# Classical 78s/Early 20th Century Recordings



## jonathanyoungiii (Apr 13, 2014)

Hello,

I collect old 78s of various genres (some jazz/early rock & roll), but also classical music. I also have a bunch on LP. I have to admit, however, that classical recordings on 78s fascinate me the most: there seems to be something very unique about the early styles/performances that differs from modern performances. I'm anything but a classical music expert, and far from a competent theorist. I'm just wondering if someone could explain to me how people trained in the 19th century style interpreted said music compared to more modern recordings... I'm aware there's going to be sweeping generalizations... but I can't put my thoughts into words nor can I find the words to express the reasons *why* I enjoy old recordings so much.

I have plenty of Glazunov, Chopin (very easy/popular in the era), Liszt & Stravinsky. I'm a big fan of the baroque era but recordings of that material are rare on 78. Anyway, lots of the stuff I do find is solo piano... and compared to today the playing seems so radically different -- sometimes so different it's shocking, but also enlightening! Also, symphonies of the day seemed richer and a bit slower... Anyway. Thanks for any theory/historical information you have.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

FWIW, I hope that You are aware of the fact that the time limitations of a 78 often inflected severely on how a work was interpreted tempo wise during this period of recording history.

This does not deter on the interpretations or make them any less interesting!

/ptr


----------



## jonathanyoungiii (Apr 13, 2014)

Yea, tempo seems to be one of the major differences. Even so, many pieces are given their proper course over several discs and still seem radically different -- but of course, not all


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It would help in starting the discussion if you would give some concrete examples of the differences you hear. Performance styles do certainly change over time. I have a special interest in singing, and have described in several posts (under "opera" threads) some ways in which singers in the early 20th century differed from those of today. One conspicuous difference among singers, instrumentalists, and even conductors, was a less rigid approach to tempo. Performers rooted in the Romantic era commonly varied the tempo according to the feeling of the moment, caring less about abstract "structural coherence" or tidy ensemble work than about spontaneity. I have an old recording of Caruso singing Leoncavallo's song "Mattinata" in which there is hardly any such thing as a steady tempo; the singer moves the notes as the spirit moves him, the pianist follows as closely as possible, and the whole effect is as improvisational and uninhibited as a jam session. No one would dream of performing classical repertoire this way today, and frankly I don't think a singer and accompanist would be capable of bringing it off even if they were not terrified of being taken to task for "sloppy ensemble work." It's ironic that in this era of "HIP" (historically informed practice) in the performance of music before the Romantic era, the Romantic sensibility itself seems so remote from us.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The reason that interpretive styles vary so much is because the early era of recording was driven by live performance. A performer made his money on concert dates, not recording. So the focus was on the moment. There were more mistakes but there was also more experimentation and risk taking. As the emphasis shifted from live to recorded, performances became more refined and safe... aimed at achieving the document of a "perfect" recording.

Personally, I like variety in approaches, so I really like historical recordings. We don't have any conductor today who comes close to Stokowski.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It's ironic that in this era of "HIP" (historically informed practice) in the performance of music before the Romantic era, the Romantic sensibility itself seems so remote from us.


Been thinking more on this point. The movement toward presumably more authentic performances of "early" music is based on scholarship, not on any actual experience of hearing, say, Corelli play the violin or Farinelli sing. The truth is that no one will ever know what these people sounded like when they made music, and we can only read the accounts, compare what we think they are saying with the performance practices of our own time, and proceed with humility based on what feels right to us. The fact remains that our approach to their music must remain somewhat speculative, and that full "authenticity" must always remain unachieved. In the case of the late Romantic era, however, we actually have recordings of some 19th-century musicians who lived into the era of sound recording and left some samples of their work. Even given the poor quality of recording at the time, and the advanced age of most of these musicians, we can hear some unmistakable features of their performance styles which, should we desire to, we might make use of in the performance of Romantic music. For the most part, however, we do not do so; aside from some controversial attempts to eliminate string vibrato in orchestral performances, and an occasional shy portamento executed by a singer or asked of a string section, there is no notable movement to conceive 19th-century music as Mahler or Hoffmann or Battistini would have conceived it. Why?

Perhaps the availability of actual models against which to measure ourselves is much more intimidating than a pile of old manuscripts explaining the execution of trills.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't think that "authentic" performance practice is necessarily the best. In Wagner's day, the tempi were very fast compared to recordings. The reason was that the voices weren't able to hold out as long as singers in the era of recording. I think that Knappertsbusch's Parsifal, for instance, is completely different than Parsifal of Wagner's time. But Kna's interpretation is MUCH better. I think modern instruments are better than certain old cranky ones on HIP recordings too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

bigshot said:


> I don't think that "authentic" performance practice is necessarily the best. In Wagner's day, the tempi were very fast compared to recordings. The reason was that the voices weren't able to hold out as long as singers in the era of recording. I think that Knappertsbusch's Parsifal, for instance, is completely different than Parsifal of Wagner's time. But Kna's interpretation is MUCH better. I think modern instruments are better than certain old cranky ones on HIP recordings too.


I can go along with your first sentence and, in some cases, your last. But I'd really like to see some evidence for the rest.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Check out the Bayreuth timings.


----------



## Vinyl (Jan 22, 2014)

Don't underestimate the influence on perception from the sound quality. The limitations of the recordings matter as well. I have 1950s 10" records that I've heard digitally enhanced versions of, and it does make a difference. I'm not saying you're wrong about styles and performances, I'm just adding a factor to consider.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Some day I´ll be getting a 78´record player, but so far I´ve only bought a few cheap classical 78-sets because of the Alex Steinweiss cover designs (in colour).

For sound quality, everything past 1930 or so is acceptable to me, a few earlier piano solo recordings as well.

I rarely listen to vocal recordings from before 1950 though, Mengelberg´s Matthäus-Passion and Mahler´s 4th being among the exceptions. The vocal style just doesn´t suit me. But the poster _Moody_ has correctly shown examples of vocal recordings from those days, that resembles modern-style singing too.

Jazz from the 30s and onwards can be great, of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

bigshot said:


> I don't think that "authentic" performance practice is necessarily the best. In Wagner's day, the tempi were very fast compared to recordings. The reason was that the voices weren't able to hold out as long as singers in the era of recording. I think that Knappertsbusch's Parsifal, for instance, is completely different than Parsifal of Wagner's time. But Kna's interpretation is MUCH better. I think modern instruments are better than certain old cranky ones on HIP recordings too.


Looking at the timings of various conductors' readings of _Parsifal_ at Bayreuth, I see that the average length of time conductors have taken to perform the opera has been approximately 4 hours and 14 minutes. Hermann Levi, Wagner's first conductor in 1882, clocked in at 4:04, which is only ten minutes less than the average and just six minutes less than Hans Knappertsbusch in 1962. We know that at the last performance in 1882 Wagner himself stepped up to the podium in Act 3 and that his tempos were distinctly slower than Levi's. Someone named Fischer in 1882 took all of 4:23; Felix Mottl in 1888 came in at 4:15; Anton Seidl in 1897 at 4:19; and Karl Muck (whom some consider the greatest of all _Parsifal_ interpreters) in 1901 at 4:27. These conductors were all active during Wagner's time, and before the era of recordings. Knappertsbusch's tempos in the 1950s did tend to be quite slow, as slow as 4:33 in 1951, but this is near the extreme of slowness for the opera, and his tempos became progressively swifter as he aged. Records also show that when Wagner himself conducted the prelude to the opera in Munich in 1880, his timing of 14'30" was slower even than Knappertsbusch's slowest (1951) traversal at 14'13."

These statistics do not show that tempos in Wagner's day were comparatively fast, much less "very fast," and they certainly do not suggest that singers were more easily exhausted by long evenings of singing! I must also say that it takes a certain chutzpah, or the gift of backward clairvoyance, to contend that Knappertsbusch, superb as he was, interpreted Wagner's music better than the conductors who worked with Wagner himself at Bayreuth.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by bigshot
> I don't think that "authentic" performance practice is necessarily the best. In Wagner's day, the tempi were very fast compared to recordings. The reason was that the voices weren't able to hold out as long as singers in the era of recording. I think that Knappertsbusch's Parsifal, for instance, is completely different than Parsifal of Wagner's time. But Kna's interpretation is MUCH better. I think modern instruments are better than certain old cranky ones on HIP recordings too.
> Looking at the timings of various conductors' readings of Parsifal at Bayreuth, I see that the average length of time conductors have taken to perform the opera has been approximately 4 hours and 14 minutes. Hermann Levi, Wagner's first conductor in 1882, clocked in at 4:04, which is only ten minutes less than the average and just six minutes less than Hans Knappertsbusch in 1962. We know that at the last performance in 1882 Wagner himself stepped up to the podium in Act 3 and that his tempos were distinctly slower than Levi's. Someone named Fischer in 1882 took all of 4:23; Felix Mottl in 1888 came in at 4:15; Anton Seidl in 1897 at 4:19; and Karl Muck (whom some consider the greatest of all Parsifal interpreters) in 1901 at 4:27. These conductors were all active during Wagner's time, and before the era of recordings. Knappertsbusch's tempos in the 1950s did tend to be quite slow, as slow as 4:33 in 1951, but this is near the extreme of slowness for the opera, and his tempos became progressively swifter as he aged. Records also show that when Wagner himself conducted the prelude to the opera in Munich in 1880, his timing of 14'30" was slower even than Knappertsbusch's slowest (1951) traversal at 14'13."
> 
> These statistics do not show that tempos in Wagner's day were comparatively fast, much less "very fast," and they certainly do not suggest that singers were more easily exhausted by long evenings of singing! I must also say that it takes a certain chutzpah, or the gift of backward clairvoyance, to contend that Knappertsbusch, superb as he was, interpreted Wagner's music better than the conductors who worked with Wagner himself at Bayreuth.


Bombshell. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Facts, not feelings.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Do you have stats on Walkure? Parsifal is kind of a special case.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Been thinking more on this point. The movement toward presumably more authentic performances of "early" music is based on scholarship, not on any actual experience of hearing, say, Corelli play the violin or Farinelli sing. The truth is that no one will ever know what these people sounded like when they made music, and we can only read the accounts, compare what we think they are saying with the performance practices of our own time, and proceed with humility based on what feels right to us. The fact remains that our approach to their music must remain somewhat speculative, and that full "authenticity" must always remain unachieved. In the case of the late Romantic era, however, we actually have recordings of some 19th-century musicians who lived into the era of sound recording and left some samples of their work. Even given the poor quality of recording at the time, and the advanced age of most of these musicians, we can hear some unmistakable features of their performance styles which, should we desire to, we might make use of in the performance of Romantic music. For the most part, however, we do not do so; aside from some controversial attempts to eliminate string vibrato in orchestral performances, and an occasional shy portamento executed by a singer or asked of a string section, there is no notable movement to conceive 19th-century music as Mahler or Hoffmann or Battistini would have conceived it. Why?
> 
> Perhaps the availability of actual models against which to measure ourselves is much more intimidating than a pile of old manuscripts explaining the execution of trills.


There is a recording of a castrato voice, somewhere, do a search on YouTube. The voice was generally "pure" notwithstanding the poor audio quality of course.


----------

