# What Characterizes A Definitive Recording? How Does One Recognize It?



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think I have a very nice classical music collection and I like 99% of the albums I have chosen. I don't want to have a clone collection: just the same recordings everyone else has. If we all thought that way, there would be only one or two versions of every piece. I choose respected performers and I read reviews, but mostly only those by other listeners (ones who demonstrate the knowledge to write credible and critical reviews), although occasionally I will seek out professional opinions. I am not a musician, but I think I can appreciate fine music.

But maybe not?

I don't have 20 years of listening to Bruckner or Schumann or Brahms. I simply lack the basis for choosing the definitive or reference recording and I am not sure what sets one recording apart from another. I listen to samples and I am able to discern differences, of course, and there are invariably some that I immediately reject, while there are others that appeal.

Just looking at a couple of recent threads, one about Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas, and another one about Bruckner's Symphonies, I face again the constant uncertainty about what makes a recording great.

In the case of Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas, I enjoyed the Ashkenazy interpretation, but not one other respondent mentioned that one. I searched the web and found only one review that praised that recording. I admit that I am very new to these pieces and only just acquired the disc about a year ago and have only heard it perhaps 4 times, so I am not yet at the level of being able to say that I am familiar with the music, let alone compare one performance with another. Still, I wondered what would put other performers above one as famous as Ashkenazy.

Likewise, with the case of the Bruckner Symphonies. I listed the ones that I have. I didn't just choose them out of a hat or because they were the least expensive ones (although I rarely select the most expensive ones). I looked at the performers and their stature in the music world, the recordings I already own by these performers, what other credible reviewers on Amazon said about the albums I chose to purchase, etc.

For example, with Bruckner's Symphony 7, I have 2 versions, one being the Chailly recording with the Concertgebouw. On the Amazon UK site, there is not one review under 5* (for the complete symphonies set by Chailly) and for the Seventh, on the American site, Grady Harp, a well-known reviewer of some repute (I don't know his credentials, but I consider him to be reputable and qualified, as I have followed many of his writings), gives it 5*.

Yet, here on TC, not one person even mentioned Chailly. Are all of these reviewers full of s***? I don't think so. Similar with Nagano's Bruckner Symphonies... and with countless other works by other composers. This comes up time and again. I don't need to have the same recordings as everyone else, exclusively for the sake of conforming without discernment and exercise of personal choice, but I do wonder why _my choices never even rate_.

What makes these recordings not worth mentioning? What makes the other recordings the ones to have, and the only ones to even consider?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

brotagonist said:


> I simply lack the basis for choosing the definitive recording and I am not sure what sets one recording apart from another. I listen to samples and I am able to discern differences, of course, and there are invariably some that I immediately reject, while there are others that appeal.


There is *no* such thing as the definitive recording, nor will there ever be. Certainly there are many that are considered great but typically all that means is that a lot of people like it (or perhaps the recording company had great PR/marketing people!) The key to remember is that only your opinion counts to you, it is all subjective. You might often agree with the critical consensus but inevitably you will also disagree.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

It's all about the music and what moves you. The fact that your recording of Bruckner wasn't mentioned here in some thread means nothing. What is important is that you enjoyed it. I love Masur's Beethoven but does anyone else here? Not that I've ever seen. And I could care less. How he conducts speaks to me and I can hear Beethoven through him. That's all that matters. It's just about the music and how it connects with you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The definitive recording is the one I say is the best.

It's also the one you say is the best.

It's also the one whoever else prefers it says is the best - except those Amazon customers who have no idea what they're talking about but just glow with newfound self-esteem at seeing their name attached to a review.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Becca said:


> There is *no* such thing as the definitive recording, nor will there ever be. Certainly there are many that are considered great but typically all that means is that a lot of people like it (or perhaps the recording company had great PR/marketing people!) The key to remember is that only your opinion counts to you, it is all subjective. You might often agree with the critical consensus but inevitably you will also disagree.


I agree with Becca.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I don't think you need to stress out too much about this Brotagonist. As for "definitive" recordings that are indispensable, there are very few that qualify. One that springs to mind (and one that I made mention of in a similar thread of long ago) is Leonard Bernstein's Symphony No.3 "Kaddish", conducted by the composer with the New York Philharmonic, with Felicia Montealegre (Mrs. Bernstein) as speaker. But what makes some performance "definitive" for me would probably be considered "garbage" by someone else. Like what you like.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

If a piece has been recorded only once, surely that's a definitive recording, no?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In fact, if that "definitive recording" didn't exist, would we miss it?  We'd probably just pick another...


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I think the most likely case of a definitive recording is when the composer performs/conducts his own work. This is not to say that others cannot do a reference job as well, though.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

For me, the definitive recording is always the next album on my Wish List that I haven't been able to hear yet.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Examination of the biggest possible contrasts among available recordings is one way of narrowing the field ... including simply checking the playing times of individual movements, and what suits you best, and knowing about the conductor´s style, and whether one likes a HIP-approach or a historical sound.

Definitive recordings only very rarely exists (Carlos Kleiber´s Beethoven 5th Symphony for instance doesn´t create the monumental opening in the finale that Furtwängler/DG provides);

sufficient recordings are more plentiful (Kleiber´s "Der Freischütz" is enough for me, though others may prefer other singers in a few of the roles); 

- but 2 - 4 well-informed selections will generally do fine in most works one is really interested in .


----------



## AnotherSpin (Apr 9, 2015)

What Characterizes A Definitive Recording? You know it almost immediately when you hear it. Yes or No. Just do not bother to apply criteria - it spoils.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

brotagonist said:


> Yet, here on TC, not one person even mentioned Chailly.


There are three Chailly recordings on my "best versions" list, so be comforted 
http://www.talkclassical.com/18147-bruckner-addicts-only-bruckner-post805705.html#post805705


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

It is interesting to read the Reviews in Fanfare Magazine. They assign the sme recording to multiple reviewers, all of whom tend to disagree, and all of whom have their own "definitive" reference recordings for the piece. So much for the concept of deferring to Professionals. Ultimately taste is subjective.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Triplets said:


> It is interesting to read the Reviews in Fanfare Magazine. They assign the sme recording to multiple reviewers, all of whom tend to disagree, and all of whom have their own "definitive" reference recordings for the piece. So much for the concept of deferring to Professionals. Ultimately taste is subjective.


I'm generally not all that interested in professional reviews of performers' interpretations--that's what streaming services are for, imo, and in any case I go hot and cold on such matters after an indefinite number of hearings. But I do find that Fanfare etc. can give very useful information about sound quality. I wish the standard for this sort of reporting was higher, though: it should go without saying that a lengthy review should give information about the performance venue, sound engineer, etc. Reviewers should also come clean about the systems they use to sample disks (though maybe that would just open up a can of worms :lol.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I don't listen to multiple recordings of the same piece, so don't have much idea at all about *actual* definitive recordings. 
So I am answering on a theoretical basis. A 'definitive' recording, as Becca says, will never be something that is beyond dispute or gains universal agreement. In fact, the more kudos a recording has, the more likely that some rebel-critic will diss it and set something else up as 'definitive'.

But one would suppose that several of these criteria *might* be present on a 'definitive' recording: 
* agreed to be such by many influential critics
* is still regarded as great after thirty or forty years
* is conducted by the composer, or the performance closely supervised by same
* is the first recording of the work, or the first one that influenced others
* is the last recording of the work before one of the key players or the conductor died or retired - 'at the height of his or her powers'
* has a claim to be most 'authentic' to the period, the composer's vision or whatever
* has the most skilled (or most famous) players / singers/ conductor
* is well recorded, technically speaking
* has an immediate impact on any listener
* and - *you* like it!


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> I don't listen to multiple recordings of the same piece, so don't have much idea at all about *actual* definitive recordings.
> So I am answering on a theoretical basis. A 'definitive' recording, as Becca says, will never be something that is beyond dispute or gains universal agreement. In fact, the more kudos a recording has, the more likely that some rebel-critic will diss it and set something else up as 'definitive'.
> 
> But one would suppose that several of these criteria *might* be present on a 'definitive' recording:
> ...


Plus, as we're "all in it together" the price has to be right!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

dogen said:


> Plus, as we're "all in it together" the price has to be right!


No price is right now that shipping & handling costs have gone up. And not for the last time, if I had to guess.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

'What characterizes a definitive recording?' is too hard a question for me to answer, but 'Why are certain recordings frequently the top recommendation?' is an easy one: it's a mixture of marketing and groupthink. Anyone happy to follow George Michael's advice and listen without prejudice will soon discover that the best recordings are often not among the most frequently recommended, and may indeed not even have been heard or even heard _of_ by most of the self-appointed arbiters of taste who are paid to write reviews- though this may be less true now than it was before the internet. (Incidentally, why the disdain on this thread for Amazon reviewers? They should be judged on the quality of their writing, the extent of their knowledge and the soundness of their taste, the same as a professional critic should be judged. The fact that they have not been able to flash an old school tie and get a paid writing position is generally neither here nor there, though professional critics may be somewhat better educated than the average joe writing on Amazon or on their own blog. Would that this superior education guaranteed superior judgement!) As far as opera is concerned, I've found that old recordings are nearly always overlooked and neglected purely because they are old: one would have thought that recordings of the standard 19th century repertoire made closer to the time the works were composed and when operatic singing was still a living art would be more likely to be 'definitive' than recent performances of the same work 'in modern translation', all other things being equal. Yet the likes of Gramophone and Radio 3 will always promote the latest overhyped pretty tenor or soprano, and if pushed to look erudite (on Building a Library for example) will confidently recommend the work of the latest pretty tenor or soprano circa 1955 (or some arbitrary slightly later date), while ignoring anything earlier. Such people give themselves away when they refer to recordings as 'dated', as if art was some kind of perishable foodstuff which you consume at your peril when its expiration date has passed.

OK, rant over. Just browse Amazon and Youtube and consult discographies like this one on http://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk/. When considering opera recordings to buy, start with the very earliest (often though not always the best) and work your way forward chronologically. Avoid such books as 'The Grand Tradition', 'Opera on Record', etc.- when I was discovering great singing in the early to mid 90s they were pretty much the only source of information available along with magazine reviews, and their recommendations were generally worse than useless. Anyone with an internet connection now has more useful information at their fingertips than did the professional critics of a generation ago, and that may be why I would struggle to name many critics currently active: they have been disintermediated,and rightly so! And if your preferred recording is not the same as the most usual 'top pick' of Amazon reviewers or professional ones, that's probably a good thing: it suggests that you are doing your own thinking and those taking refuge in an established consensus probably aren't.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> Anyone happy to follow George Michael's advice


Not on driving.

:devil:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

One of the features of classical music is that it's based on a score, rendering the idea of a "definitive" performance or recording meaningless.
What's the definitive recording of the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds"? The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds", obviously.
What's the definitive recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony? There isn't one, and can never be one.

Whatever gets _called_ a definitive recording of a classical work should more appropriately be called the "most popular" one. But we all know "popular" is a dirty word.

It is, I suppose, conceivable that the people who insist on there being definitive recordings are just loud-mouthed narcissists who believe that their own personal taste in music reflects some underlying truth about the universe.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

dogen said:


> Not on driving.
> 
> :devil:


I must admit that asking 'What would George Michael do?' is not usually a part of my decision making process- and no doubt I've missed out on a lot of fun as a result!  Still, he's useful for a) the quote in that song title, which is a kind of a motto of mine though I don't recall anything about the song itself, and b) reminding me how dire my taste in music was before I started collecting 78s!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> One of the features of classical music is that it's based on a score, rendering the idea of a "definitive" performance or recording meaningless.
> What's the definitive recording of the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds"? The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds", obviously.
> What's the definitive recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony? There isn't one, and can never be one.
> 
> ...


Well, there's nothing wrong with making lists of 'definitive' recordings or greatest this or that- it's all good nerdy fun, but 'definitive' does need to stay in quotation marks to avoid both pseudo-objectivity and alienating others by seeming to have a too-dogmatic viewpoint. I have no problem with lists of best this or that, no quotation marks needed- perhaps it's less question begging than 'definitive', although explanation of one's choices is still needed.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> Examination of the biggest possible contrasts among available recordings is one way of narrowing the field ... including simply checking the playing times of individual movements, and what suits you best, and knowing about the conductor´s style, and whether one likes a HIP-approach or a historical sound... but 2 - 4 well-informed selections will generally do fine in most works one is really interested in .


Playing time, conductor's style, HIP, etc. Yes, to the degree possible, I consider all of these, but this is one area where I am limited. For example, chrisco97 mentioned, in Post #2365, about an album of Mozart Symphonies: "I love how swift the tempi are without being sloppy. I am willing to assume that there aren't many people who are fond of this style for Mozart, but I must say...I am." I simply lack such background information. I don't know what a normal tempo is, what the tempo in Mozart's time was, what most people prefer or what I would prefer. I have only ever heard that particular recording... and it suits me fine. Some day, with more listening experience, I might be able to be more critical, but right now, that is all I have to go on.

I like to think that most of my choices are in the 2-4 well-informed selection category. I am sure they are and I don't really care if not everyone thinks so :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

IMO, the idea of a "definitive recording" is a marketing device, nothing more. "Pure and simple." 

Wrenching myself into charity, perhaps it was more meaningful in the earlier days of recording, when there weren't many options available of a particular work, and some new recording was just so wonderful that a knowledgeable person could say in all sincerity, "Now this one here, this is it. This is definitive." But in the decades that separate us from that knowledgeable person, that work has probably been recorded dozens more times, with a wide variety of interpretations and of recording conditions, so that we should (I'd say) only talk about "definitive recordings" for works that are relatively obscure, recorded very few times. But even then, as others have rightly said, it'd be just a matter of opinion. 

More likely, as I shrug off that uncomfortable generosity, some reviewer would declare it definitive, and go on with other impressive gushings, and his friendship with the marketing department of the relevant label would be comfortably reconfirmed, and at least some classical music fans would take that rhetoric as a model for their own discourse, and here we'll be.

Anyway, perhaps I'm reading my own troubles into Brotag's OP, but to me the question that underlies his question is, which recordings should I listen to most? I haven't figured that one out. I'm working on it in my own ways. First I figure out which works I should listen to most, and then which recordings of those works. I take the lists and projects here into account, and various other guides on the internet and in books I have, and the polls I've done lately, and so on... and then, I usually do something only a tiny bit less arbitrary than I might've done otherwise, but sometimes, reckless maverick as I am, I just defy all reason and order and listen to something for sheer curiosity or desire. Of course I regret it later sometimes. But when in all these thousands of years has humanity ever acted according to our own rational interests?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

There's no such thing as a definitive performance because we are all different in our perceptions.

I've bought CD's after reading reviews claiming "definitiveness" that I have played only once.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I don't listen to multiple recordings of the same piece...


How did you select the one you have? Favourite performers? Scanning customer or professional reviewer opinions? Serendipity (it just happened to be in the store)?

Nice list, by the way :tiphat:



Figleaf said:


> 'What characterizes a definitive recording?' is too hard a question for me to answer, but 'Why are certain recordings frequently the top recommendation?' is an easy one: it's a mixture of marketing and groupthink.
> 
> ...one would have thought that recordings of the standard 19th century repertoire made closer to the time the works were composed and when operatic singing was still a living art would be more likely to be 'definitive' than recent performances of the same work 'in modern translation'...


Good points :tiphat:


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

I read reviews, sample recordings on spotify, youtube etc (and come here, of course). That´s the way I choose the recordings that I want to purchase. Sometimes I just follow my own intuitions 
The less useful way to decide is the review itself. Sometimes I can match with the criteria of another (professional or not, it´s the same to me), but not necessarily.
I love recordings that nobody else has mentioned. And don´t like others that many people seems to love. That's the way it is; and agree: It´s a totally subejctive matter. The "definitive" recording today is the one I prefer above others. But that can change tomorrow. Theres´s no such definitveness...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> How did you select the one you have? Favourite performers? Scanning customer or professional reviewer opinions? Serendipity (it just happened to be in the store)?


I usually want to buy something after I've heard it on YouTube, and then, if I can, I get the cd of the artists that I've heard. On the other hand, that can be prohibitively expensive - e.g. on :tiphat: Ukko's say-so I bought the Andrew Manze version of Biber's Rosary Sonatas and not the German violinist that I'd heard on YT. Also, if I've grown to like a musician - such as Jordi Savall - I tend to get other things that he's done.

Taggart, when he chooses to buy something, often goes on the recommendations of a TC member such as :tiphat: Simon NZ; or else he does some internet research on opinions. Price can come into this too.

And yes, we often just get what's in the store - usually when we're in Norwich buying our Norwich Baroque tickets, and are seduced by some early music or oriental songs cds.

Quite often things I like don't have multiple versions - or *any at all*, since the single recording is out of print. This happened with William Lawes' Harp Consorts, where only an expensive second-hand copy of the cd was available. My inner Puritan wouldn't let me buy it. 

After reading this, you will see that I am not in the rarefied league of version-connoisseurs. They're up in the mountains - I'm still on the bus on the way to the foothills. Still, I'm happy!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heliogabo said:


> I read reviews, sample recordings on spotify, youtube etc (and come here, of course). That´s the way I choose the recordings that I want to purchase. Sometimes I just follow my own intuitions
> The less useful way to decide is the review itself. Sometimes I can match with the criteria of another (professional or not, it´s the same to me), but not necessarily.
> I love recordings that nobody else has mentioned. And don´t like others that many people seems to love. That's the way it is; and agree: It´s a totally subejctive matter. The "definitive" recording today is the one I prefer above others. But that can change tomorrow. Theres´s no such definitveness...


This is practical and commonsensical. I've done pretty much the same things when looking for performances and recordings of music I don't have, particularly if it's music I'm not very familiar with. I don't expect to agree fully with anyone about anything, but in the absence of other information I do want to know what others have to say - and those others may include friends, professional critics, and those often hilarious customer reviewers on Amazon who clearly know little about music but know what they like. We can learn from almost anyone, even if all we learn in some cases is what an uninformed viewpoint looks like. In the case of professional opinionators, if we get to know them and their tastes and biases concurrently with developing our own we will learn how much weight to give their views; there are certain critics whose perceptiveness has been of real value to me over the years, and others (like those soft-brained, parochial anglophiles in the Penguin Guide, or nearly anyone today posing as an opera critic) who have proved more or less useless.

The internet has given us abundant opportunities to sample recordings and performers, opportunities I didn't have growing up, and a fair percentage of my listening now comes to me through my computer. Direct sampling at our fingertips, combined with the older, less direct ways of learning what exists, lets us discover and refine our own taste and judgment constantly. All we need to do is work at it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> One of the features of classical music is that it's based on a score, rendering the idea of a "definitive" performance or recording meaningless.


The traditional stance is that the written score is 'gospel,' like a scripture or sacred text.

Recording changed all that.

Now we see that written scores are just a way of 'recording' the information of the music, so it can be conveyed to players.

The traditional notion of the written score as definitive is based on our religious ideas of sacred texts and scriptures.

Now we see it as simply a set of instructions.

Recording differs from scores because it is a way of recording a *performance.* It is more of an aural method.



Nereffid said:


> What's the definitive recording of the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds"? The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds", obviously.
> What's the definitive recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony? There isn't one, and can never be one.


This is because, although parts of _Pet Sounds_ might have been written down, it was conceived as a studio recording. 
It was created out of an aural process, by ear. 
Therefore, the definitive recording takes the place of a definitive score. 
Also, a sound recording is also a record of a definitive performance, as in a good vocal captured in the singer's youth, in his prime.
Also, pop music is based on the performance as being the definitve version. We are more interested in John Coltrane's recorded performance of "My Favorite Things" than we are in the written music by Rogers & Hammerstein.
So, recorded performances can now become 'definitive' events.



Nereffid said:


> What's the definitive recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony? There isn't one, and can never be one.


Because the score is supposed to be definitive?

You are forgetting that a sound recording is also the record of a performance.

Before recording, this was not possible; a performance was a one-time event, and disappeared, existing only as rumor or memory.

In this regard, the written score as 'definitive' is deficient, because it only preserves the information, the instructions, to the performers.

It used to be 'definitive' in the old sense, but now that we can preserve performances, it should now be seen for what it is: a written score is just a set of instructions.



Nereffid said:


> Whatever gets _called_ a definitive recording of a classical work should more appropriately be called the "most popular" one. But we all know "popular" is a dirty word.


I think this is a conceptual artifact of the era before recording. Because most classical works are conceived and created as written scores, this makes the notion of a 'definitive' recording a somewhat irrelevant after-the-fact idea. What we must do is separate the notion of the classical work as a 'definitive written idea,' as a sacred scripture in the Biblical sense, and make room for the idea of the performance. Popular music does not suffer from this separation.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Definitive recordings don't exist. Really great recordings do.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The traditional stance is that the written score is 'gospel,' like a scripture or sacred text.
> 
> Recording changed all that.
> 
> ...


I don't quite understand the idea of applying the concept "definitive" to a written score. A written score has never, to my knowledge, been regarded as an end in itself, a complete realization or representation of a musical work. Hasn't the assumption always been that the score exists in order to be performed? And haven't performing musicians always understood that the manner in which this is to be done requires of them much more than slavishly banging out sounds of the designated volume and duration? What real musician ever believed that music consists only of what can be written on paper, or that the best performance is the one that succeeds in adding nothing to what the written score contains?

The fact that popular music tends to be written with a particular performer, performance, and even recording in mind does make the score (if one exists) less determinative of the heard product. That was true of popular music before the recording era as well. But music more dependent on specific instructions is still, and always was, written to be interpreted, performed, and heard. Schumann tells us what notes he wants played, by what instrument, and roughly how loud and fast. But just how we do that makes all the difference in the world.

Not even Schumann himself would have expected, or wanted, every performer of his work to render it in an identical manner. How much less, then, should we entertain any conceit about performances, or even scores themselves, being "definitive."


----------



## michaels (Oct 3, 2014)

I whole heartedly agree with the general marketing-speak use of "Definitive", but also Ingélou's great outline of a few "definitive" markers (e.g. composer conducts may be "definitive," though not necessarily the superior recording).

At the end of the day, I think what people are looking for when they want a definitive recording is "If I only have one or two, which ones should I purchase?" 

The flip side of that coin is for the person trying to answer that question: if you adore Bruckner or Beethoven which 1-2 recordings to recommend? 

I'm not finding this so easy with two young daughters just coming up on an age where they can attentively listen and react to a performance. I started with local symphony performances and feel like even a deeply average live performance is the better of a great recording on an i-device with standard ear buds or in the car. On the other hand, before attending a performance, I try to pick out a couple performances of something they'll hear so that they can listen with some level of familiarity, notice differences in interpretation, orchestration and especially performance.

An interesting tangent (to me at least) is the voting of pieces here on TC. Undoubtedly virtually all of those votes do *not* come from a place analysis of the music notation, but instead a particular set of performances the listener is familiar with. 

Maybe a more interesting question would be, when you "vote" for something, or call it "superior", what recording is it? and what is it greater then?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The definitive recording is the one I say is the best.
> 
> It's also the one you say is the best.
> 
> It's also the one whoever else prefers it says is the best - except those Amazon customers who have no idea what they're talking about but just glow with newfound self-esteem at seeing their name attached to a review.


definitive- (n.): A judgment reserved for a critic who disdains everything, except quite strangely, his own criticism.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

There are no definitive recordings but just personal preferences. Even in jazz or pop music where there are supposedly one version, there can be limited editions or constant re-releases thus rendering the original album moot in some cases.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> ...that can be prohibitively expensive - e.g. on :tiphat: Ukko's say-so I bought the Andrew Manze version of Biber's Rosary Sonatas...
> 
> Taggart, when he chooses to buy something, often goes on the recommendations of a TC member such as :tiphat: Simon NZ; or else he does some internet research on opinions. Price can come into this too.
> 
> ...I am not in the rarefied league of version-connoisseurs. They're up in the mountains - I'm still on the bus on the way to the foothills. Still, I'm happy!


If you'd listened to me, you could have gotten Holloway's Rosary Sonatas (£4,50 new; £3,67 used)  I won't compromise on quality, but if one version I would consider is astronomical and another I would consider is reasonable, I won't hesitate to get the latter. 99% of the time, you will be happy; 1% of the time, you _might_ wish you had sprung for the more expensive one. With all of the money you saved (over a number of purchases), you could, and you'd then have two versions of that one piece and still have saved mountains 

There are a lot of steep climbs to the mountains, but the foothills can be reached by almost everyone


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Thanks for the recommendation, brotagonist :tiphat: - maybe the start of my 'multiple recordings' collection?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

If definitive recordings exist, perhaps a better term would be desert island discs. 

In that case, any such listing would be subject to debate... An example for me would be Kleiber's version of the Beethoven Symphonies 5 and 7.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't quite understand the idea of applying the concept "definitive" to a written score.


A score can't be 'definitive' like a performance is definitive, because a score is a written form of recording an idea, and a sound recording is an aural way of recording an idea (performance). Therefore, since music is ultimately manifest as sound, a written score can never be as fully realized and complete as a sound recording, in a performance sense. However, written scores are detailed instructions, so a complex idea involving a hundred musicians is not possible without the score as a set of unchanging instructions, embodying a consistent 'unchanging' musical idea, resulting in a more-or-less consistent result.



Nereffid said:


> One of the features of classical music is that it's based on a score, rendering the idea of a "definitive" performance or recording meaningless...What's the definitive recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony? There isn't one, and can never be one.


Nereffid's hesitancy to see any recorded version of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as 'definitive' is based on the mythology of the pre-recording era, when the composer was at the top of the hierarchy, because 'the score as idea' was his, and was the only fixed version which was an essentially unchanging set of instructions and musical ideas. The score was not simply a set of unchanging instructions, though; the score embodyies a consistent 'unchanging' musical idea, thus it is a written recording of a musical idea, and in written form it takes on the characteristic of an 'idealized' Platonic musical idea. Thus, the mythology arose of the score (as ideal Platonic idea), as being 'definitive' in that sense, like written scripture. "In the beginning was the word." And the conductor said, "Let there be sound," and there was sound. Classical music hierarchy is: Conductor at top, as "God," with the sacred Platonic idea; then conductor as demi-god, bringing the Word to light, manifesting "God's" will.



Woodduck said:


> A written score has never, to my knowledge, been regarded as an end in itself, a complete realization or representation of a musical work.


Yes, that may be true, but the dichotomy I am interested in illuminating here is the _difference in perception and meaning_ of the term "definitive version," when referring to popular or classical music. Classical music, with its score, has a dimension of "definitive" which existed before sound recording. Popular music seems to have bypassed this, since it is irrelevant to an aural approach to creating music.



Woodduck said:


> Hasn't the assumption always been that the score exists in order to be performed?


Yes, the written score has always been a 'set of instructions,' and still is. If Frank Sinatra used Nelson Riddle's orchestra in a recording session, Riddle's written charts would still be just a 'set of instructions,' but in popular music, they are not revered, or seen as the ultimate goal; the ultimate goal of a Frank Sinatra recording session/performance would be to 'create a definitive recording of a definitive performance.' This, in order to create a 'definitive artifact,' i.e, a record which can be sold and listened to.



Woodduck said:


> What real musician ever believed that music consists only of what can be written on paper...?


True, but in classical music there are authored musical_ ideas and aesthetic approaches and styles,_ such as Beethoven's, which exist in the abstract, as written scores, as _potentialities, and also as historic artifacts, like books.

_ This Platonic aspect of classical music exists before the performance, and has taken of an aura of 'reverence' among both players and listeners. This hierarchy in classical music still persists in the organization of recordings "by composer," not always by performer.

In popular music or jazz, which is composed and performed in recording studios from essentially aural ideas, this separation of composer/performer does not exist; as in aurally-transmitted unwritten folk music, the performance is the origin of musical ideas, and in many cases the performer is the 'composer.' John Coltrane performing an extended saxophone solo on "My Favorite Things" is the important creative aspect of jazz, and is most valued. The performer is at the top of the hierarchy.



Woodduck said:


> ...or that the best performance is the one that succeeds in adding nothing to what the written score contains?


Well, there are classical traditionalists who insist that the performer is only a servant of the composer, and should not intrude.



Woodduck said:


> The fact that popular music tends to be written with a particular performer, performance, and even recording in mind does make the score (if one exists) less determinative of the heard product. That was true of popular music before the recording era as well.


That's because oral and aural traditions transmit ideas by ear, and they are stored in 'biological memory,' unwritten. Thus, these sorts of ideas change, and are not consistent. Written scores introduced the idea of authorship, and music which could be more consistent and true to the composer's intent. Plus, we're talking large groups of musicians here, not four or five guys sitting around a fire, or four Beatles in a studio.



Woodduck said:


> But music more dependent on specific instructions is still, and always was, written to be interpreted, performed, and heard. Schumann tells us what notes he wants played, by what instrument, and roughly how loud and fast.


Yes, but it also puts the emphasis on the composer; the performers in an orchestra are employees following instructions in an hierarchy which puts composer and conductor on top, and performers to the lower parts of the pyramid. Classical music, in this regard, is an hierarchy of power which parallels the social power structure, rather than the 'tribe' or individual or jazz group.

In popular and folk musics, the performer is at the top of the hierarchy; and with the advent of sound recordings, their performances can now have a consistency which rivals the former domination of the written score.



Woodduck said:


> Not even Schumann himself would have expected, or wanted, every performer of his work to render it in an identical manner.


Nor would he have wanted them to change, or add notes.

The point I wish to make is that written scores are more consistent in preserving unchanging ideas than aurally-performed music in the era before sound could be recorded.



Woodduck said:


> How much less, then, should we entertain any conceit about performances, or even scores themselves, being "definitive."


The Beatles record catalogue is definitive, since they are recorded artifacts. Popular recordings which are conceived and created as 'definitive artifacts' such as Pet Sounds, Beatle albums, etc, are easily seen as 'definitive.'

Not so in classical; its history, in the era before recording, created a different paradigm, as I have explained.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Nereffid's hesitancy to see any recorded version of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as 'definitive' is based on the mythology of the pre-recording era, when the composer was at the top of the hierarchy, because 'the score as idea' was his, and was the only fixed version which was an essentially unchanging set of instructions and musical ideas. The score was not simply a set of unchanging instructions, though; the score embodyies a consistent 'unchanging' musical idea, thus it is a written recording of a musical idea, and in written form it takes on the characteristic of an 'idealized' Platonic musical idea. Thus, the mythology arose of the score (as ideal Platonic idea), as being 'definitive' in that sense, like written scripture. "In the beginning was the word." And the conductor said, "Let there be sound," and there was sound. Classical music hierarchy is: Conductor at top, as "God," with the sacred Platonic idea; then conductor as demi-god, bringing the Word to light, manifesting "God's" will.


This is an intriguing overinterpretation of what I wrote!
First off, I'm not sure why you said "hesitancy" when clearly it was _flat-out refusal_ on my part.
Second, if I based my statement on any mythology - which I didn't, but let's say I had - then it was a _rejection_ of the mythology of the _recording_ era, where claims have been (and still are) made that there can be such a thing as a definitve recording.
Third, there's no need invoke either Plato or God. There can't be a definitive recording of a score for the same reason that there can't be a definitive response to the instruction "go to the shop down the road and get me 2 litres of milk". The instruction can be followed many ways and still be completed correctly, but we'd never say one particular way was the definitive one.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

As a postmodernist, I believe strongly that the concept of "definitive work" tells more about the historical circumstances that went into determining the criteria for it being considered a definitive work rather than explication of the work itself in many cases.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> As a postmodernist, I believe strongly that the concept of "definitive work" tells more about the historical circumstances that went into determining the criteria for it being considered a definitive work rather than explication of the work itself in many cases.


Yes, you can see it in that historical context, but that works both ways: as means of either 'edifying' the traditional aspects of the work in a spirit of conservative reverence, or in 'exploding' a traditional view of the work, and bringing an old warhorse or obscure work to life in a new and vital way.

Glenn Gould's Bach is a good example. Essentially, the Goldberg Variations did not exist until Gould brought them to life in a startling new way. Some might argue with this, but as far as I'm concerned, it's true. Wanda Landowska performed them too, but they were just historical preservations, mummifications for conservatives.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, you can see it in that historical context, but that works both ways: as means of either 'edifying' the traditional aspects of the work in a spirit of conservative reverence, or in 'exploding' a traditional view of the work, and bringing an old warhorse or obscure work to life in a new and vital way.


If you have never before heard the piece, or barely know it, wouldn't _any_ good interpretation, both a reverential one or vitalizing one, sound new? You'd have nothing else with which to compare. It's a new experience.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Given the rather primitive nature of my playback equipment, I just simply choose the version that gives me more of what I want to hear in a piece I've come to know well.

Way back in the 1970's I had the opportunity of hearing Brahms' 4th Symphony performed by Bruno Walter on my friend's state-of-the-art equipment. Normally, I did not care for BW (too slow by half, for my taste, in just about everything). But, I was blown away by the album in question because of the smooth-as-silk recording. I'd never heard anything that good before (and still haven't since).

But, I did not go back and buy the Bruno Walter Brahms Fourth for my own collection, because on my stereo, the only thing I would have noticed was how slow it was.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> If you have never before heard the piece, or barely know it, wouldn't _any_ good interpretation, both a reverential one or vitalizing one, sound new? You'd have nothing else with which to compare. It's a new experience.


Yes. but if the performance/recording doesn't 'grab' you, you might pass it over. It's always nice to hear a 'revelatory' performance of a work you were previously only cursorily familiar with. This has happened to me with Vivaldi (Giulio Carmignola) and Bach (Glenn Gould), Handel (Lorraine Hunt singing the arias), and John Cage (Jeanne Kirstein).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In a way, the classical approach, of a work existing in unrealized form, in a 'Platonic state,' is an advantage; it demonstrates the power and worth of a good musical idea. I suppose the analogue to this in popular music would be 'a good song' that stands up over time, with various performances. In the case of jazz, this has been proven by the 'songbooks' of American tin-pan alley composers like Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Rogers & Hammerstein/Hart, and others.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> ...if the performance/recording doesn't 'grab' you, you might pass it over. It's always nice to hear a 'revelatory' performance of a work you were previously only cursorily familiar with.


I've been grabbed by pretty much everything I have purchased. As I said earlier, I didn't just pull them out of a hat :tiphat:

So, for those of us less in the know, we need a list of the revelatory artists and the just reverential ones


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Another way to see if a recording is definitive is if it's the sole recording for a certain composition. For example, some of the 21th century compositions have only one recording of it.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

So, I am wondering...

If a listener is not a musician and has not or cannot read the score, how would s/he know whether a performance is a reverential or a revelatory one? Hearing many versions might help, but likely it would mostly just help one decide which appeals the most, but the listener still would not really know which performance is the closest to a straight rendition of the score and which one is the most idiosyncratic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> So, I am wondering...
> 
> If a listener is not a musician and has not or cannot read the score, how would s/he know whether a performance is a reverential or a revelatory one? Hearing many versions might help, but likely it would mostly just help one decide which appeals the most, but the listener still would not really know which performance is the closest to a straight rendition of the score and which one is the most idiosyncratic.


I don't think you need the score at all; you can tell just by hearing something. The criterion of 'staying faithful to the score' is an artifact of the old traditional view, which underplays the performers. To me, it's all about appeal.

The 'revelation' comes from hearing other recordings, then suddenly being struck by something in a new recording that you never heard in that way before.

If a recording brings out something that I never noticed before from another recording, then it's one more look at the multi-faceted diamond. The 2-piano reduction of Stravinsky's* Rite *was revelatory to me, in that I could hear some of the chords and rhythms more clearly, or in a different light.

In a way, the endless search for a 'definitive' recording is like a holy grail quest. To me, the different realisations of a score are like different views of a diamond, in search of a Platonic, idealized version which may exist in my mind only; as a 'work in progress'.

Being somewhat of an audiophile, I am persuaded by good recordings, too. This doesn't mean simply higher resolution or better fidelity; I am more affected by engineering and production. John McClure of Columbia Masterworks would sometimes place an extra microphone or two in parts of the orchestra which tended to be subsumed in other recordings. Like, he would mike a glockenspiel to make it come through more clearly, etc.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think you need the score at all; you can tell just by hearing something. The criterion of 'staying faithful to the score' is an artifact of the old traditional view, which underplays the performers. To me, it's all about appeal.
> 
> The 'revelation' comes from hearing other recordings, then suddenly being struck by something in a new recording that you never heard in that way before.
> 
> ...


So, it doesn't matter which recording you hear first. The second one will always sound revelatory, as you will invariably hear something in it that you didn't hear in the first :devil:

Parallel to your new hearing of Stravinsky's Sacre in a 2-piano reduction, I had the same experience with Mahler's LvdE in the original piano version.

This seems to sum up the subject well: the "search... [for an] ...idealized version...may exist in... [the] mind only...".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

You can apply Occam's razor to the platonic objects, the forms. You have a score and bunch of performance practices which _suggest_ ways of making sounds, but how the music will go is underdetermined. You have players' imaginative responses to the score and traditional practices. These come together to result in a performance.

There's a third element, which is the listener. I'm not at all sure how he fits into the picture, but I am sure that he has a major role to play.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

There's a model of classical music which I once started to explore, it may be relevant to the discussion here, I don't know. I call it the Private Internal Performance model. PIP.

According to PIP, the composer has a certain idea in mind about what the music should sound like. He writes down the composition in what is often an imperfect notation. The notation that Beethoven and Bach and Mozart used more or less indicates relative pitches and rhythms, some tempos and some phrasing and articulation. All the rest -- absolute dynamics, relative dynamics, contrapuntal balances, rhythmic nuances, tone colours -- are hardly specified at all as far as I know. And it's the job of the interpreter to try to unearth as many clues as he can about the PIP.


The model which I want to present as an alternative is one where the composers have no privileged access on how the music should sound. Either he has no PIP, (this may be the case for Ferneyhough for example) or if he has a PIP it's not part of the music he has composed. Rather, the composer is fully aware that the notation radically under-determines the sound of the music, and accepts this. He accepts the creative right of performers to decide how the music will sound, at least in the areas not fully defined by his chosen notation. This creative role of performers is all part of the game, the form of life. I call this model anti-PIP.


----------

