# Why do people like older recordings with inferior sound quality



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I see frequently in recommendations here and elsewhere recordings from the 50s and 60s or even mono recordings from before the advent of stereo. I can understand wanting to hear those for historical reasons, like hearing Caruso or a historical Wurtwangler performance. What I have a hard time understanding is why people are willing to sacrifice sound quality for what is arguably a trivial gain in performance when there are many, many much better-sounding options.

We have had great sounding recordings for about 50 years now with many great conductors and orchestras. Have the performers of the past 50 years really not been able to measure up to those of the previous generation? 

Let's take a couple of examples. I recently bought Klemperer's Brahms symphonies. While they are great performances, the sound quality is significantly inferior to several modern cycles I own whose performances are not inferior to Klemperer's. I don't see myself ever going back to Klemperer for Brahms when I own Abbado, Solti, Levine (CSO) and Dohnanyi. All of these sets have significantly better sound and are just as great artistically.

Or Fricsay's Beethoven 9. Again, great performance but the sound quality is poor compared to many fine modern recordings. I listened to it once and am unlikely to listen to it again.

I can think of only once exception in my library. Szell's Beethoven symphony 7 allegretto. I must say that after hearing Szell's allegretto, I cannot listen to anything else and I have around 20 versions of the 7th


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I can see your point in some scenarios, but ironically my standout example is what you cited as your exception - Szell. The sound quality on most of his recordings is quite rough, but outside of his Mozart which I think is special his brand of laser-sharp precision and execution has been matched in much better sound since. Agreed on Fricsay too; don't see anything special in that recording that's worth hearing a timpani that sounds like it was recorded in the parking lot outside the studio.

I think, for me, the answer to your inquiry is mostly that older performers tend to have more distinct and individual approaches to interpretation that I tend to enjoy more than the "safer," more homogenized approaches that we hear nowadays. You would never mistake Klemperer for Toscanini, or Walter for Barbirolli, or Richter for Cortot, or Callas for Tebaldi, or Oistrakh for Heifetz. I'm not saying there isn't individuality in more modern performances, but to my ears the "golden age" of performing lasted through the first half of the 20th century and no later than 1970, where nearly everyone wasn't afraid to "put it all out there" and make uniquely personal artistic statements.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I see frequently in recommendations here and elsewhere recordings from the 50s and 60s or even mono recordings from before the advent of stereo. I can understand wanting to hear those for historical reasons, like hearing Caruso or a historical Wurtwangler performance. What I have a hard time understanding is why people are willing to sacrifice sound quality for what is arguably a trivial gain in performance when there are many, many much better-sounding options.


In the 1970's and 1980's when I bought more recordings I would check out prices and often old remastered LP's were easier on the budget. Also they would have famous conductors and orchestras, and you might or might not want so-and-so for their particular interpretation, national tradition, personal association with the composer (e.g. Bruno Walter/Mahler), or your own personal taste (I was not a fan of Klemperer, but many discerning listeners were). Some listeners liked the sound of German clarinetists but wouldn't listen to English ones. Or customers might just not know anything about new conductors. Magazines like _Gramophone_ helped the listener steer around these differences, but many buyers didn't read them. Or, they weren't that interested in the audio aspect and their own equipment wasn't good enough to capture finer distinctions. The good side of all this is that there are so many choices available.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I listen to most of my classical music from Youtube, so sound quality is never as good as a CD. I avoid the _really_ old recordings, but Klemperer's Brahms' cycle is modern enough that the sound quality is no worse on my phone than later recordings. Differences in interpretation become more important-- I love Klemperer's interpretation of Brahms' first symphony.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

To answer the OP's question, the fact of people enjoying a work in the first place is determined by the archetypal performing interpretations of yesteryear. A "piece" typically equals a "recording," and you can't much improve upon a recording: It's when great new recordings come out for _overlooked_ pieces that will win big and change everyone's outlook. This happens all the time. There are only occasions when new recordings of already popular works are an improvement, usually offering a similar performance in a higher sound quality. People can easily cite examples of this in an attempt to retort, but instead will demonstrate the point.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

To be honest I don’t care much for sound quality when it comes to certain performances. 
I can never give up on Sir Adrian Boult’s recordings of Elgar and Vaughan Williams, they are true treasure. Not only nostalgic but masterfully performed that I can easily ignore the sound quality.
Furtwängler’s Beethoven 5th 1947, I can’t say no.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

One might also ask "Why do people like digital recordings with high quality sound?"
People like whatever they like ... and each has his/her personal preferences.

Myself, I accept any recording that may be available. Much of the music I like may have only one recording, anyway.
Whether it be a once-performed composition for French or British radio broadcast or studio recording sessions for a film score, the 1950s master tapes are the one-and-only source for that particular music.

Many monaural albums reside in my music collection because the consumer options are either 1) mono sound (take it or leave it) or ... 2) no album at all.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

"why people are willing to sacrifice sound quality for what is arguably a trivial gain in performance", nobody gets to decide that for me. There are mono recordings that sound great. I'll keep Fricsay and Klemp along with many others as I see fit.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I am a sound quality snob. I admire Toscanini's Beethoven, for instance, but cannot listen to it for significant stretches. But I can put myself in the position of someone who likes an older recording.

1. Nostalgia/mid-century cool factor. Most here will know of my affection for HVK/BPO recordings. There's just a certain something to stuff produced at the apex of the 50s and 60s. A certain energy post-war, a sense of possibility and wonder to the new frontier that was opening up in an international world.

2. Stereo analog can sound great. The "Living Stereo" recordings of RCA, for instance, are generally just stupendous. I have a Munch St. Saens Organ Symphony and a Reiner Bartok that are just mind blowing. And by, say, 1967 or so (certainly by the mid 70s), HVK/BPO's output usually rivals modern digital.

But to your overall point, I do agree. As much as I might admire the idea of a brilliant performance in subpar sound, the actual physical act of listening to it is one I can hardly stomach. It may have something to do with most of my listening being done over high quality headphones. I imagine someone listening through laptop speakers might not be as sensitive to it as I am.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What I have a hard time understanding is why people are willing to sacrifice sound quality for what is arguably a trivial gain in performance when there are many, many much better-sounding options.


The issue of a "trivial" gain is not the point. For me, a unique recorded performance is the key. My example would be Rosalyn Tureck's set of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. The performance is unique and can only be had through relatively poor sound. Transcendent interpretation trumps poor sound.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

One day years back I had a moment of epiphany - while listening to a recording with a friend, a hifi nut, I came to a realisation that *some * people were listening as much to their equipment as the music. The recording was a new release in fabulous sound, to my ears the performance was average to my friend this did not matter - the sound was great through his system.
Now if thats whats important to a listener great, go for it, but I believe the music should and does transcend the medium of delivery, if of course the performance is good enough.
After that day I curtailed my interest in chasing hifi nirvana and spent more of my hard earned pound notes on the music. I have a decent hifi but have a system designed to allow me to listen to the music not the system.

Having said all of the above I do believe there are those who say older performances are better almost for the sake of it. Often I may disagree and indeed there are plenty good new performances coming out with interesting takes on well known repertoire.

On the point made earlier about Klemperer's Brahms recordings - I have had them for years and still enjoy them, generally I like listening to Klemperers performances one reason being he divides his violins which for me gives a different and interesting sound.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I have been wondering about the sound quality for years, since I listen to harpsichord music a lot and the sound quality is of the fatal importance to a proper harpsichord recording. Harpsichord is a very trick intrument to record because of its constant resonant harmonics, there is always something airy about the harmonics of harpsichord and a good recording records the full resonant harmonics and tonal colors, but will sound attacking to some unaccustomed ears. So mant recent harpsichord recordings do not have the airy quality rather like being miked from a great distance as if to avoid the "harshness" of the instrument. I also feel some differences between the new and old recordings of small scale chamber music like cantatas and violin sonatas, the airiness of the older sound quality always offer some sweetness to the music, but new record labels which sound dry of harpsichord, sound also dry and chippy of violin and voice. 

This is quite a dismal issue for me since a long time ago, old recording might sound studio like, but we classical listeners never asked for more than that, we are not goddamn audiophiles.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Some new labels or new recording technicians try to experiment their stupid audiophile philosophy onto classical music, overtly digitalize the original sound quality, in fact they destroy the beauty of the classical tonal textures for audiophiles sake. Stupid swines. I do not know if people can feel the difference between the good sound from the bad in a piano recording, I guess can not, because piano itself is very metallic. The dry and chippy audiophile records probably mean to enhance the concert feeling while listening in a tight sound-insulate chamber. But it is sure some latest sound engineerings are a counter-productive disservice to the classical music.

Bad examples: some latest HMF, Satirino, Ambroisie, Warner Classic and Jazz. Below are some deceptive recordings with dismal sound quality:























They are intolerably bad, never buy Christopher Roussets Bach suites from Ambroisie label, never, also avoid the latest Richard Egarrs English and French Suites from HMF, they are of the same dry, mikedness recordings.

Want some examples of Good sound quality? always go for any genuine Philips, old DHM, Sony Vivarte, Sony-BMG(new DHM), Alpha, Tactus, Glossa, Hyperion, Meridian, Gaudeamus, Naxos , Metronome recordings. England seems like Japan to have an outstanding constancy in record sound quality.
Here is my recommendation of Bachs harpsichord suites with proper sound quality:


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

I listen on my phone with headphones so I don't even own a HD audio recording, so the living stereo era recordings from the late 50s sound good to me. Obviously newer recordings sound more clear, but I can handle the Walter and Klemperer stereo recordings. I do admit though that anything earlier than that is not of interest to me. I've listened to Furtwangler and Toscanini for historical reasons but I won't listen to them generally.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1. Different recording technology is not unlike mutes or other modifications of instruments. There is something unique about just about every era of recording technology, even the 1920s/1930s recordings. The sound of the old recordings is a different work of art. 

Different sound worlds I love:

the dry recordings of George Szell's interpretations or the 1977 recordings of Star Wars (London) and Gayane (Moscow)

the hammering 1950s-1970s late mono / early stereo sound of Walter and Stokowski. I call it "Pax Americana sound" because of what era it reminds me of.

"old and sweet" vocal and string sound of late acoustic / early electric recordings, for example the 1920s/1930s Wagner recordings and early film and big band music, with ethereal vocals and unmistakable portamento strings, as well as other aspects that I perhaps lack the professional vocabulary to describe.

I sometimes dream of someone inventing mutes for various instruments that would give them the sound of historical recordings whenever a modern composer calls for it.

2. The matter of interpretations. The orchestra is an old and conservative ensemble, and some things just have not improved over the past decades. Sometimes one's favourite interpretation will be the one from a distant decade, and to many an interpretation means a lot, you know...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There are many reasons people prefer recordings that may not be up to date sonically.

The first is artistic quality. For example I far prefer Stravinsky's own 1948 recording of his Symphony in Three Movements to his later stereo version. One of my favorite, perhaps the favorite, recording of Bruckner's Fifth Symphony is a 1948 radio broadcast from Leipzig with Herrmann Abendroth conducting.

Another reason a person will more enjoy a recording not necessarily high tech is the recording has imprinted on the listener. Still another is nostalgia.

Perhaps the reason I most enjoy older recordings, especially radio broadcasts, is I know that is the product from the time and not one produced over and over again in a studio. Just about all modern recordings, even those produced "live," are patched to cover bad spots or are combinations of multiple performances. They are manufactured, perfected, not necessarily the product one would have heard in the studio.

I once heard a collector say he most liked to hear old Caruso recordings because, as he said, "When I hear these I know I hear only Caruso."

When I was young and a new collector I too thought sound was more important than art. That's because I didn't know anything about the comparative art of reading scores and interpreting them. As I aged and became more attuned to subtle and not-so-subtle differences I found sound quality much less important. 

Today, at age 70 after 50 years collecting, sound isn't a consideration in any way, in part because even the oldest recordings sound great today. No young person would know this but, 50 years ago, many older recordings including everything from Toscanini and Furtwangler (two of the great artists in history) sounded awful. Today those same recordings can be remade in super audio sound.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

In recent years there have been some stupendous bargains - those boxed sets dedicated to one conductor or composer. I like to study and read about historical conductors, so having their recordings - lousy sound and all - available is a great gift. Currently I'm studying Charles Munch. As wonderful as the RCA set is, the Warner and Decca boxes have some great music in them, too. Just last night I was listening to his 1940s Decca recording of the Prokofiev Classical Symphony. If anyone thinks that today's orchestras are so much better than those of that era, you need to hear this old, mono recording. The wickedly difficult woodwind parts are played with a panache and clarity that you don't hear in modern recordings. It's astonishing, really that they could capture so much detail with a single microphone.

Generally, the only recordings I buy nowadays, other than those boxed sets, are SACDs that are well recorded, even if the performing may not be the last word. On a good system the sense of realism that fills the room is breathtaking.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I personally somewhat struggle with very old orchestral mono recordings. Especially with composers like Mahler or Bruckner whose orchestration is often rather detailed and multilayered. I don't mind the sound of, say, Szell's Schumann but there are Furtwängler recordings that I struggle with. I'm more-or-less okay with bad sound quality in chamber music because fewer instruments are more easily distinguishable and I'm very used to mono opera recordings. Opera is possibly the only classical music genre whose quality has declined _significantly_ throughout time. It is often so that the worse sound quality you tolerate, the greater singing you'll be able to hear. Luckily, Bayreuth recordings, even from the 40s (Abendroth's 1943 _Die Meistersinger_ for example), are surprisingly well recorded as the German recording technology was very good already then. For me, the 50s La Scala recordings are sometimes a lot more difficult to listen to because of the sound.

I think, in general, I prioritise the interpretation over the sound quality (when the interpretation is really good). Luckily, there are many great modern recordings of chamber and orchestral music, so that I'm rarely "forced" to tolerate bad sound quality in those genres. I sometimes still do, even if just for the sake of historical significance.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Ariasexta said:


> Some new labels or new recording technicians try to experiment their stupid audiophile philosophy onto classical music, overtly digitalize the original sound quality, in fact they destroy the beauty of the classical tonal textures for audiophiles sake. Stupid swines. I do not know if people can feel the difference between the good sound from the bad in a piano recording, I guess can not, because piano itself is very metallic. The dry and chippy audiophile records probably mean to enhance the concert feeling while listening in a tight sound-insulate chamber. But it is sure some latest sound engineerings are a counter-productive disservice to the classical music.


Wow. Thank you for this comment. I've never had the energy to sort out which harpsichord recordings make for the best listening. What's your opinion of the two [complete] Scarlatti sets?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

In general, it's less about recording quality than performance. Up to a point. I'm one of those who think that the original instrument movement has immeasurably improved performances. I can't listen to performances of classical _period_ music (let alone baroque) prior to the HIP movement without cringing. The one exception is Schnabel. I really love his performances of Beethoven and Schubert. Also, I sometimes prefer the older performances of Handel's operas when they substituted SATB for Handel's sopranos, sopranos and castrated men. There's something about the timbre of the modern countertenor that I just don't like. It's ruined the complete Cantata set of Gardiner and Susuki along with every modern HIP performance of Handel's operas. I just can't stand them. They're not HIP. They're just a fad. *

* Filed under Unpopular Opinions.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

The one Britten opera I am not good with is _The Turn of the Screw_. Why? Largely, because it was the one opera of his own that Britten conducted in the pre-stereo days.

I just don't get on with most mono or bad-acoustic recordings. That doesn't mean I must have SACD, high-def stuff either: my ears aren't that good, so that sort of hyper-perfection is not needed. And I love the Decca/Culshaw recordings of the 1950s and 60s, with their 'acoustic acting', as singers move around the sound-stage. So 1958+ stereo does me fine.

That said, I have an original shellac recording of the Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings as recorded in 1945, which I very occasionally fetch out and play on my 1930s wind-up gramophone. I'm not just listening to music at that point, though, more taking part in a holy sacrament!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> To answer the OP's question, the fact of people enjoying a work in the first place is determined by the archetypal performing interpretations of yesteryear. A "piece" typically equals a "recording," and you can't much improve upon a recording: It's when great new recordings come out for _overlooked_ pieces that will win big and change everyone's outlook.


I'd have to agree with you. Naxos used to record the standard repertoire with substandard orchestras, and their only advantage was the price. But then they started recording pieces nobody/few had heard, like their American composers series, that's when they became something to be reckoned with, because there was nothing to compare the recording to, so their recordings became pretty much the standard.

Personally, I don't think we need another Beethoven or Brahms symphony cycle, but we do need good quality recordings which are cheap enough that they warrant the risk of a purchase.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> To answer the OP's question, the fact of people enjoying a work in the first place is determined by the archetypal performing interpretations of yesteryear. A "piece" typically equals a "recording," and you can't much improve upon a recording: ...


I don't see it that way. If a composer conducted, played or supervised a recording, that is perhaps as close as we get to "archetypal." Nevertheless, a century or more passed between the composition of Beethoven's works and the recordings, for example. Interpretations continued to evolve for many different reasons. Sometimes new information comes to light after early recordings are made. (It used to be thought that Toscanini conducted what was in the printed score, but closer examination showed that he made significant alterations in some scores.) Finally, to write "A 'piece' equals a 'recording'" overlooks matters of interpretation, of bringing a score to life -- the re-creative art that classical musicians dedicate their lives to.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What I have a hard time understanding is why people are willing to sacrifice sound quality for what is arguably a trivial gain in performance when there are many, many much better-sounding options.


Why people are willing to sacrifice great artistic experiences for what is arguably a trivial gain in sound quality?.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I first came to classical music as a teenager in the 1980s, and relied heavily on CBS and RCA budget lines of reissues of recordings mostly from about 1955-1975, so that era of classical music recordings became my frame of reference with a galaxy of luminaries such as Bernstein, Ormandy, Stokowski, Gould, Horowitz, Serkin, Heifetz, Stern, etc. 

I think that anything post about 1955 is fairly listenable when it comes to sound technology, and in some ways my old collection of LPs had a better, richer, sound quality that today's CDs and digital modes. 

I acknowledge many great musicians whose bulk of recordings came prior to about 1955, Toscanini and Furtwangler for sure; but also Dimitri Mitropoulos who I think was as good as anyone and remains neglected as a great conductor across the repertoire and also was a champion of Mahler, Schoenberg, Berg, Krenek, and others long before it became fashionable. Be that as it may, sound technology make sit difficult to enjoy such musical geniuses; so I usually stay post-1955 more-or-less.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Transcendent interpretation trumps poor sound.


This. (dkgfglsfhklglk)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Roger Knox said:


> I don't see it that way. If a composer conducted, played or supervised a recording, that is perhaps as close as we get to "archetypal." Nevertheless, a century or more passed between the composition of Beethoven's works and the recordings, for example. Interpretations continued to evolve for many different reasons. Sometimes new information comes to light after early recordings are made. (It used to be thought that Toscanini conducted what was in the printed score, but closer examination showed that he made significant alterations in some scores.) Finally, to write "A 'piece' equals a 'recording'" overlooks matters of interpretation, of bringing a score to life -- the re-creative art that classical musicians dedicate their lives to.


This is all true to an extent indeed. However, more creative ground is typically made on overlooked works, works that may become a staple of the community with some big interpretive changes first made. Your first sentence in some ways contradicts the last sentence. New interpretations of classic pieces usually stay relatively similar to the old ones.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Coach G said:


> I think that anything post about 1955 is fairly listenable when it comes to sound technology, and in some ways my old collection of LPs had a better, richer, sound quality that today's CDs and digital modes.


I will agree with you on your first statement, but unless we're counting clicks, pops, surface hiss and scratches as 'richer sound quality', I'm parting company with you on your second!


----------



## Geoff48 (Aug 15, 2020)

When I started listening to music it was on my parents’ radiogram. The music came on shellac 78s and each side lasted about four minutes or so. An overture normally involved a turnover in the middle, a concerto was often on six or more sides. And yet the music came across and was enjoyable. The sound may have had hiss and was not hi fi but no one cared; providing that the recording was post 1925 electric that was sufficient.
LPs were a great improvement. For one thing classical symphonies and concertos tended to fit comfortably on one side and could be listened to without a break. Even Tchaikovsky and Brahms only involved one break. And the sound was better.
I accept that there has to be a minimum sound level but that level isn’t too high not to preclude enjoyment. It’s only when the sound is more important than the music or the performer that I have concerns. And remember that not all of us can afford thousands to spend on a sound system. On a system costing a few hundred pounds or even less, considerable musical enjoyment can be obtained and the difference between an audiophonic and a good stereo recording be less apparent. But a great interpretation will always stand out however the sound quality. 
And remember that the most enjoyable and realistic sound is often late mono and early stereo in the fifties and sixties.


----------



## musichal (Oct 17, 2020)

Even though my gear might spell _audio snob_ to some, my priorities are music first, sound quality second. For instance, I especially enjoy several Bruno Walter mono recordings, among other conductors, but will also have newer, higher-fidelity recordings from which to choose as mood dictates. I find them equally satisfying emotionally, even though not sonically. Sometimes, at the outset, I find I have misjudged my mood and change horses - in either direction.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I opened a similar thread months ago, but thinking about it there are some old recordings that I really like even with the bad sound. I usually prefer to listen a recording with a great sound (especially in classical music) if there's a old record that I particularly like I can even like the muddy sound, in the same way I can appreciate a old vintage sepia photography. The fascination of the time passed I guess.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

because they want to feel the nostalgia for that period:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Malx said:


> Now if thats whats important to a listener great, go for it, but I believe the music should and does transcend the medium of delivery, if of course the performance is good enough.


while it's true that there are audiophiles that can listen the worst crap if it's well recorded, it should also be noted that musicians (classical musicians in particular) spend decades refining their sound and they spend huge amount of money on their instruments so what you're saying sounds a bit like "who cares about that"? I mean, I'm far from being an audiophile and as I've said I appreciate some old recordings (like I've said, the same way I can appreciate a vintage photograph), but sound quality is part of what makes great the music experience.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

Agree completely with Mister Bates in the sense of looking at an old photograph. It took some time for me to personally prevail over inferior sonics, but I do so enjoy communing with older recordings, their performers and even their engineers. This is true most esp. of the older operatic greats but also early pianists, a surprising number of them were composers I admire, inc. a snippet of Brahms. Besides the notion of being more closely in touch with them, I view such listening as death-defying; a punch in Mr. Death's snotty nose. :wave:


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I will agree with you on your first statement, but unless we're counting clicks, pops, surface hiss and scratches as 'richer sound quality', I'm parting company with you on your second!


The pops, hisses, and scratches were a problem. I still have about one quarter of the LPs I once purchased, I donated most of them to save living space after I began to upgrade my recordings with CD versions. Once in a while I'll spin the turntable and listen to my classical music old-school; but I've become so used to CDs that it seems as though listening to records is too much work because you have to take it carefully out of the sleeve, carefully cue it up, carefully flip it over from side A to side B. Sometimes I marvel at myself that I once listened to music in such a work-intensive way.

I guess it's like everything else. I can hardly remember what it was like to have to get up and change the TV channel before remote control; or can hardly remember how to use a rotary phone; or look something up in the encyclopedia or card catalog. Sometimes even writing with pen or pencil seems like too much work because I'm so used to using a keyboard.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Coach G said:


> The pops, hisses, and scratches were a problem. I still have about one quarter of the LPs I once purchased, I donated most of them to save living space after I began to upgrade my recordings with CD versions. Once in a while I'll spin the turntable and listen to my classical music old-school; but I've become so used to CDs that it seems as though listening to records is too much work because you have to take it carefully out of the sleeve, carefully cue it up, carefully flip it over from side A to side B. Sometimes I marvel at myself that I once listened to music in such a work-intensive way.
> 
> I guess it's like everything else. I can hardly remember what it was like to have to get up and change the TV channel before remote control; or can hardly remember how to use a rotary phone; or look something up in the encyclopedia or card catalog. Sometimes even writing with pen or pencil seems like too much work because I'm so used to using a keyboard.


I still have all my vinyl but it's all been replaced digitally or on cd. Just can't bear to giving it up because of what it took to acquire it. My wife hopes she'll go before me so that she doesn't have the problem of disposing of it!!:lol:


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

Vielen Dank, Herr Klavier. Ich habe es wirklich genossen. In fact, I think I enjoyed it with its slightly less-than-high-fidelity sound and in its original monochrome version as much as, or perhaps more than, I would a contemporary version with perfect sound. Part of the attraction, as least to me, is the interesting historical context, including that that was an era in which many ordinary people such as these factory workers could still appreciate good music. [Of course I don't like the swastikas and tried to ignore them, but they are an important part of the historical context that can't really be ignored.]


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> because they want to feel the nostalgia for that period:


Fortunately I don't think there are very many who are nostalgic for Nazi Germany. That era was way before my time anyway.

I just think some of the older recordings are kind of definitive performances in their way, especially piano recordings from Horowitz or Rubinstein, or Tureck's from the 50s. I don't listen to old orchestral recordings quite as much.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The simplest reason, and very likely the most accurate one in many, many cases--especially among older listeners--is imprinting. Konrad Lorenz would smile in agreement. Early in our CM listening careers, we heard new pieces of music that suited us, performed by Conductor X leading Orchestra Y on Label Z This performance imprinted itself on us and became loved, familiar, ingrained.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> The simplest reason, and very likely the most accurate one in many, many cases--especially among older listeners--is imprinting. Konrad Lorenz would smile in agreement. Early in our CM listening careers, we heard new pieces of music that suited us, performed by Conductor X leading Orchestra Y on Label Z This performance imprinted itself on us and became loved, familiar, ingrained.


Each listener's experience is unique, though. We all came into classical music at different ages and within various decades.
I, for example, did not get a compact disc player until 1993 when I started to get into classical music on CDs past my age of 25.
I had already been listening, though, to monaural soundtrack LPs (from the '50s & '60s) since I was age 18 in 1985.
The recordings & types of music which imprinted on me (as a child under age 12) I had subsequently abandoned not long after entering adolescence.
I 'really' got into monaural recordings on CDs whilst in my late 30s. Now I consider pre-1980s recordings as 'better' than recordings from the past 40 years. Go figure. It is simply my prefered aural thermostat setting (below 80  ).


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

norman bates said:


> while it's true that there are audiophiles that can listen the worst crap if it's well recorded, it should also be noted that musicians (classical musicians in particular) spend decades refining their sound and they spend huge amount of money on their instruments* so what you're saying sounds a bit like "who cares about that"*? I mean, I'm far from being an audiophile and as I've said I appreciate some old recordings (like I've said, the same way I can appreciate a vintage photograph), but sound quality is part of what makes great the music experience.


If it comes over that way I haven't made my point clearly - I believe if the performance level is equal then higher quality sound is definitely preferred, but a poor performance in better quality sound is not ideal no matter how much has been spent on the instruments.

I wholeheartly agree that sound quality is part of what makes music great


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Over the years I've listened to so much music in excellent, good, average, poor or plain dreadful sound and as the years have gone on I'll be honest and say that unless it's in the mininimum of 'good' sound I won't return to it. Yes, I may listen once. I may even slightly enjoy the interpretation or other aspects of the performance but I'll never return to it generally because its likely been done better and in infinitely superior sound. For standard repertoire I can't think of a single pre-1950 recording of anything that hasn't been bettered since (thankfully). I'm no strict audiophile but I do listen to music for enjoyment. I dumped clicky, poppy, scratchy, annoying vinyl because it was replaced by a medium that was a) more convenient B) wasn't ruined by external factors. So why should I then put up with recordings that put all those annoyances back in? Some people can live with recordings from wax cylinders made at variable speeds and tempos with wiry violins and congested music-making. I'll be honest, I can't. It totally ruins my listening experience and even if I appreciate the artistry I'll never play it again. Matt mentioned Toscanini's Beethoven and I agree. Interpretively it has everything I want in Beethoven and is rightly appreciated by many because of this. I have the 39 and 53 sets but play neither. Why? Because they sound bloody awful (particularly the 53) and many people have done it as well or better since and in excellent sound, so why bother? Yes, I know that sounds harsh but it's true. I suspect also that there is a fair degree of icon worship and looking back with rose-tinted glasses at play here - "oh you MUST like conductor X's 1926 recording as he knew the composer and once borrowed a hat from him". I've heard some rubbish over the years and have listened to many of these 'essential' pre 1950s recordings but only a handful have ever impressed me and I've only ever returned to a few of the ones I like once. For recordings since the 50s some of the late 50s recordings sound as excellent today as they did back in the day (Living Stereo, etc). And before anyone accuses me of only liking newer recordings (that's horse-pucky) I have thousands of 50s and 60s recordings and I've kept them cos they still sound good. I've heard plenty of recordings even in the digital age that are rank (if you wanna hear a really bad disc have a listen to The Ad Libitum Quartet playing Ravel's SQ, for example). That's just one of many ropey recordings at a time when that should never happen). A bad recording is a bad recording . A badly played one is a badly played one. Perhaps it's imprinting, perhaps its rose-tinted sentimentality, perhaps its just the appreciation of excellent technique or interpretation, perhaps its the influence of older reviewers but there will always be people listening to older recordings and that's not a bad thing. There are some classic recordings that are 60-70 years old and justifiably lauded. For me it's less of a case for the 80 year old ones and hey, it's the 21st century. There's new music being made all the time, new things to hear. I'm never conservative (with a small or large c) in life. I'm always looking for something new to hear (even if it's an older recording). Please don't think I'm knocking anyone out there for liking historic performances but by and large they're not for me. They may be for you and we'll done if you can endure the sound. I can't.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Fortunately I don't think there are very many who are nostalgic for Nazi Germany. That era was way before my time anyway.


I'm also not a fan of the Nazis, but I'm not exactly sure why; whenever I watch that video , there is a "perversive side" in me that urges me to shout "Heil, mein Führertwangler!" with a salute. I think he has remarkable ability to bring out "those elements". It makes me forget all the horrible stuff that happened in that period, almost makes me feel as if everything was "glorious" somehow.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm also not a fan of the Nazis, but I'm not exactly sure why; whenever I watch that video , there is a "perversive side" in me that urges me to shout "Heil, mein Führertwangler!" with a salute. I think he has remarkable ability to bring out "those elements". It makes me forget all the horrible stuff that happened in that period, almost makes me feel as if everything was "glorious" somehow.


I have a friend who is a retired professor of German and Russian history, here in the USA. He said that in his "History of Modern Germany" undergraduate class, he used to show the students the Nazi/propaganda movie, "Triumph of the Will", but then said he stopped doing it because too many students would come up to him after class and say, "You know, after seeing that movie, if I was a German at the time, I would have probably supported Hitler, too."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Deleted..............


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Only if I'm obsessed with a work would I tolerate real crappy sound, and it's not for listening enjoyment purposes, but out of pure curiosity. Berlioz's Symphonie is the only one I can think of off-hand. Pierre Monteux's 1930 recording is one had strong links to the composer's outlook, which Monteux felt was his best even after his remakes. But most of the enjoyment is robbed by the sound, that I can't just kick back and listen to it. The trade-off for something different interpretively in better sound is easy for me. 

Conductors, especially those in the early stereo era, knew how to get the most out of a score, and they came in all sizes and shapes, and are well informed by those old pre-war recordings. I see it as a disrespect to these great conductors to think we, the listener, know better than they in saying those old pre-war recordings are better, as if the magic cannot be captured by all those immensely talented and informed musicians who came afterward.

I wouldn't sacrifice those early stereo recordings for more recent recordings though, that I see as more rehashes interpretively. The trade-off in sound is rarely worth it to me.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't 'like' older recordings with inferior sound, but I am prepared to put up with inferior sound quality in order to hear an outstanding performance. Gieseking playing Debussy, Ferrier singing Britten... 

Which, I guess, is what others have already said.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm being repetitious, but for one, it's fun to explore many different recordings of a work just to appreciate differences between performances from other times. Comparison can be very illuminating and enjoyable. There's also the possibility of hearing certain composers play or conduct their own works. And with opera, often the newer recordings, though they may have wonderful sound, are severely lacking in the quality of the singing. Older recordings also give me a warm and fuzzy old-timey feeling.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

So many interesting perspectives and extension points on the original post. 

When I started this thread, I had in mind inferior recordings of music that has received a plethora of outstanding recordings in much better sound. Like many here, I am not willing to sacrifice performance over sound either and will not opt for a sonically superior recording if I did not like the performance. Klemperer's Brahms is a great example and one that had me asking this question. There are so many outstanding recordings of Brahms' symphonies in significantly better sound. And some of them divide the violins like Klemperer did. I could not hear what those who recommend Klemperer heard - to me, it is just another great cycle with nothing special to offer but with a noticeably inferior sound. Yes, how we listen to the music matters so if you listen to MP3s on your laptop, it may not matter. But if you derive additional pleasure from the pure quality of the sound then sound quality is a deal breaker.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm going to chip in again here just to clarify my last comment, which actually sounded a little harsh. For me the biggest deal breakers are intensely congested sound, very excessive tape hiss, overbearing bass or total lack of it, wow and flutter and worst of all overtly wiry strings. So mono recordings are NOT ones I avoid if they are in clear sound regardless of being monaural (eg Schuricht's Beethoven, Jochum's first Brahms cycle). There are some fine mono recordings that are clear and well-defined. My problem comes with recordings where I can't differentiate and hear separation between instruments. Distortion and congestion totally ruin some recordings and even make some sound powerful when they are just hugely distorted. So it's not what I can hear that annoys me all the time, it's what I can't hear. There are some truly wretched recordings out there and I'm not struggling my way through a primordial soup of sound just to get through to the implied interpretation. Where's the joy in that? I am NOT against old recordings, far from it, but what I can't accept is anything where I have to struggle through or accept something unpleasant to my ears. I have better things to do with my time than listen to horrid sounding music regardless of the merits of the performance. I hope that clears things up. I don't want to sound like sound is the be-all and end-all but it makes a huge difference. For example, I used to be a huge Black Sabbath fan and after getting all the studio albums I then started collecting bootlegs. I got the lot (I think). However, over 95% were dreadful sounding but I felt I had to have them. At first they were interesting but then I realised that I would never play them again so I got rid of all but a handful that are soundboard or radio recordings in very good or better sound. It was the right decision.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So many interesting perspectives and extension points on the original post.
> 
> When I started this thread, I had in mind inferior recordings of music that has received a plethora of outstanding recordings in much better sound. Like many here, I am not willing to sacrifice performance over sound either and will not opt for a sonically superior recording if I did not like the performance. Klemperer's Brahms is a great example and one that had me asking this question. There are so many outstanding recordings of Brahms' symphonies in significantly better sound. *And some of them divide the violins like Klemperer did*. I could not hear what those who recommend Klemperer heard - to me, it is just another great cycle with nothing special to offer but with a noticeably inferior sound. Yes, how we listen to the music matters so if you listen to MP3s on your laptop, it may not matter. But if you derive additional pleasure from the pure quality of the sound then sound quality is a deal breaker.


Now you've got me interested any specific cycles you could direct me to.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Malx said:


> Now you've got me interested any specific cycles you could direct me to.


Rattle with BPO. Barenboim with Staatskapelle Berlin. I like the Rattle set better.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> ... So it's not what I can hear that annoys me all the time, it's what I can't hear. There are some truly wretched recordings out there and I'm not struggling my way through a primordial soup of sound just to get through to the implied interpretation. Where's the joy in that? ...


Couldn't agree more!

With a limited and uneven frequency response characteristics, coupled with early, unsophisticated recording techniques, one hear very little details, little in the orchestral balance and little changes in the dynamics. When people proclaimed the performance in such a recording has never been surpassed, I was always marveled by how rich their imagination was.

Having said that, I do treasure, despite the awful sonics, Nikisch's 1913 Beethoven 5, Monteux's 1929 Le Sacre, or Walter's 1938 Mahler 9; not because they were the best, far from that, but because of their historical values, that appeal to the collector in me. However, when I want to listen to these works, I prefer to pick a performance on a modern recording, because I know I can enjoy the music (and the performance) more.

On the other hand, a modern recording is not necessarily more enjoyable, despite its wider spectrum and dynamic range. Eiji Oue's Rachmaninov Symphonic Dances from Reference Recordings is a case in point - the sound is heavily smoothed out, heavily sweetened and excessively post-processed with unnatural reverb. While such a recording may appeal to those audiophiles who listen to equipment rather than music, I doubt music lovers would enjoy it as much. It simply sounds fake. To be honest, I think Manfred Honeck's recordings made by RR also suffer in a similar way, but they are much less horrible.

But then, I think even modern day sound reproduction technology is still very far away from being able to authentically imitate what we hear in a concert hall. That's a shame, but that's what we have.

Oh, but in real life, most people don't care about sound quality anyway.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Rattle with BPO. Barenboim with Staatskapelle Berlin. I like the Rattle set better.


Thanks TFOT :tiphat:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

It's partly a generation thing - elder people have more references in the older recordings. 

But, for my part: there was a period in the 70s - 90s, where new recording would often tend to be boring, objective play-throughs. Hearing recordings from before 1960 was then a revelation of more creative, varied and subjectively engaged music making, as a contrast. And they could have a better sense of drive and architecture in the music, building up to highlights, or pointing to details and character in individual episodes, etc. 

When I appreciate old recordings, it's when they represent these qualities. I don't care about sound quality, though Nikisch in Beethoven 5th does represent something off-putting. On the other hand, I'm that not much into conductors like later Klemperer (DLVDE/emi, Mahler II/decca and the Passion of St Matthew/emi are among the exceptions); but I'm a fan of more idiosyncratic or philosophically inspired conductors and pianists, like, for example, Mengelberg, some Furtwängler & Scherchen, early Ormandy, Sofronitzsky, Feinberg, Yudina, Gould, Argerich, Horowitz, Richter, Gilels, early Rubinstein, Arrau, etc. etc.

I don't really feel any need to follow most of the new pianists because of the treasure-grove these earlier recordings, heard or unheard, represent. Currentzis is one of the interesting ones as regards conductors.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I really want to like old recordings but every time I listen to them I just can’t stand it for very long. It’s not just the recording quality either. This is why I don’t listen to Wurtwangler even though I know he is regarded as the best. I don’t have too many recordings prior to the late 60’s. Just a few and I don’t listen to them very often.

The main reason is in fact the sound, though, mainly the “tinny” sound of the strings. It’s too strident and piercing and unnatural to me. Also, the woodwinds usually sound thin. And I hate mono and all those “dead” studios/reverb.

The second reason is that the orchestral technique was just not as good pre-1970. That’s just MY opinion, of course. But I just hear way too much intonation problems in the woodwinds and brass as well as too much unsupported brass tone. And the dexterity just isn’t as clean as it is today (in overall orchestral playing).

Also, the quality of the instruments was extremely poor pre-1970, IMO. This is especially true for brass instruments. Tubas (what I play), in particular, looked and sounded like metal trash cans. With today’s top-quality, hand-crafted manufacturers that really began in the 90s, they aren’t just instruments but works of art.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Torkelburger said:


> I really want to like old recordings but every time I listen to them I just can't stand it for very long. It's not just the recording quality either. This is why I don't listen to *Wurtwangler even though I know he is regarded as the best.*


Says who?

PS. Lol @ 'Wurtwangler'.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Merl said:


> Says who?
> 
> PS. Lol @ 'Wurtwangler'.


Well, yeah your right. I probably should say *F*urtwangler is just included in the top names as one of the best, or arguably the best,...possibly the best. Something like that. I certainly didn't say so...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Torkelburger said:


> Well, yeah your right. I probably should say *F*urtwangler is just included in the top names as one of the best, or arguably the best,...possibly the best. Something like that. I certainly didn't say so...


You have to be careful using the 'F' word on TC. It usually spawns several hundred pages of furious debate.:lol: The 'K' word can sometimes have a similar effect.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

I generally don't mind poor sound quality. The cutoff for me is when the sound becomes so poor that I can't really hear what is going on; this is almost never a problem with solo instruments, but can often be a problem with bigger more complex orchestration. I do care about sound quality but tend to care much more in large orchestral and choral works than smaller-scale stuff.

I think something that hasn't been highlighted as much, is that there have been definite shifts in asthetic ideals over time. On average, conductors today prefer cleaner orchestral sounds and a less "big" sound. I just prefer the older recordings, although I recognise that others may prefer the newer style. And I don't think this is an age thing, I'm in my early twenties. Another thing people have brought up is the higher technical standards in today's' orchestras; although this may be true for some lesser-known orchestras, the really big name orchestras, like the VPO or BPO, have always had very high standards to the point I don't think they can meaningfully be improved upon.

The one exception, as many have mentioned, is opera singers. Old opera singers are just, on average, better.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

BachIsBest said:


> The one exception, as many have mentioned, is opera singers. Old opera singers are just, on average, better.


This is interesting. Why is that? Fewer people choose singing nowadays? 
I don't much care for opera so it's not an issue for me but I am curious. I have seen so many top opera recommendations from the 50s and 60s.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This is interesting. Why is that? Fewer people choose singing nowadays?
> I don't much care for opera so it's not an issue for me but I am curious. I have seen so many top opera recommendations from the 50s and 60s.


I honestly don't know; if you figure it out, let me know, but more importantly, let the opera singers know.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

If you have no heart, then modern clinical performances will appeal to you and the daringly insightful performances of the past will seem trivial.

There is no need to discuss this further. Enjoy your Szell and Honeck.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Torkelburger said:


> .....I don't have too many recordings prior to the late 60's. Just a few and I don't listen to them very often.


You are missing some of the greatest recordings....many of the mid-late 50s, 60s recordings have very excellent sound quality... the master tapes are often very fine, the weak link was always in cutting the LPs..



> The main reason is in fact the sound, though, mainly the "tinny" sound of the strings. It's too strident and piercing and unnatural to me. Also, the woodwinds usually sound thin.


Yes, pre -1950 there are often serious problems, the frequency range is limited, and the equalization all over the place....you can't tell a flute from a violin from a high trumpet.



> The second reason is that the orchestral technique was just not as good pre-1970.


Among the very top ensembles, no, this is not true...I don't find today's best to be really any better than yesterday's best....presently there is great technique, but I think past great orchestras had that technique, plus the great unity of ensemble, style, tone, articulation....great conductors built their orchestras to their desired sound ideal...orchestras had a unique, individual sound....I miss that...what has dramatically improved is the quality of the so-called 2nd, 3rd tier orchestras....the plethora of fine musicians had led to a huge improvement in the quality of the 2nd or 3rd rank ensembles...they are now really good, if not quite at the top.



> Also, the quality of the instruments was extremely poor pre-1970, IMO. This is especially true for brass instruments.


This is definitely not true for woodwinds....there have been very fine instruments available for many decades....I've never heard this idea advanced regarding brass instruments either...for all instruments, new innovations are tried, new dimensions, lengths, bore sizes, tone holes, diameters may be varied, adjusted... some work. Some don't....but the greatest instrument makers have maintained great quality of their products.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> .....
> I think something that hasn't been highlighted as much, is that there have been definite shifts in asthetic ideals over time. On average, conductors today prefer cleaner orchestral sounds and a less "big" sound.


Yes, the HIP movement has favored smaller ensembles, shorter notes, not do full bows, less vibrato, etc....it works well for some music, but not 
all.


> Another thing people have brought up is the higher technical standards in today's' orchestras; although this may be true for some lesser-known orchestras, the really big name orchestras, like the VPO or BPO, have always had very high standards to the point I don't think they can meaningfully be improved upon.


I tend to agree...I don't think the best of today is necessarily better than the best of yesterday...the 2nd, 3rd rank orchestras have improved greatly, tho.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This is interesting. Why is that? Fewer people choose singing nowadays?
> I don't much care for opera so it's not an issue for me but I am curious. I have seen so many top opera recommendations from the 50s and 60s.


In fact, the late 19th century and the early 20th are considered to be the Golden Age of opera singing and rightly so. That was the era of Frida Leider, Schorr, Kipnis, Battistini, Caruso, Tito Schipa etc. There were singers who had personally known Wagner and Verdi, for example. Anyway, the topic has been recently intensely discussed in the opera subforum.

State of modern operatic singing

And a bit older but quite a fiery thread on the same topic:

TIO - When will the confusion end!?

TIO was (is?) a Youtube channel that forcefully propagated the old singing tradition and criticised many famous contemporary singers. They made many comparison videos "old vs. new". The channel was very controversial and radical, as you can quickly understand from that thread.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you have no heart, then modern clinical performances will appeal to you and the daringly insightful performances of the past will seem trivial.
> 
> There is no need to discuss his further. Enjoy your Szell and Honeck.


You know there are modern insightful and non-clinical performances too, right? This isn't a dichotomy of past insightful vs. modern clinical.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Heck148 said:


> You are missing some of the greatest recordings....many of the mid-late 50s, 60s recordings have very excellent sound quality... the master tapes are often very fine, the weak link was always in cutting the LPs..
> 
> Yes, pre -1950 there are often serious problems, the frequency range is limited, and the equalization all over the place....you can't tell a flute from a violin from a high trumpet.
> 
> ...


I find a lot of recordings roughly pre-1970s to suffer from rough, shrilly massed violins, a sound that I abhor. This shrilly, strident massed violins sound is not limited to older recordings but a lot of modern recordings don't suffer from it. There are some exceptions but in general that has been my experience with the older recordings. One notable exception is Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. His engineers did something other engineers did not and produced very good sounding recordings, comparatively speaking, for the time. I was listening to Ormandy's Shostakovich 4th the other day from the 60s and had no issues with the sound quality.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I find a lot of recordings roughly pre-1970s to suffer from rough, shrilly massed violins, a sound that I abhor. This shrilly, strident massed violins sound is not limited to older recordings but a lot of modern recordings don't suffer from it.


Hmmmm?? Do you have particular labels, or recordings of performers in mind ??



> One notable exception is Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. His engineers did something other engineers did not and produced very good sounding recordings, comparatively speaking, for the time.


That was the Ormandy/"Philadelphia Sound"...and it was unnatural... the orchestra sounded much better than that live...they glossed up, brought the strings forward, recessed the brass and winds, the strings had a glossy sheen....that was what they wanted to market... I heard Ormandy/Philly many, many times during the 60s...those were wonderful concerts...the recordings I found disappointing...too doctored up...


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Heck148 said:


> Hmmmm?? Do you have particular labels, or recordings of performers in mind ??
> 
> That was the Ormandy/"Philadelphia Sound"...and it was unnatural... the orchestra sounded much better than that live...they glossed up, brought the strings forward, recessed the brass and winds, the strings had a glossy sheen....that was what they wanted to market... I heard Ormandy/Philly many, many times during the 60s...those were wonderful concerts...the recordings I found disappointing...too doctored up...


Lots. Klemperer's Brahms symphonies on EMI, Szell' Beethoven symphonies on Sony.

I like the Ormandy/Philadelphia sound. I don't care if it was unnatural.


----------



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

I've never been able to tolerate classical music on mono, apart from that for solo piano. I'm a product of the final years of baby-boomerism, and as my initial listening was mainly late 1960s and 1970s rock music my ears were conditioned early on to the 'split' which stereo sound gives. I know I'm missing out on a goldmine when it comes to old recordings, but sadly I just can't get past the sound.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

annaw said:


> In fact, the late 19th century and the early 20th are considered to be the Golden Age of opera singing and rightly so. That was the era of Frida Leider, Schorr, Kipnis, Battistini, Caruso, Tito Schipa etc. There were singers who had personally known Wagner and Verdi, for example. Anyway, the topic has been recently intensely discussed in the opera subforum.
> 
> State of modern operatic singing
> 
> ...


TIO ("This is opera!") is a real mystery. They are still around, but I've lost count of how many times they have shut down the channel then uploaded different videos. Just recently, they uploaded some more controversial videos like what the channel originally was and even turned comments back on. I thought they might be back, but it was short-lived. There were some angry comments by people who were upset that they criticized Callas's vibrato in the video. Now their videos are basically just "so-and-so sings such-and-such with score".


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

I've just been deciding which recording of Milhaud's Scaramouche to buy. Those, In the know", suggested Milhaud himself, playing with Marcelle Meyer. I couldn't stand the poor sound quality. Just can't live with it. Went for Argerich and Merle instead. I'm sure your mileage may vary.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is remastering. Sviatoslav Richter's famous Sofia recital is a case in point. Great performance in less than ordinary sound. I bought the original Philips CD and liked the performance but struggled with the sound. Then Philips remastered it and 'voila' it was like layers of hiss had been removed and suddenly you could hear things that weren't there before.

I had a similar experience with Toscanini. RCA remastered his NBCSO Beethoven symphonies when they released the "Immortal" series. Once again, the sound opened up.

My final example is a DGG recording from 1949 of Fricsay conducting Tchaikovsky. I was released as part of DGs Centenary edition. If I hadn't known it was from 1949 I would have classed it as late 50s quality mono.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Why does anyone like anything?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> I've never been able to tolerate classical music on mono, apart from that for solo piano. I'm a product of the final years of baby-boomerism, and as my initial listening was mainly late 1960s and 1970s rock music my ears were conditioned early on to the 'split' which stereo sound gives. I know I'm missing out on a goldmine when it comes to old recordings, but sadly I just can't get past the sound.


A big symphonic work in mono is often quite underwhelming. Much of what people are hearing may be in their imaginations. It may be that older performances embodied a style of playing that they like, in spite of poor sound.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

One composer's works that I found have been very well-served by more recent performances is Debussy's piano music. Just about all the performances I've heard, even from 'no-names', almost all of whom are French pianists, have been revelatory in interpretation on top of flawless technique.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> Why does anyone like anything?


Indeed, threads of the "Why do people like such-and-such" or "Why do people not like such-and-such" sort seem to be eternally popular on TC. I've started some myself. I guess we will never figure this out. It's a mystery never to be solved, lol. :lol:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

JAS said:


> It may be that older performances embodied a style of playing that they like, in spite of poor sound.


Regardless of interpretive concerns, old recordings can indeed be an invaluable way of hearing differences in technique and approach that are simply extinct nowadays - the portamento-laden smooth-as-butter playing that used to dominate string quartets, the swooning improvisatory rubato of Cortot's Chopin, the big differences in ensemble sound from Czech, French, American, and Russian orchestras that have become homogenized nowadays. I know that some people see them as merely historical documents but I see them as active learning experiences.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Regardless of interpretive concerns, old recordings can indeed be an invaluable way of hearing differences in technique and approach that are simply extinct nowadays [...]


Yes! I found this out by listening to recordings from different times of _Le Sacre_ and _Carmen_.

With _Le Sacre_, there is so much more I would have to listen to in order to make any broad statements. Sometimes sound quality can make it harder to hear the actual differences conductors bring out in orchestral coloring, and I wonder how much I can actually discern in that regard. But even so, I haven't heard any newer recordings that sound much like Monteux's Paris Conservatoire recording or Ansermet's recordings. It's also interesting to compare Dorati's super fast second recording with his slower third recording made some 21 years later.

With _Carmen_, it seems like newer recordings have become more melodramatic with larger voices, more singers who are not native French speakers, more use of the dialogue instead recitatives, and slower tempi. I find I actually prefer the old style for the most part with French singers who have strong but smaller voices, faster tempi, and less heavy-handedness, though I prefer the spoken dialogue over the recitatives.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Just a technicality I think should be clarified from looking at some posts. I think high/low fidelity gets mixed up with stereo/mono. Older pre-war recordings are generally low-fi and mono, but mono can still sound great if it's in high fidelity. I mixed this version of Muti's Swan Lake into mono, but retaining its fidelity. It sounds great and retains its atmosphere.


----------

