Post by Jonalogic January 31, 2014 (21 of 60)
|
|
wehecht said:
Hi Jon,
I think we're talking to a considerable extent about different things. You're talking, it seems to me, about great performers and performances that have been recorded for posterity, while I'm talking about great recordings, which, to me means an inextricable combination of performance and recorded sound. To cite just a single example: I'm happy to have had Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas in glorious lo-fi, but they never get played anymore because I'm happier to have Brautigam's and Tchetuev's stunning performances in beautiful modern sound...
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that a significant part of my listening is to music that wasn't even written in 1980. In fact Aho: Symphony No. 15, Minea, Concerto for Double Bass & Orchestra - Slobodeniouk, Vänskä, Kuusisto is playing right now, and I'm delighted.
Bill
Bill Hi
I think I would agree with this, to a large extent. But I would say that - for a golden few years from the late 50's to mid-60' - many of these great performers were also blessed by recordings in similarly great analogue sound. Of course, that all ended in the early era of solid state recording - just as it did decades later when early digital sound swept all before it.
Yes, for modern classical music post-1980s, one has no choice but to listen to modern recordings. That goes without saying. But it is debatable how much of this music will stand the test of time... your guess will be as good as mine on this!
I would make an additional qualification to my earlier statement, as well. For Bach, Mozart, Haydn and - even - Beethoven, modern performing practice has transformed the way we listen to these great composers. To give one example (maybe because I have just been listening to it) give me Mackerras's lean and lithe Mozart any day rather than the stodgy, portentious readings of, say, Klemperer, Karajan or even Walter.
After all, a golden age doesn't mean that everything then was gold. Nor does it mean that everything that came later is made of concrete!
Cheers
Jon
|
|
|
Post by wehecht January 31, 2014 (22 of 60)
|
|
Jonalogic said:
I would make an additional qualification to my earlier statement, as well. For Bach, Mozart, Haydn and - even - Beethoven, modern performing practice has transformed the way we listen to these great composers. To give one example (maybe because I have just been listening to it) give me Mackerras's lean and lithe Mozart any day rather than the stodgy, portentious readings of, say, Klemperer, Karajan or even Walter.
After all, a golden age doesn't mean that everything then was gold. Nor does it mean that everything that came later is made of concrete!
I'm in absolute agreement about the sea change in performance practice, but bringing up Klemperer reminds me of another exception I should have made. When are we going to get a really good new sacd recording of the Missa Solemnis? Stylistic considerations not withstanding his is still the version I listen to all these years later.
And yes, there's a great deal of gold there, Lyrita cds have never been as good as the original lp's. Shame they haven't been remastered to sacd. Of course on this side of the ocean we were treated to execrable Angel and (slightly less so) London pressings of stuff you were getting on much better EMI and Decca, which also serves to shape my POV.
|
|
|
Post by jimwager January 31, 2014 (23 of 60)
|
|
The Marantz website shows about a dozen different SACD players and the description for all of them is "wonderful, premium, high end etc." So which is meant to be the best? And why can't they be a bit more upfront about it?
As for modern recordings, I am surprised that anyone is willing to admit that they prefer good sound to a good performance. Very honest of them
|
|
|
Post by wehecht January 31, 2014 (24 of 60)
|
|
jimwager said:
As for modern recordings, I am surprised that anyone is willing to admit that they prefer good sound to a good performance. Very honest of them
Well, that's not exactly what I said. My point was that for me a great recording encompasses both the performance and the sound. There are many great recorded performances in mediocre to poor sound (both before and after 1980). But given the choice I prefer to listen to a fine modern performance in excellent sound as opposed to a fine older performance in mediocre sound, hence Schnabel sits on the shelf and Brautigam or Tchetuev (or Goode or Brendel on rbcd) gets played. And I'm no more interested in listening to a lousy performance in modern sound than the next guy. The hundreds of cds and sacds I've donated to the local library attests to my willingness to cull the ones I don't like from my collection.
I regret the tone of my original post in this thread, but while a certain amount of pontificating goes with the territory here, I bridle at ex cathedra statements like, and here I paraphrase: most worthwhile recordings were made before 1980. Kal's response was surely more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimwager said:
The Marantz website shows about a dozen different SACD players and the description for all of them is "wonderful, premium, high end etc." So which is meant to be the best? And why can't they be a bit more upfront about it?
Would you believe them if they said so? I would believe them no more (and no less) than I would believe Qvortup's comments on his own stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jimwager January 31, 2014 (26 of 60)
|
|
wehecht said:
.............................. I regret the tone of my original post in this thread, but while a certain amount of pontificating goes with the territory here, I bridle at ex cathedra statements like, and here I paraphrase: most worthwhile recordings were made before 1980. Kal's response was surely more appropriate.
Don't forget, I'm English.
|
|
|
Post by canonical January 31, 2014 (27 of 60)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonalogic said:
Don't get me wrong, there are still fine performers and performances, and fine recordings around today. But the age of the great classical musicians - regretfully - seems to have gone.
Oh, poppycock. Your theory that musical talent has somehow dried up is ridiculous on its face.
|
|
|
Post by Jonalogic February 1, 2014 (29 of 60)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Oh, poppycock. Your theory that musical talent has somehow dried up is ridiculous on its face.
Oh come on, please think before you knee-jerk. In particular, think about the geopolitical and societal conditions prevailing in Mittel-Europe and Russia from the late 19th to early 20th Centuries; the wars, repressive regimes, persecutions and mass movement of peoples. And then consider when and where - and in what ethnicity - much of the musical talent I cited actually appeared.
Or do I really have to explain world history to you in simple words?
|
|
|
Post by Jonalogic February 1, 2014 (30 of 60)
|
|
wehecht said:
I'm in absolute agreement about the sea change in performance practice...
And yes, there's a great deal of gold there, Lyrita sacds have never been as good as the original lp's. Shame they haven't been remastered to sacd. Of course on this side of the ocean we were treated to execrable Angel and (slightly less so) London pressings of stuff you were getting on much better EMI and Decca, which also serves to shape my POV.
Bill Hi
Amen to Lyritas I wonder if anyone has ever contacted the Lyrita trust to see if they would be amenable?... Maybe I will when I get back from Sri Lanka.
Oh yes, Angel and London were certainly the pits compared with UK originals. Strangely, though, our SB rather than LSC Living Stereos seemed to fare rather better when the music was going in the opposite direction!
Jon
|
|
