ecarroll

TMers,

Jimi's posts in the Phil/Haydn thread have stirred an old memory of playing "drop the needle" with friends back when I was in school. For those of you that don't know the game, only a short (2-5 second?) passage is played from a symphonic work and the game was to identify the composition and, if possible, the performer. A bottle of red wine was usually involved and it was big at Interlochen, Northwestern, and Juilliard, at least amongst nerds like my friends and myself. For those of you that are too young to know, the needle is the pickup on the tone arm of a turntable that plays LP records. These came before tapes (reel-to-reel, 8 track, and cassette), CDs, and MP3 downloads. If you really can't follow this or scoff at the days of shellac and vinyl, I hate you. :)

It used to be a snap to identify certain bands (Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston, Vienna, London, and Berlin come instantly to mind). Perhaps this was due to the personalities of long term conductors (Reiner, Solti, Ormandy, Szell, Munch, Karajan, etc.) and perhaps also due to the "signature" sound characteristics of each ensemble. Probably yes and yes.

I do believe that these days are almost certainly gone. Orchestras of today play at a uniformly excellent standard and there are far more of them recording (archive to youtube, iTunes, etc.) than when I was a kid, let alone the ease factor of finding them online. I have a hard time, however, distinguishing one from another when I hear them pop up on the radio in my car.

Keep in mind that in both eras we are comparing good to good, and that I'm not exactly pining for the old days or suggesting that old is better than good (or vice versa). I'm simply observing.

Your thoughts?

Best,
EC

Pedal C

I don't know anything about the technical aspects of recording, but to my ears at least, it sounds like recent recordings are more..."homogenized"...for lack of a better word, than most older recordings. I heard Phil Smith in person for the first time last year and was really surprised at how much more live and vibrant his sound was than in most recordings I'd heard. It completely changed the way I percieved him. To contrast, I heard Bud Herseth live in the mid 90's and found that he sounded very much (although not exactly) like he did on most of the older recordings that I absolutely love! I may be totally full of it (it wouldn't be the first time!), but I think maybe the recording technology accounts for SOME of the sameness of sound. I would agree though, that even live, there is less variety of sound and personal "flair" than before (although I never heard more of the earlier generation of players live).

Another thing I wonder about is if the sound of other instruments in the orchestra has gotten less individual. Do flute players sound more alike now than 40 years ago? Clarinet? Cello? Etc... That would definately make orchestras sound more similar regardless of the trumpet player.

Also...has scholarship improved over the years so that conductors are interpreting music in a more similar way? Are some of the "individualistic" interpretations from older recordings not acceptable anymore? I'm not knowledgeable enough to even begin to answer that...

Neat topic.

Jason.

MJ

A couple of years ago I was driving down the road and was blown away by some incredible orchestral trumpet playing. The piece was Rachmaninoff and it was the first time I ever I pulled over to be able to give something I heard on the radio more attention. I couldn't identify the group.

It turns out it was the Scottish National Orchestra. Maybe not a house hold name in the US but it was some of the most exciting orchestral trumpet playing I had ever heard.

Luis M. Araya

I love this orchestra, it is ussually recorded with the naxos label. It reminds me of the recordings of the Chicago Sym. when Mr. Cichowicz was there

Vulgano Brother

Hypothesis: I think that if it were not for the advent of digital recording, our orchestras would have a different sound. I remember hearing the first ABQ digital recording--my, the trumpets were bright--much brighter than the previous recording!
The old analog process lost a lot of the "sizzle" in recording, and was a pretty good "analog" to what the listener in the hall heard. With close miking alone, the American trumpet sound has changed--to the point that Nikolaus Harnocourt said he "hated the American trumpet sound." (Creep!)

I think some of the "personality" of our playing is in the overtones, with the lower frequencies carrying less far. Studio players complained that Monette trumpets didn't "make it to the tape" (odd saying these days), another way of saying they didn't mike well.

Let's go back to putting the mike over the conductor's head like the early Reiner w/Chicago recordings (ok, maybe stereo), and we'll hear players' personalities coming out again. Maybe.

Pedal C

I wish someone would do that. Hearing two versions of the same performance, recorded differently would certainly provide some clues about how the technology has changed what we hear (or not). And if they sound identical, at least we can stop blaming the recording guys!

(No we won't.)

Jason.

ecarroll

Quick story:

We were recording for Erato in Rotterdam (I forget what music it was) and every single section, save the trumpets and trombones, had their own microphone or two. The trumpet and trombones were being picked up by whatever array they had in the hall. Micro-recording at it's worst.

At one point the producer came over the intercom complaining that the brass were always late to the rest of the band. . . a true genius.

On a related note, if anyone has the chance, take a careful listen to the recordings made by Kubelik and the Chicago Symphony mentioned below. They were recorded with one Telefunken mic placed directly above the maestro's head and sound marvelous. Recordings cannot capture the essence of a live concert experience (this is why tickets are still sold), but these come close. Bud sounds like Bud.

"On two stunningly engineered Mercury disks, Kubelik conducts the Chicago Symphony in music by Mussorgsky, Bartok and Smetana, giving imaginative accounts of familiar repertory. Reissued in the label's lauded Living Presence line, and expertly remastered for CD by Wilma Cozart Fine, these recordings are in outstanding monaural sound. Incidentally, it was Howard Taubman of The New York Times who, on hearing the Mussorgsky and Bartok records when they first appeared, in 1951, coined the term ''living presence.'' Even today, it is easy to understand why he was impressed.
N.Y. Times

Best and now back to our regular scheduled programming,
EC
ps: but then again, Bud is/was Bud.

dbacon

Mr. Voisin's recent passing reminds me of the excitment he brought to the Boston Symphony Orchestra. With several video's available now, you can hear the ensemble get into things very differently when he's playing. Many teachers over the years didn't like his sound, but I'm finding a lot there to appreciate. It begs the question.....could anybody get a job playing that way today?

rowuk

As many of my posts indicate, I have been following this exact phenomenon for at least 30 years, and even more so in the last 3 as my second son has been studying recording engineering (graduated best of class last year!).

My 15 cents are:
The advent of digital recording has brought many more channels and recording effects to the engineer, drastically increasing his influence on the sonics. Microphones close up give the engineer a sound not present in a concert environment. The exaggerated overtones give them a lot of signal to play with that has NOTHING to do with the creative manipulation of sound exercized by a professional musician.

The bottom line is that the listener is only given stylistic clues about the the player, no tonal possibilities any more.

The second part of the problem is the "universal" player that can get a job anywhere. Standard instrumentation further bulldozes differences down.
What is amazing to me, the record companies are complaining about decreasing sales, but offering ever more "standardized" sonics (and to a certain extent standardized style - the asthmatic hysterical performance practices currently VERY saleable come to mind...........).

It is worth buying the el cheap-o labels like Naxos. They don't have the budget for the trash compacter approach of recording and the artist has more to say about the end product. The recording quality and readings are still decent!

I think I'll quit before this becomes too much of a rant...............

nplotts1

Can you say that in english? haha.
So what they are saying about the mic being close is that you hear more overtones than you would actually being at the concert? How so, would the overtones just magically disappear once they get past the conductor. If thats the case, wouldn't you want to hear it from the conductor's point, seeing as they are the ones who should approve of the sound before ending rehearsals?