These are all great points, and my views on historical recordings are basically the same. However, I have some details to add, so I've posted a ridiculously long comment here. This is a subject that I love. Old classical recordings with significant sound quality problems are not suitable for beginners and are best left to more advanced collectors who know the music well and are curious about these recordings and their particular quirks or who are looking for obscure repertoire that might not have any modern recordings available. I have a lot of historical recordings going all the way back to the acoustic era, but I have interests that draw me to them. I find the history of recording technology fascinating, so I naturally like having recordings of classical, popular, folk/country/blues, and "world" music going all the way back to the beginning. Recording technology is a history of gradual improvement punctuated by a small number of major technological changes resulting in discontinuities. For this reason, this history can be split into a few time periods, each of which has its own particular characteristics and problems for listeners. As a general rule, I wouldn't recommend anything earlier than mid-1950s hi-fi stereo recordings (and maybe some 1950s hi-fi mono) for people who are simply looking for a good listening experience. However, those who are interested in technology and/or earlier performance practices will find these scratchy ancient recordings to be endlessly fascinating. The acoustic era (c. 1890-early 1925). The first commercial recordings were released around 1890. During this era, the recording process was entirely mechanical. The recording horn distorted the sounds, and the frequency range was highly limited. Voices are captured reasonably well, as Dave indicated, and single instruments or small ensembles are usually captured intelligibly. The banjo is picked up well, as is the piano. Wind bands are captured better than symphony orchestras (albeit still not very well), so many early recordings are arranged for wind band. Opera recordings often feature wind band accompaniment. I tend to concentrate more on popular music from this era since there are some good singers, and there are styles of music that are rarely, if ever, performed these days, but the pioneering classical recordings are interesting too. For those who aren't used to them, acoustic recordings are a very challenging listen. Also, I would question how much we can learn about orchestral performance practices from these recordings since the technology and studio conditions were so limiting as to cause the conductors and musicians to heavily modify their techniques. The electric era (1925-early 1950s). When the electric microphone was introduced to commercial recordings in 1925, it resulted in the single greatest improvement in recording technology. At this point, sound could be captured reasonably faithfully and without the distortion of the recording horn, but the frequency range was still limited, with the highs and lows better than in the acoustic era but still weak. It's fun to hear the earliest electrical orchestral recordings, such as Stokowski's 1925 Danse Macabre. Performers didn't initially realize just how much of an improvement this technology would bring, so they still sometimes used modified arrangements that were suited to the acoustic technology; for example, saxophones in the bass section of the orchestra. Many jazz bands still featured loud wind instruments in the bass section for a year or two afterwards, but most ultimately went over to the string bass, and the banjo soon gave way to the softer guitar. Recordings of this time period can be cleaned up to make them listenable, but they are still somewhat lacking due to the limited frequency range, and they are typically muddy, so it is hard to pick out details in the orchestra. The technology also isn't quite ready yet for choral music. Solo vocal and instrumental recordings, and small chamber ensembles, generally fare better. Many non-classical recordings from this period are among the all time greats, as this was a golden age of jazz and swing, but classical recordings are mostly suited to those specifically interested in the history of performance practices or those who like particular solo performers of the time. High fidelity (c. 1950) and stereo (mid-to-late 1950s). The use of tape and improved microphones finally allowed recordings to capture the full frequency range. From this time forward, commercial recordings usually sound good enough to reasonably capture all of the color of the orchestra, the chorus, the voice, and individual instruments, so they are suitable for beginners. Some people might prefer to stick with stereo. The stereo LP was introduced in 1958, but stereo tapes were available by around 1955, so some pre-1958 recordings have stereo masters. Some early 1950s mono recordings sound great, and others still sound like the 1940s - the improvements due to hi-fi were somewhat gradual and it took time for everyone to figure it out, and some labels were slower than others to acquire the best equipment. The major labels, especially Decca (London in the U.S.), RCA Victor, and Mercury, usually have the best recordings from the mono years of the hi-fi era. Digital (c. late 1970s). Compared to high quality analog recordings, digital isn't a huge improvement in sound quality, but background tape hiss is eliminated. (Note that it took a few years for people to figure out how to properly make digital recordings; many of the early ones have some quality problems.) It is, however, a big improvement in terms of convenience, duplication, distribution, and preservation. Though some people like to stick to recent digital recordings, I wouldn't count out hi-fi stereo analog recordings. Many of them sound great, and there are numerous wonderful performances.
I feel like we have the same passion for the music and what surrounds it (or makes it happen!). Really would be interesting talking to you, since it is interesting already reading through this eloquent post. :) Thank you for having more patience than I usually have, to just write down all this information, which may prove valuable to budding collectors.
Many thanks - an excellent summary of recording developments! (P.S. You've made me feel decidedly old by pointing out that stereo LPs were introduced in 1958 - only six years before my birth!) 🙂
I avoided historical recordings for a long time. But...that Ormandy mono box from Sony and the his Minneapolis mono recordings have really been enlightening and educational. It's the playing style that I find fascinating. No one today, or even for 60 years has played with so much portamento in the string playing. And listening to a 90 year old version of the Rachmaninoff 2nd you realize that orchestras back then were every bit as good as ones today. There were fewer of them, but damn they could play!
When I started out buying CD's as a school boy, I set myself a much stricter law for what I considered historical recording better to ignore: for me that was ANYTHING NOT RECORDED DIGITALLY! I was convinced for any great analogue recording I could find just as good digital recording. I wanted not even the slightest background noise- just pure digital sound made only by the artists. Then, one day I heard the Dvorak cello concerto recording of Rostropovich and Karajan - I loved what I heard, despite the slight shhh background noise of the 1968 recording. But the moment that finally destroyed my insistence on digital was when I first heard Heifetz's 1960's recording of the Sibelius recording. It absolutely blew me away. I realised quality of sound is not always THAT important and that I am going to miss out on GREAT MUSIC MAKING if I kept insisting on digital. After that I went ever into the 'abyss of bad sound quality' - Horotitz-Toscanini Tchaikovsky 1st concerto of 1943 - I was in awe despite the terrible sound quality. Perhaps, when you start out on collecting recordings, it may be good to start with the best possible sound quality, but eventually one realises how much older recordings add to ones music appreciation. And thanks to RUclips, one can compare most recordings to decide which of the older ones are good enough. My best advice: if a piece is good enough, don't limit yourself to just one recording of it (although it seems that many people, especially when it comes to solo artists, are so fanatically stuck if one gear - JUST Richter, JUST Arrau or who ever that they are unable to even listen to anyone else - their loss!). Have a good sounding recording and have some of the older ones - there is magic and much fun in the older recording - what a loss it you only listen to modern good sounding recordings.
"I want to HEAR what the composer wrote." What a concept! Fritz Reiner once said that "recordings didn't begin to sound like music until around 1950." Or words to that effect. This might not be LITERALLY true as a rule, but I see his point !
The phrase “historical recording” contains its significance in the title - the recording is noteworthy because of its time, place, conductor, soloist, and/or ensemble. If hearing R. Strauss conduct his own stuff gets someone their jollies, I’m not interested in telling them they’re wrong. That said, pretty impossible to maintain that any such recordings of standard rep are in any meaningful sense the best.
I though I had already posted but there seems to be nothing . Perhaps I failed to press a button. So here goes again. Your comments here are spot on, Dave. Recording quality is very important for full enjoyment. I agree that from the early 50s in mono, there is usually little to detract from the music on the major labels, though I had then and still have reservations about steely strings and papery brass on Decca ffrr recordings until the late 50s. So where "historical" equates with bad recording, I rarely listen a second time, exceptions being some incandescent Furtwängler wartime recordings and some Toscanini. Some 30s recordings are in the intermediate category of good for the period and include some treasures like Schnabel's Beethoven, Beecham's Delius and the Walter/Melchior/ Lehmann Walküre Act 1. To jump to a category of music where recording quality perhaps is instrumental in forming my appreciation of how the music should sound, it is Soviet post war music such as Shostakovich and Schnittke, where Melodiya recordings which sounded quite acerbic were the media through which I and most of my generation got to know it. I guess that part of that was also the actual sound the Soviet orchestras under the likes of Mravinsky, Kondashin and Rozhdestvensky, which the recording emphasised. As a result I find that the polished sound of Western recordings from the 70s and more recent Russian recordings at the Maryinsky confer a touch of blandness on the music, which IMO detracts.
This seems to be an accurate assessment. For a long time, I thought no performance of Beethoven's 8th Symphony could, to my taste, equal Toscanini's from the 1950s, recorded in bad mono sound with distortion at volume peaks. Then I found that I liked Bohm's just as much, and it's in good stereo sound.
I read the opinion that Toscanini's recordings are no longer as essential as they once were because his influence has become pervasive enough that he can now be heard in much better sound from select modern conductors. (I'd still rather hear Toscanini from Toscanini.)
Great talk again! 😀you're my K Clark for classical music sound. If one continues to pick and choose, I'd put forward, one carefully chooses only those recordings that one really wants. I tend to go for the quirky and those with a story a lot, but there you go. I like history
I'm interested in those historical recordings that preserve things that do not exist anymore today. For example, the great Wagner singers until the middle 1960s, the French Opéra-Comique ensemble and the 1940s Soviet male voices (Reizen, Kozlovsky, Lisitsian...). Another great example is the Casals-Cortot-Thibaud trio, the way they used portamenti and vibrato is completely out of fashion, but really interesting. On the other hand it makes no sense to check historical recordings of Rossini operas or Haendel oratorios, because these were done much better in a later era.
I have collected vocal recordings going back to Caruso for over 50 years and I am not bothered by the sound. I listen 'through' the sound to hear the voice. Otherwise, I prefer my orchestral and complete opera recordings post 1950---kind of a cut-off point for me anyway.Thanks again Dave for a great informative video.
I don't know if anyone will read this comment as the video was made a year ago. I have these ear plugs/filters called LOOPs. They help me be in noisy environments. You hear everything but it filters out the hard-surface edge that some sound has. One day my husband and I were watching an old movie from the 40s when all of the acting was basically shouted. Sensory-wise I have always had a difficult time dealing with the timbre of the sound in old movies. I noticed about halfway through the movie that my LOOPs took that nasty edge off the sound and made it so much more enjoyable. I think it is worth having a pair of these when listening to early recordings. It takes the edge off.
I ordered the Elgar Edition after you recently discussed it(I'm still waiting for it to arrive from Amazon Japan).l have more recent recordings of these works from conductors like Solti and Previn but am curious as to how the music would sound under it's composer. I think curiosity would be my main interest in historical recordings. They would never be my go-to versions for listening.
Generally agreed - it is rather hard to argue against getting a great-sounding recording of an unknown work, if available. I think the question of "historical" recordings as you describe them - versions in less-than-optimal sound - is their target audience. Acquiring such recordings will make sense to somewhat more advanced collectors who either really like to explore alternative versions of a certain work, or, more likely, are fans of a certain artist or group. As an example, against reasonable warnings, I decided to buy the Archiphon Otto Klemperer Live recordings with the Concertgebouw Orchestra - and not wait for the newly arrived big box of his official studio work - because I was intrigued in the alternative takes the great conductor may have presented, while heading an orchestra that was admittedly among the best even then. A pretty safe bet for someone who already knew most of the repertoire, including the grand man's other records. Not making a final evaluation, but the idea of at least Klemperer never arriving at a definitive interpretation, and always experimenting Live, seems to have at least some truth to it. Some comparative listening was quite rewarding, and while I certainly do not need another 5 Beethoven Sevenths from Klemperer to keep exploring :)), I can appreciate the variety of tempi and interpretations. Surely to the point where the sound allows one to enjoy the listening, which the mentioned set mostly provides. But OF COURSE for a beginner to get an idea of the unique style and character of Kl'empereur (or most of the famous conductors from a bygone era - we still talk about them, because they WERE special in some way!), I would firmly suggest the studio set(s). The conductor may not have loved the recording process, but he sure was not sabotaging it, so those records are just as revelatory! And professional sounding. Much of this probably is self-evident. The one mistake that any newbie ought to absolutely avoid, would be to "go for the legend" by purchasing crappy recordings at the seducing budget prices... While it may seem plausible way to get a lot all at once - who should want to "imprint" on a distorted version of whatever masterpiece?
One value of historical recordings is to understand how performance and interpretations have changed and are not present in contemporary practice. Thinking of Josef Hoffmann and his playing style. While not familiar with all the contemporary recordings I have not come across performances with similar approach and distinctive panache. Mostly however I am biased to sonic quality. Music is sound and it should sound good. No great
Dave - would like to re-up my request from about a year ago: would you consider doing a series that explains why/how the "Big 5" became the "Big 5"? Folks of my generation--raised in the seventies and eighties--came along after the top five American orchestras were already considered the best without really seeing this progression in action. But how did this come to be? And--more importantly?--what recordings made this possible? Was it because, e.g., Chicago really had the best brass, and Philly had the best strings, or was it really just a function of marketing and budget and timing? What are reference recordings that justify or helped to establish this list of "The Top Five"? I hope this makes sense. Wikipedia has a short survey of this topic, but it's not explored musically, which I'd hoped you would do.
When I was in college five decades ago, I had a friend who was a novice (only slightly behind me) classical music fan. When he proudly played for me the EMI L.P. set of Furtwangler's 1951 Bayreuth Festival recording of Beethoven's ninth, I tried to suggest a later, better sounding recording. He actually got angry, saying he read it was the best and so he flatly refused to listen to any other ninth. The power of music critics... .
I have a few "historical recordings", but not much. One recording that I have is a disc by violinist Eugene Ysaye. The recording dates are 1912-1914. While it's not totally unlistenable, the amount of surface noise is definitely distracting. There's enough quality there for me to get a good sense of his technical ability. It's quite clear that he was an outstanding violinist. The problem though is that the amount of noise and lack of sonority makes the recording too one dimensional. For me if there's more noise than music, I don't have much to do with it.
I have often wondered what people would think if I took certain good modern recordings (that people had not heard, and particularly by totally unknown performers who have been shunned by the industry) and made them mono, put them through significant analog compression, tape saturation, and filtering, and said "what do you think of this recently-unearthed historical performance?" I suspect a lot of "historical recording" buffs (particularly vinyl collectors) would be greatly impressed by this amazing discovery of sublime, historically-significant musicianship (and guess all manner of famous names as the likely performer), whereas they would refuse to even listen or consider it worthy if they discovered that the very same recording was actually recorded two years ago by a living (especially young or non-white) performer. Limited sound quality provides a sonic "solidity" which a recording might otherwise lack, and can cover up a lot of sins that otherwise stand out. (It's no mistake that compression and distortion are so heavily used in rock and pop music.) And as you mention, listening through the muck allows for a great deal of filling in by the imagination.
I think I'd agree that to establish one's knowledge of a piece it's best to start with a good competent performance in good modern sound. When you know the piece, you can then appreciate a performance bringing special insights or an idiosyncratic approach, and the brain can compensate and adjust for some lack of sound quality. I have never heard any modern recording quite capture the nuances that Artur Rubinstein brought out in the Chopin Piano Concerto No.2, for example (I just visited Lodz in Poland; there is a bronze in the main street of him playing the piano, the music open to this piece!). Some singers had a unique timbre to their voice (e.g. Kathleen Ferrier, Ernest Lough) which is worth hearing. Some pieces are not performed today in the same way or at all. I have a broadcast recording of Handel's D minor organ concerto from a 1960 Prom with the Royal Albert Hall organ and a full symphony orchestra; it would never be done today, but it had a unique impact which no chamber organ/orchestra quite matches. Likewise the massed choir versions of Messiah, e.g. with Sargent and the Huddersfield Choral Society, nowadays generally replaced by "authentic" performances with small forces that are technically very fine but lose the drama. (Saw a performance recently with authentic valveless trumpet; a fine achievement to play "The trumpet shall sound" with just a few wrong notes, but a modern valve trumpet would do it easily and perfectly!) Dave has commented on the difficulty that modern conductors can have with out-and-out Romantic works, even the first two Sibelius symphonies as compared to 3-7. But for the real mainstream repertoire, yes, for a historical performance to stand out from the many good modern ones, it would have to have something really remarkable.
In your review of the Cesar Franck edition you liked the historical recordings more than the modern recordings. You valued in particular the Violin Sonata historical version of Heifetz and Rubinstein much higher than the Renaud Capucon and Buniatishvili version.
Historical recordings are one thing but it really has to do with the sound reproduction. Some recordings have been remastered and reengineered to improve the sound. Naxos did wonderful remasterings that the labels which owned the original recording ignored. However, it is still a matter of opinion whether some of them are basically good recordings. Whether it has been re-re-re-re-remastered (or even a digital one) doesn’t matter if it’s a bad performance. To sum up: Find the best recording you can-allow for your favorites-and get the best sound available. At a certain point, there isn’t much that can be done. The NEW Callas complete box set 2023 to celebrate her 100th birthday is an example. How much can be done to these records (and the Solti Decca RING) that hasn’t already been done to justify buying them for the fifth time. Especially when the targeted audience is getting older and more hard of hearing!!’
Interesting point, the last one you made! The record companies must be hoping a new generation is growing up that "buys into the myth" of a so-and-so. But as far as buying re-packaged and remastered versions of the same stuff, I am convinced that even super-modern tech must have limits to how many times it can upgrade the sound of a bad (or just old) original recording. Possibly, I am just not far enough down the road to true collectorship. :)
It depends entirely on the priorities of the listener. At the risk of appearing a philistine, I don't have very much interest in the history of performance, how practice has changed over the last century or so of recorded sound, so theres really no point in me struggling through scratchy old recordings. Very much a listener rather than a scholar. Having said that, while I'll always better sound quality over worse, I'm not someone for whom lower fidelity is an insuperable barrier if theres genuinely something worth listening to behind the hiss and fog. I do enjoy field recordings of folk and traditional music from all over the world, and those often come with limited sound quality which I don't find objectionable. Incidentally, Bartok was a pioneer of that, he spent a few years lugging a phonograph around south eastern Europe collecting folk songs.
I cannot listen to noisy recordings, my mind focuses on the noise rather than the performance. I consider anything recorded before I was born as historical but I do have some from the early fifties that sound good and even the forties that are listenable. But why do you have to go back 80 years when there are many good modern performances? I prefer to support living musicians.
I agree that historical recordings are generally not worth the earache, but sometimes it's worth it to hear something truly unique, e.g. some of conductor Mengelberg's recordings. Even then, after you glean the important points, it's hard to go back to the hideously distorted well a second or third time.
I have listened to so-called 'historic' recordings of a limited number of composers (e.g., R. Strauss) conducting their own works but (in agreement with Mr Hurwitz) have benefitted only from the tempi applied by the composers themselves. Similarly, I have found recordings of classical vocalists useful only from an historic 'curiosity' value. The inevitable significant noise in these recordings makes them totally incomparable (for the worse) to their modern equivalents, provided the performers could be expected to be similar in quality. Indeed, if I might be so bold as to put myself into the shoes of the composers involved I hazard to guess that they, too, would favor the reproductive accuracy of modern techniques compared with the limited capabilities of recording methods available in their own lifetimes.
I think it’s also about interpretation of the works. For example, Helmut Walcha’s Bach organ works 1947- 1952 recordings are historical I guess and still unsurpassed to my ears!
Depends to an extent on the composer. For me, Brahms' orchestral works need decent but not state-of-the-art sound. I still rate Kempe's performances of the symphonies and Deutsches Requiem and Solomon's PC2 above all others I've heard to date. On the other hand Mahler benefits enormously from good sound and as much as I loved them to begin with, I find myself returning less and less often to Walter's recordings.
Most of us watching your videos are experienced classical music aficionados. For us, your points are relevant specifically when learning an unfamiliar composition. The first-time listener to Howard Hanson's Symphony No. 2 would be better served by the magnificent-sounding 1989 Schwarz/Seattle Symphony version released on Naxos (formerly Delos) than the 1940 Hanson/Eastman-Rochester recording in less-brilliant, less-dynamic sound. Likewise, a first-time listener to Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 (nobody watching this YT) can find multiple recordings in very good sound, while starting out with the somewhat distorted 1943 Horowitz/Toscanini "war bonds" concert recording would not be terribly convincing to a first-time listener. Then again, some of my earliest CM listening was on very primitive audio gear and to this day I still recall first hearing the 1958 Stern/Bernstein rendition of the Beethoven Violin Concerto while driving my parents' 1969 Ford with its Philco/Ford pushbutton AM car radio. It has remained in my memory as a very special experience. Go figure!
Dave, what to do with reference historical recordings in murky sound ?. An example is Roger Desormiere's idiomatic Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande recorded in wartime mono (1941) which is held in great esteem.
Agreed, also historic piano recordings are worth listening. For example Edwin Fischer's Well-tempered Clavier, recorded between 1933-1936, is one of the greats.
@@peterboer9572 That recording of Bach's WTC and Casals Bach Cello Suites sit at the very top of my list. I wonder since they were the first recordings of these Bach pieces, if Dave will allow them a slot on his "Most Important Recording Projects Ever" series?
Maybe Dave can start a new series Dave's Faves "historical recordings". It is nice to know which historical recordings Dave likes and his argumentation. Maybe he has given us some "historical" Dave's Faves, because he is not a dogmatic person.
Our AI boffins will doubtless concoct our favorite historical performances in pristine sound...or conjure wonders that never existed. A Barenboim Ring with Keilberth's cast...
Agreed! Old historical recordings can actually turn one away from a great classic. If you heard the Furtwangler wartime Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, you might be wondering what's the big deal. Ditto to the Walter Mahler Song of the Earth with Patzak and Ferrier. These just sound bad, not a good intro to great music.
The "wartime" 9th sounds uniquely vulgar and terrifying and is worth a listen for a non-beginner. Maybe for Halloween. The 1954 Lucerne recording is in sorta good sound, might be okay for a beginner. Bayreuth 1951-- who cares other than Furtwanglerians?
@@patrickhackett788154 Lucerne I think everyone should care. Others? Well you can decide. For me the only essential thing in Furtwangler is Wagner, which again only Wagnerians would care😅😂
A person pays $65.00 for a sonically terrible recording of Beethoven's 5th and think it's the greatest thing ever, and sing it's praise...would that same person be so positive if they paid $65.00 for a ticket to a concert of Beethoven's 5th that is horribly played with terrible sonics, and walk away singing it's praise?
Probably. People have a habit of defending money they spent unwisely by talking up the value of the disappointing product. The helpful thing in the case of the concert is that nobody can go check whether it was actually any good, as it is now in the past. With records, you can just point at them and laugh. Doesn't make you any friends, but you can, and you can argue your opinion should you find it worth your time (it generally isn't).
100% PS Never purchase a live recording, if you can hear stage or audience noise. You were not there (chances are) and such extraneous sound won't make you feel as though you were.
Speaking only for myself, I tend to prefer live recordings. It's not to make me feel like I was there, but rather that a live performance can have a unique energy and spontaneity, generated by a synergy of conductor, musicians and audience, that cannot be achieved in the studio. I think it is the same quality that separates live theater from movies. I have found over the years that a well recorded live performance can capture much of that quality and give me a more moving listening experience.
@@leestamm3187 Like I said it's the intrusive stage or audience noise that is a deal breaker for me and I assume others as well. Tho I take your point for sure.
I have to challenge Dave's dogmatic statement to the effect that there is no historical recording of standard repertory that you cannot get in a modern recording with better sound in a performance that is just as good. Here is my challenge candidate: Mendelssohn Symphony No. 3 (Scottish) as played by the New York Philharmonic with Dmitri Mitropoulos conducting. Dave, when you reviewed this in the big Mitropoulos box, you said (in part) that it was "the most authentic Mendelssohn you'll ever hear", "... a stunning achievement", and that there is "nothing like it in the discography." I definitely agree with the first two statements. How do you reconcile the last one with your dogmatic statement? Is there a Scottish Symphony recording in modern sound that is conducted as thrillingly as Mitropoulos did it? If there is, please share with us, as I very much want to buy a copy!
I didn't say it was the best ever. I said it had unique qualities. So do other great performances--unique and different qualities. There is no need to reconcile anything. I didn't say you'd get the same thing--just equally good in better sound, and that is a fact.
Sorry, but my ears are tuned to crystalline, digitally recorded music. I generally seek out Classics Today recommendations but wish the site made mention of recording dates, or at least, the year of recording. I do not care, and in fact regurgitate, any and all classics that are nasally, hiss-sounding monophonic recordings, even if the performance is legendary. I prefer that DH and company at Classics pay special attention to the last 10 years (2013 to now) recordings to identify the best performances from this period going forward
These are all great points, and my views on historical recordings are basically the same. However, I have some details to add, so I've posted a ridiculously long comment here. This is a subject that I love.
Old classical recordings with significant sound quality problems are not suitable for beginners and are best left to more advanced collectors who know the music well and are curious about these recordings and their particular quirks or who are looking for obscure repertoire that might not have any modern recordings available. I have a lot of historical recordings going all the way back to the acoustic era, but I have interests that draw me to them. I find the history of recording technology fascinating, so I naturally like having recordings of classical, popular, folk/country/blues, and "world" music going all the way back to the beginning. Recording technology is a history of gradual improvement punctuated by a small number of major technological changes resulting in discontinuities. For this reason, this history can be split into a few time periods, each of which has its own particular characteristics and problems for listeners. As a general rule, I wouldn't recommend anything earlier than mid-1950s hi-fi stereo recordings (and maybe some 1950s hi-fi mono) for people who are simply looking for a good listening experience. However, those who are interested in technology and/or earlier performance practices will find these scratchy ancient recordings to be endlessly fascinating.
The acoustic era (c. 1890-early 1925). The first commercial recordings were released around 1890. During this era, the recording process was entirely mechanical. The recording horn distorted the sounds, and the frequency range was highly limited. Voices are captured reasonably well, as Dave indicated, and single instruments or small ensembles are usually captured intelligibly. The banjo is picked up well, as is the piano. Wind bands are captured better than symphony orchestras (albeit still not very well), so many early recordings are arranged for wind band. Opera recordings often feature wind band accompaniment. I tend to concentrate more on popular music from this era since there are some good singers, and there are styles of music that are rarely, if ever, performed these days, but the pioneering classical recordings are interesting too. For those who aren't used to them, acoustic recordings are a very challenging listen. Also, I would question how much we can learn about orchestral performance practices from these recordings since the technology and studio conditions were so limiting as to cause the conductors and musicians to heavily modify their techniques.
The electric era (1925-early 1950s). When the electric microphone was introduced to commercial recordings in 1925, it resulted in the single greatest improvement in recording technology. At this point, sound could be captured reasonably faithfully and without the distortion of the recording horn, but the frequency range was still limited, with the highs and lows better than in the acoustic era but still weak. It's fun to hear the earliest electrical orchestral recordings, such as Stokowski's 1925 Danse Macabre. Performers didn't initially realize just how much of an improvement this technology would bring, so they still sometimes used modified arrangements that were suited to the acoustic technology; for example, saxophones in the bass section of the orchestra. Many jazz bands still featured loud wind instruments in the bass section for a year or two afterwards, but most ultimately went over to the string bass, and the banjo soon gave way to the softer guitar. Recordings of this time period can be cleaned up to make them listenable, but they are still somewhat lacking due to the limited frequency range, and they are typically muddy, so it is hard to pick out details in the orchestra. The technology also isn't quite ready yet for choral music. Solo vocal and instrumental recordings, and small chamber ensembles, generally fare better. Many non-classical recordings from this period are among the all time greats, as this was a golden age of jazz and swing, but classical recordings are mostly suited to those specifically interested in the history of performance practices or those who like particular solo performers of the time.
High fidelity (c. 1950) and stereo (mid-to-late 1950s). The use of tape and improved microphones finally allowed recordings to capture the full frequency range. From this time forward, commercial recordings usually sound good enough to reasonably capture all of the color of the orchestra, the chorus, the voice, and individual instruments, so they are suitable for beginners. Some people might prefer to stick with stereo. The stereo LP was introduced in 1958, but stereo tapes were available by around 1955, so some pre-1958 recordings have stereo masters. Some early 1950s mono recordings sound great, and others still sound like the 1940s - the improvements due to hi-fi were somewhat gradual and it took time for everyone to figure it out, and some labels were slower than others to acquire the best equipment. The major labels, especially Decca (London in the U.S.), RCA Victor, and Mercury, usually have the best recordings from the mono years of the hi-fi era.
Digital (c. late 1970s). Compared to high quality analog recordings, digital isn't a huge improvement in sound quality, but background tape hiss is eliminated. (Note that it took a few years for people to figure out how to properly make digital recordings; many of the early ones have some quality problems.) It is, however, a big improvement in terms of convenience, duplication, distribution, and preservation. Though some people like to stick to recent digital recordings, I wouldn't count out hi-fi stereo analog recordings. Many of them sound great, and there are numerous wonderful performances.
I feel like we have the same passion for the music and what surrounds it (or makes it happen!). Really would be interesting talking to you, since it is interesting already reading through this eloquent post. :) Thank you for having more patience than I usually have, to just write down all this information, which may prove valuable to budding collectors.
Many thanks - an excellent summary of recording developments! (P.S. You've made me feel decidedly old by pointing out that stereo LPs were introduced in 1958 - only six years before my birth!) 🙂
I avoided historical recordings for a long time. But...that Ormandy mono box from Sony and the his Minneapolis mono recordings have really been enlightening and educational. It's the playing style that I find fascinating. No one today, or even for 60 years has played with so much portamento in the string playing. And listening to a 90 year old version of the Rachmaninoff 2nd you realize that orchestras back then were every bit as good as ones today. There were fewer of them, but damn they could play!
Not even Karajan?
When I started out buying CD's as a school boy, I set myself a much stricter law for what I considered historical recording better to ignore: for me that was ANYTHING NOT RECORDED DIGITALLY! I was convinced for any great analogue recording I could find just as good digital recording. I wanted not even the slightest background noise- just pure digital sound made only by the artists. Then, one day I heard the Dvorak cello concerto recording of Rostropovich and Karajan - I loved what I heard, despite the slight shhh background noise of the 1968 recording. But the moment that finally destroyed my insistence on digital was when I first heard Heifetz's 1960's recording of the Sibelius recording. It absolutely blew me away. I realised quality of sound is not always THAT important and that I am going to miss out on GREAT MUSIC MAKING if I kept insisting on digital. After that I went ever into the 'abyss of bad sound quality' - Horotitz-Toscanini Tchaikovsky 1st concerto of 1943 - I was in awe despite the terrible sound quality.
Perhaps, when you start out on collecting recordings, it may be good to start with the best possible sound quality, but eventually one realises how much older recordings add to ones music appreciation. And thanks to RUclips, one can compare most recordings to decide which of the older ones are good enough. My best advice: if a piece is good enough, don't limit yourself to just one recording of it (although it seems that many people, especially when it comes to solo artists, are so fanatically stuck if one gear - JUST Richter, JUST Arrau or who ever that they are unable to even listen to anyone else - their loss!). Have a good sounding recording and have some of the older ones - there is magic and much fun in the older recording - what a loss it you only listen to modern good sounding recordings.
"I want to HEAR what the composer wrote." What a concept!
Fritz Reiner once said that "recordings didn't begin to sound like music until around 1950." Or words to that effect. This might not be LITERALLY true as a rule, but I see his point !
The phrase “historical recording” contains its significance in the title - the recording is noteworthy because of its time, place, conductor, soloist, and/or ensemble. If hearing R. Strauss conduct his own stuff gets someone their jollies, I’m not interested in telling them they’re wrong. That said, pretty impossible to maintain that any such recordings of standard rep are in any meaningful sense the best.
I though I had already posted but there seems to be nothing . Perhaps I failed to press a button. So here goes again. Your comments here are spot on, Dave. Recording quality is very important for full enjoyment. I agree that from the early 50s in mono, there is usually little to detract from the music on the major labels, though I had then and still have reservations about steely strings and papery brass on Decca ffrr recordings until the late 50s. So where "historical" equates with bad recording, I rarely listen a second time, exceptions being some incandescent Furtwängler wartime recordings and some Toscanini. Some 30s recordings are in the intermediate category of good for the period and include some treasures like Schnabel's Beethoven, Beecham's Delius and the Walter/Melchior/ Lehmann Walküre Act 1.
To jump to a category of music where recording quality perhaps is instrumental in forming my appreciation of how the music should sound, it is Soviet post war music such as Shostakovich and Schnittke, where Melodiya recordings which sounded quite acerbic were the media through which I and most of my generation got to know it. I guess that part of that was also the actual sound the Soviet orchestras under the likes of Mravinsky, Kondashin and Rozhdestvensky, which the recording emphasised. As a result I find that the polished sound of Western recordings from the 70s and more recent Russian recordings at the Maryinsky confer a touch of blandness on the music, which IMO detracts.
This seems to be an accurate assessment.
For a long time, I thought no performance of Beethoven's 8th Symphony could, to my taste, equal Toscanini's from the 1950s, recorded in bad mono sound with distortion at volume peaks. Then I found that I liked Bohm's just as much, and it's in good stereo sound.
I read the opinion that Toscanini's recordings are no longer as essential as they once were because his influence has become pervasive enough that he can now be heard in much better sound from select modern conductors. (I'd still rather hear Toscanini from Toscanini.)
Great talk again! 😀you're my K Clark for classical music sound. If one continues to pick and choose, I'd put forward, one carefully chooses only those recordings that one really wants. I tend to go for the quirky and those with a story a lot, but there you go. I like history
One of the few historic recordings I actually like is the Lauritz Melchior/Lotte Lehmann/Bruno Walter Act 1 of Wagner's Die Walkure.
Perfect example! The greatest single act of a Wagner opera ever recorded.
Certainly a good choice.
I'm interested in those historical recordings that preserve things that do not exist anymore today. For example, the great Wagner singers until the middle 1960s, the French Opéra-Comique ensemble and the 1940s Soviet male voices (Reizen, Kozlovsky, Lisitsian...). Another great example is the Casals-Cortot-Thibaud trio, the way they used portamenti and vibrato is completely out of fashion, but really interesting. On the other hand it makes no sense to check historical recordings of Rossini operas or Haendel oratorios, because these were done much better in a later era.
Absolutely right
I have collected vocal recordings going back to Caruso for over 50 years and I am not bothered by the sound. I listen 'through' the sound to hear the voice. Otherwise, I prefer my orchestral and complete opera recordings post 1950---kind of a cut-off point for me anyway.Thanks again Dave for a great informative video.
I don't know if anyone will read this comment as the video was made a year ago. I have these ear plugs/filters called LOOPs. They help me be in noisy environments. You hear everything but it filters out the hard-surface edge that some sound has. One day my husband and I were watching an old movie from the 40s when all of the acting was basically shouted. Sensory-wise I have always had a difficult time dealing with the timbre of the sound in old movies. I noticed about halfway through the movie that my LOOPs took that nasty edge off the sound and made it so much more enjoyable. I think it is worth having a pair of these when listening to early recordings. It takes the edge off.
I ordered the Elgar Edition after you recently discussed it(I'm still waiting for it to arrive from Amazon Japan).l have more recent recordings of these works from conductors like Solti and Previn but am curious as to how the music would sound under it's composer. I think curiosity would be my main interest in historical recordings. They would never be my go-to versions for listening.
Generally agreed - it is rather hard to argue against getting a great-sounding recording of an unknown work, if available. I think the question of "historical" recordings as you describe them - versions in less-than-optimal sound - is their target audience. Acquiring such recordings will make sense to somewhat more advanced collectors who either really like to explore alternative versions of a certain work, or, more likely, are fans of a certain artist or group.
As an example, against reasonable warnings, I decided to buy the Archiphon Otto Klemperer Live recordings with the Concertgebouw Orchestra - and not wait for the newly arrived big box of his official studio work - because I was intrigued in the alternative takes the great conductor may have presented, while heading an orchestra that was admittedly among the best even then. A pretty safe bet for someone who already knew most of the repertoire, including the grand man's other records. Not making a final evaluation, but the idea of at least Klemperer never arriving at a definitive interpretation, and always experimenting Live, seems to have at least some truth to it. Some comparative listening was quite rewarding, and while I certainly do not need another 5 Beethoven Sevenths from Klemperer to keep exploring :)), I can appreciate the variety of tempi and interpretations. Surely to the point where the sound allows one to enjoy the listening, which the mentioned set mostly provides. But OF COURSE for a beginner to get an idea of the unique style and character of Kl'empereur (or most of the famous conductors from a bygone era - we still talk about them, because they WERE special in some way!), I would firmly suggest the studio set(s). The conductor may not have loved the recording process, but he sure was not sabotaging it, so those records are just as revelatory! And professional sounding.
Much of this probably is self-evident. The one mistake that any newbie ought to absolutely avoid, would be to "go for the legend" by purchasing crappy recordings at the seducing budget prices... While it may seem plausible way to get a lot all at once - who should want to "imprint" on a distorted version of whatever masterpiece?
One value of historical recordings is to understand how performance and interpretations have changed and are not present in contemporary practice. Thinking of Josef Hoffmann and his playing style. While not familiar with all the contemporary recordings I have not come across performances with similar approach and distinctive panache. Mostly however I am biased to sonic quality. Music is sound and it should sound good. No great
Dave - would like to re-up my request from about a year ago: would you consider doing a series that explains why/how the "Big 5" became the "Big 5"? Folks of my generation--raised in the seventies and eighties--came along after the top five American orchestras were already considered the best without really seeing this progression in action. But how did this come to be? And--more importantly?--what recordings made this possible? Was it because, e.g., Chicago really had the best brass, and Philly had the best strings, or was it really just a function of marketing and budget and timing? What are reference recordings that justify or helped to establish this list of "The Top Five"? I hope this makes sense. Wikipedia has a short survey of this topic, but it's not explored musically, which I'd hoped you would do.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't interest me (at least for now). I appreciate the suggestion, though.
The Voice of Reason strikes again.
When I was in college five decades ago, I had a friend who was a novice (only slightly behind me) classical music fan. When he proudly played for me the EMI L.P. set of Furtwangler's 1951 Bayreuth Festival recording of Beethoven's ninth, I tried to suggest a later, better sounding recording. He actually got angry, saying he read it was the best and so he flatly refused to listen to any other ninth. The power of music critics... .
I have a few "historical recordings", but not much. One recording that I have is a disc by violinist Eugene Ysaye. The recording dates are 1912-1914. While it's not totally unlistenable, the amount of surface noise is definitely distracting. There's enough quality there for me to get a good sense of his technical ability. It's quite clear that he was an outstanding violinist. The problem though is that the amount of noise and lack of sonority makes the recording too one dimensional. For me if there's more noise than music, I don't have much to do with it.
I have often wondered what people would think if I took certain good modern recordings (that people had not heard, and particularly by totally unknown performers who have been shunned by the industry) and made them mono, put them through significant analog compression, tape saturation, and filtering, and said "what do you think of this recently-unearthed historical performance?"
I suspect a lot of "historical recording" buffs (particularly vinyl collectors) would be greatly impressed by this amazing discovery of sublime, historically-significant musicianship (and guess all manner of famous names as the likely performer), whereas they would refuse to even listen or consider it worthy if they discovered that the very same recording was actually recorded two years ago by a living (especially young or non-white) performer.
Limited sound quality provides a sonic "solidity" which a recording might otherwise lack, and can cover up a lot of sins that otherwise stand out. (It's no mistake that compression and distortion are so heavily used in rock and pop music.) And as you mention, listening through the muck allows for a great deal of filling in by the imagination.
I think I'd agree that to establish one's knowledge of a piece it's best to start with a good competent performance in good modern sound. When you know the piece, you can then appreciate a performance bringing special insights or an idiosyncratic approach, and the brain can compensate and adjust for some lack of sound quality. I have never heard any modern recording quite capture the nuances that Artur Rubinstein brought out in the Chopin Piano Concerto No.2, for example (I just visited Lodz in Poland; there is a bronze in the main street of him playing the piano, the music open to this piece!). Some singers had a unique timbre to their voice (e.g. Kathleen Ferrier, Ernest Lough) which is worth hearing. Some pieces are not performed today in the same way or at all. I have a broadcast recording of Handel's D minor organ concerto from a 1960 Prom with the Royal Albert Hall organ and a full symphony orchestra; it would never be done today, but it had a unique impact which no chamber organ/orchestra quite matches. Likewise the massed choir versions of Messiah, e.g. with Sargent and the Huddersfield Choral Society, nowadays generally replaced by "authentic" performances with small forces that are technically very fine but lose the drama. (Saw a performance recently with authentic valveless trumpet; a fine achievement to play "The trumpet shall sound" with just a few wrong notes, but a modern valve trumpet would do it easily and perfectly!) Dave has commented on the difficulty that modern conductors can have with out-and-out Romantic works, even the first two Sibelius symphonies as compared to 3-7. But for the real mainstream repertoire, yes, for a historical performance to stand out from the many good modern ones, it would have to have something really remarkable.
In your review of the Cesar Franck edition you liked the historical recordings more than the modern recordings. You valued in particular the Violin Sonata historical version of Heifetz and Rubinstein much higher than the Renaud Capucon and Buniatishvili version.
Yes. I see no inconsistency with what I said in the video.
True, your definition of "historical" recording is "bad sounding". Good argument, Dave!
Historical recordings are one thing but it really has to do with the sound reproduction. Some recordings have been remastered and reengineered to improve the sound. Naxos did wonderful remasterings that the labels which owned the original recording ignored. However, it is still a matter of opinion whether some of them are basically good recordings. Whether it has been re-re-re-re-remastered (or even a digital one) doesn’t matter if it’s a bad performance.
To sum up: Find the best recording you can-allow for your favorites-and get the best sound available. At a certain point, there isn’t much that can be done. The NEW Callas complete box set 2023 to celebrate her 100th birthday is an example. How much can be done to these records (and the Solti Decca RING) that hasn’t already been done to justify buying them for the fifth time. Especially when the targeted audience is getting older and more hard of hearing!!’
Interesting point, the last one you made! The record companies must be hoping a new generation is growing up that "buys into the myth" of a so-and-so. But as far as buying re-packaged and remastered versions of the same stuff, I am convinced that even super-modern tech must have limits to how many times it can upgrade the sound of a bad (or just old) original recording. Possibly, I am just not far enough down the road to true collectorship. :)
It depends entirely on the priorities of the listener. At the risk of appearing a philistine, I don't have very much interest in the history of performance, how practice has changed over the last century or so of recorded sound, so theres really no point in me struggling through scratchy old recordings. Very much a listener rather than a scholar. Having said that, while I'll always better sound quality over worse, I'm not someone for whom lower fidelity is an insuperable barrier if theres genuinely something worth listening to behind the hiss and fog. I do enjoy field recordings of folk and traditional music from all over the world, and those often come with limited sound quality which I don't find objectionable.
Incidentally, Bartok was a pioneer of that, he spent a few years lugging a phonograph around south eastern Europe collecting folk songs.
I cannot listen to noisy recordings, my mind focuses on the noise rather than the performance. I consider anything recorded before I was born as historical but I do have some from the early fifties that sound good and even the forties that are listenable. But why do you have to go back 80 years when there are many good modern performances? I prefer to support living musicians.
I agree that historical recordings are generally not worth the earache, but sometimes it's worth it to hear something truly unique, e.g. some of conductor Mengelberg's recordings. Even then, after you glean the important points, it's hard to go back to the hideously distorted well a second or third time.
I have listened to so-called 'historic' recordings of a limited number of composers (e.g., R. Strauss) conducting their own works but (in agreement with Mr Hurwitz) have benefitted only from the tempi applied by the composers themselves. Similarly, I have found recordings of classical vocalists useful only from an historic 'curiosity' value. The inevitable significant noise in these recordings makes them totally incomparable (for the worse) to their modern equivalents, provided the performers could be expected to be similar in quality. Indeed, if I might be so bold as to put myself into the shoes of the composers involved I hazard to guess that they, too, would favor the reproductive accuracy of modern techniques compared with the limited capabilities of recording methods available in their own lifetimes.
I think it’s also about interpretation of the works. For example, Helmut Walcha’s Bach organ works 1947- 1952 recordings are historical I guess and still unsurpassed to my ears!
Depends to an extent on the composer. For me, Brahms' orchestral works need decent but not state-of-the-art sound. I still rate Kempe's performances of the symphonies and Deutsches Requiem and Solomon's PC2 above all others I've heard to date. On the other hand Mahler benefits enormously from good sound and as much as I loved them to begin with, I find myself returning less and less often to Walter's recordings.
Most of us watching your videos are experienced classical music aficionados. For us, your points are relevant specifically when learning an unfamiliar composition. The first-time listener to Howard Hanson's Symphony No. 2 would be better served by the magnificent-sounding 1989 Schwarz/Seattle Symphony version released on Naxos (formerly Delos) than the 1940 Hanson/Eastman-Rochester recording in less-brilliant, less-dynamic sound. Likewise, a first-time listener to Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 (nobody watching this YT) can find multiple recordings in very good sound, while starting out with the somewhat distorted 1943 Horowitz/Toscanini "war bonds" concert recording would not be terribly convincing to a first-time listener. Then again, some of my earliest CM listening was on very primitive audio gear and to this day I still recall first hearing the 1958 Stern/Bernstein rendition of the Beethoven Violin Concerto while driving my parents' 1969 Ford with its Philco/Ford pushbutton AM car radio. It has remained in my memory as a very special experience. Go figure!
Dave, what to do with reference historical recordings in murky sound ?. An example is Roger Desormiere's idiomatic Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande recorded in wartime mono (1941) which is held in great esteem.
But especially for the singing, which is very clearly caught.
Agreed, also historic piano recordings are worth listening. For example Edwin Fischer's Well-tempered Clavier, recorded between 1933-1936, is one of the greats.
@@peterboer9572 That recording of Bach's WTC and Casals Bach Cello Suites sit at the very top of my list. I wonder since they were the first recordings of these Bach pieces, if Dave will allow them a slot on his "Most Important Recording Projects Ever" series?
Maybe Dave can start a new series Dave's Faves "historical recordings". It is nice to know which historical recordings Dave likes and his argumentation. Maybe he has given us some "historical" Dave's Faves, because he is not a dogmatic person.
Also interesting is a series "most overrated historical recordings".
Our AI boffins will doubtless concoct our favorite historical performances in pristine sound...or conjure wonders that never existed. A Barenboim Ring with Keilberth's cast...
Agreed! Old historical recordings can actually turn one away from a great classic. If you heard the Furtwangler wartime Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, you might be wondering what's the big deal. Ditto to the Walter Mahler Song of the Earth with Patzak and Ferrier. These just sound bad, not a good intro to great music.
The "wartime" 9th sounds uniquely vulgar and terrifying and is worth a listen for a non-beginner. Maybe for Halloween. The 1954 Lucerne recording is in sorta good sound, might be okay for a beginner. Bayreuth 1951-- who cares other than Furtwanglerians?
@@patrickhackett788154 Lucerne I think everyone should care. Others? Well you can decide. For me the only essential thing in Furtwangler is Wagner, which again only Wagnerians would care😅😂
It's those "legendary" recordings that annoy me. Most of the time there is absolutely mothing legendary about them.
A person pays $65.00 for a sonically terrible recording of Beethoven's 5th and think it's the greatest thing ever, and sing it's praise...would that same person be so positive if they paid $65.00 for a ticket to a concert of Beethoven's 5th that is horribly played with terrible sonics, and walk away singing it's praise?
Probably. People have a habit of defending money they spent unwisely by talking up the value of the disappointing product. The helpful thing in the case of the concert is that nobody can go check whether it was actually any good, as it is now in the past. With records, you can just point at them and laugh. Doesn't make you any friends, but you can, and you can argue your opinion should you find it worth your time (it generally isn't).
I avoid them, though I have one recording with Rachmaninov playing, and one with Sibelius conducting. Don’t need any more.
100% PS Never purchase a live recording, if you can hear stage or audience noise. You were not there (chances are) and such extraneous sound won't make you feel as though you were.
Speaking only for myself, I tend to prefer live recordings. It's not to make me feel like I was there, but rather that a live performance can have a unique energy and spontaneity, generated by a synergy of conductor, musicians and audience, that cannot be achieved in the studio. I think it is the same quality that separates live theater from movies. I have found over the years that a well recorded live performance can capture much of that quality and give me a more moving listening experience.
@@leestamm3187 Like I said it's the intrusive stage or audience noise that is a deal breaker for me and I assume others as well. Tho I take your point for sure.
I have to challenge Dave's dogmatic statement to the effect that there is no historical recording of standard repertory that you cannot get in a modern recording with better sound in a performance that is just as good. Here is my challenge candidate: Mendelssohn Symphony No. 3 (Scottish) as played by the New York Philharmonic with Dmitri Mitropoulos conducting. Dave, when you reviewed this in the big Mitropoulos box, you said (in part) that it was "the most authentic Mendelssohn you'll ever hear", "... a stunning achievement", and that there is "nothing like it in the discography." I definitely agree with the first two statements. How do you reconcile the last one with your dogmatic statement? Is there a Scottish Symphony recording in modern sound that is conducted as thrillingly as Mitropoulos did it? If there is, please share with us, as I very much want to buy a copy!
I didn't say it was the best ever. I said it had unique qualities. So do other great performances--unique and different qualities. There is no need to reconcile anything. I didn't say you'd get the same thing--just equally good in better sound, and that is a fact.
Sorry, but my ears are tuned to crystalline, digitally recorded music. I generally seek out Classics Today recommendations but wish the site made mention of recording dates, or at least, the year of recording. I do not care, and in fact regurgitate, any and all classics that are nasally, hiss-sounding monophonic recordings, even if the performance is legendary. I prefer that DH and company at Classics pay special attention to the last 10 years (2013 to now) recordings to identify the best performances from this period going forward