# Old or new recordings?



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

I do not live near concert halls or opera houses, so I have to make do with some reasonable hi fi and CDs. I have invested in a quite a few discs now and am observing they are almost all older recordings (pre-1980). There is a logical reason for this, and it has to with my budget...I buy CDs at discount or at most midrange prices.

Available old recordings tend to be a bit more reliable in terms of musical quality (I suppose because the ones that are reissued are selected in part based on this).

I also find that in terms of sound quality/budget, old recordings are better because they do not improve so much as one invests in better hi fi.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Stereo recording quality was actually quite good for a long time. True, there is a difference once you get into the all digital recording. But still, I can't find much to complain about from the 1950's onward. Even the earlier mono recordings are quite good, depending on how you listen to them. For example, when I listen to Furtwangler's EMI mono recording of Beethoven's 9th on my iPod with headphones, things like tape hiss are much more noticeable. However, if I hook it up to my surround sound speakers (standard home entertainment system, all-in-one speakers, Blu-ray player), then the hiss is less noticeable. I like having crystal clear quality, but not to the extent that I neglect some truly great performances.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Downbeat said:


> [...]
> I also find that in terms of sound quality/budget, old recordings are better because they do not improve so much as one invests in better hi fi.
> 
> Any thoughts?


I think you are OK... until the sentence quoted. That one doesn't compute.

BTW, you don't _have to_ spend big for modern music. Much of the Albany label's stock is being remaindered very inexpensively, including at berkshirerecordoutlet.com.


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think you are OK... until the sentence quoted. That one doesn't compute.
> 
> BTW, you don't _have to_ spend big for modern music. Much of the Albany label's stock is being remaindered very inexpensively, including at berkshirerecordoutlet.com.


I live in Mexico...almost all modern recordings are expensive in retailers here. Amazon is an alternative, but I get addictive when I enter a record store!


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Stereo recording quality was actually quite good for a long time. True, there is a difference once you get into the all digital recording. But still, I can't find much to complain about from the 1950's onward. Even the earlier mono recordings are quite good, depending on how you listen to them. For example, when I listen to Furtwangler's EMI mono recording of Beethoven's 9th on my iPod with headphones, things like tape hiss are much more noticeable. However, if I hook it up to my surround sound speakers (standard home entertainment system, all-in-one speakers, Blu-ray player), then the hiss is less noticeable. I like having crystal clear quality, but not to the extent that I neglect some truly great performances.


I agree. I have this recording of Cosi Fan Tutte with Bohme and the Vienna Philharmonic...I can tell it was mixed from an LP (you can hear regular scratches). It is terrific, though...the sound quality is not so much of an issue when the recorded interpretation is outstanding.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I suppose I prefer DDD recordings, but a huge number of my CDs are ADD and even an occasional AAD. With few exceptions, they pretty well all sound great on my midrange mini playback system and I have no doubt that they would sound even better on a high-end system. I mostly avoid mono recordings, but as DrMike stated, pretty well all stereo recordings from the 1950s onward have great sound. Older recordings from the '60s-'80s can be excellent buys. They are far less expensive, have often been remastered to sound as good as contemporary recordings, have been filled out to nearly 80-minute capacity, are the top recordings from a few years back of some of the greatest performers, etc. They are a great way to build a big collection of great recordings at low cost... and you can always get additional versions of your favourite pieces later on.


----------



## Bas (Jul 24, 2012)

Downbeat said:


> I agree. I have this recording of Cosi Fan Tutte with Bohme and the Vienna Philharmonic...I can tell it was mixed from an LP (you can hear regular scratches). It is terrific, though...the sound quality is not so much of an issue when the recorded interpretation is outstanding.


To some extend I can agree with you. However, the sound must be bearable, an occasional scratch is fine, but I can not stand distorted sopranos... I prefer newer recordings, to come back to the original question. Not only have technological recording possibilities increased, knowledge of how to perform historically correct also improved a great lot (this is probably a lesser concern for modern music). I listen mostly to baroque.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I buy mostly older recordings because I haven't heard much from newer conductors that I've really liked or have made me go "wow" that's so much better than my older recordings. They are also generally cheaper in budget box sets which I like.

But looking at something as simple as Beethoven's Symphonies. It's still being debated about his Tempo markings. Whether they were actually added later to scores after he had already gone deaf. So, are they actually correct or are they distorted by his hearing loss? Who knows?

According to his tempo markings Eroica should take like 40 minutes. I think the closest I've seen is Norrington around 43-44 minutes. The average is around 50 minutes I think. What's left to be done with this symphony? Is someone going to try to get the 40 minute mark just because the tempo marking say it should be? We've already got Period Instrument recordings? What more can we do? I've got enough variety with Furtwangler & Toscanini, for better sound add in Walter, Klemperer, Bernstein, Karajan, Bohm, Szell, Gardiner and Hogwood. What else do I need?

Until there is some new revelation about some of the older works, what's the point in buying newer recordings of works that have already been recorded by such great conductors and orchestras? 

It's kind of a double edged sword in the Classical recording world to me right now. They really need to record works that haven't been recorded as much, but at the same time they don't sell well because people want to hear Beethoven and Mozart and not Joly Braga Santos or Havergal Brian. I'd love a newer conductor and orchestra to record a complete Havergal Brian Symphony Cycle. I'd buy that in a heartbeat, but it will probably never happen because they figure it won't sell and other than a few people like myself, they are probably right.


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

Bas said:


> To some extend I can agree with you. However, the sound must be bearable, an occasional scratch is fine, but I can not stand distorted sopranos... I prefer newer recordings, to come back to the original question. Not only have technological recording possibilities increased, knowledge of how to perform historically correct also improved a great lot (this is probably a lesser concern for modern music). I listen mostly to baroque.


Older music can a lot better with newer recordings (I recently acquired Bach's Magnificat w/Gardiner & period instruments...musically outstanding I thought). But is there any proof of how historically corrrect an interpretation is? It's hard enough to know what someone like Mahler wanted in his music even though we have recordings of his conducting students...let alone early music!


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> I buy mostly older recordings because I haven't heard much from newer conductors that I've really liked or have made me go "wow" that's so much better than my older recordings. They are also generally cheaper in budget box sets which I like.
> 
> But looking at something as simple as Beethoven's Symphonies. It's still being debated about his Tempo markings. Whether they were actually added later to scores after he had already gone deaf. So, are they actually correct or are they distorted by his hearing loss? Who knows?
> 
> ...


Then there is the issue of the same conductor (who once interpreted pieces quicker by respecting originally composers' markings) slowing down...mix in the fact that composers change as they get on. Now what is more authentic?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

F authentic. I want something that comes from inside the musicians... passion, personal expression, something REAL, not just something printed in a book.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

mostly new, sometimes old. It can differ.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Downbeat said:


> Older music can a lot better with newer recordings (I recently acquired Bach's Magnificat w/Gardiner & period instruments...musically outstanding I thought). But is there any proof of how historically corrrect an interpretation is? It's hard enough to know what someone like Mahler wanted in his music even though we have recordings of his conducting students...let alone early music!


Mahler only died in 1911,twenty seven years before I was born. We most certainly do know what he wanted and how his works should be performed.
We can do this through his friend and collaborator Bruno Walter's recordings and those of his assistant Otto Klemperer.
His music had great advocates such as Stokowski Mitropoulos,Barbirolli,Mengelberg and Aaron Copland.
As far as conductors changing with the passing years,you can usually find early as well as later recordings.


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

moody said:


> Mahler only died in 1911,twenty seven years before I was born. We most certainly do know what he wanted and how his works should be performed.
> We can do this through his friend and collaborator Bruno Walter's recordings and those of his assistant Otto Klemperer.
> His music had great advocates such as Stokowski Mitropoulos,Barbirolli,Mengelberg and Aaron Copland.
> As far as conductors changing with the passing years,you can usually find early as well as later recordings.


This is debatable...Walter disregarded some of Mahler's original markings. Even Mahler himself admitted to certain interpretations of his works during his lifetime sounding different from what he wanted, but acceptable nonetheless.

I worked as a cellist in a professional orchestra...elder conductors slow down, and become unclear in their movements and intentions.


----------

