Once upon a time I read a book entitled Telling Stories: the Use of Personal Narrative in the Social Sciences. The authors, advocating a decidedly post-modern epistemology, suggest that one must look first to context, accepting a plurality of (personal) truths. Furthermore, you must consider the "truth" of the story in conjunction with the context from which it arises. If one is to look at Stamitz, for example, one can consider his music as his "story," and furthermore, acknowledge its intrinsic truth in that it appropriately represents his historical moment (control! discipline! biopower!). However, this becomes complicated in repeated, historically distant performance. One can liken it to the transformation of oral histories: with each generation, each narrative vessel, the story changes. Based upon the uniqueness of both the recipient and the performer, the content metamorphoses, changing shape to reflect its performance context.
I would contend that this metamorphosis is where resistance, rebellion and reclamation occurs. If we acknowledge the inevitability of this transformation I believe it is possible to perform this music, remain faithful to intent and musical character while creating space for critique. But then the question becomes, how do we do this? I have yet to formulate an answer, but I do have some hunches. For now let me entice you with the following hints: expectation! desire! temporality!