5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY) (10/15/84)
I attended a workshop at the AES Convention this past Monday which was of great interest to me and I think of interest to many of you netlanders. The workshop was entitled "Recording the Classical Repertoire: Pickups and Putdowns". It was chaired by Jerry Bruck of Posthorn Recordings and had four other panelists from the industry: Thomas Frost (formerly head of CBS Masterworks , now an independent producer), Bob Ludwig (V.P. of Masterdisk in NYC), Paul Goodman (Senior Engineer for RCA Red Seal), and David Hancock (independent recording engineer/producer). The principle question put to the panelists was: "What is the most important aspect in recording classical music?" What the equipmentphobes in the audience wanted (a war on mic techniques and what the best monitor speaker is) was not to be had at this discussion. These issues did come up, however, but the prime issue was on the music itself and how it related to the technical issues. The point was made that audiophiles (and especially the audiophile mags) don't: (1) understand the complexities and compromises involved in recording music and, (2) care as much about the "music" as they do the "recording". The recording engineer and producer have a number of special interests that they must balance to just walk away from the recording session with a master tape that is usable not to mention produce a finished product. The pure goal of the engineer and producer is to capture as much of the essence of the musical performance as possible on tape. There are, however, a number of factors involved that make this goal a moving target. The first, and absolutely most important, is money. Very few businesses are in business for things other than money -- when decisions come down to it, money decides. Music, and the arts in general, have accountants looking over everyone's shoulder making sure the costs are kept in line. Straight recording scale, per musician, is now $200 per 3 hour session -- only 45 minutes of each 3 hour session can be used in a commercial product. Therefore, for a large symphony accounting for musicians, principles, conductor, hall rental, royalties, etc. the cost of a recording session is $K per minute! When the market for classical music is what it is, it is very difficult to make a profit. The prolific use of multi-miking is due primarily to this issue of cost. It is cheaper for the recording company to splice and remix several disjoint performances than to take the time, set up just a few mics and make the orchestra play it right. Another problem is the focus on note-perfect performances. Recording Co.'s (as well as the performers) are obsessed with "perfect" performances -- often times at the expense of excitement and continuity of musical thought. The musicians in these ways are pricing themselves out. Many labels are going to Europe for their symphonic recordings. It seems in the old country that musicians would rather work than not. As well, some of the smaller companies (i.e., Telarc) are recording some of the smaller symphonies (i.e., Cleveland, Utah, etc.). In this case the label has a little more relative weight to throw around. Telarc isn't as pure as the new-fallen snow either. Jack Renner uses "spot" mics when he feels necessary to augment his 3 omni Schoeps main pickup (by the way, "when necessary" is almost always). This brings up another important issue, the playback equipment that the "average" person uses -- this is definitely NOT Krell and Appogee! Some claim that this is why spot miking is necessary. Most speakers (as well as listeners) are not sophisticated enough to pick out the fine detail without help. Overall, the focus was on the "real-world" classical music recording industry -- bringing to light some of the myths and fantasies that some have. (Monster Cable isn't nearly as important as mic placement which takes a back seat to turning a profit.) Conclusions? There were none -- we're just trying to figure out what questions to ask. Craig Dory
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (10/17/84)
I, for one, am grateful for Craig Dory's article. There are a few points of contention I'd like to raise. As to audiophile publications not understanding the complexities involved in classical recordings; this may or may not be the case but is irrelevant. It isn't the critic's job to support the industry but rather to report to the consumer, in as honest and straightforward a manner as he can, his perceptions of the product at hand, i.e., the finished recording. Therefore, whatever complexities and problems are involved in making the recording might be points of curiosity, but are ultimately not his concern. His job is to describe what the actual recording, in the form which is being distributed to the public, sounds like and, if he finds that sound defective, to say so. The point about audiophile publications being concerned with recorded sound quality rather than the actual music corresponds with what I've found myself. I would never select a recording for its musical content or performance quality based on a review in "Absolute Sound". Nonetheless, I find that their comments on the recorded sound match my own findings on my equipment far more often than any other publication's reviews. I would contend that the obsession with "note perfect" performances tends to be the preoccupation of recording producers rather than performers. I base this on personal acquaintance with a fairly large number of performers of various rank who have been involved in major recording projects. Almost universally, the musicians themselves are bored and annoyed with the interruptions, retakes, and intercutting that destroy the cohesiveness and continuity of their performances. For this reason, many musicians prefer it when a record company elects to record a live performance, with all of its faults. The point about multi-miking should merely reinforce what anyone who takes a serious interest in the art of recording should already know. Two or three-mike setups, given the ideal circumstances of auditorium sound characteristics and performing forces, can produce extraordinarily natural and honestly balanced recordings. These circumstances are, however, extremely rare and without the proper combination can lead to disaster. Multi-miking is a far "safer" and less time-consuming technique and allows for recordings which are at least satisfactory by performers and orchestras which don't have, within any reasonable proximity, a useable hall with the type of acoustics necessary for the simplified miking. One point that really raised my eyebrows was grouping "Cleveland" with "smaller symphonies". The quality may have dropped with Dohnanyi's assumption of leadership (I don't know that it has, but haven't heard), but last I heard it was still one of the "big 5" in the U.S., along with the Chicago Symphony, Boston Symphony, Philadelphia Orchestra, and New York Philharmonic. - Greg Paley