Inaccurate performance-- gimmick or personal statement?

[DavidW]

Upon closely listening back and forth between the ABQ and the Hagen Quartet on Mozart's Dissonance Quartet (and also the quartet preceding it), I realized that the most fundamental difference in performances is that Hagen's dynamics were fast, and there highs very high.  So I actually looked through the score of the Dissonance Quartet looking for sforzando markings, and loud fortissimo passages (I didn't find any).  I found that there are few sforzando markings, but they are there, the ABQ observe them but most of the time the Hagen Quartet seems to be interpreting every crescendo (and there are many) as a sforzando and every moderately loud passage as LOUD. 

It sounds very exciting but then it actually takes weight away from the few passages that truly depend fast dynamics or LOUD playing.  Why do they do this?  Is it just their personal stamp?  Or are they trying to move more copies by simply making Mozart fast and loud?

Also would you take the stance that their playing is inaccurate?  Or is there an interpretative element on reading those forte and crescendo markings?  Or do you say performance is art, and thus completely subjective?

Also do you find Hagen's style remarkable and dramatic or insipid and unfaithful to Mozart?

[snyprrr]

Some people call it "risk taking," whilst others call it "ego."

The Hagens apparently are masters of getting under peoples' skins with this kind of "interpretation." From what I've heard, most of the time their ideas propel their interpretation, but, apparently, sometimes they miss the boat entirely (LvB Op.127)?

Some accuse later ABQ as "too" plush and sleek.

The Emersons are accused of putting razor blades in everything.

The Hagens seem to do whatsoever they please.

HIPsters play too slow.

So-and-so is too beautiful.

So-and-so's vibrato is too wide.

Then there's the Lindsays...

Yes, I think everyone should just play the music perfectly and leave it at that, but of course, some composers encourage individuality (perhaps Mozart isn't that composer). Your Hagen example seems to scream of self-conscious "lookat-me-rockin-Mozart." The ABQ here definitely try to remove themselves from the proceedings and let the music speak for itself.

Haydn SQs seem more up to experimentation.

[George]

It sounds very exciting but then it actually takes weight away from the few passages that truly depend fast dynamics or LOUD playing.  Why do they do this?  Is it just their personal stamp?  Or are they trying to move more copies by simply making Mozart fast and loud?

I imagine they simply consider it to be their own interpretation of the music, though from what you describe, it sounds as if the liberties that they take with the score are excessive by today's standards. I love to have unique interpretations of piano works, but for some reason never seek out the same in chamber or orchestral works. That said, I usually like to have at least one recording that sticks pretty closely to the score for reference. 

[Scarpia]

As time went on it became conventional to include more and more detailed dynamic and interpretive instructions in musical scores.  In Mozart's time, it has been argued, composers assumed that performers would add appropriate dynamics and phrasing to make a pleasing performance.  I think the Hagen Quartet is justified in performing the music as they see fit as long as the result is satisfying, which (in my opinion) it is.  The ABQ recording is no less an interpretive decision, which I also enjoy.

[DavidW]

Scarpia, I was wondering about that very point about the clarity of dynamics markings from that era.  It will be interesting to see what devout HIPsters such as Bunny and Que have to say on that point.

[DavidW]

The Emersons are accused of putting razor blades in everything.

Is there a Mr Snipper translator in the house?

[DavidW]

I love to have unique interpretations of piano works, but for some reason never seek out the same in chamber or orchestral works. That said, I usually like to have at least one recording that sticks pretty closely to the score for reference. 

Well that's interesting George, possibly you are more sensitive to the nuances of piano music more which is why you feel the desire to hear a large interpretative range in that genre, but are ambivalent in others.

[FideLeo]

I was wondering about that very point about the clarity of dynamics markings from that era.

There were implied as well as marked dynamic changes in scores from the period (cf. Peter Le Huray citing from Leopold Mozart's Versuch [Cambridge 1990: 131]), even though the extent of their meaning in actual performances can only be reconstructed with approximation.

[toledobass]

what are the recording dates of the 2 different performances?

Allan

[DavidW]

what are the recording dates of the 2 different performances?

Allan

For the particular works that I was comparing 1978 for ABQ and 2001 for Hagen Q.

[DavidW]

I was reading a book by Dorian called The History of Music in Performance, in which supporting evidence was given for what Scarpia and Masolino asserted, and I thought it would be interesting to share with all of those lurkers out there the following quotes:

in order to do justice to the music, one must constantly make use of the ear, because the necessary marks are not always found in the score.

In performance one must try to find the affections and express them correctly, as the composer meant them to be employed.  One must be able to alternate the weak with the strong, even when no instructions are given, and to put them in the right places.

it is by no means sufficient to observe forte and piano only where written.  Every accompanist must know the art of employing these dynamics, even where they are not indicated.

The signs f and p, signifying the strong and the weak, do not suffice.  Often they are supplied only to prevent gross errors.  If there were really to be sufficient, it would be necessary to write them below every note.

In old works, where dynamic signs are only occasionally marked, the performance depends on the taste and insight of the interpreter.

So there clearly most of the dynamics are left out of the scores, however if the Hagen Quartet is inferring dynamics where no other performers are, perhaps they are not doing the composer justice.  Exclusing Czerny's remark it seems as if performance practice tradition made the implied dynamics something known to all of the musicians of the time, and not simply an unknown because it was not written in the score.  If the famous ensembles play the way they do now because they were taught from generation to generation, perhaps they are also performing in the way that the composer originally intended.

On the other hand perhaps Hagen Quartet's intention was to make Mozart sound as edgy and dissonant to our modern ears as he did to the audience back in his time.

[Scarpia]

So there clearly most of the dynamics are left out of the scores, however if the Hagen Quartet is inferring dynamics where no other performers are, perhaps they are not doing the composer justice.  Exclusing Czerny's remark it seems as if performance practice tradition made the implied dynamics something known to all of the musicians of the time, and not simply an unknown because it was not written in the score.  If the famous ensembles play the way they do now because they were taught from generation to generation, perhaps they are also performing in the way that the composer originally intended.


On the other hand perhaps Hagen Quartet's intention was to make Mozart sound as edgy and dissonant to our modern ears as he did to the audience back in his time.

I seriously doubt that there is a uninterrupted performance tradition sufficiently intact to bring Mozart's intentions to the present day.  The entire point of the HIP movement was to focus attention on sources like the ones you quoted to rediscover 18th century performance practices.  If you don't like the Hagen quartet that's fine, get another recording.  But there I see no basis for saying their interpretation is illegitimate.  In fact, they are originally from Salzburg, Austria, Studied at the Mozarteum, then with the best Austrian musicians, including the HIP guru Nikolaus Harnoncourt.  If you could make a case for any ensemble have the best performance tradition at their disposal it would be the Hagen quartet.
On the other hand, no pedantic argument will make you enjoy something you don't enjoy.  I like the Hagen quartets performances a lot.  They are my current favorites, although the old Alban Berg recordings were the first I got and I still have a certain affection for them.

[DavidW]

Oh no I enjoy their recording, I'm just trying to understand why their style is so unique, and if it's authentic or not.  It's interesting that you mention Harnoncourt because it's the same deal with him, he makes some very personal, very unique interpretative choices that you don't hear anywhere else.

[Scarpia]

Oh no I enjoy their recording, I'm just trying to understand why their style is so unique, and if it's authentic or not.  It's interesting that you mention Harnoncourt because it's the same deal with him, he makes some very personal, very unique interpretative choices that you don't hear anywhere else.

Harnoncourt's self described method is to go back to original sources (i.e., the autograph score rather than printed/edited score, contemporary accounts, writings and correspondence of the composer, etc) to try to decide what the composer had in mind.  It usually results in a fresh approach, though not always my favorite. 

Personally, I don't find the Hagen that unique.  It may differ from the sentimental Alban Berg set, but there are other string quartets the play Mozart with brisk phrasing and generously heightened dynamics.   I remember having recordings by the Melos quartet that fit that description.