Post by Jonalogic February 3, 2014 (51 of 60)
|
|
Polarius T said:
I think your glasses are tinged with the purple of nostalgia for a lost world, at least a bit. This is a total nonquestion to me. I do, like most everyone here, I suspect, have my great objects of veneration from 50 (and 50+) years a go, but come on. As stated above, anyone today plays anything better than even the best before (a few piano wizards exempted). That doesn't mean they've now got less substance as musicians (are any less "great"). Think of (in a totally haphazard order):
.... very long list
Thank you for helping prove my point. Particularly notable are that most of the stand-outs are 1) old 2) deceased, or nearly so 3) at their performing and recording peak around or before the 60s. - and therefore clearly belong on my earlier list (which was short, throwaway, incomplete and intentionally non-exhaustive - recall, I was giving examples).
You even stole Fischer Dieskau!
The whole raft of modern, regular and decidedly un-greats doesn't help your list, though. You don't acquire greatness by doing a couple of decent or good recordings! Have a bit of perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonalogic said:
most of the stand-outs are 1) old 2) deceased, or nearly so 3) at their performing and recording peak around or before the 60s. - and therefore clearly belong on my earlier list
What are you talking about??
Out of those 60-70 performers and conductors, the ones who are dead (recently deceased) can be counted with one hand. An overwhelming majority of them keeps performing and recording still today, with the results frequently recognized as masterpieces, as "great" (to name but just one, the first one on the list, Pollini, has just come up with 2 or 3, even 4, recordings of just such quality). ALL on that list are also personally recognized ("universally" so, if you want) as superstars, as "great." NONE of them belong to your "Golden Years" group ("active at least till past 1980" was a criteria for me here, since that was brought up as some kind of watershed by another poster in this thread -- "the death of the 'Great Golden' analog era" and, with it, all artistic greatness...). That was the whole point. You asked people to "name 5 or 6" such performers/conductors who can match the "great" "Golden Era" performers on your LPs, and those 60-70 I mentioned came to mind right away without any thinking.
I think a clear majority of those on the list hadn't even started performing "around or before the 60s" (several were still a mere twinkle in their father's eye then, I think -- but I'd have to check), let alone peaking then, so I don't know where that comes from.
And, like I said, there is a whole new (and very large) group of musicians active and upcoming elsewhere right now (on smaller labels and stages) that I think are very often just as good or better, but aren't even mentioned in this list because I'm sure you've personally never heard of them or their music-making and would therefore dismiss them out of hand.
Huge exaggerations and subjective global proclamations without any regard for facts isn't very productive for having a conversation.
FiDi is the greatest of them all! (And present-day, basically.) :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of talk about musicians on a forum that was started by quoting somebody who suffers from "conspiracy beliefs" (here "they" are the bits and bytes and hard disks against the "analog").
Actually the music recording world has developed enormously since digital started. And up to then, there was less home entertainment technology available, recording was expensive and therefore more scarce. The best and the most famous artist were recorded; selection before the recording was made.
Now that we have so many options and there is much more being recorded, many of the fantastic artist of today have to compete with the others, and on record, with the other media. Record stores have disappeared and distribution and marketing is getting into a new phase.
Technically we really do have progressed (sound quality), and there are as many fantastic musicians being recorded today as there ever where. Starting with trying to achieve the best recorded sound has always been a good idea, and when the performance is great you get the best of two worlds.
Digital is not the enemy, except perhaps that it is challenging legal distribution, as something unethical has been accepted as “normal” by the masses (who always like something for free) resulting in it politically not being dealt with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonalogic said:
Is this really the same person who started - in fact, goaded - this part of the debate with the following constructive and creative one-liners:
1) Oh, poppycock. Your theory that musical talent has somehow dried up is ridiculous on its face.
2) Bumptious BS in support of prior BS.
Yes, I'm afraid it is. There is a story about sin and stone-throwing here that leaps to mind.
Practice what you preach, but don't think of claiming the high ground; except, perhaps, in relation to hypocrisy.
I see. You deal in proportionality. But, you should understand that most of us are fully capable of reading your misguided daft opinions concerning the alleged extinction of great musicians around 1980.
|
|
|
Post by nickc February 3, 2014 (55 of 60)
|
|
canonical said:
I am sure the talent pool is still there. But I think there are 2 key points:
FIRST:
Back in the post-war era, becoming a great violinist or pianist was THE skill-based path to fame and fortune for that generation. The talent and radio competitions of the 40s, 50s and 60s attracted budding violinists and pianists ... the TV shows featured people like Heifetz and Jack Benny ... can you imagine that today?? Instead, they have been replaced by today's TV contest shows like X-Factor or "America's Got Talent' ...
> I can't wait to find out whether Lang Lang develops into Gary Graffman or Liberace :-).
lol
Canonical beat me to the punch and I agree with him completely, notwithstanding the huge opening up of the Asian markets.
These days kids look up to Justin Bieber not Benjamin Grosvenor, a kind of Spengleresque descent if I've ever seen one.....
BTW I would only call about 10 of Polarius's list great, though we are getting really subjective here :)
N
|
|
|
Post by jimwager February 4, 2014 (56 of 60)
|
|
Serious or "classical" music didn't just stop, it faded gradually during the 1960s and 1970s - a period that coincided with the rise of mass pop-culture and anti-authoritarian challenges (in social and political areas as well as the arts) to existing orthodoxies. Painting as an art form died at the same time and was replaced by "performance art". Today we even get rap singers being taken seriously and prizes given to people who put their unmade bed in a gallery.
Of course, in the past, there were composers who were famous in their lifetime but who have now (probably justifiably) sunk into obscurity, while conversely, others like Bach had almost sunk without trace but are now justly famous. So maybe in a hundred years time people will listen to Guto Puw or look at a shark in formaldehyde and weep. But I doubt it.
Should anyone for whatever reason disagree, would they please see if they can do so a little more politely than some of those above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimwager said:
Should anyone for whatever reason disagree, would they please see if they can do so a little more politely than some of those above.
Why bother? You've pointed out that we are all doomed by pop culture. Can it be worse? The sky is falling.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 4, 2014 (58 of 60)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Why bother? You've pointed out that we are all doomed by pop culture. Can it be worse? The sky is falling.
The unmade bed in an art gallery is what really piqued my interest.
Could it be possible that George Washington slept there...on designer sheets from the Liz 'Betsy' Ross Collection?
Revolutionary!
|
|
|
Post by wehecht February 4, 2014 (59 of 60)
|
|
jimwager said:
Serious or "classical" music didn't just stop, it faded gradually during the 1960s and 1970s - a period that coincided with the rise of mass pop-culture and anti-authoritarian challenges (in social and political areas as well as the arts) to existing orthodoxies.
Which presumably is why almost all "worthwhile" recordings were made before 1980. I think it's time to apply that old wisdom, "when you're in a hole stop digging".
|
|
|
Post by Lute February 6, 2014 (60 of 60)
|
|
GROOT GELUID said:
Now that we have so many options and there is much more being recorded, many of the fantastic artist of today have to compete with the others, and on record, with the other media. Record stores have disappeared and distribution and marketing is getting into a new phase.
Technically we really do have progressed (sound quality), and there are as many fantastic musicians being recorded today as there ever where. Starting with trying to achieve the best recorded sound has always been a good idea, and when the performance is great you get the best of two worlds.
Agreed!
Many of my favorite recordings/performances of early music (medieval, renaissance, baroque) and even of the classical period (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven..) are from the digital age.
|
|
