I feel that recording is a fascinating subject perhaps deserving a less off-putting topic header than I HATE RECORDING!!!
Maybe we could start a new thread. Anyway, this is a reply, so I guess etiquette dictates I post it here.
I think there are several ways to look at recording. The first is that it’s simply a way to expand the audience for a performance. Compare how many people have heard Horowitz on record with the number who saw him perform live? Some would say it’s a poor substitute, but the recording is certainly better than nothing.
Or we can see it as a way of capturing a composition better than any other medium to date. Almost the entire history of jazz would be impossible to imagine without recording. When people say that jazz performance is ‘composition in real time’ they’re saying it’s an ephemeral experience. Recording is the only way to capture that never-to-be-repeated version of a piece.
Recording technology also changed the course of jazz music itself. If aspiring players were only able to hear their heroes live in a small club – with no chance to listen again and again to their recordings – the music would have developed in different ways (and certainly not at the same pace).
In classical music, it’s arguable how much of a composition the score can capture. But we can generally understand Beethoven’s intentions for a sonata from the sheet music. What we can’t do is hear the infinite number of interpretations of that music by other artists; or by the composer himself. How tragic, then, that Beethoven and Mozart couldn’t hang around long enough for technology to record their improvisations (which, according to contemporary reports, were incredible).
Now, Anda, I know you’re talking about ‘live recordings’ of classical music. But the reason I rambled on above is to expand the discussion and allow for some context of recording as a whole. Because, basically, you’re really just stating a preference.
No doubt you’ve read much of what Glenn Gould said about recording and how concert pianists are essentially circus performers (OK, I’m paraphrasing a little. I think he said performing monkeys!). The performance is as much about the risk involved – see the tightrope walker perform without a net! – as the interpretation of the music.
Surely, he argued, the true artist wants his interpretation to match his intention. And that it’s therefore worth using editing techniques to achieve that vision. I see parallels in the other arts.
Editing in literature
Jack Kerouac believed he could only be true to his muse by typing as fast as he could on an endless ream of paper: A stream of consciousness which was very impressive in its way. But it was pretty unorthodox and it didn’t catch on. Name me another writer who doesn’t believe in editing his work.
Theatre vs. film
This is perhaps closest to the point you raised originally. On the theatre stage, an actor has an audience. He also has a text (his ‘score’), from which he’s not really allowed to deviate. The actor creates an interpretation, honed by the director. And yet, each performance is slightly different. The best theatre is truly an electric, moving, and real experience. But it’s funny how artificial it looks when you film a stage performance. The magic is lost. Could one maybe say the same thing about live recordings of concert recitals?
In his recordings, Glenn Gould seemed to take the approach of a film director. The director has a vision for taking the script (the ’score’) and making a work of art from it. If the actor fluffs his lines, he reshoots the scene. Or even just that line. He can edit scenes together which were shot months apart. An actress may be speaking her lines to a camera crew and a stand-in, without the actor opposite who’s also in the scene. It’s an illusion which we all buy into. Can we not give a musical performance the same credit as a work of art?
I find both approaches to music recording – the ‘theatre’ and ‘film’ metaphor – interesting and valid. You just have to recognize that they are different concepts which can yield different results. Sure, it’s exhilarating to hear virtually flawless live recordings. Any aspiring pianist hearing Barenboim’s Brahms concertos is going to be awestruck by the sheer physical performance. We are amazed by the player’s ability.
But if we really believe in the ‘concert artist’ (and not just ‘concert performer’), then there’s surely something to be gained from hearing their interpretation as perfect as they could muster, even if it was spliced to death. The result may just be a recording which represents the artist’s ideal commentary on that work…at least for that period in his or her life.
And, as Xvimbi said, there’d be a lot less music on record out there if recordings were restricted to live versions.
So maybe the question is rather whether people prefer to hear the ideal artistic interpretation, or the performance itself. I'm also interested to hear more opinions about recording as an art in itself.
Best,
Goose
Topic: I HATE RECORDING!!!!