# Opera Recording Trade Off Poll



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

There is an opera that you absolutely love and you want to buy a recording of it. All else aside (specific performers, live vs studio, etc), based on the parameters of performance quality and sound quality you are going to choose a performance. There are only five available recordings and they range from great sound quality to terrible. Likewise the performance ranges from great to terrible.

Now here is the dilemma. The quality of performance is inverse to the quality of the recording. You have do decide whether how poor of a performance you can accept for better sound quality, or how poor of sound quality you can accept for a better performance.

As a sort of guide (but not hard and fast):

Great Sound: This is the best it gets in recordings
Good Sound: This is your average decent recording
Okay Sound: You are aware that the sound could be better
Bad Sound: Definitely challenged but listenable
Terrible Sound: This could give you a headache--might end up using the disk for a coaster.

Terrible Performance: This is so bad it makes you cringe constantly.
Bad Performance: Very irritating but you can get through it.
Okay Performance: Serviceable performance, but makes you long for something better.
Good Performance: Very satisfying.
Great Performance: Exceptional and exciting performance, lively and engaging.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

I find that the value of great sound for me diminishes past a certain threshold, and I don't find this to be the case (to the same degree) with performance quality. I often do end up listening to old mono recordings as a result of this anyway, irrespective of artificial dilemmas! Another thing to bear in mind is that sound quality, even if initially uncomfortable, is, in my experience, quite easy to get used to after a certain amount of time listening. On the whole, these thoughts would lead me to prefer a good performance despite bad sound. 

This being said, I don't tend to think of sound quality as a continuous measure, as it were. Rather, I divide recordings into 'mono', 'stereo', etc., and consider the recording quality relative to the category. Given this, it may be that what I think of as 'bad sound' is just 'good mono' or something, so who knows.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Opera is difficult to perform. Great performances are the exception. I'd rather hear _Traviata_ sung like this:






than like this:






or this:






Fine voices and performances all, but only Battistini has the "flower of the lips," bel canto magic. I can compensate mentally for poor sound, and even forget about it altogether if a performance is great. I can't supply what's missing in a performance, no matter how well it's recorded.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

It's all about the voice first for me. 
I'd rather struggle through a Mapleson (well... maybe not go THAT far) ... for a superior voice. 
However, as much as the Battistini is simply rich and classic, I see nothing at all wrong with "my man" Bastianini whose voice (and looks, ahem!) knock me out. 
I mean, just compare that Milnes offering to the Bastianini. What a difference in their voices!
But even Milnes (who does nothing particular for me) sounded good enough that if there was nothing else, I'd purchase it. It isn't a "bad" recording.
What I DON'T prefer, even if it's perfect, is a recoding that is NOT a live recording. That takes precedence over everything --assuming the voice is tops.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Performance is paramount to me.

Of course, if we have a very good sound too, so much the better.

But you just need a piano, your voice and your talent to bridge a gap of 111 years:


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Thankfully, it's a false dilemma. For any given opera, I can experience both great performances and great sound--sometimes even in the same recording!

But of the available poll options, I too would tend more toward strong performance with questionable sound--I've tried to have more of those in my collection than the other way around.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

For me the balance tips slightly depending on the repertoire. Some music depends on sound for its effect. I can't imagine enjoying _Elektra_ very much with the recording quality of an acoustic 78.

But what am I saying? I don't even like _Elektra._ Very much.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> For me the balance tips slightly depending on the repertoire. Some music depends on sound for its effect. I can't imagine enjoying _Elektra_ very much with the recording quality of an acoustic 78.
> 
> But what am I saying? I don't even like _Elektra._ Very much.


Not like Elektra? Are you trying to give me cardiac Orest?

Okay sound. Okay performance.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I went with bad sound, good performance. The caliber of performance is more important to me than recording quality. That said, however, I don't like listening to recordings with a truly _hideous _sound...hisses and crackles definitely interfere with my enjoyment (not to mention coughs, in the case of a live recording!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Not like Elektra? Are you trying to give me cardiac Orest?


"Orest! Orest!" That part's the best. 
It has a heart, unlike the rest.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> "Orest! Orest!" That part's the best.
> It has a heart, unlike the rest.


Yes. From Orest revealing himself to the end of the opera, it is very fine. But the first part is deadly dull.

I simply don't have time
To rhyme.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have been frustrated by enough Toscanini opera, choral and symphonic performances with the most dismal sound imaginable, making it close to impossible to hear the greatness that those lucky people experienced live.

So I could not choose great performance, terrible sound. Been there. Done that.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Thankfully, it's a false dilemma. For any given opera, I can experience both great performances and great sound--sometimes even in the same recording!


Couldn't said it better the this.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Bad sound: good performance. It's sometimes the only way to hear what the French repertoire is supposed to sound like. Terrible sound, though, is something else; the singers may be great, but trying to listen to their singing through a blizzard of acoustic distortion is hell.

EDIT:

On the other hand...






The sound is terrible and distant, but the singer is Faure.

Elderly, long since retired - but this is the man who created roles for Meyerbeer, Verdi, Auber and Thomas, and who was the definitive Méphistophèles.

Terrible sound: great performance. (Or, to be precise, great performer.)


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

I truly do not care about the sound quality in Opera at all. It's the singing that matters for me. 
This is my favorite recording of my favorite Opera: 



Bad sound (not all that bad), top-notch performance. I'd rather listen to that over any over-polished mediocre performance.
I'm also addicted to this kind of sound these days:


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Tuoksu said:


> I truly do not care about the sound quality in Opera at all. It's the singing that matters for me.
> This is my favorite recording of my favorite Opera:
> 
> 
> ...


I thought you were going to post link to callasfan with his great vinyl drop version using BJR 117 as source, that guy is a treasure for any "Callas fan" (formerly known as turnipoverlord)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I truly do not care about the sound quality in Opera at all. It's the singing that matters for me.
> This is my favorite recording of my favorite Opera:
> 
> 
> ...


Mazzoleni is incredible. The consistency, the dynamic control, the expressiveness, that legato! Will we ever hear singing like this again? Sound quality be damned!


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DarkAngel said:


> I thought you were going to post link to callasfan with his great vinyl drop version using BJR 117 as source, that guy is a treasure for any "Callas fan" (formerly known as turnipoverlord)


For the sake of argument I chose not to share the link to turnipoverlord's video as it has the "Best Sound" as usual :lol:
Thanks to him we can have great performances and okay sound.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Mazzoleni is incredible. The consistency, the dynamic control, the expressiveness, that legato! Will we ever hear singing like this again? Sound quality be damned!


She is my latest crush. I hear much more Mazzoleni than Ponselle in Callas' singing. It's stunning how to voice can triumph over such a terrible recording quality. One can only imagine what she sounded like in the house..


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bump for the fun of it. So far nobody wants a great sounding terrible performance.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I'll take Callas in even terrible sound - fortunately, there are not too many (*Nabucco, Vestale, Alceste, Chénier *). In the case of *Nabucco*, the best performance ever of Abigaille, no contest.

Same with Corelli, who shares *Vestale* with Callas, though I think he fared better with his live recordings, sound-wise.

As for other singers's early recordings, I've lost my patience with dim sound (my loss, I know).


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Wow! WOW! *WOW!*

Excellent topic for a poll (and why haven't I noticed it before?)

My first thought was, what? I'm only allowed one opera recording in my collection in this alternative universe!

But it is a very clever way of posing the question (whereas in reality, of course, you would get the great performance in bad sound and then a good performance in perfect studio conditions). It doesn't actually happen in real life that all the great recordings have the worst sound and vice versa.

However, if we take the question to mean, which is more important, the quality of the performance or the quality of the sound (and it's a topic that is alluded to on here quite a bit) then for me it is performance every time. I thought people would go for the more moderate choices in the middle and so I thought I might be the only one to pick the 'best performance - worst sound' category. Publish and be damned I said to myself as I clicked the button... and to my surprise I see that I'm in the same boat as fellow TCers!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Opera is difficult to perform. Great performances are the exception. I'd rather hear _Traviata_ sung like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this! My sound quality tolerance is very high, in fact most studio recordings don't bother me in terms of sound going right back to pretty much the start of studio recording. That's partly because I seek out the best quality transfers, for example the Battistini video here has a dreadful echo to it and is much better heard in the Marston complete arias set, but even in the version on YouTube I prefer his performance so much over Milnes (and who was in the second clip? It is no longer available) that I can put up with the second or third rate aural landscape around the great singing.

Where the sound quality is so low I can't enjoy the performance are in some primitive recordings of live performances where the static and distortion are so high they aren't so much background noise, but are foreground noise that relegates the sung performances to the background.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

MAS said:


> I'll take Callas in even terrible sound - fortunately, there are not too many (*Nabucco, Vestale, Alceste, Chénier *). In the case of *Nabucco*, the best performance ever of Abigaille, no contest.
> 
> Same with Corelli, who shares *Vestale* with Callas, though I think he fared better with his live recordings, sound-wise.
> 
> As for other singers's early recordings, I've lost my patience with dim sound (my loss, I know).


It depends what you mean by dim sound. I tolerate the painful listening experience of the Callas Alceste and Vestale for Callas, but wouldn't for many others (there is a Price/Corelli Aida from the Met in murky sound on GOP and an Olivero/Gobbi Tosca from Verona, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head).

One thing I think gets overlooked in the sound debate is that a lot of these recordings have been released or remastered in better sound in recent years (the latest Warner version of Callas' Chenier has now made that set listenable for example) and niche labels such as Romophone, Marston and Lebendige Vergangenheit had better versions than some of the better known labels such as Nimbus with their Prima Voce series or Pearl. Those who say they can't 'hear' Patti or Battistini obviously haven't heard the Marston sets and those who carp about some of the Callas classics are still basing their opinions on the faulty, scandalous EMI issues of her live legacy rather than the superior Warner, Myto, Divina or Ars Vocalis versions.

N.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

MAS said:


> I'll take Callas in even terrible sound - fortunately, there are not too many (*Nabucco, Vestale, Alceste, Chénier *). In the case of *Nabucco*, the best performance ever of Abigaille, no contest.
> 
> Same with Corelli, who shares *Vestale* with Callas, though I think he fared better with his live recordings, sound-wise.
> 
> As for other singers's early recordings, I've lost my patience with dim sound (my loss, I know).


Have you tried the Callas recording of Armida from Firenze in 1952. This is so bad that even the woodwind has vibrato, constantly.
As for the voice, well, it _could_ be Maria Callas singing, but frankly it's impossible to tell. I bought this recording expecting mediocre sound, what I actually got was so bad I didn't manage to listen to more than 15 minutes of it. This recording is beyond 'terrible' sound and firmly into the realm of unbearable. I've spent a lot of time and effort building a top-class sound system (starting with room acoustics), so any weaknesses in the recording are clearly audible. I can accept a degree of compromise (e.g. Zeani as Violetta on Vinyl that I'm particularly fond of), but that recording of Armida is so poor that for me it's impossible to listen to.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

This is a hard question. In reality, I would buy all of them except maybe the first option. I like good sound, but I'm not so picky that I need ultra high quality audiophile sound. Most late 50s and 60s studio recordings are plenty good for me. But if I could just have one, I might go with good performance bad sound. I could also go with OK sound, OK performance. A lot depends on what the opera is and what I want to get out of it. I'd lean towards better performance in most cases. 

Final choice - bad sound, good performance.

I'm so glad this isn't for real!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Aerobat said:


> Have you tried the Callas recording of Armida from Firenze in 1952. This is so bad that even the woodwind has vibrato, constantly.
> As for the voice, well, it _could_ be Maria Callas singing, but frankly it's impossible to tell. I bought this recording expecting mediocre sound, what I actually got was so bad I didn't manage to listen to more than 15 minutes of it. This recording is beyond 'terrible' sound and firmly into the realm of unbearable. I've spent a lot of time and effort building a top-class sound system (starting with room acoustics), so any weaknesses in the recording are clearly audible. I can accept a degree of compromise (e.g. Zeani as Violetta on Vinyl that I'm particularly fond of), but that recording of Armida is so poor that for me it's impossible to listen to.


Many people here have not only tried the live 1952 Callas *Armida* but also love it, _despite the atrocious sound_ (though more bearable in both its Divina and Warner issues). The supporting cast isn't much to write home about either, but Calals gives us some of the most spectacular dramatic coloartura singing ever captured in sound. Modern recordings might be more comfortable to listen to, but none of the Armidas I've heard on them (Gasdia and Fleming) even begin to approach what Callas achieved. For that I'll put up with the awful sound.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I agree that the '52 Armida has atrocious sound and also that it is the only record we have of a stunning performance of prodigious virtuosity married with dramatic intensity. Soundwise I too would rate it alongside Vestale and Nabucco (Alceste is even worse, it gives me a headache even in the latest Warner remaster). Chenier is a little better.

The Callas Armida is the perfect real life example of the final category in this poll: "Terrible Sound: Great Performance" and as I said above I would rather have that than a "Great Sound: Terrible Performance" recording. In fact Armida is the perfect example because there are two recordings in good sound, but that are lacking in terms of quality of performance. I have the Gasdia to have a complete recording in decent sound and have heard the Fleming one, but she has such a lack of feeling for the cantilena in bel canto that I find it unlistenable despite the good sound.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I agree that the '52 Armida has atrocious sound and also that it is the only record we have of a stunning performance of prodigious virtuosity married with dramatic intensity. Soundwise I too would rate it alongside Vestale and Nabucco (Alceste is even worse, it gives me a headache even in the latest Warner remaster). Chenier is a little better.
> 
> The Callas Armida is the perfect real life example of the final category in this poll: "Terrible Sound: Great Performance" and as I said above I would rather have that than a "Great Sound: Terrible Performance" recording. In fact Armida is the perfect example because there are two recordings in good sound, but that are lacking in terms of quality of performance. I have the Gasdia to have a complete recording in decent sound and have heard the Fleming one, but she has such a lack of feeling for the cantilena in bel canto that I find it unlistenable despite the good sound.
> 
> N.


I actually really enjoy quite a lot of Fleming's work but I think that *Armida* was one of her miscalculations. In fact I've never warmed to her in Italian repertoire. I had her _Bel Canto_ recital and gave it away. I much prefer her in Strauss and Mozart.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I actually really enjoy quite a lot of Fleming's work but I think that *Armida* was one of her miscalculations. In fact I've never warmed to her in Italian repertoire. I had her _Bel Canto_ recital and gave it away. I much prefer her in Strauss and Mozart.


Yes, she's a little like Price in that there is a narrow range of roles she suits (Massenet, Rusalka and Strauss - although I prefer more metal in the voice for Strauss and Mozart, think Schwarzkopf or Grummer). Price, of course, sang everything is if it were middle period Verdi. Perhaps Fleming sings everything as if it were Massenet!

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Yes, she's a little like Price in that there is a narrow range of roles she suits (Massenet, Rusalka and Strauss - although I prefer more metal in the voice for Strauss and Mozart, think Schwarzkopf or Grummer). Price, of course, sang everything is if it were middle period Verdi. Perhaps Fleming sings everything as if it were Massenet!
> 
> N.


Well I wouldn't say that. I find many of her rectital records more satisfying than those of Price. I have the complete _Prima Donna_ set, and, though the range is wide, taking in baroque, bel canto, Romantic, verismo and even contemporary music, she tends to treat all of the music the same way. I wouldn't say that of Fleming and one of her best recitals is the one called _Great Opera Arias_, on which she sings arias by Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Verdi, Britten and Strauss. She is much more specific in her treatment of the various different styles.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Well I wouldn't say that. I find many of her rectital records more satisfying than those of Price. I have the complete _Prima Donna_ set, and, though the range is wide, taking in baroque, bel canto, Romantic, verismo and even contemporary music, she tends to treat all of the music the same way. I wouldn't say that of Fleming and one of her best recitals is the one called _Great Opera Arias_, on which she sings arias by Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Verdi, Britten and Strauss. She is much more specific in her treatment of the various different styles.


I will see if I can give that a listen. One thing I find with Fleming is that she is far better on disc than live (although I didn't see her much). I think they were both singers whose main gift was sheer beauty of tone and I much prefer Price in that respect. However, I agree that Price's aria albums are somewhat disappointing for the reason you say.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

What jumps to mind is the 52 Armida with Callas. Fortunately the big aria D'amore.... has decent sound for some reason. The rest is awful but it is a singular performance and Callas is vocally at her peak. I love Ponselle, Flagstad, Traubel and Tetrazinni so put up with 78 sound to hear their glory. I was just given over 30 vinyl recordings and I am afraid they will ruin me for listening to CD's as the sound is so much more alive. OMG! Luckily there is lots of Sutherland, who I love. I can't afford to buy all vinyl, though. I never listened to opera at home before but now it is a treat. I am buying Ponselle vinyl for Xmas.


----------



## Richard di Calatrava (Nov 12, 2020)

hpowders said:


> Yes. From Orest revealing himself to the end of the opera, it is very fine. But the first part is deadly dull.
> 
> I simply don't have time
> To rhyme.


'Deadly dull'? Elektra??? NEVER!!!!!


----------

