Thread: lso live

Posts: 45
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5

Post by tream January 15, 2007 (41 of 45)
bissie said:

To LSO Live,

I am sorry, if you took it as an argument against you specifically. It was not my intention.
I am really interested in this question, live vs. studio. We also have some live recordings, albeit very few, and I, for one, am becoming increasingly frustrated with repeated hearings of "public participation" and playing imperfections. Hence my open question. This question was triggered when I see that live performances of very complicated, modern works that I happen to have a relation to, having painstakingly "produced past" the difficulties, are going to be released, since I don't really believe that the possible (but not certain) advantage in the "nerve" of a public performance can offset the imperfections that no orchestra in the world can get past in works such as these.

To repeat - I am not arguing against LSO, which is as good a company as any, per se, just the principle in repertoire like this.

Best - Robert

I actually see 3 types of recordings:

Studio (and maybe that breaks down between recording long chunks at a time, quasi-live, and recording bar by bar)

Recordings made in live conditions, from a series of concerts, with editing, and no applause - like the MTT SFS Mahler series. It is extremely hard to tell, if not impossible to tell, that these were made under live conditions.

Recordings that are clearly documents of live events - mistakes, audience noise, and applause.

For me the latter are to be avoided if at all possible, as I find it extremely distracting. Most of the LSO Live are of the second variety, not true of the Falstaff. What I've heard from Philadelphia and the LPO are of the third variety.

Post by stvnharr January 16, 2007 (42 of 45)
tream said:

I actually see 3 types of recordings:

Studio (and maybe that breaks down between recording long chunks at a time, quasi-live, and recording bar by bar)

Recordings made in live conditions, from a series of concerts, with editing, and no applause - like the MTT SFS Mahler series. It is extremely hard to tell, if not impossible to tell, that these were made under live conditions.

Recordings that are clearly documents of live events - mistakes, audience noise, and applause.

For me the latter are to be avoided if at all possible, as I find it extremely distracting. Most of the LSO Live are of the second variety, not true of the Falstaff. What I've heard from Philadelphia and the LPO are of the third variety.

This music was composed to be played and performed in front of an audience, not in the silence of a recording studio. I, for one, like documents of live events, mistakes and all. Some editing is fine for sure, but the live event nature is what I prefer.
Perhaps if I was able to attend concerts on a regular basis I might think otherwise.

Post by Windsurfer January 16, 2007 (43 of 45)
stvnharr said:

This music was composed to be played and performed in front of an audience, not in the silence of a recording studio. I, for one, like documents of live events, mistakes and all. Some editing is fine for sure, but the live event nature is what I prefer.
Perhaps if I was able to attend concerts on a regular basis I might think otherwise.

I get to a nice number of live live concerts each season, but I am inclined to at least partially agree with you:

PN said the best scheme is:

Recordings made in live conditions, from a series of concerts, with editing, and no applause - like the MTT SFS Mahler series. It is extremely hard to tell, if not impossible to tell, that these were made under live conditions.

I tend to agree with that one primarily because it can replicate what the concert goer hears in that hall. The better the hall, the better the experience. But a hall that is really good when an audience is present is likely to be a little too live for recording in the absence of an audience. It may be too "echoey". So I really like it when great orchestra is recorded in a great hall with an audience. My five channel system lets me more easily imagine that I am really there!

Another thing, It is more likely to be a really great recording if done in DSD on a Meitner/Sonoma system.

Post by Polly Nomial January 16, 2007 (44 of 45)
PN said the best scheme is:

Recordings made in live conditions, from a series of concerts, with editing, and no applause - like the MTT SFS Mahler series. It is extremely hard to tell, if not impossible to tell, that these were made under live conditions.

Er, no I didn't! It was tream; I would agree that it can be very difficult to tell, especially if the audience behaves itself very well.

I wouldn't go wholeheartedly along with the "no applause" argument though. There are pieces and performances that, especially when one knows that it *was* a concert performance, make me feel robbed of not hearing an appropriate response for such thrilling accounts.

Sonic disaster though it is, the BPO/Abbado Mahler 3 that I was lucky enough to be present in the RFH for, wouldn't have the same "feel" to it if DGG had excised the applause that rightly greeted this extraordinary performance. DGG, for once, did something fairly clever in that they put the applause on a separate track allowing us the choice of whether to listen or not (as they also did for Mahler: Symphony No. 6 - Abbado) - surely a way that both camps could be accommodated?

PN

Post by Windsurfer January 16, 2007 (45 of 45)
Polly Nomial said:

Er, no I didn't! It was tream; I would agree that it can be very difficult to tell, especially if the audience behaves itself very well.


PN

Oops,

Sorry Tream, sorry PN

Bruce

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5

Closed