Don Satz said:

>I usually find that the tolerance of poor sound is easier when I love the
>work in question as well as the performance.

My theory:  interpreters can be broadly divided into those whose means of
clarifying the music are primarily rhythmic - varied articulation, rubato,
manipulations of tempo - and those who speak more through sound quality -
timbre, tonal balance and dynamic relationships.  Where a musician fits
on this continuum will have obvious consequences for how well he survives
a bad recording.  Furtwaengler, Schnabel and Rachmaninoff tend to be
characterful and eloquent in even the most execrable acoustic conditions,
whereas in the case of Toscanini or Hofmann or Gieseking the quality of the
recording can make the difference between a recognizable interpretation and
something more like a marching band.

Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]