|
Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes. |
|
|
|
Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes. |
|
In Reply to: Why is older better? posted by Ozymandias on June 5, 2002 at 08:14:14:
"Surely the musical education today's elite performers received cannot be inferior to that received by the prior generation (or perhaps more accurately stated, two generations ago). "I think the "Older is Better" ideal holds more with orchestral performances, than with soloists or (especially) chamber music. I've heard some superlative chamber music performances in the last couple of years (though these have been live performances, not recordings). But it's true that I find almost all modern orchestral recordings to be inferior in interpretation to those from a generation or two ago. While the technical ability of the individual musicians in the orchestra is not to blame (I would agree that the average orchestral musician of today is better trained and has a better engineered instrument than those of 50 years ago), the orchestra as a unit and the conductor are the main causes.
When I was in music school in the 70's and 80's, we learned how a specific piece was "supposed" to go by listening to recordings. But when BRUNO or Furtwangler or Mengelberg or Toscaninny or Koussevitzky or any conductor (or soloist, for that matter) from the first half of the 20th century wanted to learn a piece, that option wasn't available. Instead, they learned a piece from studying the score, usually figuring things out for themselves by playing it on a piano (all the abovementioned save Koussevitzky were accomplished pianists, and Koussevitzky was known to hire a pianist to play scores while he practiced conducting). So, each conductor had to internalize a piece and IMAGINE how it would sound before they conducted, as opposed to try to reproduce a supposed "ideal" performance. Thus, each conductor had a more individual take on each piece. It's quite easy to discern the difference between Furtwangler and Toscaninny, while you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between Maazel and Masur and Mehta. Also, conductors of the ealier generations were not so far removed culturally from the composers who wrote the works - BRUNO met Brahms in his lifetime, and of course he and Mengelberg and Klemperer were all friends of Mahler's. Who they knew isn't as important as the fact that they lived in the same society. When you hear BRUNO conduct the 2nd movement of Mahler's 9th, for example, it's clear from the lilt and feel of it that it's a Viennese dance, and he knows the difference between a Waltz and a Landler, and could "swing" with it. Listen to a modern conductor try to play it and it sounds like the Boston Pops trying to play jazz - it's way too stiff.
In addition, the democratization and globalization of the major orchestras has caused their decline. In the old days, the conductor was God, and musicians shut up and obeyed. If the conductor wanted an extra rehearsal or two, it happened, without concern for union contracts or who was paying the orchestra. Also, a gig as an orchestral player or conductor was much more of a longterm commitment - often for an entire career. These days, conductors and top players will chase the money for better gigs, and players use the lesser regional orchestras as a farm system to develop a resume and repertoire for the big time gigs. How this is reflected in the music is that older performances were made by an orchestra that would follow every nuance of the conductor (either by rehearsing it that way or having a symbiotic relationship with the conductor, where the player and conductor would think alike). But, even if a modern conductor wanted to try something different, the cards are stacked against him, since he doesn't have the opportunity to reteach a musician who has learned the "standard" way a piece goes under other conductors.
There is a generational difference in instruments, as well. Sometimes this is good, sometimes not. Intonation in many older recordings is not as good, especially in the woodwinds, since new techniques have made the key layout more precise and ergonomic. But other things have gone awry, and among the worst is the Solti-fication of the brass instrument. Since the mid 60's the bore of all the brass instruments has given the instruments a much bigger, rounder sound, which can be very seductive - it can (and does) also destroy the balance of the orchestra.
Another reason for prefering older performances is Darwinization (although, ironically, that is becoming less of a factor as more "newly rediscovered" historical reissues are appearing). Modern recordings include the best and worst that is available today, while a bad performance from the 1950's usually isn't, and not many people are going to make the effort to find it.
Of course, all of this is just generalization. And I find that live performances are usually superior to recorded ones and since dead people often have a hard time in live performances, I still listen to modern performances. But I rarely hear new recordings of orchestral works that display the emotion and personality of older performances, so I generally prefer the older ones.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Why is older better? - The Real Dave 10:42:32 06/05/02 (2)
- The REALLY ODD part about all of this is that... - SE 13:35:09 06/05/02 (0)
- Excellent synopsis...I'd add more - DWPC 13:04:15 06/05/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
