Geza Anda's Mozart
Sat, Oct 20 2012, 8:30PM
#2
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
I think we all have to accept Parla that you represent one extreme view here. Many of us are much less bothered than you about the ultimate in recording and reproduction quality, and most of us are unable to afford equipment approaching your 'high end' setup anyway.
In fact many of my formative experiences were made years ago with 'lo-fi' equipment: hearing them better reproduced "after so many years of listening experience" has been a great pleasure but has not led to any substantial revision of my choices of music or performances, though of course new ones have been added over the years, but again, by no means limited to the best recorded.
I don't think I'm at the opposite extreme from you by any means: others are far more tolerant than I of even older recordings. But I have had the pleasure of hearing artists such as Klemperer, Boult, Horowitz, Kempff, Rubinstein, Menuhin, Seefried (and Geza Anda!) etc. live and have found no difficulty recognising the artistry I heard in the flesh in oldish recordings, either now (with quite good hi-fi) or in the past (with rather lower-fi).
No offence meant but as with performance preferences, it's a question of:
'Chacun a son gout!' -
Isn't it?
Chris
Sun, Oct 21 2012, 1:16AM
#3
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Of course, Chris: "Chacun a son gout!" as for performances' preferences.
However, my extreme view about truly good and realistic recordings is the result of long experience. What I mean and defend can be illustrated by this example: By all means, I can recognise the voice of my mother on the phone, but is it the same vis a vis when she talks to me, in front of me. Could someone accept to replace the real voice with something like the "phone" quality voice? Probably not. Possibly, he/she will strive for the best possible and more realistic reproduction of mother's voice.
The problem is when we know that there is no "better" option. Well, one may resort to even a sort of "phone" level solution, if he/she wishes so, but what I'm saying is that this is way far from the real thing. Is this view that extreme? (Unless reality is an extreme thing).
Parla
Sun, Oct 21 2012, 11:13AM
#4
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Hi Parla,
Yes, your example of your mother's voice 'live' and 'on the phone' will do very well for the point I was trying to make. The 'phone' represents our hi-fi setups and your mother's voice the artist(s) live. The one is the illusion and the other the reality. As with the phone there are better and worse qualities of hi-fi illusions, and each of us has a different point at which we are satisfied with the illusion. What I was trying to suggest when I said you represented an 'extreme' is that you repeatedly say that you demand only the finest recordings and the finest hi-fi in order to get full enjoyment of the music. Fine, but that does place you at an extreme. (amongst the contributors to this forum at least). Less fine, in my opinion, is your insistence that others cannot get a true impression of a performance if their equipment is more modest or the recordings less satisfactory. This has emphatically not been my experience, though much to my regret I cannot go as far as say JKH and 78rpm in enjoyment of earlier (say pre-tape) recordings of large scale works (or piano music for that matter). My loss, and one of the things that has been uppermost in my choices as I have improved my own Hi-fi has been choosing a system that can make the most of earlier less-than-perfect recordings, and so to extend my range of listening.
Back briefly to two other points you have well made elsewhere. You talk about your mother's voice. live or real, but even that is not a single definitive reality. The sound of it is different if she is in another room, or speaking in a large hall, and in the same way, as you rightly emphasised elsewhere, the sound of a musical performance varies greatly depends where one is sitting in the concert hall, or on the hall itself.
Another point you made relevant to this topic is your suggestion that just changing (not necessarily improving) you hi-fi can give you different perspectives on a recording. I quite agree. The wonder is that the brain can sort out all these irrelevances and concentrate on the essence of the sound in question, whether it is your mother's voice or the Concertgebouw Orchestra or Wilhelm Kempff (to choose my favourite example). And each of our brains is different in the extent to which it can do this.
I don't think it's wise to discount the judgments of listeners simply because their perceptions have not come from the highest fi or the finest recorded sound. For many of us, it's just not true.
Chris
PS: Apologies to your mother!
PPS: I too greatly enjoy the Anda Mozart concerti recordings, and agree with everything that has been said about Sandor Vegh, both as conductor and leader of his superb quartet.
Sun, Oct 21 2012, 2:36PM
#5
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
I think the overwhelming majority of music-lovers would agree with this sane assessment, Chris. Whilst each of us has his or her own 'tolerance level' of historical (to use a convenient catch-all term) recordings, the argument that it is impossible to fully appreciate a performance musically unless the system being used to reproduce it qualifies as 'high-end' is, as you say, a rather extreme view. I've never seen a precise definition of what 'high-end' means in this context (beyond the obvious reference to the cost of the equipment and its technical specifications) that isn't essentially circular.
As I think you said in an earlier post/other thread, any recording, however magnificent technically and regardless of whether it's reproduced on the 'highest-end' system possible, is still only a domestic approximation or partial picture of what happened in the studio or hall.
A desire to have the best possible recording and the best possible means of reproducing it in a perfect world is something I think everyone would share. I'm sure that if, by some miracle, superbly accurate, digitally captured recordings of Tamagno, Caruso, Boninsegna, Cortot, Furtwangler etc etc exactly equivalent to a modern hi-fi studio recording were discovered, they would rightly cause a sensation. But to say that, in the absence of such a nirvana being discovered, the performances we have, imperfectly recorded as they are, mean that it is impossile to appreciate these artists is, I think, a rather extreme view.
There is also the question of what, in a modern studio recording, we actually get on the final product and whether that reflects an actual performance or a necessary amalgam of edited segments. This doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as the end effect conveys the impression of a performance, but I'm under no illusion that what I hear through my loudspeakers is actually a perfect reflection of what happened in the studio.
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 12:32AM
#6
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Dear Parla,
With quality of music I didnt want to say quality of sound, Iwanted to say a finest "interpretation", for example my prefered version of Beethoven s violin concerto its Joseph Szigeti-Bruno Walter 1939 s mono recording, in NAXOS edition, and I prefer it for over other important and more recient versions of this work, like Perlman-Giulini, Grumiaux- Colin Davis, etc., and Oistrakh-Cluytens!, inclusive. Because not the more expensive is always the best, in english composers I prefer for example Elgar s violin concerto in Dong Suk Kang-Adrian Leaper version, with the Polish Radio Orchestra, today Varsaw Philharmonic, un a bargain title and the besto version of this work for me, for me the deser island CD, with Geza Anda Mozart s integral, 1812 Overture with Hermann Scherchen and Sibelius cycle with Paavo Berglund-Helsinki Philharmonic, "Ma Vlast" from Smetana conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent, well and 2 or 3 more recordings....Excuse my english please. oscar.olavarria
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 1:10AM
#7
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Dear Oscar,
I know very well what you said and meant. However, your limitations in English probably prevent you from understanding what I wrote in my post addressed to you. Please read it again, if you wish or think so.
Chris, my "mother" example had the simple meaning that we cannot settle for the distorted remote "phone" illusion, when we cannot have the "real thing". We will strive for the best reproduction in order to minimise what we have to "fill" with our imagination for what is the real thing. While in the case of my mother's voice, it's easy for me to "reconstruct" in my mind (or brain) the voice of my mother, it's not that easy and safe to do the same with a performance of complex, difficult works, with thick and colourful orchestrations and, most importantly, with the missing original tone of the instruments or the voices. For example, Michelangeli's finest gift was his magnificent refined tone he could produced from the piano. If this tone is not well and accurately preserved, we simply enjoy the idea that he plays on the CD, but we don't actually hear it.
In any case, I never wished to "discount" other's judgements coming from any source they listen to their music. I just said the actual thing is not there (in old recordings or poor hi-fi equipments or, much more, in both) per se and that's make a substantive difference. By all means, each one of you can handle this as you deem it necessary and appropriate. You may consider it or dismiss it.
Parla
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 2:06AM
#8
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Anda has a refined touch and despite knowing him only through great Schumann recordings (Kreileriana!) I won't be surprised if his Mozart's PCs sounded to me equally rewarding. I got the Vegh & Schiff's integral too and I agree with those who says that something is missing and it is not Vegh's fault.
But I'm surprised to know that you gotta have great recordings and reliable gear technically speaking to truly appreciate the reading of a musical piece! Yes, I may concur with Parla & Co that they really can help you but they are far from the sine qua non status imo. I'm even more than ready to agree that it is very nice to get a recording both technically and artistically rewarding and that there are many of them. But with, what?, the 70 years of the recording industry behind us, how on earth could one expect that the great recordings artistically and technically are from the last two/three decades?
I would tend to agree with those who stands behind the view that classical music has passed its finest hours and that one can reasonably expects a major incidence of great readings from its glorious days. But one should avoid being romantic about this: I don't think that only Toscanini & Furtwangler can read Brahms well, yes there are great mahlerians after Walter, Schnabel is great on LvB's sonatas, so is Kempff, Arrau and so forth........
Perhaps next month one of those labels will give us a new great recording of, say, Schubert's 9th symphony, but up to now I live on Furtwangler's from 1951! Yes, Krips & LSO represent a great alternative with Wand & BPO on a rca twofer being another pleasant reading: but honestly, w/o any prejudice or romanticism: Furtwangler gets my preference hands down!
I'm willing to get rid of that poor recording of the Richter's Sofia recital (1958), but where am I going to find an equally convincing reading of Mussorgsky's Pictures? How many poor or so-so recordings technically speaking but superb artistically speaking can one add? Curiously enough, as I type this Fricsay & RIASSO's recording of Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony (1951) is being streamed: what a drive and intensity! Only Mravinsky & LgPO equall this (or surpass).
Excuse me being a bit hyperbolical, but I wonder which one would I choose: this Fricsay's reading broadcast on the short-waves and listened on a portable radio or Pletnev's reading on Pentatone/SACD played in a a state-of-art hi-fi gear? Yes, I'd stick with the former (yes, I can hear you loud and clear mom!).
I respect the point of view expressed by Parla and those who agree w/ him (chacun a son goût, n'est pas?) but I hope the'll allow me and others to disagree respectfully w/ them on this. In the (unlikely) event that they make their point I will simply have to stay with my (corrupted) listening habits: I'm just too old & stubborn to start over.
But in the end what matters is our appreciation of classical music, isn't it?
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 2:32AM
#9
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
But, how can you judge/identify the "music quality", Oscar, if you don't have a reliably good and realistic recording?
I don't think that Oscar said that he had poor quality listening facilities. I think he said he could listen through the recording to hear the music - which is the case for most recordings since 1950 - or even earlier.
Parla,
Sorry, but I have to agree with Philogiston here.
And yes, whilst I truly appreciate good equipement and good recordings, for me, it's the performances that matter most. Perhaps try not to be quite so critical the next time that you put something on and just "relax" into the moment and really listen to the performance? Hard I'm sure when you're used to listening to it from a different perspective. For me it's the difference of when one is auditioning equipement in an audio equipment store vs. relaxing at home.
All the best to all,
Petra
p.s. Just listened to a Mozart recording with Haskill and Anda....sublime! Gorgeous performances that left me feeling that there is beauty in the world, peace, and love, and hope too......
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 3:12PM
#10
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Dear Petra,
you are right, I ve heard with him Mozart s K 365, for two pianos, in EMI References, and is a superlative recording, a paradisiac performance! Best regards. oscar.olavarria
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 3:14PM
#11
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Fair enough Parla. I think we all understand each other now!
Most of us would love to hear our favourite older recordings miraculously rescuscitated in glorious sound. Which thought reminds me, I asked you once before, Parla, whether the latest EMI SACD restoration of Klemperer (and other) recordings offers any improvement in its SACD version over the CD layer? Have you compared them?
Chris
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 5:04PM
#12
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Yes, indeed, Chris. Points taken from both sides, I may sincerely hope. Believe me I didn't want to change your life (or your way of listening); just to make you wonder that playback does not mean a "celebration of brain"...
I think I had mentioned in some other thread, sometime ago, that the EMI SACD of Klemperer etc. sound substantially clear and powerful. I don't have, however, the original CDs, but I trust that the sound of SACD is so good (in analysis, dynamics, space) that cannot be compared anyway. By the way, the final product is very fine too.
Parla
Mon, Oct 22 2012, 7:29PM
#13
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Petra wrote:
"p.s. Just listened to a Mozart recording with Haskill and Anda....sublime! Gorgeous performances that left me feeling that there is beauty in the world, peace, and love, and hope too......"
Yes, indeed. It's years since I heard this lovely recording. If I remember rightly it also has a Bach concerto for two pianos (harpsichords). (Carlos; I had not seen the reissue on References - I must find it!) And there we find another pianist who is wonderful in Mozart - Clara Haskil.
Chris
Tue, Oct 23 2012, 6:58PM
#14
RE: Geza Anda's Mozart
Petra wrote:
"p.s. Just listened to a Mozart recording with Haskill and Anda....sublime! Gorgeous performances that left me feeling that there is beauty in the world, peace, and love, and hope too......"
Yes, indeed. It's years since I heard this lovely recording. If I remember rightly it also has a Bach concerto for two pianos (harpsichords). (Carlos; I had not seen the reissue on References - I must find it!) And there we find another pianist who is wonderful in Mozart - Clara Haskil.
Chris
Oscar and Chris,
Unfortunately, I don't have that EMI disc. I did, however, a few months ago purchase a Membran "Dokuments" 4-CD set of Geza Anda's recordings (it's one of those longbox ones). This recording was/is on there. I wonder how the sound compares to the EMI one? I think (if I'm remembering my "googling" properly) that the EMI one is now--alas--NLA. I wonder whether or not I have the Bach one elsewhere too?
I should get Anda's Mozart recordings (whilst it's still available!). I also happily own a small Brilliant set (4-CDs) which I quite enjoy plus a DG "Original Masters" set that is wonderful. The reason that I started purchasing these sets was I had purchased his Bartok piano recordings firstly and was blown away! Had to have more! :--D
Best wishes,
Petra
Phlogiston, I think we have to let Oscar to answer for himself. What I said, however, had to do both with the recording and the "recording facilities".
To "listen through" a recording, if it is poor or less realistic, means that the listener has to...imagine what exactly happened in the recording session. For me, after so many years of listening experience, this is far from any reality, even a virtual one.
Parla