Philip Peters wrote:

>I always find it difficult to judge recordings/intepretations by
>whether they reflct current research or not.  I think I would miss
>a lot of great musical experiences that way, for example if I
>wouldn't allow myself to *love* Richter's SMP as much as Herreweghe's

In my opinion, there is a matter of "critical mass." After a certain
point, the changes in interpretation become a matter of fashion, and not
something of any objective merit.  Before such a point is reached, the
interpretations are simply not as good.  Making some dead marks on a page
into sound is a big job.  Many of the pioneers have a special quality about
their interpretations, which let them stand as "pioneering" long after
superior musical examples exist.  For instance, the cited Marais recording
by Savall is such a case.  It is perhaps his central early solo recording
(from 1977).  The cited Consort of Musicke example (from 1982) is a
peripheral effort, in comparison to their own discography.

In the case of your Bach example, the situation is totally different.
These musicians knew Bach's music very well, had played it often, and heard
it often.  They had their own sense of it, even if it is not the sense of
musicians today, because they were not trying to recreate it out of nothing
-- out of silence.  They were already reacting to a history of Bach
interpretation.

>I would be interested in hearing opinions on Paul van Nevel's *Lagrimae*

Van Nevel's interpretations have a very deliberate and measured quality
about them which is both their strength and their weakness.  To discuss
these interpretations in any more detail, they would need to involve music
in which I have greater interest.  The inquiry involved music well past
my area of interest, but the questions were straightforward enough that
I could answer them.

Todd McComb
[log in to unmask]