Re: GG: Tobasco, Noise, etc.

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>]

On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, John P. Hill wrote:

[topic of taking noise out of old recordings]
> I think that it *will* become possible to do what you've eluded to above,
> but then the aesthetic question becomes *should* we?  Another list member
> made the (quite valid) point that he would like to hear *all* of what was
> on the original recording, tape noise, HVAC, door slams, etc.

I would, too.  I'm not bothered by surface noise, drop-outs, flutter,
distortion, etc. very much on old recordings.  If the performance is
compelling enough, I don't even notice the sonic imperfections after the
first few seconds.  For example, the performance of the Berg violin
concerto with Louis Krasner conducted by Anton Webern...there are major
problems with the recording, but the performance sweeps them away.  And my
copy of the CBC GG disc of Beethoven sonatas/bagatelles/trios arrived last
week, and the sound doesn't bother me.  Sure, it's nowhere near today's
standards, but if I can hear the musical qualities of the performance (of
which the actual sound of the instruments is a relatively low factor),
picking up the expressive gestures and artistic choices, I'm happy with
it.  When I listen to something, it's for the artistic content (thought,
emotion, phrasing, degree of freedom, relative emphasis of elements), not
very much for "basking in the sound."  The intensity of a performance can
make it sound present, as much as any basic sonic quality does.  On the
other hand, I know plenty of people who can't get past the scratchiness
and who think old recordings are categorically unlistenable.

(Audiophiles who are horrified by the following suggestion can treat it as
merely an experiment, rather than as a general practice...)  One of the
easiest ways to make sound quality mostly irrelevant is to put the
speakers in another room, and listen around an open doorway: no direct
path from speakers to ears.  Surface noise, stereo spread (if any), and
many other elements of the sound get filtered out automatically.  The
listener is forced to invest some effort in hearing the performance, and
this attentiveness helps to focus the perception of the music.  Recordings
from the 1920's and the 1990's sound pretty similar this way.  This is not
unlike GG's practicing with the vacuum cleaner turned on, which similarly
forces a special level of concentration through the distraction.

I liked Mary Jo's examples from "Vertigo."  The copy I have is a friend's
tape from a broadcast of the restored version, and that broadcast is
prefaced by a short film about the restoration process: the amount of work
they "had to do," and the choices made in replacing some of Hitchcock's
sounds, etc.  Sure, the film looks and sounds better than the older
"unrestored" version which I'd seen on video earlier, but so what?  The
film stands or falls on the artistic concentration of Hitchcock's
direction, the script, the acting, and the emotions suggested by the
soundtrack music...not so much on the bright picture or the
artificially-added stereo sound effects.  That is to say, I think the film
is strong enough to be successful without fresh lipstick on it.  So is
Hitch's lesser-known "Rope," which I watched last night.  It's in 1948
color, Hitch's first color film, but would have been (in my opinion) just
as compelling and watchable if black-and-white and scratchy: the camera
angles, extremely long takes (entire unedited reels, like recording on 78
rpm records), and real-time feel are what make this film work.  One set,
continuous action, no costume changes, actors who have to know the
continuity for themselves at every moment.  It was like watching a one-act
stage play and knowing exactly where I should be looking at all moments.
Extraordinary. 

(...)
> On the other hand, I have old albums by Theloneous Monk and Bill Evans
> that have pretty glaring sonic problems on them and I'm somehow able to
> ignore these and give myself over to the music.

Same here.  Their music-making is so compelling that the uneven sound
quality doesn't matter much.  Personally, as one who tunes harpsichords, I
am hypersensitized to the glaringly out-of-tune treble note in Evans'
"Moonbeams," one of my favorites of all the classic Evans albums.  A piano
technician could have fixed that note so easily at the session...but then
again, that defect makes the session sound like a real event, not a
sterile product.  And the performances are obviously alive with the
moment.  The defect becomes sort of endearing, so I don't know how I'd
feel about it if somebody came up with a digitally-improved version which
pokes in a clean note wherever that one occurs.  (Same way with the
intonation in GG's "Art of Fugue" disc.)

(...) [comparisons of the Davis KIND OF BLUE reissues] (...)
> This opens up some serious aesthetic questions that, to my knowledge, have
> not been widely discussed or addressed in sound recording periodicals or
> texts.

The aesthetic questions of "how much should a restoration be an attempt to
'improve' the original" or "what is faithfulness to the artist's original
vision" are not that different from questions of historically-informed
performance practice.  Regarding performance-practice styles and
recording-restoration styles, I'd be interested to hear from someone who
is firmly in favor of a minimal approach in one case and a "do all the
improvements one can" approach in the other case...what makes the
aesthetic difference, if any?

I haven't traded in my standard-issue Columbia KIND OF BLUE yet, because
again the music-making makes the sound almost irrelevant...even though
it's at the wrong pitch!  Likewise with the pitch problems in GG's set of
Bach toccatas, reproduced in the first CD issue: annoying but sometimes
tolerable, so paying again for an upgrade might or might not be worth it. 
If the flawed issue is already 80% enjoyable (or whatever), is it worth
paying full price for the upgrade to get an extra few percent of enjoyment
out of it, with sound more faithful to the original sessions
(artificially, through digital correction) rather than faithful to the
original tapes? 

But on the other hand, I agree with you that the "Masterworks Heritage" 
series is extraordinary, as restoration goes.  For example, their issue of
the Fleisher/Szell Brahms concertos is a knock-the-socks-off startling
improvement over the LP's, as to clarity of the musical texture. 
(Already-wonderful performances sounding even better...I bought it just to
have those persuasive performances on CD, not caring much what the sound
would be like, and the improved sound was quite a bonus.)  If all
restorations were *that* good....

Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.45716N+78.94565W
bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/ 

"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music 
and cats." - Albert Schweitzer