I find the historically informed performances of Baroque music bracing precisely because many of them give more latitude to the interpreter than had previously been given, throwing off the shackles of motoric rhythm and letting ornamentation run amok. I suspect people are reluctant to deviate too much from the standard interpretations now precisely because they have been promulgated so effectively through recordings. But I sure do love it sometimes when I hear someone playing "inappropriately" but with thought and passion behind the notes. Maybe I don't want a recording of it, but it can be quite thrilling live. (And maybe I should want a recording of it! Who knows.)

Great, Henry! Two other examples I love...Listen to Rachmaninoff's recordings of his piano concerti following a score, and you will see crescendos where it is marked diminuendo and visa versa! It's a real eye opener! Another is Copland rehearsing Appalachian Spring...and asking the orchestra to make a crescendo where he states, "I didnt write it, but it has become a tradition, and I LIKE it!..."

I must respectfully disagree with your comments about authenticity in performance.
There are many great musicians today who are not the least bit pedantically literal interpreters, and they are anything but carbon copies of each other.Are Perlman and Kremer indistinguishable from each other? Not at all.Do Gergiev,Salonen, Chailly and Rattle conduct the same way? Absolutely not.Of course old recordings are extremely valuable and fascinating,but the way those musicians from the past is not necessarily the only way to interpret music.
Critics are constantly complaining about the supposdly literal interpretations and alleged lack of individuality of today's classical musicians, yet I wish I had a dollar for every review I have read in recent years in which they were mercilessly lambasted for the liberties they took with the music.
Those same critics would praise musicians from the past for interpreting the music the same way.
There is too much uncritical worship of old recordings,and too much cynical dismissal of today's musicians.Let's face it,there is a double standard.Thank you.Robert Berger,New Rochelle,New York.

I didn't mean to imply that all performers today were carbon copies of each other, and if I did that is my failure. But I did wish to make the point, and still believe it, that the range of interpretive possibilities has narrowed considerably from what it was 50 and 75 years ago, and that is, for me, not a positive development.

Henry

As a musician preparing excerpts for orchestra auditions, it always felt as if there was very little room for interpretation beyond the "standard." Coloring outside of the lines seemed like a death wish - a sure fire way to get kicked out of a preliminary round. I think it would be pretty interesting to ponder how spending so much of one's time trying to fit your music-making into such a mold does when you are free to interpret a work (solo/chamber) as desired.

Well said, Mr. Fogel. The Mengelberg/Concertgebouw Mahler 4th is a great example of what an orchestra of that time could do. I adore the freshness and effortlessness the music seems to have: the musicians don't seem to labor under the weight of a tradition or a practice, they are liberated by it. These recordings inspire me to no end, and I can't imagine what these ensembles must have been like in the hall. The daring and risk taking that took place makes me think that the whole "scene" was much more alive. I'm a student conductor, and the prospect of trying to revive any element of this era's practice is both enticing and daunting... It's very nice to hear that someone else out there, has also been moved by these older recordings. Mengelberg's Tchaickovsky 5th is another riveting recording from this era (the portamento in the second movement is amazing), as is Nikisch's Beethoven 5th with Berlin from 1913...