Len Fehskens wrote:

>Bernard Chasen writes, in response to my observation/query:
>
>>Suppose that a skilled artist painted something in the style of Van Gogh,
>>but did not claim authenticity.  I do not think that such a work would be
>>taken seriously, nor should it.
>
>Why? The painting is either good or it isn't.  What does its provenance
>have to do with its value as art? I can see what it would have to do with
>its value as a collectible, but I don't believe those are the same thing.

I like this analogy between music and art.  Let me put another proposition
to you.  Would like to you touch up the Mono Lisa with brighter colours?
Perhaps we could make Van Gough's lines a bit smoother.  Or, sharpen up
a Turner.

Of course such ideas are anathema to most people.  So why do we touch
up classical music Haydn/Mozart/Bach etc by playing it on modern less
astringent instruments or with larger ensembles? Why do people tolerate
this? Isn't this sacrilige?

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]