# Scholarly bias against non-HIP recordings (Bach)?



## flamencosketches

Didn't know where else to put this so I decided to start this thread about it...

If you look at the following discography on Wikipedia for Bach's B minor Mass...:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_B_minor_discography#Table

I found this to be quite funny, but they highlight the recordings made by symphony orchestras with large choirs in red, as if to say, "wrong, wrong, wrong". Chamber orchestra and chorus recordings have no highlighting, as if to say "not objectionable, but we ain't there just yet". Only HIP and OVPP recordings are given the green highlight.

Knowing as we all do the significant of these colors ie. in the context of traffic lights, this seems to suggest a bias. This is on Wikipedia, supposed to be an objective source, and I'm sure it represents a general feeling of the times in the Bach community.

I hope some others find this as amusing as I do. What do you think? Are you a HIP/OVPP purist for Bach's music, the Hohe Messe or otherwise?


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm not sure the colours mean anything. I am not a HIP purist and there are some pre-HIP recordings of Bach that I love - but I don't think I would want to explore a non-HIP Bach CD if it came from after 1980. But there are exceptions, particularly now that HIP lessons have been absorbed by most musicians, and I found the Abbado (of all people!) Brandenburgs to be excellent. For the Mass, though, I have heard (and own) so many and tend now to be only interested in adding small scale performances to these. I also find the big massed choirs with modern orchestra recordings a little lacking in grit - perhaps enjoyable but not the full deal. It is like the Bach piano concertos - they are lovely but kinda in a "comfort food" way while the same works as harpsichord concertos seem to go deeper for me.

Of course, there is nothing scholarly about my preferences but as a listener I was convinced in the early days of HIP (Harnoncourt, Leonhardt and others) ... perhaps more than I became when HIP performances started to all sound the same.


----------



## Manxfeeder

flamencosketches said:


> I found this to be quite funny, but they highlight the recordings made by symphony orchestras with large choirs in red, as if to say, "wrong, wrong, wrong". Chamber orchestra and chorus recordings have no highlighting, as if to say "not objectionable, but we ain't there just yet". Only HIP and OVPP recordings are given the green highlight.


I didn't know Wikipedia was considered scholarly.


----------



## JAS

Manxfeeder said:


> I didn't know Wikipedia was considered scholarly.


It often depends on the article. In theory, Wikipedia entries are intended to be based on documented sources, and generally is at least as scholarly as most traditional encyclopedia entries, with the added advantage of being longer and affording more detail to topics that would usually get short or no entries in a printed source. My usual stricture is that, like any encyclopedia, it is a good starting place, and anything that can be verified or pursued with other research should be.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure the colours mean anything. I am not a HIP purist and there are some pre-HIP recordings of Bach that I love - but I don't think I would want to explore a non-HIP Bach CD if it came from after 1980. But there are exceptions, particularly now that HIP lessons have been absorbed by most musicians, and I found the Abbado (of all people!) Brandenburgs to be excellent. For the Mass, though, I have heard (and own) so many and tend now to be only interested in adding small scale performances to these. I also find the big massed choirs with modern orchestra recordings a little lacking in grit - perhaps enjoyable but not the full deal. It is like the Bach piano concertos - they are lovely but kinda in a "comfort food" way while the same works as harpsichord concertos seem to go deeper for me.
> 
> Of course, there is nothing scholarly about my preferences but as a listener I was convinced in the early days of HIP (Harnoncourt, Leonhardt and others) ... perhaps more than I became when HIP performances started to all sound the same.


If they don't mean anything, why use them at all?

W/r/t your preferences, I think I would agree that it'd take some push for me to check out a non-HIP Bach recording post-1980. That being said, I'm not sure that the likes of Klemperer or Karl Richter lack grit in comparison with many of the HIP guys.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ The colours differentiate between different categories but the colours may have been chosen randomly. The red is a little too pink to be a STOP sign!

I grew up with Richter's Mass. Actually, I really don't mind if I never hear it again!


----------



## BobBrines

Wikipedia list entries without links are entered in black. Entries with links are in blue. Entries that have links but the links are known to broken are in red. There is zero editorializing in the color of list entries. Apparently you have set your browser to show live links in green.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think it’s just a color code - non-HIP in red, HIP in green is how it shows up for me.


----------



## Manxfeeder

JAS said:


> It often depends on the article.


I know. Just a poor attempt at humor.


----------



## flamencosketches

BobBrines said:


> Wikipedia list entries without links are entered in black. Entries with links are in blue. Entries that have links but the links are known to broken are in red. There is zero editorializing in the color of list entries. Apparently you have set your browser to show live links in green.


... No, this is not what I mean. I'm not talking about the links, but the table. (Live links for me are blue). Demonstration:









Further demonstration of the editorial intent of the color choices:









Hope this illustrates what I'm talking about more clearly since you apparently did not click the link in OP. I've been a Wikipedia junkie most of my young life, you don't need to explain anything to me 

Anyway, coincidence or not, I found it humorous.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes well Bach played à la Richter is a travesty and it's right to warn the public against listening to them and thinking they're hearing Bach as the composer intended. Of course some people prefer a travesty to the truth, but that's neither here nor there. If it were me, I'd have relegated them to a footnote of a footnote. And no one could ever accuse me of being scholarly!

But my real reason for posting is that your point reminds me of recent scandal in a British chain of shops called Marks and Spencer, over their naming of bras

M&S APOLOGISES FOR 'RACIST' BRA NAMES AND SAYS 'WE HAVE MORE TO LEARN'

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/marks-and-spencer-racist-bra-apology-colour-a9667931.html


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

'Kusi Kimani was shopping in one of the retailer's stores when she noticed how the lighter bras were all named after sweet treats and desserts.

The dark-coloured bra, however, was named "tobacco".

"Why not call it cocoa, caramel or chocolate - sweet dessert items? But they used tobacco. Tobacco is referred to in society as bad, unhealthy, and highly likely to kill - 'smoking kills'." I was shocked when I saw it."'

As regards tobacco and sweet treats, it would seem that M&S is caught between a gasper and a hard candy.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Yes well Bach played à la Richter is a travesty and it's right to warn the public against listening to them and thinking they're hearing Bach as the composer intended. Of course some people prefer a travesty to the truth, but that's neither here nor there. If it were me, I'd have relegated them to a footnote of a footnote. And no one could ever accuse me of being scholarly!
> 
> But my real reason for posting is that your point reminds me of recent scandal in a British chain of shops called Marks and Spencer, over their naming of bras
> 
> M&S APOLOGISES FOR 'RACIST' BRA NAMES AND SAYS 'WE HAVE MORE TO LEARN'
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/marks-and-spencer-racist-bra-apology-colour-a9667931.html


:lol: Well, I appreciate the honesty. But I'm not sure if I see the connection.


----------



## Ad Astra

flamencosketches said:


> Didn't know where else to put this so I decided to start this thread about it...
> 
> If you look at the following discography on Wikipedia for Bach's B minor Mass...:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_B_minor_discography#Table
> 
> I found this to be quite funny, but they highlight the recordings made by symphony orchestras with large choirs in red, as if to say, "wrong, wrong, wrong". Chamber orchestra and chorus recordings have no highlighting, as if to say "not objectionable, but we ain't there just yet". Only HIP and OVPP recordings are given the green highlight.
> 
> Knowing as we all do the significant of these colors ie. in the context of traffic lights, this seems to suggest a bias. This is on Wikipedia, supposed to be an objective source, and I'm sure it represents a general feeling of the times in the Bach community.
> 
> I hope some others find this as amusing as I do. What do you think? Are you a HIP/OVPP purist for Bach's music, the Hohe Messe or otherwise?


I help maintain Wikipedia's articles on Bach. I will certainly enquire if the colour coding means anything but I doubt it. I will let you know if I get a response from anyone.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ad Astra said:


> I help maintain Wikipedia's articles on Bach. I will certainly enquire if the colour coding means anything but I doubt it. I will let you know if I get a response from anyone.


It means something to anyone who lives in a country with traffic lights, intentional or otherwise


----------



## Ad Astra

flamencosketches said:


> It means something to anyone who lives in a country with traffic lights, intentional or otherwise


True however I don't think those colours would have been chosen to deliberately imply anything. This is the standard colours we use for when an article is being edited. It is possible this was left that way out of laziness. I have sent a DM to one of the senior Admins for clarification. It is 50/50 if I will get a reply this century or not though.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ad Astra said:


> True however I don't think those colours would have been chosen to deliberately imply anything. This is the standard colours we use for when an article is being edited. It is possible this was left that way out of laziness. I have sent a DM to one of the senior Admins for clarification. It is 50/50 if I will get a reply this century or not though.


Aw, you didn't have to do all that. My OP was not altogether serious. Even if not deliberate (which given what you've said is most likely the case), it does seem to give off that impression-to me, anyway. Thus far I haven't gotten a single reply in agreement.


----------



## premont

If you only look for discographies of Bach works the Bach Cantatas webside offers much more information than Wiki. It is of course not without deficiencies and errors, but good as a starting point.

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/


----------



## JAS

One problem with any color based system is that color blindness is very common, especially red/green blindness. (Many people have to work out traffic lights by position and watching other cars)


----------



## Ad Astra

flamencosketches said:


> Aw, you didn't have to do all that. My OP was not altogether serious. Even if not deliberate (which given what you've said is most likely the case), it does seem to give off that impression-to me, anyway. Thus far I haven't gotten a single reply in agreement.


It is fine honestly. I am always logged into my account it only takes a few seconds to DM.



JAS said:


> One problem with any color based system is that color blindness is very common, especially red/green blindness. (Many people have to work out traffic lights by position and watching other cars)


I thought you could not drive - you'd fail the test - if you were colourblind?


----------



## flamencosketches

Ad Astra said:


> It is fine honestly. I am always logged into my account it only takes a few seconds to DM.
> 
> I thought you could not drive - you'd fail the test - if you were colourblind?


That's not the case in the US, anyway. It's so common, 1 in 12 males, that it would rule out tons of people, perhaps unfairly.


----------



## science

I suppose there'd be nothing wrong with choosing less obviously biased colors. Light blue and yellow would work just as well.


----------



## isorhythm

Totally unclear what those colors are supposed to mean - "Bach" as a type of choir and orchestra (???) is also red, as is "boys," which Bach likely used. Seems like someone went live with a rough draft of this spreadsheet.

While we're on the subject, though, all those revered old Bach recordings with symphony orchestras are unlistenable, barely even music.


----------



## JAS

Ad Astra said:


> It is fine honestly. I am always logged into my account it only takes a few seconds to DM.
> 
> I thought you could not drive - you'd fail the test - if you were colourblind?


I have known people who are colorblind who drive. I will ask one.


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> Totally unclear what those colors are supposed to mean - "Bach" as a type of choir and orchestra (???) is also red, as is "boys," which Bach likely used. Seems like someone went live with a rough draft of this spreadsheet.
> 
> While we're on the subject, though, all those revered old Bach recordings with symphony orchestras are unlistenable, barely even music.


Offhand, I think I have often seen red on Wikipedia when something is marked as a link but there is no link for it. Why it would be marked as a link is a mystery, although it might be that someone intends to make such an entry, or that there was one that got purged (as happens from time to time).


----------



## Coach G

I see the colors as pastel and not threatening approval or disapproval, one way or the other. I like Bach recordings HIP and un-HIP. I go more by the feel or the level of enthusiasm and reverence I get from the recording than by the conductor's attempt to make it sound "as Bach wanted it to sound."


----------



## JAS

Ad Astra said:


> I thought you could not drive - you'd fail the test - if you were colourblind?


I am told that it is not part of any test. He has never had an issue with getting his license to drive.


----------



## science

isorhythm said:


> While we're on the subject, though, all those revered old Bach recordings with symphony orchestras are unlistenable, barely even music.


Generally, I would rather listen to Mozart than to Bach, but I would rather listen to Klemperer's Bach than to Gardiner's Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

science said:


> Generally, I would rather listen to Mozart than to Bach, but I would rather listen to Klemperer's Bach than to Gardiner's Mozart.


If you listen to Klemperer's Bach it's a good reason why you prefer other music


----------



## Logos

Romanticization of Bach is itself a tradition that goes back to the early 19th century. That gives it some 200 years of "authenticity"--whatever that means.


----------



## science

DavidA said:


> If you listen to Klemperer's Bach it's a good reason why you prefer other music


I would rather listen to Klemperer's Bach than to most other music!


----------



## Guest

You are suggesting there's such a thing as 'scholarly bias'. Go and wash your mouth out with soap for suggesting such a thing!!


----------



## EdwardBast

Years ago Richard Taruskin published an interesting article in the NY Times arts section about HIP versus modern performances of Bach and others. His twist was to suggest that the preference for HIP recordings today (actually the late 1990s or whenever he wrote it) likely owes more to the influence of modern orchestral music and sound ideals, ala Stravinsky, than to any actual historically informed values — that HIP performance is really imposing a modern sound ideal on old music. I'm not offering an opinion on Taruskin's argument, just saying it is original and thought provoking.


----------



## premont

Of course, there is some truth in Taruskin's thoughts, but I find it strange that he presents his thoughts in a very sensation-hungry way, as if nobody had nourished such thoughts before.


----------



## EdwardBast

premont said:


> Of course, there is some truth in Taruskin's thoughts, but I find it strange that he presents his thoughts in a very sensation-hungry way, as if nobody had nourished such thoughts before.


Did anyone put that in writing before he did? (I have no idea.)


----------



## Logos

Taruskin's article, 'The Spin Doctors of Early Music': https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/29/arts/the-spin-doctors-of-early-music.html

_"The lightness of Early Music inheres in its very sounds - the period instruments, the countertenor voices, the small forces. For the high value placed on small forces there is no historical evidence, but there is a distinguished 20th-century (''Neo-Classical'') literature for chamber orchestra, to which the Classical literature now conforms. The same ideal has recently been responsible for the resolute trivialization of some notable monuments of Germanic profundity, like the B minor Mass and the Choral Symphony.

We can't stand the sublime anymore, perhaps with good reason. (We know something the 19th century didn't know: namely, where Wagner led.) Do we need a fence around our good taste, not to say our moral purity? Then no German is above suspicion, not even Bach or Beethoven. If we are unwilling to give up their masterworks altogether, Early Music can render them handily innocuous. That may be a valid and necessary cultural critique, but it is not history."_


----------



## Marc

To me, apart from some truthful stuff in Taruskin's article, the above mentioned conclusion is utter [censored].

The music of f.i. Mahler and Shostakovich, with its huge forces, has never been more popular. Its universal popularity began to rise during the same period as the rise of the HIP movement. What does that mean about "our" changes in taste and appreciation?

So, when Taruskin's talking about "we can't stand the sublime anymore...", he's making already 2 big mistakes, if not blunders, in my humble opinion.

1. There is no "we". There are still plenty of people who, at the same time, appreciate counter-tenors in Bach, dramatic sopranos in Verdi or Wagner, and extremely loud rock music with an insane guitar sound and screaming singers.
2. 'Sublime' is not the same as 'grand' or 'big' or 'large'. Bach's Brandenburg Concertos are or can be sublime, no matter how large the forces that play it.

And what is he blabbering about "the resolute trivialization of some notable monuments of Germanic profundity, like the B minor Mass and the Choral Symphony"? That's just a plain subjective opinion. There is no modern conductor or performer, no matter HIP of non-HIP influenced, who has ever claimed that his/her goal was to trivialize those awesome works.

For the rest... I actually should not be here. After around 70 years of quarelling between "pro-HIP versus non-HIP", with the perpetual return of the same ole boring arguments, I'm getting a bit fed up with it. And I have not even reached the tender age of 70 myself. 

There is as much bias from non-HIPsters towards HIP as the other way around. 
I prefer to listen and draw my own conclusions about what I like.
And, personally, I find much more 'sublime' performances of Bach and other Baroque music in 'HIP' related performances than in 'sublime' forces playing Bach in non-HIP style. I was around 12/13 years old when I came to this (very personal) conclusion. But, apparently, I was part of a huge movement that does not appreciate 'sublime' anymore.

Utter [censored].

Oh, and btw, Early Music is not about 'lightness'. It's mostly about a different way of expression, which is no longer based on 19th century ideals of expression, affect and effect. Many of these are better suited with smaller, less 'sublime' ensembles.

What was Bach doing when he performed his works in the Thomaskirche or the Café Zimmermann? 
Resolutely trivializing his own work, and that of his contemporaries?


----------



## Logos

There is an earlier meaning of 'sublime' (grand, exalted, excellent) and a later that Burke described: "Whatever is in any sort terrible or is conversant about terrible objects or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime" as is that which is "dark, uncertain, and confused". It seems to me that this latter meaning was more present to the author's mind. We find much sublimity of grandeur in baroque music, but this grandeur is not exactly that of terror, and so it fails to conform to the late Enlightenment (or early romantic) notion of the sublime. In this sense, Weber's Wolf's Glen scene or Wagner's Flying Dutchman overture is more sublime than a Bach concerto.

There may be some in the authenticity movement who appreciate romantic music, but when you have important conductors like Gardiner expressing great disdain for Wagner it tends to confirm the stereotype that HIP is anti-teutonic, anti-romantic, and (unconciously) modernist in rejecting the the type of sublimity I outlined above:

_'I really loathe Wagner - everything he stands for - and I don't even like his music very much.'_


----------



## premont

EdwardBast said:


> Did anyone put that in writing before he did? (I have no idea.)


As I understand him [Taruskin], his "sensational" main thesis is, that we never fully shall be able to recreate the performance style of earlier times (from before phonographic reproduction), and that our attempts at it are governed by our own modern aesthetics. This is a self-evident thought that even I have had - and before I read Taruskin. You only need to listen to Helmut Walcha to get that thought.


----------



## Marc

Logos said:


> There is an earlier meaning of 'sublime' (grand, exalted, excellent) and a later that Burke described: "Whatever is in any sort terrible or is conversant about terrible objects or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime" as is that which is "dark, uncertain, and confused". It seems to me that this latter meaning was more present to the author's mind. We find much sublimity of grandeur in baroque music, but this grandeur is not exactly that of terror, and so it fails to conform to the late Enlightenment (or early romantic) notion of the sublime. In this sense, Weber's Wolf's Glen scene or Wagner's Flying Dutchman overture is more sublime than a Bach concerto.
> 
> There may be some in the authenticity movement who appreciate romantic music, but when you have important conductors like Gardiner expressing great disdain for Wagner it tends to confirm the stereotype that HIP is anti-teutonic, anti-romantic, and (unconciously) modernist in rejecting the the type of sublimity I outlined above:
> 
> _'I really loathe Wagner - everything he stands for - and I don't even like his music very much.'_


Yes, but it seems that Taruskin wants to tell us that the Gardiner POV is the ruling POV in (classical) music. If that were true, then Bayreuth would have had much more difficulties to sell tickets in the period 1950-2000.

Besides that, I'm convinced that there were already loads of people who did not like Wagner and his aesthetics longs before the rise of the HIP movement. Not liking this kind of 'sublime' music is not just a product of 'our' times, it's a product of different views upon music, art, expression aesthetics, philosophy and all those things, and those different views not just turned up because of the influence of a certain HIP movement.

Taruskin's article was/is, no doubt, thought provoking, but his conclusions about 'our' times are, imho, way over the top and way too one-sided.

Actually, to me, the 2nd half of the 20th century wasn't like a one movement or one aesthetics period at all. It was actually a period where almost anything was possible and could be accepted. Which makes it much more of a manifestation of post-modernism, and post-modernism is an extremely difficult 'movement' to define in just one NY Times article.


----------



## Logos

Marc said:


> Yes, but it seems that Taruskin wants to tell us that the Gardiner POV is the ruling POV in (classical) music. If that were true, then Bayreuth would have had much more difficulties to sell tickets in the period 1950-2000.


Is the typical patron of Bayreuth reflective of the ruling point-of-view in classical music as a whole? And considering the kind of artistic views that Regietheater productions tend to attract, it seems unlikely that the contemporary Bayreuth patron or "Friend" holds aesthetic opinions favorable towards pure romanticism (that is to say, actual Wagnerism). One's fondness for Wagner might be the very cause of one's reluctance to support contemporary Bayreuth in any way. On the other hand, an anti-sublime impulse to manipulate, co-opt, or "reform" Wagner's works and their stagings into something more suitable to contemporary sensibilities or motives might induce one to finance those same productions. In other words, the ticket buyers might just as easily be taken as indicators of anti-romanticism as of pro.

Certainly, there have always been reactions against romantic art, but the mid to late 20th century was a period when the reaction had waxed great. Is it merely a coincidence that the HIP movement emerged at this point? Did the author state that HIP had caused this anti-sublime impulse? My interpretation was that he saw it as only one symptom of pervasive anti-romanticism throughout the decades since the World Wars.


----------



## Eric Zamir

I see your point. There is a not-so-subtle judgment call there, which goes along with the "travesty" and "warning" post on this thread. Wikipedia is severely biased - not institutionally, but because it is subject to individual editing decisions that are biased. As a Wikipedia editor, I often find myself making small but significant changes to fix those "little" things.
As for the substance of the thread, it's really hard to judge what Bach's intentions were, because he wasn't presented with the option. For example, Bogdanovich had the option of shooting "Last Picture Show" in color, but chose B&W. Bach didn't have another option, so he used what there was. One could argue that he would have been pleased by modern instruments.
Having "grown up" with the 1958 Richter recording like many others of my generation, I went back over the past six months of covid, and listened to something like 25 different recordings of the St. Matthew Passion, from the '50's to the 2000's - I didn't find much after 2002 or so - the market seems saturated.
If one is to look at criteria of "feeling" and "virtuosity" and cohesiveness, and pace, or "spirituality" then there are many "modern" recordings that are amazing, and many HIP that are trite or boring. Again, this is totally subjective, so putting "Stop" and "Go" colors is a not-so-subtle bias.
BTW, even Richter's recording is "historically informed" if you look at the brochure, he added a bunch of period instruments to the ensemble. Schreier's recording is not HIP, but is really enjoyable, as is Rilling's 1994 version with Quasthoff. On the other hand, Harnoncourt and Gardiner's HIP versions are also. 
So why pass judgment?


----------



## Eric Zamir

premont said:


> As I understand him [Taruskin], his "sensational" main thesis is, that we never fully shall be able to recreate the performance style of earlier times (from before phonographic reproduction), and that our attempts at it are governed by our own modern aesthetics. This is a self-evident thought that even I have had - and before I read Taruskin. You only need to listen to Helmut Walcha to get that thought.


Excellent point!!!!


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

I am a proud proponent of HUP!-Historically Uninformed Performance. Ok, I am mostly kidding, I think it is interesting to do scholarly research about how music was performed in the past and see how it can be applied. I like Baroque music with less vibrato, for instance. I like to hear a harpsichord continuo in Haydn as it has better balance and resonance than a piano. But the idea of "finding out the composer's intent" is misguided. Who knows what Bach intended. Maybe he intended a choir of angels to sing his B Minor Mass. Maybe he wanted the apostles to rise from the dead to sing the parts in his Passions. We get into crazy conversations like "Would Beethoven use natural horns or modern horns if he were alive today?" None of should inquire into the mental states of composers. The idea that HIP is the "correct" way is wrong. Learning historical information is helpful _only_ insofar as it makes the music better. Now it can often do this, but then historical information our "learning the composers intent" is _purely pragmatic._ Our only obligation is to perform music in the best way possible. I think this means that the sudden resurgence of pianoforte recordings is wrongheaded. Of course, some people like the character of them better, and that's perfectly valid, but performers have no obligation to perform "authentically"-musical works are not museum artifacts. I quite agree with Taruskin. If we take a Wittgensteinian understanding of aesthetics, HIP is changing the context and meaning, and thus our aesthetic reaction, by creating a special way of performing early music. Taruskin is a little extreme, but there _is_ a real current of anti-romanticism that exists still today, even if we don't call it that. Ligeti wrote frequently about how he hated "neo-Bergianism" and expressionism, and Glenn Gould's written diatribes against Chopin are frequently discussed. There's a real sense that music used to be purer, and in some ways I can't disagree, but we must not take this to mean that we have some strange obligation to the past.


----------



## Bulldog

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> There's a real sense that music used to be purer, and in some ways I can't disagree, but we must not take this to mean that we have some strange obligation to the past.


Some folks just don't get it. Those of us who prefer period instrument performances do so because we enjoy the music more that way.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Bulldog said:


> Some folks just don't get it. Those of us who prefer period instrument performances do so because we enjoy the music more that way.


I think that was his point; that you should listen to HIP if you enjoy it, but not out of a sense of "duty" to make it "correct." I enjoy performances from polar-opposite sides of the spectrum but don't care a fig about modern notions of "correctness." Just like how I read classic novels because I legitimately like to read them, not because everyone says I should.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

> you should listen to HIP if you enjoy it, but not out of a sense of "duty" to make it "correct."


Yes, exactly. We should just strive to make music in the best way possible according to the limits of our own taste and sensibility. But the idea we have some sort of "duty" to replicate 17th century conditions is just ideology. I have great respect for HIP, but just in the ways it improves how we hear music; save authenticity for food!


----------

