GMG Classical Music Forum

The Music Room => General Classical Music Discussion => Topic started by: George on October 18, 2007, 08:45:36 AM

Title: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on October 18, 2007, 08:45:36 AM
I need more help here, please post your thoughts.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on October 18, 2007, 08:48:31 AM
Well what is exactly the question?. And where is Que when you need him! ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on October 18, 2007, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: Harry on October 18, 2007, 08:48:31 AM
Well what is exactly the question?. And where is Que when you need him! ;D

The question(s) are:

1. What is HIP?

2. Why do you like or dislike it?

3. Which composers do you prefer as HIP?


(Que will be along soon, you can bet your CPO catalog on it.)  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 18, 2007, 09:00:09 AM
I'll repost a reply that I made to Val's post on the Haydn SQ's thread:

Quote from: val on October 18, 2007, 01:02:33 AM
But the point is that I don't believe, in art, in any kind of recreation of an historical style. HIP means only a modern tendency of interpretation. Any kind of musical interpretation depends on the personality of an artist of the present, according to techniques teached in the present, for a contemporary listener. Adolf Busch was HIP in 1935, Munchinger in 1955, Goebel in 1985, Koopman today. 
When I was 15 years old I loved the Four Seasons played by Munchinger. Then came Marriner. And today I wouldn't dream of listening this work played in their style. I have Biondi and other modern interpreters. But it is always a matter of choices based in a modern sensibility. I don't care if Vivaldi played like Biondi, Huggett or Standage.

I feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer. Perhaps the idea to "recover" original performance practices is a very modern idea, fuelled by the changing of tastes. But I doubt if that means that HIP can be equated to modern taste. Maybe HIP influences modern taste, instead of the other way around?  ;)

Personally I didn't like any Haydn before encountering HIP, and not much Bach or Mozart either. (And I do care if Vivaldi is played by Biondi or Huggett, but don't know if that has to do with a preference for HIP in general  8)).

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Norbeone on October 18, 2007, 09:02:02 AM
It sounds like you know what HIP is, but i'll give my brief description anyway.

'Historically Informed Performance' is basically trying to recreate a performance and interpretation of a piece as close as possible to how it would have been performed at the time of its composition. Though, the use of 'period instruments' or not using them isn't, in my opinion, a neccesary element of creating a HIP performance.

Do I like it? I certainly find it interesting and useful, but I do not like when people suggest that HIP is the only valid way to go. Then it becomes almost destructive of the whole essence of interpretation. And that of course is the people's fault, not HIP's.

I generally only consider music of the early classical way back to early renaissance to be of great interest for the HIP approach, but that's just my own preference.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 18, 2007, 09:06:01 AM
Quote from: Que on October 18, 2007, 09:00:09 AM
Personally I didn't like any Haydn before encountering HIP, and not much Bach or Mozart either. (And I do care if Vivaldi is played by Biondo or Huggett, but don't know if that has to do with a preference for HIP in general  8)).

You didn't like Haydn, Bach or Mozart until it was played on crappy, old instruments?  ???
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 18, 2007, 09:06:36 AM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:06:01 AM
You didn't like Haydn, Bach or Mozart until it was played on crappy, old instruments?  ???

Quite.  ;D

Q



PS Most famous violinists play on a "crappy" old violin from the baroque era.... 8)
Though mostly altered and without gut strings - though Heifetz, of all people, actually did use gut strings.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on October 18, 2007, 09:08:39 AM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:06:01 AM
You didn't like Haydn, Bach or Mozart until it was played on crappy, old instruments?  ???

Old they may be, but not crappy Dave, no my dear fellow, certainly not crappy.
I am of the same opinion as Que. Never heard Haydn until on period instruments, but I do not dislike modern approach, far from it. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 18, 2007, 09:09:24 AM
Quote from: Que on October 18, 2007, 09:06:36 AM
Quite.  ;D

You, sir, are a gnarly dude.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 18, 2007, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Harry on October 18, 2007, 09:08:39 AM
Old they may be, but not crappy Dave, no my dear fellow, certainly not crappy.
I am of the same opinion as Que. Never heard Haydn until on period instruments, but I do not dislike modern approach, far from it. :)

Well, as long as it sounds good, I don't care what they play it on.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on October 18, 2007, 09:15:26 AM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:10:46 AM
Well, as long as it sounds good, I don't care what they play it on.

See, I thought you would think sense! :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bhodges on October 18, 2007, 09:36:50 AM
I'm sort of with Que, in that my interest in Bach, Mozart, Vivaldi and others got reinvigorated when I started listening to HIP recordings.  One of the first discs I ever bought was Trevor Pinnock's Handel (Water Music and Royal Fireworks) and it was a revelation.  And that's now a pretty old recording, relatively speaking!

Others followed...Il Giardino Armonico doing Vivaldi's Concerti da Camera, Rinaldo Alessandrini in Vivaldi's Gloria and more recently, the Bach Brandenburg's...all very stimulating.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514V5WPCPFL._AA240_.jpg)

Over the years not only has the sound quality increased, but the musicianship as well.  I suspect there is a real difference in the HIP musicians of today and their forerunners.  But what I most like about these recordings is their vitality.  Before hearing Il Giardino Armonico, I honestly had "had it" with Vivaldi for awhile--just no interest in hearing much of his work at all.  But the first time I heard them it was just like "wow, this is really exciting!"  Most good HIP recordings have that same energy. 

--Bruce
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mark on October 18, 2007, 09:39:27 AM
Quote from: Norbeone on October 18, 2007, 09:02:02 AM
Do I like it? I certainly find it interesting and useful, but I do not like when people suggest that HIP is the only valid way to go. Then it becomes almost destructive of the whole essence of interpretation.

This I agree with.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 18, 2007, 09:42:12 AM
Why would a HIP performance have more vitality than a modern interpretation? That makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mark on October 18, 2007, 09:46:00 AM
Is Herreweghe classed as HIP? I've been meaning to start a thread on him, actually. Hear his version of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony - absolutely outclasses Harnoncourt's. Like seeing an Old Master (well, hearing ;D) stripped of years of dirt and grime: a revelation of texture and colour. If this is what HIP does for classical music, I'm in.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 18, 2007, 09:50:50 AM
Quote from: Mark on October 18, 2007, 09:46:00 AM
Like seeing an Old Master (well, hearing ;D) stripped of years of dirt and grime: a revelation of texture and colour. If this is what HIP does for classical music, I'm in.

This sounds like critic-ese to me. I mean, what are you saying here? What does he do that no one else does?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bhodges on October 18, 2007, 10:02:47 AM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:42:12 AM
Why would a HIP performance have more vitality than a modern interpretation? That makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying that HIP always does, just to my ears.  I like the wiry, lean sound of the instruments and the faster tempi.  Alessandrini's Gloria is like a supersonic jet, it's so fast. 

I like all these composers on modern instruments, too, but right now my ears like them even better from HIP ensembles.

--Bruce
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mark on October 18, 2007, 11:02:32 AM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:50:50 AM
This sounds like critic-ese to me. I mean, what are you saying here? What does he do that no one else does?

Tell you what: soon as I get a moment to myself, I'll upload two identical tracks from the Ninth Symphony, one with Herreweghe in charge, the other with Harnoncourt at the helm. Then you can judge for yourself. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 18, 2007, 11:03:23 AM
Quote from: Mark on October 18, 2007, 11:02:32 AM
Tell you what: soon as I get a moment to myself, I'll upload two identical tracks from the Ninth Symphony, one with Herreweghe in charge, the other with Harnoncourt at the helm. Then you can judge for yourself. ;)

Sure. Make me do all the work.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on October 18, 2007, 11:27:16 AM
Quote from: Que on October 18, 2007, 09:00:09 AM
I'll repost a reply that I made to Val's post on the Haydn SQ's thread:

I feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer.

Ok, when you say "closer to the composer," do you mean closer to what the composer would have heard or have been able to hear during his/her life?

I ask because I have to imagine that at least a few composers, (Beethoven's late piano sonatas come to mind) who would prefer a more modern piano with less of the limitations of his day. In this case, wouldn't a more modern piano get us closer to what the composer desired?

Quote
Perhaps the idea to "recover" original performance practices is a very modern idea, fuelled by the changing of tastes.

Yes, I wonder when people first started playing Bach on piano.

Quote
Personally I didn't like any Haydn before encountering HIP, and not much Bach or Mozart either. (And I do care if Vivaldi is played by Biondi or Huggett, but don't know if that has to do with a preference for HIP in general  8)).

Q


I can say that many Baroque composers did little for me until I heard Biondi and Carmigniola.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: JoshLilly on October 18, 2007, 11:38:42 AM
I think a lot of older music sounds "wrong" when played with modern instruments. Or, especially with orchestral works, when played by overlarge orchestras. If Beethoven had been writing his Symphony #8 for the Wien Philharmonic, it would be scored very differently. I think that the Symphony #8, if intended for such an orchestra, represents bad orchestration, specifically thinking of the 4th movement.

Whether you like something more or not is a matter of personal taste and opinion. But I can't imagine how anyone can ignore the fact that composers of the early 19th century and earlier were not writing (usually) for hundred-piece orchestras that contained metal strings and padded timpani sticks and so on. The sound is different, therefore the composing would be different. Even F.J. Haydn's "London" Symphonies, intended for orchestras with a quantity of performers even Beethoven didn't write for, would sound different if he'd known they would play with metal strings on the violins, and so on.

I've heard of people who like J.S. Bach played on electric guitar duets and stuff. Well that's fine, they enjoy it. But if they argue that Bach actually intended it to sound that way, and wrote his keyboard music intending it to go for electric guitars and scored it accordingly, I think they're just wrong. Bach never heard of an electric guitar, and probably never heard a violin with gold strings either, or a modern piano. If he had, what he wrote would have been written differently.

And this, I think, is the value of performances that attempt to recapture some of that original stuff. Even if you end up not liking it as much, I wish people would not completely discard any value it has. I mean, do they really think Beethoven's Symphony #5 was supposed to sound like Johannard Brahmstein's Symphony #5 with 150 modern instruments?


PS: Padded timpani sticks are for pansies. And a violin string that you can't gnaw for nutrients is a total gyp.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 18, 2007, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: George on October 18, 2007, 11:27:16 AM
...I ask because I have to imagine that at least a few composers, (Beethoven's late piano sonatas come to mind) who would prefer a more modern piano with less of the limitations of his day. In this case, wouldn't a more modern piano get us closer to what the composer desired?
Beethoven and Berlioz were unique cases.  They were, almost consciously, writing for instruments of the future, and thus their music sounds great either on period instruments or modern ones.  (By the time Wagner started writing his later operas, strings and woodwinds had nearly taken their modern form, although there have been advances in brass instrument design and manufacture since his days.)

But in Bach's case, or Mozart's, instruments and orchestral proportions have changed so radically since their day that it's almost necessary to go back to the old ones if you want to hear the music in its proportion.  This does not necessarily mean smaller orchestras--but if you're going to use a full modern orchestra, the woodwinds should be doubled to get the right sound balance.  (This is good HIP practice for large groups.  One of Mozart's letters describes an orchestra of forty violins, doubled winds, eight basses and six bassoons. :o)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on October 18, 2007, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on October 18, 2007, 12:00:52 PM
Beethoven and Berlioz were unique cases.  They were, almost consciously, writing for instruments of the future, and thus their music sounds great either on period instruments or modern ones.  (By the time Wagner started writing his later operas, strings and woodwinds had nearly taken their modern form, although there have been advances in brass instrument design and manufacture since his days.)


Thanks, that clears a lot up for me.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2007, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: George on October 18, 2007, 11:27:16 AM
Ok, when you say "closer to the composer," do you mean closer to what the composer would have heard or have been able to hear during his/her life?

I ask because I have to imagine that at least a few composers, (Beethoven's late piano sonatas come to mind) who would prefer a more modern piano with less of the limitations of his day. In this case, wouldn't a more modern piano get us closer to what the composer desired?


George,
Without being argumentative, I would just comment here that this is the imposition YOUR taste retrospectively on the composer. Beethoven had no more idea what a modern piano would sound like (nor do I even imagine that he gave it more than a passing thought) than you and I have on what sort of instrument music will be played on 200 years from now. He composed for what he had available to him. He may have mentally idealized the sound, since in the late sonatas you mention he was virtually deaf and composing from the memory of what the instrument sounded like, but he was more concerned about whether the player was up to the task than whether the instrument could have been better. And even then, he was always sure, as he told Schuppanzigh about the late quartets, damn your instrument, if you can't play it, someone will. He knew it was playable, even on the instruments of the time. It was jsut the player that wasn't up to it. :)

8)


----------------
Now playing: Stadler Bassett - Lawson / Harris - Stadler Duettino #4 in Bb  for 2 Clarinets 4th mvmt - 19 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/lawson/track/stadler+duettino+%234+in+bb++for+2+clarinets+4th+mvmt)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on October 18, 2007, 02:17:09 PM
HIP is too broad an area to like or dislike as a whole.  HIPsters don't present a uniform front.  Just look at some other threads and you'll see lively discussion/chair throwing involving different HIP recordings. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on October 18, 2007, 03:38:18 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2007, 01:52:02 PM
George,
Without being argumentative, I would just comment here that this is the imposition YOUR taste retrospectively on the composer.

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that the above is simply my opinion. If that is the case, I agree, that's why I wrote it in the form of "I imagine..."  :)

Quote
Beethoven had no more idea what a modern piano would sound like (nor do I even imagine that he gave it more than a passing thought) than you and I have on what sort of instrument music will be played on 200 years from now.

Sure, but wasn't he dissatisfied with the limitations of the pianos of his time?  :-\

BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative either, I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter.  :)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: hornteacher on October 18, 2007, 03:54:46 PM
Well, I've noticed the following:

Beethoven Symphonies are fine with me on modern or period instruments (although I notice the period instrument recordings are tuned a semitone lower than the modern instrument recordings, wonder why that is).

I perfer Bach played on harpsicord (it just sounds wrong to me when played on piano).

I like Mozart operas on period instruments (not sure why, I just do).

I like the sound of melodic lines played on natural horns.  Its a tough technique to master and I love hearing it done well.

I'm not a huge fan of Beethoven Piano Concertos on the period pianoforte.  To me it resembles the plink of a toy piano too much.

String Quartets on period instruments are more mellow, on modern instruments they sound more crisp.  I like both.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: johnQpublic on October 18, 2007, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: hornteacher on October 18, 2007, 03:54:46 PMI'm not a huge fan of Beethoven Piano Concertos on the period pianoforte.  To me it resembles the plink of a toy piano too much.

Agreed. Beethoven concerti on HIP...blech!!!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2007, 05:29:12 PM
Quote from: George on October 18, 2007, 03:38:18 PM

Sure, but wasn't he dissatisfied with the limitations of the pianos of his time?  :-\



IN the late 1790's, the pianos available to him didn't suit all his needs. There is never any specific thing given to explain exactly what is not suitable. Many people seem to jump on the idea of sound because that is the most apparent difference between his piano and ours. However, Beethoven was a player and composer. It is far more likely that the things he was irked with were action (both in the irritating way that the hammers would double strike strings and the way they (hammers) wouldn't return to striking position in time for the next note of rapid passages). Both of those problems were solved in the 1830's, and had no bearing on sound at all (unless it is double striking "bounces" that you notice when you listen to a fortepiano). The other huge difference involves the number of notes that could be played, the range or compass. All composers, not just Beethoven, had to work around this limitation, and it affected the music they produced. In fact, he went back in later years and rewrote passages (up an octave when possible) to be able to take advantage of the greater range now available to him.

I am posting this article that I saved from a different Forum for 2 reasons. One is to demonstrate that the compass of the keyboard was a limiting factor in composing. The other is to counter an old claim I have frequently read, here and in other places, that the key chosen for a works was dependent on a great number of factors, none of which seems to be the limitations of the instrument. I believe that in many (most?) cases, that's exactly what it was.

(A picture of) Mozart's own Walter Fortepiano. It's resolution is not as great as I'd like, but if you look close it does show the entire keyboard. The top note is F and the bottom note is F. Then I got out my book of the piano Sonatas and Fantasies. When you mentally play the music on the picture of the Fortepiano you see that these Sonatas just barely fit on that instrument.

For example...

K279 in C comes within 1/2 step of the top and 1/2 step of the bottom notes on that Walter keyboard.

K280 in F uses the very top and the very bottom notes of that keyboard.

K281 in Bb uses the very top and comes within a fourth of the bottom.

K282 in Eb has the most leeway in that it comes within 1/2 step of the top
and has an available octave at the bottom. This one Sonata could have been written in any key.

K283 in G uses the very top note and comes within 1/2 step of the bottom.

K284 in D comes within 1/2 step on top and a third on the bottom.

K309 in C uses the very top and comes within a full step of the bottom.

K311 in D comes within a second of the top and uses the very bottom note.

K310 in a uses the very top note and comes within a 1/2 step of bottom.

K396 The Fantasy in c minor uses the very top and very bottom notes of Mozart's piano. There is no other key but c minor for this music on this piano, this was not an emotional decision.

At any rate, you get the picture I think. Mozart used his entire keyboard in several pieces and came darn close in the others. There are very few options for writing any of these Sonatas in other keys. To want K310 in a minor to carry the "emotion" of e minor would be impossible. It had to be a or a flat minor, or wait for invention of larger keyboards.

Anyway, I don't think this discussion is limited to Beethoven, so Mozart's issues are also more than relevant. :)

Oh, a third issue (and perhaps the greatest) that Beethoven had with fortepianos, one that could be related to the sound as you construe it, is volume. There is no doubt that his contemporary pianos didn't have the volume of sound that modern ones have. Of course, this was a blessing as well as a curse. It is the reason that chamber music played on a fortepiano is so vastly superior to that played on a modern piano: the pianist isn't always having to throttle back to keep ensemble. But in solo music, especially in performance in a large room, obviously the modern piano has the advantage. But for the purposes of recordings, this is obviated by microphones and amplifiers, so it's moot. You won't hear the London Mozart Trio playing at Wembly without amplification. (Yes, that's a joke  ::) ).

8)


----------------
Now playing: Mozart/La Flûte Enchantée Pour Trois Cors De Basset Et Timbales - Le Trio Di Bassetto (Jean-Claude Veilhan, Eric Lorho, Jean-Louis Gauch) - Larghetto - 09 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/le+trio+di+bassetto+(jean-claude+veilhan%2c+eric+lorho%2c+jean-louis+gauch)/track/larghetto)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2007, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: hornteacher on October 18, 2007, 03:54:46 PM
Well, I've noticed the following:

Beethoven Symphonies are fine with me on modern or period instruments (although I notice the period instrument recordings are tuned a semitone lower than the modern instrument recordings, wonder why that is).

Surely you know? Perhaps the most common (although by no means the only) tuning used in the days before equal temperament was A = 415 hz. By convention, equal temperament in modern times has A = 440 hz. Thus, a semitone lower. Today, some orchestras (when not playing with a piano involved) use A = 445 or even more. The higher pitch gives a brighter sound.

One of my favorite HIP chamber groups is Ensemble 415. So now you know the derivation of their name. :)

8)

----------------
Now playing: Mozart/La Flûte Enchantée Pour Trois Cors De Basset Et Timbales - Le Trio Di Bassetto (Jean-Claude Veilhan, Eric Lorho, Jean-Louis Gauch) - Andante
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: hornteacher on October 18, 2007, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2007, 05:37:48 PM
Surely you know? Perhaps the most common (although by no means the only) tuning used in the days before equal temperament was A = 415 hz. By convention, equal temperament in modern times has A = 440 hz. Thus, a semitone lower. Today, some orchestras (when not playing with a piano involved) use A = 445 or even more. The higher pitch gives a brighter sound.

I figured it was something like that but I couldn't remember for certain.  I knew about the modern 445 tunings because when I purchase instruments for my students from non-American companies (i.e. Yamaha) I have to research whether the instrument was constructed for a "higher pitched" orchestra.  I once got a set of french horns that were designed to be 445 horns and the kids had to pull slides out really far every time we tuned.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 18, 2007, 07:51:20 PM
Malcolm Bilson once complained about how early HIP pianists (his examples
are Malcolm Binns & Paul Badura-Skoda) used not so expertly restored original
instruments to record Beethoven and suggested that totally different, indeed
musically much more satisfying results could be had if exceptional originals or
good modern copies of originals were used instead.  Concerning the fact
that a lot of HIP Beethoven recording has been done on either a Broadwood or
an Erard, he also quoted WS Newman in saying that Beethoven was actually
quite dissatisfied with both his Erard and Broadwood and maintained allegiance
with the Viennese action pianos (Schantz, Graf, Streicher etc.).   Unfortunately
few modern pianos resemble the Viennese instruments, and most, including
Steinway and Bechstein, are in design descendents from Anglo-French
instruments such as Erard and Broadwood. 

In any case Bilson thought using modern instruments
to play Beethoven can be a plain stylistic mistake. 
His quote (Early Music October 1982, pp. 518-9) is as follows:
The Brendel recording he referred to is op. 110
on the Vox label (second movement, bars 42-58).

"(M)odern piano, however, develops each note much
more slowly than would an early 19th-century piano; so in order to get
short, breathless left-hand crotchets Brendel has to
play them considerably louder, with the result that the
right-hand passage is obscured each time a left-hand
note is sounded....

"Steinways, Bluethners and Bechsteins have, over the years, given
us a very false idea of, for example, what a Beethoven
sforzando should sound like; for the modern piano has
no real sforzando, it only has loud notes. As a result, we
have become used to sudden shifts of dynamic that are
quite different from those of Beethoven's conception;
and it is to understand this that we need Streichers and
Grafs."

Those who have found HIP Beethoven to be blechworthy will probably continue to think so,
but at least others will see that it is more than just a hype or an ideology... ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lady Chatterley on October 18, 2007, 10:07:55 PM
Quote from: DavidW on October 18, 2007, 02:17:09 PM
HIP is too broad an area to like or dislike as a whole.  HIPsters don't present a uniform front.  Just look at some other threads and you'll see lively discussion/chair throwing involving different HIP recordings. :)

Don't knock over the candle sticks!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 18, 2007, 11:30:42 PM
Quote from: Muriel on October 18, 2007, 10:07:55 PM
Don't knock over the candle sticks!

Candlesticks!  How romantic (for a modern tryst that is)! :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 19, 2007, 04:41:49 PM
Goerge,
I DO hope you haven't abandoned your lovely thread! It's just getting interesting!

8)

----------------
Now playing: Bia 406 Op 55 Symphony #3 in Eb (HIP) - Les Concert de Nations / Jordi Savall - Bia 406 Op 55 Symphony #3 in Eb 2nd mvmt - Marche funebre: Adagio assai
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 19, 2007, 06:07:50 PM
Quote from: Que on October 18, 2007, 09:00:09 AM
I feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer.

Yes, I would express this in a similar manner. "Closer to the composer " would to me mean "closer to what the composer probably had in mind", since most of the composers we think of here were practical musicians themselves with specific instruments in mind.
In other words HIP is so to say (since performing traditions are lost) a set of theoretical rules (surviving in old treatises) combined with the modern musicians practical experience with period instruments. To me true HIP implies for that reason use of period instruments.
But the musicians of former ages had of course the right to and indeed most often were expected to give his/her interpretation an individual stamp within the borders of the style, so we would probably see great diversity in interpretations even in former ages.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 19, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
Quote from: premont on October 19, 2007, 06:07:50 PM
Yes, I would express this in a similar manner. "Closer to the composer " would to me mean "closer to what the composer probably had in mind", since most of the composers we think of here were practical musicians themselves with specific instruments in mind.
In other words HIP is so to say (since performing traditions are lost) a set of theoretical rules (surviving in old treatises) combined with the modern musicians practical experience with period instruments. To me true HIP implies for that reason use of period instruments.
But the musicians of former ages had of course the right to and indeed most often were expected to give his/her interpretation an individual stamp within the borders of the style, so we would probably see great diversity in interpretations even in former ages.

I agree with all of your points. In fact, to address one of the most common complaints that I see about HIP, the more liberal interpretation that you, Que and I take here is precisely the opposite of that espoused by HIP purists, and is also the biggest turnoff for people with only a casual exposure. They feel (rightly) bullied into having to accept "pure" HIP as the only way a thinking person should ever listen to music. As if there were such a thing as "pure" HIP!! And the true logical oddity is that the extremists espouse, like a religion, something that is only a theoretical conception of how it might have been!   ::)

8)

----------------
Now playing: Haydn Flute Trios - Linde - Jappe - Junghanns - FJH Trio #2 in D for Flute, Cello & Piano Hob 15:16 1st mvmt
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Kullervo on October 19, 2007, 07:03:11 PM
QuoteWhat is HIP and why do you like/dislike it?

I don't know, but I do know it involves somehow vibrato and the lack of it. ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on October 19, 2007, 08:27:40 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 19, 2007, 04:41:49 PM
Goerge,
I DO hope you haven't abandoned your lovely thread! It's just getting interesting!

8)



I am watching from the sidelines.  :) 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 19, 2007, 09:45:49 PM
Quote from: Corey on October 19, 2007, 07:03:11 PM
I don't know, but I do know it involves somehow vibrato and the lack of it. ;D

Non-HIP, on the other hand, involves LOTS of vibrato and NO lack of it.   ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 19, 2007, 09:56:06 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 19, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
As if there were such a thing as "pure" HIP!! And the true logical oddity is that the extremists espouse, like a religion, something that is only a theoretical conception of how it might have been!   ::)

8)

But who are these "extremists"?  Perhaps a name or two so we can identify them?  I know over-zealous use of the keyword "authenticity" or "authentic" to indicate HIP in media or press often managed (and still manages) to raise both eyebrows (and sometimes hell ;D) in "traditionalist" listeners. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 20, 2007, 01:28:25 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 19, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
I agree with all of your points. In fact, to address one of the most common complaints that I see about HIP, the more liberal interpretation that you, Que and I take here is precisely the opposite of that espoused by HIP purists, and is also the biggest turnoff for people with only a casual exposure. They feel (rightly) bullied into having to accept "pure" HIP as the only way a thinking person should ever listen to music. As if there were such a thing as "pure" HIP!! And the true logical oddity is that the extremists espouse, like a religion, something that is only a theoretical conception of how it might have been!   ::)

Quote from: masolino on October 19, 2007, 09:56:06 PM
But who are these "extremists"?  Perhaps a name or two so we can identify them?  I know over-zealous use of the keyword "authenticity" or "authentic" to indicate HIP in media or press often managed (and still manages) to raise both eyebrows (and sometimes hell ;D) in "traditionalist" listeners. 

HIP has certainly an image problem, which is a real pity. :-\
I think this is because in trying to reconstruct historical performance practices, research is needed and academic debate on the results. And indeed there are sometimes different opinions on musical issues and various HIP performers choose different methods and approaches.
All this gives HIP the image of being "dogmatic", but it's all just a (necessary) means to an end: creating musical approaches in which the music itself makes sense en can be enjoyed to the fullest. And that's the main thing, not the theoretical issues behind it! :)

BTW I don't think - in general - the image of nonbelievers being bullied isn't correct at all. I've personally experienced more antagonism in the opposite direction: against HIP.

Q


PS Could we move this thread to "General Music Discussion" ? (Instead of "Classical Music for Beginners")
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mark on October 20, 2007, 01:36:13 AM
Quote from: Que on October 20, 2007, 01:28:25 AM
BTW I don't think - in general - the image of nonbelievers being bullied is correct at all. I've personally experienced more antagonism in the opposite direction: against HIP.

Q

Bit like vegetarianism, then. ;D The number of meat-eaters I've met who claim all veggies are out to 'convert' them in an aggressive way is unbelievable. More incredible still is that it's these same carnivores who exhibit all the aggression against vegetarians, as though getting in their retaliation first. I see some of the HIP vs. non-HIP debates turning out the same way, with the 'traditionalists' ending up far more defensive than their supposedly 'dogmatic' HIP counterparts. ::)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 20, 2007, 02:46:12 AM
Quote from: Mark on October 20, 2007, 01:36:13 AM
Bit like vegetarianism, then. ;D

This food analogy is really interesting. Actually, if one reads the usegroup for classical recordings (rec.music.classical.recordings=rmcr) often, it will be seen that the expression "crunchy granola" comes up fairly frequently, almost always in association with various HIP performances.

google search results (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/search?hl=en&group=rec.music.classical.recordings&q=granola&qt_g=Search+this+group)

But that is a bit of improvement already as far as I am concerned.  Worse I once read in Gramophone a review that compares Norrington's Brahms Symphony 2 to chalk as opposed to Barbirolli's cheese in the same music. 
Well I like the offerings from Monteux and Munch but I also find the Norrington fun to listen to say the least.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Fëanor on October 20, 2007, 04:00:14 AM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:42:12 AM
Why would a HIP performance have more vitality than a modern interpretation? That makes no sense to me.

I'm on learning curve myself, but it seems to me, from what I've heard so far, that even Beethoven is better in HIP.

Why should it be mysterious that music will sound best played as the composer would have heard it?  (Or in the case of the later Beethoven, imagined it.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 02:19:25 PM
"Why should it be mysterious that music will sound best played as the composer would have heard it?" wonders Feanor. Consider these paradoxes:

On the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt 60-CD set of Bach cantatas, boy sopranos most of the time are used for the solo arias and all the time for the choruses. In massed chorus, the boys generally sound okay. In the solo passages, they can range from quite good to (variously) squally, out of tune, weak, shrill, etc., and I can't help picturing a group of terrified, embarrassed 10-12 year olds forced by conductors with an HIP "vision" to be put through extreme vocal torture both for themselves and us. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible (or perhaps not) that the boys we are hearing on these recordings are superior to the boys Bach would have had at his own disposal.

In addition on the same set, most of the solo alto arias are taken by a male countertenor - a voice type that was born in the English cathedral choir, and which has nothing to do with any sound Bach would have encountered in his own churches. So if you're going to be HIP, why not use boy altos, a voice type Bach would have recognized?

And then again on the same set, two of the great solo soprano cantatas (51 and 199) are sung by female sopranos - apparently because H/L broke down and realized that the bravura and emotional power in these two works (respectively) could not have been handled adequately by pre-pubescent males. So for these cantatas at least, HIP be damned. The results, as it happens, are so much superior musically to the usual boy sopranos in these recordings that one wonders why H/L didn't abandon their HIP dogma and let the women take part in the entire series.

So here we are: HIP practice and modern practice all mixed together in a supposedly HIP venture, with modern practice in the case of the solo soprano yielding superior results. Bach had a good reason for using boys: women were forbidden to sing in church. Does that mean we have to accept the conditions he had to settle for, or should we do what's best for the music? (Obviously in many other cases the conditions Bach had to work under may well be those that are best for the music, too.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mark on October 20, 2007, 02:27:22 PM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 02:19:25 PM
Bach had a good reason for using boys: women were forbidden to sing in church. Does that mean we have to accept the conditions he had to settle for, or should we do what's best for the music? (Obviously in many other cases the conditions Bach had to work under may well be those that are best for the music, too.)

A case of, 'Let common sense prevail', methinks.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 20, 2007, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 02:19:25 PM
In addition on the same set, most of the solo alto arias are taken by a male countertenor - a voice type that was born in the English cathedral choir, and which has nothing to do with any sound Bach would have encountered in his own churches. So if you're going to be HIP, why not use boy altos, a voice type Bach would have recognized?

Just to clarify, there were indeed professional falsettists active in 1700's Germany and in Bach's circle no less (see Tom Hens comment (March 4, 2006)in Bach cantata website discussion (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Boys.htm)) of both soprano and alto ranges, so "countertenors" (or equivalent voice types) were NOT really something born of and used in the Anglican tradition only.   

More discussion on the Alto singers used by Bach in Leipzig  (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Altos.htm)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 05:06:52 PM
Quote from: masolino on October 20, 2007, 03:35:40 PM
Just to clarify, there were indeed professional falsettists active in 1700's Germany and in Bach's circle no less (see Tom Hens comment (March 4, 2006)in Bach cantata website discussion (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Boys.htm)) of both soprano and alto ranges, so "countertenors" (or equivalent voice types) were NOT really something born of and used in the Anglican tradition only.   

More discussion on the Alto singers used by Bach in Leipzig  (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Altos.htm)

I don't know who Tom Hens is, but my source was Richard Taruskin (professor of music at Berkeley and author of the recent Oxford History of Music), in his book "Text and Act," p. 165, where he says specifically that the countertenor voice "was born in the English cathedral choir." Taruskin of course could be mistaken, but even if he is, the paradoxes and inconsistencies I've noted regarding the H/L Bach cantatas series still stand.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 20, 2007, 06:12:47 PM
Quote from: masolino on October 19, 2007, 09:56:06 PM
But who are these "extremists"?  Perhaps a name or two so we can identify them?  I know over-zealous use of the keyword "authenticity" or "authentic" to indicate HIP in media or press often managed (and still manages) to raise both eyebrows (and sometimes hell ;D) in "traditionalist" listeners. 

Somehow I get the impression that you think I'm talking about professional musicians or conductors or someone of that ilk. I'm not, actually, I'm talking about people on forums and the like who feel like it's their mission in life to spread the good word and who end up scaring off others with their rabidity. You and I have a mutual friend who has done that. I have known him for years and seen him absolutely thrash people who didn't buy into it. Fortunately he's better now, at least he is able to keep people to talk to. And he is but one of dozens that I've dealt with over the years. It is a lot easier to win over converts by giving them good, solid reasons for trying something out than it is by intimidating them into it.

Kinda like vegetarians... ;)

8)

----------------
Now playing: Cramer PC - London Mozart Players / Shelley  Shelley - Cramer Concerto #8 in d for Piano & Orchestra Op 70 1st mvmt
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 20, 2007, 11:08:38 PM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 02:19:25 PM
On the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt 60-CD set of Bach cantatas, boy sopranos most of the time are used for the solo arias and all the time for the choruses. In massed chorus, the boys generally sound okay. In the solo passages, they can range from quite good to (variously) squally, out of tune, weak, shrill, etc., and I can't help picturing a group of terrified, embarrassed 10-12 year olds forced by conductors with an HIP "vision" to be put through extreme vocal torture both for themselves and us. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible (or perhaps not) that the boys we are hearing on these recordings are superior to the boys Bach would have had at his own disposal.

I'm afraid nature (or rather modern diet) has created an obstacle in using boy sopranos for diffult (solo) parts. The boys sopranos singing in Bach's time were probably older and therefore more trained and skilled:

It has been observed that boy sopranos in earlier times were, on average, somewhat older than in modern times. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach was considered to be an outstanding boy soprano until halfway through his sixteenth year, but for a male to sing soprano with an unchanged voice at that age is currently fairly uncommon in the developed world, where puberty tends to begin at younger ages (most likely due to differences in diet, including greater availability of proteins and vitamins). LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_soprano)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mark on October 20, 2007, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 20, 2007, 06:12:47 PM
Kinda like vegetarians... ;)

Clearly, Gurn, you and I move in very different circles. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 20, 2007, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 05:06:52 PM
I don't know who Tom Hens is, but my source was Richard Taruskin (professor of music at Berkeley and author of the recent Oxford History of Music), in his book "Text and Act," p. 165, where he says specifically that the countertenor voice "was born in the English cathedral choir." Taruskin of course could be mistaken, but even if he is, the paradoxes and inconsistencies I've noted regarding the H/L Bach cantatas series still stand.

So countertenors were called differently outside of England - but that doesn't mean Bach would have not recognised the voice type of countertenor/male alto/falsettist, does it?  Just check out this person called Adam Immanuel Weldig in Weimar already, who befriended Bach and was an alto falsettist.

And why HIP shouldn't be without its paradoxes and inconsistencies?  Non-HIP is full of them.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 21, 2007, 02:10:36 AM
Quote from: Que on October 20, 2007, 11:08:38 PM
I'm afraid nature (or rather modern diet) has created an obstacle in using boy sopranos for diffult (solo) parts. The boys sopranos singing in Bach's time were probably older and therefore more trained and skilled:

It has been observed that boy sopranos in earlier times were, on average, somewhat older than in modern times. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach was considered to be an outstanding boy soprano until halfway through his sixteenth year, but for a male to sing soprano with an unchanged voice at that age is currently fairly uncommon in the developed world, where puberty tends to begin at younger ages (most likely due to differences in diet, including greater availability of proteins and vitamins). LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_soprano)

Q

Exactly.  JSB's cantata 51 and 199 are now thought to have been written either for a soprano castrato (visiting from Dresden) or for a very capable sopranist (elder boy or adult) for these are truly virtuosic music that requires great technique and stamina.  H/L used a female soprano soloist to record both obviously because all the historically more appropriate options were not available to them.  If they were to do these again now, sopranists like Waschinki or Jaroussky may be able to give it a try. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 21, 2007, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 20, 2007, 06:12:47 PM

Kinda like vegetarians... ;)

8)



I love vegetarians... ;D   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Fëanor on October 21, 2007, 03:24:43 AM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 20, 2007, 02:19:25 PM
"Why should it be mysterious that music will sound best played as the composer would have heard it?" wonders Feanor. Consider these paradoxes:
....

So here we are: HIP practice and modern practice all mixed together in a supposedly HIP venture, with modern practice in the case of the solo soprano yielding superior results. Bach had a good reason for using boys: women were forbidden to sing in church. Does that mean we have to accept the conditions he had to settle for, or should we do what's best for the music? (Obviously in many other cases the conditions Bach had to work under may well be those that are best for the music, too.)

Thank you for your interesting information, not all of which I knew.  And your point, for instance, that poor boy soparnos may be replaced by compotent woman sopranos is well-taken by me.  On the other hand, what if very good boy sopranos were available?  Should they be rejected because their voices are relatively thin and vibratto-free?  I would say not.  To say the Bach could not use female singers but might have if he could have, (as some suggest), might be true, but it is pushing the "resources" argument too far.

More generally, if my understanding is correct, the performance resources available today are typically much better than was the case for Bach, et al., in their time and place.  It would be ridiculous to suggest that today's conductors ought to employ only second- or third-rate instrumentalists and singers because they are what the composer worked with.  However superior individual resources is no argument at all against use of historic scale of performance, instrument tuning, or type of instruments -- including boy sopranos, (or castrati for that matter  ;D).

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Larry Rinkel on October 21, 2007, 03:25:30 AM
Quote from: masolino on October 20, 2007, 11:19:30 PM
And why HIP shouldn't be without its paradoxes and inconsistencies?  Non-HIP is full of them.

Gurn has already answered that: because there are "people on forums and the like who feel like it's their mission in life to spread the good word and who end up scaring off others with their rabidity. You and I have a mutual friend who has done that. I have known him for years and seen him absolutely thrash people who didn't buy into it."
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BachQ on October 21, 2007, 05:45:09 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 20, 2007, 06:12:47 PM
Kinda like vegetarians... ;)

The vegetarian/HIP nexus is clear: both demand a certain crisp freshness and an organic, holistic continuity in their respective products .......
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lethevich on October 21, 2007, 06:04:21 AM
Quote from: D Minor on October 21, 2007, 05:45:09 AM
The vegetarian/HIP nexus is clear: both demand a certain crisp freshness and an organic, holistic continuity in their respective products .......

I guess just like vegetables, some are scarier than others...

Norrington = Spirulina (better consumed in tablets than raw...)

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2905/spirulinaatp9.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BachQ on October 21, 2007, 06:20:25 AM
Quote from: Lethe on October 21, 2007, 06:04:21 AM
I guess just like vegetables, some are scarier than others...

Norrington = Spirulina (better consumed in tablets than raw...)

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2905/spirulinaatp9.jpg)

Here's Norrington distilled to tablet form ........ much better ......... :  (http://www.creative-nature.co.uk/catalog/images/SF_10.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lethevich on October 21, 2007, 06:47:47 AM
Quote from: D Minor on October 21, 2007, 06:20:25 AM
Here's Norrington distilled to tablet form ........ much better .........

... (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/790/norringtontabletsop4.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2007, 08:33:46 AM
Quote from: Mark on October 20, 2007, 11:14:06 PM
Clearly, Gurn, you and I move in very different circles. ;)

You opened the door, dear boy, I just walked through it... ;D

8)

----------------
Now playing: Beethoven 9ths - Minnesota Orchestra/Vanska - Beethoven Symphony #9 in d Op 125 4th mvmt - Presto - Allegro assai
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2007, 08:36:34 AM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 21, 2007, 03:25:30 AM
Gurn has already answered that: because there are "people on forums and the like who feel like it's their mission in life to spread the good word and who end up scaring off others with their rabidity. You and I have a mutual friend who has done that. I have known him for years and seen him absolutely thrash people who didn't buy into it."

I knew you would recognize what I meant there, Larry. I have heard you complain about it before, and rightly so. BTW, did you note my earlier post about fortepiano range? I think that is another subject (key selection based on instrument capabilities) that you have some feelings about. :)

8)

----------------
Now playing: Beethoven 9ths - Minnesota Orchestra/Vanska - Beethoven Symphony #9 in d Op 125 4th mvmt - Presto - Allegro assai
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BachQ on October 21, 2007, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2007, 08:36:34 AM
BTW, did you note my earlier post about fortepiano range?

Please provide link .........


........ Thanks in advance ........  :D



Dm
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Kullervo on October 21, 2007, 12:41:05 PM
Quote from: Lethe on October 21, 2007, 06:47:47 AM
... (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/790/norringtontabletsop4.jpg)

!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2007, 01:46:04 PM
Quote from: D Minor on October 21, 2007, 11:31:01 AM
Please provide link .........


........ Thanks in advance ........  :D



Dm

It is reply #28 in this very chain... :)

8)
----------------
Now playing: Berlioz Harold en Italie & Les Troyens - London SO / Colin Davis - Berlioz Harold in Italy pt 2 - March of the Pilgrims, Singing the Evening Prayer: Allegretto
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BachQ on October 21, 2007, 02:16:22 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2007, 01:46:04 PM
It is reply #28 in this very chain... :)

Here's the link  (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg94824.html#msg94824)

:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on October 24, 2007, 11:12:34 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 19, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
I agree with all of your points. In fact, to address one of the most common complaints that I see about HIP, the more liberal interpretation that you, Que and I take here is precisely the opposite of that espoused by HIP purists, and is also the biggest turnoff for people with only a casual exposure. They feel (rightly) bullied into having to accept "pure" HIP as the only way a thinking person should ever listen to music. As if there were such a thing as "pure" HIP!! And the true logical oddity is that the extremists espouse, like a religion, something that is only a theoretical conception of how it might have been!   ::)

8)

Testify!  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on October 24, 2007, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2007, 01:46:04 PM
----------------
Now playing: Berlioz Harold en Italie & Les Troyens - London SO / Colin Davis - Berlioz Harold in Italy pt 2 - March of the Pilgrims, Singing the Evening Prayer: Allegretto

Yes!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Don on October 24, 2007, 12:48:48 PM
There are many extremist HIP and anti-HIP folks.  I don't pay any attention to them; I just go with performances that give me the most rewards.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on October 24, 2007, 01:22:47 PM
I've now been convinced that Norrington=Soylent Green. :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: locrian on October 24, 2007, 01:23:23 PM
Quote from: DavidW on October 24, 2007, 01:22:47 PM
I've now been convinced that Norrington=Soylent Green. :D

Tasty!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 24, 2007, 01:37:08 PM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 21, 2007, 03:25:30 AM
Gurn has already answered that: because there are "people on forums and the like who feel like it's their mission in life to spread the good word and who end up scaring off others with their rabidity. You and I have a mutual friend who has done that. I have known him for years and seen him absolutely thrash people who didn't buy into it."

And that is HIP?  Please  ::)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 24, 2007, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: sound sponge on October 24, 2007, 01:23:23 PM
Tasty!

Obviously Germans agreed - Norrington is now the artistic director of Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on October 24, 2007, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: masolino on October 24, 2007, 01:41:37 PM
Obviously Germans agreed - Norrington is now the artistic director of Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra.  :)

His Beethoven symphonies are great, ravishing third and first. 8)
If I could only lay my hands on his Brahms he recorded many moons ago, fo a reasonable price.....
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on October 25, 2007, 01:10:43 AM
Quote from: Harry on October 24, 2007, 01:45:11 PM
His Beethoven symphonies are great, ravishing third and first. 8)
If I could only lay my hands on his Brahms he recorded many moons ago, fo a reasonable price.....

Do you mean his Brahms Deutsches Requiem and symphonies with the London Classical Players (period instruments)?  The Requiem was re-released and the symphonies are currently available in Japan (Toshiba
EMI, mid-price).  Indeed Norrington has quite a few fans in Japan - the most complete Norrington discography
online is in Japanese.  http://www.kanzaki.com/norrington/discography?lang=ja (http://www.kanzaki.com/norrington/discography?lang=ja) (English version http://www.kanzaki.com/norrington/discography?lang=en (http://www.kanzaki.com/norrington/discography?lang=en)). 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Larry Rinkel on October 29, 2007, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: masolino on October 24, 2007, 01:37:08 PM
And that is HIP?  Please  ::)

And your point is?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BachQ on October 29, 2007, 05:42:22 PM
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 29, 2007, 05:25:57 PM
And your point is?

Since when does one require a "point" in order to post a reply?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Greta on December 06, 2007, 09:02:28 PM
Just ran across this thread.  ;D

I like HIP. Very much. Up until a year ago I didn't know much about the practice of HIP, or listen to much of it, but GMG changed all that!

Why do I like it:

Mostly, the cleaner textures. And even though you can't come to a 100% reproduction of the original first performances, I still appreciate that I am hearing at least an approximation of the orchestration and tone colors the composer had in mind when he was writing. I find myself focusing on the music, the writing more, when I listen to (good) HIP recordings.

I also of course enjoy non-HIP, and hybrid-HIP or some combination thereof, of said works just as much if done well. But nowdays I actually prefer to be introduced to the earlier periods of music in nice HIP recordings if I can get ahold of them.

I just finished my fall half of upper-level music history, where we went from the beginning of music up to Handel, so as a result I had to do a lot of listening that cemented my affinity for HIP recordings. Our required listening was taken from the Norton Recorded Anthology of Western Music, Vol. 1, which included a smorgasbord of excerpts from some, what seemed to me, to be excellent HIP performances.

Most of the recordings appear to be taken from the label Harmonia Mundi, they are one of the leading labels for HIP, I think? And Hyperion is also well represented.

Here's a few of the excerpts that struck me most from the Norton collection, performance and piece:

de la Halle: Robins m'aime, De ma dame vient - Tonus Peregrinus - HNH International (Haunting. Really gorgeous.)
Leonin: Viderunt omnes - Elliot/Concentus
Palestrina: Pope Marcellus Mass - Phillips/The Tallis Scholars - Gimell
Monteverdi: L'orfeo - Rogers, Medlam/London Baroque - EMI
Purcell: Dido and Aeneas - Lorraine Hunt, Choir of Clare College, McGegan/Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra - Harmonia Mundi (Heartbreaking!)
Vivaldi: Violin Concerto in A minor, Op. 3, No. 6 (L'estro armonico) - Simon Standage, Pinnock/English Concert - Archiv (Excellent!!)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on December 06, 2007, 10:23:34 PM
Quote from: Greta on December 06, 2007, 09:02:28 PM
Just ran across this thread.  ;D

I like HIP. Very much. Up until a year ago I didn't know much about the practice of HIP, or listen to much of it, but GMG changed all that!

Most of the recordings appear to be taken from the label Harmonia Mundi, they are one of the leading labels for HIP, I think? And Hyperion is also well represented.

Greta, welcome to the club also known as the "Harpsichord Brigade" - a term invented by Harry Collier, if memory serves well.... ;D

Harmonia Mundi was one of the first labels to pioneer HIP and still is a important player.

Most of the major companies have a special HIP sub-label: Archiv (DG), Virgin Veritas (EMI), L'Oiseau Lyre (Decca), Vivarte (Sony), Deutsche Harmonia Mundi - DHM (BMG), Teldec "Das Alte Werk" & Erato (latter is predominantly HIP) (both Warner).

And several smaller lables are largely or excusively devoted to HIP recordings. To name just a few: Accent, Alpha, Ricercar, Opus 111, Astrée, Alia Vox, Glossa, Channel Classics (mixed), Zig Zag Territoires (mixed), and K617.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jjfan on December 07, 2007, 09:23:40 PM
If instrument has nothing to do with HIP, does it mean one could play Mozart or Bach in a modern piano and still be HIP? Also, does one know from the CD cover if its HIP or not?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bogey on December 07, 2007, 09:33:22 PM
Just caught this thread.  For me, of very late, (like right now  ;D) I am finding that the earlier the music the more I seem to enjoy HIP recordings.  For example I can take my Beethoven either way, but probably if asked to pick would go non-HIP.  The same would go for Mozart and to a lesser extent Haydn.  As I head back toward Bach, HIP seems to fit my taste more.  However, this will not get in my way of enjoying an extraordinary performance HIP or not.  My wife has also latched on to the idea of HIP and just thinks it's (to quote our friend DavidW) the bee's knees.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on December 07, 2007, 09:35:53 PM
Quote from: mafan on December 07, 2007, 09:23:40 PM
If instrument has nothing to do with HIP, does it mean one could play Mozart or Bach in a modern piano and still be HIP? Also, does one know from the CD cover if its HIP or not?

Good question - period instruments or not? Well, of course one could adopt historical musical practises without the use of period instruments. But IMO the the absence of the sound and/or the technical possibilities of the period instrument (f.i. with keyboard instruments) seriously limits the effect.

Personally I prefer HIP on period instruments. In the orchestral repertoire is HIP on non-period instruments or partly period instruments ("hybrid" orchestras) a common occurrence.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bogey on December 07, 2007, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Que on December 07, 2007, 09:35:53 PM


... or partly period instruments ("hybrid" orchestras) a common occurrence.

Q

Even the likes of AAM seem to have this happen.  Any larger ensembles that you know of Q that always has 100% period instruments?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on December 08, 2007, 02:25:32 PM
Quote from: Bogey on December 07, 2007, 09:46:41 PM
Even the likes of AAM seem to have this happen.  Any larger ensembles that you know of Q that always has 100% period instruments?
I'm not Q, nor am I John de Lancie ;) , but the Hanover Band, the Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique, and a few other sizable orchestras are, and have always been, all period instruments. 8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bassio on December 20, 2007, 10:27:36 AM
Adding my summarized response .. sorry I did not read through all the 5-page thread (I am new here  ;) )

HIP is good.

HIP is fine.

I like HIP (but not all of it). - it all depends on the interpretation

HIP saved a lot of good music (true, true)

HIP does not mean that other approaches are wrong.

HIP does not mean that you cannot give a convincing interpretation with other "methods"

If you are a HIP purist then you are missing a lot by not listening to others.

0:)

Disclaimer: I play Bach on the piano  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on December 20, 2007, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: bassio on December 20, 2007, 10:27:36 AM
Adding my summarized response .. sorry I did not read through all the 5-page thread (I am new here  ;) )

HIP is good.

HIP is fine.

I like HIP (but not all of it). - it all depends on the interpretation

HIP saved a lot of good music (true, true)

HIP does not mean that other approaches are wrong.

HIP does not mean that you cannot give a convincing interpretation with other "methods"

If you are a HIP purist then you are missing a lot by not listening to others.

0:)

Disclaimer: I play Bach on the piano  ;D

I agree with all, but man, playing Bach on a piano, that is strictly no go.............  :o ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 20, 2007, 12:46:09 PM
Quote from: Harry on December 20, 2007, 10:35:38 AM
I agree with all, but man, playing Bach on a piano, that is strictly no go.............  :o ;D

I agree with most of what our Egyptian friend says as well, but I have no problem when Bach is played on the piano with the dry and brittle sound of a Glenn Gould. For the Goldberg Variations, Gould's piano is definitely a go. The soupier and more romanticized tone of (say) Sergey Schepkin - that's a different matter.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Don on December 20, 2007, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: Que on December 07, 2007, 09:35:53 PM
Good question - period instruments or not? Well, of course one could adopt historical musical practises without the use of period instruments. But IMO the the absence of the sound and/or the technical possibilities of the period instrument (f.i. with keyboard instruments) seriously limits the effect.


Q

There aren't any concrete definitions on this matter.  However, as far as I'm concerned, the use of modern instruments precludes a HIP performance (although the approach might well contain HIP elements). 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 20, 2007, 06:31:57 PM
Quote from: Don on December 20, 2007, 12:56:17 PM
There aren't any concrete definitions on this matter.  However, as far as I'm concerned, the use of modern instruments precludes a HIP performance (although the approach might well contain HIP elements). 

And the use of period instruments does not necessarily indicate a HIP performance. To take the Goldberg Variations, they were unlikely to have been performed complete until well after Bach's death; if the anecdote about Count Kaiserling and JG Goldberg is true, the Count would frequently call for Goldberg "to play one of my variations." This may not have literally meant only one; no doubt like eating a Lay's potato chip it would be impossible to stop after only a canon or two, but it's equally unlikely the entire work was played each time Kaiserling could not fall asleep. ETA Hoffmann notes an early complete performance before a small audience in 1810; people started leaving after the fourth variation and only one listener stayed to the end. My point is that the Goldbergs were not considered a unified work so much as an anthology to dip into; complete traversals are a distinctly 20th-century phenomenon that is agreeable to modern sensibilities because we are more likely to believe in organically unified works. Hence we hear full recitals devoted to the GV or a book of the WTC, a practice that, whether on a harpsichord or a piano, is I submit as un-HIP as can be. A truly HIP approach to the GV or WTC would be to play selections for one's self, a friend, or a pupil (remember the preface to the WTC1, where Bach specifically states his intentions in writing the anthology were educational), and to not consider the 48 any kind of unified work. That, however, is an essential aspect of HIPness not very appealing to modern taste.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 20, 2007, 07:02:56 PM
This is an interesting and rarely discussed aspect of performance practice. I would add another on the same lines.

A "concert" (academy, whatever) almost never included a complete, uninterrupted performance of a multi-movement work. A typical lineup might be something like this:

1. The sonata-allegro (1st mvmt) of a symphony in G minor by Herr Mozart
2. An aria by Herr Haydn, sung by Mlle. Fleury
3. A duetto for soprano and bass by Messr. Gossec
4. The Andante and Minuet of the Symphony by Herr Mozart
5. A free fantasy at the keyboard by Herr Kozeluch
6. The Finale of the symphony by Herr Mozart

This is all a sanitization, of course, but you get the point.

And I doubt that modern concert goers would be just wild over an evening of this sort, but if we are being historically accurate... :)

8)

----------------
Now playing: Beethoven: Violin and Piano Sonatas - Andreas Staier, Daniel Sepec - Douze Variations pour violon et piano WoO40
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 21, 2007, 03:45:58 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 20, 2007, 07:02:56 PM
This is an interesting and rarely discussed aspect of performance practice. I would add another on the same lines.

A "concert" (academy, whatever) almost never included a complete, uninterrupted performance of a multi-movement work. A typical lineup might be something like this:

1. The sonata-allegro (1st mvmt) of a symphony in G minor by Herr Mozart
2. An aria by Herr Haydn, sung by Mlle. Fleury
3. A duetto for soprano and bass by Messr. Gossec
4. The Andante and Minuet of the Symphony by Herr Mozart
5. A free fantasy at the keyboard by Herr Kozeluch
6. The Finale of the symphony by Herr Mozart

This is all a sanitization, of course, but you get the point.

And I doubt that modern concert goers would be just wild over an evening of this sort, but if we are being historically accurate... :)

Perhaps the silliest concert experience I have ever had was to have seen and heard James Levine and Evgeny Kissin playing an evening of Schubert 4-hand piano music at Carnegie Hall to an audience of 2800. Instead of sitting side-by-side at one keyboard (where their closer hands could have occasionally brushed against each other, as Schubert might have counted on the erotic suggestiveness of a man and his lady friend playing in proximity), they sat at huge opposing Steinway grands -- I suppose to protect Evgeny from falling off the bench. But under such conditions, even playing on opposing fortepianos would have made no difference; anything farther from an intimate colloquy between two friends at a keyboard could not be imagined.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Don on December 23, 2007, 07:48:24 AM
Quote from: Sforzando on December 20, 2007, 06:31:57 PM
And the use of period instruments does not necessarily indicate a HIP performance. To take the Goldberg Variations, they were unlikely to have been performed complete until well after Bach's death; if the anecdote about Count Kaiserling and JG Goldberg is true, the Count would frequently call for Goldberg "to play one of my variations." This may not have literally meant only one; no doubt like eating a Lay's potato chip it would be impossible to stop after only a canon or two, but it's equally unlikely the entire work was played each time Kaiserling could not fall asleep. ETA Hoffmann notes an early complete performance before a small audience in 1810; people started leaving after the fourth variation and only one listener stayed to the end. My point is that the Goldbergs were not considered a unified work so much as an anthology to dip into; complete traversals are a distinctly 20th-century phenomenon that is agreeable to modern sensibilities because we are more likely to believe in organically unified works. Hence we hear full recitals devoted to the GV or a book of the WTC, a practice that, whether on a harpsichord or a piano, is I submit as un-HIP as can be. A truly HIP approach to the GV or WTC would be to play selections for one's self, a friend, or a pupil (remember the preface to the WTC1, where Bach specifically states his intentions in writing the anthology were educational), and to not consider the 48 any kind of unified work. That, however, is an essential aspect of HIPness not very appealing to modern taste.

So one can get a harpsichord recording of the Goldbergs and just play a few selections.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on December 24, 2007, 07:00:08 PM
I guess to this Sforzando could reply that listening to the music on a CD player isn't "HIP" at all either. You need to have your own harpsichord player who eats in the kitchen in the basement along with your other servants, and you need to listen to the music in a candlelit, badly heated room to get the real "HIP" feeling. You also need to have really bad teeth.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 26, 2007, 06:43:32 PM
Quote from: M forever on December 24, 2007, 07:00:08 PM
I guess to this Sforzando could reply that listening to the music on a CD player isn't "HIP" at all either. You need to have your own harpsichord player who eats in the kitchen in the basement along with your other servants, and you need to listen to the music in a candlelit, badly heated room to get the real "HIP" feeling. You also need to have really bad teeth.

As well as all kinds of intestinal complaints, syphilis, and poorly corrected eyesight.

I guess to the comment by Don, Sforzando would actually reply that yes, of course you can play a selection from a harpsichord recording of the Goldbergs. But it would be more radically HIP yet to record only a selection from them, which I don't think anyone has done. I believe that most of us in the 20th-21st century are so attuned to the concept of the work as something unified and inviolate that we would feel it distinctly odd to hear only a variation or two from the Goldbergs; I myself was reading the Handel Chaconne in G at the piano a few days ago, the one with 60+ variations on an 8-bar theme, and I gave up after about 15 because they were getting too difficult for my out-of-practice fingers. Yet in Handel's time that wouldn't have mattered a bit. (The excellent study of how the concept of a unified "work" came into being is Lydia Goehr's "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works," a difficult but eye-opening book.)

My overall feeling about HIP-ness is that no matter how much we can recover from past practice, we cannot get away from the history that followed, and we are inevitably bound to the prejudices and assumptions of our own time - making truly HIP performance impossible. So the HIPsters cherry-pick the aspects of older performance style that are most palatable to our modern sensibilities. I'm jumping way ahead chronologically now, but for example, one aspect of our modern insistence that a work is a unified organic whole is that we do not applaud between movements. Yet as recently as the late 19th century, when Bruckner's 7th received one of the composer's rare public triumphs in Vienna, the composer was called on stage for bows after each movement. Just try applauding between movements of a symphony today and see what dirty looks you get from your neighbors.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on December 26, 2007, 06:52:31 PM
The whole "HIP" thing isn't about imitating actual historical performances, practices, and circumstances. It is simply about studying these parameters to learn more about what options there are to perform the music. To learn what is not written in the notated music because contemporary performers read the music in different ways in their day. All the stuff you say above is really extremely old news. That has been discussed by the more serious "HIP" people for decades.
Good thing though you finally begin catching up on that, too. Good morning!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 26, 2007, 07:08:15 PM
Quote from: M forever on December 26, 2007, 06:52:31 PM
All the stuff you say above is really extremely old news. That has been discussed by the more serious "HIP" people for decades.

And who are the more serious "HIP" people, so they can be distinguished from the more frivolous ones?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on December 26, 2007, 07:21:21 PM
Harnoncourt, for instance. He has written about these things decades ago, and explained that countless times in many interviews. A lot of his writings are available in book form - good reading if you want to finally find out what "HIP" actually means. Other "serious" "HIP" people are Goebel or Hogwood.  Mackerras. Pommer. Immerseel. Östman. To name just a few.
Another book you should read is Leopold Mozart's book about violin playing. That alone will make you understand (hopefully!) that studying historical performance practice is not a fashion, but an important source of information for anyone interested in historical music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 26, 2007, 07:24:44 PM
Quote from: M forever on December 26, 2007, 07:21:21 PM
That alone will make you understand (hopefully!) that studying historical performance practice is not a fashion, but an important source of information for anyone interested in historical music.

I never doubted that or denied it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on December 27, 2007, 04:27:18 PM
Gurn, I think that I would like your historical program.  My attention span has been short of late when it comes to music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 27, 2007, 04:40:09 PM
Quote from: DavidW on December 27, 2007, 04:27:18 PM
Gurn, I think that I would like your historical program.  My attention span has been short of late when it comes to music.

Programmes can always be useful in keeping your interest up. Like the concert recreation I am listening to right now. I hate when my attention wanders and I can't even remember what I listened to... :(

8)

----------------
Now playing:

April 2, 1800 - Alfred Brendel - Bia 175 WoO 73 Variations (10) in Bb on 'La Stessa, le Stessissima' from "Falstaff" by Salieri
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on April 18, 2008, 03:59:04 AM
So, we end up with the question what can or cannot be achieved with HIP! :)
I've moved the discussion to the appropriate thread...

Quote from: Florestan on April 18, 2008, 01:35:52 AM
Let's take the case of the Baroque. Most (if not all) composers would be astonished in the highest degree to see that:

1. Their music is performed in large concert halls where audience sits still and stiff.

The large hall is actually a reason pro HIP. Talking during a musical performance doesn't make it more HIP, since it bears no relevance on the music as such but just on the way it is experienced - not the same thing, we'll return to that. Besides, I assume that the audience listening to Bach's cantatas was actually rather silent. 8)

Quote2. Their music is performed exactly as written in scores.

Certainly in the Baroque it was custom to take some liberties with the score, for instance to add embellishments, and please note that this also done in HIP performances today! So your statement is actually not true. The problem with non-HIP performances is that they take the wrong kind of liberties with the score: out of necessity, because they do not use the right instruments, or out of ignorance, because they do not know how certain elements in the score were supposed to be interpreted.

Quote3. Their music is regarded as something more than either entertaining or instructing.

I don't see your point. Do you think that Bach didn't enjoy the keyboard music he wrote for instruction purposes? I think he did, and intended others to do so. And even if not, that doesn't seem an obstacle to do so anyway. And what is the difference between "entertainment" and enjoyment? Again, the way the music is regarded by modern audiences is not relevant for the way the music should be performed, according to the knowledge of the historical practises.

Quote4. Their manuscripts have been searched for and catalogued.

Don't see the relevance of this either. Does the fact that research is conducted on historical musical practises in any way diminish the relevance of the results of those efforts?

QuoteB. Bach's cantatas were composed because his job description was to provide them for the divine service and he obliged dutifully. He never ever thought that the 19th or 20th century aesthetic ideas will take them out of their context and perform them to a non-Lutheran, non-worshipping audience assembled for the sake of the music itself.
It's no use enjoying Bach cantatas in HIP because we are no 18th century Lutherans?

QuoteThe ideas of music as more than a tool for entertaining or instructing the upper classes, of dedicated concert halls, of orchestras performing for a large, socially mixed audience, of performers making careers by and for themselves --- that is, the musical world in which we breathe today --- were completely alien until the rise of Romanticism. As Thomas Mann (through Adrian Leverkuhn's mouth) very aptly put it, the main achievement of Romanticism is that it took music out of its municipal fanfare state and integrated it in the general intellectual circuit of the time. If we, middle-class as we are, go today to Baroque music concertos offered in concert halls by professional ensembles is not because, but in spite, of the Baroque aesthetics and practice. Actually, we act in the most Romantic manner.

Again, your are confusing the music as such, and the social circumstances and the way in which it was enjoyed.

QuoteHIP performance? Perfect, no problem with that. But performance is not enough, if you really want to experience Baroque music in its period context. You also need "HIP" mentality --- and that is lost forever.
We don not need a "HIP mentality", nor does the fact we do not live in the 17th, 18th 19th or 20th century diminish the value of a HIP approach. What you are basically saying is: it is necessary and inevitable to adapt musical performances to the way that music is generally perceived today. This is in fact a circular argument: because the way it is perceived is influenced by the way it is performed.
My argument would be: maybe it is worthwhile for presentday listeners to make an effort to appreciate the music as it was intended to be performed. Why? Because in that way the music has so much more to tell. For me personally is was no big effort at all - the value of HIP was immediately apparent.

QuoteAs for Mozart, I too think that he would have relished massive forces and grand pianos and wouldn't have stuck to tiny princely Kappellen or fortepianos and harpsichords.

This is not to say that HIP is useless, God forbid! But the problem has many facets. For instance: is Beethoven, who constantly complained about the poor quality of the fortepianos and proclaimed that his music is for the future, really serviced by performing his music HIP?

That's an "Golden Oldie". I believe that any music is inextricably linked to the musical tradition it was written in and the means of performance at hand. In other words: if Mozart or Beethoven would have been familiar with the instruments and orchestras of today, they would have written very different music. So it's no use to treat the music they actually did write, as music they could have written.. if, and if, and if only... That would be second guessing both the composer's intentions and historical circumstances.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: George on April 18, 2008, 05:09:48 AM
Quote from: Que on April 18, 2008, 03:59:04 AM
That's an "Golden Oldy". I believe that any music is inextricably linked to the musical tradition it was written in and the means of performance at hand. In other words: if Mozart or Beethoven would have been familiar with the instruments and orchestras of today, they would have written very different music. So it's no use to treat the music they actually did write, as music they could have written.. if, and if, and if only... That would be second guessing both the composer's intentions and historical circumstances.
Q

What about if the composer sees the increasing advances (as Beethoven did) and writes music knowing that the piano's will be improved enough to play the music he writes? I think at least in Beethoven's case (being deaf and all) he envisions music in his head that could be played on pianos that did not have the restrictions of his day.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on April 18, 2008, 05:26:43 AM
Quote from: George on April 18, 2008, 05:09:48 AM
What about if the composer sees the increasing advances (as Beethoven did) and writes music knowing that the piano's will be improved enough to play the music he writes? I think at least in Beethoven's case (being deaf and all) he envisions music in his head that could be played on pianos that did not have the restrictions of his day.

Paul Komen (re: essay in the booklet accompanying his recording of Diabelli Variations) found that Beethoven was dissatisfied with standards of string playing in his days as well (witness the demands imposed by his own late quartets).  So it may well been an extreme perfectionism rather than anything specific about fortepianos of his day that contributed to B's unhappiness as such.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on April 18, 2008, 05:34:28 AM
Quote from: George on April 18, 2008, 05:09:48 AM
What about if the composer sees the increasing advances (as Beethoven did) and writes music knowing that the piano's will be improved enough to play the music he writes? I think at least in Beethoven's case (being deaf and all) he envisions music in his head that could be played on pianos that did not have the restrictions of his day.

"What do I care about his puny fiddle when the spirit moves me?" growled Ludwig.

He was indeed famous for breaking strings on his fortepianos, and when the instrument's range was expanded at the time of his late sonatas, he took immediate advantage of the improvement - to the point where in the manuscript of op. 101, he triumphantly wrote "Low E!" to call attention to that new note.

But Beethoven did not only stretch the capabilities of his instruments, he also stretched the capabilities of his performers. Works like the Great Fugue and the Hammerklavier went far beyond the technical demands of any music preceding, and if anything our technical powerhouses of today, for whom Liszt and Messiaen are walks in the park, run the risk of making late Beethoven sound too easy.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: eyeresist on April 20, 2008, 08:43:57 PM
I'm not hugely familar with HIP as I mostly listen in the Romantic era, but I have a few things including Kuijken conducting Haydn, which is very good. Norrington's LCP Beethoven symphonies seem to me to be recorded in rather "hard" sound, which reduces enjoyment for me. I don't know if other LCP recordings have the same problem.

I'd really like to hear Romantic violin concertos played in a more HIP style, that is, without that annoying constant vibrato, but that doesn't seem to be an option as yet.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: ChamberNut on May 02, 2008, 07:11:52 AM
I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

???
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on May 02, 2008, 07:19:50 AM
Quote from: eyeresist on April 20, 2008, 08:43:57 PM
Norrington's LCP Beethoven symphonies seem to me to be recorded in rather "hard" sound, which reduces enjoyment for me. I don't know if other LCP recordings have the same problem.


I think, that would be a problem with your equipment or acoustics in your listening area, for the sound is certainly very good of these recordings, being recorded by EMI veterans.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on May 02, 2008, 07:22:18 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 02, 2008, 07:11:52 AM
I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

???

Not always Ray, but some bands always play on period instruments.
So its a question of experience really, and you soon enough pick that up.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: springrite on May 02, 2008, 07:23:37 AM
I listen to lots of HIP recordings. All the late 20th century music recordings I have are Historically Informed Performances using instruments of the period.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on May 02, 2008, 07:30:19 AM
Quote from: springrite on May 02, 2008, 07:23:37 AM
I listen to lots of HIP recordings. All the late 20th century music recordings I have are Historically Informed Performances using instruments of the period.

Plus all the performers are historical as well.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: springrite on May 02, 2008, 07:32:33 AM
Quote from: fl.traverso on May 02, 2008, 07:30:19 AM
Plus all the performers are historical as well.  ;)

Exactly! And many of the performers know the composer personally, with many of the recording sessions or rehearsals advised by the composer. Can't get more historical than that!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on May 02, 2008, 07:33:27 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 02, 2008, 07:11:52 AM
I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

???

Good question, unfortunately it's difficult to know if you're not familiar with the performers.
Sometimes there is some kind of indication like" "on period instruments". Other than that: it's mostly mentioned in reviews and once you get familiar with performers in the HIP field, things get easier to identify.
Recordings of Medieval & Renaissance music are 100% HIP and nowadays also the vast majority of Baroque music, after that there is a mix of HIP & non-HIP.

And - of course - you can always pop the question on this forum!  ;D

Some relevant threads:
HIP Mozart (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,232.0.html)
HIP Beethoven (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,145.0.html)
Beethoven Symphonies HIP (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1954.0.html)
HIP Romantics (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,159.0.html)

Q

PS And let's get things straight: the terms HIP and contemporary are mutually exclusive. HIP can per definition only apply to non-contemporary music. $:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on May 02, 2008, 07:33:32 AM
Quote from: springrite on May 02, 2008, 07:23:37 AM
I listen to lots of HIP recordings. All the late 20th century music recordings I have are Historically Informed Performances using instruments of the period.

That was my second big laugh today, and its still resounding around my house! ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on May 02, 2008, 07:36:45 AM
Quote from: springrite on May 02, 2008, 07:32:33 AM
Can't get more historical than that!

Although one has clearly left out the "informed" bit there.... :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on May 02, 2008, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 02, 2008, 07:11:52 AM
I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

???

Ask the musicians themselves.  Count 'em in if they insist that their performances are historically informed. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on June 04, 2008, 09:28:01 AM
Bump, and please go ahead... 8)

Q

Quote from: ChamberNut on June 03, 2008, 08:34:13 AM
Question for the HIPpies:

Is it really 'HIP' if it's all recorded on state-of-the-art 21st century technology??  Shouldn't it be recorded the old-fashioned way?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Wendell_E on June 04, 2008, 09:41:52 AM
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 09:28:01 AM
Bump, and please go ahead... 8)

Q

Quote from: ChamberNut on June 03, 2008, 11:34:13 AM
QuoteQuestion for the HIPpies:

Is it really 'HIP' if it's all recorded on state-of-the-art 21st century technology??  Shouldn't it be recorded the old-fashioned way?


Well, to be strictly 'HIP', you shouldn't record it at all.  Live only!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 09:43:58 AM
Quote from: Wendell_E on June 04, 2008, 09:41:52 AM



Well, to be strictly 'Hip', you shouldn't record it at all.  Live only!

Exactly. With powdered wigs and weird stockings!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 10, 2008, 08:05:53 AM
Quote from: Don on July 18, 2008, 01:04:53 PM
No.  HIP doesn't even necessarily imply use of period instruments.

If HIP doesn't imply the use of period instruments, then how does one distinguish between period instrument performance and modern performance styles that have been influenced by historic scholarship?  Clearly styles of performance of music with a modern orchestra is something that is constantly evolving, and is thus more contemporary than historic. 

Obviously, the terminology needs to be adjusted to these factors.  HIP should stand only for Historic Instrument Performance while another term for the contemporary style of performance which breaks from the earlier Romantically influenced style needs a new moniker.  If we continue to call it HIP for Historically Informed Performance we only land up in arguments which are unnecessary.  How about calling Modern Orchestra/Instrument Historically Informed Performance something like Mo-HIP?  That gives us clarity about exactly what is being discussed, and respects both performance styles.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on August 10, 2008, 12:22:21 PM
There is no easy way to develop and actually no real need for such terms. "On modern instruments" or "on historical instruments" is pretty much the only parameter which can be more or less easily labeled. When it comes to the actual performance practice and playing, most people don't have the slightest clue what that actually is anyway, which parameters are derived from the study of historical performance practices, playing techniques, and esthetics, which parameters come from other performance styles etc. That is enormously complex. Contrary to what you and a lot of people think, fast tempi and hard timpani sticks isn't what period performance is all about. It's much more complex than that. Much, much more complex.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 10, 2008, 07:15:13 PM
I know that there is a good deal of complexity to historically informed performance whether on historic or modern instruments, but I also know that performance on modern instruments, no matter how informed by historic practice, sounds differently from performance on historic instruments.  It doesn't take a genius to hear the differences, even if intelligent musical performance really doesn't depend on the instruments so much as the intelligence of the musicians.  However, the sound of the music is what really is important in the end and modern instruments sound very differently from period instruments and no matter how great the intelligence of the modern instrument musician, he is not going to make that modern instrument sound like the historic one.  There is no way a piano will ever sound like a harpsichord, and while I love Peter Serkin's recordings of the Goldberg Variations, they are no substitute for the work of Rousset or Hantaï.  Similarly, there is no way that a steel string violin will sound like a gut string violin, and an unmodified Stradivarius sounds differently from a modified Strad, which will also sound diffferently from a Guarneri or a modern violin. The unique sound of leather skins on timpani and hard sticks may bore you, but I find their sound exhilarating, especially when the performance is a good one.  (BTW, I don't really understand why you think liking period tympani is so ridiculous when you admit to a preference for the sounds of the historic winds and brass instruments which make the WP sound so unique.)

Yes, call me a simpleton (or worse in your own inimitably harsh style), but for me music is as much a sensual experience as an intellectual one.  Poor musical performance exists for modern instruments as well as for historic instruments and while I may not be adept at verbally describing a bad performance or a great one, I know one when I hear one.  So, all things being equal, I'll make no apologies for loving the sound of the period instrument orchestra.  Btw, I'd love to hear Mahler performed on gut strings with the portamenti, and all the other stylistic mannerisms popular in Mahler's lifetime that are no longer used in performance -- even when historically informed.  I always wonder how differently Mahler's orchestra sounded from the orchestras that perform his music nowadays.  I know that it had to sound differently, not withstanding the interpretive differences between conductors such as Claudio and Abbado.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on August 12, 2008, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 10, 2008, 07:15:13 PM
I know that there is a good deal of complexity to historically informed performance whether on historic or modern instruments, but I also know that performance on modern instruments, no matter how informed by historic practice, sounds differently from performance on historic instruments.  It doesn't take a genius to hear the differences, even if intelligent musical performance really doesn't depend on the instruments so much as the intelligence of the musicians.  However, the sound of the music is what really is important in the end and modern instruments sound very differently from period instruments and no matter how great the intelligence of the modern instrument musician, he is not going to make that modern instrument sound like the historic one.  There is no way a piano will ever sound like a harpsichord, and while I love Peter Serkin's recordings of the Goldberg Variations, they are no substitute for the work of Rousset or Hantaï.  Similarly, there is no way that a steel string violin will sound like a gut string violin, and an unmodified Stradivarius sounds differently from a modified Strad, which will also sound diffferently from a Guarneri or a modern violin. The unique sound of leather skins on timpani and hard sticks may bore you, but I find their sound exhilarating, especially when the performance is a good one.  (BTW, I don't really understand why you think liking period tympani is so ridiculous when you admit to a preference for the sounds of the historic winds and brass instruments which make the WP sound so unique.)

Yes, call me a simpleton (or worse in your own inimitably harsh style), but for me music is as much a sensual experience as an intellectual one.  Poor musical performance exists for modern instruments as well as for historic instruments and while I may not be adept at verbally describing a bad performance or a great one, I know one when I hear one.  So, all things being equal, I'll make no apologies for loving the sound of the period instrument orchestra.  Btw, I'd love to hear Mahler performed on gut strings with the portamenti, and all the other stylistic mannerisms popular in Mahler's lifetime that are no longer used in performance -- even when historically informed.  I always wonder how differently Mahler's orchestra sounded from the orchestras that perform his music nowadays.  I know that it had to sound differently, not withstanding the interpretive differences between conductors such as Claudio and Abbado.

HIP is still a concept that is in the infancy of its development. As it progresses it will go back to and move away, from current or past conceptions. It's still very much inventing itself. Personally I don't think it has much to teach us in terms of late-classical and early romantic works (say, 1790-1850). What's really important is to find a style that spurs one to explore the repertoire in question. I have heard quite a few HIP CPE Bach recordings, and I'm convinced they have pretty much cornered the style as I understand it. Sonatas by Pletnev or orchestral works by Leppard and others are interesting inasmuch as they cover repertory not already trodded by the likes of Spanyi or Charivari agréable. As a matter of fact, comparing the cello concertos by Meneses ("modern") and Suzuki ("HIP") was quite instructive. I liked them both, as they offered different satisfactions to the mind and taste.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 13, 2008, 09:04:01 AM
If you really want to find an HIP argument, today the NYTimes has reported that Roger Norrington wants to conduct Elgar's anthem Land of Hope and Glory without vibrato at the end of the BBC Proms.  It's set off quite a controversy in Olde England.  Apparently Norrington feels that Elgar wrote the anthem in a period when there was more of what he calls "pure tone" play than the vibrato that has become so ubiquitous.  Here's a link to the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/arts/music/13vibr.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin).

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/13/arts/Vibrato600.jpg)

Left, Edward Elgar; right, Roger Norrington, who has upset some Britons by saying he may conduct Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" March without vibrato for the Last Night of the Proms.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Don on August 13, 2008, 12:19:22 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 10, 2008, 08:05:53 AM
If HIP doesn't imply the use of period instruments, then how does one distinguish between period instrument performance and modern performance styles that have been influenced by historic scholarship? 

It's all in the listening.  As far as titles go, I prefer to use "period instrument" instead of HIP which is becoming too generic a term.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 13, 2008, 12:24:45 PM
Quote from: Don on August 13, 2008, 12:19:22 PM
It's all in the listening.  As far as titles go, I prefer to use "period instrument" instead of HIP which is becoming too generic a term.

Me too, although I frequently use HIP because it is faster to type... ::)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 13, 2008, 12:33:31 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 10, 2008, 08:05:53 AM
If HIP doesn't imply the use of period instruments, then how does one distinguish between period instrument performance and modern performance styles that have been influenced by historic scholarship?...
Oh, the sounds of the instruments are nothing alike.  Even without the pitch difference I hear, when I turn on the radio in the middle of something I can tell at once whether it's period or modern instruments; the strings are far more slender-sounding and the winds mellower in period-instrument ensembles.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on August 13, 2008, 06:02:25 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 13, 2008, 09:04:01 AM
If you really want to find an HIP argument, today the NYTimes has reported that Roger Norrington wants to conduct Elgar's anthem Land of Hope and Glory without vibrato at the end of the BBC Proms.  It's set off quite a controversy in Olde England.  Apparently Norrington feels that Elgar wrote the anthem in a period when there was more of what he calls "pure tone" play than the vibrato that has become so ubiquitous.  Here's a link to the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/arts/music/13vibr.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin).

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/13/arts/Vibrato600.jpg)

Left, Edward Elgar; right, Roger Norrington, who has upset some Britons by saying he may conduct Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" March without vibrato for the Last Night of the Proms.

Miscreant false representation, as usual from Norrington. Land of Hope and Glory is the portion of Elgar's Coronation Ode that the composer adapted from the trio of his P&C March # 1. It was first performed in 1902 by Dame Clara Butt, of famous boomy voice and ample vibrato reputation ("On a clear day you could have heard her across the English Channel" - quote by Thomas Beecham). Since Elgar wrote  his Sea Pictures for her, do we also expect that great song cycle to be sung without vibrato? I mean, it's the same composer, the same melody, and he wrote other stuff for her, so he miust have loved her way of singing, vibrato and all. Norrington is a fraud.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 13, 2008, 06:07:37 PM
Don't ask me about this!  I don't have the vaguest idea whether Norrington is onto something or off in cloud cuckoo land.  I just find the whole business a bit of a hoot. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 13, 2008, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 13, 2008, 12:33:31 PM
Oh, the sounds of the instruments are nothing alike.  Even without the pitch difference I hear, when I turn on the radio in the middle of something I can tell at once whether it's period or modern instruments; the strings are far more slender-sounding and the winds mellower in period-instrument ensembles.

Of course the instruments sound differently!  That's why I think that divorcing HIP from period instrument performance is like translating Shakespeare into modern English -- it might make the play more understandable to a modern audience, but it's death to the poetry.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on August 13, 2008, 06:42:39 PM
Bull. That comparison doesn't work at all. If you think about it, it's actually the exact other way around when it comes to music.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 13, 2008, 06:02:25 PM
Norrington is a fraud.

Norrington has some strange ideas, or let's say, he sometimes comes up with ideas that are more concept ideas and he has a tendency to get a little tunnel-visioned about his idées fixes (is that how you say it in plural)? But he does have a solid musical craftsmanship background, and some of the things he does are very well done, however "right" or "wrong" some of his ideas may be. What he does (and says!!!) usually should be taken with a few grains of salt, but I would definitely not go as far as calling him a fraud. That is unfair.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on August 13, 2008, 07:04:15 PM
In this particular instance it's either a fraud or a provocation. How about a vibratoless Kindertotenlieder, Pelléas et Mélisande or Shéhérazade, La Mer, La Valse or Don juan, works that are more or less contemporaries to the Elgar works in question... If Norrington wants to push the envelope that far, he has to be prepared for some criticism. I'm quite sure he actually enjoys the polemic.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on August 13, 2008, 07:13:25 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 13, 2008, 06:14:25 PM
Of course the instruments sound differently!  That's why I think that divorcing HIP from period instrument performance is like translating Shakespeare into modern English -- it might make the play more understandable to a modern audience, but it's death to the poetry.

Linguistically speaking, Shakespeare is written in modern English. But if one were to perform Shakespeare in a "HIP" manner, it might include such things as using boys for the female parts, speaking the verse in an Elizabethan accent (which supposedly is closest to the Appalachian accent of the American southeast today), and performing the plays in a re-construction of Shakespeare's theater such as is found in London's new Globe or the John Crawford Adams Playhouse at Hofstra University in New York. But some of these are external matters - although it adds a dimension of irony in a play like As You Like It for a boy to be playing a girl who pretends to be a boy who at one points playacts the part of a girl (as opposed to only having a female actor who plays a girl who pretends to be a boy who at one points playacts the part of a girl) - and I wonder how much they add to our appreciation of Shakespeare.

A more significantly HIP approach to Shakespeare would be more concerned with internals, such as (for example) Elizabethan attitudes towards ghosts, revenge, and regicide, the study of which has produced some valuable reinterpretations of Hamlet that have called into question older readings of the play as a story about procrastination or a "man who could not make up his mind," as we were informed in the Olivier movie of 1940. I'm thinking of books like Eleanor Prosser's "Hamlet and Revenge," whose conclusions seem to me unsatisfactory, and the most convincing HIP reading of the play I've encountered, Bernard Grebanier's "The Heart of Hamlet."

To bring this back to music, I'm wondering if a distinction can or should be made between external HIP (period instruments, hard timpani sticks, no vibrato) and more internal factors such as phrasing, ornamentation, and aspects of notation whose meaning has changed between ealier times and our own. But can a clear distinction between external and internal factors be made, and how do we decide what aspect of HIP falls into which camp?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on August 13, 2008, 07:27:26 PM
Thanks for this post. These are very good comparisons. Man, finally someone gets it!

At this point, I am so tired of the discussion and how little most people understand about this subject though, that I don't know yet if I will continue to participate it or drop out. If I don't drop out, I will come back to some of your points there.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 13, 2008, 09:39:15 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 13, 2008, 09:04:01 AM
If you really want to find an HIP argument, today the NYTimes has reported that Roger Norrington wants to conduct Elgar's anthem Land of Hope and Glory without vibrato at the end of the BBC Proms.  It's set off quite a controversy in Olde England.  Apparently Norrington feels that Elgar wrote the anthem in a period when there was more of what he calls "pure tone" play than the vibrato that has become so ubiquitous. 
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 13, 2008, 06:02:25 PM
Miscreant false representation, as usual from Norrington...
I wonder.  As you say, singers from that time used vibrato; yet in many old (1920s-1930s) recordings of European orchestras, none of the wind players use any vibrato, not even the flutes.  As late as the 1950s, oboist Marcel Tabuteau of the Philadelphia Orchestra used virtually no vibrato.  And Elgar died in 1934...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on August 13, 2008, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 13, 2008, 09:39:15 PM
As you say, singers from that time used vibrato

Lilas P didn't say that. Why do you put words in his mouth?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: eyeresist on August 13, 2008, 11:15:31 PM
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 13, 2008, 06:02:25 PM
Miscreant false representation, as usual from Norrington. Land of Hope and Glory is the portion of Elgar's Coronation Ode that the composer adapted from the trio of his P&C March # 1. It was first performed in 1902 by Dame Clara Butt, of famous boomy voice and ample vibrato reputation ("On a clear day you could have heard her across the English Channel" - quote by Thomas Beecham). Since Elgar wrote  his Sea Pictures for her, do we also expect that great song cycle to be sung without vibrato? I mean, it's the same composer, the same melody, and he wrote other stuff for her, so he miust have loved her way of singing, vibrato and all. Norrington is a fraud.

Speaking of false representation - Norrington isn't saying Hope & Glory should be sung without vibrato (impossible for most people), he's talking about string tone.
This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/arts/music/13vibr.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin#) has some hilarious quotes, particularly "I am fed up with these politically correct liberals in the establishment doing all they can to denigrate and undermine British and English cultural icons."  :o

Admittedly Elgar dedicated his violin concerto to Kreisler, who became infamous for his constant vibrato, but my own feeling is that vibrato is too often overdone, and I welcome a move in the other direction. I'd like to hear more 19th and 20th century music done "pure", just for a different perspective. It would certainly suit Shostakovich, and could be an improvement for the Sibelius concerto.

Hope & Glory is a piece in which lack of string vibrato would hardly be noticable anyway, particularly with all the hullabulloo of the Prommers to contend with. I think "storm in a teacup" will be the final verdict.


Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 13, 2008, 07:04:15 PM
How about a vibratoless Kindertotenlieder, Pelléas et Mélisande or Shéhérazade, La Mer, La Valse or Don juan

Yes please!  :D

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 14, 2008, 07:28:15 AM
Quote from: M forever on August 13, 2008, 09:47:20 PM
Lilas P didn't say that. Why do you put words in his mouth?
Well, he said that ONE famous singer used vibrato, so I made what I thought was a justified assumption.  Besides, I've heard singers' old recordings too.

But speaking of vibrato, I suspect the question will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.  Mozart mentions vibrato in at least one of his letters, indicating that singers, woodwind and string players all used it, although he railed against the artificial-sounding vibrato of some singers.  (Sound like modern times? ;D)  Yet there are all those old orchestral recordings with vibratoless wind players...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 14, 2008, 08:19:51 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 14, 2008, 07:28:15 AM
Well, he said that ONE famous singer used vibrato, so I made what I thought was a justified assumption.  Besides, I've heard singers' old recordings too.

But speaking of vibrato, I suspect the question will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.  Mozart mentions vibrato in at least one of his letters, indicating that singers, woodwind and string players all used it, although he railed against the artificial-sounding vibrato of some singers.  (Sound like modern times? ;D)  Yet there are all those old orchestral recordings with vibratoless wind players...

This is one of the issues that the HIP movement raised (and where they may have screwed up a bit by going overboard). Mozart's letter to his father does not say (as is frequently alleged) that singers and fiddlers (specifically) shouldn't use vibrato at all, what he said is that they should use it in a tasteful manner that serves the music. The same goes for his statements about rubato. He didn't use that word, he called it "stealing time", but he said that it is only a right hand thing (for keyboardists), the left hand has to keep steady as a rock on the right tempo for it to be effective. This is greatly different from the taken-away idea that keyboardist shouldn't use rubato in Classical Era works. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Don on August 14, 2008, 08:22:37 AM
I'm not particuarly concerned with the historical perspective of using vibrato.  Over time, I've come to dislike greatly its use for baroque and classical era music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 14, 2008, 01:10:54 PM
Quote from: M forever on August 13, 2008, 06:42:39 PM
Bull. That comparison doesn't work at all. If you think about it, it's actually the exact other way around when it comes to music.

Norrington has some strange ideas, or let's say, he sometimes comes up with ideas that are more concept ideas and he has a tendency to get a little tunnel-visioned about his idées fixes (is that how you say it in plural)? But he does have a solid musical craftsmanship background, and some of the things he does are very well done, however "right" or "wrong" some of his ideas may be. What he does (and says!!!) usually should be taken with a few grains of salt, but I would definitely not go as far as calling him a fraud. That is unfair.

No, I usually spell it, "obsessions."  ;)

However, if my French text book is correct,  it is idées fixés.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on August 14, 2008, 01:16:03 PM
Quote from: Sforzando on August 13, 2008, 07:13:25 PM
Linguistically speaking, Shakespeare is written in modern English. But if one were to perform Shakespeare in a "HIP" manner, it might include such things as using boys for the female parts, speaking the verse in an Elizabethan accent (which supposedly is closest to the Appalachian accent of the American southeast today), and performing the plays in a re-construction of Shakespeare's theater such as is found in London's new Globe or the John Crawford Adams Playhouse at Hofstra University in New York. But some of these are external matters - although it adds a dimension of irony in a play like As You Like It for a boy to be playing a girl who pretends to be a boy who at one points playacts the part of a girl (as opposed to only having a female actor who plays a girl who pretends to be a boy who at one points playacts the part of a girl) - and I wonder how much they add to our appreciation of Shakespeare.

A more significantly HIP approach to Shakespeare would be more concerned with internals, such as (for example) Elizabethan attitudes towards ghosts, revenge, and regicide, the study of which has produced some valuable reinterpretations of Hamlet that have called into question older readings of the play as a story about procrastination or a "man who could not make up his mind," as we were informed in the Olivier movie of 1940. I'm thinking of books like Eleanor Prosser's "Hamlet and Revenge," whose conclusions seem to me unsatisfactory, and the most convincing HIP reading of the play I've encountered, Bernard Grebanier's "The Heart of Hamlet."

To bring this back to music, I'm wondering if a distinction can or should be made between external HIP (period instruments, hard timpani sticks, no vibrato) and more internal factors such as phrasing, ornamentation, and aspects of notation whose meaning has changed between ealier times and our own. But can a clear distinction between external and internal factors be made, and how do we decide what aspect of HIP falls into which camp?

Yes, that's the way I love to see Shakespeare!  Standing in the pit with the rest of the rowdy commoners.  However I was alluding to the tendency to take Shakespeare's language and to transform the slang into modern idiom so that the dialogue is understandable to modern listeners.  It's a sad fact, but most of the double entendres and jokes that Shakespeare included even in a tragedy go over most heads nowadays.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on August 14, 2008, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: Bunny on August 14, 2008, 01:10:54 PM
No, I usually spell it, "obsessions."  ;)

However, if my French text book is correct,  it is idées fixés.

No, M had it right. It's idée fixe, or idées fixes (plural). Fixe is an adjectif qualificatif (qualifyer??), not a verb in one of the past tenses - which would spell fixé, fixés, fixées. It would be translated better with fixated (http://www.answers.com/topic/fixate) than fixed. In any case, idées fixées would have no meaning anyway. Gosh, the whole thing is so simple but so hard to explain in another language's grammatical system.   :P

Re, fraud, and the whole vibrato shebang. I like to throw a pebble in the pond when I've had a good glass of wine  >:D. Don't make too much of it, I don't really care about Pomp and Circumstance anyway. It just seemed so contradictory when one knows that in those days interprets had a whale of a time, well, interpreting in all kinds of ways that would make today's musicians blush or gasp. Norrington's attempts at musical extreme makeovers have the seeds of polemic writ large (does that make sense ???). As I said, I'm sure he has lots of fun ruffling feathers.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on August 14, 2008, 04:30:04 PM
Have you actually heard any of his vibratoless recordings with modern orchestras, e.g. with the RSO Stuttgart?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on August 14, 2008, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: M forever on August 14, 2008, 04:30:04 PM
Have you actually heard any of his vibratoless recordings with modern orchestras, e.g. with the RSO Stuttgart?

Only the Elgar 1st and two movements from The Planets.

I forgot: the Fantastique too.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on August 14, 2008, 05:43:18 PM
And?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: eyeresist on August 14, 2008, 06:54:43 PM

(the suspense is killing me)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on August 17, 2008, 01:31:12 PM
Quote from: eyeresist on August 14, 2008, 06:54:43 PM
(the suspense is killing me)


Boy, he must be dead by now  :-\

And what? If you're asking if I liked them, the answer is yes and no.  The Elgar was almost a write off (the scherzo came out very well). In the Fantastique I noticed the winds and brass much more than the strings (quite fun and almost eye popping at times). In theory they should have been good in the Scène aux champs, but it came out on the dull side, slighty glacial and unromantic. When it comes to 'special effects', one only has to listen to the first minute of the finale in the second Karajan performance to hear something more characterful than in Norrington's rather plain reading: slimey low string glissandos, and a glacial, spine chilling one on the flutes 30 seconds later. And that's just the beginning.  Other than that, the Norrington is excellently played and recorded in superb sound.

Frankly, I wonder what's the idea of applying one feature of HIP (string vibrato) to a work like that one if the players/conductor are not steeped in the idiom. IMHO there's tons of HIPness and personality to the Fantastiques of Markevitch - Lamoureux, Monteux - Paris Conservatoire and the various Munches, whatever their provenance. It runs in the blood. I sometimes have the feeling that what runs in Norrrington's veins is beet juice. Not that I have anything against beets. I just bought some for this winter's preserves. But I have a hard time distinguishing his Elgar from his Berlioz or Beethoven. I don't know of a single conductor who excelled in all three.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 24, 2008, 02:43:31 PM
    The   name  itself  is  rather  annoying, because  it  implies  that  those  who  don't  use  period  instruments   are  uninformed, which  is  not  necessarily  the  case.  The  term  is  so  self-congratulatory.
    While it  was  certainly  an  interesting  idea  in  theory  to  hear  what   the  music  of  the  past  might  have  sounded  like,  that's  just  what   we  get  with  HIP  performances.  What  the  music  MIGHT  have  sounded  like.
   Musicians  like  Gardiner,  Hogwood ,  Norrington  etc,  and  critics  such  as  Andrew  Porter  are  assuming  that  we  are  recreating  the  music  exactly  as  is  was done  in  the past,  despite  the  fact  that  a  time  machine  has  yet to  be  invented. Now  THAT  would  be  fascinating.  It  would  be  fantastic  to  hear  what  things  actually  sounded  like.
   Those  who  sing  the  praises  of  period  instruments  and   look  down  their  noses  at  modern   ones  are  blindly  accepting  certain  questionable  premises.  Among  them  are  the  assumption  that   old  instruments  or   replicas  thereof  still  sound  exactly  as  they  did  in  the  past  when  they  were  not  antiques,  and  that  they  are  being  played  exactly  as  they  were  long  ago.  Also,  that  the  music  is  being  interpreted  exactly  as  the  composers  would  have  liked.  These  are  questionable  or  at  least  iffish  assumptions.  And  that  by  reading  all  the  treatises  from  the  past  and  dutifully  following  all   the  latest  research  on  performance  practice,  you  get  Voila !  a  marvelous  performance.  If  only things  were  that  simple.
   The  interpretation  of  music  is  not  a  paint  by  numbers  thing. 
   There  are  countless   questions  and   no  easy  answers,  and  so  many  factors  and  imponderables  involved.
   As  the  eminent  American  musicologist  Richard  Taruskin  has  pointed  out,
"Instruments  don't  make  music,  people  do."
   Even  if  the period  instruments  still  sound  exactly  as  they  did  in  the  past,  how  do  we  know  that  the  way  the  music is  being  interpreted   exactly  as  the  composers  would  have  wanted?   After  all,  Bach, Handel, Rameau,  Vivaldi,  Haydn,  Mozart  and  Beethoven   have  been  dead  for  an  awfully  long  time.  But  people  like  Norrington,  Gardiner  and  Hogwood   are  in  effect  putting  words  in the  mouths  of  long  dead  composers.
    There  are  many,many  examples  of  composers  of  the  past  who  were  angry  and  upset  about  the  way   musicians  of  the  past  interpreted  their  music.  Sometimes  the  performances  were  just  badly  played  and  sometimes  the  composers  were  angry  about   the  way  they  felt  musicians  distorted  the  music  and   failed  to  do  justice  to  the  music.
   Mind  you,  those  musicians  were  using  the  authentic  instruments  of  the  day,  but  the  composers  were  not  interested  in  the  instruments   per  se,  but  in  the  performer's  interpretive  ideas  and  approach.   
  It's  the  same  today.  When  composers  such  as  Carter,  Adams,  Boulez,  Glass,  Rorem,  Corigliano  etc  hear  performances  of  their  music,  they   aren't  interested  in  the  instruments,  but  in  the  way   the  musicians  interpret  the  music.  And  they  don't  always  like  it.  Some  do  have  a  coterie  of  devoted  musicians  whose  performances  they  admire  greatly,  but  there  is  no  guarantee  of  their  satisfaction  with  other  performances.
   The  authentic  instruments  of  OUR  time  are  being used.
   That's  why  I  am  somewhat  skeptic  about   HIP  performances  today.
   I  have  enjoyed  SOME  of   them,  but  too  often  the  musicians  have  seemed  so  hellbent  in  getting  rid  of  stylistic "inauthenticity"  that  they  have  merely  thrown  the  baby  out  with  the  bathwater.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 24, 2008, 08:23:13 PM
The above is just hollow blabla by someone who is obviously not at all informed about "historically informed" performance practice and what has happened in that area in the past decades. All these basic questions and points have been addressed literally decades ago, and that's not really what "HIP" is about in the first place. We are far beyond all that now.

"HIP" is not about recreating actual historical performances in the absence of recordings, it is about learning as much about the instruments, playing practices, esthetics, goals, challenges, and circumstances of past periods as possible in order to widen our understanding of the interpretive possibilities. It is about better understanding what the written text can mean since musical notation in those days was very basic as most musicians only played "contemporary" music anyway and didn't need a whole lot of information beyond the basics. "HIP" is about researching and approaching those cultural contexts in order to enable us to interprete the musical texts more flexibly and to give us a better understanding of the musical parameters within which the music of a given period was composed. "HIP" in its best form is basically about giving the performing musicians more information, more background, more context, allowing him to understand musical styles of the past better, ideally enabling him to create modern performances which reflect the music making of our time but also show perspective and awareness of the historical contexts.

All this nonsense like "we don't really know what the music sounded like and sometimes the composers were unhappy and sometimes they still are today" is completely besides the point and, as I said, all that has been addressed and discussed ad nauseam for decades now.

On the other hand, even though, as readers of this forum know, I am highly critical of a lot of what happens under the "HIP" label, we have learnt a lot, have gained a lot of fascinating insights into the music of the past, and this movement has given us a lot of musically glorious performances of the masterworks of the past by a number of outstanding musicians. It has also given us a lot of pseudo-HIP crap, but that is just the nature of things in general.

Finally, and I know this may be hard to understand for Americans like "Superhorn", it is only natural and desireable that these things get researched and explored because they are a very important part of our cultural history, and of course some people want to find out and preserve as much about that history as possible, just like about many other areas and aspects of our cultural history.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 25, 2008, 07:54:35 AM
    With  all  due  respect, Mforever,  your  comments  are  pure  sophistry  and  you  completely  missed  the  point  of  what  I  was  trying  to  say.
   And  by  the  way,  I  am  far  from  uninformed  about  HIP  and  have  read  and  pondered  a great  deal  about  it,  and  am  very  familiar  with  the  sound  of  old  instruments.
   You  say  that  HIP  is  about  "learning  as  much  as  possible  about  the  instruments, performance  practice, esthetics,goals, challenges, circusmstances of  past  periods  as   possible  in  order  to  widen  our  understanding  of  the  interpretive  possibilities."
    Well,  this  if  fine  as  far  as  it goes.  I'm  not   opposed  to  these  efforts  at  all. This  is  all  quite  admirable.
   I  was  never  opposed  to  the  use  of   period  instruments   per  se  and  doing  research  on  performance  practice.  What  angers  me  is  the  arrogance  and  smugness  of  so  many  HIP  musicians  and  musicologists  etc ,  and  the   insufferably  patronizing  way  in  which  so  many  of  them  belittle  and  dismiss  performances  on  modern  instruments  out  of  hand.
   Many  of  them  are  appallingly  lacking  in  humility  and  are  so  pleased  with  themselves   and  think  that  they,  and they  alone  know  how  the  music  of  the past  should  be  performed. 
    Many  have  said  that  it  is  presumptuous  to  assume  that  if  composers  of  the  past  could  come  back  and  hear  their  music   performed  on   modern  instruments ,  that  they  would  prefer  them   to  the  instruments  of  their  time.  Perhaps,  but  we  also  can't  be  sure  they  would  have  disliked  them  either. 
   I  think  that  if  Bach  could  come  back  today  and  examine  a   Steinway  piano,  he  would  be  fascinated  by  it  and  what it  can  do.
    Mozart  would  be  fascinated  to  see  a  modern  double  horn  that  can  play  all  the  notes  of  the  chromatic  scale  over  a  range  of  four  octaves.
   
   
   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 25, 2008, 07:59:35 AM
    P.S.   Sorry  to  be  a  part  of  the  grammar  police,  but  it  should  be
"beside  the  point",  not  besides  the  point.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 25, 2008, 07:54:35 AM
    I  was  never  opposed  to  the  use  of   period  instruments   per  se  and  doing  research  on  performance  practice.  What  angers  me  is  the  arrogance  and  smugness  of  so  many  HIP  musicians  and  musicologists  etc ,  and  the   insufferably  patronizing  way  in  which  so  many  of  them  belittle  and  dismiss  performances  on  modern  instruments  out  of  hand.
   Many  of  them  are  appallingly  lacking  in  humility  and  are  so  pleased  with  themselves   and  think  that  they,  and they  alone  know  how  the  music  of  the past  should  be  performed. 

The mindset you describe might have been common many years ago, but I haven't heard these refrains in recent history.  Besides (did I use it right?), the ravings of a few don't negate the value of historical perspective and knowledge.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on September 25, 2008, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 10:49:10 AM
The mindset you describe might have been common many years ago, but I haven't heard these refrains in recent history.  Besides (did I use it right?), the ravings of a few don't negate the value of historical perspective and knowledge.

Yes and no. But now the HIPPERS are mostly fighting against each other. ;D
Bach's vocal works OVPP?
YES! We're dead sure!
NO! Dead sure we're not!

etc.

In general I sympathize with the HIP-revolution.
There might be a lot of arrogance in there, but what about the arrogance of non-HIP performers in the past, present and future? Lots of them are also convinced that the HIP-ers are wrong, and making fun of them. But it would not surprise me that this criticism is mainly caused by personal reasons. They have their personal insights and just don't want to change them, because they're afraid to lose their artistic freedom.

OK. So you want Bach to be your own Bach, because you're an intelligent artist who knows best and because it's your artistic freedom to change his 18th century music into your own 21st music?
Well, fine with me, but why criticize a performer who wants his Bach to be a different Bach, more historically informed, after investigating a lot of cultural-historical sources?

Many HIP-ers had to face arrogant and ignorant reactions from these so-called free thinking non-HIP artists. Like that HIP-conductor who wanted this modern orchestra to co-operate and discuss openly about the compositions they had to perform. I think the first violinist reacted with something like: "latest historical research has proven that this conductor is an utter idiot."
(I read this story I think in one of Lebrecht's books. If I remember it well the conductor was Hogwood. Hilarious? Yes, but also arrogant and insulting.)

I think there are as many arrogant HIPPERS as non-HIPPERS, and I agree with M forever, that non-HIP reactions like

- we do not know exactly what Bach or Händel really wanted; as if these HIPPERS have a personal hotline with them,
- we do not have recordings of the 17th and 18th century, so how can we be sure how it should sound?,
- we know that Bach and Händel were unhappy about performances in their own time, so why should we play their works 'historically right'?

are far beyond the point what HIP really means. I think those reactions are the real sophistry.

Maybe this is the difference?
HIP is: being interested in the historical and cultural context of a composition. (And hoping or sometimes claiming you're right.)
Non-HIP seems to be: being interested in personal development. (And thinking or claiming that's your right.)

Nothing wrong with both of them, IMHO, but I think they both deserve a critical view, without using hollow phrases. (Although I fear that I myself am a hollow phraser, too.) ::)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 12:17:37 PM
Quote from: Marc on September 25, 2008, 11:46:52 AM

In general I sympathize with the HIP-revolution.
There might be a lot of arrogance in there, but what about the arrogance of non-HIP performers in the past, present and future?

I recall an interview many years ago in Fanfare Magazine with Pinchas Zukerman who was having a fit about the HIP movement.  Essentially, he said that HIP performers only took that route because they were inferior musicians who would get no exposure if they played modern instruments.

Given Zukerman's obnoxious attitude, I pledged to myself never to acquire any disc of his.  Of course, that's very easy to do since Zukerman's tastes in music rarely coincide with mine.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on September 25, 2008, 06:15:05 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 12:17:37 PM
I recall an interview many years ago in Fanfare Magazine with Pinchas Zukerman who was having a fit about the HIP movement.  Essentially, he said that HIP performers only took that route because they were inferior musicians who would get no exposure if they played modern instruments.

Given Zukerman's obnoxious attitude, I pledged to myself never to acquire any disc of his.  Of course, that's very easy to do since Zukerman's tastes in music rarely coincide with mine.

I met Zukerman once, quite informally one day at an animal hospital where he'd brought his critically sick German Shepherd in to be tended to (I worked there).

Hard to believe he'd been toting such a large pet around while touring, but that's what he'd done. This was around 1990.

Anyway, at first I didn't recognize him, even though I had just seen him perform some Mozart chamber music a couple nights earlier. He had a totally dishevelled look from a workout he'd obviously just finished (jogging, my guess) and his appearance in a sweaty teeshirt and shorts didn't fit the image of the 'tuxedo-clad musician'.

Plus, not being native English-speaking he had incorrectly filled out his patient/owner information in his chart and it took me a minute to sort it all out (he'd put his name for his dog's name, or something).

But when I finally recognized him and commented on the excellent performance I'd seen of his he let out a mile-wile grin. He then jumped in feigned surprise and drew back on his heels as if he were being attacked by a swarm of groupies. IOW, cutting it up with me.

Jolly guy all around, and surprisingly somewhere in the neighborhood of 6'-8" or so! Truly hulking figure.

But, yes, I have that Fanfare issue where he slices and dices HIP but I just can't shake the image of Zukerman as "that sweaty guy laughing it up with an average joe" (me).

FWIW.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 25, 2008, 06:33:30 PM
So what happened to the dog?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on September 25, 2008, 06:39:38 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 25, 2008, 07:59:35 AM
    P.S.   Sorry  to  be  a  part  of  the  grammar  police,  but  it  should  be
"beside  the  point",  not  besides  the  point.

This is a tricky one. "Besides" is generally used alone, at the beginning of a sentence and is followed by a comma. It has the meaning of "on top of/in addition to that" .

"Beside" is always followed by a complement (is that the term in English?) and may indicate a location close to something/someone ("she put her purse beside her on the seat"), or it may have a more abstract sense (I'm beside myself with indignation").

Not so hard once you figure this out.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on September 25, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 06:33:30 PM
So what happened to the dog?

He (she?) got better. Mended up nicely.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 25, 2008, 06:48:09 PM
Good to hear. Are you an animal doctor? Like Doctor Doolittle?

Quote from: Superhorn on September 25, 2008, 07:59:35 AM
    P.S.   Sorry  to  be  a  part  of  the  grammar  police,  but  it  should  be
"beside  the  point",  not  besides  the  point.

If you wish, we can continue this discussion in German - it is essential anyway that you know German anyway in order to understand the subject properly, otherwise you can't read a very significant part of the relevant literature and sources, and more importantly, place them in the right cultural and historical context. After all, the concept of rhetorics in German baroque music is directly linked to rhetoric patterns of speech and the style of speaking/writing people had in those days. That is very obvious - but only if you understand exactly what and how they wrote (both music and language, and how they interact). A lot of that, most of it, actually, is lost in translation just like a lot of musical parameters are lost when translated to completely different performance styles.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on September 25, 2008, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 06:48:09 PM
Good to hear. Are you an animal doctor? Like Doctor Doolittle?

Nope. I wouldn't be a good Dr. Doolittle.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 25, 2008, 07:20:07 PM
So what did you do at the animal hospital?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on September 25, 2008, 07:39:06 PM
I was a technician, which in veterinarian terms is two occupations in one - that of a nurse and that of a technician in the traditional sense: tending to peripheral matters relating to anything and everything. 

Worked there for seven years - still have the scars to show for it.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 25, 2008, 07:47:47 PM
Did you get attacked by a tiger?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on September 25, 2008, 08:33:47 PM
A few dogs and a few cats. No tiger attacks.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 25, 2008, 08:48:48 PM
Not even an alligator?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on September 25, 2008, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 12:17:37 PM
I recall an interview many years ago in Fanfare Magazine with Pinchas Zukerman who was having a fit about the HIP movement.  Essentially, he said that HIP performers only took that route because they were inferior musicians who would get no exposure if they played modern instruments.

Given Zukerman's obnoxious attitude, I pledged to myself never to acquire any disc of his.  Of course, that's very easy to do since Zukerman's tastes in music rarely coincide with mine.

Hmm, I've read interviews with a lot of non-HIPPERS where a lot of downgrading is going on.
To give a few examples:
The Dutch conductor and organ player Charles de Wolff claimed the same 'truth' about HIP violinists as Zukerman (they only control a few grips and positions, that's why they can only play old music), the conductor Neeme Järvi wasn't interested in a real discussion about HIP, but mocked HIP conductors like Harnoncourt and Brüggen. As a conductor they were a scream to watch, so that's why they could not be taken seriously. Also Haitink, who at first was rather positive about HIP, went angry about 'HIP-arrogance' after Harnoncourt had conducted his Concertgebouw ensemble, because after the HIP-visits his players claimed that the chief was mistaken when he wanted his way in f.i. Mozart and Beethoven. ;D

I really think that most of these non-HIP performers want their own way with most of the music they play, and don't want to be bothered with a lot of historical research. They learn how to play their instruments or the way to conduct from famous teachers, combine that with a personal style, and then take the score and try to analyze it in a personal way. I have no problem with that at all, because the lot of them are skilled musicians, but it sometimes seems that their anger and arrogance against HIP is mainly caused by resentment and maybe even fear.

BTW: I have vinyl and CD's of all three musicians I mentioned, and I do intend to put a ban upon them. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on September 25, 2008, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 08:48:48 PM
Not even an alligator?

I stared 'em down. They're harmless.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 25, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
Neeme Järvi's opinion doesn't surprise me at all (if that is what he really thinks, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is), after all, he is not only not "historically informed", he is generally not very well informed and often doesn't know the scores he conducts really well. That is obvious from many of his recordings which happen on a very superficial level, and I have also heard from musicians who played under him that he obviously doesn't know some of the stuff he conducts in depth. BTW, I have never seen Brüggen conduct, live or on video, but I have seen Harnoncourt many times live (and on video, too, of course) and he is far from "a scream" to watch. Although he has his mannerisms (and always comes across as so totally, totally serious - but then he really is), he is one of the best and most "communicative" conductors I have seen. And I have seen them all (I mean all the "important" and many not-so-important ones who were active in the last quarter century or so). And the musicians in top orchestras like the Concertgebouw, Wiener or Berliner Philharmoniker think so, too. So who cares what a third-rate time beater like Järvi says?

Quote from: Marc on September 25, 2008, 08:58:51 PM
Also Haitink, who at first was rather positive about HIP, went angry about 'HIP-arrogance' after Harnoncourt had conducted his Concertgebouw ensemble, because after the HIP-visits his players claimed that the chief was mistaken when he wanted his way in f.i. Mozart and Beethoven. ;D

If that is true (a lot of these anecdotes aren't), it is very revealing because if players in a top (and veeeeery traditional, BTW) orchestra like the Concertgebouw are convinced by what a conductor like Harnoncourt tells them, that has absolutely nothing to do with "HIP arrogance". Orchestral musicians don't just believe whatever someone who happens on the podium tells them is "right". After all, they have to actually play in that way and make it work. So they know best if it actually works musically.
Funny though that Haitink later "rethought" his concept of Beethoven and presented a slimmed down, sized down Beethoven concept, very obviously under the impression of what had happened in the "HIP" world in the meantime. But that's easy to understand because Haitink is not an independent or original musical thinker. He is a good craftsman who does whatever he is told to do and does it rather well, but he does not really critically reflect musical concepts. I heard him conduct the Haydn "clock" symphony a few months ago (with the CSO in Carnegie Hall) and there was nothing particular musical about that in any way. It was neither "HIP" nor anything else. It was just playing the dots on the paper plus a few clichéed standard nuances. But that's not "letting the music speak for itself".

Because one of the first insights of the whole "HIP" thing is that the music of that time was notated in a very different way, with much less detailed information, than the music of later epochs. Contemporary writers, such as Leopold Mozart, explicitly state that just playing "the notes" is not enough and he actually gives concrete examples for how good and "tasteful" music making varies the written notes. And there is tons of evidence like that. What we make of that is one thing - it is pretty astonishing though that many, even professional musicians, completely ignore all that information. We do not have any recordings of Mozart or his contemporaries - but we have rather detailed instructions about he basics of good music making from the man who taught him, published in the year of his birth. This is an incredible stroke of luck for any musician seriously interested in music from that era - but again, many ignore that and think just playing the dots on the page is enough.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 06:27:33 AM
   I  could  not  disagree  more  about  Jarvi.  He  is  a  very  great  musician.
The  music  of  the  Baroque  and  Classical  periods  may   not  be  his  forte,  but  he  is  wonderful  in  19th  and  20th  century  music.  I  have  just  heard   his  Chandos  set  of  the  9  Dvorak  symphonies  with  the  Royal  Scottish  orchestra,  and  these  among  the  best  Dvorak  symphony  recordings  I  have  ever  heard,  as  and a lover  of  Dvorak,  I've  heard  a  lot  of  them. 
   He  is  unbeatable  in  Scandinavian  and  Russian  music,  and  has  been  a  tireless  champion  of   neglected  by  worthy  music  by  so  many composers.
   His  vast  repertoire  and   intellectual  curiosity  make  him  a  prine  among  conductors.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 26, 2008, 11:33:10 AM
Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but it seems that quite a few postings have disappeared.  Although that's one way to rid the board of unbecoming comments, its is a departure from past management practices.  So have the practices changed?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
    I   don't  mind  if  HIP   musicians  try  out  their  pet  theories  of  interpretation ;  that's  fine  with  me.  It  can  sometimes  make for  interestingly  different  performances (That  is,  until  the  novelty  wears  off),  but  what  gets  my  goat  is  when  they  claim  that  they  have  found  the  one  and  only "right"  way  to  do  the  music. 
   This  is  so  arrogant  and  presumtious.  There  is  no  such  thing.  How  can  they  claim   to  know  exactly  what  the  composers  wanted ?
   Norrington  is  a  fine  musician,  but  a  terribly  misguided  one.  All  of  this   talk  about "authentic"  Elgar  is  the  purest  poppycock.
   And  do  we  really  need  HIP   Bruckner, Mahler,  and  Holst  etc ?  How  far  is  the  movement  going  to  go?  Pretty  soon  we'll  have   HIP   Till  Eulenspiegel,  Heldenleben,  Don  Juan  and  Le  Sacre  du  Printemps.  It  might  be  interesting  to  hear,  but  just  how  authentic  would it  be?
  After  all  we  have  recordings  of  Strauss  and  Stravinsky  conducting  their  own  music.  I'm  sure  Stravinsky  would   think  the idea  of  doing  Le  Sacre  with   1913  instruments   preposterous.  He  recorded  Le  Sacre  around   1960  and  didn't  mind  "Modern"  instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on September 26, 2008, 02:03:05 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
Neeme Järvi's opinion doesn't surprise me at all (if that is what he really thinks, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is), after all, he is not only not "historically informed", he is generally not very well informed and often doesn't know the scores he conducts really well. That is obvious from many of his recordings which happen on a very superficial level,
Actually, in my experience much of what Järvi conducts is dull on the superficial level as well. The man gives mediocrity a bad name and saps energy out of concert halls (especially as he conducted sitting down for several of my years in Detroit, apparently for medical reasons). He's just plain uninspired.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on September 26, 2008, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PMHIP Le  Sacre  du  Printemps.
1. I don't think anyone's recorded a HIP Holst disc.
2. A HIP Sacre might be kind of fun.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on September 26, 2008, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Brian on September 26, 2008, 02:06:10 PM
1. I don't think anyone's recorded a HIP Holst disc.
Not even Sir Adrian Boult, who led the world premiere? ;)
Quote from: Brian on September 26, 2008, 02:06:10 PM
2. A HIP Sacre might be kind of fun.
Fortunately, the composer's recording is available.  And there are several by Pierre Monteux, who led the world premiere and many early performances.  That's one advantage of "HIP contemporary;" we've got the composers' own thoughts on record--literally. ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 26, 2008, 04:03:06 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 26, 2008, 11:33:10 AM
Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but it seems that quite a few postings have disappeared.  Although that's one way to rid the board of unbecoming comments, its is a departure from past management practices.  So have the practices changed?

Apparently. A lot of my posts in the last few days have simply vanished without comment. Including ones which did not contain any personal attacks such as a friendly exchange I had with donwyn last night. This one will be gone soon, too, I guess.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 26, 2008, 04:56:30 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
I   don't  mind  if  HIP   musicians  try  out  their  pet  theories  of  interpretation

Since you do not know what research is behind these theories, you shouldn't disqualify them as "pet theories". Sometimes HIP performers come up with idiosyncratic and strange ideas. But that applies to all "sorts" of performers. In many cases, there is actually a lot of research and practical experience and sound reflection behind what the better HIP people do; in Harnoncourt's case, for instance, there is more than half a century of systematic studying and playing his way through centuries of musical history behind what he does, as well as a very thorough understanding of the cultural history context of the music as well as a deep grounding in traditional performance practice. He did, after all, start out as a very "conventional" musician deeply steeped in and trained in the Viennese tradition. That is what gives many of his interpretations such a fascinating depth as they reflect intense historical studies and refflection, but at the same time, they are firmly gorunded in actual grown performance tradition. So what he does does not dismiss "conventional" performance; it enhances it. Which is why musicians in such very traditional orchestras such as the Concertgebouworkest, Wiener and Berliner Philharmoniker or Staatskapelle Dresden react so positively and cooperatively to his approach.

You are apparently not aware at all of the vast body of information about historical instruments, notation and performance conventions, and other circumstantial evidence that can be studied and incorporated to enhance our understanding of historical music and its performance. Since in the "classical" field, we mostly deal with music from the past, it should only be natural that we should be interested in these things. We should be grateful to people who devote all their energy to researching and bringing those insights to us.

Like I said before, none of that contradicts or negates other performance traditions. But it enhances the spectrum of what we can choose from.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
but  what  gets  my  goat  is  when  they  claim  that  they  have  found  the  one  and  only "right"  way  to  do  the  music. 
This  is  so  arrogant  and  presumtious.  There  is  no  such  thing.  How  can  they  claim   to  know  exactly  what  the  composers  wanted ?

You keep saying that but it is simply not true in most cases. Few HIP performers claim to have found absolute musical truths but point to the work-in-progress and explorative character of their work and, usually, they also explain why they do things do make that transparent. That has noting to do with claiming to know exactly what the composer wanted. Atleast they make the information they base their interpretive choices on available for discussion.

Besides, any performer, no matter what and in what style he plays and whether or not he comments on his interpretations or not, implicitly tells us through the way he plays that he has arrived at that interpretation because it is his personal view that this is the way the music should be presented.

We don't want to listen to people just doodling out notes. No matter what interpretation we listen to, we want to have the feeling that it is worth listening to and that the performer has something to "say" about the music.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
Norrington  is  a  fine  musician,  but  a  terribly  misguided  one.  All  of  this   talk  about "authentic"  Elgar  is  the  purest  poppycock.

I don't think you can judge that either. How much do you know about performance practice in Elgar's time? Probably nothing.

Norrington may come across as an arrogant prick in the way he lectures about his interpretations, but again, I would rather listen to someone who has done some kind of homework and who is convinced that what he does is right - at least at the moment. And as much as Norrington may come across as somewhat dogmatic, he has actually re-thought his approach to a number of pieces over time and admitted when earlier attempts didn't work out so well. Whatever his verbal utterances may suggest, he is also rather flexible and undogmatic in his music making. He does conduct modern orchestras as well and what he has done in Stuttgart may be somewhat peculiar, but it is all done on a very high level of craftsmanship. I have also heard him conduct very undogmatic, musically flexible performances with the Berliner Philharmoniker which actually surprised me a little bit. I had expected him to be more of a "hardliner", but the concerts I heard with him in Berlin of Mozart and Bach adapted a basic "period feel" very sensitively to the playing characteristics of that orchestra. Which in turn reacted with great playing. They like to play under his direction.

I am not entirely convinced by much of his Stuttgart work, but again, there are enough conductors who do not offer anything interesting at all, and his somewhat provocatively geared "concept" performances actually stimulate the discussion in a way which I find very welcome.

His vibratoless Stuttgart Tchaikovsky 6, for instance, struck me as somewhat odd and whether or not avoiding vibrato completely is "authentic" or not, it is interesting to hear the kind of sound quality he achieved with his very finetuned string section. It sounds awesome. It is also extremely clean in the group intonation and highly transparent. I think the phrasing overall is a little too baroque-rhetorical although in general, expressive and detailed phrasing is always welcome. But the rhythmic springiness of the playing and the sharp articulation bring out a lot of fascinating inner detail which can be seen in the score, but rarely. Chords in the winds are mostly very well balanced and outline the harmonic progessions very nicely. The soft brass chorale at the end of the first movement, for instance, has never sounded so good and so expressive. Not because there are any "HIP" secrets there, just because it is rehearsed and played so well.
So while I find the overall result, like a said, still a little odd, this is more interesting and rewarding to listen to than many other interpretations which only scratch a little on the surface of the music and then pour a thick sauce over it.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
And  do  we  really  need  HIP   Bruckner, Mahler,  and  Holst  etc ?  How  far  is  the  movement  going  to  go?  Pretty  soon  we'll  have   HIP   Till  Eulenspiegel,  Heldenleben,  Don  Juan  and  Le  Sacre  du  Printemps.  It  might  be  interesting  to  hear,  but  just  how  authentic  would it  be?

That should be decided in each individual case, not through prejudices.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
After  all  we  have  recordings  of  Strauss  and  Stravinsky  conducting  their  own  music.

Stravinsky wasn't much of a conductor, but Strauss was a great conductor and we are indeed fortunate to have some very "authentic" recordings of his music with him. But that has not limited the interpretation and reception of his music to just one way. In Stravinsky's case, we are equally fortunate to have great recordings with Monteux who after all conducted several of the premieres of his major works.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
I'm  sure  Stravinsky  would   think  the idea  of  doing  Le  Sacre  with   1913  instruments   preposterous.

Maybe. Probably. Or maybe not. It doesn't matter. "HIP" is not about wasting time with speculating what people would have thought or not. It is about researching and exploring what they actually did.

Besides, it would indeed be highly interesting to hear exactly what kind of timbres the instruments had around the time Le Sacre was premiered. But we do actually have historical recordings which get us very close to that. Monteux' much later recording of Le Sacre with the Conservatoire orchestra, I believe, gets us very close to that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 26, 2008, 04:59:29 PM
Quote from: Brian on September 26, 2008, 02:06:10 PM
I don't think anyone's recorded a HIP Holst disc.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/613NRQNE4SL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 26, 2008, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 04:59:29 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/613NRQNE4SL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I'll be damned! Wonder if there is anything that hasn't been tried! :D

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Antonio Vivaldi: Violin Sonatas - Cordaria / Walter Reiter - RV 014 Sonata in d for Violin Op 2 #3 - Prelude - Corrente - Adagio - Giga
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 06:11:45 AM
   I'm sorry  if  any  one  is  having  difficulty  with  my  formatting.  I   am  trying  to  experiment,  but  not  currently  using  my  own  computer,  which  is  having  problems.
   Mforever,  I  am  very  familiar  with   HIP  research  and  think  that's  fine.
But  scholarship  and  the  use  of "the  correct  instruments"  do  not  guanatee  anything  in  themselves.  There  is  no  substitute  for  musicianship,  and   scholarship  and  musicianship  are  two  different  things.
   I  have  heard  a  radio  broadcast  of  the   Planets  with  Roy  Goodman  and  the  New  Queeen's  Hall  orchestra.  Frankly,  it  sounded   balnd  and  lacking  in  color  to  me.  And  Norrington's  vibratoless  performances   are  not  in  any  way  authentic.  We  know  that  string  vibrato  has  been  around  for  a  very  long  time.  In  his  violin  treatise,  Leopold  Mozart  actually   lambastes  some  players  for  using  EXCESSIVE  vibrato !  So  there !
   Interestingly  enough,  the   New  York  based  oboist   James  Roe has  an  interesting  blog   called  urbanmodern.blogspot.com.   He  was  a  friend  and  admirer  of  the  late  harpsichordist  and  conductor  Albert  Fuller,  who  was  something  of  an  HIP  snob,  although  revered  as  a  great musician.
    Roe  has  a  recent  post  about   a  group  of   string  players  he  knows  who  recently  gave  a  performance   of  Schoenberg's  "Verklarte  Nacht"  on  gut  strings,  and  he  thought  it was  wonderful.  Hmm....
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 27, 2008, 06:30:57 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 06:11:45 AM
   
But  scholarship  and  the  use  of "the  correct  instruments"  do  not  guanatee  anything  in  themselves.  There  is  no  substitute  for  musicianship,  and   scholarship  and  musicianship  are  two  different  things.
   

True enough, although your implication, which I have inferred from your series of posts on this topic, is that these people aren't musicians too. In reality, the proportion of excellent musicians in the period instrument cadre is as great as it is in the modern instrument ranks. There are less than stellar performers in both camps, no doubt.

Crappy performance is not improved on ANY instrument or by any performance belief or style.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bogey on September 27, 2008, 06:38:03 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 27, 2008, 06:30:57 AM
True enough, although your implication, which I have inferred from your series of posts on this topic, is that these people aren't musicians too. In reality, the proportion of excellent musicians in the period instrument cadre is as great as it is in the modern instrument ranks. There are less than stellar performers in both camps, no doubt.

Crappy performance is not improved on ANY instrument or by any performance belief or style.

8)

And speaking of wonderful HIP performers Gurn:

http://dcc1079.googlepages.com/home

We have seen them twice and plan on trying to catch them again this year.  Their next performance is this:

French Connections - November 14-16, 2008
BCOC's first all-French program explores the singular music of Paris as it influenced (and was influenced by) music of other nations.  Acclaimed mezzo-soprano Jennifer Lane joins the orchestra in a program of vocal and instrumental works by Lully, Rameau, Monteclair, Leclair and Telemann.  Special guest artist: Jennifer Lane, mezzo-soprano.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 27, 2008, 06:48:53 AM
Quote from: Bogey on September 27, 2008, 06:38:03 AM
And speaking of wonderful HIP performers Gurn:

http://dcc1079.googlepages.com/home

We have seen them twice and plan on trying to catch them again this year.  Their next performance is this:

French Connections - November 14-16, 2008
BCOC's first all-French program explores the singular music of Paris as it influenced (and was influenced by) music of other nations.  Acclaimed mezzo-soprano Jennifer Lane joins the orchestra in a program of vocal and instrumental works by Lully, Rameau, Monteclair, Leclair and Telemann.  Special guest artist: Jennifer Lane, mezzo-soprano.

Very nice, Bill! I would greatly enjoy that trumpet recital too. Truly good Baroque trumpeters are a marvel. And the price is right, I would pay twice that for the opportunity. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 27, 2008, 12:13:55 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 06:11:45 AM
Mforever,  I  am  very  familiar  with   HIP  research  and  think  that's  fine.

You may think that reading classicstoday now and then makes you a great expert on that subject, but it is all too obvious that you don't know what HIP really is, what historical performance practices really are, and you have no clue what has happened in that scene in the last few decades.
That's a pity because it is a vast and very interesting subject which is very rewarding to explore, but you close your mind against that completely, so you miss a lot of interesting stuff. Your loss.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 06:11:45 AM
But  scholarship  and  the  use  of "the  correct  instruments"  do  not  guanatee  anything  in  themselves.  There  is  no  substitute  for  musicianship,  and   scholarship  and  musicianship  are  two  different  things.

Oh, wow, what a deep insight! So you think we don't know that? And who said anyway that "correct" instruments "guarantee" anything? Certainly none of the people you mentioned since they all work with modern instruments, too.

However, when it comes to playing historical music, a certain minimum degree of informedness definitely does not cause any harm and should actually be expected. It is pretty bizarre to see that attitude from people like you, that knowing about historical performance practice automatically means the people who know and study these things can't be good musicians. But you are the "Superhorn" and your ignorance of these subjects guarantees your superior musicianship, apparently.

Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 06:11:45 AM
And  Norrington's  vibratoless  performances   are  not  in  any  way  authentic.  We  know  that  string  vibrato  has  been  around  for  a  very  long  time.  In  his  violin  treatise,  Leopold  Mozart  actually   lambastes  some  players  for  using  EXCESSIVE  vibrato !  So  there !

So there what? So there we have proof now that you have no clue what you are talking about? It is by far not as simple as "to vibrate or not vibrate". We now that vibrato in many forms has been around for a very long time. The kinds of vibrato L.Mozart talks about are very different from what Norrington talks about. I think he sees the whole subject to narrowly himself, but that does not complete "disqualify" everything he does. I tried to give you an idea of how one could look at that in more detailed fashion with my discussion of his Tchaikovsky 6 recording, but that is apparently too complex for you with your black and white thinking. So the problem here is not that all musicians who are into HIP are too narrow-minded. The problem here is that you are.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 06:11:45 AM
I  have  heard  a  radio  broadcast  of  the   Planets  with  Roy  Goodman  and  the  New  Queeen's  Hall  orchestra.  Frankly,  it  sounded   balnd  and  lacking  in  color  to  me.

Then there is something wrong with the broadcast or your ears (or both). The performance as captured on the CD does not really bring any real musical "insights" or "revelations" as such, but the spectrum of sonorities of the orchestra is highly interesting. It doesn't sound too different from a modern orchestra at all, but there are many subtle differences which is what makes this recording worth listening to. The brass is more slender than many overbearing brass sections are today, and that actually improves the balances and allows a lot of woodwind detail to come through. The woodwinds themselves are interesting to listen to, like the Buffet bassoons which were the most common type of bassoon played in England back then but which have now been completely replaced by Heckel bassoons with their markedly different sonority. No big difference, no big deal, but really very interesting detail insights. And that is one of the things which music so interesting for the open-eared and detail-attentive listener.
BTW, my personal favorite recording of this piece is the one with the "modern" Philharmonia condcuted by Gardiner - but how can that be when he is a HIP fanatic who, according to you, insists that only historical instruments "guarantee" a good performance?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on September 27, 2008, 12:30:39 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
Neeme Järvi's opinion doesn't surprise me at all (if that is what he really thinks, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is), [....]

Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
If that is true (a lot of these anecdotes aren't), it is very revealing because if players in a top (and veeeeery traditional, BTW) orchestra like the Concertgebouw are convinced by what a conductor like Harnoncourt tells them, that has absolutely nothing to do with "HIP arrogance". Orchestral musicians don't just believe whatever someone who happens on the podium tells them is "right". After all, they have to actually play in that way and make it work. So they know best if it actually works musically.
Funny though that Haitink later "rethought" his concept of Beethoven and presented a slimmed down, sized down Beethoven concept, very obviously under the impression of what had happened in the "HIP" world in the meantime.

About the 'truth' of the quotes: I remember them from interviews I read in the nineties, in a Dutch music magazine. Haitink f.i. told in his interview that one of the reasons he left Amsterdam, was that he couldn't get his way anymore with Mozart and Beet, because of the Hanoncourt HIP-influenced orchestra. And also the A'Dam management preferred other conductors for that genre.
But I admit it wasn't a good example of non-HIP arrogance, because Haitink has never been that arrogant against HIP. Indeed, as you mentioned, his later Beethoven recordings show that. And, even though the KCO are a 'conservative' bunch (I would prefer the word 'stubborn', though), even the orchestra was very interested in HIP-views in those years (midst seventies). Harnoncourt was rather nervous when he first rehearsed with the orchestra (Bach's Johannes-Passion), but first violinst Herman Krebbers got him relaxed by saying: "we're interested in your views, please share your insights with us."

About Haitink's non-original thinking: you might be right, but I really wouldn't know. I have seen some documentaries with f.i. Haitink's follow-up Chailly, and he might be another example of that, because he is referring a lot to musicians and directors that inspired him. He also was the first conductor who used the 'original' Mengelberg scores a lot, f.i. for Bach and Mahler, with all the annotations of the old maestro.

Funny to hear Chailly trying to talk Dutch and pronounce Mengelberg's annotation grimmige humor, when starting the 3rd movement of Mahler 9. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 27, 2008, 12:50:53 PM
Being aware of and making stylistical choices based on knowing and understanding performance traditions, be they from earlier parts of the 20th century or further back doesn't make a performer "unoriginal". It makes him "informed" and "aware" of these layers of traditions. Which is basically what we should expect from any good musician, especially "classical" musicians.

As such, there is really no difference between musicians who use historical instruments and those who don't. They all base their interpretations on stylistic choices they make based on how much or little they "know" and "understand", and by that, I don't just mean in an "academic" way, also in a practical, musical way.

As a consequence of this, these days there is no more separation between "HIP" and "non-HIP". "HIP" has simply (but vastly) expanded the spectrum of stylistic choices available to performers today, whether they choose to play on modern or "historical" instruments. Or use modern instruments and incorporate insights gained from historical studies.

Basically, that's the way it has always been. Only, before "HIP", performers based their stylisitic choices usually just on whatever immediate background they happened to come from. "HIP" has added a whole lot more historical width and depth to that. That's all.
That's why there is no separation line there anymore today.

I don't dount what you say about Haitink and all that, but I have a really hard time imagining that an orchestra like the KCA shouldn't be able to respond to other interpretive approaches anymore after working with someone like Harnoncourt. Many other orchestras didn't have that problem. The BP and WP have worked with a lot of "HIP" conductors in the past 20 years, but they can still produce a more "romantic" sound when other conductors ask for it. E.g., within a short period of time, I heard Schumann's 4th and 2nd with the BP, conducted by Harnoncourt and Thielemann, respectively, and these performances couldn't have been more different in approach. But the orchestra reacted very enthusiastically to both.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 01:11:33 PM
    Don't  get  me  wrong  Mforever;  I  don't  dismiss  period  instrumment  performances  out  of  hand,  nor  do  I   question  the  musicianship  of   musicians  such  as  Harnoncourt, Gardiner,  Bruggen, Norrington,  etc.
   I  have  enjoyed   some  HIP  performances  very  much.  I  recently  saw  Handel's  Giulio  Cesare  from  Glyndebourne   on  DVD  and  thought  the  performance  was  musically  first  rate.  William  Christie  and  the   Orchestra  of the  Age  of  Enlightenment  (what  a  pretentious  name )  did  a  superb  job,  and  I  though  that  the  Cleopatra,  the  rising  star  Danielle  De  Niese  not  only  sang  gorgeously  but  was  absolutely  adorable.  I  think  I'm in  love !   The  production ,  which  set  the  opera  in   the  early  20th  century  with  Caear's  soldiers  dressed  like  Englishmen,  was  weird,  but  it  worked   anyway.  Cleopatra  in  this  production  was  like  a  sex  kitten  from  a  Fellini  movie !
   I  have  the  Mackerras  CD  with  the  same  orchestra  of  the  Schubert  Great  C  major,  and  it's  pretty  good,  but   also  the  classic  Furtwangler  recording  on  DG.  It's  not  a  politically  correct  performance,  but  who  cares  with  such  an  eloquent  performance?
   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on September 27, 2008, 01:25:06 PM
Quote from: M forever on September 27, 2008, 12:50:53 PM
I don't dount what you say about Haitink and all that, but I have a really hard time imagining that an orchestra like the KCA shouldn't be able to respond to other interpretive approaches anymore after working with someone like Harnoncourt. Many other orchestras didn't have that problem. The BP and WP have worked with a lot of "HIP" conductors in the past 20 years, but they can still produce a more "romantic" sound when other conductors ask for it. E.g., within a short period of time, I heard Schumann's 4th and 2nd with the BP, conducted by Harnoncourt and Thielemann, respectively, and these performances couldn't have been more different in approach. But the orchestra reacted very enthusiastically to both.

I totally understand your 'really hard time'.
And I also think that the KCO isn't very consequent in their behaviour, if what Haitink said is really true.
We were talking about their conservative or stubborn character, and, from what I read about the orchestra's history, I think that principal conductors have a harder time with them compared to a lot of guest conductors. Because, if one thinks one should give Haitink a hard time in Mozart and Beethoven, then why does one still invite and adore the immense popular but not so HIP Giulini?

The problem of a chief conductor with his orchestra, well, I don't know all that much about it. It's a complex matter, I think.
If only we could ask Van Beinum (bless him), Haitink and Chailly ourselves!

I've read biographies of Van Beinum and Haitink, though, and I also read interviews with Chailly, where these problems were mentioned.
The Dutchies Van Beinum and Haitink generally were very happy to flee oversea. They were very happy to work with the Los Angeles and London Phil, and felt much more appreciated there.

Haitink was much more praised in the Netherlands after he left the country. Suddenly everyone seemed to realize: this guy wasn't all that bad. (Of course, in the meantime he was somehow missed, because the Concertgebouw Orchestra already had their problems with their new conductor Chailly. ;))
I saw Haitink once on telly during the nineties, with another decoration on his chest, saying with a gentle smile: in foreign countries they invite me to conduct, in my own country they invite me to collect prizes.

When reading about Van Beinum's career I somehow got this image: people in LA remember him with tears in their eyes, because they loved him then, and still miss him today. People in Amsterdam remember him with tears in their eyes, because he died so dramatically (onstage while rehearsing) and only after his dead they realized how good he really was, and how serious his heart condition was. But during his lifetime they thought Mengelberg was much better, and also they thought that his problems with his health were a bit exaggerated.

What a stubborn bunch of people, these Dutch!

OK. Enough battering of my fellow countrymen [and women! Sorry, Stan, AND WOMEN!]. We Dutchies can be very friendly, too. I myself am a fine example of that! ;D

O yeah, sure, and all the other Dutchies on this forum are too, of course! :-*
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 27, 2008, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 01:11:33 PM
Don't  get  me  wrong  Mforever;  I  don't  dismiss  period  instrumment  performances  out  of  hand

How can I not "get you wrong" when that's exactly what you explicitly said and insisted on several times over?


Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 01:11:33 PM
nor  do  I   question  the  musicianship  of   musicians  such  as  Harnoncourt, Gardiner,  Bruggen, Norrington,  etc. 

Again, you did, several times over.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 01:11:33 PM
I  have  enjoyed   some  HIP  performances  very  much. 

But you still dismiss the entire spectrum of historically informed performances because the NY Times critic doesn't understand the difference between valve and natural horns or because some people may have claimed "authenticity" for their interpretations?


Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 01:11:33 PM
the  classic  Furtwangler  recording  on  DG.  It's  not  a  politically  correct  performance,  but  who  cares  with  such  an  eloquent  performance?

Why is that "not politically correct"?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 28, 2008, 02:23:36 PM
   Mforever,  will  you  please  stop  telling  me  I  know  nothing  about   HIP  research?  I  know  a  great  deal  about  it.  I  have  read  extensively  on  it  and  don't  object  to   the  attempt  to recreate   the  music  of  the  past  as  closely  as  possible.  But  many  of these  performances  have  frankly   sounded  pedantic,  inexpressive  and   unpleasant  in  sonority  to  me,  particularly  gut  strings,  which  sound  disagreeably  nasal, pinched  and  wheezing  to  me. 
   I  am  a  former  horn  player  with  a  great  deal  of  experience  playing  Brahms.  I  know  that  Brahms  wrote  his  horn  parts  as  if  they  were  for  natural  horns,  but  I  know he realized   that  this  would  not  be  the   norm.
   And  the  eminent  critic  Andrew  Porter,  who  has  been   such  a  useful  idiot  for  HIP,  once  showed  his  ignorance  of the  natural  horn  by  claiming  that  an"advantage"  of  the  natural  horn  in  18th  and  early  19th  century  music  is  the "extra  color"  provided  by  the  stopped  notes. 
   But  he  fails  to  realize  that  the  purpose  of  stopped  notes  was  to  increase  the  natural  horn's  ability  to  play  notes  normally  outside  the  harmonic  series  and   enable  composers  to  write  more  interesting  melodic  lines.  Stopped  notes  were  not  considered  extra  color  back  then.  And   the  great  hand  horn  virtuosos  of  the  day  such  as  Giovanni  Punto, were  admired  for  their  ability  to  disguise  the difference  between  open  and  stopped  notes   so  that  listeners  could  scarcely  tell   the  difference.
     
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on September 28, 2008, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 28, 2008, 02:23:36 PM
Mforever,  will  you  please  stop  telling  me  I  know  nothing  about   HIP  research?  I  know  a  great  deal  about  it.  I  have  read  extensively  on  it  and  don't  object  to   the  attempt  to recreate   the  music  of  the  past  as  closely  as  possible.  But  many  of these  performances  have  frankly   sounded  pedantic,  inexpressive  and   unpleasant  in  sonority  to  me,  particularly  gut  strings,  which  sound  disagreeably  nasal, pinched  and  wheezing  to  me. 

Then you have apparently never heard gut strings played well. And why do the people who do not play well on them disqualify everyone who uses them? Does anyone who can not play a valve horn properly (and there are countless people who can't) discredit and devaluate everyone who plays the valve horn? What silly logic is this?

And the main point of "HIP" is not to recreate performances of the past in the absence of recordings, but to learn as much about the performance practices and circumstances of the past to give the performer more stylistic choices to develop his interpretation here and now.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 28, 2008, 02:23:36 PM
I  am  a  former  horn  player  with  a  great  deal  of  experience  playing  Brahms.  I  know  that  Brahms  wrote  his  horn  parts  as  if  they  were  for  natural  horns,  but  I  know he realized   that  this  would  not  be  the   norm.

So what? It still tells us what his sound ideal was. And it also tells us that the sound that comes closest to that ideal is the kind of horn which sounds closest to a natural horn, in other words, as far as modern instruments is concerned, the Vienna F horn, and not the thinnish horn sound a lot of American horn players (including you?) offer.


Quote from: Superhorn on September 28, 2008, 02:23:36 PM
And  the  eminent  critic  Andrew  Porter,  who  has  been   such  a  useful  idiot  for  HIP,  once  showed  his  ignorance  of the  natural  horn  by  claiming  that  an"advantage"  of  the  natural  horn  in  18th  and  early  19th  century  music  is  the "extra  color"  provided  by  the  stopped  notes. 
But  he  fails  to  realize  that  the  purpose  of  stopped  notes  was  to  increase  the  natural  horn's  ability  to  play  notes  normally  outside  the  harmonic  series  and   enable  composers  to  write  more  interesting  melodic  lines.  Stopped  notes  were  not  considered  extra  color  back  then.  And   the  great  hand  horn  virtuosos  of  the  day  such  as  Giovanni  Punto, were  admired  for  their  ability  to  disguise  the difference  between  open  and  stopped  notes   so  that  listeners  could  scarcely  tell   the  difference.    

Once again, I think you fail to realize the complexity of questions like these. We know that the ability to play stopped notes so that they don't "stick out" was highly valued, but that doesn't mean that the particular sound of the stopped notes can never have been intended to stand out as a special effect here and there. Especially since after the invention of the valve horn, before it had even replaced the natural horn, composers almost immediately started prescribing stopped or muted effects.
There are places, e.g. the high F in the second movement of the Eroica (in the third horn, IIRC) where it looks a lot like Beethoven wanted this to stand out because it is very exposed and played f (or even ff?).

You seem to think that for all these questions, there are simple right/wrong answers, but most of the time, there aren't. Apparently, that is why you are not able to see beyond the more extreme proclamations of some "HIP" exponents and take everything literally and generalize it across the entire spectrum.

If you develop the ability to look at these complex things in more nuanced and better informed ways, you will gain a lot more understanding and enjoyment of this subject.

As Miles Davis said, music is all about style. So is "HIP" research.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 30, 2008, 12:06:43 PM
    Far  from  seeing  things  in  "black  and  white",  I  realize  that  the  questions  of  period  practice,  instruments  used  and  other  issues  is  an  extremely  complex  one.  I  was  not  using  the  examples  I  cited  about  fatuous  pronunciations  by   HIP  musicians  and  critics  who  advocate  it as  an  excuse  to  dismiss  the  movement  out of  hand;  I  was  trying  to  show  how  arrogant  many  are  and  how  blindly  they  accept  the  premises  of  the  movement.  I  would  say  that  I   have  enjoyed  SOME  period instrument  performances   IN  SPITE  of  the  instruments  used,  not  because  of  them.  The  performances  I  have  heard  with  pinched, nasal,  wheezing  string  sound  on  gut  strings  have  been  by  highly  reputable  musicians  whom  you   would  not  accuse  of  playing  their  instruments  badly. I  just  don't  like  the  sound  of  gut  strings;  I  guess  that's because  I  did   not  grow  up  listening  to  them.
   And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.
    I  love  the  sound  of   the  Viennese  F  horn,  but  many  other  great  horn  players  using  different  valved  horns  sound  wonderful  too.
    It's  not  the  period  instrument  performances  I  object  to  as  much  as  the  fatuous  statements  of  some  of   the  musicians.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 01, 2008, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 30, 2008, 12:06:43 PM
    Far  from  seeing  things  in  "black  and  white",  I  realize  that  the  questions  of  period  practice,  instruments  used  and  other  issues  is  an  extremely  complex  one.  I  was  not  using  the  examples  I  cited  about  fatuous  pronunciations  by   HIP  musicians  and  critics  who  advocate  it as  an  excuse  to  dismiss  the  movement  out of  hand;  I  was  trying  to  show  how  arrogant  many  are  and  how  blindly  they  accept  the  premises  of  the  movement.  I  would  say  that  I   have  enjoyed  SOME  period instrument  performances   IN  SPITE  of  the  instruments  used,  not  because  of  them.  The  performances  I  have  heard  with  pinched, nasal,  wheezing  string  sound  on  gut  strings  have  been  by  highly  reputable  musicians  whom  you   would  not  accuse  of  playing  their  instruments  badly. I  just  don't  like  the  sound  of  gut  strings;  I  guess  that's because  I  did   not  grow  up  listening  to  them.
   And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.
 

Don't you realize that your views are always slanted against period instruments and the HIP approach?  Just the above two paragraphs are full of slanted opinions.  As an example, you pit imaginative piano interpretations against dull harpsichord performances - not a fair comparision for imagination routinely trumps boredom.  Turn it around - imaginative harpsichord interpretations beat dull piano performances.  And you can be assured that plenty of piano performances of baroque keyboard music are just as dull as harpsichord performances.

As far as the significance of growing up with or without period instruments, I think that means little.  I never heard period instruments until I was in my late 30's - loved them on first hearing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 01, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
And which HIP musicians actually claim to play "100% super correct"? Even if a very few may make such exaggerated claims, there are just as many, actually, many, many more who make the same kind of claims in the non-HIP field.
In both fields - which, like I said, aren't really that separated anymore anyway -, you find good and bad musicians, some which make drastic statements and claims, that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity (or not) of any kind of approach to music making.
Besides, even though Superhorn keeps repeating that, very few of the most relevant HIP musicians make such statements. Most of them continually point to the experimental and exploring nature of their work.
I have read many interviews with Harnoncourt, for instance, and I can remember very few in which he didn't very explicitly say that the point of HIP for him is not to be "authentic" or to "reconstruct" actual historical interpretations, but to just find out as much about the music, its style and cultural context to develop a deeper understanding and have more freedom and more stylistically coherent choices for music making available.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 01, 2008, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on October 01, 2008, 01:43:55 PM
...As far as the significance of growing up with or without period instruments, I think that means little.  I never heard period instruments until I was in my late 30's - loved them on first hearing.
Yes.  I first heard the AAM/Hogwood Messiah when I was in college (that dates me a little! :) ), and although Hogwood's tempos took some getting used to, I was instantly fascinated by the period sound.  Yet even before that, I had heard a consort of early instruments from the University of Kansas at Lawrence and loved its sound. :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on October 03, 2008, 06:57:19 AM
   My  comments  aren't "slanted"  against  period  instruments,  or  slanted  at  all.  They're  just  my  opinions, and  you  can  take  them  or  leave  them.  And  I  have  considerable  admiration for  Harnoncourt.  I  might  not  like  his  interpretive  ideas  in  every  case,  but  his  performances  are  always  interesting  and  thought-provoking. 
   My  comments  about  Bach  on  piano  vs   harpsichord  are  in  no  way  a  rejection  of   the  use  of  this  instrument;  I   can  enjoy  his  music  on  harpsichord, too.  What  I  meant  is  that  just   dutifully  following   what  is  currently  believed  to  be  stylistically  "correct"  is  not  enough.
   I  have  actually  become  much  more  tolerant  of  period  instruments   than  I  originally  was  many  years  ago.  I  was  never  opposed   their use  per  se;  I  just  thought  they  usually  sounded  awful, particualrly  the  gut  strings.  But  I  still   don't  mind  modern  instruments  at  all.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on October 03, 2008, 07:18:05 AM
   If  you  think  I  learned  everything   I  know  about  HIP  from  reading  classics  today,  you  are  dead  wrong.  I  have  read   great  deal  about  it  from  many  sources.  I  don't  always  agree  with  Hurwitz;  in  fact  he  often   PO's  me,too.  But  sometimes  he  is  right  on  the money,  and  that  much  of  what  he  says  about  HIP  performances is  quite  reasonable.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 03, 2008, 11:16:06 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on October 03, 2008, 06:57:19 AM
   My  comments  aren't "slanted"  against  period  instruments,  or  slanted  at  all.  They're  just  my  opinions, and  you  can  take  them  or  leave  them. 

They aren't for me to take or leave.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 03, 2008, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 30, 2008, 12:06:43 PM
And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.

Quote from: M forever on October 01, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
And which HIP musicians actually claim to play "100% super correct"? Even if a very few may make such exaggerated claims, there are just as many, actually, many, many more who make the same kind of claims in the non-HIP field.

Quote from: Superhorn on October 03, 2008, 06:57:19 AM
My  comments  about  Bach  on  piano  vs   harpsichord  are  in  no  way  a  rejection  of   the  use  of  this  instrument;  I   can  enjoy  his  music  on  harpsichord, too.  What  I  meant  is  that  just   dutifully  following   what  is  currently  believed  to  be  stylistically  "correct"  is  not  enough.

Again:

Quote from: M forever on October 01, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
And which HIP musicians actually claim to play "100% super correct"?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Jay F on October 04, 2008, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 30, 2008, 12:06:43 PM
    Far  from  seeing  things  in  "black  and  white",  I  realize  that  the  questions  of  period  practice,  instruments  used  and  other  issues  is  an  extremely  complex  one.  I  was  not  using  the  examples  I  cited  about  fatuous  pronunciations  by   HIP  musicians  and  critics  who  advocate  it as  an  excuse  to  dismiss  the  movement  out of  hand;  I  was  trying  to  show  how  arrogant  many  are  and  how  blindly  they  accept  the  premises  of  the  movement.  I  would  say  that  I   have  enjoyed  SOME  period instrument  performances   IN  SPITE  of  the  instruments  used,  not  because  of  them.  The  performances  I  have  heard  with  pinched, nasal,  wheezing  string  sound  on  gut  strings  have  been  by  highly  reputable  musicians  whom  you   would  not  accuse  of  playing  their  instruments  badly. I  just  don't  like  the  sound  of  gut  strings;  I  guess  that's because  I  did   not  grow  up  listening  to  them.
   And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.
    I  love  the  sound  of   the  Viennese  F  horn,  but  many  other  great  horn  players  using  different  valved  horns  sound  wonderful  too.
    It's  not  the  period  instrument  performances  I  object  to  as  much  as  the  fatuous  statements  of  some  of   the  musicians.

Superhorn, why is your formatting so, for lack of a better word, space-y? It's hard to read.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on October 13, 2008, 05:47:39 AM
   Yes,  HIP is a lot like a religion. It has its true believers, such as Gardiner, Norrington, Hogwood, Harnoncourt, Bruggen, Leonhardt, and Herreweghe.
   
   They sing the praises of period instruments, worship at the altar of authenticity, sneer (not always ) at the use of modern instruments in the music of the Baroque, classical and sometimes even the Romantic period, and issue their Papal Bulls and Fatwas about performance practice. Fortunately, they don't fly planes into Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall or other concert venues, but with Roger Norrington, you never know. They sing the praises of gut strings, natural horns and the Urtext.

   Then there are the atheists , such as Pinchas Zuckerman, Itzhak Perlman and others, who dismiss the whole movement as pure charlatanism, and sneer
at musicians who use period instruments, and the ugly, out of tune sounds they produce. To them, it's the spirit of the performance that counts.

   I'm an agnostic ; to me, it was an interesting idea to hear what the music of Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven  etc might have sounded like, but I'm not sure that what we are hearing is in any way "authentic", or if old instruments or replicas thereof still sound exactly as they did in the past, they are being played exactly as they were, or if the music iis being interpreted exactly as the composers would have wanted.

  I've enjoyed SOME HIP performances, but it has been DESPITE the instruments used and not because of them. But too many have struck me as pedantic, inexpressive and unpleasant sounding. Some of these HIP musicians are so determined to get rid of anything that they believe to be stylistically "incorrect", that they have merely succeeded in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

   One poster here has taken me to task for statements like this, claiming that I learned everything I know about HIP by reading negative reviews of them by David Hurwitz at classicasotay.com. I'm afraid this is not correct at all. I was familiar with period instruments and had heard numerous performances and read much about them long before the internet and classica today even existed.

   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lethevich on October 13, 2008, 06:29:39 AM
I find the adoration of dead conductors such as Furtwängler and Karajan to be just as religious, tbh...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: lukeottevanger on October 13, 2008, 07:12:12 AM
Great, HIP and religion in one thread.  ::) Still, it was only a matter of time.

FWIW, I think the analogies set up are both artificial and false (and the unbalanced, biased tone of the post doesn't help either). As Sara points out, there's an aura of religiosity that surrounds the hallowed and definitely non-HIP performers of the past.

In any event, if one wished to one could make just as persuasive a case (more persuasive, to my mind) that the non-HIPpers, with their denial of 'science' and their faith in power of the intangible and the 'scientifically incorrect', are far closer to religion than the rather Enlightenment, research-led HIp movement, whose dogmatism, if it exists, is the dogmatism of the scientist rather than the believer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 13, 2008, 07:21:03 AM
Superhorn is getting quite repetitive.  Everything he said in his opening post has been stated within the past couple of weeks.  He doesn't like HIP or period instrumentation - nothing new or insightful here.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on October 13, 2008, 07:30:29 AM
    Maybe I am getting repetitious, and if that's so, my apologies. But it's not true that I don't like period instruments; maybe sometimes, but I have enjoyed some performances.
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Keemun on October 13, 2008, 07:34:16 AM
My primary concern is how the music sounds.  I don't care much about claims of authenticity or lack thereof.  The fact is, I prefer the sound of HIP performances for some work, but not others.  (I'm using "HIP" to mean historically informed performances and/or period instrumentation.)  For example, my favorite recordings of Bach's Mass in B minor are HIP, but my favorite recordings of Bach's Cello Suites are non-HIP.  That's my two cents, which is all I have in my pocket on this issue, so enjoy the debate.   8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: lukeottevanger on October 13, 2008, 07:38:24 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on October 13, 2008, 07:30:29 AM
    Maybe I am getting repetitious, and if that's so, my apologies. But it's not true that I don't like period instruments; maybe sometimes, but I have enjoyed some performances.
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

I've rarely if ever seen it. Though I've seen it displayed by those on 'the other side' fairly often.

And maybe here's the place to air my wish that among my many HIP discs I had some with these unpleasant-sounding instruments I'm always hearing about. All I ever seem to buy is these annoyingly beautiful-sounding and revelatory discs which enrich my listening immeasurably. (A much higher success-rate than with non-HIP recordings, I must say)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lethevich on October 13, 2008, 07:59:42 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on October 13, 2008, 07:30:29 AM
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

I sometimes have a problem with the fans, but rarely the musicians*. Sometimes HIP recordings can be fetishised slightly, but no worse than I see with other styles (such as historical recordings by the greats and the forgottens).

*Due to my age I was not around when HIP was in its infancy, and therefore may have missed some of the initial dogma.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 13, 2008, 08:03:24 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on October 13, 2008, 07:30:29 AM
    Maybe I am getting repetitious, and if that's so, my apologies. But it's not true that I don't like period instruments; maybe sometimes, but I have enjoyed some performances.
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

You're repeating yourself again.  Be fresh and move on to another topic.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 13, 2008, 02:27:07 PM
Superhorn, here's a challenge for you: Check out some of the recordings by Ensemble 415, Europa Galante, and/or Musica Antiqua-Köln--some of the most idiomatic, flexible, and compelling performances of any age.  Then come back and tell us whether all HIP performers are dogmatic and unmusical. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 13, 2008, 07:56:33 PM
How could he do that? Superhorn doesn't understand at all what HIP is and how it relates to other performance traditions. Because he doesn't understand other performance traditions and what is and what isn't "idiomatic" at all either.

He has repeatedly been asked to provide examples for the "dogmas" he keeps talking about with a stubborn repetetiveness that has made me begin to think he isn't an actual poster, but a spam program which simply reposts random blocks of the same generalized statements over and over and over and over again in different combinations - that is probably why the formatting is so strange.
So far, he has completely failed to provide sufficiently representative - or even any - examples examples to back up his nonsense.

The stuff about "religious dogma of HIP" fits nicely with the attitude of aggressive anti-intellectualism and proud ignorance too many Americans display these days and Mr O hit the nail on the head here:

Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 13, 2008, 07:12:12 AM
FWIW, I think the analogies set up are both artificial and false (and the unbalanced, biased tone of the post doesn't help either). As Sara points out, there's an aura of religiosity that surrounds the hallowed and definitely non-HIP performers of the past.

In any event, if one wished to one could make just as persuasive a case (more persuasive, to my mind) that the non-HIPpers, with their denial of 'science' and their faith in power of the intangible and the 'scientifically incorrect', are far closer to religion than the rather Enlightenment, research-led HIp movement, whose dogmatism, if it exists, is the dogmatism of the scientist rather than the believer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on October 14, 2008, 07:35:31 AM
   M forever, I am a genuine person and not a spammer.  And with all due respect, to say that I "know nothing" about HIP" and performance practice and traditions etc is not only the hight of fatuousness but absolutely laughable.
  As I've pointed out already, I was familiar with HIP performances and theory long before classics today and the internet even existed.

  I'm not even offended by what you have been saying about me. You can say whatever you like about me, but that doesn't make it true.

   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Szykneij on October 15, 2008, 11:43:02 AM
I learned the answer to the question in the seventies ...

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61yVaqXA%2BVL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: anasazi on October 15, 2008, 08:14:19 PM
My only reason to listen to this music is not historical.  This is akin to going to an art exhibit where the only lighting is kerosene lamps or fireplaces.  It is the music that counts.  When I can enjoy it, I do. If it is performed by Wendy Carlos, I don't have a problem.  My only problem is when people tell me that there is only ONE way to listen or appreciate these works.  Then I know that they may have an aggenda.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: lukeottevanger on October 15, 2008, 10:26:26 PM
Quote from: anasazi on October 15, 2008, 08:14:19 PM
My only reason to listen to this music is not historical.  This is akin to going to an art exhibit where the only lighting is kerosene lamps or fireplaces.  It is the music that counts.  When I can enjoy it, I do. If it is performed by Wendy Carlos, I don't have a problem.  My only problem is when people tell me that there is only ONE way to listen or appreciate these works.  Then I know that they may have an aggenda.

But (assuming that there are these people, which I think more myth than actuality) what is that agenda?

As far as your analogy of HIP with lamps and fires lighting an art exhibition, that comes dangerously close to implying that all that HIP can give to a performance is cosmetic - IOW colour but not substance. It ignores the fact that HIP is historically informed performance as well as simply 'playing on old instruments'. And even if it were only the latter, performance on original instruments more often than not can reveal things about the music that are more than cosmetic - as in the wonderful, intimate Beethoven-on-an-1812-Broadwood recital I attended at the weekend, in which the sound of the fortepiano illuminated structural and compositional devices in the music which had never really been prominent to me before, and made the music even more impressive (and exciting) as a result.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on October 16, 2008, 11:21:53 AM
   Jochanaan, I have heard quite a lot of those ensembles you mention on WQXR, to which I listen frequently, and they are pretty good, although the sound of the gut strings is still rather grating at times.

  I never made a blanket dismissal of HIP performances. But when I  return to the modern instrument recordings of Marriner and Leppard etc, it's actually quite refreshing ! The're still excellent, and absolutely valid.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 11:35:21 AM
One of the most stupendously emotional and fiery HIP performances I have heard is this one:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4116GKSCAVL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

which should put an end once and for all that HIP recordings are sterile, grating, and thin.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 16, 2008, 12:07:46 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on October 16, 2008, 11:21:53 AM
   Jochanaan, I have heard quite a lot of those ensembles you mention on WQXR, to which I listen frequently, and they are pretty good, although the sound of the gut strings is still rather grating at times.

  I never made a blanket dismissal of HIP performances. But when I  return to the modern instrument recordings of Marriner and Leppard etc, it's actually quite refreshing ! The're still excellent, and absolutely valid.
Well, okay then: it's not their blankets you don't like, it's their guts. :o ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 16, 2008, 12:19:57 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on October 16, 2008, 12:07:46 PM
Well, okay then: it's not their blankets you don't like, it's their guts. :o ;D ;D

What's the problem with gut strings?? I think they sound beautiful: a full, sonorous and soft edged sound.
But I guess some prefer the more clean, wiry sound of modern strings... ::) Which suits some (modern) music fine BTW.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 16, 2008, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: Que on October 16, 2008, 12:19:57 PM
What's the problem with gut strings?? I think they sound beautiful: a full, sonorous and soft edged sound.
Q

Right on target.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 16, 2008, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 11:35:21 AM
One of the most stupendously emotional and fiery HIP performances I have heard is this one:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4116GKSCAVL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

which should put an end once and for all that HIP recordings are sterile, grating, and thin.

Or this:

(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/63/d9/c3cdb2c008a00ce6ee9e8010.L.jpg)

Which is one of my all-time favorite recordings of anything by anybody. Not because it is "historically correct" or "the only authentic way" to play these pieces, but simply because it is a musically very convincing and highly nuanced performance with a very wide spectrum of expression. Coin also gets a vast range of colors from his instrument which include very soft, silvery and lyrical sounds and also very metallic (our friend Superhorn would call them "grating") sounds in places where they seem to make musical sense - in some passages in the finale he almost plays on the bridge, with great effect. His bow technique is pretty stunning, especially how he often switches between different bowing styles and attacks rapidly within the same phrase to give it optimally nuanced coloring and articulation.

This performance fully explores the - very wide - spectrum of expressive possibilities of the cello with gut strings and its value does not lie in that it demonstrates "the only correct way" to play these pieces - which neither Coin nor Hogwood ever claimed to do anyway -, but in the opposite, in that it demonstrates how wide the range of musical choices that the instrument allows the player really is. It's basic attitude is not one of giving a lecture on "correct" historical performance but one of exploration and investigation. It is obviously grounded in very solid knowledge and practical musical understanding of historical performance practice and documented esthetic principles such as the "rhetoric" approach to phrasing and inflection, but these basics only provide a starting point and coherent stylistic frame of reference for the performers which is not the destination, but the starting point of this performance. Everything else is built on top of that and only follows musical intuition, not a set of "rules" which don't exist that specifically anyway.

The musicians for whom this music was written and who first played it also started their own musical education by following the basic technical and msucial instructions and rules of their teachers, and then, as they developed and matured as players, by developing their own musical personalities which, presumably, reflected many influences and inspirations which they then fused into their own unique musical personalities. This is the way music making generally works, the way it still does today, no matter what kind of musical style a performer plays in. It is just the way people carry on cultural activities of any kind. But the important thing is that there is always a context in which the performer works and that he interacts with.

It is extremely interesting to at least try and find out whatever we can about these historical contexts by studying historical information and experimenting with historical instruments, as well as getting insights into the mindsets and cultural contexts of the people who created and played this music and these instruments.

That has absolutely nothing to do at all with "drawing by numbers" or following "sterile rules" - in fact, this attitude towards the performance of what is essentially historical music is the exact opposite. It is the attempt to dig down deep into our cultural history past and in finding a connection between the past and the present. Modern performers of modern music operate within a cultural context which is reflected in technical, stylistical, and expressive aspects of their performance. Of course, historical performers of historical music operated in such a context, too. Just as with contemporary musicians, those contexts were partially definable technical and stylistic parameters, and partially personal musical intuition of the individual performers. Any good performance of any kind of music needs to have these qualities in good balance. Investigating the historical context of historical music is not a guarantee for "correct" or even "good" performances at all, but it can be a basis for stylisitically very complex and interesting, and with that attitude, essentially modern performances. Because that kind of attitude towards our cultural history is a very modern attitude.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 12:41:52 PM
Quote from: M forever on October 16, 2008, 12:30:14 PM
Or this:

(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/63/d9/c3cdb2c008a00ce6ee9e8010.L.jpg)

Which is one of my all-time favorite recordings of anything by anybody.

That is saying a lot !

Anyway I am not as eloquent as you are but a good HIP performance always remind me of the music first and HIP second. We are fortunate that nowadays there are some excellent HIP recordings. I remember about 15 years ago I heard my first recording: Mozart's Flute Concertos played by the Linde Consort (I forget who the soloist is) and it was so bad you can't believe they are professional musicians. It had all the cliches you associate with HIP - limited dynamic contrast, veiled and constricted string sound, breathy winds, and then some.

In any case I think everything I hear from the AAM is excellent, especially those with Manze. Too bad the cello disc you mentioned is OOP or I'd order  myself a copy.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 16, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 12:41:52 PM
In any case I think everything I hear from the AAM is excellent, especially those with Manze. Too bad the cello disc you mentioned is OOP or I'd order  myself a copy.

You can order the Hogwood/Coin disc.  It's one of those on-demand recordings from ArkivMusic.  Also, it's available on the Decca Eloquence label from Australia.  M states that it's one of the best, and I fully agree.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 16, 2008, 12:59:43 PM
The disc (or some other incarnation) can still be bought new from European amazon sites, or, west of the Atlantic, new and used here (http://www.amazon.com/Cello-Concertos-J-Haydn/dp/B0018B7RS8/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1224190625&sr=11-1).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 16, 2008, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 12:41:52 PM
That is saying a lot !

Indeed it is. I don't make these anouncements lightly (or often) but in this case, this is a recording that I have found astonishingly good every time I have listened to it (which has been many times over 15 years or so that I have had it). It is the richness and complexity of the music making, and at the same time, its stylistic coherence which I find so impressive and which makes this a "model" HIP performance for me. But apart from that, it's also simply a great performance, no matter what stylistic reference frame it happens in.

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 12:41:52 PM
I remember about 15 years ago I heard my first recording: Mozart's Flute Concertos played by the Linde Consort (I forget who the soloist is)

Probably Linde himself. It has been ages since I last heard anything from them, but I remember them as generally quite competent. If you still have the disc, maybe you should relisten to it. Maybe it was the shock of how different some things can sound on "historical" instruments which waqs too great for you at the time. The types of flutes they had back then were indeed much less dynamic and more "breathy" than modern flutes, but I personally like that kind of flute sound a lot, too. It is very introvert and has its own interesting range of colors. It may be "less" than a modern flute, but it has a lot of character.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: adamdavid80 on October 16, 2008, 02:15:57 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on October 16, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
You can order the Hogwood/Coin disc.  It's one of those on-demand recordings from ArkivMusic.  Also, it's available on the Decca Eloquence label from Australia.  M states that it's one of the best, and I fully agree.

Well, that's an automatic sell right there. 

When Bulldog and M both offer ringing (or, some would say, "grating"  ;))endorsements, you know that's it's going to be a stellar listening experience....sold!!!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2008, 03:06:38 PM
Quote from: M forever on October 16, 2008, 12:59:43 PM
The disc (or some other incarnation) can still be bought new from European amazon sites, or, west of the Atlantic, new and used here (http://www.amazon.com/Cello-Concertos-J-Haydn/dp/B0018B7RS8/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1224190625&sr=11-1).
Thanks. Just ordered it from the link you provided. Initially I didn't find it because I tried searching for Hogwood/Haydn and the only thing it came up with is the OOP version where you have to pay arkivmusic $14 for a cdr or pay $75 to some aftermarket seller.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: anasazi on October 17, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 15, 2008, 10:26:26 PM
But (assuming that there are these people, which I think more myth than actuality) what is that agenda?


To sell CDs would be my guess.  I mean, how many recordings of The Four Seasons do we need?  But any new angle on how to properly play it may give someone an edge.  I understand this may sound depressing, and I am not really doubting the performers (for the most part) but the record and CD companies, their job is to stay in business.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on October 17, 2008, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: anasazi on October 17, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
To sell CDs would be my guess.  I mean, how many recordings of The Four Seasons do we need? 

500.  Most folks know that already. ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 17, 2008, 06:32:47 PM
Like I said before, basically all good and serious musicians who perform any given repertoire in any given style and whose interpretations are the result of their encounter with and study of the music they play or sing or conduct are convinced that their way of interpreting the music is "right", that it has to be that way and that they can confidently offer their interpretation to the listeners as valid and worth listening to, no matter if they are "HIP" people or not, and no matter if they actually say that or not.

I think I put that really well before, so allow me to quote myself here  ;D

Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 04:56:30 PM
Besides, any performer, no matter what and in what style he plays and whether or not he comments on his interpretations or not, implicitly tells us through the way he plays that he has arrived at that interpretation because it is his personal view that this is the way the music should be presented.

We don't want to listen to people just doodling out notes. No matter what interpretation we listen to, we want to have the feeling that it is worth listening to and that the performer has something to "say" about the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 19, 2008, 05:25:38 PM
Tip: while the Coin/AAM/Hogwood disc with the Haydn cello concertos is easily available in several editions used and new from European sellers, used copies are pricey in the US and the Arkivmusic CD-R appears to be the only cost-effective way to buy the recording. But there is actually also this Decca Eloquence release (http://www.amazon.com/Cello-Concertos-Nos-1-2/dp/B000CIXCSW/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1224465490&sr=11-1) which appears to be available easily and for not much money. It is just a little hard to find on the amazon website because it is not correctly listed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: adamdavid80 on October 19, 2008, 05:28:59 PM
Quote from: M forever on October 19, 2008, 05:25:38 PM
Tip: while the Coin/AAM/Hogwood disc with the Haydn cello concertos is easily available in several editions used and new from European sellers, used copies are pricey in the US and the Arkivmusic CD-R appears to be the only cost-effective way to buy the recording. But there is actually also this Decca Eloquence release (http://www.amazon.com/Cello-Concertos-Nos-1-2/dp/B000CIXCSW/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1224465490&sr=11-1) which appears to be available easily and for not much money. It is just a little hard to find on the amazon website because it is not correctly listed.

...and only ONE copy left...   >:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 19, 2008, 05:30:03 PM
No, there's a few more. Read the fine print!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on October 19, 2008, 05:35:58 PM
Quote from: M forever on October 19, 2008, 05:25:38 PM
Tip: while the Coin/AAM/Hogwood disc with the Haydn cello concertos is easily available in several editions used and new from European sellers, used copies are pricey in the US and the Arkivmusic CD-R appears to be the only cost-effective way to buy the recording. But there is actually also this Decca Eloquence release (http://www.amazon.com/Cello-Concertos-Nos-1-2/dp/B000CIXCSW/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1224465490&sr=11-1) which appears to be available easily and for not much money. It is just a little hard to find on the amazon website because it is not correctly listed.
Now you tell me...after I paid about $6 more to get it from the first link you gave. But in any case thanks.

Talking about Haydn's Cello Concertos, have you heard this performance by Queyras?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51J3W6VMXNL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I heard it the other think and think it is fantastic. I don't have much of a basis for comparison. The only other recording I have is the cello concerto #1 with Du Pre/Barenboim and I am not thrilled with that recording.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: M forever on October 19, 2008, 08:53:36 PM
I already forgot about the link I first posted. I found the Eloquence release today after a poster PMed me about the Arkivmusic CD-R and I did a little more digging by looking through European amazon sites and searching for the ASINs on amazon.com. But I actually think the Oiseau-Lyre release I linked to earlier (http://www.amazon.com/Cello-Concertos-J-Haydn/dp/B0018B7RS8/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1224190625&sr=11-1) and which you apparently bought might still be a better choice even though it is a few dollars more because Eloquence releases tend to be very sparse when it comes to the booklet and all that. But I don't really know because I don't have either - I have had the original release for a long time. How is the booklet and presentation of the Oiseau-Lyre release?

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 19, 2008, 05:35:58 PM
Talking about Haydn's Cello Concertos, have you heard this performance by Queyras?
[/img]

No, but the clips I listened to sounded rather interesting, so I am downloading that from amazon. That's exactly what I am in the mood to listen to right now.

I heard it the other think and think it is fantastic. I don't have much of a basis for comparison. The only other recording I have is the cello concerto #1 with Du Pre/Barenboim and I am not thrilled with that recording.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 20, 2008, 12:39:27 AM
The L'Oiseau-Lyre Coin/Hogwood Haydn concertos has been reissued - see HERE (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,4111.msg238631.html#msg238631).

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: ChamberNut on January 23, 2009, 04:30:42 PM
Maybe this could be the place for Antihipster's first post?   0:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on January 24, 2009, 04:07:39 PM
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 23, 2009, 04:30:42 PM
Maybe this could be the place for Antihipster's first post?   0:)

Is Zukerman coming aboard?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on January 24, 2009, 04:31:49 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on January 24, 2009, 04:07:39 PM
Is Zukerman coming aboard?

He just might if he catches wind of this thread.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: snyprrr on January 24, 2009, 04:49:38 PM
Berlioz and Liszt come to mind...Scriabin?
didn't HIP die with post modernism?

the other definition would include Nigel Kennedy, Kronos Qrt., and Gorecki's 3rd........marketing. HIP means the 60s, right? culturalism? otherwise, it's an acronym i don't understand.


classical orchestras dressed in sexxxy black tights?

somehow i like the joke's on me, though....

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on January 24, 2009, 09:14:20 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on January 24, 2009, 04:49:38 PM
Berlioz and Liszt come to mind...Scriabin?
didn't HIP die with post modernism?

the other definition would include Nigel Kennedy, Kronos Qrt., and Gorecki's 3rd........marketing. HIP means the 60s, right? culturalism? otherwise, it's an acronym i don't understand.


HIP stands for historically informed performance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on January 25, 2009, 12:33:11 AM
If you haven't heard these three recordings, then you don't know what you are missing.

Forget "HIP" vs. "non-HIP". It's much more fun to not think of it as ideology [assuming the artists don't shove it down your throat that way, be it Zukerman (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-pinchas-zukerman.html) or Rifkin], but a great music (or not).

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"... Lots of non-HIP is awesome... be it Celbidache's Bruckner or Karl Richter's Bach or all those Scarlatti performances on Piano (Pletnev (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/02/dip-your-ears-no-26.html)!)...

I only don't like when HIP ensembles REPLACE regular bands playing Baroque and Classical music. That, I think, is a very negative trend. ("Why Haydn should be Mandatory (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=340)"). And I also don't believe in HIP-only Mozart or HIP-only Haydn. If you've heard the Mozart symphonies of the Berlin Philharmonic with Pinnock (on their "Digital Concert Hall" channel), or know anything about Krips' Mozart or Jansons' (RCO) or even Beecham's Haydn, you'd not be tempted to think in that direction, anyway.



(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31rq4lgUw8L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Vivaldi, Four Seasons, Alessandrini, Concerto Italiano (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006IWQR/goodmusicguide-20)   (Review (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=122))
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51R7t44rlFL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Haydn, String Quartets op.20, Quatuor Mosaique (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000DETAX/goodmusicguide-20) (tiny Review (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/09/dip-your-ears-no-11.html))

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pbBfEG1JL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Bach, Mass in B-Minor, van Veldhoven, Nederlands Bach Society (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000N4S8PM/goodmusicguide-20) (Review (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2007/12/bachs-mass-in-b-minor.html))
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on January 25, 2009, 05:54:15 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on January 25, 2009, 12:33:11 AM

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"...

I have a disc of Lickl quartets played by the Authentic Qt.  Can't say that any technical aspects bother me, but the group sounds cold.  I'm familiar enough with Lickl's music to know that there's some decent emotional content in there that the Authentic doesn't address.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on January 25, 2009, 11:02:09 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on January 25, 2009, 12:33:11 AM
If you haven't heard these three recordings, then you don't know what you are missing.

You know, I haven't heard Van Veldhoven's B-minor! :) I'll certainly check it out. But maybe you don't know Hengelbrock's? If so - strongly recommended.

QuoteForget "HIP" vs. "non-HIP". It's much more fun to not think of it as ideology [assuming the artists don't shove it down your throat that way, be it Zukerman or Rifkin], but a great music (or not).

Absolutely.

QuoteLots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"...

Subscribing to this popular notion is maybe a nice gesture to the anti-HIP brigade, but I can't agree - not if it is stated as generalised like this. Undoubtedly there are examples of scratchy playing, especially in the early days of HIP, but "lots"? HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now. ::)

QuoteLots of non-HIP is awesome... be it Celbidache's Bruckner or Karl Richter's Bach or all those Scarlatti performances on Piano (Pletnev!)...

Absolutely, though I personally wouldn't have mentioned these examples. ;D

QuoteI only don't like when HIP ensembles REPLACE regular bands playing Baroque and Classical music. That, I think, is a very negative trend. ("Why Haydn should be Mandatory (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=340)"). And I also don't believe in HIP-only Mozart or HIP-only Haydn. If you've heard the Mozart symphonies of the Berlin Philharmonic with Pinnock (on their "Digital Concert Hall" channel), or know anything about Krips' Mozart or Jansons' (RCO) or even Beecham's Haydn, you'd not be tempted to think in that direction, anyway.

Interesting ideas there. And yes, I can understand why a 19th century style symphony orchestra needs to play Haydn & Mozart. Yet the trend for specialisation is irreversible IMO. Maybe they should play it, but not record it? I wouldn't buy it anyway...

I myself would favour the idea that players in such traditional orchestras would develop their own knowledge on HIP and play older music on a period instrument!  Now that would indeed add something valuable to their musical expertise when playing Bruckner!  :o Much more than playing Haydn like in the days of Karajan or Scherchen....Applying late 19th/early 20th century musical practises to music of earlier eras has only limited value.... There actually are some examples of artists moving in HIP as well as non-HIP circles. Dutch hornist Ab Koster comes to mind.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on January 25, 2009, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: Que on January 25, 2009, 11:02:09 PM
Subscribing to this popular notion is maybe a nice gesture to the anti-HIP brigade, but I can't agree - not if it is stated as generalised like this. Undoubtedly there are examples of scratchy playing, especially in the early days of HIP, but "lots"? HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now. ::)

I'm not just trying to pander to the anti-HIP brigade with that statement. And I find Zukerman-like stands idiotic. But "A lot of" isn't that generalized a statement that I feel compelled to take it back. In any case not more generalized than saying: "HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now." All HIP performances? No. Some have achieved near perfection (check out Egarr's Brandenburgs when they come out... it's quite amazing!). Some don't even need "near perfection" to be tittilating. But on average they are no better than non-HIP groups, with the added disadvantage of playing much more difficult to handle instruments.

Obviously most of those HIP perfs. we hear recorded (and most [not all!] of the people on this list seem to be recording geeks, rather than concert-goers), are pretty good, because there's a quality control built in. But even Pinnock's old Brandenburg's don't sound that great anymore, and many (smaller) bands active today haven't even reached the level of the English Concert had back then. And that "Authentic Quartet"'s performance under the impression of which I wrote that, just really angered me. I just don't want to hear anything anymore, that's not up to the intonation-and quality-standards of, say, Rachel Podger. If you are not willing to invest your time in learning to use gut strings and old bows and flat finger boards and low bridges well, buy yourself a modern instrument that suits your limited assiduity, talent, or skill. Argh. [Rant over] This is not against HIP, this is about performance standards in general and applies to modern groups as well.

As per my "Haydn is Mandatory" comment: Strauss, Mahler, Brahms, and Bruckner wrote for Orchestras that played Mozart and Haydn on a regular basis. Not the same size, obviously, since their demands were greater, but as far as their musical diet is concerned. If the orchestras lose that, then they lose the ability to play Romantic fare--and the only music they could satisfactorily play would be John Adams and Rihm. And as much as I think the latter two should be a part of the musical diet, if they were the only (well played) part, I'd want to jump off a tall building.

QuoteBut maybe you don't know Hengelbrock's?

No, I have not. But I heard him a few days ago in the Mozart Requiem and Bach chorales wedged into a performance of the Frank Martin Violin Concertino.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bunny on February 01, 2009, 07:58:02 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on January 25, 2009, 12:33:11 AM
[snip]

Forget "HIP" vs. "non-HIP". It's much more fun to not think of it as ideology [assuming the artists don't shove it down your throat that way, be it Zukerman (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-pinchas-zukerman.html) or Rifkin], but a great music (or not).

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"... Lots of non-HIP is awesome... be it Celbidache's Bruckner or Karl Richter's Bach or all those Scarlatti performances on Piano (Pletnev (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/02/dip-your-ears-no-26.html)!)...

I only don't like when HIP ensembles REPLACE regular bands playing Baroque and Classical music. That, I think, is a very negative trend. ("Why Haydn should be Mandatory (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=340)"). And I also don't believe in HIP-only Mozart or HIP-only Haydn. If you've heard the Mozart symphonies of the Berlin Philharmonic with Pinnock (on their "Digital Concert Hall" channel), or know anything about Krips' Mozart or Jansons' (RCO) or even Beecham's Haydn, you'd not be tempted to think in that direction, anyway.


Quote from: jlaurson on January 25, 2009, 11:49:27 PM
I'm not just trying to pander to the anti-HIP brigade with that statement. And I find Zukerman-like stands idiotic. But "A lot of" isn't that generalized a statement that I feel compelled to take it back. In any case not more generalized than saying: "HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now." All HIP performances? No. Some have achieved near perfection (check out Egarr's Brandenburgs when they come out... it's quite amazing!). Some don't even need "near perfection" to be tittilating. But on average they are no better than non-HIP groups, with the added disadvantage of playing much more difficult to handle instruments.

Obviously most of those HIP perfs. we hear recorded (and most [not all!] of the people on this list seem to be recording geeks, rather than concert-goers), are pretty good, because there's a quality control built in. But even Pinnock's old Brandenburg's don't sound that great anymore, and many (smaller) bands active today haven't even reached the level of the English Concert had back then. And that "Authentic Quartet"'s performance under the impression of which I wrote that, just really angered me. I just don't want to hear anything anymore, that's not up to the intonation-and quality-standards of, say, Rachel Podger. If you are not willing to invest your time in learning to use gut strings and old bows and flat finger boards and low bridges well, buy yourself a modern instrument that suits your limited assiduity, talent, or skill. Argh. [Rant over] This is not against HIP, this is about performance standards in general and applies to modern groups as well.

As per my "Haydn is Mandatory" comment: Strauss, Mahler, Brahms, and Bruckner wrote for Orchestras that played Mozart and Haydn on a regular basis. Not the same size, obviously, since their demands were greater, but as far as their musical diet is concerned. If the orchestras lose that, then they lose the ability to play Romantic fare--and the only music they could satisfactorily play would be John Adams and Rihm. And as much as I think the latter two should be a part of the musical diet, if they were the only (well played) part, I'd want to jump off a tall building.

No, I have not. But I heard him a few days ago in the Mozart Requiem and Bach chorales wedged into a performance of the Frank Martin Violin Concertino.

Unfortunately, Zuckerman isn't the only violinist who makes it an Us v. Them war.  Perlman actually went on a short rant about period instrument performance on a cooking show I was watching!  Not at all the place for that.  Poor Jacques Pepin -- he really didn't know what to say.

I have to agree with you about the decline in performance standards which is true for some "great" orchestras as well as for less well known ensembles (HIP and modern instrument).  However that's not really something related to HIP performance, but more a result of the way things are being done generally in our times.  I'm not familiar with the "Authentic Quartet," but I never heard that the type and quality of the instruments being played guaranteed good music making.  Bad music making is, unfortunately, much more common than great music making.  Whenever I pick up a recording that's a clanker, I feel like apologizing to my wallet as well as to my ears. It's worse when I'm at a concert where the playing is rough or the vocalist can't be heard.  Good manners keeps me in my seat when I'd rather just leave. 

Btw, I have tickets to Richard Egarr and the AAM doing the complete Brandenburgs later in the spring.  I am now breathless with anticipation. :D

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 08, 2010, 09:54:15 AM
Latest on WETA


Free Bach from the HIPsters
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Franco on August 08, 2010, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on August 08, 2010, 09:54:15 AM
Latest on WETA


Free Bach from the HIPsters
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231)

I thought you were offering free downloads.   :(
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 10, 2010, 03:04:25 PM
   My position on HIP is  between the snooty HIP fanatics who sneer at any performance on modern instruments and the anti-period instrument scoffers.
  The use of period instruments guarantees absolutely nothing esthetically. Just dutifully going through the motions of everything that's currently considered correct performance practice is not enough.
  Too many of these so-called "authentic" performances have struck me as pedantic,inexpressive and unpleasant sounding. But I've grown more tolerant of HIP performances and have enjoyed some of them not because they use period instruments,but in spite of the fact they do,and have a number of recordings of them.
  And I still enjoy performances of baroque and classical works on modern instruments.
  But the movement has been carried to absurd lengths. Do we really need HIP Bruckner? I recently borrowed the Herreweghe recording of the Bruckner 4th with the Champs Elysees orchestra. It was pretty good,but I could hardly hear any difference between it and the great orchestras we're accustomed to hearing in Bruckner,such as the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics etc.
I'm not going to give up my recordings of Bruckner symphonies by Tennstedt,Furtwangler,Chailly, Muti,Wand,Karajan, Skrowaczewski,Eschenbach et al for purportedly"authentic" Bruckner.
  I remember seeing Itzhak Perlman on the cooking show "The Frugal Gourmet". It should have been changed to the "Fugal Gourmet" in hoor of Perlman. I agree with Perlman and Zukerman up to a point about HIP.
  As the eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin has so wisely pointed out,"Instruments don't make music-people do". HIP snobs should never forget this fact.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 10, 2010, 03:39:58 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 10, 2010, 03:04:25 PM
   My position on HIP is  between the snooty HIP fanatics who sneer at any performance on modern instruments and the anti-period instrument scoffers.
  The use of period instruments guarantees absolutely nothing esthetically. Just dutifully going through the motions of everything that's currently considered correct performance practice is not enough.
  Too many of these so-called "authentic" performances have struck me as pedantic,inexpressive and unpleasant sounding. But I've grown more tolerant of HIP performances and have enjoyed some of them not because they use period instruments,but in spite of the fact they do,and have a number of recordings of them.
  And I still enjoy performances of baroque and classical works on modern instruments.
  But the movement has been carried to absurd lengths. Do we really need HIP Bruckner?

I don't think it's a matter of what "we really need".  There are folks who want to perform Bruckner on period instruments and folks who want to hear it. 

Although you say that you're between the two extremes, it's clear from your comments that you are closer to the anti-period scoffers than the snooty HIP fanatics. ;D

My take on the subject is that "debate" is pretty useless because classical musical enthusiasts can have it any way they want.  The market is highly varied and allows for all tastes.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 10, 2010, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 10, 2010, 03:04:25 PM
.... And I still enjoy performances of baroque and classical works on modern instruments.
  But the movement has been carried to absurd lengths. Do we really need HIP Bruckner? I recently borrowed the Herreweghe recording of the Bruckner 4th with the Champs Elysees orchestra. It was pretty good,but I could hardly hear any difference between it and the great orchestras we're accustomed to hearing in Bruckner,such as the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics etc.
I'm not going to give up my recordings of Bruckner symphonies by Tennstedt,Furtwangler,Chailly, Muti,Wand,Karajan, Skrowaczewski,Eschenbach et al for purportedly"authentic" Bruckner.
  I remember seeing Itzhak Perlman on the cooking show "The Frugal Gourmet". It should have been changed to the "Fugal Gourmet" in hoor of Perlman. I agree with Perlman and Zukerman up to a point about HIP.
  As the eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin has so wisely pointed out,"Instruments don't make music-people do". HIP snobs should never forget this fact.

You're (or I should say, Taruskin) absolutely right, people DO make music. It is you that is hung up on the authenticity of it. And you are living so far in the past; it's been at least 15 years since any PI performance was recorded and released that sounded like a museum piece. If you're gonna comment something, at least make it current.

BTW, I like modern (i.e. "living") performers on modern instruments as much as you do. I even admit the technical artistry of the zombie brigade. It is their ludicrous, post-Romantic performance style that makes me puke. I wish you non-PIons could begin to get a grip on that. If you did, you would be the first, apparently. ::)

8)


----------------
Now playing:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 30 Quartet in D for Strings Op 17 #6 3rd mvmt - Largo
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Franco on August 11, 2010, 06:11:26 AM
QuoteQuatuor Festetics - Hob 03 30 Quartet in D for Strings Op 17 #6

Gurn,

I've been listening to the Haydn SQ recorded by the Quatuor Mosaiques, and slowly liking it more and more.  How would you describe the Festetics compared to the QM?

Thread duty - I am for more recordings by all kinds of performers exhibiting every imaginable performance philosophy, but my current preferences are:

"Hybrid" orchestral recodings

PI chamber recordings

Modern piano in solo repertory
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 06:22:14 AM
Quote from: Franco on August 11, 2010, 06:11:26 AM
Gurn,

I've been listening to the Haydn SQ recorded by the Quatuor Mosaiques, and slowly liking it more and more.  How would you describe the Festetics compared to the QM?

Thread duty - I am for more recordings by all kinds of performers exhibiting every imaginable performance philosophy, but my current preferences are:

"Hybrid" orchestral recodings

PI chamber recordings

Modern piano in solo repertory

Mosaiques are smoother and more polished, generally take things a bit slower. The thing I like best about Festetics is that they just seem more rough 'n' ready, as it were. They are the sort of group that I would pay money to see because I know I would have a good time.  Mosaiques, I would be very impressed by them and maybe even be edified. Fact is, I don't want to be edified. I want to have a good time. :D

I know, I know, my opinions are out of the mainstream. Honest though...  0:)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Franco on August 11, 2010, 06:27:57 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 06:22:14 AM
Mosaiques are smoother and more polished, generally take things a bit slower. The thing I like best about Festetics is that they just seem more rough 'n' ready, as it were. They are the sort of group that I would pay money to see because I know I would have a good time.  Mosaiques, I would be very impressed by them and maybe even be edified. Fact is, I don't want to be edified. I want to have a good time. :D

I know, I know, my opinions are out of the mainstream. Honest though...  0:)

8)

Thanks - I am not aware of the mainstream opinion of either group, I just had it in my head that both were relatively new groups performing the Haydn SQ from a HIP-PI place.

At first the Mosaiques sounded somewhat exaggerated with dynamics and articulation, but now that I've listened to them a bit more, I'm hearing more of the flow.  I might pick up a couple installments from the Festetics since, IMO, there's no such thing as owning too many recordings of the Haydn SQs, and it is really interesting to hear different approaches of the same works.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 07:13:47 AM
Quote from: Franco on August 11, 2010, 06:27:57 AM
Thanks - I am not aware of the mainstream opinion of either group, I just had it in my head that both were relatively new groups performing the Haydn SQ from a HIP-PI place.

At first the Mosaiques sounded somewhat exaggerated with dynamics and articulation, but now that I've listened to them a bit more, I'm hearing more of the flow.  I might pick up a couple installments from the Festetics since, IMO, there's no such thing as owning too many recordings of the Haydn SQs, and it is really interesting to hear different approaches of the same works.

Yeah, opinion and personal taste are really what count, most especially with these works. After listening to the arguments of the "London Haydn Quartet" proponents in this forum, I went ahead and got Op 9 & 17 by them. I freely admit that the playing was outstanding, but in most ways they were like the Mosaiques. I really don't want a recital. Especially those 2 opera, they were never meant to be played by anyone except Haydn and Tomassini and Kraft & friend, and that was strictly an off-duty pleasure, not even for the Prince. It was fun for them, and it should sound like it. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BMW on August 11, 2010, 07:56:45 AM
Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Franco on August 11, 2010, 08:13:16 AM
Quote from: BMW on August 11, 2010, 07:56:45 AM
Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   :)

There are GMG-ers much more knowledgeable than I am on this topic, but for me, the Haydn Piano Trios are more interesting with PI than otherwise.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 11, 2010, 08:43:18 AM
Quote from: BMW on August 11, 2010, 07:56:45 AM
Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   :)

You'll have to help us out... what have you not liked so far? Haydn, specifically, or HIP in general?
What do you particularly dislike? (No point in asking you to appreciate the fortepiano quite yet, when that's something you can't stand, as of yet.
Do you have any of the discs listed in the side column of this piece? http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 11, 2010, 08:47:54 AM
One isn't better than the other.  It's all about preferences. 

In general, I don't enjoy performances with period instruments as much as modern instruments.  My personal preference.  Some exceptions though.

I prefer to hear Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven piano works on modern pianos.

However, for Bach, I'd rather hear keyboard works on the harpsichord, rather than modern piano.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: BMW on August 11, 2010, 07:56:45 AM
Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   :)

What do you like now? (from Schubert going backwards). I mean, solo piano? Chamber music? Orchestral? I would be pleased to give you some guidance that would avoid money-wasting on your part, but need to know what you like already. And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'... :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on August 11, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'... :)

You can be rude when the thing is about HIP, Gurn... I like that, I'm not a citizen of the world.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:04:10 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on August 11, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
You can be rude when the thing is about HIP, Gurn... I like that, I'm not a citizen of the world.  ;D

:D

Thanks, Antoine, I take that as a compliment. Frankly, I'm tired of being patronized by pseudo-adventurers who enjoy the occasional excursion off the beaten path. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on August 11, 2010, 10:08:42 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:04:10 AM
:D

Thanks, Antoine, I take that as a compliment. Frankly, I'm tired of being patronized by pseudo-adventurers who enjoy the occasional excursion off the beaten path. :)

8)

I totally agree: One thing is one thing and another thing is another thing.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Franco on August 11, 2010, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:04:10 AM
:D

Thanks, Antoine, I take that as a compliment. Frankly, I'm tired of being patronized by pseudo-adventurers who enjoy the occasional excursion off the beaten path. :)

8)

Well, I hope you are not including me in that group.  I sure don't think of myself as patronizing anyone by my occasional excursions into a thread like this, even though it is true that I plead guilty to not always preferring the PI approach.  But, if it is true that one must be doctrinare, one way or the other, in order to have credibility when discussing PI or non-PI preferences, then I guess that leaves me out.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 11, 2010, 10:11:25 AM
Although I greatly value the timbres of period instruments, the HIP thing is far from only being about that.

Of equal (greater?!) value is the question of stylistic interpretation in a manner sympathetic to the music in question.  We have performing treatises about the way "the dots" were performed from many periods and locations.  Notes inegales in Couperin and Rameau?  When to double-dot in French Overtures?  What ornaments to add, and when?

It's very wrong to assume that the printed music was always performed with the same set of assumptions as today :)   Not performing these nuances may perhaps be a matter of choice - but not knowing about them is a matter of unforgiveable ignorance :(
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 11, 2010, 10:13:07 AM
Quote from: Franco on August 11, 2010, 10:10:47 AM
Well, I hope you are not including me in that group.  I sure don't think of myself as patronizing anyone by my occasional excursions into a thread like this, even though it is true that I plead guilty to not always preferring the PI approach.  But, if it is true that one must be doctrinare, one way or the other, in order to have credibility when discussing PI or non-PI preferences, then I guess that leaves me out.

Same here.  I don't need the snooty attitude when we are trying to discuss what we prefer, whether it's HIP, HIPPI, or HIPPI-HIPPI-SHAKE.  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Franco on August 11, 2010, 10:10:47 AM
Well, I hope you are not including me in that group.  I sure don't think of myself as patronizing anyone by my occasional excursions into a thread like this, even though it is true that I plead guilty to not always preferring the PI approach.  But, if it is true that one must be doctrinare, one way or the other, in order to have credibility when discussing PI or non-PI preferences, then I guess that leaves me out.

Not in the least. I have never thought of you as pseudo anything. Or patronizing. It's OK, Franco, Antoine knows what I'm talking about, that's sufficient. Sometimes I forget when  I'm not in the PM mode... :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:23:42 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 11, 2010, 10:13:07 AM
Same here.  I don't need the snooty attitude when we are trying to discuss what we prefer, whether it's HIP, HIPPI, or HIPPI-HIPPI-SHAKE.  8)

Really, well other than the occasional diatribe by our old friend Rod, I can't remember a single time when any HIP-PIon was even fractionally as rude to modernists as is the reverse any time the subject arises. Please show me one and I'll smite him. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on August 11, 2010, 10:26:47 AM
Yea, with a mighty smiting!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 11, 2010, 10:30:46 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'... :)

8)

Can't one enjoy it only on occasion, in certain situations or certain composers?  Why does it have to be an all or nothing situation?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on August 11, 2010, 10:32:55 AM
Point well taken, Ray. I suspect Gurn was funnin' a bit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 11, 2010, 10:11:25 AM
Although I greatly value the timbres of period instruments, the HIP thing is far from only being about that.

Of equal (greater?!) value is the question of stylistic interpretation in a manner sympathetic to the music in question.  We have performing treatises about the way "the dots" were performed from many periods and locations.  Notes inegales in Couperin and Rameau?  When to double-dot in French Overtures?  What ornaments to add, and when?

It's very wrong to assume that the printed music was always performed with the same set of assumptions as today :)   Not performing these nuances may perhaps be a matter of choice - but not knowing about them is a matter of unforgiveable ignorance :(

Unquestionably true. Way more than about just the tone of the instruments. To my way of seeing things, the biggest acceptance problem is that people think that music performance then (18th century, I'm talking about) should be like music performance now, except that the instruments are weird. It is simply not so, and until one gets out of that mindset one cannot possibly enjoy. And it isn't just the listeners, it's the performers (most of all??). Just because you can string your fiddle with gut, or tinkle a fortepiano more easily than a Steinway, doesn't make you a historical style performer.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:36:45 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 11, 2010, 10:30:46 AM
Can't one enjoy enjoy it only on occasion, in certain situations or certain composers?  Why does it have to be an all or nothing situation?

Who says it can't? That isn't what I was intending to convey, and sorry you took it that way. I'm talking about a whole 'nother group altogether, the ones that are represented by what I think of as the "why, some of my best friends are Negroes" sort of people. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 11, 2010, 10:42:16 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 11, 2010, 10:30:46 AM
Can't one enjoy it only on occasion, in certain situations or certain composers?  Why does it have to be an all or nothing situation?

It doesn't and it isn't.  What bothers me is when some folks attribute unsavory motives to PI performers/conductors and also claim that the performers took the PI route because they don't have the technical skills to compete with modern instrument performers.

Another thing that bugs me is people saying they don't mind PI but then have only negative comments to make.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:45:12 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 11, 2010, 10:42:16 AM
Another thing that bugs me is people saying they don't mind PI but then have only negative comments to make.

Thank you, Don. I stew in silence ordinarily over this. Probably the root of my discontent. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 11, 2010, 11:31:48 AM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 11, 2010, 10:11:25 AM
...It's very wrong to assume that the printed music was always performed with the same set of assumptions as today :) ...
A very valid point.  One of the things I thank the HIP movement for is bringing back the high art of improvisation to our music. :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BMW on August 11, 2010, 11:46:12 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on August 11, 2010, 08:43:18 AM
You'll have to help us out... what have you not liked so far? Haydn, specifically, or HIP in general?
What do you particularly dislike? (No point in asking you to appreciate the fortepiano quite yet, when that's something you can't stand, as of yet.
Do you have any of the discs listed in the side column of this piece? http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
What do you like now? (from Schubert going backwards). I mean, solo piano? Chamber music? Orchestral? I would be pleased to give you some guidance that would avoid money-wasting on your part, but need to know what you like already. And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'... :)

I like a little of everything but spend a lot of time with orchestral and vocal music.  My first negative impression of period performance practices came through a set of Beethoven's symphonies from the library (cannot remember whose, but I do recall that it was a fairly early project) -- I just got the impression that the tempos were consistently fast for the sake of being fast.  Other HIP performances I have checked out have mostly been pieces by my favorite composers whose music is relevant to the HIP discussion --- Bach, Beethoven, Handel Mozart ......  (having favorite non-HIP recordings of their music firmly entrenched in my mind probably contributes to rejection of the other style). I have enjoyed parts of Gardiner's Mozart (very energetic, lots of drive) but was not too crazy for his Messiah (just seems very halfhearted).  No, I have not heard any of the recordings on the side column of the Bach piece.

It is not so much the period instruments, boy sopranos, countertenors, etc that give me trouble (I actually find their sounds refreshing at times), it is the performances themselves that have been a little lacking.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: The new erato on August 11, 2010, 12:00:06 PM
What I feel is gained by HIP (however that is defined) is a sense of tranaparency in the music making that make even larger works more chamber like in appearance (for me a big plus) and reinstating a sense of daring in the playing often hidden when the music is played by modern (safer) instruments, giving the music a sense of spontaneity that is much harder to achieve in traditional settings. I find it more a "rock and roll" approach - some people her will understand what I mean, others will be clueless....

My favorite London Symphonies are still Jochums, but overall I find that HIP has opened a window to the music that I not always previously suspected existed. And the early music specialists of course digs up repertory that we would never have heard in the "good old" times.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Philoctetes on August 11, 2010, 01:07:17 PM
This has to be the most boring debate ever.  :P

But as to the topic, I do love hearing the music of Haydn and those previous to him on 'period' instruments.

Especially if played by babes.  :-*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHHyEuwRo4
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 11, 2010, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 10:23:42 AM
Really, well other than the occasional diatribe by our old friend Rod, I can't remember a single time when any HIP-PIon was even fractionally as rude to modernists as is the reverse any time the subject arises. Please show me one and I'll smite him. :)

8)
Sort of like the discussions about those dratted modern composers. ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 01:17:25 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 11, 2010, 01:07:56 PM
Sort of like the discussions about those dratted modern composers. ;D

Yeah, like that. Don't'cha just hate that music?    ;D  ;D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 11, 2010, 01:21:40 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 11, 2010, 01:07:17 PM
This has to be the most boring debate ever.  :P

But as to the topic, I do love hearing the music of Haydn and those previous to him on 'period' instruments.

Especially if played by babes.  :-*  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHHyEuwRo4
YEAH!

Let's discuss babes! :-*

;)

Back to topic (in a way):
I was 'lucky' to get to know HIP and non-HIP without knowing what HIP or non-HIP was.
Listening to the radio, to Bach vocal works f.i., with Leonhardt, Harnoncourt or Karl Richter and Fritz Werner.
And, after that, listening to f.i. Corelli, Vivaldi, Haydn and Mozart concertos, the HIPPY ones, in general, gave me more thrills and enjoyment.
I just made personal choices .... which meant that, whilst developing my own taste, in most cases concerning early 19th century music or older, I preferred HIP (or smaller non-HIP-ensembles) to the larger non-HIP performances. More prominent phrasing and articulation .... et cetera.

(I do prefer Werner to Richter, btw. :))
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 11, 2010, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 11, 2010, 01:07:17 PM

Especially if played by babes.  :-*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHHyEuwRo4

Chiara Massini plays Bach's Prelude from the Cello Suite BWV 1008 on the harpsichord

I presume you'd intended a cello suite, errrr, played on the harpsichord (!), but with pictures of a cellist, as a deep kind of irony?  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Philoctetes on August 11, 2010, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 11, 2010, 01:26:03 PM
Chiara Massini plays Bach's Prelude from the Cello Suite BWV 1008 on the harpsichord

I presume you'd intended a cello suite, errrr, played on the harpsichord (!), but with pictures of a cellist, as a deep kind of irony?  ;)

Well Chiara is a harpsichordist. Most of her videos are her playing that. Although, she is learning to play that piece of the Cello as well.

But you got the gist.  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 11, 2010, 04:34:54 PM
Quote from: BMW on August 11, 2010, 11:46:12 AM
I like a little of everything but spend a lot of time with orchestral and vocal music...

It is not so much the period instruments, boy sopranos, countertenors, etc that give me trouble (I actually find their sounds refreshing at times), it is the performances themselves that have been a little lacking.

Baby steps. Here's one of my favorite Bach (Bach-anything, never mind cantatas) discs that I also happen to think is a very good introduction the the HIP-curious/cautious.  http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/03/weinen-klagenherreweghes-new-bach.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/03/weinen-klagenherreweghes-new-bach.html)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 12, 2010, 04:57:07 AM

here's an interview with C.Schornsheim which touches on issues like 'hearing music differently' if you are a HIP performer...
possibly of interest. (If you are not a fanfare magazine subscriber, it'll eventually appear on WETA.)
http://www.fanfarearchive.com/articles/atop/34_1/3410040.aa_Schornsheim_Nightingale.html (http://www.fanfarearchive.com/articles/atop/34_1/3410040.aa_Schornsheim_Nightingale.html)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 12, 2010, 06:29:55 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 11, 2010, 01:17:25 PM
Yeah, like that. Don't'cha just hate that music?    ;D  ;D

8)
You are an evil and cruel man, Gurn. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BMW on August 12, 2010, 10:21:43 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on August 11, 2010, 04:34:54 PM
Baby steps. Here's one of my favorite Bach (Bach-anything, never mind cantatas) discs that I also happen to think is a very good introduction the the HIP-curious/cautious.  http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/03/weinen-klagenherreweghes-new-bach.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/03/weinen-klagenherreweghes-new-bach.html)

Thank you for the recommendation.  I will see if I get a few more and then put an order together.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 12, 2010, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 11, 2010, 01:27:13 PM
Well Chiara is a harpsichordist.

I wouldn't go that far.  She owns a harpsichord, let's say.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 12, 2010, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 12, 2010, 01:48:31 PM
I wouldn't go that far.  She owns a harpsichord, let's say.

Nah, she is definitely a harpsichordist and a pretty good one.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BMW on August 12, 2010, 02:22:41 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on August 11, 2010, 08:43:18 AM
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231)

I enjoyed this (and the Haydn) article.  Out of curiosity, are there any strong advocates for performing with period instruments but not necessarily adhering strictly to period style?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 12, 2010, 03:01:16 PM
Quote from: BMW on August 12, 2010, 02:22:41 PM
I enjoyed this (and the Haydn) article.  Out of curiosity, are there any strong advocates for performing with period instruments but not necessarily adhering strictly to period style?

I'm not sure if the performers would claim that... though there are certainly constant improvements (or changes, discoveries, etc.) where groups refine their style (or make it more 'radical'), which leaves those who don't adapt 'behind'. In other words, there might be frontier-HIPsters who think that fellow HIPsters are not adhering to the 'proper' style. There might be HIPsters out there who don't think that Koopman is a true HIP disciple, for example. But it's probably best to ignore those musicological disputes. The truth is always in the eating of the pudding...

The other way around is more common: Advocates for period style (to some degrees), but not insisting on period instruments. When performers have properly learned to do that, the results can be very gratifying.

Looking for more recordings: These are some of my favorite harpsichord recordings; I'd be surprised if you didn't find them very enjoyable: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/11/harpsichord-like-rarely-ever.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/11/harpsichord-like-rarely-ever.html). I rank the Klavierbuechlein just ahead of the French Suites, the English a little below those... but the re-issue is an unpassable bargain. (also http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/12/best-recordings-of-2005.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/12/best-recordings-of-2005.html)

Since I'm recommending recordings that I think are great, not because they are HIP, but happen to be HIP, I can't pass up mention of the Quatuor Mosaiques and their Haydn. Going through these works, opus number by opus number, and comparing them to most other versions, I'm still and again struck by their beauty of tone, perfection in execution, liveliness (albeit considerably less rambunctious than the Buchbergers, for example).
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/09/dip-your-ears-no-11.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/09/dip-your-ears-no-11.html), http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?cat=26 (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?cat=26). Start with op.33, perhaps.

HIP in the most deliciously subversive way: McCreesh's "The Creation". True to style, he goes all-out with the souped-up Gabrieli Players, to deliver an historically correct anachronism. No.5 in this list: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/12/best-recordings-of-2008.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/12/best-recordings-of-2008.html)

My favorite B-Minor Mass currently is Van Veldhoven... Two Voices to a part, and yet lush and grand in sound, lean in texture. Superb: http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=232 (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=232)

I've talked my mouth frothy about how great the Concerto Italiano Four Seasons are: http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=122 (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=122)

Saul, with Rene Jacobs or McCreesh are splendid Handel! (So much more fun than the "M-Word")
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/12/best-recordings-of-2005.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/12/best-recordings-of-2005.html)
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/07/dip-your-ears-no-1.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/07/dip-your-ears-no-1.html)
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/12/best-recordings-in-2004.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/12/best-recordings-in-2004.html)

Wilms Symphonies with Concerto Koeln (now on Brilliant (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001WKHZH8?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguide-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001WKHZH8)) are terrific... also one of my favorite recordings out there: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/12/best-recordings-in-2004.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2004/12/best-recordings-in-2004.html)

Enough for a nice little shopping basket?  ;D




Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 12, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
   If you want to hear snooty HIP fanaticism gone truly insane,go to the very interesting website of the New Queens Hall orchestra in London, an orchestra formed several years ago to give purportedly "authentic" performances of Elgar,Vaughan Williams,Holst,as well as Brahms and Tchaikovsky etc.
  It's truly loony,and I found the comments by the founder and general manager absolutely infuriating. They've already recorded Holst's the Planets, and a Vaughan Williams CD etc and some Wagner excerpts etc.
  This manager makes it sound as though we desperately needed an HIP orchestra for late 19th and early 20th century music, and that modern orchestras are terrible in this repertoire,and they are finally giving audiences a chance to hear the music as it really ought to sound. Sheesh almighty !!!!





::)                         ::)                            ::)                               ::) 






Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 12, 2010, 09:39:08 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 12, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
   If you want to hear snooty HIP fanaticism gone truly insane,go to the very interesting website of the New Queens Hall orchestra in London, an orchestra formed several years ago to give purportedly "authentic" performances of Elgar,Vaughan Williams,Holst,as well as Brahms and Tchaikovsky etc.
  It's truly loony,and I found the comments by the founder and general manager absolutely infuriating. They've already recorded Holst's the Planets, and a Vaughan Williams CD etc and some Wagner excerpts etc.
  This manager makes it sound as though we desperately needed an HIP orchestra for late 19th and early 20th century music, and that modern orchestras are terrible in this repertoire,and they are finally giving audiences a chance to hear the music as it really ought to sound. Sheesh almighty !!!!





::)                         ::)                            ::)                               ::)

I didn't find anything fanatical about any feature of the website.  Could you point to the web page that you object to?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: The new erato on August 12, 2010, 10:29:26 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on August 12, 2010, 03:01:16 PM
Enough for a nice little shopping basket?  ;D
I have them all .....except for the Veldhoven B Minor.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Franco on August 13, 2010, 03:02:17 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 12, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
   If you want to hear snooty HIP fanaticism gone truly insane,go to the very interesting website of the New Queens Hall orchestra in London, an orchestra formed several years ago to give purportedly "authentic" performances of Elgar,Vaughan Williams,Holst,as well as Brahms and Tchaikovsky etc.

Not having heard them, I cannot comment on whether their sound is demonstrably different than other orchestras, and the blurb does strike me as somewhat puffed in order to generate interest in a crowded field.  But having said that, I'm all for reinvigorating the orchestral playing of Romantic literature and welcome any group dedicated to a fresh approach.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Philoctetes on August 13, 2010, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 12, 2010, 02:14:27 PM
Nah, she is definitely a harpsichordist and a pretty good one.

A damn good one.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 13, 2010, 03:48:44 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 12, 2010, 02:14:27 PM
Nah, she is definitely a harpsichordist and a pretty good one.

Playing, errr, cello suites on the harpsichord, right?   Ho-ho-ho, there are lots of "harpsichordists" who can do that...

Let us know when she learns to play with both hands at the same time?

I won't hold my breath!   :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 13, 2010, 04:11:39 AM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 13, 2010, 03:48:44 AM
Playing, errr, cello suites on the harpsichord, right?   Ho-ho-ho, there are lots of "harpsichordists" who can do that...

Let us know when she learns to play with both hands at the same time?

I won't hold my breath!   :D

All i notice is that except for the very simplest pieces, there is no video of her playing the instrument... only pictures of her sitting at one. Could be coincidence, of course.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 13, 2010, 09:08:05 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 12, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
...This manager makes it sound as though we desperately needed an HIP orchestra for late 19th and early 20th century music, and that modern orchestras are terrible in this repertoire,and they are finally giving audiences a chance to hear the music as it really ought to sound...
Without commenting on the New Queens Hall Orchestra, whose recordings I haven't yet heard, we actually have such an orchestra, and it's one of the most famous in the world:  The Vienna Philharmonic uses instruments whose design hasn't changed in a hundred years, and their style is probably as pure a representation of the Romantic as there is.  Yes, they also play the modern repertoire, and very well--but their instruments are definitely "period." 8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Philoctetes on August 13, 2010, 10:24:27 AM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 13, 2010, 03:48:44 AM
Playing, errr, cello suites on the harpsichord, right?   Ho-ho-ho, there are lots of "harpsichordists" who can do that...

Let us know when she learns to play with both hands at the same time?

I won't hold my breath!   :D

She has like 30 other recordings posted.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 13, 2010, 10:51:10 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 13, 2010, 10:24:27 AM
She has like 30 other recordings posted.

On YouTube.

;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 13, 2010, 01:08:30 PM
    Yes,I love the VPO's playing. But they don't use gut strings(thank god!). 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 13, 2010, 02:39:09 PM
   I just chgcked the New Queens hall orchestra's website,and here are some of the ridiculous statements made by its manager John Boyden,and the statement of the "orchestra's philosophy" on the website.
  The premises are totally false.
  According to Boyden,the orchestra was founded in 1992 to supposedly recreate the sounds of the music as they actually were(exptremely questionable assumption.
  "Until the 1950s,orchestras were a living art form"(and they're not today?). Supposedly, each orchestra had its own sound.(They still do). (I'm paraphrasing). The orchestras of Paris and Toulouse sounded different,as well as the different London orchestras.Today,because of the standardization of instruments and recording,all or most orchestras sound alike,with a few exceptions.
(Totally false.,It's impossible for orchestras to sound alike as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concerthalls with different acoustics).
  We need to recreate the individuality and spontaneity of past performances.(This is pure idealizationof th epast).
  Back in the 50s too 70s when I was a recording engineer,it was very difficult to balance orchestras because of the excessively loud brass.
  The orchestras of today are "High-powered and ruthless machines"(ridiculous generalization).
  The New Queens hall orch"restores the balances lacking today, and the the "colorful and expressive" playing of the past.(Really now).
The modernb orchestra has detached itself completely from th epast.(Oh come on now). The steel strings prevent orchestras today rom getting that sound.
(sure).


The great orchestra needs to be appreciated across the whole world so that the great music may once again speak to people everywhere
anticipated by the great composers.
   If you believe this,I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Puh-leeeeze!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 13, 2010, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 13, 2010, 02:39:09 PM
   I just chgcked the New Queens hall orchestra's website,and here are some of the ridiculous statements made by its manager John Boyden,and the statement of the "orchestra's philosophy" on the website.
  The premises are totally false.
  According to Boyden,the orchestra was founded in 1992 to supposedly recreate the sounds of the music as they actually were(exptremely questionable assumption.
  "Until the 1950s,orchestras were a living art form"(and they're not today?). Supposedly, each orchestra had its own sound.(They still do). (I'm paraphrasing). The orchestras of Paris and Toulouse sounded different,as well as the different London orchestras.Today,because of the standardization of instruments and recording,all or most orchestras sound alike,with a few exceptions.
(Totally false.,It's impossible for orchestras to sound alike as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concerthalls with different acoustics).
  We need to recreate the individuality and spontaneity of past performances.(This is pure idealizationof th epast).
  Back in the 50s too 70s when I was a recording engineer,it was very difficult to balance orchestras because of the excessively loud brass.
  The orchestras of today are "High-powered and ruthless machines"(ridiculous generalization).
  The New Queens hall orch"restores the balances lacking today, and the the "colorful and expressive" playing of the past.(Really now).
The modernb orchestra has detached itself completely from th epast.(Oh come on now). The steel strings prevent orchestras today rom getting that sound.
(sure).


The great orchestra needs to be appreciated across the whole world so that the great music may once again speak to people everywhere
anticipated by the great composers.
   If you believe this,I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Puh-leeeeze!!!!!!!!!!

What's the name of the bridge and what's your price?  Also, I'd need to see the documents that prove your ownership before considering a deal.  A recent inspection report would be necessary as well.

As for your other comments, I can't see what infuriates you.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 14, 2010, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 13, 2010, 02:39:09 PM
   I just chgcked the New Queens hall orchestra's website,and here are some of the ridiculous statements made by its manager John Boyden,and the statement of the "orchestra's philosophy" on the website.
  The premises are totally false.
  According to Boyden,the orchestra was founded in 1992 to supposedly recreate the sounds of the music as they actually were(exptremely questionable assumption.
  "Until the 1950s,orchestras were a living art form"(and they're not today?). Supposedly, each orchestra had its own sound.(They still do). (I'm paraphrasing). The orchestras of Paris and Toulouse sounded different,as well as the different London orchestras.Today,because of the standardization of instruments and recording,all or most orchestras sound alike,with a few exceptions.
(Totally false.,It's impossible for orchestras to sound alike as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concerthalls with different acoustics).
  We need to recreate the individuality and spontaneity of past performances.(This is pure idealizationof th epast).
  Back in the 50s too 70s when I was a recording engineer,it was very difficult to balance orchestras because of the excessively loud brass.
  The orchestras of today are "High-powered and ruthless machines"(ridiculous generalization).
  The New Queens hall orch"restores the balances lacking today, and the the "colorful and expressive" playing of the past.(Really now).
The modernb orchestra has detached itself completely from th epast.(Oh come on now). The steel strings prevent orchestras today rom getting that sound.
(sure).


The great orchestra needs to be appreciated across the whole world so that the great music may once again speak to people everywhere
anticipated by the great composers.
   If you believe this,I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Puh-leeeeze!!!!!!!!!!
So how do they play? :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: BMW on August 14, 2010, 12:52:12 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on August 12, 2010, 03:01:16 PM
Enough for a nice little shopping basket?  ;D

Yes I think so  :) --- thank you!  Will take some time later this afternoon to pick a few and have them shipped ahead of me to school so I will have a little new music this semester.  My first purchases as a direct result of this forum!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Coopmv on August 14, 2010, 08:03:29 PM
I continue to think HIP should not necessarily exclude the use of modern instruments in all cases ...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 06:25:59 AM
I have just one concern to state. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed, as I don't currently have enough time to read through the whole thread. I'd like to know if there is any evidence for the fast tempos of HIP performances being historically accurate. From an esthetic perspective, some of the recent performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively light and fast, and don't give the music the proper weight and time to unfold its thoughts and beauties. I feel pity for those younger listeners who must miss some of the profundities of these complex musical ideas which rush by so fast one cannot really hear them. Alternatively, from a technical rather than esthetic viewpoint, in the 18th century there were instruments more difficult to play and performance standards which may or may not have been lower than today's, depending on which duchy a musician played in. Simply because there were less people overall and not 50 instrumentalists waiting in line for each job as there are today in our hyper-trained environment. It seems to me that in this perhaps more difficult skills environment, composers would have been leaning toward more moderate tempos rather than virtuoso fast ones. Is this emphasis on pretty fast tempos simply a knee-jerk overreaction to the ponderousness of late Romantic-era interpretations of Baroque and Classical era works? ...Anyway, I would appreciate some informed comment on this fast tempo issue.   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 16, 2010, 07:24:55 AM
  Chassz,some musicologists agree the the ultra-fast,lean-and-mean,
flippantly breezy HIP performances are not really authentic at all,and that any performances of say,Bach's music during his day(and there weren't all that many of them) would actually have been slower and more reflective.  You may be right !
  Yes,there has been a backlash against ponderous and turgid old fashioned performances on modern instruments,but many HIP musicians have gone too far in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 16, 2010, 07:37:58 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 16, 2010, 07:24:55 AM
performances of say,Bach's music during his day(and there weren't all that many of them) would actually have been slower and more reflective.

Who are these "musicologists", and on the basis of WHAT exactly do they say Bach's own performances would have been "more reflective" than performances he never heard 250 years later?  Hello?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 07:48:19 AM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 16, 2010, 07:37:58 AM
Who are these "musicologists", and on the basis of WHAT exactly do they say Bach's own performances would have been "more reflective" than performances he never heard 250 years later?  Hello?

They can infer from taking soil samples in Bach's yard.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 16, 2010, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 07:48:19 AM
They can infer from taking soil samples in Bach's yard.

:D  :D  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 08:08:10 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 16, 2010, 07:24:55 AM
  Chassz,some musicologists agree the the ultra-fast,lean-and-mean,
flippantly breezy HIP performances are not really authentic at all,and that any performances of say,Bach's music during his day(and there weren't all that many of them) would actually have been slower and more reflective.  You may be right !
  Yes,there has been a backlash against ponderous and turgid old fashioned performances on modern instruments,but many HIP musicians have gone too far in the opposite direction.

I welcome your support for my view. But I must say there were many performances of Bach's music in his lifetime. At Cothen, the prince was a music enthusiast, and Cappellmeister Bach led many instrumental performances, perhaps almost nightly. No TV then. At Leipzig, his cantatas were performed every Sunday in two major churches, and his Passions and Oratorios were put on regularly. In his older years he led weekly concerts at Zimmerman's coffee house. The main difference between then and now was that, except for a small circle of enthusiasts in Leipzig, mainly among academics, he had almost no appreciation of his ability as a composer. What renown he had rested on his keyboard performing ability and his consulting practice on instrument construction. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 08:25:42 AM
Ok, time for me to be serious.

Quite frankly, I think the whole HIP or not HIP performance criteria, honestly gets in the way of enjoying the performances, and creates a bias for whichever side one tends to be with.  I think this bias works both ways.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on August 16, 2010, 08:38:38 AM
Quote from: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 06:25:59 AM
I have just one concern to state. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed, as I don't currently have enough time to read through the whole thread. I'd like to know if there is any evidence for the fast tempos of HIP performances being historically accurate. From an esthetic perspective, some of the recent performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively light and fast, and don't give the music the proper weight and time to unfold its thoughts and beauties.
I'm sure no expert, but have no difficulty accepting the opinions of the many enthusiastic experts who have made the study of authentic baroque performance practice a specialty.  The ultimate arbiter of taste, of course, is one's own preferences: if it sounds good, it IS good.  Your preferences are perfectly valid and need no justification.

To paraphrase your own take on the matter: From an æsthetic perspective, some of the older performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively heavy and slow and don't give the music the proper character and vitality to unfold its dancing spirit and general joie de vivre.   ;)

Here are links to some of Bernard Sherman's writings on the topic which you may find informative or at least interesting.  They include numerous references.

http://www.bsherman.net/bachtempo.htm
http://www.bsherman.net/bminormass.htm
http://www.bsherman.net/encyclopedia.html
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
I should add that:  HIP or not HIP should have absolutely no bearing on whether you actually enjoy the music or not.  Excluding the factoring in of period instruments, how could you tell?

Period instruments, however, can definitely have a factor.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on August 16, 2010, 08:57:07 AM
HIP is extremely important because of the insight it gives to what the composer intended.  That doesn't mean it is wrong to want to hear something as the composer did not intend or foresee.  It also doesn't mean there weren't various performance styles used even in Bach's time.   But Bach was a fairly smart guy, and I think his music normally sounds best when played as he intended.   I find myself listing mostly to HIP in Bach, non-HIP is a guilty pleasure.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 09:00:22 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
I should add that:  HIP or not HIP should have absolutely no bearing on whether you actually enjoy the music or not.  Excluding the factoring in of period instruments, how could you tell?


OK, I'm thinking my logic on this is now wrong, but do tell.....How (besides the use or exclusion of period instruments) could you tell what is a HIP vs. non-HIP performance (blind hearing test)?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on August 16, 2010, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 09:00:22 AM
OK, I'm thinking my logic on this is now wrong, but do tell.....How (besides the use or exclusion of period instruments) could you tell what is a HIP vs. non-HIP performance (blind hearing test)?

Use of appropriate forces (no 100 voice choirs, so sections of 20 violins).  Appropriate use of vibrato, bowing style, etc.  The distinction is blurred because conventional performers have learned from the HIP movement in incorporate some of its wisdom by default these days.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on August 16, 2010, 09:16:36 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on August 16, 2010, 08:57:07 AM
... Bach was a fairly smart guy...

He was indeed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 16, 2010, 09:46:45 AM
Quote from: Brahmsian on August 16, 2010, 09:00:22 AM
OK, I'm thinking my logic on this is now wrong, but do tell.....How (besides the use or exclusion of period instruments) could you tell what is a HIP vs. non-HIP performance (blind hearing test)?

There's an amusing anecdote about Handel - that comes complete with a small lesson in HIP practice :) 

Handel was in Venice, enjoying the success of his opera AGRIPPINA.  As a result of the success, he was invited to participate in a concert - the first half would be Handel's music, and in the second half, Corelli himself (at the time, hugely more famous than the young Handel) would play his own concertos.  Handel was sensitive to the difficult situation, so quickly wrote some music in the French style - so that he would not seem to be competing with the legendary Corelli.  But the rehearsal was a disaster - the Leader couldn't understand the French style at all, and played everything wrongly.  Handel - by now in one of his legendary bad moods - grabbed the instrument, and himself demonstrated the bowing, dotting, notes inegales etc that were needed to bring off the music in the French manner.  But after the rehearsal, fearing he had offended the Leader, Handel asked if he would stay to listen to Corelli rehearse?  Handel himself was greatly interested to hear Corelli working with the orchestra.  "Yes, I will stay.  Because you see, Corelli - it's me. I am Corelli."

And in this we can see instantly that merely "playing what is on the page" was enough for its composer, because so much more was required in the interpretation of the stylistic elements of the piece...  even if the performer was the most famous violinist in Italy.

When we find composers like Handel, Bach, Telemann, etc writing "French" suites, it flags-up the need to perform this music with the stylistic instructions which are left by the great French composers and instrumentalists of the period.  Quantz (the famous flautist) makes this very clear, and is even heavy-handedly insistent upon it.

For those who ask about fast tempo, then let me give an example I was playing last week.  In Handel's RINALDO, the Sorceress Armida makes her entry "in a chariot which flies through the air, led by two dragons with fire-breathing mouths".  The tempo-marking is "presto furioso".  Are we supposed to believe that Handel didn't want it very fast after all?   ;)   Of course, no-one is suggesting that moving and contemplative music in Bach's Passions or other similar works should be played fast - that would be absurd and wrong.   But allegro means allegro, and not limping along :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on August 16, 2010, 09:50:34 AM
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 16, 2010, 07:37:58 AM
Who are these "musicologists", and on the basis of WHAT exactly do they say Bach's own performances would have been "more reflective" than performances he never heard 250 years later?  Hello?

The only point I could see being plausibly made to that extent is the technical ability of the performers and the material. (For which we need knowledge about original instruments and performance styles.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Philoctetes on August 16, 2010, 09:54:49 AM
"Thus, for example, historicizing presentations - e.g., of music played on old instruments - are not as faithful as they seem. Rather, they are an imitation of an imitation and are thus in danger "of standing at a third remove from the truth" (Plato)."Gadamer
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on August 16, 2010, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 06:25:59 AM
...I'd like to know if there is any evidence for the fast tempos of HIP performances being historically accurate. From an esthetic perspective, some of the recent performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively light and fast, and don't give the music the proper weight and time to unfold its thoughts and beauties.
As for Bach, his own contemporaries commented on his tendency toward fast tempos.  Regarding other composers, I haven't studied this issue a lot, but I tend to think that Beethoven's notoriously fast metronome markings for his symphonies didn't come from nowhere. :o
Quote from: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 06:25:59 AM
...Alternatively, from a technical rather than esthetic viewpoint, in the 18th century there were instruments more difficult to play and performance standards which may or may not have been lower than today's, depending on which duchy a musician played in...
On the other hand, it was not uncommon for musicians to perform every evening and spend the rest of the day drilling...!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 16, 2010, 11:36:52 AM
Quote from: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 06:25:59 AM
Alternatively, from a technical rather than esthetic viewpoint, in the 18th century there were instruments more difficult to play.

(http://kigiri.free.fr/tdl/page1/files/page1_1.jpg)

(http://serpent.instrument.free.fr/images/clip_image010.gif)

(http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/BowedStringsOther/TrombaMarina/10928/GalpinLG.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1275/1323376918_f0e220076c.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 16, 2010, 11:41:27 AM
Quote from: Chaszz on August 16, 2010, 06:25:59 AM
I have just one concern to state. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed, as I don't currently have enough time to read through the whole thread. I'd like to know if there is any evidence for the fast tempos of HIP performances being historically accurate.

People not very familiar with all things HIP or who simply don't care for HIP tend to make the common mistake of thinking that all HIP performers and conductors use extremely fast tempos.  This is not the case.  Take Pinnock, Hogwood, Leonhardt, etc.  These conductors do not use very fast tempos, although there are other conductors who are much quicker.  It's really no different than in performances of, say, early 20th century music - some are slower than the norm, some faster.

Being a keyboard enthusiast, I've found that Bach harpsichord performances come in all shapes, including tempo.  I was listening yesterday to Belder's WTC on Brilliant Classics - he is a relatively quick performer.  However, even in his case, one finds that he's slower in Bk. 2 than Bk. 1, finding the music of Bk. 2 more amenable to a "savoring" flavor.  At the other end, David Cates in his recording of the French Suites on Music & Arts plays quite slowly and uses a constant regimen of rhythmic hesitations and staggering of musical lines; Belder infrequently goes the agogic route.

My point is that there is a great deal of variety of interpretation and expression among HIP performers and conductors.  So to label HIP performers as "all this or that" is just plain wrong.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: False_Dmitry on August 17, 2010, 01:12:17 AM
I was looking around for some of the "musicologists" who were apparently advising that baroque music - particularly Bach's - had to be played slowly.  All I've found so far was a suggestion for Brandenburg 1,  a road-sign on the BWV-1046 road from Leipzig to Berlin, dating from the early C18th:

(http://www.labellab.com/img/lg/S/Go-Slow-Horn-Caution-Sign-S-1962.gif)

I wonder if any further musicological evidence for performing Bach's music very slowly has turned up yet?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on August 17, 2010, 06:29:41 AM
And I wonder whether the horn referred to was English or French....  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: not edward on August 17, 2010, 06:33:48 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 16, 2010, 11:41:27 AM
People not very familiar with all things HIP or who simply don't care for HIP tend to make the common mistake of thinking that all HIP performers and conductors use extremely fast tempos.  This is not the case.  Take Pinnock, Hogwood, Leonhardt, etc.  These conductors do not use very fast tempos, although there are other conductors who are much quicker.  It's really no different than in performances of, say, early 20th century music - some are slower than the norm, some faster.
This is a very good point. HIP can't be reduced to fast tempi or whatever.

To take a very well-documented case, the fastest Eroica first movement on record is a performance that also uses hard timpani sticks. But this performance was recorded in 1958 by a 67-year-old conductor...not exactly part of the HIP movement.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Chaszz on August 17, 2010, 06:44:34 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 16, 2010, 11:14:46 AM
As for Bach, his own contemporaries commented on his tendency toward fast tempos. 

I would love it if you could give us some leads to quotes or references on this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Philoctetes on August 17, 2010, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: Chaszz on August 17, 2010, 06:44:34 AM
I would love it if you could give us some leads to quotes or references on this.

Long and boring link about Bach's temp:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/music/performance/bach/bachnotation.htm

A video on Bach's Tempi Science:

http://www.articlealley.com/video_212545_33.html
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Chaszz on August 18, 2010, 05:03:32 AM
I have tried to read through the tempo discussion documents listed, but confess I fell asleep every time I tried. I must therefore trust that somewhere in there is relatively convincing proof that Bach's tempos were fast, because who on this board would prevaricate (now that the Shark is gone)?  ;D

However, for anyone familiar with the allegro Cum Sancto Spiritu from the B Minor Mass, I make the following comment: there is a fleeting second near the very end, in the final trumpet flourish, where Bach wrote two triplets back to back. I grew up in the long ago 50s with a fleshed-out ponderous version by Felix Prohaska and one could hear this little gem of two triplets in all its splendor. In every HIP version I've heard, where this fast movement is played at breakneck speed, this wonderful detail is lost, blurred into the finale and unable to be heard.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on December 23, 2010, 10:02:20 AM
Quote from: Que on December 23, 2010, 09:25:31 AM
Maybe just give up on the fortepiano/ Hammerklavier, Jens?  8)

I shouldn't try to rile the silly people if I don't like their--in the very literal sense--all-too-ignorant responses, I suppose. My fault. But it's astonishing how well it works. A little coy phrase and voila. Who cares that I like the disc. Or even got it in the first place. (Actually purchased it, mind you!)
Take it on faith, if you don't know more about me, that my taste is more catholic than probably any of you kids' and that I am an ardent champion of the harpsichord and fortepiano among the regular, mortal classical music listeners. It may seem only among the strangely strung savantists [a technical term, also not meant to insult] that I am reserved in my enthusiasm about the instrument family... just because I don't embrace everything only because it's played on an old instrument.

Thread Duty:



Blacher Blather*

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pkhKTsZuL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
B. Blacher (1903-1975)
Piano Concerto No.2 op.42
Paganini Variations op.26
Concertino for Orchestra op.10
G.Herzog / H.Kegel / Dresden Phil.
Berlin Classics
 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B0000035RD/goodmusicguide-20)

I love Blocher, but no more than a bad alliteration.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on December 23, 2010, 11:02:54 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2010, 10:02:20 AM
I shouldn't try to rile the silly people if I don't like their--in the very literal sense--all-too-ignorant responses, I suppose. My fault. But it's astonishing how well it works. A little coy phrase and voila. Who cares that I like the disc. Or even got it in the first place. (Actually purchased it, mind you!)
Take it on faith, if you don't know more about me, that my taste is more catholic than probably any of you kids' and that I am an ardent champion of the harpsichord and fortepiano among the regular, mortal classical music listeners. It may seem only among the strangely strung savantists [a technical term, also not meant to insult] that I am reserved in my enthusiasm about the instrument family... just because I don't embrace everything only because it's played on an old instrument.

You can, and must, like or dislike anything you want, Jens.  :) Why would I argue with your taste?  :o

It's just that a derogatory comment like "clang-a-dang" and previous comments along the same lines on recordings of fortepianos that sounded perfectly normal and even very fine to me - in the sense that they sound as can be expected of fortepianos - does not quite compute with you being a champion of the fortepiano. The same goes, now I'm on the topic ::), for your dismissal of many period instrument performances and even the concept of HIP itself and the musical movement behind it.

But again, why would I argue about your views? I just tell you how I see it, so that now we know where we stand.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on December 23, 2010, 11:38:14 AM
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty... and the pig likes it.*


ah, what the heck. Here we go:

[* Robert Reich]

Quote from: Que on December 23, 2010, 11:02:54 AM

It's just that a derogatory comment like "clang-a-dang"...

humorless crowd, classical music people.

And you are not arguing with my taste, you are making statements about alleged taste (or biases you perceive) which are mindbogglingly unfounded in fact.

Quoteyour dismissal... even the concept of HIP itself and the musical movement behind it.

Where did that ignorant morsel come from?


Quote...and previous comments along the same lines on recordings of fortepianos that sounded perfectly normal and even very fine to me - in the sense that they sound as can be expected of fortepianos...

quod erat...

Because we actually "know" what we can expect them to sound like? That's the first mistake: Hubris.

Quote...The same goes, now I'm on the topic ::), for your dismissal of many period instrument performances and even the concept of HIP itself and the musical movement behind it.

Believe you me, I dismiss many more non-period instrument performances than I dismiss period instrument performances.  Why don't you come out and suggest I'm biased against those, too? Every instance I don't like HIP is "anti-HIP", every instance I am for something that happens to be HIP it's ignored or incidental. Those are the signs of someone who is in for the ideology, not truth or music.

If you bothered at all to read what I write, or cared to not purposely misunderstand what I say, you'd have figured out that I criticize them not because they are HIP (or not), but because they don't meet certain technical, musical, interpretive expectations.

If I dismiss the Quatuor Festetics in the same breadth as I praise the Quatuor Mosaiques I'm not "anti-HIP", I'm anti-bad intonation. I'm not pro-Mosaiques because their being in tune is somehow "closer to non-HIP", just as I don't prefer Braeutigam in Beethoven over Melvin Tan because B's instruments sound  "less HIP" but because they sound more pleasing and Brautigam knows how to play them better.

Let's not even get into Bach where I cherish even performance based on a silly ideology so long as they have musical merit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on December 23, 2010, 01:23:06 PM
I'm not getting into the pig anology, I myself like to keep my hands clean, Jens...

Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2010, 11:38:14 AM

Where did that ignorant morsel come from?

From this pearl of wisdom: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231

I'm wondering why you seem to be so keen on branding and demonising the HIP-movement as some kind of totalitarian ideology. And those who like HIP as fanatics.

QuoteBecause we actually "know" what we can expect them to sound like? That's the first mistake: Hubris.

Just listen to a lot of fortepianos and you'd know what to generally expect. Turning the expection you happen to like into the way things should sound, isn't very realistic.

QuoteBelieve you me, I dismiss many more non-period instrument performances than I dismiss period instrument performances.  Why don't you come out and suggest I'm biased against those, too? Every instance I don't like HIP is "anti-HIP", every instance I am for something that happens to be HIP it's ignored or incidental. Those are the signs of someone who is in for the ideology, not truth or music.

I'm not suggested that you're biased, just that there seem to be conflicting messages.

QuoteIf you bothered at all to read what I write, or cared to not purposely misunderstand what I say, you'd have figured out that I criticize them not because they are HIP (or not), but because they don't meet certain technical, musical, interpretive expectations.

I put to you that your expectations of HIP might not correspond with what it quintessentially offers. That's what it all seems to boil down to, IMO.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on December 23, 2010, 01:35:52 PM
Quote from: Que on December 23, 2010, 01:23:06 PM

From this pearl of wisdom: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231

I agree that that essay is--mostly because of the still-missing second part*--more misleading than it was intended to be. But you did get beyond the headline, did you?

Quote...This is not the beginning of an article bashing historically informed performances or its practitioners.  I love them. The interpretive laziness they've put an end to, alone! Thank goodness for the Bach cantatas of Philippe Herreweghe, the Mozart operas of René Jacobs, the Haydn Creation of McCreesh, Adrian Chandler's Vivaldi, Marc Minkowski's Handel, or John Elliot Gardiner's Brahms. It is not their wonderful work that has done any damage per se, but the historicism behind it ...

* Itself an apologia for the Rheinberger/Reger transcription of the Goldberg Variations.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on December 23, 2010, 02:03:11 PM
Quote from: Jenshistoricism ... happens to go against the very grain of the music it purports to save: It kills off improvisatory interpretation.
FWIW, Jens, I understand your use of "historicism" as akin to Alan's use of "scientism."  And the quote above helps clarify how much "historicism" is at odds with the spirit of HIPsterism.  ;D

Also, the joy you find in good HIP recordings has long been obvious to me.  In fact, our shared taste for Minkowski, Jacobs, Qt Mosaïques, Brautigam, Herreweghe,and many others is one reason I usually find your comments engaging and helpful.  Of course, a srong sense of humor with no propensity to take yourself too seriously helps as well!

However--it looks as if you'd best get cracking on part II of that essay!

Whops!  Thread duty:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41emHwzSxBL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 23, 2010, 03:00:21 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on December 23, 2010, 02:03:11 PM
FWIW, Jens, I understand your use of "historicism" as akin to Alan's use of "scientism."  And the quote above helps clarify how much "historicism" is at odds with the spirit of HIPsterism.  ;D

Also, the joy you find in good HIP recordings has long been obvious to me.  In fact, our shared taste for Minkowski, Jacobs, Qt Mosaïques, Brautigam, Herreweghe,and many others is one reason I usually find your comments engaging and helpful.  Of course, a srong sense of humor with no propensity to take yourself too seriously helps as well!

However--it looks as if you'd best get cracking on part II of that essay!

Whops!  Thread duty:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41emHwzSxBL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)

I also know what is meant here, David, but the truth is that the modern period instrument movement has quite got away from that literalness which was so pervasive in the early days. It is hard to dismiss the charges that HIP, in its early incarnation, was indeed a showcase for museum pieces. This is no longer true though, at least among enlightened musicians, and certainly among enlightened listeners. If you look at the traditional great names, Harnoncourt, Kuijken (all of them), Hogwood etc, none of them would dream of doing something that was steeped in historic literalism. PI is well into its second phase now, and the critics of PI haven't yet caught up with it, they are still criticizing the musicians of 2000's for the sins of the 70's. Not that there aren't still some issues and throwbacks, but generally, no. :)

Now listening to:
Opus X Ensemble / Mattson  Miklos Spanyi (Tangentenflügel) Bach, CPE Wq 26 Concerto in a for Keyboard 2nd mvmt - Andante
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 23, 2010, 06:53:11 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 23, 2010, 03:00:21 PM
I also know what is meant here, David, but the truth is that the modern period instrument movement has quite got away from that literalness which was so pervasive in the early days. It is hard to dismiss the charges that HIP, in its early incarnation, was indeed a showcase for museum pieces. This is no longer true though, at least among enlightened musicians, and certainly among enlightened listeners. If you look at the traditional great names, Harnoncourt, Kuijken (all of them), Hogwood etc, none of them would dream of doing something that was steeped in historic literalism. PI is well into its second phase now, and the critics of PI haven't yet caught up with it, they are still criticizing the musicians of 2000's for the sins of the 70's. Not that there aren't still some issues and throwbacks, but generally, no. :)

I usually listen to that criticism, Gurn; I mean the literalism of the HIP interpretations in the seventies. But when I listen to those discs on SEON -probably the most representative label of the entire movement in the 70's -, I just love them: the English Suites, the French Suites, the Musical Offering, the Four Seasons, those string quartets played by the Esterhazy Quartet, Couperin, etc., I could name twenty o thirty marvelous recordings just on that label... I think that opinion against the seventies is another of the myths of the anti-HIPsters... At least any day I would choose those fervent and combative recordings over Jacobs (one low point on SEON) or Minkovski, IMO representatives of certain kind of mainstream HIP... Well, I said it.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on December 23, 2010, 10:14:48 PM
Quote from: Que on December 23, 2010, 01:23:06 PM
From this pearl of wisdom: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231

I'm wondering why you seem to be so keen on branding and demonising the HIP-movement as some kind of totalitarian ideology. And those who like HIP as fanatics.

I finally got around to reading that article and assume that most advocates of HIP wouldn't take kindly to it.  From by eyes, it seems that Jens wants to "have his cake and eat it too" - praise various HIP/PI performances one minute, smack the HIP movement around the next minute.

Jens criticizes the historicism of the movement, and I can't deny there's some merit there.  But the way I look at it, the historicism was largely required for a HIP movement to exist at all. 

I consider the HIP movement easily the most advantageous jolt for the world of classical music over the past 60 years or so, a jolt so strong that it had pinheads like Pinchas Zukerman running for cover while muttering that they were being shut-out of baroque music and that those musicians playing in PI bands sucked.

Although I have little interest in baroque music being played by modern-instrument orchestras, I have noted that Chailly recently recorded both the St. Matthew Passion and Brandenburg Concertos.  I do hope that other modern instrument bands follow suit so that those who want these works on modern instruments can have some variety to choose from.  Put another way, give them enough of the modern treatment to restrict their complaining. 

As many of you know, Don Vroon of American Record Guide has been on a decades-long crusade to deride and abolish the HIP movement.  The "fad" that Vroon bitches about is now the main vehicle for early and baroque music as well as gaining a significant hold on Classical and early Romantic era music.  Folks need to get over this business and realize that their preferences are of a minority position and will remain that way.   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on December 23, 2010, 11:59:12 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on December 23, 2010, 10:14:48 PM
The "fad" that Vroon bitches about is now the main vehicle for early and baroque music as well as gaining a significant hold on Classical and early Romantic era music.  Folks need to get over this business and realize that their preferences are of a minority position and will remain that way.   
I have no idea who Vroon is, but I do disagree with this last bit to some degree. I think HIP has been good as well, but that it starts with people like Toscanini and others who were trying to put the music back together the way the composer was originally intending. This is one branch of HIP, where you try to: 1) Authenticate the actual music as much as possible (original markings and such) and 2) Interpret it in the way that was intended (whatever that may be, and tastes will differ here). I think this part of HIP has already influenced all of classical to such a degree that most non-HIP performers are using much of the HIP learning anyway and applying it to whatever they may be playing (at least some aspects of it). So the result is a bit of ying and yang where the different philosophies compete, but at the same time are changing each other fundamentally so that in time, the postions are different than what they started from (but still intertwined), each having absorbed some aspect of each other. And I see this as a positive.

When it comes to period instruments, well I don't like the sound of particular instruments, but good music is good music. If it sounds good (and the particular instruments I dislike aren't the main sounds) then I don't even care whether it is PI or not, because it is just good music.

Speaking of good music, now listening to this (Mozart Piano Concertos 11,12,14 with ECO/Perahia):
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51S4Q3BWM3L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on December 24, 2010, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on December 23, 2010, 06:53:11 PM
I usually listen to that criticism, Gurn; I mean the literalism of the HIP interpretations in the seventies. But when I listen to those discs on SEON -probably the most representative label of the entire movement in the 70's -, I just love them: the English Suites, the French Suites, the Musical Offering, the Four Seasons, those string quartets played by the Esterhazy Quartet, Couperin, etc., I could name twenty o thirty marvelous recordings just on that label... I think that opinion against the seventies is another of the myths of the anti-HIPsters... At least any day I would choose those fervent and combative recordings over Jacobs (one low point on SEON) or Minkovski, IMO representatives of certain kind of mainstream HIP... Well, I said it.  :)

And well said.  8) I think the picture is mixed and a fair amount of stuff from those days is too scholary but I have been pleasantly surprised a well by quite a few of recordings - notably by the Collegium Aureum. :)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: The new erato on December 24, 2010, 01:00:14 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on December 23, 2010, 10:14:48 PM
I finally got around to reading that article and assume that most advocates of HIP wouldn't take kindly to it.  From by eyes, it seems that Jens wants to "have his cake and eat it too" - praise various HIP/PI performances one minute, smack the HIP movement around the next minute.

Jens criticizes the historicism of the movement, and I can't deny there's some merit there.  But the way I look at it, the historicism was largely required for a HIP movement to exist at all. 

I consider the HIP movement easily the most advantageous jolt for the world of classical music over the past 60 years or so, a jolt so strong that it had pinheads like Pinchas Zukerman running for cover while muttering that they were being shut-out of baroque music and that those musicians playing in PI bands sucked.

Although I have little interest in baroque music being played by modern-instrument orchestras, I have noted that Chailly recently recorded both the St. Matthew Passion and Brandenburg Concertos.  I do hope that other modern instrument bands follow suit so that those who want these works on modern instruments can have some variety to choose from.  Put another way, give them enough of the modern treatment to restrict their complaining. 

As many of you know, Don Vroon of American Record Guide has been on a decades-long crusade to deride and abolish the HIP movement.  The "fad" that Vroon bitches about is now the main vehicle for early and baroque music as well as gaining a significant hold on Classical and early Romantic era music.  Folks need to get over this business and realize that their preferences are of a minority position and will remain that way.   
A most enlightened post that also covers my position on this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on December 24, 2010, 01:27:30 AM
I'd just like to chime in, on the subject of Jens' post, that having recently sat through a regional American orchestra playing Haydn the old-fashioned way (as in no clue what HIP is let alone concessions to it), I think one of the reasons traditional big orchestras are eschewing Haydn these days is that, well, soft, fattened-up, inoffensive Haydn is boring. It's precisely that type of airy-fairy, oh-so-dainty "do I have to sit through this" dullness which caused me to be ambivalent to Haydn in the first place, and precisely the type of bucket-of-cold-water HIP rethinking that might finally bring me back around.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on December 24, 2010, 04:49:49 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on December 23, 2010, 10:14:48 PM

Jens criticizes the historicism of the movement, and I can't deny there's some merit there.  But the way I look at it, the historicism was largely required for a HIP movement to exist at all. 

I consider the HIP movement easily the most advantageous jolt for the world of classical music over the past 60 years or so, a jolt so strong that it had pinheads like Pinchas Zukerman running for cover while muttering that they were being shut-out of baroque music and that those musicians playing in PI bands sucked.

Although I have little interest in baroque music being played by modern-instrument orchestras, I have noted that Chailly recently recorded both the St. Matthew Passion and Brandenburg Concertos.  I do hope that other modern instrument bands follow suit so that those who want these works on modern instruments can have some variety to choose from.  Put another way, give them enough of the modern treatment to restrict their complaining. 

I agree with everything here. That's why the second part of that "Free Bach" article might be helpful... because it would clarify that what I mean in short is: "HIP was necessary, and historicism necessary for HIP -- now let's let HIP float without the historicist attitude part." The entire problem of HIP as I see it is not one of the performers but actually one of attitudes among the listeners and most specifically the critics. It's not what any person does on his or her Tangentenfluegel or Crumhorn, Sackbutt, or Theorbo... it's what people don't do because of the existence of the historicist attitude.

Symphony Orchestras--the in-concert mainstay for must classical music listeners--don't regularly play Haydn and Mozart, much less Bach. That's deadly to the musical culture and general ability of those musical bodies. On that note Brian describes a symptom, not a cause, with his unfortunate Haydn experience. Haydn is extremely difficult to play (every conductor will tell you that, and I talk with every conductor about that topic). It needs to be regularly played, and it needs to be a highlight of a concert, no the throw-away joke like in the Sunday Comics. We need to get back where Haydn can be played well again by those bands (we had been there; it's hardly impossible).

It's all a little like smoking bans. In the smoking times (thick, 'contemporist' treatment of old music), a strict smoking ban in restaurants may well have been necessary to level the playing field; to convince customers and proprietors alike of the advantages of smoke-free environments and, more to the point, genuine CHOICE.  But after a few years of a strict ban (no choice), one could well strike the ban-laws from the books again and let the free market (consumer choice) reign because so many people have enjoyed and gotten used to the advantages (social, economic, whatever) of smoke-free environments that many--perhaps most--places would not go back to (all-)smoking. Others, offering niches freely, would. I want ideological grip on music to loosen up; I want to go back (??? / forward???) to a time where HIP and historic-idealists can do their thing to the great success they've done, but a time where we can also cut mercilessly into baroque operas for performances without an feigned outcry... I want Thielemann to play the Brandenburgs every week* without critics instinctively sneering at it; I want to get rid of the "that's not how it is done" attitudes; I want a time where scholars can search for the exact horse type that the bows during Bach's time were made of and at the same time, parallel, I want people who don't think any score is sacrosanct and treat music a little bit more the way directors treat plays, and translators Shakespeare... It goes further than that, even... I want people to be allowed to clap at musically, not just socially, appropriate places in a concert. Let's treat Tchaikovsky and Chopin as the entertainment it is, not like Wagner. In a way it's my version of Historically Informed... which is to say: Let's put an end to the stifled atmosphere that classical music has navigated itself into... the seriousness and all. The historicist movement had had some part in that taking-matters-very-seriously (it can't be blamed for all; certainly not the applause behavior )... and it has made the reception of music an even more serious matter as it helped introduce cement the idea of "ought / ought not". Ironic, since some of the more recent HIP performers (say, in the last 20 years), have been on the forefront of re-introducing the idea of improvisation within the given music. Now I want to add improvisation with the music.

Damn right, I want to have the HIP-Cake and eat the non-HIP cake, too.

Also, Brian: Immediately get Krips' set of late Mozart Symphonies (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000OPPSXK?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguideuk-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B000OPPSXK) with the RCO, if you don't already have it.

* No. Not actually. Not every week.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 06:34:16 AM
Here is a succinct statement for you then, Jens:

Let's get rid of the Sonic Museum (invented in the mid-19th century for those who don't know it) and put music back where it could and should be, and once was.

Not talking about the audience, probably can't go back to the nobility only, talking about the venues and the spirit of the thing. There is a Great Divide in music that came into being with the Concert Hall. Nothing before then was composed for that stage (it couldn't be, it didn't exist!). You can't free up Brahms, guys, it is already being performed in the manner for which it was written. But you can sure as hell free up pretty much everyone before that!  And the aural and visual aspects which drove the music in the beginning will do so again. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 06:46:33 AM
Gurn, I am surprised. Do you have the Cello Suites (and Gamba Sonatas) recorded by Wieland Kuijken (and Piet) on Arcana?  :)   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 06:48:42 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 06:46:33 AM
Gurn, I am surprised. Do you have the Cello Suites (and Gamba Sonatas) recorded by Wieland Kuijken (and Piet) on Arcana?  :)

Why yes, I do. 3 disks of loveliness. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 07:10:36 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 06:48:42 AM
Why yes, I do. 3 disks of loveliness. :)

8)

Cool! Even many dedicated Bachians don't know that formidable 3-CD set. Definitely, you're smarter than the average HIPster (Yogi Bear dixit).  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 07:10:36 AM
Cool! Even many dedicated Bachians don't know that formidable 3-CD set. Definitely, you're smarter than the average HIPster (Yogi Bear dixit).  ;D

Yes, it IS formidable. I am particularly drawn to the gamba works. I had discounted them before now. Now I don't, they are in their own class. :)

Getting back to the Sonic Museum thing that I introduced a bit ago, by far the best (and easily the most influential) performance of the suites was one that I saw on television when I was quite young (it was a new invention in those days... ::) ). Pablo Casals playing the suites in old church or churches in Spain. Not in a concert hall. It was freakin' wonderful! As a totally uninitiated child, I sat spellbound through the entire performance. One of the first CD's I bought when I began collecting disks was that 2 disk set. Not PI, probably not following the letter of the law of performance, but arguably as authentic a performance as I will ever see. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 07:32:04 AM
Quote from: Que on December 24, 2010, 12:50:32 AM
... a fair amount of stuff from those days is too scholary but I have been pleasantly surprised a well by quite a few of recordings - notably by the Collegium Aureum. :)

Yes, a bit scholary, but many of those recordings also convey a sort of strong rocker feeling, of people doing something new almost revolutionary; sometimes wrong (it's classical, f.i., the case of the "pseudo baroque trumpet"), but fighting against the establishment. And I am just talking about the 70's beucause the 50's and 60's are a marvelous story, too.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 07:58:32 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 07:32:04 AM
Yes, a bit scholary, but many of those recordings also convey a sort of strong rocker feeling, of people doing something new almost revolutionary; sometimes wrong (it's classical, f.i., the case of the "pseudo baroque trumpet"), but fighting against the establishment. And I am just talking about the 70's beucause the 50's and 60's are a marvelous story, too.  :)

Is that the famous "Bach Trumpet"? :)

Anyway, to your point; yes, I can sense the attitude you are talking about and as one of that generation I know exactly where it arises. I think though, that what Jens and some others are talking about is in the era directly subsequent, when a sort of snideness arose among those same people, a "we're right and you're making a shit sandwich" sort of attitude. And even if that were true (not saying if it is or isn't), that attitude turned out to be the biggest enemy of the movement. Because whatever else good or great may have come from it, the alienation felt by many other musicians and the people they influenced,  will never be forgotten. It's a pity really, because HIPness should be inclusive, not exclusive. :-\

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 08:00:17 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 07:19:03 AM
Getting back to the Sonic Museum thing that I introduced a bit ago, by far the best (and easily the most influential) performance of the suites was one that I saw on television when I was quite young (it was a new invention in those days... ::) ). Pablo Casals playing the suites in old church or churches in Spain. Not in a concert hall. It was freakin' wonderful! As a totally uninitiated child, I sat spellbound through the entire performance. One of the first CD's I bought when I began collecting disks was that 2 disk set. Not PI, probably not following the letter of the law of performance, but arguably as authentic a performance as I will ever see. :)

Yes, those things occur and the power of an image is sometimes irresistible. I recall, for example, the first time when I listened to one of my favorite Bach choral preludes, Ich ruf zu Dir, Herr Jesu Christ BWV 639. I was watching -many years ago- the original version of Solaris -the film by Tarkovsky- and when that prelude is listened to for the first time (it's used several times), well... I was completely devastated. Only some years after I learned that my beloved version was played on a synthesizer.  :) Currently I have a lot of versions, but still love and I am moved by that soundtrack.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 07:19:03 AM
Yes, it IS formidable. I am particularly drawn to the gamba works. I had discounted them before now. Now I don't, they are in their own class. :)

For natural reasons, I think you would love this gamba/fortepiano version (the latter is a replica after Silbermann):

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uMlnMSQbLT8/TO7zk96IrXI/AAAAAAAAAX8/fk0j0T9P0UA/s1600/ghielmigambson1.jpg)

(Easy to get in USA these days)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 08:10:02 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 08:00:17 AM
Yes, those things occur and the power of an image is sometimes irresistible. I recall, for example, the first time when I listened to one of my favorite Bach choral preludes, Ich ruf zu Dir, Herr Jesu Christ BWV 639. I was watching -many years ago- the original version of Solaris -the film by Tarkovsky- and when that prelude is listened to for the first time (it's used several times), well... I was completely devastated. Only some years after I learned that my beloved version was played on a synthesizer.  :) Currently I have a lot of versions, but still love and I am moved by that soundtrack.

And so many of our compadres here were early on influenced by the 9th in 'A Clockwork Orange', which I believe is also played on a synthesizer, or electronic enhancement of some sort. Whatever it takes... :)


QuoteFor natural reasons, I think you would love this gamba/fortepiano version (the latter is a replica after Silbermann):

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uMlnMSQbLT8/TO7zk96IrXI/AAAAAAAAAX8/fk0j0T9P0UA/s1600/ghielmigambson1.jpg)

(Easy to get in USA these days)

8)

Oh, I'll look into that. Silbermanns have a unique sound that I find quite attractive. I know I'll enjoy it, thanks for the tip. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 07:58:32 AM
Is that the famous "Bach Trumpet"? :)

Yes, it is. I can't resist to post some words of Sigiswald kuijken, from the booklet of his last recording of the Brandenburgs (he had recorded them two times before these concertos), when he precisely talks about his previous recordings:

QuoteBoth of these recordings clearly reflected a particular state of affairs and are thus witnesses to their times, 1976 and 1993. For example, in the first recording, the dreaded trumpet part of the Brandenburg Concerto N|. 2 was, "of course", played on what we would now call the "pseudo Baroque trumpet" (that is, indeed without valves, but with holes, wich the authentic Baroque trumpet never had and which certainly influences the sound and the playing technique; the instrument also had a "modern" mouthpiece). The LPB recording of '93-'94 plainly took issue with this still sensitive subject: for this recording I made a point of scoring this part not for trumpet but for horn (based on a manuscript from Bach's milieu). With this decision I wished to illustrate my impatience with the widespread "state of compromise" in the international Baroque-trumpet world (and "trumpet" it, as it were). This gesture did not go unnoticed , and contributed to a gradual change in thinking on the subject: little by little, some began to experiment with the truly "compromise-less" Baroque trumpet - a daunting task! This evolution is now still in full flight, and is finally starting to bear fruit. Jean-Francois Madeuf, who is playing the part in the present production, is a fervent proponent and propagator of the "original" Baroque trumpet (that is, without holes) and now teaches the instrument at the famed Schola Cantorum in Basel.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 08:59:49 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 08:36:10 AM
Yes, it is. I can't resist to post some words of Sigiswald kuijken, from the booklet of his last recording of the Brandenburgs (he had recorded them two times before these concertos), when he precisely talks about his previous recordings:

8)

Very interesting, thanks for that. Of course, the trumpet was, as far as I know, the only instrument, the players of which had to join a guild to become master trumpeters. I can't lay my hands on the essay right this minute, but somewhere I have an interesting paper that talks about the capabilities of master trumpeters by the mid 18th century. They could play as many as 24 harmonics, compared to modern trumpets that can handle 3 or 4 at best. The scale possibilities for them were off the charts. I strongly suspect that for a genuine master trumpeter of 1725, Brandenburg #2 would have been barely sufficient as a warm-up exercise.  :) 

Guess I'll have to look into that set. I hope Premont doesn't slap me around for it... ::)  :D

8)

PS - That would be the set on Accent?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on December 24, 2010, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 08:59:49 AM
... I can't lay my hands on the essay right this minute, but somewhere I have an interesting paper that talks about the capabilities of master trumpeters by the mid 18th century. They could play as many as 24 harmonics, compared to modern trumpets that can handle 3 or 4 at best. The scale possibilities for them were off the charts. I strongly suspect that for a genuine master trumpeter of 1725, Brandenburg #2 would have been barely sufficient as a warm-up exercise.  :) 

It would be great to read that paper, Gurn. It seems very interesting.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 24, 2010, 08:59:49 AM
I hope Premont doesn't slap me around for it... ::)  :D

;D

I have known very few people of his level of knowledge in Bach and North German Baroque music in general; it's incredible because, additionaly, Premont knows every Bach disc released during the last four or five decades.   


Finally, yes, Kuijken recorded his last version of the Brandenburgs on Accent (the previous were SEON, directed by Leonhardt, and DHM, also with La Petite Bande).  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on December 31, 2010, 12:32:44 PM
  I take exception to the description of Pinchas Zukerman as a "pinhead". Agree with him or not,like his playing and conducting or not,he's no pinhead.
He just doesn't like HIP performances. And he's perfectly entitled to his opinions,just as the"snooty HIP fanatics" I mentioned earlier on this thread are entitled to theirs.
I could just as easily call Roger Norrington a "pinhead" for his many fatuous claims about HIP, and his arrogant claims of having found the "one right way" to perform the music of the past,as if he knows exactly what Mozart,Haydn,Beethoven,Brahms,Tchaikovsky and Mahler wanted.
  It's important to remember the immortal and inspired statement of Richard Taruskin-"Instruments don't make music,people do".
By this he meant that just using period instruments and dutifully following all the latest research into "correct" performance practice aren't enough. It's the interpretation,the spirit and not the letter that count.Just going through the motions of "authenticity" guarantees nothing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 31, 2010, 01:06:47 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on December 31, 2010, 12:32:44 PM
  I take exception to the description of Pinchas Zukerman as a "pinhead". Agree with him or not,like his playing and conducting or not,he's no pinhead.
He just doesn't like HIP performances. And he's perfectly entitled to his opinions,just as the"snooty HIP fanatics" I mentioned earlier on this thread are entitled to theirs.
I could just as easily call Roger Norrington a "pinhead" for his many fatuous claims about HIP, and his arrogant claims of having found the "one right way" to perform the music of the past,as if he knows exactly what Mozart,Haydn,Beethoven,Brahms,Tchaikovsky and Mahler wanted.
  It's important to remember the immortal and inspired statement of Richard Taruskin-"Instruments don't make music,people do".
By this he meant that just using period instruments and dutifully following all the latest research into "correct" performance practice aren't enough. It's the interpretation,the spirit and not the letter that count.Just going through the motions of "authenticity" guarantees nothing.

But Norrington IS a pinhead. So is Zukerman. So is anyone who claims to have found the one right way to do anything at all. So are paranoid conspiracy theorists. So is every fanatic on any subject whatever. For or against. So what's your point?   ::)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on December 31, 2010, 01:36:22 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on December 31, 2010, 12:32:44 PM
  I take exception to the description of Pinchas Zukerman as a "pinhead". Agree with him or not,like his playing and conducting or not,he's no pinhead.
He just doesn't like HIP performances.

It's much more than that as I detailed in an earlier posting.  So, I'm sticking with "pinhead".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on February 01, 2011, 06:35:02 AM
Quote from: Sforzando on February 01, 2011, 04:06:17 AM
I'm waiting for HIP Boulez.

HIP Boulez will probably sound a lot like the Boulez recordings you already have, particularly ones conducted by himself. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 03:59:54 AM
Quote from: masolino on February 01, 2011, 06:35:02 AM
HIP Boulez will probably sound a lot like the Boulez recordings you already have, particularly ones conducted by himself. ;)

Aha. But will this HIP Pli Selon Pli sound like Boulez's first, second, or third recording - all of which are very different?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on February 02, 2011, 04:01:56 AM
Quote from: Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 03:59:54 AM
Aha. But will this HIP Pli Selon Pli sound like Boulez's first, second, or third recording - all of which are very different?

They'll do different editions.

Now, shouldn't this discussion take place in a The Moderns in Period Performance thread?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 04:07:14 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on February 02, 2011, 04:01:56 AM
They'll do different editions.

Now, shouldn't this discussion take place in a The Moderns in Period Performance thread?

Please, no!   :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on February 02, 2011, 04:32:36 AM
Quote from: Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 03:59:54 AM
Aha. But will this HIP Pli Selon Pli sound like Boulez's first, second, or third recording - all of which are very different?

It's getting a bit too hypothetical (especially on your part), I am afraid.  Try keeping your question until such a recording appears.   :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on February 02, 2011, 04:39:23 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on February 02, 2011, 04:01:56 AM
They'll do different editions.

Now, shouldn't this discussion take place in a The Moderns in Period Performance thread?

Well he knows there are several Boulez threads at this forum. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 05:42:01 AM
Quote from: masolino on February 02, 2011, 04:32:36 AM
It's getting a bit too hypothetical (especially on your part), I am afraid.  Try keeping your question until such a recording appears.   :D

It's getting a bit tongue in cheek, but not altogether irrelevant. If documentary recorded evidence by one composer can reveal such a wide range of tempi, balances, timbres, and overall style (e.g., the far more fierce and violent first PsP vs. the serene and lyrical third one), then how much can be said for certain about the intentions of composers for whom we have no such documentary evidence?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on February 02, 2011, 09:10:18 AM
Quote from: Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 05:42:01 AM
It's getting a bit tongue in cheek, but not altogether irrelevant. If documentary recorded evidence by one composer can reveal such a wide range of tempi, balances, timbres, and overall style (e.g., the far more fierce and violent first PsP vs. the serene and lyrical third one), then how much can be said for certain about the intentions of composers for whom we have no such documentary evidence?

Interesting too is how a composer can be made to see things in a different light after hearing a work of theirs performed. Schoenberg is famous for at first dissing the Hollywood Quartet's performance of his Verklärte Nacht, yet after pressing him to listen till they reached the end Schoenberg ultimately found himself in total agreement with the Hollywood's concept. In fact, so ecstatic was Schoenberg with the Hollywood that he even went on to write the liner notes for their album of the work!

Schubert also is once to have deemed a performance of one of his quartets "lovely" overall even though he felt the tempos could have been a little quicker.

These are cases of reality trumping ideology. Just because something doesn't precisely match letter for letter what's in a composer's head doesn't mean an interpretation isn't valid.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on February 02, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
   How about HIP performances of music of future generations which hasn't been written yet?


 


   ; ;)                         :P                                         ;D                                        8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on February 02, 2011, 10:17:44 PM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on February 02, 2011, 09:10:18 AM
These are cases of reality trumping ideology. Just because something doesn't precisely match letter for letter what's in a composer's head doesn't mean an interpretation isn't valid.

No two HIP recordings sound alike, even of the same work, from the same directors -- modern armchair critics often conveniently overlook that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on February 02, 2011, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on February 02, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
   How about HIP performances of music of future generations which hasn't been written yet?

Time machines may have to come first  :-*
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: FideLeo on February 02, 2011, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: Sforzando on February 02, 2011, 05:42:01 AM
then how much can be said for certain about the intentions of composers for whom we have no such documentary evidence?

I think you are a bit misleading here: who ever said HIP's are for certain? 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on February 03, 2011, 04:31:06 PM
Quote from: masolino on February 02, 2011, 10:17:44 PM
No two HIP recordings sound alike, even of the same work, from the same directors -- modern armchair critics often conveniently overlook that.

I think that's the point we're all trying to make. No one school of musicality possesses a stranglehold on interpretation.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on February 03, 2011, 05:35:17 PM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on February 03, 2011, 04:31:06 PM
No one school of musicality possesses a stranglehold on interpretation.

But HIP is a better approximation to The Truth. (Said only half-jokingly, awaiting the there-is-no-one-truth-in-music argument.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on February 03, 2011, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: masolino on February 02, 2011, 10:17:44 PM
No two HIP recordings sound alike, even of the same work, from the same directors.

Whoever said they did?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on February 03, 2011, 08:00:10 PM
Quote from: Opus106 on February 03, 2011, 05:35:17 PM
But HIP is a better approximation to The Truth.

"Approximation" = slippery, slippery term. But you knew that:


Quote(Said only half-jokingly, awaiting the there-is-no-one-truth-in-music argument.)

So there you go. ;D


But....just so there's no confusion regarding my feelings toward HIP:

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on January 12, 2011, 09:59:05 PM
But still, it seems to me no matter how you slice it it all falls under the umbrella of "interpretation". So seen in that light I tend to refrain from dismissing musical scholarship - HIP, romantic, or whatever - outright.


And from years ago this old chestnut of an exchange between DavidW and I (and others) on the old board (I was donwyn then):

Look here. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,9361.msg280317.html#msg280317)


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mirror Image on August 17, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on August 17, 2011, 04:16:29 AM
I have a few stray disks of Dorati, but not the set. I don't have a big taste for prehistoric recordings like lots of people do. I like his Paris set though. Of the others, I don't have any Abbado, and like Dorati, a few Bernstein (Vienna) and Karajan. If one wants to go the modern instrument route, there is a lot more out there, some of it very good, just not to my taste.

I do have the Harnoncourt symphonies and strongly recommend them (I'm talking about Concentus Musicus Wien here, not Concertgebouw, which are doubtless good, but see above).

As you can see, even restricting my collecting to only PI versions, I still have a real hard time finding a place for everything. I am afraid that if I were to expand beyond that, I would have to sell all my Koechlin recordings to make room. :o  :o  :-\


:)

8)

Thanks for the follow-up about Harnoncourt's Haydn recordings. I've never been into the HIP movement, but I do enjoy Biondi's Vivaldi recordings. Academy of Ancient Music are also quite good. My philosophy regarding HIP performances is I think they're cool, but are ultimately unnecessary. I honestly don't believe that a composer like Vivaldi would have wanted his music to be played on the same instruments it was played on during his lifetime. I understand they're trying to preserve the sound of the music, but how can music move forward into modern times if it relies on period instruments?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: The new erato on August 17, 2011, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 17, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
I honestly don't believe that a composer like Vivaldi would have wanted his music to be played on the same instruments it was played on during his lifetime.
Probably not, though if he' had another type of instrument, he also probably would have written a somewhat different type of music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 17, 2011, 09:23:29 AM
Quote from: The new erato on August 17, 2011, 09:22:09 AM
Probably not, though if he' had another type of instrument, he also probably would have written a somewhat different type of music.

Exactly.  Like a concerto for electric violin.   ;D  Repeat x 500  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on August 17, 2011, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 17, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
I honestly don't believe that a composer like Vivaldi would have wanted his music to be played on the same instruments it was played on during his lifetime.

Bad example to support your point, for in fact Vivaldi was a violinist, and the violins of his contemporary instrument-makers are still the standard to which craftsmen aspire.  Some types of design, aren't much inmproved upon over the centuries.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 17, 2011, 09:36:07 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 17, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
Thanks for the follow-up about Harnoncourt's Haydn recordings. I've never been into the HIP movement, but I do enjoy Biondi's Vivaldi recordings. Academy of Ancient Music are also quite good. My philosophy regarding HIP performances is I think they're cool, but are ultimately unnecessary. I honestly don't believe that a composer like Vivaldi would have wanted his music to be played on the same instruments it was played on during his lifetime.

Well, period instruments are necessary for my enjoyment of baroque music.  As for Vivaldi, your belief is mere speculation and the usual complaint lodged against the use of period instruments.  Let's face it - all these arguments for or against period instruments are dead issues.
We have come to a point where period and modern instruments exist in harmony.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 17, 2011, 09:40:50 AM
I think that Vivaldi would be like "holy cow!  People still listen to my music!?"  In his day even great composers were quickly forgotten.  What would it matter to him what instruments were used?

It matters to the audience and the performers, we are interested in hearing what the music sounded like as performed on the instruments that were around then.  If you don't share in that enthusiasm, then by all means stick to modern instruments. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 17, 2011, 09:52:54 AM
It is always fun to hear that a keen interest of mine, say, PI performances, is unnecessary. 

;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 17, 2011, 09:55:55 AM
Quote from: Leon on August 17, 2011, 09:52:54 AM
It is always fun to hear that a keen interest of mine, say, PI performances, is unnecessary. 

;)

PI; for those care care enough to send the very best. IOW, it isn't unnecessary to ME. However, I can now say (which I used to have trouble with) that it can be totally unnecessary to everyone else and I don't care. That's a big first step.   0:)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: The new erato on August 17, 2011, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: gn i n n e h lr a k on August 17, 2011, 09:24:40 AM
Bad example to support your point, for in fact Vivaldi was a violinist, and the violins of his contemporary instrument-makers are still the standard to which craftsmen aspire.  Some types of design, aren't much inmproved upon over the centuries.
Though bows and strings are very different.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Szykneij on August 17, 2011, 11:54:59 AM
Quote from: The new erato on August 17, 2011, 11:08:09 AM
Though bows and strings are very different.

There are differences in the bridges, bass bars and, especially, the necks of Baroque and modern violins also. The lengths of the fingerboards and angle of the necks are quite different. I need a period of adjustment when I switch from my Guarneri model violin with a modern neck to my Baroque style Stainer model.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 18, 2011, 07:18:52 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 17, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
[\B]ut how can music move forward into modern times if it relies on period instruments?

I don't think Karl specifically requests period instruments for the performances of his music. Do you, Karl?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on August 18, 2011, 07:19:36 AM
I do not.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 18, 2011, 07:20:06 AM
The instruments of today are period instruments.  Period.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on August 18, 2011, 07:25:36 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 18, 2011, 07:20:06 AM
The instruments of today are period instruments.  Period.  :D

They are our-period instruments.
(I personally hope that synthesizers will soon be "period instruments" of another period, but one can never tell.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brahmsian on August 18, 2011, 07:31:52 AM
Here is to hoping that 50 years from now, there are not any HIP performances of the Helikopter String Quartet (unless the 4 helicopters have had regular maintenance check ups).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: kishnevi on August 18, 2011, 07:43:17 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 18, 2011, 07:31:52 AM
Here is to hoping that 50 years from now, there are not any HIP performances of the Helikopter String Quartet (unless the 4 helicopters have had regular maintenance check ups).

Imagining for a moment an HIP performance of 4'33"   Or would you need a period audience for that instead of a period instrument?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 18, 2011, 07:47:01 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 18, 2011, 07:43:17 AM
Imagining for a moment an HIP performance of 4'33"   Or would you need a period audience for that instead of a period instrument?

That's a piece which evolves (it does not age) as time goes by.

Although, on second thought, I don't think it evolves as well.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on August 18, 2011, 09:12:23 AM
"Period audience" . . . why does that phrase make me think of Woodstock? . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 18, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
    The whole HIP movement is based on a number of questionable premises. Among them 1.  Old instruments or reproductions of them still sound exactly as they did in the distant past,2. These instruments are being played exactly as they were in the past, and 3. The music is
actually being interpreted as the composers would have wanted. 
    We just can't be certain about any of these assumptions, because the composers have been dead for ages.  And even if the instruments DO sound exactly as they did in the past and are being played as they were , we can['t be sure that the interpretations would be to the composer's liking. id they could miraculously return and hear our attempts at "authenticity".
   Today, when we perform new or recent works by contemporary composers, the individuals who wrote the music aren't concerned with the
instruments per se, as long as they sound good, and are in tune.  The composers are concerned about  whether the musicians are interpreting the music as they would want.. And they don't always. Sometimes they don't like what the performers do to the music. For example; tempi that are too slow or too fast, excessive use of rubato or excessive rigidity, etc.  The musicians are using the authentic instruments of OUR time, but there is something wrong with the interpretation.
   It was the same in the past.  This just goes to show you that   using period instruments is no guarantee of anything.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 18, 2011, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 18, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
This just goes to show you that   using period instruments is no guarantee of anything.

LOL - other than whenever HIP/PI is being discussed it is guaranteed that you will chime in with essentially the same post.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 18, 2011, 11:52:55 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 18, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
    The whole HIP movement is based on a number of questionable premises. Among them 1.  Old instruments or reproductions of them still sound exactly as they did in the distant past,2. These instruments are being played exactly as they were in the past, and 3. The music is
actually being interpreted as the composers would have wanted. 
    We just can't be certain about any of these assumptions, because the composers have been dead for ages.  And even if the instruments DO sound exactly as they did in the past and are being played as they were , we can['t be sure that the interpretations would be to the composer's liking. id they could miraculously return and hear our attempts at "authenticity".

This whole paragraph is based on questionable assumptions. For example, your instrument (I assume it to be the horn, super or otherwise). If 999 people out of a thousand assume that a natural horn sounds just like it did 200 years ago, and you don't, which assumption is questionable?  In science (and in art for that matter) there is a basic assumption that exists before there can be anything else at all, in any field. This is that the laws that govern how things work do not change. Materials may change, but the way they act on each other don't. And if this holds true over billions of years, what is the likelihood that it will be false in you 200 year example? Yes, quite.

Do we play Allegro as Allegro was played in the 18th century? Well, we sure as hell don't play it as it was played in the 19th century, because it was deliberately slowed down. But have we nailed the 18th or 17th century Allegro yet? Maybe we have, in some time and place, and not in a different time and place. But at least everyone ain't playing it like Stokowski any more. If that's what you like, that even in 2011 people should play it like they did in 1940 or 1870, then you are simply lost.

In many cases we DO know what the composer wanted. Even that long ago, people actually wrote shit down! I know, I know, hard to believe. And certainly not true of every composer about every piece, but if you read some stuff you learn some stuff. It isn't like everything fell into a black hole, you know?

QuoteToday, when we perform new or recent works by contemporary composers, the individuals who wrote the music aren't concerned with the
instruments per se, as long as they sound good, and are in tune.  The composers are concerned about  whether the musicians are interpreting the music as they would want.. And they don't always. Sometimes they don't like what the performers do to the music. For example; tempi that are too slow or too fast, excessive use of rubato or excessive rigidity, etc.  The musicians are using the authentic instruments of OUR time, but there is something wrong with the interpretation.
   It was the same in the past.  This just goes to show you that   using period instruments is no guarantee of anything.

Absolutely true, crappy playing of old music with old instruments is no more palatable than crappy playing of old music with new instruments. This is what is called a "Duh Moment". But your implication that use of modern instruments IS a guarantee of something is no more reasonable than your last statement.  In addition to which, modern instruments are louder and more numerous which makes their improper use even more offensive. :)

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Concilium musicum Wien \ Angerer "auf Originalinstrumenten" - Hob 01 008 Symphony in G 3rd mvmt - Menuetto con Trio
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 18, 2011, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: Leon on August 18, 2011, 11:16:09 AM
LOL - other than whenever HIP/PI is being discussed it is guaranteed that you will chime in with essentially the same post.

:)

Yup.  Superhorn's misinformed arguments never change.  What I do wonder is why he continues to rail at windmills.  Nobody forces the man to listen to PI performances.  He just needs to understand that many folks enjoy PI and it's never going away. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 18, 2011, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 18, 2011, 02:17:35 PM
Yup.  Superhorn's misinformed arguments never change.  What I do wonder is why he continues to rail at windmills.  Nobody forces the man to listen to PI performances.  He just needs to understand that many folks enjoy PI and it's never going away.

I bet that Superhorn owns AND enjoys one or more recordings with a natural horn. :)

So maybe things don't sound that bad on period instruments... 8)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 07:00:13 AM
    You guys just aren't getting my points. I'm not opposed to period instruments per se, and I have enjoyed some of them.
    In addition, I do have some HIP recordings by Norrington and Gardiner etc.  Among them are Norrington's Symphonie Fantastique
  (a questionable performance) and Gardiner's German requiem(good but in no way better than the non HIP performances I've heard etc.)
      I just don't have any objections to performances on modern instruments,and after hearing so many HIP ones, I actually find it refreshong to come back to those allegedly awful and "inauthentic" ones.     
    I like some performances using natural horns, and I have tried out one myself in the past.It was certainly a very interesting experience,
and I'm glad I was able to do this. 
    For the last time ; I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se,and I HAVE enjoyed SOME of them.  But others were just awful, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  But having grown up since my teenage years without period instruments,I just don't find them better than modern.
   I stand by what I said about the questionable premises of HIP.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 19, 2011, 07:19:21 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 07:00:13 AM
For the last time ; I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se,and I HAVE enjoyed SOME of them.  But others were just awful, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

I would not attitbute this to "premises of HIP" but to the individual conductor and/or performer(s) of a work that you found less than enjoyable.  We all have our preferences, and some recordings strike us as less than good, no matter what instruments or performance approach are being used.  What does that prove other than taste is subjective?

Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 07:00:13 AM
But having grown up since my teenage years without period instruments,I just don't find them better than modern.   I stand by what I said about the questionable premises of HIP.

No one, at least not I, insist that you or anyone must, should, or has inferior taste if they do not prefer HIP/PI performances more than those on modern instruments.  But, I daresay it is questionable if there are "premises of HIP" that the practitioners would all agree on and employ uniformly in their recordings.

Everything you write about HIP/PI recordings, btw, could just as easily be said about the other kind.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 19, 2011, 08:24:14 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

Some of us more than others, possibly. :)

But the fact that you stand by your assertions doesn't make them any more valid. I agree with you that playing on old instruments does not, by itself, guarantee anything. And I also add to that the obvious corollary that playing on modern instruments doesn't either. Beyond that we do not agree on anything at all. Which would be perfectly fine if I hadn't already heard you side of the argument 50 times over. I'm sure you would find it aggravating too if, every time you mentioned a composer/work, someone went around and attempted to disenfranchise the total premise that the performance was based on. Especially when he/she was only semi-informed. But hey, it's a free country. :)

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Das Wiener Philharmonia Trio - Hob 05 17 Divertimento á tre in Eb for 2 Violins & Bass 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 19, 2011, 08:30:47 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

We don't need a time machine.  We have enough scholarship of performance practice and a fairly complete knowledge of instrument makers in order to come to a reasonably full understanding of what would have been typical for, say, Haydn to expect when writing for string quartet, or the symphonic forces he had at his disposal, and the kinds of keyboards he used and wrote for throughout his life.

Where I think you go down a dead end is twofold:

1. alleging that HIP/PI performance practice is monolithic

2. that HIP/PI "set of premises" are based on pure speculation and not solid research.

As for #1, consider this: both the Mosaiques and Festetics quartets have recorded Haydn string quartets.  They do not sound alike, and some PI folks clearly have a preference for one over the other.  Which one is employing your set of HIP premises?

As for #2, I think I addressed it earlier.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 19, 2011, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.

To tell you the truth, I came into HIP by reading misinformed articles/posts and believing in this authenticity business. It was after reading some more that I came to know that HIPsters don't actually guarantee 100% authenticity, but usually try their best in recreating the piece as the composer intended it. But that didn't deter me from listening to period instruments. I've grown to love their sound (though not always, and not for the reasons you state); the rhythms become more 'danceable' when I listen to some Baroque music played in an 'informed' manner; and most important of all, I can imagine wonderfully ornate courtrooms, coffee houses or simply a room in a house with like-minded musicians bubbling with music, and not a darkened concert hall stifled by dusty traditions which have cropped up in the interim.

Having said that, you must realise that no PI performer would guarantee you that he is 100% authentic -- this being 2011, and not 1958, the fact should be obvious, but it's worth repeating, I think. There are, of course, different proponents of performing styles who strongly hold to their opinion against others' -- and this fact in itself should readily show that authenticity has not been (cannot be?) achieved. They simply don't stick to the score either. A visit to the Bach Organ thread or harpsichord music threads will show you how widely interpretations vary and how ideologies differ between artists -- just as in the case of players of modern instruments. There are many issues which are still unsettled and widely debated, and no one involved is trying to make a secret out of them. You, on the other hand, I'm sorry to say, make it sound almost like some sort of corporate conspiracy where you were fooled in to buying/attending hundreds of recordings/concerts solely on the basis of some promised authenticity.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 19, 2011, 09:08:21 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

Time machines, if they come to be, will likely be based on the premises of quantum mechanics at least in part. You surely will not get into one if you know what they are! ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 19, 2011, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on August 19, 2011, 09:06:04 AM
To tell you the truth, I came into HIP by reading misinformed articles/posts and believing in this authenticity business. It was after reading some more that I came to know that HIPsters don't actually guarantee 100% authenticity, but usually try their best in recreating the piece as the composer intended it. But that didn't deter me from listening to period instruments. I've grown to love their sound (though not always, and not for the reasons you state); the rhythms become more 'danceable' when I listen to some Baroque music played in an 'informed' manner; and most important of all, I can imagine wonderfully ornate courtrooms, coffee houses or simply a room in a house with like-minded musicians bubbling with music, and not a darkened concert hall stifled by dusty traditions which have cropped up in the interim.

I also find that's the most important aspect of using period instruments, to be taken back in time to, say, Bach's music room.  A piano can't do that; the same for modern strings, winds and brass.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 19, 2011, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 19, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

You're being much too rigid about the "authentic" issue.  Authenticity for its own sake is not why so many listeners have been won over by period instrument performances; the reason is that they ENJOY the music more with PI. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on August 19, 2011, 11:02:15 AM
Any questions aside, the HIP movement has definitely added value to the music community.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on August 19, 2011, 06:10:37 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 19, 2011, 10:57:07 AM
I also find that's the most important aspect of using period instruments, to be taken back in time to, say, Bach's music room.  A piano can't do that; the same for modern strings, winds and brass.

I think Bach would be more than happy to have us bring a few modern instruments along with us when we visit him!

And likewise we could bring a few of his instruments back with us so we can finally put all this controversy to bed!

;D

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 19, 2011, 06:33:22 PM
I would like to take Bach to the present time... have him listen to classical era, romantic era, modern era and beyond... and then see what he would write. :)

It's a neat little thing to think what if we could take great composers like him, or Beethoven or Mozart and expose their ears to newer music and see where they would go with it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 20, 2011, 07:58:24 AM
    Leon, you're setting up a number of straw men here. I never said that "HIP is a monolithic thing, and have always been aware that it isn't.
    Of course not all musicologists and  HIP agree on how to interpret the music. 
    And neither did I say that HIP is based on "pure speculation and not solid research".  Of course it's based on research, but not all that research is solid, and there IS quite a bit of speculation involved .   
     The besetting sin of the HIP movement is the blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners.  Many arrogantly claim to have found "the one right way to perform the music of the past"  and self- servingly and smugly  think they are "  scraping away all the barnacles" of inauthenticity. 
    People like Roger Norrington are insufferably arrogant and smug about their supposed "authenticity".  How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ? 
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   
    For example, his recent performances of Mahler have  featured  vibratoless styring playing , which he assumes to be "authentic  performance practice" in  this composer's music.    But he is apparently unaware of this fact.   Back in 1960, when the centennial of Mahler's birth was observed, an aged string player in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler who was still alive,was interviewed .
    He said that at rehearsals , the composer was always asking for more vibrato from the  strings !   So much for Norrington's "authenticity ". 
      Many musicians talk about "the composer's intentions".  But the problem with this term is that the composer's intentions are NOT
carved in stone .   They change their minds. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 20, 2011, 08:49:11 AM
Supe,
Since you addressed that to Leon, plus I'm worn out, I won't do a point-by-point rebuttal of your post. I would like to make a couple of rebuttals though, since they are germane and I can't help myself.  :)

1>
QuoteHow does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ?
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   

In reality (which is important to touch base with from time to time), it doesn't make a damn whether these are things "the composer would have approved of". How could you possibly know that one way or the other? And how can it possibly be relevant?  What, do you picture a composer sitting there gazing into a crystal ball and saying "oh look, by 1850 the orchestra was 3 times larger. Let's write this symphony to take advantage of that".  I mean, I can't come up with a single credible scenario that would cover what you are saying here. What you really mean (and you may not know this yourself, perhaps it's time for some soul-searching) is that YOU like it that way, so you would be happy to justify your liking by some sort of twisting of the laws of science, particularly the one that says "Time is an arrow, it only moves in one direction". 

2> Norrington's a freakin' crank: OK, I agree with you (at least in part). Every movement has someone they prefer to keep in the closet. I will outrage a lot of people here when I say that post-Romantic performance practice had its crank too, Sergiu Celibidache. To which I would add Böhm in his late career. There's 2, I could name more without straining.  In any case, I challenge you to find even a single devotée of HIP/PI who doesn't already understand up front that Norrington is a little bit off. Oh, and let me just say that he didn't come up with all that shit on his own, those theories were first propounded by a fellow named Clive Brown and later he and Norrington wrote a book about it called "Classical and Romantic Performing Practice". The ideas themselves are justifiable in some ways, but in practice, Norrington went right over the edge. Since I couldn't care less if Mahler is ever performed at all, I can't really comment on the results. I did understand that at the time they were produced, it was a totally experimental thing and everyone involved knew that.

Leon may indeed be setting up straw men, although I don't think so. The fact that you mention once a year (as a contractual disclaimer??) that you really really love HIP, you just hate all the records, doesn't translate into straw men for me. The fact that you feel that in some way you have been ordered to do something and been duped by it concerns me a lot, I fear that sort of paranoia is a bad sign for your old age. I would love to see you open your mind a little bit and try some things with a nonjudgmental attitude. It may not be too late for you (although I fear it is).

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Anthony Halstead, Hanover Band - Hob 01 031 Symphony in D 4th mvmt - Finale: Moderato molto - Thema e variazioni I - VII: Presto
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 20, 2011, 08:59:22 AM
Norrington's Mahler is as inappropriate for characterizing period style performances as Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet is for modern music.

When HIPsters defend period style performances they are thinking of Herreweghe, Jacobs, Hogwood, Gardiner, Kuijken, etc etc conducting baroque and classical era music.  When anti-HIPsters attack period style performances they are always thinking of Norrington's Mahler.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 20, 2011, 02:23:28 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 20, 2011, 07:58:24 AM
     The besetting sin of the HIP movement is the blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners.  Many arrogantly claim to have found "the one right way to perform the music of the past"  and self- servingly and smugly  think they are "  scraping away all the barnacles" of inauthenticity. 
    People like Roger Norrington are insufferably arrogant and smug about their supposed "authenticity".  How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ? 
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   
    For example, his recent performances of Mahler have  featured  vibratoless styring playing , which he assumes to be "authentic  performance practice" in  this composer's music.    But he is apparently unaware of this fact.   Back in 1960, when the centennial of Mahler's birth was observed, an aged string player in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler who was still alive,was interviewed .
    He said that at rehearsals , the composer was always asking for more vibrato from the  strings !   So much for Norrington's "authenticity ". 
      Many musicians talk about "the composer's intentions".  But the problem with this term is that the composer's intentions are NOT
carved in stone .   They change their minds.

Every movement has its dogmatic practitioners.  The problem, as I see it, is that you want to focus on the dogmatic folks who represent only a small fraction of all those who love HIP/PI.  Actually, you continue to just focus on one dogmatic person, Norrington. 

You have an anti-HIP mind set that colors the entire issue.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 20, 2011, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 20, 2011, 07:58:24 AM
    Leon, you're setting up a number of straw men here. I never said that "HIP is a monolithic thing, and have always been aware that it isn't.
    Of course not all musicologists and  HIP agree on how to interpret the music. 
    And neither did I say that HIP is based on "pure speculation and not solid research".  Of course it's based on research, but not all that research is solid, and there IS quite a bit of speculation involved .   
     The besetting sin of the HIP movement is the blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners.  Many arrogantly claim to have found "the one right way to perform the music of the past"  and self- servingly and smugly  think they are "  scraping away all the barnacles" of inauthenticity. 
    People like Roger Norrington are insufferably arrogant and smug about their supposed "authenticity".  How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ? 
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   
    For example, his recent performances of Mahler have  featured  vibratoless styring playing , which he assumes to be "authentic  performance practice" in  this composer's music.    But he is apparently unaware of this fact.   Back in 1960, when the centennial of Mahler's birth was observed, an aged string player in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler who was still alive,was interviewed .
    He said that at rehearsals , the composer was always asking for more vibrato from the  strings !   So much for Norrington's "authenticity ". 
      Many musicians talk about "the composer's intentions".  But the problem with this term is that the composer's intentions are NOT
carved in stone .   They change their minds.

It is correct that you never said explicitly that HIP is monolithic, but most of your posts, including this one, say this implicitly.

Unless you can link me to those comments you put in quotes and support your claim of "blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners" (as opposed to one or two people saying that kind of stuff) I will treat that part of your post as hyperbole, which it is.

As I understand the HIP/PI proponents what they are attempting is to present the music as if the intervening centuries had not taken place.  IOW, to play Haydn using his customary orchestra instead of Mahler's.  Yes, there is some speculation, e.g. deciding correct tempos.  One cannot simply use those marked  in the score since they were made relative to current practice.  IOW, what andante signified in 1800 is different than what it means today, or what it meant in 1900.  Even Sibelius marked his scores with marks that would indicate a faster tempo because he felt that most conductors of his day used slower tempos than what Sibelius thought the markings indicated.  But, tempo is also influenced by the kind of instrument used or the size of the orchestra. 

These are just two examples concerning one element, tempo, offering reasons why some musicians prefer to adopt a HIP/PI performance practice.  We can never completely know a composer's intentions, but we can learn as much as possible about the performance practices and ensembles of his age in order to understand the scores relative to his expectations.  But it absolutely does not mean that this music cannot be played using modern instruments or orchestras to create a beautiful and meaningful result. 

You may not like the sound of a fortepiano or harpsichord and prefer to hear Haydn or Bach on a Steinway Concert Grand.  There is nothing wrong with that attitude.  But what comes through in your posts, and it is probably unintentional, is what appears to be an intolerance for those musicians who prefer something else. 

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 21, 2011, 07:32:21 AM
    You rarely come across an HIP musician who has the honesty and humility to say that well", this latest performance of Whatever I've just done or recorded is my best guess as to how the music might have been performed in the past and what the composer would have wanted ".
    The HIP performances and recordings I've heard(and I've heard an awful lot of them) aren't as annoying to me as the smugness and arrogance of so many of the HIP musicians in interviews and commentary in CD booklets etc.
    For example, Philippe Herreweghe has made the stupefyingly idiotic claim that "the only music the modern instrument orchestra should  play is
by Stockhausen and Penderecki "  Huh ?   Modern instruments are "wrong " for Mahler, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev,Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovich,
Copland,Gershwin, Britten, Janacek, Martinu, Szymanowski , Roussel,  Dukas,  Respighi,  etc.  ?   
    Herreweghe has just come out with the first HIP recording of a Mahler symphony with the Champs Elysees orchestra, and appears to be heading for a complete cycle.   David Horowitz gave it a scathingly bad review at classicstoday.com, but I'll withhold judgement on it until I hear it .   I recently heard his HIP Bruckner 4th , and it was pretty good though not nearly as great as other Bruckner 4ths by such giants as karajan, Jochum,Klemperer, Boehm, Wand, and others.
     What will the HIP movement give us next ?   "Authentic" performances  of Ein Heldenleben, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel and Le Sacre Du Printemps, Petrushka and the Firebird ? 
    And the orchestra didn't sound any different form a modern instrument one,so what was the point of the whole thing ?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 21, 2011, 07:49:43 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 21, 2011, 07:32:21 AM
    The HIP performances and recordings I've heard(and I've heard an awful lot of them)

Prove it, list several recordings you've heard, one from each era, and post your impressions of them.

Quote
    For example, Philippe Herreweghe has made the stupefyingly idiotic claim that "the only music the modern instrument orchestra should  play is
by Stockhausen and Penderecki "

Where does this quote come from?  The only place I could find it online was from your smug friends on cmg... this strongly suggests that the quote is fake.  Please give me the source of the quote or take it back.  I would like to see it in full context, this seemss like something deliberately taken out of context.  Bottomline: this smells of dishonesty.

QuoteHerreweghe has just come out with the first HIP recording of a Mahler symphony with the Champs Elysees orchestra, and appears to be heading for a complete cycle.   David Horowitz gave it a scathingly bad review at classicstoday.com, but I'll withhold judgement on it until I hear it .

It's Hurwitz, not Horowitz. ::)  Another HIP Mahler recording that you have not heard attacked by the critic that is on a vindictive mission to attack all HIP romantic era recordings?  Why did you consider this to be ammo in your defense?

QuoteI recently heard his HIP Bruckner 4th , and it was pretty good though not nearly as great as other Bruckner 4ths by such giants as karajan, Jochum,Klemperer, Boehm, Wand, and others.

So not only did you like it, but you did not dismiss it compared to other contemporary recordings, you only value the best recordings on record more.  Awesome. 8)  I must hear this recording!

Quote
    And the orchestra didn't sound any different form a modern instrument one,so what was the point of the whole thing ?

Ha!  I've heard Herreweghe's Faure Requiem and Franck's Symphony and if you really think that then you have lead ears! :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 21, 2011, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 21, 2011, 07:32:21 AM
    You rarely come across an HIP musician who has the honesty and humility to say that well", this latest performance of Whatever I've just done or recorded is my best guess as to how the music might have been performed in the past and what the composer would have wanted ".
    The HIP performances and recordings I've heard(and I've heard an awful lot of them) aren't as annoying to me as the smugness and arrogance of so many of the HIP musicians in interviews and commentary in CD booklets etc.
    For example, Philippe Herreweghe has made the stupefyingly idiotic claim that "the only music the modern instrument orchestra should  play is
by Stockhausen and Penderecki "  Huh ?   Modern instruments are "wrong " for Mahler, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev,Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovich,
Copland,Gershwin, Britten, Janacek, Martinu, Szymanowski , Roussel,  Dukas,  Respighi,  etc.  ?   
    Herreweghe has just come out with the first HIP recording of a Mahler symphony with the Champs Elysees orchestra, and appears to be heading for a complete cycle.   David Horowitz gave it a scathingly bad review at classicstoday.com, but I'll withhold judgement on it until I hear it .   I recently heard his HIP Bruckner 4th , and it was pretty good though not nearly as great as other Bruckner 4ths by such giants as karajan, Jochum,Klemperer, Boehm, Wand, and others.
     What will the HIP movement give us next ?   "Authentic" performances  of Ein Heldenleben, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel and Le Sacre Du Printemps, Petrushka and the Firebird ? 
    And the orchestra didn't sound any different form a modern instrument one,so what was the point of the whole thing ?

So far you've offered quotes from two conductors as emblematic of the mindset for all HIP/PI musicians.  Not that it matters, since there are assinine conductors working in all styles and what they say is of less interest than what the music sounds like from their recordings.  I usually like Herreweghe, but don't listen to much beyond 1830 from him, although his Faure Requiem was very good.

I don't think HIP/PI performances of music beyond the early 19th century nearly as interesting as the earlier periods.  Once you get past the Classical period, I find the basis of the argument begins to lose credibility; but these guys have to extend their reach otherwise they'd run out of music.  So, HIP/PI Mahler or Bruckner?  Not only am I not interested in that venture, I am not much interested in any recordings of those composers by any orchestra or conductors.

I have an idea: why don't you pay less attention to the statements of conductors working in the HIP/PI world and more attention to the music coming from their performances.  I find it much more rewarding to ignore interviews and concentrate on the sound of the recordings.  I almost never read an interview with a conductor.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 21, 2011, 08:06:37 AM
Quote from: Leon on August 21, 2011, 07:56:29 AM
I don't think HIP/PI performances of music beyond the early 19th century nearly as interesting as the earlier periods. 

Yeah I agree with that and would go further.  I think that for every baroque era work that one likes, one owes it to themselves to hear a PI recording because it's so fundamentally different from the MI recodings of old.  For classical era music, the PI recordings are interesting, and usually different but I enjoy MI recordings as much.  But once we get into the very late classical era, early romantic era I start to prefer modern instrument recordings.  By the time we get into composers like Mahler the PI proposition is met with a raised eyebrow.

Superhorn knows this too.  He picks Mahler and Bruckner when the PI Bach recordings would cover all late romantic PI recordings like an avalanche.  But he focuses on it just like anti-modernists focus on the Stockhausen Helicopter Quartet as if it typified all 20th and 21st century music.  And I used this example in particular because I know that he likes modern music, and is probably irritated when the anti-modernites use some strange work to belittle an entire century of music making.  Someday he will realize that is what he is doing. 8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 21, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
Quote from: Leon on August 21, 2011, 07:56:29 AM
I don't think HIP/PI performances of music beyond the early 19th century nearly as interesting as the earlier periods. Once you get past the Classical period, I find the basis of the argument begins to lose credibility; but these guys have to extend their reach otherwise they'd run out of music.  So, HIP/PI Mahler or Bruckner?  Not only am I not interested in that venture, I am not much interested in any recordings of those composers by any orchestra or conductors.

I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  8)) - YES please! :)

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

And in terms of performance: just compare Mahler recordings of Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom got their Mahler knowledge first hand, with later "modern" performances and anyone can figure out that something funny is going on.... The use of portamenti is supposedly "old fashioned" and dated, but you'd better use them (judiciously) in a Mahler performance!  :o And then the pace: Mahler has been performed so slow after WWII that it's simply ridiculous. ::) (As is of course Norrington's assertion that as little vibrato as possible is required.)
So even in Mahler an historically informed approach would be able to do a world of good IMHO.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross over into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition. And it looks like that is what we are going to get - another positive influence of the HIP movement that started with Early and Baroque music: musical performances are becoming more "period conscious" in general.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 21, 2011, 08:57:24 AM
Quote from: ~ Que ~ on August 21, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  8)) - YES please! :)

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

And in terms of performance: just compare Mahler recordings of Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom got their Mahler knowledge first hand, with later "modern" performances and anyone can figure out that something funny is going on.... The use of portamenti is supposedly "old fashioned" and dated, but you'd better use them (judiciously) in a Mahler performance!  :o And then the pace: Mahler has been performed so slow after WWII that it's simply ridiculous. ::) (As is of course Norrington's assertion that as little vibrato as possible is required.)
So even in Mahler an historically informed approach would be able to do a wold of good IMHO.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition. And it looks like that is what we are going to get - another positive influence of the HIP movement that started with Early and Baroque music: musical performances are becoming more "period conscious" in general.

Q

It seems like people are once again mixing up 'period instrument' with 'historically informed'. I agree with the seeming majority here that 'period instruments' are of little import with late Romantic music (although away from orchestral music, I love the Dvorak disk I have played on Dvorak's own piano. What a beautiful sounding instrument!). But there is never a time, from Baroque to Bloch, when you can afford to lose sight of period style if you want to make the most of the music.

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Esterhazy Ensemble - Hob 11 021 Trio in A for Baryton, Viola & Cello Book 1 1st mvmt - Moderato
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Roberto on August 21, 2011, 09:12:59 AM
Quote from: ~ Que ~ on August 21, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  8)) - YES please! :)

From Beethoven's time I enjoy both type performances but before Beethoven I prefer HIP performances on old instruments. Beethoven is an extraordinary composer because his music sounds so well on modern instruments and old instruments also (and in modern performances and HIP performances also). But Mozart's (forte)piano sonatas sounds almost childish on a modern concert grand for me (even in a good performance). But on a fortepiano (in a good performance also): sounds just right and I love these. (Robert Levin has a good video on youtube about the sonatas and differences of pianos.)

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on August 21, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.
It is funny to read about Mengelberg in a HIP topic.  :D But you're absolutely right. I love the extensive rubatos also. Somebody noticed that at the modern era there is a problem: standardized orchestras conducted by standardized conductors. The best HIP players, singers and conductors started to use their imagination based on research. It is a great evolution (ironically back to the past) and I hope it will continue.

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on August 21, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross over into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition.
I hope it will successful.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 21, 2011, 09:19:53 AM
Que, I would like to hear performers tackle Mahler, Bruckner etc in the romantic style of old instead of either the baroque period style or the modern post-Stravinsky style.  I think that there needs to be a great rediscovery of how to play romantic era music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 21, 2011, 09:48:44 AM
Quote from: ~ Que ~ on August 21, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  8)) - YES please! :)

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

And in terms of performance: just compare Mahler recordings of Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom got their Mahler knowledge first hand, with later "modern" performances and anyone can figure out that something funny is going on.... The use of portamenti is supposedly "old fashioned" and dated, but you'd better use them (judiciously) in a Mahler performance!  :o And then the pace: Mahler has been performed so slow after WWII that it's simply ridiculous. ::) (As is of course Norrington's assertion that as little vibrato as possible is required.)
So even in Mahler an historically informed approach would be able to do a wold of good IMHO.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross over into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition. And it looks like that is what we are going to get - another positive influence of the HIP movement that started with Early and Baroque music: musical performances are becoming more "period conscious" in general.

Q

Okay, point taken.  I guess what I am thinking is that Brahms played on a modern piano is not so far from what he would have expected the pianos of his day too be like. 

As far as orchestral music I completely agree that performance practice of the late 19th/early 20th century is something to consider when approaching this music if you want to give a HIP performance.  However, my original statement was that I don't find HIP Romantic recordings as interesting, to me, as older periods.  However, I have a very enjoyable disc of Smithsonian Chamber Players/Kenneth Slowik doing the Mahler Adagietto From Symphony No.5 and Verklakte Nacht using what he claims is late 19th century practice, e.g. judicious portamenti, and it is very interesting.  I would like to hear some PI Brahms chamber works - that I have never experienced and it would be instructive to do so.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mszczuj on August 21, 2011, 10:01:13 AM
The main reason for HIP is not choising of instruments but reading the notes, I suppose.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 21, 2011, 07:32:21 AM
[....]
The HIP performances and recordings I've heard(and I've heard an awful lot of them) aren't as annoying to me as the smugness and arrogance of so many of the HIP musicians in interviews and commentary in CD booklets etc.
[....]

Let's remain silent then about the arrogance of non HIP-PI's, OK? ;)

Or, let's remain silent about artists and musicians in general. :P

Almost any artist thinks his/her way is the right way. And let's be happy with that, because otherwise their performances would be uninspired anyway. What to expect from a concert with musicians who think well actually this is wrong?.

For the rest: I myself am so arrogant ;) that I've come to the point that I find debates like these completely obsolete. At a certain point, certain musicians began to try to perform older music on (copies of) older instruments that the composer had in mind whilst writing it. And they began to read the actual sources of that particular time about performing and interpreting and they tried to give the listener an idea of what it might have sounded like in the early days. Apparantly, after some years of trying the result has been good enough to entertain many music lovers. And now, HIP is just a fact. And, as in non-HIP, and as in any art, there are good and bad artists and performers.

What's new?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mszczuj on August 21, 2011, 10:32:27 AM
And the appropriate question is not how have it sounded but what is it about.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: mszczuj on August 21, 2011, 10:01:13 AM
The main reason for HIP is not choising of instruments but reading the notes, I suppose.

Not entirely.
It's reading the notes of the oldest sources possible, it's reading the contemporary sources about interpretation and it's playing on (copies of) contemporary instruments.
Recently I read about sources concerning the fingering in 17th and 18th keyboard music. The differences with what I've learned during my own piano lessons (and what has become common practice since the 19th century) are much larger than I ever expected. F.i. almost no use of the thumb, using the same finger for successive different notes which makes legato impossible, et cetera. Also things like bows and phrases in many old music sheets have been changed and 'improved' (because of new insights and standards) during the years by copiists and publishers.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
Quote from: mszczuj on August 21, 2011, 10:32:27 AM
And the appropriate question is not how have it sounded but what is it about.

Yes.
One of the appropriate questions.
But this would mean that the listener is also obliged to learn about contemporary and historical background. Because listeners still ask after hearing arias like Ich folge dir gleichfalls mit freudigen Schritten (Bach's Johannes-Passion): what's the point of being happy about the fact that one's friend is taken prisoner?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 10:45:17 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on August 21, 2011, 08:57:24 AM
It seems like people are once again mixing up 'period instrument' with 'historically informed'. I agree with the seeming majority here that 'period instruments' are of little import with late Romantic music (although away from orchestral music, I love the Dvorak disk I have played on Dvorak's own piano. What a beautiful sounding instrument!). But there is never a time, from Baroque to Bloch, when you can afford to lose sight of period style if you want to make the most of the music.

8)
Yes - this is why I have not jumped in. I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not.  The sound of the instruments (and thus which ones picked) will be a purely personal preference. In the extreme, I could care less if my Bach is played on the instruments used during Bach's time, Beethoven's time or our time. But I do care that the conducter (and as an extension the players) has thought about how best to play the piece so that their playing has an emotional, physical and/or psychological impact on me.

Others care more than I do and seem to extraoplate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments. I disagree with that. But we are generally so spoiled for choice that there is something for everyone. And even if one has a preference for a certain sound, if it is played well it probably won't matter much. The music will have an impact on the listener.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 21, 2011, 10:46:22 AM
Quote from: mszczuj on August 21, 2011, 10:32:27 AM
And the appropriate question is not how have it sounded but what is it about.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is it about", but if it is referring to what the music/composer was trying to communicate to the listener, a lot of Baroque and Classical composers weren't particularly communicating anything a la Beethoven, so in those cases, it's just about the playing and sound, I suppose. In any case, the sound is (was?) is as much the part of the allure as is the interpretation, if not more.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 21, 2011, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Leon on August 21, 2011, 09:48:44 AM
However, I have a very enjoyable disc of Smithsonian Chamber Players/Kenneth Slowik doing the Mahler Adagietto From Symphony No.5 and Verklakte Nacht using what he claims is late 19th century practice, e.g. judicious portamenti, and it is very interesting.

Sounds cool Leon, I've added it to my playlist on nml and will let you know I think. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 10:45:17 AM
Yes - this is why I have not jumped in. I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not.  The sound of the instruments (and thus which ones picked) will be a purely personal preference. In the extreme, I could care less if my Bach is played on the instruments used during Bach's time, Beethoven's time or our time. But I do care that the conducter (and as an extension the players) has thought about how best to play the piece so that their playing has an emotional, physical and/or psychological impact on me.

Others care more than I do and seem to extraoplate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments. I disagree with that. But we are generally so spoiled for choice that there is something for everyone. And even if one has a preference for a certain sound, if it is played well it probably won't matter much. The music will have an impact on the listener.

I like your last sentence! :)

But to me, there's a great difference between Bach on a Steinway and Bach on a Zell harpsichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: Leon on August 21, 2011, 09:48:44 AM
I have a very enjoyable disc of Smithsonian Chamber Players/Kenneth Slowik doing the Mahler Adagietto From Symphony No.5 and Verklakte Nacht using what he claims is late 19th century practice, e.g. judicious portamenti, and it is very interesting. 

Quote from: DavidW on August 21, 2011, 10:53:14 AM
Sounds cool Leon, I've added it to my playlist on nml and will let you know I think. :)

I have a DVD on which Chailly is rehearsing with the Concertgebouw Orkest. He used the Mengelberg scores and was also reintroducing portamenti, whilst nodding in agreement "I like that, I like that." :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 21, 2011, 11:04:01 AM
I like your last sentence! :)

But to me, there's a great difference between Bach on a Steinway and Bach on a Zell harpsichord.
That's true. I would agree with you. But we might disagree with which has the greater impact on the listener!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 11:16:48 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 11:12:24 AM
That's true. I would agree with you. But we might disagree with which has the greater impact on the listener!

It depends on the listener, I guess.
But for sure, they both do have at least an impact. ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 21, 2011, 11:26:47 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 10:45:17 AM
Others care more than I do and seem to extraoplate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments.

Not at all. The problem IMO is, that players on modern instruments often have got too much to say.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 21, 2011, 11:39:26 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 21, 2011, 11:26:47 AM
Not at all. The problem IMO is, that players on modern instruments often have got too much to say.

;D

Or .... did, from a certain moment on, the composers have too much to say? Just because they thought they wore so much on their sleeves?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 21, 2011, 11:41:23 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 10:45:17 AM
I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not. 

Others care more than I do and seem to extrapolate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments.

I disagree that is unimportant what instruments are used since this has an impact on many aspects of the performance beyond simply the sound of the instruments.  Of course playing the music well is something all professional musicians have as a priority no matter what constitutes their performance philosophy.  But your second statement includes a rather large assumption, which I know I do not endorse, nor would I think many who consider themselves HIP/PI-ers would agree with.  Everyone I think agrees that both "schools" have much to say about the music, and bring unique experiences to bear on their performances.  But, there are other aspects which create the distinction which is where people come out on different sides of the argument.

For me it is primarily about the sound of the music.  I generally prefer period instruments and historically informed practice for the Baroque and Classical works, but that is not to say that I never listen to Bach on a Steinway, since Tureck's, for example, is one of my favorite recordings of the WTC.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 12:11:19 PM
Quote from: Leon on August 21, 2011, 11:41:23 AM
I disagree that is unimportant what instruments are used since this has an impact on many aspects of the performance beyond simply the sound of the instruments.  Of course playing the music well is something all professional musicians have as a priority no matter what constitutes their performance philosophy.  But your second statement includes a rather large assumption, which I know I do not endorse, nor would I think many who consider themselves HIP/PI-ers would agree with.  Everyone I think agrees that both "schools" have much to say about the music, and bring unique experiences to bear on their performances.  But, there are other aspects which create the distinction which is where people come out on different sides of the argument.

For me it is primarily about the sound of the music.  I generally prefer period instruments and historically informed practice for the Baroque and Classical works, but that is not to say that I never listen to Bach on a Steinway, since Tureck's, for example, is one of my favorite recordings of the WTC.
I'm not sure I get that impression (referring to the bolded above). Looking back on some of this thread, it's hard to see that (then again, the arguments go all over the place here). If it is the case, it seems to me, there would not be so much fundamental disagreement on the HIP/PI issue. But the other aspects you refer to might - what did you have in mind?

I'm also a bit confused - I suspect I've missed a link or disctinction in your argument. You start by saying you disagree that the choice of instrument is unimportant since that impacts so much more than just the sound. Later, you say it is all about the sound. Could you clarify what you meant? It is interesting to see a statement that 'it is all about the sound' - I would not agree with that I think. I can live with sound issues if the interpretations bring enough to the table (up until a certain point anyway). But amazing sound without interpretation would only go so far. Or I have I missed your point?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 21, 2011, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 12:11:19 PM
I'm not sure I get that impression (referring to the bolded above). Looking back on some of this thread, it's hard to see that (then again, the arguments go all over the place here). If it is the case, it seems to me, there would not be so much fundamental disagreement on the HIP/PI issue. But the other aspects you refer to might - what did you have in mind?

I'm also a bit confused - I suspect I've missed a link or disctinction in your argument. You start by saying you disagree that the choice of instrument is unimportant since that impacts so much more than just the sound. Later, you say it is all about the sound. Could you clarify what you meant? It is interesting to see a statement that 'it is all about the sound' - I would not agree with that I think. I can live with sound issues if the interpretations bring enough to the table (up until a certain point anyway). But amazing sound without interpretation would only go so far. Or I have I missed your point?

Well, I am saying two things: 1) the choice of instruments is important for considerations other than sound; 2) according to my personal taste, the sound of the instruments is important since I generally prefer to hear a fortepiano, or other period appropriate instrument, instead of a modern piano, e.g., in Haydn Piano Trios and other Classical period works which feature a keyboard instrument.

While there may be some doctrinaire PI folks who insist that it is not only not to their taste, but incorrect to play Bach on a piano, I am not one of them, and would question the statement that there are many, if any, of that type on GMG.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on August 21, 2011, 12:32:22 PM
Not everyone agrees that both "schools" have valid things to say, or we wouldn't have some folks dissin' HIP/PI.  Other aspects would include pitch and volume--the latter affecting numbers and balance.

There's no inconsistency in saying that sound (timbre, I presume?) is not the only thing affected, but for listener "a" it is the most important thing.

Some of us are just happy that the HIP/PI movement has informed and enriched current practice.  I like the sound of gut strings; others claim they sound like screeching cats.  I also like modern instrument performances that have been informed by historical practice research, using fewer strings, for instance, when period appropriate.  But if someone else likes plush, thick upholstery in home furnishings, and I prefer Danish modern, I see no reason why we can't both enjoy what we like without trying to make the other fellow feel inferior...unless, of course, we are insecure in our own taste and seek somehow to validate it by denying the virtue of diversity and trashing the other fellow's preference.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 21, 2011, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 10:45:17 AM
Yes - this is why I have not jumped in. I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not. 

Of course, excellent playing is very important.  However, I think it matters greatly what instruments are used.  For example, I want nothing to do with baroque music on modern string instruments (sounds awful to me).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: Leon on August 21, 2011, 12:30:30 PM
Well, I am saying two things: 1) the choice of instruments is important for considerations other than sound; 2) according to my personal taste, the sound of the instruments is important since I generally prefer to hear a fortepiano, or other period appropriate instrument, instead of a modern piano, e.g., in Haydn Piano Trios and other Classical period works which feature a keyboard instrument.

While there may be some doctrinaire PI folks who insist that it is not only not to their taste, but incorrect to play Bach on a piano, I am not one of them, and would question the statement that there are many, if any, of that type on GMG.
Ah I see now (along with what DavidRoss wrote) with #1 and #2.

As to the other, I think there are people on both sides who do seem to be claiming that one cannot get as much out of the music via the other instrument choices. In reality, what I think they really mean to say (or imply) is that by using one set of instruments you are sacrificing certain aspects in the sound, balance, etc. but that those instruments more than make up for it in the 'sound world' they bring to the table. Or perhaps exceed what the other set of instruments allow one to bring to the music. Do people here generally agree with that? I don't feel I am saying it well, but the point is can one really 'get' more out the music one way or another? But then music is always a question of balance in this regard (and sacrifice).

After all, I suspect that if you gather a group that performs on period instruments and a group that does not, they will both be able to point to reasons why they chose those instruments (and that sound) and both may feel 'their way' is to be preferred. This ignores the question of period performance, which I put to the side for the moment. Both can rationalize their choices and point to various aspects that support their position. I suspect that emotional issues play a bigger part in this dicussion than we have thus far acknowledged. It may just 'feel righter' to that group.  I know from other discussions that some sounds that irritate me blossom for others. Admittedly - it is a physical and emotional reaction, but we tend to associate it with our emotional response.

And do we listen for the same things I wonder? I guess not, but it rarely occurs to me to think much about this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on August 21, 2011, 12:40:02 PM
Of course, excellent playing is very important.  However, I think it matters greatly what instruments are used.  For example, I want nothing to do with baroque music on modern string instruments (sounds awful to me).
But let me ask then - is this because you start with a premise for how the music should sound or because that is the way you think the music should sound? Or do you just like one sound over another? And this question is not specifically for you - it is for all of us. For myself, I would tell you that I don't have a preconception for how the music should sound (and here I mixing in questions of balance, volume, etc, which are all related). But as I think about it, I think there are certain areas where perhaps I do (and not for all pieces or comosers - ah how fickle we humans can be sometimes), which makes me think that we all have such biases or preconceptions. And who is to say we aren't all of us right? Anyway, an interesting question. Perhaps I am too philosophical tonight!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 21, 2011, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 21, 2011, 01:03:28 PM
But let me ask then - is this because you start with a premise for how the music should sound or because that is the way you think the music should sound? Or do you just like one sound over another? And this question is not specifically for you - it is for all of us. For myself, I would tell you that I don't have a preconception for how the music should sound (and here I mixing in questions of balance, volume, etc, which are all related). But as I think about it, I think there are certain areas where perhaps I do (and not for all pieces or comosers - ah how fickle we humans can be sometimes), which makes me think that we all have such biases or preconceptions. And who is to say we aren't all of us right? Anyway, an interesting question. Perhaps I am too philosophical tonight!

No preconceptions on my part.  When I got back into classical music in my 30's, I was listening to baroque music on modern instruments.  My enjoyment level was decent, nothing more.  Then I tried out the same type of music on period instruments.  For me, the difference was huge.  So, no preconceptions, just a large upward jump in illumination of the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 22, 2011, 07:42:06 AM
    Well, the Herreweghe Bruckner 4th did sound a little different from orchestras such as the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics, the Staatskapelle Dresden and Chicago etc, in that the strings used less vibrato and sounded somewhat thinner than what we're accustomed to, which I wasn't thrilled with, but the brass didn't really sound different. at all.
    But is this exactly what Bruckner's music sounded like in the late 19th century ? I don't know.  One thing is certain ; I'm not going to throw away my Bruckner symphony recordings with Wand,Karajan, Skrowaczewski, Chailly, Tennstedt,  Tintner, Eschenbach, Muti etc away for Herreweghe or any other conductor who purports to give us "authentic" Bruckner. 
    The Herreweghe was interesting to hear, but  I'll stick with the great and established Bruckner conductors.  The later you start trying to apply HIP performance practice and instruments to, the less difference there is between  modern  performances. 
    HIP is a lot like a religion .   It has its true believers,  the fanatics who claim to have a monopoly on the truth ,  such as Norrignton, Herreweghe,Gardiner,  etc,  as well as the  atheist scoffers who contemptuously dismiss the whole movement,such as Perlman and Zukerman, Maazel and the late Klaus Tennstedt,   and the agnostics , who include me. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on August 22, 2011, 08:16:16 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 22, 2011, 07:42:06 AM
the fanatics who claim to have a monopoly on the truth  ... and the agnostics , who include me.

This is absurd, you are the fanatic.  Your own perception of yourself is highly distorted.  You take a narrow pov and don't waiver, and anything that contradicts your assertions you ignore.  You have a religion built around modern instrument performances.  The rest of us only reply because we pity you.  We are trying to save you from your deluded brainwashing.  We want you to see the world of musical performance in color instead of black and white.  You are missing so much, you don't even know.  If only you were open minded and willing to consider perspectives other than your own. :-\
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 22, 2011, 08:30:31 AM
If only I had the issue of BBC Music magazine to quote Gardiner, Suzuki and Koopman who, talking about their Bach Cantata recordings, were quite open about on what basis they chose their instrumentation, voicing and tuning. I remember that they not only accepted their short-comings but more importantly weren't dogmatic about their choices. Of course, them not being Norrington performing Mahler, I assume this argument will fall on deaf ears.

There is nothing wrong with finding fault -- when it is valid -- with one person's recording, but generalising that to represent the entirety of period performance is not justified.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 22, 2011, 08:42:10 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 22, 2011, 07:42:06 AM
HIP is a lot like a religion.

No, I don't think so. HIP is a theoretical, musicological concept on the authenticity of a musical performance, in which scientific means are used to investigate and develop the ways to approximate the original musical context as close as possible. Of course one can reject the value of such a concept or the deny the presumption that such a thing it at all possible, but it is more than just ideology.

I think the controversy lies in the fact that in assuming there are ways to improve upon the authenticity of a musical performance, the inevitable conclusion is that there are also less authentic performances... ::) Of course I could add that a less authentic performance is not necessarily of less musical/ artistic value (which I mean BTW), but I guess this is a bitter pill to swallow for some.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on August 23, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
   I'm a fanatic about the issue of period vs modern instruments ? How can you say this?  I'm not fanatic in the least bit.
      As I've said  previously, I have enjoyed a fair number of period instrument recordings and live performances very much.
    I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to
  sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP. 
   I call them as I hear them .   Just because I've heard the Beethoven symphony recordings of Norrignton and Gardiner etc is no reason to dismiss 
  the  Beethoven recordings  of  the same by  such giants as Furtwangler,Klemperer,  Karajan, Jochum,  Solti,  Bernstein,  Walter,
  and others.   But if the emperor has no clothes . . . . .
      It  was certainly an interesting idea in theory to hear what the music of Bach,Handel,  Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven etc MIGHT have sounded in the past,  but this does not in any way invalidate performances on modern instruments, "inauthentic" as they are.
    And remember - when you hear a studio recording of a Beethoven symphony by Gardiner or Norrington etc, you are hearing an IDEALIZED  recreation of the music.  These performances may actually be totally INAUTHENTIC, because they are no doubt much better played than the performances Beethoven experienced in his lifetime,with his diminished hearing.
     From all reports, the earliest Beethoven symphony performances in Vienna were pretty awful.  The musicians had woefully inadequate rehearsal time, and the music was  not only extremely strange and baffling to them, but extremely difficult to play.  Probably as difficult for them as the orchestral works of Elliott Carter a re for orchestras today.  But  when an orchestra today plays a work by Carter,  it gets much more rehearsal time than the orchestras of Beethoven's day got. 
    If we could go back in a time machine and hear the first performances of these symphonies, they would sound distressingly ragged and out of tune to us.   Today, youth orchestras play them much better !
   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on August 23, 2011, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 23, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
   I'm a fanatic about the issue of period vs modern instruments ? How can you say this?  I'm not fanatic in the least bit.
      As I've said  previously, I have enjoyed a fair number of period instrument recordings and live performances very much.
    I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to
  sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP. 
   I call them as I hear them .   Just because I've heard the Beethoven symphony recordings of Norrignton and Gardiner etc is no reason to dismiss 
  the  Beethoven recordings  of  the same by  such giants as Furtwangler,Klemperer,  Karajan, Jochum,  Solti,  Bernstein,  Walter,
  and others.   But if the emperor has no clothes . . . . .
      It  was certainly an interesting idea in theory to hear what the music of Bach,Handel,  Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven etc MIGHT have sounded in the past,  but this does not in any way invalidate performances on modern instruments, "inauthentic" as they are.
    And remember - when you hear a studio recording of a Beethoven symphony by Gardiner or Norrington etc, you are hearing an IDEALIZED  recreation of the music.  These performances may actually be totally INAUTHENTIC, because they are no doubt much better played than the performances Beethoven experienced in his lifetime,with his diminished hearing.
     From all reports, the earliest Beethoven symphony performances in Vienna were pretty awful.  The musicians had woefully inadequate rehearsal time, and the music was  not only extremely strange and baffling to them, but extremely difficult to play.  Probably as difficult for them as the orchestral works of Elliott Carter a re for orchestras today.  But  when an orchestra today plays a work by Carter,  it gets much more rehearsal time than the orchestras of Beethoven's day got. 
    If we could go back in a time machine and hear the first performances of these symphonies, they would sound distressingly ragged and out of tune to us.   Today, youth orchestras play them much better !
   

I have to say that I am baffled by this post.  I seriously doubt what HIP performers are after is to recreate the "authenticity" of  Beethoven's earliest performances including ragged playing due to insufficient rehearsal time.  Also, I am not aware of many, if any, proponents of HIP/PI think that using their approach is "THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past" and  "sneer" at other interpretations.  If this is an accurate portrayal of the majority of HIP/PI practitioners, then I join you in criticizing them.

But, what you describe has not been my experience.  First, on  this forum the attitudes you describe are not evident, nor would I assume evident except among a small number of cranks.

What you seem to be doing is getting yourself all worked up fighting with strawmen.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 23, 2011, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Leon on August 23, 2011, 04:03:50 PM

What you seem to be doing is getting yourself all worked up fighting with strawmen.

By all appearances, they are beating the crap out of him, too... :-\

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Van Swieten Trio - Hob 15_18 Trio in A for Keyboard & Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on August 23, 2011, 05:36:56 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 23, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
   I'm a fanatic about the issue of period vs modern instruments ? How can you say this?  I'm not fanatic in the least bit.
      As I've said  previously, I have enjoyed a fair number of period instrument recordings and live performances very much.
    I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to
  sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP. 
   I call them as I hear them .       

As do I and every member of the board. ::)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on August 23, 2011, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on August 23, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP.

As do Gardiner, Harnoncourt,  Herreweghe, Bruggen, Koopman et. al. who have performed and still perform Romantic, Classical (and sometimes even Baroque) repertoire with modern orchestras.

QuoteAnd remember - when you hear a studio recording of a Beethoven symphony by Gardiner or Norrington etc, you are hearing an IDEALIZED  recreation of the music.

That's what is usually meant when one says "trying to recreate the composer's intentions". The composer obviously didn't want  a bad performance, did he?

QuoteThese performances may actually be totally INAUTHENTIC, because they are no doubt much better played than the performances Beethoven experienced in his lifetime,with his diminished hearing.
     From all reports, the earliest Beethoven symphony performances in Vienna were pretty awful.  The musicians had woefully inadequate rehearsal time, and the music was  not only extremely strange and baffling to them, but extremely difficult to play.     

Just FYI: a recreation has been attempted even of that! Check out the documentary "Eroica".

But to repeat what Leon said, it's not right to think that HIPsters want to recreate events surrounding the performance to the tiniest detail rather than the music in its intended form. (And not everyone is saying to play otherwise is wrong.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on August 24, 2011, 05:49:40 AM
Well, I'm far from an expert on any of this.  And I'm naïve enough to believe that if a composer wrote a flute solo against a theme in the strings, he meant it to be heard rather than drowned out by a sting section four times larger than he imagined.  And whether he intended it or not, I still like hearing it.  Thus I value "transparency" regardless of relative HIPness or PIssiness of instrumentation and interpretive stance and I favor contemporary conductors who likewise value it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Chaszz on August 24, 2011, 03:59:06 PM
I have just read the last page or two here and not the preceding 21, but many seem to be discussing the sound. My objection to some HIP performances is not the sound or instruments per se, but the very fast tempi. I think especially Bach is not well served by allegros that rush past like jet planes, where the triplets or ornaments are swallowed up in the jet streams so they cannot really be heard and the notes cannot be distinguished, but blur one into another. Two allegros that in my mind are often ill-served in this respect are the first movement of the E Major Violin Concerto and the Cum Sancto Spiritu of the B Minor Mass. Some of the commentaries on tempi I have read on the web by HIP musicologists agree there is no consistent evidence that historically tempi were this fast. Though speeding things up is in general agreement with the trend toward more transparency and lightness as against the ponderousness of the Romantic-influenced Baroque interpretations of the mid-20th century, I think in the case of very fast tempi the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. I do not think Bach would have preferred his triplets or sixteenths to blur into one another in the ear.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 25, 2011, 09:47:50 AM
Quote from: Chaszz on August 24, 2011, 03:59:06 PM
I have just read the last page or two here and not the preceding 21, but many seem to be discussing the sound. My objection to some HIP performances is not the sound or instruments per se, but the very fast tempi. I think especially Bach is not well served by allegros that rush past like jet planes, where the triplets or ornaments are swallowed up in the jet streams so they cannot really be heard and the notes cannot be distinguished, but blur one into another. Two allegros that in my mind are often ill-served in this respect are the first movement of the E Major Violin Concerto and the Cum Sancto Spiritu of the B Minor Mass. Some of the commentaries on tempi I have read on the web by HIP musicologists agree there is no consistent evidence that historically tempi were this fast. Though speeding things up is in general agreement with the trend toward more transparency and lightness as against the ponderousness of the Romantic-influenced Baroque interpretations of the mid-20th century, I think in the case of very fast tempi the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. I do not think Bach would have preferred his triplets or sixteenths to blur into one another in the ear.

Or having babychild Jesus rapidly rocked to sickness in his manger during the Weihnachtsoratorium-aria "Schlafe, mein Liebster, genieße der Ruh'" .... ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 04:59:42 AM
That was a clever way for the interviewer to insert his own opinion in the piece and not even provide that of Pinnock.  Shameful.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Cato on September 18, 2011, 05:04:26 AM
It is impossible to prove what I sense about this topic, but I suspect that our deceased composers - especially those from the 18th-century - would all welcome the modern symphony orchestra playing their works.

However, depending on their era, they might also be appalled by the tuning used to play their works.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 05:25:28 AM
I have a feeling that they would enjoy a larger sound... but not if it is at expense of hearing certain instruments (that would be drowned out) especially if they slaved over those passages.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lethevich on September 18, 2011, 05:28:10 AM
After the novelty wears off, they would possibly wish to revise or re-write the music to better suit such an extended ensemble, however...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 05:41:13 AM
Considering how much some of these composers wrote... I don't think it's feasible.  And the idea would be bizarre to them because we're talking about the time where novelty wins.  You must constantly have a new piece of music to perform.  People didn't want to keep hearing the same old stuff.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on September 18, 2011, 07:36:06 AM
Quote from: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 05:41:13 AM
Considering how much some of these composers wrote... I don't think it's feasible.  And the idea would be bizarre to them because we're talking about the time where novelty wins.  You must constantly have a new piece of music to perform.  People didn't want to keep hearing the same old stuff.

True to some extent, but Bach, for example, did (supposedly) rewrite some of his violin concerti for harpsichord solo so as to please his employers; and he did re-use material between sacred and secular works, so it's not entirely out of the question.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2011, 07:42:42 AM
There is no debate. The debate was 25-30 years ago. What there is now is a fait accompli which people can either take or leave. I haven't a care in the world about it.   0:)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on September 18, 2011, 07:58:44 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on September 18, 2011, 07:42:42 AM
There is no debate. The debate was 25-30 years ago. What there is now is a fait accompli which people can either take or leave. I haven't a care in the world about it.   0:)
Aye.

And, happily, the HIPsters influence has been pervasive enough that today I suspect there are few performers untouched by it, and all for the better.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 08:32:57 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on September 18, 2011, 07:36:06 AM
True to some extent, but Bach, for example, did (supposedly) rewrite some of his violin concerti for harpsichord solo so as to please his employers; and he did re-use material between sacred and secular works, so it's not entirely out of the question.

That's true, some of the works they might rewrite.  I wouldn't see Bach rewriting his cantatas, but I could see him rewriting his passions or his concertos.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on September 18, 2011, 09:03:43 AM
Virgil Fox has been dead for over thirty years. So when he says "current", it's not 2011 -- not even 1990 for that matter!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 09:05:47 AM
Virgil Fox lol!  What tripe from a hack.  And your quote was taken out of context Toucan... he was railing against traditional performers like E. Power Biggs, not the HIP movement! :D

As for the Kirkpatrick quote, he was a champion of the HIP movement.  He was warning against misusing the guiding principles.  Context is everything!

Do you have anything else Toucan?  If not, James is missing you in the Stockhausen thread. >:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on September 18, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
Virgil Fox did a nice job in creating enthusiasm for Bach and other classical organ music with f.i. his concerts for children.
However, the story goes that, when in Europe, he could not produce any decent sound from whatever historic organ there.

But of course this could be blamed to the instruments. :P

Personally, I rate Edward Power Biggs much higher.

Oh, btw: HIP isn't a movement of pedants. Just saying.
Pedants can be found anywhere.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on September 18, 2011, 12:53:11 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 08:45:49 AM
Hitlerites and Leninists may want to stiffle debate, but opinion cannot be stiffled; Ralph Kirkpatrick:

Virgil Fox:
Don't strike a match or those strawmen will go up like...strawmen!

As for
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 09:36:53 AM
(http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m465/Phil1_05/BoulezChristie.jpg)
surely you don't suggest that anyone should take French intellectualizing seriously? Especially not in the context of promoting magazine sales?!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 18, 2011, 01:27:23 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 01:05:25 PM
Intelligent people will always take Boulez and Christie seriously, as they are serious professionals and intelligent men as well as good musicians.
In fact, what is not taken seriously are people who come to internet forums only to denigrate talented people: that is why the books and magazines in which the words of Christie and Boulez are recorded get more attention than said internet forums. Much more.

With all your pontificating, you still haven't reported your personal reaction to period instrument performances.  Also, you happen to be one of the members most frequently engaged in denigration. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on September 18, 2011, 01:40:20 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 01:05:25 PM
Intelligent people will always take Boulez and Christie seriously, as they are serious professionals and intelligent men as well as good musicians.
In fact, what is not taken seriously are people who come to internet forums only to denigrate talented people: that is why the books and magazines in which the words of Christie and Boulez are recorded get more attention than said internet forums. Much more.
Taking Boulez (a Frenchman) and Christie (an American) seriously as great musicians is not at all the same as taking the intellectual posturing of French journals seriously. And if you think to wound my fragile ego by suggesting that I'm not intelligent, then I must ask whether you really intended to reveal so much about yourself?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 01:05:25 PM
Intelligent people will always take Boulez and Christie seriously, as they are serious professionals and intelligent men as well as good musicians.

I know that you can't be saying that serious, intelligent people are never prejudiced or wrong in their assumptions. Even you would not be so bold. So what are you saying then? That is a long reach just to make David look bad.   ::)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 18, 2011, 02:38:25 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
Well, in your rush to personal attack you have failed to respond to the critique I have made of the period Instrument performances.

Give me a break.  You never did critique period instrument performances, just the dogma coming from a small minority.

As for me, I have no reason to defend period instrument performances.  With little exception, I love them and feel secure about it.  There are plenty of folks who don't care for them much, and that's fine with me.  There's room for a wide range of personal preferences.

Fortunately, regardless of your views, HIP is now an established part of the classical music landscape and will likely remain that way.  So you might as well accept this fact.  Perhaps it's time for you to dump on Shostakovich again, a composer who has been performed by hundreds of highly respected conductors and musicians.  And we all know how highly you think of "serious professionals".  You're such a joke!  Go home and come back after an injection of common sense.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 18, 2011, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 02:49:25 PM
Obviously there would be no point in prescribing any dose of class to this moron: his affliction is incurable and it is indeed telling that upholders of mediocrity - be it Shostakovich, period instruments, or Naxos - are congenitally incapable of defending their point of view without systematic abuse.

Right, I forgot that you also dumped on Naxos.  Let's face it - you're a dumper who is desperate to denigrate well-respected musical sources to call attention to yourself.  That's too bad; although you do seem to possess a decent knowledge of music, you piss it all away with your low self-esteem and tendency to criticize the same traits that you regularly display on this board.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 18, 2011, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 03:42:22 PM
The debate over period instrument performance has centered around two contentions:
1/ that in the absence of recordings dating back to early modern centuries, we cannot have any clear sense of how the music of those days sounded to contemporaries;

Do you prefer baroque keyboard music played on the modern piano?  I'm trying to get an idea of whether you like the sound of period instruments.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 18, 2011, 04:00:01 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 03:42:22 PM
The debate over period instrument performance has centered around two contentions:
1/ that in the absence of recordings dating back to early modern centuries, we cannot have any clear sense of how the music of those days sounded to contemporaries;

This argument is well known to be invalid.  We do have a clear sense of how the music sounded back then, it's simply not known with absolute certainty.  There is a huge gap between "absolute certainty" and "complete lack of knowledge" pretending that gap is small doesn't actually shrink it.

Quote2/ that even if these recordings existed, ignoring, quelling, pre-empting the natural evolution of musical performance & instrument-making is not the wisest path for musicians to borrow

Why is that folly?  What makes perfect sense to you, doesn't for me.  FYI there is nothing "natural" about the transformation of musical instruments because they were built by man and then built differently by other men to play different music.  It's not as if instruments got out into the wild and natural selection occurred! :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2011, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 03:42:22 PM
The debate over period instrument performance has centered around two contentions:
1/ that in the absence of recordings dating back to early modern centuries, we cannot have any clear sense of how the music of those days sounded to contemporaries;

Why rely on something as subjective as recordings (listen to some from the early 20th century and you will know what I mean. Modern experts can't even agree on what they were playing)  when we actually have the instruments that were used back then, and reams of instructional books written by people that knew what they were talking about, since in the main, they actually wrote the music. as a point of debate and lynchpin of a movement, that verges on retarded.  And since you are one that requires minute spelling out of subtleties, I am not calling you retarded (unless that is your original argument).

Quote2/ that even if these recordings existed, ignoring, quelling, pre-empting the natural evolution of musical performance & instrument-making is not the wisest path for musicians to borrow

And with the exception of some mouth-foaming disciples from 25-30 years ago, you would be hard pressed to turn up a credible representative of the early music movement who feels now that your so-called 'evolved' music can't possibly coexist with period performance. As I tried, in a friendly sort of way, to tell you earlier today, there is no debate really. Except on the part of Internet forumites with all their attendant adjectives. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 18, 2011, 04:04:35 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 18, 2011, 03:56:44 PM
I'm not toucan, but that is one of the reasons I don't particularly care HIP. Mainly, that plinking. I find that really irritating. I don't mind the orchestral works done in that manner though.

I appreciate your response.  Often, I find that people who don't care much for HIP dislike the sound of the instruments.  Unfortunately, toucan does not appear to want to address this crucial aspect of HIP performance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on September 18, 2011, 05:19:48 PM
Is Newman back with a new user name and a new axe to grind?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 04:51:38 PM
It is precisely this heavy resort to the textbooks of the past that most certainly condemns the HIP movement; it is indeed a movement of pedants, who try too closely to follow the textbooks of the past instead of performing with educated spontaneity

In this junction I might bring back an old truth, one that does not apply only to HIP. Though transmitting rules is the purpose of the schools, teachers who stick too narrowly to the rules and judge students in terms of their adherence to the rules instead of the talent with which they use - or break! - them - are generally considered bad teachers - just as students who can do no better than apply the rules without imagination are generally thought of as mediocre (relative to a Debussy, for example, who got scolded by his teachers, etc)

What textbooks have the great composers authored? An occasional one - Rameau, Schoenberg, Messiaen may have authored musicological treatise - but textbooks? So, when we consult textbooks, it is the opinions of dime-a-dozen music teachers we are getting and are they the best possible guide into the creations of genius? THe HIP movement is indeed an historical error, not only because they stick too narrowly to books, but also because the books they use were not written by the best musicians of former days.

OK, well, here is a very small list. There isn't a minor personage in the group (and that is not dependent on what a modern person may know about them):

Johann Joachim Quantz: Although Quantz wrote many pieces of music, mainly for the flute (including around 300 flute concertos), he is best known today as the author of Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (1752) (titled On Playing the Flute in English), a treatise on flute playing. It is a valuable source of reference regarding performance practice and flute technique in the 18th century.

Carl Philip Emanuel Bach: His publication, An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments was a definitive work on technique. It broke with rigid tradition in allowing, even encouraging the use of the thumbs, and became the standard on finger technique for keyboards. The essay basically lays out the fingering for each chord and some chord sequences. The techniques are largely followed to this day. The first part of the Essay has a chapter explaining the various embellishments in work of the period, e.g., trills, turns, mordents, etc. The second part presents Emanuel Bach's ideas on the art of figured bass and counterpoint, where he gives preference to the contrapuntal approach to harmonization over the newer ideas of Rameau's theory of harmony and root progressions. Emanuel Bach's work was influential on, among others, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

Johann Joseph Fux:  (1660 – 13 February 1741) was an Austrian composer, music theorist and pedagogue of the late Baroque era. He is most famous as the author of Gradus ad Parnassum, a treatise on counterpoint, which has become the single most influential book on the Palestrina style of Renaissance polyphony. Almost all modern courses on Renaissance counterpoint, a mainstay of college music curricula, are indebted in some degree to this work by Fux. Beethoven studied Fux. Clementi wrote a major teaching work called Gradus ad parnassum based on Fux that was used right through the 19th century.

Leopold Mozart: Mozart is best known today as the father and teacher of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and for his violin textbook Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule.

Johann Albrechtsberger: Probably the most valuable service he rendered to music was in his theoretical works. In 1790 he published at Leipzig a treatise on composition, of which a third edition appeared in 1821. A collection of his writings on harmony, in three volumes, was published under the care of his pupil Ignaz von Seyfried (1776–1841) in 1826. An English version of this was published by Novello in 1855. His compositional style derives from Johann Joseph Fux's counterpoint, who was Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral 1713-1741, a position that Albrechtsberger would hold 52 years later.

Despite the obvious fact that I only listed the academic works of these men, they also produced among them a huge body of musical works. They were primarily working musicians who wrote books in order to teach others the importance of basic elements of style. The fact that you condemn teachers is sad, in my view. If people didn't teach and write about it, we would constantly be relearning the basics in each generation and never advance. You can't continue to build when you don't know what came before. In point of fact, I have found the most inflexible and unyielding people to be critics, not teachers.

So there's a start for you. Lots more where that came from, but it is Sunday evening and I just don't feel up to hunting it down tonight. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2011, 05:50:46 PM
Quote from: toucan on September 18, 2011, 05:40:42 PM
Gurn, before you give us more names of composers who have not been recognized as peers of Mozart and Haydn, how about doing your job as a mod and deal appropriately with immature and abusive posts of James and DavidRoss? It isn't just that that they make further conversation basically impossible; they deter most guests from participating in this site - thereby damaging the commercial purpose implied in the linking of it to Amazon.

I'm sure that once we set a tone of mature discussion then the others will be pleased to give us some space. They aren't mean, just reactionary. :)

However, that doesn't constitute an escape route. Nor does the fact that you apparently haven't got to the point of dealing with the simple fact that Mozart and Haydn, nor any other composer, is not sui generis, but is totally a product of their learning and relationships with each other. I can assure you without the slightest reservation that Haydn and Mozart (and all other composers) knew and respected these men not only as their peers, but in some cases as their superiors. Don't be fooled by 19th Century Romantic rhetoric, in the 18th century everyone knew who was who, and where credit was due for the state of music at the time. FYI, C.P.E. Bach was easily the peer of his father. And 10X more famous. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Cato on September 18, 2011, 06:19:20 PM
I once had a mini-debate with somebody who made the following analogy: listening to period instruments play a c. 250 year-old work in (what we believe to be) the style of the day is similar to seeing e.g. the Sistine Chapel right after it was painted by Michelangelo rather than the faded and cracked "version" we see today.

That sounds good at first, until one pursues the analogy to its logical conclusion: would not the musical equivalent be to hear the 250 year-old work played on instruments damaged and worn out by 250 years of use and with a score damaged by e.g. soot, water, and fire?

While there is a case to be made for hearing a work the way its composer would have heard it performed, I still think that Bach
and company would prefer to hear their works played on e.g. a modern Steinway rather than a clavichord. 

Yes, agreed, they would have composed differently, if they had known about the Steinway or a modern symphony orchestra.   

0:)  But they didn't! 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on September 18, 2011, 08:07:09 PM
All this debate recalls me a question formulated during a discussion on the Bach-cantatas site:

QuoteAre there even any convenient terms or acronyms for various forms of "non-HIP"? Historically Clueless Performance? Wild Guesswork Performance? Whatever Feels Right Performance? Whatever My Personal Hero Did Must Be Right Performance? Didn't Do My Homework So I'll Wing It Performance? Anything Goes Performance? History Is Irrelevant Performance? Whatever They Did On My Favorite Recording That's What I Must Imitate Performance? Just The Facts Ma'am Performance? What My Teacher's Teacher's Teacher's Teacher's Teacher Did Because He Was Beethoven Performance?) OK, I'm getting carried away here, but all those types of performance do exist, even if there aren't convenient labels for them. And there are many different flavors of Historically Informed Performance, also...

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Articulation.htm

8)


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 04:20:34 AM
Quote from: Cato on September 18, 2011, 06:19:20 PM
I once had a mini-debate with somebody who made the following analogy: listening to period instruments play a c. 250 year-old work in (what we believe to be) the style of the day is similar to seeing e.g. the Sistine Chapel right after it was painted by Michelangelo rather than the faded and cracked "version" we see today.

That sounds good at first, until one pursues the analogy to its logical conclusion: would not the musical equivalent be to hear the 250 year-old work played on instruments damaged and worn out by 250 years of use and with a score damaged by e.g. soot, water, and fire?

While there is a case to be made for hearing a work the way its composer would have heard it performed, I still think that Bach
and company would prefer to hear their works played on e.g. a modern Steinway rather than a clavichord. 

Yes, agreed, they would have composed differently, if they had known about the Steinway or a modern symphony orchestra.   

0:)  But they didn't!

I have never had an argument with you, and never want to have. However, I am unable to let this pass without pointing out that it is so logically absurd that it is undeserving of what I know to be a very fine mind. You state that as though it were a fact, when it is only your opinion that A> modern instruments sound 'better' (whatever that means) and B> Composers from a different time and with a different set of aesthetics would agree with you!  Please don't go down that road, you're better than that. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on September 19, 2011, 04:58:15 AM
Talk about something we can not ever know: that composers from the 18th century would probably prefer to hear their works on modern instruments.    :)

That is not a question I care about.  For me it is simple, I like the way HIP/PI performances sound.  I also like modern instrument performances for some of this repertory.  There is no debate in my mind, it all comes down to what someone prefers to hear.

;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 05:01:51 AM
Quote from: James on September 19, 2011, 04:56:53 AM
And it's not a matter of either it being just one way or the other in a hardline fashion. There is a wide spectrum .. and there is mediation.

Thank you. Why does that seem so hard to grasp, I wonder. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: chasmaniac on September 19, 2011, 05:03:56 AM
Quote from: Leon on September 19, 2011, 04:58:15 AM
For me it is simple, I like the way HIP/PI performances sound.  I also like modern instrument performances for some of this repertory.  There is no debate in my mind, it all comes down to what someone prefers to hear.
;)

+1

I'll try almost any approach. If I like what I hear, I'll listen again, perhaps again and again. If I don't like it, I shelve it or give it away. No theory required.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 05:49:45 AM
Cato I don't like that analogy.  The painting is right there.  It might age, but it is still the same painting.  The original performances of great music in the past are heard once and then lost forever.  Performances today of those great works are more like painting what they think the Sistine Chapel would look like if only they could see it.  The modern instrument performances are more like choosing paint not available at the time.  You might think that the new colors like striking and vivid, but it's not the same thing anymore.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on September 19, 2011, 05:55:44 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on September 19, 2011, 05:01:51 AM
Thank you. Why does that seem so hard to grasp, I wonder. :)
A small but significant portion of the population is trapped in "black & white thinking" and cannot make fine judgments or escape their own narrowly rigid patterns of thought to embrace new and more flexible conceptions--those with Asperger Syndrome or other autism spectrum disorders, for instance, or suffering borderline or narcissistic personality disorders.  Many others among us have similar tendencies toward dichotomous thinking but not to the extreme associated with such well known pathologies.

Once we recognize the difference between a camel and a horse, we stop expecting the former to win the Kentucky Derby.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Cato on September 19, 2011, 06:07:13 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on September 19, 2011, 04:20:34 AM
I have never had an argument with you, and never want to have. However, I am unable to let this pass without pointing out that it is so logically absurd that it is undeserving of what I know to be a very fine mind. You state that as though it were a fact, when it is only your opinion that A> modern instruments sound 'better' (whatever that means) and B> Composers from a different time and with a different set of aesthetics would agree with you!

C> Please don't go down that road, you're better than that. :)

8)

Yes, I have stated that this is indeed my opinion!  I have used "I think" and "I believe" here!   ;)

A. I have heard works played on instruments from earlier centuries, and to me they sound rather rough, despite the best efforts of the musicians.  "Better" therefore are modern instruments, I believe. 

And obviously a Stradivarius stands in opposition to that idea!   8)   (Obviously I am thinking of improvements in e.g. the brass.)

B. Again, I think e.g. Mozart, were we to abduct him in Bill and Ted's Excellent Telephone-Booth Time Machine, would love the modern symphony orchestra.  Certainly it is possible his reaction would be horror and would find the idea bloated and perverse!

C.  I am not going down any such road whatsoever!   $:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Cato on September 19, 2011, 06:16:27 AM
Quote from: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 05:49:45 AM
Cato I don't like that analogy.  The painting is right there.  It might age, but it is still the same painting.  The original performances of great music in the past are heard once and then lost forever.  Performances today of those great works are more like painting what they think the Sistine Chapel would look like if only they could see it.  The modern instrument performances are more like choosing paint not available at the time.  You might think that the new colors like striking and vivid, but it's not the same thing anymore.

Yes, I did not like it either!  The analogy breaks down.  That is the problem with restorations: how much will be left of the original in a restored painting?

There is an old problem from Logic 101: "This is my grandfather's ax.  I replaced the blade recently, and my father replaced the handle.  This is my grandfather's ax."

One could speculate that in 500 years, not one speck of Michelangelo's paint will be left on the Sistine Chapel ceiling: it will all be replaced with paint from restorations throughout the centuries.

Its Essence (the images of the painting) will still be visible, but the Substance will be gone. 

With music things are quite different: it will also not be "the same thing any more."  Which one do we want to choose?  Fortunately we have multiple choices.   0:) 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
Quote from: Cato on September 19, 2011, 06:07:13 AM

A. I have heard works played on instruments from earlier centuries, and to me they sound rather rough, despite the best efforts of the musicians.  "Better" therefore are modern instruments, I believe. 

And obviously a Stradivarius stands in opposition to that idea!   8)   (Obviously I am thinking of improvements in e.g. the brass.)

They don't sound better to me, and it can't be just me else there wouldn't be anyone to cater to my measly $1000/year. A Mozart piano sonata played on a modern Steinway makes me turn off the music player, it is the audible definition of aural bloat. Actually, most Strads conform to your idea of an instrument rather than mine, since the 19th century saw to their wholesale destruction pretty well. :-\

QuoteB. Again, I think e.g. Mozart, were we to abduct him in Bill and Ted's Excellent Telephone-Booth Time Machine, would love the modern symphony orchestra.  Certainly it is possible his reaction would be horror and would find the idea bloated and perverse!

Since we are trading perceptions, I would certainly agree with your second possibility. Instruments that were designed to do justice to Wagner are monumental overkill when it comes to any Mozart and most Haydn. They weren't taking into account those potentialities of the orchestra; my own reaction is horror, with a strong dose of bloat and perversion to prop it up. :)


QuoteC.  I am not going down any such road whatsoever!   $:)

OK, you fooled me there then. I use an internal metaphor of a road to stand for the pursuit of an idea. I have to say, you seemed to me to be at least on the entrance ramp.... :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Cato on September 19, 2011, 07:07:09 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on September 19, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
They don't sound better to me, and it can't be just me else there wouldn't be anyone to cater to my measly $1000/year. A Mozart piano sonata played on a modern Steinway makes me turn off the music player, it is the audible definition of aural bloat. Actually, most Strads conform to your idea of an instrument rather than mine, since the 19th century saw to their wholesale destruction pretty well. :-\

Since we are trading perceptions, I would certainly agree with your second possibility. Instruments that were designed to do justice to Wagner are monumental overkill when it comes to any Mozart and most Haydn. They weren't taking into account those potentialities of the orchestra; my own reaction is horror, with a strong dose of bloat and perversion to prop it up. :)


OK, you fooled me there then. I use an internal metaphor of a road to stand for the pursuit of an idea. I have to say, you seemed to me to be at least on the entrance ramp.... :D

8)

Wow!  No, that would not be my reaction at all, as you see.  I in general do not like the tinnier and tinier sounds of clavichords and harpsichords, with some exception.

Although I once composed a (comic) ballet called Ship of Fools which used among other things a battery of krummhorns and 9 harpsichords.   :o    ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on September 19, 2011, 07:21:24 AM
David Hurwitz has taken a hatchet to yet another HIP CD (http://classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=13506), using adjectives like "dessicated," "asthmatic," and "anorexic" to describe the ensembles sound.

But the surprising part of the review is this:

"After reviewing the last installment in this evidently ongoing series, I received the following note from conductor Michael Willens: 'Since you are clearly completely unimpressed with what we do, it might make more sense for you to jerk off at home rather then [sic] in public. I am sure that the classical music community and CD buying public will be most thankful.'"
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 07:49:34 AM
Quote from: Cato on September 19, 2011, 07:07:09 AM
Wow!  No, that would not be my reaction at all, as you see.  I in general do not like the tinnier and tinier sounds of clavichords and harpsichords, with some exception.

Which of course is the root of the dichotomy. I want you to be able to listen to what you prefer to hear, and I want to listen to what I like without having to defend it all the time. If I can just make a point to an ace grammarian, adjectives are the worst part of any conversation on this topic. Hard not to use them, but they are inflammatory enough to cause all this dissension. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sergeant Rock on September 19, 2011, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on September 19, 2011, 06:28:51 AMInstruments that were designed to do justice to Wagner are monumental overkill when it comes to any Mozart and most Haydn.

Szell and Casadeus's Mozart is "monumental overkill"???  Szell's Haydn is "monumental overkill"???  You have some strange ears, Gurn  ;D


Sarge
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on September 19, 2011, 07:57:17 AM
The piano was never designed to do justice to Wagner.  Heavy artillery is needed for that ; )
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: Brian on September 19, 2011, 07:21:24 AM
David Hurwitz has taken a hatchet to yet another HIP CD (http://classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=13506), using adjectives like "dessicated," "asthmatic," and "anorexic" to describe the ensembles sound.

But the surprising part of the review is this:

"After reviewing the last installment in this evidently ongoing series, I received the following note from conductor Michael Willens: 'Since you are clearly completely unimpressed with what we do, it might make more sense for you to jerk off at home rather then [sic] in public. I am sure that the classical music community and CD buying public will be most thankful.'"

Brian that was so unprofessional of Hurwitz to publicly share a private note.  Classics Today lacks integrity.  When they have a critic that doesn't appreciate or understand an entire culture, they should assign a different critic to review the recordings coming from that group. :-\
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 08:09:49 AM
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 19, 2011, 07:55:48 AM
Szell and Casadeus's Mozart is "monumental overkill"???  Szell's Haydn is "monumental overkill"???  You have some strange ears, Gurn  ;D


Sarge

Strange but happy, that's my motto. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 08:12:31 AM
Quote from: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 08:09:13 AM
Brian that was so unprofessional of Hurwitz to publicly share a private note.  Classics Today lacks integrity.  When they have a critic that doesn't appreciate or understand an entire culture, they should assign a different critic to review the recordings coming from that group. :-\

Very true, but also the sentiment of the note is excellent. Hurwitz has absolutely no credibility, at least with the PI community, so why keep him doing it? I hadn't thought of him as a jerk-off, per se, only a douche bag. But then, I lack imagination sometimes. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 08:15:39 AM
Quote from: Leon on September 19, 2011, 04:58:15 AM
Talk about something we can not ever know: that composers from the 18th century would probably prefer to hear their works on modern instruments.    :)

That is not a question I care about.  For me it is simple, I like the way HIP/PI performances sound.  I also like modern instrument performances for some of this repertory.  There is no debate in my mind, it all comes down to what someone prefers to hear.

;)

I agree that personal preference is the crux of the matter.  Do members know of any anti-HIP person who perfers the sound of harpsichords and other period instruments?  I don't.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 08:15:39 AM
I agree that personal preference is the crux of the matter.  Do members know of any anti-HIP person who perfers the sound of harpsichords and other period instruments?  I don't.

Nope.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 08:20:55 AM
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on September 19, 2011, 08:12:31 AM
Very true, but also the sentiment of the note is excellent. Hurwitz has absolutely no credibility, at least with the PI community, so why keep him doing it? I hadn't thought of him as a jerk-off, per se, only a douche bag. But then, I lack imagination sometimes. :)

8)

Agreed.  There is no merit in Hurwitz reviewing period instrument performances.  I think the problem here is that ClassicsToday simply does not have enough reviewers.  They tend to have one reviewer for vocal music, another for piano music and Hurwitz for everything else. 

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: karlhenning on September 19, 2011, 08:31:47 AM
Casa de Hurwitz, wot?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on September 19, 2011, 08:50:49 AM
   I frequently am in total disagreement with Hurwitz about performances he reviews, but his strictures against SOME HIP performances are often right on target.   Like me, he's not at all opposed to HIP performances per se,and sometimes speaks quite favorably of them. 
But he  can tell when the emperor has no clothes. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 09:01:14 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on September 19, 2011, 08:50:49 AM
   I frequently am in total disagreement with Hurwitz about performances he reviews, but his strictures against SOME HIP performances are often right on target.   Like me, he's not at all opposed to HIP performances per se,and sometimes speaks quite favorably of them. 
But he  can tell when the emperor has no clothes.

I think it's clear that Hurwitz is opposed to HIP/period instrument performances.  He only likes them when they sound a lot like modern instrument performances, the type that rests within his comfort zone.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on September 19, 2011, 09:03:07 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 08:20:55 AM
Agreed.  There is no merit in Hurwitz reviewing period instrument performances.  I think the problem here is that ClassicsToday simply does not have enough reviewers.  They tend to have one reviewer for vocal music, another for piano music and Hurwitz for everything else.

Yep. It seems to be Hurwitz, Distler, Carr jr., and David Vernier, who oddly enough if I remember rightly is Hurwitz' boss. Oh and Robert Levine for opera.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 09:38:05 AM
I can't help but wonder if Hurwitz anti-HIP, anti-British, anti-golden era vitrol is deliberately over the top to attract readers...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 09:38:46 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 09:01:14 AM
I think it's clear that Hurwitz is opposed to HIP/period instrument performances.  He only likes them when they sound a lot like modern instrument performances, the type that rests within his comfort zone.

Exactly! A trait he shares with many, I'm afraid. My personal belief is that they would like to believe in HIP/PI as a concept, and probably even do. But in the execution, the grim reality that 18th century instruments don't sound like 20th/21st century instruments sets in, and they just can't come to grips with it.

I don't hold it against them. Wish that was reciprocal. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on September 19, 2011, 09:39:55 AM
Quote from: DavidW on September 19, 2011, 09:38:05 AM
I can't help but wonder if Hurwitz anti-HIP, anti-British, anti-golden era vitriol is deliberately over the top to attract readers...

Wondered that myself. Same with Lebrecht. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on September 19, 2011, 09:52:33 AM
I am not that familiar with Hurwitz, but when I subscribed to American Record Review Donald Vroom was decidedly anti-HIP, among other things, to the point of foaming at the mouth.

It was around that time that I 1) cancelled my ARG subscription and 2) began to ignore reviews, in general, but especially those based on what instruments were being used.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Leon on September 19, 2011, 09:52:33 AM
I am not that familiar with Hurwitz, but when I subscribed to American Record Review Donald Vroom was decidedly anti-HIP, among other things, to the point of foaming at the mouth.

At least Vroom is totally honest; he hates HIP and doesn't mince any words about it. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Clever Hans on September 19, 2011, 10:59:33 AM
The sad fact is that Hurwitz and Distler are both envious uber-dorks. HA HA HA

We recognize our own kind!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSZ1LWvFPg

BAHAHHAHHAHA



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: Clever Hans on September 19, 2011, 10:59:33 AM
The sad fact is that Hurwitz and Distler are both envious uber-dorks. HA HA HA

We recognize our own kind!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSZ1LWvFPg

BAHAHHAHHAHA

I listened to the youtube.  What was Distler doing?  Sounds like nothing more that syrupy new age jibberish; I really hate music like that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Cato on September 19, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
I have not read Fanfare in years, but they used to have a very large array of telescopic and microscopic reviewers.   ;)

I just discovered that they now offer - gratis - many of their articles without a subscription: I recall their reviewers being (in general) very expert and able to describe why they liked or disliked a recording or a work new to them.

See:

http://www.fanfaremag.com/ (http://www.fanfaremag.com/)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on September 20, 2011, 02:32:39 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 12:24:27 PM
I listened to the youtube.  What was Distler doing?  Sounds like nothing more that syrupy new age jibberish; I really hate music like that.

Is he having a laugh? My gawd, how awful in every way. And to title it "After Beethoven"...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: starrynight on September 20, 2011, 04:04:04 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on September 18, 2011, 08:07:09 PM
All this debate recalls me a question formulated during a discussion on the Bach-cantatas site:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Articulation.htm

8)

Modern informed performance I suppose.  All that matters to me is whether the musician conveys sympathy and understanding of the music they play whatever approach they choose, there can surely be more than one way to play a piece of music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on September 20, 2011, 04:25:07 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on September 19, 2011, 12:24:27 PM
I listened to the youtube.  What was Distler doing?  Sounds like nothing more that syrupy new age jibberish; I really hate music like that.

Yes, he was at least historically accurate in that his piece was written after Beethoven.  Sounded like something that would accompany one of Stuart Smalley's daily affirmations:

http://www.youtube.com/v/NuGf34F0f5g

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 05:44:03 AM
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on October 24, 2011, 04:48:07 AM
I disagree. I think the use of properly restored period instruments (or copies of them) is essential for Haydn. Their tone, palette of colors and warmness make a huge difference in terms of texture and balance. Obviously the HIP movement (being a reaction against the Romantic standardization) doesn't search for any kind of uniformity and that's the reason why the Festetics and the Mosaïques are quite different from the point of view of the interpretation (specially tempi and articulation): the Festetics being like a party at home and the Mosaïques as a sort of "symphonic" chamber music. Personally, I prefer the first approach.
I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Antoine Marchand on October 24, 2011, 06:04:21 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 05:20:08 AM
But the tone, palette of colors and warmness of the Apponyi is so different from the Festetics. And the tone of Festetics has I think something in common with the Tatrai (Hungarianness  :))  That's why I say that the important questions are independent of HIP/non-HIP.

Do you think that certain balances are more likely with PI? That would be interesting -- but could you say more?

Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 05:44:03 AM
I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

I have some ideas about this (I don't mean I have great ideas!  ;D), but right now I don't have time to elaborate. I hope to respond tonight. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on October 24, 2011, 07:31:35 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 05:44:03 AM
I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

Reinhard Goebel, former leader of Musica Antiqua Köln (period instruments), would probably agree with much of your statement.

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,981.msg402462.html#msg402462

But I'm also sure that a certain Gustav Leonhardt would NOT agree. As far as I understood from his interviews, IHO every music should be played with contemporary instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Marc on October 24, 2011, 07:31:35 AM


But I'm also sure that a certain Gustav Leonhardt would NOT agree. As far as I understood from his interviews, IHO every music should be played with contemporary instruments.

Because? (I can sense big Platonic issues on the horizon  ;))

Interesting that he made those transcriptions of the Bach violin sonatas.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 24, 2011, 07:50:31 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 07:45:26 AM
Because? (I can sense big Platonic issues on the horizon  ;))

I vote platonic issues over album covers. ;)

Quote
Interesting that he made those transcriptions of the Bach violin sonatas.

Something Bach would have likely done, don't you think? :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 24, 2011, 08:23:04 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on October 24, 2011, 07:50:31 AM
Something Bach would have likely done, don't you think? :)

Absolutely. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 08:56:40 AM
That reminds me of those people who say "he would have played on a Steinway if he'd had one"

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 24, 2011, 09:05:39 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 08:56:40 AM
That reminds me of those people who say "he would have played on a Steinway if he'd had one"

Nah, I disagree. A modern concert grand came over a hundred years after he died. Now compare that to the likeliness of Bach, a composer for the harpsichord and a well-known transcriber of both his and others' music, modifying his compositions to a contemporary instrument. It's not the same fanciful thinking that some people use to justify banishing the harpsichord and forever playing Bach on the piano. He may not have published it, but you surely can imagine him and a colleague or a friend doing this during some free time on a Saturday afternoon. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 24, 2011, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: Opus106 on October 24, 2011, 07:50:31 AM
Something Bach would have likely done, don't you think? :)

And which he actually is reported to have done.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 24, 2011, 02:53:55 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 08:56:40 AM
That reminds me of those people who say "he would have played on a Steinway if he'd had one"

Yes, they may be wrong.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 24, 2011, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 05:44:03 AM
I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

The problem with modern instruments is, as I have written before, that modern instruments (which according to Bruce Haynes ought to be called romantic instruments) posess a different expressive potential from period instruments and invite performers to neglect stylistic issues. And the other way round performers who already neglect stylistic issues are prone to prefer modern instruments. If you prefer interpretations, which are as close to the original spirit of the music as possible, you will prefer period instruments equally whether you are a performer or a listener. I prefer period instruments, not for museal reasons, but because I want to understand the composers intentions as thoroughly as possible, and in this process the style of the interpretation is all important. If Bach is played like Chopin, details which were not intended by the composer will emerge and get to much attention.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 24, 2011, 03:24:07 PM
The problem with modern instruments is, as I have written before, that modern instruments (which according to Bruce Haynes ought to be called romantic instruments) posess a different expressive potential from period instruments and invite performers to neglect stylistic issues. And the other way round performers who already neglect stylistic issues are prone to prefer modern instruments. If you prefer interpretations, which are as close to the original spirit of the music as possible, you will prefer period instruments equally whether you are a performer or a listener. I prefer period instruments, not for museal reasons, but because I want to understand the composers intentions as thoroughly as possible, and in this process the style of the interpretation is all important. If Bach is played like Chopin, details which were not intended by the composer will emerge and get to much attention.

The initial context of this discussion was Haydn quartets.

What I find interesting is the idea that the "expressive potential" of period string quartets is different from ones which use modern instruments. It may well be true, but it's not obvious to me. Take, for example, Festetics and Tatrai in Haydn Op 50. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

The point about inviting performers to neglect stylistic issues is not clear to me either. Which stylistic issues do you have in mind for a Haydn string quartet? I don't actually know enough about technique to understand how a certain type of bow, bridge and string "invite performers to neglect stylistic issues" -- can someone explain?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 11:25:17 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 24, 2011, 03:24:07 PM
The problem with modern instruments is, as I have written before, that modern instruments (which according to Bruce Haynes ought to be called romantic instruments) posess a different expressive potential from period instruments
A lot to say, but to start, I don't really disagree with this.

Quoteand invite performers to neglect stylistic issues. And the other way round performers who already neglect stylistic issues are prone to prefer modern instruments.
Maybe modern instruments don't lend themselves to some stylistic decisions as well as period instruments, but it does not logically follow that modern insturment players are neglecting period style. There are numerous groups that play music on modern instruments, but within the HIP style and approach. I think Mandryka has addressed this better than I in his questions.

QuoteIf you prefer interpretations, which are as close to the original spirit of the music as possible, you will prefer period instruments equally whether you are a performer or a listener.
Here is where I completely disagree. Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.  A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet). I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement. I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.

QuoteI prefer period instruments, not for museal reasons, but because I want to understand the composers intentions as thoroughly as possible, and in this process the style of the interpretation is all important. If Bach is played like Chopin, details which were not intended by the composer will emerge and get to much attention.
I don't think there is much disagreement here (perhaps just in nuances), though I think the music is flexible enough to handle different approaches. I would say though that there are two ways at looking at the intention of the composer - 1) What they wrote is what they meant (to add or change anything would ruin that) or 2) What is not written or said is open to the interpretation of the player(s). #1 is too strict for me. But #2 also leaves open numerous problematic areas. How does one know when one has strayed too far? And yet, both can be 100% in the spirit of the music. A conundrum of sorts...

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 02:49:24 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 11:25:17 PM
Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.  A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet). I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement. I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.

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.
But as Taruskin points out (with perhaps a dash too much vigor) it says about our modern sensibilities than it could ever claim to say about how a performance was perceived at the time.
If someone feels that only HIP can get across the "Spirit of the Music" than that's more because of out contemporary expectations than about composer's intent viz. "spirit" and all.

Music, in short, needs to be awesome... and HIP is but one way to achieve that... and it has a unique set of justifications that aid it toward that end.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on October 25, 2011, 06:59:42 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 11:25:17 PM

Here is where I completely disagree. Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.  A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet). I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement. I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.



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?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 24, 2011, 10:43:21 PM
The initial context of this discussion was Haydn quartets.
Sure, but my comment aims at more general considerations.

Quote from: Mandryka
What I find interesting is the idea that the "expressive potential" of period string quartets is different from ones which use modern instruments. It may well be true, but it's not obvious to me. Take, for example, Festetics and Tatrai in Haydn Op 50. Can you give me an example of what you mean?
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.


Quote from: Mandryka
The point about inviting performers to neglect stylistic issues is not clear to me either.
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" (=ordentliche 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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 11:16:46 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 24, 2011, 11:25:17 PM
Maybe modern instruments don't lend themselves to some stylistic decisions as well as period instruments, but it does not logically follow that modern insturment players are neglecting period style. There are numerous groups that play music on modern instruments, but within the HIP style and approach.
See my answer to Mandryka above.

Quote from: mc ukrneal
Here is where I completely disagree. Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.   A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet).
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.

Quote from: mc ukrneal
I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement.
I do not suspect anything like this.

Quote from: mc ukrneal
I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.
Yes, I am more strict than you. But it must be admitted that performers in earlier ages probably also had much liberty as to interpretation.

Quote from: mc ukrneal
I don't think there is much disagreement here (perhaps just in nuances), though I think the music is flexible enough to handle different approaches. I would say though that there are two ways at looking at the intention of the composer - 1) What they wrote is what they meant (to add or change anything would ruin that) or 2) What is not written or said is open to the interpretation of the player(s). #1 is too strict for me. But #2 also leaves open numerous problematic areas. How does one know when one has strayed too far? And yet, both can be 100% in the spirit of the music. A conundrum of sorts...
If the known "rules" of the style in question are neglected, one has gone too far.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 11:20:10 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 02:49:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 11:23:15 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 25, 2011, 06:59:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 25, 2011, 10:47:46 AM

(=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?)

Quote from: (: premont :) on October 25, 2011, 11:20:10 AM
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".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 11:42:06 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
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.


Quote from: jlaurson
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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 25, 2011, 11:58:52 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 25, 2011, 06:59:42 AM

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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 25, 2011, 12:02:26 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 25, 2011, 11:16:46 AM
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.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 25, 2011, 11:42:06 AM
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.

QuoteNicht 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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on October 25, 2011, 12:52:20 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 25, 2011, 10:47:46 AM
.
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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 01:40:59 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 25, 2011, 12:52:20 PM
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.


Quote from: Mandryka
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. 



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 12:47:23 PM
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.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 02:17:25 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
how did you get the idea that "ordentliches Forgehen"

ordentliche Fortgehen.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 02:23:31 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on October 25, 2011, 02:11:40 PM

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".


Quote...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.

QuoteIt 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.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on October 25, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on October 25, 2011, 02:23:31 PM
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.


Quote from: jlaurson
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.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 05:58:15 AM
   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 ! 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on January 30, 2012, 06:09:52 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 05:58:15 AM
   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?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on January 30, 2012, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 05:58:15 AM
   ...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. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on January 30, 2012, 06:52:42 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 05:58:15 AM
   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.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
   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! 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on January 30, 2012, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
   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.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on January 30, 2012, 12:48:04 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
   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
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Geo Dude on January 30, 2012, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
What gets my goat is bashing of performances merely because they use modern instruments, something which is appallingly widespread.

You mention this every time the topic of HIP comes up, and I'm curious to know what you mean by 'appallingly widespread.'  I hardly ever see bashing of non-PI recordings occurring on this board (not because they don't use period instruments, at least) and I can't think of any prominent reviewers who do that.  Can you give some examples of where such behavior is widespread?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bulldog on January 30, 2012, 01:12:00 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
   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!

Since I hate the word "troll", I'll leave others to address it.  However, your constant refrain that you are not anti-HIP is betrayed by your comments and tone.  Why not just admit to it and move on?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on January 30, 2012, 01:29:44 PM
Other than some people expressing a preference for PI in certain repertory, I don't think I've ever seen anyone either here or in a review express general disdain for modern instrument performance.  However, there are some reviewers, Donald Vroom for example, whose vitriol towards PI performance knows no bounds.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on January 30, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
   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!

Here's the definition according to wikipedia:

"...a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

I don't know if the word "troll" is good to use or not but the definition seems to pretty much describe your comment. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on January 30, 2012, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: Arnold on January 30, 2012, 01:29:44 PM
Other than some people expressing a preference for PI in certain repertory, I don't think I've ever seen anyone either here or in a review express general disdain for modern instrument performance.  However, there are some reviewers, Donald Vroom for example, whose vitriol towards PI performance knows no bounds.

:)

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Donald Vroom?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on January 30, 2012, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Superhorn on January 30, 2012, 05:58:15 AM
   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 !

I want to be clear for everyone else who stepped into this late... the quoted post originally appeared on the PI Romantic era thread.  It's a thread where enthusiasts of PI recordings share their favorites with each other.  What Superhorn did is attack period style performances directly to those that love them.  He was trying to get a reaction, and not interested in having a discussion.  That is by definition acting like a troll... so when Gurn called him such he didn't mean at as an insult but the unvarnished truth. 

Superhorn acts like a gentleman in many other threads but not in these.  If you move in the PI circle all you will see is the troll.  If you move in the traditional romantic era and modern threads and the diner you'll see a witty gentleman.  He is both of these people.  While we can all enjoy his contribution to threads involving music that he enjoys, his attitude and behavior on PI threads is abhorrent even by my low standards.  I think that this should be addressed without losing the poster or adding him to a block list. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Geo Dude on January 30, 2012, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: DavidW on January 30, 2012, 04:59:46 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but who is Donald Vroom?

Donald Vroom is the editor of American Record Guide.  Coincidentally, based on his opinion pieces in ARG the man is a pompous jackass and a know-nothing that is wrongly convinced of his own adequacy, so it doesn't really surprise me that his attitude problem extends over to recordings he dislikes.

EDIT:  Just to be clear, I find ARG to be a solid publication with some fine reviewers in it and my distaste for the editor shouldn't be misconstrued as a distaste for the publication as a whole.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PaulSC on January 31, 2012, 07:58:22 AM
It's Donald VrooN, with an "n" as in nincompoop. For those not familiar, here is an example of how low he can stoop:

QuoteAfter listening to this, all I can say is that I don't like this pianist and have no idea what other people hear in his playing. He is cold and intellectual; he routinely misses the basic emotion, while he is busy devising his approach, imposing his technique on the music. He must be half English and half Japanese. How sterile Moussorgsky sounds here! Nothing at all in the Pictures hits home. He is always outside the music looking in-playing with it and manipulating it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on January 31, 2012, 08:01:54 AM
Quote from: PaulSC on January 31, 2012, 07:58:22 AM
It's Donald VrooN, with an "n" as in nincompoop. For those not familiar, here is an example of how low he can stoop:

O Boy!  How does someone who is so entirely wrapped up in his own preconceptions get ahead in a business which (in an ideal world) is based on some element of objectivity, at least from leadership?  He wouldn't even do well on a forum, let alone in a major publication! ::)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Geo Dude on January 31, 2012, 09:49:05 AM
Quote from: PaulSC on January 31, 2012, 07:58:22 AM
It's Donald VrooN, with an "n" as in nincompoop. For those not familiar, here is an example of how low he can stoop:

That is horrible, but if you really want to see how low he can go you should see his "Critical Convictions" essays.  Pick any one at random, all that I've read are terrible.  They're an unholy mix of politics, logical fallacies, armchair sociology, ranting about various sorts of people that he clearly believes he is superior to (sports fans, for example), and a grating, pompous tone.  Personally, I find many of the topics he writes about in those op eds to be inappropriate subjects for a magazine focused on music reviews -- he seems to forget that he's writing for American Record Guide rather than Rolling Stone -- and his irritating holier-than-thou tone doesn't help matters.

In regards to his HIP hatred, I recently read a review in ARG where he insisted that an HIP influenced performance of a Mozart piano concerto was a 'phase' that the pianist would grow out of.  Clearly unwarranted condescension is the mark of an excellent reviewer, though!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Leon on January 31, 2012, 10:20:12 AM
Vroon - Vroom ... anyway, the reason I brought him up was to highlight the disparity between what I see as fact and the accusation made that it is the HIP camp that routinely disparages modern instrument performances.  Not that it really matters much.  I am totally over the whole debate.  It seems it is a few disgruntled MI people who continue trying to pick a fight. 

I subscribed to ARG for almost two decades until I finally had enough of Vroon's diatribes, not least of which were directed at HIP performance.  It has now been over a decade since I read that publication, and only was reminded of it when Sonic Dave posted a disparaging review of a HIP performance from it - not by Vroon - recently.

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on January 31, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
I appreciate the explanation... won't be subscribing anytime soon! :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Geo Dude on January 31, 2012, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: DavidW on January 31, 2012, 10:42:31 AM
I appreciate the explanation... won't be subscribing anytime soon! :D

For what it's worth, ARG does have many fine reviewers (some of whom like period instruments) even though the editor is atrocious.  That said, I get my copies from a relative who is kind enough to send me his old copies and I'm also hesitant about subscribing until that editor retires.  Then again, given the wealth of information available to me here at GMG I'm not in a hurry to subscribe to any music reviewing magazine; I find reviews much more helpful when I can open a discussion with the reviewer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 04:31:28 AM
In my ignorance, I only came across the term HIP a few days ago when I started looking for classical music forums online. Having looked it up and found what the acronym stood for, I assumed it meant 'with period instruments' but now I gather that there is a distinction between a HIP and a performance on period instruments.  Can someone tell me what HIP implies if it doesn't need to be on period instruments?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on October 13, 2012, 04:43:25 AM
HIP means that the performers have studied the performance practice of the time/place of the original composition, and try to perform the piece with appropriate forces, instruments, distribution of the orchestra, period techniques, etc. Period instruments are usually used, but they don't necessarily mean that the performance is HIP, or that it's not HIP-inspired.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: 71 dB on October 13, 2012, 04:43:32 AM
There is a disctinction?  :o
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 04:49:01 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 13, 2012, 04:43:32 AM
There is a disctinction?  :o
Well, I was surprised too...  This query is the result of reading a thread here about alternative recordings of Beethoven's 9th that divides them into 3:  normal modern orchestra, period instruments, and HIP.  Since everyone in the thread follows along with this it was clear there was something I didn't know...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 05:59:08 AM
This is very much a GMG thing, you aren't likely to see it outside of here, or at least not used as we do.

Certainly there are performances on modern instruments that are also HIP. One that you could easily find and listen to is the Zurich Tonhalle Orchestra / Zinman playing Beethoven's symphonies. The thing is, there are many features that go into whether a performance is HIP or not. It is true that the use of period instruments is strongly indicative of such a performance, but it is not a given. Or, as in the Zinman example above, neither is the opposite a given. BTW, another band that feels itself to be HIP on modern instruments is the Heidelberg Band / Thomas Fey.


The term HIP comes with a ton of baggage. Trust me when I say this; if you don't have a graduate degree in musicology, or if you aren't a professional musician, the chances that you would recognize the performance aspects if they slapped you in the face are somewhere between slim and none, and slim just left town. And I apply that, not just to you, but to the majority of people who listen to music as a hobby. This is most of the people here or on any other forum you visit. After many years here of fighting the fight over "HIP" and "non-HIP" performance, I came to the realization that I really didn't care about things like "too much vibrato in the orchestral violins" and "they don't take the 2nd repeat in the trio" :o  What I cared about and what I really look for is the orchestral color and sound of period instruments. So in order to distance myself from the whole mess, I simply stopped using the term (except for the pun I leave in my avatar) and instead, I go with PI, period instruments. DavidW, a mathematician and member here for many years, had started calling me a PIon many years ago, and I adopted that phrase for myself and anyone else who feels like I do.

Now you know the whole sordid mess. If you look around you will find many, many PIons here, whether they think of themselves as that or not. There are even a few true HIPpies, bless their pointed heads. And there are some anti-HIP modern instrument and performance advocates too. We have reached a point in time where we rarely fight about it anymore. The Golden Age has arrived. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 13, 2012, 06:09:15 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 05:59:08 AM
DavidW, a mathematician and member here for many years, had started calling me a PIon many years ago...

"PIon" only works if David is a physicist, though. Mathematicians hardly care about the sordid mess that is particle physics. :D

Quote
We have reached a point in time where we rarely fight about it anymore. The Golden Age has arrived. :)

8)

Ah; but wait till Que merges this thread with, you know, the other one and some kind soul decides to take issue with a post made three years ago. :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 06:25:25 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on October 13, 2012, 06:09:15 AM
"PIon" only works if David is a physicist, though. Mathematicians hardly care about the sordid mess that is particle physics. :D

Ah; but wait till Que merges this thread with, you know, the other one and some kind soul decides to take issue with a post made three years ago. :D

My passport to Holland is still valid. He wouldn't want to try that.... >:(   :D

David IS a physicist. The math is just a hobby. Just like me: 2 + 3 =   :-\

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
So, without wishing to start the kind of discussion that Gavrilo Princip started in Sarajevo, could you give me a very very brief idea of what sort of aspects of performance make it 'historically informed', other than using period instruments?  I appreciate that I am being utterly uninformed here, but this seems the right forum for such blundering fools as I to blunder about in.  By all means give me a link to the (hush!) 'other' thread if you like and I can enlighten myself at leisure and probably learn a lot about the more long-standing members of this forum as I do so.

Bong
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on October 13, 2012, 06:52:41 AM
The problem is no one alive has heard a period performance, and so period performance practice depends on comments that composers wrote in letters to friends, relatives and colleagues, lesson books for playing various instruments, etc.  As a result there is not much agreement about how things should be played.  Some HIP artists play fast, others slow, all seem to think their choices are more justified by scholarship. 

For instance, Trevor Pinnock performances are played in very strict tempo with precise articulation (like a sewing machine, to my ears).  Nikolaus Harnoncourt has written that a Baroque score is just an outline, and even orchestral players were expected to freely vary their articulation to give the ensemble a more free sound.  Another issue is that string sections used to be smaller than now, so playing classical or baroque music on a modern orchestra produces a sound which is much more string dominated.  Also, most seem to agree that vibrato is more widespread now than it used to be, but some claim period performance should have none, others that it should be used more sparingly.

With regard to instruments, the modern versions have been engineered to produce a stronger, more pure tone (to sound good in a large concert hall).  The older instruments typically produced a sound which was less strong but richer in overtones.  Reeds were more reedy, brass had more 'toot,' strings more transparent.

Ultimately you just have to listen and decide what you like.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 13, 2012, 06:57:16 AM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
So, without wishing to start the kind of discussion that Gavrilo Princip started in Sarajevo, could you give me a very very brief idea of what sort of aspects of performance make it 'historically informed', other than using period instruments?

Some of these have been mentioned by Karlo (North Star) in his reply. I would suggest that you watch a HIP/PI performance of Beethoven symphony, from YouTube, for instance to see how the orchestra is arranged, its size and of course the sounds produced. (And while you're there, also watch this docu-drama called 'Eroica' -- it's a recreation of the première of the namesake symphony.) With your familiarity of primarily Twentieth-century performances, I'm sure you're in for a surprise. :)

[Some names to consider while searching: Gardiner, Immerseel, Brüggen, Harnoncourt, Mackerras]


QuoteBy all means give me a link to the (hush!) 'other' thread if you like and I can enlighten myself at leisure and probably learn a lot about the more long-standing members of this forum as I do so.

Just make sure that there's no-one around watching you. ;)

Link (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.0.html)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 07:06:59 AM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
So, without wishing to start the kind of discussion that Gavrilo Princip started in Sarajevo, could you give me a very very brief idea of what sort of aspects of performance make it 'historically informed', other than using period instruments?  I appreciate that I am being utterly uninformed here, but this seems the right forum for such blundering fools as I to blunder about in.  By all means give me a link to the (hush!) 'other' thread if you like and I can enlighten myself at leisure and probably learn a lot about the more long-standing members of this forum as I do so.

Bong

There are many factors that go into what is called generically "performance practice". It is different in Baroque music than it is in Classical Era music than it is in Romantic music than it is in modern music etc etc etc.

Not being a listener to a whole lot outside of the Classical Era, it would be presumptuous of me to comment on that. Classically, when orchestras were becoming more like modern ones in their makeup, one has to accept that there were many local standards for things like tuning and tempo. The things we hear as regional differences today were very likely to be far more pronounced in Mozart's time. In other words, we can say "that's a French orchestra" or "that's a Central European orchestra", but for them, the Viennese orchestra and the Prague orchestra probably sounded a lot different. Not least because (unlike most orchestras of the time), it was common in Vienna for an orchestra to tune to A=445hz instead of today's A=440 or the not at all unusual tuning of A=415 or 430. So they would have sounded higher pitched and brighter. That's just an example, there are plenty of documented differences if you want to make a study of it (I haven't, I just pick things up in passing).

In order for "sonata form" to have the proper balance, Haydn, Mozart etc used repeats of sections. In the 19th century, music directors felt as though their audiences didn't have the attention span to listen to the same phrases repeated twice. So they started chopping them out. A famous example is the repeat of the trio in the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 9th; "surely he didn't mean to play that twice!!". Well, yes, he did.  The resulting hack job, extremely common in Romantic performance of Classical music, is the sort of thing that modern "HIP" music directors are trying to shed off. So you will hear way more repeats.

Other, more technical aspects such as how the violins are bowed, what sort of ornaments are used in (especially) keyboard pieces, "how fast do we play?", pretty much every aspect, many of which you don't really think about; how are the players arranged? Are they Sitting or standing (standing is more realistic), just a ton of stuff. It is all documented. Strictly depends on how far one wants to pursue it in the name of authenticity.

Speaking of authenticity; you would have to define it in terms that you can live with. The essential concept that people used t the beginning was that you would "hear Mozart the way he heard it himself". Which is ludicrous, of course. Anyone who still believes that, well, all I can say is it is nice to have a dream.  ::)   However, a recreation that allows me the opportunity to imagine that I am hearing a closer reconstruction of the time is thrilling for me. Karajan playing Haydn can't do that; Brüggen can...  :)

Anyway, that just scratches the surface. If you are genuinely interested (and I see you are going to see Gardiner, you fortunate rascal!) then cast about for a book or two. There are dozens of them. Just keep an honest skepticism in mind, because like any other true believers, these guys will proselytize you into thinking that they are the New Messiah. Don't want to go there. You just want a great music experience. It isn't an article of faith.  0:)

8) 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 13, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on October 13, 2012, 06:09:15 AM
Ah; but wait till Que merges this thread with, you know, the other one and some kind soul decides to take issue with a post made three years ago. :D

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 06:25:25 AM
My passport to Holland is still valid. He wouldn't want to try that.... >:(   :D

Quote from: Opus106 on October 13, 2012, 06:57:16 AM
Just make sure that there's no-one around watching you. ;)

Link (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.0.html)

OK, guys. Although I would love to have our Gurn over! :D, I guess the general feel is we should discuss this topic on a clean slate.

Since I don't want competing threads, I locked the old thread that of course will remain to be available to all that are interested.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Bogey on October 13, 2012, 09:59:18 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 05:59:08 AM


Now you know the whole sordid mess. If you look around you will find many, many PIons here,

8)

I represent that remark!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: Que on October 13, 2012, 09:04:47 AM
I guess the general feel is we should discuss this topic on a clean slate.

Since I don't want competing threads, I locked the old thread that of course will remain to be available to all that are interested.

I'm sorry, I clearly didn't do my research well enough before posting this topic, all I can say is I had absolutely no idea it was such a can of worms, but now the lid has been lifted a fraction so I can glimpse the contents, feel free to drop it.  If you could let me know the location of the 'other thread' referred to I'll read that at my leisure.  It isn't something I feel strongly about at present, but I look forward to having my passions inflamed....
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 11:54:21 AM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 11:43:20 AM
I'm sorry, I clearly didn't do my research well enough before posting this topic, all I can say is I had absolutely no idea it was such a can of worms, but now the lid has been lifted a fraction so I can glimpse the contents, feel free to drop it.  If you could let me know the location of the 'other thread' referred to I'll read that at my leisure.  It isn't something I feel strongly about at present, but I look forward to having my passions inflamed....

I would have linked you myself except that I don't remember a particular thread or threads. It was more like something that cropped up wherever you happened to be. Que would know though, it's his forte.

My guess is that passions are inflamed far beyond the actual worth of the subject. I have thousands of CD's, and probably 60% (?) are PI. Does that mean I won't buy a disk on modern instruments? Heck no! Of course, I won't listen to Bach on a piano, but that's because there are choices. If there were only piano disks of Bach, I would be pleased to have them. I might still not listen to them (because I don't care for Bach :P ) but I would be pleased to have them anyway.   :D    it's music, it's there to enjoy, not to fight about. God knows we've had more than our share of that here, but now we are more enlightened. Maybe.  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 13, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 11:43:20 AM
If you could let me know the location of the 'other thread' referred to I'll read that at my leisure.  It isn't something I feel strongly about at present, but I look forward to having my passions inflamed....

It's in my previous post. :)

Although I'd agree if you say that it's barely visible -- sorry about that. :-[

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.0.html



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 01:13:11 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 11:54:21 AM
Of course, I won't listen to Bach on a piano, but that's because there are choices. If there were only piano disks of Bach, I would be pleased to have them.

personally I think Wanda Landowska should have left the harpsichord where she found it, it's the main reason people find Bach and the baroque tedious.  I prefer Bach played on  a piano or guitar or something where the performer can actually put some expression into it...

Oops, did I say something contentious?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 01:13:11 PM
personally I think Wanda Landowska should have left the harpsichord where she found it, it's the main reason people find Bach and the baroque tedious.  I prefer Bach played on  a piano or guitar or something where the performer can actually put some expression into it...

Oops, did I say something contentious?

Not to me; I'm liberal. I'm from the "you like what you like" school. :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mszczuj on October 13, 2012, 02:34:19 PM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 01:13:11 PM
personally I think Wanda Landowska should have left the harpsichord where she found it, it's the main reason people find Bach and the baroque tedious.  I prefer Bach played on  a piano or guitar or something where the performer can actually put some expression into it...

Oops, did I say something contentious?

It's your problem, not my, but have you tried this:

[asin]B0000DEQDA[/asin] ?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 03:27:56 PM
Quote from: mszczuj on October 13, 2012, 02:34:19 PM
It's your problem, not my, but have you tried this?

Well, I wasn't entirely serious but no actually I haven't heard of that performance. I'm still absorbing the sometimes rather extraordinary (piano) recordings of Gould in the 'State of Wonder' reissue which is a recent acquisition.  I shall add your recommendation to my rapidly growing want list, thank you for it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on October 13, 2012, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 06:25:25 AM
David IS a physicist. The math is just a hobby. Just like me: 2 + 3 =   :-\

8)

Since I started my new job my only hobby has been sleep! :D ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on October 13, 2012, 04:15:22 PM
I was going to add to this thread, but I think Gurn said it all. 

PI is what I prefer, clearly referring to the use of period instruments.  Period performance practice is a continuous spectrum from prioritizing the efforts of the past over personal artistry to artistry first and past practice last.  Herreweghe might be at one far end, and Furtwanger another but where does Abbado lie?  Most performances have at least some element of historically informed practice whether it be based on scholarly research or a tradition passed from generation to generation.  I find HIP to be a misleading term, while PI has precise clarity.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 13, 2012, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2012, 04:04:41 PM
Since I started my new job my only hobby has been sleep! :D ;D

And a wonderfully gratifying hobby it is, too!  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: SonicMan46 on October 13, 2012, 06:00:49 PM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 01:13:11 PM
personally I think Wanda Landowska should have left the harpsichord where she found it, it's the main reason people find Bach and the baroque tedious.  I prefer Bach played on  a piano or guitar or something where the performer can actually put some expression into it...

Oops, did I say something contentious?

Oops - yes, you've completely opened that 'can of worms' mentioned previously!  ;) ;D

Bach on piano vs. harpsichord (not to mention other instruments @ the moment) is indeed a 'contentious' issue - for me, I go both ways, i.e. I own many of his keyboard works in both instrumental versions and like the option; but, I must say before joining this forum (years ago now), I had little harpsichord recordings; now I have hundreds, many based on recommendations here and/or reviews in magazines that I receive - bottom line for me was finally obtaining harpsichord performances that were well done & recorded, and used an instrument (whether a 'new' one built on an older model or a restored historic instrument) - don't give up on these pre-modern piano keyboards (including the fortepiano), you will be rewarded in the end w/ a better appreciation of the development of keyboard instruments and also a much broader spectrum of keyboard performances to appreciate - Dave
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on October 13, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
So, without wishing to start the kind of discussion that Gavrilo Princip started in Sarajevo, could you give me a very very brief idea of what sort of aspects of performance make it 'historically informed', other than using period instruments?  I appreciate that I am being utterly uninformed here, but this seems the right forum for such blundering fools as I to blunder about in.  By all means give me a link to the (hush!) 'other' thread if you like and I can enlighten myself at leisure and probably learn a lot about the more long-standing members of this forum as I do so.

Bong

I can give you a nice example that I happened to read about yesterday.

In Verdi's opera Rigoletto, one of the numbers has a performance direction from Verdi: "this recitative must be sung without the usual appogiaturas".  Which is useful evidence in dating when it was that people still added unwritten ornaments to a melody line, rather than just using the written notes.

Verdi had to specifically say NOT to add nice little runs here, because he wanted to create something new and unusual.  Otherwise his singers would have done what they usually did.

That was in the 1850s.  According to the book I was reading, by around the 1880s people were starting to take out any unwritten ornaments, and they were so firm about it that they were going back and 'correcting' performances of opera composers as far back as Mozart.  But we now know that the 1880s people were doing things according to their own, current taste, not according to the style of the time that the operas were written.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 18, 2012, 01:19:57 AM
Just to close this debate, I can say that I saw some Beethoven performed by J Eliot Gardiner's 'Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique' last night and I felt sufficiently well-informed to stroke my beard and remark how HIP it all was.

Thanks to all for the educational replies.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 18, 2012, 02:38:59 AM
Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 18, 2012, 01:19:57 AM
Just to close this debate...

You wish! ;D

So did you enjoy the music-making or not? :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Reverend Bong on October 18, 2012, 12:44:02 PM
Quote from: Opus106 on October 18, 2012, 02:38:59 AM

So did you enjoy the music-making or not? :)
Well, I think like all good hippies I probably swing both ways.  On the one hand I can see the appeal of the sheer force of a huge orchestra, 16 double basses etc, massed choirs (this was the Missa Solemnis) and the purity of tone of modern instruments, but on the other hand last night was magical and somehow intimate, Mrs Bong and I felt much more of a sense of being part of a shared experience with the orchestra than usual, and personally I loved the unfamiliar timbres and overtones of the instruments, many of which were unfamiliar. There was a trombone with the most splendid rasp to it which provided wonderful emphatic punctuation.

I'd be delighted to hear them again, but equally delighted to have my whiskers blown off by a vast modern orchestra and double choir.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on October 18, 2012, 01:34:30 PM
The old days were good in that HIP was synonymous with the use of period instruments.  Now, when I hear "HIP", it means nothing to me.

Sometimes, I think that modern instrument/orchestra folks started declaring that their performances were HIP so that they could cash in on the HIP craze.  Within myself, I will continue to feel that if there aren't period instruments, it ain't HIP.  Right, I know that's not the current thinking.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 18, 2012, 02:14:59 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 18, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
I tend to agree.  Any modern instrument orchestra, no matter how much they attempt to play from a "historically informed" attitude is still a modern orchestra.  In fact, it almost bothers me (it does really bother me, but I do notice it) when I hear fast tempos and exaggerated dynamics from a MI conductor, which seems to me like he is aiming at enhancing his credibility with the PI camp. 

Don't get me wrong, I like modern instrument ensembles and piano recordings of Classical and Baroque music - but I prefer it when they aren't imitating a PI group.

Fey's Haydn; Jarvi's and Dausgaard's Beethoven are three that come to mind.

And I am not saying I don't like their recordings; just that at times I feel they are a bit false.

Isn't this interesting? I feel exactly the same about PI. Sometimes, I feel that PI groups are trying to find what they think the composer wanted, and they sometimes seem to do with such authority, that I feel they are false. They are imitating something they cannot immitate, but are sure that is what the imitated sounded like. Yes, I know they do lots of research and such, but that can only take you so far. And I feel sometimes they are trying to hard to be HIP so as to differentiate themselves.

At this point, I don't really focus on the instruments being played (unless there is a harpsichord involved), but rather worry more about what they play and if that works. If it works, like I feel Davis in Haydn does (for example), then I just sit back and enjoy.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2012, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Sammy on October 18, 2012, 01:34:30 PM
The old days were good in that HIP was synonymous with the use of period instruments.  Now, when I hear "HIP", it means nothing to me.

Sometimes, I think that modern instrument/orchestra folks started declaring that their performances were HIP so that they could cash in on the HIP craze.  Within myself, I will continue to feel that if there aren't period instruments, it ain't HIP.  Right, I know that's not the current thinking.

It's my belief, too.  I hate having to specify "PI" (which is what started this thread), but these days you have to!  :-\

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 18, 2012, 03:53:51 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 18, 2012, 02:52:13 PM
Oh, I do too - but I was remarking about those times when something hits me between the eyes that just seems an exaggeration. 

The primary reason I like PI or HIP recordings is because of the sound of the instruments.  So when a MI ensemble incorporates stock HIP ideas, it is still a modern sounding band, and sometimes I think that the brass sound to loud or the tempo sounds too fast.
But that is what is so interesting. I like MI because of the sound of the instruments. I don't mind when MI incorporates HIP ideas, and I don't mind loud brass or fast tempos if it works.  I used to get into heated debated about HIP/PI elsewhere, but I have mellowed, and no longer worry too much which is playing. If it's good, it simply won't matter.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2012, 04:42:46 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 18, 2012, 03:53:51 PM
But that is what is so interesting. I like MI because of the sound of the instruments. I don't mind when MI incorporates HIP ideas, and I don't mind loud brass or fast tempos if it works.  I used to get into heated debated about HIP/PI elsewhere, but I have mellowed, and no longer worry too much which is playing. If it's good, it simply won't matter.

Neal,
Well, like san, I believe in 'to each his own'. However, I don't want to let the point go past without comment.

QuoteIf it's good, it simply won't matter.

That's exactly the point. No, it won't matter in terms of whether you can enjoy the performance. Of course it won't (unless you want to hear an actual period instrument performance, then obviously it matters like hell!). The so-called 'hybrid' performances, which is what they have taken to calling period style/modern instrument performances these days are not HIP. They are modern instrument performance played in period style. I don't think I am being an anal-retentive purist if I jump out here and say 'that obviously isn't the same thing'.

The original poster asked the question why we were differentiating between HIP and PI. Weren't they the same thing?  So, in view of what I wrote in the previous paragraph, the answer is no, they aren't the same thing. IMO, it hasn't anything to do with the merits of the performance, and everything to do with the idea conveyed by calling it HIP. Someone here once wrote that in his opinion, Scherchen was the first HIP conductor.   ::)   :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 18, 2012, 05:22:05 PM
One reason that recordings seldom convey the true sounds of period instruments is that they tend to be much, much softer than the modern ones; but recordings raise the levels to sound as loud as a MI recording.  (Or have players taken to playing with bigger sound or more intensity recently?  It's been a while since I've heard any good period performances live except for my own recorders.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 18, 2012, 05:40:45 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on October 18, 2012, 05:22:05 PM
One reason that recordings seldom convey the true sounds of period instruments is that they tend to be much, much softer than the modern ones; but recordings raise the levels to sound as loud as a MI recording.  (Or have players taken to playing with bigger sound or more intensity recently?  It's been a while since I've heard any good period performances live except for my own recorders.)

Jo! How nice to see you again. :)

Well, it's very true that recordings vs performance in proper size rooms are a world different. I nearly always play back my own recordings at a much lower volume level than I suspect the average person does. Especially for unusually quiet-by-nature instruments such as the clavichord. It shouldn't drown out your average Steinway. :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on October 18, 2012, 05:58:28 PM
When period instruments come up as a topic, I'm always in 2 minds.  On the one hand there is the argument that you are trying to ensure the sounds created are closer to what the composer heard.  On the other hand there is the risk that you're confining sounds to what the composer heard and excluding the possibilities of what he imagined , and denying the benefit of any technical improvements in instruments.

I say this partly because years ago I heard an anecdote about Shostakovich. I'm not even 100% certain which instrument he was talking about, I think it may have been a trombone.  And essentially the remark was that he looked forward to the future day that the instrument was improved so that it was possible to properly play what he'd written, rather than struggle through a close approximation of it.

Most changes in instruments happened because there was some kind of 'problem' with the old one, often in terms of dynamics or expressiveness.  It will depend on context, but the instrument that was around at the time of composition is not automatically the best solution to whatever musical problems are presented by the composer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 18, 2012, 10:00:01 PM
Quote from: orfeo on October 18, 2012, 05:58:28 PM
When period instruments come up as a topic, I'm always in 2 minds.  On the one hand there is the argument that you are trying to ensure the sounds created are closer to what the composer heard.  On the other hand there is the risk that you're confining sounds to what the composer heard and excluding the possibilities of what he imagined , and denying the benefit of any technical improvements in instruments.

I say this partly because years ago I heard an anecdote about Shostakovich. I'm not even 100% certain which instrument he was talking about, I think it may have been a trombone.  And essentially the remark was that he looked forward to the future day that the instrument was improved so that it was possible to properly play what he'd written, rather than struggle through a close approximation of it.

Most changes in instruments happened because there was some kind of 'problem' with the old one, often in terms of dynamics or expressiveness.  It will depend on context, but the instrument that was around at the time of composition is not automatically the best solution to whatever musical problems are presented by the composer.

Generally speaking, I think the idea that instruments "improved" over time is a myth. The choice of instruments and their characteristics changed over time, to adapt to different demands and tastes. Now that is what I would agree with!  :) The piano is therefore not an "improved" version of the harpsichord, or even the forte-piano. It is a different instrument for music of different times.

Composers, like al mortals, could only look a limited time into the future. In the examples given, they wrote usic with an eye on a specific, current development in an instrument in their time. Stretching this limited phenomenon to a general assessment that composers preferred their music to be played on the most "advanced" instruments available after their demise, is a fallacy IMO.
Nobody knows what kind of music they would have written for (much) later (versions of) instruments, let alone that they did.

Yes, the aging and practically deaf Beethoven wanted his (forte-)piano bigger and louder, but would he have agreed with the loss of immediacy in action and clarity?? ::) Who knows? I put to you that we don't know. This all apart from the fact that I thinks it sounds better on a period instrument or even on a pre-war Bechstein (Schnabel) than on a modern Steinway Grand.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Rinaldo on October 18, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
When I think about it, I don't really care how "close" to the original intention the performance is (as we'll never know). All that matters to me is how it sounds. I'm a baroque nut and most PI stuff from that era really sings to me, which in retrospect makes me feel like that's the way it's supposed to be done.

Which obviously doesn't mean that's the only way. One of my favourite pieces of music is Purcell's Abdelazer suite and my favourite recording (by the Slovak Chamber Orchestra) would make any orthodox HIPster hang himself on catgut.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on October 18, 2012, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Que on October 18, 2012, 10:00:01 PM
Generally speaking, I think the idea that instruments "improved" over time is a myth. The choice of instruments and their characteristics changed over time, to adapt to different demands and tastes. Now that is what I would agree with!  :) The piano is therefore not an "improved" version of the harpsichord, or even the forte-piano. It is a different instrument for music of different times.

Composers, like al mortals, could only look a limited time into the future. In the examples given, they wrote usic with an eye on a specific, current development in an instrument in their time. Stretching this limited phenomenon to a general assessment that composers preferred their music to be played on the most "advanced" instruments available after their demise, is a fallacy IMO.
Nobody knows what kind of music they would have written for (much) later (versions of) instruments, let alone that they did.

Yes, the aging and practically deaf Beethoven wanted his (forte-)piano bigger and louder, but would he have agreed with the loss of immediacy in action and clarity?? ::) Who knows? I put to you that we don't know. This all apart from the fact that I thinks it sounds better on a period instrument or even on a pre-war Bechstein (Schnabel) than on a modern Steinway Grand.

Q

I didn't stretch as far as the fallacy you're suggesting.  The point is that these things occurred hand in hand. Instruments changed to address new tastes and new environments.  Composition styles changed to make use of new instruments.  My point was that it's not correct to presuppose that one or the other always occurred first, eg it's not correct to assume that people only wrote music suitable for piano after pianos became well-established, because one of the reasons for developing pianos was to better accommodate the musical styles that were already developing.

For some people the PI question is too firmly pushed in the direction of "it's got to be on that instrument because that was the established instrument", without any consideration of whether, around a period of transition especially, the music might actually sound better on the new instrument.  Great composers could be on the cutting edge of both new musical styles and new instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 19, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
Quote from: orfeo on October 18, 2012, 11:33:04 PM
I didn't stretch as far as the fallacy you're suggesting.

True, my apologies if I suggested you did!  :) It only occurred to me because it is a familiar line of reasoning, though you didn't follow it.

QuoteThe point is that these things occurred hand in hand. Instruments changed to address new tastes and new environments.  Composition styles changed to make use of new instruments
I would agree with that as well. :)

QuoteMy point was that it's not correct to presuppose that one or the other always occurred first, eg it's not correct to assume that people only wrote music suitable for piano after pianos became well-established, because one of the reasons for developing pianos was to better accommodate the musical styles that were already developing.For some people the PI question is too firmly pushed in the direction of "it's got to be on that instrument because that was the established instrument", without any consideration of whether, around a period of transition especially, the music might actually sound better on the new instrument.  Great composers could be on the cutting edge of both new musical styles and new instruments.

I don't think there is so much a "before" or "after", but more "during". Generally composers wrote for music that the instruments at hand, and I don't think those developed in an all that dramatic a pace. I think geographical differences might be as important as the passing of time. Though exceptions are "new" instruments and of course the important case of the development of the (forte)piano - which always attracts the main focus in these discussions. And there historical and musical research comes in - and the picture is rather mixed: at the same time that some composers still wrote with the harpsichord in mind, some wrote music for the fortepiano that also could be performed on the harpsichord, and others wrote the most innovative music that was only suited for the fortepiano. For instance, Mitzi Meyerson recorded keyboard sonatas by Claude-Bénigne Balbastre 50-50 on harpsichord & fortepiano, though after listening I think some of the works performed on fortepiano might be more ideal on harpsichord (though I wouldn't say they are unsuitable for the fortepiano). Actually Meyerson admits this in her liner notes, but she liked the concept of alternating between both instruments.

My point is: in many cases musical and historical research will tell what instruments are most suitable, were available to the composer and which characteristics he had in mind.
If not, we can only rely on our ears, which in the end will decide anyway... :)

But don't think it is always all that difficult. If we know that Mozart's clarinet concerto is performed in a transposed version on modern instruments, while it is well documented that Mozart wrote it for a specific period clarinet with certain characteristics, I don't see much room for doubt or debate.

Some other interesting examples: Brahms wanted his music performed specifically on the natural horn, which he preferred to the valved horn already in existence. :)
Bach wrote gamba sonatas as well as cello suites.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on October 19, 2012, 04:25:31 PM
When I got back into classical music in the 1980's, I focused on baroque orchestral music from modern orchestras (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, etc.).  I wasn't finding it very enjoyable; something about the sound of the instruments (especially strings) just sounded all wrong and sour to me.  So I acquired a few PI recordings of the same repertoire and came to two main conclusions.  I much preferred the sound of the period instruments; it really opened up the music for me.  Second, Vivaldi still didn't appeal to me.

With music from the classical period or later, I can go either way.   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 23, 2012, 02:02:21 PM
One thing I do not like is to use both period and modern instruments in a performance.  For example, the old Karl Richter/Munich Bach Orchestra recordings of the Brandenburgs use what sounds like a full modern string section against a single harpsichord; and in the Second and Fourth concertos there are recorders trying to play against modern trumpet, oboe, and violin!  The recorders are nearly buried, and when you hear the harpsichord at all, it's reduced to an annoying buzz.  I don't know how many other recordings of Baroque music I've heard that use full modern strings against a harpsichord.  It never works! ::)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on October 23, 2012, 08:00:04 PM
I'm not a big fan of period instruments. I also like expressive techniques like vibrato and rubato. HIP is good for baroque, but for Haydn on, I much prefer a more modern approach.

For me the perfect approach is Bernstein's 60s Haydn symphonies. They are faithful to the letter of the score and they take full advantage of the NYPO.

HIP doesn't really mean all that much. I've heard great HIP and dreadful. I like good music. I'm not dogmatic.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on October 23, 2012, 09:19:29 PM
Quote from: Sammy on October 19, 2012, 04:25:31 PM
When I got back into classical music in the 1980's, I focused on baroque orchestral music from modern orchestras (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, etc.).  I wasn't finding it very enjoyable; something about the sound of the instruments (especially strings) just sounded all wrong and sour to me.  So I acquired a few PI recordings of the same repertoire and came to two main conclusions.  I much preferred the sound of the period instruments; it really opened up the music for me.  Second, Vivaldi still didn't appeal to me.

With music from the classical period or later, I can go either way.

But you feel differently about keyboard music don't you? You enjoy piano records of baroque harpsichord music.

For me HIP is about trust. It's about trusting the composer's conception of the music. It's about being open to the idea that playing it in line with how the composer envisaged it will produce an inspiring result.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on October 23, 2012, 11:10:58 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on October 23, 2012, 02:02:21 PM
I don't know how many other recordings of Baroque music I've heard that use full modern strings against a harpsichord.  It never works! ::)

Three-quarters of an hour of Karajan at the harpsichord.

http://www.youtube.com/v/nV-RLFFX5y4

Enjoy. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on October 24, 2012, 03:44:48 AM
Quote from: bigshot on October 23, 2012, 08:00:04 PM
They are faithful to the letter of the score and they take full advantage of the NYPO.

Period style performances are not about being faithful to the letter of the score.  Actually that is one of the problems with modern performances is that they don't embellish when it is expected of them.  Affectations that you enjoy vibrato, rubato are found in romantic style performances which largely died out decades ago.  We are in the era of literalism, where the score is seen as a sacred document.  Perhaps that is okay when playing 20th and 21st century music, but it can be bland when it comes to 19th century and older music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on October 24, 2012, 05:38:14 AM
Quote from: Opus106 on October 23, 2012, 11:10:58 PM
Three-quarters of an hour of Karajan at the harpsichord.

Looks like a Bosendorfer grand harpsichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on October 24, 2012, 09:11:46 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2012, 09:19:29 PM
But you feel differently about keyboard music don't you? You enjoy piano records of baroque harpsichord music.

Yes I do, although the harpsichord is my first choice. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on October 24, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2012, 09:19:29 PM
But you feel differently about keyboard music don't you? You enjoy piano records of baroque harpsichord music.

I'm not entirely sure if that isn't the fault of the way harpsichords are recorded. I like them when they're in a group and the mike isn't right on top of them, but solo harpsichord always seems to be close miked so your ears get hit with percussive thumps and bumps. If I listen to Scott Ross's Scarlatti at half normal volume I can tolerate it. I should try re equalizing it and perhaps adding a little digital reverb. That's no substitute for good miking, but maybe at least I wouldn't flinch so much as I listen to it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on October 24, 2012, 09:32:07 AM
Quote from: DavidW on October 24, 2012, 03:44:48 AMWe are in the era of literalism

Too bad for us.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: DavidW on October 24, 2012, 03:44:48 AM
We are in the era of literalism liberalism

Quote from: bigshot on October 24, 2012, 09:32:07 AM
Too bad for us.

+1  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on October 25, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: DavidW on October 24, 2012, 03:44:48 AM
Period style performances are not about being faithful to the letter of the score.  Actually that is one of the problems with modern performances is that they don't embellish when it is expected of them.  Affectations that you enjoy vibrato, rubato are found in romantic style performances which largely died out decades ago.  We are in the era of literalism, where the score is seen as a sacred document.  Perhaps that is okay when playing 20th and 21st century music, but it can be bland when it comes to 19th century and older music.
An excellent point.  By all reports, musicians in the 18th and early 19th centuries (and probably from antiquity till then) treated the score much as a jazz musician does, as a springboard for their own creative playing.  Musicians like Beethoven and Verdi had to insist that singers and players do things exactly as written and no more.  (I once heard a recording of one of the Brandenburgs done by, I think, Randy Newman and friends; modern instruments, and probably the only recording I've heard where the performers added graces and improvisations in good Baroque style.  It was beautiful!  There's more than one way a performance needs to be Historically Informed. :) )
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on October 30, 2012, 06:01:56 PM
The concept of HIP Mozart (or Beethoven, or Haydn) is a figment of the mind if you ask me (but I know nobody asked me  :)). One of the characteristics of the HIP crowd is that they're content to dabble and dawdle in their preconceived perceptions of music - meaning: how it should be played, conceived and interpreted (in that order).

In a real musical interpretational pursuit these actions are of the utmost importance, but in reverse: in any artistic action, a funnel that leads from the general to the particular should be followed. With HIP Believers it comes in reverse : playing comes first, then conception and we'll see about interpretation later, if we have time. That's the point I keep reproaching to classical (not early music) practitioners: by the time music came to be expected to carry feelings, priorities had changed, and changed big time!

In any timeline graph, you expect events to move sideways, horizontally. Every once in a while (and IMO more often than is generally thought), a change in artistic perception occurs very fast and things move vertically. Tectonic plates generally move horizontally. When they do vertically, a much bigger shift of forces is experienced (a vertical shift of tectonic plates creates a tsunami of devastating force. An horizontal shift of the same magnitude merely causes an earth tremor).  It is my firm belief that artists such as CPE Bach, Mozart and Haydn had the 'antennae' that enabled them to jump above the technichal capacities (and understanding) of their times. Had it not been the case, their music would not have survived the next generation of composers. Therefore, putting technical matters (instrument building advancement as of a given date or epoch) above conceptual and interpretational ones blocks the music's forward motion.

Another indication of that hindrance can be found simply and intuitively: take any long time interpreter of Mozart (or Brahms, or even Stravinsky) music, and compare their recordings over, say, 30 years. A case in point may be found in the subject at hand: Mozart's music. Listen to Karl Böhm's interpretation with 3 different orchestras hailing from different traditions, of Mozart's last 3 symphonies: Concertgebouw 1956, Berlin 1965 and Vienna 1978. I defy any one not to come across surprised by the difference of conception and even greater différence of interpretation to be found here. If it all had been laid at the door of HIP, instrumentalists, conductors and other intepreters could quit playing Mozart's music as soon as they thing they have 'got it'.

Fortunately it is not so and musicians evolve with time. Putting music - any music - in a time capsule is an insult to the genius of a composer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on October 30, 2012, 10:28:23 PM
Well, I guess we're back to square one on the HIP-debate!  8) There goes the "clean slate" Gurn wished for... ::)

André, I don't agree with the picture you paint of proponents of historically informed performances. In a rather ungraceful post, I have to add.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on October 31, 2012, 01:41:16 AM
Quote from: André on October 30, 2012, 06:01:56 PM
The concept of HIP Mozart (or Beethoven, or Haydn) is a figment of the mind

So, of course, is the concept of music of any kind ....

QuoteOne of the characteristics of the HIP crowd is that they're content to dabble and dawdle in their preconceived perceptions of music - meaning: how it should be played, conceived and interpreted (in that order). .... With HIP Believers it comes in reverse  ...

I suspect I'm not alone in my reluctance to accept these (quite unpleasantly-toned) categorisations of 'the HIP crowd' and 'HIP believers'. There are those among us, you know, who are in love with many period performances not because of some theoretical argument, but because we find they bring the music so vividly to life in a particularly rewarding way. It's depressing to see such activity described, de haut en bas, as dabbling and dawdling. And on a purely practical level, if I wanted to persuade a sceptical audience to listen to my point of view, I doubt it would help my cause if I began by dismissing them as dabblers and dawdlers.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on October 31, 2012, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: André on October 30, 2012, 06:01:56 PM
in any artistic action, a funnel that leads from the general to the particular should be followed.

That is absolutely true, and it isn't just true of music, it's all creative pursuits. Painters compose their canvases considering the large forms first and the details last. The same is true of architects, dancers, graphic designers and sculptors.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 31, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
Quote from: bigshot on October 31, 2012, 11:18:24 AM
That is absolutely true, and it isn't just true of music, it's all creative pursuits. Painters compose their canvases considering the large forms first and the details last. The same is true of architects, dancers, graphic designers and sculptors.

And the point of that is... what?  I'm totally not sure that I have the least idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis music performance.

"The sky is blue. It should always be blue at the start, but it can later be made other colors as needed." 

That is an artistic truism, just like what you stated. It has no meaning in and of itself.  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on October 31, 2012, 01:27:06 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 31, 2012, 12:11:15 PM
Once again the argument is stated: If only Haydn had known of our modern instruments he would have preferred to hear his music played on them, not those of his time.

This is a purely hypothetical statement and does not add much to the discussion other than this person's personal thoughts.  What we do know is that Haydn knew nothing of the modern concert grand or the modern orchestra.  It would seem obvious that he was expecting his music to be played on those instruments from his time - which is what the PI movement is all about.  Seems simple to me.

And to go one step further, even if we assume that Haydn would have preferred the sound of modern instruments, he presumably would have written different music to take advantage of the greater capabilities of those instruments.   What we have when we play Haydn on a modern orchestra is music that does not remotely exploit the capabilities of the ensemble, which makes it sound weak or tame compared to the music written by later composers who did take advantage.  For instance, when Haydn wrote for horn or trumpet, he was aware of when he was exploiting a remote overtone, or taxing the player so that a brilliant effect would be achieved.  When that same part is played on a modern valved instrument on which the passage is routine the original effect can be lost. 

I recall reading a commentary (I think by Harnoncourt) to the effect that modern brass play too loud, and when played to maintain balance in a classical orchestra produce a rounded tone.  The old valve-less wind instruments were weaker and would produce a brilliant timbre when played loud enough to make themselves heard. 

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on October 31, 2012, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on October 31, 2012, 01:41:16 AMI suspect I'm not alone in my reluctance to accept these (quite unpleasantly-toned) categorisations of 'the HIP crowd' and 'HIP believers'. There are those among us, you know, who are in love with many period performances not because of some theoretical argument, but because we find they bring the music so vividly to life in a particularly rewarding way. It's depressing to see such activity described, de haut en bas, as dabbling and dawdling. And on a purely practical level, if I wanted to persuade a sceptical audience to listen to my point of view, I doubt it would help my cause if I began by dismissing them as dabblers and dawdlers.

I can't imagine it said better.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on October 31, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
I can't really agree with Andre's post.  I don't see Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven as Gods not meant for their time.  That is insulting to both them and their contemporaries.  They are as much of their time as their friends.  I don't see musicians as translating emotions into sound.  I see musicians as performing artists.  We can be moved by a performance whether it be period style or modern style.  There is no one group of performers that have a monopoly on my heart.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Lilas Pastia on October 31, 2012, 06:36:06 PM
Sensibilities run high! Guys, just go back to the title of the thread: Historically informed performances. What is the meaning behind the words? Answer: that there are two kinds of performances: historically informed and historically uninformed. It doesn't take an Einstein brain to figure that either one is a figment of the mind. There is no such thing as a right or wrong kind of performance. They can be characterized (and I have done so), but is that a judgment on their artistic merit? Come on, you react like I had insulted your mothers and sisters  ::)

DavidW put it very well. He disagrees with a statement I never made (it's internet after all) but goes on to say that there is no monopoly on (musical) virtue. I strongly agree with that. Which is why I question (NOT condemn) the mere term and concept of a Historically Informed Performance. To adhere strictly to the notion of HIP is to disavow and renege any evolution of performance practice since a work's conception. HIP is certainly useful, but IMO it's merely a tool, not an artistic statement.

Many of my favourite performances of the 1750-1850 era are from Period Performance practitioners. Berlioz' memoirs and Mozart's letters (he was quite prolific) are a good read for any one who thinks that their era's performance practice is Paradise lost.

Once again I note how people tend to distort one's thoughts (sorry, San Antonio, but shame on you) to advance one's own theories  :P. If that helps you be stronger in your convictions, I really pity you.

Too bad something as beautiful as music can make people react so negatively. So long guys, it was nice while it lasted.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on November 01, 2012, 04:50:25 AM
If you are still reading I think that period style performance practice is very much an artistic statement.  And a bold one too.  Choosing it to play the music of the baroque and classical era in a way that few do is to approach the music with a very different aesthetic. 

I think that period performance is a part of the evolution of performance practice, it's not separate.  I see an evolution and a lineage dating back to Karl Richter and earlier.  There was a fork in the road, that is how I would put it.  To move down one road might be seen as a disavowal of the other path, but for PIons to disavow the modern style is just as valid as MIsters to disavow period style.  They made their choice, but sometimes they meet in a clearing between the roads and have an exchange of ideas.  There is room to appreciate more than one approach to music making.

We need to move beyond superficial ideas that period performance practice is not art.  It is.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 01, 2012, 05:28:31 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on October 31, 2012, 01:41:16 AM
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on October 30, 2012, 06:01:56 PM
The concept of HIP Mozart (or Beethoven, or Haydn) is a figment of the mind....
So, of course, is the concept of music of any kind ....
Darned philosophers! ;)

Quote from: bigshot on October 31, 2012, 11:18:24 AM
That is absolutely true, and it isn't just true of music, it's all creative pursuits. Painters compose their canvases considering the large forms first and the details last. The same is true of architects, dancers, graphic designers and sculptors.
Huh? That's about as dogmatic as it's possible to be ... and every bit as wrong. No doubt it's true of some painters (and other artists) some of the time, however.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 06:01:29 AM
Can I ask a stupid question?

Can't one get to the spirit of the music regardless of the instruments and approach used?

Here's another way of looking at it: Two groups perform a piece of music: one PI and one MI. Let's assume they both play it well and bring something to listener (and let's also assume they are both playing it in good faith for the listener). Would you agree that both are valid (though preferences may differ, just like any comparison)?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on November 01, 2012, 06:03:24 AM
The larger question is . . . just where is the music?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 06:33:27 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 06:01:29 AM
Can I ask a stupid question?

Can't one get to the spirit of the music regardless of the instruments and approach used?

Here's another way of looking at it: Two groups perform a piece of music: one PI and one MI. Let's assume they both play it well and bring something to listener (and let's also assume they are both playing it in good faith for the listener). Would you agree that both are valid (though preferences may differ, just like any comparison)?

Certainly they are. And since there isn't a bigger fan of PI on this forum, I have the right to say that the majority of people here would feel the same. As I have occasionally mentioned as a point of wonderment for me; I see 10X more hostility towards HIP from MI fans than I see from PIons towards MI. That's day in day out.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on November 01, 2012, 06:40:33 AM
Of course, that average may be skewed by the occasional hothead who inexplicably feels that PI practitioners are the Great Musical Satan . . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 06:45:55 AM
Quote from: DavidW on November 01, 2012, 04:50:25 AM
If you are still reading I think that period style performance practice is very much an artistic statement.  And a bold one too.  Choosing it to play the music of the baroque and classical era in a way that few do is to approach the music with a very different aesthetic. 

I think that period performance is a part of the evolution of performance practice, it's not separate.  I see an evolution and a lineage dating back to Karl Richter and earlier.  There was a fork in the road, that is how I would put it.  To move down one road might be seen as a disavowal of the other path, but for PIons to disavow the modern style is just as valid as MIsters to disavow period style.  They made their choice, but sometimes they meet in a clearing between the roads and have an exchange of ideas.  There is room to appreciate more than one approach to music making.

We need to move beyond superficial ideas that period performance practice is not art.  It is.

Quite so.  All art involves constraints, in painting it is what can be communicated by pigments on a flat surface, in a piano sonata two hands and a more-or-less well defined instrument, in dance rhythmic movements of a trained body.  PI performance involves the experiment of finding out what can be done performing music on instruments of the era and by taking into account customs of the era.  Seeing if things become apparent that weren't apparent on modern instruments.

There may be PI performers who really see their role as limited by scholarship, but I think most see PI as an enhancement of their musical resources.  Harnoncourt was in the cello section of the Vienna symphony and I seem to recall him writing about the experience of playing Beethoven under Karajan and appreciating the performance tradition that Karajan represented but feeling that there was something in the music that was not coming across.  Harnoncourt, Brautigam, Hogwood, and others span both worlds, and each enriches the other.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 07:18:25 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 06:33:27 AM
Certainly they are. And since there isn't a bigger fan of PI on this forum, I have the right to say that the majority of people here would feel the same. As I have occasionally mentioned as a point of wonderment for me; I see 10X more hostility towards HIP from MI fans than I see from PIons towards MI. That's day in day out.

8)
Well, good to hear I am not so dense after all. May I suggest, though, that accusing one side of more hostility simply makes that side more irritated and cranky (and more hostile?). What's more, I think there are different types of hostilities. Perhaps one side is more obvious about it. In any case, there are cranks on both sides, enough to drive a rational person insane.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 01, 2012, 07:23:37 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 06:01:29 AM
Can I ask a stupid question?

Can't one get to the spirit of the music regardless of the instruments and approach used?

Here's another way of looking at it: Two groups perform a piece of music: one PI and one MI. Let's assume they both play it well and bring something to listener (and let's also assume they are both playing it in good faith for the listener). Would you agree that both are valid (though preferences may differ, just like any comparison)?
Yep.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 07:18:25 AM
May I suggest, though, that accusing one side of more hostility simply makes that side more irritated and cranky (and more hostile?).
Yep.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on November 01, 2012, 07:29:49 AM
Well, in the case of at least one individual, though, it is no matter of accusation, but of observation.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 07:18:25 AM
Well, good to hear I am not so dense after all. May I suggest, though, that accusing one side of more hostility simply makes that side more irritated and cranky (and more hostile?). What's more, I think there are different types of hostilities. Perhaps one side is more obvious about it. In any case, there are cranks on both sides, enough to drive a rational person insane.

Well, Karl anticipated my reply, but I will say that as long as you have known me now, you should certainly know that I am not an accuser, merely an observer. I didn't even get involved in this discussion when in fact its subject is near and dear to me. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 08:26:07 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Well, Karl anticipated my reply, but I will say that as long as you have known me now, you should certainly know that I am not an accuser, merely an observer. I didn't even get involved in this discussion when in fact its subject is near and dear to me. :)

8)
I want to say up front that I have nothing but respect for you and am not trying to be antagonistic or place blame or anything like that. I must admit that I interpreted what you wrote differently the first time I read it. If we stick to the facts, the fact is that you stated an observation. These are the only facts we have (from that sentence: you observed that hostility by MIers to PIers is 10x more). But there are a number of implications there (regardless of whether you meant them or not). Here are just a few:
1. 10x is a fact, and others should accept that
2. PIers are victims, those big, bad (and ugly! :) ) MIers are always attacking us
3. 10x more hostility implies an MI might be ashamed if that is a fact (some people react from shame with hostility)
4. Since I observed it, it must be true (implying one person's observations are more meaningful than another's)
Etc...

So I guess the only thing I can say now is that my experience is completely different and that I have observed more or less equal hostility from both sides.

Anyway, this is making me hungary (and I feel my sugar is low) so I will return after I've eaten.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 08:43:23 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 08:26:07 AM
I want to say up front that I have nothing but respect for you and am not trying to be antagonistic or place blame or anything like that. I must admit that I interpreted what you wrote differently the first time I read it. If we stick to the facts, the fact is that you stated an observation. These are the only facts we have (from that sentence: you observed that hostility by MIers to PIers is 10x more). But there are a number of implications there (regardless of whether you meant them or not). Here are just a few:
1. 10x is a fact, and others should accept that
2. PIers are victims, those big, bad (and ugly! :) ) MIers are always attacking us
3. 10x more hostility implies an MI might be ashamed if that is a fact (some people react from shame with hostility)
4. Since I observed it, it must be true (implying one person's observations are more meaningful than another's)
Etc...

So I guess the only thing I can say now is that my experience is completely different and that I have observed more or less equal hostility from both sides.

Anyway, this is making me hungary (and I feel my sugar is low) so I will return after I've eaten.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 06:33:27 AM
Certainly they are. And since there isn't a bigger fan of PI on this forum, I have the right to say that the majority of people here would feel the same. As I have occasionally mentioned as a point of wonderment for me; I see 10X more hostility towards HIP from MI fans than I see from PIons towards MI. That's day in day out.

8)

Patently an observation. In order for 10X to be accusatory, I would have had to go back and count instances, which obviously I didn't (I'm stunned to consider that there are people who would have, though! :o ). It is merely a figure of speech, like "I'd give a million dollars to have someone record the dozen Haydn works I don't already have". Clearly I wouldn't, but it is indicative of a desire. One could almost call it a figure of speech. :)

I am having a discussion elsewhere on the problems of trying to convey emotions in writing so that the reader can be on the same page as the writer in terms of understanding the quality of his emotions when he writes something. It is difficult to communicate such things, and afterwards the writer is left feeling that "he didn't understand a word that I said". I think that is the root cause of InterWeb misunderstandings. If we were sitting in a café and just talking about music performance, and that exact same turn of conversation came about, you would have known instantly that I was using a non-accusatory manner of speech, and that I was exaggerating for the sake of effect, and you wouldn't have thought twice about it.

To be perfectly clear; anyone can, to my satisfaction, listen to any music and/or performance style which enables the music to speak to him/her and satisfies his/her aesthetic demands or for whatever other reason that he/she listens to music. My personal level of demand on this decision is nil, zero, non-existent.  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 01, 2012, 08:51:28 AM
There are "PI-ers" who demonstrate hostility toward "MI-ers?" Where? I have never encountered this phenomenon.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 01, 2012, 10:29:50 AM
Those who dump on the musical preferences of others are just a bunch of toxic jerks not deserving our support, consideration or response.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 10:33:57 AM
Quote from: Sammy on November 01, 2012, 10:29:50 AM
Those who dump on the musical preferences of others are just a bunch of toxic jerks not deserving our support, consideration or response.

Well, there's that. Although that only becomes painful when you know the person involved is NOT a toxic jerk, and then you are left wondering.   :-\

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on November 01, 2012, 10:35:51 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2012, 08:43:29 AM
What I have noticed is the implicit assumption that using MI is the norm and PI diverts from this norm and can be judged on that account. 

As far as I know there are no threads such as "MI performances of Mozart", or "MI Beethoven", or "MI practice", etc., the closest thread of that type would be the "Bach on the piano" thread.  The threads devoted to PI seem to turn up fairly often.  And just as often as one of the PI threads appears there will be someone joining the discussion for no other purpose than to dis PI or HIP.

I could be wrong but my observation is the same as Gurn's although I could not put a number to it.

I think that is because the unspoken majority of performances of classical and romantic era are modern instruments.  But PI has effectively conquered the baroque era, making Bach on MI the minority.  There is an automatic bias and rejection of baroque era music done in a traditional way these days.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 11:04:05 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2012, 10:59:43 AM
Oh, I don't disagree with you - I was just stating the obvious, I guess.  But I don't think Bach on piano is so out of fashion as to be questioned.

I do find it unfortunate and saddening that there are still people who feel the need to argue against the basic idea behind historically informed performance practice and the use of period instruments.  It is not as if music performance is a zero sum game, i.e. a PI recording takes a slot that could be filled by a MI recording.  More choice is good, imo. 

And how is it hurting someone if there is a period recording of Mozart symphonies?

I just don't understand the motivation of people who argue against HIP.

Believe me, there are threads on this site where, if you admit to listening to Bach played on a piano, you will be treated like an orangutan.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 11:04:05 AM
Believe me, there are threads on this site where, if you admit to listening to Bach played on a piano, you will be treated like an orangutan.  :)

Well, orangutan's are cute, except when they are picking their asses.... :D

I personally have a very hard time liking Bach on a piano, but if you do, by all means enjoy it! 

By way of contrast and to illustrate my earlier point, you don't see in this spot a need to move along by adding the equivalent to Beecham's comment about harpsichords and skeletons screwing on a tin roof. That is the sort of hostility that I was referring to earlier. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Opus106 on November 01, 2012, 11:10:43 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 11:04:05 AM
Believe me, there are threads on this site where, if you admit to listening to Bach played on a piano, you will be treated like an orangutan.  :)

???
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on November 01, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 11:09:32 AMBy way of contrast and to illustrate my earlier point, you don't see in this spot a need to move along by adding the equivalent to Beecham's comment about harpsichords and skeletons screwing on a tin roof. That is the sort of hostility that I was referring to earlier.

I don't care whether I agree with the point or not. Anyone with the wit and humor of Beecham can feel free to let loose. I'll be loving it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on November 01, 2012, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 01, 2012, 05:28:31 AMHuh? That's about as dogmatic as it's possible to be ... and every bit as wrong. No doubt it's true of some painters (and other artists) some of the time, however.

I'm betting that you aren't a creative artist yourself and don't work closely with any.

By the way, this isn't a criticism. It's an observation. The principle I was pointing to is one of the most fundamental concepts in the creative process.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 11:18:23 AM
Quote from: bigshot on November 01, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
I don't care whether I agree with the point or not. Anyone with the wit and humor of Beecham can feel free to let loose. I'll be loving it.

Being witty doesn't make you correct. What he was offering as a bon mot subsequently became a truism/point of argument among people who happened to agree with him. I do agree with you, Beecham was a funny bastard. That this makes his opinion of harpsichords more valid than yours or mine doesn't follow. Just sayin'. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 11:18:51 AM
Quote from: bigshot on November 01, 2012, 11:17:37 AM
I'm betting that you aren't a creative artist yourself and don't work closely with any.

Hold on, my popcorn isn't ready yet.   :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on November 01, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Well played, Scarps!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on November 01, 2012, 11:23:45 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2012, 11:18:23 AMBeecham was a funny bastard. That this makes his opinion of harpsichords more valid than yours or mine doesn't follow. Just sayin'. :)

But it is a whole lot more pointedly entertaining! And that counts more than being right to me.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bhodges on November 01, 2012, 11:27:14 AM
As someone who listens to PI performances now and then, I prefer that approach. Speaking as someone who was turned on to period performances (or "converted" if you like) by hearing some plain old-fashioned "outstanding musicianship," to me the result (i.e., PI) speaks for itself.

But on the other hand, sometimes it's quite entertaining to hear big, pumped-up, 1960s-style Bach. There's definitely room for both.

But I also like Bach on the piano...or the harpsichord...but then Bach sounds good on any number of instruments. Contemporary flutist Claire Chase (director of the International Contemporary Ensemble here) plays an arrangement of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor for flute solo, done by Salvatore Sciarrino - it's pretty dazzling stuff. (I do realize that's straying a bit from the point here.)

--Bruce
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 01, 2012, 11:32:12 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 11:04:05 AM
Believe me, there are threads on this site where, if you admit to listening to Bach played on a piano, you will be treated like an orangutan.  :)

Ha!! ;D

That's the flip side. I love HIP but I see MI dumping all the time on this board. It's not so overt which avoids wholesale toes from being stepped on but still it exists. The residual effect is to create an air of superiority, and since the whole thing is so subtle to call anyone out on it is to invite cries of pedantry.

Subtle or not it's still distasteful for me to read so I honestly have no sympathy for HIPsters who try to cry foul.

   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 12:12:52 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2012, 12:02:19 PMI am more comfortable with our knowledge of period instruments than I am with historically informed practice since with the latter there is  more guesswork, or more appropriately, detective work, involved and people of good faith will come to vastly different conclusions.

I suspect that observing what happens when you try to play those works on those instruments is just as important as reading old sources.  Balances that are hard to manage might just fall into place, or figuration that seems odd might suddenly sound right.  In Mozart, for instance, I've noticed that textures that sound good on fortepiano can sound muddy on modern piano.  The fortepiano had a short sustain, so Mozart kept the hands constantly moving to maintain sound production, which doesn't have the same effect on a modern piano.  I would imagine just using those old instruments would start a process of discovery.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 01, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 08:26:07 AM
I have observed more or less equal hostility from both sides.

Here, surely, is the pity of the thing: not what the proportion is one way or the other, but the absurdity that the issue should be a trigger for any hostility at all.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 01, 2012, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 12:12:52 PM
I suspect that observing what happens when you try to play those works on those instruments is just as important as reading old sources.  Balances that are hard to manage might just fall into place, or figuration that seems odd might suddenly sound right.  In Mozart, for instance, I've noticed that textures that sound good on fortepiano can sound muddy on modern piano.  The fortepiano had a short sustain, so Mozart kept the hands constantly moving to maintain sound production, which doesn't have the same effect on a modern piano.  I would imagine just using those old instruments would start a process of discovery.

Reading this, I found myself nodding vigorously. I hadn't thought of it myself, but I'm instantly persuaded.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 01, 2012, 02:04:43 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on November 01, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Here, surely, is the pity of the thing: not what the proportion is one way or the other, but the absurdity that the issue should be a trigger for any hostility at all.
Very true...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 01, 2012, 02:06:29 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 01, 2012, 11:04:05 AM
Believe me, there are threads on this site where, if you admit to listening to Bach played on a piano, you will be treated like an orangutan.  :)

Very funny indeed, but just stating for those who didn't get the joke: definitely not true... ;D
I have Gould's complete Bach on the shelve, as well as Edwin Fischer's WTC. And believe me, I do enjoy these recordings.
And most prominent Bachians and HIP sters at GMG that come to mind, enjoy Bach on the piano as well. 8)


It's a pity that the appreciation of period performances seems to create so much antagonism. And I hope André will return to us soon!  :)
It is not the philosophy and reasoning behind HIP, but the performances that ultimately convinced me of the merits of HIP. But I guess it is exactly the philosophy and reasoning behind HIP that makes some feel personally threatened and looked down upon in their enjoyment of performances that do not adhere to the HIP principles.

Alas, we can't change the fact that HIP is indeed born out of a concept on how an approach in music performance could bring us closer (not claim the eternal truth) to a composer's intentions and sound world. I cannot pretend it is not. But as I told before, that doesn't mean I'm judging anyone who enjoys Karl Böhm's Mozart symphonies. It is unfortunate that doesn't seem always sufficient to put everybody's unease to rest.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on November 01, 2012, 02:38:14 PM
Besides, we're humane. You say "treated like an orangutan" like it's a bad thing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 01, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2012, 10:59:43 AM
But I don't think Bach on piano is so out of fashion as to be questioned.



According to bachcantatas.org there have been 30 new recordings of the Goldbergs on piano since 2010, 17 on harpsichord.

Between 1990 and 2000 there were 63 on piano and 36 on harpsichord.

In the 1980s there were 26 on piano and 30 on harpsichord.

UIn the 1970s 13 on piano and 16 on harpsichoprd.

In the 1960s there were 9 on piano and 17 on harpsichord.

In the 1950s 12 on piano and 10 on harpsichord.

Maybe someone would like to draw an interesting  conclusion.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jlaurson on November 02, 2012, 12:57:50 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 01, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
...Maybe someone would like to draw an interesting  conclusion.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tozr6ZaaTAk/UJOKqWXNsNI/AAAAAAAAEsw/fXlX-gnqs9k/s1600/piano_harpsichord_GVs.jpg)


1.) There are more pianists than there are harpsichord players
2.) Recording has gotten easier
3.) Really looks like Gould and Landowska started something there, huh?!
4.) ...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 02, 2012, 02:29:58 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on November 01, 2012, 02:38:14 PM
Besides, we're humane. You say "treated like an orangutan" like it's a bad thing.

Speaking as an orangutang myself, I have no complaints beyond observing the ongoing shortage of bananas.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidW on November 02, 2012, 03:45:25 AM
I stand corrected Mandryka, I bow before the hard data. 0:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 02, 2012, 05:02:50 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 01, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
According to bachcantatas.org there have been 30 new recordings of the Goldbergs on piano since 2010, 17 on harpsichord.

Between 1990 and 2000 there were 63 on piano and 36 on harpsichord.

In the 1980s there were 26 on piano and 30 on harpsichord.

UIn the 1970s 13 on piano and 16 on harpsichoprd.

In the 1960s there were 9 on piano and 17 on harpsichord.

In the 1950s 12 on piano and 10 on harpsichord.

Maybe someone would like to draw an interesting  conclusion.
Does piano include pianoforte?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 01, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
According to bachcantatas.org there have been 30 new recordings of the Goldbergs on piano since 2010, 17 on harpsichord.

Maybe someone would like to draw an interesting  conclusion.

Just about every keyboardist alive wants to record the Goldberg Variations, and there are many more pianists than harpsichordists.

As far as recordings since 2010, the numbers I come up with are somewhat different:

Piano           17
Harpsichord  10
Organ             3
Clavichord      1
Accordion       2
Ensemble      5

I don't count older recordings that have been reissued.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Wakefield on November 02, 2012, 08:53:25 AM
Quote from: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 08:47:27 AM
Clavichord      1

Benjamin-Joseph Steens?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 02, 2012, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 08:47:27 AM
Just about every keyboardist alive wants to record the Goldberg Variations, and there are many more pianists than harpsichordists.

As far as recordings since 2010, the numbers I come up with are somewhat different:

Piano           17
Harpsichord  10
Organ             3
Clavichord      1
Accordion       2
Ensemble      5

I don't count older recordings that have been reissued.

Where are you looking?  I was looking here:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/NVD/BWV988-Rec8.htm

I just asked my computer to count how many cases of (piano) there are on the page and got 31. These

Andrea. Bacchetti
Artem Anuchin

Colin Noble

Tzvi Erez
Minsoo Sohn

Avner Arad (

Andrea Padova
Hristo Kazakov
Daniel-Ben Pienaar
Jean Muller
Peter Vinograde
Cory Hall
Samuel Post
Irina Zahharenkova
Chie Miyoshi
Nicholas Angelich
Alexander Gurning
Sachiko Kato
Daniel Blumenthal
Dan Tepfer
Lara Downes
David Jalbert
Jeremy Denk
Makiko Hirata
Claudio Colombo
Maria Perrotta
Remi Masunaga
Yuan Sheng
Kimiko Ishizaka
Caroline Hong
Marcel Worms

Maybe that method's not reliable. Are some of them re-releases . . . that must be it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:20:21 AM
Quote from: Gordon Shumway on November 02, 2012, 08:53:25 AM
Benjamin-Joseph Steens?

Yes, he's the one.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 02, 2012, 09:15:51 AM
Where are you looking?  I was looking here:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/NVD/BWV988-Rec8.htm

I used various sources.  What's important to me is that the HIP/PI movement has been a tremendous boon for baroque music.  Before HIP, not many folks wanted to hear baroque music, and I can't blame them.  The music was played in a strongly romantic-era mode with rounded phrasing, syrupy legato and vibrato all over the place; put another way, Stokie and baroque music was a poor mix.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 02, 2012, 09:39:00 AM
The interesting thing to me about the graph is why there should have been such a steep rise in the number of new piano performances over the past few years. At the same time the rate of new harpsichord releases seems to be declining -- the steepness of the line.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:59:03 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 02, 2012, 09:39:00 AM
The interesting thing to me about the graph is why there should have been such a steep rise in the number of new piano performances over the past few years. At the same time the rate of new harpsichord releases seems to be declining -- the steepness of the line.

Your own numbers show that the rate of new harpsichord releases has not been declining at all, but that new piano releases have increased even more substantially.  Why?  The much greater popularity of Bach and other baroque music created by the HIP movement; all pianists want to get in on the action.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make.  If you prefer piano, you have many choices; same for harpsichord.  You also have a fair amount of organ and ensemble recordings if your taste runs in that direction.  Everyone has good reason to be happy about the situation.

Baroque is back, baby, and we have HIP to thank for it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bigshot on November 02, 2012, 05:20:21 PM
Quote from: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:25:45 AMBefore HIP, not many folks wanted to hear baroque music, and I can't blame them.

I don't think that's true at all. There just hadn't been the scholarship to uncover the performing scores. There was a group of Baroque pieces that were very popular, and people certainly would have welcomed more, but until people started getting into the archives and digging them out, no one knew that all of those works even existed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:32:27 PM
Quote from: bigshot on November 02, 2012, 05:20:21 PM
I don't think that's true at all. There just hadn't been the scholarship to uncover the performing scores. There was a group of Baroque pieces that were very popular, and people certainly would have welcomed more, but until people started getting into the archives and digging them out, no one knew that all of those works even existed.

How would you explain the large increase in recordings of baroque works that were already well known such as the Goldberg Variations?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 03, 2012, 06:33:29 AM
Maybe something's been lost in translation but it's comments like this:


Quote from: Que on November 02, 2012, 01:53:49 PM
Not earth shattering, but indeed a difference: the monumental, pompous character is gone.

But then I always preferred performances that weren't like that anyway (so no Böhm/Gilels). Brahms wasn't like that, if anyone beliefs me... 8)


...that lead me to the very thing I said here:


Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 01, 2012, 11:32:12 AM
That's the flip side. I love HIP but I see MI dumping all the time on this board. It's not so overt which avoids wholesale toes from being stepped on but still it exists. The residual effect is to create an air of superiority, and since the whole thing is so subtle to call anyone out on it is to invite cries of pedantry.

Subtle or not it's still distasteful for me to read so I honestly have no sympathy for HIPsters who try to cry foul.


Q's comments suggest HIP is something like a key which will unlock the true Brahms. The Gilels/Jochum (not Böhm) recordings are broad, yes, but never pompous...nor are they anti-Brahms.

So, what gives? :(


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 03, 2012, 06:47:55 AM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 03, 2012, 06:33:29 AM
Q's comments suggest HIP is something like a key which will unlock the true Brahms.

You might read that suggestion into it, but that was not my intention. There are plenty of performances on modern(ised) instruments that show Brahms how I personally perceive him.


QuoteThe Gilels/Jochum (not Böhm) recordings are broad, yes, but never pompous...nor are they anti-Brahms.

So, what gives? :(

Broad, Romantic, pompous....I guess the choice of words depends on your taste.  "Anti-Brahms" is also a choice of words, wordings I wouldn't make mine.

But it is not the performance that shows these pieces how I perceive them. What's new about that in picking favourite performances? :)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 03, 2012, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:32:27 PM
How would you explain the large increase in recordings of baroque works that were already well known such as the Goldberg Variations?
I think we need to be careful how we interpret this. First, it's just one piece. Second, we don't know the world proportion of pianists to harpsichordists, information we need to help make sense of it. Third, those recordings you counted include many live performances that probably would not have been released in the past. Fourth, there is a corresponding increase in recordings with better recording/play back technologies (so there is a likely correlation there). Fifth, we would also need to see how many companies there are today versus back then (as each company will want to release a version on their label). Sixth, these days they often do more recordings around marketing events (like 300th anniversaries and such), which were not done to the same degree in the past. Seventh, I observed a huge increase in non-traditional performances (quartets, for example) of the pieces, probably the largest growth area on a percentage basis. I'm sure I can go on and on, but you get the idea. It's hard to figure out just which had the biggest influence. With the information we have, I think we can only speculate.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on November 03, 2012, 07:23:42 AM
By the way, I decided to start this megathread from the beginning. I'm around page 18 or so, and wanted to say that it's been fascinating reading from the start, even the flame-war between M forever and HIP-haters, because it contains some of M's finest (that is, both most caustic and most insightful) work. Also some terrific CD recommendations.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 07:34:43 AM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 03, 2012, 06:33:29 AMQ's comments suggest HIP is something like a key which will unlock the true Brahms. The Gilels/Jochum (not Böhm) recordings are broad, yes, but never pompous...nor are they anti-Brahms.

So, what gives? :(

Actually, I suspect he is thinking of Backhaus/Bohm.  Backhaus met Brahms, and his playing was admired by the composer, and I don't see how you can beat those HIP bona fides.  :)  For what it's worth, I also thought of this thread when I saw this post elsewhere, and it struck me as revealing a condescension towards those who don't prefer HIP performances.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 03, 2012, 07:38:49 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 03, 2012, 07:23:42 AM
By the way, I decided to start this megathread from the beginning. I'm around page 18 or so, and wanted to say that it's been fascinating reading from the start, [...]

I wouldn't have expected otherwise!  ;D

Quoteeven the flame-war between M forever and HIP-haters, because it contains some of M's finest (that is, both most caustic and most insightful) work. Also some terrific CD recommendations.

In a way, M was (is) a HIP-hater himself...or rather, he was in a love/hate relationship with HIP. I feel he was kind of split on the issue: as a musician he had a huge respect for the historical and technical research that has been done by the HIP crowd and the intellectual effort that went into it, on the other hand he was a late-Romantic at heart and didn't always like the results... ::) :)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 07:44:05 AM
Which all gets back to what I have supported for many years; that people make an effort to attempt to explain what they like and dislike about a recording without being comparative. This goes to whatever your stance on whatever subject. It is not being unnecessarily PC (politically correct) to say 'I like this because...". It can be construed as aggressive rudeness (even by the not overly sensitive) when one says "this approach that I prefer is way better than So-and-So's. He misses the mark altogether...".  It isn't hard to avoid saying things like that, but I read statements like that here every day. No wonder that people get pissy about it. I know I do. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 03, 2012, 07:47:17 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 07:34:43 AM
Actually, I suspect he is thinking of Backhaus/Bohm.  Backhaus met Brahms, and his playing was admired by the composer, and I don't see how you can beat those HIP bona fides.  :)  For what it's worth, I also thought of this thread when I saw this post elsewhere, and it struck me as revealing a condescension towards those who don't prefer HIP performances.

Nothing of the sort, and that kind of response is rather revealing in itself... I happen to agree that Backhaus' Brahms is thoroughly authentic, like Weingartner's recording of the symphonies.

But I wasn't commenting on Backhaus but on the recording with Gilels, and I've been burnt at the stakes for not appreciating that performance before - so please be my guest.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 07:49:47 AM
Quote from: Que on November 03, 2012, 07:47:17 AMBut I wasn't commenting on Backhaus but on the recording with Gilels, and I've been burnt at the stakes for not appreciating that performance before - so please be my guest.

Couldn't say, never hear the Gilels recording.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on November 03, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
   Thpse who say we can't assume that composers such as Haydn,Mozart,and Bach etc  would have preferred  the modern instruments we use today if they could have heard them are right .
  But we also can't assume that these ocmposers would have DISLIKED our modern instruments  either if they could be miraculously revived and  experience them . Or that they would ocndemn musicians of the present day for using modern instruments .
If I had four wheels I'd be a Cadillac !
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 08:10:26 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on November 03, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
   Thpse who say we can't assume that composers such as Haydn,Mozart,and Bach etc  would have preferred  the modern instruments we use today if they could have heard them are right .
  But we also can't assume that these ocmposers would have DISLIKED our modern instruments  either if they could be miraculously revived and  experience them . Or that they would ocndemn musicians of the present day for using modern instruments .
If I had four wheels I'd be a Cadillac !

And if pigs had wings, we would all be wearing these big hats...

It is OK to suppose anything you want to suppose.  Where that turns into brain mush is when people extrapolate (as they usually do) their own fantasy and try to make it the reality. I can't tell you how many times I've read in the last 15 years that if Beethoven had heard a Steinway he would have never played one of them crappy pianofortes again. Or better yet "Beethoven was looking into the future and writing for the instruments that he knew would one day come into being". Yes, I have actually read that, and more than once. 

Do I think that Beethoven would have liked a modern piano if he time-traveled and had a chance to play one?  Sure, what's not to like? But it is important to separate that from the reality; he didn't have the electron tube that would have enabled time travel, and so he was stuck in early 19th century Vienna with his tinkly old pianoforte... :-\   ;)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on November 03, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 07:44:05 AM
Which all gets back to what I have supported for many years; that people make an effort to attempt to explain what they like and dislike about a recording without being comparative. This goes to whatever your stance on whatever subject. It is not being unnecessarily PC (politically correct) to say 'I like this because...". It can be construed as aggressive rudeness (even by the not overly sensitive) when one says "this approach that I prefer is way better than So-and-So's. He misses the mark altogether...".  It isn't hard to avoid saying things like that, but I read statements like that here every day. No wonder that people get pissy about it. I know I do. :)

An example of the very finest kind of CD recommendation can, of course, be found in this thread. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg238212.html#msg238212) :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 08:31:34 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 03, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
An example of the very finest kind of CD recommendation can, of course, be found in this thread. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg238212.html#msg238212) :)

Yes, that is a very convincing exposition. Of course, I already love the disk so I was easy to convince.... :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 03, 2012, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: M forever on October 16, 2008, 12:30:14 PM
Investigating the historical context of historical music is not a guarantee for "correct" or even "good" performances at all, but it can be a basis for stylisitically very complex and interesting, and with that attitude, essentially modern performances. Because that kind of attitude towards our cultural history is a very modern attitude.

I especially liked this pearl of wisdom. HIP is a quintessentially (post)modern concept, I quite agree with that.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 03, 2012, 09:52:42 AM
Quote from: bigshot on November 01, 2012, 11:17:37 AM
I'm betting that you aren't a creative artist yourself and don't work closely with any.

By the way, this isn't a criticism. It's an observation. The principle I was pointing to is one of the most fundamental concepts in the creative process.
Three more things you're wrong about.

One of the most deliciously ironic things about human nature is the inverse relationship between knowledge/understanding and arrogance.
The unrestrained ego's investment in the belief that we already know is a terrible handicap that must be overcome before learning is possible. Sadly, few in our society recognize the value of humility, thus most condemn themselves to perpetual ignorance and needlessly slow learning at best.

Here is a short biographical film about one of the most influential artists of the 20th Century, with an amusingly appropriate soundtrack.

http://www.youtube.com/v/bybPoL7-8BE&feature=fvwrel
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 03, 2012, 09:54:14 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on November 01, 2012, 02:38:14 PM
Besides, we're humane. You say "treated like an orangutan" like it's a bad thing.
I suspect that most orangutans treat others much better than many (most?) people. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 03, 2012, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 07:44:05 AM
Which all gets back to what I have supported for many years; that people make an effort to attempt to explain what they like and dislike about a recording without being comparative. This goes to whatever your stance on whatever subject. It is not being unnecessarily PC (politically correct) to say 'I like this because...".

There's another dimension to this, though, summed up in David Hume's 'Reason is the slave of the passions' - surely one of the most penetrating insights into the workings of human discourse on any subject at all. It's not an inviolable rule, but generally speaking our reasons follow our awareness of our preferences. I've no statistics, but I doubt that many people are persuaded by rational argument into a preference for HIP performance, or vice versa. I think the preference comes first, as direct perception; the reasoning comes later. The problem is that the nature of the reasoning is often misunderstood: if we think we're finding an objective justification for our preference that we think should be universally accepted on rational grounds, then that's where the trouble starts. If on the other hand we're aware that we're trying to find a common language through which best to describe to others why we have the preferences we do (which is what Gurn suggests), then all shall (by and large) be well.

For those who doubt the wisdom of Hume on this: how many people do you know who dislike HIP performances, but listen to them because they've been persuaded by the arguments of the evangelical HIPsters? How many do you know who have abandoned their HIP preferences because they've been persuaded that the grounds for attempting HIP practice are dubious?

Speaking purely personally, I love Immerseel's Beethoven not because it's HIP (though I'm very interested in the fact that it is), but because I can't help loving it. I can't imagine any argument that would impact on that. Contrariwise, when I was listening with delight last night by the fireside, to concertos from my Vivaldi box by I Solisti Veneti, I really wasn't concerned about its non-HIPness. In fact I wasn't even thinking about whether it was HIP or not.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on November 03, 2012, 12:37:15 PM
There's another dimension to this, though, summed up in David Hume's 'Reason is the slave of the passions' - surely one of the most penetrating insights into the workings of human discourse on any subject at all. It's not an inviolable rule, but generally speaking our reasons follow our awareness of our preferences. I've no statistics, but I doubt that many people are persuaded by rational argument into a preference for HIP performance, or vice versa. I think the preference comes first, as direct perception; the reasoning comes later. The problem is that the nature of the reasoning is often misunderstood: if we think we're finding an objective justification for our preference that we think should be universally accepted on rational grounds, then that's where the trouble starts. If on the other hand we're aware that we're trying to find a common language through which best to describe to others why we have the preferences we do (which is what Gurn suggests), then all shall (by and large) be well.

For those who doubt the wisdom of Hume on this: how many people do you know who dislike HIP performances, but listen to them because they've been persuaded by the arguments of the evangelical HIPsters? How many do you know who have abandoned their HIP preferences because they've been persuaded that the grounds for attempting HIP practice are dubious?

Speaking purely personally, I love Immerseel's Beethoven not because it's HIP (though I'm very interested in the fact that it is), but because I can't help loving it. I can't imagine any argument that would impact on that. Contrariwise, when I was listening with delight last night by the fireside, to concertos from my Vivaldi box by I Solisti Veneti, I really wasn't concerned about its non-HIPness. In fact I wasn't even thinking about whether it was HIP or not.

Alan,
Well, you're right, of course, comparison is necessary to the plot, so to speak. You also hit on my essential meaning. It is one thing to say "I like Immerseel in Beethoven better than I like Furtwängler because Immerseel does this and Furt does that instead and it just doesn't work for me". That's comparative, but it is also rational. If instead you were to say "I like Immerseel because he uses authentic instruments and performing style while Furtwängler is totally contaminated by post-Romantic rot and layers of accretion...etc" without being able to demonstrate what such a thing is, or how it ruins your listening pleasure, then you are much better off to leave Furt out of it altogether! So there is constructive comparison and destructive comparison. I think we all know which is preferable, don't we?    (this was all entirely made up as an example; please, no letters to the editor! :D )

And of course, when properly played and presented, a good performance is a good performance, no matter the rest of it. I may have mentioned at some point in time that I discovered PI totally by accident, having acquired a mass of L'Archibudelli & Tafelmusik Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart performances from my record club. With no guiding hand at the wheel to steer me off that reef, I became quite enamored of the sound of it without ever knowing what it was. It was only several years later that I became apprised of the error of my ways!    Too late for me, but perhaps it can serve as a warning to others.  :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 01:11:31 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on November 03, 2012, 12:37:15 PMFor those who doubt the wisdom of Hume on this: how many people do you know who dislike HIP performances, but listen to them because they've been persuaded by the arguments of the evangelical HIPsters? How many do you know who have abandoned their HIP preferences because they've been persuaded that the grounds for attempting HIP practice are dubious?

How many people?  At least one.  Me!  :)

I own and occasionally listen to Bach's WTC and other works on harpsichord, even though the sound of the instrument is abhorrent to me.  Sometimes, I start out with the idea of finally enjoying a harpsichord performance, and after a short time, have to turn it off and find a piano version.  Other times I listen because I find it useful to know what Bach had in mind when he wrote certain passages.  Sometimes something just doesn't seem right on piano, and putting on the proper version, it is obvious that "yes, that's a harpsichord thing."  It is interesting to hear how different pianists struggle to make something written for the transparent tone of the harpsichord work on a piano.

But, for 95% of the HIP stuff I listen to, I listen because I like the sound of the old instruments, and feel that the performance is more successful when they are used.
 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 03, 2012, 01:21:55 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 01:11:31 PM
How many people?  At least one.  Me!  :)

I own and occasionally listen to Bach's WTC and other works on harpsichord, even though the sound of the instrument is abhorrent to me.  Sometimes, I start out with the idea of finally enjoying a harpsichord performance, and after a short time, have to turn it off and find a piano version.  Other times I listen because I find it useful to know what Bach had in mind when he wrote certain passages.  Sometimes something just doesn't seem right on piano, and putting on the proper version, it is obvious that "yes, that's a harpsichord thing."  It is interesting to hear how different pianists struggle to make something written for the transparent tone of the harpsichord work on a piano.

Ah yes. I wasn't precise enough, was I? Those kind of experiments aren't really what I had in mind, though. (On the contrary, that sort of occasional listening against a prejudice is a significant part of the way we grow, musically, isn't it?) I was thinking more in terms of sustained and repeated listening, against personal preference, on the grounds of some supposed rational argument; of course you knew that anyway, but you were right to point up the imprecision of what I'd said.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 03, 2012, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 12:52:39 PM
It is one thing to say "I like Immerseel in Beethoven better than I like Furtwängler because Immerseel does this and Furt does that instead and it just doesn't work for me". That's comparative, but it is also rational. If instead you were to say "I like Immerseel because he uses authentic instruments and performing style while Furtwängler is totally contaminated by post-Romantic rot and layers of accretion...etc" without being able to demonstrate what such a thing is, or how it ruins your listening pleasure, then you are much better off to leave Furt out of it altogether!

I'm more than happy to vote for the spirit of this manifesto!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 03, 2012, 01:53:59 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 01:11:31 PM
How many people?  At least one.  Me!  :)

I own and occasionally listen to Bach's WTC and other works on harpsichord, even though the sound of the instrument is abhorrent to me.  Sometimes, I start out with the idea of finally enjoying a harpsichord performance, and after a short time, have to turn it off and find a piano version.  Other times I listen because I find it useful to know what Bach had in mind when he wrote certain passages.  Sometimes something just doesn't seem right on piano, and putting on the proper version, it is obvious that "yes, that's a harpsichord thing."  It is interesting to hear how different pianists struggle to make something written for the transparent tone of the harpsichord work on a piano.

But, for 95% of the HIP stuff I listen to, I listen because I like the sound of the old instruments, and feel that the performance is more successful when they are used.
 
When in my teens and early twenties, I liked the sound of the harpsichord.  That was before the historically informed performance practice movement got rolling. Today I do not like the sound of the harpsichord, regardless of whether it is a period or modern instrument and whether it is used to play a piece according to historically informed practice principles or not.

I have always liked the sound of gut strings on fiddles of all sizes. I also like the sound of steel strings. I love the playing of some HIPsters on gut, of some HIPsters on steel, and of some MLRPers regardless of string type and instrument provenance. (MLRPer = modern/late romantic performance style practicioners).

I cannot charitably imagine the mindset of someone who claims to love, say, Beethoven's music who would not enjoy hearing it performed with the instruments and in the style Beethoven probably imagined/expected AND ALSO with the "improved" instruments and performance style accretions of the past couple of centuries.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 03, 2012, 08:10:26 AMI can't tell you how many times I've read in the last 15 years that if Beethoven had heard a Steinway he would have never played one of them crappy pianofortes again. Or better yet "Beethoven was looking into the future and writing for the instruments that he knew would one day come into being". Yes, I have actually read that, and more than once. 

Yes, I also recall reading such things.  When you read such things, it is clear there is no point in even arguing (which is not to say that I don't enjoy Beethoven performed on modern piano).

But, I would say for Beethoven the argument for fortepiano is weaker than for Mozart and Haydn, since when Beethoven wrote the most important works for piano his hearing was almost completely gone.  It is not too far fetched to say he was writing for an idealized version of a fortepiano (which wouldn't necessarily be a modern piano). 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 03, 2012, 01:53:59 PM
When in my teens and early twenties, I liked the sound of the harpsichord.  That was before the historically informed performance practice movement got rolling. Today I do not like the sound of the harpsichord, regardless of whether it is a period or modern instrument and whether it is used to play a piece according to historically informed practice principles or not.

Sometimes I wonder if it is recordings of harpsichord, rather than a harpsichord itself, which I don't like. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 03, 2012, 06:34:40 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 07:34:43 AM
Actually, I suspect he is thinking of Backhaus/Bohm.  Backhaus met Brahms, and his playing was admired by the composer, and I don't see how you can beat those HIP bona fides.  :)
:D

QuoteFor what it's worth, I also thought of this thread when I saw this post elsewhere, and it struck me as revealing a condescension towards those who don't prefer HIP performances.

Ah, cool. Good to know I'm not losing my mind.


Quote from: Que on November 03, 2012, 06:47:55 AM
You might read that suggestion into it, but that was not my intention. There are plenty of performances on modern(ised) instruments that show Brahms how I personally perceive him.


Broad, Romantic, pompous....I guess the choice of words depends on your taste.  "Anti-Brahms" is also a choice of words, wordings I wouldn't make mine.

But it is not the performance that shows these pieces how I perceive them. What's new about that in picking favourite performances? :)

Q


Okay, Q. :)

(http://geminiindustries.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/265x/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/p/e/peace-sign---graphic.png)


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 03, 2012, 10:28:18 PM
Quote from: Que on November 03, 2012, 08:38:02 AM
I especially liked this pearl of wisdom. HIP is a quintessentially (post)modern concept, I quite agree with that.

Q

That seems wrong to me, at least the reference to postmodernism. If you meant it seriously can you say some more about what you mean?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 04, 2012, 12:37:08 AM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 03, 2012, 06:34:40 PM

:D

Ah, cool. Good to know I'm not losing my mind.



Okay, Q. :)

(http://geminiindustries.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/265x/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/p/e/peace-sign---graphic.png)

Now the dust has settled, I understand the confusion... :) I do have a longstanding issue with the way Brahms is often perceived and interpreted, but that issue is not connected to HIP or non-HIP. Because it came up when discussing a HIP recording, it may have seemed the two where for me connected.

I do appreciate your olive branch!  :)

Yet, the incident gave me also food for thought. What if someone feels period performances generally do reveal a composer's "true" nature - to him/her of course, in the end it always comes down to personal experience.
So, in general, for that person it would be period performances that reveal the "true Bach", "true Vivaldi", "true Händel","true Haydn" or "true Mozart".

This might actually not be a very uncommon personal experience....

Would expressing such a preference be considered an act of condescension? When reading the statement below, it made me curious what it is actually about (and what not).

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 01, 2012, 11:32:12 AM
[...] I love HIP but I see MI dumping all the time on this board. It's not so overt which avoids wholesale toes from being stepped on but still it exists. The residual effect is to create an air of superiority, and since the whole thing is so subtle to call anyone out on it is to invite cries of pedantry.

Subtle or not it's still distasteful for me to read so I honestly have no sympathy for HIPsters who try to cry foul.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 04, 2012, 01:32:00 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 03, 2012, 01:53:59 PM
When in my teens and early twenties, I liked the sound of the harpsichord.  That was before the historically informed performance practice movement got rolling. Today I do not like the sound of the harpsichord, regardless of whether it is a period or modern instrument and whether it is used to play a piece according to historically informed practice principles or not.

I've always assumed that many of my likes/dislikes with regard to the sound of particular instruments probably had a physiological explanation. For much of my life I could hardly bear the sound of a modern piano when played at the extremities of the keyboard (and couldn't cope with the harpsichord at all). It was relatively recently that I discovered how much I could enjoy the fortepiano, and so suddenly a whole range of music opened up to me. And now, a bit further down the line, I find I can enjoy the piano after all, and I'm wallowing in Chopin for the first time in my life. I don't think any of this had much to do with changes in my musical sensibilities, but mostly arose from the physical ageing of my hearing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 04, 2012, 05:02:07 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 03, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
Sometimes I wonder if it is recordings of harpsichord, rather than a harpsichord itself, which I don't like. 
I've not heard one in person for quite some time, but if I did (when I do?) I would attune myself psychologically to be in the most receptive frame of mind possible. I darned near bought a harpsichord recording a couple of years ago, of Haydn sonatas by Schornsheim, but couldn't quite bring myself to do it. Perhaps it's time to try again.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 04, 2012, 01:32:00 AM
I've always assumed that many of my likes/dislikes with regard to the sound of particular instruments probably had a physiological explanation. For much of my life I could hardly bear the sound of a modern piano when played at the extremities of the keyboard (and couldn't cope with the harpsichord at all). It was relatively recently that I discovered how much I could enjoy the fortepiano, and so suddenly a whole range of music opened up to me. And now, a bit further down the line, I find I can enjoy the piano after all, and I'm wallowing in Chopin for the first time in my life. I don't think any of this had much to do with changes in my musical sensibilities, but mostly arose from the physical ageing of my hearing.
In recent years aging has crippled my high frequency hearing, which now drops off steeply above 12kHz. Too much very loud rock'n'roll in my misspent youth? ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 04, 2012, 05:05:36 AM
I recently came across an interview with one of my favorite violinists, Isabelle Faust. A portion is quoted below for those interested in a thoughtful contemporary performer's take on the topic of this thread:

QuotePP: I've been a big fan of yours for a long time, and have always thought of you, like some other notable players of this generation, for instance, Thomas Zehetmair or Peter Wispelwey, as a musician who is not grouped into a stylistic category. You are an artist who have a keen historical sense, not just of 18th century music, but also 19th century performance practice, and also contemporary music. Do you have any comment about how you approach music from different periods, how it affects your ideas about interpretation?

IF: Well, I try to study as much information as I can possibly find on music of earlier centuries. I collaborate quite often with a number of period ensembles. I also play regularly on gut strings. I play with Frans Bruggen and his orchestra quite a lot at the moment, as well as with Andreas Steier (talking now about the so-called "early" music). I'm very keen on getting as close to the original sources as possible, absorbing whatever information I can find (and there's a huge amount of information out there, of course), and then integrate it into my own personal vision of the music that I play.

Of course, it has been incredibly exciting, and still is, to play with people who are so-called experts in the field of historical performance, in order to get, sometimes, a completely different view of pieces which I play a lot with "normal" orchestras. When I play the Beethoven concerto or the Schumann concerto with Frans Bruggen on gut strings, it is always incredibly enriching, because I immediately perceive a totally different way of approaching music that I have played for so many years, music which I thought I knew very well.

This is very refreshing to me and, of course, always creates a lot of new questions for which I am keen to find answers, which can be difficult. Difficult, because you can ask one so-called expert about something and he gives you an answer, and then the next one will give you the contrary answer! There is so much insecurity, even among the specialists, that in the end it is always the best, I find, to decide what solution is the closest to my personal feelings about a particular piece, about a particular passage. In the end, it is always going to be up to the individual to choose the right answer for themselves. 

I think that this process of inquiry is absolutely necessary and that we live in a fantastic world for accomplishing this kind of work. With the internet, we have an enormous opportunity to look into manuscripts which have been digitalized. It has become so much easier to do this kind of research and maybe become more aware of certain things. This is absolutely a big, big, part of my work.

With my Bach recording, if in the end I decided not to record on gut strings but only use a baroque bow, then of course it seems much less baroque-inspired then really putting on gut strings and doing it in a clearly historically-performed way, but it doesn't mean that I didn't go back to those sources. I also have a baroque violin at home, and I prepared for this CD on that violin.

In the end, though, I am a violinist who lives and works now, not in Bach's time. I play this repertoire for the public of today. We have all, of course, grown up with music which Bach never heard, living in a different world with different knowledge, and this has to be mirrored in the interpretation of Bach's music. I absolutely think it is a very natural thing to involve the personal experiences of our times. Still, I am absolutely keen to put as much energy into looking into all the sources possible.

A huge amount of work also went into studying the manuscripts when we recorded the Beethoven sonatas, and I spent a lot of time in libraries studying the Schumann violin concerto manuscripts. It is extremely exciting to discover what kind of character the composer wanted, even from observing his handwriting, and also how different editors would interpret, maybe wrongly, maybe rightly, the handwriting of a certain composer. This is only one little aspect of the work, but it's really highly important, I think. And then, in the end, what one does with this information is a very individual and personal thing.

I am also extremely thankful for my colleague, Zehetmair, whom you just mentioned, because he's one of the few colleagues who takes these things extremely seriously. He always proposes a totally new way of looking at well-known and often-played pieces, and in the process inspires you to do the same, to ask yourself, over and over, the same, or even new questions about the so-called main repertoire pieces. Otherwise, they become routine, and this is the worst thing that could happen. They should always be very fresh, and I think one should never be too sure about how to interpret these pieces and what the composer actually meant, otherwise one stops asking all these questions.

From: http://violalotus.tumblr.com/post/10982692732/isabelle-faust-the-complete-interview
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 04, 2012, 08:22:45 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 04, 2012, 05:02:07 AM
In recent years aging has crippled my high frequency hearing, which now drops off steeply above 12kHz. Too much very loud rock'n'roll in my misspent youth?

Just normal aging will reduce our sensitivity to high frequencies though, Dave, no matter what we did in our youth. My hearing change is more than that - a significant reduction in sensitivity in the midrange in one ear but less so in the other. It doesn't matter too much in practice, but you might be unwise to ask me to balance your stereo system for you. For this defect, I pretend to blame Bob Dylan in Birmingham in 2003, so for me it was my misspent middle age!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 04, 2012, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on November 04, 2012, 08:22:45 AM
Just normal aging will reduce our sensitivity to high frequencies though, Dave, no matter what we did in our youth. My hearing change is more than that - a significant reduction in sensitivity in the midrange in one ear but less so in the other. It doesn't matter too much in practice, but you might be unwise to ask me to balance your stereo system for you. For this defect, I pretend to blame Bob Dylan in Birmingham in 2003, so for me it was my misspent middle age!
;D
Tinnitus is fun, too, and whatever is going on that causes me to awaken some mornings with almost no hearing in one ear. After thousand$ spent on pretty darned good high fidelity record playback gear, my decaying hearing is reaching the point where I can scarcely distinguish between CDs on the big system and mp3s on the PC rig!

Still, harpsichords have yet to sound like angels' voices, so my hearing's not completely shot -- yet!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 04, 2012, 08:44:45 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on November 04, 2012, 08:22:45 AMFor this defect, I pretend to blame Bob Dylan in Birmingham in 2003, so for me it was my misspent middle age!

Made the mistake of attending a performance of the Kinks in the 80's.  Not sure if there is any direct correlation with my current state of hearing, but definitely wasn't worth it.   :(
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian on November 04, 2012, 09:04:57 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 04, 2012, 08:37:17 AM
;D
Tinnitus is fun, too, and whatever is going on that causes me to awaken some mornings with almost no hearing in one ear. After thousand$ spent on pretty darned good high fidelity record playback gear, my decaying hearing is reaching the point where I can scarcely distinguish between CDs on the big system and mp3s on the PC rig!

Still, harpsichords have yet to sound like angels' voices, so my hearing's not completely shot -- yet!

Sorry Dave, didn't quite catch that. Could you say it again, louder please?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 04, 2012, 09:14:35 PM
Quote from: Que on November 04, 2012, 12:37:08 AM
Now the dust has settled, I understand the confusion... :) I do have a longstanding issue with the way Brahms is often perceived and interpreted, but that issue is not connected to HIP or non-HIP. Because it came up when discussing a HIP recording, it may have seemed the two where for me connected.

I do appreciate your olive branch!  :)

:)

QuoteYet, the incident gave me also food for thought. What if someone feels period performances generally do reveal a composer's "true" nature - to him/her of course, in the end it always comes down to personal experience.
So, in general, for that person it would be period performances that reveal the "true Bach", "true Vivaldi", "true Händel","true Haydn" or "true Mozart".

This might actually not be a very uncommon personal experience....

It's common enough an occurrence that it happened to me. Before HIP both Bach and Handel were blind spots in my musical appreciation. I have HIP to thank for changing that.   

Unfortunately, however, what HIP giveth HIP also taketh away. With fresh zeal to uncover what else HIP had to offer I found myself disillusioned with HIP's Mozart (but not before spending a fair amount of $$ :-X). Ditto Beethoven...and beyond.

Not that Mozart or Beethoven were blind spots for me previously, and a case might be made that I had preconceived ideas already entrenched about how Mozart and Beethoven should sound, and so HIP was merely toying with what I already considered "correct". But honestly I don't think that's the case. 

Which leads me to this:

QuoteWould expressing such a preference be considered an act of condescension? When reading the statement below, it made me curious what it is actually about (and what not).

Well, like I said before, I think that can be too easy a come-back. "Personal preference" isn't exactly the same thing as "true composer X". Turning convention on its head can produce gold, as HIP did with baroque, but HIP didn't make its case in a vacuum. It had to take its case to the public and hope for interest to grow. Eventually interest did grow. And what was once considered innovation in baroque then became the new convention. The public had spoken and baroque had a new image, thanks to HIP.

Not stopping there HIP built on its successes and spread outward to many other corners of the classical world. But here I don't feel it's been anywhere near as successful at winning converts. Which means prevailing convention is still entrenched. HIP has yet to convincingly construct a "true/new/whatever we want to call it" Mozart/Berlioz/etc... like it did for baroque. There will always be practitioners/followers of the new trends and that's all good and well but tinkering with certain composers just for the sake change isn't always an upgrade.

Not that I don't appreciate anything HIP attempts. But at this point if convention has yet to be overturned in post-baroque I'm not sure it ever will be.

Anyway, awaiting the scorching that's just around the corner... ;D


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on November 05, 2012, 02:54:40 AM
Listening to Leonard Lopate's interview with Paul Elie, about Elie's new book "Reinventing Bach" (the Leonard Lopate show on New York public radio), I was struck by the fact that HIP hasn't made a dent in their world. They did mention Wanda Landowska, but not as more than a novelty or musical anomaly. I thought at least Leonhardt's name would come up, but it didn't.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2012/oct/09/reinventing-bach/

I enjoyed the topic and I like the show but I wonder if this kind of conversation wouldn't be entirely different on a Dutch or German radio show. Anyway, HIP may have conquered baroque in some quarters but it wasn't relavent in this discussion of Bach in New York City. There was a discussion of period ensembles (specifically The American Classical Orchestra) a while back on this same show. But the guest, perhaps Vladimir Feltsman, talked about how hard it was to have a harpsichord made (I think he said he was waiting for one to be finished)  - and described the instrument as obscure and a curiosity.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 05, 2012, 06:04:53 AM
Quote from: milk on November 05, 2012, 02:54:40 AM
Listening to Leonard Lopate's interview with Paul Elie, about Elie's new book "Reinventing Bach" (the Leonard Lopate show on New York public radio), I was struck by the fact that HIP hasn't made a dent in their world. They did mention Wanda Landowska, but not as more than a novelty or musical anomaly. I thought at least Leonhardt's name would come up, but it didn't.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2012/oct/09/reinventing-bach/

I enjoyed the topic and I like the show but I wonder if this kind of conversation wouldn't be entirely different on a Dutch or German radio show. Anyway, HIP may have conquered baroque in some quarters but it wasn't relavent in this discussion of Bach in New York City. There was a discussion of period ensembles (specifically The American Classical Orchestra) a while back on this same show. But the guest, perhaps Vladimir Feltsman, talked about how hard it was to have a harpsichord made (I think he said he was waiting for one to be finished)  - and described the instrument as obscure and a curiosity.



Oh but they do discuss period instruments -- Paul Ellie is quick to point out the importance of playing the music on  baroque organs, and he has a view on the appropriateness of fortepianos for Bach. I thought his view about harpsichord for the modern audience --to do with modern expectations that audiences have for variety of colour -- was not uninteresting. It's interesting how reticent he is about the modern piano.


I also felt all the stuff about Schweitzer was interesting , about how Schweitzer's recordings provide a link to a very early performance tradition, something which Ellie seems to think is important.

The most enigmatic thing he says is right near the start, when he seems to be committing to some  version of historicism --"To get a hold of Bach you need to get a hold of who he was." But the sentence is quite obscure. Still I wouldn't mind seeing the book, I thought he came across well.

Thanks for posting this -- I enjoyed the interview.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 05, 2012, 06:15:52 AM
Quote from: Que on November 04, 2012, 12:37:08 AM
Now the dust has settled, I understand the confusion... :) I do have a longstanding issue with the way Brahms is often perceived and interpreted, but that issue is not connected to HIP or non-HIP. Because it came up when discussing a HIP recording, it may have seemed the two where for me connected.

I do appreciate your olive branch!  :)

Yet, the incident gave me also food for thought. What if someone feels period performances generally do reveal a composer's "true" nature - to him/her of course, in the end it always comes down to personal experience.
So, in general, for that person it would be period performances that reveal the "true Bach", "true Vivaldi", "true Händel","true Haydn" or "true Mozart".

For what it's worth, my preference for Brahms performances is very close to what you expressed.  I prefer performances which emphasize the lyrical in Brahms rather than the monumental or dramatic.  (Oddly, I have never enjoyed Mackerras's set of recordings which overtly takes an HIP approach, my favorite is the Barbirolli cycle, which takes a generally gentle approach to the music.)  What raised red flags was the formulation, implying regard those who don't share your view have failed to discover the True Brahms.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 05, 2012, 08:57:09 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 05, 2012, 06:15:52 AM
For what it's worth, my preference for Brahms performances is very close to what you expressed.  I prefer performances which emphasize the lyrical in Brahms rather than the monumental or dramatic.  (Oddly, I have never enjoyed Mackerras's set of recordings which overtly takes an HIP approach, my favorite is the Barbirolli cycle, which takes a generally gentle approach to the music.)  What raised red flags was the formulation, implying regard those who don't share your view have failed to discover the True Brahms.

You can raise all the red flags you want, I expressed my personal view on Brahms and acknowledged that it is an minority view:

Quote from: Que on November 02, 2012, 01:53:49 PM
Not earth shattering, but indeed a difference: the monumental, pompous character is gone.

But then I always preferred performances that weren't like that anyway (so no BöhmJochum/Gilels). Brahms wasn't like that, if anyone beliefs me... 8)

Q

And if I say, jokingly, "if anyone beliefs me", I'm inviting people to see things from another perspective than the conventional image of Brahms. I don't consider that rude, insulting, condescending, arrogant, distasteful or whatever generalised reproaches I have read on these pages the last few days to anonymous lovers of period performances. ::)

I'm wondering who these people are, that are into that GMG-conspiracy of HIP superiority, condescension, and subtle but distasteful pedantry, treating those who listen to Bach on the piano like Orangutans?  Who are crying foul, but are themselves to blame for all the dirt that is being thrown in their direction?

I'm wondering what is really going on here? It is not a HIP-conspiracy, that much I know for certain.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on November 06, 2012, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 05, 2012, 06:04:53 AM


Oh but they do discuss period instruments -- Paul Ellie is quick to point out the importance of playing the music on  baroque organs, and he has a view on the appropriateness of fortepianos for Bach. I thought his view about harpsichord for the modern audience --to do with modern expectations that audiences have for variety of colour -- was not uninteresting. It's interesting how reticent he is about the modern piano.


I also felt all the stuff about Schweitzer was interesting , about how Schweitzer's recordings provide a link to a very early performance tradition, something which Ellie seems to think is important.

The most enigmatic thing he says is right near the start, when he seems to be committing to some  version of historicism --"To get a hold of Bach you need to get a hold of who he was." But the sentence is quite obscure. Still I wouldn't mind seeing the book, I thought he came across well.

Thanks for posting this -- I enjoyed the interview.
I'm glad you could enjoy it. I agree that he had some interesting things to say. I'd like to take a look at the book.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on November 06, 2012, 06:34:16 AM
   One thing that has particularly bothered me about so many HIP performances and recordings has been the sound of the gut strings.
I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se as some here have unfairly accused me of being, but those gut strings have often sounded awful to my ears .  They produced a horrible nasal, pinched, wheezing sound  . 
   And we now know that string vibrato WAS used  long before the 20th century.  Maybe not as much  as in the 20th , but totally vibratoless performances are NOT authentic .  In his treatise on violin playing, Leopold Mozart actually complained about some  string players of his day who used excessive vibrato !
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Sammy on November 06, 2012, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on November 06, 2012, 06:34:16 AM
   One thing that has particularly bothered me about so many HIP performances and recordings has been the sound of the gut strings.
I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se as some here have unfairly accused me of being, but those gut strings have often sounded awful to my ears .  They produced a horrible nasal, pinched, wheezing sound  . 
   And we now know that string vibrato WAS used  long before the 20th century.  Maybe not as much  as in the 20th , but totally vibratoless performances are NOT authentic .  In his treatise on violin playing, Leopold Mozart actually complained about some  string players of his day who used excessive vibrato !

Well, I love the sound of gut strings and hate vibrato.  I don't think we should listen to music together.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: DavidRoss on November 06, 2012, 10:38:49 AM
I love the sound of gut strings and wonder what's going on with the hearing of those who claim not to like them in general. Gut sounds warmer and fuller and livelier than steel, to me, with richer overtones instead of one-dimensional steeliness. Who wouldn't prefer that, I think -- aside from their expense, that is!

I also like judicious vibrato used expressively. Wide, warbling vibrato sounds ugly to me, and constant vibrato loses its expressive power, just as constant cursing diminishes the expressive potential of judicious swearing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on November 06, 2012, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: Superhorn on November 06, 2012, 06:34:16 AM
   One thing that has particularly bothered me about so many HIP performances and recordings has been the sound of the gut strings.
I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se as some here have unfairly accused me of being, but those gut strings have often sounded awful to my ears .  They produced a horrible nasal, pinched, wheezing sound  . 
   And we now know that string vibrato WAS used  long before the 20th century.  Maybe not as much  as in the 20th , but totally vibratoless performances are NOT authentic .  In his treatise on violin playing, Leopold Mozart actually complained about some  string players of his day who used excessive vibrato !

Leopold Mozart was complaining about violinists who were trembling on almost each and every note as if they had "permanent fever".  So yes, vibrato was used during midst 18th century, but Leopold Mozart wanted vibrato only to be used on sustained notes and as an ornament at the end of a musical sentence.

I agree with Superhorn that it's nonsense to call completely non-vibrato playing 'authentic', but:

A. before the HIP-revolution, most modern orchestras and musicians played their 18th century-and-older music with almost continuous vibrato, which is definitely 'non-authentic' and, IMO, sounds nothing but ugly. And I guess that the vibratoless 'movement' was a hefty reaction to that.
B. nowadays most PI ensembles and musicians do not play completely vibratoless anymore. Maybe you should renew your listening.

Personally, like Don/Bulldog/Sammy and DavidRoss: I love the sound of gut strings.

And, very personally, Anno Domini 2012, HIP is just there and it's proven its worth. To me, it isn't really part of any debate anymore.

What am I doing here?

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/runaway.wav (http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/runaway.wav)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 06, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on November 06, 2012, 10:38:49 AM
I love the sound of gut strings and wonder what's going on with the hearing of those who claim not to like them in general. Gut sounds warmer and fuller and livelier than steel, to me, with richer overtones instead of one-dimensional steeliness. Who wouldn't prefer that, I think -- aside from their expense, that is!

I also like judicious vibrato used expressively. Wide, warbling vibrato sounds ugly to me, and constant vibrato loses its expressive power, just as constant cursing diminishes the expressive potential of judicious swearing.

Quote from: Sammy on November 06, 2012, 10:01:04 AM
Well, I love the sound of gut strings and hate vibrato.  I don't think we should listen to music together.

Ditto e ditto. Although I don't wonder about the people who don't; there are amazing variations in what people hear. It is hard to avoid wondering how much is hearing what we want to hear and how much is actually hearing something differently than 95% of the rest of the world hears it. 

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 06, 2012, 11:25:31 AM

Any judgment about the timbre of instruments is going to be impacted by the recording technique.   DG recordings always sound too bright to me, and compounding that with period instruments sometimes creates something too shrill for my taste.  Gardiner's recordings with his period instrument band sounds a lot better to me on Erato than on DG.   My favorite is Harnoncourt's Concentus Musicus Wien, and that may have something to do with the natural tonal balance of Telefunken/Teldec recordings.

That said, a big breakthrough in my appreciation of gut strings came from this superb recording:

[asin]B000002BZM[/asin]

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on November 06, 2012, 12:28:49 PM
Quote from: Marc on November 06, 2012, 11:11:48 AM
And, very personally, Anno Domini 2012, HIP is just there and it's proven its worth. To me, it isn't really part of any debate anymore.

What am I doing here?

Quite, Marc. I'm waking up to the wisdom in that. 8)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 06, 2012, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 06, 2012, 11:25:31 AM
Any judgment about the timbre of instruments is going to be impacted by the recording technique.   DG recordings always sound too bright to me, and compounding that with period instruments sometimes creates something too shrill for my taste.  Gardiner's recordings with his period instrument band sounds a lot better to me on Erato than on DG.   My favorite is Harnoncourt's Concentus Musicus Wien, and that may have something to do with the natural tonal balance of Telefunken/Teldec recordings.

That said, a big breakthrough in my appreciation of gut strings came from this superb recording:

[asin]B000002BZM[/asin]

I agree with this all around, especially the plug for the Brahms. That was my first Romantic PI recording and always loved it. :)  Actually, all of the L'Archibudelli recordings on Vivarte have great sound. The mic placement always seems just right, which is a difference maker for sure.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: trung224 on November 06, 2012, 12:55:01 PM
  Let me say something. I think HIP trend is great to reborn baroque and early music, which is under-appreciated with the MI performance. Most of baroque in my collection are HIP, and I enjoy what lively, joyous HIP in Haydn, Mozart and even Schubert(early symphonies). But sometimes I think HIP trend is going too far, especially when coming to Beethoven.
      First, about background,Beethoven didn't live in Haydn's era. His mature symphonies were written in the time of French Revolution, and he was deeply influenced by politics. We all know that originally Beethoven dedicated his third symphonies to Napoleon, and refused to do  when Napoleon betrayed the Revolution and became the Emperor. Beethoven wrote the name "Eroica" to tribute to French Revolution and the "heroic Napoleon" who was died in his mind. I think the "authentic" Beethoven's third symphony performance must represent this. But sadly, HIP performances (which I have heard) can not fulfill this task. They are all lightweight, free of struggle. You can talk this lightweight quality is on the note and score, but Beethoven (like Shostakovich) is the son of their era, we can not see the score and play, no matter its background and circumstances.
   Second, about musical quality, HIP deceives some important quality makes Beethoven's music unique and ahead of his time. Those are adagio movement and the funeral march, which was developed and became important with Bruckner's and Mahler's music. When comparing these movements of all HIP performances I have heard with some good performances in MI (Kubelik, Böhm, Cluytens) not to mention  monumental performances (Furtwängler, Toscanini, Abendroth, Karajan, Klemperer, Fricsay), they sound lightweight and lifeless. And the famous choral movement in the Ninth symphony becomes anemic and less impact under HIP performance. And even the most dynamic and powerful outer movements in HIP performances (Harnoncourt, Chailly) sound underpowered when comparing with Tocanini's, Kleiber's, Karajan's, Reiner's account. To sum up, HIP performances make Beethoven sound like Haydn or early Mozart, it is valid but called it the authentic way when performing Beethoven just because of styles of playing in this era and old instrument is IMHO silly (not to mention that Beethoven was deaf when wrote the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and we don't know what kind of instrument sound in his brain when he composed)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 06, 2012, 01:18:43 PM
I don"t think what you say is true of Beethoven's small scale music. The Turner Quartet in op 59, Beghin and Komen in some of the piano sonatas -- these are some of the most stimulating post war Beethoven records. What you say may be true of symphonies, I haven't much explored what's happening there. Though I did get a lot out of Ensemble 28's Eroica, and Savall's. And Bruggen in symphonies 1 and 2, the luve Paris performance which was distributed in the web.Norrington live too.

What I'm not at all sure about is how much of the interest comes from Hipness. With baroque music, Bach, the Hip performers had new ideas about articulation and agogics, for example, which made what they did refreshing. Leonhardt's the obvious example. But I'm not sure that, e.g., the Turner's  ideas about texture and drama in the Op 59s are derived from ideas about authentic Beethoven performance.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 06, 2012, 01:28:40 PM
Quote from: trung224 on November 06, 2012, 12:55:01 PM
  Let me say something. I think HIP trend is great to reborn baroque and early music, which is under-appreciated with the MI performance. Most of baroque in my collection are HIP, and I enjoy what lively, joyous HIP in Haydn, Mozart and even Schubert(early symphonies). But sometimes I think HIP trend is going too far, especially when coming to Beethoven.
      First, about background,Beethoven didn't live in Haydn's era. His mature symphonies were written in the time of French Revolution, and he was deeply influenced by politics. We all know that originally Beethoven dedicated his third symphonies to Napoleon, and refused to do  when Napoleon betrayed the Revolution and became the Emperor. Beethoven wrote the name "Eroica" to tribute to French Revolution and the "heroic Napoleon" who was died in his mind. I think the "authentic" Beethoven's third symphony performance must represent this. But sadly, HIP performances (which I have heard) can not fulfill this task. They are all lightweight, free of struggle. You can talk this lightweight quality is on the note and score, but Beethoven (like Shostakovich) is the son of their era, we can not see the score and play, no matter its background and circumstances.
   Second, about musical quality, HIP deceives some important quality makes Beethoven's music unique and ahead of his time. Those are adagio movement and the funeral march, which was developed and became important with Bruckner's and Mahler's music. When comparing these movements of all HIP performances I have heard with some good performances in MI (Kubelik, Böhm, Cluytens) not to mention  monumental performances (Furtwängler, Toscanini, Abendroth, Karajan, Klemperer, Fricsay), they sound lightweight and lifeless. And the famous choral movement in the Ninth symphony becomes anemic and less impact under HIP performance. And even the most dynamic and powerful outer movements in HIP performances (Harnoncourt, Chailly) sound underpowered when comparing with Tocanini's, Kleiber's, Karajan's, Reiner's account. To sum up, HIP performances make Beethoven sound like Haydn or early Mozart, it is valid but called it the authentic way when performing Beethoven just because of styles of playing in this era and old instrument is IMHO silly (not to mention that Beethoven was deaf when wrote the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and we don't know what kind of instrument sound in his brain when he composed)

I find myself in almost complete disagreement.  I have nothing against modern instrument recordings of Beethoven and think they are a wonderful way to appreciate what Beethoven was trying to express.  But to say that performance of Beethoven's music using instruments and an ensemble size of Beethoven's time makes the music sound "like Haydn" or "underpowered" puzzles me.  To the extent that Beethoven wrote music that was fundamentally different from what Mozart and Haydn wrote, the music sounds different despite being played with similar forces.   And the fact that the forces are smaller doesn't prevent them from generating great dynamic contrasts, which to my ear, is what imparts "power" to a performance, rather than sheer volume of sound.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: trung224 on November 06, 2012, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 06, 2012, 01:18:43 PM
I don"t think what you say is true of Beethoven's small scale music. The Turner Quartet in op 59, Beghin and Komen in some of the piano sonatas -- these are some of the most stimulating post war Beethoven records. What you say may be true of symphonies, I haven't much explored what's happening there. Though I did get a lot out of Ensemble 28's Eroica, and Savall's. And Bruggen in symphonies 1 and 2, the luve Paris performance which was distributed in the web.Norrington live too.


All I say is about the symphonies from the Third Symphony (like you, I enjoy  1st and 2nd Symphony by Brüggen). I have not heard HIP in Piano Sonatas and String Quartets
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: trung224 on November 06, 2012, 01:53:16 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 06, 2012, 01:28:40 PM
I find myself in almost complete disagreement.  I have nothing against modern instrument recordings of Beethoven and think they are a wonderful way to appreciate what Beethoven was trying to express.  But to say that performance of Beethoven's music using instruments and an ensemble size of Beethoven's time makes the music sound "like Haydn" or "underpowered" puzzles me.  To the extent that Beethoven wrote music that was fundamentally different from what Mozart and Haydn wrote, the music sounds different despite being played with similar forces.   And the fact that the forces are smaller doesn't prevent them from generating great dynamic contrasts, which to my ear, is what imparts "power" to a performance, rather than sheer volume of sound.
Technically, the impact was generated by both dynamic contrast and volume and if you have only one tools (dynamic contrast), the result IMHO is not good than having both tools. This case is like when you must do a mathematics exercise, you have your brain to create the method and the calculator. If you don't have the calculator, you have easily the mistake and take much more time. Back to music, it is true that Beethoven's and Haydn's music is different despite being played with similar forces, but it is the fact that HIP performance makes them sound much more close than MI performance. And I think the best way is performance Beethoven's and Haydn's music in very different way: Beethoven is heroic, superb dramatic, powerful, rage, full of struggle and Haydn is lively, joyous, witness.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Scarpia on November 06, 2012, 02:00:55 PM
Quote from: trung224 on November 06, 2012, 01:53:16 PM
  Technically, the impact was generated by both dynamic contrast and volume and if you have only one tools (dynamic contrast), the result IMHO is not good than having both tools. This case is like when you must do a mathematics exercise, you have your brain to create the method and the calculator. If you don't have the calculator, you have easily the mistake and take much more time. Back to music, it is true that Beethoven's and Haydn's music is different despite being played with similar forces, but it is the fact that HIP performance makes them sound much more close than MI performance. And I think the best way is performance Beethoven's and Haydn's music in very different way: Beethoven is heroic, superb dramatic, powerful, rage, full of struggle and Haydn is lively, joyous, witness.

The small forces of Beethoven's day were matched to small performance venues.  If the smaller ensemble is recorded in an appropriate space, it sounds just as "powerful," in my experience.   I also find the fact that Beethoven's music stresses original instruments to their limits adds a certain excitement to the performances, which is absent when performed on modern instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: trung224 on November 06, 2012, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on November 06, 2012, 02:00:55 PM
The small forces of Beethoven's day were matched to small performance venues.  If the smaller ensemble is recorded in an appropriate space, it sounds just as "powerful," in my experience.   I also find the fact that Beethoven's music stresses original instruments to their limits adds a certain excitement to the performances, which is absent when performed on modern instruments.
You are right about small performance venues but I think when comparing sound of 100 members of HIP orchestra and 100 members of BPO or CSO playing Beethoven 5 in the same venues, certain MI performance has the advantage of powerful quality. And I respectfully disagree with you about a extra excitement. I think put the musicians (who control instruments) to their limits is the ability of great Beethoven conductors. Nowadays, this kind of conductor is no longer existed, but in the past with the tyrann like Toscanini, Reiner, Karajan, Kleiber, Szell or hyper-romantic like Furtwängler, Abendroth, they put musicians to limits, drive music to hell and create the unsurpassed dramatic, excitement and tension + plus the depth, sorrow, painful, anger slow movement (which is IMHO the key advantage of Beethoven's music)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 06, 2012, 07:11:07 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 06, 2012, 01:18:43 PM
What I'm not at all sure about is how much of the interest comes from Hipness. With baroque music, Bach, the Hip performers had new ideas about articulation and agogics, for example, which made what they did refreshing. Leonhardt's the obvious example. But I'm not sure that, e.g., the Turner's  ideas about texture and drama in the Op 59s are derived from ideas about authentic Beethoven performance.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make earlier on. But it sorta got drowned out. ;D

I think the dividing line between "right" and "wrong" gets fuzzier the further we get from baroque.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mirror Image on November 06, 2012, 07:12:52 PM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 06, 2012, 07:11:07 PM
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make earlier on. But it sorta got drowned out. ;D

I think the dividing line between "right" and "wrong" gets fuzzier the further we get from baroque.

Great avatar, DD! :D Hope you like mine too.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 06, 2012, 08:47:52 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 06, 2012, 07:12:52 PM
Great avatar, DD! :D Hope you like mine too.

Ha! Great choice, MI! :D

I guess that makes us brothers...at least for awhile!


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 06, 2012, 09:13:09 PM
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 06, 2012, 07:11:07 PM
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make earlier on. But it sorta got drowned out. ;D

I think the dividing line between "right" and "wrong" gets fuzzier the further we get from baroque.

Though even in baroque performance ideas seem to be in a state of turmoil. Think of the trend towards period instrument performances of Bach with cantabile articulation, symphonic scale, colours, extreme emotional intensity. Vartolo's Goldbergs, Rubsam's AoF. There are examples from Bruggen and Hengelbrock too, and Gardiner and Rannou.

And then there's Harnoncourt. The way he plays Bwv 99/1 for example, seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the cantata. I like what he does but it's romantic inspiration, the way he plays, as arbitrary as a performance of something by Herman Scherchen.

And Koopman, who seems to be driven to his ideas about ornamentation entirely by romantic inspiration. Why else would he do what he does with The Goldberg Variations?

It's as if the biggest challenges coming to HIP baroque are from PI performers, who are, I guess, reacting against the Netherlands School paradigm.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 06, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 06, 2012, 09:13:09 PM
And then there's Harnoncourt. The way he plays Bwv 99/1 for example, seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the cantata. I like what he does but it's romantic inspiration, the way he plays, as arbitrary as a performance of something by Herman Scherchen.

It's as if the biggest challenges coming to HIP baroque from from HIP performers.

Yes, Harnoncourt is definitely an island unto himself. I get the feeling it isn't about dogma with him. HIP is but one of many tools in his diverse shed.

Interestingly, I also remember hearing (at Tower Records, RIP) the Quatuor Mosaïques playing Beethoven's Op.18 and thinking just how romantic they made the music sound. Purportedly their Schubert is in the same vein. Just goes to show....


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on November 07, 2012, 02:37:39 AM
Quote from: Sammy on November 02, 2012, 09:32:27 PM
How would you explain the large increase in recordings of baroque works that were already well known such as the Goldberg Variations?

It's only relevant if you can demonstrate there HASN'T been a similar increase in recordings of everything else.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on December 03, 2012, 08:42:52 AM
(https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBBgpaHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0cGljLmNvbS9zaG93L2xhcmdlL2Jpc2x6NS5qcGcUAhYAEgA&s=bSlz4D3quN4pM8Vktc2uP-BocgjJHp_CcFklx0qCfWU)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PaulSC on December 03, 2012, 10:06:59 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2012, 08:42:52 AM
(https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBBgpaHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0cGljLmNvbS9zaG93L2xhcmdlL2Jpc2x6NS5qcGcUAhYAEgA&s=bSlz4D3quN4pM8Vktc2uP-BocgjJHp_CcFklx0qCfWU)
Complete with a jar of leeches, looks like!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Superhorn on December 03, 2012, 02:40:54 PM
"   The London Consort of Surgeons "! ROFLOL !!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2012, 12:34:33 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2012, 08:42:52 AM
(https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBBgpaHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0cGljLmNvbS9zaG93L2xhcmdlL2Jpc2x6NS5qcGcUAhYAEgA&s=bSlz4D3quN4pM8Vktc2uP-BocgjJHp_CcFklx0qCfWU)

Cartoon of the year!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 12:03:48 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 03, 2013, 11:22:16 AM
Actually there is quite a bit of documentary evidence about all the things you say we have no idea whatsoever. 

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 03, 2013, 11:38:34 AM
We have tons of documentary evidence how music was performed at a certain place and at a certain time by a certain group of players.

Yes, we have descriptions in words of "how they played". But "how they sounded" (which is the real issue) is lost forever. Imagine all recordings extant today disappear without a trace and 200 years someone would attempt to imagine how the performers of the early 21st century sounded, based solely on reviews (say, how Nikolai Demidenko*, or Freiburger Barockorchester sounded). His chances of really knowing are exactly minus zero --- and so are ours in respect to Haydn.

(* For instance:

[Demidenko's] playing is a rare amalgamation of total command and exquisite flexibility. His tempos are just right--swift in the note-packed sections, lovely measured in the note-sparse sections; his overall sense of the music is as organic as astounding.

Nikolai Demidenko's performance is spectacular. Blazing when needed, meltingly lyrical and velvety at other times, he seems to have penetrated Medtner's idiom to the core.

With amazing technical vituosity, Demidenko carries us excitingly through these rarely performed works. His technique is boundless in it's breadth, and his firey interpretation makes us wonder why these pieces are so neglected. Such pieces are child's play under the command of this unforgettable artist.

Now, suppose you have never heard Demidenko playing and all you have are the above paragraphs. How does he sound, pray tell?)

Quote from: karlhenning on March 03, 2013, 03:01:44 PM
But Andrei is right, in that we cannot know how the music sounded then. (Even the wonderful recordings we have of Prokofiev playing his own music, although they furnish us important insights, is not truly the sound which was heard in that space, at that time.)  It is ultimately impossible to hear the music as Haydn heard it.

See? Karl has got it right.  :)

Quote
Which is not to discount the interest, and possible importance, of the documentary evidence.

Of course not.

Quote
I think Andrei has a good point, too, in the fact that a work of art, once it heads out into the world, has something of a life of its own.  Probably not entirely divorced from what the composer had in mind, but certainly much broader in compass than the artist's intent.[/font]

My favorite example of this is Don Quijote (the novel).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on March 04, 2013, 04:22:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 12:03:48 AM
Yes, we have descriptions in words of "how they played". But "how they sounded" (which is the real issue) is lost forever. Imagine all recordings extant today disappear without a trace and 200 years someone would attempt to imagine how the performers of the early 21st century sounded, based solely on reviews (say, how Nikolai Demidenko*, or Freiburger Barockorchester sounded). His chances of really knowing are exactly minus zero --- and so are ours in respect to Haydn.


If you hadn't selectively quoted my post you would have run into exactly the same thing you are saying, so it isn't nice to put me up as being opposed to you on that particular idea. :)  The fact of the matter is, no matter how you twist words around, Haydn didn't play like Clara Schumann and she didn't play like Paderewski. It is really a little bit out there to be arguing that words don't equal music. When I read that I have a "no shit?" moment. However, it is my personal opinion that many (most?) of the people who eventually read these posts vastly prefers Romantic style playing and singing anyway, which is the reason that I  don't argue this issue here very often. What's the point really?  You can argue facts but you can't argue beliefs.  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 04:44:07 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 04, 2013, 04:22:08 AM
If you hadn't selectively quoted my post you would have run into exactly the same thing you are saying, so it isn't nice to put me up as being opposed to you on that particular idea. :)

I don't and I didn't.  :)

Quote
The fact of the matter is, no matter how you twist words around, Haydn didn't play like Clara Schumann and she didn't play like Paderewski.

Absolutely. Did I say otherwise anywhere?  :)

Quote
It is really a little bit out there to be arguing that words don't equal music. When I read that I have a "no shit?" moment.

So, in your opinion, words equal music? No shit?  ;D

Two questions then: (1) why then do we need words when we could just play the harpsichord, and conversely, why then do we need the violin when we could just talk? (2) do you mean to say that when you read words that describes music or performance, you also hear the music or the performance?

Quote
However, it is my personal opinion that many (most?) of the people who eventually read these posts vastly prefers Romantic style playing and singing anyway, which is the reason that I  don't argue this issue here very often. What's the point really?  You can argue facts but you can't argue beliefs.  :)

Liking or disliking a style of playing or the sound of an instrument is not a matter of beliefs, either, but of personal taste. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 04:45:55 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 03:52:31 AM
we have plenty of "method books" which describe in detail how the music should be played. 

And yet there are no two performances alike, not even in the HIP camp. Why? ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 04:54:41 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 04:53:00 AM
Because we are human.

Aha! That's exactly my point.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 04:59:33 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 04:58:18 AM
Are you really arguing that words such as "andante"; "allegro"; and "adagio" or "legato"; "staccato" have absolutely no meaning?

Where did you get that idea, I wonder?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 05:00:08 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 04:59:05 AM
Does that point really need to be made?

Sometimes it does.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 05:47:39 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 05:01:39 AM
From comments such as this, "Yes, we have descriptions in words of "how they played". But "how they sounded" (which is the real issue) is lost forever."

You seem to be arguing that there are no standards we have available to us for the purposes of understanding how the music of Haydn's period should sound.

I will repeat what I've said earlier: for all these standards, no two performances are alike, not even in the HIP camp. One of two, then: either the standards are not clear and explicit (IOW, they are no standards at all), or the different performers respect them only partially or disregard them altogether.

Music should not sound in any particular way; how it sounds depends entirely on the personality of the interpreter (and accepting or rejecting standards and performance practices is part and parcel of this personality). You are free to accept or reject this or that performance, and this accepting or rejecting is part and parcel of your personality. Are you sure that, were you been able to hear Haydn himself playing the keyboard, you'd like it?  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on March 04, 2013, 05:52:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 04:44:07 AM
So, in your opinion, words equal music? No shit?  ;D

Two questions then: (1) why then do we need words when we could just play the harpsichord, and conversely, why then do we need the violin when we could just talk? (2) do you mean to say that when you read words that describes music or performance, you also hear the music or the performance?

Liking or disliking a style of playing or the sound of an instrument is not a matter of beliefs, either, but of personal taste. :)

See, you are totally misrepresenting what I said. When YOU said that words and music don't represent each other well, I said 'no shit?'. In Texas, that means, well, "Duh" in modern parlance. It does NOT mean that I say they do.   I know that Texas is a strange and wonderful place, much like Oz itself, but we do our best here to communicate in such a way that even non-Texans can handle.  :)

The style of playing that you prefer only matters to you. I hate to even discuss it because it doesn't matter to me what someone else likes or dislikes, as long as they listen to the music. I do, however, know what I like, and that's all that I care about. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 06:01:49 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 04, 2013, 05:52:44 AM
See, you are totally misrepresenting what I said. When YOU said that words and music don't represent each other well, I said 'no shit?'. In Texas, that means, well, "Duh" in modern parlance. It does NOT mean that I say they do.   I know that Texas is a strange and wonderful place, much like Oz itself, but we do our best here to communicate in such a way that even non-Texans can handle.  :)

Hey, please remember English is not my native tongue, let alone Texan English. I thought that "No shit?" as a reply to a statement was meant to express doubt about the statement being true, but it seems I got it the wrong way.  ???

Quote
it doesn't matter to me what someone else likes or dislikes, as long as they listen to the music. I do, however, know what I like, and that's all that I care about. :)

I subscribe to this with both my hands.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on March 04, 2013, 06:05:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 06:01:49 AM
Hey, please remember English is not my native tongue, let alone Texan English. I thought that "No shit?" as a reply to a statement was meant to express doubt about the statement being true, but it seems I got it the wrong way.  ???

I subscribe to this with both my hands.  :)

Yes, exactly backwards. No shit.   >:D   No problem either. ;)

Good, see? We agree on something. The day improves already.   0:)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2013, 06:45:17 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 06:35:02 AM
Yes; but most performers strive to emulate the intentions of the composer as they perceive them.

That's good.

Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 06:35:02 AM
Except, of course, Glenn Gould.   :D

That's good, too. ; )
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 08:04:40 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 06:35:02 AM
most performers strive to emulate the intentions of the composer as they perceive them

Agreed.

Quote from: sanantonio on March 04, 2013, 06:35:02 AM
I really do not concern myself with hypotheticals such as your last sentence.

I didn't expect any answer, it was just a rhetorical question.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2013, 08:06:32 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 04, 2013, 06:05:12 AM
We agree on something many a thing.

There, fixed.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: jochanaan on March 08, 2013, 08:19:26 AM
Every once in a while, musicians (composers, performers, critics, and audiences) need to re-examine their art, simply because traditions build up that may or may not have anything to do with what, say, Bach or Mahler wrote.  (Toscanini had the reputation of "making music exactly as the composer wrote it", but even he changed scores and did things his own way.)  It may be true that "we can't get to what the composer intended"--but that doesn't let us off trying.

The best HIP-PI recordings have a clarity and excitement that was often lacking in earlier performances.  Compare (if you can), for example, the early I Musici recording of Vivaldi's The Seasons with one by, say, Ensemble 415; the earlier recording sounds downright soupy compared to E415's, and the latter has even more personality, flexibility and drama.

But, at the same time, we shouldn't be prejudiced against earlier recordings.  People and groups such as Paul Sacher and the Basel Chamber Orchestra were sometimes as well-versed in Baroque performance practices as any HIPster of today, as evidenced in the classic Sacher/Basel Brandenburg set.  (Their ornamentations are flawless and seemingly spontaneous; and their harpsichordist, Eduard Muller, revived the historically accurate tradition of adding an "improvisation" before the two chords between the first and final movements.  By today's standards, their tempos are distressingly slow, but some of the things I've read suggest that their tempos might actually be more in line with actual Baroque practices than today's flying tempos.  In almost every way, that classic recording is a historically accurate performance, though on mostly modern instruments.)  I'm also very fond of the 1959 recording of The Play of Daniel by Noah Greenberg and the New York Pro Musica.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Wakefield on July 30, 2018, 04:51:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 01:05:33 AM
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51TOXrjK5hL._SY450_.jpg)

An all-time favourite!

Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 02:39:38 AM
(https://www.angelahewitt.com/it/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AH_XXX4.jpg)

Apart from the performance, what distinguishes Angela Hewitt as an excellent musician is the liner notes she writes for her recordings: informative, wittty and not too technical, they are a delight to read.

... and a great dose of pride, too. I have heard/read some interviews, and she seems quite disdainful towards other heyboard instruments and other performers. That said, I love her disks.  :)


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 05:04:43 AM
Quote from: Gordo on July 30, 2018, 04:51:55 AM
... and a great dose of pride, too. I have heard/read some interviews, and she seems quite disdainful towards other heyboard instruments and other performers.

Could you please provide some links? You made me curious about that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Wakefield on July 30, 2018, 05:17:14 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 05:04:43 AM
Could you please provide some links? You made me curious about that.

I was afraid you will ask for that! But I will need some research to recall where I read/heard/watched it. BTW, I think her (sort of) hostility towards the HIP movement is quite similar to your own attitude, my dear friend!   :D  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 05:33:16 AM
Quote from: Gordo on July 30, 2018, 05:17:14 AM
I was afraid you will ask for that! But I will need some research to recall where I read/heard/watched it. BTW, I think her (sort of) hostility towards the HIP movement is quite similar to your own attitude, my dear friend!   :D  ;)

Hey, I'm not hostile to HIP. What I am indeed opposed to is turning what is simply one of the many legitimate approaches into an all-encompassing, "totalitarian" ideology according to which certain works and indeed whole eras in the history of music should be forever kept within some narrow confines regarding the choice of instruments and the performance styles.  I am not opposed to Bach on the harpsichord, I am opposed to proscribing Bach on the piano.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 05:33:16 AM
What I am indeed opposed to is turning what is simply one of the many legitimate approaches into an all-encompassing, "totalitarian" ideology according to which certain works and indeed whole eras in the history of music should be forever kept within some narrow confines regarding the choice of instruments and the performance styles.

That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 30, 2018, 05:40:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 05:33:16 AM
I am opposed to proscribing Bach on the piano...

....and I am against prescribing the piano for Bach.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 30, 2018, 05:41:17 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

+1
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: ritter on July 30, 2018, 05:43:45 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
.... Bach on a grand is an atrocity.
...but, often, a wonderful one!  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Wakefield on July 30, 2018, 05:55:12 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 30, 2018, 05:40:35 AM
....and I am against prescribing the piano for Bach.  :D

Well, I am adscribing to this remark.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for.

And thereby make the works museum pieces...  :laugh:

Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

We must have dramatically different ears. This is one of the sublimest things I've ever heard.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XVAl47CpwOQ

Actually, my main objection is not even over the choice of the instruments --- and I stress choice, which HIP doesn't make room for. It's this whole idea that simply by using period instruments and HIP the music is heard exactly as those people back then heard it that I find problematic. How one hears any given music depends on a lot of extra musical factors and for all the abundence of HIP recordings and concerts what we conspicuously miss is historical ears and mentality. Take Haydn, for instance. As Gurn has showed in his wonderful series of essays, the reactions his music ellicited from the contemporary audience differs markedly, dramatically even in some cases, from our own. According to the HIP ideology, if the instruments and the performing style are all historically accurate this should not be the case and we should be able to experience the music exactly as it was experienced back then --- except that we don't and can't, because our worldview and cultural environment are galaxies apart from those of Haydn's original audience(s) and it's only with much effort and limited results that we can get in their minds. Bottom line, whether one prefers the harpsichord or the piano, or larger or smaller forces it's much more a matter of personal taste, education and aesthetic sensibility among performers and audiences alike than of any objective and intrinsic superiority of one choice over the other. What makes a performance great is not the instruments but the artistic vision, integrity and committment of those who use them.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 06:40:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
And thereby make the works museum pieces...  :laugh:

We must have dramatically different ears. This is one of the sublimest things I've ever heard.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XVAl47CpwOQ

Bottom line, whether one prefers the harpsichord or the piano, or larger or smaller forces it's much more a matter of personal taste, education and aesthetic sensibility among performers and audiences alike than of any objective and intrinsic superiority of one choice over the other. What makes a performance great is not the instruments but the artistic vision, integrity and committment of those who use them.

Museum pieces is an odd remark, as if you belittle the music because to your ears they are museum pieces :-\
Personal tastes, well yes...education and aesthetic sensibility, I take offence by these words, because what you are basically saying is, if you do not have those requirements you are not able to appreciate in the way you appreciate them?
And what words you are using, it's like you want to show off that you know better, by saying "Objective and intrinsic superiority" ehhh, I am simply saying what I said before, the music should be performed on the instruments it was composed for. I accept that people have different views, and that's okay, but since we cannot ask the composers what they think, I say let's stick to what they meant to say and not fall into the trap of prettifying the music simply because we have superior instruments at our disposal.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on July 30, 2018, 06:47:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
And thereby make the works museum pieces...  :laugh:

We must have dramatically different ears. This is one of the sublimest things I've ever heard.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XVAl47CpwOQ

Actually, my main objection is not even over the choice of the instruments --- and I stress choice, which HIP doesn't make room for. It's this whole idea that simply by using period instruments and HIP the music is heard exactly as those people back then heard it that I find problematic. How one hears any given music depends on a lot of extra musical factors and for all the abundence of HIP recordings and concerts what we conspicuously miss is historical ears and mentality. Take Haydn, for instance. As Gurn has showed in his wonderful series of essays, the reactions his music ellicited from the contemporary audience differs markedly, dramatically even in some cases, from our own. According to the HIP ideology, if the instruments and the performing style are all historically accurate this should not be the case and we should be able to experience the music exactly as it was experienced back then --- except that we don't and can't, because our worldview and cultural environment are galaxies apart from those of Haydn's original audience(s) and it's only with much effort and limited results that we can get in their minds. Bottom line, whether one prefers the harpsichord or the piano, or larger or smaller forces it's much more a matter of personal taste, education and aesthetic sensibility among performers and audiences alike than of any objective and intrinsic superiority of one choice over the other. What makes a performance great is not the instruments but the artistic vision, integrity and committment of those who use them.
Can you cite a source for this claim that "HIP ideology" does indeed claim to be able to reproduce the exact effect that the music had on its original audience? As far as I remember, musicians associated with HIP have emphasized studying the instruments, playing techniques and styles, and acoustics to better understand how the music was played, whereas the opponents of HIP often write about how we don't wear powdered wigs anymore, and that we've heard Beethoven, Stravinsky and Beatles. HIP is obviously not some secret recipe that, when applied, makes all music magically sound right in the one and only correct way, but objecting to HIP is like objecting to the restoration of paintings from Rembrandt etc. - Cleaning the paintings and presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for doesn't make the viewer a 17th century Dutch merchant, but it does give a more accurate view of the work of art, except that as a bonus you still get to keep all the old Romanticized versions, and keep as much of that tradition as you want in your new performances.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 06:49:50 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 06:40:21 AM
Museum pieces is an odd remark, as if you belittle the music because to your ears they are museum pieces :-\
Personal tastes, well yes...education and aesthetic sensibility, I take offence by these words, because what you are basically saying is, if you do not have those requirements you are not able to appreciate in the way you appreciate them?
And what words you are using, it's like you want to show off that you know better, by saying "Objective and intrinsic superiority" ehhh,

You either completely misunderstood my points or you grossly misrepresent them in order to pick a fight with me. Either way I'm not going to pursue the matter any more.

Quotebut since we cannot ask the composers what they think, I say let's stick to what they meant to say

The first part of the sentence directly contradicts the second, for if we cannot know what the composers thought, then how could we stick to what they meant to say? We can't ask Bach what he thought in composing the Goldberg Variations yet we are supposed to stick to what he meant to say with them? It's quite confusing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 30, 2018, 07:06:29 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 06:40:21 AM
...... because we have superior instruments at our disposal.

What????

But else I agree fully with your post.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 07:06:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 06:49:50 AM
You either completely misunderstood my points or you grossly misrepresent them in order to pick a fight with me. Either way I'm not going to pursue the matter any more.

See that is what I mean, you feel yourself superior to others, for your arguments are better as mine or others. So you revert to saying that I again misunderstood, (well maybe I am stupid, Andrei) or grossly misrepresent in order to pick a fight with you, ( Christ, are you a little boy?)
I am to old to pick a fight with such eloquent youngsters like you. And then when you see it will not lead to the desired result you wish, you stop communicating. Well my advice is do not argue for argues sake, and slam us all dead with your great capabilities in the English language.

The first part of the sentence directly contradicts the second, for if we cannot know what the composers thought, then how could we stick to what they meant to say? We can't ask Bach what he thought in composing the Goldberg Variations yet we are supposed to stick to what he meant to say with them? It's quite confusing.

See that is what I mean, you feel yourself superior to others, for your arguments are better as mine or others. So you revert to saying that I again misunderstood, (well maybe I am stupid, Andrei) or grossly misrepresent in order to pick a fight with you, ( Christ, are you a little boy?)
I am to old to pick a fight with such eloquent youngsters like you. And then when you see it will not lead to the desired result you wish, you stop communicating. Well my advice is do not argue for argues sake, and slam us all dead with your great capabilities in the English language


Not confusing to me, but your mind is differently wired I guess. What worries me is that you constantly underestimate me and other people.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 07:09:01 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 30, 2018, 07:06:29 AM
What????

But else I agree fully with your post.

Sorry I meant that in a technical way: to my ears the instruments of old are honey to my ears :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 07:09:17 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 07:06:43 AM
you constantly underestimate me and other people.

I beg your pardon?  ???
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 07:11:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 07:09:17 AM
I beg your pardon?  ???

O, common Andrei, be the friendly person I knew of old, there is too little time arguing, better listen to music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 30, 2018, 07:12:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 06:49:50 AM
The first part of the sentence directly contradicts the second, for if we cannot know what the composers thought, then how could we stick to what they meant to say? We can't ask Bach what he thought in composing the Goldberg Variations yet we are supposed to stick to what he meant to say with them? It's quite confusing.

We can't ask the composers any more, but we can at least follow their intensions so far they are discernible, e.g. the Goldberg variations are composed for a two manual harpsichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 07:13:48 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 07:11:55 AM
O, common Andrei, be the friendly person I knew of old

I am the same person I have always been, Harry, and I can't remember of a single instance of underestimating you --- but if you will show me one such instance I will gladly repent.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on July 30, 2018, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 07:06:43 AM
See that is what I mean, you feel yourself superior to others, for your arguments are better as mine or others. So you revert to saying that I again misunderstood, (well maybe I am stupid, Andrei) or grossly misrepresent in order to pick a fight with you, ( Christ, are you a little boy?)
I am to old to pick a fight with such eloquent youngsters like you. And then when you see it will not lead to the desired result you wish, you stop communicating. Well my advice is do not argue for argues sake, and slam us all dead with your great capabilities in the English language


Not confusing to me, but your mind is differently wired I guess. What worries me is that you constantly underestimate me and other people.

You did misunderstand. Completely. Sometimes your grasp of English is way off. This is one of those times.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 07:22:24 AM
Quote from: Madiel on July 30, 2018, 07:14:55 AM
You did misunderstand. Completely. Sometimes your grasp of English is way off. This is one of those times.

O, dear, you felt the need to add to the abusive rhetoric.  I am so sorry that I am not able to grasp the English language, but you obviously can.
Though you completely fail to see the intrinsic value of my words, and cannot grasp the meaning of my thoughts. But hold on, you know better right. Go and start a fight in your own sandpit with the boys of your neighborhood!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 07:23:54 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 30, 2018, 07:12:10 AM
the Goldberg variations are composed for a two manual harpsichord.

True. Now, where is it written, and by whom and on what authority, that they shouldn't be in any case and for any reason whatsoever performed on a grand piano?

By the same token, Bach himself should not have transcribed for harpsichord those Vivaldi concertos because they were written for a gut-stringed violin.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on July 30, 2018, 07:31:29 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 07:22:24 AM
O, dear, you felt the need to add to the abusive rhetoric.  I am so sorry that I am not able to grasp the English language, but you obviously can.
Though you completely fail to see the intrinsic value of my words, and cannot grasp the meaning of my thoughts. But hold on, you know better right. Go and start a fight in your own sandpit with the boys of your neighborhood!
Wow.
Harry, you took offense at something. But you misunderstood what was said. Rather than getting upset just accept that *Andrei did not insult you*. The same thing happened with a comment I made a couple years ago: you misunderstood the English and got upset and thought I had insulted you. That time however you realized you might just have misunderstood. Nor did Madiel insult you.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 07:31:54 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 07:06:43 AMyou feel yourself superior to others, for your arguments are better as mine or others.

This is nonsense. Sorry, I can't formulate it in any plainer and simpler English.


Quotemy advice is do not argue for argues sake, and slam us all dead with your great capabilities in the English language

For God's sake, Harry, please tell me what is so demeaning to, and underestimating of, you and others in my writing "objective and intrinsic superiority"?



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on July 30, 2018, 07:33:22 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 07:22:24 AM
O, dear, you felt the need to add to the abusive rhetoric.  I am so sorry that I am not able to grasp the English language, but you obviously can.
Though you completely fail to see the intrinsic value of my words, and cannot grasp the meaning of my thoughts. But hold on, you know better right. Go and start a fight in your own sandpit with the boys of your neighborhood!

I can grasp the meaning of your thoughts just fine. The problem is, you didn't grasp the meaning of Florestan's thoughts, and just attacked and attacked him for things he didn't actually say.

But then again, you chuck a hissy fit any time people don't fawn over you. So why should this time be any different.

See? Now I'm being a little bit abusive. I wasn't before, but you inspired me. Goodnight.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 07:36:19 AM
Quote from: Madiel on July 30, 2018, 07:33:22 AM
I can grasp the meaning of your thoughts just fine. The problem is, you didn't grasp the meaning of Florestan's thoughts, and just attacked and attacked him for things he didn't actually say.

But then again, you chuck a hissy fit any time people don't fawn over you. So why should this time be any different.

See? Now I'm being a little bit abusive. I wasn't before, but you inspired me. Goodnight.

Yes thank you!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 07:41:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 07:31:54 AM


This is nonsense. Sorry, I can't formulate it in any plainer and simpler English.


For God's sake, Harry, please tell me what is so demeaning to, and underestimating of, you and others in my writing "objective and intrinsic superior qualities"?

Andrei, I have said what I wanted to say, but I am met all the way by you and others, that I completely misunderstood, misrepresent, that my English is crap, that my writing shows I do not understand one iota of what others are writing, well maybe it is time that I pack my things and leave GMG, for I feel sometimes that I am in an alien world. GMG is not anymore what it was in the time I joined.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on July 30, 2018, 09:01:43 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 06:40:21 AM
Museum pieces is an odd remark, as if you belittle the music because to your ears they are museum pieces :-\
Personal tastes, well yes...education and aesthetic sensibility, I take offence by these words, because what you are basically saying is, if you do not have those requirements you are not able to appreciate in the way you appreciate them?
And what words you are using, it's like you want to show off that you know better, by saying "Objective and intrinsic superiority" ehhh, I am simply saying what I said before, the music should be performed on the instruments it was composed for. I accept that people have different views, and that's okay, but since we cannot ask the composers what they think, I say let's stick to what they meant to say and not fall into the trap of prettifying the music simply because we have superior instruments at our disposal.

I'm a bit confused, Harry. It's OK to have a different view and to like Bach on a Grand, but Bach on a Grand is also an atrocity?

Well, if I thought like this 'atrocity' thing, I guess I'd have to throw away my Hurford/Corti/Vad/Amade/Alain 2/half of Preston and many other Bach organ boxes and discs then.
All played on prettified 'superior' instruments, not sounding like the German baroque organs Bach used to know.
Even Ewald Kooiman should be convicted posthumously, because the French Silbermanns sound rather different than the German ones. Mind you: Kooiman himself considered the French Silbermanns as unsuited and inferior, too, until he played them himself.

Thousands of concerts ought to be deleted. If Bart Jacobs uses stops from the 19th century Bovenwerk in the Der Aa Kerk tonight, whilst playing Buxtehude or Bach, he should be told that he's committed an atrocity. I also should have told so to Bernard Bartelink and Sjoerd Ruisch (among many others), who dared to play Bach on the Maarschalkerweerd organ in the Jozefkerk, Groningen. This organ produces a sound that doesn't come close to any 'baroque' sound at all, no matter what stops you pull.

During the Notenkraker actions (late 1960s) this was also the problem of Bernard Haitink. Frans Brüggen shouted to him that each and every note of Mozart played by the Concertgebouw Orkest was a lie. Well, at least Brüggen matured and admitted he was (young and) wrong. He even became chief conductor of the Radio Kamerorkest (playing on modern instruments), succeeding... Ton Koopman!

It's exactly the uncompromising 'rules and regulations' thing that I found/find offensive in the HIP/PI movement. Therefore I will never become a member. But I do prefer old instruments in, say, pre-1800 classical music. And I'm thankful to the movement for their musical choices, even though to them it wasn't a choice (I know I know) but a solemn oath. I hope the movement finds that OK.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 30, 2018, 10:28:00 AM
Quote from: Marc on July 30, 2018, 09:01:43 AM
It's OK to have a different view and to like Bach on a Grand, but Bach on a Grand is also an atrocity?
Well, if I thought like this 'atrocity' thing, I guess I'd have to throw away my Hurford/Corti/Vad/Amade/Alain 2/half of Preston and many other Bach organ boxes and discs then.
All played on prettified 'superior' instruments, not sounding like the German baroque organs Bach used to know.

I do not think your comparison hits the nail on the head. It is clear that the reconstruction of old organs must imply a lot of compromises partly because our intimate knowledge about the old organs are fragmentary (e.g. how were this and this organ precisely tuned?) and also often for financial reasons. And even if a Johann Silbermann sounds a little different from a Gottfried Silbermann we are talking about organs from the same period and both (more or less) with a French influenced sound, which was en vogue at that time. But a concert grand does not imply any compromises at all, it is a completely new instrument, which was totally unknown to Bach.

Musicological sources from the Baroque age and organological evidence tell us a lot about, how the Baroque musicians performed their music, maybe one half of what we would like to know. But on the other hand it also tells us something about how the Baroque musicians did not perform their music. A harpsichord (and an organ too) has not the option to vary the dynamics of individual notes. This can be  done on a piano. And most pianists I have heard fiddle with the dynamics all the time. I find this tendency very distracting, but also seen from an objective point of view this way of playing is not in accordance with Baroque style, and it changes the musical statement in a romantic direction. Like playing Bach on a romatic organ and using swell and "rollschweller" in excess. I have since long preferred as authentic instruments as possible and a style of playing at least not contradicting what we know of former ages style of playing, but I am not a fanatic, and of course many compromises need to be done before music is made. It is not so much the concert grand as such I object against (even if I prefer it used for piano music). But it is the pianists, who think they have to "modernise" and distort the music to make it better understood by the listeners of to day. But what is this they possibly understand? Has this much to do with the music in question?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 30, 2018, 10:34:39 AM
Quote from: Marc on July 30, 2018, 09:01:43 AM
I'm a bit confused, Harry. It's OK to have a different view and to like Bach on a Grand, but Bach on a Grand is also an atrocity?

Well, if I thought like this 'atrocity' thing, I guess I'd have to throw away my Hurford/Corti/Vad/Amade/Alain 2/half of Preston and many other Bach organ boxes and discs then.
All played on prettified 'superior' instruments, not sounding like the German baroque organs Bach used to know.
Even Ewald Kooiman should be convicted posthumously, because the French Silbermanns sound rather different than the German ones. Mind you: Kooiman himself considered the French Silbermanns as unsuited and inferior, too, until he played them himself.

Thousands of concerts ought to be deleted. If Bart Jacobs uses stops from the 19th century Bovenwerk in the Der Aa Kerk tonight, whilst playing Buxtehude or Bach, he should be told that he's committed an atrocity. I also should have told so to Bernard Bartelink and Sjoerd Ruisch (among many others), who dared to play Bach on the Maarschalkerweerd organ in the Jozefkerk, Groningen. This organ produces a sound that doesn't come close to any 'baroque' sound at all, no matter what stops you pull.

During the Notenkraker actions (late 1960s) this was also the problem of Bernard Haitink. Frans Brüggen shouted to him that each and every note of Mozart played by the Concertgebouw Orkest was a lie. Well, at least Brüggen matured and admitted he was (young and) wrong. He even became chief conductor of the Radio Kamerorkest (playing on modern instruments), succeeding... Ton Koopman!

It's exactly the uncompromising 'rules and regulations' thing that I found/find offensive in the HIP/PI movement. Therefore I will never become a member. But I do prefer old instruments in, say, pre-1800 classical music. And I'm thankful to the movement for their musical choices, even though to them it wasn't a choice (I know I know) but a solemn oath. I hope the movement finds that OK.

I think Marc, that of all people you understood what I meant. I said I have no problems with the fact that people have different tastes. But it is my conviction that Bach and all other composers, that composed for the instruments they knew, it should be played on those instruments.
I am not the only one who thinks like this. Let's take the Martini Church organ. As long as the pipes are used that where there when it was build it is acceptable to me. But the additions are not. Masaaki Suzuki in a live concert proved my point, that you cannot play Bach with all the added pipes of the 19th century.
I must be allowed to have my opinion, like others insist on theirs.
And then being attacked by this guy called Madiel who kindly informs me that my understanding of English is crap, and that I am a ignoramus in understanding what is written hurts beyond imagination. All the reviews I have written for third parties, never complained about this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Maestro267 on July 30, 2018, 10:51:30 AM
HIPP is a fascinating side-view for those who are into that, but it should be nothing more than that. Music is a living art form; each time a piece is performed it is born anew, with all the unique interpretive elements that the performers bring to the work. Instruments have evolved over time, so Bach (eg.) should be allowed to be enjoyed on modern instruments. It doesn't have to be a museum artefact of the time it was written. It can be, of course...but it doesn't have to.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 11:15:47 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 30, 2018, 10:28:00 AM
It is not so much the concert grand as such I object against (even if I prefer it used for piano music). But it is the pianists, who think they have to "modernise" and distort the music to make it better understood by the listeners of to day. But what is this they possibly understand? Has this much to do with the music in question?

That's exactly what I meant by "museum pieces". If one makes any work's relevance, significance and beauty strictly and uncompromisingly dependent on certain instruments and performing techniques only, and one proclaims anything deviating from this as "not having much to do with the music in question", or "modernist distortion" or "romanticizing", then one petrifies the said work into a mere exhibit in a museum, not to be touched upon. On the other hand, if a piece of music has indeed universal relevance, significance and beauty then they are not in such rigid dependence on the instruments and techniques of a particular historical ere and every subsequent generation of performers can, and indeed should, bring into interpretation* their own artistic insights and aesthetic concerns, including in the choice of instruments and techniques. Taking the issue of dynamics, which so bothers you --- do you allow for the slightest possibility that sometimes, namely when variations in dynamics are used wisely, they can illuminate the work in a new way, which might not have been envisaged by the composer but which nevertheless subtract nothing from the music itself but on the contrary add to it new shades and angles? Why is this to be so harshly condemned a priori? Why should the free personality of an artist be constrained by rigid and immutable rules and the expression of his thoughts and feelings about a composition be prohibited in the name of a rather utopian ideal of "the music as it is"? Nay, he is even prohibited to tackle some works and told to get his hands off them. It is this artistic and intellectual "totalitarianism" (I can't think of a better word, sorry, no personal offense meant) that I strenuously object to. You like Bach on the harpsichord and that is perfectly legitimate and okay but it seems you can't actually enjoy it without prohibiting, or at least condemning, Bach on the piano --- and I believe this is neither legitimate nor okay anymore.

* the very concept of interpreter / interpretation is quite alien to the immobility frozen in time which seems to be advocated by HIP purists and fanatics.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: Maestro267 on July 30, 2018, 10:51:30 AM
HIPP is a fascinating side-view for those who are into that, but it should be nothing more than that. Music is a living art form; each time a piece is performed it is born anew, with all the unique interpretive elements that the performers bring to the work. Instruments have evolved over time, so Bach (eg.) should be allowed to be enjoyed on modern instruments. It doesn't have to be a museum artefact of the time it was written. It can be, of course...but it doesn't have to.

I disagree with this. The HIP view -- that's to say, the view which says that the performer should respect the score and all the performance practices -- should be the central view. Because, after all, it is supposed to be a performance of Scarlatti or whoever. There's tons of room for performer's creativity within that principle.

Of course a musician may want to take a piece of music and do things which are very different from what we know the composer intended, an example which came up yesterday was a piano Goldberg variations by Barto. But that's the side view. And hence I think that it's almost insulting that Barto should release such a parody of the music Bach composed, call it The Goldberg Variations and not "A reinterpretation of The Goldberg Variations, and not offer a word of explanation in the booklet.

Florestan's thing was to do with Scarlatti, and there the thing is more complicated I think. He may have composed some of them for piano, Hewitt may not be as fast and loose with Scarlatti's creations as Barto is with Bach.  . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 11:25:28 AM
Quote from: Maestro267 on July 30, 2018, 10:51:30 AM
Music is a living art form; each time a piece is performed it is born anew, with all the unique interpretive elements that the performers bring to the work. Instruments have evolved over time, so Bach (eg.) should be allowed to be enjoyed on modern instruments. It doesn't have to be a museum artefact of the time it was written. It can be, of course...but it doesn't have to.

Complete agreement with all of the above.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 11:30:22 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 11:15:47 AM
That's exactly what I meant by "museum pieces". If one makes any work's relevance, significance and beauty strictly and uncompromisingly dependent on certain instruments and performing techniques only, and one proclaims anything deviating from this as "not having much to do with the music in question", or "modernist distortion" or "romanticizing", then one petrifies the said work into a mere exhibit in a museum, not to be touched upon. On the other hand, if a piece of music has indeed universal relevance, significance and beauty then they are not in such rigid dependence on the instruments and techniques of a particular historical ere and every subsequent generation of performers can, and indeed should, bring into interpretation* their own artistic insights and aesthetic concerns, including in the choice of instruments and techniques. Taking the issue of dynamics, which so bothers you --- do you allow for the slightest possibility that sometimes, namely when variations in dynamics are used wisely, they can illuminate the work in a new way, which might not have been envisaged by the composer but which nevertheless subtract nothing from the music itself but on the contrary add to it new shades and angles? Why is this to be so harshly condemned a priori? Why should the free personality of an artist be constrained by rigid and immutable rules and the expression of his thoughts and feelings about a composition be prohibited in the name of a rather utopian ideal of "the music as it is"? Nay, he is even prohibited to tackle some works and told to get his hands off them. It is this artistic and intellectual "totalitarianism" (I can't think of a better word, sorry, no personal offense meant) that I strenuously object to. You like Bach on the harpsichord and that is perfectly legitimate and okay but it seems you can't actually enjoy it without prohibiting, or at least condemning, Bach on the piano --- and I believe this is neither legitimate nor okay anymore.

* the very concept of interpreter / interpretation is quite alien to the immobility frozen in time which seems to be advocated by HIP purists and fanatics.

Reading this, I want to suggest that you underestimate how much scope there is for creative HIP performances. There's also some interesting ontological assumptions in your thinking which deserve to be pulled out -- the identity of a piece of music is complex, and you might say that, eg, using piano techniques in a piece made for harpsichord can deform it so much that it ceases to be The Goldberg Variations or whatever. This is what I would say about that Frescobaldi on piano you liked so much -- it's no longer Frescobaldi's music. 

(Consider someone who tries to play a Chopin sonata on bagpipes . . . )
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 11:35:28 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 11:21:44 AM
I think that it's almost insulting that Barto should release such a parody of the music Bach composed, call it The Goldberg Variations and not "A reinterpretation of The Goldberg Variations,

Haven't heard it but I think calling it as such is redundant. Each and every performance, even that of the most fanatical HIP adherent, is exactly that: a reinterpretation of the piece in question by the artist in question.

Quote
and not offer a word of explanation in the booklet.

This might indeed be a problem, especially for the theoretically inclined.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 11:44:17 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 11:30:22 AM
This is what I would say about that Frescobaldi on piano you liked so much -- it's no longer Frescobaldi's music.

Why?

There is one and only one case in which I think you would have an irrefutable case, namely if Frescobaldi himself disavowed it.

Quote
(Consider someone who tries to play a Chopin sonata on bagpipes . . . )

This comparison is far-fetched. The differences between a bagpipe and a piano are far more dramatic and manifold than those between a harpsichord and a piano. And even so, if someone would play a Chopin's sonata on the bagpipe I'd be curious to hear it. I'd probably end up not liking or even hating it, but I certainly don't prohibit it a priori. People find pleasure in much worse things than that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 11:45:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2018, 11:35:28 AM
Haven't heard it but I think calling it as such is redundant. Each and every performance, even that of the most fanatical HIP adherent, is exactly that: a reinterpretation of the piece in question by the artist in question.



OK, clever. The problems of identity really are fundamental.  I want to be able to say that some (re)interpretations are further way from whatever it was that the composer created than others, some so far away that it ceases to be performance of the same piece of music, it's a transformation.


As I'm typing I'm aware that I just haven't done enough thinking about these difficult metaphysical questions. And I don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on July 30, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 10:34:39 AM
I think Marc, that of all people you understood what I meant. I said I have no problems with the fact that people have different tastes. But it is my conviction that Bach and all other composers, that composed for the instruments they knew, it should be played on those instruments.
I am not the only one who thinks like this. Let's take the Martini Church organ. As long as the pipes are used that where there when it was build it is acceptable to me. But the additions are not. Masaaki Suzuki in a live concert proved my point, that you cannot play Bach with all the added pipes of the 19th century.
I must be allowed to have my opinion, like others insist on theirs.
And then being attacked by this guy called Madiel who kindly informs me that my understanding of English is crap, and that I am a ignoramus in understanding what is written hurts beyond imagination. All the reviews I have written for third parties, never complained about this.

I know Harry, I think our tastes are far more similar compared to f.i. the preferences of Florestan and yours truly. But that's not exactly my point. Apologies if I was a bit unclear.
If someone talks about the use of instrumentation in a comment or review, I most certainly do not understand the word 'atrocity'. I even dislike it. That's probably because personally I do not have a conviction in how music SHOULD be played.
I only have my preferences (yes, I do ;)), but I agree with member Maestro267 that old music should also be enjoyed/played on modern instruments. Even though I prefer the 'oldies' myself.

It's great that other people agree with your conviction that baroque music SHOULD be played on baroque instruments and if not, it's an atrocity. But I don't. (And plenty of others don't either, FWIW.)

Besides this, I do not understand your Suzuki comment about "all the added pipes of the 19th century" of the Martini organ. Since the reconstruction/restoration by Jürgen Ahrend in 1977-1984, the organ contains of about 50 stops in total. Only two small 19th century registers are left, one by Lohman and one by Van Oeckelen. Ahrend did not remove them, because they matched very well with the older renaissance and baroque registers. The rest of the 19th and 20th century registers were indeed removed, and replaced by reconstructions of earlier material (1740 and before).
So, on this particular instrument, it's just impossible to ruin a baroque piece with "all the added pipes of the 19th century". They simply aren't there.

Quote from: (: premont :) on July 30, 2018, 10:28:00 AM
I do not think your comparison hits the nail on the head. It is clear that the reconstruction of old organs must imply a lot of compromises partly because our intimate knowledge about the old organs are fragmentary (e.g. how were this and this organ precisely tuned?) and also often for financial reasons. And even if a Johann Silbermann sounds a little different from a Gottfried Silbermann we are talking about organs from the same period and both (more or less) with a French influenced sound, which was en vogue at that time. But a concert grand does not imply any compromises at all, it is a completely new instrument, which was totally unknown to Bach.

Musicological sources from the Baroque age and organological evidence tell us a lot about, how the Baroque musicians performed their music, maybe one half of what we would like to know. But on the other hand it also tells us something about how the Baroque musicians did not perform their music. A harpsichord (and an organ too) has not the option to vary the dynamics of individual notes. This can be  done on a piano. And most pianists I have heard fiddle with the dynamics all the time. I find this tendency very distracting, but also seen from an objective point of view this way of playing is not in accordance with Baroque style, and it changes the musical statement in a romantic direction. Like playing Bach on a romatic organ and using swell and "rollschweller" in excess. I have since long preferred as authentic instruments as possible and a style of playing at least not contradicting what we know of former ages style of playing, but I am not a fanatic, and of course many compromises need to be done before music is made. It is not so much the concert grand as such I object against (even if I prefer it used for piano music). But it is the pianists, who think they have to "modernise" and distort the music to make it better understood by the listeners of to day. But what is this they possibly understand? Has this much to do with the music in question?

I agree with almost everything, and the organ comparison of the Silbermanns wasn't the best example (even though it was enlightning to read about Kooiman's changed opinion of the Alsace instruments), but I would never call Bach on a Grand Piano an 'atrocity'.

I mean, Ivo Janssen plays Bach on a Japanese (Yamaha) Grand, for heaven's sake. They make motorbikes, too, btw, and electric guitars. They make almost everything, maybe even mechanical toy dolls and toy pianists. But Janssen's choice to play Bach on this piano is NOT an atrocity to me. It's a proof that Bach can be very well played on a very modern instrument, even without adding eccentricities to make it sound 'fake' baroque (like Gould sometimes tried to do). So yes, it's not a baroque instrument, but I truly love to listen to it. I also like to listen to Nikolayeva sometimes, or Dinnerstein, or Tipo, or S. Richter, et cetera and et al. Again, in my humble opinion they did not commit an atrocity.

To write that Bach played on a Grand is an atrocity and that his music should only be played on baroque instruments, sounds to much like a Bach ban on pianists to me. Probably many HIPsters would agree with that. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not have convictions :P, but I'm most definitely against bans based on convictions.

Call me liberal. >:D
(All right then, there you have a conviction. ;))
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on July 30, 2018, 01:17:41 PM
Arranging Bach for a piano is fine by me (and the results often enjoyable), but that's not at all same as putting seatbelts  in your vintage car. It's putting a V8 where there used to be a horse or two. Just as performing it on an appropriate instrument (that is in good condition, in an appropriate space) is like taking off 3 mm (1/8")  of yellow varnish and a layer of dirt away from a Rembrandt.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Traverso on July 30, 2018, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Marc on July 30, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
I know Harry, I think our tastes are far more similar compared to f.i. the preferences of Florestan and yours truly. But that's not exactly my point. Apologies if I was a bit unclear.
If someone talks about the use of instrumentation in a comment or review, I most certainly do not understand the word 'atrocity'. I even dislike it. That's probably because personally I do not have a conviction in how music SHOULD be played.
I only have my preferences (yes, I do ;)), but I agree with member Maestro267 that old music should also be enjoyed/played on modern instruments. Even though I prefer the 'oldies' myself.

It's great that other people agree with your conviction that baroque music SHOULD be played on baroque instruments and if not, it's an atrocity. But I don't. (And plenty of others don't either, FWIW.)

Besides this, I do not understand your Suzuki comment about "all the added pipes of the 19th century" of the Martini organ. Since the reconstruction/restoration by Jürgen Ahrend in 1977-1984, the organ contains of about 50 stops in total. Only two small 19th century registers are left, one by Lohman and one by Van Oeckelen. Ahrend did not remove them, because they matched very well with the older renaissance and baroque registers. The rest of the 19th and 20th century registers were indeed removed, and replaced by reconstructions of earlier material (1740 and before).
So, on this particular instrument, it's just impossible to ruin a baroque piece with "all the added pipes of the 19th century". They simply aren't there.

I agree with almost everything, and the organ comparison of the Silbermanns wasn't the best example (even though it was enlightning to read about Kooiman's changed opinion of the Alsace instruments), but I would never call Bach on a Grand Piano an 'atrocity'.

I mean, Ivo Janssen plays Bach on a Japanese (Yamaha) Grand, for heaven's sake. They make motorbikes, too, btw, and electric guitars. They make almost everything, maybe even mechanical toy dolls and toy pianists. But Janssen's choice to play Bach on this piano is NOT an atrocity to me. It's a proof that Bach can be very well played on a very modern instrument, even without adding eccentricities to make it sound 'fake' baroque (like Gould sometimes tried to do). So yes, it's not a baroque instrument, but I truly love to listen to it. I also like to listen to Nikolayeva sometimes, or Dinnerstein, or Tipo, or S. Richter, et cetera and et al. Again, in my humble opinion they did not commit an atrocity.

To write that Bach played on a Grand is an atrocity and that his music should only be played on baroque instruments, sounds to much like a Bach ban on pianists to me. Probably many HIPsters would agree with that. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not have convictions :P, but I'm most definitely against bans based on convictions.

Call me liberal. >:D
(All right then, there you have a conviction. ;))

Here a present for the true liberal  ;)


http://www.youtube.com/v/2vz_1lC51z0

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on July 30, 2018, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 11:30:22 AM
(Consider someone who tries to play a Chopin sonata on bagpipes . . . )

No, I refuse 8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: André on July 30, 2018, 04:55:31 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 30, 2018, 04:27:25 PM
No, I refuse 8)

The Goldbergs on the accordion, then ?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6M3RI_fU#fauxfullscreen (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6M3RI_fU#fauxfullscreen)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: kyjo on July 30, 2018, 05:03:43 PM
Quote from: Maestro267 on July 30, 2018, 10:51:30 AM
HIPP is a fascinating side-view for those who are into that, but it should be nothing more than that. Music is a living art form; each time a piece is performed it is born anew, with all the unique interpretive elements that the performers bring to the work. Instruments have evolved over time, so Bach (eg.) should be allowed to be enjoyed on modern instruments. It doesn't have to be a museum artefact of the time it was written. It can be, of course...but it doesn't have to.

Very much agree with this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 10:37:18 PM
Quote from: Marc on July 30, 2018, 09:01:43 AM


During the Notenkraker actions (late 1960s) this was also the problem of Bernard Haitink. Frans Brüggen shouted to him that each and every note of Mozart played by the Concertgebouw Orkest was a lie. Well, at least Brüggen matured and admitted he was (young and) wrong. He even became chief conductor of the Radio Kamerorkest (playing on modern instruments), succeeding... Ton Koopman!



It's a really interesting, this word lie. Because it suggests that some performances are less truthful than others.

Some people think that what you say is true if it corresponds to reality . Maybe Bruggen's idea was that the truthful performer makes music which corresponds to what the composer made. But I'm not sure this can really be made sense of.

Quote from: Marc on July 30, 2018, 09:01:43 AM


Thousands of concerts ought to be deleted. If Bart Jacobs uses stops from the 19th century Bovenwerk in the Der Aa Kerk tonight, whilst playing Buxtehude or Bach, he should be told that he's committed an atrocity. I also should have told so to Bernard Bartelink and Sjoerd Ruisch (among many others), who dared to play Bach on the Maarschalkerweerd organ in the Jozefkerk, Groningen. This organ produces a sound that doesn't come close to any 'baroque' sound at all, no matter what stops you pull.



These people are I think pretty evidently doing something which is (and I can only use metaphors at the moment) unaligned, out of kilter, with an aspect of the composer's creation. Something which does not correspond with what the composer made. a misrepresentation.   It's very hard to say this without these metaphors.

Travesty is another relevant idea, as is corruption, relevant in some way as yet not totally clear to me.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 10:55:58 PM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

Is Bjorn Schmelzer's music making sometimes an atrocity?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on July 31, 2018, 12:01:47 AM
Quote from: Traverso on July 30, 2018, 03:18:09 PM
Here a present for the true liberal  ;)


http://www.youtube.com/v/2vz_1lC51z0

Thank you.

Quote from: André on July 30, 2018, 04:55:31 PM
The Goldbergs on the accordion, then ?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6M3RI_fU#fauxfullscreen (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6M3RI_fU#fauxfullscreen)

I'm not fond of Bach on a steel guitar, but peace to the executor, he's apparently a musician who plays this instrument & has a desire to play Bach and, who knows, he is having the time of his life, and a lot of listeners love it.
I myself a.o. do have recordings of Bach on a piano Grand, and on an acoustic guitar, even on saxophones and on the accordion, and I like it. I even have Laibach playing their 'own' Kunst der Fuge (good fun, also tiring, not really interesting). And yes, I do have 'Erbarme dich' performed by female vocal soloists. All atrocities, I know. I'm totally into the atrocity exhibition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AqeqAQ1ILI
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 12:07:36 AM
Quote from: Marc on July 30, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
I mean, Ivo Janssen plays Bach on a Japanese (Yamaha) Grand, for heaven's sake. They make motorbikes, too, btw, and electric guitars. They make almost everything, maybe even mechanical toy dolls and toy pianists. But Janssen's choice to play Bach on this piano is NOT an atrocity to me. It's a proof that Bach can be very well played on a very modern instrument, even without adding eccentricities to make it sound 'fake' baroque (like Gould sometimes tried to do). So yes, it's not a baroque instrument, but I truly love to listen to it. I also like to listen to Nikolayeva sometimes, or Dinnerstein, or Tipo, or S. Richter, et cetera and et al. Again, in my humble opinion they did not commit an atrocity.

To write that Bach played on a Grand is an atrocity and that his music should only be played on baroque instruments, sounds to much like a Bach ban on pianists to me. Probably many HIPsters would agree with that. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not have convictions :P, but I'm most definitely against bans based on convictions.

Call me liberal. >:D
(All right then, there you have a conviction. ;))

Very well said. Greetings from a fellow liberal.  :D

Question(s) for our dear HIP friends: how far back in time should a pianist be allowed to go? who is the earliest composer he may play? same questions but substituting "modern orchestras / ensembles" (say, Royal Concertgebouw Orkest, or Ibragimova/Tiberghien) for "pianists". TIA for your replies.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on July 31, 2018, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 10:37:18 PM
It's a really interesting, this word lie. Because it suggests that some performances are less truthful than others.

Some people think that what you say is true if it corresponds to reality . Maybe Bruggen's idea was that the truthful performer makes music which corresponds to what the composer made. But I'm not sure this can really be made sense of.

These people are I think pretty evidently doing something which is (and I can only use metaphors at the moment) unaligned, out of kilter, with an aspect of the composer's creation. Something which does not correspond with what the composer made. a misrepresentation.   It's very hard to say this without these metaphors.

Travesty is another relevant idea, as is corruption, relevant in some way as yet not totally clear to me.

Brüggen & co. meant that Mozart played on modern instruments just can't be right. It's plain wrong by definition and the Concertgebouw should stop doing it.

By the way, Bernard Bartelink (bless him) playing Bach in the Groningen Jozefkerk did not sound like a travesty at all to me. He did a great job. Even though, whilst listening and enjoying, I was thinking: man, would I love to hear this grand old seigneur (he died in 2014) in the Martinikerk!

I think I'm gonna quit now, though. I find it hard to debate with strict HIPsters, because I am sort of a HIPster myself. I feel like Judas Iscarioth.
It also feels like debating with Christians who consider the Bible as a book of Law, not of Inspiration.
(I know, bad comparison in many ways... I'm not even a sort of Christian myself. ;)... or am I?)

If a pianist/accordionist/saxophonist manages to move his/her (un)informed listeners in a concert hall by playing Bach for them, then it's not an atrocity or travesty to me.
That's my final word.

(No, it isn't. :P)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 31, 2018, 01:13:42 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 30, 2018, 10:55:58 PM
Is Bjorn Schmelzer's music making sometimes an atrocity?

No! Maybe it is to your ears, but for me it is not. And there is no need to highlight the word atrocity, to start a new fire again.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 01:42:11 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 31, 2018, 01:13:42 AM
No! Maybe it is to your ears, but for me it is not. And there is no need to highlight the word atrocity, to start a new fire again.

He doesn't seem to be particularly HIP, Bjorn. But maybe I see more clearly now, when you say XXX is an atrocity, you just mean you don't like it -- is that right? You're not saying anything about the performance per se, you're talking about yourself, your response to the performance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Maestro267 on July 31, 2018, 01:55:48 AM
I see we've all been kicked out of WAYLTN...  >:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 02:16:37 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 30, 2018, 06:47:03 AM
objecting to HIP is like objecting to the restoration of paintings from Rembrandt etc. - Cleaning the paintings and presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for doesn't make the viewer a 17th century Dutch merchant, but it does give a more accurate view of the work of art

This is your favorite comparison but it is problematic.

Painting is a case of "what you see is what you get". After the painting has been cleaned you see it as it really was back then, as an objective reality that confronts you directly without any intermediation. The interpretation is yours, and yours only.

Music, on the contrary, comes to you by way of the performers's intermediation (unless you are yourself the performer, or you are reading the score) and this intermediation actually adds its own subjectivity to that of the composer himself. Even the most rigid HIP performance offers you somebody's else interpretation (Mandryka pointed out the fact that even within HIP there are large differences in performances --- well, they come exactly from this inescapable performer's subjectivity). What you hear is not the music as it really was, but the music as the performer imagines it to have been, and a cursory glance at the WAYLT thread shows that Leonhardt's imagination is different from Hantai's which is different from Stefano Molardi's. Who of them, I ask you then, has it right? Who plays the music as it was? I say that none of them, because music as it was is a purely theoretical concept whose validity is limited to the score. As soon as there is performance, there is interpretation and thereby the very idea of music as it was vanishes.

Oh, and I hope that by "presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for" you don't mean, or propose, that museums be candlelit.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on July 31, 2018, 03:06:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 02:16:37 AM
This is your favorite comparison but it is problematic.

Painting is a case of "what you see is what you get". After the painting has been cleaned you see it as it really was back then, as an objective reality that confronts you directly without any intermediation. The interpretation is yours, and yours only.

Music, on the contrary, comes to you by way of the performers's intermediation (unless you are yourself the performer, or you are reading the score) and this intermediation actually adds its own subjectivity to that of the composer himself. Even the most rigid HIP performance offers you somebody's else interpretation (Mandryka pointed out the fact that even within HIP there are large differences in performances --- well, they come exactly from this inescapable performer's subjectivity). What you hear is not the music as it really was, but the music as the performer imagines it to have been, and a cursory glance at the WAYLT thread shows that Leonhardt's imagination is different from Hantai's which is different from Stefano Molardi's. Who of them, I ask you then, has it right? Who plays the music as it was? I say that none of them, because music as it was is a purely theoretical concept whose validity is limited to the score. As soon as there is performance, there is interpretation and thereby the very idea of music as it was vanishes.
Yes, when we hear or interpret music, there are of course more layers of subjectivity than there are in studying old paintings. I don't think that makes my comparison less apt than tuning up a car, even if you need to give a larger exponent for the interpretation factor, or to use two interpretation factors.x3 or x2y instead of just x. But having more levels of subjective interpretation also emphasizes how important it is that each of those layers has as a starting point a knowledge of the possibilities for what the music could have sounded like originally, and obviously there is no particular way that the musician "imagines it to have been", since they know as well as you do that a performance is always going to sound different because of all kinds of variables. Instead, they imagine the range of possibilities for what the music could have been, and try to work within that range - or deviate from it.

Quote
Oh, and I hope that by "presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for" you don't mean, or propose, that museums be candlelit.  ;)
No, but electric lighting with appropriate colour temperature that isn't excessively bright.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 03:12:31 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 31, 2018, 03:06:09 AM
there is no particular way that the musician "imagines it to have been", since they know as well as you do that a performance is always going to sound different because of all kinds of variables. Instead, they imagine the range of possibilities for what the music could have been, and try to work within that range - or deviate from it.

Nothing I can disagree with here.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 31, 2018, 04:14:32 AM
HIP of course began as a negation of a particular performance practice - the mid 20th century view of baroque and classical music through the lens of Romanticism.  What to replace that with is an open debate - for example, how free was the rhythm in baroque pieces - the early hip stuff tended to be rigid metronome-like interpetations reacting against use is romantic inspired rubato while now you see much more openness to a freer approach.  Now that the both the naive romantic treatment of earlier music and the rigid first wave HIP mentality belong to a previous generation, there is not an either / or debate just a situation where performers can make informed aesthetic choices
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 04:39:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 12:07:36 AM
Question(s) for our dear HIP friends: how far back in time should a pianist be allowed to go? who is the earliest composer he may play? same questions but substituting "modern orchestras / ensembles" (say, Royal Concertgebouw Orkest, or Ibragimova/Tiberghien) for "pianists". TIA for your replies.

Schumann.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 04:41:25 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 04:39:40 AM
Schumann.

8)

So, no Mozart, no Schubert, no Beethoven, no Field, no Clementi on piano, right?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 04:44:30 AM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 31, 2018, 04:14:32 AM
HIP of course began as a negation of a particular performance practice - the mid 20th century view of baroque and classical music through the lens of Romanticism.  What to replace that with is an open debate - for example, how free was the rhythm in baroque pieces - the early hip stuff tended to be rigid metronome-like interpetations reacting against use is romantic inspired rubato while now you see much more openness to a freer approach.  Now that the both the naive romantic treatment of earlier music and the rigid first wave HIP mentality belong to a previous generation, there is not an either / or debate just a situation where performers can make informed aesthetic choices

Very sensible POV. I really do dislike old arguments being pulled out when their validity faded 25 years ago.

No minds will be changed here, it is what it is. I don't care what people play the music on. I only listen to it when they play it on what I want to hear. What more simple argument and/or lifestyle could be put forward? 

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 04:45:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 04:41:25 AM
So, no Mozart, no Schubert, no Beethoven, no Field, no Clementi on piano, right?

Time is an arrow, it moves only in one direction....

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 04:47:41 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 04:44:30 AM
I don't care what people play the music on. I only listen to it when they play it on what I want to hear. What more simple argument and/or lifestyle could be put forward? 

That is a very wise philosophy. The new debate, though, started when two people suggested that pianists should never ever play Bach, which strikes me as very different from your position.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:09:55 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 04:45:30 AM
Time is an arrow, it moves only in one direction....

Title page of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Beethoven_Piano_Sonata_14_-_title_page_1802.jpg)

It clearly says "per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte"

Title page of Schumann's Kreisleriana:

(https://bachtrack.com/files/66270-screen-shot-2017-08-24-at-09-19-33.png)

It clearly says "fuer Piano-Forte".

In both cases, piano-forte. Not fortepiano, mind you.  ;D

Btw, do you happen to know a good recording of the Moonlight Sonata on harpsichord? I'd be only to willing to listen to it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 05:11:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 04:47:41 AM
That is a very wise philosophy. The new debate, though, started when two people suggested that pianists should never ever play Bach, which strikes me as very different from your position.

If I am one of those you refer to, I have to say, that you got me wrong. I am not complaining about the instruments as such (most instruments can't make music without human intervention) but about the pianists, who use their instruments to distort the music as they please. And it is actually possible to play baroque music in good style on a piano, but only a few master the task. That said, I prefer period instruments with their "limited" musical options, but I am not so radical as to exclude artists who play on modern instruments only for that reason.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on July 31, 2018, 05:15:54 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:09:55 AM
Title page of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata:

It clearly says "per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte"

Title page of Schumann's Kreisleriana:

It clearly says "fuer Piano-Forte".

In both cases, piano-forte. Not fortepiano, mind you.  ;D

Btw, do you happen to know a good recording of the Moonlight Sonata on harpsichord? I'd be only to willing to listen to it.
Here's the Pathetique on a clavichord, which is close enough, I suppose.
https://www.youtube.com/v/7hQzG-CATQM
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:20:17 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 05:11:10 AM
If I am one of those you refer to, I have to say, that you got me wrong. I am not complaining about the instruments as such (most instruments can't make music without human intervention) but about the pianists, who use their instruments to distort the music as they please. And it is actually possible to play baroque music in good style on a piano, but only a few master the task. That said, I prefer period instruments with their "limited" musical options, but I am not so radical as to exclude artists who play on modern instruments only for that reason.

I did get you wrong, then. I stand corrected.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 05:20:54 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:09:55 AM
Title page of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Beethoven_Piano_Sonata_14_-_title_page_1802.jpg)

It clearly says "per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte"


In both cases, piano-forte. Not fortepiano, mind you.  ;D

Btw, do you happen to know a good recording of the Moonlight Sonata on harpsichord? I'd be only to willing to listen to it.


I do not think the distinction between fortepiano and pianoforte was that clear around the year 1800.

Well, I have heard two recordings of the Moonlight sonata played on harpsichord. Both were unconvincing, and I have since long deleted the details about them from my mind. No reason to doubt that Beethoven wrote for fortepiano (or pianoforte if you prefer this), but of course he did not have the modern grand in mind. So even here I prefer period instruments but I do not reject stylish interpretations on modern piano.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 31, 2018, 05:26:05 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 05:11:10 AM
If I am one of those you refer to, I have to say, that you got me wrong. I am not complaining about the instruments as such (most instruments can't make music without human intervention) but about the pianists, who use their instruments to distort the music as they please. And it is actually possible to play baroque music in good style on a piano, but only a few master the task. That said, I prefer period instruments with their "limited" musical options, but I am not so radical as to exclude artists who play on modern instruments only for that reason.

He probably refers to me!
All this made me aware of the fact that saying things or posting in the listening thread, gets a lot of people irritated, thus I will refrain of posting my thoughts about music, but merely state what I have played or bought. That way no one can tell me over and over again, that my English is incomprehensible , or that I am wrongheaded about what I read and accordingly am not able to grasp the finer details of what is said.
If interested in my thoughts there is the possibility of a  PM .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 05:28:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 04:47:41 AM
That is a very wise philosophy. The new debate, though, started when two people suggested that pianists should never ever play Bach, which strikes me as very different from your position.

I have a different personality type, that's all. BTW, Seeing your Moonlight Sonata post below, I tell you to check Youtube, there is a 5 minute video there of a 16 year old girl who plays Moonlight Sonata on an electric guitar that will blow your mind! She has fabulous technique, and makes it appear effortless. Just sayin'...  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 31, 2018, 05:26:05 AM
He probably refers to me!

Yes, but he wrote TWO, so I suppose he meant you and me.

Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 04:47:41 AM
That is a very wise philosophy. The new debate, though, started when two people suggested that pianists should never ever play Bach, which strikes me as very different from your position.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 31, 2018, 05:32:29 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
Yes, but he wrote TWO, so I suppose he meant you and me.

Ahhhh yes!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:33:11 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 31, 2018, 05:15:54 AM
Here's the Pathetique on a clavichord, which is close enough, I suppose.
https://www.youtube.com/v/7hQzG-CATQM

Thanks. Honestly, not as bad as I expected but I can't say I'll put it on repeat any time soon.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 05:34:59 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:09:55 AM
Title page of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata:

It clearly says "per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte"

Title page of Schumann's Kreisleriana:

It clearly says "fuer Piano-Forte".

In both cases, piano-forte. Not fortepiano, mind you.  ;D

Btw, do you happen to know a good recording of the Moonlight Sonata on harpsichord? I'd be only to willing to listen to it.

You should know by now that sarcasm doesn't work on me. :D

The discussion for the last 3 pages has been about modern grand pianos playing old music. I don't change that parameter for my convenience. I am talking about a wooden frame, period pianoforte (the preferred terminology after the turn of the century), which is my instrument of choice for Beethoven, and sometimes Clementi and Weber (who was a student of Michael Haydn). Or a narrower compass wooden frame Viennese type fortepiano for later Mozart, while I am quite content with a clavichord for much of Mozart and even a harpsichord for some.

I took your question to be, then (when is it OK to use a modern piano?), to which I said (and still do say) Schumann.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 05:36:58 AM
Just for the record, I agree that pianists should never play Bach. I resolve that by not listening to them. I don't call them names, nor rail against them; they simply don't exist in my world.  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:40:53 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 05:30:27 AM
Yes, but he wrote TWO, so I suppose he meant you and me.

What I meant is this:

Quote from: "Harry" on July 30, 2018, 05:38:23 AM
That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

Quote from: (: premont :) on July 30, 2018, 05:41:17 AM
+1

Note the "should" part. I took the above to mean that you and Harry agreed on that no grand piano should be used for Bach. If I got you both wrong, I apologize.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:42:11 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 05:34:59 AM
You should know by now that sarcasm doesn't work on me. :D

The discussion for the last 3 pages has been about modern grand pianos playing old music. I don't change that parameter for my convenience. I am talking about a wooden frame, period pianoforte (the preferred terminology after the turn of the century), which is my instrument of choice for Beethoven, and sometimes Clementi and Weber (who was a student of Michael Haydn). Or a narrower compass wooden frame Viennese type fortepiano for later Mozart, while I am quite content with a clavichord for much of Mozart and even a harpsichord for some.

I took your question to be, then (when is it OK to use a modern piano?), to which I said (and still do say) Schumann.

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 05:36:58 AM
Just for the record, I agree that pianists should never play Bach. I resolve that by not listening to them. I don't call them names, nor rail against them; they simply don't exist in my world.  :)

8)

Okay then, but I can't help noticing that first you said you didn't care what instrument Bach was played on, then you said it shouldn't be played on a piano. Kind of contradictory, I'd say.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 05:50:55 AM
Quote from: "Harry" on July 31, 2018, 05:26:05 AM
He probably refers to me!
All this made me aware of the fact that saying things or posting in the listening thread, gets a lot of people irritated, thus I will refrain of posting my thoughts about music, but merely state what I have played or bought. That way no one can tell me over and over again, that my English is incomprehensible , or that I am wrongheaded about what I read and accordingly am not able to grasp the finer details of what is said.
If interested in my thoughts there is the possibility of a  PM .


So far we only discuss the music and its interpretation, I want to maintain my right to comment it in the way I want. If sensible members here get pain in their asses for that reason, I can live with it.


One more thing: I have never had problems with understanding your posts.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Harry on July 31, 2018, 05:52:34 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 05:50:55 AM

So far we only discuss the music and its interpretation, I want to maintain my right to comment it in the way I want. If sensible members here get pain in their asses for that reason, I can live with it.


One more thing: I have never had problems with understanding your posts.

Thank you :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 06:02:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 1974, 10:34:05 PM
Note the "should" part. I took the above to mean that you and Harry agreed on that no grand piano should be used for Bach. If I got you both wrong, I apologize.


I realised that this +1 was too unsubtle, and this was the reason why I elaborated and clarified my point of view a little later.

Well, misunderstandings can not be avoided in a forum like this with the participation of so many different nationalities. No offense taken on my part.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 06:04:20 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 06:02:21 AM
misunderstandings can not be avoided in a forum like this with the participation of so many different nationalities.

So true.

Quote
No offense taken on my part.

Nor any one intended from my part.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Traverso on July 31, 2018, 06:21:30 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 05:11:10 AM
If I am one of those you refer to, I have to say, that you got me wrong. I am not complaining about the instruments as such (most instruments can't make music without human intervention) but about the pianists, who use their instruments to distort the music as they please. And it is actually possible to play baroque music in good style on a piano, but only a few master the task. That said, I prefer period instruments with their "limited" musical options, but I am not so radical as to exclude artists who play on modern instruments only for that reason.

Everything is said here.I prefer the harpsichord but I have also a very few cd's with Bach on the piano.I once heard a saxophone ensemble who played a motet by Desprez and I liked it but did not buy the CD.

I played Bach on the clarinet does that made me a crook ?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 06:22:50 AM
Quote from: Traverso on July 31, 2018, 06:21:30 AM
I played Bach on the clarinet does that made me a crook ?

Atrocious.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Traverso on July 31, 2018, 06:34:15 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 06:22:50 AM
Atrocious.  ;D

No no ,not atrocious ??? but very difficult :P so I desided to start playing Bach on the traverso.I love both instruments.Both have their pro and contras,playing the traverso caused me breathing problems.Nevertheless it gave me much joy.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 06:38:40 AM
Quote from: Traverso on July 31, 2018, 06:21:30 AM
I played Bach on the clarinet does that made me a crook ?

Of course not.

I think many of us have played at least some music on strictly anachronistic instruments. And I understand well, that different kinds of instrumentalists want to play their preferred music on their own instrument. The question is, how interesting the results are as an exclusively listening experience.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on July 31, 2018, 06:43:42 AM
I find the claims that Mozart or Bach or Haydn on modern instruments are "wrong", "a travesty", etc., to be stridently tiresome. 

Although we have plenty of information about instruments and historical performance practices from earlier periods, it is folly to think that we have within our grasp the ability to replicate those practices on instruments which, to the best of our knowledge are appropriate.  Despite our best efforts, we are still informed by all the music and other cultural and technological inventions we've experienced since the 17th or 18th century and prior, and we cannot escape the influence of our own history.  What we create will be different from what Bach experienced.

All of the arguments have been made and answered; the debate is tedious beyond boredom.

Now, I enjoy HIP or PI recordings, and generally prefer them over most modern recordings.  However, I still greatly enjoy Bach on a modern piano.

The music is there awaiting interpretations from musicians throughout the generations, and they will play the music according to their knowledge, training and talent, and their aesthetic philosophy. 

As listeners we are free to choose which performances speak to us.  To my way of thinking, there are no rules to allow or disallow any interpretation.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on July 31, 2018, 06:51:25 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 05:36:58 AM
Just for the record, I agree that pianists should never play Bach. I resolve that by not listening to them. I don't call them names, nor rail against them; they simply don't exist in my world.  :)

8)
Then there is balance in the world, because I only listen to Bach on the piano! I know - philistine! hahaha :) Seriously, I could articulate the reasons I have this preference, but as I am stumbling in blind at the end of the conversation, I suspect enough blood has been spilt!

Anyway, since I played Bach on the saxophone, that probably makes my opinion suspect in any case! :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 06:54:21 AM
Quote from: San Antone on July 31, 2018, 06:43:42 AM
Despite our best efforts, we are still informed by all the music and other cultural and technological inventions we've experienced since the 17th or 18th century and prior, and we cannot escape the influence of our own history.  What we create will be different from what Bach experienced.

The music is there awaiting interpretations from musicians throughout the generations, and they will play the music according to their knowledge, training and talent, and their aesthetic philosophy. 

As listeners we are free to choose which performances speak to us.  To my way of thinking, there are no rules to allow or disallow any interpretation.

My thoughts exactly, clearly expressed point by point in my yesterday posts.  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Traverso on July 31, 2018, 07:08:50 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 06:38:40 AM
Of course not.

I think many of us have played at least some music on strictly anachronistic instruments. And I understand well, that different kinds of instrumentalists want to play their preferred music on their own instrument. The question is, how interesting the results are as an exclusively listening experience.

Well,let me give you an example of fine Bach playing on the clarinet.I never managed this degree of playing myself.

http://www.youtube.com/v/3rfZ_A1jGqs

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 07:15:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 05:42:11 AM
Okay then, but I can't help noticing that first you said you didn't care what instrument Bach was played on, then you said it shouldn't be played on a piano. Kind of contradictory, I'd say.  :)

Not at all. I don't care because I respect your right to listen to it. As you respect mine to NOT listen to it. If I don't listen to it, I don't get offended. "Caring about" and "approving of" are two different things in my vocabulary. See? Not hard at all. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 07:20:15 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 07:15:34 AM
Not at all. I don't care because I respect your right to listen to it. As you respect mine to NOT listen to it. If I don't listen to it, I don't get offended. "Caring about" and "approving of" are two different things in my vocabulary. See? Not hard at all. :)

Great! I think I'll treat myself tonight with some partitas played by Murrray Perahia. No, actually Maria Tipo might be a better option.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on July 31, 2018, 07:27:27 AM
I would love to hear Art of Fugue played by a bagpipe quintet. Just sayin'


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxuhiPg66QI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxuhiPg66QI)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 07:29:16 AM
Timbre was less important as a carrier of musical information in the Baroque and Classical eras than it was in the Romantic era or, especially, in the 20th century.  Is the Well-Tempered Clavier played on a modern concert grand very different from what it could have been in Bach's era?  Of course.  Is it a distortion of the musical intent of the work?  Not really, because the musical content of the work is bound up almost entirely in its pitches and rhythms.

On the other hand, playing the harpsichord part in Elliott Carter's Double Concerto on a piano would significantly distort the musical intent of the work, because the specific timbre of the harpsichord is intrinsic to the musical argument.

So while I do enjoy lots of HIP recordings, I see no problems in listening to modern orchestras or pianists play Bach and Mozart.  I understand that others see the issue differently, and I don't take any offense at that either.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:42:24 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 07:29:16 AM
Timbre was less important as a carrier of musical information in the Baroque and Classical eras than it was in the Romantic era or, especially, in the 20th century.  Is the Well-Tempered Clavier played on a modern concert grand very different from what it could have been in Bach's era?  Of course.  Is it a distortion of the musical intent of the work?  Not really, because the musical content of the work is bound up almost entirely in its pitches and rhythms



This touches on the identity problems which I think are at the heart of these questions. We have to first be clear what the essential musical content is to know whether playing it on an inauthentic instrument is producing a separate piece of music -- like Bach's transcriptions of the Vivaldi concertos.

Can you imagine if someone went to a concert advertised "Vivaldi D major violin concerto" and when they got there they found it was some bloke on a clavichord playing BWV 972. I think they could rightfully take them to court, ask for their money back and get them sent to prison.  That's how I sometimes feel when I listen to what pianists do with the Goldberg Variations.

(I've just had this terrible memory of one year at the Edinburgh Festival getting a ticket to see some play by Ibsen or Strindberg or Chekhov -- I forget now. Anyway when I got there I found it was in Scottish Gaelic, they just hadn't mentioned it on the poster. There was no escape for about an hour.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 07:48:03 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:42:24 AM
This touches on the identity problems which I think are at the heart of these questions. We have to first be clear what the essential musical content is to know whether playing it on an inauthentic instrument is producing a separate piece of music -- like Bach's transcriptions of the Vivaldi concertos.

Can you imagine if someone went to a concert advertised "Vivaldi D major violin concerto" and when they got there they found it was some bloke on a clavichord playing BWV 972. I think they could rightfully take them to court, ask for their money back and get them sent to prison.  That's how I sometimes feel when I listen to what pianists do with the Goldberg Variations.

There is certainly a scale involved.  I don't personally have a problem with transcriptions or arrangements, but I think of such performances as being of derivative works, not as performances of the original itself.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 07:49:21 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:42:24 AM
Can you imagine if someone went to a concert advertised "Vivaldi D major violin concerto" and when they got there they found it was some bloke on a clavichord playing BWV 972. I think they could rightfully take them to court, ask for their money back and get them sent to prison.  That's how I sometimes feel when I listen to what pianists do with the Goldberg Variations.

I fail to see how could advertising "Vivaldi on violin concerto" and offering "Bach on solo harpsichord" be the same as advertising "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X" and offering, well... "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:49:43 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 07:48:03 AM
There is certainly a scale involved.

This is what makes it interesting because -- I don't know if you've done any logic -- we're in the territory of "vague objects", which is right at the cutting edge of logical theory at the moment.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 07:53:05 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:49:43 AM
This is what makes it interesting because -- I don't know if you've done any logic -- we're in the territory of "vague objects", which is right at the cutting edge of logical theory at the moment.

I did, but we only went as far as modal logic in my class.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 07:49:21 AM
I fail to see how could advertising "Vivaldi on violin concerto" and offering "Bach on solo harpsichord" be the same as advertising "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X" and offering, well... "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X".

This is why it's so interesting from a logical point of view.  A harpsichordist can certainly play the Goldbergs. You say a pianist can. What about a string trio or a bagpipe player? Mahlerian suggests it's a matter of degree, there is no line to be drawn, and to do that he's had to identify the "musical essence" of the piece, and argue that the essence is preserved (preservable? does it matter if the pianist uses piano specific effects like pedal and volume?) in the transition from harpsichord to piano. I'm sure that San Antone was wrong to say that all the arguments have been made and answered -- logically, philosophically, metaphysically, there's a lot to research .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:59:25 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 07:53:05 AM
I did, but we only went as far as modal logic in my class.

There's a famous paper by Gareth Evans -- quite accessible -- which started it off, called "Can there be vague objects?" in Analysis I think .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:56:30 AM
This is why it's so interesting from a logical point of view.  A harpsichordist can certainly play the Goldbergs. You say a pianist can. What about a string trio or a bagpipe player? Mahlerian suggests it's a matter of degree, there is no line to be drawn, and to do that he's had to identify the "musical essence" of the piece, and argue that the essence is preserved (preservable? does it matter if the pianist uses piano specific effects like pedal and volume?) in the transition from harpsichord to piano. I'm sure that San Antone was wrong to say that all the arguments have been made and answered -- logically, philosophically, metaphysically, there's a lot to research .

Here we get into an area which I am only passingly familiar with, but which I suspect you know quite a bit about. Namely, that many voices in 17th & 18th century works were just that: voices of a certain range. IOW, if you didn't have an oboe available to play in your entertainment plan that evening, you could get a violin to play that part, or maybe a recorder, and no one, composer included, would scarcely notice one way or the other. It's because tone color was of only modest interest then, certainly not what it was by Rimski-Korsakov's time, or even Haydn's. Is that not true?  It is something about which I need to learn more, I think it is very interesting conceptually. The reason I think you might already know more is because I associate the first time I ever heard of this phenomenon with Bach... :-\

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on July 31, 2018, 09:39:52 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
Here we get into an area which I am only passingly familiar with, but which I suspect you know quite a bit about. Namely, that many voices in 17th & 18th century works were just that: voices of a certain range. IOW, if you didn't have an oboe available to play in your entertainment plan that evening, you could get a violin to play that part, or maybe a recorder, and no one, composer included, would scarcely notice one way or the other. It's because tone color was of only modest interest then, certainly not what it was by Rimski-Korsakov's time, or even Haydn's. Is that not true?

Seems so to me.

But, you know, you seem to be half a step away from almost suggesting that a Bach clavier piece played on a grand piano is not an atrocity.  I do not go so far as to say you make any such rash assertion.  It was just this . . . feeling I had.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 09:45:24 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 31, 2018, 09:39:52 AM
Seems so to me.

But, you know, you seem to be half a step away from almost suggesting that a Bach clavier piece played on a grand piano is not an atrocity.  I do not go so far as to say you make any such rash assertion.  It was just this . . . feeling I had.

No, and that's why I checked back in just now, because I knew someone (didn't think it would be you, Karl!!) would infer that. I was talking strictly about orchestral pieces. If something was for solo anything, it was characteristic for that instrument. In your example, a keyboard, of which there were many types, none of them grand. But the backup band is what was specifically written in what I read, and what I was talking about.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on July 31, 2018, 09:55:10 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 09:45:24 AM
No, and that's why I checked back in just now, because I knew someone (didn't think it would be you, Karl!!) would infer that. I was talking strictly about orchestral pieces. If something was for solo anything, it was characteristic for that instrument. In your example, a keyboard, of which there were many types, none of them grand. But the backup band is what was specifically written in what I read, and what I was talking about.

8)

Check.  But there is also matter of the Bach taking violin concerti and making them keyboard concerti—if I am remembering correctly—which is a more radical adjustment than the general practice you speak of.

I beg pardon for drawing your post into the "atrocity" controversy!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 07:56:30 AM
This is why it's so interesting from a logical point of view.  A harpsichordist can certainly play the Goldbergs. You say a pianist can. What about a string trio or a bagpipe player? Mahlerian suggests it's a matter of degree, there is no line to be drawn, and to do that he's had to identify the "musical essence" of the piece, and argue that the essence is preserved (preservable? does it matter if the pianist uses piano specific effects like pedal and volume?) in the transition from harpsichord to piano.

Which brings us back to the question of "arrangements" and "transcriptions".

According to Merriam-Webster:

arrangement: a piece of music that has been changed so that it can be performed by particular types of voices or instruments

transcription: an arrangement of a musical composition for some instrument or voice other than the original

So, the way I understand it:

1. playing the Goldberg Variations on a violin is a transcription; one needs a different score than the original --- but only one --- to do that.

2. playing the GV as a string trio is an arrangement; one needs not only one, but three different scores than the original.

These are clear examples of a distortion --- a technical term not a judgment value --- of the original intention of the composer.

Now, where does playing the GV on a piano belong? There is only one instrument involved, so apparently a transcription. But is the score different than the original? Does the pianist need a different score than this one:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/da/2f/d8da2ff4dffcf9ebb3b15e07585c2a11.jpg)

in order to play it? As far as I can tell, no --- my answer in the negative is an educated guess based on the title page of the Moonlight Sonata published score which I posted above and which reads "per clavicembalo o piano-forte", thus implying that the selfsame score can be played both on a harpsichord or on a piano.

But if this is so, then where is the transcription? Nowhere, because the very definition of a transcription is not met, namely having a different score. The only difference is that in the GV original score there are no dynamics and conversely that the dynamics markings in the original score of the MS cannot be played on a harpsichord, but apart from that both the harpsichordist and the pianist use exactly the same score and play exactly the same notes by using exactly the same method, namely depressing the keys of a keyboard. Therefore, I ask: how can the two sonic net end results of all this be regarded as so vastly different as to warrant labelling the piano version a travesty?



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 31, 2018, 10:15:26 AM
usually the difference between arrangement and transcription is the the degree to which the original composition is changed.  A largely note by note playing of a piece on an instrument it was not originally written for is usually called a transcription.  Its not a clear line, because for example, on bach guitar transcriptions of Cello suites, the implied harmony and counterpoint is often explicitly filled out
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 10:18:56 AM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 31, 2018, 10:15:26 AM
usually the difference between arrangement and transcription is the the degree to which the original composition is changed.  A largely note by note playing of a piece on an instrument it was not originally written for is usually called a transcription.  Its not a clear line, because for example, on bach guitar transcriptions of Cello suites, the implied harmony and counterpoint is often explicitly filled out

I think of it as a difference in degree rather than kind.  Both are adaptations, and there are transcriptions that require more arrangement and transcriptions that require less.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
With GV, there are some variations where Bach asked for a two manual instrument. If these are indeed playable on one keyboard, the question remains, why did he ask for two? The answer may be that he wanted each manual to have a different registration, in order to bring relief to the counterpoint. So even if it is true that, as it were, you can with difficulty play the notes on a piano, there's more in the score that's implied. There's more to the score than the notes.

There is then a question of performance style. The travesty on the piano, which may be an enjoyable travesty to some, indeed a great performance, can come about when the piano player uses piano effects which Bach did not intend, pedal effects and extreme dynamics, for example. There's more to the music than the score.

Something which I think you may have suggested, Florestan, yesterday - if I'm wrong please forgive me - but it's bugging me. Did you want to suggest that a piano performance of a harpsichord or organ piece may reveal something new about the music (rather than about the performer)?  Something which isn't accessible on the intended instruments. You may be right, or you may not, but an example would be good.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:09:09 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
there's more in the score that's implied. There's more to the score than the notes.

Interesting. If I interpret this as meaning that in a score without dynamic markings there's something about the very spirit of the music that might benefit from adding some dynamics here and there, would I be far off the mark?

Quote
Something which I think you may have suggested, Florestan, yesterday - if I'm wrong please forgive me - but it's bugging me. Did you want to suggest that a piano performance of a harpsichord or organ piece may reveal something new about the music (rather than about the performer)?  Something which isn't accessible on the intended instruments. You may be right, or you may not, but an example would be good.

Yes, I did suggest it but I'm afraid I can't put it in an objective, impersonal way. I can just say, for instance, that I don't much care for Bach's partitas on harpsichord as I feel nothing, but absolutely nothing when listening to them in this way --- nothing besides a need to turn the thing off before it ends "officially", that is, but Maria Tipo's performance of them gives goosebumps on my spine and opens to me a whole world of human feelings ranging from tender lyricism to fierce passion to serene contentment to playful cheerfulness to whatnot --- and the same goes for Murray Perahia or Richter or Lipatti or Tatyana Nikolaeva or you name a pianist. I know, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed romantic and I tend to view everything through romantic glasses, but that's just me and I can't help being otherwise: I need cantabile and con gran espressione and durchaus fantastisch und leidenschaftlich vorzutragen in my music and the harpsichord can't give me any of that, while the piano can with a vengeance. But then I read that I have it all wrong and that the piano shouldn't even be an option --- is it any wonder that I try to defend my position?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on July 31, 2018, 11:20:43 AM
I am reminded of a quote from Bob Dylan, "Man, it's not the bombs that have to go but the museums."  A somewhat radical statement but what I think he is getting at is that embalming art is not as worthwhile as keeping the art (i.e. music) alive with new interpretations.

Again, I think it comes down to what as listeners and musicians we prefer. I remain unconvinced that there is any objective argument to be made for insisting on period instruments and a style of performance based on what we believe to be the practice in Bach's day, for example.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 11:30:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 09:57:22 AM

...in order to play it? As far as I can tell, no --- my answer in the negative is an educated guess based on the title page of the Moonlight Sonata published score which I posted above and which reads "per clavicembalo o piano-forte", thus implying that the selfsame score can be played both on a harpsichord or on a piano.

You really shouldn't put much stock in this, though, for the following reason: I can try to cite you something you can look up later when I am home, but here is the fact of the matter: by 1800, there were most likely zero functioning harpsichords in Vienna. When they went out of fashion, they seriously went out of fashion.  Publishers put that on there because since the 1770's it had been a tradition to put 'for the harpsichord or fortepiano'. At first, they fortepiano was the rarity and was being accommodated as something odd, maybe for the future. But by the time Op 27 was written, it was exactly the opposite situation. It may have been that out in the remote wilderness somewhere there was a mad cembalist looking for new music, but de facto, the harpsichord was dead and gone.

You have the means to research this if you want. If you do, you will discover I am correct. So basing your argument on such ground is foolhardy at best.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 11:30:52 AM
You really shouldn't put much stock in this, though, for the following reason: I can try to cite you something you can look up later when I am home, but here is the fact of the matter: by 1800, there were most likely zero functioning harpsichords in Vienna. When they went out of fashion, they seriously went out of fashion.  Publishers put that on there because since the 1770's it had been a tradition to put 'for the harpsichord or fortepiano'. At first, they fortepiano was the rarity and was being accommodated as something odd, maybe for the future. But by the time Op 27 was written, it was exactly the opposite situation. It may have been that out in the remote wilderness somewhere there was a mad cembalist looking for new music, but de facto, the harpsichord was dead and gone.

You have the means to research this if you want. If you do, you will discover I am correct. So basing your argument on such ground is foolhardy at best.

8)

All right. Can you then say in all certainty that a pianist do need a different score than a harpsichordist to play the Goldberg Variations?

And this in fact brings us to another interesting topic: why is it that of all the instruments in use around 1750, the harpsichord  and the clavichord are the only ones that have been abandoned for good by 1800, ie in the course of only 50 years? Why such a cruel fate if they were such wonderful instruments?  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 31, 2018, 12:10:27 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:35:08 AM

And this in fact brings us to another interesting topic: why is it that of all the instruments in use around 1750, the harpsichord  and the clavichord are the only ones that have been abandoned for good by 1800, ie in the course of only 50 years? Why such a cruel fate if they were such wonderful instruments?  ;D

Not abandoned, see http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,28119.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,28119.0.html)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on July 31, 2018, 12:20:18 PM
Quote from: San Antone on July 31, 2018, 11:20:43 AM
I am reminded of a quote from Bob Dylan, "Man, it's not the bombs that have to go but the museums."  A somewhat radical statement but what I think he is getting at is that embalming art is not as worthwhile as keeping the art (i.e. music) alive with new interpretations.

Again, I think it comes down to what as listeners and musicians we prefer. I remain unconvinced that there is any objective argument to be made for insisting on period instruments and a style of performance based on what we believe to be the practice in Bach's day, for example.
Well, now I know why he didn't win the Peace prize.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
All right. Can you then say in all certainty that a pianist do need a different score than a harpsichordist to play the Goldberg Variations?

And this in fact brings us to another interesting topic: why is it that of all the instruments in use around 1750, the harpsichord  and the clavichord are the only ones that have been abandoned for good by 1800, ie in the course of only 50 years? Why such a cruel fate if they were such wonderful instruments?  ;D

If they are playing it the way you said you enjoy, with all sorts of dynamic effects, then they are not playing it according to the score as written, because those markings aren't IN the original score.

Quote from: FlorestanYes, I did suggest it but I'm afraid I can't put it in an objective, impersonal way. I can just say, for instance, that I don't much care for Bach's partitas on harpsichord as I feel nothing, but absolutely nothing when listening to them in this way --- nothing besides a need to turn the thing off before it ends "officially", that is, but Maria Tipo's performance of them gives goosebumps on my spine and opens to me a whole world of human feelings ranging from tender lyricism to fierce passion to serene contentment to playful cheerfulness to whatnot --- and the same goes for Murray Perahia or Richter or Lipatti or Tatyana Nikolaeva or you name a pianist. I know, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed romantic and I tend to view everything through romantic glasses, but that's just me and I can't help being otherwise: I need cantabile and con gran espressione and durchaus fantastisch und leidenschaftlich vorzutragen in my music and the harpsichord can't give me any of that, while the piano can with a vengeance.

So if you actually made a performing copy of the score for piano, which included all those markings, then yes, it would be an arrangement of the GV, not a realization of Bach's GV, but of the pianist's GV. Which is fine, I'm not against any of that, I'm just saying call  it what it is.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debated
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:09:09 AM
Interesting. If I interpret this as meaning that in a score without dynamic markings there's something about the very spirit of the music that might benefit from adding some dynamics here and there, would I be far off the mark?

Yes, I did suggest it but I'm afraid I can't put it in an objective, impersonal way. I can just say, for instance, that I don't much care for Bach's partitas on harpsichord as I feel nothing, but absolutely nothing when listening to them in this way --- nothing besides a need to turn the thing off before it ends "officially", that is, but Maria Tipo's performance of them gives goosebumps on my spine and opens to me a whole world of human feelings ranging from tender lyricism to fierce passion to serene contentment to playful cheerfulness to whatnot --- and the same goes for Murray Perahia or Richter or Lipatti or Tatyana Nikolaeva or you name a pianist. I know, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed romantic and I tend to view everything through romantic glasses, but that's just me and I can't help being otherwise: I need cantabile and con gran espressione and durchaus fantastisch und leidenschaftlich vorzutragen in my music and the harpsichord can't give me any of that, while the piano can with a vengeance. But then I read that I have it all wrong and that the piano shouldn't even be an option --- is it any wonder that I try to defend my position?

Yes Tipo is amazing.

Just a quick point on dynamics. You can change volume on some harpsichords by setting things up so that more strings are plucked when you play, coupling keyboards, but not for short phrases or individual notes. More interestingly, a harpsichord player can create the illusion of dynamic change even for short phrases, really by delaying the onset of a note for a millisecond, so it becomes slightly off the beat, and so your ear is attracted to it.  I can assure you that when this is done well it is very convincing!  Clavichords can play loud or soft, but not the extreme dynamics of a modern piano. Organs can do extreme dynamics.

So yes, a pianist playing Bach may judge that something in the score is suggesting a dynamic variation, but not an extreme one, and in the Goldbergs, not for a short phrase or individual note. I think you hear this in some of Wolfgang Rubsam's piano recordings.

As to why the piano took over from the harpsichord as a domestic instrument, I suppose the composers started writing music which needed piano like qualities. Music became more about memorable melody, less about contrapuntal tension / release and the consonance/ dissonance caused by the clashing of independent voices. I also wonder if a piano is easier to play - I mean easier to make soulful expressive music on, just because you have dynamics, sustain etc.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
..... It's because tone color was of only modest interest then, certainly not what it was by Rimski-Korsakov's time, or even Haydn's. Is that not true? 
8)

Of course the Romantics were more obsessed with instrumental color than the Baroque composers were, but color also had some importance to Baroque composers. J S Bach was very interested in different organ stops, which only differ as to their color. And in the second Brandenburg concerto e.g., the four soloists have almost the same music to play, they only differ as to their color - one can say, that their different color is part of the point of this concert. I also think instrumental color has a great importance in the other Brandenburgs. Why score them so differently, if color had no importance? Another example: the French Baroque organ composers prescribe usually very explicitly which stops should be used in a given piece of music, because they wanted each piece to have a specific color. And many other examples may be found.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debated
Post by: Mahlerian on July 31, 2018, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 12:57:20 PMAs to why the piano took over from the harpsichord as a domestic instrument, I suppose the composers started writing music which needed piano like qualities. Music became more about memorable melody, less about contrapuntal tension / release and the consonance/ dissonance caused by the clashing of independent voices. I also wonder if a piano is easier to play - I mean easier to make soulful expressive music on, just because you have dynamics, sustain etc.

Yes, but this was already becoming true in Bach's own time.  His interest in older polyphonic procedures was not the norm, and there was lots of homophonic music being written before the piano became the standard for domestic music making.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on July 31, 2018, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 09:57:22 AM
But if this is so, then where is the transcription? Nowhere, because the very definition of a transcription is not met, namely having a different score. The only difference is that in the GV original score there are no dynamics and conversely that the dynamics markings in the original score of the MS cannot be played on a harpsichord, but apart from that both the harpsichordist and the pianist use exactly the same score and play exactly the same notes by using exactly the same method, namely depressing the keys of a keyboard. Therefore, I ask: how can the two sonic net end results of all this be regarded as so vastly different as to warrant labelling the piano version a travesty?

If there had been dynamic markings in the score of the GV, they would be of a kind which could be played on a harpsichord (terraced dynamics - such is found e,g, in the Italian concerto). The term "for two manuals" may also imply a dynamic shading as Mandryka writes, but a harpsichord can still play it. Maybe it is rather suggestive, that dynamic markings, which a piano (but not a harpsichord) can play (crescendo, diminuendo) never are found in Bach's keyboard scores. And when a pianist plays the GV, he adds dynamic differentiation which never were substantiated in the score. He makes so many additions, that it would be another score, if we tried to write his additions into the score. Rubato, articulation (only rarely indicated in the scores) and added ornamentation can't be regarded in the same way, because all thinkable combinations can be played on a harpsichord, and there were some traditions concerning how to handle this and also in practice some degree of freedom. So the lack of dynamic markings in Bach's keyboard scores would seem to fit the claim, that the music wasn't composed for piano but rather for harpsichord, which also was the prevalent concert keyboard of the time.





Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on July 31, 2018, 04:26:35 PM
Also, public performance became more prevalent during the 19th century.  All of Bach's solo keyboard works (other than organ) were for private performance, hence the clavichord was his favored instrument.  Today, pianists regularly perform Bach at concerts to a large audience and need to project volume.

I wonder had Bach owned a Steinway, if the clavichord would still have been his favorite.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 01:49:29 PM
Of course the Romantics were more obsessed with instrumental color than the Baroque composers were, but color also had some importance to Baroque composers. J S Bach was very interested in different organ stops, which only differ as to their color. And in the second Brandenburg concerto e.g., the four soloists have almost the same music to play, they only differ as to their color - one can say, that their different color is part of the point of this concert. I also think instrumental color has a great importance in the other Brandenburgs. Why score them so differently, if color had no importance? Another example: the French Baroque organ composers prescribe usually very explicitly which stops should be used in a given piece of music, because they wanted each piece to have a specific color. And many other examples may be found.

Yes, I'm not saying 'not interested', just 'less interested', eh?  :)

Haydn was significantly more interested, although there is no question he was a supreme orchestrator. In his letter to the monks at Zwettl about the Applausus Cantata, he showed to be at pains even about the basso continuo part, which no one had ever expressed interest in print before:

Quote...I prefer a band with three bass instruments – cello, bassoon and violone (Austrian version of the bass viol, sort of) to one with even six double basses and three cellos... [because it sounds better]

What we have trouble coming to grips with is the fact that what we think of as 'orchestra' was a brand new invention, and far from standardized. Early descriptions of what was needed were far simpler, basso and descant (bass & soprano) were enough in many cases. That's why it is so hard to pin down even something simple like 'flute'. Is it a traverso? A recorder? Who knows?  And will a violin do OK with it? Or an oboe? Sure, any of them works fine. We have a good oboist here tonight, give him that part.

However, for all that, they weren't freaking time travelers. No, they didn't give a shit about a 'grand piano' and lose sleep that their work wasn't going to be performed on one. It is people today who wish to impose their own taste on the people of the past in total defiance of time's arrow who believe that. And as I said earlier, I'm perfectly good with that if it's what someone wants, they should be able to have it. But Glenn Gould and Angela Hewitt playing Bach simply don't exist in my world. And now we are all happy!  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on July 31, 2018, 09:18:03 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 31, 2018, 02:39:09 PMMaybe it is rather suggestive, that dynamic markings, which a piano (but not a harpsichord) can play (crescendo, diminuendo) never are found in Bach's keyboard scores.
The organ can also play crescendo and diminuendo (as well as loud or soft), but we do not find those dynamic markings in Bach's organ works. Nor do we find crescendi and diminuendi in eg Bach's violin works or cantatas etc. And Bach himself performed many of his keyboard works on the clavichord, which has the same dynamic possibilities as the piano (except at a much lower volume). It seems fairly clear that the absence of dynamics is not due to any technical limitation but rather a conscious aesthetic choice on Bach's part, i.e. that he intended individual movements to be played at one fairly consistent dynamic level (or with consistent terraced dynamics as in eg WTC II/18 or French Overture).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 09:31:40 PM
Quote from: amw on July 31, 2018, 09:18:03 PM
aesthetic choice on Bach's part, i.e. that he intended individual movements to be played at one fairly consistent dynamic level (or with consistent terraced dynamics as in eg WTC II/18 or French Overture).

That's too quick a conclusion, maybe there were conventions that in solo music the decisions about dynamic shading would be at the performer's discretion - as with rubato etc.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debated
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:44:33 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 12:57:20 PM
Yes Tipo is amazing.

Do you really like her interpretation?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 31, 2018, 07:02:55 PM
It is people today who wish to impose their own taste on the people of the past

Actually, the problem is people today who wish to impose their own taste on other people today, like "if one listens to Bach on the piano one doesn't listen to Bach at all" or "Bach on the piano is an atrocity". Really? Are those who play or enjoy Bach on the piano deluded dimwits, bad taste and tin ears? This is only too logical a conclusion to be drawn from the abovementioned claims.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:07:06 AM
Quote from: San Antone on July 31, 2018, 04:26:35 PM
Also, public performance became more prevalent during the 19th century.  All of Bach's solo keyboard works (other than organ) were for private performance, hence the clavichord was his favored instrument.

Yes for performance, and for this purpose the harpsichord was the chosen instrument. The clavicord first and foremost served the purpose of education and practising, because the number of listeners at a clavichord "recital" must be very small, if they all are supposed to hear the music.So in e.g. Cöthen and Zimmermann's cafe clavichord recitals were impractical.

Also the claim that the clavichord was his favored instrument isn't that well foundel (only C P E Bahc in 60 years retrospect).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:08:29 AM
Quote from: amw on July 31, 2018, 09:18:03 PM
The organ can also play crescendo and diminuendo

Aha. How did they do it?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 31, 2018, 09:31:40 PM
... maybe there were conventions that in solo music the decisions about dynamic shading would be at the performer's discretion .....


I have not seen any sources confirming this. And organ and harpsichord (including lute-harpsichord) were unable "shade" in other ways than terrace dynamics. Only the clavichord allowed a little dynamic shading, and only to a limited degree. Maybe a too fast conclusion, but like amw I am convinced, that dynamic shadings are missing in the scores, because they so to say were impossible to execute.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 01:27:43 AM
QuoteIt is people today who wish to impose their own taste on the people of the past

Yes; and that's a good thing.  And you are kidding yourself if you think Haydn played on a period instrument is not an example of that.  Every time a musician today plays a piece of music from the past they are imposing their taste on the music.  Playing the music on a modern instrument is a difference of degree, not kind.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:28:31 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:59:43 PM
Actually, the problem is people today who wish to impose their own taste on other people today, like "if one listens to Bach on the piano one doesn't listen to Bach at all" or "Bach on the piano is an atrocity". Really?

I think the problem is the opposite, namely that people, who swear to the Romantic style (which as you know didn't exist in Bach's time), want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style (or rather what we know about it). But as I have written above, I think this is not first and foremost a question about the used instrument, but more a question about the musician. It is indeed possible to play the piano without irrelevant romantic delving, but it is not heard that often.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 01:36:55 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 01:27:43 AM
Every time a musician today plays a piece of music from the past they are imposing their taste on the music.  Playing the music on a modern instrument is a difference of degree, not kind.

+ 1.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 01:45:36 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 01:28:31 AM
I think the problem is the opposite, namely that people, who swear to the Romantic style (which as you know didn't exist in Bach's time), want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style (or rather what we know about it).

Please, give us some examples of "people, who swear to the Romantic style" and who "want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 01:57:49 AM
If strict, uncompromising, rigid and literal adherence to "the score as written" was the best, nay, the only way to go about it, then the best performance --- nay, the definitive one --- would be that of a robot programmed to play exactly what's written in the score, nothing more and nothing less*. That would also spell the death of musical performance, for why bother trying to replicate what a machine can do better and why bother doing things differently if the result is going to be frowned upon as an unwarranted and unwelcome deviation "from the score as wriiten"?

* and good luck to the programmer(s) with those scores without any tempo indication whatsoever.

Problem is that, afaIk, strict, uncompromising, rigid and literal adherence to "the score as written" is utterly and completely alien to the Baroque performing philosophy.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:04:35 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 01:18:50 AM

I have not seen any sources confirming this. And organ and harpsichord (including lute-harpsichord) were unable "shade" in other ways than terrace dynamics. Only the clavichord allowed a little dynamic shading, and only to a limited degree. Maybe a too fast conclusion, but like amw I am convinced, that dynamic shadings are missing in the scores, because they so to say were impossible to execute.

It's interesting to listen, in the light of this discussion, to the dynamics that Chorzempa uses in the D# minor fugue Bk 2.

I'd like to know about clavichord manuals - whether anyone wrote about expressive playing of clavichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:06:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 01:45:36 AM
Please, give us some examples of "people, who swear to the Romantic style" and who "want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style".

Hewitt maybe, though « impose » is probably  going too far.

Re Tipo, I like her Chopin nocturnes maybe more than anyone's, and I appreciate her Mozart with Ughi, and some of her Bethoven. In Bach and Scarlatti, less so, but this is partly because I'm not a great fan of the sound of the piano.

(I've just started to listen to her playing Ravel, two piano things with someone called Alessandro Specchi.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:09:46 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:04:35 AM
I'd like to know about clavichord manuals - whether anyone wrote about expressive playing of clavichord.

Click here:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=7lpLypct4FEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=christian+schubart+clavichord&source=bl&ots=kE2DBjrjTr&sig=_z0rALwvlnmnl1M63wNnI8V4Tt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx-cuszcvcAhXH_KQKHY3mD5AQ6AEwCnoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=christian%20schubart%20clavichord&f=false (https://books.google.ro/books?id=7lpLypct4FEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=christian+schubart+clavichord&source=bl&ots=kE2DBjrjTr&sig=_z0rALwvlnmnl1M63wNnI8V4Tt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx-cuszcvcAhXH_KQKHY3mD5AQ6AEwCnoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=christian%20schubart%20clavichord&f=false)

and scroll down to the paragraphs dedicated to Christian Schubart.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:17:02 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:09:46 AM
Click here:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=7lpLypct4FEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=christian+schubart+clavichord&source=bl&ots=kE2DBjrjTr&sig=_z0rALwvlnmnl1M63wNnI8V4Tt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx-cuszcvcAhXH_KQKHY3mD5AQ6AEwCnoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=christian%20schubart%20clavichord&f=false (https://books.google.ro/books?id=7lpLypct4FEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=christian+schubart+clavichord&source=bl&ots=kE2DBjrjTr&sig=_z0rALwvlnmnl1M63wNnI8V4Tt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx-cuszcvcAhXH_KQKHY3mD5AQ6AEwCnoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=christian%20schubart%20clavichord&f=false)

and scroll down to the paragraphs dedicated to Christian Schubart.

Thanks that's helpful. It's a bit late though for guidance about how to read a score by Bach when you're playing an instrument with dynamic possibilities. There must have been comments about clavichord playing in the 17th century - indeed I expect there was music written specially for clavichord students.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:17:24 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:06:40 AM
Hewitt maybe, though « impose » is probably  going too far.

Did she say / write something to the effect that the piano is the only right instrument that should be used for Bach, or that adding dynamics is the only right way of playing his music, or that Bach on harpsichord is atrocious?

Quote
Re Tipo, I like her Chopin nocturnes maybe more than anyone's, and I appreciate her Mozart with Ughi, and some of her Bethoven. In Bach and Scarlatti, less so, but this is partly because I'm not a great fan of the sound of the piano.

Thanks for clarifying. From your original post I inferred you appreciated her Bach and I was rather incredulous, therefore my question.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:23:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:17:24 AM
Did she say / write something to the effect that the piano is the only right instrument that should be used for Bach, or that adding dynamics is the only right way of playing his music, or that Bach on harpsichord is atrocious?



I know this isn't helpful, but I have a memory, probably fallacious, that that's exactly what she was implying in that interview that I started a thread about in 2013, and which has now been removed from the web.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:36:28 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:23:05 AM
I know this isn't helpful, but I have a memory, probably fallacious, that that's exactly what she was implying in that interview that I started a thread about in 2013, and which has now been removed from the web.

I've read all the interviews on this page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=angela+hewitt+interview&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b (https://www.google.com/search?q=angela+hewitt+interview&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b)

but I couldn't find anything even remotely similar to such absolutist pronouncements. Maybe your memory is indeed fallacious.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 02:38:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 01:45:36 AM
Please, give us some examples of "people, who swear to the Romantic style" and who "want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style".


Barenboim, Sokolov among others.


Or listen to Dagmar Boyles AoF.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 02:40:06 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 02:38:37 AM

Barenboim, Sokolov among others.


Or listen to Dagmar Boyles AoF.

How do they "impose" their style on you?  No one is forcing you to listen. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 02:43:36 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 01:57:49 AM
If strict, uncompromising, rigid and literal adherence to "the score as written" was the best, nay, the only way to go about it, then the best performance --- nay, the definitive one --- would be that of a robot programmed to play exactly what's written in the score, nothing more and nothing less*. That would also spell the death of musical performance, for why bother trying to replicate what a machine can do better and why bother doing things differently if the result is going to be frowned upon as an unwarranted and unwelcome deviation "from the score as wriiten"?

* and good luck to the programmer(s) with those scores without any tempo indication whatsoever.

Problem is that, afaIk, strict, uncompromising, rigid and literal adherence to "the score as written" is utterly and completely alien to the Baroque performing philosophy.

Pleas reread what I have written above, and realize that you have misunderstood it. Baroque performing philosophy nowadays does not at all imply a rigid adherence to the score.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:43:44 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 02:38:37 AM

Barenboim, Sokolov among others.


Or listen to Dagmar Boyles AoF.

How do the impose their taste on you, I really wonder? Have they ever grabbed you by the neck and forced you to attend their recitals or buy their recordings?

EDIT: I see San Antone beat me to it.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:44:52 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 02:43:36 AM
Pleas reread what I have written above, and realize that you have misunderstood it. Baroque performing philosophy nowadays does not at all imply a rigid adherence to the score.

I wasn't actually addressing your point, but Gurn's. My bad for not quoting his post so as to avoid misunderstandings.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:48:13 AM
I just stumbled upon this:

[W]e know very little about how fast or how loudly or softly people played. Occasionally we might find a small clue, but it will be in one location, one source, or one church. So you cannot take that as being appropriate for the whole of Italy or the whole of Germany. Today we have timid players and we have furious players. And we have to remember that so many of the treatises of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were evidently written because the author was angry with what he saw going on around him; he saw people doing things he thought were incorrect and wanted to correct them. With Bach we have a tendency to accept that whatever we know of the circumstances of the acoustics or the number of his performers was his ideal. So therefore the acoustics of St. Thomas' represented what Bach wanted. We don't know anything about such matters. He might have hated the acoustics of St. Thomas', or the fact that the gallery was too high, and so on, just accepting what he had and getting on with the job. We give far to much credibility to the idea that everything a composer met with in his working conditions was what he wanted.

(emphasis mine)

What do you folks think? Agreed? Disagreed?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 02:50:37 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 02:40:06 AM
How do they "impose" their style on you?  No one is forcing you to listen.


That's true. And this is why I only listen to them once or ½ce. But Florestans question, which I answered, was also put in a more general way, and not specifically directed towards me.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 01, 2018, 02:55:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:48:13 AM
I just stumbled upon this:

(emphasis mine)

What do you folks think? Agreed? Disagreed?

I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on speculation about whether an instrument, ensemble or performing space was exactly what the composer wished to have at their disposal. The composer worked with what they had, and surely did their best to write music that for the most part suited the instruments, musicians, and venues that their music was written for.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:56:08 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 02:50:37 AM
Florestans question, which I answered, was also put in a more general way, and not specifically directed towards me.

Not quite. I did ask you to give some example of people with Romantic taste who want to impose their taste on those with a different one. Honestly, I think neither of those you cited qualify, and also honestly I don't think you'll be able to come up with anyone who qualifies.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 02:57:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:48:13 AM
I just stumbled upon this:

[W]e know very little about how fast or how loudly or softly people played. Occasionally we might find a small clue, but it will be in one location, one source, or one church. So you cannot take that as being appropriate for the whole of Italy or the whole of Germany. Today we have timid players and we have furious players. And we have to remember that so many of the treatises of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were evidently written because the author was angry with what he saw going on around him; he saw people doing things he thought were incorrect and wanted to correct them. With Bach we have a tendency to accept that whatever we know of the circumstances of the acoustics or the number of his performers was his ideal. So therefore the acoustics of St. Thomas' represented what Bach wanted. We don't know anything about such matters. He might have hated the acoustics of St. Thomas', or the fact that the gallery was too high, and so on, just accepting what he had and getting on with the job. We give far to much credibility to the idea that everything a composer met with in his working conditions was what he wanted.

(emphasis mine)

What do you folks think? Agreed? Disagreed?

We know that composers adapted their works to the circumstances they had to face, so there is a strong connection in these matters. And if we suppose, that Baroque composers "hated" these things, then we are really entering a slippery slope of guesswork.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:01:22 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:56:08 AM
Not quite. I did ask you to give some example of people with Romantic taste who want to impose their taste on those with a different one. Honestly, I think neither of those you cited qualify, and also honestly I don't think you'll be able to come up with anyone who qualifies.  :D

Well, just the fact that they play as they do in public and on recordings, means that they want their performing style spread around.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:02:41 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:23:05 AM
I know this isn't helpful, but I have a memory, probably fallacious, that that's exactly what she was implying in that interview that I started a thread about in 2013, and which has now been removed from the web.


I read the article by then and recall something similar. Probably we didn't both dream this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:03:00 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 01, 2018, 02:55:52 AM
I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on speculation about whether an instrument, ensemble or performing space was exactly what the composer wished to have at their disposal. The composer worked with what they had, and surely did their best to write music that for the most part suited the instruments, musicians, and venues that their music was written for.

The quote I cited does not contradict anything of the above, it just points out that we don't know what they really thought about their working conditions and that the idea that these and only these conditions should be used for playing their music is speculative at best.

The same source adds:

in truth most of our playing is based on hypothesis. That is because we cannot do better. Perhaps we may be able to do a little better, but at the moment much of what we do is pure hypothesis. We really do know very, very little.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:08:57 AM
Rubsam's recent recordings of the WTC on lute harpsichord sound to me as utilizing more stylistic freedoms than Schiff's recording on piano.  The choice of instrument does not necessarily mean anything regarding the interpretation.  Although Schiff plays a piano he does not use the sustain pedal.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:11:34 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 02:57:21 AM
We know that composers adapted their works to the circumstances they had to face, so there is a strong connection in these matters. And if we suppose, that Baroque composers "hated" these things, then we are really entering a slippery slope of guesswork.

But the quote I cited doesn't suppose at all that Baroque composers hated those things, on the contrary, it points out that precisely the opposite supposition, that this is what they really wanted, is too often taken for granted.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:01:22 AM
Well, just the fact that they play as they do in public and on recordings, means that they want their performing style spread around.

Are you sure you didn't miss an emoticon here?

First, it means nothing of the sort. It simply means they do their job as performers: perform in the hope that the audience will enjoy their recitals or recordings. The only way they can spread their performing style is by taking pupils, which by its very nature has a very limited influence.

Second, what do you suggest? That they should be forbidden from performing in public or recording just because you find their style insufferable and take their performing in public and recording as an attempt to force it down your throat?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:11:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:03:00 AM
The quote I cited does not contradict anything of the above, it just points out that we don't know what they really thought about their working conditions and that the idea that these and only these conditions should be used for playing their music is speculative at best.

The same source adds:

in truth most of our playing is based on hypothesis. That is because we cannot do better. Perhaps we may be able to do a little better, but at the moment much of what we do is pure hypothesis. We really do know very, very little.

I find it even more speculative to question the actual conditions. A similar absurd question: Did Shakespeare actually hate the Globe and prefer his works performed on an imaginary modern theater no one had heard of at that time.

And who is your source, if I may ask?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:13:27 AM
Richard Taruskin has written a lot about the false notion of "authenticity" in the HIP camp.  In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:15:05 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:11:38 AM
I find it even more speculative to question the actual conditions. A similar absurd question: Did Shakespeare actually hate the Globe and prefer his works performed on an imaginary modern theater no one had heard of at that time.

And who is your source, if I may ask?

I actually hoped you'd ask. It's Gustav Leonhardt.  ;D

https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview (https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:11:34 AM
But the quote I cited doesn't suppose at all that Baroque composers hated those things, on the contrary, it points out that precisely the opposite supposition, that this is what they really wanted, is too often taken for granted.


I answered this, well, concerning Bach:

Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 02:48:13 AM
With Bach we have a tendency to accept that whatever we know of the circumstances of the acoustics or the number of his performers was his ideal. So therefore the acoustics of St. Thomas' represented what Bach wanted. We don't know anything about such matters. He might have hated the acoustics of St. Thomas', or the fact that the gallery was too high, and so on, just accepting what he had and getting on with the job. We give far to much credibility to the idea that everything a composer met with in his working conditions was what he wanted.[/u][/b]
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:22:08 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:20:00 AM
I answered this, well, concerning Bach:

"He might have hated this and that" is not at all the same thing as "He used this and that, therefore only this and that should be used".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:27:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:15:05 AM
I actually hoped you'd ask. It's Gustav Leonhardt.  ;D


It is almost always thought-provoking what he expressed, and I know, that some will accuse me of heresy - but I do not think, that Leonhardt's thoughts always were that stringent. He could be excessively rigid at times (uncompromising using boy sopranos and altos) and at other times surprisingly slack in his points of view (no repeats in GV, partitas et c.).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:34:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:22:08 AM
"He might have hated this and that" is not at all the same thing as "He used this and that, therefore only this and that should be used".


But the circumstances are all we know, and I find it even more far out to suggest that he hated them.

After all he might have found another job, if it was that bad. Only the many disputes with the St.Thomas school caused him -  briefly - to think of another job.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:38:11 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:13:27 AM
Richard Taruskin has written a lot about the false notion of "authenticity" in the HIP camp.  In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.

And besides, how about the notion of "authenticity" on the listener's side? Is listening to recordings of Bach's cantatas or attending harpsichord recitals authentic? Is repeatedly listening to, and comparing different recordings of, one and the same piece authentic?

One oft repetead HIP argument is that Bach had no idea about pianos therefore pianos are anathema for his mjusic. By the same token, Bach had no idea about recordings and recitals therefore recordings and recitals are anathema for his music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:40:01 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:08:57 AM
Rubsam's recent recordings of the WTC on lute harpsichord sound to me as utilizing more stylistic freedoms than Schiff's recording on piano.  The choice of instrument does not necessarily mean anything regarding the interpretation.  Although Schiff plays a piano he does not use the sustain pedal.

I think Rübsam shows great imagination in these recordings, but I would say that it is within the frames of what I consider Baroque spirit. And he doesn't fiddle with the dynamics - the instrument can't do such things. But also his Bach on piano recordings are very restricted dynamically. His expressive capabilities takes first and foremost place on other levels.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on August 01, 2018, 03:42:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:38:11 AM
And besides, how about the notion of "authenticity" on the listener's side? Is listening to recordings of Bach's cantatas or attending harpsichord recitals authentic? Is repeatedly listening to, and comparing different recordings of, one and the same piece authentic?

One oft repetead HIP argument is that Bach had no idea about pianos therefore pianos are anathema for his mjusic. By the same token, Bach had no idea about recordings and recitals therefore recordings and recitals are anathema for his music.
If you close your eyes and imagine yourself in - what is it? - the Zimmerman cafe? That's authentic enough except I bet Bach's band wasn't as good as what we have available now. I guess he had to go with whomever was in town, good bad or mediocre.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:43:33 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:34:12 AM

But the circumstances are all we know, and I find it even more far out to suggest that he hated them.

After all he might have found another job, if it was that bad. Only the many disputes with the St.Thomas school caused him -  briefly - to think of another job.

I think you're focusing too much on, and take too literally, only a small portion of a paragraph which, read as a whole, doesn't imply what you apparently thinks it implies.

And a reminder:

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:01:22 AM
Well, just the fact that they play as they do in public and on recordings, means that they want their performing style spread around.

Are you sure you didn't miss an emoticon here?

First, it means nothing of the sort. It simply means they do their job as performers: perform in the hope that the audience will enjoy their recitals or recordings. The only way they can spread their performing style is by taking pupils, which by its very nature has a very limited influence.

Second, what do you suggest? That they should be forbidden from performing in public or recording just because you find their style insufferable and take their performing in public and recording as an attempt to force it down your throat?



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:43:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:38:11 AM
And besides, how about the notion of "authenticity" on the listener's side? Is listening to recordings of Bach's cantatas or attending harpsichord recitals authentic? Is repeatedly listening to, and comparing different recordings of, one and the same piece authentic?

One oft repetead HIP argument is that Bach had no idea about pianos therefore pianos are anathema for his mjusic. By the same token, Bach had no idea about recordings and recitals therefore recordings and recitals are anathema for his music.


Bach probably had ideas about performances. Concerts and CDs just represent a given performance each. And they also reflect the many options involved. Neither do I think Bach himself always performed his works in the same way.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:48:24 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:13:27 AM
Richard Taruskin has written a lot about the false notion of "authenticity" in the HIP camp.  In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.


Yes, but modern taste for Baroque music did not fall down from Heaven. To day it is unambiguously influenced by the musicological and organological evidence we have got during the last 100 years or so.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:48:52 AM
Quote from: milk on August 01, 2018, 03:42:44 AM
If you close your eyes and imagine yourself in - what is it? - the Zimmerman cafe? That's authentic enough except I bet Bach's band wasn't as good as what we have available now. I guess he had to go with whomever was in town, good bad or mediocre.

Precisely. It would be authentic only if you listened to the keyboard concertos in a coffee-house, played by probably under-rehearsed semi-professionals and possibly half-drunk amateurs, while drinking, eating and playing cards yourself.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 03:52:54 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:13:27 AM
In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore.

Who? Even Schmelzer was keen to justify his performance of the mass by reference to Machaut's intentions in the legacy.

Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:13:27 AM
. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.

No that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:56:18 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 03:52:54 AM
that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.

You mean, the modern taste for constantly taking their inspiration from historical research?  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 03:56:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:43:33 AM
I think you're focusing too much on, and take too literally, only a small portion of a paragraph which, read as a whole, doesn't imply what you apparently thinks it implies.

I focused on the passus you emphasized.

Quote from: Florestan
Second, what do you suggest? That they should be forbidden from performing in public or recording just because you find their style insufferable and take their performing in public and recording as an attempt to force it down your throat?

Of course not, we are fortunately living in a democratic society. Therefore I also use my right to contradict self-appointed authorities.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on August 01, 2018, 03:57:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:48:52 AM
Precisely. It would be authentic only if you listened to the keyboard concertos in a coffee-house, played by probably under-rehearsed semi-professionals and possibly half-drunk amateurs, while drinking, eating and playing cards yourself.  ;D
Sound like fun, doesn't it? Would we be surprised by the context? And how surprised would Bach be if he appeared today, to hear a performance of total virtuosos?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:59:17 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:56:42 AM
I focused on the passus you emphasized.

Of course not, we are fortunately living in a democratic society. Therefore I also use my right to contradict self-appointed authorities.

That's all fine but --- come on, Barenboim or Sokolov self-appointed authorities in Baroque music performance?  ???
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 04:03:54 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 03:52:54 AM
No that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.


Prercisely. At the moment I am reading Colin Booth's treatise "Did Bach really mean that". It's about how we can conclude rather many things about rhythm in Baroque music from the scores and other musicological evidence. And of course he uses this knowledge when performing the music, Very recommendable.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:04:46 AM
Quote from: milk on August 01, 2018, 03:57:34 AM
Sound like fun, doesn't it?

I would unhesitatingly go for it should the opportunity ever presented itself.

Quotehow surprised would Bach be if he appeared today, to hear a performance of total virtuosos?

I'd say, probably much more surprised than if he appeared today to hear Angela Hewitt playing.   >:D :P
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:05:17 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:40:01 AM
I think Rübsam shows great imagination in these recordings, but I would say that it is within the frames of what I consider Baroque spirit. And he doesn't fiddle with the dynamics - the instrument can't do such things. But also his Bach on piano recordings are very restricted dynamically. His expressive capabilities takes first and foremost place on other levels.

Imagination is the correct word since his interpretation, as I understand it, is largely based on the appearance of Bach's manuscript and how the polyphonic lines do not exactly line up vertically.  Rubsam's idea that this is an indication about how one line should be staggered against another is pure speculation.

Is it in the "Baroque spirit"?  Is it "authentic"?  I don't know, and we can never really know.  But are those questions important?  For me, all that counts is whether Rubsam's performance is musical and enjoyable.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 04:05:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:59:17 AM
That's all fine but --- come on, Barenboim or Sokolov self-appointed authorities in Baroque music performance?  ???


Yes, but not - of course - as malignant as Glen Gould.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:11:16 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 03:52:54 AM
Who? Even Schmelzer was keen to justify his performance of the mass by reference to Machaut's intentions in the legacy.

No that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.

Schmelzer was one I has an exchange with, and his theory of Machaut's will (and it is a theory) informs his interpretation as well as his choice of singers, which is an even greater stretch.  The main thrust of his argument was his desire to rescue the music from those who wish to embalm it in a museum type of approach.

Elizabeth Eva Leach was another person with whom I had several exchanges about this issue, and she was adamant about staying clear of any idea of "authenticity".  She was in total agreement with Taruskin's idea that the entire early music, HIP, movement is an example of post-modernism.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:14:52 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 04:05:58 AM
Yes,

Let's see. A self-appointed authority is someone who proclaims himself extremely knowledgeable in a given field and as such misses no opportunity to pontificate about, and lecture on, the topics of that field, possibly even throwing around some excommunications. Are you really saying, or implying, that this is indeed the case with Barenboim and Sokolov and Baroque music performance?

Quote
but not - of course - as malignant as Glen Gould.

The Stalin of classical music, right?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 04:17:03 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:05:17 AM
Imagination is the correct word since his interpretation, as I understand it, is largely based on the appearance of Bach's manuscript and how the polyphonic lines do not exactly line up vertically.  Rubsam's idea that this is an indication about how one line should be staggered against another is pure speculation.

Is it in the "Baroque spirit"?  Is it "authentic"?  I don't know, and we can never really know.  But are those questions important?  For me, all that counts is whether Rubsam's performance is musical and enjoyable.


I think a certain de-syncronisation of the voices particularly in a fugue may add some expressive and still stylish effects, but I do not subscribe to WR's theory that the method can be seen in Bach's manuscript, because I never saw a manuscript of Bach's with complete alignment of the voices. Se e.g. the dedication score of the Brandenburgs. It is unthinkable, that de-syncronisation was implied there. But when the de-synmcronisation is made that imaginatively and apparently spontaneously, in the way Rübsam is capable to do, I think it is an enrichment of the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:19:49 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2018, 11:59:43 PM
Actually, the problem is people today who wish to impose their own taste on other people today, like "if one listens to Bach on the piano one doesn't listen to Bach at all" or "Bach on the piano is an atrocity". Really? Are those who play or enjoy Bach on the piano deluded dimwits, bad taste and tin ears? This is only too logical a conclusion to be drawn from the abovementioned claims.

Bullshit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:20:13 AM
Most of my experience in this area is with vocal music from the Medieval period and how to interpret the scanty evidence from the existing scores and other sources.  One need only sample a variety of recordings of Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame to get an idea of the wide spectrum of interpretations.  Not only issues of the size of the vocal group, or whether or not to include liturgical chants, but even the pitches are debated (i.e. insertion of accidentals according to "musica ficta").

The final arbiter is not found in historical research but in how a modern performer wishes to hear the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 04:21:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:14:52 AM
Let's see. A self-appointed authority is someone who proclaims himself extremely knowledgeable in a given field and as such misses no opportunity to pontificate about, and lecture on, the topics of that field, possibly even throwing around some excommunications. Are you really saying, or implying, that this is indeed the case with Barenboim and Sokolov and Baroque music performance?

Maybe more Barenboim than Sokolov. But their claimed authority ia implied in their playing.

Quote from: Florestan
The Stalin of classical music, right?

I regard him [Glenn Gould] more as the McDonald's of classical music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:22:25 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 01:28:31 AM
I think the problem is the opposite, namely that people, who swear to the Romantic style (which as you know didn't exist in Bach's time), want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style (or rather what we know about it). But as I have written above, I think this is not first and foremost a question about the used instrument, but more a question about the musician. It is indeed possible to play the piano without irrelevant romantic delving, but it is not heard that often.

A nice example is Ingrid Haebler playing Mozart.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:20:13 AM
The final arbiter is not found in historical research but in how a modern performer wishes to hear the music.


We can't argue about that. As someone expressed it: We know something, the rest is qualified guess.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:26:05 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 02:04:35 AM
It's interesting to listen, in the light of this discussion, to the dynamics that Chorzempa uses in the D# minor fugue Bk 2.

I'd like to know about clavichord manuals - whether anyone wrote about expressive playing of clavichord.

Read CPE Bach's book 'The True Art of Playing the Keyboard'. Or more easily, read excerpts of it in Strunk. CPE was all about expressive. In fact, it is why the style he adhered to was called "Empfindsam"... That was mid 18th century though, FWIW. Clavichords were around long before then, and I don't know much about that period. But CPEB didn't start out with a tabula rasa.  :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 04:26:20 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:22:25 AM
A nice example is Ingrid Haebler playing Mozart.

8)

Yes, a pity that her Mozart sonata set is so difficult to get hold of and so expensive.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:27:48 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 04:21:56 AM
their claimed authority ia implied in their playing.

I can't help quoting Gurn here: bullshit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:30:03 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:22:25 AM
A nice example is Ingrid Haebler playing Mozart.

It might come as a surprise to you but it's one of my favorite sets. Her set of complete --- and I mean complete complete --- PCs is great, too.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:31:16 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 04:21:56 AM
Maybe more Barenboim than Sokolov. But their claimed authority ia implied in their playing.

I regard him [Glenn Gould] more as the McDonald's of classical music.

I am opposed to any form of censorship of artistic expression.  Too often, the music police wish to impose their ideas on stylistic correctness (despite the futility of such attempts) through coercion in the public discourse (which is evident in this thread).

Daniel Barenboim and Glenn Gould are talented musicians, free to share their interpretations of Bach no less so than [insert your favorite HIP performer(s)].  You are of course under no obligation to buy or even listen to their recordings.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:36:35 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 01:27:43 AM
Yes; and that's a good thing.  And you are kidding yourself if you think Haydn played on a period instrument is not an example of that.  Every time a musician today plays a piece of music from the past they are imposing their taste on the music.  Playing the music on a modern instrument is a difference of degree, not kind.

What makes you think I DO think that?  I never said that any modern musician is capable of not being influenced by what he/she grew up hearing and probably playing. However, you completely either overlook or disingenuously reject the fact that people actually work their whole lives to learn something different. The past is not a closed book, there are hundreds (thousands more likely) of documents about music from the 16th to the 19th century that explain in great detail exactly what is wanted of a musician. Is there some reason a talented musician from today would be incapable of learning from that, just as a barely literate one from 1750 was? I doubt it. Why do you have a problem with that? Perhaps because you are not a musician, and I will give you a pass for that. But believe me, a musician can deal with it.

You clearly don't have a grasp of what playing in an older style involves. Pulling an old keyboard out of the attic is barely even the first step. So old or new instrument has nothing to do with degree and everything top do with what is done with it by someone who knows what the hell they're doing. In that way, it is exactly like modern playing, in that a modern piano is no more than an anvil without someone who knows what they are doing at the controls. It's what they're doing that makes the difference.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 04:37:02 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 03:43:41 AM

Bach probably had ideas about performances. Concerts and CDs just represent a given performance each. And they also reflect the many options involved. Neither do I think Bach himself always performed his works in the same way.

It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:48:19 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 04:37:02 AM
It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.

Very much so. I was going to call bullshit on that too, but what would be the point? If you listened to the same piece performed by 3 different period bands and 3 different modern bands, you would find as much or more variety in the period as you would in the modern, certainly in instrument sound, not to mention playing attack or mundane things like repeats. Even repeats vary hugely from performance to performance, there is no such thing as ritualistically taking (or skipping) every one. There is nothing written in stone, and for someone to imply that period style reflects that viewpoint actually irks me to some extent. But I'm a nice guy...  0:)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 04:56:30 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 04:05:17 AM
Imagination is the correct word since his interpretation, as I understand it, is largely based on the appearance of Bach's manuscript and how the polyphonic lines do not exactly line up vertically.  Rubsam's idea that this is an indication about how one line should be staggered against another is pure speculation.

Is it in the "Baroque spirit"?  Is it "authentic"?  I don't know, and we can never really know.  But are those questions important?  For me, all that counts is whether Rubsam's performance is musical and enjoyable.

The imagination is in the putting together of the independent voices to make something that sounds like music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 04:58:13 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 04:56:30 AM
The imagination is in the putting together of the independent voices to make something that sounds like music.

I fail to see how playing the voices as they rhythmically align in the score fails to "sound like music."  What am I missing?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 05:00:41 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 04:26:20 AM
Yes, a pity that her Mozart sonata set is so difficult to get hold of and so expensive.

There are two, Ill put the out of print one(s) on symphonyshare later
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
While the discussion is ongoing, are we agreed on these points (to be added to as consensus deems right)?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:10:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
While the discussion is ongoing, are we agreed on these points (to be added to as consensus deems right)?


       
  • It's all speculation.
  • Some of the speculation is better documented;  some of the speculation is wackier.
  • Inflexibility is an exogenous imposition.

Count me in.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 05:21:08 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:36:35 AM
What makes you think I DO think that?  I never said that any modern musician is capable of not being influenced by what he/she grew up hearing and probably playing. However, you completely either overlook or disingenuously reject the fact that people actually work their whole lives to learn something different. The past is not a closed book, there are hundreds (thousands more likely) of documents about music from the 16th to the 19th century that explain in great detail exactly what is wanted of a musician. Is there some reason a talented musician from today would be incapable of learning from that, just as a barely literate one from 1750 was? I doubt it. Why do you have a problem with that? Perhaps because you are not a musician, and I will give you a pass for that. But believe me, a musician can deal with it.

You clearly don't have a grasp of what playing in an older style involves. Pulling an old keyboard out of the attic is barely even the first step. So old or new instrument has nothing to do with degree and everything top do with what is done with it by someone who knows what the hell they're doing. In that way, it is exactly like modern playing, in that a modern piano is no more than an anvil without someone who knows what they are doing at the controls. It's what they're doing that makes the difference.

8)

Well, much of what you wrote is addressed to a strawman, since my point had nothing to do with whether someone can learn from the historical sources.  My point is that process is a post-modernist exercise. (And btw, I am a musician with an advanced degree from music school.  I have also spent considerable amount of time reading and studying early music sources and treatises, so I also have an idea of how much hard evidence we have available and how much is speculative.) 

But for me those are not the issues. 

The overall musicality of a performance is of primary importance to me, not the instrument used or chasing an idea of "authenticity".  I enjoy many HIP/PI recordings but am under no illusion, nor do I care, that what I am hearing is "authentic". 

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 05:32:35 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 04:37:02 AM
It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

No, of course not. There are some modern musicians with very "consistent" interpretations or who avidly strives to do a definitive interpretation of some works. I always found this to work a bit against the spirit of the music, and I also think this way of thinking represents one of the less fortunate side-effects of the recording industry.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng
And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.

Completely agreed. But there are obviously some things the composer did not want - even if we often only have indirect indications of these, and stylish playing is much about respecting these things.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 05:35:52 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 05:00:41 AM
There are two, Ill put the out of print one(s) on symphonyshare later


Yes, a n older Philips and a newer Denon, as far as I know. I have only - long time ago - heard some of the Phiips. An upload would certainly be great.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 05:35:57 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 05:21:08 AM
Well, much of what you wrote is addressed to a strawman, since my point had nothing to do with whether someone can learn from the historical sources.  My point is that process is a post-modernist exercise. (And btw, I am a musician with an advanced degree from music school.  I have also spent considerable amount of time reading and studying early music sources and treatises, so I also have an idea of how much hard evidence we have available and how much is speculative.) 

But for me those are not the issues. 

The overall musicality of a performance is of primary importance to me, not the instrument used or chasing an idea of "authenticity".  I enjoy many HIP/PI recordings but am under no illusion, nor do I care, that what I am hearing is "authentic".

This word musicality is a problem of course, unless it means "what I like "

Somewhere in this conversation there was a brief discussion with me and Mahlerian about the idea of musical content. I think one idea of HIP is that, contingently,  the old instruments and old way of playing them,  bring out better the essential musical content, serve the music better. So, for instance, the muddy midrange of a modern piano doesn't serve baroque fugues as well as a baroque keyboard.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 05:37:23 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:27:48 AM
I can't help quoting Gurn here: bullshit.


I can't help quoting your quote from Gurn here: bullshit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 05:42:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 04:58:13 AM
I fail to see how playing the voices as they rhythmically align in the score fails to "sound like music."  What am I missing?

Of course it sounds like music when the voices are aligned as the score prescribes. But - as I wrote above - Rübsam's "method" adds a very original and distinctive expressive quality to the music. Listen to him, there are samples on his website.

https://www.wolfgangrubsam.com/
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 05:46:10 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 05:35:57 AM
This word musicality is a problem of course, unless it means "what I like "

Somewhere in this conversation there was a brief discussion with me and Mahlerian about the idea of musical content. I think one idea of HIP is that, contingently,  the old instruments and old way of playing them,  bring out better the essential musical content, serve the music better. So, for instance, the muddy midrange of a modern piano doesn't serve baroque fugues as well as a baroque keyboard.

Yes, of course, all of it is subjective: on the part of the audience as well as the performers.  I will agree that the texture of Baroque music suffers from some modern performances, but not all, and I'd venture to say the worst offenders are a thing of the past.

I'll sum up my view like this: HIP/PI recordings are no more authentic than Civil War re-enactments.  We are obsessed with trying to recapture the past (from typewriter fonts for our computers to shows like Mad Men) and if I were a cynical sort I'd make the claim that the entire HIP movement is a clever marketing tool; repackaging all of Bach and other early music with the cache of "authenticity" attached.

But I'm not a cynical sort and applaud the HIP camp because I see it as the most exciting thing to hit classical music in my lifetime.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 05:47:10 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 05:08:54 AM
While the discussion is ongoing, are we agreed on these points (to be added to as consensus deems right)?


       
  • It's all speculation.
  • Some of the speculation is better documented;  some of the speculation is wackier.
  • Inflexibility is an exogenous imposition.

I would not call the documented parts for speculation.

And I do not understand, what you mean here (probably because of linguistic inability on my part) :
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng
Inflexibility is an exogenous imposition.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:49:08 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 05:32:35 AM
there are obviously some things the composer did not want - even if we often only have indirect indications of these, and stylish playing is much about respecting these things.

In respect with dynamic variations, we have direct evidence that the composers could not have made use of them on a harpsichord except in a very limited way --- the instrument itself could not accomodate them. But what evidence do we have, direct or indirect, that the composers did really not want them and? They were not able to have them, but to infer from this that they didn't want them is pure speculation. One can as well speculate that they actually wanted them but contended themselves to not having them faute de mieux (ie, absent an instrument capable of rendering them). There is no way to know. Leonhardt is spot on.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 05:37:23 AM

I can't help quoting you quote from Gurn here: bullshit.

We're even now.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 01, 2018, 05:54:50 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 05:46:10 AMI'll sum up my view like this: HIP/PI recordings are no more authentic than Civil War re-enactments.  We are obsessed with trying to recapture the past and if I were a cynical sort I'd make the claim that the entire HIP movement is a clever marketing tool; repackaging all of Bach and other early music with the cache of "authenticity" attached.
Well I'm sure we can all agree that submarines, tanks and bazookas have no place in a Civil War re-enactment. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:57:36 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 01, 2018, 05:54:50 AM
Well I'm sure we can all agree that submarines, tanks and bazookas have no place in a Civil War re-enactment. ;)

I don't agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine))

:laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 06:03:27 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 05:47:10 AM
I would not call the documented parts for speculation.

Documents, of course, are facts;  but (unless I greatly misunderstand) the documents do not furnish a complete picture.

QuoteAnd I do not understand, what you mean here (probably because of linguistic inability on my part) :

Inflexibility of doctrine is something which a modern person brings to the material, it is not inherent to the era.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 01, 2018, 06:10:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:57:36 AM
I don't agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine))

:laugh:
I did, briefly, contemplate if I should write 'nuclear submarines'.  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 06:16:05 AM
The Monitor and Merrimack were . . . something else!


And . . . literally in the case of Merrimack, she became the CSS Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Virginia).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 06:16:48 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 01, 2018, 06:10:41 AM
I did, briefly, contemplate if I should write 'nuclear submarines'.  :laugh:

I'm sure that if ever an opera was written about the HL Lunley episode of the Civil War some Regietheater guy would have one used onstage.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 06:20:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:49:08 AM
In respect with dynamic variations, we have direct evidence that the composers could not have made use of them on a harpsichord except in a very limited way --- the instrument itself could not accomodate them. But what evidence do we have, direct or indirect, that the composers did really not want them and? They were not able to have them, but to infer from this that they didn't want them is pure speculation. One can as well speculate that they actually wanted them but contended themselves to not having them faute de mieux (ie, absent an instrument capable of rendering them). There is no way to know. Leonhardt is spot on.

I will call it a qualified guess, that dynamic variations of that kind pianos can make, played no important role in Bach's idea of harpsichord- and organ music.

Quote from: Florestan
We're even now.  :D

What the deuce...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 06:27:04 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 06:03:27 AM
Documents, of course, are facts;  but (unless I greatly misunderstand) the documents do not furnish a complete picture.

So true.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng
Inflexibility of doctrine is something which a modern person brings to the material, it is not inherent to the era.

Hard to know if it is inherent to the area. Sometimes it may be. But often we know so little about the area, that the antithesis flexibility/inflexibility becomes pointless.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 06:32:54 AM
All this debate remninded me of an anecdote told about the great 19-the century French actor Mounet-Sully. He was rehearsing a play about the massacre of the Huguenots (1572) and at one point he had to take an oath "on an old Bible" (so the script run). He is presented with a common 19th century Bible. "No way!", he shouts, "the script says an old Bible, I demand an old Bible!" After some febrile and tiresome searching, they give him a Bible from 1570. Replies Mounet-Sully: "That won't do either! Back then it was new!"

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 06:43:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 04:30:03 AM
It might come as a surprise to you but it's one of my favorite sets. Her set of complete --- and I mean complete complete --- PCs is great, too.

Haebler was a modern pianist who switched over to fortepiano and really learned technique well, then occasionally switched back to modern piano and played it with a fortepiano technique. It is no surprise to me that you like Haebler, except that she eschews the various Romantic techniques that you were talking about yesterday. She plays a bitchin' Mozart, as well as J.C. Bach and even Haydn, both on fortepiano though.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 06:44:46 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 05:46:10 AM
Yes, of course, all of it is subjective: on the part of the audience as well as the performers.  I will agree that the texture of Baroque music suffers from some modern performances, but not all, and I'd venture to say the worst offenders are a thing of the past.

Yes, fortunately. But some have cast a long shadow.

Quote from: San Antone
I'll sum up my view like this: HIP/PI recordings are no more authentic.

The word "authentic" should be banned in this context. It implies more authority, than the circumstances allow. We should choose a less conductive expression.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 06:46:31 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 06:43:37 AM
Haebler was a modern pianist who switched over to fortepiano and really learned technique well, then occasionally switched back to modern piano and played it with a fortepiano technique. It is no surprise to me that you like Haebler, except that she eschews the various Romantic techniques that you were talking about yesterday. She plays a bitchin' Mozart, as well as J.C. Bach and even Haydn, both on fortepiano though.

I wasn't talking about Romantic techniques, I was talking about romantic* outcomes.

* notice the small r.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 06:57:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:49:08 AM
In respect with dynamic variations, we have direct evidence that the composers could not have made use of them on a harpsichord except in a very limited way --- the instrument itself could not accomodate them. But what evidence do we have, direct or indirect, that the composers did really not want them and? They were not able to have them, but to infer from this that they didn't want them is pure speculation. One can as well speculate that they actually wanted them but contended themselves to not having them faute de mieux (ie, absent an instrument capable of rendering them). There is no way to know. Leonhardt is spot on.

We're even now.  :D

I will agree that this post contains much speculation, is that what you are wanting?

No matter in the least if a composer, in his creative mind, wished somehow that he could make a big swell in this spot (for example), he still would not have written it to accomodate that swell because he knew it wasn't going to happen. That's why I say, they weren't time travelers, writing for the capabilities of a future generation. They wrote for the capabilities of what they had to work with.

However, they also spoke with people. A composer/musician knew everyone around who was in his business. He knew that guy down the road who made harpsichords, and if he had the idea of wanting a dynamic capability, then he went down the road and talked to him, and over a pipe and ale he said 'you know, Max, I wish I had some keyboard instrument that would allow me to make louder or softer sounds in my works'. And when Max figured out how to make that happen, 5, 10, 20 years later, he came back and showed our composer, who then figured out how to notate that idea and tried it out, and the entire genre changed. But nothing that he wrote before then changed, no matter in what philosophical terms you couch your argument, it isn't going to change the physical reality of what was.

I am sure that composers like Mozart saw the technical improvements and immediately their creative impulses were challenged to use them to the fullest. But that changes nothing about what came before. The music they wrote before was NOT written in anticipation of what Florestan would enjoy in 2018. Just sayin'...

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 06:57:53 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 06:27:04 AM
So true.

Hard to know if it is inherent to the area. Sometimes it may be. But often we know so little about the area, that the antithesis flexibility/inflexibility becomes pointless.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 01, 2018, 06:58:45 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 06:44:46 AM
The word "authentic" should be banned in this context. It implies more authority, than the circumstances allow. We should choose a less conductive expression.

Indeed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 06:59:39 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 06:46:31 AM
I wasn't talking about Romantic techniques, I was talking about romantic* outcomes.

* notice the small r.

OK, if it pleases you, I will say 19th century techniques. That's what they really were in any case.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 06:59:39 AM
OK, if it pleases you, I will say 19th century techniques. That's what they really were in any case.

Does Ingrid Haebler use 19th century techniques?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 07:10:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Does Ingrid Haebler use 19th century techniques?

I would say not many. More 18th century. Yes, she presses the keys, they did that in the 19th century. She doesn't appear to pedal very much at all, for example, which was a technique developed on English pianofortes in the 1790's to accommodate the huge sound they had. Viennese? Not so much. I'm not a pianist, so I can't really list all that stuff. I have read a book. It is something I always recommend to people.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 07:11:28 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 02:43:36 AM
Pleas reread what I have written above, and realize that you have misunderstood it. Baroque performing philosophy nowadays does not at all imply a rigid adherence to the score.

Rigid adherence to the score is one of those things that shows up in this sort of context without any relevance.  HIP performers know as well as anyone that there is subjectivity involved in the performance of any music.  A robotic sort of accuracy isn't considered desirable by anyone that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:14:53 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 06:57:37 AM
I will agree that this post contains much speculation, is that what you are wanting?

What I want is to be able to enjoy my Bach or Scarlatti or Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven on a modern piano without being frowned upon and told that it's all a travesty and I shouldn't be listening to such atrocity.  ;D

I couldn't care less if some piano technique could not be done on the harpsichord. If someone does it and what I hear pleases me and aligns with my taste and aesthetic preferences, I will continue listening to it, HIP dogmatism be damned.  >:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:17:50 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 07:10:04 AM
I would say not many. More 18th century.

And yet the net result sounds quite romantic to my ears. That's why I made the distinction between technique and its outcome.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 07:18:35 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 07:11:28 AM
Rigid adherence to the score is one of those things that shows up in this sort of context without any relevance.  HIP performers know as well as anyone that there is subjectivity involved in the performance of any music.  A robotic sort of accuracy isn't considered desirable by anyone that I'm aware of.

Well, you know, back ~1970 some early pioneer said that, who knows the actual context, and it has been a freaking albatross ever since. For some reason, people can't listen to the music as played and realize that each performance is individual and different from every other one, even by the same band. One of many things about this debate which pisses me off. Funny thing is, these same people have no problem listing how VPO is different from LG & LPO.   ::)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 07:21:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:14:53 AM
What I want is to be able to enjoy my Bach or Scarlatti or Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven on a modern piano without being frowned upon and told that it's all a travesty and I shouldn't be listening to such atrocity.  ;D

I couldn't care less if some piano technique could not be done on the harpsichord. If someone does it and what I hear pleases me and aligns with my taste and aesthetic preferences, I will continue listening to it, HIP dogmatism be damned.  >:D

When a HIP/PI fan's response to you is dripping with condescension it brings no credit to their cause.

Listen and let listen, I say.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 07:21:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:17:50 AM


And yet the net result sounds quite romantic to my ears. That's why I made the distinction between technique and its outcome.

But that's an entirely subjective opinion. When I first bought and played Haebler, the first thought I had was "damn, I don't know how she does it, but she makes her modern piano sound like a fortepiano".  No after-ring, for example. Little sustain. I love it!  :) And that's subjective too. Shall I say "It sounds classic to my ears"?  OK, I'll play that. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:23:20 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 07:21:50 AM
But that's an entirely subjective opinion. When I first bought and played Haebler, the first thought I had was "damn, I don't know how she does it, but she makes her modern piano sound like a fortepiano".  No after-ring, for example. Little sustain. I love it!  :) And that's subjective too. Shall I say "It sounds classic to my ears"?  OK, I'll play that. :)

"Sounds romantic" and "sounds like a fortepiano" are not mutually exclusive sentences. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 07:39:05 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 07:11:28 AM
Rigid adherence to the score is one of those things that shows up in this sort of context without any relevance.  HIP performers know as well as anyone that there is subjectivity involved in the performance of any music.  A robotic sort of accuracy isn't considered desirable by anyone that I'm aware of.


The concept was much used about 70 to 50 years ago. It almost had a religious aura about it. Baroque music was played "notentreue" and there was as well as no interpretation, only the notes and the pedantic executed rhythms including ornamentation. It was thought, that this way of playing was objective in an ideal way. Well known exponents for this style were in the area of Bach harpsichord playing Zuzana Ruzickova, Helmut Walcha, Martin Galling and Karl Richter.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 07:50:48 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 07:39:05 AM

The concept was much used about 70 to 50 years ago. It almost had a religious aura about it. Baroque music was played "notentreue" and there was as well as no interpretation, only the notes and the pedantic executed rhythms including ornamentation. It was thought, that this way of playing was objective in an ideal way. Well known exponents for this style were in the area of Bach harpsichord playing Zuzana Ruzickova, Helmut Walcha, Martin Galling and Karl Richter.

I suppose it must have collapsed when the performers realized that even they didn't interpret the works in anything approaching an identical way...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 07:59:01 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 03:08:57 AM
Rubsam's recent recordings of the WTC on lute harpsichord sound to me as utilizing more stylistic freedoms than Schiff's recording on piano.  The choice of instrument does not necessarily mean anything regarding the interpretation.  Although Schiff plays a piano he does not use the sustain pedal.

He's closer to Bach with a piano than Gould is to Beethoven with a piano ....

*chucles evilly*
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 08:03:18 AM
I prefer Bach on harpsichord, but also listen to piano. There are great artists who record piano only. Schaffer, Hewitt.
Ives is a travesty on piano.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 01, 2018, 08:13:59 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 08:03:18 AM
[...]
Ives is a travesty on piano.

:laugh:

Thanks to a fellow GMG member I am now listening to Bach and Scarlatti, played by the late Dutch accordionist Harry Mooten, in my country also known as 'De Grote Grijze Geitenbreier' ('The Great Grey Goat Knitter'). Some of those tracks are truly moving.
Baroque?
No.
Beautiful?
Yes!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/8a/91/tJpeYtZI_o.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 08:21:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 07:23:20 AM
"Sounds romantic" and "sounds like a fortepiano" are not mutually exclusive sentences. :)

"romantic", without further definition, means nothing at all.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 08:26:19 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 08:03:18 AMIves is a travesty on piano.

A travesty of...?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on August 01, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
Okay, there is clearly a debate raging here...I want to contribute something completely different.

I feel like with some baroque pieces, I develop a "tolerance" for HIP performance practice and then move on to a more radical interpretation. Like when you start drinking alcohol, and then after years of drinking, you need more and stronger booze to get drunk.

The best example is Vivaldi Four Seasons. I started, as a kid, listening to conventional performances by big modern orchestras. Eventually I found a chamber ensemble performance, and then a HIP one - Europa Galante and Fabio Biondi. It felt like a revolution! So transformational.

But now, Europa Galante sounds pedestrian to me, and I keep seeking out faster, bolder, more eccentric versions. Yesterday I found Forma Antiqva and fell in love with their decidedly bizarre, provocative performance - complete with added transitions between each movement.

And yet some day even that might be "normal" to me and I might seek out even weirder. Similarly, I am attracted to increasingly fast and furious Bach Brandenburg Concertos.

Anybody else experience this phenomenon?

:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 01, 2018, 09:05:30 AM
Quote from: Brian on August 01, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
Okay, there is clearly a debate raging here...I want to contribute something completely different.

I feel like with some baroque pieces, I develop a "tolerance" for HIP performance practice and then move on to a more radical interpretation. Like when you start drinking alcohol, and then after years of drinking, you need more and stronger booze to get drunk.

The best example is Vivaldi Four Seasons. I started, as a kid, listening to conventional performances by big modern orchestras. Eventually I found a chamber ensemble performance, and then a HIP one - Europa Galante and Fabio Biondi. It felt like a revolution! So transformational.

But now, Europa Galante sounds pedestrian to me, and I keep seeking out faster, bolder, more eccentric versions. Yesterday I found Forma Antiqva and fell in love with their decidedly bizarre, provocative performance - complete with added transitions between each movement.

And yet some day even that might be "normal" to me and I might seek out even weirder. Similarly, I am attracted to increasingly fast and furious Bach Brandenburg Concertos.

Anybody else experience this phenomenon?

:)

Not really.

Maybe it's a midlife crisis? >:D

By the way: the 'ancient' Brandenburg recordings of Musica Antiqua Köln sound still fast and furious enough to me.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on August 01, 2018, 09:08:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 05:49:08 AM
In respect with dynamic variations, we have direct evidence that the composers could not have made use of them on a harpsichord except in a very limited way --- the instrument itself could not accomodate them. But what evidence do we have, direct or indirect, that the composers did really not want them
You can pretty easily do a crescendo or diminuendo on a violin or a cello, but there are no indications to do so in Bach's cello suites or violin sonatas/partitas. You can also do so with the human voice, but there are no indications to do so in any of Bach's 501923750980381 cantatas.

There may have been conventions about how things were played or sung, which we don't know about, but requiring musicians to use dynamic variations was clearly not something on Bach's mind.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on August 01, 2018, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Brian on August 01, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
I feel like with some baroque pieces, I develop a "tolerance" for HIP performance practice and then move on to a more radical interpretation. Like when you start drinking alcohol, and then after years of drinking, you need more and stronger booze to get drunk.
I'm not sure about this, but definitely as I've listened to a lot of HIP recordings, my ears/brain/pitch have adjusted somewhat and I can now listen to and understand things that I found painfully out of tune for a very long time (e.g. Kuijken Haydn symphonies, L'Archibudelli). Some things still play too much havoc with my sense of pitch (e.g. Scott Ross, Blandine Verlet) but I expect eventually I'll acclimate to them as well.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 01, 2018, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:15:05 AM
I actually hoped you'd ask. It's Gustav Leonhardt.  ;D

https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview (https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview)

QuoteBut Bach's music, along with that of other German and Dutch composers like Sweelinck, is very serious and worked out on the highest level. The opposite to that is French music, much of which is lovely, but nearly always superficial. For a long time I found this to be a deterrent, until I realized it had such marvellous qualities of sonority and refinement, although it remains essentially superficial. A truly serious work of art goes beyond qualities we can explain, whether it is Titian, or Bach, or Purcell. But the charm, the control, and the elegance of French music! All the harpsichord pieces sound so beautiful by themselves - you don't have to labour.

OMG... So much for the wisdom of old men.... ::)

I guess he remained a Calvinist at heart - if it's not stern, it's superficial....

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 09:44:09 AM
Quote from: Que on August 01, 2018, 09:26:10 AM
I guess he remained a Calvinist at heart - if it's not stern, it's superficial....

An opinion shared by many a non-Calvinist, unfortunately.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 07:50:48 AM
I suppose it must have collapsed when the performers realized that even they didn't interpret the works in anything approaching an identical way...

Many of them closed their eyes and kept their opinion for the rest of their life, because their self-respect was at stake.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 09:47:03 AM
Quote from: Que on August 01, 2018, 09:26:10 AM
OMG... So much for the wisdom of old men.... ::)

I guess he remained a Calvinist at heart - if it's not stern, it's superficial....

Q

He may be right though, I mean I'm not knowingly a Calvinst, but he may just be right. Like, with possibly one exception, there's nothing in French music that I know with the depth of a big Weckman chorale fantasy, a Sweelinck or a Scheidt hymn, let alone a late Bach keyboard  compendium or a passion. The one possible exception is the Titelouze hymns and magnificats.

It's always been a mystery to me why he was so keen on playing French music. He recorded three Forqueray CDs - that's probably more than anyone else! Forqueray! A friend of mine reckons he did it to relax, to kick back after doing the serious work of playing Bach and Bohm and Scheidemann.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 08:03:18 AM
I prefer Bach on harpsichord, but also listen to piano. There are great artists who record piano only. Schaffer, Hewitt.
Ives is a travesty on piano.

If you mean Hans Georg Schäfer, I agree that he is exceptional - and on piano. One feature is, that he does not use equal tuning.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 09:57:36 AM
Quote from: Brian on August 01, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
Anybody else experience this phenomenon?

No, not at all. I can still enjoy the the Barchet / Münchinger Four seasons and old "slow" recordings of the Brandenburgs e.g. Prohaska.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 10:08:00 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 08:21:08 AM
"romantic", without further definition, means nothing at all.

8)

As a divorced man, I can tell you this is wrong.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 10:11:24 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 09:52:15 AM
If you mean Hans Georg Schäfer, I agree that he is exceptional - and on piano. One feature is, that he does not use equal tuning.
I actually meant Schiff. I usually lose when autocorrect and I have a disagreement.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 10:19:32 AM
Did you know that Schiff is a keen clavichord player? He says that clavichord technique has really formed his style in the French Suites, which he's convinced is clavichord music primarily. This is from a video on YouTube somewhere.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 10:19:36 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 10:11:24 AM
I actually meant Schiff. I usually lose when autocorrect and I have a disagreement.


So let me use the occasion to recommend Hans Georg Schäfer, WTC available at Amazon.de.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Quote from: Gustav LeonhardtBut Bach's music, along with that of other German and Dutch composers like Sweelinck, is very serious and worked out on the highest level. The opposite to that is French music, much of which is lovely, but nearly always superficial.

Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 01, 2018, 10:19:36 AM

So let me use the occasion to recommend Hans Georg Schäfer, WTC available at Amazon.de.

Indeed!

Quote from: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 10:19:32 AM
Did you know that Schiff is a keen clavichord player? He says that clavichord technique has really formed his style in the French Suites, which he's convinced is clavichord music primarily. This is from a video on YouTube somewhere.

I did. He says it's impractical for concerts though.

But he's a good example of semi-HIP isn't he, just using a piano.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:52:16 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
But he's a good example of semi-HIP isn't he, just using a piano.

I love his Schubert and Mozart discs played on fortepiano.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.

I won't throw the first stone: I could have written that myself. I didn't because I thought that after 15 years here y'all knew that about me already. Except for the French stuff, of course. But if you truly love Austrian music from the 18th century (and I do), you can't be a true believer in German anything, because they are polar opposites. Which should make you wonder at the credibility of anyone who calls music before the 19th century "Austro-German".  :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 01, 2018, 12:09:15 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.

It's hard for me to say why I feel slightly differently, but it's something like this. What I really like with music is a combination of heart and head -- I like to feel both my intellect and my emotions are being engaged and challenged. I get this less with Francois Couperin, Lully, Rameau and other so called classical French composers, or with Scarlatti, Corelli, Vivaldi and other Italian late baroque composers. 


I get it most with the the ones Leonhardt calls deep.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 01, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 03:15:05 AM
I actually hoped you'd ask. It's Gustav Leonhardt.  ;D

https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview (https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview)

Yeah, it's a rather well known (and (in)famous) interview in the HIP-world, also because he completely burned down the OVPP theory for Bach's vocal works.
I once read another interview with him where he slaughtered Händel. Summarized: a second grade composer with no sense of architecture.
Years ago there was an internet link where Leonhardt quotes about GFH were collected. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 01, 2018, 12:57:39 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 01, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
Yeah, it's a rather well known (and (in)famous) interview in the HIP-world, also because he completely burned down the OVPP theory for Bach's vocal works.
I once read another interview with him where he slaughtered Händel. Summarized: a second grade composer with no sense of architecture.
Years ago there was an internet link where Leonhardt quotes about GFH were collected. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore.

Found it (more or less). On our very own board!
It wasn't an internet site, it was the Dutch magazine Luister:

Quote from: Marc on February 04, 2012, 06:10:01 AM
About Händel, Leonhardt once said in an interview with Dutch music magazine Luister:

"IMO, the man is extremely overrated as a composer. He could set up a nice facade but completely lacked the ability to build the cathedral behind it. External effect, métier, nothing more."

(I disagree, btw. I think this 'opinion' is extremely exaggerated. Leonhardt, despite his modesty about his own abilities, had more of those, and not only concerning music.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
Indeed!

I did. He says it's impractical for concerts though.

But he's a good example of semi-HIP isn't he, just using a piano.


Yes, he [Andras Schiff] has improved with time.  ;)


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:33:43 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.

I would be the last one to stone you to death for that reason. But I need a little more time to answer this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 01, 2018, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 01, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
Yeah, it's a rather well known (and (in)famous) interview in the HIP-world, also because he completely burned down the OVPP theory for Bach's vocal works.
I once read another interview with him where he slaughtered Händel. Summarized: a second grade composer with no sense of architecture.
Years ago there was an internet link where Leonhardt quotes about GFH were collected. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore.

One of these quotes, which made a strong impression upon me - if not for the good:

"Why should I play Händel, when I can play the best."

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 01:44:54 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French



I cannot really blame you for this shameful sin, since it's predestined. Predestination is a bitch.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 11:56:30 AM
I won't throw the first stone: I could have written that myself. I didn't because I thought that after 15 years here y'all knew that about me already. Except for the French stuff, of course. But if you truly love Austrian music from the 18th century (and I do), you can't be a true believer in German anything, because they are polar opposites. Which should make you wonder at the credibility of anyone who calls music before the 19th century "Austro-German".  :D

8)

What about the love of Bach's music that Haydn and Mozart shared, then?  Were they somehow improperly Austrian?

(Or Mozart, at least.  Maybe Haydn didn't love JS Bach's music.  They both certainly appreciated and learned from CPE Bach's music.)

Anyway, I love Debussy and Mahler both very strongly, and their aesthetics were as different as can be imagined.  I don't see what those kinds of differences have to do with being able to appreciate a given style of music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 01, 2018, 02:29:12 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.

Listening to Bach's music means loads of fun to me. I do not know of any (classical) music that makes me want to move around and dance more than his.
You also might want to check out the North German late 17th century 'stylus phantasticus' works. It's wild, man. This evening I raised up to the church rooftops on Buxtehude's BuxWV 149 again. Yabba dabba doo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNYxXIRJ-mA
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 01, 2018, 02:52:13 PM
Bach is the only Baroque composer I listen to.  But I have very limited taste; only a relatively small number of composers are ones I like.  I've never "gotten" Vivaldi.  But Bach has been a long-standing constant in my listening life. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 01, 2018, 03:20:24 PM
Composition is an act of imagination.

Anyone who asserts that a composer could not possibly have conceived ideas about the performance of their music that were not possible at the time that they composed it, is limiting the composer's imagination in a way that is unlikely to reflect how composers actually think.

I believe it was Shostakovich who lamented the fact that current instruments were not capable of playing one of his pieces the way he really wanted (trumpet or trombone? I forget and I can't find the quote at the moment), and expressed both the hope that one day improvements to the instrument would make it work, and fear that people would keep insisting on playing the piece on a Shostakovich-era instrument.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 01, 2018, 03:24:28 PM
I should also add that the Maasaki Suzuki set of Bach cantatas raises the possibility that Bach actually invented, or contributed to the invention of, some obscure instruments for the purposes of some of those cantatas, as they discuss what references to some unusual instruments in the score are actually supposed to be.

Don't just tell me what Bach did. Bach also dreamed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:03:57 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 01:49:56 PM
What about the love of Bach's music that Haydn and Mozart shared, then?  Were they somehow improperly Austrian?

(Or Mozart, at least.  Maybe Haydn didn't love JS Bach's music.  They both certainly appreciated and learned from CPE Bach's music.)

Anyway, I love Debussy and Mahler both very strongly, and their aesthetics were as different as can be imagined.  I don't see what those kinds of differences have to do with being able to appreciate a given style of music.

Doesn't matter really, I like them, not who they might have liked. I admire Bach and concede his greatness. He leaves me cold. I prefer Fux, who, it happens, Bach claims as one of his favorites.  And especially Vivaldi. Another Bach favorite, BTW.

CPE and Telemann are the only 2 actual 18th century German composers I like muchly. Whereas you can pick almost any Austrian, Italian or Bohemian composer from that time and I'll be happy as a clam. :) 

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:03:57 PM
Doesn't matter really, I like them, not who they might have liked. I admire Bach and concede his greatness. He leaves me cold. I prefer Fux, who, it happens, Bach claims as one of his favorites.  And especially Vivaldi. Another Bach favorite, BTW.

CPE and Telemann are the only 2 actual 18th century German composers I like muchly. Whereas you can pick almost any Austrian, Italian or Bohemian composer from that time and I'll be happy as a clam. :) 

8)

I wasn't contesting your (or Florestan's) taste.  You like some things well and others less, as do I.

I was just surprised that you see some kind of contradiction in loving 18th century German music and loving 18th century Austrian music, given that the composers themselves saw no such contradiction (unlike Debussy/Mahler, per my example).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
I wasn't contesting your (or Florestan's) taste.  You like some things well and others less, as do I.

I was just surprised that you see some kind of contradiction in loving 18th century German music and loving 18th century Austrian music, given that the composers themselves saw no such contradiction (unlike Debussy/Mahler, per my example).

Ah, I see what you mean. Well here's the thing; the entire philosophy of performing arts in Germany was entirely different than it was in Austria. There was a cottage industry among German critics involving deriding everything Austrian. It wasn't the composers so much as it was the critics especially, and the philosophers. Haydn was a favorite target, and it was virulent. My Shakespeare & Haydn essay (http://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/2018/04/how-shakespeare-led-haydn-to-sturm-und-drang.html) has a very few examples in it, but there are many more. And the music is clearly different. Austria chose mainly sunny Italian models. Germany chose much more stern and uncompromising models. Affekt was all-important in German music, much less so in Austrian.

So the point I was after is that lumping together German & Austrian music, something which is frequently done, is paradoxical at best. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 01, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 05:37:37 PM
Ah, I see what you mean. Well here's the thing; the entire philosophy of performing arts in Germany was entirely different than it was in Austria. There was a cottage industry among German critics involving deriding everything Austrian. It wasn't the composers so much as it was the critics especially, and the philosophers. Haydn was a favorite target, and it was virulent. My Shakespeare & Haydn essay (http://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/2018/04/how-shakespeare-led-haydn-to-sturm-und-drang.html) has a very few examples in it, but there are many more. And the music is clearly different. Austria chose mainly sunny Italian models. Germany chose much more stern and uncompromising models. Affekt was all-important in German music, much less so in Austrian.

So the point I was after is that lumping together German & Austrian music, something which is frequently done, is paradoxical at best. :)

8)

I think I see what you mean now.  All of these cultural battles seem very distant from me, with perhaps the exception of those waged in and around Vienna ca. 1900, which I have come to know decently well.

What I do know is the music, and regardless of what theorists and philosophers at the time believed, I think that the differences in this case are not so vast as to preclude admiration for both German and Austrian music of that era.

I know for sure that I don't agree with the musical views of a good number of the theorists and philosophers working today in the Anglosphere.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: André on August 01, 2018, 06:21:46 PM
Currently embarking on a listening spell of the complete Mozart sonatas on fortepiano played by Bart van Oort.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qxGsquWtL.jpg)


The instruments used are mostly Walter fortepianos contemporaneous with the music (1785, 1795 and 1800) rebuilt/restored 1995-2002. Van Oort makes sure to explain the HIP logic and thought that went into the recordings (2004-2005). Extensive notes on the instruments and playing techniques, as well as on the music - 15 pages of densely packed notes in English only - no pics, no musical examples, just words. The HIP credentials of the enterprise seem totally kosher.

So, in all likelihood this is the real thing, as far as playing on a viennese fortepiano of the time can bring us to the sounds and keyboard mechanics available to Mozart in his time. It goes without saying that both instrument and piano playing are as different as could be from what Arrau, Brendel, Uchida, Gilels, Katin or Kraus offer us on their piano grands. I'm happy to have both POVs available in highly proficient and sensitive accounts from all these artists.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 01, 2018, 06:26:15 PM
Quote from: André on August 01, 2018, 06:21:46 PM
Currently embarking on a listening spell of the complete Mozart sonatas on fortepiano played by Bart van Oort.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qxGsquWtL.jpg)


The instruments used are mostly Walter fortepianos contemporaneous with the music (1785, 1795 and 1800) rebuilt/restored 1995-2002. Van Oort makes sure to explain the HIP logic and thought that went into the recordings (2004-2005). Extensive notes on the instruments and playing techniques, as well as on the music - 15 pages of densely packed notes in English only - no pics, no musical examples, just words. The HIP credentials of the enterprise seem totally kosher.

So, in all likelihood this is the real thing, as far as playing on a viennese fortepiano of the time can bring us to the sounds and keyboard mechanics available to Mozart in his time. It goes without saying that both instrument and piano playing are as different as could be from what Arrau, Brendel, Uchida, Gilels, Katin or Kraus offer us on their piano grands. I'm happy to have both POVs available in highly proficient and sensitive accounts from all these artists.

I agree completely, but this has mostly taken over as my favourite Mozart piano set. And you forgot Walter Klien! His great set on Vox is available as a download.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: André on August 01, 2018, 06:37:47 PM
Klien's set in a couple of Vox boxes (vinyl) was my first Mozart sonatas set ever, but I can't say much about it because I haven't listened to it in almost 30 years  :-\ . I do have some concertos by him though.

I should have mentioned I have 3 cdr discs from Brautigam's fortepiano integral. Since I don't have the booklets, I have no info on the instruments used. His approach is very different from van Oort's.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on August 01, 2018, 06:52:40 PM
By the way, now that I'm finally at a computer that can access GMG regularly, I've finally read through the last 200ish posts of discussion that has erupted this week. It's at a consistently high level of civility, it's fascinating, and a great many posters contributed thought-provoking insights that will be sending me back to the music with reprogrammed ears. Thanks to those of you (not quite everyone, but close!) who have made this conversation so good and intelligent.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:48:20 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 01, 2018, 02:29:12 PM
Listening to Bach's music means loads of fun to me. I do not know of any (classical) music that makes me want to move around and dance more than his.

One man's treasure etc.  :D

Quote
You also might want to check out the North German late 17th century 'stylus phantasticus' works. It's wild, man. This evening I raised up to the church rooftops on Buxtehude's BuxWV 149 again. Yabba dabba doo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNYxXIRJ-mA

Thanks, listening right now. I'm not much of an organ guy, I'm afraid. Beside Haendel's Organ Concertos I can't name one single organ piece which I really like (not that I've listened to many). I like stylus fantasticus on violin, though, Biber and Schmelzer first and foremost, but the Italians were quite good at it as well. If you want something really wild try this:

Carlo Farina - Capriccio stravagante

https://www.youtube.com/v/-ux0yGwwWPs

It's extracted from a CD I reviewed here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21492.msg956897.html#msg956897 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21492.msg956897.html#msg956897)

The Buxtehude prelude just finished. I would really like to say I liked it, but I didn't. I didn't dislike it, either. It just did nothing for me. I'm truly sorry for such a negative feedback but can't help it.  :(  I'll give you, though, that hearing it live in a church might very well change my opinion for the better.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:52:45 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 01, 2018, 04:03:57 PM
CPE and Telemann are the only 2 actual 18th century German composers I like muchly.

Drat! I mentioned the godfather but forgot to mention to mention the godson. CPE Bach is a firm favorite of mine. And btw, you might have yourself forgotten someone. Guess who.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 02:23:01 AM
I would like to propose you all a little game. Here are two versions of the 2nd movement Andante cantabile from Tchaikovsky' String Quartet No. 1 in D major op. 11.

https://www.youtube.com/v/AkUhVDh3uQo

https://www.youtube.com/v/zl3ckjAgxqI

Please listen to them both and let us know which one do you like more (just that, without going into any explanations). Thanks for participating.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 02:39:39 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 01, 2018, 03:20:24 PM
Composition is an act of imagination.

Anyone who asserts that a composer could not possibly have conceived ideas about the performance of their music that were not possible at the time that they composed it, is limiting the composer's imagination in a way that is unlikely to reflect how composers actually think..

But no matter how much composers use their imagination, they can not see into the future. And we have no proof that the development of musical instruments corresponded in any way to the imagination of a given composer.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 02:45:53 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 02:23:01 AM
Please listen to them both and let us know which one do you like more (just that, without going into any explanations). Thanks for participating.

I on my part prefer no.2, but my experience with this kind of music is too limited to say which one is most in accordance with the composers style.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 02:50:00 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 01, 2018, 03:24:28 PM
I should also add that the Maasaki Suzuki set of Bach cantatas raises the possibility that Bach actually invented, or contributed to the invention of, some obscure instruments for the purposes of some of those cantatas, as they discuss what references to some unusual instruments in the score are actually supposed to be.

Don't just tell me what Bach did. Bach also dreamed.

Bach's scores of the sacred cantatas were made for the weekly performances, so without doubt Bach had existing instruments in mind and not instruments, which maybe might be constructed in the future.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 03:02:48 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 02:45:53 AM
I on my part prefer no.2

Thank you. If you don't mind, I'll wait for more responses (provided they come...  :D ) before expressing my thoughts.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 02:39:39 AM
But no matter how much composers use their imagination, they can not see into the future. And we have no proof that the development of musical instruments corresponded in any way to the imagination of a given composer.

In your opinion, what was the motivation behind the development of musical instruments?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 03:07:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:48:20 AM
The Buxtehude prelude just finished. I would really like to say I liked it, but I didn't. I didn't dislike it, either. It just did nothing for me. I'm truly sorry for such a negative feedback but can't help it.  :(  I'll give you, though, that hearing it live in a church might very well change my opinion for the better.


That's a good point. I am on my part almost sure that the fact that I have listened to lots of organ concertos live and also played the instrument myself is an important factor for me when it comes to the appreciation of the organ and its music. So I understand well that a listener who only knows the music from recordings feels a bit alienated in relation to it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 03:19:07 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 03:02:48 AM
Thank you. If you don't mind, I'll wait for more responses (provided they come...  :D ) before expressing my thoughts.

In your opinion, what was the motivation behind the development of musical instruments?

There were many reasons. In the last two centuries the wish for more volume was decisive, even if it affected the character of the instruments very much by changing the partials, and another reason was the wish for more finger friendly playing technique, which also became possible by the accept of equal tuning, which however changed the character of the modes completely.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 03:28:43 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 03:19:07 AM
There were many reasons. In the last two centuries the wish for more volume was decisive, even if it affected the character of the instruments very much by changing the partials, and another reason was the wish for more finger friendly playing technique, which also became possible by the accept of equal tuning, which however changed the character of the modes completely.

And whose wishes were those?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 03:56:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 03:28:43 AM
And whose wishes were those?


Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments, they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 02, 2018, 04:13:14 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 03:07:29 AM
That's a good point. I am on my part almost sure that the fact that I have listened to lots of organ concertos live and also played the instrument myself is an important factor for me when it comes to the appreciation of the organ and its music. So I understand well that a listener who only knows the music from recordings feels a bit alienated in relation to it.

Indeed.

Andrei, I do hope you can get to hear some Buxtehude in a church (or, of course, any concert space with a fine organ).  It's nigh unto a crime that such excellent music should do nothing for you!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 02, 2018, 04:15:01 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 03:56:19 AM
Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments, they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

There are practically always unintended consequences.  And once a horse is out of the barn, we may or may not be able to force it back in . . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:19:54 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 03:56:19 AM
Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments

What's so theoretical about it? You just said that composers wished for more volume and more player-friendly techniques. In my book this logically implies two things:

(1) that they expected technical developments to be made (for how could their wishes be met without them?), and in this respect I fail to see any substantial difference between "expecting them" and "foreseeing them";

and

(2) that had they lived long enough to see their wishes met by these technical developments they'd have welcome and used them (for to believe otherwise is to believe that they wished for something but would have objected to the means of getting that something).

AfaIk, there is evidence that those composers who actually witnessed the development of the instruments welcome it and willingly switched to the newer / newest ones (for instance Clementi --- who has actually been personally involved in the development --- Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin).


Quotethey could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

If they wished for more volume they surely had the clear idea that the instruments would sound louder.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:21:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 02, 2018, 04:13:14 AM
Andrei, I do hope you can get to hear some Buxtehude in a church (or, of course, any concert space with a fine organ). 

I will jump at every opportunity but alas!, I don't expect any to come my way any time soon.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 04:31:24 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 03:56:19 AM

Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments, they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

A truly major force you leave off your list is what we call today concert promoters. After 1800 mainly, public concert going became the norm rather than the rare exception, and the need for instruments which were above all loud was the driving force. Even with wind instruments, homogeneity was more or less forced upon the sound by designing to accommodate the need for loudness. In keyboards, it was the iron frame for the strings.

Some of it was also the desire to be able to use tone colors more effectively. I explained this to some degree in this essay about the trumpet concerto. (http://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/2017/08/1796-the-music-part-1-.html). Composers really wanted the sound of trumpets in the orchestra, but were only able to work them in if the key of the work was C or D or in some inner movement that could use those notes. That's why it was effectively excluded before 1820 when the valve trumpet came along. That wasn't serendipity, it was the result of at least 75 years of hard research.

In short, it is supply and demand which drove instrument development. The main demand, but not the only one, was being able to fill ever larger concert halls and make the paying customers happy. The supply became driven by the composers who took full advantage of the newe possibilities and pushed them to the limit. Then the limit changed, then the composers caught up. This continued throughout the 19th century. Instruments as we know them today were fairly effectively complete by the time the 20th century got here. They had their 2 main characteristics: loud and homogeneous.  :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 04:41:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:19:54 AM
What's so theoretical about it? You just said that composers wished for more volume and more player-friendly techniques. In my book this logically implies two things:

(1) that they expected technical developments to be made (for how could their wishes be met without them?), and in this respect I fail to see any substantial difference between "expecting them" and "foreseeing them";

and

(2) that had they lived long enough to see their wishes met by these technical developments they'd have welcome and used them (for to believe otherwise is to believe that they wished for something but would have objected to the means of getting that something).

AfaIk, there is evidence that those composers who actually witnessed the development of the instruments welcome it and willingly switched to the newer / newest ones (for instance Clementi --- who has actually been personally involved in the development --- Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin).


If they wished for more volume they surely had the clear idea that the instruments would sound louder.

Even if they desired all this, THAT DOESN'T MEAN that they wrote for it NOW!  There, I hope you're happy, you made me shout. Yes, if the sort of music they were writing was some that would take advantage of new capabilities, many composers certainly tried to exploit them. You should think of this though: Beethoven's keyboard sonatas weren't played on stage before an audience in his lifetime. That's important in shaping how you think about this. Other than in London, string quartets were never played in public. Why would I need steel strings and all the other accoutrements for generating volume when I am playing in your library? Haydn used new ways to get attention in Op 71 & 74 for the first time because he never needed them before. He didn't need them after either. They wrote for the conditions that prevailed at the time, not in some putative future state.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 04:44:47 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:19:54 AM
If they wished for more volume they surely had the clear idea that the instruments would sound louder.

Yes louder, but they could not foresee how the character of the sound would be.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:46:59 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 04:41:01 AM
Even if they desired all this, THAT DOESN'T MEAN that they wrote for it NOW!  There, I hope you're happy, you made me shout.

A beer might help cooling off.  :D

QuoteBeethoven's keyboard sonatas weren't played on stage before an audience in his lifetime. That's important in shaping how you think about this. Other than in London, string quartets were never played in public.

Then playing Beethoven's sonatas on stage before an audience is absolutely and utterly un-HIP, and so is playing Haydn's string quartets in public anywhere else than in London.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:50:01 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 04:44:47 AM
Yes louder, but they could not foresee how the character of the sound would be.

What do you mean by "the character of the sound"?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 04:54:37 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 04:31:24 AM
A truly major force you leave off your list is what we call today concert promoters.

Well I only hinted at those, in order not to make a too long post. But there is no reason to deny the commercial interests in these developments.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston
Some of it was also the desire to be able to use tone colors more effectively.

But my point is that the composers could not know to which degree the tone colors were to change. There is a reason why you and I prefer period instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 02, 2018, 04:57:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:21:08 AM
I will jump at every opportunity but alas!, I don't expect any to come my way any time soon.

Part of the problem of the organ being less portable than a clarinet  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 04:58:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:46:59 AM

Then playing Beethoven's sonatas on stage before an audience is absolutely and utterly un-HIP,


Yes, logically it is un-HIP to play Beethoven sonatas before a larger audience, because you will need to use a modern grand.  :)


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:59:13 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 04:58:03 AM
Yes, logically it is un-HIP to play Beethoven sonatas before a larger audience, because you will need to use a modern grand.  :)

A-ha!

What's your solution to this conundrum?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 05:00:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:50:01 AM
What do you mean by "the character of the sound"?


Should be clear. Listen e.g. to a violin with gut strings and one with steel strings. Do you not think the character of the sound is widely different?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 05:01:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 04:59:13 AM
A-ha!

What's your solution to this conundrum?


Period instruments and more intimate venues.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 05:04:43 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 05:01:05 AM
Period instruments and more intimate venues.

How many people in the audience?

And for recordings, what?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 05:15:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 05:04:43 AM
How many people in the audience?

No more than it remains possible for everybody to hear the period instrument clearly.

Quote from: Florestan
And for recordings, what?

Same argument, depends on the gear and the listening venue.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 05:45:09 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 05:15:35 AM
No more than it remains possible for everybody to hear the period instrument clearly.

Same argument, depends on the gear and the listening venue.

Let me see if I get this right. In the name of hearing the music as it must have been heard at the time of its first performance or shortly thereafter --- because that's what HIP boils down to --- what you essentially argue for is returning to a practice where listening to music is reserved to a happy few --- the aristocracy back then, the highest bidder today (for I can see no other way of selling 20 tickets for a concert which hundreds of people would like to attend).

And why stop half-way at the instruments and venues? How the music was originally heard depended on a lot of other factors. Why not asking, too and logically, for the music to be played by under-rehearsed (semi)proffessionals, oftenly mixed with, or replaced by, more or less profficient amateurs? Why not asking for candlelit, unheated rooms? Or consider this: in many cases the premiere of a work, which was its last public performance as well, was given by the composer himself --- since he is no more available, a consistently HIP approach would require that those works be not performed at all any more. Or: Haydn's keyboard sonatas were written mostly for amateur ladies; what business has Ronald Brautigam, a professional male, playing them?

As for recordings, given that even the most SOTA one distorts the sound, they are automatically un-HIP and should be prohibited.

Please, think about it and you'll see that all this is much less absurd than it seems --- it's actually the only too logical and inescapable consequence of pursuing the utopian ideal of hearing the music as it must have been heard back then. And bottom line, why is of such paramount importance that we hear it this way?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 02, 2018, 06:00:48 AM
A bit of conflation, here.  You've asked for his solution.  I do not recall his saying that his solution must serve everyone.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 02, 2018, 06:10:43 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 02:39:39 AM
But no matter how much composers use their imagination, they can not see into the future. And we have no proof that the development of musical instruments corresponded in any way to the imagination of a given composer.

This is perhaps true as a general principle, but there are in fact composers who expressed their views on what they were looking for, AND composers who actually participated in the development of musical instruments.

To stick with Bach, I seem to recall he did look at some early fortepianos but didn't think much of them.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 02, 2018, 06:13:30 AM
Also, while we're talking about Beethoven and pianos, didn't he have some connection to the expanded compass of the piano? His music went further into the extreme registers over time as pianos became available that could play those notes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 02, 2018, 06:23:42 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 02:50:00 AM
Bach's scores of the sacred cantatas were made for the weekly performances, so without doubt Bach had existing instruments in mind and not instruments, which maybe might be constructed in the future.

You misunderstand me on this point. The issue is that there are obscure references in Bach's scores to instruments that we don't know, at least not by those names. It's a distinct possibility that instruments were made for Bach for his purposes, that failed to catch on more widely and so didn't continue to be made.

I'd have to go back to look at the notes of the relevant volumes of the Maasaki Suzuki set to be certain, but I seem to remember them saying they actually constructed instruments for the purposes of those recordings, based on educated guesses about the instrument Bach had.   Which is all very well if you have the capacity to construct instruments. But it does raise a serious question when there's a strong emphasis on HIP: what are you supposed to do if the instrument no longer exists, or is extremely rare? Just stop playing the music?

I think people sometimes forget, in a world where recordings of Bach on harpsichord are now so readily available, that for a damn long time people weren't playing Bach on harpsichord because hardly anyone had a harpsichord. They're still not something people find in a home the way pianos can be found.

By contrast, I'm not sure if there are very many recordings of Schubert's Arpeggione sonata that are actually on an arpeggione, because hardly anyone has an arpeggione. I'm aware of one recording of Schumann's works for pedal piano that are in fact on a pedal piano. Most recordings of Ravel's Tzigane do not use a luthéal because people simply don't have luthéals.

People can only afford to be dogmatic about using the "right" instruments when those instruments are actually available.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 06:24:37 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 04:54:37 AM


Well I only hinted at those, in order not to make a too long post. But there is no reason to deny the commercial interests in these developments.

But my point is that the composers could not know to which degree the tone colors were to change. There is a reason why you and I prefer period instruments.

Unquestionably so. :) 

But specifically I meant being able to use previously unused instruments in the orchestra. That was another driving force, yes? And the unseen (but not unheard) side effect is that the brilliant sound of the trumpet was degraded by the valves. Nothing is free.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 06:28:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 05:45:09 AM
Let me see if I get this right. In the name of hearing the music as it must have been heard at the time of its first performance or shortly thereafter --- because that's what HIP boils down to -....

I find your conclusions a bit overdone. I am a HIP enthusiast, but not a fanatic. I prefer period instruments and informed playing, but all the non-musical circumstances (candlelight, unheated rooms, wigs et c.) are utterly irrelevant in a purely musical context.

And a recording and the listening situation is of course an abstraction, and in my view it never had the purpose to imitate any given historical situation, not the least because the listening takes place in your own living room, which has its own acoustical properties. I am fully satisfied, when the recording gives me a convincing sound picture of the instrument(s) used, and then the rest of the listening work takes place i my brain here and now, and not in an imagined past. When listening to music I concentrate upon the music, and this is why I am rather unenthusiastic about DVDs - even the sight of the pianists fingers may be to distracting. If I look at anything, when listening to music, it is the score. Else I prefer to close my eyes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 06:36:43 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 02, 2018, 06:13:30 AM
Also, while we're talking about Beethoven and pianos, didn't he have some connection to the expanded compass of the piano? His music went further into the extreme registers over time as pianos became available that could play those notes.


This is true, there have been composers, who participated in the development of instruments, but they could not - as I wrote above - know, how the end result would be. Beethoven is an ambiguous example, since he probably not even was able to hear the sound of the end result properly.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 06:39:23 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 06:24:37 AM
But specifically I meant being able to use previously unused instruments in the orchestra. That was another driving force, yes? And the unseen (but not unheard) side effect is that the brilliant sound of the trumpet was degraded by the valves. Nothing is free.

Yes.




Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 06:40:22 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 06:28:50 AM
I find your conclusions a bit overdone. I am a HIP enthusiast, but not a fanatic. I prefer period instruments and informed playing, but all the non-musical circumstances (candlelight, unheated rooms, wigs et c.) are utterly irrelevant in a purely musical context.

Yes, granted --- but under-rehearsed professionals and more or less profficient amateurs are not irrelevant --- in many (most?) cases they were the very vehicle by which the music was heard. It's like hearing an average college orchestra playing Eroica, as opposed to hearing it played by, say, Orchestre Revolutionnaire and Romantique. Would you like to address this point?

QuoteIf I look at anything, when listening to music, it is the score.

Would you say that the score is the most faithful, or maybe even the only one, representative of any given composer's wishes?

Oh, and I forgot: a truly HIP concert should last some 4 hours and feature symphonic, chamber and solo instrumental music interspersed with vocal pieces, and the movements of the symphonic works might not be played uninterruptedly. Do you agree?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 06:41:13 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 06:36:43 AM
Beethoven is an ambiguous example, since he probably not even was able to hear the sound of the end result properly.

That's actually a very good point.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 06:53:10 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 02, 2018, 06:23:42 AM
You misunderstand me on this point. The issue is that there are obscure references in Bach's scores to instruments that we don't know, at least not by those names. It's a distinct possibility that instruments were made for Bach for his purposes, that failed to catch on more widely and so didn't continue to be made.

I'd have to go back to look at the notes of the relevant volumes of the Maasaki Suzuki set to be certain, but I seem to remember them saying they actually constructed instruments for the purposes of those recordings, based on educated guesses about the instrument Bach had.   Which is all very well if you have the capacity to construct instruments. But it does raise a serious question when there's a strong emphasis on HIP: what are you supposed to do if the instrument no longer exists, or is extremely rare? Just stop playing the music?

I think people sometimes forget, in a world where recordings of Bach on harpsichord are now so readily available, that for a damn long time people weren't playing Bach on harpsichord because hardly anyone had a harpsichord. They're still not something people find in a home the way pianos can be found.

By contrast, I'm not sure if there are very many recordings of Schubert's Arpeggione sonata that are actually on an arpeggione, because hardly anyone has an arpeggione. I'm aware of one recording of Schumann's works for pedal piano that are in fact on a pedal piano. Most recordings of Ravel's Tzigane do not use a luthéal because people simply don't have luthéals.

People can only afford to be dogmatic about using the "right" instruments when those instruments are actually available.

I agree with all this. The instruments must have existed at Bach's time, but seem to have got out of use. And if we do not know exactly how they were made, we can only hope to make some which are somewhat similar. But all reconstruction of period instruments implies lots of compromises. Think of all these medieval instruments, where the basis for reconstruction first and foremost is iconographic evidence. I think this issue has been evident for all serious and informed instrument makers, musicians and music enthusiasts all the time, and that the worn out counterarguments only have been used by uninformed people.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 07:01:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 06:40:22 AM
Yes, granted --- but under-rehearsed professionals and more or less profficient amateurs are not irrelevant --- in many (most?) cases they were the very vehicle by which the music was heard. It's like hearing an average college orchestra playing Eroica, as opposed to hearing it played by, say, Orchestre Revolutionnaire and Romantique. Would you like to address this point?

Once more: I do not regard the imitation of some dubious premiere performances or other historical performances to be something to strive towards.

Quote from: Florestan
Would you say that the score is the most faithful, or maybe even the only one, representative of any given composer's wishes?

It is most often the only thing we have left about the composers wishes, and as such it is very important, but it needs usually much expertise to interpret it, both graphically and musically.

Quote from: Florestan
Oh, and I forgot: a truly HIP concert should last some 4 hours and feature symphonic, chamber and solo instrumental music interspersed with vocal pieces, and the movements of the symphonic works might not be played uninterruptedly. Do you agree?

And what then....? I listen to the music I want, and when I want.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 07:10:32 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 07:01:40 AM
Once more: I do not regard the imitation of some dubious premiere performances or other historical performances to be something to strive towards.

Quote
And what then....? I listen to the music I want, and when I want.

Fair enough. I might have asked some rather silly questions.

Quote
It is most often the only thing we have left about the composers wishes, and as such it is very important, but it needs usually much expertise to interpret it, both graphically and musically.

I agree. The reason I asked the question is that we are sometimes faced with the apparently paradoxical situation of the composers themselves taking liberties with their own scores, as recordings of Debussy, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev playing their own works attest. I tend to take this fact as hard evidence that even in the eyes of the composers themselves interpretation is more important than strict adherence to the score.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 08:08:25 AM
Interesting articles.

Did Bach hate pianos? (https://notanothermusichistorycliche.blogspot.com/2016/07/did-bach-hate-pianos.html)

nterpretation: A Case for a Broad Perspective (http://www.futuresymphony.org/interpretation-a-case-for-a-broad-perspective/)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM
By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP) I would like to have been more involved but I've been having a battle with a hose pipe all day. (automatic irrigation)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 08:27:41 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM
By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP)

Thanks.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:30:11 AM
That's Goehr.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 02, 2018, 08:36:00 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:30:11 AM
That's Goehr.

Daughter of composer Alexander Goehr, I believe.  I should read that book myself.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:46:06 AM
We should  have a study group here, take it chapter by chapter.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 09:14:46 AM
Florestan

Have you read Homer?

In Attic Greek?

Have you heard him recited, in Attic Greek?

Do you think certain aspects of the poems that might strike one in a recital might elude one reading a paperback, if one understood the Greek?

Am I arguing against translating Homer here?

(Actually, all these questions work better for English speakers in re Chaucer, mutatis mutandis)

I had a friend who taught himself old Italian to be able to read Dante. When he read Dante in Italian does he get a better grasp of Dante's poem than I do reading it in English?  This, rather than Karlo's Rembrandt, strikes me as the closest analogy to the rationale for HIP.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 09:45:01 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM
By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP) I would like to have been more involved but I've been having a battle with a hose pipe all day. (automatic irrigation)

If you say it is thought provoking and relevant, I shall acquire it.

I suppose you have drought in England, as we have here in my country.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:46:43 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 09:45:01 AM
If you say it is thought provoking and relevant, I shall acquire it.

I suppose you have drought in England, as we have here in my country.

Ni José pipe bans here yet, but there is a drought. The book is tough philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 10:02:58 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:46:43 AM
The book is tough philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition.


Then it depends upon whether you think I am able to digest it and eventually participate in a discussion with you and others about the content. I understand that it at least partially discusses criterions for the identity of a musical work. An interesting but also somewhat elusive topic.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 10:19:48 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 09:14:46 AM
Florestan

Have you read Homer?

In Attic Greek?

Have you heard him recited, in Attic Greek?

Do you think certain aspects of the poems that might strike one in a recital might elude one reading a paperback, if one understood the Greek?

Am I arguing against translating Homer here?

No, what you're actually arguing against is reading Homer in whatever language other than his Greek. The "HIP" approach is to hear Iliad recited in Homer's Greek.  ;D

Quote
I had a friend who taught himself old Italian to be able to read Dante. When he read Dante in Italian does he get a better grasp of Dante's poem than I do reading it in English?  This, rather than Karlo's Rembrandt, strikes me as the closest analogy to the rationale for HIP.

And it strikes me as equally false, for reasons I don't have time now to expand upon.   ;)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 10:21:43 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 10:02:58 AM
Then it depends upon whether you think I am able to digest it

Judge for yourself:

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3237358/mod_resource/content/1/Lydia%20Goehr_The%20Imaginary%20Museum%20of%20Musical%20Works.pdf (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3237358/mod_resource/content/1/Lydia%20Goehr_The%20Imaginary%20Museum%20of%20Musical%20Works.pdf)



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 10:56:23 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 10:21:43 AM
Judge for yourself:

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3237358/mod_resource/content/1/Lydia%20Goehr_The%20Imaginary%20Museum%20of%20Musical%20Works.pdf (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3237358/mod_resource/content/1/Lydia%20Goehr_The%20Imaginary%20Museum%20of%20Musical%20Works.pdf)


Thanks.

This looks like a heavy meal, and much too theoretical.
And already I have no sleeping problems.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 10:19:48 AM
No, what you're actually arguing against is reading Homer in whatever language other than his Greek. The "HIP" approach is to hear Iliad recited in Homer's Greek. ;D

This is also my impression.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 10:56:23 AM

Thanks.

This looks like a heavy meal, and much too theoretical.
And already I have no sleeping problems.

I went directly to the last chapter, the one about Werktreue but haven't finished it yet. Some interesting points but presented in a rather unfocused style. This is particularly thought-provoking: the canonization of music in the 19th century gave earlier composers that which they never had in their lifetime: carefully edited scores, multiple performances and eternal fame. (I tend to agree.)

I have a love-hate relationship with such books which often reminds me that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture". I mean, the ultimate meaning of music is to be found in listening to it, not in theorizing about it; as Hermann Scherchen once put it, "music should not be understood, it should be listened to." That is also why I have never had much use for music which is, or sounds like, the result of a purely intellectual construct / game devoid of anything even remotely resembling the feelings and thoughts of a flesh-and-blood human being.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 02, 2018, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 11:24:49 AMthe ultimate meaning of music is to be found in listening to it, not in theorizing about it; as Hermann Scherchen once put it, "music should not be understood, it should be listened to." That is also why I have never had much use for music which is, or sounds like, the result of a purely intellectual construct / game devoid of anything even remotely resembling the feelings and thoughts of a flesh-and-blood human being.

Agreed in full.

The purpose of any music writing should be to bring us closer to the aesthetic experience of the music (unless it is meant to serve as training or instruction for musicians/musicologists).

Also, the purpose of music is that aesthetic experience itself.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 02, 2018, 11:54:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:48:20 AM
One man's treasure etc.  :D

Thanks, listening right now. I'm not much of an organ guy, I'm afraid. Beside Haendel's Organ Concertos I can't name one single organ piece which I really like (not that I've listened to many). I like stylus fantasticus on violin, though, Biber and Schmelzer first and foremost, but the Italians were quite good at it as well. If you want something really wild try this:

Carlo Farina - Capriccio stravagante

https://www.youtube.com/v/-ux0yGwwWPs

It's extracted from a CD I reviewed here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21492.msg956897.html#msg956897 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21492.msg956897.html#msg956897)

Yeah, this is great. Fitting like a glove. I didn't think it was all that wild, but I immediately liked it. I just love 17th and 18th century music.

Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:48:20 AM
The Buxtehude prelude just finished. I would really like to say I liked it, but I didn't. I didn't dislike it, either. It just did nothing for me. I'm truly sorry for such a negative feedback but can't help it.  :(  I'll give you, though, that hearing it live in a church might very well change my opinion for the better.

Well, it was worth the try.
I love the (baroque) organ. But if there was ever an intrument that SHOULD ;) be listened to live...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
Quote from: André on August 01, 2018, 06:21:46 PM
Currently embarking on a listening spell of the complete Mozart sonatas on fortepiano played by Bart van Oort.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qxGsquWtL.jpg)


The instruments used are mostly Walter fortepianos contemporaneous with the music (1785, 1795 and 1800) rebuilt/restored 1995-2002. Van Oort makes sure to explain the HIP logic and thought that went into the recordings (2004-2005). Extensive notes on the instruments and playing techniques, as well as on the music - 15 pages of densely packed notes in English only - no pics, no musical examples, just words. The HIP credentials of the enterprise seem totally kosher.

So, in all likelihood this is the real thing, as far as playing on a viennese fortepiano of the time can bring us to the sounds and keyboard mechanics available to Mozart in his time. It goes without saying that both instrument and piano playing are as different as could be from what Arrau, Brendel, Uchida, Gilels, Katin or Kraus offer us on their piano grands. I'm happy to have both POVs available in highly proficient and sensitive accounts from all these artists.

Not a fan, not that anyone cares.   $:)

Although I prefer PI recordings of most early music, the one exception is solo keyboard music.  I have come close to detesting the sound of a fortepiano.  This confession comes years after forcing myself to purchase and repeatedly listen to Brautigam, Schornshieim, Beghin and all the others playing Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert on period instruments.

Baroque music fares somewhat better since many harpsichord recordings are mellow enough for me, but others are too strident and I easily grow tired of the sound.

Consequently I now prefer solo music from the Classical period on piano. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 10:59:50 AM
This is also my impression.

Then you and Andrei are guilty of the worst kind of intellectual laziness. You both assume that since I am asking questions I can only be doing so under false pretenses, to smuggle in an opinion that you think, based on nothing, that you know. So much easier than thinking about the questions, or imagining there could be other reasons for them.

So let me state it plainly. I think reading Chaucer in modern English is legitimate and makes sense. That is why I have done so. I also think my reading of him was enhanced by reading large chunks of him untranslated. This is not because some mythical legitimacy descended upon me, but because I could see aspects of the poem that I could not before.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:18:22 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
Not a fan, not that anyone cares.   $:)

Although I prefer PI recordings of most early music, the one exception is solo keyboard music.  I have come close to detesting the sound of a fortepiano.  This confession comes years after forcing myself to purchase and repeatedly listen to Brautigam, Schornshieim, Beghin and all the others playing Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert on period instruments.

Baroque music fares somewhat better since many harpsichord recordings are mellow enough for me, but others are too strident and I easily grow tired of the sound.

Consequently I now prefer solo music from the Classical period on piano.

Have you heard Stockhausen on the original Sikorsky? Makes all the difference.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 02, 2018, 11:47:49 AM
the purpose of music is that aesthetic experience itself.

Bach strongly disagreed.  :D

Und soll wie aller Musik also auch des Generalbasses Finis und Endursache anders nicht als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemütes sein. Wo dieses nicht in acht genommen wird, ists keine eigentliche Musik, sondern ein Teuflisches Geplerr und Geleier.

I quoted the original German not out of snobbery but because the point has beeen made here that somehow translations are not the best way of understanding the true meaning of what is said.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 12:23:41 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:18:22 PM
Have you heard Stockhausen on the original Sikorsky? Makes all the difference.

I think you are joking, but there is an issue of electronic music from the mid-20th century which is becoming increasingly impossible to play since the technology it was written for is either unavailable or unreliable.  People have resorted to attempting to re-create it using modern software synthesizers.

Something of an odd version of the PI question.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Then you and Andrei are guilty of the worst kind of intellectual laziness.

Nobody's perfect.

QuoteYou both assume that since I am asking questions I can only be doing so under false pretenses, to smuggle in an opinion that you think, based on nothing, that you know. So much easier than thinking about the questions, or imagining there could be other reasons for them.

Please go back to my reply, notice that I have used two emoticons, namely  ;D and  ;) and think hard about why I put them there.

Talk about intellectual laziness...

:laugh:

Oh, and I am offended by you underestimating me: "mythical legitimacy", good grief, what language...  :P
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 12:28:25 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
Not a fan, not that anyone cares.   $:)

Although I prefer PI recordings of most early music, the one exception is solo keyboard music.  I have come close to detesting the sound of a fortepiano.  This confession comes years after forcing myself to purchase and repeatedly listen to Brautigam, Schornshieim, Beghin and all the others playing Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert on period instruments.

Baroque music fares somewhat better since many harpsichord recordings are mellow enough for me, but others are too strident and I easily grow tired of the sound.

Consequently I now prefer solo music from the Classical period on piano.


I have experienced exactly the opposite. Finding Mozart's sonatas and Haydn's early piano works too thin in texture for a modern grand, at least when played by the usual suspects, I focused upon the fortepiano and found that this instrument fills the thin texture out in an ideal way, and I have to come to love the sound of it, and now I have come also to prefer fortepiano for Beethoven, even if I think Beethoven stands a modern grand rendering much better than Mozart. Brautigam however is an exception, His aggressive and unsubtle playing does not fit Mozart and not even always Beethoven IMO. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:14:40 PM

This is not because some mythical legitimacy descended upon me, but because I could see aspects of the poem that I could not before.

Given the analogy, I think Andrei's idea is that you can see aspects of the poem when it's put in modern English which were unavailable to Chaucer himself. Possibly more contemporary aspects.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 02, 2018, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 02, 2018, 11:47:49 AM
[...] the purpose of music is that aesthetic experience itself.

Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
Bach strongly disagreed.  :D

Und soll wie aller Musik also auch des Generalbasses Finis und Endursache anders nicht als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemütes sein. Wo dieses nicht in acht genommen wird, ists keine eigentliche Musik, sondern ein Teuflisches Geplerr und Geleier.

Recreation des Gemütes kann aber sehr gut zusammen gehen met einer aesthetic experience.

Neulich I sat on a terrace als eine aesthetically beautiful lady vorbei ging. I sighed deeply und mein Gemüt wurde sehr rekreirt.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
Bach strongly disagreed.  :D

Und soll wie aller Musik also auch des Generalbasses Finis und Endursache anders nicht als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemütes sein. Wo dieses nicht in acht genommen wird, ists keine eigentliche Musik, sondern ein Teuflisches Geplerr und Geleier.

I quoted the original German not out of snobbery but because the point has beeen made here that somehow translations are not the best way of understanding the true meaning of what is said.  :D

Sometimes translations are so complex that they're hardly helpful. I remember a class I did at university on Aristotle's. Ethics, and the thing rapidly turned on the word σωφροσύνη, a concept which is really hard to explain, but it's clear that in C5 Athens it was current.

The relation to music. Well, with all due respect to Hewitt and Van Delft, I suppose playing the something fast and brilliant like the toccata from the 6th partita on a piano or a clavichord is a bit like a translation, maybe an impossible one, at least, it's not obvious you can do it. You just end up with something a parody.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 12:28:25 PM
I have experienced exactly the opposite. Finding Mozart's sonatas and Haydn's early piano works too thin in texture for a modern grand, at least when played by the usual suspects, I focused upon the fortepiano and found that this instrument fills the thin texture out in an ideal way, and I have to come to love the sound of it, and now I have come also to prefer fortepiano for Beethoven, even if I think Beethoven stands a modern grand rendering much better than Mozart. Brautigam however is an exception, His aggressive and unsubtle playing does not fit Mozart and not even always Beethoven IMO.

I have heard those explanations, and gave it a serious effort, as I said earlier.  Brendel's Haydn set (incomplete but representative) is the one I turn to most often; I've been listening to Fazil Say's Mozart and enjoying it (although I usually don't like his recordings), but Uchida is my regular go-to set, but there are others I also enjoy, e.g. Pires and Larrocha.  My first set of Mozart was the old Eschenbach LPs.  I still listen to it, but CDs now.   There are too many Beethoven and Schubert recordings to mention.

However, gut stringed quartets are my favorite for that music, and I really like old bows and gut strings on Bach solo string music.  And small PI orchestras for the symphonic works, as well as modern groups playing with HIP style.

But it is earlier vocal music that is my primary focus, prior to Bach, so the choice of instrument issue doesn't come up. The HIP concerns are about the ensemble size and overall stylistic issues.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:43:40 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2018, 12:38:39 PM
Recreation des Gemütes kann aber sehr gut zusammen gehen met einer aesthetic experience.

Neulich I sat on a terrace als eine aesthetically beautiful lady vorbei ging. I sighed deeply und mein Gemüt wurde sehr rekreirt.

Witty! Bravo!  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 02, 2018, 12:48:24 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:43:40 PM
Witty! Bravo!  8)

Und, wäre ich religiös, I would have praised the Lord. 0:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 12:54:53 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
So let me state it plainly. I think reading Chaucer in modern English is legitimate and makes sense. That is why I have done so. I also think my reading of him was enhanced by reading large chunks of him untranslated. This is not because some mythical legitimacy descended upon me, but because I could see aspects of the poem that I could not before.

I suppose you used the analogy original lamguage versus translation to illustrate the relation original instrument and informed performance versus modern instrument and less informed performance. And I agree that this analogi is better than the Rembrandt one. Well, you didn't make your own preference more clear, than both Andrei and I got it wrong, but this is of secondary importance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 12:18:22 PM
Have you heard Stockhausen on the original Sikorsky? Makes all the difference.


Or 4'33'' in the original setup.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 02, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
Bach strongly disagreed.  :D

Okay, so...?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2018, 12:38:39 PM
Recreation des Gemütes kann aber sehr gut zusammen gehen met einer aesthetic experience.

Neulich I sat on a terrace als eine aesthetically beautiful lady vorbei ging. I sighed deeply und mein Gemüt wurde sehr rekreirt.

Ja, welche mutige Bursche hat nicht die gleichen Erfahrungen gemacht?

Lob sei Gott.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 02, 2018, 03:26:27 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 12:52:45 AM
Drat! I mentioned the godfather but forgot to mention to mention the godson. CPE Bach is a firm favorite of mine. And btw, you might have yourself forgotten someone. Guess who.  :D

Well, he IS a Bonn-Boy, but you know, it's hard not to think of him as Viennese.  ;)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 06:42:36 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 12:31:51 PM
Given the analogy, I think Andrei's idea is that you can see aspects of the poem when it's put in modern English which were unavailable to Chaucer himself. Possibly more contemporary aspects.
That's certainly true. And it's a good reason for not insisting on HIP is valid. But I don't. My concern isn't whether all approaches are valid — they are — but what is the rationale for HIP in the first place.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:20:08 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 06:42:36 PM
That's certainly true. And it's a good reason for not insisting on HIP is valid. But I don't. My concern isn't whether all approaches are valid — they are — but what is the rationale for HIP in the first place.

If it is true that aspects of the music may be revealed only on a modern instrument, it shows independent the music is of the composer's intentions.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2018, 06:42:36 PM
That's certainly true. And it's a good reason for not insisting on HIP is valid. But I don't. My concern isn't whether all approaches are valid — they are — but what is the rationale for HIP in the first place.

As I've said before, I enjoy many HIP/PI performances/recordings, but not because they are historically "correct".  I enjoy them because I like the way the instruments sound.  But if I don't like how the instruments sound, as is the case with a fortepiano, then no amount of information as to how historically accurate the instrument may be for the period will cause me to like the recording more.

As it is for all music I listen to, what I enjoy is directly related to how it sounds with little interest in historical or biographical information associated with the music.

But I guess for others historical concerns are important.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:33:06 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:20:08 PM
If it is true that aspects of the music may be revealed only on a modern instrument, it shows independent the music is of the composer's intentions.

The music is independent of the composer's intentions as soon as someone other than the composer performs it.  The music has a life of its own completely separate from the composer, and the composer's intentions are merely one among an infinite number of other intentions concerning how the music should go.

Slavishly trying to capture a composer's intentions does not equal a rewarding performance.  It might, but then again, going a way not intended or anticipated by the composer might render a greater performance.  One the composer might enjoy more than his intended version.

Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on August 02, 2018, 09:13:51 PM
For one example, it's historically inaccurate to expect performers who are not the composer to perform exactly what the composer wanted (at least for all instrumental music composed after, say, 1791, and all operatic music composed after, say, 1845). Beethoven was the first composer to actually get mad at people who added their own ornamentation and improvisation—prior to that doing so was pretty much expected. So it's arguably much more of a distortion to hear a Mozart sonata or Bach partita or Rossini aria exactly as Mozart or Bach or Rossini wrote it than as ornamented by the performer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
When I say something, what I mean is independent of my intentions. The speaker does not create the meaning of the expressions, it's the way the community of speakers responds to the words which make the utterance meaningful (this is Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument)

If I say "snow is white" and someone interprets my utterance as meaning that snow is grey, that would be a false interpretation, a parody of what I said. Mutatis mutandis if someone interprets the Goldberg Variations on a piano. Or, more interestingly, a baroque fugue on an instrument (like a modern piano) with a muddy mid range.

Re amw's point about ornamentation, I suppose a pianist like Schiff sees dynamic variation as a bit like ornamentation - something he can do at his discretion. That's why I was interested to find out what clavichord manuals (or indeed lute, violin, viol) said about dynamics - were dynamics normally at the performer's discretion, like rubato and ornamentation?



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:33:06 PM
Slavishly trying to capture a composer's intentions does not equal a rewarding performance.  It might, but then again, going a way not intended or anticipated by the composer might render a greater performance.  One the composer might enjoy more than his intended version.

It is logical that a performance on a harpsichord probably will display more of Bach's aesthetics and intensions than a performance on a modern grand, but of course it is no guarantee - everything depends on the performer. And of course a performance on a modern grand may reveal new aspects not included in Bach's intensions -  everything still depends on the performer. But there is a great risk, that these "new" aspects are uninteresting at best and irrelevant at worst. This also corresponds to my experience. I think the great popularity of the piano for Bach's keyboard works has more to do with the fact, that listeners still nowadays are more familiar with piano sound and piano aesthetics (read Romantic aesthetics) than to harpsichord sound, and as such it depends on circumstances, which in Bach's case has nothing to do with the music in question. But it is indeed possible to go back in time mentally and familiarize oneself with the harpsichord. An early pianoforte as Bach knew it might be a satisfying solution for some of his later harpsichord music, because the pianoforte with its rich spectrum of partials resembles a harpsichord more than a modern grand does.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 09:48:29 PM
Quote from: amw on August 02, 2018, 09:13:51 PM
For one example, it's historically inaccurate to expect performers who are not the composer to perform exactly what the composer wanted (at least for all instrumental music composed after, say, 1791, and all operatic music composed after, say, 1845). Beethoven was the first composer to actually get mad at people who added their own ornamentation and improvisation—prior to that doing so was pretty much expected. So it's arguably much more of a distortion to hear a Mozart sonata or Bach partita or Rossini aria exactly as Mozart or Bach or Rossini wrote it than as ornamented by the performer.

Many HIP performers of Baroque music add their own ornamentation and are in this way obeying the composers expectations, while many non-HIP pianists just play the plain music without added ornamentation. "Instead" they add their dynamic variations, which may be completely irrelevant (e.g. Kempff's Goldbergs).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 09:54:16 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
Re amw's point about ornamentation, I suppose a pianist like Schiff sees dynamic variation as a bit like ornamentation - something he can do at his discretion. That's why I was interested to find out what clavichord manuals (or indeed lute, violin, viol) said about dynamics - were dynamics normally at the performer's discretion, like rubato and ornamentation?

Even if a modest dynamic variation was part of clavichord aesthetics, this does not imply that it was a "shadow-part" of harpsichord- and organ aesthetics.

Bach is reported to have played the violin "loud and clear" (I think it is Forkel). This may be interpreted as if he used only a little dynamic variation - or nothing at all.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:55:52 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:33:06 PM
The music is independent of the composer's intentions as soon as someone other than the composer performs it.  The music has a life of its own completely separate from the composer, and the composer's intentions are merely one among an infinite number of other intentions concerning how the music should go.

Slavishly trying to capture a composer's intentions does not equal a rewarding performance.  It might, but then again, going a way not intended or anticipated by the composer might render a greater performance.  One the composer might enjoy more than his intended version.

Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.

Here's an argument to show that some music is better played on a harpsichord than on an early Italian organ, notice how he uses the composers' intentions as expressed in the score


Quote from: Glen Wilson here https://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.572998&catNum=572998&filetype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English#but there is one more objection to performance of Cavazzoni and other ricercarists on organs. The way the ranks of the Italian church organ are built up weighs them heavily to the treble. There are no mixtures to balance the bass (although smaller registers break back when their pipes become too small). Large organs even sometimes have additional ranks of principal pipes in the discant. . . .  Recordings, as well as my own experiences as performer and listener, confirm that lower contrapuntal voices come through poorly. This, however, is a general problem with all big organs, as noted by Arnold Schlick in his Spiegel as early as 1511, which the Germans tried to solve by adding independent pedal divisions. It is no problem at all on the harpsichord, which is why I, for one, will always prefer it for polyphony. In addition to this difficulty, there are many passages in Cavazzoni's ricercars where all the voices cluster in the lower range. These are reduced to mud on any organ.

Look at what's going on.

1. We have a score
2. We think we understand the normal conventions about what that score means
3. We can see, in the light of 2, that a certain sort of texture of sound is best for interpreting the score in music
4. We know that some instruments are better at this texture than others

Of course, you're free to play a Willaert ricercar on a piano, and you're free to like it. But that's not the point. What would be interesting is if someone said (like Andrei) that playing it on a piano or Italian organ or whatever revealed things about the music which were obscured by the harpsichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on August 02, 2018, 10:11:40 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 09:48:29 PM
Many HIP performers of Baroque music add their own ornamentation and are in this way obeying the composers expectations, while many non-HIP pianists just play the plain music without added ornamentation. "Instead" they add their dynamic variations, which may be completely irrelevant (e.g. Kempff's Goldbergs).
I wasn't trying to make a point in favour of or against HIP performers here, just noting that ornamentation is something rarely mentioned & sometimes taken exception to when it appears (eg I remember some people having objections to Robert Levin's Mozart sonatas because of the ornamentation).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 10:46:35 PM
Quote from: amw on August 02, 2018, 09:13:51 PM
For one example, it's historically inaccurate to expect performers who are not the composer to perform exactly what the composer wanted (at least for all instrumental music composed after, say, 1791, and all operatic music composed after, say, 1845). Beethoven was the first composer to actually get mad at people who added their own ornamentation and improvisation—prior to that doing so was pretty much expected. So it's arguably much more of a distortion to hear a Mozart sonata or Bach partita or Rossini aria exactly as Mozart or Bach or Rossini wrote it than as ornamented by the performer.

Maybe the piano made creative ornamentation go out of style, just because there are other, easier, things you can do to embellish the music -- dynamics, tone colour etc. Also the piano developed at a time when the performer's intervention was becoming less trusted -- you see it with fully written out cadenzas.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 10:48:12 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:55:52 PM
Here's an argument to show that some music is better played on a harpsichord than on an early Italian organ, notice how he uses the composers' intentions as expressed in the score

Maybe there is a tendency to intellectualize the counterpoint too much. How clearly did Renaissance composers want their polyphony to be heard, and how educated were the listeners? We know too little about this. In a church, where the organs are, we will meet a large number of less educated listeners. And did Cavazzoni really want all his counterpoint to be unambiguously perceived by the listener, or was it more about the wholeness of the work? Like a Gothic cathedral where you quickly lose the overview, if you look at the individual stones. Even when I listen to a Bach fugue I do not perceive every little contrapuntal detail.This would make the listening proces insurmountable.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 11:20:05 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 10:48:12 PM
Maybe there is a tendency to intellectualize the counterpoint too much. How clearly did Renaissance composers want their polyphony to be heard, and how educated were the listeners? We know too little about this. In a church, where the organs are, we will meet a large number of less educated listeners. And did Cavazzoni really want all his counterpoint to be unambiguously perceived by the listener, or was it more about the wholeness of the work? Like a Gothic cathedral where you quickly lose the overview, if you look at the individual stones. Even when I listen to a Bach fugue I do not perceive every little contrapuntal detail.This would make the listening proces insurmountable.

Notice though that the argument isn't



Cavazzoni wanted them played like this

and

A harpsichord can achieve it better than an organ

hence

use a harpsichord

It's not a HIP argument. It's an argument from a feature of the score, i.e. its polyphony and, I guess, the polyophony being an essential feature. How Cavazzoni envisaged it would in fact be played, or what his audience expected or enjoyed, is not strictly part of Glen Wilson's argument. I imagine that Glen Wilson wouldn't object to playing the ricerari on German organs.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 02, 2018, 11:39:13 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 11:20:05 PM
Notice though that the argument isn't



Cavazzoni wanted them played like this

and

A harpsichord can achieve it better than an organ

hence

use a harpsichord

It's not a HIP argument. It's an argument from a feature of the score, i.e. its polyphony and, I guess, the polyophony being an essential feature. How Cavazzoni envisaged it would in fact be played, or what his audience expected or enjoyed, is not strictly part of Glen Wilson's argument. I imagine that Glen Wilson wouldn't object to playing the ricerari on German organs.


No, the argument is (a bit circular): I, Glen Wilson, want the ricercari played, in a way that makes the polyphony stand out. This is why I use the harpsichord, which does this better than the old Italian organs.

But given the properties of these old Italian organs, I just wondered, how much the composer intended the polyphony to stand out. Not that we ever shall know.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on August 03, 2018, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 10:46:35 PM
Maybe the piano made creative ornamentation go out of style, just because there are other, easier, things you can do to embellish the music -- dynamics, tone colour etc. Also the piano developed at a time when the performer's intervention was becoming less trusted -- you see it with fully written out cadenzas.
I mean a large part was the rise of public performance and pianist-composers wanting to immortalise their exploits and/or make them notatable for their students to learn from. Certainly this looks very much more impressive and intimidating than an unornamented version, even if it's basically more or less what a pianist of the same period would play when ornamenting any Beethoven or Mozart piano concerto.

(https://i.imgur.com/GrIfs2U.png)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:13:02 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 02, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
Okay, so...?

So nothing, just a joke. Why are you so serious all the time?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:23:28 PM
As I've said before, I enjoy many HIP/PI performances/recordings, but not because they are historically "correct".  I enjoy them because I like the way the instruments sound.  But if I don't like how the instruments sound, as is the case with a fortepiano, then no amount of information as to how historically accurate the instrument may be for the period will cause me to like the recording more.

My thoughts exactly. I usually have no problems listening to HIP performances of orchestral or chamber music, or (some) fortepianos. It's the sound of the harpsichord that give me headache.

Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:33:06 PM
The music is independent of the composer's intentions as soon as someone other than the composer performs it.  The music has a life of its own completely separate from the composer, and the composer's intentions are merely one among an infinite number of other intentions concerning how the music should go.

Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.

This, which can be see most clearly in recordings of Debussy, Rachmaninoff or Prokofiev playing their own works and taking many liberties with their own scores. Furthermore: George Copeland was regarded by Debussy as the best intepreter of his piano music yet he too departed from the score; when Debussy asked him why he played the beginning of some piece the way he played, Copeland replied "I feel it this way" to which Debussy responded "Well, I feel it differently, but by all means go on playing your way".



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:53:35 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:55:52 PM
What would be interesting is if someone said (like Andrei) that playing it on a piano [...] revealed things about the music which were obscured by the harpsichord.

Well, for me the piano reveals first and foremost the music itself. I really have a hard time following melodic and bass lines on a harpsichord, to my ears it's all a muddy "plink selon plonk" without any structure or continuity. Play the same piece on the piano and everything becomes crystal clear: the melody, the bass, the voices are distinct and I can follow them.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 09:37:12 PM
I think the great popularity of the piano for Bach's keyboard works has more to do with the fact, that listeners still nowadays are more familiar with piano sound and piano aesthetics (read Romantic aesthetics) than to harpsichord sound

That is obviously true but there is a reason (actually, many reasons) for why the harpsichord has been abandoned as a viable instrument from the very early 1800s until the 1930s and also for why the Romantic piano aesthetics has been so hugely popular for the last two centuries. Trying to bring the harpsichord back to the forefront again is like trying to revert the time arrow (pace Gurn)

Quote
But it is indeed possible to go back in time mentally and familiarize oneself with the harpsichord. An early pianoforte as Bach knew it might be a satisfying solution for some of his later harpsichord music, because the pianoforte with its rich spectrum of partials resembles a harpsichord more than a modern grand does.

Only for those who consider Bach on the piano a problem. I don't.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 03, 2018, 01:00:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
My thoughts exactly. I usually have no problems listening to HIP performances of orchestral or chamber music, or (some) fortepianos. It's the sound of the harpsichord that give me headache.

Now we have arrived at the core of the issue....  :D

The density of harpsichord music can be off puting at first.
But the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines.
The rewards are great....

On the piano the instrument and the performer does the job for you, by adding different dynamics to the various musical lines.
Which basically destroys (a distinctive part of) the original effect

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 01:18:56 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 01:00:48 AM
The density of harpsichord music can be off puting at first.
But the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines.
The rewards or great....

Possibly, even probably. Nay, certainly. But I repeat: my approach to music is far from an intellectual / intellectualist one. I fully subscribe to Debussy's dictum that "There are no rules. Pleasure is the law". If I don't enjoy what I hear no amount of historical research or theoretical analysis will convince me that I should actually enjoy it or that I should be spending my time trying my best to enjoy it, especially when there is already a way by which I can enjoy it.

My whole point is simple: HIP is perfectly all right as one of the many legitimate approaches to the music of the past and emphatically not all right when presented as the only legitimate one.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 01:31:44 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:23:28 PM
As I've said before, I enjoy many HIP/PI performances/recordings, but not because they are historically "correct".  I enjoy them because I like the way the instruments sound.

Yes.

Quote from: San Antone on August 02, 2018, 08:33:06 PM
Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.

Yes, again.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
When I say something, what I mean is independent of my intentions.

Oh.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:35:20 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:53:35 AM
That is obviously true but there is a reason (actually, many reasons) for why the harpsichord has been abandoned as a viable instrument from the very early 1800s until the 1930s and also for why the Romantic piano aesthetics has been so hugely popular for the last two centuries. Trying to bring the harpsichord back to the forefront again is like trying to revert the time arrow (pace Gurn)


I rather think it is the Romantic aesthetics in the widest sense which have made the grand piano so popular, but as you know: Fashions change, and in some future the situation may be the opposite.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 01:35:56 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 01:00:48 AM
Now we have arrived at the core of the issue....  :D

The density of harpsichord music can be off puting at first.
But the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines.
The rewards or great....

On the piano the instrument and the performer does the job for you, by adding different dynamics to the various musical lines.
Which basically destroys (a distinctive part of) the original effect

Q

I used (long ago, by now) not to be able to listen to recorded harpsichord music for more than 10 minutes.

That began to change when I made friends with a harpsichordist;  my ears learnt how to listen to the instrument.  Now I could almost listen to nothing but harpsichord solo music for a week.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:41:32 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
When I say something, what I mean is independent of my intentions. The speaker does not create the meaning of the expressions, it's the way the community of speakers responds to the words which make the utterance meaningful (this is Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument)

So you don't intend to say, what you mean?? Do you really mean that?




Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:57:47 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 01:41:32 AM
So you don't intend to say, what you mean?? Do you really mean that?

No, what I mean is, I succeed in saying something because I'm part of a community of speakers. It's the whole community which makes the words mean what they do, not my intention. It's not me and my intention which  makes "snow" mean snow and "white" mean white.

There's another model, where the speaker decides that "snow" means snow, by a sort of internal private act of definition, a private mental naming. That's the model of meaning which I'm opposing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 03, 2018, 02:03:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 01:18:56 AM
"There are no rules. Pleasure is the law". If I don't enjoy what I hear no amount of historical research or theoretical analysis will convince me that I should actually enjoy it or that I should be spending my time trying my best to enjoy it, especially when there is already a way by which I can enjoy it.

Absolutely, musical enjoyment comes and everybody is free in his/her way to achieve that.

All I'm saying is that the harpsichord offers a different, and very rewarding, way to enjoy this music that you are currently missing out on. Which, aside from theoretical " correctness"  happens to be the kind of musical experience that harpsichord music was created for...  8)

But then again, what you don't know, you can't miss...
And if you are happy with the way you enjoy the music now,  good on you...  :)

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 02:20:50 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 02:03:03 AM
Absolutely, musical enjoyment comes and everybody is free in his/her way to achieve that.

All I'm saying is that the harpsichord offers a different, and very rewarding, way to enjoy this music that you are currently missing out on. Which, aside from theoretical " correctness"  happens to be the kind of musical experience that harpsichord music was created for...  8)

But then again, what you don't know, you can't miss...
And if you are happy with the way you enjoy the music now,  good on you...  :)

Q

Your argument is the similar to ones I have heard from religious proselytizers, i.e. you are missing out on so much by not having my kind of faith.   ;)

Small doses is how I listen to the harpsichord.  But the fortepiano just rankles my brain.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 02:27:12 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:57:47 AM
No, what I mean is, I succeed in saying something because I'm part of a community of speakers. It's the whole community which makes the words mean what they do, not my intention. It's not me and my intention which  makes "snow" mean snow and "white" mean white.

But when you say something you use words in the meaning which are defined by the community, aimed at expressing the meaning you intended. If you don't know the precise meaning of a word, you may risk to say something unintended.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 02:29:58 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 02:27:12 AM
But when you say something you use words in the meaning which are defined by the community, aimed at expressing the meaning you intended. If you don't know the precise meaning of a word, you may risk to say something unintended.

Correct -- at least if I understand you correctly.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 02:33:52 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 02:29:58 AM
Correct


OK, I often understand things better, when I have put them into words myself.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 02:48:38 AM
I think there are problems when language/speech is compared to music.  "My cat is black" is easily understood by anyone with a command of the English language.  However, what does Beethoven Piano Sonata no. 29 mean?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 03, 2018, 03:22:56 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
When I say something, what I mean is independent of my intentions.

Nope.

Not unless you misuse the word "independent". Which, given what you are arguing, is truly ironic.

"Independent of" is not a synonym for "different from".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:28:14 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 02:48:38 AM
I think there are problems when language/speech is compared to music.  "My cat is black" is easily understood by anyone with a command of the English language.  However, what does Beethoven Piano Sonata no. 29 mean?

The question isn't what Beethoven Piano Sonata no. 29 means, it's what the score of the hammerklavier means. How to interpret  those signs as sounds.

That's why these things are fundamental. HIP is a principle for the interpretation of scores,
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:28:52 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 03, 2018, 03:22:56 AM
Nope.

Not unless you misuse the word "independent". Which, given what you are arguing, is truly ironic.

"Independent of" is not a synonym for "different from".

Yes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 03, 2018, 03:33:16 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:28:52 AM
Yes.

Asparagus vehicle in dancing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:34:39 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:28:14 AM
The question isn't what Beethoven Piano Sonata no. 29 means, it's what the score of the hammerklavier means. How to interpret  those signs as sounds.

That's why these things are fundamental. HIP is a principle for the interpretation of scores,

Even so, the score is far more imprecise than a spoken or written language.  There is a wide variety in how different performers will interpret a crescendo or pp marking, as opposed to a sentence like "my cat is black."  This is also ignoring the fact than many scores have no expressive markings.  But no one simply plays the notes without expression.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 03:35:06 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 02:48:38 AM
I think there are problems when language/speech is compared to music.  "My cat is black" is easily understood by anyone with a command of the English language.  However, what does Beethoven Piano Sonata no. 29 mean?


When music is compared to speech, it is particularly the phrasing and articulation (and affect)which are compared. I do not think it makes sense to compare any (intended or unintended) "meaning".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:36:13 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:34:39 AM
Even so, the score is far more imprecise than a spoken or written language.  There is a wide variety in how different performers will interpret a crescendo or pp marking, as opposed to a sentence like "my cat is black."

The score is imprecise, some aspects more precise than others. I don't know about more imprecise than natural language, I'd have to think about it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 03:39:13 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 03:35:06 AM
When music is compared to speech, it is particularly the phrasing and articulation (and affect)which are compared. I do not think it makes sense to compare any (intended or unintended) "meaning".

Hear, hear.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 03:41:14 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:34:39 AM
Even so, the score is far more imprecise than a spoken or written language.  There is a wide variety in how different performers will interpret a crescendo or pp marking, as opposed to a sentence like "my cat is black."  This is also ignoring the fact than many scores have no expressive markings.  But no one simply plays the notes without expression.

All true.  And the question arises, if music is (supposedly) a "universal language"—who is doing the speaking?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:44:47 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 03:35:06 AM

When music is compared to speech, it is particularly the phrasing and articulation (and affect)which are compared. I do not think it makes sense to compare any (intended or unintended) "meaning".

Yes, I'm not comparing music to speech like Harnoncourt here. I'm just saying that the elements of the score have a meaning in the sense that they refer to certain types of sounds, more or less precisely. And that reference functions in a way analogous to the way reference works in natural language.

A triplet in an early music  score means what it means because of the way the community of musicians agreed that that triplet sign should be played. Similarly for a bar line, a time signature, a direction like discrétion . . . What Bach meant when he put these things in his scores is a function of  the practices of the musicians who were his contemporaries, how they "followed the score" And interpreting the score means finding out what those practices were.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 03:44:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2018, 02:23:01 AM
I would like to propose you all a little game. Here are two versions of the 2nd movement Andante cantabile from Tchaikovsky' String Quartet No. 1 in D major op. 11.

https://www.youtube.com/v/AkUhVDh3uQo

https://www.youtube.com/v/zl3ckjAgxqI

Please listen to them both and let us know which one do you like more (just that, without going into any explanations). Thanks for participating.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 02, 2018, 02:45:53 AM
I on my part prefer no.2, but my experience with this kind of music is too limited to say which one is most in accordance with the composers style.

Okay, since no one else played, here is my two cents on the issue.

Misha Elman was a pupil of Leopold Auer who in turn taught violin at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, was the dedicatee of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concertos (the latter praised Auer for his "great expressivity, the thoughtful finesse and poetry of the interpretation") and was himself the leader of a famous Russian string quartet. All this is strong reason to suppose that the Elman's version, admittedly much more sentimental, bordering on saccharine, is more "authentic" than the Borodin's and it's probably how this quartet was played during Tchaikovsky's lifetime.

Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:45:43 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 03:35:06 AM

When music is compared to speech, it is particularly the phrasing and articulation (and affect)which are compared. I do not think it makes sense to compare any (intended or unintended) "meaning".

When we say something, or write something, our concern is to be precise so that the hearer understands exactly what we wish to communicate: "I'd like some coffee, please"; "I hate asparagus!"; "what is your name?".  Language is designed to communicate precise ideas, music is incapable of communicating exact messages, but conveys something far more ephemeral.  Music is not a language in the way English or French is a language, and we will never agree as to what is communicated by the Hammerklavier sonata whereas we all will agree what "my cat is black" means.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 03:47:47 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:45:43 AM
When we say something, or write something, our concern is to be precise so that the hearer understands exactly what we wish to communicate: "I'd like some coffee, please"; "I hate asparagus!"; "what is your name?".  Language is designed to communicate precise ideas, music is incapable of communicating exact messages, but conveys something far more ephemeral.  Music is not a language in the way English or French is a language, and we will never agree as to what is communicated by the Hammerklavier sonata whereas we all will agree what "my cat is black" means.

Again:  Yes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:48:04 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 03, 2018, 03:41:14 AM
All true.  And the question arises, if music is (supposedly) a "universal language"—who is doing the speaking?

I think it is the hearer that determines what the music means more so than the "speaker".  But musicians who do not share a language can play music together, which is what I think that phrase "universal language" means.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:51:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 03:44:58 AM
Okay, since no one else played, here is my two cents on the issue.

Misha Elman was a pupil of Leopold Auer who in turn taught violin at the St. Petersburg Conservatory and was the dedicatee of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concertos (the former praised Auer for his "great expressivity, the thoughtful finesse and poetry of the interpretation) and was himself the leader of a famous Russian string quartet. All this is strong reason to suppose that the Elman's version, admittedly much more sentimental, bordering on saccharine, is more "authentic" than the Borodin's and it's probably how this quartet was played during Tchaikovsky's lifetime.

Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?

No.

I think, you know, that HIP people are well aware that you can play in an inauthentic way , and sometimes some people like it. Sometimes a lie may even be more palatable than the truth.

Just as a matter of contingent fact, I find the HIP performances generally nicer than the ones which aren't. That's probably because the composers I'm interested in knew what they wanted and had some very good ideas about what the music should sound like. But this is contingent on the listener and composer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:59:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 03:44:58 AM
Okay, since no one else played, here is my two cents on the issue.

Misha Elman was a pupil of Leopold Auer who in turn taught violin at the St. Petersburg Conservatory and was the dedicatee of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concertos (the former praised Auer for his "great expressivity, the thoughtful finesse and poetry of the interpretation) and was himself the leader of a famous Russian string quartet. All this is strong reason to suppose that the Elman's version, admittedly much more sentimental, bordering on saccharine, is more "authentic" than the Borodin's and it's probably how this quartet was played during Tchaikovsky's lifetime.

Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?

Good point.  How Bach is played is determined by the zeitgeist of that generation.  Mendelssohn played Bach very differently than Suzuki or Gardiner; and all play Bach differently than how Bach himself did.

This is generally my point about HIP/PI: over the last five decades or so, a preference has been to enjoy hearing these works done quicker, without "Romanticisms", using what we believe are appropriate instruments or ensembles, etc.  But we still do not know, and will never know, if what we accomplish is close to what was done in the period when the music was written.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 04:06:41 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:48:04 AM
I think it is the hearer that determines what the music means more so than the "speaker".

Indeed!

QuoteBut musicians who do not share a language can play music together, which is what I think that phrase "universal language" means.

Very good.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 03, 2018, 04:42:35 AM
"Plink selon plonk"

Suddenly we're talking about Boulez?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 03, 2018, 04:47:53 AM
No, Mennin.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 05:17:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 03:44:58 AM
Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?

Now you know, that I am a northerner who grew up in Lutheran surroundings, so I demand seriousness and profundity in the music, and I do not find this in Tchaikovsky's music, which I in short shall characterize as being technically well-crafted, melodious and emotional bordering the sentimental. So I prefer an interpretation which downplays the sentimentality. and the Borodin's deliver more of this than the Elman's. Other than that I do not like Elman's sliding, even if I know this was commonly done not many years ago. So my situation is similar to yours, but my object is the opposite. But if anyone tells me, that I am deadpan because I do not appreciate Tchaikovsky to the degree I should, this will not disturb my sleep at night.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 03, 2018, 08:26:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:13:02 AM
So nothing, just a joke. Why are you so serious all the time?

Work on your routine.  Then get back to me, mmkay?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:24:17 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 02:03:03 AM
All I'm saying is that the harpsichord offers a different, and very rewarding, way to enjoy this music that you are currently missing out on. Which, aside from theoretical " correctness"  happens to be the kind of musical experience that harpsichord music was created for...  8)

But then again, what you don't know, you can't miss...

See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way.  :)

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:48:04 AM
I think it is the hearer that determines what the music means more so than the "speaker".  But musicians who do not share a language can play music together, which is what I think that phrase "universal language" means.

Yes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 03, 2018, 01:35:56 AM
I used (long ago, by now) not to be able to listen to recorded harpsichord music for more than 10 minutes.

That began to change when I made friends with a harpsichordist;  my ears learnt how to listen to the instrument.  Now I could almost listen to nothing but harpsichord solo music for a week.

A non-connaisseur of classical music once asked me: Marc, what kind of guitar is that? It sounds awesome!
Only then I (fully) realized that the harpsichord is a plucked string instrument. Something completely different than the piano we know. Hence I stopped comparising immediately and began to appreciate this 'kind of guitar' more and more. It's such a beautiful and moving sound, and, to my ears, it fits the Allemandes, Fantasias and Gigues that I like to hear so perfectly.

Like an angel carressing and tickling my eardrums.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:51:25 AM
I think, you know, that HIP people are well aware that you can play in an inauthentic way , and sometimes some people like it. Sometimes a lie may even be more palatable than the truth.

Our disagreement is deep and possibly irreconcilable. I believe there are no "authentic" and "inauthentic" ways of playing any given piece of music, much less "lies" and "truths" in this respect. Do you seriously think that professionally trained musicians --- a category to which, with all due respect, you do not belong (nor do I for that matter) --- such as Menno van Delft or Angela Hewitt play whatever and however they play in an "inauthentic" manner? That they have not studied the scores and are not able to counter your opbjections?  Just what do you mean by "authentic" or "inauthentic"? In my book, each and every interpretation that combines a sincerely held aesthetic conviction with artistic integrity and as flawless a technique as the artist can master is authentic. Authenticity is a marker of the performer, not of the instrument and not even of the score.

Quotethe composers I'm interested in knew what they wanted and had some very good ideas about what the music should sound like.

The composers I'm interested in were no different --- and actually I think every composer is the same. But "knowing what they wanted and having some very good ideas about how the music should sound like" is not the same as "they wanted their music to sound always and forever like they wanted it to sound". I refer you to my post above about Debussy, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev taking liberties with their own scores. What is it they truly wanted, pray tell? What they wrote in the score, or what they actually played?

Richard Taruskin recalls a rehearsal of an Eliott Carter's peice for violin and piano where the two performers constantly asked EC for guidance with the tempi and the dynamics and the invariable response was "i don't know... let's see" and then they all three proceeded to work their way through teh score amking adjustments. What did Carter really want?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 09:51:02 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:24:17 AM
See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way.  :)

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.



You don't enjoy harpsichord music. Someone comes along and says that "the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines. The rewards or great...." And you say no thank you. This despite the fact that there's certainly no other way of enjoying keyboard music by Louis Couperin, D'Anglebert, Andrea Gabrieli, Georg Bohm and I'd argue Louis Couperin Froberger and many others. It just sounds like you've dug your heals in for no good reason.   
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 09:51:02 AM
You don't enjoy harpsichord music. Someone comes along and says that "the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines. The rewards or great...." And you say no thank you. This despite the fact that there's certainly no other way of enjoying keyboard music by Louis Couperin, D'Anglebert, Andrea Gabrieli, Georg Bohm and I'd argue Louis Couperin Froberger and many others. It just sounds like you've dug your heals in for no good reason.

Not at all. There's no other way of enjoying their music because the HIP intellectual totalitarianism has been quite succesful in convincing performers and audiences alike that... well, that here's no other way of enjoying their music, thus intimidating pianists away from engaging with this music. But I tell you that whenever a pianist is bold enough to tackle this repertoire with an imaginative mind and a serious comittment, such as Francesco Tristano did with Frescobaldi or Pavel Kolesnikov with Louis Couperin, the results have been most enjoyable to me. I do wish more pianists broke this absurd and self-proclaimed monopoly that the HIP gang imposed on this repertoire.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 03:59:12 AM
This is generally my point about HIP/PI: over the last five decades or so, a preference has been to enjoy hearing these works done quicker, without "Romanticisms", using what we believe are appropriate instruments or ensembles, etc.  But we still do not know, and will never know, if what we accomplish is close to what was done in the period when the music was written.

And there's more to it: would we have enjoyed Bach's playing? Or Mozart's? Or Liszt's? Or Chopin's? Can anyone of us answer in all earnest in the positive?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:04:28 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:48:20 AM
Our disagreement is deep and possibly irreconcilable. I believe there are no "authentic" and "inauthentic" ways of playing any given piece of music, much less "lies" and "truths" in this respect. Do you seriously think that professionally trained musicians --- a category to which, with all due respect, you do not belong (nor do I for that matter) --- such as Menno van Delft or Angela Hewitt play whatever and however they play in an "inauthentic" manner? That they have not studied the scores and are not able to counter your opbjections?  Just what do you mean by "authentic" or "inauthentic"? In my book, each and every interpretation that combines a sincerely held aesthetic conviction with artistic integrity and as flawless a technique as the artist can master is authentic. Authenticity is a marker of the performer, not of the instrument and not even of the score.



I think the questions are really hard and I can't answer them yet. The truth is, I don't know what the composer has made, I don't know what a piece of music is. And I don't know what performance is. But I think that this idea is promising: that a composition is like a statement and that interpretation involves an activity analogous to understanding what someone says. That's why I've started to use truth related concepts (like lie, parody,) -- truth and interpretation go hand in hand.

I don't know Angela Hewitt personally, she may be a thoughtful musician for all I know. She's decided to use a piano for early music, she defends it in a feisty way saying that its tonal properties better reflect the ideas in Bach's scores than a harpsichord, but she never backs this up, it's just asserted without defence, and it seems wrong to me (I'm thinking of her claim that the piano is more brilliant sounding than a harpsichord and hence is more suited for the 6th partita and Chromatic Fantasy.) I am a little bit cynical about her, I don't think she's a scholar.

Why did you mention van Delft -- because of the clavichord partitas? I do have a problem with them, and I have no idea how he would respond if we discussed it.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 03, 2018, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:48:20 AMThe composers I'm interested in were no different --- and actually I think every composer is the same. But "knowing what they wanted and having some very good ideas about how the music should sound like" is not the same as "they wanted their music to sound always and forever like they wanted it to sound". I refer you to my post above about Debussy, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev taking liberties with their own scores. What is it they truly wanted, pray tell? What they wrote in the score, or what they actually played?

Richard Taruskin recalls a rehearsal of an Eliott Carter's peice for violin and piano where the two performers constantly asked EC for guidance with the tempi and the dynamics and the invariable response was "i don't know... let's see" and then they all three proceeded to work their way through teh score amking adjustments. What did Carter really want?

Maybe he wanted the performers to interpret the score in their own way.  The fact that a composer wants his/her score performed accurately and with respect doesn't mean that that composer doesn't also want to have an individual touch applied to it.

I know as a composer myself that I think performers should follow what I write in the score, but that there is also lots of room for interpretation.  Does that open me up to some poor, distorted performances?  Yes.  No approach I could take would remove the possibility of such distortions.  I still think that interpretive leeway is valuable, and my experience is that most composers agree.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:01:12 AM
And there's more to it: would we have enjoyed Bach's playing?

Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:10:15 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 03:51:25 AM
[...]
Just as a matter of contingent fact, I find the HIP performances generally nicer than the ones which aren't. That's probably because the composers I'm interested in knew what they wanted and had some very good ideas about what the music should sound like.

I know you're interested in f.i. Bach.

Why did Bach change the lute into a viola da gamba for "Kom, süßes Kreuz, so will ich sagen" in the Matthäus-Passion?
Bach added and deleted all kinds of instruments for his passions (at least 2 versions for BWV 244, and 4 or 5 for BWV 245), he changed many scores and instrumentations of cantatas performed in both Weimar and Leipzig, et cetera and et al. There's also more than 1 version for the Brandenburg Concertos and (at least one) Orchestersuite. He rewrote a cello suite for lute, he arranged a lute suite for harpsichord/clavichord, he arranged other composer's works with different instrumentation and different lyrics. The list could be endless. The entire baroque period is filled with so-called parodies btw.

Why would Bach (and others) do that?

Probably because he had other/more/less instruments to his behalf, I'd say.
And also maybe because he definitely wanted another sound, like f.i. the large basso continuo for the final version of BWV 245. And maybe because he wanted to give other musician(s) a chance to play some of his music (like BWV 995)?

Which instrumentation is the most 'authentic'? In which version did he have the best ideas about what the music should sound like?

It's always dangerous to claim something like "Bach would have liked this or that more or less, or he would (not) understand this or that...", because no one of us knew the man. I especially see those lines used by non-HIPsters who tend to say "if Bach would have known the piano Grand, he would have preferred it." Well, he didn't know it, so it's a useless remark IMHO. But I do dare to say this: I think that Bach would not understand one bit about an everlasting thread like this. He was a great composer and a musician, not a fanatic instrument-fetishist.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 10:10:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:58:08 AM
Not at all. There's no other way of enjoying their music because the HIP intellectual totalitarianism has been quite succesful in convincing performers and audiences alike that... well, that here's no other way of enjoying their music, thus intimidating pianists away from engaging with this music. But I tell you that whenever a pianist is bold enough to tackle this repertoire with an imaginative mind and a serious comittment, such as Francesco Tristano did with Frescobaldi or Pavel Kolesnikov with Louis Couperin, the results have been most enjoyable to me. I do wish more pianists broke this absurd and self-proclaimed monopoly that the HIP gang imposed on this repertoire.

Not to mention all the accordeon players and el organists, who have been intimidated so much, that they never have dared to play this repertoire.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 05:17:58 AM
Now you know, that I am a northerner who grew up in Lutheran surroundings, so I demand seriousness and profundity in the music,

I know and imho this an explain a lot of differences in our approaches to music.  :)


Quoteand I do not find this in Tchaikovsky's music, which I in short shall characterize as being technically well-crafted, melodious and emotional bordering the sentimental.

Sentiments can be serious and profound.


QuoteSo I prefer an interpretation which downplays the sentimentality. and the Borodin's deliver more of this than the Elman's. Other than that I do not like Elman's sliding, even if I know this was commonly done not many years ago. So my situation is similar to yours, but my object is the opposite.

Not quite. You favor HIP for music pre-1800 but non-HIP for music post-1850. You are not consistent. I don't favor anything, I just enjoy whatever suits my taste. I am consistent.  ;D  :P

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:12:40 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 03, 2018, 08:26:19 AM
Work on your routine.  Then get back to me, mmkay?

I'll never get back to you, it's not worth the trouble.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 03, 2018, 10:14:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:12:40 AM
I'll never get back to you, it's not worth the trouble.

Oh, but you will; you just can't resist making a jab at me.  You've tried so hard to quit me, but it just ain't workin', honey.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:04:28 AM
Why did you mention van Delft -- because of the clavichord partitas?

Because you mentioned him in the negative.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:09:40 AM
Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.

If she did say that then she was a weirdo.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 10:10:26 AM
Not to mention all the accordeon players and el organists, who have been intimidated so much, that they never have dared to play this repertoire.

That's a facetious remark, quite strange coming from a serious Lutheran.  ;D :P
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:29:50 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 10:10:26 AM
Not to mention all the accordeon players and el organists, who have been intimidated so much, that they never have dared to play this repertoire.

This comparison doesn't work very well entirely IMO.
In my experience: accordionists, jazz musicians, prog rock bands, hammond organists and whatever have never been intimidated by the (rigid or less rigid) opinions of their classical brothers and sisters. It's a different world. They don't care. (Bless them.)
But yes, during the last decade of organ concert visiting I've heard f.i. far less Bach on romantic organs than romantic works on baroque organs.

Bernard Haitink stopped with his career of chief conductor of a symphony orchestra because he was sick of almost not being allowed to conduct Mozart and contemporaries any more. He admired Harnoncourt and invited him to conduct the Concertgebouw Orkest, but after that he constantly heard from his own musicians "no that's wrong, Harnoncourt says..." when he rehearsed Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. So he thought: "bugger off, I'm gonna do opera in London Town."

But maybe the situation in NL was/is more rigid than elsewhere, with all those calvinists around here. Around 2000-2005, I was debating in a few Dutch forums, where people who were not-so-HIP, when they admitted they liked Bach on piano & a Matthäus in a 'grand' performance and claimed that they had the freedom to do so, received tons of torrents of verbal abuse by Conservatorium HIP musicologists. "You should be forbidden to listen to Bach anymore. It's not Bach you're listening to. You are a bl**dy shame!" Et cetera & et al.
I kid ye not.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:29:50 AM
Bernard Haitink stopped with his career of chief conductor of a symphony orchestra because he was sick of almost not being allowed to conduct Mozart and contemporaries any more. He admired Harnoncourt and invited him to conduct the Concertgebouw Orkest, but after that he constantly heard from his own musicians "no that's wrong, Harnoncourt says..." when he rehearsed Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. So he thought: "bugger off, I'm gonna do opera in London Town."

But maybe the situation in NL was/is more rigid than elsewhere, with all those calvinists around here. Around 2000-2005, I was debating in a few Dutch forums, where people who were not-so-HIP, when they admitted they liked Bach on piano & a Matthäus in a 'grand' performance and claimed that they had the freedom to do so, received tons of torrents of verbal abuse by Conservatorium HIP musicologists. "You should be forbidden to listen to Bach anymore. It's not Bach you're listening to. You are a bl**dy shame!" Et cetera & et al.
I kid ye not.

Intellectual totalitarianism. Not that it's a specialty of the HIP camp. Boulez, anyone?

Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:29:50 AM
In my experience: accordionists, jazz musicians, prog rock bands, hammond organists and whatever have never been intimidated by the (rigid or less rigid) opinions of their classical brothers and sisters. It's a different world. They don't care. (Bless them.)

A big + 1 to this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:11:12 AM
Sentiments can be serious and profound.

Yes, sentiments can be, but sentimentality can not.

Quote from: Florestan
Not quite. You favor HIP for music pre-1800 but non-HIP for music post-1850. You are not consistent. I don't favor anything, I just enjoy whatever suits my taste. I am consistent.  ;D  :P

The reason why I in this case prefer non-HIP for Tchaikovsky is, that it suits my taste far better than the presumed HIP does. Our arguments and motivations are identical. There is no real difference between favoring and enjoying. I favor what suits my taste because I enjoy it, which means that I do not favor, what I do not enjoy. Ideally I would wish, that I preferred HIP for all music, also Tchaikovsky, but not all HIP suits my taste, particularly if the composer as such does not suit my taste.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 03, 2018, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:24:17 AM
See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way.  :)

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.

Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism?  ;)

I mean, you don't have to like that way, but it is what it is... Wagner didn't write for a barrel organ, François Couperin didn't write for the piano.

What's next? "alternative facts" in music?  :D

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 10:42:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:20:11 AM
That's a facetious remark, quite strange coming from a serious Lutheran.  ;D :P


Lutherans also have a sense of irony.

And exaggerations - even sometimes absurd - facilitates understanding.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
Intellectual totalitarianism. Not that it's a specialty of the HIP camp. [...]

No, alas it isn't. In general, I can get so bl**dy tired sometimes of all those "we are right and you are wrong" camps.
I'm only a very small part of the organ world (at the sidelines) right now, but I know for a fact that the restoration of the Der Aa Kerk organ took 14 years instead of 4, just because of the furious and almost endless fights between 2 camps who couldn't agree in which way the organ should be restored. Finally the government changed law & regulation and the Reil company could begin with its restoration work. 10 years of silence of this magnificent instrument just because of the rigid inflexibility of 2 opposing groups of 'organ lovers'. BAH.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:45:59 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 10:40:30 AM
Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism?  ;)

I mean, you don't have to like that way, but it is what it is... Wagner didn't write for a barrel organ, François Couperin didn't write for the piano.

What's next? "alternative facts" in music?  :D

Q

But if Wagner would have known the barrel organ, he most certainly would have preferred it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 10:36:21 AM
Yes, sentiments can be, but sentimentality can not.

Now you know, I'm a southerner who grew up in an Orthodox surrounding. The notion that everything which is not stern, grim and set in strict counterpoint is sentimental  is utterly incomprehensible to me.  :)

QuoteIdeally I would wish, that I preferred HIP for all music, also Tchaikovsky, but not all HIP suits my taste, particularly if the composer as such does not suit my taste.

Crux of the matter, as Que would have said. 

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:53:55 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 10:40:30 AM
Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism?  ;)

Not at all. Totalitarianism is when someone says that music composed for the harpsichord should only be played on the harpsichord.

I refer you to Gurn's post in which he states the fact that it was common practice back then to play on the oboe music written for the violin and viceversa. To which I can add that it was common practice back then for the composers to publish their scores in ad libitum instrumentation, eg Locatelli's Trio Sonatas for two violins or two flutes.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:53:55 AM
Not at all. Totalitarianism is when someone says that music composed for the harpsichord should only be played on the harpsichord.

I refer you to Gurn's post in which he states the fact that it was common practice back then to play on the oboe music written for the violin and viceversa. To which I can add that it was common practice back then for the composers to publish their scores in ad libitum instrumentation, eg Locatelli's Trio Sonatas for two violins or two flutes.

Yes, and the first versions of the beautiful soprano arias of Bach's SJP were written for violin (no.1) and oboe (no. 2) instead of flute(s). You should ask traverse flutists how 'natural' the flute parts of those arias are composed (=arranged). (NOT.)
So, here's a new topic within this everlasting topic: these arias should be played in its original settings with violin & oboe, without any flutes. Those parts aren't meant for flutes. They should be forbidden. Period. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:17:16 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 11:01:04 AM
Yes, and the first versions of the beautiful soprano arias of Bach's SJP were written for violin(s) instead of flute(s). You should ask traverse flutists how 'natural' the flute parts of those arias are composed (=arranged). (NOT.)
So, here's a new topic within this everlasting topic: these arias should be played in its original settings with violins, without any flutes. Those parts aren't meant for flutes. They should be forbidden. Period. ;)

Excellent point.

Now that I think of it, I will not listen to any opera originally featuring at least one castrato voice.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 11:20:08 AM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 10:40:30 AM
Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism?  ;)

It may be a historical fact but the world did not stop turning when those works were composed.  250 years down the road we have a magnificent instrument called the piano. And you know what?  Bach's works can be played on it!  We now have another choice besides the harpsichord.  And not only do we have another choice but the piano can do things with the music the harpsichord cannot, things which bring out new aspects in Bach's music.  Many people love it - and many actually prefer Bach on the piano instead of a harpsichord; pianists consider Bach "their guy".

So, yeah, it is a little like totalitarianism to insist that those works should only be played on a harpsichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:20:59 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 11:20:08 AM
It may be a historical fact but the world did not stop turning when those works were composed.  250 years down the road we have a magnificent instrument called the piano. And you know what?  Bach's works can be played on it!  We now have another choice besides the harpsichord.  And not only do we have another choice but the piano can do things with the music the harpsichord cannot, things which bring out new aspects in Bach's music.  Many people love it - and many actually prefer Bach on the piano instead of a harpsichord; pianists consider Bach "their guy".

So, yeah, it is a little like totalitarianism to insist that those works should only be played on a harpsichord.

My thoughts exactly.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:17:16 AM
Excellent point.

Now that I think of it, there is an irrefutable case against HIP dogmatism regarding instruments: castratti. Until they are brought back I will refuse to listen to any opera originally featuring one.

In the Bach year 2000, there was a double interview with Ton Koopman and Dutch author (& Bach lover) Maarten 't Hart, a.o. in the magazine Luister.
't Hart liked Koopman's recordings of the cantatas very much, but he was against the rigidity of some/many HIP-sters. He made kind of the same remark about castrates. Koopman laughed and said something like: "I know some obscure places in Naples where you can still listen to one or two, if you pay the right amount of money."

The horror.
(I guess he was joking though. At least I hope so.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
In the Bach year 2000, there was a double interview with Ton Koopman and Dutch author (& Bach lover) Maarten 't Hart, a.o. in the magazine Luister.
't Hart liked Koopman's recordings of the cantatas very much, but he was against the rigidity of some/many HIP-sters. He made kind of the same remark about castrates. Koopman laughed and said something like: "I know some obscure places in Naples where you can still listen to one or two, if you pay the right amount of money."

The horror.
(I guess he was joking though. At least I hope so.)

He was joking because this is exactly the kind of joke someone raised in a Calvinist surrounding and taught by a Calvinist would make on Italians.  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 11:38:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:46:46 AM
Now you know, I'm a southerner who grew up in an Orthodox surrounding. The notion that everything which is not stern, grim and set in strict counterpoint is sentimental[/u]  is utterly incomprehensible to me.  :)

I never expressed anything like this.

Quote from: Florestan
Crux of the matter, as Que would have said.

Certainly. Like you I am guided by my taste. I have serious reasons to think that you do not enjoy all composers. $:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:09:40 AM
Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.

She made -I do not know why - a few recordings on a revival harpsichord (GV and Chromatic fantasy IIRC - it is fortunately many years ago), some of the worst harpsichord recordings I have heard.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 11:38:41 AM
I never expressed anything like this.

So much for a Lutheran's sense of irony...  ;D  :P

Quote
I have serious reasons to think that you do not enjoy all composers. $:)

And you're right. But the strange thing is, of those I don't enjoy some are more enjoyable than the others.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:43:52 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 11:42:50 AM
She made -I do not know why - a few recordings on a revival harpsichord (GV and Chromatic fantasy IIRC - it is fortunately many years ago), some of the worst harpsichord recordings I have heard.

Gotcha! You'd have hated Bach's own playing!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 11:49:46 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:29:50 AM
This comparison doesn't work very well entirely IMO.
In my experience: accordionists, jazz musicians, prog rock bands, hammond organists and whatever have never been intimidated by the (rigid or less rigid) opinions of their classical brothers and sisters. It's a different world. They don't care. (Bless them.)
But yes, during the last decade of organ concert visiting I've heard f.i. far less Bach on romantic organs than romantic works on baroque organs.

In my ironic approach it works well. BTW when did you last hear an accordion player or a Hammond organist play Louis Couperin or Böhm?? 

And I think that Cesar Franck on a Baroque organ may be even worse than Bach on a romantic organ.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 11:51:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:24:17 AM
See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way.  :)

Nobody in this forum has said anything like that. Like you we all are governed by our taste.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 11:56:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:43:01 AM
And you're right. But the strange thing is, of those I don't enjoy some are more enjoyable than the others.  :D

We also agree in this. Tchaikovsky does very little for me, but sometimes I enjoy Brahms - when I am in the suitable mood.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 11:57:43 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:10:15 AM
I know you're interested in f.i. Bach.

Why did Bach change the lute into a viola da gamba for "Kom, süßes Kreuz, so will ich sagen" in the Matthäus-Passion?
Bach added and deleted all kinds of instruments for his passions (at least 2 versions for BWV 244, and 4 or 5 for BWV 245), he changed many scores and instrumentations of cantatas performed in both Weimar and Leipzig, et cetera and et al. There's also more than 1 version for the Brandenburg Concertos and (at least one) Orchestersuite. He rewrote a cello suite for lute, he arranged a lute suite for harpsichord/clavichord, he arranged other composer's works with different instrumentation and different lyrics. The list could be endless. The entire baroque period is filled with so-called parodies btw.

Why would Bach (and others) do that?

Probably because he had other/more/less instruments to his behalf, I'd say.
And also maybe because he definitely wanted another sound, like f.i. the large basso continuo for the final version of BWV 245. And maybe because he wanted to give other musician(s) a chance to play some of his music (like BWV 995)?

Which instrumentation is the most 'authentic'? In which version did he have the best ideas about what the music should sound like?

It's always dangerous to claim something like "Bach would have liked this or that more or less, or he would (not) understand this or that...", because no one of us knew the man. I especially see those lines used by non-HIPsters who tend to say "if Bach would have known the piano Grand, he would have preferred it." Well, he didn't know it, so it's a useless remark IMHO. But I do dare to say this: I think that Bach would not understand one bit about an everlasting thread like this. He was a great composer and a musician, not a fanatic instrument-fetishist.


Great and thoughtful post, Marc. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on August 03, 2018, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:29:50 AM
This comparison doesn't work very well entirely IMO.
In my experience: accordionists, jazz musicians, prog rock bands, hammond organists and whatever have never been intimidated by the (rigid or less rigid) opinions of their classical brothers and sisters. It's a different world. They don't care. (Bless them.)
I really connect with this. As a saxophone player, I spent much of my life playing jazz and improv. In the jazz world at the time, there was a lot more east coast vs west coast jazz discussion, but you are right that that world has a lot of flexibility, in part due to the expectations of how to play the music. I was actually quite blown away the first time I heard that classical musicians used to do this too (similar, anyway).

I don't understand why we try to tell others that their approach is 'inauthentic' or somehow not true to the composer being discussed. I get great joy in listening to the Paris Saxophone Quartet play Bach. It's beautiful. It's thought provoking. It's as transparent as any other instrumentation I've heard. It's clearly played with understanding and deep appreciation of Bach. It's pure joy. It's no less insightful than any other Bach I have heard. For me, I think it boils down to this: the spirit of the performance always outweighs the technical aspects of the performance. Maybe that's the jazz musician in me....
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:02:55 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 11:51:43 AM
Nobody in this forum has said anything like that.

Que just did. Harry did it earlier and earned your unqualified approval --- granted, you retracted afterwards. Mandryka implies it in basically every post of his.

QuoteLike you we all are governed by our taste.

Maybe --- but unlike me you wrap your taste in an ideological ironclad.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 10:43:16 AM
No, alas it isn't. In general, I can get so bl**dy tired sometimes of all those "we are right and you are wrong" camps.
I'm only a very small part of the organ world (at the sidelines) right now, but I know for a fact that the restoration of the Der Aa Kerk organ took 14 years instead of 4, just because of the furious and almost endless fights between 2 camps who couldn't agree in which way the organ should be restored. Finally the government changed law & regulation and the Reil company could begin with its restoration work. 10 years of silence of this magnificent instrument just because of the rigid inflexibility of 2 opposing groups of 'organ lovers'. BAH.


Was this a matter of different taste of the people who were entrusted to restore the organ, or was it caused by inadequate information about the earlier Aa organ?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 10:53:55 AM
I refer you to Gurn's post in which he states the fact that it was common practice back then to play on the oboe music written for the violin and viceversa. To which I can add that it was common practice back then for the composers to publish their scores in ad libitum instrumentation, eg Locatelli's Trio Sonatas for two violins or two flutes.


But note: It was still period instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:08:01 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
But note: It was still period instruments.

No, it was instruments, period. (pun).  :D

Those guys had no idea about the "period instruments" concept. They performed on whatever instruments were available to them and they were profficient on --- exactly like Angela Hewitt does.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:14:11 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:43:52 AM
Gotcha! You'd have hated Bach's own playing!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Why should her very uninformed playing resemble Bach's playing.

Bach's own playing might have teached me a lot, and probably dwarfed Tureck's playing completely.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
Considering that as soon as they could composers abandoned the harpsichord for the piano, and for two centuries and counting no one writes for the harpsichord anymore.  Oh sure, there are a few 20th century composers writing for it here and there, it has become such a novelty they chose to bring it out of mothballs.

But aside from those outliers composers from Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Schoenberg, up to Michael Finnissy, and beyond, have proven consistently that they prefer the piano.

Why cannot we not presume that had he be able to Bach too would have abandoned the harpsichord?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:18:49 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:08:01 PM
No, it was instruments, period. (pun).  :D

Those guys had no idea about the "period instruments" concept. They performed on whatever instruments were available to them and they were profficient on --- exactly like Angela Hewitt does.

It was period instruments and period playing styles. Of course they didn't name it so by then, but to day we know this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:14:11 PM
Why should her very uninformed playing resemble Bach's playing.

It's for the second time you miss an irony...

Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:09:40 AM
Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 11:42:50 AM
She made -I do not know why - a few recordings on a revival harpsichord (GV and Chromatic fantasy IIRC - it is fortunately many years ago), some of the worst harpsichord recordings I have heard.

Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:43:52 AM
Gotcha! You'd have hated Bach's own playing!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:25:15 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:02:55 PM
Que just did. Harry did it earlier and earned your unqualified approval --- granted, you retracted afterwards. Mandryka implies it in basically every post of his.

I think you read more between the lines, than the poster intended.

Quote from: Florestan
Maybe --- but unlike me you wrap your taste in an ideological ironclad.

This is also wrong. I am essentially guided by my taste. And I have no taste for sentimentality.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 11:49:46 AM
In my ironic approach it works well. BTW when did you last hear an accordion player or a Hammond organist play Louis Couperin or Böhm?? 

And I think that Cesar Franck on a Baroque organ may be even worse than Bach on a romantic organ.

Ironic, eh? ;)

The 2nd remark... dunno. On the Martini A.D. 1450 up to 1740 almost everything sounds awesome. Same with the Müller in Leeuwarden.
The Der Aa Kerk organ is a funny mixture, so Franck and Reger sound 'almost naturally' well.

But... I also have to admit (without irony) that I prefer the baroque organ sound to the romantic in any 'case'. It speaks to my inner soul far & far more. There. I said it. ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:28:30 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
Why cannot we not presume that had he be able to Bach too would have abandoned the harpsichord?

Because his expressive means were not particularly piano compatible.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:18:49 PM
It was period instruments and period playing styles.

"Period instruments" and "period playing styles" are modern concepts --- and so is Baroque, for that matter --- of which Bach or Buxtehude or Scarlatti had absolutely no idea whatsoever. Just like Haydn or Mozart had absolutely no idea whatsoever that they were the pillars of the Classical Viennese School.

Quote
Of course they didn't name it so by then, but to day we know this.

Talk about trying to impose our views on the past...

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:32:15 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:24:18 PM
It's for the second time you miss an irony...

Sorry, I am so slow cerebrated, that I do not always quite understand you point.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 12:25:22 PM
Ironic, eh? ;)

What can I say? Sarcastic?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:34:35 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:30:03 PM
"Period instruments" and "period playing styles" are modern concepts --- and so is Baroque, for that matter --- of which Bach or Buxtehude or Scarlatti had absolutely no idea whatsoever. Just like Haydn or Mozart had absolutely no idea whatsoever that they were the pillars of the Classical Viennese School.

Talk about trying to impose our views on the past...

No, it is just the consequence of a historical view upon the past.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:36:09 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:25:15 PM
I think you read more between the lines, than the poster intended.

Possibly. This is yet another difference between me and Lutherans / Calvinists: for me it's the spirit, not the letter, that counts.  :laugh:

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:38:09 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:32:15 PM
Sorry, I am so slow cerebrated, that I do not always quite understand you point.

Oh, please --- you begin to sound like Harry.  :-\
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 12:40:46 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:36:09 PM
Possibly. This is yet another difference between me and Lutherans / Calvinists: for me it's the spirit, not the letter, that counts.  :laugh:

You're just like Rosalyn Tureck, who thought she had access to Bach's spirit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 12:41:09 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:03:43 PM

Was this a matter of different taste of the people who were entrusted to restore the organ, or was it caused by inadequate information about the earlier Aa organ?

I read about the fights in newspapers sometimes, but it happened mostly before my own organ 'revival'. So I don't know all the details.

Just now and then I ask some people of the (Groningen) organ world, what it was exactly about... but it almost seems as if everyone feels unsure or ashamed to talk about it anymore.

Roughly said: group 1 said that it originally was a baroque Schnitger organ, and therefore it should be restored and reconstructed as a Schnitger organ again (a bit like the Martini organ). So get rid of all those 'awful' Timpe/Van Oeckelen/Doornbos stuff, who did more bad than good.
Group 2 said: please no, this instrument is unique as it is now. It's gained its international fame with this mix of styles. People and organ lovers adore it as it is. We have to pay respect to all styles and periods.

Group 2 did 'win'. Nowadays, a historical restoration has to pay respect to the entire history of the instrument. So, a restoration/reconstruction like Ahrend/Edskes did with the Martini (getting rid of (almost) all 19th and 20th century material) is now impossible in the Netherlands. Unless they change the regulations again of course. But I doubt this will happen any time soon.

The difference between these two particular instruments, I have to add, was that the Der Aa Kerk organ was still a truly magnificent organ in 1997, whilst the Martini organ in 1977 was a complete and utter mess. Some even considered to demolish the entire thing and build a new one.

Personally, looking back and experiencing both organs from time to time in live concerts, I am very very happy with how both restorations were done.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:34:35 PM
No, it is just the consequence of a historical view upon the past.

Please show me one single 18th century treatise on composing or performing which contains the notions of "period instruments", "period playing styles", "Baroque" or "Viennese Classicism". These are simply modern notions superimposed upon the past.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:47:14 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 12:40:46 PM
You're just like Rosalyn Tureck, who thought she had access to Bach's spirit.

You've lost me here. Please elaborate.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:50:07 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:38:09 PM
Oh, please --- you begin to sound like Harry.  :-\

But I am more relaxed and do not take offence.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:50:07 PM
But I am more relaxed and do not take offence.

Absolutely, that's why I greatly enjoy our debate.  :-*
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 12:52:22 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Please show me one single 18th century treatise on composing or performing which contains the notions of "period instruments", "period playing styles", "Baroque" or "Viennese Classicism". These are simply modern notions superimposed upon the past.

This is kicking in an open door.
Like Premont said, it's an historical view upon the past.
And yes, there are historical (excusez le mot) tracts who are very helpful to understand how various instruments were played, or can to be played in the most satisfying way. The most famous ones nowadays are written by CPE Bach and L Mozart. But there are plenty more. Ewald Kooiman & Gerhard Weinberger wrote an interesting book f.i. on how to play the Bach organ works, based upon contemporary theories & tracts. Unfortunately (for many), it was only published in German.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:55:33 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 12:41:09 PM
So, a restoration/reconstruction like Ahrend/Edskes did with the Martini (getting rid of (almost) all 19th and 20th century material) is now impossible in the Netherlands. Unless they change the regulations again of course. But I doubt this will happen any time soon.

I am very surprised to read this. I always considered the Netherlands a guarantee for scientifically reponsible reconstructions.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 12:52:22 PM
there are historical (excusez le mot) tracts who are very helpful to understand how various instruments were played, or ought to be played. The most famous ones nowadays are written by CPE Bach and L Mozart.

Btw, in his violin treatise Leopold Mozart complains about the abuse of vibrato prevalent in his time --- a clear indication that vibrato was widely used back then. Yet the HIP people miss no opportunity to preach that using vibrato for 18th century music is wrong because that's not how they did it back then.  ;D

And then there is this violin treaty by Geminiani who actually prescribes the use of vibrato.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 12:59:35 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Please show me one single 18th century treatise on composing or performing which contains the notions of "period instruments", "period playing styles", "Baroque" or "Viennese Classicism". These are simply modern notions superimposed upon the past.

I do not know any. But as I wrote: These concepts are a result of our (modern) historical thinking. Did they in the Stone Age know the concept Stone Age`?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 03, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 11:20:08 AM
It may be a historical fact but the world did not stop turning when those works were composed.  250 years down the road we have a magnificent instrument called the piano. And you know what?  Bach's works can be played on it!  We now have another choice besides the harpsichord.  And not only do we have another choice but the piano can do things with the music the harpsichord cannot, things which bring out new aspects in Bach's music.  Many people love it - and many actually prefer Bach on the piano instead of a harpsichord; pianists consider Bach "their guy".

I have nothing against other choices outside the original conceptual context. I was just pointing out the rewarding  experience of music performed  on the harpsichord.

QuoteSo, yeah, it is a little like totalitarianism to insist that those works should only be played on a harpsichord.

I wouldn't  (and didn't) say that, it is just the way I like it. Though I also enjoy, now and then, some performances on the piano....

Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 09:24:17 AM
See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way.  :)

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.

I didn't say that. Pointing out the special charcteristics and merits of music played on the harpsichord, doesn't equal the dismissal of any other options. You shouldn't do anything but whatever gives you musical enjoyment. That doesn't mean I can't encourage you to explore the merits of the harpsichord.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:59:35 PM
These concepts are a result of our (modern) historical thinking.

Precisely my point.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:06:07 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:58:20 PM
Btw, in his violin treatise Leopold Mozart complains about the abuse of vibrato prevalent in his time --- a clear indication that vibrato was widely used back then. Yet the HIP people miss no opportunity to preach that using vibrato for 18th century music is wrong because that's not how they did it back then.  ;D

This was 1756. you can only conclude, that some musicians used vibrato.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 01:07:08 PM
Quote from: Que on August 03, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
I didn't say that. Pointing out the special charcteristics and merits of music played on the harpsichord, doesn't equal the dismissal of any other options. You shouldn't do anything but whatever gives you musical enjoyment. That doesn't mean I can't encourage you to explore the merits of the harpsichord.

That's what I inferred from your post but I stand corrected. It's not the first nor the last time I misunderstand something.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 12:55:33 PM
I am very surprised to read this. I always considered the Netherlands a guarantee for scientifically reponsible reconstructions.

I fear that this will lead to a debate about what a scientifically responsible reconstruction is.

The communis opinio is now, that an organ isn't a 'stiff' artefact. That, in many cases (not always of course), it's an exhibiton of 'advancing' history/time with different taste, sounds and styles.
Of course, there is also a communis opinio that one shouldn't add ultra romantic/modern/whatever pipes and stops to a baroque organ anymore. So, baroque organs are going to be restored as baroque organs, romantic organs as romantic, and mixed organs as mixed. The latter ones are very interesting, because one can hear the change in taste during the centuries. The Der Aa Kerk organ is a great example of that.

(A monument historian once told me that when Frans Caspar Schnitger got the job to expand the Van Hagerbeer organ in Alkmaar, many people from the contemporary Dutch organ world were furious that again another entirely Dutch organ was 'messed up' with a North German sound. And now everyone is so jubilant about this great Dutch/North German early and late baroque instrument.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:18:46 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:58:20 PM
Btw, in his violin treatise Leopold Mozart complains about the abuse of vibrato prevalent in his time --- a clear indication that vibrato was widely used back then. Yet the HIP people miss no opportunity to preach that using vibrato for 18th century music is wrong because that's not how they did it back then.  ;D

I do not know those HIP people. And if they really exist and claim that one should play completely non-vibrato, then they're wrong.
Btw, I only know HIP people who say that vibrato was mainly used as an ornament, a 'bonus' so to speak.

Some years ago, Dutch organist Jolanda Zwoferink claimed that the entire Dutch HIP-world said that Bach on organ should be played non-legato and nothing else, and that she was against that and preferred a different, more 'old fashioned' approach. Personally, I have never heard or read such a thing. They only 'claim' that an extensive use of long legato lines wasn't mainstraim during Bach's time. This has also a lot to do with the complete different way of fingering in the 17th and early 18th century btw.
Anyway, Zwoferink's claim was wrong. Besides that: she plays a lot of legato on her Bach discs, and she picked the Silbermann of the Dresdener Hofkirche to do that, with its extremely reverbant acoustics. Result (I'm a bit exaggerating here): a mess.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:20:23 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 12:30:03 PM
"Period instruments" and "period playing styles" are modern concepts --- and so is Baroque, for that matter --- of which Bach or Buxtehude or Scarlatti had absolutely no idea whatsoever. Just like Haydn or Mozart had absolutely no idea whatsoever that they were the pillars of the Classical Viennese School.



It doesn't sound totally right to me you know. Bach, for example, deliberately wrote some music in old fashioned styles in Clavier Ubung  3, and indeed in more modern galant styles in the same compendium, the duetti. You could probably see CU3 as a study of period and contemporary styles.

And  there are composers who saw themselves as making a break with past performance styles - Frescobaldi for example in the 1615 preface, I think. Like Bach he was well aware of "period style" and "contemporary style" , and in the case of Bach at least, he was excited about the distinction, he arguably was seeking to synthesise the two.

And re instruments, I think Purcell was well aware that the viol was a "period instrument" when he wrote his fantasias. The fantasias are arguably a collection of music for what was at the time, a period instrument.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:24:36 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
I fear that this will lead to a debate about what a scientifically responsible reconstruction is.


Well, I can only talk for myself. A scientifically responsible reconstruction of a Baroque organ is to bring it back to the date of its original construction. Yes I know, that Arp Schnitger often incorporated older pipes in his organs, but in the end he created an integrated organ fulfilling his own aesthetics. It depends upon whether you want to reconstruct the Baroque organ or not. Unfortunately many Baroque organs have undergone re-buildings and "improvements" in the Romantic age, and one could choose to reconstruct a later version of the organ, but this remains a matter of taste. But I consider it a waste of cultural heritage, if a great Baroque organ is reconstructed in a Romantic incarnation.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:25:24 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:18:46 PM
I do not know those HIP people. And if they really exist and claim that one should play completely non-vibrato, then they're wrong.
Btw, I only know HIP people who say that vibrato was mainly used as an ornament, a 'bonus' so to speak.

Some years ago, Dutch organist Jolanda Zwoferink claimed that the entire Dutch HIP-world said that Bach on organ should be played non-legato and nothing else, and that she was against that and preferred a different, more 'old fashioned' approach. Personally, I have never heard or read such a thing. They only 'claim' that an extensive use of long legato lines wasn't mainstraim during Bach's time. This has also a lot to do with the complete different way of fingering in the 17th and early 18th century btw.
Anyway, Zwoferink's claim was wrong. Besides that: she plays a lot of legato on her Bach discs, and she picked the Silbermann of the Dresdener Hofkirche to do that, with its extremely reverbant acoustics. Result (I'm a bit exaggerating here): a mess.

Does this have anything to do with Egarr's 'cantabile heaven" or indeed Rubsam and Hill, who talk a lot about cantabile?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:27:38 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:20:23 PM
It doesn't sound totally right to me you know. Bach, for example, deliberately wrote some music in old fashioned styles in Clavier Ubung  3, and indeed in more modern galant styles in the same compendium, the duetti. You could probably see CU3 as a study of period and contemporary styles. [...]

Well, as much as I'm convinced that Bach was not an instrument-fetishist, he surely had his opinion about syle and composition. CU 3 is a fascinating example of that. I've read some articles about his ideas, and how he included them in this composition, and it was fascinating reading stuff. But also a bit too difficult to understand for a layman like me. I'm not informed enough to fully grab these extensive and in-depth essays about Bach's musical conceptions. But yes, interesting and sometimes insightful it was. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 01:24:36 PM

Well, I can only talk for myself. A scientifically responsible reconstruction of a Baroque organ is to bring it back to the date of its original construction. Yes I know, that Arp Schnitger often incorporated older pipes in his organs, but in the end he created an integrated organ fulfilling his own aesthetics. It depends upon whether you want to reconstruct the Baroque organ or not. Unfortunately many Baroque organs have undergone re-buildings and "improvements" in the Romantic age, and one could choose to reconstruct a later version of the organ, but this remains a matter of taste. But I consider it a waste of cultural heritage, if a great Baroque organ is reconstructed in a Romantic incarnation.

I'm afraid I did not make myself clear.

With the new regulations, baroque organs will be restored as baroque organs, romantic organs as romantic, modern organs as modern, mixed organs as mixed, et cetera.
The Der Aa Kerk organ wasn't a fully baroque organ anymore. It was installed in the Der Aa Kerk in 1815, and very quickly the baroque 'Borstwerk' was replaced by a more romantic 'Bovenwerk' (Timpe). Roughly said: shortly after the 1815 installment in the Der Aa Kerk it has been an organ with 3 manuals and a pedal board, two manuals being baroque, one manual being romantic, and the pedal board being a mix. That's how it was installed, that's how it's known and celebrated for, that's its cultural heritage, and that's what it still is. Nothing has been reconstructed, except for the Cornet 2ft in the pedal (who had gone lost during the years).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:40:05 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:20:23 PM
It doesn't sound totally right to me you know. Bach, for example, deliberately wrote some music in old fashioned styles in Clavier Ubung  3, and indeed in more modern galant styles in the same compendium, the duetti. You could probably see CU3 as a study of period and contemporary styles.

And  there are composers who saw themselves as making a break with past performance styles - Frescobaldi for example in the 1615 preface, I think. Like Bach he was well aware of "period style" and "contemporary style" , and in the case of Bach at least, he was excited about the distinction, he arguably was seeking to synthesise the two.

Bach is rather the exception because he cherished the Antique style. I do not know about Frescobaldi, who intended to create a new style. But of course every composer builds upon the former generation and must for that reason have some historical perspective. The stylistic systematizing which has been made by musicologists in the 20th century was per definition unknown to the early composers.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:38:11 PM
With the new regulations, baroque organs will be restored as baroque organs, romantic organs as romantic, modern organs as modern, mixed organs as mixed, et cetera.

Now I am more calm. This is how it should be.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:25:24 PM
Does this have anything to do with Egarr's 'cantabile heaven" or indeed Rubsam and Hill, who talk a lot about cantabile?

Could be. She didn't mention any of those names. She only mentioned Marcel Dupré as her inspiration.
But she did say she sometimes picked a more cantabile registration than the average 'no legato' Dutch organist.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 01:25:24 PM
Does this have anything to do with Egarr's 'cantabile heaven" or indeed Rubsam and Hill, who talk a lot about cantabile?

Yes they talk about cantabile, and Bach did so in his preface to the inventions, but cantabile is not identical with legato. To play cantabile is to play as one sings, and since there are lots of syllables in a given text, you also have to articulate the notes in accordance with this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 01:44:07 PM
Now I am more calm. This is how it should be.

You're very welcome. I hope you're gonna have a good night sleep now. 0:)
But it was almost a 'blind' repeat of what I wrote earlier ;):

Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
[...] So, baroque organs are going to be restored as baroque organs, romantic organs as romantic, and mixed organs as mixed. The latter ones are very interesting, because one can hear the change in taste during the centuries. The Der Aa Kerk organ is a great example of that.
[...]
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:52:59 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:47:11 PM
Could be. She didn't mention any of those names. She only mentioned Marcel Dupré as her inspiration.
But she did say she sometimes picked a more cantabile registration than the average 'no legato' Dutch organist.


Marcel Dupré played (in Bach) long stretches of unbroken legato. Many of his pupils unfortunately adapted this inauthentic kind of articulation. But to day this is history - almost.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 01:55:26 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:50:38 PM
You're very welcome. I hope you're gonna have a good night sleep now. 0:)
But it was almost a 'blind' repeat of what I wrote earlier ;):


Sorry, maybe you put it better the second time. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 01:58:18 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 01:52:59 PM

Marcel Dupré played (in Bach) long stretches of unbroken legato. Many of his pupils unfortunately adapted this inauthentic kind of articulation. But to day this is history - almost.

Well, as I (and some others) said before: to each his/her own. Now the Dupré lovers are able (even though her discs are not easy to buy abroad, I guess) to buy modern recordings of Bach works who cherish that style of playing. I'm perfectly fine with it. It's not my preferred style, and I also thought she was a bit too much black vs white in her statements back then. A far too 'simple' generalization of 25 years of Bach interpretation by her fellow Dutchies.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 03, 2018, 02:02:02 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 01:55:26 PM

Sorry, maybe you put it better the second time. :)

I read them again and again myself... and you're absolutely right. :P

Now I'm off to bed. Three concerts tomorrow in my Saturday program. Not all of them with organs btw.

Good night!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 03, 2018, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Marc on August 03, 2018, 02:02:02 PM
I read them again and again myself... and you're absolutely right. :P

Now I'm off to bed. Three concerts tomorrow in my Saturday program. Not all of them with organs btw.

Good night!


Good night from me, too!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:32:12 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:04:28 AM
I am a little bit cynical about her, I don't think [Angela Hewitt]'s a scholar.

You don't have to be a scholar in order to be a good, even great, interpreter. This is actually yet another problem I have with the HIP movement: because of their overtly (and overly) intellectual(ized) approach they have turned the art of performing into an academic discipline and the performer into a scholar. In their eyes --- and apparently in yours as well --- a performance, be it live or recorded, which is not the fruit of painstaking scholarly research and not backed up by a referenced article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal is at best suspicious and at worst inadmissible. Besides being utterly absurd, such a position is blatantly non-historical: that's not how they did in the past. I can't think of a single great performer, harpsichordist, pianist, violonist, cellist or whatnot, in the time frame 1700 - 1900 who spent his or her time going from one archive / library to another and publishing scholarly essays in order to justify his/her interpretive choices (writing treatises on the art of playing their instrument doesn't quite qualify); in any case, not Bach nor Mozart, for instance.

And this brings me to yet another issue: there is abounding evidence that the great performers of the past were skilled improvisers, capable of delecting and enrapturing their audience with an hour worth of extemporizing, and that this was common practice, widely appreciated and sought for. Please show me one single person in the HIP camp who advocates such extemporizing, let alone be able to produce it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 12:04:16 AM
To be a good or even a great interpreter you have to be able to read the score, make sense of the score,  and in 17th century music that requires scholarship.



For improvisation check William Porter, he's got a chair in improvisation somewhere in the US. There are others.  There used to be (I've not checked recently) lots of examples on YouTube, masterclasses, including a long course he gave. It's a big area I think.

Bach built his own library of manuscripts, I think he studied the ideas about interpretation contained therein. Music by Frescobaldi, du Mage, Grigny . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 12:15:57 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 12:04:16 AM
To be a good or even a great interpreter you have to be able to read the score, make sense of the score, and in 17th century music that requires scholarship.

Whose sense? The interpreter's own, or the putative one of whoever might have performed the music back then? I much prefer the former as I'm interested in music-making that is alive and fresh, not in recreating long gone practices. Evwen if these could with certainty bring us the music as it was played and heard back then, this is indeed an academic exercise; people play and hear the music now, not then.

Quote
For improvisation check William Porter. There used to be (I've not checked recently) lots of examples on YouTube, masterclasses, including a long course he gave. It's a big area I think.

I'm not talking about masterclasses. I'm talking about real performances in front of a general audience.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 12:21:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 12:15:57 AM
Whose sense? The interpreter's own, or the putative one of whoever might have performed the music back then? I much prefer the former as I'm interested in music-making that is alive and fresh, not in recreating long gone practices. Evwen if these could with certainty bring us the music as it was played and heard back then, this is indeed an academic exercise; people play and hear the music now, not then.

I'm not talking about masterclasses. I'm talking about real performances in front of a general audience.

Oh yes, I've been to concerts with improvisation. Jean Rondeau improvised a couple of weeks ago in London before playing the Goldbergs. If you go to youtube and check Robert Hill you'll find that he also improvises a prelude before a 2014 (or thereabouts) live Goldbergs performance (a friend of mine had some very cutting words to say about Hill's improvisation there!)  . . . when I saw a concert at Ste Croix Bordeaux there was some improvisation on the organ . . .

The point that you're constantly missing is that it's possible to give a personal inspired "alive and fresh" interpretation which is HIP. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 12:46:07 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:32:12 PM
You don't have to be a scholar in order to be a good, even great, interpreter. This is actually yet another problem I have with the HIP movement: because of their overtly (and overly) intellectual(ized) approach they have turned the art of performing into an academic discipline and the performer into a scholar. In their eyes --- and apparently in yours as well --- a performance, be it live or recorded, which is not the fruit of painstaking scholarly research and not backed up by a referenced article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal is at best suspicious and at worst inadmissible. Besides being utterly absurd, . . .

I've just thought of an analogy to show how absurd and arrogant your opinion is.

Someone interpreting Shakespeare's Julius Caesar has to make sense of this

QuoteDECIUS    
3.1.75        Great Caesar—    
        
        CAESAR    
                          Doth not Brutus bootless kneel?    
        CASCA    
        Speak, hands for me!    
        
        They stab CAESAR.    
        
        CAESAR    
        Et tu, Brute?— Then fall, Caesar!   
   


Bootless in modern English means "without boots" Someone who didn't do any scholarship would think that Caesar is saying "Why does Brutus -- who hasn't put his shoes on -- kneel?"

But that's rubbish. Bootless meant something completely different for Shakespeare, and the uninformed production, with a barefooted Brutus, would be a travesty, a mockery, untruthful . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 04, 2018, 01:01:40 AM
There's a completely false dichotomy here. Who says Angela Hewitt isn't a scholar?

Given that I couldn't get as far as an associate diploma in piano without undertaking a decent amount of training in understanding the different styles of music across the centuries, I seriously doubt that a professional recording pianist can get through a career without knowing quite a bit about this stuff.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Marc on August 04, 2018, 02:04:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:32:12 PM
[...]
And this brings me to yet another issue: there is abounding evidence that the great performers of the past were skilled improvisers, capable of delecting and enrapturing their audience with an hour worth of extemporizing, and that this was common practice, widely appreciated and sought for. Please show me one single person in the HIP camp who advocates such extemporizing, let alone be able to produce it.

In this case it's a pity you're not that much into the organ.
There are worldwide improvisation organ festivals where many historically informed organists attend or compete.
Here in the north of NL there are quite a few improvisators, the best known is probably Sietze de Vries. He advocates it, and he produces it.
Another great example is renowned HIP musician and scholar Harald Vogel.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 02:48:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2018, 11:32:12 PM
You don't have to be a scholar in order to be a good, even great, interpreter. This is actually yet another problem I have with the HIP movement: because of their overtly (and overly) intellectual(ized) approach they have turned the art of performing into an academic discipline and the performer into a scholar. In their eyes --- and apparently in yours as well --- a performance, be it live or recorded, which is not the fruit of painstaking scholarly research and not backed up by a referenced article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal is at best suspicious and at worst inadmissible. Besides being utterly absurd, such a position is blatantly non-historical: that's not how they did in the past. to produce it.

The HIP movement is more or less a result of our interest in our past history. This interest has occupied the Western civilisation for many hundreds of years, and without it we would become people without history and without identity. You are the one you are, because of your past and because you are able to recall it. This is what defines your identity. Here in my country I am sometimes faced with young people, who don't even know, that there was a Second World War. Very depressing. And if we are supposed to learn from our past, we have at least to know it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 02:55:47 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 12:46:07 AM
  CAESAR     
                          Doth not Brutus bootless kneel?     
        CASCA     
        Speak, hands for me!     
         
        They stab CAESAR.     
         
        CAESAR     
        Et tu, Brute?— Then fall, Caesar!   

In this quote even the word Brute may be misunderstood by a modern Englishman.
     
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 03:24:09 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2018, 10:09:40 AM
Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.

Unless you think she was in some way deluded in this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 03:25:29 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 10:36:21 AM
Yes, sentiments can be, but sentimentality can not.

I think sentimentality can be serious, but it thereby becomes an atrocity  8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 03:27:03 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 03, 2018, 10:42:58 AM
Lutherans also have a sense of irony.

The things I learn on GMG! 0:)

This, my mildly facetious post notwithstanding, please know that I appreciate all (well, practically all) my fellow GMG'ers.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 03, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
[...] Why cannot we not presume that had he be able to Bach too would have abandoned the harpsichord?

He might have, or he might not have.  As a fertile musical mind, he might have abandoned the harpsichord for the piano.  As a human being of some habits, some of the habits entrenched, he might never have abandoned the harpsichord.

Yours is a reasonable speculation, but only speculation.  (By which, I do not mean to single you out by any means.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on August 04, 2018, 03:40:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
He might have, or he might not have.  As a fertile musical mind, he might have abandoned the harpsichord for the piano.  As a human being of some habits, some of the habits entrenched, he might never have abandoned the harpsichord.

Yours is a reasonable speculation, but only speculation.  (By which, I do not mean to single you out by any means.)

And if Bach would have have abandoned the harpsichord and had written for the piano, he wouldn't have written the same music.

Q
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:46:52 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 12:46:07 AM
I've just thought of an analogy to show how absurd and arrogant your opinion is.

If you inferred that what I meant was "the music should be interpreted without any care at all for its historical context" you misunderstood me. I don't advocate such an approach --- but neither am I so strongly opposed to it as you are. (I judge the net result of any approach, ie how the music sounds to me and whether I enjoy it or not, on a case by case basis. Liszt and Sarasate probably didn't spent much time thinking about how Bach's music was played in his lifetime yet their performances delighted both connoisseurs and amateurs alike.)  As Madiel pointed out, no professionally trained pianist with at least a moderately succesful career is unaware of, and uninterested in, the hisstorical context of the pieces they play. What I object to is the obsessive preocupation with playing the music as close as possible to how it must have been played back then, imho a clear case of trying to be more Catholic than the Pope himself.

As for your analogy with Shakespeare, it doesn't work for the very simple reason that music is not a spoken language. "Bootless" is a word; it had a different meaning in 1600 than it has now, but in both cases it has one that can be ascertained and upon which people then, or people today, were / are in perfect agreement. Now, what is the perfectly agreed upon meaning of this today?

(https://cdn.imslp.org/images/thumb/pdfs/14/89d7261504d5b10f0f68519d690c3c135dc54e50.png)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:51:10 AM
Quote from: Marc on August 04, 2018, 02:04:43 AM
In this case it's a pity you're not that much into the organ.
There are worldwide improvisation organ festivals where many historically informed organists attend or compete.
Here in the north of NL there are quite a few improvisators, the best known is probably Sietze de Vries. He advocates it, and he produces it.
Another great example is renowned HIP musician and scholar Harald Vogel.

I guess that I would enjoy hearing an organ live in a church acoustics. But I live in Romania, a country where such thing is a rarity for me  --- the Orthodox church music is exclusively vocal and my home is not in Transylvania where there are many Catholic and Protestant churches with organs. I'll try to go to one of the few organ recitals offered in Bucharest in the Catholic Cathedral or the Lutheran Church.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 03:53:32 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 03:27:03 AM

This, my mildly facetious post notwithstanding, please know that I appreciate all (well, practically all) my fellow GMG'ers.


I think we all do.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:53:57 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 02:48:13 AM
The HIP movement is more or less a result of our interest in our past history. This interest has occupied the Western civilisation for many hundreds of years, and without it we would become people without history and without identity. You are the one you are, because of your past and because you are able to recall it. This is what defines your identity. Here in my country I am sometimes faced with young people, who don't even know, that there was a Second World War. Very depressing. And if we are supposed to learn from our past, we have at least to know it.

Fully and completely agreed and sharing your depression, the situation here in Romania is no better, I assure you. But there is a risk in the other direction, namely to be so obsessively preocupied with the past as to refuse to allow for anything new.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:55:48 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 03:53:32 AM
I think we all do.

Me too. I have been enjoying this debate enormously and I think it's one of the most civil and humorous GMG has ever seen.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 03:56:09 AM
Quote from: Que on August 04, 2018, 03:40:34 AM
And if Bach would have have abandoned the harpsichord and had written for the piano, he wouldn't have written the same music.

Q

He may not have . . . or, he may have.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:57:48 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 03:56:09 AM
He may not have . . . or, he may have.

Very good.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 04:04:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:57:48 AM
Very good.  :)

. . . because one of the (many) things I love about Bach (and in the 20th c. we see it a good deal in the Shostakovich symphonies, e.g.) is his giving exactly the same material to different instruments.  Bach was a colorist, of course.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 04:07:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:46:52 AMNow, what is the perfectly agreed upon meaning of this today?
(https://cdn.imslp.org/images/thumb/pdfs/14/89d7261504d5b10f0f68519d690c3c135dc54e50.png)

The notes are probably not to be interpreted in the same way as we would do, if the music was composed to day. Our musicologists try to encode this. There are f.i. some shorthand involved in Bach's notation. This is why Mandryka's Shakespeare example is good. The signs in the score are like words, which have changed their meaning during the last 250 years or so.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 04:11:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 04:04:58 AM
. . . because one of the (many) things I love about Bach (and in the 20th c. we see it a good deal in the Shostakovich symphonies, e.g.) is his giving exactly the same material to different instruments.  Bach was a colorist, of course.


Good point.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 04:25:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 03:46:52 AM


As for your analogy with Shakespeare, it doesn't work for the very simple reason that music is not a spoken language. "Bootless" is a word; it had a different meaning in 1600 than it has now, but in both cases it has one that can be ascertained and upon which people then, or people today, were / are in perfect agreement. Now, what is the perfectly agreed upon meaning of this today?

(https://cdn.imslp.org/images/thumb/pdfs/14/89d7261504d5b10f0f68519d690c3c135dc54e50.png)

By coincidence Premont recommended a book by Colin Booth which deals with precisely this question, and it arrived in the post this morning. You'll be able to find excerpts from it on Colin Booth's website. I just opened the package and looked at the first chapter and it's clear that in Bach's day people had a different attitude to note length, so some notes would be held down longer than a literal reading of the score indicates, to create a chordal texture. Booth argues that this practice was so ubiquitous that composers just assumed that everyone would do it. Anyway, this isn't the place for the details, the point is that the conventions underlying the meaning of the score have changed just as the conventions underlying the meaning of "bootless" have changed.

You'll know more about this than me, I'm sure, but I think you get similar problems in Mozart. Bilson did something called "Knowing the Score"

http://malcolmbilson.com/kts.php
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 04:29:58 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 04:25:11 AM
By coincidence Premont recommended a book by Colin Booth which deals with precisely this question...


That was certainly not a coincidence.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:37:40 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 04:11:40 AM

Good point.

But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:37:40 AM
But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one.  ;D

Not all colorists work color the same, of course.

Matisse was a colorist.  Bach was a colorist, too.  So what Bach would have done is . . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:48:18 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 04:25:11 AM
the point is that the conventions underlying the meaning of the score have changed just as the conventions underlying the meaning of "bootless" have changed.

No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity --- a barefoot Brutus --- which the audience would laugh off the stage even without being aware of the original convention, performing Bach with today's conventions would result in... in what, exactly?

The Shakespeare analogy is doubly faulty, now that I think of it, in that it implies not only a highly debatable analogy between music-making and speaking, but also a plainly implausible one between performing music and performing a play, ie between hearing non-verbal sounds and seeing actions described by words.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:51:01 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Not all colorists work color the same, of course.

Matisse was a colorist.  Bach was a colorist, too.  So what Bach would have done is . . . .

Please define color in music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 04, 2018, 04:52:13 AM
Quote from: Que on August 04, 2018, 03:40:34 AM
And if Bach would have have abandoned the harpsichord and had written for the piano, he wouldn't have written the same music.

Q

You cannot know that. 

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 03:33:10 AM
He might have, or he might not have.  As a fertile musical mind, he might have abandoned the harpsichord for the piano.  As a human being of some habits, some of the habits entrenched, he might never have abandoned the harpsichord.

Yours is a reasonable speculation, but only speculation.  (By which, I do not mean to single you out by any means.)

The entire HIP/PI phenomenon is based on speculation. 

But for me the bottomline is that I think Bach's music is perfectly suited to the piano, despite claims to the contrary by the HIP/PI camp.  Since Shakespeare has come up already, here's another quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 04:55:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:37:40 AM
But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one.  ;D

Yes, I think, this is what Karl implied in his post, and I agree as to most instruments.
But on my own part I am not sure about the piano, - of course not the fortepiano, but the modern grand, which I consider a rather colorless instrument, which pianists have to play with all their mobilizable imagination, in order to confer it a hint of color. One of my objections to playing Baroque music on the modern grand is precisely its lack of color (partials).


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 04:55:53 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 04, 2018, 04:52:13 AM
The entire HIP/PI phenomenon is based on speculation.

Aye;  I may have posted to just that effect, erewhile.

Quote from: San AntoneBut for me the bottomline is that I think Bach's music is perfectly suited to the piano, despite claims to the contrary by the HIP/PI camp.  Since Shakespeare has come up already, here's another quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

The greatness of both Bach and Shakespeare resides partly in how the work remains great, throughout a wide range of variable interpretation.  I do not think I need to qualify that statement as mere opinion   0:)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 04:57:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:51:01 AM
Please define color in music.

The color of a musical instrument is defined by the combination of the upper partials of the instrument.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 04, 2018, 04:58:02 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 04:55:53 AM
The greatness of both Bach and Shakespeare resides partly in how it remains great, throughout a wide ranger of variable interpretation.  I do not think I need to qualify that statement as mere opinion   0:)

Indeed, much of this is haggling over details that are unable to hide the powerful structure underneath.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 05:01:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:48:18 AM
No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity --- a barefoot Brutus --- which the audience would laugh off the stage even without being aware of the original convention, performing Bach with today's conventions would result in... in what, exactly?

Well, for informed listeners it might also result in a laugh.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:05:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:48:18 AM
No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity...

The Shakespeare analogy is doubly faulty, now that I think of it, in that it implies not only a highly debatable analogy between music-making and speaking, but also a plainly implausible one between performing music and performing a play, ie between hearing non-verbal sounds and seeing actions described by words.

HIP Shakespeare would try to incorporate Elizabethan pronunciation which has been tried to an extent. This can solve some of the issues in non-rhyming words in Modern English, which rhymed back then. If an audience already knows the text from having read or studied it, then they should be able to follow the play even with slightly altered pronunciation.

The problem is with in-jokes or references that still haven't been solved yet. These go over the heads of modern audiences as probably some of the musical connotations particularly in Baroque Affekt that have been discontinued or maybe just went underground.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:07:37 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:05:03 AM
HIP Shakespeare would try to incorporate Elizabethan pronunciation which has been tried to an extent. This can solve some of the issues in non-rhyming words in Modern English, which rhymed back then. If an audience already knows the text from having read or studied it, then they should be able to follow the play even with slightly altered pronunciation.

The problem is with in-jokes or references that still haven't been solved yet. These go over the heads of modern audiences as probably some of the musical connotations particularly in Baroque Affekt that have been discontinued or maybe just went underground.

HIP Shakespeare would also involve boys in women roles and the replacing of scenography by additional non-acting people carrying signs reading, for instance, "This is a tree."
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:08:40 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 04, 2018, 04:52:13 AM
You cannot know that. 

The entire HIP/PI phenomenon is based on speculation. 

But for me the bottomline is that I think Bach's music is perfectly suited to the piano, despite claims to the contrary by the HIP/PI camp.  Since Shakespeare has come up already, here's another quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Now, really, have we been separated at birth, I wonder?  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:09:09 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 04:57:21 AM
The color of a musical instrument is defined by the combination of the upper partials of the instrument.

Indeed, the reason I don't think Bach would have composed the same music for the modern piano. He was very sensitive to partials and tuning, the latter being the pretext for the Well Tempered Clavier. Relative tuning was still not our half tone tuning. The key themselves had different colors because of having or not having perfect fifiths. I could try and look up an excellent article on the tuning of Bach's time, haven't read it for a while, so sort of forget where it is.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 05:10:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:37:40 AM
But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one.  ;D

Actually we don't know what Bach would have minded, all we can do is to make a qualified guess. But what Bach would have minded is not that important, since he probably can't hear the pianists of to day. But I can, and I am not - for many reasons, which I have described - keen on listening to most of the pianists who play Bach today. But again I stress, that I have more against the pianists than the instrument.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:10:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:07:37 AM
HIP Shakespeare would also involve ... replacing of scenography by additional non-acting people carrying signs reading, for instance, "This is a tree."

Honestly, I never heard that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:14:41 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 04:55:53 AM
The greatness of both Bach and Shakespeare resides partly in how the work remains great, throughout a wide range of variable interpretation. 

Precisely.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:17:29 AM
I just found an article on Bach's tuning, not the same one I read years ago but by the same author:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Das_Wohltemperirte_Clavier.htm
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:09:09 AM
Indeed, the reason I don't think Bach would have composed the same music for the modern piano. He was very sensitive to partials and tuning, the latter being the pretext for the Well Tempered Clavier. Relative tuning was still not our half tone tuning. The key themselves had different colors because of having or not having perfect fifiths. I could try and look up an excellent article on the tuning of Bach's time, haven't read it for a while, so sort of forget where it is.


Yes, this is an important point, which non-HIPs either are unaware of or deliberately ignore.

In the last years I have seen a few examples of tuning a piano in unequal temperature, but the effect will never become the same as on a harpsichord because of the modern grand's weak partials.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 05:19:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:48:18 AM
No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity --- a barefoot Brutus --- which the audience would laugh off the stage even without being aware of the original convention, performing Bach with today's conventions would result in... in what, exactly?



A travesty

Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:48:18 AM


The Shakespeare analogy is doubly faulty, now that I think of it, in that it implies not only a highly debatable analogy between music-making and speaking, but also a plainly implausible one between performing music and performing a play, ie between hearing non-verbal sounds and seeing actions described by words.

This is bluster.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:20:19 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:10:34 AM
Honestly, I never heard that.

I must have read it somewhere but I can't remember where.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:21:33 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 05:19:05 AM
A travesty

I disagree.

Quote
This is bluster.

Why have you become so aggressive as of late, I wonder?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 05:24:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 04:48:18 AM
The Shakespeare analogy is doubly faulty, now that I think of it, in that it implies not only a highly debatable analogy between music-making and speaking, but also a plainly implausible one between performing music and performing a play, ie between hearing non-verbal sounds and seeing actions described by words.

I missed the logic in this conclusion.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:46:04 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 05:24:01 AM
I missed the logic in this conclusion.

First: music is not a language. Any analogy between words / speech, whose meanings can be unanimously agreed upon by (tens or hundreds of) millions of people, and musical bars / works, whose meaning can, and will, be debated until kingdom come, is in my opinion false.

Second: you said earlier that you prefer to close your eyes when listening to music because the bodily movements of the performers might distract you from concentrating upon music. A play performed on stage is on the contrary specifically dependent upon the bodily movements of the performers which, far from detracting the attention, actually imply it. I am confident you don't close your eyes when they perform Romeo and Juliet.

Is it any clearer now?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 05:54:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:46:04 AM
First: music is not a language. Any analogy between words / speech, whose meanings can be unanimously agreed upon by (tens or hundreds of) millions of people, and musical bars / works, whose meaning can, and will, be debated until kingdom come, is in my opinion false.


We're talking about the meaning of musical notation. All that stuff about the meaning of the hammerklavier that came up before is a complete red herring. We're talking about things like the meaning of a triplet sign in a score - how that sign results in a certain type of action on the part of the performer.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:59:50 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 05:54:42 AM
We're talking about the meaning of musical notation. All that stuff about the meaning of the hammerklavier that came up before is a complete red herring. We're talking about things like the meaning of a triplet sign in a score - how that sign results in a certain type of action on the part of the performer.

I don't remember ever mentioning Hammerklavier in my posts.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 06:02:54 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:59:50 AM
I don't remember ever mentioning Hammerklavier in my posts.

No but it came up. Karl I think and someone else brought it up.
Re HIP Shakespeare, you know this was explored when The Globe was rebuilt in London. When they first started out they had a main director and actor who was wonderful, Mark Rylance.  I saw the best history plays I've ever seen there, a Richard III. And a wonderful Tempest and Twelfth Night. Gender bending too. Since he left it's not as interesting IMO.

You had to stand, if it rained you got wet, it had to be in daylight hours, boys and transvestites for the female parts . . .
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:05:38 AM
I think it's generally agreed that music doesn't have semantic content like a language, but there are analogies to language in the fact that music is said to communicate and that its communication is dependent to some degree on context and on a receiver who is able to decipher what is communicated.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 06:06:38 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:05:38 AM
I think it's generally agreed that music doesn't have semantic content like a language, but there are analogies to language in the fact that music is said to communicate and that its communication is dependent to some degree on context and on a receiver who is able to decipher what is communicated.

Whether music has a semantic content is irrelevant, the issue is about musical notation.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on August 04, 2018, 06:07:57 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 05:10:34 AM
Honestly, I never heard that.

Honestly, me neither. Sets in our modern sense did not exist in Elizabethan theatre; instead, the dialogue and context would convey the setting implied. E.g.:

But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder:
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts;
Into a thousand parts divide on man,
And make imaginary puissance;
Think when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth; (etc.)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 06:08:55 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 04:07:06 AM
The notes are probably not to be interpreted in the same way as we would do, if the music was composed to day. Our musicologists try to encode this. There are f.i. some shorthand involved in Bach's notation. This is why Mandryka's Shakespeare example is good. The signs in the score are like words, which have changed their meaning during the last 250 years or so.
Or look at a 13th century black note manuscript...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:10:28 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 05:54:42 AM
We're talking about things like the meaning of a triplet sign in a score - how that sign results in a certain type of action on the part of the performer.

The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.

But imho opinion the crux of the matter lies besides technicalities and is this: if the value of any given piece of music is strictly dependent on a certain historical context, certain techniques and certain instruments then that universality of which Karl spoke in relationship with Bach or Shakespeare is completely lost; the work becomes literally a relic of the past, an object not of music and performance but of archaeology and excavation.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:11:59 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 06:06:38 AM
Whether music has a semantic content is irrelevant,

I agree.

Quote from: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 06:06:38 AMthe issue is about musical notation.

And I think you're absolutely correct that people have interpreted notation in different ways over the centuries, and contemporary norms are not the same as those of 220-300 years ago.

I think the question, though, is whether or not this is an important issue.  Because we know that the interpretation of these things was different, is there any obligation on us as performers/listeners to adjust the way we think of the music?  Florestan says no.  I remain agnostic about the matter, but I'm interested in seeing what you have to say.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 06:22:37 AM
Ever hear of the antikythera mechanism? It's in pieces. A HIP mechanic might try, using research and experiment, to try to build a working example, to understand (he fondly imagines) or even enjoy (he fondly imagines) how it actually worked.
BUT some will say, perhaps we can imagine it better now without that pointless "scholarship ".  We have learned so much, advanced so far since. Perhaps, had he lived now, the maker might have preferred to leave it in pieces. Who can be sure? Plus we have much better calculating instruments now, why shouldn't we just avail ourselves of them? All approaches are equal! Putting it in a trash compactor is equally legitimate with assembling it, there is nothing special about the supposed "original intent".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 06:25:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:10:28 AM
The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.

But imho opinion the crux of the matter lies besides technicalities and is this: if the value of any given piece of music is strictly dependent on a certain historical context, certain techniques and certain instruments then that universality of which Karl spoke in relationship with Bach or Shakespeare is completely lost; the work becomes literally a relic of the past, an object not of music and performance but of archaeology and excavation.
Is the only way we can know how the Romans pronounced V to get in a time machine?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:29:36 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 06:25:04 AM
Is the only way we can know how the Romans pronounced V to get in a time machine?

Oh, no, please, not again music and language! And especially not music and Latin!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 06:35:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:46:04 AM
First: music is not a language. Any analogy between words / speech, whose meanings can be unanimously agreed upon by (tens or hundreds of) millions of people, and musical bars / works, whose meaning can, and will, be debated until kingdom come, is in my opinion false.

See Mandryka's answer to this.

Quote from: Florestan
Second: you said earlier that you prefer to close your eyes when listening to music because the bodily movements of the performers might distract you from concentrating upon music. A play performed on stage is on the contrary specifically dependent upon the bodily movements of the performers which, far from detracting the attention, actually imply it. I am confident you don't close your eyes when they perform Romeo and Juliet.

I do not find a litteral comparison betwween music and stage play to be valid. Musicians are not actors. Mandryka's comparison is meant to be understood in a more figurative way, and is in this sense very apt.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 06:41:24 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 06:08:55 AM
Or look at a 13th century black note manuscript...


Well, the risk of confusion is more obvious with the Bach manuscript, because it looks like something we know, whereas a 13th century manuscript only will induce a few associations in a 21th century viewer.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 06:44:57 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:10:28 AM
The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.

This is not true. Baroque musical authors have written quite a lot about these things, and comparing more manuscripts may tell a lot.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 06:46:52 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:11:59 AM
I agree.
I think the question, though, is whether or not this is an important issue.  Because we know that the interpretation of these things was different, is there any obligation on us as performers/listeners to adjust the way we think of the music?  Florestan says no.  I remain agnostic about the matter, but I'm interested in seeing what you have to say.


If we don't use our musicological knowledge the music we make will become even more distorted.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:51:57 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 06:46:52 AMIf we don't use our musicological knowledge the music we make will become even more distorted.

True, but I suppose the question is if there is inherent value in trying to remove the layers caked onto the original, or whether the performing tradition carries its own validity, regardless of historical context.

Personally, I can enjoy both HIP interpretations and non-HIP ones, and although I find that massive choirs/orchestras performing Handel or Bach sound strange, I'm not especially bothered by hearing the grand piano instead of the harpsichord or clavichord.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 06:53:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:10:28 AM

But imho opinion the crux of the matter lies besides technicalities and is this: if the value of any given piece of music is strictly dependent on a certain historical context, certain techniques and certain instruments then that universality of which Karl spoke in relationship with Bach or Shakespeare is completely lost;

I'm sorry if this is a bore, but would you or Karl or someone else just explain this universality in relation to Bach. I expect it's buried in this thread somewhere but I can't see it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:51:57 AM
True, but I suppose the question is if there is inherent value in trying to remove the layers caked onto the original, or whether the performing tradition carries its own validity, regardless of historical context.

Personally, I can enjoy both HIP interpretations and non-HIP ones, and although I find that massive choirs/orchestras performing Handel or Bach sound strange, I'm not especially bothered by hearing the grand piano instead of the harpsichord or clavichord.

I think it would be hard  to argue that the performing tradition carries no validity. I mean lots of people enjoy and pay for the distortions, the travesties, the lies etc. And people make money out of it by concerts etc.

Isn't interesting how close we always are to the truth related concepts - validity, distortion . .  . I'm sure that it's a promising research area.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 05:10:03 AM
Actually we don't know what Bach would have minded, all we can do is to make a qualified guess. But what Bach would have minded is not that important, since he probably can't hear the pianists of to day. But I can, and I am not - for many reasons, which I have described - keen on listening to most of the pianists who play Bach today. But again I stress, that I have more against the pianists than the instrument.

What do you think of Glenn Gould?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 07:29:03 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 05:18:48 AM

In the last years I have seen a few examples of tuning a piano in unequal temperature, but the effect will never become the same as on a harpsichord because of the modern grand's weak partials.

Well, electronic keyboards can be tuned easily in different temperaments (not temperature, for sure a typo). This is done with Oriental scales for instance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 07:38:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:10:28 AM
The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.


Well, not entirely. Interpreting of Bach at the Keyboard by Paul Badura-Skoda mentions organ barrels that recorded like a hurdy gurdy, music in the mid 18th century with some Handel. Unfortunately many got lost in a fire. But he did hear some of them. He found that tempi were faster than what we are used to but that may be a function of having to cram as many notes as possible in a small space like 78 records had to.

He mentioned something also quite extraordinary in the Baroque, the sometime lengthening of the first of a duplet making it into a triplet with the first note lengthened to twice its value. Astonishingly, there is a recording of Rachmaninoff playing his own 3rd Piano Concerto, employing the same craft , very beautiful and special. 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Wakefield on August 04, 2018, 07:50:05 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 04:55:53 AM
The greatness of both Bach and Shakespeare resides partly in how the work remains great, throughout a wide range of variable interpretation.  I do not think I need to qualify that statement as mere opinion   0:)

Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 05:14:41 AM
Precisely.

An irrelevant thought: Every time when I read this kind of comments (quite accepted, indeed), some words by Ernesto Sabato said during a conversation with Borges come to my mind.

"I remember that a long time ago, I saw a staging of Macbeth. The translation was as bad as the actors and the badly painted stage. But I went out to the street undone by tragic passion. Shakespeare had managed to beat his translator."

It's good to recall, I think, that this is referred to Shakespeare's own greatness, not to the performance itself.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 04, 2018, 08:35:31 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 04, 2018, 04:55:53 AM


The greatness of . . . Bach . .  resides partly in how the work remains great, throughout a wide range of variable interpretation.

Is this just saying that you think that the music can be fun to hear whether it's played  slow or fast, stiff or fluid, see-through or blended, harpsichord or sax . . . Or is there more being said?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 08:49:44 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 04, 2018, 06:35:12 AM
See Mandrykas answer to this.

I do not find a litteral comparison betwween music and stage play to be valid. Musicians are not actors. Mandryka's comparison is meant to be understood in a more figurative way, and is in this sense very apt.

It is very apt only because you happened to agree with his views even before he made that specific comparison.

Much as I've been enjoying this exchange, I'm beginning to feel exhaustion. Both camps have made their points and it is clearly apparent that neither is going to change position as a result of this debate, which actually amounts to each party gently and kindly (most of the time) refuting the arguments of the other party. (Karl suggested three minimal points of agreement to which I am the only one to have formally expressed approval.) This can be fun for a while but eventually it gets tiresome, at least for me. Therefore I will state my position once and for all in as plain English I am capable of.

1. I am not opposed to HIP as one legitimate and valid approach among others. I enjoy many HIP recordings, ensembles and performers.

2. I am opposed to declaring HIP the only legitimate and valid approach. I cannot help seeing this as intellectual totalitarianism and artistic dogmatism.

3. I believe every era and every generation engages with the works of art of the past according to their own (eras and generations, that is) idea(l)s, sensibilities and tastes. Bach's generation was no exception to that, nor was Mozart's or Beethoven's.

4. I believe that the ultimate ideal of hardcore HIP is unattainable.

5. I couldn't care less on which keyboard instrument one listens to the Baroque, Classical and Early Romantic keyboard music. "There are no rules. Pleasure is the law".

That's it and that's all. This is going to be my very last post in this thread. Many thanks to my esteemed opponents premont, Que, Ken B and Mandryka for a very enjoyable, civil and funny debate, and many thanks to everybody else as well. See you guys in other threads.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 04, 2018, 09:47:31 AM
Quote from: Gordo on August 04, 2018, 07:50:05 AM
"I remember that a long time ago, I saw a staging of Macbeth. The translation was as bad as the actors and the badly painted stage. But I went out to the street undone by tragic passion. Shakespeare had managed to beat his translator."

It's good to recall, I think, that this is referred to Shakespeare's own greatness, not to the performance itself.

Even in apparent ruins, Macbeth is great.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 08:49:44 AM
That's it and that's all. This is going to be my very last post in this thread. Many thanks to my esteemed opponents premont, Que, Ken B and Mandryka for a very enjoyable, civil and funny debate, and many thanks to everybody else as well. See you guys in other threads.

Let me also thank you for an engaged and enjoyable discussion, all the way through kept in a good and civilized tone by everybody. I look forward to similar discussions when suitable topics arises.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 04, 2018, 12:02:45 PM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 04, 2018, 07:29:03 AM
Well, electronic keyboards can be tuned easily in different temperaments (not temperature, for sure a typo). This is done with Oriental scales for instance.

Or a Sarge moment caused by the temperatures we have here a the moment. Hot temperature for sure

Well, electronic keyboards are rather un-HIP, if I am not mistaken.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 04, 2018, 12:31:45 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 08:49:44 AM
It is very apt only because you happened to agree with his views even before he made that specific comparison.

Much as I've been enjoying this exchange, I'm beginning to feel exhaustion. Both camps have made their points and it is clearly apparent that neither is going to change position as a result of this debate, which actually amounts to each party gently and kindly (most of the time) refuting the arguments of the other party. (Karl suggested three minimal points of agreement to which I am the only one to have formally expressed approval.) This can be fun for a while but eventually it gets tiresome, at least for me. Therefore I will state my position once and for all in as plain English I am capable of.

1. I am not opposed to HIP as one legitimate and valid approach among others. I enjoy many HIP recordings, ensembles and performers.

2. I am opposed to declaring HIP the only legitimate and valid approach. I cannot help seeing this as intellectual totalitarianism and artistic dogmatism.

3. I believe every era and every generation engages with the works of art of the past according to their own (eras and generations, that is) idea(l)s, sensibilities and tastes. Bach's generation was no exception to that, nor was Mozart's or Beethoven's.

4. I believe that the ultimate ideal of hardcore HIP is unattainable.

5. I couldn't care less on which keyboard instrument one listens to the Baroque, Classical and Early Romantic keyboard music. "There are no rules. Pleasure is the law".

That's it and that's all. This is going to be my very last post in this thread. Many thanks to my esteemed opponents premont, Que, Ken B and Mandryka for a very enjoyable, civil and funny debate, and many thanks to everybody else as well. See you guys in other threads.

The two of us agreed throughout this thread, and your last post expresses my own view 100%.  One of the better threads, imo.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 01:29:16 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2018, 06:29:36 AM
Oh, no, please, not again music and language! And especially not music and Latin!
This isn't about language Andrei. It's about sound . We do not need a recording to reconstruct how some things sounded, there is other evidence. We also know about the great vowel shift in English. We know that the multiple line of a Dufay score were sung simultaneously not sequentially — but your arguments insist we do not in fact know that. That shows your argument is flawed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 06:51:57 AM
True, but I suppose the question is if there is inherent value in trying to remove the layers caked onto the original, or whether the performing tradition carries its own validity, regardless of historical context.

Personally, I can enjoy both HIP interpretations and non-HIP ones, and although I find that massive choirs/orchestras performing Handel or Bach sound strange, I'm not especially bothered by hearing the grand piano instead of the harpsichord or clavichord.
What's your opinion on Karajan and Mahler 6?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 01:29:16 PM
This isn't about language Andrei. It's about sound . We do not need a recording to reconstruct how some things sounded, there is other evidence. We also know about the great vowel shift in English. We know that the multiple line of a Dufay score were sung simultaneously not sequentially — but your arguments insist we do not in fact know that. That shows your argument is flawed.

I've refrained from carrying on here, and now Florestan has withdrawn from the field. But the one point I would have made with him is exactly that one. There are dozens of books still very much in existence today which were written in order to teach people how to make music in the style of the day. There are also innumerable 'methods' which trained musicians on practical playing. I don't know about anyone else here, but I learned everything I know from books. And I am confident that if I was inclined to be a musician, I could take those books and learn to produce music which sounded amazingly like that produced in the 16th - 18th centuries.  What surprises me is that a person who seems to take so much on faith can't even make a dent in taking this in faith. ???

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 04, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
What's your opinion on Karajan and Mahler 6?

It sounds little like any other Mahler performance I've heard.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: André on August 04, 2018, 05:44:22 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 02:56:59 PM
I've refrained from carrying on here, and now Florestan has withdrawn from the field. But the one point I would have made with him is exactly that one. There are dozens of books still very much in existence today which were written in order to teach people how to make music in the style of the day. There are also innumerable 'methods' which trained musicians on practical playing. I don't know about anyone else here, but I learned everything I know from books. And I am confident that if I was inclined to be a musician, I could take those books and learn to produce music which sounded amazingly like that produced in the 16th - 18th centuries.  What surprises me is that a person who seems to take so much on faith can't even make a dent in taking this in faith. ???

8)

Musicians have always been keen on perfecting the practice of instruments of their time, esp. when new ground was broken in terms of improving the instruments or the playing techniques. A lot of what is known about string or wind playing for example is through 17th, 18th or 19th century treatises. What is known today about HIP comes from the knowledge of the instruments, how they were built, how they were to be played to achieve the maximum effect and affect, etc.

For example, here is a pdf of a presentation at an international conference in Recife (2011) on the evolution of the recorder through 16 treatises from the period 1511-1654 :
http://flutistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/conférence-RECIFE-2011-évolution-de-la-flûte-à-travers-les-traités.pdf (http://flutistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/conf%C3%A9rence-RECIFE-2011-%C3%A9volution-de-la-fl%C3%BBte-%C3%A0-travers-les-trait%C3%A9s.pdf)

Arcane stuff to say the least, but the works are there, and some learned musicians actually go through them to improve the understanding of the instruments and how to play them. Is it useful? Depends on the importance one gives to such things. A performer might not need to know all that, but a conservatory professor would probably be familiar with the subject. I don't think it's farfetched to surmise that right now some scholar is seriously studying the effect of global warming on the sounds produced by instruments as they were known 400 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age...  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 07:02:49 PM
Quote from: André on August 04, 2018, 05:44:22 PM
Musicians have always been keen on perfecting the practice of instruments of their time, esp. when new ground was broken in terms of improving the instruments or the playing techniques. A lot of what is known about string or wind playing for example is through 17th, 18th or 19th century treatises. What is known today about HIP comes from the knowledge of the instruments, how they were built, how they were to be played to achieve the maximum effect and affect, etc.

For example, here is a pdf of a presentation at an international conference in Recife (2011) on the evolution of the recorder through 16 treatises from the period 1511-1654 :
http://flutistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/conférence-RECIFE-2011-évolution-de-la-flûte-à-travers-les-traités.pdf (http://flutistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/conf%C3%A9rence-RECIFE-2011-%C3%A9volution-de-la-fl%C3%BBte-%C3%A0-travers-les-trait%C3%A9s.pdf)

Arcane stuff to say the least, but the works are there, and some learned musicians actually go through them to improve the understanding of the instruments and how to play them. Is it useful? Depends on the importance one gives to such things. A performer might not need to know all that, but a conservatory professor would probably be familiar with the subject. I don't think it's farfetched to surmise that right now some scholar is seriously studying the effect of global warming on the sounds produced by instruments as they were known 400 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age...  :)

Yes, my point exactly. I would venture to say MOST period performers read these treatises. Many of them are professors of music(ology) and performance. To assume they are just guessing about what they are doing is the height of insult. Also, it is a basic tenet of scientific method that one must assume constancy of certain physical conditions. If a piece of wood shaped into a recorder produced a certain sound in 1650, then a piece of similar wood shaped into a similar shape and played by the rules published in or around 1650 will sound the same way now. If one would reject this, then one must reject every bit of history and turn to the present as the only possible reality.

That said, if one wants to listen to Bach on a Steinway, I say, they bought their ticket, let 'em.  :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: André on August 04, 2018, 05:44:22 PM

For example, here is a pdf of a presentation at an international conference in Recife (2011) on the evolution of the recorder through 16 treatises from the period 1511-1654 :
http://flutistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/conférence-RECIFE-2011-évolution-de-la-flûte-à-travers-les-traités.pdf (http://flutistes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/conf%C3%A9rence-RECIFE-2011-%C3%A9volution-de-la-fl%C3%BBte-%C3%A0-travers-les-trait%C3%A9s.pdf)

Dude, you had me all excited for a minute, but then I noticed, it's all in French! That won't do, you know I'm an animal!  ;)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 09:14:44 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 07:06:28 PM
Dude, you had me all excited for a minute, but then I noticed, it's all in French! That won't do, you know I'm an animal!  ;)

8)

Florestan reads French ...  >:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 05, 2018, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2018, 09:14:44 PM
Florestan reads French ...  >:D

But such musicological arguments don't work here, since Florestan is governed by his taste, and - as he wrote - isn't willing to give up his position.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 01:42:29 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 07:02:49 PM
I would venture to say MOST period performers read these treatises. Many of them are professors of music(ology) and performance. To assume they are just guessing about what they are doing is the height of insult.

Here is a quote from an accomplished musicologist specializing in early music on the topic of authenticity:

"My general thinking on performance practice is similar, mutatis mutandis, to that in Taruskin's 'The Pastness of the Present...' article, in that I think all claims about authenticity tell us more about modernity that about the past. This is acutely true in the middle ages, where we have even less to go on than in later periods. And given that the notation is radically under-prescriptive, I'm not sure I'd call anything that performers do 'liberties' for that's to suggest that there would be a strict version that they could perform instead. But what might be implied by such a 'strict' version would be a modern idea of notational literalism, which clearly doesn't apply to medieval notation" (Elizabeth Eva Leach in a personal communication, used with permission.)

Granted her specialty and the reason for our email exchange was concerning Machaut and Medieval notation, but her point is made concerning the larger HIP movement.

Here is Bjorn Schmelzer on the issue of authenticity:

"In 'early music', people often expect from the musicians to legitimize themselves, strangely they don't expect you to be creative, productive, imaginative. These categories are in the context of early music mostly received with suspicion and are a possible threat of the 'authenticity' of the performance."

Later "The theme or concept of 'euchronism' versus anachronism is coming back all the time, it's a thread through all our recordings. You ask what this 'euchrony' means: well, I explain it literally on the first page p.6, between brackets behind the term: "the historicist obsession with banning every single element of anachronism". What do I mean with this? Consciously or not, most early music approach operates with some sort of cliché or common sense scalpel, starting with present time and cutting off everything what is not proper or contemporary to its proper time. What we keep in the end is the result of a pseudo-historicist filleting...To say it very bluntly: where is all the dirt of time (scholars would maybe call it : the anachronisms) ? and what happens if we bring it in again (this is a very fragile work which asks for a lot of performative trial and error), creating a musical performance which is not primordially focused on historical information but on historical transference, and what, in this transference, is, intentionally or not, cut away, exorcized. In fact in this sense I fight against early music as 'modernism projected into the past' (as if in the past everything was contemporary with its own time...what a weird idea). I'm interested in the fact that there is no existing ur-text, no existing consciousness of a first group of performers who establish a normative performance practice, and that in this sense we as performers are so to say the same as all the others who came right after,...or differently expressed: it's a sort of historical absurdism to cut off some original group of completely informed and self-identifying people from a next generation who knows already less or starts to transform it, and so and so forth till now, till us, the least informed, the furthest away from truth..." (expressed in a comment on my music blog)

Again, both of these scholars (one a musicologist the other a musician/conductor whose group Graindevoix has made a group of recordings which stand out for their beauty and unusual take on the vocal repertory of the Middle Ages and Renaissance) make the same point vis a vis: the HIP style is a product of our age and obsession with historicism.  Another point Schmelzer also makes is that early music musicians are beginning to be less concerned with a claim of authenticity (since they admit it is a false claim, or at least irrelevant) than with performing the repertory with imagination, and sense of music-making dependent less on the (often vague) historical record and more about their 21st century ideas about the music.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 01:59:33 AM
Leech is just wrong to say that strict  HIP version is literal, on the contrary. Has she not read Frescobaldi's prefaces? Neither is a HIP version so liberal as to allow everything. We know enough about ornaments, to single out one thing, to know that some things are kosher and some aren't. But she's talking about Machaut. We know that people used to flatten notes at the end of cadences for expressive purposes in the 13th century, so even there, it's nonsense to suggest a HIP version is literal. And I think it's a safe bet to say that they didn't use all the volume increasing, polyphony damaging, techniques of opera singers -- vibrato through the entire note, for example. So again she's wrong to suggest that for medieval music, anything goes in HIP. All due respect and all that, but that isn't a very impressive quote from Leech!

When Schmelzer says that "the HIP style is a product of our age and obsession with historicism" he's right to this extent at least, the HIP style is a product with our age getting very serious about the meaning of the marks on the score, their consequences for what the musicians do in a performance. But that's good isn't it? Because the score is the main tool for accessing the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 03:10:26 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 01:59:33 AM
Leech is just wrong to say that strict  HIP version is literal, on the contrary. Has she not read Frescobaldi's prefaces? Neither is a HIP version so liberal as to allow everything. We know enough about ornaments, to single out one thing, to know that some things are kosher and some aren't. But she's talking about Machaut. We know that people used to flatten notes at the end of cadences for expressive purposes in the 13th century, so even there, it's nonsense to suggest a HIP version is literal. And I think it's a safe bet to say that they didn't use all the volume increasing, polyphony damaging, techniques of opera singers -- vibrato through the entire note, for example. So again she's wrong to suggest that for medieval music, anything goes in HIP. All due respect and all that, but that isn't a very impressive quote from Leech!

When Schmelzer says that "the HIP style is a product of our age and obsession with historicism" he's right to this extent at least, the HIP style is a product with our age getting very serious about the meaning of the marks on the score, their consequences for what the musicians do in a performance. But that's good isn't it? Because the score is the main tool for accessing the music.

I don't think she is saying that.  My understanding (from a larger conversation) is that what began as a reaction to the generation of the 30s and 40s performance of early music, a new approach began in which an attempt was made to "return the music to its sources".  But what began as a good-natured revisionist approach, after fifty years (or so) became dogma.  Both Leach and Schmelzer are saying that we are now at a point when that dogma is being questioned and recognized for what it was: a product of modernity and obsession with historicism.

It is not as if these sources did not exist in the 19th century or early 20th century.  Musicians simply did not care to "return" to them. 

My interest in this subject has to do with these issues, not whether the music should be played on a harpsichord or not (that question is closed and people do what they wish for a variety of reasons).  No, what I am talking about is the unique phenomenon of our time bringing a religious fervor for going back to the sources, and creating a faith-based belief in the rightness of their cause.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 05, 2018, 03:25:32 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 03:10:26 AM
[...] My interest in this subject has to do with these issues, not whether the music should be played on a harpsichord or not (that question is closed and people do what they wish for a variety of reasons).  No, what I am talking about is the unique phenomenon of our time bringing a religious fervor for going back to the sources, and creating a faith-based belief in the rightness of their cause.

And, whatever the viewpoint and journey of this or that GMG'er, this quasi-weaponized religious fervor is really an element in the Early Music ghetto.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 04:30:50 AM
For me the evidence/proof for using certain period instruments instead of modern ones is not as interesting as asking why did we as a modern culture embark on this journey?  I doubt previous generations of musicians were simply less gifted than those of today, but previous generations were interested in expressing the music according to contemporary tastes for a contemporary audience.  I wonder what they would think of the modern preoccupation with reconstructing how Bach might have played his music. 

IOW I am not interested in hearing about how much we can know of performance practices and instruments from the 18th century that allows us to attempt to reconstruct the music accordingly.  Or how the music is intrinsically more suited to a period instrument as opposed to a modern one.

A more interesting question to me why is this historical aspect so important to us when it wasn't important previously.  I have my own answers but if anyone wishes to respond, I'd be interested in that discussion.  The other one has been exhausted, imo.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 05, 2018, 05:07:23 AM
I do actually have considerably more interest in period instruments when it comes to works for a larger ensemble, because it affects the blend of sounds and balance.

The key thing for me was having two different performances of Brandenburg Concerto No.2, where the "soloists" are trumpet, recorder, oboe and violin. This combination simply ends up making far more sense with period instruments, particularly the different style of trumpet. With a performance on modern instruments one is left wondering how on earth Bach ever thought all the parts would be heard (or alternatively how on earth the recording engineer is supposed to cope with this set of instruments).

So my interest is primarily one of getting a satisfactory listening experience. For me that criterion leads to very different results when it comes to say, solo keyboard works (I really don't like fortepianos, I do need more harpsichord experience with quality players rather than a cheap and nasty set before having firm views there), compared to an orchestral work where the changes in some instruments can set everything out of whack.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 05:08:50 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 04:30:50 AM

A more interesting question to me why is this historical aspect so important to us when it wasn't important previously.

You may be right you may not. Czerny thought it was important to note how Beethoven played, and according to Czerny, Beethoven had carefully considered how Mozart played. Forkel thought it was important to note how Bach played. My own feeling is that it was always important because the notation doesn't give you clear directions about how to play.

Gould and Liberaci were not interested in these questions, this is true. I don't know whether the pre war musicians were.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 05:27:56 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 05:08:50 AM
You may be right you may not. Czerny thought it was important to note how Beethoven played, and according to Czerny, Beethoven had carefully considered how Mozart played. Forkel thought it was important to note how Bach played. My own feeling is that it was always important because the notation doesn't give you clear directions about how to play.

Gould and Liberaci were not interested in these questions, this is true. I don't know whether the pre war musicians were.

Czerny was a contemporary of Beethoven.  How much Scarlatti did Czerny play, and was he concerned  as to how and on what it should be performed?  When Mendelssohn resurrected Bach from oblivion he did not do so with "period instruments" but with the Romantic period orchestra and choir of his day. 

My sense is that previous generations were not interested in music of the past since the music they heard and performed was newly written and played on the latest instruments.   

This preoccupation with the past is a relatively recent one, and has occurred  in tandem with a lack of interest/support for music currently being written.  These two phenomenons are each in contrast to what earlier generations experienced.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 05:31:18 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 05:27:56 AM

This preoccupation with the past is a relatively recent one, and has occurred  in tandem with a lack of interest/support for music currently being written.  These two phenomenons are each in contrast to what earlier generations experienced.

Just going from memory so don't beat me up if I'm wrong, this is explicit in the preface to Harrnoncourt's book on Music as Speech. Harnoncourt isn't interested in contemporary music, he thinks it's a great disappointment, and he thinks that old music played as the composers intended can fill the gap.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: André on August 05, 2018, 06:06:36 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2018, 07:06:28 PM
Dude, you had me all excited for a minute, but then I noticed, it's all in French! That won't do, you know I'm an animal!  ;)

8)

Well, there are some nice pictures... :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 05, 2018, 06:57:51 AM
Quote from: André on August 05, 2018, 06:06:36 AM
Well, there are some nice pictures... :laugh:

I know, I was going to say exactly that!  :D :D

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 11:54:25 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 05, 2018, 03:10:26 AM
I don't think she is saying that.  My understanding (from a larger conversation) is that what began as a reaction to the generation of the 30s and 40s performance of early music, a new approach began in which an attempt was made to "return the music to its sources".  But what began as a good-natured revisionist approach, after fifty years (or so) became dogma.  Both Leach and Schmelzer are saying that we are now at a point when that dogma is being questioned and recognized for what it was: a product of modernity and obsession with historicism.

It is not as if these sources did not exist in the 19th century or early 20th century.  Musicians simply did not care to "return" to them. 

My interest in this subject has to do with these issues, not whether the music should be played on a harpsichord or not (that question is closed and people do what they wish for a variety of reasons).  No, what I am talking about is the unique phenomenon of our time bringing a religious fervor for going back to the sources, and creating a faith-based belief in the rightness of their cause.

I just saw this post about D 960 / i

Quote from: amw on August 05, 2018, 08:21:12 PM
Technically it's molto moderato in 2, rather than in 4, ie closer to minim = 69 than crotchet = 69.... basically Schnabel's tempo rather than Richter's. 24 minutes is closer to an adagio. But certainly can be quite enjoyable nonetheless >.>

and it struck me that this sort of consideration is, I guess, about the tempo Schubert intended. Generally pianists seem much more interested in HIP than you want to allow, and have been for the past 100 years, just think of all those "piano schools" which are supposed to hold the secret of the correct way to play Liszt and Chopin because they were founded by someone who studied with Liszt and Chopin. Edwin Fischer is relevant too, and the principles underlying his edition of the score of WTC, and indeed his performances in practice.

Does anyone know whether Clementi wrote anything about how he made his editions of Scarlatti?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 06, 2018, 03:06:50 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 05, 2018, 11:54:25 PM
I just saw this post about D 960 / i

and it struck me that this sort of consideration is, I guess, about the tempo Schubert intended. Generally pianists seem much more interested in HIP than you want to allow, and have been for the past 100 years, just think of all those "piano schools" which are supposed to hold the secret of the correct way to play Liszt and Chopin because they were founded by someone who studied with Liszt and Chopin. Edwin Fischer is relevant too, and the principles underlying his edition of the score of WTC, and indeed his performances in practice.

Does anyone know whether Clementi wrote anything about how he made his editions of Scarlatti?

As far as I know when Edwin Fischer played Bach he did not do so on a harpsichord; and that Schnabel and Richter played that Schubert sonata on a piano, not a fortepiano?  And what do you make of the Busoni edition of the Well-Tempered Clavier?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 06, 2018, 03:33:59 AM
Edwin Fischer's edition of WTC is very different from Busoni's, and I think Fischer wanted to present the music as Bach did (ie authentically, HIPly) . I also think that his performance style is relatively restrained in terms of piano specific effects, at least compared to what Busoni was doing, maybe in a desire to present  what he perceived to be a more authentic Bach performance.

There was a widespread belief at the turn of the 19th century that the piano represented progress over the harpsichord, and that Bach's music played on a harpsichord was too austere for your average music lover. But again it's more complicated because of the so called harpsichord revival.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 06, 2018, 04:21:53 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 06, 2018, 03:33:59 AM
Edwin Fischer's edition of WTC is very different from Busoni's, and I think Fischer wanted to present the music as Bach did (ie authentically, HIPly) . I also think that his performance style is relatively restrained in terms of piano specific effects, at least compared to what Busoni was doing, maybe in a desire to present  what he perceived to be a more authentic Bach performance.

There was a widespread belief at the turn of the 19th century that the piano represented progress over the harpsichord, and that Bach's music played on a harpsichord was too austere for your average music lover. But again it's more complicated because of the so called harpsichord revival.

The first recordings I heard on the harpsichord were by Wanda Landowska, and her instrument was pretty strident, but because it was a novelty, she had a career.  Ralph Kirkpatrick came along a little later, I think, but again there was a novelty factor associated with those recordings.  But I suppose you could date the HIP enterprise with them, and then the Harnoncourt B Minor Mass in the late 60s or early 70s, I first heard it around 1970.  His recording, I think, really started the ball rolling because he was an "advocate".

I wonder what Bach would think of OVPP performances of his large choral works? 
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 06, 2018, 04:36:28 AM
Might he not think them "awful thin" . . . ?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 06, 2018, 04:42:20 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 06, 2018, 04:36:28 AM
Might he not think them "awful thin" . . . ?

Yeah, that's what I wondered.  But, for Kuijken or Parrott or Rifkin, whose recordings are the ones I know of, what I assume is driving their decision is that they like the sound.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 06, 2018, 04:49:26 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 06, 2018, 04:42:20 AM
Yeah, that's what I wondered.  But, for Kuijken or Parrott or Rifkin, whose recordings are the ones I know of, what I assume is driving their decision is that they like the sound.

Indeed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: André on August 06, 2018, 05:12:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 06, 2018, 04:36:28 AM
Might he not think them "awful thin" . . . ?

The proof of the pudding is in the singing. Take any 4 singers standing for the night's performance and if one of the voices does not blend well, or the singer has a cold, or anything like that, and the whole performance is ruined. If it's a recording things can be fixed. But I doubt any concert producer or conductor will risk a disaster if things don't go as planned. Unless you have a doublure for each singer (i.e. 8 singers). But then why not have them all sing if they've been booked for the evening anyway?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 07, 2018, 12:21:00 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 06, 2018, 04:42:20 AM
Yeah, that's what I wondered.  But, for Kuijken or Parrott or Rifkin, whose recordings are the ones I know of, what I assume is driving their decision is that they like the sound.

Parrott thinks that Bach chose to use small forces for his music at Leipzig. There's a good discussion of this in Composers' Intentions.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Roasted Swan on August 07, 2018, 07:20:03 AM
Today I listened to a beautiful disc -

[asin]B004AF9PR0[/asin]

Now here's an interesting idea; a conductor (Richard Egaar) who has made his name as an HIP practitioner directing a disc of Stokowski arrangements - mainly of baroque music.  The key here for me is; forget the whole "is it 'authentic' or not" debate and just listen to some really intelligent arrangements performed with affection and sensitivity and beautifully recorded too.  In other words - if the music-making is of a high quality little else matters.  You could play the most authentic/historically aware rendition of a work ever, and if the playing/interpretation was dull, it stays dull.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 07, 2018, 08:17:38 AM
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 07, 2018, 07:20:03 AM
Today I listened to a beautiful disc -

[asin]B004AF9PR0[/asin]

Now here's an interesting idea; a conductor (Richard Egaar) who has made his name as an HIP practitioner directing a disc of Stokowski arrangements - mainly of baroque music.  The key here for me is; forget the whole "is it 'authentic' or not" debate and just listen to some really intelligent arrangements performed with affection and sensitivity and beautifully recorded too.  In other words - if the music-making is of a high quality little else matters.  You could play the most authentic/historically aware rendition of a work ever, and if the playing/interpretation was dull, it stays dull.

What a fabulous idea.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 07, 2018, 08:21:27 AM
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 07, 2018, 07:20:03 AM
Today I listened to a beautiful disc -

[asin]B004AF9PR0[/asin]

Now here's an interesting idea; a conductor (Richard Egaar) who has made his name as an HIP practitioner directing a disc of Stokowski arrangements - mainly of baroque music.  The key here for me is; forget the whole "is it 'authentic' or not" debate and just listen to some really intelligent arrangements performed with affection and sensitivity and beautifully recorded too.  In other words - if the music-making is of a high quality little else matters.  You could play the most authentic/historically aware rendition of a work ever, and if the playing/interpretation was dull, it stays dull.

Here's a (non-contentious) question for you:  I see on the verso that the Handel and Ockeghem arrangements are Egarr's own.  How does this fit the Stokowski theme?  Or is it simply an extension of the premise?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 07, 2018, 08:39:51 AM
And what's Marche slave doing in there?

I guess Tipo playing The Goldberg Variations stands to Bach's Goldberg Variations as Stokowski's BWV 565 stands to Bach's organ music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 07, 2018, 11:16:47 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 07, 2018, 08:39:51 AM
And what's Marche slave doing in there?

I guess Tipo playing The Goldberg Variations stands to Bach's Goldberg Variations as Stokowski's BWV 565 stands to Bach's organ music.

Not for me.  I love Tipo's GV but cannot say the same for the Stokowski transcriptions.  But a lot has to do with my distaste for orchestral music in general.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 08, 2018, 02:25:42 AM
Back for a very short while to offer you another book of interest.

Roman Ingarden - The Work of Music and The Problem of Its Identity

http://pdf.to/bookinfo/the-work-of-music-and-the-problem-of-its-identity.pdf/ (http://pdf.to/bookinfo/the-work-of-music-and-the-problem-of-its-identity.pdf/)

Enjoy!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 08, 2018, 05:33:23 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 08, 2018, 02:25:42 AM
Back for a very short while to offer you another book of interest.

Roman Ingarden - The Work of Music and The Problem of Its Identity

http://pdf.to/bookinfo/the-work-of-music-and-the-problem-of-its-identity.pdf/ (http://pdf.to/bookinfo/the-work-of-music-and-the-problem-of-its-identity.pdf/)

Enjoy!

Thanks!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: king ubu on August 13, 2018, 02:02:28 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2018, 08:24:07 AM
By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP) I would like to have been more involved but I've been having a battle with a hose pipe all day. (automatic irrigation)

Bought that, looks very interesting, thanks!

It's one of those amazon print on demand paperbacks ... though Oxford is "over here" too, last time I looked, but it's cheap enough.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 13, 2018, 12:11:47 PM
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780198235415-us-300.jpg)

Just finished this. It's one of the most intelectually stimulating and thought-provoking books I've read in my whole life. I'm in a location where I have very limited access to GMG but as soon as I'll be in another, more GMG-friendly, I'll post my thoughts about it. Anyway, many many thanks and hat tips to Mandryka for bringing it to my attention.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 14, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 13, 2018, 12:11:47 PM
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780198235415-us-300.jpg)

Just finished this. It's one of the most intelectually stimulating and thought-provoking books I've read in my whole life. I'm in a location where I have very limited access to GMG but as soon as I'll be in another, more GMG-friendly, I'll post my thoughts about it. Anyway, many many thanks and hat tips to Mandryka for bringing it to my attention.

I'm pleased.

We should discuss it together systematically, chapter by chapter.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on August 14, 2018, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: San Antone on August 07, 2018, 11:16:47 AM
Not for me.  I love Tipo's GV but cannot say the same for the Stokowski transcriptions.  But a lot has to do with my distaste for orchestral music in general.
I thought I was the only one here who didn't like Orchestral music much. Nor opera.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on August 15, 2018, 03:43:48 AM
Quote from: milk on August 14, 2018, 11:38:00 PM
I thought I was the only one here who didn't like Orchestral music much. Nor opera.

Yeah, I only listen to chamber music, solo piano and early vocal music.  If I do listen to orchestral music, it is small PI ensembles, and not much beyond Haydn, with the exception of Debussy, especially Pelleas et Melisande.

But if I had to say, classical music would rank only third or fourth among the music I enjoy.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 15, 2018, 05:27:21 AM
Quote from: San Antone on August 15, 2018, 03:43:48 AM
Yeah, I only listen to chamber music, solo piano and early vocal music.  If I do listen to orchestral music, it is small PI ensembles, and not much beyond Haydn, with the exception of Debussy, especially Pelleas et Melisande.

But if I had to say, classical music would rank only third or fourth among the music I enjoy.

I think it right and proper that if you say "The only orchestral music I listen to is Debussy" then you would also say "and I like almost everything else more." I have had tons of grief on this board making this simple point!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 15, 2018, 06:00:34 AM
Quote from: milk on August 14, 2018, 11:38:00 PM
I thought I was the only one here who didn't like Orchestral music much. Nor opera.

I expect 80-90% of my music collection is chamber or solo keyboard music. I don't so much dislike the balance, I just don't have a compelling need for it. So no, not just you (or San Antone!). :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 15, 2018, 06:20:13 AM
Quote from: milk on August 14, 2018, 11:38:00 PM
I thought I was the only one here who didn't like Orchestral music much. Nor opera.


My music collection doesn't contain any opera at all, and I do not miss them. 

As to symphonic music I own a fair number of recordings of Beethoven's orchestral music and orchestral works by Brahms, Carl Nielsen, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith and a few others, but it amounts all in all to less than 5% of my entire collection.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 15, 2018, 06:50:45 AM
What can I say?  I have always liked orchestral music, and the experience of playing in orchestras has only served to reinforce that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 15, 2018, 06:52:59 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 15, 2018, 05:27:21 AM
I think it right and proper that if you say "The only orchestral music I listen to is Debussy" then you would also say "and I like almost everything else more." I have had tons of grief on this board making this simple point!
This might belong to the Grammar Grumble, but simple and simple-minded do not always mean the same thing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 16, 2018, 07:00:52 AM
I like orchestral music that was actually written for orchestra.

If it was written for piano or a chamber ensemble, leave it the hell alone.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 16, 2018, 07:06:48 AM
You have quite the quarrel with Ravel, then.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 17, 2018, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2018, 07:06:48 AM
You have quite the quarrel with Ravel, then.

Not especially, no. I have a lot less quarrel with composers doing it themselves (especially not when they do it nearly contemporaneously with the original), and Ravel didn't do it that much, and he himself regarded at least one of his orchestrations to be a mistake.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on August 17, 2018, 03:28:09 AM
Ravel should have kept his hands off Musorgsky's Pictures from an Exhibition though (likewise most of the other aspiring orchestrators out there....)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Karl Henning on August 17, 2018, 04:06:20 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 17, 2018, 02:30:30 AM
Not especially, no. I have a lot less quarrel with composers doing it themselves (especially not when they do it nearly contemporaneously with the original), and Ravel didn't do it that much, and he himself regarded at least one of his orchestrations to be a mistake.

You remind me that I need to finish that biography of Ravel.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 20, 2018, 12:26:35 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 14, 2018, 12:53:26 PM
I'm pleased.

We should discuss it together systematically, chapter by chapter.

That would be impossible: I went very quickly through, or even altogether skipped, the chapters dealing with the analytical approach. They were too dry, technical and abstract for me.

What I can tell you is that after reading this book (and a few others) I realized that (1) the Romantic philosophy of music is quite at odds with Romantic music, (2) I love the latter but don't subscribe to the former and (3) for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music. If you are interested in discussing these points I'll try to elaborate them.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 20, 2018, 04:18:39 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2018, 12:26:35 AM
(1) the Romantic philosophy of music is quite at odds with Romantic music, (2) I love the latter but don't subscribe to the former and (3) for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music. If you are interested in discussing these points I'll try to elaborate them.

*grabs popcorn*
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 20, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2018, 12:26:35 AM
That would be impossible: I went very quickly through, or even altogether skipped, the chapters dealing with the analytical approach. They were too dry, technical and abstract for me.

What I can tell you is that after reading this book (and a few others) I realized that (1) the Romantic philosophy of music is quite at odds with Romantic music, (2) I love the latter but don't subscribe to the former and (3) for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music. If you are interested in discussing these points I'll try to elaborate them.

I'd love to hear what your ideas are, the only problem is that over the next two weeks I'm travelling a lot and so I may not have the opportunity to respond thoughtfully.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 21, 2018, 02:38:43 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 20, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
I'd love to hear what your ideas are, the only problem is that over the next two weeks I'm travelling a lot and so I may not have the opportunity to respond thoughtfully.

No problem, I'll postpone it. Works for me actually, I'll have more time to give my thoughts a coherent form.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 21, 2018, 12:25:24 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 21, 2018, 02:38:43 AM
No problem, I'll postpone it. Works for me actually, I'll have more time to give my thoughts a coherent form.


And you will have to tolerate that I am interested too.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 22, 2018, 03:29:20 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 21, 2018, 12:25:24 PM

And you will have to tolerate that I am interested too.  :)

The more, the merrier.  :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 06:29:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2018, 12:26:35 AM
for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music.

I'm not sure what the thinking is here about Romanticism - are we talking in the sense of 'music-historical', or 'historically authentic'? (I'm chiming in after a two-year gap without reading more than a handful of the preceding posts. Recipe for disastrous intervention!)

But for the devil of it, I'll add a different perspective, which I think I might describe as having some romanticism in it (with a small 'r'). What I always felt about the HIP philosophy from the moment it impacted upon me, was how much more feeling there was; what greater variety of feeling there was; and how much more fun. Listening to the best HIP performances was like seeing a movie in colour when you've been used to watching it on a black and white TV. Things that were silky and smoothed-out became sharp and edgy and more defined.

I like the idea of seeing Handel or Rameau through a historically-authentic lens, but that isn't the prime cause of my enthusiasm. It may indeed be that listening to HIP Handel brings me closer to 'the real Handel', and it does somehow feel like that. But if it were not also more fun, I'd soon lose interest. And also, my HIP enthusiasm doesn't stop me from revelling in the bedazzlingness of Janet Baker and Raymond Leppard. So it's a phenomenological point of view that I think I might describe as vaguely romantic, personalised, and a bit squishy.

[He looks around the room, notices the whispering, and manages to hear some of it:
"What did that have to do with anything we've been saying?"
"I don't know!!"]
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 07:22:05 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 06:29:06 AM
I'm not sure what the thinking is here about Romanticism - are we talking in the sense of 'music-historical', or 'historically authentic'?

I'll begin by offering a quote.

[The true performer] lives only for the work, which he understands as the composer understood it and which he now performs. He does not make his personality count in any way. All his thoughts and actions are directed towards bringing into being all [that] the composer sealed in his work [...].

(emphasis mine)

Is this a fair description of what the HIP movement aims for?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 25, 2018, 07:42:32 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 07:22:05 AM
I'll begin by offering a quote.

. He does not make his personality count in any way. ].[/i]

(emphasis mine)

Is this a fair description of what the HIP movement aims for?

No because the composer may have expected that performances would be creative in some  ways. To take an extreme example, the score may just consist of a figured bass and melody.

One of the tasks of the HIP project is to unearth the sorts of expressive freedoms performers had.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 07:52:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 07:22:05 AM
I'll begin by offering a quote.

[The true performer] lives only for the work, which he understands as the composer understood it and which he now performs. He does not make his personality count in any way. All his thoughts and actions are directed towards bringing into being all [that] the composer sealed in his work [...].

(emphasis mine)

Is this a fair description of what the HIP movement aims for?

I don't think I'm well-enough informed to know. It seems likely that at least a substantial proportion of HIP advocates would be aiming for that. But if I think of William Christie, for instance, and Les Arts Florissants, I'd take some convincing that he achieves that ideal, even if he were aiming for it. Performers like Daneman and Petibon are, I'm quite sure, personally invested in what they are singing. (It certainly sounds as if they are.) When you experience something like Les Indes Galantes a la Christie, you see something very much in the spirit of Rameau, yet at the same time, something he could hardly have conceived. But maybe the introduction of staged works into the discussion muddies the water too much - I can see it might.

Alright then, let's consider something like the Christie/Daneman/Petibon recordings of Couperin. I would say the singing of Daneman and Petibon very much makes their personality count. I don't think I could define it, but a different pair of singers would, I'm quite sure, fail to bring to it the expression and sensitivity that they achieve.

I think what I'm saying is that while there may be a prevalent committed HIPster attitude along the lines of your definition, I'm not so convinced that the HIP works that I love fall within the definition. (I don't know how Christie's interpretations are regarded by such strict HIPsterians.)

Do remember that I know almost nothing. I mostly only listen.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 07:56:30 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 25, 2018, 07:42:32 AM
No because the composer may have expected that performances would be creative in some  ways.

Or may have not. We'll never know what composer X who died that many years ago may have personally expected. All we have is a score.

Quote
To take an extreme example, the score may just consist of a figured bass and melody.

Precisely my point. How far, if at all, is one allowed to go beyond that?

Quote
One of the tasks of the HIP project is to unearth the sorts of expressive freedoms performers had.

That doesn't in the least contradicts the quote: he understands as the composer understood it implies exactly taking the sort of expressive freedoms the composer allowed, or expected, the performers to have --- not more.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 08:01:32 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 07:52:50 AM
I don't think I'm well-enough informed to know. It seems likely that at least a substantial proportion of HIP advocates would be aiming for that.

Okay then: that substantial proportion of HIP advocates who aims for that are willy-nilly fulfilling the ultimate Romantic ideal because the quote comes from E.T.A. Hoffmann himself, one of the pillars of theoretical musical Romanticism.  ;D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 08:40:36 AM
It's odd to see Florestan arguing history has no value and studying it is a waste ...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 08:40:36 AM
It's odd to see Florestan arguing history has no value and studying it is a waste ...

It's odd to see Ken B arguing history is all that there is when it comes to music...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 10:10:27 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 08:01:32 AM
Okay then: that substantial proportion of HIP advocates who aims for that are willy-nilly fulfilling the ultimate Romantic ideal because the quote comes from E.T.A. Hoffmann himself, one of the pillars of theoretical musical Romanticism.  ;D

Well I think that pretty much makes your point, Andrei. Hard to see how anyone could quarrel with that!

The next question is (and I ask it truly not knowing): how much does it matter? I mean, I wouldn't have expected the boundaries between the various approaches to be particularly sharp. In the visual arts the boundary edges of Romanticism are pretty blurred, and I'd expect the same to be the case in music. (I think.)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 10:10:27 AM
Well I think that pretty much makes your point, Andrei. Hard to see how anyone could quarrel with that!

Oh, I can see it alright. Just wait.  :D

Quote
The next question is (and I ask it truly not knowing): how much does it matter? I mean, I wouldn't have expected the boundaries between the various approaches to be particularly sharp. In the visual arts the boundary edges of Romanticism are pretty blurred, and I'd expect the same to be the case in music. (I think.)

I don't know but I doubt that for such HIP luminaries as Christopher Hogwood or Roger Norrington it really doesn't matter. On the other hand, I agree that back then in the early 1800s and well beyond it didn't matter: not for a second did occur to anyone of Mendelssohn's contemporaries to reprimand him for his arch-Romantic, un-historical and un-HIP approach to Bach --- and this precisely because the arch-Romantic, un-historical and un-HIP concept of Werktreue was not yet firmly established. As I said, between the Romantic philosophy of music and the Romantic practice of music there is a huge gap.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 11:08:12 AM
Mozart

Serenade No. 3 for Orchestra in D major ("Antretter"), K. 185 (K. 167a)

It was written specifically and exclusively for a one-time event; it was not expected by anyone, Mozart least of all, to be ever performed again. Performing it in a concert hall or in a recording studio more than two centuries after its "premiere" is an anachronism.

During the first (and last) performance nobody listened attentively to it from start to finish --- assuming there had been people willing to (which is absolutely doubtful), they'd have been prevented from so doing by the environment. Performing it in a concert hall for a stiff and still audience, or in a recording studio for a putatively solitary listening is an anachronism.

Given these two inescapable anachronism which inevitably grossly distort the original meaning and value of the piece, does it really matter whether it's played by the Academy of Ancient Music conducted by Hogwood as opposed to the Berlin PO conducted by Karajan?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 11:35:15 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 11:08:12 AM
Mozart

Serenade No. 3 for Orchestra in D major ("Antretter"), K. 185 (K. 167a)

It was written specifically and exclusively for a one-time event; it was not expected by anyone, Mozart least of all, to be ever performed again. Performing it in a concert hall or in a recording studio more than two centuries after its "premiere" is an anachronism.

During the first (and last) performance nobody listened attentively to it from start to finish --- assuming there had been people willing to (which is absolutely doubtful), they'd have been prevented from so doing by the environment. Performing it in a concert hall for a stiff and still audience, or in a recording studio for a putatively solitary listening is an anachronism.

Given these two anachronism which grossly distort the meaning and value of the piece itself, does it really matter if it's played by the Academy of Ancient Music conducted by Hogwood as opposed to the Berlin PO conducted by Karajan?

It does to me, because I actually listen to it (as recently as this morning for Hogwood, BTW). Your generalizations really bother me. I won't be engaging you in any discussions because your mind is so closed it would be like hitting two coconuts together. If you want to listen to Karajan, go ahead. Surely you wouldn't actually listen to it, you would be talking with your neighbor, yes? ::)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 11:35:15 AM
It does to me, because I actually listen to it (as recently as this morning for Hogwood, BTW).

Go ahead! Listen to it as many times as you wish, more power to you! Just don't delude yourself into believing that you're doing what the audience back then were doing.

Quote
Your generalizations

What generalizations? I was talking about the Antretter-Serenade, not about the Oxford Symphony.

Quotereally bother me

Why an opinion expressed on an internet board should really bother you is beyond my comprehension.

Quote
I won't be engaging you in any discussions because your mind is so closed it would be like hitting two coconuts together.

Boy, did I hit a sore spot!

QuoteIf you want to listen to Karajan, go ahead. Surely you wouldn't actually listen to it, you would be talking with your neighbor, yes? ::)

No. I'd be browsing the internet, posting on GMG, having a beer, reading a book / article / doctoral dissertation or relaxing into sleep late at night --- anything else but listening in awe to a masterpiece of an immortal master, which in this specific case is bullshit on stilts. Mozart himself did not have any notion of masterpiece, nor of listening in awe, nor of immortal master --- and you know it only too well but sometimes you are a thousand times more contrarian than I will ever be.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 11:08:12 AM
Mozart

Serenade No. 3 for Orchestra in D major ("Antretter"), K. 185 (K. 167a)

It was written specifically and exclusively for a one-time event; it was not expected by anyone, Mozart least of all, to be ever performed again. Performing it in a concert hall or in a recording studio more than two centuries after its "premiere" is an anachronism.

But in that sense, isn't every subsequent performance of a 'special' piece an anachronism?
One could say something similar about Handel's Water Music, perhaps? Or Elgar's Spirit of England (we are, after all, no longer at war). Every age recreates the past to some degree. As archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes said: 'Every age gets the Stonehenge it deserves, or desires.' Music is part of that process: we appropriate what we need from the past, in the way that we need it.

QuoteDuring the first (and last) performance nobody listened attentively to it from start to finish --- assuming there had been people willing to (which is absolutely doubtful), they'd have been prevented from so doing by the environment. Performing it in a concert hall for a stiff and still audience, or in a recording studio for a putatively solitary listening is an anachronism.

It is indeed, taking the term literally. But I can't help thinking that Mozart would have preferred people to listen. I can't believe that historically authetic performance requires historically authentic listening (or rather, non-listening).

QuoteGiven these two inescapable anachronism which inevitably grossly distort the original meaning and value of the piece, does it really matter whether it's played by the Academy of Ancient Music conducted by Hogwood as opposed to the Berlin PO conducted by Karajan?

Well it might matter to me (for reasons I explained above). But it wouldn't trouble me if someone else wasn't bothered by it. To go back to my earlier example: 'Dopo Notte' is a bit of mind-blowing rock and roll whether it's performed by Janet Baker and Raymond Leppard, or by Magdalena Kozena and the HIP Venice Baroque Orchestra. I'll gladly drink a glass with anyone who likes both.

Are we actually agreeing with each other in roundabout ways? Or are we aiming at different targets?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 12:28:54 PM
As I said, I'm not going to engage you in a debate. However, this quote from Elgarian is right on the money:

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:20:36 PM
But in that sense, isn't every subsequent performance of a 'special' piece an anachronism?
One could say something similar about Handel's Water Music,
perhaps? Or Elgar's Spirit of England (we are, after all, no longer at war). Every age recreates the past to some degree. As archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes said: 'Every age gets the Stonehenge it deserves, or desires.' Music is part of that process: we appropriate what we need from the past, in the way that we need it.

He even uses the same example I would have. In point of fact, at the very least, 90% of all pieces of music written before 1800 were occasional. The remainder were most likely etudes of some sort. I know Haydn's were. So if you are going to use that argument you might as well say that listening to anything written before 1800 is anachronistic and can't have any value unless it isn't listened to at all. To which I say, bullshit.

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
So Andrei, what would you say of someone who played Gershwin on harpsichord? Very very slowly.  I'd say, you can if you want, but it seems to disregard what we know of Gershwin, and that's a loss. It might be interesting, but it ain't Gershwin. You seem to committed to the position that this is just as authentic as playing the same pianos in the same tempo as his own piano rolls.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:36:03 PM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:20:36 PM
But in that sense, isn't every subsequent performance of a 'special' piece an anachronism?

Of course it is. Each and every subsequent performance of any given piece of music, special or not, is an anachronism.

QuoteEvery age recreates the past to some degree.  As archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes said: 'Every age gets the Stonehenge it deserves, or desires.' Music is part of that process: we appropriate what we need from the past, in the way that we need it.

Very good --- and precisely my point: what some people need from the past is a recreation of the past in the way they need it but which has little, if anything, to do with the past as it really was. HIP is the culmination of Romanticism performance-wise.

QuoteI can't help thinking that Mozart would have preferred people to listen.

Talk about imposing contemporary thinking on the past.

Quote
I can't believe that historically authetic performance requires historically authentic listening (or rather, non-listening).

And yet the contemporary accounts paint a very clear picture: how they listened, and what they heard, back then is not at all how we listen, and what we hear, today --- not by a long stretch.

Quote
Well it might matter to me (for reasons I explained above). But it wouldn't trouble me if someone else wasn't bothered by it. To go back to my earlier example: 'Dopo Notte' is a bit of mind-blowing rock and roll whether it's performed by Janet Baker and Raymond Leppard, or by Magdalena Kozena and the HIP Venice Baroque Orchestra. I'll gladly drink a glass with anyone who likes both.

Are we actually agreeing with each other in roundabout ways?

I think we actually are.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
So Andrei, what would you say of someone who played Gershwin on harpsichord? Very very slowly.  I'd say, you can if you want, but it seems to disregard what we know of Gershwin, and that's a loss. It might be interesting, but it ain't Gershwin. You seem to committed to the position that this is just as authentic as playing the same pianos in the same tempo as his own piano rolls.

I think - but am not sure, and doubtless he will tell us - that Andrei isn't saying this is so, and that is not so, but rather, he's exploring the consequences of taking some of the HIP constructions and shaking them to see if they hold up. The difficulty is that no structure will hold up if you shake it hard enough, so you end up with bits that come off - as we are seeing here.

I think I would rule out contemplating the idea of historically authentic listening, for example, as it leads merely to absurdity. That still leaves an awful lot of 'authenticity' to talk about.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:44:29 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
So Andrei, what would you say of someone who played Gershwin on harpsichord? Very very slowly.  I'd say, you can if you want, but it seems to disregard what we know of Gershwin, and that's a loss. It might be interesting, but it ain't Gershwin. You seem to committed to the position that this is just as authentic as playing the same pianos in the same tempo as his own piano rolls.

Yes, a thousand times yes, you got me right, this is indeed my position: if some harpsichordist thinks that this is the proper way to play Gershwin according to her aesthetics, artistic vision and intellectual insights then it is just as authentic as any recording made by Gerswhin himself --- authenticity is a marker of the performer and the performance, not of the score. We as listeners are free to accept or reject it and to prefer one perforrmance to the other --- but prescribing a priori how, or within what limits, a certain piece of music should be performed strikes me as intellectual and artistic totalitarianism, and frankly I'm surprised that you of all people should not understand it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:36:03 PMOf course it is. Each and every subsequent performance of any given piece of music, special or not, is an anachronism.

Which does not in any way imply that any such performance is equally anachronistic.

Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:36:03 PMwhat some people need from the past is a recreation of the past in the way they need it but which has little, if anything, to do with the past as it really was. HIP is the culmination of Romanticism performance-wise.

Or they're two separate movements that happen to share a few things on paper?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:51:26 PM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:43:22 PM
I think I would rule out contemplating the idea of historically authentic listening, for example, as it leads merely to absurdity.

Actually you hit a very sore spot, I'm afraid. How on earth can historically authentic performance work absent historically authentic listening?

This is another instance of HIP being actually Romanticism on stilts: it divorces music as art from music as performance and holds the former in infinitely higher esteem than the latter --- something that would have been unthinkable to Haydn and Mozart.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:43:22 PM
...I think I would rule out contemplating the idea of historically authentic listening, for example, as it leads merely to absurdity. That still leaves an awful lot of 'authenticity' to talk about.

I ruled that out for myself, and for that reason, over 20 years ago. This is why talking about it today as though people still do it (rather than postulate it as an intellectual puzzle) simply irritates the hell out of me. I completely understand exactly what I am listening to, and why, and I prefer it above realizations which are created by other standards. What irks is the thought that the ideas postulated 3 decades ago, by admittedly wacko individuals are still held to be the current beliefs of rational listeners and musicians. This idea debases the credibility of anyone who argues it. :)

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:54:55 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 12:50:59 PM
Which does not in any way imply that any such performance is equally anachronistic.

While not essentially disagreeing, I'd put it differently: it is for everyone of us to decide which of the equally anachronistic performances of any given piece of music is more to our taste than the others and to prefer it accordingly, while acknowledging the right of everybody else to disagree and have a different preference.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:36:03 PM
Talk about imposing contemporary thinking on the past.
[in response to my comment that I think Mozart would have preferred people to listen]

Well yes, OK, I can't KNOW it, and don't claim to. But music that isn't listened to isn't any different to a painting hung so high in a gallery as to be almost indecipherable. Hanging 'em high is, if you like, historically authentic, but we DO know that artists preferred their works to be exhibited at eye level.

Quote
And yet the contemporary accounts paint a very clear picture: how they listened, and what they heard, back then is not at all how we listen, and what we hear, today --- not by a long stretch.

I think that's inevitable, and again one can say much the same about painting. We demonstrably do not look at them in the same way as our forebears did. I think that's alright. Different listening and different looking is fine. But not-listening and not-looking are not responses either to a piece of music, or a painting. They aren't a 'thing'.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:44:29 PM
Yes, a thousand times yes, you got me right, this is indeed my position: if some harpsichordist thinks that this is the proper way to play Gershwin according to her aesthetics, artistic vision and intellectual insights then it is just as authentic as any recording made by Gerswhin himself --- authenticity is a marker of the performer and the performance, not of the score. We as listeners are free to accept or reject it and to prefer one perforrmance to the other --- but prescribing a priori how, or within what limits, a certain piece of music should be performed strikes me as intellectual and artistic totalitarianism, and frankly I'm surprised that you of all people should not understand it.
Andrei, it's odd you should say I don't understand it but I can express it so exactly! I think I have passed the Florestan Turing test here!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 12:52:36 PM
I completely understand exactly what I am listening to,

With all due respect, I very much doubt it --- or better said, you understand it your way, which is not at all necessarily the way they understood it back then, your undeniable and commendable theoretical and intellectual grasp of it notwithstanding.  ;D

QuoteI prefer it above realizations which are created by other standards
.

We all do that, it's only that your standards might be / are different than mine.

Quote
What irks is the thought that the ideas postulated 3 decades ago, by admittedly wacko individuals are still held to be the current beliefs of rational listeners and musicians.

You just argued that the Antretter-Serenade was meant for stiff and still listening. Looks like the wackos are still with us.  >:D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:04:47 PM
PS Andrei, I have been meaning to ask you. Why is your handle the name of a prince of Monaco?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:06:17 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:01:54 PM
Andrei, it's odd you should say I don't understand it but I can express it so exactly! I think I have passed the Florestan Turing test here!

If you mean that you agree with what I wrote in response to your post, I can only rejoice. If you mean that you disagree, I feel for you but hey, nobody's perfect, I'll make allowance for that, my friend.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:04:47 PM
PS Andrei, I have been meaning to ask you. Why is your handle the name of a prince of Monaco?

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 12:51:26 PM
Actually you hit a very sore spot, I'm afraid. How on earth can historically authentic performance work absent historically authentic listening?

I don't understand about the sore spot - I'm trying not to hit anyone's sore spots.

But I don't understand why this is an issue. Trying to achieve something resembling historically authentic performance is one thing, and may be successful in some ways, and to some degree. But historically authentic listening is impossible to achieve.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:14:42 PM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 25, 2018, 01:09:38 PM
I don't understand about the sore spot - except to say that I'm trying not to hit anyone's sore spots.

As opposed to me: I was trying to push someone's buttons.  :D

QuoteTrying to achieve something resembling historically authentic performance is one thing, and may be successful in some ways, and to some degree.

Which ways? What degrees?

Quote
But historically authentic listening is impossible to achieve.

Exactly and precisely my point: each listening today, be it Gurn's, Florestan's or Elgarian's is highly and inescapably un-authentic.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:16:53 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:06:46 PM
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Now Andrei. All we have is the score screen name. And Florestan I Of Monaco (d 1856) is as correct and reasonable as any Schumann reference. After all, deciding you meant Schumann would require drawing inferences from your preferences and habits and so on, which you just ruled irrelevant with Mr Gershwin.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:21:03 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:16:53 PM
Now Andrei. All we have is the score screen name. And Florestan I Of Monaco (d 1856) is as correct and reasonable as any Schumann reference. After all, deciding you meant Schumann would require drawing inferences from your preferences and habits and so on, which you just ruled irrelevant with Mr Gershwin.

Oh, I see now. Well, feel free to think of me in terms of a mid-19-th-century Monaco ruler if you wish, I don't mind in the least. After all, why woukd you think exclusively of Schumann when there's also Beethoven?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 01:22:13 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
With all due respect, I very much doubt it --- or better said, you understand it your way, which is not at all necessarily the way they understood it back then, your undeniable and commendable theoretical and intellectual grasp of it notwithstanding.  ;D
.

We all do that, it's only that your standards might be / are different than mine.

You just argued that the Antretter-Serenade was meant for stiff and still listening. Looks like the wackos are still with us.  >:D

Of course I understand it my way, and I realize that and I know that I can never understand it any other way. It is just like everyone's understanding of everything. What possible argument can there be with that?  You wonder. perhaps why I get pissed off at you. Well, this is a part of it, certainly.

Another part is implying that I didn't understand this morning whilst listening to that serenade that Mozart's contemporaries didn't have a CD player to listen to it on. I mean, no shit!  I could certainly have invited a hundred people over to my house to drink and converse while it was playing, but I decided to just be an old silverback conservative and simply listen to it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my choice of instrumentation, since I wasn't making the slightest attempt at reconstructing the past. Furthermore, I rarely ever do.

But beyond that, if I choose to listen to a mass performance with the Proper sections added to the Ordinary, this also doesn't mean in any way that I am fooling myself  into attempting to relive the past. It merely means I am curious how the various pieces would fit into the larger context of the whole. It seems clear to me that this concept eludes you altogether, since you seem to be too 'all-or-nothing' to be able to grasp it.

Context is what history is all about. Recreating context (in the bigger picture, not the microcosm) is what historians do. And no, I actually do agree with Alan, I think Mozart, like any other artist, would have liked people to listen when his music was played. He wrote about it at length to Leopold when he was in Paris. He must not have realized then how irrelevant people would think his feelings were today. 

8)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:21:03 PM
Oh, I see now. Well, feel free to think of me in terms of a mid-19-th-century Monaco ruler if you wish, I don't mind in the least. After all, why woukd you think exclusively of Schumann when there's also Beethoven?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.


So here we have the real difference Andrei. You say "there is only the score". I say there is more than just the score, and that that more can help us to understand the score.

If I see a Renaissance painting, and see a man with holes in his hands and a bunch of thorns on his head I draw a conclusion about who he is; you do not. All we have, after all, is the canvas.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 25, 2018, 01:22:13 PM
Of course I understand it my way, and I realize that and I know that I can never understand it any other way. It is just like everyone's understanding of everything. What possible argument can there be with that?  You wonder. perhaps why I get pissed off at you. Well, this is a part of it, certainly.

Another part is implying that I didn't understand this morning whilst listening to that serenade that Mozart's contemporaries didn't have a CD player to listen to it on. I mean, no shit!  I could certainly have invited a hundred people over to my house to drink and converse while it was playing, but I decided to just be an old silverback conservative and simply listen to it.

In other words, you decided to be an old silverback romantic. Good, more power to yo!.

Quote
Context is what history is all about. Recreating context (in the bigger picture, not the microcosm) is what historians do.

Correct. That's exactly why I alluded to the context of the Antretter-Serenade.

Quote
And no, I actually do agree with Alan, I think Mozart, like any other artist, would have liked people to listen when his music was played. He wrote about it at length to Leopold when he was in Paris.
[/quote]

He wrote about it at length to Leopold about music he composed for the Parisian audience, he didn't mean the Antretter-Serenade. And judging by the letters you alluded to he was not at all someone who composed music because he really felt like it, but because he cleverly calculated at what exact moment the audience would "shhhhh" and at what other exact moment the audience would applaud, all this in view of gaining fame and perhaps an employment. We are still far away from "listening in awe to a masterpiece of an immortal master".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:32:54 PMHe wrote about it at length to Leopold about music he composed for the Parisian audience, he didn't mean the Antretter-Serenade. And judging by the letters you alluded to he was not at all someone who composed music because he really felt like it, but because he cleverly calculated at what exact moment the audience would "shhhhh" and at what other exact moment the audience would applaud, all this in view of gaining fame and perhaps an employment. We are still far away from "listening in awe to a masterpiece of an immortal master".

For which he ridiculed the audience as asses who didn't appreciate more subtle craft.

As someone who loves Mahler, I really don't see a contradiction between art and entertainment.  Finely crafted art can also entertain.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:38:24 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:25:47 PM
You say "there is only the score".

I emphatically don't. Have you ever read my signature line?

Quote
If I see a Renaissance painting, and see a man with holes in his hands and a bunch of thorns on his head I draw a conclusion about who he is; you do not. All we have, after all, is the canvas.

I sincerely hope that in writing this you are a contrarian just for the sake of it, because if you really mean it then I must seriously question your reading comprehension skills.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:41:39 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
For which he ridiculed the audience as asses who didn't appreciate more subtle craft.

That's how we (like to) read it today. I doubt that's what he really meant.

Quote
As someone who loves Mahler, I really don't see a contradiction between art and entertainment.  Finely crafted art can also entertain.

Agreed on all accounts.

EDIT: Hey, I broke my vow!  :D :D :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
Andrei
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 07:56:30 AM
Or may have not. We'll never know what composer X who died that many years ago may have personally expected. All we have is a score.


Meet Andrei
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:38:24 PM
I emphatically don't. Have you ever read my signature line?

I sincerely hope that in writing this you are a contrarian just for the sake of it, because if you really mean it then I must seriously question your reading comprehension skills.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 01:47:36 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:41:39 PM
That's how we (like to) read it today. I doubt that's what he really meant.

Now I'm interested.  What do you think he really meant?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:52:50 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
Andrei
Meet Andrei

Context, Ken, context! Irony, Ken, irony! For God's sake, Ken, for God's sake! You do disappoint me big time.  :(





Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:01:14 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 01:47:36 PM
Now I'm interested.  What do you think he really meant?

I think that he just loved to play a cleverly calculated trick on the Parisian audience. I do no think that he meant this as some sort of "Take that, you assholes who are not able to appreciate true and everlasting art!" --- after all, why did he go to Paris to begin with?

See? That's why I'm saying that divorcing music as art from music as performance is as Romantic as it gets. Think about it: with the possible exception of the three last symphonies and the Requiem, Mozart never ever wrote any music without (a) specific performer(s) and venue in mind, or without a commission --- the idea of writing for posterity was completely alien to him, just as it was to all of his contemporaries. His letters are abundant testimony for that.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 02:14:04 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 01:52:50 PM
Context, Ken, context! Irony, Ken, irony! For God's sake, Ken, for God's sake! You do disappoint me big time.  :(
Context, exactly. We know what the painter meant because we have more than the canvas, we have his context. We have context with Bach and so we can use that and not just the score to infer intent or what he would have anticipated.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
Quote from: Ken B on August 25, 2018, 02:14:04 PM
Context, exactly. We know what the painter meant because we have more than the canvas, we have his context. We have context with Bach and so we can use that and not just the score to infer intent or what he would have anticipated.

You still don't get, do you? What he intended or anticipated is irelevant --- or better said, it's relevant only for people who take everything ad literam and by the book (cf Hogwood's delight at discovering a hitherto unkown set of instructions for playing embellishments). For creative and imaginative people the score is not a bible and they are not afraid to dare because the music is behind those dots.  ;D

And don't play the obviously false analogy between painting and music, I don't buy it.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 02:23:07 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:01:14 PM
I think that he just loved to play a cleverly calculated trick on the Parisian audience. I do no think that he meant this as some sort of "Take that, you assholes who are not able to appreciate true and everlasting art!" --- after all, why did he go to Paris to begin with?

I didn't say "assholes," I said "asses," just as Mozart did.

"For whom will it displease?  As for the discerning Frenchmen who may be present, I should certainly desire to give them pleasure; but for the jolterheads, I don't see that it will be any great misfortune not to please them.  Yet I still hope even the asses will find something in it to like; and then I have not forgotten the premier coup d'archet, which is sufficient.  The cattle here make a very important matter of that, but, for my part, I see no great difference; they begin here much in the same manner as in other places." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:01:14 PMSee? That's why I'm saying that divorcing music as art from music as performance is as Romantic as it gets. Think about it: with the possible exception of the three last symphonies and the Requiem, Mozart never ever wrote any music without (a) specific performer(s) and venue in mind, or without a commission

Schoenberg usually didn't either.  What's your point?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 02:23:07 PM
"For whom will it displease?  As for the discerning Frenchmen who may be present, I should certainly desire to give them pleasure; but for the jolterheads, I don't see that it will be any great misfortune not to please them.  Yet I still hope even the asses will find something in it to like

Exactly. Mozart expressly aimed for, and hoped to, please everybody, be they discerning listeners or asses. He never despised his audience the way (some of) the Romantics and Modernists did --- and he didn't do it precisely because for him music as art was inconceivable without music as performance.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 25, 2018, 02:40:59 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:34:25 PM
Exactly. Mozart expressly aimed for, and hoped to, please everybody, be they discerning listeners or asses. He never despised his audience the way (some of) the Romantics and Modernists did --- and he didn't do it precisely because for him music as art was inconceivable without music as performance.

Such as whom?  Who despised the audience worse than calling them stupid beasts?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 25, 2018, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
You still don't get, do you? What he intended or anticipated is irelevant --- or better said, it's relevant only for people who take everything ad literam and by the book (cf Hogwood's delight at discovering a hitherto unkown set of instructions for playing embellishments). For creative and imaginative people the score is not a bible and they are not afraid to dare because the music is behind those dots.  ;D

And don't play the obviously false analogy between painting and music, I don't buy it.

You seem to me to keep presenting things as if there are only two extreme options.

"Relevant" is not a synonym for "definitive".

Also... people completely misuse the Bible as well. As evidenced by the notion of something being "a bible". The Bible was written in a history and a context and a culture, as well as in 3 different languages over a span of many centuries. All things that people tend to forget.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 25, 2018, 10:36:24 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 10:19:37 PM
I knew it was a very bad idea to come back to this thread and I was certain I would regret it rather soon. It's unbelievable how emotionally charged this topic can be. I'll avoid it like plague in the future.  :laugh:

Don't give up! You're doing a stalwart job. There are things I want to say, there's a quote from Quantz in the book on Museums for example, but it's too hard to type with just my phone.

By the way I've just ordered Arthur Danto"s book.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2018, 10:55:38 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 25, 2018, 10:36:24 PM
Don't give up! You're doing a stalwart job.

Oh! Thank you.

Quote
There are things I want to say

Can hardly wait.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:59:03 AM
I had to leave off in order to go to bed, last night, and returned this morning thinking to find some resolution. But having read through the above, I find two things:

1. I don't understand much of the discussion.
2. I don't think much of it has anything to do with the way I listen to music. So even if I thought I did understand, I'd be insufficiently qualified to comment on most of what's being said.

I will, though, make one point if I may, about the analogy between painting and music. Like all analogies, it has limitations, but an awareness of it - a recognition of the interconnections - is one of the most valuable aids to the appreciation of both arts that I know. One does not need to demonstrate a 100% definable correlation for the idea to be of value. The 'modern' psychological baggage we bring with us when we view (say) a Dutch 17th century landscape really does bear some relation to the mindset with which we listen to music of earlier periods. The analogy is limited in scope, but it isn't false.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 02:42:41 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:59:03 AM
I had to leave off in order to go to bed, last night, and returned this morning thinking to find some resolution. But having read through the above, I find two things:

1. I don't understand much of the discussion.
2. I don't think much of it has anything to do with the way I listen to music. So even if I thought I did understand, I'd be insufficiently qualified to comment on most of what's being said.

Basically, I posit two things.

1. Performing music in a concert hall to a silent, reverent and attentive audience is a typically Romantic act which doesn't cease to be so because the music performed is by Handel. Moreover, performing in such an environment music which was expressly written for a completely different one is an anachronism.

2. The idea that any piece of music is actually a work (Werk), ie an abstract, disembodied entity sufficient in itself and whose value and meaning is not dependent on any particular performance is a typically Romantic notion. Applying it to music which has been expressly written as ephemeral entertainment is an anachronism.

Therefore, the HIP movement, for all their anti-Romantic stance, is in fact highly influenced by Romanticism, and for all their claims to authenticity is in fact highly anachronistic.

I don't even claim originality in this. As I said, Lydia Goehr explicitly or implicitly makes them in her book. What is beyond my comprehension is the amount of wrath I have incurred upon myself simply by stating them.

QuoteThe 'modern' psychological baggage we bring with us when we view (say) a Dutch 17th century landscape really does bear some relation to the mindset with which we listen to music of earlier periods.

Agreed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 03:10:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 02:42:41 AM
Basically, I posit two things.

1. Performing music in a concert hall to a silent, reverent and attentive audience is a typically Romantic act which doesn't cease to be so because the music performed is by Handel. Moreover, performing in such an environment music which was expressly written for a completely different one is an anachronism.

2. The idea that any piece of music is actually a work (Werk), ie an abstract, disembodied entity sufficient in itself and whose value and meaning is not dependent on any particular performance is a typically Romantic notion. Applying it to music which has been expressly written as ephemeral entertainment is an anachronism.

I agree with both these statements. But then, I'd be foolish not to: every way in which we interact with the past is an anachronism. It can't not be.

Quote
Therefore, the HIP movement, for all their anti-Romantic stance, is in fact highly influenced by Romanticism, and for all their claims to authenticity is in fact highly anachronistic.

Self evident. The drive to try to reconstruct an authentic interpretation of any work is anachronistic. It's an essentially modern impulse.

If this is all you're saying, then who could disagree? However I don't think the issue is bipolar. When I listen to (say) Immerseel's Beethoven, I do think it brings me meaningfully closer to what a Beethovian audience would have experienced in his day than, say, Karajan's Beethoven would. I can't quantify this in any sense, but the use of period instruments alone would produce a sound field that more closely resembled Beethoven's.

But I'm driven again to what I said at the start. I enjoy Immerseel's Beethoven primarily because it's a lot more fun. It's "enhanced authenticity" is a bonus feature that I don't really care much about.

Quote
What is beyond my comprehension is the amount of wrath I have incurred upon myself simply by stating them.

Well I wouldn't know about that Andrei. I'm not angry at all. Not even a smidgeon of wrath!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 03:52:02 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 03:10:41 AM
the use of period instruments alone would produce a sound field that more closely resembled Beethoven's.

I can only quote Taruskin here: instruments don't make music, people do.  :D

Quote
But I'm driven again to what I said at the start. I enjoy Immerseel's Beethoven primarily because it's a lot more fun. It's "enhanced authenticity" is a bonus feature that I don't really care much about.

What is discussed here --- at least what I try to discuss --- is not the quality of HIP music-making but its philosophical and conceptual underpinnings. The whole debate started actually in another thread when some posters claimed that HIP is the only legitimate and valid way to go with "early music" (a very fluid concept in itself, witness the attempts at HIP Brahms) and that, for instance, pianists should take their hands off Bach's music because the result is an abomination. I took issues with that and that's how the whole thing started. You can find a summary of my position here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg1164239.html#msg1164239 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg1164239.html#msg1164239)

Quote
Well I wouldn't know about that Andrei. I'm not angry at all. Not even a smidgeon of wrath!

Of course I didn't mean you, Alan.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 26, 2018, 03:59:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 03:52:02 AM
I can only quote Taruskin here: instruments don't make music, people do.  :D
Because you cannot legitimately claim that Alan is wrong, you mean? ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 26, 2018, 04:19:23 AM
The thing that Quantz says that's quoted in the imaginary museums book which caught my attention is to with instruments.

He says that each instrument has its own unique affects.

I can't get the quote now, I'll find it when I'm back home.

If this is a widespread idea then I think it has some consequences for decisions about instruments.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 04:53:36 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:59:03 AM
1. I don't understand much of the discussion.
2. I don't think much of it has anything to do with the way I listen to music. So even if I thought I did understand, I'd be insufficiently qualified to comment on most of what's being said.

This is very close to my sentiments and the cause why I haven't participated until now.

But:

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 02:42:41 AM
Basically, I posit two things.
1. Performing music in a concert hall to a silent, reverent and attentive audience is a typically Romantic act which doesn't cease to be so because the music performed is by Handel. Moreover, performing in such an environment music which was expressly written for a completely different one is an anachronism.

I do not understand the use of the word romantic in this context. Do you mean nostalgic?

And while we try to recreate the music proper as well as possible, - and everybody knows that this is only partially possible, this is no reason to try to recreate the original listening conditions (candle lights, wigs et c.). If we tried to do so, I would rather talk about romantic thinking.

And you also - when talking about anachronism - predispose musically educated listeners. Uneducated listeners might think that the music was written to day for the actual concert. So for uneducated listeners there might be no anachronism at all.

Many composers, Bach among them, composed for future listeners and also themselves performed their works several times during their lifetime. Were all other performances, than the first anachronistic? And someone composing for future listeners knows that the preforming conditions will change, meaning that the performance as such will change. In the Baroque age this was the condition of life, the performance depended upon what musicians were at hand and upon the imagination of the musicians, so there was a lot of freedom in performance. And performing Baroque music to day we have of course a similar freedom, and using it must be considered authentic in principle. This brings me to state, that no modern HIP performer thinks that he performs the music just as Bach did. But the performer tries to make the music as "authentic" as possible, among other things by avoiding instruments and playing techniques which weren't available to Bach. And why should an attempt to recreate the history be an expression of romantic philosophy? Is all historical investigation romantic pr se? When a historian tries to recreate former ages, he very well knows, that he cannot achieve but an incomplete picture of the past. It is similar with music of the past.

Quote from: Florestan
2. The idea that any piece of music is actually a work (Werk), ie an abstract, disembodied entity sufficient in itself and whose value and meaning is not dependent on any particular performance is a typically Romantic notion. Applying it to music which has been expressly written as ephemeral entertainment is an anachronism.

Therefore, the HIP movement, for all their anti-Romantic stance, is in fact highly influenced by Romanticism, and for all their claims to authenticity is in fact highly anachronistic.

Composers since long began to write their compositions down in order to save them for future and make it possible to perform them again e.g. Machaut's Messe and Bach's St. Matthew passion, so the repeated performances of music is not anachronistic by itself. Machaut intended his Messe to be performed every year also after his death to remember him. The claim that all music of earlier times was written for ephemeral entertainment is false.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 05:49:38 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 04:53:36 AM
I do not understand the use of the word romantic in this context. Do you mean nostalgic?

I mean the Romantic (capital R) musical aesthetics as formulated by, say, ETA Hoffmann, Wackenroder, Novalis, Hegel, Schelling or Schopenhauer. You'll find a lot of information on that in Goehr's book, which I remember you ordered.

Also very interesting and useful in this respect, and bearing direct relevance for our debate, is the following doctoral dissertation:

The Virtuoso under Subjection: How German Idealism Shaped The Critical Reception of Instrumental Virtuosity in Europe, 1815 - 1850 (https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/30747/zc39.pdf?sequence=1)

QuoteThe claim that all music of earlier times was written for ephemeral entertainment is false.

I made no such claim and I agree it's false.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 05:56:55 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 26, 2018, 03:59:24 AM
Because you cannot legitimately claim that Alan is wrong, you mean? ;)

No, because the sound of the instruments per se bears no relation whatsoever to the quality of music-making.  Instruments do not play themselves, not even period instruments. You need people to make them come alive. Simply using period instruments does not automatically warrant a better performance than one on modern instruments.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 26, 2018, 06:31:59 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 05:56:55 AM
No, because the sound of the instruments per se bears no relation whatsoever to the quality of music-making.  Instruments do not play themselves, not even period instruments. You need people to make them come alive. Simply using period instruments does not automatically warrant a better performance than one on modern instruments.
This is a ridiculous strawman. Nobody claimed that a gut-stringed German violin from 1600s without anyone playing it, would result in an interpretation closer to what Bach had in mind when writing the Chaconne, than Christian Tetzlaff playing it on a modern violin by Stefan-Peter Greiner. And another thing, you are right that instruments do not play themselves, but this should make you realize that it's patently false to claim that the sound of the instruments, per se, doesn't bear a relation to the music-making, as the sound of the instrument does not exist outside music-making, and it is affected by the musician playing it. But the point is, it is not only the musician affecting the instrument, but also the instrument affecting the musician.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 06:39:20 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 26, 2018, 06:31:59 AM
it is not only the musician affecting the instrument, but also the instrument affecting the musician.

What do you mean by that?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 26, 2018, 06:48:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 06:39:20 AM
What do you mean by that?
I mean that the way an instrument feels, responds to touch, and sounds, affect how the musician plays it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 06:51:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 03:52:02 AM
I can only quote Taruskin here: instruments don't make music, people do.  :D

Yes but that's to take what I said too literally. What I mean is that when I hear the sound of a fortepiano, or a period violin played with that delicious piercing, scraping, reduced-vibrato sound (assuming of course a competent player), then I am already - other things being equal - somewhat closer to the sound field experienced by an audience of the period.
I mean just that - no more, no less.

Quote
What is discussed here --- at least what I try to discuss --- is not the quality of HIP music-making but its philosophical and conceptual underpinnings. The whole debate started actually in another thread when some posters claimed that HIP is the only legitimate and valid way to go with "early music" (a very fluid concept in itself, witness the attempts at HIP Brahms) and that, for instance, pianists should take their hands off Bach's music because the result is an abomination. I took issues with that and that's how the whole thing started.

With this I am fully in agreement. It's one of those absolutist stances that we both shy away from.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 06:51:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 05:49:38 AM
I mean the Romantic (capital R) musical aesthetics as formulated by, say, ETA Hoffmann, Wackenroder, Novalis, Hegel, Schelling or Schopenhauer. You'll find a lot of information on that in Goehr's book, which I remember you ordered.


I still do not understand the use of the word Romantic in this context. I think the word may be misused, as it tend to induce quite other associations. What is the opposite of Romantic in this sense?

I did not order Goehr's book, since the "important" parts of it can be read online. What I have read from it until now seems to me to be overcomplicated verbiage.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 06:56:56 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 04:53:36 AMMany composers, Bach among them, composed for future listeners and also themselves performed their works several times during their lifetime.

Florestan has said that he doesn't believe this is true.  I don't know if I would say that he intended works such as the B minor Mass for actual performance, but he certainly compiled it in order to represent what he considered the best of his work.  And that despite its impracticality.

Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 04:53:36 AMComposers since long began to write their compositions down in order to save them for future and make it possible to perform them again e.g. Machaut's Messe and Bach's St. Matthew passion, so the repeated performances of music is not anachronistic by itself. Machaut intended his Messe to be performed every year also after his death to remember him. The claim that all music of earlier times was written for ephemeral entertainment is false.

Even if it is anachronistic, that doesn't mean that it violates the idea of recreating historical practices and norms.  The very idea of recreating something from the past implies that it doesn't otherwise exist in the present.

Anyway, Bach and Mozart of all composers were profoundly aware of and influenced by music of the past.  Their music-making did not exist in a vacuum, and when Mozart published some of his works, surely he intended them to spread further than simply the event or commissioner for which they were written.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 07:07:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 03:52:02 AM
..... pianists should take their hands off Bach's music because the result is an abomination.

I do not think that more than one GMGer wrote that. As I wrote by then the problem rests with the musicians and not the instruments. A period instrument does not guarantee an informed performance, but a modern instrument may invite to an uninformed performance, because a considerable number of pianists do not stand the temptation. I Bach's music I do enjoy a small number of pianists, whom I think offer informed performances. And NB: An informed performance is not a unique, ideal, definitive interpretation but only one among the infinite number of options you still have, even if you respect the knowledge we have about performance practice in the Baroque age.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:07:46 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 06:51:51 AM
I still do not understand the use of the word Romantic in this context. I think the word may be misused, as it tend to induce quite other associations. What is the opposite of Romantic in this sense?

Well, it can't have an opposite since it describes an aesthetic and philosophical movement.

This might help:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-19th-romantic/ (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-19th-romantic/)

I also strongly urge you to read the doctoral dissertation I posted above. It is accessible, well researched, has no overcomplicated verbiage and addresses issues of the utmost relevance to our discussion.

Quote
I did not order Goehr's book, since the "important" parts of it can be read online.

I know, I posted a link to the whole book in this thread

Quote
What I have read from it until now seems to me to be overcomplicated verbiage.

I suggest you skip the analytical approach part which indeed fits in your description and go straight to the historical approach part, which is eminently readable and highly instructive.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:10:00 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 04:53:36 AM
And why should an attempt to recreate the history be an expression of romantic philosophy? Is all historical investigation romantic pr se?

I think what Andrei means (and he will tell me if I'm wrong) is that there is a Great Divide between us and (let's say) the time of Handel. That great barrier is Romanticism with a capital R. We are so deeply imbued with Romantic ideals (individualism, emotional expression and so on) that it infiltrates all our thinking even when we're not aware of it.

So, when we look at the past, we subconsciously project our own post-Romantic thoughts and feelings into it, even though they are 'ours', and not 'theirs'. It's a kind of pathetic fallacy: similar to describing the sea as 'cruel'. Andrei insists that the HIPsters do this when they regard past-performance practice. Even when seeking authenticity, they are bringing a post-Romantic sensibility to the meaning and value of that authenticity. They can't help doing that. None of us can.

When I thrill to a performance of 'Dope Notte' (both modern and HIP) and laugh aloud and punch the air and call it rock and roll, I'm experiencing a post-Romantic 'something' that Handel almost certainly would have been astonished and perplexed by. If a HIPster were to tell me I should not be experiencing the music like that because it wasn't a historically authentic response, then I'd decline his advice and continue to bop around the kitchen.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 07:10:34 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 06:56:56 AM
Florestan has said that he doesn't believe this is true.  I don't know if I would say that he intended works such as the B minor Mass for actual performance, but he certainly compiled it in order to represent what he considered the best of his work.  And that despite its impracticality.

Even if it is anachronistic, that doesn't mean that it violates the idea of recreating historical practices and norms.  The very idea of recreating something from the past implies that it doesn't otherwise exist in the present.

Anyway, Bach and Mozart of all composers were profoundly aware of and influenced by music of the past.  Their music-making did not exist in a vacuum, and when Mozart published some of his works, surely he intended them to spread further than simply the event or commissioner for which they were written.


I agree completely with this.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:15:32 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 06:56:56 AM
Florestan has said that he doesn't believe this is true.

Let's say I have not yet found any strong evidence for it. Of course, this doesn't mean there is none.


Quotewhen Mozart published some of his works, surely he intended them to spread further than simply the event or commissioner for which they were written.

Why, surely. A larger clientele for his published music meant larger revenues. More money, of which Mozart was oftenly in a dire need.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:10:00 AM
I think what Andrei means (and he will tell me if I'm wrong) is that there is a Great Divide between us and (let's say) the time of Handel. That great barrier is Romanticism with a capital R. We are so deeply imbued with Romantic ideals (individualism, emotional expression and so on) that it infiltrates all our thinking even when we're not aware of it.

So, when we look at the past, we subconsciously project our own post-Romantic thoughts and feelings into it, even though they are 'ours', and not 'theirs'. It's a kind of pathetic fallacy: similar to describing the sea as 'cruel'. Andrei insists that the HIPsters do this when they regard past-performance practice. Even when seeking authenticity, they are bringing a post-Romantic sensibility to the meaning and value of that authenticity. They can't help doing that. None of us can.

When I thrill to a performance of 'Dope Notte' (both modern and HIP) and laugh aloud and punch the air and call it rock and roll, I'm experiencing a post-Romantic 'something' that Handel almost certainly would have been astonished and perplexed by. If a HIPster were to tell me I should not be experiencing the music like that because it wasn't a historically authentic response, then I'd decline his advice and continue to bop around the kitchen.

Excellently put, Alan. You got me right on all accounts. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 07:21:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:07:46 AM
I also strongly urge you to read the doctoral dissertation I posted above. It is accessible, well researched, has no overcomplicated verbiage and addresses issues of the utmost relevance to our discussion.

Well, I began reading it, but do not understand what instrumental virtuosity in 1815 - 1850 has got to do with our topic.

Quote from: Florestan
I suggest you skip the analytical approach part which indeed fits in your description and go straight to the historical approach part, which is eminently readable and highly instructive.

I did go directly to the historical approach part.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:22:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:17:25 AM
Excellently put, Alan. You got me right on all accounts. Thanks.

There you are, you see. I may be slow on the post-Romantic uptake, but I get there in the end.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:23:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:15:32 AMWhy, surely. A larger clientele for his published music meant larger revenues. More money, of which Mozart was oftenly in a dire need.

If Mozart merely wanted to make money, he would not have written such difficult music.  It would be far better financially to write music that catered to the "asses" and "cattle" than to produce works oriented towards connoisseurs.

This does leave another possibility, that Mozart was aware that he was writing music that was not as effective as possible at pleasing mass audiences, and did it anyway because he was incompetent.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:33:20 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:23:34 AM
If Mozart merely wanted to make money

I didn't claim that but his letters conspicuously show that he wasn't the otherworldly idealist that the Romantic mythology has turned him into, either.

Quote
This does leave another possibility, that Mozart was aware that he was writing music that was not as effective as possible at pleasing mass audiences, and did it anyway because he was incompetent a genius and could write no other music.

FTFY.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 07:34:34 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:10:00 AM
I think what Andrei means (and he will tell me if I'm wrong) is that there is a Great Divide between us and (let's say) the time of Handel. That great barrier is Romanticism with a capital R. We are so deeply imbued with Romantic ideals (individualism, emotional expression and so on) that it infiltrates all our thinking even when we're not aware of it.

So, when we look at the past, we subconsciously project our own post-Romantic thoughts and feelings into it, even though they are 'ours', and not 'theirs'. It's a kind of pathetic fallacy: similar to describing the sea as 'cruel'. Andrei insists that the HIPsters do this when they regard past-performance practice. Even when seeking authenticity, they are bringing a post-Romantic sensibility to the meaning and value of that authenticity. They can't help doing that. None of us can.

Thanks for this elaboration. I may agree with some of the premises when the word Romantic is used in this way, but not with the conclusion. Individualism wasn't invented in the Romantic age, nor was emotional expression. And I am convinced, that it to some extent is possible for a reflective person to listen to Early music with some degree of "early" ears, but it demands some training. Just to mention one thing one has got to become confidential with earlier temperaments.

Quote from: Elgarian
When I thrill to a performance of 'Dope Notte' (both modern and HIP) and laugh aloud and punch the air and call it rock and roll, I'm experiencing a post-Romantic 'something' that Handel almost certainly would have been astonished and perplexed by. If a HIPster were to tell me I should not be experiencing the music like that because it wasn't a historically authentic response, then I'd decline his advice and continue to bop around the kitchen.

Don't you think that Early music could "swing".
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:35:14 AM
I'm thinking of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." He wrote that sure enough. But no man spends 5 years of his life in a garret composing a Dictionary richer and finer than the world has seen, just for money. A lesser dictionary would have sufficed for that. There's a complicated issue about motivation here, where financial reward and 'for-its-own-sake-ness' juggle for position as motivations. I think the 'doing it for money' angle is a bit of a red herring, if only because it's not resolvable.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:35:20 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 07:21:30 AM
Well, I began reading it, but do not understand what instrumental virtuosity in 1815 - 1850 has got to do with our topic.

A lot, actually. Just keep reading.

Quote
I did go directly to the historical approach part.  :)

I am greatly puzzled, honestly. I found it to be a fascinating book overall.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:39:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:33:20 AMI didn't claim that but his letters conspicuously show that he wasn't the otherworldly idealist that the Romantic mythology has turned him into, either.

I didn't claim that he was an otherworldly idealist either, or a Romantic hero.  He was a craftsman and artisan as well as an artist.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:33:20 AM
QuoteThis does leave another possibility, that Mozart was aware that he was writing music that was not as effective as possible at pleasing mass audiences, and did it anyway because he was a genius and could write no other music.
FTFY.

If he was such a genius, why could he write no other music?  Surely he knew how to simplify his style and make it more easily accessible.  You know, cut out those chromatic harmonies and replace them with simpler ones, or use exclusively square two- and four-bar phrases.  There are lots of things he could do to make sure that even the cattle can understand, which he didn't.  If he were a genius, surely he would have the facility to accomplish those basic tasks as well as the more difficult one of writing the music he actually wrote.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:39:59 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 07:34:34 AM
Individualism wasn't invented in the Romantic age, nor was emotional expression.

That's true. It's just that the Romantic Sge brought them both to paroxistic levels.

Quote
And I am convinced, that it to some extent is possible for a reflective person to listen to Early music with some degree of "early" ears, but it demands some training. Just to mention one thing one has got to become confidential with earlier temperaments.

No argument from me here.

Quote
Don't you think that Early music could "swing".

It can and it does. For us. Today.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:40:06 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 07:34:34 AM

Don't you think that Early music could "swing".


I accuse you of misplaced post-Romantic sensibility, Sir!

But seriously, the concept of swing is a modern one, I imagine. Swing, rock and roll - it is you and I who bring these to the table, I think - not the early musicians. But I wouldn't want to insist on the point. Just seems likely.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:39:09 AM
He was a craftsman and artisan as well as an artist.

Exactly.

Quote
If he was such a genius, why could he write no other music? 

Why should he?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:44:57 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:39:59 AM
That's true. It's just that the Romantic Age brought them both to paroxistic levels.

I have learned a new word today. Paroxistic.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:47:28 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:42:13 AMWhy should he?

To make more money.  With his innate talent and understanding of composition, he could certainly have written more profitable music.  If you suggest that making money was more important to him than the artistic aspects of music, then your argument depends on explaining why he didn't write music that was more profitable than the music he wrote.

He was warned repeatedly, by his father and by various patrons, not to write such complexities, but he did so anyway, audiences be damned.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:50:25 AM
I really think this money angle is a red herring. It's not resolvable. We can't even trust what the artist himself may say on the matter (witness my comment about Johnson earlier). We can't even assume that he knows.

In my ill-spent youth I use to write regularly for a computer magazine. I loved it. I got paid. If you ask me what the primary motivation was for doing it, I truly couldn't tell you.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:53:19 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:47:28 AM
To make more money.  With his innate talent and understanding of composition, he could certainly have written more profitable music.

I think we have already agreed upon the fact that making money, although important for him, was not his main concern when writing music.

Quote
If you suggest that making money was more important to him than the artistic aspects of music

I suggest no such thing.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:57:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:53:19 AMI think we have already agreed upon the fact that making money, although important for him, was not his main concern when writing music.

I suggest no such thing.

But you have denied that for him music had any artistic aspect beyond its ability to reach out to a specific audience at a specific time.  Certainly, you have denied that he thought of music in terms of its innate aesthetics.

Then what is the relevance of bringing it up in connection with his publications?  You said that he wrote for a single event and its performer(s) only, and the fact that he published some of his music seems to contradict this.  I don't see how you can assume that he did this primarily or purely for financial reasons, ignoring that Mozart would have been keenly aware of the publications of other composers, having learned extensively from them.  He would have also been aware that publication represented way of joining their ranks, of putting forth an example to others from which they too could learn.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 08:19:34 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 07:57:50 AM
I don't see how you can assume that he did this primarily or purely for financial reasons

For the third and last time: I do not assume anything like that, but by all means, keep on flogging this dead horse, seems that you delight in it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 08:22:41 AM
I sincerely believe that if Bach or Mozart were resurrected, they'd probably be quite puzzled with our excessive preocupation wih the musical practices of the past. "Why are you so obsessed with unearthing and reproducing practices of a long gone past", they'd possibly ask, "don't you have your own?"
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 08:19:34 AM
For the third and last time: I do not assume anything like that, but by all means, keep on flogging this dead horse, seems that you delight in it.

I'm trying to let you open up about your response, then.  Tell me what the relevance of your comment on money is to my remark about publications.

And please, let's refrain from ad hominem remarks.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 08:53:11 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 08:24:35 AM
I'm trying to let you open up about your response, then.  Tell me what the relevance of your comment on money is to my remark about publications.

What I had to tell I already told. I'm done with this particular issue.

Quote
And please, let's refrain from ad hominem remarks.

I did not intend any ad hominem but if you really took offense I apologize.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 08:53:11 AM
What I had to tell I already told. I'm done with this particular issue.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed you explaining the relevance of it to my initial contention.  I said that Mozart clearly thought of his works apart from the circumstances for which they were written, and you brought up financial incentives.  I am not saying that Mozart did not want to make money, I am suggesting that his reasons for publishing the works he did include wanting to have his musical output represented in print:

"I want to have [the violin sonatas K301-306] engraved....I do not want to be ashamed of my name on the title page." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 08:53:11 AMI did not intend any ad hominem but if you really took offense I apologize.

I prefer if people do not impugn my motives for posting.  I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but rather to move discussion forward.  We all learn more if we express our views clearly.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 09:40:58 AM
The fact that Mozart generally wrote for the "here and now", ie for specific events, performers (himself included), venues or commissions, is amply documented in his letters. It was also a common practice of his time. Acknowledging this fact does not lessen the quality of the music.

The fact that Mozart hoped and wished to make money with his music is also amply documented in his letters. It was also a common practice of his time. Acknowledging this fact does not equate with implying that the only reason he published his music was pecuniar.

But there is nothing in his letters nor in the common practice of his time that can warrant that he wrote his music for an abstract posterity to ponder on, and marvel at, its quality or that he was greatly concerned with the fate of his works after his death.

There, I can't express myself any clearer than that. Take it or leave it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 09:42:55 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 07:40:06 AM
I accuse you of misplaced post-Romantic sensibility, Sir!

But seriously, the concept of swing is a modern one, I imagine. Swing, rock and roll - it is you and I who bring these to the table, I think - not the early musicians. But I wouldn't want to insist on the point. Just seems likely.

Oh well, I used the word "swing" to make it easy to understand for a modern human being, what I meant.  :)

I think much Early music danced, not only the dedicated dance music from the Medieval age to the Baroque, but I would also like to point to the dancing character of much other music - particularly Baroque music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 09:40:58 AM
The fact that Mozart generally wrote for the "here and now", ie for specific events, performers (himself included), venues or commissions, is amply documented in his letters. It was also a common practice of his time. Acknowledging this fact does not lessen the quality of the music.

I agree, and do not think it does.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 09:40:58 AMThe fact that Mozart hoped and wished to make money with his music is also amply documented in his letters. It was also a common practice of his time. Acknowledging this fact does not equate with implying that the only reason he published his music was pecuniar.

I agree, and do not think it does.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 09:40:58 AMBut there is nothing in his letters nor in the common practice of his time that can warrant that he wrote his music for an abstract posterity to ponder on, and marvel at, its quality or that he was greatly concerned with the fate of his works after his death.

You see, I agree with you about the above two items, but disagree here.

What about the remark I just cited about his desire for publication, or the fact that he respected and loved the "great works" of the past, of Bach, Handel, and so forth?

The fact that he did not specifically say "I am writing this so that it will be in dialogue with these works to which I respond" seems to me irrelevant.  He studied and learned from these things, put his music out into the world so that it would continue to be played (and furthermore considered those published works in some way representative of his talents), and by his actions entered into that dialogue.  The reasons why his music is studied in connection with the works that preceded and followed it are not necessarily dependent on refashioning Mozart into a heroic artist figure in the manner of the Romantics.

We can understand what he was doing using only the modes of production of his own time.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 09:42:55 AM
I think much Early music danced, not only the dedicated dance music from the Medieval age to the Baroque, but I would also like to point to the dancing character of much other music - particularly Baroque music.

Oh I see! Sorry, I thought you meant 'Swing' in the Benny Goodman sense!

I am sure you're right about the dancing character in general (dancing in the head even if not dancing literally). I would think that dancing link goes back a very long way. All the way back to shamanic drumming!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 10:37:02 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 10:00:59 AM
What about the remark I just cited about his desire for publication,

His desire for publication had the same motives as that of any other of his contemporaries: to make his music known to a larger public, to establish his reputation, to secure a permanent appointment and last but not least to make some money. Little, if anything at all, to do with "I want to publish these sonatas so that in 200 years time they still be available for study or performance".

Besides, did he publish all the works he composed? If hardpressed, he probably wouldn't have been able to remember them all.

Quote
or the fact that he respected and loved the "great works" of the past, of Bach, Handel, and so forth?

Well, you see that's the problem: Bach and Handel are firmly past for us; for Mozart they were only a very recent, if at all, past. Bach died only 6 years before he was born and he was three at the time of Handel's death. What did he know of the "past" beyond the early 1700s? We are living about 200 years after his death. Take 200 out of 1791 and you get 1591. What composer of that period did he know, respected and loved as well and as much as Bach or Handel?

QuoteThe reasons why his music is studied in connection with the works that preceded and followed it are not necessarily dependent on refashioning Mozart into a heroic artist figure in the manner of the Romantics.

No, but they are heavily dependent on the Romantic notion of Werk and Werktreue, on the Romantic cult of the past and on the Romantic shift of paradigm from music as performance to music as disembodied art.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
Haydn was the most celebrated and adulated composer of his time yet he probably expressed the general contemporary feeling when he stated that a composer could consider himself lucky if he'd still be remembered 70 years after his death. He clearly entertained no Romantic notions of "the great works" or "the Western musical canon".

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 10:37:02 AMHis desire for publication had the same motives as that of any other of his contemporaries: to make his music known to a larger public, to establish his reputation, to secure a permanent appointment and last but not least to make some money. Little, if anything at all, to do with "I want to publish these sonatas so that in 200 years time they still be available for study or performance".

Besides, did he publish all the works he composed? If hardpressed, he probably wouldn't have been able to remember them all.

He did not, and his own personal catalogue of works did not include his juvenilia, among them works that we would consider important today.  I don't think that the time span you are mentioning is very important, only the idea that his works would in some way survive him.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 10:37:02 AMWell, you see that's the problem: Bach and Handel are firmly past for us; for Mozart they were only a very recent, if at all, past. Bach died only 6 years before he was born and he was three at the time of Handel's death. What did he know of the "past" beyond the early 1700s? We are living about 200 years after his death. Take 200 out of 1791 and you get 1591. What composer of that period did he know, respected and loved as well and as much as Bach or Handel?

See above regarding the relevance of the time frame involved.  I am not suggesting that Mozart looked forward to nameless future generations, but rather was putting his works forth in the same manner that he saw his immediate predecessors doing so.  The musical memory of the 1700s was indeed rather short compared to today, in an age where a significant amount of music from nearly a thousand years forms our history.

Make no mistake, though, Mozart was keenly aware of the aesthetic differences between Bach's and Handel's idiom and his own.  It was removed from him as, say, Stravinsky or Schoenberg from the people of this forum.  And their music, while not in the idioms of today, has certainly continued to influence today's music.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 10:37:02 AMNo, but they are heavily dependent on the Romantic notion of Werk and Werktreue, on the Romantic cult of the past and on the Romantic shift of paradigm from music as performance to music as disembodied art.

How?

I have not brought any of these things up.  You insist on their relevance to the discussion, but I do not see it.  I think that the link between Romanticism and HIP (which was how we got started on this) is rather tenuous.

Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 11:04:01 AM
Haydn was the most celebrated and adulated composer of his time yet he probably expressed the general contemporary feeling when he stated that a composer could consider himself lucky if he'd still be remembered 70 years after his death. He clearly entertained no Romantic notions of "the great works" or "the Western musical canon".

I think that any present day composer would agree that being remembered for so long is great fortune indeed.  If in fact Haydn was thinking about the possibility of being remembered for so long, clearly he had some notion of music outliving its original performance conditions, wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:03:06 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 26, 2018, 11:05:42 AM
I think that the link between Romanticism and HIP (which was how we got started on this) is rather tenuous.

Andrei will have his own explanation of what he means, but for my part, as I (perhaps only partially) understand him, it's not so much about there being a link between HIP and Romanticism, as it is about the inevitability of people today viewing the past through a post-Romantic lens. That is, we cannot escape the enormous impact that Romanticism had on the way we see the world, and on our perception of our situation within it. And then (so the argument goes), the HIPsters are not immune from the distorting optics of this lens when they try to reinterpret the music of the pre-Romantic past.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 26, 2018, 12:17:29 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 07:15:32 AM
Let's say I have not yet found any strong evidence for it. Of course, this doesn't mean there is none.

.

Well in some cases early composers published their work in printed and widely distributed books,  occasionally with guidelines about how to play it. Does that not mean that they produced "works"?

I mean we could take an example that we all know , like Bach's first keyboard partita, or Scarlatti's first sonata.

Prima facie  these are  just as much compositions  aimed for future interpreters and audiences as anything  Beethoven or Brahms wrote.

But maybe these pieces are out of the ordinary, I don't know.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 10:37:02 AM
No, but they are heavily dependent on the Romantic notion of Werk and Werktreue, on the Romantic cult of the past and on the Romantic shift of paradigm from music as performance to music as disembodied art.


Werktreue was "en vogue"  around 60 years ago and meant a litteral interpretation of the score, but no serious informed musician thinks in this way any more.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:03:06 PM
And then (so the argument goes), the HIPsters are not immune from the distorting optics of this lens when they try to reinterpret the music of the pre-Romantic past.


Yes so the argument goes. But we see more and more musicians trying - and I think succeeding - to go back to the roots. What is for instance the Romantic influence upon Andrew Parrott's recording of Machaut's Messe?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:56:51 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
What is for instance the Romantic influence upon Andrew Parrott's recording of Machaut's Messe?
I have no idea. I'll leave that one to Florestan!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 26, 2018, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 26, 2018, 12:56:51 PM
I have no idea. I'll leave that one to Florestan!

Nor have I, so I'll also leave that one to Florestan.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on August 26, 2018, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2018, 10:37:02 AM
the Romantic shift of paradigm from music as performance to music as disembodied art.

You keep setting up these kinds of dichotomies.

Also, you lost me the moment you started suggesting that instruments don't matter. Given that I have a pronounced dislike for people constantly re-arranging music for different instruments from the ones that the composer chose, I'm very much of the view that instruments do matter. And I say that even though I don't have an especially great love for period instruments and a distinct horror for some period keyboards.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 12:45:58 AM
I'm just thinking about the idea of a 'shift from performance art to disembodied art', and thinking it's not a shift - it's an extension. The change has been brought about primarily by recording, hasn't it? Elgar is on record (no pun intended) as having recognised that recording would bring about a shift in the way people listened to music, but again, shift may not be quite right. Both exist in tandem.

So ... first I sit at home listening to the disembodied art-music of let's say Acis and Galatea, via a pair of speakers. Then I go to a concert and listen to/watch a performance of the same work. The experiences are very different, but the work is recognisably the same. In the concert there is considerable awareness of the physicality of the experience: there are rustlings, scrapings, tappings extraneous to the music. The instruments themselves are vividly 'present' - one sees them and hears them differently. The acoustics of the concert venue may be substantially different to that used in the recording, and that may either enhance or detract from the experience. The whole balance of the instruments and singers will be different.

All this is so, and yet in each case it is still Acis and Galatea. The differences described above may be substantial, and yet they are nothing like so substantial as the similarities. The Acis-and-Galatea-ness of what I'm experiencing dominates every other consideration. The same is arguably true if we were to compare HIP with non-HIP performances. I'm wondering if the 'music as disembodied art' development matters as much as one might think.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 01:15:55 AM
I was idly pottering about at the beginning of this thread when I encountered this, from Que - more than 10 years ago (#3):

QuoteI feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer. Perhaps the idea to "recover" original performance practices is a very modern idea, fuelled by the changing of tastes. But I doubt if that means that HIP can be equated to modern taste.

I repeat what he said here, chiefly because I recognise it as very close to my own view on it, perhaps better expressed than I could express it. And very broadly, in its recognition of the idea of HIP interpretation as essentially modern, it seems to be not so far from Florestan's position (though far less detailed in its explication).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:15:03 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 12:31:50 PM

Werktreue was "en vogue"  around 60 years ago and meant a litteral interpretation of the score, but no serious informed musician thinks in this way any more.

As in the case of many other concepts, say "Baroque", "sonata form" of "the Classical style", the practice underlying them, or its proposal, long predates their being officially codified. The idea of Werktreue can be traced as far back as E.T.A. Hoffmann and was widely shared and proclaimed by many prominent critics and musicians all throughout the 19-th century.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:22:33 AM
Re "works" I think I can explain part of what's meant by saying that early purely instrumental music aren't "works of art" in the 19th century sense.

It's that these things, The French Suites would be an example, weren't designed to embody big metaphysical concepts like, for example, Bruckner 9 or the Liszt sonatas.

They were conceived more in a crafty, artisanal way. Their aim was to provide refreshment, or instrumental practice, or to explore a musical concept like a fugue.

In this way they're not the grand creations of a visionary, like you might say that a Van Gogh or a Rothko  is visionary.

This is why there's a link to Romanticism. The idea that an artist is a visionary creator flourished in Goethe, Kant and maybe Hegel.

Things get much more complicated for text related music like an organ choral.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:34:17 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 26, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
What is for instance the Romantic influence upon Andrew Parrott's recording of Machaut's Messe?

I have repeatedly stressed --- and I will do it as long as it will be necessary, which is probably till kingdom come --- that I do not discus HIP music-making but its philosophical and conceptual roots, underpinnings and tenets. It is in this respect that I maintain that the very act of studying a piece of music which is about 700 years old in the view of performing it is a typically Romantic behavior which would have been unthinkable prior to the advent of Romanticism. (Btw, it seems to me that by Romanticism you understand exclusively Romantic music and the practices traditionally associated with it; what I mean by it is a much larger movement, in which philosophical and aesthetic ideas played a central, seminal part --- for our discussion, Hoffmann or Schelling are much more relevant than Tchaikovsky or Thalberg)

Mahlerian stated that Mozart studied and loved Bach, which is correct. But then again is there any documented evidence that he ever played Bach's music in public? Actually, is there any documented evidence that he played anything else in public other than his own music?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:40:15 AM
A long time ago Andrei asked for an example of early HIP music practice. The Machaut mass may just be an example. It was performed regularly, every year i think, after his death. The world of chant may be another example. As may be the special place that the Albinoni Misere had in the Vatican. I also wonder about the history of Strauss waltz performance in Vienna

Anyway I post this to show that it's far from evident  that HIP is a recent phenomenon. Obviously I haven't  done the.necessary work
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:49:28 AM
Quote from: Madiel on August 26, 2018, 02:46:50 PM
You keep setting up these kinds of dichotomies.

I'm just presenting them. Blame them on (philosophical and aesthetic) Romanticism.

Quote
Also, you lost me the moment you started suggesting that instruments don't matter.

You misunderstood me. I just took issues with the idea that the sound of the period instruments is in itself enough to ensure superiority to HIP over non-HIP performances. What I suggested instead was that it is the artistry and insight of the people who play them which makes the difference. Put the most beautifully crafted and well preserved period instruments in the hands of a third-rate amateur orchestra and have them play whatever; I'll take the Berlin PO version of the same thing any time of the day, notwithstanding the fact that the former's sound is obviously closer to what they have heard back then. I find the notion that somehow the period instruments in themselves influence for better the quality of a performance, and in any case makes it superior to a non-HIP one, to be untenable.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:49:39 AM
I don't know about Parrott's Machaut, because there's a text it all becomes complicated.

But maybe, just maybe, there's something romantic about Cera's French Suites.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:55:29 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 12:45:58 AM
I'm just thinking about the idea of a 'shift from performance art to disembodied art', and thinking it's not a shift - it's an extension. The change has been brought about primarily by recording, hasn't it? Elgar is on record (no pun intended) as having recognised that recording would bring about a shift in the way people listened to music, but again, shift may not be quite right. Both exist in tandem.

So ... first I sit at home listening to the disembodied art-music of let's say Acis and Galatea, via a pair of speakers. Then I go to a concert and listen to/watch a performance of the same work. The experiences are very different, but the work is recognisably the same. In the concert there is considerable awareness of the physicality of the experience: there are rustlings, scrapings, tappings extraneous to the music. The instruments themselves are vividly 'present' - one sees them and hears them differently. The acoustics of the concert venue may be substantially different to that used in the recording, and that may either enhance or detract from the experience. The whole balance of the instruments and singers will be different.

All this is so, and yet in each case it is still Acis and Galatea. The differences described above may be substantial, and yet they are nothing like so substantial as the similarities. The Acis-and-Galatea-ness of what I'm experiencing dominates every other consideration. The same is arguably true if we were to compare HIP with non-HIP performances. I'm wondering if the 'music as disembodied art' development matters as much as one might think.

That's not what I had in mind, Alan. A recorded performance is still a performance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:57:13 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:22:33 AM
Re "works" I think I can explain part of what's meant by saying that early purely instrumental music aren't "works of art" in the 19th century sense.

It's that these things, The French Suites would be an example, weren't designed to embody big metaphysical concepts like, for example, Bruckner 9 or the Liszt sonatas.

They were conceived more in a crafty, artisanal way. Their aim was to provide refreshment, or instrumental practice, or to explore a musical concept like a fugue.

In this way they're not the grand creations of a visionary, like you might say that a Van Gogh or a Rothko  is visionary.

This is why there's a link to Romanticism. The idea that an artist is a visionary creator flourished in Goethe, Kant and maybe Hegel.

Things get much more complicated for text related music like an organ choral.

Yes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 02:58:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:34:17 AM
I have repeatedly stressed --- and I will do it as long as it will be necessary, which is probably till kingdom come --- that I do not discus HIP music-making but its philosophical and conceptual roots, underpinnings and tenets. It is in this respect that I maintain that the very act of studying a piece of music which is about 700 years old in the view of performing it is a typically Romantic behavior which would have been unthinkable prior to the advent of Romanticism.
Yes, because there wasn't music that was 700 years old available for study before the advent Romanticism.  :laugh: But of course there was also a wider fascination with, and appreciation of the past with Romanticism. And really I would say that in many respects the Modern era is just a (post) industrial scale version of Romanticism.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:34:17 AM
Mahlerian stated that Mozart studied and loved Bach, which is correct. But then again is there any documented evidence that he ever played Bach's music in public? Actually, is there any documented evidence that he played anything else in public other than his own music?
I wonder if he played the first four keyboard concertos in public, or the concertos K. 107 after J.C. Bach.
As for J.S. Bach, he did arrange some of his keyboard music for string quartet, I wonder if those were not played for a public of some kind, though of course not necessarily with Mozart in the quartet.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 02:58:53 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:22:33 AM
Re "works" I think I can explain part of what's meant by saying that early purely instrumental music aren't "works of art" in the 19th century sense.

It's that these things, The French Suites would be an example, weren't designed to embody big metaphysical concepts like, for example, Bruckner 9 or the Liszt sonatas.

They were conceived more in a crafty, artisanal way. Their aim was to provide refreshment, or instrumental practice, or to explore a musical concept like a fugue.

In this way they're not the grand creations of a visionary, like you might say that a Van Gogh or a Rothko  is visionary.

This is why there's a link to Romanticism. The idea that an artist is a visionary creator flourished in Goethe, Kant and maybe Hegel.

Things get much more complicated for text related music like an organ choral.

The Biber Rosary Sonatas are surely a 'work', with metaphysical concepts.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:01:26 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:40:15 AM
A long time ago Andrei asked for an example of early HIP music practice. The Machaut mass may just be an example. It was performed regularly, every year i think, after his death. The world of chant may be another example. As may be the special place that the Albinoni Misere had in the Vatican.

These were liturgical works which served a specific function --- early Gebrauchmusik.  :D

Seriously now, the case of church music is very special in this respect and bear little relevance, if any, for instrumental music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:55:29 AM
That's not what I had in mind, Alan. A recorded performance is still a performance.

Yes of course. But the method of listening to it is different. The recorded performance enhances the sense of 'disembodied art' in a way that wouldn't have been possible without the invention of recording.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'disembodied art'. But in any case, I'm just thinking aloud.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:05:08 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 02:58:11 AM
there was also a wider fascination with, and appreciation of the past with Romanticism. And really I would say that in many respects the Modern era is just a (post) industrial scale version of Romanticism.

Precisely what I have been arguing all along: HIP is part and parcel of the Modern era, ergo...
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 03:06:43 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:40:15 AM
A long time ago Andrei asked for an example of early HIP music practice. The Machaut mass may just be an example. It was performed regularly, every year i think, after his death. The world of chant may be another example. As may be the special place that the Albinoni Misere had in the Vatican. I also wonder about the history of Strauss waltz performance in Vienna

Anyway I post this to show that it's far from evident  that HIP is a recent phenomenon. Obviously I haven't  done the.necessary work
Strauss waltz concerts started with the Nazis, I think. And surely you mean the Allegri Miserere - incidentally another example of Mozart's interest in early music.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:14:40 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 03:02:39 AM
Yes of course. But the method of listening to it is different. The recorded performance enhances the sense of 'disembodied art' in a way that wouldn't have been possible without the invention of recording.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'disembodied art'. But in any case, I'm just thinking aloud.

I mean the typically Romantic (philosophically Romantic, that is*) ideas that (1) music is an abstract art whose value and meaning resides in itself and (2) a piece of music is a self-contained entity which needs no particular performance to reveal its beauty and meaning, in some cases performance being even harmful.

* I cannot stress hardly enough this qualification, because actually the practice of Romantic music was quite at odds with how the Romantic philosophers viewed music, and people familiar with the former but not with the latter might get puzzled by my posts.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:15:58 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 02:58:53 AM
The Biber Rosary Sonatas are surely a 'work', with metaphysical concepts.

They are not metaphysical but religious, specifically Christian. The difference is huge.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 03:20:42 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 02:58:53 AM
The Biber Rosary Sonatas are surely a 'work', with metaphysical concepts.

Yes, but text related. When there's a text  the vision is in the text, the music is like an exegesis.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:23:13 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 03:06:43 AM
Strauss waltz concerts started with the Nazis, I think.

They did, but even if they had started with the Weimar Republic they would have been equally un-historical and downright absurd. I imagine both Johanns rolling on their graves laughing at the idea that their waltzes, polkas and galopps are played by musicians dressed in ultra-formal attire before a silent, reverent and attentive audience. In this case, if one wants HIP one must go to Andre Rieu's concerts which are far closer to what the Strausses themselves did and heard than the pretentious Vienna PO New Year's Concert.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:23:31 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 03:20:42 AM
Yes, but text related. When there's a text  the vision is in the text, the music is like an exegesis.

This as well.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 03:27:13 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 01:15:55 AM
.....And very broadly, in its recognition of the idea of HIP interpretation as essentially modern,...

I think the interest in HIP reflects our general interest in our history, which is far from a modern occurrence. Think of the Old Testament, Herodotus or Saxo Grammaticus. The interest in history may have experienced a bloom in the Neoclassical age, but this does not make it a Romantic phenomena, and the use of the word Romantic in this context is both confusing and inapt, no matter which authority uses it. HIP is not a romantic religion, where musicians think they achieve the ultimate truth about how music sounded in former ages. Instead it is a working method, which consists in using the things we know about former ages and add the rest as qualified guesses. Yes, it is a relatively modern occurrence in the history of music, that we have started to use historical methods in the interpretation of music - and what then? And with growing familiarity with the music and the period instruments the musicians little by little become able to replace their modern aestetic with a more period-colored aestetic, even if they can't deny the fact, that they live in the 21th century. I do not know why detractors of HIP still claim that it is a modern religion which pretends to know the ultimate truth.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 03:28:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:15:58 AM
They are not metaphysical but religious, specifically Christian. The difference is huge.
True; I was thinking more about the use of the scordatura tunings throughout the work, changing the instrument's sonorities as well as the action, in accordance with the musical substance and what is represented by the music. I meant to say that it's surely as much a grand creation of a visionary as the Bruckner or Liszt (and Van Gogh & Rothko) cited by Mandryka.


Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:23:13 AM
They did, but even if they had started with the Weimar Republic they would have been equally un-historical and downright absurd. I imagine both Johanns rolling on their graves laughing at the idea that their waltzes, polkas and galopps are played by musicians dressed in ultra-formal attire before a silent, reverent and attentive audience. In this case, if one wants HIP one must go to Andre Rieu's concerts which are far closer to what the Strausses themselves did and heard than the pretentious Vienna PO New Year's Concert.
True.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 03:39:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 02:15:03 AM
As in the case of many other concepts, say "Baroque", "sonata form" of "the Classical style", the practice underlying them, or its proposal, long predates their being officially codified. The idea of Werktreue can be traced as far back as E.T.A. Hoffmann and was widely shared and proclaimed by many prominent critics and musicians all throughout the 19-th century.


But what did Hoffmann et alii mean with the word Werktreue?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:41:35 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 03:28:19 AM
it's surely as much a grand creation of a visionary as the Bruckner or Liszt (and Van Gogh & Rothko) cited by Mandryka.

For you AD 2018. But how did Biber regard it back then? Did he intend a grand, visionary creation?

Quote from: WikipediaThe original and only manuscript is stored in the Bavarian State Library in Munich. There is no title page, and the manuscript begins with a dedication to his employer, Archbishop Gandolph. Because of the missing title page, it is uncertain what Biber intended the formal title of the piece to be (Holman 2000) and which instruments he intended for the accompaniment (Manze 2004). Although scholars assume that the sonatas were probably written around the year 1676, there is evidence that they were not all written at the same time or in the same context.

(emphasis mine).

Moreover and perhaps more important:

QuoteThe 15 Mysteries of the Rosary, practiced in the so-called "Rosary processions" since the 13th century, are meditations on important moments in the life of Christ and the Virgin Mary. During these processions, believers walked around a cycle of fifteen paintings and sculptures that were placed at specific points of a church or another building. In this tradition, at every point a series of prayers was to be recited and related to the beads on the rosary (this is the reason why they are also named the Rosary Sonatas). When they performed this ritual, the faithful also listened to the corresponding biblical passages and commentaries. According to Holman, it is presumed that at the time they would listen to Biber's musical commentary to accompany this ritual of meditation

Ergo, each and every performance which is divorced from the Catholic ritual wich they were intended for, such as the concert hall or a recording, or that at least do not include the corresponding Rosary prayers, is as un-historical and inauthentic as it gets, the use of period instruments notwithstanding. This is actually a case where the composer's intention is crystal clear: Christian music for collective prayer and meditation. Any other use one makes of it is highly historically uninformed. And I have no problem whatsoever with that, as long as it doesn't pretend to be what it is emphatically not, ie historically informed.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 03:51:07 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:14:40 AM
I mean the typically Romantic (philosophically Romantic, that is*) ideas that
(1) music is an abstract art whose value and meaning resides in itself and
(2) a piece of music is a self-contained entity which needs no particular performance to reveal its beauty and meaning, in some cases performance being even harmful.

These Romantic ideas are outdated and also wrong and should be considered a result of earlier ages confusion.

Music is an abstract art, but as well as all music was written with performance in mind, so its meaning will not show up until it is performed.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:49:39 AM
But maybe, just maybe, there's something romantic about Cera's French Suites.

This depends on whether the performer expresses the established affects or rather his own sentiments. It may be hard to tell.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 03:28:19 AM
True; I was thinking more about the use of the scordatura tunings throughout the work, changing the instrument's sonorities as well as the action, in accordance with the musical substance and what is represented by the music. I meant to say that it's surely as much a grand creation of a visionary as the Bruckner or Liszt (and Van Gogh & Rothko) cited by Mandryka.

.

First I want to say that I'm very uncomfortable about romantic ideas.

Second, exploring violin tuning is like Bach exploring fugue. In romantic terms, it's craft, not art.

Third,  I'd love to read a study of the C16 and C17 keyboard fantasy in these terms.

Fourth, apart from Cera's French Suites,  another thing which may well be romantic is Davidsson's Buxtehude. Basically whenever the performers try to impose a story on purely instrumental music, it's a candidate for romanticism because it's seeing in the music something which goes beyond the music, something  which transcends the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:04:04 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 03:39:21 AM

But what did Hoffmann et alii mean with the word Werktreue?

I'm afraid you did not understand me well: they did not use this very word but their views were clearly formulating the concept. Judge for yourself:

Quote from: E.T.A. Hoffmann[The true artist] lives only for the work, which he understands as the composer understood it and which he now performs. He does not make his personality count in any way. All his thoughts and actions are directed towards bringing into being all the wonderful, enchanting pictures and impressions the composer sealed in his work with magical power

Quote from: Edouard Fetisthe most inviolable respect must be attached to the composer's work and [...] the performer must never be allowed to distort the former's intentions

Quote from: Unsigned article in Neue Zeitschrift fuer Musik, 1841I  have already spoken in brief about Liszt's way of playing the compositions of others, and the performance of Beethoven's concerto has only rendered new validation to my view. Beethoven's concerto is  full  of  the  highest genius  ; the player's striving, in my opinion,  must  be  to  penetrate  it  and  bring  it  to  the  ear  in  its  entire  significance  and singularity.  Liszt  certainly  does  not  always  do  so.  To  him,  not  even  a  Beethoven composition  is  anything  other  than  a  racetrack  for  his  own,  wild,  unrestrained genius, which,  chasing  here  and  there,  often  wholly  diverges  from  the  direction  that  the composer indicated

Quote from: Richard Wagner[T]he  supreme  merit  of  the  executive  artist,  the  virtuoso,  is  his  ability  to  reproduce perfectly the composer's thoughts, and that this ability is only possessed by the artist who really and truly assimilated his intentions, completely suppressing any invention of his own. [...] For  what  matters  is  that  we  should  hear  the  work  itself,  ideally reproduced,  and  that  our  attention  to  it  should  in  no  wise  be  distracted  by  the special qualities of the performer

What is all that if not Werktreue in all but name?


.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 04:09:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:41:35 AMAny other use one makes of it is highly historically uninformed. And I have no problem whatsoever with that, as long as it doesn't pretend to be what it is emphatically not, ie historically informed.
Just like a complete performance of Bach's B minor Mass. :D
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:11:09 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 03:51:07 AM
These Romantic ideas are outdated and also wrong

Wrong, by all means. Outdated? I'm not so sure. Heck, read this:

Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 03:58:58 AM
Basically whenever the performers try to impose a story on purely instrumental music, it's a candidate for romanticism because it's seeing in the music something which goes beyond the music, something  which transcends the music.

(emphasis mine). How is it any different than "a piece of music is an abstract entity sufficient in itself regardless of any particular performance"?  :D

Quote
Music is an abstract art, but as well as all music was written with performance in mind, so its meaning will not show up until it is performed.

Amen to that but then again: whose meaning?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:11:28 AM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 04:09:50 AM
Just like a complete performance of Bach's B minor Mass. :D

Absolutely.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 04:22:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:04:04 AM
What is all that if not Werktreue in all but name?

Thanks for the quotes. Well - call it Werktreue, but this will also result in confusion, since the word Werktreue to day denotes what I wrote above.

I think Hoffmann et alii had a much too concrete idea about the composers intentions. Not even the composer himself always knows his intentions, which more or less may be subconscious. And a performance is not a registration but an interpretation. Who can say if the composers intensions are obeyed fully? I think Hoffmann's philosophy reflects an idealistic but completely unrealistic way of thinking, which only deserves historical interest to day.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 04:28:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:11:09 AM
Amen to that but then again: whose meaning?

Usually the meaning the performer expresses  - in the case of Bach: The affect.


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 04:46:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:11:09 AM
Wrong, by all means. Outdated? I'm not so sure. Heck, read this:
Quote from: Mandryka
Basically whenever the performers try to impose a story on purely instrumental music, it's a candidate for romanticism because it's seeing in the music something which goes beyond the music, something  which transcends the music.
(emphasis mine). How is it any different than "a piece of music is an abstract entity sufficient in itself regardless of any particular performance"?  :D

Program music may predispose a "story", but otherwise a performer should not impose a story on purely instrumental music. This would be a romantic act (in the usual sense of the word), and as such foreign to Baroque music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:49:08 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 04:22:50 AM
I think Hoffmann et alii had a much too concrete idea about the composers intentions.

On the contrary, he was absolutely clueless, unless by "the composer's intentions" he meant whatever his own wild fancy conjured up when listening.  :D

The funny thing with all these utterances --- I could cite numerous other examples, but you could find them in that doctoral dissertation I recommended you to read --- is how abstract and disembodied they are themselves. They wax poetic about abstractions such as "expressivity", "meaning" etc etc etc but not for a second do they offer one single concrete example of what "expressivity" means, or about how it could be reconciled with "faithfully executing the composer's intentions". And in light of their preference for self-contained, auto-referential musical entities, how could the music of Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Tchaikovsky or even Wagner be considered Romantic at all? That's why I posit that the Romantic philosophy of music is galaxies apart from the Romantic practice of music; now that I think of it, Schoenberg or Stravinsky were by far truer Romantics (in the philosophical sense) than all the former taken together.

Quote
Not even the composer himself always knows his intentions, which more or less may be subconscious. And a performance is not a registration but an interpretation. Who can say if the composers intensions are obeyed fully?

Correct. That's why I asked earlier "Whose meaning?" Imho, the meaning of a piece of music is to be found at the point of intersection of three circles: the composer's meaning, which may or may not be discernible; the performer's, which is made discernible by the performance itself; and the listener's, who is free to make whatever he wish of the former two. There is no single, defintive meaning of a work, much less one that lies in the score like a gem in a mine waiting to be unearthed --- or better said for any given piece of music there are as much meanings as there are performers and listeners, and each one of them should be completely free to express or create it. As long as the performer has artistic integrity, an aesthetically coherent vision and is technically secure, and as long as the listener enjoys the performance, the end result is meaningful and moreover it is authentic, regardless of what instruments are used or what performance practice is employed.

If we can agree on this, my job here is done.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:10:03 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 04:46:38 AM
Program music may predispose a "story", but otherwise a performer should not impose a story on purely instrumental music. This would be a romantic act (in the usual sense of the word), and as such foreign to Baroque music.

What do you mean by imposing a story on purely instrumental music? Do you have a specific example to offer? I mean, can you cite a performance that does just that and, more important, what exactly the story is?

Same question for Mandryka: please tell us exactly what the story is that Cera imposed on Bach or Davidssohn on Buxtehude.

Quotea performer should not

This is wrong. Very wrong. This is actually what got on my nerves in the first place.  :D

On the contrary, a performer should have the most complete freedom to perform as he sees fit --- and we as listeners should have the most complete freedom to accept or reject the end result and to prefer this performance over that one.

This might actually be the only point over which we seem to be in irreconcilable disagreement.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 05:23:47 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:49:08 AM

Imho, the meaning of a piece of music is to be found at the point of intersection of three circles: the composer's meaning, which may or may not be discernible; the performer's, which is made discernible by the performance itself; and the listener's, who is free to make whatever he wish of the former two. There is no single, defintive meaning of a work, much less one that lies in the score like a gem in a mine waiting to be unearthed --- or better said for any given piece of music there are as much meanings as there are performers and listeners, and each one of them should be completely free to express or create it. As long as the performer has artistic integrity, an aesthetically coherent vision and is technically secure, and as long as the listener enjoys the performance, the end result is meaningful and moreover it is authentic, regardless of what instruments are used or what performance practice is employed.

If we can agree on this, my job here is done.

I am not pleased with your use of the word "authentic", which is too absolutist to me, but I can agree on the rest.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 05:24:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:14:40 AM
I mean the typically Romantic (philosophically Romantic, that is*) ideas that (1) music is an abstract art whose value and meaning resides in itself and (2) a piece of music is a self-contained entity which needs no particular performance to reveal its beauty and meaning, in some cases performance being even harmful.

* I cannot stress hardly enough this qualification, because actually the practice of Romantic music was quite at odds with how the Romantic philosophers viewed music, and people familiar with the former but not with the latter might get puzzled by my posts.

Yes, that explains some of my own puzzlement. The difference between my knowledge of the history of philosophy of music, and zero, would be hard to determine. That doesn't stop me thinking, however: and it will be no surprise to you when I say that the idea of music as a self-contained abstract entity is one that I can't summon any sustainable interest in.

Meanwhile ... I have just eaten my lunch, accompanied by a HIP recording of Mozart violin sonatas playing very pleasantly in the background, to which I was paying little but occasional attention. Have I rediscovered the skill of Historically Authentic Listening?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:28:17 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 05:24:11 AM
it will be no surprise to you when I say that the idea of music as a self-contained abstract entity is one that I can't summon any sustainable interest in.

And it will likewise be no surprise to you when I say that I fully share this sentiment.

Quote
Meanwhile ... I have just eaten my lunch, accompanied by a HIP recording of Mozart violin sonatas playing very pleasantly in the background, to which I was paying little but occasional attention. Have I rediscovered the skill of Historically Authentic Listening?

In all probability yes.  :)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 05:28:37 AM
For Cera, I don't have his essay in the booklet any more, but he sees them as a journey from trouble through prayer to salvation. Egarr says something similar about the English suites, which he sees as a cycle representing a journey to a tertible, dark place. Maybe someone who has the booklet could find the exact words.

For Davidsson, if you look at his essays on Buxtehude on the Gothic website you'll find what I was thinking of - with my phone it's a bit of a fiddle to find you the link.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:30:13 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 05:23:47 AM
I am not pleased with your use of the word "authentic", which is too absolutist to me, but I can agree on the rest.

Merriam-Webster's definition #3 of authentic: true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.

That's exactly what I meant by it.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:35:05 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 05:28:37 AM
For Cera, I don't have his essay in the booklet any more, but he sees them as a journey from trouble through prayer to salvation. Egarr says something similar about the English suites, which he sees as a cycle representing a journey to a tertible, dark place. Maybe someone who has the booklet could find the exact words.

For Davidsson, if you look at his essays on Buxtehude on the Gothic website you'll find what I was thinking of - with my phone it's a bit of a fiddle to find you the link.

And did you really hear all that while listening?

Conversely: had you not read the booklets beforehand, would you have described the performances in those terms?

Your approach to music seems to be extremely intellectualized, reading the essays about the performance being as important, if not actually more, than the performance itself. Why can't you just listen, and like or dislike it on the basis of your own, personal reaction to the music-making, not because of what the performer writes?  :D



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 05:35:53 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:28:17 AM
In all probability yes.  :)

Well how about that! I thought it was a lunchtime devoid of achievement, and yet I actually learned a new skill!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:42:09 AM
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 05:35:53 AM
Well how about that! I thought it was a lunchtime devoid of achievement, and yet I actually learned a new skill!

Listening attentively is a trifle, any fool can do that. Listening unattentively is an art for the happy few.  ;D :P
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 05:49:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 03:14:40 AMI mean the typically Romantic (philosophically Romantic, that is*) ideas that (1) music is an abstract art whose value and meaning resides in itself and (2) a piece of music is a self-contained entity which needs no particular performance to reveal its beauty and meaning, in some cases performance being even harmful.

No. 1 has a far longer history than you imply.  In the middle ages, music was thought to be analogous to a working out of the properties of the universe, and treatises on the art of composition have been written since then, talking about the principles of forming a musical piece in the abstract.

If the composers of the renaissance had thought of music primarily in concrete terms, they would not have been so ready to transfer the abstract part of the music from voices to instruments, or a sacred text to a secular one, as was done very regularly.  It shows that they thought of the musical aspects of their compositions as separable from specific performers or even types of performers.  This is abstract thinking.


If by No. 2 you refer to the idea that one can read through a score to get at the meaning of the music, then surely this is something any professional musician can and should be able to do.  Of course works of music can exist meaningfully apart from any specific performance, as otherwise the idea of a piece of music turns into nonsense.

Put more plainly, if you refuse to allow the existence of a piece of music outside of performance, then Beethoven's Fifth Symphony ceases to exist as long as no one is listening to it being performed.  This is much rarer now, but in the 19th century, it would have gone in and out of existing on a rather regular basis.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 05:52:07 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:35:05 AM
And did you really hear all that while listening?

Conversely: had you not read the booklets beforehand, would you have described the performances in those terms?

Your approach to music seems to be extremely intellectualized, reading the essays about the performance being as important, if not actually more, than the performance itself. Why can't you just listen, and like or dislike it on the basis of your own, personal reaction to the music-making, not because of what the performer writes?  :D

I wasn't talking about what I like or not,  I was talking about what the performer is doing with the music and why.

What I'm  suggesting  is that these three performers  have found a transcendent aspect to the instrumental music, just like some museum curators find an aspect to a Rothko which goes beyond an arrangement of pigment on a canvas. And that this maybe makes their interpretations in some way Romantic.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:03:04 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 05:49:40 AM
No. 1 has a far longer history than you imply.  In the middle ages, music was thought to be analogous to a working out of the properties of the universe, and treatises on the art of composition have been written since then, talking about the principles of forming a musical piece in the abstract.

If the composers of the renaissance had thought of music primarily in concrete terms, they would not have been so ready to transfer the abstract part of the music from voices to instruments, or a sacred text to a secular one, as was done very regularly.  It shows that they thought of the musical aspects of their compositions as separable from specific performers or even types of performers.  This is abstract thinking.

Cantor vs musicus.  ;)

Quote
If by No. 2 you refer to the idea that one can read through a score to get at the meaning of the music, then surely this is something any professional musician can and should be able to do.  Of course works of music can exist meaningfully apart from any specific performance, as otherwise the idea of a piece of music turns into nonsense.

Put more plainly, if you refuse to allow the existence of a piece of music outside of performance, then Beethoven's Fifth Symphony ceases to exist as long as no one is listening to it being performed.  This is much rarer now, but in the 19th century, it would have gone in and out of existing on a rather regular basis.

Frankly, I have no idea where "a piece of music" can be said to exist.

Suppose all existing scores and recordings of Beethoven's Fifth are destroyed. Does it mean the Fifth is destroyed as well?

Asked about his Piano Sonata No. 2, Enescu replied "It's all here in my head, waiting to be put to paper". It was never put to paper. Does it mean it did not exist?

There are lots of works (especially Baroque operas) known to have been performed but whose scores are now lost. If they will never be found again, does it mean the works ceased to exist?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:09:09 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 05:52:07 AM
I wasn't talking about what I like or not,  I was talking about what the performer is doing with the music and why.

What I'm  suggesting  is that these three performers  have found a transcendent aspect to the instrumental music, just like some museum curators find an aspect to a Rothko which goes beyond an arrangement of pigment on a canvas. And that this maybe makes their interpretations in some way Romantic.

The ultimate test of any performance is whether it is enjoyed or not. Do you like their interpretations? I mean, what you hear, not what you read.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 06:10:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:03:04 AM
Cantor vs musicus.  ;)

By which you mean...?

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:03:04 AMFrankly, I have no idea where "a piece of music" can be said to exist.

It's not a physical object.  It's something like the base of all things relating to a given work, physical and non-physical.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:03:04 AMSuppose all existing scores and recordings of Beethoven's Fifth are destroyed. Does it mean the Fifth is destroyed as well?

Of course not.  The Fifth Symphony is not a physical object.  Of course its contents would then pass out of historical memory, but it still has reality as being "the work that was Beethoven's C minor Symphony," and remains unchanged in all of its aspects.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:03:04 AMAsked about his Piano Sonata No. 2, Enescu replied "It's all here in my head, waiting to be put to paper". It was never put to paper. Does it mean it did not exist?

Nope; the ideas existed (assuming that Enescu was reporting accurately) but they were never given final form.  One doesn't need a score for a musical work, but it does need to be shaped and molded, to have its relationships worked out, whether on paper, through improvisation, or at the computer.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:03:04 AMThere are lots of works (especially Baroque operas) known to have been performed but whose scores are now lost. If they will never be found again, does it mean the works ceased to exist?

Of course not.  See above with Beethoven's Fifth.

Why do you assume I equate score and work?  The work can exist without a score, but (when there is a score) the score allows us to approach the work.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Elgarian Redux on August 27, 2018, 06:13:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:42:09 AM
Listening attentively is a trifle, any fool can do that. Listening unattentively is an art for the happy few.  ;D :P

My favourite GMG quote of the week.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:34:48 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 06:10:42 AM
By which you mean...?

By which I mean the medieval distinction between someone whose business is practical music (cantor) and someone who occupies himelf with music as an abstract topic, classified with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy as Quadrivium (musicus).

Quote from: ProclusThe Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving

You are a composer yourself, do you consider yourself a cantor or a musicus?


QuoteOne doesn't need a score for a musical work, but it does need to be shaped and molded, to have its relationships worked out, whether on paper, through improvisation, or at the computer.

Enescu claimed he had the complete, final form of the sonata in his head and had only to write it down. Assuming he was right, did the work exist?

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 06:46:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:34:48 AM
By which I mean the medieval distinction between someone whose business is practical music (cantor) and someone who occupies himelf with music as an abstract topic, classified with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy as Quadrivium (musicus).

You are a composer yourself, do you consider yourself a cantor or a musicus?

Both, but with an emphasis on the former.  I perform music (mostly for myself) and I compose, both of which are with "practical music," and, like you, I discuss the nature of music;  I wrote my undergraduate final paper in philosophy on the nature and existence of musical works.

Several prominent composers throughout history have concerned themselves both with practical music and with music theory, from Zarlino to Rameau to Fux to Schoenberg.  I don't think there's any real contradiction between those two roles, though they are different.

But at any rate, haven't you undermined your own point about thinking of music in the abstract originating in a Romantic worldview?

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:34:48 AMEnescu claimed he had the complete, final form of the sonata in his head and had only to write it down. Assuming he was right, did the work exist?

I already said that it did and does (as a work which was never instantiated in either score or performance).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:59:11 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 06:46:38 AM
haven't you undermined your own point about thinking of music in the abstract originating in a Romantic worldview?

"If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing." ― Miguel de Unamuno   ;D

Quote
I already said that it did and does (as a work which was never instantiated in either score or performance).

What's your opinion on the relationship between the score, the performance and the work?  Is a performance which strictly adheres to the score more faithful to the work than one which take liberties with the score?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 07:06:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 06:59:11 AMWhat's your opinion on the relationship between the score, the performance and the work?  Is a performance which strictly adheres to the score more faithful to the work than one which take liberties with the score?

It would depend on the accuracy of the score.  Also, I think that the strict adherence/interpretation dichotomy is a false one.*  One can look at a score and follow it as strictly as possible to the best of one's ability, and it will still be an interpretation with unique characteristics.  Different scores also allow different amounts of leeway.

I don't believe in the idea of there being a single perfect interpretation for a given score to which all performances should aspire.  I think that all interpretations have some relationship to the work, and one can interpret it quite differently while responding directly to it in every single aspect.


* When people say "strict literalism," they usually mean "an interpretation that sounds mechanical" when they mean it negatively and "an interpretation that sounds more like my idea of what the music should sound like" when they mean it positively.  Neither concept is especially useful to me, given that I don't think a literal interpretation necessitates a certain sound.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:30:13 AM
Merriam-Webster's definition #3 of authentic: true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.

That's exactly what I meant by it.


This is not the usual meaning of the word, it is indeed rather special.

Using words in special meanings invites to misunderstandings.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 12:20:30 PM
This is not the usual meaning of the word, it is indeed rather special.

Using words in special meanings invites to misunderstandings.

I don't know about Danish but in Romanian authentic is frequently used with that "special" meaning and needs no further qualifications in order to be understood as such.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: premont on August 27, 2018, 12:36:50 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:27:11 PM
I don't know about Danish but in Romanian authentic is frequently used with that "special" meaning and needs no further qualifications in order to be understood as such.


If you look at English dictionaries on the net, you will find your definition relatively rarely and never as the main meaning.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:38:43 PM
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 27, 2018, 12:36:50 PM
If you look at English dictionaries on the net, you will find your definition relatively rarely and never as the main meaning.

Fwiw:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authentic (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authentic)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 12:40:53 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 04:49:08 AMAs long as the performer has artistic integrity, an aesthetically coherent vision and is technically secure, and as long as the listener enjoys the performance, the end result is meaningful and moreover it is authentic, regardless of what instruments are used or what performance practice is employed.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 05:30:13 AM
Merriam-Webster's definition #3 of authentic: true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.

That's exactly what I meant by it.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:27:11 PM
I don't know about Danish but in Romanian authentic is frequently used with that "special" meaning and needs no further qualifications in order to be understood as such.

In English, and in the context of this conversation it was far from clear what you were trying to convey with the word, though. And as far as I see, artistic integrity contains the definition of authenticity you had in mind.

Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:38:43 PM
Fwiw: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic)
Yes, no. 3 like you said, and not the top definition.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:46:02 PM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 12:40:53 PM
In English, and in the context of this conversation it was far from clear what you were trying to convey with the word, though.

I'll leave the judgment to native English speakers, if you don't mind.

Quote
And as far as I see, artistic integrity contains your definition of authenticity.

It's not my definition.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Good night, gentlemen. (I don't know the top definitions of good and night in English, Danish or Finnish but in Romanian this means I'm off to bed...  ;D )
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: North Star on August 27, 2018, 12:54:31 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Good night, gentlemen. (I don't know the top definitions of good and night in English, Danish or Finnish but in Romanian this means I'm off to bed...  ;D )
Somn usor!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 27, 2018, 10:16:01 PM
Quote from: North Star on August 27, 2018, 12:54:31 PM
Somn usor!

Thanks, really had it.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on August 28, 2018, 04:00:22 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on August 27, 2018, 07:06:46 AM
It would depend on the accuracy of the score.  Also, I think that the strict adherence/interpretation dichotomy is a false one.*  One can look at a score and follow it as strictly as possible to the best of one's ability, and it will still be an interpretation with unique characteristics.  Different scores also allow different amounts of leeway.

I don't believe in the idea of there being a single perfect interpretation for a given score to which all performances should aspire.  I think that all interpretations have some relationship to the work, and one can interpret it quite differently while responding directly to it in every single aspect.


* When people say "strict literalism," they usually mean "an interpretation that sounds mechanical" when they mean it negatively and "an interpretation that sounds more like my idea of what the music should sound like" when they mean it positively.  Neither concept is especially useful to me, given that I don't think a literal interpretation necessitates a certain sound.

Thank you for answering. I am in complete agreement, especially with the highlighted parts.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on August 29, 2018, 01:39:40 PM
Karlo's grasp of English is shockingly good.( I suspect he sold his soul to the devil for it, and that is why he must listen to La Mer - - penance.) In any case he is right about authentic, especially in this context.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: pjme on September 04, 2018, 09:33:05 AM
Has this been mentioned ?

Wagner's "The Ring of the Nibelung" in historically-informed performance practice
05 October 2017
The German early music ensemble Concerto Köln and the American conductor Kent Nagano launch a leading-edge project: in cooperation with the University of Cologne and Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Cologne (Germany) they will undertake Richard Wagner's tetralogy, "The Ring of the Nibelung". Their endeavor will help provide the international opera scene new impetus for historically-informed approaches to musical-theatrical works of the 19th century. For the first time, the entire "Ring" will be be examined from the early music movement perspective: over the course of several years, the instrumental and vocal styles as well as the staging at the time of Wagner will be explored and a historically-informed performance conceptualized. A further aim of this extensive work on both a scientific and an artistic level is to serve as a performance practice guide to the fields of 19th century music and opera. While Kent Nagano is responsible for the overall project, Dr. Kai Hinrich Müller heads the scientific component.

The project officially begins on October 1st with key questions discussed in a symposium beforehand: What was Wagner's ideal in terms of performance practice of his "Ring"? How does it differ from the Wagner sound of today? How can his ideal be reconstructed? And which challenges must be overcome? Lecture subjects include the 'proper' pronunciation of German in the 19th century, Wagner's conducting, the playing style of string and wind instruments as well as the singing of Wagner, then and now. Featured lecturers are faculty members at major German universities, colleges and music institutions. All lectures and outcomes of the session will be subsequently published.

The scientific component is expected to be completed in 2019 at which time Kent Nagano will take over the musical realization. Kent Nagano: "Richard Wagner's "The Ring of the Nibelung" is probably one of the most researched compositions yet nonetheless, a systematic approach to the tetralogy from a historically-informed perspective has not been attempted thus far. It is therefore all the more important that such an undertaking is tackled and that, in romantic repertoire now as well, normality in terms of sound which seemed irrefutable so far, is called into question. I have collaborated with Concerto Köln for several projects in the past and am convinced that I have found two most competent partners in the Cologne ensemble and the Kunststiftung NRW who are able to provide the scientific basis for a historically-informed reading of Richard Wagner's "Ring". Together we will pursue this endeavor and bring the music to the stage!" The results will be performed in an interpretation by Concerto Köln and Kent Nagano during the 2020/21 season. All research findings will be published in Open Access.

The Kunststiftung NRW views the project as an excellent opportunity for the artistic development of the ensemble and will provide funds for a project office and two fellowships.

Further support is provided by the Freunde von Concerto Köln e. V., the Strecker-Stiftung and the long-standing partner MBL Akustikgeräte GmbH & Co. KG.

Source: http://kentnagano.com/wagners-ring-nibelung-historically-informed-performance-practice

I will go - if it reaches the stage.

(http://www.members.ancient-origins.net//sites/default/files/Austrian-soprano-Anna.jpg)

Peter
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ken B on September 04, 2018, 12:28:12 PM
Andrei will complain that staging Wagner was a romantic era innovation... ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on September 04, 2018, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: Ken B on September 04, 2018, 12:28:12 PM
Andrei will complain that staging Wagner was a romantic era innovation... ;)

Concerto Koeln playing Wagner???????????????? Not even you can be seriously contemplating such a horror.  :o

I have two comments to make.

First, I can hardly wait for them to come up with a natural, valveless Wagner tuba.

Second, if the whole thing will be recorded it will make Arthur Schoonderwoerd's one instrument per part recording of Beethoven's piano concertos look like a highly romanticized version.

I sincerely do hope this is a joke. If it's not, it only proves that the HIP gang is now "officially ripe for the madhouse".


Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 04, 2018, 01:54:08 PM
Quote from: Florestan on September 04, 2018, 01:44:22 PM
Concerto Koeln playing Wagner???????????????? Not even you can be seriously contemplating such a horror.  :o

I have two comments to make.

First, I can hardly wait for them to come up with a natural, valveless Wagner tuba.

Second, if the whole thing will be recorded it will make Arthur Schoonderwoerd's one instrument per part recording of Beethoven's piano concertos look like a highly romanticized version.

I sincerely do hope this is a joke. If it's not, it only proves that the HIP gang is now "officially ripe for the madhouse".

Where do you find the energy to be outraged at virtually everything that exists?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on September 04, 2018, 02:06:53 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 04, 2018, 01:54:08 PM
Where do you find the energy to be outraged at virtually everything that exists?

You're wrong. I'm not outraged by your existence and I delight in Richard Taruskin's existence.  ;D

And btw, this Concerto Koeln HIP Wagner does not exist yet. Just saying.  :laugh:

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: mc ukrneal on September 04, 2018, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: pjme on September 04, 2018, 09:33:05 AM
Has this been mentioned ?

Wagner's "The Ring of the Nibelung" in historically-informed performance practice
05 October 2017
The German early music ensemble Concerto Köln and the American conductor Kent Nagano launch a leading-edge project: in cooperation with the University of Cologne and Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Cologne (Germany) they will undertake Richard Wagner's tetralogy, "The Ring of the Nibelung". Their endeavor will help provide the international opera scene new impetus for historically-informed approaches to musical-theatrical works of the 19th century. For the first time, the entire "Ring" will be be examined from the early music movement perspective: over the course of several years, the instrumental and vocal styles as well as the staging at the time of Wagner will be explored and a historically-informed performance conceptualized. A further aim of this extensive work on both a scientific and an artistic level is to serve as a performance practice guide to the fields of 19th century music and opera. While Kent Nagano is responsible for the overall project, Dr. Kai Hinrich Müller heads the scientific component.

The project officially begins on October 1st with key questions discussed in a symposium beforehand: What was Wagner's ideal in terms of performance practice of his "Ring"? How does it differ from the Wagner sound of today? How can his ideal be reconstructed? And which challenges must be overcome? Lecture subjects include the 'proper' pronunciation of German in the 19th century, Wagner's conducting, the playing style of string and wind instruments as well as the singing of Wagner, then and now. Featured lecturers are faculty members at major German universities, colleges and music institutions. All lectures and outcomes of the session will be subsequently published.

The scientific component is expected to be completed in 2019 at which time Kent Nagano will take over the musical realization. Kent Nagano: "Richard Wagner's "The Ring of the Nibelung" is probably one of the most researched compositions yet nonetheless, a systematic approach to the tetralogy from a historically-informed perspective has not been attempted thus far. It is therefore all the more important that such an undertaking is tackled and that, in romantic repertoire now as well, normality in terms of sound which seemed irrefutable so far, is called into question. I have collaborated with Concerto Köln for several projects in the past and am convinced that I have found two most competent partners in the Cologne ensemble and the Kunststiftung NRW who are able to provide the scientific basis for a historically-informed reading of Richard Wagner's "Ring". Together we will pursue this endeavor and bring the music to the stage!" The results will be performed in an interpretation by Concerto Köln and Kent Nagano during the 2020/21 season. All research findings will be published in Open Access.

The Kunststiftung NRW views the project as an excellent opportunity for the artistic development of the ensemble and will provide funds for a project office and two fellowships.

Further support is provided by the Freunde von Concerto Köln e. V., the Strecker-Stiftung and the long-standing partner MBL Akustikgeräte GmbH & Co. KG.

Source: http://kentnagano.com/wagners-ring-nibelung-historically-informed-performance-practice

I will go - if it reaches the stage.

(http://www.members.ancient-origins.net//sites/default/files/Austrian-soprano-Anna.jpg)

Peter
I'd argue, to some extent (and mostly instrumentally), that this has already been done (by one of the least HIP conductors out there). Perhaps they will uncover some traditions that are not as intended and such, and it will be interesting to hear what it sounds like, but I am not expecting major revelations at this point. We have so much written on his music, numerous recordings from earlier in the 20th century, etc. And just because something was done doesn't make it inherently more 'authentic' (or whatever word you want to use).  As the HIP approach with contemporaries of Wagner has not really had much impact, I find it hard to get too excited.  But a new (or is it old?) perspective is always welcome as long as it adds something to the music/performance.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on September 04, 2018, 06:39:41 PM
As long as no-one pulls a George Lucas and tries to prevent other recordings existing, let them have a go.

Han shot first, dammit.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on September 04, 2018, 11:23:50 PM
I greatly exaggerated in order to make a point: Concerto Koeln of all people to play Wagner? Don't get me worng, I own and enjoy many of their recordings --- in the repertoire which suits them perfectly. But Wagner? For the life of me I can't think of a greater mismatch.

Seriously, could you imagine this as an orchestra able to make a difference in The Ring?

(https://www.concerto-koeln.de/tl_files/Themes/ConcertoKoeln/images/Galerie/CK%20Titel.jpg)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on September 04, 2018, 11:46:17 PM
Quote from: Florestan on September 04, 2018, 11:23:50 PM
Seriously, could you imagine this as an orchestra able to make a difference in The Ring?

I'm not sure whether we are discussing the limits of their ability, or the limits of your imagination.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on September 05, 2018, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: Madiel on September 04, 2018, 11:46:17 PM
I'm not sure whether we are discussing the limits of their ability, or the limits of your imagination.

I'm discussing the limits of their size, for starters.  :laugh:

Instrumentation

Wagner made significant innovations in orchestration in this work. He wrote for a very large orchestra, using the whole range of instruments used singly or in combination to express the great range of emotion and events of the drama. Wagner even commissioned the production of new instruments, including the Wagner tuba, invented to fill a gap he found between the tone qualities of the horn and the trombone, as well as variations of existing instruments, such as the bass trumpet and a contrabass trombone with a double slide. He also developed the "Wagner bell", enabling the bassoon to reach the low A-natural, whereas normally B-flat is the instrument's lowest note. If such a bell is not to be used, then a contrabassoon should be employed.

All four parts have a very similar instrumentation. The core ensemble of instruments are one piccolo, three flutes (third doubling second piccolo), three oboes, cor anglais (doubling fourth oboe), three soprano clarinets, one bass clarinet, three bassoons; eight horns (fifth through eight doubling Wagner tubas), three trumpets, one bass trumpet, three tenor trombones, one contrabass trombone (doubling bass trombone), one contrabass tuba; a percussion section with 4 timpani (requiring two players), triangle, cymbals, glockenspiel; six harps and a string section consisting of 16 first and second violins, 12 violas, 12 violoncellos, and 8 double basses.

Das Rheingold requires one bass drum, one tam-tam, one onstage harp and 18 onstage anvils. Die Walküre requires one snare drum, tam-tam, and an on-stage steerhorn. Siegfried requires one onstage cor anglais and one onstage horn. Götterdämmerung requires five onstage horns and four onstage steerhorns, one of them to be blown by Hagen.


So, about 90 players, that is more than 4 times the actual size of Concerto Koeln.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: pjme on September 05, 2018, 12:26:41 AM
Well, the project has started: http://wagner-lesarten.de/

In Vorbereitung auf die Aufführungen des Ring veranstaltet Concerto Köln in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Team von WAGNER-LESARTEN verschiedene Workshops für beteiligte und interessierte Musikerinnen und Musiker. Die Workshops dienen der Annäherung an die Musik Richard Wagners, aber auch dazu, einen historisch informierten Klangkörper zu formen, der sich – analog zum ›Barockorchester‹ – als ›Romantikorchester‹ auf die Orchesterpraxis der Zeit spezialisiert. Die wichtigsten Klangkörper Wagners der 1870er- und der 1880er-Jahre – das Bayreuther Festspielorchester und das Münchener Hoforchester – dienen als Ausgangspunkt der Annäherung und der Wahl des Instrumentariums. In verschiedenen Vorkonzerten wird in diesem Sinne romantisches Repertoire der Zeit, u. a. von Hector Berlioz und Anton Bruckner, erprobt und zur Aufführung gebracht, bevor dann in der Spielzeit 2020/2021 Wagners Rheingold erklingen wird.

Concerto Koeln is organising workshops and looking for musicians. they will perform first Bruckner and Berlioz.

About the woodwinds:

For the sake of authenticity, inquiry into an adequate instrumentarium has consistently maintained a key role in historically informed performance practice. The considerations outlined here concern accordingly-systematic research into the instruments of the woodwind section for a possible ›ideal-typic‹ performance of Richard Wagner's opera cycle, The Ring of the Nibelung. For this purpose, general reference to the instrumentation of the first Festival Orchestra on the occasion of the premiere of the Ring in 1876 in Bayreuth is to be brought into question. The relevant details of the instrumentation, the woodwinds in particular, in the year of the premiere performance in 1876 will be outlined and highlighted initially. Subsequently, an alternative perspective on a historically informed woodwind section for Wagner's Ring will be explored.
Übersetzung: Jennifer Smyth

For the moment (I will read more later) it is not totally clear to me if Nagano and the NRW team will also perform the Ring in "authentic" sets and costumes.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on September 05, 2018, 12:45:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 05, 2018, 12:02:27 AM
So, about 90 players, that is more than 4 times the actual size of Concerto Koeln.

About 90 instruments. There is a difference.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: amw on September 05, 2018, 12:47:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 04, 2018, 01:44:22 PM
Concerto Koeln playing Wagner???????????????? Not even you can be seriously contemplating such a horror.  :o

I have two comments to make.

First, I can hardly wait for them to come up with a natural, valveless Wagner tuba.

Second, if the whole thing will be recorded it will make Arthur Schoonderwoerd's one instrument per part recording of Beethoven's piano concertos look like a highly romanticized version.

I sincerely do hope this is a joke. If it's not, it only proves that the HIP gang is now "officially ripe for the madhouse".
There will also be a discreet harpsichord continuo, but only during the recitatives (which are the entire opera). I believe the Hilliard Ensemble is being drafted to sing the vocal parts.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: pjme on September 05, 2018, 01:58:08 AM
Try this ( i find it still funny....):

https://www.youtube.com/v/eN5dAQLYYrs

For those who are in Cologne, early next year

Wagner, Paganini, Berlioz
20.01.2019

Richard Wagner:
Siegfried-Idyll E-Dur WWV 10

Niccolo Paganini:
Konzert für Violine und Orchester Nr 4 D-Dur MS 60

Héctor Berlioz:
Harold en Italie  op. 16 Symphonie in 4 Sätzen mit Solobratsche

Shunske Sato, Violine
Nils Mönkemeyer, Viola
Markus Hoffmann, Konzertmeister
Kent Nagano, Dirigent

https://www.concerto-koeln.de/Konzerte/event/event.49/paganini.html

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on September 05, 2018, 06:08:48 AM
Quote from: Madiel on September 05, 2018, 12:45:51 AM
About 90 instruments. There is a difference.

Yes, a big one indeed: 90 instruments for 80 players.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Florestan on September 05, 2018, 06:09:06 AM
Quote from: amw on September 05, 2018, 12:47:16 AM
There will also be a discreet harpsichord continuo, but only during the recitatives (which are the entire opera). I believe the Hilliard Ensemble is being drafted to sing the vocal parts.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: ritter on September 05, 2018, 06:38:26 AM
As a matter of fact, we've already had a so-called HIP concert performance of Parsifal here in Madrid some years ago. Thomas Hengekbrock conducted the Balthasar Neumann Chorus and Ensemble, the latter using original instruments from around 1982 (using gut strings). What certainly didn't look original at all were the bells, as they did not in the least resemble the pictures we have of the (sincedestroyed) original) Bayreuth ones.

This was part of a tour that included, apart from Madrid, some German cities. The press reports were enthusiastic, but I'd say that the performance was interesting and succesful, but not that different from many others I've expetienced. Yes, the textures were lighter if compared to e.g. Knappertsbusch, but we've already had many conductors who've "lightened" the sound of this work—or restituted its inherent lightness, one could argue—(Boulez, for instance).

The conductor's own promotional blurb can be found here (http://www.thomas-hengelbrock.com/en/projects/parsifal/).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: pjme on September 05, 2018, 07:12:23 AM
Parsifal & bells - this may interest you, Ritter:

https://www.youtube.com/v/qUfo1szjPIc

Apparently there's evena brandnew Glockenklavier
https://www.youtube.com/v/dF1zz6F4aIA

source: http://www.haenchen.net/mediathek/videos/





Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: ritter on September 05, 2018, 07:23:01 AM
Quote from: pjme on September 05, 2018, 07:12:23 AM
Parsifal & bells - this may interest you, Ritter:

https://www.youtube.com/v/qUfo1szjPIc
Thanks, Peter. Most interesting.

I actually parked my car next to Steingraeber this summer in one of our visits to downtown Bayreuth.  ;)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: pjme on September 06, 2018, 04:31:02 AM
Bavaria is (usualy) very nice in summer. Wasn't the hill scorching this year?
I'm off to the French Alps next week - a bath of clean air, near Grenoble. Hope to see some wildlife and do some (easy) hiking.
Peter
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on September 17, 2018, 03:55:24 PM
One thing I find rather odd is that other than the Norrington/LCP there seems to be no period instrument complete Brahms symphony cycle (am I wrong?). I see Gardiner/ORR came close but seems to be missing #2.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on September 17, 2018, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 17, 2018, 03:55:24 PM
One thing I find rather odd is that other than the Norrington/LCP there seems to be no period instrument complete Brahms symphony cycle (am I wrong?). I see Gardiner/ORR came close but seems to be missing #2.

Gardiner definitely recorded all the symphonies. https://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/classical/products/7978098--brahms-symphony-no-2
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Biffo on September 18, 2018, 12:42:08 AM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 17, 2018, 03:55:24 PM
One thing I find rather odd is that other than the Norrington/LCP there seems to be no period instrument complete Brahms symphony cycle (am I wrong?). I see Gardiner/ORR came close but seems to be missing #2.

Gardiner has recorded No 2, coupled with the Alto Rhapsody.

Mackerras has recorded a Brahms cycle that is HIP but not period instrument. He uses an orchestra (Scottish Chamber Orchestra) of roughly the size favoured by Brahms, around 50 players. He also uses elements of style such as vibrato and portamento as Brahms would have known.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on September 19, 2018, 12:50:39 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on August 27, 2018, 02:40:15 AM
A long time ago Andrei asked for an example of early HIP music practice. The Machaut mass may just be an example. It was performed regularly, every year i think, after his death. The world of chant may be another example. As may be the special place that the Albinoni Misere had in the Vatican. I also wonder about the history of Strauss waltz performance in Vienna

Anyway I post this to show that it's far from evident  that HIP is a recent phenomenon. Obviously I haven't  done the.necessary work

In a discussion today someone suggested that the work of the monks at Solesmes Abbey is an example of HIP. For the past 150 years or so these guys have tried to make sense of medieval performance practice, specifically for Gregorian chant. They claim to use scientific methods to decipher parchments full of neums and the like.  Maybe it's all linked to the 19th century interest in philology (remember Casaubon in Middlemarch, wasn't he interested in philology - or was it myths or the authors of the Bible? Can't remember.)

Anyway if this is right it's not quite correct to say that HIP is a preoccupation of the second half of the 20th century.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 01:08:51 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 17, 2018, 06:10:12 PM
Gardiner definitely recorded all the symphonies. https://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/classical/products/7978098--brahms-symphony-no-2

Long out of print EMI recordings of the London Classical Players from the early 90's. I had them at one point and sold them to a used record shop when I was in a down phase on Norrington. Now I wish I had them back.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 01:08:51 PM
Long out of print EMI recordings of the London Classical Players from the early 90's. I had them at one point and sold them to a used record shop when I was in a down phase on Norrington. Now I wish I had them back.
They seem to be available from Japan for 35 bucks or so not too bad.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
They seem to be available from Japan for 35 bucks or so not too bad.

Ordering things from Japan is a barrier I have not crossed yet. :)

They also can be obtained from arkivmusic.com as burned discs, a bit pricier. If I really, really wanted them I'd go one of those routes. Mainly I feel great curiosity about them. The point is, if I hadn't sold them for pennies on the dollar years ago they'd be free. :(
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 02:15:05 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 01:51:11 PM
Ordering things from Japan is a barrier I have not crossed yet. :)

They also can be obtained from arkivmusic.com as burned discs, a bit pricier. If I really, really wanted them I'd go one of those routes. Mainly I feel great curiosity about them. The point is, if I hadn't sold them for pennies on the dollar years ago they'd be free. :(
They are sold through Amazon in the U.S.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014Q298DM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014Q298DM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 02:58:50 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 02:15:05 PM
They are sold through Amazon in the U.S.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014Q298DM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014Q298DM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

Something to consider, but I am under self-imposed austerity.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 03:30:02 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 02:58:50 PM
Something to consider, but I am under self-imposed austerity.
Looks like a newer reissue as it says ERATO. I am a big Norrington fan. If it is 15 bucks cheaper i will take the plunge.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on September 19, 2018, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 19, 2018, 03:30:02 PM
Looks like a newer reissue as it says ERATO. I am a big Norrington fan. If it is 15 bucks cheaper i will take the plunge.

Presumably released only in Japan so far. If the U.S. or European distributor gets around to releasing it the price will go way down and I will probably be unable to resist. In the mean time, the original release of recording of Symphony No 2 seems to still be in circulation and reasonably cheap. I might spring for a used copy of that, to satisfy my curiosity.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Biffo on September 20, 2018, 01:03:22 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on September 19, 2018, 12:50:39 PM
In a discussion today someone suggested that the work of the monks at Solesmes Abbey is an example of HIP. For the past 150 years or so these guys have tried to make sense of medieval performance practice, specifically for Gregorian chant. They claim to use scientific methods to decipher parchments full of neums and the like.  Maybe it's all linked to the 19th century interest in philology (remember Casaubon in Middlemarch, wasn't he interested in philology - or was it myths or the authors of the Bible? Can't remember.)

Anyway if this is right it's not quite correct to say that HIP is a preoccupation of the second half of the 20th century.

I find a little Gregorian Chant goes a long way but this is an interesting discussion. Here is a link to Solesmes Abbey and the history of chant.

http://www.solesmes.com/history

I suppose their attempts to return to the original purity of GC does count as 'historically informed'

Back in the 1980s (?) a choir of Spanish monks (forgotten their name) recorded a number of albums of Gregorian Chant and they became wildly popular, mainly due to TV advertising. The publicity blurb described it as 'the sound of the Middle Ages'. A letter to Gramophone (I think) pointed out that the monk's vocal technique/style derived from 19th century Spanish operetta. Clearly, some chant is more authentic than others.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Rosalba on October 24, 2018, 02:42:46 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on September 19, 2018, 12:50:39 PM
In a discussion today someone suggested that the work of the monks at Solesmes Abbey is an example of HIP. For the past 150 years or so these guys have tried to make sense of medieval performance practice, specifically for Gregorian chant. They claim to use scientific methods to decipher parchments full of neums and the like.  Maybe it's all linked to the 19th century interest in philology (remember Casaubon in Middlemarch, wasn't he interested in philology - or was it myths or the authors of the Bible? Can't remember.)

Anyway if this is right it's not quite correct to say that HIP is a preoccupation of the second half of the 20th century.

Good point.
And I love the plainchant of Solesmes.
A little goes a long way, and a whole lot goes even further: an epiphany of eternity. :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on November 19, 2018, 05:11:48 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 01, 2018, 04:37:02 AM
It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.
Something I learned from living in Japan that blows my mind is that stuff like Noh theater is supposed to be performed exactly the same way every time going back some hundreds of years. I'm not an expert on it and I don't even get how that's possible but that's what they say. Very Japanese but to me just the idea of it is a kind of mental torture. What do we know about the acceptable degree of variety and interpretation expected in Bach's day? "Interpretation" sounds very modern to me but I do remember reading that improvisation was an element of the performer's skill so the notion of "personal" touch was there. I guess that before the heroic performer was born in western musical spheres there was something of the inspiration from god?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 06:22:22 AM
Quote from: milk on November 19, 2018, 05:11:48 AM
Something I learned from living in Japan that blows my mind is that stuff like Noh theater is supposed to be performed exactly the same way every time going back some hundreds of years. I'm not an expert on it and I don't even get how that's possible but that's what they say. Very Japanese but to me just the idea of it is a kind of mental torture. What do we know about the acceptable degree of variety and interpretation expected in Bach's day? "Interpretation" sounds very modern to me but I do remember reading that improvisation was an element of the performer's skill so the notion of "personal" touch was there. I guess that before the heroic performer was born in western musical spheres there was something of the inspiration from god?

I think it's real strange that anyone could think that "no interpretation" was a good idea in texted music like motets, as if the text were meaningless vocalise. Yet that's exactly what you see happening time and time again in some mainstream British performances of early music, in Orlando Consort's Machaut for example. It's especially ironic that they treat Machaut like this, Machaut being a wordsmith par excellence.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Jo498 on November 19, 2018, 07:18:56 AM
But some time after Machaut (or even in his time) there were works with parallel texts, sometimes even sung in different languages (like Latin and French), so it was hardly possible to understand anything!
I am pretty sure there are lots of complaints about the "prima la musica" stance of some late medieval/renaissance composers because this is what eventually led to the "reforms" connected with Palestrina's style that left the text recognizable.
Of course this gives no immediate argument for the interpretation of the music, only that it probably was not presupposed that the text would be easily understandable.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on November 19, 2018, 07:18:56 AM
But some time after Machaut (or even in his time) there were works with parallel texts, sometimes even sung in different languages (like Latin and French), so it was hardly possible to understand anything!
I am pretty sure there are lots of complaints about the "prima la musica" stance of some late medieval/renaissance composers because this is what eventually led to the "reforms" connected with Palestrina's style that left the text recognizable.
Of course this gives no immediate argument for the interpretation of the music, only that it probably was not presupposed that the text would be easily understandable.

Those parallel texts were usually a commentary (in the vernacular) on a familiar liturgical text (latin), so there may not have been as much confusion as you might think.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 06:22:22 AM
I think it's real strange that anyone could think that "no interpretation" was a good idea in texted music like motets, as if the text were meaningless vocalise. Yet that's exactly what you see happening time and time again in some mainstream British performances of early music, in Orlando Consort's Machaut for example. It's especially ironic that they treat Machaut like this, Machaut being a wordsmith par excellence.

I don't agree with you regarding the OC recordings.  You may be looking for more of a dramatic reading, such as is found in madrigal singing, which would seem to be anachronistic for Machaut's style.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
I don't agree with you regarding the OC recordings. 

In which ways do you find their performances take into account the meaning of the words?

Quote from: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 07:58:37 AM
You may be looking for more of a dramatic reading

Certainly not! Just to state a preference I don't even like madrigals sung dramatically in the way that some Italian groups have started to do.  But that's just me, I wasn't really wantaing to talk about what I like, I wanted to talk about how to perform the music.

What I do expect is that the singing expresses a sentiment, it needn't go as far as word painting, but I think that where the poem in the motet is clearly expressing some emotional idea, the singing should be consistent with it at least (i.e. not jaunty when the poem's about being sad or about languishing) and I'd go further and say it should express it a bit (ie be a bit sad sounding, or languid even.)

Part of the reason I want this, is that Machaut himself would have wanted it. He's explicit -- he says that music and rhetoric are important for him, it's like he left us performance guidelines. I assume (you may know better) that by rhetoric he meant the science of persuading people, à la Aristotle.

So maybe "more dramatic" would be anachronistic, I won't comment on that yet. But more expressive wouldn't be. On the contrary.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 09:44:23 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 08:38:10 AM
In which ways do you find their performances take into account the meaning of the words?

Certainly not! Just to state a preference I don't even like madrigals sung dramatically in the way that some Italian groups have started to do.  But that's just me, I wasn't really wantaing to talk about what I like, I wanted to talk about how to perform the music.

What I do expect is that the singing expresses a sentiment, it needn't go as far as word painting, but I think that where the poem in the motet is clearly expressing some emotional idea, the singing should be consistent with it at least (i.e. not jaunty when the poem's about being sad) and I'd go further and say it should express it a bit (ie be a bit sad sounding if it's about being sad.)

Part of the reason I want this, is that Machaut himself would have wanted it. He's explicit -- he says that music and rhetoric are important for him, it's like he left us performance guidelines. I assume (you may know better) that by rhetoric he meant the science of persuading people, à la Aristotle.

So maybe "more dramatic" would be anachronistic, I won't comment on that yet. But more expressive wouldn't be. On the contrary.

I'd have to focus on the specific aspect of their performances, as I understand it, you are talking about.  I wouldn't call their performances "flat".  Machaut was a very astute and sophisticated court personage, someone of stature of his time.  That said, I have no idea how he would prefer hearing his music done. 

His lyrics employ a structured language, almost utilizing code words and concepts for emotions which would have been out-of-place to declare forthrightly.  So, it is conceivable to me that too much expressive singing might not be what he would want.

Also, I generally don't like to compare recordings, e.g., the OC with Marc Mauillon: Each brings something unique to the music.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on November 19, 2018, 07:18:56 AM
But some time after Machaut (or even in his time) there were works with parallel texts, sometimes even sung in different languages (like Latin and French), so it was hardly possible to understand anything!
I am pretty sure there are lots of complaints about the "prima la musica" stance of some late medieval/renaissance composers because this is what eventually led to the "reforms" connected with Palestrina's style that left the text recognizable.
Of course this gives no immediate argument for the interpretation of the music, only that it probably was not presupposed that the text would be easily understandable.

I want you to spell this out for me if you have some time. What works do you have in mind with parallel texts sung in different languages? There are, of course, macaronic motets, but the fact that we we have simultaneous Latin and French poems doesn't preclude understanding: you may recite the poems before the singing for example. And, if the voices have distinct timbres, it may well be possible to follow the two poems at the same time.

It's interesting to think of how medieval people listened -- I'm suggesting they followed the words, melodies and harmonies of a three part motet

In a mass (re Palestrina -- about whom I know next to nothing, you have been warned!) the words may not be so important -- we all know them so well anyway.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 10:15:30 AM
Quote from: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 09:44:23 AM


His lyrics employ a structured language, almost utilizing code words and concepts for emotions which would have been out-of-place to declare forthrightly.

That's an interesting idea I've not come across before.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 10:15:30 AM
That's an interesting idea I've not come across before.

E.g., many poems use the word "mercy" which for Machaut could be anything from a glance, to a smile, or even a secret kiss. Many of his songs allude to a man in love with an unattainable woman at court.  But many of these women were in loveless relationships and open to a closeness with a man of a lower social class.

When I get home I might be able locate a chapter or two which discuss his language and veiled meanings.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 10:39:25 AM
Here is an excerpt of a blog article (https://fdleone.com/2015/05/21/guillaume-de-machaut-the-best-known-composerpoet-of-the-14th-century/) I wrote a while back:

Machaut wrote court music, and his lais or chansons were meant to provide solace to the nobility.  The men and women of a Medieval court had regular and close contact and could develop affections.  However because of the mores of the time these affections could not be acted upon, which would often lead to unrequited love.  The men were expected to be faithful servants to ladies of the court but to never overstep the boundaries of these relationships.  Many of Machaut's lyrics paint a picture of a courtier in love with an unavailable lady.  Machaut's songs offer solace for these individuals in the form of "hope".

During the Medieval period emotions were somewhat formalized: Hope; Desire; Memory; Mercy could represent ideas different to how we think of them today.  For Machaut's courtiers, Desire (for the lady) would produce hopelessness since the desire could not be fulfilled.  And Memory (Souvenir) often led to Desire.  It is common in a Machaut song that he will offer Hope for something less than physical love, a kind glance or word (Mercy) between the lovers would be enough, it had to be enough, under the circumstances. Machaut would counsel his audience to use memory (Souvenir) to conjure images of these kinds of interactions and be happy (Hope) with what they could achieve instead of lamenting over what was out of reach (Desire).
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 11:16:18 AM
In the motets all this stuff about courtly love can be read as a religious allegory.  In fact I don't know the other music so well, I would like to explore them some more.


Quote from: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 10:39:25 AM

For Machaut's courtiers, Desire (for the lady) would produce hopelessness since the desire could not be fulfilled. 


This sounds very modern

Quote from: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 10:39:25 AM
It is common in a Machaut song that he will offer Hope for something less than physical love, a kind glance or word (Mercy) between the lovers would be enough, it had to be enough, under the circumstances. Machaut would counsel his audience to use memory (Souvenir) to conjure images of these kinds of interactions and be happy (Hope) with what they could achieve instead of lamenting over what was out of reach (Desire).[/i]

Sight, the glance of the beloved, is a recurrent theme I think in Machaut.


Quote from: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 10:39:25 AM
Machaut would counsel his audience to use memory (Souvenir) to conjure images of these kinds of interactions and be happy (Hope) with what they could achieve instead of lamenting over what was out of reach (Desire).[/i]

I can't remember this, but it sounds very plausible.



Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: milk on November 19, 2018, 12:53:50 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 06:22:22 AM
I think it's real strange that anyone could think that "no interpretation" was a good idea in texted music like motets, as if the text were meaningless vocalise. Yet that's exactly what you see happening time and time again in some mainstream British performances of early music, in Orlando Consort's Machaut for example. It's especially ironic that they treat Machaut like this, Machaut being a wordsmith par excellence.
Something a Chinese history professor at a university in Japan told me (gleefully) was that in the west historians do interpretation but in Asia they just report the facts. Again, it causes a kind of mental torture just to hear such a thing spoken. Doesn't he realize he's setting up robots to put him out of a job? But they already have it (https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/japan-classrooms-to-use-ai-robots-to-help-teach-english). Sorry! Back to Motets!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 08:49:08 PM
As far as I know, in early music,  say Dufay and earlier, there is no evidence at all to show that performers were expected to be creative. I've certainly never seen anything on how to form sounds, timbre, tempo, rubato - all the things that a singer might use to make the performance expressive.   And I've never seen anything on the way that the text (the poem) should guide the performances. If that's right it's certainly possible that there was a kind of ur-text and well known performance tradition which these people were expected to follow willy nilly,  deviations were hammered down by the establishment. like milk says happens with Japanese classical theatre. You get a sense of this in the poem The Owl and the Nightingale. 

This may explain the approach of Anglo American interpreters like Gothic Voices, Orlando Consort, the early Sequentia, Mary Berry, and above all Tallis Scholars. They feel more secure singing "come scritto"

Peter Philips once told a friend of mine (so my friend said) that he would never add accidentals to his editions because he feels that the our understanding  of  musica ficta is too embryonic and incomplete - any attempt to use it  runs the risk of being rapidly revealed to be a travesty. I believe this was exactly the approach of Andrew Parott in his 1977 performance of the Machaut mass, one of the things that made it so astonishing at the time, maybe someone who's followed the recording and the score can verify.

Hilliard seems to me to stand apart - there's something to explore there.

I found a quote - I can dig it out if anyone wants - from someone who said that he'd heard some singers (church singers, chanters) embellish the music with accidentals, but when he asked them why they did it, they just said that that's been the tradition round here for ever, that all the great reveered singers of yore did it! I'll find the details.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 19, 2018, 11:38:19 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 19, 2018, 08:49:08 PM
As far as I know, in early music,  say Dufay and earlier, there is no evidence at all to show that performers were expected to be creative. I've certainly never seen anything on how to form sounds, timbre, tempo, rubato - all the things that a singer might use to make the performance expressive.   And I've never seen anything on the way that the text (the poem) should guide the performances. If that's right it's certainly possible that there was a kind of ur-text and well known performance tradition which these people were expected to follow willy nilly,  deviations were hammered down by the establishment. like milk says happens with Japanese classical theatre. You get a sense of this in the poem The Owl and the Nightingale. 

This may explain the approach of Anglo American interpreters like Gothic Voices, Orlando Consort, the early Sequentia, Mary Berry, and above all Tallis Scholars. They feel more secure singing "come scritto"

Peter Philips once told a friend of mine (so my friend said) that he would never add accidentals to his editions because he feels that the our understanding  of  musica ficta is too embryonic and incomplete - any attempt to use it  runs the risk of being rapidly revealed to be a travesty. I believe this was exactly the approach of Andrew Parott in his 1977 performance of the Machaut mass, one of the things that made it so astonishing at the time, maybe someone who's followed the recording and the score can verify.

Hilliard seems to me to stand apart - there's something to explore there.

I found a quote - I can dig it out if anyone wants - from someone who said that he'd heard some singers (church singers, chanters) embellish the music with accidentals, but when he asked them why they did it, they just said that that's been the tradition round here for ever, that all the great reveered singers of yore did it! I'll find the details.

I am only addressing the bits I bolded. 

I doubt the quote is accurate since every experienced/knowledgeable early music performer/ensemble is aware that the manuscripts did not include all of the accidentals which would have been applied during performance.  We have a number of treatises which lay out many/most of the rules of how and when musica ficta should be employed. 

However, it is also not unusual for modern groups to abuse the practice and turn modal music into major/minor music - which I think is a travesty.  Still, this issue (adding accidentals) is one of the more controversial ones among the early music performance genre.

I am pretty sure Andrew Parrott's recording of the Machaut Messe was released in 1984, not 1977 (unless you are referring to a performance he gave in York Minster).  It is among my favorites.

Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 20, 2018, 12:20:02 AM
When we discussed it we talked about the performance in York Minster, people thought that the recording was just like the performance, but no one was quite sure.

I have a very basic question about ficta. What is the point of adding accidentals? Is it to remove dissonances, or add dissonances? Or both? Or neither?
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 20, 2018, 04:12:42 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 20, 2018, 12:20:02 AM
When we discussed it we talked about the performance in York Minster, people thought that the recording was just like the performance, but no one was quite sure.

I have a very basic question about ficta. What is the point of adding accidentals? Is it to remove dissonances, or add dissonances? Or both? Or neither?

This is a very simplified explanation: Music from the Middle Ages was taught to singers primarily using solfeggio method, i.e. ut-re-mi-fa.  Singers learned the intervals for those four notes (tetrachord), and then transposed them a fourth up to complete the octave.  What that would produce is a scale C-D-E-F / F-G-A-Bb.  Musica ficta was instituted to change either the Bb to C interval to B-C or the F-G interval to F#-G depending upon the cadence.

In practice, they weren't thinking of adding accidentals as we think of it.  For them they were thinking of moving the tetrachord up, superimposing it to a new position in order to duplicate the correct intervals.  In order to create the correct ending cadence, they would think of moving the first tetrachord up so that the final "C" was replaced by the "F", with the E-F now becoming B-C. 

In some manuscripts there would be a # indicated sometimes not.  But to answer your original question it was always inserted to avoid what was considered as linear dissonance, even if it created a vertical one.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 20, 2018, 07:32:06 AM
Quote from: San Antone on November 20, 2018, 04:12:42 AM

But to answer your original question it was always inserted to avoid what was considered as linear dissonance, even if it created a vertical one.

Thank you. If someone can find a youtube with an example of linear dissonance I'd be very interested. You make it sound as though the dissonant chord which may result is a neutral side effect.

Some people used to think that medieval harmony was just so bad that they must have been oblivious to it -- as if they didn't hear the harmonies when they listened, they just heard the simultaneous melodies in each voice. I don't know if anyone holds that view today.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: San Antone on November 20, 2018, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on November 20, 2018, 07:32:06 AM
Thank you. If someone can find a youtube with an example of linear dissonance I'd be very interested. You make it sound as though the dissonant chord which may result is a neutral side effect.

Some people used to think that medieval harmony was just so bad that they must have been oblivious to it -- as if they didn't hear the harmonies when they listened, they just heard the simultaneous melodies in each voice. I don't know if anyone holds that view today.

Since we have been discussing the Parrott recording of the Machaut Messe, there is a good example in the Kyrie - from 4:00 to 4:54 there are several whole steps at the secondary cadences.  You can compare this with the Musica Nova version and hear how Parrott preserves the whole steps whereas Lucien Kandel raises the pitches to create half step motion.

https://www.youtube.com/v/RDovcUQ8Kgk

Depending upon the director, the amount of this kind of pitch adjustment is wholly discretionary and becomes part of their interpretation of the music.  Nothing is so rule-bound as to be say one is right or the other wrong - although if overdone it might destroy the modal quality.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Mandryka on November 20, 2018, 08:33:14 AM
Thanks. I very much like the way Parrott does the cadence at the end of the final kyrie.
Title: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: ShineyMcShineShine on February 14, 2020, 04:40:05 PM
Seeing this illustration of a Schubertiade on Wikipedia reminded me of something I've suspected for some time: performances recorded in empty rooms (worse: empty churches) are not historically accurate. Look at that room: it's jam-packed with bodies; that would  certainly change the acoustics. Even a live performance in a modern hall wouldn't be near the same.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: david johnson on February 14, 2020, 10:29:34 PM
That setting strikes me as having an interesting aroma.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 01:26:02 AM
How accurate is a drawing dating from 1868?  The artist was a friend of Schubert and attended his soirees but I suspect this is a rather romanticized view.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 07:12:51 AM
The number of people is not unrealistic. What is clearly romanticized is this whole concept of "Schubertiade" as an intellectual gathering centered around Schubert. This is bogus. Come on, those were aristocratic-cum-high-bourgeois salons; poor Schubert, hopelessly proletarian that he was, provided the de rigueur musical entertainment in exchange for free dinner and wine. Most probably he was never the focal point of those gatherings.

That notwithstanding, the OP has a strong point imo.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 07:52:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 07:12:51 AM
The number of people is not unrealistic. What is clearly romanticized is this whole concept of "Schubertiade" as an intellectual gathering centered around Schubert. This is bogus. Come on, those were aristocratic-cum-high-bourgeois salons; poor Schubert, hopelessly proletarian that he was, provided the de rigueur musical entertainment in exchange for free dinner and wine. Most probably he was never the focal point of those gatherings.

That notwithstanding, the OP has a strong point imo.

The illustration is of an aristocratic salon. I doubt that Schubert attended many such gatherings. I always thought that his 'Schubertiade' was a gathering of a few of his like-minded friends - artists, poets etc. I may be wrong of course.

I still think the salon looks ridiculously overcrowded.

Edit: This is from Wikipedia and more like what I was thinking about -

'During the early 1820s, Schubert was part of a close-knit circle of artists and students who had social gatherings together that became known as Schubertiads. Many of them took place in Ignaz von Sonnleithner's large apartment in the Gundelhof (Brandstätte 5, Vienna)'

Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:06:39 AM
Quote from: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 07:52:58 AM
Edit: This is from Wikipedia and more like what I was thinking about -

'During the early 1820s, Schubert was part of a close-knit circle of artists and students who had social gatherings together that became known as Schubertiads. Many of them took place in Ignaz von Sonnleithner's large apartment in the Gundelhof (Brandstätte 5, Vienna)'

That's exactly what I take issue with. I think the whole concept of Schubertiads is an ex post facto fabrication. There is simply no way that a nobody as Schubert could have been the focal point of a gathering in the tightly class structured Vienna back then.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2020, 08:09:57 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:06:39 AM
That's exactly what I take issue with. I think the whole concept of Schubertiads is an ex post facto fabrication. There is simply no way that a nobody as Schubert could have been the focal point of a gathering in the tightly class structured Vienna back then.

I don't know who this author "Richard" is, but he sure knows a lot about Schubert. Here (agreeing with your basic point) is his extensive analysis of the "Schubertiade" phenomenon, as well as Schubert-related biographical problems in general:

http://figures-of-speech.com/2019/06/no-circles.htm
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:13:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:06:39 AM
That's exactly what I take issue with. I think the whole concept of Schubertiads is an ex post facto fabrication. There is simply no way that a nobody as Schubert could have been the focal point of a gathering in the tightly class structured Vienna back then.

Certainly not the sort of gathering in the illustration.

Apart from 'Schubert: The Complete Song Texts'  by Richard Wigmore I don't have any books completely devoted to Schubert, just ideas or impressions picked up over the years.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:26:29 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2020, 08:09:57 AM
I don't know who this author "Richard" is, but he sure knows a lot about Schubert. Here (agreeing with your basic point) is his extensive analysis of the "Schubertiade" phenomenon, as well as Schubert-related biographical problems in general:

http://figures-of-speech.com/2019/06/no-circles.htm

Hah, so funny you should have posted that! I've stumbled upon his (very knowledgeable and obviously a labour of love) articles on Schubert sometimes ago --- and he did convince me that the whole Schubertiad concept is an ex post facto, pia fraus fabrication. I was going to post the selfsame link but you beat me to it.

:D

Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:35:16 AM
Returning to the OP, I am sure that record producers are aware that the music had an audience and was performed in rooms of various sizes.

How authentic do you want to get? I had always assumed that services in Protestant Leipzig would have been very serious affairs but according to John Eliot Gardiner in his book on Bach this was not the case. Fashionable ladies would arrive late, chatter through the service and leave early with more noise. Poor Bach had to compete with all this.

To be serious, I am sure non-live recordings are usually made in conditions that exclude as much extraneous noise as possible.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2020, 08:38:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:26:29 AM
Hah, so funny you should have posted that! I've stumbled upon his (very knowledgeable and obviously a labour of love) articles on Schubert sometimes ago --- and he did convince me that the whole Schubertiad concept is an ex post facto, pia fraus fabrication. I was going to post the selfsame link but you beat me to it.

:D

LOL, should we call this "circular posting"? I only posted it because your wording reminded me of it.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:44:32 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2020, 08:38:44 AM
LOL, should we call this "circular posting"? I only posted it because your wording reminded me of it.

8)
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:45:05 AM
Here is another romanticized painting of an event that probably never took place -

https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Josef-Danhauser/75886/Liszt-at-the-Piano,-1840-.html
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:35:16 AM
How authentic do you want to get? I had always assumed that services in Protestant Leipzig would have been very serious affairs but according to John Eliot Gardiner in his book on Bach this was not the case. Fashionable ladies would arrive late, chatter through the service and leave early with more noise. Poor Bach had to compete with all this.

Of course.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. - L. P. Hartley


Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2020, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:35:16 AM

How authentic do you want to get? I had always assumed that services in Protestant Leipzig would have been very serious affairs but according to John Eliot Gardiner in his book on Bach this was not the case. Fashionable ladies would arrive late, chatter through the service and leave early with more noise. Poor Bach had to compete with all this.

Yeah, if we wanted to get really HIP, concerts would have to include things like:

- applause not just between movements, but even while the music is playing
- numerous encores of the bits people really liked
- occasional improvisations
- breaking up a symphony by playing other music between its individual movements
- talking in the audience
- concert goes on for 4-6 hours, with listeners wandering in and out
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 10:14:48 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2020, 09:57:26 AM
Yeah, if we wanted to get really HIP, concerts would have to include things like:

- applause not just between movements, but even while the music is playing
- numerous encores of the bits people really liked
- occasional improvisations
- breaking up a symphony by playing other music between its individual movements
- talking in the audience
- concert goes on for 4-6 hours, with listeners wandering in and out

Absolutely. Drinking acoholic beverages, too.

Wel, I wouldn't mind any of the above at all. Actually, it would be a most welcome distraction from the "stiff and still" etiquette reigning supreme today.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: JBS on February 15, 2020, 06:57:57 PM
Quote from: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:45:05 AM
Here is another romanticized painting of an event that probably never took place -

https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Josef-Danhauser/75886/Liszt-at-the-Piano,-1840-.html

The painting is more artificial than first glance suggests.  Besides suggesting that Liszt was playing exclusively to an audience of literary and musical greats, and not to the usual round of socialites and such, it depicts Rossini and Paganini both focusing their attention on the bust of Beethoven, totally disregarding Liszt.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: JBS on February 15, 2020, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 07:12:51 AM
The number of people is not unrealistic. What is clearly romanticized is this whole concept of "Schubertiade" as an intellectual gathering centered around Schubert. This is bogus. Come on, those were aristocratic-cum-high-bourgeois salons; poor Schubert, hopelessly proletarian that he was, provided the de rigueur musical entertainment in exchange for free dinner and wine. Most probably he was never the focal point of those gatherings.

That notwithstanding, the OP has a strong point imo.

But the Schwind picture shows him doing precisely that. The actual visual focus is actually the singer sitting next to Schubert (I remember he was a real singer associated with Schubert, but I forget his name).  Schubert is merely the accompianist.  What's probably least realistic is the depiction of everyone paying attention to the music.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 15, 2020, 11:50:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 15, 2020, 07:02:14 PM
But the Schwind picture shows him doing precisely that. The actual visual focus is actually the singer sitting next to Schubert (I remember he was a real singer associated with Schubert, but I forget his name).

Johann Vogl.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: ShineyMcShineShine on February 16, 2020, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: Biffo on February 15, 2020, 08:35:16 AM
Returning to the OP, I am sure that record producers are aware that the music had an audience and was performed in rooms of various sizes.

How authentic do you want to get? I had always assumed that services in Protestant Leipzig would have been very serious affairs but according to John Eliot Gardiner in his book on Bach this was not the case. Fashionable ladies would arrive late, chatter through the service and leave early with more noise. Poor Bach had to compete with all this.

To be serious, I am sure non-live recordings are usually made in conditions that exclude as much extraneous noise as possible.

I mainly object to recordings made in great reverberant chambers. Wolf Erichson in the Vivarte series was one for recording chamber music in churches for some reason.  Perhaps in lieu of a live audience, crash test dummies could be used to fill the seats. :D
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Ratliff on February 18, 2020, 11:45:48 AM
Quote from: ShineyMcShineShine on February 16, 2020, 08:18:48 PM
I mainly object to recordings made in great reverberant chambers. Wolf Erichson in the Vivarte series was one for recording chamber music in churches for some reason.  Perhaps in lieu of a live audience, crash test dummies could be used to fill the seats. :D

I don't see this as an 'HIP' issue, because the preference for dry vs reverberant recordings is just as much an issue for any music.

All "stereo" recordings are at some level artificial in which an array of microphones is positioned and mixed to record a combination of direct and reflected sound. I think churches are popular recording locations because they have long, pleasant sounding reverberation that can be mixed in at whatever level the engineer chooses, without strong early reflections which can result in an unclear soundstage. I can think of many recordings made in a church which are nevertheless rather dry because the engineer mixes in reverberation sparingly. So I don't think churches are usually chosen because they are HI. I can't comment specifically about Wolf Ericson, since I haven't heard many of those recordings.

Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Jo498 on February 18, 2020, 11:25:03 PM
Why should Schubert not have been the focal point of his circle of friends who were not high nobility but rather bourgeois and artists? He was not quite such a nobody. This seems at least as much a romantic posthumuous fabrication as some details about the "Schubertiads".
Quite a bit of his stuff was printed during his lifetime, he was actually one of the first and few composers who did not (and could not) rely on earning money as a virtuoso/professional player of music and some chamber music concerts toward the end of his life seem to indicate that he was quite close to a "breakthrough".
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 19, 2020, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on February 18, 2020, 11:25:03 PM
Why should Schubert not have been the focal point of his circle of friends who were not high nobility but rather bourgeois and artists? He was not quite such a nobody. This seems at least as much a romantic posthumuous fabrication as some details about the "Schubertiads".
Quite a bit of his stuff was printed during his lifetime, he was actually one of the first and few composers who did not (and could not) rely on earning money as a virtuoso/professional player of music and some chamber music concerts toward the end of his life seem to indicate that he was quite close to a "breakthrough".

http://figures-of-speech.com/2016/11/schubert-trajectory.htm (http://figures-of-speech.com/2016/11/schubert-trajectory.htm)
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Jo498 on February 19, 2020, 01:05:03 AM
I haven't read all through this, but if Schubert was a (musical) nonentity, how could the family get 300 Gulden for Schwanengesang alone within a few months after his death? And another 2000 Gulden within the next year? What publisher would be so foolish to pay such money for insignifant unsellable stuff?

Look up how many full concerts for his own benefit with his own works Beethoven had achieved at 31 ("Akademien", I think it was about two, one in April 1800 with the 1st symphony and the septet and maybe another one within the following year) and he had been one of the most renowned pianists for most of the 1790s in Vienna.

And the quotation below is very misleading as 11 of the string quartets are juvenilia Schubert wrote in his teens and one is a fragment, so there are *at most* 5-6 "publishable" ones of which three are rather huge and daring pieces, so I'd say it is a pretty good achievement that the a minor was published at all. Similar arguments apply to the symphonies and piano sonatas. The three penultimate sonatas WERE published, the three last ones were still too recent for that and of the earlier ones there are lots of fragments and overall maybe 3 more (D 664 and 784) that could have been published, so three extremely long and "modern" sonatas is a rather significant fraction, which is the opposite of what the quote seems to suggest.
Again look up how many years sometimes passed between Beethoven's compositions and their eventual publication (and again for a composer who was a famous virtuoso and popular with friends in high places, all of which Schubert was not). Had Schubert lived another two years he would probably have seen most of his mature (composed after ca. 1824) pieces published.

"Not one symphony, only one string quartet (D 804) out of 15 complete ones, one Mass (D 452) out of eight complete ones and only three piano sonatas (D 845, D 850, D 894) from more than a dozen such works had been published."
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Marc on February 19, 2020, 01:24:18 AM
I recall I once (yeeeeaaaars ago) posted about HIP conductor Jos van Veldhoven, who was rather furious about countertenor Andreas Scholl. Scholl had given a recital of Renaissance and Baroque arias & songs in the 'Grote Zaal' of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw. That proved to him that Scholl wasn't to be taken seriously as a HIP-artist. "It's a gotspe!" Van Veldhoven claimed.

A couple of years later, Van Veldhoven himself performed Bach's Matthäus-Passion in the same Concertgebouw, with an orchestra playing on modern instruments.... well well well.

The question with these 'overlooked' (which isn't the case, I think it probably depends on where you live, what magazines you have read and what discussion partners you have) aspects of HIP is: where does it end?

I have spoken, both offline and online, to people who thought Leusink's Bach cantatas were the best because they were so bad. Did not Bach himself complain about the quality of his performers? Therefore: the worse the performance, the more historically informed and thus the better. They weren't even kidding.

"Nun komm der Heiden Heiland" BWV 659, performed in summer? Defintely not HIP. Bach would only play this piece during Advent.
Ballet music performed in concert halls, without dancers? A gotspe!
Stravinsky's Le Sacre performed without angry shouting audience? Not to be taken seriously.
Mozart's Idomeneo with a beautiful singing tenor as Idomeneo? Well, Mozarts wasn't happy with the first Idemeno (Anton Raaff, who was already very old at the time), so we really got to find ourselves an old moderate dude to sing that part.
Female instrumentalists in baroque orchestras? Now come on. Women gave birth, supported their husbands (if possible) and did the dishes. They did not play in orchestras. You must be joking.

Of course, I'm (just slightly ;)) exaggerating here.

Still, this list could be made endless, and, again, I kid thee not, I've been part of discussions where some of these aspects were serious issues, esp. the Advent thing, the ballet in the concert hall thing and even the female members of a HIP orchestra. In the Netherlands, during the 1980s, some angry anti-HIPsters wrote that if female singers weren't allowed in Bach's church works, then female instrumentalists should not be allowed, either. The 'leader' of this 'contra-revolution' was writer Maarten 't Hart. (He's grown a bit more mellow now though. ;))

I.c. the issue of the topic starter: the fun thing with HIP is, that most of their performers already adapt their way of playing and performing to the acoustics they are confronted with. And there are also plenty of 'non-HIP' performers who do so, btw. They are musicians and know that this is an important aspect.
For instance, when small ensembles play in large churches, it happens that only a limited amount of seats is available. Because otherwise, seated at the back, you would be hearing nothing but reverb.
So, I think all those aspects have been quite well considered. For the rest, HIP is mainly about the way of performing, the playing style, phrasing, about affects and effects, legato or non-legato, and what kind of instruments to use to reach the wished-for result... well, the entire stuff one can read about on various websites and in various books/articles about HIP. It's not about (kind of) recreating the première of a piece, in (kind of) the same room/hall/church or whatever. It's nice to do that once in a while, but it has never been the first aim of HIP.
And, as the Baron said, dry versus spatial recordings are an issue with any kind of music, and with any sort of performing ensemble. I agree with him: it's not a specific 'HIP' issue at all.

I will finish my contribution by letting the Baron know that Wolf Ericson's recordings are mostly beautiful and therefore heartily recommended. (My tuppence worth of course.)
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Jo498 on February 19, 2020, 01:31:52 AM
To the contrary, most of the musicians in Vivaldi's concerti should be young girls!
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Marc on February 19, 2020, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on February 19, 2020, 01:31:52 AM
To the contrary, most of the musicians in Vivaldi's concerti should be young girls!

Ur right, I forgot about that naughty priest.
I'm just way too focused on that darn Sebastian. ;)
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Florestan on February 19, 2020, 02:52:02 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on February 19, 2020, 01:05:03 AM
I haven't read all through this, but if Schubert was a (musical) nonentity, how could the family get 300 Gulden for Schwanengesang alone within a few months after his death? And another 2000 Gulden within the next year? What publisher would be so foolish to pay such money for insignifant unsellable stuff?

The article makes the case for Schubert being a social nonentity, not a musical one. Socially speaking in the context of those times, Schubert was a nobody, his social status was lower even than that of an artisan. All his friends, most of them from the minor nobility, had succesful pofessional careers, a steady income, a family and a home of their own --- everything that Schiubert never had.

Quote
Look up how many full concerts for his own benefit with his own works Beethoven had achieved at 31 ("Akademien", I think it was about two, one in April 1800 with the 1st symphony and the septet and maybe another one within the following year) and he had been one of the most renowned pianists for most of the 1790s in Vienna.

The difference between Beethoven and Schubert is conspicuous: the former was a virtuoso pianist and enjoyed the patronage and even friendship of the high aristocracy; the latter had none of these advantages. Beethoven's social status and public recogntion were far above Schubert's.

Quote
And the quotation below is very misleading as 11 of the string quartets are juvenilia Schubert wrote in his teens and one is a fragment, so there are *at most* 5-6 "publishable" ones of which three are rather huge and daring pieces, so I'd say it is a pretty good achievement that the a minor was published at all. Similar arguments apply to the symphonies and piano sonatas. The three penultimate sonatas WERE published, the three last ones were still too recent for that and of the earlier ones there are lots of fragments and overall maybe 3 more (D 664 and 784) that could have been published, so three extremely long and "modern" sonatas is a rather significant fraction, which is the opposite of what the quote seems to suggest.
Again look up how many years sometimes passed between Beethoven's compositions and their eventual publication (and again for a composer who was a famous virtuoso and popular with friends in high places, all of which Schubert was not). Had Schubert lived another two years he would probably have seen most of his mature (composed after ca. 1824) pieces published.

"Not one symphony, only one string quartet (D 804) out of 15 complete ones, one Mass (D 452) out of eight complete ones and only three piano sonatas (D 845, D 850, D 894) from more than a dozen such works had been published."

The quotation refers to the situation at Schubert's death. Again, very different from Beethoven's case.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you of anything but the truth remains that of all great composers Schubert's social status was the lowest, public recognition during his life was virtually nonexistent and he died just a bit richer than a church mouse. A starker contrast with Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (to take only the Viennese trinity) cannot be imagined.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: premont on February 19, 2020, 02:55:06 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 19, 2020, 01:24:18 AM
I recall I once (yeeeeaaaars ago) posted about HIP conductor Jos van Veldhoven.. et.c.

Great and very entertaining post, MARC, thanks so much.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Ratliff on February 19, 2020, 06:58:21 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 19, 2020, 01:24:18 AMI will finish my contribution by letting the Baron know that Wolf Ericson's recordings are mostly beautiful and therefore heartily recommended. (My tuppence worth of course.)

Just checked, Wolf Ericson did Anner Bylsma's wonderful recording of Bach's cello suites. Splendid sound. Not recorded in a church, though.

For a live performance, I think the venue is a secondary factor of historically informed performance. A small orchestra requires a small performance space to have the necessary impact. But that would apply to any small ensemble.  Nevertheless, the recording engineer can effectively put the listener right in the middle of the orchestra, no matter how big the hall.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Jo498 on February 19, 2020, 07:17:08 AM
This may be all true but I still think that the article does not sufficiently respect Schubert's age. His circumstances were a very common predicament in the 19th century (cf. La Bohème) although many people managed to secure some kind of slightly better situation after a few years of struggle (e.g. J. Haydn who got a decen position at 25) and did not have to endure this for 10 years. And as we all know from Dickens and other literature even middle class people were often one failed business, one severe illness or in the case of dependents one death of a breadwinner removed from abject poverty.  One generation later, Bruckner was not much better off as assistant teacher and organist in St Florian until he got a better position in Linz his early 30s (the age Schubert died). Despite his low social status Schubert managed to publish 108 opus numbers within his lifetime between 1821 and 1828, among them 189 songs (usually in groups of 3-4).

These articles also seem to play down the recognition and influence of Schubert's *music* after his death. It's true that the Dreimäderlhaus nonsense of the early 20th century coined a bizarre image of Schubert. But the value of his music was recognized almost immediately by the likes of Schumann and later Brahms and Dvorak.
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Marc on February 19, 2020, 09:14:48 AM
Quote from: (: premont :) on February 19, 2020, 02:55:06 AM
Great and very entertaining post, MARC, thanks so much.

Thanks, Premont.

I searched for that mentioned earlier post only after I posted this particular one... and I could not find it. So, it was probably already posted on the older GMG (before April 2007) or maybe even on a Dutch board, before 2004. I do remember the interview with Van Veldhoven very vividly though, it must have been published in the Dutch magazine Luister. I love the recordings I have of Van Veldhoven, but sometimes he went a bit too far in the way he defended his HIP Gospel. I bet the audience had a great time with Andreas Scholl in the main hall of the Concertgebouw. Now there's a good example of a concert hall that sounds great in any kind of music. Van Veldhoven could/should have known that.

It's the same strange thing with Gustav Leonhardt, who also sometimes amazed me with his one-sided comments. I have a book about the Netherlands Bach Society where he argues against performing a Bach passion in August, as sometimes happens "in other countries". Because, in August, Leonhardt claims, one can not seriously get what is going on and really 'believe' that Greatest Story Ever Told. A passion should only be performed during the Holy Week. As if listeners (believing Christians or not) are not able to relate to the story and the music at any other time of year. Some of us Dutchies c.q. Dutch HIP-pies are/were still too calvinistic about those things, IMHO. Any way, when I'm listening to Leonhardt's recording of BWV 244 in the merry month of September, I'm really enjoying it. I hove Gustav will forgive me for that.

(I admit though that I myself mostly listen to passions during... Lent. :-[ ... probably because it's also a sentimental journey to my youth, I guess. But when I feel like listening to them in other seasons: NO ONE is gonna stop me, except maybe the man with the scythe.)
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: steve ridgway on February 19, 2020, 09:41:34 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 19, 2020, 09:14:48 AM
(I admit though that I myself mostly listen to passions during... Lent. :-[ ... probably because it's also a sentimental journey to my youth, I guess. But when I feel like listening to them in other seasons: NO ONE is gonna stop me, except maybe the man with the scythe.)

True, I'd probably go for Yeti instead :P.

[asin] B0009LNRLE[/asin]
Title: Re: An overlooked aspect of HIP
Post by: Marc on February 19, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: steve ridgway on February 19, 2020, 09:41:34 AM
True, I'd probably go for Yeti instead :P.

[asin] B0009LNRLE[/asin]

We all have our (p)references. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk

https://www.youtube.com/v/YoBTsMJ4jNk
Title: HIP orthodoxy and entertainment
Post by: premont on July 04, 2023, 11:26:00 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 10:21:19 AMFinally, you frankly and openly acknowledge that what any given composer may have intended with their definitive scores means nothing --- and that whatever really matters is how the music is perceived by the ear of the flesh-and-blood listener, which said ear could not perceive anything were it not for a flesh-and-blood performer. Thank you very much, and kudos!  8)

I always have maintained that the composer is the most important part in the composer-performer-listener chain. Without him no music at all for the two other parts to study and listen to. Of course the performer is important too, but it is possible for many of us to perceive the music through score reading.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: premont on July 04, 2023, 11:19:00 AMEntertainment doesn't imply much reflection nor thoughtfulness.


Why, of course --- and thank God for that! It's only post-Beethoven that we have been exceedingly fed on, and nauseatingly stuffed with, the misguided and misplaced notion that all music worth listening to must perforce be reflective and thoughtful, i.e. that it must perforce be some sort of science and/or philosophy.

QuoteIn one ear, out the other.

I'm afraid (actually, I'm not afraid at all, I'm certain) that back in the days where recording technology was unknown, this is exactly what happened. Heck, Kant himself stated --- correctly --- something to the effect that music was the most ephemereal and inconsequential of all arts because once the music stopped there was nothing to think about anymore, and therefore music was nothing more than mere entertainment. 

I defy you to come up with any satisfactory theory about how and why the people attending any given Sunday Bach sacred cantata in Leipzig would have remembered it, hummed/whistled it and thought about it on the next Tuesday or Friday.

I also submit to you (plural) the proposition that listening to any Bach's sacred cantata in the privacy of one's home, through the most SOTA equipment there is and as a complete atheist is the most anachronistic and un-HIP way of listening. 

;D

QuoteThis is how I feel about much (but certainly not all) of Mozart's music, and from a mental hygienic point of view I have no use for this kind of music.

Do you imply that listening to Mozart's music is bad for one's mentally hygienic state of mind?

If no, then please clarify your point.

QuoteAnd I think it's over the point to say that Beethoven's music is sentimental. This label should be reserved to the late romantic composers.

First read this:

https://archive.org/details/naivesentimental00schi (https://archive.org/details/naivesentimental00schi)

and then come back with comments.

Thanks and kudos.

Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: premont on July 04, 2023, 11:26:00 AMI always have maintained that the composer is the most important part in the composer-performer-listener chain. Without him no music at all for the two other parts to study and listen to.

Agreed but with a major correction: music is first and foremost for being listened to, not for being studied. You --- tellingly --- reverted the natural order of things.

QuoteOf course the performer is important too, but it is possible for many of us to perceive the music through score reading.

Kudos to you for perceiving Bach's music through reaading the scores --- just be aware that this is as anachronistic and as un-HIP a practice as it gets. I ask again: how many, if any single one, of the members of the premier audience of a Bach's Sunday cantata would have studied its score afterwards?
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:09:40 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 11:59:56 AMIt's only post-Beethoven that we have been exceedingly fed on, and nauseatingly stuffed with, the misguided and misplaced notion that all music worth listening to must perforce be reflective and thoughtful, i.e. that it must perforce be some sort of science and/or philosophy.

I'm afraid (actually, I'm not afraid at all, I'm certain) that back in the days where recording technology was unknown, this is exactly what happened. Heck, Kant himself stated --- correctly --- something to the effect that music was the most ephemereal and inconsequential of all arts because once the music stopped there was nothing to think about anymore, and therefore music was nothing more than mere entertainment.

I also submit to you (plural) the proposition that listening to any Bach's sacred cantata in the privacy of one's home, through the most SOTA equipment there is and as a complete atheist is the most anachronistic and un-HIP way of listening. 


I don't use music for entertainment and this is decisive for my choice of what music to listen to, which for the most part is Early music (before 1750). For me, listening to music is not very different from reading a novel, you have to concentrate and immerse yourself in the material to get a taste of the artistic experience the composer may have intended. This will be a dull experience if the music is of the kind "in one ear out the other". Yes. waste of time.

It's true that our age with technically more or less perfect repetitive home listening is in a way anachronistic, but I don't feel obliged by how music was listened to hundreds of years ago when our way of listening to day serves the music much better and gives us a much richer experience. This is true both of concerts (recitals) and home listening.

Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 11:59:56 AMDo you imply that listening to Mozart's music is bad for one's mentally hygienic state of mind?

If no, then please clarify your point.

Of course not. Mozart's music (when entertainment music) is etirely harmless, but I just stated that I have no need for this kind of music and that other composers' music (listening music) does much more for me.

Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 11:59:56 AMFirst read this:

https://archive.org/details/naivesentimental00schi (https://archive.org/details/naivesentimental00schi)

and then come back with comments.

Schiller (and Kant) are great authors but they haven't witnessed our age and their words can't be used as guidelines for how to listen to music to day under quite other circumstances than then.

Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:15:19 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 12:11:06 PMAgreed but with a major correction: music is first and foremost for being listened to, not for being studied. You --- tellingly --- reverted the natural order of things.

I didn't say that score reading was preferable to performance, only that score reading may replace the musician if one is not at hand. And reading scores is good for getting to know the music.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:09:40 PMI don't feel obliged by how music was listened to hundreds of years ago when our way of listening to day serves the music much better and gives us a much richer experience.

My point exactly. Fuck HIP!  ;D

QuoteSchiller (and Kant) are great authors but they haven't witnessed our age and their words can't be used as guidelines for how to listen to music to day under quite other circumstances than then.

My point exactly. Fuck HIP!  ;D

Sorry, my friend, you have just shot yourself in the foot big time!  ;D
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 01:23:26 PMMy point exactly. Fuck HIP!  ;D

My point exactly. Fuck HIP!  ;D

Sorry, my friend, you have just shot yourself in the foot big time!  ;D

Certainly not. My point is that we are ourselves to decide how to perform and listen to music to day. I prefer period instruments and historically informed performance (called HIP), but we can avoid all the other inconvenient "circumstances" from hundreds of years ago (wigs, candles, insufficiently heated rooms et.c) without spoiling the musical experience. Others may want to listen to music in other ways, and I don't claim that my taste is obligatory for others.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:34:17 PMwe can avoid all the other inconvenient "circumstances" from hundreds of years ago (wigs, candles, insufficiently heated rooms et.c) without spoiling the musical experience.


No, we can't. Wigs, candles, insufficiently heated rooms were part and parcel of experiencing music back then and if you pretend that they had no influence at all upon how people experienced music back then, be my guest --- but I firmly think you are delusional.


Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:55:54 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 01:42:44 PMNo, we can't. Wigs, candles, insufficiently heated rooms were part and parcel of experiencing music back then and if you pretend that they had no influence at all upon how people experienced music back then, be my guest --- but I firmly think you are delusional.

I am not an orthodox HIPster in the sense that I want the past reconstructed literally (and in all its horror) and want to experience the music in every detail as it was back then. You know as well as I do that it cannot be done. I decide for myself how I want to use the means at my disposal for music enjoyment. It has also never been a wish of serious HIP supporters to reconstruct the past minutely.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 01:58:26 PM
Heck, the very fact of listening to a recording of Bach's music is so very remote, different and strange to a Bach's contemporary, let alone to Bach himself...






Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 02:02:30 PM
Quote from: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:55:54 PMI am not an orthodox HIPster in the sense that I want the past reconstructed literally (and in all its horror) and want to experience the music in every detail as it was back then. You know as well as I do that it cannot be done. I decide for myself how I want to use the means at my disposal for music enjoyment. It has also never been a wish of serious HIP supporters to reconstruct the past minutely.

I know all that alright. Why then do you oppose the notion that a score is merely a recipe for performance?
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: premont on July 04, 2023, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 02:02:30 PMI know all that alright. Why then do you oppose the notion that a score is merely a recipe for performance?

I have never opposed this. But  particularly Madiel were more than willing to confuse the discussion and refuse to try to understand what I meant. My point is that most composers at a certain point reach a final version of their score (what I call the definitive version which can't be improved). But he and we know well that no matter how definitive it is, the shortcomings of the notation will open up options for several different interpretations of the score. So the final version is not perfect as to interpretation but only in the sense that the score can't express the composers thoughts in a better way. This is why I used the word definitive and not the word perfect.

Quote from: premont on July 01, 2023, 05:31:17 AMSo you say that when any composer publishes a score it's never a definitive version of the work. How do you know this.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: premont on July 04, 2023, 01:09:40 PMI don't use music for entertainment

I use music for nothing else than entertainment.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: premont on July 06, 2023, 03:36:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 02:43:48 PMI use music for nothing else than entertainment.
Well, that's you.

But I refrain from believing that I'm the only one to think that music has got a far larger potential than just to entertain.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 04:30:39 AM
Quote from: premont on July 06, 2023, 03:36:19 AMWell, that's you.

Me and the two people who liked my post. At the very least.  :D

Quotemusic has got a far larger potential than just to entertain.

What can music do, besides entertaining the audience?


Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 05:59:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 04:30:39 AMMe and the two people who liked my post. At the very least.  :D

What can music do, besides entertaining the audience?

Music can be a way to make a living, it can be a social activity, it can be a vehicle for disseminating one's beliefs, it can be a sort of meditation  with psychological benefits.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Pohjolas Daughter on July 06, 2023, 06:37:58 AM
I think that it also can unite people.

PD
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 05:59:45 AMMusic can be a way to make a living, it can be a social activity, it can be a vehicle for disseminating one's beliefs, it can be a sort of meditation  with psychological benefits.

Yes, sure, but in all instances the entertainment is either explicit or implicit.  ;)

And just to clarify: by entertainment I don't mean mere aural titillation but the enjoyment of the musicking (is this a word?) as such: what the perfomer(s) play, how they play it and the whole experience of hearing it, be it live or recorded.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 06:49:22 AM
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 06, 2023, 06:37:58 AMI think that it also can unite people.

PD

Judging by the frequent polemics here on GMG, running from mild to vitriolic, I'd say it rather disunites them.  :D
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 07:27:54 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 06:47:13 AMYes, sure, but in all instances the entertainment is either explicit or implicit.  ;)

And just to clarify: by entertainment I don't mean mere aural titillation but the enjoyment of the musicking (is this a word?) as such: what the perfomer(s) play, how they play it and the whole experience of hearing it, be it live or recorded.

Fine, by that definition everything is entertainment.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 07:47:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 04, 2023, 01:58:26 PMHeck, the very fact of listening to a recording of Bach's music is so very remote, different and strange to a Bach's contemporary, let alone to Bach himself...

It seems like you want to portray the HIP movement as composed of ascetics who think that the only valid way to perform music is to recreate the performance practice of the composer, and that it is somehow illegitimate to perform music any other way. I don't think this has anything to do with the attitudes of most people who perform or listen to HIP performances or recordings.

A pianist in his or her study will sit at his or her piano and experiment, perhaps performing a little faster, a little slower, more legato, more staccato, emphasizing a different melodic line, etc.

Well, musicians can also experiment by using a different instrument. It says oboe on the page, but the oboe I see in the museum looks different. I wonder how that would sound? How do I even play this thing? Here's a textbook about violin playing written in the 18th century. Oooh, I'm supposed to hold the bow like that? Look how flat the bridge is, I bet that makes it easier to play triple stops, I wouldn't have to arpeggiate them. Why is bore on that horn so narrow, oooh, it sounds so strange. Let's get together and play something by Bach. Wow, that sound different, it is so much easier to balance the strings with the winds. Hmm, it says here that Brahms performed his 4th symphony with 10 first violins and a proportionally smaller string section, and he refused when they offered to bring in more players. Hmm, I wonder what it would sound like if we did it that way.

HIP is just another way to find the music in the notation. You can say that modern instruments are technically superior. Fine. Bach might have loved them. But I think he would have written different music for them. He was a practical musician who wrote music to sound well on the instruments he had at his disposal. I find that HIP recordings often bring out an aspect of the music that is lost on a different ensemble. I enjoy HIP/PI recordings and I enjoy recordings on modern instruments. If it sound good it is good. But I often find that HIP performance brings the music to life in a way that modern instruments don't.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 07:48:27 AM
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 07:27:54 AMFine, by that definition everything is entertainment.

Well, I am not entertained by harpishord music.  ;D

Seriously now, let's say that, ideally, everything should be.  :)

Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 07:47:48 AMIt seems like you want to portray the HIP movement as composed of ascetics who think that the only valid way to perform music is to recreate the performance practice of the composer, and that it is somehow illegitimate to perform music any other way. I don't think this has anything to do with the attitudes of most people who perform or listen to HIP performances or recordings.

Well, the claim has indeed been made here on GMG, that playing Bach on the piano is an abomination (that is an exact quote) and that the only correct and legitimate way to play it is on harpsichord.

I don't object to HIP per se, only to such totalitarian claims. HIP is just one of the myriad equally valid ways to perform the music.

QuoteA pianist in his or her study will sit at his or her piano and experiment, perhaps performing a little faster, a little slower, more legato, more staccato, emphasizing a different melodic line, etc.

Well, musicians can also experiment by using a different instrument. It says oboe on the page, but the oboe I see in the museum looks different. I wonder how that would sound? How do I even play this thing? Here's a textbook about violin playing written in the 18th century. Oooh, I'm supposed to hold the bow like that? Look how flat the bridge is, I bet that makes it easier to play triple stops, I wouldn't have to arpeggiate them. Why is bore on that horn so narrow, oooh, it sounds so strange. Let's get together and play something by Bach. Wow, that sound different, it is so much easier to balance the strings with the winds. Hmm, it says here that Brahms performed his 4th symphony with 10 first violins and a proportionally smaller string section, and he refused when they offered to bring in more players. Hmm, I wonder what it would sound like if we did it that way.

HIP is just another way to find the music in the notation. You can say that modern instruments are technically superior. Fine. Bach might have loved them. But I think he would have written different music for them. He was a practical musician who wrote music to sound well on the instruments he had at his disposal. I find that HIP recordings often bring out an aspect of the music that is lost on a different ensemble.

I disagree with nothing of the above.

QuoteI enjoy HIP/PI recordings and I enjoy recordings on modern instruments.

So do I.

QuoteIf it sound good it is good.

Precisely --- and that takes us back to the entertainment factor. ;)
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 07:56:24 AMWell, the claim has indeed been made here on GMG, that playing Bach on the piano is an abomination (that is an exact quote) and that the only correct and legitimate way to play it is on harpsichord.

I'd like to see that quote.

It's no abomination, but a piano is not a different version of a harpsichord. They have very little in common besides that layout of the keyboard. It seems to me that playing harpsichord music on a piano is a transcription, like playing trumpet music on a clarinet.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 08:45:58 AM
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 08:03:39 AMI'd like to see that quote.

I know exactly who said that and I can certainly look for it, but besides taking a lot of time it would mean starting another flame war on the same topic and it's the last thing I want/we need. Just trust me please that I didn't make it up and let's leave the matter at that.

QuoteIt's no abomination, but a piano is not a different version of a harpsichord. They have very little in common besides that layout of the keyboard. It seems to me that playing harpsichord music on a piano is a transcription, like playing trumpet music on a clarinet.

As far as I know, transcription implies perforce at least altering some notes in order to make them playable on the other instrument, while the score is the same for both the harpischord and the piano (it's been recently discussed that Beethoven's early sonatas were advertised by publishers as "for harpsichord or pianoforte").

I agree, though, that harpsichords and pianos have very little in common. To my ears the harpsichord is much closer to the guitar. Also to my ears, music written specifically for harpsichord sounds better on piano but music written specifically for piano sounds worse on harpsichord. Of course, other people at complete liberty to listen to whatever instrument they prefer.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Mandryka on July 06, 2023, 08:52:32 AM
Well I think that modern piano players' failure to make any sense of AoF suggests that their world isn't ready yet for complex counterpoint. It may be a question of culture more than instrument.

In the case of other baroque keyboard music, I can't think off hand of a single case where a  modern piano player has done anything interesting. The best - let's say Peter Hill and Andrea Bachetti - just produce something unobjectionable really. Contrast the earth shattering work of harpsichordists like Leonhardt and Rübsam.  Again, I don't think it's necessarily the instrument, it's the pianistic tradition - a tradition which has more to do with Chopin and Liszt and Debussy than it has to do with any earlier musical styles  - - acting like a shackle.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Pohjolas Daughter on July 06, 2023, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 06:49:22 AMJudging by the frequent polemics here on GMG, running from mild to vitriolic, I'd say it rather disunites them.  :D
Only if one tries!  ;)

PD
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 09:58:03 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 06, 2023, 08:52:32 AMmodern piano players' failure to make any sense of AoF

There are many conflicting views on the AoF within the HIP camp itself. Who is right and who is wrong?

QuoteI don't think it's necessarily the instrument, it's the pianistic tradition - a tradition which has more to do with Chopin and Liszt and Debussy than it has to do with any earlier musical styles  - - acting like a shackle.

Well, it's precisely Chopin, Liszt, Moscheles, Mendelssohn, Rubinstein, von Buelow and other luminaries of the piano who rescued Bach, Scarlatti and Couperin from obscurity and presented them to people who probably ignored their very existence, let alone their music. That in the process they created a tradition (which is itself rather un-uniform, witness the earliest recordings) is undeniable and unavoidable: that's how things work.

One can apply the same reasoning to Matthaeus-Passion. Mendelssohn's interpretation, which I'm positively sure many HIPsters would abhorr if they were able to travel back in time, gave rise to a tradition which from a strict HIP point of view can be viewed as acting as a shackle.

What I really don't understand is why different, even conflicting, traditions cannot peacefully coexist? Why must only one of them be the right one?
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 10:20:51 AM
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 06, 2023, 09:36:10 AMOnly if one tries!  ;)

PD

I guess disagreement is simply human nature. One can master it by agreeing to disagree, or one can succumb to it by disagreeing vehemently, even in matters which are as unimportant and as inconsequential as HIP vs non-HIP or Arrau vs Horowitz. I always try the former but often end up with the latter.  ;D
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 10:47:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 08:45:58 AMAs far as I know, transcription implies perforce at least altering some notes in order to make them playable on the other instrument, while the score is the same for both the harpischord and the piano (it's been recently discussed that Beethoven's early sonatas were advertised by publishers as "for harpsichord or pianoforte").

The two manuals of a harpsichord have a different timber allowing the two hands to be distinguished. The piano must use articulation and dynamics to reproduce this effect. In harpsichord music the two hands can cross which can, in some instances, require ingenuity of fingering and reassignment of notes between hands when the two collide on a single manual instrument. At this point I am not interested in getting into a debate on the semantics of the word 'transcription.'

Quote from: Mandryka on July 06, 2023, 08:52:32 AMIn the case of other baroque keyboard music, I can't think off hand of a single case where a  modern piano player has done anything interesting. The best - let's say Peter Hill and Andrea Bachetti - just produce something unobjectionable really. Contrast the earth shattering work of harpsichordists like Leonhardt and Rübsam.  Again, I don't think it's necessarily the instrument, it's the pianistic tradition - a tradition which has more to do with Chopin and Liszt and Debussy than it has to do with any earlier musical styles  - - acting like a shackle.

That strikes me as a bit over-the-top. The main job of a musician performing Bach is the let me hear all of the voices. They don't have to shatter the earth. I have heard performers accomplish that on piano as well as on harpsichord.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Mandryka on July 06, 2023, 10:58:00 AM
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 10:47:25 AMThe main job of a musician performing Bach is the let me hear all of the voices. 

That strikes me as a bit over-the-top. Making all the voices audible is (arguably) a necessary feature of a performance which does justice to what was, possibly, probably, the composer's conception of the music.

Bear in mind that there are people who really love performances which don't really make all the voices really clear -- Samuil Feinberg's WTC , for example.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 11:03:22 AM
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 10:47:25 AMThe two manuals of a harpsichord have a different timber allowing the two hands to be distinguished. The piano must use articulation and dynamics to reproduce this effect. In harpsichord music the two hands can cross which can, in some instances, require ingenuity of fingering and reassignment of notes between hands when the two collide on a single manual instrument. At this point I am not interested in getting into a debate on the semantics of the word 'transcription.'

Neither am I, actually. We can surely agree that the harpsichord has little in common with the piano. We might perhaps agree, too, that listening mostly, or exclusively, on one instrument is a matter of personal preference involving many factors and that in the end what matters is whether one enjoys what they hear or not, ie whether they are entertained or not. As you aptly said, if it sounds good it is good. 
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: JBS on July 06, 2023, 11:04:51 AM
I find Bach is better on piano than harpsichord, and that he's the only pre-1750 composer for whom this is true. [I also tend to think AoF is best heard from a multi-instrument ensemble, and not a single keyboard.]
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 11:13:18 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 06, 2023, 10:58:00 AMthe composer's conception of the music.

There is simply no way to ascertain that in the case of composers who've been dead for centuries.

In some instances, there is no way to ascertain that even in the case of composers who recorded their own music, because there are significant differences between their own scores and their own performances (Debussy, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev).

I am interested only in the performer's conception of the music, because it is that, and only that, which I will ever be able to know and experience.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: vers la flamme on July 06, 2023, 02:32:08 PM
Maybe DavidW can move the past two pages into a new thread, perhaps "Harpsichords and Navel Gazing 2.0", and the conversation can move back to Mozart piano concertos  ;D
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Brian on July 06, 2023, 03:54:10 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 06:49:22 AMJudging by the frequent polemics here on GMG, running from mild to vitriolic, I'd say it rather disunites them.  :D
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 06, 2023, 09:36:10 AMOnly if one tries!  ;)

PD
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 10:20:51 AMI guess disagreement is simply human nature. One can master it by agreeing to disagree, or one can succumb to it by disagreeing vehemently, even in matters which are as unimportant and as inconsequential as HIP vs non-HIP or Arrau vs Horowitz. I always try the former but often end up with the latter.  ;D

Of course I have to bring the subject back to food, but: this reminds me of a comment a chef made a while ago at an event. He said, "Everyone talks about how food brings together - brings families together, brings different cultures together, gets everyone around the table. But food divides people too." And then he gave a couple of examples: family members arguing over the right way to do traditional family recipes, and arguments over foods we like and hate. Try telling people something like "I hate M&Ms" or "the best Thanksgiving side dish is turnips" and watch the ensuing conflict erupt  ;D

Quote from: vers la flamme on July 06, 2023, 02:32:08 PMMaybe DavidW can move the past two pages into a new thread, perhaps "Harpsichords and Navel Gazing 2.0", and the conversation can move back to Mozart piano concertos  ;D

 ;D  ;D

We could. I haven't read every post. What do people think?
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: JBS on July 06, 2023, 06:20:59 PM
Some of it is about harpsichords and some of it can be called omphaloskepsis, and none of it about Mozart or piano concertos, so a move would certainly be logical.
Title: Re: a whole lotta big talk: philosophy, HIP, entertainment
Post by: Brian on July 06, 2023, 06:49:56 PM
Right-o - I'll get reorganizing in the morning.  :)

EDIT: It'll take a bit longer, I have a work project due ASAP. Late afternoon!
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Brian on July 07, 2023, 04:59:55 PM
BUMP! This old GMG classic thread is getting a revival because I've merged in a recent discussion from the Recordings forum. I also merged in another HIP debate-focused discussion I found elsewhere from 2020 so this (hopefully) interesting reading can all be found in one place.  :)
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Madiel on July 07, 2023, 05:54:26 PM
Yeah, well thanks for yet again doing the trick where a thread I never ever participated in will, FOR ALL ETERNTIY, appear in my list of Updated Topics.

Absolutely LOVE when the moderators do that.

Nearly deleted my profile and started again once...

DavidW had in fact created a separate, new thread. And I was fine with that. But for some reason that wasn't good enough? No. Apparently we had to go find some other old one, stitch that separate, new thread into it, and say "BUMP!"

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find some fresh kittens to torture.
Title: Re: The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate
Post by: Que on July 07, 2023, 10:22:55 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2023, 04:59:55 PMBUMP! This old GMG classic thread is getting a revival because I've merged in a recent discussion from the Recordings forum. I also merged in another HIP debate-focused discussion I found elsewhere from 2020 so this (hopefully) interesting reading can all be found in one place.  :)

Good job!!  :D