Come on Dave! As a percussionist, you know that timpani with plastic heads sound completely different from calf-skin, as do wooden flutes compared to metal ones. Small bore trombones balance better with small string sections than more recent bigger ones, and trumpets in F are less shrill than modern ones in C. It DOES make a difference!
And exactly which conductors who lived to make recordings and who had also been performing and conducting in the late 19th century gave a tinkers damn when players adopted the later instruments? Toscanini? Beecham? Walter? Monteux? Weingartner? None that I know ever demanded that players use those earlier designs.
Stradivarius violins have been around for a long time and used in 'modern' performances, many of the Berlin Philharmonic and Vienna Philharmonic instrumentalists probably use old instruments going way back, so 'modern' performance sonics probably aren't so different from the past anyway. Also, didn't Mozart and Beethoven leap at the latest instrumental gadgetry?
Charles Rosen commented once that the 'HIP' aesthetics was in fact a postmodern construction of a unique sound, because like dave says here everything is speculative, and even if not, ears are not what they once were. Now indeed the Baroque 'HIP' sound is a part of our music aesthetics, but for the music from ca. 1850 on, there is just no difference.
That makes sense. I'd also suggest the biographical details of composers' lives, over which earlier generations pored in order to find meaning, can be a little off-putting to contemporary sensibilities, there were a lot of creepers back then, and it is easier to confront their works if they are presented as fastidiously kept museum pieces.
I think the bottom line with stuff like this is that we're just dealing with self-absorbed people. I'd like to be in a room with them and force them to listen to their recording vs. a reference and ask them if they honestly think they have a more beautiful recording. I truly wonder if some of these conductors/ensembles actually listen to what they produce.
Interesting talk David, as always thanks! Given your thoughts here, what is your position on so-called obsolete instruments, such as the serpent or the later ophicleide, which were used in certain eras, but which largely were replaced by the tuba in the 19th century, seemingly either as a consequence of the composer make the active change themselves, or since the instrument in question was no longer available and had to be replaced by a close approximation for practical performance considerations.
I'm a new subscriber. I am much too primitive for these detailed disagreements in the field. I am not new to classical music. I have about 150 vinyl albums and lots of CDs. I was feeling confused about where my primary musical interest as a listener lies. I've listened to many different types of music but I've come to the conclusion that probably in early music I feel most at home. I turn 75 in a couple of weeks so that may be a factor in my thinking. As for the sauce, the Sriracha sauce I was buying suffered a name change here. Still the same sauce but now it's labeled Sweet Chili Sauce and also Product of Thailand.
Once had a recording of some Liszt pieces recorded on a Streicher piano he used in Prague in 1846. It sounded like the hammmers had grooves an inch deep in them.
Further to your 'three lifetimes from Beethoven' point, I was thinking recently that, only a century (i.e., fewer than one-and-a-half lifetimes) ago, very few people would ever have heard live music apart from their local church organ and choir and, if lucky, home-piano reductions of orchestral works. This realisation strangely shocked me, as I cannot imagine a life devoid of a broad range of music. P.S. I wonder whether you might consider a review of the compositions of L. Bernstein, such as Chichester Psalms, Mass, A Quiet Place, etc? Many thanks!
So which of these groups plays with the very audible portamenti preserved on the earliest recordings and on into the early electric era? To be fully authentic, shouldn't the playing be "riding the portamento bus" as, I think, Carl Flesch called it? They should at least sound like Mengelberg's Concertgebuow, the only orchestra that seems to have preserved that style into the 1940s. But none that I've heard does. Instead, they eliminate the vibrato which is clearly audible in certain passages, especially solos and not only from strings, on these recordings.
As you say, marketing any product requires all differences, no matter how trivial, be made essential to its identity. Are you familiar with the Hot Ones show on UA-cam? You could be the next celebrity guest!
Performance sauce? heh heh heh I do not have many OP recordings. The few I have are older music, and fine. Are far as original instruments, I really like the current Civil War bands that use them (lots of repairs) and/or modern replicas. The sound and blow resistance. bore size, mouthpiece sizes do create a different timbre. Over the shoulder brass was common then. The backward pointed bells sounded normal to the troops marching behind. Sometimes the newer groups ( since the 50s) put the recording mics behind them. An interesting topic for sure. Many orchestra players of yore would use medium bore trumpets, which does have a slightly different sound. I doubt I could always tell the difference.
I look forward to when the period instrument aesthetes sink their teeth into the high Modernist repertoire. (And I think they’re already doing Berg and Schoenberg, so this might not be far off.) It will be a meeting of the world’s most insufferable minds. Both the arguments and the results will be safely ignorable.
Great chat, Dave. Every generation brings their own view on the classics and thats what i wanna hear, not some kind of historical excercise. Its impossible to recreate something from the past, the musicians were different, tastes were different, the circumstances and all other influences that made the performance. Playing an instrument from this or that time is quite irrelevant. Bruno Walter, Klemperer etc just evolved with their times and didnt say: when i was young it all sounded so different, but they just did what was right at the moment they performed, they were just practical. Style is the main key, and then it doesnt matter what instruments you use...
I know nothing of hot sauce but how about cola. I prefer Coke, but know that it is no longer authentic, it is not made to the original recipe. Some prefer Diet Coke (without vibrato), others caffeine free (chamber forces) while those without taste choose Pepsi. The options are there and as consumers we can make our choices, but as to authenticity only a living composer can tell you if the sound we hear is what they envisioned and that would generally be for a live performance rather than a recording. We only get a flavour of the real thing. (Other brands are available)
I really loved your comparison with sauces. However, and you mentioned it without giving it the necessary weight, there is an economical aspect. If you want people to buy your Sriracha sauce, it must be different. You must convince people that this is the REAL, the AUTHENTIC Sriracha sauce. Even if it is not better as all the others, at least it must be different. Sadly a lot of people will not even notice the difference. So, you just need good commercials. And in music it is quite the same.
Attention, one of the most important videos of recent times on this channel! Even though there are many more, and I'd like to comment on them, but it's going too fast, the pace of new videos is too high, I can't keep up with my own intention to comment. Could I thank you once again, Dave, for pointing out one of the most important phenomena of recent times, when it comes to scamming the evolution of the "period instruments" movement? You've hit the nail on the head, and I'm not going to paraphrase - and by the way, I'm no hot-sauce expert, as you are. To be synthetic, what you're pointing out here (starting with that deplorable recent Mahler example you couldn't stand) is illustrated above all by the fairly recent growth of a seemingly inexorable movement. The Baroque movement (to speak in generalities) is trying to extend its logic of so-called "historically informed interpretation" to Romantic and post-romantic music. This is an appalling but revealing illustration of an aspect that, until now, has been underplayed: the ideological argument of this movement. While the best of this movement (and the least ideological) have demonstrated a balanced approach, with the best musicological contributions concerning Baroque and early music (I'm thinking of Trevor Pinnock, Neville Marinner and others: the true "Baroqueists" in my eyes), many others have demonstrated their ideological identity. And we can be very disappointed, when we've appreciated some very fine achievements on their part, and I'm thinking in particular of Jordi Savall, who today makes a fool of himself in Beethoven's Missa solemnis or the symphonies of Schubert or Mendelssohn. Need I say it again? This path is simply absurd, if only in terms of music history. And without going into further detail (I don't have the space or time here), the essential reason for this absurdity is the refusal to consider what happened at the end of Classicism and the beginning of the Romantic era, namely the tension towards a new organology and a new aesthetic that materialized, among other things, in the advent of the modern orchestra. A trend that became particularly pronounced from Beethoven onwards. These people don't want to think that way, and believe it legitimate to take refuge in a patrimonial vision of music history. In so doing, they demonstrate that their approach to the Baroque was of the same order, when it came to ideology. They refuse to think about the history of music, and are therefore surfing on a gigantic scam that has unfortunately worked in the minds of a section of the public in search of sacrosanct "authenticity". It's a problem that reveals just how uncritical the commercial and authoritative movements are. You've said it all. Thank you again.
David, have you seen the 'controversy' about Beethoven metronome markings and how to find the 'definitive tempo?' I bet these people left LvB frustrated in 1817. I wish he could watch some of the earnest metronomists on UA-cam slagging each other off and claiming provenance like factions of a religion!
Do these performers ever describe what they're doing as "re-enactment"? Because they remind me of historical re-enactors--guys who dress up in American Civil War uniforms (for example) and re-enact the Battle of Gettysburg. As a hobby, battle re-enacting is as valid as any other: it looks like it could be fun, it gets you out in the open air, it's interesting to watch, and it can even provide us with some insights about history that we can't get from studying documents. But deep down, I think everyone knows that a re-enacted battle is not even close to the real thing. And in addition, like historically informed performance, historical re-enactment becomes less plausible the closer you get to the present. Re-enacting the Battle of Waterloo is one thing: re-enacting the Battle of the Somme is quite another.
It's not a "re-enactment" because the period instrument movement is blinded by the prejudice that what they are doing MUST necessarily sound different from what we do now. This makes them incapable of taking the artistic decisions necessary to present the work in an authentic way expressively.
The HIPsters' game is given away when voices are added to the recipe. With few exceptions, the solo voices sound the same -- in fact, are often the same people -- whether they're doing Monteverdi, Handel, Beethoven or even Elgar. Where's the super amazing research into the authentic vocal styles of different eras? Of course they can make excuses when the music precedes the recorded era, not that we should let them get away with it. But when doing music from 1900, give or take a few decades, do they go back to extant recordings of singers and try to emulate them? Does McCreesh's tenor attempt to sing anything like Edward Lloyd, Elgar's original Gerontius, who did make a couple of recordings? Of course not. It would sound tremendously mannered and affected if it were sung that way. So, authenticity shmauthenticity.
Actually for earlier stuff, they sometimes advocate for no vibrato, so straight-toning. But for stuff around 1900, in the case of Italian music (e.g., Puccini, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, even Verdi, etc.), they tend to insist upon singing portamenti only where it is strictly indicated in the score, _even though there is a ton of it in the recordings made by singers who worked with the composers themselves._
Indeed, the quality of the musician and the musicianship is what matters. A few days ago on the radio, I heard an HIP-influenced performance of Beethoven's first symphony played on modern instruments. This could have been positive, but as often happens in this performance practice, it wasn't. Specifically, in the last movement of the symphony, the syncopated sforzandos were followed by notes that were nearly piano in volume -- which gave the impression of timidity, as if they were embarrassed that the previous notes were too loud. This mode of feigned-restrained playing as correct performance practice not only robbed the music of its intent, but it made it sound wussified and weak. This is Beethoven? Really? -- No, it is not. The Barenreiter Urtext score in these passages is marked fortissimo (ff), even throughout the sforzandos. Clearly a case of the academics making the rules up as they go along, ironically in the manner of the berated conductors who add scoring to help beef-up weak passages (as in the 1st mvt. Eroica example...), but in this case to a less musical result. Following that passage was the finale with fast string playing, which by itself is not a problem, and if played properly, can work. But as also often happens with HIP-influenced thinking, the fast playing busily spun by without a sense of pulse. The music then sounded simply rushed and busy, losing its grounding, and robbing the music of its impact and integration. Though this was not quite as bad as other examples of HIP-type "fleet" tempos, which often sound simply glib and flippant, it still illustrated the importance of the pulse, to ground the music and give it relevance. Without this, the form of the fabric of the music is lost, and you just have a bunch of notes strung together and tossed at you, which trivializes the music. Since the performance was recorded live, it was followed by applause, albeit polite. I can't help thinking that the audience knew they were jipped by this performance. When pseudo-academic purity overrides fundamental musicianship, the music is ultimately robbed of its humanity. So, what's next, singers to be trained to not use vibrato when singing? Oh, how wonderful that will be! 🙂
So good, and funny. This connects to your comments on Manacorda's Beethoven. Is it possible that for the larger public form-critical repertoire that was a pleasure to listen to was completed around 1970 at best (although yes, good music is still being written), so all that's left is inflation of the heritage and necrophiliac examination of its entrails? As you say, there seems to be money around to make recordings, but to do the same things over, and over again. Manacorda's comments on Beethoven 5 and 6 on UA-cam are hopelessly lame, so what could be expected of the performances with his wee band? The same thing is happening with the development you discuss here. It reminds me of the late '80s when it got to be so cheap to put out CDs that anyone who wanted to did. If there is a defence, maybe it's that all this is for atom-sized audiences, insider careerists and locals, and nobody else is supposed to care. And doesn't.
Thank you for your years into this wonderful effort, Dave. More importantly, thank you for making us think!
Come on Dave! As a
percussionist, you know that timpani with plastic heads sound completely different from calf-skin, as do wooden flutes compared to metal ones. Small bore trombones balance better with small string sections than more recent bigger ones, and trumpets in F are less shrill than modern ones in C. It DOES make a difference!
It's different, but does it make a difference?
And exactly which conductors who lived to make recordings and who had also been performing and conducting in the late 19th century gave a tinkers damn when players adopted the later instruments? Toscanini? Beecham? Walter? Monteux? Weingartner? None that I know ever demanded that players use those earlier designs.
Exactly--different sounds (marginally) that mean nothing significant.
Stradivarius violins have been around for a long time and used in 'modern' performances, many of the Berlin Philharmonic and Vienna Philharmonic instrumentalists probably use old instruments going way back, so 'modern' performance sonics probably aren't so different from the past anyway. Also, didn't Mozart and Beethoven leap at the latest instrumental gadgetry?
Charles Rosen commented once that the 'HIP' aesthetics was in fact a postmodern construction of a unique sound, because like dave says here everything is speculative, and even if not, ears are not what they once were. Now indeed the Baroque 'HIP' sound is a part of our music aesthetics, but for the music from ca. 1850 on, there is just no difference.
Good points.
That makes sense. I'd also suggest the biographical details of composers' lives, over which earlier generations pored in order to find meaning, can be a little off-putting to contemporary sensibilities, there were a lot of creepers back then, and it is easier to confront their works if they are presented as fastidiously kept museum pieces.
I think the bottom line with stuff like this is that we're just dealing with self-absorbed people. I'd like to be in a room with them and force them to listen to their recording vs. a reference and ask them if they honestly think they have a more beautiful recording. I truly wonder if some of these conductors/ensembles actually listen to what they produce.
Interesting talk David, as always thanks! Given your thoughts here, what is your position on so-called obsolete instruments, such as the serpent or the later ophicleide, which were used in certain eras, but which largely were replaced by the tuba in the 19th century, seemingly either as a consequence of the composer make the active change themselves, or since the instrument in question was no longer available and had to be replaced by a close approximation for practical performance considerations.
I don't think it matters at all.
I'm a new subscriber. I am much too primitive for these detailed disagreements in the field. I am not new to classical music. I have about 150 vinyl albums and lots of CDs. I was feeling confused about where my primary musical interest as a listener lies. I've listened to many different types of music but I've come to the conclusion that probably in early music I feel most at home. I turn 75 in a couple of weeks so that may be a factor in my thinking. As for the sauce, the Sriracha sauce I was buying suffered a name change here. Still the same sauce but now it's labeled Sweet Chili Sauce and also Product of Thailand.
Once had a recording of some Liszt pieces recorded on a Streicher piano he used in Prague in 1846. It sounded like the hammmers had grooves an inch deep in them.
Further to your 'three lifetimes from Beethoven' point, I was thinking recently that, only a century (i.e., fewer than one-and-a-half lifetimes) ago, very few people would ever have heard live music apart from their local church organ and choir and, if lucky, home-piano reductions of orchestral works. This realisation strangely shocked me, as I cannot imagine a life devoid of a broad range of music.
P.S. I wonder whether you might consider a review of the compositions of L. Bernstein, such as Chichester Psalms, Mass, A Quiet Place, etc? Many thanks!
So which of these groups plays with the very audible portamenti preserved on the earliest recordings and on into the early electric era? To be fully authentic, shouldn't the playing be "riding the portamento bus" as, I think, Carl Flesch called it?
They should at least sound like Mengelberg's Concertgebuow, the only orchestra that seems to have preserved that style into the 1940s. But none that I've heard does. Instead, they eliminate the vibrato which is clearly audible in certain passages, especially solos and not only from strings, on these recordings.
Yes, and strong portamento without vibrato is grotesque.
Leon's oboe really cracked me up. :))) 6:34
Seems to me that aesthetics clearly have changed since Beethoven - in music, art, fashion, everything.
Design has changed, technology has changed, but the underlying aesthetics of music--not so much.
As you say, marketing any product requires all differences, no matter how trivial, be made essential to its identity. Are you familiar with the Hot Ones show on UA-cam? You could be the next celebrity guest!
Performance sauce? heh heh heh I do not have many OP recordings. The few I have are older music, and fine. Are far as original instruments, I really like the current Civil War bands that use them (lots of repairs) and/or modern replicas. The sound and blow resistance. bore size, mouthpiece sizes do create a different timbre. Over the shoulder brass was common then. The backward pointed bells sounded normal to the troops marching behind. Sometimes the newer groups ( since the 50s) put the recording mics behind them. An interesting topic for sure. Many orchestra players of yore would use medium bore trumpets, which does have a slightly different sound. I doubt I could always tell the difference.
Mercury's Civil War albums used those period band instruments. They are fun.
I look forward to when the period instrument aesthetes sink their teeth into the high Modernist repertoire. (And I think they’re already doing Berg and Schoenberg, so this might not be far off.)
It will be a meeting of the world’s most insufferable minds. Both the arguments and the results will be safely ignorable.
Great chat, Dave. Every generation brings their own view on the classics and thats what i wanna hear, not some kind of historical excercise. Its impossible to recreate something from the past, the musicians were different, tastes were different, the circumstances and all other influences that made the performance. Playing an instrument from this or that time is quite irrelevant. Bruno Walter, Klemperer etc just evolved with their times and didnt say: when i was young it all sounded so different, but they just did what was right at the moment they performed, they were just practical. Style is the main key, and then it doesnt matter what instruments you use...
I know nothing of hot sauce but how about cola. I prefer Coke, but know that it is no longer authentic, it is not made to the original recipe. Some prefer Diet Coke (without vibrato), others caffeine free (chamber forces) while those without taste choose Pepsi. The options are there and as consumers we can make our choices, but as to authenticity only a living composer can tell you if the sound we hear is what they envisioned and that would generally be for a live performance rather than a recording. We only get a flavour of the real thing. (Other brands are available)
Simply more proof that they conflate musicology with musicianship.
I really loved your comparison with sauces. However, and you mentioned it without giving it the necessary weight, there is an economical aspect. If you want people to buy your Sriracha sauce, it must be different. You must convince people that this is the REAL, the AUTHENTIC Sriracha sauce. Even if it is not better as all the others, at least it must be different. Sadly a lot of people will not even notice the difference. So, you just need good commercials. And in music it is quite the same.
Excellent.
Attention, one of the most important videos of recent times on this channel! Even though there are many more, and I'd like to comment on them, but it's going too fast, the pace of new videos is too high, I can't keep up with my own intention to comment.
Could I thank you once again, Dave, for pointing out one of the most important phenomena of recent times, when it comes to scamming the evolution of the "period instruments" movement? You've hit the nail on the head, and I'm not going to paraphrase - and by the way, I'm no hot-sauce expert, as you are.
To be synthetic, what you're pointing out here (starting with that deplorable recent Mahler example you couldn't stand) is illustrated above all by the fairly recent growth of a seemingly inexorable movement. The Baroque movement (to speak in generalities) is trying to extend its logic of so-called "historically informed interpretation" to Romantic and post-romantic music. This is an appalling but revealing illustration of an aspect that, until now, has been underplayed: the ideological argument of this movement. While the best of this movement (and the least ideological) have demonstrated a balanced approach, with the best musicological contributions concerning Baroque and early music (I'm thinking of Trevor Pinnock, Neville Marinner and others: the true "Baroqueists" in my eyes), many others have demonstrated their ideological identity. And we can be very disappointed, when we've appreciated some very fine achievements on their part, and I'm thinking in particular of Jordi Savall, who today makes a fool of himself in Beethoven's Missa solemnis or the symphonies of Schubert or Mendelssohn.
Need I say it again? This path is simply absurd, if only in terms of music history. And without going into further detail (I don't have the space or time here), the essential reason for this absurdity is the refusal to consider what happened at the end of Classicism and the beginning of the Romantic era, namely the tension towards a new organology and a new aesthetic that materialized, among other things, in the advent of the modern orchestra. A trend that became particularly pronounced from Beethoven onwards. These people don't want to think that way, and believe it legitimate to take refuge in a patrimonial vision of music history. In so doing, they demonstrate that their approach to the Baroque was of the same order, when it came to ideology. They refuse to think about the history of music, and are therefore surfing on a gigantic scam that has unfortunately worked in the minds of a section of the public in search of sacrosanct "authenticity".
It's a problem that reveals just how uncritical the commercial and authoritative movements are. You've said it all. Thank you again.
Bravo!!! 👍
David, have you seen the 'controversy' about Beethoven metronome markings and how to find the 'definitive tempo?' I bet these people left LvB frustrated in 1817. I wish he could watch some of the earnest metronomists on UA-cam slagging each other off and claiming provenance like factions of a religion!
I've seen them for some time now. It's almost comical, but not quite.
Stupid nonsense.
Do these performers ever describe what they're doing as "re-enactment"? Because they remind me of historical re-enactors--guys who dress up in American Civil War uniforms (for example) and re-enact the Battle of Gettysburg. As a hobby, battle re-enacting is as valid as any other: it looks like it could be fun, it gets you out in the open air, it's interesting to watch, and it can even provide us with some insights about history that we can't get from studying documents. But deep down, I think everyone knows that a re-enacted battle is not even close to the real thing. And in addition, like historically informed performance, historical re-enactment becomes less plausible the closer you get to the present. Re-enacting the Battle of Waterloo is one thing: re-enacting the Battle of the Somme is quite another.
Love the hot sauce parallels, by the way.
It's not a "re-enactment" because the period instrument movement is blinded by the prejudice that what they are doing MUST necessarily sound different from what we do now. This makes them incapable of taking the artistic decisions necessary to present the work in an authentic way expressively.
Orchestras doing performances on period instruments is akin to a Car enthusiast preferring to drive a Model T Ford instead of a BMW car. Nonsensical
No it's not. And that is not his point!
The HIPsters' game is given away when voices are added to the recipe. With few exceptions, the solo voices sound the same -- in fact, are often the same people -- whether they're doing Monteverdi, Handel, Beethoven or even Elgar. Where's the super amazing research into the authentic vocal styles of different eras? Of course they can make excuses when the music precedes the recorded era, not that we should let them get away with it. But when doing music from 1900, give or take a few decades, do they go back to extant recordings of singers and try to emulate them? Does McCreesh's tenor attempt to sing anything like Edward Lloyd, Elgar's original Gerontius, who did make a couple of recordings? Of course not. It would sound tremendously mannered and affected if it were sung that way. So, authenticity shmauthenticity.
Actually for earlier stuff, they sometimes advocate for no vibrato, so straight-toning. But for stuff around 1900, in the case of Italian music (e.g., Puccini, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, even Verdi, etc.), they tend to insist upon singing portamenti only where it is strictly indicated in the score, _even though there is a ton of it in the recordings made by singers who worked with the composers themselves._
@@ER1CwC Correct on both counts.
Indeed, the quality of the musician and the musicianship is what matters. A few days ago on the radio, I heard an HIP-influenced performance of Beethoven's first symphony played on modern instruments. This could have been positive, but as often happens in this performance practice, it wasn't. Specifically, in the last movement of the symphony, the syncopated sforzandos were followed by notes that were nearly piano in volume -- which gave the impression of timidity, as if they were embarrassed that the previous notes were too loud. This mode of feigned-restrained playing as correct performance practice not only robbed the music of its intent, but it made it sound wussified and weak. This is Beethoven? Really? -- No, it is not. The Barenreiter Urtext score in these passages is marked fortissimo (ff), even throughout the sforzandos. Clearly a case of the academics making the rules up as they go along, ironically in the manner of the berated conductors who add scoring to help beef-up weak passages (as in the 1st mvt. Eroica example...), but in this case to a less musical result.
Following that passage was the finale with fast string playing, which by itself is not a problem, and if played properly, can work. But as also often happens with HIP-influenced thinking, the fast playing busily spun by without a sense of pulse. The music then sounded simply rushed and busy, losing its grounding, and robbing the music of its impact and integration. Though this was not quite as bad as other examples of HIP-type "fleet" tempos, which often sound simply glib and flippant, it still illustrated the importance of the pulse, to ground the music and give it relevance. Without this, the form of the fabric of the music is lost, and you just have a bunch of notes strung together and tossed at you, which trivializes the music.
Since the performance was recorded live, it was followed by applause, albeit polite. I can't help thinking that the audience knew they were jipped by this performance. When pseudo-academic purity overrides fundamental musicianship, the music is ultimately robbed of its humanity. So, what's next, singers to be trained to not use vibrato when singing? Oh, how wonderful that will be! 🙂
So good, and funny. This connects to your comments on Manacorda's Beethoven. Is it possible that for the larger public form-critical repertoire that was a pleasure to listen to was completed around 1970 at best (although yes, good music is still being written), so all that's left is inflation of the heritage and necrophiliac examination of its entrails? As you say, there seems to be money around to make recordings, but to do the same things over, and over again. Manacorda's comments on Beethoven 5 and 6 on UA-cam are hopelessly lame, so what could be expected of the performances with his wee band? The same thing is happening with the development you discuss here. It reminds me of the late '80s when it got to be so cheap to put out CDs that anyone who wanted to did. If there is a defence, maybe it's that all this is for atom-sized audiences, insider careerists and locals, and nobody else is supposed to care. And doesn't.
I like Tabasco the best.
Family Reserve!