Old vs New Recordings
Sat, Sep 22 2012, 3:07AM
#2
RE: Old vs New Recordings
By a strange coincidence, one of the the other Major Classics reissue I bought was the Ansermet OSR Nutcracker and Swan Lake...and I came to exactly the same conclusion when comparing them to Dutoit's digital recordings.
The rest of the civilized world might be interested to know that we have in New Zealand a chain of giant stores known simply as The Warehouse. There are six of these in Christchurch. You go in, take a trolley and buy,for example baby food, nail varnish and a large bag of fertilizer. You then make your way your way to The Entertainment Department, where diligent searching, often on your hands and knees or atop a ladder, can unearth pure gold. This is where I bought the Major Classics,new..at $NZ6 each for a double CD ( about three pounds sterling). I estimate I have bought well over 500 superb new CDs in this way over the years. A lot of them are probably end of lines, deletions,which the good people who run The Warehouse assume are dross and therefore sell for next to nothing. Recently there wes a swag of Telarcs, no less, including Mahler 7 and 8, Previn Rach. 2 and Tchaik.5 etc etc..for $5 each. Living in Earthquake City does have its compensations.
Finally, a challenge. Make a short list of solo piano recordings where you feel that sonically the engineers, producers etc have got it all right, or nearly all right. In other words the best-sounding solo piano CDs of all time (NOT performance, sound). Here is a dozen off the top of my head to get you started:
Six of Hyperion's finest: Demidenko Liszt Sonata, Legends, Scherzo and March; Hamelin Rzewski; Hamelin Medtner Sonatas; Hamelin Reger; Hough Brahms Sonata and Ballades; Osborne Debussy Preludes.
Six from the rest: Lilya Zilberstein, Liszt DG ( recorded in the Jesus-Christus Kirche, reissued on Australian Eloquence and as close to piano sonic perfection as I have heard); Lilya Zilberstein Rachmaninov Op.32 Shos. Sonata 1 same venue, almost as good; Alice-Sara Ott Liszt DG ; Barenboim Chopin Nocturnes DG; York Bowen Piano Works, Joop Celis, Chandos; Kissin Chopin Preludes RCA.
Sat, Sep 22 2012, 6:39PM
#3
RE: Old vs New Recordings
On a related matter. It's amazing (and sad) how widely recording quality could vary in the past (eg.,1950s). A negative example is the Furtwängler Ring with RAI - that should have produced a good quality sound at the time, given that it was recorded in a (radio) studio, but it sounds flat, nowhere near what it must have sounded like. On the other hand some of his war time mono recordings (10 years earlier!) from the Philharmonie in Berlin sound fabulous, as does the 1954 Walkure.
Going back closer to what is currently being discussed here, we can all almost tell the recording label from the sound quality. I can certainly distinguish DG from Decca. I wonder whether recording labels follow a certain internal rule book when it comes to placement of mikes, mixing, etc., rather than aiming for "the best" (which of course is highly subjective...). Not only orchestras have "their" sound, but recording labels do too... to some extent...
Sat, Sep 22 2012, 7:00PM
#4
RE: Old vs New Recordings
One studio recording of Furtwangler`s that the recording engineers did work magic was the classic Berlin recording of Schubert`s Ninth on DG from 1952.Wonderful sound!I have yet to hear a mono Columbia recording that doesn`t sound dim and tinny.A lot of my favorite recordings are those Mercury Living Presence records engineered by Bob Fine.He used three omni-directional mikes.Amazing results.
Sat, Sep 22 2012, 7:05PM
#5
RE: Old vs New Recordings
One series of piano recordings that I would nominate would be the complete piano works of Grieg on the Bis label and performed by Eva Knardahl.They are analogue recordings-good performances.Very vivid and lifelike.
Sat, Sep 22 2012, 9:05PM
#6
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Thank you for this because I know our Public Library hes some of these Bis Grieg recordings - I have never borrowed them but will now do so. Interestingly, the 3 complete recordings of Grieg's Lyric Pieces that I have ( Oppitz, Austbo, and Steen-Nokleberg) are all magnificently recorded and would grace any list ot "the best" ( The Steen-Nokleberg is one of Naxos' most successful efforts).
Oh yes most definitely, each label does have its own sound - for a large variety of subtle reasons, I suppose.
Interested, too, in the mention in the wide variations in quality of "old' recordings. The same is to me just as true of modern digital ones. I have raved about Hyperion. But there are poor Hyperion solo piano recordings. A paticularly nasty one is the first volume of the Howard Liszt series - The Waltzes. I just can't listen to this - which I want to because the music is fascinating and the playing excellent. It is a widely-held view that Ashkenazy declined as a pianist during the 80s and 90s. Whether this is true or not, what did decline sharply was the quality of the recorded sound Decca afforded him. Partly I believe this was due to the use of ill-chosen venues in Switzerland (Ashkenazy's choice?) which sounded to me totally unsuitable for piano recording. Two particular horrors are the digital Schumann Fantasy and Faschingschwank ( Vol 6 of his (in)complete Schumann cycle), and worst of all his remake of the Chopin Preludes and 3rd Sonata, where every nuance of dynamics, tone, pedalling etc is simply killed off by a recording of unbelievably lifeless and unmusical flatness. Ashkenazy's "revival' with the Bach 48 and Diabelli coincides with a return to good old British venues - in this case Potton Hall.
So every age has its good and its bad , but I still think we are all very lucky to have what we have. Eliza, what a brilliant topic you chose for your post!
Sun, Sep 23 2012, 11:36AM
#7
RE: Old vs New Recordings
I don't think the labels "have their own sound". Hi-fi equipments most of the time do have!
With my current hi-end one, every recording sounds as "natural" as it can be. I do have some preferences for some labels for the "dynamics", "ambience", detailed recordings and other features they might have as a kind of their trademarks.
Just listen to (almost) any recording of Exton, Triton or Crystal (all Japanese ones) and every single recording will become the strongest contender for the most superlative recordings.
Despite there are some (lately more) good reissues (often even in SACD) of old recordings, for the CD format (not the LP), the modern recordings, particularly from labels with consistent standards, have clearly the upper hand, as far as all the aspects of sound are concerned. In every field, including the Orchestral, Choral or Opera.
Parla
Sun, Sep 23 2012, 11:53PM
#8
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Your first para is correct Parla for today's recordings because the major labels no longer have their own teams who knew their venues, which were striclty limited, intimately and how and where to position their artists and microphones, but not for recordings made half a century ago. B Wells has mentioned the Mercury team. Decca generally used Kenneth Wilkinson in London, Gordon Parry in Vienna & Roy Wallace in Geneva whilst EMI had the Legge/Larter parnership and later Bishop/Parker. The Geneva recordings are noticeably different from those made in Sofiensaal or Kingsway with less reverberation and a deeper richer bass.
I have no problem with the excellent sound on many modern chamber or instrumental recital recordings, no doubt because there are many more acoustically suitable venues for such programmes than there are for full orchestras, since the loss of Kingsway & the Sofiensaal and the trend to so-called live recordings for reasons of cost. Was it not Gordon Parry's Sofiensaal Wagner recordings you were recently praising?
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 9:34AM
#9
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Come on, Parla: if you really can't hear the difference between the recordings made by Decca (Culshaw, Wilkinson, Parry etc.) in the Sofiensaal, by EMI in Kingsway Hall (Walter Legge), and Philips (Volker Strauss/Concertgebouw), then you should be worried about your equipment!
As 33lp says the differences between the major companies' offerings are much less nowadays but your statement that "the modern recordings, particularly from labels with consistent standards, have clearly the upper hand, as far as all the aspects of sound are concerned, in every field, including the Orchestral, Choral or Opera", cannot be allowed to stand. There are indeed some excellent recordings, plenty of mediocre ones and some dreadful ones. And "all aspects of sound" superior. No, sir! I think you are teasing us!
Stephen, I have been thinking about your suggestion of a list of the best recordings of the piano. I must say I find it almost impossible though. Is there such a thing as the sound of a piano, except in very general terms? The sounds of the pianos as played by Kempff, Gilels, Richter, Arrau, Horowitz, Schiff, Pollini, Kissin, Brendel (all pianists I've heard) are so worlds apart, not to mention the different makes of piano, and the not inconsiderable adjustments made by the piano technicians for the players. Perhaps a fairer question would be, which pianists have received the most faithful recordings. Personally I think that each of these pianists has been well recorded at least in some of their recordings. Probably if you you don't like the sound of (say) Kempff in any of his recordings (have you tried the Decca stereo recordings of Chopin?) then perhaps you don't like the sound of Wilhelm Kempff. Arrau has been beautifully served by Philips, less well by Columbia. Of course there are many pianists I've never heard 'in the flesh' especially the younger pianists, now that I'm no longer in regular reach of major concert centres. But at least for the pianists I know the perfect recording is the one that most faithfully captures the sounds I heard in the concert hall or recital room.
Chris
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 10:43AM
#10
RE: Old vs New Recordings
33lp, a question (or perhaps someone else knows). How are the elaborately miked multi-channel data currently used for most 'live' recordings stored. Is only a mixed-down version stored or is each channel (i.e. feed from each microphone) stored separarely, permitting a remix at some future date? Any idea?
Chris
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 12:05PM
#11
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Chris, I was going to say exactly the same thing to Parla, but didn't dare! You example comparing EMI/Legge with Decca/Wilkinson is a very good one...(but now Decca and EMI are one and the same..well well autres temps autres......whatever......)
As to my "best piano recordings", what I meant was recordings which in their own right provide a very satisfying listening experience, in this case satisfying because you can at least believe it is a real piano you are hearing. This is how I judge recordings, because a live concert is a live concert, a unique experience which cannot be exactly reproduced now matter how good your equipment is. My list was of piano recordings which I can listen with immense satisfaction time and time again ( the chances of my hearing any of the pianists in my list live in Christchurch is now virtually nil anyway. ) The best Hyperion piano recordings satisfy me, in general, more than any others..but after playing the whole of the Zilberstein/Liszt disc twice since I praised it here I definitely think it beats all-comers.
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 2:21PM
#12
RE: Old vs New Recordings
OK Stephen, I take your point! And I've just noticed in your favourites list Liszt played by Demidenko on Hyperion. I did hear him play that programme live in the Wigmore Hall, then bought the CD of course. I strongly second your choice: but what performances too. Not only the sonata but the two Legends too. Dare I say it, the finest performance I've heard since Kempff! And the recording sounds as exactly like the concert as one could hope for. Hyperion really is a treasure. Long may it continue!
Chris
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 3:12PM
#13
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Definitely, I didn't intend to "tease" anyone, Chris. I just styated my listening experiences as you all do.
I have all (or almost) the recording releases of the Solti's "Ring" from the very first on CD till the very last, the Deluxe Limited Edition (I never managed to get the Limited Edition SACD one on Esoteric), and I can assure you I can see clearly the difference between...them. So, I don't know whether I have to praise or blame anymore Culshaw, Wilkinson, Sofiensaal, Gordon Parry or Decca itself.
When I said that the new recordings have the upper hand in all aspects of the recording, I meant that th product is superior compared to a reissue, where the modern "witches" try their magic to..."enhance" (see change) the original sound and "hide" (cover) the deficiencies of the original.
I can list a series of very important works re-released many times and each time with an enhanced (but slightly different) sound. At least, with modern recordings, you know what the actual product is.
Finally, 33lp, I didn't praise recently some "Gordon Parry's Sofiensaal Wagner recordings", but the actual final product, as it was just now released.
Parla
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 4:32PM
#14
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Sorry Parla, perhaps it was I who was teasing you! Apropos the 'Solti' Ring, it is very much Nilsson, Windgassen and Hotter that I remember, even more than Solti. For me though, all of these singers are heard to better advantage in other recordings. I don't believe any of them will be forgotten - surely they are amongst the greatest Wagner singers of all time. I willingly put up with sub-optimal sound to hear them with Knappertsbusch, Krauss and Keilberth, and in the case of Windgassen and Nilsson in excellent sound with Bohm conducting. Do you know any singers currently before us that live up to these three?
With good humour!
Chris
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 6:03PM
#15
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Stephen, I think you are probably right about the absolute cut off being closer to the 1960s. I was just listening to the Arrau Beethoven (Philips/mid 1960s) and the sound is terrific; you can hear the hiss of his patrician breath quite clearly. The piano is rich, plummy and astonishingly realistic.
But I can't remember hearing anything from the 50s - on the piano, that is -that didn't sound pretty rotten........
You also mention orchestral recordings from this era. One of my problems here is that the instruments don't always sound like the real thing. Massed violins, in particular, typically have a plasticy, sythetic sound - especially in the higher registers. But there may be exceptions, I suppose......
I have been doing a critical survey of various works in my collection as to sound quality.Mostly I have been listening to orchestral recordings.I find myself more impressed with the old stereo recordings.They are on the "usual suspects" of labels,i.e. Decca,RCA,Mercury Living Presence,etc.The Planets,Daphnis et Chloe,Mahler`s Symphonies 2,4,6,9,Bartok`s Music For Strings,Percussion and Celesta(Dorati/LSO on Mercury has to be the most vivid orchestral recording ever!),Berlioz`s Symphonie Fantastique,etc.The modern digital orchestral recordings are often too "polite" and diffused sounding.Ironically,I find that many of the early stereo Decca Ansermet recordings,for example,have more presence and life than the digital Decca recordings of Dutoit in the same works.That Bartok recording I mentioned even surpasses the Reiner RCA Sacd version.The Linn label does make incredible sounding sacd recordings these days.