|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.239.122.162
In Reply to: RE: For years, it's been bandied about by the music cognoscenti that young posted by tinear on April 15, 2014 at 17:03:43
Elders grew up listening to the likes of Heifetz and Oistrakh, Horowitz and Rubinstein and Richter, Starker and Rostropovich, Callas and Fischer-Dieskau, Klemperer and Toscanini. They imprinted on the recordings and performances of those great talents. So, as a result, that era of musicians defined the pinnacle of achievement for all those listeners.
Those elders handed down their assessments to the next generation, along with their collections of recordings, and their opinions become the core of subsequent reviews .... down the line.
As a result, even now, when you ask for recommendations for recordings, the old ones continue to pop up. Are they really more talented than more contemporary artists? Are their recordings really so much better that they remain the standard against which all young artists must be judged?
I'm not so sure they were any more talented. But I am sure of one thing. They had more freedom to interpret music than today's musicians do. Listen to any 10 contemporary recordings of Dvorak's cello concerto. Then listen to Piatagorsky's. Listen to any recent recordings of Beethoven's 7th symphony, then listen to Toscanini's's or Furtwangler's. Listen to any recent recordings of Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto, then listen to his own recording or Horowitz playing it.
IMO, we do live in a new golden age of talent. The number of outstanding musicians is really amazing. But I don't hear the kind of singular interpretations and unique performances coming from them.
To me, the reason is because, in our era, the score has become some sort of sacred document. Today's artists don't have the freedom to interpret and stretch as much as they did "back in the day." If a musician deviates much from the score, s/he gets skewered by the critics and left behind by the dozens of equally talented competitors.
So, unfortunately, despite the plethora of incredibly talented artists today, those old recordings (and the musicians who made them) still stand as great recordings that still compel our attention.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Follow Ups:
. . . I think there might be some additional factors. One is the psychological predisposition on the part of certain listeners to be impressed/awestruck by performances from the distant past - the more distant the better in many cases. (The great opera critic, Conrad L. Osborne, admitted he had this kind of predisposition!) One justification for this view is that these older performances were just that much nearer to the time during which the music was actually written, and therefore they must possess a degree of authenticity which was gradually lost in subsequent generations. After all, Klemperer and Walter knew Mahler, Monteux played for Brahms, Reiner knew Strauss, Dorati was a student of Bartok, etc. Then there are other listeners who are psychologically inclined the opposite way - always seeking out the newest.
In my own case, sure, I grew up with Toscanini doing the Beethoven Symphonies (my imprint version), Casals doing the Bach Cello Suites (also my imprint version), Schnabel doing the Beethoven Sonatas (a couple of them anyway), etc. But it didn't take long for me to appreciate the comparative virtues of Reiner and Dorati in the Beethoven Symphonies, Starker in the Bach Cello Suites, or Moravec and Richter in the Beethoven Sonatas. The reasons are varied, but a common thread in all of these performances is that I could actually hear exactly what the performers were doing so much better, rather than having to imagine what they were doing through the muck and limited range of the 78 rpm surfaces! And in the case of Casals Bach recordings, I grew awfully tired of the grunting and scratching after awhile! (And, BTW, I'm going to have to re-listen to that Piatagorsky recording of the Dvorak - I'm assuming you're referring to the collaboration with Munch. I heard that recording when it first came out and my main impression was not how individual it was, but how out of tune Piatagorsky was!)
Anyway, moving on to the question of individuality in the interpretation, I think, in general, your point (and tin's below) is well taken, but I think it's not just the more modern performers who are responsible for the kind of "convergence" around literal fidelity to the score - I think the performers who interpret this way (e.g., the Perahias, the Brendels, et al) have been rewarded over the years by both listeners and critics, so, in a way, WE are responsible for this convergence too. At the same time, there are a number of performers today who invariably offer very original interpretations of certain works - you suggest that Rachmaninoff and Horowitz have unique takes on Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto (which they do!), but what about Martha? - if hers isn't a unique take too, then I'm not sure what unique means. Heck, I'd even say that Yuja's recent recording of that concerto is also unique. (I just wish I could hear it without being so aware of the sonic manipulations on the part of the Tonmeisters!) What's so unique about Yuja's playing? Well, for one thing, no one else I'm aware of had such mastery of the leggiero touch as she does, and no one else finds passages to apply it in a way that works as surprisingly (and arrestingly!) as she does.
Even aside from specific works, there are certain artists these days who regularly approach almost all the repertoire they play in an individual manner - certainly, someone like Khatia Buniatishvili sounds like no one else (although, based on her recent SF solo recital I heard last weekend, there's a worrying aspect to this too - I hope to post about this soon). Ivo Pogorelich (back when he could play), Piotr Anderszewski, and Grigory Sokolov also represent contemporary artists who approach their interpretations in a way every bit as unique as the great pianists of the past did.
Which brings us to another problem with the present generation vs. previous generations: there's simply more of a critical mass of listeners who are familiar with the historic older performances - just because the recorded legacy of these performers has been around longer and may have been extolled by certain critics who had access to the limited mass media outlets prior to the internet, such as newspapers or Gramophone-type periodicals. (Of course, this is less of a problem these days.) But in any case, the number of years we've had to listen to, say, Anderszewski's Diabelli Variations is far, far less than what we've had to listen to Rudolf Serkin's recording of the same work. So in this sense, contemporary artists are operating at a relative disadvantage. But of course that's no reflection on the innate stature of their playing - it's just hard for us listeners to keep up with all the new stuff that's happening in classical performances!
In general, I'd say that there are some complex tendencies swirling around, which tend to minimize the achievement of today's artists, as accomplished and deserving as they are.
I think we can both pick out individual recordings or performances to illustrate our points. Personally, I am not as slavishly adoring of the old greats as might seem. I have found many contemporary recordings I really, truly enjoy. I have heard and met musicians who I think are exceptionally talented. I think we both agree that some of the performances/recordings for generations past were great, and in some cases definitive -- and that there have been some very worthy recordinghs in more recent times.
I have talked with quite a few musicians, mostly young conductors and touring solists, who have felt hobbled by the current situation in classical music -- the shrunken repertoire of warhorses that they are required to repeat over and over, the need to perform modern composers they really don't like that much, the parade of soloists or conductors who are talented but not accomplished, but most of all, being locked into artist management systems sand contractual requirements that limit their ability to expand.
There was a very interesting piece written by Martin Kettle in The Guardian over a decade ago that meditated on the declining art of the piano. It was titled "Why are today's concert pianists so boring?" I couldn't really disagree with what he said, but to me, he missed the cause of the circumstances -- the marketing of musicians and the tyranny of the score.
You've probably seen the article. It's here, for those who haven't:
Why are today's concert pianists so boring?
Yes, I think Yuja has some interesting takes on Rachmaninoff, but also mixed in her recordings/performances are a lot of really weird moments that, to me, seem like lapses in either technique or concentration or understanding. But she's not going to rewrite entire passages the way Horowitz did, or improvise the passages the way Rachmaninoff did. And by appearing in those skimpy dresses and doing these little interpretive moments, she's put herself into the position (right or wrong) of being an "act" like Lang Lang or Hough or Salerno-Sonnenberg, instead of an "artist" like Lugansky. It may be unfair to the musicians, it may be inaccurate in terms of talent, but it is a result of marketing and management that defines artists today.
BTW -- I wasn't saying that Piatigorsky's Dvorak was iconic. I was simply using it to illustrate the freedom that performers had in personal interpretation back during that era. (And I was thinking of Piatigorsky's recording with Ormandy, not Munch.) Same with Furtwangler or Stokowski or Toscanini. One can argue about the merits of their personal vision, yet still appreciate that personal visions were valued much more than today.
There are many wonderfully talented musicians these days, but there is a lot about the current classical music environment that limits them (and us).
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
I saw Yuja Wang play the Rach 3 here in Cleveland last week, conducted (wonderfully) by Giancarlo Guerrero. She put her own stamp on the music but didn't Lang-Lang it to show everyone "Look what a wonderful pianist I am!" Everything she did was musical. It was a phenomenal performance--as is her recording, which was not exactly the same interpretation we had here last week. BTW, she did NOT wear a skimpy dress.
nt
Curious to know what your take on her performance.
That recital needs a long, considered post. I'll try to post it tonight or tomorrow.
But it was 'The Show Time!' for sure.
I'll wait for your professional opinion.
the performer's personal appearance? I mean this seriously, since you have so many posts where you make that the centerpiece. Would a Roseanne Barr-like pianist, of marvelous talent, rate in your panoply of excellence?
Edits: 04/16/14 04/16/14
Not a realistic question.
Roseanne Barr is a pig, and there aren't any pig classical performers.
Why don't you name one that you find physically repulsive and ask the question of him or her?
Hi, tin - In all seriousness, musicianship is musicianship and appearance is appearance. I've got my late (i.e., stereo) Clara Haskil recordings to prove it! ;-)What's different these days is how slick the promotion is - especially, as we've all noticed, with the more photogenically favored musicians - both male and female. Quite often, I feel that these performers are excellent musicians in spite of it all, and I try to point out the performance virtues while at the same time having a bit of fun with the label's promotion of the physical side of things.
Generally, I don't post about about glamorous musicians whose musicianship I'm not that interested in (e.g., Olga Kern) - so the fact that I do post about babe musicians who I feel give us some noteworthy performances perhaps gives a misleading impression that I love babe musician recordings no matter what. Also, I think we all tend to gravitate to musicians whose performances have been satisfying to us in the past, so the fact that I've been very happy with, say, Lisa Batiashvili's recordings tends to make me focus on her new releases with anticipation. Her looks are just a "bonus"! ;-)
BTW, speaking of Olga Kern, I heard she has a person on staff whose responsibility is to have the hairspray ready to go anytime she needs it - even when she's in the wings about to go onstage, her guy with the hairspray is ready and waiting. Basically, he just follows her around with the hairspray and sprays as needed! ;-)
Edits: 04/16/14
Chris, I can vouch that the hairspray story is true.
Chris, why single out Olga Kern? I mean, I'm not overly wowed by her musicianship, but .... Do you think the other female stars do NOT have personal groomers on tour with them, hovering about to fix their hair, fix their dress, fix their makeup? Do you think Yuja would be wearing those skimpy dresses if her label/agency handlers did not heartily approve as part of their marketing promo ploy? Do you think she doesn't have a groomer on tour with her? In my experience on the board of several orchestras over the years, you would be hard pressed to find any female star who just buys her dress off the rack, puts on her shoes, combs her hair and walks out on stage. The stars all have personal groomers or "advisers" or "companions" traveling with them. And male stars are not immune.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
"Chris, why single out Olga Kern? I mean, I'm not overly wowed by her musicianship, but .... Do you think the other female stars do NOT have personal groomers on tour with them, hovering about to fix their hair, fix their dress, fix their makeup? Do you think Yuja would be wearing those skimpy dresses if her label/agency handlers did not heartily approve as part of their marketing promo ploy? Do you think she doesn't have a groomer on tour with her? In my experience on the board of several orchestras over the years, you would be hard pressed to find any female star who just buys her dress off the rack, puts on her shoes, combs her hair and walks out on stage. The stars all have personal groomers or "advisers" or "companions" traveling with them. And male stars are not immune."
Where to start? Let me start by saying that Yuja is a personal friend of mine and I do here makeup for the fun of it whenever I get the chance. She does not have any full time makeup artist or hair stylist on staff. As for her dresses. She picks them herself and her agenda is quite simple. She wants to look good as one would expect any 27 year old girl to want to look good. There is no team of strategists picking her dresses. No special marketing strategy in play. As for advisers...every now and then I get a text with pictures asking which dress I think she should wear. I know jack about fashion. Yuja mostly travels on her own, does her own hair and doesn't wear much makeup.
"you would be hard pressed to find any female star who just buys her dress off the rack, puts on her shoes, combs her hair and walks out on stage." This is quite often exactly what Yuja does. And she represents the norm not the exception
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Feel free to name names. Give us a little perspective
d
Yes, and IMO another reason for the sameness of interpretations is the technological revolution, first of recordings and radio, then TV, internet and downloads. A handful of major stars now have an overwhelming worldwide influence that can last decades. This applies to all kinds of music, not just classical.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: