Comments

From Pauline Lerner
Posted from 138.88.140.244 on June 6, 2008 at 1:17 AM (GMT)
Personally, I prefer a little imperfection. That's part of what makes a live performance or a recorded version of a live performance so great. It is full of life and vitality. A recording of a studio performance is more "perfect" because parts are rerecorded until they are technically clean. For a small ensemble, the musicians often don't even play together. Each player is recorded in a studio listening to other players through headphones. Whenever I can, I buy a recording of a live (in concert) version. Its spirit is so much stronger, and that outweighs technical perfection for me.
From Ruth Kuefler
Posted from 24.255.238.188 on June 6, 2008 at 2:58 AM (GMT)
It's funny . . I know what you mean about certain pieces of music being so special to you that you want the 'perfect' version to listen to. For a while I had that with the Brahms G Major sonata . . . after I saw Brian Lewis play it live, no recordings I heard afterwards seemed to do it justice.

What's even more funny is that I've had the opposite experience too. Do you know Arvo Part's Spiegel im Spiegel? Well, I used to listen to the Vladimir Spivakov version a lot on the radio. Then one time I got the chance to see it live. I was so excited! But the weird thing is that my expectations were so high that I actually ended up liking the recording better than the live version. Which rarely happens to me.

Like you said, there is no perfect recording out there because life isn't perfect. But there are a lot of pretty darn good ones that we can thoroughly enjoy. Like Pauline said, its the imperfections that make things interesting. :)

From Natasha Marsalli
Posted from 76.101.163.219 on June 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM (GMT)
I completely agree about the live performances! There's a spirit there- an interaction between the musicians and the audience, if you will- that makes a live performance- and its imperfections!- "better" (for lack of a better word) than a studio recording.
From Joe Fischer
Posted from 66.211.216.140 on June 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM (GMT)
Try "Carmina Burana"
Deutsche Grammophon 447_437-2
1968

Carl Orff conducting !!!!!
___________________________________

The definitive version......

From Natasha Marsalli
Posted from 76.101.163.219 on June 7, 2008 at 1:55 PM (GMT)
^I'm afraid I can't find that recording online...
From Joe Fischer
Posted from 66.211.216.140 on June 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM (GMT)
http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Orff-Carmina-Dietrich-Fischer-Dieskau/dp/B000001GQP

_______________________________


I think its this ^^^

From Joe Fischer
Posted from 66.211.216.140 on June 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM (GMT)
It's a re-issue.
From Joe Fischer
Posted from 66.211.216.140 on June 7, 2008 at 2:34 PM (GMT)
Authorized by Carl Orff
not conducted.

Conducted by Eugen Jochum...

From Natasha Marsalli
Posted from 76.101.163.219 on June 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM (GMT)
Right, I checked this one of course before, since it is widely held to be the best recording, but I found the orchestra quite disappointing...it sounds tinny to me, really lacking the smooth, round tone that I consider "ideal" in Carmina Burana. Merely a matter of personal taste, I'm sure, though. Thanks for the suggestion! :)
From Joe Fischer
Posted from 66.211.216.140 on June 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM (GMT)
No problem.
I really am not concerned with the
orchestra in "Carmina Burana"
JUST the singing involved.
So,if you ever do discover a more
orchestrally signifigant rendition,then allow me to know your choice involved.
You must be correct,with all of the recordings available,there must be a better recording.
I was just thrilled that Carl Orff was in the audience for the stated performance---and Carl Orff gave it his stamp of approval.........