Mimi Ezust wrote:

>...  Speaking as a string player, I can say with assurance that when one
>plays on different instruments, the instruments (types of strings, types of
>bows!) and their own properties sometimes inspire and dictate the nuances
>that will flavor the performance.  But that is true for modern as well as
>period instruments.  I have found, though, that with an open mind and
>heart, I can find beauty (and often profundity) in almost any performance
>if the music is good enough.

This is true but just compare, say, Handles Concerti Grossi played on
modern and then period instruments.  There is simply no contest - modern
strings and performance techniques cannot emulate a the sound of a good
baroque orchestra.  This view is good for Beethoven as well, but his works
have been plagued by years of Wagnerian interpertations which suit the
'modern' methods and instruments.  Thus, for me, the essense of the music
has been lost.

>I could never be satisfied with just one performance forever.  Part of
>the joy ...  is hearing different interpretations, different balances,
>different tone colors.

I could (and do) easily listen to just one recording if it mirrored my idea
of the work.

>I also think that the ear adapts to different conditions.  There have been
>times when I would play a record or cd and cringe at the tone quality of a
>performance, or certain technical traits of a performer, and yet, on second
>listening would not mind it half as much.

Fair enough, but it always takes a few hearings to get an idea of a
performance on disk.

>The MUSIC itself must have been the most important thing.  How else
>could I account for the phenomenon of loving classical music in spite
>of listening only to radio and 78 r.p.m.  records in early childhood?

True, but once we realise that this music has quality, we must then go
further to seek the ultimate method for performance, which is where the
instruments themselves play a part.

Rod