once more with feeling

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:

"What results in 7 minutes of music on a disc likely takes 90 minutes of full-on singing to complete the picture. Normally we will invest in one full take of the piece, listen to the results (debating tempi, colors, ensemble, dynamics, etc), and then the real work begins, usually attacking one segment at a time, involving numerous repeats until the ideal result of musical perfection and high emotional impact show themselves in perfect unison".

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):

"We performers are hardly predictable machines. Every single time we sing a role it is different. No matter how proficient we are, we make mistakes. We sing out of tune. We have a low-energy day and the performance somehow falls flat. This is live performance. But for the amount of work that goes into preparing an opera, and knowing that it will be preserved for posterity, and many people will look to it to define the work itself, it is important to present as polished and theatrical version as possible. Making several takes and correcting small passages allows us the luxury of truly creating a cohesive, as-near-ideal-as-possible interpretation".

Comments

[Lisa Hirsch]

If your reader is interested in recordings that are less manipulated than studio recordings, he or she might try pre-1950 (78 era) recordings and live recordings made before the last decade or so (bootlegs).

[Kenderina]

Yes, your reader as he/she says..is very very naive ;) But maybe he/she would like to know that all the singers I've heard both live and in recording...sound MUCH better live !

[Poverino]

The recording process concerning edits can really get abused by musicians - particularly professionals who know what's possible. I read a complaint from one engineer noting that the quartet he was recording practically stopped every four bars. They knew he would (and could) be expected to put everything together later.

Even amateur groups are starting to become aware of this capability. Despite engineers' protestations of "It's much quicker (and cheaper!) if you play through it right the first time", there seems to be a growing expectation of engineers cleaning up everything afterwards.

As for myself, I just want a studio recording to sound as glorious as possible. The artist at his/her best. I don't care how the sausage is made.

[Hal]

All this makes especially precious recordings of live performances that one can hear on You Tube. Such as the Ponselle+Tibbett duet from La Traviata or the Ponselle+Pinza duet to be found there also.

[Hal]

I cannot escape, when I think of a singer's performance being "doctored" electronically to achieve an "unnatural" perfection, comparing this in my mind to an athlete's using drugs to enhance his performance and make it "more perfect". The latter is considered grounds for expulsion from the sport while the former seems to be standard practise among vocal artists. But both employ artificial means to attain a superior and "unnatural" result. Please tell me why one is okay while the other is prohibited.

[TTC]

Whilst I'm not a massive fan of recordings, they just don't do it for me versus the live experience, I've got to massively disagree with Hal.

Doping in sport is banned to achieve a level playing field. The issue mostly arises because drugs that make you faster/stronger often have negative side-affects (just look at the Russian women from the Soviet period). A person shouldn't have to sacrifice their health to succeed in sport so the drugs are banned across the board. Despite the moral indignation some people express there isn't actually anything wholly wrong with many of the drugs in and of themselves ("unnatural" is a silly phrase that doesn't really mean anything); as science and society develops I suspect we'll see a blurring of the current steadfast rules, what constitutes a drug is as questionable as anything. The sports boards have taken the easiest and fairest decision to simply eliminate the problem for now by banning them all.

Leaving that completely aside. Would you really want a professional recording you might listen to dozens of times with a fluffed top c or smudged coloratura? The extent to which record companies fiddle with sounds is amazing (even more so in popular music) but that's the product most people want. Live recordings are still made, although still usually from multiple performances so as to remove any glaring errors, but so and so's mixed bag of operatic favourites is bound to be tampered with. Why settle for a lesser product? Some may well disagree but assuming you can't hear the tampering (and you totally can on some recordings, a slightly random example being the "Glee!" recordings which are virtually sung by robots) what's the problem? If you want to hear what a singer is really capable of, hear them live. I'd much rather have a perfect recording as a reference to what the music can and possibly should sound like (that's totally a personal point of view however).

There's a definitely a discussion to be had on the extent to which music is electronically doctored but drugs in sport is a false analogy.

TTC

[Kenderina]

Hal, because the main way singers use to reach "perfection"is not that "unnatural". It is repeating the same sentence a hundred times...and that's in fact harming their voices not enhancing them. It just enhances the result you hear. Engineers can clean and mix some things..but really cannot do miracles. Nor the recording business pays them enough to do them ! hehehe.

[Henry Holland]

Hal, that's a poor analogy.

In sports, it gives an unfair competitive advantage if one guy is juicing and another isn't -- not all athletes do. It's been common knowledge amongst anyone who's cared since at least the Culshaw Ring cycle that classical recordings have been spliced and diced and edited and cleaned up, even "live" recordings. If everyone does it, there's no "competitive" advantage to it.

Frankly, I'm glad that's done, I find no joy in hearing an out-of-tune passage in a bootleg/pirate recording if I listen to it multiple times, I'm glad that they can clean it up.

"As for myself, I just want a studio recording to sound as glorious as possible. The artist at his/her best. I don't care how the sausage is made"

Exactly.

[bummed]

The notion of "perfection" is not an interesting one for me. I would rather hear a recording of one take, smudges and all. (I realize the splicing in of high notes, particularly when it comes to tenors, has been going on for decades.) Furthermore, in my opinion an ideal and/or "cohesive" interpretation is not dependent on perfection, particularly if it has been artificially created. This is a slippery, and depressing, slope. At least Joyce DiDonato is completely up front about it. I do admire her work tremendously. And there is probably no question that she possesses the ability to do a wonderful single take, without editing. So what if a few notes are off-pitch? Really, that is only human. Why are we striving to present work as if it is from the very machines she says singers are not? Plus, this type of manipulation deprives us all of the thrill of recognizing when, by some special alignment of circumstances, a performance does, in fact, attain a sort of "perfection". That's what everyone hopes they will be lucky enough to witness, right? Those magic, historic, performances.

[bummed]

Btw, if someone can sing for 90 minutes straight in a recording studio anyway, why not select the best single take? Why slice and dice? I don't really understand it, but that's just my opinion. The funny thing about this is that Joyce DiDonato is such a fantastic artist, and a consummate technician. If anyone could hope for a choice between single takes, she could. Does Cecilia Bartoli describe her recording process anywhere? I am sure what Joyce describes is common practice nowadays. Perhaps fans don't realize how the truly great singers have provided live and recorded work that sounds as if it is easy, when it is anything but. This may have caused some confusion about the reality of that achievement, in some ways. Slicing and dicing just doesn't stand in the same category, sorry to say. It's like comparing apples and oranges. But as long as everyone knows the difference, it's fine.

[Hal]

I think there is competition between singers as well as athletes and all athletes would probably take drugs for results if it were not illegal, so the analogy still holds. What is different is that in one case any advantage produces large sums of money (star athletes win big and get big endorsement deals) while singers do not, so there is little financial incentive there to prohibit "doctored" singing. I do not agree that "fixing" a recording is not producing an artificial product. It clearly is. A live performance is what is not artificial. If you can't tolerate a fluffed note or a flat one, then don't go to a live concert where you run the risk of hearing one. I think singers should present themselves as they are; some perform better than others and the listener has a right to know that. Much of the greatness of Ponselle was her near perfect live performances. Callas's were "iffy" and that too was part of who and what she was. I want to know and hear that.

[Hal]

Perhaps I should clarify my position to say this: I would have no objection to a singer's discarding a very bad performance (many flat notes; lousy trills, etc.) and doing the whole aria again. Even several times if need be. What I do object to is a singer's doing a perfectly acceptable job, as he or she would typically do in concert, and then using digital techniques to "improve" parts here and there, hitting a high note perfectly, doing a trill apart from the whole aria to make it "better", etc. This is the kind of artifice that I think is frankly dishonest and misrepresents (lies) to the listener what the singer's abilities really are.

[HairMan]

Most everything we see, hear, read is in one way or another doctored so to read JDD's blog posts is not a great shock.

How many of us edit our posts before pressing the "Post" button? We all like to look as good as we can in things that mean a great deal to us so I can't begrudge singers having the desire to sound their best.

It's when they're on stage that they earn their true reputations and it can't be denied that JDD is one of the best around - and there are plenty of "live" performances available as proof of this.

[bummed]

It's also a disservice to younger singers, who are then perhaps led to believe a recorded performance is natural, or 100% "real", when in truth it is not. Younger singers need to learn what to strive for, of course, but they must also be aware of what is realistically possible. And there are indeed many incredible recordings which provide this inspiration, showing that it is sometimes possible, and without smoke and mirrors. As long as they understand when engineering has played a role, I suppose it's ok, however. It's understandable that recording artists (along with their labels, and producers) wish to present a polished, finished interpretation for the ages. It is also a fact that singers may have a bad day, they may flub something in an otherwise flawless performance which is probably quite frustrating, but it's not the end of the world. Consistent overall quality is the goal. And sometimes, miraculous work - when the fates so decide! Again, Ms. DiDonato has more than your average amount of credibility as both a live performer and a recording artist, so these thoughts are nothing against her. It is more pertinent, actually, to the work of other artists who have not been able to reproduce the surprisingly high quality of their recordings and microphone concerts in their live performances. This is when it becomes an unfortunate trend, one that is having a negative impact on the artform as a whole.

[Laura]

It doesn't come as a surprise to me... I guess that's exactly why - although I can enjoy a studio recording edited to perfection very much - I always like the live experience better. So much more's at stake there, and you can really feel it hanging in the air.