Editing of early (pre-1945, before LPs) recordings
Posted by: mikeeschman on 27 August 2009
I have been scouring the internet for information about classical recording practices before the long playing records, when 78s were about four minutes per side.
George maintains that the musicians of that era ignored the editing opportunities afforded by a four minute side and did only whole takes of music.
I can't even find out what media the masters were stored on, or how the recording process was managed.
Quite curious about this, and would like to have documentation rather than hearsay.
Any information would be appreciated.
George maintains that the musicians of that era ignored the editing opportunities afforded by a four minute side and did only whole takes of music.
I can't even find out what media the masters were stored on, or how the recording process was managed.
Quite curious about this, and would like to have documentation rather than hearsay.
Any information would be appreciated.
Posted on: 28 August 2009 by mikeeschman
I found "Performing music in the age of recording" By Robert Philip in google books, which has a wealth of information on performance practice in the days of the 78s, but barely mentions recording and editing techniques.
His take on editing recordings in those days is that it was generally ignored. They simply didn't consider the possibilities.
He has many of the same complaints as George regarding the homogenized sound produced by modern wind sections.
He sums it up by saying modern recordings are more technically perfect, but lack the style and energy of old recordings. As you would expect, performance practice mirrors the sensibilities of an era.
I would still like to find more concrete information on the actual recording practices of the time.
If you can, help me out.
His take on editing recordings in those days is that it was generally ignored. They simply didn't consider the possibilities.
He has many of the same complaints as George regarding the homogenized sound produced by modern wind sections.
He sums it up by saying modern recordings are more technically perfect, but lack the style and energy of old recordings. As you would expect, performance practice mirrors the sensibilities of an era.
I would still like to find more concrete information on the actual recording practices of the time.
If you can, help me out.
Posted on: 28 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
Up till about 1948, 99.9 per cent of commercial 78 records were the product of direct wax cut masters, so there was no opportunity to edit the result once, as it were, it was set in wax. Corrections required a retake of the side in question.
Very rarely a radio tape might be issued on 78 though once again this was not likely to have been a product of an editing process, as live meamt live in those days.
In any case the general view [among record producers and recording artists alike] was that if a section of recording such as a 78 side [which could be anything up nealy seven minutes long in some cases] wwas faulty either in recording sense [heavy surface noise or extraneous noises in the recortding], or a failure from the musical performance POV, then a new take would be made.
Even when tape was gradually introduced as a recording medium [basically from 1948 onwards though there are very interesting tape recordings from earlier of course] the initial idea was to allow for more control of the disc cutting process, which was quite prone to accidental failure, and thus with a direct cut recording a complete failure of the side in question. Initially tapes were recorded in the lengths of the 78 sides, and as it became clear [after US Columbia issued the first commercial 33 RPM microgroove LP records in 1948] that the 78 medium would be supplanted, then gradually the tapes were recorded in takes usually of a complete movement of a symphone or for shorter works the whole piece in one go.
Soon the recording engineers twigged that tapes could be spliced, sometimes even spliced so well that the resulting edit was undetectable to almost anyone who did not it had been made.
This was in the early days of LPs, [say 1950-ish] and one English conductor who relished the prospect was Sir Thomas Beecham. Not all conductors were as enthusiastic though, and Otto Klemperer described editing of different takes togather as a swindle. Two opposing poles working for the same recording organisation, EMI!
The trouble with editing as I view it is that those used to mainly listening to gramophone records and only infrequently listening to actual concerts or even live radio relays, is that editing tends to result in a level of apparent technical expertise for individual players, and corporate expertise among orchestras that simply does not actually exist in real unedited life.
The result is that orchestras nowadays spend far more time trying to play perfectly cleanly in concerts - no effort spared to try to avoid bum notes, dominoes and other mishaps - but then leaving the listener with a quite possibly much duller musical presentation than otherwise might have occured had the perfornmance been much nearere the edge of the technical possibilities of the skill of the players on a good day!
Yes we all know what can happen on a bad day! And that is not a pretty incident to witness, but in my view I would rather risk a terrible performance on that bad day and possibly have something utterly rivetting and devils may take the hindmost on the good day!
So the editing process, in conjunction with too many gramophone records [and taking them too seriously in the wrong way of judging technical rather than musical quality of the performance], and also the slavish adherance to modern [ir last 60 years] music critics who prefer technical perfection to imagination and risk in music making, have reduced a lot of modern music making to at best the dull if technically clean, and at worst the downright damaging in terms of appreciating the genius of the composer who produced the music in question.
Two questions typify the problem which arrises from listening to too many recordings and taking too seriously in the wrong way [as suggested above] might be ...
"The orchestra did not play nearly so well as one my recording. Why is that? After all it is the same orchestra as in the concert ..."
And ...
"I went to the conceert last night and it was so quiet. Why do they play so quiet live, when they are so loud on the record?"
I have had these two questions put to me rather often by people attempting to get into classical msuic. I think my vieew on the answers to these two point are probably clear from what I have written earlier in the post!
It may also be clear that my sole enthusiasm for records pertains to the opportunity to listen to the performances of the dead or no longer active performers. Of course I have many recordings of currently active rtists whom I have never heard in concerts, but I have no doubt that this is musically speaking second best to spending more time in the concert hall. All that stops me is the cost, but I do not assume that a recording is necessarily a very accurate guide to what a real concert by the same performers [as on a record I know] will be like ...
Otherwise my view is that we should patronise concerts, or if that is too expensive or simply geographically impossible, then listen to live relays on the radio.
Dear Mike, that post was not aimed at you in any way, bt it is a nutshell of my view of recordings and modern music making. You may feel that you wish to disagree with me. Let us have a fine discussion if you like!
ATB from George
Up till about 1948, 99.9 per cent of commercial 78 records were the product of direct wax cut masters, so there was no opportunity to edit the result once, as it were, it was set in wax. Corrections required a retake of the side in question.
Very rarely a radio tape might be issued on 78 though once again this was not likely to have been a product of an editing process, as live meamt live in those days.
In any case the general view [among record producers and recording artists alike] was that if a section of recording such as a 78 side [which could be anything up nealy seven minutes long in some cases] wwas faulty either in recording sense [heavy surface noise or extraneous noises in the recortding], or a failure from the musical performance POV, then a new take would be made.
Even when tape was gradually introduced as a recording medium [basically from 1948 onwards though there are very interesting tape recordings from earlier of course] the initial idea was to allow for more control of the disc cutting process, which was quite prone to accidental failure, and thus with a direct cut recording a complete failure of the side in question. Initially tapes were recorded in the lengths of the 78 sides, and as it became clear [after US Columbia issued the first commercial 33 RPM microgroove LP records in 1948] that the 78 medium would be supplanted, then gradually the tapes were recorded in takes usually of a complete movement of a symphone or for shorter works the whole piece in one go.
Soon the recording engineers twigged that tapes could be spliced, sometimes even spliced so well that the resulting edit was undetectable to almost anyone who did not it had been made.
This was in the early days of LPs, [say 1950-ish] and one English conductor who relished the prospect was Sir Thomas Beecham. Not all conductors were as enthusiastic though, and Otto Klemperer described editing of different takes togather as a swindle. Two opposing poles working for the same recording organisation, EMI!
The trouble with editing as I view it is that those used to mainly listening to gramophone records and only infrequently listening to actual concerts or even live radio relays, is that editing tends to result in a level of apparent technical expertise for individual players, and corporate expertise among orchestras that simply does not actually exist in real unedited life.
The result is that orchestras nowadays spend far more time trying to play perfectly cleanly in concerts - no effort spared to try to avoid bum notes, dominoes and other mishaps - but then leaving the listener with a quite possibly much duller musical presentation than otherwise might have occured had the perfornmance been much nearere the edge of the technical possibilities of the skill of the players on a good day!
Yes we all know what can happen on a bad day! And that is not a pretty incident to witness, but in my view I would rather risk a terrible performance on that bad day and possibly have something utterly rivetting and devils may take the hindmost on the good day!
So the editing process, in conjunction with too many gramophone records [and taking them too seriously in the wrong way of judging technical rather than musical quality of the performance], and also the slavish adherance to modern [ir last 60 years] music critics who prefer technical perfection to imagination and risk in music making, have reduced a lot of modern music making to at best the dull if technically clean, and at worst the downright damaging in terms of appreciating the genius of the composer who produced the music in question.
Two questions typify the problem which arrises from listening to too many recordings and taking too seriously in the wrong way [as suggested above] might be ...
"The orchestra did not play nearly so well as one my recording. Why is that? After all it is the same orchestra as in the concert ..."
And ...
"I went to the conceert last night and it was so quiet. Why do they play so quiet live, when they are so loud on the record?"
I have had these two questions put to me rather often by people attempting to get into classical msuic. I think my vieew on the answers to these two point are probably clear from what I have written earlier in the post!
It may also be clear that my sole enthusiasm for records pertains to the opportunity to listen to the performances of the dead or no longer active performers. Of course I have many recordings of currently active rtists whom I have never heard in concerts, but I have no doubt that this is musically speaking second best to spending more time in the concert hall. All that stops me is the cost, but I do not assume that a recording is necessarily a very accurate guide to what a real concert by the same performers [as on a record I know] will be like ...
Otherwise my view is that we should patronise concerts, or if that is too expensive or simply geographically impossible, then listen to live relays on the radio.
Dear Mike, that post was not aimed at you in any way, bt it is a nutshell of my view of recordings and modern music making. You may feel that you wish to disagree with me. Let us have a fine discussion if you like!
ATB from George
Posted on: 28 August 2009 by mikeeschman
In my view, a live performance and a recording are two fundamentally different venues, and should not be evaluated or appreciated in the same way.
At a live performance, you are always hearing something that will never occur again, ever. That's a big part of the excitment. When it's a good night, you have a life time memory :-)
A recording offers more of a reflective experience, and invites more study.
I think the fundamental difference in the way you and I listen to recordings is a difference in addictions. I will not speculate on your addiction, but mine gravitates to a love of the sound of instruments, which always has me on the lookout for more revealing recordings, which are generally newer recordings.
My views are also heavily influenced by the ideas of the local symphony players I am friends with, and a great deal of curosity and interest in the great works of the 20th century.
This recent exploration of the Beethoven Symphonies transcribed for piano, the WTC and Stravinsky has been so far one of the most satisfying musical ventures of my adult life :-)
At a live performance, you are always hearing something that will never occur again, ever. That's a big part of the excitment. When it's a good night, you have a life time memory :-)
A recording offers more of a reflective experience, and invites more study.
I think the fundamental difference in the way you and I listen to recordings is a difference in addictions. I will not speculate on your addiction, but mine gravitates to a love of the sound of instruments, which always has me on the lookout for more revealing recordings, which are generally newer recordings.
My views are also heavily influenced by the ideas of the local symphony players I am friends with, and a great deal of curosity and interest in the great works of the 20th century.
This recent exploration of the Beethoven Symphonies transcribed for piano, the WTC and Stravinsky has been so far one of the most satisfying musical ventures of my adult life :-)
Posted on: 28 August 2009 by BigH47
quote:At a live performance, you are always hearing something that will never occur again, ever.
Unless it's recorded.
Posted on: 28 August 2009 by graham55
Just listen to Bruno Walter's heartbreaking performance of Mahler's Ninth Symphony, recorded live by EMI in Vienna in 1938, just before half the VPO fled for their lives and the lights went out over Europe. Never really been matched since. The EMI GROC tells the story of the recording.
G
G
Posted on: 28 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
Literally a momwent in history captured so well by the HMV gramophone men.
This is one of the truely significant values of the gramophone that it leaves these legendary moments resonant in a way that will not fade with the memmory of those there.
A great achievement on every level.
ATB from George
This is one of the truely significant values of the gramophone that it leaves these legendary moments resonant in a way that will not fade with the memmory of those there.
A great achievement on every level.
ATB from George