When is enough, enough?

[aeolium]

I don't understand the logic of this final clause, aeolie: surely it's more difficult to have "a fresh response" to a work if you only have one or two versions of it on your shelves? Isn't there the danger that the recording of a work you own "becomes" the work, so that a performer taking a different approach might sound "wrong"?

Yes, that might be true if you listened to that performance repeatedly and no other, but with many works there are plenty of opportunities to hear them in new performances, both on disc and in concert. I can appreciate a Belcea Quartet performance of a Mozart or Beethoven quartet in a concert broadcast without having to rush out and buy their recording - in fact, the single and unrepeatable performance is more powerful simply by virtue of being that.

And of course there are plenty of examples of musicians who distrusted the whole idea and process of recording: Furtwängler, Curzon for instance (and there is Britten's comment about how anyone can listen to the St Matthew Passion in the bath now).

And as others above have mentioned, the accumulation of recordings breeds that fantastic pedantry and hypercriticism that now attends every performance of a familiar work - the Building a Library effect, it might be called - so that the work as a whole can barely be heard afresh, only the way in which particular phrases, the prominence of a timpanist, the changes in tempo etc are perceived. And surely few composers can have expected - can have wished - to have had their works listened to in that way.

[gurnemanz]

.. surely it's more difficult to have "a fresh response" to a work if you only have one or two versions of it on your shelves? Isn't there the danger that the recording of a work you own "becomes" the work, so that a performer taking a different approach might sound "wrong"?

But you don't only listen to the version or versions you have on your shelf. You also listen to the radio, go to concerts and nowadays you can explore the internet.

In general, (and when financial resources are not unlimited), I have always taken the approach of preferring to add something new to my collection before getting additional versions of what I already have. There is, however, no point in being dogmatic on this matter: You might become dissatisfied with your shelf version or hear about a new issue that seems to be a "must buy" and nowadays it is very easy to acquire additional versions almost by accident via box sets.

Having said all that, I do seem to take a different view with Lieder. I particularly love to be able to sit down and listen to different singers interpreting the same song.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, that might be true if you listened to that performance repeatedly and no other, but with many works there are plenty of opportunities to hear them in new performances, both on disc and in concert. I can appreciate a Belcea Quartet performance of a Mozart or Beethoven quartet in a concert broadcast without having to rush out and buy their recording - in fact, the single and unrepeatable performance is more powerful simply by virtue of being that. Isn't there something pathological, even Alberich-like, about the accumulation of huge numbers of versions of a single work?

You are absolutely right that the emergence of Spotify, youTube etc etc has completely transformed the availability of access to Music. Were I thirty years younger, I doubt that I'd start the collection I now have, but because thirty years ago the only way to hear what Walter did with the Pastoral was to actually buy it (or borrow from a Library or a friend), that's what I did. And it is gloriously fascinating to hear how the same score, the same set of tadpoles on telephone wires, can produce such different results between Klemperer and Walter and Krips and Furtwangler - far more than just the changes of tempi, different orchestral balances etc. Each time, for me, the Music triumphs, emerging afresh from each recording in ways that I find both humbling and life-enhancing; ways that I don't think I could perceive from just a couple of recordings - and I think that now, I would prefer to have the scores of the standard/core repertoire than to have just two-three recordings.

Is wanting to hear these telling nuances "pathological"? Well, there are worse pathologies if it is*- but my excuse to myself has always been that it would be handy to have these different visions of the works readily available whenever I wanted to hear/study them and not have to rely on the vagueries of the BBC or local concert organizers (again, something unnecessary nowadays).

And of course there are plenty of examples of musicians who distrusted the whole idea and process of recording: Furtwängler, Curzon for instance (and there is Britten's comment about how anyone can listen to the St Matthew Passion in the bath now).

But Furtwangler and Curzon are dead: the only way we can hear them now is through their recordings - and to hear how Furtwangler's realizations of the possibilities inherrent in, say, the Brahms' First Symphony. or the Eroica helps this listener at least get closer to those scores: a process previously achieved by playing the works in piano reductions. My own piano skills bar me from making much headway in the works by this method (although many features are revealed that way even so). (And did Britten really know anyone who had a Record Player in their bathroom?!)

And as others above have mentioned, the accumulation of recordings breeds that fantastic pedantry and hypercriticism that now attends every performance of a familiar work - the Building a Library effect, it might be called - so that the work as a whole can barely be heard afresh

I suspect that anyone who responds in such a manner would have done so before tha advent of recording - indeed, a study of newspaper Music Criticism from the '20s -'40s shows this. I also suspect that most responses are more like those of Ted Greenfield, whose enthusiasm seems to be sharpened by each recording he adds to his collection (which is incalculably bigger than my own). People are people; the Arts seem to bring out their basic personalities for better or for worse: if they're of the pedantically hypercritical bent, they'd be pedantically hypercritical without their CD collections.

And surely few composers can have expected - can have wished - to have had their works listened to in that way.

Well, some of them did everything they could to ensure that their work was as widely and often performed as they could - the piano reductions, arrangements etc etc. Not just for remuneration, but because they rather liked it when their subtleties were noticed: Mozart's letters are full of comments to such effect.

* - the need to attribute negative psychological motives to others whose priorities differ from our own, perhaps?

[aeolium]

Fair points, ferney, but we must agree to differ. I don't want to spend my time hearing many recorded performances of a single work - I'd rather listen to new performances broadcast or live in concert.

And in acknowledgement of your justified rebuke about my pathological comment, I will withdraw it (though I note the existence of the CDs Anonymous thread which may testify to some collectors' sense of unease )

[amateur51]

This is an outstanding and fascinating thread but it's all been said so I'll shut up

Now who would have thought that might happen?

[richardfinegold]

I just have one cycle on CD and all nine with a variety of conductors on LP. Its rare for me to have more than one cycle on CD. I usually find a cycle I like and stick to it, with some occasional duplication of of some of the works in other recordings I've fancied. There's so much else to explore and I don't have money to throw away on buying endless cycles I'll probably never listen to. If I do fancy an alternative to what I have, I just listen online.

I have multiple cycles as well and various single recordings. As with Mahler or Shostakovich, it is a rare conductor who gives shines in each Symphony, so it makes sense to have 1 or 2 cycles as references and then supplement each individual work as desired.
However, as the OP has noted, there isn't much about collecting that "makes sense" to the non collector. My wife loves music but when she sees the multiple Beethoven cycles and other duplications on my shelves she just shakes her head in amusement; visitors to our home have been known to ask her if I have sought professional help for OCD. One advantage for downloads, then. At least stored on a hard drive, it is out of sight. However searching a playlist on a computer isn't much fun. I prefer to scan my shelves looking for a disc

[french frank]

But if you have, say, 50 different versions, what wil you do? Play one every week throughout the year and wallow in the contemplation of the differences between them? That is a perfectly worthwhile thing to do if it brings 'pleasure' (tbd). But it would be a level of refined listening which is unknown to me.

I have one cycle of the late quartets of LvB and several other versions of some of them. I probably listen to the different versions randomly every couple of months or so - and it may be that that randomness means that for some subconscious reason I pick up the same version each time (I don't keep notes on which ones I've listened to). As a very musically inferior kind of listener (I say this humbly, not sarcastically) I am only conscious of listening to the 'work' (and I admit to often following the score while doing so). Is this unusual?

[salymap]

"A level of refined listening which is unknown to me" i wish I'd thought of that sentence ff.

[Ferretfancy]

I don't understand the logic of this final clause, aeolie: surely it's more difficult to have "a fresh response" to a work if you only have one or two versions of it on your shelves? Isn't there the danger that the recording of a work you own "becomes" the work, so that a performer taking a different approach might sound "wrong"?

Ferney,

I think you are absolutely right that there is a danger that a recording of a work, especially if it is the first one you own, can become a dangerous template for other performances.
There is also the point that we can sometimes have a fond memory of a recording heard long ago, and still use that memory to make comparisons today.

The first time I heard the two Ravel piano concertos was on an old LP with the Swiss Romande and Ansermet with Jacqueline Blancard as soloist. This was my introduction to the music with many marvellous performances to come, including Richter, Fleischer, Argerich and others. A couple of years ago I found the Blancard performances on an Eloquence reissue, and eagerly bought them, only to find that they really are not very good.

The trouble is that our brains construct memories, or at least distort them. If I collect different versions of a well loved work, some of them are collected simply because I once owned them on LP or heard them broadcast. With the range of choices open to me, I can at least hear them as they really are, and not as imagined.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Fair points, ferney, but we must agree to differ. I don't want to spend my time hearing many recorded performances of a single work - I'd rather listen to new performances broadcast or live in concert.

- I think I would, too - but live and broadcast concerts tend to stick to a fairly limited mainstream repertoire, these days (when was the last time you saw Beethoven's Eighth programmed away from a "complete cycle" event, or Schubert's Sixth) and they're often more expensive than CDs. But when a concert becomes an Event - the weeks of anticipation, the hassle of getting to the venue, the sense of communal experience, and (above all) the sheer physical impact of the sound - oh, yes: the CD can't begin to compare.

And in acknowledgement of your justified rebuke about my pathological comment, I will withdraw it (though I note the existence of the CDs Anonymous thread which may testify to some collectors' sense of unease )

I'm just shameless!

[cloughie]

- I think I would, too - but live and broadcast concerts tend to stick to a fairly limited mainstream repertoire, these days (when was the last time you saw Beethoven's Eighth programmed away from a "complete cycle" event...

I'm just shameless!

The 'symphony cycle' really only became a recording phenomenon in the 60s - it was interesting in trawling my large number of Beethoven cycles and recordings that those conductors whose recordings were largely from the 50s and 60s were not actually cycles eg Reiner and Jochum's DG set was recorded over a period of about 7 years, but not designed as a cycle and uses BPO and BavRSO it was conveniently packaged in a box, and very good it is too.

[Dave2002]

It's rather like people who see the same film 20 times, or read their favourite novel over and over again. I'm afraid I can't understand that mentality. If I had done as some here and focus on a narrow area of the symphonic repertoire I would never have discovered the delights of Zemlinsky, Ligeti, Simpson, Alkan, Finzi, Medtner, Varese, to name but a few. Beethoven and Brahms are still high among my musical gods, but surely there is room for a few more in the pantheon?

There is, perhaps, a hidden assumption that collectors only focus on one or two composers. OK - we know of one member who has almost as many recordings of a mountainous symphony than some of us have years, and there must be one surely who has 20 complete Beethoven cycles, but there's also the possibility that these very same people also have a below the water collection of diverse music by many other composers.

The use of downloads and streaming could reduce the need for collecting, but actually at the present time, this will either provide an experience of fairly poor sound quality, or alternatively, if higher resolutions and bit rates are used, a rather more expensive experience altogether. In the future things will almost certainly be different, but right now many CDs are at rock bottom prices.

Collecting is still generally cheaper than playing golf or some other sports, though the storage problems can become considerable.

[Sir Velo]

There is, perhaps, a hidden assumption that collectors only focus on one or two composers. OK - we know of one member who has almost as many recordings of a mountainous symphony than some of us have years, and there must be one surely who has 20 complete Beethoven cycles, but there's also the possibility that these very same people also have a below the water collection of diverse music by many other composers.

Fair point, although my argument was twofold: you are unlikely to play any of these CDs more than once or twice (particularly if your collection comprises a large and varied repertoire); and secondly that the differences in performance are unlikely to be so significant to warrant owning 20 different versions.

Collecting is still generally cheaper than playing golf or some other sports, though the storage problems can become considerable.

Don't worry, you don't have to convince me; you're preaching to the converted!

[EdgeleyRob]

"A level of refined listening which is unknown to me" i wish I'd thought of that sentence ff.

Me too.
Just the one LvB Symphony cycle here btw (Karajan 60's).

[cloughie]

"A level of refined listening...

Now there's an idea for Michael Gove!