Deutsche grammophon

... and you'll find vinyl from the independent labels that were around before the general turn off of vinyl releases in the classical music sector in, if I remember, 1989, can be very reliable. I'm thinking, in the UK, particularly of Chandos and Hyperion.
And Gimell, perhaps the first label devoted solely to a single band (The Tallis Scholars, an a capella choir), is always good - if renaissance polyphony floats yout boat.

i think we are getting ahead of ourselves. i would recommend making random purchases, and listening to them. as artists make themselves apparent whom you have an affinity for, seek out more disks by those artists.

so i guess i am recommending you not consider the label the music is on at all. then seek out the artists you are in sync with.

that being said, i can not listen to music recorded before 1950 in most cases, as the mechanical issues overwhelm my musical instincts, and i cease listening to the music, and focus on the recording. that is a crappy way to hear music :-)

quote:

i think we are getting ahead of ourselves. i would recommend making random purchases, and listening to them. as artists make themselves apparent whom you have an affinity for, seek out more disks by those artists.

so i guess i am recommending you not consider the label the music is on at all. then seek out the artists you are in sync with.

that being said, i can not listen to music recorded before 1950 in most cases, as the mechanical issues overwhelm my musical instincts, and i cease listening to the music, and focus on the recording. that is a crappy way to hear music :-)

I think you are absolutely right here Mike, in all the points you make.

regards,

mat

Except that some of the greatest musical performances set down for the gramophone were actually captured before 1950.

The point Mike makes about dubious recording quality is certainly open to question in terms of the music making being defeated by the recordings in a huge number of musically significant cases ...

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Except that some of the greatest musical performances set down for the gramophone were actually captured before 1950.

The point Mike makes about dubious recording quality is certainly open to question in terms of the music making being defeated by the recordings in a huge number of musically significant cases ...

ATB from George

george, i know what you like, but i am happy to report that musicians are smart enough to improve over their predecessors and have been doing so consistently for the past 59 years. Recordings for all their faults have continued to improve as well.

so for ordinary mortals who are simply listening to the music, newer generally means better, with all the obvious and apparent exceptions duly noted.

if i could only listen to pre-1950 recordings,
i would put the stereo to the curb and rely on books and live performances, never looking back :-)

Dear Mike,

How ever will you appreciate the works of Elgar or Rachmaninoff without at least listening to how the composer of the work thought it should go in their own carefully prepared recordings?

Equally how will you know what Sibelius or Prokoffiev [for two significant examples] had in mind without listening to the efforts of their personal friends, and collaborators, who set about preserving for posterity what the composer had in mind?

Even how would one appreciate Bach's works without an undertandanding of where the current musical tradition stemmed from?

I fancy that without Adolf Busch the "authentic performance" tradition that rules today would have waited at least another thirty years to establish itself, and to be fair only a very handful of recordings since 1950 manage to even equal what Busch himself achieved in Abbey Road as early as 1935, so please do not easily write off the old and most rooted musical perfoances.

I do suspect that Monteaux understaood Berlioz better than anyone [including Gardiner, who IMO understands Beethoven less than Karajan] since.

Not wishing to prove you wrong but merely challenge your assertions about pre-1950 recordings ...

ATH from George

How ever will you appreciate the works of Elgar or Rachmaninoff without at least listening to how the composer of the work thought it should go in their own carefully prepared recordings?

I have about a dozen works conducted by Stravinsky, and they are not my favorite performances by a long shot. Others, including Boulez, do a better job.

And what about Beethoven. No recordings from his time exist to my knowledge. Ditto for Bach and Mozart.

Equally how will you know what Sibelius or Prokoffiev [for two significant examples] had in mind without listening to the efforts of their personal friends, and collaborators, who set about preserving for posterity what the composer had in mind?

I trust their scores and a continually rising standard of performance. I think they would as well, but the dead can not speak for themselves.
Still, trusting to the written record is a time honored and sacred western tradition. That's why the plays of George Bernard Shaw are still performed, not to mention Shakespeare.

Even how would one appreciate Bach's works without an understanding of where the current musical tradition stemmed from?

This is a result of study and introspection by the living.

I fancy that without Adolf Busch the "authentic performance" tradition that rules today would have waited at least another thirty years to establish itself, and to be fair only a very handful of recordings since 1950 manage to even equal what Busch himself achieved in Abbey Road as early as 1935, so please do not easily write off the old and most rooted musical performances.

This is your opinion and speculation, which I respect, but that respect does not elevate it to any more than your opinion.

It's also a historical artifact, which gives it no claim to fidelity.

I do suspect that Monteaux understaood Berlioz better than anyone [including Gardiner, who IMO understands Beethoven less than Karajan] since.

Well, here you are just flat out wrong.

Not wishing to prove you wrong but merely challenge your assertions about pre-1950 recordings ...

George, we just have different takes on music. I think the living are more interesting performers than the dead, and i enjoy the fruits of technology. you do not.

Frankly, if i had to live with your ideas and prejudices about music, i would turn my back on all music and not listen again.

I relish the achievements of the young and the new and hope for continued improvement. I believe I have found much evidence that things are going well in that regard.

You are welcome to rule in the crypt, i prefer the company of the living.

They are who all this music was written for.

quote:

You are welcome to rule in the crypt, I prefer the company of the living.

They are who all this music was written for.

The crypt is the context!

To suspect that I listen to the old at the expense of the new is ill-founded.

I suspect you listen to the new [and are in thrall to it, and charlatans like of Gardiner who is less than a second rank Karajan] very much at the expense of the old or even frankly with regard to musicollogical wisdom as opposed to the nonsense posted [and easily adjusted at whim] on wikepoedia.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
are in thrall to it, and charlatans the likes of Gardiner, [who is less than a second rank Karajan], very much at the expense of the old, or even, frankly, with regard to musicological wisdom, as opposed to the nonsense posted [and easily adjusted at whim] on Wikipedia.

ATB from George

On what basis is Gardiner second rate? What are the rules for being first rate?

How is what Gardiner does "...at the expense of the old"?

For example, the Wikipedia entry for Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 "Erocia" has proved to be a distortion of reality in the following manner ...

I intend to correct the Wikipedia entries for some selected works. I intend to post my revisions on forums for refutation, and consider carefully the results. If I spend three months on a work, how will that do harm?

When I listen to music, I try to put my attention on sound : rhythm, pitch, key, dynamics, articulation - the fundamental elements; at the same time actively blocking out any other mental activity. It's very Zen :-) Be the tape recorder.

So after listening that carefully, and never before or during, I do analysis : So what was that I heard?

Now I am doing the Bradbury "Fahrenheit 451" thing; you know ---> BE THE BOOK.

I am trying to commit some works to memory.

The Naim kit is my partner in doing that.

How about you, George?

quote:

I am trying to commit some works to memory.

The Naim kit is my partner in doing that.

How about you, George?

No that was from understanding the score and playing in concerts for a fee...

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
No that was from understanding the score and playing in concerts for a fee...

Of course, there is no other way.

There's no use fiddling around in scores, like a monkey, staring at runes I have no hope of comprehending.

George, I'll bet you had detractors in orchestra. Your teeth are so sharp, and you seem to enjoy using them.

My teeth are very gentle till I see some form of snobbery.

I love people to enjoy music, but hate it when someone suggest that reading a score - for example - is a prerequisite for understanding the music.

I believe in lowering the understanding thresh-hold rather than raising it.

Get someone to listen to a great piece and hopefully get them prepared to investigate something similar for themself!

No score involved or necessary!

Hopefully they will eventually learn to read a score well enough to comprehend the music without audible sound, but this is no reason to feel superior because in tonal music, at least, that I can!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
My teeth are very gentle till I see some form of snobbery.

I love people to enjoy music, but hate it when someone suggest that reading a score - for example - is a prerequisite for understanding the music.

I believe in lowering the understanding thresh-hold rather than raising it.

Get someone to listen to a great piece and hopefully get them prepared to investigate something similar for themself!

No score involved or necessary!

Hopefully they will eventually learn to read a score well enough to comprehend the music without audible sound, but this is no reason to feel superior because in tonal music, at least, that I can!

ATB from George

I prefer to make my own mind up about the use of scores, and a number of other musical matters.

Don't need any help with that :-)

Blonde genug ...

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Blonde genug ...

Up yours :-)

Play nicely children.

Up my what?

I am English and perhaps just a little thick by US standards ...

I would not want any mis-apprehension in the issue.

ATB from George

Didn't realize that my daily enjoyment of Bach over the years was courtesy of this fellow

regards,

mat

quote:

Originally posted by mjamrob:


Didn't realize that my daily enjoyment of Bach over the years was courtesy of this fellow

regards,

mat

don't know what this means, but it made me laugh my ass off :-)

Well, from over here, it looks like George is ahead, twice no less!

Mike, you're totally daft if you think someone needs a score to enjoy classical music. If that's the case, one could only enjoy if they were part of the orchestra, or conducting. What do you think people have been doing for over 200 yrs?

Mike, equally absurd, is your notion of current musicians bettering past performers. Totally bonkers! I agree that recording quality can be a factor, sometimes, to enjoyment, but have you ever heard a Caruso recording on a working victrola? If that doesn't make you have goosebumps then your appreciation of music is about something else.

quote:

Originally posted by soundsreal:
Well, from over here, it looks like George is ahead, twice no less!

Mike, you're totally daft if you think someone needs a score to enjoy classical music. If that's the case, one could only enjoy if they were part of the orchestra, or conducting. What do you think people have been doing for over 200 yrs?

Mike, equally absurd, is your notion of current musicians bettering past performers. Totally bonkers! I agree that recording quality can be a factor, sometimes, to enjoyment, but have you ever heard a Caruso recording on a working victrola? If that doesn't make you have goosebumps then your appreciation of music is about something else.

Well, bearing in mind that we are talking about music, and not politics or physics, and that music is a hobby you can get more out of if you put more into it (I hope), i never said a score was necessary for listening. What I said was that for me, attempting the score is adding enjoyment to my listening. For others, results may vary.

As far as the rising standard of performance, here is what I have observed : students work very hard and learn the things their teachers have to teach, then they extend that knowledge and ability further. The teachers and the students love music and each other by and large, and are happy with this arrangement.
They would feel as if the system were broken if things didn't work out this way. But this is just a generalization of what I have observed.

Okay, Mike, agreed and agreed.
I thought you were implying someone needed a score. If you use one and get futher pleasure that's great. We used to use the old Norton scores to further study a piece at school. Whether it heightened my appreciation I'll have to further consider.

You're mixing things a bit with teaching, in that the students knowledge and abilities are hopefully increasing with interaction with a teacher, yet it certainly does not make their performances better than someone from the past. How many piano students can sound like Horowitz or Schnabel?

Keep at it....

As for the DG idea, I, too, would grab them when at a thrift shop or yard sale. Some are great, some not. As a whole it is not one of my favorite labels, yet some of the performances I couldn't do without. Also agreed, you don't see many of them re-issued on vinyl. That box set series looks tasty, however.
I also used to buy a lot of discounted London label stuff, you can't go wrong there. Seems like whoever bought the CBS lps used them as frisbees....
Good luck in your hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by soundsreal:
Okay, Mike, agreed and agreed.
I thought you were implying someone needed a score.

You're mixing things a bit with teaching, in that the students knowledge and abilities are hopefully increasing with interaction with a teacher, yet it certainly does not make their performances better than someone from the past. How many piano students can sound like Horowitz or Schnabel?

I need a score. I am applying shock therapy to my ears and mind to reawaken a long dormant love of music.

Pollini and Ruth Laredo were both somebody's student. I think I hear a trend that the students of the past are the masters of the present, and that they are advancing on the goal posts. Literally dozens of musicians and teachers I know feel the same way.

It's a bit more hopeful to think things are improving, rather than receding or maintaining a fixed standard :-)

Mike, it's okay to take time off from things, even music. but you know that. It's good to be reawakened now and then, no matter what your m.o. Do you buy scores for all your music, or just favorites? Could be quite an expensive reawakening. I might just get a new cartridge.

Pollini is one of my piano gods, and while I'd like to think he's at the top of his form, can't say that he's pushing the envelope. To me, it's sort of like when one tells a story, and then the story is passed on to others, how the version changes. With a pianist, they have a teacher, they have a score, but it does not guarantee the composer's intent. Listen to all the new talent that comes out year after year, how sublimely uninteresting so much of it is.
I know teachers that dread what is happening in the classical world. I used to attend many recitals, and now I'd rather stay home and listen to better performances on recordings.

Glad you're hopeful, not sure how things can improve or why, should be just that they're either great or they're not. Can't see how someone can play faster, louder, softer, time better than anyone in the past. I'll think about this one some more while I'm on the lawnmower--that's my pondering realm. :-)

Oh, don't think I've stopped going to concerts, I wouldn't miss Moravec or Thibaudet for anything, or a wishlist of others...
Take care

quote:

Originally posted by soundsreal:

Pollini is one of my piano gods, and while I'd like to think he's at the top of his form, can't say that he's pushing the envelope.

I think Pollini is expanding the envelope, going far beyond his predecessors, especially his Beethoven.

We bought scores for the essentials, such as the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms, the Beethoven String Quartets, and so on, and add to the collection every time we zero in on a piece. It's about 1100 works worth now, the latest being the Hindemith Mathis der Maler, the Stravinsky Ebony Concerto and the Paganini Caprices.

My wife plays piano, so that music accounts for more than half the collection, and I have dozens of works for brass, being a former trumpet player.

We have the Mahler symphonies, but they are devilish hard to follow :-)

A final note - one improvement I notice all the time is a more refined intonation and sense of rhythm in the great orchestras.