In message <005701be181c$6e740240$5df24e0c@computername>,
Matthew Westphal <[log in to unmask]> writes

>There's no question for those of us who follow early music closely enough to
>be on this list, but I wonder about the broader public (which isn't all THAT
>large, granted) which attends his concerts or listens to his recordings.  I
>don't know what research, if any, he has published in journals, but his
>program notes for his records rarely explain how he comes to the conclusions
>he does or what evidence he bases those conclusions on.   With any given
>program, he tends to simply state the basic assumption from which he
>proceeds as if it were fact (not even really acknowledging that it is an
>assumption)  and carry blithely on from there.
>
Of course, he doesn't always make a "Greek Orthodox" sound, does
he?  The Cistercian Chant record, for example, sounds reasonably
"conventional", and in fact much more conventional than Ensemble
Gilles Binchois usually does.  (Though I assume that EGB would be
considered "historically informed" by more people?)  What exactly is
the nature of Peres' departure from authenticity/HIP?  A few vocal
ornamentations not in the neumes in Old Roman chant?  Is this not
feasible, given that one of the possible explanations for the differences
between Old Roman and the Frankish "Gregorian" version of it, is that
the Roman chant continued to change and develop after a version of it
had already been fixed in the "Gregorian" Frankish kingdom?  And then
there are signs which some believe, even in "Gregorian" suggest that
pitch was not entirely fixed as we now know it...

>
>Very good point.  However, I can't help thinking that HIP performance is
>driving classical sales (in the relevant repertory, at least) in large part
>because THE MUSIC SOUNDS BETTER THAT WAY.  Personal 
>preference, to be sure,
>but a preference most members of this list probably share.

But if they do, that is merely because it has become the convention, and
19th century musical conventions have come under attack not only in
early, but also in popular and 20th century "classical" musics (e.g
Taruskin's comments).  If the music "sounds better that way" to the
people on this list, that cannot be for any absolute reason.  Personally, I
wish people would encourage themselves to be more open in their
tastes.  We may live in an age of musical pluralism, but in the case of
many people it ifteb seems to be a pluralism of remarkably closed
groups.  John Potter's recent book points out that when Rossini first
heard the "modern classical voice", he hated it.  Potter goes on to
suggest that the HIP early music voice and the classical voice are both
variants of each other, and that "early" singing would have sounded
much more ordinary and text oriented, rather than oriented towards
melodic line (amongst other differences).  As for "sounding better",
when I came to make a choice for the purchase of a S. Matthew
Passion, I decided it would be refreshing to go for a large orchestra and
chorus with soloists of the Shirley-Quirk/Pears era.  I'm very pleased
with it!
-- 
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/


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