How much does the recording affect a recorded performance?

[Dave2002]

Recently I listened several times to the same piece(s) in different versions, by different conductors and orchestras, or in one case by different pianists. Sometimes the differences in the performances themselves were very obvious - slower/faster tempi, way of playing etc., but not always.

One piece I listened to was the first movement of Nielsen's symphony 3 "Espansiva" - and I found that one recording did sound quite a bit different - it was this one - by Giordano Bellincampi - https://open.spotify.com/track/4MRgj2XJy1UxhCngKVItLX I'm sure that partly it sounded different because of some features in the performance itself, but I continued to listen to other versions, and I noticed that some other performances sounded moderately similar - same tempo roughly, and then, having been made aware of it by listening to the Sjaelland Orchestra performance, I could pick out some of the details which I'd missed before - for example some brass motifs.

This made me wonder whether different recording engineers can make recordings sound completely different, by changing the balance between instrumental groups. I'm sure they can - but do they? Often I feel that recordings fail because they somehow just don't sound right, but recording itself is an artificial process (as indeed are orchestral performances - you don't find any of those in nature ...) so it may be that recording engineers can significantly alter how we perceive each piece.

If this is not done "subtly" the results can (at least to some people) sound poor - for example exaggerated spotlighting, and sometimes the acoustic environment itself changes (there's a Decca recording of Hary Janos which has a spectactular example of that) very audibly, but with a moderate allowance of artistic license acceptable results can be obtained.

I suspect that this works best if the engineers work closely with the conductor, rather than placing thousands (slight exaggeration) of microphones around, and then trying to mix the mess later on. I think some of the best recordings may have been made with only a few microphones.

It may be that recording engineers can, with care, enhance some performances, and that they can also not do full justice to some very good ones in other cases.

[MrGongGong]

I suspect that this works best if the engineers work closely with the conductor, .

That's the last person you want in the studio

If you habitually stand right at the front of an orchestra you really have very little idea how it sounds to the audience.


(and lots of other things)

[visualnickmos]

That's the last person you want in the studio

If you habitually stand right at the front of an orchestra you really have very little idea how it sounds to the audience.


(and lots of other things)

We've already had one of that ilk! Don't need another.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's the last person you want in the studio

If you habitually stand right at the front of an orchestra you really have very little idea how it sounds to the audience.

But when the conductor sits down with the engineers in playback sessions, a great deal can be achieved.

[MrGongGong]

But when the conductor sits down with the engineers in playback sessions, a great deal can be achieved.

IT was a joke (but with a serious point)
Barry Wordsworth has had the ROH orchestra sitting in the auditorium with a rehearsal pianist playing so that the musicians can see how the choreography fits with the music.

Good conductors will go and listen from where the audience sit but that's not always the case for some 'superstars'. (not mentioning any names)

[QUOET]This made me wonder whether different recording engineers can make recordings sound completely different, by changing the balance between instrumental groups. I'm sure they can - but do they?[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course they do.

A recording is not a performance or even necessarily a record of one.

(avoiding Magritte for once )

[richardfinegold]

All kinds of electronic trickery can be employed by engineers that can greatly influence results.
When I became interested in Classical Music one of my freinds was an aspiring Violinist who fed me a diet of the great Golden Age Violinists playing the Staple Concertos--the Sterns/Heifestz/Oistrah/Francescatti's playing Brahms/Mendelssohn/Bruch/Tchaikovsky/Sibelius/Beethoven et al---and I had absorbed those records upmteen times befoe hearing those works performed live. 40 years on, I still have to recondition my ears in Concert because the soloist always appears to be playing without sufficient volume. Those recordings always spotlight the soloist who appeared to effortlessly soar above the Orchestra.
The issue of Conductors in the Control booth twiddling the knobs on the final mix has a long and varied history. Stokowski was probably the first major conductor to become notorious for this. In general, with the years he got pretty good at it, and his results stand up sonically today, give or take a few misfires.
George Szell was horrible. He cut off the bottem end in the studio. One of the glories of CDs is that most Szell/Cleveland recordings were reissued from the mastertapes created before Szell did his mischief. Karajan was another notorious intereventionist at the mixing console. DGs were also responsible for lack of bass and how much of this was due Herr Generalmusikdirector I cannot tell, but my own take on him is that one reason he kept rerecording the same repetoire was that when he would relisten to some earlier efforts, he would be dissatisfied for a number of reasons, including the sound, which he had significantly shaped. His last Bruckner recordings with the VPO sound a heck of a lot more natural--full and rich, with well judged bottom end--compared to his BPO Bruckner with DG (the EMIs are better, perhaps due to recording venue).
I have two of the large Mercury box sets, and one is struck and how wonderful some of those 'minimalist' recordings are. They would find one sweet spot in the hall, hang a trio of mikes there, minimal editing at the console, and some beautifully natural but 'non hi-fi' outcomes that to my ears more closely approximate what a Concert Hall really sounds like.

[Beef Oven!]

If you habitually stand right at the front of an orchestra you really have very little idea how it sounds to the audience.

Or a bit of imagination could be employed

[Beef Oven!]

We've already had one of that ilk! Don't need another.

N

Who do you have in mind?

[MrGongGong]

Or a bit of imagination could be employed

Oi matey, imagination isn't usually (with a few notable exceptions) part of the conductors repertoire

[StephenO]

Karajan was another notorious intereventionist at the mixing console.

His recording of Eine Alpensinfonie being a good example. Although it's one of my favourite recordings of the work I'm not sure the version as released on CD bears all that much resemblance to the BPO's actual playing in the studio.

The same could be said about some of Gergiev's recordings. I bought his CD of Scheherazade years ago but gave it to a charity shop after just a couple of hearings, such was the distorted and 'messed around with' nature of the sound.

[Dave2002]

When I became interested in Classical Music one of my freinds was an aspiring Violinist who fed me a diet of the great Golden Age Violinists playing the Staple Concertos--the Sterns/Heifestz/Oistrah/Francescatti's playing Brahms/Mendelssohn/Bruch/Tchaikovsky/Sibelius/Beethoven et al---and I had absorbed those records upmteen times befoe hearing those works performed live. 40 years on, I still have to recondition my ears in Concert because the soloist always appears to be playing without sufficient volume. Those recordings always spotlight the soloist who appeared to effortlessly soar above the Orchestra.

I agree about many of the earlier violin concerto recordings, though some are very good even despite the distorted balance. Some are just ludicrous though. Itzhak Perlman always seemed to want recordings with him right on top of a microphone, and the orchestra miles behind. A few of Jacqueline du Pré's recordings also have a badly skewed balance.

[Zucchini]

I remember a discussion many years ago between acts of a Met broadcast.

A critic referred to a recording by perhaps the most admired tenor of our time. This included a "Celeste Aida.." which concluded with an incredible golden and perfect final note that faded to a staggeringly well controlled pp (as written I think).

He didn't name and shame but I knew who who he was talking about because I had the disc. His exact words were "I was present at the recording session and I can assure you that he did not sing that note..."

[LeMartinPecheur]

One cue that is totally absent in sound recordings is obviously the visual one. Those of us who keep our eyes open in the concert hall (not all of us I know) are likely to notice if, say, a percussionist gets up to execute a ppp drum or cymbal roll, and we therefore focus on it and hear it readily. But we can easily miss it on disc.

I do think this factor is one good reason for a little bit of 'lift' for such solos on a recording, though I can imagine those with better memories, or those who always follow with a score, having a different view

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree about many of the earlier violin concerto recordings, though some are very good even despite the distorted balance. Some are just ludicrous though. Itzhak Perlman always seemed to want recordings with him right on top of a microphone, and the orchestra miles behind. A few of Jacqueline du Pré's recordings also have a badly skewed balance.

You've just jumped on my personal soapbox. It's vocal recordings that often suffer the most (if we put the extreme example of Perlman's violin recordings to one side for a brief moment).

[Ferretfancy]

Close balances seem particularly prevalent on American recordings from the sixties. Apart from Perlman, Isac Stern's recordings suffer in the same way. The famous Heifetz / Piatigorsky recordings, fine though the performances are, suffer from such a close dry acoustic that it's really uncomfortable to listen to.

That said, I think that many more modern recordings suffer from exactly the opposite shortcoming, with over reverberant sound. I hesitate to say this, but I don't think that surround sound technology has done music many favours. I like to hear a clear sound stage with satisfactory but not excessive imagery, not a flabby mush. The best engineers achieved wonderfully satisfying results in the early days of stereo with a minimum of tinkering. This seems to me to be less common today.