Warning very long post!!.
Schubertmaniac raises some very interesting points, particularly with respect to the Bruckner 8th. I apologize for the lengthy comments but there are some additional dimensions on why accuracy in reproduction is important, even if the listener is seeking a subjective experience from the music. For this post I am going to ignore the social aspects and concentrate on the internal psychological affects of the music.
First, the famous October 17, 1944 Furtwangler performance was with Vienna and not Berlin. It was recorded on state of the art Nazi electronics and the Magnetophon, the first magnetic tape recorder. I just measured the dynamic range on the recent Music and Arts transfer, and from the opening bars to the coda it is a respectable 35db. It is quite listenable on my dCS 972/Elgar, Sigtech, custom Melos monoblocks and Dunlavy SC-Vs. I also believe that it is the greatest performance of this work recorded and I own all of the 25 plus contenders.
The recording is good enough to cross the aesthetic threshold in the first sense (to paraphrase a recent Grammophone review on ”listening to Bruckner attentively with score in hand”). Listening to it is not painful. However, particularly for Bruckner this is not the only aesthetic possibility. In his book on the Bruckner 8th, Benjamin Korstvedt discusses how this piece in particular was viewed as having the ability to connect with the sublime or to continue the Grammophone’s quote “ or do you listen to Bruckner eyes half closed waiting for the Grail to descend”. The Furtwangler should have that impact, but here, for me, the sound quality does get in the way.
This feeling of being transported by music is not solely the realm of classical music but I don’t want to take the space to digress.
I’ve heard Solti with the CSO, Karajan with the BPO and Haitink with the VPO play the 8th live. The Solti performance was the most magnificent sounding performance that I have ever attended but the interpretation was so theatrical that Bruckner’s “sublime” connection was lost. Here, in a live performance I believe one kind aesthetic experience was sacrificed to create a live sonic spectacular. The fact that about 25% of the audience in the front were holding their ears during the coda did add to the distraction.
Live, Karajan’s 8th was a sublime experience with a sound comparable to Solti, though no where near as loud. In Haitink’s case, the fact that it was live and with the unique sound of the VPO in their own hall added to the experience even though the depth of the interpretation was no were near Karajan’s. Haitink’s recording of the 8th doesn’t transport me even though live he did. Karajan’s recording does, although at times even with this interpretation I am aware of what is missing due to electronic reproduction.
I believe it is very hard to tease out the relative contributions of the sound and the interpretation, particularly in late romantic music. Even the absolute best recordings on my system cannot capture the direct psychological impact of the sound of a live orchestra. The sound quality is part but is only part of the aesthetic. With a great interpretation, the better the recording faithfully captures the sound and especially the less noticeable the electronic artifacts are the better the over all experience is for me.
Recently, our regular group of listeners attended a live Bruckner performance with a “name” orchestra and conductor, here there was universal agreement that we should have rather stayed home and listened to a recording. The sound was better than a recording but the interpretation was so superficial and the playing so routine that it was an annoying experience.
I my collection I do have great performances with poor sound (far worse than the Furtwangler) and vacuous performances that sound magnificent and i will get enjoyment from both. However, the major reason for me to pursue this hobby is to be able to create an experience at home where great sound and a great interpretation come together for a transporting experience. If this didn't happen I would content my self with a mid-fi system and live concerts.
There is art and aesthetics contained in the technology of high end audio that is missing from mid-fi. It is hard to directly perceive this but I think the only reliable way is by comparing it to superb acoustic performances.
One last note, for those of you who are interested in musical aesthetics I highly recommend Carl Dahlhaus’s book Aesthetics of Music.
Schubertmaniac raises some very interesting points, particularly with respect to the Bruckner 8th. I apologize for the lengthy comments but there are some additional dimensions on why accuracy in reproduction is important, even if the listener is seeking a subjective experience from the music. For this post I am going to ignore the social aspects and concentrate on the internal psychological affects of the music.
First, the famous October 17, 1944 Furtwangler performance was with Vienna and not Berlin. It was recorded on state of the art Nazi electronics and the Magnetophon, the first magnetic tape recorder. I just measured the dynamic range on the recent Music and Arts transfer, and from the opening bars to the coda it is a respectable 35db. It is quite listenable on my dCS 972/Elgar, Sigtech, custom Melos monoblocks and Dunlavy SC-Vs. I also believe that it is the greatest performance of this work recorded and I own all of the 25 plus contenders.
The recording is good enough to cross the aesthetic threshold in the first sense (to paraphrase a recent Grammophone review on ”listening to Bruckner attentively with score in hand”). Listening to it is not painful. However, particularly for Bruckner this is not the only aesthetic possibility. In his book on the Bruckner 8th, Benjamin Korstvedt discusses how this piece in particular was viewed as having the ability to connect with the sublime or to continue the Grammophone’s quote “ or do you listen to Bruckner eyes half closed waiting for the Grail to descend”. The Furtwangler should have that impact, but here, for me, the sound quality does get in the way.
This feeling of being transported by music is not solely the realm of classical music but I don’t want to take the space to digress.
I’ve heard Solti with the CSO, Karajan with the BPO and Haitink with the VPO play the 8th live. The Solti performance was the most magnificent sounding performance that I have ever attended but the interpretation was so theatrical that Bruckner’s “sublime” connection was lost. Here, in a live performance I believe one kind aesthetic experience was sacrificed to create a live sonic spectacular. The fact that about 25% of the audience in the front were holding their ears during the coda did add to the distraction.
Live, Karajan’s 8th was a sublime experience with a sound comparable to Solti, though no where near as loud. In Haitink’s case, the fact that it was live and with the unique sound of the VPO in their own hall added to the experience even though the depth of the interpretation was no were near Karajan’s. Haitink’s recording of the 8th doesn’t transport me even though live he did. Karajan’s recording does, although at times even with this interpretation I am aware of what is missing due to electronic reproduction.
I believe it is very hard to tease out the relative contributions of the sound and the interpretation, particularly in late romantic music. Even the absolute best recordings on my system cannot capture the direct psychological impact of the sound of a live orchestra. The sound quality is part but is only part of the aesthetic. With a great interpretation, the better the recording faithfully captures the sound and especially the less noticeable the electronic artifacts are the better the over all experience is for me.
Recently, our regular group of listeners attended a live Bruckner performance with a “name” orchestra and conductor, here there was universal agreement that we should have rather stayed home and listened to a recording. The sound was better than a recording but the interpretation was so superficial and the playing so routine that it was an annoying experience.
I my collection I do have great performances with poor sound (far worse than the Furtwangler) and vacuous performances that sound magnificent and i will get enjoyment from both. However, the major reason for me to pursue this hobby is to be able to create an experience at home where great sound and a great interpretation come together for a transporting experience. If this didn't happen I would content my self with a mid-fi system and live concerts.
There is art and aesthetics contained in the technology of high end audio that is missing from mid-fi. It is hard to directly perceive this but I think the only reliable way is by comparing it to superb acoustic performances.
One last note, for those of you who are interested in musical aesthetics I highly recommend Carl Dahlhaus’s book Aesthetics of Music.