My hubby put on a CD concerto by a famous violinist he likes, to which I listened but then later, I muttered -Yikes, this doesn't have a soul! It's clinical... He asked - What exactly do you mean? Err... I couldn't answer or explain why! It's just clinical, lacks character, I tried but failed to explain. Later on, he told me that it was recorded when the person was very young and added - So, what do you expect?! He puts it down to the lack of experience in playing such a (major) concerto. Not sure I agree with that ... Maybe, it's a lack of experience of life itself which renders that person sounding for example, a bit too happy/calm where it's supposed to be pain/chaos, etc.

On the other hand, this is all very puzzling. Why? Because IF the player (even a young one) had:
1. followed the composer's instructions to the tee,
2. know something about his life and
3. have researched in depth on the background of the composition itself,
then one would expect the "character" that he (the composer) intended for the piece to have surfaced! Not a mere set of pretty-sounding notes (albeit technically, a very demanding piece to play)?

Anyway, has anyone ever felt this way abt a CD rendition? Why?

Would like to know your thoughts... especially since I'm not a musical person. Sharing your thoughts and musical knowledge here may shed some light on what is purely one's instinct?

Thanks!

Following the composer's intentions to the T is much more difficult than it sounds. Even when it is possible, as might seem to be the case with a recent work, well annotated with copious instructions, it may not be the best thing to do.

To start off with the most basic question: before about 1850, composers didn't even have a consistent notation for the pitches and durations of the notes. As an example, in Beethoven's time, there was a convention that trills (most trills anyway) were followed by a nachslag, an extra little wiggle. E.g. if he wrote a semibreve D with a trill sign over it, followed by a crotchet C, what he expected to hear was either:

DEDE DEDE DEDE DEDCD C
SSSS SSSS SSSS ZZZSS C

or

EDED EDED EDED EDCD C
SSSS SSSS SSSS SSSS C

where S is a semiquaver, Z a triplet semiquaver and C a crotchet.

Even after a great deal of research, performers disagree on how to perform trills in music written between 1700 and 1810. Up to about 1790, composers expected a soloist to add all sorts of embellishments in appropriate places in their part.

The next question is one of tempi. In a concert hall or a church, performers choose an overall speed for a movement that takes account of the acoustic, even if the composer has given a metronome mark. On a CD, this may not matter so much if the recording is in a studio, but becomes more complicated than a live preformance if it is in a space with a noticeable acoustic, since the conductor needs to know how much the engineer can compensate for it. Also, in the major works of the Romantic period, there is often a tradition of speed variations additional to those indicated by the composer, and these can occur over a range of time scales. E.g. how much longer should this note be because Elgar writes "tenuto" over it; or where should you start speeding up towards the end of the first movement of Brahms Symphony No 4, and how much faster should you get (no help at all from Brahms here).

Example 3: balance. If a 19th C composer wrote very detailed dynamics in each part, taking into account the natural dynamic levels of the instruments for which he wrote (which few, if any, of them did) the conductor of a modern symphony orchestra would still have to ask for changes, since the relativities of modern instruments are very different. Also, one has to allow for the fact that this is an area where many composers just get their markings wrong. On Sunday week, I shall be playing in the Poulenc Sextet for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn and piano. It has become clear during our rehearsals that many of the written dynamics don't work with our present day instruments (which are not very different from his): if you play what is written, interesting tunes are inaudible because of loud long notes.

Written music is an indication, in a language that has been changing steadily (with a few rapid leaps) for 1000 years, of what a composer wanted his audience to hear. Making that happen is a sophisticated art, dependent upon a great deal of knowledge, instinct and good taste, and performers differ in their views.

Yes, i have a lot of such experiences. It all depends on individual taste and the style of playing which one prefers. Two world class soloist, both equally recognised as being one of the best may have very different interpretation of the same piece of music such that one is so well-liked and the other is so abhored.

I'm sure most people would know the two legendary violinist David Oistrakh and Jascha Heifetz. Although both are well recognized legendary violinists, only Oistrakh's appeals to me in terms of both technicality and musicality, whereas Heifetz strikes me as a harsh violinist who is mostly only good technically. I happened to have compared both these violinists' interpretation of Tchaikovsky's violin concerto. I far prefer Oistrakh's interpretation compared to Heifetz as i find Heifetz playing rather queer and non-mainstream. These are just my own personal opinion. Hope i didn't offend any Heifetz's fans.

This wasn't the Hahn/Elgar was it? That was slated by some critics as technically perfect but musically empty.

Hehe Didn't rely on critics, Storini. But no, it's not Hahn's Elgar. If we did read the critics and believe them, then, Maxim's new work on Beethoven would not be good enough as according to Gramaphone, it's too slow. Haven't heard Maxim in full yet.

It's good to comprehend how difficult it is to grasp the composer's intent although I've read that Stravinsky is an opposite case!

... and yes, what gieg said makes sense in that I recall listening to G. Nev's Brahms violin concerto and absolutely loved it! The intensity, drama and contrasts, etc, were all there but later when I heard Heifetz's version, I thought - Hmm, that's very different, .. not sure I like that? This was despite his great fame... Maybe taste has something to do with it.

You need also take account of recording and its processes. Without going into a hi-fi debate (a thorny subject if ever), this is music never intended to be played through loudspeakers. It is not possible to capture the acoustic or atmosphere of a live concert - or even a studio performance. People pay £100,000 for their hi-fi and still don't find it.

The recording industry has come a long way re acoustic performances, but it isn't there yet. It has passed through many phases of which CD/PCM is only a part.
We know that CD isn't perfect - we aren't sure what to do about it. (And it's curious to realise that some of the finest, most natural recordings were made in stereo between 1955-1962 in America. Some are now reissued on super-audio format because they're so good).

With recorded/broadcast sound there are many links between the performer and your perceptions, each with its impact. The engineers and editors (oh yes, these recordings get edited and processed don't forget) have problems akin to those of composers' notation/ performer interpretations, as kenm says.

Having said that, many recordings do capture an atmosphere (perhaps not always the right one but it's there!), and some destroy the atmosphere. Certain early Deutsch Grammophon digitals were appalling, as were the EMI analogue recordings of the 1960s, worse, the Columbia multi-miked efforts of the late 60s/70s.

So I think it's perfectly possible for a recording to fail the performers.

But ultimately it's perceptions that count and your hubby may have found the Grail in recordings that you don't. We all have our preferences!
cheers

I heard Hilary Hahn play Elgar live a while back, and I was trying to work out what it was with it (I loved her Stravinsky, but couldn't get on with the Elgar). I think I finally decided it was just too "Barber" and not enough "Elgar" if you see what I mean.

I'm with you on Heifetz. Technically he's the business but there are very few of his recordings that move me emotionally (and this might just be a personal thing, so soz if I upset any JH fans out there).

Maxim's Beethoven? I think we have an Olive/ Marmite situation here (you either love it or you hate it). Most critics seem to hate the slow tempo. Maybe it was just too outside the normal parameters for them to cope. Ahhhh but if they'd only *listen* to the music ......

I'm looking fwd to hear Maxim. Think it is a bit ridiculous to judge someone seemingly on tempo alone. Have you read the article, Jane? After all, there is so much expression in all the other acoustic features of a piece of music. What abt dynamics, articulation, intonation, timbre, attack, vibrato, etc.

I'm sure sometimes it also has to with being used to the recording you know, so it's harder to get into a new one that does different things.

I'm with Jane on Maxim's Beethoven... I didn't care for it, or so I thought, having heard just one recording, but when I listened to Maxim's it actually kept me awake because it was so beautiful I was just spellbound! I don't know the piece that well but I love his rendition, it's been played so much since I bought it. So although I've seen it slated I love it!

Yes...I think this is very true. There was a time when I would not buy a different version of something because I "already have the xyz concerto", but the more I listen to music (and Radio 3 is great for this) the more I can appreciate different interpretations. Some I like, some I don't, and I must admit I still get picky about "how I like my Bach"!

But just because I personally don't like a particular interpretation doesn't make it bad or not valid. I can still appreciate that an individual has something different to say about the music and know there is value in it. Doesn't mean I have to like it, but I can still appreciate the performance.

In any case a CD is just a snapshot in time, and its the live performance that really does it for me. I will be seeing Maxim play the Beethoven later this month and I bet it is quite different from the CD

- Jane

It isn't even that, Jane - it's largely a wicked business where they do take after take and the best bits are knitted together, out of tune notes are tweaked back into tune, bumps and scratches are deleted, weak bits swopped with good bits, etc etc etc etc ad nauseum until every musician listening thinks that unless they can play as flawlessly as that, they can't cut the mustard.

As a result, technical perfection becomes the primary goal rather than genuine musical integrity with occasional bumps, scratches, out of tune notes, weak bits etc etc.

I know which I'd rather listen to - who cares about the odd bump and scratch if the overall spirit is there?

Violin-playing has suffered horribly since the arrival of the gramophone record and now the CD. Technical perfection is seen as the gold standard and anything less frankly just doesn't get anywhere near making it any more. Heifetz was also partly to blame for this although I disagree that his music lacks passion. He did set an unbelievably high technical standard, though.

But anyway, please don't anyone be fooled by technically perfect playing on a CD. Chances are that hours have been spent knocking the thing into shape using every bit of studio wizardry available. I think it's wrong, and wicked, and does music and musicians a terrible disservice. The first poster in this thread instinctively sensed it, and they were right.

Violinia

Footnote: re Heifetz, I've just bought a Heifetz DVD and was also left with an odd feeling. He was an odd man for sure, and it makes me wonder about his lack of communication with the audience, and his lack of wider humanitarian work - think Menuhin, Barenboim, Vengerov etc etc - being a musician of the highest calibre often has such an effect on the soul that the musician wants to leave an even larger legacy to the world in terms of humanitarian work.

Heifetz wasn't like this - he was a real loner and nobody seemed to really know him. Perhaps his music-making was too connected to a fanatical desire for individual achievement? I don't want to knock him either, but he's certainly a bit of a mystery and not like many other world class musicians in so many ways.

Hehe, not a million miles from what we do with Audacity

Maybe the performer in question doesn't have the "X-factor"

Seriously though, there is a weird theory which I like and it goes something like this:
Although the range of human hearing is 20Hz - 20 kHz, there is something in the music which cannot be detected by the ear, or consciouslly, but exists, and that's what makes music exciting. Some might call it a vibe.