The Vinylizer
On Aug 15, 6:33=A0am, John Nunes wrote:
On 8/14/2010 5:28 PM, Scott wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John =A0wrote:
Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against musically important
historic recordings because they aren't exciting or interesting "audio=
"
material. =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving a=
bout
"musicality" and so on.
Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening. I suggest you
take a look at the music being reissued by audiophile labels and then
get back to us.
(snip)
You missed the point. =A0Sorry if I was not clear. =A0How much on your li=
st
is stuff that sounds really lousy in strictly an audio sense, (such as
re-issued 78's for one good example) but is priceless (a metaphor)
musically and historically?
"Really lousy?" You just moved to goal posts. But there are a fair
number of titles available from that list that are anything but sonic
spectaculars. They were picked for the music not the sound.
There is just one Furtwangler recording on the Acoustic Sounds site.
There is just one (called "preowned" - like used car salesman lingo for
"used" - heh) of an Albert Schweitzer Bach recording.
There are only three recordings of Caruso.
There are only two recordings of Marcel Dupre's organ playing.
There are only three recordings of Turk Murphy's jazz band.
There are zero recordings of Wanda Landowska performing. (sorry Dick
Pierce - she was a pioneer in harpsichord
revival, even if her playing or instrument isn't up "modern" standards
;-) )
There are zero recordings of Amalia Rodrigues.
There are zero recordings of Charles Tournemire's live improvisations.
There are zero recordings of Scott Joplin's piano rolls.
There are zero recordings involving Alfred Deller.
There are zero recordings of Helmut Walcha's playing.
Those are some pretty good indicators for the kind of material I was
referring to. =A0I could sit here all night doing this, which would be a
waste of time.
Of course you could sit there and cherry pick. If you consider the
percentage of *all* recordings represented by that list (which was
hardly an all inclusive list) then the fact that it had 10 that fell
within your cherry picking would be, in my view, pretty impressive.
There is an awful lot of music represented in that list that perhaps
you don't find historically important but others do.
There's a small, but acceptable collection of Stokowski recordings.
Ditto for some Bernard Hermann.
Bottom line: =A0If I want a recording that is of only musical and
historical interest, I sure don't go to audiophile influenced sources.
It's common CD reissues, obscure used shops, ebay, Craigslist, estate
sales, =A0friends, friends of friends, etc. =A0Perhaps your reply is to b=
e
expected, after all this is a "high-end" discussion group. =A0But
high-enders often hand wave about how "the music is what's important."
But when it comes to recordings that have precious historical musical
content ONLY, they generally aren't interested.
It seems you missed my point. I wasn't saying that these labels have
blanketed *your* concept of historically important recordings. I was
merely showing you that your assertion isn't supported by what is
offered by these audiophile labels. For every Sheffield like sonic
spectacle there are several dozen titles picked for their "musical"
content. I think the list demonstrates a pretty significant lack of
said prejudice. We could get into some debate as to what is and is not
"important." Alfred Deller? But it would be too much of a tangent.
|