Mr. De Silva wrote:

>Chris Bonds wrote:
>
>>Of the motivations of SOME practitioners of HIP.  That they are more
>>interested in being cool and in the know than in the music.  Just an
>>intuition on my part.  I could be wrong.
>
>Chris, this sounds like prejudice.  In any case, HIP folk, in general,
>would probably be just as interested in squelching this attitude among
>their numbers as anyone.  At any rate, they *should* be.  That's the
>only way for HIP to grow up.

I just don't get it at all.  Maybe I'm too dense to understand.  Maybe
I've been secluded far too long to grasp the whole of this thread.  In
any case, would someone PLEASE tell me what the heck is wrong with HIP
performances/performers? It sounds as though most people on this list are
feeling *skeptical* or *suspicious* of HIP in general.  I just don't get
it.  I can remember when I first learned that some people actually play on
authentic Baroque(and other) instruments.  I was quite curious to hear this
different sound.  I LOVED IT!  I didn't say to myself "This is the way it
MUST be!" I just personally liked it very much.  Through trial and error
I have come to know that, when buying early music CD's (a majority of
my collection), HIP is much more satisfying to me.  I still have modern
instrument interpretations of some works and I am quite fond of these
performances.  However, when it comes to early music, I prefer early
instruments.  This is a genuine preference and I am CERTAIN that others
have just as genuine preferences.  Taking this into account, I ask the
question: "Why are people suspicious of the HIP movement?" (and boy do I
EVER HATE hearing it referred to as the HIP "MOVEMENT") I just don't get
it.  I am not suspicious of the modern instrument "movement" or of modern
performers.  I just think music is music and some people, like me, have a
certain taste for authentic instruments.  I, personally, LOVE the Viola da
Gamba much more so than the cello.  I don't think that is such a big deal.
I DO think there is much to be said for authentic instrument performance.
Regardless of whether or not we can be sure that a composer would prefer
modern instruments over the authentic instruments, we can be damn near
certain that Bach used a Lautenwerk or a clavichord and NOT a Steinway.  We
can also be certain that Sylvius Leopold Weiss used a lute but NOT a Yamaha
6-string.  So what's arrogant about stating the facts? I hear "anti-HIP"
people complaining about the arrogance of HIP fans in how they presume to
KNOW a composer's intentions.  I don't presume to KNOW a composer's
intentions but I do know for a fact that Bach never wrote a work saxophone.
I'm also pretty sure John Dowland never wrote a single work for a nylon
string Brazilian guitar.  I don't complain about Bach performed on the
piano, I'm just happy to hear it.  Why can't everyone quit being so
arrogant as to presume to KNOW what a composer would want.  That takes the
fun out of everything.  All we have are the facts.  Couperin wrote for
harpsichord, but if someone plays Couperin on xylophone...then more power
to them!!

--Wes Crone