Music Lane

It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Maybe so, but "inferior" implies different

Posted by rbolaw on January 10, 2017 at 16:43:45:
However welcome the improvements to 17th and 18th and early 19th instruments may have been, they did bring about a different sound, sometimes vastly different. And many of the changes were spurred by the need for louder instruments capable of enough volume to fill larger venues, rather than just better intonation, flexibility or ease of playing, though all those come into play too as you correctly point out.

I don't think any intelligent, open-minded musician or listener would reject modern instruments as a bad thing. But I also think that a well-done recreation of the original sound can be worthwhile and enjoyable to hear. Of course, the goal must always be musical worth first and historical authenticity a distant second. And I don't mean to imply more modern instruments or approaches must be replaced by something more "authentic". There's plenty of room for all sorts of approaches.