# Live musts (because it can't be properly recorded)



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Please note that there are lot of directions one can take the live vs recorded topic -- it's a common topic in music discussions. Rather, I want to focus on AUDIO and ACOUSTICS. 

Let me begin with a direct example:
While I haven't heard Mahler 5 live (in person), I can say that every recording of it that I've heard to date -- quite a few! -- brings out or hides instruments or other details that affect the music's overall impact. E.g., Mahler "bounces" or echoes indiv. instruments across the SPAN of his large orchestra -- and those details are not easy for even the best set up microphones to pick up. Complex orchestration also means lots of detail that the engineer has to track, even for multi-take session recordings.

Much of the classical repertoire was conceived before there was ANY recording technology. So one might assume that the composer and the " classical industrial complex" of the day was exclusively fine-tuned for the live, one-shot, hall performance. And that the composed work was "eared" that way. And a full symphony orchestra is the toughest nut to crack.

Sigh ... that was the preamble for the issue/question.

Which composed work(s) was a revelatory experience for you when attended live?
Or: Maybe the over-detail of live acoustics revealed flaws ... like HD tv reveals flaws in your favorite celeb's complexion. And that subtracted from your experience.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Surprisingly enough it was a Minnesota Orchestra tour concert performance of the Brahms Second -- a piece I thought I knew well. Hearing (and seeing) it live, first made me aware how a seamless sounding piece of music could be made up of all seams! A revelation!

Mahler, by the way, is a hard one -- especially the Fifth. It's not just the engineers' choices, but the conductor's as well.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

MarkW said:


> Hearing (and seeing) it live, first made me aware how a seamless sounding piece of music could be made up of all seams! A revelation!
> 
> Mahler, by the way, is a hard one -- especially the Fifth. It's not just the engineers' choices, but the conductor's as well.


Although I noted AUDIO and ACOUSTICS as being the primary focus of this query, the "seeing" perspective does alter the WHOLE experience. If you're "forced" sit in a hall set, then your total concentration is focused on "the show". This also may be the case if you're watching the concert at home on tv.

About M5 ... Mehta/LAPL/1976 is my fave performance ... and it has that legendary Decca sound ... except too few mics or mixing board decisions means important nuances are very subdued. A missed opportunity ... M5 is cursed for sure !!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

First, it needs to be acknowledged that no recording technology at any price can fully replicate the sound of actually being there. Hearing the Mahler 5th in a fine hall with a great orchestra is a thrilling experience that no recording can match. The same can be said for practically everything. Secondly, very often there are orchestral details you clearly hear on recordings that are all but absent in a live performance! Those engineers and conductors carefully place microphones and tweak the sound at times. This is most obvious in scores like the Elgar 2nd with it's multitude of details that you can't hear on his recordings either. Third: even though a live performance conveys a sense of space, unless you're quite near the orchestra the sound you hear is essentially mono! You cannot hear the left-right separation past a certain point in even the best halls.

So which works were a revelation when heard live? Practically everything. In my younger days when every concert was a new experience, hearing anything live as compared to recordings was thrilling. Some things in particular I recall:

There have been many revelatory concerts which revealed aspects of the score that no recording could. The one that really stands out to my young ears was the Cleveland Orchestra under Lorin Maazel. I was in the fifth row. The visceral impact of the percussion in the third movement was thrilling. The precision and power of the brass in the first movement was something I'd never heard. Then came the last movement. Violins were separated left and right. And then you could hear it - the tune isn't in the first violins, it was divided between the 1sts and 2nds and the left-right shifting almost made you seasick. I never realized until then how Tchaikovsky had scored it - no recording I new at that time revealed that detail.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I've not heard Ithe Mehta/LAPO Mahler 5, but Decca's LA recordings with Mehta featured some the most extreme spot-miking, knob-twiddling to be heard....instruments popping in and out of the texture in a most startling fashion...it sounds good, but not very natural... 

The works that defy recording are the spatial ones - Mahler 8, Berlioz Requiem, even Verdi Requiem (Tuba mirum)....where performers are placed throughout the hall, or offstage....very difficult to duplicate the live experience on recording.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Heck148 said:


> The works that defy recording are the spatial ones - Mahler 8, Berlioz Requiem, even Verdi Requiem (Tuba mirum)....where performers are placed throughout the hall, or offstage....very difficult to duplicate the live experience on recording.


This is right; all the biggies. No recording can get close. Also, the dynamic range really hits you live in a hall. The end of Pines of Rome, the finale of Sibelius 2; none of these things sound like the recordings.

And, chamber music, in a not-too-big hall. Shostakovich quartets, Quartet for the End of Time, Schubert Quintet; you hear these live (well-played) they leave you struck dumb.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Given the reality of the present time, let's flip the question on its head. Which recordings come closest?

My go to recording for "being there" sound is this one:






(I queued it up to No. 14, but something about YouTube links here makes it come up 20 seconds early)

Chamber music is easier to create this feeling with, in my opinion. I remember being very impressed sonically by the Bernstein Mahler 6.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are some recordings that are astonishingly good and realistic.

A lot of piano music is this way. String quartets. As the ensemble size grows your brain must trick you into believing that what you're hearing is a full orchestra. Sometimes it works great.

Of recent recordings, the Chandos SACD with the Roman Trilogy is utterly breathtaking. Crank up the volume on the surround sound system and it will blow you away - and yes, those off-stage effects are well done and project a real sense of space and position. Thrilling. It's too bad more recordings of this quallity weren't made earlier and more people had listened. SACD would be a big presence and sacd capable players more common (and more reasonably priced!).








Another pair of disks that I've enjoyed the same experience with are the two Elgar symphonies on Bis. They sound excellent on headphones, but with a 5.1 system they're amazing.














The Planets also on Bis is a marvelous sonic feast.








I've picked up a lot of Mahler in SACD. The San Francisco set didn't have the greatest sonics and the performances were not as incandescent as I like. The LSO made their own, but the constricted sonics of the Barbican made sacd pointless. The RCA set with Zinman suffered from 2nd rate interpretations and sacd that was no better than standard cd. But the good news is that the Fischer recordings on Channel Classics sound fantastic in sacd. The 3rd is heavenly - crank the sound up and you feel you're right there in the hall.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

A Barenboim/CSO Daphnis and Chloe made me want to stand in my chair and sway to the music. I was close to the orchestra and the issue was the visceral experience. I can turn up the stereo, not the same thing. I fall asleep in proportion to my distance from feeling the vibration, not just hearing the sound.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Given the reality of the present time, let's flip the question on its head. Which recordings come closest?
> 
> My go to recording for "being there" sound is this one:
> 
> ...


Yes ... and that's why, in my OP, I noted: "And a full symphony orchestra is the toughest nut to crack." For symphonic scores, I think high-rez digital encodes realism better as do vinyl records (or open reel tapes). For std. CD quality digital (Red Book 16/44.1), complex and harmonically rich passages are rendered as what I call "confused".

The Mahler 5 symph is reference for me because it is my fave Mahler work, and I own many recordings of it and have listened to them countless times. The 2010 BBC Proms Gergiev version may be the best recording, IME, but the poor performance only makes it worthy of academic study, not enjoyment (IMO!!).


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I think it was John Atkinson (Stereophile editor) who noted that if the size of the transducer (speaker) is similar to the size of the music-making thing, then that sounds realistic. E.g., large floor-standing speakers vs. grand piano. Similar volume of air being moved by each.
But a full symph orch is *huge*; ergo, its sound reproduction will be compromised with loudspeakers.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

You really need to get yourself to a live performance of Mahler 5, then, and sit close to the orchestra. It will blow all your recordings into the weeds.


----------

