Studio vs. Live--Is The Dichotomy Real? (Preview to Charles Munch's 10 Best Recordings)

Some artists dislike making recordings. Others do excellent work in the studio, despite which collectors often seek out live concert versions of the same repertoire. Are they really better? In this preview to the ClassicsToday.com Insider video featuring Charles Munch's 10 Best Recordings, we look at the case of a conductor whose work in the studio was every bit as exciting as his live performances.
If you aren't yet an Insider Subscriber, please consider signing up using this link: www.classicsto...

[@thomasvendetti3742]

The WGBH broadcast master recordings are in excellent sound. We usually hear off the air dubs, so the quality declines. It is so difficult to compare live vs studio Munch, and choices are often left to taste. Many live Berlioz Symphonies Fantastiques exist and we have 3 (?) from the studio. The fact of the matter is that the live recordings are often different one from the other and sometimes quite thrilling. The RCA Munch recording are fabulous, but it’s fun to mine the live stuff. Some are really worth listening to. Furthermore there are loads of live recordings of works he never recorded. In the studio. True, the sound is not always up to snuff, but many are worth seeking out. Finally, a bit off topic, There exists a load of rehearsals of Munch with the BSO from 1949 to 1951. Again, the closer one gets to the NBC masters the better. They are fascinating but only run for 30 minutes. His rehearsals for the Berlioz Requiem and Ravel La Valse come to mind as quite exciting. Finally, we are so luck to have Munch recordings. I listen to his RCA recordings from the big box often and also enjoy some live stuff (especially the Sander’s Theatre concerts now of DVD). He was incredibly talented, loved music and loved his musicians. I am lucky to have seen him in Symphony Hall.

[@jefolson6989]

Good points. In the case of someone like Dimitri Mitroloulos, he didnt record that much in the studio, and seemed to really catch fire before live audiences, so my opinion of his is based more on live broadcasts . I have learned to "listen through" static and poor sound.

[@MisterPathetique]

One thing that always bothered me about live recordings is something you mentioned in your review of Stephen Hough's Rachmaninoff concerto cycle: audience cheers and applause. I simply loathe them. Of course, not every live recording will be affected by it, and I can imagine that engineers can't always afford to remove them because it would mean chopping some of the music too. But I suspect sometimes they're left in the recording for artistic purposes, to "recreate the moment". But like you said, you can't recreate the spontaneity of a live performance. If I'm in the concert hall, why not, it's part of the experience, but who would want to listen to that on disc? I don't know, I don't get it.

[@robertdandre94101]

recording of charles munch i like....1...pines of rome ( phase 4),2...chausson symphonies ( rca),3...d'indy symphonies cevenole ( rca) ,4...berlioz requiem ( rca).. 5...bolero ( rca) (with little sound of outside car traffic....) 6, romeo and juliet ,tchaikovsky ( rca),7...beethoven first piano concerto with sviatoslav richter ( rca)...i stopped here.....he have lot and lot i like....!

[@woongcho7709]

As far as I remember, here in Korea, it was when Furtwanglers live recordings flooded the market back in late 90s that Studio vs. Live became a serious issue. Some fans started exclaming they had found 'the Holy Grail', 'hidden gems'. 'treasure troves' and so on. I tried some but couldn't find anything special. Actually they were mediocre at best, mostly poor in every aspect. Now we have millions of recordings uploaded on KZbin and we can compare them instantly befor getting CDs or LPs of our favorites, studio or live. So I don't think that which version is better is supposed to be an issue any more. But I find a bunch of folks with attitude in this classical music listening community who try to tout specific products and impose their views. I guess they are a main reason that many people consider us classical music fans weirdos. It's unfair.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I can think of many other reasons why we're considered weirdos.

[@woongcho7709]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I actually don't mind being called a weirdo as long as I can enjoy good pieces of music. :) Thank you, David. I really hope your channel hit 100k subscribers so I can see that silver button beside your tam tam.

[@waverly2468]

I participated in a recording in 1973 when I played violin in the Rochester Philharmonic for a year. We recorded 50 minutes of music during a 4 hour session with the RCA people. The concertmaster had a solo piece and he was totally nervous in front of the RCA mikes on the first take (as I would be). But he was fine after the third run-through. We performed the music several times on tour before we recorded it. This was during the RCA "Dynaflex" flimsy record era.

[@brtherjohn]

Dynaflex = vinyl tacos!

[@bbailey7818]

It's true I think that studio session recordings can differ as much in excitement as live recordings. Case in point, Beecham's mono EMI Fantastique session has twice the excitement of the stereo remake a year or so later. But that live Chasseur of Munch really is a revelation after the admittedly better sounding RCA. Toscanini was notoriously unhappy with studio recording conditions and was very often better live. But that was mainly in the 78rpm era when you had to stop the flow of the music every 4 minutes. He was more comfortable when tape came in and his RCA Carnegie recording sessions of, to name two, the Brahms 2nd and Elgar Enigma produced by a good way his best performances of either, and I'm one of those abnormals (but not stupids) who has heard them all. Btw, how things have changed since the BSO lowered the boom on M&A. Now just about everything in that set is available on you tube!

[@feskoegaffney9177]

Dave. You mentioned the pianist Nicole herring schweitzer with whom munch worked. I think she was the niece of munch.

[@jfddoc]

The situation is particularly clouded with Toscanini. Many of his commercially released recordings come from NBC broadcasts and so are really live performances. But then again, maybe some rehearsal material has been spliced in? There has been heated debate in some circles about releasing his live 1951 Verdi Requiem. At least one prominent commentator has been strongly against this, as the maestro hated the live performance and only agreed to a commercial release with considerable substitutions from the dress rehearsal...which reportedly cost RCA a great deal of extra money.

[@peterheiman8621]

I agree with your argument; however, in Munch’s case, some of the live performances were never recorded in the studio, and it is nice to have them available

[@curseofmillhaven1057]

On a slight tangent, I don't know if I'm alone in this experience, but I've found myself often disappointed with live orchestral concerts in contrast to recordings (generally poor acoustics, noisy audiences - putting aside lack lustre performance). That's partly because London doesn't have a decent large size concert hall (I was literally stunned when I listened even to a student orchestra in the Amsterdam concertgebouw - wow! Not quite base metal into gold but still what a difference!). So even from a purely sound quality point of view, sometimes excellent studio recordings can set the bar very high.

[@steveschwartz8944]

Great review. Worth the price of subscribing all by itself. I made the mistake as a young adult of buying Munch's DG recording of the Berlioz (on LP). Later, I got the RCA. An okay performance gave way to an apocalyptic one, with all that gorgeous, grand-guignol excess I love Berlioz for. Jed Distler's review of the Grunschlag Duo also stood out. The repertoire is Classic Modern (Hindemith, Milhaud, Martinů, Dello Joio, and Esther Ballou, composer new to me). This one fun disc. Really, insider subscription is worth having. I get more out of it in one month than I ever got out of Gramophone in several.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Thanks very much!

[@richardwilliams473]

The problem with live recordings is that orchestral mistakes cannot be edited out. Whereas Studio recordings can be done over and over again until the mistakes are not included in the final pressing.

[@poturbg8698]

Yes, they can, using bits from rehearsals or other concerts. Hurwitz explained this. I've been to several Cleveland Orchestra concerts that were recorded on video in which mistakes had been removed and replaced with bits from the other performances in the same week.

[@chrisschmitz9034]

Hi, l know what you mean by live recordings and sound. I had the Charles Munch box on the Auvidis label and l found it unlistenable. The sound was horrible and l quickly sold it. The lovely large RCA box l will keep and enjoy for a long, long time. Chris

[@fred6904]

Dear Mr Hurwitz! I would like to ask you to consider to make a talk about all the recordings Mr Munch did in Boston on RCA. I just want to know if there are any duds. If not , it is as easy as can be. Best wishes Fred (Sweden)

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

There are always duds, but not many.

[@jnc8358]

Just as an aside--If anyone here does not know already, the Sony Dimitri Mitropoulos box will be released in April.

[@skipthepool]

David, your comments about Munch are spot on. I have a lot of private radio recordings and there is no predictability at all as to whether it's the live or the studio performances will be best. For his warhorse the Symphonie Fantastique the studio recordings at least give the complete uncut work - his wretched cut in the third movement spoils his live recordings. Paradoxically the live Harold in Italy is more restrained than the studio version. There's a late live Brahms 4 (BSO) that has greater lyrical flow but the recording isn't as good as the second BSO studio version. For me, the real gain in some of the live recordings is where they have repertoire he never recorded in the studio such as the Bach Passions ( definitely not HIP but glorious.)

[@vincentspinelli9995]

What a fantastic musician. Excellent video and wonderful choices. Thank you!

[@murraylow4523]

Very interesting. I have quite a lot of live recordings (Concertgebouw etc) where I might be better off with the studio versions with better sound. But now I’m not going to spend the money on that as the live ones are quite good enough. I detect a whiff of “the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction “‘in this talk, and yes, once recorded and disseminated live recordings do lose that “aura”. As a case in point, listening to the Horowitz Carnegie Hall set (which sadly is now unaffordable like the Reiner, Monteux, Heifez, Munch etc boxes. People would still buy them of course, if offered at their release prices). But there an interesting issue in that I gather all the “patching” has been edited out in that Carnegie Hall set so we get all the mistakes again. It’s more “real” or is it?

[@martinhaub2602]

I sometimes wonder why an artist would allow a Live Recording to be released. Case in point: Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique with Munch and the Hungarian orchestra on Philips. In the last movement the tubular bell player gets hopelessly lost and never recovers. It may be a fun party record, but the Boston recordings are played so much better. I wish RCA would reissue that Boston/Munch boxed set. Collectors who missed it and younger people who never had a chance need to be able to hear those records!

[@markfarrington5183]

Still, we must be grateful for WCLV, who taped Szell's Severance Hall concert's (in stereo) from the fall of 1965 right through to the last one in May 1970. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a Szell MISSA SOLEMNIS, DAS LIED VON DER ERDE, Mozart "Prague," Strauss METAMORPHOSEN & BOURGEOIS GENTILHOMME Suite, and other treasures. There have been various "Anniversary" compilations since the 1990s. But if the most valuable of these were re-mastered for a big box, it wouldn't be a false Grail; it'd all be REAL. And if they engaged you to write the liner notes...!

[@bbailey7818]

That to me is the most important aspect of live tapes: preserving something by an artist the recording companies were benighted enough to never take into the studio.

[@petterw5318]

As you say, it's a matter of taste, and it's quite easy for me: studio recordings when I listen to orchestral music, but live recordings when it's opera, because singers are usually much better when they have an audience there.

[@charlespowell9117]

Dave, great video which answered some of my never ending questions about recordings versus live. I am lucky to have Munch whom I love, conduct the Brahms Requiem live'--he never recorded it. And boy is it a humdinger as they say!

[@timdexter7600]

I wonder whether there is a special circumstance where the presence of an audience inspires the musicians to give a bit extra, those for whom it's not yet become just another day in the job. I'm thinking of the Barshai Mahler 5 with the German youth orchestra, I have a number of M5's but none have quite the verve and excitement in the finale ?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Well, I disagree about that finale, but there's no question that the presence of an audience can make a difference. My point is that it shouldn't if the artist is really good at his job.

[@daviddorfman320]

What happened to SS#3? Was it your number 11?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Nothing happened to it.

[@willgreen2196]

Great video, Dave!!!

[@discipulussimplex]

Speaking of taking or not taking risks, it would be interesting to have a talk about those who dared to make direct-to-disc (i.e., not edited) recordings (Berlin Philharmonic did this even recently). Is there merit in such enterprises?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

The results speak for themselves. How they do it is irrelevant.

[@ernestrobles1510]

I wonder about the presence of record producers in recorded vs live recordings. I assume they are there for a reason and some might have great influence over a conductor’s selection of tempos and cuts. But it’s hard for me to compare John culshaw with John Pfeiffer, for example. Since you’ve recorded professionally maybe you can shed some light on this. Thanks!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

If you have a specific question I can try to answer it.

[@brunoluong7972]

So Celibidache didn't know his job?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

He didn't make recordings. I never said he had to do it, only that if he did do it there was no excuse for not doing it as well as if he were in concert. I don't think that's controversial, and you know perfectly well what I meant (assuming you were paying attention).

[@anthonycook6213]

I grew up in the 1960's with one of two Readers' Digest Great Classical Music collections that had a Francesca da Rimini conducted by Munch that I still have found no substitute for.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

You need to look harder.

[@ScottHughes-n4u]

You're absolutely right Anthony. That is a great performance of Francesca da Rimini. It has a blazing, white hot intensity that sends those adulterers to Hades special delivery!