Great post. Another aspect for the classical musician that recording has taken away is the phenomenon of acoustics. Hearing an acoustic instrument or voice on a recording just does not do justice to the world of acoustic instruments and singing. There is really no way to capture the warmth and vibrancy of acoustic heard live - which really stinks for those of us who have worked so hard to hone that particular skill.
Yes, good point. Although most of the recordings that I have played for are in a 'natural' acoustic and not a studio, you still have the microphones much closer than an audience would be. This really has affected the way we use the instruments, pushing us generally to the softer attacks and woolier sounds.
Especially for opera, where the acoustics of the space have a huge effect on the voice. The Italians use the term "chiaroscuro" to describe it (the term is also used in visual art, but a totally different thing, obviously). In a large space, the audience can hear the vowels very clearly as if the singer is standing close to them, but the distance also gives a darkness to the sound that you just cannot get from up-close mics. It is very difficult to replicate this in a recording.
That's interesting to hear how it changes the way you play as a result. The microphones used also can color he sound differently, depending on what you get. Many of the commercially available mics will have a "bump" on the frequency response around the 2-3kHz range, which will make bad vocals sound very clear. But for an opera singer, who is trained to accentuate that frequency, it gives the voice a harsh edge that isn't really there. When I first discovered this problem, I adjusted my singing to make it softer, but of course, that's now how the voice is designed to be used all the time.
Still, I love the challenge and discovery of how I can achieve a better recording sound. I'm not anti-recording, but I am a bit of anti-perfectionism in the process. This is why I love Vladimir Horowitz: many of his recordings he did in one take and would leave mistakes in there. It was more authentic, and no one thinks he was a hack.
Yes, many of the old recordings are much more authentic. They also tell us much about the styles of expression that are frowned upon in the modern classical world. Heavy use of portamenti and liberal tempo rubato with left and right hands being expressively not together.
Interesting about the mic bump, I didn't know that!
Recordings are the death of music? I disagree, though I do get the point you are making, and I think it's a great post! The reason I disagree, is that I sometimes think about music in days gone by, and how many ordinary people would never have even had the chance to hear orchestral music – recording has allowed music to be widely distributed and heard.
Also there are great artists who have made recording a valid part of their art.
But having said that, I totally agree that recording in order to cover flaws in an artist's voice or performance often renders the production glib, artificial - even unlistenable! And a good live performance (sadly I've seen a few bad ones) can be incredibly powerful. I've been to live classical music performances that made people who thought they hated classical music start to love it.
And I agree that live music should be supported. But there are people who can't afford to see live performances, and for them, recorded music can bring joy.
I think that the idea that live performances can be good/bad, inspiring/boring and all manner of experiences is what makes it great! Part of it is the performer, part of the the surrounds, part of it is the approach of the listener. What one person finds insipid, another might rave about! The imperfections and subtleties of a evolving live performance mean that there are many ideas on how it is received!
Accessibility is a big issue though. Recordings have definitely been good for extending the reach of music. However, I would argue it is a weak shadow of what music really is. As long as the audience (and musicians) can draw that distinction, then I would be happy, unfortunately, I'm not sure that they can draw the distinction.
In the end, I would have to say that recording, like all tools, is a plus and a minus. I speak from a privileged position of being a musician, and being able to easily (relatively) access live performances from all over Europe.
I have to admit I'm not a musician, although my nephew is a very good one, so I get to see some of the recording processes, as well as his wonderful live performances.
And I do think there are some atrocious recordings about these days using all sorts of gimmicky techniques. That's probably why when I have the radio on (usually in my car) I mostly listen to classical music. And I love going to live classical music performances - when I can afford to!
Yes, that is a problem. The ticket prices of concerts has gotten really out of hand... Maybe it is time to start supporting local acts, where the overhead is not so high.
To tell the truth, I hate listening to music from recordings. If I do listen to things, it will be spoken podcasts.
Hey @bengy, I am a curator of the Whaleshares Curation Team. I have selected your post to be presented in a live curation discussion on Monday 19th March. Your post will be awarded a 100 Whaleshares vote on the night. I do hope you can come along and spectate. The event will be held in The Curation Lounge on the Whaleshares server.
Wow, thank you! It is about 1 in the morning when the show starts, but I'll try to stay up for it! I'm excited and nervous, I've never had anyone talk about my writing before!
great article! i think this applies mostly to instrumental music though. you know, it was the Beatles that popularised the recording of music that was impossible to recreate live. they treated recording as an art in itself. of course, that's a different genre all together. you are correct though, when it comes to classical music, it's really better live.
I would say for all forms of music it is better live!
Going to a pub and hearing a band, seeing a folk music band play at a dance. These are are all the experiences where the music goes hand in hand with the other experiences. Not only that, when you go to a live performance, you are really listening and experiencing the music. It is alive and changing as you listen to it!
i agree, but i really think recorded music is an art form on it's own. there is only so much you can do live, while a recording is like a painting. it's a canvas and the sky is the limit when it comes to what you can paint on it. they both have their places. but yes, there is a unique energy to a live performance!
Agreed, recording is an art form in it's own right. But I'm afraid that the public and to some extent musicians don't draw the distinction between the two. That is the problem that I find is frustrating. I wish there was a way to distinguish between recording as an art form and not have the public being duped into thinking it was the same thing.
good point. for a lot of people, it's too expensive to actually go out and see and artist, when you can just look them up on youtube. i think the public can draw the line between them though, i don't think live performances will die out
Great post. Another aspect for the classical musician that recording has taken away is the phenomenon of acoustics. Hearing an acoustic instrument or voice on a recording just does not do justice to the world of acoustic instruments and singing. There is really no way to capture the warmth and vibrancy of acoustic heard live - which really stinks for those of us who have worked so hard to hone that particular skill.
Yes, good point. Although most of the recordings that I have played for are in a 'natural' acoustic and not a studio, you still have the microphones much closer than an audience would be. This really has affected the way we use the instruments, pushing us generally to the softer attacks and woolier sounds.
Especially for opera, where the acoustics of the space have a huge effect on the voice. The Italians use the term "chiaroscuro" to describe it (the term is also used in visual art, but a totally different thing, obviously). In a large space, the audience can hear the vowels very clearly as if the singer is standing close to them, but the distance also gives a darkness to the sound that you just cannot get from up-close mics. It is very difficult to replicate this in a recording.
That's interesting to hear how it changes the way you play as a result. The microphones used also can color he sound differently, depending on what you get. Many of the commercially available mics will have a "bump" on the frequency response around the 2-3kHz range, which will make bad vocals sound very clear. But for an opera singer, who is trained to accentuate that frequency, it gives the voice a harsh edge that isn't really there. When I first discovered this problem, I adjusted my singing to make it softer, but of course, that's now how the voice is designed to be used all the time.
Still, I love the challenge and discovery of how I can achieve a better recording sound. I'm not anti-recording, but I am a bit of anti-perfectionism in the process. This is why I love Vladimir Horowitz: many of his recordings he did in one take and would leave mistakes in there. It was more authentic, and no one thinks he was a hack.
Yes, many of the old recordings are much more authentic. They also tell us much about the styles of expression that are frowned upon in the modern classical world. Heavy use of portamenti and liberal tempo rubato with left and right hands being expressively not together.
Interesting about the mic bump, I didn't know that!
Recordings are the death of music? I disagree, though I do get the point you are making, and I think it's a great post! The reason I disagree, is that I sometimes think about music in days gone by, and how many ordinary people would never have even had the chance to hear orchestral music – recording has allowed music to be widely distributed and heard.
Also there are great artists who have made recording a valid part of their art.
But having said that, I totally agree that recording in order to cover flaws in an artist's voice or performance often renders the production glib, artificial - even unlistenable! And a good live performance (sadly I've seen a few bad ones) can be incredibly powerful. I've been to live classical music performances that made people who thought they hated classical music start to love it.
And I agree that live music should be supported. But there are people who can't afford to see live performances, and for them, recorded music can bring joy.
I think that the idea that live performances can be good/bad, inspiring/boring and all manner of experiences is what makes it great! Part of it is the performer, part of the the surrounds, part of it is the approach of the listener. What one person finds insipid, another might rave about! The imperfections and subtleties of a evolving live performance mean that there are many ideas on how it is received!
Accessibility is a big issue though. Recordings have definitely been good for extending the reach of music. However, I would argue it is a weak shadow of what music really is. As long as the audience (and musicians) can draw that distinction, then I would be happy, unfortunately, I'm not sure that they can draw the distinction.
In the end, I would have to say that recording, like all tools, is a plus and a minus. I speak from a privileged position of being a musician, and being able to easily (relatively) access live performances from all over Europe.
I have to admit I'm not a musician, although my nephew is a very good one, so I get to see some of the recording processes, as well as his wonderful live performances.
And I do think there are some atrocious recordings about these days using all sorts of gimmicky techniques. That's probably why when I have the radio on (usually in my car) I mostly listen to classical music. And I love going to live classical music performances - when I can afford to!
Yes, that is a problem. The ticket prices of concerts has gotten really out of hand... Maybe it is time to start supporting local acts, where the overhead is not so high.
To tell the truth, I hate listening to music from recordings. If I do listen to things, it will be spoken podcasts.
Hey @bengy, I am a curator of the Whaleshares Curation Team. I have selected your post to be presented in a live curation discussion on Monday 19th March. Your post will be awarded a 100 Whaleshares vote on the night. I do hope you can come along and spectate. The event will be held in The Curation Lounge on the Whaleshares server.
Here are links that explain things:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@nikflossus/the-18th-whaleshares-curation-show-featuring-ameliabartlett
Wow, thank you! It is about 1 in the morning when the show starts, but I'll try to stay up for it! I'm excited and nervous, I've never had anyone talk about my writing before!
Haha, do not be nervous! It will be me talking not you. I should be nervous to do justice to your post! :)
P.S. It is 1AM for me, too at that time. You do not have to come if you can not. I know how sleepiness can take over :D
Thanks again, I really enjoyed the radio show!
Thank you for showing up! :)
great article! i think this applies mostly to instrumental music though. you know, it was the Beatles that popularised the recording of music that was impossible to recreate live. they treated recording as an art in itself. of course, that's a different genre all together. you are correct though, when it comes to classical music, it's really better live.
I would say for all forms of music it is better live!
Going to a pub and hearing a band, seeing a folk music band play at a dance. These are are all the experiences where the music goes hand in hand with the other experiences. Not only that, when you go to a live performance, you are really listening and experiencing the music. It is alive and changing as you listen to it!
i agree, but i really think recorded music is an art form on it's own. there is only so much you can do live, while a recording is like a painting. it's a canvas and the sky is the limit when it comes to what you can paint on it. they both have their places. but yes, there is a unique energy to a live performance!
Agreed, recording is an art form in it's own right. But I'm afraid that the public and to some extent musicians don't draw the distinction between the two. That is the problem that I find is frustrating. I wish there was a way to distinguish between recording as an art form and not have the public being duped into thinking it was the same thing.
good point. for a lot of people, it's too expensive to actually go out and see and artist, when you can just look them up on youtube. i think the public can draw the line between them though, i don't think live performances will die out
I agree that we are evolving the art form and that recordings make it more accessible. That is a good thing! I'm just not convinced it is "music"!
Hmm. Dealing with controversial topics today are we @bengy. 😉
Yes, the corrupting influence of orchestra leaders is up next! Are they worth the money that we pay them? Stay tuned!
Interesting insight. Upvoted :)
Thank you!
Wow. you really put in time for this post! Good job!
I hate studio gigs..
Thanks, I do seem to like writing. It almost beats playing music!
Yes, recordings are the worst, but on the other hand, got to find the best in everything!