|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.57.91.150
Reading more about the fledgling conductor Gustavo Dudamel (nappy haired, no less!:-), I am told that his forte is "colorful music" -- he's apparantly quite strong at bringout orchestral textures in animated music. That's a very good thing. So, this post is not meant as a criticsm in any way.I have a question, however. Are we -- as fans and concert-goers and collectors of recordings -- seeking, really, ANYONE to continue to perform the "old classics" which we have heard in spades. I mean, if I want animated/unique Beethoven or Bruckner or Shostakovich I know exactly where to look. OK, it is DEFINITELY arguable that we don't need more/new RECORDINGS of mainstay works (IMO). "Live performances" may be somewhat different (it's always great to see a live performance of a favorite work done really well)...but that doesn't quite gel with me either.
I want COMPLETELY NEW MUSIC to begin to be delivered with greater frequency in our concert halls. I thing it is an OBLIGATION of new/young conductors to represent "their generation" (or even neglegted older ones) to bring forth not just supposed new "insights" in well-worn works, but to extend the tradition of Classical music.
To put it somewhat differently: If this is not done, is it a failure on the part of these new conductors? Further, doesn't that reduce the value of conductor to something like a "paid employee" responsible for supporting a ticket base and operating budget -- nothing wrong with that -- it's just...mundane.
Follow Ups:
I played in a semi-pro community orchestra and was close friends with the conductor. I also managed the Classical room of an independent CD store in a University town. Two observations:When I first started ordering stock for the classical room, I did exactly what you would do, started ordering "ephemera" (sp) like the Vaughan Williams Piano Concerto or Zemlinsky's Mermaid--stuff I thought people would want to buy because I wanted to buy. The manager would strike a lot of such things off my list and replace with 5 copies of Orff's Carmina or Beethoven's 5th on Naxos...Naxos! With the Upper Arctic Philharmonic. Who would ever buy these, from the curious student to the seasoned collector?? Well, guess what sold.... A word about the seasoned collector: we sold used as well as new, and aged professors would come in, (who's houses around the campus--bought for $500 back in the day were now worth millions), examine a $5.99 used CD multiple times, and put it back, not wanting to spend the money.
Same thing with selecting Orchestral rep for the next year. I begged the conductor to select something like Respighi's Church Windows, etc., but he told me, and he was right year after year, that it was the Beethoven and Brahms that brought people--young and old, curious and seasoned--back into the hall. I don't get it, but I saw it with my own eyes.
It all starts with building awareness, knowledge and experience. I'll tell ya, nowadays I don't know where ANY of that comes from (very little Classical radio, education etc.). What you experienced is not surprising: no one knew then, and no one knows now about newer music. Going forward, I'll admit the "gateway" into Classical may forever be the same-old. However, when even the same-old has NO ONE TO APPEAL TO...something's gotta give. Already, new recordings are getting very tight for even the same-old (I'm using that phrase lightly...you know what I mean). As the Used CD bins begin to fill up (those Boomers one step closer...) and/or the new formats remove the CD/LP demand altogether (MP3 etc. -- Which, of course, best case will only have extensive reissue material from the big labels), the whole future has the potential to be a Universal Re-Tread: Nothing new being said, everything (mostly) already said, and no one wishing to say anything else!:-)A recent thread here pointed to the universities/academia as "the light". You're discribing it as the darkness. It may be a little of both, but I'd get my reading done while I can still see the page.
In the meantime, I continue to dig, dig, dig for the new stuff.
One of the strength's of the L.A. Phil the last several years has been their commitment to newer music. Obvioulsy that comes from Salonen but I think it's also a company philosophy and that Debra Bondra (the President of the L.A. Phil) is a strong force in that direction so I imagine it will continue with Dudamel.That said I tend to agree with psgary - not for myself (there are a number of modern composers I like) but for the general public - below when he says...
"My love of melody seems to keep me out of the club that idolizes modern composers. Please don't tell me I should like dissonance or wandering tonality."
"Classical music needs to continue and grow, but perhaps it is modern composers who are killing it just as much or more than classical cavemen like me."
adapting, embracing, encouraging, influencing. "Giving up on principle" relegates oneself to a "static acceptance" of what has come before. Are you suggesting that we "abandon all progress" as a basic principle? Of course not (I assume). It is more likely that you and psgary are struggling to find the good stuff -- understandable, and part of the point I am making. These kinds of works are hard to find...few and far between. There's no opportunity to sample them (easily), and no one seems to care enough to provide an easy method to "sample them".The alternative view ("there's nothing worth sampling") is you-might-as-well-get-ready-to-die depressing. Then again, there ARE antique collectors out there who want "nothing but the old stuff" and re-calibrate their expectations accordingly. That's fine. It's just not me. Also, my experience has taught me that antiquarians who have a knee-jerk reaction to new things can often find they are IMPRESSED by new things...when it is presented optimally. So, even a fan of 78's can be impressed by a particular CD or SACD, and even a fan of Baroque may find interesting contrast or overlap with a Carter or Boulez. Sometimes it takes work, other times it happens naturally.
The key is to keep an open mind. It is this encouraging of "an open mind" that underlies the progress of art in general. That, to me, is the major point of this entire thread.
Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, all needed encouraging in their day. Serious composers today need the same. Once question is how to separate the charlatans and pretenders from those worth listening to. Perhaps that's a function of time and that is the answer.It is easy to forget that Beethoven was viewed as radical when he brought out some of his works. They were reviled by some.
The problem today is how to find modern music that is appealing to an individual. Perhaps there should be a rating system such as the movies have: A - atonal M - melodic C - John Cage. This is somewhat tongue in cheek, but perhaps the point is made. How do people like me who like lovely melodies find modern works to listen to?
Two of my favorite Christmas songs are modern ones by John Rutter. So I got one of his larger works. Most disappointing. That can happen with any composer, of course. I have selections by Mozart, Vivaldi, Mendelssohn, et al collecting dust.
You are right that classical music can't become fossilized but the answer as to how to nurture its growth still eludes me.
Zhdanov was communist boss of Leningrad who considered himself a conoisseur of music. His music tastes were conservative. He believed that all truly good music ended with Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, and everything thereafter was suspicious if not outright bad. He was also concerned with the future of the music, and deemeded that if the current tendencies are allowed, classical music may soon seize to exist.To correct the situation, he summoned Shostakovich, Slonimsky, and few other composers to his office, and in a friendly talk over vodka and beluga caviar explained them that on the one hand, classical music is deeply rooted in folk tradition, and on the other hand, all new creations should be understandable to masses. That is, new music should be composed such that an average person is able to whistle it.
Joking apart, some new music is quite tuneful. Just to name a few pieces I listened recently, Shostakovich Chamber Symphonies (warning: very depressing), Golijov Ainadamar, Glass Violin Concerto, Piazzola Seasons, Crumb Ancient Voices of Children, Part Te Deum and Tabula Rasa.
"it is DEFINITELY arguable that we don't need more/new RECORDINGS of mainstay works"This is what I keep mumbling to myself on my visits to record stores. I DEFINITELY don't need more Brandenburg Concertos as I already have 10 or so, among them such great ones as Casals, Munchinger, Britten, Janigro, Warchal. I DEFINITELY don't need more Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Schumann, Rachmaninov, etc. because I already have tons that are great. This self-restraint saves me a lot of money and keeps from overstepping the boundaries of sanity. I believe that keeping expansion of my music collection under control is good for me personally.
But speaking of US as music-loving public, do we or we don't need new performances of mainstay works? It is an important question because if we don't, it means that these mainstay works have been explored to their ultimate depth and there nothing new to be found in them.
Luckily, it is not so. I don't know a single piece of classical music that has exhausted its potential. New generations of musicians discover new depths, and there is no end in sight. The trend is easy to follow. For example, Chopin interpretations have distinct periods. Late 19th century was dominated by virtuoso style exemplified by Paderewski. Then it was lyric style with Lipatti, Horowitz, Richter, Rubinstein or Brailowsky as examples of its proponents. Then on top of that comes dramatic style: Moravec, Bolet, Barbosa, Pandolfi, and of contemporary pianists, Yundi Li. Can we say this is all about Chopin? I don't think so.
Or Beethoven. After the giants like Mengelberg, Toscanini, Furtwangler, Leibowitz, Krips, Karajan, Walter, Mazur, Kluytens, etc., is Beethoven exhausted? No way, just listen to the latest recordings by Haitnik, Vanska, or Dudamel.
As Sviatoslav Richter said, an honest musician should play a piece of music only if he/she has something new to say. So long as we have honest musicians, we, the music-loving public, need new recordings of old music.
There's a difference between the rare "new insight" of a particular performer/performance and the over-saturation of recordings we've been getting from the record companies (and which have lead to there not being able to even SELL another Beethoven, Chopin etc.). There has been very little embrace (or demand for that matter) for newer composers. Such a dynamic needs to be NURTURED. Unfortunately, the most obvious means for this nurturing are radio play and music education...maybe television. It's not happening due to commercial viability. This is where public funding or patronage comes in, but it's mostly gone away (not a priority with wars to fight). The whole thing must, in the end, most likely will assume some state of atrophy, maybe to recover, maybe not.It's frightful to think that the burden of maintenance will fall upon the shoulders of students and academia, as was pointed out to me the other day -- they are not equipped to stay the course for mass participation.
But I believe diversity is good as there are means of navigation. Radio, live concerts, libraries, bargain bins of record stores, sharing with friends. I only pay full price for something that I know is good.A month ago I was at the concert of Olga Kern, a rising Russian star. She played Variations on the the Theme of Paganini, and then one of Rachmaninov etudes. It was very good, the etude just shocking. I have tons of great Rachmaninov already, but will track and buy her record whatever it takes. Diversity is a necessary condition for rare talents to pop up now and then. Just by the law of big numbers. If 1% of artists are great, having 10,000 artists around yields 100 great ones. But having only 50 may yield no real talent at all.
As to new music, this is exactly like old music. During Mozart time there were hundreds of composers offering their wares to public. The time made judgement upon all of them. In the same fashion, the time will make judgement upon all the contemporary composers. I am sure some will make it to the hall of fame. Schnittke, Gubaidullina, Kancheli, Glass, Part, Golijov, to name a few. I don't think that any special effort is needed to promote contemporary music. If it is good, it will be noticed and performed. If it is ignored, then probably it is not so good. Prophecies of doom of classical music have been there at all times, too.
Like old music, new music has plenty of noise. A lot of "new" music is compoosed by university faculty composers. They have to meet certain criteria of productivity for their promotions and tenures. Most of these "composers" do big disservice for the cause of new music. Sure, academia is the last place to entrust the future of classics.
I've got no proof. I can only watch for the next few decades to see what happens. The kicker will be the aging of the boomers, who have built up the current state of Classical music through their concert attendance, preferences, record purchases...and neglect of new composers. The answer will lie in response to the question, "Who will CARE about Classical music in 30 years, and what will they care about?" My guess is that the second part of the question is moot. The answer to the first part must be "the young folks", otherwise it's game, set, match. I have NO IDEA how many people under the age of 25 listen to Classical music. Does anyone know?...
classical music is not for everyone. It newer was the art of the masses, never it will be, and never it was intended to be. That 95% of teenagers (as well as adults) don't care about classical music is not today's unfortunate tendency, it has been like this all the time.The focus audience is the remaining 5%. I am prety sure that this level will remain stable in the forseeable future, without any proselyting effort. Moreover,trying to affect things that occur naturally is like trying to influence the course of change of day and night.
Boomers? This is a local phenomenon of no significance to classical music, which is a world affair. BTW, a typical boomer prefers classic rock and classic cars of all things classic.
For a long while, it was the "favored" genre for patrons and the intellectual strivers. It was supported and nurtured by well-educated musicians and MANY composers bringing out new "product". The "patronage and government funding model" was supplemented by a broad-scale PAYING audience that also PAYED for recordings during the past 75-100 years, making the viability of the genre live, perhaps, longer than it would have. To deny the generational cycle and the economic impact upon Classical music as being nothing than "more of the same" is like saying one shouldn't be concerned with the art of the clock-maker, or hand-carved furniture or even the availability of high-end, non-mass-produced audio equipment.The CRAFT of Classical music is laborious, requires considerable focus and concentration (to complete a major work) and cannot be performed by folks who have other things to do simply to put food on the table. Boomers drove the economic cycle that supported this art for a half-century, and the support net is fading. Specific attention will need to be applied by those who care through their support of living artists (NOT just "performers" of the art, but creators). Otherwise, it will become EXACTLY like the "Mona Lisa": the relic of a bygone day.
Joshua Bell felt it in the Washington subway recently, where the international star violinist went virtually unnoticed by a mass of people "too unaware to know, and too busy to notice". It shocked a lot of people...but not the ones who didn't care. It's funny/sad. A lot of the folks in this forum are exactly the ones who claim to care the most, but seem prepared to do the least -- complacent, happy people. Who knows? Maybe that's nirvana?:-/
. . . I can't get enough different points of view of the "standard repertoire". And although there are new contemporary works that I like (Pärt, Ligeti - oops maybe Ligeti doesn't count anymore since he recently joined the "Dead White European Males" club), I also find the majority of new music pretty cheezy - and that includes wide swaths of Glass and Adams. In fact, the last living composer whose new works I was actually EAGER to hear was Joaquin Rodrigo!Maybe it's because I come from a time when the "post-Webern" aesthetic ruled the universities and concert halls, but I've seen too many audiences burned by the unwillingness of contemporary composers (especially of the "post-Webern" style - which was being pushed down our throats when I was in school) to meet them halfway. And I won't even mention the absurd hubris and self-righteousness of these composers ("the world owes me a living" - wasn't it Milton Babbitt who was demanding that kind of unquestioned support from us peones as far back as 1958 - even though his article was couched in the obsurantist language of scholasticism so as to hide the bald-faced arrogance of its meaning?).
Although I don't share Todd's enthusiasm for Charles Dutoit (below), there are plenty of other conductors around nowadays whom I would trust to conjure new insights and meanings from the standard repertoire: Skrowaczewski, Vänskä, Pletnev (on a good day), and, yes, Salonen - and lots more!
You said:
Are we -- as fans and concert-goers and collectors of recordings -- seeking, really, ANYONE to continue to perform the "old classics" which we have heard in spades. I mean, if I want animated/unique Beethoven or Bruckner or Shostakovich I know exactly where to look. OK, it is DEFINITELY arguable that we don't need more/new RECORDINGS of mainstay works (IMO)
I couldn't disagree more - partially for the reason above (i.e., that there are always new insights waiting to be discovered in great music). I mean, really, what if someone had shared your opinions in, say, the 1950's - claiming, for example, that we have all the great Chopin playing we need in the recordings of Rubinstein, Cortot, Friedman, Rosenthal, etc, etc. So I guess with an outlook like this, one needn't bother with Chopin performers who came later (Argerich, Moravec, Zimmermann, etc, etc)? (Or maybe they should play only new music? - Come to think of it, a Moravec performance of some of the Ligeti Etudes might be very interesting!) :-)
But even aside from this, I feel that the engineering on modern recordings has the potential of getting us closer and closer to the totality of the interpreters' conception. Although there are counter-progressive tendencies at work in modern recordings (the plethora of microphones for one thing!), we still have examples in recent years of recording/engineering standards which would have been unattainable in years past. For me, these engineering standards brings us listeners ever closer to the heart of the performance, as we hear the nuances and tone qualities which simply could not be captured in older recordings. For this reason too, I can't imagine confining future recording activities to new works only (not that I think this would ever happen).
Chris,Count me among the "Luddites" too for the very reasons you and psgary mentioned.
There is no prejudice on my part against modern composers, other than I can't stand what I hear. My love of melody seems to keep me out of the club that idolizes modern composers. Please don't tell me I should like dissonance or wandering tonality. Show me the modern composers who are compatible with my Bach-Mendelssohn-Tchaikovsky-Franck-Gershwin-loving ears and I'll listen to them.I have yet to hear a modern opera that I can stand to listen to for more than 16 measures. Where is the variety that classical composers of the past offer? There are a few modern pieces I like, if mid-20th century counts as modern, but my ears object to most modern works. I am tired of being criticized as an audience member and having to apologize merely for liking melodic music. Surely all possible melodies have not been created yet. Yes, SE is right. Classical music needs to continue and grow, but perhaps it is modern composers who are killing it just as much or more than classical cavemen like me.
And I agree with you about new interpretations and recordings. There is much for modern musicians to learn from past masters and build on. Should we stop looking at the Mona Lisa?
It's a tough view, however. Unlike "knowing" what the past works are and picking and choosing, there is a pre-supposition(?) that one already knows everything that's being said either now or in the future in contemporary compositions: Unlikely. Think what life would be if the concept were applied more broadly.
.
It completely shuts the door on progress, and denies a future but, as you say (and I TRULY agree): One cannot and should not be forced to appreciate that which they do not.The tough part of that view is that, unlike "knowing" what the past works are and picking and choosing, there is a pre-supposition(?) that one already knows everything that's being said either now or in the future in contemporary compositions: Unlikely. This is a very severe view. Think of it in the context of almost anything else in life.
I won't use the word Luddite. I'll just say that Classical music fans such as yourself are the reason the art form is dying. Take whatever satisfaction you will from that. By no means was I advocating a complete and literal end to performances of the existing body of Classical compositions. My point is a balance needs to be struck, and a deliberate effort at sponsoring and performing new works needs to be established...at least if the music is going to survive.Regarding recordings, are you still buying new recordings of standard works? Based on the 1958 reference, I'm assuming you're at least in your 49 (years since then) plus, what 12 (age)...60 years old at least. I agree with you regarding newer recordings and engineering. However, I'm somewhat younger than you and I've got EVERYTHING I enjoy in crisp new recordings...PLUS gobs of the historic stuff: I am TOTALLY saturated. Knowing that you can't possibly have enough time to "listen to it all", I'm assuming that you've ABANDONED many of your older recordings in favor of newer ones (i.e., you just don't -- and will never, as a matter of hours in the day -- listen to them again). Here's the closer. Someone that goes out right now and buys an SACD of, say, Vanska conducting the Beethoven 9th (or whatever) has in there hands a sound recording that is about as good as human ears need. It's your call, but life's too short to continue to throw money after the same work over and over again.
On a different note, new music is about new experience. When I stop seeking new intellectual experience (and the tweaking of the texture or pace of a piece I've got 20 recordings of is hardly what I'm speaking of), I'll declare myself as no longer being interested in the very reason I enjoy this hobby. You are effectively doing that for yourself. Or, at least, you are content with what you have. That's fine, but I truly believe that extending that contentment outward into the realm of Classical music as a reason for it NOT TO GROW is just not right.
I'll just say that Classical music fans such as yourself are the reason the art form is dying. Take whatever satisfaction you will from that.Well, I'm not sure I agree that the art form is dying, but let's agree for the moment that it is, just for the sake of argument. Don't you think it's far more likely that its death would be hastened more by fragmentation of its audience than by failure to abandon the core repertoire in favor of new music? Just look at Mr. Thornhill's comments from below:
most 20th century music fails to draw an adequate crowd. I've observed a most striking incident of this two years with a Philadelphia Orchestra program that had the Dvorak Cello concerto before the intermission and Zemlinsky's Die Seejungfrau afterwards. Easily 20% of the audience did not return to hear the Zemlinsky. If people are not going to listen to it, why play it?
Now, I like Zemlinsky just fine, but I think it's clear from this post what's driving out the audience (and it's not the Dvorak Cello Concerto!). And the audience's reaction, I contend, is understandable, having been conditioned by years and years (maybe even decades and decades) of being browbeaten by contemporary composers' new works. In a way, it's funny, because I'm sure a large portion of the folks who left the concert would actually have enjoyed the Zemlinsky - since it's not really NEW music, but merely UNFAMILIAR music. I'm going off on a tangent here, but I recall a survey by the National Symphony Orchestra some years ago, where they asked their audience what music they would like to hear on the orchestra's concerts. By far the largest response was that listeners wanted to hear unfamiliar music by familiar composers!
Back to your comments:
Regarding recordings, are you still buying new recordings of standard works?
Yup - that's probably 90% of what I buy.
Based on the 1958 reference, I'm assuming you're at least in your 49 (years since then) plus, what 12 (age)...60 years old at least.
I wish - then I'd be closer to retirement! :-) No, I was just quoting Babbitt's article from an anthology I have.
I'm somewhat younger than you and I've got EVERYTHING I enjoy in crisp new recordings...PLUS gobs of the historic stuff: I am TOTALLY saturated.
Perhaps one reason you're saturated and I'm not is that there are a large number of my CD's I've listened to only once or twice. Also, one makes conscious choices of what to focus one's listening on: I'm certainly less focused on pre-stereo historical recordings that a lot of other posters on this forum are.
Knowing that you can't possibly have enough time to "listen to it all", I'm assuming that you've ABANDONED many of your older recordings in favor of newer ones (i.e., you just don't -- and will never, as a matter of hours in the day -- listen to them again).
Yes, that's true - some CD's are listened to only once, almost as if you'd be hearing the performance at a concert. It doesn't bother me to listen to some CD's just once, especially if the CD is disappointing for one reason or another - I'll just bring it down to a used CD store and get store credit for it.
Someone that goes out right now and buys an SACD of, say, Vanska conducting the Beethoven 9th (or whatever) has in there hands a sound recording that is about as good as human ears need.
I don't agree with you on this point. I like Vänskä's CD of the 4th and 5th. (I haven't heard the 9th yet.) But why do you want to cap engineering progress? I have no doubt that better engineering will come along, and when this superior engineering arrives, I'm going to need it! :-) Besides, although you and I like the sound quality on these Vänskä recordings, some listeners/posters don't like it (for various reasons).
life's too short to continue to throw money after the same work over and over again.
When I stop seeking new intellectual experience (and the tweaking of the texture or pace of a piece I've got 20 recordings of is hardly what I'm speaking of), I'll declare myself as no longer being interested in the very reason I enjoy this hobby.
I guess it comes down to this: I find that the differences in sound quality and interpretation in a known work can be quite substantial (I wouldn't describe these differences as the mere tweaking of texture or pace) and that listening for these differences is not only enjoyable in its own right but also contributes to an understanding the work itself. Think of the simplest work you can imagine - say, Chopin's A-major Prelude. Sure it's simple, but the possibilities for interpretation are infinite! Add to that the variety of sound quality you encounter on various recordings, and there are even more facets to the work (beyond infinite! - I'm joking here, but you get my drift). We had friends over some years ago, and played them two recordings of one of the Chopin Preludes (I forget which one). It turned out these performances were by the same pianist (Moravec), but they produced such different effects that our friends could not even believe that it was the same pianist in the two recordings!
you are content with what you have.
Never! :-)
I truly believe that extending that contentment outward into the realm of Classical music as a reason for it NOT TO GROW is just not right.
You know, I don't think we're as far apart as it may have seemed originally. Your point is that a balance needs to be struck and that new music needs to be encouraged. I don't disagree. I perhaps misunderstood your original post, where, it seemed to me, you were advocating that a new conductor ought to jettison the standard repertoire in favor of new music. Since you wrote about balancing the needs of extending the repertoire with new works and generating new insights into existing works (not in so many words, but I think that was your gist), our disagreement probably concerns only the point where the balance lies. :-)
I'm still catching up with the old recordings!The only reason I see to bless CD is that it has allowed (?) further issuance of recordings from radio archives. These would be live performances, and live is best. With one exception: In the good old days of 78s, the pressure to play it right was the same as if an audience were there, so most of those older recordings work musically.
And they have greater "tone". The fault with most recent digital recordings is that they *are* "crisp", which is a cognate of "edgy", besides being over-miked and played in the faceless "international style". Feh!
I have to tell you, though, that the work I hear at the BSO these last three years so far surpasses what passes for good performance on new CDs, makes me hope and pray that some day these will find legal circulation. Nor does James Levine neglect modern music! And why do the audiences not disappear? Because he somehow is able to interpret it to make sense.
Still, when he does Mahler, Schumann etc. the results are so frequently luminiscent I wouldn't yield a moment of my time with them. Just as whenever I listen to the '20s and '30s recordings of the Capet, Calvet, Pro Arte and Lener Quartets -- now available for cheap at Berkshire Record Outlet. Almost nothing one hears these days on recordings, except from the Borromeo (live, as well), is comparable.
I tip my hat to you both for your knowledge of and enthusiasm for older recordings. BTW, have you heard the new process available from Pristine Audio Direct for recovering high frequencies buried in the surface noise of pre-LP recordings. The samples on their web site sound promising from what I can tell. (They include the Weingartner/VPO Erioca, Faure played by Kathleen Long, the Schnabel/Sargent Emperor, etc.)As for me, I'll never forget my first encounter with the Pro Arte Quartet - it was the Schnabel recording of the Trout Quintet. Within the first ten seconds of that performance, when the violinist slides up to that high note, I thought he'd been goosed! :-)
(BTW, I thought cognates, as they apply to language, were supposed to contain the same root word?)
(Although not *as* big...)1) No I have not heard Pristine Audio Direct -- I'll visit them this afternoon, thanks for the lead.
2) So: Unacquainted with portamento huh? The Calvet and Capet do it too, although perhaps less conspicuously. (The book to read is Music in the Age of Recording.)
3) Wondered if anyone would call me on that; I had meant to write "sonic cognate".
He wrote an article in The New Criterion called "Who's Good?" where he did a run-through currently active of musicians whom he considers worthy. amongst conductors he wrote, "there is one indisputably great conductor in the world today: James Levine. He has no weaknesses, no gaps; he can conduct anything, with supreme understanding and musicality."But I can't let you off that easily. In the same article he said, "The music world is inordinately affected by nostalgia. The past was always golden, and the present is more like tin...Sometimes the present is, indeed, tin (and tin will be preponderant in any age). But there is much gold about, and part of musical awareness is to be...well, aware of that."
"But I can't let you off that easily. In the same article he said, "The music world is inordinately affected by nostalgia. The past was always golden, and the present is more like tin...Sometimes the present is, indeed, tin (and tin will be preponderant in any age). But there is much gold about, and part of musical awareness is to be...well, aware of that."How true...I just wish more orchestras will be bold enough to go in search of some present-day gold, rather than a constant regurgitation of past gold, it will certainly keep them from going stale and boring.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Can't be many of us. You would also like Chronicles.Where you located (just curious)?
...if I remember correctly. At times it rises to real greatness. It's cultural criticism is consistently good, and at times inspiring. My only beef with it is its blindness to the faults of the political right, but it's easy enough to ignore the ideological rants when they show up. I'll take a look at Chronicles. I really would be interested in some more good writing.I'm from New York. I've been told that we're unconscionably rude.
(How was that?)Here's the lead on Chronicles, to whose print edition I've subscribed for ten years:
http://chroniclesmagazine.org/
And from an article just found, currently at the top of the page:
To be fair to Imus, he did not say anything about blacks that blacks do not say about each other, constantly, in comedy routines and in their so-called music. It is amusing to hear the smug denunciations of NPR newsreaders who routinely laud the artistic genius of rap artists and movie directors. Imus’s offensive little rap about the Rutgers women was in fact lifted from Spike Lee. Why isn’t Spike Lee drummed out of Hollywood? For the same reason that pious liberals have shown no reluctance to appear as guests on Imus’s show. None of them were deterred by his years of vilifying women, Christians, homosexuals, and Jews.
But when a white guy repeats Spike Lee on the air, he becomes a sacrificial victim.
the recordings myself, either from local FM stations that broadcast live concerts, or from classical internet stations that transmit at 128 or higher kbps. Internet stations can be recorded on your computer in lossless WAV or WMA files and burned on to CDsLocal FM stations, like WQXR and WNYC here in NYC, are generally the best source of high quality live broadcasts with little or no compression. The ambient soundstage, the clarity and definition of instruments and the the lack of fatiguing "edginess" or shrillness so prevalent in some CDs are some of the benefits of recording live broadcasts. I use a very sensitive and selective FM tuner with a good quality CD recorder that assures me an excellent recording of the original broadcasts. I am sure that WGBH in Boston also features live concerts of the BSO and other symphony orchestras.
For several years, I worked in a recording studio restoring and remastering old 78rpm records and transcribing them on to 16ips tape for radio stations, and I know first hand how painstaking a process that can be. Due to fluctuations in current and other variations in the motors of the old transcription lathes, the recording speed was not always 78rpm, and minute corrections had to be constantly made. Records had to be scrupulously cleaned, noise and static filtered, and the sound eaualized to compensate for microphones that emphasized/de-emphasized the bass and other frequencies.
There are some sound engineers like the legendary John R.T. Davies who excelled in restoring and remastering old 78rpm jazz recordings from the 1920's and 30's, but many of the restorations of classical 78rpm recordings I have heard do not impress me.
I've been greatly pleased with the remastered CDs of many of the audiophile classical LPs from 40 or 50 years ago, those from the Mercury "Living Presence" and RCA "Living Stereo" labels especially. Listening to Charles Munch with the BSO, Antal Dorati with the Minneapolis and London Symphony orchestras, to name but a few, have been a pleasant surprise.
Most transfer engineers and "restorationists" have no idea how good the critters can sound, so it never comes out. This problem has been ongoing since the Fifties.My own audio specialty is applying high-end techniques to those great old spinners.
"the point where the balance lies". If the big orchestras (not to mention Chamber Music performer -- we CAN'T EVEN GO THERE) continue to "stick to the core works" watch the concert halls empty out during the next decade as the number of old folks attending starts to decrease. The idea is to draw in NEW fans and audiences, not simply satisfy the needs of the existing ones. To do that, they have to be "attracted" to what's being presented. It is sad to think that the perspective being taken by the major orchestras and ensembles is that they believe the solution lies with the tried-and-true exclusively.It sounds to me like you have been "put off" by new compositions not unlike the the tenor of someone who lived through the Serial killings of the 1960's. There is a universe of Neo-Classical and Neo-Romantic music that is highly appealing and readily available for presentation to the public. It is not being performed. If you are younger than the age I identified, more's the pity, as you would fall into MY age bracket, I'm asking these artists for MORE...before it's too late.
No art form can survive that stagnates. It MAY "re-invent itself" in the future if it withers for awhile, but the TRADITION is lost. Hell, maybe that's a good thing. It's exactly this tradition that is holding it back.
BTW, all of your commentary regarding "it's all that I buy" etc. says that you are still in the "collecting phase". I am at the tail end of it, having gathered as much as I could possibly ever need (trust me on this). As such, my policy going forward is effectively (for purchasing new recordings): If the work wasn't composed in the last 20 years or so, don't bother. Sure, I'll make the occassional exception!:-)...
Every orchestra's season is dominated by guest conductors. Guest conductors typically choose to conduct core repertoire since they've never worked with the orchestra before -- or only a few times -- and have a limited amount of rehearsal time.
I suppose, then, the responsibility falls upon the orchestra and Music Director. We'll take whatever we can get!
There's also the ticket sale factor, which is that Beethoven and Brahms pack houses, and with few exceptions, most 20th century music fails to draw an adequate crowd. I've observed a most striking incident of this two years with a Philadelphia Orchestra program that had the Dvorak Cello concerto before the intermission and Zemlinsky's Die Seejungfrau afterwards. Easily 20% of the audience did not return to hear the Zemlinsky. If people are not going to listen to it, why play it?This is where recordings come in. I always prefer to hear music live, but recordings are the most cost effective way to distribute contemporary music. Thankfully labels like BIS and Naxos will record the most unpopular non-mainstream music.
I wouldn't even have a reference to cite as the basis for wanting more new music to be made actively available. They should play the Zemlinsky for the other 80% assuming maybe half of those folks enjoy it. At least it's an effort. No effort, no future.
I've always felt that part of the solution is a supply and demand approach.The major orchestras give 3 to 4 concerts per week. If they put Webern on the program, orchestras see that as having 3 to 4 nights of bad ticket sales, and thus, don't program Webern at all. My solution: put Webern on the program, but only have the concert repeat once -- so 2 nights as opposed to 3 or 4. And when you put Beethoven's 5th on the program, repeat it up to 6 times. Now some orchestras do the latter, but not the former.
as much as pre-dispostion or actual experience. I agree with your approach.
If the tradition isn't constantly renewed it will eventually die. According to a composer friend of mine the problem is actually with the usually non-musician orchestra administrators who are actually (and surprisingly) involved with the selection of repertoire. I'm not clear on where the role of the music director ends and the admin people takes over. He describes these admin folks as typically VERY conservative in musical taste and woefully ignorant of contemporary music in general. They appear to be a major stumbling block. This is also a major problem in the area of commissions, with decisions often not made by the music directors.
The problem isn't the "new interpretations", the problem is that aside from Charles Dutoit, there isn't a conductor on the planet right now that would light up my interest if he were visit Phoenix or Los Angeles on tour. But then again, I'd never pass an opportunity to see another interpretation of the Mahler One, Beethoven 9, or Rachmaninoff Two.I'd also go out of my way to see pianists Arnaldo Cohen or Ayako Uehara.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: