A response to Klaus Heymann's message about "the business of music" --

   From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>

   I'm blind-copying this reply to Klaus Heymann, with whom I have had
   stimulating dialogue lately. I would like to begin by thanking both
   Klaus and Janos for the information - which is surely food for thought.
   I will not comment on the Naxos catalogue; as Klaus has reported,
   the audience for 'good music' has done that for me.

   Forgive me for not quoting even part of the post; it is only when
   taken as a whole that the message is clear and quoting it all would
   be excessive.

   I suggest that there are reasons behind the facts Klaus reports and
   that in the light of those reasons the results are not surprising.
   In the past, there was a substantial gulf between the great and the
   ordinary performers of music. There were monumental conductors who
   brought character to their performances, not mere idiosyncracy. There
   were orchestras drilled to a level unthinkable by lesser groups.
   Choruses similarly were divided into the exceptional and the masses.

   Soloists tended to be associated with particular companies, often
   because of exclusive recording contracts. Not only in singing, but
   in all fields there were a few who stood above the crowd and they
   tended to be heard - particularly on recording - largely with companies
   of similar standing.

   Today, the situation is markedly different. Again, I believe that
   recordings have served to raise the general standard while there are
   many fine soloists in any category of comparable ability. And while
   there are many fine conductors, there appear to be no replacements
   for Walter, Klemperer, Reiner or Krauss, to say nothing of Toscanini.

   The advance in the general level of ensemble playing is clearly due
   to the effects of recordings.  Thomas Beecham was asked about the
   improvement in the standard of orchestral playing over his long
   career; his answer as I recall was of the order: there was no standard
   of orchestral playing when I began.  In my work with the earliest
   operatic recordings, I have been painfully aware of the truth of such
   a statement.

   As adequate recordings became available, the audience's standards
   rose.  It is true that some companies offer particularly sounds from
   the orchestra or the chorus, but those differences are far less today
   than they were a generation or two ago.  The 'Philadelphia sound'
   now is less audible in the City of Brotherly Love and closely approached
   by other bands.  I Solisti di Zagreb introduced many of us to chamber
   orchestras and the pleasures we now may hear from dozens or hundreds
   of groups.  If they lack the cachet of some groups, they do not lack
   their skills.

   There are still companies which specialize in works not yet
   integrated into the repertoires of the mainstream.  Les Arts
   Florissants may have the field to themselves (itself?) at the moment,
   but their success will undoubtedly lead to copycats who may well
   match or surpass their exemplar.  If so, the cause will not be the
   few performances before small audiences which fill concert calendars,
   but the broadcasts and, most significantly, the recordings which they
   make.

Janos Gereben/SF
[log in to unmask]