# Old recordings bias



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Why is this forum so biased towards old recordings?

There are some treasures in old recordings, interpretation-wise obviously. For example: Richter in leipzig, Richter/Leinsdorf Brahms piano concerto n° 2, many kovacevich ones (some of my favs), and many others from other interpreters. 

But there are studio recordings with serious technical flaws from the interpreters, or simply well done recordings but very overrated.

How do these last ones compare to lets say Paul Lewis Beethoven concerto recordings? or any post 90's really top notch recordings? (sound-wise, technical prominence of young/alive top pianists, etc)

Is there a bias to old music because of the average age of the forum members? (snobism, emotional/attachment, etc reasons?) 

Do the members of the forum have access to digital streaming platforms, and then, to all these "new/modern" recordings? 

In most post i see the recommendation from "recordings that i own" and are mostly pre 1990 recordings.

I'm open to debate/suggestions/criticism. 

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Is your definition of "old" pre-1990? If so you're excluding most of the greatest performers on record; from Richter, Gilels, Lipatti, and Horowitz to Oistrakh and Heifetz to Callas, Schwarzkopf, and Hotter to Furtwangler, Stokowski, Szell, even Karajan. I could go on and on. I do not think about the age of recordings when I listen to them, I just think about the quality of music-making, interpretation, and its overall effect on my enjoyment of the work. There are many newer recordings that I like and many older ones going all the way back to the 1920s that I like. Personally I think pre-stereo-era performers were willing to take more risks and be more imaginative and personal in their readings, while many of today's performers are safer, blander, and simply regurgitate the scores with soulless technical proficiency. Again, I like lots of modern recordings (mostly piano recordings, while the majority of orchestral/symphonic performances I've heard from the last few years have done next to nothing for me) and am not biased towards older recordings - but as a whole it's safe to say that older recordings more closely satisfy my personal criteria for interpretation.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Is your definition of "old" pre-1990? If so you're excluding most of the greatest performers on record; from Richter, Gilels, Lipatti, and Horowitz to Oistrakh and Heifetz to Callas, Schwarzkopf, and Hotter to Furtwangler, Stokowski, Szell, even Karajan. I could go on and on. I do not think about the age of recordings when I listen to them, I just think about the quality of music-making, interpretation, and its overall effect on my enjoyment of the work. There are many newer recordings that I like and many older ones going all the way back to the 1920s that I like. Personally I think pre-stereo-era performers were willing to take more risks and be more imaginative and personal in their readings, while many of today's performers are safer, blander, and simply regurgitate the scores with soulless technical proficiency. Again, I like lots of modern recordings (mostly piano recordings, while the majority of orchestral/symphonic performances I've heard from the last few years have done next to nothing for me) and am not biased towards older recordings - but as a whole it's safe to say that older recordings more closely satisfy my personal criteria for interpretation.


Thanks for your reply. 
No, i don't consider pre 1990 recordings as being old.
Furtwangler/schnabel/serkin for example would fall in the old category. 
I listen to some Szell, Karajan, Gilels, Richter (i mentioned some 60's recordings being one of my favourites)

I mean that many are really overrated for some reason wich i don't know as i mentioned in my original post, but i'm open to change my opinion.

Do you think Korstick, Pletnev, Argerich, Hough, are safer, blander and soulless?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I hadn't noticed a bias toward older recordings. In the Current Listening section, there is a balance of old and new. 

Personally, I started listening to classical music, after a 20-year hiatus, in the '90s, and I hated scratchy old recordings. Being around listeners with discrminating ears, I discovered older recordings which have not been surpassed, and I lost my bias. Now I don't care when the recording was made; I just want it to make my soul sing.

I should add, in the Current Listening, I have probably been seen listening to mostly older recordings, but that's because companies like Warner are releasing boxed sets of classic recordings at ridiculously low prices, and I can finally collect them on my budget. To balance that, I also appreciate and have collected sets like Simone Young's Bruckner cycle, which is very recent, and am awaiting Skrowaczewski's 90th birthday set, which is not that old, because there have been some really good sales.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

444mil said:


> Do you think Korstick, Pletnev, Argerich, Hough, are safer, blander and soulless?


I haven't heard Korstick. Hough is definitely safe and bland. Argerich and Pletnev are two great examples of modern pianists who thrill me and have big personalities - others include Uchida, Pogorelich, Zimerman, Pollini (I think his reputation as being cold is not deserved), Roge, Volodos off the top of my head. It seems like you might be searching for technical perfection, of which I agree that many modern performers are generally superior. I usually lean towards interpretive nuance even if it comes at the costs of technical errors. Either preference is equally valid. I would tend to agree that some people hail old recordings as the sine quā nōn (like the adulation for Schnabel's Beethoven, which I really don't get) and though I think many of them represent high points in the discographies - Casals's Bach Suites for examples - I still acknowledge that there have been many interpreters since then that have provided us with wonderful takes. And that's a good thing.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

@OP I'm not sure where you get the impression there's a bias here. Many members listen to and champion newer recordings all the time. In my latest post I recommended Tianwa Yang and the Tesla Quartet as artists to check out. Sure there are some members who think great recordings stopped after (Furtwangler - or insert some other revered conductor) but they are hardly the only voices on Talk Classical.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

444mil said:


> Why is this forum so biased towards old recordings?


I don't think the bias exists. Sure, there are some members who prefer the performances on older recordings, but there are likely more members who want modern technology. Then there are a whole other category of folks who don't care; they just want great and distinctive performances that stir their souls.

My standard for the worth of a recording: Fantastic performances transcend sound quality.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Simple Answer: There are an order of magnitude or two more already recorded recordings than new ones, so there are a lot more older performances to chose from in finding a performance that speaks to you -- so the likelihood is always that an older one will be the one. And that's not counting the ones that are near universally lauded. The odds of breaking into the latter category are naturally smaller. It's simply a question of numbers.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but actually I prefer newer recordings and I really love it when new recordings come out. Before he retired, my father owned a recording studio and I grew up with a lot of practice listening to various recording techniques and developed a very discerning ear for digital versus analog, old vs new, etc. I've also been teaching music all my life. For me, digital is better, crisp is better, clarity is better. It's my preference (but I totally understand why others may prefer older recordings).

Looking at my CD collection, I think my "oldest" recordings are Leonard Bernstein's 1970s Beethoven cycle (Vienna Phil). Although I've listened to older performances, I own nothing by Karajan, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, Szell, Reiner, Stokowski, Heifetz, Kreisler, Oistrakh, Ysaÿe (and I mean NO DISRESPECT to anyone who loves these artists, nor do I dispute their ability or their well-deserved popularity).

I just prefer more recent artists: Hahn, Fischer, Mackerras, Weilerstein, Alsop, MTT, Dudamel, Gergiev, Balsom, Helseth, Frost, Gražinytė-Tyla, Ruske, etc.

I LOVE the fact that I can see these artists live, or pull up a performance on YouTube that happened last week. For me, it's a reminder of the relevance of Art Music today. Today's scene is very exciting and I just prefer what's going on now as opposed to the past. Once again, NO DISRESPECT to anyone who feels the opposite.

For what it's worth, I'm 48 years old with a degree in Music Education, 25 years teaching experience, and currently have 31 compositions for concert band and string orchestra in publication. I'm not claiming this makes my opinion "better", I just know what I prefer for my listening pleasure.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I base mainly on interpretation, over sound quality, but a great sounding recording is a plus. The older stuff had more blood in the music. Agree with Allegro C B above. Technical proficiency seems to be more the thing nowadays. But I rarely am able to get into a recording by Szell or Toscanini.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

444mil said:


> Why is this forum so biased towards old recordings?


As others have noted, the forum isn't biased, although there are a couple of members who pretty clearly lean toward older recordings.



> How do these last ones compare to lets say Paul Lewis Beethoven concerto recordings?


Bad example. Lewis' Beethoven is some of the dullest I've ever heard. And that's not just in comparison to older pianists.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I don't know that I have a bias. I like the crisp clear sound of modern recordings, but the cracklings of older recordings bother me less and less.

I do love many older recordings, and my exposure to them is most likely due to their over-representation at the local library where I did most of my early classical exploration before I grew older and got a better paying job and could afford to buy more. I can't tell you why I would prefer one over another. Just as one example, when I heard Heifetz playing the Sibelius violin concerto, I connected immediately, and bought more of his recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Your post hints at the issue. Modern performers are preoccupied with technical perfection, which to me is boring and tedious. Older performers cared less about that and more about the spirit of the music. And I came to this opinion not through bias - I came of age with classical music during my college years in the 90s - but through listening and comparing. It came to a point where I realized that the older performers where making art and music whereas the newer performers seemed to just be trying to show off.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> I don't think the bias exists. Sure, there are some members who prefer the performances on older recordings, but there are likely more members who want modern technology. Then there are a whole other category of folks who don't care; they just want great and distinctive performances that stir their souls.
> 
> My standard for the worth of a recording: Fantastic performances transcend sound quality.


Actually, I tend to judge performances on whether I can forget any and all other performances I might be aware of. It might not be the best but if it has it's special qualities then I am all for it.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Olias said:


> I can't speak for anyone but myself, but actually I prefer newer recordings and I really love it when new recordings come out. Before he retired, my father owned a recording studio and I grew up with a lot of practice listening to various recording techniques and developed a very discerning ear for digital versus analog, old vs new, etc. I've also been teaching music all my life. For me, digital is better, crisp is better, clarity is better. It's my preference (but I totally understand why others may prefer older recordings).
> 
> Looking at my CD collection, I think my "oldest" recordings are Leonard Bernstein's 1970s Beethoven cycle (Vienna Phil). Although I've listened to older performances, I own nothing by Karajan, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, Szell, Reiner, Stokowski, Heifetz, Kreisler, Oistrakh, Ysaÿe (and I mean NO DISRESPECT to anyone who loves these artists, nor do I dispute their ability or their well-deserved popularity).
> 
> ...


I get your point though I am more selfish as I listen to music just for me. However as mentioned before, even the best sound cannot make bad performances better and I can quickly forget any limitations on sound if I really like a performance. But, I get your point and it has me thinking on how I can change my attitude.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I haven't heard Korstick. Hough is definitely safe and bland. Argerich and Pletnev are two great examples of modern pianists who thrill me and have big personalities - others include Uchida, Pogorelich, Zimerman, Pollini (I think his reputation as being cold is not deserved), Roge, Volodos off the top of my head. It seems like you might be searching for technical perfection, of which I agree that many modern performers are generally superior. I usually lean towards interpretive nuance even if it comes at the costs of technical errors. Either preference is equally valid. I would tend to agree that some people hail old recordings as the sine quā nōn (like the adulation for Schnabel's Beethoven, which I really don't get) and though I think many of them represent high points in the discographies - Casals's Bach Suites for examples - I still acknowledge that there have been many interpreters since then that have provided us with wonderful takes. And that's a good thing.


Have you heard Hough Grieg, Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov piano concertos recordings?

About Korstick, i better know his Beethoven works recordings. Top notch interpretative and techinal level.

Thanks for bringing up Pogorelich (one of my favourites), i forgot about him.

I agree on the technical superiority of modern performers, what i don't agree is that they are soulless, or safer.

Again, i'm not a fan of Paul Lewis, but listen to his Beethoven, Brahms, just off the top of my head, is he safe or soulless?

I agree with you on the Schanbel, well, i mostly agree with you.

Anyway, Yefim Bronfman said (more or less): "I'm not with those who say technique doesn't matter, that interpretation is the point. I'd say i like those who can play all the notes. Anyone can interpret lovely, not anyone can play all the notes."


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I don't think the bias exists. Sure, there are some members who prefer the performances on older recordings, but there are likely more members who want modern technology. Then there are a whole other category of folks who don't care; they just want great and distinctive performances that stir their souls.
> 
> My standard for the worth of a recording: Fantastic performances transcend sound quality.


Agreed. Personally i love the Richter in Leipzig Beethoven's op. 109 and 111 performances, and not only the sound is bad (compared to the greatness we have nowadays) but he also misses a lot of notes.

But still i think there is certain bias and overrated old recordings/performers.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I base mainly on interpretation, over sound quality, but a great sounding recording is a plus. The older stuff had more blood in the music. Agree with Allegro C B above. Technical proficiency seems to be more the thing nowadays. But I rarely am able to get into a recording by Szell or Toscanini.


The conversation went towards sound quality, but it wasn't my point, for me is just a plus.

I'm talking purely about artist level. The agreement looks like "there is more technical prominence, but there is less musicality", and i think that there really is more technical level, and ALSO good/excelent musicality.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

444mil said:


> Agreed. Personally i love the Richter in Leipzig Beethoven's op. 109 and 111 performances, and not only the sound is bad (compared to the greatness we have nowadays) but he also misses a lot of notes.
> 
> But still i think there is certain bias and overrated old recordings/performers.


Which performers do you consider overrated?


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

wkasimer said:


> As others have noted, the forum isn't biased, although there are a couple of members who pretty clearly lean toward older recordings.
> 
> Bad example. Lewis' Beethoven is some of the dullest I've ever heard. And that's not just in comparison to older pianists.


I'd like to hear your recordings suggestions.

My favourites are Pletnev, Argerich, Giltburg, Leif Ove Andsnes.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Which performers do you consider overrated?


Serkin/Fleisher with Szell, Kempff/Schnabel Beethoven Cycle, just off the top of my head.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

444mil said:


> "Bad example. Lewis' Beethoven is some of the dullest I've ever heard. And that's not just in comparison to older pianists."
> 
> I'd like to hear your recordings suggestions.


Among those who have recently recorded complete traversals of the sonatas, Goodyear, Korstick, Buchbinder, and Say. And going back a bit farther, Kovacevich, Lucchesini, Gulda, and Heidsieck.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Modern performers are preoccupied with technical perfection.


This is, I think, both an overgeneralization and an exaggeration. While I agree that modern performers place greater emphasis on technique, the vast majority are not "preoccupied" with it. Yes, there are some performers who manage to get by with little beyond technique, but such performers have always been with us. The difference is that in the first half of the century, those performers didn't make recordings, or if they did, they've disappeared.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

444mil said:


> Anyway, Yefim Bronfman said (more or less): "I'm not with those who say technique doesn't matter, that interpretation is the point. I'd say i like those who can play all the notes. Anyone can interpret lovely, not anyone can play all the notes."


I don't buy that Bronfman said this, do you have a source? I'm sorry, but I can't take it seriously that a professional musician would say something along the lines of "Anyone can interpret lovely".


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> I don't buy that Bronfman said this, do you have a source? I'm sorry, but I can't take it seriously that a professional musician would say something along the lines of "Anyone can interpret lovely".


Yes, i think he was just being kind to us, the simple mortals. I understood it as like me, an amateur pianist, can for example play Beethoven's opus 7, and put some decent ideas into it, but i can't play it with technical perfection.






On the other way, Kovacevich said that modern/young pianist can play all the notes, but can not give great interpretations.

Source: https://www.gramophone.co.uk/editor...gramophone-november-2008-with-jeremy-nicholas


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

wkasimer said:


> Among those who have recently recorded complete traversals of the sonatas, Goodyear, Korstick, Buchbinder, and Say. And going back a bit farther, Kovacevich, Lucchesini, Gulda, and Heidsieck.


Oh sorry, i thought we were talking about the concertos.

I'm familiar with Kovacevich and Korstick. I'll listen to the others.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

444mil said:


> Serkin/Fleisher with Szell, Kempff/Schnabel Beethoven Cycle, just off the top of my head.


Oh, now those are fighting words! Fleisher/Szell is absolutely essential for me, and I love Kempff.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I haven't heard Korstick. Hough is definitely safe and bland. Argerich and Pletnev are two great examples of modern pianists who thrill me and have big personalities - others include Uchida, Pogorelich, Zimerman, Pollini (I think his reputation as being cold is not deserved), Roge, Volodos off the top of my head. It seems like you might be searching for technical perfection, of which I agree that many modern performers are generally superior. I usually lean towards interpretive nuance even if it comes at the costs of technical errors. Either preference is equally valid. I would tend to agree that some people hail old recordings as the sine quā nōn (like the adulation for Schnabel's Beethoven, which I really don't get) and though I think many of them represent high points in the discographies - Casals's Bach Suites for examples - I still acknowledge that there have been many interpreters since then that have provided us with wonderful takes. And that's a good thing.


You don't like Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas? They are timeless to me. Spontaneous, introspective, daring...in a word BEETHOVEN. Who gives a flip abut mere precision?

Listen to his Tempest sonata. It's as if it is being improvised.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Oh, now those are fighting words! Fleisher/Szell is absolutely essential for me, and I love Kempff.


Last two weeks i've been very into Brahm's piano concertos.

I find Kovacevich/Davis and Richter better than Fleisher/Serkin with Szell. 
On Beethoven Concertos i mentioned many alternatives above. Just listened to Kovacevich/Davis on the 4th, astounding performance, why is Gilels/Ludwig so praised?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

444mil said:


> Yes, i think he was just being kind to us, the simple mortals. I understood it as like me, an amateur pianist, can for example play Beethoven's opus 7, and put some decent ideas into it, but i can't play it with technical perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link! I love these interviews and I'll check it out to see if I can get a bigger picture on the quote you paraphrased.

Edit: OK, I got to that point. So your quote was a little bit out of context; he does say more or less that "everyone can interpret, but not everyone can play all the notes", but this is immediately after him saying he prefers a performance like Gilels which is "full of wrong notes, but the essence of the piece and the music is so present". When he is criticizing performances that are riddled with wrong notes, I think we understand he's not talking about the likes of Schnabel or Richter. But I should mention that this is a really interesting perspective coming from a great concert pianist. Thanks for sharing the interview.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it’s quite amusing when people talk about old recordings which I remember coming out as a young man! They don’t seem odd to me but then I am old! I tend to count old recordings as those which were made in the 78 era or before stereo. I don’t think there is a obsession with technical perfection now but standards of playing have risen across the board so it is now just expected. I don’t think any recording would be released which has the number of fluffs Schnabel’sBeethoven has, Although of course it was recorded before multiple takes where possible


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You don't like Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas? They are timeless to me. Spontaneous, introspective, daring...in a word BEETHOVEN. Who gives a flip abut mere precision?
> 
> Listen to his Tempest sonata. It's as if it is being improvised.


It's not the technical mistakes that bother me, it's more the feeling of rushed nervousness in his playing. But I haven't heard him on the Tempest, one of my favorite Beethoven sonatas, so I'll make sure to do so later.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

444mil said:


> The conversation went towards sound quality, but it wasn't my point, for me is just a plus.
> 
> I'm talking purely about artist level. The agreement looks like "there is more technical prominence, but there is less musicality", and i think that there really is more technical level, and ALSO good/excelent musicality.


Sorry, I diverged there at the beginning. Speaking for myself, i look for interpretations that bring out things I didn't know were in the music before. I find very little in the music nowadays, partly because it's all been done before. But what I do think is that the older generation performers made things fit together better in general. I feel the newer generation tend to either don't take the time to get into the music beyond the technical, or they exaggerate or contrast certain features/aspects too much. Very distinctive interpretations were always hard to come by (for me), but it's just been harder of late, not only because of the shorter time window I believe.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

In my case, ignorance seems to be bliss.

I didn't study music. I have an electric guitar on which I can play a total of 5 chords - nothing expensive, just to play around on. I don't read sheet music, so I have no clue whether any given performer has played all the notes correctly or not. So my connection to the music is purely from an emotional/aesthetic standpoint.

But I think a lot of it, too, is kind of like my purchase of "classic" books and movies. I like to search out things that have stood the test of time and still hold up. A recording that still receives high praise after over half a century is worth seeking out. Sure, I also like the nice clear sound of newer digital recordings, but over time, my ear has become quite accustomed to whatever imperfections in the recording process used to exist. That being said, I can only listen to some of the really old recordings from a curiosity standpoint, not really for enjoyment.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

As DavidA said before, it depends what you mean by old. For some on here old recordings are 1970s and 80s, whilst for oldsters on here they mean more historical perfomances from the the 30s and 40s (or even before). I tend to class performances in difference media ages : historical (78 era), Mono, Analogue Stereo - 50s to 80s, Early Digital, 80's to 90s, then after that I just go by decade (90s, 00s, etc). There are people on here that think that a 'new' recording is anything from 1980 onwards! LOL. Whilst there are some on here who will laud everything made in the time of wax cyclinders and class everything else as rushed and soulless and some who dismiss all older recordings as too slow, too thick or badly recorded I'd say the majority of punters on here will listen to most things without bias (although with the average age of the site being pretty high there will probably be a slight bias towards pre-1990 recordings). However, I think most reasonable people on here are open to all recordings, regardless of age. Personally I love hearing new recordings. I love it when a new release comes out that blows away all the cobwebs but I also like discovering an old chestnut. However, I've never seen the point of living in the past. Music should continue to look forward, not just back.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

The crappier the old recording quality, the more you can project your own beliefs in the superiority of the performance


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

For me, and I imagine for many other TC members, there’s pleasure in curating a collection of recorded music. Collections are very personal things, reflecting the collector’s interests, tastes, and experiences. I collect CDs based upon the composers, individual pieces, conductors, orchestras, performers, recording techniques, and recording venues in which I’m interested. There’s also a lot of sentimental feeling at play having to do with connections between music and places I’ve lived or which are important to me. Although I am not a true audiophile because I cannot afford the requisite equipment, I am very interested in sound quality and I take a lot of care in my selection of recordings for my collection with an ear to the reproduced sound. All of the above considerations have led me to develop a collection that includes recordings from the 1950s to the present. If it seems I am apt to talk mostly about older artists and recordings, it is not because I am not interested in newer ones. I imagine that’s the case for many TC members.

Another idea I have about older recordings is that they help us appreciate what is going on in the CM music scene in the present. Younger present-day artists are very much aware of their predecessors. My appreciation of Yuja Wang or Vikingur Ólafsson (to mention a couple of pianists in whom I’m particularly interested) is informed by, and in a sense tied to, my knowledge of the artistry of Arthur Rubinstein, William Kapell, Claudio Arrau, John Browning, Raymond Lewenthal, Van Cliburn, and Byron Janis (to name a few of my favorites from earlier times). Are the DDD recordings of the younger artists technically better than those of the earlier artists? They can be, and I think tend to be. There are no very good quality recordings of Kapell, for instance. However, RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence recordings from the mid-1950s to 1960s can be excellent when they are digitally remastered, and they have even been used to make three-channel SACDs that sound to me at least as good as CDs made in 2019. There is a lot of personal taste involved, of course.

Do I have a streaming service? Yes, but I do my serious listening exclusively with CDs. This is not the place for a discussion of which format is sonically superior and so forth, but I’ll say that the streaming service is somewhat useful to me as I select CDs to purchase. What’s not discussed very much in this forum is CM radio. I listen to the radio a lot (WFMT-Chicago) and rely on it for much of my situational awareness regarding all aspects of CM. The hosts play a mixture of older and newer recordings and I often get ideas for my collection from what I hear on the radio.

It’s funny about biases that when you have them you usually don’t know you have them, right? I am sure I have biases of which I am not at all aware, but it’s hard to differentiate rigorously between biases and personal tastes and preferences, I think.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

An old recording for me is one where the sound quality is generally a detriment. So for example, calling Dorati's 1958 demonstration class Mercury recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture an "old recording" seems a bit silly to me when it blows away most every recording since on sound quality alone. Some have even asked why they STOPPED making good sounding recordings after the 1960s.

Once you get to the late 1950s and the advent of stereo, sound quality is no longer a detriment in most cases. There are even some really good sounding mono recording from the early 1950s.

So for me old would generally be pre-1950, where I listen because of the excellent artistry that transcends the sound.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I remember being on a Google Group, many years ago, with a number of Shellacophiles who were obsessing about all things 'historical'. They fawned over certain long-dead conductors and particularly enthused over a certain number of Beethoven recordings. Every time the subject of Beethoven symphonies came up I hit a brick wall, with sneering replies such as "You've not heard any Beethoven till you've heard (conductor x)'s Beethoven!" I got this for years. They wouldn't entertain anything after the 70s and even that was stretching it. In the end I got fed up with this bunch of buffoons, constantly lambasting newer performances which was part of the reason I ended up here. Years later I finally got to hear (conductor x)'s Beethoven. It was utter crap. Recorded under a matress (or so it sounded) in the earlier half of the century, it was sonically dire (wiry strings, awful balances) and huge crescendos that really weren't huge they were just so distorted they sounded massive. Seeing past the obvious sonic limitations I listened to the performances and they were even worse - shockingly ragged ensemble, constantly shifting tempi, slowing movements down to funereal levels before speeding up the next movement, hoary old tricks like pausing before notes to ramp up tension and skipping the beat. It was possibly one of the direst Beethoven recordings I'd ever heard. As I said on the 'other' thread. Don't believe the hype. Listen with your own ears. Some of these 'past masters' of conducting really weren't all they were billed as.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Old recordings favored by older people? The classical music audience tends to be older. Maybe less so online than attending actual concerts where I see a preponderance of grey hair.

I think we favor the recordings of a particular work that we first heard in our early listening days. If you are a certain age these would be recordings from many decades ago. Our first listens become the standard, they formed our opinions of what a work should sound like.

It's a tough task for new performers to topple old favorites. Old recordings feature many time-tested "greats". Who are the greats of today and how do they compare? I think they compare well but they haven't been time-tested yet.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> I remember being on a Google Group, many years ago, with a number of Shellacophiles who were obsessing about all things 'historical'. They fawned over certain long-dead conductors and particularly enthused over a certain number of Beethoven recordings. Every time the subject of Beethoven symphonies came up I hit a brick wall, with sneering replies such as "You've not heard any Beethoven till you've heard (conductor x)'s Beethoven!" I got this for years. They wouldn't entertain anything after the 70s and even that was stretching it. In the end I got fed up with this bunch of buffoons, constantly lambasting newer performances which was part of the reason I ended up here. Years later I finally got to hear (conductor x)'s Beethoven. It was utter crap. Recorded under a matress (or so it sounded) in the earlier half of the century, it was sonically dire (wiry strings, awful balances) and huge crescendos that really weren't huge they were just so distorted they sounded massive. Seeing past the obvious sonic limitations I listened to the performances and they were even worse - shockingly ragged ensemble, constantly shifting tempi, slowing movements down to funereal levels before speeding up the next movement, hoary old tricks like pausing before notes to ramp up tension and skipping the beat. It was possibly one of the direst Beethoven recordings I'd ever heard. As I said on the 'other' thread. Don't believe the hype. Listen with your own ears. Some of these 'past masters' of conducting really weren't all they were billed as.


Your opinion. We hear things differently. But don't be like David Hurwitz and invent contrived reasons to try and explain why people appreciate things that you don't. Cheers.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

444mil said:


> Again, i'm not a fan of Paul Lewis, but listen to his Beethoven, Brahms, just off the top of my head, is he safe or soulless?


Paul Lewis's Schubert is a bit safe for me.


----------



## robertchapmantt (Apr 23, 2020)

I hadn't seen a prejudice toward older recordings. In the Present Listening area, there is a balance of old and also brand-new.

Directly, I started paying attention to classical music, after a 20-year hiatus, in the '90s, and also I despised scratchy old recordings. Being around audiences with discrminating ears, I uncovered older recordings which have not been gone beyond, and also I shed my prejudice. When the recording was made; I simply desire it to make my heart sing, currently I do not care.

I ought to add, in the Existing Listening, I have actually possibly been seen paying attention to mostly older recordings, yet that's due to the fact that companies like Warner are launching boxed collections of timeless recordings at ridiculously low prices, and I can finally accumulate them on my budget. To balance that, I also value and also have collected collections like Simone Young's Bruckner cycle, which is really recent, and am awaiting Skrowaczewski's 90th birthday celebration set, which is not that old, due to the fact that there have actually been some really great sales.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your opinion. We hear things differently. But don't be like David Hurwitz and invent contrived reasons to try and explain why people appreciate things that you don't. Cheers.


There's nothing contrived about that.

"....shockingly ragged ensemble, constantly shifting tempi, slowing movements down to funereal levels before speeding up the next movement, hoary old tricks like pausing before notes to ramp up tension and skipping the beat".

The recordings I listened to really had all those. Dont worry, BHS, I'm not talking about Furty! :lol:


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Why is this forum so biased towards old recordings? But there are studio recordings with serious technical flaws from the interpreters, or simply well done recordings but very overrated. How do these last ones compare to lets say Paul Lewis Beethoven concerto recordings? or any post 90's really top notch recordings? Is there a bias to old music because of the average age of the forum members? _

Age has something to do with it. I can't speak for other old guys but I am not as willing as I once was to waste time or money on new recordings that are unlikely to be better than what I know other than they may sound 5 or 10 percent better.

This is a lesson I learned collecting recordings for a half-century.

The last time I did so, a couple years ago, was when I listened to 30 versions of Bruckner's 5th symphony including all the new ones. The ones I preferred turned out to be a concert recording from 1971 and a radio broadcast from 1948. This may owe to the way people play Bruckner today, which in my opinion is without imagination for the most part, as well as to the editions that seem to be popular these days.

So age isn't the only factor. I don't believe the state of classical music is as good today as it once was. Three are no conductors currently present making recordings I would rush to see if they performed where I live. I have heard their work on digital platforms and don't believe they are as good as performers I knew in the past whose recordings are readily available.

I would say that, in my opinion, there is not a single conductor active today that is special in the sense people like Toscanini, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bernstein and Stokowski were special in their time. And I can listen to anything by any fo them anytime I want.

There is also the concept of the classic -- the recording that stands up to anything made after it.

A factor very large that is unavailable today that was available to everyone my age (69) for the entirety of the 20th century was the availability of curated information on recordings written or published guides that help buyers make decisions about recordings. This is an area that has diminished greatly this century because today's adults won't pay for curated information.

But the main thing is probably age and experience. The more experienced one is with classical music recordings the less one is going to be influenced by buzz, publicity or newness. In terms of artistry there is nothing inherently good or better about being new.

If classical music artistry had advanced similarly to the state of automobiles, television sets and hand held electronic devices I may have a different opinion. But it hasn't, in my opinion. I think it may have gone backwards.

As to Paul Lewis ... he was a pupil and protege of Aflred Brendel. If I want to hear Brendel I'll listen to him. Lewis seems like warm coffee compared to the original.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

444mil said:


> On Beethoven Concertos i mentioned many alternatives above. Just listened to Kovacevich/Davis on the 4th, astounding performance, why is Gilels/Ludwig so praised?


Beats me.

If you like Kovacevich/Davis, you might want to seek out Kovacevich's later recordings of the concertos with the Australian Chamber Orchestra, on EMI. Long OOP and and hard to find, but worth seeking out - I think that they're even better than the ones with Davis. You might want to snap this one up:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ludwig-van...os-Nos-1-4-Kovacevich-CD-2-discs/303365016978


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I get a little annoyed when people denigrate today's musicians for not having the "soul" or whatever of the past masters. As if they were just insensitive to the music or maybe not as dedicated. I think that's total crap.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It's not the technical mistakes that bother me, it's more the feeling of rushed nervousness in his playing. But I haven't heard him on the Tempest, one of my favorite Beethoven sonatas, so I'll make sure to do so later.


I realized, as I was sampling some of Schnabel's Beethoven this morning, that I had previously focused too much on the bigger pictures of tempi, structure, etc. when I was neglecting the incredible attention to detail that Schnabel infuses the music with. I've been in a major Beethoven sonata mood lately (I recently listened to all 32 with a different pianist for each one) and revisiting these original recordings with a fresh way of evaluating them and some new perspectives on the music really opened some doors for me. Schnabel really does live in the moment - his subtle inflections and emphases just seem to flow naturally from his fingers, and he interprets the music on the spot without losing sight of the ultimate goal. In other words, pianism that focuses on making music that means something. Really great stuff! My favorite Beethoven pianists remain Gilels and Annie Fischer, with Schnabel slowly inching his way up there.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

apricissimus said:


> I get a little annoyed when people denigrate today's musicians for not having the "soul" or whatever of the past masters. As if they were just insensitive to the music or maybe not as dedicated. I think that's total crap.


I am just as impressed with chamber groups today as I am with ones who recorded in the past. From live concerts to youtube recordings I have heard some remarkable performances from younger, not very well known musicians. Actually I have heard some remarkable chamber music made by groups with a mix of ages.

A little less enthused with pianists and conductors. But they don't record as much today, so they are less able to amass a large body of work to judge them by. There is just too much competition from existing recordings of standard repertoire, so they often have to make their mark by recording less well known music.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I realized, as I was sampling some of Schnabel's Beethoven this morning, that I had previously focused too much on the bigger pictures of tempi, structure, etc. when I was neglecting the incredible attention to detail that Schnabel infuses the music with. I've been in a major Beethoven sonata mood lately (I recently listened to all 32 with a different pianist for each one) and revisiting these original recordings with a fresh way of evaluating them and some new perspectives on the music really opened some doors for me. Schnabel really does live in the moment - his subtle inflections and emphases just seem to flow naturally from his fingers, and he interprets the music on the spot without losing sight of the ultimate goal. In other words, pianism that focuses on making music that means something. Really great stuff! My favorite Beethoven pianists remain Gilels and Annie Fischer, with Schnabel slowly inching his way up there.


Glad you are coming around on Schnabel. Well-said about living in the moment.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I realized, as I was sampling some of Schnabel's Beethoven this morning, that I had previously focused too much on the bigger pictures of tempi, structure, etc. when I was neglecting the incredible attention to detail that Schnabel infuses the music with. _

Schnabel last recorded in the 1940s, I think, and his 1930s recordings are probably more revered. He was a Viennese pianists that did things with Beethoven I've never heard from another pianist.

I would say the reverse about his playing; that he produces a sound picture unlike others not because of details but big ideas.

_I get a little annoyed when people denigrate today's musicians for not having the "soul" or whatever of the past masters. As if they were just insensitive to the music or maybe not as dedicated. I think that's total crap._

To each his own. In my opinion most players today compared to Schnabel are peas from a pod. Maybe after they play a lifetime it will be different.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You don't like Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas? They are timeless to me. Spontaneous, introspective, daring...in a word BEETHOVEN. Who gives a flip abut mere precision?
> 
> Listen to his Tempest sonata. It's as if it is being improvised.


I listened to it. I'm not a fan of the tempest (yet) but i heard it also heard his op 111 (naxos) and really liked his mov 1. I found the fieriness i like in richter (most probably richter was inspired by this performance). Korstick does a similiar mov 1 of op 111 (but not quite) and if you like the tempest i'd recommend to hear his 2nd mov of that one.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> shockingly ragged ensemble, constantly shifting tempi, slowing movements down to funereal levels before speeding up the next movement, hoary old tricks like pausing before notes to ramp up tension and skipping the beat.


No matter who the conductor, I can't help but wonder how you understand Beethoven when I read passages like this. It makes me think of a child leaving a Shakespeare play and asking "Why did the guy playing Hamlet keep stopping? Was he forgetting his lines?"

Do you understand the role that harmonic language plays in the pacing of Beethoven? Do you understand how tension and release work? I ask because you often review recordings in simplistic "fast = good" terms. I wouldn't say this if you didn't deride people whose views you don't understand as "buffoons" and then proceed to educate everyone that the idea of "old masters" is a sham and that one should not waste their time with them. What makes you such an expert?


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

larold said:


> _Why is this forum so biased towards old recordings? But there are studio recordings with serious technical flaws from the interpreters, or simply well done recordings but very overrated. How do these last ones compare to lets say Paul Lewis Beethoven concerto recordings? or any post 90's really top notch recordings? Is there a bias to old music because of the average age of the forum members? _
> 
> Age has something to do with it. I can't speak for other old guys but I am not as willing as I once was to waste time or money on new recordings that are unlikely to be better than what I know other than they may sound 5 or 10 percent better.
> 
> ...


You are one of those i had in mind when making the post. I won't argue, it's not worth. By the way, Brendel is overrated.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

444mil said:


> You are one of those i had in mind when making the post. I won't argue, it's not worth. By the way, Brendel is overrated.


Never been a big Brendel fan at all.

Ever heard Simon Barere's Liszt sonata? This is the type of recording I hear and just think to myself they don't make them like this anymore.






Also this is a sampling of great Chopin recordings of the past


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_By the way, Brendel is overrated._

Yup ... by the Penguin Guide, Third Ear Classical Music, Gramophone magazine and just about every other professional guide that ever heard and rated his musicmaking.

Not to mention the millions that saw him in concert and bought his recordings over a 50-year span. Here's a tiny little example of how those people feel about him:

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Pia...words=beethoven+brendel&qid=1587668877&sr=8-2


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

444mil said:


> You are one of those i had in mind when making the post. I won't argue, it's not worth. By the way, Brendel is overrated.


I really like Brendel's recordings of Mozart's piano concertos with Marriner.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

larold said:


> _By the way, Brendel is overrated._
> 
> Yup ... by the Penguin Guide, Third Ear Classical Music, Gramophone magazine and just about every other professional guide that ever heard his music. Not to mention the millions that saw him in concert and bought his recordings over a 50-year span. Here's a tiny little example:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Pi...nata+15+brendel&qid=1587668345&s=music&sr=1-4


Didn't mean bad. It's just that he is not Beethoven, as many seem to say.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

By the way, i'd be thankful if you could recommend us some reference recordings from him.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Very interesting to read all the comments. When it comes to old recordings (and I have my share) the reason some of us prefer them is simple: many of the performers and conductors actually knew some of the composers and developed their musicianship when that music was new, and fresh. They had a natural musicianship that I don't think can be taught. Take the recordings of Paul Paray, Pierre Monteux, Charles Munch, Serge Koussevitsky, Ernest Ansermet - they speak with an authority that is unmistakable. It's not forced, they don't seem to be playing for applause. 

For the past 40 years since the advent of the CD, the entire repertoire has been recorded over and over and here's what I think: the modern conductors/pianists/orchestras are every bit as good as anything that was done in the past - often better. As others have mentioned, the skill level of orchestras is superb, the sound quality fantastic. And there are some conductors who have that certain something, that special insight that makes for a great performance.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Merl said:


> I remember being on a Google Group, many years ago, with a number of Shellacophiles who were obsessing about all things 'historical'. They fawned over certain long-dead conductors and particularly enthused over a certain number of Beethoven recordings. Every time the subject of Beethoven symphonies came up I hit a brick wall, with sneering replies such as "You've not heard any Beethoven till you've heard (conductor x)'s Beethoven!" I got this for years. They wouldn't entertain anything after the 70s and even that was stretching it. In the end I got fed up with this bunch of buffoons, constantly lambasting newer performances which was part of the reason I ended up here. Years later I finally got to hear (conductor x)'s Beethoven. It was utter crap. Recorded under a matress (or so it sounded) in the earlier half of the century, it was sonically dire (wiry strings, awful balances) and huge crescendos that really weren't huge they were just so distorted they sounded massive. Seeing past the obvious sonic limitations I listened to the performances and they were even worse - shockingly ragged ensemble, constantly shifting tempi, slowing movements down to funereal levels before speeding up the next movement, hoary old tricks like pausing before notes to ramp up tension and skipping the beat. It was possibly one of the direst Beethoven recordings I'd ever heard. As I said on the 'other' thread. Don't believe the hype. Listen with your own ears. Some of these 'past masters' of conducting really weren't all they were billed as.


Reminds me of a story Malcolm Sargent toldof a conversation he had with Toscanini about 'the great conductor Nikisch.' Toscanini fumed, 'Have you ever heard him?' To which Sargent replies 'No' so Toscanini got out a 78 of Nikisch and put it on. Sargent said, 'Why, it's terrible!' Toscanini said, 'But year the other side - that is even worse!'


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Reminds me of a story Malcolm Sargent toldof a conversation he had with Toscanini about 'the great conductor Nikisch.' Toscanini fumed, 'Have you ever heard him?' To which Sargent replies 'No' so Toscanini got out a 78 of Nikisch and put it on. Sargent said, 'Why, it's terrible!' Toscanini said, 'But year the other side - that is even worse!'


Nikisch was superb. I'll take his Beethoven 5th any day over Toscanini's.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nikisch was superb. I'll take his Beethoven 5th any day over Toscanini's.


I have several of Toscanini's recordings - a partial box set gifted to me by a relative (found them somewhere, knew I liked classical). I don't listen to them that often. Never heard of Nikisch, though - I'll need to go check him out.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

There are valid historical performance practice reasons why one might prefer older recordings--if you love super Romantic-with-a-capital-R performances, lots of portamento, lots of rubato, etc, your choices are more plentiful in older historical recordings prior to the 1950s than it was for many decades after. There was a historical cultural shift towards literalism and "objectivity" that became prevailing consensus among many performers, listeners and critics for much of the middle to end of the last century. To listeners with those preferences, many of the recordings of the stereo era can sound bland or uninspired.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_By the way, i'd be thankful if you could recommend us some reference recordings from him._

This should keep you busy a while ...

































As to the Mozart concertos ... I always liked the earlier ones on Vox but the later ones with Marriner are fine too. The Vox recordings use a pickup band, the later ones a better-sounding orchestra. I like his youthful exuberance.









There's another set of Beethoven sonatas and concertos, Mozart sonatas and concertos, and a terrific Diabelli variations on Vox. He made some recordings that were bootlegged on a yellow label too.

If you never saw him in concert he contorted his face as if in pain. But he wasn't. He had enormous patience with audiences, too.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

larold said:


> _
> 
> If you never saw him in concert he contorted his face as if in pain. But he wasn't. He had enormous patience with audiences, too._


_

I attended some of his master classes. A bit beyond me though! _


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

444mil said:


> By the way, i'd be thankful if you could recommend us some reference recordings from him.


His Haydn is acclaimed. Not very oft recorded repertoire, though it seems to suit his temperment.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Brendel took the mantle of the German school from Backhaus and others ... but his temperament was not always German. He had more subtlety than many Germans and clearly understood and transmitted Haydn's humor and Mozart's man for all seasons qualities -- light and shade, power and repose, delicacy and deliverance.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nikisch was superb. I'll take his Beethoven 5th any day over Toscanini's.


So would I (and there are plenty of others besides Nikisch that I prefer over Toscanini). But I listened to Nikisch's LvB 5 a couple of days ago, and the 1913 sound is pretty dire - enough so that I think one has to take some of Nikisch's greatness on faith. That's true of virtually all orchestral recordings during the acoustic era.


----------



## samsondale (Nov 22, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Never been a big Brendel fan at all.
> 
> Ever heard Simon Barere's Liszt sonata? This is the type of recording I hear and just think to myself they don't make them like this anymore.
> 
> ...


I'm not really qualified to opine on whether a certain interpretation is superior to another but, man oh man, that picture looks like it is from my Class of 1979 high school year book.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> ...the 1913 sound is pretty dire - enough so that I think one has to take some of Nikisch's greatness on faith. That's true of virtually all orchestral recordings during the acoustic era.


Yes, the acoustical or recordings of early 20th century are of very limited "fidelity "....
Willem Valkenier, (a one time principal horn of BSO, lived to be 98yo, resided right down the street from me) was active in Berlin, Holland before WWI...he played in the Berlin Opera that premiered several of R. Strauss' operas..he had wonderful stories...he recounted that they were making an acoustical recording of "Don Juan"...the bass response was so weak, so feeble, that they brought in 8 tubas (sousaphones, iirc) to reinforce the basses!! Can you imagine what that must have sounded like??!! lol!!


----------



## robertchapmantt (Apr 23, 2020)

I don't know that I have a prejudice. I like the crisp clear noise of modern recordings, yet the cracklings of older recordings bother me less and also much less.

I do love lots of older recordings, as well as my direct exposure to them is probably due to their over-representation at the local library where I did a lot of my very early timeless expedition before I got older and obtained a far better paying work as well as can afford to acquire even more. I can not inform you why I would choose one over one more. Just as one example, when I listened to Heifetz playing the Sibelius violin concerto, I linked right away, as well as purchased even more of his recordings.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I like to listen to recordings which sound good and right to me, no difference whether they are old or new. Certainly the sound quality plays its part, but the sound of mono recordings is something that one can get used to. When there's a conductor whose approach I really like then I don't think too much about how old the recording is as long as the sound quality is not too disturbing. It is certainly refreshing to listen to different interpretations of the same work though, gives a better understanding of the piece itself but I feel that this isn't a problem on this forum :lol:.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

MarkW said:


> Simple Answer: There are an order of magnitude or two more already recorded recordings than new ones, so there are a lot more older performances to chose from in finding a performance that speaks to you -- so the likelihood is always that an older one will be the one. And that's not counting the ones that are near universally lauded. The odds of breaking into the latter category are naturally smaller. It's simply a question of numbers.


This.

And I have so many recordings of the warhorses that are great. I don't usually bother to listen to the new recordings. I like live performances. The new recordings I get are of the unusual composers. I am waiting on my Burlingame Hill 4th Symphony.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

If you like a recording why bother about the age or sound quality or a hundred other things? Your own listening enjoyment is all that matters.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No matter who the conductor, I can't help but wonder how you understand Beethoven when I read passages like this. It makes me think of a child leaving a Shakespeare play and asking "Why did the guy playing Hamlet keep stopping? Was he forgetting his lines?"
> 
> Do you understand the role that harmonic language plays in the pacing of Beethoven? Do you understand how tension and release work? I ask because you often review recordings in simplistic "fast = good" terms. I wouldn't say this if you didn't deride people whose views you don't understand as "buffoons" and then proceed to educate everyone that the idea of "old masters" is a sham and that one should not waste their time with them. What makes you such an expert?


My ears. I don't deride anyone on this site. I just block them.


----------



## ledzepp (Mar 19, 2020)

Hi Folks,

Got a newbie question. I have a few of Alfred Brendel CDs. I was wondering, why are there so few of his recordings on SACD?


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

ledzepp said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> Got a newbie question. I have a few of Alfred Brendel CDs. I was wondering, why are there so few of his recordings on SACD?


Welcome to TC.
I am not into piano music and can not comment on Brendel. However, if you google his discography and look at the dates of the actual recordings, the vast majority were recorded prior to the advent of SACD technology. I would imagine that most of his recordings were captured in stereo, making multi-channel SACD releases impossible. And releasing a 2 channel SACD which was not recorded in native DSD would not add anything to the original release.
In short, I think the answer is one of timing and available technology.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

ledzepp said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> Got a newbie question. I have a few of Alfred Brendel CDs. I was wondering, why are there so few of his recordings on SACD?


Simple answer - because there aren't many recordings of *anyone* on SACD.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Quite a refreshing thread and clearly there is a big demand for it.:tiphat:

I think that many of us love the recordings they grew up with and this might explain a certain bias towards older recordings. Once you found a recording you love, you won't always feel the need to keep on searching for better ones. Perhaps only for your favorite composer, you would want to stay on top of things. But, given the significant preference on this forum for pre sixties recordings, before recording techniques radically improved, there certainly is a group of listeners that live by the idea of 'the older the better'. I don't feel the need to listen to these crappy old recordings and I certainly don't feel they are superior to anything produced later. There must be an element of snobby thinking to stick to monoraul recordings with a terrific noise floor, over later ones that are sounding so much better. 

Personally, I think that recording techniques and quality of interpretation are complementary. The best of both worlds is a live concert, which requires living musicians. The closest to this is a hi quality digital recording with top interpreters. Once the recording technique becomes more of an limiting issue, the interpretation has to be better to compensate in my ears. At a certain level, I can't listen to an old noise show.

I think that modern musicians are just as good as the older generations. Orchestra's tend to get better than they were in the past. With the RCO, I can confirm this myself, as I follow them from the eighties up to now. The orchestra only got better.

A problem for todays musicians might be that there is an oversupply of comparisons on the market. So, everything you do, will be compared to everything that was produced by many generations before you. Imagine a group of TC members in your audience with each of them having a (different) top 5 in their memory of exactly what you are playing. Seems like a virtually unbearable burden. 

All in all, there are plenty of top class musicians around. But as the classical music market is overly saturated and all the great recordings from the past are being dumped on the market, it will be more difficult for any new musician to earn a position in the ears of the audience.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Merl said:


> My ears. I don't deride anyone on this site. I just block them.


Fair enough

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

zxxyxxz said:


> If you like a recording why bother about the age or sound quality or a hundred other things? Your own listening enjoyment is all that matters.


Exactly. This.

.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No matter who the conductor, I can't help but wonder how you understand Beethoven when I read passages like this. It makes me think of a child leaving a Shakespeare play and asking "Why did the guy playing Hamlet keep stopping? Was he forgetting his lines?"
> 
> Do *you understand the role that harmonic language plays in the pacing of Beethoven?* Do you understand how tension and release work? I ask because you often review recordings in simplistic "fast = good" terms. I wouldn't say this if you didn't deride people whose views you don't understand as "buffoons" and then proceed to educate everyone that the idea of "old masters" is a sham and that one should not waste their time with them. What makes you such an expert?


Yes we do understand these things and that is why we find some of these guys not up to it. Thetempi appear all over the place.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Quite a refreshing thread and clearly there is a big demand for it.:tiphat:
> 
> I think that many of us love the recordings they grew up with and this might explain a certain bias towards older recordings. Once you found a recording you love, you won't always feel the need to keep on searching for better ones. Perhaps only for your favorite composer, you would want to stay on top of things. But, given the significant preference on this forum for pre sixties recordings, before recording techniques radically improved, there certainly is a group of listeners that live by the idea of 'the older the better'. I don't feel the need to listen to these crappy old recordings and I certainly don't feel they are superior to anything produced later. There must be an element of snobby thinking to stick to monoraul recordings with a terrific noise floor, over later ones that are sounding so much better.
> 
> ...


You are certainly correct about orchestras. The standard of orchestral playing today is outstanding. Not so long back I went to a concert by our local amateur orchestra and the playing was what one would have expected of a professional orchestra when I was a young man. When we hear what the youth orchestras can do it is simply amazing so the top professional orchestra are generally way ahead of what they used to be. Today a orchestra like the LPO can hold its own with any in the world. Just listen to their recording of a Mahler 2!
But now of course what has been done has been done during the golden years of recording and an issue needs to be absolutely outstanding or unique to compete. So the chances of a successful recording career are slim for all but the most outstanding or charismatic soloists.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Yes we do understand these things and that is why we find some of these guys not up to it. Thetempi appear all over the place.


But that's the whole point. If you understand harmonic language in works of Beethoven then you know that the tempo needs to constantly adjust. It is no different than adjusting your speed when reciting Shakespeare. The pauses, for example, are not random "tricks," they are natural and necessary for an authentic realization of the poetry/music.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> You are certainly correct about orchestras. The standard of orchestral playing today is outstanding. Not so long back I went to a concert by our local amateur orchestra and the playing was what one would have expected of a professional orchestra when I was a young man. When we hear what the youth orchestras can do it is simply amazing so the top professional orchestra are generally way ahead of what they used to be. Today a orchestra like the LPO can hold its own with any in the world. Just listen to their recording of a Mahler 2!
> *But now of course what has been done has been done during the golden years of recording and an issue needs to be absolutely outstanding or unique to compete. *So the chances of a successful recording career are slim for all but the most outstanding or charismatic soloists.


Even the BPO and RCO (and many others) have their own record labels now, as the major labels already have a full catalogue. And with Spotify and others, sales of recordings have declined. Only a very few people (like me) still buy CD's.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I'll gladly the take the idiomatic style of the old orchestras over the technical perfection of the new orchestras


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But that's the whole point. If you understand harmonic language in works of Beethoven then you know that the tempo needs to constantly adjust. It is no different than adjusting your speed when reciting Shakespeare. The pauses, for example, are not random "tricks," they are natural and necessary for an authentic realization of the poetry/music.


Do we have any evidence that Beethoven himself constantly adjusted his tempi in his own performances during his lifetime? From what you've told us, it sounds to me like your favorite recordings are only idiomatic to the time in which they were recorded, ie. the '30s and '40s, not necessarily to the techniques of Beethoven himself.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll gladly the take the idiomatic style of the old orchestras over the technical perfection of the new orchestras


So bad playing and recording is preferable to good playing and recording? Curious!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Even the BPO and RCO (and many others) have their own record labels now, as the major labels already have a full catalogue. And with Spotify and others, sales of recordings have declined. Only a very few people (like me) still buy CD's.


Yes the time when a bandsmaster like Walter Weller could make a complete Beethoven cycle are over!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But that's the whole point. If you understand harmonic language in works of Beethoven then you know that the tempo needs to constantly adjust. It is no different than adjusting your speed when reciting Shakespeare. The pauses, for example, are not random "tricks," they are natural and necessary for an authentic realization of the poetry/music.


One man's acceleration is another man's abrupt gear shift. And one man's pregnant pause is another man's annoying hiccup.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Approaches to performing have changed regularly over the past 100 years and we are blessed with many fine recordings of standard repertoire from many different periods. As I like variety this is a wonderful situation for me. Recording quality does count for something but an exceptional performance can easily burst through the muddy sound of the earlier decades. But, if an old (1920s-1940s) performance is merely good then why bother with it? Why not get something that is good and has good sound as well? 

A lot of my record buying was done in the 70s, 80s and 90s and, although I have many recordings from that period that I cherish, I do think it may have been a rather uninspired period overall. But, presumably because may others were doing their buying then as well, it may be this is the period that is most strongly liked on this forum. But, for me, it is with more recent recordings - from, say, over the last 20 years - I think we have had very many superb recordings and it may be that these years will come to be seen as a golden age for recordings of classical music.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I personally haven't seen much bias towards older recordings for the most part on this forum, though I could be missing something or not seeing everything. For me, there are plenty of newer recordings I like. But when it comes to opera, I definitely think older recordings are preferred on this forum. I certainly prefer the older opera recordings. One reason seems to be that few new opera recordings are being made today. It is also quite obvious that the quality singing today is unforgivably lower than that of the past. Most of the operas I want to hear have already been recorded with superb artists. I just don't want to hear the singers of today who pale in comparison to those of the past. Do I see a decline in the quality of non-operatic recordings? Not really.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

adriesba said:


> I personally haven't seen much bias towards older recordings for the most part on this forum, though I could be missing something or not seeing everything. For me, there are plenty of newer recordings I like. But when it comes to opera, I definitely think older recordings are preferred on this forum. I certainly prefer the older opera recordings. One reason seems to be that few new opera recordings are being made today. It is also quite obvious that the quality singing today is unforgivably lower than that of the past. Most of the operas I want to hear have already been recorded with superb artists. I just don't want to hear the singers of today who pale in comparison to those of the past. Do I see a decline in the quality of non-operatic recordings? Not really.


True! I love historical opera recordings! The quality of singing is probably the main thing.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I know that there is a definite crystal clarity to very new recordings, but I don't think this is necessarily an absolute good, any more than a high resolution photograph of a starry night would be in any way superior to van Gogh's impressionistic painting, which might miss some of the minute details, but lose nothing of the emotional impact of the scene.

And honestly, for my ears, after a certain point in terms of the technical marvels of the recording process, there is a point of diminishing returns. Yes, some of those really early recordings with the snaps, crackles, and pops are hard to ignore. But I find very little past, say 1950 that doesn't sound fantastic to my ears. In fact, I really love the whole Living Stereo line of recordings. But for particular conductors and performers, like Klemperer, or Wilhelm Kempff, I have no problem going and grabbing a mono recording and still enjoying the hell out of it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Do we have any evidence that Beethoven himself constantly adjusted his tempi in his own performances during his lifetime? From what you've told us, it sounds to me like your favorite recordings are only idiomatic to the time in which they were recorded, ie. the '30s and '40s, not necessarily to the techniques of Beethoven himself.


First of all, it's inherent in the musical language. Again, no different than Shakespeare. Only a tone deaf person would read Shakespeare in a monotone without any inflection or pauses. The same applies to music performance.

Second, yes everything I have read about Beethoven states that he was not at all conservative in anything he did. It all sounded "strange" to the common ear. He was of course a virtuosic pianist and a great improviser. He detested pedantic performance and was impatient with the instruments of his time (and one would imagine, performers) not being able to adequately express his grand ideas. I believe it was Schnabel who said Beethoven's music was better than it could ever be played.

And you mention the 30s and 40s...we have Beethoven from 1913 which is even more liberal, fluid and dramatic than much of what we heard just a few decades later. The trend through the 20th century until now has been, for whatever reason, to streamline the range of expression, the exact opposite of what Beethoven was aiming for at the dawn of Romanticism.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Especially in his late music, Beethoven often wrote very detailed performance instructions in German that would be considered unusual in his day. Obviously he wanted utmost attention to detail and a personal connection between the performer and the score:

Piano Sonata 14: "This piece should be played with utmost delicacy and without dampers"
Piano Sonata 28: "Somewhat lively and with innermost sensibility(or "ardent perception")
Piano Sonata 29: "Passionate and with much feeling"
Piano Sonata 30: "Singing with the deepest feeling"

You could argue that these instructions are only fit for more intimate solo piano music and not for symphonies, but I don't think Beethoven would agree with this. Radical rule-breaker and experimenter that he was, I think it's fair to say from what he left us that he expected his music to elicit highly personal responses from its performers. After all he toed the line between Classicism and Romanticism, and a big part of that swing towards Romanticism is the emphasis on a free sense of intimate expression.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

As far as the OP, I appreciate anything that interprets the music boldly and personally. One of the newest classical releases is Alisa Weilerstein's Bach Cello Suites, and after hearing it a couple weeks ago I was blown away by the intrepid personality that she infuses the music with. That's the kind of music-making I like to hear, and in my opinion it's _generally_ what you get in pre-stereo-era performances. I've already said there are many more recent recordings I love. And I agree with Enthusiast that if an older recording is not up to par, of course I'll seek out newer ones that are better. But there are so many transcendental events on record from before the age of technological advancement that I'm saddened to see people reject them all (just as I would not advocate for rejecting all modern recordings - hasty generalizations are lazy). Just like watching a black-and-white movie, in the greatest recorded documents, you forget all about the limitations of the technology and are swept away by the creativity and originality of the artistic process.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So bad playing and recording is preferable to good playing and recording? Curious!


That is not what he said....


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> That is not what he said....


Of course it isn't. But polarization and bad faith on TC are rivalled only by those of American politics and media.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

As musicians have become more proficient, they have also become less daring and less personal in their interpretations. That's not a point of contention; it's apparent to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with recording history. In fact the trend began before the recording era. In the 19th century it was not unusual for musicians, especially soloists, to alter the compositions they played - interpolating cadenzas, for example, or making substantial cuts. Something of that performance practice made it into publication and can still be heard in Busoni's "recomposed" _Goldberg Variations_ and elsewhere. Under the influence of the Brahms circle and others, such liberties started to become taboo, but even Brahms is said to have arpeggiated every chord he played - an eccentricity few audiences would appreciate today. Then came the advent of recording, which made it easier for musicians to hear one another's interpretations and get to know them in detail. It also gave audiences stronger preconceptions about how certain pieces ought to sound. Those changes encouraged further homogenizing, which has accelerated with the passage of time.

Given all that, it is not surprising that veteran listeners often have a preference for older recordings, and at times I share their preference. But it is also a welcome fact that so many works are now available in straightforward objective performances with clear sound and no wrong notes. It is particularly helpful when you are getting to know a work for the first time. Not to mention that the staggering technical facility of so many modern musicians means that many works that once would have been barely playable are now available in a choice of recordings and can even be heard live from time to time. And contemporary composers can write much more freely than their predecessors, because they no longer have to worry about the performers' technical limitations.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> Of course it isn't. But polarization and bad faith on TC are rivalled only by those of American politics and media.


Not ba£ faith - just a question. I mean on Nikisch's disc both the playing and recording are pretty poor. Got nothing to do with Trump I can assure you! :lol:


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Caryatid said:


> As musicians have become more proficient, they have also become less daring and less personal in their interpretations. That's not a point of contention; it's apparent to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with recording history. In fact the trend began before the recording era. In the 19th century it was not unusual for musicians, especially soloists, to alter the compostions they played - interpolating cadenzas, for example, or making substantial cuts. Something of that performance practice made it into publication and can still be heard in Busoni's "recomposed" _Goldberg Variations_ and elsewhere. Under the influence of the Brahms circle and others, such liberties started to become taboo, but even Brahms is said to have arpeggiated every chord he played - an eccentricity few audiences would appreciate today. After that, the advent of recording made it easier for musicians to hear one another's interpretations and get to know them in detail. It also gave audiences stronger preconceptions about how certain pieces ought to sound. Those changes encouraged further homogenizing, which has only increased with the passage of time.
> 
> Given all that, it is not surprising that veteran listeners often have a preference for older recordings, and at times I share their preference. But it is also a welcome fact that so many works are now available in straightforward objective performances with clear sound and no wrong notes. It is particularly helpful when you are getting to know a work for the first time. Not to mention that the staggering technical facility of so many modern musicians means that many works that once would have been barely playable are now available in a choice of recordings and can even be heard live from time to time. And contemporary composers can write much more freely than their predecessors, because they no longer have to worry about the performers' technical limitations.


I'm not a musician. I listen to multiple recordings of various works - honestly, I couldn't tell you who played all the notes and who didn't. Ignorance is bliss?
But in terms of technical proficiency, how has that changed? Have instruments changed that much? I look at violins - an old Stradivarius versus a modern one (not counting those funky electric ones) - have there been differences introduced that affect what you can do - at least beyond the new strings versus gut strings? Have new techniques been developed, or is the teaching better?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Not ba£ faith - just a question. I mean on Nikisch's disc both the playing and recording are pretty poor. Got nothing to do with Trump I can assure you! :lol:


So, from everything I written, why then do I like the Nikisch?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I'm not a musician. I listen to multiple recordings of various works - honestly, I couldn't tell you who played all the notes and who didn't. Ignorance is bliss?
> But in terms of technical proficiency, how has that changed? Have instruments changed that much? I look at violins - an old Stradivarius versus a modern one (not counting those funky electric ones) - have there been differences introduced that affect what you can do - at least beyond the new strings versus gut strings? Have new techniques been developed, or is the teaching better?


Certainly the general technical proficiency is higher.the problem young performers have is that it has all been done before and enshrined on disc as well as it can be


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I'm not a musician. I listen to multiple recordings of various works - honestly, I couldn't tell you who played all the notes and who didn't. Ignorance is bliss?
> But in terms of technical proficiency, how has that changed? Have instruments changed that much? I look at violins - an old Stradivarius versus a modern one (not counting those funky electric ones) - have there been differences introduced that affect what you can do - at least beyond the new strings versus gut strings? Have new techniques been developed, or is the teaching better?


Some instruments have changed drastically, but I was referring to the musicians. An average professional musician today simply has a better technique than one a hundred years ago. You may not be able to hear the wrong notes in old recordings, but they are there. And you are right: some new techniques have been developed as well - the ability to play complex polyrhythms, for example. As for why the change happened, it may be because the field has become more competitive. These days it is hard to get anywhere as a classical musician unless your technique is very good indeed.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

There is absolut no ''old recordings bias'' in our community. As I noticed the 18 months I'm member, only I and my friend and good collector the Bourdon have a bias to old recordings, because of our hobby. ALL the other friends are have a very strong tendency to new recordings (or reissues, remastered etc.) with good sound and every benefit of the modern technology. If you start to participate more to our community, you will see your self the truth.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

444mil said:


> Last two weeks i've been very into Brahm's piano concertos.
> 
> I find Kovacevich/Davis and Richter better than Fleisher/Serkin with Szell.
> On Beethoven Concertos i mentioned many alternatives above. Just listened to Kovacevich/Davis on the 4th, astounding performance, why is Gilels/Ludwig so praised?


The answer to your last question is probably: because many people love/like it. It does not necessarily prove that they like it because of an 'historic bias'. Since many of those older recordings are still available (in new issues and packages maybe, but still…) and have been available for decades and decades already, it seems only logical to me that they receive more attention, because more people know them. Also because, after some time, they become very 'nice-priced'.

It does happen sometimes though, that one sticks to just one (or two) very much cherished recordings, for either sentimental, emotional or maybe even financial reasons. For instance: I dearly love 2 recordings of Mozart's KV 427 (unfinished C minor Mass): Colin Davis and John Eliot Gardiner. I did not purchase many other recordings of that work. And I praise these performances on some online forums. But that doesn't necessarily mean that, in Mozart's church compositions, I'm 'British biased' or 'Philips/Universal recordings biased' or 'recordings made before 1990 biased'. It's just that these two really satisfy me, and there's no real hunger or need to hear something else. (FYI: I did purchase/heard a few more, but I still prefer the two mentioned.) And I don't have the money to grab every new modern recording.

Let's be thankful that nowadays we have so many choices to choose from. And older listeners might promote Jascha Heifetz or David Oistrach, whilst the younger might embrace (oh, yes! ) Hillary Hahn or Janine Jansen. I think that's only understandable.

Let's also face it: the average age of the average classical music lover is... STONE OLD. :lol:
So, if one youngster comes here and praises Janine Jansen, be sure that a hundred greys will grumble and say: hey rookie, check out the recordings of Heifetz and Oistrach first!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Dimace said:


> There is absolut no ''old recordings bias'' in our community.


The forum isn't biased. Some individuals are.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> The forum isn't biased. Some individuals are.


"Bias" is an underhanded way of explaining away and negating people's opinions. I like what I like. I make generalizations after the fact.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Caryatid said:


> As musicians have become more proficient, they have also become less daring and less personal in their interpretations. That's not a point of contention; it's apparent to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with recording history. .


I agree (and I certainly agree with our other comment, that musicians are more technically adept now than in previous eras), and I don't even think that it's a debatable point. And I think that the reasons are fairly apparent - the ubiquity of recordings, broadcasts, and during the last decade or so, social media.

Before recordings, if a musician made an egregious error, the only people who'd know about it were the people who attended the performance, and most of them might not even notice. Early recordings were primitive enough that errors weren't obvious. As recording technology improved, it became easier for listeners to tell when musicians erred, or made adjustments to the music. And as broadcasts have become easy to access, and easy to disseminate, if a singer, for example, has a bad night, omits a high note or, God forbid, cracks on a high C, lots of people will hear it. And in 2020, it will be disseminated all over the Internet via Youtube and Facebook, within hours. So from a performer's standpoint, it probably makes sense to play it safe and not take risks, particularly early in one's career, and to concentrate on developing flawless technique.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> Of course it isn't. But polarization and bad faith on TC are rivalled only by those of American politics and media.


Lol!! I hear you, but I don't think TC has quite reached that point....yet...


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> First of all, it's inherent in the musical language. Again, no different than Shakespeare. Only a tone deaf person would read Shakespeare in a monotone without any inflection or pauses. The same applies to music performance.
> 
> Second, yes everything I have read about Beethoven states that he was not at all conservative in anything he did. It all sounded "strange" to the common ear. He was of course a virtuosic pianist and a great improviser. He detested pedantic performance and was impatient with the instruments of his time (and one would imagine, performers) not being able to adequately express his grand ideas. I believe it was Schnabel who said Beethoven's music was better than it could ever be played.
> 
> And you mention the 30s and 40s...we have Beethoven from 1913 which is even more liberal, fluid and dramatic than much of what we heard just a few decades later. The trend through the 20th century until now has been, for whatever reason, to streamline the range of expression, the exact opposite of what Beethoven was aiming for at the dawn of Romanticism.


You seem to be conflating "liberal" and "conservative" with fluid vs. straight tempo respectively. That is not what I said. Obviously, Beethoven was not conservative about anything he did. He did not like the instruments of his time, yes. But I wouldn't agree that there is anything inherent in his music (especially his orchestral music) that means it ought to be performed like Furtwängler or Nikisch performed them. I believe Furtwängler himself admitted to being part of a tradition of conducting that began with Wagner.

Unless you can show me a quote from Beethoven in which he mentions flexibility of tempo I find your "it's inherent in the music" argument a little flimsy. You clearly know more about this than I do, so I'm more or less just going off of what you've said, plus what I know of Beethoven's scores.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> Especially in his late music, Beethoven often wrote very detailed performance instructions in German that would be considered unusual in his day. Obviously he wanted utmost attention to detail and a personal connection between the performer and the score:
> 
> Piano Sonata 14: "This piece should be played with utmost delicacy and without dampers"
> Piano Sonata 28: "Somewhat lively and with innermost sensibility(or "ardent perception")
> ...


You may not be replying to me, but I don't know what those quotes have to do with eg. Furtwängler speeding up or slowing down his tempo. Is there something inherently "passionate" or "with feeling" in flexible tempi? Ie. is it impossible to play with feeling while keeping a straight tempo? This is something I'm genuinely curious about.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

I understand most of the forum members have a recording of "X" work they like and are comfortable with, and didn't even bother try to listen/buy others, and it is fine.
But, with the streaming era, many of us we have access to docens of recordings to listen and compare, and can't understand for example the bias towards W. Kempff. 
On Beethoven symphonies, for example, we have excellent different interpretations (and many of them are very unique) from Chailly to Pletnev.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> The forum isn't biased. Some individuals are.


But never the poster! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> I agree (and I certainly agree with our other comment, that musicians are more technically adept now than in previous eras), and I don't even think that it's a debatable point. And I think that the reasons are fairly apparent - the ubiquity of recordings, broadcasts, and during the last decade or so, social media.
> 
> Before recordings, if a musician made an egregious error, the only people who'd know about it were the people who attended the performance, and most of them might not even notice. Early recordings were primitive enough that errors weren't obvious. As recording technology improved, it became easier for listeners to tell when musicians erred, or made adjustments to the music. And as broadcasts have become easy to access, and easy to disseminate, if a singer, for example, has a bad night, omits a high note or, God forbid, cracks on a high C, lots of people will hear it. And in 2020, it will be disseminated all over the Internet via Youtube and Facebook, within hours. So from a performer's standpoint, it probably makes sense to play it safe and not take risks, particularly early in one's career, and to concentrate on developing flawless technique.


But generally the technical standard of playing has increased. Just like the technical standard of athleticism in sports has increased. Musicians are better players now technically than they used to be in general


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> But generally the technical standard of playing has increased. Just like the technical standard of athleticism in sports has increased. Musicians are better players now technically than they used to be in general


Right. That's what I said.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

444mil said:


> I understand most of the forum members have a recording of "X" work they like and are comfortable with, and didn't even bother try to listen/buy others, and it is fine.
> But, with the streaming era, many of us we have access to docens of recordings to listen and compare, and can't understand for example the *bias towards W. Kempff. *
> On Beethoven symphonies, for example, we have excellent different interpretations (and many of them are very unique) from Chailly to Pletnev.


I'm not sure you are using the word "bias" correctly. It's not a bias, but a genuine preference. I for one _prefer_ the sound and playing of Kempff's Beethoven sonatas over, say, Pletnev. Bias has nothing to do with it. You don't have to understand it, and I don't have to explain it to you.  I don't think age has anything to do with it; I'm a Millennial, if that matters.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> I'm not sure you are using the word "bias" correctly. It's not a bias, but a genuine preference. I for one _prefer_ the sound and playing of Kempff's Beethoven sonatas over, say, Pletnev. Bias has nothing to do with it. You don't have to understand it, and I don't have to explain it to you.  I don't think age has anything to do with it; I'm a Millennial, if that matters.


You prefer the sound too? That's stupid.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

444mil said:


> You prefer the sound too? That's stupid.


Yes I prefer the old analog sound. You're stupid.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> I'm not sure you are using the word "bias" correctly. It's not a bias, but a genuine preference. I for one _prefer_ the sound and playing of Kempff's Beethoven sonatas over, say, Pletnev. Bias has nothing to do with it. You don't have to understand it, and I don't have to explain it to you.  I don't think age has anything to do with it; I'm a Millennial, if that matters.


You have to understand something here. "Preference" indicates something with validity, something that has been honestly considered and thought out. "Bias" indicates something without validity, something done without consideration or thinking through, something done for some nefarious reason.

Hence when a poster dislikes someone's opinion, he'll label said opinion a "bias" in order to avoid validating it.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Comment was too late for relevance - edited accordingly.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> *Yes I prefer the old analog sound.* You're stupid.


I'm with you with my body and soul! 16.000 CDs but the love I have for my only 2.500 LPs is immense! (not to say the value of the good analog recordings, which, for every collector, is very important).


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2020)

There are lots of things we can learn from old recordings; namely the extent of portamento, the size of orchestras and other interpretational inssues. And some of these were phenomenal recordings despite the poor quality and, I suspect, there would have been less technical interference with the actual performance. Just as only one example, Alfred Cortot: you'll hear Alfred Brendel talking about this extraordinary musician and how much he was influenced by Cortot's performances. So, historical recordings provide a performance review or continuum.

I have a friend in our community music group: an Oxford-educated retired Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He loves music (particularly Wagner) and at a very late age he still builds his own hi-fi systems. My friend insists on top quality sound and any time somebody plays music which doesn't have that cutting-edge sound quality he winces, then comments. Recently I presented a program using my iphone and UE-Boom device and he showed some disapproval. On another occasion I played Furtwangler's recording made during the war of Beethoven #9: it's a stunning, white-heat performance which was recommended to me by a member (now deceased) from another music messageboard. My program was 'Great Recordings of the 20th Century". I looked over at him and he was visibly disturbed!! Afterwards he mused that my program would have been better if the sound quality had been good. "That's why I bought us the DAC!".

The last item on the program was this work, and I looked over at him with a warning look: it is stunning, with chunky Brahms on the piano!!


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

flamencosketches said:


> Yes I prefer the old analog sound. You're stupid.


And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the snob we we're talking about.

For clarification, I wasn't talking about analog vs digital, streaming vs CD/Vynil etc. I was talking about W. Kempff Mono Beethoven sonata recording vs modern sound.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Christabel said:


> On another occasion I played Furtwangler's recording made during the war of Beethoven #9: it's a stunning, white-heat performance which was recommended to me by a member (now deceased) from another music messageboard.


Greatest orchestral recording in existence


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

444mil said:


> And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the snob we we're talking about.
> 
> For clarification, I wasn't talking about analog vs digital, streaming vs CD/Vynil etc. I was talking about W. Kempff Mono Beethoven sonata recording vs modern sound.


Well, first of all you did call his opinion "stupid."

Second, there are many cases where recordings from the 50s actually sound better, with more presence.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

444mil said:


> I understand most of the forum members have a recording of "X" work they like and are comfortable with, and didn't even bother try to listen/buy others, and it is fine.
> But, with the streaming era, many of us we have access to docens of recordings to listen and compare, and can't understand for example the bias towards W. Kempff.
> On Beethoven symphonies, for example, we have excellent different interpretations (and many of them are very unique) from Chailly to Pletnev.


This doesn't sound right to me. I imagine, on the contrary, that most CM listeners love to hear new/different recordings of pieces in which they're interested. I listen to the radio every day and I look at the daily playlists in order to tune in specifically to recordings I haven't heard before. There's also a weekly show focusing on new CD and multimedia releases and I always try to listen to it.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

444mil said:


> And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the snob we we're talking about.
> 
> For clarification, I wasn't talking about analog vs digital, streaming vs CD/Vynil etc. I was talking about W. Kempff Mono Beethoven sonata recording vs modern sound.


I'm not a snob. I like plenty of digital recordings, but generally, with piano recordings, I like the analog sound better than what has been achieved with a lot of digital recordings. You're out of your element here. I don't know why you're so dead set on deriding my (& others') preferences.

Oh, and I was talking about Kempff's stereo set. No, Pletnev definitely sounds better than Kempff mono. I can't disagree with you there.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Caryatid said:


> As musicians have become more proficient, they have also become less daring and less personal in their interpretations. That's not a point of contention; it's apparent to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with recording history.


I don't agree. Listen to HJ Lim Beethoven Sonata recordings (wich i don't exactly like), Pletnev, Argerich, Korstick, and many other already mentioned above.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Many modern recordings have given us personal, daring, and exciting interpretations of the repertoire. For example, as I recently mentioned I prefer Weilerstein's new Cello Suites recording to older "canonical" ones like Fournier and Starker.

Even more pre-stereo recordings had personal, daring, and exciting interpretations of the repertoire. I think we can all agree that this era often had radically different performance styles which are enjoyed differently by different people. 

I don't think about age. All I think about is whether the interpretation connects with me. I have concluded through my listening so far that more older recordings than newer recordings have the criteria that often satisfy me. This does not make me "biased" towards older recordings, because that infers I have an "old = good," "new = bad" mentality. In fact it depends on what I'm in the mood for. Often I decide I want to listen to a work I know well, but then I'm faced with the decision of which performance to choose. Sometimes I just want pristine sound quality and the feeling that I'm enjoying an evening in the concert hall, so I'll go for a well-engineered recording as my first priority. Sometimes I want fiery and intense, sometimes placid and lyrical, sometimes period instruments, sometimes old-fashioned, sometimes I want to hear an up-and-coming artist's take on a work, sometimes I want to hear an old favorite again. And sometimes I want to hear the immortal performances like Furtwangler's Beethoven, Landowska's Bach, Lipatti's Chopin, Callas's opera, etc. that stir incredibly special responses within me. There's a time and a place for everything, and there's no need to be confined to certain dogma, especially when there's so much incredible variety in the classical music world.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2020)

I wouldn't want to be without older or modern recordings!!


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

444mil said:


> I don't agree. Listen to HJ Lim Beethoven Sonata recordings (wich i don't exactly like), Pletnev, Argerich, Korstick, and many other already mentioned above.


I don't deny that _some _ living musicians have quite personal styles. If we are talking about pianists, Sokolov and Pogorelich are other, more extreme examples. But the trend is against them. They stand out as anomalous.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Christabel said:


> I wouldn't want to be without older or modern recordings!!


I strongly agree!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I go by what sounds the best to me, what "connects" with my preferences - quality of the performance and sound quality are both important....
A dreadful sounding "old" recording presents problems, as does a stunning digital recording of a dull, mediocre performance.

There is a huge amount of recorded music available on YouTube, Spotify, etc, etc...I recently auditioned a whole group of YouTube videos of Sibelius Sym #5 - different orchestras and conductors, some living, some from the past, some, I think, pretty current...I don't remember all of them - Bernstein [withVPO], Maazel, Wolf, Segerstam, Saraste, Sakari and a couple more - Bavarian Radio Orch, Iceland Sym, SW German Radio, Swedish RSO, were some of the orchestras...
These were all good performances, pretty solid, good, but not great - I'd probably give most of them a B or B+, Maybe an A- or a C+...none were terrible...all were decent
Now, none of these, imo, matched Bernstein's magnificent NYPO/CBS effort from 3/61...there was not the section depth in the orchestras, nor did any match Lenny's superb sense of drama and flow, none came close in the great closing section...
It's certainly possible that someone today could produce an effort equal to Bernstein's epic....not sure who that would be - Salonen, perhaps, he's an excellent Sibelian, and I've heard him present some totally first-rate performances of big repertoire [Le Sacre, Petrushka, Mahler#9].
So, In this case, Sibelius #5 - I'm sticking with the "old", but I'm not ruling out the "new"....

Another example - Elektra/Rosenkavalier - excerpts/scenes - a recent release by Manfred Honeck/PittsSO is a very fine recording - he presents orchestral suites from the 2 operas....
addressing just the Elektra - Honeck's forces do a fine job, splendidly recorded by Reference Recordings....I compare this to 2 Golden oldies - Solti/VPO/Nilsson -complete on London/Decca, and Reiner/CSO/Borkh excerpts on RCA from '56...
this is stiff competition indeed. Honeck is good, a fine disc, but I'm not ditching my old favorites - as fine as Pittsburgh sounds, they don't quite have that "elektric" [sorry] alertness, the "at the edge" excitement Solti gets from VPO, and NOBODY matches Reiner/CSO for the unbridled viciousness, the savage "blood-revenge" frenzy of the demented heroine...this is blood-curdling stuff...
Honeck enjoys the best sound, for sure, and his orchestra plays superbly...but the "old" timers are right in there, and come out ahead in quite a few categories....
So, I have no problem mixing the new in with the old....much to gain from both. That's pretty much how I pick and choose my music..


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2020)

Four years ago I bought expensive hi-fi equipment. Unison Research (Hybrid Value) Amplifier, Densen CD player and B&W CM10 speakers (perhaps these have been superseded, I don't know). Anyway, what I found was that the sound quality of my CDs (I don't hold vinyl in my collection) was so varied in recording that it couldn't justify the cost (A$15,000). That, of course, is cheap for real audiophiles, but if I spend that kind of money I don't expect it to be 'rubbish in/rubbish out' quality - and that's what it is. I could count on both hands the number of CDs with sound quality enough to justify that expense at the time. The hi-fi salesman warned me about "rubbish in/rubbish out", actually. I took about 10 of my CDs when I bought the equipment and we both noticed the discrepancies in recording quality. Nevertheless, I went ahead and here it is, still annoying!! He sold me a $750 speaker to go with my computer too, but it's boomy and I'm giving to one of my children.

As I write this I'm listening to Kovacevich playing Brahms Variations on a Theme by Handel. Oh, it's drop-dead gorgeous. The Fugue has just started - and I can hear it right up the end of my house (that means the neighbours can too). So, volume per se isn't an issue.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

This thread has not disappointed. Mudslinging, heartfelt attempts at communication, some rebuffed, some not, audio engineering and music history. I love it. Something for everyone.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

This is a very subjective topic. For me, recordings before a certain point are mainly for historical interest. Certainly, acoustical recordings fall into this category, as their inevitable distortion, limited dynamic and frequency ranges, and high background noise are limiting factors. Though even there, modern restoration technology has enabled some remarkable improvements. Starting with the electrical recording era in the mid-1920s, especially with modern restoration techniques, one gets close to general purposes quality. Then, with magnetic tape and other improvements of the late 1940s and early 50s, the best recordings become entirely listenable, though perhaps at first in an upper tier balcony sense rather than the front of the orchestra.

Improvements in all-analog recordings continue through the late 70s and even the early 80s. The best of these are very good indeed, though imo the LP increasingly became a low-quality mass produced product, especially where the major labels were concerned, and that often led to losses in sound quality and nostalgia for earlier LPs, sometimes reasonably so and sometimes not, imo. 

With the onset of digital audio and the CD, certain fundamental problems of the vinyl LP were suddenly and completely eliminated. Alas, digital audio had its own weaknesses and issues, leading to some nostalgia for the analog era, sometimes reasonable and sometimes not, imo. Digital audio then improved considerably, both for CDs and with newer, better digital formats. However, a shift from physical media, first to downloads and then to streaming, hasn't always been good for sound quality. 

Where one stands on commercial audio with all of that history depends a lot on subjective taste in many ways, never mind that a number of things I just wrote about that history are just my own personal opinion. I could back those opinions up with specific examples and more detailed arguments, but that wouldn't convince anyone here of anything, so I won't bother. And I don't think anyone is stupid for having a different opinion.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2020)

@Heck 148: this has been a very enjoyable read. Thanks.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

flamencosketches said:


> I'm not a snob. I like plenty of digital recordings, but generally, with piano recordings, I like the analog sound better than what has been achieved with a lot of digital recordings. You're out of your element here. I don't know why you're so dead set on deriding my (& others') preferences.
> 
> Oh, and I was talking about Kempff's stereo set. No, Pletnev definitely sounds better than Kempff mono. I can't disagree with you there.


I have a few Chopin/Magaloff recordings, done by Philips in the 1970s: gorgeous natural piano sound.
I also recall gorgeous recordings by Supraphon, in the 1960s, a.o. Dvořák and Mahler (Karel Ančerl), and a Bach organ récital by Jiří Reinberger.
I love them, without being snobbish or biased (I think).


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

As a listener in my 30s, I'm not attracted to pre-1950 recordings because I grew up with them or have some sort of attachment to them or anything like that. But I've always enjoyed hearing individual, distinctive performances and hearing how differently musicians approach a piece of music, and how certain ones unlock or highlight specific aspects of a work that I had never noticed before. And when I listen to historical recordings, it is like a little glimpse or gateway into a fundamentally different perspective towards music making, a remnant of Romantic performance practice that has largely disappeared in the post World War II recording era. Technical prowess, precision and overall standards of musicianship have become marvelous, but there are idiosyncrasies in music making that have become unpopular and been smoothed over and which are fascinating to hear. In those older performances you can hear a clear and purposeful variation of tempo within a movement, where rubato was common and precision was not. Just listen to a Furtwangler recording and how his use of rubato becomes extreme at the end of phrases, or to a conductor like Mengelberg where the tempo slows or quickens in practially every bar. It's an enlightening experience. Nowadays the principle of slowing down and speeding up within a movement is often criticized as rushing or dragging. Modern performers adhere to a more uniform, invariable pace that would probably surprise most 18th and 19th century musicians. As the musicoligist Robert Philip observes:

"Modern rhythm has not just become more orderly. It has lost much of the informality and rhetorical unpredictablility of early 20th century performing. The relationship between notes are closer to a literal interpretation, and there is less emphasizing of contrasts by tempo variation or by the various forms of rubato which used to be acceptable. Modern flexibility is much less volatile, both in detail and across whole movements. The overall result of these changes is that performances are much less characterized in their rhythm than they were earlier in the century."

Or listen to Joshua Bell playing Fritz Kreisler's "Liebeslied" as opposed to the composers' own performances:











Bell's recording is beautiful of course, and he makes an excellent attempt at replicating a Romantic style, including both portamento and rubato. But all the rhytmic subtelties and nuances in Kreisler's performance are impossible for him to capture. Bell can't escape his cultural context, and everything is regular and logical, whereas Kreisler uses rhythm to confound uniformity and consistency. By our contemporary standards what he plays and what is written resemble each other only approximately.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

WildThing said:


> As a listener in my 30s, I'm not attracted to pre-1950 recordings because I grew up with them or have some sort of attachment to them or anything like that. But I've always enjoyed hearing individual, distinctive performances and hearing how differently musicians approach a piece of music, and how certain ones unlock or highlight specific aspects of a work that I had never noticed before. And when I listen to historical recordings, it is like a little glimpse or gateway into a fundamentally different perspective towards music making, a remnant of Romantic performance practice that has largely disappeared in the post World War II recording era. Technical prowess, precision and overall standards of musicianship have become marvelous, but there are idiosyncrasies in music making that have become unpopular and been smoothed over and which are fascinating to hear. In those older performances you can hear a clear and purposeful variation of tempo within a movement, where rubato was common and precision was not. Just listen to a Furtwangler recording and how his use of rubato becomes extreme at the end of phrases, or to a conductor like Mengelberg where the tempo slows or quickens in practially every bar. It's an enlightening experience. Nowadays the principle of slowing down and speeding up within a movement is often criticized as rushing or dragging. Modern performers adhere to a more uniform, invariable pace that would probably surprise most 18th and 19th century musicians. As the musicoligist Robert Philip observes:
> 
> "Modern rhythm has not just become more orderly. It has lost much of the informality and rhetorical unpredictablility of early 20th century performing. The relationship between notes are closer to a literal interpretation, and there is less emphasizing of contrasts by tempo variation or by the various forms of rubato which used to be acceptable. Modern flexibility is much less volatile, both in detail and across whole movements. The overall result of these changes is that performances are much less characterized in their rhythm than they were earlier in the century."
> 
> ...


I hear ya. Part of the issue here is that as the 20th century wore on, classical music recordings became increasingly important as definitive documents of how the music ideally "should" sound. Sophisticated editing technology meant wrong notes or other obvious gaffes were a thing of the past. That was good in some ways, as minor imperfections that are unnoticed or add to the character of a live performance can become annoying in a recording that is heard repeatedly, where they are always exactly the same and occur in exactly the same places.

Eventually, the premium on technically clean and note-perfect performances in the classical music world may have raised standards in many ways, but imo it also took something away. Fritz Kreisler lived well into the 20th century and made made a number of recordings, but really belongs to the earlier, pre-recording era. Jacques Thibaud, Pablo Casals and Alfred Cortot are also examples. Former child prodigy Arthur Rubinstein actually changed his style of playing and sharpened up his technique in response to the dawn of the recording era.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

WildThing said:


> As a listener in my 30s, I'm not attracted to pre-1950 recordings because I grew up with them or have some sort of attachment to them or anything like that. But I've always enjoyed hearing individual, distinctive performances and hearing how differently musicians approach a piece of music, and how certain ones unlock or highlight specific aspects of a work that I had never noticed before. And when I listen to historical recordings, it is like a little glimpse or gateway into a fundamentally different perspective towards music making, a remnant of Romantic performance practice that has largely disappeared in the post World War II recording era. Technical prowess, precision and overall standards of musicianship have become marvelous, but there are idiosyncrasies in music making that have become unpopular and been smoothed over and which are fascinating to hear. In those older performances you can hear a clear and purposeful variation of tempo within a movement, where rubato was common and precision was not. Just listen to a Furtwangler recording and how his use of rubato becomes extreme at the end of phrases, or to a conductor like Mengelberg where the tempo slows or quickens in practially every bar. It's an enlightening experience. Nowadays the principle of slowing down and speeding up within a movement is often criticized as rushing or dragging. Modern performers adhere to a more uniform, invariable pace that would probably surprise most 18th and 19th century musicians. As the musicoligist Robert Philip observes:
> 
> "Modern rhythm has not just become more orderly. It has lost much of the informality and rhetorical unpredictablility of early 20th century performing. The relationship between notes are closer to a literal interpretation, and there is less emphasizing of contrasts by tempo variation or by the various forms of rubato which used to be acceptable. Modern flexibility is much less volatile, both in detail and across whole movements. The overall result of these changes is that performances are much less characterized in their rhythm than they were earlier in the century."
> 
> ...


Excellent post. However, I think "regular and logical" is giving modern performers too much credit. I call them fearful and unimaginative. And as a performer myself I really do believe that fear is the driving motivation. People are afraid to take risks, afraid to be judged, afraid to take too deep an individual journey into the heart of the works they perform. And by the comments you see even on this forum, who can blame them? The result is that mediocre artists capitalize on this collective fear by competing to see who can be the most efficient in a mechanical way, and they come to define the era we are in.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

fluteman said:


> I hear ya. Part of the issue here is that as the 20th century wore on, classical music recordings became increasingly important as definitive documents of how the music ideally "should" sound. Sophisticated editing technology meant wrong notes or other obvious gaffes were a thing of the past. That was good in some ways, as minor imperfections that are unnoticed or add to the character of a live performance can become annoying in a recording that is heard repeatedly, where they are always exactly the same and occur in exactly the same places.
> 
> Eventually, the premium on technically clean and note-perfect performances in the classical music world may have raised standards in many ways, but imo it also took something away. Fritz Kreisler lived well into the 20th century and made made a number of recordings, but really belongs to the earlier, pre-recording era. Jacques Thibaud, Pablo Casals and Alfred Cortot are also examples. Former child prodigy Arthur Rubinstein actually changed his style of playing and sharpened up his technique in response to the dawn of the recording era.


I don't see that technical excellence should exclude artistry. It didn't with the likes of Heifetz and Oistrackh


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I don't see that technical excellence should exclude artistry. It didn't with the likes of Heifetz and Oistrackh


It's not necessarily that improvements in technique have _caused _a loss of individuality, but the two things have happened simultaneously and are related. The same questionable ethos as expected musicians to be flawless in technique also discouraged idiosyncrasy. It's telling that Heifetz and Oistrakh are the examples that came to mind - both of them were at their height perhaps fifty years ago.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Caryatid said:


> It's not necessarily that improvements in technique have _caused _a loss of individuality, but the two things have happened simultaneously and are related. The same questionable ethos as expected musicians to be flawless in technique also discouraged idiosyncrasy. It's telling that Heifetz and Oistrakh are the examples that came to mind - both of them were at their height perhaps fifty years ago.


And then when you do get a pianist who is idiosyncratic like Lang Lang critics don't like it


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I don't see that technical excellence should exclude artistry. It didn't with the likes of Heifetz and Oistrackh


Well....you're half right


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Caryatid said:


> It's not necessarily that improvements in technique have _caused _a loss of individuality, but the two things have happened simultaneously and are related. The same questionable ethos as expected musicians to be flawless in technique also discouraged idiosyncrasy. It's telling that Heifetz and Oistrakh are the examples that came to mind - both of them were at their height perhaps fifty years ago.


Yuja Wang is maybe the most note-perfect pianist I've ever heard, and she has loads of personality in some rep--some of her playing is bland (oddly, the rep she's most popular for, like the big Russian concertos) but her most recent and unfortunately truncated recital tour (brahms, chopin, bach, mompou, ravel, scriabin, galuppi, berg) was full of personality to the point of being maybe almost quirky.

My personal favorite pianist, Grigory Sokolov, is incredibly unique and characterful, and has face melting technique.

Trifonov, Levit, SJ Cho, HJ Lim, Pogorelich, Pletnev, Volodos, the list goes on and on with current extremely technically talented pianists with loads of personality and individuality. I don't necessarily _like_ all of their personalities but they certainly have a lot of it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I don't see that technical excellence should exclude artistry. It didn't with the likes of Heifetz and Oistrackh


It doesn't in general. All the early 20th century musicians I cited had formidable technique, even Cortot, and Kreisler too, especially in their youthful prime (reportedly). Recording in one take with no edits, later in their careers when Cortot in particular was no longer at his best, leaves a legacy of technical imperfections that unfairly plays too big a role in their reputations. True, Heifetz and Oistrakh were extraordinary technicians. But Heifetz went into semi-retirement in his late 50s, and Oistrakh died at 66, in both cases before suffering any significant deterioration. Joseph Szigeti was less fortunate, and all of his recordings from his mid-50s on sound weak and unsteady, possibly from chronic arthritis.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

fluteman said:


> It doesn't in general. All the early 20th century musicians I cited had formidable technique, even Cortot, and Kreisler too, especially in their youthful prime (reportedly). Recording in one take with no edits, later in their careers when Cortot in particular was no longer at his best, leaves a legacy of technical imperfections that unfairly plays too big a role in their reputations. True, Heifetz and Oistrakh were extraordinary technicians. But Heifetz went into semi-retirement in his late 50s, and Oistrakh died at 66, in both cases before suffering any significant deterioration. Joseph Szigeti was less fortunate, and all of his recordings from his mid-50s on sound weak and unsteady, possibly from chronic arthritis.


I love Cortot but "formidable technique" is a huge stretch.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

I don't agree with many of you who say that modern performers are almost only technical.

I've (and many other forum members) already mentioned many personal and idiosyncratic performers (with also excelent technique), and i haven't heard convincing arguments refuting this. 

For me it's enough.

Just off the top of my head: Argerich, Pletnev (also conductor), Lewis, Korstick, Pogorelich, Richter, Kocsis, Barenboim (both conducting and as soloist).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I love Cortot but "formidable technique" is a huge stretch.


From the recordings he left, most after he began to stumble and suffer sudden memory lapses, I would agree these are shortcomings. But don't forget, he lived from 1877 to 1962. He began to record in his mid-40s in the acoustic era, and made most of of his records from his 50s through his early 80s, when he was likely well past his peak technically.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

fluteman said:


> From the recordings he left, most after he began to stumble and suffer sudden memory lapses, I would agree these are shortcomings. But don't forget, he lived from 1877 to 1962. He began to record in his mid-40s in the acoustic era, and made most of of his records from his 50s through his early 80s, when he was likely well past his peak technically.


Much of my Cortot collection is from the 20s and 30s, and his technique was only so-so even then. Wonderful musician and stylist, though, and to me, a reference pianist for Chopin and Debussy. Just not in the more technically challenging pieces.

TOTALLY UNFAIR COMPARISON TRIGGER WARNING:


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

howlingfantods said:


> Yuja Wang is maybe the most note-perfect pianist I've ever heard, and she has loads of personality in some rep--some of her playing is bland (oddly, the rep she's most popular for, like the big Russian concertos) but her most recent and unfortunately truncated recital tour (brahms, chopin, bach, mompou, ravel, scriabin, galuppi, berg) was full of personality to the point of being maybe almost quirky.
> 
> My personal favorite pianist, Grigory Sokolov, is incredibly unique and characterful, and has face melting technique.
> 
> Trifonov, Levit, SJ Cho, HJ Lim, Pogorelich, Pletnev, Volodos, the list goes on and on with current extremely technically talented pianists with loads of personality and individuality. I don't necessarily _like_ all of their personalities but they certainly have a lot of it.


I take your point, but I don't think anyone's claiming that every musician who is technically proficient is necessarily bland. My contention is that the average musician has become blander and at the same time more technically proficient. Perhaps the two developments are unrelated, but I suspect that they are equally the results of one underlying cause: a change in music culture, and a questionable change. The sort of thing Sokolov gets up to today was once closer to being normal than it is now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not entirely sure.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Caryatid said:


> I take your point, but I don't think anyone's claiming that every musician who is technically proficient is necessarily bland. My contention is that the average musician has become blander and at the same time more technically proficient. Perhaps the two developments are unrelated, but I suspect that they are equally the results of one underlying cause: a change in music culture, and a questionable change. The sort of thing Sokolov gets up to today was once closer to being normal than it is now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not entirely sure.


what sokolov recordings should we hear?


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

444mil said:


> what sokolov recordings should we hear?


Every single one, plus all of his bootlegs you can find. His Bach, Beethoven (especially the late sonatas), Brahms, Chopin are all superlative.

If I had to pick a few commercial recordings to start with, I'd get his Chopin Etudes op 25 (Naive, comes with the Chopin second sonata, also very good), Beethoven op 106 (Sony or DG--the DG one is more individualistic/eccentric) and 111 (Melodiya), Art of Fugue (Naive) or his Goldberg set with the second Partita (Melodiya), and Rachmaninov 3 with Tortelier (DG).


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

444mil said:


> what sokolov recordings should we hear?


It makes more sense to ask howlingfantods. I like Sokolov, but I only mentioned him because he is a good example of a living musician with an eccentric style.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

howlingfantods said:


> Every single one, plus all of his bootlegs you can find. His Bach, Beethoven (especially the late sonatas), Brahms, Chopin are all superlative.
> 
> If I had to pick a few commercial recordings to start with, I'd get his Chopin Etudes op 25 (Naive, comes with the Chopin second sonata, also very good), Beethoven op 106 (Sony or DG--the DG one is more individualistic/eccentric) and 111 (Melodiya), Art of Fugue (Naive) or his Goldberg set with the second Partita (Melodiya), and Rachmaninov 3 with Tortelier (DG).


I've heard both op. 106's, 111, and rach 3 with tortelier. Not impressed, but i'll give it another listening.

My fav 111 is Pletnev, live at carnegie hall. My fav rach 3 are Kocsis/De Waart, and Volodos/Levine.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> Much of my Cortot collection is from the 20s and 30s, and his technique was only so-so even then. Wonderful musician and stylist, though, and to me, a reference pianist for Chopin and Debussy. Just not in the more technically challenging pieces.


I'm not really arguing with you, except to point out that in Cortot's day, recordings were not the all-important benchmark of status in classical music that they are today. Cortot had a busy career as a teacher, administrator and author as well as a heavy schedule as a pianist. He founded the Ecole Normale in 1919 and soon became famous a teacher and lecturer as much as a pianist. As his career expanded beyond the piano, and he had little time to practice, he continued to make records, not worrying whether each one was a flawless definitive document. Apparently, those working with him tried to convince him not to make recordings of repertoire he hadn't thoroughly prepared, to no avail. According to David Dubal, "Cortot's memory lapses were terrifying", and "he was certainly, when out of shape, one of the sloppiest of the great pianists." But Dubal adds, "when he was in practice, he was a brilliant technician, with an astonishing left hand." Of course, no big name today would dare release a sloppy recording.

What we really need is to hear him in 1905, when he was 28 and the Thibaud-Casals-Cortot trio was founded. But we can't. When electrical recording appeared in the 1920s, he was already nearly 50.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2020)

With the Sokolov Chopin Etude No. 12, Op. 25 posted here: I think virtuosity overwhelms the music. I cannot hear the very poetic musical line because the right hand ostinatos are just too loud. There are plenty of examples in recorded music where virtuosity comes at a price. I'm thinking of this: it loses its structure and logic!!


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

For me I prefer older operatic recordings simply because the singing of is of such a higher standard but elsewhere my tastes are very mixed when it comes to old/new recordings.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Christabel said:


> With the Sokolov Chopin Etude No. 12, Op. 25 posted here: I think virtuosity overwhelms the music. I cannot hear the very poetic musical line because the right hand ostinatos are just too loud. There are plenty of examples in recorded music where virtuosity comes at a price. I'm thinking of this: it loses its structure and logic!!


Ouch. It's as if Poseidon emerges with each swell of the waves and smashes three holes in the piano with his trident.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2020)

This is a far better performance from Sokolov; the melody is there and clearly evident, with the ostinato much more restrained but providing the tempo of the title:


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Christabel said:


> With the Sokolov Chopin Etude No. 12, Op. 25 posted here: I think virtuosity overwhelms the music. I cannot hear the very poetic musical line because the right hand ostinatos are just too loud. There are plenty of examples in recorded music where virtuosity comes at a price. I'm thinking of this: it loses its structure and logic!!


It's an encore, after a lovely Brahms second concerto with Saraste. I posted that one just to make a point about what staggering tech he has--he was playing this as loud and as fast he he possibly could for the purposes of an encore.

But here's how he played it when he was performing the full op 25 set--


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

444mil said:


> I've heard both op. 106's, 111, and rach 3 with tortelier. Not impressed, but i'll give it another listening.
> 
> My fav 111 is Pletnev, live at carnegie hall. My fav rach 3 are Kocsis/De Waart, and Volodos/Levine.


The thing about idiosyncratic and personal musicians is that not everyone will love them! For instance, I can't stand Pletnev and I don't much like Volodos, but I do acknowledge they're very idiosyncratic and serious musicians with their own very personal takes, which I mostly don't like.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Op.123 said:


> For me I prefer older operatic recordings simply because the singing of is of such a higher standard but elsewhere my tastes are very mixed when it comes to old/new recordings.


With respect to acoustic era recordings (pre-1926), I find that orchestral music is very, very difficult to appreciate. Solo instrumental music - particularly cello - are listenable, but vocalists, particularly men, fare quite well on acoustic recordings, and many of the singers of that era have not been equalled since.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

That crackling tho...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Flamme said:


> That crackling tho...


I would listen with a glass through a wall to hear a Caruso in the next room over listening to most any other tenor in my living room.

Great artistry excites me. It's practically what I live for.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Flamme said:


> That crackling tho...


Learn to listen through it. Or find transfers that minimize surface noise, although those also rob the voice of some of its character.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I actually don't think the sound on the Caruso Victor recordings bad at all. I actually like it better than, say, the horribly dry and constricted acoustics of Toscanini's NBC recordings, which have been a barrier to my enjoying his conducting. I don't like orchestral performances that sound like they were recorded with everybody squeezed in tightly a foot apart in someone's living room.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

No, u got me wrong...I really like that quality of ''auld'' musickal records...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I don't agree with many of you who say that modern performers are almost only technical...just off the top of my head: Argerich, Pletnev (also conductor), Lewis, Korstick, Pogorelich, Richter, Kocsis, Barenboim (both conducting and as soloist)._

That's quite a stretch of "modern" performers since Richter was born 1915 and his recordings go back to the 1950s.

Martha Argerich is 78 and Barenboim is 77, not exactly spring chickens; neither Lewis (47) nor Pletnev (63) are particularly young or 'new."

Perhaps you too have a bias toward old recordings?

I think the reason there seems to be priority given to "old" recordings is because there are so many more of them than there are "new" recordings. And because of their age there has been plenty of time for listeners to separate the wheat from the chaff, the contenders from the pretenders.

Furthermore every new phenom that records something everyone knows competes with everyone that has ever recorded it.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

larold said:


> _I don't agree with many of you who say that modern performers are almost only technical...just off the top of my head: Argerich, Pletnev (also conductor), Lewis, Korstick, Pogorelich, Richter, Kocsis, Barenboim (both conducting and as soloist)._
> 
> That's quite a stretch of "modern" performers since Richter was born 1915 and his recordings go back to the 1950s.
> 
> ...


Part of the problem with this thread, and most such threads talking about this topic, is that everyone keeps changing what they mean by "old" and "new". Sometimes "old" means acoustic era recordings, sometimes pre-magnetic era, sometimes it means pre-stereo recordings, sometimes it means pre-digital, and occasionally it seems to mean pre last decade or so. All of those can be interesting questions, but they're all extremely different questions.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> With respect to acoustic era recordings (pre-1926), I find that orchestral music is very, very difficult to appreciate. Solo instrumental music - particularly cello - are listenable, but vocalists, particularly men, fare quite well on acoustic recordings, and many of the singers of that era have not been equalled since.


Yes, and with modern technology, what can be done to improve those old recordings is remarkable. But some things cannot be fixed, for example, limited frequency range. Sound that wasn't picked up by the original recording equipment can't be put back in later.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> Part of the problem with this thread, and most such threads talking about this topic, is that everyone keeps changing what they mean by "old" and "new". Sometimes "old" means acoustic era recordings, sometimes pre-magnetic era, sometimes it means pre-stereo recordings, sometimes it means pre-digital, and occasionally it seems to mean pre last decade or so. All of those can be interesting questions, but they're all extremely different questions.


Agreed. I enjoy listening to all recordings to one degree or another. But most anything beginning in the stereo age and later I have absolutely no problem with the sound quality. Sure, I can recognize that some sound better than others, but there is minimal distraction for me. The enjoyment tapers off a little in the mono era, but not significantly. The pre-1926 recordings, while I like to listen, don't ever make it into my list of greats. I know people tell me that some of the great male singers lived and performed in that era, but I'm not expert enough to know the greats from the goods even in the crystal clear, pristine digital era, so it doesn't impact me that much.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

larold said:


> _I don't agree with many of you who say that modern performers are almost only technical...just off the top of my head: Argerich, Pletnev (also conductor), Lewis, Korstick, Pogorelich, Richter, Kocsis, Barenboim (both conducting and as soloist)._
> 
> That's quite a stretch of "modern" performers since Richter was born 1915 and his recordings go back to the 1950s.
> 
> ...


I mean't unjustified preferences for let's say, Kempff, Schnabel, Backhaus, Cortot, etc.

And yeah, i know i'm not talking about 20ish year interpreters.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

howlingfantods said:


> Part of the problem with this thread, and most such threads talking about this topic, is that everyone keeps changing what they mean by "old" and "new". Sometimes "old" means acoustic era recordings, sometimes pre-magnetic era, sometimes it means pre-stereo recordings, sometimes it means pre-digital, and occasionally it seems to mean pre last decade or so. All of those can be interesting questions, but they're all extremely different questions.


It's just a discussion topic, not a scientific paper.

I enjoy hi-fi audio and i try to look for post 2000 recordings first, but i often find the treasures in 60's recordings and stick to them.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

444mil said:


> I mean't unjustified preferences for let's say, Kempff, Schnabel, Backhaus, Cortot, etc.
> 
> And yeah, i know i'm not talking about 20ish year interpreters.


I fully agree - just send me all those inferior Kempff recordings and I'll dispose of them for you, free of charge :devil:


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

444mil said:


> I mean't unjustified preferences for let's say, Kempff, Schnabel, Backhaus, Cortot, etc.


It is possible to have these great pianists in high regard and still realize, that the next generations gave birth to more great pianists e.g. Gilels, Solomon, Richter, Pollini and so on.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Very true. Our imagination supplements what is missing.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But that's the whole point. If you understand harmonic language in works of Beethoven then you know that the tempo needs to constantly adjust. It is no different than adjusting your speed when reciting Shakespeare. The pauses, for example, are not random "tricks," they are natural and necessary for an* authentic* realization of the poetry/music.


How do you understand the word "authentic" in this context?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> How do you understand the word "authentic" in this context?


True to the spirit and purpose behind the music


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> True to the spirit and purpose behind the music


Who decides what is the spirit and purpose behind the music? Such a decision seems to me to be very subjective.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> Who decides what is the spirit and purpose behind the music? Such a decision seems to me to be very subjective.


Good lord, how can anyone make art or music if they are preoccupied with "objectivity," which is an inherent farce?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2020)

howlingfantods said:


> Yuja Wang is maybe the most note-perfect pianist I've ever heard, and she has loads of personality in some rep--some of her playing is bland (oddly, the rep she's most popular for, like the big Russian concertos) but her most recent and unfortunately truncated recital tour (brahms, chopin, bach, mompou, ravel, scriabin, galuppi, berg) was full of personality to the point of being maybe almost quirky.
> 
> My personal favorite pianist, Grigory Sokolov, is incredibly unique and characterful, and has face melting technique.
> 
> Trifonov, Levit, SJ Cho, HJ Lim, Pogorelich, Pletnev, Volodos, the list goes on and on with current extremely technically talented pianists with loads of personality and individuality. I don't necessarily _like_ all of their personalities but they certainly have a lot of it.


And what exactly does that have to do with their playing/interpretation?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good lord, how can anyone make art or music if they are preoccupied with "objectivity," which is an inherent farce?


The desire for the boundless subjectivation of art (and music) is a thought from the romantic era. Thus, from a historical perspective, only one attitude of many possible. And why classical composers -Beethoven among them - should be interpreted as if they were romantic composers, is beyond me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> The desire for the boundless subjectivization of art (and music) is a thought from the romantic era. Thus, from a historical perspective, only one attitude of many possible. And why classical composers -Beethoven among them - should be interpreted as if they were romantic composers, is beyond me.


I see, so your brand of subjectivity is the objective truth. Got it.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I see, so your brand of subjectivity is the objective truth. Got it.


All interpretation of music includes some subjective choices from the artist, because we do not have all the necessary musicological knowledge - this is all the more obvious with early music, but what I commented was the *boundless subjectivation*, which means that we get e.g. more Mengelberg than Beethoven.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> All interpretation of music includes some subjective choices from the artist, because we do not have all the necessary musicological knowledge - this is all the more obvious with early music, but what I commented was the *boundless subjectivation*, which means that we get e.g. more Mengelberg than Beethoven.


We get Mengelberg's vision of what Beethoven meant as opposed to Toscanini's vision. Neither is more subjective than the other. It is sillness. Personally, I always thought that Toscanini's readings sound more personal and less like Beethoven than either Mengelberg or Furtwangler.

If someone reads Shakespeare in monotone with zero inflection or discernable emotion, is he being objective?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We get Mengelberg's vision of what Beethoven meant as opposed to Toscanini's vision. Neither is more subjective than the other. It is sillness. Personally, *I always thought that Toscanini's readings sound more personal and less like Beethoven than either Mengelberg or Furtwangler.*


This is because of your subjective idea of Beethoven. I do not find Toscanini monotone but appropriately classic in expression, taking into account what came before Beethoven (Haydn and Mozart e.g.), and not what came after. The interpretative means of the Romantic era are irrelevant, when it is about Beethoven. If we look at Beethoven's scores, it is obvious, that Furtwängler has made a lot of "expressive" additions, which under his hands put Beethoven into a later era.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

There is no evidence that Toscanini is "classic" in expression, or that his way of interpreting Beethoven is in any sense more "authentic" than Furtwängler's. Toscanini's orchestral discipline was legendary, and he brought a streamlined and unfussy approach to the German symphonic repertoire. It's very Stravinsky-like, possesing a 20th century neo-classical quality. But there's no real credibility to the idea that Beethoven's music, or that of other 18th century classical composers was ever performed in a steady and relentless tempo or with the kind of literal and strict adherence to the score that Toscanini advocated. In fact, musicologist Richard Taruskin has pointed out there are statements by late 18th century writers that actually advocate the kind of tempo modification that Furtwängler employs. So instead of following a stylistic faithfulness to the classics, Toscanini was really moreso imposing a modernist aesthetic upon them.

And Toscanini spoke of a strict adherence to the score, but did not play the music as written himself either of course. He also introduces pauses that aren't in the score, or dynamic shadings that aren't written by Beethoven and that could also be found in the performances of Bülow, Weingartner, Mahler and Furtwängler. For a thorough observance of Toscanini's maxims you have to turn to his disciples and conductors like Roger Norrington or Christopher Hogwood.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Ultimately I think trying to faithfully replicate "what the composer wanted" is a futile affair. This is impossible to find out, and we shouldn't be spending our time trying to decipher how exactly Beethoven (for example) would have wanted it but how we can perform the music to make it unique, personal, and musical. I wouldn't make any claim for any interpretation to be "closer to the composer" than another. That's not a big priority for me simply because I think such a thing can't be done.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We get Mengelberg's vision of what Beethoven meant as opposed to Toscanini's vision. Neither is more subjective than the other. It is sillness. Personally, I always thought that Toscanini's readings sound more personal and less like Beethoven than either Mengelberg or Furtwangler.
> 
> If someone reads Shakespeare in monotone with zero inflection or discernable emotion, is he being objective?


So you actually knew Beethoven and knew how he wanted his music to be played? And to imply that Toscanini played Beethoven with zero inflection or discernible emotion is ridiculous


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Which again is why I call objectivity a farce. It’s another word for self-justification. We see the same thing in law. Antonin Scalia fashioned himself a literal interpreter of the Constitution, but the reality is he had just as much of a personal agenda as anyone and simply called his biased interpretation “objective.”


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Which again is why I call objectivity a farce. It's another word for self-justification. We see the same thing in law. Antonin Scalia fashioned himself a literal interpreter of the Constitution, but the reality is he had just as much of a personal agenda as anyone and simply called his biased interpretation "objective."


So all the stuff you write is not self justification?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> .... to imply that Toscanini played Beethoven with zero inflection or discernible emotion is ridiculous


Indeed, a totally silly premise...Toscanini's conducting is remarkable for its flexibility, elasticity within the beat...it can be quite subtle, but by AT's own description, tempo was a flexible entity...it's not the same as the tempo fluctuation extremes engaged by Furtwangler, but it's in no way rigid or inflexible.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> So all the stuff you write is not self justification?


I justify my opinion just like every other human being, but I do not label my opinion the "objective truth."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Indeed, a totally silly premise...Toscanini's conducting is remarkable for its flexibility, elasticity within the beat...it can be quite subtle, but by AT's own description, tempo was a flexible entity...it's not the same as the tempo fluctuation extremes engaged by Furtwangler, but it's in no way rigid or inflexible.


And certainly I never said that about Toscanini. Quite the opposite, my point was that he was no more or less "objective" than anyone else and very much put his personal stamp on everything he conducted (whether he admitted it or not). Which is precisely what I advocate and believe we are missing in today's climate. We are all subjectivists in terms of what **we** think constitutes an accurate commuinication of music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> So you actually knew Beethoven and knew how he wanted his music to be played? And to imply that Toscanini played Beethoven with zero inflection or discernible emotion is ridiculous


Once again, you take my words out of context. I said clearly that Toscanini is very personal. He performed in fact with great passion and emotion. I just think that other conductors understood Beethoven better.

My comment about being monotone and having no inflection was to address the previous poster who was claiming that all individual imprint on a score is "subjective." I was inquiring about what then would constitute "objectivity." Again, the entire notion is a farce. I wasn't talking about Toscanini. It was a separate question altogether.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Which again is why I call objectivity a farce. It's another word for self-justification. We see the same thing in law. Antonin Scalia fashioned himself a literal interpreter of the Constitution, but the reality is he had just as much of a personal agenda as anyone and simply called his biased interpretation "objective."


Every lawyer knows that no law can be formulated unambiguously. There will always be an opportunity for interpretation. But it is not juridic questions we are discussing here.

If we look at Beethoven's piano sonatas, it is striking that there are almost no instructions concerning performance details in his first many sonatas but many more in the last, among others with regard to rubato. It is hard to believe that this does not reflect a changed attitude on his part about how the sonatas should be played, for nothing had prevented him from giving accurate instructions in the first sonatas. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that the sonatas of his first and middle period and the symphonies from the same years should be played with only subtle tempo shifts if any at all, while the last sonatas may be played with more rubato as prescribed. Wilhelm Backhaus is the Beethoven interpreter who convinces me the most in this respect.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

The bottom line is that all art is a subjective communication and perception that can only be appreciated subjectively. So if a performer divorces his own emotion from music and serves as a robotic conduit, then he is asking the audience to receive the music the same way, which destroys the purpose of art. Essentially the job of the performer is to "sell" the audience by demonstrating his perception of what makes the composer's music great.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Antonin Scalia fashioned himself a literal interpreter of the Constitution, but the reality is he had just as much of a personal agenda as anyone and simply called his biased interpretation "objective."


Not to get sidetracked here, but I believe that Scalia considered himself an "originalist", rather than an objectivist. His view, which is not unlike the HIP movement, was that the Constitution should be interpreted in the way that the signers intended, as much as that can be ascertained. The other view, held by some on the Court, is that the constitution should be interpreted in the context of current society and events.

We seem to be going around in circles. In music, the reality is that all interpretive choices are subjective, even if the performers pretend otherwise - and so are our reactions to them.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The bottom line is that all art is a subjective communication and perception that can only be appreciated subjectively.


Great minds.........


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> Every lawyer knows that no law can be formulated unambiguously. There will always be an opportunity for interpretation.


We see it on this board, as my words are routinely misinterpreted as a way to bolster others' criticisms and then my own clarification as to what I was actually saying is ignored.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My comment about being monotone and having no inflection was to address the previous poster who was claiming that all individual imprint on a score is "subjective." I was inquiring about what then would constitute "objectivity." Again, the entire notion is a farce. I wasn't talking about Toscanini. It was a separate question altogether.


If you read my post again, you will see, that I never used the word "objective", because I think this word has got little sense in the interpretation of music. All interpretation is subjective, but some interpretations are more willful and idiosyncratic than others.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So if a performer divorces his own emotion from music and serves as a robotic conduit, then he is asking the audience to receive the music the same way, which destroys the purpose of art.


I can't recall performers of that kind. Whom are you thinking of?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> All interpretation is subjective, but some interpretations are more willful and idiosyncratic than others.


In your opinion...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

premont said:


> I can't recall performers of that kind. Whom are you thinking of?


I am speaking in the abstract, taking your stance on subjectivity to its logical extension


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And certainly I never said that about Toscanini. Quite the opposite, my point was that he was no more or less "objective" than anyone else and very much put his personal stamp on everything he conducted (whether he admitted it or not). Which is precisely what I advocate and believe we are missing in today's climate. We are all subjectivists in terms of what **we** think constitutes an accurate commuinication of music.


Right, I know you never made that assertion about Toscanini...others have, however....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Essentially the job of the performer is to "sell" the audience by demonstrating his perception of what makes the composer's music great.


Yes, good point.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

It seems that I have started the ''Avalanche'' of objectivism vs subjectivism comments with my ''Ayn rand'' comment...







:lol:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> Not to get sidetracked here, but I believe that Scalia considered himself an "originalist", rather than an objectivist. His view, which is not unlike the HIP movement, was that the Constitution should be interpreted in the way that the signers intended, as much as that can be ascertained. The other view, held by some on the Court, is that the constitution should be interpreted in the context of current society and events.
> 
> We seem to be going around in circles. In music, the reality is that all interpretive choices are subjective, even if the performers pretend otherwise - and so are our reactions to them.


Without getting into a constitutional law discussion, there is an immense difference between Scalia's (imo highly disingenuous) claim that he wanted to interpret the constitution based on the intent of the original drafters, and the HIP movement. And that is, the US constitution has undergone drastic changes since it was originally drafted, most notably with the 14th Amendment in 1868, which in one stroke reversed the most fundamental premise of the original constitution. While "original intent" retains some relevance in certain contexts, it can no longer be a valid general philosophy or approach to constitutional issues. The HIP movement, otoh, seeks performances that come closer, not just to the composer's intentions, but to the role of music of its kind and the way it was played and sounded in the time and cultural environment in which it first appeared. If the HIPsters succeed, we get added insight into what a certain society was like centuries ago. Other than that, we don't get anything objectively better or worse, though at least the premise is legitimate, unlike Scalia's.

With old recordings, certain parameters are objectively worse than what became possible with later advances in commercial audio. But it's a long way from that to proclaiming newer is inevitably better, as I tried to discuss in my original post here.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Without getting into a constitutional law discussion, there is an immense difference between Scalia's (imo highly disingenuous) claim that he wanted to interpret the constitution based on the intent of the original drafters, and the HIP movement. And that is, the US constitution has undergone drastic changes since it was originally drafted, most notably with the 14th Amendment in 1868, which in one stroke reversed the most fundamental premise of the original constitution. While "original intent" retains some relevance in certain contexts, it can no longer be a valid general philosophy or approach to constitutional issues. The HIP movement, otoh, seeks performances that come closer, not just to the composer's intentions, but to the role of music of its kind and the way it was played and sounded in the time and cultural environment in which it first appeared. If the HIPsters succeed, we get added insight into what a certain society was like centuries ago. Other than that, we don't get anything objectively better or worse, though at least the premise is legitimate, unlike Scalia's.
> 
> With old recordings, certain parameters are objectively worse than what became possible with later advances in commercial audio. But it's a long way from that to proclaiming newer is inevitably better, as I tried to discuss in my original post here.


Don't be disingenuous; you didn't like Scalia because he was a conservative. It's OK to say so; implied in what you said anyway.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I mean't unjustified preferences for let's say, Kempff, Schnabel, Backhaus, Cortot, etc._

I don't know how any preference for some of the consensus greatest pianists in history could be unjustified. Perhaps you can explain that to me?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Scalia lectured and taught at my law school, and I found him to be intellectually dishonest, as did many others, liberal and conservative. If you are criticizing me for improperly introducing politics into this discussion, that's fair enough, though I didn't bring up Scalia. But I see endless snide comments and unfair swipes at the HIP movement here and elsewhere, many of which miss the main point of it, imo. (Yes, as it has taken a formal place in academia we've seen some applications that are unduly rigid and doctrinaire, but that is a side issue.) Maybe it wasn't intended as such, but the analogy with Scalia looked like another unfair and inaccurate swipe.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

fluteman said:


> Scalia lectured and taught at my law school, and I found him to be intellectually dishonest, as did many others, liberal and conservative. If you are criticizing me for improperly introducing politics into this discussion, that's fair enough, though I didn't bring up Scalia. But I see endless snide comments and unfair swipes at the HIP movement here and elsewhere, many of which miss the main point of it, imo. (Yes, as it has taken a formal place in academia we've seen some applications that are unduly rigid and doctrinaire, but that is a side issue.) Maybe it wasn't intended as such, but the analogy with Scalia looked like another unfair and inaccurate swipe.


Scalia used the veil of constitutional originalism to further his subjective conservative agenda.

HIP often uses the veil of historical accuracy to further an objective reflecting modern interpretive taste - efficiency, minimization, economy.

If we could all just stop pretending to be authorities and simply admit what sounds better to us.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> HIP often uses the veil of historical accuracy to further an objective reflecting modern interpretive taste - efficiency, minimization, economy.
> 
> If we could all just stop pretending to be authorities and simply admit what sounds better to us.


I agree. I like many HIP performances but it's just not convincing to talk as if the Romantics invented rubato and complex dynamics. It's true that they introduced more detailed instructions to performers, but that proves nothing. The reality is that at any given time there was no consistent style any way. Even the size and balance of the orchestra varied immensely from place to place.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

fluteman said:


> Maybe it wasn't intended as such, but the analogy with Scalia looked like another unfair and inaccurate swipe.


It wasn't intended as any such thing, since I'm an admirer of Scalia's jurisprudence, as well as HIP practices.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Scalia used the veil of constitutional originalism to further his subjective conservative agenda.
> 
> HIP often uses the veil of historical accuracy to further an objective reflecting modern interpretive taste - efficiency, minimization, economy.
> 
> If we could all just stop pretending to be authorities and simply admit what sounds better to us.


OK, you are more than entitled to that opinion, of course. Scalia did indeed use "the veil of constitutional originalism to further his subjective conservative agenda", as you say. But your comment shows that the reference to Scalia was indeed an implied put down of the HIP movement, or at least can easily be interpreted as one, and one that misses the main point of that movement, in my opinion.

When archaeologists remove later additions to an ancient structure to reveal its original design, or painting restorers remove later repairs or layers of paint to reveal the original, or what's left of it, that isn't done simply because it looks better to them. It's to gain insight into the original idea and purpose of the work, and thus the culture and society in which it was made, without the distortions of later reinterpretation or repurposing, however skilled or well-intentioned. It is certainly not intended as an excuse to impose a modern aesthetic, though no doubt intellectually dishonest Scalias exist in that and most other schools of aesthetics.

It's also ironic that you suggest the traits of "efficiency, minimization and economy" characterize the aesthetic imposed by the HIP movement, when elaborate ornamentation and even outright improvisation were historically routine in music that many now would consider sacrilegious. I remember an incident where Claudio Abbado refused to perform Mozart's piano concerto no. 23 with Helene Grimaud because she insisted on using Busoni's cadenza rather than Mozart's original one. In contrast, Horowitz used the Busoni cadenza in his recording with Giulini, and I remember him explaining in an interview that Mozart wrote the original for a student and he didn't feel compelled to use it.

I think Horowitz has a more reasonable attitude than Abbado, as Mozart himself no doubt would have improvised a cadenza in performance, but my question is, why couldn't Horowitz and Grimaud, if not improvise a candenza on the spot, write their own, or liberally expand on Mozart's or modify Busoni's? Not because they lack the ability, but because it would provoke an outrage. Because we have become so hidebound about how to perform the sacred classics we are afraid to change a single note. At its best, HIP reintroduces a lost element of flexibility, in baroque music at any rate, and maybe as late as the early 19th century.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

fluteman said:


> OK, you are more than entitled to that opinion, of course. Scalia did indeed use "the veil of constitutional originalism to further his subjective conservative agenda", as you say. But your comment shows that the reference to Scalia was indeed an implied put down of the HIP movement, or at least can easily be interpreted as one, and one that misses the main point of that movement, in my opinion.
> 
> When archaeologists remove later additions to an ancient structure to reveal its original design, or painting restorers remove later repairs or layers of paint to reveal the original, or what's left of it, that isn't done simply because it looks better to them. It's to gain insight into the original idea and purpose of the work, and thus the culture and society in which it was made, without the distortions of later reinterpretation or repurposing, however skilled or well-intentioned. It is certainly not intended as an excuse to impose a modern aesthetic, though no doubt intellectually dishonest Scalias exist in that and most other schools of aesthetics.
> 
> ...


HIP is inarguably a step towards historical accuracy in some respects - Haydn didn't write for a Steinway - but I think Brahmsianhorn's point is that it is also a product of modern minds and inevitably reflects modern tastes and modern preconceptions about the past. It is not necessarily done in bad faith, or even consciously. But there is much we simply cannot know about how musicians sounded in centuries past, and HIP performers have no choice but to fill in the ambiguities by making interpretive choices. As a result, HIP has developed its own aesthetic tropes, which are only partially grounded in history: they are also a backlash against late Romantic aesthetics - against gigantism, mannerism, emotionalism, and so on. That is relevant because the musicians who are the topic of this thread - Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Cortot and all the others who made the divisive "old recordings" in question - grew up in the late Romantic period and were formed by it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Caryatid said:


> HIP is inarguably a step towards historical accuracy in some respects - Haydn didn't write for a Steinway - but I think Brahmsianhorn's point is that it is also a product of modern minds and inevitably reflects modern tastes and modern preconceptions about the past. It is not necessarily done in bad faith, or even consciously. But there is much we simply cannot know about how musicians sounded in centuries past, and HIP performers have no choice but to fill in the ambiguities by making interpretive choices. As a result, HIP has developed its own aesthetic tropes, which are only partially grounded in history: they are also a backlash against late Romantic aesthetics - against gigantism, mannerism, emotionalism, and so on. That is relevant because the musicians who are the topic of this thread - Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Cortot and all the others who made the divisive "old recordings" in question - grew up in the late Romantic period and were formed by it.


Yes, but all historians face the problem that there is much that cannot be known about the past. And the "backlash against gigantism, mannerism, emotionalism, and so on" began in the late romantic era itself if not earlier, so that's not new. As for intellectually dishonest arguments that ones tastes are more valid because they are historically correct, well, yes again, no doubt that often occurs. But I am looking for more insight into the music and its time, and sometimes I find it.

One example: The modern flute was invented in 1847, and didn't become the universal standard until around 1900 (Richard Wagner didn't like it, for example). It sounds completely different from older flutes. So, even though the modern flute is much easier to play in tune, much easier to play loudly, much easier to play generally, more flexible, more capable, and better in many ways, it is a very different instrument from the one Bach, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven wrote for. Compare these two versions of Mozart's D major flute concerto by Dorothea Seel (HIP) and James Galway (modern). Both very good, but some major differences (notice interesting vibrato techniques in the HIP version not even possible on a modern flute), and there can be no question that Seel's version is closer to what Mozart would have heard, even if he would have preferred Galway's.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Yes, but all historians face the problem that there is much that cannot be known about the past. And the "backlash against gigantism, mannerism, emotionalism, and so on" began in the late romantic era itself if not earlier, so that's not new. As for intellectually dishonest arguments that ones tastes are more valid because they are historically correct, well, yes again, no doubt that often occurs. But I am looking for more insight into the music and its time, and sometimes I find it.
> 
> One example: The modern flute was invented in 1847, and didn't become the universal standard until around 1900 (Richard Wagner didn't like it, for example). It sounds completely different from older flutes. So, even though the modern flute is much easier to play in tune, much easier to play loudly, much easier to play generally, more flexible, more capable, and better in many ways, it is a very different instrument from the one Bach, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven wrote for. Compare these two versions of Mozart's D major flute concerto by Dorothea Seel (HIP) and James Galway (modern). Both very good, but some major differences (notice interesting vibrato techniques in the HIP version not even possible on a modern flute), and there can be no question that Seel's version is closer to what Mozart would have heard, even if he would have preferred Galway's.


I don't really disagree with anything you have said here.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

fluteman said:


> It's also ironic that you suggest the traits of "efficiency, minimization and economy" characterize the aesthetic imposed by the HIP movement, when elaborate ornamentation and even outright improvisation were historically routine in music that many now would consider sacrilegious. I remember an incident where Claudio Abbado refused to perform Mozart's piano concerto no. 23 with Helene Grimaud because she insisted on using Busoni's cadenza rather than Mozart's original one. In contrast, Horowitz used the Busoni cadenza in his recording with Giulini, and I remember him explaining in an interview that Mozart wrote the original for a student and he didn't feel compelled to use it.


This reminds me of a Mullova recording of Mozart violin concertos where Ottavio Dantone wrote a couple of cadenzas; they sounded wonderful and fully within the Mozart idiom. The Busoni cadenza mentioned above is ridiculous in that it sounds like it's coming from a different century, clashes totally with Mozart's music, and stands out like a swollen thumb. I'm with Abbado on this one.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> This reminds me of a Mullova recording of Mozart violin concertos where Ottavio Dantone wrote a couple of cadenzas; they sounded wonderful and fully within the Mozart idiom. The Busoni cadenza mentioned above is ridiculous in that it sounds like it's coming from a different century, clashes totally with Mozart's music, and stands out like a swollen thumb. I'm with Abbado on this one.


Horowitz could probably pull this off.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> This reminds me of a Mullova recording of Mozart violin concertos where Ottavio Dantone wrote a couple of cadenzas; they sounded wonderful and fully within the Mozart idiom. The Busoni cadenza mentioned above is ridiculous in that it sounds like it's coming from a different century, clashes totally with Mozart's music, and stands out like a swollen thumb. I'm with Abbado on this one.


Ha! I was wondering if someone was going to say that. True, just as we don't live in Mozart's time, we don't live in Busoni's, and you are entirely right that Busoni's cadenza is a late romantic-era conceptualization rather far removed from Mozart's own ideas. But I still side with Horowitz, simply because he is willing to play notes not written by Mozart because they better fit his concept of the work, rather than regarding the score as sacred gospel that cannot be altered in even the smallest way.

For me, being truly faithful and authentic to Mozart's original concept would mean either improvising a cadenza (though no one can be expected to equal the ability Mozart himself likely had in this regard, or most other regards), or at least, writing one's own. Yes, that would mean injecting more non-Mozart ideas, specifically the ideas of the performer, into the final product, but maybe that would be more like performers in Mozart's time, and result in a more Historically Informed Performance.


----------



## ZeR0 (Apr 7, 2020)

I do not care if a recording is old or new, I only care about the performance and how it makes me feel and think. I'm not even much bothered by bad sound quality as long as I can discern the performance. Perhaps one reason why many people are more familiar with older recordings is because they have withstood the test of time, and thus are the most consistently recommended over a broader period of time by a greater number of people. One example of such recordings for me personally is Chopin's music interpreted by Alfred Cortot and Ignaz Friedman. Of course, there are many great performances of Chopin's music both new and old by many great performers but these aforementioned performances have remained a benchmark for me.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

ZeR0 said:


> I do not care if a recording is old or new, I only care about the performance and how it makes me feel and think. I'm not even much bothered by bad sound quality as long as I can discern the performance. Perhaps one reason why many people are more familiar with older recordings is because they have withstood the test of time, and thus are the most consistently recommended over a broader period of time by a greater number of people. One example of such recordings for me personally is Chopin's music interpreted by Alfred Cortot and Ignaz Friedman. Of course, there are many great performances of Chopin's music both new and old by many great performers but these aforementioned performances have remained a benchmark for me.


Yes, those are two of the greatest Chopin interpreters. And I have other vintage favorites -- Haskil for Mozart and Backhaus for Beethoven and Brahms, for example. On another forum, I tried to compare performances of the Rachmaninoff C sharp minor prelude by Yuja Wang and the composer himself. Many call Rach the greatest pianist of all time, but he really wasn't a pianist, at least not primarily, until after the Russian revolution, when, after coming from a wealthy Russian family, he suddenly became a penniless American immigrant with a family to support. Past the age of 40, he had to turn himself into a full time touring pianist, and greatly reduce his composing work.

Amazingly, his success was spectacular, and he was able to build up another fortune. Did he ever achieve the superhuman technique of, say, Josef Hofmann, or even Marc-Andre Hamelin? I don't think so. Now, Yuja Wang is another technical star, with well-judged and intelligent but often middle-of-the-road, unremarkable interpretations. Someone here said her playing was sometimes "bland", and though I might not use that word, I know what he means. But I believe Rachmaninoff brought something special, to his own music, at least, that she doesn't.

The real question is, can we be so critical of Ms. Wang, given her stunning, by today's classical music standards, success? (And don't tell me about her micro-mini skirts, etc. Legions of attractive young women use that strategy to try to become music and entertainment stars, and few succeed.) At some point, we have to concede that she is producing music the way people want to hear it these days, and I think the homogenized, note-perfect product that modern recording technology tends to produce has a lot to do with it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I think it must be said, if it hasn't been said already, that bias is an egregious term for places like this. It is an underhanded way of demeaning, devaluing, and dismissing people's opinions. And it's usually unfair and inaccurate. There have been numerous times when I wanted to like a recording, expected to like a recording, and didn't. Likewise I have often been surprised by a recording I didn't think I'd like.

I actually started out as an audiophile in my college years in the 90s. It had to be digital, 1980 or later, to make it onto my shelf. I remember getting Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th having heard so much about it, and a friend and I were laughing at the sound quality. Now it's my favorite version and Furtwangler my favorite conductor.

But it takes years sometimes to build such affinities. A lot of walls had to be broken down so that I could be open to different approaches. To dismiss someone's preferences as bias is not only insulting, but it bespeaks a simplistic, closed-minded mentality.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think it must be said, if it hasn't been said already, that bias is an egregious term for places like this. It is an underhanded way of demeaning, devaluing, and dismissing people's opinions. And it's usually unfair and inaccurate. There have been numerous times when I wanted to like a recording, expected to like a recording, and didn't. Likewise I have often been surprised by a recording I didn't think I'd like.
> 
> I actually started out as an audiophile in my college years in the 90s. It had to be digital, 1980 or later, to make it onto my shelf. I remember getting Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th having heard so much about it, and a friend and I were laughing at the sound quality. Now it's my favorite version and Furtwangler my favorite conductor.
> 
> But it takes years sometimes to build such affinities. A lot of walls had to be broken down so that I could be open to different approaches. To dismiss someone's preferences as bias is not only insulting, but it bespeaks a simplistic, closed-minded mentality.


Yes, "Old recordings preference" would have been better, but I hope the negative connotation was unintentional. And I try to avoid questioning the motives of those who disagree with me, especially on matters of musical or other aesthetic taste.

In contrast, both Christabel and you have accused me of being disingenuous here, in at least as condescending and insulting way as anything the OP has said (I wasn't offended by him, though as I said, his choice of words could have been better). But I have explained the basis of my interest in a HIP approach to classical music, at least through the early 19th century, in some detail, while taking pains to acknowledge the validity of different views. And I've made it clear that I don't always go along with what might be considered the HIP approach, especially if it doesn't serve what I consider to be the principles and justification for seeking to perform music more as it likely would have been in its own era. But rather than dismissing the entire HIP movement based on criticisms that may well be valid in some instances, I'd rather seek out and benefit from the genuine insight that can often be found in it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

fluteman said:


> In contrast, both Christabel and you have accused me of being disingenuous here, in at least as condescending and insulting way as anything the OP has said


I have made remarks about the HIP movement in general, at least segments of it, but not you personally


----------



## Saxman (Jun 11, 2019)

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but studio recordings of opera are almost never done these days, so many opera recordings will be from earlier periods.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have made remarks about the HIP movement in general, at least segments of it, but not you personally


Same, but the culture of victimhood which is so pervasive is an equal-opportunity ideology - EVERYBODY is a victim.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Christabel said:


> Don't be disingenuous; you didn't like Scalia because he was a conservative. It's OK to say so; implied in what you said anyway.


Great comment. It's hard to tell which is greater, your constitutional law expertise or your knowledge of the HIP movement.:lol:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Christabel said:


> Same, but the culture of victimhood which is so pervasive is an equal-opportunity ideology - EVERYBODY is a victim.


Indeed. I'm so ashamed. Call me disingenuous all you want, I'm probably one of those equal-opportunity ideology dummies anyway.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Great comment. It's hard to tell which is greater, your constitutional law expertise or your knowledge of the HIP movement.:lol:


It's a toss-up, but I'm erring on the side of HIP because any ordinary voter can readily see the culture of victimhood without having a law degree. Victims keep banging on about their victimhood endlessly, day in and day out.

But please don't let me rob you of it if it's so prized.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think it must be said, if it hasn't been said already, that bias is an egregious term for places like this. It is an underhanded way of demeaning, devaluing, and dismissing people's opinions. And it's usually unfair and inaccurate. There have been numerous times when I wanted to like a recording, expected to like a recording, and didn't. Likewise I have often been surprised by a recording I didn't think I'd like.
> 
> I actually started out as an audiophile in my college years in the 90s. It had to be digital, 1980 or later, to make it onto my shelf. I remember getting Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th having heard so much about it, and a friend and I were laughing at the sound quality. Now it's my favorite version and Furtwangler my favorite conductor.
> 
> But it takes years sometimes to build such affinities. A lot of walls had to be broken down so that I could be open to different approaches*. To dismiss someone's preferences as bias is not only insulting, but it bespeaks a simplistic, closed-minded mentality*.


Please stop doing it then!


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Please stop doing it then!


Bias does exist though, especially when people claim to only like a couple of works of a genius composer or be over-attached to some works. Not everyone has the openness to experience to listen to everything and like many works... Just like in pop music people get attached to a few bands and say everything else is crap. It's also why Bach's music took 75 years to get recognized.

If a person doesn't have the trait of openness then they will most certainly be very biased.


----------

