Classical Music Production (and the Joyce Hatto Piano Hoax)

[Elephone]

Did anyone see the Channel 4 documentary last night about the Joyce Hatto piano hoax?

You can read about the hoax here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto

The piano recordings released by Joyce Hatto's husband William Barrington-Coupe were actually recordings by numerous other artists. To alter the recordings, Barrington-Coupe used pitch shift, EQ, reverb, added spaces, possibly subtle timestretch functions, and stereo image swap (for some large theatre recordings I presume, as a close-mic'd piano requires correct stereo image).

He managed to change them so much that even the original players did not recognise their own performances!

Barrington-Coupe has admitted to using "bits" of other recordings (to fill in parts where his ill wife had made noises from pain), but this is totally unconvincing. Analyses by 'The AHRC Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music' have proved them to be by other pianists.

However, although his 'remastered' CDs are now being consigned to the dustbin (and have been banned on ebay) he claims he produced 'perfect' CDs. Apart from being a bit of a rogue, Barrington-Coupe was a British record producer in the 1950s and worked with Joe Meek on "Telstar". He also worked in London as a classical musicians' agent.

So could Barrington-Coupe's 'remasterings' actually offer something to the Classical music world?

Well, one thing I've often noticed on classical music recordings is really bad/lack of appropriate mastering and production. They're very reluctant to process the recordings in case authenticity is taken away.

But they need to realise that listening through speakers or headphones processes the sound anyway, so production and mastering techniques are just as necessary to get the best sound in classical music. Also, there are issues like ...the kind of pianos that Mozart played revealed the excellent left-hand parts more clearly, so although modern pianos sound better, some careful balancing of left and right might bring out the best in the music. And isn't that more important?

So, before collectors throw their Barrington-Coupe remastered CDs in the bin, perhaps the lack of finalising/mastering on classical CDs meant that Barrington-Coupe's contribution is quite valid -though morally objectionable. Who knows, with made up conductors and elaborate fake biographies of non-existent musicians and orchestras, they may eventually become collectors items!

------------
PS. Has anyone here worked or is tempted to work in classical music production? Does anyone have any opinions on Classical music production or 100% acoustic music production?

[DB111]

Some years ago I produced a Charity fund raising album which included a couple of pieces played by a pair of Royal Northern College students, playing Harp and Violin duets.
Since it was a studio recording, rather than a concert hall gig, as were the rest of the tracks on the album, I added a little EQ and reverb for the sake of consistency of sound.
We did a live show as a promo later and I sat there in the front row of the Town Hall, thinking,"I'd just like to tweak the top end on that violin sound".
I was wanting to hear sounds that were slightly larger than life!
A similar thing happened when I recorded some Rachmaninov piano pieces in the studio. That was on an old Steinway, which was not really up to concert standard- so I added a touch of compression, some stereo widening, a bit of EQ.
The player loved it! He said he'd never realised how good he sounded.
I though it better to say nothing at that point.
I think the point is that spending most of my time in a studio environment, I have a different perception of what things should sound like. The ability to tune and tweak has actually altered my audio benchmarks.
I suspect that I'm not the only one.
I can see though, that people who have acquired their concept of the ideal sounds in the concert hall could well have other ideas.
I'm also certain that, given the snobbery which abounds in parts of the 'serious' music world, there will be people who utterly despise my approach.
Luckily I'm not doing it for them.
Cheers
Dave

[Ted Kendall]

I think you will find that the "lack of mastering on most classical CDs" is hooey. Just because the sound isn't squeezed dry, wrung out and squashed to blazes doesn't mean that a lot of thought, care and time hasn't gone into it. Recording serious music is a craft which has evolved over decades, so, before pontificating, I suggest you read a few books ("Ring Resounding", "Putting the Record Straight", "On and Off the Record", "A Voice in Time" would begin the job well) and listen to some more recordings in the light of what you read.

And Barrington-Coupe was only perpherally connected with Meek. The connection (basically Triumph records, whose major hit "Angela Jones" Meek produced) had foundered by the time "Telstar" was recorded. The most charitable description of the man is "chancer". Joyce Hatto was a genuine, if not outstanding talent, as her few records made for concerns other than Barrington-Coupe's bear witness, but the whole Hattogate affair does her nothing but disservice. Whether it administered a salutary kick in the pants to some critics is another question entirely...

[Guest]

Did anyone see the Channel 4 documentary last night about the Joyce Hatto piano hoax?

Old news but entertaining nevertheless.

So could Barrington-Coupe's 'remasterings' actually offer something to the Classical music world?

As Ted says, a useful and hopefully (but doubtfully!) humbling lesson to a lot of self appointed critical arbiters of musical and technical quality and taste who got a lot of egg over their rather too smug faces

And if 'Chancer' is polite for 'lying, thieving ****" then it's about right.

Well, one thing I've often noticed on classical music recordings is really bad/lack of appropriate mastering and production. They're very reluctant to process the recordings in case authenticity is taken away.

Upon what reference and/or experience to you base those rather sweeping and ill informed statements?

But they need to realise that listening through speakers or headphones processes the sound anyway, so production and mastering techniques are just as necessary to get the best sound in classical music.

I think you'll find that like any other competent engineer in any genre, competent classical specialists are fully aware of what they need to do. Some have even been doing it for decades.

Also, there are issues like ...the kind of pianos that Mozart played revealed the excellent left-hand parts more clearly, so although modern pianos sound better, some careful balancing of left and right might bring out the best in the music. And isn't that more important?

Choice of modern or period instrumentation is an artistic one not an engineering one. It's not the engineers job to make a modern instrument performance of something written on older instruments sound like anything other than it is. (Unless that's what the client has asked and is paying for, in which case it's far easier to walk away muttering under the breath about idiots and fools ) Trying to make one sound like the other is a hide into nothing and only produces a sort of half baked mess that resembles neither one nor the other. Where would you have the fiddling stop? Should the string tone be modified to be more 'period' and wipe out the woodwind less, how about the reliability of woodwind and brass pitching, tone production, and power? Should the engineer be trying to make the horns sound like they're handstopping/half stopping various notes, does he have to make it sound like there are half as many people playing 10 or 20% faster than is the case, should pedal timps and modern sticks be made to sound like small kettle drums with wooden sticks? Should engineers be striving to make large modern studios/concert halls sound like the kind of spaces in which originally the music would have been performed?

Personally I love Beethoven performances on period instruments (assuming the players are really good) and with tastefuland scholarly attempts at period perfomance practice and forces but I'd never try to make a Karajan or Rattle performance sound anything like them. It'd be both pointless and missing the point.

perhaps the lack of finalising/mastering on classical CDs

And this conclusion was arrived how?

PS. Has anyone here worked or is tempted to work in classical music production? Does anyone have any opinions on Classical music production or 100% acoustic music production?

Yes thanks.

and ..er...

yes, thanks.

[Elephone]

>"Just because the sound isn't squeezed dry, wrung out and squashed to blazes ...."

Where did I say I wanted all that?

>"Recording serious music is a craft which has evolved over decades, so, before pontificating, I suggest you read a few books ("Ring Resounding", "Putting the Record Straight", "On and Off the Record", "A Voice in Time" would begin the job well) and listen to some more recordings in the light of what you read."

Well, I wasn't really talking about the finest classical productions known to mankind. But there are a lot of classical music CDs out there, and there is some terrible mastering. Off the top of my head, the last example I heard was Mozart's requiem (completed by Duncan Druce) conducted by Roger Norrington. It has terrible digital errors, 'breaking up', bad dithering or something. It's a pretty bad production overall.

"Whether it administered a salutary kick in the pants to some critics is another question entirely..."

Maybe SOME of the critics have egg on their face. Perhaps others just liked what they heard. I've not heard any.

>"Choice of modern or period instrumentation is an artistic one not an engineering one. It's not the engineers job to make a modern instrument performance of something written on older instruments sound like anything other than it is."

I didn't suggest that, but Mozart's left-hand parts do get lost in the otherwise 'singing' right hand of modern pianos. This didn't happen on period pianos. Why should it be out of the question to change the balance a little?

>"Trying to make one sound like the other is a hide into nothing and only produces a sort of half baked mess that resembles neither one nor the other. Where would you have the fiddling stop? Should the string tone be modified to be more 'period' and wipe out the woodwind less, how about the reliability of woodwind and brass pitching, tone production, and power? Should the engineer be trying to make the horns sound like they're handstopping/half stopping various notes, does he have to make it sound like there are half as many people playing 10 or 20% faster than is the case, should pedal timps and modern sticks be made to sound like small kettle drums with wooden sticks? Should engineers be striving to make large modern studios/concert halls sound like the kind of spaces in which originally the music would have been performed?"

Again, this is extreme, and I wasn't suggesting all that.

>"Yes thanks.

and ..er...

yes, thanks."

There are some prickly people in these forums. Too much ego.

[Ted Kendall]

Dead right there is.

[Ariosto]

I agree entirely with Ted. The good thing about a lot of clasical music recordings is that they have not been over-processed and they sound just like you would expect to hear in a recital room or concert hall.

Personally I don't like period performances much, even good ones, and there are very few of those.

And with reference to the Norrington CD - I would expect it to sound pretty awful as that's what he tries to achieve, and he usually succeeds!!

[narcoman]

There are some prickly people in these forums. Too much ego.

.... well perhaps because you've just belittled one of the UKs {if not Europes} most important classical recordists... OVU has not only an impressive set of credentials in UK orchestral circles - he's an important figure in recording some premier works and important performances.

But some of the rest of the initial post has pertinent points.

[Elephone]

".... well perhaps because you've just belittled one of the UKs {if not Europes} most important classical recordists... OVU has not only an impressive set of credentials in UK orchestral circles - he's an important figure in recording some premier works and important performances."

1. How did I "belittle" HIM exactly?

2. The only SLIGHT issue I had was the sarcy 'Yes thanks. and ..er...", and that response was BEFORE the post you've taken issue with. Doh!

3. Am I supposed to be all scared because he's "an important figure" in the classical music world? We're all human beings here. How do you know 'who' I am? I'm Quincy Jones don't you know... And anyway, even with the people I'm working with, it is necessary to talk naturally. What do you expect people to do? Get on all-fours?

4. My opening post was obviously written with facetious undertones, simply because the story is quite amusing and popular opinion is bound to be one-sided.

5. There are, without question, a lot of poor classical productions (sometimes because of recording and playback noise-floor issues) and I've never agreed that (even the best) speakers replicate anything like the sound of a concert hall. (There's not enough coughing for a start!)

6. Stop stirring

[narcoman]

every thread you've started here has a confrontational issue about it. No-ones asking you to crawl.... Just stop the asinine commentary and provocative posts.

You want a good response to your follow up posts then don't blast the respondents with flippant "too many egos"..... There are many of us on here who deal on a daily basis high end work and yet a quick dismissive side swipe seems to be par for the course these days. It's just damn right disrespectful.

You side swiped OVU {and of course he doesn't need me to defend him} with the "prickly ego " comment. You wouldn't do it to his face so why do it here.... and ignorance of who he is is not an excuse.

There are quite a few of us on here who like to get involved in the whole "community spirit" thing of sharing information. As it happens - there are also quite a few of us that record a considerable proportion of high end orchestral product - from high profile recitals {OVUs territory} to movie soundtracks {my territory}. Just reminds me of a similar side swipe to Alan Meyerson a few months ago.... something telling him that "if he'd open his ears and listen he do better"....

In response

1. By inferring large ego.

2. Exactly what I'm talking about.

3. No - you are supposed to show a bit of decency and respect. You don't go far in this business by being hot headed - that's why you're not QJ.

4. There is nothing wrong with your opening post. It's the follow ups.

5. True . Also not always the aim. Not all classical or orchestral recordings ARE supposed to sound "like being there". My work with Naxos is supposed to have that quality - but it's never really worked becasue so much is takn from visual cues etc etc.

6. dont be silly.

[narcoman]

but y'know !! Fair enough and all that !!

[Elephone]

OK, but I still don't get the...

>"You side swiped OVU .... with the "prickly ego " comment."

My post containing ..."There are some prickly people in these forums. Too much ego" WAS a 'follow up' comment to the "Yes thanks. and ..er... yes, thanks" by OVU.

So...

>"There is nothing wrong with your opening post. It's the follow ups. "

....doesn't compute.

[ken long]

Well, one thing I've often noticed on classical music recordings is really bad/lack of appropriate mastering and production. They're very reluctant to process the recordings in case authenticity is taken away.

Sure!

Because most top recordists are concerned with achieving the optimum signal in situ. They are not concerned with post production. Its not a "lack of" and certainly not "bad mastering". You need to consider the fact that the guys doing this successfully have been doing it for donkeys years. The whole craft is about getting the right capture! That is their performance.

And I tip my hat to them.

ken

[Elephone]

I was wondering more whether the desire for 'authenticity' as an idealistic goal sometimes obscures the reality of imperfect and varying HiFi technology (even top-end playback systems). Personally, I've found top quality closed-back headphones are SOMETIMES better for classical music. Nice detail.

Incidentally, have many classical recordings been done using the overdub process or recorded dry with convolution reverb added in production? I remember something about a George Solti opera recording that was meant to be an attempt at a 'perfect recording', and used overdubs for the solo vocal parts I think.

I wonder what classical producers think of this approach.

[ken long]

I was wondering more whether the desire for 'authenticity' as an idealistic goal sometimes obscures the reality of imperfect and varying HiFi technology (even top-end playback systems).

Today's technology is such that the medium is not plagued by issues such as wow, flutter etc... There is no "varying HiFi anymore is there? Really?

It really is down to experience in setting up the mics for capture. Authenticity is not idealistic at all..! provided you have recorded the source using the optimum set up and your instruments are properly calibrated. Something these guys do in their sleep!

Incidentally, have many classical recordings been done using the overdub process or recorded dry with convolution reverb added in production? I remember something about a George Solti opera recording that was meant to be an attempt at a 'perfect recording', and used overdubs for the solo vocal parts I think.

I don't see how this would ever be a perfect recording per se. It is an effect. One, amongst many, that belongs in the post production domain. WHy record wet if you can add room tone afterwards? Convolution has come a long way since Gerzon and there are many IRs available these days.

I wonder what classical producers think of this approach.

Are you talking about recordists or producers?

As narcoman mentions, labels like Naxos are concerned with post production and overdubs but most recordists capturing a live performance will be concerned with SNR, Phase, Coherence, Acoustics and Spatial Aspects.

Again: IN SITU!

ken

[David O' Connell]

What I personally find frustrating about the whole business of recording Classical Music is the lack of or the scarcity of well written articles about the recording and mastering of top of the range classical performances whether live or in studio. In the SOS archives there are any amount of excellent and detailed articles about the recording of classic tracks from contemporary music and albums, with detailed notes on mics used outboard gear etc. I would love to read an article that shows how a top Classical Music recording engineer such as OVU goes about recording a project. How many times have I listened to a superb recording of a string quartet or a full symphony orchestra on Naxos or EMI or DG and and would have given anything to know exactly what mics they used,what mic techniques,what pre and post processing was applied,especially mastering etc,etc. I am not anywhere near the league of OVU, recording, when I am lucky, very good amateur choirs or instrumentalists, but I am passionately interested in how "the best" do it. SOS thanks to the influence of Hugh Robjohns is the only magazine,at least that I am aware of, that caters in any way for the classical engineer. The market is dominated by contemporay music and its recording techniques, and classical music is only a minor sideline for some magazines, and ignored completely by most except as previously noted by SOS(Thank you,thank you).But I still feel starved of really substantial and meaty info on all the above. Maybe some of the professional classical engineers on this forum would submit an article to SOS for publication. I for one would appreciate it.

[ken long]

Maybe some of the professional classical engineers on this forum would submit an article to SOS for publication. I for one would appreciate it.

Me also!!!

Very good point.

ken

[A Non O Miss]

>
There are some prickly people in these forums. Too much ego.

I don't know so much about that. There is always a little fun poking going on but the prickly and ego? This is a public forum you know.

Also taking into consideration some of them, what they have done, how much money they make, their so called "status" within the industry, I tend to think we are pretty fortunate they are as grounded and real as they are. They could be total assholes and arrogant pricks because they are pulling in 7 figures or they have worked with this person or that person yet they generally seem to care and help people out.

In a World overfilled with super egotistic people I think this place is pretty darn cool. It does have a more "pro" or "serious" feel to it then most forums, but when you can joke around with guys/girls that are big time players in the biz on an equal level, that is pretty darn awesome.

Sorry to not be able to supply anything relevant to the OT but my knowledge of modernish Classical is severely lacking.

[Ariosto]

Coming to read these posts as an ex-professional classical music performer, I agree and sypathise with the points made Ted Kendal and OVU.

I don't think that a lot of post production will necessarily enhance clasical CD's - usually the recordists/producer will strive to get the sound right at the time of recording. Although some classical musicians will have an input as to how it sounds, and some can be quite difficult, generally they opt for a good representative recording of the performance as they hear it. Of course in a live concert recording session there will be a lot more variables, and less control all round, as to be expected.

My own experience is that with musicians who want to manipulate the process too much, either at the sessions and/or in post production, they cause a lot of problems and often end up with an unsatisfactory CD.

Most of the engineers/producers that I know and have worked with seem to want to produce it fairly straight and "as is." They also use the minimum amount of post production, which is usually not needed anyway, as they got it right at the recording sessions. (Maybe a little balancing if possible here and there, and judicious editing).

Of course there are times when a musician will be unhappy with the sound or balance on test recordings at the start of a session, but often this can be resolved without too many problems. Of course I have heard musicians complaining that it sounds terrible, when it has been their playing, rather than the recording that has been the problem!!

[David O' Connell]

I don't know if it's just me but it seems that nearly every recording of Early and Baroque music these days sound like it was recorded in the same venue. Same bright clear sound,same acoustic signature,same reverb tail. I assume that added reverb is becoming de rigour for commercial releases of this type. I used to enjoy listening to various versions of the same music not just for the varied musical interpretations and performances but also for the the beautiful acoustics of the various recording locations. Some were bright and clear, others were rich and smooth etc, but all had distinct characteristics that a skillful engineer would bring out to the full and use to his advantage. Mastering was used to enhance this acoustic beauty. I suspect that that many of the big record labels nowadays dial in "a sound" that they happen to think is commercial. If I read on the back of a cd cover that the recording was made in say Watford Town Hall then I don't want it to sound exactly like the latest release by DG recorded in the Berlin Philharmonic Hall. I know of course that recordings do sound different but it's getting harder to tell these days.