# Are today's performers/conductors as good as in the golden age?



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

The golden age - probably the 1940s through to the 1970s.

So do you think that, for exampe:

Karajan, Furtwangler, Klemperer, Walter etc etc

and

Horowitz, Heiftetz, Fournier, etc

and

Callas, DiStefano, Gobbi etc

have their equals today?

I don't think so myself thought there is no doubt there is a lot of talent and many excellent artists somehow they don't quite have the stature of those in the golden age. I usually find myself listening to old recordings.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

In most areas yes. The exception being opera singers. There aren't many Carusos or Melchiors.

Conductors really aren't comparable, because in the Golden age, they were given a LOT more leeway. The stylistic gulf between Toscanini and Stokowski is huge. We don't have that kind of range now. Conductors now aim for appropriateness more than individuality.

Orchestras today are probably a little better.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

I have no idea about the conductors but for the performers I know I would say yes, definitely. What about Maxim Vengerov, Itzhak Perlman, Anne Sophie Mutter and Yuri Bashmet, even they are of the older generation but not as old as "the golden age" ones. Infact, I think the performers are getting better, technically that is, not necessarily musically. Although even musically they are maturing earlier and earlier. Take this Russian girl for example: 




She is great!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It would be very hard to explain if they were getting worse, since the potential talent pool has expanded so much.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Great violinists of the past were playing major concertos from a young age - I think Heifetz was a virtuoso at around 10. So nothing has changed there.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I have no idea about the conductors but for the performers I know I would say yes, definitely. What about Maxim Vengerov, Itzhak Perlman, Anne Sophie Mutter and Yuri Bashmet, even they are of the older generation but not as old as "the golden age" ones. Infact, I think the performers are getting better, technically that is, not necessarily musically. Although even musically they are maturing earlier and earlier. Take this Russian girl for example:
> 
> She is great!


Perlman and Mutter fall into my golden age artists. Perlman got going in the 60s, mutter the 70s. Vengerov is not as good as them in my opinion. He is already finished as a performer at the highest level.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Generally speaking I think that the best modern artists, ensembles, orchestras, conductors etc are evey bit as good if not better than the best from the past. I don't particularly like idiosyncratic performers anyway.

The only exception would be among singers where I prefer the likes of Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Fritz Wunderlich to any of the modern crowd, but that's entirely a personal preference.

I also think that modern recordings generally sound a lot better, purely technically, than those from 50's and 60's, or earlier, so this adds a further layer of quality in favour of the modern. I'm also interested in period/HIP performances of Rennaisance/Baroque/Classical music, which is another reason for favouring the modern.

I expect we will get the usual "Schnabel is best" for Beethoven's sonatas, type of assertion. Again, this is a personal preference but I disagree as I believe there are several more modern alternatives that sound just as good if not better.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> Generally speaking I think that the best modern artists, ensembles, orchestras, conductors etc are evey bit as good if not better than the best from the past. I don't particularly like idiosyncratic performers anyway.
> 
> The only exception would be among singers where I prefer the likes of Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Fritz Wunderlich to any of the modern crowd, but that's entirely a personal preference.
> 
> ...


60s and 70s Decca's are hard to beat


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Although I am not particularly_ au fait_ with conductors, there are a few that I really enjoy that could be considered a generation or two behind the 'golden age'. All pieces that I have heard under the baton of Valery Gergiev have been excellent. Marin Alsop is a highly acclaimed conductor that I became familiar with through several of her Naxos recordings and I have never been disappointed. I'm always seeing Simon Rattle around, though I don't have a lot of his recordings. Pierre Boulez is still going and probably the leading conductor of many 20th century works. Bernard Haitink also has a great set of symphony cycles. In terms of opera, there are Levine, Mackerras, Abbado, Davis, Gardiner and probably others that have made a string of fantastic recordings and productions in the last 20 years or so. The recently knighted Sir Tony Pappano might rise even further in future. Many of these also have an impressive orchestral resume.

I'm sure others will be able to give a more informed opinion about this as I am only starting to develop a sense of the myriad of conductors available. In my experience, there are very few bad conductors (they don't generally last long), but there are a few spectacular ones that have left an impressive legacy of recordings. I also think that the legendary conductors have the benefit of a lifetime of recordings (that we often judge in hindsight)whereas many of those conducting now have yet to accumulate a similar fame so far in their carreer. In another 10 years, many of those I mention above will be dead, it has to be said, though I suspect that others will rise up.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

One reason we will probably never have agreement on this is the unlevel playing field. We can't hear Caruso live, for example, and his recordings can never be assessed properly alongside the more technically superb recordings of today.

Bigshot's earlier comment is an interesting one - 'conductors now aim for appropriateness more than for individuality'. And, what's ironic about that is that there are so many more recordings of almost any individual piece of music than there were in the past. So in essence, in the past we had a wider variety of performances but a more limited selection from which to choose. No wonder today's conductors don't stand out as much...there are too many of them doing essentially the same thing.

Once in a while, though, you find something outside these parameters. The symphonies of Schumann, for example, seem to me to have enjoyed a pretty wide range of interpretations on recordings in recent years. In his case, at least, there seem to be both a lot of different things to choose from stylistically _and_ numerically.

Ach...this has ended up being one of those really pretentious sounding posts I hate.

Anybody want a peanut?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Pinnock/Hogwood/Gardiner/Manze/Biondi seem to be doing a good job. I don't know how that compares to the 'Golden Age' as the OP mentions. But the Period informed Performances are great for Baroque and Early Classical Eras. The most important for me though is how clear the recordings are. The more modern, the clearer the sound. So I tend to prefer recordings within the last 40 years. Definitely not interested in 40's Recordings.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

IMO, big difference between today violinists and old masters is that actuals play the violin for a living, but the old ones lived to play the violin.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've been hearing of stories about the alleged "decline" in the performance of classical music ever isnce I first became a classical music freak in the late 1960s. I suppose it's human nature to long for the "golden age" in every field, when supposedly everything was so much better. 
In opera, it's the oldest cliche in the book that standards of singing have declined and for critics and fans to long for the "golden age of opera". And you can be absoltuely certain that 40 or 50 years from now, if uour world and culture have not been destoryed by some catastrophe, people will be longing for the golden age of the present in classical music . Even Rossini complained about a decline in European singing standards late in life long after he had retired from writing operas .
I don't thnik there's any lack of great conductors today, and there are many young,up-and-coming ones who definitely have the potential to achieve greatness . 
Any age that has the likes of Abbado, Barenboim,Boulez,Blomstedt, Bychkov, Chailly, Dutoit, Colin Davis, Dohnanyi, Eschenbach, Ivan Fischer, Gergiev, Gardiner, Harnoncourt, Haitink, Neeme Jarvi,Jansons, Janowski, 
Levine, Muti,Mehta,Maazel, Masur, Nagano, Ozawa, Previn, Rattle, Rozhdestvensky, Slatkin, Salonen, 
Skrowaczewski, Thomas, Thielemann,Vanska, and Zinman, to name only some, has anything to be ashamed of .
Like their conducting or not, they are conductors of genuine stature, proven ability , and yes, individuality.
There were certainly great orchestras in the past, but there are MORE great orchestras than ever before .
Just in America, the term "big five", New York,Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Chicago", is now obsolete . They are still great , but those of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St.Louis, Minneapolis, Dallas,Houston, and other major US cities are no longer inferior to them in any way . 
And the notion that all or most orchestras today sound alike is a myth . They don't sound alike at all.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Continued : There are also many superb opera singers today . Fleming, Voigt, Mattila, Dessay, Damrau,
Susan Graham, Borodina, Heppner, Jonas Kaufmann, Hampson, Keenlyside, Rene Pape, to name only a handful.
None of us is old enough to have heard such legendary names as Caruso, Flagstad, Ponselle, Muzio, 
Melchior, Chaliapin, Titta Ruffo live, and others . And there a fewer and fewer still left who had the privelege of seeing Callas, Tebaldi, Del Monaco, Corelli, Bergonzi, Siepi, and other great singers live and can speak about thei rmemories .
Its so easy to idealize the past of opera and delude ourselvesinto thinking that everything was wonderful despite the fact that there were plenty of performances from the past which ranged from mediocre to godawful .
Many also long for the golden age of Heifetz, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Serkin,Arrau, Casals, Piatigorsky,
Menihin, Oistrakh, Gilels, Cortot and other legendary violinists, pianists and cellists etc, but we have Perlman, Mutter, Joshua Bell, Gidon kremer, Argerich, Yo Yo Ma, Ax, and so many other great instrumentalists .
We need to stop living in the past !


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have a good many recordings from the 1940s through the 1970s. A good many of them have yet to be surpassed. But I also have a good many more recent recordings that are as good or better for a given repertoire or piece of music than anything from the so-called "golden age". Ivo Pogorelich, Murray Perhaia, Alfred Brendel, Martha Argerich, Stephen Hough, Emmanuel Ax, Angela Hewitt, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Grigori Sokolov, Krytian Zimmerman, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, Pascal Rogé, Lars Ulrik Mortensen, Steven Isserlis, Mstislav Rostropovich, Yo-Yo Ma, Mischa Maisky, Gidon Kremer, Elizabeth Wallfisch, Andrew Manze, John Holloway, Hillary Hahn, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Itzhak Perlman, and many more soloists feature extensively in my collection, and have produced any number of recordings as good as or better than musicians from the "golden age." 

The same is true of singers: Barbara Bonney, Cecilia Bartoli, Dawn Upshaw, Natalie Dessay, Anna Netrebko, Emma Kirkby, Sandrine Piau, Veronique Gens, Angela Georghiu, Anna Caterina Antonacci, Christine Schäfer, Anja Harteros, Bernarda Fink, Diana Damrau, Joyce DiDonato, Magdalena Kozena, Elina Garanca, Vesselina Kasarova, Lorraine Hunt Lieberson, Frederica von Stade, Anne Sofie von Otter, Waltraud Meier, Siegfried Jerusalem, Cheryl Studer, Deborah Voigt, Plácido Domingo, Ian Bostridge, Renée Fleming, Susan Graham, Matthias Goerne, Thomas Quasthoff, Werner Gura, and again many more are incredible and intelligent vocalists who have all produced recordings that I find absolutely essential... and among the finest ever produced. 

Certainly there are specific performances of a given repertoire or piece that I feel have never been surpassed... but I have no doubt that this will be true of today's musicians/singers/conductors as well. One area in specific where we are undoubtedly living in a "golden age" is in the realm of HIP recordings... and with regard to singers, in the recorded era there has never been a finer crop of countertenors than we are now blessed with: Michael Chance, Philippe Jaroussky, Andreas Scholl, Robin Blaze, Max Emmanuel Cencic, Brian Asawa, David Daniels, Bejun Mehta, etc...

And conductors? Well perhaps certain recordings by Wilhelm Furtwängler, Arturo Tosanini, Hans Knappertsbusch, Erich Kleiber, Charles Munch, Karl Böhm, Herbert von Karajan, etc... will never be surpassed... but there are any number of conductors of the modern era that are just as talented, just as original, and just as likely to have produced any number of "essential" or unsurpassed recordings: Georg Solti, Neville Marriner, Rene Jacobs, William Christie, Valery Gergiev, Masaaki Suzuki, John Eliot Gardiner, Jordi Savall, Trevor Pinnock, Helmuth Rilling, Rinaldo Alessandrini, Paul Hillier, Harry Christophers, Antonio Pappano, Charles Mackerras, Vernon Handley, Neeme Järvi, Paavo Järvi, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Simon Rattle, Semyon Bychkov, Vasily Petrenko, Pierre Boulez, Marin Alsop, etc... The notion that all these conductors have some uniformity of approach to the music is simply absurd... as is the entire notion of some artistic "golden age."


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The notion that all these conductors have some uniformity of approach to the music is simply absurd...


Oh no, there I go being absurd again... Just shoot me now.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I wasn't going to defend myself on this, but...what can I say? I'm just annoyingly weak sometimes.

In retrospect, it is misleading and just plain wrong to say that all current conductors sound the same as each other. They don't. Nor does each violinist, pianist or, for that matter, each orchestra.

However, there is a limit to just how different an interpretation can be before it crosses the boundary of validity. I think what I was trying to say before (in echoing Bigshot), was that those extremes in interpretation were a regular part of the landscape of classical music in the 1960s and 1970s. To take just the most obvious example - tempo. Say you had twelve versions of Mozart's 41st on record back then. You could go all the way from the elephantine (Walter, Bohm, Klemperer) to the mercurial (Szell, Bernstein, Karajan) and a number in between. You won't find any greater difference in versions available today, even though they number into the dozens. And, I daresay the same thing can be said about other aspects of interpretation beyond tempo.

What you will find of course, is HIP. And, that _does_ make a difference.

Now, there are any number of really great recordings of the standard repertoire available today, from many different talented conductors. And, personally, from just the audio aspect alone, I find many of them to be superior to their predecessors of the 1960s and 1970s. But, the actual differences in the interpretation of the music don't seem to be very earth-shaking to me.

As an example..based on recommendations, I recently listened to two new cycles of the Brahms symphonies - one by Marin Alsop on Naxos and the other by Janowski on Pentatone. I found things to like about both of them, and I couldn't disagree with the mostly positive reviews I'd read. But, not once in listening to them did I say to myself, "Wow..I've never heard anything like that before!" (like the time I heard the clarinet's echoing phrasing in the Schumann Piano Concerto with Radu Lupu back in the 1970s). The biggest interpretive extremes in the Brahms symphonies, for me, still lie as much (or more) in older performances as they do in new ones.

In fact, the only times I can remember hearing something in the standard repertoire that impressed me as something unlike anything I'd ever heard before was in two HIPs - one of the Beethoven symphonies and the other of Schumann's (Gardiner).

So, I guess that's more what I was trying to say (whether or not it makes any sense). I'm still grateful for newer recordings and I would never argue that current conductors are lesser musicians than their predecessors. And the clarity and detail of modern recordings can, from time to time, make us hear things we may have missed before. But, I don't think we can, or necessarily should, expect them to be bringing us a lot more in the way of original viewpoints toward the music. We've pretty much heard the extremes, and everything else is in between.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I also think that modern recordings generally sound a lot better, purely technically, than those from 50's and 60's


I have a LOT of music recorded in that era, and that isn't necessarily the case. There were more poor live recordings in the 50s and 60s, but the quality of miking and engineering in studio recordings were often better back then. This is because of the limitation to the number of channels. Engineers were forced to record orchestras with a minimum of microphones, resulting in a much more realistic soundstage. In the 70s, multimiking became more common and you ended up with some of those weird Karajan DGG records where it sounded far away and close up at the same time.

As for recording technology, sound quality issues were conquered with the introduction of hifi and stereo. Since then, all of the improvements have been a matter of convenience and flexibility, not sound quality. The best recording I've ever heard was recorded in 1952... Fiedler's Gaetie Parisienne on RCA Living Stereo.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> One reason we will probably never have agreement on this is the unlevel playing field. We can't hear Caruso live, for example, and his recordings can never be assessed properly alongside the more technically superb recordings of today.


The interesting thing about Caruso is that he became famous not just for his live performances, but perhaps even more for his recordings. The Sextette from Lucia cost half a man's weekly wages, yet it sold millions of copies. It's still the most common 78 from that era found in thrift stores for fifty cents, along with the Rigoletto Quartet, which also cost half a week's salary.

It's difficult to understand the popularity of these old records if you buy the CD. The sound is grainy, dim and boxy sounding. But play the exact same recording on an acoustic phonograph and it's startling... like Caruso is standing in the room with you. Victor had the luxury of engineering the records to suit the Victrolas and vice versa.

If you've never heard Caruso on a Victrola, you've never heard Caruso.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I have this work and conducting seems very good.

My most favorite are K.Masur, Karajan, Stokowski and Solti (for certain conducts). Boulez conducting is also very good, although I don't like his composing at all!

Also Marriner for baroque era is great.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I have a LOT of music recorded in that era, and that isn't necessarily the case. There were more poor live recordings in the 50s and 60s, but the quality of miking and engineering in studio recordings were often better back then. This is because of the limitation to the number of channels. Engineers were forced to record orchestras with a minimum of microphones, resulting in a much more realistic soundstage. In the 70s, multimiking became more common and you ended up with some of those weird Karajan DGG records where it sounded far away and close up at the same time.
> 
> As for recording technology, sound quality issues were conquered with the introduction of hifi and stereo. Since then, all of the improvements have been a matter of convenience and flexibility, not sound quality. The best recording I've ever heard was recorded in 1952... Fiedler's Gaetie Parisienne on RCA Living Stereo.


Are you suggesting that there has been no technological progress in sound recording techniques over the past 50-60 years?

If so, I would find that very difficult to believe. Technology has moved on enormously in almost other sphere over this period, including of course all the equipment that's used to play the music in domestic environments.

It would seem very bizarre indeed if all this technical progress has taken place in the hardware side of music reproduction but with no improvement in the recording of the material that's played on that equipment.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

There's plenty of great musicians. Always will be.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Neeme Järvi is brilliant, perhaps my favorite conductor of Russian music of the bunch.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> One reason we will probably never have agreement on this is the unlevel playing field. We can't hear Caruso live, for example, and his recordings can never be assessed properly alongside the more technically superb recordings of today.


Another reason is the inevitable disagreement about the proper role of performers: whether their job is to express themselves through the vehicle of music, or to be the vehicle through which the music expresses itself. In its most extreme form, this debate (not as heated as it used to be but still ongoing) is waged between those who think performers should be faithful to what they imagine to be the composer's original intentions versus those who think performers should be faithful to their own tastes and preferences, even if it conflicts with (what someone imagines to be) the composer's original intentions. A lot of Bach purists don't even consider Glenn Gould's Bach recordings to be performances of Bach. (A colleague of mine was once looking at a pile of Bach CDs and picked one up to remove it from the pile, saying "These aren't the Goldberg Variations... they're the Gouldberg Variations.")


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> Are you suggesting that there has been no technological progress in sound recording techniques over the past 50-60 years?


No significant progress, unless you want to count 5:1 surround sound. In 1952, RCA made a recording that had a flat frequency response that covered the full range of human hearing. It had no audible distortion, a low noise floor and a great dynamic range. Since then, the numbers have gotten a little better here and there resulting in theoretical improvements, but the 1952 specs pretty much covered human hearing as well as ears can hear.

Technology has moved forward in areas other than sound quality. Digital recording did away with generation loss, allowed for amazing sound processing, and allowed for unlimited channels. Compressed audio allows you to fit an entire library on an iPod in your pocket. But these are matters of convenience and flexibility, not sound quality.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Odnoposoff said:


> IMO, big difference between today violinists and old masters is that actuals play the violin for a living, but the old ones lived to play the violin.


This is quite interesting, to get to the top I think you need to want to play any instrument. If you didn't, well you would never get there, it's extremely competitive. As for myself, I love the violin, sure I would like to make a good living when I grow up but that's not so important as actually playing for other people's enjoyment.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that the odd against any musician making a great deal of money from playing his or her instrument are so staggering that it would be ridiculous for anyone to keep at it... except out of a real love... passion... obsession. I have no doubt that the best musicians of today "live for music" as much as any in the past.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think that the odd against any musician making a great deal of money from playing his or her instrument are so staggering that it would be ridiculous for anyone to keep at it... except out of a real love... passion... obsession. I have no doubt that the best musicians of today "live for music" as much as any in the past.


If you are doing what you love, a relatively low pay isn't an issue.  I don't know how much a full time member of an orchestra might get paid (info on this would be much appreciated!) but it sure beats being a bank clerk or an insurance salesman. 

EDIT: A quick google search later: http://www.berklee.edu/pdf/parents/music-industry-salaries.pdf


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I think this discussion is too broad in trying to cover both conductors and performers and for now I want to limit my comment to just conductors. 

I do think a discussion about Golden Age conductors is an interesting one, and when we think of the great conductors of the past like Bernstein, Karajan, Ormandy, Boult, Solti, Reiner etc. is not only the great sounds they could achieve from their orchestras but also their great personalities. Many of the conductors today are fine and do tremendous jobs and the technology of today helps with that. The personalities of the past could not be as dependent on technology. They also didn't have as many constraints to tie their hands. When you survey the field of conductors today you just don't really see any outstanding personalities that bring image and class to the music. The Dallas Symphony has a conductor, Jaap van Zweden, who is the closest I have seen to old school conductors alive today. He is dynamic and an outstanding conductor. Maybe Simon Rattle could also be considered old school? 

Can classical music ever return to personality driven orchestras again? Should classical music return? I don't know the answer, other than to say, that I miss those days when certain conductors outshined the orchestras they conducted, and when those orchestras had distinctive voices to be heard. 

Kevin


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> No significant progress, unless you want to count 5:1 surround sound. In 1952, RCA made a recording that had a flat frequency response that covered the full range of human hearing. It had no audible distortion, a low noise floor and a great dynamic range. Since then, the numbers have gotten a little better here and there resulting in theoretical improvements, but the 1952 specs pretty much covered human hearing as well as ears can hear except possibly from diehard fans of old recordings.
> 
> Technology has moved forward in areas other than sound quality. Digital recording did away with generation loss, allowed for amazing sound processing, and allowed for unlimited channels. Compressed audio allows you to fit an entire library on an iPod in your pocket. But these are matters of convenience and flexibility, not sound quality.


I'm not sure if we might be at cross-purposes here over linguistics but I would find it very difficult to believe that a recording of a work made now using the best available techniques would sound no better than one made 50-60 years ago, assuming the same artist/orchestra etc. Anything recorded pre-stereo must surely be of worse quality than today. Material from the mid-50s, 40s or earlier than that sounds mostly very poor to my ears in comparison with modern recordings, and I can't believe there would much disagreement on that.

Just going back to the 50s or thereabout with the dawn of stereo in the home market, if nothing else there have been improvements in the recording media itself, e.g. digital media like a CD versus analogue sound like LP or tape with all the usual hiss, surface noise etc. There must surely have been quality improvements in things like microphones, microphone placement techniques, the sound qualities of recording venues, a whole host of other components in the recording technology chain. When old material is re-mastered digitally there must also be some quality loss compared with a straight digital recording.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I have a LOT of music recorded in that era, and that isn't necessarily the case. There were more poor live recordings in the 50s and 60s, but the quality of miking and engineering in studio recordings were often better back then. This is because of the limitation to the number of channels. Engineers were forced to record orchestras with a minimum of microphones, resulting in a much more realistic soundstage. In the 70s, multimiking became more common and you ended up with some of those weird Karajan DGG records where it sounded far away and close up at the same time.
> 
> As for recording technology, sound quality issues were conquered with the introduction of hifi and stereo. Since then, all of the improvements have been a matter of convenience and flexibility, not sound quality. The best recording I've ever heard was recorded in 1952... Fiedler's Gaetie Parisienne on RCA Living Stereo.


That is more or less what I think - though no doubt science will prove us wrong even our perception tells us otherwise. The great RCA, Decca, HMV stereo recordings from the 60s to late 70s sound to me as rich and real as anything which is recorded now. The formats are more convenient and cost efficient.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I'm not sure if we might be at cross-purposes here over linguistics but I would find it very difficult to believe that a recording of a work made now using the best available techniques would sound no better than one made 50-60 years ago, assuming the same artist/orchestra etc.


here's how you find out for yourself...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006PV5VW/

This recording was one of the first stereo recordings made by RCA in 1952. On my system, it sounds better than any digital recording. Spectacular sound. You can pick up a copy cheaply at Amazon. Get it. Listen to it nice and loud so the neighbors can hear it and let me know what you think. Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and Decca were all doing recordings in the 50s and 60s that wipe the floor with most modern recordings when it comes to sound quality. Dorati's 1812 and Rite of Spring, Munch's Daphnis et Chloe, Reiner's Russian Showpieces, Ansermet's Three Cornered Hat... These are all recordings of the first rank when it comes to sound.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

bigshot said:


> here's how you find out for yourself...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006PV5VW/
> 
> This recording was one of the first stereo recordings made by RCA in 1952. On my system, it sounds better than any digital recording. Spectacular sound. You can pick up a copy cheaply at Amazon. Get it. Listen to it nice and loud so the neighbors can hear it and let me know what you think. Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and Decca were all doing recordings in the 50s and 60s that wipe the floor with most modern recordings when it comes to sound quality. Dorati's 1812 and Rite of Spring, Munch's Daphnis et Chloe, Reiner's Russian Showpieces, Ansermet's Three Cornered Hat... These are all recordings of the first rank when it comes to sound.


If you go into the hifi side this forum - you will get panned with those views. Though I agree with you that those old audiophile recordings are amazing. I think today's engineers think the more complex the mic placing/mixing stage - the better. But I'm a vinyl die hard. But even on CD these recordings sound better than todays latest technology recordings. When I first started buying CDs in the 80s - I always found the re-issued stuff better than the digital recordings. There are super recordings around now though - I heard Pinnock's Mozart recently - found it beautifully balanced - fresh - neutral - nice bloom.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> here's how you find out for yourself...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006PV5VW/
> 
> This recording was one of the first stereo recordings made by RCA in 1952. On my system, it sounds better than any digital recording. Spectacular sound. You can pick up a copy cheaply at Amazon. Get it. Listen to it nice and loud so the neighbors can hear it and let me know what you think. Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and Decca were all doing recordings in the 50s and 60s that wipe the floor with most modern recordings when it comes to sound quality. Dorati's 1812 and Rite of Spring, Munch's Daphnis et Chloe, Reiner's Russian Showpieces, Ansermet's Three Cornered Hat... These are all recordings of the first rank when it comes to sound.


I have quite a few Mercury Living Presence CDs, as well as RCA Living Stereo and Decca CDs. I don't doubt that these were probably the finest recordings made at the time, and that the LPs were top quality. But they don't cover anything like the entire range of classical music, the bulk of which is of lower quality, some much lower.

Further, they are based on a smallish number of orchestras, which may not be to everyone's tastes. Another problem is that they don't contain any period instrument performances because they pre-dated this development later in the 20th C.

Good though the Mercury etc CDs are, in many cases I prefer other, more modern versions of the works.

In the case of the CDs, like all analogue to digital transfers, some sound quality losses are inevitable compared with a straightforward digital recording. This is a significant improvement over the recording technology of the 50s and 60s.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

We were talking sound quality, Very Senior, not musical taste. But if you want to talk about the quality of the performances...

Munch, Dorati, Reiner and Monteaux (among many others who recorded for RCA, Mercury and Decca) are still among the top recommendations for the repetoire they recorded. For instance, Dorati's Rite of Spring is probably among the very best recordings AND the best performances of that much recorded work. HIP doesn't apply to most of these recordings... What modern HIP recordings are there of Ravel, Brahms and Tchaikovsky? You aren't going to find many current orchestras that are better than the Boston Symphony Orchestra or the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in their prime. A lot of this stuff is the best of the best, no matter how you look at it.

I think I am more informed on this particular topic.

But getting back to the point, the sound quality of recordings made in the 50s and 60s are every bit as good as those being made today. The main technological improvements since 1952 have involved issues of flexibility and convenience.

However, I'll add one exception to that. 5:1 sound is the most significant improvement in sound quality since the introduction of stereo. It's revolutionary. But it's also expensive and difficult to implement properly, so most music fans aren't aware of it yet.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> In the case of the CDs, like all analogue to digital transfers, some sound quality losses are inevitable compared with a straightforward digital recording.


Completely untrue. The four track tape decks used to record in the early days of stereo were capable of sound quality that far exceeded the ability of LP records to reproduce it. The frequency response, distortion levels and dynamic range contained on these master tapes are comparable to DDD recordings. We haven't been able to hear the full extent of the sound on these early stereo recordings until they were released on CD. (Although those lucky enough to own a good reel to reel tape deck in the 60s and 70s had a good idea of it.) Recording technology in the 50s was hobbled by the practical limitations of the consumer delivery format.

Today, CDs are capable of representing the masters accurately, and 50s recordings sound just as good as modern ones,


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> We were talking sound quality, Very Senior, not musical taste. But if you want to talk about the quality of the performances...
> 
> etc


I was talking about sound quality, as well as other issues. I was saying that the Mercury/RCA/Decca recordings only cover a smallish part of the total classical music repertoire, so there is no point trying to suggest that these are all you need for a complete collection, and that later recordings are redundant. Also, the CD versions of the original analogue recordings involve sound quality losses inherent in the re-mastering process, which are avoided in a straight digital recording.

Nor do I accept that the Mercury etc CDs sound better than anything that's been produced ever since. That is claim made by you which is unsupported by any evidence that I'm aware. Most of the best recordings of particular works that I'm interested in which I have seen (e.g. in Gramophone or the BBC's CD Review) are not recordings from that era, although I accept that among "vintage" recordings when these are discussed they do sometimes come out quite well .


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Who said they were all you need for a complete collection? We were comparing the sound quality of early stereo recordings to modern digital recordings.

There is no audible loss in sound quality going from a studio master tape to digital. The tape decks used back then had specs that were comparable to modern digital sound.

The reason many of these early stereo recordings sound better than modern ones has to do with the way they were miked. They paid more attention to natural room acoustics and miked in a manner very similar to the way audiophile binaural recordings are today. A lot of later recordings depend on multimiking and "fixing in the mix", which compromises the naturalness of the soundstage.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

This debate about sound quality of old tech versus new could run and run. I think what can be said though and maybe agreed upon - is that 50s/60s technology produced much better sound quality than many people believe or understand - I get fed up hearing "it sounds good for its age". If you have sat down with a decent record player, amp, speakers - and put an RCA or stereo Decca 60s record and listened - you would be hard pushed to say that beyond elimination of background noise or the odd tick - that sound quality today is significantly better than 50 odd years ago.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

stomanek said:


> I get fed up hearing "it sounds good for its age". If you have sat down with a decent record player, amp, speakers - and put an RCA or stereo Decca 60s record and listened - you would be hard pushed to say that beyond elimination of background noise or the odd tick - that sound quality today is significantly better than 50 odd years ago.


I think listeners say that because those of us who have been collecting for a long time have heard plenty of recordings from the 50s and 60s that sounds dated and worn. The RCA Living Stereo series and Mercury's Living Presence series are exceptions to the general rule in my opinion. Columbia also made some fine recordings but many of the smaller label's have not come out of the wash OK.

Kevin


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2012)

Many of today's pianists can scamper across the keyboard faster and more accurately than the older generations could, but they are often far less interesting to listen to. I hear less passion and individuality overall.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I think listeners say that because those of us who have been collecting for a long time have heard plenty of recordings from the 50s and 60s that sounds dated and worn. The RCA Living Stereo series and Mercury's Living Presence series are exceptions to the general rule in my opinion. Columbia also made some fine recordings but many of the smaller label's have not come out of the wash OK.
> 
> Kevin


Yes agreed - Allegros for example - Classics Club - and many minor labels.
Sometimes though it is due to the condition of the LP or because it is mono.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Mono is different. Obviously stereo sounds better than mono. But they've been recording in stereo for sixty years now.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

It is pointless arguing the merits of historical recordings with "normal" people. A normal person does not say :"Let's sit down and listen to some 1906 recordings darling" Not if he wants to keep darling anyway!
He or she has to be a serious student of music either professionally or in an amateur capacity.
If you visit "The National Film Institute on the Thames' left bank to see say "Battleship Potemkin" or the original "All Quiet On the Western Front", You do not expect full colour, 3D or surround sound. Nor must you with old recordings, what you need is interest and imagination----if you don't have it keep away !
Early orchestral and piano recordings tend to be a trial, but they should be listened to by students of either.
Vocal recordings, on the whole, have fared better and there is no excuse for somebody to say he's only heard lousy transfers.
There are very expert transfer experts around including one of our own members----the redoubtable Bigshot.

What about the Golden Ages ? Well Superhorn has a slight problem
The Golden Age of Singing is pre-electrical 1900-1925. (John Steane "The Grand Tradition"....P.G.Hurst.."The Golden Age Recorded" ).
Adelina Patti, Francesco Tamagno, Lilli Lehmann, Nellie Melba, Ernestine Schumann-Heink, Fernado di Lucia (probably the nearest thing to what Rossini would have heard ), Mattia Battistini, Pol Plancon, Enrico Caruso, (in a way he probably caused the end of it), Giuseppe de Luca, John McCormack, Margarethe Siems, Marcella Sembrich (Liszt was an admirer) Olimpia Boronat, Antonia Nashdanova,Feodor Chaliapin.
You will not find anyone to approach most of these and never will because the way of singing has gone, but you can learn what it was like and be amazed!
But there are warnings ,Patti was retired and living in her castle in Wales when Hmv arrived to record her. So this is a fairly elderly lady that we hear . But that is not the point, it's HOW she sings ie what her technique teaches you.
They were huge stars,feted wherever they went by the common people and by Royalty. Remember that so much opera was contemporary to them and they knew the composers. They even had dishes named after them eche Melba, chicken Tetrazzini,Pavlova (a ballet dancer but so?)
Incidentally, every so often somebody on these pages asks "What Is Bel Canto"? Listening to these singers will show you......and it is not for specialist operas but a way of singing.
The other warning is about speeds. Although we talk of 78 rpm records, there was no recognized set speed for some years .
I am looking at a recording of di Lucia's now and the speeds vary from 74 to 88.24,now he used a lot of controlling vibrato more than you will hear now. if this was transferred at the wrong speeds--and it was.. it was not nice at all. So you need a direct drive turntable with speed control! This has been a common pronlem and it means that John McCormack will bleat away like Larry the Lamb and a worthy contralto will growl like a bass. Also they decided to "improve"---take away the surface noise, the trouble with that is that it takes away other things too.Add echo usw. They even added a modern orchestra to some Caruso recordings when the electical system came along !!!!
So much caution must be displayed and advice sought anybody visitng me will soon be persuaded as to the wonders available.
Fed Gaisburg "Music On Record" was associated with Emile Berliner and stood with him watching the first record being made.
He became HMV's chief scout and one memorable day telegraphed from the United States that he had arranged for Caruso to record 10 songs for £100.00. Staggering terms in those days and the answer came back: "Too exorbitant,forbid you to record". He luckily ignored this and carried on, which was a fortunate thing for it was Caruso who "made" the gramophone.
As far as his singing is concerned Listen to Lauri-Volpi who said: "When you consider tenors first put Caruso to one side and then you may begin". Ask any operatic tenor and this is what he will tell you and I've asked a few.
Moving forward, Callas and Gobbi were not remotely Golden Age and his singing ,although very exciting was also very verissimo.
But why are Americans talking of these artists when the Met had a world beating line-up of top singers ,many of them American or USA based. You had the grandest diva of modern times in Zinka Milanov, she was pretty close to "Golden Age". The best "Italian" baritone in Robert Merrill, Eleanor Steber--so imposing,Dorothy Kirsten, Roberta Peters. Leonard Warren (pushed his voice too much), Helen Traubel, Bidu Sayao and many more.
You will note that a great chunk of time has been missed out but it was the "Golde Age" thing that was in focus.
I live surrounded by shelves and shelves of these and I feel I know them--in fact I do.
Lastly it is no good people with no knowledge making remarks comparing modern day singers with the great ones. It can't be done, the system has changed completely and yes, for the worst,
Once a singer would sign on with one opera company and stay there, they did travel but not too often and it was by liner
The conductor was there full time and rapport built up ang they presented a united front.
Are you aware that Hans Hotter once was singing in Germany and flew off to sing the role on the other side of the world and then came back to continue all in a few days.
Farly recently a singer knew her role in German but not Italian so things were sung in two languages,

The secret is to listen ,but this is only a good idea if you know what you're looking for.
It is really pointless unless you want to spend lots of time and money. When I started I was hopeless, went round telling everyone that Mario Lanza was the greatest ever. Luckily I got taken in hand , but his film "The Great Caruso" as with Carreras and Domingo got me going.

I will cut off now and come back on conducting and orchestras as I am weary and not too well.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I think listeners say that because those of us who have been collecting for a long time have heard plenty of recordings from the 50s and 60s that sounds dated and worn. The RCA Living Stereo series and Mercury's Living Presence series are exceptions to the general rule in my opinion. Columbia also made some fine recordings but many of the smaller label's have not come out of the wash OK.
> 
> Kevin


Not really, what about Everest in the '50's, Dgg, Hmv etc.etc. What are these smaller companies, there were nasty cheapies but it was obvious. I mean the East Prussian Symphony Orchestra cond William Havegesse---the pianist Paul Procopolis who did not exist ? What are we talking about here ,mention a few.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Do you have a Victrola, Moody?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Yes agreed - Allegros for example - Classics Club - and many minor labels.
> Sometimes though it is due to the condition of the LP or because it is mono.


Elizabeth Schumann's last recital was on Allegro and they did great work, but of course they were made to sell in Woollworth's.
Classics Club was mostly old Nixas's and such but i've got Noel Mewton -Wood on Classics club.
It depends what you want a record for--I just listen to an artist---I would never have bought the Brahms' Piano Concertos in Woolworth.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

stomanek said:


> The golden age - probably the 1940s through to the 1970s.
> 
> So do you think that, for exampe:
> 
> ...


I would say I basically agree with this -



BurningDesire said:


> There's plenty of great musicians. Always will be.


The people you mentioned in your OP, stomanek, where like 'yeterday's' _ambassadors_ for classical music that virtually everybody knew. I don't take my standard as the classical music fan but as the simple 'man in the street.' And according to that hypothetical 'common man,' (but it can be a woman too!), there are classical musicians that people today generally know and appreciate across the board. My impression is that many of these are over 50 or 60 though, eg. Simon Rattle, Kiri Te Kanawa, Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras (Luciano Pavorotti now gone), Nigel Kennedy, maybe also Jessye Norman, Cecilia Bartoli, a younger one would be pianist Lang Lang. But the thing is that where this standard falls is that 'highbrows' will automatically balk at some of these names, for one reason or another.

But the underlying issue is that classical music as it stands - the format of traditional symphony concerts which came in after 1945 - is now rather stale, as is the sheer narcissism of an industry that seems to be teetering on becoming a museum piece, going towards being obsolete within the lifetimes of the younger people on this forum. I mean when every young or new musician makes a debut on cd, it has to be certain 'set' repertoire that he/she records. If you've been in the classical music game long enough, you'll know what a pianist 'has' to record, what a soprano 'has' to, and so on.

So the difference is that in the 'golden age' things happened outside the box. Stokowski made more premieres of new music than you can poke a stick at. Rostropovich commissioned like over 100 works by leading composers of the day for his instrument, the cello. Heifetz commissioned a number of concertos as well. Sutherland revived the art of coloratura singing. Lenny put a big boost in for Mahler and Ives. In the 1970's, conductors like Maazel and James Conlon revived Zemlinsky from the grave. And so on. My impression is now that not much of this is happening, or not much that actually matters. Music is being revived and recorded afresh, but is it equal to the importance of the likes of Mahler et al? I don't think so, we're in museum territory now, it seems. Give it a hundred or two hundred years and someone will come around, like Mendelssohn did with his revival of Bach, and make classical the living art it should be.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> But the underlying issue is that classical music as it stands - the format of traditional symphony concerts which came in after 1945 - is now rather stale,


i think you're basically right, but for the wrong reasons. The music itself is still relevant. It's been there for hundreds of years and it will be there for hundreds more. The venue is what's changed. The world has turned from plays to movies and television... And from concerts to CDs. There is a HUGE back catalog of classical music with first class performances in first class sound. Why bother to add another this late in the game?

I think the Carusos of today are in rock bands, and the Beethovens are scoring movies. Classical music has become a precious relic... Just like museum quality fine art. Music has evolved beyond concert hall music.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Do you have a Victrola, Moody?


No , I decided not to go the in the 78 direction as i already had a house full of music.
Are you looking for one ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> It would be very hard to explain if they were getting worse, since the potential talent pool has expanded so much.


They are so boring now , robots!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> One reason we will probably never have agreement on this is the unlevel playing field. We can't hear Caruso live, for example, and his recordings can never be assessed properly alongside the more technically superb recordings of today.
> 
> Bigshot's earlier comment is an interesting one - 'conductors now aim for appropriateness more than for individuality'. And, what's ironic about that is that there are so many more recordings of almost any individual piece of music than there were in the past. So in essence, in the past we had a wider variety of performances but a more limited selection from which to choose. No wonder today's conductors don't stand out as much...there are too many of them doing essentially the same thing.
> 
> ...


Maybe you're aiming for appropriateness more than individuality?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Continued : There are also many superb opera singers today . Fleming, Voigt, Mattila, Dessay, Damrau,
> Susan Graham, Borodina, Heppner, Jonas Kaufmann, Hampson, Keenlyside, Rene Pape, to name only a handful.
> None of us is old enough to have heard such legendary names as Caruso, Flagstad, Ponselle, Muzio,
> Melchior, Chaliapin, Titta Ruffo live, and others . And there a fewer and fewer still left who had the privelege of seeing Callas, Tebaldi, Del Monaco, Corelli, Bergonzi, Siepi, and other great singers live and can speak about thei rmemories .
> ...


I've seen a few and I'm not dead yet ! If you like listening to Beethoven and Wagner, etc. you ARE living in the past.
I still buy CDS but they are mostly reissues because I'm not interested in the poor array that you have referred to.
Early music has had some very interesting happenings but it is not really my thing
If somebody is living in the past in your version of that description, What's wrong with that ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> Are you suggesting that there has been no technological progress in sound recording techniques over the past 50-60 years?
> 
> If so, I would find that very difficult to believe. Technology has moved on enormously in almost other sphere over this period, including of course all the equipment that's used to play the music in domestic environments.
> 
> It would seem very bizarre indeed if all this technical progress has taken place in the hardware side of music reproduction but with no improvement in the recording of the material that's played on that equipment.


It sounds as if you are talking in a vacuum. Have you got good equipment (I'm sure you have) have you got good reissues of Everest, Mercury, Etc. then what's your opinion ? If not it's pointless talking about these matters.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

stomanek said:


> That is more or less what I think - though no doubt science will prove us wrong even our perception tells us otherwise. The great RCA, Decca, HMV stereo recordings from the 60s to late 70s sound to me as rich and real as anything which is recorded now. The formats are more convenient and cost efficient.


I hate to remind you but this is not supposed to be a debate on Hi-Fi but the Golden Age of whatever !!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

moody said:


> No , I decided not to go the in the 78 direction as i already had a house full of music.
> Are you looking for one ?


No, I have a nice tiger oak VVX, which was the basic "everyman" model in 1914.

The reason I asked was, I notice you're very informed on the singers of the acoustic era. I have Red Seal records by most of the performers you mention there. I was getting into early jazz and opera about fifteen years ago, and I found that CD reissues were all over the map. Some were scratchy and distant, others were clean but thin sounding. The thing that really confused me was Caruso. My brother collected Edison phonographs when I was a kid, and when he'd get Red Seals mixed in with a batch of diamond disks, he'd give the ones he couldn't play to me. I was about 7, and he'd let me crank up his suitcase Victrola and play them. We had O Solo Mio and various arias, and as a kid, even though we had a TV and hifi, the sheer SOUND of Caruso would bowl me over. It was loud and clear and present. Many years later, when I got the CDs, it was thin and boxy and sounded like he was singing in a different room.

I got my brother to dig out his old records and player and we had a phonograph night, listening to them again after all those years. My memory wasn't playing tricks. There is something about the acoustic phonograph that brings these records to life in a way that electrical transcription can't. I did a lot of experimenting back when I was doing 78 restorations to try to capture that big sound. I did a transfer of one record that I was satisfied with, but it was a huge amount of work to get it to sound like that. I can post it if you're interested. But in any case, if you don't have a phonograph yourself, find someone who does and get them to play one of the records you're familiar with from CD transfers. You'll be amazed.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

The reason for a golden age of orchestras in America is simple------Hitler!
So many Jewish and anti-Nazi musicians whether ,conductors, instrumentalists or orchestral players flooded out of Europe and mostly headed for the USA.
On top of that conductors stayed with their orchestras for long periods Reiner/Chicago, Paray/Detroit, Munch/Boston, Steinberg/.Pittsburgh, Toscanini/NBC,Ormandy/Philadelphia, as in the UK Boult/BBC, Beecham/RPO,Barbirolli/Halle.
On top of that they did have the power of life and death and when Reiner or Szell said jump, you jumped. But the martinet conductor syndrome must not be overplayed for after a while he would have no orchestra !But they didn't leave did they at least not the good ones. Now I believe the orchestras are self-governing, can you imagine that in an automobile factory ?
Orchestras today do sound alike because they now all use German instruments ,once Russian, Czech and French orchestras were completely different in sound. You can hear that anytime you wish still on records from the 50's.I would have thought Superhorn would have known that as he is an orchestral player.
Eschberg brought up a point regarding the artists' influence on the music, well that's the whole point to me.
I have about 15 recordings of Beethoven's "Emperor" concerto and they are all different, wouldn't be much point if they were all the same. However many times you go to see "Hamlet" it will be different, that's why you go more than once.
VSM doesn't like idiosyncratic performances. I wonder what he does up against Bernstein, Gould, Chaliapin, Maria Ewing oh...and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf with her archness and mewing ?People like the unusual and Celibidachen, Stokowski and Beecham were loved because of their idiosyncratic ways.
I used to tell my wife that Gina Bachauer or Shura Cherkassky or Annie Fischer were giving a concert and that I had booked. When she asked me what was on I did not know because I had not looked.
If I see the names of Katherine Hepburn, Judy Dench, Al Pacino or Robert de Niro I remind myself to watch the films---whatever they may be about. It is the performer that counts to me ,but the big stars have just about all gone. How can a man as uninspiring as Simon Rattle be at the Berlin Phil mind you at the Olympics he ended up with Mr.Bean, I'm sure they are made for one another.
Unfortunately there are no big characters now, or hardly any people have been taught to conform. You are just part of a team---well who then is going to lead that team ?
But the proof of the pudding is with us, I've been to three concerts in the last eight years because non of them attract me in the slightest


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bigshot said:


> i think you're basically right, but for the wrong reasons. The music itself is still relevant. It's been there for hundreds of years and it will be there for hundreds more. The venue is what's changed. The world has turned from plays to movies and television... And from concerts to CDs. There is a HUGE back catalog of classical music with first class performances in first class sound. Why bother to add another this late in the game?
> 
> I think the Carusos of today are in rock bands, and the Beethovens are scoring movies. Classical music has become a precious relic... Just like museum quality fine art. Music has evolved beyond concert hall music.


What I would add to all that is that things are already changing here, whether its for the better or the worse depends on individual opinion. The annual 'Vivid' festival in Sydney this year had a number of local and international bands playing with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. A line up of the fest incl. some of those concerts here:
http://vividlive.sydneyoperahouse.com/

Of course, things like Howard Shore taking his 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy around the world and performing that live with orchestras as the film plays above on a screen has been successfully huge world-wide. The 'market' is basically saying, as I see it from this, the public wants more of these things, but there is still a place for the traditional 'meat and three veg' type classical symphony concert, maybe just not as big a place as in the 'golden age.' These types of things are becoming more common and have some relevancy for the public at large. I'm not trying to convince anyone or rock the boat, I'm just speaking my mind, this is the way I see it, and it means the skills classical musicians learn certainly do not have to be restricted to 'serious' classical music, even though I see the boundaries between 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' to be very blurred now, and the 'fence' between them has been ignored to greater or lesser extent, even by the great composers.

I think to stay relevant, the classical culture or model has to change. It is already. This is probably the territory of another thread. But I've done that type of thing before, and a lot of people balk as with the thread below, it eventually became the expected slanging match between the usual suspects:
http://www.talkclassical.com/17538-fetishising-past.html

So what I'm saying is that the 'golden age' was about* relevance *for the whole society, not just classical fans. Some degree of relevance or knowing. & it was about new territory being conquered, not just going through the motions. I mean, most Australians know Joan Sutherland, who she was, what she basically did, what she stood for. But now they're more likely to know Anthony Warlow, who played Lloyd Webber's 'Phantom of the Opera,' or the late Rob Guest. Warlow has also done light classical, eg. operetta. Singers in the popular realm remain known, they have some exposure and relevance, even to those who don't like eg. musicals. But classical, its becoming a museum piece as it is.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Museum pieces can still inspire, influence and be relevant. Nothing wrong with museum pieces.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Museum pieces can still inspire, influence and be relevant. Nothing wrong with museum pieces.


Yeah, but the basic thing I'm saying is that I think the 'quality' of classical musicians has not declined overall, but the culture around them has changed enormously. So I don't buy into the dichotomy that the oldies where better or worse than the newies, its just that the oldies where doing things like constantly breaking new ground which speaks to them being highly relevant in their time, theirs was a living art. My opinion is that this is less the case, or not the norm, now (but as I said, some things are changing, not all of the classical music world is what I call 'museum piece' territory, some are adapting to the new situation, & while I like the old musics, I think that the new things happening are great also).


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

stomanek said:


> The golden age - probably the 1940s through to the 1970s.
> 
> So do you think that, for exampe:
> 
> *Karajan,* Furtwangler, Klemperer, Walter etc etc


If that's your golden age..... well.....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The people you mentioned in your OP, stomanek, where like 'yeterday's' ambassadors for classical music that virtually everybody knew.

I think that classical music was somewhat more "known" at least to a broader audience due to its inclusion in popular media (cartoons, films, radio broadcasts) and in our education systems. I have come across more than a few music teachers who have barely a rudimentary knowledge of classical music. However, I greatly doubt that the percentage of people with any real knowledge of classical music was anywhere near being a majority.

I don't take my standard as the classical music fan but as the simple 'man in the street.'

Sid... I know you embrace all these notions of Egalitarianism... but they simply don't carry over into 'classical music" or "fine art" or serious literature. The vast majority who might be counted among the "man on the street" knows almost nothing about classical music (or jazz, bluegrass, or the blues for that matter)... and probably cares even less. Why you would look to such an audience as the standard by which you measure art seems wholly without logic.

And according to that hypothetical 'common man,' (but it can be a woman too!), there are classical musicians that people today generally know and appreciate across the board. My impression is that many of these are over 50 or 60 though, eg. Simon Rattle, Kiri Te Kanawa, Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras (Luciano Pavorotti now gone), Nigel Kennedy, maybe also Jessye Norman, Cecilia Bartoli, a younger one would be pianist Lang Lang. But the thing is that where this standard falls is that 'highbrows' will automatically balk at some of these names, for one reason or another.

Of all the names you mention, I suspect that if I asked any hundred people at random only Pavarotti... and perhaps Placido Domingo would be recognized. On the other hand... I don't know that the majority of the classical music audience (your "highbrows") would balk at any of the above names. Perhaps some may suspect that Lang Lang is a bit of a ham... but he certainly has some serious chops, and in his recent recording of chamber works with vadim and Maisky he shows that he certainly has the ability to evolve into a really outstanding pianist:










But the underlying issue is that classical music as it stands - the format of traditional symphony concerts which came in after 1945 - is now rather stale...

I don't know where you get this idea. When I look at the breadth and wealth of classical music available today... including older classic recordings, recordings of music that was ignored for years (Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, the Classical era beyond Haydn and Mozart... as well as endless obscure composers) I recognize that the classical music scene has never been better. Certainly there has never been an era better for the individual wishing to explore the vast realm of music that makes up the Western classical music tradition. Ask yourself this... just what would the odds be of your being able to find any recordings by Australian composers even 30 years ago? How many orchestras and opera companies exist today in the major Western nations as opposed to 50 or 75 years ago?

...as is the sheer narcissism of an industry that seems to be teetering on becoming a museum piece, going towards being obsolete within the lifetimes of the younger people on this forum. I mean when every young or new musician makes a debut on cd, it has to be certain 'set' repertoire that he/she records.

Where are you shopping for your CDs? I ask this seriously. Let's look at just a few recent recordings:










We have Philippe Jaroussky... one of the hottest singers today... recording an entire disc of arias by J.C. (not J.S.) Bach, French melodies that no one would have ever tought could be performed by a countertenor, arias by rarely recorded Italian Baroque composers, and rediscovered operas by Vivaldi. There's Andreas Scholl... perhaps the greatest living countertenor... recording cantatas by virtually unknown German Baroque composers, and songs by the Renaissance knight/troubadour, Oswald von Wolkenstein. And then there's Anna Netrebko. Is there a bigger name in opera today? And yet along with performing La Traviata, she has recorded a marvelous disc of rarely heard Russian arias, and another disc of Russian songs by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff. Magdalena Kozena, the wife of Simon Rattle and one of the finest Mezzo-Sopranos has recorded a disc of Italian Baroque arias, and another of songs by Dvorak, Janacek, Martinu, Schulhoff and Eben.










Bernarda Fink, another spectacular singer, has recorded one disc of songs by almost unknown Slovenian composers including Anton Lajovic, Alojzij Gerzinic, Lucijan Marija Skerjanc, and Fran Gerbic; and another disc of classical songs from Argentina. Anne Sofie von Otter has recorded multiple discs of Swedish songs, songs by composers from the Theresienstadt concentration camp, and a disc of songs by contemporary Swedish composers: Anders Hillborg, Laci Boldemann, and Hans Gefors. And what of Gidon Kremer who has recorded not only Bach and Mozart but also several discs of music by Piazzolla, as well as the music of Arvo Part, Raminta Šerkšnyte, Michael Nyman, Lera Auerbach, Georg Pelecis, Alfred Schnittke, Leonid Desyatnikov, and Alexander Raskatove (among others).










And Kremer is not alone. Anne Sophie Mutter, arguably the leading violinist of today, has recorded the music of Sofia Gubaidulina (as did Kremer), Wolfgang Rihm, Sebastian Currier, Henri Dutilleux, Bela Bartok, Igor Stravinsky, Leonard Bernstein, Andre Previn, Alban Berg, etc... Pianist Angela Hewitt has recorded Couperin and Rameau, and then we have ensembles such as the Hilliard Ensemble that has recorded nearly forgotten works of medieval and Renaissance music (such as Gesualdo) as well as works by Arvo Part, Stockhausen, and David Lang. And what of Harry Christophers' group, The Sixteen who have brought marvelous works of older choral music to life (such as the works from the English Renaissance _Eton Songbook_)... and then recorded works by Benjamin Britten and James MacMillan?

Again... I cannot fathom your cynicism concerning the classical music world of today in light of the wealth of music being recorded and performed. In the past year I have been able to attend concerts of music by living composers, performances of chamber music, recitals featuring obscure Medieval and Renaissance music, as well as the music of Bach, Mozart, Berlioz, etc...

So the difference is that in the 'golden age' things happened outside the box. Stokowski made more premieres of new music than you can poke a stick at. Rostropovich commissioned like over 100 works by leading composers of the day for his instrument, the cello. Heifetz commissioned a number of concertos as well. Sutherland revived the art of coloratura singing. Lenny put a big boost in for Mahler and Ives. In the 1970's, conductors like Maazel and James Conlon revived Zemlinsky from the grave. And so on. My impression is now that not much of this is happening, or not much that actually matters. Music is being revived and recorded afresh, but is it equal to the importance of the likes of Mahler et al? I don't think so...

Many would disagree. It seems to me that the music by Monteverdi, Handel, Vivaldi, Biber, Zelenka, Gesualdo, Hildegard of Bingen being rediscovered is as important as the finest music from any other era.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> I think that classical music was somewhat more "known" at least to a broader audience due to its inclusion in popular media (cartoons, films, radio broadcasts) and in our education systems. I have come across more than a few music teachers who have barely a rudimentary knowledge of classical music. However, I greatly doubt that the percentage of people with any real knowledge of classical music was anywhere near being a majority.
> ...


Whatever it was, it was a sizeable chunk of the population in the post 1945 decades. As moody has stated, a lot of people from Europe fled to the USA. Those people, esp. Jews, peopled the concert halls for decades, and so do today to a degree their children. In Europe, being the home of classical music, this music was part of the culture, and I think still is to some degree.



> ...
> Sid... I know you embrace all these notions of Egalitarianism... but they simply don't carry over into 'classical music" or "fine art" or serious literature. The vast majority who might be counted among the "man on the street" knows almost nothing about classical music (or jazz, bluegrass, or the blues for that matter)... and probably cares even less. Why you would look to such an audience as the standard by which you measure art seems wholly without logic.
> ..


I think you have a different standard or yardstick from me. We have had this discussion before, many times. No need for me to repeat myself, I've said it above and before many times. Its getting cliche and stale in itself.



> ...
> Of all the names you mention, I suspect that if I asked any hundred people at random only Pavarotti... and perhaps Placido Domingo would be recognized. On the other hand... I don't know that the majority of the classical music audience (your "highbrows") would balk at any of the above names...


Yeah they would balk, as many of these people have done 'crossover' things which the highbrows hate. The 'three tenors' obviously did the concerts after the World Cups in the 1990's, they also did separate albums with non-classical musos, Kiri did a Broadway album or two (she even got flack for wearing leather jacket on the cover - what nerve she had! She should wear a bloody gown like a prim and proper soprano, like a lady of the 19th century!), Nigel Kennedy has done stuff like that, Lang Lang probably did not help himslef re the highbrows when he appeared in the opening ceremony of the Beijing games (how 'common!'), and so on. The 'ivory tower' mentality is what I'm saying, and it is strong among a certain segment of the classical listenership.

But I don't think it was the case before. Even Heifetz was pulled down for doing encores, they said he lowered himself doing schmaltz. But his opinion was basically why not? & its the same today, I say to that attitude that it is obsolete. Its a dichotomy. I'm not saying it against anyone here, I'm just saying that's what I think.



> ...
> I don't know where you get this idea. When I look at the breadth and wealth of classical music available today... Certainly there has never been an era better for the individual wishing to explore the vast realm of music that makes up the Western classical music tradition. Ask yourself this... How many orchestras and opera companies exist today in the major Western nations as opposed to 50 or 75 years ago?
> 
> ....


Yeah but is it sustainable? In USA, several orchestras have gone bankrupt, and that was even happening before the GFC. If you read books about this kind of thing, the finances/funding of classical, its also an outdated model. Many orchestras are using subscriber's money to pay debts of like 5 years ago. And the audience is getting older. But they do like so many season concerts, with the outdated 'traditional' format. I think, as here, they have to do less of those and more of the things I mentioned what's happening here in Australia. Its the modern way.

So there's more, but where's the money gonna be in like 10, 20, 30 years. Rome looked good until it fell. I'm talking of this, that its ceasing to be a living thing. Its dying as it is. It has to change. Its like the emperor's new clothes, looks good on the outside, but inside its another story.

But this is beyond this thread. In terms of Australian classical, yeah a lot more has been available on cd the past few decades. But now, even major ensembles like the Australian Chamber Orchestra have to do a special fund raising drive - approach donors and sponsors - to get a new cd out. No joke, its that bad. They have to choose very carefully how they spend the scarce resources.

I'm not refuting everything but I'm saying there are deeper issues here, but again, its outside this thread strictly speaking.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Whatever it was, it was a sizeable chunk of the population in the post 1945 decades. As moody has stated, a lot of people from Europe fled to the USA. Those people, esp. Jews, peopled the concert halls for decades, and so do today to a degree their children. In Europe, being the home of classical music, this music was part of the culture, and I think still is to some degree.

Comparisons of market share and audience size are nearly impossible lacking any solid data. Considering the comparatively small number of professional orchestras and opera companies in the US before WWII, it would seem obvious that far more people have had the opportunity to attend a live classical music concert today than in the past. What statistics I could find suggest some 20+ million Americans experience at least one live classical concert in a given year. As for the influx of Jewish immigrants during WWII, that number is statistically irrelevant. The US had stiff limitations on all immigration as a result of the economic realities of the Great Depression. Quotas were not lifted to allow for Jews fleeing the Nazis to enter the US. The statistics vary between only 20,000 and 100,000 Jewish immigrants admitted from the mid-1930s through the end of the war. Of course immigration was always a possibility for individuals with outstanding talents... or great wealth.

I think you have a different standard or yardstick from me. We have had this discussion before, many times. No need for me to repeat myself, I've said it above and before many times. Its getting cliche and stale in itself.

I seriously don't see how you can use the "man on the street" as a measure of any question concerning classical music... or any other artistic form that isn't of interest to the majority of the population. This is as true of jazz, painting, poetry, sculpture, blues, theater, etc... as it is of classical music. Obviously the audience that is of the greatest concern for the classical musician, composer, conductor, orchestra, radio station, etc... is the audience who is actively interested in classical music. This is equally true for me as a painter. I cannot overly concern myself with the opinions of "man on the street". It is the audience who love and follow and collect painting that are my first concern. This does not mean I completely dismiss the larger public and live within some ivory tower concept that I only make art for myself. This audience is made up of individuals who cross the spectrum of wealth, formal education, age, gender, etc... In this sense they are no different than the audience for jazz or bluegrass.

One question that does intrigue me: Considering you concerns for the opinions of the larger populace and rejection of any taint of "elitism" or an ivory tower mentality, how do you deal with the question of classical music that is clearly unpopular and even inaccessible to the majority of the audience? (Obviously I am speaking of composers such as Xenakis, Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc...) Within the field of painting, those artists who wished to reach a more Democratic or even Egalitarian audience employed a style that was accessible and avoided any extreme avant garde mannerisms. I think here of Grant Wood, Diego Rivera, Honore Daumier, Thomas Hart Benton, Edward Hopper, George Tooker, Paul Cadmus, David Alfaro Siqueiros, José Orozco, early and late Philip Guston, Ben Shahn, Reginald Marsch, Gustave Courbet, Romare Bearden, etc...

Yeah they would balk, as many of these people have done 'crossover' things which the highbrows hate.

Cross-overs tend to have a bad reputation for the simple reason that they tend to fall rather short on artistic terms, but are employed as a means of attracting a larger audience.

The 'three tenors' obviously did the concerts after the World Cups in the 1990's, they also did separate albums with non-classical musos, Kiri did a Broadway album or two (she even got flack for wearing leather jacket on the cover - what nerve she had!

Do you honestly believe that the _Three Tenors_ discs were of a high level of artistic merit? They were what they were... an attempt to gain some audience share. I know of no one who questions the artistic achievements of Placido Domingo or Pavarotti as a result of this. I would say the same of Kiri... or Renee Fleming.

She should wear a bloody gown like a prim and proper soprano, like a lady of the 19th century!

Andre, is this really about music... or about your personal class hatred? Live musical performances are a form of theater. Rock and Pop and Jazz musicians dress to fit a given image as much as classical musicians. Of course there is a greater degree of freedom for today's classical performers than ever:






But what do you want... torn jeans and Lady Gaga t-shirts?

_SLG (quote)-When I look at the breadth and wealth of classical music available today... Certainly there has never been an era better for the individual wishing to explore the vast realm of music that makes up the Western classical music tradition. Ask yourself this... How many orchestras and opera companies exist today in the major Western nations as opposed to 50 or 75 years ago? _

Yeah but is it sustainable? In USA, several orchestras have gone bankrupt, and that was even happening before the GFC.

It is quite likely that there are too many orchestras and other ensembles all competing for the same audience. With regard to the market for recorded music, this is in a major state of flux. CDs are largely on the way out, while digital downloads and streaming are competing for the audience.

If you read books about this kind of thing, the finances/funding of classical, its also an outdated model. Many orchestras are using subscriber's money to pay debts of like 5 years ago. 

I'm not all that interested in reading about funding issues concerning arts institutions. I do know that ticket revenues in classical music have never covered the whole of operational costs in the US. The remaining share is covered through private and public patronage, fund-raising, and a minimal token government aid in the form of the National Endowment of the Arts. I suspect that there is a greater amount of government support for the arts in Europe... but I don't know whether one system is better than the other. In either instance one must keep the patrons (governmental, corporate, private) happy. Now you can talk about cutting corners, but you don't maintain a major orchestra with top-notch performers without spending a lot of money. I don't know of any major musical institution that isn't making efforts to reach a larger audience through community outreach programs, free concerts, educational programs, etc...

So there's more, but where's the money gonna be in like 10, 20, 30 years. Rome looked good until it fell. I'm talking of this, that its ceasing to be a living thing. Its dying as it is. It has to change.

Classical music, opera, the ballet... hell, dance in general, poetry, theater, jazz, blues, bluegrass, painting, serious film... all of these art forms will always appeal to but a limited audience. It has nothing to do with wealth... or even education. I know any number of well-to-do lawyers, doctors, and business people who are very intelligent... but haven't the least interest in opera or poetry or painting. Classical music was never a "popular" art form in the sense of it appealing to a majority of the populace but the numbers show that the percentage of the overall music sales claimed by classical music while small in comparison to pop music, has held steady for the past 20 years. I doubt were going to see classical music either die out... or show some great gains in popularity.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> ... is this really about music... or about your personal class hatred? ...


Probably is actually to a degree, but I don't think I'm more biased than anyone else here, I just expose it more (& its why I'm avoiding it here, I let my views outside of classical mix with those inside, and its hard to differentiate them).

But the wider issue is that the post war decades saw _real _growth in many areas, not only music of course. It was actually before my time, but I look at what was done then compared to now (I mean actually done, not just on paper or on a computer screen), and whats going on today pales in comparison. So maybe its less 'class hatred' and more nostalgia for a time where things where actually happening in reality, not just in theory but in practice, and it included a large part of the whole society.

But anyway, this is the crux of the issue -



> ...
> It is quite likely that there are too many orchestras and other ensembles all competing for the same audience...


So what I'm saying is yes, there are heaps of talented classical musicians out there. But not enough jobs for them, not all of them will get a permanent chair in a symphony orchestra, obviously. Of course it doesn't stop people from being creative, doing things like making their own smaller ensemble or doing things on the side (or as a main thing) as a necessity to make a living in/around music (eg. teaching). No wonder many musicians from outside classical - eg. pop, rock, jazz, etc. - have some training (or are fully trained) in classical but decide to go into another area. I mean this was going on way back, Nina Simone is the prime example, and Sarah Vaughan could have become an opera singer, but chose jazz. The late Jon Lord is another example.

So as to the original question of this thread I'd say, yeah the classical musicians of today are as 'good' (however you want to define that) as of yesteryear. But the 'golden age' of classical music itself is now over, for reasons like changes in society and economy, effecting what music more people prefer, and a whole lot of other things. So yeah they are good but they don't have the ideal conditions that earlier generations of classical musicians where blessed with.

But everything has to come to an end, or reach a peak at least, look at the great civilisations of the past.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It seems to me that the music by Monteverdi, Handel, Vivaldi, Biber, Zelenka, Gesualdo, Hildegard of Bingen being rediscovered is as important as the finest music from any other era.




I'm currently exploring this area for the first time, and it's really too soon for me to make any definitive comment, but I'm pretty upset at what I'm finding. Bach's cantatas are bursting with passion and emotion, I love every second of those, but i'm having trouble peeling away the levels of technique and "proper" performances of some of Bach's contemporaries to find the nugget of humanity inside. It might have something to do with the period instruments. When I hear baroque HIP violins or harpsichord, it just sounds so emotionally opaque. Maybe I haven't found it yet. I'm still trying.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Comparisons of market share and audience size are nearly impossible lacking any solid data. Considering the comparatively small number of professional orchestras and opera companies in the US before WWII...




Too much to read, but I got as far as this and bells started going off. You're off by a very wide margin. American orchestras and opera companies began in the last half of the 19th century, and by the beginning of WW2, there were world class orchestras in just about every major American city.

If you want to know how this era worked, read Stokowski's biography. It's fascinating reading.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

STLUKES.

I think there is a problem with your imigration figures. "Between 1933--1941 approximately 240,000 Jews alone found sanctuary in the USA,,,overcoming xenophobia and anti-semitism to emerge as a major force in American culture and science."
Dr. Eric D. Kohler---the Wiesenthal Center.
There were also many non-Jewish refugees.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

STLUKES.

I think there is a problem with your imigration figures. "Between 1933--1941 approximately 240,000 Jews alone found sanctuary in the USA,,,overcoming xenophobia and anti-semitism to emerge as a major force in American culture and science."
Dr. Eric D. Kohler---the Wiesenthal Center.
There were also many non-Jewish refugees.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^The parents of Bernstein, Copland, Gershwin (all European Jews) went to live in USA around or before 1900, I think there was a huge influx of immigrants to USA at that time. I mean Copland was born in Brooklyn, in 1900. These earlier waves of immigration definitely had impact on classical music in the USA later, as these three guys careers attest to.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

It occurs to me that in the 80s - people were buying a ot of re-issues of the golden masters from the 50s, 60s. (Karajan, Ricci, Callas, Ansermet, Monteux, Backhaus, Klemperer etc)
So that means that today - Gardiner, Kennedy, Muti, Rattle, Marriner are the golden age performers for buyers today as the timescale is similar (2012 lookng back to the 80s).
So where is there more interest today - in 50s 60s artists - or in 80s artists recordings?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

As far as early music is concerned, even pre-late Beethoven, on the whole and broadly speaking, the breadth and depth of performance quality of the repertoire have widen by miles, way beyond what artists might have dreamt of say, three decades or more ago, largely thanks to efforts of early music groups. Even within great composers like JS Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Haydn etc. etc., their complete oeuvre have been recorded and are still recorded and performed by new artists.

Let's illustrate with a good example. Today I was delighted to learn of a third version of Handel's opera _Rodelinda_ on DVD/Blu-ray (not even counting the number of versions now available on CD). First performed and with some revivals by Handel in the 1720s, 1730s, and then forgotten for two centuries, then revived in very debased form in 1920 by Oskar Hagen, but a true revival was not until in the 1980s, and has now made it sway back firmly into Baroque opera repertoire. A third new production to be released on DVD/Blu-ray with Renée Fleming and Andreas Scholl scheduled for October 2012 under early music specialist Harry Bicket with The Metropolitan Opera Orchestra.

The point here with _Rodelinda_ is that we now have top singers (Fleming and Scholl) taking seriously Baroque roles that top record companies are willing to put money at (Decca, Universal in this case) betting that the market is strong, despite two other DVD productions and many other CD recordings available. I think this is a tremendously healthy sign for classical music. The future is competitive, the future is full of revivals of older music, and choice will be very strong for us all, whether you are interested in Handel or Hutchenruyter.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Karajan is the peak of the golden age. no contest.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I think the trend is towards better technical ability and less interesting interpretations. That's true of orchestras and pianists at least.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> As far as early music is concerned, even pre-late Beethoven, on the whole and broadly speaking, the breadth and depth of performance quality of the repertoire have widen by miles, way beyond what artists might have dreamt of say, three decades or more ago, largely thanks to efforts of early music groups. Even within great composers like JS Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Haydn etc. etc., their complete oeuvre have been recorded and are still recorded and performed by new artists.
> 
> Let's illustrate with a good example. Today I was delighted to learn of a third version of Handel's opera _Rodelinda_ on DVD/Blu-ray (not even counting the number of versions now available on CD). First performed and with some revivals by Handel in the 1720s, 1730s, and then forgotten for two centuries, then revived in very debased form in 1920 by Oskar Hagen, but a true revival was not until in the 1980s, and has now made it sway back firmly into Baroque opera repertoire. A third new production to be released on DVD/Blu-ray with Renée Fleming and Andreas Scholl scheduled for October 2012 under early music specialist Harry Bicket with The Metropolitan Opera Orchestra.
> 
> The point here with _Rodelinda_ is that we now have top singers (Fleming and Scholl) taking seriously Baroque roles that top record companies are willing to put money at (Decca, Universal in this case) betting that the market is strong, despite two other DVD productions and many other CD recordings available. I think this is a tremendously healthy sign for classical music. The future is competitive, the future is full of revivals of older music, and choice will be very strong for us all, whether you are interested in Handel or Hutchenruyter.


The reason Decca put money into Handel operas is because the mainstream market is saturated - 30 Figaros for example. And the smart money is now on previously unrecorded repertoire.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

stomanek said:


> It occurs to me that in the 80s - people were buying a ot of re-issues of the golden masters from the 50s, 60s. (Karajan, Ricci, Callas, Ansermet, Monteux, Backhaus, Klemperer etc)
> So that means that today - Gardiner, Kennedy, Muti, Rattle, Marriner are the golden age performers for buyers today as the timescale is similar (2012 lookng back to the 80s).
> So where is there more interest today - in 50s 60s artists - or in 80s artists recordings?


It doesn't work like that, a performance does not improve like wine .A lousy performance is just as lousy at budget price as at full.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

STLUKES.

I think there is a problem with your imigration figures. "Between 1933--1941 approximately 240,000 Jews alone found sanctuary in the USA,,,overcoming xenophobia and anti-semitism to emerge as a major force in American culture and science."
Dr. Eric D. Kohler---the Wiesenthal Center.
There were also many non-Jewish refugees.

Well... as I noted, the statistics seem to vary widely. Another source reads:

From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the United States. In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law. The peak year of European immigration was in 1907, when 1,285,349 persons entered the country.[ By 1910, 13.5 million immigrants were living in the United States. In 1921, the Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The 1924 Act was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans, especially Jews, Italians, and Slavs, who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. Most of the European refugees fleeing the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States.

Immigration patterns of the 1930s were dominated by the Great Depression, which hit the U.S. hard and lasted over ten years there. In the final prosperous year, 1929, there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933, only 23,068 came to the U.S. In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it. The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands were deported against their will.[25] Altogether about 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated. In the post-war era, the Justice Department launched Operation *******, under which 1,075,168 Mexicans were deported in 1954.

Although thousands of Jews had been admitted into the United States under the combined German-Austrian quota from 1938-1941, the US did not pursue an organized and specific rescue policy for Jewish victims of Nazi Germany until early 1944.

-United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Ushmm.org. April 2012
-American Heritage Magazine
-_The Great Depression_- Steve Hanke


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Maybe this has already been addressed, though I didn't see it on the last three pages. But, I was wondering if part of the difference between the "man in the street" in the 1940's, let's say, and today, is that none of the organizations that are active in popular culture are interested in putting out "what's good for people" anymore?

It was certainly true in early TV that the networks deliberately programmed a great deal of "highbrow" material, not because of a huge popular demand, but because of a kind of editorial policy. It's easy to look at early TV programs featuring opera singers and classical orchestras and conclude that average people of that time must have really been interested in that stuff. But, were they really? I knew people in the late 50's and early 60's who had a passing acquaintance with some of the bigger names, like Heifetz and Rubenstein, but most of them also thought that Liberace was a serious musician. I wonder if the "average person" of the 1940's or 1950's was really any different from the average person of today if you take away some of the material that was essentially being force-fed to them back then?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The difference was that they brought the music to the people. They didn't expect the people to raise themselves up to the music. Today, high culture is often administered like nasty tasting cough syrup.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Today is the golden age.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The difference was that they brought the music to the people. They didn't expect the people to raise themselves up to the music. Today, high culture is often administered like nasty tasting cough syrup.


I don't know about that. Looking at some of those old videoed studio performances I get more the feeling of nasty tasting cough syrup than I do today watching the Proms from Great Britain, the outdoor festival in Berlin, or Tanglewood on PBS.

Maybe it would help me understand your point better if you would provide an example of this nasty tasting cough syrup today?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Maybe this has already been addressed, though I didn't see it on the last three pages. But, I was wondering if part of the difference between the "man in the street" in the 1940's, let's say, and today, is that none of the organizations that are active in popular culture are interested in putting out "what's good for people" anymore?
> 
> It was certainly true in early TV that the networks deliberately programmed a great deal of "highbrow" material, not because of a huge popular demand, but because of a kind of editorial policy. It's easy to look at early TV programs featuring opera singers and classical orchestras and conclude that average people of that time must have really been interested in that stuff. But, were they really? I knew people in the late 50's and early 60's who had a passing acquaintance with some of the bigger names, like Heifetz and Rubenstein, but most of them also thought that Liberace was a serious musician. I wonder if the "average person" of the 1940's or 1950's was really any different from the average person of today if you take away some of the material that was essentially being force-fed to them back then?


The programmes put out by NBC with Toscanini were listened to ,and welcomed by thousands nobody was being forcefed!
You have to consider the huge Italian population that was present and the Irish who also love music.
I don't think that NBC was going to raise an orchestra from the best in the country to force anybody. When you consider that Detroit and Cleveland have world class orchestras when they are the equivalent of Reading and Slough in the UK. America has always seemed big on culture to me.
The TV programmes you speak of were presented by commercial companies, particulary Firestone----such companies don't waste money for no return either.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Maybe it would help me understand your point better if you would provide an example of this nasty tasting cough syrup today?


It's a lot easier to give examples of bringing the music to the people, because no one likes cough syrup, so the doses doled out in the media are geting few and far between. But back in the early days, opera stars regularly appeared on variety shows like Sullivan and Firestone. Classical concerts were broadcast on the radio with hosts that chatted about the music in ways that would interest average people. Even children's shows featured classical music in fun ways that kids could get into.

Today, it seems that classical music, when it appears at all in the media, is aimed at cogniscenti. There are a few exceptions like Tilson Thomas's Keeping Score series.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I guess what I was remembering was a show that recently aired on PBS about the early days of TV. They talked about classical music programming and made the claim that it was not due to popular demand but because the sponsors and the networks in the early days of TV saw the medium as much as a way to _educate_ the masses as to entertain.

Some of what was said there seems to be echoed in this Wikipedia article on the Firestone program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_of_Firestone

Notice in particular, at the end, how the Firestone people had a personal interest in this kind of programming. The article shows that, although there was a very vocal audience of fans, the show was not a popular success.

I'm sure that a lot of people tuned in to the radio broadcasts and TV shows of the early days that featured classical music, but you still have to wonder how much of the attention was due to the fascination with the new media themselves and how much was due to fascination with the programming. If you wanted to get in on the new technology, you more or less had to take what programming they gave you, didn't you? At least, up to a point.

I'm not disputing the idea that there were loyal followers of these programs. But, at the same time, in the earliest days of both media (radio & TV), there were not the variety of options we have today, and the networks hadn't yet fully developed the completely cutthroat mentality toward ratings that they soon developed.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in actual numbers of _devoted_ viewers, modern audiences would not compare quite favorably with those of the 1950's. Percentage-wise, maybe not, but in numbers alone.....

In other words, if you'd even the playing field and give viewers today only two or three programming choices on TV and one of them featured classical music, wouldn't you get pretty much the same results?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

It's true that their intent was to raise up culture, but when they set out to make those culture programs they made an effort to make it interesting for general audiences. PBS was the last network attempting to do this, but I don't see them making as much of an effort any more.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

moody said:


> It doesn't work like that, a performance does not improve like wine .A lousy performance is just as lousy at budget price as at full.


You misunderstood my post.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

stomanek said:


> You misunderstood my post.


Sorry---it is impossible to answer. I suppose it depends on the type of buyer are they knowledgeable or not?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> Maybe this has already been addressed, though I didn't see it on the last three pages. But, I was wondering if part of the difference between the "man in the street" in the 1940's, let's say, and today, is that none of the organizations that are active in popular culture are interested in putting out "what's good for people" anymore?
> 
> It was certainly true in early TV that the networks deliberately programmed a great deal of "highbrow" material, not because of a huge popular demand, but because of a kind of editorial policy...


Well talking of Australia, the ABC - the public national broadcaster (tv, radio, now digital technologies, etc.) - in the post-war decades had some of that thing going, of broadcasting 'high culture.' It was about access, not the profit oriented models of today. About doing something for the public good, not just men in suits making a buck. I don't deny the importance of profit, I see classical music as a business like any other, but I think that at the same time a good deal of the idealism and down to earth quality of that time has been lost.

But an amazing story from the post war years was a radio broadcast nationwide of Mahler's music, which some listeners then heard for the first time. & the ABC got lots of letters - from some people far out of the cities, from sheep and cattle stations way out there - saying how they connected with the feeling of desolation and loneliness expressed in 'The song of the earth.' I mean it was sung in German and a few years ago, Australians where fighting the Germans and her allies (incl. Austria!). There was still a stigma attached to that and yet people went beyond that.

& what do we have now? I've said this story enough. People last year, on the centenary of Mahler's death, here they walked out on a performance in Sydney of his 9th symphony. So they don't just take it in like before, they escape it. They want something 'fluffy.' Anyway this is off track, but I'm cynical of the situation now sometimes. Comes across as bullsh*t quite frankly, when people escape from Mahler. All they want is...well, I can't say, can I? Sacred cow disconnected from reality?



Vesteralen said:


> ...
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in actual numbers of _devoted_ viewers, modern audiences would not compare quite favorably with those of the 1950's. Percentage-wise, maybe not, but in numbers alone.....


Yeah but I'd guess the average age of today's classical listener is above 50, and many are seniors (over 65). So I'm focussed on that, which links to sustainability.



bigshot said:


> The difference was that they brought the music to the people. They didn't expect the people to raise themselves up to the music. Today, high culture is often administered like nasty tasting cough syrup.


Yeah but if we give people 'high culture' the way many like it - eg. the 'Three tenors' concerts - highbrows say its rubbish, its not 'real' culture. They just want 'the people' to have, I don't know, something 'deep' and 'highbrow.' Some dichotomy (again). I don't know what you mean by people raising 'themselves up to the music.' But apart from that, this has gone on always. Gershwin's 'Porgy and Bess' was said by jazz enthusiasts to be ripping off jazz, and by highbrows to be an old style 'numbers opera.' But its a very sophisticated work, Gershwin was very influenced by Berg's 'Wozzeck' for example. But what I'm saying that since everyone knows songs from 'Porgy and Bess,' which have become jazz stadards (even Janis Joplin did a cover of 'Summertime'), it automatically becomes 'lowbrow.' Its not 'real' culture, but this has nothing to do with the music, its to do with (suprise!) some dogmatic views.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think the problem is the venue. People don't go to concert halls any more. Classical music needs to go beyond the 19th century and reach people where they are... Through the internet, mobile devices, streaming services to homes, etc.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

People last year, on the centenary of Mahler's death, here they walked out on a performance in Sydney of his 9th symphony. So they don't just take it in like before, they escape it. They want something 'fluffy.' 

But I thought the opinions of the "man on the street" is what matters to you... so if they want "fluffy music" why complain?

Personally, unless the performance of the Mahler 9th was particularly bad, I half think you're making this up. It's not like Cleveland, where I live, is the cultural capital of the US or anything. This is a filthy old rust-belt industrial city... and yet the Cleveland Orchestra proudly promotes programs featuring Mahler, Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, Lutoslawski, Pintscher, Bruckner, Berlioz, etc... and I have never seen any mass exodus.

All they want is...well, I can't say, can I? Sacred cow disconnected from reality?

I suspect this "they"... this hypothetical classical music audience who want nothing but Mozart and Beethoven... is all in your head. Certainly any major orchestra must offer a good amount of the old standards that will be familiar to those who are not deeply interested in classical music... but still like to go to a concert from time to time and hear something recognizable. Looking at the Cleveland Orchestra's schedule... and I assume they are not unlike most other major America orchestras... they offer a wide spectrum of music. In the summer months they give outdoor concerts in an open-air amphitheatre where the audience can sit out on the lawn with a picnic lunch and a bottle of wine. The last concert of last summer featured the music by a contemporary Cleveland composer and Beethoven's 9th. It rained steadily for the duration of the concert... and yet the majority stayed, hovering under plastic tarps. The music offered by the orchestra ranges from light music... intended to attract an audience that might not otherwise consider attending the orchestra, including jazz, and pops and music from classic films or cartoons (played with the scenes from these films/cartoons projected behind the orchestra; to the mainstream core repertoire, and on to Modern and even some contemporary orchestral music. Again... I simply do not see this monolithic close-minded approach to classical music that you repeatedly rail against like Don Qixote and his windmills.

Yeah but I'd guess the average age of today's classical listener is above 50, and many are seniors (over 65). So I'm focussed on that, which links to sustainability.

According to the NEA (US National Endowment of the Arts) 10% of the paying audience for classical music are between 18-24 years old; 28% of the audience is 34 and younger; and 46% is age 45 or younger. The demographic of age connect with those of education, as 50-58% of the classical music audience are college graduates, and 45% have a household income of $75,000 US+ Honestly, the orchestra and the opera were not something I could have afforded on a regular basis as a college student or recent college grant. However, I did benefit from free tickets to both the orchestra and the opera as part of their community outreach programs... and my experience of a live opera (Aida) turned me into a life-long opera fan... so it would appear they are doing something right.

Vesteralen- Maybe this has already been addressed, though I didn't see it on the last three pages. But, I was wondering if part of the difference between the "man in the street" in the 1940's, let's say, and today, is that none of the organizations that are active in popular culture are interested in putting out "what's good for people" anymore?

I don't know if I would term it "what's good for the people"... but I agree that the mass media and popular culture shows little interest in aesthetic merit at all (classical music or otherwise). The goal is to reach the largest possible demographic... and that commonly means playing to the lowest common denominator. What has really changed is that popular culture has become the absolute dominant part of the whole of culture. When you watch the old films from the 1930s and 40s you are just as likely to come across classical music and even opera in the films, TV, and the radio as you were popular music (To this day I remember Alfafa singing the Barber of Saville on the Little Rascals reruns, and Stokowsky on Bugs Bunny Cartoons). In the 1950s you still had classical music and jazz and Frank Sinatra... as well as Elvis and Little Richard. Stokowsky and Toscanini and Sinatra and Tony Bennett were recognizable figures... icons... in a way that almost no musician outside of pop music is today. Almost no one outside of the audience of classical music fans has any idea who Simon Rattle or John Eliot Gardiner, or Placido Domingo... or even Anna Netrebko is. This has absolutely nothing to do with the talents of these musicians, and everything to do with the fact that the vast machinery of the mass media is focused upon the popular youth culture.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well talking of Australia, the ABC - the public national broadcaster (tv, radio, now digital technologies, etc.) - in the post-war decades had some of that thing going, of broadcasting 'high culture.' It was about access, not the profit oriented models of today. About doing something for the public good, not just men in suits making a buck. I don't deny the importance of profit, I see classical music as a business like any other, but I think that at the same time a good deal of the idealism and down to earth quality of that time has been lost.
> 
> But an amazing story from the post war years was a radio broadcast nationwide of Mahler's music, which some listeners then heard for the first time. & the ABC got lots of letters - from some people far out of the cities, from sheep and cattle stations way out there - saying how they connected with the feeling of desolation and loneliness expressed in 'The song of the earth.' I mean it was sung in German and a few years ago, Australians where fighting the Germans and her allies (incl. Austria!). There was still a stigma attached to that and yet people went beyond that.
> 
> ...


Well, what in your view are the ideal world of classical music industry and listeners?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^(to stlukes) - You don't seem to get it, what I'm saying is that the ordinary person is no fool. My parents where like that, they got into classical in the post-war period, their parents had little love for it.

So where the people of all types, who lined the streets of NEw York in 1990, to farewell Lenny (as they did in the UK when Princess Diana died). There were workers in New York, came to line the street from building sites in their work clothes. These people, the way Bernstein and others touched them in whatever way, that's what I'm saying. He meant something to the whole of that city (and beyond) he was not just some guy on a podium waving a stick. I wonder if New Yorkers now care that much for or know the current conductor, Alan Gilbert? Its not dissing Gilbert, *its just the simple fact that the relationship/dynamic between classical musicians and the wider society has changed.*

And read what I said above about that story, how post-war Australians (across the whole country) responded to 'Das Liede von Erde' without hearing it before. They just needed their ears. & btw, I was not making the anecdote about people here walking out on Mahler up. I even did a thread on it before, dealing with people who walk out at interval or during a concert. http://www.talkclassical.com/15004-concertgoers-who-leave-during.html

So its what I'm saying, I'm over with this thread now, I just think that the 'golden age' of classical - which to me means its wider relevance to the whole society - is over. Now its basically a kind of museum piece, or kind of on the edge of being that, but I'm half hopeful that things can change for the better. & it will never die out, just maybe be dormant for a while.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^(to stlukes) - You don't seem to get it, what I'm saying is that the ordinary person is no fool. My parents where like that, they got into classical in the post-war period, their parents had little love for it.


That isn't true at all. You have to be a record collector to know what peoples' tastes were in different eras. I collect 78s from around 1900 to the late 1920s. The most common records from this era were the Sextette from Lucia and the Rigoletto Quartet with Caruso. Just about every thrift store with 78s has a couple of copies of these, usually for a buck. It's that common.

When the Victrola was introduced, Victor embarked on a huge campaign to market their Red Seal records. Everyone who had a phonograph had Red Seals of opera arias or orchestral music. This was the music of common people up to the end of WWI when tin pan alley and dance bands started to chip away at the market for classical music. During the depression, Victor dropped the price of its Red Seal line and sold truckloads of classical music.

Classical music was a part of life for average people from the earliest days of recording until the Beatles cleared the decks and homoginized the record business.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yes, my grandparents generation would have listened to some classical. Of course Caruso was huge, and things like Schubert songs where known, other tenors like John McCormack, songs from operetta, stuff like that. But my parents generation - coming to age after 1945, with the vinyl LP era and TV - they knew way more classical. I in turn know more classical rep than my parents, but I am not typical of my generation. So I was comparing the pre-1945 generation/s relative to the post-1945 ones.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

My father liked Karajan as a conductor more than others (he was listening to classic music in 70s and 80s). He liked Beethoven, Mozart, Korsakov, Johann Strauss and Tchaikovsky mostly. ... I just say the name Stockhausen (I just like repeating that, so German to pronounce!) and he said to me "don't even talk about him" and that he was "crackpot". :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

re: Sid James & SLGO: 

I think you're both right, actually, but you're talking about different things. SJ's mostly talking about cultural change and working class listeners and live performance, and SLGO's mostly talking about absolute numbers and an elite minority of listeners and diversity of recordings. Probably true that classical music used to saturate western society in a way that it hasn't since '68 or so; probably also true that there's enough young fans in most Western cities to keep it going for a few more decades. 

Perhaps one of the biggest changes is the total loss of respect for elites. Although it had been eroding for centuries, the lower classes continued to have a fundamental attitude of deference to the upper classes (aristocracy, then the bourgeois elite) until the late '60s. It's all gone now, for better and for worse. No longer will a folk/pop musician (or her fans) defer to a classical musician, and no longer could a classical musician get away with openly scorning those traditions - and though some classical fans would definitely openly scorn other traditions of music, they are a decreasing minority. I'd bet quite a bit of money that the majority of people on this site, people self-selected for love of classical music, would express appreciation for jazz, and/or at least some rock, and/or at least some electronica, and/or at least some western folk music, and/or at least some non-western music. The point is that even if some of them would be lying, they'd feel the need to do so, most of the people who would refuse to would probably be people who are usually trying to stir the pot - which is precisely the opposite of how it was fifty years ago. And the result is that classical fans get more exposure to those other traditions, and at least some of us wind up loving them, the way that two or three generations ago (and for a few centuries before that) working class people exposed themselves to classical music more often, and probably wound up loving it more often.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Are today's performers/conductors as good as in the golden age?


Yes.

(Wanted to be brief, only vBulletin won't let me post a three-letter answer!)


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

An academic report discussing music consumption and Bourdieu´s theories, including statistics from the Spanish public and emphasizing the increasingly multi-facetted taste among the public:

http://uab.academia.edu/JordiLópezS...onciling_Bourdieus_theory_of_taste_with_facts

Surprisingly, listening to classical music is no longer associated with being wealthy economically, it seems, at least there. As far as I remember, this is a contrast to Bourdieu´s times. Whether Spain is typical can of course be discussed.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> My father liked Karajan as a conductor more than others (he was listening to classic music in 70s and 80s). He liked Beethoven, Mozart, Korsakov, Johann Strauss and Tchaikovsky mostly. ... I just say the name Stockhausen (I just like repeating that, so German to pronounce!) and he said to me "don't even talk about him" and that he was "crackpot". :lol:


Your father isn't too far from the mark there.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> Perhaps one of the biggest changes is the total loss of respect for elites.


Although elites may have paid for culture, they didn't create it. The people that modern society really undervalues are talented artists.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Although elites may have paid for culture, they didn't create it. The people that modern society really undervalues are talented artists.


I didn't mean to say that anyone was undervalued. Just that things have changed.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think artsts are undervalued in our culture. Many people think iPods make music and that's all they need to spend their money on.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> re: Sid James & SLGO:
> 
> I think you're both right, actually, but you're talking about different things. SJ's mostly talking about cultural change and working class listeners and live performance, and SLGO's mostly talking about absolute numbers and an elite minority of listeners and diversity of recordings. Probably true that classical music used to saturate western society in a way that it hasn't since '68 or so; probably also true that there's enough young fans in most Western cities to keep it going for a few more decades...


I think I kind of derailed the thread, but my point is that its less important to compare 'old timer' musicians to those of today, its more important to look at why some people see the post-war period (or thereabouts) as a 'golden age' of classical music compared to what's going on today.



> ...
> Perhaps one of the biggest changes is the total loss of respect for elites. Although it had been eroding for centuries, the lower classes continued to have a fundamental attitude of deference to the upper classes (aristocracy, then the bourgeois elite) until the late '60s. It's all gone now, for better and for worse. No longer will a folk/pop musician (or her fans) defer to a classical musician, and no longer could a classical musician get away with openly scorning those traditions - and though some classical fans would definitely openly scorn other traditions of music, they are a decreasing minority. I'd bet quite a bit of money that the majority of people on this site, people self-selected for love of classical music, would express appreciation for jazz, and/or at least some rock, and/or at least some electronica, and/or at least some western folk music, and/or at least some non-western music. The point is that even if some of them would be lying, they'd feel the need to do so, most of the people who would refuse to would probably be people who are usually trying to stir the pot - which is precisely the opposite of how it was fifty years ago. And the result is that classical fans get more exposure to those other traditions, and at least some of us wind up loving them, the way that two or three generations ago (and for a few centuries before that) working class people exposed themselves to classical music more often, and probably wound up loving it more often.


I think there's always been a 'give and take' between so-called 'high' and 'low' arts, esp. music. I can site many examples going way back and I think its obvious. Many composers of course played to the 'highbrow' market as well as the more 'popular' market. Look at salon music and encore pieces, a good deal of them were penned by 'serious' and 'great' composers in their day.

And classical musos have been collaborating with those of other genres for yonks. Eg. Yehudi Menuhin who worked with Ravi Shankar and Stephane Grapelli. Guys like Yo Yo Ma have done exactly the same thing. & it's hard to separate the pop culture influences, and other things like world music influences, on many classical composers now. What I'm saying is I agree with you. The old dichotomies are like gone, or almost gone. So there is this shift, but its been going on for ages.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Although elites may have paid for culture, they didn't create it. The people that modern society really undervalues are talented artists.

The traditional visual arts are perhaps the last major artistic genre to have been impacted by popular culture. Literature became increasingly concerned with a populist audience with the development of the printing press. By the late 1500s we have the nascent "novels" of Rabelais... and by the mid-1700s the novel... read by an increasingly literate audience... has become a major literary form. The innovation of sound recording had a stupendous impact upon music. Not only did it make Beethoven and Mozart accessible to the masses, but it also allowed the modern equivalent of the "folk musician" to compete on the same terms through recordings. It is interesting that one of the biggest debates in classical music centers upon an elitist approach to music vs a populist approach. I'm exaggerating here... but then again, how often do we read of Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff or Puccini or Copland, or Johann Strauss II and Offenbach being dismissed as "lightweight"... while Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Boulez, Xenakis, and Stockhausen are championed as intellectually rigorous... by the same audience who would bristle at any notion of being "elitist snobs"? But what chance of survival do Schoenberg and Stockhausen have if we consider the opinions of the broader populist audience?

Again... the visual arts... painting and sculpture (and conceptual art) have avoided this debate between the elite audience and the masses... for the simple reason that these art forms are still almost exclusively accessible (in terms of ownership) only to the very wealthy. As I have joked before, I cannot afford my own paintings.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I think I kind of derailed the thread, but my point is that its less important to compare 'old timer' musicians to those of today, its more important to look at why some people see the post-war period (or thereabouts) as a 'golden age' of classical music compared to what's going on today.


It was mentioned earlier in this thread, but to call the 1950s the golden age ignores a half century of recorded music that came before that. Performers didn't get better in the 1950s, recording technology did.

Leopold Stokowski left the Philadelphia Orchestra in the late 1930s. He had made his reputation throughout the teens and 20s. Caruso died in 1921. McCormack, Schumann-Heink, Galli-Curci... I could repeat the list that Moody gave you... all performed in the teens and twenties. Another batch in the 30s... Melchior, Toscanini, Walter, Klemperer... All famous in the 30s, and there really aren't performers comparable to them today.

Check out this photo from 1929
http://www.wclv.com/page.php?pageID=671

If you think that the golden age was in the fifties, you're missing the mark by at least three decades. You might want to investigate the rich legacy of classical music that exists outside your frame of reference.

I'm trying hard to phrase this in the absurd way the moderators want me to. Feel free to pm me if you want me to translate into plain English.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bigshot said:


> It was mentioned earlier in this thread, but to call the 1950s the golden age ignores a half century of recorded music that came before that. Performers didn't get better in the 1950s, recording technology did...


I would not argue with that or the gist of what you're saying. But I did say the post-war period or thereabouts. I think that there is validity in questioning the label 'the golden age,' because there have been many 'golden ages' streching back to the beginning of recordings and way before. Its just a label and has its limitations like everything else. So I'm generally differentiating between today and some period where a kind of shift occured. I see it as about 1990, more or less. Then some of those 'ambassadors' of classical music died. eg. von Karajan, Bernstein, Horowitz, and so on. How one defines 'golden age' or its timeframe will differ from person to person.



> ....
> Leopold Stokowski left the Philadelphia Orchestra in the late 1930s. He had made his reputation throughout the teens and 20s. Caruso died in 1921. McCormack, Schumann-Heink, Galli-Curci... I could repeat the list that Moody gave you... all performed in the teens and twenties. Another batch in the 30s... Melchior, Toscanini, Walter, Klemperer... All famous in the 30s, and there really aren't performers comparable to them today.
> 
> Check out this photo from 1929
> ...


Great photo! Never saw it before. As the paragraph at the bottom says, the end of the Weimar Republic and coming of fascism in Europe would disperse these guys, some to the USA (of course Furtwangler stayed, and I think Kleiber was involved in the anti-Nazi resistance). So that was the end of another era (and a beginning of a 'new' one?).



> ...
> If you think that the golden age was in the fifties, you're missing the mark by at least three decades. You might want to investigate the rich legacy of classical music that exists outside your frame of reference.
> 
> I'm trying hard to phrase this in the absurd way the moderators want me to. Feel free to pm me if you want me to translate into plain English.


I am not a specialist like you in pre-war recordings but I've heard some of the key ones and I am continuing to explore. Eg. my favourite recording by far of Mahler's 9th is that by Bruno Walter in 1938, and I can name some other recordings like that which I would not go without.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Pre war as in pre WWI...

Opera was at its peak in the teens. Nothing today compares. These were recorded mechanically. No microphone. No electricity. On an acoustic phonograph they get loud enough to hear three doors down the block.



















By the way, the Caruso link has two recordings of the same song... 1908 and 1914 or thereabouts. The reason that he rerecorded it was because Victor sold so many copies, they totally wore out all the mothers and stampers.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I just found your post, and this forum, so this is a very belated reply to a two year old post! Your link to Caruso singing M'appari really takes me back. It was the first proper recording of opera I had ever heard (I.e. not Mario Lanza or the 3 tenors- shudder!) I had randomly found the 78 in a box of dance band records, which for some reason I was into when I was 13 or 14. It was a reissue from the 40s I think, which had a new orchestral backing track added- not the best decision by HMV probably, though I suppose such gimmicks helped keep the late tenor's name in the minds of the public and so introduced opera to those of us who might have remained indifferent. Now, I have to say I don't really like Caruso's heavy, strenuous type of singing, but without him (and my eternally beloved John McCormack of course) I might never have thought of going further back in time and finding the voices of Tamagno, de Lucia, Marconi, Signoretti, Viñas, Valero... to say nothing of other voice types. (Not that you would find discs of these singers in boxes of Ambrose or Roy Fox records in provincial chattels auctions- I'm talking CD reissues of course.) 
So thanks very much for your post- it does me good to read of others who share my apparently weird proclivities for pre WW1 vocal records and I had quite forgotten that old Caruso disc I used to have!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Nobody in recent times has been better than Charles Munch, Wilhelm Furtwängler and Arturo Toscanini in their primes.
These guys all had strong personalities.
What I hear conducted these days might as well be conducted by a computer.

Therefore my answer is NO!!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Nobody in recent times has been better than Charles Munch, Wilhelm Furtwängler and Arturo Toscanini in their primes.
> These guys all had strong personalities.
> What I hear conducted these days might as well be conducted by a computer.
> 
> Therefore my answer is NO!!!


I don't hear it that way at all.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

The answer to the OP's question is "Yes."

Next question?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Again, this question does not allow for a simple yes or no answer. There are Historic performances that I feel are "essential"... and in many cases unsurpassed. But the same is true of many more recent recordings. IMO there are no real Historic recordings to match many of the recent HIP recordings of Bach, Handel, Gluck, Vivaldi, Corelli... indeed, much of the Baroque and most of the realm of "Early Music" as a whole. In many instances, there are recordings from the Historic era and from the more contemporary era that are of equal merit. For example, I would not be without either Karajan's or Bohm's recordings of Mozart's _Cosi fan tutte_... both with Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. Yet at the same time, I cannot imagine being without René Jacobs' brilliant recording or the Glyndebourne production of the same on DVD.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> StlukesguildOhio: Again, this question does not allow for a simple yes or no answer. There are Historic performances that I feel are "essential"... and in many cases unsurpassed. But the same is true of many more recent recordings. IMO there are no real Historic recordings to match many of the recent HIP recordings of Bach, Handel, Gluck, Vivaldi, Corelli... indeed, much of the Baroque and most of the realm of "Early Music" as a whole. In many instances, there are recordings from the Historic era and from the more contemporary era that are of equal merit. For example, I would not be without either Karajan's or Bohm's recordings of Mozart's Cosi fan tutte... both with Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. Yet at the same time, I cannot imagine being without René Jacobs' brilliant recording or the Glyndebourne production of the same on DVD.


<in rapid succession>: "Ping! Ping!"


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Fine. Line up 4 of today's "star" violinists. Can you easily identify who's playing?

Line up Milstein, Heifetz, Francescatti and Stern. Easily discernible. No comparison.

Don't even get me started on the great golden age singers vs present time crooners.


----------

