|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.249.169.177
In Reply to: RE: Good to know it sounds awesome, but when the original recording was of higher quality, why posted by jdaniel@jps.net on December 18, 2016 at 08:13:35
But if that is the only way you can get it and you insist on higher sampling and bit rates you will deprive yourself of what I consider the greatest performance of the Mahler 3rd I have ever heard.
Have you for example never listened to the beethoven symphonies recorded in 1952 mono by the Berlin philharmonic conducted by Furtwangler? Or the Horowitz/toscanini 1920's recording of the Tchaivkowsky piano concerto? These are performances that in many ways have never been surpassed. The music and performances are much more important than the sound. A crap performance in great sound is still crap.
Alan
Follow Ups:
I enjoy some of those older performances too, and, perhaps in a certain way, they indeed have never been surpassed. But personally, I find that almost all of the performances from the 78 rpm era have at least been equalled by performances recorded in better sound. Sure, no one is going to approach the Tchaikovsky Concerto in quite the same way as Horowitz/Toscanini, but that doesn't automatically make Horowitz/Toscanini the best of all time. In fact, IMHO, the recording by Argerich and Kondrashin beats Horowitz and Toscanini at their own game! And if that Argerich recording is too much of a "wild ride" for some listeners, then the Janis/Menges performance on Mercury is even closer (and, again IMHO, superior in some ways!) to the Horowitz/Toscanini, but in far better sound. Again, I don't want to take anything away from the uniqueness of the Horowitz/Toscanini recording, and it's well worth investigation by interested listeners - the Janis/Menges version is not QUITE the same (it could never be!), but its approach is so close and the execution is so well accomplished that I prefer it in view of the much better SQ. In general, I would never recommend these older 78 rpm derived recordings as first choices in any given repertoire, as interesting and insightful as they might be - there may be one or two exceptions, but I can't think of any right now.
I strongly agree with your point that performances are more important than sound quality. But I wanted to correct a date in your post: Horowitz and Toscanini recordings of the Tchaikovsky first piano concerto date from 1941 and 1943. Horowitz didn't record that concerto in the 1920s. There are also some great broadcast performances of Horowitz playing this concerto in slightly better sound, including a 1950 version with Szell and NY Philharmonic that's easily located on youtube.
Regarding Furtwangler, yes! I have! I've mentioned that quite a few times in previous posts, though in no way do I expect anyone to keep track.
I think his Brahms 1st and 4th are unsurpassed. Same with the first Julliard Bartok cycle on Columbia.
I've defended Scherchen's Beethoven occasionally too. : )
I'm totally with you with regard to performance over sound.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: