Something I think about often:



There were two great things about the HIP (Historically Informed Performance) movement, when it began. 

- The first and obvious  benefit was the whole wealth of creative options newly opened to the performer by having instruments and ideas in far better alignment with those of those available at the first performance. We heard thoughts from the composer as if a veil had been removed.

- HIP performances were <really> different from the we had been hearing. A new recording of an "old standard" benefited from some of the element of surprise experienced by the first listeners. And of course, in the day of these compositions, music was ALL about novelty, with old styles and compositions quickly fading into obscurity. 



But once HIP becomes "established", how do we create both a compelling expression AND a sense of fresh excitement? Perhaps we sometimes leave out ornaments that we have all come to expect in a familiar work. Perhaps, even, make an entire recording <without> inégales, if the listeners have come to expect it.



I would only ask as a minimum requirement:

- is the performance compelling? 

- is the performer aware of all the creative options open to them?



Bruce Jacobs

Saint Paul





::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-

tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-

versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to

[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::