TubeNet

Maybe it's because I am a tuba player, but it seems to me that the tuba may be the instrument most ill-represented on orchestral recordings. When I go to a concert, the tuba sound is so much more physically present than it ever is on a recording. It almost feels like the tuba is nonexistent in some of the loud passages on many recordings but in the concert hall, the presence is always there.

So if you ever feel you know what a tuba should sound like based on recordings alone, you are doing yourself a huge disservice. I think the trumpets, horns, or trombones have a more realistic representation on recordings but the tuba rarely does. You can always hear trombones in a recording and hear (maybe) something below them trying to support them, but in a concert it seems like you feel the tuba and basses supporting the trombones more than you notice the trombones. It's an interesting contrast.

Does anyone else notice this?

Bloke is spot-on. One of the recordings he mentions is here:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=59888" target="_blank" target="_blank

In it, his Thor always comes through, even though they're playing with a very powerful organ.

Live vs. recorded is NEVER the same, whether for music, sports, or anything else. Live and in person is always the best, that's why we still see things live!

tuben wrote:Don't under estimate the 'talents' of the recording engineer. I've personally been part of a recording made in a very live concert hall that after the engineer was done sounded like we were all in a broom closet. Seriously.

+10

The direction of the bell is very significant, whether it is live or recorded. If the bell points away from the mike or audiences' ears, it won't be heard much, if at all. I know tubas with upright bells are better than bell-fronts, but it doesn't do much good if it's not heard.

response off topic

The problem with recordings is microphones. Too many of 'em. The sound becomes the engineer and the producer's concept, not the Orchestra and conductor. We don't hear a bassoon solo live as loudly as on a recording. 4 pairs of mics--2 at front of the stage, 2 farther back in the house--would capture the sound better.

bighonkintuba wrote:Maybe...

I've attended many jazz performances...

The topic of the post was about orchestral recordings. I agree, a lot of jazz performances are more enjoyable NOT live.

Is Chester Schmitz a "up on top of the beat player"? He seemed to be well represented in recordings.

Here's a blatant instance of how to not capture the tuba sound: Decca did a very bad job of capturing Arnold Jacobs sound. I was listening to the Mahler 2 with Solti the other day and was thoroughly disappointed with how Decca recorded them. Jay Friedman has written about how bad it was as well. Trombones are strident as all heck and the tuba is almost MIA on the loud stuff.

oops... sorry...

bort wrote:

bighonkintuba wrote:Maybe...

I've attended many jazz performances...

The topic of the post was about orchestral recordings. I agree, a lot of jazz performances are more enjoyable NOT live.

I concur on the sound engineers taking perhaps a few too many liberties. I recently played on a pops concert in the park with a chamber orchestra, and discovered upon arrival that we would be recorded and broadcast the next day on a local radio station. A few minutes after the announcement they begin setting up a microphone directly over my bell . Shockingly, when I listened to the broadcast the next day, I could barely hear myself at all, even in the spots where I know I played out, unison tuba/bass bone lines in the jazz charts and whatnot (where more presence and bite is appropriate). Looking back, I'm pretty sure that I played a bit more "inside the box" in performance then I had in rehearsal, due to the microphone. And maybe that was the sound engineers plan all along. Moral of the story; good sound guys are hard to find, and when you do find a great one they are worth exactly what they ask for.

Sweaty wrote: " I know tubas with upright bells are better than bell-fronts, but it doesn't do much good if it's not heard." The 20J's take offense . Seriously, a recording tuba is a plus in a large auditorium to help get the sound out to the audience.

zangerzzz wrote:Is Chester Schmitz a "up on top of the beat player"? He seemed to be well represented in recordings.

Definitely You can hear it easily in these BSO/Feidler recordings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9yP5yl7 ... WRzMeox7Un

I was always most impressed with his rhythmic precision and punchy-yet-deep-velvety sound. Still my favorite orchestra tuba player

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can tell you from my own experience recording certain groups, mainly my main brass quintet, that the tuba sound is hardest of all to capture "well".

IMO, Deutsche Grammophon does the overall best job capturing not only the tuba sound, but also the orchestra sound for classical recordings. They seem to have the best engineers and best equipment.

Oh man.

Live and recorded are two such completely different animals...

Some of the best sounding recordings (of any kind) I believe are the old RCA Victor CSO/Reiner recordings... I think those were done with THREE mono recorders and THREE single microphones.

Now, every digital everything aspires to sound like that. It's so incredibly backasswards!

Rock records aspire to sound like Back in Black or Aja, Jazz records like Body and Soul.

...just like every orchestral tuba aspires to sound like the Chicago Yorks.

This all said, tuba is a difficult instrument to capture, it's acoustic properties take a *lot* of care. a LOT. ...and worse, few engineers understand it.

tubajoe wrote: Some of the best sounding recordings (of any kind) I believe are the old RCA Victor CSO/Reiner recordings... I think those were done with THREE mono recorders and THREE single microphones.

I love the old RCA recordings with CSO/Reiner as well as Boston SO recordings and many others. Most of them were done with 3 microphones but one recorder. I think they might have had a separate recorder for mono. Records at that time were issued in both mono and stereo. The center microphone was usually split to both channels so that there wouldn't be a hole in the center of the sound. If you get the SACD version of those old RCA recordings the center mic is fed to the center channel. So you get what each mic recorded straight off the master tape from what I understand. I think those recordings capture the whole orchestra sound very well and also the wonderful halls, particularly Boston and Chicago.

The early 1950s Mercury recordings of the CSO are done with a single microphone.

I heard Gene Pokorny speak at the 1992 conference in Kentucky. He said not to listen to commercial recordings. Rather, listen to radio broadcasts as they would give a better impression of what an orchestra and brass really sounded like.

mike

mbell wrote:

tubajoe wrote: Some of the best sounding recordings (of any kind) I believe are the old RCA Victor CSO/Reiner recordings... I think those were done with THREE mono recorders and THREE single microphones.

I love the old RCA recordings with CSO/Reiner as well as Boston SO recordings and many others. Most of them were done with 3 microphones but one recorder. I think they might have had a separate recorder for mono. Records at that time were issued in both mono and stereo. The center microphone was usually split to both channels so that there wouldn't be a hole in the center of the sound. If you get the SACD version of those old RCA recordings the center mic is fed to the center channel. So you get what each mic recorded straight off the master tape from what I understand. I think those recordings capture the whole orchestra sound very well and also the wonderful halls, particularly Boston and Chicago.

The early 1950s Mercury recordings of the CSO are done with a single microphone.

I heard Gene Pokorny speak at the 1992 conference in Kentucky. He said not to listen to commercial recordings. Rather, listen to radio broadcasts as they would give a better impression of what an orchestra and brass really sounded like.

mike

Pokorny has good advice but you have to be careful here too. If the radio broadcasts are truly "live" it is good advice. Unfortunately, many orchestras (NYP, CSO come to mind) claim they are broadcasting live performances when in reality they have recorded 3 concerts and spliced together anything that didn't sound right from the 3 performances (they had to have gotten everything in the piece right at least once in three tries). In doing this, they aren't literally "live" happening in the world right now. They usually post these concerts on their websites a few weeks after the concert actually happened--ample time to patch up any rough spots in the "live" performances. This is why mistakes are rarely, if at all, heard in the NYP/CSO concerts posted on their websites.

One orchestra that does give really live performances is the Minnesota Orchestra on Friday nights (all the mistakes will be heard if they are made--no time to patch them up, post-production).

doublebuzzing wrote: Pokorny has good advice but you have to be careful here too. If the radio broadcasts are truly "live" it is good advice. Unfortunately, many orchestras (NYP, CSO come to mind) claim they are broadcasting live performances when in reality they have recorded 3 concerts and spliced together anything that didn't sound right from the 3 performances (they had to have gotten everything in the piece right at least once in three tries).

Yes, mistakes will be cleaned up in most broadcasts nowadays, likely more so than at the time Mr. Pokorny spoke over 20 years ago. But the sound of the orchestra will tend to be more natural since there are usually fewer microphones used compared to a commercial recording. Also, most likely much less post production work is being done. I believe the edits mainly consist of choosing the best movements or large sections of a work.

I prefer actual FM broadcasts over recordings streamed from a web site. It is not as convenient, but the web streams often sound dead to me, probably because the compression causes loss of hall ambience. Here in Austin the classical station, KMFA, would usually carry either NYP or CSO, sometimes the LA Phil. Unfortunately, they are not carrying any of them right now.

mike