On 5 Sep 2007 at 7:45, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 05.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: > > I'm only pointing out the weaknesses in interpretation of evidence > > that come from making claims about what was never there based on what > > is now there. > > Yes, but the whole theory is based on _much_ _much_ more than that. Only > you haven't read it.
I've read parts of Rifkin's case, especially the basic arguments he put forth up until about 10 years ago (when I lost touch with the controversy). Here's a free clue: I don't object to the revival of performance of Bach's choral music one on a part. What I object to is the idea of righteous purity that pervades the utterances of those who seem so convinced of the rightness of their holy crusade. Frankly, all the groups I've performed music of this period on have always performed one on a part (or with one or two of the parts doubled), simply because of practical necessity. We made no claims to historical authenticity -- we were just trying to get the music performed with the forces we had. Yet, the mere suggestion that Bach was doing the same thing seems to be treated as heresy by those devoted to the crusade. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
