Some of the loudest playing that I ever heard, in Avery Fisher Hall - home of the NY Phil, mind you, was the Kirov Orchestra under Gergiev, The same forces also upped the wattage at the Met when they did the Ring last summer (and I have heard many performances of these operas there under the incredibly fine resident band), so I would hesitate to call this a uniquely "American" phenomenon. I could cite other instances if I didn't find this thread so tiresome already.
As I risk being accused of prolonging the same thread, I'll try to not wade too deeply into the fray on this one. I find it incredibly pointless to look at it as an "either / or" situation. Is it possible to defend loud or moderate playing in absolute terms or might if be possible that context has a little to do with it? I can think of many situations where blasting brass benefits a performance (some sections of "Sacre" aren't exactly meant to sound like tip-toe-ing through the tulips) and just as many where "less is more" should rule the day. To return slightly to one of the accused miscreants of the Philharmonic that appeared on TV the other night, I have heard Phil Myers complimented as much for his ability to play with exquisite tone and control at barely audible sound levels as for his battering-ram multi-fortissimos, so I really feel we are dealing with a straw man (I know I'm not using this precisely as it is defined, but it's close enough) in this unnecessary argument. The issue is not loud or soft, but is the music being served and are the audience's guts and soul being thereby reached. Peter Hirsch _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
