# Are Certain Recordings "Essential"?



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

In effect, this sort of takes off on a thread below, about "essential CDs." My question -- do you accept the idea that there are certain, indispensable recordings of certain classical pieces? In other words, do you believe that this or that work can't truly be "understood" without having heard a particular rendition of it?

I know the attitude is quite prevalent in opera (the genre I'm most familiar with); for instance, the 1953 Victor de Sabata/Maria Callas _Tosca_ is said to be definitive and the one every serious opera fan has to have, or at least hear. How prevalent is the same attitude in other areas of classical music, and do you agree with it?

Also, what are some "must own" recordings that you don't personally like?


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

A couple of tears ago I would have answered the question with a Yes.
Now I am not so sure. The thing that has changed my mind is being able to access multiple versions of works via streaming. My 'definitive' Beethoven 5th Symphony with Kleiber has now been demoted to favourite because I have so much choice. Likewise the Dorati complete Haydn now has to compete with the HIP crowd.
I still have my favourites but definitive versions are becoming a thing of the past with me, I suspect


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I think there are a handful of essential recordings for any given work that everyone with an interest in that work should at least hear once. Everyone with an interest in Beethoven’s Eroica should at least hear Furtwangler, Toscanini, and Klemperer. In fact I prefer the label “essential” to “definitive,” as I don’t think it is possible for any one recording to be the last word (though Callas’s Tosca certainly comes close!).


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2018)

No, in a word. I may or may not take into consideration the opinions of others but the bottom line for me is the only judge that matters for MY listening pleasure is _me_. I don't care if X is supposedly the "essential/definitive" rendition if I have heard it and prefer the rendition by Y. If I'm splashing out my hard earned on one, it will be the Y. I'm not going to buy the X and listen to it until I come to agree with the arbiters.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

dogen said:


> No, in a word. I may or may not take into consideration the opinions of others but the bottom line for me is the only judge that matters for MY listening pleasure is _me_. I don't care if X is supposedly the "essential/definitive" rendition if I have heard it and prefer the rendition by Y. If I'm splashing out my hard earned on one, it will be the Y. I'm not going to buy the X and listen to it until I come to agree with the arbiters.


What he said. .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bellinilover said:


> In effect, this sort of takes off on a thread below, about "essential CDs." My question -- do you accept the idea that there are certain, indispensable recordings of certain classical pieces? In other words, do you believe that this or that work can't truly be "understood" without having heard a particular rendition of it? ....


I have lots of "essential recordings" - ones that I consider essential, and top of the line....but those are my choices. other people may disagree completely....


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

dogen said:


> No, in a word. I may or may not take into consideration the opinions of others but the bottom line for me is the only judge that matters for MY listening pleasure is _me_. I don't care if X is supposedly the "essential/definitive" rendition if I have heard it and prefer the rendition by Y. If I'm splashing out my hard earned on one, it will be the Y. I'm not going to buy the X and listen to it until I come to agree with the arbiters.


I tend to agree with this in the sense that I _know_ certain recordings are considered "essential" or "the best," but those aren't necessarily the ones I most _enjoy_ listening to.

A case in point is that famous Callas/de Sabata _Tosca_ of 1953. I've come to believe that if anything about it is "definitive," it's the conducting. Maestro de Sabata took the work completely seriously and made Puccini sound like "great music" (it is great music, of course, but maybe it wasn't generally considered so at the time?). That said, I'm not the _biggest_ fan of Callas or Gobbi (though I respect them), I don't like di Stefano much at all, and there are simply a couple other _Tosca_s (including one on DVD -- Gheorgiu, Kaufmann, and Terfel at Covent Garden, with Pappano conducting) that I'd rather play for pleasure. Are they better than the de Sabata? Arguably not, but I enjoy them more.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Are Certain Recordings "Essential"?

Yes. I believe there are. These are the recordings that have generally stood the test of time and listeners have collectively shown a particularly high degree of interest in them historically by the devotees and connoisseurs of the music, such as certain recordings by Furtwangler, Callas, Kempf, et alia.

Such recordings are usually indicated as "essential ones," and for those who love CM, worth having the curiosity to hear them at least once during a lifetime so one can decide whether those recordings are considered essential _by you._

Even with the "essential" records, it does not mean that one will necessarily like them. But it's still the opportunity for each new or individual listener to compare his or her own judgement of such "essentials" (or classic recordings considered worthy of repeated listening over a lifetime) with the judgement of others and their collective opinion about the aesthetic value or enjoyment of a particular recording, and no one is obligated to agree with them. I'm eager to hear such recordings because I'm interested in finding out for myself what may be timeless or something unusually revealing about a performer presumably at his or her best. Those who lack such curiosity might not consider any recording as "essential," and of course, there's a place for simply enjoying the pleasure and journey of music without the comparative listening.

So yes, there are what I would consider "essential" recordings, the ones that have attracted a great deal of collective public interest over the decades, worth hearing by those who wish to be considered as seasoned and historically knowledgeable listeners of what many would consider being the consummate or magically idiomatic performances by reputedly great orchestras, soloists, and vocalists.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Essential"? Makes me think of the old saw, "The graveyards are full of indispensable men." Certainly there are no recordings that would damage my life deeply if they disappeared, or for which I would be noticeably poorer if they had never existed at all.

Maybe a clear definition of "essential" would help. But agreed-on definitions of such terms are quite rare around here.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Essential"? Makes me think of the old saw, "The graveyards are full of indispensable men." Certainly there are no recordings that would damage my life deeply if they disappeared, or for which I would be noticeably poorer if they had never existed at all.
> 
> Maybe a clear definition of "essential" would help. But agreed-on definitions of such terms are quite rare around here.


My definition, at least, would be, "a recording one has to own or hear in order to get a complete 'picture' of the work in question."


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Then by that definition do you have to listen to every recording to get a complete picture?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Everyone with an interest in Beethoven's Eroica should at least hear Furtwangler, Toscanini, and Klemperer.


An alternative view is that all versions should be listened to with an open mind. The three you've chosen may be fantastic (though you don't say which Toscanini, for example) but what about much newer versions? Should all current conductors and orchestras give up because the definitives have already been recorded?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2018)

dogen said:


> If I'm splashing out my hard earned on one,


Exactly the reason why I might start with the alleged essential: there are so many, where do I start?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm happy with recordings that score say 80-90 out of 100. The added value of exploring (and eventually owning) a 90-100 points 'essential' version of the same work have to be weighed against the use of that time (and cash) to listen to other works. I'd rather choose the latter option.

Of course, when I'm going to buy a new work of which there are many recordings (which is rare nowadays for me), I'll search a bit for recommendations. But not necessarily an essential one.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

There are certainly some recordings that seem to resonate with a relatively high proportion of listeners. These could be called "essential" only in the sense that there might therefore be a relatively high chance that such a recording will also resonate with any given new listener.
But it's important to be aware of the many potential biases and other external factors that lead to a recording becoming - and remaining - well received by listeners.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

If by "essential" you mean the perfect embodiment in a compact disk of the Platonic ideal of a piece of music tentatively gestured at in a composer's score, then yes, I would say there are essential recordings.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't believe that there are essential recordings that everyone should hear; musical tastes are too personal.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Haydn man said:


> Then by that definition do you have to listen to every recording to get a complete picture?


No, because supposedly the "essential" recordings are essential because _they_ are the most profound, or "complete," interpretations of the work.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think a strong case can be made for those recordings, obviously of works by composers who lived well into the era of quality sound reproduction, where the performer(s)--conductor, soloist(s)--premiered the piece and/or worked closely with the composer. I have posted before of the two Hovhaness concertos, _Lousadzak_ and the 2nd violin concerto, where the premieres and the recordings were made by close associates of Hovhaness. The three piano concertos of Bartók as performed by György Sándor belong in that category, I should think. When we get to Rachmaninoff's Rachmaninoff and sound quality begins to trail off and there are so many other available performances, then things get less certain. Ditto Prokofiev and some other contemporaries.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

dogen said:


> No, in a word. I may or may not take into consideration the opinions of others but the bottom line for me is the only judge that matters for MY listening pleasure is _me_. I don't care if X is supposedly the "essential/definitive" rendition if I have heard it and prefer the rendition by Y. If I'm splashing out my hard earned on one, it will be the Y. I'm not going to buy the X and listen to it until I come to agree with the arbiters.


Absolutely disagree. There is a reason certain works and certain recordings resonate and garner the reputations they do. It is what all artists strive for, to resonate with others.

At the same time there is a reason we sometimes give things the label "overrated." Sometimes reputation becomes overblown hype, and it is based more on what is said and written than its real, intrinsic value. We can sometimes be lazy and simply buy into hype. So yes, ultimately, we each have to be the judge of whether a reputation is earned. I have found more often than not there is a reason for the hype.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are no essential recordings and there are no definitive recordings. There are some that have over time taken on legendary status, often for good reason, but that still doesn't make them essential. Even something as legendary as the Solti Ring or Beecham's Scheherazade, great recordings no doubt, have competition that others will prefer for quite valid reasons.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> There are no essential recordings and there are no definitive recordings. There are some that have over time taken on legendary status, often for good reason, but that still doesn't make them essential. Even something as legendary as the Solti Ring or Beecham's Scheherazade, great recordings no doubt, have competition that others will prefer for quite valid reasons.


I guess you are using the word "definitive" then to exclude any meaning of it that would embrace, say, Rachmaninoff's performance of any of his piano concertos. What would then be the most accurate adjective to substitute for definitive in such an instance?


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Absolutely disagree*. There is a reason certain works and certain recordings resonate and garner the reputations they do. It is what all artists strive for, to resonate with others.
> 
> At the same time there is a reason we sometimes give things the label "overrated." Sometimes reputation becomes overblown hype, and it is based more on what is said and written than its real, intrinsic value. We can sometimes be lazy and simply buy into hype. *So yes, ultimately, we each have to be the judge* of whether a reputation is earned. I have found more often than not there is a reason for the hype.


So what is it you've absolutely disagreed with?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Even something as legendary as the Solti Ring or Beecham's Scheherazade, great recordings no doubt, have competition that others will prefer for quite valid reasons.


Then those ones may be essential too. Reiner's Scheherazade, in particular.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> I guess you are using the word "definitive" then to exclude any meaning of it that would embrace, say, Rachmaninoff's performance of any of his piano concertos. What would then be the most accurate adjective to substitute for definitive in such an instance?


It's worth considering whether Rachmaninov would have regarded his own performances of his concerti 'essential', let alone 'definitive'.

This thread could get tied up in differing understandings of what constitutes 'essential', and I'm on the side of ear-of-the-beholder. For example, Arrau's Chopin Nocturnes would be essential _for me_ if I were setting up an essential collection, but I'm well aware that others prefer a less cerebral approach to those works. How about Brigitte Engerer's recording of the Nocturnes?




Essential or definitive?

Terms such as 'memorable, engaging' may be more fluffy than the apparent rigour of 'essential, definitive', but I suspect they come closer to describing what gives one performance or recording a more persistent legacy than another.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

For some listeners the word “essential” implies a great deal of objective public or historic interest or curiosity about a particular recording over the years, related to a work or composer and not necessarily that one happens to like it. But I think that if one wanted to understand Rachmaninoff’s music better, more deeply and authentically, that it might be considered ‘essential’ to hear how he played his own music, whether one ended up performing it that way or not, and probably not but somehow related in mood or feeling. 

Or how about Stravinsky conducting Stravinsky? Not ‘essential’ for someone to hear during their lifetime by way of gaining some measure of illumination or a greater understanding of how he may have wanted his scores interpreted?—at least from a musician’s standpoint. 

But for most listeners it probably doesn’t matter whether they ever hear the original or what some might consider ‘essential’ recordings, and in that sense there are probably no essentials—and there’s that side of it too. Without some reason or curiosity to hear them, no recording is probably ‘essential’.

If Chopin had left a recording of his Nocturnes, now that’s what I would consider an ‘essential’ recording and not necessarily Claudio Arrau’s, as fine as his is. Arrau’s is a popular, a favorite recording for many listeners, but may not be an ‘essential’ one. Perhaps the main thing is that no one feels an obligation or pressure to hear anything, because then the experience can become a tedious chore and lessen the enjoyment.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

'Essential recordings' tend to be ones you grew up with.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

manyene said:


> 'Essential recordings' tend to be ones you grew up with.


Here, "favorite", I believe, is the ruling adjective. I vote to eliminate "essential" from the discussion, in favor of the binary "definitive"/"favorite". Sometimes these will be the same recording . Sound quality is often, though, the place where paths diverge.

Here is an example of a particular case: There may be a definitive performance of _Scheherazade _, but I don't want to hear any recording of _Scheherazade_. So here we have a case of definitive being neither favorite nor essential .


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Here is an example of a particular case: There may be a definitive performance of _Scheherazade _, but I don't want to hear any recording of _Scheherazade_. So here we have a case of definitive being neither favorite nor essential .


Likewise the Ring Cycle!

[Runs for cover, hides under table]


----------



## EchoEcho (Jan 31, 2016)

For works off the beaten path there are fewer available versions. In some cases, one or two are considered quite a bit better than others – due to higher production values if nothing else.

I suppose those could be considered essential recordings for that composer.

For more mainstream works, there are often half-a-dozen or more (sometimes much more) recordings of comparable high quality. In these cases choosing an essential recording (or even reference recording) is mostly subjective.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EchoEcho said:


> For works off the beaten path there are fewer available versions. In some cases, one or two are considered quite a bit better than others - due to higher production values if nothing else.
> 
> I suppose those could be considered essential recordings for that composer.
> 
> For more mainstream works, there are often half-a-dozen or more (sometimes much more) recordings of comparable high quality. In these cases choosing an essential recording (or even reference recording) is mostly subjective.


And how _do you_ define mainstream works


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Pugg said:


> And how _do you_ define mainstream works


One measure of mainstream-ness of works--easy to quantify--is number of recordings of that work. Easy as pie!


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2018)

EchoEcho said:


> For works off the beaten path there are fewer available versions. In some cases, one or two are considered quite a bit better than others - due to higher production values if nothing else.
> 
> I suppose those could be considered essential recordings for that composer.
> 
> For more mainstream works, there are often half-a-dozen or more (sometimes much more) recordings of comparable high quality. In these cases choosing an essential recording (or even reference recording) is mostly subjective.


Absolutely. For the mainstream, you could spend a lifetime checking out all the versions available. By contrast, when you are off the beaten track I have found it's sometimes a case of this.....or, well, this. (Or none at all!  )


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I can't believe the lack of idealism I'm seeing in this thread from the tired and jaded old collectors--newbies are advised to ignore the naysayers and chase the Holy Grail! It's fun, *********.

If rather expensive and probably a waste of time, but as I said never mind that.

You know, I really love writing in white font. It gives you such freedom. You can completely contradict yourself, and few will be any the wiser.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Konrad Lorenz won a Nobel Prize, mostly for his groundbreaking work on imprinting. He demonstrated how greylag geese (and later, many other species) instinctively follow the first moving object close to them. We find that the same mechanism often--not always, but often--is at work when classical music lovers first hear a work (usually a recording) whose intrinsic musical qualities appeal to them: that particular performance (usually a recording) strongly is imprinted upon them and becomes a favorite, a preferred expression of that work often for decades thereafter. There may come, later, other versions that displace the first in their affections, for all sorts of reasons--better sound quality;closer adherence to the score (important to some but not others); old version lost, broken, or worn out; pure idiosyncrasy. But as long as everybody knows what they like and likes what they know , all is well.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Konrad Lorenz won a Nobel Prize, mostly for his groundbreaking work on imprinting. He demonstrated how greylag geese (and later, many other species) instinctively follow the first moving object close to them. We find that the same mechanism often--not always, but often--is at work when classical music lovers first hear a work (usually a recording) whose intrinsic musical qualities appeal to them: that particular performance (usually a recording) strongly is imprinted upon them and becomes a favorite, a preferred expression of that work often for decades thereafter. There may come, later, other versions that displace the first in their affections, for all sorts of reasons--better sound quality;closer adherence to the score (important to some but not others); old version lost, broken, or worn out; pure idiosyncrasy. But as long as everybody knows what they like and likes what they know , all is well.


But Lorenz, as a Nazi party member, conducted human racial studies in the belief of the truth of eugenics. Are you therefore suggesting that this is why we cannot all appreciate Wagner? :devil:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Thank you for extricating us from this boring thread on essential recordings and for refocusing us on Wagner, Nazism, and whether each of us, in that time and place, would or would not have been "good Germans". I'm not even sure I'm a 'good American" sometimes.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Thank you for extricating us from this boring thread on essential recordings and for refocusing us on Wagner, Nazism, and whether each of us, in that time and place, would or would not have been "good Germans". I'm not even sure I'm a 'good American" sometimes.


I try to help. Anyway, you started it, you mentioned the geese.


----------



## EchoEcho (Jan 31, 2016)

Pugg said:


> And how _do you_ define mainstream works


Hah! That's easy!

A work is mainstream if and only if there are half a dozen or more available recordings of comparable high quality!

Next question?


----------

