On 6 Sep 2007 at 8:00, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 06.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: > > While I'm all for that, there is a major philosophical problem when > > it comes to the issue of us not being authentic listeners. We simply > > can't hear the music the same as they did, even when we replicate the > > forces of performance as closely as possible. Every performance of > > old music is metaphorically a transcription, I think, and this is > > something we should keep in mind when evaluating historical > > practices. > > > > That is not to say that I don't want to hear the music with > > historical instruments and using historically-informed practices, > > it's just that I know we can never get the same meaning, however > > closely we may try to replicate the mere sounds. > > So what exactly are you saying? Historical instruments yes, but forces > no, because we are not hearing them in the candlelight? Your > argumentation makes no sense to me.
Well, perhaps it doesn't make sense because it isn't what I was arguing. I'm arguing for replicating as much of the original circumstances as we can adduce from the evidence, which means one on a part where it's been demonstrated. But, even with that, the most important part of the equation of the musical experience of the time cannot be replicated, and that's the minds (ears) of the listeners. Because of that, to me the quibbling over 1, 2 or 3 on a part seems minor by comparison. I will grant that 10 on a part is certainly another ball of wax, and something I would never propose (though I certainly wouldn't say that standing organizations with those forces should avoid the repertory, or strictly reduce their forces if they perform it). The point is that there's a major issue that is far more important than how many singers or what instruments you use, and that's the perceptions of human beings. Consider present-day college student with no musical training who has never (knowingly) heard Bach's music: will a well-done performance of a Bach choral work with 20 singers and modern instruments any less accessible than one by Joshua Rifkin's group, with one on a part and early instruments? I think that at that point it's not the instruments/singers that make the difference but what the musicians involved do with the music. Please, let's keep things in perspective here! -- 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
