On 01/01/08, Steven Smolian wrote:
> Bravo! I've seen and heard this this countless times. The conductor,
> should he be involved enough to be engaged in the recording and
> editing process (not all are), has virtual veto power over the
> producer and often tries to rectreate the listening experience as
> heard from the podium.
> I'd add that the stereo sound-stage is audible from the first few rows
> only. It makes for good demo of the electronics. I feel the
> front-to-back dimension is of equal or greater importance.
Definitely, and this is what gets lost as soon as multiple mics are
> Too many mikes evisceate the wallop of massed brass groups.
> The real question is, "what did the composer expect when laying ink to
> paper?" Uncovering that is real work- how was the orchestra seated
> that gave the first performance, i.e., 1st violins on left, 2ds on
> right? What was the hall like? What was it's cubic volume and how did
> that relate to the number of winds and brasses to a part? etc.
I think some composers have a clearer idea in their minds than others.
It is quite common for an orchestral work to be heavily revised after
the first performance.
Brahms used to arrange private try-out performances before the first
> The Brahms 2d Piano Concerto is a perfect case. I don't listen to all
> records of this work, but it's clear from the score that there are two
> and three way interchanges among the string groups and the piano
> related to their positioning. I've yet to hear a recording that brings
> this out.
[log in to unmask]