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

[Bryn]

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.

However, the mistake was not hers. It lies in with those who do not grasp the historical nature of the Du Pre/LSO/Barbirolli recording.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Why is it historical?
Because it is a great performance?
Because it is old?
Because JDP was young at the time?
Because of the performer's tragically short career?
Because it had massive publicity at its launch?

[verismissimo]

The switch from shellac to vinyl was a much greater step than people seem to realise. If one listens to old 78 recordings, but remade from metal masters in vinyl, the difference is rather startling. All that surface noise (which folk often assume to have been in the recording itself) disappears and the performance comes quite clearly through.
Try the Patti or Melba sets issued by Historic Masters (from 1906 and 1904 respectively). Each has an accompanying CD, BTW, and copious notes (the latter by me)!

[richardfinegold]

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.

This is actually more frequently put to good use in Historical reissues. 78s could only contain a few minutes of music and the earliest attempts to reissue many of them on lp were guilty of showing these seams. Digital editing does wonders for Historical (or should I know say Pre Stereo?) recordings.

[richardfinegold]

Have just listened to the Dorati and the Litton recordings of The Rite Of Spring. This will fill my need for Stravisnky for a while...
The difference between the two wasn't as great as I thought it would be. They sound different, but the Dorati is so transparent that I would hesitate to label it as sounding better. And this is coming from a huge supporter of DSD and SACD technology...

[visualnickmos]

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

That is a very good point, indeed. I only have to think of the CDs and some vinyls that I have - mostly EMI and Decca, that were recorded in the 60s, and often - mid to late 50s, that when I listen to them, I think, 'wow, that sounds amazing' - detail, range, warmth, presence, balance etc, etc.

I have CDs that were recorded in the 90s and 2000s, which quite frankly, leave me thinking, 'what is going on here?' The sound is thin, sometimes ill-defined, ie detail is lost, becomes shrill in loud passages, bass disappears into nothingness, and various other negatives. I hate to say, it but DG is often the culprit here.

I am sure it not just my imagination....

[visualnickmos]

Age does not matter - quality does.

QED.

[Bryn]

Why is it historical?
Because it is a great performance?
Because it is old?
Because JDP was young at the time?
Because of the performer's tragically short career?
Because it had massive publicity at its launch?

Principally the first. Also note that in the while Ms. Wallace used the term "historical", by the time it got to the schedule page it had transmuted to "historic". Not quite the same, is it.

[richardfinegold]

That is a very good point, indeed. I only have to think of the CDs and some vinyls that I have - mostly EMI and Decca, that were recorded in the 60s, and often - mid to late 50s, that when I listen to them, I think, 'wow, that sounds amazing' - detail, range, warmth, presence, balance etc, etc.

I have CDs that were recorded in the 90s and 2000s, which quite frankly, leave me thinking, 'what is going on here?' The sound is thin, sometimes ill-defined, ie detail is lost, becomes shrill in loud passages, bass disappears into nothingness, and various other negatives. I hate to say, it but DG is often the culprit here.

I am sure it not just my imagination....

Early digital frequently was harsh and clinical. IMO, there was a noticeable improvement around 2000. Engineers presumably did a better job of mastering the technology, and also of anticipating the capabilities of the playback equipment that would be used on the listeners end.

[Bryn]

Early digital frequently was harsh and clinical. IMO, there was a noticeable improvement around 2000. Engineers presumably did a better job of mastering the technology, and also of anticipating the capabilities of the playback equipment that would be used on the listeners end.

Yes. I certainly think the term historical applies to early digital recordings.

[Ferretfancy]

That is a very good point, indeed. I only have to think of the CDs and some vinyls that I have - mostly EMI and Decca, that were recorded in the 60s, and often - mid to late 50s, that when I listen to them, I think, 'wow, that sounds amazing' - detail, range, warmth, presence, balance etc, etc.

I have CDs that were recorded in the 90s and 2000s, which quite frankly, leave me thinking, 'what is going on here?' The sound is thin, sometimes ill-defined, ie detail is lost, becomes shrill in loud passages, bass disappears into nothingness, and various other negatives. I hate to say, it but DG is often the culprit here.

I am sure it not just my imagination....

I don't think that it's your imagination. So many recordings issued in recent years suffer from the shortcomings that you mention. The multi mic / multi track techniques in general use are to blame. If an engineer wishes to balance an orchestra with 20 microphones or more and mix down later, the result must sound artificial for all the skill involved. Phase errors alone will blur the results, and inevitably compression of the sources will also be required. You point to DG as a culprit, and certainly some of their recent offerings have been poor. Interestingly, in common with other companies, their chamber music and instrumental recordings are more natural. Why? Well, it doesn't take many microphones to record a piano or a string quartet.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Early digital frequently was harsh and clinical. IMO, there was a noticeable improvement around 2000. Engineers presumably did a better job of mastering the technology, and also of anticipating the capabilities of the playback equipment that would be used on the listeners end.

I think Decca sorted digital sound from the outset. My first ever CD - Dutoit's Daphnis & Chloe - sounded stunning when I bought it, and remains outstanding to this day. The early Philips releases were good too. But the DG ones were often appalling; for example:-
Franck: Symphony in D minor (Bernstein)
Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie (Karajan)
Puccini: Turandot (Karajan)

However, they weren't all bad (the Brahms symphonies with Bernstein being particularly well recorded), suggesting that it might just have been that some of the engineers were inept.

[vibratoforever]

Decca produced some stunning mono recordings in the 50s e.g. the LSO/Sargent Planets, much better than HMVs efforts at that time.

In connection with BAL, I have always taken the "historical" recommendations to be recordings where the merits of the performance outweigh limitations of the sound. Any limitations of the Du Pre/Barbirolli Elgar Cello Concerto sound are marginal indeed - at least to the hearing of my sixty year-old ears.

[richardfinegold]

I think Decca sorted digital sound from the outset. My first ever CD - Dutoit's Daphnis & Chloe - sounded stunning when I bought it, and remains outstanding to this day. The early Philips releases were good too. But the DG ones were often appalling; for example:-
Franck: Symphony in D minor (Bernstein)
Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie (Karajan)
Puccini: Turandot (Karajan)

However, they weren't all bad (the Brahms symphonies with Bernstein being particularly well recorded), suggesting that it might just have been that some of the engineers were inept.

My firstCD was Colin Davis conducting Debussy on Phillips and yes it still sounds great. I think the first Decca CDs I bought were Dorati and the Detroit SO and they also sound excellent.
The first DG, RCA, and Columbia CDs could be terrible. And the first budget CD label, Naxos, took about 20 years to make a decent sounding CD.