response 23 of 77:

May 2 19:13 UTC 2007

re #23 Maybe you are part of the problem Mary.  You shouldn't just be 
satisfied with the old recordings in your collection.  You should want 
to hear modern musicians new interpretations.  Suppose you have the 
best cello works ever written, as they were recorded in the seventies, 
and feel your collection is complete.  So you won't buy any new cello 
works.  This would mean you have missed out on all the great work Yo 
Yo Ma has done re-interpreting the great cello works during the last 
decade and a half.  It would be a music experience you are depriving 
yourself of having.

Now Yo Yo Ma has sold plenty of records by now, but new artists like 
him won't have the same chance.  The labels aren't putting out nearly 
as many records anymore.  Because people like Mary won't buy them 
anymore.

response 25 of 77:

May 2 19:20 UTC 2007

re #23 I mean by some people's attitudes, you'd think they'd tell Yo 
Yo Ma he shouldn't even bother re-recording the great Brahms cello 
concertos with his nearly three hundred year old Davydov Stradivarius 
cello.  I mean Brahms has been done before right and people are 
satisfied with their collections?

response 27 of 77:

May 2 19:35 UTC 2007

re #26 what self righteousness?  I just think too many people these 
days fail to see classical music as an evolving art form.  They think 
Brahms is Brahms is Brahms.  Beethoven is Beethoven is Beethoven.  The 
classical music recording industry is dying out because too few see 
the value of new interpretations anymore.  Once they have a catalogue, 
thats it.

response 29 of 77:

May 2 20:31 UTC 2007

Moreover, there aren't enough artists recording standards these days,
or doing covers of Beatles songs.  It's a dang shame.

response 31 of 77:

May 2 20:55 UTC 2007

I can sympathize with richard's frustration about people having 
different tastes than he has. I know that I sometimes feel similar 
frustration when favorite tv shows are cancelled. But even so, richard, 
it is kind of arrogant to call other people's personal tastes "wrong" 
or even to imply that their tastes are part of some problem. 

response 33 of 77:

May 2 20:59 UTC 2007

Oh and I also wanted to comment about things like works of literature 
being reinturpreted. It turns out that they often are and if you pay 
attention, you might see the same story being told over and over again. 
You know Pyramus and Thisbe becomes Romeo and Juliet becomes West Side 
Story, etc. 

response 35 of 77:

May 2 21:48 UTC 2007

Re #32: you prove my point.  None of those groups became famous for doing
Beatles covers.

response 37 of 77:

May 2 22:42 UTC 2007

resp:34 That is true. But some people buy the movie version of West 
Side Story and never bother to see every other interpretation of it 
ever put on by anyone. ;)

response 39 of 77:

May 4 03:16 UTC 2007

re resp:20

You're right that music requires the intermediary of a performer.  but that's
it. Every single person who attends a performance of Mahler's ninth symphony
will come home with their own unique "interpretation" or perspective of the
work.  It's the same as every person who reads Bukowski's "Ham on Rye" will
have their own opinion of the whole novel.  Composers write music to be heard,
not just performed; just as writers wrote novels to be read, or painters
created paintings to be seen.

In fact, the performer's job is precisely to be as invisible as he can.  He
should study the work, find out what the composer is trying to say, and convey
that message to the audience.  Sure; the performer's personality will show
through his performance.  But that's a quirk, and not a means to an end.

response 41 of 77:

May 4 17:58 UTC 2007

If the performer was not important, no one would ever applaud.  No one
would ever think of applauding upon hearing a recorded piece, would
they?  You applaud to show your appreciation to the musician.  The
conductor bows in acknowledgement of the applause at the end of a
classical (art music) performance.  These are signs of a human event,
not a mechanical one.

response 43 of 77:

May 4 18:23 UTC 2007

Re #40 re #39:  Indeed.  In early "classical" music (Baroque period
through the era of Mozart and Haydn, more or less), it's my
understanding that some improvisation on the performer's part was
expected in a lot of situations.  Later on, as the cult of the composer
as superstar developed, improvisation was deemed less appropriate.

But even so, in the music of any period or genre -- sure, in learning a
piece the performer should consider the composer's intent and try to
respect it, but that doesn't mean that two different performers will
arrive at the same conclusions or that they shouldn't bring some of
their own style to the work.  In performing a work, even if you feel
constrained to play it note for note as written, there's usually room
for interpretation in such matters as tempo, dynamics, and articulation,
all of which can affect the listening experience is significant ways.

Re #41:  I don't think naftee is saying that the performer is
unimportant, rather that his or her duty is to reproduce the composer's
intent faithfully -- which can require considerable skill and is
certainly applause-worthy.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that the
performer should become "invisible", however.  (See previous paragraph.)

response 45 of 77:

May 4 18:45 UTC 2007

How about Baby Spice's cover of "Downtown"?

response 47 of 77:

May 4 19:47 UTC 2007

I always loved Aztec Camera's version of Van Halen's Jump. Talk about 
an interpretation!