# How do I ascertain whether one performance is superior to another?



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

justekaia said:


> I'll be kind to you and just tell you that you have a problem with the word "new". I believe historical records have immense value and should be cherished, even if I have difficulties with the sound quality. But Mahler's vision of the 9th symphony for example with extreme speed is the vision of a great artist, but possibly not the ideal one for his masterpiece. I also believe in the diversity of possible options. This is also why i said that recent conductors benefit from hindsight; they certainly all will have listened to Bruno Walter's take which was made in a rush and which Mahler never heard. But many other great conductors like Horenstein, Karajan, Chailly, Vanskä and the contemporary ones deliver an aural and intellectual product that should IMHO logically be superior to the early versions.
> That being said there will always be miraculous versions, even old ones, where all the conditions were right and the sound is still acceptable today. This is my experience and I hope yours will be a happy one as well.


How do I ascertain whether one performance is superior to another?

(Thought it was best to put it in a new thread!)


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This is a complex and difficult to answer question. The answer depends on whose point of view, what they expect and what defines quality. Does a performance that is absolutely note-perfect, flawlessly played but devoid of emotional involvement rank higher than one with several audible mistakes but much more thrilling? Does a thrilling performance of a work but made with a large number of cuts rank higher than a less thrilling one but every note intact? What if 95% of the recording is utterly wonderful but then at the very end the performers do something stupid like speed up recklessly that ruins it? Compared to a more sedate version but the ending is proper and satisfying?

Let me just give one simple example: Raff's 5th symphony. For many years, the only recording we had was the Bernard Herrmann on Unicorn (or Nonesuch). It's a terrific recording and the conductor obviously believes in and loves the music. It is marvelously played, except for one issue: the tempos. They are all slower, much slower, than Raff indicated. The most recent recording with Neeme Jarvi on Chandos is also well played, even better recorded (SACD!) and it follows Raff's tempos to the letter; they are all very quick. So if I rank them according to the score, the Jarvi should be superior. But it's not - Herrmann, despite the slower tempos, is far more musical and makes more sense. Following the score is no guarantee of superiority. Of course, others will disagree and say I have it exactly backwards. So...maybe "superior" is in the ear of the listener.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I guess it depends on what you intend to offer with your opinion of a good recording. If you intend to offer guidance for other listeners about recordings which you try to judge somewhat objectively as better than other recordings, that is one thing. And for that kind of endeavor I don't have any advice.

However, if as an experienced listener you have honed in on what are the attributes and priorities you have over time found to produce a recording you prefer over others, that is all I know about.

For me, my priorities involve certain qualities, like period instruments, and smaller sized orchestras - with a priority placed on rendering the work in the kind of environment that existed at the time of its composition.

Beyond that, I can't offer anything to you about recordings.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The way I read Justekaia's thought, it was this.

1. Each performance is an experiment in creating the music

2. Each new performance can learn from the experience of previous performances.

So

3. The probability that a performance will be more successful at creating the music increases as we learn from previous partial successes and partial failures.

In the same way as the probability of producing a successful flying machine increased with what was learned by early less than satisfactory prototypes, the probability of a successful performance is increased by what is learned from less than successful interpretations.

What interests me most about this is the presupposition that the criteria for success are static. That what was a good performance for, let's say, Furtwangler's and Toscanini's audience 75 years ago, or indeed Brahms's, should be a good performance for me now. The world has changed! Human nature has changed!

Also I note in passing that, in my experience, composers don't pay much attention to the record of works they perform. On the contrary, whenever I have broached this subject with one of them, they have been disinterested in that sort of thing really. Arguably they are right about that.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

By listening! If you like what you hear more than in another performance, then for you that performance is superior to the other one, but remember it might not be the same for everyone


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

There are cases, for example in the 2nd Movement of Mahler Symphony no. 5, where I have unconsciously "learned to tolerate" certain sections. It has resulted in unconscious thinking like: "This is some Mahler stuff going on here, cool. It´s not bad".

Then I listened to Haitink conduct the 2nd Movement of the 5th and it sounds like a totally new piece of music to me. All the time revelations like: "Oh, this section actually HAD a meaning? So it wasn´t just some Mahler stuff going on there? Wonderful!"

From my perspective Haitink is the right Mahler conductor for me because I think he is able to communicate the point and meaning of Mahler´s music and operate on the level on which the music actually _works._

Then again there are many listeners who do not see any problems in the performances which I find lacking meaning. I cannot say others are wrong to like a certain performance. It only means they expect other things from a performance than I do.

I remember time when I was most thrilled about Sir Colin Davis conducting Sibelius with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Most of those recordings I cannot tolerate nowadays and do not understand how I did not hear the flaws. But the truth is: I did not know of better at the time. Still, I was not wrong to like the music back then.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

SanAntone said:


> I guess it depends on what you intend to offer with your opinion of a good recording. If you intend to offer guidance for other listeners about recordings which you try to judge somewhat objectively as better than other recordings, that is one thing. And for that kind of endeavor I don't have any advice.
> 
> However, if as an experienced listener you have honed in on what are the attributes and priorities you have over time found to produce a recording you prefer over others, that is all I know about.
> 
> ...


I totally respect your point of view, but totally disagree with it as i consider like Picasso that a work of art starts its life when it leaves the workshop. i consider that any work of art will be viewed differently over time considering its content, the different performances of the piece and above all the better understanding of the artist's intentions, the historical context and the subsequent evaluation of the piece. this is a subject that has fascinated me during all my life, especially because i am an art writer and have interviewed thousands of artists. regarding the quality of the recordings somebody who knows the content of the work, the different parts and the highlights of the piece should be able to find the right tempo and the properly timed accentuation; i do not think there is any conductor who can do that for all the composers he performs; therefore there always will be exceptional performances of the important pieces; and it is the privilege of the audience to pick its favourite recordings; if like me you do not listen to pre 1980 recordings anymore because of sound quality issues you solve part of the problem (obviously this is not your perspective). so each of us has his priorities and they should be respected.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

Mandryka said:


> The way I read Justekaia's thought, it was this.
> 
> 1. Each performance is an experiment in creating the music
> 
> ...


i only agree with your assumptions until the end of point 3 (partial failures).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

For me it seems evident that performance quality does not grow as our collective experience of performances grows. Of course a performer can learn from those who came earlier. But there are more valid and successful ways of performing a work than there are for skinning cats. 

I don't think you can trace a line from great performances of the past to more recent great performance. I often find myself thrilled with a Furtwangler performance. We are told that some of today's greats were inspired by him and seek to channel his special insights. But they almost always fail and turn out producing work that doesn't come close to his. At the same time, many of today's performers take very different approaches to those of the past and yet produce wonderful results.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

For me, a successful performance:
1. never bores me;
2. represents the music as written reasonably faithfully;
3. allows me to hear the individual parts as needed.

And the successful recording doesn't obscure any details necessary to achieve 1-3.

But keep in mind, this is "for me." There are people who might prefer more blended sound, more experimentation with scores, etc., and like ice cream preferences, they're not "wrong."


----------



## Floeddie (8 mo ago)

When it comes to music, it is aural, therefore it is unique each time and every that it is performed. It is not an object or a painting, which is permanent and fixed. Fixed works of art can be judged, and we can agree or disagree as to whether is good or not, but sound is an ongoing occurrence. Sound can be recorded, but the sound waves dissipate. So it is a matter of taste.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Floeddie said:


> Fixed works of art can be judged, and we can agree or disagree as to whether is good or not, but sound is an ongoing occurrence.


Not to mention that music requires a performer, and skill levels and interpretations can vary wildly.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

By deciding for yourself. Also (for example) the Karajan Bruckner cycle isn't really "superior" to Haitink's, or at least I don't think so. The same with Murray Perahia's Goldberg Variations vs Rosalyn Tureck's vs András Schiff's. They're just different, and there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the differences. I don't know why everything has to be an eternal contest.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Stockhausen and the Beatles would have loved this-




Yundi Li Chopin Op.11


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

This is a highly subjective matter . Often, one is imprinted on the first recording you hear of a given work , whether it be a symphony, concerto, symphonic poem, sonata or string quartet etc .
You tend to get accustomed to the tempi of that first recording, and when you hear a second or third recording of that work, the tempi may seem either too slow or too fast . 
With me, I remember the first recording of Bruckner's colossal fifth symphony , a work seemingly carved out of granite . This was about 50 ! years ago when I was a teenager . The recording in question was the classic one by Otto Klemperer and the New Philharmonia orchestra on EMI, then called Angel records . I took this recording out of my local library on Long Island and was amazed by the symphony and the performance , which lasts about 78 minutes . 
Then I heard the Philips recording with the late Bernard Haitink and the Concertgebouw orchestra, not yet the Royal Concertgebouw just as the Philharmonia was then called the New Philharmonia . This recording has tempi that are considerably faster than Klemperer , and somehow, it just didn't seem right . But with further hearings I got accustomed to. the Haitink recording . Most recordings of the Bruckner fifth. do not take 78 minutes ; the live Furtwangler/Berlin Philharmonic recording on DG , which I bought decades later than the first two , takes ten minutes fewer than Klemperer . But I got accustomed to this recording too . 
The more recordings of a masterpiece you hear, the more open you are to different interpretations . You come to realize this fact : no one has a monopoly on the right way to interpret any masterpiece .


----------

