home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsi!gadfly
- From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
- Newsgroups: rec.music.early
- Subject: Ethics and the early musician
- Keywords: Performance, obligations
- Message-ID: <1993Jan27.194918.1871@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 19:49:18 GMT
- Organization: AT&T
- Lines: 30
-
- Has anybody read the latest issue of _Historical Performance_
- (EMA's journal)? There are a series of letters about the
- issues arising from performance of pre-Classical vocal pieces
- whose text is, in the context of any modern mores, blatantly
- bigoted (usually virulently anti-Semitic).
-
- Must one remain absolutely true to the manuscript, or may one
- Bowdlerize it? If the former, do the performers have any
- obligation to discuss the offending work or passages, either
- in the program notes or live, on stage, after the concert?
- If the latter, does this border on censorship, or is it just
- following in the revisionist tradition of history, practiced
- even by the Catholic Church, which has often been the greatest
- offender? Will the same reasoning apply to both an obscure
- counter-Reformationist motet and the St. John Passion?
-
- As I read through the arguments, including a very eloquent
- one by Richard Taruskin (who will always go out of his way to
- indict purists), I found myself becoming uneasy with all
- positions on this question. I attribute this to being essentially
- unclear about the ultimate purpose of historical musical perfor-
- mance and thus the ultimate obligations of the performer.
- Discussion?
-
- *** ***
- Ken Perlow ***** *****
- 27 Jan 93 ****** ****** 8 Pluviose An CCI
- ***** ***** gadfly@ihspc.att.com
- ** ** ** **
- ...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
-