Todd Michel McComb wrote:

>Wes Crone writes:
>
>>Why are people suspicious of the HIP movement?
>
>As I attempted to describe previously, I perceive a certain dogma
>creeping in around the edges, especially from many casual listeners who
>seem to be building up ideas on how music "must" be.  Anything which starts
>to delineate how much *must* be is a negative influence, in my mind, and
>although HIP does not do this of its essence, the discussions necessarily
>linked to it seem to foster the idea among more artistically and
>philosophically naive individuals.  Ironically, the ultimate "naive"
>idea, i.e.  "I just like the way it sounds," suits me just fine.

It seems to me that the aversion against dogmas and against the idea that
something *must* is very modern and typical for the last decade of our
century.  In earlier times people were not so afraid of prescriptions.
Treatises of the 17th and 18th century are full of prescriptions.  Let's
not forget that music was considered to be a science in those days.
I can't see what is wrong with dogmas in itself.  At least for me an
"argument" like "it sounds fine to me" is never convincing.  In my view
historical evidence should always come first.

Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
[log in to unmask]