Quieter performances seem to be more in fashion these days. All I can say is don’t go to the opera, no oomph anywhere to be found sadly.
Live Performance Sound
I was at a symphony orchestra performance recently. I was seated maybe twenty rows back from center stage on the "floor" seats. While the dynamic range was more interesting than in recorded music, overall, the sound was very quiet. I'm ranting now: The only oomph came from the brass and percussion, but none of the pieces were very brass-strong. Do any concert halls use PA-systems? You can lose your hearing in bars or big concerts, but that music is never worth it; why can't classical be blared? I get that that might not "be the point," but when the dynamic range is really squeezed, what harm would it be to add some amplification? I max out volume when listening to Bruckner or Stravinsky or Shostakovich, and I don't think it's a hearing-loss issue; I just think it deserves to be played very loud. Has anyone walked out of a symphony performance with ringing ears?
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Those of us who like loud, forceful sound that packs a wallop have been spoiled by modern electronics. That softer sound at a live concert is the real sound, more or less. It's not a matter of playing louder. It's a function of multiple issues including the hall design, seat location and believe it or not, how in-tune the orchestra is. And a lot of other issues. There are some halls in the world and if the orchestra really plays dynamically, the sound is thrilling beyond description. Detroit, Cleveland, Boston, St Louis among others play in fabulous spaces and when they play full bore you hear it and feel it. But a great orchestra could play in San Diego's Copley Hall and not make such an impact. Then there's the pumped up bass problem that so many of us have gotten used to because of home amplification. In a normal orchestra the bass is just not as predominant as we like it to be. Some composers in the past really wanted to pump up their bass sound and knowing most orchestras didn't have that strong of a double bass section added contrabassoons, tubas, even the organ to get that deep sound loud enough. You wonder what Mahler would have done had electric basses been available. But other composers did not want that strong of a bass - Tchaikovsky was one. He never wrote a contrabassoon part and I'd have to check, but I don't think he ever wrote for basses with the low-C extension.
Out of tune orchestras, like most all amateur groups, can blow and bow as loud as they want and the sound doesn't get much louder - just coarser and uglier. There's some acoustical reason - the close not close enough tuning cancels out sound, whereas in orchestras that play in perfect tune (Cleveland) their pianissimos and fortissimos are breathtaking in their impact - being in tune reinforces the sound.
Out of tune orchestras, like most all amateur groups, can blow and bow as loud as they want and the sound doesn't get much louder - just coarser and uglier. There's some acoustical reason - the close not close enough tuning cancels out sound, whereas in orchestras that play in perfect tune (Cleveland) their pianissimos and fortissimos are breathtaking in their impact - being in tune reinforces the sound.
Indeed.Those of us who like loud, forceful sound that packs a wallop have been spoiled by modern electronics. That softer sound at a live concert is the real sound, more or less. ...
It's not just symphony orchestras that sound better in my listening room through my well-considered stereo rig than they seem to do in a "live" concert hall, but also rock bands and jazz ensembles, for the most part. Give a lot of credit to the recording engineers. One always seems to have a good seat with a musical recording, and the dynamics, space and ambience, and timbre come across as more focused. There's a rather unbalanced, often too quiet or too loud or too diffuse sound to "live" music making which the well-engineered recordings have fixed almost to a point of perfection. And fewer of those extraneous sounds that interfere with "live" music making.
Still, I enjoy a good symphony concert now and then, though I'm rather selective about which works I choose to hear. I tend to prefer hearing a "war horse" in the concert hall, a symphonic piece that I know well, often by heart, from having heard recordings of it for decades. I don't ever remember finding the concert hall experience more engaging, soundwise, than what my stereo system can deliver. But there are elements of concert hall music that simply cannot be had from listening to a CD or vinyl record, no matter how good the recording and the playback system is. Socialization, for one thing. The theatrical, visual aspect, for another. And that special atmosphere of community that makes one contemplate the very nature of the art of music and the glories it has provided for such assembled groups of human beings, the live audience, for centuries prior to our era of electrical recording.
I'm happy to have both experiences available to me.
There are some concert halls where the volume of sound and the closeness of the orchestra is like wearing a great pair of headphones cranked up high. My favorite is the Walk Concert Hall at the Grand Teton Music Festival in Jackson, Wyoming. It's a small venue, made of wood and seating is not too plush. You're close to the orchestra, too. Very close and the sound is just thrilling. Some of the most memorable concerts I've ever been to were in that hall. Rachmaninoff 2, Brahms 1 & 2, Tchaikovsky 5, Mahler 3, Sibelius 2, Scheherazade. The festival orchestra is always a top-notch group of players from all over which helps. Now Vail brings in great orchestras for a week with each. Usually Dallas, New York and Philadelphia. But the sound at the Ford Theater is diffuse and softened since it's an outside venue with a canvas canopy. If Vail had a hall like Grand Teton - that would be really something special.
Also the Grand Teton festival has the advantage of a music director who we don't hear a lot about, but who I have a very high regard for ... Donald Runnicles.There are some concert halls where the volume of sound and the closeness of the orchestra is like wearing a great pair of headphones cranked up high. My favorite is the Walk Concert Hall at the Grand Teton Music Festival in Jackson, Wyoming. It's a small venue, made of wood and seating is not too plush. You're close to the orchestra, too. Very close and the sound is just thrilling. Some of the most memorable concerts I've ever been to were in that hall. Rachmaninoff 2, Brahms 1 & 2, Tchaikovsky 5, Mahler 3, Sibelius 2, Scheherazade. The festival orchestra is always a top-notch group of players from all over which helps. Now Vail brings in great orchestras for a week with each. Usually Dallas, New York and Philadelphia. But the sound at the Ford Theater is diffuse and softened since it's an outside venue with a canvas canopy. If Vail had a hall like Grand Teton - that would be really something special.
I believe the acoustics of the Concertgebouw is top 3 in the world along with the Musikverein Wien and the Symphony Hall in Boston. And I have never heard the Concertgebouworkest play out of tune so when I heard Strauss’ Eine Alpensinfonie live it was better than you could ever hope to get on a recording. When they played soft it still sounded completely clear and when the played loud you almost got hearing damage
I was thinking this - proximity to stage, or a tighter/more circular space might be a lot better for clarity and overall volumeThere are some concert halls where the volume of sound and the closeness of the orchestra is like wearing a great pair of headphones cranked up high. My favorite is the Walk Concert Hall at the Grand Teton Music Festival in Jackson, Wyoming. It's a small venue, made of wood and seating is not too plush. You're close to the orchestra, too. Very close and the sound is just thrilling. Some of the most memorable concerts I've ever been to were in that hall. Rachmaninoff 2, Brahms 1 & 2, Tchaikovsky 5, Mahler 3, Sibelius 2, Scheherazade. The festival orchestra is always a top-notch group of players from all over which helps. Now Vail brings in great orchestras for a week with each. Usually Dallas, New York and Philadelphia. But the sound at the Ford Theater is diffuse and softened since it's an outside venue with a canvas canopy. If Vail had a hall like Grand Teton - that would be really something special.
sounds awesome.I believe the acoustics of the Concertgebouw is top 3 in the world along with the Musikverein Wien and the Symphony Hall in Boston. And I have never heard the Concertgebouworkest play out of tune so when I heard Strauss’ Eine Alpensinfonie live it was better than you could ever hope to get on a recording. When they played soft it still sounded completely clear and when the played loud you almost got hearing damage
I think digital recording is what is behind this.Indeed.
It's not just symphony orchestras that sound better in my listening room through my well-considered stereo rig than they seem to do in a "live" concert hall, but also rock bands and jazz ensembles, for the most part. Give a lot of credit to the recording engineers. One always seems to have a good seat with a musical recording, and the dynamics, space and ambience, and timbre come across as more focused. There's a rather unbalanced, often too quiet or too loud or too diffuse sound to "live" music making which the well-engineered recordings have fixed almost to a point of perfection. And fewer of those extraneous sounds that interfere with "live" music making.
Seriously, when I started playing gigs in 1979, any live band sounded better then most stereos. Now most headphones sound better than most live bands.
Also, as you said, most modern recordings can give you a perfectly balanced aural perspective that doesn't actually exist...as in there is nowhere you could sit and get that balanced of a sonic perspective. It all has to do with mic placement and how its mixed
The idea that a recording is somehow "better" than the concert experience is one of the more ridiculous posts I've seen.
Because of "modern" recordings concert-goers have an unrealistic impression/ expectation of what a concerto/ opera etc actually sounds like
Give me an old recording any day
Because of "modern" recordings concert-goers have an unrealistic impression/ expectation of what a concerto/ opera etc actually sounds like
Give me an old recording any day
the thing we have going for us here in the "you gotta be effin kidding me" side is that digital recording isn't the same as an analog recording because the sampling is only recreating the overtones to a certain depth. Of course the "hiss" you got with analog recording is gone, so you gotta love that, but if you only listen to digital music, and then you hear actual music, you'll hear a difference. Thankfully (and I cant believe I'm actually about to say something nice about young people) but young people have gotten hip to this and they are actually buying vinyl like you and I used to do.Because of "modern" recordings concert-goers have an unrealistic impression/ expectation of what a concerto/ opera etc actually sounds like
but I agree with you that modern recordings have changed people's expectations of an acoustic performance. Digital recordings and CDs changed even the way rock and pop bands play. I got a snoot full of that in the 1980s when CDs came out
But they don´t do it for supposedly better sound, they do it because they think it´s cool......but young people have gotten hip to this and they are actually buying vinyl like you and I used to do.......
It could also depend on which symphony was played.I was at a symphony orchestra performance recently. I was seated maybe twenty rows back from center stage on the "floor" seats. While the dynamic range was more interesting than in recorded music, overall, the sound was very quiet. I'm ranting now: The only oomph came from the brass and percussion, but none of the pieces were very brass-strong. Do any concert halls use PA-systems? You can lose your hearing in bars or big concerts, but that music is never worth it; why can't classical be blared? I get that that might not "be the point," but when the dynamic range is really squeezed, what harm would it be to add some amplification? I max out volume when listening to Bruckner or Stravinsky or Shostakovich, and I don't think it's a hearing-loss issue; I just think it deserves to be played very loud. Has anyone walked out of a symphony performance with ringing ears?
But they don´t do it for supposedly better sound, they do it because they think it´s cool.
beggars can't be choosers
that I can still get a replacement needle for my turntable is good enough for me 😄
I just attended a concert at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and sat in row F (6 rows from the stage). The repertoire was a Mozart Violin concerto, Gran Partita, and Cimarosa's Overture to Il matrimonio segreto. These pieces all featured very quiet parts and only moderately loud parts, especially since the forces are lighter than a full orchestra for each. My guess off the top of my head was that the dynamic range would be between 35 and 85dB - which is quite a range at 50dB, much higher than the 20dB of even the best recordings. So it was a notably soft but still very exciting concert.
On the other hand, I also recently heard the Civic Orchestra of Chicago play Symphonie Fantastique from about 5 rows back as well, in a local high school auditorium. Another recent CSO date before that was Bruckner 2, in the 1st row of the lower balcony. Those shows definitely peaked in the high 80s or low 90s.
I have never left a classical concert with my ears ringing, and I would not be happy if I did. Protecting one's hearing is of paramount importance, especially for a classical aficionado. The closest I have come at the CSO Orchestra Hall was a drumming performance by the Japanese ensemble Kodo One. It may not have peaked much higher than 90, but it was really consistently loud at or above 80 the whole way through. I ended up putting kleenex in my ears. Anything over 80 is just too loud for a 2 hour duration.
With respect to recordings/stereos/headphones vs. live venues, I think the very best recordings do sound a bit better than the very best live halls. You're getting a perfectly mixed sound field with mics that cut out most room resonance and crowd noise (if recorded live). But live shows have a much greater dynamic range, and the feeling of straining to hear a tremolo or pizzicato in person has a certain tension and electricity that recordings have never matched for me.
On the other hand, I also recently heard the Civic Orchestra of Chicago play Symphonie Fantastique from about 5 rows back as well, in a local high school auditorium. Another recent CSO date before that was Bruckner 2, in the 1st row of the lower balcony. Those shows definitely peaked in the high 80s or low 90s.
I have never left a classical concert with my ears ringing, and I would not be happy if I did. Protecting one's hearing is of paramount importance, especially for a classical aficionado. The closest I have come at the CSO Orchestra Hall was a drumming performance by the Japanese ensemble Kodo One. It may not have peaked much higher than 90, but it was really consistently loud at or above 80 the whole way through. I ended up putting kleenex in my ears. Anything over 80 is just too loud for a 2 hour duration.
With respect to recordings/stereos/headphones vs. live venues, I think the very best recordings do sound a bit better than the very best live halls. You're getting a perfectly mixed sound field with mics that cut out most room resonance and crowd noise (if recorded live). But live shows have a much greater dynamic range, and the feeling of straining to hear a tremolo or pizzicato in person has a certain tension and electricity that recordings have never matched for me.
I heard Rite of Spring. It sounded great, good performance, not many slip-ups, etc. Clarity of sound was really good, but outside of the few raucous parts, it was pretty quiet.It could also depend on which symphony was played.
re perfect mixing, etc., seeing the live performance was sort of like looking at a picture with areas that are smudged out. Some parts are crystal clear but others are neglected. It's probably an OCD type thing about listening to recorded music so much that it's difficult to appreciate live when it sounds like 50% of the energy.I just attended a concert at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and sat in row F (6 rows from the stage). The repertoire was a Mozart Violin concerto, Gran Partita, and Cimarosa's Overture to Il matrimonio segreto. These pieces all featured very quiet parts and only moderately loud parts, especially since the forces are lighter than a full orchestra for each. My guess off the top of my head was that the dynamic range would be between 35 and 85dB - which is quite a range at 50dB, much higher than the 20dB of even the best recordings. So it was a notably soft but still very exciting concert.
On the other hand, I also recently heard the Civic Orchestra of Chicago play Symphonie Fantastique from about 5 rows back as well, in a local high school auditorium. Another recent CSO date before that was Bruckner 2, in the 1st row of the lower balcony. Those shows definitely peaked in the high 80s or low 90s.
I have never left a classical concert with my ears ringing, and I would not be happy if I did. Protecting one's hearing is of paramount importance, especially for a classical aficionado. The closest I have come at the CSO Orchestra Hall was a drumming performance by the Japanese ensemble Kodo One. It may not have peaked much higher than 90, but it was really consistently loud at or above 80 the whole way through. I ended up putting kleenex in my ears. Anything over 80 is just too loud for a 2 hour duration.
With respect to recordings/stereos/headphones vs. live venues, I think the very best recordings do sound a bit better than the very best live halls. You're getting a perfectly mixed sound field with mics that cut out most room resonance and crowd noise (if recorded live). But live shows have a much greater dynamic range, and the feeling of straining to hear a tremolo or pizzicato in person has a certain tension and electricity that recordings have never matched for me.
Hm, I’ve never hear the Rite called “quiet” before. 😂😂I heard Rite of Spring. It sounded great, good performance, not many slip-ups, etc. Clarity of sound was really good, but outside of the few raucous parts, it was pretty quiet.
my theory is Rite sounds "loud" because it was written to catch people off guard, shake them up, etc. But when you start memorizing the movements by ear at least, you know what's coming around each corner. At least for me it's like this. It was very good, but yeah, I wish it was louder.Hm, I’ve never hear the Rite called “quiet” before. 😂😂
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Classical Music Forum
A forum community dedicated to classical music musicians and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about arrangements, collections, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Seattleoperafan
491 Replies
Art Rock
453 Replies
Woodduck
302 Replies
Recommended Communities
