Dad, Why Do You Have So Many CDs of the Same Classical Music?

 

 

 

It took me a while to understand the classical music industry, at least in terms of "Why do we need another version of Beethoven's 9th Symphony?" I figured, it's not like jazz -- the classical repertory is written down, I mean, they have a score to follow -- what else can you do with it?

Silly me. An example: CBC the other day played a version of Sibelius' 5th Symphony, a favorite of mine. I love the crisp, brisk feel of Neeme Jarvi's interpretation: icy, monumental and sharp like a glacier slicing through cold waters -- and what I heard on the radio was limp, opaque and totally lacking in precision. I'd never want to hear Sibelius again if that was my first exposure.

Librarian love note excerpt: I was very blessed to have heard exemplary renditions when I first explored classical music via my local libraries (thank you, Oak Harbor and Bellingham Public!). Debussy? Ah, the Walter Gieseking Debussy piano albums, still my touchstone. Thomas Tallis, Beethoven, Bach, Holst (via Adrian Boult) ... so many wonderful first impressions, so vital to encouraging a desire to continue exploring.

So I have both the Charles Dutoit version of Holst's "The Planets" ( sounds like Boult with the benefit of modern recording techniques), compared to the Nimbus recording, which isn't nearly as good but the recorded ambiance is fascinating -- once again (I repeat myself), real people performing in a real acoustic space. There's a Nimbus version of Stravinsky's "Petrouchka" that I'd swear begins out of tune -- but as I got used to it, I recognized a different interpretation, performed imperfectly as a local street band, not as a "professional orchestra", almost as an actor would reinterpret a well-worn view of Hamlet.

Never been a big fan of Rachmaninoff; my parents owned an LP of the Second Piano Concerto with some babe in VERY red lipstick draped over a piano on the cover, and I just found it plodding and turgid, and have ever since. Then a few weeks ago I heard Sviatoslav Richter's version on CBC Radio -- wow, what a difference! Dynamic, forceful and utterly captivating -- it managed to eclipse my 40+ years of Racmaninoff indifference right away.

As luck would have it, someone must have been unloading their classical CD collection because I found half a dozen great CDs at Value Village recently, and since classical music isn't very popular in these parts, they were all $1.99. Snagged "Laude Novelle" by the Medieval Women's Choir (recorded at the Northwest's own Bastyr University), some excellent Middle Ages and Renaissance by a group from Sweden (Finland?) called Kiili. Notes are all in Swedish (or Finnish) but I recognized one song that Jethro Tull fashioned into "King Henry's Madrigal"! Another copy of the Tallis Fantasia with Sir John Barbirolli (a different version but on a par with the Marriner/ASMF recording, which for me is the ultimate compliment), some Charles Ives, Aaron Copland and French Renaissance Wind Music performed by Piffaro. What a wonderful treat  -- I sat in the front porch swing listening with my headphones on, as I will again as soon as the weather warms up. Maybe I'll even learn something by comparing the various liner notes!

Rewriting History

We all know that nothing on the internet ever really goes away, but what I find fascinating is how easy it is to give inaccurate information precedence over the truth. As someone who has worked in libraries for quite a while, it's my job to make sure people get correct information, not just something found on Google. Libraries provide access to databases that have legitimate, verifiable information, but so many times, I've had students -- and adults -- fall for some fairly preposterous untruths from unreliable sources.

Case in point (and here's why this post is on a music blog: my wife and I recently picked up some CD reissues of a performer we both liked very much when we were younger, even saw him play at the Paramount once. As fans, we knew a little of his background: heavy drug use as a young man lead to stint in halfway house/rehab program, moderate success follows with many TV appearances, more drugs (especially cocaine) at the peak of his popularity destroys his formerly facile voice so he releases an album or two where it sounds like he's attempting to sing through his nose (how ironic), later on there's a new wife, new kids and a return to performing with his pipes almost back to their former glory, then cancer, then death. As we listened to the remastered CDs, we wondered if he chronicled his story at all, so we did some online research, found the New York Times obituary, and were shocked to find that his life had been 'whitewashed' with all the tawdry bits taken out. Several of the obituaries were drawn directly from his Wikipedia entry, with incorrect songwriting credits intact.

I'd guess that the 'new' family wanted to preserve his memory, not as a someone whose drug use broke up his first marriage (and kids) and almost destroyed his career, but as a musician admired and respected by his peers. Now, I certainly can understand wanting to gloss over some personal failures, but in interviews during the early days (in print and on television), he always talked about the early drug years, wrote songs about it and even made a point of thanking the rehab center on album credits. He never denied that part of his past. I was hoping to find out how he came out the other end later in life, managed to get his voice back, managed to get his career back --- nothing. And so any information online now reflects the 'edited' version, and now that appears to be the whole story, and that's now the official bio. Wikipedia, never very reliable, has the last word.

This is just a small example. I wouldn't call this performer a major artist but he has his fans (including my wife and myself), and I suppose it doesn't hurt anyone that his dirty laundry has been "cleaned", but I worry when the facts are conveniently 'adjusted' to make a nicer picture. Heck, it's bad enough when the government does it...