The Romantics in Period Performances

[Parsifal]

I realize this was discussed a while back, but I'm curious to see what thoughts on it the one or two people who own it have now that the dust has settled.

[asin]B000WUC18W[/asin]

Brahms on fortepiano?  Why not on harpsichord?

[Mandryka]

What does it mean to give a period performance of romantic music, beyond a PI performance. Does it mean that the music should be played romantically?

Take for example, Gaia Scienza's recording of Schumann's six canonic etudes op 56. What is striking is that Federica Valli  doesn't really try to add expression. I suspect that he thinks  that the music is expressive enough in itself, and that there's no need to add any feeling by using rubato, agogics, striking dynamic variation, strong colouration etc.

Quite a contrast that to for example, Le Sage, who plays a transcription on a modern piano, or to Martin Schneding who uses a pedalflügel, or from Vernet who uses a 19th century French organ. These guys all know that Schumann wrote these etudes as a sort of response to his study of Bach, of course. Not that that proves anything about how it should be played.

Of all these I expect that it's the Gaia Scienza crew who are most concerned about authenticity. But I could be wrong about that. They allowed Uri Caine to make some contributions to their performance of the piano quartet.






Oh by the way, does Franz Vorraber play this music? I just can't find it if he does.

[kishnevi]

What does it mean to give a period performance of romantic music, beyond a PI performance. Does it mean that the music should be played romantically?

Take for example, Gaia Scienza's recording of Schumann's six canonic etudes op 56. What is striking is that Federica Valli  doesn't really try to add expression. I suspect that he thinks  that the music is expressive enough in itself, and that there's no need to add any feeling by using rubato, agogics, striking dynamic variation, strong colouration etc.

I suppose the keynote of authenticity would be how the composers themselves performed.  Has anyone ever actually studied the evidence, if there is any, of how Schumann (or another composer) used, or did not use, rubato, etc.?   For Brahms and other composers who lived to near the end of the 19th century,  there's also the approach of any recorded performances by their students or by musicians who worked directly with them--although of course anything through that filter could only be used with caution.

[Geo Dude]

I suppose the keynote of authenticity would be how the composers themselves performed.  Has anyone ever actually studied the evidence, if there is any, of how Schumann (or another composer) used, or did not use, rubato, etc.?   For Brahms and other composers who lived to near the end of the 19th century,  there's also the approach of any recorded performances by their students or by musicians who worked directly with them--although of course anything through that filter could only be used with caution.

I don't know whether HIP musicians use this information or not, although I hope they do, but a biography of Brahms that I've read gives a wealth of information on how his playing style was described by listeners, the types of pianos he preferred to play and instructions he and Joachim gave to musicians on how to play his music.  (As an example, Joachim sent a letter to an orchestra stating that Brahms' music should be played with little vibrato, which should be used for emotional emphasis at certain points.)

In short, there is plenty of information out there.

[Wakefield]

The indication of fortepiano may be a bit confusing since the instrument used was a Streicher Grand.  I am listening right now and the  sound of the recording is very good.  The playing is good too.

These Streicher pianos have a very interesting history. Nannette Streicher (née Stein) was daughter of Johann Andreas Stein and her factory, run by family members, endured until  the end of the 19th Century. 

[Parsifal]

I suppose the keynote of authenticity would be how the composers themselves performed.  Has anyone ever actually studied the evidence, if there is any, of how Schumann (or another composer) used, or did not use, rubato, etc.?   For Brahms and other composers who lived to near the end of the 19th century,  there's also the approach of any recorded performances by their students or by musicians who worked directly with them--although of course anything through that filter could only be used with caution.

I don't imagine that performers of the 19th century all performed music the same way, any more than they do today. 

[kishnevi]

I don't imagine that performers of the 19th century all performed music the same way, any more than they do today.

Nor did Baroque performers, which doesn't prevent us from having HIP performances of Baroque works, and arguments about how they should be performed 

But if we know that (I'm being hypothetical here) Schumann played with a great deal of rubato, or expressed preferences for utilizing rubato, then we'd have some idea of whether or not he envisioned his own compositions being played with a great deal of rubato.  It doesn't give us information on standard 19th century performance practice, at least not directly:  but it would help form an idea of how Schumann intended his own works to be performed.

Or not so hypothetical--the letter GeoDude refers to from Joachim regarding orchestral vibrato in Brahms;  that's rather clear evidence of how Brahms wanted vibrato used for his own compositions, and perhaps (depending on the letter's text, which obviously I don't have in front of me) evidence of how vibrato was used in orchestral playing in that era. 

[milk]

What does it mean to give a period performance of romantic music, beyond a PI performance. Does it mean that the music should be played romantically?

Take for example, Gaia Scienza's recording of Schumann's six canonic etudes op 56. What is striking is that Federica Valli  doesn't really try to add expression. I suspect that he thinks  that the music is expressive enough in itself, and that there's no need to add any feeling by using rubato, agogics, striking dynamic variation, strong colouration etc.

Quite a contrast that to for example, Le Sage, who plays a transcription on a modern piano, or to Martin Schneding who uses a pedalflügel, or from Vernet who uses a 19th century French organ. These guys all know that Schumann wrote these etudes as a sort of response to his study of Bach, of course. Not that that proves anything about how it should be played.

Of all these I expect that it's the Gaia Scienza crew who are most concerned about authenticity. But I could be wrong about that. They allowed Uri Caine to make some contributions to their performance of the piano quartet.






Oh by the way, does Franz Vorraber play this music? I just can't find it if he does.

This is a really interesting post - and informative for me. I look forward to replies. I'm really wowed by the sound of the instruments Valli and Ghielmi play and I really love that recording. Does it restrict the artists' freedom that they are two playing together? Or is that not a consideration? I mean is it purely their choice? It is two pianos isn't it? So, do you enjoy it less then the Schmeding? Or just enjoy them differently? Do you think Valli/Ghielmi manage to do something interesting without the rubato and agogics? What does colouration refer to, (if that isn't too silly a question)? I can't explain why I don't find it boring. Maybe it's just the sonics of the instruments I like. I must admit though, when it comes to the quintet, I'm much more drawn to Atlantis . 

[milk]

Any other Schumann recommendations on organ?

[Pat B]

I don't imagine that performers of the 19th century all performed music the same way, any more than they do today.

It's very tempting to use the HIP label to reflect one's personal preferences. So someone who prefers, say, "rhythmic flexibility," will either say that HIP is about rhythmic flexibility and therefore he likes HIP, or will say that HIP lacks rhythmic flexibility and therefore he dislikes HIP. There has never been a consensus on steady vs. flexible in the recorded age, and I doubt there was a consensus before that.

I have been guilty of that myself regarding vibrato. The Joachim letter (and the L.Mozart letter discussed elsewhere) clearly indicate that performers of the time had various approaches. The difference on vibrato is that by the mid-20th century, string players were using it nearly uniformly and nearly constantly. So perhaps HIP is, in some sense, about giving performers MORE freedom than they had in conventional practice.

[Geo Dude]

The Joachim letter (and the L.Mozart letter discussed elsewhere) clearly indicate that performers of the time had various approaches.

Agreed.  There would be no need to send a letter explaining the type of playing they wanted with details on use of vibrato if playing with minimal vibrato was standard procedure.  Another story from the biography comes to mind that helps demonstrate the same point.  Brahms was going to conduct one of his symphonies with a large orchestra and sent some of the string players back stage on the grounds that an orchestra that large was unnecessary.  On the one hand that shoots down the argument that certain individuals (who happen to write snarky reviews at Amazon ) make that Brahms only wrote for a (relatively) small string section because that was all he had available to him at the time; on the other hand it shows that that orchestra, at least, took it for granted that a large string section was preferred.

For anyone interested, Here's the biography.

The difference on vibrato is that by the mid-20th century, string players were using it nearly uniformly and nearly constantly. So perhaps HIP is, in some sense, about giving performers MORE freedom than they had in conventional practice.

Unfortunately, in some places (and on some recordings) it is still standard practice to use vibrato constantly no matter what work you're playing...   Okay, sorry, bypassing my bias I think the idea of it establishing freedom for performers (contrary to what is commonly argued by those who don't like the movement) is an excellent point.

[Gurn Blanston]

I have a very hard time comparing anything that was relevant to L. Mozart with anything that was relevant to Joachim. The entire art of violin playing was so drastically different from one's era to the others that comparisons are doomed to failure.

In mid-18th century, vibrato was written to be minimal, and it likely was, at least in some places. But even though it was considered to be an ornament, that is not the same thing as saying that it didn't exist outside of that situation. It is nearly impossible to conceive a section of violins playing with perfect intonation if they don't use at least a minimal vibrato. What would be far more important is bowing. One of the major orchestral innovations (often overlooked) of the Mannheim orchestra, and subsequent others, is having all the violinists bowing the same way. With so many different 'schools', a few in every major musical center, violinists would come together and simply not be able to play as a unit. So a small amount of vibrato and coordinated bowing made a huge difference in effect of the orchestral violin sections.

Another part of this discussion which I seldom see addressed is that the constraints on orchestral players and those on soloists were entirely different. Where a soloist could lean heavily on vibrato (whether it was tasteful or not) to assist his own emotional efforts and intonational issues, orchestral violins couldn't do that without wrecking the entire result. So to clarify the fact that it is soloists who had to be very conscious of this is, I think, important to the discussion.

In the 19th century, the art of playing the violin was an entirely different animal. Bowing styles were codified, up-bow, down-bow etc. were very closely defined and demanded of the players. Also, the use of the Tourte bow by nearly everyone made a large difference in how the orchestral violins sounded. In large part, this was linked to the growth of the orchestra in general. Growth was necessary in order to accommodate the larger venues, but it couldn't happen until the sections could play as a unit. When it got to the point where the first violins alone were more numerous than the entire orchestra that Haydn or Mozart had to work with, how could they play otherwise than with a vibrato that allowed them to stay in tune with each other? There is simply no alternative way to achieve pitch unless each and every player is dead solid perfect. So when Joachim is talking about Brahms' desire to have greater clarity of tone, how else could that be gained except by reducing the number of players? And with reduced players, it follows that reduced vibrato would be needed in order to maintain pitch. QED.   

That's my opinion, I may be wrong.

[Pat B]

Sure, there were lots of changes in violin playing between their respective times, but from what I have read, L.Mozart and Joachim (among others, including Spohr, who was about halfway between them chronologically) had very similar views on vibrato. They advocated ornamental (non-constant) vibrato generally. For all of them it seems to be an issue of style -- vibrato as a means of emphasis -- not of ensemble intonation.

I have no reason to assume that Joachim's dislike of constant vibrato was inversely proportional to ensemble size.

As for unison bowing, I remember hearing that was Corelli's idea, though google doesn't show any support for that outside of an amazon review (and we all know how reliable those are ). The internet seems to think it started with Lully.

[Gurn Blanston]

Sure, there were lots of changes in violin playing between their respective times, but from what I have read, L.Mozart and Joachim (among others, including Spohr, who was about halfway between them chronologically) had very similar views on vibrato. They advocated ornamental (non-constant) vibrato generally. For all of them it seems to be an issue of style -- vibrato as a means of emphasis -- not of ensemble intonation.

Well, it is not that difficult to attribute something to a philosophical belief; writers do it all the time. However, as a practical reality, the larger the ensemble, the greater the necessity for maintaining uniformity throughout the group. Homogeneity in sound wasn't just some random ideal that the Romantics pursued, it was a practical necessity brought about by the much larger performance venues --> larger ensembles to fill them with sound. In any case, what you advocate as an ideal and what you can pull off in reality are two far different things. Also, many contemporary violinists, famous ones with a huge following and praised by all, such as Locatelli, leaned heavily on vibrato with no one saying nay. So what I am saying, for 18th century fiddling at the very least, is that the concept of playing without vibrato is grossly overexaggerated in the modern day.

I have no reason to assume that Joachim's dislike of constant vibrato was inversely proportional to ensemble size.

I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that the larger the string section, the greater the necessity of using increased vibrato in the strings in order to maintain ensemble. It's simple physics, and may very well have nothing to do with Joachim's personal philosophy beyond being something that was out of his control, thus being a source of irritation.

As for unison bowing, I remember hearing that was Corelli's idea, though google doesn't show any support for that outside of an amazon review (and we all know how reliable those are ). The internet seems to think it started with Lully.

I'm sure it was the simultaneous idea of many! But Stamitz actually accomplished it in Mannheim, which was part of the source of their outstanding reputation.

This book;
[asin]0521399238[/asin]

and a couple of essays that he had in Early Music are invaluable sources of information on this topic. He doesn't appear to have an ax to grind beyond when people claim to be, for example, bowing in an 18th century style when in reality they aren't even close. I suppose if I had dedicated my life to studying such things, I would be irked too.

[Florestan]

That's my opinion, I may be wrong.

You may be, but you usually aren't. 

[Karl Henning]

At the very least, his opinion is apt to be informed.

[Pat B]

So what I am saying, for 18th century fiddling at the very least, is that the concept of playing without vibrato is grossly overexaggerated in the modern day.

Right, and that was pretty much my original point ("performers of the time had various approaches") -- admittedly a recent realization for me. I think that's reflected in the current HIP movement, which is really a good thing even though I have a preference for non-constant.

[Gurn Blanston]

Right, and that was pretty much my original point ("performers of the time had various approaches") -- admittedly a recent realization for me. I think that's reflected in the current HIP movement, which is really a good thing even though I have a preference for non-constant.

Oh, so do I. There is a mile of room between non-constant vibrato and vibrato-less playing. On a scale of 1 to 10, I prefer a 3.   

[Opus106]

it was a practical necessity brought about by the much larger performance venues --> larger ensembles to fill them with sound.

(emphasis mine)

Going on a tangent here, but shouldn't it be the other way 'round? (Compositions, especially orchestral, demanded larger forces than what used to be the norm, and that in turn led to larger concert halls, no?)

[Gurn Blanston]

(emphasis mine)

Going on a tangent here, but shouldn't it be the other way 'round? (Compositions, especially orchestral, demanded larger forces than what used to be the norm, and that in turn led to larger concert halls, no?)

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Were they both driven by composers' enormous egos?    Actually, I would have drawn it circular if I had the character set available to do that;

venue size -> orchestra size -> composer/music ideas -> technical advancements in instruments -> venue size -> orchestra size -> composer/music ideas -> technical advancements in instruments -> etc...

Hard to know for sure, even in our own time, what the driver is.