RATE WHAT THE PERSON ABOVE IS LISTENING TO THREAD

6/10. Not a particularly good recording. Way too muddy and staticky.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
6/10. Not a particularly good recording. Way too muddy and staticky.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJxnUR8b0Q[/youtube]

It's of outstanding quality for a liver recording made in 1942. It's a little unfair to knock it for not being up to the standards of 21st century recording technology. Instrumental clarity is more than adequate, and the ensemble sound is great. Besides, the interpretation is so vastly superior to all the syrupy, schmaltzy, slow as molasses versions of Beethoven favored by contemporary conductors that any defect of the recording process is rendered almost meaningless.
 
It's of outstanding quality for a liver recording made in 1942. It's a little unfair to knock it for not being up to the standards of 21st century recording technology. Instrumental clarity is more than adequate, and the ensemble sound is great. Besides, the interpretation is so vastly superior to all the syrupy, schmaltzy, slow as molasses versions of Beethoven favored by contemporary conductors that any defect of the recording process is rendered almost meaningless.

1) I'm aware of when it was made, but that doesn't change that the clarity issues bother me. I'm one of those toolboxes that tries to get the highest fidelity of his audio files. I found it distracting.

2) The interpretation is subjective. I'm a fan of newer as well as older. That's the nifty thing about interpretation. It's like Chopin: if you play it as written it's lifeless, but the beauty comes out in hearing the player let it breathe.

Anyway, Necros Christos: 6/10. Not bad, just wasn't feeling it hardcore.

 
Last edited by a moderator: