On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.
>
> One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.
>
> So, several questions:
>
> 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?
>
> 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?
>
> 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.
>
> 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
>
> By
> me (johneb...@gmail.com change)
> Subject
>
> from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.

(Y. uploads):

Do You Know How Much Classical Music Is Edited?

Is There Editing in Classical Music Recordings?

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 11:36:34 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-10, johneb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Recently, I've come across some discussions elsewhere that suggest that such splices and edits are very common, and have been for some time. If possible, maybe someone can point me towards a credible source with some information addressing this question.

Yes, edits are VERY common. As for a "credible source" addressing this question, I doubt that one would find it. Most of my information comes from direct experience and conversations with artists, producers and engineers. Heck, even kids making recordings to get into colleges and conservatories have edits done on their behalf. And the engineers sometimes help them to weasel around the requirements for a "single shot, single camera angle" video of the performances - if you only have to edit a few notes, you can change the "soundtrack" without any change being visually apparent in the video. Those rotten little cheaters! ;-)

> >
> > One particular recording that was specifically cited was Stern's Beethoven violin concerto, which, it was alleged, was widely known to have nearly 400 edits in it. That just seems like an extraordinary number to me, especially in a work that runs fewer than 45 minutes (it would amount to an average of one every 6-7 seconds). In another discussion, a recording engineer said that a chamber group he recorded worked on just a few bars at a time, playing them over and over until they got them exactly the way they wanted them, and the recording was later stitched together from the many fragments, requiring dozens of hours of editing after the recording.

In fact, sometimes it's not the musicians who choose to record that way, but rather the producer or engineer who IMPOSE this methodology on them. A VERY famous pianist told me that that's the way he was forced to record the Dvorak Piano Concerto, even though he would have preferred to do the complete movement takes. He told me he hated that recording (even though he's the soloist!).

> > So, several questions:
> >
> > 1) Has this practice been extensively used for many years? Is it more widespread now, since I'm guessing that it's probably a lot easier to do this sort of thing in a modern, digital recording facility?

Even back in the days of 78's, each side was sometimes recorded multiple times, with the best sides assembled together for the finished album. In the LP era, Janos Starker's famous recording of the Kodaly Unaccompanied Cello Sonata provoked a scandal when it was later revealed that there were 18 tape splices in that 15-minutes piece. Of course, with digital tools, it's very easy to insert edits. I also had heard that the average number of edits on a symphonic recording these days is about 400 (like your Isaac Stern example). But when I asked the owner/producer/engineer of a VERY well known "high end" record company if this 400 edits per recording was correct, he answered, "Actually, that number seems rather low." ;-)

> > 2) Are there some musicians who are known to have relied on it heavily, while others are known to have not done so?

Yes there are. For instance, it's pretty well known that Annie Fischer was a big fan of edits.

> > 3) Was this practice known to be more extensively used by some labels, and less so by others? I could see how a really big name who is recording on a major label might feel some pressure about releasing a performance that is absolutely letter perfect, every moment, from beginning to end, but I find it really hard to imagine that the more "budget", off-brand labels like Vox or Nonesuch or any number of others would have invested dozen of hours in editing a recording back in the 50s, 60, or 70s.

Sure - you listen to, say, Sandor's Vox recording of the Brahms Second Concerto, and you can hear mistakes which the company didn't have the money/time to edit out. But digital editing is so much easier these days that one has to think it's ubiquitous. One label which tried to beep editing out of its production process was Audiofon, which released records and CD's from pianists Valentina Lesitsa, Earl Wild, etc. In his autobiography, "A Walk on the Wild Side", Earl Wild stated that he was unhappy with Audiofon's "unprofessional" recording practices, which I assume referred to their unwillingness to do editing. (!)

> > 4) Are such extensively edited recordings regarded as, for lack of a better word, "dishonest" by those who are aware of the practice? I would have thought that professional pride would have prevented at least some artists
from engaging in this kind of editing, but maybe I'm being naive. It would also seem to me that it would make it more difficult to make a recording come across as coherent and cohesive when you're stitching a final product together out of many short snippets, but on the other hand, maybe that isn't really that much of a problem.

No doubt depends on the individual artist.

> Do You Know How Much Classical Music Is Edited?

No I don't, but my guess is that, ever since magnetic tape entered the production process, there has been A LOT of splicing/editing. Sometimes, you can hear the tape splices easily. Of course, with digital recording it's VERY simple to make edits which are inaudible - so the proportion of recordings made with edits has surely only increased.

> Is There Editing in Classical Music Recordings?

Without a doubt - and sometimes, there's A LOT of it! ;-)