Live or Studio?

Live. (For the most part.)

Though, to some extent, it depends what you mean by live. After all, there are a great many 'live' recordings out there which are patched from multiple concert recordings which strikes me as being cheating (though this is something of a sliding scale and there are many issues along these lines that come pretty close to the live ideal). Indeed, Bernstein, was especially peverse in this way - his late recordings were live but 'patched' in the studio. With the amount of studio patching that sometimes went on making the term live a little laughable.

I think it does depend a great deal on the performer. Take, for example, Furtwangler. With very few exceptions (such as a 1944 Eroica or his Tristan) his studio performances are really rather lifeless in comparison to his live broadcasts. Similarly, I have said elsewhere that Paul Lewis's extraordinary playing is rather poorly captured in the studio and that they would have been much better to release the performances being broadcast on Radio 3. Other artists, such as Giulini are wonderful in the studio, but even better live. Take his readings of Verdi's Requiem or Don Carlos - in the studio both were impressive enough but to these ears there is no way in which his live efforts are not more thrilling and engaging.

Then again, some artists can get a wonderful 'live' feeling in the studio. Take, for example, Erich Kleiber's recording of the Marriage of Figaro, one of the remarkable features of which is just how live it feels. There are also ways of delivering a degree of perfection in the studio which wouldn't be available live: the Solti Ring, Kleiber's Beethoven 5&7 and the Brunelle recording of Britten's Paul Bunyan.


regards, Tam

Dear Milo

Most records available commercially are studio. Generally speaking, that is my preference too.

Tam,

Re: Furtwangler. Since I am not a huge fan of this conductor perhaps my preference for his studio efforts is because they are less "Furtwanglerish". The studio seems to have tamed him, and his annoying habit of speeding the tempo as the music approaches forte is less evident. The Shubert 9th that I own is almost totally ruined by his constantly over romanticising with his Sturm and Drange pretensions. The work for me is essentially classical, and can't bear the burden of what the great German does to it.

Some of the dates (ie. 1942) they were recorded in(the live ones) kind of give me the creeps. When you consider what was going on at this time in Germany, it is not conductive to an open emotional experience.

Toscanini's records are the best of both worlds. Recorded before an audience with knowledge before hand that they would most likely be issued commercially. I also liked the fact that,in Verdi, nealy every syllable of the italian is clearly audible. A rare treat for a lover of Italian opera.


Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

You are doubtless, then, a fan of the great Erich Kleiber reading of the 9th.

For me, the genuis of the work lies in the fact that it lies on the cusp between the classical and romantic eras. Thus you can have a wonderfully satisfying classical reading from Kleiber or an electrifying romantic one from the likes of Rattle or Furtwangler (his 1940s Berlin one). Then again, you can have the readings of Mackerras or Giulini or Boult which sit somewhere in between.

I agree somewhat about the political issues surrounding those recordings. However, Furtwangler was no Nazi. Karajan and Schwarzkopf, on the other hand, both joined the party, and it seems to me that we are pretty eclectic about which recordings get singled out.

I must try some of Toscanini's Verdi (I enjoy his Beethoven very much, in some ways more satisfying than Furtwangler - with the exception of the VPO 44 Erioca and Bayreuth 9th). That said, for me the supreme interpreter of Verdi is Giulini.


regards, Tam

Dear Milo

Another factor in the live vs studio debate is the artists themselves. Except in rare instances, the "pirate" or authorized live records have not been approved by the performers, though when they have the results have often been stellar, as in the 1938 Bruno Walter Mahler 9th, recorded in Vienna only days before the Nazi Anshcluss.

Their was a Romanian conductor named Celibidache, who, except in one instance, refused to record. Many of his concert performances that have been issued, after his death, when he no longer had a say, are not, in my opinion, successful. His one good effort was the HMV Brahms Violin concerto with ( Niviex sp ?)

Many concerts were intended for a very specialized audience ( The wartime Furtwangler's) and taken out of context, offer a distorted view of the works in question. The 1950 Salzburg Don Giovanni is extraordinary, yet I don't listen to it much. I prefer the Giulini stereo version.

Dear Tam

I will keep my eye out for the E Kleiber 9th. He was a man of great political courage. His famous Eroica is wonderfully terse and asringent, and it's nice to hear the accented notes(especially in the first movement) leap out at the listener, as they should.

I agree that Giulini was an excellent Verdian. I've only heard the Rigoletto on DG with Domingo, very interesting, although I also like Serafin's with Gobbi(excellent) and Callas( very good, but she might as well be singing in Swahilli). The Requiem, recorded for EMI is good too, but I agree with you that it is done in by strange sounding sonics.


Regards

Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

The Kleiber 9th is possibly one of the great recordings of the work and might be regarded as an object lesson in the classical approach to it. In particular his steady tempo in the opening which yeilds nothing to his romantic rivals in drama and tension. If you are a fan of the classical approch to the work the recording is an absolute must.

It can be had as part of this rather fine box of Kleiber's recordings on decca:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Erich-Kleiber-Decca-Recordings-...6448?ie=UTF8&s=music

Which includes a number of his Beethoven readings (including two versions of the sixth of which he is my favourite interpreter) and one or two other things (such as Mozart's 39th and 40th symphonies).


regards, Tam

As a matter of interest the famous [or imfamous according to one's view] 1944 Vienna recording of the Eroica played by the VPO under Furtwangler was in fact given as a live concert, played in one complete arc, but without an audience [except the radio audience of course] as all the concert halls and theatres in the Nazi Reich had been closed because of the risk of a bombing by the Allied Air Forces...

I have quite a problem aligning the experience of some of the those Furtwangler tapes with the message in the music myself, and this has reminded me of my late Norwegian grandfather's non-too-happy comments on Furtwangler or anyone else who served the Nazi Reich, which are unpostable...

But I do think that one also has to examine the Furtwangler case rather closely to arrive at a conclusion over him. The conclusion will necessarily vary according to the individual.

Serious issue, and no clear answer, in Furtwangler's case at least, but on topic, I invariably prefer "live" but absolutley "unedited" recordings to the studio, though some studio eforts are priceless. I actually find a few musical slips helpful, strange as it may sound.

ATB from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

Thanks for setting me straight on the 44 Eroica.

I do not always perfer live. I think there are some circumstances where something can be achieved in the studio that will not come across as well live. Britten's Paul Bunyan is a prime example. Live (and on the Hickox recording which was taped in the ROH, though not live, I think), the voice of Paul, which is given from off stange, him being a giant and all, can sound strained and distant. In the studio, such problems can be removed to give what is doubtless an unnatural perfection but a rather satisfying one none the less. That said, people I know who've heard the work done in small halls say the problem doesn't exist there.

Similarly, I have a great love for the Solti Ring which achieves something unlike what you would get in the opera house - that said, I wish tapes of Solti's '83 Bayreuth existed - it would make fascinating comparison.

I have listened twice today to a Brendel's recent live reading of the Schubert D960 sonata (I believe unedited - certainly the audience noise, always a giveaway of these things, would seem to indicate so) and it is wonderful, utterly eclipsing his earlier studio effort and possibly (though I need to dig it out again for comparison) also my beloved Kempff disc.

regards, Tam

Live or studio?
Can´t be answered generally. Depends completely upon the artist.Some artists love the studio, others hate it.

Imagine, if you will, a performance of Shakespeare's Henry the V performed in 1944, with Laurence Olivier and cast. To record the performance a microphone is suspended fifteen feet above the stage and a single camera to record it, without editing the play. The gap for intermission can be edited out, nothing else.

Now, no doubt such a film, if it existed, would be an interesting document. But would you rather have it than the movie made by the same forces known as Henry the V, starring and directed by Mr Olivier.

Which of these would better reveal the gist of what Shakespeare intended ? I say the movie with all it's artifice.

The records that we play have to overcome their innate boringness due to their artifice with more artifice to make them interesting. A studio recording is an attempt to give the listener Mozart's Piano Concero K467. A live recording attempts to give us a record of what happened November 12th 1944. The live recording emphasises the occasion, the studio emphasises the artistic accomplishment that is Mozart's K467.


Regards

Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

Whilst there can be something of the event in live recordings (unedited at least) that certainly is exactly what makes live recordings more musically compelling than the sterile confections that emerge all to often from the studio. Of course there are poor performances issued from live recordings and absolutely fine studio recordings - there is no cast iron law - but I do find that the music is often the first casualty of artificiality, and this I find absent from live recording, as it is what it was meant to be: A performance, not a conflation of efforts to play each section technically perfectly, and then join all this perfection up. Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, this joined up perfection too often seems to sound relatively incoherent as compared to real performance in terms of an organic unity of conception in the actual performance.

Thus I find that studio recordings actually are the ones that draw attention to the technical skill, but also an undermined sense of continuity of cosception of the performers, whereas I find that in a really fine live recorded performance (unedited) that often the last thing I find I am aware of is the performance at all! The attantion is all on the music, directly, almost omiting any consideration of the fact that it is being performed by a recreative artist.

Very much the same can apply to unedited tapes and wax cuts from an earlier time in recording. Of course the issue of 78 side breaks carries certain problems, but some artists managed this very well...

All the best from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

quote:

but I do find that the music is often the first casualty of artificiality

Yes ! I guess my argument was that a recording represents something that is so artificial, that the rules are changed from that which constitutes a live experience. Thus a performance that may seem "duller' than it's live counterpart, may in some ways be more satisfying.

quote:

Thus I find that studio recordings actually are the ones that draw attention to the technical skill, but also an undermined sense of continuity of cosception of the performers

A lack of continuity in studio records, but they often compensate with greater clarity.

quote:

Very much the same can apply to unedited tapes and wax cuts from an earlier time in recording. Of course the issue of 78 side breaks carries certain problems, but some artists managed this very well...

The records made on 78's , with their limitations and lack of ability for musician's to punch in, did lead to a more organic final product. Agreed.

Kind Regards

Big Brother

For me, in music the end always justifies the means. Whatever venue, in front of an audience or not, whatever recording method, edited or not, the goal is always the best music possible.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:
Dear Fredrik,

...

quote:

Thus I find that studio recordings actually are the ones that draw attention to the technical skill, but also an undermined sense of continuity of cosception of the performers

A lack of continuity in studio records, but they often compensate with greater clarity.

...

Kind Regards

Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

This again surely a question of taste. In a Haydn String Quartet, personally I find that I have all studio recordings. these seem to serve the music rather well. The performances I have, Mosaiques, Tatrai, and Pro Arte Quartets mostly, seem to be done without any editing or uneven continuity, but for a Beethoven symphony for just one example, I tend to prefer the live style of recording. In the Choral alone I have Klemperer in three recordings (my favourites) but only one is studio. Among other recordings I have in this symphone all of them are live radio relays, and that is about three or four more...

I suspect that the more public the music (larger in scale) the better live serves it. But as I did say in my first post, there are no cast iron laws!

I think we have found our common ground! I agree with Mr Simon above that the whole thing is about serving the needs of the music, and trying to get to the essense in it. There are many ways...

Kind regards from Fredrik

Today, because of cost, it seems many orchestral recordings are live rather than made in the studio. Of course, even orchestral recordings that are "live" often have edits, most of which are concealed from the listener. I'd say we now have the worst of both worlds.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:
Of course, even orchestral recordings that are "live" often have edits, most of which are concealed from the listener. I'd say we now have the worst of both worlds.

But what if those edits result in better music? What if there's an outrageous clam in the middle of a transcendent passage ... is there some benefit in preserving it for posterity?

Fred

Fred--then state that the "live" recording has been edited. I have yet to see that acknowledgment in classical recordings...hehehe. In another context, I'd rather like to think that Bill Evans Live at the Vanguard/Waltz for Debbie was actually what the trio played so long ago. If something purports to be live, I can live with it warts and all. I'm just saying I'd like to have some kind of distinction between the perfection of a studio recording, which everyone understands may be heavily edited, and the real deal where the musician or musicians are put to the test.