Capturing the moment
Andrew Clark of the Financial Times of London had an interesting piece in the Friday, February 25, edition, titled Capturing the moment about current practices in creating so-called "live" recordings. Excerpts from his article appear below. Read the entire piece by clicking on the link above.
Excerpts:
Capturing the moment
By Andrew Clark
Financial Times, February 25 2005
Next month sees the release of one of the most eagerly awaited classical recordings of modern times. Simon Rattle’s interpretation of Mahler’s “Symphony of a Thousand” rounds off his EMI cycle of all nine Mahler symphonies, an achievement matched only by a handful of conductors. The recording was made at two public concerts and a fully attended dress rehearsal last June in Birmingham’s Symphony Hall. The CD will be marketed as “live”. What no one will mention is that two long patching sessions, under studio conditions, were needed to complete it.
Patching has become standard practice with so-called “live” recordings. Judicious editing enables the recording producer to cover technical slips, audience coughs and other noises that might irritate the listener and detract from the music on repeated hearing. Consumers are promised a listening experience that replicates that of the concert hall. The reality is a collection of edited highlights from different performances and back-up sessions, with all the flaws airbrushed out.
Does this matter? It depends how far you believe a recording should mirror the experience of live performance, complete with its faults, and whether you regard recording as an art form in itself, with its own rules. Most CD collectors recognise that any recording is to a greater or lesser degree a “lie” - no one listening to their CD player or iPod wants repeatedly to hear the technical flaws and audience coughs that invariably creep into public performances. What counts is the inner vitality of the music-making and its consistent impact. It doesn’t really matter how much the master tape is edited or doctored, or whether it was made “live” or in the studio, as long as the finished result mirrors the artistic viewpoint of the performers.
But the proliferation of live recordings and the sales talk around them often suggests that they are somehow artistically superior to performances taped under clinical studio conditions. “It’s that thing of capturing the excitement of the moment,” says Clive Gillinson, managing director of the London Symphony Orchestra, whose pioneering label, LSO Live, has issued 31 CDs in five years. “Perfection may be wonderful,” Gillinson adds, “but it’s not an artistic experience. Music is about performance, about the emotion of the moment, and it’s that excitement we want to grab.”
Consumers seem to agree. Thanks to sparkling performances of Berlioz’s Les Troyens, Dvorak’s Sixth Symphony and others, LSO Live has notched up sales of 750,000 CDs, making it the envy of more established labels. But the implication that “live” automatically brings artistic gains is not borne out by LSO Live’s less attractive recordings. Other labels have experienced similarly mixed results with live recordings.
Consider David Zinman’s Beethoven on Arte Nova, or Charles Mackerras’s Janacek on Decca, or the hundreds of other great recordings of the past 50 years, all made in the studio: they do not lack electricity, spontaneity or musical integrity. And as an audio experience they offer more than any live recording can.
The force driving the “live” phenomenon is not artistic gain but economics. Musicians who 10 or 20 years ago took recording work for granted are finally coming to terms with the fact that unless they go down the “live” route, their market penetration will be minimal. Production costs for a live recording of a standard symphony can be as low as £15,000, compared to £45,000 for a studio version. For an opera recording such as EMI’s Tristan und Isolde with Placido Domingo, due out in July, the bill runs to something like £250,000. On that basis, studio-based opera recordings don’t make sense any more - and it comes as no surprise to learn that Tristan will be EMI’s last. The future for opera is DVD.
Big labels are under pressure to produce quick returns on new investment, because they already have huge back catalogues of perfectly acceptable recordings. The “live” option suits them. They don’t have to spend time or money gathering and preparing a dream team of artists, as they did in the medium’s heyday. They simply turn up to record the best live acts.
Within the music industry, opinion is sharply divided on the merits of the live format. “On a wonderful night, when it all clicks perfectly, yes, you cannot capture that in a studio, but this sort of event is very rare,” says Klaus Heymann, founder and owner of budget label Naxos. “In a studio you can risk more, because you know you have the chance to do it again. It’s the artists themselves who increasingly insist on manicured perfection.”
That is certainly true of soloists. One well-known pianist approved the stitching together of an entire sequence, one note at a time, so that his Mozartian runs could have a pearl-like evenness on the recording - an effect he could never produce live. Singers and instrumentalists are all too aware that when they get their one chance to immortalise their interpretation, it will be compared with classic versions from the past. If they begin to feel tired, the studio environment enables them to take a break and come back with their energy, commitment and motivation refreshed, something that is not possible with an audience present.
The studio is the only realistic option for recording contemporary music, which requires pinpoint balance and precision, and for period orchestras, whose intonation problems are part of live performance but would be unacceptable on a recording. The studio is also the preferred format for a surprising number of conductors - Riccardo Chailly and Paavo Jarvi among them. “I do like to listen to a recording where everything is clear, worked out and in tune, especially when it has my name on it,” says Jarvi, who is recording the Beethoven symphonies with the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie for the Pentatone label. “When you do it live, you’re putting yourself in a very vulnerable position.”...
Excerpts:
Capturing the moment
By Andrew Clark
Financial Times, February 25 2005
Next month sees the release of one of the most eagerly awaited classical recordings of modern times. Simon Rattle’s interpretation of Mahler’s “Symphony of a Thousand” rounds off his EMI cycle of all nine Mahler symphonies, an achievement matched only by a handful of conductors. The recording was made at two public concerts and a fully attended dress rehearsal last June in Birmingham’s Symphony Hall. The CD will be marketed as “live”. What no one will mention is that two long patching sessions, under studio conditions, were needed to complete it.
Patching has become standard practice with so-called “live” recordings. Judicious editing enables the recording producer to cover technical slips, audience coughs and other noises that might irritate the listener and detract from the music on repeated hearing. Consumers are promised a listening experience that replicates that of the concert hall. The reality is a collection of edited highlights from different performances and back-up sessions, with all the flaws airbrushed out.
Does this matter? It depends how far you believe a recording should mirror the experience of live performance, complete with its faults, and whether you regard recording as an art form in itself, with its own rules. Most CD collectors recognise that any recording is to a greater or lesser degree a “lie” - no one listening to their CD player or iPod wants repeatedly to hear the technical flaws and audience coughs that invariably creep into public performances. What counts is the inner vitality of the music-making and its consistent impact. It doesn’t really matter how much the master tape is edited or doctored, or whether it was made “live” or in the studio, as long as the finished result mirrors the artistic viewpoint of the performers.
But the proliferation of live recordings and the sales talk around them often suggests that they are somehow artistically superior to performances taped under clinical studio conditions. “It’s that thing of capturing the excitement of the moment,” says Clive Gillinson, managing director of the London Symphony Orchestra, whose pioneering label, LSO Live, has issued 31 CDs in five years. “Perfection may be wonderful,” Gillinson adds, “but it’s not an artistic experience. Music is about performance, about the emotion of the moment, and it’s that excitement we want to grab.”
Consumers seem to agree. Thanks to sparkling performances of Berlioz’s Les Troyens, Dvorak’s Sixth Symphony and others, LSO Live has notched up sales of 750,000 CDs, making it the envy of more established labels. But the implication that “live” automatically brings artistic gains is not borne out by LSO Live’s less attractive recordings. Other labels have experienced similarly mixed results with live recordings.
Consider David Zinman’s Beethoven on Arte Nova, or Charles Mackerras’s Janacek on Decca, or the hundreds of other great recordings of the past 50 years, all made in the studio: they do not lack electricity, spontaneity or musical integrity. And as an audio experience they offer more than any live recording can.
The force driving the “live” phenomenon is not artistic gain but economics. Musicians who 10 or 20 years ago took recording work for granted are finally coming to terms with the fact that unless they go down the “live” route, their market penetration will be minimal. Production costs for a live recording of a standard symphony can be as low as £15,000, compared to £45,000 for a studio version. For an opera recording such as EMI’s Tristan und Isolde with Placido Domingo, due out in July, the bill runs to something like £250,000. On that basis, studio-based opera recordings don’t make sense any more - and it comes as no surprise to learn that Tristan will be EMI’s last. The future for opera is DVD.
Big labels are under pressure to produce quick returns on new investment, because they already have huge back catalogues of perfectly acceptable recordings. The “live” option suits them. They don’t have to spend time or money gathering and preparing a dream team of artists, as they did in the medium’s heyday. They simply turn up to record the best live acts.
Within the music industry, opinion is sharply divided on the merits of the live format. “On a wonderful night, when it all clicks perfectly, yes, you cannot capture that in a studio, but this sort of event is very rare,” says Klaus Heymann, founder and owner of budget label Naxos. “In a studio you can risk more, because you know you have the chance to do it again. It’s the artists themselves who increasingly insist on manicured perfection.”
That is certainly true of soloists. One well-known pianist approved the stitching together of an entire sequence, one note at a time, so that his Mozartian runs could have a pearl-like evenness on the recording - an effect he could never produce live. Singers and instrumentalists are all too aware that when they get their one chance to immortalise their interpretation, it will be compared with classic versions from the past. If they begin to feel tired, the studio environment enables them to take a break and come back with their energy, commitment and motivation refreshed, something that is not possible with an audience present.
The studio is the only realistic option for recording contemporary music, which requires pinpoint balance and precision, and for period orchestras, whose intonation problems are part of live performance but would be unacceptable on a recording. The studio is also the preferred format for a surprising number of conductors - Riccardo Chailly and Paavo Jarvi among them. “I do like to listen to a recording where everything is clear, worked out and in tune, especially when it has my name on it,” says Jarvi, who is recording the Beethoven symphonies with the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie for the Pentatone label. “When you do it live, you’re putting yourself in a very vulnerable position.”...
Comments