>>We do [Bach] more honour by finding ways to help his music survive into
>>the future than by fossilising him with our (quite possibly incorrect)
>>ideas about how he wanted his music played for people who are as long
>>dead as he is.
>And how do you propose you do that without honoring what he wrote?
There is no conflict. It is not an either / or situation.
Bach did not write parts for bass and drums, or provide details for the
setup of a Moog synthesiser. I do not think that either Loussier or Carlos
did anything but honour Bach by what they did. They unquestionably brought
new audiences to him, and many of those have gone on to more "original"
We need both approaches. We, and Bach's memory, would be much the poorer
without what those fine musicians did.
If Jocelyn disputes that, then we have an irreconcilable difference, which
IIRC is where we got to last time around. I have great respect for her
tenacity in defending her position, but I think it's wrong because it
excludes so much good music-making.
[log in to unmask]