On the issue of parallels in continuo playing, I think it is a good thing that there is a lot of diversity in continuo realization, and a lot of choices.
As far as practical matters, because at a certain point one has to play the stuff, the big issue for me is timing--in a mixed continuo group the lute is alas usually the last one to the bar (and the first to the pub, of course). One can hear this on many recordings quite clearly. So in the end, in the system that I teach, I simplify some of the rules to allow for quicker and smoother shifts. Everyone has to learn all the figures, and for that you need only play the Matthew passion, one Handel OPera and one Rameau opera. Unfigured bass is of course another story. My system is designed with a minimum of parallels, and allows the player to learn a more complicated system with very few parallels after the timing has been resolved. But in the beginning, it is not parallel free. After testing out many solutions, I find that there are certain voicings that work better and quicker, and have fewer parallels. Obviously, if you use moveable chords, you will have parallels. Next I would say that if you can play without parallels, you then have the choice. Also, sometimes a bad doubling is worse than a bad parallel. From a professional point of view, some of the orchestras that I play with would definitely not rehire a player who played parallels, so that is a consideration as well. You would not get a note in the mail :) Other orchestras would neither know nor care. Listening to recordings, the thing that bugs me more than the parallels is the timing, and that frequently the lute and the harpsichord (or harp, organ, etc.) play different chords, although this can be very nice in the case of 5/3 plus 6/3 =6/5/3. I think we are fortunate that although there are some prescriptive systems touted about, at this time we can still play pretty much what we want. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
