[I know the industry's dead. I just read the book.]
What is next for this music? How will it be treated in the future?
who cares about the environment, let's protect classical music!
What about these live downloads on the 'net I've read about? Where are they to be found?
I really think downloads--live or otherwise--are the way to go. The Grateful Dead have done this with some success for their concert recordings (though the series is suspended for the moment)--charging a range of prices depending on quality (MP3, FLAC). Also, at least one orchestra is currently doing this for live recordings (who is that?).
It makes so much sense for "long tail" musics, if that is what classical is destined to be. Especially for concert recordings, the cost to produce is practically nil, and there is little by way of distribution and packaging costs. JPGs can be provided for front/back cover images and booklet notes, if downloaders want a nice package.
Ironically, the sticking point could be contracts with musicians' unions, existing ones being predicated on more traditional commercial releases with defined print runs, as opposed to the (probably smaller but) open-ended runs possible with downloads. I think that this will come online (so to speak) within the next 2-5 years, as more people have highspeed internet. Or maybe not.
In the future, music may be given away free as promotion for live events. CDs, regardless of genre, aren't exactly selling like hotcakes (except to hardcore music-heads, like most of us).
classical music should be free for everyone, and the classical artists should get paid from the government.
Someone forgot to tell Klaus Heymann the industry died.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2007, 08:54:40 AM
Someone forgot to tell Klaus Heymann the industry died.
Yeah, there's him filling the niches. And the small labels.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 12, 2007, 09:01:55 AMYeah, there's him filling the niches. And the small labels.
So then how's the industry dead? Small labels offer thousands of new recordings every year, and often are more interesting than the "majors".
And at least one major is still alive and kicking: take a look at DG's web-site. A new LvB Symphony cycle is due later this year, and three pianists have recorded LvB's concertos (Grimuad, Pletnev, and Lang Lang). There was the whole Mozart year last year. And so on. Hell, even EMI still manages to crank out some new recordings. The other "majors", too. Sure, they're not making as many as in the 80s and early 90s, but so what? How does that equate with the industry dying? As long as there's money to be made, someone, somewhere will produce the goods. Just as it should be.
People ought not to be afraid of old dinosaurs and antiquated industry structures dying in favor of new ones; that's a good thing.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 12, 2007, 08:44:44 AM
classical music should be free for everyone, and the classical artists should get paid from the government.
Not a bad idea but are the tax payers ready to accept that?
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2007, 09:09:17 AMAnd at least one major is still alive and kicking: take a look at DG's web-site. A new LvB Symphony cycle is due later this year, and three pianists have recorded LvB's concertos (Grimuad, Pletnev, and Lang Lang).
This is precisely what is wrong with the majors. Basically their releases follow the "same sh*t, new wrapping" principle, even though DG isn't the worst offender in this respect. The indie companies are so far ahead nowadays, pushing new repertoire and actually keeping the initiative of the recording business. They frequently use more interesting artists too, yet avoid the "portrait"-releases that is a mainstay of the majors. The majors can't even sell records at full price for more than a few years following release.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2007, 09:23:24 AM
Not a bad idea but are the tax payers ready to accept that?
No way, and I personally wouldn't like doing it either.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2007, 09:23:24 AMNot a bad idea but are the tax payers ready to accept that?
I say it's a terrible idea.
As to whether taxpayers would support it, it depends. Some areas may have greater support than others. In the US, this generally falls to states and local governments, but given limited budgets, I'd say these levels of government should focus on other things - you know, true public goods. Roads, bridges, schools, etc. Supporting "The Arts" should be low on the agenda. If a particular level of government is flush with cash, and the taxpayers' support, then public funding makes sense.
Every time I go to a classical music concert I'm struck by the average age and appearance of relative affluence of the patrons. Why on earth should all taxpayers be asked to support something that the comparatively wealthy enjoy? That's absurd. I suppose one could try to argue that by making it "free" that a broader audience would become interested in the music, but I'd like to see some type of evidence from somewhere that supports that. (I should point out that cheap tickets can be had for around $20 locally, so it's not at all expensive to attend concerts in at least some places.) I'd also like to know why that would be a laudable goal. Should government be in the business of forming the artistic tastes of its citizens?
Also, why only classical music? Why not indie rock or jazz or pop music? While I prefer classical music (and jazz) to pop and rock, does that mean it's somehow intrinsically better, or at least more deserving of public funds? I can't see how. If anything, I think "Arts" funding by government should be reduced, and that includes funding for venues, unless, again, funds are plentiful and more important issues are taken care of.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 12, 2007, 08:44:44 AM
classical music should be free for everyone, and the classical artists should get paid from the government.
But that's akin to acknowledging it's dead. That's an act of unspeakable desperation. It's also gratuitously unnecessary. Classical music recording is alive and well - it's just that the life has moved, and with it the mainstream. The problem is that Norman Lebrecht was simply wrong.
The problem with his view is that Naxos and the small labels are not just "filling the niches" behind the flopping "major labels". They are small physically, but big in importance, dynamic, and promoting a classical renaissance in a major way. Watch as Naxos, Cedille, Albany, Bridge, and others constantly bring to light living composers and provide a forum for new classical music; watch as Hyperion leaps out of the niches to provide us with performances by people like the Lindsays, Angela Hewitt, and Stephen Hough; watch as Telarc continues to crank out fantastic work with folks like the Atlanta Symphony; watch as Arte Nova gives us a classic Schumann cycle with David Zinman; watch as Naxos explores the impossibly bustling, beautiful alleyways of Japanese, Spanish, and now Greek classics. In the niche market that is classical music, the independent record labels are not bit players or even glitters of hope - they are the
leaders. While they continue to release classic recordings of mainstream repertoire (Sudbin's new Tchaikovsky album on BIS; Zinman's Schumann), the independents realize that
if there is any hope for the regeneration and rebirth of classical music, it is in the discovery of new styles and kinds of music - not in the rehashing of the old stuff. Bach Man's comments are dead accurate, and the independents realized it years ago. Hence new series of unfamiliar styles (Greek, Bax, or anything between); hence releases featuring new composers (like Huang Ruo) and music from young people around the world. Hence the use of ill-publicized but exceptionally worthy performers (Arnaldo Cohen, Ilya Kaler, Klara Wurtz, Peter Wispelwey, Havard Gimse, James Judd, Antoni Wit). Hence the audacity to go boldly in search of the things people don't realize they want to hear - and then turn profits.
Rather than "filling the niches", Klaus Heymann has placed the niches squarely in center stage, and in so doing has turned upside down all our notions of the recording industry's present and future. If Norman Lebrecht is blind to this, it's the shortsightedness of old age. The classical industry is indeed alive - thanks only to the perseverance of a few brilliant people like Heymann who have had the guts to demonstrate that the niches have gone mainstream - people who've had the guts to transform our perspective and finally realize the
true value of classical recordings.
At least, that's what I think.
Good posts.
I wonder how many CDs these small labels are actually selling per title. Hundreds? Thousands? Lebrecht doesn't seem to think it's many.
Quote from: brianrein on May 12, 2007, 11:59:28 AM
...At least, that's what I think.
Not just you. :D
Rumors of classical music recording's death, as usual, are greatly exaggerated--but we can't rest on our laurels. And I would add that, historically, the small forms--solo works, chamber music, songs--have been on the cutting edge of musical innovation; orchestral music and opera have had to wait for the new styles to affect them. Smaller ensembles find it easier to explore and redefine themselves. Example: the Kronos Quartet. :D
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 12, 2007, 01:11:58 PM
Good posts.
I wonder how many CDs these small labels are actually selling per title. Hundreds? Thousands? Lebrecht doesn't seem to think it's many.
I don't know if you mean Naxos by "small label" because Naxos is a major player these days but from the foreword by Klaus Heymann in Naxos catalogue:
"Our consumer-friendly price and wide distribution allow us to spread recording cost across 20,000 to 30,000 copies."
Quote from: brianrein on May 12, 2007, 11:59:28 AM
Rather than "filling the niches", Klaus Heymann has placed the niches squarely in center stage, and in so doing has turned upside down all our notions of the recording industry's present and future. If Norman Lebrecht is blind to this, it's the shortsightedness of old age. The classical industry is indeed alive - thanks only to the perseverance of a few brilliant people like Heymann who have had the guts to demonstrate that the niches have gone mainstream - people who've had the guts to transform our perspective and finally realize the true value of classical recordings.
At least, that's what I think.
I doubt that Lebrecht's advanced age has anything to do with his dire predictions about the death of classical music. His reputation is built on bitching about stuff and declaring that "the sky is falling". That's his MO, and he'll continue along these lines until he croaks.
In the meantime, the real state of classical music is doing fine as Todd and Brian well described. There are live concerts all over the place, and the recording industry is doing great although the so-called majors do what they can to screw it up. So I'm high on classical music and its future. 8)
I'm a little less high, having just gone to a concert downtown. At intermission my family and I stood up and looked around; my father noted, "Twenty years from now, nearly all the people in the audience won't be here. As in, on the planet."
And it's true.
We need to rise quickly to the greatest challenge in classical music's history - redefining its image and making new customers return to concert halls, before it's too late. But I stand by my earlier comments - if anybody will be up to the task, it will be a mind like Klaus Heymann, willing to shatter all the barriers and conventions and try something completely different.
Taxplayers's money is sponsoring the War in Iraq, i doubt that majority of the people wanted that.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 12, 2007, 09:59:06 PM
Taxplayers's money is sponsoring the War in Iraq, i doubt that majority of the people wanted that.
Great idea. Citizens should only pay for products and services they don't want.
I think classical music (Western art music) has a bright future ahead.
The recording industry is thriving, with all those small, specialized labels. Very interesting and beautiful things are issued every day.
In fact, in my impression, more attention is paid to getting a good recording. In the old days the majors just let a famous performer record the famous mainstream works and that was that. Now small record companies seek and find new talent and issue carefully prepared and programmed recordings. All those issues of early music, less know composers, HIP recordings, and modern music are a good examples of that.
And I'm glad to say the classical music scene in the "Old World" (Europe) has reinvented itself: the latest surge in Italian early music and baroque ensembles, for example. And the whole HIP "movement"! :)
As far as new "customers" for this music, I'm not worried. In the Western world there is a whole new generation of highly educated young people, who are bound to look for more in life: culture. The demand for cultural facilities is on the rise in the Netherlands in any case.
Also there will be a vast new reservoir of new classical music consumers in Asia. Interest in classical music in Japan has been considerable for years. What if interest in huge potentail markets as China and India rises?
I think this will be enough to keep us going for decades/centuries! ;D
Q
Quote from: brianrein on May 12, 2007, 08:53:42 PM
I'm a little less high, having just gone to a concert downtown. At intermission my family and I stood up and looked around; my father noted, "Twenty years from now, nearly all the people in the audience won't be here. As in, on the planet."
But has it ever been any different? I remember (dimly) my teenage years at school; there were around 110 pupils in my year and, as I recollect, only 5-10 of them showed any interest whatsoever in classical music. I, at the tender age of 16 or so used to go to classical music concerts. But few people from my school ever turned up (even when the concert was at the school itself) and I was surrounded by grey heads.
Classical music does not have the huge marketing costs popular music has. No expensive music videos are made to sell it. So, a million copies sold may be okay for a popular music CD but classical music labels are happy when "only" 20,000 copies are sold. Classical music is a marginal thing but it's stronger than any other form of music. Beethoven will be listened in 2200. How about Madonna, Elvis, Miles Davis or Michael Jackson? ;D
Quote from: Harry Collier on May 13, 2007, 12:14:57 AM
But has it ever been any different? I remember (dimly) my teenage years at school; there were around 110 pupils in my year and, as I recollect, only 5-10 of them showed any interest whatsoever in classical music. I, at the tender age of 16 or so used to go to classical music concerts. But few people from my school ever turned up (even when the concert was at the school itself) and I was surrounded by grey heads.
Indeed, when have masses of young people ever been interested in something like classical music? That's like expecting throngs of middle-school students to carry around dog-eared copies of King Lear--for fun, not for class. Classical music suffers from an image problem (stuffy, boring elevator music for old farts and rich socialites--not exactly things a young person wants to associate with) that could perhaps be rectified, but it will always be sophisticated music that demands some attention, patience, and critical listening to appreciate fully. How many kids ever evince those traits in any sustained way?
Classical recording is only "dead" if you make the fallacy of thinking the "majors" are still the majors. Sure, EMI, Decca, DG, etc. have incredible back catalogs, but their day in the sun is long over, and, iirc, the big boom they enjoyed in the 80's and early 90's was from reissuing all their old stuff on CD for the first time, as collectors re-purchased their collections on the new format. Those labels are the minors now. It's an amazing time to be a classical fan, thanks to all the real major labels: Naxos, Chandos, BIS, Hyperion, etc.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 13, 2007, 04:02:36 AMBeethoven will be listened in 2200. How about Madonna, Elvis, Miles Davis or Michael Jackson?
I wouldn't be surprised if Miles Davis is listened to in 2200. Maybe Elvis, too. Of course, I'll never know.
Quote from: Grazioso on May 13, 2007, 04:37:52 AMand, iirc, the big boom they enjoyed in the 80's and early 90's was from reissuing all their old stuff on CD for the first time
That was part of the boom, and it helped fund a huge number of new recordings – far more than now. If you can find older Gramophones (or other magazines), take a look at the new releases section – the majors were cranking out new recordings at fast pace and the independent labels were putting out fewer titles.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 13, 2007, 04:02:36 AM
Classical music does not have the huge marketing costs popular music has. No expensive music videos are made to sell it. So, a million copies sold may be okay for a popular music CD but classical music labels are happy when "only" 20,000 copies are sold. Classical music is a marginal thing but it's stronger than any other form of music. Beethoven will be listened in 2200. How about Madonna, Elvis, Miles Davis or Michael Jackson? ;D
I don't know about Madonna and Jackson, but I assume Elvis and Miles will be heard in 2200. If anyone's around to listen that is, he said gloomily. ;D
Quote from: Todd on May 13, 2007, 06:05:11 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Miles Davis is listened to in 2200. Maybe Elvis, too. Of course, I'll never know.
Ha. I posted the above before reading this.
Classical music will survive everything, it did allready over hundreds of years, and will continue to do so!
The big majors will license all there recorded music to Brilliant and earn a lot of extra money with it, the smaller labels have allready filled the niches, and will continue to do so. The new majors are Naxos and Brilliant, and Brilliant will within two or three years be the biggest producer and distributor of classical music, and Naxos will compare to them as a dwarf.
So never fear my friends, all will be well within the state of Holland. :)
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2007, 09:38:52 AM
I say it's a terrible idea.
As to whether taxpayers would support it, it depends. Some areas may have greater support than others. In the US, this generally falls to states and local governments, but given limited budgets, I'd say these levels of government should focus on other things - you know, true public goods. Roads, bridges, schools, etc. Supporting "The Arts" should be low on the agenda. If a particular level of government is flush with cash, and the taxpayers' support, then public funding makes sense.
Every time I go to a classical music concert I'm struck by the average age and appearance of relative affluence of the patrons. Why on earth should all taxpayers be asked to support something that the comparatively wealthy enjoy? That's absurd. I suppose one could try to argue that by making it "free" that a broader audience would become interested in the music, but I'd like to see some type of evidence from somewhere that supports that. (I should point out that cheap tickets can be had for around $20 locally, so it's not at all expensive to attend concerts in at least some places.) I'd also like to know why that would be a laudable goal. Should government be in the business of forming the artistic tastes of its citizens?
Also, why only classical music? Why not indie rock or jazz or pop music? While I prefer classical music (and jazz) to pop and rock, does that mean it's somehow intrinsically better, or at least more deserving of public funds? I can't see how. If anything, I think "Arts" funding by government should be reduced, and that includes funding for venues, unless, again, funds are plentiful and more important issues are taken care of.
While I agree with your statement that classical music is not 'intrinsically' superior to other genres of music, but I would reaxamine your conclusion about government support. I am not advocating that the government supsidize the earnings of recording companies or artists, but rather that that it increase its support for the many nonprofit organizations, such as orchestras and opera halls, which provide the venue in which artists can perform.
More important issues to be taken care of?
Losing touch with our historical and artistic heritage doesn't, and should not take a backseat to much.
Quote from: Harry on May 13, 2007, 06:27:05 AM
Classical music will survive everything, it did allready over hundreds of years, and will continue to do so!
The big majors will license all there recorded music to Brilliant and earn a lot of extra money with it, the smaller labels have allready filled the niches, and will continue to do so. The new majors are Naxos and Brilliant, and Brilliant will within two or three years be the biggest producer and distributor of classical music, and Naxos will compare to them as a dwarf.
So never fear my friends, all will be well within the state of Holland. :)
So, nothing but second-rate orchestras and old recordings? (Playing devil's advocate here.)
Quote from: Don on May 12, 2007, 10:18:44 PM
Great idea. Citizens should only pay for products and services they don't want.
if you think about how government spends the tax money, you're right. Just a while ago, they built a park in Seattle, with modern art works in it, i doubt many people even knew about that; even if they knew about it, i doubt they really wanted it.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 13, 2007, 07:50:28 AM
if you think about how government spends the tax money, you're right. Just a while ago, they built a park in Seattle, with modern art works in it, i doubt many people even knew about that; even if they knew about it, i doubt they really wanted it.
I love it when they build shit that I could care less about with my tax money. Like a new baseball stadium.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 13, 2007, 07:48:08 AM
So, nothing but second-rate orchestras and old recordings? (Playing devil's advocate here.)
You are as so many mistaken about that notion.
There is nothing second rate with both labels, and there is nothing wrong with old recordings.
Naxos and Brilliant both release mostly good and new recordings, as many on this forum will confirm.
And with first rate musicians.
Quote from: Harry on May 13, 2007, 07:56:46 AM
You are as so many mistaken about that notion.
There is nothing second rate with both labels, and there is nothing wrong with old recordings.
Naxos and Brilliant both release mostly good and new recordings, as many on this forum will confirm.
And with first rate musicians.
Good to know. That's not the impression I had obviously.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 13, 2007, 07:58:37 AM
Good to know. That's not the impression I had obviously.
Well maybe listening and reviewing classical cd's for 35 years is counting for something right!
Quote from: Harry on May 13, 2007, 08:08:46 AM
Well maybe listening and reviewing classical cd's for 35 years is counting for something right!
I think you're keeping the classical CD industry in business all on your own, Harry.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2007, 09:38:52 AM
Also, why only classical music? Why not indie rock or jazz or pop music? While I prefer classical music (and jazz) to pop and rock, does that mean it's somehow intrinsically better, or at least more deserving of public funds? I can't see how. If anything, I think "Arts" funding by government should be reduced, and that includes funding for venues, unless, again, funds are plentiful and more important issues are taken care of.
Hear Hear!
Quote from: Todd on May 13, 2007, 06:05:11 AM
If you can find older Gramophones (or other magazines), take a look at the new releases section – the majors were cranking out new recordings at fast pace and the independent labels were putting out fewer titles.
Well, back in the 50s and 60s when I began assembling my collection of recordings, there was only DGG, EMI, Decca ... and a few others. We had little choice. You wanted a Handel opera? Tough! There were few independents (Saga, Vox and a few others) but they had little distribution clout. You wanted the Beethoven violin concerto? Choice of six available at the time you wanted to purchase, all at full price. How many recordings of the Beethoven violin concerto, Dvorak New World Symphony, Beethoven Op 131 quartet, Handel Rinaldo, Mozart K488 piano concerto were sold in 1935? 1955? 1975? 2005? I suspect the answer is: 2005 always wins! And that's not to mention all the stuff that was never on offer 50-70 years ago.
Quote from: Steve on May 13, 2007, 07:00:30 AMMore important issues to be taken care of? Losing touch with our historical and artistic heritage doesn't, and should not take a backseat to much.
Yes, more important issues. There are many. And losing government funding does not mean "losing touch" with artistic heritage. Not at all; your statement implies false choices.
Let's face facts. At least in the USA, Government will never place any priority on promoting serious classical music; there's no percentage in it.
Quote from: Don on May 13, 2007, 09:03:23 AM
Let's face facts. At least in the USA, Government will never place any priority on promoting serious classical music; there's no percentage in it.
And either will the major labels. Sure, they're releasing some CDs, but they're all lame crossover or the 1,565,534th recording of a Beethoven symphony by one of the few conductors left on their roster.
Quote from: Don on May 13, 2007, 09:03:23 AM
Let's face facts. At least in the USA, Government will never place any priority on promoting serious classical music; there's no percentage in it.
I'm all for facing facts. In the USA, taxpayer money goes on arms and munitions. In countries such as Russia, Germany and France, it has often gone in fairly large quantities on serious culture, including music. Take your pick; it's a democratic world; à chacun son goût. What about Argentina, Carlos?
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 12, 2007, 08:44:44 AM
classical music should be free for everyone, and the classical artists should get paid from the government.
And where do you think the government gets the money?
Quote from: Grazioso on May 13, 2007, 04:37:52 AMThose labels are the minors now. It's an amazing time to be a classical fan, thanks to all the real major labels: Naxos, Chandos, BIS, Hyperion, etc.
Bingo! Dead on, sir.
And as far as I am concerned, the artists which Naxos, Hyperion, and BIS can field could outperform the artists DG, Sony, and Universal could field, these days.
Aaand here's the line-up for the former major companies ...
Batting first it's Leif Ove Andsnes, the accomplished leadoff hitter.
He's followed by Midori, surprise substitution there after Perlman was injured in Friday's match.
Next we have Antonio Pappano, who's been a bit uneven of late, but we'll see what he can do tonight.
Yo-Yo Ma is in his customary cleanup spot: they're relying on him even more with rereleases of old classical albums, but thankfully they've brought in a wonderful No. 5 hitter:
Joshua Bell, who's also thriving off old stuff at the moment.
Sixth place gives us Lang Lang, bit of an odd choice but with Maazel in a slump they were left with few options.
Seventh is the supertalented young Esa-Pekka Salonen, trying to prove he deserves a place on Steinbrenner's lineup of Former Major All-Stars.
Batting eighth we have Simon Rattle, who's really been terrible lately, looking to turn things around with a big night at the plate. He's struck out six times in his last ten at-bats.
And finally there's Placido Domingo - aging but still a good designated hitter.
Now let's scan the defense of the Independent Labels. Covering first, second, third, and shortstop are the members of the Maggini Quartet, who've established themselves as a talented young bedrock for the upstart independent team. The backstop is Cho-Liang Lin, just traded from the Majors with Leonard Slatkin, for Barry Wordsworth, Neeme Jarvi, and some prospects. Slatkin's in right field; next to him in center is Julia Fischer, who appears ready as ever. She's part of the platoon outfield, rotating with Peter Wispelwey and new acquisition Yevgeny Sudbin. And down in left field we see Konstantin Scherbakov, the bedrock of this team after Jeno Jando was forced to the bench a few seasons ago.
Now taking the mound for the Independents is their ace pitcher, Stephen Hough; and if he runs into trouble they know they've got a deep bullpen, with lefty Tasmin Little and the long relievers Vernon Handley, Bjarte Engeset, and Antoni Wit. Of course, if the majors can't get a hit in the first eight innings, they're sunk against the exceptional Indie closer, Sharon Bezaly. She can flaut at over 100 miles per hour. Of course, the Former Majors pitching is nothing to be sneezed at either, with Claudio Abbado still able to throw a good curveball and Hilary Hahn as daunting as they come.
Yes, in all it shall be an exciting match. And here come the two managers, Chris Roberts for the majors and Klaus Heymann for the independents. And Heymann has built quite a team after starting with almost nothing. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this sure will be an exciting match to watch as the finest artists of the former majors and the indies duke it out for artistic supremacy.
And now we go to our color commentator...
Quote from: brianrein on May 13, 2007, 05:27:46 PM
Bingo! Dead on, sir.
And as far as I am concerned, the artists which Naxos, Hyperion, and BIS can field could outperform the artists DG, Sony, and Universal could field, these days.
Aaand here's the line-up for the former major companies ...
Batting first it's Leif Ove Andsnes, the accomplished leadoff hitter.
He's followed by Midori, surprise substitution there after Perlman was injured in Friday's match.
Next we have Antonio Pappano, who's been a bit uneven of late, but we'll see what he can do tonight.
Yo-Yo Ma is in his customary cleanup spot: they're relying on him even more with rereleases of old classical albums, but thankfully they've brought in a wonderful No. 5 hitter:
Joshua Bell, who's also thriving off old stuff at the moment.
Sixth place gives us Lang Lang, bit of an odd choice but with Maazel in a slump they were left with few options.
Seventh is the supertalented young Esa-Pekka Salonen, trying to prove he deserves a place on Steinbrenner's lineup of Former Major All-Stars.
Batting eighth we have Simon Rattle, who's really been terrible lately, looking to turn things around with a big night at the plate. He's struck out six times in his last ten at-bats.
And finally there's Placido Domingo - aging but still a good designated hitter.
Now let's scan the defense of the Independent Labels. Covering first, second, third, and shortstop are the members of the Maggini Quartet, who've established themselves as a talented young bedrock for the upstart independent team. The backstop is Cho-Liang Lin, just traded from the Majors with Leonard Slatkin, for Barry Wordsworth, Neeme Jarvi, and some prospects. Slatkin's in right field; next to him in center is Julia Fischer, who appears ready as ever. She's part of the platoon outfield, rotating with Peter Wispelwey and new acquisition Yevgeny Sudbin. And down in left field we see Konstantin Scherbakov, the bedrock of this team after Jeno Jando was forced to the bench a few seasons ago.
Now taking the mound for the Independents is their ace pitcher, Stephen Hough; and if he runs into trouble they know they've got a deep bullpen, with lefty Tasmin Little and the long relievers Vernon Handley, Bjarte Engeset, and Antoni Wit. Of course, if the majors can't get a hit in the first eight innings, they're sunk against the exceptional Indie closer, Sharon Bezaly. She can flaut at over 100 miles per hour. Of course, the Former Majors pitching is nothing to be sneezed at either, with Claudio Abbado still able to throw a good curveball and Hilary Hahn as daunting as they come.
Yes, in all it shall be an exciting match. And here come the two managers, Chris Roberts for the majors and Klaus Heymann for the independents. And Heymann has built quite a team after starting with almost nothing. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this sure will be an exciting match to watch as the finest artists of the former majors and the indies duke it out for artistic supremacy.
And now we go to our color commentator...
That's an impressive lineup! I really am enjoying my naxos membership. Just heard a wonderful recording of the Elgar Violin Concerto. ;D
Quote from: Steve on May 13, 2007, 05:33:33 PM
Just heard a wonderful recording of the Elgar Violin Concerto. ;D
Dong-Suk Kang? His is certainly among the top six since 1929, in my opinion.
I was just thinking about the so-called impending death of classical music, and it struck me that the relatively obscure composer Myaskovsky has three discs in the catalog having the same program:
Cello Sonata No.1/No. 2 and Cello Concerto.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 12, 2007, 01:11:58 PM
I wonder how many CDs these small labels are actually selling per title. Hundreds? Thousands? Lebrecht doesn't seem to think it's many.
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/cdcosts.asp
"Proportionally speaking, very few records reach 10,000. Some don't even reach 2,000. These are world sales figures, not just for the United Kingdom. What is more, at present the average sales per title are falling because of the enormous quantities of new issues.
Individual sales figures for the vast number of CDs on the market are not generally available. But as an example, the only recording ever made of Rutland Boughton's Third Symphony, issued by Hyperion, has sold 6036 copies throughout the world in about nine years."Hyperion seems fine with not having to sell tens of thousands - that they can keep themselves afloat with that buisness model proves that recording new repertoire will never ever die. Plus Lebrecht seems to have some sort of fantasy about a magical world where a few large labels will give us everything we want, maybe he's lazy. It doesn't matter that labels such as Hyperion sells small amounts, because there are dozens of these notable small labels all remaining afloat, some of them while releasing mind-bogglingly obscure repertoire (eg Altarus).
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 07:52:31 PM
What a terrible picture you draw of the current classical scene: second-tier labels peddling second-fiddle musicians!
This is worst than agony: it's the classical music scene crumbling into mediocrity.
Does anyone agree with Two-Tone?
Bulldog: I don't. ;D
Firstly, Two-Tone, thank you for bringing me face to face with an opinion I wrote 18 months ago! Interesting to see how my views have changed, and haven't. Here is one opinion which I still retain: anybody who can sweepingly describe the output of PentaTone, BIS, Hyperion and harmonia mundi as "second-tier" simply isn't listening!
Now, as far as the facts go:
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 07:52:31 PM
Such dullness, these musicians. No wonder concert halls aren't filling up and CD's aren't selling...
THEY ARE.
Quoteclassical (traditional and crossover) sales rose more than 22 percent between 2005 and 2006. This is quite surprising considering that overall sales declined and that there were fewer retail outlets in which classical CDs are typically sold. In part the improvement is due to a significant gain of digital downloads which in 2006 were almost 109 percent greater than in 2005. And while there were fewer bricks and mortar retailers from which to buy CDs, part of the slack was taken up by a big increase of classical music sales at Amazon.com, which recently launched a classical "Blowout" section at reduced prices for certain items.
QuoteYou thought the only new articles about CDs you'd be reading would be about further declines in sales? Well, it turns out that ArkivMusic, the country's leading website for new and formerly out-of-print classical recordings, posted, um, record sales last year. Now billing itself as "The Source for Classical Music™," the online retailer posted a record 30% growth in 2007 sales over 2006, including more than $1 million in sales in December alone. [Stereophile]
And from the New York Times:
Quotefor all the hand-wringing, there is immensely more classical music on offer now, both in concerts and on recordings than there was in what nostalgists think of as the golden era of classics in America.
In the record business, for example, it can be depressing to compare the purely classical output of the major labels now with what the industry cranked out from 1950 to 1975. But focusing on the majors is beside the point: the real action has moved to dozens of adventurous smaller companies, ranging from musician-run labels like Bridge, Oxingale and Cantaloupe to ambitious mass marketers like the midprice, repertory-spanning Naxos.
Similarly, someone shopping anywhere but in huge chains like Tower or Virgin might conclude that classical discs are no longer sold. In reality the business model has changed. Internet deep-catalog shops like arkivmusic.com offer virtually any CD in print, something no physical store can do today. The Internet has become a primary resource for classical music: the music itself as well as information about it.
On Apple's iTunes, which sold a billion tracks in its first three years, classical music reportedly accounts for 12 percent of sales, four times its share of the CD market. Both Sony-BMG and Universal say that as their download sales have increased, CD sales have remained steady, suggesting that downloaders are a new market, not simply the same consumers switching formats.
In their first six weeks on iTunes, the New York Philharmonic's download-only Mozart concert sold 2,000 complete copies and about 1,000 individual tracks, and the Los Angeles Philharmonic's two Minimalist concerts, combined, sold 900 copies and about 400 individual tracks. Those numbers, though small by pop standards, exceed what might be expected from sales of orchestral music on standard CD's.
Other orchestras are catching on: the Milwaukee Symphony and Philharmonia Baroque in San Francisco offer downloads on their own Web sites. And the major labels are planning to sell downloads of archival recordings that will not be reissued on CD.
In concert halls, season subscriptions have plummeted in favor of last-minute ticket sales. That doesn't mean the business is tanking, however, just that audiences have shifted their habits. As two-income families have grown busier, potential ticket buyers are less inclined to commit to performances months in advance (or as ticket prices climb, to accept predetermined concert packages). But as much as orchestras and concert presenters would prefer to sell their tickets before the season starts, the seats are hardly empty.
Neither are the stages. The American Symphony Orchestra League puts the number of orchestras in the United States at 1,800 (350 of them professional). The 1,800 ensembles give about 36,000 concerts a year, 30 percent more than in 1994. And in the most recent season for which the league has published figures, 2003-4, orchestras reported an 8 percent increase in operating revenues against a 7 percent increase in expenses, with deficits dropping to 1.1 percent from 2.7 percent of their annual budgets from the previous season.
Meanwhile corners of the field generally ignored in discussions of classical music's mortality — most notably, early music and new music — are true growth industries. When Lincoln Center presented a 10-concert celebration of the composer Osvaldo Golijov this season, there wasn't a spare ticket to be found. The Miller Theater's Gyorgy Ligeti series packed them in as well. And though the Los Angeles Philharmonic's Minimalist Jukebox festival sold slightly fewer tickets than its regular programming, it drew a younger crowd: 25 percent of the audience was said to be under 45 (compared with 15 percent normally), and 10 percent was 25 to 34 (compared with 2 percent).
Two-Tone considers Sibelius and Shostakovich second-tier, so it's reasonable to say that his judgment is shaky, at best. ;D
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 08:16:04 PM
So, you see, Brian, the facts you bring up only corroborate those of us who feel the classical music world is in ill-health... ::)
What are you planning to do to save it?
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 08:37:34 PM
While you're at it, why not ask me what I plan to do to restore the Roman Empire? ::)
Bring intrigue, bickering, poisoning and backstabbing back in fashion?
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 08:16:04 PM
So, you see, Brian, the facts you bring up only corroborate those of us who feel the classical music world is in ill-health... ::)
Here's one classical music lover's perspective. I've been listening since the early 90's, and my primary means of exploring/enjoying the music has been the CD. Attending live concerts is extremely rare, and only very occasionally will I listen to classical radio or watch a performance on PBS. I never download music, having no interest in mp3's and the like.
From that perspective, the classical music world is thriving. Thanks to the Internet and the explosion of labels outside the old majors (Decca, DG, EMI, etc.), the array of music I have access to has exploded out of all proportion. Further, much of it is interesting and extremely well recorded and well performed.
When I first started listening, it was hard to get hold of the discs I wanted, and most of what was readily available was the same old core repertoire--in fact, usually the same old recordings repackaged for the umpteenth time. Now I not only have easy access to classic recordings of, say, Beethoven or Brahms, by the big-name artists of the past, but I also have easy access to a vast body of music outside those big names. You might dubiously call such off-the-beaten-path pieces and unfamiliar artists "second tier", but I can say that my musical life is far richer now, when I can readily hear multiple recordings of top-tier but traditionally ignored works by composers like Madetoja, Pettersson, Novak, Bax, etc. And on top of that, the old majors now release many of their classic recordings at comically low prices. Then there's Brilliant Classics, making excellent recordings available at even lower prices. And it's far easier to get hold of the complete works of the big-name composers: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, etc.
Let's see, compared to when I started listening to classical music, I can hear more good music more easily for less money. Yes, I'm happy :)
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 08:37:34 PM
While you're at it, why not ask me what I plan to do to restore the Roman Empire? ::)
My, aren't we an optimist. Sounds like you almost want classical music to cave in to barbarians and destroy itself with bulimic orgies, leaving only crumbled ruins of its former self. ::)
By the way, Grazioso, I appreciated your thoughtful contribution, even if my snarky one-liner doesn't show it. :)
Two Tone's lament about the supposed lack of great musicians today with"force of personality" is simply ludicrous.
No really great musicians today ? Come on.
We have Barenboim, Levine, Abbado, Rattle, Gergiev, Muti, Nagano, Harnoncourt, Maazel, Previn, Thomas,Slatkin, Colin Davis, Askenazy, Boulez,Blomstedt, Chailly, Dutoit, Eschenbach, Neeme Jarvi, Mackerras,
Masur, Thielemann, Salonen, among conductors, Argerich, Thibaudet, Perlman,
Kremer, Yo Yo Ma, Peter Serkin, Aimard, and so many other great instrumentalists etc, magnificent orchestras in Berlin, Vienna, London,Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Munich, Dresden,Leipzig, Prague, St.Petersburg ,Amsterdam and elsewhere which DON"T SOUND ALIKE AT ALL, and so many great singers. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, not to mention the many phenomenally gifted youngsters emerging today. Like their interpretations or not, today's leading musicians are anything but carbon-copies of each other.
Don't tell me that the classical music world is slipping into mediocrity, and that it's not worth going to performances any more.
I'm fed up with people who idealize the past of classical music so much that they can't appreciate today's many great musicians.
And whatever the problems of the classical recording industry, there is greater diversity of repertoire than ever before in the history of recorded sound. We're not limited to the same old warhorses by Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, etc. We can hear music by interesting composers such as Balakirev, Berwald, Brian, Bliss, Bax, Chavez, Dohnanyi, Enescu, Fibich, Glazunov, Janacek, Kallinikov, Koechlin, Kancheli, Leifs, Myaskovsky, Medtner, Nielsen, Pfitzner, Roussel, Szymanowski,Stenhammar, Schmidt,Screker,Schulhoff,Martinu, Taneyev, Zemlinsky, and so many others. Many of us classical music fans just don't realize how lucky we are.
??? ??? ??? ::) ::) ::)
Strange, I feel a sudden urge to listen to Shostakovich.
:-) Likewise (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9.msg255722.html#msg255722)
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 05:30:40 AM
Please do: so I can keep Stravinsky and Mahler all to myself. LOL.
The Sony Stravinsky box is sitting on my desk, right next to the DSCH quartets. :)
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 05:37:44 AM
The real thing and the imitation . . .
Piffle! To suggest that
Shostakovich is "imitation"
Stravinsky is to fail to understand either composer.
In fairness, I don't expect you to. Viz.:
Quote from: Two-ToneIf you listen to Shosty's first just after listening to early Stravinsky, and Shosty's fourth, just after listening to Mahler, maybe, just maybe, will you get the point.
Like the resident
Pelléas fanatic, you believe that your prejudices are The Truth. Personally, I think that
Shostakovich improves on
Mahler; to take only the broadest sense, I find all of
Shostakovich's symphonies convincing 'statements', which is something I cannot say for all of even those
Mahler symphonies to which I've listened. Specifically, I think more highly of the
Shostakovich Fourth than any
Mahler symphony. That is only opinion, to be sure; but it does mean that I don't take at all seriously any contention that
Mahler is somehow "the real thing," but
Dmitri Dmitriyevich an "imitation."
As for
Shostakovich's First and early
Stravinsky, the comparison you suggest is false on many levels. But probably the most nearly fair comparison to be made, is one you did not have in mind.
Shostakovich's First Symphony (which has elements of homage to
Petrushka) is an astonishingly sure-footed and accomplished symphony for an 18-year-old; it is a piece which merits its place in the standard repertory regardless of considerations of the composer's youth; and in it, you find elements of the composer's musical profile which continue to flourish over the course of a long and distinguished career. In comparison,
Stravinsky's Symphony in E-flat is a labored student-work, of interest almost only as an early curiosity in
Stravinsky's output, and not at all indicative of either the character or creative quality of the composer's full-fledged work.
Quote from: Two-ToneStravinsky's recordings of himself are indeed, the reference recordings.
And yet, many of them are well improved upon.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 06:37:20 AM
To deny that shostakovich imitates Stravinsky and Mahler, fails to understand the distinction between fakery and the real thing
Like all second rates, you believe badmouthing and smear are legitimate means to polemical ends...
Thank you for failing entirely to answer my points.
Thank you, too, for the amusing tail-chasing irony of "
Like all second rates, you believe badmouthing and smear are legitimate means . . ."
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 05:08:04 AM
I'll tell you whatever I want [expletive deleted]
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 06:37:20 AM
Like all second rates, you believe badmouthing and smear are legitimate means to polemical ends...
Ha.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 14, 2008, 07:52:31 PMToscanini, Horowitz, Furtwangler et alii attracted a large public - and lucrative recording contracts - through sheer force of personality... Who has that today?
Implicit in this statement is the belief that classical music used to make up a substantial portion of overall record sales. Can anyone produce any stats regarding just how prominent recorded classical music sales were 40, 50, 60, or 70 years ago when compared to today? (Probably not.) Classical music used to be relatively more "popular" than it is now, but even in decades long past other acts were the primary sellers. Bing Crosby sold a whole lot more records that all of the artists listed above combined, and you could throw in a couple dozen other names with them. Things haven't changed that much in this regard.
Recorded classical music, if not enjoying its peak, is enjoying a pretty nice time overall. A lot of artists get to record a wide variety of repertoire that was often neglected in the glorious past. Are conductors today as good as Toscanini or Furtwangler? Well, in some cases, one could say yes, and in others one could say absolutely they are much better How many Furtwangler or Toscanini recordings of works by Schoenberg or Bartok (very limited for Furtwangler, sure), or Berg are there? I prefer the broader variety of music and the broader array of interpretations available today, and this takes into account the fact that mediocre acts of the past have (rightly) faded away from memory, helping foster the illusion that past was filled with powerful musical giants only.
Also, when one discusses the lucrative contracts, I must inquire: lucrative for whom? The maestros? The orchestra members? The labels? I'd like to see some evidence that people other than the Big Stars got notable amounts of money.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:04:27 AM
From one who puts the imitator above Stravinsky, such moronic comments have little effect...
By your continual badmouthing, we shall all understand you to be no better than second-rate, of course.
Quote from: Two-NoteThank you though for being so easy to rebut.
You haven't done any such thing. "Putting the imitator above
Stravinsky" is either a strawman, or failure to read.
Quote from: Todd on December 18, 2008, 07:08:36 AM
Recorded classical music, if not enjoying its peak, is enjoying a pretty nice time overall.
In the variety of music and recordings now available, I think it must be a peak (to date, at any rate).
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:14:36 AMNot at all. Just the explicit belief great musicians attracted the public, through sheer force of personality.
It's a belief? One can only assume that it's not based on any empirical evidence then, like many beliefs. Do you actually have any evidence that the artists you mention attracted a "large" public, and large compared to what? Beliefs are not evidence. Nor are whatever anecdotes or memories you may rely on.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:14:36 AMIt is only fair that the best musicians would make most money...
What about the people who help the "best musicians" make music? Surely the orchestras the great conductors used deserved healthy compensation. Beyond that, your supposition is based on some faulty assumptions. One could argue that Horowitz was a great showman but not an especially great musician, especially when compared to other pianists of his generation. Rudolf Serkin and Claudio Arrau, to mention two extact contemporaries, were arguably much better musicians, but they never attracted the "large" audiences like Horowitz. One can see something similar today with someone like Lang Lang probably getting paid very large sums while much better pianists get paid less. Horowitz was better than Lang Lang is, but one can see the same forces in action.
Popularity does not necessarily equate with quality.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 16, 2008, 06:54:11 AM
Two Tone's lament about the supposed lack of great musicians today with"force of personality" is simply ludicrous.
No really great musicians today ? Come on.
We have Barenboim, Levine, Abbado, Rattle, Gergiev, Muti, Nagano, Harnoncourt, Maazel, Previn, Thomas,Slatkin, Colin Davis, Askenazy, Boulez,Blomstedt, Chailly, Dutoit, Eschenbach, Neeme Jarvi, Mackerras,
Masur, Thielemann, Salonen, among conductors, Argerich, Thibaudet, Perlman,
Kremer, Yo Yo Ma, Peter Serkin, Aimard, and so many other great instrumentalists etc, magnificent orchestras in Berlin, Vienna, London,Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Munich, Dresden,Leipzig, Prague, St.Petersburg ,Amsterdam and elsewhere which DON"T SOUND ALIKE AT ALL, and so many great singers. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, not to mention the many phenomenally gifted youngsters emerging today. Like their interpretations or not, today's leading musicians are anything but carbon-copies of each other.
Don't tell me that the classical music world is slipping into mediocrity, and that it's not worth going to performances any more.
I'm fed up with people who idealize the past of classical music so much that they can't appreciate today's many great musicians.
And whatever the problems of the classical recording industry, there is greater diversity of repertoire than ever before in the history of recorded sound. We're not limited to the same old warhorses by Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, etc. We can hear music by interesting composers such as Balakirev, Berwald, Brian, Bliss, Bax, Chavez, Dohnanyi, Enescu, Fibich, Glazunov, Janacek, Kallinikov, Koechlin, Kancheli, Leifs, Myaskovsky, Medtner, Nielsen, Pfitzner, Roussel, Szymanowski,Stenhammar, Schmidt,Screker,Schulhoff,Martinu, Taneyev, Zemlinsky, and so many others. Many of us classical music fans just don't realize how lucky we are.
??? ??? ??? ::) ::) ::)
I agree with
most of what you say and with the general thrust of your argument :)
Where I would take issue with you is with regard to conductors. I don't happen to think that there are the same number of truly 'great' conductors around today....for all sorts of reasons.
If you take 1954 as a benchmark year, for example, the conductors active at that time whom I would consider to be great would have been:
Ernest Ansermet, Sir John Barbirolli, Sir Thomas Beecham, Eduard van Beinum, Leonard Bernstein, Karl Bohm, Sir Adrian Boult, Guido Cantelli, Sergui Celibidache, Antal Dorati, Ferenc Fricsay, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Carlo Maria Giulini, Jascha Horenstein, Eugen Jochum, Herbert von Karajan, Rudolf Kempe, Erich Kleiber, Otto Klemperer, Hans Knappertsbusch, Kyril Kondrashin, Rafael Kubelik, Erich Leinsdorf, Igor Markevitch, Jean Martinon, Dmitri Mirtopoulos,
Pierre Monteux, Evgeni Mravinsky, Charles Munch, Eugene Ormandy, Fritz Reiner, Victor de Sabata, Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt. Carl Schuricht, Georg Solti, William Steinberg, Leopold Stokowski, George Szell, Arturo Toscanini, Bruno Walter, Gunther Wand.
Now, we could argue about whether a few of these were 'great', I suppose, and I would concede that not all of them would necessarily have been considered 'great' in 1954....but it IS a pretty impressive list :) These are conductors who gave us classic recordings of the great works in the repertoire.
Today? Yes, I will give you Abbado, Barenboim, Blomstedt, Boulez, Chailly, Colin Davis, Jansons, Maazel, Mackerras, Muti, maybe Gergiev, Harnoncourt, Tilson Thomas but I am beginning to struggle after that. How many of the conductors of today have given us interpretations which will stand with those of their predecessors?
Now let me be absolutely clear...I hope that I am proved wrong!! I sincerely hope that today's conductors can match, let alone outshine, those of the past :) There ARE young conductors out there who have time to prove their greatness. It may take decades but the hope must be there :)
Reading Todd's post about conductors' repertoire as I write........that is a totally fair point! Conductors today have a much broader repertoire than in the past, no doubt about it! :)
What does one need, in order to believe that the best-paid musicians are necessarily the best musicians? A lobotomy?
Quote from: Dundonnell on December 18, 2008, 07:22:48 AMIf you take 1954 as a benchmark year, for example, the conductors active at that time whom I would consider to be great would have been
Regarding the first point, one must be careful when viewing a list of conductors active half a century ago and then today and talking about the relative dearth of "great" conductors today. Not all of the conductors you mention were viewed favorably then, or now, in all repertoire, if at all. Time tends to clear out lesser artists, and fifty years hence the list of "great" (or merely "very good" or whatever) conductors from today will possibly look quite a bit different than the list you write. It's hard to come up with a list as long as one can thinking about decades past, but over the years I've determined that even the generally acknowledged "great" conductors of the past had some shortcomings even in standard repertoire, and some applied the same basic approach to most music, at least the recordings from them I've heard. Rarely are the greats as great as they are remembered.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 18, 2008, 07:31:29 AMWhat does one need, in order to believe that the best-paid musicians are necessarily the best musicians? A lobotomy?
A sound question in a year where Bon Jovi raked in over $200 million touring.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:40:52 AMOne who places the greatest pianist of the XXth century, Vladimir Horowitz that is
Since when is Horowitz the greatest pianist of the 20th Century?
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:53:36 AMAs a matter of fact, all the conductors named by Dundonnell were well-known, well-established and well-respected in their times
This statement is very doubtful with respect to Horenstein or Wand, to pick just two.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:53:36 AMThe many recordings of great XXth Century musicians prove that statement wrong...
Incorrect. I never stated that there aren't many great recordings from the 20th Century. I merely stated that many greats aren't as great as they are remembered.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:53:36 AMAnd now you are using Bon Jovi as a means of further denigrating Horowitz?!!! Where does GMG find these nuts!!!!! Don't they like music?
No, you need to go back an reread the post a little more carefully.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 07:53:36 AM
Since the 1940's, when he reached his maturity.
According to you and to Horowitz fans,
maybe. There are
in fact better pianists than Horowitz.
Your posts in this thread indicate one of two things:
1.) You're a hopeless musical reactionary, slavishly devoted to the Greatest Artists of Yesteryear, as determined by ticket sales and record sales and publicity and
what everyone knows, or
2.) You're wonderfully ironic.
If the latter, then congratulations are in order; if the former, a yawn.
(No doubt you'll have some rejoinder about how you're neither, and how you have the only sensible taste, or informed taste, or something similar. That would deserve another yawn.)
Quote from: Todd on December 18, 2008, 08:02:27 AM
According to you and to Horowitz fans, maybe. There are in fact better pianists than Horowitz.
(P.S. Doesn't Two-Tone see the vanity, the sheer ridicule, of his making authority - authority!!! - of his self-serving opinions?)(http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m465/Phil1_05/Smiley_Laughing.gif)
Two-Tone is similar to many other past members who join the board, utter outrageous opinions mainly to get attention, and then soon leave the board when they've finally tired of saying the same things dozens of times.
Hey, outrageous opinions can be fun. Unfortunately, they can also be tiresome.
Maybe I put some words into Two Tones mouth, but he has certainly put some into mine.
I'm not trying to silence your freespeech,Two Tone, nor am I out to abolish the first amendment. When I said "Don't tell me", it was just a figure of speech.
You can say anything you like here or elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Your apparent assumtion that I am unfamiliar with old recordings by famous musicians from the past, and therefore lack discernment in judging performances is dead wrong. In fact, I am intimitely familiar with them, and certainly admire SOME of them greatly. But I'm no uncritical worshipper of old recordings, and frankly, some of them aren't all they're cracked up to be.
I happen to admire Rattle greatly, and consider him a conductor of genuine stature. He built the once minor league Birmingham orchestra into a world-class group, and recorded evidence proves this. And I hear absolutely no evidence that the Berlin POs playing has declined in the least bit whether you like his conducting or not. Do you think that the members of the orchestra, who choose their music directors would have appointed him if he were the mediocrity and non-entity you so falsely paint him to be? They're the BPO, for crying out loud. I saw and heard the recent PBS telecast from Carnegie hall with them of the Mahler 9th, and orchestral playing just doesn't get better than that.
I'mtoo young to have heard Toscanini live, but frankly, his NBC recordings have always struck me as coarse,choppy,hectic,punchy,nervous, rushed,metronomic, mechanical,joyless and stiffly regimented, although his earlier recordings are somewhat better. But I can't think of a single conductor today who has ever given the kind of awful late performances Toscanini gave.
Szell's Cleveland recordings are incredibly polished, but also the most fussy and wooden I have ever heard. And I can think of plenty old recordings that are no better than these.
And the "provincial" US orchestras you sneer at playing in Carnegie hall include such world-class groups as LA,San Francisco, Pittsburgh,Minnesota,
Cincinnati, Baltimore, and others.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 05:08:04 AM
Nor can one take seriously the judgment of one who ranks Simon Rattle -- Simon Rattle, for crying out loud!!! -- among the great ones.
Does this erratic bore even qualify as a good musician? By Birmingham standards maybe and it is a telling commentary on our time that a once-great orchestra, the Berlin Philharmonic that is, would fall to the small town level of music playing.
(As one who has the misfortune of living in a rather unsophisticated province of the United States, Berlin now reminds me of what I get when I travel to New York City and look at the week's programming in Carnegie Hall & the Lincoln Center: mostly provincial orchestras from the rest of the US, and therefore more of the dreary same...)
Kremer is a good violonist who has tarnished his reputation somewhat with his frantic promotion of composers such as Arvo part and Valentin Silvestrov - composers that is who write for a public that does not clearly distinguish between Classical Music and easy listening...
...just thirty years ago there still was an embarrassement of riches, while today provincial orchestras get invited to New York (when New York should be travelling to the provinces), the band leader from the municipal fanfare of Brimingham gets invited to Berlin, pop stars from China are placed on feet of equality with Vladimir Horowitz and Musical Comedians from Venezuela are promoted by recording componies that once boasted Karajan as their chief attraction.
Just a few points:
I believe Simon Rattle *is* a great conductor, and fully deserves his post with the Berlin Philharmonic. He has reshaped that ensemble into one that now plays more contemporary music than ever before, and further, plays today's composers
differently (if called for) than performances of Brahms or Mahler--which they still do, brilliantly, having heard them in the last few years at Carnegie Hall. Many of the musicians are younger than ever before, and better trained, able to play many different types of music in different styles; Mahler sounds different from Debussy, Bruckner sounds different from Thomas Adès. The orchestra is *still* a great orchestra, albeit with a much different sound than the one Karajan favored, but to my ears this is a plus. Now, does Rattle pull out greatness every single time? No. But did Karajan? My answer is "no" here, too.
This year I heard what some might call a "provincial orchestra," the Saint Louis Symphony, do a world-class concert with David Robertson of Messiaen's
Turangalîla-Symphonie. Whatever factors converged (i.e., the piece itself, Robertson's advocacy), they managed to create some extraordinary music. I am convinced that many orchestras, while they may not pull off world-class performances every night of the week (does Berlin do that, either?), can do so with the right piece and conductor.
Gidon Kremer is not a good violinist; he is an
excellent violinist. His Kremerata Baltica is one of the finest chamber music groups I've heard in recent years--again, with a plethora of young, extremely talented and well-trained players. Musicians are getting
better, not worse.
Gustavo Dudamel (to whom I assume the "Musical Comedian" comment refers) is no con job, nor is he some "flavor of the month" for Deutsche Grammophon. I have now heard him four times live, and there is little doubt that he is a superb young conductor, and one who may--repeat, "may"--become one of the greats. I think it is too early to predict what course his career will take, since he is still developing as an artist. But he is definitely no fluke. He clearly knows his way around an orchestra, studies scores carefully, and generates a lot of musical excitement. And from the reactions of the musicians who play for him, he earns a great deal of their respect. Following his appearances with both the Israel Philharmonic and New York Philharmonic orchestras (two very different groups), members of both were
applauding him along with the audience. (Contrast this with today's very public airing of the New York Philharmonic's complaints about Gilbert Kaplan, who did Mahler's Resurrection Symphony a little over a week ago.)
--Bruce
I knew that it was dangerous to enter this minefield ;D (So much safer talking about obscure composers no one has ever heard of ;D)
I don't understand why one cannot have a sane, sensible, rational discussion without ........oh never mind :)
At the risk of being accused of making further "concessions to the resident...", I can see the force of the arguments made by so many members who have posted recently. I did say that one could argue about whether some of the conductors active in 1954 were or were not 'great conductors' (and I didn't even include Joseph Keilberth, Hermann Scherchen or Hans Rosbaud-the two last of whom certainly did conduct Schoenberg, Berg and other modern composers ;D) and I also admitted that some of these conductors would not be recognised as 'great' until later in their careers.
As I said, I WANT to be proved wrong!! I want to acknowledge Simon Rattle as a great conductor. I am not sure that I can yet. I am not sure that the brilliant young conductor of the Mahler 2nd and 10th all those years ago has developed as far or as much as was predicted. But I am more than happy to acknowledge the immense work he did in transforming the City of Birmingham Orchestra; the same achievement as Mark Elder and the Halle today. I WANT to acclaim Gustavo Dudamel as one of the stars of the future. I DO NOT WANT to be thought of as a 'hopeless musical reactionary' looking back through rose-tinted spectacles to a 'Golden Age' that was perhaps not as golden as it is sometimes portrayed.
When I hear a performance of Brahms or Bruckner or Mahler by a conductor like Haitink or Abbado or Jansons I hear music performed with a degree of musical sensitivity and indeed sprituality which ranks every bit as high as any conductor of the past could produce.
Whether there are as many conductors of that stature today compared with 50 years ago I am not so sure about but we could debate that to the end of time!
Anyway...that's quite enough from me ;D
Far more moderate and thoughtful than, for instance: Nor can one take seriously the judgment of one who ranks Simon Rattle -- Simon Rattle, for crying out loud!!! -- among the great ones.
That is sleaze, indeed.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 09:12:11 AM
The thoughtful & moderate expression of opinion by bhodges, Dundonnell and Superhorn are a welcome inducement to just ignore the all-too-usual internet sleeze, prefered by others...
I too wish I could find ways of liking Rattle or Salonen!
I've enjoyed some Salonen records (eg, among others, excerpts from Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet--which is a superb one, imo--and a recent Stravinsky record recently purchased of Pulcinella, Ragtime and Octet); for Rattle, haven't really head anything from him, but am thinking about giving his Mussorgsky, Stravinsky and, perhaps, Mahler a try.
Quote from: Bu on December 18, 2008, 12:11:26 PM
. . . and a recent Stravinsky record recently purchased of Pulcinella, Ragtime and Octet
Is that a new recording? I once had a
Salonen disc with those pieces, back in the early 90's.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 18, 2008, 12:25:03 PM
Is that a new recording? I once had a Salonen disc with those pieces, back in the early 90's.
No, its the version you once had. I just recently bought it and have enjoyed the record so far.
I remember the Pulcinella and Ragtime being very good. I don't remember the Octet from that disc . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 18, 2008, 12:47:05 PM
I remember the Pulcinella and Ragtime being very good. I don't remember the Octet from that disc . . . .
Ah, here is the record, my friend:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WpvqfZSjL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
Yes, I remember that the piece was on that disc . . . I don't have any recollection of the sound of the recording, the character of the performance (of the Octuor).
Quote from: karlhenning on December 18, 2008, 12:55:51 PM
Yes, I remember that the piece was on that disc . . . I don't have any recollection of the sound of the recording, the character of the performance (of the Octuor).
Its a very good interpretation, and has made me appreciate the value of the piece more. There might be others out there that are better (other versions out there worth exploring, I'm sure), but overall I think Salonen does the work justice.
Quote from: Two-Tone on December 18, 2008, 09:12:11 AM
The thoughtful & moderate expression of opinion by bhodges, Dundonnell and Superhorn are a welcome inducement to just ignore the all-too-usual internet sleeze, prefered by others...
I too wish I could find ways of liking Rattle or Salonen!
Looking through this thread, I see no reason for your personally directed agitation and disrespectful terminology towards other members. There is a bit too much "moronic comments", "nuts", "sleeze", "smearing" - and what have you - going around. Debate is fine but keep it civil! :)
Please cool off a bit. I'm not going to edit or delete all those posts, but consider this a final warning.
Q