Thread: SACD Kills Music? (Troll Thread of the Week)

Posts: 30
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by Polarius T November 24, 2012 (1 of 30)
A couple of weeks ago the Berliners' 1st principal bass, Janne Saksala, claimed in an interview that "CDs kill music." By inducing musicians to pay too much attention to individual finesse, digital technology, he maintained, draws attention too much to technique and technicalities, making us lose sight of what he called the "musicality" of the performance. Hence so few concert events these days that truly inspire or are revelatory.

I kind of agree, but would like to generalize a bit further in the context: Sound quality is overrated, as is the high quality of the playback chain. Obsession with these produces listeners who demand ultra high fidelity from the recording but who no longer can distinguish between what's very good, good, mediocre, or poor as music or a musical performance. As a result, too much stuff is being put out today that is technically excellent but musically forgettable, meaningless, or just plain boring and interchangeable with any number of other enactments of the same.

With better and better music reproduction, people are becoming deaf to the music. All one looks forward is the newest technically best re-creation of the eternal same (or of something even worse).

Sviatoslav Richter thought more or less along the same lines and seemed to do most of his critical listening in cars, being hauled from one performance location to a next while playing the music on cassette tape in traffic.

Post by sacd_fan_2007 November 24, 2012 (2 of 30)
Being so afraid of making mistakes that the performer gets paralyzed (is how I would put it).

We don't know how many takes were involved with producing a cd.

Post by Nagraboy November 24, 2012 (3 of 30)
Musicality and sound quality are not mutually exclusive. Better sound quality makes the musicality all the more discernible if you are so inclined.

I think this is a load of rubbish actually...

When LP was king Classical listeners fretted over the distortions of vinyl as did conductors and engineers. We've solved those problems and can now hear the performance unhindered. Just because some put-upon musician doesn't like being told to get their act together and play better is no excuse for them to have a wingeing session, blaming their listeners.

If we went back to acoustically recorded 78s they'd have to play perfectly for a whole take or risk ruining the record! Come on, this really is rubbish!

Post by Euell Neverno November 24, 2012 (4 of 30)
Polarius T said:

A couple of weeks ago the Berliners' 1st principal bass, Janne Saksala, claimed in an interview that "CDs kill music." By inducing musicians to pay too much attention to individual finesse, digital technology, he maintained, draws attention too much to technique and technicalities, making us lose sight of what he called the "musicality" of the performance. Hence so few concert events these days that truly inspire or are revelatory.

Sound quality is overrated, as is the high quality of the playback chain. Obsession with these produces listeners who demand ultra high fidelity from the recording but who no longer can distinguish between what's very good, good, mediocre, or poor as music or a musical performance. As a result, too much stuff is being put out today that is technically excellent but musically forgettable, meaningless, or just plain boring and interchangeable with any number of other enactments of the same.

With better and better music reproduction, people are becoming deaf to the music. All one looks forward is the newest technically best re-creation of the eternal same (or of something even worse).

With regard to being able to distinguish what is a good performance from what is not, I would suggest that readers examine the reviews of Kitajenko's Tchaikovsky Fifth Symphony, wherein conflicting views are expressed by two of our most fecund reviewers.

Let's be frank. Few of us can read an orchestral score (if we were so inclined) with more than a superficial level of discernment at best. Few or none of us has actually performed any of the music, for which we acquire recordings, at least with any major ensemble. Once in awhile here, there will be a claim that a performer's intonation is poor. Yet, I don't hear what offends perhaps more serious ears -- or imagninations. Most of us develop our views on how a piece ought to be played from our previous listening, whether live, recorded or both. But, who is to say that another interpretation is "wrong," even if it bends the composer's expressed intentions a bit. Toscanini is reported to have regularly "improved upon" Beethoven, and I suspect that many conductors do a bit of editing in performance.

So, where does this leave us? I think that for most we don't know too much about art, but we know what we like. And, one of the things we like in recorded music is good sound, because we enjoy the simple pleasure of listening to the beauty of the sound of the instruments being played well by accomplished musicians. Whether musicians become tense during recording sessions and thereby tend to play mechanically rather than musically, I have no idea, although with some it may be the case. Who hasn't had a little stage fright in playing at a recital? I assume that professional musicians learn to overcome this. Perhaps the Berlin principal bass is just reflecting laziness -- or not. A musician probably isn't going to be hired to play with the Berlin Phil., unless he or she is technically very proficient. It is difficult to see how proficiency and musicality are necessarily at odds.

But to address the final point above, while there are some hi-fi hobbyists who, no doubt, place more emphasis on the quality of their electronic equipment than what it does for them (i.e., reproduce a recorded performance), better music reproduction is neither an evil nor the antithesis of musicality. To the contrary, poor reproduction is an impediment to musical enjoyment. That being said, one can enjoy music played through an FM radio with all its limitations.

Post by rammiepie November 24, 2012 (5 of 30)
As if in the old days, tape splicing wasn't employed to cover up less than ideal edits, etc and take after take wasn't similarly used to camouflage shortcomings of musicians who were having a bad day.

Tape hiss, etc. was the bane of recording engineers and the digital era, although initially imperfect, has come a long way in allowing musicians of every persuasion to realize their goals.

Perhaps these complaining musicians should taken a cue from LIVE Broadway thespians who go out night after night without a safety net and perform from memory...............

If you want to play then you have to pay applies to more than just monetary outlay.........you just have to be great if you are a performer of any stature.

Post by sibelius2 November 24, 2012 (6 of 30)
Euell Neverno said:

Whether musicians become tense during recording sessions and thereby tend to play mechanically rather than musically, I have no idea, although with some it may be the case... It is difficult to see how proficiency and musicality are necessarily at odds.

Musicians don't necessarily become tense during recording sessions, but the tendency is to become cautious. No one wants to be the guilty party making an audible mistake which results in having to do another take. Which is the great irony of all this - edits are so much easier in the digital era than they were before, doing another take of a section of music is really no big deal so there's no reason to be afraid of making a mistake during a recording session. The only real danger is that after repeating the same section too many times, everyone will get bored with it and lose concentration and the mistakes begin to multiply.

But psychology is a funny thing sometimes, and the natural tendency during a recording session is for the musicians to put all their concentration into playing perfectly in time and perfectly in tune, with the end result being a recording in which the listener cannot technically find any faults, except for the fact that it's dull, lifeless, and really not very interesting to listen to.

Exciting music (or any other type of live performance) results from the performer throwing caution to the wind and playing passionately without any fear of making mistakes. But, of course, this increases the likelihood that a mistake will be made - while also increasing the likelihood of a brilliant performance.

So the choice is not between "proficiency and musicality," the choice is really between caution and passion.

Post by Euell Neverno November 24, 2012 (7 of 30)
sibelius2 said:

But psychology is a funny thing sometimes, and the natural tendency during a recording session is for the musicians to put all their concentration into playing perfectly in time and perfectly in tune, with the end result being a recording in which the listener cannot technically find any faults, except for the fact that it's dull, lifeless, and really not very interesting to listen to.

Exciting music (or any other type of live performance) results from the performer throwing caution to the wind and playing passionately without any fear of making mistakes. But, of course, this increases the likelihood that a mistake will be made - while also increasing the likelihood of a brilliant performance.

So the choice is not between "proficiency and musicality," the choice is really between caution and passion.

Live performance recording is becoming quite common and it would seem that this should eliminate some of the excessive concern with fluffs and multiple takes, as these can be excised by editing in from a later performance or a practice session.

Post by seth November 24, 2012 (8 of 30)
Euell Neverno said:

Live performance recording is becoming quite common and it would seem that this should eliminate some of the excessive concern with fluffs and multiple takes, as these can be excised by editing in from a later performance or a practice session.

Most live recordings are a composite of multiple performances, rehearsals, and even patch sessions.

About the only time you get a single take without any editing is of radio broadcasts released on CD.

Post by Euell Neverno November 24, 2012 (9 of 30)
seth said:

Most live recordings are a composite of multiple performances, rehearsals, and even patch sessions.

About the only time you get a single take without any editing is of radio broadcasts released on CD.

True, but the pressure would seem to be a lot less than attempting to do one or more studio takes in a single day.

Occasionally, you have gotten some terrific performances on radio broadcasts. My favorite version of Das Lied is the 1972 Horenstein with the BBC Northern. However, it was apparently recorded several months in advance of the broadcast.

Post by seth November 24, 2012 (10 of 30)
Alkan said:

True, but the pressure would seem to be a lot less than attempting to do one or more studio takes in a single day.

Occasionally, you have gotten some terrific performances on radio broadcasts. My favorite version of Das Lied is the 1972 Horenstein with the BBC Northern. However, it was apparently recorded several months in advance of the broadcast.

Also keep in mind that live recordings are often utilizing a lot of microphones so that the sound can be carefully rebalanced and edited in post production. My point is just that when you're using 4 nights worth of performances and maybe even additional material from rehearsals or a patch session, the result is a whole lot of edits like a studio recording.

I think that labels have long underestimated how forgiving people are about mistakes with live recordings. All that editing happens because the record producers are trying to get the performance to sound as flawless as a studio recording. That is, they want the product to be indistinguishable from a studio recording. I think there is something a lot more exciting about a recorded performance that is a single take.

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed