I think if you had a genre that was called authentic, pure, literate, etc, for say, Jazz, you might annoy some people but most people would ignore you. If you said, hey that's not REALLY Jazz to someone after a concert, well, some more people might get annoyed. I think if you went to a rock concert and told everyone they were using the wrong strings and amp tube filaments you definitely would not be taken too seriously, but I bet there are some HIP beebop guitarists out there, or Django reconstructionists. And yes Hard Rock implies that it is well, harder. I'd add "heavy metal" to your list, BTW. The difference with "informed" is that there isn't really a "sort of" informed, whereas you can have classical rock, etc. It sounds a bit elitist to me as well, the whole informed thing. People already use the word purist to resist crossover forms, but I think most people would agree that there is a difference between that and "soulless". As far a New Age, I think it does imply that it is a new age, lierally, just as Ars Nova did in the late middle ages and Nouvelle Cuisine did here in California--people were saying, hey this is new, novel, newer. Obviously, some of these terms amplify or qualify rather than contrast, Hard Rock is harder, but Rock is still Rock Hard; emo may have more emotion, not invent emotion; heavy metal is still metal, it's just heavy, not a slurpie. I'm not sure I understand the one about Gospel, but since Gospel in Old English means "good news", a genre called "bad news" might be fun to listen to, especially if combined with "old age".
But the classical world is different. We raise funds, hold gala dinners, wear tails. Maybe we need some soul baroque. I still think the term Historically Informed Performance does not reflect well upon the movement. It's just an opinion, nothing more. Historically Inspired Performance seems better--more alive. I like Early Music because I grew up with it, and the magazine is one of the few classy mags left. I hope they don't change the name--it's terriffic. I think anyone who wants to use it should feel free to use it, I think we could find something better, and even if we can't, Historical Performance is marginally better, and on grammatical terra forma for sure. dt At 06:50 PM 3/27/2010, you wrote: >Dear David, > >If you are so worried about the feeling of "modern(ist) performers" >then you must dislike many "genre" names. > >Soul - does that imply all other music is soulless? >Hard rock - anything under that level of rock just softies...? >True metal - all other metal is false metal? >Nu Metal - all other "new metal" is in fact "old metal"? >Gospel - does that mean that it is the only way to portray a certain >religious creed musically ? >New Age - does that make everything before it old age music? >Romantic - everything else is cold hearted? >Chill Out - The only way to relax? >Cross-over - all other music is purist? >emo - all other music is devoid of emotion >indie - does that mean all other artists are unquestioning zombies > >I think all the users of these terms gain quite a bit of bite by using them. > >But the one advantage you have is that the concept of HIP is >absolutely unknown to 99.999999% of the world in contrast to most of >the above terms, so not worth losing sleep about..... > >All the best >Mark > >On Mar 28, 2010, at 12:59 AM, David Tayler wrote: > > > I think the thing I dislike the most is the automatic implication of > > modern performers as uninformed. > > Historical performance has less of a bite in that regard. > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
