Cheating in music videos
First of all I'd like to say that to me this sounds like an amazing recording and the sound is just heavenly. However I think they should not advertise digital concert hall using fake recordings. If you look at 0:07, the violist doesn't vibrate the 4th finger but you can clearly hear it. At 0:20, the violinist starts the vibrato later than the audio suggests, and the audio also sounds wider.
This is supposed to be a live digital concert hall for people who want to hear a real concert but don't have the means, not some commercially 'perfect' recording. This really left a nasty taste in my mouth.
Ok so I'm pretty sure none of the 21,000 viewers noticed that. But what about the following video at 0:17, where the audio blatantly doesn't match the video? I mean if you want to cheat, then at least make it believable?? Yes, I know I can't play better than these guys, and this is simply the direction the music industry has gone, but I miss the days of a good old honest take. I don't care about mistakes, I just want to hear a complete musical journey through the piece!
no answer to your broader question (although honestly editing in this manner doesn't bother me particularly), but re: the digital concert hall clip, are you sure your ear isn't getting fooled by another instrument's vibrato? The sound seems to match up with the movements to me, but at 0:07 the cello is vibrating and at 0:20 the viola's vibrato is much more present in the audio than the violin.
Is it possible that they recorded the sound and the video using different devices and then recombined it? It could be that it just didn't match up perfectly when they put it back together. I can't say for sure though, but as for the second video you posted, I didn't see anything funny looking. I can say that Mr. Zalai is a great player. I definitely think he can play that caprice in his sleep. If he happened to make a small mistake that bothered him, he'd probably just do it again and get it on the next try.
For the first clip, the viola plays an A using the 4th finger, and that note definitely sounds vibrated.
The recording was probably digitally edited for mistakes with another take being spliced in at places for the audio
Lyndon you are right, I was surprised to find out how normal this is when my daughter did some recording work recently; music was essentially assembled from multiple takes.
The art of performance is slowly being lost. Replaced by "perfect machines".
Basically everyone is doing it. James Ehnes did that in homage DVD, Gidon Kremer did that in his Bach solo recordin, along with many many other big names.
Ok, this is so confusing. If there are mistakes, they are issues and flaws with technique and method, no? I don’t know if there was any in these videos, and that is not the purpose of this question/reply. I am just confused. In another thread about Lindsey Stirling, because her technique apparently is flawed in some people’s eyes, even though she is not playing classical, is not a classical violinist, is not in a competition, is not playing for a postion in an orchestra, is not audtioning for acceptance in a music school, but is playing in a way that suits her genre and is correct for her, she is discussed and criticized because she is not using perfect classical technique. Perfect classical technique, would definitely ruin her performance, in my opinion, because would not be as free. I am not continuing with the thread about Lindsey, that has run its course, I am questioning why her perceived flaws are criticized, and imperfections in a video performance make that performance special.
Reminds me of something I heard on the radio in the Seventies - someone had written in to the station to say that he had been listening with his mother and she had remarked of a piece they had played "that must be a recording - it's too good to be a person."
I agree Cotton, the digital age has gone too far now... Anyway I know everyone edits nowadays and it's completely normal, my point was that I didn't expect the Berlin Phil of all people to do it too, especially with something they advertise as a concert hall :/
I think that when you go to a live concert, you are not just going to hear the music, or singing, you are going for the performance. I think the actual performance usually takes priority, unless the result of the performance is really bad. You want to see the performer perform. Issues with maybe a missed note here and there (to a point) are acceptable because you are there to watch that performer perform. You would probably forgive a performer who is out there performing with a sore throat being off because that performer(s) showed up regardless to perform for you live. However, you would find it unexceptable to pay for a live performance and hear a recording and watch lipsync, or “air band”.
I'm set to perform Theme from Schindler's List with orchestra in a month from now, so have obviously studied some live performances by Perlman that can be seen on YouTube. They are much more "sloppy" and less "perfect" than what you hear on the official soundtrack CD. It actually gives me a lot of confidence :-)
Why is anyone surprised? All the pop stars are lip-synching, and even that trio that played at the White House a few years ago played to a recording. None of this is new.
That's why I generally don't trust that a player is legit until I hear them live. Some recordings are so glossed out that it's like they had too much plastic surgery - some uncanny valley stuff.
I'm pretty sure those are clones of the real musicians.
It's just part of the larger battle between perfection and authenticity playing out in multiple areas of life.
"If you look at 0:07, the violist doesn't vibrate the 4th finger but you can clearly hear it. At 0:20, the violinist starts the vibrato later than the audio suggests, "
Scott, you have a long wait for that beautiful, appetizing burger. ;-)
I couldn't tell either Chris. I agree with the overall sentiment that James is expressing, but I don't think this example is particularly illustrative, but maybe I'm just not as sensitive to that kind of nuance.
I really don't care. The interpretation is the thing. My favourite oboist is Heinz Holliger. He was always fabulous in the recording studio (in the Seventies before much of the technical wizardry was invented) and mediocre live (I saw him once in the Barbican doing Mozart's oboe concerto, and the final movement was way too fast)
Ya even in classical music , there is a lot of editing. How much will depend on the artist / producer. Some do less than others : Gary Karr comes to mind. He does his best and purposely leaves certain imperfections there.
"Scott, you have a long wait for that beautiful, appetizing burger. "
The story I like about a world famous pianist of yesteryear - Horowitz, I think it was - was when he recorded the Chopin Ballade. He did several takes of it straight off in the studio and told the producer to choose the one he thought best for the disc. Horowitz apparently didn't want any editing.
I've been told by an insider that the amount of splicing that goes on in the studio to make these near-perfect recordings is unfathomable.
Ok guys I really get it now that editing is very normal today. I guess what concerns me more now is that people still didn't notice even after me giving timestamps and specific details about the notes and the timing... I would not be making this post if I weren't 100% sure. So I invite you to use the slow down function in the youtube settings function on the bottom right corner of the video and reduce the speed to 0.75. If you are still unable to tell, or you think that I am delusional, then I guess it's simply something we can disagree on :)
What this does for me is enhance the value of live performance.
Recordings have been aggressively edited since magnetic tape (1950s). Move along--there's nothing new to see here.
I read up on some of this out of my own curiosity. Here's a few links from a respected ME online recording community.