If it's still about ''French trill'', I'd insist -- it's ''ours
trill'', however long would be someone's explanations and
justifications.
Therefore the HIP performance is always ''modern'' or ''currant'' or
''today'' (without going into the present day entangled terminology).
In a way the Early Music World permanently tamper or fake the truth
about the performance practice -- which is in reality inaccessible
after 200 or 400 years -- everyday only pleasing our eclectic notion
what ''was'' good at certain time.
Once, 30 or 50 or 70 years ago, it was a ''modern'' revolutionary
approach (then ''modern music'', just based on old scores) in
opposition to a ''traditional'', evolutionary or conservative
attitude (however reaching for new scores)... Today it is largely
commercialized and we are not asked what it is.
Another side. So called ''sources'', copies of instruments, strings,
etc. are very atractive gadgets of strong historical foundation. But
judges are we! The same people who by iPods.
Every year musicologists are bringing up a new crap on which they've
been working for years and building their PhDs (Musicology seams very
afirmative). Is it realy all what has patine worth playing? Is the
''old music'' synonymous to ''good music'' ...without you super-
active and creative participation? Today.
Have you ever uncovered, after some ''deconstruction'' work, that a
familiar gem is not such a jewel, as you were taught for years. Is
every French Menuet or entire Kellner or the so called ''early
Weiss'' from, say, Harrah MS, or half of Falckenhagen or... (you name
what) really worth your time, or it's only an atractive historical
cookie for verbal mill?
So let's be honest? Is the early music old or new music?
And what are the implications?
J
________
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
