[Quinto]

Of course, but I rather listen to the timbre of a splendid instrument as well

 

[amigomatt]

Of course, but I rather listen to the timbre of a splendid instrument as well

..and thus back to the necessity of great recording quality to capture such timbral and tonal subtleties.

 

[Arcamera]

Indeed. The players and their execution are important, but the sound is too. I'm guessing all of us here at one time or another have preferred decent players with excellent recording vs. excellent players with decent (or worse) recording...

 

[extrabigmehdi]

  I'm guessing all of us here at one time or another have preferred decent players with excellent recording vs. excellent players with decent (or worse) recording...

 
If you look at classicstoday.com/‎ website they give two rating for sound quality, and "artistic quality" for each review. So to find good recording it's just easy to look at those rated 10 , 10.
Although off course not everyone would necessarily agree with the reviewer regarding "artistic quality".
I  prefer "digital recording" too.

 

[bigshot]

  Indeed. The players and their execution are important, but the sound is too. I'm guessing all of us here at one time or another have preferred decent players with excellent recording vs. excellent players with decent (or worse) recording...

 
Not here. If you limit yourself to just modern recordings, you miss out on a LOT. Especially in the world of opera. There is absolutely nothing today that even comes close to Caruso or Melchior.
 
I think that a lot of this comes down to inexperienced listeners who are just becoming familiar with the compositions. It's hard to discern the difference between a middlin' good performance and a spectacular performance for the ages when you're hearing the work for the first time. Also, if you just listen to recent performances, there's no way you even know what you're missing.
 
I'm 40 years into listening to classical music, and performances from the 60s and before make up more than 3/4 of my interests. The only area where there is more today than before is baroque music.

 

[amigomatt]

Not here. If you limit yourself to just modern recordings, you miss out on a LOT. Especially in the world of opera. There is absolutely nothing today that even comes close to Caruso or Melchior.

I think that a lot of this comes down to inexperienced listeners who are just becoming familiar with the compositions. It's hard to discern the difference between a middlin' good performance and a spectacular performance for the ages when you're hearing the work for the first time. Also, if you just listen to recent performances, there's no way you even know what you're missing.

I'm 40 years into listening to classical music, and performances from the 60s and before make up more than 3/4 of my interests. The only area where there is more today than before is baroque music.

I completely understand where you're coming from, yet for me with my 20 years listening and playing orchestral/classical music, it's an interesting correlation that many of my favourite recordings seem to be from the 60s to the 80s.

The have been lots of great records made since then too, but orchestras and performances have to a noticeable degree become less individual and unique in their sound and approach, I must admit.

 

[Quinto]

..and thus back to the necessity of great recording quality to capture such timbral and tonal subtleties.

 

..and thus back to the necessity of great recording quality to capture such timbral and tonal subtleties.

 

   
Not here. If you limit yourself to just modern recordings, you miss out on a LOT. Especially in the world of opera. There is absolutely nothing today that even comes close to Caruso or Melchior.
 
I think that a lot of this comes down to inexperienced listeners who are just becoming familiar with the compositions. It's hard to discern the difference between a middlin' good performance and a spectacular performance for the ages when you're hearing the work for the first time. Also, if you just listen to recent performances, there's no way you even know what you're missing.
 
I'm 40 years into listening to classical music, and performances from the 60s and before make up more than 3/4 of my interests. The only area where there is more today than before is baroque music.

I agree Bigshot, great SQ is wonderful, but there is way too much greatness to be dismissed on the basis of record quality alone..  to a certain extent.. some of Pau/Pablo Casals or Schnabel recordings are not enjoyable to me
 
I for one adore the old Sviatoslav Richter recordings in Prague or many old Mahler recordings.. Lot of factors morph into a certain experience, historical context can give a lot and SQ can take a little back... great, ain't it..

 

 

[Quinto]

..and thus back to the necessity of great recording quality to capture such timbral and tonal subtleties.

It has no necessity for me, it's a bonus

 

[Arcamera]

Well, for example: I listen to some of the Sir Beecham recordings of Delius or Bax or Vaughan Williams and think they are magnificent, but I don't care to listen to them more than once. The sound is earnest, but in-your-face mediocre. I'll take Hickox or Handley with better sound quality. In other words, good interpretations, great recordings. Especially if we are listening with more revealing components.

 

[bigshot]

Those are good performances, but they aren't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about performances from the past where there is no modern equivalent.

 

[bigshot]

  I agree Bigshot, great SQ is wonderful, but there is way too much greatness to be dismissed on the basis of record quality alone..  to a certain extent.. some of Pau/Pablo Casals or Schnabel recordings are not enjoyable to me

 
Sometimes it depends on the transfer. A lot of older recordings are poorly served by big labels. Here is a transfer I did myself from the original shellac of Schnabel's Diabelli Variations. This is a great example of a performance that has never been bettered. The sound quality is a bit distant, but with a faithful transfer and playing back on speakers, not headphones, it sounds perfectly acceptable. The performance is spectacular.
 
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3

 

[Quinto]

   
Sometimes it depends on the transfer. A lot of older recordings are poorly served by big labels. Here is a transfer I did myself from the original shellac of Schnabel's Diabelli Variations. This is a great example of a performance that has never been bettered. The sound quality is a bit distant, but with a faithful transfer and playing back on speakers, not headphones, it sounds perfectly acceptable. The performance is spectacular.
 
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3

Cool! I will enjoy that thanks

 
This is my favorite Diabelli
 

 

[amigomatt]

I'm presently scouring through recordings of Walton's Belshazzar's Feast as I'm lucky enough to be playing principal trumpet in it early next year and out of the myriad of options both old and new and including Walton's own, only Hickox's LSO version really allows the dynamics and inner details to come through in the big moments. Ask the rest cloud up somewhat in the big tutti, especially the older records. That Hickox reading is definitely a great recording.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

I'm talking about performances from the past where there is no modern equivalent.

I'm sure the reverse exist too, i.e recent performance that don't have any past equivalent.
So for someone that don't have an extended knowledge of classical music available, it still makes sense to focus on modern recording;
unless off course you  got advices for old ones.

 

[bigshot]

  I'm sure the reverse exist too, i.e recent performance that don't have any past equivalent.

 
That would be most baroque music, because baroque wasn't recorded much back before the recent era.