John Dalmas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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

As opposed to modern interpretation junkies, I guess.  Labels are so
useless.

Wes Crone <[log in to unmask]> responds:

>I'm not in agreeance with this train of thought.  In my opinion........
>there have always been poor sounding HIP performers just as there have
>always been poor sounding "modern" orchestras.

So true.  When it comes to performance of earlier music from the early
80s and on up, intonation from HIP types is often actually better than it
is when many modern players go at it.  Both styles work for me, except that
some used to modern styles will mask poor intonation by vibrating the tone
to cover a range of half a note under and half a note over.

When some have attempted straight tone for emphasis it's become clear that
they were not used to honing in on the center of the pitch, gone lazy with
not having to.

>The King's Consort and Fretwork are 2 of my favorites.  They are never
>faulty or without drive(or so it seems to me).

Palladian Ensemble's another one.

>...  at any rate....I do agree that there are certainly some HIP groups
>that don't really live up to the standard set by other greats.....but
>this is really true with almost everything we know of classical music in
>general.

Exactly.

Andrys Basten <[log in to unmask]>
http://www.andrys.com