Bernard Chasan replies to my kvetch:

>Steve Scwartz asks the musical question,
>
>>Does anybody look forward to Spano's Brahms cycle, as good a conductor
>>as he is, when you can get Furtwaengler, Szell, Celibidache, Giulini,
>>Horenstein, Markevitch, Kubelik, Stokowski, Toscanini, and Walter?
>
>Steve has a point, but I am somewhat put off by the fact that most of
>the recordings he mentions are fifty years old or more.  Is this a healthy
>state of affairs?  Shouldn't the new generation of conductors have their
>shot if only because they bring a different sensibility to the music?
>On the other hand, do we really need another Brahms cycle?

You know, fifty and sixty years ago, you got your shot with The
Classics when you had proven in concert that you had something to say.
For example, Solti wasn't picked out of the blue to conduct the first
integral recording of the Ring.  He showed first that he was a great
Wagnerian in the opera house.

Of course, fifty and sixty years ago, recording producers were actively
seeking out new conductors, rather than waiting for the cream (or the
pond scum) to rise to the top.  I've got nothing against Spano.  In fact,
I think he's one of the better conductors.  But I also think the world
of such non-notables as Klauspeter Seibel, Gerhardt Zimmermann, and James
Paul.  Where was the recording industry for most of George Tintner's
career?  On Elihu Inbal's doorstep, that's where.  Michael Gielen should
have had a major recording career.  It went to, in my opinion, the
overhyped Rattle.

Steve Schwartz