On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:11 AM, David Tayler wrote: > I do think we have to get away from any idea that one style is better, > or more "authentic", that is the undercurrent that prevents us from > exploring all the possibilities of the instrument, limiting us > somewhat to Historically Blurry Performances.
I think that applies to a good deal of renaissance music, and all 19th- and 20th-century music; but I don't think it applies to Baroque music. IMO to achieve a Historically Focused Performance of Baroque music one needs to understand what it is that makes Baroque music tick. And it's not by ANY means the same as what makes Romantic music tick. Isn't that axiomatic to what the entire early- music movement is all about? The best way to bring out the enchanting, bewitching qualities of the lute, which are after all what makes our music so special, is IMO to be historical, with as few concessions to modernity as possible. There's entirely too much Brahms-In-A-Powdered-Wig out there. I think our job as early-music players is to demonstrate that we can do as well with Historically Informed Performances, if not much, much better, than those who give Historically Oblivious Performances. Strictly my own opinions. I await the flames. David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
