This is something I strongly disagree! Roman said that "EM revival in general was a reaction to this type of (neo)modernism". I do not know, if Roman refers to 20's, 30's, 60's or 70's by the "EM revival", but in any of these cases I cannot see any reaction to "(neo)modernism". What I CAN see (at least in cases of 60's and 70's) is a reaction against the established style of making the 150th version of Beethoven's 5th - every time tuning the strings a little it higher... Or all the 1000's of cases playing Bach by piano or by symphony orchestra... At least in my experience the persons who preferred EM to the "establishment" were just the same who also enjoyed the modern music.
Another matter is (luckily!) that nowadays our "EM" aesthetics are a "must", if you want to perform music of "Bach and before". But I still wait they'll do also Sibelius (et al.) in the "HIP" manner, in the way he heard it. That still is definitely not the case. Arto On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:25:46 -0400, David Rastall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 4, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Roman Turovsky wrote: > >> EM revival in general was a reaction to this type of (neo)modernism. > > In that context, anything is possible. I knew a college professor > back in the day who was a composer. He called his work "radical-neo- > post-diatonicism." The weird thing was that he was deadly serious > about it. That's really how he wanted to be known! I have enough > trouble with Charles Mouton, without having to contend with neo-styro- > HIP. > > Best, > > David Rastall > [email protected] > www.rastallmusic.com > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
