When will there be decent classical music recordings?

I would like to hear some people's worst nightmare.  That would be to mic every instrument individually, and then have the conductor work with audio engineers to bring the piece back to life.

tatyana69 - Hi Fi & recordings are observational; enjoyed as the audience. If you want to experience the sound from the perspective of a player then sell your system & join an orchestra.  

There's HiFi .... and then there's music. 

HiFi:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi3OGE6t7ws

Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU2P3aRk8ko

HiFi:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmg5PACkAz8

Music:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgn7VfXH2GY

HiFi:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tly3aLdFeM

Music:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKP5qPOFxk

Not knocking any of it. All of the above can be found in my LP collection. Just pointing out that there is a difference.

OP


 

Yeah yeah tostado, Kirkpatrick and Kipnis are fantastic players and interpreters. Kipnis even did some audiophile label recordings. I have more of these two players on CD though, which I assume will be okay with the OP, assuming he is interested in the music. Scarlatti is very difficult to play, and equally as exciting to listen to. Keyboard works is my single favorite and most listened to genre.

two and three microphone classical and jazz recordings shine because of the microphones which are capturing the layering of the instruments in the space. No dropped in multi tracking. There is no phase issues, simulated imaging, etc. you hear the natural timbre and decay

try going to the symphony, closing your eyes and picking out each violist, viola or cello.
if they play in unison you should hear them as one albiet with a width and depth to the emsemble section
you hear the orchestra, you hear the room

the minimal mics pick this up spectacularly

i wish more pop musicians would do straight takes with minimal mikes in the studio with a lot of acoustic instruments and electronics played at matched volumes. Sure you can’t isolate an anoying mistake here or there but the imaging is to die for.



Classical Recordings - they practically give away used classical records from the analog era which nearly always are in mint condition.


there are a few chamber pieces where each instrument is recorded in the round ala 5.1
does the cello have to jump out from behind you?
not my cup of tea

"Someone will say well that is not how you listen at a concert, but that is just archaic. "

It's not archaic--it's real, it's natural.  Guitarists and engineers go far out of their way to eliminate those string noises that you think you want to hear.  As those noises are real and natural I'm okay with them, but if they can be reduced without otherwise diminishing the overall listening experience then I'm in favor of that.  It's what we call signal-to-noise ratio.

BDP, I agree--I've been really enjoying harpsichord recordings lately, especially an old LP of Ralph Kirpatrick playing Scarlatti and a two-record box of Igor Kipnis playing assorted English pieces.  The sound is frighteningly real!

There are many sources of great recordings.
Here is a fast sampler:
http://www.linnrecords.com
XRCD ...http://www.elusivedisc.com/Home-Of-XRCD/products/859/

Am I incorrect in assuming you (tatyana69) are speaking of orchestras, music written for them, and performed in a large concert hall? Well, there is also "Classical" music written for smaller ensembles meant to be performed in smaller venues. "Classical" is used as a category for all "composer-written" music, but there are, as you may know, different periods within that form. During the Baroque period (1600-1750) there was a lot of music written for solo instruments (harpsichord, cello, violin) and small ensembles. And there are many incredible recordings of this music, where the intimate details of each instrument can be clearly heard from a close perspective, not dissimilar from those in "Pop" recordings. I have some harpsichord recordings which put the instrument right in front of me in my room. Or, even better, me right in front of the instrument in the room in which the recording was made. Look for Trevor Pinnock performing music for harpsichord on the British CRD label (on LP) for some electrifying music, recordings, and reproductions in your music room!

I disagree with your assumption that classical composers would ' would have been excited if they could have presented their music in effectively another dimension', given that their music was either presented in a concert hall or salon(for small ensembles). To me the homogenizing of various instruments is what makes a classical piece worth listening to.
-Just listen to late Mozart when his use of winds and horns really shine. 
If you record each instrument closely you lose the effect the composer was trying to make.

What I am saying is that in those days the composer wrote the music.... and the only outlet was a concert. Doesn't mean he wrote to accommodate concert precepts
In a similar way, Tchaikowski wrote his violin concerto without understanding the violin - hence it is so difficult
They write the music - and then get it presented in whatever way is infradig at the time

"I don't think composers necessarily wrote for concerts....".  

Could be I'm taking that out of context and, as a result, misunderstanding, but in the days before mass media and electronics, how else would a composer have their work heard other than by live performance, i.e., in a concert?

I don't think composers necessarily wrote for concerts - in the same way, the Beatles did not write songs to sing live..
What is wrong with dozens of mics? The cost of a mic in the scheme of things is nothing, and it is hardly much effort to collate the sounds with all the messing around and remixing that goes on. Days and days are wasted (spent) on messing around so that aspect is not a problem.
I am not sure that the word "purist" should be necessarily linked to  the words "using a minimal number of microphones" One has no need for the other. 
Many of the classical composers were  very happy at providing shocks to their public, even getting banned on many occasions. I would imagine they would have loved to hear their works so that we could hear more exactly what they had written, as so much is submerged in the whole presentation. You would only need to look at any manuscript to see what we are just not hearing.

Be careful what you wish for.

In the case of a classical symphony orchestra, to present the kind of detail you appear to be looking for a recording would likely have to be made with dozens of microphones spaced throughout the orchestra and placed close to the performers, with the outputs of those mics recorded on dozens of tracks, with those tracks being subsequently mixed and extensively processed on elaborate electronic consoles. Many such recordings have been issued over the years, on various labels including DG that was mentioned, and in addition to sounding nothing like what is heard in a concert hall they generally sound awful IMO/IME.

The best and most realistic recordings, such as the early Mercury recordings Geoff rightly suggested, as well as many early recordings from RCA and Decca, as well as many recordings or reissues on audiophile-oriented labels such as Chesky, Telarc, Reference Recordings, etc. were recorded with "purist" techniques using a minimal number of microphones (often just two or three), and were engineered with minimal electronic post-processing.

Regards,
-- Al

Mercury Living Presence 35 MM recordings from late 50s early 60s will change the way you think about classical music recording forever.