Submitted by Christopher Greenleaf, Mar 23, 2007 14:43

Benjaminn Ivry's masterfully written article is doubtless useful to those still not quite in touch with the work of Thüringen's great son, and yet this reader - who speaks only from his own point of view - finds a principal aspect of the piece frustrating. Blanche Moyse and Arthur Grumiaux are deeply insightful interpreters who succeed in infecting collaborators and listeners with the passion and commitment they bring to the scores they perform. Karl Richter? Well, he is serious and abundantly documented. The tone and the focus of Mr. Ivry's writing tend to sweep one along in the assumption that these three-decade-old sonic documents are definitive. It is not just that the concept of a definitive interpretation of the works of a great composer is something of a bête noire when discussed, heatedly or fervently, among broadly experienced listeners, or that tastes and preferences evolve. Rather, it is the slightly astonishing fact that Mr. Ivry glides slickly over the extent to which interpretation, scholarship, instrumentation, and vocal style have grown organically and, generally, in profundity in the thirty years since the days he cites. I cherish my Grumiaux Bach as cordially as I do Clara Haskil's Schubert sonatas and Elaine Greenfield's revelatory Debussy Préludes. But I also revel in the new timbral sheen, depth of insight, and emotional intensity which Masaaki Suzuki, Wm. Christie, and Angela Hewitt - to name only a diverse trio of top-flight contemporary interpreters imbued with all that recent decades have taught us - have brought to their extensively documented work in the field. Why discount these recent enrichments of our understanding of Bach (& early colleagues) by ignoring them in such a globally pitched article as Mr. Ivry's? One's taste may indeed hold the engaged and moving perfrmances of earlier generations to be exceptional, perhaps even definitive for one's own purposes, but it is curious to see insightful, revelatory musicianship of our own time implicity discounted in silence. The following discussion is, of course, not germane to the above. Still, the authority with which we approach authenticity, affect, and emotional power depends to a considerable extent, I would suggest, on the depth our our familiarity with as much of the field as it is in our power to be, and THAT establishes context. Every writer brings different degrees of commitment to the academic or interpretational background of his subject, as well as to the conclusions he/she elects to submit to an editor. My point, illustrated with one area of contention much more plagued by opinion & misinformed assertion than most in this field, is that a reasonably full overview of the battlefield makes one's assertions more credible. I submit that ignoring modern interpretations of "main" works familiar in numerous performances by earlier generations serves neither the reader nor, ultimately, the author's point of view. To my example. We have known for decades that there is not just one Baroque pitch (a = 415Hz), one diapason throughout the Classical era (a = 430Hz), and one modern level (a = 440Hz). In Paris and Pistoia, between 1600 and 1725, for example, tuning pitches are known to have ranged from an astonishingly low of 385Hz to an equally surprising high standard of 465Hz, depending on the wealth of the church or court involved, whether or not wars & blockades isolated one's kingdom from Cornwall (only good source of crucial tin, for organ pipes & instrument components), and the often madly fraught musical politics of the day. It is merely our pragmatic contemporary convention that has wedded performers & their instruments to the pitches noted at the start of this paragraph. Of late, one's choice of a performance pitch reflects not only one's desire to favor certain vocal ranges, but also the practical availability of winds & brass capable of playing at those pitches. Too, there is sometimes a camp one wishes to be seen to adhere to in nailing one's battle pennant to a given pitch. To the average audience member and even to many orchestral musicians, though, all this is rather irrelevant - unless the context of the choice of diapason (or continuo make-up, or of a male vs. a female alto, or of 16-foot vs. 8-foot continuo, etc.) is known to as many as care to learn of it. Be they numerous or not, they deserve to be given all the gen. Lacking the context of performances of our time and their wondrous wealth of moving, deeply felt approaches, Mr. Ivry's article does not convince me of his point, whatever it may be. Nor, indeed, does his(or the title-writing editor's) assertion that any of the works he catalogues are unknown hold water. For me. Perhaps for other readers, as well. Others' thoughts on this, please? Christopher Greenleaf Avondale, RI

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.