I just read a Fanfare review of Bach's WTC performed by harpsichordist Edith Picht-Axenfeld. The reviewer is Christopher Brodersen, and the following comment struck me as pretty stupid:
"I'm always a bit puzzled why harpsichordists should choose to record this music, since (a) there are already a gazillion versions in the catalog, and (b) Bach probably never intended his pedagogical monument for public performance in the first place."
Seems reasonable to me that harpsichordists love to record the WTC because it's the greatest solo harpsichord music ever composed.
Why did he choose to (or not opt out of trying) to review it is beyond me! Even if Bach did not intend this to be performed in the typical sense of the word, doesn't the fact that he [Mr. Broderson] is reviewing a performance lend some credence to the 'musicality' of the work? And if he denies this, then on what basis does he generally review the work??
[All right... I know, I know, this is all obvious, but I just had to get it out.
P.S.: Please don't bring politics in here. Otherwise, I will tell on those who do to Uncle Que