The younger the better?

The thought came when mentally jotting down some introductory phrases for Corboz' 1972 Hohe Messe appearing this week as BRC-2309. I had the LPs and when CD came along I bought the conductor's newer effort, with the same choral and orchestral forces but different singers and (perhaps) a DDD recording. I was never thrilled by this as I was with the older one and later gave it to a friend for his birthday. I did and still do prefer the 1972 recording: it is warmer, better sung and totally convincing, a marvelous performance that was left out of the CD catalog because a newer one was available. The basic interpretation is not that different; but the earlier recording had an elan rather missing from the later one and the voices were much fresher and involved in the proceedings. Maybe not much, but that small margin that makes a world of difference.

So why is it that so often older recordings are musically more satisfying? Examples there are myriad. From Rubinstein's earlier mono Chopin cycles, to Serkin's earlier Mozart and Beethoven concertos and sonatas, to any Klemperer's earlier mono recording (e.g. his 1957 Beethoven 7 instead of the 1962 remake), to Bruno Walter's Mozart with the NYPO (SONY mono - who knows if it can still be found) against his 1962 Columbia SO remakes, to Callas/De Sabata 1953 Tosca against her stereo version with Pretre, to Karajan's Philharmonia era against his Berlin reign - and so on and so forth.

Is there some conclusion to be drawn from this? Can it just be nostalgia that sends music loving collectors to the older recordings - perhaps their first loves with the music played/sung? Or is it that we should after all logically reverse the saying that the older one gets the wiser he becomes, as regards performers? Because there is no doubt that creative artists do become wiser, deeper and better as they age. No need to bring forth examples. There are some exceptions of course in all art: the younger the better as far as Walton or Rossini are concerned; some others who didn't have time to grow old because they left early this world. Also (mysteriously more often the case with writers) a number of creators remembered for their very first effort and condescended upon by both critics and their public for what came after.

So where is the difference between performing and creative artist? Performers need bodily and mental agility, a quickness of grasp for the text to be rendered, also a sense of enjoyment in what they do and a whiff of self consciousness in the display of their prowess. What as they grow older? Apart from losing their sveltezza they become self conscious (adulation plays a part) in a different way: they pride themselves for "knowing better" than the composer; they will shed light on "hidden" meanings, aspects, facets of the work; they will invariably try to cover their loss of "schutzpah" or "duente" lingering, catching their breath here and there, trying to pass it as an interpretational point/notion. Yeah? Certainly no.

Interpreters must be fit. Old guys (and girls) can't be. Creators don't need fitness, they don't perform - theirs is another class of work. They thrive as they grow older; and like a good wine they mature while interpreters disintegrate.

Critics too: they need age. Just don't read any review by anyone who's not well past his 50th birthday. They are dogmatic, absolute and dismissive of anything they haven't yet encountered in their way... and they have a long way to go and lots of things to encounter.

That perhaps explains why record buyers will prefer older recordings - not to mention performers of an older era. Because the performer's age is one thing. The relevance of the time of a recording with the world to which most music listened to today belongs is another. And that's another subject we might take up sometime later.