Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!dep
From: dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Another Mozart query - the Requiem
Message-ID: <3092@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:37:24 EST
Article-I.D.: allegra.3092
Posted: Wed Feb 27 10:37:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 06:27:38 EST
References: <4809@ucbvax.ARPA>, <905@hound.UUCP> <371@stcvax.UUCP> <322@ihu1m.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

<my first job was eating up original instruments>

While I agree that Hogwoods version has much to recommend it, and
while I also am not crazy about shaky sopranos, the characterization
of the singers as "pre-operatic" just doesn't wash.  First, pre-operatic
could only really apply to music before about 1600, when the first
operas appeared.  Second, the singers for Church music had the same
requirements placed on them technically as was required for opera
(in fact, Oratorios in one sense are merely sacred operas - operas
were banned during the lenten season, eg, when oratorios were sung
instead).  Check out the difficulty of some of Mozart's sacred arias
compared to his operatic operas.  Third, I suspect that the standard
performance practices were the same in both genres - the ornamentation,
the singing technique, etc.  How well present day singers capture that
part of the performance is a different matter.  To see the difference,
check out some of the different performances of Handel's Messiah: on
the one hand, you get no ornamentation at all (not at all authentic),
while in some, you get a small flavor of what might have been performed.

The important thing is: does it come off as a convincing performance??

Down with sloppy musicians - Dewayne