# Recognizing Bad And Mediocre Recordings



## KevinW

Hello TC Community,

As a relatively new listener of Classical Music, a skill I would like to improve is recognizing bad and mediocre recordings, or picking out the problems within a performance. In some cases, I can generally judge a recording, but I can't be specific at details and clearly explain why my preferred recording is better. Also, since I am interested in conducting, I would also like to learn recognizing problems made in performances, such as which section of the orchestra messed up which part. 

Therefore, please give me your advice on how to tease out the bad recordings and problems within a performance. I will also appreciate that if you can provide some examples--post some good and bad recordings of a composition and explain your judgment. 

Kevin


----------



## mbhaub

This is one huge topic. But I can tell you this as a start: it takes experience which takes time. When I was a teen, I listened to and enjoyed every Mahler recording that came my way. Only when I began to listen to different recordings could I make a value judgement. I started with the Bernstein 7th but I had no idea if it was good or bad, nor did I care; I liked the music. Then I got a copy of Klemperer, which despite some pleasant parts, was so much slower than Bernstein that it was clearly second rate. And so it went with all the Mahler symphonies as my collection grew from one recording of each to several.

As my musical skills grew I became quite a collector of pocket scores. Now I had an objective way to judge and surprise, surprise, some well-regarded recordings were ones that frequently went against the letter of the score. Does that make it a bad recording? Sometimes it does, I think. 

Playing in an orchestra really makes a big difference. You get an insider's view of the music and it sure opens your ears to performance and recordings. Sometimes it ruins the experience for you though. An example: in the percussion part for the Borodin 2nd symphony there is an error; it has the bass drum and cymbals one measure later than they should be at the recapitulation. Every good orchestra librarian knows about it. But a lot of percussionists don't and too many conductors don't hear the percussion. Whenever I hear new recording or performance I sit in anticipation of that section: are they going to get it right or screw it up? It's surprising that there are recordings (Gergiev on Philips!) where's it's wrong. Sometimes i judge a recording too harshly for simple goofs ilke that. Then there recordings where the conductor deliberately messes things up: take the Tchaikovsky 4th. Silvestri was a good musician, but the way he changes the motto rhythm that permeates the whole work is mind boggling? What in the world was he thinking? Or Ormandy on RCA: Tchaikovsky wanted NO percussion in the first movement; he saved it till later for effect. Yet what does Ormandy do: adds cymbals and bass drum to the first movement. Ruins the whole recording for me. I am a follower of Erich Leinsdorf who said conductors must be The Composer's Advocate; so I just performances from the perspective. Play what the composer wrote as much as possible and everything will be fine.


----------



## KevinW

mbhaub said:


> This is one huge topic.


I know this is such a broad topic, but I do believe it worths a lot of discussion, especially when there has never been such a thread on Talk Classical. I know many people on TC love to interpret music in subjective ways, but it is quite crucial for new listeners like me to be rather objective, because my musical taste has not been established and some overrated bad recordings might be quite misleading to me. So, I really like to get rid of bad recordings when listening to a composition.



> I am a follower of Erich Leinsdorf who said conductors must be The Composer's Advocate; so I just performances from the perspective. Play what the composer wrote as much as possible and everything will be fine.


Although I believe there are exceptions, but I think this is generally correct. I especially hate conductors not following the tempo markings by the composer. I think Bernstein's Brahms 4th with VPO is completely ruined. The original tempo indication is Allegro Passionato Energico but Bernstein played it like an Andante.


----------



## NoCoPilot

I think we can set aside recording quality. That's a separate issue which fairly easy to define.

Performance quality on the other hand is complicated. It is somewhat a matter of taste, somewhat a matter of style, somewhat a matter of the performer's skill and familiarity with the material. For me three factors quickly ruin a performance:

* unsteady or too slow tempo

* instrument entrances not precisely coordinated

* balance, with quiet instruments too loud or loud instruments too quiet


----------



## SanAntone

KevinW said:


> Hello TC Community,
> 
> As a relatively new listener of Classical Music, a skill I would like to improve is recognizing bad and mediocre recordings, or picking out the problems within a performance. In some cases, I can generally judge a recording, but I can't be specific at details and clearly explain why my preferred recording is better. Also, since I am interested in conducting, I would also like to learn recognizing problems made in performances, such as which section of the orchestra messed up which part.
> 
> Therefore, please give me your advice on how to tease out the bad recordings and problems within a performance. I will also appreciate that if you can provide some examples--post some good and bad recordings of a composition and explain your judgment.
> 
> Kevin


A "bad" performance/recording is one which you do not enjoy. A good performance/recording is the opposite.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

SanAntone told the real truth of it, but I also think mbhaub got right by saying that it also takes time and experience. The latter is necessary just so your ears and brain are able to pick on various details of rhythm/pacing, dynamics, balance, etc. There's an immense degree of personal preference as well: some prefer slower or faster, some prefer modern or HIP, some prefer beauty or excitement, some prefer a steadier or variable rhythms... and many will prefer different approaches with different composers, works, or movements. The only way to really know what you like is to listen a lot and compare. The more familiar you are with any piece, the more you'll be able to discern differences in how different conductors/orchestras/ensembles/individual musicians play them, and what you like and dislike.


----------



## SONNET CLV

SanAntone said:


> A "bad" performance/recording is one which you do not enjoy. A good performance/recording is the opposite.


I cannot "buy" that argument at all.

If the composer of a work comes to conduct it and carefully rehearses a highly skilled orchestra and derives from the musicians every last ounce of what he/she the composer intended and makes a recording of the experience, I would suggest we have "a good recording" of the work, regardless of whether or not you or I _like_ the performance or the music.

On the other hand, some hack conductor with a hack orchestra, neither much caring one way or the other how the piece turns out, possibly because neither the conductor nor the performers like the music or possess skills to render it properly, whatever, can create a recording of the same work described above, and I would suggest we have a bad recording of the piece. Even if you like it immensely. Even if you like it more than you like the previously described recording.

One's personal tastes remain separate from certain objective considerations that measure worth. What you or I enjoy has little to nothing to do with the intrinsic artistic quality or value of a work of art.


----------



## SanAntone

SONNET CLV said:


> I cannot "buy" that argument at all.
> 
> If the composer of a work comes to conduct it and carefully rehearses a highly skilled orchestra and derives from the musicians every last ounce of what he/she the composer intended and makes a recording of the experience, I would suggest we have "a good recording" of the work, regardless of whether or not you or I _like_ the performance or the music.
> 
> On the other hand, some hack conductor with a hack orchestra, neither much caring one way or the other how the piece turns out, possibly because neither the conductor nor the performers like the music or possess skills to render it properly, whatever, can create a recording of the same work described above, and I would suggest we have a bad recording of the piece. Even if you like it immensely. Even if you like it more than you like the previously described recording.
> 
> One's personal tastes remain separate from certain objective considerations that measure worth. What you or I enjoy has little to nothing to do with the intrinsic artistic quality or value of a work of art.


IMO one of the reasons for listening to music (the primary reason, IMO) is gain some pleasure, enjoyment, to excite your mind or heart. If a recording brings does any of those things, then it was a good performance. It won't matter what the reviews say, or the considered opinion of an expert. If the recording brought someone pleasure it was good.

If on the other hand someone read s a review of the best recordings of _Work X_ (one he knows he loves) and dutifully purchases one of the recommended CDs and sits down and listens to it, but feels nothing, or doesn't like it. That person has a choice: he can think "I have lousy taste because I didn't enjoy the best recording of _Work X_." Or he can think, it wasn't a good recording.

The second thought is the correct one. We should all trust our own taste and response to music and not be afraid to say what we think.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I absolutely despise “musical correctness,” the idea that a performance that is enjoyable or dramatically impactful should nevertheless be discarded because it is “wrong.” That’s a load of bunk, and it’s the entire problem with today’s musical culture.

We need true artists today reaching out to the audience, not more self-aggrandizing trained monkeys climbing over each other trying to prove which got this or that detail correct.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ....We need true artists today reaching out to the audience, not more self-aggrandizing trained monkeys climbing over each other trying to prove which got this or that detail correct.


Yes, we need artists who reach out, and produce expressive performances for the audience's enjoyment.....so, yes, the "big picture" is very important....but, so are the details....poor tempo, missed, or underplayed parts, poor ensemble, poor balance, mono-mezzo-dynamic, sloppy execution do certainly count....we need the "forest", and the "trees".

I'm sure we've all heard note-perfect renditions that were utterly lifeless and musically monotonous....there may also be performances that are less than note-perfect, but are powerfully expressive and most enjoyable....


----------



## Crudblud

For my part at least, I can find it quite stimulating when a recording does not adhere to the letter* of the score as it were, at least in an interpretative sense. Scherchen's Mahler, at its best (e.g.: the 1965 Toronto 7th) is a good example of this.

*or rather, I should say, the received conception of the letter of the score


----------



## starthrower

I don't worry about mistakes because I don't read scores. It's all about how the conductor interprets the music and leads the orchestra. And sometimes it's just a few brief passages I don't like in an entire symphony. As everyone knows there are a zillion recordings of Dvorak's 9th. I recently listened to Levine's CSO recording and Neumann's second recording both of which I didn't really care for. But my wife loves the Levine because that's the one she heard first. I like Solti, and Szell. I never liked Boulez's Five Pieces by Schoenberg for the same reason I don't like Neumann's Dvorak. They do these soft, rounded phrases when it should be sharp and articulate. Sounds like French music instead of Czech or Austrian.


----------



## vtpoet

mbhaub said:


> This is one huge topic. But I can tell you this as a start: it takes experience which takes time. When I was a teen, I listened to and enjoyed every Mahler recording that came my way. Only when I began to listen to different recordings could I make a value judgement.


This reflects my own experience. When I was a teen, I indiscriminately accepted everything that came my way. Only later, when I'd hear the same music by a different conductor with, let's say, far better micing, clarity, dynamics etc... would I realize that something was up.

Naturally, this topic is going to bring up the whole objective vs. iT's aLl jUSt SuBJEctiVe!¡! argument*.

*AnD tHErE'S nO sUCh tHiNG As bAD oR medIOcrE jUsT wHat yOu LIkE¡

But I'm not going to get involved in that and will in no way suggest what my own feelings are on the subject.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I absolutely despise "musical correctness," the idea that a performance that is enjoyable or dramatically impactful should nevertheless be discarded because it is "wrong."


This is especially true with 'period instrument' fanatics. Although the results can sometimes be illuminating, on the whole, modern instruments (or in the case of stringed instruments, "peak production" instruments) just generally sound better


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Classical music is very difficult and complex, and obviously you need to master all the details. But correctness is not an end in itself. I’d rather make mistakes and/or take liberties in a performance that moves people than an “accurate” performance that misses the point.

I’m reminded of the review by that idiot Hurwitz castigating the audience for cheering at the end of Horenstein’s Mahler 8th. Couldn’t they hear that the percussion was off at the end, he carped? Totally misses the point. 

Critics and performers alike can get a lot of self-aggrandizement mileage from being “right.” But they are not true artists.

.


----------



## Heck148

vtpoet said:


> Naturally, this topic is going to bring up the whole objective vs. iT's aLl jUSt SuBJEctiVe!¡! argument*.


LOL!! but of course, there are objective criteria by which to judge a performance....poor intonation, missed notes, sloppy ensemble, imprecise rhythm, important voices missing or weak....are some objective concerns...


----------



## KevinW

I would say whatever works for your ear is not necessarily the best recording. I know you shouldn't really judge whether a music is performed "correctly" (except for cases which there is terrible mistakes), but don't simply trust your ear. A common example is that many people, including myself sometimes, always rank the first recording we listen to as the best recording. This is definitely subjective, and will mislead people's preference on recordings. Another case is that people who fanatically admire a certain conductor or orchestra will always believe their performance to be the greatest, regardless of other really outstanding recordings by less-famous orchestras and conductors. I remember some Abbado fans around me saying they love Abbado conducting Berlin Philharmonic doing Mozart, but Abbado's strength is definitely not Mozart but Mahler. Also many people admire Furtwangler so they believe all his Beethoven Symphonies recordings are the greatest, which is apparently not the case.


----------



## KevinW

So please back to my original question... Let's try to be as objective as possible. How to judge whether a performance is good or not?


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> Yes, we need artists who reach out, and produce expressive performances for the audience's enjoyment.....so, yes, the "big picture" is very important....but, so are the details....poor tempo, missed, or underplayed parts, poor ensemble, poor balance, mono-mezzo-dynamic, sloppy execution do certainly count....we need the "forest", and the "trees".
> 
> I'm sure we've all heard note-perfect renditions that were utterly lifeless and musically monotonous....there may also be performances that are less than note-perfect, but are powerfully expressive and most enjoyable....


That's right, of course. Technical skill and execution on a high level are essential in many genres of music, not just the ones we usually discuss here. For example, Elvis Presley was famous for being a perfectionist in the recording studio, doing take after take before he was satisfied.

So, with a Mahler symphony, vastly longer and more complicated than an Elvis song (though not necessarily better, we don't need to start arguing about that), and with many more performers and 'moving parts', it stands to reason that great technical skill and precision, and a lot of hard work, are required. But all of that still doesn't necessarily add up to a good performance.

And sometimes a less technically accomplished performance is better than a more technically 'perfect' one. The OP has asked for specific examples, so here is one: The Budapest String Quartet's Beethoven quartets recorded in 1951 and 52. Although the Budapest later recorded another complete set in stereo, imo the earlier cycle is much better. Among other things, first violinist Joseph Roisman suffered a badly broken arm in late 1953 and imo was never quite the same after that. In general, though the quartet was active until 1967, it is conceded by most that their playing declined in their final years.

At any rate, by the early 50s, magnetic tape had come into use, so presumably at least some editing was possible. But for whatever reason, the early 50s Budapest Quartet Beethoven cycle does not feature the ultra-clean absolute note perfection we have become used to with our sophisticated recording and editing techniques today. There are ensemble and intonation imperfections.

Still, I consider this one of the best Beethoven string quartet sets ever made. Several more recent ones are much cleaner technically, but I prefer this one to nearly all others I have heard. A more recent (though now retired) quartet that also (somewhat controversially) featured ensemble and intonation flaws, and yet produced great recordings in my opinion, including of the Beethoven quartets, was the Lindsays, a/k/a the Lindsay string quartet.


----------



## NoCoPilot

KevinW said:


> So please back to my original question... Let's try to be as objective as possible. How to judge whether a performance is good or not?


I'll be as subjective as possible thankyou.... when the performer makes the performance "sing" and you forget all about the technical difficulties and endless details. You just get caught up in the music.

Objective? Not at all.


----------



## Tarneem

KevinW said:


> So please back to my original question... Let's try to be as objective as possible. How to judge whether a performance is good or not?


well, your *instinct* should be the one that judges whether a performance is good or bad. developing this sort of instinct requires time and experiences.


----------



## starthrower

A question for the orchestra musicians here. Someone mentioned intonation problems. Why is this an issue with professional musicians playing in top orchestras or chamber groups? Do they not have very good relative pitch or is it just a technical problem that arises with the instrument during performance?


----------



## Oistrakh The King

Being subjective is better, but I think following the composer's interpretation is the baseline.


----------



## KevinW

KevinW said:


> I would say whatever works for your ear is not necessarily the best recording. I know you shouldn't really judge whether a music is performed "correctly" (except for cases which there is terrible mistakes), but don't simply trust your ear.


Plus, think about this problem in this way, and you will know how crucial it is to be objective. Imagine being a conductor, you have to conduct an orchestra in the way people would like to interpret. So, you have to be rather objective in order to cover more audiences' tastes. You can't do a bad performance and defend yourself by saying "my own interpretation works for me the best", no. So this is why it is necessary to be as objective as possible sometimes.

I have noticed that TC members are mainly (over 80%) non-professional musicians. The problem with non-professional musicians is that they tend to be overly dependent on their subjective feelings instead of objective musical standards. This makes many discussions on TC quite pointless. Today, as an amateur audience, I analyzed Beethoven Emperor Piano Concerto with a professional pianist. This concerto is known for putting the cadenza at the beginning of the whole composition. I used to interpret the cadenza only as a tool for showing off skills, so I prefer those recordings which played it very fastly and catchily. However, the profiessional pianist told me the cadenza actually implies to its main theme in some ways, then I started to really focus on whether the recordings did the implications well. Sadly, some of my best recordings seem to have completely ignored creating the implications. When I was astonished by this, I also started to realize that many non-professional audiences who appreciate compositions based on their subjective feelings will sometimes make serious mistakes like this one. Therefore, I would suggest people on TC to be more objective, unless they are very familiar with the composition they are listening to.


----------



## Oistrakh The King

I kinda agree with this. I remember listening to some Simon Rattle Brahms recordings when I just started Brahms. I listened to those recordings repeatedly but don't quite get the music. When I shifted to Kleiber and Karajan recordings things got much better. I understood the compositions with only one or two times of listening.


----------



## ORigel

KevinW said:


> I know this is such a broad topic, but I do believe it worths a lot of discussion, especially when there has never been such a thread on Talk Classical. I know many people on TC love to interpret music in subjective ways, but it is quite crucial for new listeners like me to be rather objective, because my musical taste has not been established and some overrated bad recordings might be quite misleading to me. So, I really like to get rid of bad recordings when listening to a composition.
> 
> Although I believe there are exceptions, but I think this is generally correct. I especially hate conductors not following the tempo markings by the composer. I think Bernstein's Brahms 4th with VPO is completely ruined. The original tempo indication is Allegro Passionato Energico but Bernstein played it like an Andante.


I was listening the other day to Celibidache's recording of Brahms 4. He was (in)famous for really slow interpretations in his later recordings. I like some of his slow recordings, including the first movement of Brahms' Fourth, but he has a cult following (metaphorically speaking) on Youtube. For Brahms 4, a comment claims that Celi "refused to do a personal interpretation" of this symphony, and that his recording is true to Brahms' wishes. That is nonsense, of course.

Then there's Maximianno Cobra, who took everything at half-tempo. He produced a horrible recording of Beethoven's Ninth and did his other recordings on string sections b/c no sane orchestra would work with him after that. His recording of the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth on digital string sections is almost 16 minutes long!


----------



## SanAntone

KevinW said:


> So please back to my original question... Let's try to be as objective as possible. How to judge whether a performance is good or not?


Wait ... you actually think there is an _objective_ way to determine good from bad recordings/performances. :lol:

How funny.

If you have ears you can figure it out.


----------



## ORigel

Oistrakh The King said:


> Being subjective is better, but I think following the composer's interpretation is the baseline.


I believe there is room for interpretations that are close to the composer's wishes, and highly indicidual interpretations. For collectors of recordings like us, it is fine to have some recordings that are not mainstream, as long as they're enjoyable.


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> A "bad" performance/recording is one which you do not enjoy. A good performance/recording is the opposite.


The only problem here is that sometimes I find that even I don't like a particular musician's interpretation, I can at least evaluate whether it was sincere or not. In the infamous live recording of Brahms' _Piano Concerto #1_ that Glenn Gould made with Leonard Bernstein around the middle 1960s, Bernstein addressed the audience prior to the concert and told them that he and Gould could not agree on how to interpret the work as Bernstein said that he could not hold to Gould's ideas on the dynamics and tempos. Even so, Bernstein was playing it Gould's way because someone had to agree on something. Some took Bernstein's disclaimer as Bernstein publicly disowning the interpretation; but I don't think it was that way at all. I think that while Bernstein disagreed with Gould's approach, he respected Gould enough to trust that his musical vision was sincere enough to be tried that way. It's interesting that by the 1980s Bernstein himself would change his own style of interpretation to adopting unusual tempos and dynamics. And it's too bad that the sound quality of the Gould/Bernstein recording of Brahms' _Piano Concerto_ is so poor, with audience noise that is so out of control that the slow movement is practically not listenable because of all the coughing and sniffling that distracts one from the music.

Anyway, the way I look at it, I look for effort. As long as the production isn't lazy or insincere, or packaged for profit. Case in point: Bernstein's recording of Beethoven's _9th_ that was made to celebrate the tearing down of the Berlin Wall featuring a pick-up orchestra from Berlin, Vienna, the Concertgebouw, etc. It's all over the place; disjointed, the dynamics are such that the quiet parts and loud parts can't be enjoyed without manually adjusting your sound equipment as you are listening. It was sold off to suckers like me who also paid money for a "piece" of the Berlin Wall that were supposed to be something just as much a part of history and it's just a piece of concrete that comes with a document that is a "seal of authenticity".

Along another line are recordings where the musicians just doesn't seem to "get" the composer. To stay on the topic of Leonard Bernstein (and it's easy for me to talk about Bernstein because he is my favorite conductor and I've purchased just about every recording he ever made); Bernstein's Debussy is just not very good. That's no reflection on Bernstein, it's just that his rockin-and-rolling, jazzy, Broadway, robust approach just can't align with Debussy's sense of cat-like mystery and mood. Another example would be Arturo Toscanini who is legendary, some say the best of them all, but his very few recordings of Sibelius just don't seem to capture the northern landscape, the bard-like quality, because Toscanini is just too bouncy and brisk that he misses the point. Someone mentioned conductors who don't like the composer, but this is not always a mismatch. As much as i loved Boulez' Bartok recordings, I was stunned to hear that he didn't even like the music of Bartok. Similarly, someone on these forums said that Szell didn't care much for Mahler, and yet Szell's _Mahler 4_ with Judith Raskin is so balanced and beautiful that it practically ruined every other Mahler 4 for me.

As many say, it's a complex question, and probably one for bigger and better minds than me.


----------



## ORigel

SanAntone said:


> Wait ... you actually think there is an _objective_ way to determine good from bad recordings/performances. :lol:
> 
> How funny.
> 
> If you have ears you can figure it out.


There are some quasi-objective standards:
1. Good audio quality
2. Lack of mistakes

But it takes more than that to have a great recording. Furtwangler is popular for a resson.


----------



## SanAntone

ORigel said:


> There are some quasi-objective standards:
> 1. Good audio quality
> 2. Lack of mistakes
> 
> But it takes more than that to have a great recording. Furtwangler is popular for a resson.


Nope. I don't care about any of that - if I hear something that hits me to my core it's a good recording. Pops, scratches, or out of tune playing, nothing will change it. There's more to music than that.

Some of the best things I've heard were on lousy boom boxes from cassettes that had sat in a hot car.


----------



## Coach G

There are a few issues I have with interpretations that are in line with the composer's wishes.

First of all, from what I've read this was not the approach that was taken prior to about the year 1900 when conductors such as Wagner and Von Bulow were the limits of interpretation were far more liberal than they became prior to Toscanini's idea that it all comes down to the "little black dots." Also, the likes of Mozart and Beethoven were said to be brilliant at improvisation; that harpsichord battles were in vogue long before Gene Krupa and Buddy Rich battled on the drums in the 1930s and 1940s; and in this sense there had to have been a cultural acceptance that music wasn't exactly bound as an unchanging and holy scripture. As they say: the "letter" of the law as opposed to the "spirit" of the law. Then there's the era of recordings. We already HAVE what many composers recorded as what they saw as the right way to record their works. Igor Stravinsky, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, and Benjamin Britten all recorded their entire lexicon for us all to have, so if those recordings are the "correct" interpretation, then why should any conductor even try their hand at improving upon it according to the logic that anything that goes against the composer's vision is inferior? So why have 100+ recordings of _Rite of Spring_ when Stravinsky already made the definitive recording? Why do another recording of Shostakovich's _Cello Concerto_ when the liner notes say that the Rostropovich/Ormandy recording was made "under the supervision of the composer"?

EDIT: In addition, some may not always think that the composer's vision is ideal. When Bernstein recorded his own operatic version of _West Side Story_, it universally panned by critics and fans.


----------



## vtpoet

NoCoPilot said:


> This is especially true with 'period instrument' fanatics. Although the results can sometimes be illuminating, on the whole, modern instruments (or in the case of stringed instruments, "peak production" instruments) just generally sound better


Funny. My own opinion is just the opposite. Playing the instruments for which the composers composed just generally sounds better.


----------



## Aries

KevinW said:


> So please back to my original question... Let's try to be as objective as possible. How to judge whether a performance is good or not?


You can obviously figure out some mistakes, but it is primarily subjective. And music is too complicated and can function in too many different ways to determine what generally matters in a performance. Different things can be heard in a piece of music, even by only one person. An objective evaluation is an illusion.



KevinW said:


> Plus, think about this problem in this way, and you will know how crucial it is to be objective. Imagine being a conductor, you have to conduct an orchestra in the way people would like to interpret. So, you have to be rather objective in order to cover more audiences' tastes. You can't do a bad performance and defend yourself by saying "my own interpretation works for me the best", no. So this is why it is necessary to be as objective as possible sometimes.


Well, I think this approach leads to mediocrity at best. Conducting it the way you understand it yourself has the best chance that others like it too.


----------



## vtpoet

Aries said:


> An objective evaluation is an illusion.


That's not at all true but, I mean, here we go again. There are certainly some discrepancies that come down to subjective preferences, but performing music is an art like any other and objective evaluations can be made. If that weren't true, there'd be no reason to ever study anything whatsoever... no need for conservatories, schools, teachers, students, etc... & so on...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

KevinW said:


> I would say whatever works for your ear is not necessarily the best recording. I know you shouldn't really judge whether a music is performed "correctly" (except for cases which there is terrible mistakes), but don't simply trust your ear.


You should absolutely trust your ear. What else should you trust if not your ear? Astrology?

Authenticity is a sort of mindless religion, where people put their faith in "correctness" without thinking about the whole point of making music. Why did the composer create this work? Why has it survived for centuries? What makes it relevant still today? This guides your interpretation, which is the fundamental aspect of art.

It's not about whether to trust your ear, but how to cultivate your ear so that it becomes more discerning. Listen and expose yourself to as much as possible.



KevinW said:


> A common example is that many people, including myself sometimes, always rank the first recording we listen to as the best recording. This is definitely subjective, and will mislead people's preference on recordings. Another case is that people who fanatically admire a certain conductor or orchestra will always believe their performance to be the greatest, regardless of other really outstanding recordings by less-famous orchestras and conductors.


What you're talking about is laziness, but it is also lazy to assume that a preference is not something that has come as a result of careful, objective listening and comparing. The key fundamental is what is it you are listening for?



KevinW said:


> I remember some Abbado fans around me saying they love Abbado conducting Berlin Philharmonic doing Mozart, but Abbado's strength is definitely not Mozart but Mahler. Also many people admire Furtwangler so they believe all his Beethoven Symphonies recordings are the greatest, which is apparently not the case.


You're making blanket statements here, which is nonsensical. You judge performances on their merits, not on artificially objective standards of "right" and "wrong."

I've heard people state how they enjoyed a recording, and then they learned from a music professor that the performance was "wrong." Sorry, but that's just plain stupidity that misses the entire point of music and art. Those types of influences are completely what are the current problem with classical music.

Classical music should be a LIVING art. Creative, experimental, and relevant.


----------



## Ariasexta

What a solid thread and question. It took me many years to develop courage to disclaim some players or performers, luckily they are very rare. But the most important thing is to consolidate the appreciation of the best performers. No necessarily listen to them al the time though, one will need to listen to several good performers of their own stylistic art. For me, Christopher Hogwood, Ton Koopman, Gustav Leonhardt, Bob Van Asperen, Huguette Dreyfus, Leon Berben for JS Bach`s keyboard works. For conducting, I find good conductors make very enlightening listening experience for a same piece of either vocal or instrumental works, like Ton Koopman, Gustav leonhardt, Nicolaus Harnouncourt(1970-80s).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> That's not at all true but, I mean, here we go again. There are certainly some discrepancies that come down to subjective preferences, but performing music is an art like any other and objective evaluations can be made. If that weren't true, there'd be no reason to ever study anything whatsoever... no need for conservatories, schools, teachers, students, etc... & so on...


Objective evaluations can only be made in respect to subjective goals and desires. The latter is often shared among many people within any field (including musical genres), but there's plenty of disagreement as well. On this particular subject disagreements might be about whether the goal should be performing a piece as it was intended or whether the goal should be performing a piece so that it appeals to people, and there's no objective means to determine which of those is correct.


----------



## Aries

vtpoet said:


> That's not at all true but, I mean, here we go again. There are certainly some discrepancies that come down to subjective preferences, but performing music is an art like any other and objective evaluations can be made. If that weren't true, there'd be no reason to ever study anything whatsoever... no need for conservatories, schools, teachers, students, etc... & so on...


The quality of performances is not entirely subjective. There is craftsmanship and interpretation. Craftsmanship is more objectively judgeable, interpretation is much more subjective. But the higher the level is the more important interpretation gets, because at the high level all reach a good craftsmanship standard. And if you compare Furtwängler with Karajan for example it is an illusion to think you can evaluate objectively who is better.

Studying is important but you can't study being a genius.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KevinW said:


> I have noticed that TC members are mainly (over 80%) non-professional musicians. The problem with non-professional musicians is that they tend to be overly dependent on their subjective feelings instead of objective musical standards.


What is this supposed to mean? Can you provide an example?


----------



## John Zito

I guess my belief is that there does exist an underlying truth about the artistic quality of a recording, and the "wisdom of crowds" can approximate it very crudely. If you give 100 random TC posters 100 random recordings of an ol' chestnut like the Emperor Concerto or the New World Symphony and ask them to sort them into Good, Middling, and Bad, I would predict that you’d observe broad agreement as to what belongs in which category. The exercise would not simply end in patternless chaos. If I'm right about that, to my mind it shows that there is something "true" about the relative merits and demerits of these things that can shine through the noise of any one listener's idiocryncratic preferences.


----------



## starthrower

SanAntone said:


> Nope. I don't care about any of that - if I hear something that hits me to my core it's a good recording. Pops, scratches, or out of tune playing, nothing will change it. There's more to music than that.
> 
> Some of the best things I've heard were on lousy boom boxes from cassettes that had sat in a hot car.


Which has nothing to do with the quality of a record company release of a recording even if I somewhat agree with your point.


----------



## Aries

John Zito said:


> I guess my belief is that there does exist an underlying truth about the artistic quality of a recording, and the "wisdom of crowds" can approximate it very crudely. If you give 100 random TC posters 100 random recordings of an ol' chestnut like the Emperor Concerto or the New World Symphony and ask them to sort them into Good, Middling, and Bad, I would predict that you'd observe broad agreement as to what belongs in which category. The exercise would not simply end in patternless chaos.


I also think that there are patterns. But some of these patterns depend on the time we live in. The style of conducting and interpretation has changed during the last 100 years and probably always changes. The tastes of the times aren't objective.

There are probably also some timeless patterns but what are they?


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> Wait ... you actually think there is an _objective_ way to determine good from bad recordings/performances. :lol:
> How funny.....


 why is that so funny??


----------



## Heck148

Coach G said:


> ....EDIT: In addition, some may not always think that the composer's vision is ideal. When Bernstein recorded his own operatic version of _West Side Story_, it universally panned by critics and fans.


No, that is not so....Bernstein's studio WSS is very excellent from the orchestra/conductor perspective - great orchestra, and Lenny does a great job on the podium.....that production was criticized mainly for the choice of Jose Carreras to play Tony [a tough Polish kid] and Kiri Te Kanawa as Maria [a young, passionate adolescent Latina]..the mature, operatic voices were really miscast in these roles, even tho they, of course, can sing the roles most capably...


----------



## Heck148

There are most certainly objective and subjective standards to listening and judging performances....

re the objective - all auditions, contests are based upon these..
I've listened to literally thousands of auditions, both for professional orchestras, and for high school participants in All-State auditions and Solo/Ensemble festivals....for many years I adjudicated All-State, Solo festivals for Rhode Island high school participants...
objectivity was a HUGE part of it - on the adjudication sheet, judges were required to rate contestants on a number scale for 
rhythm, tone, intonation, technical accuracy, articulation, interpretation, dynamics, etc - these all had to be quantified as numbers, which were totaled up for a final standing...objective?? absolutely!!

for example - the rhythm is wrong - fails to hold sustained notes to full value, dotted eighths/sixteenth are played as triplets; tone is thin, uneven; intonation is poor, faulty intervals; sloppy technique, difficult passages not worked out sufficiently; no dynamic contrast; and so forth...
however, the objective "score" does not tell the ultimate truth...."musicality", ie - phrasing, expression, dynamics are crucial as well...
take the oboes trying out for All-State orchestra - one student comes in - note perfect, technically solid, good intonation, rhythm - but the tone is thin, doesn't project....objectively, this student gets a high score...another student comes in - plays with beautiful sound, good pitch, rhythm, maybe a little sloppy, misses some notes....
Who are you going to put on principal oboe for the All-State orchestra?? I'll go with player #2, because good tone, expressive playing are crucial, esp for principal oboe, which usually has many exposed and important solos...player 1 might have better technique, might sight-read better - but the "subjective" issue of tone quality/expression prevails...

So, yes, while objective standards most certainly apply, they don't necessarily over-ride subjective ones...but to claim that there are no objective standards for music performance is just silly, and, imo, unsupportable.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> So, yes, *while objective standards most certainly apply, they don't necessarily over-ride subjective ones*...but to claim that there are no objective standards for music performance is just silly, and, imo, unsupportable.


However this thread is not about auditions but about professionally done recordings. Everything about a recording was done according to the subjective standards of the conductor or performer. And the engineering was done by professional staff to the best of their abilities and according to their subjective standards of recording sound.

Our response is subjective according to our taste and preferences. Each individual opinion is all that matters.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> I guess my belief is that there does exist an underlying truth about the artistic quality of a recording, and the "wisdom of crowds" can approximate it very crudely. If you give 100 random TC posters 100 random recordings of an ol' chestnut like the Emperor Concerto or the New World Symphony and ask them to sort them into Good, Middling, and Bad, I would predict that you'd observe broad agreement as to what belongs in which category. The exercise would not simply end in patternless chaos. If I'm right about that, to my mind it shows that there is something "true" about the relative merits and demerits of these things that can shine through the noise of any one listener's idiocryncratic preferences.


I agree, with one caveat. The crowd can often be swayed towards "sound bite" listening, towards a recording that starts really well or makes a great first impression. The example that comes to my mind is Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven 5th, probably the most celebrated classical recording of all time. The opening bars are very exciting. It makes an enormous impression. But in terms of the symphonic narrative, telling the story, by the finale the effect is somewhat prosaic. Still very good, but not equal to its press clippings.

Now you compare with Furtwängler's 5th, and many casual listeners are immediately turned off. Some either only hear it once or don't even make it through once. My opinion is that a conductor like Furtwängler was not trying to wow people from the get-go, but he was more concerned with the big picture. Hence his interpretations require more patient listening.

I've learned over the years how to discern between different opinions, between the careful, studied listeners and those who are less patient, more prone to immediate gratification. Easy access to recordings has made the latter group more prevalent.

.


----------



## Oistrakh The King

I do think there should be some objective standards. Although I am not quite familiar with those, but I've heard of conducting competitions. How can contestants be judged, if objective standards don't exist.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> Everything about a recording was done according to the subjective standards of the conductor or performer.


No, wrong - the objective standards are most certainly observed in any performance. Now, with professional recordings, the objective differences may be quite small - certainly smaller than individuals playing an audition or a competition. but, nonetheless, objective standards of performance most certainly apply....it isn't like each and every musician can just play whatever they want, in what ever manner they individually choose, make errors, ignore the ensemble....they can, of course, but that's chaos...which is objectively flawed.



> And the engineering was done by professional staff to the best of their abilities and according to their subjective standards of recording sound.


No, I have some recordings - esp some of the older Russian recordings, where the sound is simply bad - harsh, strident, thin, poor mid-range, lacking in bass - really rather unlistenable...
someone may, subjectively, declare that it doesn't matter, to them it sounds fine - but the sound still stinks, it's measurably flawed.



> Our response is subjective according to our taste and preferences. Each individual opinion is all that matters.


OK, but that does not refute the existence of objective standards. it just means that a particular individual chooses to ignore them.


----------



## Heck148

Oistrakh The King said:


> I do think there should be some objective standards. ....How can contestants be judged, if objective standards don't exist.


Yes, they do exist, undeniably.....they can't be...


----------



## mbhaub

starthrower said:


> A question for the orchestra musicians here. Someone mentioned intonation problems. Why is this an issue with professional musicians playing in top orchestras or chamber groups? Do they not have very good relative pitch or is it just a technical problem that arises with the instrument during performance?


When I was a kid, my only exposures to live orchestral music was semi-pro, amateur, community and school orchestras. And then it happened: I heard the Cleveland Orchestra live. What a shock! Stunning perfection. Brilliant sound from the whole orchestra. Flawless rhythmic precision. And the tuning was perfection. That was the one thing that stood out more than anything else: intonation. It's what separates a truly great orchestra from a 2nd tier group. Just playing your own instrument in tune with yourself is hard enough: NO instrument is built perfectly in tune; can't be done. Then comes a 100 piece orchestra and everyone has to play together and in tune - it's really, really hard to do. It takes a lot of experience, a lot of give and take, and the ability to listen as you play, which is less common than you'd think.

Technical issues can arise during performance. A simple thing like a drop of water in a finger hole on a bassoon can throw several notes out of tune quickly. A string on a violin can slip. The biggest problem that can affect the whole orchestra is playing in really warm or cold environments where instruments rapidly change and tuning becomes impossible. I played an outdoor Christmas gig in middle December at night. When we started it was about 70 F outside. By the time the show was over, around 8:30 it was probably 
50, if not lower, and at that point you just say to heck with it and play the best you can. Tuning was impossible.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> No, wrong - the objective standards are most certainly observed in any performance. Now, with professional recordings, the objective differences may be quite small - certainly smaller than individuals playing an audition or a competition. but, nonetheless, objective standards of performance most certainly apply....it isn't like each and every musician can just play whatever they want, in what ever manner they individually choose, make errors, ignore the ensemble....they can, of course, but that's chaos...which is objectively flawed.
> 
> No, I have some recordings - esp some of the older Russian recordings, where the sound is simply bad - harsh, strident, thin, poor mid-range, lacking in bass - really rather unlistenable...
> someone may, subjectively, declare that it doesn't matter, to them it sounds fine - but the sound still stinks, it's measurably flawed.
> 
> OK, but that does not refute the existence of objective standards. it just means that a particular individual chooses to ignore them.


I just think the "objective" standards you have identified are 1) irrelevant and 2) not definitive.

We respond to a recording subjectively no matter how your objective standards have been observed or ignored. Soviet sound may sound harsh to you but that may have been the best they could achieve at the time of the recording with the equipment they had available to them.

The important thing is could you hear through the recorded sound so as to appreciate the music. I always can.


----------



## SONNET CLV

SanAntone said:


> A "bad" performance/recording is one which you do not enjoy. A good performance/recording is the opposite.





Eva Yojimbo said:


> SanAntone told the real truth of it, ....





SONNET CLV said:


> I cannot "buy" that argument at all.
> ...
> One's personal tastes remain separate from certain objective considerations that measure worth. What you or I enjoy has little to nothing to do with the intrinsic artistic quality or value of a work of art.


There have been some fine comments on this thread since the first page, from which the above quotes are taken. Objective elements certainly _do_ exist in art, and in the judgment of art as "good" or "bad". One's personal preferences are important, of course, to one's experience of pleasure or satisfaction, but just because a person prefers lead over gold does not diminish the value of the gold over the lead.

One may personally value a "bad" recording (say, one in which the musicians are continually out of tune or the rhythms are irregularly paced or the volume drops in and out...), but it is still a "bad" recording.

I value my 5 year old granddaughter's finger paintings. I like to look at them. They give me pleasure. But, should I expect anyone to judge them as "good" art? I've seen Jackson Pollock paintings in major museums; I don't expect to see my granddaughter's finger paintings hanging anywhere next to the Pollock's.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> I just think the "objective" standards you have identified are 1) irrelevant and 2) not definitive.


baloney....they are both relevant, and definitive.....say the orchestra tunes to A = 442 - 
the 8 woodwinds tune - 7 of them are playing at 442, #8 is playing at 446....#8 is wrong, objectively....it's not a preference, an interpretation, a musical judgement pertaining to style or expression...it's wrong...objectively - wrong.



> We respond to a recording subjectively no matter how your objective standards have been observed or ignored.


maybe you do, not me - objective analysis ALWAYS figures in for me....it's not the ultimate, by itself, but it certainly counts.



> Soviet sound may sound harsh to you but that may have been the best they could achieve at the time of the recording with the equipment they had available to them.


It may be the best they could do, but it still stinks...the sound is poor....



> The important thing is could you hear through the recorded sound so as to appreciate the music. I always can.


many times, this is true....I love many older pre-50s recordings....sometimes the glory of the performance shines thru....sometimes the sound quality is simply too flawed...

Question - if you deny any objective standards whatsoever - how do you decide which performances you like, or do not like?? <<I like it>>?? <<It sounds better>>?? <<I prefer it this way>>?? 
based on what??


----------



## fbjim

SONNET CLV said:


> I value my 5 year old granddaughter's finger paintings. I like to look at them. They give me pleasure. But, should I expect anyone to judge them as "good" art? I've seen Jackson Pollock paintings in major museums; I don't expect to see my granddaughter's finger paintings hanging anywhere next to the Pollock's.


This is by no means a solved question and is actually a very old one. You know your 5 year old granddaughter's finger paintings aren't great art because you know that they're made by your granddaughter, and approach it in that manner. On the other hand -



> "Let's say I took one of our more abstract masterpieces, say an Ellsworth Kelly, and removed it from its frame, marched it down the 52 steps that people walk up to get to the National Gallery, past the giant columns, and brought it into a restaurant. It's a $5 million painting. And it's one of those restaurants where there are pieces of original art for sale, by some industrious kids from the Corcoran School, and I hang that Kelly on the wall with a price tag of $150. No one is going to notice it. An art curator might look up and say: 'Hey, that looks a little like an Ellsworth Kelly. Please pass the salt.'"


One of the reasons Duchamp's "Fountain" was so important was that it demonstrated that the act of framing something as art is not a neutral action - it inevitably affects how we view the object.

In terms of this discussion - let's say you've never heard of Furtwangler. If someone handed you the famous Furtwangler 9th wartime recording without telling you anything about the conductor, the circumstances it was performed in, or the reputation of the recording, your experience of it is going to be vastly different than a listener who has heard of Furtwangler, and is knowledgeable enough to know that the specific recording they're about to listen to is one of the most highly regarded recordings of Beethoven in history. Some people believe this is evidence that the greatness of the recording is a myth, and that all of its reputation is extra-musical - but so much of what we get out of art is inevitably extra-musical anyway!


----------



## souio

I agree about those who say to find things you like.

My advice would be to find recordings that you really enjoy and brings out emotion from you, then from there, find out who the conductors are, and explore their other performances, rather than the composer. From there, you can get deeper and analyze their techniques and interpretive style and use those to help with your own. But, as you said, don't get into the trap of just following a single conductor; listen to multiple versions and interpretations of the piece to see which one you prefer. 

It's funny because I never really got what the big deal was with Haydn and thought he was the most boring composer until I heard the right conductors interpret his music. It was then I really did realize his genius. 

Also, I see some people arguing that it would be an objectively bad recording if everyone is out of tune, playing off-key, making countless mistakes, each instrumentalist playing at a different tempo etc. Of course those are objective qualities, but I think if we were listening to a Mozart symphony and it had those "objectively bad" qualities and someone really enjoyed it, they'd be more suited to listening to avant-garde atonal free-jazz, rather than classical (tho some of the more deep-cup atonal Russian pieces can sound like that upon first listen :lol

It's really more of a stylistic thing. Since you want to be a conductor yourself, I'd say when you listen to pieces, think to yourself "is this how I would conduct/interpret this piece?"

Also this post is making sure said recordings are professionally recorded with hopefully a label, and not a blurry youtube video of Johnny's first middle school orchestra recital :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

SONNET CLV said:


> One may personally value a "bad" recording (say, one in which the musicians are continually out of tune or the rhythms are irregularly paced or the volume drops in and out...), but it is still a "bad" recording.


You are focusing only on technical flaws to define "good" vs "bad." What if a recording has several technical flaws but is also the finest recording interpretively you have ever heard - the most impassioned, heartfelt, nailing of the emotions of the work - such that you forgive the poor sound quality or occasional flubs (which can often be the result of the musicians being more daring and throwing caution to the wind).

Would it not be ridiculous to label such a recording "bad?" Can you not see the inherent silliness in such black and white thinking?

Similarly, how silly would it be to refer to a brain dead, dull recording where all the notes are perfectly played as a "good" recording?


----------



## SanAntone

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are focusing only on technical flaws to define "good" vs "bad." What if a recording has several technical flaws but is also the finest recording interpretively you have ever heard - the most impassioned, heartfelt, nailing of the emotions of the work - such that you forgive the poor sound quality or occasional flubs (which can often be the result of the musicians being more daring and throwing caution to the wind).
> 
> Would it not be ridiculous to label such a recording "bad?" Can you not see the inherent silliness in such black and white thinking?
> 
> Similarly, how silly would it be to refer to a brain dead, dull recording where all the notes are perfectly played as a "good" recording?


There was a time when I was very interested in the music of Haydn, and I usually found period recordings to be my favorites. However, the Roy Goodman with the Hanover Band recordings of the symphonies were recorded in a very reverberant venue which mitigated the period orchestra's sound. I could tell they were good performances, otherwise, but because there were other cycles available I preferred, the Goodman/Hanover set was not one I collected.

However, they were generally praised among the critical press.

I am not saying that there aren't recordings with aspects which make them less preferable - just that everyone ought to decide for themselves and not rely on "expert" opinions or lists to find the recordings that they find better than the rest. I always factor in who is the source for any recommendation, but generally rely on my own ears.

And I do think we all are capable of deciding what are good recordings, and we should not be shy about saying so even if our opinion is an outlier.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> In terms of this discussion - let's say you've never heard of Furtwangler. If someone handed you the famous Furtwangler 9th wartime recording without telling you anything about the conductor, the circumstances it was performed in, or the reputation of the recording, your experience of it is going to be vastly different than a listener who has heard of Furtwangler, and is knowledgeable enough to know that the specific recording they're about to listen to is one of the most highly regarded recordings of Beethoven in history. Some people believe this is evidence that the greatness of the recording is a myth, and that all of its reputation is extra-musical - but so much of what we get out of art is inevitably extra-musical anyway!


Sorry, but no. That recording is without question the most intense version of the symphony I have ever heard. And I came to that opinion before being a Furtwängler "fan." It's the reason I became a fan.

I do not believe in musical relativism. I believe there is truth in art, such as OP stated in his last post.

I let the opinions of others guide me in terms of being exposed to something new, but then I come to my own conclusion. More often than not I can see why those opinions exist even if I don't always necessarily share them.


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sorry, but no. That recording is without question the most intense version of the symphony I have ever heard. And I came to that opinion before being a Furtwängler "fan." It's the reason I became a fan.
> 
> I do not believe in musical relativism. I believe there is truth in art, such as OP stated in his last post.
> 
> I let the opinions of others guide me in terms of being exposed to something new, but then I come to my own conclusion. More often than not I can see why those opinions exist even if I don't always necessarily share them.


So what does that say about the thought experiment, then?

If we remove the framing of a masterpiece of art, and suddenly, people don't view it as a masterpiece, does it mean that it's not actually good at all? If I hang a Mondrian, or a JMW Turner, or a Bacon in a cafe and it isn't appreciated, is that proof that those artists and their works are frauds? Or if - as the article I quoted did - a famous classical soloist played as a subway busker, and nobody stopped to listen - does that mean the music they played, or their performance was bad? That it lacked truth?

Framing is not a neutral act. We can try to compensate for this, or react to it - for instance, the person whose instinct is to be skeptical any time a work of art is presented to them as one of the great works - but I believe it absolutely has an effect on how we appreciate any work of art, or any recording of music - even the effort to try to listen to work disregarding the context of what we know of the work is an effect in itself. If there is truth in art, the context of the art is part of that truth.


----------



## SanAntone

SanAntone said:


> There was a time when I was very interested in the music of Haydn, and I usually found period recordings to be my favorites. However, the Roy Goodman with the Hanover Band recordings of the symphonies were recorded in a very reverberant venue which mitigated the period orchestra's sound. I could tell they were good performances, otherwise, but because there were other cycles available I preferred, the Goodman/Hanover set was not one I collected.
> 
> However, they were generally praised among the critical press.
> 
> I am not saying that there aren't recordings with aspects which make them less preferable - just that everyone ought to decide for themselves and not rely on "expert" opinions or lists to find the recordings that they find better than the rest. I always factor in who is the source for any recommendation, but generally rely on my own ears.
> 
> And I do think we all are capable of deciding what are good recordings, and we should not be shy about saying so even if our opinion is an outlier.


Now that I think about it I don't remember if it were the Haydn symphonies set or the Beethoven, but now that I think about it, it was probably the Beethoven since I did buy a number of his Haydn discs.


----------



## SONNET CLV

fbjim said:


> This is by no means a solved question and is actually a very old one. ...
> 
> In terms of this discussion - let's say you've never heard of Furtwangler. If someone handed you the famous Furtwangler 9th wartime recording without telling you anything about the conductor, the circumstances it was performed in, or the reputation of the recording, your experience of it is going to be vastly different than a listener who has heard of Furtwangler, and is knowledgeable enough to know that the specific recording they're about to listen to is one of the most highly regarded recordings of Beethoven in history. Some people believe this is evidence that the greatness of the recording is a myth, and that all of its reputation is extra-musical - but so much of what we get out of art is inevitably extra-musical anyway!


You needn't preach to a choir member.

I remember hearing for the first time that specific Ninth Symphony. Prior to hearing it I had heard dozens of other versions, and the Ninth was long one of my favorite works. I currently have probably a dozen or so Furtwangler Ninths in my collection, and several dozen _other_ Ninths. So I had heard many Ninths, including a few by Furtwangler, prior to hearing the one you refer to. I recall hearing it and saying to myself something like "Wow! I'm finally hearing the Ninth for the first time and in the way it was meant to be heard."

Now, it may just be coincidental that I so admire a certain Furtwangler Ninth recording, and that of all the Ninths I've heard it remains a pinnacle. Or, it may mean that one with my prior listening experience and musical knowledge just happened to hear into the merits of that recording and interpretation. I will say this: when I_ did_ hear that Ninth for the first time, I had no idea it was so acclaimed. I had simply picked it off my CD shelf, one among many Ninths. But what I heard that day in my listening session was quite remarkable, even with the less than ideal quality sound of the recording.

As for Ellsworth Kelly -- I am one of those who agree that many things are over-priced, often on the merit of a name. Even if I had the cash I would likely not purchase a 5 million dollar painting by Kelly. (My granddaughter's works please me well enough.) I might pay 5 million for an upgraded turntable, amp, and speakers. I'm not saying I'm completely sane. But I do value personal taste and am willing to pay a few bucks extra for what suits me. But I likely wouldn't mortgage the farm to do so.

I recall with equal relish to that of hearing the Furtwangler Beethoven Ninth my initial reading of Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" and of reading many of the critical reactions to it, both pro and con. That was around 1975. Apparently, we haven't come too much farther in our understanding of or agreement on "what is art". Which is all right with me. I know what I like. But I will not presume to maintain that _because I like something_ it necessarily has to be "good". That attitude is one of arrogance and really has no place in the path towards attempting to understand and/or appreciate art.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are focusing only on technical flaws to define "good" vs "bad." What if a recording has several technical flaws but is also the finest recording interpretively you have ever heard - the most impassioned, heartfelt, nailing of the emotions of the work - such that you forgive the poor sound quality or occasional flubs (which can often be the result of the musicians being more daring and throwing caution to the wind).
> 
> Would it not be ridiculous to label such a recording "bad?" Can you not see the inherent silliness in such black and white thinking?
> 
> Similarly, how silly would it be to refer to a brain dead, dull recording where all the notes are perfectly played as a "good" recording?


I suspected that the ellipses in my comment suggested there were further valid issues to consider in what may make a "bad" recording. Indeed, "technical flaws" are not good. Enough of them will likely not allow for an interpretation to be "fine". The real problem here, though, is that for one to consider a work to be, and I'll quote you, "the finest recording interpretively you have ever heard - the most impassioned, heartfelt, nailing of the emotions of the work" one has to allow that personal subjectivity is at play. What, after all, is a "perfect interpretation" by which we are able to measure a "fine interpretation" or a "poor" one? Art generally allows for more than one interpretation, and greater art, it seems, tends to allow for greater liberties of interpretation. Some artists insist their work is open to infinite interpretations. I know people who cherish Karajan recordings that I find annoying. I know folks who scoff at my appreciation of punk rock, industrial noise music, and John Cage. The bottom line is always: my preferences and tastes, likes and dislikes, have nothing to do with inherent quality and worth. I may be one of those who prefers lead to gold; this does not cheapen the value of gold.

Interpretation is a broad area to scope out. When I look at the score of the Beethoven Fifth (a copy of which I have in my library) and read through the pages, I am interpreting the music, mentally, in a way that pleases me greatly -- the right tempo, the right amount of emotional force, the right balance of instrumental colors, etc. But what I "hear" may be quite unlike what is present from recordings of the work by Kleiber, or Kempe, or Karajan, or Furtwangler ....

I often do see silliness in "black and white thinking". I also see silliness in a comment that assumes there is only a black side and a white side to consider. I rather like to think I assess my world much from the land of the grays. I ain't so simple out there.

I agree that playing notes perfectly does not a perfect piece of music make. It _does_ make for perfectly played notes, for what that is worth. Beethoven's Fifth is "perfect" on the score page, but "music" is more than just what is written on the score. It is an art form that requires interpretation, turning the score notations into sound. And the human element, a process of infinite complexity, plays a crucial role in rendering that score into sound, as well as in taking the sound and interpreting it to one's favor or dislike.

Those who will refer to "a brain dead, dull recording where all the notes are perfectly played" as a "good" recording are more likely those who have said on this Forum something akin to "a "bad" performance/recording is one which you do not enjoy. A good performance/recording is the opposite." That was not I.


----------



## Bulldog

I'll know a bad recording when I hear it.


----------



## arpeggio

Most of the posts here a far superior to anything I can say.

I would like to mention my Shostakovich story.

I love most of the symphonies of Shostakovich. One of favorites is the _Fifth_.

I remember checking out recordings from the library and listening to the various interpretations. Then I heard a recording of a Russian Orchestra. The finale was dramatically slower than what I heard with Western European or American Orchestras. I loved the Russian interpretation and ended up preferring it to the faster tempo. I started to wonder what the Russians knew what we did not.

Several years ago, I attended a concert with the Oslo Philharmonic which programmed the symphony. Andrew Litton, who studied with Rostropovich, was the conductor. Prior to the concert there was a panel discussion about the concert. I mentioned to the moderator the discrepancy concerning the tempo of the finale between Russian and European/American orchestras. According to the moderator there was a misprint in the scores published in the West. In short, we in the West were playing the finale twice as fast as Shostakovich intended 

I have been listening to various performances of the _Fifth_ on the digital concert hall with Berlin. All of the performances use the slower tempo.

Follow-up: The New York Philharmonic has links to scores. I checked out the tempo marking for the finale. Sure enough the tempo marking was crossed out and a slower one penciled in.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> So what does that say about the thought experiment, then?
> 
> If we remove the framing of a masterpiece of art, and suddenly, people don't view it as a masterpiece, does it mean that it's not actually good at all? If I hang a Mondrian, or a JMW Turner, or a Bacon in a cafe and it isn't appreciated, is that proof that those artists and their works are frauds? Or if - as the article I quoted did - a famous classical soloist played as a subway busker, and nobody stopped to listen - does that mean the music they played, or their performance was bad? That it lacked truth?
> 
> Framing is not a neutral act. We can try to compensate for this, or react to it - for instance, the person whose instinct is to be skeptical any time a work of art is presented to them as one of the great works - but I believe it absolutely has an effect on how we appreciate any work of art, or any recording of music - even the effort to try to listen to work disregarding the context of what we know of the work is an effect in itself. If there is truth in art, the context of the art is part of that truth.


You're speaking in hypotheticals, so it's hard to make a useful example.

I do notice that when people talk about minds of mush and being easily impressed by reputation, they're always talking about someone _else's_ opinion. It's a conveniently myopic, self-serving viewpoint for the David Hurwitz's of the world. I don't believe it's true. I believe people ultimately like what they like regardless of how they got there.

I grew of age in the early 90s when HIP was all the rage and I was told not to even consider a recording unless it was digital. And yet after several years of listening I ended up gravitating to Furtwangler and other older recordings that I realized were less perfection-obsessed and closer to the spirit of the music. Another poster on this forum has said he was exposed to every approach and ended up gravitating towards the objectivist Toscanini school. At the end of the day you cannot escape the reality that different people will prioritize different things. Mistakes and sloppiness don't bother me, but they drive others up the wall.

So the OP cannot escape the reality that it is a subjective exercise of choice. You can be a relativist who finds every recording "interesting" but none more definitive than any other. You can be an objectivist who listens for fidelity to the written score. You can be a subjectivist who listens for fidelity to the spirit of the music. Or perhaps you can simply be someone who is interested in whatever the public consensus gravitates towards.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Bulldog said:


> I'll know a bad recording when I hear it.


For a long time I've admired the recording by BORBETOMAGUS titled "Barbed Wire Maggots".









The vinyl record has been in my collection since its release in 1983. Here's a video of the recording.

[video]BORBETOMAGUS : "Barbed Wire Maggots"[/video]

Just curious: is this a "good" or a "bad" recording?


----------



## arpeggio

HIP vs Modern.

It depends.

Most venues in the 18th and early 19th centuries were much smaller than modern concert halls.

When I have heard HIP performances in smaller halls they would sound OK.

Modern wind instruments tend to project better than period instruments.

Whenever I have heard a HIP in a larger hall the wind players get drowned out by other instruments.

I was at a HIP concert once of a concerto for oboe and lute. The lute was drowning out the baroque oboe.

Example of a bad performance.


----------



## SONNET CLV

arpeggio said:


> Most of the posts here a far superior to anything I can say.
> 
> I would like to mention my Shostakovich story.
> 
> ... According to the moderator there was a misprint in the scores published in the West. In short, we in the West were playing the finale twice as fast as Shostakovich intended
> 
> Follow-up: The New York Philharmonic has links to scores. I checked out the tempo marking for the finale. Sure enough the tempo marking was crossed out and a slower one penciled in.


Actually, this was quite a superior post. Don't shortchange yourself.

Apparently, William Vacchiano, who was the principal trumpet for the New York Philharmonic while Bernstein was the conductor, related a story about Bernstein's NY Phil performance of the Shosty 5th (which on Bernstein's 1959 recording has a Finale that clocks in at about 9 minutes, one of the shortest on record, if not the shortest).









During the performance of the symphony in Moscow, Vacchiano reported, Shostakovich himself was in the audience. At the end of the symphony he went and greeted Bernstein and said "it's not the way I wrote it, but it's the best I ever heard it!" Perhaps this was a comment in reference (at least partially) to that Finale tempo?

A quick search at Discogs will reveal many of the movement timings for symphonies, including the Shosty Fifth, for anyone who is interested.


----------



## SONNET CLV

arpeggio said:


> HIP vs Modern.
> 
> It depends.
> 
> ...
> I was at a HIP concert once of a concerto for oboe and lute. The lute was drowning out the baroque oboe.
> 
> Example of a bad performance.


I will agree with you about the performance.

But we have companions here on the Forum, perhaps they are lute players, or perhaps they hate oboes, who may insist that this is a "good" performance because they happen to "like" it.

It depends. It certainly does.


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're speaking in hypotheticals, so it's hard to make a useful example.
> 
> I do notice that when people talk about minds of mush and being easily impressed by reputation, they're always talking about someone _else's_ opinion. It's a conveniently myopic, self-serving viewpoint for the David Hurwitz's of the world. I don't believe it's true. I believe people ultimately like what they like regardless of how they got there.


I want to be clear that when I say that people are affected by reputation, it's no more an insult than saying that someone's movement through the air is affected by gravity. Reputation here is simply one facet of a piece's context.

A few people have accused me of this in the past, but saying that context informs how we view art is not saying our opinions are not our own. Our own personalities play a huge role in how we interact with social conventions and knowledge on music, and to some extent, forms our tastes. A highly impressionable person may view Beethoven more highly because they've heard he's the greatest composer who ever lived. A reflexively iconoclastic person may hear this and instinctively dislike Beethoven because they have a personality which distrusts anything with consensus appeal. To a large extent, we can freely choose how much to let context matter. It's not saying that our minds are mush simply because our view of things can change depending on where, when, and how we look at them. Our view of falling out of an airplane will change dramatically whether or not we are skydiving for fun, or are a recruit getting kicked out of a plane in paratrooper school. Someone once asked why they noticed so many classical musicians in school with no interest in classical music - and just the same - our view of classical music will change dramatically if we view it as pleasure, or as work.


----------



## 59540

Asking how to recognize a "bad" performance is setting out in the wrong direction. That's just another way of saying "what do you think about this so I can think about it 'correctly' too". Form your own judgement.


----------



## Aries

SONNET CLV said:


> One's personal preferences are important, of course, to one's experience of pleasure or satisfaction, but just because a person prefers lead over gold does not diminish the value of the gold over the lead.


If you can only sell your gold and lead to that one person, and the person pays more for lead, what is then your benefit of "the value of the gold over the lead"? The prices depends on supply and demand and they change with circumstances. There is no objectively correct price.

The value of an object depends both on traits withing the object and on characteristics of the outside world like subjects and other objects. Therefore it is neither entirely objective nor entirely subjective.


----------



## ORigel

fbjim said:


> This is by no means a solved question and is actually a very old one. You know your 5 year old granddaughter's finger paintings aren't great art because you know that they're made by your granddaughter, and approach it in that manner. On the other hand -
> 
> One of the reasons Duchamp's "Fountain" was so important was that it demonstrated that the act of framing something as art is not a neutral action - it inevitably affects how we view the object.
> 
> In terms of this discussion - let's say you've never heard of Furtwangler. If someone handed you the famous Furtwangler 9th wartime recording without telling you anything about the conductor, the circumstances it was performed in, or the reputation of the recording, your experience of it is going to be vastly different than a listener who has heard of Furtwangler, and is knowledgeable enough to know that the specific recording they're about to listen to is one of the most highly regarded recordings of Beethoven in history. Some people believe this is evidence that the greatness of the recording is a myth, and that all of its reputation is extra-musical - but so much of what we get out of art is inevitably extra-musical anyway!


I like the 1942 Furtwangler Ninth because the harshness of the sound makes the music sound extra dark.


----------



## Heck148

arpeggio said:


> HIP vs Modern......
> I was at a HIP concert once of a concerto for oboe and lute. _The lute was drowning out the baroque oboe._
> Example of a bad performance.


That's funny!! LOL!!:lol::lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV

Aries said:


> If you can only sell your gold and lead to that one person, and the person pays more for lead, what is then your benefit of "the value of the gold over the lead"? The prices depends on supply and demand and they change with circumstances. There is no objectively correct price.
> 
> The value of an object depends both on traits withing the object and on characteristics of the outside world like subjects and other objects. Therefore it is neither entirely objective nor entirely subjective.


Instead of lead and gold, what if one prefers a placebo over the drug which will save his life (perhaps because the placebo is larger in size and/or of a color he prefers? Is there an inherent value in the active ingredient drug that does not reside in the inactive sugar-pill placebo? And if the person wants to live, does he do himself a favor by following his preference?

Such a speculation seems to me a stretch, for sure. And somewhat silly. But so is the example in your post, which relegates the universe down to a ridiculous minimum ("If you can only sell your gold and lead to that one person...") of one, rendering reality meaningless. In such a universe philosophical discussion of aesthetic values seems rather moot at best. In a world of madness, where lead is valued over gold for monetary purposes and placebos are valued over active drugs for healing purposes, that same sort of discussion is also moot.

In a universe of one, the only music that matters is what that one consciousness prefers. In reference to a societal Forum, such as this one, such a situation is meaningless. Shall we bubble down all argument to a "what if one person" situation? But I did, nonetheless, get a chuckle from your "If you can only sell your gold and lead to that one person..."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Heck148 said:


> OK, but that does not refute the existence of objective standards....


To be clear you're not referring to objective standards in any of your posts, you're referring to shared subjective standards as it relates to objective qualities. To take one example, most all listeners and creators of classical music care about "accuracy." That is a subjective standard as it doesn't exist without the minds of listeners/creators to think it. This subjective standard can be (somewhat) objectively judged by noting whether the objective sound matches the objective notes on a page. Think about it like a game of chess: the rules of chess are subjective, ie, they don't exist without the human minds that created them and agree to them (and we are capable of creating different rules if we wanted to); but once we agree to them we can judge moves objectively by how well they accomplish the goal of winning (or, at least, not losing).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

SONNET CLV said:


> There have been some fine comments on this thread since the first page, from which the above quotes are taken. Objective elements certainly _do_ exist in art, and in the judgment of art as "good" or "bad". One's personal preferences are important, of course, to one's experience of pleasure or satisfaction, but just because a person prefers lead over gold does not diminish the value of the gold over the lead.


Absolutely there are objective elements in art, but there are absolutely not objective judgments of good and bad independent of subjective preferences. What you mention about lead Vs gold is illustrative. If everyone started preferring lead to gold, would gold still be "objectively" more valuable, or lead now "objectively" more valuable?" Of course not. What you're talking about mass subjective values, not objective value at all. Basically saying "more people subjective prefer X rather than Y" does not translate to X being objectively more valuable. Things that are objective--independent of human minds--cannot change based on how people think or feel. If something can change based on how people think/feel, it is subjective, not objective.


----------



## Aries

SONNET CLV said:


> Instead of lead and gold, what if one prefers a placebo over the drug which will save his life (perhaps because the placebo is larger in size and/or of a color he prefers? Is there an inherent value in the active ingredient drug that does not reside in the inactive sugar-pill placebo?


Yes, but it is not completely independent. If the person doesn't swallow it it will not save him. If there is a pandemic with that disease, the drug will get much more valuable. If the disease is eradicated, the drug gets useless and sugar could have a higher value. So the value of drugs is subject to fluctuations.

Some things have a higher value than other things 99% of the time. It has objective reasons. But its still not 100% and not set in stone. The 1% of other situations are not "wrong" and could become dominating under some circumstances like when a disease is surprisingly eradicated.

In the case of musical performances I think one can sort its characteristics by the amount of consent about their desirability. Denying the subjective aspect suggests there is an on the whole precise right evaluation and vice versa, what is wrong imo. Denying the objective aspect suggests there are no patterns of desirability at all, what is also wrong.


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To be clear you're not referring to objective standards in any of your posts, you're referring to shared subjective standards as it relates to objective qualities.


whatever...there are still objective standards regarding performance.


----------



## fbjim

ORigel said:


> I like the 1942 Furtwangler Ninth because the harshness of the sound makes the music sound extra dark.


i absolutely love his bit where he plays the finale so fast that the players go out of time. it's such a perfect effect that I wish was done more often (maybe players are just too good at playing quickly nowadays?)


----------



## fbjim

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To be clear you're not referring to objective standards in any of your posts, you're referring to shared subjective standards as it relates to objective qualities. To take one example, most all listeners and creators of classical music care about "accuracy." That is a subjective standard as it doesn't exist without the minds of listeners/creators to think it. This subjective standard can be (somewhat) objectively judged by noting whether the objective sound matches the objective notes on a page. Think about it like a game of chess: the rules of chess are subjective, ie, they don't exist without the human minds that created them and agree to them (and we are capable of creating different rules if we wanted to); but once we agree to them we can judge moves objectively by how well they accomplish the goal of winning (or, at least, not losing).


i've used this example before but just because something is subjective, it doesn't mean it can't cause measurable objective effects

the value of money is a social construct (even if money wasn't fiat, the value of whatever was backing the money would be socially constructed), yet if i have $10, and you have $200M, it doesn't make "You are wealthier than me" an unquantifiable, unmeasurable assertion. now- how much we value personal wealth *does* depend on the individual.


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ....If something can change based on how people think/feel, it is subjective, not objective.


A composer writes in the score that a note should be held for 4 beats, and an indicated tempo, the performer holds it for only 2 beats, that is objectively "wrong"; if the score shows the note is a Ab, and the performer plays a Bb, that is objectively wrong, when judged against the score....opinion does not apply.....it doesn't matter if 100 people "feel" that it is right...it isn't...it's not based upon what people think or feel, it's based upon what the composer wrote in the score....[I know - jazz, improvisation make a different set of conditions....]


----------



## fbjim

Heck148 said:


> A composer writes in the score that a note should be held for 4 beats, and an indicated tempo, the performer holds it for only 2 beats, that is objectively "wrong"; if the score shows the note is a Ab, and the performer plays a Bb, that is objectively wrong, when judged against the score....opinion does not apply.....it doesn't matter if 100 people "feel" that it is right...it isn't...it's not based upon what people think or feel, it's based upon what the composer wrote in the score....[I know - jazz, improvisation make a different set of conditions....]


i literally just mentioned this but Furtwangler plays the coda of the 9th Symphony so quickly that the players can't take the tempo and go out of time, and people call it a brilliant stroke of ecstatic joy. Now- you can argue that that's a gimmick and a special case, but it wouldn't be fair to say people who take this view of the recording are "objectively wrong" in some way to do so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Heck148 said:


> whatever...there are still objective standards regarding performance.


No, there are not; there are subjective standards for objective aspects of performance, and you just completely ignored everything I said.



Heck148 said:


> A composer writes in the score that a note should be held for 4 beats, and an indicated tempo, the performer holds it for only 2 beats, that is objectively "wrong"; if the score shows the note is a Ab, and the performer plays a Bb, that is objectively wrong, when judged against the score....opinion does not apply.....it doesn't matter if 100 people "feel" that it is right...it isn't...it's not based upon what people think or feel, it's based upon what the composer wrote in the score....[I know - jazz, improvisation make a different set of conditions....]


It's objectively inaccurate, certainly, but is only "wrong" relative to the subjective goal of accurately reproducing what's written on the page. It's all still based on people subjectively desiring accuracy. Of course, most everyone shares this subjective standard for accuracy, but no amount of subjective agreement can turn something into an objective standard. The two things simply belong to different metaphysical categories. This should be a trivially, obviously true point, but human brains have a remarkable ability to be completely blind to the fundamentally subjective component on these issues.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> i've used this example before but just because something is subjective, it doesn't mean it can't cause measurable objective effects
> 
> the value of money is a social construct (even if money wasn't fiat, the value of whatever was backing the money would be socially constructed), yet if i have $10, and you have $200M, it doesn't make "You are wealthier than me" an unquantifiable, unmeasurable assertion. now- how much we value personal wealth *does* depend on the individual.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "measurable objective effects" as it relates to something being subjective, and I'm not sure your example helps to clarify it. My intuition tells me I agree, but it would depend on precisely what you mean. We can certainly objectively quantify many subjective things. We could even do a poll on whether people prefer X music to Y music and have objective data about subjective values; that's basically what's happening in your wealth example, though even that is subject to fluctuations based on subjective valuations. If suddenly the dollar was worthless, then the only way you'd have more "wealth" than I have would be by having access to more scraps of worthless paper, which would hardly be significant. Money very much requires us all to subjectively agree upon its value, and a good illustration of how volatile that belief/value relationship can be is demonstrated by modern trends in cryptocurrency.


----------



## fbjim

i think we agree, i'm sort of mentioning this because a common contention is when people equate an assertation that something is subjective to mean that it's somehow "fake" or non-existent.

more to the point, accuracy can conceivably be measured in an objective way, and it's clear that classical music as a discipline values accuracy to some extent. to *what* extent is the personal question, though.


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, there are not; there are subjective standards for objective aspects of performance, and you just completely ignored everything I said.


I didn't ignore it, I refuted it....I'm saying that the score is "objectively" correct. you say that fidelity to the score is a matter of opinion - "subjective"....



> "It's objectively inaccurate, certainly, but is only "wrong" relative to the subjective goal of accurately reproducing what's written on the page."


It is wrong relative to what the composer wrote. The performer held the note for 4 beats, as indicated in the score - objectively correct - the performer made crescendo/diminuendo over those 4 beats - <<too much crescendo>>, <<not enough crescendo>>, <<too loud>>, <<too soft>>.... those are subjective judgements -

So, you think what the composer wrote in the score is "subjective"...a matter of opinion among performers, audience, etc....I say that the score is "objective" in that it presents the composer's intent as precisely as he/she could express it, regardless of opinion from thousands of others.

You ask a performer to play a harmonic minor scale starting on "C" - they play an E natural instead of an Eb.....by my standards, that is objectively wrong....a minor scale has a lowered third...according to you, that is a "subjective" matter, because long ago, people agreed that minor scales have a lowered third?? to me, that's bs.....
Again, there are objective standards in music performance.


----------



## fbjim

i also think that while focusing on edge cases can be useful sometimes, it doesn't really bear any relation to how virtually any listener actually engages with classical music. 

when people are talking about enjoying recordings that are objectively flawed by a certain criterion, be it sound quality, accuracy to the score, or accuracy in performance- this does not mean that accuracy is absolutely off the table to that person, to the extent that they'd conceivably enjoy a Beethoven symphony where the playing was so terrible that the entire piece was unrecognizable. if someone says "I value interpretive effect more than accuracy in playing" it almost certainly does not mean "Oh, so you'd be fine if we reduced accuracy to zero?"



to put it another way, this is just slippery slope-ism. it's like saying that giving soloists the freedom to use rubato means you must necessarily give them the freedom to play whatever notes they please, and cats and dogs will play together.


----------



## Heck148

fbjim said:


> ....more to the point, accuracy can conceivably be measured in an objective way, and it's clear that classical music as a discipline values accuracy to some extent.


Right - there are measurable, observable events that can be compared with the written score....now, if these events deviate from the score, fine, whether or not they add or detract from one's evaluation of the performance is a subjective determination.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> i think we agree, i'm sort of mentioning this because a common contention is when people equate an assertation that something is subjective to mean that it's somehow "fake" or non-existent.
> 
> more to the point, accuracy can conceivably be measured in an objective way, and it's clear that classical music as a discipline values accuracy to some extent. to *what* extent is the personal question, though.


Yes, it does seem we agree. I often get the feeling from "objectivists" that they think if something is subjective that it either doesn't exist, or somehow has less "realness" than objective things. The problem is that's demonstrably untrue. Money is one easy example, but even for a more subtle example something like "temperature" doesn't exist objectively. Temperature is just an approximate measure of the kinetic energy of a system, but objectively there's just a specific number of particles moving at a specific speed. "Average" and "systems" are mind-invented categories. This doesn't stop temperature from being any less-real or less-useful of a thing.

It's also conceivable that we could all stop valuing accuracy as well, just as it is that we could all stop valuing money. The probability of either happening is vanishingly small, though.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Right - there are measurable, observable events that can be compared with the written score....now, if these events deviate from the score, fine, whether or not they add or detract from one's evaluation of the performance is a subjective determination.


And that's all that needed to be stated in this entire thread.

Want to know if something is correct? Read the score

Want to know the difference between a good and a bad recording? Listen to the recording and use your judgment

A conductor has two jobs:

1) Know the score
2) Decide how to interpret the score

.


----------



## fbjim

i don't want to call this objective or subjective and i'll leave that job to the philosophers - but i think it's *probably* fair to say that outside some specific edge cases, the social practices of classical music value accuracy, at least to a certain extent. most forms and genres of art have some set of socially agreed-upon conventions that - while not hard rules - can at least be determined as generalities - films should be a narrative medium and last between about 1-3 hours in most cases, for instance. in music, there is an *expected* practice, built upon social conventions and traditions, for virtually any genre you can think of- in fact, to some extent, these practices and conventions define what a genre actually is.

this does *not* mean that there are not edge cases where you can toss these conventions aside, but even doing this occurs in the context of those conventions- violating conventions is only important when those conventions are widely held. and of course, accuracy is only one criterion to evaluate a classical performance - we have many, many more, some of which may or may not be possible to objectively measure. 


i'm kind of trying to pin down where the point-of-contention actually is, because i actually think - to a large extent - that removed from specific terminology, the two "sides" really agree on a lot in most cases here. i don't think anyone, for instance, is saying that accuracy is *not* a generally-held criterion for evaluating a classical music performance- but there are many, many criteria for doing so, and valuing one (say, emotional effect) over the other in some cases does not mean tossing those conventions out (nor does it mean that someone who likes an inaccurately played but highly emotive sonata recording must be forced to admit that the performance is "objectively bad")


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Heck148 said:


> I didn't ignore it, I refuted it....I'm saying that the score is "objectively" correct. you say that fidelity to the score is a matter of opinion - "subjective"....


First, you absolutely ignored what I said (with the dismissive "whatever") and then said: "there are still objective standards regarding performance." That is not a refutation, that's a claim, one that contained no evidence or argument for its truthfulness.

I know what you're saying, and I've explained why you're wrong, and you're still completely ignoring everything I've said.



Heck148 said:


> It is wrong relative to what the composer wrote.


It's _inaccurate_ relative to what the composer wrote, yes. "Wrong" is a much broader, more ambiguous term. What you're describing is accurateness, or fidelity to the score. Either term is more accurate than "wrong" or "incorrect."



Heck148 said:


> So, you think what the composer wrote in the score is "subjective"...a matter of opinion among performers, audience, etc....I say that the score is "objective" in that it presents the composer's intent as precisely as he/she could express it, regardless of opinion from thousands of others.


The score is objective in that it's a piece of paper with scribblings that we understand to represent notes, rhythmic values, dynamics, etc. The standard that a performance should accurately reproduce what's on the score is subjective, meaning it only exists because of human minds. It's a subjective standard that almost every person shares, just as we all do with money, but it's subjective nonetheless. Again, mass subjective agreement (like with accuracy) doesn't translate into an objective standard.

Within that mass subjective value agreement there are also preferences and degrees to which people value that quality relative to other qualities. I get the sense that you're conflating and confusing "subjective" with "individual preference." These are not the same thing.



Heck148 said:


> You ask a performer to play a harmonic minor scale starting on "C" - they play an E natural instead of an Eb.....by my standards, that is objectively wrong....a minor scale has a lowered third...according to you, that is a "subjective" matter, because long ago, people agreed that minor scales have a lowered third?? to me, that's bs.....
> Again, there are objective standards in music performance.


Again, what you're describing is inaccuracy relative to the intentions of the request and the subjectively (but mutually understood) meanings of what constitutes the harmonic minor scale.

I don't care if you "think that's bs," it's absolutely the truth, and you've offered no argument that it's bs and have ignored my actual arguments.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And that's all that needed to be stated in this entire thread.
> Want to know if something is correct? Read the score
> Want to know the difference between a good and a bad recording? Listen to the recording and use your judgment
> 
> A conductor has two jobs:
> 
> 1) Know the score
> 2) Decide how to interpret the score.


Yup, that's basically it...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> films should be a narrative medium and last between about 1-3 hours in most cases, for instance. .


While I agree with the gist of your post, it's worth pointing out that there are many films that are not narrative and are much longer or shorter than 1-3 hours. Like, you've basically just excluded all documentaries, experimental films, short films, and even very long films like Satantango!



fbjim said:


> i'm kind of trying to pin down where the point-of-contention actually is, because i actually think - to a large extent - that removed from specific terminology, the two "sides" really agree on a lot in most cases here. i don't think anyone, for instance, is saying that accuracy is *not* a generally-held criterion for evaluating a classical music performance- but there are many, many criteria for doing so, and valuing one (say, emotional effect) over the other in some cases does not mean tossing those conventions out (nor does it mean that someone who likes an inaccurately played but highly emotive sonata recording must be forced to admit that the performance is "objectively bad")


The issue as I see it isn't that most here are extremely far apart on common values like accuracy. The problem arises whenever one side tries to assert that their subjective preferences in terms of how they value certain aspects--eg, whether accuracy is more valuable than emotional impact--are, in fact, objective standards. That then triggers the whole meta-discussion about what even constitutes objective/subjective in general.

This happens in many fields where mass subjective agreement leads people to completely overlook the subjective component altogether, and this leads to a kind of hubris in declaring that subjective agreements are actually immutable, inviolable objective facts, which is patently wrong. Yes, we all agree that accuracy is a valuable aspect in the reproduction of classical music, just as we all agree that money has value. This agreement doesn't transform such values into being objective, and this is important to point out solely because a subset of people will start trying to argue that a performance is objectively bad because of inaccuracies, as if a performance doesn't have many qualities and as if people don't subjectively place different values on those qualities, including accuracy.

One can take this to the extreme by imagining hypotheticals in which accuracy is not valued at all, as I'm doing, but that's only to demonstrate the fundamental point about how such things ultimately reduce to subjective values. It's useful to reduce these disagreements to that fundamental level because that understanding filters up to the more nuanced disagreements, such as how much we individually value things like accuracy... but it's hard to do that when people don't understand this fundamental point at all and are deluded into thinking that objective values exist when they very much do not.


----------



## Becca

Universal Edition just published a new critical edition of Mahler's 4th Symphony where they have made hundreds of corrections after reviewing various sources, some newly discovered, which according to UE 'make a thoroughly astonishing difference.’ Where does that leave the idea of following the score and objective accuracy when the score may not represent exactly what the composer intended? And what about various reported instances in which a composer has heard a performance and said something along the lines of 'It is not what I intended but I like it.' The whole idea of objective accuracy to the score reminds me of the line that 'morality is something used by the old to bamboozle the young.'


----------



## fbjim

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While I agree with the gist of your post, it's worth pointing out that there are many films that are not narrative and are much longer or shorter than 1-3 hours. Like, you've basically just excluded all documentaries, experimental films, short films, and even very long films like Satantango!


oh yeah, though like i said, violating conventions is important in the context of those conventions existing in the first place. to put it another way, "experimental" art doesn't have a meaning if there wasn't a generally-agreed-upon form for "normal" film. though this is a minor point in the grand scheme of things


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's _inaccurate_ relative to what the composer wrote, yes.


Thank you, your concession is noted. the score is objectively correct....it's what the composer indicated to the best of his/her ability. 


> "Wrong" is a much broader, more ambiguous term. What you're describing is accurateness, or fidelity to the score.


in this case accuracy = objectively correct.



> The standard that a performance should accurately reproduce what's on the score is subjective, meaning it only exists because of human minds.


And human minds have determined that it is an objective standard - and it is human "opinion" that water freezes at 32 degrees F. According to you, one could claim that that water freezes at 50 degrees...and that is valid, even tho water exists as a liquid at that temperature....whatever you call it, water freezes at a certain temperature....you're saying that the freezing point of water is a matter of opinion?? oh, brother.........

you've offered NO argument, other than that EVERYTHING is a matter of human opinion - any measurements, evaluations, scientific observations are all simply a matter of collective human opinion - as if that subjectivity can alter the actual nature of things....human opinion can change the distance of the Earth from the sun, can alter the freezing point of water, can change the speed of light...because these are merely results of centuries of human opinion...all values are simply constructs of human opinion....
nonsense....objectively, and subjectively....


----------



## fbjim

Becca said:


> Universal Edition just published a new critical edition of Mahler's 4th Symphony where they have made hundreds of corrections after reviewing various sources, some newly discovered, which according to UE 'make a thoroughly astonishing difference.' Where does that leave the idea of following the score and objective accuracy when the score may not represent exactly what the composer intended? And what about various reported instances in which a composer has heard a performance and said something along the lines of 'It is not what I intended but I like it.' The whole idea of objective accuracy to the score reminds me of the line that 'morality is something used by the old to bamboozle the young.'


i'm going to be blunt and say that the "astonishing difference" they are hoping to see involves sales of people buying those critical editions and making new "correct" recordings of Mahler 4 to sell.


----------



## SanAntone

A couple of red herrings being floated in this thread and which have become so loud as to stifle a more realistic discussion:

*1. That performance inaccuracies regarding a score are often found in professional recordings

2. Denial of a range of "correct" interpretations of a score regarding tempo, articulation, rubato, dynamics, etc.*

If we are considering professionally produced recordings by established artists and ensembles, I doubt the existence of such egregious mis-interpretations and inaccurate playing of a score as to render any recording "wrong."

What this thread ought to focus on are those differences of interpretations in some recordings which seem to make a work come alive more than on other recordings. But of course this kind of opinion is a subjective response and reflects one person's taste as opposed to someone else's - which is why I said early on that we each have within our power to decide what are good or bad recordings - according to our individual taste.

A professional music critic or reviewer states his opinion based on the exact same kind of subjective response. Some people hold his opinion in higher esteem than others, even their own sometimes.

I trust my own response and don't put much stock in professional reviews other than as a method of alerting me of a new recording that has been released.


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> Where does that leave the idea of following the score and objective accuracy when the score may not represent exactly what the composer intended? And what about various reported instances in which a composer has heard a performance and said something along the lines of 'It is not what I intended but I like it.'


Not a problem - the performers, conductor, composer simply stipulate that a particular version of the score is being used....composers can certainly change their minds....

the point is - if the composer specifies that the violins play a, A natural at measure 43, and they play a "C" instead, that is inaccurate, objectively wrong according to the score being used....it's not a matter of opinion, it's not a subjective issue -

<<I like it better>>, <<the C sounds better>>, <<he should have written a C>> etc, etc....fine, those are subjective judgements....that's all.


----------



## Becca

fbjim said:


> i'm going to be blunt and say that the "astonishing difference" they are hoping to see involves sales of people buying those critical editions and making new "correct" recordings of Mahler 4 to sell.


While it is undoubtedly true that UE stands to make money from sales of the new edition, the fact is that the revisions were not done by them, they are part of the ongoing Internationale Gustav Mahler Gesellschaft project to update/correct the scores in the light of new information about Mahler's known intent.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> *1. That performance inaccuracies regarding a score are often found in professional recordings*


*

occasionally, not often.....live performances, [and sometimes studio recordings] may have some incidental mistakes




What this thread ought to focus on are those differences of interpretations in some recordings which seem to make a work come alive more than on other recordings. But of course this kind of opinion is a subjective response and reflects one person's taste as opposed to someone else's - which is why I said early on that we each have within our power to decide what are good or bad recordings - according to our individual taste.

Click to expand...

Exactly - interpretations and their evaluations by the listener are very subjective...objective mistakes, glitches may or may not affect one's overall appreciation of a performance or recording. Each listener will make his/her own judgement...




I trust my own response and don't put much stock in professional reviews other than as a method of alerting me of a new recording that has been released.

Click to expand...

Yes, my approach as well....*


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Heck148 said:


> Thank you, your concession is noted. the score is objectively correct....it's what the composer indicated to the best of his/her ability.


There was no concession, and you repeating what you've already said numerous times while ignoring what I've said is quite annoying.



Heck148 said:


> in this case accuracy = objectively correct.


Your use of "objectively correct" is very incorrect.



Heck148 said:


> And human minds have determined that it is an objective standard...


No, human minds have agreed upon the standard, which makes it subjective by definition. If a standard requires human minds to agree on it, it's not objective. Objective literally means a feature of an object. If something requires human minds to agree, it is not a feature of an object, now is it?



Heck148 said:


> ...and it is human "opinion" that water freezes at 32 degrees F. According to you, one could claim that that water freezes at 50 degrees...and that is valid, even tho water exists as a liquid at that temperature....whatever you call it, water freezes at a certain temperature....you're saying that the freezing point of water is a matter of opinion?? oh, brother.........


I said no such thing about the temperature at which water freezes being a matter of opinion. Water freezing at a certain temperature is a matter of fact; what that temperature is depends upon what scale we're using, and those scales are subjective in that human minds invented them. In fact, temperature in general is a subjective concept as I explained above.



Heck148 said:


> you've offered NO argument, other than that EVERYTHING is a matter of human opinion - any measurements, evaluations, scientific observations are all simply a matter of collective human opinion - as if that subjectivity can alter the actual nature of things....human opinion can change the distance of the Earth from the sun, can alter the freezing point of water, can change the speed of light...because these are merely results of centuries of human opinion...all values are simply constructs of human opinion....
> nonsense....objectively, and subjectively....


This just shows a gross misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I certainly never said "everything is a matter of human opinion," and for you to claim such a thing reflects very poorly on your reading comprehension skills. Perhaps it would help if you spent a bit more time trying to understand what I mean rather than repeating what you've already said, declaring I've "conceded" points, and generally trying to "win" the discussion.

Let me try to simplify this for you. "Subjective" and "objective" represent two mutually exclusive and exhaustive metaphysical categories, the former related to things that only exist within human minds, and the latter related to properties of objects that exist independent of human minds. To determine which category a thing belongs to you have to ask whether that thing would exist without human minds to think about it. We assume that things we directly sense--the sun, trees, animals, etc.--exist regardless of whether we think about them or not. This is not true for things like artistic standards (or the value of money, or the rules of games, or morality, etc.) which we create and agree or disagree to in varying degrees.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> occasionally, not often.....live performances, and sometimes studio recordings] may have some incidental mistakes
> 
> Exactly - interpretations and their evaluations by the listener are very subjective...objective mistakes, glitches may or may not affect one's overall appreciation of a performance or recording. Each listener will make his/her own judgement...
> 
> Yes, my approach as well....


There is objective historical evidence that modern pianos did not exist during Bach's lifetime. So, according to your logic any recording of Bach played on a piano is objectively wrong and bad.

However, Bach is played on the piano thousands of more times than someone records the WTC with mistakes.

What exactly is your problem?


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There was no concession, and you repeating what you've already said numerous times while ignoring what I've said is quite annoying.


Then post to somebody else...



> No, human minds have agreed upon the standard, which makes it subjective by definition. If a standard requires human minds to agree on it, it's not objective.


so according to you, there is no objective standard to be applied regarding musical performance?? - anyone is free to do whatever they please, because it's all a matter of opinion?? - if a conductor and orchestra play the Eroica [key of Eb] in the key of A major, that's fine, that's not objectively wrong, because the correct key is all just a matter of human opinion?? nonsense.



> Water freezing at a certain temperature is a matter of fact;


same with what is written in a score....it's a fact, it's there, the composer put it there.

when judging musical performance, there are objective and subjective considerations....you're trying to claim that there are no objective considerations regarding musical performance...that's silly....I'm not interested in your semantic arguments trying to claim that there's no such thing as objectivity in the matter.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> There is objective historical evidence that modern pianos did not exist during Bach's lifetime. So, according to your logic any recording of Bach played on a piano is objectively wrong and bad.
> ...


Some do say exactly that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think Bach would have absolutely loved hearing his works played on modern piano. So much more you can do to express the harmonic language.

My problem with authenticity and correctness is:

1) Who decides what is correct

2) Substituting authenticity for actual art-making that is relevant and compelling to modern audiences


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> There is objective historical evidence that modern pianos did not exist during Bach's lifetime. So, according to your logic any recording of Bach played on a piano is objectively wrong and bad.


no, not at all, I never said that. that's no problem...If someone plays it on piano, fine. if he/she misses or plays wrong notes, plays incorrect rhythms, then there are objective mistakes, according to the score.....
that's all. It might be the greatest, most wonderful version you've ever heard...fine....but it has some errors, whether or not these are crucial to your enjoyment is up to you.


----------



## fbjim

Bach may have hated it, though I don't know how much that should matter to us. "Would Bach/Beethoven/Mahler have liked this performance" is an unknowable question, though that doesn't stop it getting brought up regarding stuff like interpretive choices, for instance.


----------



## 59540

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think Bach would have absolutely loved hearing his works played on modern piano. So much more you can do to express the harmonic language.
> 
> My problem with authenticity and correctness is:
> 
> 1) Who decides what is correct
> 
> 2) Substituting authenticity for actual art-making that is relevant and compelling to modern audiences


Well that's true, so much of it is speculative. I play Bach on a piano because I have a piano. (Well I do have a digital and via software I can emulate a harpsichord or clavichord, but still.) But I don't know if Bach would like the modern piano or not. He apparently loved different sonic textures but he was also apparently very picky.


----------



## fbjim

in any case, we play and listen to music to please our selves, not to please Bach's shade. (any time "what would the composer have liked" gets brought up regarding stuff like HIP or interpretive choices always raises my hackles for that reason)


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think Bach would have absolutely loved hearing his works played on modern piano. So much more you can do to express the harmonic language.
> 
> My problem with authenticity and correctness is:
> 
> 1) Who decides what is correct
> 
> 2) Substituting authenticity for actual art-making that is relevant and compelling to modern audiences


My issue is that there is a denial that any objective standard exists at all for musical performance. accuracy is an important feature of a performance, but certainly not the only one...


----------



## Aries

If a piece is played on a different instrument, you can just say it is a transcription if necessary, and it is no problem.

Tone length is also not critical, because actually played tone lengths can't be expressed in integer numbers, they have to vary anyway, and it is a question of tolerance.

But tone pitches are different because they can be expressed in integer values. There is no tolerance on most instruments. So if someone plays d flat note instead of d, it is just an mistake. But if a listener just likes the changed/wrong note, is it a good performance regarding this note? Its a difficult question because truthfulness can have its own value separated from the listening experience. Even if the mistake is liked it is unlikely that it will be reproduced.


----------



## fbjim

Heck148 said:


> My issue is that there is a denial that any objective standard exists at all for musical performance. accuracy is an important feature of a performance, but certainly not the only one...


A lot of standards exist for musical performance. Some of these, like accuracy, are objectively measureable, while some may be only indirectly measureable, or not measurable by objective means at all. Furthermore, how much importance we give these standards for any given performance is a matter of subjective taste.

I'm becoming more convinced you don't really disagree on the fundamentals with anyone and are getting hung up on terminology to an extent.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Heck148 said:


> so according to you, there is no objective standard to be applied regarding musical performance?? - anyone is free to do whatever they please, because it's all a matter of opinion?? - if a conductor and orchestra play the Eroica [key of Eb] in the key of A major, that's fine, that's not objectively wrong, because the correct key is all just a matter of human opinion?? nonsense.


I think this entire disagreement stems from the fact that you don't know what "objective" means. I explained that later in my post, which you also ignored.



Heck148 said:


> same with what is written in a score....it's a fact, it's there, the composer put it there.


No disagreement there.



Heck148 said:


> when judging musical performance, there are objective and subjective considerations....you're trying to claim that there are no objective considerations regarding musical performance...that's silly....I'm not interested in your semantic arguments trying to claim that there's no such thing as objectivity in the matter.


And now you're back to repeating what you've already said and ignoring what I've said. You can not be interested in "semantic arguments" all you want, but you're using objective in an incoherent way and it's fueling this disagreement. How about YOU try to define what you mean by objective?



Heck148 said:


> no, not at all, I never said that. that's no problem...If someone plays it on piano, fine. if he/she misses or plays wrong notes, plays incorrect rhythms, then there are objective mistakes, according to the score.....


So SOME composer's intentions matter but not others? How did you objectively determine which matter and which don't?


----------



## DaveM

Heck148 said:


> My issue is that there is a denial that any objective standard exists at all for musical performance. accuracy is an important feature of a performance, but certainly not the only one...


You've committed what is considered a sin by the same few posters who come out of the woodwork whenever the word 'objective' and 'objectivity' is applied to the arts in any way. While sometimes it may seem that the (figuratively) loudest voices are speaking for the majority, often they are not. Best to just not engage, because when it comes to the subject at hand, you happen to be right regardless of demeaning and unnecessary comments such as 'What's your problem?' and that you are using the word 'objective' incoherently.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Truth - whether we are talking about law, philosophy, religion, or art - exists only in the abstract. It is something we as human beings strive for. But no one is the ultimate authority, not even a dead composer. We may try, as we are doing in this thread, to reach consensus. But the idea that we can ever reach “correct” consensus is an illusion. All you can do as an individual is participate in the continuing dialogue and debate. You can never “know” the truth.


----------



## Heck148

fbjim said:


> A lot of standards exist for musical performance. Some of these, like accuracy, are objectively measureable, while some may be only indirectly measureable, or not measurable by objective means at all. Furthermore, how much importance we give these standards for any given performance is a matter of subjective taste..


Exactly, that's what I've been saying all along....


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You've committed what is considered a sin by the same few posters who come out of the woodwork whenever the word 'objective' and 'objectivity' is applied to the arts in any way. While sometimes it may seem that the (figuratively) loudest voices are speaking for the majority, often they are not. Best to just not engage, because when it comes to the subject at hand, you happen to be right regardless of demeaning and unnecessary comments such as 'What's your problem?'


Yes, it's always best policy to not engage with those who disagree with us and simply assume we're right. There's nothing problematic about that approach at all!


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> You've committed what is considered a sin by the same few posters who come out of the woodwork whenever the word 'objective' and 'objectivity' is applied to the arts in any way. While sometimes it may seem that the (figuratively) loudest voices are speaking for the majority, often they are not. Best to just not engage, because when it comes to the subject at hand, you happen to be right regardless of demeaning and unnecessary comments such as 'What's your problem?'


the vaunted "plug my ears and go 'la la la'" approach as practiced by children on playgrounds


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think this entire disagreement stems from the fact that you don't know what "objective" means. I explained that later in my post, which you also ignored.


the problem is that you deny that there is any objective standard whatever by which to judge musical performance....everything, according to you, is subjective....that's silly. wrong notes, missed notes, wrong rhythms, are all "subjective", matters of opinion....baloney.


----------



## fbjim

Heck148 said:


> Exactly, that's what I've been saying all along....


like i said, i am suspecting you actually agree with a lot of this and are getting hung up on terms to a large extent

i think a point of contention can occur when someone says that music can't be evaluated objectively. this is obviously untrue- there are many, many ways we can measure music objectively. we can count the number of notes, for instance - that's an objective measurement. we can express the music as a waveform and express it mathematically- that, too, is objective. obviously, these criteria are not used by anyone (well, anyone normal) evaluating music, but they are, nonetheless, objective ways to measure music. however, just because we *can* objectively evaluate music does not mean that we must *solely* do so, or even that we must do so at all.

it would *probably* be more accurate to say something along the lines that many of the ways listeners *do* evaluate music are subjective, but this being a message board and not a scholarly discussion, this sometimes gets truncated to the short form of music evaluation being a matter of taste.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Heck148 said:


> the problem is that you deny that there is any objective standard whatever by which to judge musical performance....everything, according to you, is subjective....that's silly. wrong notes, missed notes, wrong rhythms, are all "subjective", matters of opinion....baloney.


*Sigh* I confess I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. You've shown no interest in understanding or engaging with anything I've said and have insisted on repeating what you've already said as if I haven't addressed what you've said. If you want to continue this I'd recommend going back and reading through our exchanges and really trying to understand what I'm saying, perhaps ask for clarification if something is unclear, but as it stands this is not a productive use of our time.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> no, not at all, I never said that. that's no problem...If someone plays it on piano, fine. if he/she misses or plays wrong notes, plays incorrect rhythms, then there are objective mistakes, according to the score.....
> that's all. It might be the greatest, most wonderful version you've ever heard...fine....but it has some errors, whether or not these are crucial to your enjoyment is up to you.


If your standard is objective fact, then performing the entire WTC on a piano would be a huge historical inaccuracy and far more of a mistake than missing a note here and there. Which brings me to my other concern:

How many mistakes on a recording would mitigate all of the other positive attributes and interpretive magical moments so that it would constitute a "bad" recording?

I have never thought that mistakes effected a performance unless the work were so obscured that it could not come across - but the chances of that happening on a professionally done recording by an artist of stature is so rare as to be non-existent. There have been some great pianists who have been known to play with mistakes but generally their performances are deemed great.

Which is why I find this entire line of argument a red herring and non-sensical.


----------



## Heck148

DaveM said:


> You've committed what is considered a sin by the same few posters who come out of the woodwork whenever the word 'objective' and 'objectivity' is applied to the arts in any way. While sometimes it may seem that the (figuratively) loudest voices are speaking for the majority, often they are not. Best to just not engage, because when it comes to the subject at hand, you happen to be right regardless of demeaning and unnecessary comments such as 'What's your problem?' and that you are using the word 'objective' incoherently.


Yes, I don't know why objective v subjective generates so much turmoil...it's just not that complicated...


----------



## Heck148

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Sigh* I confess I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.


Good idea 



> You've shown no interest in understanding or engaging with anything I've said


I just don't accept your definition of _objective_ as it applies to musical evaluation.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> the vaunted "plug my ears and go 'la la la'" approach as practiced by children on playgrounds


No, the vaunted approach as taught by parents to children to ignore those who resort to suggesting they are the ones with a problem or are expressing themselves incoherently.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> If your standard is objective fact, then performing the entire WTC on a piano would be a huge historical inaccuracy


not at all....play it on an accordion, or a harmonica, for all I care...



> and far more of a mistake than missing a note here and there.


the two are totally unrelated.



> How many mistakes on a recording would mitigate all of the other positive attributes and interpretive magical moments so that it would constitute a "bad" recording?


?? All, or none....it's up to the individual listener to make that call.



> I have never thought that mistakes effected a performance unless the work were so obscured that it could not come across - but the chances of that happening on a professionally done recording by an artist of stature is so rare as to be non-existent.


There are mistakes on every orchestra recording I've ever heard - mostly minuscule, inconsequential...these matter very little to my overall enjoyment...
sometimes they are more noticeable....I was listening to Mravinsky/LenPO recording of Shostakovich Sym #11 - a live performance tape...the horns hit some obvious clams, wrong notes....so what?? yes, they are there, things happen in live performance...does it affect my judgement of the performance?? little or none - it's a great recording, really powerful, expressive and exciting....



> Which is why I find this entire line of argument a red herring and non-sensical.


my point is not that complicated - re Mravinsky recording - there are objective errors - missed notes in the horns. undeniable, they are there....
does that affect my subjective assessment and enjoyment of the performance?? No, not really, it's a great recording....it's wonderful.
but let's not pretend that objective matters are non-existent.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, it's always best policy to not engage with those who disagree with us and simply assume we're right. There's nothing problematic about that approach at all!


No it's because these "discussions" end up going nowhere other than 70 pages of posturing and invective.


fbjim said:


> in any case, we play and listen to music to please our selves, not to please Bach's shade. (any time "what would the composer have liked" gets brought up regarding stuff like HIP or interpretive choices always raises my hackles for that reason)


Well no. We do have to play in a way that honors Bach's memory at least, and not just to gratify our own whims. He was the one who produced it, not me.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> my point is not that complicated - re Mravinsky recording - there are objective errors - missed notes in the horns. undeniable, they are there....
> does that affect my subjective assessment and enjoyment of the performance?? No, not really, it's a great recording....it's wonderful.
> but *let's not pretend that objective matters are non-existent*.


Except you have a double standard when it comes to the objective matters you think are important, such as "the score" but not the instrument for which the music was written.

But you made my point for me - I have said all along that we decide which recordings are good, bad, mediocre based on our own taste. For you mistakes often don't matter (although you've spent considerable energy making "the score" the crux of your argument), but for me period instruments can influence whether I think a recording is good or not.


----------



## fbjim

I think that honoring the spirit of the work (either in a technical sense, or an emotional sense) and honoring what, theoretically, the composer might have thought, are two different things.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I think that honoring the spirit of the work (either in a technical sense, or an emotional sense) and honoring what, theoretically, the composer might have thought, are two different things.


In what way? I don't see the two as separable.


----------



## arpeggio

As a fellow bassoonist I agree with everything Heck148 is saying.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> In what way? I don't see the two as separable.


If I trace a specific emotional arc through a piece based on the music, and interpret it that way via my performance, then you could say I'm trying to honor the spirit of the piece.

Now imagine if somehow the composer came back from the grave and said "no, this is wrong, I don't like this" - it wouldn't matter because the goal is to bring out the emotion in the work, because even if it's subjective, we can at least be able to point to aspects of the work and justify the interpretation musically. Maybe you could say that this is an indirect way of honoring the composer's intentions, but I think it's still fundamentally based on musical aspects of the actual piece, rather than some sort of imaginary thought experiment where we bring Beethoven back from the dead and ask him questions.

If an interpretation sounds "wrong" to us, it's because the "argument" of the interpretation runs contrary to the content of the score, not because the composer theoretically would have agreed that it's wrong. We can at least point to the music and argue about the former - it's impossible to know the latter.

One could theoretically know nothing about Beethoven or how his personality was, but still be able to interpret his music via the score, and the conventions of how emotional affect is expressed in classical music, and one's own musical judgement.


----------



## 59540

> If I trace a specific emotional arc through a piece based on the music, and interpret it that way via my performance, then you could say I'm trying to honor the spirit of the piece.


But that emotional arc is the product of the composer. If I think that Barber's Adagio sounds better as Presto for Strings, that doesn't make my interpretation valid.



> Now imagine if somehow the composer came back from the grave and said "no, this is wrong, I don't like this"...


Then you would defer to the composer.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> Except you have a double standard when it comes to the objective matters you think are important, such as "the score" but not the instrument for which the music was written.


no, different issues....so you're saying it's impossible to play the score correctly, accurately, on an instrument not originally indicated?? that's silly....Bassoonists borrow from cello literature all the time, trombones from bassoon repertoire...that has NOTHING to do with playing wrong notes or rhythms.



> ...I have said all along that we decide which recordings are good, bad, mediocre based on our own taste.


That's the point I've been making all along. yes, the score is important....
I just reject the premise that there is NO OBJECTIVE standard by which to judge musical performance...that's silly.


----------



## fbjim

I think this is a very narrow difference, but the problem is that in most cases, we don't have the composer's word beyond the score, and even in cases where we do, it's not clear that their word is authoritative - many artists had the flaw of being a terrible judge of their own work, after all. 

If playing Adagio for Strings at a presto tempo is bad, we should be able to point out musicological reasons for this- from it being contrary to the tempo indication, or by pointing out that the tempo ruins the emotional effect of the piece. You don't have to imagine what Barber would have said to do that.

To put it another way, if a composer says one thing, but the score says something else, either explicitly, or musicologically, I'm going with the score.


----------



## arpeggio

*Lincolnshire Posey*

I have mentioned this before.

As a band junkie I have multiple recordings of many of the standard band works.

One of the great works for band is Percy Granger's _Lincolnshire Posey_. I have over a dozen recordings of the work and over You Tube I am familiar with many other performances.

In all my years I have only run into one bad performance.

I feel that his whole bad/good performance is a red herring. Considering the quality of the top tier performing groups, for every bad recording of a work there are dozens of good ones.

When I was younger, I use to buy into the idea of the definitive recording. When one is new to the world of classical music one may be concerned with securing great performances. As I have gotten older, I have found that this debate is bogus.

With the various streaming services one can sample duplicate recordings of the same work and decided which ones are right for their ears.

I will mention one thing that drives me nuts. I have heard a few recordings where I can hear the conductor grunting. That drives me crazy. I have yet to find a score which instructs when a conductor should grunt


----------



## Heck148

fbjim said:


> i literally just mentioned this but Furtwangler plays the coda of the 9th Symphony so quickly that the players can't take the tempo and go out of time, and people call it a brilliant stroke of ecstatic joy.


I know that recording...
the ending is flawed, the ensemble falls apart, it's a train wreck... there's nothing that Beethoven wrote in the score to indicate chaos, aleatoric, free cacaphony....
Objectively - it's a flaw....
Subjectively - people may find it thrilling, wonderful, psychedelic, whatever....fine...that's a subjective determination that every listener is totally free to make.
But don't try to tell me that the ensemble playing is accurate according to what Beethoven wrote.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> If playing Adagio for Strings at a presto tempo is bad, we should be able to point out musicological reasons for this- from it being contrary to the tempo indication, or by pointing out that the tempo ruins the emotional effect of the piece. You don't have to imagine what Barber would have said to do that.
> ...


There wouldn't be any "musicological reasons" other than that's contrary to what Barber wrote. You don't have to imagine what Barber would have said because he indicated the tempo. Now in Bach, he left that very often to the performer. But if I decide that the first prelude in WTC I should be played as sustained block chords instead of arpeggios, I really wouldn't have much justification.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> no, different issues....so you're saying it's impossible to play the score correctly, accurately, on an instrument not originally indicated?? that's silly....Bassoonists borrow from cello literature all the time, trombones from bassoon repertoire...that has NOTHING to do with playing wrong notes or rhythms.


The score is not the only objective fact concerning the WTC. The instrument the score was written for is also an objective fact. Of these two objective facts you choose to consider only one of them and ignore the other. That is a double standard.

Or, and this is my point, these kinds of "objective facts" make no difference, really, in how we perceive the value of a recording. They become moot if the performance is compelling enough.



> That's the point I've been making all along. yes, the score is important....
> I just reject the premise that there is NO OBJECTIVE standard by which to judge musical performance...that's silly.


What's silly is you making such a lot of noise with an abstract argument about the existence of objective facts, but really only some objective facts. You are fine with ignoring other objective facts. The way these facts are interpreted is a subjective process.


----------



## 59540

> The score is not the only objective fact concerning the WTC. The instrument the score was written for is also an objective fact.


Oooh, not so fast. We know it was for keyboard, but there's no indication as to *what* keyboard specifically. Plus we also know that Bach occasionally transcribed what was written for *this* instrument for *that* one.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Oooh, not so fast. We know it was for keyboard, but there's no indication as to *what* keyboard specifically. Plus we also know that Bach occasionally transcribed what was written for *this* instrument for *that* one.


We know it wasn't for the modern grand piano, which did not exist during Bach's lifetime. But I don't have a problem with Bach played on the piano. I do have a problem with people exerting a lot of energy and derailing a thread making specious arguments.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> We know it wasn't for the modern grand piano, which did not exist during Bach's lifetime. But I don't have a problem with Bach played on the piano. I do have a problem with people exerting a lot of energy and derailing a thread making specious arguments.


Don't look at me, I just got here. It's not entirely off-topic anyway. And "specious" is subjective. :lol:


----------



## bharbeke

An orchestra can be playing something that is objectively departing from what is written in the score. However, that only makes it a bad recording if the listener knows what is in the score and cares more about the accuracy than other measures of judging.

Here's another factor to consider. The exact same recording of something (classical, pop, country, or any other genre you care to name) can be perfect for one mood or moment and grating on a different day, let alone a different year of my life.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To be clear you're not referring to objective standards in any of your posts, you're referring to shared subjective standards as it relates to objective qualities. ....





Eva Yojimbo said:


> Absolutely there are objective elements in art, but there are absolutely not objective judgments of good and bad independent of subjective preferences. ....





Aries said:


> Yes, but it is not completely independent. If the person doesn't swallow it it will not save him. ....


I thank you both for your comments. It's encouraging to recognize that there are philosophical minds here at the Forum, folks who think about art in a serious and concerned way, who value art and seek its value and its importance to our culture.

One strand that has run through all of the philosophy courses I've attended and the philosophical works I've read or studied is that few _ideas_ have unanimous, unchallenged or unquestioned agreement. And that objective and subjective concepts are not so easily defined and/or categorized; that shifting human interests also shift philosophical constructs, ideas such as "value" and "objective v. subjective".

The more I learn about cosmology and quantum mechanics, the more complex and muddled do any sort of judgments about reality become. And I rather welcome this. I've often commented that I prefer questions that do not have definitive answers to those that do, that I prefer philosophy to math where the former provides little agreement while the latter generally provides a single, proof-demonstrable solution. I say "generally" in the previous sentence to allow that some of the more advanced practices in mathematics, such as certain branches of calculus, fractals, and quantum mechanics, tend to range into philosophical regions where intuition and irrationality (such as the concept of infinity) reign with some force. Yet, there is beauty to be had by the most rigid of disciplines, as well. One of the most profoundly beautiful concepts of reality, to me, is that when any of us ponders the familiar equation a2 + b2 = c2, we have in mind exactly the same idea that was in the mind of Pythagoras some 2000 years ago, an idea that will remain singular and constant for the next 2000 years. I see this as a "beauty" of the universe, which, of course, remains a subjective assessment on my part, though the concept itself is solidly objective, unless someone knows something of this theorem that eludes me.

It remains a pleasure to confront ideas which challenge and expand upon my own. That these pertain to art and music, areas of great joy and importance for me, simply improves upon the pleasure.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> There wouldn't be any "musicological reasons" other than that's contrary to what Barber wrote. You don't have to imagine what Barber would have said because he indicated the tempo. Now in Bach, he left that very often to the performer. But if I decide that the first prelude in WTC I should be played as sustained block chords instead of arpeggios, I really wouldn't have much justification.


You can certainly say that the score constitutes "what the composer said". If there's a difference, it's that some would advocate *only* considering the score and discounting things like anecdotes about what a composer thought about a certain soloist, random writings, inferences based on the composer's life or personality, etc.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...
> Let me try to simplify this for you. "Subjective" and "objective" represent two mutually exclusive and exhaustive metaphysical categories, the former related to things that only exist within human minds, and the latter related to properties of objects that exist independent of human minds. To determine which category a thing belongs to you have to ask whether that thing would exist without human minds to think about it. We assume that things we directly sense--the sun, trees, animals, etc.--exist regardless of whether we think about them or not. This is not true for things like artistic standards (or the value of money, or the rules of games, or morality, etc.) which we create and agree or disagree to in varying degrees.





Heck148 said:


> ...
> so according to you, there is no objective standard to be applied regarding musical performance?? - anyone is free to do whatever they please, because it's all a matter of opinion?? - if a conductor and orchestra play the Eroica [key of Eb] in the key of A major, that's fine, that's not objectively wrong, because the correct key is all just a matter of human opinion?? nonsense.
> 
> same with what is written in a score....it's a fact, it's there, the composer put it there.
> 
> when judging musical performance, there are objective and subjective considerations....you're trying to claim that there are no objective considerations regarding musical performance...that's silly....I'm not interested in your semantic arguments trying to claim that there's no such thing as objectivity in the matter.


Intriguing banter.

I wonder if we can agree on this: the musical score is a completely objective component of the art of music making.

When one holds the score in ones hand, opens it, flips the pages, sees the key signature, the notes and rests, the meter and dynamics markings ..., is not one observing an objective thing about which there is no opinion possible? You will see the same things I see, including the key of E-flat on the score for Beethoven's Third Symphony.

What strikes me as remarkable is that the _creation_ of the score, the _process of composing_ is a highly subjective maneuver, and the interpretation of the score, the rendering into sound of the blueprint the score provides is equally highly subjective.

But if we can agree that the score as a construct is a completely objective thing, even a score that promotes aleatoric music or provides directions on how to proceed in an improvisation, then perhaps we have a starting point for better understanding this art form _music_ which we all apparently cherish.

(I have worked in the theatre where "the play's the thing", literally. I view the script as an object, totally objective in what it presents to the director, designers, and actors. But the objectivity ends on the page, because in order to render the script into a living and moving before us re-enactment, many subjective decisions must be made.

As a playwright I know that many subjective decisions have to be made in the writing of a script. But when I hand that script to a production crew, something I have done often enough, I am giving them a thing which looks the same to me (the same words, the same directions, the same written descriptions) as it does to them. But that objectivity ends at the page's surface, strangely enough. Because each individual who _reads_ the pages does so with a unique inner voice, a subjective conception that expands greatly with the continuance of production, the addition of actors, the addition of a guiding director, of a stage designer and lighting designer and costumer. It's both fascinating and frightening to see one's script rendered into a theatre piece. The playwright likely won't agree with every decision made by the production members. Yet, in another odd circumstance, the finished production, on an individual basis of day to day or night to night presentation, is _also_ an objective thing. Every audience member will see on the stage exactly the same thing: an actor wears a red coat, an actor moves Stage Left or Stage Right, a light brightens a bluish hue at a certain word spoken in a certain moment of a certain scene. Yet, once again, each and every audience member, looking at the object before him, is actually seeing a unique presentation, depending upon their own subjective experiences. Even a character name, an objective concept on the written script page, can take on different meanings for different viewers depending upon their personal experiences, biases concerning that name. The same to be said for costumes, setting features, blocking directions, lighting and sound use....

I'm sure this idea can be expanded to refer directly to musical works.)


----------



## Knorf

arpeggio said:


> I feel that his whole bad/good performance is a red herring. Considering the quality of the top tier performing groups, for every bad recording of a work there are dozens of good ones.


Thank you for writing this! I totally agree. And I'll take it ever further: I think the obsession of some with "best" or "greatest" recordings is worse than merely a being a red herring, I think it's actually destructive to music as an art form.

I came to Talk Classical to, well, first of all talk about classical music with other people who also really love it. But I also came to get ideas for new repertoire and new recordings to explore. The richness of options of valid interpretations, even (or perhaps especially) of very familiar repertory, is what amazes me about classical music: no matter how many times I've heard and played Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, there is still more for me learn about it. What an incredible gift!

As such, nothing for me in music is more useless than someone insisting over and over _ad infinitum_ that their own favorite recording of something is The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP], and spouting rubbish like "accept no substitutes." How deplorable such an attitude is! From certain people, you'd think no worthy music making has occurred since about 1980. That's just sad.

This is not to say one can't have favorites, nor that they shouldn't promote their favorites! I have favorites. We all have favorites. Favorite is not necessarily The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP]. Getting that confused is a problem.

The actual danger is revealed when, in the promotion of said favorites, alternatives are unfairly-and usually ignorantly-bashed, and the tastes of people who like them ridiculed, whether directly or by extension. This happens a lot, and I frankly hate it. Hurwitz is the worst example of what I'm talking about yet, among anyone I can think of in terms of living critics. He has this awful, capricious yet sadistic streak of mercilessly tearing into recording he thinks fall short; in the end, it's all about self aggrandizement for him.



> When I was younger, I use to buy into the idea of the definitive recording. When one is new to the world of classical music one may be concerned with securing great performances. As I have gotten older, I have found that this debate is bogus.


*And this is the real "dirty secret" of classical music: assuming a reasonably professionally-executed performance, the overwhelming majority of commercially-released recordings are really, really good, and almost all of them are worthy of being someone's favorite.*

One critic who really gets this is our own Merl. He shows the admirable qualities: 1) humility about his own tastes, 2) willingness to give something different an honest listen, evaluating it on its own merits rather than imposing something arbitrary, 3) willingness to value alternatives, 4) no need to denigrate the tastes (not even indirectly) of someone who has alternative preferences, and 5) the awareness that even among the innumerable recordings of major repertoire, most of them are really good and are perfectly recommendable.

From my own experience that parallels arpeggio's:

When I discovered Mahler's symphonies, it was Bernstein for me. That's it: Bernstein for Mahler. (We're talking here about the Columbia cycle.)

Despite having almost no comparative listening experience of any alternatives (not that there were all that many back then), I was sure Bernstein's were the best. Yet I did sample a few alternatives, and found that they didn't match up, because I "knew" they wouldn't going in. Walter? Not as good. Abbado? Not as good. Kubelík? Not as good. Karajan? Not as good. Solti? Don't make me laugh. Tennstedt? Not as good. Etc.

But then, I did actually start to notice that not all of the recordings in the Bernstein Columbia cycle were truly equally good. It helped that I started studying the scores. That NYPO Fifth is really pretty sloppy. The First is kind of wayward. Bernstein doesn't always observe Mahler's markings, and takes numerous liberties; I wondered, what would it sound like if you played just what Mahler wrote?

And I used to think based on the Bernstein cycle that I just wasn't keen on the Second or the Eighth. Just in case, I tried alternatives. Klemperer's Philharmonia Second: ok, that's pretty forking great. Solti's Eighth. Maybe I actually do like the Eighth? Hmm...

About the sloppy Bernstein Fifth: oh, I see Abbado has a CSO Fifth. And it's terrific! I also discovered Kubelík's wonderful BRSO Fifth. I listened the heck out of both of those, which I owned on cassette.

And then a friend of mine (who is now a pretty successful professional conductor) gave me the Sony remastered set of Walter's Mahler. Flat out, I discovered (actually: rediscovered or admitted to myself) that I liked Walter's First better than Bernstein. And that's another great Second! By then I knew I actually, definitely, liked the Second.

Of course Bernstein's Mahler cycle on Deutsche Grammophon had started to appear on CD. Some of them I liked less than the Columbia/Sony cycle, but some of them I found I liked more, especially the Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth! And the Sixth is pretty close (to this day, I can't decide which I like better, but I also I stopped trying.)

I realized that although I thought (and still think) the DG Vienna Fifth from Bernstein was outstanding, a huge improvement over the NYPO Fifth, it in no way displaced my love for Abbado's CSO Fifth nor Kubelík's BRSO Fifth. In fact, I loved all three.

You get the picture. I eventually realized a much more mature attitude didn't require finding, or owning, or insisting in any way that I had The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP] figured out. In fact, that attitude interfered with my now lifelong exploration of Mahler!

For a complete cycle, I don't even recommend Bernstein anymore, although I still treasure many individual performances of them, including the video cycle. That's mainly because there's as much about Bernstein as Mahler in them, and I typically will suggest a cycle that sticks closer to the scores. YMMV

But regardless of that, how glad I am for all the other Mahler cycles out there! Abbado, Boulez, Kubelík, Walter, Iván Fischer, Chailly, Haitink, etc., etc., not even counting "partial" cycles. And now I'm discovering from the big BR Klassik box what an extraordinarily great Mahlerian Maris Jansons was!

What would the value be, in sticking with "Bernstein For Mahler Forever", if it meant I missed out on all of that other amazing Mahler?

Bottom line: unacceptable.

And no, I don't care that some critics pan some of those Mahler recordings. For example, Jansons's BRSO Mahler Second is now one of my all-time favorites, one that gave me extraordinary moments of real frisson, with incredible detail but a very natural Mahler feeling, a recording I will certainly return to often. And I noticed that Hurwitz dismissed it. WTF, dude. It's awesome! Whatever. (Honestly, based on his description I don't think he really listened to it at all anyway, but that's just what he does.)

In short, fork such music critics. There's way too much total excrement and very little honesty in all too much music criticism.

Besides, no matter how much anyone insists to the contrary, there will be never, _ever_, be true general agreement on which recording is The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP], unless there is only one recording.

If it sounds good to you, it _is_ good. That's it. Be open to exploration. Be open to things that challenge your assumptions. That's my best advice, for what it's worth.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Heck148 said:


> same with what is written in a score....it's a fact, it's there, the composer put it there.


It's _perfectly fine_ for a performer to deviate from a score, even playing Beethoven in the wrong key.

However... they can't claim to be playing the score.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Getting back to the OP, I think the above discussion about seeking out "definitive" recordings when you are younger is very illuminating.

When I was young, I wanted to find one "perfect" recording for each of my favorite works. Perfect interpretation, perfect sound, and perfect playing. Everything was according to a standard.

When I got older, I saw recordings and performances differently. Unless you hypothetically have a premiere recording supervised by the composer, there is no such thing as a definitive recording. Every artist is doing a "cover" as it were of a work through THEIR lens. And the people claiming to authentically speak for the composer are sometimes the most individual of all.

From that standpoint, I don't value recordings according to a metric standard. I value recordings based on their positive impact. This is why I so vehemently disagree with the OP's supposition that it is possible to like a "bad" recording. I think that is rubbish by definition.

If I have no reaction to what is being played, if I am bored and unmoved, then that is my definition of a "bad" recording, no matter how perfectly it is played. And it may very well sound great to someone else.

As a performer you have to decide who you are, and then you have to realize that you will not appeal to everyone. That is true in both life and art. It is not possible to be "definitive" in any area.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Unless you hypothetically have a premiere recording supervised by the composer, there is no such thing as a definitive recording.


Speaking as a composer myself, I can definitely say: not even then.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Speaking as a composer myself, I can definitely say: not even then.


I know, many premiere recordings are in fact terrible. I was speaking in the abstract, and it only accentuates the point of how silly it is to compete over "authenticity."

Make music as best you can and hope that people like it.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Sigh* I confess I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. You've shown no interest in understanding or engaging with anything I've said and have insisted on repeating what you've already said as if I haven't addressed what you've said. If you want to continue this I'd recommend going back and reading through our exchanges and really trying to understand what I'm saying, perhaps ask for clarification if something is unclear, but as it stands this is not a productive use of our time.


You literally said the following.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Water freezing at a certain temperature is a matter of fact; what that temperature is depends upon what scale we're using, and those scales are subjective in that human minds invented them. In fact, temperature in general is a subjective concept as I explained above.


Temperature, in general, is subjective, yet the temperature that water freezes at is objective? If you want people to seriously understand something, it helps if that something makes sense.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Knorf said:


> Thank you for writing this! I totally agree. And I'll take it ever further: I think the obsession of some with "best" or "greatest" recordings is worse than merely a being a red herring, I think it's actually destructive to music as an art form.
> 
> ...
> 
> If it sounds good to you, it _is_ good. That's it. Be open to exploration. Be open to things that challenge your assumptions. That's my best advice, for what it's worth.


Nicely said. A worthwhile read.

I do take bit of an issue with a line in your closing paragraph. "If it sounds good to you, it _is_ good. That's it." Perhaps I simply misunderstand, but I wish you would have stated it this way, for what I would say is greater accuracy: "If it sounds good to you, it _sounds good to you_. That's it." If it's bad but sounds good to you, it sounds good to you but it is still bad. Say it's a clarinet note that is played on a gong. It's wrong. It's bad. It's the gong, not the clarinet. But ... if it sounds good to you, it sounds good to you. By insisting that it is "good" defeats the force of your opening paragraph when you suggest "the obsession of some with 'best' or 'greatest' recordings" is a negative. A certain recording may sound like "the best" to someone, but it may not be very good at all according to the composer, for instance. Still, we can honestly contend that "if it sounds good to you, it sounds good to you."

Still, quite a read. The paragraph concerning Merl is stunning.

And your closing: "Be open to exploration. Be open to things that challenge your assumptions. That's my best advice, for what it's worth." It is worth quite a lot, I second.

Hope everyone here takes a look.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> The score is not the only objective fact concerning the WTC. The instrument the score was written for is also an objective fact.


not germane to the quality of the performance. One can produce a beautiful rendition on the accordion, completely accurate for notes and rhythm and beautifully expressive and well-phrased. if the accordionist plays wrong notes, then we have objective issues, not subjective. The two are not related....



> these kinds of "objective facts" make no difference, really, in how we perceive the value of a recording.


Wrong - to me, they may matter a great deal....that very fact renders your premise false...objective standards do count....I reject any premise that denies the existence of objective standards for performance.



> What's silly is you making such a lot of noi...


Nonsense. What is silly is you and others trying to deny that any objective standards exist for assessing musical performance. They are there. They exist. people use them.



> with an abstract argument about the existence of objective facts


nothing "abstract" about a printed score that one can read.

Drop it....objective standards exist. you will NEVER convince me [or others] that they don't exist....it is not "opinion" [subjective judgement] if someone plays an obvious wrong note. the correct note is NOT the result of collective human opinion - it's what the composer wrote - the composer!! not the entire population of Europe......


----------



## Heck148

bharbeke said:


> .....The exact same recording of something (classical, pop, country, or any other genre you care to name) can be perfect for one mood or moment and grating on a different day, let alone a different year of my life.


Right, that is a subjective judgement by the listener. It may be a perfectly accurate, well-executed performance, but the listener is not responsive to it at that time...that in no way makes it badly executed or inaccurate.


----------



## premont

Heck148 said:


> I know that recording...
> But don't try to tell me that the ensemble playing is accurate according to what Beethoven wrote.


But if we are to believe a poster here, accurate playing is not a prerequisite for great art, sometimes one can even get the impression that the person in question thinks that it prevents great art because it mooves the focus from the artistic expression to the technical issues.


----------



## Heck148

SONNET CLV said:


> I wonder if we can agree on this: the musical score is a completely objective component of the art of music making.
> 
> When one holds the score in ones hand, opens it, flips the pages, sees the key signature, the notes and rests, the meter and dynamics markings ..., is not one observing an objective thing about which there is no opinion possible? You will see the same things I see, including the key of E-flat on the score for Beethoven's Third Symphony..[--]...But if we can agree that the score as a construct is a completely objective thing, even a score that promotes aleatoric music or provides directions on how to proceed in an improvisation, then perhaps we have a starting point for better understanding this art form _music_ which we all apparently cherish.


Works for me. 

And yes, interpretation and performance introduce many subjective issues, which is fine....


----------



## Heck148

NoCoPilot said:


> It's _perfectly fine_ for a performer to deviate from a score, even playing Beethoven in the wrong key.
> However... they can't claim to be playing the score.


Exactly - they're playing a different piece, which is fine.....jazzers do it all the time.


----------



## Becca

Let's get something straight ... "the score" is not the be all and end all of the composer's intent, it is actually only an approximation which is subject to errors entering a lots of different points in the process between the composer writing out his thoughts and the final publication. And that's not to even touch the subject of the composer revising his ideas when he sees it in print or hears the work performed, assuming of course that the composer even had the opportunity to do either.


----------



## Knorf

After all, composers are only human, and make mistakes...


----------



## SONNET CLV

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...Water freezing at a certain temperature is a matter of fact; ....





Heck148 said:


> ...
> And human minds have determined that it is an objective standard - and it is human "opinion" that water freezes at 32 degrees F. According to you, one could claim that that water freezes at 50 degrees...and that is valid, even tho water exists as a liquid at that temperature....whatever you call it, water freezes at a certain temperature....you're saying that the freezing point of water is a matter of opinion?? oh, brother.........
> ....





BachIsBest said:


> You literally said the following.
> 
> Temperature, in general, is subjective, yet the temperature that water freezes at is objective? If you want people to seriously understand something, it helps if that something makes sense.


Of course, the freezing point of water depends upon pressure (and perhaps additional quantum factors) as well as temperature. It is a fact that water freezes at a certain temperature only when one adds to that a certain pressure. It is _not_ an incontrovertible fact that water freezes simply at the temperature of 32° F, or 0° C.

The degree of temperature _is_ an objective measure. The measurement tool may be subjective (there exist several standards of temperature measurement), but a specific level of heat or coldness is a precise thing. We know of no temperature existing below the theoretical temperature of absolute 0, which is zero on the Kelvin scale, equivalent to -273.15°C or -459.67°F. We don't yet know if there is a colder temperature at the quantum level of particle existence and reaction.

To keep this comment in a musical frame, I will note that I type while listening to Alun Hoddinott's Trio for Violin, Cello and Piano with James Barton (violin), George Isaac (cello), and Martin Jones (piano) on an Argo vinyl disc, ZRG 691.


----------



## fbjim

Heck148 said:


> not germane to the quality of the performance. One can produce a beautiful rendition on the accordion, completely accurate for notes and rhythm and beautifully expressive and well-phrased. if the accordionist plays wrong notes, then we have objective issues, not subjective. The two are not related....
> 
> Wrong - to me, they may matter a great deal....that very fact renders your premise false...object standards do count....I reject any premise that denies the existence of objective standards for performance.
> 
> Nonsense. What is silly is you and others trying to deny that any objective standards exist for assessing musical performance. They are there. They exist. people use them.


I am hesitant to continue this because people have explained this multiple times only for you to respond the same way every time, but to be clear:

1) Objective standards for performance exist
2) Subjective standards for performance exist
3) Many, many different standards, objective or otherwise, for evaluating a musical performance exist. These standards exist because of the social, historic and traditional conventions on classical music performance
4) Which standards any given listener uses to evaluate music, and how they choose to prioritize, or even ignore them, is entirely up to the listener.
5) A listener who chooses to disregard or de-prioritize objective standards of technical accuracy in favor of subjective, emotive standards is not disregarding the _existence_ of objective standards. They are simply deciding that those standards are not impactful, or important to their enjoyment, and it is senseless to insist that they acknowledge that those flaws exist.


----------



## Heck148

premont said:


> But if we are to believe a poster here, accurate playing is not a prerequisite for great art, sometimes one can even get the impression that the person in question thinks that it prevents great art because it mooves the focus from the artistic expression to the technical issues.


You're right....and each individual is free to believe that if they so choose...my issue is that some try to deny that there is any basis for objective criticism...so for these individuals you've cited, technical issues not only don't count, they don't even _exist_, for anyone!!


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> Let's get something straight ... "the score" is not the be all and end all of the composer's intent, it is actually only an approximation which is subject to errors entering a lots of different points in the process between the composer writing out his thoughts and the final publication. And that's not to even touch the subject of the composer revising his ideas when he sees it in print or hears the work performed, assuming of course that the composer even had the opportunity to do either.


right, composers revise their works all the time...they change their minds, add, subtract...not a problem.


----------



## Heck148

fbjim said:


> 1) Objective standards for performance exist
> 2) Subjective standards for performance exist
> 3) Many, many different standards, objective or otherwise, for evaluating a musical performance exist. These standards exist because of the social, historic and traditional conventions on classical music performance
> 4) Which standards any given listener uses to evaluate music, and how they choose to prioritize, or even ignore them, is entirely up to the listener.


Absolutely, I've never said anything else. I agree.



> 5) A listener who chooses to disregard or de-prioritize objective standards of technical accuracy in favor of subjective, emotive standards is not disregarding the _existence_ of objective standards.


not quite true...



> They are simply deciding that those standards are not impactful, or important to their enjoyment


fine, no problem at all.



> and it is senseless to insist that they acknowledge that those flaws exist.


disregarding them is fine....to assert that they don't exist is silly.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Becca said:


> Let's get something straight ... "the score" is not the be all and end all of the composer's intent, it is actually only an approximation which is subject to errors entering a lots of different points in the process between the composer writing out his thoughts and the final publication. And that's not to even touch the subject of the composer revising his ideas when he sees it in print or hears the work performed, assuming of course that the composer even had the opportunity to do either.


Your post touches upon one of the great ironies of musical art. The score exists in a pure, unadulterated form; it is _music_, yet, it is not quite "music". If it seems there is a contradiction here between what I've termed _music_ (italicized) and "music" (quoted), then you are indeed observant. But such is the case.

Only when the score is subverted, its authoritative composed perfection undermined by the addition of human interference, can its _music_ become "music", fully realized and capable of being processed in its proper medium. It's all rather sticky and complex, if you ask me.

And, of course, the composer him- or herself must be in agreement with this subversion of the created material. If the old expression "too many cooks..." proves true, imagine what it's like to be a composer with a score handed over to a musical group for subversion, which you may read as performance.

"Music" is a subversive art shaped by countless levels of subjectivity. _Music_ is pure, objective. Which one do we prefer?


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> right, composers revise their works all the time...they change their minds, add, subtract...not a problem.


And that misses one of my key points, that errors creep into scores at many points, the copyists, print setting, etc., etc., so the fact that you can see something in the score doesn't mean that the composer put it there. And how many cases are there where there are differences between the full score and the part scores?


----------



## 59540

Becca said:


> Let's get something straight ... "the score" is not the be all and end all of the composer's intent...


Unless they've disavowed or expounded on that score elsewhere, it's the only "be all and end all" we have to go on.


Knorf said:


> After all, composers are only human, and make mistakes...


Who's judging?


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> And that misses one of my key points, that errors creep into scores at many points, the copyists, print setting, etc., etc., so the fact that you can see something in the score doesn't mean that the composer put it there. And how many cases are there where there are differences between the full score and the part scores?


parts have errors in them all the time....hopefully, there is at least one score that contains the most accurate information possible...the conductor or the chamber group will have to compare parts and decide what to do as a group.


----------



## arpeggio

I find this thread to be interesting.

Unfortunantly I do not understand what most members are trying to say. I am not the brightest bulb here


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> I find this thread to be interesting.
> 
> Unfortunantly I do not understand what most members are trying to say. I am not the brightest bulb here


I think it's getting back to the objective-subjective dog chasing its tail.


----------



## SONNET CLV

NoCoPilot said:


> It's _perfectly fine_ for a performer to deviate from a score, even playing Beethoven in the wrong key.
> 
> However... they can't claim to be playing the score.





Heck148 said:


> Exactly - they're playing a different piece, which is fine.....jazzers do it all the time.


This issue seems more complex than you two relate it.

If one plays Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" in the key of C-minor rather than the proposed C#-minor, is this _really_ not "playing the score" or "playing a different piece." If we all recognize the work being played in C minor as "the 'Moonlight Sonata'", are we deceived?

If my turntable is a millisecond off accurate speed of 33 1/3 rpm's, does that mean that I haven't heard what I was playing by way of the records?

The first pressings of Miles Davis's classic album "Kind of Blue" were produced with a tape-speed error that changed the pitch of the work by a quarter-tone or so. This is the way everyone first encountered the work. The speed error was not corrected until recent years. I have copies of the original and the corrected in my collection. Is only one of these _Kind of Blue_? I don't believe that even Miles Davis complained that those initial releases were not his album.

When a jazz musician (say a trumpeter, or a pianist, or a sax player) improvises on David Raksin's "Laura" and we recognize the tune as "Laura" and the album cover lists the song in the track list as "Laura", are you saying we are not hearing "Laura", a tune Raksin composed for a film score, with violins and other instruments of a Hollywood sound-stage orchestra?

If one pianist plays a page of Liszt's B minor Sonata in the span of 31 second and another pianist plays the same page in the span of 35 seconds, are you saying that one of these (or both of these) is not the Liszt B minor Sonata if Liszt himself played the page in a span of 33 seconds?

Where does such comparison begin and end?

If Schubert wrote his _Winterreise_ in a certain key for the tenor voice, but then made a second score of the same piece in a different key more fitted to a bass voice, or a soprano voice, are we saying it is a different piece? It has the same name. It has the same note sequences by step. It has the same words.

In fact, _Winterreise_ has been performed in a number of keys for a number of different voices. Nobody ever told me it wasn't the Winterreise.

In what may be an apocryphal story, Beethoven is said to have once found the concert hall piano out of tune by a half step and had to correct that by playing his Concerto a half step differently on the piano to match the orchestra, which was in the proper key. Was Beethoven here playing his score, or not? Can he claim to be playing the score?

In one of John Cage's aleatory scores, where the performer is allowed (or even asked to) make selections and deviations and put in additions or take out subtractions to suit his/her needs, is it even possible to "play the score"? If so, does that mean the score itself doesn't exist? How _does_ one play an aleatoric score, where performer decisions are made on the spot in improvisatory fashion?

Since every performance from a score reading is an interpretation, filled with choices of all sorts, does anyone ever "play the score".

I'm confused. Can anyone clarify, please. I want to get back to my music, but I want to know what I'm listening to as well.


----------



## fbjim

SONNET CLV said:


> Your post touches upon one of the great ironies of musical art. The score exists in a pure, unadulterated form; it is _music_, yet, it is not quite "music". If it seems there is a contradiction here between what I've termed _music_ (italicized) and "music" (quoted), then you are indeed observant. But such is the case.
> 
> Only when the score is subverted, its authoritative composed perfection undermined by the addition of human interference, can its _music_ become "music", fully realized and capable of being processed in its proper medium. It's all rather sticky and complex, if you ask me.
> 
> And, of course, the composer him- or herself must be in agreement with this subversion of the created material. If the old expression "too many cooks..." proves true, imagine what it's like to be a composer with a score handed over to a musical group for subversion, which you may read as performance.
> 
> "Music" is a subversive art shaped by countless levels of subjectivity. _Music_ is pure, objective. Which one do we prefer?


I always like to think of musical performance as an interaction between composer, performer, and listener. You could also say that a musical score is an imperfect, or (to use a technical term) lossy way of communicating or recording the experience musical performance.

Think of how many aspects of performance have very little representation in a score - sure, we can find some composers with excessively detailed notes, but the fact that Bach or Beethoven scores say nothing about which timbre a keyboard instrument should have means there is a great deal of latitude and debate on which instruments are kosher.


----------



## SONNET CLV

arpeggio said:


> I find this thread to be interesting.
> 
> Unfortunantly I do not understand what most members are trying to say. *I am not the brightest bulb here*


But, you _are_ a bassoon player!

That must count for something.

And I admire the fact.


----------



## SONNET CLV

fbjim said:


> I always like to think of musical performance as an interaction between composer, performer, and listener. You could also say that a musical score is an imperfect, or (to use a technical term) lossy way of communicating or recording the experience musical performance.
> 
> Think of how many aspects of performance have very little representation in a score - sure, we can find some composers with excessively detailed notes, but the fact that Bach or Beethoven scores say nothing about which timbre a keyboard instrument should have means there is a great deal of latitude and debate on which instruments are kosher.


Of course.

I wrote a few plays. What exists on paper, my artistic creation, is not exactly the artform of "theatre" that an audience experiences in the theatre hall. The playwright and the composer are "primary" artists, but they rely upon their works being interpreted, changed, altered, messed with, for proper rendition. No version is the "correct" version, except the book or the score, which are less than complete.

This is an irony of art.


----------



## 59540

SONNET CLV said:


> If one plays Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" in the key of C-minor rather than the proposed C#-minor, is this really not "playing the score" or "playing a different piece." If we all recognize the work being played in C minor as "the 'Moonlight Sonata'", are we deceived?


Given differences in tuning conventions, playing it in C minor might not be all that inaccurate after all.


----------



## Merl

I can't read scores so that part of the equation is out for me. I have to rely on my ears only so I've always tried to listen to multiple recordings of one piece and find what I like best, over the years. That's probably been the inspiration for my reviews / blogs on here since I joined (and before that tbh). I'm constantly listening for new recordings or retrying ones I've neglected. In all my SQ reviews I rarely find a recording that I find unbearable but there have been plenty I haven't enjoyed but I'd rather focus on the positives and those recordings that I really enjoyed listening to and why I enjoyed them (btw, Knorf, that was a lovely thing to say about me a few pages ago and I feel flattered by those compliments :tiphat. Anyway, as I said earlier in the thread, we are so lucky as listeners to have streaming services. It's not like the old days where you paid yer money and took your chance with what you bought. Now you can listen, select and compare. You have choice. Use it. You may be surprised by what you love that no-one mentions and how many of those lazy 'essential' recording choices aren't nearly as special to you. Instead of saying "What SHOULD I like" shouldn't we be saying "What DO I like"?


----------



## 59540

Merl said:


> Anyway, as I said earlier in the thread, we are so lucky as listeners to have streaming services. It's not like the old days where you paid yer money and took your chance with what you bought.


I don't know, I kind of miss those days. Too much of a good thing.


----------



## Merl

dissident said:


> I don't know, I kind of miss those days. Too much of a good thing.


I don't miss them. I've been stuck with some right lemons over the years. Lol.


----------



## Knorf

Most, if not all, composers of the past would be bemused with the very modernist, literal approach to the score. And I daresay many of the present would as well, myself included. Music notation is inexact, and in fact I prefer it that way, to some extent. So many critical nuances of style and affect are not communicated, or at least are not precisely communicated. Take, for example, a Strauss, Jr. Waltz. The inimitable way the Vienna Philharmonic plays that music takes many liberties from a strict adherence to the score, especially with regard to rhythm. Are we then to conclude the Vienna Philharmonic plays Strauss inauthentically?

But I'll stick with a couple personal anecdotes.

I've been working with a professional saxophonist who just recorded a unaccompanied piece by me, for future release. He requested coaching from me in person, which is a process I really love. In playing it for me, he took a liberty: a very sudden and not at all indicated _ritenuto_, towards the end of the piece. I didn't write it. I didn't think of it. But I love it! I'm not going to amend the score, add in a marking to that effect, or anything like that. But I indeed gave him full permission. After all, as I told him, in the end he's going to be the one holding the saxophone in front of the microphones, or the audience, not me.

There's another piece of mine for percussion that a friend had been learning, and he had been talking about recording it. In the meantime, someone else, another friend, recorded it, and did a great job, really great, in fact. When I asked the previous friend where he was on recording the piece, he mentioned feeling intimidated by the other recording. And I get that, I totally do. But I had to reassure him: there's more than enough room for you to place your own personal stamp on this music! Hopefully he'll still record it.

Pierre Boulez, that arch-modernist, whose scores abound with notational detail and precise markings, had a few things to say about this. One concerned his Second Sonata for piano. I don't remember which pianist it was who was preparing the sonata for a recital; I want to say Ursula Oppens. Regardless, she had noticed a couple inconsistencies in notation and markings, and wrote to Boulez for clarification. His remark was something like, "those markings are only there for the witless; play it just as you wish!"

Also Boulez: at a conducting workshop in New York City, a student called him out on conducting a passage from Messiaen's _Chronochromie_ much slower than the metronome marking. Boulez's response, "composers' tempi are always wrong!"

There are innumerable stories like this. On the other hand, Beethoven for one lamented the numerous bad habits of performers. In particular I recall his writing about the laziness of going faster when the music gets louder, and slowing down when it gets softer, but isn't marked as such. One gets the impression he found the liberties taken by many of his contemporaries quite objectionable.

By all means, the score itself should be respected. But let's not take it _too_ literally, nor fail to recognize the inherent limitations in western music notation, and certainly let's not fail to respect and give all due credit to the necessary creativity of the performer.

It's really far more rare than not, that a composer's own performance of their own music is definitively The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP], even for Boulez!

ETA: Too many music reviewers are dishonest about their job; they make it all about their supposed expertise, puffing themselves up as self-aggrandizing arbiters of taste, instead of being a benevolent and flexible guide.


----------



## 59540

^ The Boulez anecdotes aside, composers beginning with Beethoven seem to have taken a good deal of care in trying to express their musical ideas on paper. Bach and other Baroque masters might well have been bemused at taking a score very literally, as demonstrated by the frequent lack of tempo indications etc -- but they worked in a different era in which improvisational skill combined with a professional sense of what's musically "in good taste" was prevalent. On the other hand of course there can be a slavish adherence to the score that can result in the note-perfect, not-one-clunker allowed, cookie-cutter "competition" mindset that we see today. Artur Schnabel probably wouldn't make the cut in that regard.


----------



## Triplets

I am pretty late to this thread. Just a few comments.
1) Most professional Musicians have reached a state of excellence so that there aren’t “bad” recordings out there. You may not like a style of interpretation of a given piece, but we don’t find the poor levels of playing that would dog some of the records put out by a label such as Vox in the fifties, or the occasional Naxos clunker when that label started up
2) I tend to be imprinted by recording experiences. I had played the Szell Mahler Fourth or the Juilliard Qt. Bartok so often before hearing alternatives that the newer ones always sound “wrong” to me. One has to listen through our prejudices with fresh ears and I am not always successful there.
3) Professional Critics can adversely impact us. I find nothing more dismaying than to read about a beloved recording being trashed by a reviewer in Gramophone or Fanfare. The latter magazine has gotten interesting in that they frequently assign the same recording to up to 5 reviewers simultaneously. Rarely is there a consensus and frequently there is 100% dissent. That experience told me that it was “ok” to have a completely different opinion than a reviewer, even if I tend to respect the reviewer


----------



## arpeggio

arpeggio said:


> I find this thread to be interesting.
> 
> Unfortunantly I do not understand what most members are trying to say. I am not the brightest bulb here


There is still a great deal I do understand.

I have problems assimilating the longer essays.

For me, it is easier to digest the shorter posts.


----------



## 59540

Triplets said:


> ...
> 3) Professional Critics can adversely impact us. I find nothing more dismaying than to read about a beloved recording being trashed by a reviewer in Gramophone or Fanfare. The latter magazine has gotten interesting in that they frequently assign the same recording to up to 5 reviewers simultaneously. Rarely is there a consensus and frequently there is 100% dissent. That experience told me that it was "ok" to have a completely different opinion than a reviewer, even if I tend to respect the reviewer


I have long preferred Richter, Rilling and Corboz to just about any HIP recording (with the possible exception of Suzuki), so I'm quite adept at ignoring the critics and the prevailing consensus.


----------



## KevinW

Lol, as the OP I haven't checked up all the posts under this thread yet, but obviously people on TC are sometimes more passionate in judging others' opinions than recordings themselves.


----------



## Malx

A simple little point. When you do find that nirvana recording of a work what do you do with all the alternative recordings you have that are now inferior - get rid of them? If so PM me I'm sure I could find many of them a new home 

Am I the only person who buys recordings because they_ are_ different, individual even idiosyncratic I really don't want another recording that is basically the same as those I already own.


----------



## premont

Malx said:


> Am I the only person who buys recordings because they_ are_ different, individual even idiosyncratic I really don't want another recording that is basically the same as what I already own.


Of course not. Variety is what makes different recordings interesting.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> No it's because these "discussions" end up going nowhere other than 70 pages of posturing and invective.


What do you qualify as "going somewhere" VS "going nowhere" and how do they differ from any other forms of disagreement on any other subject on the forum?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

arpeggio said:


> There is still a great deal I do understand.
> 
> I have problems assimilating the longer essays.
> 
> For me, it is easier to digest the shorter posts.


If there's anything specific you don't understand it's best just to ask for clarification. I admit my posts are indelibly colored by my years of reading/studying philosophy, and it's often very difficult to express concepts that some philosophers spend entire books explaining and expanding upon within the confines of a typical forum post.


----------



## mikeh375

Knorf said:


> Most, if not all, composers of the past would be bemused with the very modernist, literal approach to the score. And I daresay many of the present would as well, myself included. Music notation is inexact, and in fact I prefer it that way, to some extent. So many critical nuances of style and affect are not communicated, or at least are not precisely communicated. Take, for example, a Strauss, Jr. Waltz. The inimitable way the Vienna Philharmonic plays that music takes many liberties from a strict adherence to the score, especially with regard to rhythm. Are we then to conclude the Vienna Philharmonic plays Strauss inauthentically?
> 
> But I'll stick with a couple personal anecdotes.
> 
> I've been working with a professional saxophonist who just recorded a unaccompanied piece by me, for future release. He requested coaching from me in person, which is a process I really love. In playing it for me, he took a liberty: a very sudden and not at all indicated _ritenuto_, towards the end of the piece. I didn't write it. I didn't think of it. But I love it! I'm not going to amend the score, add in a marking to that effect, or anything like that. But I indeed gave him full permission. After all, as I told him, in the end he's going to be the one holding the saxophone in front of the microphones, or the audience, not me.
> 
> There's another piece of mine for percussion that a friend had been learning, and he had been talking about recording it. In the meantime, someone else, another friend, recorded it, and did a great job, really great, in fact. When I asked the previous friend where he was on recording the piece, he mentioned feeling intimidated by the other recording. And I get that, I totally do. But I had to reassure him: there's more than enough room for you to place your own personal stamp on this music! Hopefully he'll still record it.
> 
> Pierre Boulez, that arch-modernist, whose scores abound with notational detail and precise markings, had a few things to say about this. One concerned his Second Sonata for piano. I don't remember which pianist it was who was preparing the sonata for a recital; I want to say Ursula Oppens. Regardless, she had noticed a couple inconsistencies in notation and markings, and wrote to Boulez for clarification. His remark was something like, "those markings are only there for the witless; play it just as you wish!"
> 
> Also Boulez: at a conducting workshop in New York City, a student called him out on conducting a passage from Messiaen's _Chronochromie_ much slower than the metronome marking. Boulez's response, "composers' tempi are always wrong!"
> 
> There are innumerable stories like this. On the other hand, Beethoven for one lamented the numerous bad habits of performers. In particular I recall his writing about the laziness of going faster when the music gets louder, and slowing down when it gets softer, but isn't marked as such. One gets the impression he found the liberties taken by many of his contemporaries quite objectionable.
> 
> By all means, the score itself should be respected. But let's not take it _too_ literally, nor fail to recognize the inherent limitations in western music notation, and certainly let's not fail to respect and give all due credit to the necessary creativity of the performer.
> 
> It's really far more rare than not, that a composer's own performance of their own music is definitively The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP], even for Boulez!
> 
> ETA: Too many music reviewers are dishonest about their job; they make it all about their supposed expertise, puffing themselves up as self-aggrandizing arbiters of taste, instead of being a benevolent and flexible guide.


Following on from Knorf here, some may be surprised to know that composers are also expert in educated guesswork when it comes to certain types of complex scoring. Clearly if the composer is well versed in orchestration, the result will be meticulously calculated for as much faithful accuracy as possible, but sometimes the sound and impact of scores can surpass all expectations once musicians get involved. Good players tend to find expressive music where the composer may have thought there wasn't any.

The input from performers can be like a shot in the arm for a composer who has been mired in tiny details and maybe some doubt for perhaps months on end. Having experienced revelations like this, I'm a firm believer in the score being a starting point for expression rather than ensemble playing, which needs more rigour in interpretation and performance.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> You literally said the following.
> 
> Temperature, in general, is subjective, yet the temperature that water freezes at is objective? If you want people to seriously understand something, it helps if that something makes sense.


Sorry for the confusion, but it does make sense. There are subjective and objective components to many things in life. The word "sound" can refer to both the objective acoustic waves or the subjective auditory experience. In the case of temperature, the scale/numbers themselves are subjective--they were created by human minds and wouldn't exist without them. However, what temperature refers to--the average kinetic energy within a system--is an objective fact. The kinetic energy within a system exists whether human minds exist to think about it or not. This includes the fact that water will freeze when the kinetic energy of that system reaches a certain level that corresponds to a number on the temperature measuring device. In the post you quoted I was referring to these two different things.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

SONNET CLV said:


> I thank you both for your comments. It's encouraging to recognize that there are philosophical minds here at the Forum, folks who think about art in a serious and concerned way, who value art and seek its value and its importance to our culture.
> 
> One strand that has run through all of the philosophy courses I've attended and the philosophical works I've read or studied is that few _ideas_ have unanimous, unchallenged or unquestioned agreement. And that objective and subjective concepts are not so easily defined and/or categorized; that shifting human interests also shift philosophical constructs, ideas such as "value" and "objective v. subjective".


No problem, and, yes, that's a major reason why I do return to this forum. There aren't many places or many people to talk about these subjects with.

Of course there's plenty of disagreement in philosophy on just about every subject that hasn't been settled by science, and that includes this particular subject. My simple approach to the subjective/objective debate is to ask the question: "would X exist without human minds to think about it?" Answering that in part requires understanding how we know (or, at least, reasonably infer) what exists independently of our minds. We assume this about things we directly sense (the sun, eg) and about things we can measure (the kinetic energy of a system, aka "temperature"). Obviously many of the things we directly sense also cause subjective experiences, the way objective acoustic waves causes the subjective auditory experience of sound.

In my experience this is what most confuses people to the point they think the thing they experience is inherent in the object itself; either that or they create a subjective category, place the objective thing into the subjective category, and then think the category itself objective. This is what I think happens with concepts like "beauty" and "goodness," where we create a mental category for "beauty," and then place into it objects that elicit a certain subjective reaction in us, and then we confuse the subjective category for the objective thing that caused us to place it in the category.



SONNET CLV said:


> The more I learn about cosmology and quantum mechanics, the more complex and muddled do any sort of judgments about reality become. And I rather welcome this. I've often commented that I prefer questions that do not have definitive answers to those that do, that I prefer philosophy to math where the former provides little agreement while the latter generally provides a single, proof-demonstrable solution.


As for cosmology and quantum mechanics, I'd suggest learning from better teachers. Not that there aren't unresolved issues in both, but I don't think they're as complex as their reputation suggests. QM is rather simple when you get past its counter-intuitive nature and don't try to force our assumptions about reality onto what the math and experiments are telling us. I often think QM is the great modern testament to how even the great scientists can be lead astray by the inherent irrationality of human minds, but that's a whole other subject.

Obviously I enjoy philosophy, but I also feel fewer respected fields are full of more BS. In many respects, science was an antidote to the kind of armchair philosophy that attempted to figure out reality just by thinking about it without bothering to put any of its hypotheses to the test. While much philosophy can be fun to think about as a kind of hobby, unless you can reduce various disagreements down to some kind of empirical test (the way Turing did with the Turing Test on the controversial subjects of whether machines could think) it's very easy for philosophy to escape up its own backside and get completely lost. Mysteries can be fun and provocative, but I don't think we should value them to the extent we lose sight that the entire purpose of mysteries are to solve them, not just wallow in the mysteriousness of things. We have plenty of confusing art if you like that feeling, but I prefer a reality that we're able to understand and manipulate to our advantage. Nobody wants to back to living in times before we understood reality a fraction of what we do now.



SONNET CLV said:


> I wonder if we can agree on this: the musical score is a completely objective component of the art of music making.


If I wanted to be precise I'd say there are objective and subjective components to a score. The paper, the marks on the paper... those are all objective. What those marks mean are intersubjective, they've been determined and agreed upon and understood by all minds who've bothered to learn "the language of music," so to speak. When translated into sound those marks refer to objective features of sound: durations, pitches, etc.

Other than that quibble I agree with the bulk of what you're saying. Everyone who knows how to read music will understand how to translate the intersubjective meaning of these symbols into objective sounds that correspond to their intended meaning. That we agree on, though there are some ambiguities, like the relative nature of dynamics (it's not as if dynamic markings tell us to play at a certain volume!).



SONNET CLV said:


> It remains a pleasure to confront ideas which challenge and expand upon my own. That these pertain to art and music, areas of great joy and importance for me, simply improves upon the pleasure.


Now THIS we can completely agree on! Hear hear to confronting and considering ideas that challenge and expand on our own!


----------



## souio

What's the psychology behind all of these objective/subjective arguments that's been happening on TC lately?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

souio said:


> What's the psychology behind all of these objective/subjective arguments that's been happening on TC lately?


Evolutionary psychology is very sloppy and has produced tons of biases and irrationalities in humans who often don't bother to question assumptions and distinctions about many things, including what things belong in the subjective/objective categories. It was probably useful that our ancestors could conserve cognitive energy by treating strongly held subjective beliefs as if they were simply objective facts. These biases start to manifest in almost any arena where people discuss values and take for granted all of the assumptions that their various beliefs are built on, and it's hard not to focus on those things once people start insisting that there are objective standards and facts independent of those assumptions and subjective values.

I try not to start these discussions, but it's almost inevitable when browsing these threads that someone is, again, trying to assert there are objective standards, often as a means of claiming their particular tastes are objectively superior. In this particular thread it starts right from the OP asking how one recognizes bad and mediocre recordings, as if that doesn't entirely depend upon what (ultimately subjective, even if frequently intersubjective) standards we're using to judge such things.

While I can't speak for others as to why they bother with such discussions, personally I'm just very sick and tired of living in a world where so many people treat their subjective values as objective facts; and that's hardly limited to the realm of music. Politics is especially egregious in this respect, and in fact much worse because in political matters people use their values to selectively embrace or ignore facts that align or don't align with those values. That kind of confirmation/disconfirmation bias has, over the past couple of years, cost thousands of people their lives. Obviously, music is a far less serious matter, but the same psychology is behind both.

I think it would be immensely valuable if all people had the ability to distinguish the map from the territory (to use the classic Korzybski metaphor) if just so we could understand exactly what we're even debating about when these discussions happen. I also think it would be immensely preferable if people valued truth more than beliefs and values, in general, and weren't so self-deluded into thinking they do.


----------



## Becca

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...
> I also think it would be immensely preferable if people valued truth more than beliefs and values, in general, and weren't so self-deluded into thinking they do.


It would also be immensely preferable if more people understood the difference between truth, beliefs and values ... and that in art there are few truths.


----------



## SanAntone

Becca said:


> It would also be immensely preferable if more people understood the difference between truth, beliefs and values ... and that in art there are few truths.


For me the only relevant truth regarding music is my response to listening to it. And that changes on a daily basis, probably more often than that. Every time I make a list of my favorite composers it's different.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Never mind, I'm not going to divert discussion in this thread ...


----------



## 59540

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Never mind, I'm not going to divert discussion in this thread ...


Go for it. It's gone from "what's the difference between a good and bad recording" to screeds on evolutionary psychology. Par for the course.


----------



## arpeggio

As a fellow musician I think Heck148 has done an excellent job of trying to explain the more objective attributes of music.

I know I could not do a better job.

Our point of view comes from our performing experiences. His as a professional, mine as an amateur.


----------



## fbjim

Malx said:


> A simple little point. When you do find that nirvana recording of a work what do you do with all the alternative recordings you have that are now inferior - get rid of them? If so PM me I'm sure I could find many of them a new home
> 
> Am I the only person who buys recordings because they_ are_ different, individual even idiosyncratic I really don't want another recording that is basically the same as what I already own.


I don't know if this is heresy, but the BSO/Munch version of the Berlioz Requiem's _Sanctus_ movement with Leopold Simoneau as tenor is so good that I've literally shuffled it into other versions of the Berlioz Requiem (especially the Davis/Dresden version which is an amazing version that gets borderline ruined by a bad solo tenor). It's a pain because apart from the tenor I don't particularly like the Munch version of the Requiem!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

arpeggio said:


> As a fellow musician I think Heck148 has done an excellent job of trying to explain the more objective attributes of music.


As far as I know, nobody in this thread has denied the objective existence of things like a score, nor have they denied that things like notes, durations, etc. that a score refers to are objective. The disagreement came from him insisting that accuracy to that score is an objective standard. I tried to explain to him that while accuracy itself may be a matter of objectivity (ie, whether the performance is playing the same notes/durations as indicated in the score), our valuing that accuracy is subjective, even if it's a value most all of us share. My effort at making that distinction was met by a (rather rude and dismissive, IMO) "whatever," and a restatement of what he'd already said.

To quote myself in my first response to him:


> To be clear you're not referring to objective standards in any of your posts, you're referring to shared subjective standards as it relates to objective qualities. To take one example, most all listeners and creators of classical music care about "accuracy." That is a subjective standard as it doesn't exist without the minds of listeners/creators to think it. This subjective standard can be (somewhat) objectively judged by noting whether the objective sound matches the objective notes on a page.


Now I'm compelled to ask: is there anything in that distinction that you disagree with? And, if so, can you express your disagreement more eloquently than by saying "whatever?"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

KevinW said:


> So please back to my original question... Let's try to be as objective as possible. How to judge whether a performance is good or not?


Have we answered the OP's question?

I'll revert back to my answer of a few days ago:

The reality is that it is a subjective exercise of choice. You can be a relativist who finds every recording "interesting" but none more definitive than any other. You can be an objectivist who listens for fidelity to the written score. You can be a subjectivist who listens for fidelity to the spirit of the music. Or perhaps you can simply be someone who is interested in whatever the public consensus gravitates towards.

My first question to someone saying a recording was factually "incorrect" is, "Yes, but did it work?"


----------



## 59540

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have we answered the OP's question?
> 
> I'll revert back to my answer of a few days ago:
> 
> The reality is that it is a subjective exercise of choice. You can be a relativist who finds every recording "interesting" but none more definitive than any other. You can be an objectivist who listens for fidelity to the written score. You can be a subjectivist who listens for fidelity to the spirit of the music. Or perhaps you can simply be someone who is interested in whatever the public consensus gravitates towards.
> ...


Or you can be all three. I'm a believer in fidelity to the score, but I don't think I've ever heard a "definitive" recording of anything. And also again I don't see how the "spirit of the music" is that much at odds with what a composer has written.


----------



## arpeggio

I stand by everything Heck148 says. I do not have the eloquence to go beyond that.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Or you can be all three. I'm a believer in fidelity to the score, but I don't think I've ever heard a "definitive" recording of anything. And also again I don't see how the "spirit of the music" is that much at odds with what a composer has written.


I think the objections come from things like valuing anecdotes about what a composer may or may not have said about a certain recording or performer, or how much we should value the composer's opinion on interpretation outside of the score. Of course the score is "what the composer has written"- I think the question is if we should *only* consider the score when it comes to the so-called "spirit of the music".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

dissident said:


> Or you can be all three. I'm a believer in fidelity to the score, but I don't think I've ever heard a "definitive" recording of anything. And also again I don't see how the "spirit of the music" is that much at odds with what a composer has written.


I consider Furtwängler supreme in Beethoven and Barbirolli supreme in Mahler because both on the whole reached the heart of the music more deeply than the many other versions I have heard. But they were both accused of taking liberties that were at odds with the composers' intentions.

I could care less. You may disagree.


----------



## 59540

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I consider Furtwängler supreme in Beethoven and Barbirolli supreme in Mahler because both on the whole reached the heart of the music more deeply than the many other versions I have heard. But they were both accused of taking liberties that were at odds with the composers' intentions.
> 
> I could care less. You may disagree.


Yeah I don't know of any conductor/ensemble/soloist that I would call "supreme" with any repertoire. There are some that I admire more than others, maybe, but it's just another interpretation. I admire Tureck's playing more than Gould's, but I wouldn't call Tureck the "supreme" interpreter of Bach on the piano, and I wouldn't *really* call Gould "inferior". I wonder how much of this is due to the "cult" of the conductor and virtuoso that came to the fore in the 19th century.


----------



## fbjim

There's never been any consensus on what honoring the spirit of the music is, and that's wonderful because that disagreement is what gives interpretation its human character. We all look at these things differently in good faith - someone says "that's not what Beethoven wrote, but that's what he meant" in regards to a highly romantic interpretation, and someone else says "Beethoven doesn't need much of my help to be expressive" about a relatively uninflicted performance.

Regardless of your opinion on which approach is valid, I actually think both sides there are at least trying, in good faith, to bring out the spirit of the score to listeners.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> someone says "that's not what Beethoven wrote, but that's what he meant"


*That* though is presumptuous. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> *That* though is presumptuous. Where do you draw the line?


Yeah, the objection to that is that a highly interpretive performance isn't so much bringing out the spirit of the piece, but bringing out the interpreter's view of the piece.

Where one draws the line is really up to the listener. Some may consider it an act of love to the music, others would call it narcissism.


----------



## NoCoPilot

How many performances, where the composer himself conducts the orchestra, or the composer himself plays the piano (or violin or viola or trumpet), are considered "definitive"? I dare say I haven't heard of many.


----------



## fbjim

Britten has quite a few, especially his opera recordings with Peter Pears, I think. It took a while for some of them to have serious competition.


Funny enough, the first real competitor for Peter Grimes, the Colin Davis recording, was debated specifically for going against the composer's intentions for the main character's voice.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Yeah, the objection to that is that a highly interpretive performance isn't so much bringing out the spirit of the piece, but bringing out the interpreter's view of the piece. ...


Well when the music takes a back seat to the idiosyncracies of a performer, the line has been crossed imo. Of course great music will survive that just as Shakespeare will survive a ham actor or a Peter Sellars staging. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Getting back to the OP - obviously, the score is a blueprint - it is symbols on a page that need to be transposed into actual sounds by performers....

Recently I've heard 3 recordings that I've found lacking - I won't say they are "bad"....they do not exhibit faulty playing, wrong notes, poor intonation, etc...
my reservations are mainly subjective, as in "it's my opinion"...others may disagree completely and be completely justified in their position....these three just don't work for me - I've heard way better....if I were to conduct these works, I would make them sound differently:

Schubert Sym #9 - Sawallisch/VPO - way, way too slow, too logy....plods along, insufficient accenting [vital to this piece]....the whole thing just plods along in pedestrian stodginess, a never-ending cure for insomnia....even the great VPO can't salvage this one...they do their best, the orchestra sounds good, but it's just too slow and logy....soporific....with Toscanini, Reiner - we have life, energy, drive - forward propulsion - lots of accents, which give shape, and kick, to the repetitious themes....

Bruckner Sym #9 - Wand/NDR Orch - I only listened to the conclusion of mvt I, and the scherzo....the great conclusion of mvt I should be a tremendous climax, moving and thrilling in its drive to the finish....in this one, there was no forward momentum...more like a chunky, clunky struggle to move from note to note.....no flow between notes to build phrases...the video showed Wand conducting in a rather stiff, square 4bts/bar - "Kapellmeister" fashion.....quite choppy and rigid...the orchestra responds accordingly...when he reaches the final 18 measure section [m.550], the first trumpet needs to just soar over the top of the orchestra, with the horns and low brass driving forward with their 2ble-dotted quarter/16th figure...not happening.....too little projection...just not enough.
The scherzo is all right, not great...at measure 43 [Letter A] - the pickup eighth notes to the big orchestral tutti are mushy, not clearly articulated - we should hear PA-PA POM POM POM POM POM....instead we get more of "Fwaa-fwaa" fom fom fom.... mushy, imprecise...occurs repeatedly.....compared to others, really lacking - Mravinsky, Solti, who really pound it home...
again, some may love it, favor it this way....not for me.

Bruckner Sym #8 - Zander/BostonPO - mvt IV....again, the conducting creating problems.....Zander conducts rigidly in 2bts/bar - consistently!! never subdivides, even when slowing down, making ritardando....the beat is this stiff, crooked arm, fixed at the elbow, all motion in the shoulder that results in a very chunky, choppy, separated sound....again, connection between notes, long phrasing suffers....the failure to subdivide produces some messy cadences when Zander makes a ritardando, the orchestra seemingly has to guess where the subdivision is, and the results are something short of precise....The orchestra is quite good...BostonPO has good players, I know lots of them, have worked with many....with better conducting I've no doubt that they would sound much better in this work...

So, all of these are decently presented recordings - good sound, correct notes are played, correct chords, rhythms are not distorted, etc....some listeners may find them to be the greatest ever, absolutely ideal, perfect renditions...fine, to each his own...
but I find all of them deficient in one way or another, as described....none are "bad"....

the OP asks how to recognize "bad" or mediocre recordings....I hope I've shed some light on the original question. If I've thrown mud on someone's "sacred cow", I'm sorry...I call 'em as I hear 'em....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

dissident said:


> Yeah I don't know of any conductor/ensemble/soloist that I would call "supreme" with any repertoire. There are some that I admire more than others, maybe, but it's just another interpretation. I admire Tureck's playing more than Gould's, but I wouldn't call Tureck the "supreme" interpreter of Bach on the piano, and I wouldn't *really* call Gould "inferior". I wonder how much of this is due to the "cult" of the conductor and virtuoso that came to the fore in the 19th century.


Let me be clear. I own and enjoy dozens of recordings of my favorite works. No one recording can say it all. When I use terms like "supreme" and "essential" I am talking the ones you would take to the proverbial desert island or rescue in the proverbial fire.

My point with regard to the OP is that if you are labeling recordings "bad and mediocre" based on objective criteria, you are going down the wrong road in my book, because for me many of the greatest recordings are not objectively "correct." I don't believe in going down the road of artificial conformity to a "definitive" standard, which is an illusion.

.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I do not believe in musical relativism. I believe there is truth in art, such as OP stated in his last post.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> Let me be clear. I own and enjoy dozens of recordings of my favorite works. *No one recording can say it all.* When I use terms like "supreme" and "essential" I am talking the ones you would take to the proverbial desert island or rescue in the proverbial fire.
> 
> *My point with regard to the OP is that if you are labeling recordings "bad and mediocre" based on objective criteria, you are going down the wrong road in my book*, because for me many of the greatest recordings are not objectively "correct." I don't believe in going down the road of artificial conformity to a "definitive" standard, which is an illusion.


This is a good summary. It's basically where I'm at with it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> This is a good summary. It's basically where I'm at with it.


I went to see Tosca live last week, so I'm on a recording kick.

The Callas/De Sabata is IMO opinion the greatest opera recording of all time. No one performed the role like Callas, and no conductor was as dramatically persuasive as De Sabata.

That does NOT mean that other recordings don't have something valuable to say. Price lent a beautiful tone and more demure personality that has its merits. Other conductors were less dramatic than De Sabata but brought out more of the beauty in the music. And that's to say nothing of all the wonderful live performances I have attended.

No one interpretation can say it all. Furtwangler dove deeply into everything he conducted. But sometimes I enjoy hearing a Haitink or Wand perform the music in a less interventionist way.

At the end of the day, you have to decide who you are as a performer and what you individually bring to the table. I debate "against" Toscanini's objectivist ideology, but I can also tell you that I would travel across the country in a heartbeat to hear him live. Give me something compelling. That's the long and the short of it.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Heck148 said:


> obviously, the score is [just] a blueprint - it is symbols on a page
> 
> ....plods along, *insufficient accenting [vital to this piece]*...the whole thing just plods along in pedestrian stodginess, a never-ending cure for insomnia....
> 
> So, all of these are decently presented recordings - good sound, correct notes are played, correct chords, rhythms are not distorted, etc.......


Have you ever heard a MIDI file of almost any classical piece? Almost all of the ones I've heard have no accenting... no strategic variations in tempo... no "human feel." They may be note-perfect renditions of the score, but they're very robotic and yes somnambulist. That's why a good conductor is required to bring life to the notes on the page.


----------



## Heck148

NoCoPilot said:


> ....They may be note-perfect renditions of the score, but they're very robotic and yes somnambulist. That's why a good conductor is required to bring life to the notes on the page.


right, and good musicians in the orchestra....the 3 recordings I critiqued, all of them are decent recordings, none are "bad"....my criticisms are based upon my own preferences, my own opinions....in each case, the conductor, to me, is the source of the deficiency


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No one interpretation can say it all. Furtwangler dove deeply into everything he conducted. But sometimes I enjoy hearing a Haitink or Wand perform the music in a less interventionist way.


Now you're really disappointing me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

When I was 20, I made a cassette tape mix of several recordings strung together of the same passage from the Adagio of the Beethoven 9th - the second double-forte brass fanfare towards the end of the movement. I wanted to compare the passage of several recordings side-by-side to see who got it "right."

What I have learned in my older years is that judging individual "moments" on an objective standard, like a quasi Olympics, is an exercise in silliness. It is better to take a recording in one big gulp and judge it on its own merits. A particular passage here or there may not sound exactly the way you want it in the abstract, but within the context of the whole recording it works.

Haitink's 2010 BRSO Bruckner 5th has a coda to the finale that is underwhelming if heard in isolation, like that idiot David Hurwitz does in his review panning the recording. Simply put, you can argue that it is not "loud" enough.

But a real reviewer should listen to the entire recording from beginning to end. What I heard - and obviously others who have attested to the recordings' greatness - is an overwhelming cumulative effect at that coda based on all that came before it. This is what the music is supposed to do. That's the way Bruckner composed it, and Haitink knew this as a seasoned Brucknerian. He slowed it down just a bit at the climax in a way that satisfied me more than any other recording.

So you have to treat every performance as its own animal and decide what sort of impact and staying power it has. My a-ha moment came when I finally was able in my early 20s to hear Furtwangler's Bayreuth Beethoven 9th without any preconceptions on how the music should sound or go. That was a seminal moment for me.


----------



## Coach G

Brahmsianhorn said:


> When I was 20, I made a cassette tape mix of several recordings strung together of the same passage from the Adagio of the Beethoven 9th - the second double-forte brass fanfare towards the end of the movement. I wanted to compare the passage of several recordings side-by-side to see who got it "right."
> 
> What I have learned in my older years is that judging individual "moments" on an objective standard, like a quasi Olympics, is an exercise in silliness. It is better to take a recording in one big gulp and judge it on its own merits. A particular passage here or there may not sound exactly the way you want it in the abstract, but within the context of the whole recording it works.
> 
> Haitink's 2010 BRSO Bruckner 5th has a coda to the finale that is underwhelming if heard in isolation, like that idiot David Hurwitz does in his review panning the recording. Simply put, you can argue that it is not "loud" enough.
> 
> But a real reviewer should listen to the entire recording from beginning to end. What I heard - and obviously others who have attested to the recordings' greatness - is an overwhelming cumulative effect at that coda based on all that came before it. This is what the music is supposed to do. That's the way Bruckner composed it, and Haitink knew this as a seasoned Brucknerian. He slowed it down just a bit at the climax in a way that satisfied me more than any other recording.
> 
> So you have to treat every performance as its own animal and decide what sort of impact and staying power it has. My a-ha moment came when I finally was able in my early 20s to hear Furtwangler's Bayreuth Beethoven 9th without any preconceptions on how the music should sound or go. That was a seminal moment for me.


Has anyone tried to compare recordings by playing two or more at the same time?


----------



## arpeggio

Let us say that we determine that particular recording of 'whatever' is bad.

Yet there are still members who like it.

So what?

I would not be surprised that there are recordings of bad performances that I liked in spite of the flaws.

The bottom line is that if a person happens to like a bad recording or performance of Beethoven's _Ninth_, it really does not matter what other people think. My opinion in this matter and a dollar will buy you a bad cup of coffee at McDonalds.


----------



## SanAntone

arpeggio said:


> Let us say that we determine that particular recording of 'whatever' is bad.
> 
> Yet there are still members who like it.
> 
> So what?
> 
> I would not be surprised that there are recordings of bad performances that I liked in spite of the flaws.
> 
> The bottom line is that if a person happens to like a bad recording or performance of Beethoven's _Ninth_, it really does not matter what other people think. My opinion in this matter and a dollar will buy you a bad cup of coffee at McDonalds.


I can enjoy just about any recording; I hear through a lot of things people complain about in this thread and enjoy the music. I don't even think to myself if a recording is good, bad, or mediocre.


----------



## mikeh375

Having worked in recording studios all of my career and owning studio equipment, my taste naturally gravitates to high fidelity in recordings. I can understand other points of view, especially given the calibre of artists who recorded in the past but for me, not hearing the sumptuous sound of instruments beautifully placed and recorded in great ambiences is a disappointment and does detract from the music, which is always meant to be heard in a natural, pristine way, full quality.


----------



## arpeggio

My wife and I just celebrated our fifty-second wedding anniversary.

My wife played flute in high school so we both share in our appreciation of music. 

There is one thing I used to do when we attended a concert that she cured me of.

We would be listening to a piece of music at a concert and I would tense up a cringe. She would whisper to me, "What is wrong?"

I would tell her the bassoon player just botched that passage.

She would respond by telling me, "OK, you are probably the only one in the audience who noticed it so calm down."


----------



## arpeggio

The following may have some bearing on the discussion:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mikeh375 said:


> Having worked in recording studios all of my career and owning studio equipment, my taste naturally gravitates to high fidelity in recordings. I can understand other points of view, especially given the calibre of artists who recorded in the past but for me, not hearing the sumptuous sound of instruments beautifully placed and recorded in great ambiences is a disappointment and does detract from the music, which is always meant to be heard in a natural, pristine way, full quality.


I used to be like that. But then once I heard artistry at a higher level, I became more irritated at uninspired performance than poor sound. Now good sound is more like a bonus for me. I listen first to what the performers are doing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

arpeggio said:


> I would not be surprised that there are recordings of bad performances that I liked in spite of the flaws.


Then it's not a bad performance. There is more to performance than simply getting all the notes and rhythms rights. Correct intonation is the easy part.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ....There is more to performance than simply getting all the notes and rhythms rights....


Right...in my previous critique of 3 recent listening experiences I cite that principle.....in each case, the notes, rhythms, etc were correctly executed....musically, imo, there were deficiencies, mostly originating on the podium. they are not "bad" performances...I just don't like them very much...


----------



## mikeh375

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I used to be like that. But then once I heard artistry at a higher level, I became more irritated at uninspired performance than poor sound. Now good sound is more like a bonus for me. I listen first to what the performers are doing.


I don't honestly hear that much in the way of bad artistry from todays recording artists. In fact I'd go so far as to say that performance levels and resulting music making have never been higher. YMMV of course.


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> You're right....and each individual is free to believe that if they so choose...my issue is that some try to deny that there is any basis for objective criticism...so for these individuals you've cited, technical issues not only don't count, they don't even _exist_, for anyone!!


Well, technical issues do exist for me. For the instrument I've spent thousands of hours studying and playing, I can quickly gauge the technical level of pretty much anyone I hear, from brand new beginner to top professional. Since all players of an instrument face much the same technical challenges, and nobody masters them perfectly and absolutely, not even top professionals, there is really no place for anyone to hide, even with modern editing techniques for recordings.

With other instrumentalists, singers, orchestras, other ensembles, if one listens often and long enough, the inevitable technical issues emerge. The top pros are able to keep such problems to a remarkable minimum and consistently play with a high level of tonal quality and intonation and ensemble accuracy, among other things. But even there, there are hierarchies. For example, a top pro full time string quartet that has played hundreds or even thousands of recitals with the same personnel almost always sounds better than four superstar pro string players who get together for a single concert. The full time quartets play with a level of ensemble precision and unified musical purpose that four superstar soloists getting together once can almost never match.

Despite all of these undeniably objective technical criteria, in the end, the success of a musical performance on the highest level needs something else and additional, a "special sauce" if you will, that sets it apart and above the merely technically expert. It is not enough to find the most "technically perfect" performance, and in fact, the most technically perfect performance is not necessarily the best one.

I'm surprised any of that is controversial. The is a good reason classical music competitions are almost always limited to students and young professionals trying to establish themselves as potential star soloists. In the end, a competition, no matter how expert the jury, can only establish that a contestant has the technical potential to be a star. Stardom itself requires that "special sauce", and ultimately the only experts on that are the audiences.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mikeh375 said:


> I don't honestly hear that much in the way of bad artistry from todays recording artists. In fact I'd go so far as to say that performance levels and resulting music making have never been higher. YMMV of course.


If I were to generalize, I hear less-risk taking and identification with the music. It sounds more mechanical. But to each their own.


----------



## Becca

Some time ago I was talking with Daniel Harding about his dual career as conductor and airline pilot where he made an interesting comment about the issues of risk in the two fields. He said that as a pilot you work to identify and minimize all risk whereas in music you can take chances to communicate the music "and if you crash, it doesn't matter!"


----------



## Knorf

I thought of one other thing I like too add.

It's been odd to me that it's pretty obvious in music criticism, and indeed among many listeners, that there is a huge preference for dramatic exaggeration over all else, scenery chewing if you will. Subtlety, elegance, the dramatic power in understatement: these things are regrettably far less valued, sometimes even treated with suspicion, or condemned with epithets such as "emotionless" or "disengaged."

A squalling baby displays a lot of emotion. But is this more compelling an emotional display than an elderly, dignified man quietly weeping? I'd argue not. Yet you'd think from certain quarters that great music interpretation is all about squalling babies, yelling and stomping toddlers, and so on.

But subtlety and elegance are _not_ inherently signs of disengagement. There can be great expressive power in understatement. For some reason, this is understood pretty well in acting, but regrettably not so much in music.

Likewise, scenery chewing and exaggeration are in fact not signs of full emotional engagement. Sometimes, actually it's just the easy way. Yell a lot and pound on the podium, and some people are just going to be swept away. But it's an easy choice that in fact doesn't really require a lot of thoughtful insight or skill. Play louder, go faster. Big deal.

In any case, these are interpretative _choices_, not actual evidence in themselves of genuine emotional commitment or lack thereof.

Reviewers who base their reviews on just quick listening through highlights, skipping around tracks, are vastly more prone to overvaluing scene-chewing, in my opinion, or in the least are missing out on the great potential dramatic effectiveness of understatement.

And it really bugs me. Not that I don't enjoy masterful scenery chewing from time to time...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

^ Excellent post and points. I'd say it's definitely work-dependent. Thinking of operatic examples (just because my mind immediately went to that, perhaps because in opera it's easiest for singers to "chew the scenery"), I'm not sure it's possible to go "too big" in a work like Strauss's Elektra just because of the nature of what the libretto is. On the other hand, the operas of Mozart very much call for nuance, subtlety, and grace. The emotional moments stand-out already because of how they contrast with what's around them dramatically, so there's no need to overplay them. I also have in mind how much even a performer's stage presence can influence this. Many people have accused Hilary Hahn of being "all technique, no emotion," and I suspect that comes more from her stone-face demeanor when performing; but she's spoken of this saying she's simply lost in the thought and concentration of performing and what she's going to do next. Just listening to her I never got the impression of an emotionless robot, or that her precision detracted from her expression.


----------



## Becca

^^Yea verily, and I can think of a few conductors who are 'damned with faint praise' because of that, and yet I often find their interpretations to be more satisfying over time.


----------



## Becca

This quotation of Bertrand Russell that Michael Kennedy found in Sir John Barbirolli's papers would seem to be very apropos: "Nothing great is achieved without passion, but underneath the passion there should always be that large impersonal survey which sets limits to actions that our passions inspire."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Absolutely the ability to convey a wide range of emotion is a key to artistry. There is nothing artistic about being bombastic all the time just as there is nothing artistic about being 100% dry.

Listen to Caruso and Callas, arguably the two most celebrated opera singers on record. They can belt and emote, absolutely. But their true artistry is shown in how they rein in the sound to the most delicate pianissimo. 

Artistry is a very complex and challenging thing. The worst artists are the ones who try to create a simplistic one-size-fits-all “approach” to try to circumvent the artistic process. A gimmick, if you will. I feel much of modern HIP does this.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The question is what does the music call for?

If the music calls for bombast at certain points, then by all means I want to hear it. Just as I want to hear delicacy when the music calls for delicacy. It’s called contrast, which is a major part of what makes classical music so great. If you want to hear just serenity for a full hour, then pull out a massage music album.

When I hear orchestras play wimpy fortissimos, I’m reminded of Anna Russell’s humorous description of Lieder as repertoire for singers with “great artistry and no voice.”


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The question is what does the music call for?
> If the music calls for bombast at certain points, then by all means I want to hear it. Just as I want to hear delicacy when the music calls for delicacy. *It's called contrast, which is a major part of what makes classical music so great.* If you want to hear just serenity for a full hour, then pull out a massage music album.


Yes, of vital importance...contrast is essential...big dynamic range, different articulations, hard attacks, soft entrances, variations of tone color, etc...the performers should use a full palette of expressive techniques.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Sorry for the confusion, but it does make sense. There are subjective and objective components to many things in life. The word "sound" can refer to both the objective acoustic waves or the subjective auditory experience. In the case of temperature, the scale/numbers themselves are subjective--they were created by human minds and wouldn't exist without them. However, what temperature refers to--the average kinetic energy within a system--is an objective fact. The kinetic energy within a system exists whether human minds exist to think about it or not. This includes the fact that water will freeze when the kinetic energy of that system reaches a certain level that corresponds to a number on the temperature measuring device. In the post you quoted I was referring to these two different things.


I think there might have been a misunderstanding. Maybe when you said that temperature, in general, is subjective, what (I don't want to presume anything here) you wanted to say was that temperature scales, in general, are subjective? If so, then I think your post would make much more sense with this correction.

In general, though, I don't like the philosophical notions of objectivity and subjectivity referring to "not of the mind" and "of the mind" (although I accept that this is what the words mean in a philosophical context). I think it's largely based on 18th and 19th century understanding of how reality works and is potentially misleading. Much better, in my opinion, is to make the dichotomy "based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings" versus "not based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings". In this respect, I think it is reasonable to say that recordings can be great in a sense that is partially not based upon personal opinion, biases, and feelings.


----------



## Aries

32° F is just defined as the freezing point. It is confusing calling this definition subjective or objective. Who has a reason to disagree with other humans about what 32° F means? Nobody?

But there is much less agreement about the value and importance of accuracy in a musical performance. Everyone has his own individual rating of accuracy, but nobody has his own individual Fahrenheit scaling.


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> .....Much better, in my opinion, is to make the dichotomy "based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings" versus "not based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings".....


yes, exactly....that's how I see it.


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> ...But there is much less agreement about the value and importance of accuracy in a musical performance. Everyone has his own individual rating of accuracy, but nobody has his own individual Fahrenheit scaling.


there may be differences in evaluating the importance of accuracy, but not in the accuracy itself -

Clarinet II entered 1 beat too early, or
trumpet 3 played an Ab instead of an A natural....

these are not subject to opinion...they are errors, inaccuracies.

on the subjective side:

Clarinet II entered correctly but played too loud, with too harsh a sound, or
trumpet 3 played an A natural, but it was too soft, lacked accent..

These are subjective, assessed by individual opinion or judgement.

Whether or not the listener regards both/either of these as important or not is up to the individual...


----------



## Aries

Heck148 said:


> there may be differences in evaluating the importance of accuracy, but not in the accuracy itself -
> 
> Clarinet II entered 1 beat too early, or
> trumpet 3 played an Ab instead of an A natural....


First of all we need to separate accuracy and fidelity. Some want to play different notes intentionally, but they still want to do that accurately.

I kinda agree about accuracy but I remember playing around with some scorewriting software and I really disliked their perfect accuracy. The accuracy hurt the polyphonic impression and the understanding of melodic movement. Two notes played exactly at the same time are less distinguishable. And if you have two melodies at the same time like c-d-e and e-d-c you can understand the melodies better if one melody is a little bit too late or two early (otherwise you don't know if it is c-d-c and e-d-e instead). I remember that it sounded better playing all notes of one melodic line just something like a 1/32 note too late. For a real orchestra this is no problem I ever consciously noticed because there is no perfect accuracy anyway and the location of the instruments is different. But too much accuracy could maybe still be a problem and it should not be the ultimate goal.

Another question is what is accurate? How big is the difference between a dotted rhythm in legato and a dotted rhythm without legato? There is a pause between every note even if there is no pause in the score, but how long are these actual pauses? I think Haitink had rather long pauses. At least we know what the pitches are.


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> First of all we need to separate accuracy and fidelity. Some want to play different notes intentionally, but they still want to do that accurately.
> 
> I kinda agree about accuracy but I remember playing around with some scorewriting software and I really disliked their perfect accuracy. The accuracy hurt the polyphonic impression and the understanding of melodic movement. Two notes played exactly at the same time are less distinguishable. And if you have two melodies at the same time like c-d-e and e-d-c you can understand the melodies better if one melody is a little bit too late or two early (otherwise you don't know if it is c-d-c and e-d-e instead). I remember that it sounded better playing all notes of one melodic line just something like a 1/32 note too late. For a real orchestra this is no problem I ever consciously noticed because there is no perfect accuracy anyway and the location of the instruments is different. But too much accuracy could maybe still be a problem and it should not be the ultimate goal.
> 
> Another question is what is accurate? How big is the difference between a dotted rhythm in legato and a dotted rhythm without legato? There is a pause between every note even if there is no pause in the score, but how long are these actual pauses? I think Haitink had rather long pauses. At least we know what the pitches are.


Don't make it complicated....the score, the printed sheet music being played is the objective reality...the creative process used to produce that score is not germane to the issue...whether the composer made the best choice or not is irrelevant to the actual performance.
We have the score...wrong notes, wrong rhythms that violate the score are inaccurate, they are incorrect....
The clarinet entering on the wrong beat, wrong notes in the trumpet are not matters of opinion.

Dynamics, note lengths (in correct rhythm), articulations, tempo changes - accelerando, ritardando, pauses, fermati, etc are issues of interpretation, which are matters of opinion. There will certainly be differences of opinion among performers.

Music performance involves both objective and subjective considerations...the individual listener is free to give weight to each as they see fit.


----------



## premont

Heck148 said:


> Don't make it complicated....the score, the printed sheet music being played is the objective reality...the creative process used to produce that score is not germane to the issue...whether the composer made the best choice or not is irrelevant to the actual performance.
> We have the score...wrong notes, wrong rhythms that violate the score are inaccurate, they are incorrect....


This is a rather triangular point of wiev. Concerning baroque and earlier music there is no "correct rhythm" to read from the score. but we must look at the score like a kind of shorthand, because the notational system wasn't able to express the subtle details. To play all rhythms literally would be faulty, but unfortunately the performing traditions have to a large extent got lost, so how are we to perform notes inegales eg.? We only have our own sense to find out. And how much to deviate from the score will depend upon the individual performer.


----------



## Heck148

premont said:


> This is a rather triangular point of wiev. Concerning baroque and earlier music there is no "correct rhythm" to read from the score. but we must look at the score like a kind of shorthand, because the notational system wasn't able to express the subtle details.


Not a problem..of course musical notation is limited to a degree...just look at jazz notation...but we must assume that the performers are mutually agreed on how rhythms are to be played - straight v. Swung eighth notes, etc...still, essential features like pitches, meter, harmonies are indicated and, hopefully unanimously observed by the performers...there is still an objective standard to be observed and practiced.


----------



## Aries

Heck148 said:


> Don't make it complicated....the score, the printed sheet music being played is the objective reality...the creative process used to produce that score is not germane to the issue...whether the composer made the best choice or not is irrelevant to the actual performance.
> We have the score...wrong notes, wrong rhythms that violate the score are inaccurate, they are incorrect....
> The clarinet entering on the wrong beat, wrong notes in the trumpet are not matters of opinion.


There are cases where the printed sheet music is intentionally different to the original score of the composer, and there are cases where the conductor just instructs the musicians to play something different to the printed music for example let the timpani play the rhythm or repeat a bar. In this case there is objectively a deviation from the score, but it is a subjective opinion that this is bad. The conductor obviously thought that it is a good thing.


----------



## mbhaub

"Rhythm is NOT an opinion." One orchestra I play with made up t-shirts a few years ago and this was printed on them. Part of the Toscanini sensation was his unending demand on precision in rhythm and if you listen to some of the most exciting conductors out there, it is this precision that is always present: Szell, Cantelli, Muti, Markevitch. But then there are so many questions not unlike playing swing rhythms in jazz. And this is where a conductor's education and musical intelligence comes in. Not that long I was playing Liszt's Les Preludes; there's a measure where the horns have a dotted-eighth sixteenth against triplet eighths in the strings. The conductor insisted that the last note in the horns should come slightly after the 1/8th in the strings: he was reading it literally. This was wrong, and a study of Romantic era notation and performance practice would make it clear. But the "maestro" has no intellectual curiosity. I tried to get him to understand the style, but his ego wouldn't let him consider it. So, was that a bad performance? Was it wrong? Does anyone care? Despite what's printed on the page the issue of style and tradition have to be taken into consideration and blind objectivity must not be taken too seriously. If it were, imagine how lousy Strauss waltzes would sound.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> Not a problem..of course musical notation is limited to a degree...just look at jazz notation...but we must assume that the performers are mutually agreed on how rhythms are to be played - straight v. Swung eighth notes, etc...still, essential features like pitches, meter, harmonies are indicated and, hopefully unanimously observed by the performers...there is still an objective standard to be observed and practiced.


The score is the starting point, the floor not the ceiling of a performance or recording. Further, a recording is a frozen artifact of a performance of the work, subject to punching-in to correct mistakes, artificially adjusting the volume or balance of an ensemble and applying studio effects such as reverb or compression. So there are a number of factors beyond the score that affect the end result.

A work is realized through a dynamic process between the score and performer, as well as, the audience, although that aspect is mitigated with recordings unless they are live concerts.

IMO you are placing too much emphasis on the score and its status as an objective fact. For me _the music_ is in the performance which often does things with the score the composer did not indicate or possibly even conceive.


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> There are cases where the printed sheet music is intentionally different to the original score of the composer, and there are cases where the conductor just instructs the musicians to play something different to the printed music.


fine, not a problem....as long as all the performers are agreed upon what is to be played....a score may have an error - the conductor, leader addresses it, and everyone agrees to the correction...


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> The score is the starting point, the floor not the ceiling of a performance or recording. Further, a recording is a frozen artifact of a performance of the work, subject to punching-in to correct mistakes, artificially adjusting the volume or balance of an ensemble and applying studio effects such as reverb or compression. So there are a number of factors beyond the score that affect the end result.


of course, no problem...



> IMO you are placing too much emphasis on the score and its status as an objective fact.


Hardly...you said it yourself: *"The score is the starting point,"*
at some point there has to be a baseline, upon which they performers are agreed....it is the score....if a conductor, soloist wants to make alterations, fine, as long as everyone is observing the same ideas....



> For me _the music_ is in the performance which often does things with the score the composer did not indicate or possibly even conceive.


again, not a problem - interpretive issues are subjective....there may be great differences between performers...as long as the performers are all in agreement, there's no problem....
If most of the orchestra plays a Strauss waltz with the appropriate, agreed upon rhythm [early 2nd beat, etc] great, no problem....if the cellos decide to play it absolutely square, in conflict with the rest of the orchestra, then we have an objective problem....maybe it's the "opinion" of the cellists that it should be square - sorry, it's an error....

to deny that there is any objective standard at all is complete nonsense.


----------



## mikeh375

Unless mixing techniques, plug-ins, reverbs and compression are required to be purposely manipulated in a score, as might be the case with more recent music, use of mixing/production tools has no bearing whatsoever on the actual scores of earlier traditional repertoire. In those cases they are used as adjuncts or 'gloss' for the mix and mastering of audio, i.e. the recording and ambience. Editing with alternate takes is most likely done to make the performance more faithful to the score by correcting errors.


----------



## arpeggio

It is interesting that we have members who have performance experience.

Over the years they have been trying to communicate their experiences.

SanAntone, we realize that the score is just a foundation from which the performance comes from. That it is impossible for a composer to record every detail of the work. And that the final performance is based on common practice and subjective feelings.

I just thought of a common practice that goes against what is written on the page. The Viennese Waltz. Standard rhythm of a Viennese waltz is 3/4 time or om pah pah, om pah pah. Well, the Viennese Musicians do not play it straight. They rush the second beat and slightly delay the third beat. It is kind of cool to perform it that way.


----------



## Heck148

BachisBest said it very effectively:


> Originally Posted by BachIsBest View Post
> .....Much better, in my opinion, is to make the dichotomy "based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings" versus "not based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings".....


the score, the lead sheet, the printed part, is not "opinion".

if in the opinion of the conductor, soloist, performers the score needs alteration or modification, fine, as long as all of the performers are in agreement, "playing from the same page", there's no problem....

the listener, audience is free to agree or not agree....


----------



## arpeggio

It is interesting that we have members who have performance experience.

Over the years they have been trying to communicate these experiences.

I remember the heat I took from several members when I tried to communicate my experiences performing Schubert's _Unfinished_.

SanAntone, we realize that the score is just a foundation from which the performance comes from. That it is impossible for a composer to record every detail. That the final performance is based on common practice and subjective feelings.

I just thought of a common practice that goes against what is written on the page. The Viennese Waltz. Standard rhythm of a Viennese waltz is 3/4 time or om pah pah, om pah pah. Well, the Viennese Musicians do not play it straight. They rush the second beat and slightly delay the third beat. It is kind of cool to perform it that way.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> ... to deny that there is any objective standard at all is complete nonsense.


No one is denying the score is an objective standard, to keep harping this line of argument is also nonsense.

However, the score is not the music. One can confuse the map with the territory. Notation is the best tool a composer has to describe the music in his mind, but it has its limits. A far better method of transmission is one-to-one performance, master to student, who memorizes everything detail the master demonstrates for him. But for Classical music this is not practical, so we are stuck with scores.

Music is the sound created from human beings performing, sometimes from a score, sometimes not. And since human beings are not perfect there will be vagaries, mistakes, and things which might make no sense. All of this goes into a musical performance. I don't care for accuracy as an end in itself. I care about the musical performance, of which accuracy is one of the means to that end - but not necessarily the most important aspect. I've heard very compelling performances that had a lot of "mistakes". But in reality they weren't mistakes at all, they were merely departures from the written score.

I value the human element above all.


----------



## Heck148

arpeggio said:


> I just thought of a common practice that goes against what is written on the page. The Viennese Waltz. Standard rhythm of a Viennese waltz is 3/4 time or om pah pah, om pah pah. Well, the Viennese Musicians do not play it straight. They rush the second beat and slightly delay the third beat. It is kind of cool to perform it that way.


Right, it is accepted practice, agreed upon by performers...same thing with jazz notation - 
Bernstein - West Side Story - the song "Cool" is written with straight eighth notes - but nobody plays it that way - the eighth notes are "swung" - like a dotted eighth/sixteenth - the first eighth longer than the 2nd....if somebody plays it straight it sounds silly...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> I think there might have been a misunderstanding. Maybe when you said that temperature, in general, is subjective, what (I don't want to presume anything here) you wanted to say was that temperature scales, in general, are subjective? If so, then I think your post would make much more sense with this correction.
> 
> In general, though, I don't like the philosophical notions of objectivity and subjectivity referring to "not of the mind" and "of the mind" (although I accept that this is what the words mean in a philosophical context). I think it's largely based on 18th and 19th century understanding of how reality works and is potentially misleading. Much better, in my opinion, is to make the dichotomy "based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings" versus "not based on personal opinion, biases, and feelings". In this respect, I think it is reasonable to say that recordings can be great in a sense that is partially not based upon personal opinion, biases, and feelings.


Yes, your first paragraph is essentially correct on what I meant. Often with some terms it's confusing to distinguish between the subjective and objective components while still using the same word to refer to both.

This is more of a semantic issue, but I do think the "of the mind" and "not of the mind" distinction is an important one to make in general, and I'm not sure what you think is "misleading" about them. As for you distinction, it seems to me like we already have other words for that. "Opinion" Vs "Fact," or even "irrationality" Vs "rationality." I still think we need terms to refer to things outside and inside the mind, and given that objective/subjective have been used for that in philosophy for centuries, I don't know what other words you'd propose to take their place.

Even with the words you're using I don't think your final sentence works. To go back to the example used earlier in this thread, accuracy to what's on the score. While we can (to a large extent) judge whether a performance is accurate without much opinion, bias, or feelings, (OBF from now on) we cannot consider accuracy a measure of greatness without referring to OBF; even if they're OBF that we all share. Choosing the standards by which we judge greatness, in general, relies on OBF whether they're your individual OBF, those of others (people you consider authorities), or those of some larger socio-cultural community. There's no "fact" that can tell you that accuracy should be a measure of greatness ("no ought from is" as Hume famously said).


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> No one is denying the score is an objective standard,...


Thank you!! :tiphat:



> However, the score is not the music. One can confuse the map with the territory. Notation is the best tool a composer has to describe the music in his mind, but it has its limits. A far better method of transmission is one-to-one performance, master to student, who memorizes everything detail the master demonstrates for him. But for Classical music this is not practical, so we are stuck with scores.


OK. no problem.



> I don't care for accuracy as an end in itself. I care about the musical performance, of which accuracy is one of the means to that end - but not necessarily the most important aspect.


fine....objective mistakes do not necessarily disqualify a performance....technical perfection does not guarantee a moving, expressive musical performance....I think we are in agreement on this.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Aries said:


> 32° F is just defined as the freezing point. It is confusing calling this definition subjective or objective. Who has a reason to disagree with other humans about what 32° F means? Nobody?
> 
> But there is much less agreement about the value and importance of accuracy in a musical performance. Everyone has his own individual rating of accuracy, but nobody has his own individual Fahrenheit scaling.


It's not confusing if you're using the terms as I'm using and how they're used in philosophy. It's certainly true that when it comes to most values, like what we value in music, there is much less agreement than with something like temperature (or language); but fundamentally it works the same way. We're just much more inclined to debate over what those values should be in music in large part because those values are determined by how music affects us, while we don't have that same emotional investment in temperature.


----------



## arpeggio

Most non-classical genres are performer centrist mediums.

Classical is one of the rare composer centrist mediums.

In classical music the composer and the score is king.

When I am playing a Beethoven symphony, I do not have the freedom to play around with the notes as much as Willie or Reba or Lady Gaga.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

arpeggio said:


> Most non-classical genres are performer centrist mediums.
> 
> Classical is one of the rare composer centrist mediums.
> 
> In classical music the composer and the score is king.
> 
> When I am playing a Beethoven symphony, I do not have the freedom to play around with the notes as much as Willie or Reba or Lady Gaga.


Not sure I agree with your assessment that non-classical music are performer-centrist mediums. There are many popular music genres where the performers are also usually the "composers." Not to mention that plenty of people who love classical focus a lot, even primarily, on performers rather than composers. Maria Callas was every bit the popular star that, say, Stravinsky was (perhaps more so).

Of course you have the freedom when playing a Beethoven symphony to do whatever you want with it. The issue here is whether or not you'd be violating a lot of social conventions and inviting negative criticism on yourself for doing so. But I'd say that if you can play Beethoven and haven't tried your hand at "playing around with the notes" in private you're missing out on the joys of improvisational creativity. Further, I'd say you have exactly the same amount of freedom with Beethoven as with with those pop stars. Of course, people might be more open to you doing a "cover" in which you change much of the music from the latter, but, again, that's just social convention. There's no law that says you must play Beethoven as written on the score. This kind of reverence and rigidity is one thing that gives many people the view that classical music is nothing but a museum of long-dead artifacts that never changes, and I dare say most of the great composers of the past wouldn't recognize it as the music they themselves played.


----------



## arpeggio

Please look at what I stated.

I stated that most non-classical is performer centrist, not all.

And there are some non-classical that are composer centrist.

I did the best I could.

I am sorry that some members think my remarks are bogus.


----------



## Aries

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's not confusing if you're using the terms as I'm using and how they're used in philosophy. It's certainly true that when it comes to most values, like what we value in music, there is much less agreement than with something like temperature (or language); but fundamentally it works the same way. We're just much more inclined to debate over what those values should be in music in large part because those values are determined by how music affects us, while we don't have that same emotional investment in temperature.


The valuation of temperatures and accuracy in music is subjective. Scales for temperatures are defined and do not imply a valuation. Calling a definition subjective can be confusing if there is no practical disagreement about the definition between subjects. (I prefer Celsius, but why would I ever confuse the definitions of Celsius and Fahrenheit?) But such disagreement is possible in general. But subjects disagree much more about things like desirable temperatures itself and how to perform music. The scales on the other hand are not even worth mentioning. Philosophy can do that, but I think there are more interesting topics for philosophy.



arpeggio said:


> Most non-classical genres are performer centrist mediums.
> 
> Classical is one of the rare composer centrist mediums.
> 
> In classical music the composer and the score is king.
> 
> When I am playing a Beethoven symphony, I do not have the freedom to play around with the notes as much as Willie or Reba or Lady Gaga.


But classical music is also the genre with the highest number of different performers and recordings per work. In many other genres covers are something special or at least not the total standard. There is normally a "original" recording without general urge to have different recordings.


----------



## arpeggio

Aries said:


> But classical music is also the genre with the highest number of different performers and recordings per work. In many other genres covers are something special or at least not the total standard. There is normally a "original" recording without general urge to have different recordings.


I am aware of the structural and esthetic differences between classical and pop music.

I feel as if I have to explain my positions concerning music. I have done this before in other threads over the years.

I am not on a crusade to prove that everyone should embrace my esthetics.

I am not on a crusade to prove that my ears are better than anyone else.

I am not on a crusade to prove that classical music is superior to all forms of non-classical music.

I am not putting a gun to anyone's head dictating to them what they should and should not listen to.

I have tried to explain my experiences as an amateur classical musician. Anyone here has the right to accept or reject anything I have to say.


----------



## Aries

@arpeggio
Seems like you are on a crusade to prove on which crusades you are not. But you don't have to explain your position. You mentioned a thought. I also mentioned one, but it is not an attack against you. We also don't have to take every statement too serious here. It is just an internet forum. If only perfect thoughts would be mentioned we would not get very far.


----------



## arpeggio

People should ignore me if they think I am overly sensitive or they disagree on my philosophy of music.


----------



## Barbebleu

Sadly this thread looks like so many on this forum. I’ve got to the point that there is so much misunderstanding of other peoples points of view that I was going to say that probably the only thing that we can agree on is that we are all participating in a music forum. But I may be wrong!


----------



## 59540

Barbebleu said:


> Sadly this thread looks like so many on this forum. I've got to the point that there is so much misunderstanding of other peoples points of view that I was going to say that probably the only thing that we can agree on is that we are all participating in a music forum. But I may be wrong!


Darn it...and here I was thinking it's a psychology forum. No wait, neuroscience. No no, philosophy.
(edit) ...but music does involve those subjects, so here we are.


----------



## arpeggio

*To be or not to be.*

I really do not know what to say.

We were asked how to tell a bad or mediocre recording from a good one.

Some of us tried to give an answer.

Some did not like our answer.

I am a person who cannot enjoy a performance of classical music that has wrong notes and incorrect rhythms. I do not mind conflicting notes and rhythms in some forms of pop music. Some of us gave examples of exceptions. Mine was the Viennese Waltz.

I know of many people who think judicious wrong notes and rhythms may add to the ambience of a performance.

Who is right? I don't know. All I know is what works for me. It may not work for others. A person has the right to embrace whatever esthetics works for them.

I am really trying not to pass judgement on members whose esthetics are different than mine.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This is more of a semantic issue, but I do think the "of the mind" and "not of the mind" distinction is an important one to make in general, and I'm not sure what you think is "misleading" about them. As for you distinction, it seems to me like we already have other words for that. "Opinion" Vs "Fact," or even "irrationality" Vs "rationality." I still think we need terms to refer to things outside and inside the mind, and given that objective/subjective have been used for that in philosophy for centuries, I don't know what other words you'd propose to take their place.


One can run into a lot of trouble with semantic issues, so I thought it best to just define explicitly what I thought the meaningful dichotomy here was, rather than relying on generalities. Outside of a philosophical context, this is often how objective and subjective are used; think of a person saying that a judge interprets the law objectively; this is obviously impossible in the philosophical context as the law itself is a construct of the human mind, but what people mean is the judge is interpreting it independent of his own opinions, bias, and feelings.

I think the philosophical distinction of "of the mind" and "not of the mind" is problematic because of how we've slowly reinterpreted what scientific facts about reality really mean. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the scientific method was formed, virtually everyone involved viewed science as a process to establish truths about an independently existing reality. One removes all people, and the laws of science continue to run in the background like a movie that no one is watching.

In the 20th century, due largely to results in theoretical physics, it was realised this really wasn't what science was doing. Science was merely a process to predict future observations based on past observations. This realisation was spurred because some modern theories no longer had any reasonable explanation for what went on in between observations, so the interpretation of science as finding truths about an independently existing reality that runs like a movie in the background no longer made sense. I don't want to make any nonsensical postmodernist claims that this means "nothing can be known" or "everything just depends completely on perspective", but I do think this presents deep issues for developing a notion of "objective truth" where you take objective not to just mean independent of personal opinion and feelings, but to mean truly independent of the human mind.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Even with the words you're using I don't think your final sentence works. To go back to the example used earlier in this thread, accuracy to what's on the score. While we can (to a large extent) judge whether a performance is accurate without much opinion, bias, or feelings, (OBF from now on) we cannot consider accuracy a measure of greatness without referring to OBF; even if they're OBF that we all share. Choosing the standards by which we judge greatness, in general, relies on OBF whether they're your individual OBF, those of others (people you consider authorities), or those of some larger socio-cultural community. There's no "fact" that can tell you that accuracy should be a measure of greatness ("no ought from is" as Hume famously said).


Unfortunately, I have some disagreements with Hume . I do think there is a reasonable basis to call one recording greater than another. Take Caruso's famous recording of _Vesti la giubba_ (



). Then take a listen to these two recordings: 



; 



. The Italian operatic tradition is 100s of years old and over this time (and even before it) this tradition has developed standards on the use of legato, vocal freedom and expression, what the vibrato action should be, etc. Caruso's recording exemplifies these qualities; the other two do not. To say that when I say "the Caruso recording is better" I am merely expressing that I personally like the Caruso recording more is wrong, the Caruso recording is better, as it exists within the context of a larger tradition that has standards, and within these standards it is better.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Aries said:


> But classical music is also the genre with the highest number of different performers and recordings per work. In many other genres covers are something special or at least not the total standard. There is normally a "original" recording without general urge to have different recordings.


I don't think that this captures the salient difference. There are popular pieces with dozens or hundreds of "cover" versions (There are six volumes with versions of "La Paloma" on the Trikont label, so about 120+ and I think in the booklet they estimate that several thousand recordings of the piece exist). BUT they are still mostly performer-centric! Many people hardly know the name Yradier, the composer of La paloma, but they might associate the song with some legendary performer. It's hardly ever the point who realizes best La paloma or Stormy weather or Autumn leaves with the pieces thought of as something beyond the particular interpretation.

Whereas in classical, the evaluation, despite 100s of recordings of Beethoven' 5th symphony is centered around the interpretations as realizations of a piece beyond and before all these interpretations (despite needing an interpretation to become reality in sound as well as La paloma needs it).

So while for other popular pieces one might have only a few covers (it's still interesting and there is probably someone on youtube doing such stuff that quite a few songs have become more popular as a cover than the "original"), and some classical pieces 100 recordings, popular is still more performer-centric.


----------



## Aries

Kreisler jr said:


> Whereas in classical, the evaluation, despite 100s of recordings of Beethoven' 5th symphony is centered around the interpretations as realizations of a piece beyond and before all these interpretations.
> 
> So while for other popular pieces one might have only a few covers (it's still interesting and there is probably someone on youtube doing such stuff that quite a few songs have become more popular as a cover than the "original"), and some classical pieces 100 recordings, popular is still more performer-centric.


In classical music performers try to realize the composers vision, and the differences stem from different understandings of the composers vision and how music works in general.

In popular music the vision of the composer doesn't matter. Cover versions intentionally alienate pieces. I guess very similar cover versions are seen as rather obsolet or as copying.

Classical music does not change the aesthetics of a work. But there is more freedom in realizing the vision of a work, differences which stem from different understandings of music in general. A specific work is not intentionally alienated by performers but different performers apply different general understandings of music to a work.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I basically agree with that. Maybe I misunderstood what I quoted from you before and what I wrote was more intended as clarification of what I see as difference anyway.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

arpeggio said:


> Please look at what I stated.
> 
> I stated that most non-classical is performer centrist, not all.
> 
> And there are some non-classical that are composer centrist.
> 
> I did the best I could.
> 
> I am sorry that some members think my remarks are bogus.


First, I do want to reassure you I don't think your remarks are "bogus," I just consider this friendly discussion and debate, a mutual attempt to come to an understanding of what we're all talking about an how all of this works.

Second, fair enough regarding the "most, not all."


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> In classical music performers try to realize the composers vision, and the differences stem from different understandings of the composers vision and how music works in general.


I don't think this is necessarily the case.

I believe that many Classical performers use the score as a starting point and interpret it according to _their_ vision, not trying to channel the composer. Performers, especially the very talented ones, have very strong artistic identities and rightly feel that their voice is at least as important as that of the composer's. And often with old works we don't really know what the composer's intentions were, and scores are often lacking much detail in interpretative marks.

Further, I think this is how it should be, i.e. the performer's vision takes precedence with the score being the raw data that is formed into a musical artifact by the artist.

And finally, since this thread is about judging recordings, my decision on a recording is entirely based on the performance of a work, the performer is the important aspect, not the composer nor the composer's intentions.

I have dozens of recordings of Beethoven piano sonatas, what separates them is not the works, they are the same on every recording. What makes one recording more desirable than another is what the performer does with these works.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Aries said:


> The valuation of temperatures and accuracy in music is subjective. Scales for temperatures are defined and do not imply a valuation. Calling a definition subjective can be confusing if there is no practical disagreement about the definition between subjects. (I prefer Celsius, but why would I ever confuse the definitions of Celsius and Fahrenheit?) But such disagreement is possible in general. But subjects disagree much more about things like desirable temperatures itself and how to perform music. The scales on the other hand are not even worth mentioning. Philosophy can do that, but I think there are more interesting topics for philosophy.
> 
> But classical music is also the genre with the highest number of different performers and recordings per work. In many other genres covers are something special or at least not the total standard. There is normally a "original" recording without general urge to have different recordings.


Here's what I think you're missing: many objectivists try to argue for objectivity by pointing out that there is often mass agreement on things like the valuation of accuracy. The reason I mention things like language or temperature is precisely because those are areas where there is mass agreement over subjective meanings/definitions. I use them merely to demonstrate that mass agreement doesn't make those things objective. This is important because it also demonstrates that literally all we have to do is agree to change definitions to change what "temperature on the scale" water freezes at. This applies to music because if we all start valuing different things, this will change what music/performances we deem good or bad. It ultimately all boils down to subjective valuations, and agreement on those valuations doesn't make a thing objective. Disagreeing over what those valuations should be doesn't make music fundamentally different than language or temperature either.

We certainly agree on your second paragraph.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I don't think this is necessarily the case.
> 
> I believe that many Classical performers use the score as a starting point and interpret it according to _their_ vision, not trying to channel the composer. Performers, especially the very talented ones, have very strong artistic identities and rightly feel that their voice is at least as important as that of the composer's. And often with old works we don't really know what the composer's intentions were, and scores are often lacking much detail in interpretative marks.
> 
> Further, I think this is how it should be, i.e. the performer's vision takes precedence with the score being the raw data that is formed into a musical artifact by the artist.


Yes, and often it is the conductors (sometimes composers themselves) who depart furthest from the score who create the recordings that are most remembered and respected, rather than the technicians who observe the score with scrupulous precision. Now I know that is a big generalization, not always true, and that much depends on the particular music being performed.

But consider the case of Debussy, known for demanding scrupulous attention to his scores, yet also known as a mediocre conductor of his own music. Even more so Ravel, who called orchestra players "slaves", but reportedly could hardly conduct an orchestra himself at all. Ravel owned and thought highly of the recording of Daphnis et Chloe conducted by Philippe Gaubert (himself a composer very much in the tradition of Debussy and Ravel), which does not adhere especially strictly to the score.


----------



## premont

SanAntone said:


> I don't think this is necessarily the case.
> ...
> I have dozens of recordings of Beethoven piano sonatas, what separates them is not the works, they are the same on every recording. What makes one recording more desirable than another is what the performer does with these works.


There are two somewhat different kind of listeners, even if they sometimes may be united in the same person:

1) The listener who looks for the performer whom he thinks brings him nearest to the composer.

2) The listener for whom the great variety of performer-approaches is the primary attraction irrespective of the composers presumed intentions.

Both ways of listening may be equally valid.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> One can run into a lot of trouble with semantic issues, so I thought it best to just define explicitly what I thought the meaningful dichotomy here was, rather than relying on generalities. Outside of a philosophical context, this is often how objective and subjective are used; think of a person saying that a judge interprets the law objectively; this is obviously impossible in the philosophical context as the law itself is a construct of the human mind, but what people mean is the judge is interpreting it independent of his own opinions, bias, and feelings.


I absolutely understand and agree with this. Typically I will clarify how I'm using the terms if I sense that a disagreement is arising due to how we're using the terms in different ways. However, I've yet to hear a reasonable definition of "objectivity" that would make any of these debates about judging good/bad music/performances that would lead me to think that there's any validity to the objectivists' position. Typically the most I get on that front is that people are merely appealing to social standards that aren't their own, which is, at best, intersubjective. I also think that's a terrible way of looking at the issue because it prevents many from considering why those standards are "good" to begin with. This kind of thinking has social ramifications far greater than just music.



BachIsBest said:


> I think the philosophical distinction of "of the mind" and "not of the mind" is problematic because of how we've slowly reinterpreted what scientific facts about reality really mean. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the scientific method was formed, virtually everyone involved viewed science as a process to establish truths about an independently existing reality. One removes all people, and the laws of science continue to run in the background like a movie that no one is watching.
> 
> In the 20th century, due largely to results in theoretical physics, it was realised this really wasn't what science was doing. Science was merely a process to predict future observations based on past observations. This realisation was spurred because some modern theories no longer had any reasonable explanation for what went on in between observations, so the interpretation of science as finding truths about an independently existing reality that runs like a movie in the background no longer made sense. I don't want to make any nonsensical postmodernist claims that this means "nothing can be known" or "everything just depends completely on perspective", but I do think this presents deep issues for developing a notion of "objective truth" where you take objective not to just mean independent of personal opinion and feelings, but to mean truly independent of the human mind.


This would probably require its own separate discussion to get into, but I disagree strongly on one front, and less strongly on another. To your first issue that I disagree less-strongly with, I only use the "of the mind/not of the mind" distinction because most DO agree that there is an objective reality separate from our mind, so it makes for an easy short-hand. However, if one wants to quibble about some Kantian ding-an-sich stuff (that we don't have access to reality as-it-is without our senses and mental processes), then I can merely make the distinction about "things that we directly sense (or infer from direct senses) in which our thoughts have no power to change or alter their properties or our sensory experience of them" and "things that we don't directly sense in which our thoughts have the power to change or alter their properties." That distinction also works, but is much more convoluted and would likely require a rather lengthy post explaining it. If people DO agree in the "of the mind/not of the mind" distinction, it's convenient to just go with that.

For the part I strongly disagree with, theoretical physics absolutely has a reasonable explanation of what goes in between observations. The problem is/was that physicists didn't bother to apply the same physical laws they observed in systems to themselves, and many decided to prefer their intuitions about reality to what the measurements were telling them. The entire history of 20th century physics is a lesson in what happens when even our brightest minds find themselves confused by their own irrationality and inability to square their intuitions with their discoveries. Some of their confusion was understandable; almost a century later the continued confusion is almost an embarrassment. Sean Carroll has written a lot about this, but it's difficult to go into here without me providing a crash course of the history of quantum mechanics and the philosophy underlying the various interpretations and the limits of our abilities to test them.



BachIsBest said:


> Unfortunately, I have some disagreements with Hume . I do think there is a reasonable basis to call one recording greater than another. Take Caruso's famous recording of _Vesti la giubba_ (
> 
> 
> 
> ). Then take a listen to these two recordings:
> 
> 
> 
> ;
> 
> 
> 
> . The Italian operatic tradition is 100s of years old and over this time (and even before it) this tradition has developed standards on the use of legato, vocal freedom and expression, what the vibrato action should be, etc. Caruso's recording exemplifies these qualities; the other two do not. To say that when I say "the Caruso recording is better" I am merely expressing that I personally like the Caruso recording more is wrong, the Caruso recording is better, as it exists within the context of a larger tradition that has standards, and within these standards it is better.


The Caruso recording might be better according to the standards of the tradition you refer to, but those standards themselves have no basis in objective realty, in what "is;" they have their basis entirely in what the people who created those standards preferred and valued. This is what I mean when I say that it makes no sense to me to call such a thing objective when all you're doing is deferring to others' subjective standards, whether those standards were created by one person or many, whether they're ascribed to by one person or an entre culture... what difference does it make, and why are you under any obligation to accept those standards as your own?


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> I don't think this is necessarily the case.
> 
> I believe that many Classical performers use the score as a starting point and interpret it according to _their_ vision, not trying to channel the composer.


I agree. The difference compared to popular music is maybe the following: In classical music the performers try to do justice to the piece (not necessarily to the composer). The vision of the performance is subordinated to the piece and given the performer's understanding of music this results in a vision of the piece. In popular music the performance is more important than the composition and there may be often a vision of the performance in the first place and a piece is selected afterwards to be subordinated to the vision.

How can I realize a piece the best way?
vs.
Which piece can fit my style/my desired expression?


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I agree. The difference compared to popular music is maybe the following: In classical music the performers try to do justice to the piece (not necessarily to the composer). The vision of the performance is subordinated to the piece and given the performer's understanding of music this results in a vision of the piece. In popular music the performance is more important than the composition and there may be often a vision of the performance in the first place and a piece is selected afterwards to be subordinated to the vision.
> 
> How can I realize a piece the best way?
> vs.
> Which piece can fit my style/my desired expression?


I don't see any point in comparing Classical and Popular music in this regard, nor in any regard.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This would probably require its own separate discussion to get into, but I disagree strongly on one front, and less strongly on another. To your first issue that I disagree less-strongly with, I only use the "of the mind/not of the mind" distinction because most DO agree that there is an objective reality separate from our mind, so it makes for an easy short-hand. However, if one wants to quibble about some Kantian ding-an-sich stuff (that we don't have access to reality as-it-is without our senses and mental processes), then I can merely make the distinction about "things that we directly sense (or infer from direct senses) in which our thoughts have no power to change or alter their properties or our sensory experience of them" and "things that we don't directly sense in which our thoughts have the power to change or alter their properties." That distinction also works, but is much more convoluted and would likely require a rather lengthy post explaining it. If people DO agree in the "of the mind/not of the mind" distinction, it's convenient to just go with that.


Our thoughts do have the power to change or alter any sensory experience. Generally speaking, it is probably true that the only thing you can really know for certain is the existence of the self. Reasonable people will then accept that you can know more and that the shared experience of humans makes it eminently reasonable to say things like "the Earth is round independently of what any person thinks". I do argue that certain matters of the arts aren't based on subjective preferences (using the colloquial, not philosophical notion of subjectivity), but will admit if you define objective to mean "not of the mind" there is no evidence of musical standards existing outside the mind.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> For the part I strongly disagree with, theoretical physics absolutely has a reasonable explanation of what goes in between observations. The problem is/was that physicists didn't bother to apply the same physical laws they observed in systems to themselves, and many decided to prefer their intuitions about reality to what the measurements were telling them. The entire history of 20th century physics is a lesson in what happens when even our brightest minds find themselves confused by their own irrationality and inability to square their intuitions with their discoveries. Some of their confusion was understandable; almost a century later the continued confusion is almost an embarrassment. Sean Carroll has written a lot about this, but it's difficult to go into here without me providing a crash course of the history of quantum mechanics and the philosophy underlying the various interpretations and the limits of our abilities to test them.


Look, if you think the majority of leading experts in any field are obviously wrong because they are "confused by their own irrationality and inability to square their intuitions with their discoveries", then you need to think a little more. There are serious objections to the many-worlds interpretation from a purely scientific perspective, and just reading popular Sean Carroll books won't get you the full picture. This thread is obviously not about physics, so you can PM me if you wish to continue this discussion.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The Caruso recording might be better according to the standards of the tradition you refer to, but those standards themselves have no basis in objective realty, in what "is;" they have their basis entirely in what the people who created those standards preferred and valued. This is what I mean when I say that it makes no sense to me to call such a thing objective when all you're doing is deferring to others' subjective standards, whether those standards were created by one person or many, whether they're ascribed to by one person or an entre culture... what difference does it make, and why are you under any obligation to accept those standards as your own?


I don't wish to get into a debate about whether or not the standards of the Italian operatic tradition are just subjective (again, using the colloquial definition and not the "of the mind" definition of subjective) as I don't believe it is the topic of the thread. The recording was made within the Italian operatic tradition, so judging it by the standards of the Italian operatic tradition is not some wild idea based only on my personal feelings, but an educated evaluation that may reasonably be called objective (once again, I'm using objective in the colloquial sense that someone might call a judge's ruling objective).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Our thoughts do have the power to change or alter any sensory experience. Generally speaking, it is probably true that the only thing you can really know for certain is the existence of the self. Reasonable people will then accept that you can know more and that the shared experience of humans makes it eminently reasonable to say things like "the Earth is round independently of what any person thinks". I do argue that certain matters of the arts aren't based on subjective preferences (using the colloquial, not philosophical notion of subjectivity), but will admit if you define objective to mean "not of the mind" there is no evidence of musical standards existing outside the mind.


Our thoughts do not have the power to change the properties of objects, and if our thoughts change what is perceived we call that psychosis. If I'm standing in front of a wall, my thoughts about the wall--I can love it, hate it, be indifferent to it, etc.--shouldn't change my ability to see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, etc. The rest of this paragraph we agree on.



BachIsBest said:


> Look, if you think the majority of leading experts in any field are obviously wrong because they are "confused by their own irrationality and inability to square their intuitions with their discoveries", then you need to think a little more. There are serious objections to the many-worlds interpretation from a purely scientific perspective, and just reading popular Sean Carroll books won't get you the full picture. This thread is obviously not about physics, so you can PM me if you wish to continue this discussion.


I'm fine to take this discussion to PM in more depth, but I do want to say, as something relevant to the point of this example, that the only way you get to (paraphrased): "in 20th century theoretical physics it was established science wasn't establishing truths about an independent reality" is if you get into the innately philosophical interpretations of QM. There's nothing in the actual empirical experiments or math that says this.



BachIsBest said:


> I don't wish to get into a debate about whether or not the standards of the Italian operatic tradition are just subjective (again, using the colloquial definition and not the "of the mind" definition of subjective) as I don't believe it is the topic of the thread. The recording was made within the Italian operatic tradition, so judging it by the standards of the Italian operatic tradition is not some wild idea based only on my personal feelings, but an educated evaluation that may reasonably be called objective (once again, I'm using objective in the colloquial sense that someone might call a judge's ruling objective).


Except the entire point is precisely that those standards (and any standards you care to choose) are subjective, on EITHER the "of the mind" definition or the "based in opinions, biases, and feelings" definitions. That said, I would agree that it's perfectly "reasonable" to judge most art by the standards of the community in which it was made and made for; that still doesn't mean we have to, and it certainly doesn't mean those standards aren't/weren't based on subjectivity.

I do want to stress that it's an incredibly toxic notion in general to think that just because you're not using "your" standards but are following the standards of someone else--whether that's an individual or entire culture matters not--that this amounts to objectivity in either sense. That's how you end up with an entire country turning a blind eye to a holocaust. Yes, that's an extreme example, but, again, the psychology underlying both are the same: the psychology that just blindly follows whatever the standards/morals/laws are without questioning them and the people who hold them.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Our thoughts do not have the power to change the properties of objects, and if our thoughts change what is perceived we call that psychosis. If I'm standing in front of a wall, my thoughts about the wall--I can love it, hate it, be indifferent to it, etc.--shouldn't change my ability to see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, etc. The rest of this paragraph we agree on.


Of course, our thoughts don't have the power to change the properties of objects (read my post, I said "[o]ur thoughts do have the power to change or alter any sensory experience") and we have a term for when our thoughts change or alter our sensory perceptions precisely because it happens. Of course, as I said before, given the shared phenomenological experience of so many, it would be completely stupid to conclude from this that we somehow can't come up with truths that apply to everyone, but I think it is important to remember that our senses shouldn't be taken to be absolutely correct always.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm fine to take this discussion to PM in more depth, but I do want to say, as something relevant to the point of this example, that the only way you get to (paraphrased): "in 20th century theoretical physics it was established science wasn't establishing truths about an independent reality" is if you get into the innately philosophical interpretations of QM. There's nothing in the actual empirical experiments or math that says this.


I disagree with your paraphrase. I would say more accurately I said, in paraphrase, "in 20th century physics it became increasingly difficult to interpret theories in a way compatible with science discovering how reality ran in the background when one hypothetically removed all humans".



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Except the entire point is precisely that those standards (and any standards you care to choose) are subjective, on EITHER the "of the mind" definition or the "based in opinions, biases, and feelings" definitions. That said, I would agree that it's perfectly "reasonable" to judge most art by the standards of the community in which it was made and made for; that still doesn't mean we have to, and it certainly doesn't mean those standards aren't/weren't based on subjectivity.


I do believe that lots of these standards are based on near-universal human desires in art and singing and that to say these are merely based on personal feelings, rather than innate aspects of the human condition, is somewhat incorrect. However, I think whether or not these standards are objective or subjective it is not of particular relevance to the debate over whether we can judge recordings objectively. According to you, I'm guessing, the rules set out by the law are subjective; however, a judges ruling can still be objective once the subjective standard is set. In a similar way, in recording much of classical music, lots of the standards are set; whether or not these standards are subjective is irrelevant, the standard is set, the judgement is objective.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I do want to stress that it's an incredibly toxic notion in general to think that just because you're not using "your" standards but are following the standards of someone else--whether that's an individual or entire culture matters not--that this amounts to objectivity in either sense. That's how you end up with an entire country turning a blind eye to a holocaust. Yes, that's an extreme example, but, again, the psychology underlying both are the same: the psychology that just blindly follows whatever the standards/morals/laws are without questioning them and the people who hold them.


I honestly don't know what to say to this. First I'm using the standards of Italian opera to judge recordings of Italian opera in what I view as an objective manner and then I'm supporting the holocaust? If I didn't like the standards of Italian opera, I could reject Italian opera; I very much like them, and so I accept them. I mean, do you wear clothes, or do you walk around nude to not blindly follow standards and thereby prevent the next holocaust?


----------



## SanAntone

Since this philosophical discussion between two members is not directly on-topic, maybe it can be moved somewhere else as another thread?


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Since this philosophical discussion between two members is not directly on-topic, maybe it can be moved somewhere else as another thread?


We moved the physics discussion to PM, but surely the philosophical discussion on whether or not there is a basis to evaluate good and bad recordings beyond personal opinion is relevant to a thread on how to judge good and bad recordings?


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> ....[----] According to you, I'm guessing, the rules set out by the law are subjective; however, a judges ruling can still be objective once the subjective standard is set. In a similar way, in recording much of classical music, lots of the standards are set; *whether or not these standards are subjective is irrelevant, the standard is set, the judgement is objective.*
> 
> Yes, exactly, good point, well said....


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Of course, our thoughts don't have the power to change the properties of objects (read my post, I said "[o]ur thoughts do have the power to change or alter any sensory experience") and we have a term for when our thoughts change or alter our sensory perceptions precisely because it happens.


It seems to follow that if our thoughts can't change the properties of objects then objects must have an independent existence from our mind, which would confirm the existence of an objective reality. As for thoughts changing perception, I can amend that to "absent psychosis our thoughts do not have the power to change sensory perception."



BachIsBest said:


> I do believe that lots of these standards are based on near-universal human desires in art and singing and that to say these are merely based on personal feelings, rather than innate aspects of the human condition, is somewhat incorrect. However, I think whether or not these standards are objective or subjective it is not of particular relevance to the debate over whether we can judge recordings objectively. According to you, I'm guessing, the rules set out by the law are subjective; however, a judges ruling can still be objective once the subjective standard is set. In a similar way, in recording much of classical music, lots of the standards are set; whether or not these standards are subjective is irrelevant, the standard is set, the judgement is objective.


With this paragraph I think our views are close to merging to agreement. Let's see if we can hammer out the last few details.

To be clear I've never limited subjectivity to "personal feelings," if we're defining "personal" as an individual. I would hesitantly agree that there are probably some (perhaps many) aspects of musical and other artistic standards that exist because of "innate aspects of the human condition." However, I do not think "innate aspects of the human condition" are mutually exclusive to subjectivity in either the "of the mind" or "based on emotions, feelings, and biases" sense. Indeed, "emotions, feelings, and biases" ARE innate to the human condition, and thus it is not surprising that we create standards based on what art provokes them, nor is it surprising that there is a lot of agreement on these matters (especially within cultures and communities).

I wholly agree with your distinction in the law analogy. Yes, once (ultimately subjective) standards are established we can often judge things by those standards in an objective manner. I often use games as the analogy here, because the rules of games are subjective; but once they're established there is often an objectively best "move" based on the goals of the game. However, that only applies if we agree on what game we're playing. You can probably see the analogy with music here, because the kind of objective judgment you refer to requires that we all agree on the standards that we're applying; and we often don't all agree on that.

All that's left, I think, would be the degree to which we think that that "lots of standards are set" and whether or not we should defer to them, but that's also a, well, subjective subject.



BachIsBest said:


> I honestly don't know what to say to this. First I'm using the standards of Italian opera to judge recordings of Italian opera in what I view as an objective manner and then I'm supporting the holocaust? If I didn't like the standards of Italian opera, I could reject Italian opera; I very much like them, and so I accept them. I mean, do you wear clothes, or do you walk around nude to not blindly follow standards and thereby prevent the next holocaust?


No, you missed the point of the analogy, but I'll refrain from elaborating just as an attempt to keep this thread on topic. If you want I can explain further in PM.


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> BachIsBest said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....[----] According to you, I'm guessing, the rules set out by the law are subjective; however, a judges ruling can still be objective once the subjective standard is set. In a similar way, in recording much of classical music, lots of the standards are set; *whether or not these standards are subjective is irrelevant, the standard is set, the judgement is objective.*
> 
> Yes, exactly, good point, well said....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and this is why winners of major competitions like the Van Cliburn often fall into immediate and permanent obscurity, while the future major stars finish second or third or even lower. Great music can never fully be reduced to objective criteria.
Click to expand...


----------



## souio

Glad I'm a hardcore solipsist and you're all figments of my imagination (as well as every single classical composer who never actually existed)


----------



## FrankinUsa

Maybe it’s time to go back to the OP. The all too familiar “rams-butting heads” syndrome took over. We moved from classical music/recording to some type of psycho-analysis. 

My presentation;
Two recordings;
1) Claudio Abbado/Beethoven symphonies. 
DG/Abbado/BPO released their first/initial recording. It was withdrawn per the request of Abbado and re-released with the “Rome?” Recordings. I have the first set. I’ve just listened to it. There is nothing drastically wrong. Sound engineering is a bit dry. But what was soooo wrong with the original (non-Rome) release. This entire situation may be reflective of the craziness that was going on in the classical recording business at that time. 

Sibelius symphonies/Colin Davis/LSO/RCA,now Sony. I have the entire set of recordings. My recollection is that this was given good reviews-of course there were some reservations. As of now,this cycle has been “pooped” upon especially by our favorite CM critic.

I own both recordings and I just listened to both recordings. I find nothing that is sooooo BAD. 

Who and How will bad and mediocre and good and great recordings be established?


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Yes, and this is why winners of major competitions like the Van Cliburn often fall into immediate and permanent obscurity, while the future major stars finish second or third or even lower. Great music can never fully be reduced to objective criteria.


Generally speaking, most participants in these competitions are extremely competent musicians and the judges have a very limited sample size to work off of. Furthermore, how the artists mature is near-impossible to predict. For both these reasons it is more-or-less inevitable that they will not predict who becomes a famous artist and who will not. You see this even in individual sports like tennis where there is a more objective measure of tennis ability (winging matches); look through the past #1 ranked juniors. You won't find the names Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic among them. Are we to conclude that who wins tennis matches is a subjective judgement?

All that being said, there are inevitably purely personal and subjective factors in evaluating performances.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It seems to follow that if our thoughts can't change the properties of objects then objects must have an independent existence from our mind, which would confirm the existence of an objective reality. As for thoughts changing perception, I can amend that to "absent psychosis our thoughts do not have the power to change sensory perception."


Well, I would argue it implies the existence of a consistent reality, i.e., one that appears to have the same properties to all observers, rather than the existence of a reality independent from all those observers. Practically, there is little difference between the two. We should probably drop this conversation though, for the sake of on-topicness.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> To be clear I've never limited subjectivity to "personal feelings," if we're defining "personal" as an individual. I would hesitantly agree that there are probably some (perhaps many) aspects of musical and other artistic standards that exist because of "innate aspects of the human condition." However, I do not think "innate aspects of the human condition" are mutually exclusive to subjectivity in either the "of the mind" or "based on emotions, feelings, and biases" sense. Indeed, "emotions, feelings, and biases" ARE innate to the human condition, and thus it is not surprising that we create standards based on what art provokes them, nor is it surprising that there is a lot of agreement on these matters (especially within cultures and communities).
> 
> I wholly agree with your distinction in the law analogy. Yes, once (ultimately subjective) standards are established we can often judge things by those standards in an objective manner. I often use games as the analogy here, because the rules of games are subjective; but once they're established there is often an objectively best "move" based on the goals of the game. However, that only applies if we agree on what game we're playing. You can probably see the analogy with music here, because the kind of objective judgment you refer to requires that we all agree on the standards that we're applying; and we often don't all agree on that.
> 
> All that's left, I think, would be the degree to which we think that that "lots of standards are set" and whether or not we should defer to them, but that's also a, well, subjective subject.


To keep the thread on topic (a losing battle, I know), I'm not going to debate to what degree the standards are subjective. Regardless of whether or not the standards of Italian opera are purely subjective, to take a recording of Italian opera like Caruso's, which so clearly exemplifies the qualities considered admirable in Italian opera, and call it a great recording, is not subjective.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, you missed the point of the analogy, but I'll refrain from elaborating just as an attempt to keep this thread on topic. If you want I can explain further in PM.


Okay, at least our conversation now satisfies Godwin's law!


----------



## SanAntone

What is the allure of "objective criteria"? I don't want to start another debate on whether there is objective data which can be used to evaluate music, but I just wonder why some people think that idea is so attractive.

For me, the _only_ thing that is important is what the work says to me. I am completely indifferent to any historical judgment of a work, or if there is a consensus of greatness, or the opposite. And I would think that for anyone the important thing is finding music or art or literature that is engaging, exciting, enjoyable, to them.

So what is the importance of objective criteria?


----------



## bwv543

KevinW said:


> I know this is such a broad topic, but I do believe it worths a lot of discussion, especially when there has never been such a thread on Talk Classical. I know many people on TC love to interpret music in subjective ways, but it is quite crucial for new listeners like me to be rather objective, because my musical taste has not been established and some overrated bad recordings might be quite misleading to me. So, I really like to get rid of bad recordings when listening to a composition.
> 
> Although I believe there are exceptions, but I think this is generally correct. I especially hate conductors not following the tempo markings by the composer. I think Bernstein's Brahms 4th with VPO is completely ruined. The original tempo indication is Allegro Passionato Energico but Bernstein played it like an Andante.


Funny that you mention this particular recording... it's actually my favorite recording of Brahms 4; and this as a lifelong Karajan fan.

But, it took years for Bernstein to grow on me. As a teenager and young adult, I could not see, at all, what the rage was. His recordings struck me as idiosyncratic and distracting. Now, with the benefit of some hindsight and years of familiarity with some of these pieces, I've come to few Bernstein as kind of an analogue to Horowitz: he broke the rules because he could do so and convincingly.

As regards this recording, Bernstein's broader tempi impart a gravitas and majesty to this recording that I really like, and he does so without losing momentum. Is it what Brahms indicated? Maybe not according to the letter of the law; but it's a compelling take that does not to me violate the spirit of the work. As far as the composer's intentions go, I am absolutely of the mindset that we _must_ know at least something of the composer's intent. I am also of the belief that the composer's directions are not sacrosanct. Those who disregard them do so at their own peril, but a great mind can see a work differently than others see it, and, by the force of their intellect, make their vision a compelling one.

But, one who finds the composer's intent to be of the status of sacrosanct and inviolable Holy Writ will take issue with that. Such a person is probably not going to like Bernstein, or Horowitz, or Glenn Gould.


----------



## arpeggio

SanAntone said:


> So what is the importance of objective criteria?


My guess is that some people believe that the music they like is the best and they want to be able to prove it.

When I was younger, I use to think that way myself about classical.

As I got older, I outgrew that notion when I learned to appreciate other forms of non-classical music.


----------



## fluteman

bwv543 said:


> Funny that you mention this particular recording... it's actually my favorite recording of Brahms 4; and this as a lifelong Karajan fan.
> 
> But, it took years for Bernstein to grow on me. As a teenager and young adult, I could not see, at all, what the rage was. His recordings struck me as idiosyncratic and distracting. Now, with the benefit of some hindsight and years of familiarity with some of these pieces, I've come to few Bernstein as kind of an analogue to Horowitz: he broke the rules because he could do so and convincingly.
> 
> As regards this recording, Bernstein's broader tempi impart a gravitas and majesty to this recording that I really like, and he does so without losing momentum. Is it what Brahms indicated? Maybe not according to the letter of the law; but it's a compelling take that does not to me violate the spirit of the work. As far as the composer's intentions go, I am absolutely of the mindset that we _must_ know at least something of the composer's intent. I am also of the belief that the composer's directions are not sacrosanct. Those who disregard them do so at their own peril, but a great mind can see a work differently than others see it, and, by the force of their intellect, make their vision a compelling one.
> 
> But, one who finds the composer's intent to be of the status of sacrosanct and inviolable Holy Writ will take issue with that. Such a person is probably not going to like Bernstein, or Horowitz, or Glenn Gould.


I think someone here has already mentioned Bernstein's infamous collaboration with Gould in the Brahms 1st piano concerto. I suspect this performance would not have become so notorious were it not for the scalding review it provoked from Harold Schonberg of the New York Times. My guess is that Schonberg was never enthusiastic about Gould's playing, and he took Bernstein's address to the audience, which actually was rather respectful of Gould in its content but not in the fact that Bernstein somehow thought it appropriate to make such comments to the audience immediately before performing the concerto with him, as permission to empty both barrels at his nemesis.

Is it a mediocre performance? I think so, or at least not an especially compelling one, but mainly because the conductor and pianist are not on the same page, as it were. Here is my own take on it, from an earlier post:

From Gould's essays, it's safe to say he preferred conductors who regarded themselves as collaborators or even co-composers rather than those who meticulously followed the printed score. I think his collaborations with Bernstein do not serve as good examples, because Bernstein was just such a conductor, and when Gould was the soloist, HE wanted to be that collaborator, not cede that starring role to the conductor and orchestra. Bernstein was probably generous and gracious enough to give his soloists leeway in that regard, but Gould rather perversely (and I think intentionally) pushed it a bit too far in the case of the Brahms concerto, provoking a celebrated announcement from the equally theatrical Bernstein before the performance. I'll bet Gould was delighted with the resulting controversy.


----------



## Captainnumber36

edited and deleted.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> What is the allure of "objective criteria"? I don't want to start another debate on whether there is objective data which can be used to evaluate music...
> 
> For me, the _only_ thing that is important is what the work says to me...
> 
> So what is the importance of objective criteria?


So you do want another debate.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> What is the allure of "objective criteria"? I don't want to start another debate on whether there is objective data which can be used to evaluate music, but I just wonder why some people think that idea is so attractive.
> 
> For me, the _only_ thing that is important is what the work says to me. I am completely indifferent to any historical judgment of a work, or if there is a consensus of greatness, or the opposite. And I would think that for anyone the important thing is finding music or art or literature that is engaging, exciting, enjoyable, to them.
> 
> So what is the importance of objective criteria?


I would say it rest on three main points (for me). Firstly, if I believe something to be true, then I will argue for it regardless of its importance. Second, if there are objective criteria, one should certainly know about them (in previous centuries this was the notion of acquiring "taste"), to become an educated listener. Finally, and most importantly (in my view), if there are objective criteria, then I believe it is derisive to the talent, ability, and occasionally genius of those artists that meet them, to say there isn't.

Also, you have belittled John Williams and those who listen to him as just liking film music with statements like "blah, blah, blah John Williams wrote film music", said that Alma Deutscher writes music with no craft and/or originality and so you don't like it because you like music with craft and originality, and said that anyone in the know likes modernist works thereby implying those that don't like such music are not in the know, and now you're the guy who only cares what the work says to him and thinks everyone else should just listen to what is enjoyable to them?


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I would say it rest on three main points (for me). Firstly, if I believe something to be true, then I will argue for it regardless of its importance. Second, if there are objective criteria, one should certainly know about them (in previous centuries this was the notion of acquiring "taste"), to become an educated listener. Finally, and most importantly (in my view), if there are objective criteria, then I believe it is derisive to the talent, ability, and occasionally genius of those artists that meet them, to say there isn't.


The most important word in this paragraph is "if" but thanks for your answer.



> Also, you have belittled John Williams and those who listen to him as just liking film music with statements like "blah, blah, blah John Williams wrote film music", said that Alma Deutscher writes music with no craft and/or originality and so you don't like it because you like music with craft and originality, and said that anyone in the know likes modernist works thereby implying those that don't like such music are not in the know, and now you're the guy who only cares what the work says to him and thinks everyone else should just listen to what is enjoyable to them?


Those statements distort my contributions on TC but I won't waste time correcting them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> To keep the thread on topic (a losing battle, I know), *I'm not going to debate to what degree the standards are subjective*. Regardless of whether or not the standards of Italian opera are purely subjective, to take a recording of Italian opera like Caruso's, which so clearly exemplifies the qualities considered admirable in Italian opera, and *call it a great recording, is not subjective.*


So you're not going to debate to what degree the standards are subjective, merely claim that calling it a great recording based on those standards is not subjective. OK then.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

SanAntone said:


> What is the allure of "objective criteria"? I don't want to start another debate on whether there is objective data which can be used to evaluate music, but I just wonder why some people think that idea is so attractive.


I don't know how to address this without engaging in more "psychoanalysis" as one poster called it, but since you asked: the allure is that some people do not like the insecurity that accompanies the acknowledgement of subjectivity. The allure of objectivity is that it provides the security that it's not just your (or others') tastes and preferences, but an incontrovertible fact, like the existence of the sun. If there is objectivity then there can be absolute judgments of right and wrong tastes that are independent of what people think. The combination of passion (which leads someone to feeling a subject is very important) and the desire for the security of "facts" (and the undesirability of the anxiety of acknowledging that important thing isn't based on facts) is the psychological impetus behind all this. There's probably alternative reasons that compound this as well, like the desire to feel superior to others. If you can establish objective criteria that leads to the "fact" that your tastes are better than people who like "objectively bad" music or recordings then that's good for the ol' ego.


----------



## SanAntone

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know how to address this without engaging in more "psychoanalysis" as one poster called it, but since you asked: the allure is that some people do not like the insecurity that accompanies the acknowledgement of subjectivity. The allure of objectivity is that it provides the security that it's not just your (or others') tastes and preferences, but an incontrovertible fact, like the existence of the sun. If there is objectivity then there can be absolute judgments of right and wrong tastes that are independent of what people think. The combination of passion (which leads someone to feeling a subject is very important) and the desire for the security of "facts" (and the undesirability of the anxiety of acknowledging that important thing isn't based on facts) is the psychological impetus behind all this. There's probably alternative reasons that compound this as well, like the desire to feel superior to others. If you can establish objective criteria that leads to the "fact" that your tastes are better than people who like "objectively bad" music or recordings then that's good for the ol' ego.


Interesting, thanks for your response.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know how to address this without engaging in more "psychoanalysis" as one poster called it, but since you asked: the allure is that some people do not like the insecurity that accompanies the acknowledgement of subjectivity. The allure of objectivity is that it provides the security that it's not just your (or others') tastes and preferences, but an incontrovertible fact, like the existence of the sun. If there is objectivity then there can be absolute judgments of right and wrong tastes that are independent of what people think. The combination of passion (which leads someone to feeling a subject is very important) and the desire for the security of "facts" (and the undesirability of the anxiety of acknowledging that important thing isn't based on facts) is the psychological impetus behind all this. There's probably alternative reasons that compound this as well, like the desire to feel superior to others. If you can establish objective criteria that leads to the "fact" that your tastes are better than people who like "objectively bad" music or recordings then that's good for the ol' ego.


On the other hand, if someone has only judgmentally negative explanations, culminating in 'a desire to feel superior to others', why people might believe in the existence of objective criteria, it raises the question as to just who is it that is feeling superior.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Those statements distort my contributions on TC but I won't waste time correcting them.


I have to offer a bit of an apology here. I had a bad day yesterday and bringing your personal posting history into the discussion is definitely going low. I do think I tried to be accurate, but it is a public forum so anyone can see what you have posted in the past so there is no need to debate this for ten pages. I hope we can continue the discussion as slightly more friendly adversaries.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So you're not going to debate to what degree the standards are subjective, merely claim that calling it a great recording based on those standards is not subjective. OK then.


I make two claims in this thread (I'll again use the Italian opera example).
1. Judging recordings of Italian opera by the standards of Italian opera is a good way to judge recordings of Italian opera.
2. A recording may be objectively judged by the standards of Italian opera.

I think these are the two points that are essential to this thread, and a protracted debate on whether or not the standards themselves are subjective or objective would be a bit off-topic.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know how to address this without engaging in more "psychoanalysis" as one poster called it, but since you asked: the allure is that some people do not like the insecurity that accompanies the acknowledgement of subjectivity. The allure of objectivity is that it provides the security that it's not just your (or others') tastes and preferences, but an incontrovertible fact, like the existence of the sun. If there is objectivity then there can be absolute judgments of right and wrong tastes that are independent of what people think. The combination of passion (which leads someone to feeling a subject is very important) and the desire for the security of "facts" (and the undesirability of the anxiety of acknowledging that important thing isn't based on facts) is the psychological impetus behind all this. There's probably alternative reasons that compound this as well, like the desire to feel superior to others. If you can establish objective criteria that leads to the "fact" that your tastes are better than people who like "objectively bad" music or recordings then that's good for the ol' ego.


Yes, maybe it is a question of insecurity. For my part, I know full well my musical tastes are unavoidably colored by my background, experiences, musical training and talent or lack thereof, etc., and are entirely subjective. And I say to all musicians, that is too @#$%ing bad. Impress me with what you've got, or I'll look elsewhere. Nobody gets put on a pedestal solely based on fame or reputation, though admittedly that fame and reputation may be a big part of the reason I've given their music enough consideration.

And the odd thing is, even with that attitude, I'm a devoted lifelong fan of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. And Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Milhaud and Poulenc. And Pergolesi, Couperin and Rameau. And Ives, Carter, Boulez and Crumb. And a lot of contemporary stuff. And blues, ragtime, stride, swing, tin pan alley and jazz. And R&B. And classic rock (though I can't take anything that's too loud). And even Ed Sheeran (though current pop stars generally aren't my thing, in general too much of their material is too much the same thing over and over, including his). And a lot of other things.

My ego doesn't need objective proof of anything. And even if it did, all of the music I just listed (except for that of Mr. Sheeran) has proved its merit by standing the test of time and holding its audience for a minimum of 50 years and in most cases much more. That empirically observable and measurable (in various more or less legitimate ways) objective phenomenon is all the objective proof of merit there is or can be.


----------



## BachIsBest

Or we could just be some people, who after deep thought and consideration, happened to come to different conclusions on a topic?


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes, maybe it is a question of insecurity. For my part, I know full well my musical tastes are unavoidably colored by my background, experiences, musical training and talent or lack thereof, etc., and are entirely subjective. And I say to all musicians, that is too @#$%ing bad. Impress me with what you've got, or I'll look elsewhere. Nobody gets put on a pedestal solely based on fame or reputation, though admittedly that fame and reputation may be a big part of the reason I've given their music enough consideration.
> 
> And the odd thing is, even with that attitude, I'm a devoted lifelong fan of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. And Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Milhaud and Poulenc. And Pergolesi, Couperin and Rameau. And Ives, Carter, Boulez and Crumb. And a lot of contemporary stuff. And blues, ragtime, stride, swing, tin pan alley and jazz. And R&B. And classic rock (though I can't take anything that's too loud). And even Ed Sheeran (though current pop stars generally aren't my thing, in general too much of their material is too much the same thing over and over, including his).  And a lot of other things.
> 
> My ego doesn't need objective proof of anything. And even if it did, all of the music I just listed (except for that of Mr. Sheeran) has proved its merit by standing the test of time and holding its audience for a minimum of 50 years and in most cases much more. That empirically observable and measurable (in various more or less legitimate ways) objective phenomenon is all the objective proof of merit there is or can be.


My interest in periods, composers, genres is mercurial. One week I'm interested in Classical music from the late 19th century, the next week I am interested in Punk Rock. But one constant is that the "music of the masters" (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.) has been of little interest to me for a while.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> I make two claims in this thread (I'll again use the Italian opera example).
> 1. Judging recordings of Italian opera by the standards of Italian opera is a good way to judge recordings of Italian opera.
> 2. A recording may be objectively judged by the standards of Italian opera.
> 
> I think these are the two points that are essential to this thread, and a protracted debate on whether or not the standards themselves are subjective or objective would be a bit off-topic.


I think even these two points are fraught with more complications than you seem to be recognizing. To take just a few, I'm skeptical that "the standards of Italian opera" are as monolithic as you suggest, as if all people who enjoy Italian opera both now and historically all liked and disliked the same things. There have been aesthetic disagreements for as long as art has existed. Now, it's possible to say that over time certain cultures may have developed a handful of standards that most everyone within that culture agree on; but even all of that is heavily qualified as I'd still wager you wouldn't find any feature that every Italian opera fan would agree on as being a standard they look for enjoy.

Another issue is that even if we can agree on what those standards are, there's still the issue of whether or not any work succeeds on those standards. You can only judge such thing objectively if all the standards that exists point to clearly defined objective features and criteria for which there is no room for ambiguity or subjective judgments. Hell, even in a game like chess where there is a clearly defined goal there is often a huge degree of subjectivity on the evaluation of positions, and without computers humans are not always going to evaluate such positions the same (and even computers, which are vastly better at chess than humans, overlook practical considerations that humans must take into account; not being computers ourselves). I only use that as an example of something where even with very clearly defined objectives where we're all using similar standards for evaluation there is much room for disagreement.

Plus, at the end of the day, all you're really saying with any of this is that a given recording or work or whatever is appealing to the people (whether individuals or entire cultures) who subscribe to the standards upon which that recording or work or whatever succeeds. It's always still possible to argue over what the standards should be and whether we are obligated to accept them just because a lot of other people do.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> On the other hand, if someone has only judgmentally negative explanations, culminating in 'a desire to feel superior to others', why people might believe in the existence of objective criteria, it raises the question as to just who is it that is feeling superior.


It's much easier to awkwardly snark than it is to actually engage with those whom you disagree with, which you've already refused to do. However, I will note that the only "negatively judgmental" thing in my post was my last two sentences, which even I said was an "alternative reason," meaning that I was not suggesting everyone thinks/behaves this way. The rest of my post I think is simply describing a common, natural human cognitive bias, and if I'm going to be negatively judgmental about all innate human biases then I'd be a misanthrope, which I am not.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think even these two points are fraught with more complications than you seem to be recognizing. To take just a few, I'm skeptical that "the standards of Italian opera" are as monolithic as you suggest, as if all people who enjoy Italian opera both now and historically all liked and disliked the same things. There have been aesthetic disagreements for as long as art has existed ... [and so forth].


Thanks goodness all of that is true. Otherwise, music critics, musicologists, music historians and any number of other musical academic types would have nothing to write about. And we obviously can't have that.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's much easier to awkwardly snark than it is to actually engage with those whom you disagree with, which you've already refused to do. However, I will note that the only "negatively judgmental" thing in my post was my last two sentences, which even I said was an "alternative reason," meaning that I was not suggesting everyone thinks/behaves this way...


Hmm, 'awkwardly snark' coming from someone who seems to be playing a psychiatrist on a classical music forum to the point of suggesting that a motive for someone is to feel 'superior'. For some reason, the off-topic subject of 'objectivity' was introduced in this thread whereupon it was assumed by the usual suspects that the subject of 'objectivity' has/had to do with someone claiming that their tastes in music are objectively superior to someone else's. No one has claimed that in this thread and the subject of 'objectivity' in other threads has had to do with entirely different subject matter.

So, yes, I'm not going to engage with you or anyone else on this phony strawman subject.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think even these two points are fraught with more complications than you seem to be recognizing. To take just a few, I'm skeptical that "the standards of Italian opera" are as monolithic as you suggest, as if all people who enjoy Italian opera both now and historically all liked and disliked the same things. There have been aesthetic disagreements for as long as art has existed. Now, it's possible to say that over time certain cultures may have developed a handful of standards that most everyone within that culture agree on; but even all of that is heavily qualified as I'd still wager you wouldn't find any feature that every Italian opera fan would agree on as being a standard they look for enjoy.


Of course the standards of Italian opera do not somehow uniquely fix an exact ordering of every Italian opera recording by "greatness"; such an idea is preposterous, and nothing I've argued for. Of course not every Italian opera fan over all of history likes all the same things. There are of course ambiguities. It is a common fallacy to think, however, that just because there are ambiguities it means everything is ambiguous. This is also wrong. There are many things, however, which are universal. For example, the presence of a vocal wobble is considered a fault by anyone who knows anything about opera.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Another issue is that even if we can agree on what those standards are, there's still the issue of whether or not any work succeeds on those standards. You can only judge such thing objectively if all the standards that exists point to clearly defined objective features and criteria for which there is no room for ambiguity or subjective judgments. Hell, even in a game like chess where there is a clearly defined goal there is often a huge degree of subjectivity on the evaluation of positions, and without computers humans are not always going to evaluate such positions the same (and even computers, which are vastly better at chess than humans, overlook practical considerations that humans must take into account; not being computers ourselves). I only use that as an example of something where even with very clearly defined objectives where we're all using similar standards for evaluation there is much room for disagreement.


In chess there is no subjectivity on how good a position is, we just lack the knowledge to properly evaluate and play the positions. If we had unlimited computational power, we could definitively label every chess position as a draw, a white win, or a black win assuming no mistakes.

I would like to again go back to the judge example (which you previously agreed with?), the law is not written in such a way that 100% of people will 100% agree on the outcome of 100% of cases. However, given a good and knowledgeable judge, it is still eminently reasonable to call his rulings objective.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Plus, at the end of the day, all you're really saying with any of this is that a given recording or work or whatever is appealing to the people (whether individuals or entire cultures) who subscribe to the standards upon which that recording or work or whatever succeeds. It's always still possible to argue over what the standards should be and whether we are obligated to accept them just because a lot of other people do.


I mean, this essentially amounts to saying something like, "well what if the guy listening to Italian opera just liked pop music so he thought everyone should sing miked in breathy vibratoless voices and the orchestra should be replaced by a beat boxer". I mean, okay? You got me?

It's possible to argue over anything, nobody is forcing anyone to accept the standards of Italian opera, and if you want to listen to Yusif Eyvazov over Enrico Caruso in Puccini be my guest; but to claim that when I say "recordings of Italian opera that exemplify the standards of excellence within Italian opera are great recordings of Italian opera" all I'm saying is "these are my favourite recordings of Italian opera", is simply wrong.


----------



## arpeggio

Prior to all of the discussions in this thread, my favorite recording of Percy Granger's _Lincolnshire Posey_ was with Frederick Fennell conducting the Cleveland Symphonic Winds.

After reading all of these posts my favorite recording is still Frederick Fennell conducting the Cleveland Symphonic Winds.

Why? I do not know. I just happen to like the way it sounds.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> It's possible to argue over anything, nobody is forcing anyone to accept the standards of Italian opera, and if you want to listen to Yusif Eyvazov over Enrico Caruso in Puccini be my guest; but to claim that when I say "recordings of Italian opera that exemplify the standards of excellence within Italian opera are great recordings of Italian opera" all I'm saying is "these are my favourite recordings of Italian opera", is simply wrong.


Canadian pianist Glenn Gould spoke highly of Switched-On Bach, saying: "The whole record, in fact, is one of the most startling achievements of the recording industry in this generation and certainly one of the great feats in the history of 'keyboard' performance".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think even these two points are fraught with more complications than you seem to be recognizing. To take just a few, I'm skeptical that "the standards of Italian opera" are as monolithic as you suggest, as if all people who enjoy Italian opera both now and historically all liked and disliked the same things. There have been aesthetic disagreements for as long as art has existed.


Which of these two; Una Cosa Rara (1786) and Le Nozze di Figaro (1786) more exemplary of the standards of excellence within Italian opera? If you asked this question to an opera-goer in late 18th century Europe, where the values of the Enlightenment were upheld by everyone unquestioningly in any form of art, what would the answer have been? Today, the most common explanation for Mozart 'not enjoying the popularity he "deserved" in his time': _"Because poor Mozart was 'misunderstood' in his time."_
But I think a more plausible explanation would be: "People's tastes changed over time to better appreciate the particular melodic/harmonic style Mozart employed." This is the only truly objective fact there is. We simply "like" one of the styles (which Mozart was a practitioner of) from the late 18th century more than the others. Statements like _"his music withstood the test of time"_ are nothing more than convenient euphemisms for this. (I'd like to add "...and 'classical music appreciation' is a minority/niche interest in the world today anyway", but this would be a topic for another thread)


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> There are of course ambiguities. It is a common fallacy to think, however, that just because there are ambiguities it means everything is ambiguous. This is also wrong. There are many things, however, which are universal. For example, the presence of a vocal wobble is considered a fault by anyone who knows anything about opera.


The only truly meaningful purpose of any standard is "to perform music as the composer intended, as accurately as possible". If more people want to hear things non-HIP rather than HIP, then that will be accepted as the "standard" for "good music". Even something silly as "performing Mozart on the modern grand and pretending it's perfectly legitimate as a way of interpretation" 



 can become the "norm", if dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Which of these two; Una Cosa Rara (1786) and Le Nozze di Figaro (1786) more exemplary of the standards of excellence within Italian opera? If you asked this question to an opera-goer in late 18th century Europe, where the values of the Enlightenment were upheld by everyone unquestioningly in any form of art, what would the answer have been? Today, the most common explanation for Mozart 'not enjoying the popularity he "deserved" in his time': _"Because poor Mozart was 'misunderstood' in his time."_
> But I think a more plausible explanation would be: "People's tastes changed over time to better appreciate the particular melodic/harmonic style Mozart employed." This is the only truly objective fact there is. We simply "like" one of the styles (which Mozart was a practitioner of) from the late 18th century more than the others. Statements like _"his music withstood the test of time"_ are nothing more than convenient euphemisms. (I'd like to add "...and 'classical music appreciation' is a minority/niche interest in the world today anyway", but this would be a topic for another thread)


If I am understanding your post correctly (something of a chore) you don't buy into objective criteria and believe these artistic judgments are subjective.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> (something of a chore)


It's also becoming a chore to post anything without having to start over after the "server is busy" stuff. 
Good. NIGHT. This site is becoming unusable.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> It's also becoming a chore to post anything without having to start over after the "server is busy" stuff.
> Good. NIGHT. This site is becoming unusable.


It'll get sorted. See post 58 here.

https://www.talkclassical.com/35359-server-busy-4.html#post2208869


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> Prior to all of the discussions in this thread, my favorite recording of Percy Granger's _Lincolnshire Posey_ was with Frederick Fennell conducting the Cleveland Symphonic Winds.
> 
> After reading all of these posts my favorite recording is still Frederick Fennell conducting the Cleveland Symphonic Winds.
> 
> Why? I do not know. I just happen to like the way it sounds.


Good choice. But are you sure that's the Cleveland Symphonic Winds and not the Eastman Wind Ensemble? I know there's a Telarc recording including the Holst suites that he did with the Cleveland ensemble, but I didn't know he recorded the Grainger with them.


----------



## arpeggio

fluteman said:


> Good choice. But are you sure that's the Cleveland Symphonic Winds and not the Eastman Wind Ensemble? I know there's a Telarc recording including the Holst suites that he did with the Cleveland ensemble, but I didn't know he recorded the Grainger with them.


Yes, he did do a second recording with the Cleveland Symphonic Winds.

Included in the following CD:

https://smile.amazon.com/Stars-Stripes-Fennell-Frederick-Audio/dp/B00FY3TPRM/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3Q899WXL3RSV5&keywords=frederick+fennell+compact+discs&qid=1643995947&sprefix=frederick+fennell%2Caps%2C3362&sr=8-2

CD also has:

Barber: _Commando March_
Vaughn: _Folk Song Suite & Sea Songs_ (A few years ago I performed the _Folk Song Suite and the Sea Songs_ in the same performance. The director learned that Vaughn Williams originally included the _Sea Songs_ as a movement of the _Folk Song Suite_, but for some reason the publisher published the _Sea Songs_ as a separate work.)
Arnaud: _Olympic Fanfare_ (The _Olympic Fanfare_ that ABC made famous was originally one of three fanfares that Arnaud composed)
Sousa: _Stars and Striped_
Zimmerman: _Anchors Aweigh_
Fucik: _Florintino March_
King: _Barnum and Bailey's Favorites _
Leemans: _Belgian Paratroopers_
Strauss, Sr.: _Radetzky March_


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Good choice. But are you sure that's the Cleveland Symphonic Winds and not the Eastman Wind Ensemble? I know there's a Telarc recording including the Holst suites that he did with the Cleveland ensemble, but I didn't know he recorded the Grainger with them.


I greatly prefer Fennell's Eastman WE recordings to those of the Telarc edition - not because of the playing or conducting necessarily, I just can't stand the early digital Telarc sound - very tubby, flabby, bloated sound - the group sounds horrible on the Holst pieces....and the Cleveland winds were a terrific group, of course....the Grainger is not on the disc I have - the Bach and Handel pieces sound great....the Holst?? forget it...


----------



## arpeggio

Heck148 said:


> I greatly prefer Fennell's Eastman WE recordings to those of the Telarc edition - not because of the playing or conducting necessarily, I just can't stand the early digital Telarc sound - very tubby, flabby, bloated sound - the group sounds horrible on the Holst pieces....and the Cleveland winds were a terrific group, of course....the Grainger is not on the disc I have - the Bach and Handel pieces sound great....the Holst?? forget it...


One of the rare times were Heck148 and I part ways. I will concede that at times the sound can be obscene. Like when the place the microphone inside the bass drum.


----------



## Heck148

arpeggio said:


> One of the rare times were Heck148 and I part ways. I will concede that at times the sound can be obscene. Like when the place the microphone inside the bass drum.


I just prefer the recorded sound Mercury achieved - really centered, balanced - the Telarc sound is diffuse, bloated - yeh, the bass drum!! :lol: 
I've noticed that with other Telarc recordings as well - some of the Levi/AtlantaSO ones were pretty tubby sounding...did Telarc by any chance remaster these??

The Fennell/EWE Holst/Vaughan Williams recordings are tough to beat - even the Dunn/Dallas Wind Sym recording falls just short - beautiful playing, in great sound [Reference Recordings] - really excellent - but Fennell takes the cake with peppier tempos and and better forward drive...


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> I greatly prefer Fennell's Eastman WE recordings to those of the Telarc edition - not because of the playing or conducting necessarily, I just can't stand the early digital Telarc sound - very tubby, flabby, bloated sound - the group sounds horrible on the Holst pieces....and the Cleveland winds were a terrific group, of course....the Grainger is not on the disc I have - the Bach and Handel pieces sound great....the Holst?? forget it...


Yes, the early Telarc digital LPs and CDs, promoted at the time as audiophile spectaculars, are examples of early digital sound that we now know can be a lot better. (Though, the LPs have better sound than the CDs, probably because the CDs are only 16 bit, while the LPs retain the original 20 bits of the masters, iirc). But I'll have to side with arpeggio here, as for me, as good as the Eastman winds were, the Cleveland winds are that much better, imo. Thanks to this thread, I have several recordings on order with both Eastman and Cleveland that will be here next week. High time for some band music! It's been too long.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Yes, the early Telarc digital LPs and CDs, promoted at the time as audiophile spectaculars, are examples of early digital sound that we now know can be a lot better.


Yes, the Telarc early digital sound was simply inferior, imo...esp the Holst Suites....disqualifies them from consideration, unfortunately...simply not competitive with EWE/Mercury or Dallas Wind Sym/RefRec.

Don't know how they managed it, but Telarc completely ruined the low brass sound, which took some doing - Cleveland had some great players - Bob Boyd [trbI], Ed Anderson [Bss Trb], Ron Bishop[tuba] - wonderful players, Szell's section - no way should they sound tubby and unfocused...


----------



## superhorn

This is such a subjective matter ; one CD reviewer may think a recording of whatever masterpiece is terrible, the worst he has ever heard, yet for another critic it may be his favorite and considered to be a reference recording . 
It's so easy to get imprinted on the first recording you hear of this or that masterpiece , You get accustomed, among other things, to the tempi of the first recording you hear and when you hear your second one, the tempi may seem either too slow or too fast to you . 
This happened to me a number of times in my callow youth ; now I'm a dinosaur and probably one of the oldest members on this forum . For example, the first recording I heard of Bruckner 5 way back in the stone age of vinyl was Otto Klemperer and the New Philharmonia on EMI . This is a very broad but never lethargic performance lasting nearly 80 minutes . To me, it captured the rugged grandeur of the symphony to perfect . 
Not too long after, I heard the Philips LP with. the late Bernard Haitink and the Concertgebouw orchestra . This performance is much swifter and more propulsive, and a first I thought it was just too fast . But with repeated hearings I came to like the recording a lot more . 
Now, after more than 50 years of listening experience, I've become open to different interpretations of any given work and am not at all dogmatic about how anything should be interpreted .


----------



## EvaBaron

superhorn said:


> This is such a subjective matter ; one CD reviewer may think a recording of whatever masterpiece is terrible, the worst he has ever heard, yet for another critic it may be his favorite and considered to be a reference recording .
> It's so easy to get imprinted on the first recording you hear of this or that masterpiece , You get accustomed, among other things, to the tempi of the first recording you hear and when you hear your second one, the tempi may seem either too slow or too fast to you .
> This happened to me a number of times in my callow youth ; now I'm a dinosaur and probably one of the oldest members on this forum . For example, the first recording I heard of Bruckner 5 way back in the stone age of vinyl was Otto Klemperer and the New Philharmonia on EMI . This is a very broad but never lethargic performance lasting nearly 80 minutes . To me, it captured the rugged grandeur of the symphony to perfect .
> Not too long after, I heard the Philips LP with. the late Bernard Haitink and the Concertgebouw orchestra . This performance is much swifter and more propulsive, and a first I thought it was just too fast . But with repeated hearings I came to like the recording a lot more .
> Now, after more than 50 years of listening experience, I've become open to different interpretations of any given work and am not at all dogmatic about how anything should be interpreted .


That's pretty cool, I'm only 17 so I guess this could change when I'm older but right now for most pieces I like only one interpretation/tempi and I'm not very flexible


----------



## KevinW

Different tempi can bring different effects on the same composition, especially for those rather ancient compositions like Baroque. Since there was a lack of tempo indication during that era, the tempo could be quite flexible, not to even HIP can bring a lot of variations on the tempo.


----------



## agoukass

I think that the standard for judging whether a recording is good, bad, or ugly is whether or not the performer manages to get their point across and not ruin the music in the process. For example, there is a very infamous recording of Beethoven's Op. 111 with Anatol Ugorski where he takes the tempo in the Arietta far slower than any other pianist. It takes him twenty six minutes to get from one end of it to the other. It is a glacial piece and to me, someone who is used to Pollini and Backhaus, it completely ruins the flow of the piece as well as its musical ideas. 

However, one of my favorite recordings of the Bruckner Eighth is by Sergiu Celibidache who takes thirty five minutes to get through the Adagio.It is a magnificent interpretation in which every phrase and every note makes complete sense. It is like reading a good book very, very slowly and trying to absorb its meaning without rushing onwards to the next chapter. Other conductors are about ten minute faster, but Celibidache's interpretation works because, to me, it makes sense and doesn't really ruin the music. 

The more one listens to the music, the more one can make comparisons between various recordings. A bad recording for one person might be another person's benchmark and, as always, it mostly a matter of taste and experience.


----------

