Tim Mahon writes:

>My point is, should we necessarily disregard another cycle of hoary
>old favorites merely because it doesn't 'fit' what seems to be a
>recent trend towards favoring HIP? Is there nothing new to be heard
>in interpretations which do not follow the growing (lowing?) herd? And
>if a group of compositions are relegated to history because they're not
>historically correct enough, do we risk ignoring a part of history simply
>because it doesn't fit the current PC definition? After all -- we got to
>the current version of interpretations etc.  through evolution from the
>originals -- and that's a historical development, right?

But this is absolutely true.  My understanding of the HIP approach is that
it attempts to put into practice all the knowledge that has been discovered
or ignored over the years.  The so-called modern performances of today
have indeed come about through an evolution of the originals.  There must
be room for both approaches.  I can't help thinking, though, that the
evolution has stopped somewhere along the line.  Otherwise, perhaps HIP
wouldn't be quite as pervasive.  I don't know; is HIP merely a continuation
of the evolution I'm missing or is it a fork in the road?

Eric James