# Historical recordings



## Lisztfreak

Do you like or even prefer historical recordings to newer ones?

I enjoy hearing a famous soloist or conductor performing, makes me feel like I'm travelling through time. 

However, the thing is that the sound is never very good on such recordings, at least in my personal experience. Because of the quite different recording techniques, the orchestra sounds somewhat strange, for example the strings, the sound of which feels as though I'm watching an old movie such is 'Gone With The Wind' or something. You know, revial and too screaming.


----------



## Don

With historical recordings, I also feel that I'm traveling back in time. And the ancient sound just magnifies the effect. Solo recordings are the easiest to accept for the sound, but I don't tend to have any problem with orchestral recordings either.

Just yesterday I was listening to Giesking's Kreisleriana; it's fantastic. Giesking is a wild man in conveying Schumann's alter-ego Florestan, and Eusebius receives highly lyrical and poignant treatments. When the two get together (as in the interludes), Giesking gives both their full measure. It would be a shame for anyone to reject this performance because of less than sterling sonics.


----------



## Guest

Nothing puts me off music more than record hiss, clicks, and a lot of audience noise. It is possible to get rid of it up to a point with suitable audio filtering, but the finished product sounds dull and lacking in treble. For piano solo works I would normally prefer a more modern recording and suffer a slight loss in virtuosity compared with the likes of Schnabel and Giesking. Rather than go completely modern, often a good compromise is use of other outstanding pianists like Richter, Horowitz and Rubinstein whose recordings are generally a lot better technically because they are more modern. For full orchestral pieces, I agree with the first poster that the really old material of 60-70 years ago can sound pretty awful. I'm thinking of a lot of Toscanini, for example. I have a Beethoven symphony set by Toscanini and the sound is kind of strange with a distorted mid-range and poor bass, just like an old movie theme. I used to be able to tolerate this kind of sound out of respect for the old conducting master, but I can't do so any more as I find the sound so tiring. Some later orchestral material by other conductors from the 1960's (when stereo came in) onwards has been improved substantially, for example the Klemperer recordings of Beethoven symphonies were mastered in the 1990s to a very high quality level. More generally, I am quite happy to migrate to recent renditions of various works as I believe quality levels are steadily improving across the piece. I find by far the best source of information on good recordings to be the BBC Radio 3 broadcasts in the morning periods when recorded material only is played. The very high quality of their commentary leaves most message board chat looking very simple and naive. I seldom trust reviews by unknown contributors on internet sales platforms, as one tends to get idiosyncratic viewpoints.


----------



## Kesiak

I love historical recordings. As mentioned Richter, Rubinstein... but also Heifetz is putting me to another world. I can excuse poorer sound quality if the perfomance is exceptional, but for example Toscanini's Beethoven cycle from 1939 with NBC Symphony orchestra suffers too much from bad sound quality, although the performances are brilliant.
When talking about Liszt, I like his piano concertos played by Richter (Kondrashin, London symphony orchestra), where the poorer sonic is just nothing to performance quality.


----------



## Frasier

When interested in particular performers, one doesn't have much choice. Fond of Bel Canto, I love voices like Tetrazzini, Marchesi, Nezhdanova, Sobinov, Caruso, etc. Thankfully, minds have been put to restoring these with some success. A case of better to have them in an imperfect state than not at all.

In the semi-modern orchestra sphere I've found myself more engaged by interpreters who actually knew the composers. Beecham with Delius; Barbirolli with Bax and Vaughan Williams, Boult with numerous British composers. And a similar list from America. They often do better than the composers themselves. However, this doesn't mean that more recent recorded performances are inferior, just a preference if it's there.


----------



## Mark Harwood

I listen to a lot of old (pre-WW2) jazz, and, like Don, I find the quaint sound quality to be part of the experience, and it doesn't annoy me.
On the other hand, old (1940s) Segovia solo recordings sound harsh and lack warmth, and I don't listen to them as much as more modern recordings of the solo classical guitar.


----------



## Keemun

I'm growing to like some historic recordings. I like listening to the virtuoso violinists and pianists of the the past, and historic recordings are the only way to do so. 

I generally don't care for historic recordings of symphonies (or other non-soloist orchestral pieces) because I don't find that the performance/interpretation compensates for the poor sound quality. An exception is Furtwangler's (in)famous 1951 performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony at Bayreuth. Perhaps in time I will find other remarkable historic performances, but for now I try to stick to recordings from the 1960s onward.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Speaking of sound quality, would you reccomend me to buy an EMI records CD with Elgar himself conducting the Enigma Variations and the Violin Concerto with Menuhin as soloist? 

If I remember well from the cover (I saw the disk in a shop), it's from 1932.


----------



## Don

Mango said:


> Nothing puts me off music more than record hiss, clicks, and a lot of audience noise. It is possible to get rid of it up to a point with suitable audio filtering, but the finished product sounds dull and lacking in treble. For piano solo works I would normally prefer a more modern recording and suffer a slight loss in virtuosity compared with the likes of Schnabel and Giesking.


Virtuosity in itself has little appeal to me. What I love about many historical piano recordings is the greater emotional intensity, general tension and freedom of expression.


----------



## Azathoth

Old recordings can be nice, but it seems that a lot of the time the sound quality either sucked in the first place or was lost as the recording medium deteriorated.

If you lose half the notes, what's the point in listening?

It seems like I might not understand what is meant by historical recordings, but I do, I just have a problem with insomnia.


----------



## Manuel

> For piano solo works I would normally prefer a more modern recording and suffer a slight loss in virtuosity compared with the likes of Schnabel and Giesking.


I wish it was only virtuosity what was lost in the process... most of them were more into (please don't laugh at me for saying this) _poetry_.
There are lots of pianists with solid technique nowadays, the can play really fast without missing a single note. And that's more that we can say about Alfred Cortot, just to name one. But his interpretations sound as natural as breathing, and poetical too. You will find lots of details on expression that many living pianists this days will ignore.

I prefer the old recordings: Hoffman, Friedman, Cortot, Backhaus, Schnabel, Carreño et al.

The same happens with violinists. The lyricism Kreisler and Heifetz had can not be surpassed by anyone. (Perhaps Sammons, but as we know, he was the english Kreisler  ).


----------



## cato

Lisztfreak is right on about loving historical recordings!  

Yes, in some cases, I do prefer them over them over modern ones.

And yes, I do feel as if I am being transported back in time when I listen to them.

However, I have to disagree with Lisztfreak about the sound.

I urge Lisztfreak and everyone to check out the recordings of the Cleveland Orchestra with George Szell conducting, that were recorded back in the 1950's and 1960's.

Sony classical has cleaned up these recordings, so that the sound is even better, clearer then some modern recordings. No pops, no hisses, no scrtaches, just clean pure sound of the Cleveland Orchestra. And to top that off, all of the Sony Classical Cleveland Orchestra recordings with George Szell, are budget CD's, which cost around $10.00 (US) per CD. So you get a great sound in a historical recording, at a great price. (I collect Cleveland Orchestra recordings, both modern, and historical.)

Almost all these recordings were recorded at Severance Hall in Cleveland, Ohio from around 1956 to 1969. 

I have been to Severance Hall many, many times, and the sound of that concert hall is excelent!  

They are the best historical recordings that I know of.


----------



## Manuel

> I urge Lisztfreak and everyone to check out the recordings of the Cleveland Orchestra with George Szell conducting, that were *recorded back in the 1950's and 1960's*.


Yep. But if you go back to _more _historical recordings, the sound can be really awful. Like in Sarasate acoustic's, or that japanese Mahler 4rd from the thirties (which happens to be the first complete recording of a Mahler symphony, I think).


----------



## opus67

Lisztfreak said:


> Speaking of sound quality, would you reccomend me to buy an EMI records CD with Elgar himself conducting the Enigma Variations and the Violin Concerto with Menuhin as soloist?
> 
> If I remember well from the cover (I saw the disk in a shop), it's from 1932.


JUST FYI

I recently purchased an EMI CD with a few solo/duo pieces with Casals on the cello; I think it has been my worst purchase till now, based entirely on sound quality alone and nothing else. I don't think I can blame anyone, since those were recorded in 1930 and '38. Even the Menuhin-Furtwangler Mendelssohn concerto is somewhat bad, and that was from the early 50's. But if you ever want to know how Britten performed on the stage, then I think there is no other option than to get those old mono CDs.


----------



## Guest

opus67 said:


> I recently purchased an EMI CD with a few solo/duo pieces with Casals on the cello; I think it has been my worst purchase till now, based entirely on sound quality alone and nothing else. I)


Never mind the lousy quality, feel the "poetry".


----------



## Manuel

opus67 said:


> JUST FYI
> 
> I recently purchased an EMI CD with a few solo/duo pieces with Casals on the cello


_Here's some free Casals._

Schubert

Piano Trio E flat op.100, D.929

Mieczyslaw Horszowski, piano
Alexander Schneider, violin
Pablo Casals, cello

05. & 06. July 1952, Prades

mp3 128 kb, mono

http://rapidshare.com/files/6104959/Schubert_D929_CasalsTrio.zip


----------



## Guest

As has been said, it depends how old, I have some Jaqueline Du Pre from 1962 which sound fine, although in mono, also some early Rostropovich not dated, but would suspect pre 1940 these also sound OK and the actual musicianship is undeniably excellent, these are not remastered.
Modern remastering sure gets rid of the clicks and ****** but it also seems to remove a bit of atmosphere.
I wonder who would buy none remastered to day?? Perhaps only me.


----------



## ChamberNut

Manuel said:


> _Here's some free Casals._
> 
> Schubert
> 
> *Piano Trio E flat op.100, D.929*
> 
> Mieczyslaw Horszowski, piano
> Alexander Schneider, violin
> Pablo Casals, cello
> 
> 05. & 06. July 1952, Prades
> 
> mp3 128 kb, mono
> 
> http://rapidshare.com/files/6104959/Schubert_D929_CasalsTrio.zip


One of my most beloved Piano Trios.

I have Casals recordings of Bach's Cello Suites. I agree with Nav. The performance is wonderful, remarkable in fact. You can feel the edgyness, the raw power in the performance. It's unfortunate that the recording sound is poor. Mono, and very hissy.


----------



## Morigan

ChamberNut said:


> One of my most beloved Piano Trios.
> 
> I have Casals recordings of Bach's Cello Suites. I agree with Nav. The performance is wonderful, remarkable in fact. You can feel the edgyness, the raw power in the performance. It's unfortunate that the recording sound is poor. Mono, and very hissy.


I borrowed Casals's legendary recording of the suites from a friend last week...

OK, I may be picky, but the poor sound quality really killed it for. I can't enjoy something recorded in 1938. I would really, really love Casals's sound if he were alive today and he could make a digital recording, but don't ask me to listen to a distant sound drowned in hissing.


----------



## Guest

Morigan said:


> I borrowed Casals's legendary recording of the suites from a friend last week...
> 
> OK, I may be picky, but the poor sound quality really killed it for. I can't enjoy something recorded in 1938. I would really, really love Casals's sound if he were alive today and he could make a digital recording, but don't ask me to listen to a distant sound drowned in hissing.


I have a 1926 recording of Schubert's Piano Trio no 1, D 898, by Alfred Cortot, Jacques Thibaud, Pablo Casals. According to some authoritative sources, it's supposed to be very good. I find the sound quality unacceptable. It's not so much the the hiss but the fact that the treble and bass is almost no-existent, and the mid-range doesn't sound right. It's on the EMI Classics label.


----------



## Manuel

Mango said:


> I have a 1926 recording of Schubert's Piano Trio no 1, D 898, by Alfred Cortot, Jacques Thibaud, Pablo Casals. According to some authoritative sources, it's supposed to be very good. I find the sound quality unacceptable. It's not so much the the hiss but the fact that the treble and bass is almost no-existent, and the mid-range doesn't sound right. It's on the EMI Classics label.


I guess you never payed attention to those few recordings with Ysaye as conductor...

...

Or his violin recordings. First time I listened to them I thought his _Obertass _was an arrangement for _hisser_, violin and piano.
Anyway, once mentally eliminate the surface noise, you get the most astounding and fresh violinism ever. The same with Prihoda's Traumerei on acetate...

Here's Spalding playing Schumann, from a cylinder.


----------



## Manuel

This is amusing. You should not miss it. From Edison's cylinders also.


----------



## opus67

Manuel said:


> This is amusing. You should not miss it. From Edison's cylinders also.


Strange...I think I hear some sort of keyboard instrument in the background. The audio is clear, though - making popcorn next to a pot of boiling water.


----------



## Guest

Manuel said:


> an arrangement for _hisser_, violin and piano.


I like it. Perhaps they put the hiss on deliberately thinking that people would prefer it that way. One can imagine a hissing machine and a clicker in the background. I wonder what solo hisser sounds like, or possibly a hisser/clicker fantasia in B flat major. The hissing and clicking machines may have broken down one day and then they discovered a new sound. The rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## oisfetz

Try Bronislaw Huberman's 2 short pieces recorded for the Berliner label in 1899/900


----------



## opus67

oisfetz said:


> Try Bronislaw Huberman's 2 short pieces recorded for the Berliner label in 1899/900


Off-topic: Is that Heifetz in your avatar?


----------



## Manuel

> Try Bronislaw Huberman's 2 short pieces recorded for the Berliner label in 1899/900


If you suggest the recording I suppose it must be:
- unavailable
- or putting hands to it is harder than finding the _Jade Monkey_ before dawn.


----------



## Manuel

I walked my way home from the university listening to Gioconda de Vito play Brahms' violin concerto (with Berlin State Opera Orchestra, Paul van Kempen, 1941). What a wonderful recording. No _clickers _there.


----------



## Manuel

opus67 said:


> Off-topic: Is that Heifetz in your avatar?


I think he is.


----------



## oisfetz

Of course, a very young Heifetz.


----------



## opus67

oisfetz said:


> Of course, a very young Heifetz.


Indeed. I've never see so much hair on his head in any of the pictures. I think it was the eyes that gave it away.


----------



## Saturnus

I have one with Holst conducting The Planets, it is very interesting and important to hear his own interpretation.


----------



## Manuel

Saturnus said:


> I have one with Holst conducting The Planets, it is very interesting and important to hear his own interpretation.


That's sounds interesting indeed. A lot more than my five Elgar piano improvisations.


----------



## opus67

Speaking of historical recordings...


----------



## World Violist

I like the 1933 recording of Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante (Violin & Viola) with Lionel Tertis and Albert Sammons. I like the slower, more relaxed tempo far more than all these other speed demons who play it as fast as they can (yes, I do dislike Heifetz's recording w/Primrose) .


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

In my case, I have a small smattering of historical recordings- and, for the most part, I'm grateful to have acquired them. My feeling, though, is that there are so many top-drawer recordings in the stereo era (and beyond) that I almost never make a historical recording my "option A."

However, as sage Hans Sachs says (in Die Meistersinger), "the value of a rule can be gauged when it sometimes allows for an exception," and my exception is the Furtwangler/Bayreuth Beethoven 9!


----------



## Saturnus

Manuel said:


> That's sounds interesting indeed. A lot more than my five Elgar piano improvisations.


I also bought a study-edition of the score. It is very interesting listening to that recording and reading it. Saturn is faster than on other recordings and Jupiter slower.


----------



## Manuel

Saturnus said:


> I also bought a study-edition of the score. It is very interesting listening to that recording and reading it. Saturn is faster than on other recordings and Jupiter slower.


Is the Holst recording currently available?


----------



## Manuel

I've spent the last days listening to some concert recordings of Josef Hoffman, the guy was a god. Nothing more can be said.

His phrasing is fantastic, so expressive and poetic. The cd includes five or more recordings of the same Chopin waltz, and they are all great.


----------



## david johnson

most orchestral recordings dating from the late 40's onward that i've heard have been acceptable.
there are a few i have come across with engineering that i just do not like  the furtwangler/emi/tristan and his beethoven 9 that everyone else loves bother me for some reason. i'm a great angel (emi) records fan, but some of them just don't sound right.

clear mono sound does not bother me in the least.

the dynamic compression that happened on some coulumbia in the 60's is also a real bother on the original lps.

mostly though, i relish that hisoric stuff.  

dj


----------



## Daniel

Some very rare examples of great virtuosos of the 19th century are luckily rescued by the very first recordings around 1900: Some Liszt-students, Joseph Joachim, Sarasate... Lots of distortion, but really worth to get an impression of another tradition, another century... If Brahms would have lived five more years...


----------



## Manuel

Daniel said:


> Some very rare examples of great virtuosos of the 19th century are luckily rescued by the very first recordings around 1900: Some Liszt-students. Lots of distortion, but really worth to get an impression of another tradition, another century... If Brahms would have lived five more years...


Definitely.
Godowsky recorded Les Adieux and Grieg's Ballade, amongst other works.

And then you can list: Arthur de Greef, Teresa Carreño,

VLADIMIR DE PACHMANN,

Konstantin Igumnov, Da Motta, and lots of _piano-rollers_.


----------



## Daniel

Manuel said:


> Arthur de Greef


Did you listen to his recording of Grieg's piano concerto? Awesome...


----------



## Manuel

Daniel said:


> Did you listen to his recording of Grieg's piano concerto? Awesome...


I didn't know that recording exists. I'll look for it.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I like to listen to the 1933 recording of Elgar's Violin Concerto by Menhuin, and then listen to the 1975 recording of the Mendelsohn Concerto and compare the difference in his playing ability. 

God he got worse as he got older!


----------



## Lisztfreak

Edward Elgar said:


> I like to listen to the 1933 recording of Elgar's Violin Concerto by Menuhin,


The EMI label one? Is the sound good enough?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yes - the sound has been digitaly enhanced (whatever that means!), but some crackles still remain. 

What exites me is the fact that it's Elgar who is conducting!


----------



## Lisztfreak

Thanks, E.E. I've been planning to get the disk as soon as possible. And I will. 

Can it get better than when the very composer (and that a great one) conducts his own work (and that too a great one)? Of course, if the composer is a competent conductor.


----------

