John Dalmas:

>>Perhaps, Sherman muses, because period-instrument performers have ceased
>to hold themselves to high standards and because the novelty may have
>worn off, the HIP are no longer expected to be more interesting than
>the mainstream.

Steven Schwartz comments on this:

>Oh, I don't know.  Any time I hear a condemnation of an entire approach,
>genre, composer, period, and so forth, I tend to think that the denouncer
>either hasn't heard nearly enough to judge or is simply crying about how
>much he hates spinach and that spinach should no longer be grown.

I can certainly understand why Steven Schwartz objects to the statements
ascribed to me.  But let me confirm Dave Lampson by noting that I never
actually said them.  I did argue that period performance is no longer being
held to *higher* standards than the mainstream, and that this represents an
increased acceptance of HIP performance as something normal.  But I never
said a word about performers "ceasing to hold themselves to high
standards."

>But, at any rate, his statement that period instrumentalists no longer
>hold themselves to high standards is laughable on its face.

I agree-- and, again, that's why I didn't say it.  In fact, I praised the
professionalism and polish of Herreweghe's band, and I said it's fully
equal to the standards of "mainstream" modern-instrument orchestras.
Again, I can very much understand why Steven objects to the statements
mistakenly ascribed to me.

>Even his "analysis" of various recordings of the 9th show nothing more
>than that he likes Toscanini, rather than showing how HIP has led to a
>deterioration of standards.  Frankly, on the level of sheer playing (rather
>than interpretation or overall performance), the major HIP groups blow the
>NBC Symphony away, precisely because instrumental technique has risen over
>the decades.

Well, once again, I never said that the NBC Symphony, a problematic
bunch, could equal Herreweghe's group, or for that matter Gardiner's (I
fully agree with Steven in this regard).  But Toscanini's interpretation,
to my ears, is far more interesting than Herreweghe's, and I gave some
particulars of why.  My reasons are certainly arguable, of course--as
are all such preferences-- but they are given in specific terms.  (By the
way, I also praised Brueggen and esp.  Harnoncourt and Mackerras in the
Ninth--so no, this wasn't a blanket put-down of historically informed
performance or an exaltation of recordings from the vault.)

For anyone who would like to read the piece, by the way, it's available at
my website,

   http://www.kdsi.net/~sherman

I'm not sure it's appropriate for a writer to comment like this, especially
since I'm not a subscriber on the list (Brad Leissa kindly forwarded the
exchange to me)--but thanks for letting me do so anyway.

Bernard Sherman