What is the value of historic recordings?

[Bunnyears]

Originally Posted by JayG

Why do people love historic recordings of, for example, Beethoven's 9th recorded in god-awful 1930s/40s mono sound transferred from 78s and played with way too many strings and orchestral balances that couldn't be much more different than what they were in Beethoven's time? Because they love the conductor's vision of the work, or the sense of historic occasion at the concert, or the commitment of the musicians to the music on that particular night.

While I have a few of these historic recordings, I have to admit that I have listened to them once or twice and then they languish in the box, hopefully unheard for the rest of my life. I'm beginning to wonder if there is any great value in such recordings because in truth, they don't really give us a true idea of how the performance must have sounded because of the limitations of the technology! Aside from cues as to tempo, pacing, and perhaps to a limited degree dynamics, those early recordings don't really reflect what people heard in the live performance. For one thing, the winds and reeds aren't audible for the most part except in solo parts so we really don't know how the orchestral balance must have been in a live performance. We also know that for radio and recording purposes, string musicians were encouraged to use much more vibrato than was customary at the time so even what we do hear has been distorted by the needs of the new technology. Now I am wondering if the tendency to go to these recordings might not be creating a false vision of how things were in the past. Our imaginations seem to fill in the deficits of the recordings giving them more luster than they probably had.

Maybe it's time to let the past go and start thinking of some of the new recordings by Vänskä, or Dausgaard or Barenboim as standards of performance rather than perpetuating these distorted shadows as relics of veneration.

[BAwig05]

I'm afraid I disagree. Perhaps its because sound quality means so little to me, but I believe that without historical recordings we would lose the complete pictiure of an artist.

Consider:

Eugene Ormandy playing violin
Casals and Szell in the Dvorak B-Mnor Concerto
All of Enrico Caruso
Rachmoninov's own recordings.

These recordings don't have value for sound, or period playing. They have value because they show artists performing works that mean something to all of us. Maybe they recorded them again, maybe they didn't. If all of Oistrakh's work was in Stereo, that'd be great. But it isn't. and so to complete my picture of an artist and music that I love, I buy the mono stuff.

Buying historical stuff to have it is crap.

Buying historical stuff to love it is the reason it's there.

[JayG]

I think there are two things that are most important for enjoying historic recordings.

1) A historic recording is not a substitube for one in decent or better sound. It is a supplement that allows you to experience something specific that you are interested in, such as the work of a certain conductor, or what kind of performances were common in a certain time and place. I would not recommend owning a poorly recorded historic performance as your only copy of a piece of music. As you say, Bunny, the sound limitations can prevent us from hearing everything that was intended to be heard by the composer and performers, so I think it's important to have a recording that allows you to hear everything well, even if you don't like the performance or interpretation as much as your historic recording of choice. Sometimes, though, people always turn to a certain historic recording of a particular piece because, despite the poor sound, they have not found any other recording that provides them with as rewarding a realization of that music. But you can't know that until you try both historic and modern recordings.

2) Not to let a fondness for a certain historical conductor/performer or individual recording prevent you from giving more recent artists a chance. I think some people are too reverant to some "golden-age" figures, and that blinds them to brilliant present-day artists. For example, if someone decides that nobody will ever conduct Beethoven and Wagner as well as Furtwangler did, they are doing themselves a great injustic because they will no longer have an open mind to the countless musical geniuses that are still around today. It's a balancing act between recognizing the great musicians of the past and searching out the great ones of the present.

-Jay

[majid]

The only time I would consider buying a historical performance is when the composer himself is conducting. With a revealing setup, the imperfections in old recordings (e.g. the hiss in Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue") are unbearable.

I have a few by Britten, and quite a few by modern composers like Adams, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Glass, Goldschmidt, Tippett or Bryars, but DDD recordings probably don't count as historical performances.

[Ymer]

If being an audiophile means ignoring Kathleen Ferrier, I give up.

[JayG]

The hiss on Kind of Blue (which was released in '59 and recorded in a studio on quality analog master tapes, so it's not even really in the 'historic' category)is pretty minor. If you can't listen past that much tape hiss, I don't know what to tell you.

Have you ever heard Schnabel's Beethoven?

-Jay

[Bunnyears]

When I am referring to historic recordings I really am referring to those recordings made before the LP came into existance, which would mean recordings made before 1950 or so. Quality monophonic recordings from the 1950s do not have the sound distortion of say, a recording from the 1920s or 30s. While I have some of those I find that I listen to them less and less and think of them more as a reference than something that I want to pull from the shelf and listen to purely for the sake of the music. Many of the recordings that I have are transfers to LP that belonged to my father so the condition of the lp as well as the sound quality is really poor. At this point I'm wondering if they are worth the trouble I have gone to storing and preserving them. I also wonder whether it would be worth it to track down cd transfers of the same recordings.

[Vicious Tyrant]

Bunnyears, you are one of my favorite posters and I have learned a good bit about opera from you, so pardon me when I say you are WAY OFF here!

I love old recordings, I have a bunch of those old Naxos historical opera recordings. They don't take the place of the new operas, but they have their own special place in my heart.

I find the old opera recordings (this only applies to opera and vocals, I have no use for other old recordings) to have a certain something that I don't think modern recordings have and that is the style the old singers used.

Now, I have no formal education about these matters, so I might get slammed for being way off here, but... I think those old singers sang with more IMMEDIACY than they do today. I don't think they were necessarily better singers, but they put their emotions into their songs in a way that they just don't do today. I would make the comparison with an analytic set of headphones (the new style) and fun headphones (the old).

I'm going to try to illustrate my point, but I don't know how to post an audio file. I'll make some links to amazon, and you can listen for yourself. I think if you bother to take the time, it will make my point.

Here are links to two CDs, both with the aria "Hochstes Vertraun hast du mir schon zu danken" from Lohengrin, the old sung by some guy named Herman Winkelmann, about whom I know nothing; and the new sung by Domingo on the Solti recording.

The old (track one):
http://www.amazon.com/Heldenten%C3%B...360257-6333257

The new (track six on disc four - you have to expand the track listings):
http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Lohengr...6333257#disc_3

OK, now if you've bothered to find the tracks and listen to them, you're a dedicated person!

The first thing I notice between these two tracks is what sounds like the distance between the singers and their microphones - Winkelmann sounds to me like he's right in the room with you, his emotions are very overt, and he goes right ahead and hits the notes hard.

Domingo sounds very remote and smooth, but not like he's really there with you. Yes, he has a beautiful voice and he can pack a good deal of power into it, but it's distant - do you agree? He rolls into notes instead of "punching" them.

Listen to the big moment at "hoch über alle Fraun". At the word FRAUN, Winkelmann just hits it hard, he really lets the music lead the emotion with no coverup. Domingo kind of leads his voice up to the punch, but without any real pop.

Obviously, I'm just making up these words to match how it strikes me and those of you who are really educated about these things are probably cringing, but I wonder if some people out there hear it too?

I found Winkelmann's version much more moving. The sound quality is obviously primitive and I would say Domingo is a "better" singer, but I think Winkelmann is doing something more moving in this section.

I'm not trying to just pick on these two, I find this distinction common in old vs. new recordings.

I've gone on more than I meant to, so I'll just leave it at that, but if anyone has any opinions I'd be happy to hear them.

For those of you who made it this far, thanks!

[seacard]

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant

Bunnyears, you are one of my favorite posters and I have learned a good bit about opera from you, so pardon me when I say you are WAY OFF here!

You are one of my favorite posters as well, and just to let you know, I completely agree with you! I see no reason to listen to poorly recorded mono records from the '20s and '30s -- they lose much of the beauty that music offers.

[Thelonious Monk]

i don't mind the quality as long as i know what's going on. however, i CANNOT stress how much i despise unbalanced orchestras and the like. i'm classically trained (tuba) and i can actually pick out nuances, and seriously, i don't care if something is historically important, i won't touch it if it's not perfect.