Old vs New Recordings

Some very interesting & valid points since I last looked at this forum. Firstly to Petra, the little book Full Frequency Stereophonic Sound on Decca's introduction of their stereo techniques includes some articles taken from Gramophone critic Ivan March's Stereo Record Guide of the early 1960s (later to become the Penguin Guide) and he comments that after Kingsway was re-decorated with a glossier paint the sound change surprised the EMI recording team. This of course applies to our own equipment. If we move our speakers, move to a different room or change the furnishings the sound we get from our own kit will vary and I'm sure we would all have our own views on "natural" recorded sound. If I go to a chamber or instrumental recital in a largish hall I would be close to the front row which I might not choose for a Bruckner symphony. 

As to what constitutes a new or old recording I agree with HM above. The difference really came with the introduction of magnetic tape masters around 1949/50 , which unlike a 78 side could be edited. I was surprised, playing it after a long time how good the Heiftz/Beecham Mendelssohn concerto from this period sounds on my EMI World Records transfer- despite the performance where one suspects Beecham & Heifetz didn't get on as each tries to outdo the other in the speeds of the last movement.

The Naxos E Fischer Bach is a perfect example of how NOT to transfer 78s to CD. It is virtually unlistenable and I cannot believe the originals sounded so dull. It is fairly obvious from the notes that excessive computer processing has been employed in an effort to completely eliminate surface noise. I can't understand how any reviewer could describe this as "beautifully restored sound". One has only to listen to Mark Obert Thorn's Naxos transfer of Cortot's Chopin waltzes from 1934 to hear how it should be done. The treble glitters & sparkles and Cortot's sheer exuberance shines through one of the greatest Chopin recordings with all his eccentricities, wild speed changes and, yes, those wrong and missed notes; absolutely magical!

Yes, Oscar, I tend to agree with you. I don't think the Michelangeli Ravel has been surpassed and the sound is still very good too. I also have the Gershwin but there's another good recording of the Gershwin concerto with Earl Wild.

Having just signed up for the new Gramophone digital edition + Archive, I just came across this:

"It is only the perfecting of [......] recording during the last three years combined with recent astonishing improvements in the gramophones themselves that has given us piano reproduction of a fidelity, a variety and depth of tone that could hardly be bettered.

I have no hesitation in saying that modern piano recordings do the pianist complete justice." 

You might think it came perhaps from Parla, discussing recent recordings on his hi-end system.

Actually though, it was Rachmaninoff, writing in the Gramophone in 1931!!  The word I removed [......](because it would have given the game away) was electrical.

I suppose, in years to come people will laugh at our naive beliefs in the perfection of modern recordings.

Looking forward to the new Archive and magazine.

Chris

I found the article simply by clicking on the info about the new Archive on the Gramophone home page!

Chris, what are your initial impressions of the digital magazine and in particular the archive? It's the latter that will decide me on whether to subsribe and, more importantly, to buy an iPad or other such device.

Having got rid of decades-worth of my old Gramophone magazines on the mistaken assumption that Gramofile would continue to be available, the facility easily to locate various reviews for the purposse of comparison (in contrast to the spatchcock affair that is the current archive) is very tempting indeed.

A user review from you, perhaps?

speaking about ancient recordings, Im hearing precisely now Mozarts symphonies integral with the Royal Philharmonic Orch, conducted by Erich Leinsdorf, the first recorded integral of this works, and Ive confirmed my opinion in sense that the companies recorded better or so good at that time than today. And this nonetheles them were recorded between 1955 and 1961 years, and to be -more of them- mono recordings. Vigorous and dinamic conceptions, in my opinion preferables to Bruno Walter-Columbia, Josef Krips-Concertgebow or Karl Bohm-Vienna s versions, sometimes feeble and deslucid for my taste. This recordings were originally produced by USA Westminster label, disappeared today, which left to us superlative recordings, specially Gustav Mahlers 2th, 5th and 7th symphonies conducted by german conductor Hermann Scherchen, fortunately reedited today by Deutsche Gramophone division from Universal label. Ive got many Westminster s recordings from that series: Tchaikovskys violin concerto with austrian violinist Erica Morini-Artur Rodzinsky conductor, Berliozs Symphonie Fantastique conducted by Rene Leibowitz, etc, and I recommend it to you, fervently, obviously if you  are interested in it. Do you know those recordings?? Best regards oscar.olavarria