# Do you hear significant differences between different performances of the same piece?



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

In the Lang Lang thread a couple of people commented about not being fussy about performances.

This isn't the first time I've heard people say this.

To be honest, most of the time, I'm pretty much the same. Unless the performer has some really peculiar quirks, like Gould for example, it doesn't make a huge difference to me (This is not a slight against Gould, I love many of his interpretations).

Are you fussy about performances? Were you always this way or did you become so over time?

Discuss


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm not fussy, but I do have preferences.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Sure! Definitely! That's what it's all about. Comparative listening. I just played 2 performances of Ive's Concord piano sonata and they are as different as night and day!

I also find it fun to be able to identify certain violinists. I can usually tell Heifetz form Milstein from Oistrakh from Francescatti. All very different sounds.

I've spent my listening life collecting many performances of the same piece. No two are ever the same.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

There are huge differences between performers, or even the same performer on different days.
I am both pleasantly and horribly aware of how much I can differ from one day to the next!
My students are trained to imitate recordings in the early stages, and nevertheless they all sound different from one another.

For concerts or recordings of great artists, I'll probably like most of the performances a lot, but they'll still sound very different.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I'm not fussy, particularly, but yes, I hear differences.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

The qualitative difference between a Richter and a Lang Lang is enormous, but between Brendel and Richter much less so (although, as hreichgott said, they would still be different, even though I would like them both). I think it's mostly a positive rather than a negative difference. I won't be too fussy about a performance that is not outstanding, but a performance that is really great adds that much more to a piece; the piece is only fulfilled in a great performance in my opinion. It's not for nothing that composers look incessantly for good performers; it might take time to notice the difference, but it does.

I think it's also helpful to note that for most great music, the music "survives" the performance. Take the the first Etude from op. 25 for example, which Lang Lang plays absolutely, and I think clearly, terribly:






And that a master like Cortot plays so wonderfully:






Fortunately for Lang Lang, the music is still listenable (at least for me, I'm not one who doesn't listen to a piece because of the performance), because the Etude is so great, but the Cortot would've been how I, and I think Chopin as well, would have preferred to hear it.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Sure! Definitely! That's what it's all about. Comparative listening.


Hmm, I never listen to recordings of the same piece back to back, so I tried just now listening to the opening of the Brahms Rhapsody in B minor played by Argerich, Gould, Perahia and Rubinstein, I definitely heard major differences between how each of them approached the piece, but I don't know if I could say that any of these was better than the other or which one was my favourite. At a glance I would have been satisfied with any of those performances.

EDIT:

Actually, tell a lie, my composition teacher once linked me to multiple recordings of the Chopin Prelude no. 4 and got me to evaluate them back to back. I remember that there was one contemporary interpretation which I couldn't stand because it was so affected, but then I listened to Rubinstein and it was brilliantly restrained by comparison. That is the only time I can remember really being turned off a performance.

Maybe my problem is I need to listen to more second rate pianists on youtube.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Yardrax said:


> EDIT:
> 
> Actually, tell a lie, my composition teacher once linked me to multiple recordings of the Chopin Prelude no. 4 and got me to evaluate them back to back. I remember that there was one contemporary interpretation which I couldn't stand because it was so affected, but then I listened to Rubinstein and it was brilliantly restrained by comparison. That is the only time I can remember really being turned off a performance.
> 
> Maybe my problem is I need to listen to more second rate pianists on youtube.


There are many videos like this. take the introduction to A Therese:






Only 4 bars! And massive differences.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I am not fussy, but I can often tell the difference. I am not worried about owning many different versions of the same piece.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't have much opportunity to do any comparing, apart from availing myself of the samples that online record stores provide. I buy the performance that sounds best to me, within my target price range. I realize that 30 seconds is no guarantee that I have chosen my preferred performance, but, with very few exceptions, I'm pretty much satisfied with my choices. If I were shopping for a second version, then I would pay more attention to reviews and _slightly_ less attention to price, but I don't think _any_ top notch performers are _hugely_ better than others in their calibre. I have not reached the level of familiarity with any work such that I could say that a certain passage or movement should be taken in a certain way, etc. Where possible, I let my ear decide. That's good enough for me.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> I think it's also helpful to note that for most great music, the music "survives" the performance. Take the the first Etude from op. 25 for example, which Lang Lang plays absolutely, and I think clearly, terribly:
> 
> And that a master like Cortot plays so wonderfully:


I certainly prefer the latter by a huge margin, but I wonder if the margin would be quite as wide in a fully blind test (and I refrained from watching Lang Lang's antics so that I could get a better assessment), simply because I don't trust my judgments to be unbiased.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2014)

ahammel said:


> I'm not fussy, particularly, but yes, I hear differences.


^this + 25 characters


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yardrax said:


> Hmm, I never listen to recordings of the same piece back to back, so I tried just now listening to the opening of the Brahms Rhapsody in B minor played by Argerich, Gould, Perahia and Rubinstein, I definitely heard major differences between how each of them approached the piece, but I don't know if I could say that any of these was better than the other or which one was my favourite. At a glance I would have been satisfied with any of those performances.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...


The safe thing to do would be to get all your Chopin with Rubinstein. I've never found any pianist to be better.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's not that I hear great differences, but I think I *ought* to be able to hear them. That's why I have guzillions* of recordings of works that I especially like.

*A guzillion is a one followed by a googolplex of zeros, raised to its own power. A pretty large number as those things go.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

For me, I think it depends on the type of music. One piece of music that I can hear significant differences from differemt performers is Vivaldi' The Four Seasons. But for me, I don't hear much between the Beethoven symphonies from the ones I have. I mean they sound different like stereo/mono etc but the music itself doesn't sound too much different to my newbie ears.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm just focused on hearing all the great works that exist the first time around! Once I'm familiar with them, then I can start getting to know all the recordings of each. But yes, in the duplicates that I do have, I can tell differences but I wouldn't call them "significant", more like moderate. As my listening skills progress, I'm sure I'll start picking more and more things up.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I often discern differences in recordings but most of the differences I hear are subtle and I would not call them significant necessarily. I have heard recordings of pieces of music where all the right notes were played and I suppose technically flawless and yet lifeless. I have also experienced the opposite and I much prefer recordings that the performance is moving and touches you emotionally. Some performers are capable of not just playing the right notes and have good technique but you feel the music with them and it draws you into their feelings. That results in a great performance and those are the kind of recordings I try to collect. Of course for many of the lesser known composers I own maybe only one recording exists and so there is not choice and I'm happy to have something rather than nothing.

Kevin


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I do hear significant differences when I listen for them - but unless something really turns me off, I see that as a good thing

The way I see it, any world class performer has put a lot more thought and study and even feeling into whatever work he or she is performing than I ever will. So I'm not there to sit in judgement. I'm there to enjoy a performance of fine music, and unless something ruins it for me, I will do so.

Very few performances have ruined anything for me. Gardiner's version of Mozart's Requiem comes to mind as the most egregious. I know some other people like it, but I cannot stand it. Just seeing the CD cover makes me wince a bit at this point; Pavlov would understand.

I do enjoy comparative listening very much. I didn't used to enjoy it, but now it's becoming one of my favorite things to do. Using iTunes I go back and forth from track to track, listening to various parts over and over, hearing all the nuances that I can. But (again, this is just the way I see it) rather than placing myself in judgment of the different performances, I am trying to understand what the different performers are trying to bring out of it. There are so many subtleties. It's not about better/worse let alone right/wrong, it's about allowing the musicians to teach me.

Although I think I'm humble vis-a-vis the performers, vis-a-vis those who put themselves in judgement of the performers (even if they are other world-class performers) I'm intensely cynical and skeptical. I understand perfectly when someone says, "I don't like X," as I for example don't like Gardiner's Mozart's Requiem - but if they make a more absolute statement than that, right away something inside me pops. Now I sit in judgment, asking, "Who exactly the flap are _you_? Who gave you that authority?"


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> The qualitative difference between a Richter and a Lang Lang is enormous, but between Brendel and Richter much less so (although, as hreichgott said, they would still be different, even though I would like them both). I think it's mostly a positive rather than a negative difference. I won't be too fussy about a performance that is not outstanding, but a performance that is really great adds that much more to a piece; the piece is only fulfilled in a great performance in my opinion. It's not for nothing that composers look incessantly for good performers; it might take time to notice the difference, but it does.
> 
> I think it's also helpful to note that for most great music, the music "survives" the performance. Take the the first Etude from op. 25 for example, which Lang Lang plays absolutely, and I think clearly, terribly:
> 
> ...


I still can't really hear exactly why the first performance is that much worse than the second. Can you explain it to me? Is it poor articulation in the bottom arpeggios? I can kind of hear that.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I can hear a difference between this, (which is good)





and this(my "definitive" recording, the trills and the arpeggios are so well done, and the piano growls like it tends to with Gilels, there's something magical there, something about the timing, its supremely confident)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Additionally, here is a video that hints at just how many different approaches can be taken with one piece, 7 different pianists playing this Handel suite, I bet you'll have ones you like more and ones you like less:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And of course, if you are a fan of the Planets by Holst, hearing Karajan's recording of it can be a major let down, it was for me. I was used to some LSO recording and couldn't stand what I heard Karajan do.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

violadude said:


> I still can't really hear exactly why the first performance is that much worse than the second. Can you explain it to me? Is it poor articulation in the bottom arpeggios? I can kind of hear that.


Yes, I think the arpeggios are pretty muddy, and the dynamics are sort of strange. The melody seemed weirdly broken up to me, I had trouble following it. It seems like the arpeggios were oddly loud in some places, almost swamping the melody.

I actually don't think the Lang Lang interpretation was so very terrible as all that, but I certainly prefer the Corot.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2014)

Try these two versions of Gymonpedie No. 1 by Satie...

Pascal Roge






and Reinbert de Leeuw






At this level of difference, I'm fussy!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I can hear a difference between this, (which is good)


Cheating! Everybody knows Gilels is the best. :lol:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I haven't heard such a wide range of composers and styles as some others on this site, but I am fussy about what I do listen to (and like). If I like something I'll start listening to different performances to find the best one. Maybe that's why I discover new music at a slow pace. When it comes to solo piano I'm especially fussy about performance. It makes or breaks the music.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Here's a striking example of how different a piece can be played by accomplished pianists.

Richter's version made me fall in love with the piece (despite sound quality!), while if I had only heard Magaloff's I wouldn't even have liked the piece:

Scriabin - Etude Op. 8 No. 5
Richter: 



Magaloff:


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Sure, the more familiar One is with the piece, the more easily noticeable are the differences between interpreters...

/ptr


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

It depends on what the music in question is. When dealing with the staples of Romanticism, where the composer's instructions are so precise that there is little room to put a foot out of place, I am not that bothered about multiple recordings. To my humble ears, two Brahms Symphony Cycles (of about the same price) sound pretty similar. 

Where owning multiple recordings does become more interesting is in Early Music, precisely because there is more scope for interpretation. Much music of the Renaissance and even the Baroque doesn't even specify what instruments are required. And then there is the question of whether to go "historically-informed" or not. And instrumental music often allows performers to put in their own ornamentation. 

In addition, I find it interesting to own multiple recordings of vocal music, whether that be Lieder or perhaps some of my favourite Operas, because the human voice is the most expressive instrument and the one which changes the most from one performer to another.


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

Performance can make a difference depending on the music and my familiarity with the piece. If I do have a 'favorite' recording of a piece I try to remind myself while listening to a new performance to keep an open mind and not unduly judge the new given my ear's expectations.

I have been listening to two sets of the Beethoven Sonatas for Piano and Violin, Szigeti & Arrau and Mutter & Orkis. Huge differences! In general, I find myself hearing more 'Beethoven' in the Szigeti/Arrau while I always have a feeling that Mutter is using the score to show off her technical brilliance. I appreciate a performance more when the performer is faithful to the score and the spirit of the composer.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> The safe thing to do would be to get all your Chopin with Rubinstein. I've never found any pianist to be better.


LOL, some of the most poetic and masterful playing from a musician who knew all the Chopin repertoire incredibly well -- but choose Rubinstein only if you want your Chopin filled with temporal and colorist precious affectations which he applied to all, those accretions the cumulative results of later romantic generation performers affecting 'how Chopin was played' at the time Rubinstein began his career.

I wouldn't want Chopin clinical, but the Rubinstein is now one of those poster boys for older and affected performance practices.

I keep musing, though each time I think of this, if Rubinstein might have not made it through the first round of the International Chopin competition with his era's spin on the interpretations, or if today's juries would have loved it.

I think the jury is still out on that one -- sometimes a musician is so exceptional despite a major glitch in style of performance practice, that ulnike a Lang Lang, almost everyone 'forgives' that error.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> The qualitative difference between a Richter and a Lang Lang is enormous,
> 
> I think it's also helpful to note that for most great music, the music "survives" the performance. Take the the first Etude from op. 25 for example, which Lang Lang plays absolutely, and I think clearly, terribly:


zOMG that is truly God-Awful! (I couldn't get through it, turned it off.) -- and I have more than a hunch the audience went combustible with Bravos! after this encore.

To explain it, I thought of _a stocking-footed drunk trying to negotiate a long hallway, the floor, linoleum and freshly waxed -- i.e. he is so all over the place with the timing and "Beyond Rubato" that it is nearly that sea-sick making._

And he is one of the very highest paid per performance performers on the classical scene.

_*"It is what the people want." Right?*_


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

PetrB said:


> zOMG that is truly God-Awful! (I couldn't get through it, turned it off -- and I have more than a hunch the audience went combustible with Bravos! after this encore.
> 
> To explain it, I thought of _a stocking-footed drunk trying to negotiate a long hallway, the floor, linoleum and freshly waxed -- i.e. he is so all over the place with the timing and "Beyond Rubato" that it is nearly that sea-sick making._
> 
> ...


Pulling the pin out and lobbing ....

At least Lang Lang can play all the notes ;-)

Actually, I like both performances, prefer Cortot, but the way Lang Lang voices the arpeggios and contours the melody is technically impressive.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> LOL, some of the most poetic and masterful playing from a musician who knew all the Chopin repertoire incredibly well -- but choose Rubinstein only if you want your Chopin filled with temporal and colorist precious affectations which he applied to all, those accretions the cumulative results of later romantic generation performers affecting 'how Chopin was played' at the time Rubinstein began his career.
> 
> I wouldn't want Chopin clinical, but the Rubinstein is now one of those poster boys for older and affected performance practices.
> 
> ...


For someone starting out, Rubinstein is a fine choice. When the listener knows the pieces well, he can do some comparative listening and that's where the fun begins.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MrTortoise said:


> Pulling the pin out and lobbing ....
> 
> At least Lang Lang can play all the notes ;-) *As so many others can with this Etude, including about any undergraduate senior piano performance major.*
> 
> Actually, I like both performances, prefer Cortot, but the way Lang Lang voices the arpeggios and contours the melody is technically impressive.


Some will hear it as completely bent out of shape.

Others will hear it as highly expressive. (to me it is the 'expressive' of a self-taught teen who has no idea of the style and is self-indulgently using the music to express themselves -- which is different than "expressing Chopin to the listener." Whatever there was of Lang Lang's execution to like, it sounded to me like a drunk -- playing -- but who has lost all sense of time)

And others simply won't care, liking it any number of ways.

I hope I'm as free to state what I like and don't as is anybody else?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Some will hear it as completely bent out of shape.
> 
> Others will hear it as highly expressive. (to me it is the 'expressive' of a self-taught teen who has no idea of the style and is self-indulgently using the music to express themselves -- which is radically different from "expressing Chopin to the listener."
> 
> ...


We should all keep that in mind, no?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

violadude said:


> I still can't really hear exactly why the first performance is that much worse than the second. Can you explain it to me? Is it poor articulation in the bottom arpeggios? I can kind of hear that.


On a very basic level, it is not paying attention to the rudimentary demands of phrasing and clarity, both dynamically and rhythmically; PetrB said it sounded like a drunk playing because it sounds like it's starting and stopping over and over again. These are basic demands to a piece. Both Cortot and Lang Lang are rubato and high dynamic performers, but where Cortot does it with totally destroying the piece, Lang Lang uses it to give of a sentimental effect of expression when, in fact, like all great art, Cortot's playing becomes infinitely more expressive through understatement. Cortot's effects are logical and fits with the music; Lang Lang's are made for affect.

Lang Lang doesn't care about the piece, and it's obvious with how he treats it; the music, if it wasn't such great music, would be indiscernible. He cares about the effect of the piece; what the piece will say about him. Cortot cares about the piece, and it shows through his attention to making the piece intelligible. Of course, these are only the very basic demands that any piece requires from the performer, and something you would expect a teenager, and not a world class performer, would be struggling with. One can go into interpretative critiques, and still Cortot would go out on top.

Telling the difference won't be clear suddenly because I'm telling you what I think is wrong with the interpretation, just like telling you what's great about Chopin won't make you suddenly hear Chopin as great; you need to hear it yourself. And this just comes with more listening and attention to performances. No one is born with this discernment; most people when they start listening to classical music can't really tell the difference between Bach and Zelenka. But it starts to come to them with more experience and listening. It is the same with performers.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

science said:


> But if they make a more absolute statement than that, right away something inside me pops. Now I sit in judgment, asking, "Who exactly the flap are _you_? Who gave you that authority?"


As Andras Schiff said, "Music is subjective, but not that subjective". There is good and bad ideas, good and bad art, and there are good and bad performances. Being a human being means that we may have some hiccups to our judgment, but that doesn't mean we stop judging through and through (I had a friend who was also wary on absolute judgments, and he couldn't go 5 minutes without saying at least one of them). Who gave the authority for world-class performers, just because they're world-class performers, to not be judged anyway? That seems to be a more unreasonable authority than free judgment. Lang Lang is a bad pianist to me, not just a pianist I don't like, and I'm not going to not judge him just because he has the authority of being a world-class performer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Of course the performance of a work can be significantly different. Sometimes this is a good thing and merely offers you a variety. In other instances there are performances that have repulsed me (rare) or left me wondering just why the composition performed was considered of great importance. 

As a beginning listener, I read the reviews and critiques and sought out the recordings deemed "best". With times I found that there were certain conductors and certain performers that I liked more than others. I also found there were certain critics that I found myself agreeing with, and others that I didn't.

At this point, a good majority of the musical purchases I make are of works of music I already own in one or more versions. I am seeking out alternative performances. Again, I listen to the critics and reviews. I also lend an ear to recommendations of those who opinions and experience I respect... member Moody, for example. 

As another has already suggested, vocal music can be the music in which alternative performances reveal the most significant differences. I have a great many performances of Schubert's Winterreise and other lieder, Mahler's Song of the Earth, Strauss' Four Last Songs, and a good many operas. Considering Donizetti's L'Elisir D'Amore, for example, there are some obvious differences in the approach of Joan Sutherland, Angela Gheorghiu, Mariella Devia, and Anna Netrebko. 

I only tend to pick up alternative recordings of a given work if I find that the recording I have seems lacking or hasn't sold me on the work of music and there are other highly-rated recordings/performances... or if the work of music is one that I admire to the point that I desire alternative interpretations. In those instances that I do pick up alternative performances, I tend to seek out at least one more "historical" performance and one more recent one. For example, I own Walter Gieseking's classic performances of Debussy's Etudes... but I also have Mitsuko Uchido's critically lauded version, as well as that of Jean-Efflam Bavouzet as part of his performance of the complete piano works. With regard to older works... especially the Baroque... I will often pick up one older/historical "old school" performance (such as Klemperer's or Karl Richter's Mass in B-minor) as well as one more recent and/or one HIP (Herreweghe and/or Gardiner). With Haydn's "London" Symphonies I have Colin Davis classic versions, Sir Thomas Beecham's unique elegant outings, Marc Minknowski's recent HIP recordings, and a few by Szell and Mackerras.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Tempo is probably the easiest to pick up on for new listeners.
The first 10secs of music reveal how much slower Bernstein's interpretation is of Brahms 3rd.





...compare that with Walter. 




Now try a bit of Pollini playing Chopin. 




...compare it with Pires. 




Can you hear how Pires' approach is much more delicate than Pollini. Listen for the subtle inflections that modify the piece as she slowly builds up the nocturne.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Chopin is not one of my favorite composers. However I do enjoy comparing how different Pires, Rubinstein and Chaplin are in the Nocturnes. Tempo and rubato as well as tone quality differences are fascinating. I put Chaplin out in front, a fine choice for those who grew up on Rubinstein and are ready for a change.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

To really begin to hear differences in recordings, one of the best ways is to seek out some pre-1960 ones of most of the repertoire, and compare with some recent ones. And of course to compare with various HIP-inspired with non-HIP. Lots of recordings from say 1965 - 1985 provide less obvious contrasts, though musicians like Horowitz, Bernstein and Gould were usually able to provide something unique.

Concerning Rubinstein, the most well-known among his recordings (including the popular RCA Chopin sets) belong to 1955 or later, and they are relatively main-stream. His early recordings of the 30s (including a substantial HMV/EMI amount of Chopin) are extremely agitated and emotional, but there was a gradual tendency to become more subdued and introvert in his playing style, including the slowing down of tempi, as it often happens to musicians when coming of age. 

Early Pollini (1960s - 1970s) in particular was a major exponent for an "objective", less affected Chopin, but that approach seems to have been waning a bit recently among top pianists.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

All this Chopin talk and no mention of Abbey or Moravec? Jeez....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Beyond Rubinstein, I quite like Earl Wild's Nocturnes.










Wild is ignored too often due to the fact he recorded for a small regional label... but he has some absolutely marvelous recordings... including this almost definitive one:


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

PetrB said:


> At least Lang Lang can play all the notes ;-) As so many others can with this Etude, including about any undergraduate senior piano performance major.


Too bad Cortot couldn't


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> All this Chopin talk and no mention of Abbey or Moravec? Jeez....


Moravec often had an original approach, also in the 70s. I assume you mean Abbey Simon, whose style resulted in some good Ravel recordings in particular.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> Moravec often had an original approach, also in the 70s. I assume you mean Abbey Simon, whose style resulted in some good Ravel recordings in particular.


Yup, you got it. Moravec's Chopin Nocturnes are especially nice.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

There are usually some clunker recorded performances out there, but there is more variation in my listen-ability on any given day than there is in the general run of recordings.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

^^^I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain further.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I cannot amke too much difference between (top notch) orchestras, conductors and instrumentalists on recordings to be honest. The main distinction for me between versions of the same work is in vocal music, especially in songs (including symphonic works like Mahler).


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

The conductor, the performers, the venue recording in, and the label doing the recording all make very noticeable differences.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

What actually comes to my mind is Joshua Rifkin's rendition of some of Scott Joplin's rags. In the liner notes, Rifkin quotes Joplin as saying that ragtime should not be played too fast. Unfortunately, he takes this too much to heart, and plays them at the double slow.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> What actually comes to my mind is Joshua Rifkin's rendition of some of Scott Joplin's rags. In the liner notes, Rifkin quotes Joplin as saying that ragtime should not be played too fast. Unfortunately, he takes this too much to heart, and plays them at the double slow.


Agree - I have Rifkin´s old Nonesuch LPs and they aren´t very lively.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Forget that! Just listen to the delightful William Bolcom and enjoy!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Sometimes an incredibly idiosyncratic performance can be rewarding. I'm thinking here of Gould's (studio) recording of Schoenberg's Suite for Piano, which takes the Intermezzo at something like half of its already slowish tempo, and rushes through the Gigue at top speed. But it worked for me to draw out all of the inner motivic connections in the piece, so that I actually ended up better understanding it than when I'd heard Pollini. Now, though, I can go to Pollini with a new layer of enjoyment.

I agree with what others have been saying in regards to vocal works. The differences in interpretation tend to be very obvious when one is dealing with different singers. In all cases, though, I'm of the opinion that there's no one "right" way. There are multiple right as well as multiple wrong ways to interpret a piece of music. That's one of the things that makes great music so rich.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> ^^^I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain further.


It ain't obvious? The same recorded performance can seem really good one day and mediocre two days later - or before. I don't listen for technical perfection, I kick back and, ah, absorb effects. Some days I absorb better than others.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I've listened to some recordings so often that every other recording gets weird, because I notice every little detail that is different from the one I listened to so much.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

DeepR said:


> I've listened to some recordings so often that every other recording gets weird, because I notice every little detail that is different from the one I listened to so much.


"First Record Syndrome", I think that's called.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DeepR said:


> I've listened to some recordings so often that every other recording gets weird, because I notice every little detail that is different from the one I listened to so much.


Yes,and this is a problem with so many people.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think it was PetrB who called it "imprinting on" a certain version. You can almost tell the age of a person by the recordings they prefer. _Living Stereo_ is before my time


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Meanwhile, some of those "Living Stereo" RCA discs sound better than the crap they pass off today as "digital sound".


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

There are huge differences,try comparing Toscanini,Walter, Klemperer, Beecham and Stokowski.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I just got a Beecham/Barbirolli Richard Strauss recording:









I like the album. It has the works I was looking for. I am quite satisfied with the performances (I understand that they are considered to be great ones, even), but I have nothing to compare them with, as this is the only recording I have.

But, as great as it is, I am a _little_ bothered by the inferior 1949 and 1959 sound. Luckily, my new Yamaha amplifier has a sophisticated DSP (I never used it until I got this recording) that can replicate the sound of a concert hall in München or Wien. Especially the former takes away the tinny metallic sound of the high strings, but there are still some minor pops and crackles, as well as some remastering artefacts, that mar the recording.

Relating this to the thread, recording quality is definitely a significant factor in my preference for one or another recording, even more important than selecting one tier one performer over another tier one performer.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes, I do. I'm very sensitive to that kind of thing, fancy headphones notwithstanding. I'm sensitive to both sound quality (I don't prefer older recordings) and the style of performance (tempo, some instruments being too loud/quiet). I sample CDs on iTunes and streaming services quite a bit before I decide to buy one.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2014)

moody said:


> There are huge differences,try comparing Toscanini,Walter, Klemperer, Beecham and Stokowski.


An Italian, two Brits, two Germans...they all sound different!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Performances can matter as different ones might enable you to like a work you might not otherwise, or offer a fresh perspective on a work you've liked but tired of.

The work is still the main thing though, whatever cult of celebrity that surrounds performers now. If the music has weaknesses the performers can only cover them up so much. And many works of course don't have the luxury of lots of performances anyway, sometimes you're just happy to be able to find one peformance (better that than none).


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Im mostly at least a bit fuzzy, but it depends on the piece. 

With chopin Im extremely fuzzy, of every single prelude and nocturne and valse etc I have chosen the best performance imo and even those arent even perfect to me, luckily I can play a few pieces by him myself
With other pieces I really love a lot I am very fuzzy too, and also with about all modern music that I like (messiaen, ligeti, varese, xenakis, etc)
but with many other pieces I just listen to the first recording I can find, and if I like it I dont actively look for others.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Just look at the timings of the same movements of symphonies from Furtwangler and Toscanini.

Look at the timings of the same Chopin Nocturnes of Rubinstein, Arrau and Francois Chaplin.

Difficult to find any piece of music performed by different artists with the same timings. Even the same artist may speed up or slow down in a piece a few years later.

No 2 examples of performances of the same music are ever the same. This is so obvious, I'm surprised it's even a thread.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Yardrax said:


> Unless the performer has some really peculiar quirks, it doesn't make a huge difference to me /QUOTE]
> 
> The quality of a performance was first brought home to me with vocal music. Perhaps that's a good place to start if you want to see if you can notice a difference or not? My first experience of this was when I grumbled in a record shop that I'd just bought Canteloube's Chants d'Auvergne by Kiri de Kanawa and it didn't interest me much. The owner played me a version by Victoria de los Angeles and the hairs on the back of my neck told me that this was different - that was the difference between a good performance and an excellent one.
> 
> ...


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

I dont care about sound quality at all though and never have (even though being born in the 1990s), unless it really is nearly only noise of course
my favorite recording of rachmaninov op 3 is the one by rachmaninov himself, even though the sound isnt great
also sometimes, especially with jazz music, I find it actually a bit more warm listening to old recordings with not as great sounds


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I just got a Beecham/Barbirolli Richard Strauss recording:
> 
> View attachment 32940
> 
> ...


Older recordings by famous conductors are historical documents and should not be judged against modern recordings sound wise,
but performance wise.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

moody said:


> Older recordings by famous conductors are historical documents and should not be judged against modern recordings sound wise,
> but performance wise.


that exactly.
also "inferior" sounds a bit patronizing to me


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Yes, there are enormous differences among performances of any piece. But barely perceptible nuances can be enough to mark a performance as a work of genius. One perfectly handled grace note can spark an epiphany.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> I think it's also helpful to note that for most great music, the music "survives" the performance. Take the the first Etude from op. 25 for example, which Lang Lang plays absolutely, and I think clearly, terribly:
> 
> And that a master like Cortot plays so wonderfully:


Aww, not fair. You're comparing a live performance, an ENCORE no less when anyone would be tired out and heavy handed, against a studio recording?
If any non-pianists don't realize what a difference that makes, listen to the Lang Lang encore and then this recording of a calmer and fresher Lang Lang --





(PS I'm not really a big Lang Lang fan, just making a point. Solidarity forever)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Yes.....................................


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Sometimes when I listen to Scarlatti, I can discern between Ivo Pogorelich and Scott Ross.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Over a lot of time and as much listening, yes, cumulative tiny differences become highly noticeable and that then makes a significant difference: that makes one more discerning, i.e. careful of a lot of particulars in what you hear. Consequently, that absolutely affects your choices in recordings, of anything.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Yes, I think the arpeggios are pretty muddy, and the dynamics are sort of strange. The melody seemed weirdly broken up to me, I had trouble following it. It seems like the arpeggios were oddly loud in some places, almost swamping the melody.
> 
> I actually don't think the Lang Lang interpretation was so very terrible as all that, but I certainly prefer the Corot.


To play the devil's advocate here, I can comment on the recording qualities. It sounds to me that in the Corot, the microphone is to the right of the pianist, therefore allowing that range to be more prominent, and with Lang Lang, the microphone is possibly above and to his left or in front of him, thus making the lower range much deeper. I agree that the Lang Lang was muddy, but so was the Corot imo because I couldn't even hear the arpeggiated patterns of the lower range because of how the microphone was. NOW, are we to blame the performer on this acoustic technicality? I'm not sure. I would need to hear other kinds of recordings done by the same players.

@violadude I like your skepticism. My development of indifference (not hatred) of Lang Lang was simply for the fact that Lang Lang has never helped me appreciate any piece of music _more _because of him. I just kind of hear the piece his way, but there are others that I have enjoyed interpretations of more. When I saw this one silly video of him playing the Prok PC no. 3, it was a jamble to me, and years later when I heard the "real thing" with Argerich and then compared him, it was even worse! So I can't credit Lang Lang to have helped me like Prokofiev (or anyone for that matter) at all, which I feel is perhaps my worst critique of him. You need to hear performers that make you love the music, and I feel that should be your _only _standard whenever judging them. Hence, Lang Lang may or may not achieve this for some.

On a separate comment related to OT, I'd say that flutists are much like vocalists when it comes to differences between players. A flutist's sound/vibrato is just as unique to a player as a voice is to a vocalist. They make stylistic choices, interpretive choices, but most of all _tone _choices. Galway is incomparable. Pahud and Bezaly as well.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Sometimes when I listen to Scarlatti, I can discern between Ivo Pogorelich and Scott Ross.


Lol! No big feat. One's a pianist; the other's a harpsichordist.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

If my post made you lol, I expect a like.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> If my post made you lol, I expect a like.


You realize out of 26,000 members, I am the only one who got it? It was a good one!

I gave you 2 likes, one for the witty joke and the other simply for charity. The charity like is tax deductible.

Took the likes back. Don't like being called slick! Got it?


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

And next time you like something of mine enough to chuckle, I expect you won't need to be reminded to return the favor.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> And next time you like something of mine enough to chuckle, I expect you won't need to be reminded to return the favor.


Next time I'll just leave out the LOL.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

Ok buddy. I don't exactly want to give you a like for that kind of attitude. But I'm giving you a like. Got that, slick?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Took the likes back. Don't like being called slick. Got it?


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

I didn't know you could unlike  

I was only being folksy


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

So yea, music is good and stuff.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> So yea, music is good and stuff.


Wise words, friend.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Ok buddy. I don't exactly want to give you a like for that kind of attitude. But I'm giving you a like. Got that, slick?


I'm giving you a like. I believe people should call each other "slick." Also, "chief" and "Tex" and "cowboy" and "boss" and "hoss" and "bubba" and so on. Feel free to call me any of those things as you feel the need.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> You realize out of 26,000 members, I am the only one who got it? It was a good one!
> 
> I gave you 2 likes, one for the witty joke and the other simply for charity. The charity like is tax deductible.
> 
> Took the likes back. Don't like being called slick! Got it?


"out of 26,000 members, I am the only one who got it." 
A real LOL and worth 1 lick, uh I mean "like."


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

science said:


> I'm giving you a like. I believe people should call each other "slick." Also, "chief" and "Tex" and "cowboy" and "boss" and "hoss" and "bubba" and so on. Feel free to call me any of those things as you feel the need.


Hmm. "Tex"...I use chief/champ/sport/slick/slugger/etc frequently but I've never used that one. Thanks for adding to my repertoire...helps that I live in Texas, amirite?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> if my post made you lol, i expect a like.


_*seriously?*_ .....................


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2014)

No. Now stop being so serious.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

science said:


> I'm giving you a like. I believe people should call each other "slick." Also, "chief" and "Tex" and "cowboy" and "boss" and "hoss" and "bubba" and so on. Feel free to call me any of those things as you feel the need.


Glutton for punishment?


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

PetrB said:


> _*seriously?*_ .....................


Forums make me miss subtlety.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> _*seriously?*_ .....................


My reaction too. Isn't extortion a crime?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Glutton for punishment?


Punishment? I don't know about that, Big H.

Just havin' fun.



arcaneholocaust said:


> No. Now stop being so serious.


Not allowed. "Likes" are to be taken as seriously as classical music itself. Right now we're getting ready to crucify Lang Lang for playing around with an orange on a piano. So watch yourself, Friendo.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

science said:


> Punishment? I don't know about that, Big H.
> 
> Just havin' fun.
> 
> Not allowed. "Likes" are to be taken as seriously as classical music itself. Right now we're getting ready to crucify Lang Lang for playing around with an orange on a piano. So watch yourself, Friendo.


Sounds good! No pun intended.

By the way, how did you know I'm called "Big H" ???


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

science said:


> Punishment? I don't know about that, Big H.
> 
> Just havin' fun.
> 
> Not allowed. "Likes" are to be taken as seriously as classical music itself. Right now we're getting ready to crucify Lang Lang for playing around with an orange on a piano. So watch yourself, Friendo.


Yes, I'm sure many here would like to crucify Lang Lang.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Perhaps it would not be too late for him to switch to the violin?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> To play the devil's advocate here, I can comment on the recording qualities. It sounds to me that in the Corot, the microphone is to the right of the pianist, therefore allowing that range to be more prominent, and with Lang Lang, the microphone is possibly above and to his left or in front of him, thus making the lower range much deeper. I agree that the Lang Lang was muddy, but so was the Corot imo because I couldn't even hear the arpeggiated patterns of the lower range because of how the microphone was. NOW, are we to blame the performer on this acoustic technicality? I'm not sure. I would need to hear other kinds of recordings done by the same players.
> 
> @violadude I like your skepticism. My development of indifference (not hatred) of Lang Lang was simply for the fact that Lang Lang has never helped me appreciate any piece of music _more _because of him. I just kind of hear the piece his way, but there are others that I have enjoyed interpretations of more. When I saw this one silly video of him playing the Prok PC no. 3, it was a jamble to me, and years later when I heard the "real thing" with Argerich and then compared him, it was even worse! So I can't credit Lang Lang to have helped me like Prokofiev (or anyone for that matter) at all, which I feel is perhaps my worst critique of him. You need to hear performers that make you love the music, and I feel that should be your _only _standard whenever judging them. Hence, Lang Lang may or may not achieve this for some.
> 
> On a separate comment related to OT, I'd say that flutists are much like vocalists when it comes to differences between players. A flutist's sound/vibrato is just as unique to a player as a voice is to a vocalist. They make stylistic choices, interpretive choices, but most of all _tone _choices. Galway is incomparable. Pahud and Bezaly as well.


Bear in mind that the Cortot was recorded in 1933.


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

science said:


> Punishment? I don't know about that, Big H.
> 
> Just havin' fun.
> 
> Not allowed. "Likes" are to be taken as seriously as classical music itself. Right now we're getting ready to crucify Lang Lang for playing around with an orange on a piano. So watch yourself, Friendo.


That business of playing Chopin's "Black Key" Etude with an orange dates back way before Lang Lang. The British pianist/organist/composer William Davies (1921-2006) told me that in the 1950s he was taken to the Savage Club in London by Jack Byfield. Whilst there they spent a very entertaining evening in the company of Benno Moiseiwitsch, who, having imbibed a considerable amount of whisky, asked one of the waiters for an orange and proceeded to play the "Black Key" etude with it. Bill Davies used to demonstrate it with a tennis ball (much safer!). Oh that Moiseiwitsch had been rewarded with the kind of adulation given to this crass dolt that we are lumbered with.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> To play the devil's advocate here, I can comment on the recording qualities. It sounds to me that in the Corot, the microphone is to the right of the pianist, therefore allowing that range to be more prominent, and with Lang Lang, the microphone is possibly above and to his left or in front of him, thus making the lower range much deeper.


Could be. Most of the 'left hand _sforzando_ swamps the melody' moments I've heard from Lang were from live recordings (although I've heard him do different weird things with dynamics in studio recordings).

Maybe somebody should put him in touch with a competent sound engineer?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> No. Now stop being so serious.


Okeedoh, though Ziggy would say there was more than a grain of truth in your 'joke' mentioning you wanted likes, since for Ziggy, no joke was ever a joke -- that from the same guy who also said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Go figure


----------



## MozartEarlySymphonies (Nov 29, 2013)

ahammel said:


> I'm not fussy, particularly, but yes, I hear differences.


I'm the same way. For example, I hear differences between Koopman's and Quasthoff's performances of BWV 158 but I enjoy both about the same. I enjoy Koopman's a little more because he has the advantage of better singers and a cleaner string section.

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Cantatas-Vol-21-Piau/dp/B000F7MKN8

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Cantatas...qid=1390232595&sr=8-1&keywords=quasthoff+bach


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ukko said:


> It ain't obvious? The same recorded performance can seem really good one day and mediocre two days later - or before. I don't listen for technical perfection, I kick back and, ah, absorb effects. Some days I absorb better than others.


I admit, I'm not always in the same mood when I listen. Sometimes Beethoven symphonies really move me, other days, I'm just not into it. I don't blame this on the performers, it's just my mood at the time.

Thanks for clarifying!!


----------



## JohnD (Jan 27, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> To play the devil's advocate here, I can comment on the recording qualities. It sounds to me that in the Corot, the microphone is to the right of the pianist, therefore allowing that range to be more prominent, and with Lang Lang, the microphone is possibly above and to his left or in front of him, thus making the lower range much deeper...


I suspect that most modern recordings use more than one microphone.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm monstrously fussy and if you listen to performances by interesting artists you will hear a lot of differences of interpretation.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't understand being fussy - I mean, lord, it's luxury to have all these recordings and interpretations - it is definitely true that different musicians play the same works differently. 

If you don't hear significant differences, then get some kind of digital music player like iTunes, and then compare tracks carefully. Play a few measures of one recording, play the same few measures of another recording, and then play a few more measures, and so on. You will hear loads and loads of differences.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Check out the performances by John Holloway on baroque violin vs Nathan Milstein in any of the Bach solo violin partitas and sonatas. For me, this is a real ear opener. Curiously refreshing!


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

I can usually spot differences between different versions of the same piece. But since I only keep decent versions of any work, and would dispose of any that are under par, I don't mind listening to differences that do exist. That's not to say that I like them all equally. My opinions tend to shift around a bit over time. For example, currently among pianists, Alfred Brendel is my favourite. I find that he brings out all the emotional extremes, where appropriate, among the composers I most admire (e.g. Schubert) without going over the top. His playing I find to be generally excellent, and the recordings are very good sound-wise.


----------

