Bert Bailey wrote:

>I recall reading on this List that few musicians playing in top-rate
>orchestras back when would gain entry into a good present-day musical
>academy -- standards now being so much higher.

Well, I guess it would depend on what markers one uses for "standards."
Some of the older musicians may have had trouble with some of the modern
rhythms, however, I find that many of them made up for that with a
richness in their tonal quality, or their ability to sustain a line.

And then the question of how old in the old days are we considering.
I listen to older recordings and find that the notion of players of the
past being less technically proficient not to be my experience.  Judging
from recordings made now, with all of the editing possibilities...which
is why I like live performance recordings...usually not heavily edited.

On a related topic discussed before on this list, I believe that the
recording has provided listeners with something of an "ideal" which makes
musicians more concious of precision in their playing.  It has often
frustrated me when I hear a group in concert give an exciting performance
and then once we get into the studio, they nit pick over every other
measure and end up sounding uptight.

>This suggests to me that eliminating or reducing that diversity of sound
>between those orchestras is maybe a *good* thing.  So we've actually
>gained something by this reckoning, even if it implies the greater
>homogeneity to wh you refer.

Maybe it depends on what you value, assuming that precision comes at
cost of a lack of expression...which is something I don't really
believe...but then, how many Horowitz's are there.

Karl