Don Satz wrote:

>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 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.

This is something that has been going through my mind also.  Two recent
events have aroused my suspicion about the generic quality of today's
performance standards:

1) I heard a recording of the 1st movement of Dvorak's "New World",
conducted by Istvan Kertesz.  I felt like I was listening to the piece for
the first time.  I was struck by how lyrical and flowing the music sounded
compared to the two recordings I have, which are Solti and Guilini (both
with CSO).  I felt some resentment at not having really "heard" this
symphony for all these years.  The difference between Kertesz and the
"standard" interpretation:

* Kertesz took a chance and tried to convey the deeper aspects of the music.

* Solti and Guilini and the CSO ran the symphony through the "Solti-izer/
CSO-izer" and the "Guilini-izer/CSO-izer", respectively.  (In recent years,
I've learned to regard the "Soli-izer" with much suspicion.  It seems like
Solti's goal has always been to endow music with his sound, the Soli stamp
of bold, big, muscular excitement!).

2) I've followed some discussion on this list about Kubelik's Mahler's 1st.
Being convinced by the all the praise for this recording, I went ahead and
purchased it.  I've found that much of what I like about this performance
pertains to what I like about the Kertesz/Dvorak, as compared to the
"generic" performances.

Here are some suggestions I have as to why music performances are becoming
so genericized:

1) People always want the best of any one thing.  With the overwhelming
bombardment of choices created by the constant buzz of the media, people,
in general don't have time to look deeply into all the choices.  Instead
they are lured to a product by superficial queues that grab their attention
quickly and are easy to evaluate.  For example, sexy people, or short
snippets of a positive review on the CD cover.  They go for the "best"
product.

2) Related to (1), performers strive to produce the "best" product, by
following best practices, as defined by the market.  They do what sells,
not only in the money sense, but in the interpretive sense.  They go with
interpretations that people like and understand.  It's too risky for
performers to "go out on a limb", and invest themselves too deeply in
an interpretation, because they'll only appeal to a limited audience.
Performances that adopt best practices appeal to the largest possible
audience.  It's the only way they can enter into our homes and become
household names.

I find it interesting to note that quality, as people define it today,
probably gets too much attention.  Why can't people also like products that
are unique or interesting? Back to the Kubelik and Kertesz interpretations:
I probably wouldn't want to have only those recordings.  After all, they
aren't definitive.  But they do offer unique insights into the music.  I
guess "definitive" comes at a price.

Mike Leghorn