The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[prémont]

I couldn't agree more with that. The HIP movement has opened a new (not old) means of interpretation that has greatly enriched our choices of hearing the works we love.

To H**l with Taruskin. The HIP movement is to a very large extent based upon historical and philological studies.

This does not prevent me from enjoying Taruskins polemics, but I can not take him that seriously.

[prémont]

In the bold bit you prioritise understanding the score. But what about the rest? -- the performance practices which the composer would have taken for granted when he wrote the score for example? Why is making music about performing what the composer had printed, rather than all the other things he would have expected?

Yes, it is not so much a question of understanding the score (even if they thought so in the 1960es), but even a matter of understanding the style, aestetics and affect of the music.

[jlaurson]

(=ordentliche Fortgehen = non legato) becomes either too much legato or a strange and cocmpletely inappropiate accented staccato.

how did you get the idea that "ordentliches Forgehen" means non-legato? It means legato (i.e. standard play, without slurring, as opposed to spiccato or staccato.). (As per Marpurg, who afaik created the phrase for organ playing. No?)

To H**l with Taruskin. The HIP movement is to a very large extent based upon historical and philological studies.

Your first reaction is very telling (same happened to Schweitzer when he wrote about Jesus, I believe), the second is, well, DUH.
No one doubts the studies or their veracity. It's just that their part of a larger context the rhymes with "self-predicting prophecy".

[prémont]

how did you get the idea that "ordentliches Forgehen" means non-legato? It means legato. (As per Marpurg, who afaik created the phrase)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, it was Marpung (1755) who wrote about this. I quote the English translation in Donington´s The interpretation of early music:

Opposed to legato as well as to staccato is the ordinary movement (ordentliche Fortgehen) which consists in lifting the finger from the last key shortly before touching the next note. This ordinary movement which is always understood is never indicated.

Your first reaction is very telling (same happened to Schweitzer when he wrote about Jesus, I believe), the second is, well, DUH.
No one doubts the studies or their veracity. It's just that their part of a larger context the rhymes with "self-predicting prophecy".

The picture of old performance practice was pieced together from many different sources, and its validity should be self understood. This is the way historians use to understand the past. There is no self-predicting prophecy in that.

[mc ukrneal]

I'm sympathetic to your conclusion, but I don't follow your argument.

In the bold bit you prioritise understanding the score. But what about the rest? -- the performance practices which the composer would have taken for granted when he wrote the score for example? Why is making music about performing what the composer had printed, rather than all the other things he would have expected?

And of course,  when Haydn writes Violin in a score he's intending a certain type of instrument, with a certain type of bow, stings and  bridge. In exactly the same way as he intends a certain note value when he writes a crotchet.  You seem to be prioritising some aspects of "understanding the score" over others.

Of course you can have very fun performances of (eg) AoF on saxophone -- performances which make your spine tingle and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. No one would argue with that. Lots of people really get off on The Swingle Singers. I love to hear the Goldbergs on guitar.  But it's a different point.

I think you're begging the interesting question, which is: is "getting close to the spirit of the music" an act of making a performance now in line with what the composer would have expected to hear then?

Your response slipped through and now I have too many responses!

You ask some good questions. I think part of the problem is that we don't know exactly what they expected and what they would think about the 'progress' that has been made since they wrote what they wrote. But even if we set this aside, I don't really see it as not making a priority of the instument (or PI), but rather taking it out of the equation as a top priority. It is one of many considerations.

As to the last question, possibly. When I listen, I am not usually thinking about this. Is this what PI people think about when they listen to a piece? In any case, I would give the artist(s) some freedom to maneuver. Even the composers themselves often re-wrote parts for all sorts of reasons. So this is not cut and dried either.

[mc ukrneal]

Here I disagree. The aestetics of the music is closely connected to its spirit. Anyone who has heard Lars Ulrik Mortensens recordings of Buxtehudes harpsichord music (Naxos) on a meantone tuned period harpsichord copy will know what I mean.

I've not heard this. But then, I don't really know much Buxtehudes, so not really clear what you want to say here.

[jlaurson]

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, it was Marpung (1755) who wrote about this. I quote the English translation in Donington´s The interpretation of early music:

Opposed to legato as well as to staccato is the ordinary movement (ordentliches Fortgehen) which consists in lifting the finger from the last key shortly before touching the next note. This ordinary movement which is always understood is never indicated.


The picture of old performance practice was pieced together from many different sources, and its validity should be self understood. This is the way historians use to understand the past. There is no self-predicting prophecy in that.

The translation could be faulted -- since he said "opposed to slurring" (schleiffen), not opposed to "legato" -- though in Marpurg one could consider schleiffen to by synonymous with legato. But from secondary source (Lohman et al.) it can be presumed that he was talking about Legato as understood then... and it is largely the understanding of "legato" that has changed between then and now.

Nicht unerwähnt bleiben sollte die Tatsache, daß auch etliche ( vor allem frühere ) Quellen beim Legatospiel von kleinen Trennungen zwischen den Tönen sprechen , um die Deutlichkeit zu verbessern (ordentliches Fortgehen )

Pere Engramelle 16.Jh. : Alle Noten Setzen sich aus zwei grundlegenden Teilen zusammen, dem Anschlag und der Pause. Beide zusammen ergeben den vollen Notenwert... Sie müssen bei der Notierung sehr genau eingehalten werden. So muß nicht nur der Wert des klingenden Teils der Note angegeben werden, sondern auch die Pause...Ohne diese Pausen wäre die Wirkung nur schlecht, ähnlich jener des Dudelsacks, dessen auffälligster Fehler ist, daß er keine Artikulation hat.

Diese Anmerkung hatte durchaus auch für das Legato seine Bedeutung. Das kurze Absetzen vor der nächsten Note war durchaus üblich. ( ordentliches Fortgehen. Marpurg  : Sowohl dem Schleiffen alsauch dem Abstoßen ist das ordentliche Fortgehen entgegen gesetzt... )

Die Begriffe ,,singend" oder ,,cantabel" werden zwar im 18.Jh. mit einer dichten Artikulation in  Verbindung gebracht, aber nicht zwingend mit dem , was wir heute unter Legato verstehen.

[Mandryka]

.
From my point of view it is the other way round. Modern instruments have a different (and stylistically unwanted) potential of expression than period instruments, particularily concerning dynamics and touch. Add to this the nowadays generally accepted pitch and tuning for modern instruments, quite different from the situation some centuries ago.

I do not say, that all performers succomb to the temptation, but many do. And the comparatively slow action of e.g. a modern piano makes it almost impossible to execute the delicate nuances of articulation on a piano which a harpsichord allows. This means that even  the HIP orientated performers have to compromise about articulation, and the "normal harpsichord touch" (=ordentliches Fortgehen = non legato) becomes either too much legato or a strange and cocmpletely inappropiate accented staccato. A good friend recently gave me Ivo Pogorelich´s (piano-) recording of Bach´s 2. and 3.  English suites, and he plays much of these (Preludes, Gavotte, Gigue) with an unvaried all to short and accented staccato. He is a good example of unlearned playing possible on a piano (succumbing to the above mentioned temptation) since he tends to suppress the polyphonic character of the music by stressing the upper part almost consequently - quite unmusical in these ears.

I see this and I follow  you 100% for keyboard. I just don't fully understand it for strings, for Haydn quartets  It's just that  I'm more familiar with keyboard performances really -- that's all. 

One thing you have helped me to see, premont, is just how deep these questions go -- right to some very fundamental aesthetic issues, I would say, about what music is, what performance is. And the issues raised go well beyond Bach, they impinge on all performance of composed music. Even Chopin 


Oh by the way -- I'm thoroughly enjoying Dmitry Badiarov's Cello Suites -- Good find, premont. The instrument is unbelievably colourful -- it's amazing the sonorities he gets (towards the end of the prelude to Suite 2 for example). And I love the way there's such a variety of feeling there, each suite feels emotionally distinct, more variety of feeling than even Casals maybe. Thanks for mentioning it.

[prémont]

I see this and I follow  you 100% for keyboard. I just don't fully understand it for strings, for Haydn quartets  It's just that  I'm more familiar with keyboard performances really -- that's all. 

The reason why I choose keyboard as an example is in short, that I am much more familiar with keyboard technique, having played different keybord instruments myself. I am less familiar with string playing technique, but I think I can hear similar different aestetic traits in different schools of string playing.

One thing you have helped me to see, premont, is just how deep these questions go -- right to some very fundamental aesthetic issues, I would say, about what music is, what performance is. And the issues raised go well beyond Bach, they impinge on all performance of composed music. Even Chopin 

Completely agreed. 

[prémont]

The translation could be faulted -- since he said "opposed to slurring" (schleiffen), not opposed to "legato" -- though in Marpurg one could consider schleiffen to by synonymous. But from secondary source (Lohman et al.) it can be presumed that he was talking about Legato as understood then... and it is largely the understanding of "legato" that has changed between then and now.

Marpung explains "schleiffen" in this way:

Schleiffen aber heisset, den Finger von der vorhergehenden Note nicht eher aufheben, als bis man die folgende berühret.

Sounds like tied notes = legato to me. As far as I can see the term "schleiffen" is used preferably when only two notes are tied, the first being "strong" and the second "weak".

Whatever "ordentliche Fortgehen" (Obs: no s in the end of ordentliche in the facsimile of Marpungs text I quote from - even there you are vrong) is opposed to "schleiffen" or opposed to "legato" it has got to mean non legato, even if a rather tight non legato, like the way you articulate on a wind instrument, when you tongue every note. So every note should be preceded by an ultra short pause, just enough time to allow every note to be articulated individually. It is this kind of articulation which is very difficult to realise on a piano especially in fast tempo, due to the slow key action.

[prémont]

how did you get the idea that "ordentliches Forgehen"

ordentliche Fortgehen. 

[jlaurson]

Whatever "ordentliche Fortgehen" (Obs: no s in the end of ordentliche in the facsimile of Marpungs text I quote from - even there you are vrong)

You're petty which is annoying, and wrong because you don't take cases into consideration. Try not to correct native speakers unless you are certain you're right... and don't consider facsimile prints of 17th century texts as the be-all-end-all in proper grammar. (Though without an "s" could very well be correct depending on how it is used in a sentence... just not if you don't precede it by a "das".

...is opposed to "schleiffen" or opposed to "legato" it has got to mean non legato, even if a rather tight non legato, like the way you articulate on a wind instrument, when you tongue every note. So every note should be preceded by an ultra short pause, just enough time to allow every note to be articulated individually.

Which is what legato was, then. But then you're evidently not interest in learning something or even accepting another (informed) point if it means you have to concede a point.

It is this kind of articulation which is very difficult to realise on a piano especially in fast tempo, due to the slow key action.

That, at last, is true.

[prémont]

You're petty which is annoying, and wrong because you don't take cases into consideration. Try not to correct native speakers unless you are certain you're right... and don't consider facsimile prints of 17th century texts as the be-all-end-all in proper grammar. (Though without an "s" could very well be correct depending on how it is used in a sentence... just not if you don't precede it by a "das".

No, you are annoying, since you started correcting me.

BTW the Marpung quote says this: Sowohl das Schleiffen als das Abstossen ist das ordentliche Fortgehen entgegen gesetzet, welches darinnen besteht, das man ganz hurtig kurtz vorher, ehe man die volgende Note berühret, den Finger von der vorhergehenden Taste aufhebet.

Which is what legato was, then. But then you're evidently not interest in learning something or even accepting another (informed) point if it means you have to concede a point.

Actually I find Marpungs text easy to interprete, and what I wrote about it above is the official interpretation in learned HIP circles. So this is not particularly about me or my opinion.

[Superhorn]

   Not too long ago, I got recordings of the Brahms 2nd by Gardiner and the 3rd and 4th by Norrington  on library interloan to try out . They were okay, but the baby seemed to be thrown out with the bathwater.
The performances sounded frankly anemic to me, particularly the gut strings, although mercufully, they didn't have the awful nasal,pinched,wheezing sound which make so many period performances  of baroque and classical works such a trial to listen to.
    Then I got Neeme Jarvi's LSO recording of the 4th on Chandos.  I know it's not politically correct to say this, but Jarvi' warm, full-blooded , heartfelt 4th came as a relief  to my ears .  What a pleasure to return to steel strings and unashamed vibrato !  Take that, Sir Roger !  Nyah Nyah Nyah ! 

[Florestan]

   Not too long ago [...]

Apart from your well-known bias against HIP, of which there was really no need to remind us, do you have anything positive to contribute to this thread?

[milk]

   ...they didn't have the awful nasal,pinched,wheezing sound which make so many period performances  of baroque and classical works such a trial to listen to.

No one is forcing you to listen to period performances. 

[Gurn Blanston]

   Not too long ago, I got recordings of the Brahms 2nd by Gardiner and the 3rd and 4th by Norrington  on library interloan to try out . They were okay, but the baby seemed to be thrown out with the bathwater.
The performances sounded frankly anemic to me, particularly the gut strings, although mercufully, they didn't have the awful nasal,pinched,wheezing sound which make so many period performances  of baroque and classical works such a trial to listen to.
    Then I got Neeme Jarvi's LSO recording of the 4th on Chandos.  I know it's not politically correct to say this, but Jarvi' warm, full-blooded , heartfelt 4th came as a relief  to my ears .  What a pleasure to return to steel strings and unashamed vibrato !  Take that, Sir Roger !  Nyah Nyah Nyah !

Since you have obviously turned into a troll, future posts on this topic in this vein will be treated as trolling. You have turned from a voice of opposition into a crashing bore. Fair warning.

[Superhorn]

   How can you accuse me of being a troll ? I've been a loyal CMG member for several years. 
For the last time I'm NOT anti  HIP. What gets my goat is bashing of performances merely because they use modern instruments, something which is appallingly widespread.  The post was just my opinion. What's wrong with that?  Me a troll ? Unbelievable! 

[Gurn Blanston]

   How can you accuse me of being a troll ? I've been a loyal CMG member for several years. 
For the last time I'm NOT anti  HIP. What gets my goat is bashing of performances merely because they use modern instruments, something which is appallingly widespread.  The post was just my opinion. What's wrong with that?  Me a troll ? Unbelievable!

I hope that you managed to at least convince yourself with that stirring speech.     You a troll? Not only believable, but virtually certain. Despite the fact that you know it is against the rules. Anyway, don't complain of being surprised later on.

[Que]

   How can you accuse me of being a troll ? I've been a loyal CMG member for several years. 
For the last time I'm NOT anti  HIP. What gets my goat is bashing of performances merely because they use modern instruments, something which is appallingly widespread.  The post was just my opinion. What's wrong with that?  Me a troll ? Unbelievable!

Your comments have been transported to the HIP debate thread...

Q