I was reading somewhere that Pollini's editors mixed so many splices of his playing that the etudes on the CD sound far more polished than Pollini himself could ever perform them.

Glenn Gould used similar techniques for some his recordings, too (and I'm sure there are others).

"Tape-splicing borders on immorality because there are many artists today on the concert stage or in the opera house who cannot give you the performance in life that they can give you on records... There is always the possibility that you could get something absolutely perfect [in the recording studio] and it would be absolutely boring." -- Richard Mohr, RCA "Red Seal" director

Tape-splicing is no more of a moral issue "than the number of stage-hands used backstage at a play production is a moral question or the number of revisions of a book is a moral question. It's really the product that counts. The consumer's only concern should be what he hears and how he reacts to what he hears." -- John McClure, CBC "Masterworks" director

Personally, I would love to hear a "perfect" recording of a piece. (If that's possible) But at some point, I think the pianist's individuality is lost through so much splicing. I believe, and I could be wrong, that such recordings that are spliced and mixed so much are more the product of machine than human, and cannot transmit all of the emotions of the music.

That being said, I do not have Pollini's recording of the Etudes, but I have listened to Gould's WTC quite often, and I much prefer Richter's rendition (not because of this issue, though, but because of the music).

What do you think?

wow.....I think thats kind of disturbing because these artists may not be as good as you think. But then again, I would do the same thing to make myself sound better. Yea yea hypocrite.

I agree, for commercial purposes it would be nice if this were not necessary. But i think the magic of audio editing can be a lifesaver for people in say, my situation where they have been practising their compositions for a year even and still cannot get them absolutely perfectly played in one sitting, and yet need to premiere them (in recording of course, not performance) so that a quality recording of the piece is made before they have moved on to new works and lost focus on the pieces at hand.

If only we could maintain unlimited amounts of pieces, always adding the new onto the old! Unforunately only the most gifted of pianists are capable of a technically perfect repertoire of this capacity.

I find it amazing however to note the incredible potential for digital audio editing (and once upon a time, analog tape splicing) to zoom into a point where the the waveform of the old recording can seamlessly connect to and from the period of overdubbing. It's quite amazing that this is even possible!

Gould's whole "thing" was about the technology through which he presented his music. I don't think the splicing aspect for him was an ethical issue at all, but rather another challenge of originality to see how far he could go with it. You should hear his contrapuntal documentaries that he made for CBC Radio (yes that means multiple voices talking over each other...hehe) they're very cool. Gould "the producer" very much aspired to be just as original with technology as Gould "the pianist" was at the piano. As soon as the ability to splice audio came along, he was all over it.

I dunno, again - there's a body of thought out there (not started by me) stating the Pollini's Chopin Etudes is the greatest instrumental recording ever made. You also have a whole generation of piano players out there trying to imitate this guy. I am told the atmosphere at his concerts is suffocating because of the level of perfection he presents. NOW, the solid truth is that about every generation, there is new scholarship, new ways of interpreting, new visualization and new piano players - which is the great thing about the "music industry" - it is so dynamic...

i really doubt it myself what pianojerome said about Pollini's recording. if you ever listen to Pollini's live recording, you'd wonder what on earth he cannot play.

I am completely against any sort of splicing.

When I first became aware of splicing by reading about it here at PW last year, I was shocked. I feel that recordings which use splicing are not "genuine" performances. I think that the pianist should play the whole piece (or movement) without interruption, and if he/she is not happy with something then he/she should start again. If the pianist is unable to play the whole movement satisfactorily, then he/she shouldn't be recording it. Just my opinion.

People do it all the time in every genre of music.

George Szell and a pianist (I think Jorg Demus) were listening to a spliced recording they had made of a Mozart concerto. When the pianist remarked that it was pretty good, Szell replied "Yes, don't you wish you could play like that."

The problem with imperfections in recordings (and not only the playing, but things like audience noise, creaky bench etc) is that they become much more annoying in repeated listening. If you are at a live performance these things don't matter (unless they are extreme): they disappear with the moment and are forgotten. Once heard again and again on a recording you start to listen for them and they can become distracting. That said, I love the recordings of Schnabel and Cortot, both of whom recorded without the benefit of tape splicing and who took big risks in the studio. I also enjoy a lot of live recordings, but even these are often patched up in various ways after the event.

The only times splices/edits bother me are when they are glaringly obvious, badly done and distract me from the music.

Other than that, I've no problem with them. It's not like they're compensating for a poor technique.

And you're welcome to it, but here's the reality. There are very few performers who can combine perfect playing with expression. Classical recording is a business and CD buyers don't wanht to buy less than perfect recordings no matter how much expression is in them (what some might refer to as recordings of historical merit). The public demands perfection and the easiest way to achieve that is by splicing, it's been a fact of life since tape recording was invented in the 50s. Now digital recording with computers makes this process so easy and seamless that edits are almost always imperceptible. Everybody does it and the recording engineers will tell you it's about releasing an artistic statement. The way they see it very few people go to live performances so who cares if they can't actually play it that well? that's what's on the CD so that's the way they'll be remembered.

This leads to a couple of issues. Have you noticed a certain homogeneity in interpretation? Fewer and fewer artists are going out on a limb because it isn't worth getting skewered for not playing Chopin like Rubenstein. As in anything there are exceptions, but overall I see less and less risk taking. Artists listen to each others performances and that's what's in their ears when it comes time to decide how they'll play it.

Now you've taken issue with performances spliced together. How about composers who use midi to render performances of their own works far beyond their own abilities. I've done this myself. With midi I can edit the performance and take out all the wrong notes and correct the rhythm. My Rhapsody is a difficult piece (I'm in the process of learning it), but the recording that's available online was a virtual performance that I developed while I composed the piece. I used the highest quality samples and it sounds like a real piano being played by a real performer in a real hall. The only thing that might give away that it's a virtual performance is that the sound of the damper pedal is missing and who listens for that?! I dare you to listen to it and tell me it doesn't sound real (see the soundclick link below).

I don't think many will take issue with composers developing virtual recordings of their own works, but what's to stop someone from using this technology to develop a perfect recording of Bach or Rachmaninov or Sorabjian? It's already been done and so far those who have done this have been honest about it (as far as any of us know). but that's my point we don't know and perhaps never will. At least the artists that splice their performances together actually played the notes at one time. However the is the promise and curse of technology and time only goes in one direction (as far as we know).

Cheers,

More to the point, who actually enjoys listening to Gould's WTC and Pollini's Chop Etudes? I for one don't. The playing ranges from cold, lifeless, and characterless to outright bizare.

Ryan

They're good if you want a recording for the use of study..

Sure, if you want to study how to play without soul

Ryan

I have Ashkenazy's recording and Cziffra's recording.

What do you guys think of those? I like them both a lot.

I believe Wild did it with his Chopin Etudes CD. I couldn't listen to the disk and just didn't know why.

One day someone was over at my house looking at some stereo equipment and mentioned he did taping for Wild. I told him about my reaction to Chopin CD and he was fascinated, as he was involved in that particular CD and said there were lots, and lost and lots of splices done.

Excuuuuuuse me, this is not music, not real, although I understand the reason people do it, there's a big difference inserting a wrong note or inserting a movement, than measure by measure.

Ed

I remember that I posted here an opinion on Pollini's technique. I have seen him perform live on videos, and he doesn't have a clean technique at any age in his life... at least not the one you listen to in his studio recordings. Does this mean he's a bad pianist? No, because musically he offers a lot to many people and he doesn't commit those mistakes that often through the whole piece.

But take this examples... someone mentioned Cziffra, and I'd like to add Berman (whose Liszt's trascendental études studio perfomance I recently got) to this comment: if you listen closely, you'll hear mistakes in their studio recordings, mistakes that if you have tackled some of those pieces you'll see that you commit them too, but they get out of them graciously. They didn't edit them, cause they know it's part of the performance... they are not machines and they accept it.

I guess I'm against editing cause it takes away the merit of showing your talent and work dedication at an instrument where technique and musicality really set you apart from the rest... and yes, ultimately it will reflect your ethics and priorities in your music.

Ironically, a live set of chopin etudes by Pollini (recorded when he was 14!!) is FAR superior to my ears than his studio rendition.

koji (STSD)

i enjoy Pollini's Chopin etudes, and many his other recordings. i like Pollini, and never find he's by any way 'cold'! maybe i'm the only one feeling like this.

Yes I know we're all entitled to our own opinions, but ARRGGG...DEATH FROM ABOVE :p

Hehe, OK now that Im done ranting over my Gould bias, you may all ignore my opinion, and/or return the death threat in my general direction.

Thanks for your reply, Steve.

I agree with your description of "the reality". I admit that I've never noticed any splicing on any recordings I've heard. It's just that the whole idea of it is really false to me (or what Americans might call "phoney"). Personally, I would prefer to listen to a less than perfect (but still very good) album recorded without splicing than an album with splicing that sounds "better".

On the question of composers using midi, I don't see anything wrong with that.

The only thing I find 'cold' about the Pollini etudes is the recorded sound, which admittedly is hard to ignore, but the playing itself is wonderful. If only it was better recorded, I'd listen to it much more.

In defence of editing :

As someone else mentioned, I'm not sure that I would want to listen regularly to a too-obviously "imperfect" recording; if I know that bar 17 is always going to repeat that wrong note that I heard the first time, I think it would spoil my listing experience. It's one thing to experience it live where it passes almost unnoticed; it's quite another thing to have it "engraved in stone" so that the mistake(s) is (are) permanent.

BruceD -- mistakes are one thing, slightly improved playing the correct notes inserted by the measure is another thing eh?

Grane :

Point well taken; I wouldn't knowingly want to listen to recordings that were "doctored" to be better than the pianist is capable of producing, particularly when the assumption on the part of the buying public is that what is recorded is exactly what the pianist is capable of doing.

That said, I don't balk at editing out mistakes, when the editing just means a re-take of a section where the pianist is capable of playing the music as it should be played - and as s/he probably plays it most of the time.

Regards,

I don't think that splicing and editing is necessarily going to result in a souless performance nor do I think it is unethical. Remember the goal is to create the most emotional and inspiring piece of music possible. Mistakes, weaknesses, memory lapses, fatigue...live they are understandable, and when you do hear someone live part of the atmosphere is that risk. But recordings last forever and it is important to make that recording as strong...both in quality and in emotional content as possible.

So think of it like this, a play is live. Since it is live the actor must prep him or herself for a 2 hour performance in which he or she needs to capture the moment and make the full 2 hours believable. It's tiring and no doubt some parts will be weaker then others, the actor may even have a memory lapse or trip but no matter what the goal is to make the whole 2 hours flow and feel convincing.

Now a movie actor is in a completely different situation and needs to change his or her style to fit that criteria. however, a movie, a perminant performance, has many useful tools "that are ethical," among those are sound mixing and editing. Since a movie relies on post production to make everything realistic the actor must perform with post production in mind. That means performing in very short incriminants from 5 seconds to 5 minutes. However in that short period of time they must capture all the emotion in the scene, and they must remeber what they did days ago and what they will do days from now.

So a pianist who decides to edit thier piece every few measures must act like that movie actor and fully understand how to capture the essence of the section in that short bit. They must also understand the structure as a whole so that during post production it will sound like one flowing final copy.

But really if your going to find something wrong with editing pieces in a recording studio then you must find something wrong with movie production.