Don Satz wrote:

>I don't see a conflict between live and recorded music.  Each has its
>advantages, and I consider myself fortunate to be able to make choices
>between the two or partake of both.  Is Mehta better live than in the
>studio? I haven't a clue.

Actually, most of his recordings of late are edited from 'live' takes.
>From what I've heard and seen, basically, in concerts, he just takes that
platonic, brain-dead, autopilot music-making he seems to produce in the
studio and pumps in gloss, glamour, volume, rougher tuttis, and a large
dose of very flashy, very sweaty physical gestures that far too many people
too commonly mistake for the mark of a great conductor.

I particularly remember watching a BPO outdoor concert with Barenboim on
the piano in the Tchaikovsky 1st, and Mehta on the podium -- forgive my
crudeness, but both men were making asses of themselves.  Sure, blame it on
the fact that it's just an outdoor concert, a televised commercial flick to
cater to the masses, to those who don't step into concert halls and would
rather hear classical music while having a picnic.  But I'm afraid a large
amount of Mehta in the standard repertoire sounds just like this.

Again, lest I be accused of being a mere biased detractor to Mehta fans, I
lodge a caveat that there are exceptions (some great, even!) to my general
observations, of course, and I admit I'm unaware of Mehta's present,
unrecorded contributions at the opera which Mr Giuliano Finessi has so
kindly pointed out.  But, as I've said before, I think -- and the general
consensus seems to be -- that he has too little in his vast output that can
be spoken of with any sort of intense enthusiasm, and to label him as a
great conductor destined to remain in the Hall of Fame for generations to
come sounds, to me at least, like an assertion badly misjudged.

Lionel Choi
Singapore
http://www.singnet.com.sg/~lionelc/dummies.html