I cannot resist making some more remarks on this subject.  My
apologies if they are getting tiresome.

First, I don't think there is any question that Ensemble Organum's
interpretations are not "authentic" in many cases, and so I have
started from this position to examine what value they may have
aside from "historical education" (which I see as the inherent goal
of "authenticity" per se).  This education has done a great service
for "music as art" and so these two forces usually align, for now.

That said, I must disagree at least partly with the point of Peter
Niedermueller that "authenticity sells."  Yes, the "authentic" (or
"HIP" as we now say in English) performances are driving classical
sales.  But is it because they are proclaimed to be authentic?  I
think not.  I suggest that it is because they are new, and that
"authentic" has become a convenient label for "new in this way."
When such things are no longer new, ah, then it gets interesting!

Hence my remarks on Ensemble Organum jumping into this "post-authentic"
phase early, although I am quite certain there will be much more of
this....

A further set of remarks on "HIP" i.e. "Historically Informed
Performance":

We have taken to saying "HIP" so as to avoid the connotations of
"authentic" and suggesting that other performance traditions are
"inauthentic."  There is perhaps an implication that, once "informed,"
someone will proceed in a certain way, yes?  I would suggest that
Peres is "informed" and so is an example of a real divergence in
the concepts of "HIP" and "authenticity" in a way perhaps not
intended by the original substitution of terms.

Ah well, aesthetic theory is my bread & butter... I hope my remarks
are easily accessible in other languages.

Regards,

Todd McComb
[log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%