Well said! However, the real question, surely, is why we are required to hear that? Who has determined this and why? One record producer that I know who has made a lot of piano recordings (and who deprecates this kind of thing with a vengeance with which even our combined forces would be hard put to compete) opines that it's because so many producers want to ensure that the result, whatever it may be, sounds like something other than the real thing that one would hear at a live performance, as part of an agenda to persuade people that recorded piano playing is a superior listening experience to live piano playing. Hmmm...

Sorry for the off-topic nature of the above!

Best,

Alistair

It would seem as though you and I belong to that hopefully non-endangered species that still espouses the belief that recording (as the aforementioned record producer once put it) is a photocopy of the real thing; my immense respect for Glenn Gould notwithstanding, I rather think that he has quite abit to answer for in that regard. The said producer also once told me that, were someone to come along to him with a cheque for $3,000 and a list of musical tastes and seek recommendations and guidance as to how to spend it, he'd probably recommend a handful of recordings and suggest that the remaining funds be spent on concert tickets...

Better get back to Barraqué before I get a barracking!...

Best,

Alistair

What you describe as 'pianistic colour' is one particular category of colour (or, better, timbre). The approach both to playing and recording that tries to hide any sense of attack, any sounds more directly associated with the mechanism of the instrument (including the sound of the fingers on the keys) is what I would call auratic and tied in to a very specific late romantic aesthetic of timbre that is by no means necessarily appropriate for all music, past and present. There is a considerable amount of post-1945 music that aims for sounds in which the physical way in which they are produced is foregrounded or at least not hidden (Lachenmann would be one obvious example; but this is also a reason why attempts to produce more streamlined versions of Stockhausen's electronic works, obliterating the clunkiness of the equipment he used, to me remove an important part of the music). Not only recent music, either; the characteristic 'oik' sound produced by the very rapid damping mechanisms of Viennese fortepianos are intrinsic to the sound itself that was conceived by the composers, IMO, adding a certain edge and brightness; also the percussive sounds attained at higher dynamics (listen, for example, to Liv Glaser playing Mozart on such instruments) can punctuate and accentuate rather than be booming or rounded, as late romantic schools of playing aim for. I'm by no means advocating close miking as a universal approach either, just suggesting that it has its own specific purposes, and it would be a shame to see all of these aspects of instrumental sonority obliterated (as is occurring in both performance and recording these days, I feel) homogenised in the name of appropriating all music within such a late romantic aesthetic.

I profoundly disagree. Recording has many more possibilities than simply being a poor man's live concert.

It might be worth comparing here with popular music, where (at least nowadays) in many cases the recording becomes the 'basic version' of the music and live performances are an elaboration of that in large measure. If it's fine for popular musicians to conceive things in terms of studio sound, to be heard in either private or public settings (but generally smaller than concert venues), why not for classical?

How would you conceive of electronic music (particularly that created entirely in terms of a finished tape/CD work) in light of the above? Do you think of film or television as a photocopy of the theatre?

Would it make sense to transfer the last handful of posts into a new thread (if all the posters would agree) as this is obviously a wide subject that is relevant to many other composers as well as Barraqué?

Good idea. Would it be possible to tranfer all messages from #10 onwards (apart from C Dish's #17) to Recording Pianos? Thanks.

http://r3ok.myforum365.com/index.php?topic=2315.0

Done, sir! (Though for future reference, it's easier if you let us set up the title as well - it involves less 'stitching', since we can select which messages to move. Doing it this way I've had to move en bloc and then move each of Dishy's back individually - takes a deal longer!)

What I was disagreeing with was that particular request for recording.

I don't understand what you mean by asking that?

Well, the initial comments had to do with a dislike for a situation where one can hear the sound of the hammers on the strings (I personally wouldn't describe such a sound as merely a 'thud'). This was contrasted with 'pianistic colour', which I think is defined far too narrowly in this particular context.

It depends on the instrument, the location, and the player.

I thought the context was recorded piano sound in general, not that just of one specific individual (who is of course perfectly entitled to his/her preferences, as are his/her producer/engineer). But even if some sounds do not reach an audience in a concert situation (and there are many subtle details that are frequently lost even in a very clear hall), what is wrong with exploiting the unique possibilities of the recorded medium to allow new things to be heard?

EDIT: I think the confusion arises from the fact that it's not entirely clear whether autoharp is talking about preferences for recordings he himself is involved with, or more generally for those he hears as a listener?

The reference to Glenn Gould is interesting in this context, as he (as much as perhaps any recorded artist) fundamentally conceived what he did in terms of the recording studio rather than live performance, the latter of which he found very limiting, especially because of the need to exaggerate and 'project' in large halls, limiting some possibilities of contrapuntal intricacy of which he was a master.

Personally, just as film and theatre frequently require very different modes of rhetoric and projection (I'd be very interested in Ron's thoughts on this), I feel the same way about live performance (especially that designed to be heard in large or relatively large halls) and recording (which in the vast majority of cases is heard in rooms considerably smaller than even a small concert hall).

I think it was only on a couple of occasions that he did that (but I'm not sure), but even so, would the use of superimposed images in film be viewed as negatively? And how about recording different parts separately as is often done by popular musicians?