# Comparing recordings of same music



## Sid James

I usually don't have a strong preference for one recording over another, but in some cases I do.

I recently heard Roger Norrington conduct Haydn's _Symphony No. 103 "Drumroll"_ on radio & didn't like it, compared to Dorati's reading (which I had years ago on tape). Dorati seemed to have this birds-eye view of the music, the big picture, whereas Norrington's account was not as unified, he seemed to fuss over the details. I've also got a few recordings of Haydn's London symphonies with Jeffrey Tate conducting which I enjoy very much. He seems to know when to put an emphasis on things, and he's very dramatic (some may say his interpretations of Haydn sound a bit too much like Beethoven, but I don't mind, as long as there's something to grab me).

Similarly, last year I got the Naxos recording of Stravinsky's _The Rite of Spring_ with Robert Craft conducting. I immediately thought it was far too restrained, seemed to lack gusto. Then I got an ABC Classics recording of the same work with Hiroyuki Iwaki conducting, and I liked that better - it was far more dramatic & wild. Oddly enough, I don't mind the couplings (which Craft also conducts) on the same Naxos disc, but I almost can't stand his _Rite_.

I'm interested in similar comparisons people have made of different recordings of the same work or similar repertoire. Which ones do you like, which ones do you not like, etc? Please share these impressions here...


----------



## Air

I don't have the time nor energy to reply to this thread, as this is something I basically do all the time.

I'll just add that I never have felt the need to _choose_ one recording over another, as each is a completely different experience for me. In fact, it probably has more to do with how well I understand the performers _themselves_ (their personality, their vision, etc.). Each musician will have a different "sound world" that one has to pick up over time. It's just like getting to know a person - it can be tough sometimes, but when you get to understand the performer through and through, the music suddenly has greater meaning. There's very few great musicians that just _play_. I think some people fail to acknowledge that.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't know that I have a preference for one performer or performance over another as much as I acknowledge that there can be a profound difference between different performances of the same work. I've probably got rid of any performance that I really didn't like. I'm also quite careful in reading up on recordings and taking the time to listen to samples of available recordings before I purchase a given work. Over time... and with experience... I have come to learn what to expect from a given conductor/performer/soloist. It is probably with singers that I have the greatest variety of performances of the same works. I have 6 or 7 recordings of Schubert's _Winterreise_ and probably 4 each of Richard Strauss' _Four Last Songs_ and Mahler's _Song of the Earth_. I also have 6 or 7 recordings of Beethoven's 9th and Bach's _Goldberg Variations_ and _Well Tempered Clavier._

In most instances, however, I tend to seek out a single excellent recording of a given work... and with a good number of my most beloved among these I may eventually seek out a second recording. In most cases I don't think one can say that there is a definitive best recording of a given canonical work. It's absurd, for example, to listen to others dismiss Kempff's or Brendel's or Barenboim's or Rubinstein's recordings of Beethoven's piano sonatas in favor of Gulda, Solomon, or Schnabel. In the field of opera, such a dismissal of performers seems even more prevalent... with fans of one singer becoming absolutely nasty about the performances of others. The comments directed toward Anna Netrebko or Renee Fleming or Cecilia Bartoli on sites such as YouTube by fans of another singer can be simply hurtful and disgusting... and have little or nothing to do with the real merits of the performers. Each performer brings something unique to his interpretation, and each performer that has gained a certain reputation has probably earned their reputation for a reason. (Of course there are always those who imagine that they will somehow earn brownie points for championing a more esoteric and unknown performer... rather like the kid in high-school who snubbed his nose at Pink Floyd because he was a fan of some virtually unknown British punk band or German techno-rock group.) As a music-lover, we can only put forth the effort to discern which performers and performances speak most to us.

When I decide to look into a second performance/recording of a given work of music I tend to look for a interpretation that is somewhat removed from that which I own. Indeed, I may make the decision that I want another interpretation because I want to have an HIP recording of a piece by Mozart or Haydn which I own which was performed by a more traditional, big romantic orchestra. Currently, for example, I've been purchasing Rene Jacobs' recordings of Mozart's operas which bring a fresh muscularity and a pared-down sound that is arguably closer to what Mozart intended. This doesn't mean, however, that I would surrender my recordings by Giulini, Böhm, Klemperer, Karajan, etc... Recently I purchase Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recordings of Debussy's piano works which I find to be quite exquisite. I don't see these, however, as replacing my classic Gieseking recordings. 
I love Renee Fleming's recording or Strauss _Four Last Songs_... but in no way would I be without Gundula Janowitz' or Elizabeth Schwarzkopf's versions... each quite different from the other.

Seriously, I think the question you ask is too broad. Certainly I can point out my favorite recordings of certain specific works... or offer you some idea of how several different interpretations of a specific work differ between performances... but for as broad of a question as you have asked the best I might do is offer a list of performers, soloists, and conductors who I have found to be among the best... and I don't really think that is what you are after.


----------



## joen_cph

Hearing and buying various recordings of the same work means exploring its content and its qualities. Moreover, the various accompanying texts etc. for the issues can give insight to the cultural context and the views of the performers. The same work can sound completely different in the hands of different performers, and a lack of emotional commitment or architectural structuring, for instance, or a preference for a certain kind of historical instruments, tempi or sound, all play their part in making each recording unique. In most cases, except from the most banal, mechanistic works, I honestly don´t think one can claim to know a piece of music without hearing a couple of very different recorded versions of it (or better still, more than a couple ...). The performance amounts to a lot as regards exploring a works´ value. A colleague of mine even provocatively once said:"There´s no bad music - just bad interpretations !". If you only know the Jupiter Symphony from a light-footed, rustic-sounding Pinnock performance, Rach III from an incoherent Helfgott, or a lifeless Nielsen V with Schønwandt, there are totally different worlds and experiences to discover in Karajan/emi, Argerich/philips or Bernstein/sony. And I find it hard to believe that the first-mentioned ones can be said to have the quality or level as the last-mentioned ones. 


> It's absurd, for example, to listen to others dismiss Kempff's or Brendel's or Barenboim's or Rubinstein's recordings of Beethoven's piano sonatas in favor of Gulda, Solomon, or Schnabel. .(...) As a music-lover, we can only put forth the effort to discern which performers and performances speak most to us.


 Even one´s personal preferences apart, I don´t agree with the apparent assumption that all generally acknowledged musicians must necessarily have added something in their interpretations and performances that make them equally praiseworthy - but you also seem to modify this view at the end ? On the contrary, a built-up name can be the result of an early break-through long ago, or non-musical, partly commercial, factors - such as good looks, a popular repertoire, a factor of look-this-child-can-even-play-a-real-piano-and-looks-sweet, or the like. _ A positive judgment by a listener or an audience is always limited by the comparative material at hand, the celebrity factor, and the willingness to explore the music further_. The amount of comparative material will vary, and some people just prefer some pleasant music-makíng. Popularity or positive reviews are therefore not necessarily a label of quality. The _canon _ of elder recordings tends to recede into the shadows as time goes by and new names, more or less heavily promoted, turn up. Even The Gramophone reviews have declined into something less discerning and valuable than what they once were, for instance, and some newspaper critics clearly don´t have a clue of what they are talking about - like the one cited in a Naxos catalogue that principally "Naxos Recordings are always the best recordings". Karajan, for instance, made a lot of fine recordings, but he also developed into an industry heavily promoted by his company; DG succeeded very well in establishing an aura of quality and nobility around their label, and their many recorded artists have vastly benefitted from this. Likewise even the later Callas or Pavarotti - or the continuingly shouting Carreras - still have their wholly committed admirers, in spite of obvious and downright embarrasing shortcomings.

Performers thus usually do have their personal characteristics. But I agree that judging a performance simply by the name of the performer can be too superficial. It is often underrated how interpretations change with age and circumstances surrounding the performance. Musicians have inspired moments and longer routinely periods. In very general terms, among talented musicians there is often a tendency of high-voltage _Sturm-und-Drang _ in the musician´s youth, with fiery and energetic performances, but, when they become older, a slowing down and preference for a rendering of the music´s structure or details. Rubinstein, Richter, Arrau, Klemperer, Previn, Celibidache, Walter, Serkin and many others are examples of this. But some musicians don´t seem to have the technical surplus to explore levels beyond the notes at all. Others appear emotionally monotonous or restrained. Both are aspects that I find make the recording of less importance - one is left with the feeling that there isn´t much at stake.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Even one´s personal preferences apart, I don´t agree with the apparent assumption that all generally acknowledged musicians must necessarily have added something in their interpretations and performances that make them equally praiseworthy - but you also seem to modify this view at the end ? 

Certainly not all musicians or performers that have attained a degree of critical recognition are inherently equal... but who or what is more equal than the rest is always open to debate. Glenn Gould's recordings of Bach, for example, are highly regarded... even revered... by many who would seem to have some knowledge of what they are listening to and talking about... but there are those who revile his idiosyncrasies.

On the contrary, a built-up name can be the result of an early break-through long ago, or non-musical, partly commercial, factors - such as good looks, a popular repertoire, a factor of look-this-child-can-even-play-a-real-piano-and-looks-sweet, or the like.

Yes... but the opposite is equally true. We have those who will dismiss the work of this soprano or that violinist for the very reason that they are good looking, popular, or new. There are always those who strive for that aura of "I'm so much more hip than you mere mortals," by arguing that the greatest performance of this Puccini aria is sung by some French soprano on a wax recording dating to 1913 or that the greatest performance of that particular piano work is is by some Argentine worker that no one else has ever heard of. In other words, there is an equal bias simply because this performer is good-looking, popular, or more contemporary which equally has nothing to do with the merits of the work.

I do agree that reputations continue after a performer's work has fallen into decline. The late efforts of Maria Callas or Pavarotti, to name but two, are certainly not the best... and Calls herself surely recognized this. To this we might add that some performers are at their best within a certain repertoire... and less so elsewhere.

A positive judgment by a listener or an audience is always limited by the comparative material at hand, the celebrity factor, and the willingness to explore the music further. The amount of comparative material will vary...

Yes... the ability to judge one performance from another is limited by the experience of listener... not only to the various performances of the work in question... but also to a broad array of performers in general. One who is familiar with the efforts of Adrian Boult, von Karajan, William Christie, or Jordi Savall will have the advantage of having some idea of what to expect from such conductors and may make a judgment as to whether or not they would find them suited to the repertoire at hand... but ultimately each performance can only be judged on a one-to-one basis.

Popularity or positive reviews are therefore not necessarily a label of quality. The canon of elder recordings tends to recede into the shadows as time goes by and new names, more or less heavily promoted, turn up. 

Certainly there is no guarantee that newer performances are better than older... or vis-versa. In most cases I will seek out at least one of each among my more beloved works. I love Klemperer's grandiose recording of Bach's St. Matthew Passion with such peerless singers as Schwarzkopf, Peter Pears, and Fischer-Dieskau... but I would not have it as my sole recording of this work. I most certainly must have a solid HIP recording... perhaps by Herreweghe or Gardiner.

Yes, we must take critical reviews with a grain of salt... but the same holds true here as in Grammophone or the Penguin Guide. Comments that wholly dismiss von Karajan, Netrebko, Perahia, Gardiner, etc... are as useless as those that dismiss Mozart in preference for Alkan, Sibelius, or Godowsky. One gets the feeling that such critical comments are just as much rooted in elements extraneous to the music as those who might proclaim this or that performer unmatched simply based upon their popularity or good looks.

Even The Gramophone reviews have declined into something less discerning and valuable than what they once were...

Have they? I tend to read BBC Music more myself... but multiple reviews are always the better route.

...and some newspaper critics clearly don´t have a clue of what they are talking about - 

Of course... but might we not say the same of some here...? Might not some say the same of us when our opinions diverge?


----------



## starry

Sometimes you don't have much of a choice anyway, lesser known composers may only have one performance of a work recorded. There are some things I will still look for another performance of, some pieces I haven't yet been convinced by but haven't given up on as they might be highly acclaimed by some. But in general I just focus on discovering new music to me now rather than finding the perfect performance. Too much music new to me to listen to to bother doing anything else.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The thing is that certain recordings or performances can be so eye-opening that they essentially lead you to see the music anew... as if it were something previously unknown.


----------



## joen_cph

> Of course... but might we not say the same of some here...? Might not some say the same of us when our opinions diverge?


 Agree - which is why reviews and recommendations also telling about the background of comparative material heard - or at least some of the specific qualities of a recording - are much more useful than a mere name-dropping. For instance, if one is making a review of the Nielsen V and haven´t heard the Bernstein recording, the Beethoven 5th without knowing the Carlos Kleiber or the Eroica without the Scherchen - the reviews will suffer from draw-backs, since these are so highly original interpretations - as regards the chosen tempi, the string playing, the architectural and motional drama etc. (Blomstedt for instance stated that he had tried to copy some of its elements in the Nielsen/Bernstien strings, but found it impossible). They are cases of what was decribed above:



> The thing is that certain recordings or performances can be so eye-opening that they essentially lead you to see the music anew... as if it were something previously unknown.


and they even make the major part of other recordings quite expendable.


----------



## Sid James

I think that there is no right and wrong here. Certainly I was not seeking to argue that there is a definitive version of anything. I mean, there are so many different versions, all adding to our appreciation of the music. & most of the time, I like all the different versions I hear. I mean, through radio, borrowing from the library, youtube, and my own small collection, I have heard quite a few versions of key works like Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra _or Janacek's _String Quartets_. Is one better than the other? Probably not, they all have something to offer.

& often, what one thinks as the most absorbing version is the one you have heard first. Probably that was the case with me with Dorati's Haydn. I just get used to a particular performer interpreting a certain area of the repertoire, and I see things from their perspective a bit. In a way, you form preconceptions which may cloud your judgement later on...


----------



## Vaneyes

"Often, what one thinks as the most absorbing version is the one you have heard first."

One example for me, regarding imprinting if not first heard, would be the ACO/Davis' late Dvorak symphonies. It was a long time before Bernstein (7), Chung (8), and Harnoncourt (9) were preferred (one older, and two fairly new recordings).


----------



## starry

Far worse if the first recording you hear of a piece puts you off it for quite some time, which can happen with some uncommitted or unimaginative performances.


----------



## Vaneyes

starry said:


> Far worse if the first recording you hear of a piece puts you off it for quite some time, which can happen with some uncommitted or unimaginative performances.


If there's *something* in it that peaks interest, out of curiosity I'll usually quickly search for other performances. However, as you say, occasionally a performed piece that puts me off will be put on the back burner for some time, until curiosity's aroused. Such a piece was Schumann's Etudes Symphoniques. Richter solved that puzzle.


----------

