Older Performances vs Newer Performances
CH
Just a question(?) I'd be curious to read responses to:
Since it's apparent (from various postings to this group) that there
is a commonly held opinion that newer performances typically do not
stand up to older performances, I'm curious as to what theories people
have for this being the case. (Is that sentence convoluted or what?)
Is there something about the way people approach music different? Is
there something about "modern" training? etc.
Thanks
HenryFogel
>Subject: Older Performances vs Newer Performances
>From: ch...@mindspring.com (CH)
>Thanks
This is a wonderful, complex, and controversial subject that many will
have lots of fun with, I suspect. I can only give you my own feelings --
others will give you different ones. I would not say that in all respects
performances today don't hold up to older ones -- I think in certain
technical matters performances today surpass those of the past. But what
I do feel is that there is less personality, less individuality, on the
part of today's performers than there was in the past, and I think there
are a number of reasons for that.
1] "The Post Toscanini syndrome" - read Joseph Horowitz' superb book
"Understanding Toscanini" for a greater explanation of this idea. Those
who would publicize Toscanini (including the Maestro himself, probably
because he saw it as a good image) promoted the myth that Toscanini was a
"pure" interpreter -- i.e., one who scraped away the "excessive" liberties
of past performance tradition and conducted simply the notes on the page.
This is arrant nonsense even as a description of his conducting, but it
stuck, and people (including critics) believed it. I think this led to a
"purist" trend in musical performance and in musicology and music
criticism. Any conductor today who would take the liberties of a
Mengelberg, or Furtwangler, or Knappertsbusch, would be derided
mercilessly -- and any singer that took the liberties that a Fernando de
Lucia took (to name one example from the late 19th-early 20th century)
wouldn't be tolerated by conductors or critics (though I have a feeling
audiences would enjoy it).
2] Our performers are, chronologically, more distant from the music that
they mostly conduct (and that we mostly listen to). Those who recorded in
the first half of this century overlapped with the late romantic
composers, or were at most one generation removed from them. Many of
those performers studied with teachers who knew and studied with those
compsers. The link was direct -- and therefore, I believe, more emotional.
Now, we have performers who have a genuine and serious distance from
Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Mahler, not to mention Beethoven. That distance
may well beget an emotional distance too.
3] I do believe that much of today's training, particularly in the US,
stresses technical knowledge and accomplishment and minimizes
philosophical and cultural knowledge and identification.
Henry Fogel
Brendan R. Wehrung
CH (ch...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Just a question(?) I'd be curious to read responses to:
>
> Since it's apparent (from various postings to this group) that there
> is a commonly held opinion that newer performances typically do not
> stand up to older performances, I'm curious as to what theories people
> have for this being the case. (Is that sentence convoluted or what?)
> Is there something about the way people approach music different? Is
> there something about "modern" training? etc.
>
> Thanks
Conductors of the elder days had a much greater control over their
orchestras. They could demand, if needed, almost unlimited rehearsals.
Players often served at he whim of the conductor, and could be dismissed
out of hand (there are stories about Reiner doing exactly this), but just
as importantly, the conductor did the hiring, choosing players who met his
standards of performance and expression. Actually, some old recordings
reveal that technical standards were not always that high, and we should
be grateful that the average music school graduate of today could have
taken a place in many of the great orchestras of the past due to superior
training. Expression is another matter, however. Any question of fear
aside (players who failed to live up to expectation could be dismissed,
causing close attention during rehearsals), the conductor was with "his"
orchestra for extended periods of time so that each was comfortable with
what the other expected. Instrumentalists were usually of the same
national stock and shared common outlook on what was proper means of
expression, which is why the Czech Philharmonic was distinguishable from
the Paris Conservatory Orchestra. I think they were also expected to add
more to a performance than just playing a series of notes in time to the
beat--they all were musicians and took pride in the fervor with which they
performed. I'm not saying that today's orchestras are any less devoted,
just that they are closer to the attitude that music is a business, not an
Art (note capitalization). Even critics today seem embarrassed to talk
about the spiritual qualities of music, as if this did not matter much,
when it truth it is at the heart of music-making. When Beecham acheived a
heartbreaking pianissimo beyond the ability of words to describe, or
Furtwaengler's audience forgot to applaud for a moment, so caught up in
the moment--transported elsewhere that they had to recollect where they
were--this was GREAT music-making. We have it today, we probably just
don't have it so often. Celibidache did it to me with Bruckner.
We go back to those old recordings, at least I do, to help understand what
else there is in music that we may or may not get from the disc or concert
ticket we purchase today. We go to each new musical experience with hope,
in hope of new realization of self and beauty; old recodings provide units
of measure against which we stretch our expectations. It is up to you to
decide if that measure is full or comes up short.
Brendan Wehrung
Ps What I have left out above is the long apprenticeship of older
conductors. Most served a good long time, and continued to conduct, in
opera houses, usually from the small and insignificant to the middle-level
to the best. This continuing exposure and partnership with the human
voice probably had a great deal to do with the expressive qualities of
older performance styles.
ab...@iconnect.com
CH (ch...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Since it's apparent (from various postings to this group) that there
> is a commonly held opinion that newer performances typically do not
> stand up to older performances, I'm curious as to what theories people
> have for this being the case. (Is that sentence convoluted or what?)
Good question, for which I don't have a satisfactory theory. I can only
mention a book I read years ago: the title was 'An age of mediocrity' by
D. Sulzberger.
No need to say, I don't remember what it was about. Zeitgeist, maybe?
Best regards.
Mtconcape
With some temerity, I would like to add another consideration to the ones
Henry Fogel put forth. As a longtime listener to Boston Symphony Concerts
(though not a practicing musician) I note that guest conductors very often
do not elicit a performance "sound" much different from one another when
conducting this same orchestra. (Though most get better performances
than Seiji in anything other than Strauss or Berlioz; another story...).
I think part of the answer to why there are fewer current performances
that are "great" lies in the very ease with which guest conductors can now
travel the globe (e.g. Asahina's coming to Chicago) and with which we
listeners can hear different orchestras live or in concert recordings. I
suspect a certain homogenization of technique and outlook is inevitable
and has already taken place.
The prominence of recorded music as a force in classical music may have
something to do with it, too. Liberties or interepretive chance taking
which might work on the occasion in any particular concert will not wear
well in a recording that is to be listened to repeatedly. If present
major conductors must keep recordings in mind when they hone their skills
then spontaneity, which can lead to unbearably ragged performances but
also the occasional great one, is diminished as a virtue.
At Bill Carragan's Wagnerian Symphony Conference Leon Botstein, fresh from
a lauded performance of Schmidt's rarely heard Seven Seals, noted that
recordings are what have made for the great popularity of Bruckner and
Mahler symphonies. Their length makes repeated hearing necessary to the
music listening public's appreciation of them. That's the "up" side of
recordings. The "down" side is that recordings encourage a globalization
of standards. And this is closely related to the first phenomenon I
noted.
IMHO, the best chance of hearing a great perfomance is to go to a live
concert whenever one can.
My $.02
Mike Corgan
HenryFogel
Mike Corgan wrote [in part]
>With some temerity, I would like to add another consideration to the ones
>Henry Fogel put forth. As a longtime listener to Boston Symphony
Concerts
>(though not a practicing musician) I note that guest conductors very
often
>do not elicit a performance "sound" much different from one another when
conducting this same orchestra. (Though most get better performances
>than Seiji in anything other than Strauss or Berlioz; another story...).
>I think part of the answer to why there are fewer current performances
>that are "great" lies in the very ease with which guest conductors can
now
>travel the globe (e.g. Asahina's coming to Chicago) and with which we
>listeners can hear different orchestras live or in concert recordings. I
>suspect a certain homogenization of technique and outlook is inevitable
>and has already taken place.
I agree with Mike's comment as one more factor in the loss of performances
with an individual face - but I don't think it is by any means the only
factor (nor does Mike, clearly). Hardly any artist of our time was more
of a globe-hopper than Leonard Bernstein, but like him or not, one would
have to admit that he was perhaps the most outstanding conductor of the
post world war II era in terms of individuality of performance profile.
And even as a guest conductor he could make that impact. He appeared only
once with the Chicago Symphony in his mature career (he had appeared
earlier, in the 1950s, as a young conductor, but then not again until
1988), but the Shostakovich 7th he did on that visit was one of the most
searing, deeply personal, musical events I've ever been privileged to be
at (the result can be heard by anyone on the recording on DG, made at the
concerts). Bernstein did get the CSO to sound completely different from
what it sounded like under Solti in those days. As did Tennstedt, as did
Asahina, and other great, idividualistic conductors when they appeared.
Also, of course, this loss of individual "face" from the performer is by
no means limited to conductors. It is apparent in solo instrumental and
vocal perfomers as well, particularly opera singers. And I think Mike
Corgan's point is valid there too, i.e., the jet plane and the traveling
around from city to city, country to country, has made it easier to
perform more, but rehearse less. If you were resident at one opera
company for three months, singing in, say, three or four productions,
which you rehearsed and sat there and sang -- there was a chance to
develop a style. Now, you fly into a city with your Rodolfo, or Rigoletto
or Aida, perhaps make two rehearsals, sing the performances, and fly off
to the next gig. It is easier and more logical to develop a kind of
central, international, and, sadly, faceless performance style to fit all
occasions!
Henry Fogel
HenryFogel
Tag Gallagher writes, in part,
>I've been reading anything I could get my hands on now
>for nearly fifty years about Furtw=E4ngler and Mengelberg, and I can't
>recall anyone recently who criticized either of them for their freedom. =
>Quite the contrary. So, Henry Fogel, lay off poor dead Toscanini.
>Surely there are many other reasons for today's uniformity and for the
>reluctance of most performers to let themselves soar.
First of all, you haven't been reading a great deal if you cannot recall
criticisms of Furtawngler and (more so) Mengelberg for excessive freedom.
I could quote innumerable critics who have attacked both on those grounds,
though in the case of Furtwangler the tide of critical opinion has shifted
back in his favor in the past ten or fifteen years -- that is only
starting to happen with Mengelberg. I remember well an article by Harold
Schoenberg in the NY Times criticizing Mengelberg's Mahler 4th recorded
performance for precisely its excessive freedom, and furthermore
indicating that he felt that because that recording was made late in
Mengelberg's life, he might have been senile when he made it. Schoenberg
said that even though Mengelberg was close to Mahler, it was hard to
believe that in his younger years he might have conducted Mahler in that
manner, and went on to say that unfortunately we would never know since
Mengelbeg had never recorded any Mahler earlier than that 1939
performance. Apparently he was unaware of the 1927 recording of the
Adagietto from Mahler's Fifth made by Mengelberg, just as free and
flexible in its approach. (I admit that's a digression, but it is of
interest to this thread because one of my points was that the general
received wisdom in music criticism in the 1950s through 1980s was that
performances should not veer from the printed note, whatever that means,
and Schoenberg's article was an example of that).
Secondly, please don't misread my comments as an attack on Toscanini. I
think Toscanini was an extremely significant, forceful conductor of the
type of which I wish we had more today -- I was not beating on Toscanini
so much as on the myths that surrounded him (which he permitted) of
"purity", and "fidelity to the printed note". An example of this is the
story, always told admiringly about Toscanini's comments in rehearsal to
an orchestra regarding the opening of Beethoven's Fifth -- "Isa notta
fate, isa notta door, is 'allegro con brio' ". The idea is that this
puristic conductor scraped away all of the garbage of romanticized
interpretation and went back to the pure notes on the page. There is no
question in my mind, and I lived that period in the music profession, that
that was the general tenor of music criticism in the post-war period,
particularly in America and England. Even earlier, Tag, you should read
the NY times reviews of Toscanini and Furtwangler by Olin Downes -- and
other reviews from the 1920s, when both were appearing at the NY
Philharmonic. This issue of "fidelity to the text", which I believe has
damaged music performance, has been a critical rallying cry for the past
half century or so, and while I certainly do not blame it all on Toscanini
or his followers, I do say that his followers and mythologizers
(Chotzinoff, for one) had a great deal to do with helping to establish
that as the critical norm.
Henry Fogel
Fred Goldrich
In article <19970101204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
HenryFogel <henry...@aol.com> wrote:
>... I was not beating on Toscanini
>so much as on the myths that surrounded him (which he permitted) of
>"purity", and "fidelity to the printed note". An example of this is the
>story, always told admiringly about Toscanini's comments in rehearsal to
>an orchestra regarding the opening of Beethoven's Fifth -- "Isa notta
>fate, isa notta door, is 'allegro con brio' ". The idea is that this
>puristic conductor scraped away all of the garbage of romanticized
>interpretation and went back to the pure notes on the page.
This is an especially interesting example in light
of the talk Linda Fairtile gave recently at the Lincoln
Center Library, in which she showed several scores from
Toscanini's personal collection that contained alterations,
Beethoven's Fifth among them.
In addition to the 'usual' touchings-up of details
in the orchestration, there was actually a piccolo phrase
added _de novo_ in the last movement!
Linda said that she was unable to find a recorded
performance in which she could hear the phrase being played,
so it is not clear which, if any, performances incorporated
the addition.
-- Fred Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
Tag Gallagher
Neither Joseph Horowitz nor Henry Fogel offers any convincing evidence
that either Toscanini or Toscanini myths are responsible for today's
disparagement of freer interpretation. Perhaps as ardent
Furtw=E4nglerarians they feel some inclination to blame this situation on=
Toscanini, who has been dead for forty years, and on an apparently
massive lemming-like stupidity of (apparently) everyone who,
brain-washed by Toscanini-publicity half a century ago (when most of
these people were not born), make a cult of fidelity--while almost
unanimously praising Furtw=E4ngler and Mengelberg and knocking Toscanini'=
s
performances. I've been reading anything I could get my hands on now
k...@julian.uwo.ca
In article <5ad0mj$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brendan R. Wehrung) wrote:
>We go back to those old recordings, at least I do, to help understand what
>else there is in music that we may or may not get from the disc or concert
>ticket we purchase today. We go to each new musical experience with hope,
>in hope of new realization of self and beauty; old recodings provide units
>of measure against which we stretch our expectations. It is up to you to
>decide if that measure is full or comes up short.
>
>Brendan Wehrung
>
>Ps What I have left out above is the long apprenticeship of older
>conductors. Most served a good long time, and continued to conduct, in
>opera houses, usually from the small and insignificant to the middle-level
>to the best. This continuing exposure and partnership with the human
>voice probably had a great deal to do with the expressive qualities of
>older performance styles.
2 warnings: This is one of my favourite topics to ponder on, and I just got
done reading Lebrecht's "Maestro Myth" which sets out some of his explanations
regarding this phenomenon.
I am inclined to agree with those who suggest that a musician's "monogamous"
relationship with a community or orchestra pays dividends in the long term in
terms of individuality and expression--perhaps because it provides a set
context and mutually understandable circumstances for the performance of the
score.
I don't know that I agree with Brendan's point about the length of
apprenticeship--Lebrecht points out how much Mahler, Toscanini, and
Furtwangler accomplished before age 30. In contrast, these days the number of
conductors who have big responsibilities by that age is very small--Rattle,
Salonen, Chailly are the ones discussed in the book (and Levine would qualify
but then we have to go back 25 years). There are not nearly the same numbers
who come through opera houses though.
Another issue not yet raised in this thread is championing contemporary music
(let's say anything written within 10 years of when a conductor starts to
perform it regularly). I don't think the general change seen in interpretive
approaches is separable from the distinct lack of major premieres or repeat
performances of recent works. Here is one area where a Rattle would not feel
the yoke of a Furtwangler during a performance.
More on this later, I hope.
--Kang Howson-Jan
(k...@julian.uwo.ca)
(kang.ho...@lhsc.on.ca)
London, Canada
Tag Gallagher
Yes, you're right of course. But all those books and writings were
thirty and forty years ago. The Toscanini myth has been on the
defensive since his death (as Marsh's and Haggin's books evince, despite
their quantities of incense). Stereo came as Toscanini died and EMI
hailed Klemperer as the new god and everyone was kowtowing and wailing
over Toscanini's "rigidity" and wretched constricted recordings. Had
Furtwangler worked into the 1960s, he might have been chosen as the new
god, and what a potent divinity he would have been! But would this have
been any difference in today's performing styles? I doubt it.
And yes, there is an occasional rap on the knuckles at Mengelberg or
anyone else, even Josef Hofmann (when he's not been ignored: why has the
1995 Eklipse release of the two Beethoven concertos, most of the
Schumann and a second performance of the Rubinstein 4th been mentioned
no where?), but the rap is almost always accompanied by obeisance of
sorts. But is this the fault of the Toscanini myth? Toscanini's
rewrites were no secret in the 50s and it's been almost mandatory to
refer to them in writing about him ever since. Nor have the glories of
Furtwangler (at least) been secrets to musicians, critics and the
record-buying public. The Schoenberg article is certainly outrageous,
but it is surely more than outweighed by thousands of adoring articles
elsewhere.
I never took the "allegro con brio" story to refer to Toscanini's
purity, but rather to his rhythmic involvement, which is one of the
qualities that most impresses me in Furtwangler's Beethoven or
Mengelberg's Schubert or Hofmann's Chopin - and perhaps one of the
elements that we are suggesting is not present enough in today's
performances.
What are the causes of the fear of excessive freedom? Is it the fear
among youg musicians that individuality is career suicide? Or it is
just puritanism? Whatever, I think this situation dates not from
Toscanini but from the LP era and the 60s even more: from the
proliferation and ubiquity of Beethoven symphonies (and everything else)
for the first time in history. It is this quantity that has established
a standard, a "norm," not Toscanini.
HenryFogel wrote:
> >
> Secondly, please don't misread my comments as an attack on Toscanini. I
> think Toscanini was an extremely significant, forceful conductor of the
> type of which I wish we had more today -- I was not beating on Toscanini
> so much as on the myths that surrounded him (which he permitted) of
> "purity", and "fidelity to the printed note". An example of this is the
> story, always told admiringly about Toscanini's comments in rehearsal to
> an orchestra regarding the opening of Beethoven's Fifth -- "Isa notta
> fate, isa notta door, is 'allegro con brio' ". The idea is that this
> puristic conductor scraped away all of the garbage of romanticized
MARK ADKINS
Most of the recordings I've heard are of fairly recent vintage, so I have
to keep an open mind when I hear someone with much wider listening experience
say that older recordings are, on balance, superior to today's.
On the other hand, isn't it possible that a certain amount of this is
nostalgia?
Another possibility which someone once brought to my attention, is that
only the best of the older recordings have stood the test of time and
are still available. After all, in many cases, the sound quality of
these older recordings is noticeably inferior, so, aside from name
recognition of legendary performers, the primary reason for their
survival must be their exceptional performances. Survival of the
fittest. New recordings, on the other hand, have yet to be put through
this decades long culling process, and because there are far more new
recordings available, there are far more mediocre or poor new
recordings available, as a percentage of the total offered. In
terms of absolute numbers however, there may still be as many or more
superior performances in new recordings as there are in the old ones
which have survived.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
I. Neill Reid
[... sni[ ...]
>HenryFogel wrote:
>> >
>> Secondly, please don't misread my comments as an attack on Toscanini. I
>> think Toscanini was an extremely significant, forceful conductor of the
>> type of which I wish we had more today -- I was not beating on Toscanini
>> so much as on the myths that surrounded him (which he permitted) of
>> "purity", and "fidelity to the printed note". An example of this is the
>> story, always told admiringly about Toscanini's comments in rehearsal to
>> an orchestra regarding the opening of Beethoven's Fifth -- "Isa notta
>> fate, isa notta door, is 'allegro con brio' ". The idea is that this
>> puristic conductor scraped away all of the garbage of romanticized
>> interpretation and went back to the pure notes on the page. There is no
>> question in my mind, and I lived that period in the music profession, that
>> that was the general tenor of music criticism in the post-war period,
>> particularly in America and England. Even earlier, Tag, you should read
>> the NY times reviews of Toscanini and Furtwangler by Olin Downes -- and
>> other reviews from the 1920s, when both were appearing at the NY
>> Philharmonic. This issue of "fidelity to the text", which I believe has
>> damaged music performance, has been a critical rallying cry for the past
>> half century or so, and while I certainly do not blame it all on Toscanini
>> or his followers, I do say that his followers and mythologizers
>> (Chotzinoff, for one) had a great deal to do with helping to establish
>> that as the critical norm.
>>
Two brief points:
first, one area of music which has undoudtedly benefited
greatly from one aspect of the 'textual fidelity' is what
used to be called early music (i.e. just about everything pre mozart).
There are very few pre-1950 performances of this
repertoire which appeal to me _musically_ in the same way that
recent performances do. (The Boyd Neal Handel and Boulanger
Monteverdi performances are recordings that I treasure, but
more as first steps towards the present than anything else).
second, it is well worth bearing in mind that there are many
more avenues open to musicians now than in the days of
Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Toscanini et al. And it is therefore
inevitable (well, very likely) that not all of the 'best'
conducting material will choose to opt for big-orchestra
conducting. Indeed, the potential freedom of either modern music
or baroque/renaissance/early music may well prove more of a lure
than the narrow path towards directing a major orchestral
ensemble. William christie is an obvious example of a
first rate musician (who directs large-scale operatic ensembles) who
has scarcely made contact with the 'standard' orchestral
repertoire.
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
Don Patterson
MARK ADKINS wrote:
>
> Most of the recordings I've heard are of fairly recent vintage, so I have
> to keep an open mind when I hear someone with much wider listening experience
> say that older recordings are, on balance, superior to today's.
>
> On the other hand, isn't it possible that a certain amount of this is
> nostalgia?
I don't think so, Mark. I was born in 1960, well past the Tosacnini, Mengelberg,
Furtwangler, Kousevitsky years. I came to hear the work of these conductors
only recently. However, I hear something special that I miss in most performances
of today...a certain ebb and flow to the musical line that no longer exists. Indeed,
as a professional musician, I feel the pressure to adhere to the written note or not
work! My instincts tell me to do something different, but the conductors, section
leaders, etc. expect something else. I realize that you may think, "Well, of
course...in a military band..." But, it is not like that at all. The Marine Band is
a true concert musical organization and I perform a lot of chamber music. I hear
something in these old relics that I want to be a part of and cannot.
>
> Another possibility which someone once brought to my attention, is that
> only the best of the older recordings have stood the test of time and
> are still available. After all, in many cases, the sound quality of
> these older recordings is noticeably inferior, so, aside from name
> recognition of legendary performers, the primary reason for their
> survival must be their exceptional performances. Survival of the
> fittest.
I have recently begun collecting 78s and the survival of the fittest excuse doesn't
wash. I have a recording of Dvorak's 9th (5th) by the Rochester PO conducted by
Jose Iturbi. I've never seen this on CD, nor do expect to, but it is every bit
as individual in its approach as the fittest of which you write.
> New recordings, on the other hand, have yet to be put through
> this decades long culling process, and because there are far more new
> recordings available, there are far more mediocre or poor new
> recordings available, as a percentage of the total offered. In
> terms of absolute numbers however, there may still be as many or more
> superior performances in new recordings as there are in the old ones
> which have survived.
>
> --
> Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
--
Don Patterson <don...@erols.com>
"The President's Own"
United States Marine Band
The views expressed are my own and in no way reflect
those of the U.S. Marine Band or the Marine Corps.
Deryk Barker
HenryFogel (henry...@aol.com) wrote:
[...]
: performance. Apparently he was unaware of the 1927 recording of the
: Adagietto from Mahler's Fifth made by Mengelberg, just as free and
: flexible in its approach.
I hate to be picky Henry, especially as I agree 100% with the rest of
your post, but that recording is from May 1926.
--
Deryk.
===========================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Across the pale parabola of Joy |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | Ralston McTodd |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Songs of Squalor). |
===========================================================================
Lawrence Eckerling
HenryFogel wrote:
> 2] Our performers are, chronologically, more distant from the music that
> they mostly conduct (and that we mostly listen to). Those who recorded in
> the first half of this century overlapped with the late romantic
> composers, or were at most one generation removed from them. Many of
> those performers studied with teachers who knew and studied with those
> compsers. The link was direct -- and therefore, I believe, more emotional.
Henry, while I agree with most of your post, I don't necessarily think
that a closer link is going to yield more emotional results, just more
accurate. I site two examples:
1. I dont think that Bruno Walter's Mahler would be considered more
emotional than many performances by others in later years.
2. In my current study of the Barber Violin Concerto, the opening
movement is marked Allegro. Listening to recordings by Perlman, it
sounds slow. Listening to a live video with Nadia
Salerno-Sonnenberg, it is as though it were an Adagio! And very
"insightful", "passionate", etc. I then dug up an old LP with Bernstein
(who can be thought of as an incredibly passionate performer) with
Issac Stern recorded around 10 years or so after the work was
completed, and it is really played like an Allegro.
I think that performers are less likely to self-indulge when there is
a composer around to confer with.
Lawrence Eckerling
Harry Collier
> Since it's apparent (from various postings to this group) that
there is a commonly held opinion that newer performances typically
do not stand up to older performances, I'm curious as to what
theories people have for this being the case.
A lot of it is a question of perspective. When looking for a
performance of a given piece of music, we can usually take into
consideration recordings and performances over the last 70 years
of so (certainly since electric recording took over from acoustic
in 1926). It is statistically unlikely that most, or too many,
really good performances will fall into the past 20 years out of
the 70. Beethoven quartets? You come up against the Busch (1930s)
and Hollywood (1950s) not to mention Budapest and Hungarian
(1950s).
That being said, there ARE some "classic" modern performances --
Paganini's caprices and concertos, to take one example, are
probably better served in the past 20 years than in the period
before. And Bach cantatas. And the Passions and Mass in B minor.
And Handel operas. And Monteverdi.
Harry Collier
Len Fehskens
On Wed, 01 Jan 1997 02:22:00 -0700, ab...@iconnect.com at ab...@iconnect.com
wrote
>No need to say, I don't remember what it was about. Zeitgeist, maybe?
Phoebe? Phoebe? Is that you?
(an extremely obscure reference which only make sense to followers of the long
defunct Evergreen Review (Grove Press))
len.
Tag Gallagher
Indubitably much is better today. There is a metronomic precision often
lacking in the past. I don't think we were talking about "better" as
much as "different." Many older performances have a "freedom," which
sometimes takes the form of a willingness to supercede the printed text
with passion, thus the invocation in this regard of performers like
Furtwangler and Mengelberg (and I would add, Hofmann and Toscanini).
Today's performers seem relatively unwilling to appear idiosyncratic, or
to make the music their own quite so forcibly as in the past.
Obviously, no young musician in a competition is likely to play with
such freedom, because it is almost certainly to offend at least one
judge; and this attitude continues with first concerts and recordings.
Henry Fogel cited an example of Howard Schoenberg in the NY Times
rapping even Mengelberg for "excessive freedom." As we all know,
"excessive freedom" is something that the New York Times does not
tolerate.
But this does not explain why established musicians are unlikely to do
Mengelbergian things. My explanation---which no one else seems to
credit---is that this puritanism about freedom originated NOT (as some
maintain) with the cult of Toscanini's alleged (and nonexistent) purity,
BUT with the LP and stereo age and the sheer ubiquity of musical
performance, which established by quantity a norm, and if you depart too
far from this norm, many people, but just the NY Times, will accuse you
of betraying Beethoven.
ar...@wave.co.nz
On 31 Dec 1996 23:54:57 GMT, henry...@aol.com (HenryFogel) wrote:
>>Subject: Older Performances vs Newer Performances
Alexander Phoon notes:
It is harder today for conductors to emulate the so called
performances of say a Furtwangler, Klemperer without the accusation of
being wayward or indulgent being leveled. Also, I think that with the
"period instrument" mentality conductors are less inclined to
interpret or offer insights. I however do note that:
1. In general, modern -say in the last ten years - performances are
technically more secure with better playing and fewer fluffs by the
orchestra. - There is less tolerance today for botches in playing in
modern recordings thus tempos are "safer"
2. Many recommended recordings are of conductors who come only once in
a generation - looking at the major orchestras today, which one is
lead by a truly great conductor? (Yeah bring out the ammo for flames)
3. In general reviewers in this ng have a preference towards
non-period practice styled performances - thus many newer recordings
fall by the side. Don;t get me wrong I'll have Klemperer over Hogwood
any day. But, many newer recordings are influenced strongly by period
practice.
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, don...@erols.com (Don Patterson) says:
>MARK ADKINS wrote:
>
>> Another possibility which someone once brought to my attention, is that
>> only the best of the older recordings have stood the test of time and
>> are still available. After all, in many cases, the sound quality of
>> these older recordings is noticeably inferior, so, aside from name
>> recognition of legendary performers, the primary reason for their
>> survival must be their exceptional performances. Survival of the
>> fittest.
>>
>> New recordings, on the other hand, have yet to be put through
>> this decades long culling process, and because there are far more new
>> recordings available, there are far more mediocre or poor new
>> recordings available, as a percentage of the total offered. In
>> terms of absolute numbers however, there may still be as many or more
>> superior performances in new recordings as there are in the old ones
>> which have survived.
>
>I have recently begun collecting 78s and the survival of the fittest
>excuse doesn't wash. I have a recording of Dvorak's 9th (5th) by the
>Rochester PO conducted by Jose Iturbi. I've never seen this on CD, nor
>do expect to, but it is every bit as individual in its approach as the
>fittest of which you write.
For every great old performance, there were ten that were mediocre
to poor. Most of the latter are no longer available. I don't see how
selective anecdotes provide a counterargument to a common sense application
of statistical averages. Or does your experience lead you to believe that
most older performances are better than average by contemporary standards?
As long as we're being anecdotal, it's easy to provide counterexamples.
I have a recording of Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite, performed by the
Eastman-Rochester Orchestra under Howard Hanson. It's a 1958
recording remastered for recent reissue in the Mercury Living Presence
series. The orchestra is quite embarrassingly sloppy in spots.
>I was born in 1960, well past the Tosacnini, Mengelberg, Furtwangler,
>Kousevitsky years. I came to hear the work of these conductors only
>recently. However, I hear something special that I miss in most
>performances of today...a certain ebb and flow to the musical line that
>no longer exists. Indeed, as a professional musician, I feel the pressure
>to adhere to the written note or not work! My instincts tell me to do
>something different, but the conductors, section leaders, etc. expect
>something else.
Well, naturally. Orchestra members are not soloists, and one cannot
afford an orchestra full of "individualists" arbitrarily changing notes
to fit their whims. Of course, when it is a matter of special arrangements,
or the reconstruction of partial works, that is different. And one can
tolerate a certain amount of note-changing by maverick soloists, although
I prefer that the music stand or fall on its own merits, as far as the
actual notes are concerned. Conductors are interpretive artists, not
creative artists like composers. Their job is to take what has been
written by the composer and get the orchestra to perform the conductor's
vision (not version) of it.
I don't see how playing the wrong notes equates with "superior
performance".
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
Lawrence Eckerling
Tag Gallagher wrote:>
My explanation---which no one else seems to
> credit---is that this puritanism about freedom originated NOT (as some
> maintain) with the cult of Toscanini's alleged (and nonexistent) purity,
> BUT with the LP and stereo age and the sheer ubiquity of musical
> performance, which established by quantity a norm, and if you depart too
> far from this norm, many people, but just the NY Times, will accuse you
> of betraying Beethoven.
All true- but the standard is their favorite recording, and not the
score itself!
Lawrence Eckerling
Brendan R. Wehrung
I thought the standard was the _music_ in the score, not always the same
thing as the series of notes. Does anybody really want to hear "Bolero"
performed exactly as written? The composer was quite angry at the way
Toscanini did it on a European tour shortly after it was written, but it
is the flashy "Toscanini" way that has prevailed, not the composer's
measured rendition, which nonetheless is far from dull.
Brendan Wehrung
Matthias Schneider
> On the other hand, isn't it possible that a certain amount of this is
> nostalgia?
>
> Another possibility which someone once brought to my attention, is that
> only the best of the older recordings have stood the test of time and
> are still available. After all, in many cases, the sound quality of
> these older recordings is noticeably inferior, so, aside from name
> recognition of legendary performers, the primary reason for their
> survival must be their exceptional performances. Survival of the
> fittest.
These are good points. However, I think there might be still another
factor: The poor sound quality in historic recordings probably adds a kind
of mysterious quality to the interpretations. It is as if the music making
takes place behind a veil; it cannot be grasped clearly. If the veil is
drawn away (i.e., if one could hear some of the highly praised historic
interpretations in clear modern sound) some of the magic might be gone.
Matthias Schneider
HenryFogel
In article <5afq94$1...@news.asu.edu>, eme...@aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS)
wrote:
> On the other hand, isn't it possible that a certain amount of this is
> nostalgia?
>
> Another possibility which someone once brought to my attention, is that
> only the best of the older recordings have stood the test of time and
> are still available. After all, in many cases, the sound quality of
> these older recordings is noticeably inferior, so, aside from name
> recognition of legendary performers, the primary reason for their
> survival must be their exceptional performances. Survival of the
> fittest.
All of the above points are not without merit -- but I would like to pose
again a question I posed about a year ago to this group when this subject
was under discussion. In the year 1950, to take just one year at random,
the following conductors were active on the podium -- all conductors who
we would mostly agree (I think) had distinctive, individual podium styles
and who made a strong difference when being on the podium. These are all
people whose "historic" recordings still sell today despite their sonic
limitations. My question is how big would your list be of conductors of
similar importance, truly gigantic talents, for 1996? (The list that
follows for 1950 is being done out of my head -- as it was the last time I
did this - and so I may well omit some because I am not using any kind of
book or published listing - the list is also in no particular order):
Furtwangler, Toscanini, Klemperer, Walter, Monteux, Beecham, Mitropoulos,
Szell, Reiner, Koussevitzky, Stokowski, Horenstein, Abendroth, Kempe,
Ansermet, Boult, the young Bernstein, the young Solti, the young Karajan,
Kubelik, Jochum, Boehm, Knappertsbusch, Ormandy, Mravinsky, E. Kleiber,
Munch, and Scherchen. I am certain that if I sat down with a musical
encyclopedia, or even Schwann/Opus, and made the effort, I could find a
few more (and no doubt other readers of this newsgroup will add a few
names). But I think the point is that, at least IMHO, the above list is
28 names of conductors who were and are truly giants (one may not like
some of them, as I don't care for Ormandy's work, but the fact is that he
was an important figure with a distinctive musical profile) -- one might
even argue that one or two names don't belong on the list -- but the
question remains: how big would your list be today of condctors on that
level of importance and with that level of musical personality and
profile?
Henry Fogel
Yakov Horenstein
In article <mss-050197...@mac6132.qt.ipa.fhg.de>, m...@IPA.FhG.de
(Matthias Schneider) wrote:
> The poor sound quality in historic recordings probably adds a kind
> of mysterious quality to the interpretations. It is as if the music making
> takes place behind a veil; it cannot be grasped clearly. If the veil is
> drawn away (i.e., if one could hear some of the highly praised historic
> interpretations in clear modern sound) some of the magic might be gone.
>
> Matthias Schneider
And a lot *more* of the magic would probably shine through too!!!!
YH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Horenstein Tel: +39 (0)2 65 35 12
Milano, Italy Fax: +39 (0)2 2900 6208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Kershaw
henry...@aol.com (HenryFogel) wrote:
snip
> My question is how big would your list be of conductors of
>similar importance, truly gigantic talents, for 1996?
>Furtwangler, Toscanini, Klemperer, Walter, Monteux, Beecham, Mitropoulos,
>Szell, Reiner, Koussevitzky, Stokowski, Horenstein, Abendroth, Kempe,
>Ansermet, Boult, the young Bernstein, the young Solti, the young Karajan,
>Kubelik, Jochum, Boehm, Knappertsbusch, Ormandy, Mravinsky, E. Kleiber,
>Munch, and Scherchen.) -- one might
>even argue that one or two names don't belong on the list -- but the
>question remains: how big would your list be today of condctors on that
>level of importance and with that level of musical personality and
>profile?
Great list Mr. Fogel.
There has been much discussion in recent years regarding the lack of
truly great conductors on the circuit. With the re-release and
discovery of legendary performances on cd, it is no wonder that the
comparisons of todays conductors to earlier ones are so poor. Is this
one more reason why so many jet-set conductors sell so few cd's?
Recording in those days were events. A friend in a London orchestra
can't even remember recordings he did a couple of years ago because
there are so many! Reviewers spout on about certain definitive
performances, when I know that the orchestra showed up, and in three
hours its in the can!
However, to answer your question, some IMO that may one day compare to
some of the greats you listed :
Carlos Kleiber
Nikolas Harnoncourt
Sir Colin Davis
Bernard Haitink
Christoph von Dohnanyi
......................hopefully.......................maybe............................
I'm sure I have missed some, but your list is mighty hefty.
Regards,
Anthony Kershaw
Brendan R. Wehrung
Matthias Schneider (m...@IPA.FhG.de) writes:
> In article <5afq94$1...@news.asu.edu>, eme...@aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS) wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, isn't it possible that a certain amount of this is
>> nostalgia?
>>
>> Another possibility which someone once brought to my attention, is that
>> only the best of the older recordings have stood the test of time and
>> are still available. After all, in many cases, the sound quality of
>> these older recordings is noticeably inferior, so, aside from name
>> recognition of legendary performers, the primary reason for their
>> survival must be their exceptional performances. Survival of the
>> fittest.
>
> These are good points. However, I think there might be still another
> factor: The poor sound quality in historic recordings probably adds a kind
> of mysterious quality to the interpretations. It is as if the music making
> takes place behind a veil; it cannot be grasped clearly. If the veil is
> drawn away (i.e., if one could hear some of the highly praised historic
> interpretations in clear modern sound) some of the magic might be gone.
>
> Matthias Schneider
My experience has been the opposite. Yes, you may have to listen closely,
but the lack of luxuriant sound (by today's standards) forces you to
listen to the structure, and that is where many of the older conductors
were masters. Remember that many of them had fairly a restricted
repertory which they knew very well. Despite the leavening of new music
like that of Strauss or Debussy, the yearly repetition of core pieces
meant intimate knowledge of the flow of the music, and they had the luxury
of long rehearsals in which to work out interpretive ideas. It is the
force of these ideas that attracts us to 78rpm recordings, and I am
confident that were you to be transported back to sit in the Concertgebouw
or the Philharmonie or Queen's Hall to bask in the true sound brought
forth by Mengelberg, Furtwaengler or Beecham that you would lose yourself,
not in tone color, but in wonder that the human mind was capable of
thinking these musical thoughts. Much of this comes through in a good
78rpm transfer.
Brendan Wehrung
Lawrence Eckerling
If you want to take it that far, you are absolutely correct. Not even
the score, but the music that the score represents is the standard.
Its just that the score is the only true means to arrive at the end we
desire.
Lawrence Eckerling
Chris Johnson
For those of you who think that the only dood recordings are to be found
on a vinal record or a 78...BAHHHH
Lets face it. I love the recordings of Toscannini and old school
violinists such as Kreisler, Ysaye (what few he has!) and Morini etc etc
but a good recording should stand on its own. Regardless of the date on
the label a good recording will sick out weather or not it is too dusty to
be played!
Being a violinist....I love Oistrach (david) and I find such joy
in finding recordings of people liike Kreisler ( the Mendelsohn
Concerto!!) and Ysaye (Lountain Passe!) But who can dislike the recordings
of Perlman.
And with regards to Symphony recordings. Can you deny that Solti as one of
the "Greats just because he is alive. Or Bernstein cause you can remeber
him?? What about Michael Thomas or Daniel Barenboim?
Lets try not to all be the stereotypical classica Snobs!
Chris
Alan Cooper
Gerald P. Gennaro
CH wrote:
>
> Just a question(?) I'd be curious to read responses to:
>
> Since it's apparent (from various postings to this group) that there
> is a commonly held opinion that newer performances typically do not
> stand up to older performances, I'm curious as to what theories people
> Is there something about the way people approach music different? Is
> there something about "modern" training? etc.
>
> Thanks
I'd like to offer my own (strictly personal) opinion that a significant
factor leading to preferences for older performances is that we all
retain some 'imprint' of (and fondness for) the recording that first
exposed us to a particular piece of music. So, in my case, the
Toscanini "Till Eulenspiegel," the Ansermet "Petrouchka," the Beecham
"Scherazade," the Bernstein Shostakovich 5th, the Walter Brahms 4th, the
Szell "Don Quixote," the Munch "Symphonie Fantastique," the Reiner
Bartok, and the Furtwangler Schumann 4th all just sound RIGHT. That's
the way I learned these pieces and that's the way they'll always sound
to me.
Chris Johnson
yeh yeh yeh!!!! So I should spend less time in the practise room and more
time learning to spell!! I hope the point of my letter was still heard. :)
(I have to confess of my "snobish" leanings BUT, as musicians and music
lovers we should all strive to bring classical music out of the
museum!...or however you speel it! :)
Chris Johnson
>Toscanini "Til Eulenspiegel"!!! Gret Stuff!!
May I say, in my own opinion, that I agree.
John Grabowski
In <32D547...@ccmail.bms.com> "Gerald P. Gennaro"
Only two problems with this theory: 1) often I and other people here
don't like the first recording we encounter, and only grow fond of a
piece years later after hearing more performances of the piece. (In
fact, many pieces I initially thought I didn't like I actually just
didn't like the first performance(s) I heard. And 2) many here are
young-ish (can't say "young" anymore...sigh!) and started out with
recent recordings, but still find the older conductors, *on the whole,*
more compelling with much of the repertoire. (Where are all the great
Beethoven and Mahler conductors today?) And so it goes....
John
John Grabowski
In <Pine.OSF.3.95.97010...@Bayou.UH.EDU> Chris Johnson
<cjoh...@UH.EDU> writes:
>
>For those of you who think that the only dood recordings are to be
found
>on a vinal record or a 78...BAHHHH
> Lets face it. I love the recordings of Toscannini and old school
>violinists such as Kreisler, Ysaye (what few he has!) and Morini etc
etc
>but a good recording should stand on its own. Regardless of the date
on
>the label a good recording will sick out weather or not it is too
dusty to
>be played!
> Being a violinist....I love Oistrach (david) and I find such joy
>in finding recordings of people liike Kreisler ( the Mendelsohn
>Concerto!!) and Ysaye (Lountain Passe!) But who can dislike the
recordings
>of Perlman.
ME! Oh, ME! No problem.
>And with regards to Symphony recordings. Can you deny that Solti as
one of
>the "Greats just because he is alive.
Some days he was.
>Or Bernstein cause you can remeber
>him?? What about Michael Thomas or Daniel Barenboim?
What about them?
John
...who has no problem with living performers, but would take Mutter,
Kremer, Argerich, Richter, Kleiber, Boulez, Colin Davis, Kovacevich, et
many a cetra, over the above-named any day of the week.
Lionel Tacchini
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Gerald P. Gennaro wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Just a question(?) I'd be curious to read responses to:
> > >
> > > Since it's apparent (from various postings to this group) that there
> > > is a commonly held opinion that newer performances typically do not
> > > stand up to older performances, I'm curious as to what theories people
> > > have for this being the case. (Is that sentence convoluted or what?)
> > > Is there something about the way people approach music different? Is
> > > there something about "modern" training? etc.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > I'd like to offer my own (strictly personal) opinion that a significant
> > factor leading to preferences for older performances is that we all
> > retain some 'imprint' of (and fondness for) the recording that first
> > exposed us to a particular piece of music.
This might be true for many people, but many younger listeners feel that way
too. I often find more "individuality" in older recordings from the 40s or 50s
when I discover them today, and this after having heard several more recent
renditions of the same works.
Apparently, modern performers do not dare as much as the older ones did.
Reasons for this have been given in other postings.
Then there is the statistical explanation : there are much more recordings
made today than there were in the 40s, which increases the impression of
uniformity (and also decreases the average quality, supposing record
companies in the old days had enough sense to record only the best).
I also have been wondering on the effects of bad sound :
bad sound often leads the mind to "reconstruct", consciously or not,
what is missing. No wonder the listener is more satisfied with his
own imagination of what's not in the recording, than with what a hi-fi
recording would give him. Bad sound helps idealizing the music.
Bad sound focusses concentration on "what the music says" rather than
on the way it sounds. As a result, old recordings often seem to be more
straightforward and "on the point".
Bad sound demands increased concentration. Increased concentration
often leads to higher satisfaction (critics and professional musicians
should be far above concentration problems, but this might well have
an influence on the average listener).
Bad sound adds tension, both through the higher demand on concentration
and through the sound itself, which doesn't have the smoothness of the
original one as it was produced in the studio or the concert hall.
In many cases (Beethoven, Bruckner etc ...) more tension is welcome
by the listener.
Having said all that, I still cannot support the opinion (although I
really wish I could) that there are as many exceptional musicians
today as there were 40 years ago and I would be hard pressed to
build a list of 28 modern conductors that could compete with Henry
Fogel's list of 1950 giants.
I suppose a big part of today's great talents have turned to baroque,
renaissance or medieval music ... (which is not a bad deal, when you
think of it - I'd rather enjoy a brilliant new recording of yet
unheard Ars Subtilior pieces than another Beethoven set).
Lionel Tacchini.
Joshua Abbott
I completely agree with you John. As a pianist I definitely respect the
achievements of the greats of the past (Horowitz, Rubinstein, and Janis
among many others), but there are many modern recordings that no
open-minded musician can throw out. One of these recordings is Martha
Argerich's stunning Rach 3rd Concerto. I have heard the acclaimed
performances by Horowitz and Janis, but I have to say that Argerich
meets or supasses both of them in matters of virtuosity and sensitivity.
The same holds true in the symphonic repetoire. While one must stand in
awe of the achievments of Toscanini, Bohm, Klemperer, and Szell, there
are modern performances that can at least hold their own against them.
Anyone who doubts this should listen to Solti's Mahler cycle (which I
think will never be surpassed as a set), Tilson Thomas' recording of the
Rite of Spring on DG, Dutoit's rendition of Resphigi's famous tone
poems, or Colin Davis' concerto recordings with Perahia and Kovacevich.
These offer excellent artistry along with great up-to-date stereo sound.
Joshua Abbott
Matt Kennel
Lionel Tacchini (l...@anacad.de) wrote:
: Having said all that, I still cannot support the opinion (although I
: really wish I could) that there are as many exceptional musicians
: today as there were 40 years ago and I would be hard pressed to
: build a list of 28 modern conductors that could compete with Henry
: Fogel's list of 1950 giants.
I can't say quite about conductors, but as an (amateur) wind player I can
certainly say that the common level of achievement in winds, brass and
percussion of any of the 20 to 30 "top orchestras" today might only be
reliably matched by a few of the very best of the "historical orchestras",
e.g. Reiner/CSO or Szell/Cleveland.
Does 60's Berlin count as "historical" ?
W.R.T. interpretations I think modern day is about equal to the past.
Perhaps I could give a nod to the superiority of the "olden days" for
vocalists, but very recently there's again a upsurge in new talent.
Mutter hovers just below the glorious pinnacles of Heifetz or Oistrakh, and
M. Argerich is justly lauded to the skies.
I wouldn't knock contemporary times that bad.
This conversation will probably take place again in 30 years saying how
great things were in the fin-de-siecle 90's.
mbk
Kevin
Let me throw another question into the mix: is there a connection
between this phenomenon and the view that many popular conductors of
our time have gotten worse with age? Solti, Bernstein, Karajan...
Glitz and polish. You just don't hear that in Walter of Horenstein.
What you do hear (and I can't say this is really a recent trend or
not. Anybody?) is that conductors now tend to force their own
interpretations into the music, adding to it quite a lot. Surely,
there is a difference between how Horenstein conducted Mahler 1 and
how Walter approached it, but they never stamped their names all over
it in the sense that Bernstein would. Compare for example the
Adagietto of Mahler 5 by Walter and by Bernstein. Bernstein's cannot
really be called an Adagietto; he hangs on every note until the last
possible instant. Walter, conversely, let the music play.
Like I said, I'm not sure if that's really a recent trend or not. It
is how *I* perceive the difference between the now and the then, but
maybe I'm just observing and comparing the wrong conductors.
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, l...@anacad.de (Lionel Tacchini) says:
>
>Then there is the statistical explanation : there are much more recordings
>made today than there were in the 40s, which increases the impression of
>uniformity (and also decreases the average quality, supposing record
>companies in the old days had enough sense to record only the best).
We don't need to suppose that record companies in the old days recorded
only the best; rather, that only the better performances have survived to
be reissued today.
>
>I also have been wondering on the effects of bad sound :
>bad sound often leads the mind to "reconstruct", consciously or not,
>what is missing. No wonder the listener is more satisfied with his
>own imagination of what's not in the recording, than with what a hi-fi
>recording would give him. Bad sound helps idealizing the music.
>
>Bad sound focusses concentration on "what the music says" rather than
>on the way it sounds. As a result, old recordings often seem to be more
>straightforward and "on the point".
>
>Bad sound demands increased concentration. Increased concentration
>often leads to higher satisfaction (critics and professional musicians
>should be far above concentration problems, but this might well have
>an influence on the average listener).
These are interesting points, particularly the first paragraph. But
my personal experience is that bad sound distracts from the recording,
concentration or not. I don't even like listening to new recordings
while the AC or heater fan is blowing (particularly for something like
solo piano, but in other instances as well). It obscures and distorts
the tonal colors and, during the quiet passages, obscures the music.
Concentration is far deeper when one is not disturbed by ambient
sounds or musical distortion. Then, one CAN concentrate on the music.
Another problem along these lines, is that music IS sound. Tonal color
is an integral part of most works. Music is not simply an abstract
relationship between notes. The medium should be as transparent as
possible and the instruments as realistic as possible. Otherwise, we
could all listen to muddy mono recordings of transcriptions for xylophone
and kazoo. I realize of course that you are not suggesting this, or even
advocating old recordings, but I have been quietly reading threads about
mono recordings and so forth and find myself shaking my head at the
sometimes incomprehensible attitudes, and I wanted to get my two cents
worth in while this was still marginally on topic to an ongoing thread.
There are simply too many excellent modern performers to recommend
*bad* old recordings, except for those who are already well familiar
with a work and are exploring every nuance and variation of performance.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
Allan Evans
To add further froth to the issue Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu) wrote on:
> Another problem along these lines, is that music IS sound. Tonal color
> is an integral part of most works. Music is not simply an abstract
> relationship between notes.
>
> There are simply too many excellent modern performers to recommend
> *bad* old recordings, except for those who are already well familiar
> with a work and are exploring every nuance and variation of performance.
here are some noisy thoughts:
Music is also culture. Many *bad* noisy recordings exist by the composers
themselves at the piano (Saint-Saens, Brahms, Grieg, Bartok, Prokofiev,
Stravinsky, Falla, Debussy, Mompou, Poulenc, Chaminade, Godowsky,
Grainger, Albeniz, Granados, Busoni, R. Strauss) and many of the
afformentioned were incredibly great pianists and musicians with
absolutely unique performance styles. We can hear Webern, R. Strauss,
Mascagni, Villa Lobos, Pfitzner, Ravel, Schoenberg, Prokofiev and others
conduct their own music.
To approach classical music by giving priority to sound-quality and
modern performances is fine, as it is a splendid relaxation and a great
relief after a hard day's work. But there is more happening and the more
one listens to the creators and their protegees playing "new" music, the
more one is able to grasp the essence of the work itself. The "average"
listener afraid of uncleansed sound will remain "average" in taste,
outlook and potential. Classical music will not live on thanks to such an
attitude as few current performers explore the music in the way the
generation of its creators and pupils did. Most players ape their edited
product in public so as not to disappoint the consumers.
Allan Evans
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, arb...@tiac.net (Allan Evans) says:
>here are some noisy thoughts:
>
>Music is also culture. Many *bad* noisy recordings exist by the composers
>themselves at the piano (Saint-Saens, Brahms, Grieg, Bartok, Prokofiev,
>Stravinsky, Falla, Debussy, Mompou, Poulenc, Chaminade, Godowsky,
>Grainger, Albeniz, Granados, Busoni, R. Strauss) and many of the
>afformentioned were incredibly great pianists and musicians with
>absolutely unique performance styles. We can hear Webern, R. Strauss,
>Mascagni, Villa Lobos, Pfitzner, Ravel, Schoenberg, Prokofiev and others
>conduct their own music.
>
> To approach classical music by giving priority to sound-quality and
>modern performances is fine, as it is a splendid relaxation and a great
>relief after a hard day's work. But there is more happening and the more
>one listens to the creators and their protegees playing "new" music, the
>more one is able to grasp the essence of the work itself. The "average"
>listener afraid of uncleansed sound will remain "average" in taste,
>outlook and potential. Classical music will not live on thanks to such an
>attitude as few current performers explore the music in the way the
>generation of its creators and pupils did. Most players ape their edited
>product in public so as not to disappoint the consumers.
>Allan Evans
>
I think it's a serious mistake to assume that composers were necessarily
the best performers of their own works. Many of these composers spent
their careers composing, not developing their technical skills to the
degree of professional polish necessary for someone who wished to be
known as and excel as a performer. For the composer, the idea is
paramount and serves as proxy during his own performances, which
may be competent, but are typically inferior to the those of the best
professional performers of the era. To assume otherwise is to simply
to indulge in naive, romantic idealism masquerading itself as culture.
To "grasp the essence of the work itself" the interpretive artist must
be skillful enough to express that essence. For the composer, that
essence is an already existing psychological entity which supplements
or transcends the performed work. For the listener, the performance
is an aesthetic experience through which his own personal empathy for
the work must be developed. A listener attempting to develop such an
empathy by listening to muddy, distorted recordings -- perhaps with
mediocre performances by the composer himself -- will be severely
handicapped.
Furthermore, I simply cannot agree that in three or four generations of
professional performers, the only ones possessing the artistry and the
interpretive skills to explore the work in their own individual ways
were those living on the cusp of the modern era. I have heard far
too many masterful and stylistically varied contemporary performances to
buy into this peculiar prejudice -- performances which have the added
attraction of verisimilitude because they come closer to the actual sound
of a live instrument than their technologically inferior predecessors
did.
I am not a student of weird psychological mysteries, but I think that
this peculiar prejudice against newer performers generally falls into
two categories: (1) the nostalgia of the aged, who would in some cases
actually prefer that the new be inferior (even if it isn't); (2) the
conditioned tastes of more youthful individuals exposed to mentors
of category (1).
I don't know which category you belong to, but I think it is safe to
assume that classical music will not die with you. Its popularity will
wax and wane as it has through the generations.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
MARK ADKINS
[Note: I'm bifurcating this thread because it fits in with a parallel
discussion in the other newsgroup. M.A.]
professional performers of the era. To assume otherwise is simply
I think it is safe to assume that classical music will not die with you.
Its popularity will wax and wane as it has done in the past.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
Allan Evans
> I think it's a serious mistake to assume that composers were necessarily
> the best performers of their own works. Many of these composers spent
> their careers composing, not developing their technical skills to the
> degree of professional polish necessary for someone who wished to be
> known as and excel as a performer. For the composer, the idea is
> paramount and serves as proxy during his own performances, which
> may be competent, but are typically inferior to the those of the best
> professional performers of the era. To assume otherwise is to simply
> to indulge in naive, romantic idealism masquerading itself as culture.
Sorry, but from Bach to Bartok, including Rachmaninoff, the great
composers of keyboard music were the foremost performers (musically and
technically) of their times (Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, many many more).
They also interpreted other composer's works masterfully. Enough to read
Wagner' reactions to how Liszt played the Hammerklavier sonata.
Allan Evans
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, arb...@tiac.net (Allan Evans) says:
On the contrary. Chopin was hardly the foremost keyboard performer of
his time. He was quite unpopular in fact. I won't argue with you
about Liszt, although some might. But your list has shortened
considerably. That's because individuals like Liszt are the exception
rather than the rule. I would rather hear Pollini than Chopin, or
Zimerman than Debussy, any day. The same is true for most (not all)
others. I suspect however -- though it's difficult to determine
absolutely when no recordings exist -- that the best modern performers
of Liszt at least equal him. Certainly, I would rather hear Evgeny
Kissin perform Liszt's Transcendental Etudes on a modern instrument
on a recent digital recording, than I would Liszt if he had survived
to make dreadful old Edison cylinder recordings, even if it turned out
that Liszt was a smidgen better. One must make seek a wholistic
balance between performance and sound quality. In most cases,
one can find contemporary performers to provide both in superior
fashion. In a comparatively small number of cases, exceptional older
performances outweigh a lesser degree of aural fidelity -- but only
up to a point.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
MARK ADKINS
Oh, I almost forgot to respond to another provocative point.
In a previous article, arb...@tiac.net (Allan Evans) says:
>Classical music will not live on thanks to such an attitude as few
>current performers explore the music in the way the generation of its
>creators and pupils did. Most players ape their edited product in
>public so as not to disappoint the consumers.
Ape their edited product? You mean, reproduce a flawless performance
time after time? I really don't understand how, if their live
performance is every bit as good as the recorded performance,
the quality of the latter can be regarded as the result of editing.
What you are objecting to is the consistency which skill and practice
produces.
The performance may evolve over time, but one does not expect a new
arrangement of a classical piece each time it is performed. Nor was
this ever the case. The exploration of a piece consists of its
interpretations in the contrasting styles of different performers, or
in the gradual interpretive development over the career of a particular
performer, not in novelty variations with each performance. The
product (recorded or live) of different modern performers is every
bit as varied as those from past generations, as a moment's listening
would inform you should you care to make an honest effort -- though
I must say I really do not think you know what you want. On the one
hand, you claim that only by listening to the composer perform the
"authentic" version can one grasp the essence of a work. On the other
hand, you then criticize modern performers for their supposed failure
to explore a work.
I am also quite puzzled by your remarks about "the generation" of
classical music's composers. Presumably you do not listen to classical
music written prior to the advent of recorded music, since the "authentic"
performances are not available. Since you also do not listen to modern
performances, this leaves a vary narrow window. You will pardon me if I
fail to applaud this parochial viewpoint.
I am tempted to say that classical music will not live on thanks to
the attitude of reactionaries, who struggle on another day in the hope
of brainwashing just one more generation into believing that they must
listen to nasty, muddy old recordings or nothing at all, but that would
absurdly overestimate their influence.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, mcru...@bdm.com (Michael Crutchley) says:
>Mark ,
>
>You hit the nail right on the head! Performances and quality DO matter,
>especially in the age of digitally-mastered CDs.
>
>I have been a collector of classical music for thirty years, and I have
>many versions of a single work (like 3 or 4 renditions of Chopin's
>Nocturnes, for example) and I almost always put quality first.
>
>However, some composers do excel at their own compositions, e.g.
>Leonard Bernstein.
>
>Do you agree?
I agree that composers may excel at their own compositions. I merely
disagreed with the claim of the other writer that this was necessarily
or even typically the case. Actually, I disagreed with his somewhat
stronger claim that (turn of the century) composers excel over the
best modern performers.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
Michael Crutchley
Mark ,
You hit the nail right on the head! Performances and quality DO matter,
especially in the age of digitally-mastered CDs.
I have been a collector of classical music for thirty years, and I have
many versions of a single work (like 3 or 4 renditions of Chopin's
Nocturnes, for example) and I almost always put quality first.
However, some composers do excel at their own compositions, e.g.
Leonard Bernstein.
Do you agree?
Bye,
MJC (AKA: Mike)
John Grabowski
>In a previous article, arb...@tiac.net (Allan Evans) says:
>
>>In article <5bnmf5$n...@news.asu.edu>, eme...@aztec.asu.edu (MARK
ADKINS) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think it's a serious mistake to assume that composers were
necessarily
>>> the best performers of their own works. Many of these composers
spent
>>> their careers composing, not developing their technical skills to
the
>>> degree of professional polish necessary for someone who wished to
be
>>> known as and excel as a performer. For the composer, the idea is
>>> paramount and serves as proxy during his own performances, which
>>> may be competent, but are typically inferior to the those of the
best
>>> professional performers of the era. To assume otherwise is to
simply
>>> to indulge in naive, romantic idealism masquerading itself as
culture.
>>
>>Sorry, but from Bach to Bartok, including Rachmaninoff, the great
>>composers of keyboard music were the foremost performers (musically
and
>>technically) of their times (Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, many many
more).
Many many people feel Rachmaninoff was NOT the greatest interpretor of
his own work, even in his own lifetime. And I'd rather hear Richter
play the Rachy Preludes than Rach himself any day.
And how do you know about Bach? Did you ever hear him? Did anybody
who's alive today? How can we compare? Because somebody in 1700
thought he sounded good?
>>They also interpreted other composer's works masterfully. Enough to
read
>>Wagner' reactions to how Liszt played the Hammerklavier sonata.
Maybe Wagner never heard a Pollini or some such. Again, how can we
compare two eras when no one from one was alive in the other, and we
did not yet have recording technology? No one really knows what Bach
sounded like. Or Beethoven. Or Chopin.
J
Allan Evans
In article <5boe09$s...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
joh...@ix.netcom.com(John Grabowski) wrote:
> Many many people feel Rachmaninoff was NOT the greatest interpretor of
> his own work, even in his own lifetime. And I'd rather hear Richter
> play the Rachy Preludes than Rach himself any day.
One special quality of Rachmaninoff's own playing of his works is an
ascetic vagueness he imparts to music that could just as well be played as
solidly constructed, beautiful themes. This trait places him near to the
rift between romantic-styled playing and modernism. Richter, Moiseiwitsch
and others play his music in a compelling way, and this is valid as long
as it is musical, but no one has been able to capture the haunting angst
lying beneath the supposedly untroubled surface as Rachmaninoff himself
did. There is also the matter of his inimitable tone and lightning fast
reflexes which manifest in his voicing of chords and accentuation. His
vision of his own music is not as comforting as his interpreters, and he
himself enjoyed Moiseiwitch's playing immensely. But it is important to
understand his own objectives.
No one really knows what Bach
> sounded like. Or Beethoven. Or Chopin.
At least with Chopin, we can compare recordings by two pianists who
studied with his assistant Mikuli: Moriz Rosenthal and Raoul Koczalski.
There have points in common which correspond to the advice Chopin gave his
pupils and when heard on their recordings it is quite special. There is
also a link through Liszt's pupils, who heard Liszt illustrate in his
private lessons what he remembered of Chopin's own playing. Unfortunately
one cannot go further back.
Allan Evans
jsal...@electrotex.com
I have to disagree, Allan, in a few instances. Ever heard Ravel's
recordings? Ouch! But it's no reflection on his music.
Joe Salerno
jsal...@electrotex.com
www.pdq.net/industrialvideo/
David Finton
Henry Fogel (henry...@aol.com) asks us to compare the roster of
conducting "greats" from 1950 with those who are on the podium now:
>was under discussion. In the year 1950, to take just one year at random,
>the following conductors were active on the podium -- all conductors who
[...]
>Furtwangler, Toscanini, Klemperer, Walter, Monteux, Beecham, Mitropoulos,
>Szell, Reiner, Koussevitzky, Stokowski, Horenstein, Abendroth, Kempe,
>Ansermet, Boult, the young Bernstein, the young Solti, the young Karajan,
>Kubelik, Jochum, Boehm, Knappertsbusch, Ormandy, Mravinsky, E. Kleiber,
>Munch, and Scherchen. I am certain that if I sat down with a musical
[...]
>question remains: how big would your list be today of condctors on that
>level of importance and with that level of musical personality and
>profile?
Interesting question. I think another interesting question would be
how today's roster of great pianists compares with the roster we could
have made, say, in 1960:
Rubinstein, Horowitz, Gould, Cliburn, Gilels, Serkin, Richter, for starters.
I remember reading an interview in the early 70's where Rubinstein said
that the young pianists he was seeing had better technique as well as
better musicianship than he had---but when they go on stage, "they may
as well be soda-jerks."
My impression is that artists of thirty years ago tended to have more
to say, more to communicate, than those of today. Today's artists tend
to focus more on technical accomplishment and less on personal vision
and communication. I'd be interested to know if this is just a provincial
opinion of my own, or if it's shared by others...
Here are some half-baked musings as to the cause, if this effect is real:
1. Maybe performers today are more conservative because it's tough to find
a niche. They are competing with all those who have been making
recordings for the last 50+ years. And public enthusiasm for
classical music seems to be waning. Is there anything really new
to be said?
2. Possibly our culture is just reflecting our increased fascination
with science and technology. And we value the objective accomplishment
of technique over the subjective beauty of interpretation. Maybe
our art is more influenced by science than by nature.
3. Could it be that the modern musician's education is so jam-packed
with methods and techniques and history that they don't have as much
time to find their own voice? (Music nerds? ;-)
4. Or is the world just shrinking? Everyone has access to the same
set of recordings, top performers give world tours, and we come to
have a set of "standard interpretations."
5. Or are we just less appreciative of individualism these days, and
more leery of eccentrics? Would a Glenn Gould be received any
differently today than he was in 1955? Would Glenn Gould still be
Glenn Gould if he were born in 1970?
Well, I should get back to my dissertation (on machine learning!). I'm
sure some of you can come up with much better explanations... I look
forward to reading them.
David Finton
fin...@cs.wisc.edu
Pam Goodall
From Mike Willis in Australia
I think there's another aspect to all of this and that is that many "great"
conductors achieve that reputation only late in their career or even after
they are dead - or at least over a very long period of time - which makes
it hard to denote greatness on many of the up and coming conductors around
the world these days. In fact many conductors who are now held in high
esteem were not (even) particularly popular in their own lifetime... For
example, Scherchen was often rubbished for years in his heyday - I remember
that he often received particularly poor reviews here in Australia yet now,
many years later he is receiving right and proper attention. Another example
was Karel Ancerl whose Supraphon recoridngs always got rather mixed reviews
(there was a ridiculous and somewhat hotly debated review in l972 by Edward
Greenfield of "The Gramophone" of Ancerl's Dvorak symphony 6 which
completely dismissed it) - yet now Ancerl is, again, starting to attract far
more glowing and understanding interest and appreciation, thanks to Supraphon
and Tahra. And that Dvorak symphony 6 is now often referred to as a "classic
of the gramophone!" It's almost as if these people need the benefit of time,
hindsight and the ability to look over their complete careers before their
rightful place is taken in the annals of "greatness" - of course, many
conductors revceive this recognition well and truly while they are alive and
kicking. But ir is surprising the number of conductors whose reputatiosn have
emerged and chnaged over the years. So I guess that I am making the point
that the best of today's younger conductors may well be regarded as "great"
or at least "very fine" (ie Mariss Jansons, Rattle etc etc etc) further down
the track - their long term reputation is very much still being determined by
themselves and their publics.
Time, changing public opinion, the availability of recoridngs - there are so
many factors involved, but often it is a matter of letting time do the work
with conductors that it does with the music that they perform. We may well
say in ten or fifteen years time that we would like to see more of the great
recordings of a Jansons, or a Muti, or whatever... who knows. I stil think
that the jury is still out on many of these conductors. Yet I do know that
there is a lot of talent out there. (I've heard live performances by
Tortelier, Jansons, Janowski, and Graf - to just take a few - over the last
six months which has convinced me that there is still a lot of good things
happening out there.)
Mike Willis
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, fin...@homer.cs.wisc.edu (David Finton) says:
>
>Interesting question. I think another interesting question would be
>how today's roster of great pianists compares with the roster we could
>have made, say, in 1960:
>
>Rubinstein, Horowitz, Gould, Cliburn, Gilels, Serkin, Richter, for starters.
Let's see: Pollini, Zimerman, Kissin, Thibaudet, Perahia...compares pretty
well, I'd say. Cliburn makes my flesh crawl. The man simply POKES at
the keyboard. The first time I heard Chopin's "heroic" polonaise, it was
on a Cliburn CD. I sold the CD, and my impression of that piece was
that it was second-rate schmaltz destined for the nostalgia bargain
bins of Liberace fans. I recently heard it again on Elisabeth Leonskaja's
recent disc, and the dynamism (not to mention the far more realistic
recorded sound) brought the piece to life and blew away my preconceptions.
>
>I remember reading an interview in the early 70's where Rubinstein said
>that the young pianists he was seeing had better technique as well as
>better musicianship than he had---but when they go on stage, "they may
>as well be soda-jerks."
Let's see...musicians with better technique and better musicianship,
but less visual theatricality? That's a trade-off I can accept. Even
so, this is simply sour grapes -- a not uncommon reaction from geezers
on their last legs toward the whippersnappers replacing them. It's
a personality defect -- a smallness of spirit.
>
>My impression is that artists of thirty years ago tended to have more
>to say, more to communicate, than those of today. Today's artists tend
>to focus more on technical accomplishment and less on personal vision
>and communication. I'd be interested to know if this is just a provincial
>opinion of my own, or if it's shared by others...
I'm not interested in some cult-of-personality stage show. I am interested
in the MUSIC and want to hear the best possible performance. The personal
vision and communication come through in the musical artistry of the
performers. Besides, as someone else has pointed out, most of this idol
worship (as opposed to respect and appreciation) is posthumous. I fully
expect to hear the same kind of bullcrap forty years from now. In the
genre of rock and roll, I already hear some of my contemporaries bemoaning
today's music, which they claim to find unintelligible, pining for the
"good old days" of Pink Floyd.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
David Finton
eme...@aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS) writes:
>In a previous article, fin...@homer.cs.wisc.edu (David Finton) says:
>>Interesting question. I think another interesting question would be
>>how today's roster of great pianists compares with the roster we could
>>have made, say, in 1960:
>>
>>Rubinstein, Horowitz, Gould, Cliburn, Gilels, Serkin, Richter, for starters.
>Let's see: Pollini, Zimerman, Kissin, Thibaudet, Perahia...compares pretty
>well, I'd say. Cliburn makes my flesh crawl. The man simply POKES at
>the keyboard. The first time I heard Chopin's "heroic" polonaise, it was
Even if you hate the Cliburn of today, wouldn't you admit that the
Cliburn of 1958-60 was something special? His Rach 3 from that time
is still my favorite recording of that piece.
Your point is well taken that greatness is often the result of affectionate
hindsight. But you're really not being fair to stereotype all such
judgements as simple idol worship. I'm trying to make a case that
performers 30 years ago seem (to me, at least) to have had a different
approach to performance, one which I prefer.
>>I remember reading an interview in the early 70's where Rubinstein said
>>that the young pianists he was seeing had better technique as well as
>>better musicianship than he had---but when they go on stage, "they may
>>as well be soda-jerks."
>Let's see...musicians with better technique and better musicianship,
>but less visual theatricality? That's a trade-off I can accept. Even
>so, this is simply sour grapes -- a not uncommon reaction from geezers
>on their last legs toward the whippersnappers replacing them. It's
>a personality defect -- a smallness of spirit.
Where are you getting this?
In the videos I've seen of Rubinstein, there was very little going on
visually. He showed very little movement and little facial expression.
I took his comment as meaning that it's not sufficient to understand
the music and possess the technical equipment to perform it. An artist
has to develop an emotional connection with the music and be able to
communicate that to the audience. Do you think that's the attitude of
a bygone era? In any case, I think that describes one of Rubinstein's
strengths as an artist.
>I'm not interested in some cult-of-personality stage show. I am interested
>in the MUSIC and want to hear the best possible performance. The personal
>vision and communication come through in the musical artistry of the
>performers. Besides, as someone else has pointed out, most of this idol
>worship (as opposed to respect and appreciation) is posthumous. I fully
>expect to hear the same kind of bullcrap forty years from now. In the
>genre of rock and roll, I already hear some of my contemporaries bemoaning
>today's music, which they claim to find unintelligible, pining for the
>"good old days" of Pink Floyd.
>--
>Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
Sure. I also am interested in the music, above all else. But what
is "the best possible performance," and what does "musical artistry"
entail? Is it possible that these definitions change with time? If
so, perhaps not all of us welcome the changes.
David Finton
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, fin...@homer.cs.wisc.edu (David Finton) says:
>eme...@aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS) writes:
>
>>In a previous article, fin...@homer.cs.wisc.edu (David Finton) says:
>
>>>Interesting question. I think another interesting question would be
>>>how today's roster of great pianists compares with the roster we could
>>>have made, say, in 1960:
>>>
>>>Rubinstein, Horowitz, Gould, Cliburn, Gilels, Serkin, Richter, for starters.
>
>>Let's see: Pollini, Zimerman, Kissin, Thibaudet, Perahia...compares pretty
>>well, I'd say. Cliburn makes my flesh crawl. The man simply POKES at
>>the keyboard. The first time I heard Chopin's "heroic" polonaise, it was
>
>Even if you hate the Cliburn of today, wouldn't you admit that the
>Cliburn of 1958-60 was something special? His Rach 3 from that time
>is still my favorite recording of that piece.
I don't know. The Cliburn disc was called "My Favorite Chopin" and was
an older RCA recording. Whatever period it was from, I wasn't crazy
about it.
>Your point is well taken that greatness is often the result of affectionate
>hindsight. But you're really not being fair to stereotype all such
>judgements as simple idol worship. I'm trying to make a case that
>performers 30 years ago seem (to me, at least) to have had a different
>approach to performance, one which I prefer.
Really, I have nothing against older performers as such. I am certain
that there are great performers from every generation, and each have
idiosyncratic features to recommend them. But this also applies to
the current generation. I'm really responding to what I perceive to be
a pervasive bias in these newsgroups against contemporary performances.
When someone suggests that "an artist has to be able to develop an
emotional connection to the music and communicate that to the audience"
and opines that this is "the attitude of a bygone era," I really must
object to this as biased nostalgia. Of course the great musicians
of previous generations had this attitude, but do you really think that,
suddenly, musicians no longer have an emotional connection to the music
they perform? Be reasonable.
I own the Karajan '63 cycle of Beethoven's symphonies, and find it good
value for money. I will be trying the remastered Rubenstein recordings
of Chopin's nocturnes soon, so I will be able to make informed, first
hand comparisons. There are doubtless a large number of older recordings
worth owning, including some truly indispensible ones. The same however
is true of modern recordings. Yet I continually read silly generalizations
about the quality of modern performances and the ostensibly robotic
attitudes of modern performers. It's quite exasperating.
--
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)