|
ernani
|
 |
« on: 00:00:13, 08-07-2008 » |
|
Hello all  I've been lucky recently to have tapped a new source for rare live recordings of opera. Recent gems include Rysanek, King and Waechter in Tosca, Bjorling in Pagliacci, and Gedda, Horne and Verrett in Les Troyens . More and more, I seem to seek out live recordings. The frisson, the energy, the stage noises, the prompter, the mistakes - live recordings, with all their imperfections, offer things that studio recordings simply cannot. Of course there are many superb studio recordings and the benefits of enhanched orchestral definition in particular is important. But with more and more labels (Testament, Covent Garden Live, Orfeo) reaping the benefit of live archive recordings, what are others' views? Live vs studio? Favourite recordings? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 09:55:14, 08-07-2008 » |
|
I tend to prefer studio recordings, having a particular soft spot for the old Decca 'sonic stage' Culshaw productions. I can understand those who think they're overblown (and sometimes, they certainly are) but there's something laudable (if, perhaps, misguided) about the attempt to create a 'film for the ears'. My attitude to live recordings hinges on the venue a lot of the time: in the (1962) Knappertsbusch Parsifal, I actually like to hear the audience coughing during the prelude, as it demonstrates how good the recording is! And the Bayreuth acoustics are perfect. I'm not that bothered by audible prompters, either...it all adds to the fascination! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
ernani
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 16:29:56, 09-07-2008 » |
|
I agree, although in some cases the studio version of a recording isn't a patch on the live performances that often precede or follow it. A case in point in the Callas, Di Stefano, Gobbi Ballo in Maschera. This is a perfectly decent and enjoyable studio recording but it's only when you hear the live recording from La Scala with the same principals that you realise what's missing from the studio version, namely the electricity and excitement of a great performance caught on the wing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 16:50:46, 09-07-2008 » |
|
My attitude to live recordings hinges on the venue a lot of the time: in the (1962) Knappertsbusch Parsifal, I actually like to hear the audience coughing during the prelude, as it demonstrates how good the recording is! And the Bayreuth acoustics are perfect.
In some ways Bayreuth is a special case; the acoustic is ideal, singers do not have to force to be heard, and the level of preparation is of course higher than would be expected in a repertory house. In some ways the ideal compromise does seem to be the studio performance based on a live production - one can easily reel off outstanding performances that have been recorded in exactly those circumstances (Haitink's Glyndebourne Don Giovanni, Abbado's Simon Boccanegra among my particular favourites) Sometimes the circumstances of performance mean that the compromises are uncomfortable, not least in relation to cuts. A case in point is Bohm's Frau Ohne Schatten from the Wiener Staatsoper in the seventies; an overwhelming performance of about three-quarters of the score. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 22:05:10, 09-07-2008 » |
|
In some ways Bayreuth is a special case; the acoustic is ideal Is it though? I've never been there of course (though I wouldn't say no) and only know it from recordings so please excuse any cluelessness in what follows. I would say that while strings sound marvellous, there's a certain lack of clarity elsewhere in the orchestra. There's also the fact that Parsifal, the only piece written after the house was built, is noticeably simpler and less "blended" in orchestration than its predecessors, as if W had realised that all the complexities of Götterdämmerung were getting a bit lost. Is there anything in this? Returning to the original topic, studio recordings are often thought of as superior because of the possibility of achieving greater clarity and selecting from different takes, but in real life compromises are always involved. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 23:19:07, 09-07-2008 » |
|
I've never been either and am relying on second-hand accounts, and the natural quality of the recordings made there with their warm, slightly diffuse but very tangible sound (beside which the studio versions always sound, to my ears, rather artificial). But the real benefit is the balance with the singers, who are protected from the tendency of some conductors to throw up a wall of sound from the pit, through which singers have to battle to be heard. I sense that much of the Wagner we hear is actually too loud.
When he conducted the centenary Ring in 1983, Solti apparently complained that at Bayreuth the orchestra wasn't loud enough, and asked to have bits of the cover to the pit removed. That would have been a conversation worth hearing.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:20:40, 09-07-2008 by perfect wagnerite »
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
ernani
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 20:45:12, 10-07-2008 » |
|
I wonder how others feel about those recordings with much poorer sound quality than the ones mentioned here? I'm thinking about true pirate recordings taken from the wings, prompter's box or even the auditorium. True the sound on these can be dreadful, but the compensations are often hearing something amazing through the mush. I have a recording of I Puritani with Kraus and Sutherland from San Francisco in 1966 - awful sound but what an amazing performance this is. Or similarly a recording of Act Two of Parsifal with Melchior and Flagstad from the Met in 1938. It's amazing how quickly the ear filters out the poor sound for the sake of a performance as electric as this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 20:50:25, 10-07-2008 » |
|
You're right. It's easy to adjust to poor sound, if the performance makes it worth your while. I could also cite the Reiner/Beecham 'Tristan' from Covent Garden in the 30s and (even) the Furtwangler Ring from La Scala.
Of course, some operas can only be obtained on 'pirate' recordings: I have a very enjoyable version of Alfano's 'Rissureszione' with Oliviera - I don't think this opera has ever had a commercial recording; certainly not a modern one.
That said, I can think of a few instances where poor sound RUINS a good performance: the CD version I have of Toscanini's Salzburg 'Meistersinger' (hideous) and Furtwangler's Covent Garden Ring excerpts from the 30s (quite unbelievably dreadful).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 21:25:07, 10-07-2008 » |
|
As I've mentioned before, I don't really enjoy recordings of any kind - because they perpetuate the performance given on one occasion only. Don't you come to dread the cough that you know is coming up in the Helmsman's arioso, the unfortunate scoop the soprano is going to make in the next aria, the clunking of unknown scenery that will mar the next scene?
I suppose live recordings are "better" than studio performances - or at least they are more honest. They're not made compiled from "the best of" six different takes, they've not been tidied-up to flatter the tenor's ego, and they include those real-life considerations of scene-changing, or just having intervals regularly to allow performers and performed-to to take a pee when needed.
But overall I regard recordings of all types as a kind of necessary evil. Nor do they ever get from me even one-quarter of the rapt attention I give to live performances... this may be just because I'm an indisciplined person of course, but if I have the chance to have a nice cup of tea while listening, along with, mmmm, a nice biscuit, and oooh this bit's always dull so I might just check my email...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Mary Chambers
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 22:44:17, 10-07-2008 » |
|
I very much agree with you about the general place of recordings, Reiner, but just sometimes they can perpetuate one performance that is well worth hearing. I've just got Nimbus's recent issue of an English Opera Group performance of Britten's Albert Herring, recorded live at the Royal Theatre, Copenhagen, in September 1949. It's conducted by the composer, who also makes a little curtain speech - and has almost all the original cast, unlike the 1964 studio recording, which had only Pears. It's a joy, and a real pleasure to hear the laughter of this Danish audience, only four years after the ending of the Nazi occupation. The fact that there is so much laughter is a great tribute both to the singers' diction and the audience's understanding of English. No surtitles in those days.
Pears is much the same as on the studio recording - except, of course, 15 years younger, which can only be an advantage in this part. I was quite surprised by Joan Cross's Lady Billows - a much lighter voice than I expected, not very Lady Bracknell-ish. I was fascinated to hear Nancy Evans, the original Nancy, and the reason the character has that name. She sings beautifully, a warm mezzo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 23:11:03, 10-07-2008 » |
|
I see what you mean, Mary However, isn't there a danger that even "perfect" recordings become more than just benchmarks - they become "the last word" on a piece? For example, to hear Pears and then Vickers in GRIMES, you might think you'd heard two different operas? This is all well and good if you have the budget and time for multiple good recordings, and multiple good ones exist... sadly those good recordings are not always out there, even if you have the financial "stretch" for them  For example, I'd mainly known FALSTAFF from recordings, and the old ROH production with Geraint Evans etc, and had always thought it "old men's music" and rather fustian comedy. I was lucky enough to hear it conducted in Moscow by the Greek conductor Teodor Currentzis (a conductor whom, I must admit, I haven't always admired... his AIDA was abominable) and it was a revelation... as well as probably being the fastest FALSTAFF around But I spent the evening thinking "heavens to Betsy, he'll never hold it together at this speed!". The whole piece gained from the freshness of a live performance - a bit like watching an aerieliste with no safety net, and it took wings... the astounding modernity of Va, va vecchio John came alive, and reminded me that this isn't the end of the C19th, but a sneak preview on the C20th The bravura dash of the production helped too, of course!    |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
ernani
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 23:31:40, 10-07-2008 » |
|
I see what you mean Reiner, especially about the honesty of live recordings, and I take the point about performance too. I guess I don't quite see the same dichotomy between CD and performance though. For me, it's not a case of CD capturing a 'perfect' performance, but rather a record of something that, warts and all, reveals something new to me about a particular work. Admitedly the actual production cannot be replicated on CD, but I know of a number of recordings where you can hear that a singer or singers are shaping their interpretation in response to a particular director - Callas' Visconti Traviata for example. I also think that while it's not a subsitute for live performance, conjuring a performance 'in the mind's ear' whilst listening on CD can be enjoyable too.
In the case of certain singers, I'm very interested in how the best add to/alter their interpretations over the years too as they accumulate experience and develop their insights into roles. For example, Max Lorenz's Tristan, Jussi Bjorling's Des Grieux or Astrid Varnay's Elektra don't remain the same over the years as their various recordings show, and those changes are fascinating. It's only really live performances that allow us to trace these interpretative shifts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
