# I HATE studio recordings!



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Am I the only one who strongly dislikes studio recordings? They leave me utterly unsatisfied, and that's for two main reasons: 
1. The recording process in itself: the more intimate approach captures mostly just the "core" of the voice, leaving out a big part of the voice that you hear better in live recordings.
2. The singers tone things down a bit too much. Callas talked about this and compared it to acting: when you're in the studio, like in film, you have to make things much smaller and more detailed and subtle, unlike on the stage. But I don't think that works for Opera! I mean a great part of this comes down to the type of repertoire I like. I'm sure Mozart fans would prefer cleaner recordings "all'acqua e sapone" like Gencer put it, unlike Verdi and Verismo fans for instance. But still, I think it misses the whole point of Opera. It _must_ be intense and thrilling.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

As Miss Ponselle put it: "That damn horn!"

N.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

I second your comments. A live performance usually is a more engaging and richer experience than a recording. Although, some recordings can approach the excitement of a live performance, they are generally tepid affairs as compared to real thing. The more successful recordings are those done in long takes (something that Renata Scotto asked and got in many of her Columbia recordings). I do not like the _all'acqua e sapone_, I prefer the grim and sweat of a real event, warts and all.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Amen! (I say it 4 times)


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

In some cases , studio recordings lack the spontaneity of live ones . But there are so many exceptions : The Solti Ring, his Salome, Elektra, Rosenkavalier, Frau , Arabella , Don Carlo and others .
The Karajan Ring, too , very different but both are valid . The Mackerras Janacek operas and Dvorak's Rusalka, and so many others by so many different conductors and great singers . 
Too many to list here complete .


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Poor you.....
.................................


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

I like studio recordings more. Specially as casual listener(not professional understanding of classical music) I like the music without live noises and microphone placement quirks. And performers ability to make the best take. Specially with opera.
However solo performances may be better live where the synergy of the situation and engagement with audience makes it unique.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Tuoksu said:


> The recording process in itself: the more intimate approach captures mostly just the "core" of the voice, leaving out a big part of the voice that you hear better in live recordings.


on a side note, i wonder that you people make so much emphasis on vocals, meanwhile it is the music that makes an opera become a masterpiece and go down in history, not the vocals, how ever beatiful they were.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think sweeping statements either way can be totally misleading. There are some great studio recordings and some great live recordings. They tend to be a different experience. I can't see why we can't have both.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Zhdanov, clearly we emphasize the vocals because we love beautiful singing. And since it is opera, the vocals are critical for characterizing in the performance. What you say holds water with Wagner due to the importance of the orchestra as a whole. But in general I can’t say I agree with your statement. Operas have been pulled out of obscurity due to particularly masterful performances by some singers


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Sonata said:


> Zhdanov, clearly we emphasize the vocals because we love beautiful singing.


because you listen to arias only while ignoring the entire opera.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> because you listen to arias only while ignoring the entire opera.


Wow! How do you know that? Do you have spies in every 'loco'?

You ARE Baron Scarpia and I request my £5!

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Wow! How do you know that?


for they say they 'love beautiful singing' and not a word about music.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> for they say they 'love beautiful singing' and not a word about music.


Your statement about 'arias' as opposed to 'the entire opera' means that you think they only listen to excerpts. Sonata has merely said that they _emphasize_ the vocals, not that they only listen to the vocals.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I have no difference whether a good recording is studio or live as long as it's indeed good! Both have their merits. I'm rather fond of Bayreuth recordings as they have spontaneity studio recordings are sometimes lacking - all those forging songs Windgassen messed up for example :lol:.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> you think they only listen to excerpts.


and they do, as everyone knows, they do ignore the whole piece, but only pick arias out of it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> and they do, as everyone knows, they do ignore the whole piece, but only pick arias out of it.


Could someone explain, who are "they"?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I don't know who "they" are, but I am pretty sure that "they" are responsible for all kinds of misconceptions. "They" certainly get quoted a lot, and on all kinds of subjects.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> Could someone explain, who are "they"?





JAS said:


> I don't know who "they" are,


'they' - opera fans, who deem themselves to be that, but in fact not much different from, say, football fans: only looking to pick up a fight over who is what, while no concern about the subject and the essence of it.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> 'they' - opera fans, who deem themselves to be that, but in fact not much different from, say, football fans: only looking to pick up a fight over who is what, while no concern about the subject and the essence of it.


And how do you know that Sonata fits into that category?

N.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> 'they' - opera fans, who deem themselves to be that, but in fact not much different from, say, football fans: only looking to pick up a fight over who is what, while no concern about the subject and the essence of it.


You sir, appear to be the only one looking to pick a fight here.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

The Conte said:


> And how do you know that Sonata fits into that category?


to start with, why did you like his comment? want insult me?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> 'they' - opera fans, who deem themselves to be that, but in fact not much different from, say, football fans: only looking to pick up a fight over who is what, while no concern about the subject and the essence of it.


Oh, _those_ "they" . . .


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Well...... I actually am a she not a he. And I like full opera recordings and have indeed even attended live opera performances. So far your baseless assumptions about me have been 0/2.

And nobody here has insulted you.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> 'they' - opera fans, who deem themselves to be that, but in fact not much different from, say, football fans: only looking to pick up a fight over who is what, while no concern about the subject and the essence of it.


Privyet Zhdanov: I certainly have no fault with your opinion that music is number one in an opera but without the arias and the facial expressions of the singers, we could just as easily be listening to a CD because the art of opera is "drama per musica."
Would you agree with this statement?


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> on a side note, i wonder that you people make so much emphasis on vocals, meanwhile it is the music that makes an opera become a masterpiece and go down in history, not the vocals, how ever beatiful they were.


That's like saying we shouldn't focus too much acting in theater.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I think sweeping statements either way can be totally misleading. There are some great studio recordings and some great live recordings. They tend to be a different experience. I can't see why we can't have both.


Of course we can have both. I didn't say we should ban them. But I just expressed that they in most cases provide much less than a live recording. But there are exceptions of course, like I said, it depends on the repertoire as well. Baroque for instance is much better when it's "curated".


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> for they say they 'love beautiful singing' and not a word about music.


The music is not beautiful if ruined by terrible vocal performances, otherwise no one would mind Die Zaurberfloete starring Florence Foster Jenkins. Unless you only like ouvertures and preludes and the occasional ballet, there are vocals basically all the time "playing" over the music. The music is only accompaniment, especially in bel canto, verdi and verismo.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I think that vocals, orchestral music and drama should be in a certain balance. Of course the extent to which this can be achieved is very dependent on the person. I for example have significantly less knowledge about singing and all its technical details than many others and that results in my somewhat bigger focus on drama and I immensely enjoy analysing plots but this doesn't mean I disregard the singing. There are people here who seem to be very knowledgeable about vocal technique but who still give a lot of focus on all other aspects of opera - these things do not exclude each other. I do sometimes pick arias, I listen to recital discs etc. to gain more knowledge of singing technique itself and to get better acquainted with the voice of different singers. I don't feel guilty about that!


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> and they do, as everyone knows, they do ignore the whole piece, but only pick arias out of it.


I don't know who you're speaking for, but I assure you that I listen to entire operas and in the case of some operas I know the music and libretti inside out at any given second of the performance.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Some artists like Nilsson record much much better in live recordings, but the media giant Bartolli, is greatly favored by a studio recording with her tiny instrument. The early Callas recordings at her vocal peak arevirtually all live, but I always wish there had been studio recordings besides the first studio Norma with Stignani that benefitted with better sound from this period. I am all about the vocals. I like even like 78 recordings where the orchestra plays second fiddle to the vocals... e.g. Ponselle.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> on a side note, i wonder that you people make so much emphasis on vocals, meanwhile it is the music that makes an opera become a masterpiece and go down in history, not the vocals, how ever beatiful they were.


the difference in quality, musical and dramatic personality, and general artistic approach between singers is vastly larger than the difference in quality between instrumentalists. second rate orchestras and second rate conductors are much more listenable than a second rate singer.

to the original topic--I certainly don't hate studio recordings as a whole, and I can think of a lot of great studio recordings I wouldn't want to do without. But the majority of my favorite classical recordings are one take live or live composites.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> the difference in quality, musical and dramatic personality, and general artistic approach between singers is vastly larger than the difference in quality between instrumentalists. second rate orchestras and second rate conductors are much more listenable than a second rate singer.


This is true even for orchestra-heavy operas such as Wagner's and Strauss's. I'll listen to a magnificently sung _Tristan_ or _Ring_ with a routine conductor, but can't put up with mediocre singing/acting in principal roles. A vocally unpleasant Kundry can ruin _Parsifal_ for me (which is why I don't care to hear the Karajan or Boulez recordings again, and even avoid the early Bayreuth offerings with Martha Modl).


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> This is true even for orchestra-heavy operas such as Wagner's and Strauss's. I'll listen to a magnificently sung _Tristan_ or _Ring_ with a routine conductor, but can't put up with mediocre singing/acting in principal roles. A vocally unpleasant Kundry can ruin _Parsifal_ for me (which is why I don't care to hear the Karajan or Boulez recordings again, and even avoid the early Bayreuth offerings with Martha Modl).


you should concentrate more on the music so the vocals don't ruin it for you.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> you should concentrate more on the music so the vocals don't ruin it for you.


I'm just not sure whether that's always possible... also, overly big focus on the orchestral quality would mean that historical recordings, which tend to contain some of the greatest singing on record, would become dismissed.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Tuoksu said:


> Am I the only one who strongly dislikes studio recordings? They leave me utterly unsatisfied, and that's for two main reasons.


When the only recording of a work is a bootleg of second-rate singers in a provincial production, apparently taped from the back of the hall, coughing and rustling drowning out the singing, and a blizzard of electronic warbles, wobbles and beeps ... one longs for a studio recording!


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> you should concentrate more on the music so the vocals don't ruin it for you.


But the vocals are part of the music, no?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

adriesba said:


> But the vocals are part of the music, no?


they are but not to such an extent as to negate the music itself.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

@ Dr. Shatterhand


> When the only recording of a work is a bootleg of second-rate singers in a provincial production, apparently taped from the back of the hall, coughing and rustling drowning out the singing, and a blizzard of electronic warbles, wobbles and beeps ... one longs for a studio recording!


Then they start arguing about who has the best pirate recording.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> they are but not to such an extent as to negate the music itself.


Well, I see it like this: an opera performance with poor or mediocre singers is somewhat like a concerto with a poor or mediocre soloist. True, not all operas place the orchestra on the same level as the orchestra is in a concerto, but I'd tend to think that the importance of the orchestra in an opera never really completely exceeds that of the singers. I think someone mentioned something to that extent earlier. No one goes to see an opera just to hear the orchestra. No one goes to see an opera just to hear singers sing a capella either. It's all one package. Quality opera requires many elements (i.e., _Gesamtkunstwerk_).

I don't think anyone here on the forum is necessarily neglecting the importance of the orchestra, if the importance of the orchestra is what you are trying to emphasize. Earlier I was on another thread where a member mentioned that a problem with a particular recording involved the part of the orchestra/conductor.

Opera is a complex art form which requires that all of its parts function properly. If one part is problematic, whether it be the singing, the orchestra, the conductor, the staging, the acting, etc., the body as whole suffers.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I do prefer live opera, in a theater, above all else. Second best option, is a good live recording.

Having said that, of course I have nothing against studio recordings. Many of them are gems. And it's also true that for analytical listening, they can have an advantage, not only in terms of the performance, but also in the lenght and completeness of the piece. Think about Leinsdorf's "Die Tote Stadt", for instance. It's the *only* existing recording (studio or otherwise) where you can find all the music written by Korngold, and with the bonus of fully appreciating the smallest nuance of the wonderful score for the orchestra.

So, of course it's both live and studio for me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> you should concentrate more on the music so the vocals don't ruin it for you.


Thank you for your unsolicited advice. 

As a musician, I'm quite capable of listening to a performance in different ways for different purposes. As a singer, I'm extremely sensitive to the quality of singing and very demanding in my tastes.

There is no "should" here.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Thank you for your unsolicited advice.


you are welcome, took you 24 hours to come up with a reply.



Woodduck said:


> As a singer, I'm extremely sensitive to the quality of singing and very demanding in my tastes.


and that is *your* problem.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

adriesba said:


> Well, I see it like this: an opera performance with poor or mediocre singers is somewhat like a concerto with a poor or mediocre soloist. True, not all operas place the orchestra on the same level as the orchestra is in a concerto, but I'd tend to think that the importance of the orchestra in an opera never really completely exceeds that of the singers. I think someone mentioned something to that extent earlier. No one goes to see an opera just to hear the orchestra. No one goes to see an opera just to hear singers sing a capella either. It's all one package. Quality opera requires many elements (i.e., _Gesamtkunstwerk_).
> 
> I don't think anyone here on the forum is necessarily neglecting the importance of the orchestra, if the importance of the orchestra is what you are trying to emphasize. Earlier I was on another thread where a member mentioned that a problem with a particular recording involved the part of the orchestra/conductor.
> 
> Opera is a complex art form which requires that all of its parts function properly. If one part is problematic, whether it be the singing, the orchestra, the conductor, the staging, the acting, etc., the body as whole suffers.


Very well put. If the soloist interferes with the musical and dramatic experience, the whole thing comes down. I remember seeing a performance of Carmen which was fantastic except for the lady playing Carmen who sounded correct but bored, and no, it was not an interpretative choice. The audience let her know during the final curtain calls.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> you are welcome, took you 24 hours to come up with a reply.


No, it took about 24 seconds.



> and that is *your* problem.


It isn't a problem. Unsolicited advice is.


----------



## Music Snob (Nov 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> This is true even for orchestra-heavy operas such as Wagner's and Strauss's. I'll listen to a magnificently sung _Tristan_ or _Ring_ with a routine conductor, but can't put up with mediocre singing/acting in principal roles. A vocally unpleasant Kundry can ruin _Parsifal_ for me (which is why I don't care to hear the Karajan or Boulez recordings again, and even avoid the early Bayreuth offerings with Martha Modl).


We are on the same page. For instance, I love Kna's conducting of early 50's Parsifal and his Ring cycle. However, Aldenhoff ruins the 51 Gotterdammerung for me and Windgassen passes as an acceptable Parsifal just barely for my tastes. Often I go back to hear Flagstad and Melchior and savor almost every note of their singing... but the conducting isn't always that great to my ears.

On a Mozartean note, countless Cosi's are ruined for me with poor singing.

As for the thread topic with Wagner nothing beats the live Bayreuth sound for me.


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

Words or music? Singers or orchestra? Individual arias or the dramatic whole? Sounds like Richard Strauss' Capriccio.

I don't have a firm preference for live or studio recordings, although I agree with Music Snob that for Wagner, live from Bayreuth is best.

What I find in the best recordings is a sense of the stars aligning, of everything coming together, and the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. The 1962 Kna' Parsifal is an example. The music dies away and I think "what a night that must have been ". 

In the studio, Callas' first Tosca (de Sabata) or von Karajan's Falstaff for EMI provide an experience not likely to be bettered in the opera house. 

I don't know what causes the magic lightning to strike, either in the opera house or the recording studio. Maybe the inspired producer understands the alchemy better the marketing director, but what else?

Do other people have suggestions for recordings where everything came together just right?


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Fredrikalansson said:


> Words or music? Singers or orchestra? Individual arias or the dramatic whole? Sounds like Richard Strauss' Capriccio.
> 
> I don't have a firm preference for live or studio recordings, although I agree with Music Snob that for Wagner, live from Bayreuth is best.
> 
> ...


There used to be a Gramophone magazine entitled (paraphrase) "the best 75 opera recordings" or something like that that listed the best 75 opera recordings, according to Gramophone magazine critics (of course). The usual suspects, including the De Sabata *Tosca*, the Karajan *Der Rosenkavalier*, the Solti *Der Ring des Nibelungen *, the Klemperer *Fidelio *, all of the most acclaimed recordings.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

MAS said:


> There used to be a Gramophone magazine entitled (paraphrase) "the best 75 opera recordings" or something like that that listed the best 75 opera recordings, according to Gramophone magazine critics (of course). The usual suspects, including the De Sabata *Tosca*, the Karajan *Der Rosenkavalier*, the Solti *Der Ring des Nibelungen *, the Klemperer *Fidelio *, all of the most acclaimed recordings.


I found two photos of the cover and list of operas included in the "75 greatest recordings of all time."














Click on the photo once, and then again to augment the image.


----------



## Donna Elvira (Nov 12, 2017)

Tuoksu said:


> Am I the only one who strongly dislikes studio recordings? They leave me utterly unsatisfied, and that's for two main reasons:
> 1. The recording process in itself: the more intimate approach captures mostly just the "core" of the voice, leaving out a big part of the voice that you hear better in live recordings.
> 2. The singers tone things down a bit too much. Callas talked about this and compared it to acting: when you're in the studio, like in film, you have to make things much smaller and more detailed and subtle, unlike on the stage. But I don't think that works for Opera! I mean a great part of this comes down to the type of repertoire I like. I'm sure Mozart fans would prefer cleaner recordings "all'acqua e sapone" like Gencer put it, unlike Verdi and Verismo fans for instance. But still, I think it misses the whole point of Opera. It _must_ be intense and thrilling.


Well you did make an exception for Mozart recordings, but all I can think of was my great disappointment when I brought home the Mitropolous Don Giovanni from the live Radio Archives of Salzburg Festival of 1956. Excellent performances but just so bad sound.
I've learned to avoid live recordings after this, except, of course for DVDs.
BTW, Mozart can also be"intense and thrilling," but he often gives you a break from the intensity, not unlike when Verdi stops all the action for "Di quella pira."
Both composers in my short list of Top 5, including instrumental music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> Am I the only one who strongly dislikes studio recordings? They leave me utterly unsatisfied, and that's for two main reasons:
> 1. The recording process in itself: the more intimate approach captures mostly just the "core" of the voice, leaving out a big part of the voice that you hear better in live recordings.
> 2. The singers tone things down a bit too much. Callas talked about this and compared it to acting: when you're in the studio, like in film, you have to make things much smaller and more detailed and subtle, unlike on the stage. But I don't think that works for Opera! I mean a great part of this comes down to the type of repertoire I like. I'm sure Mozart fans would prefer cleaner recordings "all'acqua e sapone" like Gencer put it, unlike Verdi and Verismo fans for instance. But still, I think it misses the whole point of Opera. It _must_ be intense and thrilling.


I'm just the opposite, for the same reasons. I can't stand all that reverberation of a voice in a hall.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Tuoksu said:


> Am I the only one who strongly dislikes studio recordings? They leave me utterly unsatisfied, and that's for two main reasons:
> 1. The recording process in itself: the more intimate approach captures mostly just the "core" of the voice, leaving out a big part of the voice that you hear better in live recordings.


Live recordings are still recordings, subject to many of the same flaws as studio recordings. Voices that record poorly in the "studio" (which are generally the same venues in which live performances are given), also come across poorly in live recordings.

I must add that some of the recordings that we call "studio recordings" aren't anything of the sort - they're recorded live, and possibly patched later to cover more glaring errors - e.g. the second Solti Meistersinger.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Donna Elvira said:


> Well you did make an exception for Mozart recordings, but all I can think of was my great disappointment when I brought home the Mitropolous Don Giovanni from the live Radio Archives of Salzburg Festival of 1956. Excellent performances but just so bad sound.


We have very different standards for what constitutes "bad sound". This Mitropoulos Don Giovanni is such a fabulous performance that I don't even notice the sonics. I assume that you heard the commercial issue on RCA, which is presumably vastly superior to previous unofficial incarnations.


----------



## SanyiKocka (May 6, 2020)

Until very recent time, live recordings are of poor sound quality, which omits more details of the voice and diction, unfortunately.


----------

