[gnulinux]

Just a nitpick but blanket statements like this are highly misleading. "European" musical traditions are not concerned with rhythm any less than "African" traditions. European musical theory historically focused on harmony more so than rhythm which has the side-effect of vernacular developing more a robust vocabulary for harmony.

The reason this distinction matters is because I think its important to understand that not only European musical traditions will have equivalent rhythmic complexity but also other musical traditions will have equivalent harmonic complexity. Just because we don't have a great model of other musical traditions' harmony, does not mean they lack harmony. And vice versa. E.g. during Baroque era although temporal information was rarely denoted on paper (any more than 3 time, 4 time, tempo etc) musicians performing these pieces had to express a certain understanding of rhythm. Pieces were never played like MIDI, they always had rhythmic nuances.

[dotancohen]

And this seems to be completely lost today. Go listen to the Furtwrangler recordings, then listen to any modern arrangement. The modern arrangements are so precise, as if a computer is reading the scores. But the 1940s recordings are so full of life and vigor, it sounds like a different piece. And it is so much fun to listen to, even if the recording quality is atrocious by today's standards.

Karajan might have been the last of the conductors that I enjoy like listening to. His fifth changes pace but it feels so natural. The slow parts are drawn out were they need to be, but the fast parts just grab you and drag you along. There was no notation for that, it took interpretation. And he could get all the instruments to open the piece together. Even Berenbaum couldn't get his players to open the piece properly, at least not those that I could find on Youtube.

Thought there is one young guy on Youtube who does a terrific job conducting, I should go find that.