Johan van Veen writes:

>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.

I'd say it's somewhat more than the last decade, but I would generally
agree that it is a modern phenomenon, much like the idea of historical
performance.  Both ideas had their fringe followers in the past, but
they've really taken off in the present.

>Treatises of the 17th and 18th century are full of prescriptions.

People writing treatises like prescriptions, but that doesn't mean everyone
followed them.  Those treatises are also full of irritation regarding
people who didn't follow the ideas therein.

>I can't see what is wrong with dogmas in itself.

I can't disagree with that, as it is surely a personal thing.  It is the
source of my suspicion, as requested.

>In my view historical evidence should always come first.

In my view music and creativity should come first.  So far, HIP has been a
very creative movement, but the tide may be turning on that point.  It is
the case now that many released recordings have absolutely nothing to offer
me:  They are repertory I know by performers I know, and I can recite them
in my mind without even hearing, because the performers always play the
same way.

Bob Draper writes:

>I still believe that modern peformances are dishonest

Isn't this an example of the sort of remark which lends a suspicious nature
to HIP and its enthusiasts?

>So when the layman in the street says "I like the sound of it" they are
>expressing their right to an opinion.  But exactly what is it they like?
>Unless the performance at least attempts at authenticity we can never be
>sure.

I don't want to disparage an abstract academic interest in the question,
since it can be a potentially illuminating question, but in terms of
developing music and art, how does it matter whether we are "sure" of such
things or not? We have a -- by some standard -- fine expression of music,
so that is clearly a good thing.  Allocating "credit" is secondary.  Maybe
they simply like authenticity.  How might we be sure to distinguish that?

I would agree it can be possible to be disrespectful toward a piece of
music, and in turn toward its composer, but ultimately musicians almost
always use something in some way because they value it, and not to be
disrespectful.

Todd McComb
[log in to unmask]