We have all heard about jet-hopping conductors and performers who are
creating an international standard of performance practices which damage
the musical idiom of a composer's works.

I never paid much attention to the above notion until a few months ago
when I attended a chamber music concert.  One of the works performed was
Dvorak's String Quartet in G major, Opus 106.  The performance was a lovely
one with superb balance among the instruments, but something was very
wrong.  Dvorak was made to sound like a sophisticated and urbanized man
with well-buttoned social conventions.  The rugged and rustic nature of
his music was missing as well as his abiding wonder of the natural world.
When the performance was over, the applause was substantial and very
enthusiastic.  I didn't sense that the audience noticed any deficiencies
at all in the performing group's conception of the work and of Dvorak.

Since that performance, I've been keying on the premise of generic
performances while reading record reviews in the classical music magazines.
Given this priority I've developed, I frequently notice that the prime
elements of a fine performance are trotted out for display from the
reviewers: beauty, blending, and excellent intonation.  Little or no
mention is made of the performance lacking a sense of identification
with the composer's world, personality, or musical idiom.  A lovingly
professional performance seems to be all that is needed to secure the
praise of some reviewers.

I would be interested in reading what other list members feel about these
generic tendencies on the part of the folks who perform music and those who
review it.

Don Satz