I rarely contribute these days but I do keep an eye on the forum for new releases, tips and some often heated discussions. On the latter there seems to have been some forthright views expressed about a certain new Beethoven 7 and the comment 'why not play the damn thing really, really well'.
I'm taking no sides here but after wading through the liner notes to said Beethoven 7 I have to agree that the sort of pseduo-claptrap pointed out by Hurwitz on Youtube is doing nobody any favours at all. I'm no great fan of Hurwitz, entertaining as he is at times, and it's clear that he is no fan of TC but the Beethoven 'cycle' doesn't seem to have got off to a brilliant start. The 5th is most definitely worth a listen but I'd agree with some that the 7th is hard to fathom. On the other hand I was very impressed with the Tchaik 6 and Mahler 6 (and I don't really like much Mahler).
Why my topic title (and it is tongue-in-cheek)?
Increasingly my listening these days is of late 1950s – 1970s stereo recordings. I'm old enough to have been able to hear the latter when they were first released but I was 'persuaded' by the record companies that newer was better and was an avid consumer of thousands of releases issued since CD appeared. I worked for around 4 years as a part timer in Audiosonic in Gloucester when it was one of those fantastic emporiums of classical recorded music. At the time they had a substantial second-hand market and I was able to borrow hundreds of recordings over the many weekends and wade through almost everything released in those early digital days.
The one really important lesson I learned there was that we were selling a product, not offering some imaginary artistic experience, it was a business much like any other which provided a living for its two owner, Laurie Dann and Jim Ferguson. Admittedly the staff were knowledgable and customers valued that breadth and depth of experience. Nevertheless, we would not recommend any particular recording to any customer - instead we kept complete issues of the Gramophone for their reference, it was their choice so why would we be so smug as to imagine that we knew best? There was also a very sound business case – to avoid returns based upon 'well, you said it was the best but I don't like it'. There was no sentimentality about the product, it was a document of a particular performance and nothing else (I seem to remember Erich Leinsdorf saying something on similar lines). It was also a heavily engineered and produced artefact, you could never be sure how much the engineer had tinkered.
New releases these days (especially from the old 'major' companies) appear to need a unique selling point – a flashy photo shoot, a family affair, a new signing or some claim of 'popularity' (mostly based on spurious sales figures). I've discovered no end of golden oldies which, to my cloth ears, comprehensively trounce any number of the wunderkind conductors mercilessly flogged by ever more avaricious agents. I shall refrain from giving comparative examples, it's my view and I don't really see the need for protracted circular arguments surrounding this opinion but – here's some I found from that golden age which have really caught my attention.
Norman del Mar – First Hand Recordings, containing a 1954 stereo recording of Till Eulenspiegl with the LSO. FHG recently mentioned to me that this must have been at a time when the LSO were 'recovering' from some difficult times. You really wouldn't know it - there's a bit of a stumble on the first horn entry but so what? This Till has a fantastic romp and the orchestral sound is tangible, I can place the instruments quite clearly within the stereo image, quite unlike the homogeneous digital mush that characterises some modern recordings. I believe it was done in one take, another bonus point there. When I hear these recordings of vintage I really don't see where the passage of time has made any progress. There might be a wider repertoire but do we really need yet another Mahler cycle as a calling card, another complete and self-indulgent Beethoven Sonata cycle?
Probably as well that I don't contribute much these days....... Back to the Beecham Messiah and I'm getting my coat.
I'm taking no sides here but after wading through the liner notes to said Beethoven 7 I have to agree that the sort of pseduo-claptrap pointed out by Hurwitz on Youtube is doing nobody any favours at all. I'm no great fan of Hurwitz, entertaining as he is at times, and it's clear that he is no fan of TC but the Beethoven 'cycle' doesn't seem to have got off to a brilliant start. The 5th is most definitely worth a listen but I'd agree with some that the 7th is hard to fathom. On the other hand I was very impressed with the Tchaik 6 and Mahler 6 (and I don't really like much Mahler).
Why my topic title (and it is tongue-in-cheek)?
Increasingly my listening these days is of late 1950s – 1970s stereo recordings. I'm old enough to have been able to hear the latter when they were first released but I was 'persuaded' by the record companies that newer was better and was an avid consumer of thousands of releases issued since CD appeared. I worked for around 4 years as a part timer in Audiosonic in Gloucester when it was one of those fantastic emporiums of classical recorded music. At the time they had a substantial second-hand market and I was able to borrow hundreds of recordings over the many weekends and wade through almost everything released in those early digital days.
The one really important lesson I learned there was that we were selling a product, not offering some imaginary artistic experience, it was a business much like any other which provided a living for its two owner, Laurie Dann and Jim Ferguson. Admittedly the staff were knowledgable and customers valued that breadth and depth of experience. Nevertheless, we would not recommend any particular recording to any customer - instead we kept complete issues of the Gramophone for their reference, it was their choice so why would we be so smug as to imagine that we knew best? There was also a very sound business case – to avoid returns based upon 'well, you said it was the best but I don't like it'. There was no sentimentality about the product, it was a document of a particular performance and nothing else (I seem to remember Erich Leinsdorf saying something on similar lines). It was also a heavily engineered and produced artefact, you could never be sure how much the engineer had tinkered.
New releases these days (especially from the old 'major' companies) appear to need a unique selling point – a flashy photo shoot, a family affair, a new signing or some claim of 'popularity' (mostly based on spurious sales figures). I've discovered no end of golden oldies which, to my cloth ears, comprehensively trounce any number of the wunderkind conductors mercilessly flogged by ever more avaricious agents. I shall refrain from giving comparative examples, it's my view and I don't really see the need for protracted circular arguments surrounding this opinion but – here's some I found from that golden age which have really caught my attention.
Norman del Mar – First Hand Recordings, containing a 1954 stereo recording of Till Eulenspiegl with the LSO. FHG recently mentioned to me that this must have been at a time when the LSO were 'recovering' from some difficult times. You really wouldn't know it - there's a bit of a stumble on the first horn entry but so what? This Till has a fantastic romp and the orchestral sound is tangible, I can place the instruments quite clearly within the stereo image, quite unlike the homogeneous digital mush that characterises some modern recordings. I believe it was done in one take, another bonus point there. When I hear these recordings of vintage I really don't see where the passage of time has made any progress. There might be a wider repertoire but do we really need yet another Mahler cycle as a calling card, another complete and self-indulgent Beethoven Sonata cycle?
Probably as well that I don't contribute much these days....... Back to the Beecham Messiah and I'm getting my coat.
Comment