What's new in classical music performance?

There was one notable event I remember in the trumpet playing world in the 70s. Gerard Schwartz won the position of principle trumpet with the New York Philharmonic under Pierre Boulez.

He was an exciting player with a unique and striking style of playing. No one I have heard plays like that anymore, and it was a brilliant style. No one before him played like that either.

I love Munch's post here

Mike, in the past I think you and George have seen some of my criticism of classical as me bashing 'your' genre. I'm not, I just reckon everything and everybody should be open to criticism. There just aren't any threads where jazz, electronica, rock etc are open to this level of debate...if there were, I would be putting the slipper into them.

Anyway, offthread but... George seems to be suggesting that as we are increasingly exposed to dubbed or multi-take digital recordings, we become intolerant of human live performances, and performers are less likely to take risks. Your collective calls would be far more informed than mine here...but it makes sense to me. My concern over classical (and I also level this criticism at pop) is slightly different...I see most new releases on classical labels with stunningly beautiful or handsome young things on the cover - and I wonder 'do ugly or normal people no longer play classical instruments?' I then think...'when I was a youngster, all the beautiful folk locally were playing rock, and classical was the domain of us dorky lot'. So what is going on?

Is it maybe, that as technical perfection in studios is becoming the goal, youngsters who look good on front covers are being recorded at the expense of possibly better musicians who aren't so sexy, but maybe have more depth and would take more risks? I suspect so (but it's just a hunch)...if so, it's an appalling reflection on how A&R men see the genre.

Sure there are examples of ugly classical musicians, but I wouldn't climb over many of them to get to Madonna.

We're off to see an organ recital in town next month...Katerina Chrobokova. Funnily enough, she's a breathtaking blonde Czech.

I'm not complaining mind you.

quote:

George seems to be suggesting that as we are increasingly exposed to dubbed or multi-take digital recordings, we become intolerant of human live performances, and performers are less likely to take risks.

I agree - I have become fairly intolerant of human live performances and I prefer sitting at home listen to music - until I get up off my chair and go and listen to a concert live and then I think must do this more often, but I don't .... no idea why. I'm not overly keen on live recordings though.

I haven't noticed that classical musicians are becoming more beautiful, Mat. Shlomo Mintz and Pierre Boulez won't be on the cover of GQ anytime soon (if there even is a GQ anymore).

I don't know what Munch's post is. I assume it's the cover of an album, but what?

Like ROTF I've become addicted to recorded performances. Unlike George, I think recordings are played by humans and not fabricated in the studio. I just can't see recording companies spending the kind of money George suggests, paying for 27 hours of a full orchestra to get 1 hour of salable product. A splice here, a splice there, that is certain. But 27 hours? And I am going to accept CSO-Resound at their word. If it says live, I'll take it as live. No room for conspiracy theories here :-)

It also leaves the faint odor of sour grapes in my nostrils. I have a number of friends in the local orchestra, and I have spent a good deal of time hearing them practice. They appear to work very hard, and make quite beautiful sound.
I hear improvement, which I tried to detail to some extent in my opening posts.

In the end it won't matter, our fixations are what they are. But it is quite interesting to discuss.

I look forward to George's observations on string articulation, and will listen carefully for what he points out in my collection.

No matter what your take on things, things are changing right now.

Spending a couple of hours reading Jay Friedman's articles on performance practice would be time well spent (the link is in the opening post.)

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I haven't noticed that classical musicians are becoming more beautiful, Mat. Shlomo Mintz and Pierre Boulez won't be on the cover of GQ anytime soon (if there even is a GQ anymore).

I don't know what Munch's post is. I assume it's the cover of an album, but what?

That does amaze me Mike...every classical sleeve I see these days is adorned by a clean looking kid. AS Mutter, Josh Bell, H. Grimaud etc etc etc. The list is seemingly endless.

I would also be astonished Mike, if many recordings are not dubbed or require many many takes.

Munch's post is Led Zepellin's 'Houses of the Holy' Mike, but it's not the point, it's just some english humour. Needs a beer to explain.

Interesting stuff as ever...

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Munch's post is Led Zepellin's 'Houses of the Holy' Mike, but it's not the point, it's just some english humour. Needs a beer to explain.

Give it a try Mat, I want in on the joke :-)

I did some checking at the CSO-Resound website, and it appears they are bending the facts. They proudly proclaim the recordings are "Live!", but the RAVEL / Daphnis et Chloé and
POULENC / Gloria were recorded over three days last November.

That really cheeses me! I have a clear understanding of what "Live!" means, and it has nothing to do with three days of recording sessions. This adds a new dimension to things :-(

It's got me wondering about their internet broadcasts. Oh well, in the end it probably doesn't matter - as long as you know what you're listening to. And it's a pretty strong reason to go out and hear live. Sometimes that takes a lot of effort, so it just doesn't get done.

I see some of George's point here. Doesn't leave you smiling ...

With a heavy heart, I have to acknowledge that George may be right about the way recordings are being made, still hoping it's not as intrusive as George says.

How does that really change things?

Well, a live performance is like a play. You don't know how it's all going to turn out, until it does :-)

With an edited recording, you get the book.

At some point in the editing process, it ceases to be a performance, and becomes instead something else, a "reading", whatever ...

This obscures the human drama that animates music. I don't know yet if knowing this will change what I hear, but my gut reaction is disappointment. It's too much like a trick for my tastes.

Still, I have a thirst to hear the performers of today, and a preference for recorded music.

Hopefully, nothing will sound different to my ears.

Time will tell.

That 'joke' of Munch's will be totally lost in translation Mike, but it's a parody of the 'what are you listening to thread' - photo of album followed by photo of album (like 'Snap'). Munch followed some artwork with artwork. I've no idea what type of humour it is, but I've just murdered it!

Overdubbing and multi-taking...hmmm. I can live with it Mike, but it's a grey area. Stevie Ray Vaughan's version of 'Little Wing' and John Fahey's 'Dalhart Texas 1967'...two of my very favourite guitar pieces. Cornerstones of my erm, canon. Did SRV nail it first time, is it spliced, did Fahey have three days trying to kill it? No idea (I'm sure it's on Wiki or other such guff)...I'd like to think it was 'live' in the studio, it would be more 'magical'...but I can live with any scenario, it sounds great in my sitting room.

If SRV or Fahey couldn't cut the mustard live however (and they'd now struggle on the other side of the rainbow) I would feel genuinely cheated....as I would if Isaac Stern was 'outed' as having to resort to splicing.

I don't know Mat. When you listen to a Live! recording, you have some expectation of an authentic experience.

In the white hot of the here and now, you are giving expression to the music, and a bond appears linking composer, performer and audience.
So a portal is opened where all three parties can commune.

When you edit it after the fact, it is more like an autopsy.

If you know what you're getting yourself into, it's ok. You can enjoy it edited the way you enjoy a good book. It can be a great experience.

But it is not the same experience as a live performance, where anything might happen. A spirit may find it's voice and bring you in a direction unanticipated, to everyone's surprise and delight.

Edited performances are far too controlled to provide that experience. As soon as it's edited, it's calculated.

It's the difference between fresh food and canned. A pale reflection of the reality.

My favourite classical CD that Stu...

Funnily enough, like somat like a multi-layered rock masterpiece...whether it's dubbed or not, is irrelevant on that. It's just magical.

Even after everything is said and done, my opening comments about articulation and other matters hold true. The open question now, in my mind at least, is do these improvements in performance practice introduce undesirable effects? That can only be assessed by listening to live performances, where technique meets reality. It may be that the undesirable side effects only become apparent in live performance.

Or, simply Mike, does the recorded medium omit the 'foibles' that we now consider flaws in the live performance?

The question then is whether these foibles are considered actually undesirable or indeed desirable?

In the end, I just don't think modern recordings are heavily processed and edited. What is done seems to have a beneficial effect.

I will accept it as part of how we live today :-)