Ian Crisp ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>Interesting that no-one has commented on my *other* suggested reason for
>the popularity of HIP!!
If your other reason is the desire for novelty, yes, I replied. I think
that you are onto something because we listen to so much music, that after
a while we are attracted to the prospect of hearing favorites in new
guises. In other words, we get a bit jaded.
I think that HIP is fine, and I like many cds issued under its banner.
It just should not be taken as the be all and end all. Suppose that
you like an older non HIP version of something- say Britten's set of the
Brandenberg Concerti. Do you renounce it because it is clearly not HIP?
Do Zander, Harnancourt and Zinman, all HIP in their different ways, make
older highly valued performances of Beethoven Symphonies worthless? And
since HIP clearly is evolving as new research is done and new models of
musical authenticity are adopted, do you toss out your formerly HIP cds?
And what if the research of various authorities does not reach consensus?
That, after all, is the way of research. People use the word "research" as
though it represented a monolithic movement toward THE TRUTH. That is not
always the way it works. For me the moral is that purists are wasting
their time unless they enjoy being purists.
Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University