Classical music lovers and historic recordings

[MartinPh]

I was browsing through the "too many recordings" thread, and there I noticed it again: collectors of classical music seem obsessed with recordings over 50 or 60 years old. Why???
Apparently the music making in these days was of such unmatched sublimity that it's worth throwing half a century of spectacular advancements in sound recording techniques overboard for it.

I have never understood this. I do own a number of older recordings, but nearly all of them were deeply disappointing to me; e.g, de Dorati 1812, or the Kubelik Meistersinger, or Barbirolli Mahlers. Sound-wise so much is wrong with most of such recordings that for me it stands in the way of appreciating any musical qualities. Indeed, I wonder if the rumblings of some 1940's mono recording truly allow such appreciation. More than once have I seen modern recordings reviled on the basis of details and nuances that would simply be inaudible in most recordings half a century old. As a friend of mine once put it, with such recordings it's like looking at Mona Lisa through a pane of frosted glass.

There also seems to be an element of snobbery there. Being concerned about actual sound-quality seems to be regarded as merely an obsession of the audiophile, a species distinctly inferior to the true music lover. Again I don"t understand that. Music IS sound, and nothing else. All else that we think we hear, greatness, inspiration, is constructed in our minds on the basis of this sound input alone (it is not for nothing that so many different appreciations of the same recording are always available - and yes, you noticed correctly, I'm a reductionist). Of course that sound is moulded by the vision of the conductor, the abilities of the orchestra, etc. But it is at least as much influenced by the recording technique itself.

Finally, I don't understand the apparent disdain for present day music making. Listen to Chailly's Mahler III: it is spectacularly recorded - but musically, too, it is anything you could ever wish for in this piece. Are modern orchestra's truly so much worse? Or have we simply been spoiled, and are we reaching for some kind of mystique by searching out the legendary names, and recordings that have so many gaps in their sound-texture that we can project in them just about every thing we want to hear?

[pizza]

I was browsing through the "too many recordings" thread, and there I noticed it again: collectors of classical music seem obsessed with recordings over 50 or 60 years old. Why???
Apparently the music making in these days was of such unmatched sublimity that it's worth throwing half a century of spectacular advancements in sound recording techniques overboard for it.

I have never understood this. I do own a number of older recordings, but nearly all of them were deeply disappointing to me; e.g, de Dorati 1812, or the Kubelik Meistersinger, or Barbirolli Mahlers. Sound-wise so much is wrong with most of such recordings that for me it stands in the way of appreciating any musical qualities. Indeed, I wonder if the rumblings of some 1940's mono recording truly allow such appreciation. More than once have I seen modern recordings reviled on the basis of details and nuances that would simply be inaudible in most recordings half a century old. As a friend of mine once put it, with such recordings it's like looking at Mona Lisa through a pane of frosted glass.

There also seems to be an element of snobbery there. Being concerned about actual sound-quality seems to be regarded as merely an obsession of the audiophile, a species distinctly inferior to the true music lover. Again I don"t understand that. Music IS sound, and nothing else. All else that we think we hear, greatness, inspiration, is constructed in our minds on the basis of this sound input alone (it is not for nothing that so many different appreciations of the same recording are always available - and yes, you noticed correctly, I'm a reductionist). Of course that sound is moulded by the vision of the conductor, the abilities of the orchestra, etc. But it is at least as much influenced by the recording technique itself.

Finally, I don't understand the apparent disdain for present day music making. Listen to Chailly's Mahler III: it is spectacularly recorded - but musically, too, it is anything you could ever wish for in this piece. Are modern orchestra's truly so much worse? Or have we simply been spoiled, and are we reaching for some kind of mystique by searching out the legendary names, and recordings that have so many gaps in their sound-texture that we can project in them just about every thing we want to hear?

One can have modern and older recordings and enjoy both. I don't find any "disdain" for modern recordings. It isn't necessary to throw anything overboard in order to take advantage of everything that's available. Most music lovers don't assume an either/or approach.

I much prefer a great interpretation in less-than-optimum sound to a state-of-the-art demonstration disc dud. But thankfully it isn't necessary to make such choices as there are enough great recorded performances of both modern and historic recordings to go around regardless of recording techniques.

Many of us have had personal contact with "legendary names" such as Koussevitzky, Toscanini, Reiner, Klemperer, Walter, Horenstein, Barbirolli, Kubelik, Dorati and others. Most of them are recorded in pretty decent sound. Other than Koussevitzky and Toscanini, the've all recorded in stereo. I have no problem listening to Furtwangler, Mengelberg and earlier. That's what people did in the '40s and 50's without complaint. And what about legendary solo artists? Why should anyone not take advantage of the opportunity to hear the great solo performing artists of the past? The ear and mind quickly adjust to whatever sound is available.

The analogy to painting doesn't hold. The Mona Lisa will never change. No matter how many times one sees it, it remains the same. What one hears in music depends upon the interpretive ideas and skills of the performing artists. That always changes. That's what makes it so interesting.

[Ralph]

Every hobby has its legion of snobs who need to separate themselves from others. It's always amused me that when compact disc players firmly took hold many old-time audiophiles were seriously bereft of purpose to have a technology that offered little opportunity for infinite tinkering.

As to recordings, I think a good argument can be made that SOME
"ancient" performances deserve repeated hearing despite obvious sonic limitations or even intrusive distortion that can't (and perhaps shouldn't) be removed with modern re-mastering techniques.

Vocal music is the most obvious example. There simply is no other Caruso. But with regard to orchestral music I find Toscanini's Beethoven cycle endlessly interesting. And his Verdi Requiem, adapted to serve a WWII propaganda purpose, will never be duplicated. On prior boards I've mentioned my interest in pre-war Sibelius recordings by Kajanus, again to my ear a distinctive interpretation.

For someone like me nostalgia can't be a reason for enjoying historic performances because I have no memory of those long ago days.

It's perfectly common today to hear a sonically outstanding recording of a bland performance. Conversely a pre-stereo performance may justifiably command continued interest.

[Werner]

I have no time right now for anything but to express general agreement with Pizza here. What's good about past and present recordings is to be treasured regardless.

And to illustrate a point: Just last night we lCDlistened to a CD by Mischa Levitzki that Donald had picked up. Who even knows the name today? And I must tell you it was absolutely thrilling to hear this man play - old sound and all.

[oisfetz]

Werner: IMO you should try to listen to Simon Barer, Moritsz Rosenthal, Joseph Lhevine, Rachmaninoff, Egon Petri, Leopold Godowsky or the early recordings of Horowitz or Ginzburg. There were giants in this world

[12tone]

I think the whole mono thing is a sort of a 'need of the rare' deal. Sure you can pick up any new cd...but what about that 1935 - 40 recording of such and such all dusty in the back corner?

I would imagine for most people here (the older ones) it hits close to home because that's what they grew up with. Whether or not they can remember about those old times (one person said they couldn't) well that's another story.

Perhaps the talent today isn't as good as talent back then? Who's better: Schnabel or Kovacevich? Arrau or Lang Lang?

I'm just throwing out ideas here. But there's something really cool at least from recordings between 1950-1990. Especially the 80's stuff -- always surprised at how nice and warm those recordings sound at times.

[12tone]

SIDE NOTE:

Is it just me or do orchestra's from the 40's - 50's sound so --- "twangy-swoony"? I can't imagine hearing that style in a Beethoven symphony...those symphs need an orchestral BOOST...not a swoony sound.

Does anyone else notice that? If you do, what's the reason? Is it the interpretation? The style they had back then? What gives with the 'twangy-swoon' sound?

[Werner]

Oisfetz: I know what you mean. I've heard (and own recordings by) all those you mention except Ginzburg.

And 12tone, of course you're right - I've made the point on a other thread about "great music making," which survivres regardless of time and technology - or fads of "HIP' or "authenticity."

An open mind, receptive listening, and suppression of prejudice will pay wonderful dividends.

As to your side note, I don't know quite what you mean - perhaps you're reacting to mono sound, or old sonics - there are certainly recordings from those days that are prefectly well respected bybprofessionals in the field.

[Wallingford]

First, in response to Martin: Music, to so many of us, ISN'T just sound; if that were the case, ANYONE could be an instant musician. No......most of us expect a kind of imaginative manipulation of tones, preferably in a combination that charms and titillates the ear. ALSO: the conservatories of today that train young instrumentalists (or any institution that tries to take after what the conservatories do) DISCOURAGE any kind of individuality and imagination on the student's part; teachers leave NO ROOM for any kind of embellishment. I should know--I endured some personally frustrating years with such an institution. These places want EVERYONE to sound the same.

Next, in response to 12-tone: I'm not so sure what "twangy-swoony" means, but it sounds like a quirk that many orchestras of today could USE! It at least shows they had some character. (Maybe you're referring to the string players' portamenti--i.e., sliding from one note to another?)

[Barry]

Werner: IMO you should try to listen to Simon Barer, Moritsz Rosenthal, Joseph Lhevine, Rachmaninoff, Egon Petri, Leopold Godowsky or the early recordings of Horowitz or Ginzburg. There were giants in this world

Rosenthal's Chopin is amazing!

I agree with Pizza. Performance always comes first for me. If I could find performances of the Beethoven symphonies in modern sound that move me on an emotional/gut level the way Furtwangler's do, I'd be more than happy to scoop them up.

I don't see why people debate this though. There are plenty of modern recordings and plenty of historical ones. Buy and listen to what you want. We all have different tolerance levels when it comes to sound. Some can't endure live mono recordings from the 30s, 40s, and early 50s, while others can. I don't waste time trying to convince those in the former group that they're missing anything.

Having said that, I don't think there is any denying that there were conductors back in those days who had styles that are seldomly heard (at least done impressively) now days. I generally find there is more emphasis on execution, precission and clarity today, and I don't think that it's been for the music's betterment in some repertoire. I don't think there are conductors whose approach to Beethoven is like that of Furtwangler's or pianists who play Chopin like Rosenthal did now days.

Conversely, in other repertoire, say the Mahler or Bruckner symphonies or the Strauss tone poems, sound quality matters a bit more to me, and I tend to prefer stereo (doesn't have to be digital though) for that music.

[12tone]

Next, in response to 12-tone: I'm not so sure what "twangy-swoony" means, but it sounds like a quirk that many orchestras of today could USE! It at least shows they had some character. (Maybe you're referring to the string players' portamenti--i.e., sliding from one note to another?)

I think that you're right... that sliddy sound. Other than that, I don't know how else to explain. It's just a very 'oldy' sound. Like music from that time.

[Wallingford]

I've got my OWN limit for that kind of orchestral playing--Willem Mengelberg. The string portamenti on his recordings are often downright corny; in fact, visually, the man was the personification of Old-Fashioned, with his vest, pocketwatch and naive blue eyes.

But I'm sure there are posters older than me who'd disagree.

[Holden Fourth]

Yes, there are many who support the idea of historic recordings because of an innate snobbery but they are truly in the minority.

As an audiophile I shuddered at the thought of listening to anything that wasn't in pristine stereo sound through my carefully assembled HiFi system but an encounter with Artur Schnabel's LvB Diabelli Variations was to change all that. The sound from the LP was somewhat thin and nasal but the performance entranced me. For the first time I listened past the sound and experienced the music regardless of the sonics. As a result I have treasured recordings of Horowitz, Renard, Cortot, Barere, Heifetz, Solomon, Fricsay, Reiner, Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Toscanini .... I could go on and on.

I also have treasured recordings of Abbado's Schubert C major symphony, Babayan playing Scarlatti sonatas, Naida Cole in French piano music, once again I could wax eloquent about some of the digital masterpieces in my collection.

The question to be asked is obvious. How will the listener of 2055 judge the sonic qualities of the CDs I've just mentioned or will he/she just be entranced by the performances?

[Werner]

I have to agree with Holden. As it happens, Donald and I just listened within the past few days to the likes of Percy Grainger, Mischa Levitzki and a few others of that vintage. The performances jump outn at you in such an individual and compelling way that you forget about sonices

[GanChan]

One reason that older vocal recordings are especially valuable is that they represent singing styles that are no longer widely taught or understood. For example, French opera, as practiced in the first part of the 20th century, had its own particular styles of singing, playing, and conducting that later became homogenized into the blandly international style practiced interchangeably throughout the opera world today. And some of the singers on those ancient Italian, German, and French recordings actually KNEW and worked with Wagner, Puccini, Verdi, Massanet, etc...so they are a direct link to an authentic performing tradition.

[Barry]

One reason that older vocal recordings are especially valuable is that they represent singing styles that are no longer widely taught or understood. For example, French opera, as practiced in the first part of the 20th century, had its own particular styles of singing, playing, and conducting that later became homogenized into the blandly international style practiced interchangeably throughout the opera world today. And some of the singers on those ancient Italian, German, and French recordings actually KNEW and worked with Wagner, Puccini, Verdi, Massanet, etc...so they are a direct link to an authentic performing tradition.

That reasoning isn't limited to singers. It applies equally to conductors and intrumental soloists from that same period.

[CharmNewton]

I was browsing through the "too many recordings" thread, and there I noticed it again: collectors of classical music seem obsessed with recordings over 50 or 60 years old. Why???
Apparently the music making in these days was of such unmatched sublimity that it's worth throwing half a century of spectacular advancements in sound recording techniques overboard for it.?

You raise good questions about the loyalty (or curmudgeonry) of some collectors, at least on this forum and some others. But generally they have distilled a small subset of the vast landscape of recorded history. Much of the past is interesting to explore. Films and recordings are unique in how they allow us to recreate the images and sounds of artists who are now gone and bond with them through the recreation of their art. I feel there are many artists who perform with a sublimity that equals or surpasses (at least for me) some of the great artists of earlier eras.

I have never understood this. I do own a number of older recordings, but nearly all of them were deeply disappointing to me; e.g, de Dorati 1812, or the Kubelik Meistersinger, or Barbirolli Mahlers. Sound-wise so much is wrong with most of such recordings that for me it stands in the way of appreciating any musical qualities. Indeed, I wonder if the rumblings of some 1940's mono recording truly allow such appreciation. More than once have I seen modern recordings reviled on the basis of details and nuances that would simply be inaudible in most recordings half a century old. As a friend of mine once put it, with such recordings it's like looking at Mona Lisa through a pane of frosted glass.

As a person who owns hundreds of 78 RPM recordings, I can assure you that they captured plenty of nuance. I'd go so far as to say that any recording made using the electrical process (i.e. microphones) that hasn't been botched with poor microphone placement is capable of near high-fidelity sound, although some guess work can enter the picture in trying to recover some of the high overtones from the noise. I've seen demonstrations where well-recorded material from 1904 had some output to about 10 KHz, which could be brought out electronically, albeit subjectively. The "Godfather" of historical transfers was A.C. Griffith at EMI. He's the one who got the ball rolling and began to show how good these recordings could sound. People like Ward Marston and Mark Obert-Thorn have picked up and improved on his work.

But the reproduction of modern recordings is simply stunning. For example the power, intensity, dynamic range and, yes, nuance of the recent Zimerman/Ozawa Rachmaninoff 2nd Concerto are breathtaking. I am very happy DG decided to make this one.

If we want to hear artists of earlier eras, we have to take them as they come. But are these artists of earlier eras superior to those today? I don't believe so, especially in the realm of vocalists and instrumentalists. Some of the youngstres today are so good technically and musically that the legacy of some artists like Menuhin, Szigeti and Schnabel will continue to fade over time.

Finally, I don't understand the apparent disdain for present day music making. Listen to Chailly's Mahler III: it is spectacularly recorded - but musically, too, it is anything you could ever wish for in this piece. Are modern orchestra's truly so much worse? Or have we simply been spoiled, and are we reaching for some kind of mystique by searching out the legendary names, and recordings that have so many gaps in their sound-texture that we can project in them just about every thing we want to hear?

Orchestras today are generally better than they were even 30-40 years ago. Players are better and they've had more experience with difficult repertoire like Mahler and Bruckner, not to mention composers like Varese. But there does seem to be a dearth of leadership on the podium today. I was wondering to myself just how much impact the PC age we live in today has on musical performance.

The quality of modern recordings can be a double-edged sword, so the old-timers can get away less criticism because of some of the things we don't hear. Bur when we can record and reproduce the sheer beauty of sound and breathtakingly perfect intonation of Hilary Hahn in J.S. Bach's 2nd Partita for solo violin, well it's a good time to be alive.

John

[Heck148]

canx 2ble post

[Heck148]

Orchestras today are generally better than they were even 30-40 years ago.

yes and no. there are more really fine players around today, no doubt.
but I don't know if the best orchestras are really any better than the best of previous times.
one thing for sure - the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank of orchestras are way better now than in former years. that is for certain, as conservatories continue to produce very skilled musicians in all fields...
so the secondary ranks have improved considerably...

as far as the top level - very much debatable.

perhaps individual virtuosity is better overall, but ensemble and orchestral training not necessarily.
jet-set conductors of the present have not done the job of orchestral training and building as past masters have done...

[CharmNewton]

perhaps individual virtuosity is better overall, but ensemble and orchestral training not necessarily.
jet-set conductors of the present have not done the job of orchestral training and building as past masters have done...

You make an excellent point here regarding jet-set conductors. In a way, it's like orchestras are being led by substitute teachers with different people every week or two. I grew up with the Chicago Symphony at the beginning of the Solti era. Martinon previously had conducted a pretty good chunk of the season. The CSO developed a sound that didn't change with guest conductors. Things changed with Solti, who conducted ten weeks of the year (for all his reputation as a precisionist, I thought his strings sounded wiry and his brasses smeared, at least until the mid 80s or so). I once heard Solti and Ormandy conduct the CSO within the same week and the difference in sonority was astonishing.

John

[Ralph]

It seems clear to me - and many others - that conservatory trained young musicians reflect a very consistently high level of competence as they seek limited job openings.

Withoutquestion in the U.S. second and third tier orchestras operate at a higher level than in past decades for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the movement of many urbanites to the suburbs. This has also been reflected in many affluent bedroom communities with the emergence of fiscally successful art cinemas.

As to jet-set conductors, clearly training is less constant than in the past but it's also clear that quite a few are heavily involved with their orchestras and the communities they serve.

[CharmNewton]

I've been giving a lot of thought to this post over the past few days. I'm really excited about the number of outstanding instrumentalists and vocalists performing today, but it seems to me that conducting hasn't kept pace. When Heck mentioned that orchestras don't receive the kind of training they received in earlier periods, I began to ask myself who is teaching young conductors today? At one time they used to "cut their teeth" in opera houses working as coaches and assisting the principal(s). They "apprenticed" in this fashion for several years and moved up the ladder. I'm not aware that the leading maestros do this today. David Zinman learned from Pierre Monteux at the latter's conducting school, worked as Monteux's assistant, held conducting posts in the Netherlands before returning to the U.S. as conductor of the Grant Park concerts in Chicago, where he made a formidable impression. Do conductors still work long and patiently at their craft and eventually create their opportunities or are they just star struck with the glamor of international travel? Do we have any conductors on the board?

John

[Brendan]

Since I grew up listening to punk rock nostalgia cannot be the reason I prefer old style playing and interpretation - when classical music was still the living musical tradition. Modern orchestras and soloists rarely interest me (Andnes I enjoy), but occasionally an oldie recording today is magnificent, like Wand's last Bruckner recs a few years ago. But Furtwangler did the 9th in a more engaging, to my ears despite the difference in technology, recording than the latest and slickest can offer.

When I was searching for "my" Schubert piano trio no 2 I tried every modern recording I could find, spent a fortune then found the Busch-Busch-Serkin recording from before WWII (I think). That was the one that simply sounded best to me musically.

Find a modern pianist who can play the Appasionata like Schnabel and I might take interest.

[pizza]

I've been giving a lot of thought to this post over the past few days. I'm really excited about the number of outstanding instrumentalists and vocalists performing today, but it seems to me that conducting hasn't kept pace. When Heck mentioned that orchestras don't receive the kind of training they received in earlier periods, I began to ask myself who is teaching young conductors today? At one time they used to "cut their teeth" in opera houses working as coaches and assisting the principal(s). They "apprenticed" in this fashion for several years and moved up the ladder. I'm not aware that the leading maestros do this today. David Zinman learned from Pierre Monteux at the latter's conducting school, worked as Monteux's assistant, held conducting posts in the Netherlands before returning to the U.S. as conductor of the Grant Park concerts in Chicago, where he made a formidable impression. Do conductors still work long and patiently at their craft and eventually create their opportunities or are they just star struck with the glamor of international travel? Do we have any conductors on the board? John

Today there are youth orchestras (entry level orchestras) that are superb. The New World Symphony conducted by MTT has produced excellent work; the Junge Deutsche Philharmonie conducted by Rudolf Barshai has done likewise, and James Judd has worked with the Gustav Mahler Jugendorchester and European Community Youth Orchestra. Obviously there are conductors who are working long and hard with these kids.

[pizza]

Find a modern pianist who can play the Appasionata like Schnabel and I might take interest.

Schnabel was performing during my lifetime so I consider him modern. If you want to hear the Appassionata played like Schnabel played it, there's Schnabel. Why look for copies when you can find the real thing. I can still remember some of the Horowitz wannabes -- they never made it.

I'm interested in pianists and other instrumentalists who have original and interesting ideas and can shape a work in their own image.

[Brendan]

Pizza,

Such, too, is my interest. The question is why I favour Schnabel, Haskil, Rubinstein and co and don't care for many current performers, Andsnes being an obvious exception. Taking one line out of context can alter my own intent.

[CharmNewton]

Pizza,

Such, too, is my interest. The question is why I favour Schnabel, Haskil, Rubinstein and co and don't care for many current performers, Andsnes being an obvious exception. Taking one line out of context can alter my own intent.

I'd recommend that you give a listen to the recording of the late Ruth Laredo to hear a passionate and superbly played interpretation captured in modern sound. For a reading that borders on over the top, try Yukio Yukoyama's on Sony (part of an edition of the piano music that Berkshire was offering for $23.88 U.S.). I've played through better than half of this set and I like it as well as Nat's.

The Schnabel was the first set I owned and I still have the LPs. It has many moments of brilliance that still hold up today. On the other hand it also has technical blemishes that would never pass muster in a modern recording. Schnabel may have been able to fix some of those, but he apparently didn't enjoy making records. Perhaps Beethoven never envisioned that anyone would be able to play his music without sweating bullets. Schnabel ceertainly projects that part of the struggle very well.

John

[Brendan]

Thanks for the recommendations. Whilst I love Schnabel, he is not always my first choice. For instance, in the Appasionata I think the opening as played by Myra Hess is the finest I've ever heard (I also have Solomon on order), yet the way Schnabel played it is radically different than anyone else I've ever heard. It took me a week just to hear all the notes. Not the finest way (eg Hess) perhaps but like nothing and no one else. As many reviewers have noted, perhaps no else can play it that way it's so insanely difficult. I had no idea fingers could do that.

But since I have Kempff and Gilels and many others I like it takes something like Andnes' Haydn and Janacek or Uchida's Schubert to get my interest in new releases.

[pizza]

Pizza,

Such, too, is my interest. The question is why I favour Schnabel, Haskil, Rubinstein and co and don't care for many current performers, Andsnes being an obvious exception. Taking one line out of context can alter my own intent.

Brendan: I don't think I took your statement out of context. Your post seemed critical of contemporary recordings and artists with the exception of Andsnes. "Find a modern pianist who can play the Appasionata like Schnabel and I might take interest." pretty much conveys a lack of interest in modern pianists. If you meant something else, I must have missed it. Anyway, in my opinion there are contemporary pianists and instrumentalists who have original and interesting ideas and can stamp a work with their own personalities as clearly as did any historical artist.

[MartinPh]

Since I grew up listening to punk rock nostalgia cannot be the reason I prefer old style playing and interpretation - when classical music was still the living musical tradition. Modern orchestras and soloists rarely interest me (Andnes I enjoy), but occasionally an oldie recording today is magnificent, like Wand's last Bruckner recs a few years ago. But Furtwangler did the 9th in a more engaging, to my ears despite the difference in technology, recording than the latest and slickest can offer.

When I was searching for "my" Schubert piano trio no 2 I tried every modern recording I could find, spent a fortune then found the Busch-Busch-Serkin recording from before WWII (I think). That was the one that simply sounded best to me musically.

Find a modern pianist who can play the Appasionata like Schnabel and I might take interest.

Maybe there is less of a problem with chamber works than with sonically more demanding/complex orchestral works?

There are, I know, some fine sounding older recordings. I will never need any other Carmina Burana (well, who needs more than one anyway) than Jochum's. But then again, a not very old recording like the famous Du Pré Elgar I found intensely disappointing: it sounds harsh, and lacks nuances in instrumental colour both from soloist and orchestra. Absolutely no match in my opinion for, say, the modern Wispelwey and Van der Steen recording - and much of that may simply be due to shortcomings of the recorded sound in the older issue.

I realize that my preference for recordings with very good sound may also have something to do with the fact that I'm a confirmed headphone listener. It is a rather different listening experience and puts higher demands on the quality of a recording than when using speakers. Some of the acoustic gimmicks in the old Solti Wagner recordings (not everybody's cup of tea anyway) work out truly horribly on headphones...

[Brendan]

Pizza,

The Schnabel line was a failed semi-humurous reference to a singular performance/interpretation. No one of his time could do it either.

I never listen on headphones, so maybe would feel differently if I did. But I find many of the remasterings of historical recordings to be excellent. And I don't know of many who even attempt the Chopin Mazurkas, so Rubinstein would be my first pick even in previous releases/remasterings.

I think it was Elizabeth Schwarzkopf who said that if she tried to teach singing the way she was taught she would be arrested for abuse or assault - and that few students would be willing to go through it. Perhaps the same is true in other areas of musical training and dedication to high culture.

[pizza]

Pizza,

The Schnabel line was a failed semi-humurous reference to a singular performance/interpretation. No one of his time could do it either.

I never listen on headphones, so maybe would feel differently if I did. But I find many of the remasterings of historical recordings to be excellent. And I don't know of many who even attempt the Chopin Mazurkas, so Rubinstein would be my first pick even in previous releases/remasterings.

Have you ever heard Kapell's performances of the Mazurkas, incomplete as they are? If you don't already have this set, don't hesitate for a moment. It's one of the greatest compilations ever released on record.

http://www.williamkapell.com/articles/timpage.html

http://www.classicalcdreview.com/willi3.html

[Brendan]

Thanks muchly for that Pizza! The only other set I was aware was even available was Ashkenazy - who whilst quite a fine musician doesn't hold a candle to Rubinstein in these pieces, IMHO.

It may be that I was searching for complete sets and so missed Kapell. I love these pieces so will chase these recs post haste.

[pizza]

Brendan:

Click on the following URL and you'll find a marvellous 25 minute film clip titled "William Kapell Remembered" that includes interviews with various famous musicians including Kapell himself, and excerpts of Kapell performing, including an excerpt of Chopin's Mazurka Op. 7, no. 5. I was particularly moved by Heifetz' tribute: "I'll never forgive him." Great stuff!

http://www.williamkapell.com/remembered/

[Brendan]

Pizza,

Now this is what the internet is for! Thanks again.