 |
 |
Richard Wexler suggests questioning the factual basis for any assumptions: >This, it seems to me, is nothing other than good musicology. Rob Wegman also asks: >Why is a musical approach "thoroughly misconceived" when there >appears to be no "evidence to support" it? I think there is no question that disputing all aspects and questioning every assumption is good musicology. But is it good for performance? The answer is "sometimes" and we must ask, given that the two are separate endeavors, whether performance is at the service of musicology or the other way around, or indeed whether either is at the service of either. I suggest that, although the goals of these two disciplines have aligned closely for some time, this is becoming less true. At such a point, cooperation is achieved by understanding what is being attempted in each case, and the onus is on the musicologist to do that understanding. It is not up to the performer, because insisting that the performer be able to explain himself is counter-productive to art. Todd McComb [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%