John Smyth writes:

>I admit, my diving into the HIP argument was a dumb idea, as my
>acquaintance with early music is slim, but the experience did create
>a desire to investigate further--especially since the HIP mov't is
>expanding into periods of music that I like.  And since when is
>questioning devious?

I've mentioned this before, I think, but I am drawn to the "Early Music
Movement" more for the music which is now being performed (and was not
being performed previously) than I am for the new approaches to well-known
works.

I do, however, enjoy the new approaches to well-known works too, at
least in sum, provided that they are indeed new approaches.  I share
some of Chris Bonds' skepticism.  I smell a new orthodoxy coming together,
and whether it is the HIP practitioners fabricating it themselves (or
ourselves?) or not (I'll generally agree with our gracious host, Dave, on
that point) is immaterial when so many random collectors are out hustling
for the "most authentic" rendition.  Yes, I am definitely skeptical, more
so every day.

Give me the least authentic Machaut recording!

>It's been a long time since people *believed* in order to know, as opposed
>to the modern mind, which *does not know* in order to believe.

Of course, that's also a thing to believe.

Todd McComb
[log in to unmask]