I still continue to be amused at those who opine that the great composers
would "naturally" (my quotes) have preferred the richer sounds of "modern"
instruments, rather than those wheezy/scratchy/whiney catgutted, valveless,
keyless, and hammerless old squeezeboxes that they wrote for.

Of course, these modern folk say that we can't "know" what those composers
would have preferred, but that doesn't stop them from making the assertion
nonetheless.

All this supposes, of course, that we have chosen to arrest any future
development of the instruments in question, or for that manner any
instruments now used to play classical music.  But if we are going to play
time travel games in one direction, t'other is fair game, dontcha think?
So who's to say that those same great dead old composers wouldn't just as
soon leapfrog over our present era of "homogenized instruments played with
vibrato poured over them like ketchup on fries" (my quotes again) because
they REALLY prefer the electronic gizmos in the next century that will
perfectly express their music--much better than today's old wheezy/whiney/
scratchy end-pinned, metal stringed, chin-rested, felt-hammered,
clackety-clacky newfangled squeezeboxes?

So I for now withdraw from this tired old battle, with (once again) no
ground gained on either side, and no prisoners taken.

Bill H.  (an ancient type, nonetheless listening to the Goldbergs on a
modern grand piano as he types this)