Not actually now spinning but it was yesterday and a certain percentage of it will be burbling out of my clarinet in a few hours from now: Lachenmann, Mouvement.

I have completely gone off this piece. What crepe timing.

Oh, can of worms...

First of all, a disclaimer: I don't really listen to recordings all that much (at least not of music that I play) and I'm not as familiar with historical historical recordings (if you will) as I probably ought to be.

That being said - I think you're absolutely right that wind/brass playing has improved enormously.  This probably goes hand in hand with improvements in understanding and making the instruments themselves, as well as improvements in "technique" and appropriate use of the instruments.

String playing - oh my what a fraught issue.  Certainly our understanding of the equipment has moved on a great deal.  Set-ups, gut strings and bows are very different now from in the '70s (even the '90s), and should be more capable of an interesting and wide range of colours than ever before (in the modern era).  I also think there is a greater depth of field, a larger and stronger general pool of players, now than before.

But that old stereotype of HIP players being ones who couldn't cut it as modern players still looms over the scene, and this sometimes manifests itself in self-loathing.  Some (not all) people who are currently held up as leaders or soloists, and hence who shape how groups sound, are considered "good" because they have (or have had) successful "modern" careers.  Some of these people are genuinely interesting musicians but (in my opinion) are not giving themselves a full chance to understand how to make the most of the early instruments.  Some of them I'm afraid are a bit more cynical, or stupid, and think they'll dazzle everyone if they stick on a couple of gut strings and play Veracini or whatever as fast as possible.  Unfortunately they're usually right, and people are happy to be dazzled.

This might be one reason why string sound might be becoming more homogenous, more bland, less interesting - even at the same time the instruments are becoming more capable of sounding deeper and more characterful, and there are more people devoting themselves to playing on these instruments as in-depth as possible.

Another reason why things may seem less interesting now is precisely because so many more people are doing it.  HIP has become another career choice with a standard path to follow - it's no longer the preserve of mavericks, eccentrics and obsessives.  There seem to be fewer strong personalities able to make a distinct mark on the sound.

Then again, I think string sound generally has got worse over the past few decades.  Yesterday I was listening to a recording of the Busch quartet playing Schubert and thinking how stunningly beautiful their sound was - supple and subtle, intense and focussed, never harsh, full of colour and expression.  I know I've gone on about this before, but I'll say it again: I don't think string players these days are being taught how to use the bow well.  I had a very old-fashioned teacher when I was young, and she always made me think about and use my right hand to a degree I don't see now.

I don't know if this fits in with your perception of how string sound has altered.  How would you describe what the 1970 group was like compared to more recent playing?

Strina, here are some worms for your can:

Concentus musicus Wien in 1970 and
Musica Fiata in 2001

playing Schmelzer's six-part Sonata IV from Sacro-profanus concentus musicus.

Indeed.

Having failed once again to find anything to hold my interest in Sibelius 6, I continue my headlong rush to the end of the alphabet with Tchaikovsky 4, courtesy of the Leningrad Philharmonic conducted by Mravinsky. Apropos the aforementioned can of worms I think one would be hard put to find an orchestral string section to equal the precision and intensity of this one.

I can only agree with your assessment, Strina, though I wouldn't be able to put it so succinctly.

In 1970 detailed issues of temperament presumably hadn't yet been tackled because there were more basic issues of technique through which players would have been feeling their way (I assume that it wouldn't have been possible to study "baroque violin" at conservatories in those days). The players in the later recording seem much more confident with their instruments and the material but, maybe as a result, they aren't applying their imagination to it to the same extent - the older ensemble seems to have grasped the hints of folk music in this piece (which becomes clearer later on in the piece, after this excerpt ends) and emphasised them, with the harpsichordist thinking of a cimbalom or whatever its forerunner was, in a way which is more in the literal sense "baroque". That's my two cents' worth anyway.

I had no idea he was that prolific! He leaves Haydn standing! 

The alphabetical spinning goes on. Avoiding getting embroiled in Telemann, I went for Tippett's Concerto for Orchestra (the flute/harp duo at the opening could be soft-focus serialism à la Henze, I thought), which was succeeded by the same composer's Second Symphony, which I liked more than I remembered doing, the first two movements anyway, and then his Third, which has been happening for about a quarter of an hour. I can't remember the last time I listened to music all day. Probably the last time I was copying out a load of notes.

That's enough Tippett for today. I found the last movement of the Third a disappointment this time round. I think Heather Harper's attempt to steer somewhere in between "operatic" and (what she and/or Tippett might have thought of as) "bluesy" singing sounds extremely contrived. I think I'd prefer it if it were just one thing or the other, and the former would probably be more appropriate. But this is the only performance I've ever known. Do other singers take a different approach?

And now for something completely different - David Tudor: Dialects.