whp4@flairvax.UUCP (Bill Palmer) (04/30/84)
Someone pointed out that many performances they had heard recently were dull and lifeless, and attributed this to the spectre of comparison with 'that perfect recording.' Well, interestingly enough, a lot of artists and listeners feel exactly the opposite. Some people feel that a live performance has a certain electricity that a recording spliced together from a week's worth of recording sessions just doesn't have. The April 1984 issue of Gramophone has an interesting article by Alfred Brendel entitled "A Word in Favour of Live Recordings." Well worth reading if you can get your hands on a copy. Bill Palmer arpa: whp4@sri-kl uucp: ihnp4!hplabs!flairvax!whp4 Snail: Box 4170, Stanford, CA 94305
paul@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Paul Schinder) (05/01/84)
Those that think that live performances are boring should get a copy of the recent Phillips release of Alfred Brendel and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performing live the five Beethoven piano concertos. They are neither dull nor lifeless. I was fortunate enough to have attended the concerts at Orchestra Hall, and they were truly amazing performances. Paul Schinder uucp: ..!ihnp4!oddjob!paul
spoo@utcsrgv.UUCP (Suk Lee) (05/02/84)
<>
In case you can't get a hold of a copy
of Gramophone, Brendel's article,
"In Favour of Live Records", can be
found in the May issue of High Fidelity.
--
From the pooped paws of:
Suk Lee
..!{decvax,linus,allegra,ihnp4}!utcsrgv!spoojho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/02/84)
It is not clear to me whether live performances produce better music. In recent years, I attended quite a few piano recitals by big name pianists. Only, on rare occasions, I found the live performance really exciting. Most recently, I attended Murray Perahia's performance of Beethoven and Schubert music. This was a very pleasant surprised. Perahia had few misses, but the performance was exciting, and full with life. On the other hand, I recall a dull Brendel performance. I guess, we cannot expect our performers to be at their top all the time. Leonard Bernstein has been the proponent of live recording. His Brahms Symphonies performances are well known. Recently, Philips Issued a new recording of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, with Bernstein and The Bavarian Radio Orchestra. These can be considered semi-life performance. Each act of the three acts was recorded separately. Audience was present during the recording session. I find this recording very exciting. Bernstein puts a lot of passion and fire in the music. I liked Isolda (Hildegard Behrens). Peter Hofmann, Tristan, is somewhat weaker, yet, I enjoyed his singing. I felt that, there was a good balance between voice and orchestra. Occasionally, the voice was somewhat submerged by the orchestra sound. To describe it more accurately, the human voice sounded as one of the orchestral instruments. I found this effect very desirable. I have one question, Is it possible to have a real great performance of Wagner's Ring cycle? Last year broadcast (Gotterdammerung Live!) from Bayreuth was enjoyable, although some of the voices were far from great. Is it possible to gather a great ensemble of singers to perform the Ring? I don't think that live performances is the answer to better music. Some of studio recording are great (e.g. Smetana Quartet recording of Beethoven and Mozart String quartets on Deneon CDs) and full of spirit. The important factor is the attitude of the performer. I think there one great advantage for live recording is that the recording engineers are more restricted in manipulating the sound. They cannot place their microphones too close to the performer (I hope so) and they have less variables to play with. Less microphones and less mixing is a great advantage for classical recording. To conclude, one cannot make a clear statement that a live performance has an advantage over studio performance. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
larrym@tekchips.UUCP (05/04/84)
It isn't clear to me that being live makes or breaks a performance when it
comes to being boring. There are a few some truly memorable live performances
that I can remember, as well as some great studio recordings.
This issue does bring up a question I have wondered about for some time (it
was started in net.audio, but doesn't seem right to continue there). There
are some truly spectacular Sheffield recordings, mostly jazz, that have been
used as "ideals" of what recording can be (in the analog vs. digital forays).
How much of that spectacular sound is really due to anything in the recording
and how much is due to the fact the the musicians were really up for the
performance? After all, they all knew that they had to record a whole side
in one sitting, no editing or correcting allowed. It was right or it was
nothing.
I have always felt that the wonderfulness of those Sheffield recordings was
due to the energy and excitement that the musicians convey, more than their
sonic clarity. Maybe if we ban recording editors...
Larry Morandi
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}!tektronix!larrym
CSnet: larrym@tek
ARPAnet: larrym.tek@csnet-relay
US Mail: Larry Morandi, Computer Research Lab, Tektronix, Inc.
Box 500 MS 50-662, Beaverton OR 97077
Phone: 503-627-6002