New recording category?

It seems as though it's no longer acceptable to make a mistake, even catching a note.

That's the nature of recording. A mistake that is insignificant in the context of a performance will become more noticeable and intrusive every time it's played, even in the finest performance; the requirement for something nearer perfection is an inevitable consequence of issuing it in recorded form.

Paul

Which makes me wonder why Glenn Gould, who edited, tweaked, etc., his CDs to a fare thee well, could put up with his own humming during playback. You wouldn't notice it in a performance (which he eschewed basically because he couldn't make them perfect) but you surely do when you listen to his recordings over and over. Where's the perfection when you have to listen to that tuneless stuff? And then there is the hiccup in the middle register of his much manipulated piano which he apologizes for in the liner notes but does nothing about. Of course it's Glenn so strange is the watchword. I once saw him at a bus stop wearing woolen mittens and an overcoat mid-summer in Toronto. It is not remotely cool in Toronto in July.

Very interesting thread this one.

I'm just back from a concert (absolutely no editing possible or done) of the best Peruvian singer of peruvian/african music, Eva Ayllón. Nothing grabs me more than a live performance - provided the quality is sufficient. This one was superb. About 30 musicians on stage. I did not note any mistake.

I record some pieces I play with Hauptwerk for my own use. Sometimes I need 10 takes before it is (almost) faultless. But never will I edit them. I can't listen to my "recordings" if they would have been edited - who wants to "cheat" himself? Though I don't publish them on CCH because the level both in terms of technique and musicality is way insufficient and therefore don't contribute.

It's very true and well illustrated in the various posts that practically all recordings we buy and hear are edited in some form. And surely, what matters is what you hear. But for me it would have an extra value, an additional value, if I knew it was not edited. Not a requirement. But I would appreciate and value the performance even more.

We live in a time in which synthesizing, processing and editing musical sounds and performances is part of life. When playing organ music, for me the roots, history and age of the organ that I play in virtual mode, and the age and time period of the piece that I'm playing do matter. In those days music just existed in one form - live. I, for myself, stick to recording live - unedited. Original registration.
Just my (old-fashioned) view...

Ernst

Which makes me wonder why Glenn Gould, who edited, tweaked, etc., his CDs to a fare thee well, could put up with his own humming during playback.

Musicians are notoriously the worst people to have around making technical decisions about editing; perhaps Gould was humming along while doing the tweaking, and so not in a position to notice it in the recording!

Paul

I find that Prof. Mayer's idea interesting because it would allow to clarify things without complicating them too much .( and it also gives the advantage of being able to "live record" on a midi file which I discovered saves a considerable amount of place on the hard disk , for it weighs much less in KBs ).
As for "sub-categories" , such as for instance: "midi-live recorded but modified by electronically increasing the performance speed ", that kind of indication could just be given " in words", in accompaniment to the description of the piece.

Which makes me wonder why Glenn Gould, who edited, tweaked, etc., his CDs to a fare thee well, could put up with his own humming during playback.

Musicians are notoriously the worst people to have around making technical decisions about editing; perhaps Gould was humming along while doing the tweaking, and so not in a position to notice it in the recording!

Paul

Goodness no Paul. He hummed while he was playing. It drove the engineers mad because they could never quite reduce it enough without compromising the recording. The tweaking Gould did was afterward where he would lower the volume of this or that note and slice a bit out to correct timing and the like. There are documentary films extracts of him doing this and talking about it. I think he was so immersed afterwards in listening to what he wanted the performance to have been that he simply ignored the humming. Sort of how we ignore a any steady noise after a while. Still I think it was somewhat willful to not care enough about the intended listner to try to stop it. Somewhat like the women tennis players who shriek and who, like Sharapova, say "tough luck, I've always shrieked and I'm not going to change".

By watching CCH recently, it occured to me that a new recording category "Organkeys61" is absolutely mandatory for the sake of everyone else... 31 out of the 50 last posts, a new record !

Hi all,

Though I placed only a few (live) recordings of mine on the Concerthall, I decided to take part in this interesting discussion.

I would consider 2 main categories of recordings:

a/ live
b/ non-live


A/ Live = recording of one's performance 'as is' = no (post)-editing of the performance itself (recorded as wave). No changes of registers, tempo, correcting of scores, no cutting and pasting parts of the performance to achieve 'ideal' recording, etc. One can put the volume up and shorten the silence before the performance begins.

B/ Non-live = everything except A; can have several subcategories, like: live-midi, midi, etc.

I recorded some of my performances 10-15 times to get a satysfying result, because I understood the name 'concerthall' very strictly = placing only one's live recordings there....

Best regards from snowy Warsaw

Of course it's Glenn so strange is the watchword

I really got furious with Glenn's Bach "Art of the Fugue" transcription which he played almost double possible speed on a Casavant organ, possibly also an octave higher based on 16' stops. Didn't stop me from buying the score and trying to make my own interruption, though. I listened to it on LP but it's been remastered and reissued:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fugue-Anniversary-Glenn-Gould/dp/B00006FI8C
The original is now a collector's item:
http://www.discogs.com/Glenn-Gould-Bach-The-Art-Of-The-Fugue-Vol-1/release/2884148
James Pressler

I would consider 2 main categories of recordings:

a/ live
b/ non-live

Isn't that the case right now?? a/ Live b/ MIDI

It is also possible to do A = Live - B = MIDI - C = Live/MIDI - D = MIDI/Live

A means 100% Live, without any editing in the notes and registration and played on the sample-set directly.
B means 100% MIDI, nothing was changed except from the registration and MIDI channels for downloaded MIDI files.
C means Live played and edited in whatever which way to create a better result. (like 90% of the CD recordings)
D means MIDI file and edited in such a way that it sounds Live.

But this will make everything just more complicated in my opinion and I hate complicated things..
I still believe no category at all was the best, I trust my own ears.
If people think that it is very important that listeners know that he or she played the piece 100% live they can always write that down in description, problem solved..

I recorded some of my performances 10-15 times to get a satysfying result, because I understood the name 'concerthall' very strictly = placing only one's live recordings there....

To me concert-hall doesn't mean Live recordings only but a place that You can visit to listen to music. I think that is meant in the first place.

Perhaps just do away with categories completely. It's not a contest, it's a VIRTUAL concert hall for the enjoyment of those who enjoy the music. Since I think a carefully MIDI file (think jocr's files) sounds better than most live performances, I would prefer to not know and just enjoy. my2¢

Thomas

[quote="organtechnology" Since I think a carefully MIDI file (think jocr's files) sounds better than most live performances my2¢

Thomas[/quote]

I disagree with the above.
Live is live, midi is midi.

I believe in the various reactions there are two viewpoints which are quite different:
(1) how it SOUNDS - and then it's immaterial whether the file is MIDI or a live performance;
(2) a recording of the TRUE LIVE PERFORMANCE of a musician as it would have been in a concert - no tweaks whatsoever.

(1) Is interesting when your primary focus is to learn how a particular piece of music may sound: the organ, the registration, the interpretation. The modification/editing of a recording might add in perfecting those issues. Also a straight MIDI file could very well serve this purpose.

(2) This is for those who dislike all those modern post-editing, or music made as a midi file only. Or people who (also) want to hear the real capabilities of their fellow forum members.

I think there is a place for both approaches, at least I have interest in both.
Call the first as you like, as long as only the second is called LIVE.

Ernst

I disagree with the above.
Live is live, midi is midi.

Even this isn't always the case. With programs like Tapper You can play a straight MIDI file life in realtime just by hitting any keys at the right moment. I used this program for some of my postings (they are all labeled as MIDI and downloadable as MIDI files on contrebombarde.com) like this one:

Widor - Allegro from Symphony No. 6 (MIDI file included)

http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/5659

I will never call this a live performance since it would create only discussions in which I will not get involved. But it isn't a MIDI performance either...

Almost all my postings are labeled as MIDI, while lots of them are played real live but had some editing (stops changes and wrong note corrections) A view of my postings are labeled live, those are played live and had only some editing to shorten the time between registration and playing. Should I label those as MIDI as well? And are we creating a website full of Live recordings with several seconds of empty space before we hear any music?

This has been an interesting discussion, and realistically can have no effect on what is posted on ContreBombarde. Organists who post on CB are the only one who can decide what they will post (live, midi, edited, unedited) Not to put too fine a point on this, but folks who listen, but don't post seem to have stronger opinions on this topic.

I myself have posted many things on ContreBombarde, and have been happy to do it. But if CB is to become a "police state" (for example: some have suggested putting midi performances on their own page, or someone else wanted theatre organ taken off the main page and relegated to a lesser page) then the joy will have gone out of it, and I myself, would reconsider making posts at all.

I read music, and I set out as many pages as I can, record that with the midi recorder, then set up the next set of pages and record that... I take the best "take" from each of the recordings and "splice" them together and call it LIVE. Sometimes in the "splicing" one of my registration changes might get cut off and so I fix that, and I still am going to call that LIVE. This is not more (or less) then just about any commercially available recording out there. It use to be done with a razor blade and tape, now it's done with a click, delete, and paste.

Let's not take the joy out of posting on ContreBombarde by trying to set up a bunch of artificial boundaries..... Instead let's enjoy this great opportunity to share Hauptwerk and some enlightening, scholarly, uplifting, colorful, fun or just plain beautiful organ music and not worry about each artists' creative process.