The insanity of abundance!

[Parsifal]

Arrau's legacy has actually been rather poorly presented by Universal in the last ca. 20 years. (This is quite astonishing for me because Arrau was still alive when I got into classical and together with Horowitz the most famous of the "old pianists"). Quite a bit has been oop for more than a decade. And the messed up the most recent issue of the Beethoven sonatas by cutting a second or so from the beginning of the Eroica variations.
This is not at all comparable to Gould who gets a new box or edition every few years.

I won't argue that Universal has done a poor job of presenting his legacy.  But there are these, probably his best work

[asin]B004HF0PEU[/asin]

[asin]B00UOFWT0K[/asin]

[Spineur]

....A person who owns ~100 recordings of the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas is probably not very much influenced by marketing.

Into which category do you place Todd?

Easy: pianists.  On the other hand, I have also met pianists who refuse to listen to their colleagues in fear this might influence their playing style.

[Todd]

[asin]B00UOFWT0K[/asin]

A great box set.

[Madiel]

Honestly, I feel like I'm watching someone discover the mechanics of GMG in slow motion.

Most of the regular posters here will have heard/owned multiple versions of a work (if it's one that has been recorded reasonably often). They will have views as to which versions are better. Sometimes these views will be highly developed and detailed. Sometimes, they'll manage to point out flaws and problems with recordings that, if you ask them directly, they'll tell you they really enjoy listening to.

If you're the kind of person who just wants to buy one recording of a work and be happy with it, then you simply have to learn how to deal with this. You have to learn how to gather information from here when you're looking to buy**, and how to filter out/downright ignore the stuff that isn't going to help you.

Personally, I'm far more interested in learning about new repertoire than I am about new performances, so I just don't get terribly engaged when people start offering me 3 alternative performances to the one I'm listening to, unless I don't find the performance I'm listening to satisfying or it's one of those cases where I'm genuinely interested in hearing an alternative approach.

[**Sometimes I'm asking direct questions (and sometimes being fascinated by the total silence when I ask about a less loved corner of a famous composer's repertoire, with people instead offering me 15 recordings that aren't relevant to my question), other times I'm just making my own notes about which recordings are commonly praised so I can make a shortlist of options.]

If you read everything here and take it to heart, it's inevitable that you will be feeling you ought to own a considerable number of versions of the same piece of music, because that's the typical line of thinking here. And it's important to say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. People can spend their money on music in whatever way they choose. But if it's not how you would prefer to spend your money, then you just need to be conscious of that and not get worked up over the difference of approach.

You wanted to know how people cope with the insanity of abundance? This is how.

Oh, and Kodaly in op.76 remains a treasured possession.

[Parsifal]

A great box set.

Indeed, the 1941 recording of the Goldberg variations is a particular revelation.

[Todd]

Easy: pianists.

Pianophile would be a better fit.

[arpeggio]

There is a factor that is related one of my pet peeves concerning the classical music community if the obsession some have over great music.

There are some who only follow the music of the great masters of the 18th and 19th century.  There is one gentleman in another forum who states that he has over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven.  It is challenging to be a student of classical music even if one specializes in just the music of Beethoven.

If one expands his horizons to include B level composers and post-19th century music it can be overwhelming.

There is a huge body of great music that has been composed by non-great composers.  For example Stamitz, Reicha, Raff, Bax and many, many others.

[Ken B]

There is a huge body of great music that has been composed by non-great composers. 

Ravel.


*runs for cover*

[Madiel]

To be honest I found it odd that this thread started talking as if this was a uniquely classical problem. There are thousands upon thousands of releases in other genres. Anyone with an interest in any kind of music must pick and choose.

[71 dB]

Oh, of course I have.  I've picked up more than a few CDs because of well done glamour shots.

How often do you see "well done glamour shots" with Naxos CDs? Kodaly Quartet CDs? Or with Glenn Gould releases? Aren't you a bit hypocrite to call the fans of Gould victims of marketing? How about your favorite artists?

Honestly, I feel like I'm watching someone discover the mechanics of GMG in slow motion.

Most of the regular posters here will have heard/owned multiple versions of a work (if it's one that has been recorded reasonably often). They will have views as to which versions are better. Sometimes these views will be highly developed and detailed. Sometimes, they'll manage to point out flaws and problems with recordings that, if you ask them directly, they'll tell you they really enjoy listening to.

If you're the kind of person who just wants to buy one recording of a work and be happy with it, then you simply have to learn how to deal with this. You have to learn how to gather information from here when you're looking to buy**, and how to filter out/downright ignore the stuff that isn't going to help you.

Personally, I'm far more interested in learning about new repertoire than I am about new performances, so I just don't get terribly engaged when people start offering me 3 alternative performances to the one I'm listening to, unless I don't find the performance I'm listening to satisfying or it's one of those cases where I'm genuinely interested in hearing an alternative approach.

[**Sometimes I'm asking direct questions (and sometimes being fascinated by the total silence when I ask about a less loved corner of a famous composer's repertoire, with people instead offering me 15 recordings that aren't relevant to my question), other times I'm just making my own notes about which recordings are commonly praised so I can make a shortlist of options.]

If you read everything here and take it to heart, it's inevitable that you will be feeling you ought to own a considerable number of versions of the same piece of music, because that's the typical line of thinking here. And it's important to say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. People can spend their money on music in whatever way they choose. But if it's not how you would prefer to spend your money, then you just need to be conscious of that and not get worked up over the difference of approach.

You wanted to know how people cope with the insanity of abundance? This is how.

Oh, and Kodaly in op.76 remains a treasured possession.

I think this is the best post in this thread so far. Thanks!

You present yourself as a person with a scientific outlook. Let me make a statical argument. A person who owns a single CD classical music, and it is Glen Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations (perhaps the most hyped classical recording in history), has probably been influenced by marketing. A person who owns ~100 recordings of the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas is probably not as much influenced by marketing.

You'd have to ask the person. Gould has been marketed, but so has Beethoven. Even I have the 1955 performance of The Goldberg Variations, only as a form of Zenph re-performance. Stunning stuff if you ask me. 

Into which category do you place Todd?

Todd has weird and arrogant opinions, so I place him in the category of weird arrogant people. 

Oh lord, where will I find an adequate "eyeroll" emoticon?

Are you saying that strong personal stamp can't be bad for the music? Todd would say Glenn Gould's strong personal stamps is bad for music. 

[71 dB]

To be honest I found it odd that this thread started talking as if this was a uniquely classical problem. There are thousands upon thousands of releases in other genres. Anyone with an interest in any kind of music must pick and choose.

As I stated early on, I am interested of perhaps 30 % of all classical music, but only perhaps 1 % of all non-classical music. So, thousands of non-classical releases mean only dozens of interesting releases. So, for me at least abundance is not such a problem it is with classical music.

[71 dB]

There is a factor that is related one of my pet peeves concerning the classical music community if the obsession some have over great music.

There are some who only follow the music of the great masters of the 18th and 19th century.  There is one gentleman in another forum who states that he has over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven.  It is challenging to be a student of classical music even if one specializes in just the music of Beethoven.

If one expands his horizons to include B level composers and post-19th century music it can be overwhelming.

There is a huge body of great music that has been composed by non-great composers.  For example Stamitz, Reicha, Raff, Bax and many, many others.

In my opinion the gap between so called great and non-great composers is made bigger than it is. I enjoy the Cello Concertos of Carl Stamitz quite a lot, so how much lesser can he be compared to the "great" composers of his time? Does it even matter if I enjoy the music? Kind of dismissive to call these composer "non-great". As if they didn't have remarkable careers as composers.

[Jo498]

His Bach is entertaining, but not the best, but some of his other playing is dreadful (eg, Mozart).  It quickly became clear that Gould the eccentric genius was a good marketing gimmick. 

Gould made his career before marketing became as important as it is today. He was also very successful in the 10? years he played concerts, especially considering his (for the late 1950s very) odd repertoire. I am also slightly disgusted at Sony's milking the Gould recordings over and over again while neglecting other great pianists. But it is historically not correct that Gould is a creature of or owed his career to marketing. He was among the very few who could actually pull off  a studio-only career. And think of him what you want, he really was a neurotic excentric genius although this has been exaggerated later on, I believe. An acquaintance of mine who was a great Gould nut and had read most of the stuff (letters etc.) that was available in the early 2000s claimed that Gould was most likely asexual. There were also people who thought he had been gay. Only then it turned out (and it had never been such a secret!) that he basically lived with Lukas Foss' wife for several years

[Jo498]

I won't argue that Universal has done a poor job of presenting his legacy.  But there are these, probably his best work
[asin]B00UOFWT0K[/asin]

Are these the "famous" Chopin Preludes? There is a late recording on Philips but I thought the "famous" one (from the 1950s or early 60s) was live? and/or on some odd label. Or is this still another (earlier?) recording of the Preludes.
I really wanted to cut back on historical recordings but I probably have to get this eventually anyway for the Goldberg Var. ...

[Brian]

How often do you see "well done glamour shots" with Naxos CDs? Kodaly Quartet CDs? Or with Glenn Gould releases? Aren't you a bit hypocrite to call the fans of Gould victims of marketing? How about your favorite artists?

Todd has weird and arrogant opinions, so I place him in the category of weird arrogant people. 

Todd is also one of the most knowledgeable and passionate people on this board. Sometimes deep engagement with music means being a little weird. You and I aren't too normal either.

[Florestan]

Todd is also one of the most knowledgeable and passionate people on this board. Sometimes deep engagement with music means being a little weird. You and I aren't too normal either.

Can we just agree that when it comes to GMG nobody's perfect normal? We are a bunch of weirdos in everything: taste, preferences, opinions. And that's what makes GMG such a great place. 

[Todd]

How often do you see "well done glamour shots" with Naxos CDs?

Looks like you are behind the times as it pertains to Naxos.  Check out Brian's post for some samples of Naxos glamour shots.  There are more.  Since you obviously have an internet connection, you can look up more.

Aren't you a bit hypocrite to call the fans of Gould victims of marketing?

Interesting that you call me weird and then claim that people are victims of marketing.  I question your grasp of the meaning of the word "victim" (and "weird", for that matter), and on reality, quite frankly, if you believe that marketing does not persuade purchasing decisions.  Perhaps you think that your self-professed sophistication in assessing which recordings to buy means you are immune to marketing, and maybe you are.  I have my doubts.

Gould made his career before marketing became as important as it is today. He was also very successful in the 10? years he played concerts, especially considering his (for the late 1950s very) odd repertoire. I am also slightly disgusted at Sony's milking the Gould recordings over and over again while neglecting other great pianists. But it is historically not correct that Gould is a creature of or owed his career to marketing. He was among the very few who could actually pull off  a studio-only career. And think of him what you want, he really was a neurotic excentric genius although this has been exaggerated later on, I believe. An acquaintance of mine who was a great Gould nut and had read most of the stuff (letters etc.) that was available in the early 2000s claimed that Gould was most likely asexual. There were also people who thought he had been gay. Only then it turned out (and it had never been such a secret!) that he basically lived with Lukas Foss' wife for several years

I'm aware of Gould's short-lived public career, and that he was, generally speaking, eccentric.  I don't care about his personal life.  The eccentric genius angle has been part of the marketing gimmick for decades.  Gould is not as discussed on forums as he was twenty years ago, though, indicating some fall off in interest by the more knowledgeable and devoted fans.  Sony keeps on cranking out products.  There's a market, to be sure, but it would be interesting to see sales figures.  Perhaps I should shift to talking about the fading star of Horowitz as an example of "legendary" artists declining and disappearing.  His devotees don't appear to be quite so defensive as Gould devotees.

[71 dB]

I really dislike these. Naxos has done this only recently. I prefer the classic "white" covers. Anyway, these covers are a fraction of their Cataloque.

Todd is also one of the most knowledgeable and passionate people on this board. Sometimes deep engagement with music means being a little weird. You and I aren't too normal either.

I am perhaps 10 times weirder than Todd, but I understand my own weirdness. 

[71 dB]

Looks like you are behind the times as it pertains to Naxos.  Check out Brian's post for some samples of Naxos glamour shots.  There are more.  Since you obviously have an internet connection, you can look up more.

My point was you see glamour shot on Naxos RARELY and in the past NEVER. I am against this kind of covers. I don't like them. I find them stupid. What next? CPO starts to use cleavage shots? 

Interesting that you call me weird and then claim that people are victims of marketing.  I question your grasp of the meaning of the word "victim" (and "weird", for that matter), and on reality, quite frankly, if you believe that marketing does not persuade purchasing decisions.  Perhaps you think that your self-professed sophistication in assessing which recordings to buy means you are immune to marketing, and maybe you are.  I have my doubts.

You are the one introducing marketing here to explain why Glenn Gould has been succesful. Marketing is not enough. Nobody bothers to market a talentless person. Gould was marketed, because he was talented, had something to sell.

[Todd]

My point was you see glamour shot on Naxos RARELY and in the past NEVER.

Times change.  You should keep up with the facts on the ground when making claims.  Naxos uses glamour shots because they help move product.  Whether you, specifically, like them or not doesn't matter at all. 

You are the one introducing marketing here to explain why Glenn Gould has been succesful. Marketing is not enough. Nobody bothers to market a talentless person. Gould was marketed, because he was talented, had something to sell.

I introduced marketing because that is an essential aspect to Gould's success, and a critical component of what made him "legendary", to use the marketing buzzword you introduced.

Your contention that "[n]obody bothers to market a talentless person" is questionable, to say the least.