Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:24 pm
I get all that - thing is, these over-edited recordings sound exactly like the risk-free performances that you mention next. I blemish or two in a recording is far more preferable to me - I don't mind hearing it over again if the performance has passion and integrity.
Doesn't cover my experience. It sounds logical on paper (e-paper
) but in practice it's quite different. I haven't been recording tons of classical music, but as far as my experience goes, with the confidence that mistakes can be kind of repaired the player take more risks and so the recording is more alive as compared to an over-studied and over-controlled performance.
Unless we are talking about giants like Horowitz or Oistrakh who recorded in times when there basically was no repair, and who were able to deliver highest performance without mistakes or could adjust themselves in mistakes so gracefully that one even wouldn't consider them as mistakes, I think the possibility of edits helps the artists to loosen up. Though surely too many of them loosen up too much and come quite unprepared to recording sessions with the idea to fix problems with edits. This happens too.
Sometimes I also think the pressures on musicians have become so large, it's difficult to stay fully focused...
But yes, the actual sound of the recording is of course always an issue in itself. Digital recording tend to be more revealing and less forgiving, which sometimes is identified (partly misidentified IMHO) as lack of warmth. But with the right choice of microphones and if people know what to do with them, one can obtain very beautiful recordings. I'm not at all nostalgic about the past of the recording technique.
Music is a big continent with different landscapes and corners. Some of them I do visit frequently, some from time to time and some I know from hearsay only ...
My Youtube Channel is: TheMusicalEvents