It doesn't sound like he's talking about the "future" of broadcasting but the present; specifically, that broadcast music in 1931 is worthless because the reproduction quality is too poor. He doesn't say anything specific about the future of broadcasting, but he seems fine with the idea of music reproduction in general, so we can only assume that he would be happier with broadcast music of a higher quality.
> 'On this account alone, I deplore the present depression in the gramophone industry. It is a curious fact that when I began working for H.M.V. ten years ago business was excellent, though only indifferent records were available. Yet today, when we have first class recording, business is worse than it has ever been. For this, I can only think that the universal craze for radio is to blame. '
He's blaming the recent success of radio for poor record sales in 1931. Much like many were/are blaming streaming and youtube for the decline of record sales now...
Sure, but he's not lamenting the fact that his record sales are down, he's annoyed that something with crap music quality (in his opinion) is supplanting something with superior music quality.
Interestingly, he seems to only speak of live concert radio broadcasts, not about playing gramophone records for broadcast, which would have the same artistic advantages (choosing the best recording) that he described.
In 1931 they only had AM broadcasting, which indeed has crap audio quality, especially when the radio band is crowded. FM broadcasting started in the late 1930s.
I wonder if he used to make multiple takes and then pick the best one? Perhaps back then there was a lot of trail-and-error in the recording process?
Certainly, if radio was glitchy or temperamental back then, there was no way to go back and do another take. In contrast, today's "live" recordings can be edited afterwards.
> If once, twice or three times I do not play as well as I can, it is possible to record and re-record, to destroy and remake until, at last, I am content with the result.
I always think of Rachmaninov as a composer from "the olden days". I was really excited when I discovered there were recordings of him playing his own compositions. Just imagine if we had recordings of Bach or Mozart playing their stuff. Having their written music is one thing (and a precious thing at that), but having recordings would be so much more…
Yes, but the real treasure would be the improvisations. Beethoven was a legendary improviser, and all those performances are completely lost (except for phrases and ideas incorporated later into written compositions, from memory).
I'm much more interested in his comments on recording than on broadcasting. I love old recordings: Rachmaninov, Fritz Kreisler, Eugene Ysaÿe, all excite me to hear. But the part that really fascinates me is to see my daughters listening with enjoyment and understanding to a recording of someone who was born 180 years before them. I'm often not a fan of the effects technology has on our lives, but that's a real joy.
As fascinating as it sounds to listen to recordings by the composers themselves, I fear these “authoritative” renditions would deprive performers the room for interpretations.
11 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 28.5 ms ] threadHe's blaming the recent success of radio for poor record sales in 1931. Much like many were/are blaming streaming and youtube for the decline of record sales now...
Luckily, radio's gotten better since then. :-)
In 1931 they only had AM broadcasting, which indeed has crap audio quality, especially when the radio band is crowded. FM broadcasting started in the late 1930s.
Certainly, if radio was glitchy or temperamental back then, there was no way to go back and do another take. In contrast, today's "live" recordings can be edited afterwards.
> If once, twice or three times I do not play as well as I can, it is possible to record and re-record, to destroy and remake until, at last, I am content with the result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l37utZxMQ