David Runnion wrote:

>It's not "cheating." It is simply the way things are done in the
>professional recording world.

Some seem to see recordings as a record of a straight-through performance
(which was rare even in the LP days when they'd put out special editions
proclaiming there were no cuts and something was recorded in one take,
and usually that was only one movement!)

Others see these as models of how a piece should be played or a
representation of what the players would do if they made no mistakes
of any kind that would bother them.

However, any klunkers in a studio performance even in LP days would
probably warrant puzzlement from the buyer as to why it was left in,
since it wasn't a live performance, and editing has always been done.
But then I think that if you change everything so that every last bit
of it is acceptable to the player and if a LOT of changes were made to
effect this illusion, then there's the problem of raised expectations
at the concert hall that can't be met in person.  I've seen many notes
from listeners, disappointed that "the record was better." I saw one on
Compuserve two weeks ago from someone who said he will just listen in his
living room instead, from now on.  THAT's sad!  Not because of what the
performers did, particularly, but because of his inability to enjoy the
rest of what goes into live performance and which can't be duplicated
on two speakers at home.  And, yes, to feel that a performance is
disappointing because there are mistakes is something I don't understand.

>As an example, there was a recent recording released of
>Kremer/Maisky/Argerich playing Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky trios.  It
>is billed as a live recording, but if you read the liner notes you will
>find that after the concert the artists stayed in the hall until 5 in the
>morning to make "fixes".

That was a situation with the best of both worlds (and the final
product doesn't pretend to be perfect either as there are still problems,
especially when musicians fly in from different places to do chamber music
and do not practice together constantly as do most dedicated trios, etc.)
The concert (or dress rehearsal, in full dress, I don't know) was televised
live and NHK apparently makes the tape available to some.

Even then the live performance of that work is riveting, and their (a few
say 'over the top') 'portrayal' of grief over death, with its emphasis on
anger, raw and very deep, is very effective.  I've never seen grief as just
the more placid surface lament so many expect it to be but as something
that rips you apart inside, and that's what we get in this one.  Even flaws
in playing will fit:-) The:Largo on that recording is one of the most
beautiful things I've ever heard.  And the finale is gut-wrenching.  Angry
and ironic.

You folks do this piece very well too:)

And, speaking of Argerich, Bryce Morrison of Gramophone pointed out a huge
mistake in the beginning of some piece (a concerto) and asked her why she
didn't fix that on the recording of the concert, released much later.
Turns out they wanted to, but she asked them to leave it in because it
happened.  Still, that was a live performance, and not a 'model' as you
have in mind when you're producing a recording.  I can see your point, but
I think it can be also be taken too far if every nuance and attack is made
'perfect' because the audience, if used to the recordings, will notice the
flaws even if they can't identify them and think it too bad that it doesn't
seem to be quite as good as they remember from a perfect recording...

On the other hand, critics/reviewers can be quite merciless with what they
perceive as flaws in the playing on studio recordings.  I do like the idea
of recordings as models or perfect-forms, but I also worry about the danger
of audience expectations too.

Andrys in Berkeley
http://www.andrys.com/books.html   search sheet music, videos, CDs
http://www.andrys.com/cbooks.html  newer classical music books