I like it, but what is it?

says...

I'm sure Vadim will appreciate *that* suggestion....

Really?

Have you been look the other way while Margaret has written her stuff about Bach and various types of keyboard instrument? She has certainly come pretty close to 'This is not the way Bach meant it to be.'

Alas, I despise the HIP sound along with its ideology, sensibility and vocabulary. (By the way, with HIP pitch being A=43? instead of A=440, it would never sound as brilliant and jazzy anyway.) It isn't just 'faster'. It is played by two of the most sophisticated instrumentalists ever to front orchestral sections under one of the most sophisticated (if austere) conductors, but I like a 'distorted' sound picture of their efforts, i.e., not the sound of how they actually played (or how the music was written). Hence my connundrum...

Yes, but you don't have perfect pitch and couldn't tell the difference. Much more important, the relative rhythmic and pitch relationships are preserved even in the sharp transfer. I'd say that it's above all Mozart that gets you.

-david gable

following letters to be typed in

Actually, it's pretty good. Just let the open can or bottle sit until the fizz has gone away, pour the contents into a saucepan, and *gently* heat until it's warm like tea.

A branch of modern textual criticism has indeed done this. Fortunately most of the rest of the world grasps the fundamental insight at the core of this notion without abandoning all common sense. There was a man Mozart and we may not know his 'intentions,' but we know the music he wrote, and that's what the guy likes. It's not a matter of indifference. It's not a piece by somebody else or a different piece by Mozart that he likes, it's a specific piece by Mozart.

He most certainly was. Nobody exists in a vaccum and artworks are the products of traditions as well as individuals. Mozart would not have written in the style he did if he were an Eskimo or if he had been born during the Renaissance. Mozart and the tradition of which he is a part lead to the existence of certain definable products. They are not part of a single vast anonymous and author-less network of music or 'text.' They sound like their period and his style.

-david gable

(I got disconnected while posting reply, so if this appears twice, my appologies.) I'd like to think so, but I'm not sure. After all, I like Roy Lichtenstein's 'Picasso' paintings (his reworking of well-known Picasso works in a dotted comic book style), but I don't think it is Picasso that 'above all gets me' in these works. (I don't claim that the analogy is perfect, but I think it suggests a reason for my hesitation.)

I was counting on it.

John Thomas