Stirling replies to me: >>This is, as far as I'm concerned, a red herring. It's ultimately not >>about the instruments or faithfulness, folks. It's about the musical >>result. I've got nothing for or against HIP in itself. Some performances >>I like, others I don't. I'd never say that Kodaly on a baroque cello >>was a priori wrong. I'd have to hear it first, and then I'd have to be >>convinced that the poor result was due to the choice of instrument, rather >>than to the player. In the context of Frank Fogliati's post, to which I responded, I simply meant that I wouldn't like or hate a performance simply because it was HIP or not HIP. Therefore, most of Stirling's reply to me is accurate, but irrelevant. >In otherwords, do not assume simply because a work is "modern" >that the way we play it "now" is correct. I wouldn't think of it. In fact, I agree with you. However, I would also say that "correct" means less than "vital." >HIP isn't a red herring, it is an approach, and at the heart of this >approach is questioning one's biases and practices, and comparing them >to documentary sources. Absolutely agreed. But the *insistance* upon HIP or "current common practice" is indeed an aesthetic red herring. I don't deny that HIP can reveal something previously unknown or long buried in a score. But I do deny that it's the only way to do this. And, fortunately, I find myself in agreement with most of the leading practitioners of HIP. Steve Schwartz