# Do you have a problem with historical recordings?



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Many listeners from the younger generation have issues with listening to pre stereo recordings. I must confess many of my favorite singers are from this era. One factor that plays into this is that when listening to music from this era one must engage one's imagination to recreate what it must have sounded like in an opera house of yore. Of course, one must engage one's imagination when listening to pop singers today because there is no way many of them could sound that way apart from aural manipulation;-) But I digress. I must admit I enjoy the romance of listening to singers from the almost fabled Golden Age of Opera from the era of my parents and grandparents generations.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

This is still the best Tosca










Callas, Di Stefano, Gobbi, De Sabata (1953)

So I don't have problems with historical recordings...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

GioCar said:


> This is still the best Tosca
> 
> 
> 
> ...


T don't know how anyone can regard this as historical!!
Historical is the age of acoustic recordings.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Those who only listen to modern recordings aren't interested in opera,they merely like listening to it---and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A good deal of my music collection is comprised of recordings dating from the 1950s and 1960s... or earlier. This is equally true of my collection of "popular" music (jazz, blues, bluegrass, etc...) as of "classical". I will admit that I few orchestral works dating prior to the 1940s... but I do have a fairly decent amount of solo instrumental work and vocal music from the 1930s and earlier. I suspect Moodey has us all beat in the true "historical" department.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

For a full opera recording, there are some early examples available dating from the 1900s, but they start to be more common since the late 1920s. Before that, it's basically single arias what's recorded.

In many of those early, acoustic recordings, if you are looking for orchestral niceties, this is the wrong place. You can find some different levels of quality, to be sure, but generally speaking, the music is just a muffled accompaniment to the singer.

On the other hand, voices just at the right distance of the horn, were much better recorded, and we can have a quite good rendition, from a vocal point of view, that allows you to judge the quality of the singing, from different angles. Of course, some of those old recordings can be found today digitally treated. Just an example:






Personally, I love to play those recordings in gramophones from the period, if I can find the particular recording.

With electric recordings, mostly from mid-to-late 1920s onwards, the quality improved noticeably.

So, many times is a kind of trade-off. For instance, those are my two preferred recordings of _Die Walküre _and _Turandot_:















Wagner's is from 1935, while Puccini's is from 1938.

Now, this is good sound, a sound that can let you enjoy the performance, and is not so detrimental that really takes the excitement out of the listening experience? I think so. The quality of the sound is good enough for that.

On the other hand, can you really appreciate all the fine details and the exquisite craft of two great composers for the orchestra, like Wagner and Puccini?. No, not by any means. You need to go at least to the 1950s to get this kind of performance available.

So it's really a matter of personal appreciation after all. To me, in Opera the voices are most of my enjoyment, so the 1930s pieces mentioned above are fantastic and fair game. But if you are looking for the orchestra to relish the wonderful details that are there in both those operas, you will likely get dissapointed. There is 'adequate' quality, but no 'great' quality.

In my experience, I've known many people that, at the beginning, they can tolerate only sort of "real modern" sound. Later, with time, some of them were enthralled by the historical recordings, some of them were not. Of course, for a new person just wanting to be introduced in Opera, in the 21st century, I wouldn't start by showing him the historical recordings... there are few people that can enjoy this the first time, and most probably we will be doing the wrong thing if we share with this person a performance of _Turandot_, and use for that the 1938 Ghione's version.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I appreciate the above,but after seeing the Caruso film I went to the library for some Lanza recordings.
The librarian persuaded me instead to take some of Gigli, when I heard them I fell over and never recovered. The stars have gone out now and I miss the thrill that used to be.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I admit to having difficulty getting past the sonic restrictions of pre-stereo if the music is orchestral/choral, and incrementally less so the fewer players there are. This means missing out on many great recordings helmed by Toscanini, Furtwaengler etc. but that's my cross to bear. Had I been around before stereo was available it wouldn't have been an issue, obviously.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> Those who only listen to modern recordings aren't interested in opera,they merely like listening to it---and there's nothing wrong with that.


Of course it could be said that those who listen to modern recordings are so interested in opera they want to hear the whole of it unhindered by limited recording quality!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

A slight majority of my recordings are historical; if in the definition of historical you include those made in the 1980s, 1970s and 1960s, then it would be a considerable majority. My only problem with historical recordings is that sometimes I can't get enough of them or have them in the right remastering. But historical recordings must have gained in prominence and popularity in the last ten years or so, as more of them are becoming available all the time and the remasterings just seem to be getting better. I have two versions of the Krauss 1953 Bayreuth Ring, and the Pristine label remastering of the Krauss Rheingold and Walkure, which are not cheap, are on the way. I only have problems with hysterical recordings.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

moody said:


> Those who only listen to modern recordings aren't interested in opera,they merely like listening to it---and there's nothing wrong with that.


I strongly object to this statement - and am not even sure what it actually means...

I rarely listen to historical recordings because I don't like the sound quality. I have tried - I'm listening to an Alain Vanzo recital from the late 50s at the moment but although I think he's a lovely singer, I'm not enjoying it much.

But I am interested in opera, just not the historical singer aspect of it. You could say the same about people who don't listen to contemporary opera, or those who don't listen to Baroque opera, or who only listen and never watch, or who don't listen to current singers, but that would also be untrue. There are many different ways of appreciating the art-form.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> I strongly object to this statement - and am not even sure what it actually means...
> 
> I rarely listen to historical recordings because I don't like the sound quality. I have tried - I'm listening to an Alain Vanzo recital from the late 50s at the moment but although I think he's a lovely singer, I'm not enjoying it much.
> 
> But I am interested in opera, just not the historical singer aspect of it. You could say the same about people who don't listen to contemporary opera, or those who don't listen to Baroque opera, or who only listen and never watch, or who don't listen to current singers, but that would also be untrue. There are many different ways of appreciating the art-form.




You strongly object to a statement you don't understand? That could be a problem endemic among moderators.

[Impossible to resist that opening, Natalie!]

Recording _technology_ has been good enough since the late 1940s to adequately reproduce the music with minimal imagination required from the listener - though sometimes the _engineering_ has been faulty.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm on the right side of forty by a reasonable margin and it's nice that that's considered "the younger generation"! I'm not interested in historical recordings in general because of the quality of the orchestral playing - probably reflecting my particular prejudices probably. I'm wary of any pre-70s - for instance the much-vaunted Solti Ring can sound good but is also full of terrible playing and the Bohm Ring is an orchestral joke (mind you it's Bayreuth - a scratch band, albeit a good one) the Pears Peter Grimes is also scratchy as are the old Elektras and Salomes. For this reason I'll also avoid Italian and Russian recordings - but I'm not very interested in that repertoire anyway. I'm also like historically informed Mozart so that basically limits me to the 90s or later

I think this thread may highlight the difference between enjoying "operas" (which I do - heaps of them) and enjoying "Opera" (which is the operatic cannon, and singers and history of it as it is performed)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

dgee said:


> I'm on the right side of forty by a reasonable margin and it's nice that that's considered "the younger generation"! I'm not interested in historical recordings in general because of the quality of the orchestral playing - probably reflecting my particular prejudices probably. I'm wary of any pre-70s - for instance the much-vaunted Solti Ring can sound good but is also full of terrible playing and the Bohm Ring is an orchestral joke (mind you it's Bayreuth - a scratch band, albeit a good one) the Pears Peter Grimes is also scratchy as are the old Elektras and Salomes. For this reason I'll also avoid Italian and Russian recordings - but I'm not very interested in that repertoire anyway. I'm also like historically informed Mozart so that basically limits me to the 90s or later
> 
> I think this thread may highlight the difference between enjoying "operas" (which I do - heaps of them) and enjoying "Opera" (which is the operatic cannon, and singers and history of it as it is performed)


I'm pretty sure it's impossible to respond to any specific statement in this post without 'pulling in points'. You have created a monster, _dgee_.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Ukko said:


> Recording _technology_ has been good enough since the late 1940s to adequately reproduce the music with minimal imagination required from the listener - though sometimes the _engineering_ has been faulty.


Well I am honestly puzzled by why I find many earlier recordings so unpleasant to listen to, in view of what you said here. I don't think it's the orchestral playing, so it must be, as you say, something to do with the sound engineering. In the Vanzo CD there is quite a variation as the arias were recorded at different times - one of them sounded so hollow and "ringy" I couldn't even listen to the end.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Of course it could be said that those who listen to modern recordings are so interested in opera they want to hear the whole of it unhindered by limited recording quality!


But limited by the vocal quality !!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well I am honestly puzzled by why I find many earlier recordings so unpleasant to listen to, in view of what you said here. I don't think it's the orchestral playing, so it must be, as you say, something to do with the sound engineering. In the Vanzo CD there is quite a variation as the arias were recorded at different times - one of them sounded so hollow and "ringy" I couldn't even listen to the end.


Yep, that description fits an engineering problem. In this case there would be no way to 'match up' the differing sound environments. Post WW2, when magnetic tape became widely available - and so entire opera scenes could be _easily_ recorded in one 'sitting' - that shouldn't occur in an opera recording. But even modern releases of _collected tracks_ can have the variance that annoys you here.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

moody said:


> But limited by the vocal quality !!


Disagree with that too. Great singers appear in every era, as do mediocre ones.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm only interested in the singing,I know what the orchestra is supposed to be doing and mentaly fill in.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Disagree with that too. Great singers appear in every era, as do mediocre ones.


I'm sorry but that's simply not the case.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> But limited by the vocal quality !!


Not necessarily. One listens to ancient recordings sometimes and frankly one wonders what on earth the fuss is about.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Not necessarily. One listens to ancient recordings sometimes and frankly one wonders what on earth the fuss is about.


For instance ?Please give an example or two.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Not necessarily. One listens to ancient recordings sometimes and frankly one wonders what on earth the fuss is about.


Absolutely agree. For instance - can't stand Franco Corelli and Mario del Monaco.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Absolutely agree. For instance - can't stand Franco Corelli and Mario del Monaco.


They are not historical recordings and in any case rather poor choices.
What about Caruso, Martinelli,de Lucia and Gigli ?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I simply can't hear enough to see what the fuss is about with Caruso, Martinelli or de Lucia, and I don't like that "style" of singing. (I don't honestly know if that also has something to do with my lack of interest in historical recordings - have singing styles changed - sounds like it to my ears)

Don't like Gigli's voice much, particularly when he's singing forte.

I'd rather listen to these people, for a start:

Philippe Jaroussky, Franco Fagioli, Jonas Kaufmann, René Pape, Roberta Invernizzi, John Mark Ainsley, Ian Bostridge, Andreas Scholl, Juan Diego Flórez, Lawrence Brownlee, Nina Stemme, Ann Hallenberg, Sarah Connolly, Bejun Mehta, Sonia Prina, Marie-Nicole Lemieux, Anna Caterina Antonacci, Waltraud Meier, Topi Lehtipuu, Luca Pisaroni, Miah Persson, Gerald Finley, Véronique Gens, Pavol Breslik, Klaus Florian Vogt, Jessica Pratt, Anna Larsson, Lucy Crowe, Daniela Barcellona, Joyce DiDonato, Evelyn Herlitzius, Tim Mead, Tom Randle, Rosemary Joshua, Susan Gritton.

Edit: aargh, forgot Barbara Hannigan, a true great (and dances and conducts too). But she mainly sings contemporary opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> They are not historical recordings and in any case rather poor choices.
> What about Caruso, Martinelli,de Lucia and Gigli ?


There were, of course, outstanding singers in the past. It is often difficult to tell how good they actually were from the limited sound recordings. But I remember hearing a 'legendary' Carmen (can't remember the name) and the Haberna sounded like a school ma'am giving a naughty child a telling off! Hopeless! I must confess to having been similarly disappointed with the warblings of other singers from the past that send the connoisseurs into raptures. Of course, you can say it's my tin ear. Or I can say it's a case of the emperor's new clothes!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Absolutely agree. For instance - can't stand Franco Corelli and Mario del Monaco.


I must confess a liking to Corelli's Jose with Karajan even though the language in which he sings doesn't even approximate to French. Del Monaco was an insensitive bawler but very exciting on stage, apparently.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> I'm on the right side of forty by a reasonable margin and it's nice that that's considered "the younger generation"! I'm not interested in historical recordings in general because of the quality of the orchestral playing - probably reflecting my particular prejudices probably. I'm wary of any pre-70s - for instance the much-vaunted Solti Ring can sound good but is also full of terrible playing and the Bohm Ring is an orchestral joke (mind you it's Bayreuth - a scratch band, albeit a good one) the Pears Peter Grimes is also scratchy as are the old Elektras and Salomes. For this reason I'll also avoid Italian and Russian recordings - but I'm not very interested in that repertoire anyway. I'm also like historically informed Mozart so that basically limits me to the 90s or later
> 
> I think this thread may highlight the difference between enjoying "operas" (which I do - heaps of them) and enjoying "Opera" (which is the operatic cannon, and singers and history of it as it is performed)


Hey! You are Moody's polar opposite! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> I'm sorry but that's simply not the case.


Oh, then as we have good singers around today, all the mediocre ones must be in the past?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

If we are talking about Caruso, Martinelli, Gigli or even De Lucia, there is more than enough material to understand their singing and the quality of that singing. Their voices are very well captured, and there are quite a few recordings. Even of a complete opera, in the case of Martinelli and Gigli.

Now, when appreciating a singer, of course the personal taste, the musical education, the experience... of the listener are paramount. After all, this is what all art, including operating singing, is about: to entice a response on the beholder/listener. And this response will be different, because all people have different tastes, background,...

Having said that, if someone admires the singing of John Mark Ainsley, for instance, that's fine. However, I've heard him in the theater, singing for instance the Prologue of "The Turn of the Screw", not the more dificcult piece in the repertoire, and he was practically unable to make himself heard beyond the first rows in the audience!. Even worse, it was a flat deliverance, without any inflection, any dramatic intention. Just a thread of barely audible and indifferent sound. This is not an operatic voice, not even to sing Britten or Baroque opera. (I have also heard him live in "The Rape of Lucretia", "L'Upupa", "From the House of the Dead"...).

However, when you hear only the recorded voice, the flat deliverance is still there, but the minuscule voice disappears. This is one aspect, that we can really judge only in a live performance, and of course it's impossible to judge from recordings.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Oh, then as we have good singers around today, all the mediocre ones must be in the past?


Just think a little about it.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the percentage of "good singers" is about the same in all periods, and we have about the same number of singers in each period, too (this is not the case, really, but bear with me). Then, by default, a great majority of "good singers" are in the past of the current listener. Many of them, of course, are irretrievably lost to us, but at least, starting from the invention of sound recording, we do have the ability of recover the art of quite a few of those "good singers". Now, if we take as 1900, for instance, the initial date of recordings, and an average contemporary listener has 30 years of live experience, there are at least 3 times as many "good singers" from the past of that listener, than in his present.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

schigolch said:


> If we are talking about Caruso, Martinelli, Gigli or even De Lucia, there is more than enough material to understand their singing and the quality of that singing. Their voices are very well captured, and there are quite a few recordings. Even of a complete opera, in the case of Martinelli and Gigli.
> 
> Now, when appreciating a singer, of course the personal taste, the musical education, the experience... of the listener are paramount. After all, this is what all art, including operating singing, is about: to entice a response on the beholder/listener. And this response will be different, because all people have different tastes, background,...
> 
> ...


Yes, well that is true, and of course I don't these days get to much live opera because there isn't much here. My judgement of JMA comes mainly from the Glyndebourne Billy Budd, and I don't find his delivery flat at all. And neither does this reviewer of the live performance, writing in the Independent in 2010:



> What a marvellous idea to have the old and broken Vere - his inner-turmoil beautifully conveyed in John Mark Ainsley's achingly sung performance - become an unseen presence in the harrowing final scene as if recalling the terrible consequences of his indecision in hindsight.


No mention here of inaudibility.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> If we are talking about Caruso, Martinelli, Gigli or even De Lucia, there is more than enough material to understand their singing and the quality of that singing. Their voices are very well captured, and there are quite a few recordings. Even of a complete opera, in the case of Martinelli and Gigli.
> 
> Now, when appreciating a singer, of course the personal taste, the musical education, the experience... of the listener are paramount. After all, this is what all art, including operating singing, is about: to entice a response on the beholder/listener. And this response will be different, because all people have different tastes, background,...
> 
> ...


By the same token this applies to all recorded singers, past and present!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> Just think a little about it.
> 
> Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the percentage of "good singers" is about the same in all periods, and we have about the same number of singers in each period, too (this is not the case, really, but bear with me). Then, by default, a great majority of "good singers" are in the past of the current listener. Many of them, of course, are irretrievably lost to us, but at least, starting from the invention of sound recording, we do have the ability of recover the art of quite a few of those "good singers". Now, if we take as 1900, for instance, the initial date of recordings, and an average contemporary listener has 30 years of live experience, there are at least 3 times as many "good singers" from the past of that listener, than in his present.


Sorry, I don't follow your point.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

An interesting discussion; obviously, some people love historic recordings and others do have a problem, both with sound quality & style of singing. De gustibus etc... 

I know styles change in acting. If we could hire a time machine & watch Richard Burbage, Shakespeare's star, or Henry Irving, the darling of the Victorians, we'd probably think them hammy. If they could come the other way, they might think the style of 'underplayed' acting we go in for as mannered in its own way. And 'in the middle' wouldn't cut it; there isn't a 'right answer'. 

Has a comparable change taken place with opera singers?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Inaudible it was, my friend. I was sitting that night, the 12th of November of 2010, in the fourth floor of Teatro Real, that is a medium-size house of some 2,000 seats. I have an excellent couple of ears, and even for myself it was really difficult. My wife and a couple of friend, sitting beside me, were unable to hear anything. Later, and as Peter Quint, Mr. Ainsley's performance was better, from a dramatic point of view, and he was able to produce and project a slightly stronger voice, but it was a most disappointing evening. 

Of course, the size of the voice can only be judged live. That was my point, that we can get this information first hand from the singers of 'our present' but need to rely on the sources for singers of 'our past'. 

About the other stuff, I think it's pretty obvious. That, all other things equal, just there are more "good singers" in anyone's past (even in the past of the oldest TC member) than in anyone's present.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> Has a comparable change taken place with opera singers?


Not one, many, my friend. 

Too many to discuss all, or even most, of them in one single post, I fear.

But, taking singing styles aside, in my view one of the major problems that the opera singers of the 21st face, is the lack of musical know-how of some stage directors, that don't understand the nature of operatic singing.






Look at this video of David Oistrakh playing the violin. It's a fascinating performance. Now, imagine that Mr. Oistrakh needs to perform while dancing the conga... Difficult, right?. Well, to produce quality operatic singing is as difficult as to play the violin (more difficult in some operas, than in others; and in some moments in an particular opera, than in others, to be sure, but just speaking in general terms here), and the requirement of physical activity from the singers, are many times not the best recipe for those singers to give their best at vocal actors.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Having said that, if someone admires the singing of John Mark Ainsley, for instance, that's fine. [...] Even worse, it was a flat deliverance, without any inflection, any dramatic intention. Just a thread of barely audible and indifferent sound.


!!! I heard him live too (as L'Orfeo) and I thought he was riveting...


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

schigolch said:


> Not one, many, my friend.
> 
> Too many to discuss all, or even most, of them in one single post, I fear.
> 
> ...


That's less a matter of style than a matter of physical constraints, as you say.

But I agree that singers nowadays are asked to sing under some extremely difficult circumstances (just look at the current Tito from Munich where Kristine Opolais has to sing recit while climbing up and down steep tiers, wearing a Marge Simpson wig, a massive hooped skirt and high heels, .) That so many current singers STILL manage to produce the vocal goods under these circumstances is a testament to their talent and hard work.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> !!! I heard him live too (as L'Orfeo) and I thought he was riveting...


Presumably you could hear him, then...


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> (just look at the current Tito from Munich where Kristine Opolais has to sing recit while climbing up and down steep tiers, wearing a Marge Simpson wig, a massive hooped skirt and high heels, .)


(_Non piu di fiori_ was jawdropping )


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Ingélou said:


> I know styles change in acting. If we could hire a time machine & watch Richard Burbage, Shakespeare's star, or Henry Irving, the darling of the Victorians, we'd probably think them hammy. If they could come the other way, they might think the style of 'underplayed' acting we go in for as mannered in its own way. And 'in the middle' wouldn't cut it; there isn't a 'right answer'.


You can also compare the declamatory style of the French acting from the Comédie-Française (which spills over into their Baroque Opera) with the far more naturalistic style of the English stage.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> (_Non piu di fiori_ was jawdropping )


I had too many technical problems and had to abandon the viewing.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> I had too many technical problems and had to abandon the viewing.


it's likely it'll get on youtube soon and maybe even on DVD.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> it's likely it'll get on youtube soon and maybe even on DVD.


No DVDs come out of Munich these days - they don't "approve" of anything that is not live. And if it gets on YT it will be taken down within hours.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have no illusions that all the best conductors or performers can only be found in the past. On the other hand, to ignore the wealth of what is available from the "historical era"... however you define that... strikes me as pure-blind for the music lover as for a film-buff to reject anything shot in black and white. The engineering or sound-quality is certainly something I consider... but not at the expense of the performance. Yes, there are contemporary performances of the highest quality, but these do not inherently replace or surpass those of the past. I cannot imagine being without Glenn Gould's Bach, Kirsten Flagstad and Lauritz Melchior's _Tristan_, Kathleen Ferrier and Maureen Forrester's performances of Mahler's _Song of the Earth_ with Bruno Walter, Benjamino Gigli, Thomas Beecham's _Faust_, the whole of Maria Callas' oeuvre, Gerhard Hüsch, Heinrich Schlusnus, the Busch Quartet, Henryk Szeryng, Fritz Wunderlich, Alfredo Campoli, Pierre Fournier, Elisabeth Soderstrom, Helge Roswaenge, Ljuba Welitch... Ultimately, I listen for performers and performances as much as for the work in question. If I need to sacrifice pristine audiophile sound-quality in order to gain the fire and passion of Maria Callas, that's a sacrifice I will gladly make. I can always pick up a modern recording of the same work that will offer greater sound quality in recording the orchestra.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have no illusions that all the best conductors or performers can only be found in the past. On the other hand, to ignore the wealth of what is available from the "historical era"... however you define that... strikes me as pure-blind for the music lover as for a film-buff to reject anything shot in black and white. The engineering or sound-quality is certainly something I consider... but not at the expense of the performance. Yes, there are contemporary performances of the highest quality, but these do not inherently replace or surpass those of the past. I cannot imagine being without Glenn Gould's Bach, Kirsten Flagstad and Lauritz Melchior's _Tristan_, Kathleen Ferrier and Maureen Forrester's performances of Mahler's _Song of the Earth_ with Bruno Walter, Benjamino Gigli, Thomas Beecham's _Faust_, the whole of Maria Callas' oeuvre, Gerhard Hüsch, Heinrich Schlusnus, the Busch Quartet, Henryk Szeryng, Fritz Wunderlich, Alfredo Campoli, Pierre Fournier, Elisabeth Soderstrom, Helge Roswaenge, Ljuba Welitch... Ultimately, I listen for performers and performances as much as for the work in question. If I need to sacrifice pristine audiophile sound-quality in order to gain the fire and passion of Maria Callas, that's a sacrifice I will gladly make. I can always pick up a modern recording of the same work that will offer greater sound quality in recording the orchestra.


Well, I listen to Maria Callas, but I don't think the purists call her performances "historical" judging from some comments above.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

In fact, the above is also just about what I think about the "historical recordings" stuff. I'm just a little bit more of a film-buff, and I love silent movies, too.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The definition of "historical" would seem to be tied to the age of the listener. Some of our young 'uns here would seem to think of anything prior to digital technology as "historical". I would tend to think of anything from the 1960s or earlier... although WWII seems a good cut-off as well. Moody has a few years on me so I suspect that for him to think of Maria Callas as "historical" is out of the question... whereas for me, virtually her whole discography was recorded before I was born.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, I was born in the early 1960s, but for me "historical recording" in Opera, has always meant anything before the 1950s.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

I was born in the late 40s, so what is historical to some was contemporary to me. I guess I'm historical and technically faulty too, with bad sound. No argument there. But some sympathy. I had the 'misfortune' when young to have been surrounded by people who had heard many of the great singers in person. A great-uncle of mine would give us detailed descriptions of Caruso's singing, and Ruffo's. He was not only an audience member. He was leading actor in a theatre in which Caruso would sing opera while on international tours and he became friendly with Caruso. He gave us a load of autographed one-sided 78 rpms, and believe me they sounded great out of his ancient grammophone! Nothing sold me on opera as convincingly as that sound! And I have written earlier of the vast experience of my friend Will Graham of Philly, who died in his 90s and knew personally Lauri-Volpi and even Caruso's surviving contemporaries and friends, such as de Luca, Ruffo and Lauri-Volpi, even Antonio Scotti in his last years. In his youth, my father's music teacher had been a disciple of Puccini. That man was almost expelled from his conservatory in Italy when he tried to champion Puccini's music because the snobs back in the early 1900s still considered it garbage. (Yes, the argument goes back that far.) It was he, a stalwart conductor of verismo music, who introduced my dad to his friend Hipolito Lazaro years later. they would discuss the 'rivalry' between Mascagni and Puccini. In fact, Puccini against most of the others. And/or the others against him. 

I don't like some things Corelli sang, as I mentioned elsewhere, but I like some others (Il Trovatore and Andrea Chenier). I certainly liked del Monaco's Otello and Alvaro and he was a fantastic actor in these roles. I was able to watch him in both in the late 50s and early 60s. 

Now, I like many contemporary (i.e., now) singers and some I don't like. There is no chronologically-based differentiation in my mind, but those who want or need to draw that line are welcome to do it. The quality of 'historical' recordings is something I am very well acquainted with and I have no problem with the best specimens. 

For me it's basically a question of perspective. The biographical element looms high in these matters. Myself, I can better appreciate any epoch, past or modern, because I was fortunate to have had this particular sense of perspective ingrained in me. There is no way on earth that I will part with my 1936 Tristan und Isolde with Melchior and Flagstad. And there is no way on earth that I will part with the Glyndebourne Giulio Cesare with Sarah Connolly. As always, YMMV.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I like listening to old broadcasts from the Met. There's a real sense of occasion about them, and usually more of a sense of drama than you get from the same singers' studio-made recordings. The second act of the 1935 Met TRAVIATA is fascinating for me as I'm a big fan of Rosa Ponselle's and Lawrence Tibbett's voices. I won't claim that the recording makes for easy listening: the sound is primitive by modern standards and can be harsh. As J.B. Steane writes, you have mentally to "filter out" extraneous noise while listening to very old recordings. You also have to "fill in" a certain amount with your imagination, as the voices weren't caught entirely faithfully with such primitive equipment. 

Besides that TRAVIATA I also have a Giuseppe de Luca CD (the compilation on the Nimbus label). Even though the recordings are very old (the earliest are from 1907), the transfers are good and clear, so that I really can hear why he was considered a great bel canto stylist.

One historic recording I literally can't stand to listen to is the famous 1953 TRAVIATA with Callas at La Scala. On the copy I had the sound was really, really harsh, and the big-voiced Ettore Bastiannini singing loudly throughout only made things worse.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

For me it's old Callas recordings and old Wagner recordings which I enjoy.
I used to listen to old Furtwangler and some Toscanini, but not much anymore.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I love the 60's performers LOTS ( Sutherland, Nilsson, Tebaldi, Corelli, Caballe), but I think of historical as anything before the advent of stereo. I can't live without my Flagstad, Traubel, Melchior, Ponselle.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Stuckesguild Ohio and I mentioned _listening through_ primitive sound in order to hear the drama in historic recordings, but I also wanted to point out that in more modern, stereo recordings, the better sound quality can actually _enhance_ the drama. I think immediately of all those London/Decca recordings from the late 1950's/1960's onward, which were "staged" sonically, and many of the recordings on the Deutsche Grammophone label whose sound quality to me often evokes a live performance in an opera house -- James Levine's EUGENE ONEGIN from 1987 is a good example.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> For me it's old Callas recordings and old Wagner recordings which I enjoy.
> I used to listen to old Furtwangler and some Toscanini, but not much anymore.


You do have to compromise of course between recordings and performance sometimes. Toscanini's recordings are generally unpleasant to listen to, especially those recorded in that dreadful studio 8-H. I have the famous Furtwangler Beethoven ninth recorded at Bayreuth and cannot imagine what the fuss is about.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I love the 60's performers LOTS ( Sutherland, Nilsson, Tebaldi, Corelli, Caballe), but I think of historical as anything before the advent of stereo. I can't live without my Flagstad, Traubel, Melchior, Ponselle.


For 60s recordings you're not really talking about historical recordings as there was many excellent recordings made then. For example the Decca Karajan Aida was made in 1958 but it still sounds amazing, due to the skill of the recording engineers. Nothing to complain about the singing or orchestral playing either. The sounds coming from the orchestra are miraculous.
Obviously, when one goes back to Melchior the sound is far more 'historical'. The famous Walkure Act 1 he made with Lehmann has to be heard but the orchestral sound is thin.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

"_T don't know how anyone can regard this as historical!!
Historical is the age of acoustic recordings_"
post #3 by Moody

Well, in the OP historical=pre stereo, so where's the problem?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> I simply can't hear enough to see what the fuss is about with Caruso, Martinelli or de Lucia, and I don't like that "style" of singing. (I don't honestly know if that also has something to do with my lack of interest in historical recordings - have singing styles changed - sounds like it to my ears)
> 
> Don't like Gigli's voice much, particularly when he's singing forte.
> 
> ...


I think I'm wasting my time so will leave you to your choice of singers but with these comments.
You are right about the style of singing having changed (degraded), but de Lucia is the nearest you will hear to what Rossinj wrote and is perfect bel canto and florid singing.
Also if you are having a problem with Gigli of all people at forte then there is a problem with your recordings,could you list them ?
The point here is,the one you didn't understand earlier, is that you seem to be talking about listening to operas, I'm talking about studying the art of singing. You won't find any complete operas with Caruso or Melba included in them.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> There were, of course, outstanding singers in the past. It is often difficult to tell how good they actually were from the limited sound recordings. But I remember hearing a 'legendary' Carmen (can't remember the name) and the Haberna sounded like a school ma'am giving a naughty child a telling off! Hopeless! I must confess to having been similarly disappointed with the warblings of other singers from the past that send the connoisseurs into raptures. Of course, you can say it's my tin ear. Or I can say it's a case of the emperor's new clothes!


This is not much use to us,if you mention a singer you should supply the name or how can anybody comment ?
But probably the greatest Carmen was Conchita Supervia and she would have been a terrifying school ma'am.
To comment on your last point,yes it's your tin ear or a lot of KNOWLEDGEABLE people above are completely wrong.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

GioCar said:


> "_T don't know how anyone can regard this as historical!!
> Historical is the age of acoustic recordings_"
> post #3 by Moody
> 
> Well, in the OP historical=pre stereo, so where's the problem?


He quotes pre-stereo recordings and this covers a lot of ground.
But I have, I suppose, questioned his opinion of what is historical.
I was 39 when Callas died, 66 in the case of Corelli and 44 when del Monaco departed, do you think that this is very "hisiorical" and where does that leave me ?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> This is not much use to us,if you mention a singer you should supply the name or how can anybody comment ?
> But probably the greatest Carmen was Conchita Supervia and she would have been a terrifying school ma'am.
> To comment on your last point,yes it's your tin ear or a lot of KNOWLEDGEABLE people above are completely wrong.


Now Moody! When I make a self-deprecating remark it is not good manners to agree with it! Perhaps no-one ever told you. In fact, it's not my tin ear because as I've tried to convince you of before, this is a matter of personal opinion, not black and white facts as you try to make it. For example, if you listen to Supervia's Una voice poco fa, next to Callas or de Los Angeles, you find that the later singers are at least as good if not superior. Now I know guys like you who love the past will not be convinced but that's what comes out of the speakers!
Again, listen to Supervia's Carmen and I agree she does sound like a terrifying school ma'am! I mean, you wouldn't dare to refuse her! But she is meant to be a seductress. To me Supervia does not convey Carmen's seductive qualities like some of the great modern day Carmens. Of course, it might be the limited recording quality but one can only go by what one hears.
One other thing, dear friend. Why are people only rated as knowledgable when they agree with you?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> He quotes pre-stereo recordings and this covers a lot of ground.
> But I have, I suppose, questioned his opinion of what is historical.
> I was 39 when Callas died, 66 in the case of Corelli and 44 when del Monaco departed, do you think that this is very "hisiorical" and where does that leave me ?


Ok well I was 30 when Callas died. But so what? It means we're both pensioners!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Ok well I was 30 when Callas died. But so what? It means we're both pensioners!


*And none the worse for that. We are in our prime!* :lol:


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, Conchita Supervía was a wonderful singer. She was the perfect embodiment of that French expression: "rire dans la voix" (more or less, "laughter was in her voice"). Hers was a luminous voice, with silvery overtones, and an attractive 'vibrato stretto'. Her range was from G2 to B4, with rather solid (well, most of the time) low notes, and easy top ones.

Back in the 1920s Supervía was a very admired Rossinian singer. In fact, operas like _Cenerentola_ or _Barbiere_, were sung by very light sopranos at the times, what was not the exact original intention of Rossini (though of course, it was Rossini himself who adapted the score of _Il Barbiere_ for Joséphine Fodor-Mainvielle, and even gave her an extra aria: "Ah se é ver che in tal momento", that we can easily hear in the voice of Beverly Sills. Basically Rossini added some top notes, and extra trills, while most of the colororatura is just about the same).

However, voices with a darker timbre, with more rotund middle and low registers, while still being able to handle the coloratura, are the best choice for Rosina and Angelina, in my view.

We can listen to Supervía singing (wonderfully) "Una voce poco fa".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=cmu0ytn8vtg

Of course, we can find more academical performances, with more solid vocal techniques, a little bit more detached than Supervía's, but hers is simply ravishing even when she plays with the tempi, and with some debatable, though delicious, rallentandi.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

moody said:


> He quotes pre-stereo recordings and this covers a lot of ground.
> But I have, I suppose, questioned his opinion of what is historical.
> I was 39 when Callas died, 66 in the case of Corelli and 44 when del Monaco departed, do you think that this is very "hisiorical" and where does that leave me ?


I was in Mississippi till I was 21, born in 55, and heard only Price and Sills in miked performances in our Coliseum. For all practical purposes I really never heard any of the opera idols of my youth ( who are still predominantly my favorites) except on vinyl on a bad stereo. All seemed so greatly removed from my world as to seem practically historical, though I still reserve the use of the term to pre Stereo recordings. Whatever the case, all those times were a LONG time ago;-) I was particularly curious about the listening habits of the younger generation, brought up on digital stereo recordings. Would mono and earlier sound put them off from opera recording enjoyment.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Beside vocalists, I would not be without such instrumentalists as an 18-year old genius like Yehudi Menuhin:






... or Edwin Fischer's Well Tempered Clavier:






... both recorded in the 1930s.

And what of such historical "documents" as Bruno Walter's Mahler 9th recorded live in Vienna in January 1938... the last performance of Mahler in Vienna... likely in Austria and Germany... until the fall of the Third Reich:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Now Moody! When I make a self-deprecating remark it is not good manners to agree with it! Perhaps no-one ever told you. In fact, it's not my tin ear because as I've tried to convince you of before, this is a matter of personal opinion, not black and white facts as you try to make it. For example, if you listen to Supervia's Una voice poco fa, next to Callas or de Los Angeles, you find that the later singers are at least as good if not superior. Now I know guys like you who love the past will not be convinced but that's what comes out of the speakers!
> Again, listen to Supervia's Carmen and I agree she does sound like a terrifying school ma'am! I mean, you wouldn't dare to refuse her! But she is meant to be a seductress. To me Supervia does not convey Carmen's seductive qualities like some of the great modern day Carmens. Of course, it might be the limited recording quality but one can only go by what one hears.
> One other thing, dear friend. Why are people only rated as knowledgable when they agree with you?


I don't know what you are using to listen with,but tin ear or no tin ear there is no comparison whatever. Perhaps you will enlighten me, also I'm surprised that you have these singers in your collection,you do have them don't you ?
By the way I didn't know there were great modern day Carmens.
As for knowledgeable,that's simple just read what they say.
The technique of singing is not a matter of personal opinion,it's there or it isn't. Whether you like the sound of a particular singer is personal opinion.
Look at post no.65--that's knowledgeable !


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> Well, Conchita Supervía was a wonderful singer. She was the perfect embodiment of that French expression: "rire dans la voix" (more or less, "laughter was in her voice"). Hers was a luminous voice, with silvery overtones, and an attractive 'vibrato stretto'. Her range was from G2 to B4, with rather solid (well, most of the time) low notes, and easy top ones.
> 
> Back in the 1920s Supervía was a very admired Rossinian singer. In fact, operas like _Cenerentola_ or _Barbiere_, were sung by very light sopranos at the times, what was not the exact original intention of Rossini (though of course, it was Rossini himself who adapted the score of _Il Barbiere_ for Joséphine Fodor-Mainvielle, and even gave her an extra aria: "Ah se é ver che in tal momento", that we can easily hear in the voice of Beverly Sills. Basically Rossini added some top notes, and extra trills, while most of the colororatura is just about the same).
> 
> ...


I've listened to this and to my mind her performance does not equal Callas or de Los Angeles. I've got both in complete performances and IMO they are both better performances.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> I don't know what you are using to listen with,but tin ear or no tin ear there is no comparison whatever. Perhaps you will enlighten me, also I'm surprised that you have these singers in your collection,you do have them don't you ?
> By the way I didn't know there were great modern day Carmens.
> As for knowledgeable,that's simple just read what they say.
> The technique of singing is not a matter of personal opinion,it's there or it isn't. Whether you like the sound of a particular singer is personal opinion.
> Look at post no.65--that's knowledgeable !


Moody I admire your nostalgia but it just doesn't stand up. Sorry!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, if you like more other performances, that's fine for you. Enjoy. 

Personally, it's very hard for me to say if one performance is "better" than the others. Maybe Rossini was entitled to rank those performances. As for myself, I just can share here what I like (even what I don't like sometimes, though I much prefer to discuss the former) and the reasons why I like it, or not, in the first place. Beyond that...

I love also Supervia's Angelina. Both roles were premiered by the same singer, of course, Geltrude Righetti:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Ok well I was 30 when Callas died. But so what? It means we're both pensioners!


Historical : Of or relating to the character of history.
Based on or concerned with events in history.
Certainly, but I don't consider myself to be "historical",this changes my whole outlook.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Moody I admire your nostalgia but it just doesn't stand up. Sorry!


Can that really be your answer,OK in that case I will not discuss this subject with you any longer.
This reminds me of the Schnabel thread !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I was in Mississippi till I was 21, born in 55, and heard only Price and Sills in miked performances in our Coliseum. For all practical purposes I really never heard any of the opera idols of my youth ( who are still predominantly my favorites) except on vinyl on a bad stereo. All seemed so greatly removed from my world as to seem practically historical, though I still reserve the use of the term to pre Stereo recordings. Whatever the case, all those times were a LONG time ago;-) I was particularly curious about the listening habits of the younger generation, brought up on digital stereo recordings. Would mono and earlier sound put them off from opera recording enjoyment.


I don't think we've heard from the young generation,have we?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm 52. Does that count for 'younger generation'? :lol:

I love hunting through historical recordings because there are so many treasures out there just waiting to be discovered (by me!) I find it absolutely magical to stumble across a singer that I've never heard or .... or a pianist ...... or a violinist ..... or a conductor. There are simply hundreds of fantastic performers who didn't get the recognition that others got because they were on the wrong record label or in the wrong country or who died before they really took off (or who simply recorded before the advent of modern top-quality techniques). I'm very grateful to those experts who have allowed me to access the musical vaults - Marston, Obert, etc etc etc and to the labels that have made historic performances available (including naxos, marston and pristine audio amongst many others) even if there are lots of controversies about pitch and speed and balance.

Yes, there are weaknesses in the sound sometimes (erm, many times) but I grew up listening to a really cheap transistor radio with loads of interference through an appalling in-ear bud so I can hear through the sonic imperfections for the quality of the performance. And some of those performers really grab your attention with the quality of their interpretation but I'll never hear a live performance from Schnabel or Caruso or Gigli or Flagstad or Milstein or Heifetz or Callas and de los Angeles .... so I'll carry on enjoying them on CD.

there are just so many pearls out there - here's enough to keep me fascinated for a month or so:


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

moody said:


> I don't think we've heard from the young generation,have we?


I cannot say of myself to belong to the "young generation", but I am 25 years younger than you (if you were 39 when Callas died), I grew up with stereo sound, I was a teenager when I bought my first CD...
To me the De Sabata Tosca, and everything recorded before the 60s, is "historical". Sorry about that .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> Can that really be your answer,OK in that case I will not discuss this subject with you any longer.
> This reminds me of the Schnabel thread !


No matter what it reminds you of that is my answer! Callas and de Los Angeles rule!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GioCar said:


> I cannot say of myself to belong to the "young generation", but I am 25 years younger than you (if you were 39 when Callas died), I grew up with stereo sound, I was a teenager when I bought my first CD...
> To me the De Sabata Tosca, and everything recorded before the 60s, is "historical". Sorry about that .


But a least we have the Tosca in relatively decent sound. And it is a performance of a lifetime. Karajan, when he recorded it for Decca with Culshaw, played De Sabata's version and said of a passage: "How does he do that? It's his secret!"
It was one of those occasions when everything came together. It has to be heard.
Another recording (though the sonic quality is dreadful) is Horowitz's Rach 3 with Barbirolli. Unbelievable performance! One can just be grateful someone had a tape recorder.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Of course not. I love my 1939 Toscanini Beethoven cycle and my 1940 Toscanini Missa Solemnis, both remastered in the best sound possible, given the sources.

I answered this as a general post, not specific to opera. I also have historical collections by Pinza, Bjorling, Kipnis, etc; Indispensable!!!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

GioCar said:


> I cannot say of myself to belong to the "young generation", but I am 25 years younger than you (if you were 39 when Callas died), I grew up with stereo sound, I was a teenager when I bought my first CD...
> To me the De Sabata Tosca, and everything recorded before the 60s, is "historical". Sorry about that .


What do you think of the recordings - surely that's more relevant than the meaning of 'historical'?

I can see why 'historical' means different things to different people.
On the one hand, 'historical' is just 'the past'; on the other hand, copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work lasts for the life of the author and 70 years from the end of the year in which he/she died. It is not seventy years since Callas died, ergo...

What if we substitute *'old & crackly'* for 'historical'. We could then ask if the younger generation can overlook '*old crackliness*' & a changed style, and still see the greatness of the 'vanished voices' that have been mentioned above.

So far most of the opinions have been from older people, middle-aged people, and nearly-middle-aged people?
We have lots of young people on the site, though. Do any like opera? Do any listen to the older recordings? 
Or is it like Scottish Country Dancing, something one drifts into once one is old enough to appreciate *the finer things in life*?


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Following some of the above logic, then with the advent of 24-bit digital technology, all of the earlier 80s and 90s cds are now also historical, never mind the mono and ADD restorations and remasterings, and even the vinyls.

I remember that when digital audio technology became current, audiophiles were complaining that the digital process "shaved off" sonic details and the new sound lost the "warmth" of the old vinyls (some of which have surprisingly made a bit of a comeback in recent years). I thought this charge was exaggerated - until I went back and re-listened some of my stored old vinyls, comparing them with digital versions of the same pieces. They did sound warmer than the digital, despite the odd snap, crackle and pop. I'm not sure that the advent of "lossless" audio has completely corrected this problem. 

So nothing is clear-cut here. If your ear is accustomed to stereo digital recordings, you're going to find mono restaurations of analog impenetrable, I guess. Given my biographical arc, I can appreciate both contemporary and "historical" products. Even those produced with earlier digital and cd technology  All the more lucky I. As I wrote before, I consider the discrepancies discussed mainly due to differing biographical perspectives and what we have grown up to become comfortable with.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I find a subtle hiss or snap,crackle,pop kind of charming in a way.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Itullian said:


> I find a subtle hiss or snap,crackle,pop kind of charming in a way.


I am still in awe from hearing my first CD. No stylus, no groove, no contact, no hiss, no scratches, no rumble, no wow, no flutter, no inner-groove distortion, nothing to wear out. The "new" hasn't worn off for me, though some still hear intermodulation distortion as a sort of "warmness" that they seem fond of. 

When I started listening, even stereo LPs weren't available. Those days are gone and don't tickle my sense of nostalgia at all -- although I appreciate the restorations of the recordings I loved then.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I am still in awe from hearing my first CD. No stylus, no groove, no contact, no hiss, no scratches, no rumble, no wow, no flutter, no inner-groove distortion, nothing to wear out. The "new" hasn't worn off for me, though some still hear intermodulation distortion as a sort of "warmness" that they seem fond of.


And I still don't get how they get music out of those digital pits.
0 1 01 01


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Itullian said:


> And I still don't get how they get music out of those digital pits.
> 0 1 01 01


*SCIENCE! *:devil:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

samurai said:


> *SCIENCE! *:devil:


Me no get ..................


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Actually, neither do I, in all honesty.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I've read all about it.
I just cant understand how you get music from those shiny silver discs.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Itullian said:


> And I still don't get how they get music out of those digital pits.
> 0 1 01 01


Well, neither do I. But it's like religion. If you ask too many questions, you go to the bad place.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I'm 52. Does that count for 'younger generation'? :lol:
> 
> I love hunting through historical recordings because there are so many treasures out there just waiting to be discovered (by me!) I find it absolutely magical to stumble across a singer that I've never heard or .... or a pianist ...... or a violinist ..... or a conductor. There are simply hundreds of fantastic performers who didn't get the recognition that others got because they were on the wrong record label or in the wrong country or who died before they really took off (or who simply recorded before the advent of modern top-quality techniques). I'm very grateful to those experts who have allowed me to access the musical vaults - Marston, Obert, etc etc etc and to the labels that have made historic performances available (including naxos, marston and pristine audio amongst many others) even if there are lots of controversies about pitch and speed and balance.
> 
> ...


An excellent answer,putting the case so well !!


----------



## Donata (Dec 28, 2013)

I was born two years after Callas died, so I guess that puts me in a younger generation. I grew up listening to vinyl, didn't get my first CD player until I was in high school. I have many older recordings; the oldest is from 1908. So, I don't mind 'old & crackly'; it gives the music character. Though, vocal music sometimes has a tinny quality that isn't so great sometimes.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> What do you think of the recordings - surely that's more relevant than the meaning of 'historical'?
> 
> So far most of the opinions have been from older people, middle-aged people, and nearly-middle-aged people?
> We have lots of young people on the site, though. Do any like opera? Do any listen to the older recordings?
> Or is it like Scottish Country Dancing, something one drifts into once one is old enough to appreciate *the finer things in life*?


Let's see what those younger members have to say. But in the meanwhile, I can tell you I know many young fans here in Southern Europe, and quite a few of them just love those old recordings, and the great singers from the past that recorded them. Quite a few, indeed!.

As mentioned by Revenant, some people even find analogical sounds "warmer" than the latest digital technology available. I myself love the sound of the older discs, before vinyl, played on a gramophone.

However, as recently as ten years ago, it was not that easy for everyone to find the treasure of those old recordings. Now, they are there (well, most of there are) in youtube for all people interested and that is just a fantastic opportunity, in my view.

By the way, I have tried with the Scottish Country Dancing, but I guess I'm still too young for that.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> What do you think of the recordings - surely that's more relevant than the meaning of 'historical'?
> 
> I can see why 'historical' means different things to different people.
> On the one hand, 'historical' is just 'the past'; on the other hand, copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work lasts for the life of the author and 70 years from the end of the year in which he/she died. It is not seventy years since Callas died, ergo...
> ...


I admit the recording I picked up (Tosca, De Sabata) is, technically speaking, a very good one.
Anyway, if the "old & crackly" recording allows me to understand and appreciate the singer's qualities, that's enough for me. Another example could be the Furtwangler's 1950 Ring, where the recording quality is much poorer.
Obviously this is not always the case, i.e. I've never heard a Caruso recording that I can really appreciate.
Moreover, for me it's more important the overall outcome of the recorded performance, than the single piece of "bravura" .
In the case of Tosca with De Sabata this has been very well said in DavidA post #78.

Instead of the Scottish Country Dancing, here we have "il Ballo Liscio"


----------



## Oreb (Aug 8, 2013)

My ears always have to go through a period of readjustment - like jumping into cold water, after a few minutes I find I can listen to early recordings without too much trouble.

In general, however, when it comes to classical music I don't tend to go to vintage recordings when I am just getting to know a piece: but for music I particularly love I get a great deal out f some early records.

Fir example, wouldn't want to be without these:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Supervia has to my ears a rather dated sound, though she obviously had talent. She had a lot of charm and persona. I prefer a darker voiced, more substantial voiced Carmen like Denyce Graves currently, or Ponselle, Bumbry, Horne, or the best, Rise Stevens.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm 36 and incidentally, I found Supervia's Carmen great. I'm not very interested in Carmen, however. The main thing with the period before stereo sound is that a lot of my favourite operas (Handels, Monteverdis and some Mozart) were not the focus of that era. Also, as I said before, I've a practical mind and I want to actually be able to hear singers in person which means it helps if they are still alive


----------



## starlightexp (Sep 3, 2013)

I was born in 1980 so I'm thinking that may put me in one of the younger generations here. I grew up listening to older music from the 40s’ and 50s’ as well as hearing old radio shows that were broadcast in the 30s’ and 40s’ and I have a collection of 78s’ so I am not a stranger to older recordings. That being said I rarely find recordings pre-50s’ that I like in opera. These recordings just don’t stir me..I’m not there as a critique of voice with the score on my lap to judge them, I’m a lover of opera, the whole glorious mess. That’s not to say that I don’t know a good voice when I year it, believe me I do. I have had several years of vocal training and know what the differences is. I have grown to like opera as a whole, the way it was composed, with the voice as well as the orchestra. While I can listen to older recordings of jazz, stage works, and ragtime and love them and get lost in them it’s not the same with opera. I personally don’t think opera was meant to heard that way, small and inclosed. Opera is big, the special of it’s day, the place you went to hear music not just singing. I can appreciate the technique I hear in older recordings, but what I don’t feel is the emotion. Call it youth, call it being stupid, call it what ever makes you feel superior but give me a theater full music rather then one speaker and a score to read.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

_*What a big voice, she reminds me of Supervía!* (My grandmother, commenting on the wails of my baby sister when she was around 6 months old.

_It's good to notice that Supervía sang her first Carmen when she was... 17 years old!. At Barcelona's Liceu, and it was a great success.

Of course, the Carmen of Supervía is known to us through the recordings made in Paris, with Gustave Cloëz and the Don José of Micheletti. On the one side, Supervía perfectly understood the Carmen of the Opéra Comique, but she also tried to add something extra to the role. Of course, Carmen is meant to be a Spaniard, from Seville, but what we have in the score, and also the libretto, is really a French creature. Supervía's proposal was a truly Spanish Carmen, with a touch of the traditional Spanish way of singing Zarzuela. An interesting proposal, with pros and cons, of course, but interesting.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

To answer the OP: as historical documents, no.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Supervia has to my ears a rather dated sound, though she obviously had talent. She had a lot of charm and persona. I prefer a darker voiced, more substantial voiced Carmen like Denyce Graves currently, or Ponselle, Bumbry, Horne, or the best, Rise Stevens.


This is a very strange description of Supervia and I'm afraid doesn't reflect what emerges from the recordings.

"From the finest thread of silver to a crimson of contralto richness,all the shades of possible tones are exploited with a delicacy and beguiling lilt that works a quite personal soul of magic".
On Carmen. :"The range and depth of this portrayal are on a grand scale;most others seem pale and dwarfish after this." From The Grand Tradition.

That is the sound of Supervia known to most.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> I'm 36 and incidentally, I found Supervia's Carmen great. I'm not very interested in Carmen, however. The main thing with the period before stereo sound is that a lot of my favourite operas (Handels, Monteverdis and some Mozart) were not the focus of that era. Also, as I said before, I've a practical mind and I want to actually be able to hear singers in person which means it helps if they are still alive


Yes, no use listening to the dead ones live. I don't rely on my vinyls as long as the digital remastering is not the lousy cheap process found in many lesser labels. And yes, the modern versions of the Baroque greats, a product of their 1960s-1990s revival and "rediscovery", is one of the great benefits of modern recording. Ironically, they all come from an era earlier than those operas covered by the "historical" recordings, whether in vinyl or digital.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I am still in awe from hearing my first CD. No stylus, no groove, no contact, no hiss, no scratches, no rumble, no wow, no flutter, no inner-groove distortion, nothing to wear out. *The "new" hasn't worn off for me, though some still hear intermodulation distortion as a sort of "warmness" that they seem fond of. *
> 
> When I started listening, even stereo LPs weren't available. Those days are gone and don't tickle my sense of nostalgia at all -- although I appreciate the restorations of the recordings I loved then.


A very modern answer: warmth is really intermodular distortion. So the lack of warmth in early digital was in reality modular fidelity? Then I wonder why they felt they had to solve the problem with 24-bit lossless audio, both in cds and dvds. Maybe they finally became convinced that the hoi polloi could tell the aural difference after all.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

In the 1950s, my parents had a recording of Madam Butterfly on transparent red 45 rpm records, about twelve of them. The annoying thing was having to switch or turn over the records every few minutes. I really don't remember much about the sound quality, but since it was played on a less than ideal gramophone, (stereo? never heard of it) it probably did not matter that much.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I've read all about it.
> I just cant understand how you get music from those shiny silver discs.


Well, you got music from a black, shiny disc, didn't you?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> _*What a big voice, she reminds me of Supervía!* (My grandmother, commenting on the wails of my baby sister when she was around 6 months old.._


_

Ah, she was a bit of a bawler, then?_


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

You mean my grandmother, my sister or Supervia?.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It is interesting that while the general standard of technical musicianship has generally been considered to have increased over the years, singers have, like cricketers and policeman, definitely been considered to have deteriorated by those in love with 'the Grand Tradition' myth. To them the art of Bel Canto is dead. However, all we have to uphold this decision is the evidence of nostalgic memoir writers and, around the turn-of-the-century, those croaking early 78s which merely suggest that everyone then sang out slightly of tune! The problem modern singers have to live with is that we can now hear them recorded so well that any faults are only too evident!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

My friend, I think you need to open your ears. What those early recordings suggest, many times, is the evidence of great voices, and great art. If you are unable to enjoy this (some of those singers, of course, according to the personal tate of each person) the problem lies in you, not in them. 

This has nothing to do with modern singers.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Well, you got music from a black, shiny disc, didn't you?


I understand how that was done. vibrations picked up by the needle amplified.
I don't understand the cd technology.
ok with you?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Supervia has to my ears a rather dated sound, though she obviously had talent. She had a lot of charm and persona. I prefer a darker voiced, more substantial voiced Carmen like Denyce Graves currently, or Ponselle, Bumbry, Horne, or the best, Rise Stevens.


Personally, I prefer a lighter voiced Carmen like Teresa Berganza. I'd probably like Supervia, too.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Have we decided whats historical?
I love my old time mono recordings of Wagner from the Met and Bayreuth.
The singers were absolutely awesome then.
And the recordings are good enough to be able to enjoy.
Hotter, Vinay, Modle, etc were tremendous artists.
Most Wagner today pales.
I do enjoy todays sonics as well.
Barenboim's Ring, Solti, Karajan are fabulous.
But those old time singers were... wow.
I will never part with Furtwanglers, Knappertsbusch, Keilberth or Krauss or Kempe.
Some mono I like better than some digital stuff.
It depends on the engineering.
And some mono recordings just have great performances.

Anyway, I love to listen to historical recordings.
it's amazing to hear those great artists of the past.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Have we decided whats historical?
> I love my old time mono recordings of Wagner from the Met and Bayreuth.
> The singers were absolutely awesome then.
> And the recordings are good enough to be able to enjoy.
> ...


A poem in vers libre. Lovely!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> My friend, I think you need to open your ears. What those early recordings suggest, many times, is the evidence of great voices, and great art. If you are unable to enjoy this (some of those singers, of course, according to the personal tate of each person) the problem lies in you, not in them.
> 
> This has nothing to do with modern singers.


Oh dear, playing the same old record! When you hear some singer from the past warbling out of tune it's always the fault of the listener's ears not the voice as recorded!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Have we decided whats historical?
> I love my old time mono recordings of Wagner from the Met and Bayreuth.
> The singers were absolutely awesome then.
> And the recordings are good enough to be able to enjoy.
> ...


Yes, those Bayreuth performances from the 1950s were something. The problem is that the orchestra is so important in Wagner that the rather dim orchestral sound hinders one's appreciation. Sonics are important.
Btw both the Solti and Karajan a Rings are nearly 50 years old now! The Karajan has worn particularly well and wears its years lightly.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

I don't have a problem with historical recordings. I enjoy good music, and take it wherever I can get it. 

But I am not the biggest opera fan at the best of times. Mozart, coupled with a relatively short list of random arias are about all that excites me in this genre. I'm not sure why.

That being said, I have taken the time here to go and listen to some of these greats from the past, through a combination of looking them up on iTunes or YouTube. These were my impressions - the Caruso YouTube video that was posted on here I thought was very good. That is better sound quality than I have heard from 99% of the recordings from that time period that I have heard - good remastering. And I enjoyed Caruso's voice. I would probably be compelled to purchase something else by him.

As a random sampling of a female voice, I looked up Supervia. I have to say that she kind of turned me off. I don't know the technical terms, but the vibratto in her voice, for me, was a little too broad in its amplitude. Too much back and forth in it. Compared to modern recordings I have heard, where it seems the vibratto is much tighter. Was that the preferred method in the past? It sounded very off-putting to me - too much warbling. And this has been the experience I have previously had - I think I just don't appreciate the style in which they sang in those historical recordings, at least the female singers. 

Opera is a different beast for me. I am not going to procure multiple recordings, as I would for, say, a Beethoven's 9th, or a Mahler's 2nd. And so I want something that is pleasing to my ears, and that has great sound quality. That, normally, means something from the stereo era and beyond. I can appreciate that there are things I am going to miss out on by not going back to some of these historical recordings, but also acknowledge that I am just not going to know all that can be known. After all, what if those who sang in the premieres of all those operas written before the recording era sounded nothing like these "historical" recordings? I don't know, nor can I. Ultimately, what it comes down to is what we like. You can tell me that singer X, whose only recordings are from ~100 years ago and do not have the clearest sound quality, is superior to singer Y, recorded with state of the art technology. And maybe you are right. But if singer why is what I enjoy, that is what I will purchase. By all means, preserve the historical recordings. But I am not a slave to them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There are, of course, things we generally do better now than in the past. The singing of Bach has been liberated from the stodgy tempi that people mistook for reverence in the past. Singing is probably far nearer what the composer would have recognised. And generally Mozart is far better played. I remember searching for recommended recordings of Mozart piano concertos and finding the cupboard pretty bare, save for Brendel's pretty ill recorded Turnabout. But now there are a huge number of recordings one can recommend. As for orchestral playing, general standards have risen incomparably.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Yes, those Bayreuth performances from the 1950s were something. The problem is that the orchestra is so important in Wagner that the rather dim orchestral sound hinders one's appreciation. Sonics are important.
> Btw both the Solti and Karajan a Rings are nearly 50 years old now! The Karajan has worn particularly well and wears its years lightly.


It doesn't hinder my appreciation at all. i'm thrilled to hear those performances.
And I can hear what the conductors interpretation is without hearing every instrument perfectly.
Those recordings give me chills.
Also, the farther back you go the closer you get to the composer himself and how the work was performed then.
I don't focus so much on the sound as the performance.
Like it or not, I love hearing it.

Thank goodness for the old Furtwangler and Toscanini recordings.
I want to hear all I can to learn from the past.
Conductors and musicians study and learn from the past.
I can too.
I don't always love or agree with what I hear, but I want to hear it.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I am not yet 40, for the record. Not quite the youngest to report thus far but in that group.

I came to opera from general classical music. It took me a little bit to get used to mono-era recordings but then I found Furtwangler, Mengelberg and Toscanini and they dominated my listening for a while. But there were gaps and I kept exploring and listening to newer and newer music. Maybe I don't have the concentration or the time to put into it anymore but I have less tolerance for some of the rough recordings these days, especially as we now have around 35 years of digital recordings to choose from!

I think when I realized that I had to use my imagination - as some in this thread have said - to fill in inaudible portions or to make up for poor sound that the historical recordings broke for me. I might as well listen to new recordings and make up stuff about them, too.

I listen to opera for the whole work: the music, the drama and the singing (probably in that order, even). With audio recordings I generally don't have a problem going back to the 60s or so but much further than that the lack of fidelity is often distracting and I am more likely to move on to something else rather than get/stay engrossed.

I do listen to arias and excerpts that are older and often find them quite satisfying. But I still tend towards/prefer newer recordings.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> There are, of course, things we generally do better now than in the past. The singing of Bach has been liberated from the stodgy tempi that people mistook for reverence in the past. Singing is probably far nearer what the composer would have recognised. And generally Mozart is far better played. I remember searching for recommended recordings of Mozart piano concertos and finding the cupboard pretty bare, save for Brendel's pretty ill recorded Turnabout. But now there are a huge number of recordings one can recommend. As for orchestral playing, general standards have risen incomparably.


Generally true. But Richter and Klemperer's Bach is still held in very high regard.
Their Mathew passions are still rated at the top.
Stodgy is not quite true. It is different and I love hearing it.
Your Mozart point is well taken. There isn't too much vintage Mozart around instrumentally, but the old opera recordings with Krips, Kleiber, Karajan etc
have amazing singing.
And in general playing standards have gotten better, but we want to compare great with great.
Furtwanglers Berliners and Vienna were great orchestras and so was Toscanini's.
I don't agree with many things about their interpretations, but they're important to hear as they influenced the people after them.
Is it worth the limited sonics to hear these great artists?
To me, its definitely yes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It doesn't hinder my appreciation at all. i'm thrilled to hear those performances.
> And I can hear what the conductors interpretation is without hearing every instrument perfectly.
> Those recordings give me chills.
> *Also, the farther back you go the closer you get to the composer himself and how the work was performed then.*


I think this is very much dependent on how far away the recordings are from the initial premiere. I really believe, for example, that Walter probably conducted Mahler very close to Mahler, because Walter was a protege of Mahler, knew Mahler, and knew his practices. And possibly also going back to Wagner, who died in 1883. However, a recording of, say Handel, or Mozart circa the early 20th century isn't necessarily going to be closer to the composer than a recording today. It doesn't take that much time for things to start changing in classical music. DavidA stated this better than I could.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I think this is very much dependent on how far away the recordings are from the initial premiere. I really believe, for example, that Walter probably conducted Mahler very close to Mahler, because Walter was a protege of Mahler, knew Mahler, and knew his practices. And possibly also going back to Wagner, who died in 1883. However, a recording of, say Handel, or Mozart circa the early 20th century isn't necessarily going to be closer to the composer than a recording today. It doesn't take that much time for things to start changing in classical music. DavidA stated this better than I could.


In regards to Mozart and Handel, you are correct. We cant go back that far to know what it was like.
Harpsichords, pianoforte, etc.
I'm sure they would love to hear their works on modern instruments just like we want to hear them on period ones.
That doesn't take away from the other instances when we CAN get close to a composer and the practices back then.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

DrMike said:


> As a random sampling of a female voice, I looked up Supervia. I have to say that she kind of turned me off. I don't know the technical terms, but the vibratto in her voice, for me, was a little too broad in its amplitude. Too much back and forth in it. Compared to modern recordings I have heard, where it seems the vibratto is much tighter. Was that the preferred method in the past? It sounded very off-putting to me - too much warbling. And this has been the experience I have previously had - I think I just don't appreciate the style in which they sang in those historical recordings, at least the female singers.


What you are describing is actually a 'vibrato stretto', (not broad at all) that in the case of Supervia was present in all her tessitura, and it's indeed something that is rather a singing technique that was already very much in disuse during Supervia's own times. There were a few other (great) singers using that technique, like for instance Alessandro Bonci before Supervia or Magda Olivero after her. For sure, one can like or dislike this way of singing, but it was used on purpose, it has nothing to do with the excessive vibrato that is also a feature of worn-out voices.

You can try these other singers, more or less of the same period than Supervia, but with a different style of singing, and see if they are more appealing for you:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Itullian said:


> In regards to Mozart and Handel, you are correct. We cant go back that far to know what it was like.
> Harpsichords, pianoforte, etc.
> I'm sure they would love to hear their works on modern instruments just like we want to hear them on period ones.
> That doesn't take away from the other instances when we CAN get close to a composer and the practices back then.


The performances of these two composers are superior now to what unfortunately went before.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

moody said:


> The performances of these two composers are superior now to what unfortunately went before.


Agreed. .................


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

schigolch said:


> What you are describing is actually a 'vibrato stretto', (not broad at all) that in the case of Supervia was present in all her tessitura, and it's indeed something that is rather a singing technique that was already very much in disuse during Supervia's own times. There were a few other (great) singers using that technique, like for instance Alessandro Bonci before Supervia or Magda Olivero after her. For sure, one can like or dislike this way of singing, but it was used on purpose, it has nothing to do with the excessive vibrato that is also a feature of worn-out voices.
> 
> You can try these other singers, more or less of the same period than Supervia, but with a different style of singing, and see if they are more appealing for you:


Yes, I did find those singers much more to my liking than Supervia. But I suppose my problem lies in what Moody said - 99% of the opera that I like is Mozart, and the better performances are the newer ones. For me, that seems like a bonus, in that the opera that I do like has its best performances more recently, with better recording clarity and quality. Should I ever find myself drawn to late romantic opera, then no doubt there would be more of a draw towards these historical performances.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

But although there were great operatic performances in the past I do not agree they are all in the past, even of the romantic repertoire. Pappano's Tosca, for instance, stands up pretty well to most of the competition.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

DrMike said:


> I think this is very much dependent on how far away the recordings are from the initial premiere. I really believe, for example, that Walter probably conducted Mahler very close to Mahler, because Walter was a protege of Mahler, knew Mahler, and knew his practices. And possibly also going back to Wagner, who died in 1883. However, a recording of, say Handel, or Mozart circa the early 20th century isn't necessarily going to be closer to the composer than a recording today. It doesn't take that much time for things to start changing in classical music. DavidA stated this better than I could.


I'm not sure about the Walter / Mahler. After all, Klemperer also studied under Mahler and his performances are very different.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Generally true. But Richter and Klemperer's Bach is still held in very high regard.
> Their Mathew passions are still rated at the top.
> Stodgy is not quite true. It is different and I love hearing it.
> s.


I learned SMP from Richter's 1958 version. By the time he recorded it again he had become far too slow. And K was always beyond the pale!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I'm sure they would love to hear their works on modern instruments just like we want to hear them on period ones.


I see this written a good deal in these discussions, but it's really a moot point, because if they had had modern instruments at their disposal, they probably would have written the works differently to begin with!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

moody said:


> The performances of these two composers are superior now to what unfortunately went before.


Also Monteverdi and the rest. It is a case of the moderns opting for the historical, especially the HIP versions, in modern recoding productions. And we are lucky for that. But I suspect those composers would've given their eyeteeth to hear their music in superior modern instruments. So, "historical vs. modern" covers a lot of ground it seems.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There are, of course, things we generally do better now than in the past. The singing of Bach has been liberated from the stodgy tempi that people mistook for reverence in the past.

The HIP movement has not only brought us Bach and Handel freed from Romanticism... but it has also led to a rediscovery of a vast wealth of music long ignored. Having said that, there are more than a few brilliant performances of Bach from the past, including Richter, Klemperer, Karl Ristenpart, and Hans Hotter's performances of Bach's cantatas. As for Handel... check into Russell Oberlin. Having said that, we are living in a great period for countertenors (Jaroussky, Scholl, Fagioli, Cenic, Bejun Mehta, Michael Chance, etc...).

And generally Mozart is far better played. I remember searching for recommended recordings of Mozart piano concertos and finding the cupboard pretty bare, save for Brendel's pretty ill recorded Turnabout.

Among the "older" recordings of Mozart's instrumental works you have the piano concertos:

Murray Perahia- 1970s/80s
Géza Anda- 1960s
Clifford Curzon- 1960s
Sviatoslav Richter- 1959
Wilhelm Kempff- early 1960s
Serkin/Szell- 1961
Clara Haskil/Fricsay1960

Violin Concertos-
Arthur Grumiaux- 1950s

Violin Sonatas-
Henryk Szeryng and Ingrid Haebler 1969-72
Joseph Szigeti/Szell- early 1950s

Piano Quartets-
Szell/Budapest Qt.-1946

Horn Concertos-
Dennis Brain/Karajan- 1953

All of these are worth hearing, and a good number... especially Dennis Brain's work... are unsurpassed.

As for orchestral playing, general standards have risen incomparably.

No. Its just the technology that has improved.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> T
> And generally Mozart is far better played. I remember searching for recommended recordings of Mozart piano concertos and finding the cupboard pretty bare, save for Brendel's pretty ill recorded Turnabout.
> 
> Among the "older" recordings of Mozart's instrumental works you have the piano concertos:
> ...




I was actually talking about the time before many of these recordings were made. I remember Serkin / Szell being reviewed as a brand new recording at full price - way beyond my pocket then as a schoolboy. Similarly the Brain concertos were always at full price as were many of the others. I can remember buying a sweetheart of a record of Annie Fischer playing 21 & 22 in a sale. Mono. Then Fontana cheap label meant I could afford Serkin. As for Perahia? He'd not even come on the scene.

In your point about orchestral playing - it has generally improved beyond measure along with technology. Even provincial orchestras today can produce performances that used to be reserved for the majors.


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

schigolch said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=TorNaFMuFXk
> 
> Wagner's is from 1935, while Puccini's is from 1938.
> 
> ...


My first Turdandot and still my favorite.
Guess, like you, I value the singing more than the orchestration.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2014)

I don't think I could value the singing more than the orchestration. At the very least, I think they should be of equal value. After all, that is how the composer wrote it. That is what an opera is. The voice is one of the many instruments. One might even think of it as a vocal concerto - at least for me. And while the vocal part is certainly what sets it apart from any other orchestral work, it still needs the orchestration. So when I look for a recording, I want the whole package. The average opera costs at least twice as much as most classical albums, as it typically consumes at least 2, sometimes 3 CD's. At the risk of putting cost as a factor in my decisions - it simply is. And so a modern recording provides, in my mind, the most bang for my buck, giving both excellent vocals and orchestral sound. And to my ear, while some of those historical recordings I have heard certainly sound fine, I couldn't tell you why they were/weren't better than some modern singer. To my ear, the finest opera vocal performance I have heard is Lucia Popp as the Queen of the Night in Klemperer's recording of Mozart's Magic Flute - by the standards of this thread, nowhere near an historical recording. But there you go. Have there been better? Search me. No clue. But I am in love with that recording - the vocal as well as the orchestration.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Bardamu said:


> My first Turdandot and still my favorite.
> Guess, like you, I value the singing more than the orchestration.


That is a very valid point. I listen to historical performances for the singers. Orchestras, being much more complex, did not fare so well as a sole voice from this era IMHO. I listen to historical performances because there simply aren't singers around today to match Ponselle, Flagstad, Melchoir, Eva Turner, Ruffo, Caruso, even taking into account the much more primitive recording techniques. Part of the thrill of opera for me is the nostalgia of it, and this lost past, like Arthur's Albion, adds to the mystique of historic opera singers for me. I know I am not the only one who thinks this way. It's romantic and mysterious and certainly these superstars of the past deserve their place in the pantheon of the Gods of Song. I must also say that I prefer fat Callas, most of who's recordings from this period fall into the historical, pre stereo genre. How could a Callas fan live without her Armida or Mexico City Aida recorded in live mono.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

schigolch said:


>


cheers for that link! Lovely interpretation


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well, I listen to Maria Callas, but I don't think the purists call her performances "historical" judging from some comments above.


 She was simply the greatest singing actress ever recorded. Once you've heard her Tosca, nobody else will do!! Passion on fire!!


----------



## starlightexp (Sep 3, 2013)

Since I'm a big fan of bel canto I feel like I'm living in a great time of recordings, since at the turn of the last century shows I love weren't even being preformed let alone recorded.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

yes 'n' no. Historic, personally, has to do with your particular era, and I think a lot of what is listened to with ease has to do with what era of recording you grew up with, or were first introduced to.

I have far less patience for anything much prior 1940, and some even then. Piano and voice being the most difficult to record, those are the first to get short shrift in my patience department.

Clinically, without hungering to revel in the sound quality, some of those earlier recordings still have enough to allow hearing the artistry of an interpretation, at the least.

Some of what can be 'tolerated,' I think is rather like those who will listen to a singer, live, far past the singer's prime, i.e. if they are familiar enough with that singer from earlier performances, the listener 'fills ins' what is later missing via their memory of the earlier sound.

I grew up with late mono, then early hi-fi in the fifties, and all since then has pretty much been better quality and engineering. Ergo, recordings from the forties I can handle, those from earlier I may have listened to once -- to get some notion of an interpretation, but I honestly cannot imagine enough of what is missing from recorded vocal or piano music to want to listen to that vintage more than once.

For me, all recordings are "a record," i.e. a document. I want to hear what is on the record, sans any bother with fiddling with the reproducing systems EQ, etc. I suppose that is what comes from having been lucky enough to attend many a live performance and sit at a piano hours upon hours daily for decades... that I don't expect, ever, "full fidelity" from a recording.


----------



## cournot (Jan 19, 2014)

I generally have problems with very bad sound -- and that's what many mean when they talk about problems with historical recordings. Of course as with all things there are tradeoffs -- if the performance is special enough, one can raise one's tolerance for imperfect sound. For me the problems begin roughly before the era of high fidelity in the early fifties. I don't mind mono recordings if they're in reasonable high fidelity. Similarly I dislike even the most modern recordings if they're too screechy or overly processed. But I belong to the crowd that says anything prior to the late 40s pretty much has to represent a really knockout performance or some special point of interest. And even then I often can't take it. Some solo voice or instrumental recordings from earlier periods are tolerable. Orchestral recordings and full blown operas get difficult for me to listen to on a good stereo. If I choose to listen to historical recordings I prefer to do so on my cheapie computer system or in the car because that minimizes the disconnect.

On the other hand I think the best recordings from the late 50s to the mid 70s actually beat out most digital recordings today -- partly because I like the way in which earlier engineers chose to "present" the sound with their more limited tech. They did better at making things sound real than what comes out of the run of the mill production today.

As with all recordings, tastes will vary. And I also believe comments about sound can't be separated from the playback system one is using to make judgments. The crappier the system, the easier to tolerate weak recordings.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

It depends on what you mean by historic recordings. I don't know that it depends on age; I'm fourteen, and have no problem listening to recordings of Joan Sutherland singing Lucia or Alcina in the late 50s/early 60s. I love Renata Tebaldi's recordings from that period, and the only Callas recordings I enjoy listening to are those made in the first 5 or 6 years of her international career (i.e. pre-1954 and her weight loss). However, recordings before that era are difficult to listen to for enjoyment, I find. I definitely wouldn't listen to Enrico Caruso or Nellie Melba for just for fun!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Generally no. 

Nikisch in Beethoven´s 5th and Oskar Fried´s Mahler are too limited though, whereas Mengelberg is almost always OK. 

The tender works of Delius however I prefer with a clear, refined sound, as opposed to the earliest recordings.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

One thing I dislike about modern recordings is that they're so good that the aspirates are all too audible in too many instances that I've heard. Or just maybe modern singers tend to have more faulty breath control, in some instances. I suppose it could be like it is with HD resolution in video: you see the blemishes and tiny wrinkles that you didn't notice before. So HD leads to CGI to cover up the imperfections, and if an audio counterpart of that technique is aped by sound engineers then that way madness lies.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I was listening today to the Giuseppe de Luca CD (the compilation on the Nimbus label) I got for Christmas. The recordings on the CD were made between about 1907 and 1930. On the one hand, it's remarkable how much of the "ring" and roundness of de Luca's voice comes through in the earliest recordings; on the other hand, an aria can't really make its full impact when it's only accompanied by a piano (as in the 1907 "Di Provenza") or when the orchestra is there only faintly (as in some of the other arias). Also, the "Di Provenza" was edited to fit onto a cylinder or 78 or whatever it was at the time, and of course this further reduces the impact of the aria. But de Luca's voice really was beautiful and his style superb, and I am grateful he made so many recordings. But I can't pretend that his "Di Provenza" has the same impact that Robert Merrill's does (I choose Merrill because I think he was sort of de Luca's successor), because Merrill's versions are accompanied by orchestra and uncut (and on the Sutherland recording he even sings the cabaletta). So I think very old recordings have their advantages and disadvantages: while they preserve the singer's voice and style, they're sometimes a bit unsatisfying musically -- and even dramatically, as there often doesn't seem to be the same kind of "acting with the voice" that we're used to hearing in recordings from the Callas era onward. Yet I do think that on old recordings there is often more of a sense of the singer "giving a performance," even if it's not note-perfect, whereas in more recent years one of the main goals seems to have been to "get the notes right." But I think this just reflects the changing attitude toward recording; maybe the older singers didn't believe anyone would still be listening to their recordings 100 years later!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Not only do I not "have a problem" with historical recordings, I consider them essential to understanding the possibilities of musical interpretation. From this perspective "historical" isn't defined by a time period; if it's different in some significant way from what we hear now, it's historical and it's important. Older technologies do make some aspects of music impossible to appreciate, but interpretive approach mostly transcends these shortcomings. As a card-carrying geezer (got my card recently; I'm still in shock), I grew up with stacks of 78s from my parents and grandparents; LPs had been around for only a few years, and stereo was just on the horizon. I could hear the improvements in sound, but I heard nothing to improve on the singing of Caruso and Ponselle and Schumann-Heink. Still haven't. Quite the reverse, in fact.

As far as opera is concerned, if I didn't have access to the voices of some great singers of the past I would know a good deal less about the potentialities of the human voice. Maybe this isn't the place for a long essay on what I perceive to be the decline in opera singing over the period documented by recordings, so I'll just throw out the names of some tenors as an example: Caruso, Gigli, Schipa, Lauri-Volpi, Piccaver, Melchior, Tauber, Thill, Schmidt, Bjorling, Simoneau, Di Stefano, Valetti, Bergonzi, Corelli, Wunderlich, Vickers, Pavarotti. It's a diverse bunch, but what they all have in common is that they achieved true vocal greatness and that they are all dead or long-retired - i.e., they are all "historical." Whose name, among today's tenors, deserves to be added to that distiguished list? I'm not out to pick fights, but I want to suggest by this sampling that if you think you can do without recordings from past generations, you cannot understand what you are hearing now, and cannot know - alas for you - what you are missing.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Not only do I not "have a problem" with historical recordings, I consider them essential to understanding the possibilities of musical interpretation. From this perspective "historical" isn't defined by a time period; if it's different in some significant way from what we hear now, it's historical and it's important. Older technologies do make some aspects of music impossible to appreciate, but interpretive approach mostly transcends these shortcomings. As a card-carrying geezer (got my card recently; I'm still in shock), I grew up with stacks of 78s from my parents and grandparents; LPs had been around for only a few years, and stereo was just on the horizon. I could hear the improvements in sound, but I heard nothing to improve on the singing of Caruso and Ponselle and Schumann-Heink. Still haven't. Quite the reverse, in fact.
> 
> As far as opera is concerned, if I didn't have access to the voices of some great singers of the past I would know a good deal less about the potentialities of the human voice. Maybe this isn't the place for a long essay on what I perceive to be the decline in opera singing over the period documented by recordings, so I'll just throw out the names of some tenors as an example: Caruso, Gigli, Schipa, Lauri-Volpi, Piccaver, Melchior, Tauber, Thill, Schmidt, Bjorling, Simoneau, Di Stefano, Valetti, Bergonzi, Corelli, Wunderlich, Vickers, Pavarotti. It's a diverse bunch, but what they all have in common is that they achieved true vocal greatness and that they are all dead or long-retired - i.e., they are all "historical." Whose name, among today's tenors, deserves to be added to that distiguished list? I'm not out to pick fights, but I want to suggest by this sampling that if you think you can do without recordings from past generations, you cannot understand what you are hearing now, and cannot know - alas for you - what you are missing.


Marvelous post. For me at least, this is the definitive reply to the question for those of us who share your opinion.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

No problem, I just wish I could hear it better!!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

That is a good post, Woodduck. I agree and disagree: one the one hand, I do think that "historical" recordings are essential; on the other hand, I honestly don't believe that singing has generally declined. Listen to recordings, read reviews from the singers' own eras, and read books such as "Opera on Record," "The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera," and "The Grand Tradition," and it doesn't take very long before you realize that there has been good, great, and mediocre singing in _every_ era. Lately, I've been looking up "contemporary" reviews on The Metropolitan Opera Archives; it's eye-opening to read some of them. For example, in the report on Robert Merrill's Met debut (1945, as Germont), the critic praises him but describes his voice as somewhat "throaty." The review of that famous Met DON CARLO of 1950 with Bjoerling and Merrill was a good review as far as Bjoerling was concerned -- but it wasn't an _outstanding_ review; and the same could be said of reviews I've read of other singers we would today call legends. My point here is not to belittle any of these singers, who were indeed great, but only to point out that I firmly believe that hyperbole plays a much bigger role than it should among opera fans, and even among experts on opera and singing, who view singers in hindsight. Also, in a book I recently read, "On the Art of Singing" from 1996, the late tenor and voice teacher Richard Miller writes (I'm trying to recall his exact words): "Ask any teacher of singing who regularly judges contests, and you'll hear that the level of artistic singing has generally improved over the decades." This was in a chapter called "The Lively Dying Art of Singing," whose point was to question those critics -- and they've existed in every single era -- who insist that singing isn't what it once was.

*Edited to add:* And I think that some of the tenors on Woodduck's list prove my point. _Today_ di Stefano, Corelli, and Vickers are considered legends, but _in their times_ they were, as I understand it, more or less controversial -- di Stefano with that wide-open, uncovered upper register (which some say led to his early vocal decline), Corelli with a style that could be lachrymose and even tasteless, Vickers with what some considered an unconventional vocal production, a lack of an easy high C, and an unidiomatic style for Italian roles. I recall reading in a book about singers ("Greatest Stars of Opera" by Enrico Stinchelli) that Bergonzi was accused by critics of lacking an attractive timbre and good high notes. Other than the fact that he belongs to the past, why _specifically_ is Alessandro Bonci (for whom Steane in "The Grand Tradition" quotes Lauri-Volpi as listing a number of pretty serious faults) a better bel canto singer than Juan Diego Florez? Frankly, it's not enough just to rattle off a list of illustrious names from the past and say something like 'Those were great singers, and no one today even comes close,' or to excuse their shortcomings with something like, 'Well, at least they had _personality_, which is something today's singers lack.' In my opinion, anyone who can't hear that all the singers mentioned and more had both unquestionably great qualities _and_ idiosyncrasies that could be and were pounced upon by certain listeners (the more reactionary ones, usually) is kidding himself.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I guess I should also say why I think historic recordings are essential. For me they're essential not because I think they invariably represent the best singing ever, but because from them I learn how to categorize singers. As an example, I've learned through listening to Giuseppe de Luca that he should really be categorized together with Robert Merrill. Both baritones were basically lyric baritones with dramatic qualities (Merrill's dramatic quality being a dark color and de Luca's being "ring"); both were "centrist" vocalists (see Steane's "The Grand Tradition") who characterized mainly through sheer sound. I feel I can understand a singer better if I can hear where he or she "came from," and this is a big reason why I like old recordings. The very oldest ones may not make for easy listening, but they do serve a purpose. (And by the way, I find de Luca's voice a real pleasure to listen to, despite the primitive recorded sound.)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

No problem at all. I love them.
My Krauss, Knappetsbusch, Furtwangler recordings are precious gems.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Not only do I not "have a problem" with historical recordings, I consider them essential to understanding the possibilities of musical interpretation. From this perspective "historical" isn't defined by a time period; if it's different in some significant way from what we hear now, it's historical and it's important. Older technologies do make some aspects of music impossible to appreciate, but interpretive approach mostly transcends these shortcomings. As a card-carrying geezer (got my card recently; I'm still in shock), I grew up with stacks of 78s from my parents and grandparents; LPs had been around for only a few years, and stereo was just on the horizon. I could hear the improvements in sound, but I heard nothing to improve on the singing of Caruso and Ponselle and Schumann-Heink. Still haven't. Quite the reverse, in fact.
> 
> As far as opera is concerned, if I didn't have access to the voices of some great singers of the past I would know a good deal less about the potentialities of the human voice. Maybe this isn't the place for a long essay on what I perceive to be the decline in opera singing over the period documented by recordings, so I'll just throw out the names of some tenors as an example: Caruso, Gigli, Schipa, Lauri-Volpi, Piccaver, Melchior, Tauber, Thill, Schmidt, Bjorling, Simoneau, Di Stefano, Valetti, Bergonzi, Corelli, Wunderlich, Vickers, Pavarotti. It's a diverse bunch, but what they all have in common is that they achieved true vocal greatness and that they are all dead or long-retired - i.e., they are all "historical." Whose name, among today's tenors, deserves to be added to that distiguished list? I'm not out to pick fights, but I want to suggest by this sampling that if you think you can do without recordings from past generations, you cannot understand what you are hearing now, and cannot know - alas for you - what you are missing.


You at least understand the point of listening to voices from the past. Some here are comparing modern recordings with historic recordings--quite,quite pointless.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> That is a good post, Resurrexit. I agree and disagree: one the one hand, I do think that "historical" recordings are essential; on the other hand, I honestly don't believe that singing has generally declined. Listen to recordings, read reviews from the singers' own eras, and read books such as "Opera on Record," "The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera," and "The Grand Tradition," and it doesn't take very long before you realize that there has been good, great, and mediocre singing in _every_ era. Lately, I've been looking up "contemporary" reviews on The Metropolitan Opera Archives; it's eye-opening to read some of them. For example, in the report on Robert Merrill's Met debut (1945, as Germont), the critic praises him but describes his voice as somewhat "throaty." The review of that famous Met DON CARLO of 1950 with Bjoerling and Merrill was a good review as far as Bjoerling was concerned -- but it wasn't an _outstanding_ review; and the same could be said of reviews I've read of other singers we would today call legends. My point here is not to belittle any of these singers, who were indeed great, but only to point out that I firmly believe that hyperbole plays a much bigger role than it should among opera fans, and even among experts on opera and singing, who view singers in hindsight. Also, in a book I recently read, "On the Art of Singing" from 1996, the late tenor and voice teacher Richard Miller writes (I'm trying to recall his exact words): "Ask any teacher of singing who regularly judges contests, and you'll hear that the level of artistic singing has generally improved over the decades." This was in a chapter called "The Lively Dying Art of Singing," whose point was to question those critics -- and they've existed in every single era -- who insist that singing isn't what it once was.
> 
> *Edited to add:* And I think that some of the tenors on Ressurexit's list prove my point. _Today_ di Stefano, Corelli, and Vickers are considered legends, but _in their times_ they were, as I understand it, more or less controversial -- di Stefano with that wide-open, uncovered upper register (which some say led to his early vocal decline), Corelli with a style that could be lachrymose and even tasteless, Vickers with what some considered an unconventional vocal production, a lack of an easy high C, and an unidiomatic style for Italian roles. I recall reading in a book about singers ("Greatest Stars of Opera" by Enrico Stinchelli) that Bergonzi was accused by critics of lacking an attractive timbre and good high notes. Other than the fact that he belongs to the past, why _exactly_ is Alessandro Bonci (for whom Steane in "The Grand Tradition" quotes Lauri-Volpi as listing a number of pretty serious faults) a better bel canto singer than Juan Diego Florez? Frankly, it's not enough just to rattle off a list of illustrious names from the past and say something like 'Those were great singers, and no one today even comes close,' or to excuse their shortcomings with something like, 'Well, at least they had _personality_, which is something today's singers lack.' In my opinion, anyone who can't hear that all the singers mentioned and more had both unquestionably great qualities _and_ idiosyncrasies that could be and were pounced upon by certain listeners (the more reactionary ones, usually) is kidding himself.


Of course there are always some fine singers around. Taking tenors again, I agree that Florez is a delightful tenore leggiero. The upsurge of bel canto and baroque opera needs his type (actually I think there are quite a few well-schooled light voices around responding to this need). I do find his tone rather relentlessly bright and shallow. And I don't know how to compare his voice, as a voice, with Bonci's, recording quality being what it was then. I do suspect Bonci was some way more interesting, more willing, and probably more able, to "play" with the voice, something our prosaic age doesn't seem to value and has largely forgotten how to do. Among other presently active tenors, Villazon impresses me; I gather he's had his difficulties but it's a superb instrument and he's an engaging performer. Jonas Kaufmann has a magnificent sound and is a fine musician; he seems the best hope for Wagner since Vickers. But who else? Alagna? Alvarez? Vargas? Giordani? Calleja? Botha? Heppner? I've heard all these people and have derived some pleasure from most of them. But none of them have made my jaw drop or brought tears to my eyes.

The criticisms of the singers you cite mostly have point (though I don't get Robert Merrill's "throatiness," or any suggestion that Bjorling was ever just a "good" singer!). No one is above criticism, but none of these criticism negate the outstanding distinction of the singers in question. (I wasn't suggesting, by the way, that all the people I listed were equally fine, merely that it's hard to find their equals today). My criteria for good singing are, basically: is the vocal quality interesting, distinctive, exciting, touching? Is the voice thoroughly schooled, the sound consistently resonant and well-supported, capable of great flexibility, seamless legato, and easy play with dynamics? And, given a superb instrument and fine technique, does the singer use that endowment, exploiting the vocal skills he possesses, to create an interesting, moving experience for the listener? Not all great singers exhibit these qualities in equal measure, but none will be seriously lacking in them. I could pick out a recorded performance by any of those guys, and in many cases a number of performances, which are object lessons in what singing is capable of being. I listen mostly in vain for such object lessons among current tenors. Why that should be so - well, maybe another time!

I will leave you with just one such object lesson. Go to YouTube and bring up "Salut, demeure chaste et pure" as recorded in 1923 by Alfred Piccaver.






I'll say no more. Singing like this says it all.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck:* Sorry I confused you with another poster at first. Yesterday I listened to some more Bonci (I'd heard him only once before) and can't honestly say I enjoy his tone; to me it sounds overly bright and edgy. I have heard the same thing _said_ about Florez but can't hear it myself -- though I do think Florez's voice is arguably better suited to Rossini than to Bellini, whom you could argue needs a honeyed sound rather than Florez's bright, effervescent one. As for Merrill, I actually have a recording he made three days after his Met debut of part of the Act II TRAVIATA duet with Licia Albanese; I think I can hear what the critic was referring to when he said "throaty," but it's not something I would have noticed myself. As I recall, the contemporary criticisms of Bjoerling had to do with tight high notes and wooden acting. I can't comment on the acting but can hear how his high notes could be described as tight or small. The point I was trying to make about critics is that in hindsight some of their criticisms of legendary singers seem silly or irrelevant, at least to me. What I thought eye-opening about the reviews was that while we today tend to gush over these "old" singers, critics in their own time were often not nearly so enthusiastic. But I think this was sometimes more the critic's fault than the singer's.

Listening to recordings of De Luca, Galli-Curci, etc., what I hear is that they were more inclined/more allowed by the conductor to have real "command" over the music they sang -- there's much very fine dynamic shading, ornamentation, stretching of phrases, etc. I think this is probably what you miss in more recent singers. But I didn't "grow up" with any of those "historical" singers; my idea of, say, a Rossini mezzo is Cecilia Bartoli or Jennifer Larmore, because both women were in their primes when I first got into opera. So I think a lot of what one considers the gold standard in singing has simply to do with what one is used to hearing; it's subjective rather than an indisputable fact. I personally think Larmore and Bartoli are great singers. Are they as great as Simionato or Supervia? It's hard if not impossible to say. I heard Dolora Zajick as Adalgisa last year and was thrilled (her voice has really aged well). Is she as great a dramatic mezzo as any of the ones from the past? Again, how can one really judge this? There are objective criteria you can use (breath control, etc.), but I think in the end it will be a matter of personal taste.

My criteria for voices is very similar to yours. I'd add that for me there has to be firmness, particularly in the middle register, and ease of movement, and the voice has to be interesting _simply as sound_. I've heard a few singers -- including ones from the past -- whose basic sound I would describe as "blank," and they tend not to appeal to me as much, even though they may have been great interpreters.


----------



## messadivoce (Apr 18, 2014)

I probably belong to the youngest generation here. I'm only 24 and I listen to primarily older recordings but I don't exclude newer ones. I just don't get why a lot of people are dissuaded from listening to older recordings because of the recording quality. If you listen through the static sometimes you can hear some beautiful music. I find it more unnatural to listen to orchestras that are hooked up to dozens of microphones and then edited, multi-tracked, and layered to get a desired effect. I don't understand how these modern recording techniques are supposed to be closer to the opera house experience than 78 rpms because we don't have ears in multiple locations that we can amplify individually and piece together. Regardless of the recording technology, we should be listening to music for its aesthetic value.

Another reason why I am against the exclusion of recordings from a certain time period is that I feel that the people who discount older recordings tend to listen to the same few opera singers all the time and don't explore the vast number of unique and beautiful voices of the past. There is a lot to learn and enjoy from listening to older recordings. I feel that the label "historical reocrdings" makes it seem like they are viewed with purely anecdotal and novelty value.

Another topic: Are singers today better or worse than singers of the past? I think that's all relative to what you find aesthetically pleasing. There are differences in genres of opera. There are differences in what is considered the right technique. It all depends on what each individual listener views as what is "right" in their opinion. An example is vibrato. Why did a wide vibrato go out of style? Personally I like it. You only really hear it in the really old recordings from wax cylinders (well a little after that too) of Alessandro Bonci, Florencio Constantino, Fernando de Lucia, Leon Escalais, Mattia Battistini, Josip Kasman, Gemma Bellincioni, etc. Opinions on what is the "right" technique vary from time to time. Nowadays, if a tenor can't sing a high C in a full connected chest voice they aren't considered a tenor. But there was a time before Gilbert Duprez where no one sang a high C in chest voice. In fact, Rossini himself hated the sound of a chest voice high C at first. The style of Wagner was hated by bel canto enthusiasts at first and it was criticized for being shouty and called the "Bayreuth bark". But as this forum's poll has demonstrated, Wagner is the most popular operatic composer today. Opinions on what is beautiful in opera changes over time and it depends on the individual. I feel that the aesthetic appeal of certain operas, operatic styles, and singers is a very personal thing.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Messadivoce:* Good post. You obviously have much knowledge of "historical" singers (more than I do, in fact), and you express my feelings exactly about why listening to older as well as newer recordings is important. Question: by "wide vibrato," do you actually mean what I would call a "fast" vibrato -- in other words, a quick fluctuation as possessed by Conchita Supervia and Lawrence Tibbett?


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

The young stranger Messadivoce is not only brave but wise. May he be welcome.


----------



## messadivoce (Apr 18, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> *Messadivoce:* Good post. You obviously have much knowledge of "historical" singers (more than I do, in fact), and you express my feelings exactly about why listening to older as well as newer recordings is important. Question: by "wide vibrato," do you actually mean what I would call a "fast" vibrato -- in other words, a quick fluctuation as possessed by Conchita Supervia and Lawrence Tibbett?


Yeah like Conchita Supervia. I don't know so much about Lawrence Tibbett though. To me, he doesn't have that. I mean a wide vibrato as well as a fast vibrato. I mean "wide" in the sense that a note fluctuates in pitch in a wider range than what is accepted today. And I don't know if the wobble in a young Corelli would be what I'm describing. An example that not too old is Benvenuto Franci. You can really hear it in the beggining of this:






It's like Lauri-Volpi and I don't mean when he was in his 80s haha. You really hear in in Bonci too:






I don't know for sure, but I heard Caruso's dominance and the transition from bel canto to verismo and Wagner lead to a downfall of the wide and fast vibrato.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

If anyone wants to hear an (extreme!) example of 'wide vibrato' from that era, look up any of the earlier recordings (circa early and mid 1920s) of Giacomo Lauri-Volpi. It improved somewhat a bit later in his career but I could never stomach that sound. I never discerned any problematic vibrato in Tibbett.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Revenant said:


> If anyone wants to hear an (extreme!) example of 'wide vibrato' from that era, look up any of the earlier recordings (circa early and mid 1920s) of Giacomo Lauri-Volpi. It improved somewhat a bit later in his career but I could never stomach that sound. I never discerned any problematic vibrato in Tibbett.


Oh no, I don't think Tibbett's vibrato was in any way problematic; I think it gave his singing an added dramatic urgency. Actually, I think what Tibbett was great at was _varying_ the rate of his vibrato to enhance the drama -- Steane mentions this in "The Grand Tradition."

I want to add, too, that for me vibrato is great as long as it's an _even_ fluctuation; if it's inconsistent then it's a wobble, which is of course undesirable.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Oh no, I don't think Tibbett's vibrato was in any way problematic; I think it gave his singing an added dramatic urgency. Actually, I think what Tibbett was great at was _varying_ the rate of his vibrato to enhance the drama -- Steane mentions this in "The Grand Tradition."


I agree then. Methought the reference was to dark-side vibrato not the creatively manipulatable (or voicepulatable) vibrato.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

The Italian name for the vibrato in a voice like Bonzi's is "vibrato stretto". Literally, that means a narrow vibrato. It certainly was produced on purpose, by using a technique that, however, was already in disuse, and rather considered out-of-fashion, in Bonzi's own times. Some people refer to this as a 'voce caprina'. While a singer with a slightly wider vibrato, "vibrato amplio", can be considered by some people as a 'voce ballante'.



Of course a *really* wide vibrato is almost always the result of either a faulty technique, or a worn-out voice.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Anyone else up for reviving this excellent thread? I think it died a death when Bonci was offered as the beau ideal of historical tenors  And the chap who mentioned older singers singing out of tune never did name names, though I have my suspicions!

Anyone?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I LOVE historic recordings. I learn so much more that way. And it takes a lot of time and control to weed through the many sound flaws.
Try listening to The Maplesons sometime. Now there's a study in concentration if ever I heard one. And it is a gift when you can make heads or tails of the likes of Jean de Reszke and Nellie Melba.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Many years ago, EMI produced a 4 Volume set on LP called *The Record of Singing*. which was literally that. The first volume started with recordings from about 1900, when recording was in its intimacy and the fourth went to about 1950 and the beginning of the LP age. I seem to remember the final track was Callas singing _D'amore al dolce impero_, recorded live in 1955. A 5th volume taking in the LP and Digital age was issued in 2007. The range was vast, covering singers and recordings from all continents, many of whom had been forgotten long ago, and documentation and attention to detail incredible, especially that of trying to find the correct pitch for pre-electrical 78s.
I doubt such an enterprise would be ever attempted today, and anyone who has those sets should treasure them. The two 10 CD sets issued in 2009 were only of excerpts from the original sets.
I hope some library has those originals complete somewhere and that they will be preserved for study and enjoyment for all time, but somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Many years ago, EMI produced a 4 Volume set on LP called *The Record of Singing*.
> I doubt such an enterprise would be ever attempted today, and anyone who has those sets should treasure them. The two 10 CD sets issued in 2009 were only of excerpts from the original sets.
> I hope some library has those originals complete somewhere and that they will be preserved for study and enjoyment for all time, but somehow I doubt it.


The Record of Singing was an amazing achievement. I had all the sets (borrowed rather than owned, though I did buy volume 4 in a car boot sale for £2) and used to listen to them dubbed on to cassette.I discovered many great singers that way. I do think that YouTube is preferable in many ways- there are more early recordings on there than would have seemed possible only a handful of years ago, and it's a heck of a lot easier than tracking down long-deleted CDs or LPs.

I daresay the original Record of Singing LP sets are in an archive somewhere, though that probably doesn't help the ordinary person in the street who isn't a member of that archive's university or whatever. Of more interest is the whereabouts of the original shellac discs. Many of the rarest early discs were owned by the late Sir Paul Getty and were auctioned off after his death last year, so such rarities as von Mildenburg, Capoul, Marie de Reszke, and the Caruso blue Zonophones have been dispersed to the far corners of the earth, which is not necessarily a bad thing but would make life difficult for anyone trying to source the originals for a Record of Singing style project. Luckily many have already been transferred by Symposium- the Harold Wayne collection having been acquired by Getty- albeit in noisy transfers which sound a little rudimentary by 21st century standards.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> I LOVE historic recordings. I learn so much more that way. And it takes a lot of time and control to weed through the many sound flaws.
> Try listening to The Maplesons sometime. Now there's a study in concentration if ever I heard one. And it is a gift when you can make heads or tails of the likes of Jean de Reszke and Nellie Melba.


I found those very hard to listen to at first, though headphones do make it easier in my experience. One revelation is how much better the Met's orchestra sounds than the brass-heavy small ensembles that became common in studio recordings a few years later. One wonders if the military bands and tinny upright pianos were really necessary in the early studios at all.

I will have to listen to Melba again. She's not a big favourite of mine but it would be interesting to compare the studio recordings with the Maplesons, which people seem to think show her in a better light. Another artist who sounds better on Mapleson cylinder in my opinion is Albert Alvarez, whose voice rings out wonderfully in Le Cid:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Here's how you make a record! I wonder if those are Stroh violins in the front row- they seem to feature both a bow and a horn. Imagine playing in those sort of cramped conditions, in those high starched collars!


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Recordings from the time of the second world war and immediately after can be so bad I don't want to bother with them, but the recording quality could actually be rather good in the 1930s. I can also tolerate some late 1920s recordings. Old recordings also have the benefit of not having an annoyingly wide dynamic range.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Recordings from the time of the second world war and immediately after can be so bad I don't want to bother with them, but the recording quality could actually be rather good in the 1930s. I can also tolerate some late 1920s recordings. Old recordings also have the benefit of not having an annoyingly wide dynamic range.


I find that the early electricals can sound a bit harsh, although once you get into the 30s things improve again. I don't like the spliced, edited, over- perfected sound of the stereo era onwards. It would be nice to go back to basics and recover the sense of unmediated live performance that early recordings had. There's a story that John McCormack, making one of his first electrical recordings, stormed into the engineer's booth and demanded, 'Who's making this record- you or me?!' He obviously lost that argument, but I think he was right in some way.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

..quicquid non quaestiones!

/ptr


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

ptr said:


> ..quicquid non quaestiones!
> 
> /ptr


Oh no, have I gone off topic again? I think everyone has already vented their problems with historical recordings on this thread before I discovered TC.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Oh no, have I gone off topic again? I think everyone has already vented their problems with historical recordings on this thread before I discovered TC.


Na, rather myself using a latin catch phrase who is straying... All I said was, no it don't bother me!

/ptr


----------



## Johnmusic (Oct 4, 2017)

About age 8 the first classical music which I remember hearing were from 1906 to @1930 on 78rpms. A few years later I got an early 1960s Stereo LP of Tebaldi. The musical quality of all pleased me and the singing was special. I have spent less time worrying about eras and more time spending money .


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

May I offer this suggested perspective on this: one of the things I utilize often in listening to historic performances is the addition of imagination. How would this have sounded live today or if recorded today? How would the sound be different? I like using imagination when listening to music.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

The listening environment has some bearing on the whole matter. Some of the best recordings I've heard are in less than pristine sound and using headphones does exacerbate the situation. I remember going into a record store in Brisbane and auditioning the GPOTTC Josef Hofman and thought - this is unlistenable! Marcus, the classical music guy at the store (sadly now deceased) talked me into buying it by convincing me to put it into my car CD player, turn it up a bit and listen to the music making on the drive back home to the Gold Coast. If I didn't like it I could return it. It worked and I could hear the genius that Hofmann was.

I've just been listening to a great Furtwangler performance of the LvB Coriolan Overture via my computer speakers which are very good but nowhere as revealing as my Flare R2A in ear monitors. This came from me reading the LvB Overtures thread. (Thank heavens it wasn't another game).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have some historic recordings which I have listened to with interest. But I never usually play them more than once as the sound quality is usually poor and I do like decent sound.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> May I offer this suggested perspective on this: one of the things I utilize often in listening to historic performances is the addition of imagination. How would this have sounded live today or if recorded today? How would the sound be different? I like using imagination when listening to music.


Anyone who loves singing must cultivate this skill. We can never imagine with complete assurance how singers recorded in 1910 sounded in life, but the more recordings we hear the better we understand the specific shortcomings of old recording technologies and the specific kinds of distortion they imposed on voices. It's especially helpful to listen to the early and late recordings of singers whose careers spanned the decades between the acoustic and electrical eras, or the 78rpm and LP eras.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In McLuhan terms, old recordings are a "hot" medium, which refers to the degree of involvement needed to engage with the experience. Reading, like wise, is a "hot" medium, since we must use our imaginations. So it is with old recordings, where we must 'fill in the blanks' with our brains, and hopefully have a very musical experience, in that we must extract the message and imbue it with meaning.
Hi-definition television, by contrast, is a "cold" medium, because there is so much detailed information present that we become more passive observers.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> In McLuhan terms, old recordings are a "hot" medium, which refers to the degree of involvement needed to engage with the experience. Reading, like wise, is a "hot" medium, since we must use our imaginations. So it is with old recordings, where we must 'fill in the blanks' with our brains, and hopefully have a very musical experience, in that we must extract the message and imbue it with meaning.
> Hi-definition television, by contrast, is a "cold" medium, because there is so much detailed information present that we become more passive observers.


I disagree that having more detail makes us passive. More detail means more to process, more to ponder. For higher-quality modern recordings, you can actually hear details in the orchestra rather than imagining that it is doing what we want them to do.

Reading is a telling example too; novels can get very different interpretations from different readers that make different assumptions and/or otherwise come in from varied perspectives. When you get film adaptations you get people that call out how perfect various details are while to others those same details look nothing like they imagined in the book.

Of course not all books allow that wide of a range of interpretations, but I'm constantly surprised by how people misunderstand books... and works in other art forms.


----------



## Johnmusic (Oct 4, 2017)

Great opera singing can occur in 1900 et al and this century. I am aware of early sound limitations but Caruso can stand up to anyone in any era where there is sound and technique of voice. I think Joan Sutherland is a model for more modern years. TO EACH THEIR OWN !!!!!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I believe that most listeners, especially young listeners, usually start out with the performances of their time – the more contemporary recordings in modern state-of-the-art sound - they want it and prefer it. But not every great artist recorded with those modern advantages and yet they are an essential part of the amazing history of the music. To think that somebody would never hear Caruso because he was never recorded in stereo or digitally is missing out on one of the greatest voices of all time - and so most CM aficionados are willing to put up with less than ideal sound, start with modern recordings and then go backward in time to explore the endless richness of certain prized vintage or historic recordings, some recorded more than 100 years ago. In fact, it’s the only way to hear some of these indispensably great artists such as Caruso or Galli-Curci, who influenced later generations.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I became such a huge Callas fan, that I was just as familiar with the singers of the 50s Italian scene as much as the singers of the day. I've then discovered the periods before and since at roughly the same time. I'm always interested in hearing singers I haven't heard before and when I hear something that few other sings have brought to the same repertoire (or even repertoire that others haven't explored) then they become a favourite. My favourites range from early 20th Century to the present day.

N.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

I spent my teenage years sitting in the library listening to old recordings. CDs were very rare back then, and I never had a problem with the sound. I generally think they had a softer, less sterile feel to them than CDs. My only annoyance was having to bother the ladies to please flip the recordings every half hour, and that Wagner usually meant 8-10 "sides".


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that most listeners, especially young listeners, usually start out with the performances of their time - the more contemporary recordings in modern state-of-the-art sound - they want it and prefer it.


I don't know if you would be surprised to see people of my generation and younger settle down with 128kbps rips of pop radio broadcasts, and downloading videos from YT and converting then into audio by an online program. We do care about viral videos and popular classical music, but when we get serious we try to find the most popular recordings in Amazon or Spotify, and many of them are Analogue stereo. Another case are the Public radio broadcasts of full live performances. I myself like to listen to music of any genre in 192kbps.



Larkenfield said:


> But not every great artist recorded with those modern advantages and yet they are an essential part of the amazing history of the music. To think that somebody would never hear Caruso because he was never recorded in stereo or digitally is missing out on one of the greatest voices of all time - and so most CM aficionados are willing to put up with less than ideal sound.


The stereo/mono barrier is quite important. What we have is a prejudice that in music we cannot enjoy a mono source, but in long pieces suddenly we forget about the medium and enjoy the notes. Its only a prejudice of my generation, and once they can enjoy mono studio recordings they will be able to dive into the live-recording market.


----------

