On 06.09.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Are you saying that a performance of a Bach choral work with original instruments and 2 singers on a part (of a work for which extant performing parts indicate one on a part) should not merit the "historical performance" moniker?
What exactly, is historical about this performance? If you can provide any indication that Bach wanted it with more than one, ok, but if not, I simply cannot see what makes this performance any more "historical" than your down the road church performance.
For me the label "historical performance" should indicate that the performers tried to recreate what Bach had, wanted, or did. Whether we like it or not. There may be compromises, but there would have to be reasons for that. Eg, a reason not to use the church organ for the continuo would be that it is tuned to modern pitch, which makes it pretty useless.
Call me dogmatic if you like, I call it purist, and I think purism to a certain degree is badly needed for "Early Music" today.
Otherwise there is very little difference between what we do and what the Berlin Phil do in their baroque ensemble: modern wind, but gut strings and bows. Played in a more or less modern fashion, yet immitating the "Baroque Sound" which comes to us through Concerto Köln or the likes. It is not historical, it is immitation if anything.
Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
