Is the skill of performers declining?

[Kromme]

As the where classical music headed thraed is decided to concentrate on composing i felt we should also talk about performers.As i said in that thread i believe this lacking in skill is the main problem of the future for classical music if not today.20th century was a golden era for the classical music but legendary performers of that era passed away one by one.What many people found tragic about Carlos Kleiber's death in 2004 was not the loss of a brilliant conductor and an absolute musical genius but the loss of the last one of them.What do you think?Do you believe there are musical geniuses like Kleiber or Furtwangler here and there?If yes who is he?If not how can we create one or will future generations complain about not having a Mariss Jansons or a Riccardo Muti or a Bernard Haitink or a Claudio Abbado like i am complaining about not having a Carlos Kleiber?

Conductors are not the only case of course i believe the mastery possessed with violin by Jascha Heifetz or David Oistrakh is not the case with either Vengerov or Perlman or the ladies Hillary Hahn and Anne-Sophie Mutter.

Same with the piano.In my opinion Wilhelm Kempff and Walter Gieseking is still in competition with themselves and yet to be rivalled.

So what do you think?

 

[Todd]

In terms of sheer technique, I'd say that we currently live in the Golden Age, or as close to it as we're likely to get; the sheer technical perfection of recordings (live and studio) of modern soloists and ensembles, taken as a whole, often if not usually surpasses recordings from the 20s-50s. What seems to be missing is the same type of individualistic stamp that characterizes so much of what is usually described as “great.” There is a certain sameness among many conductors, soloists, and orchestras today, but by no means all.

That written, I think there are certain truly great artists still working today, of a variety of ages. For instance, I think Claudio Abbado fully matches up to Carlos Kleiber (and even Erich Kleiber), though usually in different repertoire. And while Hilary Hahn or Christian Tetzlaff may not be quite as masterful as Heifetz, they still have time on their sides. Hahn, in particular, is amazing, and her best recordings are likely ahead of her. When it comes to pianists, I’d say we’re in good shape. Aside from the contemporary, experienced giants – Pollini, Ashkenazy, Argerich, Zimerman, Kovacevich, Freire, and quite a number of others – there are some formidable pianists out there with much to offer. Leif Ove Andsnes and Piotr Anderszewski come immediately to mind. Lesser know artists like Klara Wurtz also impress with their takes on standard rep. Kempff and Gieseking, two of my very favorite pianists, while undeniably great, are not in competition only with themselves. Kempff lacked the technique to handle some music, and Gieseking was too nonchalant at times. At their best they occupy the summit of artistry, but they weren’t always at their best. (And surely Richter matches or surpasses either.)

One thing to remember that time has filtered out the greats of the past from the lesser artists. The same thing will happen with today’s artists. Some searching may be in order; sometimes the most intriguing artists “hide” on indie labels – or don’t record at all.

 

[Hexameron]

I agree with Todd. Although I can't comment on conductors I'm quite sure we have better performers today. Strictly speaking for pianists, I think they're likely to only get better as the future moves forward. Technical powerhouse pianists like Marc-Andre Hamelin, Leslie Howard, Konstantin Scherbakov, and Alexander Paley are performing works Horowitz and Rubinstein never touched. We have greater and far more able, perhaps ambitious, pianists today. The "giants" like Ashkenazy, Pollini, Argerich etc don't impress me. I find much more artistry and intrepretative mastery, not to mention pianistic superiority, in masters like Murray Perahia, Earl Wild, Jeno Jando, and Piers Lane. Some of the greatest pianists we have out there are not in the spotlight because they're not recording the rehashed Beethoven piano sonatas, Chopin etudes, Liszt HR's, and famous Piano Concertos.

We live in an age where the Naxos and Hyperion label are uncovering lost, neglected, forgotten, unknown works and bringing them to the concert stage. Chopin's Scherzi and Schumann's Fantasie are taking a backseat. I think this is a good thing; it shows that our performers still possess a spark of intrepretative originality and technical superiority. Works that were ignored in the early-mid 20th century are now supplanting the old warhorses that Paderewski and Brendel played. To me, this speaks volumes of the abilities of our performers. If they were degenerating or becoming less skilled, they would stick to the popular repertoire, where they feel most comfortable. But now... Marc-Andre Hamelin and Leslie Howard show us the amazing possibilities of piano recording as an archaeological excavation, an art, and a permanent asset to the future of music appreciation.

 

[Kromme]

Yes Todd.You are right about Richter.I forgot to put him there somehow.Of course he rivals the other two if not he is simply better but still he is an artist of a past era and about Claudio Abbado i could not disagree more.I would put him a league below Erich Kleiber thus two below his son.I can not compare them in conducting Mahler as Kleiber never does but in Kleiber's repertoire which is also conducted by Abbado to my tastes Abbado is no match.For instance lets think about Beethoven symphonic cycles. Modern cycles conducted by living conductors belong to Claudio Abbado,Riccardo Muti, Simon Rattle and Bernard Haitink.Do you find any of them better then Furtwabglers cycle or even Weingartner's 1920s cycle?I do not.They all are ordinary.As you said they do not have a personal stamp...

 

[Kromme]

About Hahn you are right again.She is improving very fast but when i compare her and Oistrakhs accounts of Shostakovich 1st violin concerto i begin to think that she has a very long way to go.

 

[Todd]

For instance lets think about Beethoven symphonic cycles. Do you find any of them better then Furtwabglers cycle or even Weingartner's 1920s cycle? I do not. They all are ordinary.

I don't know if I find any modern cycles "better" than what Furtwangler did (and of course Furtwangler never actually recorded a "cycle" in the modern sense), but I most certainly think Abbado's Berlin cycle is superb and matches up to Furtwangler at times. (The first and second symphonies, for example.) There are some comparative weak links, as in some of Furtwangler's recordings, but there is also better control and orchestral precision. And while it's true that that individualistic stamp is less pronounced, it also means there's less in the way of idiosyncratic excess.

I'm a bit surprised to see some of the names of alternative great modern pianists. Leslie Howard is most certainly not a great pianist, nor a powerhouse; recording all of Liszt's variable output makes him a specialist, not special. Indeed, I've sold off all of my recordings of his that I used to own. And Jeno Jando? He's competent, but no more. I've heard him in a number of recordings of wide ranging repertoire, but except in ensemble work, he's the epitome of bland. In some ways, Hamelin is the apogee of the technically perfect but boring player. Every recording I've heard from him is technically meticulous, to be sure, but they are also ultimately boring. Even his Iberia! Compare it to Esteban Sanchez's take, for instance.

I'm also a bit puzzled by claims that pianists like Perahia (whom I like) and the other lesser pianists of today (Hamelin and Wild excepted) posses superior pianistic skills to the contemporary giants. Pollini and Ashkenazy are (or at least were) technically far superior to Perahia, for instance. (Perahia has never been my idea of a technical perfectionist, which was reinforced when I heard him live.) Indeed, I’d like to be directed to recordings by any of the pianists Hexameron mentioned that surpass the technical mastery displayed by Pollini in his Stravinsky, Boulez, Prokofiev, Webern, Nono, and all of his other 70s recordings; to Ashkenazy’s 60s and 70s era Schumann and Chopin recordings; or to Nelson Freire’s recent Schumann and Brahms recordings, or even his earlier recordings including rarities like Villa-Lobos. (I’ve not heard Konstantin Scherbakov yet, but the others I have.) It can be non-core rep, though there one is comparing apples and oranges. Much non-core music is non-core for a reason – it’s not as good. I’ve gone on various rarity-focused buying binges, and I generally come away uninspired. The Hyperion Romantic Piano Concerto series exemplifies that.

 

[Ouled Nails]

It's a hard question, actually. There is the fact that several conductors knew the composers personally, had seen them conduct their own works and, thus, could arguable be more respectful of a composer's work than someone today who freely interprets, and attributes commercially profitable emotions to the music being played. Perhaps some recordings sound even more sublime, emotionally charged and, of course, technically perfect today but are they really an accurate rendition of what was initially composed? It is similar with some instrumentalists. Rostropovich, for one, not only knew the cello like few people during his time he also knew many of those who composed the music (much of which was dedicated to him). I think distance has been growing between contemporary composers and interpreters but there are notable exceptions to this trend.

 

[Todd]

I'm not sure that a conductor or other performer knowing the composer really counts for much. Both Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer knew Mahler, yet their respective approaches to his music are quite different. Which one is right? Likewise, Slava knew DSCH, but so did Mravinsky. In this case, I'd say Mravinsky is vastly superior as a conductor of Shostakovich's music. Of course, Slava the instrumentalist knew not only Shostakovich, but also other composers who wrote scores for him. That doesn't in any way mean that he won't be surpassed in those works (and maybe he already has in concert), just as Krystian Zimerman has at least been matched in Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto, written expressly for Zimerman, by Paul Crossley. Beyond that, who both knew Beethoven and recorded his music? Or Mozart? Or either Scarlatti? How many performers know Elliot Carter? How many perform his music well? I just don't see that as very important.

 

[Ouled Nails]

You offer convincing arguments, Todd. I could counter that Mravinsky lost some of Shostakovich's respect later in the latter's life (What did DSCH state again? that Mravinsky never could understand his 11th? or was it the 14th?) but that does not amount to a lot. I do believe though that by dedicating their work to Rostropovich, several composers did not merely bow to his artistic skills but composed their respective works with him in mind. In any case I did indicate that it was a tough question to answer ) and I guess I pretty much failed to answer it adequately.

 

[Kromme]

Again i feel Todd is right...
Mravinsky is a far better interpreter of Shostakovich but again he is a conductor of a past era and he is also way better than the great interpreters of our era like his pupil and my favourite Mariss Jansons,the world renowned dutchman Bernard Haitink,and Valery Gergiev of Mariinsky Theatre.These three are also very fine but Mravinsky than either of them. That is what i am talking about when i talk about the declining of interpretations.

 

[Todd]

Among contemporary DSCH conductors, I'd say that at least Rudolf Barshai compares well to Mravinsky. The 13th (I believe) was dedicated to Barshai, and his whole cycle, in so far as the symphonies are good, is extremely good. Another extremely good living conductor of DSCH is Yoel Levi. Of course, both these conductors are a bit long in the tooth nowadays, but still.

I can look out and say that there are some superb recordings from recent years that match or surpass what came before. But in almost every case, at least in core rep, the conductors are old. Abbado, Davis, Harnoncourt, Gardiner, Lopez-Cobos - all have produced career best work recently. The bigger problem I see is future years. Who'll replace them? Franz Welser-Most has serious pontential, as does (the not exactly young) Esa-Pekka Salonen, Ingo Metzmacher, and a few others. The "problem" (if it's really a problem) is mostly with conductors I think; instrumentalists seem to come out of nowhere sometimes, and there's always going to be someone to upset the commonly received wisdom. (Maybe it has someting to do with not having to raise money and hobnob with VIPs to support entire orchestras, who knows.)

 

[Kromme]

Well Todd.I must say i can not put Barshai or Levi in the same class as a DSCH interpreter with Mravinsky.Do not get me wrong they are very good.To my tastes they both are on par with Bernard Haitink who is slightly worse than Gergiev and Gergiev is slightly worse than Jansons but i may be a bit biased over Jansons. Mravinsky is definitive. No one interprets DSCH like Mravinsky.I think if you listen to his 8th symphony live recording you will understand what i mean.Although this live recording has a world-record of a coughing audince still it is the one which gets to the player the most often out of my 5 CDs of this symphony.

 

[Kromme]

Todd...
Salonen is not young but he has a considerable amount of time in front him and he is a solid conductor(By the way i bought 3 recordings of Mahlers 3.One from my favourite Mahlerian Tennstedt and when buying the other two i listened to your advise and bought Salonen and Bernstein.Salonen is really solid slightly worse than Tennstedt way better than Bernstein... Thanks for the wise advise... )Everything i listened from Welser-Möst is either a hit or a miss.Thus i believe he has a potential to do very special things.I have not heard Metzmacher yet but i am trying to but it is not so easy to find his recordings around here.

 

[Ouled Nails]

I don't know if either of you is familiar with Kurt Sanderling but he is another great interpreter of Shostakovich. His interview in Paris, 1996, offers additional insights on the question being discussed on this thread (I am not sure which way, though. ] I think I am allowed to share the reference with you so here it is: Music under Soviet rule: Sanderling Interview
Enjoy! It's quite interesting.

 

[Kromme]

I have listened to his Mahler which is quite fine but not Shostakovich but Sanderling conducts Shostakovich that can be interesting

 

[Wunderhorn]

I think that it is a case of taste to a large extent. Many of the first digital recordings need to be edited with the innovation of 21st century technology. This might seem unreasonable, but truth be told, I hear unmusical things in many of them and I say to myself, 'If it wasn't for that..." I believe the conducters job is bring the music to life, not scrutinize it. If this earth makes it another half century, most of the supperficially organized soundworlds of over-intellectual composers and conducters alike, will be seen as dribble. I am amazed by many preformers from an abundence of time periods, and prefer to get both a classic and a contempary classic rendition of my favorite works. Unfortunately there is no way to answer your question with any true degree of accuracy. Musical Theorist and Scholars would love to get there two-cents in I'm sure.

 

[Frederik Magle]

A long way I agree with Todd's first post. I don't think the skill of performers is declining. From a technical point of view quite the contrary in fact, but perhaps it's simply impossible to top the pure "musicality" of older performers - I was reminded of this thinking about a recording I once heard of Widor playing his own famous Toccata (reading this thread).

There is one concern though. With the generally increasing technical perfection, some musicians may get their priorities wrong, letting the pursuit of technical skills get in the way of the musical expression and personality. It could be that perhaps in the "good old days" there was a more well balanced view on those matters. Also among the audience which may be getting a little too "spoilt" from the technical perfection on many CDs (forgetting that a very large part of those recordings are spliced together from countless takes), which may also in some cases further move emphasis away from musical expression and development and on to technical details.

I say some cases, because then again, as Todd so correctly states, »time has filtered out the greats of the past from the lesser artists«. That of course is very true. The question then remains how many of todays performers will be "filtered" away in years to come.

 

[BGMCFAR]

My hope and prayer is that technology decress musician's determination to be very percise in their proformances and to never ever get to the point that they think oh someone can clean it up in the studio I know sverel instructor who absolutely refuse to use canned music for a performance and especially live performances for backround and I believe that that there are a number of performers who will keep to the pure form of classical music I beive Jerry goldsmith to be one of these composers even tho he may use a little electronic most of Mr. Goldsmith's is pretty much right on.

 

[Kromme]

I agree with Mr.Frederik Magle but i must say i believe Toscanini,Furtwangler, Mravinsky,Solti,Szell,Bernstein,Karajan,Celibidache and Kleiber were all highly acclaimed at their lifetimes.Although time filters out the great artists that does not prevent them from having a sparkling reputation and also from being respected very much.

 

[rojo]

Give me a musically expressive performance with a few wrong notes over a technically perfect one lacking musicality any day. (Of course, having both would be ideal...) Just my 2 cents.