How many recordings of same classical work?

I very rarely have more than one. There is too much stuff out there I've never heard at all, and too little time, to get too caught up in versions. I'm not saying never...but rarely.

Lots of duplication of works on my shelves - in some cases because I like to hear what different interpreters have to say (e.g. Beethoven's sonatas, Bach's St. Matthew's passion), in others because I follow a few musicians' output (e.g. Stephen Kovacevich, Maurizio Pollini). Only rarely because I was on the lookout for the 'best' recording (as a result of which, I have many Don Giovanni's and Traviata's).

EJ

Bach violin and cello sonatas bear a lot of duplication as does Bach's keyboard music.
I also seem to be an avid collector of versions of Kodaly's cello sonatas.
Shostakovich string quartets and 24 preludes and fugues seem to be quite numerous as well.

I have multiple copies of some of Bach's works, including the Art of Fugue, and the Goldbergs (I'm probably into double figures with the latter). And a couple of contrasting complete sets of Beethoven Piano Sonatas (Kempff in mono, and Kovacevich). The rest of the duplication in my collection is mostly unintentional.

Classical music differs from every other genre in that it lends itself to duplication. In fact, if you listen to it on any other level than a passive one, duplication along the journey is almost a certainty and probably a necessity. This is so because it is all about the interpretation and you cannot grow and learn if you stick to the first and only thing you ever heard (not that this is bad but only that this doesn't work for me usually). My favourite today is only a representation of a point in time in my life and I like to expose myself to as many viewpoints as I can and be open to understanding them.

The duplication in my collection is what you might call crazy. 90-95% of what I own lays somewhere between Bach and say Prokofiev. Currently, the largest duplication, by a country mile, is found in Bach and Beethoven, followed then by Haydn, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninov, and Mozart. Everything else is probably in the one, two, three versions of works territory.

I'm just guessing but I think the worst offender at the moment is Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. Not counting miscellaneous CD's, I probably have 25+ complete sets. I wouldn't part with any of them unless forced to.

Regards,
Doug

If I have an interest in a particular piece of music, I will buy recordings until I find one I am satisfied with, then I stop, and give away the ones that seemed flawed to my ears.

An exception would be piano music, especially Chopin and Beethoven, where I particularly enjoy different interpretations and the Beethoven Symphonies as well, where I have as many as six recordings of the same work.

I too agree that classical music lends itself to multiple copies of favorite works. I have a number of Elgar works by multiple artists and the same will go for Vaughan Williams and Butterworth in particular. I am sure that I will have multiple copies of favorite works of Bach etc. My multiple copies started when I bought a well recommended version of Concerto De Aranjuez which I positivly disliked. I then went searching for a copy I did like. It was the first time I realised the difference between various interpretations! So I will happily buy a different copy of VW's 'A Lark Ascending' just to hear what they might have done to it. ( favs are Boult/Bean and Warren-Green! just so you know!).

That said I probably have several versions of various pop/rock/jazz songs too, I just don't feel the need to seek new ones out in the same way!

atb
james

I never looked at it this way, must have many duplications - my money would be on Bach for the most duplications.

From an email I wrote earlier, and pertaining to my view of duplications of favourite music in enjoyable and durable recorded performances:

I was so lucky to have a firm guiding hand in my early musical education particularly with respect to wanting to and being shown how to read scores.

What you say about the [idiosyncrasies of] the performance seeming to disappear when reading a score is entirely my experience, and this would guide my choice of favourite recorded performances. Without the score, I tend to cleave to performances that were so natural, and this is "art concealing huge artistry on the performer's part," that were as transparent. The connection seems with the music rather than with a great performance of it! One level of intervention seeming to disappear!

Of course this means that for any individual the favourite performances will tend to be ones that, were we actually great players or conductors, would be nearest the performance we would try to obtain ourselves. Thus the choice of favourite performances of great music will always reflect the personality of the individual, and cannot be taken as a general recommendation in any absolute sense. There are performances that are so central, so inevitably right, that they can be recommended as a great starting point. One such is the Beaux Arts set of the Haydn Trios! If a person cannot connect with these, then the problem is essentially a question of the individual being able to enjoy the Haydn music rather than being impeded by the performance!

When I rarely, these days, recommend certain performances of my favourite music, it is not because the specific performance is necessarily the most exciting or even the most perfect in the virtuoso technical sense, but rather one that does not impede the music connection on the alter of the personality of the performer! Thus I enjoy the very deft and powerful Beethoven style of Klemperer, as it seems [for me] to connect without impediment with the essence of the music in performances that are always searching for the spiritual emotional essence of the music, rather than as with Karajan's constant search for technical perfection [unachievable even in edited studio recordings] of orchestral address, however much the massive amount of rehearsal and editing together actually saps the music of its inevitable [or at least should seem inevitable] emotional and spiritual sweep and power!

For any great music there is always a range of approaches that work supremely well. I can admire Klemperer in Beethoven and also Erich Kleiber! On Mozart my three favourite pianists are Edwin Fischer, Clara Haskil and Carmen Piazzini. Edwin Fischer the poet, though mostly quite a classical one, Clara Haskil the stoic non-interventionist, who lets the music speak so freely from a narrow pallet of dynamic, and very spare use of warm tone, though her tone "is" warm. And Carmen Piazzini, who is such an artist that she ranks with either of these past masters of the art! If anything there are times where Piazzini is my favourite! Her sonata series is easily my favourite! Never routine she seems so utterly at ease with the music that her occasional freedoms and expressive ways seem to stem precisely from the text!

And so it goes. Boult for Elgar, but others who are just as grand are Edvard van Beinum, George Hurst, Edward Downes, Malcolm Sergeant ...

Sibelius; Robert Kajanus, John Barbirolli, Anthony Collins ...

And so on ...

I used to have many duplications of great music in recordings, but only keep the ones that seem transparent in the way that happens when using a score to help untangle the music!

...

Best wishes from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
When I rarely, these days, recommend certain performances of my favourite music, it is not because the specific performance is necessarily the most exciting or even the most perfect in the virtuoso technical sense, but rather one that does not impede the music connection on the alter of the personality of the performer!

...personally I would like to add, 'unless the personality of the performer is worth hearing.' For example, Anne-Sofie Mutter in Beethoven's sonatas, Pogorelich and Demidenko in Chopin, Pletnev in Schumann, James Levine in Sibelius are (arguably) great recordings which hardly follow the text to the letter.

Cheers,
EJ

Now I know it is horses for courses and we all like different things, but there is only one musician with a strong interventionist tendency whose work I enjoy on recordings, and this is Annie Fischer performing the Beethoven Piano Sonatas. All others have eventually become impossible for me to enjoy for getting stuck on this big and willful performing personality standing between me and a natural and faithful presentation of the music.

Possibly the characterful or willful musician is less fine at getting inside the music, and forces the music to their own image. Once one has listened to half a dozen great and different performances it soon is clear who among the musicians are playing themselves and who are playing the music. Score reading will get you there in one go.

There are famous film stars, but who really only ever played themselves, but never the less are very popular!

ATB from George

quote:

...a natural and faithful presentation of the music.

Possibly the characterful or willful musician is less fine at getting inside the music, and forces the music to their own image. Once one has listened to half a dozen great and different performances it soon is clear who among the musicians are playing themselves and who are playing the music. Score reading will get you there in one go.

Dear George,
While I believe that I understand the heart of your argument and do agree with much of it, I find myself asking what "a natural and faithful presentation of the music" is? Can one actually know what this is in certain terms?

I read and spend a great deal of time with music scores. Are you suggesting that doing "less" of anything (ie. a very literal approach maybe?) is any less willful or genuine than some other approach in a different direction? In my humble opinion, no score can give a definitive or an absolute result. Doing less or more of something are both interpretive decisions, are they not? One might suit my style or personality more appropriately but that doesn't lead one to a conclusion of correctness. I think music is a complex entity and it is really time, knowledge, and experience that will bring us closer to the truth but never will one come to an absolute truth in music.

I believe that hearing the actual composer play his own music would shed many misconceptions and strongly held beliefs about what is right. For instance, Paul Lewis recently retold the story of the difference between the pedal markings in the score of the Waldstein sonata and how Beethoven actually played it. Apparently, in Czerny's book, On the Proper Performance of all Beethoven's Works for the Piano, he says that when he heard Beethoven play he did use a lot of pedal - far more then he ever indicated in his scores. As I said, a score is a guideline or a starting point, but it still has to be interpreted. No human can interpret something without bringing their own character into the equation.

quote:

Thus I enjoy the very deft and powerful Beethoven style of Klemperer, as it seems [for me] to connect without impediment with the essence of the music in performances that are always searching for the spiritual emotional essence of the music, rather than as with Karajan's constant search for technical perfection

I don't really believe one could argue that Klemperer had any less of a personality than Karajan; they were just different as they should be. I would never presume that Karajan had any less of a spiritual emotional essence, either. No one who devotes their life to music would have anything less, in my estimation. It is no different that you and I and the rest of us on here who love music talk about it and discuss it. It is, I believe, because we each have personally experienced the extraordinary power of music within us and in our lives at some point in time. When that seed grows we really have something special that makes life worth living for. Differences aside, I think that is all that really matters?

Best Regards,
Doug

quote:

'unless the personality of the performer is worth hearing.'

Hi EJ,

I'm no different than anyone else, in that life is short and I tend to spend more time sticking to the things that appeal to me more or that I really like and enjoy. Having said that, I still am a firm believer in that I consider every performer to be worthy of hearing. I like to hear what other people have to say about something and I respect those who give their opinions. It is a two way street.

Regards,
Doug

Studying a score focuses more of your attention on the music itself. After all, reading a score is an act whose most direct consequence is putting other parts of your brain into play when listening to music, by seeing the music.

That can diminish how much attention is paid to the quality of the playing. If that happens, it is to the performer's benefit, because the performer wants you to focus on the music.

Hi Doug, with my post I meant to say that I subscribe to George's preference for transparent performances, but not exclusively so.

I agree with you that any performance is an interpretation - but there are examples where the artist clearly changes the text to suit his preference. As an example, take Bernstein's opening of Beethoven's fifth, in his later DG recording. I can understand why not everybody likes that, but that is a personal thing and you can't argue with personal preferences.

The number of recordings I have of particular works depends on the works themselves. For most works in my collection I have one version, but for favorite works, usually by the established great composers, I own many versions. I tend to listen more to smaller scale works, most particularly solo piano works, so my collection reflects that. I have 50+ versions of each Beethoven piano sonata (with probably 70+ of Op 111, the work I collect the most), for instance, and a dozen-plus for most of the piano works of Debussy, Schubert, Mozart, and Ravel, with smaller collections of Chopin and Schumann. For orchestral music, only Beethoven, Mahler, and certain Mozart piano concertos have similarly large numbers. I collect chamber music proper rather less.

Over time I do tend to return to favorite versions more often than lesser recordings, but I like having a large library of interpretations of some works to hear how differently they can be performed. In addition, taste can change over time and new favorites can emerge.


--

quote:

Dear George,

While I believe that I understand the heart of your argument and do agree with much of it, I find myself asking what "a natural and faithful presentation of the music" is? Can one actually know what this is in certain terms?

Dear Doug,

What a natural and faithful performance of the music can be is what it strikes the individual as being - different for different individuals! And even for the individual this will change over time! All I bring to it is a firm education in music, years of excellent lessons that help comprehend what correct performance style for specific genres and periods of music may be, and discussions with many good musicians driven by my natural curiosity about the topic of music. My opinion is quite well grounded, but it remains one perspective and should not be given greater weight than any other opinion.

As I wrote earlier in this thread: "Now I know it is horses for courses and we all like different things, ..." Of course you are correct to have your own opinions …

If you enjoy the artistry of Karajan you will not be the first person I have encountered who holds that view, and that will not cause me to enjoy his work one bit more than I do!

I am not saying, “Less is better” or indeed anything that I have not said I hope with clarity. There is no subtext to it. Indeed I find that it gets very difficult to express an opinion here without it being misunderstood, or even significantly misinterpreted these days, and it makes me post far less than I once did, where discussion stayed on the topic of music or our enthusiasm for it, rather than hair splitting over my or anyone else's particular input and opinion. Indeed any individual's input should be viewed as being easy to disagree with without rancour. The individual contributions should be understood as being of much less significance than the discussion as a whole!

This will be my last post in the Music Room. Not because of your reply, dear Doug - it was only the last straw - but that nowadays the Music Room has become more argumentative, more or less for the sake of it, rather being made up of people who are enthusiastic and wishing to share differing opinions and experiences. I am an enthusiast, nothing else!

I shall stick for my remaining posts to non-contentious pleasures such as may be discussed without phorensic examination as to my motivation, agenda, or precise meaning, in the Padded Cell.

All the best to you all, regulars, old timers, and newcomers alike from George

GFFJ, don't go yet. The last word has not been said :-)

This is a place for conversation, and I sense a change in attitude that makes honest expression without argument more likely than in past.

You wouldn't want to miss that ...

I have more than one recording of just about everything in the core repertoire from Bach to Lutoslawski.... but some a lot more than others.
I like Symphonies. A lot. And Ilike different versions of them.... but admittedly there are probably a good few that have only been listened to just once.

Top duplications (without going to the rack to count them!)
13 Mahler Das Lied von der Erde
12 Bruckner 5th
12 Mahler 9th
9 Bruckner 9th
9 Brahms 4th
6 Shostakovich 15th
5 Shostakovich 4th
4 Bach Well Tempered clav
4 Wagner Tristan & Isolde
3 Bach St Matthew

Oddest one.... 2 different recordings of Peter Maxwell Davies 1st symphony

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
I probably have 25+ complete sets [of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas].

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
I have 50+ versions of each Beethoven piano sonata (with probably 70+ of Op 111, the work I collect the most)

quote:

Originally posted by beebie:
13 Mahler Das Lied von der Erde
12 Bruckner 5th
12 Mahler 9th
[etc]

I'm in awe!

It's not just the number that's impressive, but the implication that as listeners, you have the capacity to discern, digest, appreciate and (not least) remember the (usually) subtle differences between this number of recordings of a work. Yes, there are always going to be outliers--those recordings that are markedly different from the majority--but with most clustered around some average, I think my palate is too coarse to differentiate between this many.

Beebie, you old romantic!

quote:

…but the implication that as listeners, you have the capacity to discern, digest, appreciate and (not least) remember the (usually) subtle differences between this number of recordings of a work

Nathaniel,

How does one remember everything? And to complicate it this is only just a tiny portion of what I listen to. I haven’t said how many WTC or Chopin Preludes & Etudes etc I have collected either. The goal for all my favorite composers is to listen to them completely. On top of complete sets of a composer’s oeuvre, I then expand the library on the works that are especially important to me. The works that I learn and play on the piano typical fuel the large duplication. I get a good sense of the composer’s character this way.

I cannot possibly listen to everything everyday or even every year. Rather, I tend to listen very intently to a specific piece or even portion of it or just a certain composer or just a certain performer/conductor until I get to a certain level of understanding. Then I move on. Having a library though does allow me to reference something quickly if need be.

I have never parted with a recording I have bought in my life so over the years the library only grows. Although, I don’t specifically listen to music to compare different players and the differences in nuance between them etc., it is important to be aware of what different players are trying to convey to us. I am mostly interested in the interpretation and playing style. From extensive listening you just naturally pick up the performers style. Listening to only one interpretation for my whole life would severely limit my creativity and musical views and abilities as a player.

For instance, Kempff, Bachhaus, Brendel, Arrau and on and on have a certain way of playing that is part of their character that no one else has. It is unmistakable. This sheds light in different ways on the meaning of the piece and this helps with the understanding of it.

If you spend time with anything you will eventually become quite easily more proficient at it. So it isn’t as mind boggling as it might seem. For me, listening and playing is a lifelong venture and something that is dynamically always changing along the way. But by listening to as many performers as I can essentially allows me to cherry pick different ideas along the way and apply them to my own music making.

Some people can remember every sports team, the players and stats, and the score of game six final in 1982. I can't do any of this but I do spend my time and effort listening to music and I enjoy this. It would be a dream come true though if at the end of my life I would have the skill to be like a Barenboim or Kempff etc. who could play the whole 32 Sonatas or the WTC etc. Can you imagine the amount of details these gentlemen have in their heads and fingers?

Regards,
Doug