Richard Pennycuick wrote:

>...  Now, of course, with over forty years of collecting behind me,
>I do the same myself and hanker after the recordings I loved - and in
>many cases, still do - when I was young, and still use many of these, or
>the memory of them, as benchmarks for new ones.  I suspect that a fair
>percentage of MCML contributors are of similar vintage which might explain
>why recordings from 20+ years ago tend to feature in recommendations.  Of
>course, it also suggests that by and large, things *were* better then!

I used to think that my opinions were based upon the first recording I
heard.  It took me a long time to get passed that point.  Many of the
recordings I prefer are those which are new to me, most of earlier vintage.

Were things better then...well certainly not much of the recording
technology!  In terms of performance I can only suggest that for me, many
of older performances speak to me in ways that much of the new ones do not.
I have many theories as to why this is so for me, but inspite of the
relatively poor sound I will take Koussevitzky, Furtwangler, Cortot, et al
any day versus a Mehta, Solti, Ozawa, Masur et al.

Karl