Historical Recordings

[Que]

....the Naxos Historical series, but the company violated their agreement to not mess with the audio restorations, ...

Yep, I thought as much.... One has only to compare for instance Obert Thorn's work on Naxos with his earlier work for Pearl or Biddulph. Real pity. 

Q

[George]

Yep, I thought as much.... One has only to compare for instance Obert Thorn's work on Naxos with his earlier work for Pearl or Biddulph. Real pity. 

Q

Which CDs on Naxos do you feel were affected, Que?

[George]

Just found a video of Ward Marston discussing this recent release on his label. We get to hear him play a bit of piano.

[Bogey]

Semi-recent purchases:


Thank you George and others for making this one land on my shelf.

[ccar]

Going on a little "historical kick", so thought I would move my review over here and give this thread a little boost:

I noticed this was one of the few posts in the Forum mentioning Fritz Busch. Probably best Known from his Mozart and Wagner opera recordings, Fritz Busch was a most extraordinary and versatile conductor. He led the StaatsKapelle Dresden during 12 years but had the courage to refuse the nazi takeover and was forced to leave Germany in 1933. In exile Fritz Busch helped to found Glyndebourne, where he conducted the legendary performances of Don Giovanni, Cosi and Nozze.
Died prematurely in 1951 and unfortunately he left too few recordings (most of them live). But from these recordings I am always also impressed by the talent of Fritz Busch as a symphony conductor. Apart from the EMI Great Conductors edition (Brahms 2nd LPO) I strongly reccommend the Hanssler (Brahms 2nd Staatskapelle) and the Urania editions (Beethoven 5th, 7th and 9th) to rediscover one of the (really) great conductors of the last century.

Carlos           

[ccar]

In now more than two months nobody had the courage to post anything in this old fashioned "historical" thread. Maybe because with the huge number of new performing artists and recordings we should really be open to the new ways and leave all those overrated and old-fashioned "names" of the past.   
   
In fact, in the last few decades the classical music world continues to produce an ever enlarging number of professional musicians, with hundreds of large and small orchestras, chamber groups, singers and a myriad of young soloists. "Classical" music, like any other "classical" art, philosophy or ethics has been intensely devalued by the "modern times", but the number of proposed classical concerts, festivals and even recordings is still much larger than one or two generations ago.  Musical training has also been much more technically efficient and most soloists do acquire a mechanical ease that could embarrass many of the old famous musicians. 

And never like today are the music schools, performers, musical directors and, of course, the critics so carefully self-conscious with the "right" way to play or interpret any musical piece. Today, a strong artistic personality and individual talent are not the best selling goods. In the real world most of the performers, and even conductors, have to discover some popular "appeal" or a musical niche or "style" to survive. And with so many "old" recordings in the vaults the marketing music industry and magazines must promote the "new" fashionable tendencies of interpretation, or try to create some pop and sexy cover soloists.

So, in this modern era of note perfection and historically correctness, "old" musicians and "individual" interpretations are only romantic archaeological curiosities and this "historical" thread is a bit of an anachronism we have to tolerate and forgive.

But, fortunately, there may be as many ways of playing good music as we really like and enjoy. And in this spirit, and because I saw that this old "name" - Dinu Lipatti -  has been seldom mentioned in this forum, I suggest this historical recording,  and this "old" way of playing Bach, Mozart and Scarlatti.

"The most important thing in music is what is not in the notes" Pau Casals     

   

[Coopmv]

In now more than two months nobody had the courage to post anything in this old fashioned "historical" thread. Maybe because with the huge number of new performing artists and recordings we should really be open to the new ways and leave all those overrated and old-fashioned "names" of the past.   
   
In fact, in the last few decades the classical music world continues to produce an ever enlarging number of professional musicians, with hundreds of large and small orchestras, chamber groups, singers and a myriad of young soloists. "Classical" music, like any other "classical" art, philosophy or ethics has been intensely devalued by the "modern times", but the number of proposed classical concerts, festivals and even recordings is still much larger than one or two generations ago.  Musical training has also been much more technically efficient and most soloists do acquire a mechanical ease that could embarrass many of the old famous musicians. 

And never like today are the music schools, performers, musical directors and, of course, the critics so carefully self-conscious with the "right" way to play or interpret any musical piece. Today, a strong artistic personality and individual talent are not the best selling goods. In the real world most of the performers, and even conductors, have to discover some popular "appeal" or a musical niche or "style" to survive. And with so many "old" recordings in the vaults the marketing music industry and magazines must promote the "new" fashionable tendencies of interpretation, or try to create some pop and sexy cover soloists.

So, in this modern era of note perfection and historically correctness, "old" musicians and "individual" interpretations are only romantic archaeological curiosities and this "historical" thread is a bit of an anachronism we have to tolerate and forgive.

But, fortunately, there may be as many ways of playing good music as we really like and enjoy. And in this spirit, and because I saw that this old "name" - Dinu Lipatti -  has been seldom mentioned in this forum, I suggest this historical recording,  and this "old" way of playing Bach, Mozart and Scarlatti.

"The most important thing in music is what is not in the notes" Pau Casals     

   

I take the new with the old.  Each has its respective merit.  Newer is not always better.  Look no further than the concept of new math, which has helped create a bunch of school kids who cannot do simple math in the US.

[Bogey]

I judge each recording individually and in short it comes down to whether I enjoyed it.  When it was performed is merely a footnote of interest.

However, I do find something inherently "cool" about listening to historical recordings.  Just my thing and I can see why they aren't for everyone.

[Coopmv]

I judge each recording individually and in short it comes down to whether I enjoyed it.  When it was performed is merely a footnote of interest.

However, I do find something inherently "cool" about listening to historical recordings.  Just my thing and I can see why they aren't for everyone.

Bill,

Same here.  I know for sure you, George and myself do not believe newer is always better when it comes to classical music.  That was why I bought over 30 Naxos Historical recordings last spring ...

[Renfield]

On the 'older is cool' angle, I have to admit there is something special in listening to music you know was made close to (or more than) a century ago. But of course, that doesn't inherently make it better qua music.

[Bogey]

On the 'older is cool' angle, I have to admit there is something special in listening to music you know was made close to (or more than) a century ago. But of course, that doesn't inherently make it better qua music.

Very fair comment....as always from your end, Ren.

[Bogey]

   

Who is the supporting orchestra here for the Mozart piece, cc?

[George]

I judge each recording individually and in short it comes down to whether I enjoyed it.  When it was performed is merely a footnote of interest.

Indeed.

However, I do find something inherently "cool" about listening to historical recordings.  Just my thing and I can see why they aren't for everyone.

Yes, like black and white movies, I am transported back in time. There's something very cool about that.

Moreover, after hearing tons of stuff from Rosenthal, Hofmann, Cortot, Schnabel, Friedman, etc, I have developed a taste for the older style of playing, one that allowed for more interpretation. 

[Coopmv]

I can put in my two cents.

I found the mammoth 500-member choir that performed Handel Messiah, as conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent was grotesque beyond comprehension.  In that sense, the two versions conducted by Colin Davis and Charles Mackerras in the mid 60's were simply a breath of fresh air.

[George]

I can put in my two cents.

I found the mammoth 500-member choir that performed Handel Messiah, as conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent was grotesque beyond comprehension.  In that sense, the two versions conducted by Colin Davis and Charles Mackerras in the mid 60's were simply a breath of fresh air.

To this day, I find it hard to get past the sound of orchestral Historical Recordings. I mostly buy solo piano.

[Renfield]

To this day, I find it hard to get past the sound of orchestral Historical Recordings. I mostly buy solo piano.

Orchestral historical recordings are mostly a matter of 'depth of field', in my experience.

If you adjust your expectation of depth to what is actually recorded, and mentally expand it to the 'real' atmospheric acoustics of a concert hall or studio, you can subjectively approximate the original quite closely, with practice.

[George]

Orchestral historical recordings are mostly a matter of 'depth of field', in my experience.

If you adjust your expectation of depth to what is actually recorded, and mentally expand it to the 'real' atmospheric acoustics of a concert hall or studio, you can subjectively approximate the original quite closely, with practice.

Yes, plus some are better than others of course. I just find that the detail is poor in many of the historical orchestral CDs that I have. Much easier to capture a single piano than a huge orchestra in a large space.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

In now more than two months nobody had the courage to post anything in this old fashioned "historical" thread. Maybe because with the huge number of new performing artists and recordings we should really be open to the new ways and leave all those overrated and old-fashioned "names" of the past.   
   
In fact, in the last few decades the classical music world continues to produce an ever enlarging number of professional musicians, with hundreds of large and small orchestras, chamber groups, singers and a myriad of young soloists. "Classical" music, like any other "classical" art, philosophy or ethics has been intensely devalued by the "modern times", but the number of proposed classical concerts, festivals and even recordings is still much larger than one or two generations ago.  Musical training has also been much more technically efficient and most soloists do acquire a mechanical ease that could embarrass many of the old famous musicians. 

And never like today are the music schools, performers, musical directors and, of course, the critics so carefully self-conscious with the "right" way to play or interpret any musical piece. Today, a strong artistic personality and individual talent are not the best selling goods. In the real world most of the performers, and even conductors, have to discover some popular "appeal" or a musical niche or "style" to survive. And with so many "old" recordings in the vaults the marketing music industry and magazines must promote the "new" fashionable tendencies of interpretation, or try to create some pop and sexy cover soloists.

So, in this modern era of note perfection and historically correctness, "old" musicians and "individual" interpretations are only romantic archaeological curiosities and this "historical" thread is a bit of an anachronism we have to tolerate and forgive.

But, fortunately, there may be as many ways of playing good music as we really like and enjoy. And in this spirit, and because I saw that this old "name" - Dinu Lipatti -  has been seldom mentioned in this forum, I suggest this historical recording,  and this "old" way of playing Bach, Mozart and Scarlatti.

"The most important thing in music is what is not in the notes" Pau Casals     

This is not a very nice thing to say. Some of us have lived with historical recordings for a generation and have simply assimilated them into our overall listening regimen. Neither to be discarded nor enshrined either way but to be simply a part of the total classical package.

How much do you actually know of some of the newer artists and/or music populating many of the worthwhile - yet tiny - independent labels? If you'd take as much time exploring the byways of NOW as you do with the historical you might be pleasantly surprised at the immensity of the goodness out there. Honest. 

[ccar]

This is not a very nice thing to say. Some of us have lived with historical recordings for a generation and have simply assimilated them into our overall listening regimen. Neither to be discarded nor enshrined either way but to be simply a part of the total classical package.

How much do you actually know of some of the newer artists and/or music populating many of the worthwhile - yet tiny - independent labels? If you'd take as much time exploring the byways of NOW as you do with the historical you might be pleasantly surprised at the immensity of the goodness out there. Honest.

Fair enough. And mostly I agree with you. But forgive me if I elaborate and try to clarify my thought to answer yours and some other comments.

Any real talent is always a very rare and unpredictable commodity. I do try to be open to any honest artistry and it is a real joy to discover it in some new young musicians. And we are fortunate enough to find it in any generation, past present or future - some of the musicians we actually live or lived with (and some are still playing) are of course as interesting artists as many of the old "enshrined" names.

And please accept I never wrote (or think) that every historical recording is interesting per se or just because, like some kind of antique, it's rare to find or with muffled sound acquired some valuable patina.  And I also personally dislike (as many) the massive / heavy and "unmusical" readings (mostly of choral works) we may find in some "historical" recordings or performances.  And like many I also do agree that this "healthy" look is, in part, the merit of the HIP movement. But probably we all also agree that many light and incisive HIP performances can also be as musically uninteresting as any. Because talent is still as scarce as ever, and it is not the fact that instruments are "original", the conductor is an historian or the magazines put it in every cover that we must forgive them or enshrine them in any fashionable new musical altars.       

So, probably, we should also worry that behind so many informed correct "style" or perfectly mechanical executions the schools, the critics and the musical marketing are probably losing the more expressive and individual talents. In some  way, to listen to "historical" recordings may be a way of resisting to this massive killing of the musical diversity and interpretation freedom. And perhaps this may help us to find and recover some dying species out there that may help us to populate the present and future musical imagination.  The magical poetry of Lipatti is certainly a good inspiration.                               

[Franco]

Fair enough. And mostly I agree with you. But forgive me if I elaborate and try to clarify my thought to answer yours and some other comments.

Any real talent is always a very rare and unpredictable commodity. I do try to be open to any honest artistry and it is a real joy to discover it in some new young musicians. And we are fortunate enough to find it in any generation, past present or future - some of the musicians we actually live or lived with (and some are still playing) are of course as interesting artists as many of the old "enshrined" names.

And please accept I never wrote (or think) that every historical recording is interesting per se or just because, like some kind of antique, it's rare to find or with muffled sound acquired some valuable patina.  And I also personally dislike (as many) the massive / heavy and "unmusical" readings (mostly of choral works) we may find in some "historical" recordings or performances.  And like many I also do agree that this "healthy" look is, in part, the merit of the HIP movement. But probably we all also agree that many light and incisive HIP performances can also be as musically uninteresting as any. Because talent is still as scarce as ever, and it is not the fact that instruments are "original", the conductor is an historian or the magazines put it in every cover that we must forgive them or enshrine them in any fashionable new musical altars.       

So, probably, we should also worry that behind so many informed correct "style" or perfectly mechanical executions the schools, the critics and the musical marketing are probably losing the more expressive and individual talents. In some  way, to listen to "historical" recordings may be a way of resisting to this massive killing of the musical diversity and interpretation freedom. And perhaps this may help us to find and recover some dying species out there that may help us to populate the present and future musical imagination.  The magical poetry of Lipatti is certainly a good inspiration.                               

I agree with you about Lipatti.  I only have him playing Chopin, but his was my introduction to Chopin and he has always represented a kind of benchmark in that regard.