Hi,
>Jon said: > > >>I totally disagree with your premise. The form of the instrument may >>drive >>the way it is played, but the music drives the player. >> >> >And David Rastall replied: > >I'm sorry to sound so obtuse, Jon, but I'm not aware of operating on >any one particular premise. > I've noticed that Jon seems to underestimate the possible importance of the instrument in affecting how the music is played. I'm not a guitar player so I can't really speak to the lute - guitar differences, but I've spent over 30 years years playing the piano and the harpsichord. The playing and interpreting of Bach on either of these instruments is enormously different from playing on the other one. What one listens for and how one achieves what one does - and even the underlying style is completely different. And some other harpsichord music really can't be played on the piano or vice versa. The Fitzwilliam book sounds extremely boring to me on the piano and who wants to hear Debussy on the harpsichord. The notes of the music are not the only thing. I'd love to read a thread (hopefully without too much political heat) exploring the differences between the lute and guitar. >>Jon said: >> >> I find the thrust of >>the messages on this list to be rather narrow in the conception of >>music >> >> > >And David replied: > >Well, I guess our "interest in music" is just as valid as anyone >else's, Jon. Bear in mind that being focussed on a particular area of >interest and study, and being narrow-minded, are not the same thing. > >David Rastall > > I also find Jon's occasional jibes at the members of this list as being narrow-minded, and dogmatic to be polarizing. There is breadth and depth issues here. Many members of this list are interested in depth rather than breadth (although this is certainly not universal), and to suggest one is more "right" than the other is akin to religious bickering. Jon appears to be a breadth fundamentalist. Tim Kuntz --
