Sophia Ok, without repeat it would be 1:45 (if my math is right) - still a lot longer (and slower). Slow playing makes it easier to perform. Maybe this is the reason I got the recording on the very first take. I was very proud of that. Unfortunately, this didn't happen again. All other recordings are an afternoon with a lot of tries and errors. And the more tries there are, the less soul is left in the piece.
Offtopic: You may have heard about audiophile people, talking that a record sounds better than a CD or MP3 or any other digital format. From an accoustics standpoint, this is utterly bullshit. But they have a point, and most of those audiophiles don't even know that point:
In the analogue era, a song was one, or two, maybe three takes. And that's it. There was no possibility to make 10 recordings and create one perfect song out of some snippets of the best recordings. If something goes wrong today - who cares - you can blend it over with another take.
Back in the analogue times, a take was almost like a life concert. The musicians had a stronger connection to their music, they knew the takes are limited and they knew, everything must be good in a single shot. And this is maybe what makes the music of the good old analogue records era more likeable than the modern digital music.
Today you will find some old recordings, but (digitally) remastered. Is it better? Sure. Is is more perfect? Absolutely yes. Has it more soul? Probably not. Again, is it better? Well - maybe, but maybe not.
