Sad to know there are folks here getting butthurt over my reply to a question the OP asked directly. More than getting over me, someone might want to start getting over himself, LOL
Infantilism is alive and well in audio.
Recording as Artifact
The more I listen to classical music the more I feel as though the sound of the recording influences my opinion of a performance as much as the interpretation. The recording is an artifact of its own and necessarily should be judged as a total entity. Of course there are exceptions, such as horrid performances in great sound and visa versa. A legendary performance doesn’t have to have great sound to be appreciated. But other than that, generally I appreciate a recording as a combination of interpretation and sonics.
- ...
- 27 posts total
I listen to many historical recordings. I certainly admire Furtwangler, Toscanini, pre stereo Bruno Walter, and a host of others. Yet when I listen to a stereo Beethoven cycle, say Von Karajan or Szell, it feels just so much more “right” to me. I certainly wouldn’t want to take HvK 60s Beethoven cycle and re-record it with 1930s technology. |
| Post removed |
@rvpiano - The point was clear from the very opening post - the counter argument is that interpretation and understanding is limited without accuracy of reproduction in the time domain; mine was a spanner attempt to open up the echo chamber this issue in audio has become, my very bad. I leave this thread to it - the enjoyment of preferred artifacts.
In friendship - kevin |
- 27 posts total