Stirling replies to me:

>>This is, as far as I'm concerned, a red herring.  It's ultimately not
>>about the instruments or faithfulness, folks.  It's about the musical
>>result.  I've got nothing for or against HIP in itself.  Some performances
>>I like, others I don't.  I'd never say that Kodaly on a baroque cello
>>was a priori wrong.  I'd have to hear it first, and then I'd have to be
>>convinced that the poor result was due to the choice of instrument, rather
>>than to the player.

In the context of Frank Fogliati's post, to which I responded, I simply
meant that I wouldn't like or hate a performance simply because it was HIP
or not HIP.

Therefore, most of Stirling's reply to me is accurate, but irrelevant.

>In otherwords, do not assume simply because a work is "modern"
>that the way we play it "now" is correct.

I wouldn't think of it.  In fact, I agree with you.  However, I would also
say that "correct" means less than "vital."

>HIP isn't a red herring, it is an approach, and at the heart of this
>approach is questioning one's biases and practices, and comparing them
>to documentary sources.

Absolutely agreed.  But the *insistance* upon HIP or "current common
practice" is indeed an aesthetic red herring.  I don't deny that HIP can
reveal something previously unknown or long buried in a score.  But I do
deny that it's the only way to do this.  And, fortunately, I find myself
in agreement with most of the leading practitioners of HIP.

Steve Schwartz