Do we have to re-consider 'historical' recordings?

[kea]

I always took "historical" to mean "famous old guys in lousy sound". More or less anyway.

If the sound is as good as most modern 16-bit recordings, it's not historical. (More to the point, why has sound apparently not improved much since the 1960s? All other aspects of technology have.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

(More to the point, why has sound apparently not improved much since the 1960s? All other aspects of technology have.)

I suppose that by the time of Solti's Gotterdammerung (1964) the quality of recorded sound was so good, and so close to live sound, that further significant improvement has not been possible.

[Petrushka]

I always took "historical" to mean "famous old guys in lousy sound". More or less anyway.

If the sound is as good as most modern 16-bit recordings, it's not historical. (More to the point, why has sound apparently not improved much since the 1960s? All other aspects of technology have.)

Last night I played Stravinsky's Firebird in the LSO/Dorati recording from 1959. This must be borderline 'historical' by most standards yet it is in very fine stereo, sounding for all the world as if it was recorded yesterday. Yes, I'd not only agree that sound quality has barely improved since the 1960s, I'd go further and say that in some ways it is actually worse and I'd use this 1959 disc as evidence against any version of the Firebird recorded since.

[Don Petter]

I suppose that by the time of Solti's Gotterdammerung (1964) the quality of recorded sound was so good, and so close to live sound, that further significant improvement has not been possible.

Asymptotic is the word, I think - That ever decreasing gap!

[akiralx]

Last night I played Stravinsky's Firebird in the LSO/Dorati recording from 1959. This must be borderline 'historical' by most standards yet it is in very fine stereo, sounding for all the world as if it was recorded yesterday. Yes, I'd not only agree that sound quality has barely improved since the 1960s, I'd go further and say that in some ways it is actually worse and I'd use this 1959 disc as evidence against any version of the Firebird recorded since.

A good recording for its age but cannot compare with Andrew Litton's Bergen PO recording on a BIS multichannel SACD.

[verismissimo]

Asymptotic is the word, I think - That ever decreasing gap!

Sounds right to me, DP. Or, to put it another way, increasingly dancing angels on the head of a pin.

[Ferretfancy]

I always took "historical" to mean "famous old guys in lousy sound". More or less anyway.

If the sound is as good as most modern 16-bit recordings, it's not historical. (More to the point, why has sound apparently not improved much since the 1960s? All other aspects of technology have.)

The reason that sound hasn't improved much since the 1960s is probably due to the fact that :-

There are only a few really suitable recording locations.

In those locations there is only a limited number of places in which to place microphones.

Placing microphones and rehearsing takes some time, and session costs are high.

Back in the late 50s and 60s, engineers were able to develop recording techniques, and were given adequate time to do so, with musicians who understood this. I'm not so sure that this is the case in today's commercial climate.

What goes into the recording machine, digital or analogue, is the real determinate of quality.

[Don Petter]

The reason that sound hasn't improved much since the 1960s is probably due to the fact that :-

There are only a few really suitable recording locations.

In those locations there is only a limited number of places in which to place microphones.

Placing microphones and rehearsing takes some time, and session costs are high.

Back in the late 50s and 60s, engineers were able to develop recording techniques, and were given adequate time to do so, with musicians who understood this. I'm not so sure that this is the case in today's commercial climate.

What goes into the recording machine, digital or analogue, is the real determinate of quality.

I agree with all you say, except perhaps the last sentence. Surely the difference in results between a 60s recording and Dame Nellie belting into a big horn must imply diminishing returns in modern times?

[Ferretfancy]

I agree with all you say, except perhaps the last sentence. Surely the difference in results between a 60s recording and Dame Nellie belting into a big horn must imply diminishing returns in modern times?

Of course, but kea's original question concerned recording techniques in the last few decades. Dame Nellie had to make do with the acoustic methods of the time.

That said, there is still much pleasure to be gained from historic performances from the interpretive point of view, and we are lucky to have them, often in re-mastered sound. Some of the performances on CD that I now have on the shelves were first listened to by me as 78s, played on a huge EMG horn gramophone.
Believe me, they sound better now!

Here are a few historic performances that I would not like to be without.

WAGNER Die Walkure Act 1 -Melchior / Lehmann / Walter BPO

SIBELIUS Symphonies 2 & 7 -Koussevitsky

BRAHMS Paganini Variations -Egon Petri

SIBELIUS Violin Concerto -Ginette Neveu

ELGAR Violin Concerto -Sammons

MOZART Die Zauberflote -Roswaenge /Lemnitz /Beecham BPO

That's just a handful, and of course when I first heard them they were not really historical, since they were recorded only about fifteen years before they were put on my turntable, fibre needles naturally!

[visualnickmos]

Fascinating thread, this. I feel that I am really learning something from it regarding recording history. Brilliant.

On reading through and following the posts, I have the impression that there are recordings which very obviously come under the 'historic' bracket; a huge which don't; and a massive grey, amorphous area in the middle, which, I would suppose over time will be constantly self-adjusting.

For what it's worth, that's just my opinion.....

The underlining is perhaps the most interesting 'bit' (not a pun, I promise!) in my thoughts on this.

[richardfinegold]

A good recording for its age but cannot compare with Andrew Litton's Bergen PO recording on a BIS multichannel SACD.

I own both of those recordings. I shall have to compare them.
I concur that the advances in recording technology of the last 50 years, while significant, represent less of a quantum leap than the advances of the preceding 50.
What has changed dramatically is the quality of the playback equipment. It is now possible to extract an amazing amount of information from recordings of the early stereo era that previously went unheard.

[Don Petter]

Fascinating thread, this. I feel that I am really learning something from it regarding recording history. Brilliant.

On reading through and following the posts, I have the impression that there are recordings which very obviously come under the 'historic' bracket; a huge which don't; and a massive grey, amorphous area in the middle, which, I would suppose over time will be constantly self-adjusting.

For what it's worth, that's just my opinion.....

The underlining is perhaps the most interesting 'bit' (not a pun, I promise!) in my thoughts on this.

That, I suppose, is the nub of the discussion. Should the watershed depend on time or some (subjective) quality of recording?

[Flosshilde]

why has sound apparently not improved much since the 1960s? All other aspects of technology have.)

I'm afraid that in my case sound has deteriorated considerably since the 1960s

Perhaps nthe recording industry should follow mthe antiques trade & have two terms; 'antique' means anything over 100 years old and 'vintage' for anything between 50 and 100 years. Obviously anything that was 'vintage' in 1960 is now 'antique'. I'm sure the recording/record collecting industry could come up with two suitable terms.

[Bryn]

I own both of those recordings. I shall have to compare them.
I concur that the advances in recording technology of the last 50 years, while significant, represent less of a quantum leap than the advances of the preceding 50.
What has changed dramatically is the quality of the playback equipment. It is now possible to extract an amazing amount of information from recordings of the early stereo era that previously went unheard.

It has also become more practicable to repair editing problems such as tape snatches. A prime example of this can be found on successive digital remasterings of Messiaen's Chronochromie as conducted by Antal Dorati. The LP and first French EMI issues had a rather obvious tape snatch which the 1991 remastering (as found, for instance, in EMI's Messiaen Centenary boxed set), and the later GRotC issue, each in turn disguised that little bit better.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Just because a (good) reviewer made a small mistake, we don't have to change the English language to accommodate this. Age does not matter - quality does.