'He was genuinely convinced that he had an infallible musical ear. Heinz Lorenz suggested, 'My Führer, you ought to give a concert in the Great Hall. After all, you could afford to invite the best German musicians, Gieseking, Kempff, Furtwängler and so on. You don't go to the opera or the theatre any more, but you could listen to music. It wouldn't strain your eyes either'. Hitler rejected the idea. 'No, I don't want to trouble such artists just for me personally, but we could play a few records.' A thick book listed all the records that the Führer owned. There must have been hundreds of them. The wooden panelling of the wall turned out to be a cupboard holding records, with a built-in gramophone that was invisible till the cupboard doors were opened. The black discs stood in long rows, labelled with numbers. Bormann operated the gramophone. Hitler nearly always had the same repertory played: Léhars operettas, songs by Richard Strauss, Hugo Wolf and Ri...
Comments
There are an awful lot of works that would fall apart if not for a traffic cop on the podium (excluding operatic works. They really need a benevolent dictator to keep things going!)
Most, however, were composed after 1890 and require humungous resources. That alone makes these performances costly. So, maybe, the clue to financial stability is for orchestras to pair-down, perform older (and newer!) works that don’t require so many musicians, and occasionally get someone to conduct the bigger works. The late 19th /early 20th century orchestra is truly a product of the end of the Industrial Age and the central focus of the Consumer Age. We are, I believe, in the post-ages for both. And small is good again.
Cheers
David Cavlovic
Whether or not they're overpaid is a different matter entirely (one could say the same thing about software program managers compared to the developers who actually build the darn things), but if a conductor "doesn't make a difference" to the music, then classical music, recording-wise, might as well be like rock music (or film scores), where only the first recording of a work is necessary or "valid".
Obviously it is not. The Guardian article speaks from a position of sheer ignorance and self-righteousness.