Soru

The following dual passages discuss the historical performance movement in classical music.

Passage A
The quest for "authentic" historical performance—the practice of playing Baroque and Classical music on period instruments utilizing reconstructed historical stylistic conventions—has fundamentally reshaped modern concert life over the last half-century. Its proponents typically champion this approach as a rigorous, objective restoration, seeking to strip away the thick accretion of 19th-century Romantic indulgences, such as heavy continuous vibrato and massive orchestral forces, to finally reveal the composer’s unvarnished intentions. However, the theoretical foundation of this movement is inherently compromised by epistemological limits. We can neither fully reconstruct the unrecorded performance nuances of the past nor, more crucially, resurrect the historical ear. A contemporary listener inevitably brings a cognitive framework irrevocably saturated with post-tonal harmonics and recorded media, rendering the original psychological and emotional impact of a Beethoven symphony entirely irrecoverable. Yet, acknowledging this fundamental epistemological failure does not invalidate the movement's artistic worth. By demanding leaner textures, brisk tempi, and incisive articulation, the historical performance movement has paradoxically generated a vibrant, distinctly modernist aesthetic. Its true triumph lies not in functioning as an acoustic time machine, but in cultivating an interpretive style that caters seamlessly to contemporary aesthetic preferences for structural transparency and emotional restraint over the perceived interpretive excesses of the preceding era.

Passage B
In evaluating the historical performance movement, musicological critics routinely fixate on the practical impossibility of absolute historical accuracy. They rightly point to the fragmented, often contradictory nature of historical treatises, the physical evolution of acoustic spaces, and the incomplete preservation of early instruments. While these practical criticisms are certainly valid, they overlook a far more profound deception resting at the ideological heart of the enterprise. Performers of early music frequently characterize themselves as neutral vessels, claiming to diligently apply historical rules merely to channel the composer’s uncontaminated voice without interference. This stance implicitly, and erroneously, equates historical distance with interpretive objectivity. In reality, what we recognize today as the "authentic" style is a highly creative, decidedly modern invention. The strict avoidance of tempo fluctuation, the preference for sharp, rhythmic attacks, and the general purging of subjective emotionalism are not immutable historical truths handed down intact; rather, they are deliberate stylistic choices that directly mirror modernism’s broader cultural pivot away from 19th-century Romantic subjectivity. When today’s period-instrument ensembles perform Bach or Handel, they are not recovering a pristine, lost acoustic world. Instead, they are actively projecting contemporary sensibilities—an aversion to sentimentalism and a fetishization of objective clarity—backward onto the historical canon. The illusion of historical fidelity thus merely serves as a convenient intellectual alibi for enacting a thoroughly modern interpretative paradigm.

Based on the passages, the authors share which of the following perspectives regarding the historical performance movement? (Select all that apply)