I have always been guilty of liking sound quality and sometimes over classic old recordings which I am really ill at ease with as I cannot hear what is properly going on in say a symphony or piano recital. On the other hand the recording can sometimes be too clean and it all too soon highlights the failings of a conductor or soloists and all you can hear after that are mistakes and faulty intonation and general messiness which makes you think you have just bought a Turkey.
SQ or performance?
In classical music, how much does the sound quality influence your enjoyment of a particular piece? I find it plays a large part. A recording is an artifact in itself. There are many factors which contribute to the final product. And even a great performance can be sabotaged by poor engineering, poor pressing, poor microphone placement and the like. Conversely, a mediocre performance can be attractive to us because of sterling acoustics.
In “historical” recordings we may allow for bad sound, but in contemporary performances the sound can have a significant bearing on our perspective.
Also, our appreciation of a given performance can be affected by other factors. For example, if we grew up loving a certain version, all others may suffer by comparison in our view.
43 responses Add your response
I agree that sound quality has a major influence on my enjoyment of a recording. If I have two recordings of the same piece, I’ll play the better recorded one far more often regardless of performance. This is especially true for recordings of pieces that are new to me. When I first heard Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues at home, it was Jarrett’s recording. A bit later I listened to Scherbakov’s (on Naxos?). I’m not so knowledgeable as to be able to rate the two, but I enjoy the sound of Scherbakov’s much more and, consequently, it’s the one I play. From this site and others, I have the impression that many musicians find the sound less important than the performance, but I just don’t listen the way they do. |
@rvpiano - Like you, I find both sound quality and performance quality contribute to my enjoyment. I’m especially averse to old piano recordings where the instrument warbles due to its analog origins -- even the best tape recorders were never as solid as a digital recording. Another example is the Casals recording of the Bach Suites. I’ve listened to a couple of different restorations, but I could never get past the awful sonics. All that said, sometimes I listen to something and think, "So that’s what that music is all about." A performance that appeals to me can often outweigh sound that is only serviceable. |
I listen to Scriabin integral awful sound recording by Michael Ponti more than most modern recording with a good sound, and way more to Sofronitisky bad sound also ...And to some other not well recorded old russian interpretations... I am unable to attend modern well recorded interpretation in fact... I wanted to because i like good sound but....If God play i listen to him even if it is on a wax cylinder like the RCA dog his master... I tried modern pianists almost no one is able of the superhuman strenght and control and finesse necessary to play Scriabin... Beautiful sound, and beautiful playing is not enough for Scriabin... it takes volcanic expression and colors that has never existed on earth at the finger tips, sorry... Music is not only sound....Music is what our heart listen to first and last and not the ears.... I never listen to a better interpretation of the third Scriabin sonata than Sofronitsky, to the point to listen no modern better souding version...
For most "normal" and casual only good interpretations , for those interpret that are only "good" but not divine or superhuman one, i choose the best recording for sure ... These are the majority of albums... But who can replace the bad sound but divine playing of Giesecking directed by Bohm of the fourth Beethoven concertos in 1939 ? I cannot listen no modern playing of that piece... Guess why? i feel beethoven recincarnate for this moment...
|
No the best sounding recordings have not always the best performances... Audiophile wishful thinking is not music.....Sorry... Only an example to illustrate the complete falsity of that maxim: Furtwangler Bruckner and some other irreplaceable interpretations with bad sound...
|
I loved sound quality... It takes me 2 years of acoustic experiments to create my audio room...I am retired happily because it takes me daily experiments with a huge number of devices...Then i love GOOD SOUND more than most here... But sound quality dont hold a candle to musical interpretation... If you think the opposite you listen sound through music yes, but you dont feel music through sound , sorry....
Test your heart...Not your ears pleasure here... Listen to this bad recording of the greatest Lizst interpretation i ever listened to... Beware it is not "beautiful", beautiful is way short of divine.... In love just beautiful is no more enough to feel the expression till the glass overflows... It overflows here... Do you think Liszt mesmerized crowds and any other pianist in his times with only a "beautuful" sound? No he plays like an earth shattering never listen to recreation of music....😊 If you are annoyed here, go back to sound listening probably in a not so good room acoustic anyway because most audiophile with costly gear dont even adress acoustic .... A paradox no? 😁
|
This man is recorded by hidden microphone, he is a mystic who never give any concerts...He play ONLY in prayers with few people.... He is one of the greatest musical experience in the life of Yehudi Menuhin...And in mine... Do you think Menuhin will trash this "awful recording" played by a sufi archangel?
|
If you want to know what is the meaning of music, think about a bad recording singing dedicated for you and recorded by your mother when you were young and you listen to her right now for the first time long after his death ... If you are not moved more than by any other singer well recorded you are not human... Then think about an angel, a god, a supremum musician playing and touching your heart, like he was playing FOR YOU, who give a damn about sound and will change the music player because of some bad sound? Not me.... And my acoustic is very good trust me....But sound means nothing without soul, and soul visible through an awful body is more beautiful than the most beautiful woman with an awful soul...For sure.... |
@mahgister - I am another who finds most audiophile recordings, as you said, "boring, non creative, and without interest." Does no one else remember Holt's Law? -- the idea that the better the recording, the worse the musical performance—and vice versa. Like many laws, it has exceptions, thank goodness.
|
**** But sound quality dont hold a candle to musical interpretation...**** Not much more to add. Great posts, mahgister. Since the subject is Classical music I will add that sometimes what is perceived as great sound is actually artificial sound. Classical music composers do not and did not intend their music to be heard with the kind of hyper detail and spotlighting often heard on some recordings. Impressive sound perhaps…..in a way. However, composers compose and choose certain instrumental combinations with the idea in mind that only from a certain distance the listener would hear the desired blend of instrumental colors and textures. The pin point imaging and detail that is sometimes craved by listeners actually destroys the composer’s intent for the composition. A classic case of less is more and why some feel that their stereos sound better than a live performance in a decent hall. An absurdity, imo.
|
I'm like most of the rest of you guys. A stellar performance and stellar-quality music will always out-trump a lesser performance recorded with better fidelity. Luckily, though, I have many, many recordings that demonstrate that Holt's Law doesn't always hold true. I have lots of recordings that give me cake and proverbially allow me to eat it, too. |
In some few cases yes the sound quality rival the performance... The recording engineer here is a genius... And for me it is one of the best, if not the best piano playing of these nocturnes...
|
But sometimes it is difficult to choose between marmorean perfection with Moravec and an elegant more moving interpretation which is not less powerful and way less known... Even if the sound recording cannot rival Moravec album it is very good...Anyway very rare pianist can rival Brunhoff delicate intonation without any rigidity, a flowing heartfelt singing and dancing....
|
Some of the greatest pianists are way less known than most people think... A great career is not the same thing than GENIUS...It is true for all musician, many musical geniuses will stay unknown forever and less talented one universally acclaimed... I know it .... Pay attention when walking in the street perhaps you will stumble on a genius like unorthodox blind composer Moondog who was even creating minimalist school before it exist in the first place...... Too much circonstances explain a great career which has nothing to do with musical genius... We must listen music without reading most review of new albums... I decided for myself who is great and who is not for me.... If some performance put me almost near death or ectasy it is great.... All performances i put in this thread are great one... This is the reason i listen my 9000 albums ONE time or TWO at most... And this the reason i listen to a kernel of few hundreds all the time... In ALL musical genre... If you have a harem of thousand woman you will always go back to a very few if not one...Guess why? Love is the greatest aphrodisiac...
Sound quality is secondary in musical experience on playback... But i love sound quality, my room is proof of that, anyway the worst recording are more "interesting" now in my room...They stay bad but we can decipher easily more acoustical cues...
|
It depends on the degree of "badness", and to some degree by the nature of the music. Bernstein’s traversals of Beethoven’s symphonies---though not of audiophile purist sound quality---are not sabotaged to anywhere near the same degree as are those of Toscanini, which though musically magnificent are sonically pretty anemic. The sound of a symphony orchestra can really be emasculated by a poor recording. The sound quality of Glenn Gould’s J.S. Bach’s solo keyboard works recordings---also not of audiophile caliber---are not bad enough to get in the way of his performances. Though I prefer Bach on period instruments (for which the works were, after all, written to be performed on), Gould’s brilliance cannot be denied. |
I don’t believe that details of a composition that are lost is a plus.
|
It is better to read posts before posting... Why? Because if you dont have read my posts you cannot know what i spoke about and why i chose these links to youtube... Then your posts are rude... If you had read my posts and anyway decide to say my links are terrible, you are rude and not very wise, because the links are there to make an interesting point... An interpretation can be so powerful that in spite of bad recording sound we listen it anyway because there is no choice... Beauty is beauty without make up, wrapped and covered with mud...It is called the soul...
If the thread title in two words define an alternatives, sound or performance it is normal that someone post youtube links to make a point... Then the choice of the adjective "dire" to describe these links say more about your behaviour than about my posts...
|
I listen to a lot of historical performances along with modern (I.e. stereo). So I can’t really say SQ is the deciding factor. It is definitely important, however. Even historical performances can sound very different depending upon the restoration technique. Compare Pristine Audio with Immortal Performances, for example. They have both reissued the same NBC Symphony concerts from the early forties led by Toscanini and Walter. Pristine likes to inject a lot of ambience, and IP is less interventionist. They both are recognizable as having the same source but the differences are interesting. With modern recordings I am more tolerant of less than perfect sound. I was listening to some Debussy from Vikung Olaffson on DG and then the same music from Peter Frankl on Vox in the same listening session. I love both discs and having played the Frankl second at first the ear is confronted with opaque Sonics but soon it adjusts |
Saying that it is better to have especially with orchestra the better possible S.Q. is only a common place fact no one in his sound mind could ever oppose... 😁😊 It goes almost without saying for me... But i cannot throw the 9th symphony of Bruckner by Furtwangler and listen ONLY Celibidache for example or Giulini because the sound is better... Why? Because in music the goal is not only esthetical perfect pleasure, not at all, music also reflect consciousness in history and the goal is increasing our counscious link with the intention of the composer, all good interpretations and only that can make us more enlightened about the intention of a composer... And sometimes in some cases in spite of bad recording process some interpret embodied perfection...That was my point... The most stunning experience in music come when we FORGOT the sound....Especially if we love beautiful sounds in beautiful recordings... And i will repeat that i am most interested by acoustic and good sound than most here if we judge this interest by the amount of time invested in the effort to create acoustic of room... 😁😊
Music gestures or interpretations must be interiorized , music is not sound but through sound ....And sound is not always "music" even beautiful sounds...
«Silence is never badly interpreted but can be badly recorded »-Groucho Marx 🤓 «Because here the "musician" is the sound engineer, it is the reverse Grouch»-Harpo Marx «Right, silence need a listener interpretation»-Chico Marx «The circonstance of an interpretation speak volume: take the silence of Christ on the cross or Lao Tze silence going west»-Gummo Marx «I prefer the silence of the maestro anyway at the end »-Zeppo Marx
|
Well I like the "Opry" and Chet Atkins. I like the 50-60s. Enrico Caruso was my fathers favorite, the recordings were pretty bad. I think they were on wire or something. I didn't dare go near it. I tip-toed around that guy. He did encourage me to be good at listening and not at talking. :-) When I hear the younger newer media it still reminds me of that old wire recorder he used when the right song comes on. I like your post mahgister. Nothing like putting a fine point on things. :-) |
The OP of this interesting thread question make a deep observation that haunted me a lot:
Because also of our own life circonstances among other factors we can STICK to a version or interpretation , even knowing this is not the BEST interpretation nor the best sound either... This interpretation of Monteverdi 8th libro of madrigals by Prague musicians directed by Venhoda haunted me for 45 years now , i listened to many other interpretation , better recorded and even Italian one alleged bettter interpretation... Why did i stick to this one ? The only OBJECTIVE answer i can produce is that this version sound like an "improvisation" or a livelier more enthusiastic performance practice ...Am i right? I am not sure because this explanation i gave to myself is not wrong but explain nothing... Love has no reason save the first encounter magical moment sometimes we can never forgot... I discovered Monterverdi astounding genius, the only Bach rival in my mind , in power of expression and absolute originality with this album... The man who creates "opera" is near Bach himself after all.... But i am in love with all his madrigals more than with his opera, a paradox also....Perhaps because in his madrigals the "opera" is in the "ovo" and the spoken words more dynamically powerful and intense than with all beautiful operas which will be written after him ....Save for Mozart operas, which take the genre on another level for me, making the voices pure musical instruments over the words themselves...
Ok thanks for the patience of all toward me... I will mute myself and listen others now... |
This question has been asked a thousand times in different ways and with different wording. Of course we all want the best possible sound quality; this doesn’t need debate. However, I think that the real question is how much does the listener rely on great sound in order to appreciate a great performance. How much of a “distraction” from the music are we willing to let the less than great sound be? Barring absolutely horrid recorded sound the musical merits of a great performance will shine through to one degree or another. Usually, to a great degree; that is the power of great music. Personally, I think that many listeners are way to quick to declare a great recorded performance “unlistenable” because of less than great sound. I think that this is unfortunate. Of course, as bdp24 comments “it depends” on just how bad the sound is. However, I have found that there are relatively few recordings that do so much damage to the music that it keeps me from appreciating the brilliance of a great performance. Perhaps not fully, but close enough to know that I’m listening to a great artist. It always comes down to this other way of asking the question (and, yes, we can be both, but….): are we a music lover first, or a sound lover first?
|
True question.... Music flow through sound but is never only sound or mostly sounds... Why the deaf Beethoven could wrote music if not? Music is a state of the spirit manifested in our conciousness through our body .., But when this is said there is also the pure power of sound... Sound quality is a realm in itself, and well recorded sound can be therapeutic, binaural sound or precise frequencies...For example this album of powerful therapeutic music is not listenable on most audio system/room if they are not able to give a good acoustic results... This is not so much music but powerful sonic remedy for the soul/body...I used it against anxiety...Try it if you suffer...Better than any drug, no secondary effects...Work in minutes... I did not recommend in particular any other compositions of this man , Jonathan Goldman but this one....He succeed at the highest degree possible here...Others pieces are more relaxing or meditative pieces this one is a "drug" for curing soul disease... I experimented his therapeutic power and also it is one of the best test for a system because it is very difficult to have this sound right... Delicate Chimes and pulsating frequencies wall with 2 voices chanting a mantra (Christ name)...
|
Thank you, rvpiano, for this post, and thank you—again!—Herr Magister (Mahgister?) for your many contributions to it. A few humble comments of my own, then. First, what we seek in listening to a piece of music is an ability to perceive what is in the score; I hesitate to say it, but "what the composer intended to express" (I'm well aware of the dubiousness of the notion of musical "expression"; there's a vast literature on this). The point here, though, is that one must be able to hear how counterpoint interacts with the main melodic line, how the "ground bass" integrates the whole, and, well, many other things. But these "things" are transparent, or at any rate accessible to perception, when a fine performance articulates them. On the other hand, a bad recording can submerge such careful expression in noise: tape hiss, bad acoustics, poor microphone placement, etc. My point: both performance and recording engineering aim at essentially the same objective: transparency of the original musical conception. Therefore, the opposition—good recording or good performance?—is really a misconception. What the listener will be most delighted by is the musical ideas in the composition. These must first of all be communicated by the performer (pianist, conductor and orchestra, whatever). Then, they must be captured on the recording. For what it's worth, I passionately disagree with those who espouse Holt's Law, or whatever it was. No, great performance (that is, interpretation) and great sonics are not in inverse relation! There are in fact many recent performances of many great works that are both well-recorded and brilliantly interpreted. I might almost compare this to the "art" of translation. In general, recent translations from German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian are better than earlier translations. The standards translators are held to these days are far more rigorous than was once the case. That being said, there are nevertheless many old translations (Kemp Smith's of Kant's First Critique; Schlegel's translations of Shakespeare into German) that have never been bettered. One needs TASTE to discern what is important here; it's not just a binary matter of technology (recording) vs. artistry (performance). Mahgister: you mentioned Pogorelich's performances of Scriabin. Do you know the DVD of his Bach-Scarlatti-Beethoven recital in the Veneto Villa Caldogno (and the Eckartsau Castle in Austria)? If not, seek it out on eBay, where it can be had for a few dollars. Fantastic! (Full disclosure: Pogorelich was part of my past in an important way.) |
I add my thanks to your owns for this great thread idea from rvpiano.... My pseudo come from latin, with a letter interpolated to distinguish me from others who take the same name, which means school teacher in Latin... I study latin and greek in my teen age... And i worked as a preceptor for young men...I miss young people because i am retired...
My impression are simple: no well recorded only good interpretation will beat some badly recorded masterpiece... Then like you justly said it is a matter of MUSICAL judgement and this has nothing to do with sound...For me because i am not a musician at all it is a matter of pulsating heart reaction to music, some music put me in an ectasy so great that anything else fall short ....No opposition from me then...We all like a well recorded album and artist... But some of the more miraculous pieces of music i ever listened to are awful sonically...But the effect on me is like near death experience sometimes... I posted about a tanbur player in this thread above whose recording are among the most awful i own but it is IRREPLACEABLE artistry from an archangel really, if someone dare to pass sound barrier to enter this sanctuary where music become prayer...
Pogorelich plays at the peak of piano playing...We cannot discard ANY of his album He is a wounded god.... Thanks for this Scarlatti recommendation played to the perfection.... Some rare artist cannot be compared on a line with others, these few refuse to be compared, i think Pogorelich is in this rare band of supremum artists... I am curious like others here though about the reason of his importance in your life...If you want to speak about that.... Anyway i will respect silence too... My deepest respect to you...
I forgot to say that for sure you are right , there is no linear relation between sound quality and interpretation , the recording engineer is an artist too or not...
|
In general I'll choose an excellent performance over excellent fidelity.. But it really depends on my mood. Sometimes I want to hear what a particular group of singers & musicians have wrought.. Sometimes I want to dive into the soundstage, relish the sheer lack of distortion, and glory in the tone quality & slam. In any case, though, spitty sibilants drive me nuts. |
The most potent musical drug in the world is reserved for a ceremonial listening not a daily habit for me save Bach for example ...In particular if the recording is very bad....But i never listen Bruckner even well recorded casually in a distracted manner... I too like good recorded music...But music performance beat always sound at the end ...But when an interpret is so great spiritually and transcend recording bad technique i listen to him in a ceremonial way never in a distracted day to day basis... I prefer daily to listen good recordings like you ...But almost all my albums are if not good, acceptable...Jazz, classical, Indian and Persian etc For the sibilants it is a problem of your audio system, not from the recording...I think... I own 9000 albums NONE are sibilant now...But they were some years ago... 8 years ago before i choose the right components and before room acoustic i listened to sibilants but in headphones at this times...After changing components i never hear once again...
|