Recording standards and realism vs perfectionism

[piano6888]

This is a slightly separate topic from what I've posted just a moment ago in regards to note accuracy. I've decided to start a slightly different topic because while it is similar to it, I want to focus on a different aspect for discussion.  

So without further ado, I am talking about audio recordings, CD's, and as a recording artist.  I have this belief that music should be of high standard, but also it should represent a realistic performance, what one would sound like live.  A recording should be as close to what a person sounds like live and while I know that there are many tools to make a recording completely flawless, it is just not an accurate representation of what the person is capable of performing.  If I was doing a recording, I would strive to play as well as I can, to simulate what I would sound in real life without all the extra fluff.  Now I am not saying that I don't want to play well (of course I DO), but I would want it to be an accurate yet solid representation of what I would sound like live and I believe recordings should do this instead of perpetuating something that is unreal.  

In the modern day at least the last 20-30 years or so, many recordings have become too perfect for our ears and we often have an unrealistic expectation/standard for what a performance should be like.

In other words, if one wanted to hear note perfect performances, why not just plug the music into a MIDI music playing software (like Synthesia, Sibelius, Finale, MuseScore, etc.) and just run it? (Sarcasm) Of course, it wouldn't sound real at all, and while the performance might be technically perfect, it is bland (lack of articulation, phrasing, emotion, musicality, it's just so ROBOTIC and mechanical.)

Don't get me wrong, while I like to hear really good recordings, I have a small problem with everything being too perfected for taste.  This is because it sets an unrealistic standard and expectation for the performance as well as the being too mechanical rather than human.  I would prefer to hear something of very high quality and realistic.  

For anyone that is interested and just for reference, here is the topic pertaining to note accuracy.
www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=60524

[deandeblock]

I don't see a problem here.


When you have the ability to record, you do it the best you can. If that means multiple takes and cutting, etc. than so be it. Recordings aren't meant for other pianists to set an expectation. It is a presentation of music.


If performing live, you do it the best you can too.

[iansinclair]

Well said. piano6888.  Which is why, in my not so humble opinion, the very very best recordings are the ones made decades ago under the Mercury Living Presence label and the London FFRR and later FFSS labels.  All three of these were made similarly: there were one or two microphones carefully placed in the hall, and the performance was recorded straight through, as in a live performance.  The earliest Living Presence recordings were made direct to master disc, with a recording lathe.  The later ones and the London ones were recorded in tape using Ampex 1 inch decks running at either 15 or 30 inches per second (single or in the late stereo ones, two tracks).

The results were, and are, stunning.  Some of these recordings are available on excellent digital transfers, but if you have the equipment to play them and access to an undamaged vinyl copy...  (for the really golden eared, the vinyls are not, strictly, RIAA compensated, but that compensation is close enough for most of us!)

[piano6888]

Dean,

I think you misunderstood me, I did say that one should do their best in both performance and recordings, but it should be realistic too.  For example if someone cannot play a difficult piece (way beyond their technical ability or ability in general) then they should not fake it in the recording.  

An example would be one can't play rach 3, then they should not try to make a perfect recording of that as that would not reflect what they are.  I am not stopping them from doing so, but I believe that it would not be an accurate show of the person's true playing ability.  

@Ian
Well said, and I wished that more recordings today follow those recordings from the 1950's and 1960's or earlier because it is more realistic and does not make performances become rat races for fame and wealth, but for enjoyment.

Also, since I don't have access to a really good hall, I may record in segments in a recording studio, BUT I often play it as I would have played it LIVE (as close as I can) so that way it would sound very similar to what I would sound like in real life.  This is also why when there are some mistakes (musical and maybe a note slip or two), it adds to the realism, which is the expected result.  

[quantum]

IMO, part of the problem is lacking a proper definition behind the artistic intent.  Don't get me wrong, I do much prefer a realistic sounding recording, but that is not the only way to perceive things. 

Take the following scenario: a visual artist, such as a painter, decides to go through a particular process in creating a given work.  Plans, sketches, drafts.  Maybe even a few iterations of the final product.  This may take weeks or months.  But that painter only shows the final product to the public after a good amount of time.  Is this process less desirable than immediately dipping into the paint and having a go at the canvas upon onset of the idea.  Maybe ... maybe not.

One does not have to listen to recordings as live performances expecting a parallel level of realism.  Of course some would argue it a matter of taste, but nevertheless, they occur in a different context.  I think there is a certain degree of craft needed to produce an edited recording with that connective humanistic element we yearn for. 

[iansinclair]

....  I think there is a certain degree of craft needed to produce an edited recording with that connective humanistic element we yearn for. 

That has got to be the understatement of the year.  The recording engineers and producers are about the least appreciated members of the chain between the artist recording and the listener's ear -- and one of the most important!

[deandeblock]

An example would be one can't play rach 3, then they should not try to make a perfect recording of that as that would not reflect what they are.  I am not stopping them from doing so, but I believe that it would not be an accurate show of the person's true playing ability.  
  

Do you have an example of a Rach 3 perfect recording of someone who can't play it?

[piano6888]

No, but that was just an example that I pulled up, of course it could be any piece, it doesn't have to be a difficult piece or music.  My point is that it makes no sense and would be an disservice to the audience to present them something that doesn't reflect what the performer is capable of, thus the audience would expect that live performances be just as good otherwise it is a bad performance (which is why I have a problem with the unrealistic, absurd expectations).  Also, I'm speaking on a more broad level, which includes mainstream pop music as well.  I do not like that they are too perfect for the audience (I like listening to high quality audio as well, but of course I'd rather a genuine performance that accurately shows what the performer is capable of rather than some fake performance of look how perfect this piece is.). 

[lostinidlewonder]

Personally I notice a bland emotionless robot playing much much much more than a string of wrong notes played well.

[piano6888]

^Well said, and in fact, it was one of the first few things that my piano conservatory teacher mentioned to me in my first few lessons when I was there (many years ago).

[ted]

I have never fiddled any recordings I have posted here aside from minor balancing of channels. In fact, it was only recently that I found how very easy it is to undetectably manipulate recordings, even just using Audacity. I was recording a long improvisation, and had reached a very interesting bit when the phone rang. I was annoyed at myself for not switching the phone off, but as it was the climax of an hour of playing I desperately did not want to lose my thread. So I imprinted my position mentally, dealt with the phone, then continued playing from where I left off. Later on, in Audacity, I removed the gap between very similar sounds at points of zero amplitude. Any discontinuity was completely undetectable, even down to the quite complex rhythm going on.

I imagine most classical music would be a hell of a lot simpler to fiddle in this way than what I was playing, so no wonder many commercial recordings are tampered with. I have no particular view on the rights, wrongs and aesthetics of it, but the ease of doing it surprised me.  

[piano6888]

That's an interesting observation ted. I've used audacity before, but in terms of recording high quality audio, I pretty much just leave it to my sound engineer, that way I am able to just focus on producing the music I want, while all the technical details would be handled by him instead. Another advantage to that is the results I get are almost always really good, professional quality sound.

I suppose one could DIY (do it yourself) on both fronts, but it is a lot more work and does limit both the editing and the artistic aspect of music. Yes, there are people that can make it work, although it is much more work and much harder.