On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:29:01 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <
[email protected]>
wrote in message <
[email protected]>:
>Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.
For differing values of "right" and "correct".
>How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time to
>time.
Ah, so it's OK to invent a word but not OK to use a word in a way that
Dolan thinks is wrong. How very heptaglemious for you. I find your
approach positively excrubrigational.
>I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord too.
>But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding into
>another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is a very
>small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so are my
>ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a couple
>of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time I looked
>they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.
Wrong on so many counts it is hard to know where to start. Budget CDs
can be had for under $10, and that includes reissues of some of the
great recordings (I paid under £5 for du Pré's recording of the Elgar
cello concerto and of the 300+ CDs in my collection I don't think more
than a quarter are full price, and most of those were gifts); budget
LPs have notoriously poor sound recording quality, if you want high
quality sound you need something like Telarc or a full-price Deutsche
Grammophon recording; the organ is rightly known as the king of
instruments, and if you think it sounds bad then you have bad sound
equipment or bad recordings - there are a lot - I recommend the Decca
recordings of the complete Bach organ works by Peter Hurford; if your
sound equipment and ears cannot detect the poor quality of an ancient
budget LP then there is something Not Right, my old piano tuner could
identify the make of piano when I played a CD on my setup (Mission
Cyrus amp and Tannoy DC2000 speakers).
>Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now or
>in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.
Because he was obsessed with a certain kind of sound. I do not think
that Glen Gould is the final arbiter of how Bach should sound, and I
don't share the quasi-religious reverence in which his recordings are
held. Perahia's recordings are also excellent, and there are others.
To say that Gould is "better" than Landowska is to be completely
arbitrary. And is Gould (1955) "better" than Gould (1981)? Or is the
1959 Salzburg recording best? Whatever, there is no possible doubt
that the work was intended to be played on a two-manual harpsichord,
and until you've heard a decent recording of it on that instrument you
can't really say whether the piano version (or indeed Wendy Carlos' or
Jacques Loussier's) is "better", "worse" or just different. De
gustibus non est disputandum, after all.
The other day I listened back to back to the rondo from Mozart's Eb
horn concerto no. 4 played by Dennis Brain, Barry Tuckwell and Peter
Damm. Three very different performances, and any judgment of which is
best is entirely subjective.
Ed, you have painted us a picture of yourself as a man with narrow
tastes and no tolerance. Come to think of it I don't think that added
much to the body of human knowledge.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound