On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:46, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: > > I would agree with this, that they have not by any means been "put > > to rest", but I think they've been severely damaged, at least in > > regard to Rifkin's most vehement claim, that the surviving parts > > could only have been used for one-on-a-part performances. Without > > that, there wasn't much controversial in Rifkin's original thesis. > > They were damaged unjustly, and there has since been a lot of research > by many others which shows that Rifkin was absolutely correct in his > assumption. Again, Andrew Parrot sums it up, read it.
I don't have his book, so I can't immediately read it. But there is a problem with interpretation of the evidence here. If you're conveying Parrot's case correctly, he's giving the surviving sources more weight than they can bear. > If you get a chance I would recommend you to hear Joshua's lecture, it > is extremely powerful evidence, and I am pretty sure you would > understand why I fight for him so strongly. Um, I heard his lecture in 1985. I made the same objections in the question session after the lecture that I've made here. Rifkin has never addressed them sufficiently so far as I'm aware. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
