Philip Peters wrote: >I always find it difficult to judge recordings/intepretations by >whether they reflct current research or not. I think I would miss >a lot of great musical experiences that way, for example if I >wouldn't allow myself to *love* Richter's SMP as much as Herreweghe's In my opinion, there is a matter of "critical mass." After a certain point, the changes in interpretation become a matter of fashion, and not something of any objective merit. Before such a point is reached, the interpretations are simply not as good. Making some dead marks on a page into sound is a big job. Many of the pioneers have a special quality about their interpretations, which let them stand as "pioneering" long after superior musical examples exist. For instance, the cited Marais recording by Savall is such a case. It is perhaps his central early solo recording (from 1977). The cited Consort of Musicke example (from 1982) is a peripheral effort, in comparison to their own discography. In the case of your Bach example, the situation is totally different. These musicians knew Bach's music very well, had played it often, and heard it often. They had their own sense of it, even if it is not the sense of musicians today, because they were not trying to recreate it out of nothing -- out of silence. They were already reacting to a history of Bach interpretation. >I would be interested in hearing opinions on Paul van Nevel's *Lagrimae* Van Nevel's interpretations have a very deliberate and measured quality about them which is both their strength and their weakness. To discuss these interpretations in any more detail, they would need to involve music in which I have greater interest. The inquiry involved music well past my area of interest, but the questions were straightforward enough that I could answer them. Todd McComb [log in to unmask]