# Studio or Live Performance Recordings



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

This is a poll in which you choose an option above.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Depends. sss


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Depends. sss


On what? Sunspot activity?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

For opera, live definitely. It is basically better, gives it a "real" dimension, and it can be a kind of added electricity and excitement. I have a number of Naxos operas done live and I think the live aspect adds a lot to them being enjoyable to listen to.

Same for recital of opera arias, etc. The Rome _Three Tenors_ concert of 1990 is often in my player, not only for the quality of the whole concert, etc. but also for the atmosphere they captured that night...


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Couchie said:


> On what? Sunspot activity?


Precisely.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Studio definitely. I do most of my listening on my mp3 player & hate the variation of sound levels, the coughing & the applause which you get with a live recording.

I find it fascinating to listen to a studio recording. I love to imagine my heroes dressed in t-shirts & jeans & standing right up close to the microphones. And stopping & starting again until they're happy with the recording. I've got some fairly good earphones & I love that pure sound inside my head. 

Listening to a studio recording is a totally different experience of course than watching a DVD & it's another way for me to enjoy opera.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

When recording I don't even think of a 'live' recording as being actually in front of people. Upon reading the thread title I first thought of it as using tracks or just playing it all together. And again I have to go to, 'depends'. On many variables, really; on the sound engineer, the producer and ultimately the artist or group. Some play live just as good as others record with tracks and vice verse so it really just depends.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

An issue relevant to this thread, is that on live recordings - not only of opera but also other things - they give several dates of the work being recorded. Eg. over the course of several performances. So it's not really "one" performance you're hearing, but bits of several to make up the one opera recording you've got, or symphony, concerto, whatever. Eg. they might take one aria from one night's performance, and the overture from another night's. Is this an issue for anybody? I don't know if I care, I suppose the people behind the making of the recording make an executive decision based on what they think represents the work/performance "best," etc...


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Well, not always, but most often studio. Audience noises make me feel violent.


----------



## gpolyz (Nov 25, 2011)

A good studio uncut recording is best for getting to know an opera . Nothing is missing. On the negative side,close miking and ingenious splicing are used frrequently to produce fake perfection. The sequence of the recorded scenes, the repetitions and the multiple sessions make it impossible to recreate of the atmosphere of a performance-audience noises and all.

Live recordings are unforgiving. The performers get only one chance. Live recordings are snapshots of imperfect real events. . Many live recordings give us what the recordings industry could not or would not do( Beyreuth recordings 1950-1960). Live recordings with clear sound, especially when miked from a moderate distance, are very valuable documents because they give a true 'footprint' of the artist in the theatre. How the voice carries through the ochestral wall, how comfortable the high notes are and how well breath holds up after some extended stage presence. Whenever a performance hums we are rewarded with valuable copy of the real thing ( mono Tosca Price/Corelli April 1962).

We must be happy  for all recordings that are available.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Live performance is Opera.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Yes, it depends . In some cases , live recordings are more spontaneous and exciting, but in some cases a studio recording can be just as exciting . I do think that studio recordings are a perfectly valid way to present operas , and although cobbled together from many takes , the avoidance of the flaws of live performances can be very satisfying, even if they sometimes spoil you for performances you may actually attend in the opera house.
However, studio recordings of opera seem to be going the way of the dinosaur ; very few of them have been made in recent years by the major labels such as Decca, EMI, Sony Classical , DG , etc,
and Philips has ceased making new recordings of anything. Its back catalogue is gradually being reissued by Decca, fortunately .
There are still many interesting obscure operas which could be recorded for the first time, or which haven't had new recordings for decades . 
Studio recordings of operas are just too expensive to make now, and new ones often
don't sell very well . Opera DVDs are the big thing now.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

It really does depend, not so much on audience noise as on the performer/performers' _awareness_ of the audience. Several pianists for instance, are stimulated by audience presence, and put more into their playing. This positive feedback affects orchestras/conductors too (the Kubelik/CPO live performance of Smetana's Má Vlast, for instance). On the other hand, if you can't handle audience noise - or the occasional flub - studio is the way to go, even if the multiple takes have rubbed off some of the edge.

[edit - oops, I didn't notice that this is the opera forum. Pretend I was never here.]


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

superhorn said:


> ... the avoidance of the flaws of live performances can be very satisfying, even if they sometimes spoil you for performances you may actually attend in the opera house.


For me it doesn't. The two experiences are poles apart. The live-opera experience is so fantastic, I am very forgiving for fluffed lines or notes. I object to avoidable audience noise though.



superhorn said:


> However, studio recordings of opera seem to be going the way of the dinosaur; very few of them have been made in recent years by the major labels such as Decca, EMI, Sony Classical , DG , etc, and Philips has ceased making new recordings of anything. Its back catalogue is gradually being reissued by Decca, fortunately.
> There are still many interesting obscure operas which could be recorded for the first time, or which haven't had new recordings for decades.
> 
> Studio recordings of operas are just too expensive to make now, and new ones often
> don't sell very well. Opera DVDs are the big thing now.


Yes it's a shame but I'm pleased about the DVDs


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

I tend to prefer studio recordings for their balanced dynamics. When I listen to recordings of live performances, I notice that the volume level for various singers' voices can vary noticeably depending upon their positions onstage (and thus distance from the recording equipment). This can lead to situations where one voice is inappropriately prominent -- or muted -- in an ensemble, or soloists are nearly drowned out by the chorus.

On the other hand, I agree with gpolyz that we must be grateful for any recordings that are available, studio or live. I would much rather have a somewhat flawed live recording of my favorite operas/singers than no recording at all.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Depends on the house. If it's the ROH where the audience can STFU and doesn't clap at everything it's good, but I've heard a Met live recoding where they clapped when their house mascot Wotan entered. He didn't even begin to SING! If I was him I would've thrown my spear at the audience. 
And the other typical thing is to clap when the music gets to beautiful pianissimo at the end. Operas that end with epic fortissimo are more fortunate, but so many Tristans were ruined by idiots who can't wait till the last note (and a few seconds).


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

I voted live. While a studio recording affords the opportunity to correct flaws it tends in my opinion to miss the visceral excitement which is often found in a live performance.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Depends. Some performers I think are better heard live (even without video, I prefer Dessay live to recorded. Ditto Maria Callas). OTOH, I think Joan Sutherland is at her peak in the studio.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I chose studio, but several of my favorite recordings are live.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It looks like, from the responses here, that people who really value sound (eg. audiophiles) prefer studio recordings, whereas people who want the "vibe" or "atmosphere" or "electricity" of live opera, they want it to be put down live. Is this a good generalisation?...


----------



## prettyhippo (Apr 19, 2011)

I think that the concerts and recitals can be really great live, but I've heard so many live opera recordings that drove me nuts. It would sound wonderful until you get that one person who coughs or something.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Live definitely. It adds more to the excitement of the plot and the music when you can hear some of the stage action.


----------

