Santu De Silva wrote:

>I wonder what I mean by this little thought experiment!  Just *suppose*
>that Szell had some rare insight into some particular Brahms tune.  Does
>it make more sense to do it his way, or to ignore that insight on the
>basis that if Szell was not around the insight would no longer be
>available?

I don't know if it makes more sense or not.

>The best of all would have been to advertize the performance as having
>a special Szellian insight that might pollute it.  ("Those who wish an
>insight-free performance should not attend the Thursday concert, but
>wait for the Friday concert; thanks.--Management")

Perhaps it just depends on whose insight one prefers.  Consider a
conductor, totally unaware of the significance of that tune, who predicates
a performance based upon bring out some of the subordinate lines in the
piece.  Who is right?  Or is there a right?

I am reminded of a line Koussevitzky is reported to have said frequently.
In discussing the performance of new music he said, "we must find the
way." I heard that quote in an interview when Roy Harris was talking
about Koussevitzky.  Harris said that what it meant was that the first
performance helped to establish a performing tradition.  Interestingly,
I think the advent of the recording has done more to stifle creativity
in interpretation.

>Arch (S de Silva), possibly missing the bus.

Nope, I think you are right on.

Karl