Re: Period vs Modern instruments?

Sightreader wrote:
> 
> "Nightingale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Why this preference for newer rather than older?  Change is not
> > necessarily progress or improvement.  Can you even really say one is
> > better?  It depends what you are looking for.
> 
> I'm always in favor of increased variety.  I would never
> advocate a halt in period playing and technology research.
> But if there is a way to incorporate the advantages of more
> modern instruments without losing the subtleties of the
> composer's writing, I think it's worth experimenting with.  I
> certainly don't see the use in refusing to entertain such
> research, especially if existing period and modern playing
> approaches are not comprimised in the process.
> 
> Right now it seems that people are stuck at an impasse,
> one side arguing for modern instruments, others arguing
> for period instruments.  Why can't instruments be built
> to bridge the gap rather than forcing a choice between
> one extreme or the other?  Can instruments with modern
> capabilities be made to bring out the period characteristics
> that composers were exploiting?

Why don't you address Nightingale's example of the "short octave" at the
bottom of the keyboard, that made possible playing intervals that cannot
be played on a modern keyboard instrument?

"Progress" isn't necessarily always best.

There's a huge literature in historiography on the notion of progress --
have a look at it.
-- 
Peter T. Daniels                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]