Yes! There have been works that I avoided for years because I'd been exposed to recordings of them that I didn't like. I didnt realise at the time that it was the particular performances that didn't 'click' with me. An example would be Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I listened to a version that took it much too slowly, much of the rhythmic interest was lost and it just lacked 'oomph'. But I love the piece now!
Gawd yes, the recording does matter. I have bought CDs and after one listen, they go on the shelf to be never heard again just because the mix was so bad. And the early days of moving my catalog to mp3, due to the nature of mp3 compression, I would hear artifacts that would just set my teeth on edge. One of my favorites Nigel Kennedy's 1997 recording of the four seasons...Superb! Keep the content coming, you are my greatest classical music appreciation teacher
It definitely matters to me on some level. That isn't to say that I consider recordings outside my preferred versions *bad*.....but there are recordings that I will defer to over others whenever I have the choice. For instance, The Netherlands Bach Society is my primary go to for all things Bach. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Sir Georg Solti did my preferred version of the Chorale Symphony & Helen Grimaud did the version of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto that I love most. Oh, and I also actively dislike Karajan whenever he conducts music by Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven-as he always wants to conduct their works in an overly Romantic style.
Yes, the recording matters--not just the production quality, but the mixing, the tempo, the emphasis, and many other things. This is not to say that there is any one correct or perfect recording; merely that different recordings emphasize different aspects of the music. But like any music, you have to listen to enough classical music in order to know what to look for, and in what ways it can vary. Most of us probably favor the earliest classical music we heard, partly out of nostalgia, for the time when we first discovered the music. In the history of pop music, there are a surprising number of covers. One artist might have a big hit with a cover, while another's cover version goes unnoticed. Or a cover might be very similar to the original or first version, or radically different. But when it comes to classical music, EVERY recording is a 'cover' version. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and the rest aren't alive to tell us if they approve or disapprove of a particular recording of their music. If you can explain just what you like or dislike about a particular recording, then you got it. If you can't explain, then maybe you need to do some more listening until you can.
Well, I'm older now, and I've had a life filled with music and a lot of it was classical, and coming in now at the start of my retirement I honestly thought I would simply slip into the stereotype of the aging classical enthusiast where the turntable would never stop, and the worries of the world would begone forever. Boy was I wrong about that. I seemed to have reached a stage, where for some reason, my sensitivity has been amped up, and I can't tolerate a lavish diet of symphonies or concertos. (My hearing seems to be in top form, with a little tinnitus, but that doesn't seem to be the problem). During my life I seemed to be always looking to find better recordings, or to keep up with not just new release, but to also delve deep into historical re-releases. Always thinking that there would one day be a nexus where enlightenment would come and perfection would be delivered to me at last. Of course that never happened. Upon reflection I had noticed that what some people have called 'imprinting' occurs when you love the first version you ever heard and that never changes as you move forward. You might think you are facing a replacement for the one you imprinted on, then you go back to make sure and find you've just added other performance to the arsenal. Then there is the live classical music concert scene, as I have never been to Europe and only ever been to concerts a few times, I understand now that concerts are what have been driving the recording industry forward. Many touring orchestras and artists supplemented their concert work with studio recordings. From where I live, we mainly had access to recordings, and there was always discussions about who amongst my friends was listening to the best recordings, and who was the rank outsider still listening to Schnabel (me), or building a collection of Nellie Melba (also me). Listening to classical music by yourself at home on a stereo is a private experience where you are only pleasing yourself, popular opinion doesn't actually matter. So I think I've come to a suitable answer to the question: Yes. Well of course it matters. Even if you think it doesn't, it still does. The recording that you love (or have imprinted on) sets you down in your little green patch of paradise, and nothing else can interfere with that. Then you expand it by building libraries of the conductors and orchestras that you have followed all throughout your life. There are instances where we all have to tolerate 'any' performance of a given work, but by and large we stay away from them until we are good and ready for another wild adventure.
Sometimes I want to listen to Bach violin sonatas. It doesn’t matter what recording. I want to hear Bach. Sometimes I want to listen to Hilary Hahn play the Bach violin sonatas. It matters greatly what recording. I want to hear Hahn’s Bach.
I remember thinking as I began my music collection that the score was all, and the performance mattered far less. That is true from a purely academic sense. However struggling with a boring Trovatore, and failing to understand the exalted status of the St Matthew Passion, I thought the problem was my lack of understanding. My ears were opened by listening to different recordings (just a few bars of SMP, by the end of the first act of Trovatore.) Sometimes the familiar version can be blown away by new experience, sometimes the new fails to convince. Sometimes both (or more) can jostle for precedence depending on my mood (e.g. I love both Sutherland and Bartoli in Norma and my choice for the Messiah is far from fixed.)
With classical music recordings, everything matters to a greater or lesser degree - interpretation, performance quality and recording quality. For me, Beethoven's 9th is a case in point. I have acquired 11 versions over the years in my quest for a version that checks all of the boxes. Some are too fast or, more often, too slow, others are too strident and don't let the lyricality of the piece come through. And then there is recording quality. Many of the recordings hailed by critics as "the best" or "reference" are older recordings from the 50s, 60s and 70s when recording technology was not up to current standards. Fortunately some of these have been remastered and reissued to improve their sound quality. Other things being more or less equal, I find that recording and sound quality greatly affects my enjoyment of a recording. So, yes, with classical music recordings everything matters.
It happened to me most recently with Vivaldi's recordings. As a violinist I always view his work as student's concertos, until I found the camera orchestra Europa Galante and his director and concertino Fabio Biondi who make their concertos very very very pleasant to listen to, and I think now I'm in love with Vivaldi's work. It can make a world of difference a good recording and good musicians to make you listen to someone's work.
I feel the same way, the older recordings of Vivaldi from the 70s and 80s are significantly slower and significantly more classical-Esque than baroque.
For me, there is only one recording that really pulls off/convinces me for Elgar's Violin Sonata. I love the piece, but only Nigel Kennedy plays it well (in recordings) imo. So, for me, yeah
My collection is miles wide and an inch deep. I don't have multiple versions of anything - or at least 98% of what I have. There are not enough hours in a lifetime to get to that kind of depth. I like a broad selection of multiple eras of Classical music. What I have is whatever I found available at decent prices from brick and mortar stores when I was doing the bulk of my collection. The budget and storage space are two considerations that play major roles in the process as well. And I seriously doubt that I will ever find a recording of, say, Janacek's Diary of One who Disappeared that I would enjoy, so why bother looking?
That’s the fascination - the difference I’m looking for a different point of view I think I have created a vision in my head mashed together from the versions I’ve heard I’m always looking for a surprise I’m sitting with Shostakovich
To me the recording matters quite a bit. Besides a good technical quality one particular aspect I am looking for in recordings of operas is the language proficiency of the singers. As a native German speaker, listening to a recording of the Zauberflöte or Entführung aus den Serail sung and spoken with foreign accents really bothers me for some reason.
From a practical point of view there is a high probability that any of the top views for any piece in RUclips is at least a diligent and valuable version so personaly do not care that much
I can't help feeling that the recording-era has relentlessly raised the expectations of performance-standard to unrealistic, stratospheric heights that only a tiny, select few performers can ever meet now. This sort of implicitly labels all other musicians as "inferior". One thing I have learned in 60-odd years of being a (pro and then amateur) musician is that for every big name you know, there are 100 equally good performers you will never hear of and 10,000 very, very good performers who are only a tiny bit less good.
The best classical music sounds magnificent in a multitude of recordings. However, sometimes, a single recording can bring out the detail or emphasize the part making the listening experience more rewarding. It's piece-dependent.
I want to ask: do you like ballet music. I like swan lake the most. I also know some others like coppelia, giselle, don quixote, sleeping beauty, la bayadere etc. Do you like those. Also: do you have a recording for these ballet music that I can download online? I would prefer if it is copyright free.
I'm disappointed in this video. I thought you were going to address the QUALITY of the recordings, rather than how a piece is played. For example, I love the way Claudio Abbado plays Beethoven's sonatas, but the audible hiss ruins it for me. Michelangeli is known for playing great Debussy. But I can't seem to appreciate it as much as other, more recent recordings by other performers, who were recorded more dynamically.
Something I've noticed about a great deal of classical music recordings is that it seems they were never mastered for volume. How often have you had the experience of listening to a symphony or whatever and you found yourself constantly adjusting the volume up and down? Much of the time it's so quiet that you have to turn it all the way up just to hear it, then it's suddenly blowing your speakers out before it gets quiet again...professionally-recorded music is not supposed to do that. That kind of thing is supposed to be fixed at the mixing board when an album is mastered, which leads me to think that much if not most classical music does not go through this process.
That's how pop music is mixed. Most classical recordings try to preserve the original dynamics. This does create a problem for those without very quiet rooms and equipment that can handle the full dynamics. But I don't think the solution is compromising the recordings for everyone. Instead look for playback equipment with dynamic compression capabilities.
@@davecook8378 Hello, wtf good are dynamics if you can't hear them without cranking your volume all the way up? Volume and dynamics are not dichotomous; you can easily put a volume floor, a base-level of volume in a recording without sacrificing dynamics.
He's talking about the recording. He even mentions things like mixing, mic placement and sound quality; he mentions that he can't stand scratchy old recordings. He talks about performance, yes, but a different recording means a different performance, so talking about whether the recording matters requires discussion about the performance.
Yes! There have been works that I avoided for years because I'd been exposed to recordings of them that I didn't like. I didnt realise at the time that it was the particular performances that didn't 'click' with me. An example would be Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I listened to a version that took it much too slowly, much of the rhythmic interest was lost and it just lacked 'oomph'. But I love the piece now!
The performance you love is the performance that holds you back from discovering other versions.
Gawd yes, the recording does matter. I have bought CDs and after one listen, they go on the shelf to be never heard again just because the mix was so bad. And the early days of moving my catalog to mp3, due to the nature of mp3 compression, I would hear artifacts that would just set my teeth on edge. One of my favorites Nigel Kennedy's 1997 recording of the four seasons...Superb! Keep the content coming, you are my greatest classical music appreciation teacher
It definitely matters to me on some level. That isn't to say that I consider recordings outside my preferred versions *bad*.....but there are recordings that I will defer to over others whenever I have the choice. For instance, The Netherlands Bach Society is my primary go to for all things Bach. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Sir Georg Solti did my preferred version of the Chorale Symphony & Helen Grimaud did the version of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto that I love most. Oh, and I also actively dislike Karajan whenever he conducts music by Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven-as he always wants to conduct their works in an overly Romantic style.
Yes, the recording matters--not just the production quality, but the mixing, the tempo, the emphasis, and many other things. This is not to say that there is any one correct or perfect recording; merely that different recordings emphasize different aspects of the music. But like any music, you have to listen to enough classical music in order to know what to look for, and in what ways it can vary. Most of us probably favor the earliest classical music we heard, partly out of nostalgia, for the time when we first discovered the music.
In the history of pop music, there are a surprising number of covers. One artist might have a big hit with a cover, while another's cover version goes unnoticed. Or a cover might be very similar to the original or first version, or radically different.
But when it comes to classical music, EVERY recording is a 'cover' version. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and the rest aren't alive to tell us if they approve or disapprove of a particular recording of their music. If you can explain just what you like or dislike about a particular recording, then you got it. If you can't explain, then maybe you need to do some more listening until you can.
Well, I'm older now, and I've had a life filled with music and a lot of it was classical, and coming in now at the start of my retirement I honestly thought I would simply slip into the stereotype of the aging classical enthusiast where the turntable would never stop, and the worries of the world would begone forever. Boy was I wrong about that. I seemed to have reached a stage, where for some reason, my sensitivity has been amped up, and I can't tolerate a lavish diet of symphonies or concertos. (My hearing seems to be in top form, with a little tinnitus, but that doesn't seem to be the problem).
During my life I seemed to be always looking to find better recordings, or to keep up with not just new release, but to also delve deep into historical re-releases. Always thinking that there would one day be a nexus where enlightenment would come and perfection would be delivered to me at last. Of course that never happened. Upon reflection I had noticed that what some people have called 'imprinting' occurs when you love the first version you ever heard and that never changes as you move forward. You might think you are facing a replacement for the one you imprinted on, then you go back to make sure and find you've just added other performance to the arsenal. Then there is the live classical music concert scene, as I have never been to Europe and only ever been to concerts a few times, I understand now that concerts are what have been driving the recording industry forward. Many touring orchestras and artists supplemented their concert work with studio recordings. From where I live, we mainly had access to recordings, and there was always discussions about who amongst my friends was listening to the best recordings, and who was the rank outsider still listening to Schnabel (me), or building a collection of Nellie Melba (also me). Listening to classical music by yourself at home on a stereo is a private experience where you are only pleasing yourself, popular opinion doesn't actually matter.
So I think I've come to a suitable answer to the question: Yes. Well of course it matters. Even if you think it doesn't, it still does.
The recording that you love (or have imprinted on) sets you down in your little green patch of paradise, and nothing else can interfere with that. Then you expand it by building libraries of the conductors and orchestras that you have followed all throughout your life.
There are instances where we all have to tolerate 'any' performance of a given work, but by and large we stay away from them until we are good and ready for another wild adventure.
Sometimes I want to listen to Bach violin sonatas. It doesn’t matter what recording. I want to hear Bach.
Sometimes I want to listen to Hilary Hahn play the Bach violin sonatas. It matters greatly what recording. I want to hear Hahn’s Bach.
I remember thinking as I began my music collection that the score was all, and the performance mattered far less. That is true from a purely academic sense. However struggling with a boring Trovatore, and failing to understand the exalted status of the St Matthew Passion, I thought the problem was my lack of understanding. My ears were opened by listening to different recordings (just a few bars of SMP, by the end of the first act of Trovatore.) Sometimes the familiar version can be blown away by new experience, sometimes the new fails to convince. Sometimes both (or more) can jostle for precedence depending on my mood (e.g. I love both Sutherland and Bartoli in Norma and my choice for the Messiah is far from fixed.)
With classical music recordings, everything matters to a greater or lesser degree - interpretation, performance quality and recording quality. For me, Beethoven's 9th is a case in point. I have acquired 11 versions over the years in my quest for a version that checks all of the boxes. Some are too fast or, more often, too slow, others are too strident and don't let the lyricality of the piece come through. And then there is recording quality. Many of the recordings hailed by critics as "the best" or "reference" are older recordings from the 50s, 60s and 70s when recording technology was not up to current standards. Fortunately some of these have been remastered and reissued to improve their sound quality. Other things being more or less equal, I find that recording and sound quality greatly affects my enjoyment of a recording. So, yes, with classical music recordings everything matters.
YOU AND I ARE OF THE SAME MIND ! !
It happened to me most recently with Vivaldi's recordings. As a violinist I always view his work as student's concertos, until I found the camera orchestra Europa Galante and his director and concertino Fabio Biondi who make their concertos very very very pleasant to listen to, and I think now I'm in love with Vivaldi's work.
It can make a world of difference a good recording and good musicians to make you listen to someone's work.
I feel the same way, the older recordings of Vivaldi from the 70s and 80s are significantly slower and significantly more classical-Esque than baroque.
Does it matter?! YES - more than anything!
For me, there is only one recording that really pulls off/convinces me for Elgar's Violin Sonata. I love the piece, but only Nigel Kennedy plays it well (in recordings) imo.
So, for me, yeah
My collection is miles wide and an inch deep. I don't have multiple versions of anything - or at least 98% of what I have. There are not enough hours in a lifetime to get to that kind of depth. I like a broad selection of multiple eras of Classical music. What I have is whatever I found available at decent prices from brick and mortar stores when I was doing the bulk of my collection. The budget and storage space are two considerations that play major roles in the process as well. And I seriously doubt that I will ever find a recording of, say, Janacek's Diary of One who Disappeared that I would enjoy, so why bother looking?
That’s the fascination - the difference
I’m looking for a different point of view
I think I have created a vision in my head mashed together from the versions I’ve heard
I’m always looking for a surprise
I’m sitting with Shostakovich
Yes but no but yes but no but yes but no[…] but finally id say yes! Great video as per usual
Also isnt the french line « vive la différence! »?
I agee with you Ms. Pollard, but computer says no.
To me the recording matters quite a bit. Besides a good technical quality one particular aspect I am looking for in recordings of operas is the language proficiency of the singers. As a native German speaker, listening to a recording of the Zauberflöte or Entführung aus den Serail sung and spoken with foreign accents really bothers me for some reason.
From a practical point of view there is a high probability that any of the top views for any piece in RUclips is at least a diligent and valuable version so personaly do not care that much
I can't help feeling that the recording-era has relentlessly raised the expectations of performance-standard to unrealistic, stratospheric heights that only a tiny, select few performers can ever meet now. This sort of implicitly labels all other musicians as "inferior". One thing I have learned in 60-odd years of being a (pro and then amateur) musician is that for every big name you know, there are 100 equally good performers you will never hear of and 10,000 very, very good performers who are only a tiny bit less good.
The best classical music sounds magnificent in a multitude of recordings. However, sometimes, a single recording can bring out the detail or emphasize the part making the listening experience more rewarding. It's piece-dependent.
Of course it does. What a silly question.
I want to ask: do you like ballet music. I like swan lake the most. I also know some others like coppelia, giselle, don quixote, sleeping beauty, la bayadere etc. Do you like those. Also: do you have a recording for these ballet music that I can download online? I would prefer if it is copyright free.
I'm disappointed in this video. I thought you were going to address the QUALITY of the recordings, rather than how a piece is played. For example, I love the way Claudio Abbado plays Beethoven's sonatas, but the audible hiss ruins it for me. Michelangeli is known for playing great Debussy. But I can't seem to appreciate it as much as other, more recent recordings by other performers, who were recorded more dynamically.
Since I found out Beethoven 5th conducted by Benjamin Zander at 108 BPM I just can´t go back
There is nothing that doesn’t matter in classical music
Something I've noticed about a great deal of classical music recordings is that it seems they were never mastered for volume. How often have you had the experience of listening to a symphony or whatever and you found yourself constantly adjusting the volume up and down? Much of the time it's so quiet that you have to turn it all the way up just to hear it, then it's suddenly blowing your speakers out before it gets quiet again...professionally-recorded music is not supposed to do that. That kind of thing is supposed to be fixed at the mixing board when an album is mastered, which leads me to think that much if not most classical music does not go through this process.
So you want to take all of the dynamic nuances out of the music? Make everything mezzoforte?
@@arjenbij That's a stupid straw man you've got there.
On the one hand, sure, on the other, I prefer this to recordings that are poorly compressed, which kill all the cilmaxes.
That's how pop music is mixed. Most classical recordings try to preserve the original dynamics. This does create a problem for those without very quiet rooms and equipment that can handle the full dynamics. But I don't think the solution is compromising the recordings for everyone. Instead look for playback equipment with dynamic compression capabilities.
@@davecook8378 Hello, wtf good are dynamics if you can't hear them without cranking your volume all the way up? Volume and dynamics are not dichotomous; you can easily put a volume floor, a base-level of volume in a recording without sacrificing dynamics.
Two versions of the same material sounding different...Who woulda thunk it...?
About as much as does a good writer matter to a good book.
those were only two notes at the beginning, not four...
1:50
You're not talking about the recording, you're talking about the performance. Most performances go unrecorded.
He's talking about the recording. He even mentions things like mixing, mic placement and sound quality; he mentions that he can't stand scratchy old recordings. He talks about performance, yes, but a different recording means a different performance, so talking about whether the recording matters requires discussion about the performance.