Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How common are splices or edits in classical recordings?
1,478 views
Skip to first unread message
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 23, 2018, 9:27:17 PM3/23/18
to
Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
So, several questions:
1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
By
me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
Subject
By
me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
Subject
from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
So, several questions:
1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
By
me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
Subject
By
me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
Subject
from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
Ed Presson
Mar 23, 2018, 10:28:49 PM3/23/18
to
wrote in message
news:69494bb6-7431-401c...@googlegroups.com...
My understanding is that it is very common indeed. I read that Stokowski,
for one, preferred to record in 5 to 10 minutes "takes," saying that he
believed that kept the musicians from getting tired. He certainly didn't
seem to have any trouble putting together a performance that would fit
together. It was considered remarkable at the time that the Reiner
recording of the last movement of Scheherazade was recorded in one long
take. That suggested to me, at least, that most performances are spliced
together from many segments, usually with the conductor and producer
controlling the process.
Even so-called "live recordings" sometimes have mistakes in concert
"corrected" after the concert and spliced in.
wanwan
Mar 23, 2018, 10:33:11 PM3/23/18
to
Eric
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 2:14:59 AM3/24/18
to
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.music.classical.recordings/schwindel$20klemperer%7Csort:date/rec.music.classical.recordings/0vSbc2BMqVI/hfbIftwtnRIJ
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 2:40:31 AM3/24/18
to
- You may think the track was recorded by the artist singing the song through a few times and the producer choosing the best take to use on the record. But that's almost never the case.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/53dpdk/the-little-known-recording-trick-that-makes-singers-sound-perfect
Herman
Mar 24, 2018, 3:26:16 AM3/24/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 3:33:11 AM UTC+1, wanwan wrote:
> On the other hand something like Haitink's Der Abshied from Das Lied von Der Erde was recorded in almost one take.
>
> Eric
Where's this info coming from?
> On the other hand something like Haitink's Der Abshied from Das Lied von Der Erde was recorded in almost one take.
>
> Eric
wanwan
Mar 24, 2018, 4:48:28 AM3/24/18
to
Eric
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 10:12:21 AM3/24/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:28:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Presson wrote:
[snip]
I still wonder if this kind of practice tended to be done much more commonly on the major labels; I have trouble believing that the budget labels would be willing to incur the additional costs of extensive editing after the fact, but maybe that wasn't an issue, or maybe they pretty much had to, since everyone else was doing it.
In any event, I guess I've been disabused of my naivete. I definitely won't be so impressed by dazzling recorded performances from now on. I'll admit that it's rather disappointing if it really is standard operating procedure everywhere.
Thanks to all for the responses and the links.
[snip]
________________________________________________________________
>
> My understanding is that it is very common indeed. I read that Stokowski,
> for one, preferred to record in 5 to 10 minutes "takes," saying that he
> believed that kept the musicians from getting tired. He certainly didn't
> seem to have any trouble putting together a performance that would fit
> together. It was considered remarkable at the time that the Reiner
> recording of the last movement of Scheherazade was recorded in one long
> take. That suggested to me, at least, that most performances are spliced
> together from many segments, usually with the conductor and producer
> controlling the process.
>
> Even so-called "live recordings" sometimes have mistakes in concert
> "corrected" after the concert and spliced in.
Assembling a final recording out of sections 5 to 10 minutes long doesn't surprise me in the least, but doing so out of fragments that are just 5 to 10 *seconds* long does.
>
> My understanding is that it is very common indeed. I read that Stokowski,
> for one, preferred to record in 5 to 10 minutes "takes," saying that he
> believed that kept the musicians from getting tired. He certainly didn't
> seem to have any trouble putting together a performance that would fit
> together. It was considered remarkable at the time that the Reiner
> recording of the last movement of Scheherazade was recorded in one long
> take. That suggested to me, at least, that most performances are spliced
> together from many segments, usually with the conductor and producer
> controlling the process.
>
> Even so-called "live recordings" sometimes have mistakes in concert
> "corrected" after the concert and spliced in.
I still wonder if this kind of practice tended to be done much more commonly on the major labels; I have trouble believing that the budget labels would be willing to incur the additional costs of extensive editing after the fact, but maybe that wasn't an issue, or maybe they pretty much had to, since everyone else was doing it.
In any event, I guess I've been disabused of my naivete. I definitely won't be so impressed by dazzling recorded performances from now on. I'll admit that it's rather disappointing if it really is standard operating procedure everywhere.
Thanks to all for the responses and the links.
drh8h
Mar 24, 2018, 10:41:06 AM3/24/18
to
DH
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 11:05:09 AM3/24/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-4, wanwan wrote:
[snip]
> Many recordings have a lot of edits. Naxos would record a few bars at time till the producer was satisfied in the label's recording of Mahler 10 with Olson. Glenn Gould used edits to help piece together records. As long as there has been tape there's been editing. Even 78's and direct-to-discs are often pieced together from different takes. There's a well know recording of the Berg, Schonberg, & Webern by Dorati and the LSO on Mercury. They'd record 10 measures at a time till they got it right. Every recording uses some sort of editing or manipulation. The great Bud Herseth of the Chicago Symphony once said that all recordings are frauds. On the other hand something like Haitink's Der Abshied from Das Lied von Der Erde was recorded in almost one take.
>
> Eric
I was aware of Glenn Gould, but my understanding was that he was quite open and upfront with his audience about what he was doing; he thought of himself as making "idealized" versions that were obviously not realizable in a single performance. Or at least that was my impression.
Maybe jazz recordings are typically different: obviously, there isn't something specific that you're *supposed* to play, and improvisation and spontaneity are the whole point, so that's completely different. But it very often seems to be clear that jazz performances on albums are complete, entire takes, and that cuts released are very commonly the first or second takes recorded. It's usually pretty close to "live in the studio". Miles Davis was well known for recording album after album using only one take of each number, and they were released as is, warts and all; he thought second takes were almost never as interesting as the first, even if they were more "perfect". I remember reading that it was considered quite surprising and remarkable that Thelonious Monk's Brilliant Corners required 25 takes and that the final recording had to be stitched together from three different takes.
[snip]
> Many recordings have a lot of edits. Naxos would record a few bars at time till the producer was satisfied in the label's recording of Mahler 10 with Olson. Glenn Gould used edits to help piece together records. As long as there has been tape there's been editing. Even 78's and direct-to-discs are often pieced together from different takes. There's a well know recording of the Berg, Schonberg, & Webern by Dorati and the LSO on Mercury. They'd record 10 measures at a time till they got it right. Every recording uses some sort of editing or manipulation. The great Bud Herseth of the Chicago Symphony once said that all recordings are frauds. On the other hand something like Haitink's Der Abshied from Das Lied von Der Erde was recorded in almost one take.
>
> Eric
Maybe jazz recordings are typically different: obviously, there isn't something specific that you're *supposed* to play, and improvisation and spontaneity are the whole point, so that's completely different. But it very often seems to be clear that jazz performances on albums are complete, entire takes, and that cuts released are very commonly the first or second takes recorded. It's usually pretty close to "live in the studio". Miles Davis was well known for recording album after album using only one take of each number, and they were released as is, warts and all; he thought second takes were almost never as interesting as the first, even if they were more "perfect". I remember reading that it was considered quite surprising and remarkable that Thelonious Monk's Brilliant Corners required 25 takes and that the final recording had to be stitched together from three different takes.
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 11:10:55 AM3/24/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 10:41:06 AM UTC-4, drh8h wrote:
[snip]
> Which Stern Beethoven Concerto? He should have been in his prime when he recorded it with Bernstein. Now, the later Barenboim, who knows? As for Gould, I listened again recently to his early recording of the Beethoven's Op. 10 sonatas. I have a hard time believing he could have sustained those tempi for more than a couple of minutes before soaking his arms for twenty minutes again!
>
> DH
My distinct impression is that they were referring to the mid-60s recording with Bernstein/NY Phil on Columbia. As you say, he should have been in his prime; that is partly why I was so surprised me when it was suggested that it was very widely known by insiders that it required nearly 400 edits.
[snip]
> Which Stern Beethoven Concerto? He should have been in his prime when he recorded it with Bernstein. Now, the later Barenboim, who knows? As for Gould, I listened again recently to his early recording of the Beethoven's Op. 10 sonatas. I have a hard time believing he could have sustained those tempi for more than a couple of minutes before soaking his arms for twenty minutes again!
>
> DH
drh8h
Mar 24, 2018, 11:24:07 AM3/24/18
to
For some reason, the Bernstein Remastered box shows the recording not being issued until 1965. That cannot be right. Even the catalogue number and cover style are earlier. They made a similar cock-up with the Serkin/Ormandy Brahms First Concerto, showing it issued years after it was made. I know because I had that record once and the insert referred to Peter liking "77 Sunset Strip," an American TV show gone by the mid sixties...and starring Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.
DH
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 11:57:32 AM3/24/18
to
https://www.discogs.com/master/view/483632
drh8h
Mar 24, 2018, 12:20:22 PM3/24/18
to
Dennis
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 1:06:49 PM3/24/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:20:22 PM UTC-4, drh8h wrote:
[snip]
> Every big box I have encountered has at least one blatant error. Guess it's impossible to get it 100%. The Bernstein box shows a December 1959 recording date, so unless somebody has an old Schwann catalogue, we won't know when it came out. 1960 or 61, I guess. Doesn't matter, really. Point is, he should not have needed that kind of "help", even 15 years later. I have come to realize Stern pissed off a lot of people over the years. Sounds like a malicious rumor to me.
>
> Dennis
It's certainly possible that it's a rumor intended to sully his reputation as a musician. Of course, I've also read on a number of occasions that Stern himself did quite a bit to sully his reputation as a person.
However, nearly 400 edits seemed to me like a extraordinary number of edits for anyone; before reading any of this, if someone had told me that there were *40* splices, I would have thought that sounded like quite a lot. Apparently, that's not out of the realm of possibility at all.
[snip]
> Every big box I have encountered has at least one blatant error. Guess it's impossible to get it 100%. The Bernstein box shows a December 1959 recording date, so unless somebody has an old Schwann catalogue, we won't know when it came out. 1960 or 61, I guess. Doesn't matter, really. Point is, he should not have needed that kind of "help", even 15 years later. I have come to realize Stern pissed off a lot of people over the years. Sounds like a malicious rumor to me.
>
> Dennis
However, nearly 400 edits seemed to me like a extraordinary number of edits for anyone; before reading any of this, if someone had told me that there were *40* splices, I would have thought that sounded like quite a lot. Apparently, that's not out of the realm of possibility at all.
AB
Mar 24, 2018, 1:40:41 PM3/24/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-4, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
AB
AB
Mar 24, 2018, 1:47:04 PM3/24/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:05:09 AM UTC-4, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-4, wanwan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-4, wanwan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I was aware of Glenn Gould, but my understanding was that he was quite open and upfront with his audience about what he was doing; he thought of himself as making "idealized" versions that were obviously not realizable in a single performance. Or at least that was my impression.
Sony recently released a CD of the many, many takes that Gould made to piece together his first recording of the Goldberg.
It is amazing how finicky he was with each take of the variations......
AB
drh8h
Mar 24, 2018, 4:52:48 PM3/24/18
to
DH
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 5:22:55 PM3/24/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 4:52:48 PM UTC-4, drh8h wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
> The only people alive who probably know for sure are those who remastered it for the Bernstein box. Four-hundred sounds way out there, esp. as it is only shown as one day of recording. If they really needed 400 splices, I could believe it took five years to get it issued. Does anyone know how long the union allowed recording sessions to be back then? You would have to have boxes full of tapes just to have enough alternative material to splice that many times. Maybe the number got multiplied by 10 or more in all the retellings.
>
> DH
I guess you *could* just record, say, three complete takes of each movement and then spend countless hours obsessively cutting back and forth from one to the other. Two bars of take one; three bars of take two . . . But even if you assume that the number was seriously inflated, and that it was maybe only 150 cuts, that's still a hell of a lot -- three per minute on the average? It kind of boggles the mind that such production would have been thought to have been necessary. I have to believe you could make just about anyone sound good with that many cuts!
>
> DH
drh8h
Mar 24, 2018, 7:47:56 PM3/24/18
to
collector88
Mar 24, 2018, 9:18:23 PM3/24/18
to
I do all my recordings in one take per movement or piece, no exceptions.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC94gfo_fDGlKfy5y9sUXr0Q
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC94gfo_fDGlKfy5y9sUXr0Q
richard...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2018, 10:22:45 PM3/24/18
to
I have no particular regard for Stern, who seemed to play well beneath his reputed standards when I heard him in the late 1970s.
I do have some opinions on Annie Fischer, whose Hungaroton Beethoven cycle reputedly had many many retakes and edits as she wanted it to be perfect. It took many years too.
I heard her on the BBC before 1972, and have her EMI records from a similar vintage. To me they are among the most alive performances I've heard on record. The same cannot be said for the Hungaroton discs.
Stokowski's recordings all sound well to me, however short the takes may have been. His recorded rehearsals show him as having been very precise in his wishes, and having the means to make them clear to the players.
The 78s were of course recorded in short takes, except, I suppose, for the consecutive nights of the Philadelphia Gurre Lieder.
The bottom line is that perfectionism in the studio can weaken the results rather than improve them, while long takes allowing some imperfections can provide a much better musical result. Which road is taken must depend on the artists' capabilities and choices, as well as the resources available to the company concerned.
I do have some opinions on Annie Fischer, whose Hungaroton Beethoven cycle reputedly had many many retakes and edits as she wanted it to be perfect. It took many years too.
I heard her on the BBC before 1972, and have her EMI records from a similar vintage. To me they are among the most alive performances I've heard on record. The same cannot be said for the Hungaroton discs.
Stokowski's recordings all sound well to me, however short the takes may have been. His recorded rehearsals show him as having been very precise in his wishes, and having the means to make them clear to the players.
The 78s were of course recorded in short takes, except, I suppose, for the consecutive nights of the Philadelphia Gurre Lieder.
The bottom line is that perfectionism in the studio can weaken the results rather than improve them, while long takes allowing some imperfections can provide a much better musical result. Which road is taken must depend on the artists' capabilities and choices, as well as the resources available to the company concerned.
Mr. Mike
Mar 25, 2018, 12:21:14 AM3/25/18
to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:41:04 -0700 (PDT), drh8h <dr...@mac.com> wrote:
>As for Gould, I listened again recently to his early recording of the Beethoven's Op. 10 sonatas. I have a hard time believing he could have sustained those tempi for more than a couple of minutes before soaking his arms for twenty minutes again!
If you are listening to some Gould recordings on headphones, you will
>As for Gould, I listened again recently to his early recording of the Beethoven's Op. 10 sonatas. I have a hard time believing he could have sustained those tempi for more than a couple of minutes before soaking his arms for twenty minutes again!
notice that from time to time the pitch of the piano varies slightly,
obviously from editing...
Message has been deleted
drh8h
Mar 25, 2018, 1:53:00 PM3/25/18
to
Mr. Mike
Mar 25, 2018, 3:04:48 PM3/25/18
to
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Haydn House CD
<haydnh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Then there is that culo who yells out, "BRAVOHW!" before the music has a chance to "leave the hall."
I watched a few performances from Japan by Karajan and Bychkov with
their respective orchestras, there are morons in the audience who
engage in this kind of behavior with Godzilla-like screams.
<haydnh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Then there is that culo who yells out, "BRAVOHW!" before the music has a chance to "leave the hall."
I watched a few performances from Japan by Karajan and Bychkov with
their respective orchestras, there are morons in the audience who
engage in this kind of behavior with Godzilla-like screams.
AB
Mar 25, 2018, 3:49:33 PM3/25/18
to
Stern did not have a great reputation for practicing...
AB
AB
Mar 25, 2018, 3:52:08 PM3/25/18
to
AB
richard...@gmail.com
Mar 25, 2018, 7:32:31 PM3/25/18
to
There's no doubt that he knew what he wanted and knew how to get it, and for the most part the results were great. My real introduction to him was a BBC intermission feature on Beethoven's 7th with a view to his sketch and conversation books. Two particularly outrageous performances were singled out: Stokowski 1927 and Mengelberg. I sought them both out, and I was not disappointed.
Orchman
Mar 25, 2018, 9:40:58 PM3/25/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:28:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Presson wrote:
> My understanding is that it is very common indeed. I read that Stokowski,
> for one, preferred to record in 5 to 10 minutes "takes," saying that he
> believed that kept the musicians from getting tired.>>>
I think it was Ormandy who liked to do short 10' takes, then paste them altogether....a former PhilaOrch member told me that Ormandy was known for "10 minutes and stop, 10 minutes and stop". thensplice all the segments together. drove everyone nuts, but of course they liked the $$....don't know if Stoki used this method.
> My understanding is that it is very common indeed. I read that Stokowski,
> for one, preferred to record in 5 to 10 minutes "takes," saying that he
> believed that kept the musicians from getting tired.>>>
Toscanini and Reiner, otoh, liked to record whole sections, or even complete works at one shot - which resulted in a wonderful flow, and musical coherence to their famous recordings....with Reiner, the final mvt of Sheherazade is well-known, but I think he also recorded Respighi "Pines of the Appian Way" on one take, same with his fabulous "Don Juan" from 1960, a performance noted for its panache, dash and headlong energy...When he recorded in Vienna in 1956 - the VPO recorded "Till Eulenspiegel" on one take as well.
>>>> Even so-called "live recordings" sometimes have mistakes in concert
"corrected" after the concert and spliced in.>>>
Bozo
Mar 25, 2018, 9:45:22 PM3/25/18
to
Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
Orchman
Mar 25, 2018, 9:50:31 PM3/25/18
to
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 3:49:33 PM UTC-4, AB wrote:
> according to a professional bassoonist who played and recorded under him, he was a tremendous musician and conductor.>> AB
IIRC, Sol Schoenbach, former principal bassoonist with Phila Orch, recounted in an interview for IDRS [Int'l 2ble Reed Society] his ordeal when Stoki/Phila recorded the sound track for "Fantasia". He had to play the opening solo to "Rite of Spring" something like 37 times!! before Stoki and producers were satisfied with the take of the introduction....he said he never feared that solo again, after that ordeal...
Raymond Hall
Mar 26, 2018, 12:43:23 AM3/26/18
to
-Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
It is getting closer to that ideal. In the days of Stoki and before, there wasn't the technology (YouTube, video, DVDs, CDs, internet, bluetooth, etc.,) to deliver 'live', and there was no consumer expectation either. Studio recordings were the only way to deliver a 'set-in-stone' record of a musical work. The consumer did not however expect a flawed product, hence leading to the editing, retakes, etc.
In a post above it is said that Ormandy went for 10 minutes at a time. Easily the time of many a symphonic movement, so I don't consider this excessive. Ten minutes is a long long time musically.
Ray Hall, Taree
It is getting closer to that ideal. In the days of Stoki and before, there wasn't the technology (YouTube, video, DVDs, CDs, internet, bluetooth, etc.,) to deliver 'live', and there was no consumer expectation either. Studio recordings were the only way to deliver a 'set-in-stone' record of a musical work. The consumer did not however expect a flawed product, hence leading to the editing, retakes, etc.
In a post above it is said that Ormandy went for 10 minutes at a time. Easily the time of many a symphonic movement, so I don't consider this excessive. Ten minutes is a long long time musically.
Ray Hall, Taree
Alan Dawes
Mar 26, 2018, 5:26:19 AM3/26/18
to
In article <9b134996-b890-4cad...@googlegroups.com>,
Possibly the takes were recorded on different tape machines that were not
speed corrected the same or misshandling caused some tape slices to get
slightly stretched when splicing.
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an ARMX6
speed corrected the same or misshandling caused some tape slices to get
slightly stretched when splicing.
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an ARMX6
Gerard
Mar 26, 2018, 6:06:35 AM3/26/18
to
Op maandag 26 maart 2018 03:45:22 UTC+2 schreef Bozo:
> Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
So says the guy who is posting 20 hours daily in an newsgroup called "rec.music.classical.RECORDINGS".
johneb...@gmail.com
Mar 26, 2018, 8:26:24 AM3/26/18
to
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:43:23 AM UTC-4, Raymond Hall wrote:
[snip]
> In a post above it is said that Ormandy went for 10 minutes at a time. Easily the time of many a symphonic movement, so I don't consider this excessive. Ten minutes is a long long time musically.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree
As you say, that a recording might be assembled out of sections no longer than 10 minutes doesn't surprise me in the least; in fact, it would have surprised me if that *weren't* the case.
What did surprise me, and what prompted me to emerge from lurker mode long enough to actually start this thread was reading elsewhere that it was not at all uncommon for there to be recordings which averaged several edits per *minute*, and that this was quite well known to insiders. I guess that if a musician was going to release a recording that would then be "etched in stone", and others would be able to nit pick every second of it for years to come, they felt that it had to be "perfect".
I still find it really hard to believe that the budget labels would also be willing to incur the expenses associated with this kind of extensive editing, but maybe they felt pressure to turn out a "perfect" product just like the major labels.
[snip]
> In a post above it is said that Ormandy went for 10 minutes at a time. Easily the time of many a symphonic movement, so I don't consider this excessive. Ten minutes is a long long time musically.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree
What did surprise me, and what prompted me to emerge from lurker mode long enough to actually start this thread was reading elsewhere that it was not at all uncommon for there to be recordings which averaged several edits per *minute*, and that this was quite well known to insiders. I guess that if a musician was going to release a recording that would then be "etched in stone", and others would be able to nit pick every second of it for years to come, they felt that it had to be "perfect".
I still find it really hard to believe that the budget labels would also be willing to incur the expenses associated with this kind of extensive editing, but maybe they felt pressure to turn out a "perfect" product just like the major labels.
Bozo
Mar 26, 2018, 9:29:00 AM3/26/18
to
>On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:43:23 PM UTC-5, Raymond Hall wrote:
> -Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
> It is getting closer to that ideal. In the days of Stoki and before, there wasn't the technology (YouTube, >video, DVDs, CDs, internet, bluetooth, etc.,) to deliver 'live', and there was no consumer expectation either. >Studio recordings were the only way to deliver a 'set-in-stone' record of a musical work. The consumer did >not however expect a flawed product, hence leading to the editing, retakes, etc.
Good point.
> -Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
> It is getting closer to that ideal. In the days of Stoki and before, there wasn't the technology (YouTube, >video, DVDs, CDs, internet, bluetooth, etc.,) to deliver 'live', and there was no consumer expectation either. >Studio recordings were the only way to deliver a 'set-in-stone' record of a musical work. The consumer did >not however expect a flawed product, hence leading to the editing, retakes, etc.
Orchman
Mar 26, 2018, 9:56:06 AM3/26/18
to
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:43:23 AM UTC-4, Raymond Hall wrote:
> In a post above it is said that Ormandy went for 10 minutes at a time. Easily the time of many a symphonic movement, so I don't consider this excessive. Ten minutes is a long long time musically.>
> Ray Hall, Taree>>
Actually, I think I misquoted the Philadelphia musician - it should read:
> Ray Hall, Taree>>
"Ten MEASURES and stop, ten measures and stop"
Sorry for confusion - conversation occurred many moons ago...
Orchman
Mar 26, 2018, 10:04:42 AM3/26/18
to
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-4, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
<<I guess that if a musician was going to release a recording that would then be "etched in stone", and others would be able to nit pick every second of it for years to come, they felt that it had to be "perfect".
I still find it really hard to believe that the budget labels would also be willing to incur the expenses associated with this kind of extensive editing, but maybe they felt pressure to turn out a "perfect" product just like the major labels.>>
As noted above - I screwed up that Philadelphia musician quote - should be Ormandy = "ten Measures and stop" not minutes..sorry for confusion.
<<I guess that if a musician was going to release a recording that would then be "etched in stone", and others would be able to nit pick every second of it for years to come, they felt that it had to be "perfect".
I still find it really hard to believe that the budget labels would also be willing to incur the expenses associated with this kind of extensive editing, but maybe they felt pressure to turn out a "perfect" product just like the major labels.>>
you have to keep in mind that there is not any endless supply of time and $$ available for studio recording...present union rules, and recording expenses limit the amount of both available....the general rule for recording is - "get everything in the can" - get takes of everything you want to record....then go back, listen, find the problems ranked from worst to least serious....then go down the list, fixing the most serious flaws first until the time, and/or $$ runs out.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
mo...@cloud9.net
Mar 26, 2018, 10:50:50 AM3/26/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 9:27:17 PM UTC-4, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
mo...@cloud9.net
Mar 26, 2018, 11:01:14 AM3/26/18
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 10:22:45 PM UTC-4, richard...@gmail.com wrote:
I read some years ago about a recording session with Stoki and a young male pianist whose self-adulation far exceeded his talents. During a recording session, he made mistake after mistake, and the recording engineer said that he could fix them with edits. At playback of the master tape, the pianist strutted like a proud peacock, saying loudly that his playing was beautiful. Stoki then said to him,"Yes, and don't you wish that you could play like that."
Mort Linder
drh8h
Mar 26, 2018, 11:15:17 AM3/26/18
to
Bozo
Mar 26, 2018, 1:05:41 PM3/26/18
to
Per the Fritz Reiner biography by Phillip Hart, the 1958 recording of the Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto with Gilels took 6 1/2 hours of “ short takes “ , taxing Richard Mohr :
http://tinyurl.com/y8mg3rwb
http://tinyurl.com/y8mg3rwb
O
Mar 26, 2018, 1:13:01 PM3/26/18
to
In article <61fcf439-517a-497b...@googlegroups.com>,
Is he keeping you up late at night, Gerard? :-)
-Owen
"Can you hold it down over there, some of us are trying to SLEEP!"
- said Me one time whilst playing tennis
-Owen
"Can you hold it down over there, some of us are trying to SLEEP!"
- said Me one time whilst playing tennis
Théo Amon
Mar 26, 2018, 6:13:18 PM3/26/18
to
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 26, 2018, 8:50:07 PM3/26/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
According to the following:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
- Solo classical pieces are a different matter and may result in a series of splices in order to get a difficult performance to come out well.
https://books.google.com/books?id=PVgpwVCddzYC&pg=PT81&dq=%22solo+classical+pieces+are+a+different+matter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0jcWNpIvaAhVH7WMKHcuTB0gQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22solo%20classical%20pieces%20are%20a%20different%20matter%22&f=false
Mr. Mike
Mar 27, 2018, 12:32:41 AM3/27/18
to
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:52:06 -0700 (PDT), AB <abach...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>> If you are listening to some Gould recordings on headphones, you will
>> notice that from time to time the pitch of the piano varies slightly,
>> obviously from editing...
>
>hard to understand..... if the same piano and recording equipment is used, thee should be no difference.
The piano went slightly out of tune between takes.
wrote:
>> If you are listening to some Gould recordings on headphones, you will
>> notice that from time to time the pitch of the piano varies slightly,
>> obviously from editing...
>
>hard to understand..... if the same piano and recording equipment is used, thee should be no difference.
Raymond Hall
Mar 27, 2018, 1:53:50 AM3/27/18
to
-The piano went slightly out of tune between takes.
Highly likely, and also Gould was never soft on the keys.
Ray Hall, Taree
Highly likely, and also Gould was never soft on the keys.
Ray Hall, Taree
chriskh...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2018, 2:16:41 AM3/27/18
to
> I read some years ago about a recording session with Stoki and a young male pianist whose self-adulation far exceeded his talents. During a recording session, he made mistake after mistake, and the recording engineer said that he could fix them with edits. At playback of the master tape, the pianist strutted like a proud peacock, saying loudly that his playing was beautiful. Stoki then said to him,"Yes, and don't you wish that you could play like that."
>
> Mort Linder
drh8h
Mar 27, 2018, 9:03:10 AM3/27/18
to
Gerard
Mar 27, 2018, 12:26:03 PM3/27/18
to
Op maandag 26 maart 2018 19:13:01 UTC+2 schreef O:
It is sooo interesting, and unmissable of course. ;-)
> In article <61fcf439-517a-497b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Gerard <cbc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Op maandag 26 maart 2018 03:45:22 UTC+2 schreef Bozo:
> > > Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
> >
> > So says the guy who is posting 20 hours daily in an newsgroup called
> > "rec.music.classical.RECORDINGS".
>
>
> Is he keeping you up late at night, Gerard? :-)
>
> -Owen
Indeed. Day and night I'm eagerly waiting for his endless stream of new expert comments on his "first hearings" of works unknown to him.
> Gerard <cbc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Op maandag 26 maart 2018 03:45:22 UTC+2 schreef Bozo:
> > > Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
> >
> > So says the guy who is posting 20 hours daily in an newsgroup called
> > "rec.music.classical.RECORDINGS".
>
>
> Is he keeping you up late at night, Gerard? :-)
>
> -Owen
It is sooo interesting, and unmissable of course. ;-)
AB
Mar 27, 2018, 1:37:20 PM3/27/18
to
AB
O
Mar 27, 2018, 1:50:12 PM3/27/18
to
In article <66ef6d71-2dc4-47ce...@googlegroups.com>, AB
I think it might be better characterized as "he sometimes embraced
unevenly voiced and poorly regulated instruments." He was rather fond
of at least one Steinway whose cantankerous sound matched his own
psyche. Not to mention the sticking of needles and paperclips into
other pianos, if you want to lump this into "poorly regulated."
-Owen
unevenly voiced and poorly regulated instruments." He was rather fond
of at least one Steinway whose cantankerous sound matched his own
psyche. Not to mention the sticking of needles and paperclips into
other pianos, if you want to lump this into "poorly regulated."
-Owen
gggg...@gmail.com
May 9, 2018, 2:53:46 AM5/9/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
I could be wrong but I have a vague recollection of reading that when Steber and Vinay did their recording of OTELLO excerpts, she said that they did one of the longer excerpts in one take to capture the increasing drama of the music.
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
gggg...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2018, 11:55:33 PM12/17/18
to
- What made Gould different was that he not only admitted to the use of splices, he championed the idea.
https://books.google.com/books?id=CCLyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&dq=%22what+made+gould+different%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMg8SWy6jfAhXDHzQIHTl-DuEQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22what%20made%20gould%20different%22&f=false
linde...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2018, 10:51:44 AM12/18/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 9:27:17 PM UTC-4, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
Boulez famously remarked that listening to recorded music is like making love to a poster photo of Brigitte Bardot.
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
Mort Linder
gggg...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2018, 10:57:56 PM12/18/18
to
- ...Bayreuth performances of Parsifal and Die Götterdämmerung were phony, because music from different performances had been pieced together.
https://books.google.com/books?id=amBq33zhL3MC&pg=PA156&dq=%22Bayreuth+performances+of+Parsifal+and+Die%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT8dKagKvfAhUYITQIHfbfCOMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Bayreuth%20performances%20of%20Parsifal%20and%20Die%22&f=false
gggg...@gmail.com
Jan 25, 2019, 12:28:08 AM1/25/19
to
Piatigorsky
https://books.google.com/books?id=EYdtlP6hvPoC&pg=PA26&dq=%22I+don%27t+like+splices,+I+don%27t+like+any+falsehood,%27+Piatigorsky+said%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjds9yOmYjgAhXzIDQIHaByBf8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22I%20don't%20like%20splices%2C%20I%20don't%20like%20any%20falsehood%2C'%20Piatigorsky%20said%22&f=false
drh8h
Jan 25, 2019, 8:47:43 AM1/25/19
to
DH
gggg...@gmail.com
Jan 26, 2019, 1:05:21 AM1/26/19
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
According to this recent book:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
- ...A classical CD can contain 1000–1500 edits – one for every 2 seconds of music.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3nVnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA245&dq=a+classical+cd+can+contain+1000-1500+edits+-+onefor+every+2+seconds+of+music&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivjYyQ44rgAhUgHjQIHV7yCaoQ6AEILjAA#v=onepage&q=a%20classical%20cd%20can%20contain%201000-1500%20edits%20-%20onefor%20every%202%20seconds%20of%20music&f=false
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
mswd...@gmail.com
Jan 28, 2019, 6:34:32 PM1/28/19
to
On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-6, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> - ...A classical CD can contain 1000–1500 edits – one for every 2 seconds of music.
"can". Sure.
> - ...A classical CD can contain 1000–1500 edits – one for every 2 seconds of music.
Jansons Rach Symphonic Dances with St. Petersburg has an edit two seconds in. Low-end noise present from the opening just... stops.
Randy Lane
Jan 28, 2019, 9:43:14 PM1/28/19
to
Poor solicing or edits plague one of my very favorite recordings:
The Philips Colin Davis recording of Berlioz' La Damnation de Faust.
I still hold out hopes UMG will do a wholesale remaster of the entire Brrlioz collection, better include 192k/24 bit versions on BluRay, and fix the Faust mess.
The Philips Colin Davis recording of Berlioz' La Damnation de Faust.
I still hold out hopes UMG will do a wholesale remaster of the entire Brrlioz collection, better include 192k/24 bit versions on BluRay, and fix the Faust mess.
drh8h
Jan 29, 2019, 8:50:15 AM1/29/19
to
We are going to get the Haitink Mahler (and Bruckner) analogs soon. I suppose the Solti analog Mahlers won't be far behind. They have all been issued in JP at 24/192 mixed down to CD. The Schmidt-Isserstedt LvB and Kubelik Dvorak symphonies have also been issued in high resolution, albeit SACD, in JP. Wonder if we can expect BluRays? The BluRay issues almost always duplicate previous box or multi-cd sets, like "Collectors" or "Originals."
DH
nmsz...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2019, 11:25:13 AM1/29/19
to
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:43:14 PM UTC-5, Randy Lane wrote:
Mark Zimmer
Jan 31, 2019, 11:25:14 AM1/31/19
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 8:27:17 PM UTC-5, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
I remember that whichever version of the Solti Ring was my imprint version had a terrible edit right at the beginning as the Rhinemaidens start singing; the first bit of their first note was cut off. Thankfully, that was cured on the recent blu-ray (and possibly an earlier version--I try not to repurchase that too often). It still feels a little jarring to hear it done properly. Damn you, imprint version!
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
Mark Zimmer
Jan 31, 2019, 11:26:28 AM1/31/19
to
Gerald Martin
Feb 5, 2019, 2:31:53 PM2/5/19
to
When direct-to-disc recordings were briefly popular in the late 1970s, several classical releases were lauded for their sparkling sound but downgraded slightly for overly cautious performances. Crystal Clear's Capriccio Espagnol/Italien L.P. conducted by Fiedler has noticeably "careful" performances by the Boston Pops.
Laurentiu Cristofor
Apr 3, 2019, 1:52:28 PM4/3/19
to
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:51:44 AM UTC-8, linde...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Boulez famously remarked that listening to recorded music is like making love to a poster photo of Brigitte Bardot.
>
> Mort Linder
But it's not the same thing.
>
> Boulez famously remarked that listening to recorded music is like making love to a poster photo of Brigitte Bardot.
>
> Mort Linder
Listening to a live concert vs recorded music is more like admiring BB on the big screen vs on a poster. The making love analogy might work if he was trying to talk about the difference between making music and listening to it.
linde...@gmail.com
Apr 3, 2019, 4:58:20 PM4/3/19
to
gggg...@gmail.com
May 5, 2019, 6:28:29 PM5/5/19
to
https://books.google.com/books?id=YvPwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA187&dq=%22when+she+was+fifty-five,+she+was+recording+isolde%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1tpTbt4XiAhWLvJ4KHWDqA40Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22when%20she%20was%20fifty-five%2C%20she%20was%20recording%20isolde%22&f=false
gggg...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2019, 2:36:28 AM7/21/19
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IWBSEY8rNmoC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22such+interventions+are+commonplace+in+the+modern+studio%22&source=bl&ots=HjFKqrEAFu&sig=ACfU3U0SDpSSC0NGYYMmuTDJJJR7SjIPJg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBj5u-ssXjAhXM854KHSSFBUkQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22such%20interventions%20are%20commonplace%20in%20the%20modern%20studio%22&f=false
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
Message has been deleted
John Fowler
Jul 22, 2019, 8:53:05 AM7/22/19
to
Earliest Example of Tape Editing:
The book that comes with the Berlin Philharmonic's 22 SACD edition of Furtwangler's wartime taped broadcast recordings, 1942-45 has some revealing details.
The concerts were not broadcast live, but tapes were edited into one hour segments for broadcast Sunday night at 6PM.
Every concert was taped, even the repeat performances, so there were at least three master tapes to choose from for each work.
A multi-movement work could be assembled with movements from different performances joined together.
There are also signs of more intrusive tape editing:
Quote (page 60):
"The introduction of recording on tape at the beginning of 1942 also allowed correction cuts to be made for the first time, an opportunity that clearly was seized. For example, the recording of Richard Strauss's Symphonia Domestica (Jan 9-12, 1944) contains at least five tape splices".
This is a four movement composition - five splices means that six tape segments were spliced together.
I was surprised to discover that none of the master tapes survive - they were stored in a "salt dome" that was destroyed by fire.
The one hour edited "broadcast tapes" (second generation) are the earliest surviving tapes. Also surviving are third generation copies of the broadcast tapes that were shipped to local German radio stations, and third & fourth generation tape copies made by the Soviets
https://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtwangler-Radio-Recordings-1939-1945/dp/B07NHRJ3PM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
The book that comes with the Berlin Philharmonic's 22 SACD edition of Furtwangler's wartime taped broadcast recordings, 1942-45 has some revealing details.
The concerts were not broadcast live, but tapes were edited into one hour segments for broadcast Sunday night at 6PM.
Every concert was taped, even the repeat performances, so there were at least three master tapes to choose from for each work.
A multi-movement work could be assembled with movements from different performances joined together.
There are also signs of more intrusive tape editing:
Quote (page 60):
"The introduction of recording on tape at the beginning of 1942 also allowed correction cuts to be made for the first time, an opportunity that clearly was seized. For example, the recording of Richard Strauss's Symphonia Domestica (Jan 9-12, 1944) contains at least five tape splices".
This is a four movement composition - five splices means that six tape segments were spliced together.
I was surprised to discover that none of the master tapes survive - they were stored in a "salt dome" that was destroyed by fire.
The one hour edited "broadcast tapes" (second generation) are the earliest surviving tapes. Also surviving are third generation copies of the broadcast tapes that were shipped to local German radio stations, and third & fourth generation tape copies made by the Soviets
https://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtwangler-Radio-Recordings-1939-1945/dp/B07NHRJ3PM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
gggg...@gmail.com
Sep 7, 2020, 5:29:14 PM9/7/20
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 6:27:17 PM UTC-7, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
Concerning splices in pop music:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
- In the 1960s, Orbison refused to splice edits of songs together and insisted on recording them in single takes with all the instruments and singers together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison#Songwriting
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
gggg...@gmail.com
Sep 8, 2020, 5:41:43 PM9/8/20
to
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=qvlXX7iXNM_9kwW62o6oBA&q=%22clinically+sterile+and+artificial%22+%22moments+which+only+happen+in+concerts%2C+if+you+are+lucky.%22&oq=%22clinically+sterile+and+artificial%22+%22moments+which+only+happen+in+concerts%2C+if+you+are+lucky.%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...23474.24895.0.28096.8.7.0.0.0.0.237.463.2-2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.s6mldUjPSEE
gggg gggg
Jul 1, 2021, 7:37:54 PM7/1/21
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 6:27:17 PM UTC-7, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.classical.recordings/c/AzcSH5yKCds
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
gggg gggg
Jan 18, 2022, 2:36:34 AM1/18/22
to
Do You Know How Much Classical Music Is Edited?
Is There Editing in Classical Music Recordings?
Chris from Lafayette
Jan 18, 2022, 4:10:21 PM1/18/22
to
On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 11:36:34 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
Yes, edits are VERY common. As for a "credible source" addressing this question, I doubt that one would find it. Most of my information comes from direct experience and conversations with artists, producers and engineers. Heck, even kids making recordings to get into colleges and conservatories have edits done on their behalf. And the engineers sometimes help them to weasel around the requirements for a "single shot, single camera angle" video of the performances - if you only have to edit a few notes, you can change the "soundtrack" without any change being visually apparent in the video. Those rotten little cheaters! ;-)
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
> >
> > One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
> > So, several questions:
> >
> > 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
> > 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
> > 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
> > 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
No doubt depends on the individual artist.
> Do You Know How Much Classical Music Is Edited?
> Is There Editing in Classical Music Recordings?
gggg gggg
Jan 19, 2022, 2:57:36 AM1/19/22
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.classical.recordings/c/RRhkXAxEDJY/m/BHt8KVTtBQAJ
gggg gggg
Jan 19, 2022, 3:35:36 AM1/19/22
to
gggg gggg
Aug 22, 2022, 10:44:23 PM8/22/22
to
gggg gggg
Aug 22, 2022, 10:45:14 PM8/22/22
to
gggg gggg
Nov 4, 2022, 3:03:40 AM11/4/22
to
Dan Koren
Nov 5, 2022, 1:00:22 AM11/5/22
to
On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:03:40 AM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
>
> Isn't it true that when Nilsson and Corelli
> recorded their TURANDOT, they were never
> in the recording studio at the same time?
The floor could not support both! ;-)
>
> Isn't it true that when Nilsson and Corelli
> recorded their TURANDOT, they were never
> in the recording studio at the same time?
dk
0 new messages