I have to say I find all this fascinating. It's just unfortunate that Joyce Hatto actually existed; it would have been much more fun if she had been 'Joyce Hatto'...

I wonder what implications (if any) it throws up as more recordings move out of copyright. If an out of copyright recording is released as being by Joe Bloggs when it was by his much more celebrated brother Ivan, who can be held culpable? Does the law even cover such instances? I'm thinking of the lengthy and costly legal implications of proving such a case even if the law does cover it.

The real loser (as always) is the poor, trusting listener.

Hmm, well not to enjoy it per se.

The Innocent Ear approach is all well and good. But if I heard a performance I liked, the compulsion to find out who the performer was would be very strong. And naturally, I wouldn't like to be thrown a googly.

If you are supplied any kind of information, you tend to want it to be correct, especially if it is straightfoward and factual, like whose fingers are on the keyboard.

Well it's not quite the same thing, is it? There have been plenty of ensembles masquerading under different names for contractual reasons, and session orchestras put together for particular recordings. But that's fairly common knowledge.

I'm talking about a situation where we have an anonymous, or (worse) bogus performer. It's surely a good thing to be in possession of the facts about a piece (as opposed to having none, or incorrect ones). Do we extend the anonymity to the composer? The title?

As I said before, the Innocent Ear is all well and good in its place. But hearing a performance anonymously (with no prospect of finding out who is playing) is about as frustrating as visiting an art gallery with all the labels taken off.

It's a tangled web isn't it?!

I agree with tonybob's latest post re his Knussen experience - I have rather too many cassettes taken off-air which I have failed to label and so it is something of a lottery as to whether I end up identifying the music, let alone the performer. I have found myself enjoying pieces that my prejudices might have deterred me from even sampling (eg for some reason I had an idea that I had an aversion to Henze, then innocently heard one of the early symphonies, enjoyed it greatly and was led from there to explore further).

However, the Hatto experience is not quite the same thing. The performances themselves remain unchanged, for good or ill, whoever is playing them; but the added nasty taste of deception (almost certainly) is added to the mix. This isn't a case of orchestral anonymity/ pseudonymity on contractual grounds; or even, as in the case of the Chopin "Stepan Zawisza"/ Sergio Fiorentino LP I have referred to elsewhere, a "real" pianist's work being issued under an assumed name for whatever reason. This is a case of real pianists having their work ripped off and issued under the name of another real pianist - and, most importantly, those first real pianists being denied the critical acclaim that they deserve (in at least some cases). For me, as a listener, that DOES make a difference, if not to the performances, but in some way to the mysterious composite which consists of the relationship between performance, listener and object (ie the CD itself plus its packaging, publicity, marketing, reviewing and reception - indeed the whole paraphanalia of the music industry) That is why we feel so aggrieved.

you said it. it's arguable whether the article sheds any light on the situation, but it's a cracking read.

it would make an excellent sit com, if nothing else, featuring a tanned christopher timothy as the swarthy, disgruntled Laszlo Simon.

I was lucky to tune right at the time they were talking about Hatto.
Now I understand what a sound engineer can do. They played Hatto-John O'Connors recording. Hatto's piano sounded closer and clearer, but everything else is the same. Together they sound exactly the same.

Presenters were obviously cautious guarding against being sued (or is it suede).

It depends whether they rub anyone up the wrong way, t-p