A reader emailed me about one of Joyce DiDonato's recent blog posts in which Joyce explains the lengthy work that goes into making a recording:
The reader's email goes on to say:
"I was probably naive but I did not until recently understand that most singers' CDs are "doctored" several times until the desired degree of perfection is obtained. Arias are repeated, or at least parts of them, many times and then spliced together to produce an artificially perfect result. I had thought what you heard was more or less the same as one would hear in a concert performance, but that is not the case. It might be useful (unless I am unique in my naivete) to alert your readers to the fact that CD performances do not reflect the "real" performer as he or she would sound live".
That sounds like a good idea - consider yourselves alerted.
In case you're not aware, what Joyce describes (and I do urge you to read her whole post - it's a fascinating insight into the recording process) is by no means unique to her, or even to singers generally. Piano and other recordings are often enhanced too. Classical music's generally low sales make extensive re-recording and editing uneconomical, especially where orchestras are involved, but even so nearly all musical recordings - even 'live' ones - are touched up in one way or another.
Is this good or bad? Or to put it another way, would you rather listen to a great recording or a truthful one? Joyce DiDonato puts the performers' side across most eloquently (again, do read her whole post):

