[Vicious Tyrant]

Does anyone else out there just LOOOVE those old mono scratchy historic opera recordings? I have a couple of those old Naxos Historical recordings, usually produced by Ward Marston whoever he is. I don't have any idea how to describe why I love them so much, but the singers just sound so natural and real and flawed, I often listen to them over modern recordings.

Now I don't really like instrumental music on the old recordings, just something about the human voice.

Anyone else?

 

[mbhaub]

I agree with you. And the reason is easy: those singers grew up in world where opera singing was highly respected, and talent sought out, trained, and well rewarded. They sang in small halls than we have today, so they didn't have to strain to be heard. Opera was a much more important part of society and there were many talented people involved, and they learned phrasing, diction, drama, etc. much better than singers today. There really was a Golden Era of singing, and we'll likely never have those sorts of voices again. It's the world we live in; people like singers such as Britney spears who can't, rap "singers" , and rock singers who seem to think that yelling is singing. It's not just here, either. Not even Italy, which used to supply so many fine opera singers doesn't turn 'em out like they used to.

 

[PSmith08]

Ward Marston and Mark Obert-Thorn are, in my opinion, the two best transfer artists working today.

I, too, share an affinity for the old, mono recordings. The performers are the stuff of legend. There is nothing like Lauritz Melchior belting out "Siegmund heiss ich und Siegmund bin ich!" In fact, as referenced earlier, there are those who consider the '35 Walkure recording the greatest Wagner record ever. That was 70 years ago.

There is something to be said, and something hovering at the border of tangibility, for these old recordings. Perhaps it is the link to a time when performers really forged their craft on one or two characters. In the case of Wagner, perhaps it is the idea that there were people alive to the 40s that might have had personal contact with the master. In some cases, one can hear the composer conduct his own work.

Whatever it was, those old records are fantastic.

 

[GanChan]

Some of the oldest recordings are still the reigning champions. I think the best Andrea Chenier, for example is the Gigli recording. Also, the 30s and 40s recordings are especially valuable for French opera, because that particular style of singing and playing really is pretty much extinct.

 

[bigshot]

The sound of acoustic recordings on CD is nothing compared to the way they sound on an acoustic Victrola. I have two acoustic phonographs, and the sound of Caruso on them is uncanny. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, it's so present and real. In fact, I had my suitcase phonograph at Starbucks one afternoon, and a person walked onto the patio from the street "looking for the person who was singing". They didn't even realize it was a recording.

There are a few reasons why Victrolas sound better than electrical reproduction...

The first is the frequency response range. The acoustic process captures sound that exactly contains the male voice. This is why opera is so good on old 78s, and orchestral music isn't as good.

The dynamic range is 1:1. If the singer sings in a whisper, the phonograph plays it back exactly that loud. Likewise for full voice. There is no adjustment for volume on an acoustic phonograph. The gain is fixed at the exact same volume as the original performance.

The sound box... the round disk shaped compartment that holds the needle and resonating diaphragm... is better at noise reduction than the best digital filters. It doesn't reproduce any frequencies beyond the range of the recording itself. (Most noise sits above the music.) And it is unable to reproduce sharp transients. This automatically eliminates sharp tics and pops.

The horn provided a directionality to the sound and extends the frequency response to enhance the lower notes. The instruction book that came with Victrolas said to put your machine in the corner of a room, pointing toward the center. When you do this the junction of the walls in the corner acts as an extension to the horn, increasing its ability to reproduce low frequencies. Also, when the records were recorded, the performer stood a few feet in front of a large horn, which channelled through a tube to the cutting head. Playback on a Victrola is the exact mirror image of that process... the sound box plays the record and the sound goes through a tube into a horn... The eerie result of this is that you get a three dimensional image of the performer about three feet in front of the phonograph! If you have ever experienced this, you know how baffling this effect is.

Since the acoustic process was unable to record any sound more than 20 feet away from the recording horn, most acoustic records have no reverberation at all. They are totally dry. When you play them back in a fairly large living room, perhaps with bare wood floors, the room itself provides the reverberation, adding the exact same presence that one would have if they spoke or made a sound in the room. This provides a direct immediacy and sense of reality that no digital reverb can sythesize.

The frequency response of the acoustic process was very uneven. There are spikes and dips all over the spectrum. But the inaccuracy is euphonic... it actually improves the sound. When you listen to acoustic records, you don't get the sense that the frequency range is as narrow as it actually is. This is because of psycho-acoustics. The engineers at Victor, Columbia and Edison may not have known what the term "psycho acoustics" meant, but they certainly used the principle. If you add a little high frequency hiss to music, just above the range of the recording, the ears are fooled into thinking there are frequencies in the music that don't exist. Also, some frequencies mask other frequencies and some don't. The response of the Victor Exhibition soundbox is perfectly balanced to provide the illusion of having a much broader response than it actually has.

A lot of transfer engineers smooth out the spikes and end up dulling the sound considerably. But if you hear an acoustic record presented the way a contemporary phonograph reproduces it, it can sound much better than it would if you tried to make the response conform to a "natural" flat response.

Here is an example of a track I restored from a record made in 1909. Keep in mind that this record is nearly 100 years old. When I was doing the transfer and processing the sound, I referred to the way it sounded on my acoustic phonograph and tried to duplicate the sound. It's pretty darn good for 100 years old! Listen in particular to the bass drum at the beginning and end and the xylophone solo in the middle. I'd like to see more engineers use these kinds of techniques.

http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP-RP-1001Trk18.mp3

By the way, this song is called "Porkupine Rag" and it's by Prince's Band.

See ya
Steve

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The sound of acoustic recordings on CD is nothing compared to the way they sound on an acoustic Victrola. I have two acoustic phonographs, and the sound of Caruso on them is uncanny. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, it's so present and real. In fact, I had my suitcase phonograph at Starbucks one afternoon, and a person walked onto the patio from the street "looking for the person who was singing". They didn't even realize it was a recording. There are a few reasons why Victrolas sound better than electrical reproduction... The first is the frequency response range. The acoustic process captures sound that exactly contains the male voice. This is why opera is so good on old 78s, and orchestral music isn't as good. The dynamic range is 1:1. If the singer sings in a whisper, the phonograph plays it back exactly that loud. Likewise for full voice. There is no adjustment for volume on an acoustic phonograph. The gain is fixed at the exact same volume as the original performance. The sound box... the round disk shaped compartment that holds the needle and resonating diaphragm... is better at noise reduction than the best digital filters. It doesn't reproduce any frequencies beyond the range of the recording itself. (Most noise sits above the music.) And it is unable to reproduce sharp transients. This automatically eliminates sharp tics and pops. The horn provided a directionality to the sound and extends the frequency response to enhance the lower notes. The instruction book that came with Victrolas said to put your machine in the corner of a room, pointing toward the center. When you do this the junction of the walls in the corner acts as an extension to the horn, increasing its ability to reproduce low frequencies. Also, when the records were recorded, the performer stood a few feet in front of a large horn, which channelled through a tube to the cutting head. Playback on a Victrola is the exact mirror image of that process... the sound box plays the record and the sound goes through a tube into a horn... The eerie result of this is that you get a three dimensional image of the performer about three feet in front of the phonograph! If you have ever experienced this, you know how baffling this effect is. Since the acoustic process was unable to record any sound more than 20 feet away from the recording horn, most acoustic records have no reverberation at all. They are totally dry. When you play them back in a fairly large living room, perhaps with bare wood floors, the room itself provides the reverberation, adding the exact same presence that one would have if they spoke or made a sound in the room. This provides a direct immediacy and sense of reality that no digital reverb can sythesize. The frequency response of the acoustic process was very uneven. There are spikes and dips all over the spectrum. But the inaccuracy is euphonic... it actually improves the sound. When you listen to acoustic records, you don't get the sense that the frequency range is as narrow as it actually is. This is because of psycho-acoustics. The engineers at Victor, Columbia and Edison may not have known what the term "psycho acoustics" meant, but they certainly used the principle. If you add a little high frequency hiss to music, just above the range of the recording, the ears are fooled into thinking there are frequencies in the music that don't exist. Also, some frequencies mask other frequencies and some don't. The response of the Victor Exhibition soundbox is perfectly balanced to provide the illusion of having a much broader response than it actually has. A lot of transfer engineers smooth out the spikes and end up dulling the sound considerably. But if you hear an acoustic record presented the way a contemporary phonograph reproduces it, it can sound much better than it would if you tried to make the response conform to a "natural" flat response. Here is an example of a track I restored from a record made in 1909. Keep in mind that this record is nearly 100 years old. When I was doing the transfer and processing the sound, I referred to the way it sounded on my acoustic phonograph and tried to duplicate the sound. It's pretty darn good for 100 years old! Listen in particular to the bass drum at the beginning and end and the xylophone solo in the middle. I'd like to see more engineers use these kinds of techniques. http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP-RP-1001Trk18.mp3 By the way, this song is called "Porkupine Rag" and it's by Prince's Band. See ya Steve

I would really like to hear a 78 played on an acoustic Victrola. I've heard that it's amazing.

 

[bigshot]

If you're ever in LA, I'd be happy to play mine for you.

See ya
Steve

 

[calaf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Now I don't really like instrumental music on the old recordings, just something about the human voice.

some instrumental music on old recordings sounds quite decent or even surprisingly good (as in why do engineers need all these mikes and channels today?). The obvious example is Pau Casals and his legendary Bach Cello Suites (1930s), but also Schnabel and the Pro Arte Quartet swinging in the Schubert "Trout" Quintet (1935) or the amazing 1932 Beethoven Violin Concerto from Joseph Szigeti (with Walter/BSO). In the end I suspect that (voice or instrument) when the music is good you quickly forget about the recording quality...

 

[calaf]

double post (network glitch)

 

[calaf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub I agree with you. And the reason is easy: those singers grew up in world where opera singing was highly respected, and talent sought out, trained, and well rewarded. They sang in small halls than we have today, so they didn't have to strain to be heard. Opera was a much more important part of society and there were many talented people involved, and they learned phrasing, diction, drama, etc. much better than singers today. There really was a Golden Era of singing, and we'll likely never have those sorts of voices again. It's the world we live in; people like singers such as Britney spears who can't, rap "singers" , and rock singers who seem to think that yelling is singing. It's not just here, either. Not even Italy, which used to supply so many fine opera singers doesn't turn 'em out like they used to.

I don't know, what you say is probably true for Verdi and Wagner, but when it comes to baroque and classic opera interpretation I argue the Golden Era is now.
Even if you don't consider the wealth of operas which are rediscovered every year (think about what's happening with Vivaldi's work), the current "period" sensibility both in singing and instrumentation is changing the way we listen to Haendel, Mozart and even Rossini.
The singers themselves may not enjoy the star-status of the past, but artists like Simon Keenlyside or Cecilia Bartoli (to name but two) would richly deserve it.

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaf I don't know, what you say is probably true for Verdi and Wagner, but when it comes to baroque and classic opera interpretation I argue the Golden Era is now. Even if you don't consider the wealth of operas which are rediscovered every year (think about what's happening with Vivaldi's work), the current "period" sensibility both in singing and instrumentation is changing the way we listen to Haendel, Mozart and even Rossini. The singers themselves may not enjoy the star-status of the past, but artists like Simon Keenlyside or Cecilia Bartoli (to name but two) would richly deserve it.

I would be loath to say that the state of Wagnerian affairs is slattern indeed. My sources (as reliable as any) who attended some of the Chicago Ring shows say that they were very well done. Verdi gets what Verdi deserves.

Period work is revitalizing the entire Baroque/Classical canon. In some cases, it is merely a gimmick, but in many, it is a valuable reinterpretation.

 

[mbhaub]

You named two -- neither of whom would have been employed at the Met 60 years ago. They're not good enough. Yes, there are some out there today who are quite good, I get to hear some every summer in Santa Fe. But there were so many back then. You had the Met, Vienna, Paris, La Scala with large ensembles of top-notch talent. Then the smaller venues Covent Garden, Bolshoi, Chicago, Bayreauth, even San Francisco with fine singers. Back then there was very little interest in Baroque or much classical opera so we'll never know how they would have done. I am quite certain that the quality of the orchestra's today is vastly superior to what they had in the past. The Met opera orchestra today is superb, thanks to James Levine. Even singers of yesterday had real trouble with things like Wozzeck & Lulu. They could approximate intonations. Today's singers are better trained in that respect.

 

[calaf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub You named two -- neither of whom would have been employed at the Met 60 years ago. They're not good enough.

you are right! They would probably have not been employed at the Met 60 years ago, but they can sing (and act in the case of Keenlyside) Mozart and Rossini with a technique and a verve that I have not yet heard in recordings (from the Met or otherwise) of 60 years ago: they are singers of today...

 

[PSmith08]

There is, in some quarters, a trend toward self-mortification -- especially when it comes to opera. Lauritz Melchior, Friedrich Schorr, Enrico Caruso, and the others are quite dead. However, thanks in no small part to the triumph of recorded sound, we can compare the newcomers eternally to the ghosts in the wings. The reason opera managed to produce generation after generation of greats before the rise of recordings is that there was no standard of comparison other than memory. Memories, unlike celluloid platters, are fallible.

I love recordings and modern interpretations, but I am careful lest the two ever meet.

 

[Mark from HFR]

Bigshot,

Do you like any of the transfers that Nimbus made a number of years back of old 78's? They played them on a Victrola in a moderate-sized hall with good acoustics and digitally recorded that sound, so that the reverb is natural instead of the fake stuff. I thought it was a good idea and I prefer the few discs I've heard from that series to any of the processed, Cedar-ized releases. The Nimbus stuff sounds much more vivid, much more real than I thought those old discs could sound.

Still, I'd like to find me a good old player someday.