Record labels’ study shows performances of Bach are almost 30 percent faster than they were 50 years ago

Per research this weekend from two record labels, classical music performances of J.S. Bach have also gotten faster, speeding up as much as 30 percent in the last half century.
Universal-owned Deutsche Grammaphon and Decca conducted a study into multiple recordings of Bach’s famed Double Violin Concerto in celebration of the release of Bach 333, a box set marking the 333rd anniversary of the German composer’s birth. The labels found that modern recordings of the work have shaved off one-third of the length of recordings from 50 years ago, quickening by about a minute per decade.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/even-classical-music-is-getting-faster-these-days-748385/

dv said:

Record labels’ study shows performances of Bach are almost 30 percent faster than they were 50 years ago

Per research this weekend from two record labels, classical music performances of J.S. Bach have also gotten faster, speeding up as much as 30 percent in the last half century.
Universal-owned Deutsche Grammaphon and Decca conducted a study into multiple recordings of Bach’s famed Double Violin Concerto in celebration of the release of Bach 333, a box set marking the 333rd anniversary of the German composer’s birth. The labels found that modern recordings of the work have shaved off one-third of the length of recordings from 50 years ago, quickening by about a minute per decade.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/even-classical-music-is-getting-faster-these-days-748385/

Hmm, this performance from 1958 doesn’t seem any slower than most modern versions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJh6i-t_I1Q

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Record labels’ study shows performances of Bach are almost 30 percent faster than they were 50 years ago

Per research this weekend from two record labels, classical music performances of J.S. Bach have also gotten faster, speeding up as much as 30 percent in the last half century.
Universal-owned Deutsche Grammaphon and Decca conducted a study into multiple recordings of Bach’s famed Double Violin Concerto in celebration of the release of Bach 333, a box set marking the 333rd anniversary of the German composer’s birth. The labels found that modern recordings of the work have shaved off one-third of the length of recordings from 50 years ago, quickening by about a minute per decade.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/even-classical-music-is-getting-faster-these-days-748385/

Hmm, this performance from 1958 doesn’t seem any slower than most modern versions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJh6i-t_I1Q

…actually, listening to it, the first movement does seem more measured, as though they’re dwelling on the beauty of it rather than just getting it out of the way. But the total time of the work might not be much slower than more recent performances to be found on Choob.

Seems odd. I thought most written music included some indication of the intended tempo.

party_pants said:

Seems odd. I thought most written music included some indication of the intended tempo.

It does, but it’s up to performers to decide what that means in regard to their particular performance.

dv said:

Record labels’ study shows performances of Bach are almost 30 percent faster than they were 50 years ago

Per research this weekend from two record labels, classical music performances of J.S. Bach have also gotten faster, speeding up as much as 30 percent in the last half century.
Universal-owned Deutsche Grammaphon and Decca conducted a study into multiple recordings of Bach’s famed Double Violin Concerto in celebration of the release of Bach 333, a box set marking the 333rd anniversary of the German composer’s birth. The labels found that modern recordings of the work have shaved off one-third of the length of recordings from 50 years ago, quickening by about a minute per decade.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/even-classical-music-is-getting-faster-these-days-748385/

Oh.

The pitch has gone up since it was written. “In the period instrument movement, a consensus has arisen around a modern baroque pitch of 415 Hz, instead of the modern 440 Hz”. But that’s beside the point here.

“That performance trend would fall in line with faster tempos in modern music, as audiences’ attention spans shrink”.

I think they’re right.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Record labels’ study shows performances of Bach are almost 30 percent faster than they were 50 years ago

Per research this weekend from two record labels, classical music performances of J.S. Bach have also gotten faster, speeding up as much as 30 percent in the last half century.
Universal-owned Deutsche Grammaphon and Decca conducted a study into multiple recordings of Bach’s famed Double Violin Concerto in celebration of the release of Bach 333, a box set marking the 333rd anniversary of the German composer’s birth. The labels found that modern recordings of the work have shaved off one-third of the length of recordings from 50 years ago, quickening by about a minute per decade.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/even-classical-music-is-getting-faster-these-days-748385/

Oh.

The pitch has gone up since it was written. “In the period instrument movement, a consensus has arisen around a modern baroque pitch of 415 Hz, instead of the modern 440 Hz”. But that’s beside the point here.

“That performance trend would fall in line with faster tempos in modern music, as audiences’ attention spans shrink”.

I think they’re right.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to compress some Mozart.

I’m making all the soft parts of Mozart louder so it sounds enough like pop music for me to listen to it in the car.

Well classical orchestras are probably getting older, and they don’t want to stay up late at nights any more.

Are encores also getting shorter and less frequent?

Got to keep up with other songs people have sex to

From: Cymek
ID: 1297666
Subject: re: Classical Music Is Getting Faster

Got to keep up with other songs people have sex to
——————————————————————————————————————————————

Bolero by Ravel for eg.

How do radio stations play classical music?

Every classical CD is a disaster because the volume is either explosively loud or impossibly soft, often within the same piece.
But classical music from radio stations are always the correct volume.

mollwollfumble said:

How do radio stations play classical music?

Every classical CD is a disaster because the volume is either explosively loud or impossibly soft, often within the same piece.
But classical music from radio stations are always the correct volume.

With Dynamic range compression. I imagine is partly due to necessity, as FM has less range than a CD (50-70 dB vs 96 dB), and partly to make it easier to listen to in noisy environments like a car.

I’m sure the engineers who record and master classical CDs would argue that they’re providing an accurate representation of the performance. I wish more music was mastered like that. A lot of modern recordings have gone way too far in the other direction.

cb88 said:

mollwollfumble said:

How do radio stations play classical music?

Every classical CD is a disaster because the volume is either explosively loud or impossibly soft, often within the same piece.
But classical music from radio stations are always the correct volume.

With Dynamic range compression. I imagine is partly due to necessity, as FM has less range than a CD (50-70 dB vs 96 dB), and partly to make it easier to listen to in noisy environments like a car.

I’m sure the engineers who record and master classical CDs would argue that they’re providing an accurate representation of the performance. I wish more music was mastered like that. A lot of modern recordings have gone way too far in the other direction.

But they are not providing an accurate representation. Quite the reverse. When I’m sitting listening to LIVE classical music I don’t experience sounds that are explosively loud or inaudibly soft.

They are using dynamic range enhancement, which means it has to be compressed back just to get an accurate representation. This is far more objectionable than the loudness wars.

I need something like a 20 dB enhancement of the soft parts before the become audible.

mollwollfumble said:

cb88 said:

mollwollfumble said:

How do radio stations play classical music?

Every classical CD is a disaster because the volume is either explosively loud or impossibly soft, often within the same piece.
But classical music from radio stations are always the correct volume.

With Dynamic range compression. I imagine is partly due to necessity, as FM has less range than a CD (50-70 dB vs 96 dB), and partly to make it easier to listen to in noisy environments like a car.

I’m sure the engineers who record and master classical CDs would argue that they’re providing an accurate representation of the performance. I wish more music was mastered like that. A lot of modern recordings have gone way too far in the other direction.

But they are not providing an accurate representation. Quite the reverse. When I’m sitting listening to LIVE classical music I don’t experience sounds that are explosively loud or inaudibly soft.

They are using dynamic range enhancement, which means it has to be compressed back just to get an accurate representation. This is far more objectionable than the loudness wars.

I need something like a 20 dB enhancement of the soft parts before the become audible.

Go to the Opera house to listen. It is the way to hear an orchestra. Live.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

cb88 said:

With Dynamic range compression. I imagine is partly due to necessity, as FM has less range than a CD (50-70 dB vs 96 dB), and partly to make it easier to listen to in noisy environments like a car.

I’m sure the engineers who record and master classical CDs would argue that they’re providing an accurate representation of the performance. I wish more music was mastered like that. A lot of modern recordings have gone way too far in the other direction.

But they are not providing an accurate representation. Quite the reverse. When I’m sitting listening to LIVE classical music I don’t experience sounds that are explosively loud or inaudibly soft.

They are using dynamic range enhancement, which means it has to be compressed back just to get an accurate representation. This is far more objectionable than the loudness wars.

I need something like a 20 dB enhancement of the soft parts before the become audible.

Go to the Opera house to listen. It is the way to hear an orchestra. Live.

I used to do that, when I lived in Sydney.

This is what I mean. I just now digitised some Mozart off radio and off CD.

Off radio, the difference between soft and loud is perfectly manageable.

Off recently released Mozart CD:

See what I mean. To play the loud parts of this I need to set the CD player volume to 6, to hear the soft parts I need to set the CD player volume to 32.

>Off radio, the difference between soft and loud is perfectly manageable.

radio would use compression, or a limiter, keeps the dynamic range more manageable, from one end to the other, and toward the end to keep carrier modulation signal within a certain range.

transition said:

>Off radio, the difference between soft and loud is perfectly manageable.

radio would use compression, or a limiter, keeps the dynamic range more manageable, from one end to the other, and toward the end to keep carrier modulation signal within a certain range.

also helps improve signal to noise performance

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

But they are not providing an accurate representation. Quite the reverse. When I’m sitting listening to LIVE classical music I don’t experience sounds that are explosively loud or inaudibly soft.

They are using dynamic range enhancement, which means it has to be compressed back just to get an accurate representation. This is far more objectionable than the loudness wars.

I need something like a 20 dB enhancement of the soft parts before the become audible.

Go to the Opera house to listen. It is the way to hear an orchestra. Live.

I used to do that, when I lived in Sydney.

This is what I mean. I just now digitised some Mozart off radio and off CD.

Off radio, the difference between soft and loud is perfectly manageable.

Off recently released Mozart CD:

See what I mean. To play the loud parts of this I need to set the CD player volume to 6, to hear the soft parts I need to set the CD player volume to 32.

Sounds like you will need to normalize the sound across the cd

there are a few ways to do it using various audio tools

for audacity
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/amplify_and_normalize.html

for windows media player
https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-normalize-volume-when-burning-an-audio-cd

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Go to the Opera house to listen. It is the way to hear an orchestra. Live.

I used to do that, when I lived in Sydney.

This is what I mean. I just now digitised some Mozart off radio and off CD.

Off radio, the difference between soft and loud is perfectly manageable.

Off recently released Mozart CD:

See what I mean. To play the loud parts of this I need to set the CD player volume to 6, to hear the soft parts I need to set the CD player volume to 32.

Sounds like you will need to normalize the sound across the cd

there are a few ways to do it using various audio tools

for audacity
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/amplify_and_normalize.html

for windows media player
https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-normalize-volume-when-burning-an-audio-cd

Thanks. The Audacity option looks good.

Really annoying that I have to compress ALL my classical CDs.

mollwollfumble said:

But they are not providing an accurate representation. Quite the reverse. When I’m sitting listening to LIVE classical music I don’t experience sounds that are explosively loud or inaudibly soft.

I wonder if you measured it that would be objectively true, or if it’s more a factor of the listening environment. That Mozart CD waveform you posted does look a bit extreme…

mollwollfumble said:

They are using dynamic range enhancement, which means it has to be compressed back just to get an accurate representation. This is far more objectionable than the loudness wars.

Information is lost when you compress it. There’s no filter you can apply to make it more dynamic again, whereas applying compression during playback is non-destructive. There’s definitely a happy medium between your Mozart CD and the <5dB of range on some recordings.

mollwollfumble said:

Really annoying that I have to compress ALL my classical CDs.

Some amplifiers have a setting to apply compression. The Denon receiver I used to have called it “dynamic volume”.

For itunes playback only

Use Sound Check in iTunes to make song volume consistent
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201724

for media monkey
https://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.php/WebHelp:Basic_Concepts/4.0#Volume_Leveling

Compressing more classical CDs.

For each application of the compressor, the soft parts get 10 dB louder relative to the peaks.

For Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, I need to make the soft parts 20 dB louder just to hear them.
It’s obscene. No wonder we never listen to Classical CDs.
For Saint-Seans, Tchaikovsky, Grieg 20 to 30 dB louder depending on the piece.

For Liszt, 50 dB. WTF.

Even after that, a few notes of Liszt are still inaudibly soft. No wonder I haven’t been so fond of Liszt.

Gotta call it the softness wars. A massive overreaction to the lack of dynamic range in early recording technology.