Just trying to set the record straight, folks:

Ian Crisp wrote:
>
>Dave Lampson:
>
>>[Just for the record, I have no idea what Ian is referring to here.  -Dave]
>
>Not entirely seriously, I suggested that the continuously developing
>researches of the HIP movement gave the recording industry good excuses for
>releasing new versions of the same material over and over again and selling
>them many times over to buyers who are a ready target for anything under
>the HIP banner.  I used Beethoven's metronome markings to illustrate the
>point.
>
>Dave pointed out that HvK (not renowned as one of the leaders of the HIP
>movement) had produced several versions of the LvB symphonies - with the
>implication that record companies did not need the HIP bandwagon to justify
>repeated releases of the same music.  That's what I took him to mean, in
>any event.  [There was no implication whatsoever.  You asked a question,
>and I answered it (incorrectly it turns out).  -Dave]

Actually, if you all will CHECK THE ARCHIVES (gad, I love using that
phrase), you'll see that it was flippant ol' Moi who asked the question
about how many times Herbie the K did the Ludwig Nine.  And yes, Ian is
absolutely right about the point I was trying to make, also not entirely
seriously.  I am sorry if my desire to stay out of another good fight left
people confused.

>I acknowledged a good debating thrust from Dave (touche!), and attempted
>a debater's parry by hinting that just possibly the multiple releases of
>LvB / HvK were a result of the conductor's desire to establish / maintain
>a dominant position in the recording world rather than because of
>significantly re-thought interpretations, and therefore that Dave's point,
>although valid, was not an effective counter-example to mine as Karajan
>was something of a special case.  Last thing I want to do is to reopen the
>Karajan debate, but I hardly think it's an original or a controversial
>idea.

Maybe not an effective counter-example, but also not unique either.
It's not like Karajan is the only one who did multiple takes of Beethoven
symphonies, either singly or in sets.  No one I know of would object
to the different circumstances (and results) that led, for example, to
Furtwangler's different recordings of the Ninth.  And at least the HIP
cycles ARE from different conductors, unless one thinks that all of them
are interchangeable, in which case I won't argue with one's taste or
preferences.

>BTW, in case anyone's wondering, I do not think that one set of Beethoven
>symphonies is enough (even for someone like me who has made a deliberate
>attempt to strip his once out-of-control collection down to much smaller
>proportions).  I have retained one HvK set, and I have two HIP ones, plus
>a good few singles - of which at least three-quarters are HIP.

Watch out, Ian.  I have it on good authority that an upcoming article
in the "Journal of Musicological and Engineering Obscurities" provides
conclusive proof that there was a fault in the spring constant for the
mechanism of Maelzel's original metronome, which led to a 3.6% error
between the markings on Beethoven's scores and what he REALLY wanted for
tempi.  Word has it that Hogwood, Norrington, and Gardiner are actively
vying for recording rights to the "revised" tempos....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Musicology Discussion,
sponsored by the WWF....

Bill H.