Robin Mitchell-Boyask inquires:

>Steve Schwartz writes:
>
>>Again, that's true only of some conductors.  There are conductors who do
>>better in the studio - who, indeed, become more "themselves" in the studio.
>>It's two different venues and two different processes.
>
>OK, I'll bite!  I can't think of a conductor (other than Sinopoli, but that
>example might prove the rule!) of a conductor who is or was "better" in the
>studio than in person.  I'm pretty sure I've heard in person about every
>big guy of the past 25 years, save HvK.

It's not necessarily a question of "better" or "worse," but more or less
"themselves." When I lived in Cleveland, I heard a lot of Szell live.
The concerts were great.  The recordings more completely realized Szell's
ideal of orchestral playing as chamber music taken to the max.  On the
other hand, I found Robert Shaw better live than in the studio, except
for his recordings with the Chorale.  Dohnanyi was for me great in both
venues - different in both venues.  In the hall, he radiated nervous
energy.  In the studio, he emphasized a suave line while retaining enough
energy - essentially, in my opinion, handily beating Karajan at his own
game (I never heard Herbie the K live).  I've not heard Sinopoli live, but
I can point to recordings of his I think astonishingly good and reflecting
a unique intelligence.  I tended to prefer Bernstein's recordings to his
live performances, only because most of his live work was so sloppily
executed.  At least in the studio, he used to have the luxury of splicing
takes.

Steve Schwartz