Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
Still, this smacks of deciding what conclusion you want and then interpreting the evidence in such a way that it supports your conclusion. Caruso sounds best on acoustic recordings dating back to the Harding administration, so those must be the most accurate reproductions of a voice. Therefore, Caruso was the best. Perhaps you're right, but shouting at a horn with a stylus at the vertex seems mildly idiotic compared to modern digital recording techniques.
Golden Age arguments are sometimes demonstrably true (Cf. the Keilberth Bayreuth Ring), but - often as not - nostalgia is no defense.
Actually, I meant this discussion to be of recordings before the age of monophonic high fidelity; the Keilberth Ring really is an early modern recording.
Caruso sounds best on acoustic recordings dating back to the Harding administration, so those must be the most accurate reproductions of a voice.
You missed what I was saying. I said that Caruso sounds best *played back* acoustically... meaning on a phonograph with a sound box and horn, mirroring the cutting head and horn that the records were recorded with. Acoustic recordings were never intended to be played back electrically.
The concept of a vibrating stylus in a groove is far from primitive when it comes to sound reproduction. It was the primary method of home sound reproduction for most of the 20th century. If you think about it, reducing music to zeros and ones is a much more abstract and unlikely concept than a vibrating needle, diaphragm and horn.
Requiring objective proof of artistic quality is silly. Caruso's greatness is as close to self-evident as you're ever going to get. If you can't hear that he was one of the greatest singers who ever recorded simply by listening to his records, there's something wrong with you, not the recording process. Caruso's records are more than able to convey his greatness to the listener.
Music is what matters, not recording techniques. Some folks think too much about sound quality and not enough about musical quality. It's one thing to criticize specifics when you're totally familiar with the subject, but I think people are discussing past their range of experience here.
It's wonderful that we have some record of his singing, and although I may take out the recordings every so often for reference, on an everyday basis, they are not the recordings I listen to.
That's your loss. Historical recordings provide a tremendous artistic resource for music and performances that no longer exist today. Perhaps sometime in the future, you'll learn to appreciate them with an open mind.
You missed what I was saying. I said that Caruso sounds best *played back* acoustically... meaning on a phonograph with a sound box and horn, mirroring the cutting head and horn that the records were recorded with. Acoustic recordings were never intended to be played back electrically.
The concept of a vibrating stylus in a groove is far from primitive when it comes to sound reproduction. It was the primary method of home sound reproduction for most of the 20th century. If you think about it, reducing music to zeros and ones is a much more abstract and unlikely concept than a vibrating needle, diaphragm and horn.
Requiring objective proof of artistic quality is silly. Caruso's greatness is as close to self-evident as you're ever going to get. If you can't hear that he was one of the greatest singers who ever recorded simply by listening to his records, there's something wrong with you, not the recording process. Caruso's records are more than able to convey his greatness to the listener.
Music is what matters, not recording techniques. Some folks think too much about sound quality and not enough about musical quality. It's one thing to criticize specifics when you're totally familiar with the subject, but I think people are discussing past their range of experience here.
See ya
Steve
I never wanted to discuss Caruso's greatness. Never having heard him live, I don't really think it's at all possible for me to say one way or another how great he was or wasn't. As self evident as his greatness is, his recordings are not very satisfying to me when compared to a great dvd of an opera.
My grandmother listened to music the way you do, but I don't doubt for a minute that if she could have chosen between the accoustic machine she had and the cd player that I have that she would have chosen the cd player. I know my father couldn't wait to upgrade to digital, and he had listened to music for more than 70 years by that time, using every technology that existed in his time.
For you, the antique recordings are the most satisfying. That's not the same for me. For me, orchestral music is most important so I want the fruit of the latest technology.
The 20th century is one of the richest eras in the entire history of mankind. For the first time, musical performances could be captured as recordings. Among the millions of recordings made over the past 100 years are some priceless performances that will never be repeated. To limit yourself to modern recordings is to remain ignorant of this rich heritage. As Pavarotti said, these recordings provide the foundation upon which all current performances sit.
For my part, I don't judge music by its age. I judge it by its originality and expressiveness. I couldn't imagine life without Cab Calloway, Stokowski or Hank Williams any more than living without the Beatles, Barenboim or Tom Waits. There's an ocean of great recorded music out there. I'd rather listen to the best of the past 100 years than limit myself arbitrarily to the product of the past twenty.
I used to think that modern music was all that was important. I was young and just didn't know what I was missing. I've been deep into music now for over thirty years. It's a journey. Every year I realize how much more there is to explore that I've never considered before. I'm sure the same will happen to you as you gain experience and your frame of reference broadens. You can't absorb everything all at once. It's OK to leave some types of music for later. The only dangers are thinking you know all there is to know and having a closed mind.
As for the sound quality of acoustic recordings played on large horn grammophones... that's something I have experience in and you don't. If you are ever in Los Angeles, I'd be happy to play some records for you and show you that what you've been told isn't the whole story. There are many examples of acoustic recordings that are enjoyable and truthful representations of performances from the past.
The 20th century is one of the richest eras in the entire history of mankind. For the first time, musical performances could be captured as recordings. Among the millions of recordings made over the past 100 years are some priceless performances that will never be repeated. To limit yourself to modern recordings is to remain ignorant of this rich heritage. As Pavarotti said, these recordings provide the foundation upon which all current performances sit.
For my part, I don't judge music by its age. I judge it by its originality and expressiveness. I couldn't imagine life without Cab Calloway, Stokowski or Hank Williams any more than living without the Beatles, Barenboim or Tom Waits. There's an ocean of great recorded music out there. I'd rather listen to the best of the past 100 years than limit myself arbitrarily to the product of the past twenty.
I used to think that modern music was all that was important. I was young and just didn't know what I was missing. I've been deep into music now for over thirty years. It's a journey. Every year I realize how much more there is to explore that I've never considered before. I'm sure the same will happen to you as you gain experience and your frame of reference broadens. You can't absorb everything all at once. It's OK to leave some types of music for later. The only dangers are thinking you know all there is to know and having a closed mind.
As for the sound quality of acoustic recordings played on large horn grammophones... that's something I have experience in and you don't. If you are ever in Los Angeles, I'd be happy to play some records for you and show you that what you've been told isn't the whole story. There are many examples of acoustic recordings that are enjoyable and truthful representations of performances from the past.
See ya
Steve
No one saying that the past should be discarded, just that it shouldn't be worshiped and memorialized as a glory that will never be equaled. While I admit that my recordings of pre 1950's vintage rarely if ever get played anymore, I'm not discarding them. I also want to set them in the correct perspective, which means not giving them more importance than they should have, nor giving them less importance than they deserve. It's a fine line and I really have not been able to decide just how I feel about them. I do know that I enjoy listening to modern recordings so much more than the older ones. There is just no comparison when you hear a great performance of Mahler's symphonies recorded in first-rate sacd multichannel to the same symphony recorded 60 years earlier. The sound of the orchestra is an integral part of those works and the truer the sound reproduction, the greater the experience.
Edit: I think you should know that as someone raised with classical music I started out believing that only the recordings of the past were worth preserving, treasuring my father's collection of recordings which I listened to almost constantly. It's only in the past 10 years or so that I started really hearing the tremendous differences in sound reproduction and how amazing they are. I still prefer going to concerts more than listening to any record, and the modern recordings on modern equipment replicate that experience better than the older recordings.
I am not sure that there is any reason to continue through on this path, if for no other reason than comments like,
As for the sound quality of acoustic recordings played on large horn grammophones... that's something I have experience in and you don't. If you are ever in Los Angeles, I'd be happy to play some records for you and show you that what you've been told isn't the whole story.
He knows, and I don't. Therefore, I should yield on all fronts. That seems like an eminently reasonable solution.
__________________
New signature forthcoming (or not).
Mahler really wasn't a major figure in the records of the pre-hifi era. His music came to its own in the LP era. I only know of one really important Mahler recording from this time period, and that's Bruno Walter's legendary live recording of the 9th with the Vienna Philharmonic from 1938. It's a bit scrappy in the beginning and the tempo is a bit fast, but it's important on so many levels... the imminent takeover of Vienna by the Nazis, Walter's relationship to Mahler and the symphony, and the history behind Mahler and the VPO. The CD releases of that particular recording have been pretty bad. I did a transfer of it myself from a mint HMV pressing. If you're interested in hearing samples and examples of before and after audio restoration, you can find it at http://www.vintageip.com/records/vipcl1005.html
Mahler really wasn't a major figure in the records of the pre-hifi era. His music came to its own in the LP era. I only know of one really important Mahler recording from this time period, and that's Bruno Walter's legendary live recording of the 9th with the Vienna Philharmonic from 1938. It's a bit scrappy in the beginning and the tempo is a bit fast, but it's important on so many levels... the imminent takeover of Vienna by the Nazis, Walter's relationship to Mahler and the symphony, and the history behind Mahler and the VPO. The CD releases of that particular recording have been pretty bad. I did a transfer of it myself from a mint HMV pressing. If you're interested in hearing samples and examples of before and after audio restoration, you can find it at http://www.vintageip.com/records/vipcl1005.html
See ya
Steve
Well, that's very nice! I really have so many excellent recordings of Mahler's 9th that I'm not very tempted to get an antique recording in less than modern sound. I know that recording has some historical significant importance, but not not for me. Perhaps for a music historian or professional critic it might be useful, but I'd probably play it once or twice and then relegate it to the shelf right next to the Mahler rolls cd. I'll stick to my Riccardo Chailly 9th and in SACD multichannel and the Ancerl and Mitropoulos because I know that I'll enjoy the musical experience more frequently.
The 1924 Oskar Fried recording of the Mahler 2nd is important in its own right. He was an associate of Mahler, and he managed to get the 2nd on acetate within a reasonable amount of time after Mahler's death. Also, Fried conducted the M2 with Mahler in the audience, so - one hopes - that he would have received some guidance from the composer himself. That set is important for many of the same reasons, though not all of them, that the '38 Walter 9th is important. I am less inclined, though, to grant great authenticity to the 1950s/60s-era Walter and Klemperer recordings, simply because they'd had forty years to forget, to misremember, and to invent their own performance style.
The Fried record was also notable for being the first complete Mahler symphony recording. I think.
__________________
New signature forthcoming (or not).
Linear Mode
