# CM - Are standards of musicianship rising?



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

People often rave about the old days, but to be honest, when I listen to violinists or orchestras playing classical music, I often find I prefer today's performances. The old ones often seem a bit schmaltzy; the new ones allow me to listen & form my own opinions.

Playing musical instruments to a high level was linked to 'class' issues such as wealth & an elite education even in the middle of the last century. But now all the world and his wife have internet access to good music, and more people are going to university. Even though the proportion of classical music lovers may have fallen, the actual number of enthusiasts across the globe has risen - or so I believe. There must be more competition for the top places & the standard could have risen for that reason.

Or maybe it's just because I'm a person of my time and prefer the modern performances because they're in fashion, whereas in my parents' and grandparents' time, the milking-it style was all the rage.

Here I go, wittering on - a person who's formed an impression based on only a modicum of knowledge & experience.

I'd love to know what Talk Classical musicians & listeners think.

Thanks in advance for any replies.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

If you are talking about top virtuoso performers, Players today are probably just as good as players from the past.

but if you are talking about musicianship in this day and age versus an era from the past, I don't know about that. We have more leisure time now, so there are more people with time and money to buy instruments and play them

But on the other hand, the opportunities to perform have dwindled, so there are not as many professional local musicians. I think that there are probably more good amateur players today than in the past, but I'm not so sure that the bar for a "good amateur" player hasn't come down. 

I think I'm looking at it more from the perspective of a local musician, which I am. So from my chair it seems that there are more people playing but fewer chances to perform for everybody.

I think that brings the overall bar down because while there are more people playing, they aren't getting out and performing


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

In general, the level of musicianship today is higher than ever. There are fine music schools world-wide. Teaching methods and improvements in technology have raised the level of playing to unprecedented heights. There are more excellent orchestras and other ensembles than ever before. But there's more to musicianship than technical virtuosity - there's a deep, profound understanding of music that has been lost. Traditions? And they have largely been lost just because of the passage of time and the difficulty of passing that information along. I've played with a lot of highly skilled players who can get every note exactly right and technically seem perfect; they too often lack understanding and feeling. It's all technique and no art.

Concert soloists on violin and piano today: there are some incredibly great players who absolutely are the equal of anyone from the past, at least as far as recordings tell us. Conductors today are technically fine, but I find them musically vapid. Singers: now there's a lost art. It takes a long time, great dedication and hard work to create a Wagnerian Heldentenor or coloratura soprano. There are very, very, very few today. It's one reason that programming the big Wagner operas has become so difficult. Listening to the old live recordings from the Met in the '40s thru '60s and it's instantly recognizable how much we've lost. It takes great voice teachers and are there any left? Is it a lost art? So singers today are in general inferior to the past.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

it has always been my belief that you can only learn music from other musicians. I think today many people have either forgotten that or never heard it to begin with.

I went to music school, one of the top jazz programs in the US, but I still feel that I am the player I am not because I went to music school, but because I've been fortunate enough to play with some really good musicians and I learned the craft from them.

I've said before regarding jazz that modern music education turns out players that all sound alike. There's more of them....but does "more" always mean "better"?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Nate Miller said:


> it has always been my belief that you can only learn music from other musicians.


Boy is that true! Practically every member of the Vienna Philharmonic was a student of someone who was in the orchestra and that's the biggest reason they have maintained their sound over the last 100+ years. And why so many wannabe players seek out the best player-teachers in the world. And why self-teaching books, YouTube videos and other alternate paths just don't work. And you hit another one: when you play along with players who are great you really have to raise your level and it makes you practice.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I think there's even more to it than practicing more to keep up. The "feel" that good players play with "rubs off" on you. I dont even know how to explain it. My Hawaiian friends say the "when you surf with good surfers, you surf better" and its just as simple as that in many ways. Playing in a good ensemble can do wonders for your playing. You get exposed to what the other musicians are thinking about, too, so even beyond the music itself, playing with good musicians makes you a better player on many levels.

I like playing different styles, and I go down to different public sessions and I'll play with players of all levels, but I have to second that notion that self-teaching books and You-Tube lessons only take you so far. I can tell when someone learned how to play from other musicians and when they learned from You-Tube. Apparently, You -Tube never mentions listening to the other musicians.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

It's more precise today and more respect oriented toward the precise original intent of the composer and technique is heads and tails above older times.
Older performers were warmer and more musical and took the attitude the composer would appreciate a artistic interpretation of the music instead of the exactness of today's performers.

I honestly prefer the older guys myself than more contemporary musicians


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> It's more precise today and more respect oriented toward the precise original intent of the composer and technique is heads and tails above older times.
> Older performers were warmer and more musical and took the attitude the composer would appreciate a artistic interpretation of the music instead of the exactness of today's performers.
> 
> I honestly prefer the older guys myself than more contemporary musicians


I get you and agree to you to a certain extent but definitely not in regard to chamber music, especially string quartets. The quality of string quartet playing these days is generally much better than it was especially in regard to recordings made in the past 20 years. If you haven't listened to any string quartet recordings made in the 21st century I'd say you are missing out on probably 75% of the best recordings available. Some will disagree but any serious SQ listener really needs to hear today's ensembles. They can mix old styles with new, play with great warmth and clarity, don't wallow in excessive vibrato but can use it judiciously, know how to phrase intelligently, understand the importance of intonation and are often captured in spectacular sound. I'll keep saying it, we are are in the golden age of string quartet playing. Now is not a good time to be living in the past.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Absolutely yes in some ways, no in others (such as skill in improvisation).


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I find that it depends on the music. There are many brilliant musicians today and often I will prefer modern performances, but occaisionally, especially with composers who rely on a heavy sense of structure, Brahms and Beethoven for example, I prefer older performances. 

The exception is opera, the quality of modern singing it just beyond belief. Really, really terrible. No question there.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> ...
> The exception is opera, the quality of modern singing it just beyond belief. Really, really terrible. No question there.


I agree. I think it could be that the period from roughly 1920-1970 was a golden age for opera. It certainly was for Wagner performance, the likes of which I don't know if we'll ever see again.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

I was recently talking with a concertmaster of a particular orchestra, who had been in that role for over 30 years. He decided to retire, and the reason he stated to me was this, "Every single player sitting behind me in my section is less than half my age, and ten times better that me. It's time for them to have the spotlight."

Now, the current concertmaster for this orchestra is in their late 20's. And the change/improvement is dramatically positive.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Yabetz said:


> I agree. I think it could be that the period from roughly 1920-1970 was a golden age for opera. It certainly was for Wagner performance, the likes of which I don't know if we'll ever see again.


The recordings we have of singers before 1920 suggest very much that the 'golden age', if there was one, stretched well further back. Unfortunately there has been a huge change in technique becoming more and more prominent from the 50s onwards, with some examples in the 30s and 40s too even.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Yabetz said:


> I agree. I think it could be that the period from roughly 1920-1970 was a golden age for opera. It certainly was for Wagner performance, the likes of which I don't know if we'll ever see again.


For some reason the art of singing Wagner was lost; not transferred to the next generation. It would be an interesting thing to investigate and study as to why. Not only does singing Wagner require natural gift, honed talent, hardworking dedication, and unique instruction, but a certain fearless "insanity" is required to want to make the attempt at all.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Merl said:


> I get you and agree to you to a certain extent but definitely not in regard to chamber music, especially string quartets. The quality of string quartet playing these days is generally much better than it was especially in regard to recordings made in the past 20 years. If you haven't listened to any string quartet recordings made in the 21st century I'd say you are missing out on probably 75% of the best recordings available. Some will disagree but any serious SQ listener really needs to hear today's ensembles. They can mix old styles with new, play with great warmth and clarity, don't wallow in excessive vibrato but can use it judiciously, know how to phrase intelligently, understand the importance of intonation and are often captured in spectacular sound. I'll keep saying it, we are are in the golden age of string quartet playing. Now is not a good time to be living in the past.


I saw a string quartet a few weeks ago live in concert and yes it was really good.

I am doubting anything now would top the Guarneri,ABQ or Budapest though!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

bagpipers said:


> It's more precise today and more respect oriented toward the precise original intent of the composer and technique is heads and tails above older times.
> *Older performers were warmer and more musical and took the attitude the composer would appreciate a artistic interpretation of the music instead of the exactness of today's performers.*
> 
> I honestly prefer the older guys myself than more contemporary musicians


I dunno, this is too general a tarnishing for me. Obviously mastery of an instrument although essential, is merely a pre-requisite for classical music performance. I don't think musicality is drummed out to make way for technical excellence whilst acquiring that mastery and all the good 'ol values of performance and expression are still sought after and taught - why wouldn't they be? The best concert artists still offer much in the way of personality and expressive interpretation over any perceived or alleged robotics imv _because_ of their mastery and inculcated performance traditions - which is as it has always been. 
Of course ymmv as it frequently does with music.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> I saw a string quartet a few weeks ago live in concert and yes it was really good.
> 
> I am doubting anything now would top the Guarneri,ABQ or Budapest though!


Go and see the Pavel Haas or Takacs Quartet live.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Merl said:


> Go and see the Pavel Haas or Takacs Quartet live.


If they come local I surely will and you should see the Telegraph quartet if you have the chance!


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> I dunno, this is too general a tarnishing for me. Obviously mastery of an instrument although essential, is merely a pre-requisite for classical music performance. I don't think musicality is drummed out to make way for technical excellence whilst acquiring that mastery and all the good 'ol values of performance and expression are still sought after and taught - why wouldn't they be? The best concert artists still offer much in the way of personality and expressive interpretation over any perceived or alleged robotics imv _because_ of their mastery and inculcated performance traditions - which is as it has always been.
> Of course ymmv as it frequently does with music.


I am not trying to tarnish or disparage and there is great young talent out there for sure.I still prefer the old masters


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

My survey on musicians on all levels of professionalism (college, conservatory etc., orchestras, soloists, ...) is lightyears away from complete. So I can only contribute on the base of conversations with professional musicians and rumours.

What I hear is:

the level at the qualifying examination is continuously rising. What is currently played in the final exam is more or less what the next generation (25 to 30 years later) will show in the qualifying examination.
the level in the orchestras is continuously rising. About 1970, you found maybe 10 orchestras worldwide that played on top level. Today you get first rate orchestra playing from - just to mention some names - Gothenburg, Minnesota, WDR Symphony Orchestra Köln and many more.
the level for soloists is continuously rising in terms of technical mastery. When Ligetis Etudes appeared, there was maybe a dozen of pianists who dared to play them in public, today you get these Etudes in the final exams at the college (for soloists diplomas).

However, as a CM lover who gets his food mainly by the medium (CD, SACD, DVD, Blu-Ray, streaming), my impression is that the individuality is decreasing. Styles are getting international, a russian pianist is playing the "big works" not really different from pianists from other countries (China, Korea, USA, Central Europe).

If I am listening to the Beethoven cycles from Levit and Korstick, my impression is that - apart from the obvious technical mastery - the individuality in interpretation is maybe not as clear as with Schnabel, Backhaus, Gulda, Arrau, Gilels, Brendel to name just a few. Maybe this impression will change over the decades.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Philidor said:


> My survey
> If I am listening to the Beethoven cycles from Levit and Korstick, my impression this that - apart from the obvious technical mastery - the individuality in interpretation is maybe not as clear as with Schnabel, Backhaus, Gulda, Arrau, Gilels, Brendel to name just a few. Maybe this impression will change over the decades.





Philidor said:


> My survey on musicians on all levels of professionalism (college, conservatory etc., orchestras, soloists, ...) is lightyears away from complete. So I can only contribute on the base of conversations with professional musicians and rumours.
> 
> What I hear is:
> 
> ...


Really good post, Phil, and I agree to some extent. I can't talk about your comparison with pianists as I don't listen to as much piano music so it would be foolish to comment. As regards orchestras, though, what I'm hearing on recordings is less of the national character of them. Years ago you could play me an orchestra in full flight, playing Beethoven symphonies, and most of the time I'd be able to tell you where they're from or certainly which part of the world they're in due to certain characteristics of their 'sound' (think of the Czech PO and those tangy winds or the old Soviet orchestras and their brass sound) . However, these days, I can listen to a symphony recording and not have a clue whether the orchestra are German, Czech, American, British, Russian, etc). Orchestral musicians are now multinational and extremely talented. In some ways that's a shame as those national 'traits' have been somewhat lost and were something I always enjoyed. However, I don't live in the past* and the quality of these orchestras has improved too so we no longer have to endure as much shocking ensemble, dodgy intonation, etc. I said similar about string quartet performances in my post above but in that case the difference is magnified there (SQs today are immeasurably better). With quartets there's also a difference in that many quartets (especially in Eastern Europe) still maintain their characteristic, national sound. Many of the newer Czech quartets, for example, still sound very Czech (Pavel Haas, Wihan, Martinu). I think your final point is the most salient (which is why I bolded it above). I think that over the coming years conductors will try and bring back some of those characteristic sounds to distinguish them from others. I personally hope they do as I love that individuality in recordings and concerts. We can only wait and see.

* _Wow, I managed to write that without further comment or insulting anyone! _


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

HI Merl, thank you for your feedback! I agree to what you wrote about string quartets. Here my survey is yet smaller than with pianists, but even for the biggest names - Calvet, Pro Arte, Griller, Busch (end of my survey) - there is a clear gap to what you get today from artemis, Belcea, Casals, Ébène, Pavel Haas e tutti quanti. (However, the distance is about 70 to 100 years.) So thank you for sharing your excellent insights and estimations!

And for orchestras ... yes, russian brass could be easily detected. I admit that I am not in position to discard the Vienna Oboe and Vienna Horn from others.

Part of the individual sound seems to be that they didn't have the best instruments behind the iron curtain.

I hope that there will be a renaissance of individual playing during my lifetime ...  ... Currentzis.



Merl said:


> We can only wait and see.


... and listen.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

I think your possible answer for why musicianship and expression was better in older times is obvious and simple I think.

Then, even for more affluent people life was harder and even harder for poorer people and people did not live as long and people were more in touch with death and tragedy.
Take Andres Segovia; His parents both died young and was raised by an aunt and uncle.Or all the great Russian musicians and composers who fled Russia in the early 1900's some because of the famine under the Tzar's others because of Bolshevik persecution.

You see the same in pop as well with blues and jazz coming from post civil war southern US or the mostly cockney British invasion of the 1960's ie...Beetles,Kinks,Stones etc...
Or the rise of Hip Hop R&B in the US in the 80's and 90's from poor inner city areas.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

Merl said:


> Go and see the Pavel Haas or Takacs Quartet live.


I've heard both -- the Pavel Haas three times, I think. They are a typical example of contemporary superstardom. Technically absolutely brilliant, interpretatively with fabulous insights at times but at others exasperating mannerisms which exemplify the modern trend of showmanship as opposed to a simple unpretentious fidelity to the music. I entirely agree with* mbhaub's *comment that far too many conductors of today are simply vapid or that the more famous ones are more interested in an egotrip than the music they are conducting


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Whether "standards" are higher is questionable but there are clearly more players of higher quality everywhere in the world now than there were 40-50 years ago. Universities and conservatories cranked them out after World War II in greater numbers than ever. The post World War II explosion of LPs, stereo and more modern listening formats made music available to everyone everywhere. The average community orchestra made up of some professional players but mostly youngsters, retirees and volunteers that pay to play is good enough to play a Mendelssohn or Mozart symphony. The average regional orchestra can now play well enough to get a recording contract with Naxos. So whether this is a matter of standards or numbers is more the question but the answer is there are more players of higher quality worldwide now than ever before.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Philidor said:


> If I am listening to the Beethoven cycles from Levit and Korstick, my impression is that - apart from the obvious technical mastery - the individuality in interpretation is maybe not as clear as with Schnabel, Backhaus, Gulda, Arrau, Gilels, Brendel to name just a few. Maybe this impression will change over the decades.


Now I'm no pianist and I can fully understand your point about the elder statesmen of the past, but I would ask the question outside of the elite that have been established over time how good were the majority of pianists from those times. Also familiarity with interpretative styles and preferences of the past are to some degree ingrained in us all as listeners over the years.
These days with youtube etc etc I suggest a lot more pianists are more easily accessible for us to hear and the elite of this generation has yet to be established, who knows what the younger listeners today may think in 20-30 years time.

With specific reference to your Beethoven listening try François-Frédéric Guy's live cycle I think you may like it - or, of course maybe, not!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Regarding Korstick, after an audition of op. 106, I have to confess that I was wrong ... great recording, individual and exciting.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

mbhaub said:


> In general, the level of musicianship today is higher than ever. There are fine music schools world-wide. Teaching methods and improvements in technology have raised the level of playing to unprecedented heights. There are more excellent orchestras and other ensembles than ever before. But there's more to musicianship than technical virtuosity - there's a deep, profound understanding of music that has been lost. Traditions? And they have largely been lost just because of the passage of time and the difficulty of passing that information along. I've played with a lot of highly skilled players who can get every note exactly right and technically seem perfect; they too often lack understanding and feeling. It's all technique and no art.
> 
> Concert soloists on violin and piano today: there are some incredibly great players who absolutely are the equal of anyone from the past, at least as far as recordings tell us. Conductors today are technically fine, but I find them musically vapid. Singers: now there's a lost art. It takes a long time, great dedication and hard work to create a Wagnerian Heldentenor or coloratura soprano. There are very, very, very few today. It's one reason that programming the big Wagner operas has become so difficult. Listening to the old live recordings from the Met in the '40s thru '60s and it's instantly recognizable how much we've lost. It takes great voice teachers and are there any left? Is it a lost art? So singers today are in general inferior to the past.


I sincerely believe they are many interesting ways to play an old masterpiece and that the knowledge of tradition can be an impediment to the creativity of the interpreter; there are more outstanding concert soloists than ever; if you consider currentzis, dudamel, mäkelä, rouvali, rattle, f-x.roth and so many others to be vapid conductors i clearly disagree with you; besides these you have at least 50 top class conductors in the world, none of them are vapid; on the other hand i agree with you that we miss great singers for the old opera repertoire like händel, wagner, verdi,puccini, despite commendable efforts from the likes of kaufmann, netrebko, damrau, di donato; on the other hand you must have noticed that there are incredible contemporary operas being created and that some of today's best singers like barbara hannigan, diane upshaw, gerald finlay, sandrine piau, magdalena kozena and so many others devote a lot of their time to these contemperary operas ; so your analysis of singers is flawed because you compare the present situation with the 40 and the 60 s when so many masterpieces had not been produced yet; there is a shift in what the singers are interested to sing; a shift that is perhaps too extreme


----------

