Guaging 'modern' sound and technique beside 'authenti

[serge urtizberea]

A recent catfight on another Ludwig forum provided me with some food for thought. Since I'm still wary of that forum, I thought I'd present this to you guys.<P>Some ten, (twenty?), years ago, there was a renaissance in informed historical performance in classical music. Baroque violins, restored pianofortes, natural horns, etc. were all substituted for modern instruments. The result, to my ears, was one of pinched restraint and generally 'baroque' sound. Almost everything sounded antique to me. I gave these supposedly up-and-coming new techniques a try, but never really cottoned to them. I grew up with the sound of the modern orchestra in its 110-piece glory, and still find that it can't be beat. I never attended a live period performance, but I wonder if hearing it live would really make all that much of a difference.<P>Modern performance often seems geared for power and strength. Steinways are built like tanks and have long sustaining sound. The strings seem to have a sharper, crisper tone to them, the brass seem to positively shriek when played fff. Is all this a matter of 'improved' construction or imporved recording techniques? These days, it appears that the microphones are placed right in the middle of the orchestra or chamber group. I have a beautiful recording of Saint-Saens' 3rd symphony (Lorin Maazel on Sony) recorded with only three suspended mikes over the orchestra. The brass and bass sound so full and so rich, I almost couldn't believe it when I first listened to it-- and then I definitely couldn't believe that there didn't appear to be any other rcordings made in that fashion. <P>How much of a role do you believe interpretation should play in c.m.? Do you think it's all right to play early Beethoven on a regular piano, or to transcibe Bach for the orchestra? Is it acceptable to tweak with the score-- not note-wise, of course, but as far as dynamics or tempo are concerned-- if it may make a more thrilling or unique sound? Can a composer's original intents be maintained if all this is done? My answer to all of the above is a hearty yes. Interpretation is one of the best features to grace the world of c.m. It provides identifiable characteristics to our favorite artists and individualism to every new recording of the same old piece.<P>I have come across some resistance to this idea recently, but I would like to know what your take is on all of this.

[~Leslie]

Serge you are touching on a multi faceted subject here, that comes close to my favorite conumdrum of:<P> what would Beethoven do if he were alive today?<P>Musicians and composers have so many technological tools at their disposal. Everytime I read a musicians magazine, it boggles my mind to see the gear available to today's players. Instruments accessible today are state of the art, better tempered, and produce better sound, acoustically. Would anyone here care to quibble with that? <P>Then there is the engineering factor. He can reduce unwanted noise, hiss, squeaks, his role being imperative in the true fidelity of the recording. <P>I have no qualms about attending a historical period performance, because it would give me a feel for what it must have been like 200 years ago. <P>When it comes to spending my hard earned coins on recordings to last a lifetime of enjoyment, I would prefer interpretations that respected the composers tempos and dynamics, with a full orchestral sound, played and engineered with today's modern instruments and technology.~ <P>

[Rod]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ~Leslie:<BR><B><BR>I would prefer interpretations that respected the composers tempos and dynamics, with a full orchestral sound, played...with today's modern instruments <BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But what happens if the latter conflict with the achievement of the former (as happens to be the case)!<P>

[~Leslie]

Hello Rod, I've previously tried like crazy to avoid this arguement, because to me, it is circular and belongs in the subjective zone.<P>I mean no disrespect towards Beethoven's judgement on how things should sound circa 1800. <P>Yes, there is a big difference in the dynamics proportionate to the size of orchestras. <P>But that was then and this is NOW. <P>Be very specific when you are dealing with me, Rod. Little snippets won't cut it, if you want to change my opinion. <P>I'm interested to hear what you have to say. ~L

[ReedMan]

Many years ago, I heard people raving about the 'period instrument' sound and arguing over which group had the best 'original' sound. The majority favored 'The English Concert', so I gave them a couple tries - once on Beethoven's 7th & 8th symphonies and on the full set of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos. Overall, I found the instruments to be harsher in tone and over time, I rarely play these CD's. Maybe that's why Beethoven went deaf ?

[serge urtizberea]

I know what you mean, Reedman. I find that is often the case. <P>I wonder why Rod thinks it is not possible to maintain marked dynamics and tempi with modern instruments because as far as I know, there is nothing that makes a modern instrument less capable of achieving dynamic range, volume, or speed.