Recording And Performance: "The Same Thing?"

Very interesting argument. Well, the fact of feeling different in a recording (if we are talking about an analog instrument recording) is due to several factors. The first is that even the best microphones cannot exactly sample the sound of an acoustic piano. So while we are playing, we are hit by sound waves that group together in the piano's soundboard and then explode outwards; in the case of a recording, we have a capture that does not take into account the fullness of the sound. This is because human beings do not listen only with the ear but also with the body, which is hit by the sound waves. The microphone, no matter how good it may be, collects a part of these waves on a surface of 2cm (the average size of a condenser microphone diaphragm). Another reason is, of course, the fact that when one is busy playing, the brain is always thinking ahead to what is being played at that moment; as a result, our attention is more focused on coordination, the clarity of the notes, and their execution rather than on listening. In essence, when playing, one is building a puzzle. It is different to watch it being built.

Therefore, psychoacoustics also plays a role here, and I spoke about this just recently in my music history exam during my acoustics thesis. If you think about it, the concept of psychoacoustics involves reasoning that reminds me of radial fields and conservative forces. The field exists only if there is a particle to experience it; otherwise, it does not exist. In the same way, music exists only if there is someone who can perceive it. We also know that ultrasound exists—all our animals hear it, and it would be possible to compose music in the ultrasound range—but for us, such a composition is non-existent. We know it exists because we experience it through mathematics and with dogs, for example, but we cannot listen to it; therefore, for us, it does not exist!

Great reflections, and indeed the fullness of sound is truly impossible to reproduce. However, it's also very strange to play a piece on a digital piano and then immediately listen back to it recorded by a sequencer; here instead, exactly what was just played comes out, and it comes out the same way but.......there is truly something different.

Forgive me if I will be telegraphic, but my wife is demanding the due attention and so am I.

In reality, as TheSimon says, there is an entire psychological aspect that presides over musical production and musical interpretation.

An important difference is that, when I perform, I am attentive to what I want to say or feel; when I listen back, I know that nothing can have changed by now and I try to find out if I put in what I wanted (almost always I discover, unless I am a great one, that I didn't actually succeed as well as I thought and had felt while performing!).

The subject deserves to be revisited anyway and we will do it again, I am sure.

Goodnight to everyone

There is a purely acoustic, psychoacoustic aspect and an aesthetic aspect.

It is evident that, as long as one is not playing with headphones, during the performance I will hear "my" sound, while hearing a different, relatively real and balanced sound.

By sending the recording, regardless of the recording quality, I will listen. My attention focuses on the intentions and the correspondence between these and the realization of musical ideas. Very often we feel something "strong" to express inside us, something "intense," but then, sometimes, we discover that what we achieve is a weak and timid energy. Jean Erik, a great Chopin master, who served several times on the jury of the International Chopin Competition in Warsaw, gave an effective example during an advanced course I attended. "See," he said to a pianist, "you have seen a street lamp on the road with a great light... which however did not manage to illuminate more than two meters away. Instead, you will have noticed the small bulb mounted on your car headlight... small... but its light reaches far. Make sure that your Music reaches far."

This great example suggests the expressive intensity that we must develop with our sound. We must think of a "public" sound rather than a "private" one.

Well done Paolo! This is truly right. Often and willingly, one slows down or holds back in a finale, but it is not done with sufficient conviction, and the same thing happens when searching for pianissimo or fortissimo. What matters is what reaches us, just like in painting. One must decide well what to do and do it exactly like that, but......this is not easy. Thanks to everyone.

fabio73 wrote:

I would like to talk about the reasons why listening to one's own recording sounds very different compared to listening to oneself while playing. What changes?

Perhaps one is also less lucid; it is one thing to just listen, and another to be preoccupied with thinking about what comes next, about what I will have to play and imagine.

It would also be interesting to reflect on how an external listener experiences live listening versus listening to the subsequent recording.

What do you think?

Beautiful reflections, Marta. Indeed, the matter becomes complicated. What Paolo was asserting is very true... in fact, there is a curious fact. When playing, we perceive a great dynamic in what we are doing, but just like that large streetlamp Maestro Erik spoke of, in reality, it isn't heard in the recording. And with these new recording systems (cell phones, etc.) that provide graphics relative to the dynamics of the recording, you can see it very clearly... from a graphic standpoint, where you thought you had played "really loudly," in reality, you kept everything in the gray zone... very interesting..

It is the same reason why when you are working on a drawing... whether it be a landscape or a portrait... you must step away every now and then to pick it up again shortly after. When you put the paper back in front of you... everything changes. Why? Because before you were too close to it, and the brain adapts (being very elastic) to all the feedback parameters in front of it... by working and working on the same thing, it does nothing but abandon vigilance over something it now knows, and bam!!! Attention goes to hell.

When you walk or run, you don't exactly think about putting one leg after the other and at what distance? You run or walk, and that's that.

There!! This brain resource... (automatism) is a double-edged sword.

Live listening is indeed very empathetic for a thousand reasons... you move, the fingers move... you feel the excitement of the pianist's breath reflecting on the instrument... something different from the recording which, in my opinion, travels in parallel to the music but does not belong to it, just like photography. It renders only one aspect of what was heard... but... this is not enough. Reality is something else..

In my opinion, a recording is a bit like one's reflection in a mirror. If the mirror is clean and of high quality, the image will be more faithful and will also give us the possibility to observe things we hadn't seen from a different perspective. But if the mirror isn't perfect... well! What you observe is no longer reliable but just a copy that creates a different self. Limits related to the equipment's or the environment's ability to capture reality can make an image of real sound incomplete..

Beautiful mirror!, let's just say that if the mirror weren't clean, the recording studio technicians would take care of it and......I assure you that miracles can be performed...

I know a thing or two ;-)

I would say that the work done in the recording studio is incredibly...

When I played my teacher's Steinway before exams, I didn't believe it was me playing.. how much the instrument matters!!! and also all the surrounding elements like cleanliness, ambience etc..

Have you recorded any albums?

Yes, I have already recorded a couple of them. Soon (in a few months) our CD will be released, mine and Paolo's... Piano four hands.

Schubert - Fantasy in F minor

Brahms - 4 Hungarian dances

Mozart - Sonata k. 381

We are considering including the k. 521 as well

Here is a short sample of the 381...

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/condivisione/k381.mp3

For those who cannot see the player, it is available for download here...

You didn't post it.

You probably don't have Flash installed and couldn't see the player. Download the version, let me know if you like the sound.

Marta23 wrote:

It would also be interesting to reflect on how an external listener experiences live listening versus listening to the following recording.

What do you think?

as a simple listener, I view a concert as listening to a prepared speech (carefully prepared, certainly) but one in which the speaker's ability to engage the audience matters greatly: even with some over-the-top flourishes (within the limits of good taste) and even forgiving everything if it doesn't turn out impeccable, provided that emotional engagement is achieved.

The recording, on the other hand, seems to me comparable to a written text: made of choices, omissions, reconsiderations... I can be certain that in the published recording there is the distillate of what the performer thinks/feels regarding that work at that specific moment in their life as an interpreter.

Listened to it..

so..from a sound point of view, I find it very... thin.. how should I say... for Mozart, personally, I like Arrau's round sound... the recordings he made with Philips.. sonatas K 332, K 333, if I find the version I will post it.

the sound in this version seems very dry and sliced, perhaps also due to the somewhat tight tempo... in fact, it is true that these Mozart sonatas have an orchestral character in themselves with a nice bravura flair like in his concertos and so.. it could even work.. but in my opinion, the tempo is a bit too fast.

Surely as a performance it will please the public and I find it in line with modern taste.. I would say current,...... which ... for those who make records is very important- Don't even pay attention to the nostalgia of an elderly and mediocre pianist who whines about the loss of performances made between the two wars but... that's just how I am..... I have my own taste..

I also find it very filtered... very impoverished by the work done on the recording.. it seems made on a digital [format].. or not? I don't know.

Perhaps it wouldn't be bad to get a clearer idea by having the complete version, which I would gladly listen to.

i expressed myself in friendship, okay? don't take it as an unvarying judgment. on the complete version, things undoubtedly change.

Lang Lang and Baremboim?? heard the version on YouTube... I still have to digest it but... I already don't love the two pianists individually.. let alone... in a duo..

Mozart is truly difficult for a pianist in my opinion.. send me the variations as soon as you can, I am looking forward to them.

Anyway, let me know if I said anything stupid..

No nonsense, on the contrary, I thank you for such a well-argued feedback. The sound is thin by choice. In four-hand pieces, the bass and therefore the low frequencies are always present. If you make the sound too thick/muddy, everything becomes less intelligible and, especially in Mozart, the effect is confusing. It must also be said that especially in the fantasy, where there are many parts that reach fortissimo, with a thicker sound nothing could be understood. There are chords of 15 notes (considering the notes of the first and those of the second) with points that are very tight. In short, I didn't want to sacrifice intelligibility; this is the core of the matter. Mozart's tempo in this rehearsal is actually a tad excessive; on the CD, it is a little more moderate. The Andante is dreamy but the tempo is not syrupy. I am not used to playing adagios and andantes in Mozart at the minimum speeds for adagios and andantes, otherwise one risks becoming too romanticized. Anyway, we will let you know when this CD comes out, and then if you wish, you can leave us feedback to help us improve on the next CD.

Thank you again for taking the time to write your comment. I will certainly take your impressions into consideration.

But imagine.. one grows by talking about things and I am learning a lot here.. in fact, regarding the richness of tone, I think you are not wrong. For example, I hadn't thought about the polyphony and the depth of the bass. Certainly right... it is not easy to make a choice when you must inevitably make decisions to channel them, using the parameters imposed by certain analog or electronic equipment..... one would perhaps like to make an impossible mix that perhaps... teaches us that the recording is the enemy/friend of the player.

As for the CD, I am certainly looking forward to it.

Thank you.