John Dalmas writes:

>Writing in the NY Times today, Bernard D. Sherman, the author of "Inside
>Early Music: Conversations with Performers," concludes HIP performances
>now have just as much right as their mainstream counterparts to be, well,
>"nothing special."

An excellent distillation.  If only John had stopped there...

>Perhaps, Sherman muses, because period-instrument performers have ceased
>to hold themselves to high standards and because the novelty may have
>worn off, the HIP are no longer expected to be more interesting than the
>mainstream.

Determined to extend his reputation, John once again sticks it out there
only to step on it himself (ouch, that's gotta hurt).

Sherman says nothing of the kind.  Here's the direct quote from the Sherman
article:

   Period-instrument performers were once held to higher standards of
   insight, or at least novelty, than their mainstream colleagues.  When
   they gave a boring Mozart performance, it was taken as evidence that
   their whole enterprise was misguided.  Perhaps the HIP are no longer
   expected to be more interesting than the mainstream.

Notice that this says nothing at all about the standards that
period-instrument performers apply to themselves.  In fact, this is a
concise and insightful observation, highlighting what I believe is a
predictable phase in the natural evolution of a performance tradition.

At first, HIP was seen as a radical fringe.  Then, as HIP began to gain
acceptance, there was the extreme politicalization of the issue, primarily
by the traditionalists seeking to preserve the status quo, eventually
joined by a tiny group of HIP advocates (almost all academics; no major
performer ever took this stance) who wanted to completely displace the
current approach (and it always seemed that the HIP fundamentalists were
vastly outnumbered by the non-HIP fundamentalists, and much more likely to
question the personal artistic integrity of those they wished to discredit
- see below).  Now that the battle is essentially over, we'll start to see
articles claiming it was just a fad.  Whether this is true or not, time
will tell.

In any case, if HIP performances are evaluated using the same standards
as non-HIP performances, that is a good thing.  Holding HIP to a higher
standard has been nothing but unfair, divisive, and more than a little
silly in most instances.

>Sherman then goes on to an analysis of recent HIP recordings of Beethoven's
>9th, comparing them unfavorably to the great 9ths in the recording
>archives, in particular Toscanini's 1952 recording.

Ah, yes, trot out that old tired horse - appropriate tempos for Beethoven's
ninth.  And Sherman has absolutely nothing new to say about it either,
simply quoting the opinions of those he agrees with, and implying that
there is some special authority there that elevates these opinions to
incontrovertible, absolute truth.  Been there, done that, about a thousand
times now.

>HIP junkies, of which I am obviously not one, should read Sherman's article
>as perhaps badly needed "balanced-diet" food for thought.

So, exactly what sort of junkie are you then? This is exactly the type of
nonsense I referred to above.  If someone likes HIP approaches, they must
be under the influence, and their tastes are obviously not under their
control.  Poor, misguided things.  They must be lead to a "balanced-diet",
for they obviously aren't capable of making up their minds for themselves.
Yawn.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/