Trends in Modern Performance Practices

[DavidW]

Open question-- besides Historically Informed Performances, what are other new ways or trends in performing have emerged in the past 30 or so years?  Even when you look out more traditional conductors and ensembles can you say that they perform the same way performers did fifty+ years ago?  And HIP can't be the only influence on how musicians play right?  What else is there?  I would like to learn more about what aesthetic performers have now and how it compares to older times.

[hautbois]

Have a read of Bruce Hayne's "The End of Early Music". Very updated i.e. 2007.

Howard

[DavidW]

Well that's a book about HIP right?  I'm looking to learn about everything else but HIP.  I'm not an anti-HIP snob, I just want to know what else is going on.  Thanks anyway. 

[hautbois]

It's the END of early music, that's why the book is so interesting. Half of it is dedicated to why HIP is necessary, and the other half is dedicated to what else is considered to mainstream (modern style?). No such thing as a wrong style, just wrong style applied to the wrong music.

Howard

[DavidW]

It's the END of early music, that's why the book is so interesting. Half of it is dedicated to why HIP is necessary, and the other half is dedicated to what else is considered to mainstream (modern style?). No such thing as a wrong style, just wrong style applied to the wrong music.

Howard

Ah okay that would be a good read then.

[jochanaan]

Open question-- besides Historically Informed Performances, what are other new ways or trends in performing have emerged in the past 30 or so years?  Even when you look out more traditional conductors and ensembles can you say that they perform the same way performers did fifty+ years ago?  And HIP can't be the only influence on how musicians play right?  What else is there?  I would like to learn more about what aesthetic performers have now and how it compares to older times.

Hmmm...Listen to a recording of Romantic music from the 1940s-1950s, and it's likely it will be both faster and bigger-sounding than most modern recordings.  My favorite recording of the Brahms Double Concerto is from 1951, with Milstein and Piatigorsky playing the solo parts and Reiner leading the Robin Hood Dell Orchestra of Philadelphia; it's nearly spoiled me on most more-recent recordings which always seem too slow and slender-sounding for my taste.  Rachmaninoff's own recordings of his piano concertos are considerably faster than, say, Ashkenazy's but with no loss of expressiveness.

On the other hand, early Bach recordings are painfully slow to modern ears.  That's one good thing the HIP movement has done: to revitalize Bach playing.

[DavidW]

Well I've read Hayne's book now, and it did help me see how important HIP is, and he was very insightful on showing all of the different elements to period performance practice and I can appreciate some of the nuances that separate it apart from the modern style aside from the ever present issues of instrument choices and vibrato.  The musical samples really sealed the deal, he explained everything with examples in a way that made it easily the most accessible music book that I have ever read.

However, Haynes only mentions modern music style to malign it, his view is a tad bit biased.  And I realize I also didn't make myself clear enough in my opening posts.  I realize (especially now after reading that book) that oh 1950s or so on a new musical style emerged that was very anti-traditional (actually I did not know that until I read that book, I was living in ignorance believing in a fairy tale of music performance created out of tradition), and I fully appreciate that now.  But I have a feeling that in the past oh thirty years or so, while HIP has been becoming popular and evolving, I think the more mainstream performing style has also been changing.  But what into?

Is my speculation warranted?  I don't know I would like to find out more.  Where can I go from here?

[karlhenning]

However, Haynes only mentions modern music style to malign it, his view is a tad bit biased.

Oh, maing! Haynes the haytah? 

[hautbois]

Well I've read Hayne's book now, and it did help me see how important HIP is, and he was very insightful on showing all of the different elements to period performance practice and I can appreciate some of the nuances that separate it apart from the modern style aside from the ever present issues of instrument choices and vibrato.  The musical samples really sealed the deal, he explained everything with examples in a way that made it easily the most accessible music book that I have ever read.

However, Haynes only mentions modern music style to malign it, his view is a tad bit biased.  And I realize I also didn't make myself clear enough in my opening posts.  I realize (especially now after reading that book) that oh 1950s or so on a new musical style emerged that was very anti-traditional (actually I did not know that until I read that book, I was living in ignorance believing in a fairy tale of music performance created out of tradition), and I fully appreciate that now.  But I have a feeling that in the past oh thirty years or so, while HIP has been becoming popular and evolving, I think the more mainstream performing style has also been changing.  But what into?

Is my speculation warranted?  I don't know I would like to find out more.  Where can I go from here?

I haven't read the book yet, but maybe Alex Ross' The Rest is Noise has some insight on what you want? Glad you enjoyed the Haynes althouh it didn't really answere your question....

Howard

[Guido]

(EDIT: Woops - saw you just meant last 30 years. Ah well, I'll leave my post.)


The biggest and most general change that I can hear is that performances of almost everything tend to be slower nowadays compared to say 60/70 years ago. As a cellist, this is the recording legacy I know best, but it's quite obvious in most realms of classical music.

See recordings of the Dvorak cello concerto below - listed is the timing of each movement, the total time and the date (from my friends thesis):

Feuermann Taube Berlin State Opera House 11'58" 32'49" 1928-29

10'22"
10'29"

Casals Szell Czech Philharmonic 13'27" 35'31" 1937
10'28"
11'36"

Feuermann Barzin National Orch. Assoc. 13'09" 35'31" 1940
11'46"
10'36"

Fournier Szell Berlin Philharmonic 14'44" 38'26" 1962
11'23"
12'19"

Starker Dorati London Symphony 15'08" 38'06" 1962
11'11"
11'47"

Rose Ormandy Philadelphia Orchestra 14'54" 38'48" 1963
11'37"
12'17"

Gendron Haitink London Philharmonic 14'33" 39'12" 1967
11'50"
12'49"

Rostropovich Karajan Berlin Philharmonic 15'42" 41'21" 1968
12'41"
12'58"

Du Pré Barenboim Chicago Symphony 15'19" 42'00" 1971
13'12"
13'29"

Nelsova Susskind St. Louis Symphony 14'08" 36'49" 1975
10'30"
12'03"

Harell Levine London Symphony 14'50" 41'59" 1975
13'43"
13'26"

Rostropovich Giulini London Philharmonic 16'28" 43'06" 1978
12'56"
13'42"

Tortelier Previn London Symphony 15'20" 39'19" 1979
11'38"
12'21"

Helmerson Jarvi Gothenburg Symphony 14'55" 38'51" 1983
11'25"
12'31"

Rostropovich Ozawa Boston Symphony 14'44" 38'58" 1985
11'58"
12'16"

Ma Maazel Berlin Philharmonic 16'04" 42'08" 1986
12'43"
13'21"

Maisky Bernstein Israel Philharmonic 16'33" 43'28" 1989
13'20"
13'35"

Kliegel Halasz Royal Philharmonic 16'13" 42'19" 1991
12'26"
13'40"


Gutman Swallisch Philadelphia Orchestra 14'39" 39'01" 1991
12'24"
11'58"

Starker Slatkin St. Louis Symphony 14'38" 38'27" 1991
11'01"
12'48"

Schiff Previn Vienna Philharmonic 14'17" 37'20" 1992
11'16"
11'47"

Ma Masur New York Philharmonic 15'04" 40'28" 1995
12'34"
12'50"

This is not just because the earlier musicians here were told to play faster to get on fewer sides of a recording - first of all a great artist like Feuermann or Casals would not have stood for it, but second of all, their timings in live radio recordings were very similar.

There is much that can be said about vibrato too - very basically -  no longer are string players expected to put it on every note, there's probably been a gradual slowing of the vibrato, and wider vibrato is acceptable too - probably mainly the influence of Rostropovich (who always sounds great, but sometimes this is stretched to the limits of taste by artists like Kliegel and Natalie Clein whose vibratos are sometimes so wide and slow that it sounds lumpy and ugly.)

[DavidW]

I haven't read the book yet, but maybe Alex Ross' The Rest is Noise has some insight on what you want? Glad you enjoyed the Haynes althouh it didn't really answere your question....

Howard

I have that book, and I started reading it awhile back, so if that's the key then I might be set!

[DavidW]

I think I'll give that a look ' and Haynes did address pre-50s vs modern, it was the transition from romantic style to modern style.  Besides vibrato and tempo modern style emphasizes more literal playing and abandonment of ornamentation, rubato, portamento, and improvizational elements.  He attributes it to reactionaries like Stravinsky, and in essence it's really a revolt and thus not traditional.  Anyway that transformation was done before the 50s were even over, and it started in the 30s.

The thing is that period style performance emerged in the 60s-70s, and in that time the mainstream style of playing has also been changing, and that's what I'm interested in.  In what ways has it been changing and what is it changing to?

[Dana]

This is not just because the earlier musicians here were told to play faster to get on fewer sides of a recording...

I'm told that this happened fairly frequently in the early days of jazz, FWIW.

[Guido]

Yes it undoubtedly did, but the same is not true of the concerto recordings I listed above (and it has been claimed that because Jazz musicians did it, so must classical musicians have done too, but there's not much evidence for that).

[Superhorn]

  By no means all performances today are all that slow. I've heard many,many performances in recent years of all manner of works which were highly propulsive.
  Possibly Some performances in recent years have been too slow, but the HIP movement has gone too far in the opposite direction and created a trend in which many performances are impossibly rushed and perfunctory-sounding.
  The ironic thing is that there are some musicologists who claim that the tempi in Bach's time were actually much slower and more deliberate than the ones today's HIP superstars favor.
  I've heard claims that tempi are too slow today, and also claims that inder the influence of HIP tempi in general have become much too fast .
  Now wait a second. Both claims can't be true.
  The late Harold C Schonberg spoke of the alleged "lethargic tempi of today". Yet I've heard so many performances in recent years which were anything but lethargic. I'm awfully confused.









                                                                                   
 

[DavidW]

  By no means all performances today are all that slow. I've heard many,many performances in recent years of all manner of works which were highly propulsive.

Yes I agree, and even though I think there are a few cases where the reverse has happened, I think that in general we have sped up not down.  Guido's example is misleading.

Possibly Some performances in recent years have been too slow, but the HIP movement has gone too far in the opposite direction and created a trend in which many performances are impossibly rushed and perfunctory-sounding.

This thread isn't about HIP, it's about everything but HIP.   But I'll indulge you anyway.

The ironic thing is that there are some musicologists who claim that the tempi in Bach's time were actually much slower and more deliberate than the ones today's HIP superstars favor.

There are no HIP superstars.  Whom do you speak of?  I can't name one HIPster, even Harnoncourt, that achieves the kind of legendary popularity that the mainstream performers entertain.  For every Lang Lang there is a Brautigham?  Really?  Superstars?

Anyway who are these musicologists that you speak of?  Since you're disputing something that is pretty well known now, I have to wonder if this is going in the Newman/Luchesi direction.

I've heard claims that tempi are too slow today, and also claims that inder the influence of HIP tempi in general have become much too fast .
  Now wait a second. Both claims can't be true.

False dichotomy alert!
Yes both claims can be true, if there are two groups of performers then one group can perform too slowly, the other too quickly.  And there are two groups of performers!   However I think that both play a bit more swiftly than the past.

The late Harold C Schonberg spoke of the alleged "lethargic tempi of today". Yet I've heard so many performances in recent years which were anything but lethargic. I'm awfully confused.

When did he make that quote exactly?  And do you realize that concerts you've gone to in recent years have nothing to do with contradicting what he said since he passed away several years ago?  You're talking about something he might have said like 40 years ago for all you know!  C'mon man, that's pretty sketchy.

[jochanaan]

...  I've heard claims that tempi are too slow today, and also claims that inder the influence of HIP tempi in general have become much too fast .
  Now wait a second. Both claims can't be true...

...False dichotomy alert!
Yes both claims can be true, if there are two groups of performers then one group can perform too slowly, the other too quickly.  And there are two groups of performers!   However I think that both play a bit more swiftly than the past. ...

Or when we're talking about music from different eras.  My observations are that in general (not in every case, but in the majority), performances of Romantic music have slowed down and those of Baroque and Classical-period music have sped up.

Part of this "Romantic slowdown" may be that audiences, critics and even players are reacting against "virtuoso" playing and in favor of a more "spiritual" or even less sensual approach--not realizing that the greatest players are at the same time virtuosic, sensual AND spiritual.  Harold C. Schonberg made a very perceptive comment once in The Great Conductors (copyright 1967) regarding the Philadelphia Orchestra: "Many critics and listeners still have a pronounced streak of Puritanism, and instinctively distrust such voluptuous sounds."

[DavidW]

Or when we're talking about music from different eras.  My observations are that in general (not in every case, but in the majority), performances of Romantic music have slowed down and those of Baroque and Classical-period music have sped up.

Part of this "Romantic slowdown" may be that audiences, critics and even players are reacting against "virtuoso" playing and in favor of a more "spiritual" or even less sensual approach--not realizing that the greatest players are at the same time virtuosic, sensual AND spiritual.  Harold C. Schonberg made a very perceptive comment once in The Great Conductors (copyright 1967) regarding the Philadelphia Orchestra: "Many critics and listeners still have a pronounced streak of Puritanism, and instinctively distrust such voluptuous sounds."

When I think about new recordings of romantic era music I don't usually think slow.  I did think they started slowing down from the 60s to about the 80s, but in the past twenty years the conductor's seem to be back in the classical style playing of Szell, Toscanini etc and on top of that HIPsters have started recording romantic era music in recent years, and they are never slow.  For example, when I think of Mahler for every semi-slow Chailly and MTT there are Bertini, Gielen, Zinman, Zander, Boulez, Norrington etc  When you consider Bernstein slowing down for Schumann, then you remember Zinman and Norrington.

In fact I don't really think you can really consider romantic era music seperately from classical era, because whoever likes performing in the latter eventually finds their way in the former eventually.

I do not mind slow performances of romantic era music, because that would be more authentic considering the style heard in very ancient recordings.  That's something I wouldn't say about baroque or classical era music though.

Edit: And I have to say that a 40 year old quote might not be appropriate now, maybe that is.  See that's what I'm interested in what's becoming of performance practice now.  Because we associate the trend with the last 50-70 years, but that's not really true.  It's changing now, and it's been changing for awhile now.  Into what, I don't know.