essential humanity of those technological ideas which have informed all of his work as a musician, Leopold Stokowski is very much a man of the future.
> 
> -Glenn Gould
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A8262AE9A18CA0E


I'm going to blow your mind here - I don't really care for Gould, either. His 80's Goldbergs introduced me to those heavenly variations, but now *gasp* I prefer Perahia.


----------



## Guest

Bigshot - could the long timespan it took you to come to appreciate Bach be due to the fact that you were trying to hear Bach through the filters of people like Stokowski? Would your voyage have been quicker had you actually heard Bach, and not Stokowski?


----------



## Bulldog

DrMike said:


> I'm going to blow your mind here - I don't really care for Gould, either. His 80's Goldbergs introduced me to those heavenly variations, but now *gasp* I prefer Perahia.


A lot of folks prefer Perahia's Bach to Gould's, but I'll never understand why although I respect their preference. For me, Perahia is mediocre in Bach, entirely compelling in Mozart.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> I'm going to blow your mind here


Not at all a surprise, actually. But that doesn't change how great both Stokowski and Gould were and how important they were to the history of classical music performance in the 20th century. Those two and Bernstein were the three most influential and revolutionary classical musicians of their age. They broke down barriers and opened up music so it could flower by using up to date technology to educate, illuminate and make personal statements through music that was hundreds of years old. I can't think of anything that an artist can achieve that would be greater.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Bigshot - could the long timespan it took you to come to appreciate Bach be due to the fact that you were trying to hear Bach through the filters of people like Stokowski? Would your voyage have been quicker had you actually heard Bach, and not Stokowski?


No. It was the complexity of the music. There is an abstractness and vastness of Bach that is like looking at the stars in the sky. When you first see the sky at night, it's just a blanket of twinkling lights. Once you learn a little bit about the universe, you can't look at the sky without seeing constellations and planets and patterns and universes that you had no idea existed at first glance.

That's the best way I can describe it. Bach said the sole purpose of music for him was the glorification of God. I take him at his word on that. I think what he tried to do is create something that aspired for perfection in a way that it was many things at once, just like God is. His music is an attempt to describe the indescribable. It's a million different facets of music all trying to describe the same thing in different ways. Because of that, no single performance or kind of performance can be the one true presentation of what Bach is. Bach is different than Tchaikovsky or Mahler or Beethoven or Mozart. Beneath the surface, he was totally different from his contemporaries too. That's why I think that focusing on the surface is missing the essence of what Bach is. There are a lot of great classical composers, and then there is Bach. Two different things.

But I am far from being an expert in Bach. It's only in the past couple of years that I have even been able to get an inkling of what is going on there. I have a long way to go.

Perhahia's Bach is very pretty though. He is a good pianist. But Gould sees deeper.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

DrMike said:


> I will say that I am ignorant. How does one make a statement with the symphony - how did Furtwangler make a statement with this symphony? Not meaning to be snarky here. I have heard more than you say this about this performance - but how exactly does one send that kind of a message through with a performance?


I am not eloquent enough to explain it, but I heard a documentary talking about Rostropovich's performance of Dvorak on the day that the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 to supress the uprising and *he* managed to convey a message of defiance against the soviet leadership combined with deep sympathy to those in Prague. Unfortunately, I think the broadcast has not survived.

I haven't heard Furtwangler's 1942 9th, but I can well believe it would be possible to convey messages through its performance


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> A lot of folks prefer Perahia's Bach to Gould's, but I'll never understand why although I respect their preference. For me, Perahia is mediocre in Bach, entirely compelling in Mozart.


Yes. I never liked P in Bach. I fell asleep listening to his Goldberg Variations.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am not eloquent enough to explain it, but I heard a documentary talking about Rostropovich's performance of Dvorak on the day that the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 to supress the uprising and he managed to convey a message of defiance against the soviet leadership combined with deep sympathy to those in Prague. Unfortunately, I think the broadcast has not survived.

I saw this as part of a larger documentary on Rostropovitch shortly after his death Unfortunately, I didn't copy it at the time.

The bit about Czechoslovakia referred to the brutal Soviet crackdown following what was known as the "Prague Spring". Rostropovitch deeply loved Prague, the city where he had met, and following a three-day romance, proposed to and married his wife, the great Russian singer, Galina Vishnevskaya. At the time of the invasion, Rostropovitch was scheduled to perform at the Proms in London with the Soviet State Symphony Orchestra. There was much heckling and demonstrations outside the hall. The program featured Czech composer Antonín Dvořák's Cello Concerto. After the performance, the orchestra and soloist were cheered by the Proms audience. Rostropovich stood and held aloft the conductor's score of the Dvořák as a gesture of solidarity for the composer's homeland and the city of Prague, a place he loved.

As an encore he played the sarabande No. 4 from the Suite No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1008 by Johann Sebastian Bach, a piece that he said he liked to offer to those who were sad.

Rostropovich fought for art without borders, freedom of speech, and democratic values, resulting in harassment from the Soviet regime. An early example was in 1948, when he was a student at the Moscow Conservatory. In response to the 10 February 1948 decree on so-called 'formalist' composers, his teacher Dmitri Shostakovich was dismissed from his professorships in Leningrad and Moscow; the then 21-year-old Rostropovich quit the conservatory, dropping out in protest.

In 1970, Rostropovich sheltered Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who otherwise would have had nowhere to go, in his own home. His friendship with Solzhenitsyn and his support for dissidents led to official disgrace in the early 1970s. As a result, Rostropovich was restricted from foreign touring,[14] as was his wife, soprano Galina Vishnevskaya, and his appearances performing in Moscow were curtailed, as increasingly was his appearances in such major cities as Leningrad and Kiev.

Rostropovich left the Soviet Union in 1974 with his wife and children and settled in the United States. He was banned from several musical ensembles in his homeland, and his Soviet citizenship was revoked in 1978 because of his public opposition to the Soviet Union's restriction of cultural freedom. He would not return to the Soviet Union until 1990.


----------



## Guest

Revisiting BBC Music's article from 2011 about the 20 Greatest Conductors, it's interesting to note that 5 of the top 7 are all dead. For those who missed this list - and all the flaws inherent in such things - it was compiled by asking 100 current conductors to name their top 3. (Conductors polled include Sir John Eliot Gardner, Valery Gergiev, Mariss Jansons, Charles Dutoit, Vladimir Ashkenazy etc. Consequently, it carries at least as much authority as any poll compiled by TC members!)

Furtwangler comes in at no. 7, and the brief analysis refers to his loathing of recording and his allegedly imprecise technique ("deliberately so" says the writer). An essential recording is named for each of the top 20 and in the case of Furtwangler, it's the 1952 Tristan and Isolde. Classical Music reports,



> Furtwängler, who had notoriously loathed recording, was converted overnight to the process when he heard the test pressings - and said that he had never before realised what a supreme work _Tristan_ is.


http://www.classical-music.com/article/wagner-tristan-and-isolde

Being a fan of neither opera or Wagner, I'm unlikely to pursue this further, so I'll ask for advice about another composition instead. Testing my thus far limited interest in Mahler, I'm impressed by his Sixth Symphony (watched televised Gergiev and the Orchestra for World Peace at the Proms this year) and am now searching for a decent interpretation. For those who can access the BBC's website, this podcast was helpful, identifying the different interpretative approaches found in a number of recordings and recommending Claudio Abbado's interpretation with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, recorded live.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01sr0qd

However, the Abbado/Lucerne isn't available on CD, only DVD or Blu-Ray.

So whose interpretation would you (that's anyone reading this, not just bigshot) recommend and/or which recording?


----------



## bigshot

Imprecise technique is another way of saying spontaneity.

Abbaddo's version is the perfect one if you value sound quality over interpretation.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Imprecise technique is another way of saying spontaneity.
> 
> Abbaddo's version is the perfect one if you value sound quality over interpretation.


And your _positive _recommendation is...?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Despite bigshot's dismissal of Abbado's recording (he's clearly won't budge from his "old is good. new is bad" stance, no matter how revered a new recording may be). Abbado has TWO excellent recordings of Mahler's 6th. One is only on Blu-ray/DVD as you already mentioned, with the Lucerne Festival. The other is with the Berliner Philharmoniker on DG. They're both very good.

My personal recommendation is Pierre Boulez with the Vienna Philharmonic. This is the recording that pretty much got me hooked on Mahler, not just the symphony, but the composer himself. I'm surprised that Boulez was never brought up when discussing old vs new recordings, I'm sure there are quite a few people who could distinguish Boulez's recordings. I can tell Boulez's Mahler 6th from the others within the first minute!


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Revisiting BBC Music's article from 2011 about the 20 Greatest Conductors, it's interesting to note that 5 of the top 7 are all dead. For those who missed this list - and all the flaws inherent in such things - it was compiled by asking 100 current conductors to name their top 3. (Conductors polled include Sir John Eliot Gardner, Valery Gergiev, Mariss Jansons, Charles Dutoit, Vladimir Ashkenazy etc. Consequently, it carries at least as much authority as any poll compiled by TC members!)
> 
> Furtwangler comes in at no. 7, and the brief analysis refers to his loathing of recording and his allegedly imprecise technique ("deliberately so" says the writer). An essential recording is named for each of the top 20 and in the case of Furtwangler, it's the 1952 Tristan and Isolde. Classical Music reports,
> 
> http://www.classical-music.com/article/wagner-tristan-and-isolde
> 
> Being a fan of neither opera or Wagner, I'm unlikely to pursue this further, so I'll ask for advice about another composition instead. Testing my thus far limited interest in Mahler, I'm impressed by his Sixth Symphony (watched televised Gergiev and the Orchestra for World Peace at the Proms this year) and am now searching for a decent interpretation. For those who can access the BBC's website, this podcast was helpful, identifying the different interpretative approaches found in a number of recordings and recommending Claudio Abbado's interpretation with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, recorded live.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01sr0qd
> 
> However, the Abbado/Lucerne isn't available on CD, only DVD or Blu-Ray.
> 
> So whose interpretation would you (that's anyone reading this, not just bigshot) recommend and/or which recording?


The Boulez is good. But my new personal favorite is on Ondine, conducted by Eschenbach, with Philadelphia. I bought it initially because it contained Mahler's not frequently recorded Piano Quartet, but quickly fell in love with the recording of the 6th. The sound is wonderful.

You might also want to consider Tilson Thomas' recording with the San Francisco Symphony, on their label. It was recorded shortly after 9/11/01, and so there was no doubt some added intensity - but it is not my favorite recording of this wonderful symphony, which is one of my favorites of Mahler's, second only to his 2nd.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Imprecise technique is another way of saying spontaneity.
> 
> Abbaddo's version is the perfect one if you value sound quality over interpretation.


Spontaneity is a nice euphemism for lack of preparation.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> No. It was the complexity of the music. There is an abstractness and vastness of Bach that is like looking at the stars in the sky. When you first see the sky at night, it's just a blanket of twinkling lights. Once you learn a little bit about the universe, you can't look at the sky without seeing constellations and planets and patterns and universes that you had no idea existed at first glance.
> 
> That's the best way I can describe it. Bach said the sole purpose of music for him was the glorification of God. I take him at his word on that. I think what he tried to do is create something that aspired for perfection in a way that it was many things at once, just like God is. His music is an attempt to describe the indescribable. It's a million different facets of music all trying to describe the same thing in different ways. Because of that, no single performance or kind of performance can be the one true presentation of what Bach is. Bach is different than Tchaikovsky or Mahler or Beethoven or Mozart. Beneath the surface, he was totally different from his contemporaries too. That's why I think that focusing on the surface is missing the essence of what Bach is. There are a lot of great classical composers, and then there is Bach. Two different things.
> 
> But I am far from being an expert in Bach. It's only in the past couple of years that I have even been able to get an inkling of what is going on there. I have a long way to go.
> 
> Perhahia's Bach is very pretty though. He is a good pianist. But Gould sees deeper.


I don't believe that the HIP recordings of Bach that I love are only exploring the surface. Your interpretation of Bach is unsurprisingly self-serving for your preference for large romanticized interpretations of Bach. I think they tend to muddy the water and distract from what Bach was trying to do by subjecting them to the whims of a conductor whose ego is bigger than the music.

Bach's essence is in the music as he wrote it. Take the Klemperer St. Matthew Passion. It is beautiful. It is awe-inspiring. And I come away from it rather worn out, and kind of down. It does a wonderful job of relating the pain, agony, and misery of the Passion. But a wonderful HIP recording, such as that of Herreweghe (I prefer his newer recording, but his earlier one is no less impressive) conveys not only the pain, agony, and misery of the Passion, but also the hope and the redemption of the sacrifice. That, to me, gets more at the essence of Bach. I find it kind of absurd to talk about getting to the essence of something while simultaneously talking about adding unnecessary layers on top.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Neville Cardus wrote in the Manchester Guardian in 1954 of Furtwängler's conducting style:

_He did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement, but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realised subjectively...Not since Nikisch, of whom he was a disciple, has a greater personal interpreter of orchestral and opera music than Furtwängler been heard._

And the conductor Henry Lewis:

_I admire Furtwängler for his originality and honesty. He liberated himself from slavery to the score; he realized that notes printed in the score, are nothing but SYMBOLS. The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwängler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was._

Furtwängler's art of conducting is considered as the synthesis and the peak of the so-called "Germanic school of conducting". This "school" was initiated by Richard Wagner. Unlike Mendelssohn's conducting style, which was "characterized by quick, even tempos and imbued with what many people regarded as model logic and precision, Wagner's way was broad, hyper-romantic and embraced the idea of tempo modulation". Wagner considered an interpretation as a re-creation and put more emphasis on the phrase than on the measure.

The fact that the tempo was changing was not something new; Beethoven himself interpreted his own music with a lot of freedom. Beethoven wrote: "my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo", and "why do they annoy me by asking for my tempi? Either they are good musicians and ought to know how to play my music, or they are bad musicians and in that case my indications would be of no avail". Beethoven's disciples, such as Anton Schindler, testified that the composer varied the tempo when he conducted his works. Wagner's tradition was followed by the first two permanent conductors of the Berlin Philharmonic. Hans von Bülow highlighted more the unitary structure of symphonic works, while Arthur Nikisch stressed the magnificence of tone. The styles of these two conductors were synthesized by Furtwängler.

Many commentators and critics regard him as the greatest conductor in history. In his book on the symphonies of Johannes Brahms, musicologist Walter Frisch writes that Furtwängler's recordings show him to be "the finest Brahms conductor of his generation, perhaps of all time", demonstrating "at once a greater attention to detail and to Brahms' markings than his contemporaries and at the same time a larger sense of rhythmic-temporal flow that is never deflected by the individual nuances. He has an ability not only to respect, but to make musical sense of, dynamic markings and the indications of crescendo and diminuendo. What comes through amply ... is the rare combination of a conductor who understands both sound and structure." He notes Vladimir Ashkenazy who says that his sound "is never rough. It's very weighty but at the same time is never heavy. In his fortissimo you always feel every voice.... I have never heard so beautiful a fortissimo in an orchestra", and Daniel Barenboim says he "had a subtlety of tone color that was extremely rare. His sound was always 'rounded,' and incomparably more interesting than that of the great German conductors of his generation."

Unlike conductors such as Carlos Kleiber or Sergiu Celibidache, Furtwängler did not try to reach the perfection in details, and the number of rehearsals with him was small. Furtwängler wrote:

_"I am told that the more you rehearse, the better you play. This is wrong. We often try to reduce the unforeseen to a controllable level, to prevent a sudden impulse that escapes our ability to control, yet also responds to an obscure desire. Let's allow improvisation to have its place and play its role. I think that the true interpreter is the one who improvises. We have mechanized the art of conducting to an awful degree, in the quest of perfection rather than of dream. As soon as rubato is obtained and calculated scientifically, it ceases to be true. Music making is something else than searching to achieve an accomplishment. But striving to attain it is beautiful. Some of Michelangelo's sculptures are perfect, others are just outlined and the latter ones move me more than the first perfect ones because here I find the essence of desire, of the wakening dream. That's what really moves me: fixing without freezing in cement, allowing chance its opportunity."_

His style is often contrasted with that of his contemporary Arturo Toscanini. Instead of perfection in details, Furtwängler was looking for the spiritual in art. Sergiu Celibidache explained,

_"Everybody was influenced at the time by Arturo Toscanini - it was easy to understand what he was trying to do: you didn't need any reference to spiritual dimension. There was a certain order in the way the music was presented. With Toscanini I never felt anything spiritual. With Furtwängler on the other hand, I understood that there I was confronted by something completely different: metaphysics, transcendence, the relationship between sounds and sonorities. Furtwängler was not only a musician, he was a creator... What happens to those who don't understand the manifold variety of musical performance? Who are unable to hear that famous astral octave because they are deaf to music? Then their integration is related only to a part of a musical score, to the least important one, the raw material. But that's precisely what music is not about... Then you find each tempo too slow. Because the slowness or fastness are determined by the complexity of these musical manifestations. Furtwängler had the ear for it: not the physical ear, but the spiritual ear that captures these parallel movements."_

The conductor and pianist Christoph Eschenbach has said of Furtwängler that he was a "formidable magician, a man capable of setting an entire ensemble of musicians on fire, sending them into a state of ecstasy".

Among the many highly-respected conductors known to speak admiringly of Furtwängler we may include Valery Gergiev, Claudio Abbado, Carlos Kleiber, Carlo Maria Giulini, Simon Rattle, Sergiu Celibidache, Otto Klemperer, Karl Böhm, Christoph Eschenbach, Alexander Frey, Eugen Jochum, Zubin Mehta, Kurt Masur and Christian Thielemann. For instance, Carlos Kleiber thought that "nobody could equal Furtwängler". George Szell, whose precise musicianship was in many ways antithetical to Furtwängler's, always kept a picture of Furtwängler in his dressing room. Herbert von Karajan, who in his early years was Furtwängler's rival, maintained throughout his life that Furtwängler was one of the great influences on his music making, even though his cool, objective, modern style had little in common with Furtwängler's white-hot Romanticism. Karajan said:

_He certainly had an enormous influence on me... I remember that when I was Generalmusikdirektor in Aachen, a friend invited me to a concert that Furtwängler gave in Cologne... Furtwängler's performance of the Robert Schumann's Fourth, which I didn't know at the time, opened up a new world for me. I was deeply impressed. I didn't want to forget this concert, so I immediately returned to Aachen._

Hmmm... doesn't sound like a conductor who was just winging it to me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Bigshot... have you come across this before? I can't believe I was unaware of its existence... in spite of the fact that I must have 8 or more recordings of all of Mozart's greatest operas. On top of this it features not only Furtwängler, but also two of my favorite singers: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Lisa della Casa!


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hmmm... doesn't sound like a conductor who was just winging it to me.


Dr Mike can confirm or deny for himself: I doubt that he was really suggesting that Furtwangler was just winging it, and unless I missed an earlier post, I also doubt that he is asserting that Furtwangler doesn't deserve his reputation. I suspect his flip comment was aimed more at bigshot's own flip dismissal of my post, than at dissing the great German.

I certainly wasn't dissing him either. I found two things interesting about the article I cited. One was the report about WF's attitude to recording - germane to this thread discussing the comparative importance of recording quality and interpretation. The other was that the list shows that current conductors clearly acknowledge the greatness of their dead predecessors, including two out of the three who have been the focus of much discussion so far. (Stokowski, on the other hand, was cited by only one of the 100 conductors asked, and does not appear in the top 20.)

But this thread needn't be about only three conductors (and certainly not one) and thanks to DrMike and DiesIraeVIX for their recommendations.

There seems to me to be a paradox implicit in the notion of 'interpretations', for to suggest (as the presenter of the BBC podcast does in my link above) that there are right and wrong interpretations is to suggest that we can know what the composer has in mind before the piece is played. Surely it is not until a piece is performed that we can know what a piece is 'about', or how it should be interpreted - by which time the conductor has already offered the interpretation!?


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> So whose interpretation would you (that's anyone reading this, not just bigshot) recommend and/or which recording?


Among older recordings, Mitropoulos's with the New York Philharmonic is fine (mono), although it cuts the exposition repeat in the first movement. This symphony didn't pick up any popularity with critics or audiences until more recently, and it's still one of Mahler's least popular.










The Abbado and Boulez recordings are excellent, and contain plenty of interpretation beyond simply reading off the notes. I'd also recommend Bernstein's second one with the Vienna Philharmonic and Tennstedt's live recording with the London Philharmonic.


















*AVOID KARAJAN*, whose recording of the Sixth, a work he did not admire (he reportedly wanted to make cuts but was dissuaded by people at DG), is a disaster that sounds nothing like Mahler in either orchestration (because the balances are all wrong) or interpretation (he overrides Mahler's detailed instructions constantly, and to the detriment of the music).


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Among older recordings, Mitropoulos's with the New York Philharmonic is fine (mono), although it cuts the exposition repeat in the first movement. This symphony didn't pick up any popularity with critics or audiences until more recently, and it's still one of Mahler's least popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Abbado and Boulez recordings are excellent, and contain plenty of interpretation beyond simply reading off the notes. I'd also recommend Bernstein's second one with the Vienna Philharmonic and Tennstedt's live recording with the London Philharmonic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AVOID KARAJAN*, whose recording of the Sixth, a work he did not admire (he reportedly wanted to make cuts but was dissuaded by people at DG), is a disaster that sounds nothing like Mahler in either orchestration (because the balances are all wrong) or interpretation (he overrides Mahler's detailed instructions constantly, and to the detriment of).


Not only did Mitropoulos not take the exposition repeat, he placed the andante moderato directly after the opening allegro energico, ma non troppo; a serious turnoff, for me anyway.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> Not only did Mitropoulos not take the exposition repeat, he placed the andante moderato directly after the opening allegro energico, ma non troppo; a serious turnoff, for me anyway.


So does Abbado. In any event, this is the way the work was generally performed at the time, if I'm not mistaken. I prefer Scherzo-Andante myself, but I'd respect the wishes of a conductor who thinks otherwise.


----------



## bigshot

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Despite bigshot's dismissal of Abbado's recording (he's clearly won't budge from his "old is good. bad is new" stance, no matter how revered a new recording may be).


In this case it isn't old vs good. It's that I have a bunch of favorite Mahler conductors, and Abbado isn't one of them. I would choose Bernstein, Walter (did he do a 6? I can't find it), (or if you want modern sound) Tennstedt over Abbado. But I hear the 5:1 blu-ray sounds excellent if sound quality is paramount for you.

I went back and listened to the Karajan 6th to refresh my memory, and I do like it, even though the sound is pretty muddled by spotlighting. Not my favorite Mahler symphony though.


----------



## bigshot

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sergiu Celibidache explained,
> 
> _"Everybody was influenced at the time by Arturo Toscanini - it was easy to understand what he was trying to do: you didn't need any reference to spiritual dimension. There was a certain order in the way the music was presented. With Toscanini I never felt anything spiritual. With Furtwängler on the other hand, I understood that there I was confronted by something completely different: metaphysics, transcendence, the relationship between sounds and sonorities. Furtwängler was not only a musician, he was a creator... What happens to those who don't understand the manifold variety of musical performance? Who are unable to hear that famous astral octave because they are deaf to music?"_


I've said it before, and I know it is an unpopular opinion, but I really think we live in an Autistic age. Broad emotions are misinterpreted as being "mistakes" and focusing on perfection of details is seen as a virtue. Perhaps this is a result of the cynicism of our times.

I have a friend who is a giant in the filmmaking and art world. I was speaking to him on the phone the other day, and I mentioned to him that I felt that the first half of the 20th century was the golden age of everything. I wasn't alive then, so I asked him what the difference was in mindsets back then that allowed such great achievement. He said it was simple... In the first half of the 20th century culture celebrated humanity. They believed that human beings were important and powerful and could accomplish anything they wanted to accomplish. Today, our politicians are all crooks, the bankers are stealing our money. People are going out and shooting children in elementary schools and cutting innocent people's heads off. Everyone is distrustful and dispirited. He summed it up by saying, you can't accomplish anything without believing in something. If you don't value passion, all you can do is connect the dots.


----------



## bigshot

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Bigshot... have you come across this before? I can't believe I was unaware of its existence... in spite of the fact that I must have 8 or more recordings of all of Mozart's greatest operas. On top of this it features not only Furtwängler, but also two of my favorite singers: Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Lisa della Casa!


WOW! I had no idea either!! Is this out on DVD? All I have of Furtwangler conducting is the Nazi short and some brief puppet on a string clips I don't know the source of. I HAVE TO GET THIS!

Edit: found it! It's Grummer not Schwartzkopf though.
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Giovanni-Furtwangler-Wilhelm-Furtwängler/dp/B00005ONMJ


----------



## Guest

I don't feel that I have been any more dismissive of Furtwangler as others on here have been in their characterizations of many modern conductors. I have repeatedly said that I enjoy many of the "golden age" conductors. But others have had less than kind characterizations of modern conductors, implying that their methods of conducting are inferior, and that eventually I will see the light.

I enjoy Furtwangler, but don't revere him. I have his EMI Bayreuth Beethoven 9th. I tried his Tristan once, but didn't care for it - more than likely due to my overall lack of fondness for that opera. Will I seek out others of his recordings? I couldn't say, but I'm not ruling it out. But as I said, his conducting style is not one that I appreciate as much as others, and that is completely disregarding the quality of the sound of those recordings. I have several historic recordings in my collection - meaning mono. Apparently, though, if you try to imply that modern conductors don't all sound exactly the same, and actually have discernible styles that you can detect, then that is absurd to some, and must then be lectured on the indisputable supremacy of the dead guys. It was to that type of attitude that I was being flippant


----------



## bigshot

I don't think I've been flippant at all. I've presented my opinions clearly and unequivocally and supported them with plenty of explanations and examples.

I haven't dismissed modern conductors or recordings in total. I've pointed out that there are modern recordings and conductors I do find value in. But there are modern conductors who might as well be conducting the phone book too, and for some reason their focus on perfection in detail over genuine emotional expression is seen as a virtue by some people. I value mistakes in interpretation more than I value "safe and proper" ones. Safe and proper means you aren't experimenting and taking risks. That is poison to any art form.

"The chief enemy of art is good taste." -Pablo Picasso


----------



## Mahlerian

bigshot said:


> Walter (did he do a 6? I can't find it)


Walter disliked the Sixth and never conducted it. It was the only Mahler symphony he never conducted, I believe, though he didn't record all of the rest, either. The point is that you're saying that Walter's interpretation, if it had existed, would clearly and obviously be better Mahler than Abbado's Mahler, which is merely a preference.



bigshot said:


> I don't think I've been flippant at all. I've presented my opinions clearly and unequivocally and supported them with plenty of explanations and examples.


Sure, you've given examples, but you've dismissed everyone who doesn't share your opinion as being wrong (or at least emotionally autistic), time and again.



> I haven't dismissed modern conductors or recordings in total. I've pointed out that there are modern recordings and conductors I do find value in. But there are modern conductors who might as well be conducting the phone book too, and for some reason their focus on perfection in detail over genuine emotional expression is seen as a virtue by some people. I value mistakes in interpretation more than I value "safe and proper" ones. Safe and proper means you aren't experimenting and taking risks. That is poison to any art form.
> 
> "The chief enemy of art is good taste." -Pablo Picasso


None of this is true of the conductors we have pointed. I may as well ask if you are completely deaf to any interpretive subtlety whatsoever if you are unable to tell the difference between the excellent Mahler of Abbado and the bland, uninspired Mahler of Rattle, let alone the obtusely perverse Mahler of Karajan. Karajan's Mahler 6 is not only less emotionally profound than Boulez's or Abbado's, it doesn't even show the least comprehension of the meaning behind the notes that you keep going on about.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I've said it before, and I know it is an unpopular opinion, but I really think we live in an Autistic age. Broad emotions are misinterpreted as being "mistakes" and focusing on perfection of details is seen as a virtue. Perhaps this is a result of the cynicism of our times.
> 
> I have a friend who is a giant in the filmmaking and art world. I was speaking to him on the phone the other day, and I mentioned to him that I felt that the first half of the 20th century was the golden age of everything. I wasn't alive then, so I asked him what the difference was in mindsets back then that allowed such great achievement. He said it was simple... In the first half of the 20th century culture celebrated humanity. They believed that human beings were important and powerful and could accomplish anything they wanted to accomplish. Today, our politicians are all crooks, the bankers are stealing our money. People are going out and shooting children in elementary schools and cutting innocent people's heads off. Everyone is distrustful and dispirited. He summed it up by saying, you can't accomplish anything without believing in something. If you don't value passion, all you can do is connect the dots.


Your friend might be a giant in art and filmmaking, but not in history. Those are some amazing rose-tinted glasses. Yes - in the first half of the 20th century, we celebrated humanity so much that fascist and communist dictatorships rampaged through Europe, nearly committed genocide, and sent millions to their graves. Over in Asia they were celebrating humanity to the hilt as people were slaughtered in China and Korea, and plunged that part of the world into the same world war, that didn't end until 2 cities were completely erased from existence.

Politicians only apparently became crooks in the later half of the 20th century. Let's ignore the Teapot Dome Scandal. People have always claimed bankers were stealing their money. Maybe people weren't shooting kids in school as much, but Furtwangler's country sent more school kids to ovens than have been killed in school shootings. Islamists have been beheading people for as long as Islam has been around.

Everybody likes to look at the past in idealized terms - the good old days of yore. Every generation has problems. How can you claim people weren't dispirited back then? They were either in the midst of a depression, or in the midst of slowly crawling out of it that took more than a decade?

That is a very selective vision of the first half of the century indeed.


----------



## bigshot

Mahlerian said:


> I may as well ask if you are completely deaf to any interpretive subtlety whatsoever if you are unable to tell the difference between the excellent Mahler of Abbado and the bland, uninspired Mahler of Rattle, let alone the obtusely perverse Mahler of Karajan.


Overall, I tend to prefer 60s Bernstein for Mahler above all the rest, actually. I was just trying to offer a suggestion of something with more modern sound for those for whom sound is most important. In that case, I would suggest Tennstedt as a first choice.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Your friend might be a giant in art and filmmaking, but not in history. Those are some amazing rose-tinted glasses. Yes - in the first half of the 20th century, we celebrated humanity so much that fascist and communist dictatorships rampaged through Europe, nearly committed genocide, and sent millions to their graves. Over in Asia they were celebrating humanity to the hilt as people were slaughtered in China and Korea, and plunged that part of the world into the same world war, that didn't end until 2 cities were completely erased from existence.


We were talking specifically about the mindset that created the artistic culture in America in the first half of the 20th century... the birth and flowering of Jazz, the explosion of moviemaking, photographers, painters, conductors, composers. It was a golden age for everything from magazine illustration to industrial design of toasters and coffee pots to the fine arts. Across the board, the arts were more a part of everyone's lives.


----------



## Mahlerian

bigshot said:


> Overall, I tend to prefer 60s Bernstein for Mahler above all the rest, actually. I was just trying to offer a suggestion of something with more modern sound for those for whom sound is most important. In that case, I would suggest Tennstedt as a first choice.


Bernstein and Tennstedt were great Mahler conductors, to be sure. But theirs is not the only valid way of interpreting Mahler's music. Walter is different from both of them. Mahler himself was quite a different conductor from Walter.

And, as one who enjoys Furtwangler and Walter and Mengelberg and Stokowski and Klemperer and Bohm and Bernstein and Karajan (just not his Mahler), I say that today's conductors still offer a good deal of personality and interpret things in their own way.

It seems odd to me that you are complaining that today's listeners don't want any interpretation, but merely a recitation from the "text" of the score while at the same time sticking to only a single style of interpretation and claiming that it is inherently superior. Many of us enjoy both older and newer recordings.


----------



## bigshot

Stokowski only did a few Mahler symphonies, didn't he?

I might have not explained fully... I don't dislike Abaddo's Mahler. I just don't find anything unique about it. It would be a great choice for someone who wants a decent performance in 5:1. The only Mahler that I really have trouble listening to is Solti, because it's so overwrought it makes me nervous to listen to it. Some Bruckner conductors have the same effect on me. I tend to prefer a little bit of lyricism.


----------



## Itullian

For pure sound I don't think you can beat Chailly's Mahler and Bruckner cycles on Decca. It's amazing.


----------



## Mahlerian

bigshot said:


> Stokowski only did a few Mahler symphonies, didn't he?


I wasn't aware of any, actually. I was speaking more generally. All we have from Furtwangler is the Songs of a Wayfarer with Dieskau, and all we have of Mengelberg is the Fourth, but we can judge just fine from their recordings of other things that they were fine conductors, and I agree that it's a shame Furtwangler avoided Mahler after the early 30s.



> I might have not explained fully... I don't dislike Abaddo's Mahler. I just don't find anything unique about it. It would be a great choice for someone who wants a decent performance in 5:1. The only Mahler that I really have trouble listening to is Solti, because it's so overwrought it makes me nervous to listen to it. Some Bruckner conductors have the same effect on me. I tend to prefer a little bit of lyricism.


Solti's not my favorite Mahler conductor either, though I do enjoy his famous Eighth and the later live Fifth.

Unlike you, though, I do hear a lot to recommend Abbado's Mahler beyond merely sound quality.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Overall, I tend to prefer 60s Bernstein for Mahler above all the rest, actually. I was just trying to offer a suggestion of something with more modern sound for those for whom sound is most important. In that case, I would suggest Tennstedt as a first choice.


That is quite the straw man. The original poster mentioned having some difficulty appreciating old pre-stereo recordings. But since then, I'm not aware of the argument ever being that modern sound is the most important. To the contrary, I think we are saying that we like that now we can have great modern sound, and don't believe that we have had to sacrifice on musical quality to get that. You have seemed to present this false notion that great modern sound and great musical quality are mutually exclusive. I love that now I can get great music in great sound. And that doesn't mean that I reject older recordings. I have several. You talk about your few favorite conductors and how wonderful they are. But couldn't it be true that there were numerous other conductors at that time that were just plain mediocre? Just as now? There are a relative few standout conductors, and numerous other mediocre ones? But the space of time, and the fact that recording technology was in its infancy then, so most of the mediocre has been forgotten, or was never recorded? And now that technology is widespread and cheaper, more gets recorded. But over time, the mediocre will be forgotten, and we'll talk only of the relative few greats from this era?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Performance is something you don't recognize the importance of until you know the repertoire inside and out. Give it 15 years or so. You'll get there.





Mahlerian said:


> *AVOID KARAJAN*, whose recording of the Sixth, a work he did not admire (he reportedly wanted to make cuts but was dissuaded by people at DG), is a disaster that sounds nothing like Mahler in either orchestration (because the balances are all wrong) or interpretation (he overrides Mahler's detailed instructions constantly, and to the detriment of the music).





bigshot said:


> I would choose Bernstein, Walter (did he do a 6? I can't find it) [...] I went back and listened to the Karajan 6th to refresh my memory, and I do like it


(I note that this is not quite what bigshot first wrote; at first, his recommendation of Karajan and Walter was unequivocal.)

The prospect of having to spend 15 years listening to Karajan's 6th before I can know whether I can safely follow the advice of bigshot or Mahlerian is somewhat daunting.

...unless, of course, it's Mahlerian who hasn't put in his 15 years, and then I can safely go with bigshot's initial recommendation of Walter...who didn't do one! :lol:

Many thanks for the recommendations. In the end, I opted for Mariss Jansons, who _did _do one, with the LSO - for three main reasons. First, I prefer the andante second, not third (I need a break from that harrying march, and even the composer himself was in two minds where to put it). Second, price. Third, it came well recommended in the podcast I linked to earlier, and by Prestoclassical

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/w/80155/Gustav-Mahler-Symphony-No-6-in-A-minor-%2527Tragic%2527

I had already found a cheap, error-strewn rip of the Abbado online - the DVD is just too much for my pocket at present - which is why I was looking for something else.

I'll get back to you all when I'm 70 (bigshot and I can celebrate the milestone together) and tell you if the Jansons is any good.


----------



## bigshot

You two are wound up WAY too tight. Go outside and look at the moon and relax.


----------



## bigshot

Mahlerian said:


> I wasn't aware of any, actually. I was speaking more generally.


Just checked... He did a stereo 2 on RCA and a mono 8 in NY in the late 40s. I don't have the 8, but I do have the 2. I'll dig that out and give it a listen.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> You two are wound up WAY too tight. Go outside and look at the moon and relax.


No fear! You know about the moon's reputation - I might find _I'm_ recommending recordings that don't exist!


----------



## bigshot

I just got the Classic Archive conductors blu-ray from Amazon.co.uk. I didn't realize it was available in the US when I ordered it. Can't wait to dive in... especially the Stoki concerts from London. I watched a recital with Rostropovich and Richter over the weekend on the ensemble disk. Amazing stuff. It's interesting to see Richter in the role of accompanist.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> We were talking specifically about the mindset that created the artistic culture in America in the first half of the 20th century... the birth and flowering of Jazz, the explosion of moviemaking, photographers, painters, conductors, composers. It was a golden age for everything from magazine illustration to industrial design of toasters and coffee pots to the fine arts. Across the board, the arts were more a part of everyone's lives.


But that has nothing to do with what we have been discussing here. We have been talking about the conducting and recording of classical music. The conductors you have been revering have not been Americans - Stokowski was British of Polish descent, Toscanini was Italian, and Furtwangler was German. Yes, Stokowski and Toscanini definitely became prominent as conductors in the U.S., but there training was in Europe, from whence likely also came their inspiration.

As for that all being the golden age, that is really just a matter of opinion. There have been other periods of explosive creativity. Consider the space age - the relatively short period of time man went from constructing the first airplane, to landing on the moon. Consider the age of computers. My cell phone has infinitely more power than the first personal computer my family ever bought (a Commodore 64). Industrial design, fine arts, coffee pots, etc. Progress is continual. But again - how exactly does this all reflect a celebration of humanity? The first half of the 20th century saw two of the most devastating wars this planet has ever seen. I have already discussed Europe. But consider here in the U.S. - that birth and flowering of Jazz, owing much of its origin to the African American community, which at the time was still fearful of lynching and the KKK. The supposedly less corrupt politicians in those days opposed granting those people civil rights, and couldn't even manage to pull together a majority to pass anti-lynching laws. Eugenics was the craze in the early half of the 20th century. Hitler had his admirers this side of the pond as well.

Yes, there are some real gems that came from this era - don't mistake me. But again - it is only by the most selective criteria that the first half of the 20th century can be represented as celebrating humanity.


----------



## bigshot

Just because you weren't born in America, it doesn't mean you aren't an American! In fact, that is pretty much the definition of Americans with the exception of American Indians.

My reference to the first half of the 20th century was specifically about the arts... music, the visual arts, dance, design... The first half of the 20th century was the flowering of artistic creativity in America, the biggest contribution being Jazz followed closely by the movies. The second half of the 20th century was the flowering of technology... putting the man on the moon and culminating in the establishment of the internet. Unfortunately, we didn't carry the creative boom through into the technology boom. Hopefully that will be what the new century is all about.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Just because you weren't born in America, it doesn't mean you aren't an American! In fact, that is pretty much the definition of Americans with the exception of American Indians.
> 
> My reference to the first half of the 20th century was specifically about the arts... music, the visual arts, dance, design... The first half of the 20th century was the flowering of artistic creativity in America, the biggest contribution being Jazz followed closely by the movies. The second half of the 20th century was the flowering of technology... putting the man on the moon and culminating in the establishment of the internet. Unfortunately, we didn't carry the creative boom through into the technology boom. Hopefully that will be what the new century is all about.


But how is that related to your claim (or your friend's claim) that this was due to a celebration of humanity?

And I didn't say that Stokowski and Toscanini weren't American. I said they were born and trained and started outside of America, and so a lot of what influenced them and their ideas was probably European in origin. And that notion of being American has been outdated for quite some time. Most Americans today were born in America. But as I said, that is beside the point, because I never said the two weren't American.

And what does any of that have to do with classical music? That is what we are discussing - not toasters and coffee pots.


----------



## bigshot

Stokowski came to America in 1905, actually. His entire career was in the US.

You've wandered away from the point. The point was, the first half of the 20th century was a flowering of creativity in America because people believed that mankind was capable of doing great things... not being beholden to the past, not prevented from doing things by powers from above. This is *exactly* the sort of environment that would produce a conductor like Leopold Stokowski who achieved greatness by expressing his own artistic spirit in his conducting and passed that flame along through educational programs for both musicians and the general public. He was a truly great man.

I doubt our society would allow a Stokowski to succeed today. We value different things. We produce more great mathematicians and scientists today than we do great creative artists. Conducting had fewer rules in Stokowski's time. Conductors were seen as creative artists who were expected to express themselves, not just a person playing the marks on the paper faithfully. Society felt that mankind could achieve anything we set our mind to, and encouraged individual achievement... rugged individualism. That is a completely different mindset than people have today, and it resulted in more varied range of interpretation and more artistic creativity across the board. That same attitude was felt by jazz musicians. industrial designers, illustrators, architects, and all other artistic endeavors from easel painters to newspaper cartoonists, and that resulted in greater creativity in those fields as well.

Toasters, coffee pots, symphonies broadcast weekly over the radio, comic strips, beautiful ads in magazines for shirt collars... it's all related to the same aspiration for creativity and encouragement of creative people. That doesn't exist nearly as much any more.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Stokowski came to America in 1905, actually. His entire career was in the US.


Bigshot, maybe you can answer this. Stokowski was born and raised in London, coming to the US when he was about 23. His father was an English-born cabinet maker, his mother Irish.

So, question: Where'd he get that thick and not-quite-recognizable accent? I have my suspicions...


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Stokowski came to America in 1905, actually. His entire career was in the US.
> 
> You've wandered away from the point. The point was, the first half of the 20th century was a flowering of creativity in America because people believed that mankind was capable of doing great things... not being beholden to the past, not prevented from doing things by powers from above. This is *exactly* the sort of environment that would produce a conductor like Leopold Stokowski who achieved greatness by expressing his own artistic spirit in his conducting and passed that flame along through educational programs for both musicians and the general public. He was a truly great man.
> 
> I doubt our society would allow a Stokowski to succeed today. We value different things. We produce more great mathematicians and scientists today than we do great creative artists. Conducting had fewer rules in Stokowski's time. Conductors were seen as creative artists who were expected to express themselves, not just a person playing the marks on the paper faithfully. Society felt that mankind could achieve anything we set our mind to, and encouraged individual achievement... rugged individualism. That is a completely different mindset than people have today, and it resulted in more varied range of interpretation and more artistic creativity across the board. That same attitude was felt by jazz musicians. industrial designers, illustrators, architects, and all other artistic endeavors from easel painters to newspaper cartoonists, and that resulted in greater creativity in those fields as well.
> 
> Toasters, coffee pots, symphonies broadcast weekly over the radio, comic strips, beautiful ads in magazines for shirt collars... it's all related to the same aspiration for creativity and encouragement of creative people. That doesn't exist nearly as much any more.


I'm not sure what the basis for those assumptions are. Personally, as a scientist, I have to tell you that a lot of creativity goes into science. You have to think outside the box, and come up with novel new ways of looking at problems. And we are in a much bigger era for science. In every new era, there are new discoveries that inspire people. You talk about these things supposedly going on in the early 20th century - how is it you know that? And isn't it really just a subjective opinion of yours? Everybody always thinks that the past was somehow more amazing then the people of the time thought.


----------



## bigshot

There is a big difference between artistic creativity and scientific ingenuity. Creativity in the artistic sense is expressing your own feelings and experiences... sharing your personal view of life through music or dance or drama. There are no right or wrong answers, just inexpressive and expressive ones. The things that are valued are making an audience feel a strong emotion, making them think about how they experience life, taking them to a place and point of view they might not have felt otherwise. That is something that is done as a collaboration between composer, conductor and performer. Each one of them adds their own emotional content to create an expressive whole. With movies, it would be a collaboration between screenwriter, director and actor. With dance, it's choreographer and dancer... Artistic creativity is based on sharing emotions and feelings, not just ideas and facts. Art involves craft and technical aspects too, but it is all at the service of expression.

A lot of creative people suffer from depression. I think that is because they are so emotionally open. They don't have the distance most people have from their feelings.

I'm positive that people suffered and died and felt pain in the past just as much as today. I'm not saying it was nirvana. I'm just saying that society valued expressiveness and creativity more. They felt that humanity was a great thing. And those values and that belief encouraged the creative arts. Today we value precision and distrust humanity. I think that discourages the arts, but it probably encourages science. It's different, but perhaps equal in the end.

But if I was just going to look at the arts, the first half of the 20th century would be the place to be. There is nothing today anywhere near as exciting creatively as Duke Ellington at the Cotton Club, Stokowski in Philadelphia or Hollywood moviemaking in the golden age.


----------



## Guest

But we are just repeating ourselves now. 

Bottom line is this - for the interests of this forum - classical music - everybody has their subjective opinions. The era of music that a person enjoys is subjective. For the vast majority of performed "classical" music, all we have to rely on are the scores that have survived down to this day and what reports we can find of the skill of those who have performed and conducted those works. Not until relatively recently have we been able to record performances for posterity to hear. The dawn of the recorded music period was dominated by the all powerful conductor who made his will at least as important as the music being performed. As a result, we talk often as much about the conductor as the music. In what I am assuming was a reaction to that, a movement emerged where more emphasis was placed in reproducing the music as the composer would have had it. Some conductors adhere to this philosophy more than others - some not at all. Some not only seek to reproduce the original intent, but also the original sound, using smaller numbers and original instruments. And for those who are opposed to such new methods, the common criticism is that music now with these practices is cold, clinical, devoid of emotion, and nothing more than a museum piece, whereas the conductors of yore brought life to the work. And those who like HIP practices describe the older style as over-romanticizing the work, making it overwrought, and losing the essence of the original composition - they talk of the conductor at least as much as the composer, hence we have Bernstein's Mahler, Furtwangler's Beethoven, etc.

So who is right? My guess? The ones in the middle who find something to appreciate in both. Who can enjoy the older recordings and the newer recordings that are great. The ones who can appreciate that there has been, and continues to be, great classical music recorded for us to hear. And those people can appreciate the older recordings, in spite of the inferior recording techniques, as well as the newer recordings with sometimes stellar, impeccable sound.


----------



## bigshot

There are two things I know for sure... All opinions are *not* created equal, and the truth rarely lies halfway between two radically opposing viewpoints.

“Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those he has selected.” -Oscar Wilde


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> There are two things I know for sure... All opinions are *not* created equal, and the truth rarely lies halfway between two radically opposing viewpoints.
> 
> "Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those he has selected." -Oscar Wilde


Fine, you are right, I am wrong. Tell me - with that 15 more years of experience, does the conceitedness come as a package deal?

I am not an artist. I am a lover of classical music. And I have my own tastes. They are mine. They are what sounds good to me. I don't like the same things you do. You can tell me all you like how inferior my taste is in recorded classical music because I think that there are great modern recordings and I don't share exactly your views of Stokowski, Furtwangler, and Toscanini. But your opinion is absurd where it comes to my tastes. Maybe I would come to like those conductors more later on down the road - but quite honestly, right now you're kind of turning me off of them, because I don't really want to go down the road of the "golden age" snobbery that I am witnessing.

Bottom line - I like what I like, and if that doesn't fit your conception of what is "great," well, I'm not going to lose much sleep, and I will still experience some damn good classical music.


----------



## bigshot

Attacking the person instead of the argument again. That's why I told you to go outside and gaze at the moon last time.

Enjoy life. Try to learn from other people as you go. Share generously with others. Don't worry about winning so much. If you learn something, even if you don't win, you still come out ahead. That's my advice.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Attacking the person instead of the argument again. That's why I told you to go outside and gaze at the moon last time.
> 
> Enjoy life. Try to learn from other people as you go. Share generously with others. Don't worry about winning so much. If you learn something, even if you don't win, you still come out ahead. That's my advice.


Right - the message being that if I would just calm down, I would see the wisdom in your words. I learn lots from other people - but I tend to avoid the opinions of those who are too full of themselves. Their advice always seems too self-serving and not honestly given.


----------



## bigshot

I learned something from you. Hope you learned something from me.


----------



## Guest

Oh believe me, I learned plenty.


----------



## Centropolis

I just wanted to jump in here and say that being the OP, I have been following the thread and have not disappeared. I am just not knowledgeable enough to give any valuable input!


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I was just trying to offer a suggestion of something with more modern sound for those for whom sound is most important.


I'm not sure how many posters here have actually said that 'sound is most important', just that there are times where the quality of the sound detracts from the performance and that mono reproduction sometimes does not satisfy.

Given the range of answers to my request for recommendations for Mahler's 6th, it's clear that I can find worthy performances without having to go too far back into the past or listen to mono. Whilst I doubt anyone would question the quality of the work of conductors of the past, it's not _essential _for an exploration of the classical repertoire to listen to their performances. It might be of interest to do so, but the OP should not feel that by preferring modern recordings s/he is somehow 'missing out' or behaving like a newbie.

Centropolis started by opining about Hindemith. Checking out the composer at Presto Classical, there are recommendations that don't entail delving into the mono archive. It's not necessary to come to TC for advice (though I do) but in any case, there's nothing like your own ears for testing out what you like. Centropolis is, I'm sure, quite capable of deciding whether the advice of members is a quality performance or an uninspiring recording.


----------



## bigshot

Occasionally, my music server will random shuffle to something really remarkable. Yesterday it landed on Beecham conducting Brahms' Tragic Overture. Wonderful rhythms and textures! Beecham was amazing in the life and spring he brought to the music.

Mahler wasn't recorded as much in the 30s and 40s as today. The same with Bruckner. They were just too big for 78s. Only a handful of their symphonies made it to record in that era. The only Hindemith I know of on 78s is Mathis de Maler. I have a set on European disks... I think UK. Excellent performance conducted by the composer. But he re-recorded it later for LP. There might have been something by Hindemith conducted by Furtwangler in the early 50s. I'd have to check. Again, primarily LP era repertoire.

I agree. It isn't essential for an exploration of classical repertoire to listen to historical recordings. That is best done with stereo era records. The reason to explore historical recordings is to explore the wide range of interpretations and individual styles of the performers.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure how many posters here have actually said that 'sound is most important', just that there are times where the quality of the sound detracts from the performance and that mono reproduction sometimes does not satisfy.
> 
> Given the range of answers to my request for recommendations for Mahler's 6th, it's clear that I can find worthy performances without having to go too far back into the past or listen to mono. Whilst I doubt anyone would question the quality of the work of conductors of the past, it's not _essential _for an exploration of the classical repertoire to listen to their performances. It might be of interest to do so, but the OP should not feel that by preferring modern recordings s/he is somehow 'missing out' or behaving like a newbie.
> 
> Centropolis started by opining about Hindemith. Checking out the composer at Presto Classical, there are recommendations that don't entail delving into the mono archive. It's not necessary to come to TC for advice (though I do) but in any case, there's nothing like your own ears for testing out what you like. Centropolis is, I'm sure, quite capable of deciding whether the advice of members is a quality performance or an uninspiring recording.


There is an excellent Hindemith album on BIS, conducted by John Neschling with the Sao Paulo Symphony Orchestra. It contains the Nobilissima visione Suite, Mathis der Mahler, and the Symphonic Metamorphosis after Themes by Carl Maria von Weber.


----------



## Centropolis

DrMike said:


> There is an excellent Hindemith album on BIS, conducted by John Neschling with the Sao Paulo Symphony Orchestra. It contains the Nobilissima visione Suite, Mathis der Mahler, and the Symphonic Metamorphosis after Themes by Carl Maria von Weber.


Yes, I just searched for it on Amazon. Unfortunately, I do not have equipment to play SACDs! Time to upgrade?


----------



## Centropolis

bigshot said:


> Occasionally, my music server will random shuffle to something really remarkable. Yesterday it landed on Beecham conducting Brahms' Tragic Overture. Wonderful rhythms and textures! Beecham was amazing in the life and spring he brought to the music.


I wish I know how to set up a music server. I can't even get sharing file folders to work between my Android phone, tablet, Windows laptop and Linux laptop.

Sorry....off-topic.


----------



## Guest

Centropolis said:


> Yes, I just searched for it on Amazon. Unfortunately, I do not have equipment to play SACDs! Time to upgrade?


Neither do I. They play fine on most normal CD players as well - there is a CD layer. I have several SACDs and they play just fine on every CD player I have tried - my computer, my car, my home stereo. Don't let that scare you off - unless they charge a ridiculous price for the SACD. Some do - many don't. For example, the RCA Living Stereo albums being re-released on SACD are usually about the same price as a normal CD. Incidentally, if you want to get to know some great older recordings (still stereo, but mostly in the early days of stereo), then the Living Stereo series is EXCELLENT. My recommendation is the Heifetz recordings in that series.


----------



## bigshot

Centropolis said:


> I wish I know how to set up a music server. I can't even get sharing file folders to work between my Android phone, tablet, Windows laptop and Linux laptop.


Apple products are much easier for this sort of thing. My server is a Mac Mini. It was up and running in an hour.

The only real advantage of an SACD over a CD is multichannel audio. If you don't do 5.1, then a CD or the CD layer on a hybrid SACD will do fine.


----------



## Centropolis

Thanks! I didn't know SACDs play in regular CD players. Learn something new today.


----------



## Mahlerian

Centropolis said:


> Thanks! I didn't know SACDs play in regular CD players. Learn something new today.


Technically, they don't, but most SACDs also have a regular CD-encoded layer above the SACD layer (because the lasers read different depths).


----------



## Vaneyes

Hybrids won't play in my old Dell PC.

Centropolis, to get the multichannel benefit from SACDs, the minimum buy-in includes Blu-ray player, AV receiver 5.1, 4 speakers, subwoofer, and decent connective and speaker cable.

Now you see why the industry's high hopes soon became low hopes.


----------



## bigshot

That is absolutely true. It's a very high hurdle to expect the average person to make it over.


----------



## bigshot

Vaneyes said:


> Hybrids won't play in my old Dell PC.


That's interesting. I've never run across anything that can't do that. Even my $40 Coby WalMart special can play the CD layer on SACDs.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Hybrids won't play in my old Dell PC.
> 
> Centropolis, to get the multichannel benefit from SACDs, the minimum buy-in includes Blu-ray player, AV receiver 5.1, 4 speakers, subwoofer, and decent connective and speaker cable.
> 
> Now you see why the industry's high hopes soon became low hopes.


I have had the odd, random CD player have difficulty playing a hybrid SACD. But by and large, they have worked. Back when I first looked at SACDs, I looked into the cost of a SACD player, and then decided I would have to be satisfied with the CD layer. I don't know how big the market for them is - I'm assuming it is a very small niche market, as I think the vast majority of people who purchase CDs don't even know of the existence of the SACD, let alone own a special player.


----------



## Markbridge

I have to jump in on this discussion. Never did I imagine that in 2014 I would see the same arguments I saw in the '70s ("Mono or not to Mono?)! Back in the '70s it seemed like every review I read in Stereo Review or High Fidelity always ended with something like, "This performance is so-so, but to really hear this work correctly you just have to hear Dipp-Schidt's from 1935!". Every review implied that those old, ancient scratchy mono recordings were always better. And here we are 40 years later arguing the same thing. The funny thing is, in the '70s I always avoided the mono recordings and went for the current ones. Even today, I just cannot bring myself to listen so something that sounds like it was recorded in an inner tube. For those who argue that only the most recent recordings are the ones worth listening to, I do have to disagree. But, that's logical; the recordings I cut my teeth on are obviously going to be ones that I would recommend, not necessarily over the recent ones, however. But to say the recordings from the late '50s through the '70s should be avoided and don't sound good, I really do have to beg to differ. There are many early stereo recordings that sound quite good. In fact, some of the early stereo recordings have better stereo separation because the engineers were experimenting to see what was best. The Mercury "Living Presence", RCA "Living Stereo" and the Everest recordings still sound spectacular. 

Perhaps someone can back me up with this, but if I remember correctly, a few years ago there was a conference of sound engineers who voted on the best sounding opera of all time. The winner? Solti's recording of Das Rheingold.....from 1958!!

Again, I can't help but chuckle seeing we are still discussing "mono vs. stereo". I would have thought that in 2014 we would be discussing "analog vs. digital"!


----------



## bigshot

DSPs can make even the driest Toscanini recording sound like decent 70s stereo.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> DSPs can make even the driest Toscanini recording sound like decent 70s stereo.


Except it isn't, and was never meant to. So can you really even say it is the original sound? Doesn't it alter it?


----------



## Guest

And a decent stereo system can make a modern digital stereo recording sound like a modern digital stereo recording.


----------



## Centropolis

DrMike said:


> And a decent stereo system can make a modern digital stereo recording sound like a modern digital stereo recording.


I predict someone is going to ask, "Can you define 'decent'?"


----------



## Centropolis

Markbridge said:


> Again, I can't help but chuckle seeing we are still discussing "mono vs. stereo". I would have thought that in 2014 we would be discussing "analog vs. digital"!


Mono VS stereo certainly wasn't my intention for starting this thread. It was supposed to be about helping newbies such as me to get over the sound of older recordings in order to appreciate and enjoy them as much as possible rather being turned off the the older recordings. It then became new recordings vs old reccording and so on.

The last mono vs stereo discussion I participated in was:









However, as you can see, I got both sides covered.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> Except it isn't, and was never meant to. So can you really even say it is the original sound? Doesn't it alter it?


It doesn't alter the front soundstage at all, except to make it twice as wide. It adds to the sound up front by taking the load of producing bass off the mains and hands it to the sub, and creates a live acoustic for the rear of the room that increases the perceived size of the room without adding reverb. The effect doesn't muddy up the music or alter it. It just makes it bigger so it fills the room.

For dry Toscanini recordings, I use a DSP that uses the measurements of the Vienna Sofiensaal to create a larger space for the music to inhabit. That one adds a little bit of reverberation, but it is totally natural sounding and corrects for the NBC studio's dead sound.

These room corrections require a 5.1 or 7.1 setup though. You dial in the exact dimensions of the room and the distance from your seating position to the speakers and it calculates exact phase to create whatever acoustic you choose.


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> And a decent stereo system can make a modern digital stereo recording sound like a modern digital stereo recording.


A 5.1 system can make a modern digital stereo recording sound even more present and natural, and the soundstage is double the size because you have a real center channel instead of a phantom center.


----------



## RobertKC

Centropolis said:


> It was supposed to be about helping newbies such as me to get over the sound of older recordings in order to appreciate and enjoy them as much as possible rather being turned off the the older recordings.


Centropolis: Considering the discussion thus far, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Guest

Markbridge said:


> For those who argue that only the most recent recordings are the ones worth listening to, I do have to disagree. [...] But to say the recordings from the late '50s through the '70s should be avoided and don't sound good, I really do have to beg to differ.


I don't think anyone actually said either of these things. I was one who expressed a _preference _for finding recently-recorded performances, which is not the same position as you describe.

In any case, in another thread, the question of 'best' performance was explored and there seemed solid agreement that there is no such thing: the best that can be said is that some performances are well-regarded, but preference plays a significant part.


----------



## Bogdan

Start by listening to nothing but recordings from the acoustic era (pre 1925 or so) for a whole month. Then anything recorded later than 1930 will sound like hi fi heaven.


----------



## Centropolis

RobertKC said:


> Centropolis: Considering the discussion thus far, what are your thoughts?


I think the reason for newbies like me who are just getting into it later in life, we've gotten used to modern music with good sound. The merit of the older/mono recordings is not in question at all.

I think the barrier to the appreciate of older recordings for me personally, is that fact that I don't know too much about the theory, structure and all the techincal stuff so I don't look for them (or I don't know what to look for). Being not technical, I focus more on the sound because I wouldn't know if the older performance from the 40's was better because of this and that.


----------



## Figleaf

Bogdan said:


> Start by listening to nothing but recordings from the acoustic era (pre 1925 or so) for a whole month. Then anything recorded later than 1930 will sound like hi fi heaven.


Just not 'orchestral' acoustics because A) they sound horrific and B) it's often not a full orchestra anyway, more of a brass band that sounds like it would be more at home playing Sousa marches than bits of symphonies or whatever. Unless you happen to like military bands, in which case the acoustic era will spoil you for choice!

I would stick with vocal records from the acoustic era, ideally piano-accompanied. To appreciate how much better voice and piano recorded than orchestra, we can compare the following two links: same singer, same aria, but the first has a mandolin-like piano accompaniment which is quite crisply recorded, whereas the second is accompanied by the foggiest sounding orchestra I ever heard!


----------



## bigshot

The big exception to what you say about orchestral pre-electrical records is Stokowski and the Philadelphia. Their acoustic records sound much better than any others.


----------



## Larkenfield

Centropolis said:


> I started listening and buying just over a year ago. In the beginning, a few of you mentioned that in order to hear good performances, I have to get over the fact that some of the good performances are older and some in mono. Most of the CDs I've bought to far are kind of the recommended ones from 60's, 70's and 80's. I don't have too many "modern" recordings by living conductors and performers.
> 
> I've tried hard to get into the really old recordings such as the Hindemith Conducts Hindemith boxset. I just can't get into the sound. I know it's supposed to be about the music and not the quality of the recording but when it's on the other end of the spectrum, I find it really hard to enjoy the music.
> 
> Do you guys have this problem? Or is it a newbie thing?


 In response to an old thread, I started with modern recordings and was eventually exposed to vintage recordings because some great musicians, vocalists, and conductors only recorded before modern sound and stereo in that era. While the quality of the recording may greatly, it's simply not possible to hear somebody like Caruso in modern sound, who died in 1921, and yet his voice is so golden and compelling that it's worth putting up with the surface noise and inconvenience. It's amazing how the ears can adjust depending upon the recording. Even some of the worst imaginable can reveal something extraordinaire about a person's art, and it's like going back in time to hear what our parents or grandparents may have heard, and that aspect of it is not mentioned enough. I believe the ones who grew up the digital era without the pops and scratches and surface noise have the greatest difficulty, and yet if they want to explore the entire history of the music going back over 100 years, they will need to be infused with enough curiosity to find a way to adjust to the recording technology of the day.


----------



## flamencosketches

^I don't know why you're constantly dredging up old threads, Lark, but that was an excellent post! I sincerely appreciate the windows into the world of the past that old recordings provide. As far as some of the great musicians of the early days of recording... they just don't make em like they used to. Fascinating stuff. 

I'm not familiar with this Caruso, but sounds like he had a great voice. Good stuff.


----------



## bigshot

Enrico Caruso was the greatest Italian operatic tenor who ever lived.


----------



## millionrainbows

To properly listen to mono, don't use 2 speakers; use only one, so that the sound is coming from that speaker location, as a "monolith."

Do not use 2 speakers and listen to a "ghost" center image. Do not use headphones.


----------



## apricissimus

millionrainbows said:


> To properly listen to mono, don't use 2 speakers; use only one, so that the sound is coming from that speaker location, as a "monolith."
> 
> Do not use 2 speakers and listen to a "ghost" center image. Do not use headphones.


Too many rules about how to listen to music!


----------



## elgar's ghost

I myself can only listen to classical mono recordings if it is solo piano, but even then it has to be from 1950s when monaural hi-fidelity was as good as it was ever likely to get before studio facilities were upgraded for recording in stereo. I know I'm missing out on a goldmine but that just how it is - I'm a product of the end part of the baby boomer era and for me mono exists only with 50s and 60s rock music and old blues recordings. I can appreciate Million Rainbow's advice on how to listen to classical mono recordings through a single speaker source but sadly I don't have the luxury of giving it some in a large room, which presumably would be best.


----------



## Merl

Some mono recordings are very good (eg Beethoven Schuricht) and i still listen with 2 speakers. I just cant deal with scratchy old recordings with no bass or hyper-shrill violins. Tbh, i have very few pieces recorded before 1950 and of those i own i hardly ever listen to them. Early stereo hiss i can deal with but strings that sound like cats scratching on a chalkboard are a definite no-no. I dont care how 'amazing' the reading is (and they rarely are anyway).


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> To properly listen to mono, don't use 2 speakers; use only one, so that the sound is coming from that speaker location, as a "monolith." Do not use 2 speakers and listen to a "ghost" center image. Do not use headphones.


This is correct.

Acoustic recordings were meant to play through from a single position through a horn. The phonograph manufacturers gave instructions to put the player with the horn about waist high in the corner of a large room pointing towards the center. The horn projected the image of the singer a few feet ahead of the horn, creating an eerily present image.

You can get an idea of what this was like by putting a Caruso recording on a boom box and put the boom box tight in the corner of the room playing fairly loud pointing towards the center of the room. Sit about 15 feet back on a chair facing the front wall and an angle to the boom box. The corner walls of the room act like a horn to increase the lower frequencies and point the directionality of the sound, and the reflection off the walls softens the edge and gives the sound an ambience. You'll find that listening to old acoustic recordings this way is quite different than listening with a normal stereo system and radically different than headphones.

By the way, this recording of Walkure Act I by Bruno Walter and the Vienna Philharmonic was recorded in 1935. I don't think any allowance has to be made for the sound fidelity. The music comes through loud and clear. I made this transfer myself from an original pressing. And you'll never hear singers like this ever again.

http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/walkureact1walter1935.mp3


----------



## gardibolt

German recordings back into the 1930s and 1940s are often as good as British/US recordings of the 1950s since the Germans were using tape recording many years before them.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I can handle mono just fine. In fact most of my listening is on a mono single earbud that combines both channels, but poor sound quality is a spoiler for me.


----------



## Guest

I listen to mono on headphones just like I would listen to anything else. It is presumably not ideal, but I don't have a problem with it. I rarely listen to anything earlier than 1950. 

If I listened with speaker I would probably turn one speaker down, but listening on speakers is not an option for me.


----------



## Guest

I'm sure there are optimal ways to listen to mono, but I don't have the sound system to explore those ways. I listen in my car or on headphones. I'm fine with stereo, mono, old, crackly sound, new, pristine sound.


----------



## Larkenfield

How many people have complained about mono recordings because they didn't know whether to listen to them through one or two speakers? It's the surface noise and the sound quality they have problems with. Nor have I ever had problems listening to mono records through headphones. Just create barriers and problems when there's no reason. Same with listening to mono recordings through two speakers when that's what most modern sound systems now have. Before the advent of stereo speakers or stereo systems it was customary to have only had one speaker because there was only one channel for mono. But to revert to only one now can sound unnatural because it's no longer customary and I've never had the urge to listen that way or thought there was a need for it. It's the pops and the scratches and the skips that most people have trouble with. No interest in the recordings before 1950? That's the first half of the 20th century and there were many great artists that should not be forgotten. Some voices have an unbelievable charm that's never been duplicated in the entire history of music and probably never will be:


----------



## wkasimer

Larkenfield said:


> How many people have complained about mono recordings because they didn't know whether to listen to them through one or two speakers? It's the surface noise and the sound quality they have problems with. Nor have I ever had problems listening to mono records through headphones. Just create barriers and problems when there's no reason. Same with listening to mono recordings through two speakers when that's what most modern sound systems now have.


I agree. I always listen to monaural recordings, including things dating back to the dawn of recording, through two speakers. I don't see (or hear) the point of doing otherwise.


----------



## bigshot

If you can put the single mono speaker in the corner of the room, there is an advantage because the walls and ceiling act like a horn to focus the sound waves. But if you just have a normal stereo setup and you only play it through one speaker, there probably isn't much point.


----------



## Guest

wkasimer said:


> I agree. I always listen to monaural recordings, including things dating back to the dawn of recording, through two speakers. I don't see (or hear) the point of doing otherwise.


The point of doing otherwise, to make a fuzzy argument, is that the two speakers will interfere with each other. If you are anywhere but an absolute symmetry point, the identical signal from the two speakers will arrive with different phase delay, which doesn't get processed well by your brain. With a stereo program the two signals are not identical and are engineered so that the interference of the two signal provides spatial cues to create a soundstage.

When I listen on headphones, I listen normally. But listening with speakers, it may be worth turning the balance control to drive only one speaker to see if the sound is more satisfactory. You might even nudge the speaker over to the corner to see if that works better. Or not.


----------



## wkasimer

Baron Scarpia said:


> The point of doing otherwise, to make a fuzzy argument, is that the two speakers will interfere with each other. If you are anywhere but an absolute symmetry point, the identical signal from the two speakers will arrive with different phase delay, which doesn't get processed well by your brain.


If I'm doing critical listening, I sit in the "absolute symmetry point". If I'm playing music without full engagement, it really doesn't matter that much.


----------



## Guest

wkasimer said:


> If I'm doing critical listening, I sit in the "absolute symmetry point". If I'm playing music without full engagement, it really doesn't matter that much.


Ok, I'll admit this is getting a bit obtuse. But even supposing you are at the symmetry point and you listen to a mono recording with two speakers there is interference. The signal from the left speaker hits your left ear, then your right ear about 1/2 millisecond later. The signal from your right speaker hits your right ear, and your left ear about 1/2 milliseconds later. Each ear gets the signal twice, the second time delayed about 1/2 millisecond. This may sound trivial, but these time delays are how the auditory system locates the source of sound. Mono with two speakers gives inconsistent cues about the source of the sound. One speaker in front of you doesn't.

Of course, we all experience sound differently and you might find two speakers works best in your listening environment, but there is an argument for why one speaker might work better with a mono recording.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> Ok, I'll admit this is getting a bit obtuse. But even supposing you are at the symmetry point and you listen to a mono recording with two speakers there is interference. The signal from the left speaker hits your left ear, then your right ear about 1/2 millisecond later. The signal from your right speaker hits your right ear, and your left ear about 1/2 milliseconds later. Each ear gets the signal twice, the second time delayed about 1/2 millisecond. This may sound trivial, but these time delays are how the auditory system locates the source of sound. Mono with two speakers gives inconsistent cues about the source of the sound. One speaker in front of you doesn't.
> 
> Of course, we all experience sound differently and you might find two speakers works best in your listening environment, but there is an argument for why one speaker might work better with a mono recording.


What about mono heard through headphones, coming to each ear at the same time?


----------



## SixFootScowl

wkasimer said:


> I agree. I always listen to monaural recordings, including things dating back to the dawn of recording, through two speakers. I don't see (or hear) the point of doing otherwise.


If all music were mono (i.e., stereo had never been invented) would people have multiple speakers? Maybe to distribute the sound around the room, but for a really high end speaker (and amp), think of the cost savings buying a single $5000 speaker instead of two of them? The amp should be substantially cheaper if it is one channel instead of two. The only reason to have multiple speakers would be if there was advantage to separating out bass, midrange, and tweeter into separate enclosures.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> What about mono heard through headphones, coming to each ear at the same time?


That's how I listen. It would more or less duplicate the experience of one speaker directly in front of you. If it occurs to me I turn my headphone amp's crossfeed feature off. It is a subtle difference. One speaker, two speakers, there's reflected sound to consider. Which one is more satisfying probably depends on the characteristics of the listening room.


----------



## Guest

Fritz Kobus said:


> If all music were mono (i.e., stereo had never been invented) would people have multiple speakers? Maybe to distribute the sound around the room, but for a really high end speaker (and amp), think of the cost savings buying a single $5000 speaker instead of two of them? The amp should be substantially cheaper if it is one channel instead of two. The only reason to have multiple speakers would be if there was advantage to separating out bass, midrange, and tweeter into separate enclosures.


Before stereo people _did _have one speaker. For any reasonably sized room one speaker is enough to distribute sound sufficiently uniformly.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Then we have people who are deaf in one ear. And thanks to them I have a decent mono earbud to use, which allows me to listen to music a lot more since my other ear remains connected to the world. Yet, in stores I hear my earbud not the piped in music.


----------



## Guest

Fritz Kobus said:


> Then we have people who are deaf in one ear. And thanks to them I have a decent mono earbud to use, which allows me to listen to music a lot more since my other ear remains connected to the world. Yet, in stores I hear my earbud not the piped in music.


I could never do that. When sound is presented in only one ear there is no spatial processing. I hear it but it is oddly disembodied.


----------



## apricissimus

Baron Scarpia said:


> I could never do that. When sound is presented in only one ear there is no spatial processing. I hear it but it is oddly disembodied.


I agree that it's odd. Somehow it feels like much less than half the total sound.


----------



## Larkenfield

Even with a mono recording, one still has two ears under normal circumstances to hear it and this has been true since the beginning.


----------



## Larkenfield

apricissimus said:


> I agree that it's odd. Somehow it feels like much less than half the total sound.


Not only is one missing the effects of stereo, one is now missing one of the two speakers that one normally uses - which is why some do not prefer to hear mono through one speaker or one side of a set of headphones. I never found this necessary, and in a good mono recording the ears adjust even if they're used to stereo... It can sound entirely natural and one becomes forcused on the preformance. But if I wanted the true authentic vintage experience of mono recordings, I'd buy a vintage phonograph, use the same vintage "needles" (stylus), and listen through its most typically used single speaker. The sound quality through one of them can sometimes be satisfying and astronishing... There's a life-force, an authenticity to it, that cannot be duplicated even by expensive s-s systems.


----------



## bigshot

I've got a Brunswick Cortez, the Rolls Royce of acoustic phonographs. It sounds fantastic. There are great suitcase phonos like the Victrola VV-2-55 and VV-2-65. Shellac with a steel needle is great. I don't care as much for the sound of the electrical pickups in that changer.


----------



## 13hm13

This recording is from 1952. Even YouTube streamed at super-lossy 128k (audio), it sounds superb ....






Conus Violin Concerto - Jascha Heifetz


----------



## Bill H.

Larkenfield said:


> Not only is one missing the effects of stereo, one is now missing one of the two speakers that one normally uses - which is why some do not prefer to hear mono through one speaker or one side of a set of headphones. I never found this necessary, and in a good mono recording the ears adjust even if they're used to stereo... It can sound entirely natural and one becomes forcused on the preformance. But if I wanted the true authentic vintage experience of mono recordings, I'd buy a vintage phonograph, use the same vintage "needles" (stylus), and listen through its most typically used single speaker. The sound quality through one of them can sometimes be satisfying and astronishing... There's a life-force, an authenticity to it, that cannot be duplicated even by expensive s-s systems.


IIRC, isn't that how one record label (Nimbus?) did the masters for their acoustic CD reissues? They played the disks using a vintage Victrola/gramophone, set up in a room acoustically adjusted for best aural playback (by whose judgement I don't know), and then recorded the sound coming out of the horn. Somewhere I have a Nimbus CD or two of tracks by John McCormick and other singers from the early 1900s that were done that way.


----------



## bigshot

I have the Nimbus SACD surround Caruso collection. It sounds pretty good. They took a phonograph with a huge horn and put it on the stage of a concert hall and miked it as a real singer. It worked very well. However if you listen to it in stereo, it sounds terrible because all the hall ambience is plastered over the top of the record. There's still something that the horn adds to make the sound directional that you don't get from speakers. I've never heard any Caruso record on disc sound quite like they sound on my phonographs.

The first release of the Nimbus surround discs were in some bizarre matrixed surround format that nobody had. They got terrible reviews because everyone was listening to them in stereo. Later, they released them in 5.0 on SACD. I have a bunch of them, mostly modern multichannel recordings, and they sound very good in native 5.0.


----------

