Discussion:
How common are splices or edits in classical recordings?
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 01:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 (***@gmail.com change)
Subject


By
me (***@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
2018-03-24 02:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
wrote in message news:69494bb6-7431-401c-8c5f-***@googlegroups.com...

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 (***@gmail.com change)
Subject


By
me (***@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.

________________________________________________________________

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.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 14:12:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:28:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Presson wrote:

[snip]
________________________________________________________________
Post by Ed Presson
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.

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.
Orchman
2018-03-26 01:40:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Presson
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.
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.
Post by Ed Presson
Post by Ed Presson
Even so-called "live recordings" sometimes have mistakes in concert
"corrected" after the concert and spliced in.>>>

Yes, live performances may be a composite of the concert series - one performance probably selected as the basic entity, but with sections, or small corrections spliced in from alternative performances..
Bozo
2018-03-26 01:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why bother with recordings at all ; just go with live ?
Raymond Hall
2018-03-26 04:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
-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
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-26 12:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:43:23 AM UTC-4, Raymond Hall wrote:

[snip]
Post by Raymond Hall
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.
Orchman
2018-03-26 14:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-4, ***@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.

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.
Bozo
2018-03-26 13:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Raymond Hall
-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.
Orchman
2018-03-26 13:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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:
"Ten MEASURES and stop, ten measures and stop"

Sorry for confusion - conversation occurred many moons ago...
Gerard
2018-03-26 10:06:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 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".
O
2018-03-26 17:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by 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

"Can you hold it down over there, some of us are trying to SLEEP!"
- said Me one time whilst playing tennis
Gerard
2018-03-27 16:26:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by O
Post by Gerard
Post by 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.
It is sooo interesting, and unmissable of course. ;-)
wanwan
2018-03-24 02:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
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
g***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 06:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
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...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.music.classical.recordings/schwindel$20klemperer%7Csort:date/rec.music.classical.recordings/0vSbc2BMqVI/hfbIftwtnRIJ
g***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 06:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
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...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.music.classical.recordings/schwindel$20klemperer%7Csort:date/rec.music.classical.recordings/0vSbc2BMqVI/hfbIftwtnRIJ
Doesn't the following also occur when it comes to classical music recordings?:

- 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
2018-03-24 07:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wanwan
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?
wanwan
2018-03-24 08:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by wanwan
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?
Read it in a review around the time it came out.

Eric
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 15:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 10:33:11 PM UTC-4, wanwan wrote:

[snip]
Post by wanwan
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.
AB
2018-03-24 17:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[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
2018-03-24 14:41:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
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
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 15:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 10:41:06 AM UTC-4, drh8h wrote:

[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
drh8h
2018-03-24 15:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
I think it was 1959! Hard to believe unless they were going for some elusive "perfect" performance.

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
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 15:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by drh8h
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
I think it was 1959! Hard to believe unless they were going for some elusive "perfect" performance.
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
You appear to be correct! The Discogs page below seems to say that the first release of the mono (ML 5415) and stereo (MS 6093) recordings of the same performance were released in 1959. The stereo LP I have has no date on the cover, and the CD of the stereo version gives a 1965 copyright date, which is odd. Hence my confusion -- 1959 is correct.

https://www.discogs.com/master/view/483632
drh8h
2018-03-24 16:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by drh8h
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
I think it was 1959! Hard to believe unless they were going for some elusive "perfect" performance.
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
You appear to be correct! The Discogs page below seems to say that the first release of the mono (ML 5415) and stereo (MS 6093) recordings of the same performance were released in 1959. The stereo LP I have has no date on the cover, and the CD of the stereo version gives a 1965 copyright date, which is odd. Hence my confusion -- 1959 is correct.
https://www.discogs.com/master/view/483632
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
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 17:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:20:22 PM UTC-4, drh8h wrote:

[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
drh8h
2018-03-24 20:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
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
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 21:22:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 4:52:48 PM UTC-4, drh8h wrote:

[snip]
Post by drh8h
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!
drh8h
2018-03-24 23:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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!
Isn't there a union rule now you can only use 15 minutes of material from each session? In the case of the particular recording, I find it hard to believe Bernstein and the NYP would have gone completely through the concerto three times in one day with Stern. I rather thought Columbia liked to keep paid time to a minimum--which makes their indulgence of Gould all the more surprising, but then they put up with that horrible chair he used, too.
collector88
2018-03-25 01:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I do all my recordings in one take per movement or piece, no exceptions.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC94gfo_fDGlKfy5y9sUXr0Q
AB
2018-03-24 17:40:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
I heard the above story years ago... a friend, a member of the NY Phil violin section, while not present during this recording told me that this was told to him by members of the orchestra. My friend (and I) greatly admire Stern's musicality but he had technical limitations to be sure.

AB
r***@gmail.com
2018-03-25 02:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
AB
2018-03-25 19:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
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.
according to a professional bassoonist who played and recorded under him, he was a tremendous musician and conductor.

Stern did not have a great reputation for practicing...

AB
r***@gmail.com
2018-03-25 23:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AB
Post by r***@gmail.com
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.
according to a professional bassoonist who played and recorded under him, he was a tremendous musician and conductor.
Stern did not have a great reputation for practicing...
AB
I have seen some videos of Stokowski rehearsing orchestras. You can see some on youtube, but there is one on a DVD of him conducting Nielsen with a Danish orchestra. No nonsense, no 'blah-blah', but player x at no. y, a little more . . .
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
2018-03-26 01:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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...
m***@cloud9.net
2018-03-26 15:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
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.
Hi,

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
2018-03-26 15:15:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@cloud9.net
Post by r***@gmail.com
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.
Hi,
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
Gould? Piano concertos were not a favorite of LS. That Emperor is about the only major one he recorded in the tape era. Or was it something never released?
Bozo
2018-03-26 17:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
c***@gmail.com
2018-03-27 06:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@cloud9.net
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
I read this story some years ago too, but the conductor was named as Rodzinski and the pianist as Badura-Skoda. I've never actually come across a recording in which B-S was accompanied by Rodzinski, though.
drh8h
2018-03-27 13:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@cloud9.net
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
I read this story some years ago too, but the conductor was named as Rodzinski and the pianist as Badura-Skoda. I've never actually come across a recording in which B-S was accompanied by Rodzinski, though.
They recorded the Chopin concertos. Available on CD.
drh8h
2018-03-25 17:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AB
Post by j***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by drh8h
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.
I heard the above story years ago... a friend, a member of the NY Phil violin section, while not present during this recording told me that this was told to him by members of the orchestra. My friend (and I) greatly admire Stern's musicality but he had technical limitations to be sure.
AB
Ever notice how grumpy Fred Plaut looks in the session photos waiting for them to make up their minds which take to use? Now we know why.
Mr. Mike
2018-03-25 04:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by drh8h
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
notice that from time to time the pitch of the piano varies slightly,
obviously from editing...
AB
2018-03-25 19:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mr. Mike
Post by drh8h
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
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.

AB
Alan Dawes
2018-03-26 09:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AB
Post by Mr. Mike
Post by drh8h
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
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.
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
--
***@argonet.co.uk
***@riscos.org
Using an ARMX6
Mr. Mike
2018-03-27 04:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AB
Post by Mr. Mike
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.
Raymond Hall
2018-03-27 05:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
-The piano went slightly out of tune between takes.

Highly likely, and also Gould was never soft on the keys.

Ray Hall, Taree
AB
2018-03-27 17:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mr. Mike
Post by AB
Post by Mr. Mike
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.
Gould never allowed any note to be out of tune on a STUDIO recording.....at least i never heard even one. But he sometimes ignored unevenly voiced and poorly regulated instruments.

AB
O
2018-03-27 17:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AB
Post by Mr. Mike
Post by AB
Post by Mr. Mike
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.
Gould never allowed any note to be out of tune on a STUDIO recording.....at
least i never heard even one. But he sometimes ignored unevenly voiced and
poorly regulated instruments.
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
Haydn House CD
2018-03-25 09:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
Imagine, as recording engineer, having to remove the loud audience coughing at a NYPO concert being recorded at Lincoln Center. Convinced here that more than half of the coughing during the music is done on purpose. Then there is that culo who yells out, "BRAVOHW!" before the music has a chance to "leave the hall." Then in Paris years back at the Salle Pleyel when some yelled out Bravo to soon at the ending of a work. Overheard was this comment nearby, "C'est un maudit Américain, sans doute."
Mr. Mike
2018-03-25 19:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Haydn House CD
Post by Haydn House CD
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.
Haydn House CD
2018-03-26 14:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
How common? very common, unlike common sense.
Haydn House CD
2018-03-26 14:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
How common? Very common unlike common sense
m***@cloud9.net
2018-03-26 14:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
Théo Amon
2018-03-26 22:13:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
Julian Bream's all VIlla-Lobos album with the 12 Études has some vicious oversplicing (hear Étude no. 2 to know what I'm talking about, the man simply couldn't handle the tempo he had set himself)
g***@gmail.com
2018-03-27 00:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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:

- 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
g***@gmail.com
2018-05-09 06:53:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
g***@gmail.com
2019-01-25 05:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
- I don't like splices, I don't like any falsehood...

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
g***@gmail.com
2018-12-18 04:55:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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:

- 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
l***@gmail.com
2018-12-18 15:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.

Mort Linder
Laurentiu Cristofor
2019-04-03 17:52:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
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.

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.
g***@gmail.com
2018-12-19 03:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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:

- ...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
drh8h
2019-01-25 13:47:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
- ...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
Yes, but those were historical performances, misrepresented as taking place in a particular time and place in the 30s, with certain performers. If I remember, among other things, someone was trying to pass off Leider's Gotterdämmerung finale records as a live performance, with some other performance spliced on at the end to give us Hagen jumping into the water. What Hamilton was talking about was something quite different to splicing and approving a performance for issue. I am sure to some extent, Boulez's Bayreuth recordings are assembled from various performances. We almost accept that as the price to pay for "perfection" and not having to listen to a blatant error time and again. We laugh at the early recorded artists and companies that let records go out in the marketplace with huge mistakes, often by some of the greatest performers, e.g. Caruso.

DH
g***@gmail.com
2019-01-26 06:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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:

- ...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
drh8h
2019-01-26 15:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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
I would hope this is the exception. I imagine there are perfectly capable artists who completely lose their sang froid whenever the studio light comes on, think of the travails of Huberman (esp. when he recorded with Szell!), who might need a lot of help, but such a level of intervention does seem like it would create something totally dead. Culshaw talked about this trying to assemble a Wotan performance from Hotter out of the crumbling remains of his voice. When they had put together the fragments of the best singing, the music had lost all tension and flow, and vice versa. And they were in the cut-and-tape era.

DH

DH
drh8h
2019-01-26 15:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by drh8h
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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
I would hope this is the exception. I imagine there are perfectly capable artists who completely lose their sang froid whenever the studio light comes on, think of the travails of Huberman (esp. when he recorded with Szell!), who might need a lot of help, but such a level of intervention does seem like it would create something totally dead. Culshaw talked about this trying to assemble a Wotan performance from Hotter out of the crumbling remains of his voice. When they had put together the fragments of the best singing, the music had lost all tension and flow, and vice versa. And they were in the cut-and-tape era.
DH
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-28 23:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
- ...A classical CD can contain 1000–1500 edits – one for every 2 seconds of music.
"can". Sure.

Jansons Rach Symphonic Dances with St. Petersburg has an edit two seconds in. Low-end noise present from the opening just... stops.
Randy Lane
2019-01-29 02:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
drh8h
2019-01-29 13:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Randy Lane
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.
If anything, I find those BluRay remasters make splices even more evident. Some examples include the Solti Tristan, the Richter Bach Cantatas and the Kubelik Mahler recordings.

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
n***@gmail.com
2019-01-29 16:25:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Randy Lane
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.
Do splicing/edits also "plague one" when watching BD movies?
Mark Zimmer
2019-01-31 16:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Randy Lane
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.
Do splicing/edits also "plague one" when watching BD movies?
They bother me if it's not an edit that was intended. If it's a terrible splice done to repair the crappy print that was used as the master, then it's horribly disturbing to me.
Gerald Martin
2019-02-05 19:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Mark Zimmer
2019-01-31 16:25:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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!
l***@gmail.com
2019-04-03 20:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
g***@gmail.com
2019-05-05 22:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
Do you know the story about the studio "Tristan..." that Flagstad made after the war?:

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
g***@gmail.com
2019-07-21 06:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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
John Fowler
2019-07-22 12:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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












I was surprised to discover that these are not the master tapes.
John Fowler
2019-07-22 12:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
g***@gmail.com
2020-09-07 21:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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:

- 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
g***@gmail.com
2020-09-08 17:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
When a recording of piece has been spliced together, what is the effect?:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8DXnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT12&dq=%22Yet+when+we+listen+to+his+recordings,+we+notice+wonderful+liberties+which+don%27t+reflect+what+he+wrote.%22%27%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLjvaiiNrrAhVRmqQKHUcXBHoQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Yet%20when%20we%20listen%20to%20his%20recordings%2C%20we%20notice%20wonderful%20liberties%20which%20don't%20reflect%20what%20he%20wrote.%22'%22&f=false
g***@gmail.com
2020-09-08 17:48:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
When a recording has been spliced together, what is the effect?:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=Z8JXX_ruCs62kgXf0YLABg&q=%22which+only+happens+in+concerts%2C+if+you+are+lucky.++But+what+if+the+concert%22%27%22&oq=%22which+only+happens+in+concerts%2C+if+you+are+lucky.++But+what+if+the+concert%22%27%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3829.13655.0.13972.27.22.0.0.0.0.473.3510.2-7j4j1.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..18.4.1278...33i299k1j33i10k1.0.bo4aq7vXgDg
g***@gmail.com
2020-09-08 21:36:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
When a recording has been spliced together, what is the effect?:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=W_hXX9_cFovUsAf0ibCACg&q=%22clinically+sterile+and+artificial%22+%22which+only+happen+in+concerts%2C+if+you+are+lucky.%22&oq=%22clinically+sterile+and+artificial%22+%22which+only+happen+in+concerts%2C+if+you+are+lucky.%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4371.4371.0.4955.1.1.0.0.0.0.537.537.5-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.3YHqxY5S7fU
g***@gmail.com
2020-09-08 21:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
When a recording has been spliced together, what it the effect?:

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
g***@gmail.com
2020-09-08 21:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
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.
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
Subject
By
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.
When a recording has been spliced together, what is the effect?:

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
Loading...