Mats Norrman replies to me:

>I must take standpoint for Jocelyn Wangs side, and vouch for the repeats.
>"Finding ways to help hios music survive into the future" - that I take as
>we shall only play Vivaldi like Puccini again.

Why "only"? Play him (a) in as historically authentic a way as possible,
and (b) in whatever way seems most likely to generate a positive aesthetic
experience in a modern audience, which will probably lead some of the
audience members to take an interest in (a).  I don't want to hear Vivaldi
played like Puccini, but only because as far as I'm concerned this reveals
nothing about Vivaldi.  If others prefer him that way, fine - as long as
they are also able to hear him played other ways, and are therefore able to
realise that there may be better ways.

>But I say:  Shall we put up crayfishlights in neon colors on the
>pyramids to make them look like New York just to make them survive
>in the metropolisjungle?

If it were necessary to their survival - yes, although not willingly.  But
it isn't.

>...the value of an historic artwork lies just in that is can remain a
>withnesses of its time.

Not *the* value.  Part of the value.  It's a big important difference.

>So let us take engineering as example:  The Efesus temple of the Hanging
>Gardens or which wonder you want can be said to have been works of great
>artistic value.  If you were about to recontruct the Hanging Gardens,
>would you put up electric light in it? Street lamps? Cola machines?

Yes to all of them and worse, if doing so meant that people would come the
New Hanging Gardens and they would not otherwise.  But once they had come,
I would like to be able to turn the lights off and hide the Coke machines
for a while, so that people could get closer to what the original once may
have been like.

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]